Ayn Rand Revisited: Radical or Real?
Monday, September 28, 2009 at 10:13AM Preface by Grant: This blog entry is by John Neville (see his bio in the "Our Bloggers" section). John's comments address the resurgence of "greed is good" and its relevance to sustainable development. Speaking in my capacity as the President of the Institute of Green Professionals (IGP), the Institute has a Neutrality Policy that prevents me from taking a position on a values controversy, however, John's title suggests that our current paths will lead to "extinction" - this is a bit radical, and other positions might include: climate extremes, mass human migrations, altered agricultural patterns, coastal flooding, widespread starvation, global population decline, pandemics, etc. Please, let John's words stir you to comment. If you came to us via a Linkedin group and you choose to post your comments on the group's site, we will repost them here at Consilience: The Blog for everyone to enjoy.
Rand & Objectivism, a Shortcut to Extinction
by John Neville, LEED AP
First, I have to say that, in my lifetime, I never met or talked with Ayn Rand. I have read her works a bit. Truth to tell, her prose bogged me down, and I never enjoy slogging through dialectics, especially those 
Ayn Randthat tend to ignore reality when attempting to make a point. That’s one reason why I find it interesting that her works and philosophy are experiencing a renewal in interest. Today, the Rand philosophy of Objectivism has become an excuse to continue the pursuit of a particularly ravenous form of capitalism and to castigate the new administration and their effort to restore the economy to some sort of balance.
I also find it interesting that some people are again trying to justify greed. “Greed is good,” said Gordon Gekko in Wall Street. Meanwhile, one could argue that it was the greed of a few that once again brought financial calamity to us all – spurring the “socialistic” actions taken by Washington.
At the core of Rand Objectivism is the belief that a person can and should pursue his own “rational self-interest” supported by a laissez faire form of capitalism and a social structure where individual rights reign supreme. The concept of altruism is anathema. Sharing is bad. Taking for oneself is good. At least, this is the theme offered by self-proclaimed new Objectivists and the burgeoning Rand Fan Club.
So let’s look at this Objectivism from the standpoint of Sustainable Development, because both share some underlying terms, though the 
definition of those terms may be very different. Sustainable Development means thriving today while ensuring that future generations may thrive. It insists on altruism and sharing as essential for survival on “Spaceship Earth.” As such, it seems diametrically opposed to Objectivism and redefines “self-interest.”
Rational Self-Interest?
Is it rational or in one’s best self-interest to put individual rights above community well-being? People claiming that personal rights should come first often use “takings” or eminent domain actions as examples of the rights of the community run amok. When community rights come first, the individual can lose his rights to acquire, keep and profit from private property.
In looking at these examples of questionable takings, I often see two extremes. The first seems to be an example of individual rights in the guise of community rights. A developer makes claims that his project will bring great good to the community and convinces leaders to take the property of others to help create the development. In reality, this type of taking is motivated by avaricious self-interest on the part of the developer and ignorant self-interest on the part of community leaders. In examples like these, the true needs of the community are most often ignored.
On the opposite side of the takings spectrum sits those instances motivated by the long-term interests of the community and the natural environment. A developer is prohibited from building in a wetlands area, for instance. We have seen countless times where allowing such development ends up costing the community far more than they gain from the development. These eminent domain restrictions on individual rights are essential to protecting the individual rights of others and those of the community from the greed of a few.
This brings up an interesting paradox in the concept of putting the rights of the individual first. Where do one person’s individual rights surpass another’s? We are all constitutionally guaranteed the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So, does a businessman’s right to pump water from an aquifer and sell it for profit (making shareholders happy) trump the community’s right to have secure access to the water necessary for life? According to the new Objectivist or unbridled “capitalist,” it does. The right to life must not interfere with the right to profit. In a sustainable world, the right to profit is essentially insignificant unless it supports the right to sustaining and adding value to life.
