First Contact – Part 19 – Objectivism

Hal and I shared an office and lab in graduate school. One day the topic of Social Security came up. Hal said, “I don’t like Social Security.”

I was dumbfounded. How could anyone be opposed to a program to help old people? (Well, old to me then, but now not so much.) My father was a big fan of the program, having told me how many older people had a tough time before Social Security.

I queried Hal. “Why?”

“Because of that first word in its name: Social.”

“Why are you against Social?”

“Because of what it represents. It’s a government mandated program of wealth transfer from the young to the old. I don’t like socialism.”

Well, I was opposed to socialism also because I associated it with communism. I had just never thought of Social Security as being a socialistic program. The reason was that I just didn’t think about such things very much in those days. I knew I lived in a free democratic republic with a capitalistic economy that didn’t believe in socialism. How could our country have a national socialistic program when it didn’t even believe in socialism?

This short exchange of words with my friend Hal made me realize that I couldn’t just assume certain things were true. I needed to analyze and decide for myself what was actually true.

A few years after becoming a Christian, I met a fellow believer named Larry who was heavily involved in what I call the Freedom Movement. He challenged not only Social Security, but also things like the fractional reserve banking system that is ubiquitous throughout our nation. To help me understand freedom more, Larry gave me a copy of a small book entitled “The Law” by a 19^th century French assemblyman, political economist, and classical liberal theorist by the name of Frédéric Basiat. I loved it. It laid out the case for freedom and a limited government in a very convincing way. After seeing my enthusiasm for “The Law”, Larry convinced me to share in the cost of 100 copies to give away to our friends and family. Thus began my mission to spread the idea of real freedom to the world.

Reading “The Law” whetted my appetite for more freedom literature. Somewhere I ran across the name Ayn Rand. It sounded familiar, but I couldn’t quite place where I had heard it. After reading about her novels, I thought I remembered having read one. I pulled out my old paperback books and discovered that I actually had a copy of Ayn’s novella “Anthem”. I immediately reread it. The book is about a dystopian future where people have reverted to living primitively, and new technology is severely limited. I was a fan of dystopian future novels, having also read George Orwell’s “1984” and Aldous Huxley’s “Brave New World”, as well as haven seen the movies “THX 1138” and “Logan’s Run”.

Upon reading “Anthem” I decided I wanted to read some of Ayn Rand’s non-fiction. The first book I purchased was “The Voice of Reason”. It was a collection of essays by Ayn Rand and her protégé Leonard Peikoff. I soon discovered that she was not just a writer, but also a philosopher, having developed her own secular philosophy called Objectivism. Much of what I read in that book hit home with me. It was as if the writers had plucked my unorganized thoughts on the subject of freedom from my brain, logically reordered them, and then edited them for clarity. I was astounded; so much so I started buying more and more books on Objectivism and actually became an adherent. I read more of Rand’s non-fiction and fiction books including her magnus opus “Atlas Shrugged”.

I began sharing some of Ayn Rand’s ideas with a friend of mine from work named Mike. Interestingly, I considered myself a conservative while Mike considered himself a liberal. Yet Rand’s ideas changed us both into Objectivists. We did not agree with everything Rand taught, but in its essentials, we both agreed with the principles of Objectivism.

In case you are unfamiliar with Objectivism, I will present a short synopsis. Ayn Rand was once asked to define her philosophy on one leg, meaning in as few words as possible. She answered this way, “In Metaphysics, Objective Reality. In Epistemology, Reason. In Ethics, Self-Interest. In Politics, Capitalism.” Her expanded explanation was this:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Most people don’t have a problem with number 1. We understand that the Universe exists apart from ourselves and operates independent of our wishes and desires. We have to learn to work with it to be successful.

Most people agree with number 2 except for the part that says that reason is man’s only means to knowledge. Everyone gains knowledge by reasoning about their observations of the world around them. However, religious people also believe that one type of knowledge, spiritual knowledge, comes by revelation, which is a direct transfer of knowledge from God or the spiritual realm to men’s minds.

