On Atlas Shrugged
Equality is fundamentally incompatible with freedom
Apparently, it is considered by many a sign of proper understanding how the world actually works to be highly sceptical of Ayn Rand’s ideas expressed in Atlas Shrugged. You are supposed to be infatuated in high school by the book but naturally your enthusiasm for Atlas Shrugged must wear off as soon as you realise that her ideas on money, work and private property are utopian at best and dystopian at worst.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs – John Rogers, cited by Paul Krugman
I read Atlas Shrugged somewhat late, when I was 29. After I turned over the last page, I started thinking why so many people not only disagree with it, but passionately hate Ayn Rand’s ideas. It’s rare to find a person who can argue against Atlas Shrugged’s ideas without sliding into some kind of an emotion-driven sarcastic argument. This alone made me very interested in her work because many good ideas were laughed at and dismissed before becoming commonly accepted.
It may be possible that the reason so many vehemently disagree with Atlas Shrugged is that they really don’t want the ideas expressed by Ayn Rand to be true.
The statements that make people mad are the ones they worry might be believed. I suspect the statements that make people maddest are those they worry might be true. – Paul Graham
An easy way to attack Atlas Shrugged is to point out that the world described by Ayn Rand couldn’t possibly be real. The society described in Atlas Shrugged is grossly oversimplified. The country needs more than just businessmen. Not everyone can be an infallible hero like John Galt. Compassion and irrational feelings that have no place in Atlas Shrugged do exist in real world. Income taxing does not have to be seen as a robbery.
However, such critique misses the point. It would be equally naive to criticise The Little Prince for describing the world where people have planets of their own. What matters is the ideas discussed in the book. It’s not a blueprint for a building a society.
While Atlas Shrugged isn’t known for its brevity, there are only a few simple ideas reiterated through the book. Firstly, Ayn Rand advocates the supremacy of reason over irrational beliefs. Secondly, she argues in favour of a highly individualistic moral code based on the ultimate respect for personal property and personal freedom. Finally, this moral code compels the individual to fully realise their potential. All other ideas in the book – the minimal state, happiness as the highest moral purpose, etc – have roots in these three.
This highly individualistic moral code seems to attracts the lion’s share of criticism. The reason for this, it seems, is that ultimate respect for freedom and personal property naturally leads to inequality that many people would prefer not to exist.
Freedom and equality are antonyms. The world as we know it is inherently unequal. The evolution and natural selection only exist because the species are free to compete to determine who lives and who dies. Wishing for the world to be more equal inevitably means compromising on someone’s freedom and on the progress.
It is customary in the modern society to pretend that people are more equal than they actually are. It’s tactless to boast about one’s talents or fortune. It’s commendable to engage in charitable activities. Inequality in our society is considered to be a bad thing. Discrimination of almost any kind is not tolerated. Countries with high inequality are bad. Countries with low inequality are good.
However, not only does inequality objectively exist, it actually grows as civilisation develops. Technological progress multiplies inequalities.
Every invention or discovery is made or seized by the exceptional individual, and makes the strong stronger, the weak relatively weaker, than before. – The Lessons of History by Will & Ariel Durant
The harsh reality is that in order for the world to be more equal than it would naturally be, some freedoms must be limited. It’s impossible to have a free and equal society. Some people will inevitably suffer. In a system favouring freedom, e.g. a laissez-faire capitalism in England and America 150 years ago, the weak are heavily exploited by the strong. In a system favouring equality, e.g. the Soviet Union, the strong are heavily exploited by the weak, represented by the state.
The obvious problem with restricting freedom is limiting the economic output of society. Atlas Shrugged merely illustrates this by showing how a fictional society collapses when freedom is restricted.
This may be the inconvenient truth that many would like not to exist. Because it’s so inconvenient and because it’s true, it makes many angry. Wouldn’t it be wonderful to live in a world abundant with products and services with very little inequality, with every person employed, happy and well-fed, while at the same time allowing talented and hard-working individuals to achieve their full economic potential?
Most of us want a society that is free, genuinely meritocratic, absent egregious social strife and inequality (for basic Rawlsian reasons), with just laws and a representative government and opportunities to develop one’s talents and interests without too much interference. – Nicholas McGinnis
Unfortunately, the best we can hope for is a careful balance of force of law and affordability of education.
Not only is Atlas Shrugged a very divisive book, it’s also often misunderstood. For example, this quote by Jonathan Kim from The Huffington Post sums up the opinions of many.
Atlas Shrugged is the founding text that brings us the revolutionary, inspiring ideas that helping people is dumb, poor people are goblin leeches, corporations are always right, and fabulously wealthy CEOs are the smartest, hardest working, most awesome people in the world – The Huffington Post
This interpretation of Atlas Shrugged is simply incorrect. For example, there is nothing in the book to suggest that helping people is dumb. Quite the contrary:
Do you ask if it’s ever proper to help another man? No — if he claims it as his right or as a moral duty that you owe him. Yes — if such is your own desire based on your own selfish pleasure in the value of his person and his struggle. – Speech of John Galt, Ayn Rand, “Atlas Shrugged”
In other words, there’s nothing wrong with helping other people, as long this help is purely voluntary.
There are many more examples of common misunderstandings of the book but a more interesting question is why many see Atlas Shrugged this way.
I believe the explanation may lie in the desire to oversimplify the book to avoid discussing a more interesting but a much harder question of the link between freedom and equality. Gross oversimplification, reducing a philosopher’s seminal work to a mere juxtaposition of “most awesome people in the world” and “goblin leeches”, makes it much easier to afford to not to take Atlas Shrugged more seriously, as I believe, it deserves.
