Fall Conference Celebrates Individualism

On Saturday October 14 and Sunday October 15, The Objectivist Center held its annual fall conference, at New York City's Marriott Marquis Hotel in Times Square. "Individualism: The Once and Future Reign of an Ideal" was the title of this year's meeting, and the program featured talks on the political-cultural presence (or absence) of individualism, as well as talks on the application of individualism to one's personal life.

Robert Bidinotto opened the program with some remarks on the history of the term "individualism," observing that-like "capitalism"-the word was coined by those who despised the phenomenon to which it referred. In the case of "individualism," it was an opponent on the Right (conservative theorist Joseph de Maistre) who invented the word, although opponents on the Left quickly picked it up and also used it as a term of derogation. Most tragically, even those philosophers and thinkers who supported individualism to one degree or another failed to provide thoroughly individualistic defenses of it. Therefore, Bidinotto concluded, if individualism is to succeed today, it must be rebuilt upon radically new philosophical foundations, such as those offered by Ayn Rand in The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged.

Beauty and the Beast
Following Bidinotto's remarks, TOC executive director David Kelley delivered a talk, "Beauty and the Beast," which analyzed the philosophical message of the 1999 film American Beauty. Kelley began his talk by sketching out the movie's plot and reporting on some popular criticism of the film. Then he remarked: "At first glance, the point of the movie seems obvious. It is critical of the 'American Dream.' It satirizes middle-class aspirations for material comfort, social respectability, and family values, as exemplified by the suburbs. It is against conformity, authority, materialism, and keeping up appearances. It is in favor of personal fulfillment, sexual liberation, freedom, and nonconformity."

But, Kelley contended, although the movie at first seems like a manifesto for the counterculture values espoused by college students in the 1960s, it is not. For example, the main character, Lester, leaves his job to search for something missing in his life, which sounds like a countercultural quest, "but he conducts the search within the life he's living. . . . Lester's search takes place within himself." That is the sort of spiritual quest one finds in all ages, and thus the film transcends the culture wars. Yet Lester's search is contemporary in one way, for it is in essence a quest for authenticity, which means: a search for alignment between one's personal identity and the outward life that one is leading. Authenticity, said Kelley, is the hallmark of a genuine "pursuit of happiness" because "in the pursuit of happiness, we need a sense that the happiness we seek is truly our own."

Kelley concluded by putting the concept of authenticity within the Objectivist framework of individualism. "[Ayn] Rand's difference from the expressive individualists [of the 1960s] is that she thinks man's spirit includes his reason, and can and should be expressed in production. But she agrees that values and standards must be authentic: they must be rooted in one's spirit, embraced and put into practice as expressions of the self." In a primitive way, that was what Lester sought, and that is why American audiences responded strongly to American Beauty. To those who felt such a response, said Kelley in conclusion, Objectivism has much to offer.

Many in the audience were enthralled by Kelley's interpretation of this film. "I suspect strongly that he's onto something," said Robert Poole, president of the Reason Foundation. "This is an example of an issue where Objectivism really has something unique to say and can make a distinction between the typical conservative embrace of economic individualism and a more robust, moral individualism." TOC Sponsor JoAnne Shaw concurred: "My reaction was that David's talk would appeal to a broad spectrum of people, not just Objectivists. I think that it should be taken to people who don't understand the premise and spread further."

Privacy Rights
After a short break, the Cato Institute's director of regulatory studies, Ed Hudgins, discussed the condition of privacy rights. In a moral context, Hudgins said, privacy is part of the "ethical infrastructure" of a free society. Politically, in the United States, this infrastructure is given protection through the Fourth and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution, and, more generally, through the fact that the Constitution explicitly sanctions only a very few, highly specific invasions of privacy, such as the census.

Nevertheless, three trends are now threatening privacy rights, according to Hudgins. First is the growth of the Internet and allied forms of communications technology. "More and more information on an individual is available on-line for anyone to view or disseminate." A second anti-privacy trend is the exposure of personal information to the public through television programs such as "The Jerry Springer Show" and the newly popular genre of reality-TV. The third trend is the invasion of privacy for political reasons. Hudgins recited a long list of proposed regulations that would violate privacy in the banking industry, the health care industry, and the commercial postal system. He also mentioned proposed changes in the laws that deal with search-and-seizure operations, the census, and the Occupational Health and Safety Administration.