The great majority of people live by number 3, but a large number of them don’t seem to like it and perhaps even deny it. Many people have an altruistic mindset, believing we should put others before ourselves. But if you examine those people’s lives, the vast majority will be found coming up short. Most people are generous and want to help others in need, but the people they help the most are themselves and their immediate families. Rand simply recognized that fact and said there was nothing wrong with it. In fact, it was a good and moral thing. And even if you have an altruistic bent, remember the emergency instructions given by flight attendants on a plane. Put the mask over your own face first so you will be in a better position to put the mask over your child’s face.

Number 4 is a whole other matter. It seems that most people have a big problem with pure capitalism. I admit that I have a bit of a problem with it also. But I also understand that if implemented properly, it truly is the only moral political system. That is because it is a completely voluntary system. Businesses are allowed to freely create their products and potential customers are allowed to freely decide whether they want to purchase them or not. In other political systems, like socialism or fascism, force is used. This typically manifests itself as the government telling businesses how to operate and telling customers what they can and cannot buy, or even what they must buy.

Yet, to have a pure capitalist society requires a huge majority of good and moral people in leadership positions both in the businesses and in the government. Otherwise, corruption occurs. Businesses support candidates in their election bids, and in return the winning candidate skews the laws in favor of the supporting business. It may be for this reason that an economics professor I had in college said, “Capitalist systems never last. They always ultimately lead to communism.”

Anyway, as I said, I came to consider myself an Objectivist, and so did my friend Mike. Later we discovered that a lady that worked with us, Susanna, and her husband Charles, were Objectivists. Or rather, they discovered we were Objectivists. Charles and Susanna invited Mike and me and our spouses to dinner to discuss our beliefs. It was interesting to find out that Charles and Susanna had been heavily involved in the early years of the Objectivist movement, having gotten training, I believe by audio tape, from Ayn Rand and her original protégé Nathaniel Branden.

At a later date Charles and Susanna invited several Objectivist friends from around the country to our corner of Alabama for a party. When I found out that one of my favorite Objectivist authors, Robert Bidinotto, was going to be there, I knew I had to attend.

It was quite an interesting evening, but started out badly. It had been raining heavily that day, so when I arrived there were pools of water and mud in the yard. I got out of my car and headed towards the cabin, carefully avoiding the muddy areas. Suddenly I noticed a big dog heading straight towards me, and from the look in his eyes I knew he wanted to greet me by pouncing on me. I couldn’t let that happen given his muddy paws and all. When he got close, I raised my leg and swiped at him yelling, “Get away!” Well, he did indeed get away, but my knee popped out of joint and I plummeted to the ground. Great! Just great! My knee quickly self-corrected, but I was in pain. Nonetheless, I picked myself up and hobbled to the cabin; wet muddy clothes and all.  I explained to my hosts what had happened, and they showed me the bathroom where I could tidy up as much as possible. During the party my knee pain subsided some allowing me to have a good time. I was excited to meet Robert. I had taken some of his articles with me to be autographed.

Objectivism has seen some rocky roads along its way. Early in the movement large numbers of people became interested in it. Nathaniel Branden even established an institute for the study of Rand’s new philosophy. However, as is often the case, the philosophers don’t always follow their own philosophy. Ayn Rand had an affair with her protégé Nathaniel which ultimately led to a big split between the two. Rand seemed to become more dogmatic about her beliefs over time even though she originally said that her philosophy was about individualism, thus requiring each individual to draw philosophical conclusions on his own.

In 1985, three years after Ayn Rand’s death, the Ayn Rand Institute was established by her philosophical heir Leonard Peikoff to carry forward Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism. In 1990, philosopher David Kelley had a falling out with the Ayn Rand Institute over whether or not the philosophy was an open or closed system. Kelley believed Objectivism should be open, meaning that it should be willing to change as new information became available. Peikoff, on the other hand, believed that the philosophy was closed and that any changes made to the Objectivism that Rand had laid out would necessarily have to be considered a different philosophy and should not be called Objectivism. Kelley went on to form a new group named the Institute for Objectivist Studies. It is now known as The Atlas Society.

