I am struggling through Atlas Shrugged, striving all the way to try to understand how what she says makes sense on her terms. I mean, sure, she makes "give" into a sin and "selfishness" into a virtue, and this may be reason enough to dismiss her. But how could that make sense to anyone? I wanted to know. I know some intelligent people, some who have seen real poverty, seen the ruin that is the Third World, and who understand other cultures and points of view. How could such a person believe her?
My working theory, so far, is that you
have to live on another planet.
Sorry. I'm really trying. It's hard to take someone seriously, though, who calls her philosophy "Objective," and then asks people to accept, as a matter of faith, that it is impossible to derive happiness from helping other people.
Rand sets out to show that the world
needs "productive people," by which she means successful
business owners. But she kind of undercuts her argument by filling
her story with only two kinds of people: successful, selfish business
owners, and vicious, lying morons. I have to say I agree that if the
world were left with no one but morons in it, things wouldn't work
out well. But it's only on Planet Rand that these are the only
options.
This brings me to a particular point of
confusion. If the world consists only of people who know how to get
the job done, and utter morons whose only concern is to not be blamed
if things go wrong, who do you suppose will rule the world? Easy one, you'd think, but you'd be wrong! On Planet Rand,
the incompetent buffoons totally overmaster the smart people. Planet
Rand is truly a strange place.
Some of it is intriguing. On Planet Rand there is no such thing as marketing. Marketing implies trying to get people to buy things that aren't what they would freely choose themselves. Such an event would undercut one of her essential theses: that in every trade, both parties end up richer, because each gets something they wanted more than what they gave up. Which wouldn't be true, if one party got something that wasn't, actually, what he wanted.
I find it curious that I never hear people invoke Rand to criticize marketing, only to criticize things like safety regulations and social security. This reinforces my belief that people who follow Rand live on Planet Rand, where marketing does not exist.
The mutual advantage of all trade is a key lynchpin
of her philosophy. On Planet Rand, every trade transaction is freely
entered into by people with full knowledge of the transaction, which
occurs purely based on the quality of product and mutual advantage of
the parties. If someone were compelled to make a purchase, this
wouldn't be true, so that situation never occurs on Planet Rand.
Hungry people just don't buy food if someone overcharges for it.
Unemployed people just choose to not work if the wage isn't adequate.
If a doctor charges too much, people who have a heart attack just
decide to go with death instead.
This isn't such a far stretch, however,
since on Planet Rand there's no such thing as poverty. Her "bums,
tramps," and even "derelicts" will stop at the local
diner to eat. No, I am not making this up. Will Thomas, Program
Director at the Atlas Society, said to me that, in post-Roosevelt America,
only the very rich were free, while "the rest of us live under the SEC, are subject to
insider-trading rules, can't buy anything not vetted by some Federal agency." (email message, 7/20/2013) Right... I guess on Planet Rand bums and
derelicts not only eat out all the time, but their chief complaint is
not being able to use their connections with their corporate buddies
to sell their stocks at best advantage.
In case you go looking for
it, Planet Rand is at the far end of the galaxy from Planet Earth.
No comments:
Post a Comment