If you haven't studied Ayn Rand, do so. Her name is being dropped all over the right wing political circuit these days. American Republicans love her. Libertarians consider her the mother of their movement, even though she considered their kind anarchists.
Ayn Rand considers the idea of free market capitalism to be the purest form of the protection of individual freedoms, allowing humanity to be freed from the tyranny of government. This isn't a surprising conclusion, being that her native Russian family were wealthy Jewish merchants who were used and abused by the Czars as Jews and then later, by the Bolsheviks, as wealthy merchants. It is my opinion that this shaped her extremism to the exclusion of all other inputs.
My disagreement with her is simple. I disagree with her premise, narrated by the fictional character, John Galt, in Atlas Shrugged, that the worth of a human being can be linked directly to his amount of income. Nothing more, nothing less.
If you carry this idea out to it's end - and she did - those who have much are the intelligent brains who should never be questioned, while those who lack are simply too stupid to understand the genius of the upper echelons of society. Rand singlehandedly revived the idea that rich were morally pure while the poor and middle class were leeches on the rich and were, in essence, damaged goods - rats of necessity, if you will. In fact, in her purest philosophy, those rats were not even a necessity, but merely a cancer on a perfect society.
I find this position to be morally reprehensible. And it all comes down to a question that one of my college mates murmured as simply a "what if" that stuck with me. This mate said, "If only we humans didn't have to spend our entire lives going to work and coming home, every day, just to exist."
In my opinion, that reality will never, and could never happen. But it does shed light on what I deem as more important in considering the worth of a man or woman than income. I find the worth of a human being to be more nuanced and complex - with one of those factors being income, in some circumstances. But there is so much more. How they interact with people. What they do in a pickle. How they treat family, friends, enemies, and strangers. How they parent. What tone of voice they use when they speak to me or those that I love. What they do with their free time (have fun!).
So much more goes into the worth of a person and yet it is purely subjective on my part. What I consider good, others may consider less so. What I see as valued, others may see as objectionable. Thus, worth cannot be summed up in a definitive philosophy but must be determined by each person in their own unique way.
I am currently staying with a family while my van engine is replaced. They have a beautiful home, a beautiful family, a chaotic household, a bright future, wonderful food, no room for error, and yet, here my family is, sitting in their house, enjoying their company and food, bothering them for a week. What do they expect in return? Nothing! And yet they are so grateful when we do simple things like wash the dishes.
They aren't rich. They are hard workers, yes. But, as I sit here, I look at them and see the pure beauty of humanity. Humanity that accepts assistance. Humanity that rents. Humanity that has many children. Humanity that needs their children to help with the finances. Humanity that started a business that failed miserably. Humanity that loves chocolate like no other family I have ever seen. Humanity that moves like a bat out of hell and yet works like a Swiss Watch. Yes. I see worthy human beings. Worthy of my love and adoration.
These are the people that I look up to when someone asks me, "What do you think constitutes the worth of a human being."
Yes, Ayn Rand. You were wrong. Humanity is so much more than how much I am worth to your cult society. I am not here to uplift your economic utopia. I am here to be like this family - loving others to the best of my ability, in all my glorious brokeness.