Since the Tea Party allegedly favors the philosophy of Ayn Rand, I am going to attempt to look at the goals or ideals of both the tea party and Ayn Rand in order to expose any weaknesses or contradictions I find there.
I found an article in the New York Times (www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/ayn...), "Atlas Spurned" by Jennifer Burns who described Rand as a "novelist of heroic capitalism". Burns writes that Paul Ryan, Wisconsin federal representative, regards Rand as "the reason I got into public service". The article indicates that Tea Party members agree with Ryan's portrayal of the current political situation as individualism vs. collectivism. Collectivism is a catch-all term embracing communism, fascism, nazism, and socialism. In Rand's writings it also refers to any associated collection of individuals, e.g. a political party or society as a whole.
I will use the writings of Ayn Rand to expose the weaknesses in the Tea Party's proposed solutions to this country's problems. Some people acquainted with Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism either think she is a saint or the devil incarnate. I don't think she fits into either category. I find it quite understandable that someone whose family suffered under Hitler's rule, who is an atheist, and who has a deep distrust of government would develop a philosophy that unconditionally approves of laissez-faire capitalism. I appreciate Rand's philosophy of Objectivism because it is thought-provoking for me.
There are some critics who think that unless all the writings of an author are flawless, all of their writings must be suspect, worthless, or wrong. This seems like a thoughtless and limited way to decide what one won't read. On the other hand, one cannot read everything. But if one never reads that with which one disagrees, how will one learn if one's opinions are based on misinformation, unreasonable conclusions, unsupportable presumptions, etc.? Those who don't care if their opinions are based on accurate verifiable information will remain in a state of blissful ignorance.
There is an Ayn Rand Lexicon at http://aynrandlexicon.com/.... This is the source of the quotes in this article. Ayn Rand wrote a lot about both individualism and collectivism as well as the function of government and the value of capitalism. Before discussing each of these topics and how they are relevant to the Tea Party, a brief explanation of how they relate to each other might be helpful.
I suspect that Rand believed the less power that citizens give their government, the less likely it will be for government officials to slip into a totalitarian role. She saw laissez-faire capitalism as the alternative to totalitarian rule. Webster defines laissez-faire as "the policy of letting the owners of industry and business fix the rules of competition, the conditions of labor, etc.as they please, without government regulation or control."
Rand must have realized that humans have lives apart from business. She did not want government to dictate how people live their private lives, as can happen in totalitarian regimes. Thus her emphasis on individual rights. She also realized that since not everyone is enlightened or rational-minded, all private citizens, left to their own devices, would not respect each other's rights. So she gave government the function of protecting individual rights. She also assigned to government the functions of policing, national defense, and law administration. These "are demonstrably needed by individual citizens and affect their interests directly."
Before examining what Rand wrote about individual rights I think her objection to self-sacrifice as a moral value is relevant as is her idea of good and evil.
Ms. Rand writes that there is no justification for thinking that sacrificing one's own happiness, life, or wealth to help those who are unwilling to help themselves is a virtue. I think I agree with that. I agree with Rand that a person has the right to exist even if he/she could afford to give a dime to a beggar but refuses to do so. I do not agree with the view that it is evil to contribute to worthy causes. That is not the same thing as supporting people who are able to work but are simply too lazy to do so. I wonder if the existence of people who don't work for a living for the sole cause of slothfulness has been scientifically verified. If there are such people, I would agree with Rand that the government does not have a moral obligation to support them. It seems that the Tea Party is not waiting for scientific verification of the validity of chronic laziness. They want to cut funding to basic social programs that benefit the poor.
I remember the gospel story of the poor woman in the temple who Jesus described as giving more than the rich man because she gave all that she possessed. I can't help wondering if she would starve to death soon after if she lived in a laissez-faire system.
I like Rand's simple but eloquent statement of what is ultimately good.
An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.
One must understand this statement in the context of what she says about human rights.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Before getting into what Rand wrote about rights, let me explain what I think rights are. According to Webster, rights are standard privileges set by law or reason that all humans and animals should possess. Basic animal and human rights include the privilege of consuming healthful food and drinking water, breathing healthful air, sharing equally in the Common Good, living free of abuse.
There are other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. The right to free speech, the right to assembly, the right to vote, etc. I understand that there are limits to many of these rights. The right to free speech is limited in that one does not have the right to cry "fire " in a crowded theater nor to destroy another's reputation by spreading lies about the person. A licensed driver has the right to drive his car. That right does not include flaunting the rules that govern driving.
If and when a person or persons violates the rights of another in a criminal fashion, those people take the risk of forfeiting some of their rights for a time as punishment for their crime. I don't think the punishments for many abusive crimes are severe enough. On the other hand, there are laws that punish otherwise responsible adults for non-abusive activities that I think should not be illegal.
That's what I think. But Ayn Rand wrote more insightful things than those. For example:
There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life...the right to life means the right to engage in self-sustaining and self-generated action—which means: the freedom to take all the actions required by the nature of a rational being for the support, the furtherance, the fulfillment and the enjoyment of his own life. (Such is the meaning of the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.)
Rand does not believe rights are dependent on society's permission.
A right is that which can be exercised without anyone’s permission.
If you exist only because society permits you to exist—you have no right to your own life. A permission can be revoked at any time.
If, before undertaking some action, you must obtain the permission of society—you are not free, whether such permission is granted to you or not. Only a slave acts on permission.
