Cummins on Ayn Rand's View of Human Nature

Dr. Denise Cummins wrote an article entitled This is what happens when you take Ayn Rand seriously, on which I commented extensively.  She has followed that article up with another in which she takes exception to one of my comments and generally finds fault with Ayn Rand for not embracing altruism.  Her second article is entitled What Ayn Rand got wrong about human nature.  She starts her article by saying that the complaints of Rand's followers "primarily objected to my assertion that Rand celebrated unbridled self-interest."

Her first quote and the only quote of such a "follower" was taken from one of my comments.  This is that quote:

Rand’s good people do care about others. They do not care to be forced to give away the fruits of their invested time to others, but they are delighted to trade what they produce to others and delighted to see those trades improve the lives of others.

To which her only direct comment is "Such objections are without merit." Oddly enough, she then quoted Ayn Rand

Man gains enormous values from dealing with other men; living in a human society is his proper way of life — but only on certain conditions. Man is not a lone wolf and he is not a social animal. He is a contractual animal. He has to plan his life long-range, make his own choices, and deal with other men by voluntary agreement (and he has to be able to rely on their observance of the agreements they entered). The choice is not self-sacrifice or domination.

showing that she also believed in goodwill towards others provided our associations and trades are of a voluntary nature.  She introduces this quote of Rand's by saying that she acknowledged that human beings are social animals who should "look beyond their own immediate self-interest in order to function."  Looking beyond "immediate self-interest" is consistent with Rand's general philosophy and with my comment that Cummins claimed had no merit.  Note the sleight of hand by Cummins in claiming that Rand believed in "unbridled self-interest" in the first paragraph of her article even as she now acknowledges that Rand looks beyond "immediate self-interest."  Actually, Rand and I believe that rational man pursues his rational self-interest, not an "unbridled self-interest."  An unbridled self-interest is an emotion-driven and short-range viewpoint of others and one's relations with them which is not bridled by rational assessment and long-range planning of one's life.

Cummins then claims:

Despite embracing sociality, Rand saw more evil than good in this kind of interdependence between people. As she wrote in “The Fountainhead,” “The choice is independence or dependence. All that which proceeds from man’s independent ego is good. All that which proceeds from man’s dependence upon men is evil.”

Note that in the quote she gives here, Rand is discussing man's independent ego.  She is not discussing an independence from the trade of values with others.  Rand is saying that one's ego should not be dependent upon what others think of you or that you should not let others tell you what to think or whether you have self-value.  The contradiction Cummins claims is not supported by this quote.

Cummins then claims that Ayn Rand somewhat embraces altruism:

Perhaps the key to understanding this contradiction lies in a journal entry in which she writes, “Selfishness does not mean only to do things for one’s self. One may do things, affecting others, for his own pleasure and benefit. This is not immoral, but the highest of morality.”

Seen in this light, altruistic acts are sanctioned insofar as they bring pleasure or other benefit to the giver, who has no moral obligation to offer help to those who are suffering.

 Ayn Rand defines altruism as the act of sacrificing one's own self-interest for the sake of the interest of others.  Cummins appears to believe that any act done for the sake of others is an act of altruism.  There are certainly many situations in which a rational man will act to enhance the interest of others without sacrificing his own interest and indeed by enhancing his own self-interest as well.  Cummins wants to provide legitimacy for altruism by claiming it subsumes both the sacrificial and the self-interested acts that help others.  For strong moral reasons, Ayn Rand wants to separate these very different actions with respect to relations and associations with others.  Cummins wants to muddle them together.

Cummins next takes exception to Rand's claims that socialism does not work.  Cummins says that socialism can lead to abuse and poverty, but it can also lead to wealth, health, and happiness superior to capitalism.  So, she proves this by stating that a certain Prosperity Index lists the United States as the 11th most "prosperous" nation after a number of nations she calls socialist nations.  The criteria for this ranking are not given by her link and that link does not link to the criteria either.  But in any case, one critical assumption in her "proof" is that the USA is an example of an unadulterated capitalist country.  In fact the Cato Institute 2015 Economic Freedom of the World report ranked the USA as only the 16th country in economic freedoms.  The Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index of 2016 lists the USA as #11 in economic freedom.  So, it should not be a surprising result of an index of prosperity to rank the USA #11.  According to the Cato Economic Freedom of the World report, New Zealand, Switzerland, Ireland and Canada are economically more free than the USA.  According to the Heritage Foundation Economic Freedom Index, New Zealand, Switzerland, Australia, Canada, and Ireland all have more economic freedom than does the USA.  Apparently, Cummins is unaware of the many socialist programs and economic controls that American governments have saddled our business sector with.

Oddly, Cummins claims that

while a given individual can benefit from cooperating, he or she can usually do better by reneging.  The end result is that altruists go extinct.  But Trivers showed that altruists can survive if one simple condition is satisfied: Those who fail to reciprocate must be punished through exclusion from subsequent cooperative ventures.

