Since I only have your attention for a few seconds before you decide whether to continue reading or to leave, I’m about to argue the following:

Pure laissez-faire capitalism, constitutional libertarianism, and libertarian-anarchy are not practical political and economic theories.

Now, if you have decided to stay and read, I hope you feel inclined to comment, question, and/or challenge my argument after reading it.

THE DEMAND FOR RAND

On April 15th, I attended a TEA Party in my hometown. As I had expected, it was predominantly represented by absurdist opposition grounded in political and economic ignorance. But, as I gazed through the crowd of angry-but-don’t-know-why protestors, I was reproached by more thoughtful, intelligent sign that read, “Who is John Galt?”

This question, who is John Galt, is posed by a homeless man begging for change—the first words of arguably one of the most influential novels of our time, Atlas Shrugged. Written by Ayn Rand and published in 1957, this 1,368 page fictional novel tells the story of world in the midst of an economic crisis. The populist revolution against corporate power has ushered in a dystopian world defined by collectivist, socialist republics. In the United States, the last capitalist state to fall to the collectivist poison, all of the nation’s major businesses have been absorbed by the government, leaving politicians with overwhelming power to act on “the public interest.” The depiction portrays a society based on oppressive bureaucratic functionaries and a culture that embraces the stifling mediocrity and egalitarianism of socialistic idealism. And in the midst of this gloomy new state, the question echoes throughout the novel, “Who is John Galt?”

Meanwhile, we learn that the major business leaders—the “captains of industry”—have disappeared. As it turns out, they have gone on ‘strike’ against the collectivist state, whom the captains believe have violated their individual rights, and created their own society where they freely practice capitalism in pursuit of true wealth. In contrast to the gloomy collectivist state, the captains’ society is colorful and lively. In their new, pure and wonderful state, rational self-interest guides their boundless individual pursuits.

So, who is John Galt? As a character, he is the brilliant engineer who created a new energy-efficient motor that could change the world. He is also the leader of the strike, whose actions include withdrawing his talents and “stopping the motor of the world.” Symbolically, he embodies the power of the individual. He serves as a counterpoint to the social and economic structure of the collectivist states depicted in the novel. He is a metaphorical Atlas of Greek mythology, holding up the world.

Atlas Shrugged has long been one of the most highly ranked best-selling novels in the U.S.. Consequently, Ayn Rand has been a significant cultural force in American public life. The founding philosopher of objectivism and the moral theory of rational self-interest, Ayn Rand was an avid proponent of laissez-faire capitalism; and she claimed that Atlas “embodied her worldview”(Adam Wolfson, “Greenspan Shrugged.” The American Interest: March/April 2009: 112).

The extent of her influence reached the Federal Reserve when Alan Greenspan, a student of hers who once said, “I was intellectually limited until I met her,” took over as director (Greenspan, of course, was avidly anti-regulation). Her philosophy has also deeply penetrated the Austrian School of Economics, as well as motivated the constitutional libertarian and libertarian anarchy movements. Moreover, in the midst of the current global economic crisis, Rand is once again obtaining mainstream public fame, described by Dr. Yaron Brook as the “Ayn Rand Renaissance. (Fox News Forum editorial, 4/20/2009).”

I studied under some of main contributors to the current Austrian School of Economics. One of them, Chris Coyne, had a tattoo on his arm of the famous “Who is John Galt?” question. Most of the student body was (and is) heavily influenced by the laissez-faire ideology, and will, without hesitation, take note of the overwhelming similarities between Rand’s world of economic turmoil in Atlas and the events unfolding in the current crisis. Their solution, of course, is absolute free-market capitalism. But, still, is such a system practical?

The cause of the Ayn Rand Renaissance is indubitably related to the current economic and political environment. The economic downturn coupled with aggressive government intervention, spending, and expansion has generated concern and motivated many to question our economic and political system. Whatever the solution, it is clear that most of us believe the present crisis is a product of our current system’s failure, and thus fixing it will not be sufficient: rather, it must be replaced by a better system.

