Professional Documents
Culture Documents
have encountered and each analyzed as best I can from within the
have decided to place all my writings into the Public Domain. I grant
any way that may help to further the spread of reason in our society.
better presentation.
-David King
Chapter 1
AYN RAND AND OBJECTIVISM - PHILOSOPHY
AND SCIENCE
Starting with a critique of Ayn Rand, I move into a presentation of
Objectivism, then to a consideration of the connection between Science and
Philosophy, with some additional comments in which I try to make the
scientific mentality a little less mysterious to people who have not been
explicitly schooled in a scientific field.
* Randism vs Objectivism
When Nathaniel Branden was asked (after his break with Rand) if he were
an Objectivist, he replied:
"If you mean, do I agree with the broad fundamentals of the philosophy of
Objectivism, I would answer, 'Yes.' But if you mean, as Miss Rand might very
well wish you to mean, do I agree with every position that Miss Rand has
taken and do I regard the sum total of Miss Rand's intellectual
pronouncements as being equal to what is meant by the philosophy of
Objectivism, then I am not an Objectivist."
I would say this to the Randites: Abandon the attitude that the
principles of Objectivism and the pronouncements of Ayn Rand are congruent
sets. Realize that Objectivism, like the Scientific Method, is an open-ended
set of principles rather than a closed and rigidly defined dogma. Recognize
the importance of the work being done by those scholars who are trying to
develop the ethical and political implications of the Objectivist Ethics.
Until you do this, you will only be ostracizing yourselves from the living
and powerful body of philosophy that is growing on the foundation of Ayn
Rand's magnificent achievements.
In the hard sciences like chemistry we know pretty well who is a real
scientist and who is a flake, even though there is no authoritative
organization to enforce standards. The logical nature of science
automatically makes it clear who is in and who is out of a scientific
enterprise. You can tell whether or not someone is "really" a chemist by
comparing his statements and actions with the fundamental principles of
chemistry.
It is the same with "Objectivists." You don't have to (and shouldn't)
take anyone's word for who they are. You must examine their principles and
judge whether or not those principles are in accord with the fundamental
precepts of Objectivism. Just as a scientist manifests certain specific
attributes, an Objectivist manifests certain specific attributes:
objectivity, rationality, libertarianism.
The hallmarks of an Objectivist are:
In Metaphysics: objectivity; the belief that there is a reality which
exists independently of consciousness.
In Epistemology: reason rather than faith; the belief that it is the
function of man's mind to perceive and understand that reality - and the
confidence that the mind is capable of doing so.
In Ethics: libertarianism; the belief that the only proper society is one
that is founded upon the non-aggression principle.
By these signs you shall know him. Any person who denies any of these
three ideas is NOT an Objectivist. A full-context Objectivist will display
another behavior also: he will have Shrugged.
* What is Objectivism?
In considering the most fundamental ideas about the nature of the
universe, there are two basically distinct ideas:
One, known as subjectivity, asserts fundamentally that existence is
created by consciousness.
The other idea, known as objectivity, asserts fundamentally that there is
indeed a real world that has its own existence, independent of any
perceiving consciousness. The objectivity thesis controls your behavior,
even if it does not control your thoughts and speech. If this were not so,
you would already be dead: You wouldn't stop on the curb to let the trucks
go roaring past. You wouldn't cook your food. You wouldn't drive on the
proper side of the road. You wouldn't practice safe sex.... etc. The only
sincere solipsist is a dead solipsist.
Perhaps the best statement of objectivity was made by Albert Einstein:
"Out yonder there is this huge world, which exists independently of us
human beings and which stands before us like a great, eternal riddle, at
least partially accessible to our inspection and thinking."
In the realm of scientific endeavor, objectivity (in the form of the
Scientific Method) has predominated. But in other realms of human endeavor,
such as Psychology, Ethics, and Politics, objectivity has had much less
influence in human history, mainly because the lack of a solution to the
Problem of the Universals precluded the sort of firm and direct linkage
between concepts of consciousness and reality as exists between scientific
concepts and reality (where truth prevails in a much more immediate and
direct manner).
But in the late 1960s the Problem of the Universals was solved by Ayn
Rand. She showed that Definitions Are Not Arbitrary, and she demonstrated
how to derive them directly from observations of reality. The same cognitive
process that enables you to construct a correct definition also enables you
to think in principles: to identify and classify things by reference to
their fundamental distinguishing characteristics.
This epistemological breakthrough enabled objectivity to be applied to
ALL areas of human activity. The work of Rand and other philosophers who
have taken up this effort has produced a set of principles now known as the
Philosophy of Objectivism. These principles stand in distinct contrast to
most of traditional philosophy and are, by and large, rather unpopular. (But
that is to be expected of any set of ideas that is new and challenges the
existing state of affairs. It has always been this way.)
Objectivism is the only philosophy that is completely consistent with
Physics. The ideas of Objectivism are founded upon a set of Axiomatic
Concepts: Existence, Identity, and Consciousness, and are derived from those
concepts by the intellectual procedure set forth in the Objectivist
Epistemology. This is a scientific, rationalist method which subsumes the
Scientific Method of determining truth. It extends the Scientific Method to
include areas of inquiry not usually thought to be amenable to scientific
analysis. In her essay "The Objectivist Ethics," Rand applies this
intellectual procedure to identifying a rational basis for ethics and
morality. Nathaniel Branden, in his book "The Psychology of Self-Esteem,"
applies the procedure to identifying the bases of human psychology. Harry
Browne gives us a rational explanation of the nature of economics. Hospers
and Rothbard carry the procedure into the field of politics.
Let us consider each of these terms and see what they mean.
In 1830, the Swedish chemist Jakob Berzelius, who didn't believe that
molecules with equal structures but different properties were possible,
examined both tartaric acid and racemic acid in detail. With considerable
chagrin, he decided that even though he didn't believe it, it was
nevertheless so.
Charles Darwin: "In October 1838, fifteen months after I had begun my
systematic enquiry (into the mutability of species), I happened to read
'Malthus on Population,' and being well prepared to appreciate the struggle
for existence which everywhere goes on from long-continued observation of
the habits of animals and plants, it at once struck me that under these
circumstances favourable variations would tend to be preserved, and
unfavourable ones to be destroyed. The result of this would be the formation
of new species. Here then I had at last got a theory by which to work."
"I question the accuracy and validity of the Scientific Method - Science
is young and clumsy - still too gross to truly measure some things."
Let us examine the accuracy, validity, and gross clumsiness of science by
taking a look at just a few of its actual accomplishments.
To begin with, here is a measure of the accuracy between a theoretical
prediction and its corresponding experimental measurement:
Experiments measure the electron's magnetic moment at 1.00115965221. The
theory of Quantum Electrodynamics puts it at 1.00115965246. To give you a
feeling for the accuracy of these numbers, consider them this way: If you
were to measure the distance from Los Angeles to New York to this accuracy,
it would be exact to the thickness of a human hair. I believe we can
conclude that the theory is reasonably close to reality.
As for the validity of scientific hypotheses - surely the most
outrageously unbelievable hypothesis of modern physics is the Quantum
Mechanics, and yet a clever application of the uncertainty principle (which
places a limit on the precision with which position can be known) yields
very fine-tuned control over a type of electron flow known as quantum
tunneling. The resulting device (the Scanning Tunneling Microscope,
manufactured by Digital Instruments, Inc.) uses the quantum tunneling effect
both to view, and to perform mechanical operations on, very tiny objects.
Right down to the level of individual atoms. At the IBM Zurich lab,
researchers used a Scanning Tunneling Microscope to cleave a single benzene
ring off of a dimethyl phthalate molecule.
In its practical application (where the validity of the Quantum Mechanics
can be measured by its commercial utility), an STM is used to monitor the
production quality of an optical-disk stamping machine.
And as for gross clumsiness, these three examples should suffice to
dispel that erroneous view:
The optical telescope on Palomar Mountain can detect a 10-watt light bulb
on the moon. This telescope could also measure the width of a needle - at a
distance of 5 miles. The best infrared telescopes could record the heat from
a rabbit on the moon - were it alive and hopping.
Using very long baseline interferometry, maser images can be made
accurate to 300 microarc-seconds. Were the human eye to have this resolving
power, you could read these words from about 3000 miles away.
Workers at the National Bureau of Standards used a Paul electromagnetic
trap to detect a single quantum jump of the outermost electron on a mercury
ion from its ground state to an intermediate state. That's one single
quantum jump of one single electron! Not quite the sort of thing you could
reach in and fondle with your finger.
Look again at the criticism - and consider the principle underlying it:
She really should not "question the accuracy and validity of the
Scientific Method" while she is writing with a ball-point pen on a sheet of
paper, probably supported by the plastic surface of a desktop, and
illuminated by an electric light bulb. You see what's happening - the author
is using the very thing she denies, in the act of denying it. This is an
excellent example of the Stolen Concept Fallacy: she is using the thing
while she is rejecting the thing.
If you have difficulty with the notion of "mere chance being the
instrument of creation" try this experiment:
Take about a dozen teaspoons and drop them (randomly but with handles up)
into a soda glass. Tilt the glass to about a 45 degree angle and shake it.
You will see the spoons begin to nest together. This nesting is the
inevitable consequence of energy dissipation - of the interplay of the laws
of physics - as the spoons settle into a "least energy content"
configuration. When you consider that the fundamental morsels of matter
(atoms and molecules) are sets of identical objects (every water molecule,
for example, is exactly identical to every other) just like the spoons -
then it is not too hard to realize that they would fit together in certain
ways. Just like the spoons. This fitting together - on a larger and larger
scale - can account for many aspects of the world of living things we see
around us.
Always remember this: the words "chance" and "random" do not really
describe the world of Reality. What they DO describe is the state of human
knowledge. To be precise, they are terms that describe a state of human
ignorance. When I say that an event happens by "mere chance" all I am really
saying is that I do not precisely know what are the causal factors of that
event. Personally, I would much rather admit to my own ignorance of the
world than to invent, as an absolution for that ignorance, a Divinity to
account for things I cannot yet explain.
Heisenberg: "The laws of nature which we formulate mathematically in
quantum theory deal no longer with the elementary particles themselves but
with our knowledge of the particles."
Chapter 2
Thinking
* Tools of Thought
A human being is the only creature with the ability to see the world as
he wants it to be rather than as it actually is. It is this trait that makes
it so difficult for him to recognize reality when he is confronted by it.
This difficulty is compounded by the fact that his mind didn't come with an
instruction manual.
Most people believe that consciousness is some sort of indeterminate
faculty which has no nature, no specific identity and, therefore, no
requirements, no needs, no rules for being properly or improperly used. Such
people abuse, subvert and starve their consciousness in a manner they would
not dream of applying to their hair, stomach, or toenails. Even among those
who realize that the mind has requirements, there are few who realize also
that thinking is not an instinct. One of the most widespread myths is the
belief that everyone "just knows" how to think and that no learning process
is required. Assuming the knowledge of how to think to be self-evident,
people take their own mental processes as necessarily valid; as not to be
questioned or examined. People do not improve their thinking because it has
not even occurred to them to consider the possibility of doing so. Thus the
most important of human functions is left to blind chance - or worse, to
subversive influences maliciously imposed upon them with the intent of
corrupting their mental functioning. Nothing can be more infamous than
intellectual tyranny; to put shackles on the mind is in some ways vastly
worse than putting chains on the body. An example of such (self-inflicted)
enslavement can be seen in people's willingness to lie, cheat, and fake
reality without any concern for what this does to their own minds and their
own lives. The man who lies chronically makes himself vulnerable to being
deceived because he diminishes his capacity to discriminate truth from
falsehood. If you tell yourself a lie often enough, you'll eventually
convince yourself it's the truth. Then when you come up against difficulties
and dangers, you won't believe in them and thus won't be able to take the
proper precautions against them.
* Language
"Man lives in a world of ideas. Any phenomenon is so complex that he
cannot possibly grasp the whole of it. He abstracts certain characteristics
of a given phenomenon as an idea, then represents that idea with a symbol,
be it a word or a mathematical sign. Human reaction is almost entirely
reaction to symbols. When we think, we let symbols operate on other symbols
in certain, set fashions - rules of logic, or rules of mathematics. If the
symbols have been abstracted so that they are structurally similar to the
phenomena they stand for, and if the symbol operations are similar in
structure and order to the operations of phenomena in the real world, we
think sanely. If our logic-mathematics, or our word-symbols, have been
poorly chosen, we think not-sanely." ......Robert Heinlein.
The "logic-mathematics" that Heinlein speaks of is NOT an instinctive
bundle of knowledge! It is something that each individual must recognize and
learn, lest he be left floundering in a mire of intellectual chaos.
Our minds contain the world in symbolic form. The explicit awareness of
the nature of those symbols gives us the power to shape the world to the
achievement of our goals.
All that is necessary for language to become corrupt is that those who
use it lose (or fail to acquire) objectivity. Earlier - more primitive -
generations of mankind had objectivity forced upon them by the exigencies of
their life: the hard facts of reality would kill them if they failed for a
moment to recognize and accomodate those facts. Modern man, however, is
greatly sheltered by the nature of technological civilization and the
structure of society. These things provide him with the opportunity to live
as a parasite upon other men, thus minimizing his necessity for dealing
directly with the facts of reality.
Consider, for example, Clinton's description of his 1994 tax law as a
"bill of rights." He does not have the ability to discriminate between a
politically expeditious label (after all, who could be opposed to such a
sacrosanct American tradition as our great "Bill of Rights"?) and the actual
nature of "rights." He lacks objectivity. Thus, he may be perfectly sincere
and totally honest in naming his tax law, but nevertheless his cognitive
deficiency results in the semantic corruption of the concept of rights. Much
of such corruption, associated with Newspeak, is the inevitable consequence
of a mere lack of objectivity.
The world has long observed that small acts of immorality, if repeated,
will destroy character. It is equally manifest, though rarely said, that
uttering nonsense and half-truth without cease ends by destroying intellect.
Just as a currency, through the process of becoming more and more inflated,
has less and less purchasing power, so words, through an analogous process
of inflation, through being used more and more indiscriminately, are
progressively emptied of meaning.
For people who write advertisements, language no longer has any cognitive
meaning at all. They use words simply as tools to manipulate other people's
economic behavior. For example: developers that used to sell houses now sell
homes. Even the word "townhouse", a relatively common term a few years ago,
is falling aside, being replaced by the supposedly more sumptuous sounding
"townhome." There used to be a good, clear, cognitive distinction between a
house and a home. Now, that difference has been altered past the point of
meaning. With thousands of "homes" springing up all over the country, how
can we possibly still attach sentimental meaning to places that we can
REALLY call home?
This phenomenon severely restricts attempts to deal with derivative
concepts also. Consider "homelessness." Attempts to combat homelessness are
almost exclusively directed toward putting the homeless people back into
dwellings. But this is a superficial approach to the real problem, for
houselessness is only one aspect of homelessness. "Home" implies basic
shelter, but it also entails connection to a community, including friends,
family, businesses, organizations that share common values and beliefs, such
as clubs and churches, as well as caretaking institutions.
Having your own home means much more than just having a dwelling. It's
your own special corner of the world. It's the place that warmly welcomes
you at the end of a hard day's work. It's where your kids learn to crawl,
walk, and run. It's not just a place in which to live your life, it's a
cherished part of your life. You can buy or be given a house, but you can't
buy a home. You can only make a home.
Homelessness marks not merely a loss of residence but also a rupture of
community and family ties and spiritual existence. The mere fact that you
live in a house does not entail that you are in a home.
* IQ As A Potential
As you know, there are aptitude tests for many fields of endeavor. They
are tests designed to determine whether or not (or to what extent) you have
a potential ability for a given activity. They can tell you if you have an
aptitude for Mechanics, Mathematics, Gymnastics, Music, Chemistry, Cooking,
or just about any other occupation you might care to consider. I submit that
an IQ test is nothing more or less than an aptitude test for "Thinking." I
would like to draw an analogy between Intellectuality and Music, in order to
shed some light on just what the significance of IQ is.
Consider that in the realm of music there are two things necessary to the
formation of a musician. The first is, of course, an aptitude for this field
of endeavor - what we might call an "M.Q." or musicality quotient,
representing your potential ability to engage successfully in this activity.
And the second is the means by which this potential is actualized. Having
the highest MQ in the world will not automatically result in your being a
good musician. To become one, you must undertake a lengthy period of study
and diligent practice in order to master the procedures involved in
transforming this potential into an actuality. No one will dispute this in
regard to music, but how many realize that the same principle applies to
intellectuality? You have to LEARN how to think, in just the same way that
you have to learn how to make music. And when I say "learn how to think" I
don't mean just "get educated." I don't mean just go to school and acquire a
multitude of facts in a large number of fields of study. One would not
become a musician merely by acquiring wide erudition in the fields of, say,
Geology, Anthropology, Economics or Political Science. No, one must study a
particular set of principles - those pertaining to the field of music. Just
so, to transform an IQ into a practicing intellectual proficiency you have
to study a particular set of principles - epistemological principles. A
person is no more born with an automatic knowledge of how to think than he
is born with an automatic knowledge of how to make music. I'm sure that each
of you is aware that there was a time (maybe, if you are younger than I am,
you can even remember that time) when you first learned the proper
formulation of a syllogism, the nature of an ad hominem argument, or the
pitfalls of the post hoc fallacy. Just as there are proper ways and improper
ways to address your hands to a musical instrument, so there are proper and
improper ways to address your mind to the task of identifying reality. If a
musically untrained person puts his hand to the keyboard of an accordion the
result will be a discordant raucous racket, simply because he is ignorant of
the proper procedures. Likewise, if an epistemologically untrained person
puts his mind to a philosophical problem the result is likely to be a
hideous hodge-podge of insane idiocy - for the same reason. You may have a
very high potential - either MQ or IQ - but before you can actualize that
potential you've got to learn how.
IQ Annual
%ile required Membership Dues
------ -------- ---------- ------
Triple Nine Society 99.9 150 500 $12
456 Coolidge Ave.
Pittsburgh, Pa. 15228
(This info may be out-of-date. I have not been associated with any of
these groups since the mid-1980s.)
I find that there are three levels of clarity to which I can hold an
idea:
The first, and lowest, is just having the thought inside my head,
probably in a rather vague form.
I can force myself to the second level of clarity by making a verbal
statement of the thought. When I have to translate vague, unspecific mental
images into spoken words, the idea becomes more precise and unambiguous. For
this reason I deliberately talk to myself quite frequently - or talk to my
cat (but he rarely finds any of my ideas worth commenting on!)
The third, and highest, level of clarity is reached when I sit down and
put the words into written form. This way they get saved as perceptual
concretes and I can review them and rework them and rearrange them until I
get a really accurate presentation of the idea.
A biographer of Thomas Edison, commenting on Edison's 3,500 notebooks,
remarks that Edison "reveled in his notebook drawings as sheer process, the
life of his mind in full gear. He wrote literally to find out what he was
thinking."
When trying to define a concept, you may find it useful to consider its
opposite and see if it would be appropriate to define the concept in terms
of the negative (or absence) of its opposite. For example: Freedom as the
absence of Slavery - Innocence as the absence of Guilt.
* Memory
Perhaps the gravest and most widespread intellectual flaw is the implicit
belief that one's personal memory is accurate and permanent. In fact, it is
neither. But with a little help from the tool of literacy, it can become
both. Memory is a fickle, deceptive thing - and the memory you should most
mistrust is your own. There are very few people who recognize this flaw and
take the appropriate precautions to overcome it by using literacy as an
adjunct to their fallible memory. Most people have never learned how to
remember, and in the Hindu Land of Endless Paths those poor souls are
condemned to repeat their follies forever, and never gain Nirvana. But
mature people don't have to be reminded anymore, they do know how to
remember.
David Hume: "As memory alone acquaints us with the continuance and extent
of perceptions, it is to be considered, upon that account chiefly, as the
source of personal identity. Had we no memory, we should never have any
notion of that chain of causes and effects which constitute our self or
person."
In order to know your self you must remember your past. You have to
preserve knowledge of the important facts of your life, and you have to
acquire the power to reproduce and coordinate your memories competently.
Only thus can you preserve the continuity of your self - the knowledge of
who you are. This is the function of a journal, and the reason why everyone
should keep one. It fixes - solidifies - your history. You must preserve
your history in writing. You can't hold all the significant information in
your head simultaneously, and you are a pretentious fool if you think you
can.
Einstein: "It is well possible that an individual in retrospect sees a
uniformly systematic development, whereas the actual experience took place
in kaleidoscopic particular situations. The manifoldness of the external
situations and the narrowness of the momentary content of consciousness
bring about a sort of atomizing of the life of every human being."
"It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards." - Lewis Carroll
Nietzsche: "I did it, says memory; I couldn't have, says pride - and
remains implacable. Eventually, memory yields."
When you leave you must remember not to go the way you came, for the old
arrows and signs will no longer help.
Bibliography:
THE ART OF CROSS-EXAMINATION by Francis L. Wellman.
Wellman shows how surprisingly unreliable memory frequently is.
THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD by Carl Sagan, 1996, Ballantine Book #345-40946-
9.
In Chapters 8 and 9 Sagan deals with the unreliability of memory, memory
manipulation, fraud, hallucination and fantasies.
If you want to communicate with dummies you will have to make allowances
for the dummies. And you will usually find that the allowances preclude
effective communication.
* Criticism
The experience of having my essays published, and dealing with the
resulting feedback, has led me to identify several types of criticism:
Irrelevant: Remarks that have no rational justification, do not in any
way apply to the idea being criticized, and contribute nothing to the
subject under discussion. But can this really be called criticism?
Combative: Remarks intended mainly to provoke dispute. This is what I get
from the kind of person who listens only for the purpose of contradicting
me.
Corrective: An analysis that exposes an important flaw in my
presentation, thus clarifying the subject under discussion.
Contributive: Commentary that expands upon the idea presented, furthering
it and widening its applicability.
In dealing with criticism you should keep clearly in mind the distinction
between a denial and a refutation. A denial is merely a declaration of
rejection. A refutation, on the other hand, is a logical proof that
demonstrates an error.
Most people act as if the scientific method were disconnected from their
daily lives, and yet a wider awareness of that method of thinking would help
greatly in framing current social debates. Other fields of study should
construct the rigorous ladders of inference that have made scientific fields
so successful. But such intellectual behavior would be suicidal to many
fields.
Thinking always helps, if one does enough and it's the right kind.
That's why some people make a success of life and others don't. A reasoned
proposal might be overruled by other considerations; some of the noblest of
human acts have been carried out in defiance of reason. It is also quite
true that spectacular blunders occasionally follow in the wake of the
keenest reasoning. But, by and large, clean and orderly thinking justifiably
enjoys a most favorable reputation.
We all know that correlation does not imply causation, but is this true
just because we haven't got powerful enough search techniques for sifting
through large statistical databases? No. Mere correlation can never be
proof, because if you don't know what the underlying cause is you can't know
that it will continue to operate. However, this does not mean that
statistical evidence should be ignored. Statistical evidence IS evidence,
and at very least, it can be a basis for hypothesis.
In any argument between two people who hold the same basic principles, it
is the more consistent one who wins. The inconsistent person will present
his ideas in a weak and contradictory form - and thus will create in the
minds of the audience an impression of incompetence, evasion, or cowardice,
while his adversary will appear to possess greater honesty and courage. (See
"Anatomy of Compromise" in CAPITALISM THE UNKNOWN IDEAL.)
Argument is futile when it is directed not toward general principles but
merely toward the specific phenomena which are consequences of those
principles. Perhaps the best examples of this are debates about legalizing
drugs. They usually devolve quickly from a brief and superficial
consideration of the principles underlying the anti-drug laws into a dispute
over the specific means by which the drugs would be distributed if they were
to be legalized. Thus the principles themselves are never fully examined,
and the subjects raised are merely attempts to dilute the agenda of the
discussion.
A disagreement that does not challenge fundamentals serves only to
reinforce them. If, for the question: "Do you want slavery?" your opponents
manage to substitute the question: "What kind of slavery do you want?" then
they can afford to let you argue indefinitely; they have already won their
point.
There are certain demands of the ideal, certain claims that a man cannot
put aside without hurt to his soul. ....Ibsen
There are moral issues that are beyond debate and discussion. There is a
point beyond which a man cannot go and still maintain his dignity and self-
respect. There are things a man cannot do without risking damage to his own
soul.
You can do violence to your soul by arguing with someone who asserts:
Success is irrelevant to the process of proof.
Human beings are not rational creatures.
There is no such thing as morality.
I have learned never to argue with such people. Such debate imbues a
false sense of significance. If you debate with him, he acquires a
fraudulent sense of importance in his mind, but his ideas acquire a REAL
importance in YOUR mind.
* Introspection
(These ideas on introspection were originated by Edith Packer.)
As Objectivism emphasizes, emotions are not tools of cognition, and they
should not themselves control your behavior. Nevertheless, emotions have
enormous psychological significance.
All emotions are derived from some type of cognition; they have no
independent existence apart from the thoughts, conscious or subconscious,
which underlie them. Emotions are not in conflict with, but are a product
of, the evaluations which underlie them. Emotions are psychosomatic
responses to a perceived object, event, or situation, identified and
appraised in accordance with the perceiver's knowledge and value-judgments.
As these statements imply, every emotion presupposes perception,
identification, and judgment.
The ideas you hold in your conscious mind are fed into your subconscious
mind and act as instructions for its functioning. The emotions that result
from this functioning can reveal its nature to you. Armed with this
knowledge, you can "reprogram" your subconscious by changing the evaluations
made by your conscious mind. Thus the ability of a person to identify and
understand his emotions is crucial to his happiness. Emotions are an
essential means by which we experience ourselves and respond to our
evaluations of the world around us. Emotions are the single most important
signal indicating the nature of our subconsciously-held value-judgments.
Understanding your emotions enables you to get in touch with what is
uniquely you: your individuality.
Life can be experienced to the fullest only if you know yourself, and you
cannot know and understand yourself without a definite commitment to a
conscious policy of introspection. Introspection is a cognitive,
intellectual process directed inward, focusing on and identifying the
internal processes of your consciousness. Just as extrospection is a focus
on the various aspects of the exteral world, so introspection consists of an
awareness of and focus on your intellectual and emotional life. The
requirements of mental health include both: knowledge of both external and
internal reality.
It is important to be aware of the difference between actual
introspection and what is often mistakenly believed to be introspection,
namely the continuous defensive observation of one's behavior and feelings
(usually of anxiety) in anticipation of real or imagined disapproval. Such a
neurotically self-conscious focus amounts to asking "How am I doing?" during
all of one's interactions with other people. This cannot be considered
introspection, because introspection seeks answers to the questions of "What
am I doing?" and "Why am I doing it?" but this process seeks an answer to
the question "What do other people think of what I'm doing?"
* Step 1
Identify the type of emotion or emotions which you are experiencing.
Good questions to ask in order to figure out what type of emotions you
are feeling are: Am I feeling positive or negative emotions or a combination
of both? Do my emotions concern other people or just myself? It may also be
helpful to make a list of the different emotions that you are experiencing
and what you think each is a reaction to. Even people who are completely
inexperienced at introspection will be able to name some emotions if they
try. Do not worry at this point that you do not know all the emotions you
may be experiencing. You will probably discover others as you proceed.
* Step 2
Identify the general (universal) evaluation underlying each of your
emotions.
It is important to know that each emotion has at its base an abstract
evaluation which is the same for everyone who experiences that emotion. As a
result, emotions can be classified on the basis of the kinds of abstact
evaluations that underlie them. Once a person makes a particular kind of
evaluation, the die is cast. From that particular type of evaluation, only
one general type of emotion can follow, and the type of emotion will never
vary from person to person or from time to time, nor does it matter whether
the person undergoing this emotion-generating process is aware of it or not,
or whether the evaluation that gives rise to the emotion is based on facts
or is completely incorrect. The essential relationsbip between the
evaluation and the emotion which follows remains.
For example: if a person consciously or subconsciously concludes that
something in reality poses a threat to his well-being, he will automatically
feel fear. Thus, the man who sees a speeding car bearing down on him will
feel fear. And so will the man who jumps at the sound of a truck backfiring
on a city street, if he thinks it is the sound of a gun which is being fired
near him. The emotion will be of the same type: fear. Only the concretes on
the basis of which the evaluations were made will differ. Thus, the value-
judgment underlying fear will always be something to the effect: "I am in
danger. Something is threatening my physical or psychological safety."
Similarly, if a person concludes, "Some injustice was done to me," he
will automatically feel anger.
It is important to understand clearly that once the appropriate
evaluation is drawn, anger will inevitably follow. Or, conversely, if a
person is feeling anger, he has to realize that at some time in the past he
came to the evaluation, "Some injustice has been done to me."
If you have difficulty identifying the evaluations underlying your
emotions, due to repression or lack of experience in introspection, I
recommend that you ask yourself such questions as: "Do I think some
injustice was done to me?" "Do I evaluate myself as unworthy?" "Do I think I
can never achieve this or that particular value?" If the answer is "Yes" to
all three, then you will know that you must be feeling anger, self-doubt,
and depression.
* Step 3
Identify your personal evaluation - the particular form in which you hold
the universal evaluation.
A good way to distinguish steps two and three is to remember that the
universal evaluation is the abstract evaluation; the personal evaluation is
the concrete form it takes in the case of any particular individual.
For example: individuals differ in what they consider unjust. Suppose
that two people both experience the universal evaluation that some injustice
was done to them. As a result, they both feel angry. But obviously there are
many ways, based on many different concrete experiences, of reaching the
identical universal evaluation and therefore the identical emotion - in this
example, anger. Ms Jones' personal evaluation may be: "My next-door
neighbor, whom I liked and respected, drove her lawnmower through my flower
garden." But Mr. Smith's personal evaluation may be: "My best buddy asked my
girl friend out for a date and is stealing her away from me." Thus, the
personal evaluation will differ from individual to individual, but the
generalized perception of an injustice - and the subsequent emotion of anger
- is the same for all.
A person may have identified the type of emotion he is feeling, and may
even be familiar with the corresponding universal evaluation which underlies
it, but this does not imply that he knows what concrete event triggered it.
What you need to do in step three is to identify the specific experiences
and thoughts that led you, in your individual case, to make the universal
evaluations. Go over the specific events of your recent past and the types
of things you have been thinking about. Even better: write down all the
details in the form of a monologue. Your personal language may lead you to
discover emotions that you had been unaware of. For example, your monologue
may include words expressing hopelessness about your ability to cope with
the world. If you identify this, you may be able to realize that you are
also feeling depressed. If you have written down all the details, such an
identification will be MUCH easier.
Suppose Mr. Smith wakes up in the morning and feels anger and a nagging
feeling which he identifies as self-doubt. He is aware that he is concluding
that someone did him an injustice and that his self-worth is threatened in
some way. But he has no idea what particular concrete triggered these
feelings or why he feels the way he does.
Suppose he discovers that the only unusual event he recalls was that his
boss praised his co-worker, Mr. Lamb, enthusiastically. He can then ask
himself: "Did I think this was an injustice to me, and did this cause me
self-doubt?" As a result, he may come up with the following personal
thoughts: "Yes, that praise of Mr. Lamb was outrageous. I happen to know
that Mr. Lamb wastes hours during work talking about baseball, while I work
my head off. No wonder I feel anger and self-doubt. If this can happen,
there must be something wrong with my boss and with the world, or with me
for not knowing how to deal with it. I can't find justice and will never
find it." As you can see, Mr. Smith has discovered not only what concretes
triggered his emotions, but also how he personally interpreted those
concretes, and how his personal evaluations led to his feelings of anger and
self-doubt.
The identification of personal evaluations may be of great help to
repressed people who do not experience varied and deep emotions.
Technically, emotions as such cannot be repressed. What is repressed are the
evaluations that produce the emotions. Remember, an emotion is a consequence
and cannot come into existence without the underlying cause: your
evaluations. A represser evaluates, but his subconscious does not allow his
evaluations to come into conscious awareness, The result is that he does not
know what certain facts mean to him. He may feel some general discomfort, or
a vague unpleasantness, but in general he will not feel strongly about
things and will not be able to identify the type of emotion he is feeling.
A represser should go over carefully his written account of his recent
past. Then, if he finds anything out of the ordinary, he should ask himself:
"What do I really think about this fact? What do I think an unrepressed
person would feel under the circumstances?" If he does this, he may be
surprised to discover that he in fact leads an active inner life of
appraising concretes which he cannot allow himself to acknowledge, given his
fear of experiencing emotions.
In such a case, a good technique to use is to pretend that each emotion
has a voice, a voice that expresses the thoughts which underlie it.
I hope you can see the importance of discovering your personal
evaluations. It is step three which shows most directly your individual and
personal way of making judgments based on your values and your general
psychology. Therefore, it is crucial to spend sufficient time on this step
to squeeze out every possible concrete detail of the thoughts underlying
your emotions. Knowing your detailed personal evaluations is a prerequisite
to succeeding with step four: judging the correctness of your evaluations.
There is usually much less subconscious resistance to identifying personal
evaluations than there is to admitting their possible incorrectness. Thus,
the more thorough you are in step three, the less chance you will have to
sabotage step four. And most people do try to sabotage step four, whether
they do so consciously or subconsciously.
I must stress the need to work hard at step three, because even
individuals who often introspect will have a tendency to rush through it.
Most people do not believe that their personal evaluations have to be
spelled out in detail. In addition, many individuals often sabotage the
introspective process by immediately damning themselves for emotions they do
not approve of. Evaluating yourself on the basis of what you FEEL is
unwarranted, and it does not help you to change the unwanted emotions. Such
disapproval of your emotions serves only to undercut your further progress
in introspection.
* Step 4
Determine the correctness of the underlying evaluations you have made,
both universal and personal. Discover whether your evaluations are true or
false in light of the facts.
Up to this point, the process has been limited to understanding emotions
in terms of the evaluations that underlie them. We did not question whether
any of these evaluations were correct or not. But it is obvious that a
person can easily make a mistake or misinterpret facts. Usually he can point
to some objective facts supporting his evaluations, but often other
important facts will have been left out of consideration, or filtered and
distorted due to mistaken basic premises. Other neurotic problems can be
operating as well. For example, most people are compartmentalized to some
extent. The most brilliant person, who in his work applies a rigorous policy
of testing his objectivity in evaluating the facts, may apply a totally
different method of evaluating the facts of his personal life. In testing
the correctness of your evaluations, it is important to be aware that you
may feel resistance toward making an objective assessment of the facts. Such
resistance is not a matter of deliberate evasion, but can result from
subconscious feelings of hurt and anger that may cause you difficulty in
seeing the facts objectively.