Once again, Cummins is implicitly claiming that one who cooperates and does their part is an altruist, while the rational self-interested person will renege.  But, she says the altruist can do well in cooperative transactions if the reneger is not allowed to enter into future cooperative ventures.  So, the long-range rational self-interest of a person is not to renege, which takes us right back to Ayn Rand's self-interest -- one of rational thought and long-range planning!  Cummins then tries to make a strong contrast between future exclusion and the enforcement of contracts.  The enforcement of contracts as advocated by Ayn Rand does help to prevent harm to the partner in a cooperative endeavor who will live up to the spirit of the endeavor.  The one who does not is subject to legal action to recover damages and also to future exclusion from cooperative endeavors.

Cummins claims that Rand's idea of enforceable contracts says Rand expects "government to play a role in maintaining fairness in market transactions."  She may be trying to claim this opens the door to a version of fairness as Cummins would see fairness, not as Rand would see it.  If this is not the case, I do not see why she has brought this up.

Not surprisingly, Cummins claims that laissez-faire capitalism failed in the 2008 financial crisis.  She fails entirely to recognize the many ways in which that crisis was caused by government policies and the many ways that government policies iced a recovery.

Cummins wraps her article up with the Elizabeth Warren quote that every individual has a collectivist debt, which may be extracted by force, because we gain from living in a society in which we exchange values, sometimes voluntarily, sometimes at the point of a gun.  Well, of course, we gain from living in a society in which we are allowed to choose our own values and act, often in cooperation with others, in the pursuit of our values.  That is central to Rand's philosophy.

Warren claims that we gain even from those goods or services delivered by the force of government that provide us some benefit, even if that benefit cost us far more in expense than is the value of the benefit.  We owe the collective for allowing us to use the roads, no matter how badly government builds and maintains roads.  We owe the collective for long-term unemployment insurance, no matter how irresponsible the beneficiary is for not getting another job or creating his own job.  This is Warren's inversion of cause and effect and hers a great way to reduce productive and creative work.  It is also most strange that she is only interested in laying forceful claim to the products of creative and productive work.  There is no compensation to the creative and productive person in the hours others have invested into their entertainments and pleasures of a non-creative and non-productive manner.  Warren is simply a bank-robber, who claims it is moral to be a thief.

Of course we gain by living in a society in which the knowledge gained by others and the produce of others can be freely traded and made available to us.  Most people who act in the private sector do leave a legacy of values behind them which make it easier for others to survive and flourish in the future.  This is a major benefit of a free society.  It is not a benefit if these benefits of a free society are undermined by the claim that the legacy of prior productive people allows a moral right to take by force whatever one wants in the future from that legacy beneficiary.  This claim does nothing but infest with rot the process of productive and creative thinking and the actions needed to turn those thoughts into actual goods and services.  We rightly admire those who have led productive and creative lives, but this does not make us slaves either to them or to others in society who may not be very productive and creative.  To claim that the legacy of other productive and creative people should be a justification for the use of force to steal the fruits of the time and effort that others invest in their productive and creative work is a sacrilege against that legacy and the good people who left it.

Senator Feinstein's Abuse of the Public Trust

Senator Diane Feinstein of California recently gave up her chairmanship of the Senate Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee after many years of steering contracts for military construction, advanced weapons procurement, environmental clean-up projects, facility leasing, and quality of life issues for veterans to companies owned by her husband.

Richard C. Blum, her husband, owned majority shares of Perini Corporation and URS Corporation until late 2005.  Senator Feinstein had been voting approval of contracts to these corporations and to CB Richard Ellis, a commercial property leasing and building purchasing firm in which her husband had a major interest, since becoming the Chair of the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee in 2001.  That year, URS Corp. military construction income grew from $24 million to $185 million.  Its architectural and engineering military construction income rose from $108,000 in 200 to $142 million in 2001.  She had also voted money for Boston Scientific Corp. and Kinetic Concepts, Inc. for medical supplies when these companies stocks were heavily owned by her husband's financial companies.

At least $1.6 billion of income was steered to her husband's companies while Senator Feinstein served on the Military Construction Appropriations Subcommittee.  This makes all other Senatorial conflict of interest and theft of public monies cases small potatoes in comparison!  How abuse of U.S. citizens can go on for many years at this scale without the media raising a huge ruckus about it, is a very clear statement that the media, as well as the Senate, has no regard for the General Welfare of the People.

You can read more about this here: http://www.wnd.com/2007/03/40845/

Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac Steal Again

The gang that cannot shoot straight, has come galloping into Washington, D.C., and robbed the Treasury, the People's Bank once again.  Sheriff Obama and his hooligan crew of law enforcers carried the loot out to their horses for them and invited them to a good dinner.  They are still in town, living it up!  Why not?  In the past, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac always provided the Democrats and Obama in particular with great campaign contributions.  The more money the sheriff lets them steal, the more money they give him to remain sheriff.