Laissez Faire Capitalism & Theft
In a finite world, is it in the rational self-interest to put individual rights over community well-being and environmental preservation? Sustainable Development says, “No.” Community well-being and environmental preservation are essential for our survival as a species. It would therefore be irrational to make individual rights dominant because the community which could be destroyed is made up of a collection of individuals. Those individuals also depend on the health of the natural environment to sustain themselves. These needs trump the exploitative pursuit of individual wealth promoted by Objectivists.
If you define self-interest in a very limited and exclusive way, one can see how dominant individual rights could seem reasonable in the short term. It could be what motivates bright, talented people to take huge bonuses at a time when their companies are failing.
A sensible, long-term thinker would see that keeping the troubled company afloat would be rationally within his or her self-interest. For most people, it is just common sense to skip the bonus and keep a good job for a long time. For a new Objectivist, it makes sense to take the bonus and allow thousands to lose their jobs as the company goes under. And it makes great sense to take the bonus knowing it is being paid primarily by the U.S. taxpayer.
Here, in my mind, is where the tenets of Objectivism and larceny overlap. If I can get rich at expense of others, then that is good, and society should allow me to pursue that form of happiness. How is that different from a thief breaking into your home and taking your possessions because he wants them for his own self-interest? If he is very careful not to get caught, is that not a good thing, too? Whether one steals goods or money directly out of someone’s pocket or indirectly through the Objectivist form of capitalism, by manipulating the price of stocks or pocketing tax-funded bailout money, it is still theft.
This argument takes us to the heart of the Sustainable Development versus Objectivism debate. Sustainable Development and its altruistic underpinnings are modeled after the natural systems that created and sustain life on Earth. Science has shown that natural systems are collections of interconnected networks, each supporting the others in a continuous, virtuous cycle of life.
The unfettered pursuit of individual rights, as proposed by Objectivists, is the primary reason why those natural systems are collapsing and our very existence as humans is threatened.
As Ayn Rand once said, “Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.” Pursuing the Rand philosophy that puts the wants of the individual over the needs of the community and the natural environment has been and will be the shortcut to our own destruction.
Reader Comments (73)
Grant- Ayn rand lived and what she wrote related to the early 20th century with some philosophical projections going forward. I doubt if she had even heard of the "green house problem", carbon foot prints and sustainable energy development or if she did I do not recall her writing about them . I think John Neville is name dropping out of context.She wild probably would have guessed wrongly that "derivative" had some thing to do with Latin conjugation and as for "toxic derivatives that arose from secularization" -nobody in her era would have had a clue.. Her works are still classics and good reads but she cannot be ranked with George Wells or Orwell or Nostradamus.
Dr Stephen Darori
stephendarori@gmail.com
Posted by Dr Stephen Darori
LIghten up, Francis.
1,200 pages of "Atlas Shrugged" and all you got from it was "greed is good"? Read it again, this time with a little more of that oft-vaunted liberal open-mindedness.
Question...where is "community"? Seriously, can you quantify it or locate it? Your comparison to Gordon Gekko is really "reaching"...You either didn't understand the plot in the movie or you fail to grasp the concept of a true analogy. Gordon was a thief and a liar in the movie. How is that comparable to the concept of laissez-faire capitalism and/or Objectivism...it isn't, my friend.
The biggest form of greed today would be Bush and Obama feathering the nest of corporations that we should have allowed to file bankruptcy. Government sustains true greed when politics and economics are mixed...i.e. bailouts, subsidies, indemnities and other favors doled out with our tax dollars and then "sold" to Americans as emergencies, necessities, etc. We need to divorce economics from the state as we have with church and state.
