Ayn Rand and Objectivism (continued)
To Lenin, such concepts as: “right and wrong;” “justice and injustice;” “morality and immorality” were mere quaint and idealistic bourgeois platitudes having no basis in reality. The man was ice-cold and did not, for example, order the butchering of not only the erstwhile Tsar, but his entire innocent family as well, out of some simmering thirst for vengeance over the execution of his older brother as a revolutionary by Tsarist officials as some have tried to reason. (In fact, his brother and he could never stand each other.) He ordered the murders strictly as a purely intellectual, calculated political move. (The actual reason is beyond the scope of this note.) Stalin, his eventual successor, was a man of the exact same ilk, and countless millions died and suffered as a result.
If there is no Creator and divine lawgiver, then to whom or what do folks like Rand appeal to as a basis for the “morality” they assert in defense of their libertarian philosophy? They base it on “humanism?” What is humanism but an illusory, non-sequitur of a pseudo-religion? Humans are such impotent creatures. We have no power to save one another from the grave, and no physician, however skilled, has ever been able to grant any patient anything more than a stay of execution. If in reality I am physically stronger than you, or have a transient physical advantage over you, I can take from you what you have and I want. That’s “wrong?” If so, only because you and others have decided such—not me.
Ah, but you have the “majesty of the law” and the police on your side! The police and army will only take orders from your “law” and protect you as long as it in their interest to do so. When the revolution comes, they will abandon you to your fate. How many throughout history have discovered this brutal fact too late?
Unrestrained capitalism will produce the greatest output of material wealth of any economic system we know of. I do not deny that. But don’t expect the masses of the "great unwashed" to passively accept a system that condemns them to a vastly inferior position by virtue of their natural condition and traits. If at all possible to do otherwise, never play the other man’s game. That’s the true humanism. That’s reality.
As for me, with increasing age I have come to the conclusion—whether I “like” it or not—that life (and politics) is compromise, and in most cases, whatever “truth” there might be usually lies somewhere in the middle.
Click for next miscellaneous item: