Rand and Humanism

Is Libertarianism compatible with Humanism?
Originally published on the Bluegrass Skeptic's blog (now defunct) in 2015.

Modern Libertarianism is based largely on the works of Ayn Rand.  A glance at the philosophy section of the Ayn Rand institute and you'll see it nearly mirrors the philosophy of the Libertarian Party. Both espouse civil liberties for all, and both desire Laissez Faire Capitalism.  In the realm of skepticism and education, Rand's philosophies begin good enough, but once she gets to economics, politics and ethics, not so much.  But are these ideals compatible with Humanism?

A great philosopher, I forget which one, once mused that philosophy is the art of starting with premises no one rejects, and coming to conclusions no one accepts. This is (or should be) the case for Objectivism, Ayn Rand's philosophy. Or as those past the age of 15 call it "being a selfish, spoiled brat." Perhaps that is a little harsh, but only if you do not look into Rand's philosophy. To do so is to see that at first, Rand's philosophy is seductive to Humanists, but on a closer look, her philosophy is quite incompatible with Humanistic thought.

Ayn Rand's ideas begins innocently enough, she asserts that reality is real (no brains in a vat), and that the observable universe is all that there is. For a Secular Humanist, we are good so far.  Though a Sectarian Humanist may depart ways here.  Rand's philosophy leaves no room for God or other superstitions. For Rand, since the only reality is the observable universe, we must all face facts, no matter how uncomfortable and think critically to make use of those facts.  For the skeptic, this is spot on. For those with a soft spot for children (like me) we know a few comforting words can soothe a distraught child. For instance, I would never tell a child that mittens had to be gassed to death, rather I would say they had to put her to sleep.  Though I draw the line at kitty heaven claims.

Either way, none of the above are incompatible with Humanist thought. However, things begin to break down once we get to the rest of Rand's philosophy. Rand's work in ethics begins nice enough by claiming that divine command theory, getting our morals from a godhead, is wrong. Her conclusion on morality is that what is good moral behavior is what is in our own self interest. Since humans have no natural code of conduct, we must act in accordance to our needs. Sounds sexy, right?

It almost sounds Humanistic.  However, even though Humanists hold that morals definitely do not come from God, that is were the similarities end.  The selfish principle, or Egoism, is where Humanists part ways with Rand and the Libertarians. A Humanist's base for morals is ending the needless suffering of fellow humans.  In Rand's philosophy, such an endeavour is only moral if it is in your own self interest. Rand would be all for MMR vaccines for all so her children wouldn't get sick (thus causing Rand to spend more money).  For a Humanist, vaccination is important to decrease the suffering of children for their own sake.  See the difference?

Another contention, is that Rand's ethics are highly relative.  She claims that humans have no natural ideas of morality or "automatic codes of survival".  While there are issues with this, it really has nothing to do with Humanism, so I will leave it for another day.  However, with Rand's philosophy it is perfectly moral to manipulate people into supporting you.  You would be using your talents to their fullest potential to meet your needs.  If someone is out a few bucks, then they should face the facts and learn to think more critically.  In Rand's philosophy, it is the often victim's fault.

When we examine Rand's economic philosophy, the part that Libertarians extol, we see a continuation of her selfish principle.  Rand believed in full Laissez-Faire Capitalism, a complete separation of Corporation and State. The only role the Government should have is to provide courts for law suits, and a police force to keep the rabble in line.  Laissez-Faire Capitalism not only doesn't work, but in incompatible with Humanistic thought.  The reason is not just the distribution of wealth, but that of power too.

In Rand's ideal State, and the ideal Libertarian State as well, the government is subservient to the corporation.  This is because the corporation has more power.  The EPA, USDA, FDA, SEC?  Forget them.  If human arms ground up in hamburger, useless drugs, flammable lakes, and insider trading are bad, then "the market" will correct the mistake.  Of course, the market means the myth of the free market.  I have already written about the "Free Market" here so for the sake of brevity I won't recap the myth of the free market.

In ancient Greece both Hedon and Epicurius based their philosophies partly on self interest. Rand was not claiming that we should be Hedonists. That is the eat-drink-and-be-merry style of freedom. Nor was she advancing Epicurian thought, which rests on the same basic principles as Hedonism, but valued long term happiness through education and understanding and not in the moment pleasures. However, both philosophers acknowledged and respected that other people have the same rights as anyone else.  What Rand proposed, what Objectivism amounts to is a form of Might Makes Right.

