A FREE AND MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL WORLD BASED ON REASON
THE PHILOSOPHY OF AYN RAND
See also Wikipedia. After leaving Russia: "she was so impressed with the skyline of Manhattan that she cried what she later called 'tears of splendor'". "She made several attempts to bring her parents and sisters to the United States, but they were unable to acquire permission to emigrate."
____________________________________
____________________________
As with any philosophy one must first understand and then decide what works to produce what is of value in life - and not to reject or generalize based on fabricated stories and impressions...
A SUMMARY OF HER PHILOSOPHY
Ayn Rand proposed that we would ideally have a society based on two primary ideas:
1. The non-aggression principle
2. We all are equal rational beings.
She proposed that the greatest good would be attained by aligning with the principles of "what works" to create that greatest good:
1. Self interest without aggression. Human beings have evolved to function first for one's self interest, and then to cooperate for one's own greater good overall.
Individualism allows for the full expression of a human. She holds "man as
a heroic being. We are entitled to choose our own values, actions, and goals - and
it is harmful for society to force conformity beyond doing no harm.
Living without coercion. Notably "forced", suppressive altruism and/or
oppressive, forced conformity. Altruism is a choice for
each individual to make, not an imperative. Society has no right to oppressive
coercion, as such coercion results in a net negative.
Rational Morality - No harm... The expression of self interest is limited to
doing no harm (i.e. there is no "aggression" that takes away from another human
being.
2. Rational Cooperation. We would call the latter Rational Cooperation (as discussed below)
3. Rational Reality. Embrace reason as an absolute, facing and accepting the facts as they are, not as we wish them to be and not as we might be lead by wishful thinking (which, because it does not actually work on average, produces a net negative). To be effective (and of the most benefit to self and to others) we must learn to reason - and to use it!
4. Rational Free Exchange. An open and free exchange of what is produced of value by an individual will produce the greatest benefit for an individual AND for the society. Forced taking from one person to give to another has always resulted in oppression, undue control, reduction of society's well-being, lack of incentives to produce, thus reducing the size of the pie and causing harm where there is unrealistic, unworkable, unthoughtout wishful thinking. The goal is to create the most benefit for mankind and capitalism is the only system that has worked (and of course it must be limited by the government to prevent "aggression" or harm to others). Socialism has been proven by actual happenings not to work, despite its wonderful aspirations.
As rational beings we seek to, through rationality, experience a joyous sense of life, as suggested in her book The Fountainhead (see the movie to get an idea of the philosophy that was portrayed by a determined young architect, in his battle against conventional standards).
THE FUNCTION OF THE STATE
In order to be able to live a life free of aggression, the state must exist based on
1. A police force to protect against aggression from others within our state.
2. An army to protect against foreign aggressors.
3. Courts to protect property rights from the aggression and violation of those rights (which are proven to be the basis of what works to cause prosperous states - for without that a state cannot grow and prosper).
Of course, this would have to be paid for by the citizens in some fair manner, as it surely cannot be for free.
If we were to all share the same core values and to not use force, then we could live without the state, just as they did in Atlas Shrugged (read the book!).
SELF INTEREST WITHOUT AGGRESSION = RATIONAL COOPERATION
While some would attempt to use force, without force (aggression) and protected from force the others would act in their own self interest on a basis where they did not take advantage of others (for that would be a form of aggression) and realize that cooperation was in their own self interest. [Some individuals have somehow made the leap to the conclusion that self-interest causes bad things - while failing to look at how rational self-interest leads to the greater good. She is not proposing any form of "bad" behavior from self interest, but just the opposite! The absolute opposite of what others, who without thought conclude, accuse her of!]
Indeed, she believes in "rational morality" and that ideally we would all live for those ideals. [Note that this is similar to what is put forth by the rationalists, such as Michael Shermer and Sam Harris, who are accused of being godless and therefore heartless, but who actually care immensely for creating the greater good for mankind.]
THE RESULT OF LIVING WITHOUT COERCION
If we eliminated coercion, then we would be free to use our reason for the pursuit of value. Being free from coercion, we would have individual rights to pursue our own happiness. Government would protect our right to do that.
We would recognize that we all have rights simply by our being human.
We would respect others' rights.
We would operate to our mutual benefits, in "knowledge trading companionship" appealing to each other's minds and best interests not by taking advantage of the other.
Once coercion is eliminated we can pursue "win-win", which is done through trade.
In that way, people deal with each other through voluntary association (which is what is done in capitalism). (Capitalism is not a belief system, but simply a system of reality based on voluntary trade with each other.)
