Let it be understood that we cannot go outside of this alternative: Liberty, inequality, survival of the fittest; not-liberty, equality, survival of the unfittest. The former carries society forward and favors all its best members; the latter carries society downwards and favors all its worst members.
It would be difficult to find a better way to justify a plutocracy as a superior social system versus a less hierarchical democratic system. It also gets to the root of conservative ideology. It is basically a defense of social hierarchy. In Ayn Rand's books the social elite have the virtue of competence and creative powers that provide value to those less gifted. They do not provide value to the less gifted because they are altruistic. They do so because it is in their nature to create value. In fact, it was totally consistent with her philosophy to have her hero blow up a building that he had designed when his plans were altered by a less competent architect in "The Fountainhead". The ownership of private property had a junior position in relationship to the creativity of the architect who was the real "owner". Her vision of society was a radical meritocracy. That vision has been translated into defense of plutocracy. Those who make it to the top of the plutocracy have earned their way to the top because they are superior to those who have not done so. The Wall Street trader who sells a worthless security to a less competent customer deserves to be at the top of the heap because of superior intellect. In the real world, however, the plutocrats are those who own or manage property. Architects, scientists, artists and others who live by their intellect and creativity are more often the hired hands of those who own or manage institutions.
No comments:
Post a Comment