Strange Brew

As someone who has attacked Ayn Rand for both her writing and philosophy, I'm always amazed at how her enemies still manage to make her look good.  For instance, in The New Republic, Simon van Zuylen-Wood has a piece on "The Ten Strangest Things About Objectivism."  You don't have to agree with Rand's beliefs to see many of these items aren't that strange, though Zuylen-Wood's misunderstanding of them is:

1. Greed good; altruism evil

Objectivists believe rationality is the highest form of morality. Because it’s rational to be self-interested, selfishness is thus a mark of high ethics. Q.E.D. Put another way, Objectivism is a self-fulfilling rationale for life’s injustices: Winners deserve to be winners because they are winners.

How can this be "strange" when it's widely understood to be the whole point of objectivism. Rand recognizes that it turns conventional morality on its head.  That's what's supposed to wake you up. You might as well call Marxism strange because Marx didn't believe in private property.

As for its effects, she's arguing that if you live for someone else, you're giving up your own life. This doesn't mean you can't do things for others, it just means you should because you want to. It also means you can't demand others live for you, nor can you initiate violence against them.  It isn't about winners deserving to be winners--it's about everyone getting a shot at living a full life, and recognizing that happiness is within their reach, even their birthright, if they only understand they control their own lives. Rand believes she is freeing humanity of cant and false guilt, and her philosophy will ultimately build a better world--one where even "lesser" beings will live better lives. 

I might add there's long been a philosophical claim that most beliefs are self-interested.  After all, even the most altruistic religions often promise a significant reward.

2. The rich are being exploited by the poor

In her 1957 novel “Atlas Shrugged,” Rand’s hero John Galt grows tired of the leeching workers that live off the business acumen of others, so he leads an upper-class strike that leaves industry decimated. Rand’s point is that without economic supermen, the country would collapse. She of course ignores the fact that the same outcome would result if every working stiff in the country up and quit too.

This idea is strange?  Is Zuylen-Wood claiming only the poor can be exploited?  Rand's argument, good or bad, is simple enough: the "rich" in a capitalist society have generally gotten that way by making themselves valuable, helping or pleasing others enough that they've voluntarily given their money for the goods and services these entrepeneurs provide.  So even before anything else, the "rich" are essential to the well-being of society.  But on top of that, they pay most of the taxes, which represent a large portion of their income, because of laws passed by politicians who are serving groups of people who demand the wealth created by others be redistributed to them.

And noting the country would collapse if every working stiff quit misses the point.  Once again, Rand is playing off the conventional view.  Strikes are generally called by workers who claim they are being exploited by the wealthy--she turns this on its head and asks what if the wealthy decided to strike. Furthermore, workers, as valuable as they are, are still pretty easy to replace (if the law allows it).  Rand's point is the people who end up rich, far from being the exploiters, are the innovators--they're not so easy to replace and not only keep society humming along, but also guarantee it progresses.

3. No public schools

Asked if she believed in a right to education, Rand replied that the Founders enumerated a “right to the pursuit of happiness—not of the right to happiness.”

4. No social services

Rand compared Medicare, which she reportedly received, to “a ‘hoodlum’ who robs and kills to acquire a yacht and champagne."

6. Negative rights only

The sole purpose of an Objectivist state is to prevent individuals from impinging on each other’s freedom. In other words, Objectivists accept the need for police, courts, a standing army, and nothing else.

These three go together.  Apparently Zuylen-Wood believes the leviathan that is modern liberal society is so obviously the only rational option that questioning it makes you weird.  But even the liberal world is built on a foundation of freedom, and any impingement on that must be justified.  It's certainly not strange to believe that big government programs go far beyond what they should be doing.

There are strong arguments for public education and social services, but Rand is simply saying that the right to private property is central.  There can be no "right" that puts another person's hand into your pocket.  She also believes that weakening property rights weakens a society--for instance, if your labor isn't yours, you won't fight to innovate, and society in the long run will be much poorer.  Education will be worse, medical care will be worse, and so on.

As far as her receiving Medicare, it's a cheap shot.  She paid for it against her will.  The least she deserved is getting some of it back.

9. Atheism

Objectivists reject religion because it isn’t “rational,” and because many faiths preach compassion for the needy.

A philosophy that's atheist is "strange"?  I'd call it mainstream.  And as we've noted before, Rand's central point is that altruism denies your central being, so any philosophy that says you must give your life up to another being or concept she would naturally oppose.