THE INTREPID TRAVELS and MUSINGS OF THE ITINERANT CEO

By

Dr. David J. Height

 

Many of you know from reading a variety of my articles that I am a great believer in the philosophy of objectivism as propounded by Ayn Rand.  She was arguably one of the great 20^th century philosophers.  Ms. Rand developed the philosophy of objectivism.  Simply put objectivism is the concept of man as a heroic being, with productive achievement as his noblest activities and reason as his only absolute.  It would take reams of paper and years to expand on this concept for the simple reason that the key elements that address objectivism are complicated and without question do require explanation.  Hence when I refer to Ayn Rand and her philosophy of objectivism I attempt to put everything into perspective along with analogies. The on-line source of information, Wikipedia, does a decent job of summarizing the concept of objectivism as follows: Advocacy of Reason, Individualism, Market Economy, and Failure of Government Coercion.  This concept of objectivism was first propounded in Ayn Rand’s novel Atlas Shrugged.

 

In the novel Atlas Shrugged the government has required by law (failure of government coercion) that major industrialists reduce the price of their goods for the good of society (market economy).  To do so requires that the producers of these goods denigrate the quality of their goods.  Most producers in the interests of continuing to turn “a fast buck” comply with the governmental mandates.  However, among the industrialist are a number of producers who refused to do so.  They are in search of a man named “John Galt” (remember the t-shirts in the 70’s, “Who is John Galt?”).  John Galt is a proponent and teacher of the tenants of objectivism.  Essentially put: Reason, Individualism, Market Economy and the rejection of Government Coercion.  The major protagonist in Atlas Shrugged is a steel producer and is faced with a serious dilemma.  If he does not comply he will lose money, power, and prestige that he worked so hard to obtain.  The steel is of the highest quality and highly regarded a process that he created and developed.  If he complies his steel will be of inferior quality and could ruin not only his public reputation but also his own sense of self worth.  Thus begins the protagonist’s search for John Galt, the odyssey of self discovery and realization.  Our hero becomes the disciple of OBJECTIVISM.

 

Last week my family and I were in California for personal reasons.  One evening while sitting with other family members the subject eventually turned to the inevitable discussions of politics, economics, and the current state of affairs in the United States.  Eventually we rested on the subject of a “nationalized health care system” as proposed by the Obama administration and the Democratic Party.  Naturally it follows without writing that the subject became quite heated.  The consensus of opinion excluding me was to favor a nationalized health system.  However what was more interesting were the reasons given for support of this proposed system and how to fund the system.  The consensus of opinion was “we all have a right to health care, and there exists from the government a duty to provide health care.”  Furthermore “everyone living in the United States is entitled to health care.”  Naturally, I as a follower of Ayn Rand after having picked up on the key words: Right, Duty, Entitlement, and Payment for the same had to ask the inevitable question: “who is going to pay for this benefit?”  Again the answer was simple: “through taxation.  Again I had to ask the inevitable question: “what would be the fair way to tax to pay for the system based on the aforementioned criterion?”

 

The answer was to be expected however the reasoning shocked me!  Simply put the taxes are to be extracted from the usual parties: the Ultra-Rich, the Rich, the Upper Middle Class, and those with money from where ever means the monies were acquired.  Naturally all taxation tempered with a modicum of fairness.

 

The reasoning was shocking!  Simply stated the reasoning was: “because the aforementioned classes owe society because society gave to you and now you owe society!”  Hence I ask a simple question how does one owe society? 

 

Let us take as a simple example a lawyer.  The first step is to make it through the 8^th grade (8 years of school), then graduate from the top of your class in high school (4 years of school), graduate at the top of your class from a university (4 years) and then 3-4 years of law school (add another 4 years).  The sum total of education thus far - 20 years.  Wait we are not done yet.  Now, because this is the age of specialization to be competitive, add another 2 years in a specialized field.  Our total is now at 22 years of education.  Let us add a few other factors specifically: specialized review courses to aid in the educational process while attending laws school, the free time that is spent studying rather than with friends at the beach cold beer in hand.  Now let us add the monetary side to this: University – student loans of at least $50,000.00.  Law school loans of at least $60,000.00+.  Therefore we can conservatively estimate a total indebtedness of at least $110,000.00.  Are we done yet?  No!  Most lawyers enter into the legal profession and have to open their own practices.  Therefore we must add into the equation the costs of opening an office replete with some furniture, legal books first and last month’s rent, insurance, telephone, computers and operating capital to name a few expenses.  The conservative total for this another $100,000.00.  Are we done yet?  No.  There are on-going requirements of “continuous legal education.”  The costs vary dependent upon the field of law however estimated an on-going yearly expense of at least $10,000.00.  The math is simple and the totals are staggering.

 

When I presented this quick overview the comment made was simply –“well the person chose the profession, if you could not afford either the time or money for the education why do it?”  This is an interesting statement to say the least.  Whether one chooses to be   a doctor, lawyer, dentist, or any chosen profession the intent is to strive to do well and use God given talents to the best of our abilities.  How does one “owe society and therefore be forced to give back?”  Like the protagonist in Atlas Shrugged the choice was made to burn the steel making factories to the ground, refuse to give up the secrets for making the finest steel in the world and to disappear from society.  Why should one give away expertise for a lesser value than the actual worth?

 

With this in mind leads to the ultimate question: why should those who have prospered be forced to give to those less fortunate?  I think that this is in reality a personal decision not one that should be forced by a government or for that matter by a society.  I am not an advocate of shirking a responsibility to help our fellow man when possible but I certainly do not believe that health care in general is a right or a duty.  In fact the number of people that on a daily basis either legally or illegally immigrate into the United States is ever increasing.  Once again we would be forced not only to accept the immigration but further to shoulder the responsibility of governmental imposed health care.

 

In essence the concept of being successful and for that matter striving to be successful is denigrated.  The value of my efforts is diminished by having to give it away even if it is in the form of higher taxes.  Why therefore should I work to be successful knowing full well that looking over my shoulder will be not only society in general but also the government.  Simply stated, why bother at all?  Since the government will take care of my health needs it also follows (a system which we already have in place) that “big brother” will take care of all of my needs.  This sounds strangely Orwellian doesn’t it?

 

The development of this concept brings to mind two forms of government: either socialism or fascism.  Under a socialistic concept the state owns everything and then doles out as the government sees fit.  Under fascism the difference being wealth and power is concentrated in a few.  It occurs to me that we are rapidly crossing the threshold towards one of these to ideologies. 

 

I will avoid the typical pragmatic arguments of how to establish or avoid the establishment of a health cares program.  However as I close I will say: “stay tuned folks we are rapidly approaching a brink and if we should fall God help us all.”

 

 

 

Dr. David J. Height resides in Chicago with his family.  He is the President/CEO of TNI Group International specializing in International Trade Development Consumer Products.  www.tnigroup-international.com)