Yaron Brook Defends Capitalism

On February 27th the Dartmouth Libertarians hosted Dr. Yaron Brook, chairman of the board of the Ayn Rand Institute, to deliver a talk entitled “The Moral Case for Capitalism.” Brook, an author of several books and host of The Yaron Brook Show, spoke in Filene Auditorium for an hour, with a period of audience questions immediately following the talk.

Victoria Xiao, representing the Libertarians, introduced Brook and stressed the importance of the event on campus. While people often debate the pros and cons of capitalism as an economic system, Xiao believes not enough time is spent discussing the “moral side.” Brook, as a follower of Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, hoped to provide this desired moral justification.

A sizable portion of time, however, was devoted to reiterating standard libertarian economic talking points, criticisms of socialism in particular, a system Brook called an “evil ideology with evil results.”

Lauding capitalist economic policy, Brook said, “To the extent that some country takes these [capitalist] ideas seriously, it is successful. To the extent that it doesn’t, it’s not.” He pointed to Venezuela as the most recent example of the failure of a country as the result of socialism, but believes that it is only one tragedy in a long line of failures, as socialism has “failed everywhere it’s been tried.”

“The popularity of socialism is mind boggling,” Brook commented in response to the recent success of the Sanders campaign. “It’s as if the human race is on a suicide mission.” Yet he does not think that the rise in popularity of socialist policy is solely a result of the appeal of the policies. “I think we hate capitalism more than we love socialism,” he said. “I think we’re looking to escape this system. I don’t know why, but we are.”

Brook believes disdain for capitalism is entirely unjustified when looking at the statistics. He referenced the popular example that, over the last 250 years, the proportion of people living in absolute poverty has fallen from 90% to a mere 8%. The wealth generated by capitalism, Brook argues, is the result of the inherently selfish nature of markets and the proto-Objectivist values implicit in the Declaration of Independence, a piece Brook views as the “most important political document in all of human history.”

The Declaration of Independence, according to Brook, owes its influence and singular importance to its place at the culmination of the Enlightenment. In Brook’s—and Rand’s— conception, the Enlightenment represents a period of recognizing the intellectual potential in each individual. It was a time when human reason held the utmost importance, which enabled the nations that embraced Enlightenment ideals to succeed. The Objectivist believes that each person should act according to his or her (though Brook exclusively used male pronouns) rational self-interest, fully following the tradition of Enlightenment and refusing to ask permission of structures of authority.

This is why, Brook argued, the 19th century was perhaps the most capitalist and successful to date. He believes people used their reason to achieve, innovated without seeking approval from authorities or safety precautions, and acted to make themselves feel better while the government mostly left them alone. The United States in the 19th century approached Brook’s ideal form of government: one in which “all the government does is protect your rights and otherwise leaves you alone.” Unless the government is protecting itself or the ability of others to pursue their own rational self-interest, “no one,” including the government, “can use coercion or force against you as you pursue your life.”

The pursuit of personal well-being is critical to Brook’s position, as he believes all market actors are always behaving according to their self-interest, insofar as they are permitted to do so by the state. The entrepreneur designs a product or service because they want to use it, and they believe they will be happier if they make the product. The consumer buys the product because the entrepreneur has convinced him that his life, too, will be improved. Thus, Brook states, “The only way to become a billionaire is to make the world better, to improve the lives of millions of people.” He later qualified this statement that this is the only way to become a billionaire, given the absence of coercion or force.

“Everything about capitalism smacks of people doing things for self-interest,” said Brook, a statement he views as praise and not criticism.
If the way to make the most people the most rich is for everyone to act in their rational self-interest, asks Brook, why do we continue to laud those who sacrifice themselves with no regard to their personal well-being? We tell our children to share, to care for others before themselves, because this is the moral thing to do. “Nobody actually believes this and nobody actually acts this way,” said Brook, arguing that morality based on regard for others actually functions as a system of repressing the individual’s true potential. “Virtue,” as it exists in the modern conception, “is not about other people. It’s not about making other people better. It’s ultimately about making yourself worse.”

Therefore he sees it as appalling that our cultural icons, our saints, are those who express the least regard for themselves. “Mother Teresa didn’t do anywhere close to the amount of good Bill Gates has done.” In fact, to Brook, she did “almost nothing” and sacrificed her wellbeing for no reason. Gates, on the other hand, worked to improve himself, and as a result changed the world for the better. The only reason we see Gates as immoral and Mother Teresa as a saint is because Gates profited from his work. To Brook, we should laud those who profit from the good they do.

In fact, those who embody an other-regarding morality (what Brook at one point calls a “socialist morality”) really do a great harm to society; socialists encourage others to repress their rational faculties. This leads him to comment, regarding the crucifixion of Christ, “I can’t think of a more horrible, more immoral thing than suffering for the sins of other people.”

“So don’t sacrifice yourself to other people, and don’t ask others to sacrifice to you,” Brook said, advocating for a complete rethinking of morality. “What we need is a moral revolution. We need to trash the old morality of altruism.” Instead, he thinks we should adopt Rand’s Objectivist philosophy, acting purely in self-interest. This, he believes, will “catch us up” to capitalism, an economic system he says is “far ahead of our moral code.”

Following this presentation, he stayed to answer audience questions and criticisms, many of which were astute observations of the flaws in his reasoning from Dartmouth students. One student wondered if always acting in rational self-interest would really lead to greatest aggregate wellbeing when it seems like, under a purely capitalist system, rational self-regarding agents are motivated to produce long-term harm for short-term gain, such as in the instance of climate change. To this, Brook responded, “So it’ll warm a little bit. We’re humans, we’ll figure it out. We’ll buy more air conditioning.” An anonymous commentator, seeing this brilliant defense from Brook, said, “Oh, that makes sense, because air conditioning and global warming cancel out like PEMDAS.”

Another student worried that, even absent the use of force or coercion, markets do tend to exploit labor, as seen in the instances of child laborers overseas who, though they may go to work willingly, are subject to conditions we would not tolerate in America, and yet we consume the goods they produce nonetheless. Brook believes, however, that child labor is a sign of improvement in developing nations, and that if the children didn’t work in a factory, they would likely work in a field under much worse conditions. To him, child labor is a necessary step an economy must take to transition from an underdeveloped agrarian system to an industrial capitalist one. Thus, by adding artificial guidelines on the treatment of workers, such as age restrictions, hour restrictions, and minimum wage requirements, we inhibit communities from developing as they should. In another stellar quote, Brook said, “Child labor is a massive improvement in the world.”

Perhaps the most contentious point of his presentation revolved around the treatment of those who are not able, for physical or mental reasons, to care for themselves. One audience member pointed out that these people are quite entirely incapable of acting in their rational self-interest to the degree required to survive in the modern economy, yet under Brook’s conception of the ideal government, they would not be guaranteed any assistance. To Brook, this is not an issue, because he “cannot conceive of a world” in which these people will not receive help from private charities. In fact, he thinks charities will be much more efficient and productive with less government intervention, as they would be allowed to compete with one another, and the individuals donating to these charities would have more say over what kind of needy person receives their donation. I, like many in attendance, not only found this a deeply troubling position, but also one that contradicted his earlier point that the most moral thing to do, in all instances, is act in your own rational self-interest. Brook believes, however, that one should not donate to charity out of a desire to help others, but simply to make themselves feel better, and for the aesthetic beauty of it.

Brook attended a dinner with the Dartmouth Libertarians after the event, where they apparently continued their discussion until 10:00 in the evening. I was invited to attend this dinner as well, though I could not attend due to an earlier commitment, but this was no great loss to me.