I would now like to pull what I felt was the important part of Anthem and open this up for some political and philosophical discussion. I think the smart thing for me to do is to simply transcribe it to the blog so everyone is on the same page. Frankly, this is the only really important part of the book in my opinion which you probably already know if you read my critique in my previous entry. Here goes:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Whatever road I take, the guiding star is within me; the guiding star and the loadstone which point the way. They point in but one direction. They point to me.
I know not if this earth on which I stand is the core of the universe or if it is but a speck of dust lost in eternity. I know not and I care not. For I know what happiness is possible to me on earth. And my happiness needs no higher aim to vindicate it. My happiness is not the means to any end. It is the end. It is its own goal. It is its own purpose.
Neither am I the means to any end others may wish to accomplish. I am not a tool for their use. I am not a servant of their needs. I am not a bandage for their wounds. I am not a sacrifice on their altars.
I am a man. This miracle of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine to kneel before!
I do not surrender my treasures, nor do I share them. The fortune of my spirit is not to be blown into coins of brass and flung to the winds as alms for the poor of spirit. I guard my treasures: my thought, my will, my freedom. And the greatest of these is freedom.
I owe nothing to my brothers, nor do I gather debts from them. I ask none to live for me, nor do I live for any others. I covet no man's soul, nor is my soul theirs to covet.
I am neither foe nor friend to my brothers, but such as each of them shall deserve of me. And to earn my love, my brothers must do more than to have been born. I do not grant my love without reason, nor to any chance passer-by who may wish to claim it. I honor men with my love. But honor is a thing to be earned.
I shall choose my friends among men, but neither slaves nor masters. And I shall choose only such as please me, and them I shall love and respect, but neither command nor obey. And we shall join our hands when we wish, or walk alone when we so desire. For in the temple of his spirit, each man is alone. Let each man keep his temple untouched and undefiled. Then let him join hands with others if he wishes, but only beyond his holy threshold.
For the word "We" must never be spoken, save by one's choice and as a second thought. This work must never be placed first within man's soul, else it becomes a monster, the root of all the evils on earth, the root of man's torture by men, and of an unspeakable lie.
The word "We" is as lime poured over men, which sets and hardens to stone, and crushes all beneath it, and that which is white and that which is black are lost equally in the grey of it. It is the word by which the depraved steal the virtue of the good, by which the weak steal the might of the strong, by which the fools steal the wisdom of the sages.
What is my joy if all hands, even the unclean, can reach into it? What is my wisdom, if even the fools can dictate to me? What is my freedom, if all creatures, even the botched and the impotent, are my master? What is my life, if I am but to bow, to agree and to obey?
But I am done with this creed of corruption.
I am done with the monster of "We," the word of serfdom, of plunder, of misery, falsehood and shame.
And now I see the face of god, and I raise this god over the earth, this god whom men have sought since men came into being, this god who will grant them joy and peace and pride.
This god, this one word:
"I."
------------------------------------------------------------------
So the natural question that spawns from this is, "How much responsibility do we bear for those less fortunate than ourselves?" I say that the only civil answer beyond our immediate circle of family and close friends is as little as possible.
I will make an analogy where the human race is a heard of zebras and the challenges of life are a pride of lions. I challenge you with this question. Is it not at least equally morally reprehensible for the slow zebra to expect the fast one to delay or halt his escape to come to his aid as it is for the fast zebra to refuse his aid? Is it not morally corrupt for the slow zebra to refuse to condition himself for the inevitable chase then to have the audacity to request aid in his getaway? Even a mother zebra will only aid and protect her young so much as they are able to help themselves. In the zebra world, it is every zebra for himself. This preserves the species and ensures that the strongest, fastest zebras run in the front of the heard in order to lead the other zebras to safety, food and drink. It is the responsibility of all zebras to maintain this pace or perish, for if the best zebras are not in the front of the pack, but instead burdened by the slow and lazy, their talents are wasted. The whole herd is now vulnerable to attack.
