Objectivism: A Denial of Moral Bankruptcy

Objectivism, a philosophy best known for promoting self-interested behavior, is one of the most dangerous beliefs systems that has gained popularity in the modern era. It was created by Ayn Rand, a Russian-American novelist-turned-philosopher. A staunch opponent of excess government power (which she experienced in the Soviet Union), Rand's most controversial beliefs were in favor of pure capitalism with no government intervention or regulation. Her writing inspired many young conservatives, and it laid the foundation for a whole generation of laissez-faire capitalists. Even world leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher cited Rand as an intellectual influence. Somehow, Rand was able to convince all of these people not only that it's morally acceptable to act for your own benefit, but that it's morally imperative to do so. The ideas of objectivism are fundamentally flawed, and would inevitably lead to the collapse of modern society if adopted by a majority of Americans.

The Keynesian school of macroeconomic thought is in direct conflict with objectivism. John Maynard Keynes argued that an economy comprised entirely of private, self-interested organizations would be less efficient that one with a significant public sector. Among his ideas was an argument in favor of government stimulus in times of recession. Keynes reasoned that the best way to get out of a recession was to increases aggregate demand through government spending. This is the exact opposite of the “austerity” measures that are being taken in the United States and in Europe, which reduce aggregate demand. Until there is demand for goods and services, private firms have no incentive to hire new workers or build new factories. With no new jobs being created, unemployment rises and wages decline. Supporters of Keynesian economics are often labeled as socialists or communists, but the deepening global recession that started in 2008 may lead to a resurgence in Keynesian thought, the only alternative to the harsh austerity policies that are causing growing unrest and sometimes violent confrontations with police.

Another field of economics called game theory is also at odds with the ideas of objectivism. Game theory is all about how self-interested behavior results in sub-optimal outcomes. It can be shown mathematically that in some games (formally defined interactions between rational agents), it is better for all players to act against their self-interest. The most common example of such a game is the Prisoner's Dilemma, a two-player game in which each player must choose to either confess or lie. The most favorable outcome for each player is to confess when the other player lies. The next best is for both players to lie, followed by both players confessing, and finally lying when the other player confesses. The optimal outcome for both players (the outcome that maximizes the sum of their payoffs), is for both of of them to lie. However, regardless of what the other player does, each player can improve their own payoff by confessing. Because the players cannot coordinate in any way, the rational choice is for both players to confess, even though this results in the second-worst outcome. For objectivists, the Prisoner's Dilemma is a paradox. If Americans buy into the ideas of objectivism, we may all find ourselves in a Prisoner's Dilemma on a much larger scale. When people can't see beyond their own material desires, they have no reason to question their consciously selfish behavior, even if it is destroying the very society in which they live.

Despite the fact that the ideas of objectivism are widely accepted among conservatives, libertarians, and the newly formed Tea Party “movement”, they are morally and logically flawed upon further investigation. Accepting or rejecting this philosophy will be the most important cultural decision that will be made in America over the next few decades. The stakes are high, so do your part to spread the word, even if it's not in your own self-interest.