To check whether your evaluations are true or false, ask yourself such
questions as: Do the facts I have considered support my evaluation? Did I
leave out facts which would be germane to my evaluation? Am I aware of facts
which, if considered, would lead me to draw different evaluations? Am I
resisting acknowledging any facts which would lead me to draw evaluations
opposite to those I have drawn? Are the connections which led me to arrive
at my evaluations logical?
Of course, the more you know about your personal method of thinking, the
more successful you will be in discovering the particular type of question
you need to ask yourself. It is very important that the questions be tailor-
made to fit your specific psychology.
In addition to formulating questions tailor-made to your particular
psycho-epistemology, you should also be inventive in finding solutions to
bad thinking habits you become aware of.
You can prepare for step four of introspection by constructing a table of
concretes you view as threats, with each threat rated on a scale from one to
ten in terms of its seriousness. Then, each time you wish to test the truth
of your personal evaluations of these potential threats, you could ask
yourself: Am I rating this concrete as a ten, when it is in fact only a two,
which I really do know how to handle?
Often, when the problem is not pervasive, relief from negative emotions
can be achieved right at this step. If you can conclude that there is in
fact no threat, your fear and sense of being out of control may subside
immediately.
* Step 5
If the evaluations underlying your emotions are incorrect, identify the
problems which led you to make the incorrect evaluations. (Of course, if you
discover that the underlying evaluations are correct, after you have checked
all the relevant facts, you would stop with step four.)
Step five can be the most difficult one of all. And success in carrying
it out will depend on many factors. More than anything else, it will depend
on the extent of your knowledge of your psychological processes. The more
familiar you are with your core evaluations, and the type of defense
mechanisms you use to counteract your self-doubt, the easier it will be for
you to discover why you have made inappropriate evaluations. (Core
evaluations are basic evaluations that are held subconsciously. They are
fundamental judgments about three areas of everyone's life: self, reality,
and other prople.)
Suppose a person with genuine self-esteem finds himself feeling self-
doubt. He should then ask: "What did I do that I do not think is worthy of
me?" And, having discovered the action he disapproves of, and corrected his
evaluation, he will be able to endure the anxiety until it passes. He will
not permit defense mechanisms to spring into action. Such a person will also
be able to avoid any repetition of the action he judged to be unworthy.
In contrast, a self-doubtful person who discovers an inappropriate action
would be inclined to conclude something to the effect: "Of course, I did
this unworthy thing. It is par for the course with me, given the kind of
person I am." Or, even more likely, such a person will automatically
initiate some defense mechanism, in order to avoid the self-doubt, thereby
inadvertently perpetuating it.
If you know very little about your psychology, then at this point you may
have some real difficulty. You may need to deeply examine your whole
psychology and life-patterns because you need to understand better how you
function and why. You may discover that you are not actually reacting to
your present problem, but to some painful event in your distant past. It may
be that your first love, after a long, close relationship, inexplicably left
you for another man. You may discover that as a result of this painful
experience you made a number of subconscious conclusions, such as: "I'm not
desirable as a man. It's not safe to be in a close romantic relationship,
because it causes me pain and self doubt. I can avoid such suffering by
being in romantic relationships in which I unilaterally set the terms." Thus
you compensate for your masculine self-doubt by continually trying to prove
to yourself that women find you attractive. Any rejection makes you re-
experience the loss that devastated you in the past.
Another example: let us imagine that Mr. Smith is aware of the fact that
in his childhood he concluded that his parents always favored his brother,
and that on this basis one of the core evaluations he developed is that
whenever people have a choice between him and someone else, they will
automatically favor the other individual. Knowing this, Mr. Smith could say
to himself: "This situation probably reminds me of the past painful
incidents with my brother, where I felt pain, anger, and self-doubt. My
evaluations in the present situation are based on my subconsciously held
core evaluation that I automatized a long time ago. I can see how that core
evaluation influences my present interpretation of facts whenever the
situation appears to be similar to the old, painful one with my brother."
How much you can accomplish at this point will depend also on how
important the issue is to you, and how much time you have available.
Obviously, you cannot spend the all the time needed to unravel every
insignificant or minute emotion and its causes. Sometimes, too, the reason
why you made the error in evaluation will be clear to you before you ever
get to this step. For example, you find out later that the friend who kept
you waiting did so because he got into an accident and had no way of
notifying you. In such a case, you would know that you were justified in
your evaluation, but that you were unaware of all the facts.
Even if you are not successful at step five in the beginning, by
persisting at introspection you will gather a lot of factual data which will
at least show you how your psychology operates. And, hopefully, it will lead
you to some explanation of why it operates in that manner. If, during the
course of your life, you have kept a written journal of significant things
that have happened to you, and your responses to those things, you will find
these notes enormously helpful in the process of introspection.
* Step 6
Consciously reinforce correct evaluations in order to correct the
inappropriate thinking methods that arise from your psychological problems.
I have emphasized that the kind of emotions you experience are the result
of the type of universal evaluations you have made. From this, it follows
that if you change these evaluations, the emotions will change. Thus, if you
become convinced while introspecting that no injustice has been done to you,
your feelings of anger will disappear. Your subconscious will automatically
arrange this change for you.
This can happen because your subconscious operates on the basis of a
program established by your conscious mind. Your subconscious does NOT have
the capacity to re-program itself. It is only the conscious mind that is
able to check the appropriateness of the program, and it is only the
conscious mind that can do the re-programming.
Step six is designed to do just that. You should say to yourself at this
point: "I programmed my subconscious inappropriately in this area. It
operates inappropriately and causes me great suffering. I am hereby adopting
a different policy, which will take the place of the incorrect one." You can
say: "I have to accept the responsibility of consciously judging each
separate situation based on the facts."
If you persist in doing this, you can eventually re-program any aspect of
your subconscious.
Probably many of you have had this experience: you realize that your
evaluations of the facts are mistaken, yet even after having understood the
correct evaluation, the old evaluations may subsequently resurface and you
find yourself again in the grip of the resulting inappropriate emotions.
Don't despair. Simply go over all the facts again; reinforce the correct
evaluations by re-asserting your knowledge of the actual facts. If you do
that, your subconscious mind will eventually get the message and the
unwanted emotions will then disappear permanently.
It is important to remember that reprogramming your subconscious mind is
rarely, if ever, an instantaneous process. It takes time, maybe lots of
time, so be patient with yourself.
I might add that repressed people, as a rule, have to reinforce their
commitment to experiencing emotions. They have to convince their
subconscious that there is no need to fear emotions, and give their
subconscious an order to allow its appraisals of concretes to enter
conscious awareness.
* Closing comments
Do not be afraid to introspect. Most people do not discover terrible
things about themselves that they cannot correct. If there is something
wrong in your psychology, it will stay wrong if you do not find out what it
is. If you don't introspect, what is wrong will become more and more
entrenched, undercutting you and causing you to become more unhappy.
Do not judge yourself on the basis of the emotions you feel. It is your
evaluations, which underlie the emotions, that you should be judging. If you
are damning YOURSELF for the emotions you feel, you will change nothing.
Further, be careful not to judge yourself at times when you are
overwhelmed by negative emotions. If you do, you are in the position of
being in the hands of a drunken juror deciding a life and death issue
concerning your life. The fact that you may FEEL you are no good, does not
mean you are no good in fact. Your behavior, not your emotions, is the
deciding evidence. Thus, make sure that your standards for judging your
worth are the standards of a rational and cold sober juror.
Introspection is very difficult for most people. The process has to be
learned. Unfortunately, we were never taught how to do it when we were
young, and now, as adults, we have to teach ourselves. But introspection is
difficult only in the beginning. The more you do it, the easier and less
time-consuming it becomes. If you persist you will get the hang of it. If
you do, it will pay you wonderful dividends. You will get acquainted
intimately with the person that you are. You will discover your good
qualities and will be able to see which qualities you have to change. It
will give you a greater sense of control over your life, because knowing
your emotions will help prevent you from automatically acting on them. A
conscious, consistent commitment to introspection will give you freedom from
self-doubt, and you will become a happier person.
* Orwell - Newspeak - Brainwashing - Prolefeed
1984 by George Orwell - New American Library (Signet) #451 CY688
This is the most prophetic book of the 20th century. Orwell's concepts of
Newspeak and Prolefeed are indispensable to an understanding of the
development of American culture during the latter half of this century. A
thorough knowledge of Newspeak, as it has been implemented in America, is
the best means by which one can avoid an immense quagmire of faulty
thinking.
* Newspeak
The effect of Newspeak is not to extend but to diminish the range of
thought and to make all other modes of thought impossible, so that an idea
divergent from the prevalent philosophy will be literally unthinkable.
This is done partly by stripping undesirable words of unorthodox
meanings. For example: The word "anarchy" still exists but it can only be
understood as meaning a completely lawless and chaotic state of nihilistic
destruction. It cannot be used in its old sense of "a social condition from
which the institutionalized use of coercive aggression is absent" since
politically such a condition no longer exists even as a concept, and is
therefore nameless.
Another example is "inflation." What people today call inflation is not
an increase in the quantity of money substitutes, but the general rise in
prices and wages which is the inevitable CONSEQUENCE of inflation. This
semantic innovation is by no means harmless. First of all there is no longer
any term available to signify what "inflation" used to signify. It is
impossible to fight an evil which you cannot name. You no longer have the
opportunity to resort to a terminology accepted and understood by the public
when you want to describe the financial policy you are opposed to. You must
enter into a detailed analysis and description of this policy with full
particulars and minute accounts whenever you want to refer to it, and you
must repeat this bothersome procedure in every sentence in which you deal
with this subject. Second, those who wish to fight inflation are diverted in
their struggle away from the fundamental nature of inflation and are forced
to direct their attentions to the consequences. They end up snipping at the
leaves of the weed rather than hacking at the root.
An especially corrupting abuse of language can be seen in the ambiguous
use of the words "think" and "feel." This use equivocates cognitive
assessment with emotional response, and leaves the victim unable to
discriminate between his thoughts and his emotions.
The special function of Newspeak words is to destroy meaning. In Newspeak
it is seldom possible to follow a heretical thought further than the
perception that it IS heretical; beyond that point the required words are
nonexistent. It would be possible to say, "government is unnecessary," but
this statment could not be sustained by a comprehensible argument, because
the requisite words (such as "anarchy") are not meaningfully available. An
example of a phrase designed to destroy meaning is in this suggestion, made
by a proponent of international trade barriers: "A more accurate name than
the persuasive label 'free trade' - because who can be opposed to freedom? -
is 'deregulated international commerce.'" If accepted, his proposal, that
his adversaries use this mouthful of multi-syllabic obfuscation as the name
of their political goal, would be the first step toward destruction of the
concept "free" in the minds of his opponents. And in the minds of their
audience.
Nowhere is this semantic deception more blatant than in the government's
dishonest descriptions of its own activities, in which words are used merely
as tools to manipulate the social environment.
In 1993, Congress required the Dept. of Health and Human Services to
examine the feasibility of shifting some biological weapons research from
the army to the National Institutes of Health. Thus, under the direction of
the Dept. of Health, the National Institutes of Health will now be engaged
in germ warfare. Orwell was right - "War is Peace" or, more appropriately,
"Health is Death."
Perhaps the most long-lasting and widespread manifestation of the
government's use of another of Big Brother's slogans ("Freedom is Slavery")
is the "selective service."
In Newspeak, certain words are deliberately constructed for political
purposes - words which are intended to impose a desirable mental attitude
upon the person using them and to make it impossible for him to hold any
contrary attitude. This is the explicit goal of the "Politically Correct"
movement.
What a Newspeak user acquires is an outlook similar to that of the
ancient Hebrew who knew, without knowing much else, that all nations other
than his own worshipped "false gods." He did not need to know what these
gods were, and probably the less he knew about them the better for his own
orthodoxy. This sort of orthodoxy was explicitly fostered during the
McCarthy era of the early 1950s, when accusations of "communist!" were
thrown around indiscriminately while no one, neither the accusers nor the
accused, had any idea of what a communist is. Nor did they dare ask
publicly, for fear of being labeled a communist merely for making the
inquiry.
Thomas Szasz coined the very useful word "semanticide" to designate the
murder of language. Semanticide is the ultimate goal of Newspeak.
Many words, such as "freedom," "patriotism," "liberty," etc. have been
appropriated by wanna-be tyrants (especially by Right-wing political
Conservatives) who use those words to designate the opposite of their
historical (and cognitively correct) meanings, thus leaving the majority of
people with no way to distinguish libertarians from our totalitarian
enemies. Conservative zealots claiming to speak in the name of
libertarianism have fomented a dangerous agenda that is corrupting our most
cherished ideals and deceiving others about our fundamental principles.
The only way I can see to combat this dismal situation is to attack it
not on its surface - by making futile attempts to persuade people of the
correct definitions of those critical words - but at its roots, by
renouncing epistemological relativism and asserting the idea that
DEFINITIONS ARE NOT ARBITRARY. Unless your audience realizes this, any
argument you engage in will be merely a verbal battle of wits with your
adversary - the outcome dependent on who can make the most clever use of
phrases that are meaningless in the minds of the audience.
The result of Newspeak is boastful inarticulateness on the part of those
who haven't anything to say, and helplessness on the part of those who have.
"Those who cannot carry a train of consequences in their heads; nor weigh
exactly the preponderancy of contrary proofs and testimonies may be easily
misled to assent to positions that are not probable." ... John Locke
People who can't analyze and dissect their language cannot separate
meaning from words and thus cannot perceive an existence separate from the
words used to describe it. For those people, the Law of Identity is quite
literally meaningless.
* Brainwashing
These are the elements of brainwashing. At least some of them are used,
in greater or lesser intensity, by all authoritarian organizations, and by
anyone attempting to assert psychological dominance.
* Prolefeed
One element of brainwashing, "control of perceptions," gives rise to the
phenomenon of "Prolefeed." Prolefeed augments Newspeak, in that its effect
is to render people less able to make rationally-based value judgments. In
doing so, it leaves them more receptive to judgments imposed on them by
authority figures. Responsibility for the implementation of Newspeak must
rest mainly with the government, but Prolefeed is the product of the
advertising industry of America. Corporate advertising in America is likely
the largest single psychological project ever undertaken by the human race,
yet its stunning psychological impact remains ignored by mainstream Western
psychologists.
There is nothing unethical in attempting to induce people to purchase
your products, but the techniques the advertising industry has used in
pursuing this goal have had unforeseen results which are psychologically and
intellectually devastating.
Advertising, both commercial and political, has resulted in a merciless
distortion of authentic human needs and desires. The victims learn to
substitute what they are told to want for what are in fact their objective
needs. By the time they reach adulthood, their authentic feelings are so
well buried that they have only the vaguest sense that "something" is
missing from their spiritual life. Having ignored their genuine needs for so
long, their souls are empty, but the emptiness is continually denied. It is
far easier, in the short run, to listen to the commercials, which are always
beckoning, always promising, always assuring that this time, with this
product or this candidate, it will be possible to fulfill the heart's
desire, than to take the initiative of making difficult personal judgments.
Prolefeed is a format of radio and TV programming whose result is
intellectually debilitating. It is a format of information presentation
which, by inducing detrimental psycho-epistemological programming and
deprogramming, results in severe inhibition of cognitive efficiency. The
cognitive debilitation results, in part, from continuous exposure to
unceasing repetition of phrases or melodies which contain just enough
cognitive content to possess a minimum of intelligible meaning, thereby
distracting the mind from self-generated activity, without giving the mind
sufficient content for significant externally-induced activity. Observe,
please, that it is not the CONTENT of the input that induces the debility,
but the FORMAT of its presentation.
Consider a common phenomenon: there is a radio playing in the background
at the place you are working. In order to concentrate on your work you "tune
out" the radio - you make an alteration in your mental functioning which
renders your conscious mind unaware of the sounds of the radio. Since your
ears (unlike your eyes which can be physically closed to sensory input) are
continually feeding signals to sensory receptors in the brain, all the sound
that enters the ears is transmitted into the brain. Thus there is a part of
your mind that is always aware of this sound. The only way you can "tune
out" the background noise is to erect a barrier between your conscious mind
and that area of the subconscious mind that receives input from your ears, a
barrier that prevents the awareness from getting through. The psycho-
epistemological programming that erects these barriers is one of the most
pernicious aspects of Prolefeed. Not just because it produces the
psychological self-alienation of a divided mind, but because it goes further
by inflicting a profound impairment of judgment, an impairment resulting
from the conflict of the subconsciously acquired prolefeed information with
consciously derived value-decisions.
Frequent instantaneous shifts of subject matter - e.g., interrupting
programs with commercial messages - inhibit the mental function of
integration and diminish the attention span of the victim, thus promoting
schizophrenia. Such interruptions immediately following an information
presentation can inhibit the victim from consciously evaluating the
information. Thus he will be more likely to subconsciously accept it as
truth, and will be left in a condition wherein the ideas in his mind have
not been critically examined. Without firm awareness of its truth value, he
will experience a nebulous state of uncertainty regarding his knowledge.
We're bombarded with advertising, so we learn to tune it out. All that
advertising is like a steady chattering noise in our eyes and ears. In order
to function, we have to make ourselves deliberately blind and deaf to that
part of our environment. The advertisers know that we do this, so they
increase the size, color, intensity, volume, and repetitions of their ads.
They give us more, better, and different ads. And we try even harder to tune
them out. Commercials are designed to catch your attention and instill
remembrance, an increasingly difficult process because its effects dampen
its effectiveness. The din eventually gets painful because it is cumulative.
People unable to hear one another speak raise their voices - which
encourages their neighbors, who can't hear themselves speak, to shout -
which makes their neighbors, who can't hear themselves shout, scream.
Eventually we are so tuned out that we can no longer see the sky, the stars,
the souls of our lovers, and the reality of the world we live in.
Such programming causes severe value heirarchy distortions. It does this
by presenting mundane things as having supreme importance. Consider an
advertisement showing a man about to bite into a hamburger. His facial
expression clearly and blatantly portrays the idea that this hamburger is
the greatest thing ever to enter his life. One wonders how he contemplates
his wife when he goes home from work at night. After he has displayed such
an attitude toward a hamburger, what could he have left to display toward
her?
Being continually bombarded with the notion that each product - whether
it be a hamburger, chewing gum, the latest model chevy, or a political
candidate - is a sine qua non of the utmost value and importance, is a
process that severely distorts, and even destroys, any rational value
heirarchy and leaves the victim in a judgmental vacuum, lacking a sensible
means to evaluate the phenomena which are IN FACT important to his life.
Years of value-depravation crush all emotions, all hope, leaving the victims
with eyes that have stopped seeing, ears that have stopped hearing, and
souls that have stopped living a long time ago. It is truly the twilight of
the gods.
(Personally, I don't watch TV because I know that someday I'm gonna drop
dead, and when I do I don't want my last experience on earth to have been a
TV commercial.)
* Hallmarks of a Cult
Cultists are socially alienated people who huddle together in a
collective, united by allegiance to a non-conventional artistic or
intellectual movement based on dogma set forth by its promulgator, whom they
adore as a "father figure." Observe that the ideas they espouse can be
either true or false - they must only be non-conventional. (If the ideas
ever become accepted by a wide enough audience, they will no longer be
referred to as "cultist" but as "mainstream.")
They believe that Armageddon is nigh - that profound, revolutionary,
world-shaking changes are about to occur.
They believe that the road to Salvation lies only through their belief
system, and are excruciatingly jealous, often reserving their worst
invective, not for their real enemies, but for those with whom they
essentially agree save for minor ideological coloration.
They have a completely unrealistic expectation that their unknown and/or
unpopular ideas will shortly triumph in society.
They over-emphasize their significance and greatly over-exaggerate the
effects of their activities, claiming that what they're doing has
revolutionary importance for society.
This mindset does not change over time. They are still saying today the
same things about pending Armageddon and the imminent social acceptance of
their ideas that they were saying 20 years ago.
If one does not scrupulously afford oneself this benefit, the facts of
reality will, sooner or later, correct one's error.
Obviously, there are some mistaken definitions that will be corrected
immediately as they are acted upon. If, for example, you define a hot stove
as a chair, your mistake will be immediately and warmly chastised. There are
other mistakes, however, that will not be so quickly righted. If you
improperly identify an onion seed as a carrot seed, your mistake will not be
corrected for weeks or even months. In the meantime you will have dug your
garden, planted your seed, fertilized it, watered it, and carefully
cultivated it until harvest time. Only then will you uncover your error, but
by then you will have wasted a great deal of time and energy in the pursuit
of an improper course of action, and you will then also be stuck with the
consequences of your mistake: eating onions instead of carrots until next
spring.
Some mistakes will take even longer to be rectified. The more abstract
the concept, the less immediately will reality show you your error.
If you incorrectly define marriage, the tragic result may be a divorce
court - but this "setting right" of the situation may not come about until
after years of domestic suffering. If you mistakenly define the principles
of business management, you will eventually find yourself in a bankruptcy
court; but again, it may take decades of toil and effort before the facts of
reality catch up with you. And finally, if a group of men establishing a new
country mistakenly define the practice of freedom, two centuries later their
grandchildren may wake up one morning to find themselves in a concentration
camp.
Let thy words be keen heeders of truth, for truth is no heeder of words.
Many words are vague insofar as they apply to characteristics which may
be possessed in varying degrees. It is impossible to draw a sharp line
between those who are bald and those who are not. It is impossible to define
precisely the concept of baldness. But the characteristic according to which
people distinguish between those who are bald and those who are not IS open
to a precise definition: it is the presence or the absence of hair on the
head of a person. This is a clear and unambiguous characteristic which is
established by observation and expressed by propositions about existence.
What is vague is merely the determination of the point at which non-baldness
turns into baldness. People may disagree with regard to the determination of
this point, but their disagreement refers merely to the quantitative
interpretation of the phenomenon that gives a useful meaning to the word
baldness.
* Certainty
Certainty is a state of mind in which a person perceives a correlation
between his mental images and Reality. It is a judgment made within the
context of a state of knowledge. The knowledge need not be total - but must
be sufficient to ensure that the judgment is valid.
Observe that this is a philosophically neutral definition: An objectivist
achieves a state of certainty when he has modified his mental images to
bring them into accord with reality. A subjectivist achieves certainty when
he has modified his perceived reality to bring it into accord with his
mental images.
Observe also that this definition allows for degrees of certainty -
certainty need not be absolute: the closer the degree of correlation between
the mental image and reality, the higher the degree of certainty
experienced. Absolute certainty would correspond to a complete congruency
between the image and reality. And the complete absence of certainty would
correspond to a state wherein there was no mental image at all of the aspect
of reality under consideration - a state of complete ignorance.
Kant divided the world into two domains: the domain of phenomena and the
domain of noumena. Phenomena, he claimed, are events as perceived by the
human mind - they are sensations. Noumena are the causes of phenomena - they
are the so-called things-in-themselves, the objects that really exist. Kant
concluded that human beings can never know the noumena directly: noumena are
the sources of the signals that act on our senses, and we can perceive only
the signals, not the sources. According to Kant, then, we cannot ever really
know anything definite about the noumena.
But when he says "We cannot know anything definite about them" he is
saying something definite about them: that their essential nature is such as
to preclude our having definite knowledge of that nature. But Kant's
statement itself explicitly asserts such definite knowledge, and is thus
another example of the fallacy of self-exclusion.
"If certainty is unattainable, how can we decide how close we are to it,
which is what a probability estimate is?"
In this question the word "certainty" means "infallably exact precision
in measurement." There is no such thing - the world just isn't built this
way. This is an improper definition of "certainty." A probability estimate
is fundamentally not a statement about reality but a statement about my
knowledge of reality. Reality is not probable - it is fact.
"The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts."
When Bertrand Russell said this, he should have put "I think" at the end
of it.
The flaw in Russell's remark lies in the implicit meaning of "certain of
themselves." The fools and fanatics cause trouble not because of their
certainty, but because of their social behavior. It is wrong to blame
certainty per se for the choices and actions of people who assert certainty.
That's rather like blaming guns for murder. Guns don't kill people - people
kill people.
* Probability
There is an important distinction to be made between two uses of the term
"Probable."
* Expense
"At taxpayers' expense"
That is a frequently-heard term nowadays, and whether the word used is
"expense" or "cost" the same meaning is intended. I believe it is a wrong
meaning, and that the term is a cruel misrepresentation of the facts.
And here we see the underlying motivation of those who use this phrase
"at taxpayers' expense": the desire to impose upon YOU personally the moral
culpability of sanctioning the behavior of the government and the people who
deal with it. What they say, in effect, is that because you are the victim
of an act of robbery (taxation) you are therefore responsible morally for
the manner in which the robber uses the money he has stolen from you.
You might chastise me for attributing to the people who use these
arguments a motivation they do not intend. And by and large you are right:
they do not intend to perpetrate an evil, but that IN FACT is what they are
doing. I call this the "Road to Hell" syndrome. In fact, their intentions do
not matter; it is only the consequences of their behavior that matter - the
consequences that actually have an effect in the world. The most wicked
people are those who sincerely believe that what they are doing is good. If
you wish to know the true nature of someone who uses the statements and
arguments I presented above, merely describe to him why those statements and
arguments are in fact evil. And then see if he abandons them.
* To Be
Webster's Ninth Collegiate Dictionary: "to have an objective existence:
have reality or actuality."
* References
Diogenes: "That you are a man, he will know when he sees you; whether a
good or bad one, he will know if he has any skill in discerning the good and
the bad. But if he has none, he will never know, though I write to him a
thousand times."
* Envy
If life on earth is, as Marx asserted, a zero-sum game, then a virulent
envy must inevitably be the result. Anyone who works harder, gets ahead, and
becomes better off, must be doing so at the expense of those who do not.
In a free market, where men earn their wealth and distinction by trading
their skills and achievements, a man's long-range failure, like his long-
range success, is an objective reflection of his ability. It is precisely
this inexorable rule of capitalism - "to each according to his ability" -
that wounds the self-esteem of the marxist and engenders the widespread
hatred for capitalism.
But there is an even worse aspect to envy when it is the motive of a man
who is willing to make himself worse off in order to bring another down to
his level. Do not fool yourself by thinking that altruists are motivated by
compassion for the suffering: they are motivated by hatred for the
successful. To be rational is to be successful in dealing with reality. Thus
is explained much of the existing hatred for rationality. But altruism has
no power over its victims except by their own consent, which means: by their
acceptance of guilt for the crime of living and of producing values - of
being successful.
The envy today's intellectuals feel is not the plausibly healthy desire
to attain what others have attained, but an ugly pleasure in seeing others
lose what they have attained. Envy is not the desire to emulate the
achievements of others, nor is it primarily the desire to steal other
people's values; it is, rather, the desire to obliterate those values. The
envier has little interest in acquiring the other person's possessions for
himself. He would like to see the other person robbed, dispossessed,
stripped, humiliated or hurt. His ideas are not ideas in favor of anything,
but are a means of expressing his hatred of knowldge, of achievement, of
happiness, of man - his political views are an expression of his more
fundamental spiritual nihilism.
* Instinct
70/Aug/10 The unnamed but automatized connections in the mind.
AS-1013 62/Oct/43 An unerring and automatic form of knowledge.
A largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a
complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without the
involvment of reason.
Scientists who use the term "instinct" never define it, and rarely even
attempt to do so. The conclusion I derive from all their usages is that
instinct means "behavior for which I am not able to adduce any other cause."
Nathaniel Branden (PSE-23): "There is no such thing. There are 3
categories in terms of which animal behavior can be explained: 1. Actions
which are reflexes. 2. Actions which are guided directly by an animal's
pleasure-pain sensory apparatus and which involve the faculty of
consciousness but not a process of learning - such as moving toward warmth.
3. Actions which are the result of learning. Behavior that has not been
traced to one of these categories or to some combination of them has not
been explained."
Most psychologists ignore the mind's role in mediating the links between
genes and human behavior. Hormones, while not exercising absolute control
over behavior, can assert a substantial influence over behavior. If the
creature's volitional consciousness then cooperates with this influence, the
result could be the manifestation of complex behavior. Another thing to
consider is the propensity for self-assertion: a baby grasps because that is
the natural function-potential of its hand, just as eyes see, legs walk, and
a mind thinks.
You can't pick and choose with instincts: you have to take the lot. You
can't allow Venus into the Pantheon and bolt the door on Mars. And once you
take on such things as "fighting", "territorial imperative" and "rank
order", you are in a messy quagmire of terms that have little, if any,
correspondence with reality.
Watching the behavior of the professional psychologists - bonding,
bickering, preening, flirting and engaging in mututal rhetorical grooming -
one must concur with their basic premise: they are all animals, descendants
of a vast lineage of replicators sprung from primordial pond scum.
* Luck
Luck means to prosper or succeed through chance or good fortune.
Lucky, fortunate, happy, providential, mean meeting with unforseen
success. Lucky stresses the agency of chance in bringing about a favorable
result. Fortunate suggests being rewarded beyond one's deserts. Happy
combines the implications of lucky and fortunate with a stress on being
blessed. Providential implies the help or intervention of a higher power.
When Napoleon's eagle eye flashed down the list of officers proposed for
promotion to generals, he used to scribble in the margin of a name: "Is he
lucky?"
Given the choice to live, the extremes, of course, are "subsist" and
"flourish." An apparent ambiguity in the Objectivist morality arises from
attempts to interpret the idea of "man's life" as meaning "mere literal
existence" or "subsistence" on the one hand versus "flourish" (as in
"survive as man qua man") on the other hand. The choice "to live" implies
the choice of all the things that characterize a HUMAN life, the only kind
of life we are able to choose, if we are to be human.
In fact, a morality designed specifically to show man how to flourish is
a mistaken thing to ask for, since every human being is a specifically
distinct and different entity. "Flourishing" for a particular life means
applying the basic principles derived from "survival" morality to any of an
infinite number of possible contexts.
If Ayn Rand were to have discovered the physics of baseball, we would be
wrong to criticize her by exclaiming, "But she says nothing about how to be
a good shortstop or a good catcher's mitt manufacturer or a good baseball
card collector." There is, in fact, no way for her to do this. Individuals
with these specific interests must figure out the specific techniques for
themselves, using their power of reason. Those who want more than basic
moral principles need to consult technical manuals, self help books and
other sources of special information, rather than fooling themselves into
thinking that success in life comes from philosophical hairsplitting.
To demand a morality for flourishing is to demand: "Tell me what to do!
Give me not merely principles, but all the specific rules - give me the
recipe for success so I can avoid having to choose for myself - so I can
avoid the effort of having to think about how to apply principles to my own
specific situation." It amounts to an attempt to escape from the requirement
that an individual must make his own choices and accept responsibility for
his own life and success.
You are the person that YOU choose to be, and the "purpose" of your life
is what YOU choose for it to be. You can't get these things from any
external source. Given the Objectivist (Biocentric) precept that volition is
a first cause, you must CHOOSE to invest your life with purpose, else you
will become (by default) what Rand so aptly described as the most
contemptible of all people: the man without a purpose.
Just as you must choose the values that invest your SELF with purpose, so
you must also invest your personal relationships with appropriate internal
value. You must be explicitly aware of the value that accompanies each of
your relationships - of the importance that lies within them. This is
especially true of sex. Since sex is the source of the greatest physical
pleasure available to a human being, you must be punctilious in choosing the
value of the people you have sex with, lest you cheapen yourself
spiritually. This explains why promiscuity is a bad practice: it associates
very high physical pleasure with low (or non-existent) spiritual value.
* Nonsense
That which is expressed in a way that I find incomprehensible.
In considering "what is nonsense?" I began with the notion that nonsense
is something that manifests a denial of the Law of Identity. This would
define it as a metaphysical concept. But then, how can I identify nonsense
when I encounter it? Oh sure, some things I can see immediately as nonsense.
They are a subset of the things that I can understand. But what of other
things which I cannot understand? Like the Tensor Calculus - might that be
nonsense? I have no way of determining. And the conundrum cannot be resolved
by reference to higher level intellects either. For example: The IDEA of my
little computer would have been nonsense to Archimedes (I suppose the
computer itself would have been magic to him), thus it is clear that a
perfectly sensible idea can be regarded as nonsense - even to someone
endowed with the highest level of intellectual ability. Therefore, if it is
considered as a metaphysical concept, there is no way that "nonsense" can be
precisely identified. This leads me to believe that it can only be
accurately considered as an epistemological concept. It then becomes
relative to the person who is making the identification. Thus, just as one
man's meat is another man's poison, one man's sense can be another man's
nonsense. As the Red Queen said: "You may call it 'nonsense' if you like,
but I've heard nonsense compared with which that would be as sensible as a
dictionary!"
* Compromise
A compromise is an adjustment of conflicting claims by mutual
concessions. But this means that both parties agree upon some fundamental
principle which serves as a basis for the adjustment. It is only in regard
to concretes or particulars implementing a mutually accepted basic principle
that compromise can occur. A compromise is a negotiated adjustment of the
quantity of some phenomenon, thus a compromise cannot be applied between two
disparate phenomena. There cannot be a compromise between a phenomenon and
its negation. For example, between theft and non-theft. If I want to steal
$10 from you and I respond to your protest by suggesting that we
"compromise" and I will steal only $5 - this is no compromise! It is
relinquishment, by you, of your principle of non-theft - and acceptance,
again by you, of my principle of theft. Once you have accepted the principle
of theft, then we can indeed compromise - on how much theft you will be
subjected to.
Compromise is possible only on terms of equality - that is, between
ability and ability (though one man's ability may be greater than
another's), not between ability and incompetence, nor between intelligence
and stupidity, nor between trade and theft. Compromise must be between
equals in kind, which might differ in degree, but it can't be between
opposite kinds.
You can compromise between 5 lbs and 7 lbs, but you can't compromise
between 5 lbs and 3 gallons.
Chapter 4
ECONOMICS FROM AN OBJECTIVIST
VIEWPOINT
* History
The failure of Charlemagne's successors to establish a consolidated
regime in Western Europe and the eventual disintegration of real political
power into the hands of a multitude of local barons resulted in a vacuum of
centralized authority. With the decline of the feudal system at the end of
the Middle Ages, the absence of centralized political power left an emerging
merchant class with the opportunity to establish the commercial institutions
which were the foundation of the industrial world we live in today. The
prerequisite for the birth of these economic endeavors was the existence of
a wide realm within which trade could be conducted with freedom from
coercion by political authorities. This freedom also opened the door to the
extensive development of towns and cities, some of which were virtually
independent political entities outside the feudal system.