Well, the argument that you will hear is, of course, that humans beings are not animals. We are above that way of thinking. We are better than that. While it is nice to think so, it just isn't true. That is either the cry of the burdensome or of one whose superior talent, motivation or resources are not being stolen and cast into the abyss of that which is often called social justice or the greater good. It is incomprehensibly naive to think that the world is not a fiercely competitive place be it nation versus nation, person versus person or any other way you choose to divide the teams. This greater good is only good for those who are foolish enough to ignore this fundamental fact of life and take the necessary measures for survival in such an environment. It has become morally acceptable, and in many instances laudable, to steal from one for the benefit of another whose merit I personally call into question. This theft is known also by the kitschier name of Socialism.
Socialism and all entitlement programs thrive on the jealousy of the common masses. It instills the belief that everybody deserves to have what the richer of us have. If you read the comments posted after any given Yahoo! News article that mentions the economy, you will see that they are deluged with comments by those demanding that businesses and the wealthy and the politicians give up their exhorbitant paychecks for the greater good. Let's be honest about what jealousy really is. Jealousy or the hatred of others based on what they possess, be it wealth, beauty, intelligence, talent, etc., is nothing more than a hatred of our own inadequacies. Socialism wants you to feel inadequate. It wants you to hate the wealth and talents of others. This is the only way which Socialism will exist.
So Socialism throws around these romantic ideas of equality. Everyone has everything that they need provided by resources to which everybody works very hard to contribute, right? The unaccounted for variable here is human nature. I have worked for the state for five years and I know that people who are in an environment where their ceiling for achievement is limited, but their base security is guaranteed are not motivated contibutors. If the end result of a person's efforts is always equality among all, his motivation is no longer to succeed, but rather to do no more than the person next to him. So I ask of Socialism, how successful will your herd of zebras be with this kind of mentality?
Now back to the Anthem. The ideology in this book specifically, and of Ayn Rand in general, I find to be very liberating. I feel it is ultimately hardwired into the human brain to be selfish. Despite many selfless heroic acts and examples seemingly to the contrary, if we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that the human being is a very selfish beast. Rand applauds the natural state of this selfishness and goes as far as to assert that it is our duty to be selfish. Our selfishness, pride and pursuit of our own happiness results in our not being a burden on our fellow man. It is in fact, very unselfish for us to be more selfish. A parent who is too preoccupied with meeting the needs of the rest of the family without considering his or her own well being is ultimately bringing a lesser piece to the family puzzle. A healthier, wealthier, more attractive, happier mother or father/husband or wife will always result in a mother or father/husband or wife that is even more capable of meeting his or her family's needs.
I can only imagine how empowering it would feel to stand on a mountaintop and read aloud the pages that I copied into this blog. The empowerment of the individual makes one well up with the human spirit. This is why capitalism is the true economic system of the proud, the rebellious, the spirited and the individualistic. Capitalism is the system which favors those who defiantly declare, "Yes I can." You are not being rebellious by declaring yourself a socialist. You are, in fact, declaring yourself a coward and a conformist. Pseudo-intellectuals love to wax poetic about the merits and civility of Socialism and in doing so, unwittingly declare themselves and their fellow man to be weak, common, incapable, dumb, average, insignificant, sheepish, etc. Any man who will look upon you and try to explain why Socialism is a great idea is doing nothing short of insulting your abilities to your face.
Blogger's final thoughts:
I know as soon as I finished the passage from Anthem, I went into more of a stream of consciousness rant than a discussion of the passage itself, but as I sit here I am satisfied that I have captured the essence of what it said to me which, in its own way is also a commentary on the passage. Besides, that is why these blogs are open to comments by the reader and in cases like this, I don't even believe it becomes interesting until I start to hear what others have to say.
Counterpoint.
ReplyDeleteIn reading your last couple of posts it was pretty easy to glean your position on the merit, or relative lack thereof, of providing any type of social safety net for those less fortunate in society. I agree with many of your conclusions. Passively receiving assistance from others is demeaning on a fundamental level, and what some would deem “support” I might call the perpetuation of hopelessness for a good many people in this country. It is also evident that minorities have been too long the unwitting political pawns of both parties, cast either as the dim-witted yet reliable voter for the left or the galvanizing enemy of the right, symbolizing the threat needed to motivate their base into maintaining the status quo through another election cycle.
