Rand Redux (Blog #26 11/26/08)

My response to a post from an Ayn Rand website has drawn a lot of attention from several people who are either Ayn Rand followers or who at least share similar views about the world you can see the comments here). I suppose it was inevitable that the conversation turned to “you choose to believe in God, something you can’t see or prove, and I choose not to believe in something that has no basis in reality:” That’s an argument that I’ve always tried to stay away from. I know there are hard-core non-believers who have come to know and believe in God. I’m not sure I’m a powerful enough witness with my words. I do strongly believe the verse that says “they shall know us by our acts” and so I do try to have my beliefs reflected through my daily living. I fall short all the time, but I do try. Perhaps my examples may start a process of coming to God for someone down the road.


But that aside, there are issues here on earth that need our attention and that was the reason for my post. Too often the word “rational” or “atheist” is overlaid with this disagreeable notion that being one of those precludes a person from having a generous or charitable spirit. Of course there are hundreds upon thousands of things done every day that change the lives of people all over the world. Many of these acts are done by people who do not believe in God.


Obviously, I am not a follower of Ayn Rand and to claim I know much about her in any depth just because I read a few articles or one of her books would be a gross misstatement. However, there were a few points that stood out that were hard to accept. The first was “What is today’s version of the “bountiful harvest”? It’s the affluence and success we’ve gained. It’s the cars, houses and vacations we enjoy. It’s the life-saving medicines we rely on, the stock portfolios we build, the beautiful clothes we buy and the safe, clean streets we live on. It’s the good life.

How did we get this “bountiful harvest”? Ask any hard-working American; it sure wasn’t by the “grace of God.” It didn’t grow on a fabled “money tree.” We created it by working hard, by desiring the best money can buy and by wanting excellence for ourselves and our loved ones."

I don’t think it’s only Christians or other people of faith who would disagree with that. I have friends who have been subscribing to that idea for years and they feel empty. They feel like there’s something missing in a world where their bank accounts are full, their children are healthy and attend great schools and lots of activities, whose clothes are nice, and who vacation well. The most recent stock market and economy mess has shown that these measures of “bounty” are transient. If people who had those things last year don’t have them today, is it because of a lack of hard work? Is it because they didn’t desire the best or want excellence? Or are there capricious things beyond all of our control that can take all of that away from us in a heartbeat? The comment also ignores the level of privilege that so many of us live with and don’t even realize—the ability to go to college, the ability to see the world through experiences where your efforts have been shaped, supported, and reinforced from a young age. For myself, I was raised to expect to go to college. My early experiences shaped my belief that I can accomplish certain things, that I can persevere, that I can achieve. My parents provided the resources for my education. All those indefinable things have contributed to my place in life today. Contrast that with individuals and groups who have never had the opportunity to hear those messages. We are all impressed when we hear of gang members graduating from college, or an immigrant who achieves remarkable success against great hardships. Isn’t that because we recognize that there is something different about that one person who has overcome those odds? It seems that there should also be a recognition that because we celebrate that one person, we recognize that those skills are not present (or easily present) in most everyone else.


There is a movement among the baby boomer generation of search for meaning. For these men and women, they’ve done all of that acquisition of bounty and are searching for something else. In working for Peace House Foundation, I can attest to the number of people searching for significance by looking to help others. The references I made to Rand’s ideas of charity are not in the original posted article but are from Wikipedia: “Rand did not see charity as a moral duty or a major virtue and held it to be proper only when the recipient is worthy and when it does not involve sacrifice. She opposed all forms of aid given by governments, just as she opposed any other government activity not directed at protecting individual rights.”

I think as members of the human race we do have a duty to help others who are less fortunate—and that sentiment is shared by large numbers of people, both those of faith and those who are not. I believe that that effort does involve a certain sacrifice—people are giving their time, their talents, or their money, all which could be spent on personal activities or material goods. If the word “sacrifice” seems somehow penitent or onerous, I supposed I could use the word “trade-off”. And even by religious standards, charity or giving is not compulsory. I’m never forced or ordered to give. For me, it’s an outgrowth of my beliefs. When I say I am compelled to give, it’s an inner feeling, not an external set of standards I’m trying to meet. People do make some judgments about their giving—a person who would believe, for example, that alcoholism is a personal failing or who see homosexuality as a “bad choice” are unlikely to offer assistance in those areas. People who have lost a loved one to cancer or know someone who benefitted from an organ donation are more likely to feel passionate about those issues. Others, for whatever reason, just touch our hearts. There is no earthly reason why I feel so strongly about orphans in Africa, so much more so than orphans in India, or children in crisis in the US. I just do.

I also do ask/require my children to participate in some of our charitable work. Most of the time they want to, sometimes they lead the effort, sometimes it's just what we do as a family. I don't have a problem with enforcing a set of family values on my children. Left to their own devices, my children would not bathe, brush their teeth, do their homework, practice their instruments, or a host of other things. Good hygiene, academic success, commitment and dedication, organization, planning--those things do not come naturally and as a parent it is my job to set the conditions for, teach, and reinforce those things. I include our faith practice and other things in that pile as well. I understand that there will come a time when my children will make their own decisions about faith, college, giving, and yes, even hygiene. That will be their choice--but as children, they are a part of a family that values certain things and those things are practiced, celebrated, and sometimes mandatory.
The second part of the quote about the government’s responsibility, I also disagree with. It’s not a big surprise that I am liberal on a lot of issues. I do believe that the government has the responsibility to take steps to ensure that all people have access to certain things—good medical care, good schools, good infrastructure—and I am willing to pay more in taxes if that means it will happen. I believe my life is enhanced when those things are in place for everyone. When people don’t have those things, my quality of life declines. Certainly we can debate whether the government is the best suited entity to provide those kinds of things. There are, however, a great great many hardworking people in our country who cannot afford to live in a community with adequate schools, who can’t afford even minimal health care, whose incomes don’t cover the cost of living. We can debate whether “those people” have made good choices. But they are a large part of our population, and when people in a community are not provided for, the community suffers. We all know it would be cheaper to educate a child than to manage the fallout from higher rates of illiteracy, or that it would be cheaper to provide services to keep people out of prison than it is to incarcerate them. I believe that some of those programs are the function of the government.


As I said, I don’t pretend to understand Ayn Rand fully. But I don’t agree with the quotes I’ve used, not because I’m not a rational thinker, and not because I’m a Christian. My faith aside, I just don’t believe that the world works that way, or that the world will be a better place if more people shared the beliefs underpinning those quotes. I can accept that Rand did not believe in God or felt that religion “helped foster a crippling culture acting against individual human happiness and success.” I don’t agree with that statement, although I can understand how people do feel that way about religion, because there are a ton of people making a huge difference in the lives of people, who are campaigning for candidates, who are living for something other than their own personal affluence and position. And it’s outward turning toward others, a generosity of spirit that looks to the welfare of the whole as well as to the success of self, that I found missing from the things I read.