During the 16th through the 18th centuries, maritime trade with overseas
markets was at once a major field of economic growth and an area intractably
resistant to medieval principles of political control. The efforts of the
emerging nation-states to control maritime commerce lacked the universal
recognition necessary to confer legitimacy and were, on the contrary,
competing, contradictory, and mutually self-defeating.
The political/economic situation in China was quite a bit different. The
Imperial Examination determined entry into the bureaucracy and thus assured
the continuation of a centralized elite, drawing into itself the best brains
of each generation. The basic ideology of the mandarinate was opposed to the
value-systems of the merchants. Capital accumulation in Chinese society
could indeed occur, but the application of it to permanently productive
industrial enterprises was strongly inhibited by the scholar-bureaucrats, as
indeed was any other social action which might threaten their supremacy. It
may not be a coincidence that modern Japan, which led in adapting Western
institutions to its economy, grew out of a politically decentralized feudal
society.
For the European governments, the timing was wrong; they came to power
too late to prevent the rise of capitalism, and their only recourse for
expressing statist values was a gradual, Fabian assertion of authority over
the aspects of capitalism not too mercurial to elude their grasp.
* Property
* What is property?
* The right to property
* Why must we recognize property rights?
* Philosophical underpinnings
* Ownership
* John Locke on Property
* Some questions about the Lockean thesis
* Intellectual Property - Information as Property
* Some false arguments
* Digital information
* Bibliography
* What is property?
Property is wealth produced or acquired without coercing others. Any
object which requires the application of human knowledge and action in order
to become of use to mankind, becomes property by virtue of (and by right of)
those who apply the knowledge and effort.
* Philosophical underpinnings
Leonard Peikoff:
It is not an axiom that "man has property rights." Property rights are a
consequence of a man's right to life: which latter we can establish only if
we know the nature and value of man's life; which presupposes, among other
things, that objective value-judgments are possible; which presupposes that
objective knowledge is possible; which depends on a certain relation between
man's mind and reality, i.e., between consciousness and existence. If you do
not know and conform to this kind of structure, you can neither defend
property rights nor define the concept nor apply it properly.
David Kelley:
Property rights exist because man needs to support his life by the use of
his reason. His primary task is to create values that satisfy human needs,
rather than merely relying on what he finds in nature, as animals do.
Therefore the essential basis of property rights lies in the necessity of
creating values.
* Ownership
"Though the earth and all inferior creatures be common to all men, yet
every man has a property in his own person. This nobody has any right to but
himself. The labour of his body and the work of his hands, we may say, are
properly his. Whatsoever, then, he removes out of the state that nature hath
provided and left it in, he hath mixed his labour with, and joined to it
something of his own, and thereby makes it his property.
He that is nourished by the acorns he picked up under an oak, or the
apples he gathered from the trees in the wood, has certainly appropriated
them to himself. Nobody can deny but the nourishment is his. I ask, then,
when did they begin to be his? When he digested? or when he ate? or when he
boiled? or when he brought them home? or when he picked them up? And 'tis
plain, if the first gathering made them not his, nothing else could.... And
will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus
appropriated, because he had not the consent of all mankind to make them
his? Was it a robbery thus to assume to himself what belonged to all in
common? If such a consent as that was necessary, man had starved,
notwithstanding the plenty God had given him....'tis the taking any part of
what is common, and removing it out of the state nature leaves it in, which
begins the property, without which the common is of no use."
"Locke argues that mixing labor with the unowned will convert it to the
owned - without specifying what kind or quality of labor per material is
necessary."
What is necessary is to mix in enough labor to "remove it out of the
state nature leaves it in." When I have done this, I will have made my
property observably distinct from the unowned.
"If you take a boat out to sea and catch fish, the fish are properly
yours, since you used your labor to get them, but mixing your labor with
that part of the ocean does not make the ocean itself yours."
But it is not the ocean I have mixed my labor with - it is the fish. If I
were to gather in some of the ocean water and run it thru a desalinizer (or
in any other manner distinctly separate it from the unowned), then it would
indeed be mine.
"If you go to a forest, the fruit you pluck is properly yours, but this
does not give you title to the trees."
True enough, but it's not the trees I claim - only the fruit that I have
picked. The trees are indeed mine if it was I who planted and nourished
them. And again they are mine if I cut them down and process them into
boards.
"The land under a building is not properly yours even though the building
is."
If the land under my house is not mine, then whose is it? And by what
right can he claim ownership if I cannot?
It's all right with me if I don't own the land that my house sits on - as
long as no one else owns it either. Thus no one would have the right to
deprive me of its use.
"What claim do you have to water that flows across your land? Or to the
wind which blows over it?"
Although while they are on/above your land you may have a rightful claim
to them, and what you take out belongs to you, just like taking salt out of
the sea or fish out of a river, you surely have no right to sully the water
or wind which flow OFF your land and onto someone else's land. What flows
beyond your land becomes the property of someone else. You would be dumping
your junk onto your neighbor's property. You have no right to stink up your
neighbor's home by burning trash in your backyard.
"The stuff you take out of the land is yours, but not the space the stuff
was located in."
If I dig a gravel pit, the gravel I manufacture is my property. I do not
make any claim to the resulting empty space (the hole), unless I put some
manufactured object into it. But if the space be not mine, then whose is it?
"If you farm a plot of land, how much, if any, of that land is your
property?"
Surely the crop I harvest is mine. But since I have mixed my labor with
the top several inches of the land, is not that top layer my property?
"How far down shall this owned layer descend? As far as the reach of the
plow? As far as the dampness of the irrigation? As far as the penetration of
the roots? And what of the space above the farm? Do you own any of it, and
if so, how far up?"
The notion that laboring on the land gives one ownership of the land
itself does seem flawed. Would it perhaps be more acceptable to assert that
laboring in a certain location gives one ownership of the SPACE associated
with that location? If a man transforms raw land into a farm should he not
then be entitled to the space occupied by the farm? I am not sure that this
idea of "space" (by which I mean "liebensraum") is a valid distinction from
the land itself. My concern is not with the land itself but rather with the
notion of liebensraum - a place to go, a space to be, a location to live in,
play in, work in.
You will frequently hear the claim that intangibles such as ideas are the
exact opposite of a scarce good: one person may learn of and use another's
idea without diminishing his possession and use of the idea. As Thomas
Jefferson wrote, "He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction
himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives
light without darkening me."
But if the idea can be used without the owner's consent, that does in
fact diminish his ownership of the idea. Ownership means "exclusive control
over the use of the thing." A consequence of this loss of control is that if
the idea has potential economic value (such as Tom's serpentine walls) then
the loss of control over that idea will deprive Tom of some of his potential
income.
Unless the owner's exclusive control over the use of his property is
ensured, the right of ownership can be, and surely will be, violated.
We must keep in mind that property rights protect the security of one's
control over his property, not its value, since value is dependent on what
others are willing to pay for it. For example, your house may be more
valuable on the market if your neighbor has a nice flower garden, but you do
not have a right to this value, and your neighbor has every right to dig up
his garden even if it reduces the value of your property.
* Digital information
Printed documents are fixed snapshots of changing ideas; they limit the
content of communications to the fixed paper on which they are stored. But
in electronic form, documents can become fluid raw material for computer
literati who can extract, catalogue and rearrange the ideas presented.
Electronic technology can separate the message from the medium so that we
can access the message wherever, whenever and in whatever form we want.
Computer programs, like living organisms, evolve. So do ideas. They can
do so most readily, however, only in the peculiar ecosystem of electronic
technology where human designers and users, coupled with computers, provide
the environment essential to breeding, modification and reproduction.
Thomas Jefferson's response to a charge of plagiarism: "My goal is not to
be original, but to be comprehensive and accurate."
Ben Franklin, commenting on a preacher who had been accused of stealing
sermons: "I stuck by him, however, as I rather approv'd his giving us good
sermons compos'd by others, than bad ones of his own manufacture, tho' the
latter was the practice of our common teachers."
* Bibliography
* Capitalism
In thinking about capitalism I started by considering all the definitions
I could find. None of them, not even the one derived by the Randites, seemed
fundamentally valid. They all try to distinguish among supposedly different
forms of economic behavior, but actually just make spurious distinctions
based on the type of social organization in which economic behavior occurs.
I had also been thinking about the fundamental nature of rationality, and
I observed that there is a connection between wealth-creation and
rationality: before you can create material wealth you must know and
understand at least something about reality. I realized that rationality and
wealth-creation are two correlative aspects of human behavior. Rationality
is the means by which man uses his mind to know and understand reality.
Wealth-creation is the means by which man manipulates reality to fulfill the
physical requirements of his existence. Rationality and wealth-creation go
hand-in-hand and both are fundamental requirements of man's life.
One of the distinctive differences between man and the other animals is
his much greater ability to conduct his behavior with reference to time
periods of substantial length. From this observation there arises a useful,
if not precisely specifiable, distinction to be made between two general
categories of wealth-creation - a distinction which ensues from man's
ability to act through time: is the wealth to be consumed immediately, or is
it to be used later on to produce more wealth? If it is to be used later on,
as a tool for the creation of more wealth, then it can be called "capital"
and the process can be called "capitalism." Thus I will use the term to
mean: "The process of using wealth not for immediate consumption but for the
creation of more wealth." Conducting wealth-producing activities
deliberately through time is the essence of capitalism. If you save your
wealth and use it to create more wealth, you are doing capitalism. If you
merely consume the wealth you are not doing capitalism.
Observe that capitalism is not a Boolean phenomenon. All human cultures
practice at least a tiny bit of capitalism - even if it's only the
manufacture of stone knives and arrowheads. The economic development of a
culture depends on the extent to which this practice is implemented. A
society can have more or less of it. The more it has (i.e., the more that
wealth is accumulated through time) the more the society will prosper.
Capitalism can be as small as flaking one flint knifeblade. Or it can be as
huge as General Motors and IBM.
Observe also that this definition is politically neutral. It doesn't
matter WHO does capitalism - nor WHY they do it. It only matters that the
act is performed. Capitalism is an economic tool, like a hammer. Anyone can
use a hammer: a Libertarian, a Fascist, a Communist. From a strictly
economic point of view, in considering only the production of wealth, the
political philosophy of the person who uses the hammer doesn't matter. All
that matters economically is how efficiently he uses the hammer. If he uses
it well, wealth will be created; if he uses it inefficiently, less (or no)
wealth will be produced. Thus the term "State Capitalism" actually makes
sense: a government CAN implement the procedures of capitalism. This will
help explain why such dismal systems as the Soviet Union do not collapse
outright, and why a mixed economy like the USA can muddle along for quite a
while.
You can see now why I must disagree with Rand. She always equated
capitalism with the political system of her preference, but to do so
deprives us of a valuable concept that can be applied to economic behavior
regardless of the political context in which that behavior occurs. It also
deprives us of a valuable cognitive distinction: that between economics and
politics.
The phenomenon Rand spoke of should properly be called "laissez-faire
capitalism." That is, capitalism practiced in the context of a more-or-less
free market. Although this is certainly the most efficient social context
for the practice of capitalism, it is not the only political context in
which capitalism can be implemented.
* Wealth
Wealth is the result of transforming naturally existing entities into
material that enables the achievement of human values.
That wealth consists merely of possessing money is a popular
misconception which arises from the primary function of money: as the
measure of value. But real wealth consists in what is produced and consumed:
the food we eat, the clothes we wear, the houses we live in. Yet so powerful
is the verbal ambiguity that confuses money with wealth, that even those who
at times recognize the confusion will slide back into it in the course of
their reasoning and erroneously equate being rich with being wealthy.
A result of this error is that each man sees that if he personally had
more money he could buy more things, and thus if he had twice as much money
he could buy twice as many things; he would be "worth" twice as much. And to
many the conclusion seems obvious that if the government merely issued more
money and distributed it to everybody, we should all be that much more
wealthy. What they do not see is that such a course of action would merely
destroy commerce.
As Mises observed, the transition from Money to Wallpaper has five steps:
1. The paper is exchangeable for a specified amount of Au or Ag
2. The paper is exchangeable for N dollars in Au or Ag
3. The paper is N dollars - exchangeable for a specified number of
another nation's bills.
4. The paper is N dollars - exchangeable at the open market rate
(whatever you can sucker some poor fool into trading for it).
5. Katastrophenbausse.
There were numerous internal checkpoints in Brazil, but our guide advised
us that a tip of five million cruzeiros would suffice to pass us without
difficulty. A one-dollar bill would suffice even more.
Hungary's 1946 inflation rate was so bad there aren't any words to
describe it: 4.6 x 10 to the 30th power.
* Foundations
Believe it or not, economists do not know what they know. That is, with
regard to various aspects of their field, economists cannot say "these
aspects are what we know to be true, and those aspects we know little or
nothing about." If a discipline after centuries of intellectual activity
still does not know what it knows, it cannot be said to be in good
condition, or based on a solid foundation. In spite of this admitted
ignorance, economists have for generations debated the merits of specific
implementations of their theories, frequently using abstract mathematical
models whose essential flaw is that they have little relevance to actual
human behavior. In line with this, the vigor with which each different model
is advocated by its proponents is frequently inversely proportional to the
amount of empirical evidence that it is correct.
As an example, here is a selection from a recent debate between two
economists:
"Miron of Boston University points out that the behavior of indicators
other than GNP appears to support Romer's position. 'Gordon has only done
GNP,' he says. 'Christie's case is on firmer, broader ground.' Although
Gordon denies the charge, Miron argues that a significant part of Gordon's
newfound volatility in the old numbers comes not from including
transportation and construction but from his choice of a particular price
index to convert nominal dollar figures to 'real' GNP. The index in question
was intended to convert consumer prices from current to constant terms, but
Gordon uses it to adjust commodity prices instead. According to Gordon's
published data, the choice of index could account for almost half of the
difference between his figures and Romer's. There is no clear consensus on
who is right. And regardless of who carries the current debate, the old
mainstream dogma of a stabilized modern economy is in trouble. Although
Romer and Gordon differ, says J. Bradford De Long of Harvard University,
their views are much closer to each other's than either one is to the view
of the past that economists treasured as recently as five years ago."
Such nonsensical antics would be laughably ridiculous except for the
harrowing fact that politicians distill their policies from the proposals of
these economists, whilst the economists are distilling their proposals from
fantasy. As Herman Daly, a senior economist with the World Bank, eloquently
observed: "My major concern about my profession today is that our
disciplinary preference for logically beautiful results over factually
grounded policies has reached such fanatical proportions that we economists
have become dangerous to the earth and its inhabitants."
If one insists on analyzing an imaginary problem which has no real-world
equivalent, it may be appropriate to use an analytical model which has no
real-world application. By the same token, if a model is designed to deal
with real-world situations, it may not be able to handle purely imaginary
problems. In either case, a solution is meaningless. But these "meaningless"
solutions do indeed have real-world consequences when they are implemented
through political coercion. A thief who presumed to justify his theft by
saying that he was really helping his victims by his spending, thus giving
retail trade a needed boost, would be slapped down without delay. But when
this same idiocy is clothed in Keynesian mathematical equations and
impressive references to the "multiplier effect," it carries far more
conviction with a public that has been bamboozled into accepting the
"mystique" that conventional economics is a valid tool of analysis.
In the 1989 edition of his famous textbook, ECONOMICS, Samuelson
described the Soviet Union as being proof that, contrary to what many
skeptics believe, a socialist economy can function and even thrive.
Statements such as this show a contempt for truth that would turn Paul
Goebbels green with envy. The fact that they are not considered an
embarrassment by the economics profession speaks of the fatuity of that
profession. But such statements, which tell us nothing about the real
economic world, may tell us something about the minds of the people who make
them. Many of the most dogmatic and fanatical socialists are not interested
in personal wealth and live in self-imposed poverty. They think that
asceticism is noble and virtuous (otherwise they wouldn't practice it
themselves), and believing that it is virtuous, they want everyone else to
live the same way. This is one reason why socialists never get discouraged
if their ideology doesn't work (that is, doesn't produce prosperity). THEY
NEVER REALLY WANTED IT TO. As long as socialism mandates self-sacrifice and
forestalls prosperity, its most zealous advocates will keep proclaiming it a
success.
Commenting on economic "bubbles," Samuelson admits that "in all the
arsenal of economic theory we have absolutely no way of predicting how long
such a bubble will last." Well, anyone who takes a close look at "the
arsenal of economic theory" will readily observe it to be so filled with
fallacy that the world envisioned by Samuelson and his colleagues bears
little correspondence to the world of reality. No wonder it has so little
predictive power. Keynesian economics is unable to provide a theory that can
even describe, let alone explain, observed economic reality and experience.
If economists really knew what they are talking about, the Soviet Union
never would have collapsed.
The economists and politicians are living in some kind of fantasy world,
while the rest of us must live with the reality of the wreckage they are
creating.
Another manifestation of unreal economic analysis can be seen in Ayn
Rand's quasi-deification of industrialists as being men of punctilious
ethical scruple and rigorous logical acumen. In fact, businessmen are just
like many other people: stupid, shortsighted, and as quick to make use of
coercion if they think it will serve their purpose. In a free marketplace
they would have an ethically useful function, but the trouble is, and always
has been, that there is no FREE marketplace. Societies have always been
based on institutionalized coercion, and the people (including businessmen)
accept this as natural social behavior. This acceptance is ingrained on many
mental levels and during the entire life of the citizen, so it should be no
surprise to see it exhibited by businessmen.
* Bootstrap Economics
The Bootstrap Effect
An economy will rise to the highest level of wealth creation that is
possible to it, subject to three restraints:
1. Limitation of natural resources.
2. Paucity of knowledge.
3. Politically-imposed restrictions.
* Economic Calculations
A grave deficiency in any centralized economic system results from
inadequacy of information. The controlling authorities in a centralized
system are never able to obtain a comprehensive and accurate depiction of
the society under their command.
Government data is often meaningless on its own terms and almost always
misrepresents the nature of an economy. For example: one man spends to build
a bridge, another to destroy it. Does it make sense to sum these two
expenditures together into a "GNP"? Incompatible plans do not add up to some
kind of "super-plan" nor does spending on them add up to an aggregate
reflecting total productivity of any kind whatever.
Also, government expenditures are always considered to be a productive
contribution to the economy. But in fact government is a drain, and hence
its expenditures should be subtracted from any aggregate of productivity.
All figures on economic performance are false in one way or another, each
compounding itself on the others until the economic forecasts generated by
the state are as fictitious as a list of Nixon's virtues. About the only
thing the government's economic indicators truthfully indicate is that the
market has ceased to function properly. It has ceased to function properly
because the natural regulating mechanisms have been severely crippled by
government interference.
One function of prices is to guide the factors of production so as to
apportion the relative output of thousands of different commodities in
accordance with demand. No bureaucrat, no matter how brilliant, can solve
this problem arbitrarily. An example of the problem can be seen in The
Guffey Act of 1937, which forbade the sale of coal at less than certain
minimum prices fixed by government. Though Congress had started out to fix
"the" price of coal, the government soon found itself (because of different
sizes, thousands of mines, and shipments to thousands of different
destinations by rail, truck, ship and barge) fixing 350,000 separate prices
for coal.
Prices provide suppliers with signals of what consumers want, and
relative prices are an important source of information - they represent the
relative value of alternative uses of resources. Willingness to pay a high
price typically means that the producer is doing a good job of providing for
consumers. If that high price generates high profits, then the producer is
able to obtain more of the resources and produce more of the desired
commodity. By allocating resources on the basis of willingness to pay, the
market results in resources being allocated to the highest valued uses,
because those who are willing to pay the price clearly value the use of the
product more than those who are unwilling to pay. As a result, resources are
guided toward their most desired uses.
But a government-controlled economy does not use this source of
information when determining how to allocate its resources, and thus the
flow of profit does not act as a channel directing resources toward the most
desirable uses. When a bureaucrat makes a mistake in regulating your
affairs, he does not receive any feedback, in the form of personal economic
loss, to alert him to his error. You receive all the feedback, but you are
not in a position of control, so you cannot correct the error.
Hayek calls the implicit decision structure underlying the market the
Extended Order. Nobody designed it, nobody fully understands it, and no one
knows a fracton of what it "knows." As Leonard Read pointed out, there is
not a person living who has the complete knowledge required to manufacture a
simple thing like a pencil. Yet the extended order knows how to make
pencils, laptop computers, nuclear-magnetic-resonance body scanners, and
hundreds of thousands of other products. It also knows where and when they
are required and in what quantity. It was the failure to comprehend this
phenomenon, more than anything else, that was the chief intellectal flaw in
Marxism and all its philosophical progeny. An ethical point here is that the
thousands of people whose unwitting cooperation has made our options viable,
have put forward their respective contributions voluntarily. Admittedly,
they have agreed only to the terms of their individual transactions, but
since that is their only point of contact with the rest of the extended
order, their involvement has been a genuine case of unanimous consent.
"Regulating the market" is actually regulating people - preventing them
from making trades which they otherwise would have made, or forcing them to
make trades they would not have made. The market is a network of trade
relationships, and a relationship can only be regulated by regulating the
persons involved in it. Thus price control is people control.
Being imperfect, man does indeed need a regulating mechanism, but free
enterprise does this admirably. Competition enables the businessman to
continually check his ideas against his economic environment to see whether
what he believes (and does) really works. If it doesn't, then either he goes
under or, if he is clever, he will change his ways and go on to meet the
competition's challenge. Unfortunately, government is not regulated by
competition. Hence, no plan that government puts into operation can be
tested by a competitor. Thus an error in government policy is almost never
eradicated, except by revolution, war, or depression. Market competition is
far less painful.
* Fascism-Communism
There is no fundamental distinction between these two forms of society.
They are merely two variants of Socialism - the means by which government
asserts control over the economic affairs of individuals. The fundamental
characteristic distinguishing among markets is whether your behavior is
controlled by your own choices or by someone else's choices. Under both
fascism and communism - or, for that matter, under ANY form of government -
you are not free to guide your behavior according to your own choices. The
only questions which differentiate forms of government are to what degree
you are enslaved, and in what manner the enslavement is imposed.
Fascism: Under this system, many major choices regarding the operation of
businesses are made by government, but the individual who operates each
enterprise receives his income from the profits of the business. This is
centralized planning with decentralized execution of the plan.
In America, these are usually fascist operations: Bus companies,
Airlines, Truck lines, Radio and TV stations, Banks, Private elementary and
secondary schools.
Communism: Under this system, all the business decisions are made by
government, and the people operating the enterprise are government employees
who receive their income from the government. A communist government
expropriates all businesses and operates them as departments of the
government. This is centralized planning AND centralized execution of the
plan. The centralized execution is in the form of precise, all-inclusive
doctrine.
In America, these are communist operations: Highway maintenance, Public
Schools, Utility companies such as most water systems, and sometimes
electric systems, Police (except private police companies, which are
fascist).
Under fascism, the people are led to believe that they are working for
themselves, even though in fact they are not. Under communism, they know
they are not working for themselves. That is why fascism is less incompetent
than communism. In fact, the level of efficiency of an economic system is a
direct consequence of the degree to which the individuals who control
specific economic activities are free to implement their own choices, and
are acting in a context in which their own personal income is dependent on
their own personal choices. This explains why communism is the least
efficient of these systems, fascism is somewhat more efficient, and a free
market is the most efficient of all. Only a free market demands competence.
Authoritarian regimes place obedience above all other considerations.
I distinguish some other controls from the above categories of fascism
and communism since these controls are not primarily oriented toward
governing business operations but are intended as general restrictions on
individual personal behavior. These are such things as driver's licenses,
marriage and divorce laws, customs and immigration regulations.
Registration of vehicles, business licenses, building permits, land
titles (deeds) and land tax are in yet another category - they are the
government's assertion of eminent domain - the assertion that government is
the ultimate owner of all property, and that the individual can make use of
that property only with permission from the government.
Of course all these are also means by which government obtains some of
its revenue.
* Marx
In Marxist economics it is assumed that there is a finite amount of goods
and services available in the marketplace. This is simply wrong. Is there a
limit to the number of songs that can be created? Are the number of computer
programs to be written finite? Are ideas about economics itself finite? (If
so, what is the validity of the internal self-referential logic of Marx's
idea that economic ideas are finite?) No, there is potentially an infinite
supply of goods and services.
According to Marx, no clear line can be drawn between economic and
political processes. In his scheme, the forces of material production are a
superhuman entity independent of the will and actions of individual men.
Industrial production and wealth, he asserts, are not to be attributed to
any individual's creative thought or action, but are a free gift of nature.
Such gifts multiply automatically across time through the intervention of
impersonal agencies called Science, Technology and Progress, and each man is
morally entitled to his fair share of these gifts. Only the State can
achieve social justice by wresting wealth from the hands of the vile, greedy
rich, who have appropriated more than their fair share, and by
redistributing it fairly among the virtuous, non-greedy poor. This is the
underlying rationale of the Welfare State.
Because the use of coercion to confiscate wealth benefits one group ONLY
at the expense of another, Marxists are led to the belief that life must be
viewed as a zero-sum process in which original wealth-creation is ignored or
even denied. (But then, how could Marx have originally created his ideas?)
Inherent in this ideology is the view that the economic resources of the
society must be monopolized in order to prevent certain other people from
satisfying their own economic wants. This reflects the "zero-sum" assumption
that economic resources and economic output are fixed - a national pie to be
distributed by the state. But this coercive redistribution of wealth
undercuts the very process that produced the wealth in the first place, thus
Marxist societies inevitably end up impoverished. Under Marxist economics it
is inevitable that some must starve so that others can eat.
When a theory invariably achieves only the opposite of its alleged goals,
yet its advocates remain undeterred, you may be certain that the theory is
not a conviction or an ideal, but a spurious rationalization.
In a free market, a man's long-range failure, like his long-range
success, is an objective reflection of his ability and his usefulness. It is
precisely this inexorable rule of capitalism - "to each according to his
ability" - that threatens the self-esteem of the Marxist, engendering his
intense hatred for the free market. Ironically, the most passionately voiced
charge against laissez-faire is that it is an unjust system. The man who
hates and fears a free market does not confess that what he really resents
is precisely the implacable justice of this market. The driving motive of
the irrational policies of Marxism is the desire to destroy the hated system
which rewards men according to their abilities, and to substitute one which
will give to the frustrated mediocrities according to their needs.
Their Marxism is a wonderful tool that gives them an answer for
everything - even an answer for the failures of Marxism. A Marxist writes:
"The method of analysis Marx used to understand social domination and
conflict is the most powerful way of understanding the very failures of his
theory." But how can a theory that has failed be used to understand itself?
Thus there is no possibility of controverting the committed Marxist. His
Marxism makes him invulnerable to argument.
* Liability
There is a current trend toward legislation, and court precedent, that
virtually insures that every real or imagined social ill will find its way
into the courtroom for resolution.
In his book LIABILITY, Peter Huber looks at the origin and consequences
of this kind of litigation. He observes that because of "a wholesale shift
from consent to coercion in the law of accidents (and) a shift from
individual to group responsibility ....the number of tort suits filed has
increased steadily for over two decades. So has the probability that any
given suit will conclude in an award. And the average size of awards has
grown more rapidly still." This cancer on capitalism results in a severe
threat to fundamental features of our economic system, such as technological
innovation and the sanctity of contracts. As examples, he observes that
liability accounts for 30% of the price of a stepladder, 95% of the price of
vaccines, and 1/3rd the cost of a small airplane. The threat of liability
suits and/or the cost of insurance has orphaned more than 500 drugs that are
invaluable for treating rare but serious diseases.
Fifty years ago, such liability litigation would not have been conceived.
Twentyfive years ago, it would have been laughed out of court. Today it is
seriously considered, and the really scary aspect is this: there is NO WAY
to tell in advance what the ruling of the court will be. The courts are not
bound by any semblance of rationality or any adherence to the principle of
Justice, and yet they exercise total dominion over the economic life of the
country.
* Productivity
The productivity potential of the American people was enormously enhanced
by the practice of capitalism during its first hundred years, when
government was too small to seriously hinder personal freedom. But as
government grows larger and consumes more and more resources, a continually
growing share of that productivity potential must be devoted to the
maintenance of government.
Computers have enabled a tremendous productivity boost since the 1970s,
but no matter how much more wealth per capita improved technology makes
possible, there is always something to soak up the surplus and condemn
ordinary people to a lifetime of labor. No matter how much productivity
increases, people never seem to work less, only differently (harder!). The
government is consuming, at an accelerated pace, the productivity potential
of the country.
Jerry Pournelle: "It looks to me as if our choices are very limited:
increase productivity, or have a declining standard of living. Or both.
Unfortunately, most increases in productivity are eaten by new measures,
such as the Clean Air Act. It's my opinion that most of the productivity
increases made possible by small computers have disappeared into increased
regulations."
Another thing that has kept the government alive while the federal debt
curve goes up is that it is confiscating much of the wealth produced by the
women who have liberated themselves since the 1960s.
* Fair Trade
The American businesses that have been losing ground to Japan should be
calling for more freedom - and occasionally a few of them have. But in the
main their response has been: "Shackle the Japanese, as we are shackled."
They have been calling for tariffs, import quotas, and every form of
protectionist legislation as the answer to foreign competition. Instead of
saying, "Free us up so that we can compete," they have been running to
Washington, crying, "Make it illegal for Americans to buy foreign goods."
One propaganda device of these businessmen is the claim that they are all
in favor of free trade - so long as it is "fair."
In this context, there is no such thing us "unfair" trade. The so-called
"unfairness" here is not to the merchant nor to the consumer, but to a third
party who objects to the transaction. This is an act of extreme
presumptuousness. A third party has no right to intervene in a transaction
between a willing buyer and a willing seller, especially not when the third
party's complaint is that it is "unfair" to HIM that you, the buyer, are
being offered such a bargain. What is he saying, if not that he has a right
to your trade, your money, your time and effort, your life? It is an
approach we might expect of a medieval baron upset by someone trading with
his serfs. That sort of feudalism is what many American businessmen and
labor unions are trying to put over on you in the name of Americanism.
The proper answer to such complaints is a venerable and very American
retort which should be taken literally: "Mind your own business!"
Another protectionist scam uses the metaphor of competing "on a level
playing field." It is very important to recognize that business is not a
game or a sport. In sports, the goals achieved - the touchdowns, homeruns,
knockouts - have no utilitarian value. Sports are activities whose meaning
lies only in the displays of athletic excellence they call forth. Their
entire value is in the how, rather than the what. In business activity the
opposite is true. The how matters not at all, only the what. Consumers care
not a whit how astoundingly adept are the maneuvers accomplished in the
factory by an auto worker or how brilliant was the strategy of the company's
marketing director. All that matters is the utilitarian outcome: how good is
the product for our intended use? The metaphor of "a level playing field"
has no meaning in business - unless it means an open marketplace without
force or fraud, where everyone competes under conditions of free trade by
voluntary consent. But open competition is precisely what the level-fielders
are opposed to. They want to hobble the foreign runners in the race, to
hobble them either by force (tariffs) or fraud (conning Americans into
believing that buying foreign products damages our economy).
Note the power of the connotations of words: The Japanese are engaging in
"dumping," we are told. But what is being "dumped" on us are inexpensive,
high quality products. Their dumping consists of reducing the price below
what we would have to pay for American products. This is also known as
"underselling" and is considered a big plus when done domestically by
American businesses. How many commercials have you heard that say "we are
cheapest," "we will beat any offer," "guaranteed lowest price," etc. They
are "dumping" savings on us. The "dumping" actually consists of showering us
with wealth.
Chapter 5
RIGHTS AND FREEDOM
* Natural Rights
Consider the conditions which are required by man's nature for his proper
survival. Everything in the universe has a nature, and therefore there are
proper and improper ways of interacting with those things - proper and
improper ways of living in the world. By "proper survival" I mean a state of
existence which maximizes the opportunity of each person to manifest his
values in the external world. Man's survival qua man includes the terms,
methods, conditions, and goals required for the survival of a rational being
through the whole of his lifespan - in all those aspects of existence which
are open to his choice and which are requisite for his flourishing.
There are several categories of these conditions - Physical, Chemical and
Social, to name some. In the physical realm we can easily observe that there
are several conditions which must prevail if a man is to remain alive. An
example is the fact that he must maintain a certain environmental
temperature range, outside of which he would either freeze or roast. If for
any reason this environmental condition ceases to prevail, man's proper
survival comes to a quick and drastic end. We can see other physical
conditions necessary as well, such as a continual accomodation to the force
of gravity. In the chemical realm also we observe necessary conditions: the
existence of an oxygen gas environment, the avoidance from diet of certain
chemicals (cyanide, arsenic, strychnine) and the inclusion of certain other
chemicals (ascorbic acid). This last case is a good example of the fact that
these conditions are necessary for man's PROPER survival, for without the
inclusion of an adequate amount of vitamin C, life will not come to the same
sort of immediate and drastic end as it would from the elimination of the
oxygen gas environment. Nonetheless without the vitamin C man is not in a
state of PROPER survival, even though his life does continue on a limited
and retarded level. (He merely subsists, he does not flourish.)
Also demonstrated is the fact that nature-imposed requirements are of two
kinds. It does not suffice for you merely to avoid doing the wrong things -
it is also necessary that you do the right things. You don't get scurvy
because you did something wrong, you get it because you didn't do something
right.
There is a conflict between natural law (the theory that man's rights are
inherent in his nature and exist independently of government law) and legal
positivism (the theory that government law itself is the sole basis for
man's rights).
The legal positivist thesis is that "man's ability to contract, and
thereby offer consent, is made possible only by the establishment of a
government which can define the rules and enforce the rights that make
consent possible in a social context in the first place."
However, if this were true it would be impossible for a government to be
established by any means that involve contract and consent, which,
supposedly, cannot exist prior to the establishment of the government. In
general, if rights do not exist until after a government has been
established, then there can be no right to establish a government. So by
what principled means could government be started? And since there are many
and contradictory government theses about the nature of rights, which
government is to be considered the determinator of correct ethics?
Furthermore, if there were no natural rights - no independently-existing
ethical principles - then there could be no standard for judging the
legitimacy or efficacy of government-made laws - no means by which the
behavior of government could itself be evaluated.
A government is comprised of a group of people. None of these individual
people acquires, by virtue of membership in that group, any intellectual
abilities that he did not previously possess. Therefore any rules that are
determined by government could as well have been determined by the
cooperative association of those same individuals acting non-governmentally.
In the legal positivist thesis, "government" is a stolen concept.
