The problem with Objectivism

Mark has asked me my opinions on the philosophy of Ayn Rand, i.e. Objectivism, and also for an explanation of my statement, "We are at the beginning of a new era of humanity. It is one which links us to all others, and makes a nonsense of internally consistent but externally incompatible belief systems."

I'll start off with my opinion on Objectivism. 

A disclaimer: not having enough of a Sunday afternoon to write a 1000 page philosophical treatment, I am treating Rand in a hugely simplified manner. 

Firstly, the idea that the universe exists in some kind of static, "true" sense; a logocentric "1", is extremely tenuous to begin with. To be pedantic, the exact nature of the universe is not directly measurable. On the very most basic scales of reality, one can only know the momentum or the location of a particle; not both simultaneously. Less pedantically, the conceit that the universe provably exists outside of the mind of obviously always going to be unsubstantiated and, with regards to our own selves, not actually wholly relevant. Whether we are only in our own solipsistic universe, a computer simulation, a divine creation or a mindless, infinite extent of matter and energy, no appreciable effect is had on the concepts of useful, admirable or even just normative behaviour. Finally, the idea that reality and the human mind exist discretely is observably untrue. Whilst, yes, our minds cannot blot out the stars or move the continents, they most certainly drive the environment within which we live, and willful ignorance of this is irresponsible to the point of inhumanity.

Perhaps all that is irrelevant.

What I truly take issue is is the concept of a prescriptive moral code for individual success. This is the central tenet of many religions and political/economic (the three can be readily conflated) systems and it remains fundamentally short sighted and unethical. Now let me make myself clear here: Violating the rights of fellow human beings is unacceptable. Removing the right to action, choice or life are abhorrent behavioral patterns. This does not, however, mean that individual rights trump everything else. Rand believed that a system of unrestricted capitalism was the ultimate expression of the preservation of individual rights. This is an astoundingly naive extrapolation which speaks more or her pathology than it does her philosophy. Capitalism demonstrably and repeatedly removes individual rights from the populace as it seeks to remove competition. I cannot overstate this point: capitalism is the un-systematic removal of competition over time. Human rights are competition to the rights of capital. The point that "well yes, so those capitalists are actually acting in a way that Rand would disagree with" only shows the fallacy of her stance. Capitalism is not practicable without this destruction of the rights of the less able. The idea that people can just magic up opportunity and enter into this corruptible golden city of unfettered individualism is facile; an insulting denial of the world created when individual power is abused as an inevitable outcome of unrestricted personal growth. That this is not a truth universally observed speaks only of the power of propaganda and its used-car salesman cousin, advertising.

Another point which needs emphasising: socialism is not the alternative. There is no alternative. There is no perfect politics. There is no ideal human arrangement. The striving for such a state is admirable but must always be misguided as we are, as a species, simply running an indefinite experiment with forever altering base-values. Rand sees capitalism as the state to which a civilisation should aspire to meet the needs of its individuals. Europe of a thousand years ago saw fundamental Christianity in the same light. The path to personal enlightenment is always sold by a serious salesman who first creates the image of a prophet, then a destiny. The most important invention is always a past.

Competitive capitalists are not prophets, nor are their pet politicians. Destiny is not personal wealth and happiness; these are merely side-effects. The past is proof that the universe can exist as a manifestation of both itself and of the human mind.

I'm aware that that was a reaction rather than an alternative, but hopefully I will be able to make my own views clear in time.

With regards to the statement, "We are at the beginning of a new era of humanity. It is one which links us to all others, and makes a nonsense of internally consistent but externally incompatible belief systems."

Simply put, I have faith that time and cooperation will bring forth certain methods of interacting which encourage and nourish all of humanity and I think the communications and transport technologies developed in the last century or so will be central to this process. In earnest, I think the twentieth and twenty-first centuries will be seen forever as the point at which human kind developed self-referential perception; the kind which, in nascent forms, has seen an increasingly peaceful, inclusive and altruistic wave of social change sweep through civilisations over the past few hundred years. We are in the midst of a new, technological enlightenment, constructing a mirror for ourselves. How long it will take to assimilate the whole image is a question for historians hundreds, perhaps thousands of years hence, and for philosophers forever after that.