In this weeks podcast I am joined by Roslyn Ross, an author and fellow fan of the ideas of Ayn Rand. We discussed her new children’s book “City Family Farm Family” and the personal story of living half the year on a farm and the other half in a city. Roslyn spends part of the year on her farm in Nicaragua, and the rest in the city of Los Angeles.

We went on to discuss whether or not the Philosophy of Rand will survive in the context of the advancing collectivist global state. Individualism is giving way to collectivism and this can bee seen throughout western civilisation. The question is whether the core ideas of objectivism can help? Or, must they go underground until the collapse of our freedom is complete and the dust settles. Then, could reason once again emerge as the single guiding principle of genuine knowledge.

We certainly have different views. I remain convinced that rational thinking is an evolutionary advantage. Even when the rational man is surrounded by collectivists and thugs his reason will still lead him to conduct his affairs appropriately. And lets also remember that even the collectivists themselves need to use their faculty of reason to grow food, produce goods, build shelters, etc, when there is nothing left to loot.

Ross is a little more pessimistic, noting that intellectual conversations are increasingly out of fashion, people no longer read as much as they used to, and that the practice of objectivist ideas is more likely to end your genetic line than advance it! The core argument being that it all depends on the context of the group you are in. I say, the savvy objectivist isn’t in a group, but always looks for like minded people. Being an individualist does not mean that you shun other rational people in order to go it alone on your selfish path.

Roslyn has written a post script explanation of the points she was making in the conversation. I reproduce them here.

“If you listen to the podcast I want to explain something that I don’t think is very clear: For me, humanity flourishes under individualism. I define “human flourishing” by the incredible things we have invented. The ultimate in human flourishing, in my opinion, would be getting off planet Earth, so that our eggs aren’t all in one basket. There is no social system that has been invented in the history of humanity that encourages this better than individualism and capitalism, and therefore I support those things. I support meritocracy in which the best and brightest are propelled to the top and encouraged to build their visions. I support inequality of outcomes in which the best and brightest get extra resources to build their visions which often better the lives of all humans. To me, “bettering the lives of all humans” means inventing awesome new things and getting us off this planet.

What I am arguing in this podcast is that the majority of the people on Earth do not agree with me. The majority of people on Earth are collectivists. They define human flourishing as their group being on top, whatever that takes and whatever that means and however much suffering is required of other groups to get their group there.

Collectivists play a game in which they pretend that they care about all of humanity. They acquire more power for their group by defining human flourishing as equality of outcomes. They claim–and get many to believe–that human flourishing means harnessing the power of the best and brightest to care for the worst and weakest. It means taxing to death the high earners and using that money to support the lazy and the stupid....