I recently visited Finland, my native country. The trip made me think as to why so many people choose to follow the majority opinion as opposed to thinking for themselves, and why they avoid “extreme” positions on any issue as opposed to adhering to valid principles on which their lives literally depend. Conformity to the majority view and moderate pragmatism are not particularly Finnish qualities—they can be found everywhere—but they are prominent in Finland, a typical Nordic welfare state with a homogeneous population of merely five million and egalitarianism as the mainstream ideology. Since conformity and avoidance of “extreme” views have significant implications for human survival and well-being, they are worth analyzing.

As an example of following the majority view without thinking for oneself, consider the idea of human-caused climate change. Most of the media advocate climate alarmism blaming human activity, suppressing contrary facts and views. The majority of people believe in it as if it were warranted by facts. Those scientists who challenge the human-caused climate change dogma with contrary evidence are dismissed as “deniers”. The media and their consumers believe the reports of scientists who have joined the climate alarmism bandwagon (even after their authors have admitted penning them for political reasons only). A Finnish engineering professor argued in an article that because of man-made climate change, we must give up fossil fuels and embrace solar energy—which he claimed would be a viable alternative to fossil fuels by 2040.

Perhaps people feel safe in going with the majority, persuading themselves that “50,000 Frenchmen cannot be wrong” and that the emperor’s new clothes are splendid because everyone else seems to think so. However, nothing could be more hazardous than following others blindly. As shown by Aristotle and Ayn Rand, we survive and thrive by using reason: to achieve any value, from a nutritious breakfast to a successful career, we must adhere to facts and apply logic. And reason is an individual faculty; there is no collective brain. Each of us must think for ourselves—because unthinkingly following others will lead us to their values, which could be opposite to our own. If we are given advice, such as: “Abandon fossil fuels (and their derivative products, from gasoline to plastics to synthetic clothing),” we must independently assess its validity—if we want to live and flourish. Because our lives and well-being depends on such independent thinking, independence—‘the primary orientation to reality as opposed to other people’—is a moral virtue and important guide to action.

An example of avoiding “extreme” positions was a comment someone made to me in Finland. I attended a panel discussion about the future of the euro organized by the Libera Foundation, an independent Finnish think tank that promotes individual rights, free markets, and free society. I was telling about it to a CEO acquaintance and suggested that he attend future Libera events to benefit from the exchange of ideas that could help solve Finland’s problems, such as ballooning public expenses and chronic unemployment. His comment was: “Libera stands for such extreme views that I do not want to associate with it.” Admittedly, in the Finnish entitlement state, individual rights clash with the moral duty to be our brother’s keeper, the free markets with government regulation, and free society with the nanny state that knows best what’s good for its citizens.

But are individual rights, free markets, and free society “extreme” principles that should be avoided at all costs and replaced by the “moderate” ideas of altruism, market regulation, and the nanny state? Again, Ayn Rand convincingly demonstrated that our survival and thriving depends on identifying and consistently applying valid principles, no matter how “extreme” they may be considered by those clinging to the majority consensus.
Individual rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness are a necessary concept and define our freedom of action in a social context and protect us against the initiation of physical force by others. Free markets are necessary to maximize creation of material values and therefore, physical well-being. And free society, based on the recognition of individual rights and free markets, makes possible peaceful coexistence and prosperity. Adhering to these “extreme” principles is integrity, ‘loyalty to rational principles’—another moral virtue we need as a guideline to survival and happiness.

Achieving our values in the long term requires that we give up following the majority unthinkingly and knee-jerk rejections of “extreme” views. We must think for ourselves and act on rational moral principles instead.


  1. It’s psychology in many cases.

    Individual freedom supported by justice and defense removes economic pressure of being afraid to speak up for fear of losing income to feed family by allowing different approaches and stopping those who would force you.

    But my attempt to educate a store manager about being bold against the bureaucracy this morning was wasted time.

    • I agree, Keith, that is often people’s psychology–but psychology rest of philosophical premises. When you hold conflicting values, say altruism mixed with the desire to achieve your own goals, you’ll end up like the store manager.

  2. Just yesterday, I was labelled as extreme by some students and colleagues for trying to argue for restricting government and cutting back gradually overtime the reach into our lives by government and the borrowing and expenditure of government.

    “Education is government responsibility”, I was told….”Healthcare is to be provided by government”……”Research is government driven”…….etc, etc….among other slogans were: “We need balance”…..”Don’t throw out the baby with the bath water”. “We the people have decided that we want these things from government”.

    No one appeared particularly concerned about government debt, the non-sustainability of the system or the harm of the welfare state. Their lack of evidence supporting the values or results of a welfare state or the status quo amounted to nothing more than “helping those in need”.

    The solution proposed in their argument to address the problems of govt was “We need efficiency in government”. That of course will never happen.

    • Sorry to hear about your discouraging experience. Many people are not open to listening a rational argument, so trying to persuade them is a waste pf time. Trying to engage people who are willing to listen (when we find them!), is more productive.

Leave a Reply