These few paragraphs were a response to an individual who had some misguided takes on Ayn Rand and her views on capitalism. One wonders if he ever capitalized on my clarification...
Ayn Rand defines capitalism as "a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned." An Objectivist advocates a society free from force, a true "laissez faire" system, where men (whether in private or government positions) cannot coerce one another. Instead, they trade volitionally and freely. Here, the government would not favor or hinder any man. The Objectivist views humans as people, rather than sheeple; he does not see man as a sacrificial animal to be bled dry. He does not see life as one great big hospital, where transfusions and transplants can be taken by force. He deplores, in Ayn Rand's words, "the infamy of paying with one life for the errors (or even accidents) of another." He does not seek to pay for Paul's mistakes, problems, poverty, and setbacks by robbing from Peter his achievement, success, money, life or liberty.
When the statist whines that "we are all in this together," the Objectivist shrugs. Of course, he embraces the benefits of, in the words of Isaac Newton, "standing on the shoulders of giants." He who trades with and learns from rational men will surely rise to admirable heights. Only a misanthrope would opt to live on an island, instead of amongst such men. However, the Objectivist rejects the idea that his achievement and wealth - a token of his successful trading with men - suddenly becomes a mortgage on his life; you have no moral sanction to tell him that he has "earned enough money," anymore than you have the right to say that he has had enough food to eat, breathed enough air, or lived enough life. Even if he has $100M, you have no right - with a sob story or a stickup - to demand one penny of his wealth. The same principle applies to one second of his life.
To attain equality of results, one must arbitrarily force down those who excel, while elevating those who do not.
In America, the haves pay the majority of the nation's taxes. The top 1% pay about one third, the top 5% pay about half, the top 10% pay about two thirds and the top half pays over 95%. Most people consider this just, because "the rich have enough money, anyway." Would these same people approve of foisting the loin's share of taxation on a specific group of people, based on terms other than income - say, religion? One wonders if these same moral heroes would advocate that Jews pay one third of taxes, as recompense for their choice of religion. Perhaps they champion a "black tax," where African Americans pay half of the nation's taxes, as a punishment for their genetic makeup. Why not? After all, the productive must pay their "debt to society," for having the gaucherie to produce. This is what Ayn Rand eloquently deems as "the hatred of the good for being the good."
To those who whine about the have-nots, and of "duty to our fellow man," the Objectivist says: Just because one man has a bleeding heart does not mean another should seek the help of a cardiologist. Any obligation the former feels is his issue and he has no right to draft the latter into a so-called "army of compassion."
When pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, you cannot force anyone else to do the heavy lifting; the only helping hand you deserve by right is the one at the end of your own sleeve. However, the land where the term "bootstrapping" was coined is home to the most charitable people on the planet. According to the American Association of Fundraising Counsels, Americans annually give $200 billion to charity. It is important to note the difference between charity and digging into your fellow man's pockets with one hand, while holding a gun to his head with the other. Objectivism condones the former, but regards the latter as evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment