First, watch this video clip of some of the major players involved in the Free Capitalist movement and the Producer Revolution (Koerber makes an appearance):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqNg7S8Ncnk
Here is the transcript of what the narrator says:
The world is changing. Since the beginning of time, a small minority who have valued knowledge over ignorance, truth over deception, freedom over security, and responsibility over slavery, have quietly held the world on their shoulders. These are the producers. Their ideas create the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the cars we drive, and the roofs over our heads. Without them, the world crumbles.
A second group has also existed, those who live, not to bring value into the world, but only to take it out, those who feel the world owes them a favor, that wealth and prosperity are the result of luck, that money is the root of all evil, yet they want more of it, that high returns come from high risk, and that it takes money to make money. These are the consumers. They make the most noise and the most demands. They get the most attention, and they cry the loudest for equality. Their theories and beliefs have dominated the media and popular opinion for millennia.
But the verdict is in: the mindset of fear and poverty and scarcity has been tried, and it has failed. The age of the consumer is over. The Producers are arising. The Producer Revolution has begun.
Ok, now you probably missed a lot of what was in that video. I’ll bet something doesn’t sit right with you, but then again some things they said ring true. After I explain some thing, that video is going to make a whole lot more sense.
There Are Not Just "Producers" and "Consumers"
First, “since the beginning of time” there have been two groups? Producers and Consumers? Is that a correct description of human beings since the beginning? Have there always just been people who either produce or consume? Who were the “producers” in ancient Egypt? Who were the “producers” in ancient Rome? Athens? Who were the people “whose ideas created the food they ate, the clothes they wore?” Would that be the Pharoah? The slaves? The Priests? Maybe the Senators of Rome? The conquered peoples? Hmmm. I don’t think you can place very many people in either the Producer or Consumer slot when you look back at history.
Aren’t people both producers and consumers? Are there people (and has there always been) that just produce and produce things without consuming anything? And are their people that just consume and consume without producing anything (other than people like invalids)? Why divide people into one of two camps like this?
This Idea Comes from Atlas Shrugged
This idea that there are two groups of people, producers and consumers, is not an old idea. It is not ancient. This idea appeared at the beginning of the 20th in the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. Let me give you a synopsis of the book:
The setting is a dystopian America sometime in the near future. The economy is faltering. The government’s response to this is to exert more and more control over the markets and industry. Some of the wealthier and successful people in the country start disappearing in protest to the government controlling them, and their absence causes the economy to falter faster than before because their productive and creative abilities have been removed from the equation. In fact, not only did these productive people exit the public sphere, they secretly sabotaged a lot of their plants, mines, and inventions so that the people remaining behind, the “looters” and “moochers,” couldn’t use them.
The book’s title, Atlas Shrugged, is a reference to the mythical god Atlas who holds the world on his shoulders. In this story, the productive people are like Atlas, carrying the burden of supporting to world, that is, the looters and moochers. And these producers shrug a little, thus destabilizing the world, just like what would happen if Atlas himself would shrug while holding up the world.
The wealthy, productive, and successful people have secretly created a utopia off in some remote mountains in the west. There they live in perfect harmony where they can produce things without interference or restraint. There are no laws. They all only work for their own benefit, and they voluntarily trade what they produce with others. Some people in the utopia actually have to change occupations because someone else there does it better than them, and they are happy to make the switch. This is the utopia that Ayn Rand envisioned.
A Childish Dream
The utopia in Atlas Shrugged is a childish dream. Now, I know I will be immediately be accused of being a socialists or consumer or having a "scarcity mentality" or whatever, and that I don’t appreciate work or the right of people to keep what they produce. I do, but Ayn’s Rand’s utopia cannot achieve that, and it cannot perpetuate. There are no laws in this utopia. But then who settles disputes? Everything is done through contract, that is, one person agrees to do something for someone else while the other person agrees to exchange something for that. What happens if the contract is broken? The item produced is faulty, or delivered late, or what if there just is a misunderstanding of what was in the contract? Who decides who is at fault? Who enforces the contract? What, it would never happen? There will always be perfect understanding? That would be a childish dream.
What if someone incurs damages because of the negligence of another? Say I find that some horses have trampled my crops, but I never saw the horses and I don’t know whose they were. Who investigates? By what authority? What are the rules for gathering evidence and pressing charges and getting compensation? Or do I just take a loss on my crops? Do all people with horses pay me voluntarily? Who asses the damages? Can I just walk into someone’s stable and inspect their horses to see if they were the ones in my fields? Who decides these things?
