The Forest of Man

Jon Chait has an interesting piece on the band Rush's fascination with Ayn Rand.  Getty Lee Weinrib, the son of Jewish holocaust survivors, apparently was a great admirer of her work.  Chait notes that Rush lyrics sometimes took a very objectivist stance.  He highlights the song Trees:

There is unrest in the forest,
There is trouble with the trees,
For the maples want more sunlight
And the oaks ignore their please.

The trouble with the maples,
(And they're quite convinced they're right)
They say the oaks are just too lofty
And they grab up all the light.
But the oaks can't help their feelings
If they like the way they're made.
And they wonder why the maples
Can't be happy in their shade.

There is trouble in the forest,
And the creatures all have fled,
As the maples scream "Oppression!"
And the oaks just shake their heads

So the maples formed a union
And demanded equal rights.
"The oaks are just too greedy;
We will make them give us light."
Now there's no more oak oppression,
For they passed a noble law,
And the trees are all kept equal
By hatchet, axe, and saw.

Kudos to Rush for taking on themes of that size.  But God, what a creepy vision.   

The first error is that large trees are genetically different than smaller ones.  We don't mind this because natural selection is reasonable in nature.  But if the metaphor is to extend to humans, we're getting into genetic determinism.  Which, given our history brings up the issue of racial inequality.  Conservatives won't admit it, but conservatism frequently leads to a racist explanation for inequality.

The second problem is that, disregarding the genetic metaphor and instead viewing it in psychological terms, environment shapes social efficacy.  Large "trees" statistically get there because of social advantage.  It's not difficult to imagine why the "trees" of the ghetto are much smaller than those of Greenwich.  The body of research overwhelmingly pointing towards human development being socially determined is undeniable.

The fundamental conservative objection to this deterministic view is that "all things being equal", man can choose to succeed or fail and society should allow him this freedom.  The first thing a conservative will tell you is that there are many examples of men who succeeded despite the odds.  As a refutation of determinism, this is incoherent.  It is mainly an appeal to lack of data: there are so many variables that go into one's level of success that retracing all of them is very difficult.  However, it isn't impossible, and usually one can discover some strong indicators with a little bit of digging.  But scientific research isn't about outliers, but finding theories that are predictable.  It is simply obvious that a good upbringing is important for life success.  The fact that some people succeed or fail despite their environment is indeed intriguing, but hardly a case against good parenting or healthy social institutions.

Lets return to the phrase "all things being equal".  Conservatism depends upon this conceit about human nature.  It basically assumes that, at 18 years of age (or younger, for some), men are capable of making the same life choices.  So whether they succeed or fail, they are ultimately held to the same standard; they are assumed to be operating from the same knowledge base, the same ability to assess situations and attain desired outcomes.

But this is clearly not the case.  "All things", as it were, are not "equal".  People possess profoundly different levels of self-efficacy.   Some of this is no doubt genetic, and owing to personal temperament.  But far and away the larger element is an emotional and cognitive disposition honed over a lifetime of environmental experiences.  One might conclude as a practical matter that society cannot reasonably alter this dynamic, but this doesn't change the fact that people experience different levels of life success depending on what social environment they have lived within.  So it is for the rich man.  So it is for the poor man.  The only variable that reliably exists outside this construct is pure, dumb luck.

As to what society can do about it, the short answer is a lot.  Beginning with the premise that every citizen has an equal right to the pursuit of happiness, if there is some way in which we can create a more egalitarian dynamic we are morally obligated to do so.  This has been the underlying philosophy of most of our most cherished institutions: libraries, parks, roads, schools, etc.  Of course these things need to be payed for, and it follows from the understanding that man's success is socially dependent that those more successful owe a debt to society relative to what they have been granted.  Likewise, those less successful are owed by society a rectification of what they have been denied.

Of course, the details of how this ought to be done are messy; determining how best to adjust for equality gets into the tricky moral business of individual rights and property.  What is equitable?  How do we achieve it?  The simplest answer to the former goes back to our first principle of man's right to pursue happiness.  If self-efficacy is all that is needed, then a system of delivering a basic level of it to every man seems reasonable.  This is arguably the main purpose of any good social institution.  Libraries provide equal access to the world of ideas.  Roads provide physical access to the nation.  Police, firemen and the military provide security.  Universal health care provides the physical health to act.  And the most powerful institution, the sheer magnitude of which we are slowly coming to terms with, is public education.  It presents the greatest opportunity society has of delivering to every citizen the individual power to determine - to an extent equal to their peers - their own life success.

