On Ayn Rand and Objectivism

Ayn Rand was one of the greatest philosophers of the twentieth century. Her novels and her philosophy of Objectivism were the voice of reason that was most needed in the tumultuous era in which she lived. It is not just on the internet, but in the general mindset of our time that there are unjustified dismissals of her ideas and her philosophy. Those refutations and dismissals that I have read thus far have been largely founded upon ad hominem attacks or on largely distorted strawmen of her ideas. It is expected that anyone who disagrees with an idea of someone else will not explore their reasoning and philosophy in great depth, so this outright hatred of Rand can be easily explained. However, it is not warranted. The philosophy outlined by Rand in the novels Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead contain important values that every intellectual should give due consideration. It is primarily among liberal and “leftist” thinkers that she has been dismissed and spat upon. If more people would take the time to understand Rand’s philosophy instead of resorting to the popular distortions and disfigurements of her work, then the current state of intellectual debate and the world in general may be improved.

The underlining trend in Ayn Rand’s novels is the role of the individual in society. Contrary to her belief, it is according to modern political philosophy that man ought to exist for the benefit of society, or the state. Look no further than the laws enacted by many governments around the world to see how this is true. Drug prohibition, for instance is a manifestation of the notion that man is incapable of making decisions in his own self-interest and thus requires an authority figure to make them in his favour. Such laws are insulting and useless. Although things like drug use, homosexual relations, gun ownership, and pornography have been restricted by government regulation, these laws have been of no effect and are a gross allocation of otherwise productive resources. Government action is incapable of thwarting the decisions made by individual men. It is powerless in attempting to alter the private behaviour made by the people who supposedly live under its control. Laws that are enacted as a means of trying to regulate human behaviour only serve as a means to lower the standard of living for those in society and reduce the idea of man to that of a moronic automaton who is at the whim of any influence of the given moment. Laws that prohibit the individual to make decisions for him/herself only enforce the stupidity and degeneracy that are so prevalent in our modern culture.

The philosophy of Ayn Rand advocates the complete opposite of what authoritarian laws attempt to enforce. Objectivism states that man’s individual perception of the world around him is the only reliable source of sensory input on which he is to pass judgment. The moral claims of those around him must only be considered as secondary sources. Consider the following hypothetical scenario:

You are living in Nazi-occupied territory at the height of the Second World War. Those around you are all singing the praises of Der Fuhrer and proclaiming that the Jews are subhuman and must be exterminated.  However, you happen to be a person of rational and highly-developed moral faculties and you see the disgusting hatred and bigotry of their beliefs. Despite strong influence to the contrary, you refuse to join the SS and turn over some Jews you know to be in hiding to the SS, who you know will not treat them with general kindness. Rightfully, by doing so, you have made an individual rational judgment against the popular belief of those around you. Despite the revolting intolerance and racism that is pervasive in that place and era, you refuse to go against your moral principles and turn innocent people over to the hands of a violent tyranny. By doing so, you are adhering to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of individuality and objectivism.

The opponents of Rand will try to twist her philosophy into a disgraceful representation of chauvinism and a disregard for the lives of others. Ayn Rand never advocated that anyone ought to disregard the lives and liberties of other human beings. In fact, contrary to what the liberal thinkers of our time will tell you, Rand was one of the most passionate proponents of individual rights in recent memory. Objectivism in a nutshell denounces the use of coercion and force in human relationships. She viewed the tyrannies of Hitler, Stalin, Franco, and Mussolini to be unjust and evil.

The initiation of force is the cause of all evil. From thieves, to murderers, to extortionists, to frauds, to despots, the one consistent source of human anguish and global conflict is the use and the threat of violence. Only cowards and sociopaths feel they are justified to rule over other human beings through the barrel of a gun. Freedom is the only proper state for man to exist.

Objectivism states that rational self-interest is the way that man can achieve his goals. It is not through violence, or subjugation, or extortion. Socialism and Communism by their very definitions violate these fundamental principles and which is why Rand is so hated in our modern culture. It is because she believed in freedom of choice and in individualism. She loved the concept of man as a self-sufficient, rational being and not the concept of man as an imbecilic ghoul who needs the state to make decisions for him. Socialism can only justify its morality if it can establish that an individual’s choices are not his/her own. Socialism succeeds in that it propagates the notion that success and failure are not contingent upon a man’s ability, but on some indescribable external factor. Because socialist and statist ideas are so prevalent in our modern culture, this is why many people hate Ayn Rand. It is because she believed in personal responsibility and freedom.

