And I Can Prove It.
A few days ago, I came across an article that at first blush made me laugh. I saw it as just another smug, left-leaning attack on a philosophy that has been beaten on for years. But as I examined the illogical, over-emotional verbiage of writer Geoffrey James, I also began to think: “Really? Is he just trying to be silly and stupid? How many people read this and actually believe it?” Then I saw the 600+ Likes from Facebook, and then the top of the page that states: “The CBS Interactive Business Network.” Obviously, he has some kind of audience. So I've decided to take apart his objections to Objectivism, and place before you what's true, and what's false. If you want to read his article word by word, go
here.
So okay, Geoffrey. You had me at “Greenspan.” Let's get started.
His first statement is his biggest, and it has four misconstrued parts. So I'll spend the most time on #1.
“1. Laissez-Faire Capitalism doesn’t work.” - False
Really? Since when? If that statement were in fact the truth, I would expect the front page of every newspaper, magazine and website on planet earth to scream something like: “Laissez-Faire Proven to be Big Failure. Governments Make Plans for Something Better.” Any person with a mind of his/her own can take the most cursory look around planet earth and see that the more a country leans toward private property, individual liberty and free trade, and away from statism, the more that country prospers.
But this first statement also begs for a follow up question to clarify his point. If, according to him, "Capitalism doesn't work," perhaps he would like to make a recommendation for some other system he thinks works better.
A. “Laissez-Faire capitalism is a utopian fantasy.” - False
Laissez-faire capitalism is a standard. Humans need standards of behavior. Normally we call them laws. It's something to strive toward. So this statement is at best half-truth. But I've never heard a single capitalist (which is every person on planet earth) state that laissez-faire capitalism is some sort of “utopia.” In fact, quite the opposite. Everyone can see that the system isn't perfect. But given the options, and the historical evidence, it's by far the best alternative we have available. What kind of society would we have if we didn't have standards? What kind of laws would we have? Would we have laws at all? Rand detested relativism. The idea that it's “all relative to how the system gets implemented” is the rough equivalent to saying: “The ends justify the means. Success is what matters.” We should never focus on only the result. If we use only results as our standard, then communism worked out just fine. The government can in fact run a country in its entirety and redistribute wealth. All we have to do is overlook a few million dead bodies.
B. “Therefore, as a philosophy, it needs to be judged on how it gets implemented in the real world...” - True (in its entirety)
But it's very difficult to judge a system that, as Geoffrey James states himself: “...it cannot actually exist.” How can he state with such certainty that “Laissez-faire capitalism doesn't work”, if no one has ever tried it? In the words of our scientists: “An absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.” From his statement, we can only conclude that Mr. James isn't a scientist. Rather, what he's doing is just giving his personal opinion. He simply doesn't believe in the possible success of unregulated capitalism. And he doesn't care to try.
C. “...the real world implementation of laissez-faire capitalism, led by Rand-disciple Greenspan, produced the great recession.”
- False
To use Mr. James's expression: Puleeze! (eye roll) This statement is revisionist history at its finest. It places all of the blame squarely on the shoulders of one man, and totally ignores :
- the insurance industry (and their bailouts)
- the automotive industry (and their bailouts)
- the banking industry (and their bailouts)
- the government redistribution of tax monies to many more faltering companies and other unprofitable industries.
- the long-term insolvency of Freddie and Fannie – despite receiving the same tax monies, and bailouts.
- the massive housing bubble produced by over-extended banks that were following the lead made by Freddie and Fannie (and conveniently dumping as many toxic mortgages as possible into the laps of both GSE's).
- credit default swaps.
- consumer and investor fears, etc.
Putting the blame on one man is so incorrect and irresponsible that I wouldn't hesitate to call such a statement propaganda. Being given a little easy money doesn't automatically make whole companies and/or industries irresponsible. Please put the blame for insolvency where it belongs - on the shoulders of the people who were dumb enough to take too many risks. Let them be the only victims of their overreaching and stupidity - and let them fail.
“2. Reason has real-world limitations.” - True
Those limitations are in fact called emotions. But Rand also had something to say about this. She said: “There is no denial of reality that can change reality.” Reason is reason. Logic is logic. And emotion is the opposite of both.
“3. Ayn Rand was a emotional nut case.” - And?
I think this is probably the main objection that Mr. James has against Ayn Rand - she wasn't a very likeable person. But what we're supposed to be talking about here is Objectivism, not engaging in personal smears against the person who created it. Personal attacks are a waste of time and energy, and they say absolutely nothing about the validity of what that person created. For example:
- Leonardo Da Vinci had his, um, young, male “concubine.”
- Einstein regularly offended his students, because he was a stranger to the bath tub.
- Nabokov liked little girls.
- John Lennon was known for beating his girlfriends, and then singing “Give Peace a Chance.”
- Bill Clinton has an affinity for interns who also like cigars.
Do any of the most intimate, personal problems above negate what those people accomplished? No. In fact, if we have to look at emotions vs. reason, Rand's adulterous affair was clearly emotional, which proves her Objectivist point perfectly. Emotion does not trump reason under any circumstance, no matter how she chose to see her situation at the time.