Yet, despite all the turmoil in the Objectivist community, Rand has continued to influence many people with her ideas. Her novel “Atlas Shrugged” still sells well today almost 60 years after its release. In recent years a three part movie of “Atlas Shrugged” was produced. It did not do very well at the box office, but I saw all three and thought they were well done and captured the essence of the novel quite well.

Back in 1988 I began writing some philosophical articles of my own and continued to do so for many years. None were published until 1997. At that time a group called The Objectivist Club of Michigan published a well known newsletter entitled “Full Context: An International Objectivist Publication”. I submitted one of my articles and it was published in their December 1997 issue. I had two other articles published in this name newsletter in 1998 and 2000. You can read them along with other unpublished articles on my personal Web site. The published articles were “Virtues and Meta-Values”, “The Truman Show: A Review”, and “Truth and Happiness”.

Most of my philosophical articles were serious in nature. However, my life has always been a balance of serious and humorous. In fact, as much as I enjoy a serious discussion, I think I would go nuts without my humorous side. So, to balance out my serious philosophical articles, I wrote a humorous philosophical book entitled “Beginnings to Endings: Philosophical Ramblings for Avoiding Global Destruction”. It was initially published as a paperback book in 2001, but was also released as a Kindle book in 2011.

While I continue to agree with Objectivism to a great extent, over time I have become a bit jaded. There seem to be too many people in the world who simply don’t want to be free. Perhaps it is because freedom is hard work. In a free society you are on your own. You must provide for your own welfare or convince others to help you out. Sure, there will be volunteer groups to help the less fortunate, but most people seem to believe that those would not be enough. They believe the government must step in to fill the gap. But government uses force to accomplish its mission. To fund its programs, it forces citizens to turn over their earnings via taxes. It heavily regulates businesses. It tells citizens what they can, cannot, and must do. It colludes with businesses, passing laws that benefit some and hurt others. And on and on it goes. Coercion is the name of the game.

So, yes, my hopes that our world might move more towards reason and freedom have been greatly dashed. Of course the occasional ray of sunshine burns through, but I despair that there will be a mighty movement in that direction. But alas, I am getting older now. I suppose I will leave these matters to the next generation.

In closing I would like to present an interesting fact. I was born on February 2, 1955. Ayn Rand was born on February 2, 1905, exactly 50 years before me. Also, notice that the name Ayn Rand can be created with just the letters in my first name (if the “a” and “n” are used twice). I’m sure there is some type of mystical connection here, but after many years of searching I still don’t know what it is.

What’s So Curious About Ayn Rand?

In the August 18, 2012, issue of the TimesDaily newspaper was a commentary by Cynthia Tucker entitled “Rand is curious choice for veneration.” In this article, Ms. Tucker wonders how Rep. Paul Ryan, VP nominee for the Republican Party, could be a fan of Ayn Rand. After all, Rand was an atheist and a big proponent of using reason rather than faith to obtain truth. Ryan is a Catholic. How do these two jive? Well, I believe it is just as Ryan claims: he rejects Rand’s atheism, but embraces her view of government.

I personally became a fan of Ayn Rand when I read her book The Voice of Reason back in the 1980’s. When I read this book I suddenly realized that Rand was saying the things I believed but had not been able to express verbally. It was an epiphany. I went on to read many more of Rand’s writings, including some of her novels. I eventually began calling myself an Objectivist, although I have backed off that to some degree. There are a number of aspects of Rand’s philosophy that I disagree with, such as her inexplicable belief that a woman should never serve as the President of the United States. But if you think about it, it is very rare that any two people have EXACTLY the same beliefs about EVERY single topic. Everyone has his own ISM running about in his own mind.

Rand predicted many years ago that if the country kept following the path of governmental altruism and cronyism, the country would eventually reach a crisis point. She even predicted that the people in power would not even realize that it was their policies that brought on the crisis. Well, that is exactly what has happened. Is it possible for an atheist to be a prophet? In this instance, apparently so. The USA has attempted to provide everyone with anything that they want and at the same time regulate until they strangulate. This is a recipe for fiscal disaster. Why wouldn’t Rep. Ryan be a fan of Ayn Rand’s ideas on these matters?