In the book, there is a man who was doing one occupation only to find that someone else did it better, so this man gladly accepted a menial task working for this other man because they all were made so much more rich in this situation. What if one man only was a little more productive that another? Would one accept a menial job if he wasn’t made much more rich? Or would they compete? How is it that everyone settles perfectly into different jobs with no regard to anything but how much they make? No one has a passion to do anything except make money? And no one cares anything about what they do other than how much money they make?
Where are the children? There are none. So...obviously without reproduction this society cannot perpetuate. So then when there are children, how do you discipline them? Are there limits to discipline? They are necessarily dependent (therefore, "moochers") so how should they be treated? What do you do if someone appears to be mistreating their children? What do you do if the children don't share the same ideas of everyone else as to how the society should operate? Are you gonna kick them out? That would be using force against them, denying them of their rights and property. Who is going to teach the children and what are they going to teach?
By the way, where does the fire station go? Hospital? Sewer? Electrical stations? Roads? Road maintenance? Who decides? What about defense? Will there be no disagreements on anything?
This utopia that Ayn Rand envisions is lacking in a serious way. Of course we all want to be free to do what we want and keep what we produce, but we also want to know how to resolve disputes, how we will organized courts and police powers so that our rights are protected. Having no laws does not equal protection of rights. It's a childish dream to think so. What we need are good laws that protect rights even while disputes and law enforcement are being carried out. We also need good laws that correctly identify rights and the acceptable uses of force, because not everyone will agree with what those rights are or when they have been infringed or to what degree, and people will disagree on what the proper use of force is (like with the rising generation having different opinions). So good laws necessitate deciding what you can force people to do, because there are some things (like going to jail for stealing) that are legitimate uses of force, and therefore you must have some system, some laws, in place to deal with that. Ayn Rand just simply says that the problem is that people pass laws and use government to take from others, therefore you shouldn't have any laws or government. Ayn Rand says that people mooch off of others so then you shouldn't even work for the benefit of others...ever. This utopia is like a little kid throwing a tantrum at the playground and declaring that he is going to take his toys and go home, and everything will be perfect. It childish and absurd.
The name of this utopia in the book Atlas Shrugged is "Galt's Gulch," and it is the name of the official forum of the FreeCapitalist website: http://freecapitalist.com/orca/.
The Sermon of John Galt
At a critical point, when the national economy was about to totally collapse, and when the secret utopia was strong enough, the leader of this utopia was able to hijack a radio broadcast to the entire world (using superior technology that they held back in the utopia) and gave a long speech on the morality of what they were doing. This speech is 60 pages long in the book and it is the culmination of the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
Below are some excerpts from that speech:
“For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbor.”
“Pride is the recognition of the fact that you are your own highest value and, like all of man’s values, it has to be earned." p.1020
“Do you ask what moral obligation I owe to my fellow men? None—except the obligation I owe to myself, to material objects and to all of existence: rationality.” p.1022
“Why is it moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own? If enjoyment is a value why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? p. 1031
“Your code declares that the rational man must sacrifice himself to the irrational, the independent man to the parasites…” p.1032
There it is. The source of the core ideas behind the Free Capitalist movement. It is Ayn Rand and her book Atlas Shrugged. In this book, there are only two groups of people: those that loot and mooch (who take from others from the barrel of a gun), and those who produce and keep everyone else alive. These are the “Consumers” and “Producers” of the Free Capitalist movement and the Producer Revolution. In the speech, John Galt asks what you owe your fellow man. Rick Koeber states that you only serve other for your own ultimate benefit.
The Oath
At the utopia, there is a special lock that can only be opened by one who says particular words. The words are the pledge of those in the utopia:
"I swear by my life ... and my love of it ... that I will never live for the sake of another man ... nor ask another man ... to live ... for mine"
That is their motto, their pledge. It sums up their ideology. It is purely selfish. And don't get confused into thinking this is some proclamation to not be enslaved by someone else. This says, and means, that you do not do anything for anyone else. You only do things only for yourself. That's much different than vowing not be be the slave of someone else.
The Religion
Ayn Rand’s ideas in the book Atlas Shrugged are the foundation of the Free Capitalist movement. So much so, that even Jesus Christ has been reformed into one that only did his sacrifice for his own benefit (see earlier post). The teachings of the LDS church have been warped to try to uphold these beliefs, as well as other writers of political theory and economics. This is why some things ring true in the Free Capitalist movement: they take things people have written (which ring true) but then try to bend and reshape it and try to convince you that they somehow uphold the ideas of Ayn Rand which they have adopted. Ayn Rand has become their prophet, Atlas Shrugged has become their scripture, and John Galt their savior. I know, that sounds harsh, but read Atlas Shrugged and then review what is taught in the Free Capitalist movement. Look to see which ideas prevail, which ones are fundamental, which ones reign supreme. That’s where someone’s god is.
