We start with method. The method is deconstruction and it is a method in which we search a text for any position and find within it a position that is completely opposite and justified by the text itself. The opposite position is not only justified, but a necessary part of the text’s structure. This, then, is a deconstruction of Randian Objecivism.
Ayn Rand seeks a radical individualism to oppose what she sees as the great menace of collectivist ideologies in any of their manifestations. This menace can be called communists, fascists, socialists, hippies or any group that seeks to place the state or the Other above the individual, or calls for any kind of individual sacrifice to the state, so long as the sacrifice does not cover the very basic of necessities. These necessities include, defense, law and sanitation. In essence, she is an arch libertarian.
Her political ideology is about glorifying heroic individuals who, through their own efforts achieve greatness. The function of the state, therefore, is to make sure that such individuals can operate under the optimal conditions that will foster their innate and culturally-given talents. The greatest happiness and the purpose of all individuals is to pursue their own happiness, states Rand.
Consider the self-evident, a favorite Randian phrase, implications to a political state that organizes itself to the production of this noble ideal. The state must be organized in such a way that all individuals have the opportunity to utilize their natural and cultural talents. The state must be organized in such a way that the procurement of one individual’s happiness does not create conditions in which the rights of others to pursue their happiness is interfered with. For a woman in a wheelchair, that means, ramps must be placed in libraries, cafes, clothing stores, private apartment complexes, so that handicapped individuals can reach their maximum potential. That, of course, entails an economic sacrifice on behalf of property owners.
For the individual to be able to prosper, education must be universal, and correctly, decentralized. Students should have the options of pursuing artistic paths, or scientific paths, or even given the time, encouragement and freedom to search for a path that they wish to tread or forge. More liberty for the individual to find and maximize their own talents, yet an institution which provides the opportunity for that to occur. This is, collectively, the best for any individual.
Rawlsian liberalism is the fitting political structure to maximize individual opportunity and happiness for all. These are the utopian visions, in the abstract, which are the necessary conclusions to Rand’s fundamental premises. When her premises are considered in their real world ‘objective’ historical context, we find that poor institutions and social forces systematically suppress individual talents and do not offer - and often destroy - roads the individual tries to walk in pursuit of his or her - or its’ - happiness.
To correct for the of((fences)) in opportunity that our imperfect topos has, the state must correct for the grievances that it causes. To be a land where opportunity are bountiful and merit may and should prosper, and to ensure that those who do prosper are able to enjoy their prosperity, the state must also provide that the prosperous be protected. The way to do this is through a political system that upholds the welfare of all of its citizens, as that strengthens the state in its ability to allow all individuals to flourish. It ensures that each class can peacefully live with the Other, while social mobility works according to merit and contribution to the whole. Libertarianism, in it’s very structure, is about collectivity when it is logically delineated.
In his 1960 inaugural address, Kennedy said, “A country that cannot provide for the many that are poor, cannot save the few that are rich.” Randian Objectivism can only be all it can be in a state that gives you the opportunity to be all you can be even when you are born into a wheelchair, are mentally slow and have parents who cannot afford to give you all that you, like anyone else, have the right to become.
There is only one alternative that allows a state to have some prosper at the expense of others: a totalitarian regime. It can be socialist, communist, aristocratic, fascist, corporate, theocratic, it does not matter. The difference between these regimes, without stating the obvious, from what liberalism is, is that they necessarily limit the potential of individuals. Those in power, also, are never free to pursue their happiness, for the master-class is always oppressed by the fear of losing power.
The post-postmodern reconstruction of this postmodern deconstruction is then to take from all of these political philosophies that which they share in common, which each one of their structures necessarily encompasses, and propose a tenable solution. Namely, the function of the state is such that individuals can prosper, some individuals more so than others, while maintaining a fair and healthy balance between those that do, and those that do not, so as to truly provide liberty and justice for all.
This critique turns all of Rand’s conclusions on their heads, yet this is exactly what must follow if her premises are taken to their natural, valid conclusions.