In defense (against leftists) of an objective view of reality

I revisited "Collectivized Ethics," an essay written by Ayn Rand in 1963.  I was so impressed by its applicability to today that I had to share it.

A student once asked Barbara Branden: "What will happen to the poor in an Objectivist society?"  Her response was, "If you want to help them, you will not be stopped."

Why did I cite that?  Because it is a perfect example of a response that refuses to accept the left's premise, its view of reality, as the basis of discussion.  Only individuals have the right to decide when or whether they wish to help others.  Society, as an organized political system, has no right of decision.

But that hasn't stopped Biden and the left.

And it illustrates the rights (choices) Biden, Harris, professional politicians, and the far-left Democrats (and a few Republicans) have taken from us.  How so?  We must explore "Objectivism," which asserts the validity of the objective view over the subjective view of reality.  Consider the following:

The poor

Take the student's question.  The left's implicit premise is that all men are "their brothers' keepers," (Obama mangled Genesis 4:9 in an attempt to justify his view of reality to implement an income tax to compel the rich to pay their "fair share"); therefore, the misfortunes of some are an obligation to others.  The left doesn't ask, "Should anything be done?"  Rather, it asks, "What will be done?"  The left assumes that the question's unspoken premise (the subjective view: society must act) has been tacitly accepted, and all that remains is a discussion of how to implement a "solution" and how much money to throw at the "problem."  The left attempts to switch the discussion onto its view (can anyone say "never-ending welfare expansion"?).


Is it not desirable that the aged receive medical care?  The answer is "yes" when considered out of context, without regard to costs (monetary and otherwise).  It's at this point the left's brain shuts down, assumes a subjective view, ceases to consider the reality of unintended consequences such as the enslavement and destruction of medical science and the regimentation and disintegration of all medical practices, not to mention the sacrifice of professional integrity, freedom, careers, ambitions, achievements, happiness, and lives of the very people who provide that "desirable" goal: the doctors (can anyone say "not accepting new patients"?).


Progress can come only from man's surplus, from work that produces more than he personally consumes.  Capitalism is the only economic system where this is possible, not by forced privations but by a constant rise in the general level of prosperity, of consumption, and of enjoyment of life.  The left assumes a subjective view, will not acknowledge this truism.  Objectivism believes the moral purpose of each man's life is the pursuit of his own happiness.  The only political system consistent with this morality is one that demonstrates respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism (can anyone say "socialism"?). 


Is it not desirable to have an educated public?  Yes.  But that question must also address other questions (something the left's subjective view won't permit), such as who will do the educating (can anyone say "teacher unions"?), what will be taught (can anyone say "indoctrination"?), and what will happen to dissenters (can anyone say "Critical Race Theory"?)?


Is it not desirable to advance science?  Yes.  But science is valuable only because it expands, enriches, and protects man's life (a fact the left's subjective view doesn't permit).  It is not a value outside that context (can anyone say "CCR" and "COVID-19"?).

The subjective view creates its own (often invalid) "reality."  The more neurotic a man (Biden) is, the more he (seemingly) accepts this subjective view, the more he is willing to serve as the means to the ends of others (his enablers), the more he will devise schemes "for the good of his fellow man" or "society" or "the public" or "future generations" — anybody except today's actual human beings who have an objective view.  The appalling recklessness with which Biden proposes "humanitarian" projects imposed by political means (by force) on an unlimited number of human beings only makes the situation worse.  The characteristic of any such project is the advocacy of some public goal with no regard to context, costs, or means.  The project's goal is, absent context, desirable.  It must be "for the public good" because the costs are not earned but expropriated (taxed).  Optimistic lies must obscure the issue of means, must remain hidden and unspoken because the means are in human lives (can anyone say "inflation"?).

Biden and his enablers have a subjective (therefore invalid) view of reality: theirs.  What's worse is that their view is driven by the politics they impose on us.  What's even worse is that the MSLM knows what the left is doing but won't speak out, obfuscates the truth, goes along thinking it will eventually reap the rewards of advocacy.

The question for these "desirable" goals is, "to whom are they desirable?"  Desires and goals presuppose beneficiaries.  That is the question the left won't honestly answer.  To whom are the results beneficial and desirable?  It cannot and will not answer honestly because it doesn't agree with its subjective view of reality.  Besides, an honest answer would expose the left's actual unspoken goals (like power-grabs and limiting rights) and expose them as ultimate beneficiaries.

As Barbara Branden said, "If you want to help them, you will not be stopped."  Can anyone say "Barack Obama," "Jeff Bezos," "Bill Gates," or "George Soros"? 

But that response (and question) doesn't agree with the left's subjective view of reality.

Image: Julius Jääskeläinen via Flickr (cropped).

To comment, you can find the MeWe post for this article here.

If you experience technical problems, please write to