The reaction of the enslaved man to the idea of freedom is one of panic and denial. It is very much like the reaction of the woeful denizens in the Allegory of Plato’s Cave. When exposed to the light of reason and rationality, they hide and cower like cornered rats. Those who are dependent on the government do not believe freedom to be possible. They do not trust their own ability to make decisions and proclaim judgments for themselves because they are so used to being treated like experimental animals in the grand scheme of tyrannical statism. This is why, when exposed to the philosophy of Ayn Rand and other libertarian philosophers, they have nothing but childish insults and idiocy with which to respond.  Ayn Rand has faced so much negative criticism by social commentators like Paul Krugman, William Buckley, Gore Vidal, and Cracked.com for this precise reason. They proclaim Rand to be evil and villainous but never elaborate on why they feel this way. There are no shortage of weaklings who will call Rand a stupid Russian bitch, but are incapable of grasping, let alone, refuting her philosophy.

Ayn Rand was one of the greatest thinkers of our era, and common to great thinkers, she was appreciated by some and despised by many. 

Life, Liberty, and Property

The most essential of all human rights are what the English Philosopher, John Locke referred to as “life, liberty, and property”. These three fundamental human rights must be universally recognised in order to ensure the basic dignity of man’s existence. Although many claim to support this in theory, they do not in practice. Indeed, much of the political zeitgeist of the day blatantly contradicts his philosophy.

The aforementioned three rights are claim rights. That is, they are claims made by the individual not to have his/her rights violated in these three ways. If I demand that you do not punch me in the chest, this is a claim right that all must recognize. If Sarah protests that you do not throw her NSYNC CDs into the path of an oncoming bus, this is also a claim right. A claim right is a negative claim one makes against oneself which ensures a duty on other parties regarding the holder of the claim. A liberty right, on the other hand is the claim one makes to permit himself to do something he wishes to do. For instance, I claim the liberty right to watch pornography and eat chocolate-mocha ice cream. My liberty rights end where another’s claim rights begin. I may claim the liberty right to stab Tim Allen in the neck with a Nazi youth dagger, but if Tim Allen makes the claim right that he does not want to be stabbed, then I am no longer at liberty to stab Tim Allen in the neck with a Nazi youth dagger. As needlessly complicated and philosophical as all this sounds, it ultimately boils down to the commonly shared belief that you cannot ethically hurt another person or steal from them without their consent. It seems like common sense that these rights should be respected. We have learned from infancy that stealing is wrong, violence is (usually) wrong, and slavery is wrong. Anybody who feels justified in thinking otherwise is a huge cunt.

Despite the fact that most people would agree that the right to life, liberty, and property make sense, it is not practiced in society and especially not in the political arena.  Socialism and Communism, by their very definitions are the antithesis of liberty rights and claim rights. Socialism, for example, is a socio-economic platform which advocates the social ownership of the means of production. That is to say, the private property of factory and business owners is not recognized. This is an imbecilic belief.  A political ideology that recognizes the property of some, but not the property of others is contradictory and morally corrupt. Either the right of property is universally recognized or it is not. There can be no grey area. A socialist government that feels justified in nationalizing a factory or textile mill one day may use the same justification to take your house, car, or your money the next. Either man has the right to own things or he does not. A government that purports the latter is a medieval tyranny.

Those who advocate socialism may do so for what they believe to be the common good of society.  The physical concept of a society however, does not exist. Society is merely an aggregate of individuals. The values and beliefs of a society are merely the conglomeration of all its respective individuals. A society cannot think or act on anyone’s behalf. The improvement of the standard of living of one demographic at the expense of another is not a moral or desirable evolution. If there was truly a need to assist some area of society (for instance: the poor, the disabled), then they would be assisted voluntarily through charity or philanthropists, rather than by the seized goods of others. Despite all the bleeding-heart rhetoric used by the socialists to justify their ideas, the core of their philosophy is:

“It is okay to steal property from people I don’t like in order to give to people I do.”

Those who put such a revolting belief into practice in their daily lives are known to us as common thieves. You can find them shoplifting from the mall, breaking into your house, holding shop-owners at gunpoint, or rotting away in prison.

Another commonly accepted means of thievery is taxation. Taxation is the initiation of force in the name of material gain. If somebody refuses to pay their taxes they are convicted and thrown in prison. Taxation operates on the same model that common extortionists do.