The idea of "man's proper survival" means not merely those conditions
which apply to individual people, but also those conditions which apply to
cultures.
A society whose members are not willing to act to preserve their rights
will not survive.
To ensure the proper survival of a culture there are several things that
must be done:
1) Prevent the establishment of authoritarian institutions.
2) Transmit to your children rational moral and ethical principles.
3) Teach your children the importance of moral/ethical autonomy. Teach
them to reject all attempts to induce them to accept any judgment other than
their own regarding the propriety of their behavior - that if they judge an
action to be wrong, then they must not do it, no matter who tells them to do
it.
Light - Darkness
Sound - Silence
Heat - Cold
Slavery - Freedom
Chapter 6
THE ETHICS UNDERLYING SOCIAL
STRUCTURE
* Foundation of Law
A natural law is a necessity imposed on an entity by the entity's nature.
It is a cause which mandates an effect: appropriate behavior. The law arises
from the interaction of the facts of the entity's nature with other facts of
reality: its environment. A natural law is practical - it must always "work"
- because it relates to things as they really are.
While it is generally recognized that man's physical and even his mental
nature are subject to the rule of natural law, it is just as generally
assumed that the area of ethics is completely outside the scope of natural
law. This assumption is held tacitly, rather than being identifed and
defended, simply because it CAN'T be rationally defended. It is quite
foolish to assert that man is a being with a specific nature and therefore
subject to the rule of principles derived from that nature in all areas
except his dealings with other men. Do men cease to have a specific nature
when they come into relationship with other men? Of course not! Natural law
does indeed apply to human relationships, and it is just as objective,
universal, and inescapable in this area as in any other. The proof of this
is that actions have consequences - in the area of human relations as surely
as in the area of human medicine. No matter how cleverly a man schemes, he
will suffer if he insists on acting in a manner which contradicts the nature
of human existence. The consequences may not be immediate, and they may not
be readily apparent, but they are inescapable.
The law of supply and demand, and all other market laws, are really
natural laws, derived from the nature and needs of man. The fact that market
laws are natural laws explains why a free market works and a controlled-
market doesn't: natural law is always practical - it always "works."
Thus man-made law must be identified rather than invented or decreed, as
is the case with government legislation. Law is necessary for the survival
and development of individual liberty, but decreed legislation is its
nemesis.
"True law is right reason, consonant with nature, diffused among all men,
constant, eternal." .... Cicero
Arbitrary legislation destroys the very certainty that we seek from
natural law: People can never be certain that the legislation in force today
will be in force tomorrow. As a result, they are prevented not only from
freely deciding how to behave but also from foreseeing the legal effects of
their daily behavior.
Legislation also often disrupts established inter-personal conventions
that have hitherto been voluntarily accepted and held to by individuals.
Even the possibility of nullifying these conventions tends to induce people
to fail to rely on any existing conventions or to keep any accepted
agreements, no matter how they may have come into existence.
Man's only duty is to respect others' rights and man's only right over
others is the enforcement of that duty.
A free society exists when people recognize, as a social, collective
rule, that individuals have the right to own property and to use their
bodies and minds as each sees fit. Their recognition of this right consists
in their accepting a duty not to interfere with these free actions of
individuals. This social rule has the enormous advantage of being the only
collective rule compatible with individual freedom and autonomy. This is the
only rational way in which society can cope with the problem posed by
nonagreement about "The Good."
Every bit of human progress has happened for a single, simple reason: the
elevation of the status of the individual. Each time civilization has
stumbled into another age that is a little better, a bit more enlightened,
than the ones before it, it's because people respected other people as
individuals. When they haven't, those have been the times of slipping
backward.
One of America's greatest shortcomings is that almost everything nowadays
is geared against the individual and in favor of the big institutions - big
corporations, big unions, big banking, big government. So not only does an
individual have trouble getting ahead and staying there, he often has
difficulty merely in surviving. And whenever bad things happen - inflation,
devaluation, depression, shortages, higher taxes, even wars - it isn't so
much the big institutions which get hurt, it's the individual, all the time.
More and more, individuals are being deprived of the power of decision,
and being allowed only the power of choice among the things government
permits. The more you depend on government, the more limited those choices
become. What must be reinstated is the opportunity for the individual to
make decisions that count. Small wonder that many people in big cities seem
so despairing: nothing in view indicates any care for what the individual
thinks or desires.
Hitler: "The individual must finally come to realize that his own ego is
of no importance in comparison with the existence of his nation; that the
position of the individual ego is conditioned solely by the interests of the
nation as a whole... that above all the unity of a nation's spirit and will
are worth far more than the freedom of the spirit and will of an
individual."
* Stateolatry
The opposite of libertarianism is statism, the principle that it is
proper for the community (or a selected subgroup thereof) to compel the
behavior of its individual members.
The most firmly held myth in the world today is that society cannot
possibly exist without government. This myth is as decisive as belief in God
was for the people of Medieval European Society. This myth is held so firmly
and fundamentally by many people that they are entirely unaware even that
they hold it.
The stateolatrist is so devout a statist that he views government as an
object of religious worship. He regards government as being the ultimate
foundation of morality and ethics, and as an absolute prerequisite to
civilized human existence. He is unable to conceive that the time could ever
come when government will fade into an anonymity as deep as that of its
humblest subjects. He is one manifestation of what Eric Hoffer described as
a "True Believer."
A hallmark of the stateolatrist is the inability to perceive the
fundamental similarity between government viciousness and criminal
viciousness. He is not merely a patriot who loves his country, he is so
overwhelmed by his devotion that he cannot see the reality of government.
PATRIOT GAMES by Tom Clancy is a remarkable book. Not for the story
itself, but for what it shows about the mentality of the author. Never have
I seen such a blatant display of the stateolatrist syndrome. Clancy, who is
an excellent writer and storyteller, portrays with great clarity the nature
of terrorist behavior and the exactly identical nature of government
behavior, but then distinguishes between them with such a transparent film
of verbal gloss that in many places I laughed out loud with amazement.
Clancy's writing is an unparalleled example of a devout statist who is
totally self-blinded to the fundamental identicality of terrorism and
government.
In describing terrorists, one of Clancy's characters remarks:
"They don't relate to the people around them as being real people. They
see them as objects, and since they're only objects, whatever happens to
them is not important. Once I met a man who killed four people and didn't
bat an eye; but he cried like a baby when we told him his cat died. People
like that don't even understand why they get sent to prison; they really
don't understand. Those are the scary ones."
Clancy would be appalled at the idea that this same description could be
applied to the FBI and the BATF "terrorists" guilty of the Waco massacre.
For another good illustration of this syndrome see Heinlein's CITIZEN OF
THE GALAXY, pg 180. Here you can see someone to whom government is so
unquestionably pervasive that he describes human culture without reference
to it, just as you might describe society without reference to the air we
breathe.
Everyone is so immersed in the context of statism that no one really
knows the other alternative. Even though the governments of the former
Soviet Union might WANT to establish a free market, they simply do not know
what it is. Most people do not realize they could even HAVE any control over
their own economic situation. Because life is so wrapped up in bureaucracy
and law no one has any idea that government could be circumvented. So long
as people cannot perceive alternatives for comparison they will never even
become aware that they are oppressed. They will not only lack any impulse to
rebel, they will lack even the power of grasping that the world could be
other than what it is.
It is as Orwell said it would be: "You will lose the ability to think
certain ideas, and then you will be totally incapable of ever trying to act
on those ideas."
The only way out of this statist situation is for people someday to
realize that governments are NOT necessary for civilization - that in fact
governments are an impediment to civilization. When the day comes that
enough people are disillusioned with government, government will simply
cease to exist. It will go the way of Alchemy, Phrenology, the Flat Earth,
and other similar errors that were eventually discarded as being useless.
This is why I do not think anarchism to be utopian. Today it is only a
dream, a dream that will not soon come true, but if the idea is preserved it
will be used in the future.
Consider this: all government is founded upon Lies. But a lie will not
fit a fact. It will only fit another lie derived for the purpose. Therefore
the life of a lie, and of government, is simply a question of time. Nothing
but truth is immortal: 99.9 percent of all the laws ever passed by
governments have vanished from the society of mankind. But Aristotle's laws
of logic, Archimedes' laws of buoyancy, and Euclid's laws of geometry
persevere immutably.
* Voting
Here are the best arguments I could find - both for and against voting:
Thoreau (Civil Disobedience):
"All voting is a sort of gaming, like checkers or backgammon, with a
slight moral tinge to it, a playing with right and wrong, with moral
questions; and betting naturally accompanies it. The character of the voters
is not staked, I cast my vote, perchance, as I think right; but I am not
vitally concerned that that right should prevail. I am willing to leave it
to the majority. Its obligation, therefore never exceeds that of expediency.
Even voting FOR THE RIGHT is DOING nothing for it. It is only expressing to
men feebly your desire that it should prevail. A wise man will not leave the
right to the mercy of chance, nor wish it to prevail through the power of
the majority. There is but litttle virtue in the actions of masses of men."
"It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote himself to the
eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may still properly have
other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at least, to wash his
hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not to give it
practically his support.... Cast your whole vote, not a strip of paper
merely, but your whole influence."
To commit a crime by proxy is to have someone else impose your will for
you. The most convenient and frequent manner of committing acts of harm by
proxy is to use government to commit the crimes you want done. All you have
to do is vote for whichever criminal promises to use force in the way you
wish. The very act of voting is an attempt on the part of voters to delegate
to another person a power that they could not justly possess themselves.
When you vote you participate in the selection of an officeholder. Thus
you acquire responsibility for his subsequent behavior - regardless of who
holds the office. Your participation is your concession that there should
indeed BE elected officials with the power of coercion. In voting, you give
your sanction to the institution that enables the officials to coerce. Even
though you may not approve of the particular officials who attain office,
you do approve of the enabling institution. Government is based on coercion,
but individuals should not have the authority to coerce others, and
therefore they should not put themselves in a position to delegate such
authority to third parties, which is the essence of voting.
It is often said that refusal to vote means that one is left with no
voice at all, but that implies that having a voice in the proceedings of
government is proper and desirable.
An authoritarian activity is one which forces, directly or indirectly,
someone else to do something. But voting in itself does not do this. Only
voting for authoritarian candidates (including the lesser of evils, which is
still an evil) or for authoritarian policies is authoritarianism.
Voting AGAINST tax increases, measures to increase government controls,
and voting FOR libertarians truly committed to total liberty cannot be
authoritarian. Voting for freedom or against coercion does not delegate
power to another; just the opposite.
If someone is applying coercion against me, I'll resist by any means
available, even means provided by the coercer himself.
When you vote, you are devoting a part of your time and energy to making
a contribution to the political system. Your participation constitutes that
contribution, regardless of the intent of, or specific form of, that
participation. Like they say, it doesn't matter who you vote for, as long as
you vote.
Voting is not an expression of power, but an admission of powerlessness,
since it cannot do otherwise than reaffirm the government's supposed
legitimacy. Participation in electoral politics serves to legitimize the
entire political process and the existence of government. If people did not
vote, the democratic theory of government would lose its legitimacy and
politicians would have to justify their rule on the basis of something other
than the alleged consent of the governed. This, hopefully, would make the
true nature of the State more obvious to the governed. And such a revelation
might have the potential to motivate people to challenge or evade government
interference and coercion.
If you consider voting to be acceptable, then you must consider it
acceptable for the winning candidates to hold power in a coercive
government. The ultimate political issue is that of the Individual vs. the
State. But the voter, by virtue of his behavior, has already cast his lot
with the State.
Each candidate would use the State in a different way - but each would
use the State. Obviously, this is a game in which only the State can win. By
playing the game, you demonstrate your conviction that the game should be
played.
If voting could have kept this totalitarianism from happening, we
wouldn't have the police-state we have got, because people are forever
voting and they've certainly had enough opportunities to stop it or turn it
aside if that was possible. On the contrary, it is the process of voting
that has made it possible.
Suppose you are in airplane which gets hijacked and the hijacker says, "I
will kill you all unless you vote that you want to be set free."
Unfortunately, over 50% of the passengers are anarchists who are opposed to
voting, so they refuse to vote, and all the passengers are killed. In this
case, by refusing to vote, they indirectly contribute to the death of the
minority that would have survived if they had been the majority. Not voting
in this case is authoritarian.
Not voting constitutes an implicit declaration to the winner that "I
don't care what the outcome is." We are all living in a society hijacked by
the rulers. If we can vote for less coercion but refuse, we implicitly
endorse coercion. The fact is, when we are hijacked, as we are, or under
terrorist rule or subject to any authoritarians, we ARE involved, and a
refusal to voice a yea or nay can itself further authoritarian rule.
[This is a fundamentally collectivist argument - it assumes that the
victim is in some way responsible for the behavior of the criminal. It is
not the responsibility of the non-voters to save the voters from their own
folly.]
Back during the Vietnam era, the protestors used to say "What if they
gave a war and nobody came?" That represents only a superficial analysis of
the political system. A more fundamental analysis is represented by the
question "What if they gave an election and nobody came?" (But then,
Australia has a solution to that!)
Voting would make ME feel like a swim in the sewer. It would leave me
with a sense of moral pollution.
Shortly after the 1964 election I realized that the American electoral
process contains a fundamental flaw. When you vote, the only choice you have
is to vote FOR one candidate or FOR another candidate. There is no way you
can vote AGAINST any candidate. There is no "NO" choice on the ballot, only
"YES" choices. This realization was one of the things that turned me off to
the idea of politics. You have no doubt heard (many times) of a disgruntled
voter going to the polls to choose "the lesser of two evils." I realized
that the lesser of two evils is still an evil, and to express a preference
for that evil is to don the cloak of moral culpability for his subsequent
behavior.
I observed with interest a peculiar electoral quirk during the 1976
elections. The LP, after the expenditure of an enormous amount of time,
energy and money, was able to get "None of the above" placed on the ballot
in Nevada. Thus there were three options available to the Nevada electorate
when they went into the polling booth to elect their congressman: the
Democrat, the Republican, and None of the Above. The outcome of this
election was very interesting: the Democrat received 23% of the votes, the
Republican received 29%, and NOTA received a whopping 47%. Can you guess
what happened? Very simple: the Republican went to Washington as the
congressman from Nevada. As of 1990, NOTA is still on the ballot in Nevada,
and the winner of every election is that PERSON who gains the greatest
number of votes. Votes cast for NOTA are simply wasted.
It is intrinsic to the American Constitution that there MUST be a
government. The people CANNOT choose "No Government" - that is not provided
for in the Constitution. Sure, the Declaration of Independence observes the
right of the people to "alter or abolish" their government, but the
Declaration of Independence is not a legal document.
I found it fascinating to watch the first post-Soviet general elections
in Russia. They had an explicit choice on their ballots: Yes or No for any
(and all) particular candidates. Such a large number of the Communist
candidates (who ran unopposed) received a preponderance of "No" votes that
run-off elections were held a couple weeks later. Those "No" votes were
indeed counted - unlike the NOTA votes in Nevada.
I found it fascinating also to watch the subsequent Hungarian elections,
which were held with the stipulation that unless at least 51% of the voting
population did participate, the elections would be invalid. The Hungarian
government has at least a more acute sense of "majority" than does the
American government. In a recent election for the Fremont County, Wyoming
government, only 13% of the population voted, and yet the government
selected by a portion of that tiny percentage does indeed rule Fremont
County. Some "majority rule" that is!!
Since 1972, when 18-year-olds first went to the polls, their election
participation has steadily declined. In 1990 less than 19% of the 18 to 20
age group voted.
The majority is invariably wrong. Consider the fact that every major
breakthrough in man's understanding of the world has always been greeted
with indifference or opposition by the majority. When private individuals in
18th century England introduced the "barbaric" practice of innoculating
against smallpox, the majority, including virtually the entire medical
profession, was appalled. Advances are made by individuals or by small
groups of cooperating people who OVERCOME majority opinion or indifference.
The fact that the majority is invariably wrong has interesting implications
for the concept of democracy - a system which means, in fact, State control
of the individual and his property in accordance with the supposed wishes of
the majority. In a word, where majority rules, progress stops. The goal of
free men should not be majority rule at all but self-rule, a society in
which not political action but individual action prevails.
Political freedom for the individual has become a charming legend from
the early years of the Republic when individual liberty - rather than the
will of the majority - was actually considered the core of democracy.
Nowadays, acceptance of the legitimacy of individual autonomy is a
contradiction wholly intolerable to the democratic ideology. Under a
democracy, when a man looks into a mirror he sees one ten-millionth of a
tyrant, and one whole slave.
* Assisted Suicide
Is it right to help someone to destroy himself?
Yes. He has a right to live his life - or end it - according to HIS
choices, nobody else's.
But how about selling him cigarettes, or booze, or other destructive
drugs?
The moral duty of a human being is to choose to live according to his
nature. The best such choices are those that enhance his nature - not those
that degrade his nature. It would not be ethically improper to sell him
drugs, but it would not be the decent thing to do. By "decent" vs "indecent"
I mean actions that contribute to another person's choices to enhance vs
debilitate his nature as a human being. Death is a normal, natural
phenomenon. Under the appropriate conditions it is proper to end a life. It
is not proper to contribute to its degeneracy.
He is responsible for how he uses the stuff he buys. You acquire ethical
culpability only if you know he is going to use the stuff to injure other
people.
* Abortion
One of the major issues of the day is the argument about Abortion. By and
large, the discussion is merely a diatribe of emotional invective,
containing very little in the way of factual analysis (see the remarks
below, by George Bush).
I will make not a moral or ethical evaluation but merely a factual
presentation upon which can be based whatever evaluation you choose to draw
from your own set of moral principles. (Personally, I am opposed to
abortion, but I am even MORE opposed to laws which forbid abortions.)
Many arguments are based on the contention that a fetus is a human being,
and is therefore possessed of the right to life. This is the "Human Rights"
argument.
There are six points of development at which a fetus can be claimed to
acquire the status of "human being." Any argument from this premise must
choose and justify one of these points:
1. Fertilization
2. Implantation in the uterine wall
3. Brain-wave activity
4. Quickening (when the woman becomes aware of the fetus' movement)
5. Viability (when the fetus can be withdrawn and survive)
6. Birth
There is also the "Supersession" argument - that the rights of the woman
supersede any rights possessed by the fetus:
Does not a woman have a primary right to her own life? The right to
determine the circumstances of her own body?
When couples who both carry the mutation for Tay-Sachs disease decide to
have children, they typically elect to have prenatal testing. If a fetus has
the disease, they usually abort it rather than give birth to a child who
would succumb within five years to a slow and horribly painful death.
Because it is always so uniformly hideous in its progression, extremely few
people believe a child afflicted with Tay-Sachs should be brought into the
world.
The view of the Religious Right, as expressed by George Bush (LA TIMES,
12/12/88): "Well, it (may) appear to be a double standard to some, but I,
that's my position, and it's, we don't have the time to philosophically
discuss it here, but... we're going to opt on the side of life, and that is,
that is the, that really is the underlying part of this for me. You know, I
mentioned, and with, really from the heart, this concept of going across the
river to this little church and watching one of our children, adopted kid,
be baptized. And that made for me, and it was very emotional for me. It
helped me in reaching a very personal view of this question. And I don't
know."
* Ethics as Black-and-White
Moral principles are requirements of man's survival proved by reference
to the most fundamental aspects of his existence and to the deepest premises
of philosophy. They are life-or-death absolutes. But while the standard and
the principles of ethics (and morality) are black-and-white - as black-and-
white as are the laws of nature - the personal judgments, choices and
actions through which an individual realizes those abstract principles are
matters of degree.
* Honesty vs Dishonesty
There are times when a lie is not only ethically justifiable but is
actually morally obligatory. "What?! What?!" I hear you croak. "Is this guy
out of his mind?" Well, let me explain. Imagine that you set out to go
downtown having in your left pocket $10 and in your right pocket $100. As
you are trudging along the street a hoodlum snatches you into an alley,
claps his revolver (a Quickfire Arms Corp. Saturday Night Special) up gainst
the side of your pretty little head and wheezes softly into your ear:
"Allright, Cutie, your money or your life!" So you, trembling in fear and
terror, reach into the left pocket and produce the ten-spot. "Arrgh!! He
gasps, wafting into your nostril the stench of cheap Sicilian wine, "Izzis
alla dough ya got, kid?" I maintain that at this point your answer not only
COULD morally be "yes," but that it actually SHOULD be "yes" and that if you
answer "no" you are behaving in an immoral, self-destructive fashion.
Under ordinary circumstances a lie is an attempt to coerce someone - that
is, an attempt to separate him (without his consent) from some rightfully
achieved value. In the context of my little story, the lie is not a
coercion. Your money is not the hoodlum's rightfully achieved value, and you
have NO ethical obligation toward him. Your only moral obligation is to
extricate yourself from the situation in the least self-destructive manner
possible. Thus we see that a lie can be a perfectly proper act to protect a
value against an injustice; not a desire to gain a value by faking reality,
but a fully contextual recognition of the relevant facts of reality.
There are really only two kinds of people in the world: those who bother
other people without provocation and those who don't.
It is the initiation of force that distinguishes criminal from non-
criminal behavior, and it is the acceptance or rejection of the non-
aggression principle that distinguishes a civilized human being from a
savage; a libertarian from a statist. This helps to explain why the State
cannot respect - it can only fear. Animals do not have the attribute of
respect.
The Hindu religion approaches this distinction in its famous "beetle
test": as you are walking along the road, will you break stride to avoid
stepping on a beetle, or will you merely crush it and walk on?
Branden maintains that the fundamental moral "sin" is the failure to
choose to think (see THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-ESTEEM, chapter 4). I would draw
a parallel to this contention in the field of ethics and maintain that the
fundamental ethical "sin" is the failure to choose to judge. I mean
specifically failing to make judgments about the ethical propriety of your
own behavior, and instead allowing yourself to become merely an instrument
of someone else's will. Rand observed that the most contemptible man is the
man without a purpose. I believe the most evil man is the man who allows his
purpose to be determined by others. He makes no ethical judgments about his
behavior, but falls into the default of having his ethos determined by
someone else. This is the man who implements in practice the ideas proposed
by men who would otherwise be impotent. Without this man, Hitler would have
been nothing more than a house painter.
The most widespread excuse for this failure is the claim that "I was only
doing my job." I call this the "Nuremberg Defense" as it was the most common
defense offered by the Nazi war criminals during the Nuremberg trials.
Whenever you hear this claim, what you are hearing is an attempt to justify
ethical viciousness on the grounds that the perpetrator has abandoned his
own judgment and accepted the propriety of acting according to the judgment
of someone else.
The Nuremberg Defense tries to divorce choice from action and thus avoid
the assignment of guilt. The man who makes the choice tries to absolve
himself from guilt by claiming "but I didn't DO anything," and the man who
performs the action tries to absolve himself from guilt by claiming "but I
didn't make any choice." When each has thus eliminated guilt from his
considerations, both together are capable of a completely unlimited scope of
wickedness. This "default of judgment" phenomenon lies at the base of all
government police agencies and all military organizations. Without this
default, the Hitlers of the world would each have to do his own murders
personally, and would not be able to act through a social institution
comprised of people trained to accept any judgment - any choice - governing
their behavior. Any judgment, that is, except their own.
The vast majority of the human race are secretly kind-hearted and shrink
from infliciting pain, but in a society where viciousness is
institutionalized they don't dare to assert themselves. One kind-hearted
creature spies upon another, and sees to it that he loyally participates in
iniquities which revolt both of them. "In fear of what others might report
about you, you stoned the woman although your heart revolted at the act."
Hitler: "I understood the infamous spiritual terror which this movement
exerts, particularly on the bourgeoisie, which is neither morally nor
mentally equal to such attacks; at a given sign it unleashes a veritable
barrage of lies and slanders against whatever adversary seems most
dangerous, until the nerves of the attacked persons break down. This is a
tactic based on precise calculation of all human weaknesses, and its result
will lead to success with almost mathematical certainty."
But this process works only with "group man." It does not work at all
with the individualist. The individualist is the person who has a higher
allegiance to his own conscience than to the rules others set down for him.
The individualist thinks and judges independently, valuing nothing higher
than the sovereignty of his own intellect. He does not allow others to
determine his ethos. He is not the sort of chaff that makes good fodder for
a tyranny.
Those who believe that might is right must always perceive themselves as
mighty.
* Hate Crimes
A function of a criminal justice system should be to protect potential
victims by incarcerating the convicted criminal as long as he is likely to
repeat his crime. Here group hate is relevant. Someone who hates and kills a
cheating lover or an abusive boss does not necessarily have a motive for
killing anyone else. In many cases such a person can be safely released once
the requirements of punishment and deterrence have been satisfied. In
contrast, someone who kills because he hates all homosexuals has a proven
motive to kill and kill again. Releasing him puts innocent people in danger
of their lives. The proper function of "hate laws' is to guide the courts
and parole boards in reconciling justice for the criminal with safety for
potential victims.
* Conspiracy
I regard all conspiracy theories with a great deal of skepticism. Keep in
mind that the president of the USA (Richard Nixon), with all the power
available to him, could not cover up a simple second-story burglary. Is it
really likely that any of the so-called "conspirators" are intelligent
enough and/or competent enough to perpetuate the globe-girdling conspiracies
and cover-ups that are attributed to them? I think not.
* What is a Slave?
I see two fundamental distinguishing characteristics of a slave:
1. He is compelled to do whatever his master commands him to do.
2. He is forbidden to do anything without having permission, explicit or
implicit, from his master.
I will leave it as an exercise for you to determine to what extent these
two characteristics describe your own situation. Keep this in mind: Just as
the truly damned are those who are happy in hell, so the truly enslaved are
those who believe their enslavement is freedom.
Demands for "social justice" take two different forms, which can be
called egalitarianism and welfarism. The difference in these two conceptions
of social justice is the difference between relative and absolute levels of
well-being.
Egalitarians are concerned with RELATIVE well-being. According to
egalitarianism, the wealth produced by a society must be distributed fairly
- it is unjust for some people to earn fifteen, or fifty, or a hundred times
as much income as others, and since laissez-faire permits and encourages
these disparities in income and wealth, it is therefore unjust. The hallmark
of egalitarians is the way they use statistics to describe the distribution
of income. In 1989, for example, the top 20 percent of U.S. households on
the income scale earned 45 percent of total income, whereas the bottom 20
percent earned only 4 percent of total income. The goal of egalitarianism is
to reduce this disparity; greater equality is always regarded as a gain in
social justice. Egalitarians have often said that of two societies they
prefer the one in which wealth is more evenly distributed, even if that
society's overall standard of living is lower, Thus egalitarians tend to
favor government measures, such as progressive taxation, which aim to
redistribute wealth across the entire income scale, not merely at the
bottom. They also tend to support the nationalization of goods such as
education and medicine, taking them off the market entirely and making them
available to everyone more or less equally.
The welfarist, on the other hand, has a much more absolutist view of
social justice. He demands that people have access to a certain absolute
minimum standard of living. As long as this floor or "safety net" exists, it
does not matter to the welfarist how much wealth anyone else has, or how
great the disparities are between rich and poor. Welfarists are primarily
interested in programs that benefit people who are below a certain level of
poverty, or who are sick, out of work, or deprived in some other way.
To the welfarist, rights are conceived as rights to possess and enjoy
certain goods, regardless of one's actions; they are rights to have the
goods provided by others if one cannot provide them oneself. Accordingly,
welfare rights impose positive obligations on other people. If I have a
right to food, someone has an obligation to grow it. If I cannot pay for it,
someone has an obligation to buy it for me... etc. From an ethical
standpoint, the essence of welfarism is the premise that the need of one
individual is a claim on other individuals. The claim is an unchosen
obligation arising from the mere fact of his need. The ethics of welfarism
does not assert an absolute right to pursue the satisfaction of human needs.
The "right" asserted is, rather, a conditional one: those who DO succeed in
creating wealth may do so only on condition that others are allowed to share
that wealth. The goal is not so much to benefit the needy as to bind the
able. The implicit assumption is that a creative person's ability and
initiative are social assets, which may be exercised only on condition that
they are aimed at the service of others.
The egalitarian arrives at the same principle as the welfarist, but by a
different logical route. The ethical framework of the egalitarian is defined
by reference to justice rather than rights - by the idea that people are to
be treated differently only if they differ in some MORALLY (not
economically) relevant way. The most common position is a presumption in
favor of equal outcomes, and that any departure from equality must be
justified by its benefits to other people (as opposed to its benefits to the
individual who created the departure). But we can see that this is the same
principle that lies at the basis of welfare rights: the principle that the
productive individual may enjoy the fruits of his efforts only on condition
that those efforts benefit other people as well.
Both of these social schemes rest on the premise that individual ability
is a social asset - that the individual must regard himself as a means to
the ends of others. And here we come to the crux of the matter. In
respecting the rights of other people, I recognize that they are "ends in
themselves," and that I may not treat them merely as means to my own
satisfaction, in the way that I treat inanimate objects. Why then is it not
equally moral for me to regard myself as an "end in myself"? Why should I
not refuse, out of respect for my own dignity as a moral being, to regard
myself as a means to the ends of others? An honorable person does not offer
his needs as a claim on others; he offers an exchange of value as the basis
of any relationship. Nor does he accept an unchosen obligation to serve the
needs of others. No one who values his own life can accept an unchosen,
open-ended responsibility to be his brother's keeper. The principle of trade
is the only basis on which humans can deal with each other as independent
equals rather than as objects of property.
The only social constraint laissez-faire imposes is the requirement that
those who wish the services of others must offer value in return; that no
one may use the State to forcibly expropriate what others have produced, nor
claim a right to compel others to serve him involuntarily.
"What about someone who is poor, disabled, or otherwise unable to support
himself?" This is a valid question to ask, as long as it is not the PRIMARY
question asked about a social system. There is no ground in a rational
ethics for considering the poor and the sick to be the foundation of
society, or for regarding their needs as primary. It is in fact self-
defeating to think that the primary goal of a society should be the
treatment it gives its least productive members. We must remember that the
needs of the poor and the sick CANNOT be met unless someone chooses to
produce the means of meeting those needs. Thus the social prerequisites of
creativity and productivity MUST be accomodated FIRST if charity is to exist
at all.
* Coerced Compassion
Consider the vast majority of those who turn to police power to remedy
distress. Every one of them will say they act purely because of their
concern, their compassion, for those on the lower rung of life's ladder. Can
they not trust their own compassion to express itself? Apparently not, for
it seems, when they turn to government, they are insisting that they must be
forced to do that which they claim they already want to do. An absurdity!
People who want to control other people's lives never want to pay for the
privilege. What they usually expect is to be paid for the "service" they
impose upon their victims. What they never recognize is that the individuals
who are forced by government regulation to act against their own interests
are the very "public" which is supposed to benefit from the government
controls.
In any case, if you are going to do good for someone, it really should be
THEIR idea of good, not yours. In all cases, it should be the other person
who initiates the interaction - by asserting THEIR perception of their own
good.
* Dual Ideologies
The claim that countries which call themselves capitalist are guilty of
misdescription reflects the fact that politicians use dual ideologies -
those that actually guide their actions and those that are used as
instruments of deception in waging social conflict. The theory of a
political system is almost always its surface ideology, and it may be a
deeply, if not necessarily intentionally, deceptive facade.
People almost automatically assume that the goal of a political system is
to advance the welfare of at least a majority of the population. But this is
because some such goal is almost universally propounded in surface
ideologies, and, being credulous, they allow themselves to be taken in by
the surface ideology and never perceive the real motives that actually guide
the behavior of the state.
Much of the government's "crime-prevention" behavior can be explained by
the idea that the State has forbidden to the individual the practice of
wrongdoing, not because it desires to abolish wrongdoing, but because the
State desires to monopolize it.
* Hallmarks of a Conservative
The hallmark of a conservative is the phrase "too much." If you press him
until you can get him to identify the core of his social philosophy, you
will find that it is founded on a statement containing some variation of the
phrase "too much." He is not fundamentally opposed to slavery, just what he
perceives to be "too much" slavery. He is not fundamentally opposed to
government interference in private lives, just "an excessive amount" of
interference. He is not fundamentally opposed to tyranny, just a level of
tyranny that is "far beyond" what he judges acceptable. I call this the "too
much" syndrome, or the "uncalibrated quantification" fallacy.
An excellent example is the following quote from FREE TO CHOOSE by Milton
and Rose Friedman (page 61):
"Some restrictions on our freedom are necessary to avoid other, still
worse, restrictions. However, we have gone far beyond that point."
But consider that the distinction between an acceptable level of
restriction and an unacceptable level is an arbitrary one, because such a
distinction is based on a mere variation in quantity rather than a
difference in quality. The "point" the Friedmans refer to is an undefinable
position. To such people there is no wall between freedom and tyranny, just
a fuzzy line in their imagination. Such a mind-set inevitably leads to the
acceptance of tyranny, because to the man who holds it, first one thing
doesn't seem too wrong, then another thing doesn't seem too wrong. And
eventually nothing doesn't seem wrong. He has nowhere to draw a line.
Ben Franklin wrote in 1766 that "if Parliament has the right to take from
us one penny in the pound, where is the line drawn that bounds that right,
and what shall hinder their calling whenever they please for the other 19
shillings and eleven pence?"
The very best way to distinguish between a conservative and a libertarian
is to observe the presence or absence of the uncalibrated quantification
fallacy in his ideas. The libertarian is opposed to ALL tyranny, not just
"too much" tyranny. The conservative thinks he can make some compromise
between freedom and tyranny, but his belief that there is a happy middle
somewhere in between is wrong. That is not how compromise works. (See
Chapter 3)
See reference
Sooner or later man will be going outside the solar system. Sooner or
later we will meet types of intelligent life much higher than our own, yet
in forms completely alien. And when that time comes, the treatment man
receives from his superiors may well depend upon the way he has behaved
toward the other creatures of his own world.
Sagesse oblige.
Gulliver's Travels: "They look upon fraud as a greater crime than theft,
and therefore seldom fail to punish it with death; for they allege, that
care and vigilance, with a very common understanding, may preserve a man's
goods from thieves, but honesty has no defense against superior cunning; and
since it is necessary that there should be a perpetual intercourse of buying
and selling, and dealing upon credit, where fraud is permitted and connived
at, or hath not law to punish it, the honest dealer is always undone, and
the knave gets the advantage."
Solon believed that "being seduced into wrong was as bad as being forced,
and that between deceit and necessity, flattery and compulsion, there was
little difference, since both may equally suspend the exercise of reason."
* Self-Defense
Libertarianism is not a pacifist philosophy.
