This is an obvious extension of the fact that the proper purpose of morality is life. Only individual men exist, can choose to live, can think, and need the guidance of morality in order to live.

An egoist, then, is not a monster trampling over innocent bodies in order to achieve some short-sighted end, momentary whim, or any other indulgence. An egoist is a man of principles pursuing his life consciously and purposefully, recognizing that other men ought to act in the same way.

An egoistic knows that his interests do not conflict with those of other rational men. Other egoists are not a threat to his happiness (in fact, they can greatly contribute to it), and are to be treated with respect and benevolence - not fear or hatred.

His purpose is to pursue his own life - his own happiness - not at the expense of others. He does not sacrifice himself to other men and he does not sacrifice other men for his own supposed benefit. He rejects both those false alternatives as two sides of the same coin - both, he understands, are forms of sacrifice and, as such, are anathema to his survival.

Rand, thus, provided an objective moral basis by which we can evaluate things as being good or evil in fact: that standard is - man's life. She also identified whose life this morality is to serve: your own.

***Man's Rights***

Now, the question arises, what happens when men live together - what happens when they form a society? How does one apply morality in a social context?

It is the concept of rights that provides us with a transition from morality to politics. It is the bridge that will connect egoism with capitalism.

Rights, are "moral principles defining and sanctioning a man's freedom of action in a social context" (Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness 110).

Because rights are moral principles and the purpose of morality is life, a right, properly, sanctions the actions necessary for man's survival. As I have previously noted, in a social context, the only requirement is that a man be left free from force.

The founding fathers correctly identified this fact in their naming of man's fundamental rights - the right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, and property.

The fundamental right, from which all others are derived, is the right to life. That means, the right to take all the actions necessary for one's survival, while recognizing every other man's right to do the same.

The right to liberty means, the right to be left free from interference in this pursuit - by other men and by one's own government.

The right to pursue one's happiness means, the right to take all the necessary actions required for one's own survival. It means the right to pursue one's own life and one's own joy, without being forced to sacrifice for the supposed good of others.

The right to property means the right to keep that which one earns and to dispose of it in the manner he sees fit. Today, property rights are the most contested and opposed of man's rights, but, as Rand pointed out, without property rights, no other rights can exist.

"Just as man can't exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one's rights into reality - to think, to work and to keep the results - which means: the right to property" (Rand, Atlas Shrugged 986).

These rights, because they are based on moral principles, are absolutes. As such, they cannot be morally violated.

Note, also, that a right is a right to action. It means the right to take the actions necessary to survive, to be happy, to gain property, without interference. Just as nature doesn't guarantee man's survival - it doesn't guarantee him food, or shelter, or a DVD player - neither does his rights. Rights are not entitlements.

No man is born entitled to property he has not earned, or a job no one wants to give him, or happiness that others must provide him with.

This modern idea that a man's mere existence requires others to feed, cloth, and shelter him if he is unwilling or unable to do so - that a right imposes an obligation on other men, is, in fact, proof of today's intellectual, moral, and political bankruptcy.

One man's rights requires no obligation on other men save one - to leave him alone.

The idea of "economic rights", such as one's so-called right to a minimum sustenance or an education, destroys man's actual rights. If a man has a right to money he has not earned, that means that some men must be forced to give him their money; if a man has a right to a job, that means that some men must be forced to provide him with a job against their own judgment; if a man has the right to a home, that means that some men must become slaves, financing and building a home they will gain nothing from; if a man has a right to health care, that means that doctors must be forced to become servants to his illness.

A right is that which protects a man from force - it is not that which forces some men to live as slaves for others. It is not that which forces the able to sacrifice for the unable. Not if a right is a moral principle.

Now, because it is essential that these rights be protected when men choose to live together, there must be an objective means of protecting such rights. In a proper society, governments are instituted for the purpose of protecting individual rights.

"A government," according to Rand, "is an institution that holds exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographic area" (Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness 107). Morally, the only proper function of a government is to act as a servant of society, protecting men from physical force - at home and abroad - by means of retaliatory force.

The only means of protecting oneself from force is by force. Retaliatory force, i.e., using force to defend oneself from an aggressor, is thus perfectly moral. However, the purpose of government is to place such use of retaliatory force under objective control. The government's role is to define, arbitrate, and enforce the laws based on the rights that men hold by their nature.

It should now be clear why capitalism is the only moral social system for all men to live in.

***Capitalism is Moral***

Capitalism, as I have said, is the social system based on the protection of individual rights, including property rights, where all property is privately owned.

In other words, a capitalist government is one that limits its function to protecting man's rights - to protecting man from force - so that he can live. As such, it is the only moral social system.

And since capitalism and egoism are based on the needs fundamental to man's nature - i.e., are based upon his rationality, capitalism is proper for all men. Not just the productive genius but the assembly line worker. Not just white Anglo-Saxon males, but all races and sexes.

Historically, capitalism - to the extent that it has existed - has proven its practicality. Despite the objections that capitalism leads to monopolies, or dog-eat-dog competition, or adulterated food and drugs, or that the rich get richer and the poor poorer, or that it leads to depressions - anyone who cares to study history or economics will quickly realize that all the evils commonly ascribed to laissez-faire capitalism are actually the result of its opposite - of government interference in the economy.

Capitalism, instead, unleashes the great productive geniuses who raise all of our standard's of living. Capitalism leaves everyone free to develop their full potential. In a phrase, capitalism enables man to live.

What could be a stronger argument for capitalism's morality?