In any other circumstance, the idea of extortion is morally condemned. Take the example of a crack gang for instance. Crack gangs demand that all other crack dealers who operate within their turf pay them a share of their income. If they do not, then armed thugs are sent to break the disobedient dealer’s knees with a large bludgeoning objects (at the very best, they will use a pool cue). Such enterprises are morally reprehensible. Any crack dealer should be free to distribute his product to whomever he pleases without the threat of physical violence. A government who uses the same threat of physical violence is equally as reprehensible, regardless of why they do it.

Suppose that the very same crack gang used the money that they extorted in order to build homeless shelters and recreational centers for the inner city youth. Suppose that a substantial population within the community welcomed the crack gang and their iron-fisted antics. Does this mean that the gang is morally justified in stealing the income of some people and giving it to others? Fuck No. The initiation of force violates man’s basic rights to life, liberty, and property. It is irrelevant what the stolen money is being used on. Theft is theft.

No party is ever justified in threatening another with the use of violence for material gain. Even the most condemnable of all men are protected under the natural right to life, liberty, and property. It is immoral to violate another’s claim right regardless of the intention one may have in doing so. The ends never ever justify the means.

On Society

The society does not exist as a physical entity. What we refer to as society in colloquial terms is merely an abstract concept to denote the relationships between individual human beings. The school where I study is a society of students. The cafe where I go to drink coffee is a society as well, but the society within the cafe is only a relationship between all its constituents. It cannot think or feel anything for itself. As such, this relationship cannot assume responsibility, nor can it be held accountable for any initiative or project. Only an individual person can bear responsibility, and because the society is only an aggregate of individuals, it cannot possibly possess the capacity for thought or responsibility. A collective brain is an imbecile concept. All that has ever existed are individual minds and persons. If one addresses society as a whole without regard for those individual persons that compose it, they cannot be taken seriously.

For instance, when a politician says that drugs must be eliminated for the good of society, they are simply trying to impose their personal preferences upon individuals, and they are doing so under the guise of helping society. However, as society is no physical entity, it cannot be benefitted. Sure, many individuals may benefit from the elimination of drugs in our culture, but there will be those who do not. Thus, nobody can truly speak on behalf of society as a whole because every individual has entirely different dispositions that may not be accounted for.

When idealists and politicians clamour about how we as a society owe an obligation to some special interest, their argument is flawed at its very premise. Every person has different tastes and interests. It would thus be immoral to impose some particular interest on the whole of society’s shoulders under the guise of a universal responsibility to said interest. 

Equality for All!

It was like the rug under which dust and dirt was swept. The entrance to room 217 stood beside the janitorial closet at the end of a long hallway. The lingering scent of industrial cleaning products wafted into the nostrils of those who dwelled within the classroom like chlorine gas into the sinuses of the British Tommy during the First World War. Hung upon the walls, laminated posters depicting politically-correct slogans lobotomized the students with their bright colors and saccharine imagery. The room was blandly decorated and void of anything else  noteworthy. It served as a warehouse for those pupils whose needs had been declared more special than those of their able-bodied contemporaries. Mrs. Jane Sophia, leader of the Mentally Challenged Students Association had spent nearly every weekday in room 217 for the last thirty years. She felt a particular calling in life to strengthen the bond she possessed with her classroom of physiologically-impeded drudges. She never thought of herself as their teacher, but rather their friend, their mentor, guardian, and fosterer of each student’s individual gifts. All her students were unique in their own respective fashion. Mrs. Sophia knew they did not possess conventional talents like the rest of the students at the high school, but hidden intrinsic quirks and attributes--making each one of them more lovable than the last. She grasped fervently to the notion that all God’s children were created equally, despite her student’s self-evident mental shortcomings. They were not retards in her eyes. They equalled the most academically gifted pupils in their own special ways.

The month of June had befallen Bud Dwyer Memorial High school. Due to it’s proximately to the earth’s equator, a seasonal heat wave had enthralled the building in a humid, smothering embrace. Given the physical limitations of many of her students, Mrs. Sophia decided to engage her classroom with a much less demanding activity than usual. She had procured some art supplies from the school art faculty. Paints, crayons, brushes, and non-toxic glue were provided to all her pupils with the physical capacity to utilize them for their intended purpose. Those who could not were given paper to fold. The children soon got busy with the art supplies. Mrs. Sophia marvelled at the sight of her students attempting to translate the disjointed precepts in their undeveloped minds into their sloppy creation in material reality. There were two students smearing blue paint across a canvas with their fingertips in an aimless fashion. A student with a warped hand was clumsily sketching a crude picture of a horse, and a female pupil with a notably asymmetrical face was flicking glue in spastic shocks across the classroom in what was most certainly some kind of interpretive dance. Although the room reeked of bleach and her flower dress was peeling from her legs because of the intense humidity, Ms. Sophia was content. She beamed with pride upon observing them all at work. She knew they were all exerting their own special gifts which God had bestowed upon them.