Now watch the video again. Notice all the pictures of Atlas (he’s shown many times thoroughout the clip). Listen to how people are divided into two groups. Listen to the narrator and hear the words of Ayn Rand coming through.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqNg7S8Ncnk
Below is a cartoon that I thought relevant (click for larger version)
(from http://www.angryflower.com/)
8 comments:
Nailed it.
I would sadly agree with you that Ayn Rand’s ‘Utopia” will probably never be reached – we (generally speaking as a whole society) seem to be moving towards more government, more controls, less freedoms and decreasing moral standards. While I don’t agree with all of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, her ideas have generally helped me to become a better person, and ironically, a better Christian. I cannot answer all of the questions you asked, but there were some issues of your post that to me “don’t sit right”.
You wrote,
“Ayn Rand just simply says that the problem is that people pass laws and use government to take from others, therefore you shouldn't have any laws or government.”
So, according to that statement, Ayn Rand’s philosophy in Atlas Shrugged could also be called “Anarchy”, correct? Your claim that she advocates “Anarchy” is false. There is a proper role for government in Ayn Rand’s philosophy – to protect individuals from force. She states this role of government in many of her books and essays.
For example, in her essay The Property Status of Airwaves, (Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, page 135), referring to the early years of radio when anyone could use any frequency, she says, “It demonstrated why capitalism is incompatible with anarchism, why men do need government and what is a government’s proper function. What was needed was legality, not controls.”
Another example, from her essay, The Nature of Government, (The Virtue of Selfishness, page 131), she says, “The proper functions of government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force and the protection of man’s rights: the police, to protect men from criminals – the armed forces, to protect men from foreign invaders – the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws.”
Even though her philosophy towards the proper role of government may not have been explicitly stated in Atlas Shrugged (thank goodness or the book would have been even longer!), that example, along with her entire philosophy could probably answer some of your questions…
“But then who settles disputes? Everything is done through contract, that is, one person agrees to do something for someone else while the other person agrees to exchange something for that. What happens if the contract is broken? The item produced is faulty, or delivered late, or what if there just is a misunderstanding of what was in the contract? Who decides who is at fault? Who enforces the contract? What, it would never happen? There will always be perfect understanding? That would be a childish dream.
“What if someone incurs damages because of the negligence of another? Say I find that some horses have trampled my crops, but I never saw the horses and I don’t know whose they were. Who investigates? By what authority? What are the rules for gathering evidence and pressing charges and getting compensation? Or do I just take a loss on my crops? Do all people with horses pay me voluntarily? Who asses the damages? Can I just walk into someone’s stable and inspect their horses to see if they were the ones in my fields? Who decides these things?”
What you’ve done with the statement above reminds me of what anti-LDS people try to do when they use the book of revelations to argue that God wouldn’t allow any other books – they drop the context and don’t look at anything else but those selective verses of the bible.
You wrote, “…take things people have written (which ring true) but then try to bend and reshape it and try to convince you…” Like you have done with your statement cited above.
In reference to your reference of “The Oath”…
"I swear by my life ... and my love of it ... that I will never live for the sake of another man ... nor ask another man ... to live ... for mine"
So, for whose sake are you living, if not your own? Explain to me how it is even possible to live life for someone else’s sake without coercion or physical force.
Also (and this is one thing I don’t understand so I would genuinely appreciate your feedback on this) why do so many people feel shameful and sad when they have “selfish” motives for doing something? And why do so many people feel it is so noble and great to claim to do something for someone without any “selfish” motives? Also, why do people try to guilt-trip others when there are “selfish” motives involved?
I hope you don’t answer these questions with a response such as…”it is sad that you even have to ask”. I’m really trying to see your side – for my education and to try to understand people (dang selfish motives).
*Note…A problem that I usually run into when discussing selfishness is the definition of selfish. I tend to use the word selfish as Ayn Rand defined it in her book, The Virtue of Selfishness, where you are acting in your long-term self interest that are based on values (see Nathaniel Branden’s essay, Isn’t Everyone Selfish?, pages 66-70 for a very good explanation). Most people I talk to about selfishness refer to what Milton Friedman described as “myopic” selfishness – which I would say is generally not a good thing. It is obvious why the discussions never go anywhere.
