Posted on 08/08/2002 4:20:37 PM PDT by RJCogburn
On March 6, 1982 writer and philosopher Ayn Rand died. Her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged and non-fiction works like Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal were major influences on the development of the libertarian movement, and in the two decades since her death the accuracy of her insights has been demonstrated time and again.
Rand was born in 1905 in czarist Russia. Before she left in 1926 she witnessed the rise of that most evil empire, a communist regime that would take the lives, liberty and property of millions of people. She understood first-hand the horrid consequences of evil philosophies and the importance of defending the right ideas for the right reasons.
Many great supporters of liberty such as economists F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman justified the capitalist system because it produces more material goods and services than planned or socialist systems and, to the extent that governments try to control economies, those economies will stagnate or collapse.
But Rand maintained that capitalism must be defended first and foremost on moral grounds. Unlike plants or lower animals, human beings have a unique rational capacity that each of us must choose to exercise if we’re to survive and prosper. We need to discover how to produce food, how to cure diseases, how to construct shelters and how to build skyscrapers. This means that we each must be free to act on the judgments of our own minds.
So what do these facts tell us about society? Rand observed that individuals can deal with each other in one of two ways: though mutual consent or by initiating force. Capitalism is the social system based on mutual consent and respect for the rights and dignity of each individual. By contrast, when governments try to run economies, by definition they use force to take the property of individuals and restrict their freedom, at the point of a gun.
Critics argue that free markets mean a world of individuals pursuing their own selfish interests rather than looking out for the good for society. Many market defenders deny this fact or apologize for it. Worse, many entrepreneurs feel guilty not for their vices but for their virtues, that is, their ability to create wealth rather than steal it from others. Rand called this the “sanction of the victim.” If you accept your enemies’ evaluation of you, you accept undeserved blame, and thus give them the power to destroy you.
To the producers in society, Rand said “Stop apologizing.” She understood that everyone benefits from a society of trade, and that the most productive people create the most benefits for all of us-not only in art and science but also in business. Creators of wealth deserve the same honor, and the same freedom, as creators of beauty or knowledge.
So why, with the fall of Soviet bloc communism and the manifest failures of welfare states, do leftists who claim to want to help the poor still oppose the free market? Rand understood that many of these critics are motivated first and foremost by envy and resentment of the productive people who flourish in the market. Their failings are not intellectual; they’re moral.
Rand understood that when leftists could no longer justify their anti-capitalist bigotry based on facts and reason, they would simply abandon facts and reason. And sure enough, many offer empty emotional outbursts: “We’re victims! It’s the duty of you selfish exploiters to care for us!” Academic nihilists and post-modernists assault the minds of their students by maintaining that facts and reason are simply prejudices perpetuated by the evil ruling class.
Rand offers a much-needed antidote to today’s attacks on liberty. She understood that reality is objective, that we discover the truth by using our minds, not our adrenal glands, and that only when we defend liberty based on the right of each individual to his or her own life can we ensure a truly human society.
Copyright, The Objectivist Center. For more information, please visit www.ObjectivistCenter.org.
It might be interesting to know what hospitals she recieved treatments at and who wound up footing the bill.
Cannabis destroys human rational capacity and good judgement.
It should remain a banned substance.
Alcohol, religion, and according some people, TV, do the same.
Herein lies Rand's fundamental error.
Capitalism is not a social system, it is an economic system that equates human labor with raw material as just another input commodity to be exploited for profit. Similarly, "respect" for customers is merely lip-service. Customers are not treated as individuals, they are a revenue source to be exploited through bland product standarization coupled with mind-numbing advertising propaganda.
Those three examples have both positive and negative facets.
Cannabis has only negative.
Many wonder the same about L. Ron Hubbard.
Only the cult-following "knows" for sure. (And they're primarily kook extremists.)
Just read and enjoy the story without trying to decipher any "deeper significance".
That'll help you maintain a more balanced perspective.
You can then compare Rand to other novelists that you've read when you're finished, and come to your own conclusions.
Don't let the cultists foist their interpretation of their bible upon you.
Aye, that was my objection to it as well, and the writing style is equally stiff. It is also one of the reasons I much prefer Heinlein to Rand as well; Heinlein created much better characters. I'd take Lazarus Long (from "Time Enough For Love") over any of the Randian characters, for example.
What would happen if the most productive citizens in the country..... just said..."no, I'm going to take a break for awhile and I'm taking my ball with me you all are on your own
.... in other words what if Bill Gates corrupted Window deliberatly shut down Microsoft and let the Justice Department run Microsoft subsidiaries... John Stossell, Howard Cossell, Pete Roselle, Thomas Edison, Michael Dell, Ross Perot, Henry Ford (original), Dale Carnegie, Milton Hershey, Rockefeller (original), Vanderbilt.... Head of Fox Networks...
in other words if the main people who are the "real" innovators not just the scammers decided to quit.. what would happen to our society?
If you look at your company or job site... there is always one or two people who "make things work... do the extra effort to rise above the mediocre and make your company special... if those people were to stop and allow only the average to be the norm... what would society be like.
Atlas Shrugged points out why we have so many laws... not to have laws but to have things so muddled that nobody can obey the laws and then everyone is a criminal... like today's gun laws and tax laws and property laws (environmental)
Ultimately, that didn't impede George Bush Jr. either. So what's your point?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.