This year is the 50th anniversary of the publication of one of the most successful and famous celebrations of the individual and the glories of capitalism, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. Also, I inch ever closer to 50 this year myself.
Like most people, I discovered Atlas Shrugged in college. I was fascinated by the story and it articulated some of my values at a time when I was pulling away from what I considered the smothering cocoon of my clan, trying to stake my claim as a full fledged adult. I admired railroad heiress Dagny Taggert and her willful ability to overcome mediocrity around her and fight for authenticity, integrity and excellence. The heroes in the book, the prime movers, were driven by a need to ignore the social drivel around them and drill down to the essence of their existence and actualize their dreams.
When I read this, Silicon Valley was emerging into its world class status; companies like Advanced Micro Devices and Intel formed by “drop-out mavericks” from Fairchild were realizing the fruits of their dreams and making money hand over fist from their innovations Fairchild never allowed. It seemed the ideal being was an entrepreneur.
I was introduced to her philosophy of objectivism, which places the individual and individual rights at the center of its value system. Its tenets reject religion, collectivism, altruism, and the idea that our natural world is something to be respected and conserved. It loathes government’s activity in anything that strays from its role as a facilitator for an individual’s happiness. It rejects a mixed economy, in which government regulates the economy and redistributes wealth.
The achievement of one’s own happiness is the highest moral purpose in life. Man is at the top of the heap of worldly existence, reason is our gift to help us gain knowledge in actualizing ourselves and, because of our superiority, nature is ours to use to that end.
I’ve long chafed at some local columnists’ and letter writers’ proclamation that life, liberty and happiness is the end for our activities, excluding what I think is adequate consideration of other people in the community. My response is mostly due to my inability to equate “happiness” with property as they do. However, viewed through the lens of Rand, whose world view was formed by her experience of the Communism that took over her native Russia, with the state literally stealing over people’s lands and homes, my stomach no longer churns when reading them.
I recently watched a symposium celebrating the book’s 50th anniversary put on by organizations inspired by Rand’s philosophy and charged to continue the work of convincing everyone that objectivism should be the guiding philosophy of our communities and our lives.
Participants were scathing about the movie “Inconvenient Truth,” the recent increase in efforts to prevent degradation of the environment, expressed relief that though this was becoming a focus in schools, the data show that students aren’t learning anything that’s being taught. They dismissed social programs to serve people in need and dripped with disdain for government it felt was inept.
Years later, I re-read the book. No more admiration; Dagny Taggert is an emotionally fractured control freak. Clearly, she was Rand’s ideal woman. As I learned more about Rand herself, and recognized my own thread as part of the fabric of my community, I mostly abandoned her value system.
Still, I appreciate her emphasis on the pursuit of excellence and living with integrity. I also believe that everyone acts out of her own self-interest. However, these do not lead me to discount consideration of others in the community.
I would spend on a library, even if I didn’t use it, because it is in my self-interest that everyone have access to the vital support free libraries are designed to provide. It is in my self-interest to have many, not just a select few, have access to excellent health care, education, and job opportunities.
I don’t think government is the best answer to problems, but it has stepped forward because as individuals, we consistently fail to do so. I want government to redistribute tax dollars to help people who need it, because our communities of individuals have failed to come up with a way keep our neighbors from falling into an abyss of overwhelming need because they don’t have healthy support networks, which, though Rand wouldn’t say so, we all need.
This is a collectivist view, parodied in Atlas Shrugged, but the older I get, the more firmly it takes hold.