Political and economic history reveal our struggle to make sense of our individual and social realities; and, the philosophies that serve as the underlying principles of our approach were often developed by those facing a similar time as ours. Such is the case with Ayn Rand, whose view of collectivist socialism was obviously influenced by the political environment through which she lived. Born in imperial Russia in 1905, she was witness to the Bolshevik Revolution and in college saw the radical policies implemented by the government, forcibly transforming Russia into a collectivist and socialist state.

It is from her experience of totalitarian intervention that she developed the opinion that the opposite must be true. It is from her philosophy that modern Randians and libertarians base their principles. She argued, as described by Wolfson:

For [Ayn Rand] the public interest is nothing but a smokescreen used by socialists to cover their power grab. Only the most loathsome characters in Atlas Shrugged speak of public interest or the general welfare. Yet Rand’s objection went deeper than this, to the very notion of the public interest, which for her simply did not exist. As she explained in one of her philosophic essays, ‘Since there is no such entity as ‘the public,’ since the public is merely a number of individuals, any claimed or implied conflict of ‘public interest’ with private interest means that the interest of some men are to be sacrificed to the interests and wishes of others. Since the concept is so conveniently undefinable, its use rests only on any given gang’s ability to proclaim that ‘The public, c’est moi’—and to maintain the claim at the point of a gun’

It is obvious these views are motivated by what she saw growing up in Russia. But rather than arguing against such aggressive government intervention, she believed there was no role for government. Her moral philosophy of ‘rational self-interest’ is rooted in the idea that everyone was distinctly individual and ought to pursue their happiness with absolute no intervention. In contrast to Adam Smith, who believed there existed a ‘public interest’ and saw free-market capitalism as unconsciously serving that interest (i.e., the Invisible Hand), Rand denied the existence of ‘externalities,’ and thus denied that any good came from contribution to the public, including charity.

But, the problem at the heart of Rand’s philosophy—and subsequently libertarianism—is its frank denial of another powerful characteristic of human nature. That is, our biological social behavior: our fundamental nature to establish community, a characteristic exhibited in various communal forms such as the family, the team, the neighborhood, the town, city, and state. Humans develop social relationships with one another—relationships that are built on principles of communication such as morals, manners, and rituals.

Throughout human history, the community has existed, not simply as individuals, but as a kin relationship. Humans are attracted to others whom are similar in appearance, opinion, and language. The community shares ideas, traditions, and interests and its members value those commonalities to be upheld by all involved. It is exactly this characteristic of human behavior, the “community,” from which the ‘public interest’ is expressed. It is also this characteristic from which government is necessarily formed.

Ayn Rand, Austrian economics, and libertarian anarchy reject the idea of ‘community,’ putting all their apples into the basket of another, powerful characteristic of humans: the drive to create and obtain wealth. As individuals, we certainly pursue our own interests and our distinctive individuality fuels creativity and innovation. We are not all equal and able, and thus to be treated as such is irrational.

Rand’s philosophy is the extreme opposite of another impractical idea: communism. Karl Marx argued that the unfettered pursuit of one’s own interests produces overwhelming negative externalities resulting in worker exploitation, slavery, and the empowerment of an elite few who exercise their control over the exploited and impoverished masses. Marx, like Rand, was heavily influenced by his surrounding conditions. He was wickedly poor in the post-Enlightenment world that embraced secularism and human individuality. Marx lived in a world defined by imperialism; where the individual pursuits of one’s own interests was destroying and exploiting mass numbers of people. He saw the burgeoning capitalism as a destructive force that would eventually give way to a populist revolution against the ruling elite. Though the formulation of his theory is heavily derived from Hegel’s theory of the ‘World Conscious,’ he was nonetheless reflecting on the conditions of his time.

But, as Rand does with one characteristic of humanity, Marx does with human individuality. And, we have seen how such extremely neglectful principles can destroy a society. I believe Rand’s equally neglectful theory could be just as destructive, and though it represents an ‘ideal,’ as most philosophy does, it is nonetheless impractical as it denies a fundamental characteristic of human nature.

And so, when postulating solutions for the current political and economic crisis, we must keep in mind the principle of moderation. We must have a system that equally serves and protects both the interests of our community, the ‘public interest,’ and the individual freedom to pursue our own ends. That is the system our founders established, and it must be allowed to evolve and continue as the principle of our economic and political philosophy.