For a while now, some people have been asking what I believe. So I thought I would take the time to write it down.
I am an Objectivist.
What does that mean?
An Objectivist is a person who follows the philosophy of Objectivism, which Ayn Rand created. I agree with it and have taken the time to understand and check if what Objectivism says is true, which I think it is.
This is what Objectivism at a high level actually is, not what some people may have said it is.
The Short Version:
Objectivism is a philosophy of individualism egoism and non-predatory, rational self-interest. It says Reason is our only means of understanding. The base of morality is whether something is rational or not. Good is Rational and life-promoting, and evil is irrational and life-destroying. To be moral is also practical as only rational action, thus life-promoting; thus, being a good person is the only way to get ahead. In practice, people can choose their path, keep what they earn or trade; This creates a civilisation where all actions are voluntary and win-win. The Government only acts to protect us from other people who initiate physical harm either through stealing/assaulting us or defrauding us.
The Long version for those more interested in what the actual philosophy is about:
Objectivism is an Atheistic Aristotelian Egoistic Philosophy of reality-first, non-predatory, rational, long term, self-interested egoism or, in a single word: Selfishness. It is a philosophy that holds that our own lives as the highest value and our (as in each individual) mind is our greatest asset.
Being atheistic Objectivism holds that because there is nothing outside of existence and our lives are our own, our happiness is our highest purpose and We should do everything we can to maximise our happiness in a life-promoting rational way, so we may live a long, happy and fulfilled life.
Why is our life is own? It comes down to the mind.
As the mind is us, everything we are serves our mind, which is a volitional consciousness. Volition or free will, the capacity to choose to think or not, makes us human and different from other living things. Without our minds being a volitional consciousness, as they are, we would be nothing more than mindless flesh robots. With our minds being volitional, we choose, we reason, we love, we learn about and improve the world.
Our mind is our greatest asset; we must do everything to protect it. This means we must defend it against the one thing that can cause it to break or stop working, physical force.
For example, try adding two and two together when somebody threatens to physically hurt you if that answer is not five. As you can not function under such a situation of physical force or the threat of it, thus it actively harms our ability to live; we must find a way to live without that threat.
The only method that allows us to live is to trade in a win-win situation. A Win-Lose will always ultimately lead to a Lose-Lose over time and both win-lose and lose-lose will always involve some sort of physical force or threat. Thus Win-Lose is should be avoided at all costs and Win-Win should always be the default.
This situation leads to the rejection of physical force (particularly its initiation) due to its destructive effects. This rejection applies in all aspects of life, leading to some actions being barred, i.e. theft, fraud, assault, e.t.c.
To protect ourselves from Physical force and, by extension, our Minds and lives, Objectivism says that we have individual, universal and inalienable rights. Contrary to popular belief, Rights are, in a social context, non-contradictory and universal principles of morality defining and sanctioning an individual’s freedom of action. Also, rights are not up to the vote or decision of any consensus as the requirements of life define them.
There are four individual rights which there is one fundamental one and three corollaries:
The Primary or Axiomitic Right:
Right to your life: You are free to take self-sustaining and self-generated action that supports your life.
And the three corollaries:
Right to property: to keep the produce of your action or have legitimately traded.
Right to Liberty: to be free to take those actions uninterrupted by others.
Right to Pursuit happiness: Enjoy your life and the fruits of your actions.
Any Right that contradicts Individual rights i.e. positive “rights”, such as the “right to healthcare” is not a right but a government entitlement as to enable such a “right” requires the use of physical force and must violate the Right to Life and Right to Property, in other to fund it.
As the initiation of physical force is out and we need to have our rights protected, there is only one system we can support: Laissez-faire Capitalism. When I say capitalism, I mean a socio-political system based on recognising individual rights, especially property rights, and ownership of property is private. Capitalism is also the system where the initiation of all forms of physical force, both direct (i.e. theft) and indirect (i.e. fraud), are outlawed.
In such a system, the Government has no special rights above and beyond the individual; it is an impartial referee and exists only to protect individual rights, nothing more or less. Government can not grant any extra ‘rights’ and only voluntary means of funding.
So what about X?
There are thoughts whose next question will be, so the individual is protected, what about the needs of others? What about Society?
As Objectivism is an egoist Philosophy, the needs of the individual come first, rather only the needs of the individual are catered for as it applies to all individuals, regardless of any Innate trait or beliefs. If there is any benefit to ‘society’ they are secondary and accidental. For example, the right of Property protects not only the individual’s Property but all property from every form of theft, destruction and abuse, it also makes the owner care more about the property as they have a vested interest in its function, efficacy and maintenance. This is generally why anything owned privately is much nicer than anything owned publicly, from buildings to transportation. However, these are marginal benefits.
What about the needs of others?
For Objectivists, this is a marginal issue for two main reasons:
‘Need’ is not a valid criterion for help; ‘need’ is far too ambiguous and arbitrary to be useful. Not all people in the ‘needy’ position deserve support. They have taken actions in which nobody wants to deal with them anymore. Examples include a serial fraudster who refuses to change or somebody who wants the world to be handed on a plater without working for it. Both these types don’t deserve help even if they are indeed ‘needy’.
There are very few genuinely needy people, i.e. people who can not survive without external assistance. As the world gets wealthier and more technologically advanced, this number shrinks as technological solutions open up the world to those who would struggle to survive even with help in the past.
As Objectivists believe the universe is benevolent and humans are by nature Good. If a person is ‘needy’ and deserving of help would get it through voluntary charity, Not through any coercive group-based welfare system, government-run or otherwise.
What about Society?
Firstly we need to know what is society is and what it is not.
Society is not a super-organism, a supernatural entity separate and superior to its members; it is, however, a large group of humans in a geographical area who deal with each other. As such, because it is not even an entity, let alone a rational one capable of Reason and rationality, it can not have rights, Just in the same way a god can not have rights. To begin to have rights, you must be first and existing single entity before even rights can be considered.
As such, anything is done in the name of the “benefit of society” is absurd as the entity of society does not exist (so any benefits or negatives moot), but it is often the excuse given to grant special privileges to ‘Group X’. ‘Group X’ can be any number of lobby groups, pressure groups or anybody else with political pull either separately or all together. As with any special privileges, this comes at the expense of another group who is opposed or undirectly linked and always, without fail, at the cost of the individual, i.e. you and me, even if we are de facto members of said group being represented.
Are we not just one big collective?
Now there will be those that will say ok, so no little groups, but are humanity not just one be collective of ‘humanity’?
If you have read this far, you should be able to guess the answer, NO!
The size of a group or collective, even if it is all of humanity, is not relevant as there is no human-based super-organism. Even if in the future we are all linked by computers like the borg, this would not matter as we would no longer be human at that point; we would be something else entirely new.
In the past, we had to resort to tribes as we did not have the mental capacity we do now in a world where you survived by numbers and strength. With mind and intellect so developed, this is no longer the case; we create tools to overcome our physical limitations and are the ability to store information so we can access it later or even others can. Our reliance on numbers and tribes has vanished and is now a benefit to use, not a necessity. For example: If you took an average adult human of average intellect and left them on an island alone that had some resources, in all likely hood, they would survive, maybe even thrive, where our tribal ancestors would have most likely died. In short, civilisation and others is a benefit to humanity, not a necessity.
Now is this complete Philosophy with everything detail explored? No, but it should give you a general idea of it.
If you have any questions leave a comment, I am happy to clarify anything.