”Selfish” motives are referring to motives both tangible and intangible. For example, my mom, dad, siblings, family and I pitched in last Christmas to anonymously help out a family that was struggling. So should I feel shame and sorrow since my main motivation for doing so was to have the sense of joy and happiness that I, me, myself, individually, derive from helping someone? Would it have been a nobler act if I would have not gained any happiness or joy, but instead felt indifferent about giving? I always have a “selfish” motive for doing everything that I choose to do (otherwise, why would I do it?). So should I always feel shameful even when I am doing what is right? That sounds like a lose-lose to me.
So, do you ask others to live their lives for you? (The preposition “for” in this sentence could use some clarification if we are ever to come to an agreement. From my understanding, Ayn Rand uses the preposition “for” in this case to mean something along the lines of “as a sacrifice to”. In her book The Virtue of Selfishness, page 30, she puts the “oath” in other words – “…man must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself.”). In that context, is there anything more selfish than asking someone to live their life for (as a sacrifice to) you? If I were to ask you to live your life for me, then what would be my purpose in life? In a religious context, could you live your life for (as a sacrifice to) me and get me into heaven? That sounds great but no thanks. I would rather someone act out of their own free will and for “selfish” motives rather than feeling guilt-tripped or obligated to act – I don’t want to be someone’s charity case.
I appreciate your posts and I truly hope that I can learn from you as well as use these opportunities to teach and question some of my premises (there I go again with my selfish motives).
RossCo:
regarding Ayn Rand's other writings:
In this book, Atlas Shrugged, she created a utopia. In this book she didn't just muse about what some of the legitimate functions of government could be, she created a utopia. In fact, even John Galt in his speech talked about one of the legitimate functions of government might be to protect property, yet in his utopia, there are no laws. So when Ayn Rand, through John Galt who is the hero, has to actually form a society in a concrete way, laws become unnecessary because all the people in the society have the right qualifications, that is, they are following the Morality of Reason (her words). If you take Ayn Rand's ideas to her own logical conclusion, if you follow what she says to a T, you get Galt's Gulch, by her own admission.
"You wrote, “…take things people have written (which ring true) but then try to bend and reshape it and try to convince you…” Like you have done with your statement cited above."
Uh no, I point out the shortcomings. I am not "changing" what Ayn Rand wrote. I am commenting on it. I am not twisting the meanings of what she wrote so that it can match some other meaning which I can then use to agree or disagree with.
"So, for whose sake are you living, if not your own? Explain to me how it is even possible to live life for someone else’s sake without coercion or physical force."
The previous article was all about this, how just because an actor ( a being with a will to shape things outside of him) wants things to be different does not necessarily mean that he is doing it for his own benefit. How he wants things and why he wants them that way can definitely be separate and different things.
"So, do you ask others to live their lives for you?"
No. This is an important point, though. I don't ask others, but I do do things for others (not everything of course). I am free to decide if I will do things for others. Some people think that since it is wrong to always be working for others (as a slave) that that means that you should never ever do things for others. You decide when you do things for others, but those decisions shouldn't be purely on what benefit you get. So if someone is like, "help me out by giving me $1000" you may be like, "no I don't think that will really help you." but that's doesn't mean you never give money to people, even when they ask.
A couple of things to note about Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged:
1- It was private property. The place was owned by Midas Mulligan and therefore was subject to the rules that Midas Mulligan decided was appropriate for the people he would allow to live there.
2- It was not an anarchy. There were objective rules (laws) about who could stay there and who could not.
3- Judge Narragansett was appointed by Midas to be the arbiter for any contract disputes between the Producers in Galt's Gulch. Atlas Shrugged also mentions that the judge was writing a new constitution for their return to the rest of society.
From these points it is apparent that Galt's Gulch was not what Ayn Rand had in mind as the ideal society for the world in general. In a society of rational men, fewer laws are necessary and, if in the judgement of the owner, Midas Mulligan, more rules became necessary, it was his stewardship to either create new rules or kick out those who made those new rules necessary.
Thanks aaron. That actually was informative.
RE: the gulch being private property of one person: that means that the owner of that property makes the rules...like a king. Again, doesn't lend itself very well to perpetuation and protection of everyone's rights when one person owns all the real estate.
RE: rules on who could stay. Again, this is "either you agree with me (us) completely, or get out." It doesn't deal with anyone's "rights" except the single owner.
RE: Judge Narragansett was appointed by Midas to be the arbiter for any contract disputes-
By what authority/ Who appointed him? The single owner of all the real estate? The people? Kind of makes a difference. And for how long? What recourse do they have if he becomes corrupt?
Galt's Gulch sounds more like "Galt's Kingdom" and you better do what he says or you get thrown out. Again, a childish dream.
