“Ellis Wyatt”
Sunni: We’ll probably get into that some more later. I didn’t want to read a lot into it—it could just have been laziness—but to some, your choice not to capitalize the “o” would carry some meaning. Does it in your case?
Ellis: Well, it’s intended opposite the way people will call themselves “big L” libertarians, etc. I practice a refined form of the epistemology, but see no need to affiliate myself with those who would wear the word as a crown. I’m not a member of the ARI [Ayn Rand Institute] for example, and in fact disagree with just about everything those “Randroids” do and say. Objective they are not.
Sunni: One reason this is so interesting to me is because in all our conversations to date, you have been consistently upbeat and cheerful—very unlike the stereotypical Objectivist who seems to believe Ayn Rand laid out a foolproof system for human success and those who don’t follow it are whim-worshipping scum who don’t deserve even a smile. Are there any points of departure for you regarding Rand’s ideas?
Ellis: [Chuckles] Yes—and there’s a book in the works to that effect, naturally. I have been unable so far to refute any of her core proofs, but some of her secondary conclusions are specious at best. Her Romantic Manifesto is largely wishful thinking, for example. A larger issue would be her stance on “objective rights”—a self-refuting concept. Rights, of the kind that some governments are instituted to protect, are by definition not objective—they are subjectively constructed in the mind as a shortcut to understanding our leftover animal survival traits vis à vis social interactions. Ergo, Ms. Rand’s claim that one can deduce the objective nature of an imaginary construct is rather silly. To then form a government, or invade a nation, based on the somewhat arbitrary and subjective construct is at best asking for trouble. This is why the ARI gets it wrong on Middle East policy, et al.: they truly believe we have the “right” to property and the “defense” thereof. Israel has a “right” to exist—it doesn’t; we have the “right” to Saudi oil because we “own” the extraction mechanism—a convenient lie, but still a lie.
Frankly, it’s a gross rationalization for the “lawful” initiation of force—when it suits our particular profit motive. I redefined the term “autarchy” to mean “rule of self by self” for this reason: it doesn’t require anything beyond understanding where volition lay—in the individual. No rights, no states—just individuals choosing to not aggress because of simple cost-benefit analysis. It’s cheaper to avoid conflict where possible, and cheaper to just terminate an aggressor rather than to construct a court system to initiate force by proxy. Or as I’m fond of pointing out, my “right to life” is meaningless to a virus.
Regarding good cheer, it’s rather simple: with only one ticket for this roller coaster called life, I’d be a fool if I spent my time bitter and depressed. If those “objectivists” cannot proceed from the standard of “man’s life on earth” to the goal of happiness they’re missing the point. As Rand might say, this is not the happiness of a mindless twit, but comes from the achievement of rational goals. I am, in fact, happy. Despite the many things that I’ve done wrong, or that life has brought to me, the task of living is still mine and cannot be delegated. Happiness is an emotion—and where do emotions reside if not in my own head? Can pride be faked? Do I make the choices of others? Of course not. The world is an endlessly beautiful and fascinating place, and such darkness that others see is of their own making. Or: it’s life—certainly it’s better than the alternative? What’s there to get so very upset about? Get on with living it, folks. The clock is ticking. Your days are numbered.
