My Atlas Shugged Essay, 2018

I discovered Ayn Rand by accident in a Half-Priced Books. I bought her non-fiction book The Virtue of Selfishness ironically for 99¢. She was far ahead of her time as far as click-bait goes. From there I quickly read her other work including: Philosophy: Who Needs It, The Romantic Manifesto, and the tome Atlas Shrugged. I was enthralled by her ideas but more importantly I was relieved to read something that perfectly articulated how I “sensed” the world around me. Months later, I recieved an email informing me about the Ayn Rand Institute Essay contest. I had an overwhelming pull to participate, despite my heavy school schedule at the time. I spent weeks wrestling with these ideas and ended up earning the rank of Semifinalist. After reading the winning essay, I guess I can’t be too dissapointed — it was way better than mine (you can read that here).
Below is the prompt and my submission.
Prompt: Capitalism’s defenders usually appeal to the “public good” as the moral justification of capitalism. Contrast this approach to defending capitalism with Ayn Rand’s approach in Atlas Shrugged. In your answer, consider what Rand has to say in her 1965 essay “What Is Capitalism?”
Francisco d’Aconia: known as the infamous international playboy and heir to the d’Aconia fortune. A child prodigy of exceptional talent that deliberately destroys his inherited industrial copper-mining empire.
John Galt: a man who threatened to stop the motor of the world — and did. His name itself became a phrase of utter disbelief. Who is John Galt? A man of such great ability that, even through his absence, his presence is felt by his destroyers as well as his allies — but for contrary reasons. A scientific genius that invents a revolutionary motor but leaves it to rust in the rubbish, quitting to take a job as a mere laborer.
Ragnar Danneskjöld: wanted. The notorious pirate who charts the seven seas, robbing government ships and selling the seized wealth on the black market. All socialistic governments offer a bounty on his head. Descendant of a noble name, he rejected society to become a feared outlaw.
These men studied physics and philosophy during university — colleagues and inseparable friends. Coming from different backgrounds, they became pupils under the same mentors, then chose to pursue drastically different paths. On the surface their character can be construed as contemptible — squandering their ability for lavishness, capitulation, and banditry. Mistaken as destroyers in their own regard: Francisco d’Aconia: the miraculous producer of wealth, becoming a wastrel — destroying his industrial empire along with its shareholders; John Galt: the man of incalculable intellectual power, reduced to an unskilled laborer — seizing his ability and later that of the world; Ragnar Danneskjöld: the man of enlightenment, becoming the man of violence — refusing to conform to authority. How can men of such great ability be reduced to such pitiful dereliction? “I’ll give you a hint. Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think that you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong. (Rand, 1957, p. 188)”
Destroyers? No, they were the liberators, on strike against the tyrannical rule of the irrational that penalized the competent in favor of the incompetent — sacrificing the best for the worst. On strike against a government that legalized the right to seize the wealth of disarmed victims in the name of “public good” by the authority of guilt and a gun. On strike against a world that falsely justified injustice, where the end justified the means but solely ended in disarray and destruction. As Dr. Stradler explains, “in such a world, the best have to turn against society and become its deadliest enemies. (Rand, 1957, p. 725)”
According to Ayn Rand, the power that changes, evolves, or destroys a social system lies in philosophy: the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence. Man confronts his life by logically examining reality and performing actions that will most benefit his existence by the process of thought and reason — therefore, his mind is his basic tool for survival. In respect to society, the set of beliefs that foster the peaceful coexistence of man is an ethical code. Every political system is based on some form of ethics. If the code is grounded on contradictions, the structure will crack. “Rights” are a moral concept, as Rand explains, they are the concept that provides a logical transition from the principles guiding an individual’s actions to the principles guiding his relationship with others — the concept that preserves and protects individual morality in a social context — it’s the link between the moral code of man and the legal code of a society, between ethics and politics (Rand, 1963, p.108). It is man’s right to freely act upon his own judgment — to survive and achieve his definition of success and fulfillment. In a society, if a man, group, or government inhibits an individual to this right by limiting the freedom of the mind, robbing him of the product of his efforts, or compelling him to act against his rational judgment — it is not a civilized society, but an institutionalized gang. Flawed moral codes have allowed these injustices to emerge throughout history. Initially regarded as righteous because the intended beneficiaries were “the public”. Individual rights are the means of subordinating society to a moral law that will allow man to achieve his potential free from interference.The moral code upholding the rights of the individual assert that man is an end in himself and not the means of others: the moral code the heroes in Atlas Shrugged fought for and the only ethical code a civilized society can exist by.