There are two very different kinds of force: one is coercive or
aggressive force - that which is initiated against other people, and the
second is retaliatory or defensive force - that which is used to protect
human rights. Libertarians oppose only the first of these.
The Objectivist stand is quite clear:
"The basic political principle of the Objectivist ethics is: no man may
INITIATE the use of physical force against others. No man - or group or
society or government - has the right to assume the role of a criminal and
initiate the use of physical compulsion against any man." (From "The
Objectivist Ethics," in THE VIRTUE OF SELFISHNESS.)
Thus we are not opposed to force when it is used in self-defense. In
fact, we recognize the inevitable necessity of such force: it is necessary
to use defensive force to preserve civilized life against those who embrace
the use of coercive force.
A society where peaceful citizens are armed is far more likely to be one
where Good Samaritans will flourish. But take away people's guns, and the
public - disastrously for the victims - will tend to leave the matter to the
police. In a recent survey, no less that 81% of the Samaritans polled were
owners of guns. If we wish to encourage a society where citizens come to the
aid of neighbors in distress, we must not strip them of the actual power to
do something effective. Surely it is the height of absurdity to disarm the
peaceful public and then, as is quite common, to denounce them for apathy.
Even worse are the insidious consequences of the denial, by law, of
individual self-responsibility and self-authority. In a society where the
individual is forbidden to act freely on his own authority within his own
personal sphere of influence, a sense of apathy MUST be the inevitable
result - both a local apathy, regarding his interpersonal relationships, and
a more generalized apathy, regarding his community. People who are prevented
from solving their own problems will not solve the problems of their cities,
either.
As Kropotkin put it in his book MUTUAL AID:
"In proportion as the obligations towards the State grew in numbers the
citizens were evidently relieved from their obligations towards each other.
Under the theory of the all-protecting State the bystander need not intrude:
it is the policeman's business to interfere, or not. All that a respectable
citizen has to do now is to pay the poor tax and to let the starving starve.
The result is, that the theory which maintains that men can, and must, seek
their own happiness in a disregard of other people's wants is now triumphant
all round. It is the religion of the day, and to doubt of its efficacy is to
be a dangerous Utopian."
* Preemptive Force
Preemptive force is defensive force applied before an aggression actually
occurs. Within the context of the libertarian ethic of non-aggression, how -
if at all - can the use of preemptive force be justified? Must you wait
until your assailant actually shoots you before you can take any forceful
action to prevent your death?
If an ethical principle requires you to abstain from self-defense, can
that principle be valid? Can any philosophy whose practice results in the
death of the body or the spirit be moral or correct? As Rand pointed out,
the only valid morality is one that is life sustaining rather than life
negating.
Threat:
Consider forceful action in response not to previous coercion, but in
response to the threat of coercion. If we consider threat to have the same
status as coercion itself, then the use of preemptive force is justified.
If someone is pointing a gun at you, it can be argued that this in itself
constitutes the initiation of force, because it is certainly an effective
form of coercion - even though he has not (yet) pulled the trigger. And
therefore if you use force against him you are reacting defensively, not
initiating.
When a man threatens you by asserting an intent to coerce, and has
available the means to coerce, then you have a right to believe he means to
do what he says. If he SAYS it, you HAVE to believe he MEANS it. The
alternative is to place yourself in a value-destructive situation.
* Rules vs Principles
Chapter 7
Government
My critique of government is based on the idea that there exist
ethical
principles which are external to government - i.e., which exist
independently of government. Many statists assert the opposite idea: that
there are no such independently-existing principles, and that government is
necessary for (among other things) the creation of ethical principles.
The flaw in their argument is that if there were no independently-
existing ethical principles then there would be no principles according to
which a government could be established, and no means by which the behavior
of government could itself be judged. Since the ostensible purpose of law is
to protect rights, if there are no natural rights then there can be no
standard for judging the legitimacy or efficacy of government-made laws.
(See Chapter 5 * Natural Rights)
See reference
When a social metaphysician (an individual who holds the consciousnesses
of other people, not objective reality, as his ultimate frame-of-reference)
becomes a politician, he aquires the coercive power to impose his decrees
upon other people. This is his way of manipulating "reality." Here you see a
psychological explanation for the attitude held by many stateolatrists: that
the government is the ultimate foundation for morality, ethics, and law.
This also helps explain why many tyrants have the certainty that their
decrees actually do constitute reality, and why those tyrants are often
quite literally incapable of perceiving any inherent contradictions in their
laws. In their minds, the law IS reality. But if government were actually
the foundation of morality, if social justice did in fact spring from law,
then laws would in fact create the social justice which they are ostensively
intended to create. The existence of widespread injustice proves this
statist thesis to be wrong. The practical implementation of that idea, by
both fascist and communist States, has resulted in the most horrendous
atrocities the world has ever endured.
* Government defined
We must keep firmly in mind the essential difference between governments
and other agencies that deal in force. A government intends to profit from
the initiation of force. A private agency (including a protection agency)
intends to profit from trade. A government uses force to gain values. A
private protection agency uses trade to gain values. Both deal in force, but
the government uses it offensively whereas the private agency uses it
defensively.
This is also true of law. Government institutions of law have a purpose
different from that of the institutions of common law. Common law and its
institutions facilitate voluntary interactions; government law and its
institutions implement involuntary interactions.
Not only is it the case that government intends to profit from the
initiation of force, government is structured in such a way that its
functioning can ONLY result from the initiation of force. Without taxation,
government could not function. This is the reason why government cannot
mitigate failure without also eliminating opportunities for success.
* Descriptions of Government
"Government is not reason. It is not eloquence. It is force." ... George
Washington
Gandhi: "The State represents violence in a concentrated and organized
form. The individual has a soul, but as the State is a soulless machine, it
can never be weaned from violence, to which it owes its very existence."
Mencken: "The typical lawmaker of today is a man devoid of principle - a
mere counter in a grotesque and knavish game. If the right pressure could be
applied to him he would be cheerfully in favor of polygamy, astrology, or
cannibalism." [Or infanticide, as we have seen in Philadelphia and Waco.]
Lane: "The nation is nothing at all but simple force. Not in a single
nation are the people of one race, one history, one culture, nor the same
political opinion or religious faith. They are simply human beings of all
kinds, penned inside frontiers which mean nothing whatever but military
force."
The essential characteristic of States and quasi-States (e.g., the PLO
and the IRA) is that they initiate force to implement their policies.
Viewing the State all through history, we can see no way to differentiate
the activities of its administrators from those of a professional criminal
class. Thus there are no ethical differences between a hoodlum protection
racket and a State, save scale, sophistication, and success in conning the
victims into acceptance of its behavior.
Rand was wrong about the government's desire to maintain a semblance of
morality. Although I believe such a desire existed in the past (until the
last half of the 20th century), a "semblance of morality" implies that there
exists a moral principle which is external to the government and which the
government considers itself under obligation to abide by. Such a
consideration is impossible within a context in which all morality is
derived from the government.
* Corruption in Government
When I attribute some purpose to government, I do not mean to imply that
individual people who are members of government explicitly hold that purpose
as their personal objective. This is quite frequently NOT the case at all!
What I am attempting to do is explain the consequences of government in
terms of institutionalized behavior whose implementation results in those
consequences. Just as no one really INTENDS to kill himself when he begins
to be an alcoholic, nevertheless his behavior has that as its consequence.
The only choice a man has is what actions he will take. He has no choice
about the consequences of those actions. They are rigidly determined by the
law of cause-and-effect. By the Law of Identity.
Being merely human, a percentage of bureaucrats can be expected to be
corrupt, thus as the number of bureaucrats increases there will be more
corruption. By the same token, increased legislated criminalization means
that more property rights are controlled by government, thus there comes to
be greater scope for corruption. The more severe are the legal constraints
on private markets, the more valuable become the rights controlled by
government, thus the reward for corruption increases.
"In every government on earth is some trace of human weakness, some germ
of corruption and degeneracy, which cunning will discover and wickedness
cultivate." ... Thomas Jefferson
Police corruption occurs in those areas where entrepreneurs would supply
voluntary services to consumers, but where the government has decreed that
those services are illegal: drugs, prostitution, gambling, etc. Where
gambling, for example, is outlawed, the law places into the hands of the
police the power to sell the privilege of engaging in the gambling business.
In short, it is as if the police were empowered to issue special licenses
for these activities, and then proceeded to sell these unofficial licenses
at whatever price the traffic will bear. Whether consciously or not, the
government proceeds as follows: first it outlaws certain businesses, then
the police sell to would-be entrepreneurs the privilege of engaging in those
businesses.
This is one area in which the most frequently-heard apologia for
government is quite true: government is necessary to create the
infrastructure upon which rests other social behavior. As well as providing
the legal infrastructure for police corruption, for the immigration horror
stories, for the drug war violence, and for countless other ills, the
government also provides the infrastructure for more general moral and
ethical wickedness, through the teachings in its compulsory education
program (see Chapter 11), and through the examples of its own vicious
behavior: young people who base their ethos on government are getting their
examples from the Rodney King video.
See reference
Be that as it may, given the unfortunate and unjust laws, the police
corruption described above may be highly beneficial to society. Society may
be better off if corruption induces police to ignore many of the victimless
crimes, thus leaving police resources available to prevent real crimes.
Ignoring many laws, such as housing codes and oil import restrictions, would
improve social welfare. In a number of countries, there would be virtually
no trade or industry at all in the absence of the "corruption" that
nullifies government prohibitions.
But how sane is the moral foundation of an institution that requires the
corruption of its members to achieve beneficial ends?
As I try to make clear in my writings, I oppose government not only for
what it is and what it does, but also for what it makes possible. Getting
rid of government would not directly eliminate all the ills of the world,
but it would free people to eliminate those ills themselves - "to take out
their own garbage" as I put it. The elimination of those ills is something
that government has clearly failed to do.
Those who claim that government, bad though it may be, is an absolute
necessity for protecting people against crime, must explain the fact that
for every 1000 crimes the American police are aware of, only one criminal is
ever sentenced to prison.
Nor does government protect people against foreign aggression - on the
contrary, it coerces the people (by means of what is euphemistically called
"selective service") into protecting and preserving the government's own
existence.
The most notable examples (because they do not crop up periodically, but
are continuous in their manifestation) of the incompetence of government are
health-care in America and the environmental laws.
America has suffered a health-care crisis ever since government began
passing laws regulating the medical profession. Every health care law ever
passed has succeeded only in shifting the problems from one area to another
- not in eliminating the problems, many of which have been caused by the
laws that were intended to relieve them.
America has suffered an environmental crisis ever since government began
passing laws intended to preserve the environment. Every environmental law
ever passed has succeeded only in shifting the problems from one area to
another - not in eliminating the problems, many of which have been caused by
the laws that were intended to relieve them.
The Minimum Wage: The first thing that happens when a law is passed that
no one shall be paid less than $3 for an hour's work is that no one who
cannot produce the equivalent of $3 an hour for his employer can be employed
at all. You cannot make a man worth a given amount by making it illegal for
anyone to offer him anything less. You merely deprive the employee of the
right to earn the amount that his abilities would permit him to earn, while
the employer is deprived even of the moderate services that the employee is
capable of rendering. In brief, for a low wage the government substitutes
unemployment.
The police cannot prevent crimes, rarely solve crimes - or even find out
about them - and certainly do very little to rehabilitate criminals. Worse
yet, once they have the training they naturally want to use it, and they see
one of the safest ways of doing so in the enforcement of victimless crime
laws.
As of 1990, the San Francisco police will no longer investigate
burglaries where the value of goods stolen is under $10K. Nor will they
investigate bad-check cases if the amount is under $2K. In 1988 they
investigated only 26% of all violent crimes reported - but they spent 73
million dollars waging the drug war.
The Dade County police respond to only 2 out of 7 calls for help from
their citizens.
The Savings and Loan industry is going down the tubes, US Banks are
failing in record numbers, the FDIC is running out of money, loans are hard
to come by even for the most creditworthy borrowers, and the economy merely
creeps along despite remarkably low interest rates. Welcome to the latest
banking crisis - in this era of central banking which was supposed to
prevent such things. During more naive days, nearly everyone imagined that
private banks were inherently unstable and that financial crises could be
averted only through the good graces of wise regulators. Recent events make
it quite clear that government intervention itself is a key source of
instability.
The Federal Reserve governors base their hunches about inflationary
pressures - and the actions required to stifle them - on selected economic
indicators, but the indicators they monitor reflect the fact that inflation
is a sequential process: it shows up first in wholesale prices, then in
retail prices, then in wages. So by the time wages begin rising, it is too
late for the Fed's actions to affect the primary cause of the phenomenon
they are trying to deal with.
Ask yourself what products and services are currently least satisfactory
and have shown the least improvement over time. Postal service, elementary
and secondary schooling (one of the government's greatest failures is the
public school system), police protection, sewage disposal, and railroad
passenger transport would surely be high on the list. Ask yourself which
products are most satisfactory and have improved the most. Household
appliances, TV and radio sets, computers, supermarkets and shopping centers
would surely come high on that list. The shoddy products are all produced by
government or government-regulated industries. The outstanding products are
all produced by private enterprise with little or no government involvement.
Yet the public has been persuaded that private enterprise produces shoddy
products, that we need ever more government employees to keep business from
foisting off unsafe products at outrageous prices on us poor ignorant and
vulnerable consumers. What the government refers to as "Fair Trade" consists
largely of the government devising new ways to protect consumers against the
scourge of low prices and high quality.
The argument that the functions of government law are the assignment of
property rights and the protection of those rights is a dishonest argument.
Government governs by means of mediating wealth transfers, imposing behavior
controls, and protecting (and expanding) its institutions. But don't expect
honesty from government: in June of 1984, the Supreme Court ruled
unanimously that prosecutors need not honor plea-bargain agreements. The
Court maintained that as long as a plea-bargain agreement is "voluntarily
accepted by a suspect with full awareness of the consequences," prosecutors
are not bound to abide by it.
It seems that the more open and forthright the government is, the less
obliged it is to be honest!
Just how violent is the American workplace? A report in the WSJ (13Oct94)
reveals that 59 employees were killed by co-workers in 1993, out of a total
national workforce of 121 million people. That is one in 2 million. The
National Weather Service puts the odds of getting struck by lightning at one
in 600K.
A series of overblown news reports, widely misinterpreted research and an
emerging army of consultants have driven companies to a fear of their own
workers that is unjustified. Executives are scared to death, but they're
scared of the wrong thing.
According to the Statistical Abstract of the USA, the per capita loss to
crime each year is $5760. But this pales in comparison to the $20470 that
you could put into your pocket each year if government were abolished. (You
can calculate this amount by summing up the total revenues of all federal,
state, and local governments, then dividing that sum by the number of non-
government working people. The figures above are for the year 1990.)
There are always the types who insist on running the show but who
wouldn't lift a finger to take out the garbage. Freedom means, in part, that
we'll all have to learn to take out our own garbage, since in a free society
no one will have the means to compel others to do it for us. Freedom makes
demands on people. That's why government is so highly considered - it makes
"the other fellow" do the work. One reason government in America is being
pressured to create a socialized medical system is that such a system lets
the government take care of another worry. An anarchist looks after him or
herself. Too many people in this world can't and won't. They will look for a
savior, a dictator or a committee to do the work, and will cheerfully make
any sacrifice in order to be saved and cared for.
But the government answer has not worked; it will not work; it can not
work. Unfortunately, the workable solutions are not permitted by government.
Government is a disease masquerading as its own cure. You can see the
disastrous symptoms of this disease in the faces of the people. In their
eyes you can see the flame of hope slowly dying, drowned by the harsh
reality of survival in modern America as the nation sinks into the swamp of
fascist tyranny.
Observe that half the sentences nowadays are for drug crimes and that the
number of drug sentences today equals the total number of sentences for ALL
crimes in 1980.
For every 1000 non-drug arrests made by the police, three criminals get
sentenced to prison. For every 1000 drug arrests, 16 are sent to prison.
In the final scene of ATLAS SHRUGGED, Rand makes this proposal for an
amendment to the Constitution:
"Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of production and
trade."
An extension of this might provide a more sweeping limitation:
"Government shall have no authority whatsoever over the freedom of
production, transportation, communication, and trade."
Here are two other suggestions that might have good effect:
Government shall pass no law that has not arisen directly from the
populace via a ballot-initiative process.
It is forbidden for government to possess information about any
specifiable individual person who is not a convicted criminal or a
government employee.
Legislatures are founded on the assumption that there is a need for the
continual production of rules to govern the lives of the citizens. Is this a
valid assumption? Is it really necessary for you to have over a million laws
in order to be able to go down to the corner store and buy a loaf of bread?
(No exaggeration: in 1992 it was calculated that among the Federal, State
and Local governments, every American citizen lives under the shroud of more
than a million laws. On January 1, 1996, one thousand new laws went into
effect in the state of California.)
America is drowning in an avalanche of legal pollution that could
appropriately be called hyperleges. But hyperleges is inevitable under the
present legal system: it is the natural function of a congress to pass laws,
just as it is the natural function of flies to make maggots. We have
legislatures at the federal, state and local levels whose only function is
to create laws, thus the inevitable result of 200 years of legislative
function MUST be a plethora of laws. After two centuries, what could you
expect but that the American court system would be drowning in laws? This is
a situation that can only get worse as time passes and congresses keep
performing their natural function.
These laws are the structure of the culture of our society. It is
universally observed that this culture is deteriorating - that there is more
crime and less personal safety than there used to be in this country. But
have the people themselves changed all that much? Are you yourself any less
civilized than your grandparents were? I really don't think individual
people have changed; what HAS changed is the social context in which we
live. We have thousands, if not millions, more laws than our grandparents
had. But we are people, just as our grandparents were. The difference is not
in the people, but in the rules which limit our individual choices and
govern our social interactions.
Eventually civilization will be destroyed in a crazy welter of laws,
taxes, regulations, and the endless proliferation of government into all
phases of human activity. Proof is overwhelming that governments are not
going to stop short at some point and quit implementing new laws. In reality
they're going to continue just as always, passing new ones at the rate of
tens of thousands per year. Can this go on indefinitely? Or is there a
finite number of things that can possibly be regulated? Personally, I'm glad
I won't live long enough to find out.
Why do we need all these laws that the congresses have laid upon us
during the past 200 years? Why, exactly, do we need an institution that
continually creates laws?
What IS needed are guidelines for applying a basic social principle.
Suppose we had no legislatures, no congresses, no senates, no councils - in
short, no gangs of goons continually passing laws supposedly "for the good
of the people." Suppose the implementation of the principle were to arise
spontaneously from the people themselves in the form of jury verdicts.
If each jury verdict were delivered in writing, and included the
principled rationale for that verdict, then the collected verdicts of all
the juries could constitute the "body of law" of the community and provide
guidelines for applying the principle, just as today we consult Supreme
Court cases for legal guidance, and refer to the Common Law, which is made
up of legal principles enunciated by judges in particular cases, and then
followed as precedent.
But notice that there is nothing binding in this corpus. Each individual
jury can decide each individual case solely according to its interpretation
of the principle.
Through such an extension of the function of the Jury, we would truly
have a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people."
* Government is a Mistake
Clearly, the suggestions I offer are not a comprehensive formula for the
establishment of a limited government, but I do think they contain the major
elements that any such formula must incorporate.
But should limited government be the libertarian goal? I think not! ANY
government, no matter how it is constructed, is by its fundamental nature an
evil institution - because the essence of the concept "government" is
coercion. I believe the very idea "government" is a mistake. In the same
category (but with much more devastating consequences) as "flat earth" and
the "geocentric cosmology."
There was once a time when men believed the earth to be flat. As long as
they held to this belief, they could not successfully navigate over long
distances. Only when they had abandoned this belief could they advance and
extend civilization over all the planet.
There was also once a time when men believed the earth to be the center
of the universe. As long as they held to this belief, they were restricted
to a very limited and inaccurate view of reality. Only when they had
abandoned this belief could they acquire a comprehensive knowledge of the
cosmos.
Today, men believe that civilization is impossible without government,
and they give their highest loyalty to their nation. This mistaken belief
has spread misery, famine, and the wholesale destruction of war all over the
earth. Someday in the future, when people stop lying to themselves about the
nature of government, they will achieve the greatness of soul to see a
higher loyalty: reality. They will then recognize the mistake, and
government will be abandoned just as other mistakes have been abandoned. The
scourge of nationalism will recede into history, like other diseases and
errors that have been conquered by advancing knowledge. Only then will it be
possible for men to live together in peace and security.
But the mere removal of government, although a necessary prerequisite for
the existence of social sanity, will not suffice to bring it about. The
absence of a negative doesn't equal the presence of a positive. We can see
evidence of this in Yugoslavia and the regions of ethnic strife in the
former Soviet Union. Just as in the application of any other beneficial
moral or ethical principle, it is necessary to LEARN how to implement social
health. The world has had freedom only by default, never by design. If there
is to be any hope for civilization in the future, a rational social
structure must be created.
The structures of the social institutions, the institutional contexts in
which individuals interact, evolve. I want to present what I believe will be
the next step in this process of evolution by suggesting an alternative to
government, an alternative which would in fact perform the valuable social
function that government merely claims to perform. I will present the
fundamental principle which is accepted by all libertarians, show that even
in a purely anarchic society there would be a need for an explicitly stated
code of behavior, and present an approach to the problems of formulating
such a code.
* Anarchism
Arguments against anarchism:
James A. Kuffel:
Jurisprudence is difficult and complex, and it is farfetched to assume
"competing governments" would deduce exactly the same "laws" in all areas,
not to say in one. Imagine the consequences of various "governments"
attempting to apply different "laws" within the same territory....Equality
before THE law would be impossible, that is, justice would be impossible.
Government may function improperly, taking invasive action on a large scale.
But, as a corollary, it is the only form of organized force which can ensure
the protection of rights on a large scale.
[Kuffel is attacking a straw man. It is not only "farfetched" to assume
different governments would promulgate the same laws, it is obviously false
- as you can easily see by observing the governments throughout the world
today. One need not "imagine" the consequences of various governments'
attempts to apply different laws - one need only observe the plethora of
civil wars continually being waged. To equate Justice with "equality before
the law" is absurd. Justice and Law are only accidentally (and rarely)
related. Government not only "may" function improperly - it always does! And
in fact it has NEVER ensured the protection of rights on a large scale. But
in any case, the argument Kuffel attributes to anarchists is NOT what
anarchists propose! We conceive proper laws as being enunciations of
principles of justice, not as being - as Kuffel implies - the arbitrary
pronouncements of a government.]
Don Ernsberger:
While driving home from work one day, my wife was sideswiped by a
motorist who was in a hurry to return home. After taking her car to the
garage for an estimate, she notified the insurance company (Nationwide) that
it would cost some $112 to repair the minor damages. It was then that we
realized to our horror that the other driver was insured by Allstate
insurance - a rival firm. Demanding that our rights be protected, we pleaded
for action. Nationwide dispatched a squadron of crack troops to the home of
the guilty driver. He, true to form, certainly did not permit rival agents
to enter his home as he distrusted Nationwide. He was able to hold the
Nationwide units at bay for the several hours that it took for Allstate
troops to arrive. Now the two rival firms faced each other across a
battleline. In the conflict which followed, seven were killed and twelve
wounded - but Nationwide carried the day. Out of the charred ruins of his
home the $112 was recovered and we were repayed.
[When did you ever hear of Pinkerton facing off in a gun-battle with
Wackenhut? But in 1861 two rival GOVERNMENTS faced each other across a
battleline, and the result was half a million deaths.]
Ron Heiner:
Each party may attempt to secure the services of whatever court would
favor his point of view and, consequently, there would be the emergence of
courts seeking clients some of whom hold different, antagonistic beliefs and
viewpoints (there might even emerge courts soliciting individuals with
certain religious, political, and moral views along with courts emphasizing
different principles in tort, liability, and contract disputes). The
conflicting parties could also look for protection agencies which would
enforce their views and opinions. Now if one argues that the protection
agencies would force the disputants to abide by the agreements with and the
decisions of the private courts, then one is no longer describing a system
of voluntary interaction but rather a system of coercive interaction
comprised of agencies with the power to defy the wishes of their clients (or
coerce individuals who are not clients who have for some reason antagonized
other individuals who hired these agencies).
[This is an excellent description of the inter-relationships of federal,
state and local courts, each with its own sheriffs and marshals, and we saw
it implemented in practice during the civil rights strife of the 1960s.]
John Hospers:
As for the courts, it seems to me that they would be inclined to render
the most popular verdicts - that is, those that would gain the arbitration
agency the most paid members - and the most popular decisions aren't
necessarily the most just ones.
[As for the elected judges, it seems to me that they would be inclined to
render the most popular verdicts - that is, those that would gain the judge
the most votes - and the most popular decisions aren't necessarily the most
just ones. (See the movie "Miracle on 34th Street" for an excellent
fictional portrayal of this phenomenon.)]
Arguments against competing defense agencies overlook the fact that there
is a de facto state of competing governments presently existing in the USA.
Every area of the country suffers under the burden of at least three
governments, and in some places four: Federal, State, County, and City.
It was the competition between the state and federal governments that
resulted in the Civil War. Has there ever been an instance of Pinkerton,
Wells Fargo, and Wackenhut engaging in armed conflict?
Life under a government is a continual legal civil war, where men gang up
on one another and struggle for possession of the law, which they use as a
club over rivals until another gang wrests it from their clutch and clubs
them with it in their turn. All of them continually clamoring protestations
of service to an unnamed public's unspecified good.
Arguments against competing defense agencies also overlook the fact that
the "useful functions" of government not only can be, but are presently
being performed by private agencies.
Suppose you seek the expertise of a security firm to protect your home.
You discuss the matter with 3 firms, Burns, Pinkerton, and Wells-Fargo, all
offering a different range of services and prices. You decide to hire Burns,
because they offer armed guards.
Is this not competition in the value of protective force? Is not the
force used to repel criminals subject to open-market buying and selling? Is
it not true that force is not only, in this sense, an economic good, but one
in which millions of "trades" are made daily?
"Security firms" (free market firms trading in the "administration of
law" for profit) are not fictional constructs from the anarcho-capitalist's
dream for the future. They are operating now, alive and well. The Cato
Institute proposes laws, or their abolition. The makers of "The Club" deal
in deterrence. Holmes Protection provides guards. The Mutual Detective
Agency investigates crimes. Private bounty hunters apprehend fugitives. The
American Arbitration Association offers adjudication. Corrections
Corporation of Ameria, Inc. makes a profit from incarcerating criminals. In
short, every aspect of functions traditionally considered exclusively
reserved to governments is now being performed privately.
Since there are innumerable free market trades in force daily, force must
be an economic good.
There are two kinds of force: Offensive and Defensive. Anarchists wish to
place only the second of these on the market - and to do so in ways that
will attempt to abolish the first. Statists, on the other hand, wish to
institutionalize the first.
An anarchic society is not a Utopia in which the inititation of violence
is impossible. Rather, it is a society which does not institutionalize the
initiation of force and in which there are means for dealing with aggression
justly when it does occur. The absence of government does not mean the
absence of violence. It simply means the absence of an official, legal,
institutionalized tool for its imposition. The basic thing that all utopian
theories have in common is that they can succeed only if they involve
utopian people. Anarchism does not make this unrealistic assumption about
human nature.
Anarchism is not a form of statism. Anarchists don't want to impose their
value system on anyone else.
Anarchism is not terrorism. The agent of the government - the cop who
wears a gun to scare you into obeying him - is the terrorist. Governments
threaten to punish anyone who defies State power, and therefore the State
really amounts to an institution of terror.
It is an oft-overlooked point that a non-government justice system should
be judged not by whether it can deliver perfection (which no system can) but
by whether it can do better than available alternatives, such as the system
we have now.
Ayn Rand: "Both parties hold as their moral absolute that neither exists
for the sake of the other and that reason is their only means of trade."
Robert LeFevre: "I will contend that each individual may rightfully do as
he pleases with his own person and his own property without asking
permission from anyone, and so long as he confines his actions to his own
person or property he cannot be morally challenged. What may he do morally
with the person or property belonging to another? Absolutely nothing."
Karl Hess: "Libertarianism is the view that each man is the absolute
owner of his life, to use and dispose of as he sees fit; that all man's
social actions should be voluntary; and that respect for every other man's
similar and equal ownership of life, and by extension, the property and
fruits of that life, is the ethical basis of a humane and open society."
Rose Wilder Lane: "I think there is a natural necessity for a civil law,
a code, explicitly stated, written and known; an impersonal thing, existing
outside all men, as a point of reference to which any man can refer and
appeal. Not any form of control, for each individual controls himself; but a
law, acting as a nonhuman third party in relationships between living
persons; an impersonal witness to contracts, a registrar of promises and
deeds of ownership and transfers of ownership of property; a not-living
standard existing in visible form, by which man's acts can be judged and to
which men's minds can cling."
Ayn Rand: "Even a society whose every member were fully rational and
faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need
of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that
necessitates the establishment of a government."
Robert James Bidinotto: "In any society, human life and well-being
mandate that there be a set of objective procedures to distinguish
aggression from self-defense, and some way of imposing the final verdicts
upon the victimizers on behalf of the victims."
Joel Myklebust: "'The market will handle it' amounts to little more than
a disguised form of majority rule. That the identification of justice is not
a market function seems clear from the fact that, given a demand, the market
will supply murder, theft, and arson, in addition to protection. It will not
determine right and wrong, it only reacts to supply and demand. Any attempt
to deal with complex problems of right without recourse to basic ethical
principles is hopeless."
Murray Rothbard: "In my view, the entire libertarian system includes: not
only the abolition of the State, BUT ALSO the general adoption of a
libertarian law code."
Brick Pillow: "I agree with you that people should solve their own
problems....But at some point, if there isn't a peaceful procedure to settle
the dispute, it will be settled without being peaceful, and quite possibly
the violent solution will not be a just solution. What I envision is
that...when the antagonist refuses to yield, decent folks will need an
authority that they can turn to....Of course, this presents the next level
of perplexing problem: What prevents our pristine Justice League of America
from exceeding its mandate, from becoming as evil as the government it
replaces?"
These are indeed powerful arguments for a need to establish some code of
basic principles, existing in visible form, codified and publicly known - a
code that would produce a set of instructions for civilized life and
indicate the direction toward which the men and women of good will should
choose to strive.
Given that volition is a first cause, man must choose to invest human
relationships with causality. Socially, the need for tranquillity requires
that man impose lawfulness - reliability - upon the apparent chaos of human
relationships. He requires an ethics of non-contradiction - the knowledge
that his rights will be protected from violations. A contract is one way in
which man imposes order on the apparently chaotic in that if the parties can
rely on each other, they can plan long-range. They can foretell otherwise
unknown futures.
It has been almost 30 years since I Shrugged in 1965, and after all those
years of watching the Libertarian Party and the various new country/enclave
projects, I am convinced that there is no seed population within the present
culture of America that can give rise to the scheme I envision. The process
of cultural value-deprivation has gone on too far for there to be any
significant number of people willing to drastically alter their lifestyles
to accomodate "mere philosophical principle." They are so immersed in
fantasies that they are blind to the existence of any rational morality and
ethics.
Thus, I do not know what to propose as a practical implementation of the
ideas I have presented. I don't see any real present use for them, but have
written them up and will circulate them in the hope that they will be
preserved for some future generation to whom they might have some functional
significance. All I hope to accomplish is to create an atmosphere within
which the times might have the possibility of change.
"Libertarians have one thing going for them that others lack: they are in
tune with reality. Human beings are all that really count and libertarians
know that. A man and his wife drinking coffee at the kitchen table, an old
woman warming herself by the fire, a child playing in the mud: these are the
only reasons governments should exist. All the giant industries and
superhighways, all the wonderful technology and fabulous medical knowledge,
everything that seems to stand so loftily above us is only there to serve
these people and their desires. One of these days, people are going to
understand what is real and what is illusion and that is the day when
anarchy will triumph." ... Allen Thornton
"From the conclusion of this war we shall be going downhill. It will not
then be necessary to resort every moment to the people for support. They
will be forgotten, therefore, and their rights disregarded. They will forget
themselves but in the sole faculty of making money, and will never think of
uniting to effect a due respect for their rights. The shackles, therefore,
which shall not be knocked off at the conclusion of this war will remain on
us long, will be made heavier and heavier, 'til our rights shall revive or
expire in a convulsion." ... Thomas Jefferson
Men, women, of every nation, every race and condition: how much longer
are you going to let yourselves be used? When are you going to tell your
rulers, "Enough!" and claim the right to live your own lives? If you
continually cling to government you are ensuring your own doom. The thing
you worship is destroying itself, and when it is gone you will perish
because you will not know how to live without it.
Chapter 9
RELIGION
* Christianity vs Objectivism
I wonder if you realize just how profoundly antagonistic are Christianity
and Objectivism. I will make a brief comparison to exemplify this.
In morality, Christianity holds that one of the major sins is Pride
(remember that that was a main cause of the expulsion of Lucifer). On the
contrary, Objectivism holds Pride as one of its cardinal virtues (PSE,
chapter 12).
In ethics, Christianity regards self-sacrifice as a primary virtue.
Objectivism holds self-sacrifice to be an abomination and self-interest to
be a primary virtue (VOS, chapter 1).
From Augustine's "Confessions": After denouncing all the pleasures of
the body, he continues with a comment on the mind: "To this is added another
form of temptation, more manifoldly dangerous. For besides the
concupiscience of the flesh which consists in the delight of all senses and
pleasures, the soul has, through the same senses of the body, a certain vain
and curious desire, veiled under the title of knowledge and learning, the
seat whereof being in the appetite of knowledge, and sight being the sense
chiefly used for attaining knowledge, it is in divine language called 'The
lust of the eyes.'"
Contrast this with part of the description of John Galt:
"The first thing she grasped about him was the intense perceptiveness of
his eyes - he looked as if his faculty of sight were his best-loved tool and
its exercise were a limitless, joyous adventure, as if his eyes imparted a
superlative value to himself and to the world - to himself for his ability
to see, to the world for being a place so eagerly worth seeing. It seemed to
her for a moment that she was in the presence of a being who was pure
consciousness." (AS Part 3, chapter 1)
Faith is the acceptance of an idea as true in the absence of reason or in
defiance of objective reason to the contrary. It is not the acceptance of an
idea on the basis of incorrect reasons, it is the belief that reasons are
unnecessary. In defense of faith, Tertullian wrote:
"It is believable because it is absurd. It is certain because it is
impossible."
He is joined by Augustine who wrote: "One must first BELIEVE, that one
may then know."
