Why Ayn Rand is Wrong
Collective Decisions vs. Tyrannical
Decisions
In the quest to end tyranny if we abandon collective decision making it means abandoning being humans.
What is the most
important thing that distinguishes humans from animals? It is collective
decision making. We became humans when we started gathering food in one place
and prepared it (cooked it) with the help of all in the group. No other animal
does this, except super-organisms like ants and bees. No matter how much social
an animal is, all of them eat their own food. They don’t gather it in a place
before eating it. Thus this gave rise to collective decision making. We make
rules among ourselves and follow them.
Almost all the discussions
that take place regarding society and polity revolve around the extent to which
collective decision making can be made, the process of making the decision and
implementing it. We can think that political science emerged around 6 thousand
years ago when the first civilization emerged in modern Iraq. From that point
onwards the central focus of political science has been decision making and
implementing.
![]() |
The ancient city of Uruk as imagined by artists |
No one ever doubted
the legitimacy of collective decision making. The only question was who should
make it and how it should be implemented. Ayn Rand for the first time rebuked
the sheer legitimacy of collective decision making. Not only that but she also openly
declared that the Christian tradition of love towards each other in society is
a farce. This led to the famous statement by Margaret Thatcher “there is no
society – only individuals”.
![]() |
Rand - the proponent of objectivism |
Why did she do this?
The state emerged as an instrument of suppression of the many by a few. This
nature of the state got diminished in the modern times. Gradually with the
ascent of democracy the state is getting to be controlled not by a few but by
the entire society. But at the time Ayn Rand developed objectivism various
shades of Fascism were rampant – where only a few controlled the state to an
extent not seen before. As a reaction to this tyranny Rand reacted extremely.
She held that the state can only be an instrument of oppression. Thus she
wanted to emasculate the state by limiting its power to providing only physical
security to people and their property.
She held that any
collective decision, even made completely democratically with the participation
of all, is a tyrannical one as at least some people are being forced to do what
they don’t want to do. Thus no such process of decision making is legitimate.
But here she didn’t
realise that collective decision making preceded the state by millions of
years. The state emerged a few thousands of years ago while collective decision
making is what made us humans. Any philosophy should first explain the
existence of human society as no other animal lives in a society like ours.
Only then can we explain the problems of domination and oppression and
solutions on how to solve them.
If one reads the book
“collapse” by Jared Diamond one can find out several such instances where
collective decision was good. For example in Japan they saved the nature and
themselves by deciding not to cut off the trees on mountains. Take the present
day problems of global warming and ecological destruction. These require a
collective global response. Take the case of lead in petrol or the hole in the
ozone. These were all solved by collective action only. So our goal should be
to ensure that the decisions made in society are really good for the society through
the participation of all.
![]() |
Jared Diamond |
We should ensure that
a few (however many the few may be) do not control the decision making process
and enforce their decisions, taken for their interest, on the rest of the
society. This leads us to the observation that when a person always makes the
decisions and enforces it on another person then it is nothing but slavery. (link
to another article on slavery). Thus tyranny is when someone has such power
where they can literally enforce whatever they want on another while the other
person has no choice. This does not require the state. Even within a marriage,
one person can be enslaved by another. At the workplace one person can be
enslaved by another. Such slavery is continuing even today in various forms.
Actually after the Second
World War, with the emergence of human rights, liberty and social security,
such domination of one person over another is at an all-time low. It has been
decreasing until recently. It is interesting that the demand to emasculate the
state is being heard in the era when the state finally is not just an
instrument of suppression but is liberating people.
Tyranny does not end
by emasculating the state. It ends by ensuring that the state is not dominated
by anyone. By ensuring that the state is not used for the vested interests of
any. In the quest to end tyranny if we abandon collective decision making it
means abandoning being humans.
Comments
Post a Comment