Rand believes rights are inalienable.
It is not society, nor any social right, that forbids you to kill—but the inalienable individual right of another man to live. This is not a “compromise” between two rights—but a line of division that preserves both rights untouched. The division is not derived from an edict of society—but from your own inalienable individual right.
I like Rand's emphasis on preserving every one's rights. In today's society, it seems there are some people who think that because of the color of their skin or the size of their bank account that they should have more rights than other less fortunate citizens. Then there are those who are less fortunate who think their rights should have no limits because they have less material resources than others. Rand indicates they are both wrong.
Since Man has inalienable individual rights, this means that the same rights are held, individually, by every man, by all men, at all times. Therefore, the rights of one man cannot and must not violate the rights of another.
Of rights and obligations, she writes:
A right means freedom from physical compulsion, coercion or interference by other men..... As to his neighbors, his rights impose no obligations on them except of a negative kind: to abstain from violating his rights.
Put another way:
One man cannot deprive another of his life, nor enslave him, nor forbid him to pursue his happiness, except by using force against him. Whenever a man is made to act without his own free, personal, individual, voluntary consent—his right has been violated....No man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man.
Since the state is not the source of one's inalienable rights, Rand does not believe individuals have any obligation toward the state due to the possession of rights.
The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected.
We hear some people asserting that businesses have or should have certain rights. A business, unless it is a sole proprietorship without employees, is a collective. Rand is not opposed to collectives (totalitarian regimes being the exception). But the individual takes precedence over the collective in her opinion.
The Right to the Pursuit of Happiness means man’s right to live for himself, to choose what constitutes his own private, personal, individual happiness and to work for its achievement, so long as he respects the same right in others. It means that Man cannot be forced to devote his life to the happiness of another man nor of any number of other men. It means that the collective cannot decide what is to be the purpose of a man’s existence nor prescribe his choice of happiness.
There are no “rights” of special groups, there are no “rights of farmers, of workers, of businessmen, of employees, of employers, of the old, of the young, of the unborn.” There are only the Rights of Man—rights possessed by every individual man and by all men as individuals.
A group, as such, has no rights. A man can neither acquire new rights by joining a group nor lose the rights which he does possess. The principle of individual rights is the only moral base of all groups or associations.
It would seem that Rand would not agree with the Supreme Court decision (McCutcheon vs Federal Election Commission) that held that corporations are people. I have read that the Tea Party favors unlimited campaign financing. That makes sense since big business has more money to give to candidates than the grass roots. Although Rand blames businessmen for the government interference that killed laissez-faire, big business now seems to think they have more to gain financially from a more laissez-faire system. Thus their financial backing of Tea Party candidates.
About people's rights, Rand writes:
Man holds these rights, not from the Collective nor for the Collective, but against the Collective—as a barrier which the Collective cannot cross; . . . these rights are man’s protection against all other men.
When it comes to specific rights, I think she overlooked a lot. I agree with Rand's opposition to the draft and to her support of abortion rights for women. She also wrote a lot about property rights. She believed in the value of private ownership, possibly because totalitarian regimes do not feel obligated to recognize private property rights.
I think it is contradictory to believe in human rights and laissez-faire. To allow the owners of industry and business to "fix the rules of competition, the conditions of labor, etc.as they please, without government regulation or control" is to allow individual rights of consumers and hired workers to be abused. Rand wrote that what favors life is good; that which threatens life is evil. And she believed that the right to life is the primary right on which the other individual rights are based. If that is the case, and if good physical health furthers life, then people should have the ability to live as healthfully as possible.
My personal argument is that the Constitution guarantees each citizen the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The more physically healthy one is, the greater is one's ability to live freely and pursue happiness. To unnecessarily and coercively deprive people of that ability is a violation of basic rights and is abusive. Most people cannot be as healthy as possible for the long term unless they live a healthful lifestyle. The necessities for staying healthy for most of us are a good balanced quality diet (minimally processed, preferably organic), the ability to exercise, hot running water, a warm safe healthful living space, quality health and dental care, the help one needs to kick health-threatening habits. For some of us there are specific needs such as allergen-free food and living space, special diets, prescribed medications, food supplements, etc. All of us will probably be healthier if not exposed to toxins and/or pathogens.
No adult has the right to force another to live a healthful lifestyle. On the other hand, I don't believe that society nor the government has the moral obligation to pay the medical expenses of those who willingly engage in risky behaviors that result in injury or disease.
In the period in which Rand wrote I suspect that ecology was not as widely accepted, or rather was ignored by more people than it is today. The same was true of nutrition. In any case, "risk factors for disease" was not a common phrase back then. Back then, many people regarded disease as just one of those things that happens for whatever reason - punishment from God, happenstance, etc. - rather than something that is preventable.
Perhaps she chose not to deal with health issues and the unnecessary (technically preventable) potential negative impact private business and industry, especially when unregulated, can have on public health. Any supporter of laissez-faire policy is not a sincere supporter of every individual's ability to live freely and pursue happiness. That means all members of the Tea Party as well as other pro-business conservatives.
One either believes people hold their rights against the collective, which includes businesses and industries, or one believes that business and industry collectives should have unregulated power. One may not favor either equal individual rights for all nor business and industry having the power to impede people's ability to live as healthfully as possible. However, I don't believe one can sincerely favor both simultaneously.
If you found this interesting or whatever, look for my next diary on Government.