It would have been interesting if Ayn Rand had produced a "constitution." She produced 60+ pages of John Galt's speech proving the morality of reason. I think a few pages devoted to a constitution would have been better. The US constitution might have worked, but that is not compatible with how the Producers in the gulch are organized.
None of that matters. Galt's Gulch wasn't meant to be a permanent place for the Producers to live. It was more like a vacation resort that they could visit once in a while to recover from the work they were doing in the real world. Think of it as a private ranch that Midas Mulligan allowed certain people to visit to kind of recharge the batteries so to speak. They didn't need a constitution or a real government. If someone came into Galts Gulch and attempted to initiate force, I think they would have a very rude awakening. Remember the rescue of Galt from the Commissars? They definitely weren't afraid to respond with force, that's for sure.
It's really too bad that you're so willing to just throw Ayn Rand out the window just because you have some problems with some of the things she taught. Was her philosophy perfect? No. Did she live her philosophy perfectly? Again, no. But that doesn't change the fact that most of her ideas are true. If you take nothing else from her writings, I think the most important thing to understand about her is that she was an enemy of any idea or philosophy or man that advocated the initiation of force.
I have read Atlas Shrugged twice and have read her other books 2-3 times each as well and have benefitted greatly from what I've learned from them.
aaron, Ayn Rand's ideas about a utopia are only part of the problem. The other part if that the Free Capitalist movement is built on those imperfect ideas and it is trying to implement them in real life.
This is less a critique of Ayn Rand and more a critique of the Free Capitalist movement trying to implement Ayn Rand's ideas.
The bottom line is still that if you take Ayn Rand's ideas to the logical conclusion that she herself makes and if you build a society off of them you get Galt's Gulch. And again you bring up that "force is bad." Well of course it is. Galt's Gulch is not the answer to that or the remedy. You can't just simply say that since force is bad we will just have everyone doing everything voluntarily with no laws and everything will just work out.
That's what the genius of the Founders was. They devised a pretty darn good way to organize a government that protects people's rights and has checks and balances to help prevent the abuse of power and that also can be modified by the people to achieve these ends. Galt's Gulch has got none of that. That's why it's a child's dream. And basing a movement or a "philosophy of freedom" or adopting it's ideas as "principles" is ridiculous.
Ayn Rand represents an extreme, and of course the book is a sort of idealization.
Still, I think that the comic you posted ultimately is symbolic of the death of your argument. The person who wrote the strip obviously was pretty familiar with the characters and the story enought to sketch them.
Yet, in the book the formerly rich and wealthy producers of the country leave luxury for hard, sweaty work - composers, bankers, oil tycoons - and the book highlights this. It is a pivotal moment of the book, pointing out what we ought to value in life.
That's why the strip is dumb, it betrays an ignorance of the whole philosophy.
If you read the scriptures, it's as if God assumes we will act in our rational self-interest (which Ayn Rand has sufficiently proven is the only possible long-run way for an intelligent being to act - so it is reasonable for God to act like this is what He expects). His commandments are essentially telling us the best way to do that.
In King Benjamin's speech, we are commanded to ensure the hungry are fed and the naked clothed. This because our own substance comes from God, and also because it is beyond the scope of our ability to judge a poor person by denying them these necessities - which denial is an inherent judgment. But we judge beyond the scope of our ability if we demand a collective agreement to provide these things.
The whole New Testament is a lesson of comparative value - of things eternal over things temporal. If we are not rationally self-interested, this value argument cannot exist. Yet surely it does because the savior uses it.
Ego isn't about a vicious evil self-interest, it is about living the fullness of our existence. It is being aware and accountable of our existence.
Self-interest isn't a moral thing, it is a factual thing. Ayn Rand fails in that there is an end to her philosophy, specifically that it covers the time between birth and death only. However, the truths of her analysis of self are relevant to eternal existence.
The utopia can exist, but only if we accept ourselves as the sole guarantars of our well-being and progress. AND THAT IS GOSPEL! For we cannot ask another to keep the commandments for us, that is sin and apostasy!
The savior himself, despite the atonement, cannot keep commandments on our behalf.
Though I appreciate this site's review of the ambiguous actions of the FC project. Any initiative that has membership, levels, hides details of levels, ties monetary value to levels, and MOST SIGNIFICANTLY uses new and exclusive terminology to describe these levels is inherently fishy. That's what's wrong with Scientology.
When you twist language and make it exclusive, you can't be a true capitalist. While ideas can be exclusive and the marketable product of a mind's labor - language is in the realm of the marketplace. It is a currency, and a currency must be common and free or the market can't be free. The rules of the market must be known by all.
Fishy.
But capitalism is good!
Post a Comment