To Rand, if a person can leverage you into doing their will, then they have the right to do so.  If a corporation (which is an extension of the people running it) can exploit its employees then it is because the employees are weak and deserve it.  If an entrepreneur destroys the environment to obtain wealth, then those in the environment who are too weak to stop it can simply move, or they too deserve to get what they get.  One must wonder what then Rand would have thought about rape and institutional racism.

A refugee from Stalinist Russia, Rand rejected only the Communist limitations on the economy, but in reality she championed and tried to justify Stalinist authoritarianism.  Stalin leveraged his way to the head of the Communist Party, and used his power, his strength to run the USSR according to his whim.  This is precisely where Rand's philosophy takes you.  It is also why Social-Darwinists love her so much.  Ironically, Rand hated Stalin and his USSR, and yet a Stalinist style of government is where it ultimately leads.  The only difference is that Stalin would have began as a CEO and not as a lackey to Lenin.

The goal of Humanism is the exact opposite of this.  The primary principle of Humanism can be summed up as "alleviating unnecessary suffering of our fellow humans".  All endeavors should be towards this end.  This means we must protect the planet (our environment), feed the hungry, educate the youth, etc. etc. etc.  To ensure that everyone has access to opportunity, and necessities, they must be enfranchised equally within the government, which necessitates limits on personal power, and at times wealth.  While such a state may sound socialist, it is not necessarily so.  Humanism itself does not concern itself with economic ideals in so much that the economic system does not contribute to suffering.  This makes Humanism pragmatic, and not idealistic, like Objectivism.

Why Bernie Sanders can Save the GOP

The history of political parties in the US is a sordid one.  In George Washington's farewell address, he warned against political parties which had begun under his Presidency.  By the time John Adams became President, two prominent parties had formed: the Federalists and the Republican-Democrats. Eventually, the Federalists went by the way-side, and the Republican-Democrats dropped the Republican part.  A later party, formed in 1854, claimed the Republican moniker, and 6 years later elected their first Presidential Candidate, Abraham Lincoln.

It was the Radical Republicans that called for full equalization of rights and protections under the law for blacks before the Civil War, and during Reconstruction.  While the GOP has always had business interests in mind, there was still a progressive side that wanted to curtail rampant and destructive business practices.  After all, the "Great Trust Buster", Teddy Roosevelt was a Republican.  That goes to show that, historically, the Republican party was a dynamic party, one that covered a spectrum of political ideas.

Today, however, the GOP has been hijacked; first it was the Moral Majority, and lately the Tea Party. Today, the "radical" Republicans are the Libertarians, or at least those who buy into their objectivist ideology.  The GOP has gotten so extreme in it's platforms that the most liberal of Republicans are heavily conservative by the standards of just 40 years ago.  This is spelling the undoing of the Republican Party.  And it must not happen. Crack a history book to see the effects of a one party system.

Enter Bernie Sanders, the Independent Senator from Vermont. Sanders (his supporters just call him Bernie), has a large Republican following in Vermont, and there is even a Facebook page for his GOP supporters. While Sanders is often criticized for being a socialist (he's actually a Democratic Socialist which is still a capitalist), his policy ideas are middle ground for most of the advanced nations of the world. American politics have gotten so far to the right, thanks to the 1% and the religious fanatics hijacking of the GOP, that the middle ground is considered "extremist."  Sanders is not of the 1%, in fact he's their political nemesis, and he's not all that religious.  He's a progressive throwback and one that Republicans of when the party was truly Grand, would embrace.

The fact that someone like Sanders is able to gain such support despite not taking any Super PAC money, shows that the people are behind him.  Some of those people are Republicans.  This is important because the bulk of America is tired of Republican party shenanigans, and the corporate shills they choose for candidates. As an American, and fully aware that our political system is watched around the world, I was embarrassed after watching the first Republican debate. Trump turned the debate into a circus, and he's the GOP front runner. What scared me is that Trump is not really a product of the GOP as he is a reflection of current Republican Party.  He's misogynistic, racist, and cares more about his own wealth than the well-being of his fellow Americans.

