In many ways, it is the logical extension, or even conclusion, of a very attractive political philosophy: first carefully measure out even quantities of desire to succeed, elitism, and fiscal conservatism. Then sprinkle in some bombastic philosophers, many of which had been sitting on the shelf for some time, a few of which you suspected had passed their expiration dates: a pinch of Hobbes, a smidge of Hegel, a dollop of Rand, a liberal slathering of Nietzsche, a hearty helping of Hamilton. Let simmer and serve—upon the venerated high altar of our Lord and God Capitalism. You’d be surprised how many of Generation Y’s best and brightest have been cooking up similar philosophies.

And why not? My sparring partner for this week’s Crossfire Macarthur Elatab ’09 has expounded on why this philosophy is so palatable for the bright and ambitious. He is, evidently, founder of the facebook and perhaps-soon-to-be COSO-consecrated group “Monsters of Malmesbury”, already sixty-nine e-adherents strong. This emerging school of thought—libertarian at its most benign, fascist at it’s most extreme—is very optimistic and appealing for Dartmouth-caliber types, and I like it as well. However, as a contrarian and an incorrigible moderate, I want to hit on a few reasons would-be Ubermensches and Howard Roarks ought to be hesitant about it—especially since so many of them aren’t.

I’ll use Macarthur’s term (“Monster of Malmesbury” apparently being the empowered appropriation of an epithet lobbed at Hobbes) for ease of reference, though proponents of this philosophy are no means only about Hobbes; in fact, it is appropriately hard to codify a concrete set of beliefs that all Monsters share, as the philosophy is above all individualistic. First, then, let me give a bleeding-heart objection: in what is at its core the ruthless and unencumbered pursuit of pure capitalism and teeth-bared natural selection, there is little if any room for empathy. You see, this philosophy has provisions for anyone to succeed, though it freely admits that in practice, it will only be the talented, ambitious, and intelligent who do succeed. Now this is not such a hang-up for your average bright-eyed, cocksure Ivory Tower wunderkind: this kind of strict meritocracy is streamlined for the purported cream to rise to the top. Indeed, just about anyone who is reading (and admiring) these philosophers in question is projecting himself on to the figure of the Ubermensch, the Howard Roark, the Prince, the Great Man, the one who is destined to surpass his mouth-breathing (but friendly) Applebee’s waiter in the Great Unfolding of History (in German philosophy, capital letters mean something is a big deal). But should there be no provisions for the little people, the proletariat, the Cornell grads? If the private sector were, in fact, to subsume almost all of the functions of today’s Relatively Big Government (the ideal Malmesburian future state), most of the safety nets that catch the bottom 20% would fall away: charity doesn’t turn a profit.

This is not much of a consideration for most Monster types I’ve met though. Human dignity, essential human rights, and all that hippie pinko crap do not figure prominently in the free-for-all free market. Perhaps that can explain why I’ve never met a poor Monster, and also, why I do consider the entire philosophy naive: it is very much not only a philosophy for bright people, but also for young people, probably nearly all of whom have never had the chance to face serious adversity or been thrust into a situation via outside events or dare-I-say their own human weaknesses, in which they needed a hand up. One who would argue that poor people can, with nothing but their balls and their tenacity, magically find success has almost certainly never been poor. Indeed, Monsters aren’t much for what-if conjectures—most were probably raised in cushy enough settings that their own brainpower and willpower were easily enough to propel them into the Dartmouth nirvana. As much as what’s past is prologue, though, that 1570 SAT you bought with a $500 prep course and the forty hours a week you spend in Novack probably won’t make you a Great Man, and may not even keep you out of rehab. So sure, I suppose cutting off the homeless and the blind would alleviate a drain on society, but remember that Milton was blind, Jim Cramer from “Mad Money! With Jim Cramer” was homeless—both venerable figures who at times needed outside help to succeed—and any of us may be someday too. And besides, who else would such a fanatically streamlined society leave out to dry? Alcoholics? Old people? Would that society really be that much better for the rest of us?

Finally, two more considerations. First, I feel that, while Monsters would nominally have any exceptional people succeed, they essentially want to pave the way for themselves to succeed through intelligence or willpower. Of course, neither of these attributes, in the great scope of things, is usually of tremendous help, and the presupposition that these are the most desirable or success-generating characteristics in any self is unfounded—and probably unjaded by the injustices of Real Life. Heck, if the purpose of life is to procreate, then maybe being mad sweet and/or like totally hott really is what it’s all about. I would contend, however, that if you really want to be a mover and shaker, as anyone from Machiavelli to Kennedy defines it, the holy grail of natural/nurtured traits should be charisma—that’s right, the ability to be liked and, as such at the end of the day be amenable to your fellow human beings. Therein lies a great paradox to philosophies such as these: until technology provides a way to build laser beams that evaporate undesirable or disagreeable types, any success in this most individualistic, egocentric of philosophies ultimately relies on the blessings of others, usually even on poor people and/or stupid people.

I hesitate to prognosticate wildly about what would happen if some Alexander Hamilton figure came to prominence today and everyone started waving his banner, because not only is it unlikely to happen (democracies rarely show love to elitists), but also, like any political philosophy, this one will adapt and conform to whatever the future throws at it anyway, perhaps to an unrecognizable extent. As it stands now, this is a great-idea-on-paper philosophy, as idealistic as any let’s-hold-hands-and-sing-kumbaya worldview. If America were actually run in this essentially impracticable way today, for example, soulless and utterly devoid of altruism, disease would run rampant (because it wouldn’t be cured until wealthy people started catching it), cities would become unlivable, Middle America would become miserable (unchecked capitalism allowing for “everyone” to succeed would almost certainly just consolidate power in the current upper echelon), and you, soon-to-be Dartmouth graduate, great as you are, would be a commodity, kept in the white collar mill despite all your hard work and brilliance, working hard that someone already successful can succeed some more—and forget being an artist or a writer. However, the short-term, truncated, balanced-and-checked goals of this individualistic philosophy are perfectly tenable and admirable, I think: less bureaucratic waste, fewer restrictions on free enterprise, legalized marijuana...

But that’s my problem with so many of these people: they don’t really curtail their aspirations there. Certainly there are moderates, but for the most part, well, they’re just so gosh-darned smug about it, as though they’ve discovered all the answers to the Big Questions and almost all of them involve unlimited capitalism. I really do think the world is progressing towards a more individual-centric place, and I also support that. But unless technology somehow deprograms our human tendencies to coalesce and form power structures, I don’t think that the Monster endgame would amount to much more than a rash of uber-corporations headed by uber-CEOs with a few more talented people getting richer and a lot more restless peasants. Didn’t we try this in the Gilded Age? Is this much more appealing than American society today?