[It is interesting how people without looking into the facts and without using reason, jump to the conclusion that she is a heartless capitalist caring for no one - while she actually is proposing that we create massively more good for the human race by freeing people up to use their great ability to reason to create their best happiness, using the great incentives that are inherent in human self interest. Yet, in a totally non-rational, non-fact-based manner, these people continue to adamantly insist that their interpretation is "right" and that she is wrong, heartless, immoral - and that forceful insistence is a perfect illustration of using "aggression" to attack and suppress others' beliefs and ideas - ironic that what they think they are objecting to is ultimately what they themselves are doing - being destructive in their attacks and in not using reason nor cooperation toward achieving a greater good.]
BUT WHAT ABOUT THE POOR?
She asserted that people are free to choose to contribute to the poor or not to contribute to the poor. It is their choice and their choice alone. If one person believes that one should help the poor, he should not use force to have another person follow that same belief, whether it be political force, shaming, shoulding, or direct criticism - or taking money from someone without his consent.
And, just as she experienced, the poor can use this way of freedom that she asserts is best for mankind overall (which elevates the poor to at least some extent as a natural byproduct) - to use their reason to freely pursue their own prosperity, without having to be considered victims - and, in doing so, they will be better off.
And, of course, such a society would, indeed, help those who cannot help themselves, for that would be a natural result of "reasoned morality", with rational beings seeking the greater good from such cooperation.
OF COURSE...
Of course, there is no such perfect world. And there are practical considerations - and no utopian existence that will occur in the near future. It does make sense to have a state that is in existence to protect from those who are irrational and act out aggression onto others, but it is difficult to determine where that starts and ends - and how irrational, power politics (the very opposite of what she proposes to have us seek) will lead us astray, and how belief groups will attempt to suppress (which is a form of aggression) the beliefs of others. Such is life, and its realities.
But the philosophy does have considerable merit, where we can live into our potential as human beings - and, it seems obvious to me, we can only achieve that by learning and practicing reasoned thinking, without force and aggression.
Yes, I, indeed, applaud her earnestness and her conclusions about how we can become a better society and happier human beings.
_________________________________________
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS
If one sees the rationality of objectivism, which political party would one choose?
If one deemed it rational to join a political party, one could join either party depending upon which objectives (in a binary choice) of the party line up with one's own values.
However, an objective evaluator most likely would join neither one, and would vote based on which candidate or law would best serve the people for the greater good. Both parties can be coercive and non-thinking in some of their policies and no rational human could support the entire platform of either, even if he tended to vote for one over the other.
Note that, in objectivism, there would be no "hating" or "againstness" toward people who believe differently. There would only be the choice to act for what would create the greatest total good, labeling no one as "bad".
Note that objectivism is not "heartless". It is merely about the ethics of what works to benefit mankind the most (in the real world, not the theoretical world where there are no delivered results)
Not a criticism of benevolence!
A good perspective comes from Robert Tracinski: "Again, her critique of altruism goes down to philosophical fundamentals. Contrary to what you might have heard, it is not a critique of benevolence or charity as such. Rather, it's a critique of the idea that your own happiness is not a valid moral goal, that everyone must live for the sake of others. As she argued, this ends up--both logically and in practice--meaning that no one has a right to be happy."
OTHER NOTES FOR THOSE FEW WHO ARE INTERESTED IN FURTHER UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WAS ACTUAL
When I think of Ayn, I do not think of the rigid philosopher that many envision. I think of a woman who had it in her mind that she was going to fight tyranny for the rest of her life due to the atrocities of the Soviet revolution. Many of the things Ayn wrote, said, and did are, unfortunately, misunderstood by those who jump to conclusions and do not seek to understand through openness, factual investigation, and logic (objective reasoning).
“They just aren’t seeing the bigger picture.” Which is something I still feel today. I felt like Ayn’s character was misrepresented. She was poised as a strict, stern, and pretty unapproachable because of her intelligence and personality.
The people who got to know me found out that I’m a big-hearted, sensitive, and loyal friend who will do anything for those who show me the same affection. I felt like Ayn was the same way, and she too was misunderstood because of that judgement. So, throughout the years, I did a lot of research on her life and philosophy.
About Marilyn Monroe's tragic death, Rand wrote:
“None of the objects of the humanitarians’ tender solicitude, the juvenile delinquents, could have had so sordid and horrifying a childhood as did Marilyn Monroe.
To survive it and to preserve the kind of spirit she projected on the screen–the radiantly benevolent sense of life, which cannot be faked–was an almost inconceivable psychological achievement that required a heroism of the highest order.”