While I agree with Ms. Tucker that Ayn Rand was not a perfect person—who is?—she gets one thing wrong about her philosophy. It’s a point that many people get wrong. In her commentary she says, “What’s more, Rand was an atheist and libertine whose private life was testament to her fierce belief that individuals should be free to do whatever they please, no matter the consequences to others.” Uh, WRONG! Here is what Rand really believed about how individuals should live their lives.

“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.”

The essence of this quote is that no person is another person’s slave. Don’t expect me to sacrifice for you, and I will not expect you to sacrifice for me. We will live our lives by voluntary exchange. So, was Rand opposed to charity? No, not when it came to individuals supporting causes they deemed worthy of support. What Rand did find anathema was the idea of governmental charity. Why? Because that requires our leaders to extract by force the wealth of some citizens to give to others. This can work both ways. It can be the forced extraction of money from the wealthy to give to the poor, which is called welfare. Or it can be the forced extraction of money from the poor to give to the rich, which is called corporate welfare. Rand believed both types of welfare to be immoral since it required the force of government, thus making some people the slaves of others. However, she would have no problem with an individual voluntarily turning his money over to another person or organization. As Thomas Sowell once said, “I have never understood why it is ‘greed’ to want to keep the money you have earned but not greed to want to take somebody else's money.”

So, it is true that Ayn Rand was a flawed human being. I do not believe that she even followed her own philosophy 100% of the time. Yet, her core beliefs remain sound. Everyone should be free to pursue his or her own interests and not be made a slave, even to a small degree, of others. Can anyone really argue against that?

A Review of "Man on the Moon"

This movie review was written for an Objectivist publication back in 2000; however, it was never published.

A Review of “Man on the Moon”
by Randy C. Finch

The magician waves his hands stealthily over the limp body of his beautiful female assistant. Suddenly, the magician’s hands change their motion as if they are lifting an invisible entity into the air. Telekinetically, the female assistant begins floating upward, suspended on nothing but air. She continues to move upward until her prone body is above the magician’s head. The magician gracefully slides large hoops around the floating assistant to show that no wires are attached. A look of wonderment floods the faces of the audience. Deep down they know it is an illusion, but what technique is being used? In the recesses of many minds, the possibility that the assistant is really floating is considered, as no other explanation is forthcoming.

Just as the magician makes the unreal appear to be real, so did Andy Kaufman the comedian and entertainer. But in addition, Andy sometimes made the real appear to be unreal. In the movie “Man on the Moon”, Jim Carrey does a masterful job of portraying the late Andy Kaufman. A few years ago, Mr. Carrey played the role of E. Nygma (a.k.a. The Riddler) in “Batman Forever”. In this offering, he plays a real-life enigma. He was brilliant in both roles, perhaps because he is a bit of an enigma himself.

If anyone could make Ayn Rand turn over in her grave, I believe Andy Kaufman could. His life was an infusion of the real and the unreal. This was true both on stage and off. As his girlfriend says to him in the movie, “There is no real you.” Not only did he have his fans confused about who he really was, he also had his own friends and family confused. When he announced to the people closest to him that he had cancer, no one believed him. They thought it was just another antic he was about to perpetrate on the public like his wrestling with women. Keeping his fans on their toes wondering what he would do next and then being puzzled as to whether he was for real or not was the apparent goal of Andy Kaufman.

However, even as Ms. Rand is turning over, she must also recognize many of the same traits in Andy Kaufman that she wrote into her fictional character, Howard Roark. Andy was fiercely independent, wanting to entertain his way without regard to what other people thought. When presented with the opportunity to portray Latka in the TV series “Taxi”, he was uninterested as it would require him to perform from a script that was not his own. He only relented when ABC agreed to his terms, which included several TV specials where he had artistic license. At one point in the movie, George Shapiro (Andy’s agent) asks Andy what the purpose behind his entertainment was, to make the audience laugh or to make himself laugh. It was obvious throughout the movie that the latter was the case.