Delving further into your analysis of Anthem, you seem to be declaring that “every man for himself” is the most pure expression of the ideal state (or almost every man for himself). You also freely equate the ideals of socialism with the ideals of equality, which I suppose is philosophically correct, but frankly is an overly academic viewpoint that ignores an important element of the equation which is self-interest. What I mean is, in many circumstances providing for others is vitally important to my own well-being. Let me explain.
Public health is a lay-up, so I’ll take it first. Vaccinating impoverished children prevents disease among all children, including my own financially lucky children for whom access to health care is a given. A significant percentage of crimes are committed by mentally ill individuals living without appropriate and effective care, so the provision of mental health services has a protective effect on society, perhaps sparing me the trauma of being victimized by a deranged individual. Free clinics prevent, diagnose and treat venereal diseases, potentially sparing me from contracting gonorrhea from someone with 3 degrees of sexual separation from my cushy lifestyle and regular, paid-in-full gynecologic care. Moving past public health though, there are other areas of equal import such as economically motivated crime. I don’t want to be robbed so a parent can buy baby formula…I find it far less traumatic to just write the check. And frankly I suspect the cost of paying for someone’s incarceration far exceeds the cost of their food stamps, so one could conclude that it is simply more cost-effective to provide support in the first place.
The bottom line is this. You say that Rand’s premise, distilled down, is that we have a duty to be selfish. I might say it differently, and say that we are all basically selfish, even when we attempt to masquerade as benevolent. Providing for others is at its core about ensuring that my own family has a safe and pleasant community in which to live. If we have a duty to be selfish, then I would say the current system accomplishes that in spades.
And a very good counterpoint at that. I still stand strong that I will not be supportive of bad choices and bad behavior, especially not out of fear. In a very roundabout way, that equates to extortion.
ReplyDeleteI think that history has shown there to be many, many great acts of philanthropy and if I were in a position to do such great works, would not be inclined to do so if an already ridiculous percentage of my wealth was being squandered to foster such behavior. I imagine that in many cases, there is as much bitterness from the top down socially as from the bottom up. So instead of money being donated and having a direct effect on the less fortunate as in the days of, say Andrew Carnegie, it is involuntarily donated in the form of taxes which do more to fund a cancerous government bureaucracy than to truly help anybody.
Now, there are some problems with Rand's philosophy, for sure. To my knowledge, she never addressed such areas where government intervention can actually serve to grease the wheels of capitalism. I point to anti-trust laws. I support government being a referee in the game of life to enable healthy competition, but not to act as a head coach barking orders. Competition is the sacred counterbalance to capitalistic greed and that delicate balance must be maintained by a strong, neutral, objective force-the government.
A real problem with modern conservatism and is, beginning with Richard Nixon, it took on a much more pronounced Christian tone. This, I think, lies in direct conflict with true economic conservativism. If anything, conservatives should be embracing draconian amorality to better align themselves with their fiscal viewpoint. This means, that when confronted with the question of what should be done to help impoverished pregnant women, their response should be, "I will fund adoption or abortion, but I am NOT helping her pay to deliver it and I am NOT helping pay to raise it once it is born." That is the fiscally sensible compromise in that situation.
Finally, I will say that you are dead on right about how altruism often has selfish motives. I would venture to say that 99% of all acts of charity outside of our immediate circle of concern is done with some degree of selfishness. When a guy's wife dies of breast cancer, he doesn't start an AIDS charity, does he? There is a small element of "Oh woe is me" involved.
So ultimately, I see your point that you are arguing that you are damned if you do, or you are damned if you don't, but we appear to be at a tipping point with our nations economy where we are in danger of becoming economically stagnant unless we streamline our operation and get back down to our fighting weight. There are some up and coming fighters out there in the name of China and India and this is much different than the Japanese paranoia of the 70s and 80s. These countries are actually bigger than us and have more resources where Japan was handcuffed by a limited population and very limited resources.
Okay, this is starting to steer a bit too far off topic, so I will end it here.