Since I’ve already justified the objectification of women, I might as well bail out Objectivism too — widely criticized by leftists of all stripes.
My introduction to the work of Ms. Rosenbaum (Ayn Rand) came amid a barrage of counter-criticism. I examined that criticism from various angles and concluded that it boils down to a conflict between humanism and competition, or natural selection. I do not accept this framing.
Objectivism: A Philosophy of Reason, Freedom, and Progress
Ayn Rand’s Objectivism is not just a philosophy — it is a coherent system of thought grounded in logic, reason, and respect for individual human identity. Objectivism remains a powerful intellectual framework that explains why personal freedom, capitalism, and rationality are the cornerstones of a thriving society.
Reason as the Supreme Tool of Knowledge
One key argument against Objectivism is that it oversimplifies the process of knowledge, ignoring the limits of human cognition. But this criticism reflects a misunderstanding of Rand’s position. She never denied the complexity of knowledge acquisition — she claimed that reason is the only reliable means of understanding reality.
What are the alternatives? Skepticism, solipsism, religious dogma? All of these lead either to the rejection of knowledge or to blind faith. History shows that science and technology have progressed precisely because of the belief that reality is knowable — and that logic and empirical observation are reliable tools.
Egoism Is Not Evil — It Is the Natural Order
Critics attack Objectivism for rejecting altruism. But Rand never opposed helping others — she rejected self-sacrifice as a moral ideal. Helping someone is legitimate only when it aligns with your own values — not because “you’re supposed to.”
The claim that Objectivism ignores vulnerable people is absurd. Genuine support for the vulnerable is only possible in a prosperous society built on personal responsibility and productivity. Where do people with disabilities, the poor, and the sick have more opportunities — in capitalist economies or planned ones? The answer is obvious.
The Free Market Is the Only System That Works
Economic critiques of Objectivism rely on the claim that markets are imperfect and government regulation is necessary. But where’s the proof? Every time the government intervenes in the economy, it creates new distortions.
– Monopolies? State-owned enterprises are far worse than private monopolies.
– Inequality? It’s natural and drives progress. What matters isn’t equality but the standard of living across society.
– Corporate social responsibility? Business already serves society — by producing goods, services, and jobs.
State intervention does not solve problems; it amplifies them. Capitalism has proven its effectiveness by lifting humanity out of poverty.
A Political Utopia or the Only Working Model?
Objectivism is often dismissed as utopian. But what is more realistic — a society of free individuals, each building their own life, or one in which the state dictates your choices? History has shown that collectivist models inevitably lead to decay — from the USSR to the EU.
Objectivism is not fantasy — it is a system that already works. Where there is more freedom, entrepreneurship, and protection of rights, there is also a higher standard of living.
Conclusion
Objectivism doesn’t need to be defended — it proves itself in practice. Its critics either distort its core or promote failed alternatives. The world advances through reason, individualism, and the market. That is the essence of Objectivism. ■