In the end, if we are to assume that every man has the same objective potential to grow his "tree", then we must take into consideration the structural differences in society that lead men to different outcomes.  To the extend that we are able to do so in a humane and moral manner, we must strive toward the creation and maintenance of institutions that deliver on our nation's promise of real liberty for all, the liberty to determine for themselves their own lot in life.

Reading Ayn Rand

I came across this page at the Ayn Rand Institute. It's a definition of "selfishness" according to Objectivism.

Selfishness

The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.
The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.

Trying desperately to make my way through the logic of this fantastic bit of writing, I realized the key to the whole thing lies at the end.

The Objectivist glorification of selfishness has, I think, been what has caused most adults to dismiss it as idiotic at best, downright evil at worst. How, after all, can one seriously defend the seeming root - greed - of so much human suffering throughout history?

Rand does very little arguing here; she is mainly making bold statements about moral truths, as if they should be self-evident. She blithely declares that human good "cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone." Really? That's bizarrely wrong.

What planet was this woman on?

But then I was struck by the three words at the end of this sentence: "...there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them". Of course there is conflict of interest among men - especially when it comes to capitalism. This is where the word "cutthroat" comes from! Being moral isn't impossible in business - you just can't make as much money that way. In an exchange between two equal parties, there is always the possibility that one will use deceit to take advantage of the other.

What is more, capitalist transactions frequently involve unequal parties - that is, one party clearly holds the upper hand, whether through purchasing power, market control, etc. Because the dominant party will usually benefit more from the transaction, unequal relationships can be quite lucrative. The history of labor is rife with just this sort of exploitation, from slavery to sharecropping to child labor to sweatshops. Thus being immoral is not only possible, it is rewarded. And immorality could be said to be the very definition of conflict of interest.

Yet Rand offers an exquisite caveat, a cunning condition to rectify her flimsy case: man ought not accept sacrifice from others.

So there you have it. Capitalism and greed are wonderful, as long as both parties do not take advantage of one another. The only problem is that this redefines what "selfishness" means. One is unselfish to the degree that one takes into consideration the sacrifice of others. A selfish boss pays his workers as little as possible - asking the most sacrifice of them. An unselfish boss, recognizing their sacrifice, pays them fairly.

Rand's rhetorical strategy is utterly dishonest. She makes the revolutionary claim that selfishness be upheld as a highly moral value, but then redefines it so as to strip from it most of its original meaning.

According to Rand man should act entirely in his own self-interest (which happens also to be the interest of society - "the values required for human survival"), all the while keeping in mind not to exploit others. But is it not in man's interest (and society's) that others also act to their fullest potential? Does he not want his workers to be the smartest, most creative, happiest and productive workers? Surely this at times must require from him some level of sacrifice. Would not paying his workers more, or allowing them bargaining rights be considered a sacrifice?

All of this seems ultimately to be Utopian: it envisions a future of perfect order, but one that is dependent upon its own perfection. This circularity denies the current reality that in a capitalist system, when inequality exists, exploitation will occur, if not by individual moral failing then by systemic incoherence. The modern democratic response has been pragmatic: government regulation and intervention into the market. Just as streets and borders are policed, so is the market - via wage laws, environmental, safety, quality, etc. regulations.

An outgrowth of this practical recognition of the inherent failings of a pure market has also been to provide on the one hand a safety net for those unable to benefit from the market (medicare, social security) and on the other an educational and civic framework upon which to build-in equitable distribution of social capital (schools, libraries, parks, etc.).

Yet to Rand all of this would be considered sacrifice - especially so if unevenly burdened upon the wealthy (those considered to have an excess in capital advantage). But as these advantaged individuals are, historically and in our present system, in a position to reap the rewards of others' sacrifice, either through deceit or simple systemic asymmetry, what is keeping them from doing so?

The answer would seem to me to be an incalculable level of unselfishness, that is - for each transaction one would be required to assess the other party's particular level of sacrifice. And given that a true assessment of sacrifice would need to take account not only of that individual's monetary resources, but also their level cognitive and emotional resources - such things that inform one's transactional capacity.

The beauty of government intervention is that it does much of this for us! As long as a decent safety net is provided, and an institutional framework that eliminates structural disadvantage is established, one can assume with much greater confidence that any transactions entered into will be built upon a foundation of equal sacrifice on both sides. The marketplace will take place within a system of genuine equity, and the likelihood of either conscious or implied exploitation will be minimal.