The Virtue of Selfishness by Ayn Rand: Why It's Still Relevant

On Goodreads.com, I noticed that this book is shelved under "Books I Have No Intention Of Reading," "1001 Books I'd Rather Die Than Read," "Dealbreakers: If You Like This Book, We Won't Get Along," and "Books I Wish I Had Never Read"—but also "Best Non-Fiction," "Books That Everyone Should Read At Least Once," "Best Books Ever," and "Best Books Of The 20th Century." I think the shelf that best sums this all up is "Controversial Books," which also includes titles such as Lolita, 1984, The Communist Manifesto, and—you guessed it—The Constitution of the United States of America.

But "controversial" means "fascinating," "enjoyable," and "thought-provoking" in my dictionary (Rand wouldn't like that statement because it goes against the idea of one objective truth), so I highly enjoyed The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism.

This book isn't just about selfishness; its core idea is rooted in the concept that putting one's own interests above all else allows a society to thrive, but it discusses this in relation to human rights, laizzez-faire capitalism, identity politics, religion, and ethics. It is an incredibly eye-opening read and provides a factual, detailed description of the often-misrepresented concepts of individualism, objectivism, secularism, and libertarianism (though she doesn't use that particular term).

But all of this has little relevance in today's world, right? Because this book is almost sixty years old? While reading, I discovered the answer is exactly the opposite. Despite being penned in 1961, the real-life examples and "current events" issues discussed share a shocking, eery resemblance to many of 2018's hot-button topics. Rand speaks on socialism during the time of Soviet Russia (where she was born):

"What had once been an alleged ideal is now a ragged skeleton rattling like a scarecrow in the wind over the whole world...Fifty years ago, there might have been some excuse (though not justification) for the widespread belief that socialism is a political theory motivated by benevolence and aimed at the achievement of men's well-being. Today, that belief can no longer be regarded as an innocent error. Socialism has been tried on every continent of the globe. In light of its results, it is time to question the motives of socialism's advocates" (Rand 112).

Today, we face a similar situation. There are candidates running for office—even that of the President—who call themselves "Democratic Socialists." Socialism has swept the millennial generation up like a tsunami, and while some young people are managing to swim away, the majority are hypocritical ideologues whose role models are people like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. History is being forgotten as we speak; statistics from socialist-leaning nations are being swept under the rug; college classrooms are being led by professors who claim that "real socialism has yet to be tried." Rand sums up the truth quite eloquently in one brief statement:

"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights...No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life" (Rand 113).

 Most disturbingly similar to the present day is her thoughts on college professors:

"Many professors use the Argument from Intimidation to stifle independent thinking among the students, to evade questions they cannot answer, to discourage any critical analysis of their arbitrary assumptions or any departure from the intellectual status quo" (Rand 192).

She then provides a list of common phrases used by "intellectuals" who believe themselves to be superior to all others of a different ideology—phrases such as "only EVIL people would think that..." and "if you believe X, I don't even want to TRY to explain Y"—you know, the everyday stuff you read from blue-checked Buzzfeed journalists on Twitter.

Rand also discusses racism, which—while it was obviously far more prevalent in her time period—is still a hugely touchy subject today. She condemns racism in ALL of its forms—even taking pride in one's race, because it is an immutable characteristic that does not determine anything in regards to one's achievements, talents, or intelligence. She speaks out against the harsh disadvantages faced by minorities in the 60s while also warning her readers of the detriments of the Civil Rights bill, which forces private business owners to not discriminate against customers based on race. This reminded me immediately of the Colorado wedding cake case—if Rand lived in 2018, I'm confident she would side with the Supreme Court on that one. She would agree with those who say that of course the couple has the right to purchase a cake offered to them, and of course it is rather irrational of that baker to deny customers a service that would benefit him financially, but he has a right as an individual to choose to not offer that service.

"The 'civil rights' bill...is another example of a gross infringement of individual rights. It is proper to forbid all discrimination in government-owned facilities and establishments: the government has no right to discriminate against any citizens. And by the very same principle, the government has no right to discriminate for some citizens at the expense of others. It has no right to violate the right of private property by forbidding discrimination in privately owned establishments...Racism is an evil, irrational and morally contemptible doctrine—but doctrines cannot be forbidden or prescribed by law." (Rand 184).

That's how the free market works—you find another baker.

Rand also deeply opposes what is now dubbed "identity politics"—the mentality that places people in groups by their immutable characteristics and assumes unrelated characteristics based on a collectivist mentality. She quotes the New York Times, which states:

"The question must not be whether a group recognizable in color, features or culture has its rights as a group. No, the question is whether any American individual, regardless of color, features or culture, is deprived of his rights as an American. If the individual has all the rights and privileges due him under the laws and the Constitution, we need not worry about groups and masses—those do not, in fact, exist, except as figures of speech" (New York Times).

Additionally, she defends freedom of speech, a concept currently under attack by the left, who have devised the idea of "hate speech." While it is just a moral principle to some, an increasing number of people (again, young people in particular, and I say this as a young person) are beginning to believe that certain speech should be criminalized. Whatever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never hurt me?" Oh, I guess that's probably considered "racist" or something nowadays. Rand, while still condemning hateful, irrational discrimination, consistently supports the First Amendment:

"Just as we have to protect a communist's freedom of speech, even though his doctrines are evil, so we have to protect a racist's right to the use and disposal of his own property. Private racism is not a legal, but a moral issue—and can be fought only by private means, such as economic boycott or social ostracism" (Rand 184).

Whether you label yourself liberal or conservative (Rand criticizes both sides), religious or atheist (Rand uses neither to describe herself directly, but she is critical of those she calls "mystics" while still defending freedom of religion)—The Virtue of Selfishness is certainly worth reading. Personally, I found myself agreeing with much of her ideas while disagreeing with some as well, but I could still understand her reasoning and arguments for those topics and found them even more fascinating. Her secular, culturally progressive (for her time, at least), economically right-wing, viewpoint is one that is often missing from our present-day dialogue.