No, not all Republicans are that way.  In fact most are not, at least most of the one's I know.  I understand that that was an anecdotal statement on my part, but I live in the Bible Belt, I live in GOP territory, I am surrounded by members of the Republican party.  One of the primary virtues of Republicans is loyalty.  That is why the sane, and good people I know that are Republican are not misogynistic or racist, or pro-1%.  They identify as Republican, mostly because their parent's did, and they are loyal to their party; to attack the party is to attack them.  But loyalty goes both ways.  If not, then it is not loyalty but servitude.  With the exception of the most radical of modern Republicans, the religious extremists, and Tea Partiers, many Republicans are waking up and realizing that the Party they are loyal too, is not loyal to them.

If Clinton gets elected... well, she is a Democrat in Name Only. If this was the 1960s, she would have been a Centrist Republican, not a Democrat. Never mind that she is flip-flopping on nearly everything now and mimicking Sanders, with the exception of her most fanatical supporters, even Democrats take for granted that she is only flip-flopping until after she would take office; she is only changing her views to get elected. Even if she gets protest votes over Trump, nothing would change.  It would be party politics as usual.

If Sander's wins, however, it is a game changer.  Part of his appeal is that he is not just a political leader, he is the leader of a movement.  A grassroots movement of the young and old alike.  The GOP is a repulsive force to to the Millennial Generation.  Even Millennial Republicans can see the writing on the wall if the GOP keeps to the path it is on.  That is IF you can find a Millennial Republican, most pay no attention to the GOP what so ever. In a more diverse-sensitive America, surviving parties must embrace the diversity of our nation. So far Republicans mostly alienate it.

If Sanders takes office, the GOP party leaders will have to wake up or lose their party.  To keep GOP obstructionists from stonewalling the White HOuse and Congressional Dems, GOP candidates will have to be more moderate, more willing to compromise, and more in touch with the needs of their constituents.  Too long have the 1% run politics to the chagrin of voters.  When Sanders takes office in 2017, it will show the 1%, and more importantly the American voter, that money is done.  Politics belong to all of us, not just the 1%.  The GOP will have to listen to their more moderate voters and politicians, and balance will return to American Politics. It is time for the GOP to return to its Lincoln roots, to regain its true fiscal responsibility like what Teddy Roosevelt exhibited, to work for the American People like Ike Eisenhower and not Big Business.

American Mythology: The Free Market

What is the Free Market? By definition it is an economic system in which prices are determined by unrestricted competition between privately owned businesses.  To achieve this a special form of Capitalism it requires: Laissez-Faire Capitalism.  With Laissez-Faire, the government does not regulate business, or does so in the most minimalist of ways.  Belief in the free market is a litmus test in the United States used to determine one's patriotism.  Yet, towards whom are we being patriotic? A look at Laissez-Faire Capitalism in American history and analysis of the problems with a free market will answer who is demanding our loyalty.

There are three main problems to the myth of the Free Market.  Below I will address each one in turn.

The Goods Expert

Quick: How do magnetic bracelets improve health?
What are the top 5 Blue Chips?
What do cerium and europium have to do with Apple?

The idea of the Free Market rests in part on the assumption that the buyer knows everything about the product.  Under Free Market theory, if a vendor is dishonest in its representation of the item, then future buyers will go to different vendors.  However, this is not always the case.  In cases of Monopoly, like having only one cable company in the service area, there may not be an alternative. Previous to the industrial age, this may not have been a huge problem.  People bought mostly raw goods and manufactured their own usable goods.  Simply put, there were not that many goods to know about.  In today's world that is not the case.

Most people don't know how the majority of their usable goods work.  Without devoting your life to learning how cars, computers, cell phones, the Internet, etc. all work, one won't know, meaning that endeavors like teaching and plumbing become side jobs.  At best, we can educate ourselves on how things work in a general sense, but there is not enough time in our lives to learn the particulars of every good and service available to us.  As such, the vendor, not the buyer has the power.

Greed

The world is full of professions that are absolutely essential to modern society: farmers, teachers, plumbers, construction workers, firemen, just to name a few.  None of these professions make their practitioners rich though.  To become rich, one must either be born into money, or enter into a profession whose primary purpose is to make money.  The people who do this have only one interest in mind: their own wealth.