According to Hudgins, the government is pushing for these powers for several reasons. First, in order to control its citizens, Washington needs to have information about them, and this explains the intrusive "long form" of the census, the government's most powerful tool for studying the workings of Americans' lives. Privacy is also being violated, Hudgins said, because of two collectivist premises: (1) Everybody's actions affect everybody else; and, (2) the government has to pay for the negative consequences of everybody's actions. This has been the justification for all the obtrusive regulations regarding smoking, and it is likely to be applied to other personal habits in the near future. Lastly, Hudgins observed, the more complex, free, and efficient a society becomes, the more it forces an anti-freedom government to assault liberty at a basic level. And the only way that the government can monitor these basic violations of freedom is to watch the private lives of citizens more closely. Hudgins concluded his presentation by projecting two possible futures. Either Americans will become more controlled by the government, or the growing rebellion against invasions of privacy will lead to less control. Judging from current social trends, Hudgins said, he is "betting on the freedom side."

Hudgins has delivered talks on privacy rights at other TOC events, such as the most recent summer seminar, and has consistently delighted audiences. Said TOC Sponsor Stephen Moses: "Ed Hudgins is always a thrill to listen to. He is full of ideas, and I think he's right on. Who needs the government or anyone else interfering in your own private affairs? The challenge becomes: 'How do we stop them?'"

Privatizing Social Security
Finishing out the roster of speakers on Saturday afternoon was José Piñera, co-chairman of the Cato Institute's Project on Social Security Privatization, with his always stirring talk "Privatizing Social Security-It Can Be Done." Recounting the way in which he moved Chile from a public pension system to a private one, Piñera delivered an energetic, crowd-pleasing talk on the key elements that were involved in his Chilean success and then explained how those elements could be adapted to the United States.

Piñera told the audience that he and his fellow reformers in Chile realized early on that the fundamental flaw in the government-run pension system was the separation between a person's contributions and his benefits. "We understood that a pay-as-you-go, state-run social-security system was flawed, and the solution was very simple. If the basic problem of the old system was that it destroyed the link between contributions and benefits, why not create a system where there is a direct relation between them?" The reformers created such a system by letting workers invest payroll taxes in individual retirement accounts. Through the "magic of compound interest," the money in these accounts has, over the past twenty years, grown to very substantial sums. In many cases, an ordinary Chilean citizen can retire as a millionaire if his money has been reasonably invested during the course of his working life.

Three steps are needed to move from a fully state-controlled pension system to one comprised of individual retirement accounts, Piñera said. First, the government has to keep its promises to those who want to remain in the old system. And, admittedly, this could put financial strain on the government's budget, seeing that the promised checks might have to be paid out of the government's resources if the pension fund dries up. Secondly, every worker must be free to choose between the old and new systems, and, to make sure most choose the new system, its advantages have to be explained in an easy-to-comprehend fashion. Thirdly, Piñera said, the door to the old system must eventually close, forcing all those entering the workforce to invest in individual retirement accounts.

First-time conference attendee Blay Tarnoff was among the many in the audience who were enthralled by Piñera's proposals. "I think that they are very sensible, I think they are great," he said. "I think that they are something that we should try to implement in the United States. But I think it would be very difficult, because the bureaucracy, the United States political bureaucracy, is probably a bit more difficult to deal with than Chile's in this particular case. But I think that's the only thing that stands in the way."

Saturday Banquet
After Piñera's speech, conference attendees socialized over cocktails before the start of the evening dinner, which starred John Stossel, the celebrated investigative reporter. Stossel spoke on his involvement with ABC-TV's flagship news magazine program, 20/20, his series of hour-long special reports, and general trends in the news community. He discussed a couple of his forthcoming programs, as well as several of his past reports. "I really like Stossel's work," said Seattle student Nick Slepko. "He presents an excellent case for liberty. He makes it accessible and I can even get my friends to tune in. It's a great way to start conversations about ideas. Greed was especially memorable. Before seeing this program, I had only vague notions of what Objectivism was. Seeing David Kelley cleared up a lot of misconceptions that I had about it."

Stossel's talk was followed by a short discussion of the forthcoming Atlas Shrugged miniseries. Executive producer John Aglialoro reported that the script had been submitted to Turner Network Television, after considerable revision based on discussions between David Kelley and the writer. Aglialoro then fielded a number of questions about the project, many of which dealt with such things as timing, casting, and the script's fidelity to the Objectivist philosophy.

