Ayn Rand and Objectivism

During a few days rest and relaxation from work, I have been reacquainting myself with the ideas of Ayn Rand, known collectively as Objectivism.

On the front page of the Ayn Rand Institute web site is a short description by Rand of what Objectivism is:

 My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.
4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Copyright © 1962 by Times-Mirror Co.

I once disregarded Rand's ideas as, whether by conditioning or whether by nature, I have always thought of myself as altruistic.  However, I see now that altruism has its flaws.

Firstly, it assumes that all actions must have a "winner" and a "loser". Therefore, if we act out of self-interest and gain from it, them someone in turn must lose.  Is this assumption correct?  Rand thought not and envisaged a society where individuals freely and voluntarily exchanged "value" with each other.  This must be the basis of all relationships, personal and commercial; two or more parties in a relationship from which all gain something of value from that interaction.

Next, it assumes that, in performing an act for the benefit of someone else (or for collective society), it is possible for us always to know what is best for that person (or society).  However, it is impossible for us to have all information needed to judge whether our well-intentioned action will be beneficial or not.

Can it be desirable or, indeed, just for us to reap the consequences of others' actions, whether or not they are carried out with good intentions?  Some may benefit us and some not - how will we learn from experience what is right action and what is wrong action if consequences do not accrue from our actions but from the actions of others?

Lastly, how can we be sure who we are helping when we perform an act of self-sacrifice intended to help another?  How do we know if we are helping hero or villain, peaceful individual or thug? 

Politics, Rand states, originates with the philosophical study of ethics.  World politics in increasingly dominated by socialistic ethics, where it is assumed that the State knows best in all areas of our lives.  However, clearly it cannot and therefore the actions of the State do as much harm as good when it attempts to act for the good of all.  Moreover, it encourages a system of ethics and morals which puts the interest of a vague collective called "Society" (i.e. everybody except ourselves) ahead of me, the individual. 

It is this philosophy which Rand blames for the state we find ourselves in today.  The antidote, according to Rand, is individuals acting from a position of rational self-interest.  As I continue to read her ideas, I am inclined to believe it...