A male student with a heavy wheeze and an aesthetically unappealing gait approached her desk. He possessed a page of red construction paper smeared in a myriad of water-based paints. He presented his work before his teacher.

“Why thank you very much Humphrey! I will be sure to hang this up on the wall as soon as it dries.”

An obsequious grin of self-congratulation peeled across Humphrey’s mouth. A wad of mucus fell from his nose and splashed onto the floor.

“Now this is what I call artwork, Humphrey! I have seen all the supposed masterpieces by the likes of De Vinci and Michelangelo, but none of them hold a candle to this. I adore your use of nuance and complementary colours. This should really be in a museum Humphrey! I am so proud of you.”

Another wad of mucus dropped from his nostril and he waddled like a wounded penguin back to his desk.

Ms. Sophia suddenly winced at the thought of what she had just said. She was certain that the paint-smeared creation grasped in her hands was just as great as anything in any art museum. Humphrey may be profoundly impaired in his cognitive faculties, but he was created equal just like all men were. The god she loved would never be so cruel as to bestow any one man with an objective advantage over another. Everyone was equal! She screamed it through the yawning chasms of her mind. The thought clashed against the walls of Ms. Sophia’s skull and shook loose all the doubts and questions that shrouded her psyche. Everyone is equal! One would think that after so many years of overseeing such lambasted delinquency, Ms. Sophia would be unable to continue making excuses to justify her view of her students. When she was alone some nights in her bed watching the shadows of the trees climb the walls or the passing lights of distant automobiles, she often questioned her closely-held philosophical premises. It was indeed difficult to rummage through that part of her mind and those were often the nights when a sip or two of cognac aided her descent into slumber. She was a lonely woman who found solace in upholding the belief that her students had some innate greatness that was not immediately observable to most people.

She looked up from the painting to gaze back at Humphrey who had since commenced the conception of another moist picture.

After school had ended, Ms. Sophia took the long route around the track-field to the parking lot. Every day, the track team at Bud Dwyer Memorial High would engage in physical exercises to strengthen their leg muscles and thwart off childhood obesity. She would occasionally watch the students as they did so. The adolescent’s muscles would glisten and heave in the reflection of the midday sun. She observed the perfectly developing breasts of the female runners, oscillating vertically as they made their lap around the track. The chiselled forms of the javelin throwers caught her eye as they commenced their routine. The athletes were reminiscent of Greek sculptures portraying the glory and triumph of their gods and goddesses. The track team members all conveyed the prefect proportions and muscular structure of the ideal human form. Ms. Sophia watched this sight through the chain-link fence in the parking lot. These athletes made her recall the image of the children in room 217. The attractive young adults prancing and flaunting their attractive developing bodies contrasted greatly with the lethargic shuffling and terrible posture of her own students. Humphrey and the others however, were all attractive in their own way. Beauty is subjective and talent is relative. Every man was equal.

Mrs. Sophia thus headed home and tried to forget the sight of the track team. It made her inexplicably uneasy. She slid into her armchair, opened a fresh bottle of cognac and drifted away to slumber.

The following morning, Ms. Sophia awoke with a mission. She was determined to include her student’s artwork in the Bud Dwyer Memorial High School Art Show. It was an annual convention held to showcase the artistic talent and coordination of its student body. Typically, only the absolute best pieces of artwork were chosen to be displayed at the art show. It was in the school’s interest to portray a prestigious representation of the student’s artistic ability. The head of the art department was a cantankerous old witch who happened to be responsible for choosing the pieces to be displayed during this event. She was Mrs. Tartar.

Mrs. Tartar thought of herself as the grand arbiter of artistic worth. She had an ego that was disproportionate to her lack of experience in the field. She had never passed through art school and possessed only a minimal talent for the visual arts herself. Mrs. Tartar lacked the hand-eye coordination necessary to depict the proper proportions of the human form. In her own pathetic attempts at sketching, her women appeared to be men, her men appeared to be werewolves, her werewolves appeared to be grotesque zombies, and her grotesque zombies appeared to be John Diefenbaker. Eventually, she abandoned the creation of real art altogether and became an impressionist. Mrs. Tartar took out her frustrations out on her students.

Ms. Sophia pleaded with her.