Oh, BTW, your man Gore has shown marvelous greed on his own by backing and lending his name to a start-up car maker that is being financed by a half-billion dollars of our non-specie backed paper notes. C:\Documents and Settings\Valued Customer\My Documents\Gore's payback.mht
The problem with "individual" rights is the same problem that I have with "individual" ethics. Both disregard the interconnectedness that infuses the world. That interconnectedness is a manifestation of right-relationship. As we have begun to finally see and better understand systems we also know and understand that there is no suce thing as "individual." There is only and individual in context and in relationship with other life/other people. To act without this awareness is, in fact, unethical. Doing so continuously will, indeed, result in extinction. We all survive - or very very few of us will, and those that do survive are not likely to be human.
I used to think that competition (open market with minimalist oversight) was good for everything as it naturally lowered prices. It does. However, now I feel, after 25 years' experience, that unfetterd competition is not necesarily the best for everything. Take airline deregulation. Do we have lower prices? To be sure, but airline travel (in the US) is a mind-bending nightmare for the huddled masses on a regular basis and US carriers are often rated the worst worldwide for service. So is it good? Probably ... overall. The "best"? Probably not. Take utility deregulation. An unmitigated disaster in CA no doubt, but generally has somewhat lowered prices ... for now. The problem is the entire industry is now thinking on a relatively short term basis (i.e., private sector "short term" vs. institutional sector "long term") so the only kinds of plants being built today are natural gas fired combined cycle (obviously environmental activism has had its hand in that decision process too). There was an excellent article recently in the Economist talking of Britain's looming power crisis as no long term capital investment was building new plants except gas fired combined cycle and as a result fuel diversity was decreasing at an alarming rate, creating increasing reliance on Russian (read: unstable) supplies. Which leads to the issue of renewable energy. A panacea? Hardly. Good for the environment? Defintiely (vs fossil fuel). However, the "Best"? Perhaps a step in the right direction, but clearly the incentive mechanisms (esp. in US with its plethora of complex tax-oriented structures piled on top of still-active 1930's era utility regulatory laws) are clumsy at best.
Whatever one's point of view, I believe a balance is neccesary between "free market" and "socialistic" controls (or lack thereof). In my view, thats different for every industry and likely for many individuals. The question is, where is the pendulum? In either extreme, I don't think its ever "greed is good" nor "laissez faire capitalism & theft" ad nauseum. I think in all cases, and all examples over time, there has to be a balance betwen the two. And thats always a moving target.
I've read Atlas Shrugged (recently actually) and while it certainly smacks dead on today, under a seemingly governmental "socialistic" bent, the proff will be when the economy turns around and the goverment "exits" from the private sector. The nature of that "exit" will be the determining factor of where the pendulum lies ... today.
Posted by Stephen Clevett
The key points of Rand is that not only was she pro greed - she would have supported the suicidal economics policies of the past decade be she was also pro fascist, let alone of the likes of Reganomics and empire building through military conquest.
It is not difficult to distance such unpleasant people from any sensible course for the world to take. Her philosophy is, at its root, divisive, co-operative and as such of no use to any discussion on sustainability.
regards,
Posted by martin hogan
Ayn Rand's objectivism remains, even after so many years, a powerful voice for the idea that money is the value of work and integrity. She expounds about the spiritual side of money. This is antithetical to the "greed is good" Street talk.
Much as Hitler commandeered and corrupted Nietzsche 's concept of "overman" or "beyond man" in Al Sprach Zarathustra to imply the ideal Northern European Aryan, an oxymoron, the "greed is good" folks citing Ayn Rand is just as moronic in the literal sense of the word, without being condescending in the usage of that word, because both are talking about enlightenment and enlightened self-interest respectively.
At the same time, Ayn Rand's readers must take her overzealousness in The Atlas Shrugged with a grain of salt because the sheepish and gnawing human traits that she highlights in her two magnum opuses (Fountain Head being the first) which would rather prefer to breed mediocrity than excellence appear to be missing the point about leadership in her preference for a spotlight on competence to a large extent.
It is not reasonable to expect all human beings to be highly competent like Howard Roark or John Galt, but it is reasonable to understand the society as an ecosystem with intricate mutual dependencies, even for Roark and Galt to be competent. Rand's preoccupation is with the lack of integrity in those interdependencies vis-a-vis fairness.
