[This appeared in Writers Exchange, a spin off of The Connection put out by Thomas "Tad" A. Davies, in late 1993. It's a reply to another participant in Writers Exchange. I only reprint it here to give others a chance to read of the two faulty (I believe!) views of egoism and individualism.]
Jaime Enrique Baxter bashed Terry Inman's view of responsibility in sex and childbearing. Baxter's basic argument seems to be that since certain people at certain times behave irresponsibly – i.e., have sex and produce children without much forethought – that they are not to be held accountable for their irresponsibility. My arguments here are not so much a defense of Inman as an offering of my views which may or may not be his.
Before attacking this argument, let me answer another criticism he levels on Inman regarding altruism and child-bearing and rearing. It's faulty to say that parents are behaving altruistically when they bear and rear children. If this were so, egoists a la Ayn Rand would never give birth to or raise children. I know plenty of people who claim to be Objectivists who have or are having children. They and I don't believe they are acting against their professed moral code.
Baxter's view rests on two faulty assumptions. One is that egoism (and individualism, which is the social application of egoism) means that everyone must be at war with everyone else. This is the Hobbesian view of egoism. It overlooks the fact that people can value other people, such as friends and family.
The other is that the egoist or individualist is a necessary a loner. This is the Robinson Crusoe view of egoism. It also disregards both the nature of egoism and of man. Man is a social animal. As such, he thrives best in society. This does not mean he is by nature a collectivist, but that he can best achieve his perfection in the company of other men. This includes not only the advantages of trade and division of labor, which should be obvious enough, but also the need for romantic companionship and for psychological mirroring.
The last point needs some clarification. By psychological mirroring, I'm talking about the need for friends in whom we can see ourselves and our values reflected. This is gone over in some detail by Marsha Familaro Enright in "Why Man Needs Approval" (Objectivity 1(2), pp49-67). To show you that Enright's thesis is supported by Rand, she uses many quotes from Rand's novel The Fountainhead.
While I agree in many instances, especially some of the ones Baxter cites on unwanted births, the people involved had little or exercised little choice, the same does not hold for our culture today. Not only is knowledge of birth control widely available and practiced, but abortions are relatively cheap. For someone to say she didn't know what she was doing when she had sex or that nine months later she had no choice borders on the absurd. It's this sort of attitude – i.e., treating everyone as a victim of their own actions – that encourages unwanted pregnancies and children.
I'm not sure if Baxter accepts the notion of private property or if he does how far he extends it. If he accepts the Lockean view of property as something one has acquired through either labor, trade or gift and which the owner has control of, then he should have no problem with inheritance. Inherited property is merely property which you give to your heirs. To say such should go to the community is to take away your right to control your property.
People often give property to relations or lovers or friends who are not very deserving, but this is no argument for abrogating property rights. The community at large – whatever Baxter means by that term – is no more deserving. Existence itself does not give one a claim to another's property.