Reference no: EM131915913

Question: Man's Rights: Ayn Rand

If one wishes to advocate a free society-that is, capitalism- one must realize that its indispensable foundation is the principle of individual rights. If one wishes to uphold individual rights, one must realize that capitalism is the only system that can uphold and protect them.

Every political system is based on some code of ethics. The dominant ethics of mankind's history were variants of the altruist-collectivist doctrine which subordinated the individual to some higher authority.

Under all such systems, morality was a code applicable to the individual, but not to society. Society was placed outside the moral law, and the inculcation of self-sacrificial devotion to social duty was regarded as the main purpose of ethics in man's earthly existence.

Since there is no such entity as "society," since society is only a number of individual men, this meant, in practice, that the rulers of society were exempt from moral law; subject only to traditional rituals, they held total power and exacted blind obedience-on the implicit principle of "The good is that which is good for society. " This was true of all statist systems, under all variants of the altruist-collectivist ethics. As witness: the theocracy of Egypt, with the Pharaoh as an embodied god-the unlimited majority rule or democracy of Athens-the welfare state run by the Emperors of Rome-the Inquisition of the late Middle Ages-the absolute monarchy of France-the welfare state of Bismarck's Prussia-the gas chambers of Nazi Germany-the slaughterhouse of the Soviet Union. All these political systems were expressions of the altruist collectivist ethics-and their common characteristic is the fact that society stood above the moral law. Thus, politically, all these systems were variants of an amoral society. The most profoundly revolutionary achievement of the United States of America was the subordination of society to moral law. The principle of man's individual rights represented the extension of morality into the social system-as a limitation on the power of the state.

The United States was the first moral society in history. All previous systems had regarded man as a sacrificial means to the ends of others, and society as an end in itself. The United States regarded man as an end in himself, and society as a means to the peaceful, orderly, voluntary coexistence of individuals. All previous systems had held that man's life belongs to society, that society can dispose of him in any way it pleases, and that any freedom he enjoys is his only by favor, by the permission of society, which may be revoked at any time. The United States held that man's life is his by right, that a right is the property of an individual, that society as such has no rights, and that the only moral purpose of a government is the protection of individual rights. A "right" is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man's right to his own life . . . America's inner contradiction was the altruist-collectivist ethics. Altruism is incompatible with freedom, with capitalism, and with individual rights . . . It was the concept of individual rights that had given birth to a free society. It was with the destruction of individual rights that the destruction of freedom had to begin. A collectivist tyranny dare not enslave a country by an outright confiscation of its values, material or moral. It has to be done by a process of internal corruption. . . . The process entails such a growth of newly promulgated "rights" that people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is being reversed . . .

The Democratic Party platform of 1960 summarizes the switch boldly and explicitly. It declares that a democratic administration "will reaffirm the economic bill of rights which Franklin Roosevelt wrote into our national conscience 16 years ago." Bear clearly in mind the meaning of the concept of rights when you read the list which that platform offers:

1. The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation. 2. The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation.

3. The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living.

4. The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home and abroad.

5. The right of every family to a decent home.

6. The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health.

7. The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accidents, and unemployment.

8. The right to a good education.

A single question added to each of the above eight clauses would make the issue clear: At whose expense? Jobs, food, clothing, recreation (!), homes, medical care, education, etc. do not grow in nature. These are man-made values-goods and services produced by men. Who is to provide them?

If some men are entitled by right to the products of the work of others, it means that those others are deprived of rights and condemned to slave labor.

Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness-not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy . . . Property rights and the right of free trade are man's only "economic rights" (they are, in fact, political rights)-and there can be no such thing as "an economic bill of rights." . . . And while people are clamoring about "economic rights," the concept of political rights is vanishing . . . Such is the state of one of today's most crucial issues: political rights versus "economic rights." It's either-or. One destroys the other. But there are, in fact, no "economic rights," no "collective rights," no "public-interest rights." The term individual rights is a redundancy: there is no other kind of rights and no one else to possess them. Those who advocate laissez-faire capitalism are the only advocates of man's rights.

Source: From The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand. Copyright © 1961, 1964 by Ayn Rand. Copyright, © 1962, 1963, 1964 by the Objectivist Newsletter, Inc. Reprinted by arrangement with New American Library, New York, New York, and with permission of the Estate of Ayn Rand. [For more information about Ayn Rand and objectivism, see https://www.aynrand.org]

Questions

1. a. Columnist E. J. Dionne Jr. recently examined the question, "Why are there no libertarian countries?" (countries operated on free market/personal freedom principles like those advocated by Ayn Rand). Answer his question.

b. Of all the nations of the world, does the United States enjoy the greatest level of economic freedom? Explain. [See the Index of Economic Freedom at www. heritage .org/index/]

2. a. Sandy Banks, writing in the Los Angeles Times: The boys' faces brightened when they got to the front of the line. We're next! They'd been waiting to say it. But their smiles faded when another family was ushered in from the sidelines and slid into "their" Legoland ride. We'd been waylaid by the Premium Play Pass, Legoland's wristband version of the front-of-the-line pass.26

Banks asked her readers what they thought of the fairness of paying to jump to the front of the line. Some said it was no different than flying first class or choosing to drive on a toll road. One thought the kids received a good lesson in the competitiveness of capitalism. Legoland, in Carlsbad, California, said they sell only about 65 of the Premium Play wristbands daily, but those who buy them value the time saved. What do you think of the fairness of paying to jump to the head of the line at amusement parks?

b. Do you think that drivers who pay more should be entitled to drive in a faster lane? Explain.27

c. Addressing his state's budget problems, 2010 candidate for Nevada governor, Eugene Di Simone, proposed allowing people to pay extra to drive up to 90 miles per hour on designated highways.28 What do you think?

3. Elementary schools often ban tag, dodge ball, touch football, kickball, and other vigorous games from the playgrounds. One school banned touching altogether. Administrators fear physical injuries, reduced self-esteem, and lawsuits. As the Los Angeles Times editorialized, "It's hard sometimes to tell whether schools are graduating students or growing orchids."29 Ayn Rand argued for reduced rules in life, thus relying on the market to address virtually all problems.

a. From Rand's free market point of view, explain why we should reduce playground rules as much as possible, even at the risk of children being hurt.

b. Would you follow the rules approach or Rand's free market approach in managing a playground? Explain.