My biggest beef with Objectivism is that it does not allow for government intervention to solve real world problems if one follows the tenets of Objectivism dogmatically.
In Ayn Rand’s ideal state the government’s only function is to provide a police protection and enforce contracts and property rights. Such a utopian state doesn’t account for the concentration of wealth and a vast underclass of illiterate and impoverished people. Presuming that private action or philanthropy will solve illiteracy or poverty is a fantasy. Concentration of wealth is a natural process of capitalism. However such an imbalance of wealth is fertile ground for demagogues like Obama and is inherently unstable. If the government intervenes and provides some minimum standard of health and education, such as system would be stable and less vulnerable to revolution. Such a solution is prohibited by Objectivism because it necessitates the redistribution of wealth and the violation of individual rights.
Objectivism’s inherent antipathy towards environmentalism, based on the fact that its adherents value ‘nature’ above man, also prevents Objectivism from offering practical solutions to pressing problems, such as over exploitation of non-renewable resources, and over population. My marginal utility of having one extra person on earth is outweighed by the costs the extra person imposes on me in the form of higher prices for limited resources, such as land and oil, through more competition. As a selfish environmentalist, I also value my ability to enjoy the outdoors above another individual’s life or property. Sharing the forest with more people decreases my, and everyone else’s’, enjoyment. Forced sterilization or Chinese type fines would solve these environmental problems but are, again, prohibited by Objectivism, because they violate individual rights.
The root of the problem that prevents Objectivism from offering practical solutions is Rand’s axiom that an individual’s rights cannot be violated absent some “metaphysical emergency” . If this axiom were tweeked to expand the definition of an “emergency” to include things like the prevention of future revolutions and the costs imposed by overpopulation, Objectivism would be more flexible. I realize that this is a slippery slope but it would allow Objectivism to offer practical solutions without being relegated to an irrelevant utopian political philosophy.
A concerned Objectivist wannabe