Fanny Mae has just asked for another $8.4 billion from the Treasury after First Quarter losses this year of $13.1 billion, including $1.5 billion in dividends paid to the government on its preferred stock.  The government took control of Fanny Mae, a government-sponsored corporation, in September 2008.  Fannie Mae ended the First Quarter with a net worth of -$8.4 billion dollars.  This government-run business lost $15.2 billion in the Fourth Quarter of 2009 and $23.2 billion in the First Quarter of 2009.

Just four days earlier, Freddie Mac asked for a $10.6 billion handout.  Its First Quarter loss was $8 billion.  Freddy Mac had previously received $50.7 billion in bailouts, while Fanny Mae had previously received $76.2 billion.  Fanny Mae had already been given $15.3 billion of taxpayer's money as recently as 31 March 2010.  In December 2009, the Obama administration removed a $400 billion cap on gifts to Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and promised unlimited support in 2010.  The total taxpayer money given them since they were taken over by the government, including the current requests, is $145.6 billion.

In the First Quarter, Fanny Mae purchased or guaranteed about $191.4 billion in loans.  Its credit losses were $5.1 billion, which was up from $4.1 billion the previous quarter.  The number of loan defaults was up in the first quarter.  5.47% of Fanny Mae mortgages were delinquent in the First Quarter, which is up from 5.38% in the Fourth Quarter of 2009.  The single-family foreclosure rate was up from 1.03% in the previous quarter to 1.36%.

Obama and the Democrats have refused to include Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac in any financial industry reform bill effort, since they are using them to reduce home foreclosures with loan modifications and will not admit their guilt in weakening the entire financial system of the U.S.  In the First Quarter, Fanny Mae made 94,000 mortgage modifications, after making 42,000 in the Fourth Quarter of 2009.  Together, Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac own or guarantee almost 31 million home mortgages worth about $5.5 trillion.  This is more than 40% and close to half of all home mortgages.

It is common to say that the recession began in the United States and was caused by too much easy credit.  Republicans go on to say government-sponsored Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac caused the recession and Democrats say an unregulated Wall Street caused it.  In fact, it was triggered by the sharp increase in oil prices.  After May of 2004, the price of oil went up in real terms, dropped briefly in late 2006, and then spiked upward beginning in early 2007.  By July of 2007, production in Canada had dropped.   It dropped  in Italy in August 2007, in France in October 2007, and the Euro area as a whole in November 2007. Japan's production reached a peak in October 2007, though it had a one-month uptick in February 2008. The decline in the U.S. was in February 2008.  In January 2008, the OECD leading indicators were down from a year before by 4.1 points in Ireland, 2.8 points in Japan, 2.6 points in Korea, 2.3 points in Sweden, but only 0.8 point in the U.S. Stock prices are another leading indicator. Stock prices peaked in Japan and in the Euro area four months before they peaked in the U.S. and the U.K. in October 2007!  In the 4th quarter of 2008, real GDP was lower around the world than it had been 1 year before, but it had dropped by much less in the U.S. than almost anywhere else. The dollar value of imports into the U.S. did not fall until August 2008 and the consumer purchases did not fall in the U.S. until September 2008.  The U.S. was the last economic engine to sputter to a stop and it took the combination of the oil price spike, the recession already underway in the rest of the world, Fanny Mae's and Freddy Mac's vulnerability, and the Wall Street over-extension combined to put us into this severe recession.

While we cannot blame the entire recession on Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac, they were the most egregious weaknesses and the most easily avoided ones in the U.S. economy.  They were following a foolish policy of easy credit for people who could not make their loan payments under almost any condition of strain and they with the easy credit Federal Reserve were the starting point for much of what went wrong in the private sector.  Government regulation of Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae did not keep them out of trouble and there is no reason to believe more federal regulation would have helped on Wall Street.  In fact, some of the problems on Wall Street turned out to be due to too much regulation and too cozy a relationship with the federal government.  The biggest backers of the unwise lending practices through the years were the Democrats.  Obama had contributed once he was in the Senate and he had worked on a lawsuit against Citibank himself to force them to lower their lending standards before that.  Meanwhile, President Bush had warned a number of times that the easy credit policies of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac were a major risk for the economy.  McCain also joined in with warnings.  These were all ignored by Congress, which in 2007 and 2008 was controlled by the Democrats.

Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac could not be more controlled by the federal government.  We have only to examine how badly run they are to see the looming disaster as the Democrats try to gain more regulatory control over the major financial institutions of America.  We will be turning investment company after bank after insurance company into the next Fanny Maes and Freddy Macs.  This is exactly what the Democrats want to do.  Imagine how easy it will be to extort money from these more regulated companies and how easy it will be to command many of them to self-destruct.  Even as Fannie Mae had collapsed, Obama and the Democrats had been able to milk it mightily for campaign contributions.  This is the fate of the entire financial industry, if they get their way.