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 from Rand's writings that I use in this blog . 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. Supporting people who are able to work but are simply too lazy to do so, in my opinion, is not a worthy cause. Nor should it be an obligation of society. 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 will be the subject of the next section.
