Ayn Rand – Blueprints for a Feudal Society

I believe Rand lived in an era where true wealth was earned. She wasn’t about entitlement based upon class, so I think to say that she believed in a world where billionaires “should just be able to do what they want” is cherry-picking and ultimately not true.

One can look at her characters, particularly her heroes and heroines, for proof. Her characters have been consistently those who bucked government or government+business interests that were trying to steal private ideas under the guise of the “greater good”. Her heroes were those who “screwed over” the fat cats who would invest money blindly seeking simply profit and returns rather than seeking value that would create those returns. Huge difference.

Across the board in any of Rand’s books, Rand’s characters took business risks and were either rewarded for them or punished based solely upon how well these people delivered value to the individual or the marketplace, without government adding to, or softening, either the blow or the reward. Furthermore, I don’t find one hero/heroine in her literature that didn’t earn their wealth honestly through innovation, work, and a fair exchange of value with whomever they transacted with. They were just as fair with their employees as they were with their vendors or customers.

Take Atlas Shrugged, for instance, and some examples of Rand’s characters:
Dagney Taggert – a woman who takes over for the incompetence of her brother who prefers to trade growth and innovation for the “safety” of being in bed with government (btw, how many female CEO’s existed in Rand’s time? I think this was a bold and great move on her part that should be applauded).
Hank Rearden – a “self made” man like many of the businessmen in Rand’s novels. Has an idea for a new kind of metal that would improve society across the board, but is held back because it competes with the business (or could destroy the business) of those who are in bed with the government and have their industries protected by them..
Francisco d’Anconia – a character who traps “looters” into worthless ventures as a lesson to corporate freeloaders who follow animalistic instincts of greed without thinking. Even though Anconia could have likely been successful in any pursuit, his current wealth has no value to him because it was inherited. Right here you see an example of Rand’s disdain for social classes. Investors flock to Anconia’s ventures based simply upon his name and his image, not that he creates any value, and Rand shows how foolish she believes this to be.

I believe if Rand would read any of these far-left criticisms of her philosophy, for the most part she would slam the authors for not having a clue as to what she’s talking about. Furthermore, however, I believe if Rand were to look at things today with the unearned (“instant” electronic) and unfair (government in bed with business) wealth being generated, she’d also be slamming many of the big businesses as well as many Republicans who are so quick to selectively quote her for the same reasons – not having a clue as to what she’s talking about.

Her warnings to people were:
1) Use your brain and THINK, lest you be no different than an animal
2) Don’t feel guilty about pursuing wealth through thinking (innovation) that is morally just and has a true exchange of value
3) Beware those trying to steal that innovation and earned wealth away through guilt and the guise of service to the “greater good”.

To me, Rand’s choice of protagonists (and the fact that she makes them protagonists) are the best examples of her philosophy, and I think they are characters that people both on the left and the right would admire if they knew anything about them.

Instead, however, you get people cherry-picking her ideas from either the right or the left and ending up creating conclusions that don’t match up to her characters, which leads me to believe these people are simply talking out their ass when they want to either praise or vilify her.

Lastly, nowhere in her literature does Rand say a “Billionaire Class” should be “free to do as they wish”. She does say that a government is inept to keep them in check, and on that basis proposes smaller government (not zero government as hard lefties like to pretend), but ending there is still cherry-picking and out of context.

For one, it ignores the main part of Rand’s equation for balance, which is that there would be a bulk of free-thinking people in morally-just pursuits that would create a free-market to freely exchange products, services, and even labor of equal value. This, in turn, would keep ANY class – government, royalty, or otherwise in check – including the class of “looters” on the far left who want to take more than they’ve earned.

I’m not a dogmatic follower of Rand, but once again Alter.net appears to be way off when it comes to having a clue what’s she’s saying.

Fun to discuss, though, and sorry for the long response! :)

LikeLike

@ Rob,

At the end of the day Libertarianism will always remain a theory to me that will never work in practice. Populations are too large, capital flows too quickly, and people of all stripes are too greedy and entitlement-expecting for it to work.

Sure, a bunch of capitalists could buy up a beach and sell admission to it. In theory, the rights to that beach being community/public land could be challenged in a court of law. Reality, however, says that those planning to buy up the beach would have armies of lawyers, lobbyists, and tons of political donations and backroom deals already in place. The courts would already be full and it would take years for the peoples’ challenge to ever be heard.

Libertarianism would suggest that a group of people would have the same opportunity to make their case that the capitalists would, and that’s simply not true.

LikeLike