It is fair for the society to ideally try to provide the same access to opportunities for self-realization but it is not fair to equally distribute the fruits of a competent man's labor to all or for that matter skew the distribution. Hence, the equality of opportunity and equity in the distribution of the output as the foundations of a just society.
Just as the nature of the interdependent things growing in a forest, in spite of the same access to nutrients in the ground and sun and water, largely determines what they can grow to be, so does the nature of people to achieve their various full potentials. The issue is the equality of access to the sun, the water and the nutrients in the ground, such as equal access to health and education for a sound mind and body. The earth does a good job of it which political economic social constructs can only aspire to emulate. This, in my view, is the essence of sustainability.
Posted by Chandrashekar Tamirisa
The problem with "individual" rights is the same problem that I have with "individual" ethics. Both disregard the interconnectedness that infuses the world. That interconnectedness is a manifestation of right-relationship. As we have begun to finally see and better understand systems we also know and understand that there is no such thing as "individual." There is only and individual in context and in relationship with other life/other people. To act without this awareness is, in fact, unethical. Doing so continuously will, indeed, result in extinction. We all survive - or very very few of us will, and those that do survive are not likely to be human.
Posted by Kathryn Alexander
I think that maybe you should re-read some Ayn Rand before attempting to quote her out of context. The destroyer that she referred to was the tyranny of the collective, force, and irrationality over individual rights. I think that confusing what happened on Wall Street with laissez-faire is nonsense. Wall Street has not been a free market in about 80-100 years. I do not think that she would have had a problem with "sustainable development" so long as efforts were economic and rewarding to one's values. In fact, her heroes from Atlas Shrugged created a self-sustaining community in the middle of the woods that required few resources from the outside world and respected the environment.
What we need is fewer people who think "where's my check" and more producers.
Posted by Edwin Jackson
Certainly Ayn Rand’s objectivism is not the model for our future, but I must disagree with your assessment of her writing. Both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged are exciting reads. But they are just that: “entertaining novels”, best understood within the context of the time and life of the reader.
Rand’s philosophy seeks to unveil Man’s creative energy, which she sees suppressed by altruism and disengaged by socialism. Rand seems to have been influenced somewhat by the German philosopher Fredrich Nietzsche who proclaimed the “death of God” and who introduced the “Ubermensch”, a sort of superman, or more evolved man, who would decree his own morality and enforce it upon himself. The Nazis co-opted the term “Ubermensch” in their propaganda. Much of Rand’s characterizations in her novels, specifically Howard Roark in The Fountainhead and even more so with John Galt in Atlas Shrugged, appear to be attempts to portray the Ubermensch.
But what Rand failed to see is that Man is not an island unto himself. Man is a naturally social being. Men accomplish things by helping one another. Without cooperation among men, civilization would quickly perish. Altruism is a natural part of cooperation.
In Atlas Shrugged, Rand’s story is set against a backdrop of failing and corrupt government. Weak minded individuals exploit the stronger producers in society through the government. Eventually the creative producers of the world abandon society altogether, in order to start a new social existence. People are drawing parallels against today’s administration because they sense a redistribution of wealth, which removes capital from those who are creating economic activity and gives it to those who primarily just consume. This is the classic Rand dilemma! It is no wonder that so many are flocking to her works in a time of liberal government and severe economic recession.
But Rand knew little of sustainable development. Rand did not live during a time of dwindling natural resources and environmental concerns. On the contrary, she lived during a time of social upheaval. She fled to the United States from communist Russia, having experienced the losses of freedom inspired by the Bolsheviks, including the seizing of private property.
Modern day groupies of Ayn Rand need to understand her in the context of her time. We still need Rand’s passion for creativity today, but we are not the Ubermensch! We need one another more than ever before. It is the very cooperation and altruism that Rand so despised that will be our salvation.
