The Individual and Society

I recently read, or reread, Ayn Rand's short book Anthem, in which she previews some of the ideas that were later flushed out in her more famous books, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.   It's interesting that Ayn Rand's writing and particularly her philosophy, Objectivism, have received so much recent attention, in the Presidential election and otherwise.   In Anthem, the protagonist, who has been assigned to live and work in the "Home of the Street Sweepers" despite considerable intelligence and scientific ability, is a citizen of a country far in the future in which serving one's "brothers" has become the be all and end all of society.   Indeed, the word "I" has fallen out of the vocabulary in favor of the more egalitarian "we."   Over a period of years our hero discovers the joys of individualism.   He eventually discovers electricity and is surprised and disappointed when the residents of the "Home of the Scholars," rebuff his discovery as a threat to the well established candle-making industry.   Our hero eventually escapes into the uncharted forest where he finds that his love interest, the "Golden One," as he has named her, has followed him.   Before very long they stumble upon a house on a hill apparently designed by Frank Lloyd Wright and long abandoned since the "Old Times."   Amazingly, the house is in pristine condition.   The hero, who has previously been known only by a number, takes the name "Prometheus" and vows to start a new, free civilization based on the rights of individual freedom and initiative.   The conclusion of the book marks Prometheus' discovery of the works "I" and "ego."

It seems that our national dialogue is becoming a screaming match between those on the right, who favor a rugged individualism in all matters governmental, and those of the left, who favor a strong role for societal collectivism, if you will.   The words "socialism" and "communism" have been resurrected from the political discussions of past years and used as a label by the right to demonize things that used to seem like mainstream, accepted things.   Like Social Security for example.   A letter writer in the Kansas City Star a few years ago referred to Social Security as "America's experiment with communism."   I have to admit that I was shocked to read that letter.   The redoubtable Missouri Senate candidate Todd Akin referred to government sponsored student loans as "the third stage cancer of socialism."   Republicans at this point seem to want to decrease support for free public education, something that I had long considered one of our country's bedrock ideas.   Mitt Romney's theory is that numerous functions long performed by the federal government, such as federal disaster management and relief, ought to be deferred to the states or even privatized.   The right seems to want to return to the days of the Robber Barons, The Gilded Age.   Or worse, the Old West, where there was little law and order and every man fended for himself in all matters with a six-gun in hand.  

It seems to me that our society has heretofore done a pretty good job of combining freedom and independence for the individual with using our collective powers and resources for the overall benefit of society as a whole.   I can't see why it has to be either/or.   Either all for the individual or all for the collective.   What good does it do me if I keep all of my earnings for myself but our government cannot afford to repair bridges and roads, or employ policemen and firemen, or provide teachers with sufficient compensation?   It seems to me that being a citizen of this country is comparable to my years of living in a condominium.   I had to pay to keep up my condo, to furnish it, heat it, decorate it.   But I also had to pay my fair share of the common expenses of keeping up the grounds, paying the doormen, buying a new treadmill for the exercise room, and replacing the kitchen stack pipes.  To make our cities and our country run, we each have to contribute our fair share of the common expenses.   Now, there is little question that our representatives in government have to be reined in from time to time on public expenditures.   But do we really want to decimate public education?   Do we really want to cease providing disaster relief for our citizens in time of national disasters?   Do we really want to balance the budget on the backs of the elderly, the blind, and the infirm?  

Ayn Rand's books and philosophy are certainly entertaining and thought provoking.   However, I think that a modern society has to perform as a blend of individual and collective interests.   The pendulum certainly swings back and forth and there is no question that the blending process has to be reviewed and adjusted from time to time.   But that balancing needs to be done in a practical and reasonable manner and not solely on the basis of doctrinaire intransigence and blind allegiance to abstract and theoretical political theories.