Individualism and Business
Sunday's program began with Frank Brooks's presentation "Individualism at Work." For his talk, Brooks drew on the ways in which he had helped make his design consulting firm, FreemanWhite, one of the dominant firms in its niche by changing the company's corporate culture. This change, he explained, was accomplished through the employment of values derived from individualism and Objectivism. In particular, FreemanWhite has recognized the individual worker's desire to take charge of his projects, make decisions about them, and assume responsibility for the consequences. "This kind of culture creates a better workplace and a quicker, more responsive, more adaptable organization," said Brooks. Other advantages that Brooks said come from empowering individuals include enhanced product quality, greater employee satisfaction, and greater leverage in new staff recruitment. (For a fuller explanation of Brooks's management techniques, see "Shaping Corporate Culture with Objectivism" in the September Navigator.)

Many attendees thought that Brooks offered practical advice applicable to their own lines of work. Ron Amos, a music teacher from Silver Springs, Maryland, said, "I work for the government, as a schoolteacher, but some of what he said is applicable. I might not get much help from above, because it is a trickle-down organization. But I can go to the parents of my students and get some support that way."

Fraternal Orders
Turning from the workplace to civil society, University of Alabama historian David Beito discussed the history of fraternal orders in early twentieth-century America. Drawing from his book From Mutual Aid to the Welfare State: Fraternal Societies and Social Services, 1890-1967, Beito discussed the multiple roles of these social organizations, noting that they were not only a The Objectivism Store of entertainment but also a major source of insurance and charitable aid. "Before the rise of the welfare state, fraternal societies-second only to churches-are really the main social-welfare organizations in American society," noted Beito. But, he observed, they differed from charities in that "fraternal societies are better described as examples of mutual relief, meaning today's donor may be tomorrow's recipient."

Beito then discussed the varying forms of social welfare that different organizations offered. Some, like the Freemasons, used informal methods of relief; members would help other members in times of distress or help them in job searches. But some organizations, such as the International Order of Odd Fellows, offered guaranteed benefits; members would receive a stipend when ill, medical attention from a lodge doctor, or other forms of concrete benefits. Certain organizations even went so far as to build hospitals, sanitariums, and orphanages for use by their members.

According to Beito, fraternal orders began to decline in the 1930s. Owing to a number of factors-the establishment of a government-run welfare system, the provision of health-care benefits by employers, and the rise of new forms of entertainment-fraternal orders changed from mutual-relief societies to mere social clubs. "A lot has been lost in this transfer that transcends economics," said Beito. "This whole social structure of self help, of autonomy, of reciprocity, has been pushed aside by institutions based on paternalism and dependence." Doubting that fraternal orders could regain the popularity they had in the early twentieth century, Beito declared: "These groups existed in a particular historic context." But, he added, because they existed, "I think we can raise the question of mutual aid and self-help given the right incentive system."

Responsibility
The capstone of the weekend's conference was David Kelley and Nell Robinson's evaluation of what responsibility entails. Kelley began the discussion by defining responsibility and presenting a simple comparison between two different views of it: the view of the entrepreneur and the view of the manager. According to Kelley, an entrepreneur embraces responsibility. He views his life as his own and pursues happiness as an end in itself. He focuses on goals, takes initiative to achieve these goals, and views success as achieving what he set out to accomplish. The manager, according to Kelley, does not embrace responsibility. Rather, he views life as a franchise either from God or society. A manager's goals are set by a certain framework, and he follows certain methods to achieve his goals. When he is successful, the manager views success as a reward for a job well done.

Robinson, a theatrical producer with a background in psychology, attempted to explain more fully what the entrepreneurial view of responsibility is and is not. She began by admitting that responsibility tends to have a "bad rap," that people tend to think of it as meaning "the fun is over." But she then described how embracing an entrepreneurial view of the term can help in three aspects of life: dealing with issues of the past, altering day-to-day activities in the present, and planning for the future.

As for the past, Robinson noted that taking responsibility for past events, which one can no longer alter, can nevertheless be helpful psychologically if it eliminates the sense that one is a victim. In the present, an entrepreneurial sense of responsibility teaches one to take control of situations, identify goals, and do what one can to achieve those goals. Robinson said that this mentality is particularly useful in creating healthy relationships. Citing an example from her own experience, she explained how she was able to change a workplace relationship from a stand-off to a partnership by taking full responsibility for the relationship's success, rather than expecting fifty-fifty cooperation from the very beginning. Of course, the usefulness of the entrepreneurial framework is especially evident with regard the future, Robinson said, for it enables to plan our lives and decide what we want to achieve.

"I loved it," first-time attendee Caroline Johnson said of Robinson's talk. "It was very practical. I loved all the ideas. I thought all of them were very creative and philosophical, yet also had a lot of practical applications."