Posted by Shawn Brantley
It has been well over 30 years since I read The Fountainhead, but if my recolection is correct, Howard Roark was a highly principled fanatic of design and could have easily been the William McDonough of his era.
( http://www.cato.org/special/threewomen/fountainhead.html )
Posted by Erik Tilkemeier
I am amazed that Mr. Neville would submit a piece when in his opening paragraph he states "in my lifetime, I never met or talked with Ayn Rand. I have read her works a bit." A BIT? He excuses his unwillingness to research the material he is commenting on by saying that he got bogged down, and he never enjoys slogging through material. There is never and excuse for not trying to fully understand the subject you are commenting on especially when you are trying to influence others to share your views.
I am not a Rand fan, but that said it seems to me that someone not willing to fully research the works they are "slamming" should reconsider stating opinions about materials they are not completely familiar with. Again not being one that agrees with Rand, I am still completely turned away from being able to even beginning to agree with Mr. Neville's stated views. Mr Neville's lack of research and then his willingness to state a viewpoint without doing so, is one of the reasons that many people are not willing or able to listen to logical, practical, and well researched information on sustainability and important environmental topics. Just because one is a sustainability professional, educator or academic, does not always make ones point of view correct. Present the info and let people decide, please don't try to influence on emotion.
Posted by Charles Howe
To take it one step further, while I think the work isn't philosophically perfect (and what is), I could easily see Howard Roark being an amazing green architect with passion and purpose. I could also see John Galt being the amazing physicist who breaks up from the bonds of non-renewable resources.
Posted by Bryson Saez
You know it's funny. I didn't take anything from either of Rand's major works, Atlas Shrugged and my favorite The Fountain Head to say "greed is good." In fact I especially took Atlas to be saying greed is not good. What I interpret her as saying is excellence is good.
Posted by Bryson Saez
Maybe if's just me, but in my opinion John Neville's blog reads like the writings of a communist. He is basically advocating that each of us produce according to our abilities and our consiences, and then receive according to our needs. The fallacy of communism and the altruism upon which communism depends ignores the natural fact that, when all the roosters come home to roost, we all are essentially dressed up Objectivists, regardless of what garments we might choose to wear. Clothed in the righteousness of green and sustainable development and all the other hoo ha Neville writes about, the jurisdictional authorities in control of what gets dubbed green or sustainable or otherwise, what gets built or not, or which property gets condemned or not, frequently make their decisions not on what is good or right for the community but what might keep them and their croonies in power, increase their power or fatten their pocketbooks. It is nothing more or less than gang warfare, and government is the biggest gang of all. This presents a dilema for for all of us, because there does not appear to be any fail safe advocate for our collective ultimate good.
The farmer may have been a bad dude, but when the pigs took over the farmhouse, they started walking on their hind legs, too.
Posted by Charles Traylor, AIA, NCARB
I don't want to get involved in such a discussion. I do take note of this comment by the author: "Here, in my mind, is where the tenets of Objectivism and larceny overlap. If I can get rich at expense of others, then that is good, and society should allow me to pursue that form of happiness. How is that different from a thief breaking into your home and taking your possessions because he wants them for his own self-interest? If he is very careful not to get caught, is that not a good thing, too?"
The thief can only take possessions from my house by force. It irrational to assume without force that the homeowners would willingly give their possessions tothe thief. As for eminent domain for a developer or the public good, governments can only accomplish their ends by force.
Posted by Mike Landfair
This clearly shows that all of us still do not manage to understand what Ayn Rand really said with so many years having passed by. For me, it is complicated, for while Ayn Rand was atheistic by nature, what she said is found in texts of particular schools of religious philosophy of Hindu spiritualists. Being an individual is not wrong, but being short-sighted about being an individual is, and the interpretation that a lot of us make about the objectivism of Rand is one that is highly self-centered and myopic in nature, which tends to neglect the power of realization that something may not be worth pursuing after all. If you read carefully books written by Rand, you will notice that the ultimate aim is not to just stand out in the crowd; it is also to stand out in a manner that makes you memorable for the good that you did. I still remember the first four pages of Fountainhead, where through Howard Roark, Ayn talks about why a building should care more about its functionality than about how it looks. That is not very different from the principles of sustainable development, and being individualistic eventually can give you the power to stand back and observe the problems of a particular way of life. It also shall eventually give you the strength to force changes in the laissez faire society that benefit everyone.