Those with the deplorable disease of greed care not about their fellow man, the planet, nor future generations outside of their own genetic legacy. In a Free Market system, the greedy do all they can to capture the market for themselves.  In other words, they want the freedom to economically enslave others.  The US is experiencing an era of greed that began under Reagan in the 1980s.  But this is not the first time greed has corrupted America.

The Gilded Age

The Gilded Age is empirical evidence on why Laissez-Faire Capitalism cannot work in a modern economy, and why the Free Market is a myth.

The post Civil War era is known as the Gilded Age.  It got this name because that is when the fruits of industrialization took off, enriching business owners more fantastically than any time in history. During the Gilded Age, there was no restrictions on collusion, monopolies, trusts, or any other form of business dealings.  Prices weren't determined by supply and demand alone, but through boardroom negotiations with the purpose of stifling any competition.

Simultaneously, they kept worker wages low enough that the workers could not get an education and their whole family had to work (including children), but high enough that the workers could eat. There was no health care benefits, no unemployment, no FDA, no USDA, no such concept as sexual harassment.  Work conditions were deplorable and if you got sick or hurt, you lost your job, often permanently. There was no welfare system for the disadvantaged, but Corporations often enjoyed welfare from the Government, like using eminent domain to buy property for Corporate use, or giving huge tracts of land to the railroads.

Then the government gets involved.  In the latter part of the 19th the Armed forces of the US spent most of its time "protecting US interests" in Latin America.  In other words, we toppled governments and invaded countries to protect US business assets in those countries. This trend continued into the 20th Century with the Banana Wars in Central America.  Not only was the US military used on foreign soil to enforce corporate will, but in the US as well.  The Pullman Strike of 1894, and the Homestead Strike of 1892 are prime examples where the Government Military was in the employ of a Corporation.

Before industrialization, pre-capitalist societies were ran by guilds at the authorization of the Crown. Before then, in the agoras of ancient Greece, and the dealings between hunter-gatherer tribes the Free Market may have been a reality.  The opportunity for one person to dominate a commodity or good was almost nil.  Wealth was not generated that fast.  That would change when labor became mechanized.

As labor was mechanized, wealth could be generated faster than ever before in human history. Around this time, improvements in communication transformed the finance market as well, adding to and compounding the wealth generation.  What this means is that once one person, one company begins buying out his competitors, the wealth generation increases, allowing more capital to buy more shares of the market.  In doing so, competition is stifled and the market is no longer free: it is ruled autocratically.

After acquiring a sizable share of the market on a good, the company becomes a monopoly. Through this tactic,among others, companies are able to keep their monopoly, but to what end? To prohibit upstart companies by pricing its goods at a loss.  This forces the smaller competitor to either take the loss and match prices, or lose business to the larger corporation.  Either way, this forces the new business, which may have a superior product, to go out of business.

With great wealth comes great power.  What power the rich lack they can purchase in the form of politicians.  Political power and economic power then gets further concentrated in the hands of the few.  In a democratic society, officials may be elected, but money then buys the official's vote.  At that point, the government is run not by the people, but by the corporations.

At that point, democracy becomes plutocracy.  Liberty dies not with a cry, but with the bell of a cash register.  And the free enterprise of the market becomes the sovereign domain of the privileged few.

Regulation

"There are laws that enslave men, and laws that set them free."  That sounds like something Thomas Jefferson or Abraham Lincoln would say, but it is actually from the King Arthur movie, First Knight. Despite being an unmemorable movie, I have always remembered that line, and how true it rings. Slavery was the law of the land in the South before the Civil War.  The 13th Amendment set them free.

Government regulation is to free the consumer, and the entrepreneur from the tyranny of the plutocracy.  Theodore Roosevelt realized this when he went on his anti-trust crusade, and formed the FDA and USDA.  Franklin Roosevelt also realized this when his New Deal took up the task of rebuilding the America that the corporations ruined.  FDR also legislated in bargaining rights for workers, increasing working conditions and wages for millions of Americans.  The result of which was three decades of prosperity brought to an end by the resurgence of corporate greed and influence.

The free market litmus test does not test ones patriotism to the country, to mom and apple pie.  It tests the loyalty to the corporate oligarchs bent on using our great nation as their personal, exploitable resource.