Christianity has traditionally been so hostile to freedom of thought that
the term "free-thinker" became synonymous with "atheist." Christ on
libertarianism: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign
over them, bring hither, and slay them before me." Luke 19:27
Faith is the willful abdication of one's consciousness, and it is THIS
act that Objectivism holds to be the most fundamental sin that a man can
commit.(PSE chapter 12)
There is no common ground between Christianity and Objectivism. They are
diametrically opposed to one another.
Thomas Paine: "I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish
church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church,
not by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."
Saint Basil (AD 360): "The bread which you do not use is the bread of the
hungry; the garment hanging in your wardrobe is that of one who is naked;
the shoes you do not wear are those of one who is barefoot; the acts of
charity you do not perform are so many injustices that you commit."
Saint Ambrose (AD 360): "You are not making a gift of your possessions to
the poor person. You are handing over to him what is his."
Thus we see that in the Christian belief, anyone who possesses property
needed by another must surrender it or be guilty of theft.
Pope Paul VI (AD 1973): "True justice recognizes that all men are in
substance equal. The littler, the poorer, the more suffering, the more
defenseless, even the lower a man has fallen, the more he deserves to be
assisted, raised up, cared for, and honored."
Marshall Cohen, Professor of Philosophy, CUNY: "Once an adequate social
minimum has been reached, justice requires the elimination of many economic
and social inequalities, even if their elimination inhibits a further
raising of the minimum."
Jan Tinbergen, first Nobel laureate in Economics: "A modest first step
might be a special tax on persons with high academic scores."
An Ayn Rand villain: "The men of ability? I do not care what or if they
are made to suffer. They must be penalized in order to support the
incompetent. Frankly, I do not care whether this is just or not. I take
pride in not caring to grant any justice to the able, where mercy to the
needy is concerned."
Ayn Rand's analysis of the above attitude: "What passkey admits you to
the religiously moral elite? The passkey is lack of value. Whatever the
value involved, it is your lack of it that gives you a claim upon those who
don't lack it. To demand rewards for your virtue is selfish and immoral they
claim; it is your lack of virtue that transforms your demand into a moral
right."
Beyond the region of the Probable is the Possible, and beyond the
Possible is the Impossible, and beyond the Impossible are the religions of
this world. The mystical ideas in which they trust are fictions, barren in
their yield of results, powerless in prediction, and devoid of useful
application. In a word, they are worthless.
Maybe I cannot see the naked Face of God - but my eyesight is good enough
to detect fraudulent baloney.
All magical and ritual practices are hopelessly inappropriate to the
preservation and increase of life. My cat would turn up his tail at them. To
regard them as mistaken attempts to control nature, as a result of wrong
synapses or "crossed wires" in the brain, leaves the most rational of
animals too deep in the slough of error. If a savage in his ignorance of
physics tries to make a mountain open its caverns by dancing around it, we
must admit with shame that no rat in a psychologist's maze would try such
patently ineffectual methods of opening a door. Nor should such behavior be
carried on in the face of failure for thousands of years; even rats learn
more quickly than that.
In conclusion I can only say this: I hope, for His sake, that God does
not exist. Because if He does, He has one hell of a lot to answer for!
Chapter 10
SPIRITUALITY, ART, AND BEAUTY
Holiness is a measure of the reverence and awe which men hold for certain
symbols and the power those symbols give us over the world of nature.
It is Language which grants godhood to man by enabling him, through
symbolic conceptualization, to encompass the world within the scope of his
thoughts. Thus, sense, reason, and intellect - all of which are functions of
"the Word" - are what make me a Man. And give me the power to be a God.
Surprisingly, some of the best expressions of this function of language
can be found in the Bible:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word
was God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made
that was made. In him was life; and the life was the light of men. And the
light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not. And God
blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and
replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the
sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth
upon the earth.
Here are examples of how some other scientists and scholars have
expressed this feeling:
Galileo: "I do not feel obliged to believe that that same God who has
endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their
use and by some other means to give us knowledge which we can attain by
them."
James Hogan: "If one wants to feel more than inarticulate wonder before
mountains or buildings, it helps to understand the invisible mechanisms that
support the visible beauty."
Richard Feynman: "I wanted to convey an emotion I have about the beauty
of the world. It's analogous to the feeling one has in religion that has to
do with a god that controls everything in the whole universe: there's a
generality aspect that you feel when you think about how things that appear
so different and behave so differently are all run 'behind the scenes' by
the same organization, the same physical laws. It's an appreciation of the
mathematical beauty of nature, of how she works inside; a realization that
the phenomena we see result from the complexity of the inner workings
between atoms; a feeling of how dramatic and wonderful it is. It's a feeling
of awe - of scientific awe - this feeling about the glories of the
universe."
Henri Poincare: "The scientist does not study nature because it is useful
to do so, he studies it because he takes pleasure in it, and he takes
pleasure in it because it is beautiful."
A student of Arthur Eddington: "The Great Hall was crowded. The speaker
was a slender, dark young man with a trick of looking away from his audience
and a manner of complete detachment. He gave an outline of the Theory of
Relativity, as none could do better than he. He led up to the shift of the
stellar images near the Sun as predicted by Einstein and described his
verification of the prediction. When I returned to my room I found that I
could write down the lecture word for word. For three nights, I think, I did
not sleep."
Ayn Rand: "I will ask you to project the look on a child's face when he
grasps the answer to some problem he has been striving to understand. It is
a radiant look of joy, of liberation, almost of triumph, which is unself-
conscious, yet self-assertive, and its radiance seems to spread in two
directions: outward, as an illumination of the world - inward, as the first
spark of what is to become the fire of an earned pride. If you have seen
this look, or experienced it, you know that if there is such a concept as
'sacred' - meaning: the best, the highest possible to man - this look is the
sacred, the not-to-be-betrayed, the not-to-be-sacrificed for anything or
anyone. This look is not confined to children. Comic-strip artists are in
the habit of representing it by means of a light bulb flashing on, above the
head of a character who has suddenly grasped an idea. In simple, primitive
terms, this is an appropriate symbol: an idea is a light turned on in a
man's soul. It is the steady confident reflection of that light that you
look for in the faces of adults - particularly of those to whom you entrust
your most precious values. That light-bulb look is the flash of a human
intelligence in action; it is the outward manifestation of man's rational
faculty; it is the signal and symbol of man's mind. And, to the extent of
your humanity, it is involved in everything you seek, enjoy, value or love."
Peter Zarlenga:
I am thought.
I can see what the eyes cannot see.
I can hear what the ears cannot hear.
I can feel what the heart cannot feel.
Yet I create Beauty for the eyes,
Music for the ears,
Love for the heart.
They, ignorant of their ignorance, call me cold.
Barren of Sight.
Barren of Sound.
Barren of Feeling.
But it is I who am from which all comes.
Given to the ungrateful.
Unseen.
Unheard.
Unfelt.
Ayn Rand: "I stand here on the summit of the mountain. I lift my head and
I spread my arms. This, my body and spirit, this is the end of the quest. I
wished to know the meaning of things. I am the meaning. I wished to find a
warrant for being. I need no warrant for being, and no word of sanction upon
my being. I am the warrant and the sanction. It is my eyes which see, and
the sight of my eyes grants beauty to the earth. It is my ears which hear,
and the hearing of my ears gives its song to the world. It is my mind which
thinks, and the judgment of my mind is the only searchlight that can find
the truth. It is my will which chooses, and the choice of my will is the
only edict I must respect. Many words have been granted me, and some are
wise, and some are false, but only three are holy: 'I will it!' This miracle
of me is mine to own and keep, and mine to guard, and mine to use, and mine
to kneel before. And now I see the face of god."
Jawaharlal Nehru:
"Politics and religion are obsolete; the time has come for science and
spirituality."
* Prayer
People who engage in prayer have been persuaded that it has power, and
that it gives them, however indirectly, some degree of influence over the
future course of events.
One of the things that atheists often overlook about prayer is that it
actually does make a difference to the people who practice it (though not
for the reasons that the practitioners assume): It helps them live with
mistakes that they think they can't live with. It also gives them something
to do in times of crisis - it's a first step out of paralysis. The downside
is that it places most or all of the responsibility for what happens next in
the hands of another (nonexistent) party. Nevertheless taking SOME action is
the best antidote to feelings of fear and depression.
But the power of actually changing the course of events with your own
hands is much more compelling, thus what we need is some human and humane,
non-magical alternative to the action of prayer. Prayers should be just a
kind of incantation or ritual that serves as a prelude to or a means of
focusing the mind on the really important concern of finding a way to deny
the validity of an injustice by acting in ways that are diametrically
opposed to it.
There is value and importance in building a society that is based on
principles of reason rather than blind faith.
* Oath
The function of an oath is to help, not to threaten. It is something to
remind you of how important words are. Ideas are important. Principles are
important. The words that embody ideas and principles are important. Your
word is the most important of all. Your word is who you are.
An oath can concretize Purpose within your mind and give you an explicit,
objective guideline for your actions. It can serve to focus your mind
directly onto your goals.
A few examples:
"I now, in the presence of death, affirm and reaffirm the truth of all
that I have said against the superstitions of the world."
"I have seen my daughter, I have lain with my wife; now I will kill my
enemies, and then I can die."
"We are gathered to call desolation over evildoers. May the sorrow they
have wrought and the wrath they have raised turn upon them. May our enemies
suffer as we have suffered! May they feel our fire and steel as we have felt
theirs! May their hearts beat fearfully for what they have done to us!"
"May God grant me the wisdom to discover the right, the will to choose
it, and the strength to make it endure."
* Marriage
Marriage is a form of oath-taking that states the purpose of a
relationship:
"I, Colin, take thee, Gwen, to be my wife, to have and to hold, to love
and to cherish, as long as you will have me."
"I, Gwen, take thee, Colin, to be my husband, to care for and love and
cherish for the rest of my life."
"I will demand much of thee, All that thou art and all that thou canst
be,
And I will give unto thee, All that I am and all that I can be,
In the name of the best within me, I pledge unto thee my troth,
I will strive to make that best ever better and better,
Thou art the purpose of my existence, All that I have made of myself is
what I give to you in trade for that which you have made of yourself."
"By oak and ash and springtime-whitened thorn, through ages gone and ages
to be born, by earth below, by air arising higher, by ringing waters, and by
living fire, by life and death, I charge that ye say true if ye do now give
faith for faith. We do. Place each a ring upon the other's hand, and may
the sign of binding prove a band that joins the youth to maiden, man to
wife, and lights the way upon your search through life. Farewell! And if the
roads ye find be rough, keep love alive, and so have luck enough."
"Do you each individually swear that you will be true and loyal, each
helping his chosen one in all things, great and small; that never,
throughout eternity, in thought or in action, will your mind or your body or
your spirit stray from the path of truth and honor?"
* Love
Expressions of love can take on the character of an oath, stating the
deepest meaning of one person's emotional response to another:
"If you can show me beauty that I haven't found, And teach me secrets
that I never knew, Lead me to vistas that I haven't seen, And fill each day
with more of you, If you can share a soul that makes my soul grow greater,
If you can teach my glance to see the sky, If you can make each year grow
only shorter, Then so will I."
"Yes, I have made many mistakes in life. But you are not one of them."
"Maybe one day one of us will cause the other a tear or a curse. Maybe
one day we will play the foolish game of 'What if.' But somehow I doubt it.
I have seen rainbows and I did not curse the sky when they were gone. I have
heard nightingales sing and I did not curse the forest when it was silent. I
was grateful that I had seen and heard. And their memory is a thing that is
beautiful to me yet. So it will be with you. If I turn and one day find you
are gone, the memory and the beauty of it will make all my tomorrows a
little warmer."
"I have never had so much as now. All my life I've been alone. I would
look into the huts and the tents of others in the coldest dark and I would
see figures holding each other in the night. But I always passed by. You and
I - we have warmth. That's so hard to find in this world. Let someone else
pass by in the night. Let us take the world by the throat and make it give
us what we desire."
"I have nothing to offer you but my strength for your defense, my honesty
for your surety, my ability and industry for your livelihood, and my
authority and position for your dignity. That is all it becomes a man to
offer to a woman - the devotion of a man's heart and the strength of a man's
arm."
"She kissed me. Me. She did. She does. She will. It cannot die until I
do. What need I more than this? How wonderful the world is."
"We shall light up for one-another a lamp in the temple of life. Aimless
lumps of stone blundering through space will become stars singing in their
spheres. An extraordinary delight and an intense love will seize us. It will
last hardly longer than the lightning flash which turns the black night into
infinite radiance. It will be dark again before you can clear the light out
of your eyes: but you will have seen: and forever after you will think about
what you have seen and not gabble catchwords invented by the wasted virgins
that walk in darkness."
"Our love is not over. This is the first, the most important, thing for
you to know. We have said good-bye. That was at breakfast this morning. You
kissed me. You smiled. It was perfect. We have said good-bye. And our love
is not over. Our good-bye was perfect, as our love will always be. Forgive
me for wanting that. Forgive me for fearing the other good-bye. My pain
bringing you pain, your sadness bringing mine. Leaving you with the lie that
there could be sadness between us. Have we lived our love so that wicked
little cells, growing in darkness, could cheat us at the end? No. We cheat
them. We say good-bye with a kiss and a smile. And our love goes on forever.
What you must know is that in my last hours I have lived our life again, in
tears of joy that so exquisite a life could have been mine. Now you must do
something for me. You must live long and well. You must live as though you
are saving each moment to share with me, in my arms, when we are together
again. And if you find another love before your life is over, treasure those
moments most of all, and know that nothing could make me happier."
Some statements of profound emotion can surpass oaths and become songs of
prayer:
* Table Blessing
The sharing of a meal is an act symbolic of good will. So simple a thing,
a lighted fire, yet it is a symbol of man's first great step toward
civilization. How many times has it seemed as if a man, in offering fire and
warm food, was saying, "See, I am a man, by these signs you shall know me,
that I can make a fire, that I can cook my food."
Another example of the symbolic phenomena I am trying to portray is the
almost universal practice of expressing gratitude at the supper table (I
refer to this practice as "Table Blessing"). I believe this expression,
although misguided in its religious aspect, has a profoundly important
function in human life as a symbolic recognition of the importance of
productive achievement.
I have endeavored to contrive statements by which this phenomenon could
be suitably expressed in an Objectivist household:
"My dear friends, let us pause in our proceedings for a moment and
contemplate the nature and the source of the providence which we see before
us on our table and around us in our lives. Let us look within ourselves and
ask if we be worthy to partake of this bounty. Let us resolve to act so that
the scales of Nature shall balance - so that all that we must take from the
world for our sustenance we shall return to the world in like measure,
giving thankful recognition to those who, in doing likewise, bring into
being the civilization in which we live. Thank you."
"We should be thankful to our natures that we can earn our food and be
thankful to ourselves that we have done so. As we have earned this food, so
must we earn all that is valuable in our lives."
"The sun never sets on Ford tractors. Somewhere, right now, there is a
Ford tractor working the land. Remember this when you break bread."
* Art
The essay "Art and Cognition" by Ayn Rand, which appeared in the April,
May, and June 1971 issues of THE OBJECTIVIST, is an in-depth analysis of all
forms of art.
* Beauty
Beauty is a concept of consciousness. It is the integration of one or
more experiences of pleasure along with one or more observations of a
manifestation of one's values. Here are a few examples of this:
Jean Auel: "In Ranec's eye the finest and most perfect example of
anything was beautiful, and anything beautiful was the finest and most
perfect example of spirit; it was the essence of it. That was his religion.
Beyond that, at the core of his aesthetic soul, he felt that beauty had an
intrinsic value of its own, and he believed there was a potential for beauty
in everything. While some activities or objects could be simply functional,
he felt that anyone who came close to achieving perfection in any activity
was an artist, and the results contained the essence of beauty. But the art
was as much in the activity as in the results. Works of art were not just
the finished product, but the thought, the action, the process that created
them."
[Ranec was an artist, thus his supreme value was the process by which art
is created.]
The artist said, "I, as an artist, can see how beautiful a flower is. But
you, as a scientist, take it all apart and it becomes dull."
Richard Feynman replied, "First of all, the beauty that he sees is
available to other people - and to me, too, I believe. Although I might not
be quite as refined aesthetically as he is, I can appreciate the beauty of a
flower. But at the same time, I see much more in the flower than he sees. I
can imagine the cells inside, which also have a beauty. There's beauty not
just at the dimension of one centimeter; there's also beauty at a smaller
dimension. There are the complicated actions of the cells, and other
processes. The fact that the colors in the flower have evolved in order to
attract insects to pollinate it is interesting; that means insects can see
the colors. That adds a question: does this aesthetic sense we have also
exist in lower forms of life? There are all kinds of interesting questions
that come from a knowldege of science, which only adds to the excitement and
mystery and awe of a flower. It only adds."
[Feynman was a scientist, thus his supreme value was the process of
gaining knowledge of the world of nature. He realized that a sharpened
awareness helps us to make distinctions that would otherwise elude us.]
The artist Constable studied cloud formation extensively and, as a
consequence, painted clouds as no one ever had before. Leonardo Da Vinci
made extensive studies of human anatomy to the same end.
The more one learns, the better one sees.
Every child in the world looks upon his mother and sees the most
beautiful woman in the world, even though many mothers are not beautiful. Do
you know why this is so? The child looks with love, and sees love returned.
Love is what makes beauty.
[The child is a child, and his supreme value is to be loved. Have you
forgotten that?]
Man became the only creature capable of deliberate suicide - the only
creature requiring an intellectually deliberated motive for continuing his
existence. To perceive beauty in a sunset, wonder in a rainbow, glory in a
thundering waterfall, delicate charm in a hummingbird's iridescence, could
only have infused early man's soul with a cause for continuing in the face
of adversity. Thus could Beauty have come to serve an evolutionary function
in human development: those who found beauty to be a pleasure and a value
would have more incentive to continue with the struggle of life.
* Music
Extracted from the essay "Art and Cognition" by Ayn Rand, which appeared
in the April, May, and June 1971 issues of THE OBJECTIVIST:
"Music is a certain succession of sounds produced by periodic vibrations.
Musical tones heard in a certain kind of succession are integrated by the
human ear and brain into a new cognitive experience, into an auditory
entity: a melody. The essence of musical perception is mathematical: the
consonance or dissonance of harmonies depends on the ratios of the
frequencies of their tones. The brain can integrate a ratio of one to two,
for instance, but not of eight to nine. Music offers man the singular
opportunity to reenact, on the adult level, the primary process of his
method of cognition: the automatic integration of sense data into an
intelligible, meaningful entity. To a conceptual consciousness, it is a
unique form of rest and reward. A composition may demand the active
alertness needed to resolve complex mathematical relationships - or it may
deaden the brain by means of monotonous simplicity - or it may obliterate
the process by a jumble of sounds mathematically-physiologically impossible
to integrate, and thus turn into noise. The other arts create a physical
object and the psycho-epistemological process goes from the perception to
conceptual understanding to appraisal to emotion. The pattern of the process
involved in music is: perception - emotion - appraisal - conceptual
understanding. Music is experienced as if it had the power to reach man's
emotions directly. It is possible to observe introspectively what one's mind
does while listening to music: it evokes subconscious material that seems to
flow haphazardly, in brief, random snatches, like the progression of a
dream. But, in fact, this flow is selective and consistent: the emotional
meaning of the subconscious material corresponds to the emotions projected
by the music. The subconscious material has to flow because no single image
can capture the meaning of the musical experience, the mind needs a
succession of images, it is groping for that which they have in common, for
an emotional abstraction. Man cannot experience an actually causeless and
objectless emotion. When music induces an emotional state without external
object, its only other possible object is the state of actions of his own
consciousness. If a given process of musical integration taking place in a
man's brain resembles the cognitive processes that procuce and/or accompany
a certain emotional state, he will recognize it, in effect, physiologically,
then intellectually."
Douglas Hofstadter: "I feel that mathematics, more than any other
discipline, studies the fundamental, pervasive patterns of the universe.
However, as I have gotten older, I have come to see that there are inner
mental patterns underlying our ability to conceive of mathematical ideas,
universal patterns in human minds that make them receptive not only to the
patterns of mathematics but also to abstract regularities of all sorts in
the world. Indeed, how could anyone hope to approach the concept of beauty
without deeply studying the nature of formal patterns and their
organizations and relationships to Mind? How can anyone fascinated by beauty
fail to be intrigued by the notion of a 'magical formula' behind it all,
chimerical though the idea certainly is? And in this day and age, how can
anyone fascinated by creativity and beauty fail to see in computers the
ultimate tool for exploring their essence?"
* Dancing
Rhythm is the periodicity of groups of recurring heavily and lightly
accented notes which conform to a specific metered timing. Timing is simply
the number of notes per measure of music. Tempo denotes the rate of speed
these notes are metered in.
Dancing is the manner in which the movements of the body are distributed
and applied to notes of music, thus forming patterns of motion.
The important things to remember are not only to find the correct note of
music on which to start a dance step, but to perform it in its correct
sequence while remaining on the proper note of each measure of music, at
whatever tempo played. When you are able to move your body in correct
pattern while placing it to the correct notes of the measure you will then
have good timing and rhythm. You will then be a good dancer.
Subjunctive Tension is the ambiguity between what your words say and all
the possibilities of their meaning. "He walked through the door."
(Teleportation, obviously - he probably walked through the doorway rather
than the door itself.) "The sun came through the window." (In which case, it
got rather hot in here. It was the sunlight that came in, not the sun.)
But people rarely notice these things if they are thoroughly immersed in
the story; subjunctive tension is a symptom of the failure to engage the
attention and belief of the reader, not a problem per se.
The hand that can create these images and reveal the soul in them, and is
inspired to do this and nothing else even if he starves and is cast off by
his community and all his family for it: is not this hand the hand used by
God, who, being a spirit without body, parts or passions, has no hands?
Chapter 11
THE DISASTROUS STATE OF AMERICAN EDUCATION
From 1981 to 1991 the scores leveled off, holding within a few points of
425 Verbal and 470 Math. Some of this decline can be attributed to the fact
that a wider range of students now take the test than took it in the l960s,
but the Wirtz Commission concluded that about half of the decline represents
an actual decline among students with qualifications similar to those taking
the test earlier.
However, in early 1990 a nation-wide scandal came to light: it was
revealed that school administrators and teachers, in their attempts to
improve their standing in the community and to earn for themselves and their
schools "improved student achievement" bonuses offered by the state
governments, had been cheating on the achievement tests by providing their
students with the answers prior to testing. This makes highly suspect the
"leveling off" of the SAT score decline that was reported in the mid-1980s.
(In any case, the issue will be sidestepped in 1995, when the College
Board will recalibrate the "average" combined verbal and math score
(supposedly 500) to the median of the test group of that year. This will
result in that year's group having a combined score 98 points above that of
their predecessors.)
During this two-decade period there was also a precipitous drop in the
number of students scoring at the top 1% level (700 or higher) in spite of
the fact that the total student pool increased by more than one-fourth:
More than a fourth of the science Ph.D.s and 60% of the engineering
Ph.D.s awarded in 1986 went to foreign students, and two-thirds of
postdoctoral appointees in engineering were foreign citizens. In early 1989,
only 7 in 1000 American university students were studying engineering. In
Japan the ratio was 40 in 1000. The percentage of American students pursuing
a degree in any science dropped from 11.5 in 1966 to 5.8 in 1988. This
paucity of American science students extends down into the high schools:
among the winners of the 1990 Science Talent Search, 57% were foreign
students. And again, the arts are affected along with the sciences: in 1993,
thirty-seven percent of the students at the Julliard School of Music were
foreigners.
* Quality of Education
For those who stay in school, the quality of education leaves much to be
desired. I have seen estimates of functional illiteracy ranging from 25% to
33% of high school graduates, and up to 13% of the entire adult population.
The National Commission on Excellence in Education found 23 million adult
functional illiterates, and Daniel Boorstin, head of the Library of
Congress, claims the number is growing at an annual rate of 2.3 million. A
1992 study by the National Center for Education Statistics found that 17
percent of U.S. adults have only the rudimentary ability to pick out facts
in a brief newspaper article; 4 percent are unable to read at all.
Critics of schooling rarely attempt to define the term "functional
illiterate" but I believe a distinction can be made between two groups of
people: those who are not able to read/write (correctly described as
"illiterate") and those whose educational experience has traumatized them
into a state where they are not WILLING to read/write, even though they are
able to do so. This is the group being described as "functional illiterates"
but I believe either "aliterate" or "scriptophobic" would be a more accurate
term. These are the people who eschew independently initiated literary
behavior. They have been so thoroughly indoctrinated to passive obedience
that their intellectual initiative is almost extinct.
But what can you expect from an educational process in which reading,
writing, arithmetic and science are delivered to students in much the same
way as tires, windows and doors are attached to the frame of an automobile
on an assembly line? A student moves along this assembly line, at each stage
having an additional "education module" slapped onto his mental framework.
It is supposed that the end result of this agglomeration process will be a
comprehensively educated person. But nowhere during the process does the
student acquire the ability to integrate the modules into a coherent whole.
In the public schools the students are, at best, merely memorizing facts -
they are not integrating ideas, and are certainly not learning to do so.
Good teachers are as much victims of this situation as are the students.
They are forced to comply with government and school administration
"guidelines" ...instead of determining them. The result is that students are
"exposed" to subject material instead of being taught it.
Sooner or later America will have to face the fact that angry
denunciations of public education and innumerable studies by committees with
prestigious appellations have left us blue in the face but have produced not
one whit of change. In no field is there more rhetoric about change, and in
no field is there less actual change reflecting real improvement.
Many parents turn a blind eye to these phenomena because they don't want
to face (for example) the prospect of having minority students who should be
in the seventh grade attending fifth or sixth grade classes with their
children. People who support this view point to the overwhelming percentage
of minorities in remedial classes as evidence that it is a genuine concern.
But when the "right to an education" becomes the "right to a diploma" many
students are graduated who haven't received an education.
And for those ambitious students who manage to cope with this state of
affairs and graduate from high school, what awaits them when they do get to
college? (52% of the graduates of American high schools go on to college.)
Just what is the educational philosophy of the modern university? Here are
some representative examples:
In metaphysics, the University of Delaware offers a course titled:
NOTHING. "A study of Nil, Void, Vacuum, Null, Zero, and Other Kinds of
Nothingness. A lecture course exploring the varieties of nothingness from
the vacuum and void of physics and astronomy to political nihilism, to the
emptiness of the arts and the soul."
In epistemology, New York University offers THEORY OF KNOWLEDGE. "Various
theories of knowledge are discussed, including the view that they are all
inadequate and that, in fact, nobody knows anything."
For ethics, we go to Indiana and attend course SOCIAL REACTIONS TO
HANDICAPS, in which the students will "explore some of the different ways in
which the handicapped individual...has been regarded in Western
Civilization. Figures from the past such as the fool, the madman, the blind
beggar...will be discussed."
There was once a time when college students studied facts, knowledge, and
human greatness. Now they study nothingness, ignorance, and blind beggars.
The resulting technical incompetence and moral relativism is producing a
generation of young people who are intellectually impoverished, lacking the
knowledge, moral standards and the commitment to reason necessary to sustain
the technologically sophisticated civilization they have inherited. They
have become innocent people stumbling through a Rube Goldberg world and
trying in vain to make sense of it.
This may seem like an exaggeration, but some philosophers do not shrink
from spelling out the final consequences of the modern skepticism: "There is
no truth," holds Richard Rorty, "there is no such subject as philosophy,
there are no objective standards by which to evaluate or criticize social
and political practices. No matter what is done to the citizens of a
country, therefore, they can have no objective grounds on which to protest."
Having been taught that there is no knowledge, no values, no standards of
judgment to appeal to or rely on, men must now accept the fact "that we have
not once seen the Truth, and so will not, intuitively, recognize it if we do
see it. This means that when the secret police come, when the torturers
violate the innocent, there is nothing to be said to them."
Nowadays we hear much about the value of our colleges and universities,
their importance to the nation, and our need to contribute financially to
their survival and growth. In regard to many professional and scientific
schools, this is indeed true. But in regard to the arts, the humanities and
the social sciences, the opposite is true. In those areas, with a few rare
exceptions, colleges and universities are now a national menace; and the
more distinguished (and therefore popular) the university, such as Harvard
and Berkeley and Columbia, the worse its effect is. Today's college
faculties are hostile to every idea on which this country was founded, they
are corrupting an entire generation of students, and they are leading the
United States thereby into slavery and destruction.
Most of the colleges of this country have simply classified ignorance and
are peddling it as knowledge. There are very good reasons to believe that
the money you pay to a college could be much better spent in other
investments for your future. (See Chapter 14 - An Alternative Lifestyle for
an Individualist.)
See reference
I have asked several students, "What does it cost you to spend a year in
that school?" And in every case the answer is an amount of money that would
suffice to support me comfortably for at least two years, with plenty left
over for the purchase of all the books, journals and educational materials
that I normally consume during that time. College is a financial rip-off.
Consider also that if you take a degree, you will then probably enter
that particular field of professional endeavor and spend your life pursuing
it. This tends to make you educationally restricted. I have a vastly broader
education today than I would have acquired if I had spent my life pursuing
only the scholastic specialty I began with.
Self-education IS a viable alternative! The personal experience of many
people who have successfully educated themselves proves this conclusively.
We should make the public aware of how much better educated their
children would be from reading things produced by private institutions
rather than from studying the social sciences at a university. What happens
in the American Sociological Association is trivial, but what's coming out
of think tanks like the Cato Institute is much more central to the real
problems of American society. The Laissez Faire Bookstore undoubtedly
provides a better selection of useful educational material than can be found
in any university's social science department.
* Tragic consequences
Incompetence in cognition creates a caste system. Those who can use
language can think and therefore be independent, rational and productive;
those who cannot are more ignorant, less productive and more easily
manipulated, intimidated and controlled. Thus the American school system has
produced generations of citizens who eagerly embrace the very principles
which are being used to impoverish and enslave them.
If improvements are not made in the educational system, the divisions
among people in this country will only become more extreme.
A Missouri couple took their local public school to court for failing to
teach their child to read and write. The judge ruled for the school on the
grounds that the law specifies compulsory attendance in Missouri, not
compulsory education.
The social sciences are "disciplines" whose connections with reality seem
to get more and more tenuous every year. This can be frustrating for
graduates who depart college full of a social science know-how that leaves
them knowing only how to teach the same stuff to others. A political science
professor tried to convince me to go to graduate school and get a Ph.D. in
political science:
"What could I do with a political science Ph.D.?" I asked.
"Well," came the answer, "you could lecture to other students getting
political science degrees."
"And what would they do with their political science degrees?"
"Well, they could teach others..."
It sounded like a giant Ponzi scheme, so I left college immediately.
As Martin Gardner remarked: "If you're a professional philosopher,
there's no way to make any money except to teach. It has no use anywhere."
One woman, looking back on her scholastic experience, remarked that
school "was too stifling for me and," she maintained wistfully, "the wrong
place for people who need freedom and who want to use the energy of their
youth to ask naive questions. You may be using up a time in life that will
just never come again."
During the 1994-95 school year, the administrators of a high school near
Boulder Colorado decided to rent its wall space for commercial advertising.
In an attempt to quell the inevitable opposition to such a decision, they
held meetings with the students in which they explained their reasons. When
the students were told that the local voters had not passed an increase in
the school tax base for over 20 years, the response of one student was
rather surprising:
"Why do you hate us so? You force us to spend 12 years in these schools,
but then you refuse to pay for their operation. When we go into the
community we see signs on doors saying 'You are not welcome here if you are
under 18 years old.' You have recently passed a curfew that forbids us to
move about in our own community at night. The tone of moral outrage and
vilification used by the conservatives when they talk about teenage
pregnancy makes it perfectly clear to us that they hate these young parents.
Why do you hate us so? In a few years WE will be the adults who run the
world, and YOU will be old folks whose economic well-being will depend at
least in part on us. We will remember then what you are doing to us today."
Chapter 12
THOUGHTS ON THE FUTURE OF CIVILIZATION
* Alienation
It is not necessary to prove that something is wrong with the world.
Everybody - of any creed, color, or intellectual persuasion, old and young,
rich and poor, conservative and liberal, foreign and domestic - senses that
something monstrous is destroying civilization. But no one can figure out
what it is.
The reason civilization is declining may not be loss of resources, or the
uncontrolled obsession to reproduce, or the decline of literacy, or the
continuing increase in government tyranny, or any such thing. Those may be
mere effects, while the real cause may be a collective subconscious revolt
against this steel, concrete and machinery. Since we evolved among forests,
do we dare cut down every tree on earth? The thousands of visible stars that
defined the night sky for our ancestors are now too washed out for urban
eyes to see. Our loss of the velvet night is profound. Not only have we lost
the stars, we have lost even the night itself. Here in central Wyoming, I
live in one of the least populated regions of the country. Even so, I must
trek well up into the mountainous wilderness before I can experience a
darkness that is not encroached upon by artificial lights. Along with
darkness, we have lost silence. The incessant and inescapable clamor of
modern civilization is pounding continually against our eardrums, hammering
its way inexorably into our subconscious minds. Surely this must have
similar consequences to the Newspeak phenomena that I discussed in Chapter
2.
See reference
There has been a social loss also. Many people exist like zombies,
refusing to run the risk of interacting emotionally or intellectually with
other people, but this leaves them with a vacant feeling in their hearts and
minds so they switch on the TV and live vicariously, watching some actor
having a make-believe experience when they no longer experience anything for
themselves. This enables them to run no risk of being hurt but to experience
emotions they are otherwise missing. This counterfeit practice fills the
need for emotional experience only until the next day when it has to be fed
again. Before TV, people had no phoney out. They had to get their emotional
satisfaction from relating to other real live people. But today they have
become a gum-chewing, bag-rattling crowd of couch potatoes. A crowd that
wants its entertainment overplayed so that it won't have to think about
what's going on. A crowd whose senses are so dulled that its laughter comes
out of a can. A value-deprived crowd that doesn't want to reach OUT for a
feeling or a meaning. It wants to be clubbed in the head with the meaning,
so that it doesn't have to reach. A situation which hardly predisposes to
virtue.
Maybe man can survive on earth this way, but his dreams can't. There is
too much "civilization" and it has crowded out all the dreams. And there's
no LIFE left for anyone. Just day-to-day survival. Average life in America:
you're born, you go to school, you grow into an adult and join the rat-race,
you get a job to survive and pay taxes, then you die.
