Posted on 03/09/2010 4:51:09 AM PST by Walter Scott Hudson
Tea Partiers should be wary of the ideology underlying a novel popular within the movement. Signs reading “Who is John Galt?” became a common sight at rallies last year. They reference Atlas Shrugged, a novel by Objectivist philosopher Ayn Rand, which is considered an affirmation of individual rights and the free market. However, according to a central advocate of Rand’s worldview, there is a deeper message within the novel which the Tea Party must embrace if it hopes to affect libertarian change.
On February 23rd, in a lecture hall at the University of Minnesota, Rand advocate Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard and author of “Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It,” delivered a presentation entitled “Capitalism: The Only Moral Social System.” Biddle argued capitalism is the only system which recognizes the requirements for human life. Those requirements, according to the Objectivist philosophy Biddle advocates, are productivity and rational thought.
To illustrate this, Biddle offered the hypothetical situation of a man deserted on a remote island. In order to survive, the castaway would need food, shelter, and clothing. In order to obtain those provisions, the castaway would need to act productively, to take action based on his own judgment to meet his needs. The only thing which could prevent the castaway from acting on his own judgment would be externally applied force, which Biddle represented with a hypothetical brute likewise stranded on the island. If the brute tied the castaway to a tree, or demanded all or part of the castaway’s production in tribute, the castaway would not be free to act on his own judgment.
To this point, the arguments of Objectivism fit neatly with those prevalent in the Tea Party movement. Both hold the protection of individual rights to be the legitimate role of government. However, Biddle claimed this similarity is not enough. Asked during a question and answer session how the Tea Party might effectively advocate for capitalism, Biddle prescribed a shift in morality. The altruism promoted in the Judeo-Christian ethic is antithetical to the egoism inherent to capitalism, Biddle said.
It is crucial to note, by altruism, Biddle does not mean mere charity. By altruism, Biddle means “living for the other” in a sacrificial manner. Sacrifice for the “collective good” is the rallying call of the tyrant, Biddle said, citing examples in the rhetoric of Hitler among others. He claimed, as long as Tea Partiers “keep going to church on Sunday,” their morality will remain in conflict with their political objectives. This sentiment, acknowledged by Biddle as controversial, is indicative of a larger hostility in Objectivism toward religion.
Expounding upon this, a commenter responding to a New Patriot Journal report of the lecture wrote:
Objectivism holds that knowledge is contextual. It is limited to that which can be derived directly or indirectly from the evidence of perceptions. Beyond that, it allows only for the possible and the probable for which there are degrees if some but insufficient evidence. It does not allow notions for which there is no evidence or those that contradict themselves or contradict existing evidence to be regarded as knowledge.
Therein lies the limitation of Objectivism, which it shares with science. Reality is not limited to that which can be physically perceived. To declare otherwise is analogous to a society of blind men precluding the existence of light. The condescending disdain for mysticism, which Objectivism seems to foster in its adherents, seems to preclude the existence of anything which is not already known. This seems as foolhardy as when the religious sometimes deny the obvious in preference of a previously interpreted revelation (i.e. there were no dinosaurs).
It is not true that anything supernatural, such as God, cannot exist because there is no “contextual” evidence. To the contrary, it would be irrational to assume a Cause of Nature would be itself natural. Revealed knowledge may be outside the scope of Objectivism. But there is no natural law which requires reality to conform to an Objectivist paradigm. To the contrary, nature suggests causal relationships. For every effect, there is a cause. This suggests a Cause of Nature, which would be necessarily supernatural. The Creator could not be part of Creation, and therefore not bound by the laws which govern Creation.
A second point worth considering is derived from John Locke’s property acquisition theory, which Biddle evoked as consistent with Objectivism. Locke argued property is created by the infusion of an individual’s thought and effort into raw materials. For instance, if a potter takes some clay and forms it into a pot, he owns that pot. This raises a question which Objectivism ignores. If a pot belongs to a potter, to whom does the clay belong? Who created the potter? Objectivism ignores these questions because they require speculation beyond the boundaries of the philosophy. That is to be expected. Math likewise avoids questions beyond the scope of numbers. Yet, again, there is no reason to conclude all which is knowable must be perceived through a single limited discipline. Were a mathematician to claim there is no such thing as “beauty” because he cannot define it with an equation, he would be rightly regarded as ill.
Objectivism seems to perceive the Judeo-Christian ethic based on its own presumptions rather than the testimony of believers. Why do those among the Tea Party movement who profess religion see no conflict between their religious call to altruism and their civil promotion of liberty and capitalism? The answer is because the matter of whether a man should sacrifice for others is wholly separate from whether he ought to be forced. Indeed, the ultimate value of freedom is the capacity to give meaningfully, to serve whom one chooses.
I thought it was about conservative change, silly me.
That was my first thought too!
How about taking back at least one chamber of Congress before you start “purging” the movement of people you don’t fully agree with. Socialism is the main enemy right now. Sheesh.
I think it should be obvious how I “feel” about that, but Im more concerned with getting out from under the thumb of OUR tyrants than anything else. Nothing is going to change until we free ourselves.
Its kinda like the stewardess advises... You should put YOUR mask on before attempting to help anyone else. ;^)
Not sure if that's directed that at Biddle or me. It's clearly Objectivism which aims to do the purging. The rest of us can easily tolerate Objectivists and welcome their inclusion in the movement. Biddle, by his own words, sees a shift in our morality as a prerequisite for political change. So your comment would be best directed toward him.
