Since the unveiling of my "Capitalist Column," a number of anticapitalist and anti-Objectivist columns have appeared in The Dartmouth. These columns have included Andrew Boldt's "Yay, Capitalism!" [Oct. 7], and Emmett Hogan's "In Defense of Capitalism" [Oct. 9]. The first, Boldt's column, is a rather straightforward critique of Objectivism (the philosophy of Ayn Rand), while the second, by Hogan, is a rather cowardly piece, which pulls the old "But Brutus is an honorable man" trick on capitalism and myself.
While the styles differ, the method remains the same: to set up a straw man and then knock it down. Objectivism and capitalism are, in their true forms, logically sound. As Boldt and Hogan have obviously realized, the only way to "refute" a logically sound argument is to twist and misrepresent that argument and then denounce it. This "intellectual fraud" can only be an attempt to prevent you, the readers, from discovering what its perpetrators already know. One should question the motives of such men.
For my own selfish benefit, and for that of the reader, I will dedicate two columns to discrediting reason's assailants. In this first part, I will undertake the dissection of Boldt's article. Having torched his straw men, I will then do the same with Hogan's in part two, which, due to space constraints, will appear in a later issue.
"Yay, Capitalism!" makes several erroneous claims about Objectivism. Several of them are in the first paragraph, as Boldt's "take" on Objectivism. Contrary to his interpretation, Objectivism does not hold reality to be "what you see" -- if that were the case, a blind man would have no reality. Reality exists, independent of one's wishes or perception of it. Reality does not go away if one refuses to see it, nor can one change reality by the use of mind-altering drugs. All one can do is to perceive reality to the best of one's ability. That's where logic and reason come in, as the crucial link between oneself and reality.
Boldt also distorts the Objectivist ethics of rational egoism or "selfishness." Objectivism states that each man's life is an end in itself, and that the pursuit of his happiness is his highest moral purpose in life. To survive and achieve his own happiness, each man must act in his own rational self-interest. This selfishness does not mean, as Boldt frequently implies, that man should be an unthinking brute stepping on others to gratify his immediate desires. Rather, he must make his decisions in the context of a life time (something the animals cannot do): he must never allow his short-term goals to make his long-term goals impossible. To put it another way, "you can't eat your cake today, and have it tomorrow." In this sense, the men Boldt holds up as the models of selfishness -- businessmen who "hoarded" their profits instead of reinvesting them back into the market -- where not selfish, merely short-sighted.
Boldt further implies that it is selfish to violate others' rights, and that selfishness and capitalism (in which individual rights are respected) are therefore incompatible. However, it is never in one's self-interest to violate another's rights (with the exception of self-defense, in which one is protecting one's rights). One only retains the right to life, liberty, property and the pursuit of happiness as long as one respects these rights in others. If one deals with others by force, one can expect the same treatment.
The Objectivist theory of government, capitalism, is yet another target of Boldt's assault, as well as of Hogan's. Boldt claims that Objectivists whine about social programs but turn a blind eye to government "aid" to business: "Graft, subsidies, antitrust laws -- are these not also opposed to the principles of Objectivism?" Yes, they are. Objectivism opposes all government intervention in the economy.
"Objectivists believe," Boldt wrote, "that everyone is entitled to a happy rational life." Actually, this is the opposite of what Objectivists believe. Nobody has a right to happiness (although welfare statists and communists might argue otherwise). We are not living in the "Land of Cockaigne," in which pastries fall into men's mouths, and no work is required for the gratification of one's desires. Capitalism does not guarantee happiness -- no system can do that -- but it gives man the freedom to pursue it. Under capitalism, the worst of men will be held back by nothing more than incompetence. Under communism and (to some extent) under America's mixed economy, the best of men is held back by the government, because he is competent.
Boldt writes that capitalism is "unfair." He tells a heartbreaking -- and fallacious -- tale of an impoverished but bright girl who would have no chance for happiness, while some "snot-nosed" rich kids would have life handed to them on a "silver platter." He adds that "it is nearly impossible to pull oneself up by one's bootstraps when one has no boots to begin with." And yet, the only bootstraps anyone needs are his mind, and his ability to use it. Surely Boldt cannot think the poor are born without minds?
Under capitalism, if this poor girl were really as bright as Boldt claims, she could win a scholarship to a good private school and would not have to attend a third-rate public school. Moreover, if her father did not have to pay public school tax, he might very well be able to afford a decent private school. In the worst case scenario, she would have to work her way up the career ladder, and would not be able to get the job she wanted fresh out of college -- God forbid! She would find happiness; it would just take a little longer.
The "dim-witted, snot-nosed" rich kids, on the other hand, would not live a very happy life under capitalism. Without the government to grant them tax exemptions while taxing the hell out of their rising middle-class competitors, these aristocrats would have to work to stay on top. If unable to do so, they would end up working at McDonald's, beside the poor girl's father, as they deserve. That's justice -- that's capitalism.