Happiness and beauty are psychological necessities. That's why we
experience beauty in such natural-world phenomena as sunsets and rainbows,
and why we experience happiness in successful value-achievement. But it must
be authentic happiness - the brain is a natural, not artificial, organ. Many
people have very little authentic happiness. There is a difference between
the joy of creative achievement and the mere pleasure of release from work.
TV watching is not authentic. Nor is the mad scramble to earn a living while
focused not on genuine productivity but on extraneous things like keeping up
with the Joneses or keeping your boss satisfied.
Nathaniel Branden once commented on "the biological forces deep within
our organism that speak to us in a wordless language we have barely begun to
decipher." I rather suspect that it is more likely the case that we have
forgotten how to decipher their language. The trappings of civilization have
cozened humans to sever their direct links with fundamentally important
values and "the biological forces deep within our organism" that impel us to
the achievement of those values. Thus we live in what Rand has so aptly
described as a condition of "cultural value-deprivation."
* Freedom/Slavery schizophrenia
It is prerequisite to mental health that a man be in spiritual contact
with his own knowledge of reality. (See PSE chapter 6.) Thus an ignorant
man, whose conceptual view of the world is limited, can live in a successful
state of mental health if he will just recognize and act according to the
view of reality he does have. However, a man with greater knowledge MUST
recognize and act according to his advanced view or else he will be neurotic
- by being out of spiritual contact with the reality he perceives.
A man living under a totalitarian government, who has no real knowledge
of what freedom is, suffers a condition of enslavement, but he does not
misperceive his situation, thus his only burden is that of being a slave.
Citizens of the United States also suffer a condition of enslavement, but
they have been taught that their nation was established in freedom, and that
their ancestors were free, and all their lives they have been led to believe
that they themselves are free. Devoutly but falsely believing themselves to
be free, they refuse to acknowledge the fact of their enslavement. But the
reality of that fact is inescapable. Once they are released from the school
system and enter mainstream society, these slaves - having been thoroughly
indoctrinated by the government with the notion that America is a free
society and that they are free people - immediately encounter such phenomena
as: selective service, driver's licenses, vehicle registration, income tax,
property tax, business licenses, and the myriad regulations that control all
aspects of their daily lives. (Read a New Hampshire license plate: "Live
free or die.") Thus they have a double burden: the enslavement itself and
also the psychological effects of the hypocritical discord between the
reality they live in and the falsehood of their beliefs.
The polite voice of a policeman is nothing more than a mocking,
hypocritical expression of tyrannous authority - the arrogant inhumanity of
power - even if the policeman truly believes he is being polite! The fact of
government's omnipotence over the individual renders his politeness a mere
hypocrisy. In fact, the truant officer is a kidnapper; the tax collector is
a thief; the soldier is a murderer. This all-pervasive hypocrisy also
contributes greatly to the spread of criminal behavior among the populace:
most people have decided the system stinks because the politicians are
corrupt, in one way or another, so why should ordinary Joes punish
themselves by always being honest?
Is it any wonder that the subconscious attempt of a mind to integrate the
firm belief in freedom with the inescapable facts of slavery should result
in massive psychological distress? Enough to drive one to drink - or
addiction of an even more self-destructive nature - or even suicide. The
victim has chopped himself into pieces which he struggles never to connect -
and then he sees no reason why his life is in ruins. Not knowing precisely
what has happened to his life nor who to blame, he sees only that the
quality of life has shockingly deteriorated, and that life is now so beset
by apprehension for the future, difficulty in remaining solvent, and actual
physical danger, that it is hardly worth living any more. His life has been
a slow slide into anesthesia, a bleak life, the sadness of which is like a
slow-acting acid on his soul. He survives by becoming less and less
sensitive, until he no longer cares even for himself. This is the cause of
his apathy and lack of emotion. One can respond emotionally only on account
of something for which one cares.
And it is immensely difficult for him to fight this situation: having had
his concept of freedom thoroughly depraved, he lacks the derivative concepts
needed for active resistance to tyranny.
When I hear someone say that Americans are free, I consciously and
explicitly recognize that statement to be false. I also know subconsciously
that it is false. Thus there is no conflict between my conscious mind and my
subconscious mind. When you hear the same statement, you consciously and
explicitly accept it as true. Your subconscious mind, however, knows -
because of its inability to integrate the contrary observations you have
made - that the statement is false. In order to avoid the psychologically
devastating (or at least distressing) process of seeing your most cherished
beliefs refuted, you must suppress the knowledge of your subconscious mind -
so that it will not conflict with your consciously held convictions - and
accept only a selected subset of your observations. You must divide your
mind into two parts: the set of observations that you consciously accept,
and that disturbing set of observations that contradict your conscious
beliefs. As time passes, this alienation process becomes more pervasive, as
you come to deny a larger and larger body of your observations, and it
becomes more intense, as you force yourself to deny a more and more
important body of observations. Since the fundamental function of a human
mind is the process of integration, this continual segregation process
results in a growing nervous tension, as your subconscious mind tries harder
and harder to integrate these two bodies of knowledge. Eventually there will
occur an explicit recognition of this conflict, accompanied by a emotional
trauma proportional to the amount and degree of segregation that had
previously occcurred. The rage and frustration resulting from this trauma
(and/or from the sudden destruction of your most cherished beliefs) may so
seriously derange your mental processes that you drive your pickup truck
through the front door of a restaurant and then kill two dozen people.
A man can accept enslavement - after all, most people throughout history
have lived in a state of enslavement, and they have accepted this (although
in many cases they did not like it at all). But what a man CANNOT do is
believe that he is free while simultaneously realizing that he is a slave.
It is not possible to integrate a contradiction. Any attempt to do so will
make you insane. This is a major reason why half the hospital beds in
America contain people who have mental, not physical, illness. Being unable
to resolve the conflict between their environment and their upbringing, they
wind up in mental institutions. It is also a major contributor to the
widespread cultural derangement, and its accompanying violence, that so
plague modern America.
Facts are facts, whether you believe in them or not. They are immutable.
The thing that depends on your cognizance of them is not the reality of the
facts, but the effectiveness of your behavior - and your mental health.
* Financial Manipulation
When you manufacture products, you add value to raw materials, and you
literally create wealth. But America is turning more and more to a different
economic perspective: Americans make money now by paper manipulation, the
error of which is bound to catch up to us because paper profits don't
reflect real wealth. The fascination with Wall Street and junk bonds is so
misplaced as to be crazy.
Instead of goods, services, and work - realities of the physical world -
Keynes' economic realities are mere symbols: money and credit.
The advice of economic counselors is usually very good in times of
affluence when the game is played with intangibles such as dollars, stocks,
bonds, etc. These things have value in the same sense that bubble gum cards
have great value among children. but a dollar is no more money than a
hatcheck is a hat. Sooner or later you've got to have a hat.
Contrast the great fortunes of the early 20th century with those of the
late 20th century. Carnegie, Rockefeller, and Ford made vast fortunes, but
these were productive fortunes: they produced steel, oil and automobiles.
The great fortunes of the 1980s resulted not from production, but from
manipulation of financial assets. Never have so many made so much in return
for producing so little.
The world no longer has the patience for long-term investments. The vast
increase of government interference in the market has resulted in a general
economic thrust away from far-sightedness and the building of capital for
the future, and toward destructive short-term looting of the stock of
capital. Political Man is narrow-minded and short-sighted. He loots
resources for short-term benefit. It is capital ownership in the free market
that encourages Economic Man to look to the future, to safeguard resources
in order to maintain their long-term value on the market.
The increasing scope of government's control and its associated transfers
of property rights from private individuals to government or to political
interest groups undermines the private property arrangements that support a
free market system. This process creates considerable uncertainty about the
future value of those private rights that have not yet been taken. When
resource owners are relatively uncertain about their continued ownership of
those resources, they tend to use them up relatively rapidly and have less
incentive to enhance future production capabilities. Resources are then
overused and underproduced.
* Standard of Living
I recently came across a prediction made by futurists back in the 1950s:
"People in the 1980s will be commuting from their rooftops via personal
helicopters, filing flight plans instead of fighting freeways."
I got to thinking about this and said "Why not? There is no technological
reason why personal helicopters are not widely available, or perhaps small
VTOL aircraft." This led me to a related line of inquiry - a comparison of
the American standard of living of the 1950s with that of the 1980s.
Has it been going up? Down? Remaining about the same? Or is this a
spurious question? It might be better to ask "Whose standard of living?"
Some people do better, some do worse. Is it even possible to measure an
aggregate "standard of living"?
And what is the difference between the state of the economy and the
standard of living of the people? I think there is a difference. I can
conceive of a healthy, robust and growing national economy in which most
people have a rather low standard of living (compared with what we have
today). This would be true of America in the first half of the 19th century.
The country was free, the economy was growing rapidly and uninhibitedly, but
the people were starting from a rather low standard of living. On the other
hand, during the 1930s most people were materially better off than their
ancestors had been a century previously - but the nation's economy was in
dismal condition.
I surmise that "state of the economy" could be measured in absolute
terms, but "standard of living" is only comparative.
In terms of electronic appliances there can be no doubt whatsoever - a
staggering increase in wealth has taken place during recent decades. The
same is true for some other industries also: bicycles, fabrics, junk food
(but whether this one constitutes a rise in standard of living is
debatable).
My tentative conclusion is that people have more material wealth today,
but they have to work more to get it. So is their standard of living higher
or lower? I don't know.
Think back to the fifties (if you are old enough to do so), when an
American family of three or four could live comfortably on the income earned
by the father, the sole breadwinner of the family. That father could own a
house, raise a family, and send the kids to college, all on a single
paycheck. Today, however, one income alone will usually not suffice for a
comfortable living for such a family. Both parents must work and still many
families can't even afford a house. In a family of my acquaintance, the
father, the mother, and the teenage daughter (this is the whole family) all
work full-time jobs. And I don't think this is at all unusual. The dollar
buys less, everything is more expensive. People struggle just to hold on to
what they have, and can't seem to get ahead.
Here are some data from the 1992 edition of the US Statistical Abstract:
Families with working wives 1950:24% 1991:58%
Families with working children 1960:6% 1982:12%
Percent of total population employed 1960:29% 1990:44%
Here is a comment by Harry Browne, from his book HOW YOU CAN PROFIT FROM
THE COMING DEVALUATION. (Published in August, 1970):
Can you imagine being asked to pay $3500 for a Volkswagen?
That's stretching your imagination quite a bit, I realize.
And yet that day may not be very far away.
No matter how much more wealth per capita improving technology makes
possible, it seems there is always something to soak up the surplus and
condemn ordinary people to a lifetime of labor. (And then at the end,
Greenspan & Co. recently arranged to knock two years off your retirement by
increasing the Social Security start age from 65 to 67.) No matter how much
productivity increases, people never seem to work less, only differently. So
if they don't reap the fruits, who does? Who sucks up the surplus?
For every worker there is at least one drone - someone who "works" for
government or who is being supported by government, so you are working
enough to support at least two people.
People today have a lot of material goods, but they have a crushing
burden of debt and very little equity. In 1950, about one-third of the
after-tax income of the average family was used to pay off debts. By 1980
that proportion had risen to three-quarters. America is a nation that has
forgotten how to finance growth through earnings rather than debt.
In the early 1960s, interest payments made by American corporations were
5% of their cash flow. By 1989 that had risen to more than 20%. This makes
them more vulnerable than in the past to an economic downturn. If falling
sales hit their cash flow, and many find themselves unable to service their
debts, a wave of bankruptcies could follow in a domino effect as one
company's inability to pay reduces another's cash flow even further.
A key to the continued existence of any business is its ability to
generate a stream of profits sufficient to finance future capital
expenditures for replacement and growth. Small or large, it doesn't matter -
this fundamental economic requirement must be satisfied. But the profits of
American businesses are more and more being eaten up by interest payments
and government regulations. This bodes ill indeed for future prosperity.
Throughout history some nations gain power while others lose it. The
evidence shows that nations that pursue policies of respect for an
independent economic sphere - private property, the market economy, sanctity
of contracts, low taxes, sound money, free trade, and unrestricted
experimentation with technological advancements - tend to grow the fastest,
establishing national bases of tremendous economic power. But this economic
power always tempts governments to seize control over it, so they can pursue
policies of military expansion and foreign adventurism or, in general, for
the basic purpose of aggrandizing governmental institutions. But these
policies become parasitic on the very forces that led to the economic growth
in the first place; nations become militarily and bureaucratically top-heavy
and overextended, saddled with debt and high taxes, and ever resistant to
further change and necessary economic adjustments. In the end, such nations
are usually wrecked by a growing disparity between statist ambitions and
economic realities.
We can see this happening in America in those areas (especially inner-
city ghettos) where there is a growing similarity of life to that of some
Latin American republics where all attempts of enterprising people to rise
in life and make something of themselves are systematically squelched by the
reigning bureaucracy.
For the last hundred years in America, statist intervention tried to
preserve and even extend an industrial economy, while scuttling the very
requirements of freedom and the free market which in the long run are
necessary for its survival. For half a century, statist intervention could
wreak its depredations without causing clear and evident crises and
dislocations, because the free-market industrialization of the nineteenth
century had created a vast cushion of "fat" in the economy against such
depredations. But now statism has advanced so far and been in power so long
that the cushion is worn thin; the "reserve fund" created by laissez-faire
has been exhausted. So that now, whatever the government does brings about
an instant negative feedback - ill effects that are evident to all - and
what had been a problem solvable by free-market pricing and advancing
technology has become a complex puzzle the resolution of which will require
the complete dismantling of an all-pervasive system. But can the dismantling
occur without catastrophe? Consider just one aspect of it: If all government
subsidies were ended tomorrow morning, without any changes in the economy
having been effected first, there would be much suffering, and probably
starvation.
The government is very cunning, and the economy of America is very
resilient. But though the government may be very flexible, the principles it
is violating are not - and sooner or later the causes being implemented will
have their inexorable effects. The people I really feel sorry for are the
little children - who will have to live with those effects as they become
adults.
* Dependency
Millions who are now on Valium or other narcotic tranquilizers might go
insane if their supply were cut off. They represent a frightening dependency
on an outside life-support system. A simple edict of the government (or a
terrorist bomb) is all it would take to cut off the supply of tranquilizers,
electricity, propane, petrol or anything else (even food) which is
centralized in its production and distribution and therefore centrally
controllable. If the electric power went off in Wyoming in the middle of
winter, people would die. (A few years ago it did just that for four days -
and indeed, some people did die.) This possibility should scare everybody -
but hardly anybody even thinks about it. My idea of anarchism is not just
opposition to a centralized State, but the advocacy of as much economic
decentralization as is feasible for a civilized life. For example, I would
like to see a solar panel on everybody's roof, and the consequent extinction
of the power companies. Not that I have anything against the power companies
(except, of course, when they have a legal monopoly on utility provision),
but I am opposed to the institutionalized centralization of life-support
that they represent.
Since the time of Hitler and Stalin, our age has lacked easily
identifiable villains of stature commensurate with their crimes against
humanity. No longer the transgressions of exceptionally cruel and notable
individuals, evil has been bureaucratized by the twentieth-century State and
made the charge of relatively faceless bureaucrats, small in character and
comprehension. Who knows the names of those who burned little children in
Philadelphia and Waco? Throughout the world, natty figures in suits or
uniforms have carried out monstrous suppressions, uprootings, and
exterminations without entering the pages of history as striking despots.
Considered individually, their outstanding characteristic is their
mediocrity. There are no large-scale villains anymore, only colorless
bureaucrats competing for common power and common booty.
There now flourishes a class of State-funded social scientists whose
professional status requires an ideology to justify the continuance of State
funds. Their work consists in discovering and defining particular "social
problems" which will become the material for further State activity. An army
of cops, judges, jailers, social workers, psychologists, therapists,
sociologists, counselors, and other petty bureaucrats have swollen the
payrolls of government and public institutions. In order to justify their
budgets, they have had to postulate ever newer and more threatening social
pathologies from which they can claim to protect us. More and more areas of
life have been criminalized at the same time as the techniques of
surveillance, interrogation and repression have been extended, refined and
made more powerful. For all these groups the "discoveries" of child abuse,
sexual abuse and drug abuse have been godsends. And each has benefited from
the others' legitimization of an increasingly generalized attitude of
repressive intolerance for any non-conformist belief or practice.
For example: Homosexuality is the name we give to the preference for
sexual intercourse with members of one's own sex. Would calling preference
for marriage with members of one's own race and religion "homoraciality" and
"homoreligiosity" make them mental diseases? Would the members of the
American Psychiatric Association vote on whether or not they are mental
diseases? (See Chapter 7 * The War On Drugs)
See reference
Psychologist Adrian Raine of USC observes that teaching parents more
consistent, less coercive discipline techniques reduces their kids'
misbehavior, and concludes: "We should make parenting skills classes
compulsory for high school students." The idea that "we shall coerce you
into learning how to be non-coercive" is a gruesome self-contradiction.
The next step in this process is to reconceptualize crime as a "disorder"
and explain criminal behavior as the product of "disease" rather than
choice.
For example, C. Ray Jeffery, criminologist at Florida State University,
maintains: "If we are to follow the medical model, we must use neurological
examinations in place of the insanity defense and the concept of guilt.
Criminals must be placed in medical clinics, not prisons."
Diana Fishbein, professor of criminology at the University of Baltimore:
"Treatment should be mandatory. We don't ask offenders whether they want
to be incarcerated or executed. They should remain in a secure facility
until they can show without a doubt that they are self-controlled. They
should be held indefinitely."
Another ghastly example:
"In an unjust society a man may violate laws for valid social or economic
reasons. In a just society there are no valid reasons except mental illness.
Recognizing this fact protects the violator as well as the society whose law
he attacks. It affords the violator an opportunity to be quarantined until
his illness can be expertly treated. Therefore you see how vital it is that
investigators have their own psychological consciousness raised so that they
may detect those subtle signs of the pathology before the deviant has a
chance to violate the law. It is our duty to spare society from injury and
to save a sick man from the consequences of his acts."
This raises the prospect of a tyranny so malevolently vicious as to be
incomprehensible to any sane mind. It is one thing to convict someone of a
crime and then compel them to do something. It is another thing entirely to
seize upon someone who has not done anything wrong and say, "You look like a
high risk, so we will force you to do what we wish." I see an imprisoned
mind frantically darting from framework to framework, pursued inexorably by
the psychosurgeon with the implements of torture in his hands - a mind
trying to find a framework which the psychiatrist will approve and so
slacken the torture. The psychiatrists call this a return to sanity, but is
it really anything more than an induced psychopathic attempt to escape from
an insanely impossible situation?
There are moves being made by the psychiatric profession to implement
this grotesque parody of justice:
During the past half dozen years there has been an explosion of cases in
which adult men and women - most frequently, young women undergoing
psychotherapy - have seemingly remembered childhood sexual abuse that they
had forgotten for years or even decades. Are these memories accurate
recollections of terrible traumas, or artificial phantoms of events that
never happened? Have therapists developed effective new memory-retrieval
techniques, or have they employed misguided procedures that suggestively
help to create the memories? And are the patients who recover memories of
sexual abuse being empowered to speak out, or are they being diverted away
from the truth and toward a psychological frame-of-reference that the
therapist finds more desirable?
Many therapists have reported on patients who have clearly recalled
savage acts carried out by satanic cults. Yet in most instances, no memories
of ritual brutality existed prior to therapy, and no one has produced hard
evidence of such acts. Investigations by the FBI of more than 300 such cases
have failed to turn up any proof. These reports include bizarre but
fascinating cases in which people "remember" exceedingly improbably events
such as past lives and alien abductions. Multiple-personalities are often
fabricated in therapy, but just as often, once the patient ends therapy the
memories are retracted and the pseudo-personalities are abandoned. A growing
number of people are retracting ALL their "recovered" memories.
Some therapists interpret patients' symptoms as "implicit memory" - that
is, nonconscious effects of experience on subsequent behavior and cognition.
They cite this as justification for interpreting their patient's fears,
dislikes or attractions as subconscious "memories" of abuse. Many trauma
therapists infer that a woman who hates bananas is necessarily reacting
subconsciously to a memory of her fathers's erect penis.
In an attempt to buttress this turpitudinal twaddle, some analysts have
proposed something called "robust repression" a special mechanism which
could cause someone to forget completely about years of repeated sexual
trauma. But there is a lack of scientific evidence that extensive, severe
sexual trauma can be pushed into the subconscious through a mechanism of
memory repression. Validated research indicates that emotionally traumatic
experiences tend to be well remembered.
Other practicioners dispense outright with any attempt at rational
justification: On being asked to cite scientific support for her ideas,
Ellen Bass (one of the foremost propounders of the "memory recovery"
movement) replied: "Look, if we waited for scientific knowledge to catch up,
we could just forget the whole thing. My ideas are not based on any
scientific theories."
On the other hand, extensive laboratory research indicates that
suggestion and other factors can lead to profound memory distortion. There
are solid indications that a phenomenon known as source amnesia (in which a
person forgets the source or context in which a memory originated) renders
people vulnerable to memory distortions. When people cannot remember the
source of a memory, they are apt to confuse whether it relects an actual
event, a fantasy or something that was said or suggested. When there are no
external records that you can refer to, even the outline of your own life
loses its sharpness.
Therapy techniques that involve visualizing or imagining abusive
incidents are used as a first step toward inducing remembrance of them. Thus
a therapist who believes in the reality of forgotten abuse can help validate
imagined experiences as bonafide memories.
There is no scientific documentation of the efficacy of these techniques
but good reason to believe that they pose a danger because they encourage
patients to blur the line between imagination and memory.
The September 1997 issue of SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN contains an essay by
Elizabeth Loftus, the president of the American Psychological Society, on
the subject of implanted memories. She contends that the mechanisms
underlying such false memories are not known. However, Nathaniel Branden, in
his identification of Social Metaphysics, explained the psychological
principles underlying this phenomenon over 30 years ago. (see Chapter 10 of
his book THE PSYCHOLOGY OF SELF-ESTEEM.)
THE DEMON-HAUNTED WORLD by Carl Sagan, 1996, Ballantine Book #345-40946-
9.
In Chapters 8 and 9 Sagan deals with the unreliability of memory, memory
manipulation, fraud, hallucination and fantasies.
These, and similar, findings have never been refuted, and other studies
have confirmed their negative results, no matter what type of therapy was
used. How, in all good conscience, can therapists and psychiatrists continue
to practice?
That scholars still debate Freud's ideas suggests that the profession's
grasp of the mind is still rather tenuous; after all, experts on infectious
diseases do not debate the validity of Louis Pasteur's ideas. In mature
scientific fields one usually doesn't critique ideas more than three or four
years old.
Anyone who goes to a psychiatrist ought to have his head examined. I told
the last psychiatrist I met that I would make an appointment with him just
as soon as I decided he was saner than I am. From the wall-eyed look he gave
me, I think he considered me to be overdue already.
The LP has been presented to the American people continually since 1972,
but never has it gained the support of more than a tiny fraction of the
general electorate. As of July 1995 the LP has fewer than 20K members and
has only about 140 people holding elected office. This represents about one
one-hundredth of a percent of the elected officials in America, yet the LP
hypes it as a significant success. Much similar Libertarian hype is merely
an equivocation between the recognition of rights and a pragmatic loosening
of controls necessitated by economic difficulties.
It has been argued that untapped support for the LP lies in the 50+% of
the population that does not participate in politics, but the Australian
experience belies this. The LP has made no more headway in Australia than in
the USA.
Leonard Peikoff claims there is still time and opportunity to save
America: "The American spirit has not yet been destroyed.... There is only
one antidote to today's trend: a new, pro-reason philosophy." He does not
mention the history of the Libertarian movement during the 1970s, when a
new, pro-reason philosophy was indeed presented to the American people. They
turned it down.
David Kelley makes the same error, claiming that the American body
politic is "a public that is hungry for values."
If, as Kelley believes, the public is hungry for values, I wonder how he
would explain that public's enormous rejection of the LP.
(Neither Peikoff nor Kelley are libertarians. What they advocate is
merely a variant of political conservatism.)
What would it take to convince these men that the American voters do not
want a libertarian alternative?
In any case, after 1980, vote-getting gained ascendancy over
philosophical vision, and the LP became too involved in electoral politics
and succumbed too easily to compromise. By 1990 the Libertarian movement and
the LP had been so co-opted and corrupted that neither had any consistent
pro-reason presentation to make any longer.
Consider an alcoholic who has been drinking a quart of whiskey every day
for the past 20 years. It is not now possible for the alcoholic to come into
possession of the health that he would have had in other circumstances. It
doesn't matter at all if he now swears off whiskey and takes up gin or vodka
instead - these choices would simply continue him along his path into
physical degeneracy. His only hope for any health, or even partial recovery
in his old age, would be to swear off alcohol altogether.
I view human society as being similar to that alcoholic. The accumulated
effects of government institutions (effects which are increasing in
intensity at an exponential rate) are reducing society to a state of
degeneracy similar in malignancy to that of the alcoholic.
No matter how much you may want to, you cannot grow into a decent human
being while drinking a quart of whiskey every day. No matter how much you
may want them to, your children cannot grow into decent human beings while
living within the context of the forfeiture laws and the Internal Revenue
Service.
Society can no more save itself by implementing a different kind of
government than the alcoholic can save himself by drinking a different kind
of alcohol. Society's only salvation lies in the total abolition of
government.
In this respect Rand was correct: you cannot have a political change
without a preexisting philosophical change. But here too I believe there is
no hope. The prevalence of Newspeak and the decline in intellectual caliber
of the general population precludes the adoption of the philosophical
rationality that is prerequisite to the restructuring of society.
As an individualist, I seek ways to implement changes that are not
dependent on mass philosophical conversions or mass political persuasion.
Objectivism has created a technology for individual enlightenment and
growth. Only through such individual change can major cultural
transformation occur.
* Cultural Value-deprivation
Rand describes the sensory-deprivation experiments, and then carries this
notion further, to the idea of conceptual deprivation, observing that
today's individual lives in an intellectual desert - in the equivalent of an
experimental cubicle the size of a continent - where he is given the sensory
overload of screeching, screaming, jostling media assaults, but is cut off
from ideas. If severe enough and prolonged enough, such a distortion of the
natural, active flow of cognitive experiences may paralyze a man's
consciousness by telling him that no significant thinking is possible. This
chronic lack produces a gradual erosion of man's emotional vitality, which
is recorded and preserved by his subconscious, until the day when his inner
motor stops and he finds himself with no desire to go on living. If a person
is deprived of his values, he will have little to live for.
Another aspect of this conceptual deprivation phenomenon is what might be
called principle extinction - the process by which people's ability to think
and act on the basis of principles is extinguished.
Visual agnosia is a condition in which the visual association cortex has
been injured, resulting in the victim's inability to perceive the world as a
whole picture. He sees only bits at a time and has lost the ability to
recognize patterns. He is, in effect, a visual illiterate. A closely
analogous effect results from the destruction of his ability to think in
principles. Then he will be able to perceive only specific concrete
instances of reality. He will have lost the ability to recognize the
underlying patterns. Perhaps we could call this "cognitive agnosia." (See
the SPURIOUS SUPERFICIALITY fallacy.)
Americans are taught NOT to think in principles, and then - just to make
sure they are thoroughly corrupt - they are given principles that are
depraved. Newspeak goes even further, by distorting the very concepts used
to formulate principles. People deprived of their ability to formulate
values will trash their civilization with very little incentive.
Not only are people value-deprived and value-depraved they are also
value-destructive.
In the long run, a tyrannical society is possible only on the basis of
cognitive deprivation. So long as people are not permitted to have standards
of comparison they never even become aware that they are oppressed. (This
may explain the widespread manifestation of the Fallacy of Relative
Privation.)
Value deprivation means not only the absence of positive values, and the
actions taken to achieve them, it also means the absence of any effective
actions taken to combat a negative. People lose any impulse to rebel against
tyranny since, lacking a principled basis for judgments, they are bereft of
any way to decide who their real enemies are. Thus the mad bombers - people
driven over the edge of insanity by the contradictions they endure, but
lacking a means of directing their rage toward an appropriate target. Thus
also the widespread apathy we see in American society: many people, losing
values and principles, also lose the power of grasping that the world could
be other than it is.
They can be granted intellectual liberty, because they no longer possess
intellect. They can be made to accept the most flagrant violations of
reality, because they never fully grasp the enormity of what is being
perpetrated upon them. They remain sane, in part, by lack of understanding -
in a sort of protective stupidity. The more intelligent they are, the less
sane they must be. The prevailing mental condition must be one of controlled
insanity.
But sanity is not arbitrary. Rulers of all ages have tried to impose a
false view of the world upon their subjects, but they cannot afford to
encourage any illusion that impairs military efficiency. In philosophy,
religion, ethics, or politics, two and two might make five, but when one is
designing a gun or a bomb they HAVE to make four. War is the main instrument
by which governments are kept in touch with physical reality.
This thesis has great significance for modern America, not so much as it
applies to war, but as it applies to technology. We live in a society that
is entirely dependent on advanced technology. If any major aspect of that
technology is not sufficiently maintained, our entire civilization may well
collapse.
There are many people for whom work is the primary touch with reality.
When important functions, such as personal autonomy and perception of
accomplishment are removed from their work the result is impaired contact
with reality, and a consequent decrease in their job performance. We can see
the results in automotive recalls, on Three Mile Island, and other
indications that the technological underpinnings of our civilization are
eroding.
* Inheritance
At the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man's nature and
of life's potential. This view of man has rarely been explicitly asserted in
human history. Today, it is virtually non-existent. Yet this is the view
with which - in various degrees of longing, wistfulness, passion and
agonized confusion - the best of mankind's youth start out in life. It is
not even an explicit view, for most of them, but a foggy, groping, undefined
sense of enormous expectation, the sense that one's life is important, that
great achievements are within one's capacity, and that great things lie
ahead.
Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of a culture which tells them
persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one's mind; security, of
abandoning one's values; practicality, of abandoning one's self-esteem.
Many who cannot dispense with their natural sensitivity turn to suicide:
they see too clearly what sort of existence awaits them and, being too young
to find an antidote, they cannot tolerate the prospect. If a young person
sees no real future to look forward to, his choices may well resemble those
of a terminally ill person.
People who cannot control their own lives feel either despair or
rebellious frustration. This is the situation of the youth of America. What
people don't understand is that the children soon learn to detach themselves
from these emotions, but in the process they lose a large part of their
capacity to feel ANY emotions. We hear of sensational, coldblooded crimes
being done by children and youths, yet few wonder how these children and
youths became so insensitive to the pain of others. You must remember that
morality and ethics are NOT instincts! They are LEARNED phenomena.
The center of America might be insane. The country has been living with a
fiercely controlled schizophrenia which has been deepening with the years.
Every person who is devoutly Christian and works for the American
Corporation is caught in an unseen vise whose pressure could split his mind
from his soul; a state of suppressed schizophrenia so deep that the foul
brutalities of the war in Vietnam were the only temporary cure possible for
the condition - since the expression of brutality offers a definite if
temporary relief to the schizophrenic.
Many common people greet warfare as the first glad sense of a great
definite purpose dawning into their stagnant and unillumined lives - as the
opportunity to support something that might shed some meaning upon an
existence otherwise apparently without significance.
Socially and psychologically repressed, people are drawn to spectacles of
violent conflict that allow their accumulated frustrations to explode in
socially condoned orgasms of collective pride and hate. Deprived of
significant accomplishments in their own work and leisure, they participate
vicariously in military enterprises that have real and undeniable effects.
Lacking genuine community, they try to discover or create a sense of pseudo-
community, if only that of fighting some common enemy. They thrill to the
sense of sharing in a common purpose, and react angrily against anyone who
contradicts the image of patriotic unanimity. The individual's life may be a
farce, his society may be falling apart, but all complexities and
uncertainties can be temporarily ignored in the self-assurance that comes
from identifying with the State.
The child knows no other way of life than the slave's way. Born free, he
has been laid hands on from the moment of his birth and brought up as a
slave. How is he, when he is at last "set free," to be anything else than
the slave he actually is? Clamoring for war, for the lash, for police,
prisons, and scaffolds in a wild panic of delusion that without these things
he is lost.
Eye the ever expanding systems of prisons, the ever expanding branches of
law enforcement agencies, and the myriads of laws being churned out by
delirious lawmakers who are flushed into office by pandering to this insane
slave mentality. Yes, eye them well, for tomorrow there might not be anyone
left to speak out for sanity and civilization.
You cannot govern men brought up as slaves otherwise than as slaves are
governed. Nor can you expect them to behave in any other way than as slaves
and barbarians. In school, misbehaving students are punished for a host of
reasons - but adults in positions of authority (i.e., government school
administrators) initiated force against them to make them go to school in
the first place. The discipline system the students have been immersed in is
basically contradictory. When a child sees this kind of irrationality
institutionalized in his social environment, what does this do to his sense
of ethical values? Blaming the children for their misbehavior is unjust.
Juvenile delinquents have no 'better natures'; the experience inflicted upon
them has taught them that what they are doing is the proper way to survive
in this society. They have been enslaved and subjected to torment. Now they
strike back and subject others to torment. Since they have been taught, and
believe, that causes do not necessarily have subsequent effects, they are
not able to perceive the real cause of their torment. Thus they cannot
identify the justified target of their anger. They vent their anger
indiscriminantly, treating people, as representatives of society, in the
same way that "society" has treated them. Calling the students animals is
unforgivable; it's an insult to animals. Animals generally behave quite
rationally, but there is very little rational behavior in a public school. I
prefer to call the students barbarians. However, this does great injustice
to some of the students. Although there are many children who would be
gentle and civilized individuals, they must cope as best they can with their
irrational environment, which means many of them finally relent and join the
barbarians. The moral and intellectual rot spreads and is handed down as, in
several years, these barbarians begin to take part in community activities
(what will happen when they get on the Board of Education?) and teach THEIR
children the values they have learned. Thus viciousness becomes embedded in
the social structure of society. Student behavior had better be improved
upon soon, or it will be too late, because the new generation won't see the
necessity of it when they come of age and join the establishment.
This, I believe, is the basic cause of the decline in American education.
The system is fundamentally self-contradictory and thus fundamentally self-
destructive. And since causes do inevitably have subsequent effects, those
effects are what we are seeing manifested in the schools today.
What schools mostly do is practice rigid age segregation, socialize
children into narrow roles, label them into limiting categories, create
meaningless problems, compel obedience and compliance above all other
virtues, teach that life is segmented by ringing bells, and deeply
indoctrinate children with the profound belief that government is an
absolute necessity for civilization. School is the first coercive
institution most of us endure, and it wears down our resistance to the later
ones. It makes them seem normal.
