Ayn Rand might be right, but her followers are not

I always try to make a habit of reading, following, or observing those whose views I do not necessarily agree with. Being a self-diagnosed centrist, I recently decided I needed to see what the Tea Party libertarians have been going on about and read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.

It is pretty straightforward in the early 21st century to agree that freedom to innovate can result in prosperity, lower costs, and improved services for consumers. The domain or industry sector in question however is relevant when considering how much “innovation free from state intervention” is appropriate. Ayn Rand writes of a state which supports certain industries, intervenes to protect lazy businesses, and depresses anyone seen to try and innovate.

Extrapolating from what Reardon, one of her key protagonists, managed to achieve with his innovative Reardon Steel (stronger, lighter, durable) to the current liberal Brexiteer dream to accept US imports of GM Crops is wholly inappropriate and illogical.

Steel is a discrete product from one supplier to another. The customer buying and using Reardon Steel in Rand’s world doesn’t affect other steel consumers. Each is free to make their own choices without impact on another.

In agriculture, GM crops spread from one farm to another, and actually can be argued to limit choice (propagating gene sequences to those who did not choose it). Notwithstanding this, some of the very advantages claimed for GM are causing interesting side effects (for example, even Monsanto are no longer claiming farmers can get away with less weedkiller, or just use of Glyphosate — they recognise multi-chemical cocktails are needed due to Glyphosate resistant weeds appearing in over 18 countries and counting…). Hence, it is ironic that the innovation and freedom for some farmers to use GM seeds reduces choice and freedom for others.

However, Ayn Rand’s vision for freedom to innovate without government intervention at the commercial level is perfectly compatible with robust state regulation. To ensure consumer safety and protect freedom of choice, it’s not a question of “government is bad”, more one of “bad government is bad”.