Utopia Of Greed, or Something Else?
In Gault’s Gulch, a.k.a. the “Utopia of Greed,” there is no sacrifice. The inhabitants thereof do not sacrifice their time, effort or talent, for in this utopia, these are not sacrifices, only investments. Neither do the inhabitants venture to sacrifice their will, property or right to increase for the “common good.” In the case of the latter, there is some inherent inference to a right to property and the full use, misuse or enjoyment of it.
This idea begs the question; “is there really a right to property?” Is there an a priori right to say to all others on earth, “this land, talent or intellect is mine?” Would it not be true that in order to rightly, without contradiction, assert that land talent and/or intellect is your property, it must be of personal spontaneous creation? Has any man created land? Has any man’s talent and/or intellect not been informed and/or nurtured by others? If not, then the latter bundle of rights have no principle and are thereby an opinion born of ego and only enforceable by the use of power. These ideas are indefensible in light of justice or liberty, and completely contradictory to the stated fundamental tenets of Objectivism. The contradictions don’t stop there. Case in point; the very economic underpinnings (gold) of this new “utopia” are procured by looting (Ragnar, the “Pirate”). This example should conclude this thought exercise by illuminating the fact that to establish “property,” one has to first steal it!
It has been said that property is a privilege given by a higher authority and thus only enforceable by that higher authority. If that is true, property is not a priori or should I say, a natural right, but rightly falls under the projection of power over and encroachment upon individual liberty. Would it not be true to conclude that to attempt to enforce such a “right” upon another who opposes it and who could potentially also claim the same “a priori right,” constitute usurpation, robbery or looting, an assault against very justice and liberty the inhabitants of Gault’s Gulch, a.k.a. the “Utopia of Greed” vehemently lament the loss of? One could thus conclude that property (land, products, talent and intellect), as defined by personal undivided claim upon the thing, is negated and thus impossible because the potential for unlimited identical claims upon the thing. Thus property is a logical fallacy and is relegated to mere usufruct#. A philosophy falls apart when built upon such defects.
The inhabitants of the self-described “Utopia of Greed” have extricated themselves from a corrupt world that no longer values or holds as sacred, talent, intellect, i.e. property, and its bundle of rights. This pilgrimage is similar to the plight and flight of the early American settlers, who left Europe and its monarchies to establish for themselves a place they individually and collectively could call their own. In establishing this primordial “Utopia of Greed” these early settlers effectively reestablished a monarchy, or more concisely speaking, a “monopoly of power” (Central banking, State and Federal governments) from which to draw enforcement of a new, seemingly more democratic theory of property. In doing this, they unknowingly gave rise to a power which ultimately can usurp all property (via eminent domain). In establishing the necessary monopoly of power to effectively administer property rights, they sowed the seeds of encroachment upon the very property they hoped to secure for themselves.
In this contemporary “Utopia of Greed,” idealized by Rand and realized in the fictional world of “Atlas Shrugged,” the avariced egoism necessary to demand full undivided personal enjoyment of the fruits of production, talent and property, is the same greed that informs the necessarily created political power monopoly (looters) that will eventually encroach upon every inhabitant’s property. This is because greed wherever it is allowed to reign, will require infinitely more, but on a finite earth, this is impossible, just as (in microcosm) this ethic is impossible in the finite geographical and economic sphere known as Gault’s Gulch. Therefore, over time, Gault’s Gulch will resemble the looter/moocher world they extricated themselves from.
There are other sublimations for greed besides material things, such as; affection, adoration or sex (the heroes in this story are greedy for these as well). But in these cases, society at least has the potential to fulfill those needs. In fact, a highly evolved society is one of etique (etiquette), in which those of genius and high talent are praised. But to what extent can greed be satisfied before its crosses over into plays of power against society and itself? Is greed even satiable?
Greed as the virtue will eventually commit suicide because of its ever-expanding need for consumption; going from carnivorous to cannibalistic then saprophytic, finally the need to turn on itself (Isaiah 9:20). Greed for property or anything else eventually necessitates looting or some form of usurpation or expropriation to satisfy it. Greed is a self-terminating ethos and is actually nihilism, the opposite of objectivism.
After an analysis of the philosophical underpinnings of the ethos of greed, and it incarnation as the “Utopia of Greed,” I am almost tempted to say Russian-born Rand purposely creates stylized farces of impossible logic in the form of literature, to appeal to avariced, but monied and powerful incumbent Western capitalists, in a covert attempt to destroy America (and its potential for true liberty) from within (without firing a single shot!).
"Atlas Shrugged" and the whole of Objectivism seems to be “rhetoric terrorism” in its induction of erred premises leading to a false conclusion, buttressed by and for the justification and rationalization of the monied and powerful incumbents in pursuit of their selfish interests; a sort of subversive romantic propaganda for the “radicalization of economic sociopaths.”
I think I fall short of unbridled McCarthyism# in my condemnation of it because there is clear evidence (vide post facto) of the effect of this subversion. It can be seen in the slow, but steady shift of the American zeitgeist (since the Great Deppression era) toward the plutocracy idealized in the Ayn Rand’s Objectivist philosophy. Modern America is now Rand’s “Utopia of Greed” realized. Which begs the question; “Is America better for it?”
Ayn Rand seems to be a siren to the affirmation biased economic and political elite. I say this because any good faith study into the ethos, logos and the lack of pathos1 in Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, would leave a true scientist wanting for any virtue beyond ego-driven positive anarchy and social darwinism for the sake of power incumbency. These incumbents use all pathological methods to propagate this ethos; art, music, religion and literature are instruments to reinforce this status quo.
Or...Ayn Rand may be a social re-engineering genius, understanding (and hoping) that intelligent people will see her philosophy of greed through a logical looking glass, as not utopian, but dystopian, replete with glaring fatal flaws in its contradictory premises, the unsustainability of its insatiable nature, its inevitable implosion and thus the impossibility of its full deployment as the virtue.
Because, how could a virtue be terminal?
Shouldn't a virtue be life-affirming, as opposed to homicidal, turning suicidal? With greed as its virtue, “Gault’s Gulch” and the Western capitalist society at-large can therefore only be a utopia for fools! Hopefully, this will be the final apprehension of Rand’s mythos.
1 (Objectivist’s do not account for emotion)
