Ayn Rand’s Libertarian Objectivism v. Humanism?

A Humanist Society talk by podcaster Charlie Painter on Ayn Rand’s libertarian Objectivism offered an illuminating opportunity. Mostly to see where this “rational” philosophy is irrational.

Ayn Rand expressed her philosophy in the title of her 1964 book The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism. As a student at MIT, I was immersed in Objectivism as the Objectivist Club published a newspaper called Ergo. (Which most of us called “Ego.”)

Jimmy Carter wanted to build the MX Missile project in the Western desert then, widely seen as imposing an unacceptable cost to the environment. Ergo blissfully opined that “cost to the environment” is a meaningless term. The environment only has value to the extent that it generates profits for humans. To me, this was a “reductio ad absurdum” proof that Objectivism was absurd.

Still, I was open to hearing Painter’s talk. Objectivism, like Humanism, values reason, rejects mysticism, and celebrates human potential. But Humanism also values global responsibility, environmental stewardship, humility, altruism, science investment, and good public services.

Objectivism is unable to solve or even acknowledge collective problems. Notably, the Climate Crisis. Painter agreed with Ergo that the environment has no rights. I noted that Florida might go underwater, affecting humans. Painter dismissed that as “down the road,” therefore imposing no moral claim on individuals. But if our actions collectively contribute to harm, can we really claim no responsibility?

Painter also said other species have no rights. I noted that we are close to creating Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) that may feel the same way about us. He dismissed that as “far off.” So, we have no responsibility even to our future selves?

Rand published her first Objectivist novel (Fountainhead) in 1943. I asked Painter if there is even one example of even one town in the world that operates on Objectivist principles. Objectivism demands pure capitalism with no regulation and no public investments. He admitted that no one has actually made “pure” capitalism work.

I asked Painter if he believed there should be public schools. He replied, “Public education is a violation of human rights.” The only Objectivist role of government is to provide police, courts, and national defense.

Painter said that government should not pick winners. But governments always choose winners. Taiwan invested in semiconductors while the U.S. invested in obsolete industries. For the past hundred years we invested tens of trillions of dollars in subsidizing private motor vehicle use. The rest of the world invested in public transit.

Hence it can take me three hours to get to L.A., whereas we experienced a transit time of 45 minutes for a similar trip on high-speed rail in Japan.

I noted that most vaccines would not exist without government. Government funds the research, as Obama did with mRNA vaccines. When COVID hit, manufacturers just had to plug in the COVID information and produce the mRNA vaccine at scale.

Private companies profited from the vaccines only because government bought the vaccines for public distribution. And government provided insurance in case people were injured by the vaccine. One of many cases of public funding and privatized profits.

The same is true for Elon Musk’s profits from NASA contracts.

Objectivism claims to be logically provable from obvious axioms like Aristotle’s Law of identity “A=A.” Kind of a leap from that to abolishing public health and public transit?

Painter invoked the Objectivist axiom that “Physical force must be banished from human relationships.” Again, due to the interconnected nature of our world, perhaps “physical force” and “violence” need to be understood in a broader context? We already have mass migrations and wars due to fossil fuel dependence and climate change.

Asked about empathy, Painter asked if he should have empathy for: People who are trying to bomb me? Communists? Those trying to take my property?

I noted that concentration of wealth in the Gilded Age led to people throwing bombs, talk of taking property, and interest in Communism as a solution. Roosevelt’s New Deal was not just about compassion. It was about rescuing capitalism from its own contradictions.

Painter’s talk was valuable for me: It deepened my appreciation for Humanism.