You have most likely known of a practical joker that hated having practical jokes played on himself. Apparently, Andy Kaufman was not one of those people. When he traveled to the Philippines in a last ditch effort to be cured of his cancer, he was expecting a miracle. The healers there were burying their hands in the bodies of the sick and pulling out the offending matter without surgery. As Andy lay on the table, he noticed that the offending matter was already in the healer’s hand before the procedure began. He is then shown laughing his head off as he realizes that this healer had duped him just as he had duped people throughout his career. Yet, in the throes of death, he found the ability to make the unreal real to be extremely funny, even when perpetrated by others.

Yes, Andy Kaufman was an enigma. People typically either hated him or loved him. If you are one of the former, you will probably find this movie stupid or boring or both. However, if you are one of the latter, as I am, you will be spellbound by it. In either case, the movie is a good study in how people view that which is real and that which is unreal, and how it can be difficult at times distinguishing the two, especially when an accomplished artist is purposefully confusing them.

Finally, be aware that the movie was produced in a style that would have been pleasing to Andy. Although it answered many questions about what was real and unreal in his life, it left many unanswered and even presented new ones for the audience’s consideration. In fact, as the movie ended, I was questioning whether or not Andy was even dead or not. It would be his style to fake his death and remain in character for 16 years. Consider this. Most people know how great Andy was at imitating Elvis Presley. What if all those Elvis sightings are the “late” Andy Kaufman messing with our minds as only he could. It’s a thought.

Thinkyoovedymuch.


Randy Finch is an engineer living and working in Alabama. He earned his BS and MS from the University of Louisville. He enjoys creating computer software and writing articles about computer programming. He has had over 60 articles published in magazines, journals, newsletters, and conference proceedings. He also enjoys reading, writing, and discussing philosophy, particularly Objectivism. Interestingly, Randy was born on February 2, 1955, exactly 50 years to the day after Ayn Rand was born. Also, notice that the name Ayn Rand can be created with just the letters in his first name (if the “a” and “n” are used twice). If anyone knows of any significance to these coincidences, please let him know.

The Truman Show: A Review (from 1998)

The following review was published in a philosophical journal in June 1998. The journal was Full Context: An International Objectivist Publication, Vol 10, Num 10.


The Truman Show: A Review
by Randy C. Finch

Are you ready to watch a major motion picture that promotes the integrity of the individual? One that vividly illustrates how a human being must be in control of his or her own destiny? Then look no further than “The Truman Show.”

“The Truman Show” is about 30-year-old Truman Burbank, brilliantly portrayed by Jim Carrey. This role is a bit of a change for Mr. Carrey. Known for his slap-stick humor and amazing facial and body contortions, the role of Truman Burbank allowed for little of this. Truman is a business man living a happy, peaceful, “Ozzie and Harriet”-style life. He has a beautiful wife who has his best interest at heart, a wonderful mother, an extremely loyal best friend, and a good, stable job. Yet with all this going for him, Truman is missing something. In some inexplicable way, his life seems mundane and he longs for more. Part of his longing is for the girl he was in love with in college that had been whisked away to Fiji by her father in the midst of their first date.

Truman decides to take control of his life and go to Fiji, only to be thwarted at every turn. Airlines are booked for a month, the bus breaks down, a forest fire blocks the road, and a nuclear reactor begins to leak. It appears that everyone is conspiring to keep him at home. Other subtle clues like a suspicious radio transmission and a fake elevator only add confirmation to his suspicions. He slowly begins to realize that he is being watched wherever he goes and his every move is known.

And indeed he is right, for unknown to him is the fact that he had been adopted by a corporation when he was a baby and has been part of a very popular, 30-year, around-the-clock TV show. Further, all events surrounding his life are just part of the script for the show.

But Truman is not a man to give up easily. He resorts to trickery to evade the unknown conspirators and actually overcomes his greatest fear to make his escape. Drastic attempts to stop his escape almost result in his death. But Truman’s desire to discover the truth and escape the directing hand of his adversaries does not let him turn back. In the end, when confronted with a choice of living in the safety and comfort of a world under another’s control versus an unknown world in which he could create his own destiny, Truman opts for the latter.

While the whole premise of this movie is far-fetched, the message is not. An individual needs, yea requires, control over his own life. Without it he is nothing but a puppet living at the whim of others. Don’t miss “The Truman Show.”