Posted by Rohit Pathania
I have one comment - did anyone count how many times the author uses the word "community" in this article? - I also have to agree with Charles Howe's comments.
Nice blog entry. I find it disturbing that Rand's bad ideas are being adopted by so many today. What these people forget is that no man is an island.
They forget that they did not conceive themselves, carry themselves, give birth to themselves, or teach themselves how to walk, talk, and go potty. They forget that, if they are fortunate enough to avoid fatal accidents and fatal diseases in mid-life, they will grow old, and contract other diseases, even though they do their best to avoid unhealthy lifestyles, and eventually, they will become dependent on other people for the basics of life, just as at the beginning, in their infancy.
The old joke with its embedded wisdom still applies (paraphrased because I cannot remember the witty, original wording): What starts out walking on all fours, then walks on two, and then on three? The answer is we do. People do.
There is nothing wrong with encouraging people to be as active as possible in their own lives, at the various stages of life. But it is impractical to suggest that no one lean on anyone else, except in the limited window of time when adulthood meets good health.
A community outlook is much more balanced and realistic than strident individualism practiced without gratitude or respect or compassion for others.
Posted by Rae Hallstrom
I could not have said it better than Charles just did...
Posted by Mark Silva
Neville's ridiculous attempt at connecting - or perhaps contrasting - Rand/Objectivism with sustainability is simply stupid. His writing makes it abundantly clear that he hasn't bothered to truly understand Rand's work or Objectivism. I have read Atlas and Fountainhead many times, along with another lengthy essay, the title of which escapes me at the moment. I re-read Fountainhead about once a year. Neville's understanding of the subject is limited to his ability to spell "Ayn" correctly. I would have to write a Rand-size counterpoint to demonstrate how far off-base Neville is, but I don't care to waste my time doing so.
As far as what direct Galt or Roark would go in the sustainabilty context, I can see Galt developing the "perfect" energy source (in a sense, that is what he did anyway). But in an interesting paradox that forms a critical component of his personality, Roark would likely not have anything to do with green buildings. He may be driven to design a perfect "green" building maximizing the natural elements and setting, but would despise it (or destroy it) because the execution would end up being modified by LEED goals and populist demands. McDonough is the analog to Peter Keating.
Posted by Lawrence Heim
Ayn Rand once summed up Objectivism using the popular saying: you cannot have your cake and eat it too. I do not argue against a philosophy that basically states reality is real. Of course we cannot ignore reality.
Ayn Rand lived at a time when environmental problems were not understood as they are today. We are consuming and despoiling the earth's resources and if left unchecked we will cause a collapse in human population. Extinction? No.
Still, you cannot have laissez-faire capitalism without despoiling the planet for future generations, just as you cannot have you cake and eat it, too.
Read The Tragedy of the Commons by Garrett Hardin for a dose of reality. The only solution for large-scale environmental problems is government regulation. We don't need communism. We need capitalism with intelligent regulations based on our current understanding of reality, i.e. science.
Posted by Andrew Woodhouse
By the way, Charles Traylor, it is ironic that you seem to initially advocate Rand's philosophy, then you lament the absence of a power protecting our "collective" good. What is this mysterious entity you speak of, if not the government? The whole point of Objectivism is that there is no "collective ultimate good." After reading your rant I honestly have no idea what you are advocating.
Posted by Andrew Woodhouse
Thought-provoking piece (and timely, of course!). Thanks for sharing this.
Best, Allen
Posted by Allen Sheetz