Since Rand’s greatest heroes were always great wealth creators, and since Objectivism is a philosophy that uniquely holds wealth creation as a virtue and fully celebrates and exalts the entrepreneur, the master creator of wealth, WHY is it that (50 years after Atlas Shrugged) one does not frequently meet wealthy Objectivists from the freest societies in the world (America, etc)?
Because the goal of Objectivism isn’t a method of wealth creation - it is the recognition that wealth creation is the good, not the evil, in this world, and that the creation of wealth is merely an extension of man’s innate freedom to produce. I am an Objectivist, at least a-student-of, or one in so much as I agree with what I understand, but I am no great businessman. I don’t have the time or interest to invest in building up a company and in being rich. It offers no interest to me. In terms of wealth creation, I am, yes, average… mediocre!
Understanding Objectivism doesn’t automatically mean being rich, and not being an Objectivist doesn’t mean poverty, as the real world examples prove. What it means is that one identifies the correct method by which wealth is created, and the correct terms under which men should deal (i.e. their own). If the great producers like Bill Gates realised where wealth came from, what their constant bowing to Anti-trust laws mean and how men should deal with one another - they would be disgusted!
But who are we to judge other people and what they should do?
None of the many professing Objectivists one meets on the various online forums (and there are many), apparently exhibiting great understanding of the philosophy, ever confess to being billionaires (or even just millionaires - in a country where an impressive percentage of the population has achieved this), Nobel prize laureates, breakthrough inventors, bestselling authors, Oscar-winning movie directors and actors, or even world class architects. To me, they generally seem to be struggling in the same pool of mediocrity typical of the very average person in any country. They seem to be just as lost for purpose as the guy next door.
I take issue with this. I know for myself, that this is true, but only in the sense that I’m 18 years old and I’ve only just started recovering from depression, from regular anxiety attacks and from very mixed and very, very wrong premises - all as a result of checking my own philosophy and of applying one of rationality and reason, i.e. Objectivism.
Now, I only know a few things about the personal lives of a few people here, and I know many of them know what they want and need to do, and are going out to achieve it. Jenni, for example, left her home a year ago, and is living in New York, working towards her first published Novel. David Odden is an accomplished linguist and witty humourist to boot. Kendall is moving towards owning his own Chemicals company (I forget what the field is exactly). Kane and Dwayne are writing novels, both of which I’m excited to read.
I compare the people I admire here, to everyone else I’ve met in my life, and with the exception of the people that I’ve met who lived implicitly with Objectivist virtues, I can honestly say, that these people here know far, far more about what they want to do and how they are going to do it.
This, more than anything else, is responsible for the failure of the “Objectivist movement” to create as much impact on the world as it should (I believe). It does not produce as much EVIDENCE of the power of a rational philosophy (on the world) as one would expect.
The failure? You’ve not been reading the news recently, have you? I, personally, feel a lot more can be done - the question is, if you want to see those changes done, like I, why don’t you get out there and do them? Make that impact on the world yourself, then!
Where is the evidence? Is the philosophy itself its own evidence? Is it the number of “radical converts” who have left religion and felt “freer than ever”? Has the philosophy produced any innovations besides innovations to the philosophy itself?
One could point to people like Nathaniel Branden (whatever his errors may be) and Ellen Kenner, who have cured many people by applying Objectivist principles to solving the psycho-epistemological issues in their patients’ lives.
What exactly are you looking for? Evidence that Objectivism produces John Galts - supreme producers? There is only one thing that Objectivism, properly applied and integrated, produces: heroes; pinnacles of morality.
In short, does it have any evidence in the real world? Any gifted and ambitious Galt-like capitalist producers, whose absence in the world would be sharply felt by the economic system if they merely “shrugged”? Unfortunately, I for one have met no such people in my years of online interaction with Objectivists from the freest world. Scientology – an irrational philosophy - has apparently “produced” more such achievers of that level, from among its closest adherents.
How did Scientology ‘produce’ these people? Take the only one I really know, Tom Cruise, for example (I’m sorry, I just don’t know much pop-culture). What did he do to get rich and famous? Did he get rid of the ancient alien ghosts in his body? Did he pray for the downfall of Xenu? Or did he use his talents and good-looks to land roles in films, and do a damn good job (say what you will, I loved him in ‘A Few Good Men’).
And secretly I wonder to myself: is this what the Founder of the philosophy envisioned when she presented it to the world so dramatically? Did she envision a world of discussion groups engaged in endless combative debates over every minute detail of her writings, while clearly remaining stuck in the dark abyss of the Average? Always discussing the meaning and methods of life - but never actually LIVING?
I remember reading something a while back, it was here actually. Someone asked, “Why do we sit here and split hairs over all these issues, rather than just putting all our efforts into spreading rationality?” - the response was, “And then when do you propose that we debate these issues then?”
The fact is, the stuff we debate here is important, because if issues aren’t sorted out by people like us, how in hell can we hope to spread this stuff, when people will ask the very same questions of us (such as the whole Casual Sex issue)?
I must admit, myself, I feel overwhelmed by the style of debate on here and the way certain people do behave - I think the issue lies in our methodology, not in the fact that we debate these issues. Something is inherently wrong, perhaps because we often take such an aggressive tone here in debates. I, too, would like to see it solved.
I do not, however, think people here avoid actually living.
And the most troubling of my secret questions: is it possible that no one really understands Ayn Rand? Is it possible that indeed everyone “has no understanding of the practical role of philosophy in man’s actual life–which means that he does not understand the philosophy of Objectivism, except perhaps as a rationalistic system detached from the world”?
This is called rationalization, and I used to be guilty of it. It’s hard to avoid, when you grow up in such an irrational culture, where you’re taught ideas are, basically, on a different metaphysical plane, detached from reality. I think Jenni said it best, when she said, “when you think about just how much your culture is set towards disintegration, it can be pretty daunting for anyone growing up in it”.