“Please put Humphrey’s painting into the show with the others. It would do so much to validate his talent.”

Mrs. Tartar scowled at the painting.

“It’s not talent. Your student is an imbecile. He clearly has not studied the shadowing techniques of Degas or Van Gogh. He has no conceptualization of colour or the portrayal of natural light. I’m sorry Jane, but this is rubbish. I cannot display it with the others.”

“But please do reconsider! Humphrey is mentally challenged. We need to be accepting of all people, regardless of mental ability. You’re just being bigoted!”

Mrs. Tartar removed her spectacles and looked at Ms. Sophia intently.

“Look Jane, I’ve studied at the most prestigious art college in the entire county. I’ve created paintings that have sold for a lot of money. My work has been compared to that of Piet Mondrian for heaven’s sake! I think I know my artwork, and I say this painting you’ve presented to me is trash! Now, if I allow your student’s piece to be displayed in the art show just because of his mental handicap, what kind of message does that send to my own students? They will begin to think that talent and precision are no longer required to be a great artist—and mark my words, they are!”

Ms. Sophia left her office both defeated and shamed. She kept fervently telling herself that Mrs. Tartar didn’t know what she was talking about. She didn’t know after all, that Humphrey was created equal just as all men were. His artwork was just as great as anything in Tartar’s art show. Mrs. Sophia returned to room 217 and to the lingering miasma of bleach and drain cleaner.

“I’m so terribly sorry Humphrey; Mrs. Tartar doesn’t think there is a place for your painting in the school art show.”

Humphrey took his finger out of his nose and examined the product of his excavation. He then slid the finger into his saliva encrusted mouth.

“I like to paint!” He loudly exclaimed.

Back in her apartment, Ms. Sophia contemplated the events of the past few days with her glass of cognac. It seemed unfair that some people were able to paint beautiful pieces of artwork and develop sexually attractive bodies, while her students were left to be swept under the carpet of society. No matter how she was able to rationalize it, she could not understand why her god would bestow great talents upon some children, but not onto others. The order of the universe and of society was askew. This was the very first time she had come to such a realization. Perhaps all men were not created equal? If so, it was her duty to create equality among men. A fervent surge of adrenaline ran through her veins as she reached into her drawer for the .38 snub-nose revolver she kept. God had sent her to bring balance to Bud Dwyer Memorial High.

The following morning, Ms. Sophia calmly walked into the office of the art department. There she found Mrs. Tartar observing a Mondrian painting with a magnifying glass. Ms. Sophia aimed the pistol to the back of her head. With the squeeze of the trigger, the entirety of Mrs. Tartar’s artistic knowledge was released from the confines of her skull and onto the artwork she loved so very much. If Humphrey was incapable of creating beautiful art, then so was she. The blood splatters and skull fragments strewn on the canvas were probably better than anything Mrs. Tartar had drawn in her lifetime.

Ms. Sophia had exited the building and proceeded to the track field near the parking lot. She found the physically-fit students doing their exercises as usual. She opened fire on them. Several rounds struck the javelin throwers in their muscular arms. A couple bullets hits the track runners in the legs, they would never run again. Ms. Sophia scoffed at the thought of the track runners confined to wheelchairs.

She came up to a young male grasping his chest. His hands were clenching a wound and blood was pouring in torrents from his chest. He looked up to Ms. Sophia with fear-stricken eyes. At the end of the pistol, he pleaded with her not to end his life. She pulled the trigger and unloaded three rounds into his skull at point-blank range. His head hit the ground and she kicked him. He would never appreciate the gifts God had rewarded him. She knew the runner was ignorant and deserved his grisly end. 

By this time, the police had arrived at the grounds and had surrounded Ms. Sophia on the blood-soaked track field. She dropped the weapon and complied with the arrest. She had killed three people that day. Ms. Sophia felt not an ounce of remorse. Jesus Christ himself had sent her to bring equality to the world. She had served her lord well by bringing equality to those people she had killed and wounded.

As she was escorted into the police car, she yelled “Equality for all!”

Time

Time can adequately be defined as the perception of the duration of events. As such, time is entirely limited to the human perception thereof. A sloth, a hummingbird, and a tortoise all likely perceive the passing of time differently than humans do. A hummingbird must surely perceive time to pass much more slowly than a human, as it must flap its wings 40-80 times per second in order to maintain flight. A human on the other hand, can scarcely count past five over the course of a second. Because all organisms seem to perceive time to pass differently, then time as an objective entity must therefore not exist.