Sure, there are good and decent teachers, but the abstract logic of the
institution drowns their individual decency in a sea of wickedness.
One can understand why the contradictions of our society weigh so heavily
on the young: no sane mind can integrate the contrast between the
righteousness of a Secretary of State and the ruthlessness of a B-52;
between the sanctimony of "a kinder, gentler, America" and the savagery of
the Los Angeles Police beating Rodney King; between the notion that violence
is fine against people 10000 miles away but shocking against injustice in
our own land; between the equality demanded by America's constitutional
structure and the equality denied by America's political structure; even
between the accepted habits of one generation and the emerging habits of the
next, as when a parent tipsy on his fourth martini begins a tirade against
his son's marijuana.
The generation that's growing up today has been thoroughly brutalized by
the system. It's in their schools, their media, their political ideology -
everywhere. They're conditioned to the worship of violence and the statist
cult - to view the power and strength of the State as the only criteria for
establishing right. Their teaching idealizes the right of the strong to
subdue the weak and glorifies the triumph of brute force as the expression
of natural law. A nation settled by men who refused to uncover in the
presence of kings is now populated by people who grovel before petty
bureaucrats - and are proud of doing it.
How do you get rid of a regime like this once it has taken root? You
can't reason with it, because all you'll get is indifference, or contempt
for what it sees as weakness. You can't bargain with it - a trading
relationship implies equality, but all the State understands is domination.
You can't hope to coexist peaceably because the very existence of a free man
represents either a threat or an opportunity for exploitation.
One of the things that makes us so different from other animals is our
ability to pass on to our children the sum total of what we and our parents
have accomplished. That legacy of accomplishments - intellectual, artistic,
spiritual, and material - is the content of human culture. To the extent
that a society inhibits the transfer of this legacy, it is dooming its
children to stagnation or retrogression. Even worse is the future of a
society that transfers to its youth a legacy of ignorance and brutality.
"We will descend into a new Dark Age, made more sinister by the lights of
perverted science." ... Churchill
* Conservation - Environmentalism
Conservation is not synonymous with any lessening of one's standard of
living. It is synonymous with more wealth, power, and freedom. The idea is
not to make do with less civilization. The idea is to do all the things you
are doing now - heat your house, cook your food, drive your car - using
fewer resources. More efficient heaters and more efficient cars mean cleaner
air, better health and greater prosperity.
Many environmentalists assert a significant distinction between consuming
or conserving one's resources, but the important distinction to make is
between two forms of resource consumption: dissipation or production. Mere
conservation is economically irrelevant - to conserve something rather than
to use it makes no contribution to prosperity. A sensible approach to the
subject of human well-being is to USE resources, but in such a way that they
are augmented or regenerated as much as possible (and thus, in a manner of
speaking, "conserved" for future use) and in such a way that their present
use PRODUCES future well-being. The real crime in this context is to
destructively dissipate resources in order to achieve only a transient
benefit. Perhaps the best example of this process is the gluttonous
dissipation of the world's supply of fossil fuels, much of which is consumed
for no other purpose than to transport imbecilic adolescents back and forth
from one end of Main Street to the other. (But even this is insignificant
when compared with the amount of the world's resources that are poured into
the enterprise of War.) A sane practice would be to use the fossil fuels, to
as great an extent as necessary, for the purpose of establishing a nuclear
fusion or solar power technology.
Of course it is "natural" for man build homes, provide for his needs, and
to produce waste. These are inevitable concomitants of the life process. But
there is another "natural" attribute of man which, if not taken into
consideration, results in a grossly distorted and inaccurate analysis of
man's relationship to his environment. That is the attribute of "choice."
I do not at all have an "insistence on reading human life out of the rest
of nature" what I do insist on is identifying the proper relationship
between human beings and the ecology in which we live. After all, the beaver
doesn't really have much (or any) choice about his dam-building activities.
But man DOES have a choice about such things as the puddle of slag beneath
Chernobyl, the toxic waste dumps in New Jersey that poison his unborn
generations, and the combustion of the Cuyahoga river. I do not regard any
of these three phenomena (and many more I could specify) as being "Natural."
"Natural" for man is to make the environment better - because he has the
CHOICE to do so. There is nothing better about the slag puddle and the
poisonous waste dumps. Does that jerk really think the Cuyahoga river is
better when it burns? That was not natural. Nothing that makes the world
unlivable for our descendants is natural. Doing so is a form of social
suicide. And if he thinks suicide is natural, let him start with himself.
As long as we share a planet with the hydrogen bomb, human beings, too,
are an endangered species.
* Prerequisites of a revolution
For a revolution or civil war to occur, two conditions must be met:
1. The population of the country must be divisible into at least two
mutually exclusive groups. These are the groups that would actually be
shooting at each other during the conflict. For example: the Union army and
the Confederate army.
American Libertarians would, of course, see these two groups as "the
government" and "the people" but I believe this view is false.
What Ayn Rand called "cultural value-deprivation" means not only the
absence of positive values and the actions needed to achieve them, it also
means the inability to take any effective action to combat a negative.
Value-deprived people lose any impulse to rebel against tyranny since,
lacking a principled basis for their judgments, they are bereft of any way
to decide who their real enemies are.
To vent their rage and frustration, victims of tyranny frequently turn
against each other instead of against their oppressors. Thus, in their rage
over the beating of Rodney King, the citizens of LA beat up their neighbors
and burned their own neighborhoods. They did NOT rise up against the police,
for they do not know who their enemies actually are.
Because these two conditions are not met (and I believe cannot be met) in
America, I do not forsee a revolution occurring here.
It takes a certain energy of idealism to create a revolution. The drawn-
out death of freedom in America has been so insidious, but yet so
penetrating, that few people have any idealism left that can be stirred to a
revolutionary fervor. The people of America will not rise in rebellion
against their government. The State has warped their lives, swallowed their
fortunes, and destroyed their sacred honor, leaving them in a value-deprived
moral vacuum, lacking any principle by means of which they might rebel
against its tyranny.
From The Anti-Federalist: "If the people of America will submit to a
constitution that will vest in the hands of any body of men the power to
deprive them by law of their rights, they will perforce submit to anything.
Reasoning with them will be in vain; they must be left until they are
brought to reflection by feeling oppression - they will then have to wrest
from their oppressors, by a strong hand, that which they would have retained
by a moderate share of prudence and firmness."
Cultural value-deprivation must inevitably result in a very docile
population. Who in America believes in any idea (or any value) enough to
fight for it? Certainly not the libertarians, and they are the closest thing
America has to freedom-lovers. The totalitarians know what they stand for.
The non-totalitarians will stand for anything.
But maybe tyranny in America has a limit. Although Americans will not
fight the actual institutions of tyranny, perhaps they will not accept
unlimited tyranny without the sort of blind uprising which destroys
civilization. Here I speak of uprisings such as that which followed the
beating of Rodney King by the LA police - a rebellion directed not against
the police but against the very neighbors and neighborhoods of the rioting
people.
Two out of three Americans are obese. Who ever heard of a revolution of
fat men?
Imbuing fear into the mind of your enemy is a legitimate aim of warfare,
thus terrorism is a valid tool of combat. However, there are few, if any,
revolutionary groups in the world today who apply it properly. They fail
utterly to make a proper identification of their actual enemy.
Consider those groups usually (and properly!) labeled as terrorists. They
are active in many countries around the world: the ETA in Spain, the PLO in
Israel, the IRA in England. None of these groups makes much, if any,
distinction between the government they are fighting and the people who are
subjects of that government. They strike not only at members of the
government, but also indiscriminately at the general public. In the behavior
of such groups, war is morally equivalent to bombing a prison because one
has a grievance against its sadistic warden.
(It should be noted that although terrorist activities are almost always
directed against innocent civilians, with few exceptions those activities
are prompted by, and a response to, government behavior. If we got rid of
government, we would thereby eliminate the motives for most terrorism.)
Indiscriminate violence is not only wrong in principle, it is also
counterproductive in practice: many British people who might otherwise be
sympathetic to the IRA's desire to get British troops out of Northern
Ireland are appalled at the spectacle of bombs killing their neighbors in
the subway, and are thereby quite rightfully inclined to support the
suppression of the IRA and its goals.
A principled revolutionary group should strike only at ethically
justifiable targets, and the general public is NOT such a target.
As Murray Rothbard has observed (FOR A NEW LIBERTY pg269):
"Revolutionary guerrilla war can be far more consistent with libertarian
principles than any inter-State war. By the very nature of their activities,
libertarian guerrillas defend the civilian population against the
depredations of a State; hence, guerrillas, inhabiting as they do the same
country as the civilians, cannot use weapons of mass destruction. Further:
since guerrillas rely for victory on the support and aid of the civilian
population, they must, as a basic part of their strategy, spare civilians
from harm and pinpoint their activities solely against the State apparatus
and its armed forces."
Even actual terrorists recognize, to some extent, that they must side
with the people against State tyranny - as in this account of how the IRA
helps those opposing the occupation:
After internment the Catholics went on rent strike, and there was talk of
shutting off the water and the electricity if they didn't pay up. So what
did Paddy do? He went round to the local betting shop, held up the cashier,
raked in a few thousand quid, then went to the first house in the street and
asked,
"How much do you owe?"
"Forty seven pounds and twelve pence."
"Here's the money."
And he went down the whole street with the cash and paid them out. The
rent man came, knocked at the first door: "Mrs Murphy, you owe..." She paid
it all, the book was signed, and so on down the row. The rent man got to the
last house well pleased he'd got the money off all the street - and Paddy
was standing there on the corner: "Hands up!" Took all the money off the
rent man, gave it back to the bookie, and that was it. You have to admire
that: brilliant.
Consider the situation in America, for example. For two centuries the
government has whittled away at freedom, gradually - with each additional
law it passes - depriving individual people bit by bit of their right to
choose their own destiny. If the tyranny that exists today were to have been
foisted in its totality upon our forefathers they would have risen in a
rebellion even more forceful than that which they inflicted upon the tyrants
of King George. The government could never have accomplished such a massive
change in one fell swoop - it had to be brought about by a lengthy series of
gradual encroachments: in small enough doses that the populace would be
willing to accept each encroachment individually as being of itself
insufficient to justify the immense rebellion required to bring down the
entire government.
But this process is a two-edged sword. In a similar manner, the oppressed
victims of a tyranny could turn this sword against their government and
gradually reduce its tyrannical power over them. They could do this through
a series of small encroachments on government power, none of them in and of
itself sufficient to induce the government to undertake the expense of a
major military mobilization, but all of them adding up over the years to the
gradual reduction of government tyranny.
But they can achieve this goal only if they make proper and effective use
of the force they wield. To use it properly, they must make sure it is
directed only against the appropriate target: government. And to use it
effectively, they must make sure that it is applied in a way that will have
the desired influence on government behavior.
The public must know what the rebels are doing and why they are doing it.
If the rebels attack the police and the public knows that their goal is to
make everyone safe from police brutality, or if they attack tax collectors
and the public knows that their goal is to diminish everyone's tax burden,
then the public is much more likely to support (even if only tacitly) their
ends. If the rebels don't get THEIR message to the public, then public
opinion will be based only on the State's message.
* Morale
It may be asked, "Isn't it stupid and senseless to fight any war when
there is no hope of winning it?"
Mencken: "It doesn't take a majority to make a rebellion; it only takes a
few determined men and a sound cause."
Margaret Mead: "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed
persons can change the world. Indeed it's the only thing that ever has."
You must be continually aware that although there may never be an
absolute, total victory - that you have no hope of achieving any type of
military victory over government forces - nevertheless, if you act with
prudence and diligence, the final practical victory - the one that matters,
the one that changes the behavior of individual government agents - will be
yours. Keep in mind that no one has ever gained freedom except by fighting
for it.
While it is true that the great power of the State has absolute dominion
over any small group of free people, this dominion is similar to that of a
man over a hornets' nest: it can be exercised only at the risk of
considerable personal danger. Each policeman must be brought to consider the
risk to him personally of his tyrannous behavior.
You, as an individual, and acting by yourself alone, CAN make a
difference! If you can make just one cop reluctant to hassle people, then
you have in fact reduced the extent of tyranny. If you make such a change,
even a little one, then you've won something.
"But," it is claimed, "some policemen are good men who are only doing
their jobs." An Allied soldier fighting the Nazis did not question the
particular character of each individual German soldier he encountered, he
merely looked at a man with a uniform and a gun, and he knew that man by
those signs to be his enemy, and he acted accordingly. Likewise, the rebel
should not question the particular character of each individual policeman he
encounters. It is by the uniform and the gun, and the ethical principles
that those signs represent, that you recognize him to be your enemy. By
choosing to wear the uniform and bear arms against you he has declared
himself to be violently opposed to your freedoms.
G. B. Shaw: "To kill a man in uniform who is your enemy is not an act of
murder, but an act of legitimate warfare." The enemy command authority
(either civilian or military) is always a legitimate target of war.
Your war will be a righteous war, a war fought to defend your rights and
your honor against the colossus of the State. You have a new world of
freedom to gain; your enemy has only a lost cause to lose.
If you don't strike against the State now, it will eventually destroy the
means of civilization. After a revolution today, we would still have a
civilization to live in. After a revolution tomorrow, there would be less
civilization remaining. If you leave the job to your children, there might
be no hope at all for their survival.
Chapter 14
TO SHRUG - AN ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE FOR AN
INDIVIDUALIST
Throughout all my writings, I use the word
"Shrug" (always capitalized)
to designate a certain activity. That activity is described precisely in the
book ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand.
This essay is a consideration of some aspects of that activity. If you
have not read ATLAS SHRUGGED, you will probably find this essay to be
somewhat obscure.
* Underlying Philosophy
All civilization rests upon the productive achievement of creative
individuals. Without that productivity, the amenities of civilization would
be little, if anything, more than a cave, a bearskin and a chunk of raw
meat. Observe that totalitarianism is not creative. A Sherman Tank is not a
tool of construction, nor is the revolver on a policeman's hip an instrument
of productivity. A totalitarian regime can exist only if it is able to to
obtain economic support from the productive members of society. Without that
support the regime will collapse or dissipate, as there is no other means of
maintaining its economic existence. The evil is that which is destructive
and life negating. The good is that which is productive and life sustaining.
Evil is impotent - literally impotent - in a very fundamental way. The only
power evil has is the power it gets, one way or another, from the good.
Consider any evil action which you can conceive of, and take a real hard and
deep look at it. What were the means by which that action was perpetrated?
What is the basis (particularly the economic basis) upon which the
perpetration rests? If you look far enough into the matter, you will find
that somewhere, sometime, something good must have happened before this evil
could have come into being. To take only one example (but a rather blatant
one): A thief cannot steal from me that which I do not possess. His act of
theft presupposes my act of producing that which he would steal. If someone
has not produced it, he cannot steal it. It is only my sanction that gives
him his power. Without my good, he is impotent. Without me, he can not even
exist. This is true not only of the simple act of theft but of ALL acts of
evil, no matter how complex they may be in their insidious manifestations,
and no matter where or how they occur - materially, intellectually or
spiritually. As you can see, this is the basic theme of ATLAS SHRUGGED.
All that is required for the defeat of evil is that good men stop their
unwitting support of it.
A productive person who uses his creative energies in support of
totalitarianism is acting according to an irrational morality - he is
providing sustenance for an evil that tends to destroy him. The remedy is to
STOP SUPPORTING THE EVIL THAT AFFLICTS YOU. The functioning of your mind -
the creative application of your intelligence - is something that is
entirely under your personal control. Most things you own can be forcibly
removed from your possession. The one thing that cannot is your creative
ability. This cannot be touched without your sanction. The guns of a
dictator, though they may destroy you, cannot compel you to think (Thoreau
and Gandhi taught us this). It is simply not possible to enslave a free
mind. Your body can be enslaved regardless of your personal choices, but the
creative power of your mind can be manifest only if you choose to express
it.
* Historical Precedent
The idea of Shrugging was not unique to Rand. Its advocates include such
other illustrious names as Thoreau, Lane, and Ghandi.
Thoreau: "It is not a man's duty, as a matter of course, to devote
himself to the eradication of any, even the most enormous wrong; he may
still properly have other concerns to engage him; but it is his duty, at
least, to wash his hands of it, and, if he gives it no thought longer, not
to give it practically his support.... Cast your whole vote, not a strip of
paper merely, but your whole influence."
In 1943 Rose Wilder Lane implemented yet another exercise in subversion,
which was an attempt to reduce her income below taxable levels. It was
merely the next logical step in her exercise in self-sufficiency combined
with political resistance.
Ghandi's policy of satyagraha can be viewed as an "activist" expression
of Shrugging.
Judge Learned Hand (1934): "Any one may so arrange his affairs that his
taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern
which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to
increase one's taxes."
* Implementation of Shrugging
On dealing with the immorality of government, here are five courses of
action to consider:
1) Refuse to engage in any implementation of your personal creative
ability which benefits the State. Take your brains off the statist
marketplace. Act so that only those who add to your life, not those who
devour it, comprise your creativity marketplace. Do not abandon creative
productivity, merely deny it to all who advocate statism. Reserve your
achievements for yourself and those who will join you in the endeavor to
build a sane and sensible world. This is the main ingredient of Shrugging.
As Robert Ringer observed: "I am in favor of complete freedom of trade
between companies and people throughout the world, but not under the
umbrella of political partnerships between governments." Thus my attitude is
that I will use my creative abilities on behalf of people who are STRIVING
to act outside the authority of government, but I will not permit government
to benefit from their use - either directly or indirectly. I will not use my
abilities in any way that requires a tax to be paid, and I will not help
other people to pay or to collect a tax.
2) Arrange your circumstances so that the State benefits as little as
possible from whatever sort of menial work you do.
3) Propagate the philosophy of libertarianism. Make these ideas known to
others who are seeking a means to combat totalitarianism.
4) Actively oppose the State in a political manner.
5) Contribute in a positive way to the establishment of a new
civilization. Establish for yourself a lifestyle which will demonstrate that
rationally moral behavior is in fact eminently practical in one's personal
life.
* A Different World-View
Ayn Rand never advocated Shrugging (in fact, she was firmly opposed to
the action) so there has never been any discussion of the nitty-gritty
aspects of "how to do it." Nobody told me what to do after I Shrugged. I had
to figure it out for myself. Most of my life's work since I Shrugged has
been devoted to finding how to live an economically comfortable and secure
existence while denying the State any benefit from my creative ability. The
result of this has been the implementation of a lifestyle that maximizes my
standard of living while minimizing my exposure to the oppressive elements
of society.
I have been disappointed with most other libertarians because they
manifest very little of any practical use - because they seem to want only
to TALK rather than really DO anything to achieve freedom. To object
verbally while non-violently submitting to (and economically supporting) an
aggression is the behavior of a hypocrite whose talk and actions are
diametrically opposed. My own goal has always been to eschew collective
activities in favor of better ideas to apply to individual life, firmly
believing that society will not be changed by people hollering and shouting
in and about nation-wide mass movements, but will be changed only by people
who choose to alter their own personal lives to live in accordance with a
rational morality.
If there is ever to be a society of free men, there must first be free
men to comprise that society. Assembling them into a society would be an
interesting proposition, but the act of becoming free is the individual's
self-responsibility, not mine.
I believe the best path to a free society is not via the alteration of
government, but its abolition. Although I am in sympathy with those
libertarians who seek freedom by means of social reform, my own primary
focus is on the achievement of individual liberty and economic self-
betterment. I am not concerned with getting other people to adopt
Objectivism, but rather in reaping the rewards of living an Objectivist life
myself. I think it unfortunate that other people do not accept this kind of
life, but I do not consider it my job to induce them to practice good health
- either physical, mental, economic or social health. I think also that it
is rather a waste of time to try to do so - after all, the Libertarian Party
has been at work since 1972, but still gets only about 1% of the votes. And
too, it is over a third of a century since the publication of ATLAS
SHRUGGED. Those mature adults who are intellectually self-responsible will
have learned by now of the existence of the Objectivist philosophy. I have
neither hope for nor interest in the others. If the vast majority choose to
be fools, I can say only "Let them live with the consequences of their
foolishness."
Most people who ask the question "Is there any hope for saving society?"
will settle only for an answer that by its nature would enable one
individual to make singlehandedly a mammoth immediate alteration in the
situation. This, of course, is impossible. Sadly, the fact that one
individual alone cannot put a complete end to an evil is often used as an
excuse and justification for accepting and supporting the evil. While
realism tells me that I cannot fix all the problems of the world, my
idealism tells me that my inability to do so does not preclude me from
addressing those individual imperfections that I CAN affect. I view the
situation, and my approach to it, as a physician would view a society
suffering under a catastrophic epidemic. He would not sit back, wringing his
hands in dismay, lamenting the fact that he alone could not produce an
immediate and total cure for the epidemic. What he WOULD do is simply pick
up his little black bag and commence to treat as many afflicted individuals
as he possibly could. I believe society is suffering from a disastrous
epidemic of irrational morality, and that the remedy lies in the practice of
a rational morality by each individual - especially by a certain type of
individual: those capable of a high degree of productive achievement. (For a
much more comprehensive treatement of this phenomenon, see THE AYN RAND
LETTER, 3Jan72.)
While you are trudging through the world with your little black bag, keep
in mind that the difference you make can be negative (by withdrawing your
contribution) as well as positive.
* A suitable dwelling
"To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, but so to
love wisdom as to live according to its dictates....The philosopher is in
advance of his age even in the outward form of his life. He is not fed,
sheltered, clothed, warmed, like his contemporaries. How can a man be a
philosopher and not maintain his vital heat by better methods than other
men?" .... Thoreau
The biggest expense most people have is the cost of their housing, so I
gave a lot of thought to what kind of dwelling would be suitable to the
lifestyle I wanted.
I had no intention of giving up the comforts of a civilized life,
especially since my philosophical principles require no such sacrifice. It
is not at all necessary to settle for what Rand described as Galt's dingy
little quarters:
"a long, bare garret with a bed in one corner and a gas stove in another,
a few pieces of wooden furniture, naked boards stressing the length of the
floor, a single lamp burning on a desk.... the wooden rafters of his
ceiling.... the cracked plaster of his walls, the iron posts of his bed."
Extending the idea of "escape from the moneylenders" to include escape
from other institutions that have economic control over everyday life (the
foremost among them being the utility power companies), I concluded that
what would be appropriate to my goals would be an inexpensive, energy-
independent, mobile dwelling possessing the comforts of modern technology.
I considered living in a motor home, but I quickly discovered that motor
homes and travel trailers are NOT designed for permanent residence, and are
even less than not designed for living in a cold climate, [I went to college
to learn how to write like this?] and are certainly not energy-independent,
or even energy-efficient. I wanted a home that would be inexpensive to
construct and maintain, be mobile, and still have all the amenities of a
civilized existence. So I decided to create one myself. I began by doing
renovations of vehicles - converting them into little "rolling homes." I
gradually figured out how to use my knowledge of physics and engineering to
convert an old van, truck or bus into a very nice little house - an
inexpensive, energy-independent, non-polluting, transportable dwelling - for
a whole lot less money than the cost of a new house, or even the cost of a
new motor home. After building several such dwellings - and living in one of
them myself for a few years - I came to realize the truth of Thoreau's
observation:
"Most men appear never to have considered what a house is, and are
actually though needlessly poor all their lives because they think that they
must have such a one as their neighbors have."
Either as a permanent alternative to a fixed-box type dwelling, or as a
temporary transition between the city rat-race and a rural existence in the
country, a motor home can offer an inexpensive and comfortable lifestyle.
As a transition device, a motor home offers the city-dweller the means by
which he can get out of the city in whatever spare time he has (weekends,
vacations, holidays) and travel about in the country seeking land and
housing suitable to his desired rural lifestyle. If he does find land
without a dwelling on it, he will have a temporary living arrangement after
he has left the city and is building his permanent home on the land.
It is an excellent way to test your ideas about independent living: you
load up your motor home and trundle up into the mountains. Find a nice,
secluded place and live there for a few months, making a list of all the
things you discover that you don't have and all the things you can't do.
Then you trundle back down into civilization again and start crossing things
off that list. When the list is gone, you are ready to live an independent
life. I want to stress the importance of DOing it experimentally before you
make a full committment. The actuality is never just what you expect it to
be.
As a permanent residence, I think this sort of home is a wonderful way to
beat the housing racket with its multi-kilobuck lifetime mortgages for
shoddily constructed boxes with built-in and almost irrevocable dependence
on the energy companies. A nice little home can be built in an old school
bus for a modest amount of money and, if carefully done up, will keep you
cozy and warm in the coldest climates (I have lived quite comfortably
through 20 Wyoming winters).
It's amazing what living in a Rolling Home does for your economic
situation. Gone are the mortgage payments. Gone are the rent payments. Gone
are most all of the utility bills (a small house takes much less energy to
heat, and if, like me, you don't drive it too much, gas is a small expense).
Gone are the huge tax bills laid on a stationary house. Sure, there are
still some living expenses but they are a tiny portion of the expenses
associated with a "regular" house. I can live on a MUCH smaller income than
I needed before.
And then, of course, there are all the benefits of mobility. If I don't
like it here I can always fire up this old clunker and trundle off down the
road, seeking warmer climes, more congenial neighbors, or even just a
different view from my window.
* Lifetime supplies
After I had reduced my housing expenses to just about nil, I had all that
"mortgage money" to spend on other things - and I soon found a lot of other
things to spend it on. As I observed in Chapter 4, there is a critically
important distinction between being rich and being wealthy. One of the most
economically successful things I have ever done was to implement that
distinction in my personal life. Whenever possible, I have opted to acquire
merchandise rather than money - or to turn my money into merchandise.
See reference
It really doesn't take much money (or much storage volume) to acquire a
lifetime supply of X. For X, just substitute anything that you need to live
comfortably and that can be stored away indefinitely. Socks, for example. If
you have a few dozen pairs of socks in the back of your closet, then you
don't have to be at all concerned that the price of socks is increasing
continually - or that those socks may vanish off the marketplace entirely.
Recently I took a brand new pair of trousers out of my storage trunk. While
I was ripping off all the tags I noticed the price tag attached to the
waistband. I thought it might be interesting to see how much the price had
risen since I bought them, so I stopped in at the store where I had
purchased them seven years ago, and was told: "Oh, those pants aren't being
made anymore - they're no longer available!" I'm sure the lady thought I was
completely crazy, because I burst out laughing.
If you save dollars, the government simply eats them up via its inflation
of the money supply. But if you convert those dollars into books, tools,
clothes, or even just cans of beans, then you beat that inflation. The
government will eat your dollars, but YOU will eat your beans!
* Income reduction
The best way to gain economic freedom is to cut expenses. People who
squander their prime years on excessive work to pay unnecessary expenses,
and then spend the remainder of their lives working just to stay sheltered
and fed, can't enjoy much freedom.
As part of her exercise in subversion, in 1943 Rose Wilder Lane began an
attempt to reduce her income below taxable levels. My own implementation of
this has been a great success. As of 1992, the base (federal) taxable level
of income in the USA is above $5000 per year. This represents over twice the
amount necessary for me to live comfortably. For the final 14 years of my
working life I worked two 8-hour shifts per week at or near the minimum wage
(as dishwasher/janitor in local restaurants). My standard of living rose
continually during that time, mainly because almost the entirety of my
income was "disposable income." I had followed Ms Lane's example and reduced
my living expenses to just about nil.
My standard of living has been rising continually since 1975, when I had
fully implemented my lifestyle. Whether I consider the amount of material
wealth that I possess or the amount of leisure time available to me or the
amount of time I must devote to earning my living or the amount of economic
security I have. In all these respects I am better off now than I have been
at any previous time of my life.
An interesting thing about all this is that I believe ANYBODY could do
what I have done. Anybody in America could work 10 years at minimum wage and
then retire for life. As screwed up as it is, this is still the richest
society the world has ever seen.
* Occupation
After I had thought about Atlas Shrugged for a while, I realized that
Shrugging is appropriate not just to someone at or near Galt's level of
productive capability, but to anyone who is concerned with the ethical
propriety of his life. I believe that even though there are immense
differences between Galt and a track walker, they are differences in
quantity, not in quality. Thus Mr. Walker may well have just as legitimate a
concern for the ethical nature of his behavior as Galt has for his. When I
contemplated the question "If Galt steps down to the level of the track
walker, what would the track walker step down to?" I identified this as the
essense of Shrugging: do not pay tax on your creative ability. I believe
that EVERY person has some creative capacity, and that the proper way to
respond to government is to deny it the benefit of that creativity.
"Physical labor as such can extend no further than the range of the
moment. The man who does no more than physical labor, consumes the material
value-equivalent of his own contribution to the process of production, and
leaves no further value...." Rand
Consider that it is not just taxation per se that supports
totalitarianism, but the exploitation of productive achievement. No
government could survive merely by taxing ditch diggers, track walkers and
dishwashers. These people do not create civilization (although I readily
admit that they do help maintain it); civilization is created by those whose
productivity generates the need for ditch diggers, track walkers and
dishwashers. The taxes imposed on a dishwasher will not support a
totalitarian state, simply because the dishwasher does not generate wealth.
He merely manipulates the wealth generated by someone who is functioning at
a considerably higher level of productivity. If this "someone" were to stop
generating wealth, eventually there would be nothing for the totalitarian
State to tax - and it would perish. If you wish to strike at the State then
strike at its root - deprive it of its economic foundation. The functioning
of your mind - the creative application of your intelligence - is something
that is entirely under your personal control. The guns of a dictator, though
they may destroy you, cannot compel you to think.
* Security
There are three major aspects to my security.
The first is that my house is both mobile and energy-independent. Even
though I have not moved my little house in over ten years, I could readily
do so if the need ever arose. Since my domestic utilities are almost
entirely solar-powered, I am not dependent on outside hookups. I do not have
blackouts or brownouts; I am not subject to power rationing, and they can't
raise my rates!
The second element of my security is that I have provided for my future
in ways that are linked as little as possible to money. I own my home, and
it is quite capable of housing me for the rest of my life. Thus I will never
have to worry about getting money in order to provide myself with shelter. I
have sufficient clothing and other household goods on hand to keep me
comfortable for longer than I expect to live. Unless all this property is
physically destroyed, I will never have to obtain money to replace any of
it. I have, in my parlance, "pushed self-sufficiency all the way to the
bananas." All the way to those things that I cannot provide for myself
and/or cannot lay up a lifetime supply of (such as bananas). I am as
unaffected as I can be by the government's continual destruction of the
American economy.
The third element of my security is that my philosophy, and and the fact
that I actually LIVE by it, are so unthinkable to stateolatrists that I am
essentially invisible to them. I call this the "Thompson Invisibility
Syndrome" (see ATLAS SHRUGGED Part3 Chap8). This syndrome is their response
to someone who is so far removed from their frame of reference that they
literally cannot perceive him as a genuine philosophical entity. They can
ignore me, or they can ridicule me, but they CANNOT take me seriously. Rand
was quite wrong about the need for secrecy: their ignorance and self-
blindedness are my shield. My knowledge is their weakness.
I have proved in my own life that he who actually lives by the morality
of Objectivism can thereby have a HIGHER standard of living than the large
majority of people in America, who are hobbled ethically and economically by
circumscribing their lives within the authoritarian frame of reference, and
that the adoption of such a lifestyle is much less expensive and much more
technologically feasible than most people surmise. Amidst a population of
individuals employing one strategy, I employ a different strategy which has
a higher payoff.
As Rand repeatedly asserted, "the moral IS the practical."
And I can look into a mirror and know that I did not work all my life to
help make possible the burning of babies in Philadelphia and Waco. Can you
say the same?
* Recommendations
Keep in mind that Shrugging doesn't have to be one big jump - it can be
done in stepdowns, thus avoiding traumatic shock to your present lifestyle.
I believe the best way to go about implementing the lifestyle I have
described would be to start by buying a pickup truck as your first (or next)
vehicle.
When you are financially ready to do so, buy a camper to put onto the
truck - or a small trailer to pull behind it.
Spend weekends, vacations, and as much time as you can living in this
thing. This will prepare you for later full-time residence, and teach you
what domestic facilities you should modify or add in order to create a
satisfactory situation.
If you are the adventurous type and want to skip this intermediate
preparatory step, then buy a large gooseneck trailer-house. You might want
to consider buying a gooseneck flat-bed trailer and building your own house
on it.
I have lived for over 20 years in a 30-foot school bus and find this
plenty large enough for one person (and three cats) to live in.
If I were to do it over again, I would opt for a truck/trailer
combination, as that makes for more transportation convenience. When you
want to stay parked in one place for any length of time, it is convenient to
just detach the truck for your occasional trips to town. (I use a bicycle.)
Once your little house is fully prepared, take the next big step by
moving permanently into it. At this point your economic situation should
take a big leap upward as you begin to reap the benefits of the
rent/mortgage money that you no longer have to pay out.
Two things you should consider doing with that money are stocking up with
supplies of merchandise (such as the socks I mentioned above) and investing
in a pension for your future years. It shouldn't take much to convince you
that the government's Social Security scheme is of dubious value. There are
other ways in which you can provide for your future. The best I ever found
is:
Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association
College Retirement Equities Fund
730 Third Ave New York City 10017 Phone: (800) 226-0147
To initiate your participation in TIAA-CREF it is not necessary that you
be a teacher. It is only necessary that you be employed, in any capacity, by
one of the many educational institutions that comprise the Association. Once
you have become a participant, you remain so for life regardless of your
subsequent employment.
During the late 1960s I invested several thousand dollars into this
scheme. That money was put into a wide array of commercial and industrial
enterprises (not into government bonds!). Today, about thirty years later, I
can begin drawing an annual pension that will pay me, each year for the rest
of my life, an amount of money greater than the sum total that I invested so
long ago.
Keep this in mind when you are considering investments: The crazy thing
about investing is that there's really no such thing as absolutely bad news.
Whether an event is good or bad depends on where you've got your money.
When you have got yourself set up in your new lifestyle you can begin to
think about changing over from full-time work to part-time work. For the
final 14 years of my working life I worked only part-time (as a dishwasher
and janitor). I usually worked one or two days a week - and had a five- or
six-day "weekend."
This free time enabled me to pursue my education to an extent that never
would have been available to me if I had been working full-time all my life.
I went into full retirement at the age of 48, and have been living quite
comfortably ever since.
* Bibliography
ROLLING HOMES by Jane Lidz A&W Publishers, 95 Madison Ave, NYC 1979
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
THE END
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$