A creature that cannot think must solely act upon its impulses. If it cannot manifest in its behavior what the environment demands in the moment, it will simply die. Man’s unique distinction: the ability to perceive external things independently in the mind, to fabricate abstract representations of potential modes of being — to produce an idea in the theater of the imagination. Language allows us to discuss our ideas and test them against other ideas and the world. We are able to dissociate ourselves from our theories and look upon them critically while an uncritical animal will die along with its dogmatic hypotheses. “If a drought strikes, animals perish — man builds irrigation canals; if a flood strikes, animals perish — man builds dams; if a carnivorous pack attacks, animals perish — man writes the constitution of the United States” (Rand as cited in Branden, 1962, pp. 141–142).
The glory of the United States is that it is the only country in history born from an idea. As Francisco d’Aconia explains, “This country was the only country in history born, not of chance, and blind tribal warfare, but as a rational product of man’s mind. This country was built on the supremacy of reason (Rand, 1957, p. 707)”. The United States was built around the fundamental right: man’s right to his own life. Furthermore, the freedom to take any action required for the support, furtherance, fulfillment, and enjoyment of it — legally declaring man the freedom to pursue his rational nature devoid of impeding entities. The right to life is the source of all rights, and the right to property is a constitute of the enforcement. As John Galt proclaims to the world during his radio rapture, “Just as man cannot exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality — to, think, to work and keep the results — which means the right of property… only a slave can work with no right to the product of his effort. (Rand, 1957, p. 972)
Those claiming “public good” as the moral justification for Capitalism would lead me to suggest that these defenders check their premises and do so thoroughly.The “public” isn’t an objective entity, it’s an abstract accumulation of the individuals comprised of it: a group of individuals all beholden to the same individual rights. Recognizing the economic success of Capitalism but failing to mention the cause, the implied meaning of this sentiment accepts the false premise that men’s lives belong to society — denoting man as a slave to “public good” by mandating the confiscation of property and thus confiscating his individual rights. Seeing money as the means to happiness and conceiving financial attainment, divorced from the meaningful work that acquired it, as the answer to all troubles. The justification can appear moral out of context but the means of implementation is by human lives. Carefully notice, “when the ‘public good’ of a society is regarded as something apart from and superior to the individual good of its members, it means that the good of some men takes precedence over the good of others, with those others consigned to the status of sacrificial animals. [Rand, 1965, p. 13].” Absolute public good cannot be attained until all members are equal in status, money, and misery. The “public good” is an unreachable destination traveled along the road to tyranny — crying that slogan out in triumph as “the public” marches towards the mirage of their promise-land until the malnourished are goaded by the muzzle of a gun to continue feebly sulking forward to their destruction.
The establishment that demands those to accept and act according to false premises results in internal psychological inconsistency in the abiding. Leaving man incapable to perceive reality accurately by disarming him of his only means of survival: his rational mind. Capitalism’s success is unconcerned with pontifical economic theory, its only interest is allowing man the freedom to act in accordance to his nature. The success of the former is caused by the latter. The moral justification of capitalism isn’t an undefinable platitude, the moral justification is a philosophical objective view of values: man’s right to pursue his own good.
Philosophy holds the power to change, evolve, or destroy a country — it’s an idea that manifests itself into reality by the actions of man. Francisco d’Aconia, John Galt, and Ragnar Danneskjöld fought for the ideas of a free society that recognizes the indispensable principle of individual rights. They were on strike against martyrdom and the moral code that demanded it. They were on strike against those who believe that one man must exist for the sake of another. They did not deal with men on any terms but their own — and their terms are a moral code which holds that man is an end in himself and not the means to any end of others. America can become Atlantis, but first individuals must define their philosophy, check their premises, and take the oath: “I swear by my life and love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine” (Rand, 1957, p. 671).
References:
Rand, A. (1957). Atlas Shrugged. New York, NY: Signet.
Branden, N. (1963). The Devine Right of Stagnation. In The Virtue of Selfishness(pp. 141–146). New York, NY: Signet.
Rand, A. (1963). Man’s Rights. In The Virtue of Selfishness(pp. 108–117). New York, NY: Signet.
Rand, A. (1965). What Is Capitalism?. In Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal(pp. 1–29). New York, NY: Signet.
Thanks for reading, let me know your thoughts!