Rand got collectivist/statist leaders dead to rights, but I found her case for her particular brand of individualism to be weak. Her justification for selfishness seems to be based on its salutary effect on society, but why would a truly selfish person care about society? An individual can thrive while society rots, even profit from it. Enlightened self interest is a weak argument.
Libertarian as in the opposite of authoritarian, which is a far more important distinction than the modern conservative/liberal paradigm.
This essay seems almost an insidious attempt to splinter the Tea Party movement into factions of religious conservatives versus more secular fiscal conservatives.
The movement has largely been a reaction to the Obama agenda, based primarily on fiscal matters, and national security, not social conservative issues. On the other hand, I have not witnessed any of the Tea Party organizers rejecting the participation of social or religious conservatives.
So why do an essay trying to divide them into camps?
Because he still has to live in it - and can take a bullet to the head from the Morlocks just as easily as any altruist can. It is in the selfish person's rational self-interest to help build a society that avoids creating Morlocks, even if a few would-be Eloi are temporarily inconvenienced. :)
Agreed. Our government has become the enemy of freedom, and this is NOT just a democrat phenomenon.
"Divide and conquer" is the SOP of the left.
“At no point in that book was religion brought up.”
It not’s part of the plot in any way, but Galt does mention it, quite prominently, in his speech, particularly the idea of “the sinful nature” as taught in most versions of Christianity.
This article however, does not address Atlas or Rand’s teachings, but the interpretation of those I call OINO’s, Objectivists In Name Only. They are rabid Christian haters, and have completely twisted Rand’s views, and they are very dangerous.
Three of my articles explaining:
http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/rand/chritstianity.php
http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/objectivism/oino_fear.php
http://usabig.com/iindv/articles_stand/objectivism/oino_hate.php
If you have an interest in Rand, or what goes by the name “Objectivism” today, or religion, for that matter, I think you will find them interesting.
Hank
The enemy of my enemy is my friend.
We need all the friends we can get.
Ironically America in the early 21st century, is starting to seem just a bit like the Republic of China in the early 20th century.
China was (compared with now) a free country. Governed by the KuoMinTang (KMT). Almost the GOP of the day, in China.
Up until, that day Japan went on their nation-collecting spree around greater East Asia - and overran Nanjing. Leading to Americans and Chinese fighting (together) against Imperial Japan, cooperating in such amazing efforts as the Flying Tigers.
Those days the common enemy was Japan. But while America and the Republic of China fought together against that common foe: The CCP fought ... the KMT.
On one level this would seem to be, like the “Galt” idea of opposing the left here by sending our jobs to China and elsewhere - but the problem with that is that unlike the CCP, the American right seems completely unconcerned with jobs and factories. That is the crucual difference.
Those two things jobs and factories, mean political SUPPORT.
The Communist Chinese understood what the Randians don’t. Jobs matter to people, and the means of production are important. So while the GOP and “free traders” are busy eliminating jobs, they more than anything else — are eliminating their own power base. Unlike the CCP, which gained support by (at least in words) supported working Chinese.
But back to the parallels between China then, and America now:
To the CCP it did not matter that China was occupied by foreign invaders, it mattered to oppose the KMT. While the KMT was fighting the Japanese, the CCP was fighting the KMT. The KMT was fighting on two fronts. That strategy worked rather spectacularly. The KMT was forced to flee to Formosa.
The GOP is sort of like the KMT. While George Bush was fighting on behalf of America’s interests - the left was fighting George Bush.
And democrats are more like the CCP, than even they care to admit.
Already they have forced the GOP out, and onto a political Formosa. Atlas has already shrugged. Game over, unless this “Going Galt” nonsense is stopped - and at some point the adults start once again looking out for America first.
And they’re “flight attendants” these days, you know... ;)
It's also quite a stretch to jump from voluntary altruism to forced altruism based on religious grounds.
Consider this: Jesus asked us all to take care of the poor, to clothe the naked, feed the hungry, etc. Jesus never said: "And please take money from your neighbor forcibly and use that for the poor as well."
Those who make the argument that Jesus would want the government to tax people at high rates in order to redistribute wealth (the "Jesus was a communist" crowd) are on vanishingly thin ice.
“Because he still has to live in it”
Tyrants and thieves can and often do thrive. The world is big and can stand a lot of ruining without negatively affecting them during their lifetimes. Mugabe, Castro, Kim Jong-Il, et al seem to be doing quite well for their selfish selves, thank you.
Really, Rand’s worldview cannot be justified without an unexamined and unexplained caring about the fate of society. That, and her system of morality which she seems to claim is simultaneously axiomatic and based purely on reason, makes her trashing of religion rather unreasonable.
The best basis and justification for individualism is Biblical. Without it, it’s a house without foundation, easily collapsed.
“if it hopes to affect libertarian change.”
No thank you.
From the article: whether a man should sacrifice for others is wholly separate from whether he ought to be forced.
When liberty begets prosperity, as it always does, charity follows. Charity fills the vacume that statists seek to fill.
Wrong. It assumes men are greedy and will work for their own rational best interest. That those who act unethically will either be starved out or killed outright for their crimes.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.