“4. Her philosophy is devoid of gratitude.” - False (actually, the reverse)
Individualism does have a great deal of value, as opposed to collectivism by way of force. But there is nothing I have ever read in any of her works that say the words “thank you” should have no place in a person's vocabulary. Her focus was on the deserved rewards for hard work, and the payments people should receive for just that - which, by the way, is in and of itself
gratitude. More money; more gratitude. Which would you rather receive? The "atta boy" from your boss? Or a raise? But she put no negative values on people who were lucky enough to have been born into wealthy families, nor did she place any negative value on saying “thanks for your hard work.” Yes, we do stand on the shoulders of those who came before us. She called it evolving away from “primitive man.” And for that, we should all be thankful.
“5. Reality is NOT an objective absolute.” - False
Reality “can only be perceived subjectively”? Really? Tell that to the person who stepped out into the path of a fast moving truck. Or to the person who jumped from a tall building. Or to the (unemployed) mathematician who thinks 2+2=6. Reality isn't subjective in any way. Only our emotions regarding reality are subjective. By the way, the example Mr. James uses, the: “...measuring something changes the thing measured...” is a law of physics written by Werner Heisenberg. It's called The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle, and it applies only to the field of sub-atomic physics. It states that the “thing” being measured is actually smaller and less powerful than the beams of light used to do the measuring. I'm not going to bore you with a more detailed explanation. I'll just say, that Mr. James's example is really, really bad.
“6. Howard Roark was a lousy architect.” - And?
Howard Roark is a fictitious character in a book of fiction. His non-existence says nothing about the validity of Rand's Objectivist philosophy. Get over it. Works of fiction take in all kinds of real-world conditions and turn them on their heads. That's why we call those works fiction.
If anyone really wants to debate Rand's Objectivist philosophy, the best place to start is with her non-fiction writings. Books like: “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,” “The Virtue of Selfishness,” or perhaps anything published in “The Objectivist Newsletter.” If you really want a good debate, try The Cato Institute, or The Ludwig von Mises Institute. They're not necessarily Randians. But they're definitely objective.
“7. Facts do NOT trump feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears.” - False
Maybe if you're a sales professional selling something people want rather than need, can you get away with appealing to people on a temporary, emotional level. But sooner or later, the facts will always reveal themselves. The car a person wants, but can't actually afford, will eventually get repossessed. That treadmill will eventually collect dust in the attic. Or - as in my example above - we can want the poor to have affordable homes, but when the defaults finally rear their ugly heads, we'll be left with nothing more than our feelings of good intentions (and massive bailouts) to fall back on.
“8. Every man does NOT exist for his own sake.” - False
I'll use Mr. James's example here. “...the scientific fact is that man evolved as a communal creature, with bonds of family and community being tightly tied to health, happiness, longevity, and pretty much everything that makes life pleasurable.”
This is a deceptively simplistic, and uniquely modern view of how humans evolved. Primitive man had a very difficult time living past the age of 35. They weren't striving for “...health, happiness...” etc. They were trying to survive – plain and simple. Even as little as a few hundred years ago, man lived a brutal existence against the forces of nature. It's something that we now can't possibly understand, unless we're unlucky enough to be stranded on a deserted island, or live through a crash landing on a mountain top. People voluntarily developed communal groups to withstand the harshness of nature – not “...everything that makes life pleasurable.” Two hunters are better than one. Two females to conceive one's offspring are better than one. More children, more opportunities to pass on your genetics. All of this has to do with self-interest. How do I live longer? How do I live more comfortably? How will I have children? Who will protect me? Who will protect my children? Who will give me a good home? Like it or not, accept it or not, evolution is extraordinarily selfish.
If you still don't believe in rational self-interest, if you still believe “Objectivism thus runs counter to demonstrable scientific fact,” then let me give you an example of the self-oriented nature of survival.
Q: There are two children drowning in a lake. They are both an equal distance from you. But one of them is yours, and the other isn't. Which one do you save first?
A: Evolution is selfish.
“9. Reading Rand creates instant jackasses.”- False
Now this is an offensive, high-schoolish, gross generalization. But before I answer, I have to ask... How does Mr. James know this little tid bit? He speaks of Howard Roark by name, so unless he's read Rand himself, he wouldn't have that information. So... Is he placing himself in the same class of “jackasses”?
I think he has this backwards. People who like medicine are most likely to be attracted to the medical field. People who are very logical are likely to be attracted to math, science and computers. But if his statement doesn't seem like a gross generalization, maybe I can convince you that it's offensive. I'll change just two words in his statement: Reading the Koran creates instant terrorists. NOW do you find his logic offensive?
“10. Rand is the CEOs’ favorite philosopher. - And?
He states: “Most CEOs already have CEO disease, which the medical profession defines as “the enlargement of the sphincter so that it covers the entire body, creating an overwhelming itch that can only be calmed by the frequent osculation of underlings.” Let’s face it: if there was ever an human ilk who don’t need a philosophy that drives them to be even more selfish, it’s the overpaid and over pampered CEOs of the world.”
Hmm... How does Geoffrey James keep his job? I wonder what the current CEO of CBSi would say about the above statement.
And I thought class warfare went out with pre-soviet era propaganda. Obviously not. I think he should show a little more respect for the company that pays him from the profits they make, and leave his petty personal jealousies on the pages of a private blog.
“Hatred is the central element of our struggle! Hatred so violent that it propels a human being beyond his natural limitations, making him a violent and cold-blooded killing machine. We reject any peaceful approach. Violence is inevitable. To establish Socialism, rivers of blood must flow… These hyenas [Americans] are fit only for extermination. We must keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm! The victory of Socialism is well worth millions of atomic victims!”
