Yesterday in my post titled “Objecting to Objectivism – The King’s Rational Self-Interest?” I addressed how the Matt Dillahunty and Russel Glasser from “The Atheist Experience” got Ayn Rand’s position on “rational self-interest” all wrong in their “Objecting to Objectivism” episode. The problems go further than that, though, so as promised here’s another point brought up: Cooperation.

The issue of cooperation was brought up only briefly, but I think it’s worth mentioning for a couple reasons. First, what was said ran so contrary against what Ayn Rand had said about cooperation, it deserves a response just to get the facts straight. And when I say this I’m not just talking about statements from Ayn Rand that one would have to dig deep into her books to find, but from the very statement that Dillahunty and Glasser had just been discussing. And second, it’s an excuse to talk about an Objectivist idea that I otherwise probably wouldn’t write about.

What they said

Matt Dillahunty, somewhere around the 25-minute-or-so mark made the following statement (transcript and emphasis mine):

The thing that I have a problem with, in regards to number four, is the ideas, while they’re not particularly backed up initially, also seem kinda of sophomoric and short-sighted in the sense that there seems to be this big assumption that “I’ve thought about this, and I’ve concluded that this is the best way for everybody to live.” And it ignores, in my opinion, both the necessity of a cooperative society, the necessity of structure within that cooperative society, and the benefits that come from that. And how those benefits can benefit the individual as well as the group.

He didn’t define what he meant by “cooperative society,” but I think it’s fair to probably assume he means a society in which people work together for some common goal. I’m not sure what else it could mean. Now take that idea and compare it to what Ayn Rand said in “number 4″ he had just mentioned, which was a point in Ayn Rand’s essay “Introducing Objectivism” in which she said:

It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

So, everybody deals with one another as traders, free to work together for mutual benefit… how can that be anything but cooperative? If two people want to cooperate with one another to do something, they can. If they don’t want to, they don’t. Even if one disagrees with that type of free society, that one sentence of Ayn Rand’s is enough to throw away the idea that she “ignores the necessity of a cooperative society.”

Dillahunty also said that Objectivism ignores the necessity of structure within a cooperative society. Compare that to the next two sentences in the “number 4″ he just mentioned:

It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders.

How are laws that bar the use of physical force between individuals not considered as “structure?” Again, regardless of whether one agrees with Ayn Rand’s position, Dillahunty’s statements about Objectivism are not true. Objectivists are not anarchists. Objectivists hold that a government is necessary specifically for the purpose of protecting individual rights.

What Ayn Rand said about “Cooperation”

Ayn Rand wrote specifically about cooperation a number of times. Thanks to the Objectivist Research CD, I was able to quickly find a couple choice quotes and let Ayn Rand speak for herself.

From “Letters of Ayn Rand,” chapter 6:

Only free, independent men can cooperate and feel benevolence toward one another. But they can do it only because (and only so long as) they know that cooperation will involve no pain or injury to them—that is, no demand for self-sacrifice.

But cooperation cannot be placed first, in the sense of saying that we must cooperate with others—if by cooperation you mean acting in a common enterprise. There are instances when we wish to act together with others—and instances when we prefer to act alone. Here again, how would you apply it concretely, if you preached cooperation as a general rule of conduct, as a conscious policy to be adopted by every man? If the community in which I live needs me and wants me to be a night watchman for them, and I want to be a writer—do I have to cooperate?

Cooperation is not and cannot be a conscious, deliberate consideration, or a rule of conduct, or a set policy. It’s a consequence—call it a natural result, if you wish—of voluntary association among men, each acting in his own interest. The overall result of each pursuing his own interest will be a society of peaceful, harmonious cooperation—such as a capitalist society. But it’s not done through any “will to cooperate”—only through pursuing one’s own interests, while respecting the same right in those with whom we deal.

And from “The Journals of Ayn Rand,” Chapter 9:

Collectivism is compulsion. Compulsion and cooperation are not synonyms. They are opposites. Collectivism is group action by decree—and in matters where no group action is possible. Cooperation is a highly complex division of individual labor. Collectivism is not division, but herd action, in theory—and a gun stuck in your back in practice. You don’t cooperate at the point of a gun. Only free men can cooperate.

Dillahunty said that Ayn Rand “ignored” the necessity of cooperation. Given the quotes above, how could his assertion be defended. Agree or disagree with Ayn Rand — “cooperation” was not ignored.

Final Note

Perhaps I am being a little picky with this one statement by Dillahunty, especially given the fact that it might have been made off-the-cuff on a television show. He didn’t have the use of the backspace key that I used repeatedly as I wrote this blog post. Still, he was wrong, and this is another example as to how he and his co-host did not give an accurate presentation of Objectivism. Like I said in yesterday’s post, it’s as if the two are discussing what they *think* Objectivism is instead of what Ayn Rand put into her books.

There’s more, too. I’m in the mood to write this week, so I’ll continue soon. The next post will be either on their criticism of a statement by Leonard Peikoff on objective reality or of Glasser’s position on the meaning of the train wreck in Atlas Shrugged.

Part 1: Objecting to Objectivism – The King’s Rational Self-Interest?
Part 2: Objecting to Objectivism – Cooperation
Part 3: Objecting to Objectivism – Objective Reality
Part 4: Objecting to Objectivism – The Train Scene
Part 5: Objecting to Objectivism – Teaching, Altruism, and the Profit Motive
Part 6: Objecting to Objectivism – Did Ayn Rand Read Kant?
Part 7: Objecting to Objectivism: Matt Doesn’t Like the Book He Didn’t Read