. On the other hand, I noticed that a couple of entries into the debate have explained what "going Galt" is. For example, Dana at Common Sense Political Thought has "The Rationale for “Going Galt”. And Laura at Pursuing Holiness has "On Going Galt," which she defines as, "a conscious decision to produce less as a form of protest."
And boy has that idea enraged a lot of people on the left!
I read Atlas Shrugged
a couple of years ago, but this week I've been skimming through my copy of The Virtue of Selfishness
. Especially good is the chapter on "collectivized rights," which is available at the Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights:
The notion of “collective rights” (the notion that rights belong to groups, not to individuals) means that “rights” belong to some men, but not to others—that some men have the “right” to dispose of others in any manner they please—and that the criterion of such privileged position consists of numerical superiority.Read the whole thing at the link.Nothing can ever justify or validate such a doctrine—and no one ever has. Like the altruist morality from which it is derived, this doctrine rests on mysticism: either on the old-fashioned mysticism of faith in supernatural edicts, like “The Divine Right of Kings”—or on the social mystique of modern collectivists who see society as a super-organism, as some supernatural entity apart from and superior to the sum of its individual members.
The amorality of that collectivist mystique is particularly obvious today in the issue of national rights.
A nation, like any other group, is only a number of individuals and can have no rights other than the rights of its individual citizens. A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government. The government of such a nation is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of its citizens and has no rights other than the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific, delimited task (the task of protecting them from physical force, derived from their right of self-defense).
The citizens of a free nation may disagree about the specific legal procedures or methods of implementing their rights (which is a complex problem, the province of political science and of the philosophy of law), but they agree on the basic principle to be implemented: the principle of individual rights. When a country’s constitution places individual rights outside the reach of public authorities, the sphere of political power is severely delimited—and thus the citizens may, safely and properly, agree to abide by the decisions of a majority vote in this delimited sphere. The lives and property of minorities or dissenters are not at stake, are not subject to vote and are not endangered by any majority decision; no man or group holds a blank check on power over others.
Such a nation has a right to its sovereignty (derived from the rights of its citizens) and a right to demand that its sovereignty be respected by all other nations.
But this right cannot be claimed by dictatorships, by savage tribes or by any form of absolutist tyranny. A nation that violates the rights of its own citizens cannot claim any rights whatsoever. In the issue of rights, as in all moral issues, there can be no double standard. A nation ruled by brute physical force is not a nation, but a horde—whether it is led by Attila, Genghis Khan, Hitler, Khrushchev or Castro. What rights could Attila claim and on what grounds?
Doug at Below the Beltway has a cool post from last year on the The Virtue of Selfishness
But see also Dr. Helen's post from this week, where she notes that Clemson University is hosting a summer conference on Atlas Shrugged.
Plus, Brian at Liberty Pundit has "Liberals Love To Assume." Brian's making a comeback to the blogosphere, so head on over there and say hello!
Please, we do want you to go away.
ReplyDeleteWe are not enraged about any of it, just a little irritated that you keep talking about "going Galt," but you don't do it.
I know there were people on the left who threatened to ex-patriate over Bush. But, they could hardly have been as annoying as you guys are with this Galt nonsense. The only ones talking about it are bloggers and pundits. Who cares if you or Malkin or whoever "cut your productivity?"
Yeah, that's gonna bring society screeching to a halt.
Actually, Rand was also sympathetic to those who without any conscious thought refused to produce under oppressive conditions. People who are pulling their money out of the stock market are “going Galt”. People who are closing shop are “going Galt.” People who have decided to take an early retirement rather than pay oppressive taxes are “going Galt.”
ReplyDeleteIt doesn’t have to be conscious. Rand makes her heroes into self-conscious embodiments of this spirit. It makes for a good plot. However, she has said in her non-fiction that this phenomenon is usually without explicit consciousness or organized effort.
DD, great link to some of Rand’s best work: “Collectivized Rights.” I read her “Capitalism: Unknown Ideal” over thirty years ago and I still think it is the best intro to the subject as I once said in my blog here.
Rand's notion of abstract individual rights applicable to all nations and cultures stems from her seething hatred against religion and traditional society. She was an ideologue who imagined she could draft a blueprint for society superior to existing, historical societies.
ReplyDeleteIn this, she was no different than the Communists who, though she would vehemently deny it, shaped her essential worldview, which is relentlessly rationalistic. Note this assertion: "A free nation—a nation that recognizes, respects and protects the individual rights of its citizens—has a right to its territorial integrity, its social system and its form of government." This implies it's justifiable to invade a nation that does not conform to another's supposedly loftier standards -- which the Soviet Union specifically announced when it invaded Poland in 1919 and 1939, and Afghanistan in 1978 (and which the Neocons, whose worldview evolved from Trotskyism, used to justify the invasion of Iraq).
No wonder Objectivism is so militantly atheist, and pro-Open Borders. It all goes back to the intellectual roots from whence it sprung.
Mike, you correctly note that she holds “a free nation” has a right to defend its citizens. This does not imply that a totalitarian nation also has such a right. That’s absurd. She clearly states a totalitarian regime has no rights because it is evil and oppressive. She wasn’t a crusading “world liberator” and opposed “altruistic” endeavors to free everyone everywhere.
ReplyDeleteObviously, traditional conservatives and Rand supporters will part ways on many issues but she deserves their respect when it comes to defending liberty, advocating a minimal state, and maintaining a strong military.
Surely that's something on which we can all agree.
Jason Pappas,
ReplyDeleteBut Objectivists backed the Neocon invasion of Iraq, and let's recall how Bush & Co. claimed it was to "liberate" that country when no WMDs could be found.
And no traditional conservative can agree with an atheistic philosophy that undermines tradition.
Objectivists were generally split on Iraq. Many were skeptical about nations-building. In principle, most should have been skeptical given their emphasis on philosophy and distain for pragmatism. Conservatives were split as well. The majority in both camps over estimated the ease of transformation of such a vastly different culture. Both could use the insights that accompany traditional conservatism that sees culture as a result of a long-term evolution within a specific group.
ReplyDeleteThe O’ists and Trads that disagreed with the administration, did so while respecting the honor and valor of the men & mission. Their position was exactly opposite of the criticism of the left. The left’s view is that we are evil and doing harm (to them). The critics on the right generally take the view that we are honorable but foolish to expend the effort in a distant land plagued by cultural deficiencies and populated by a thankless people.
I respect these criticism but they were generally smothered by the avalanche of absurdist leftist anti-Western post-modern nihilism. As a consequence a fruitful and productive debate failed to materialize as those on the right circled the wagons and fought the absurdist left. We need a vibrant debate and the Trads have a vital role. But so do the Objectivists and classical liberals. And so do nationalists such as our host, Prof. Douglas.
On religion, few people will agree. It’s a distraction. The founding fathers avoided public debate on religion and with good reason. There so much common ground that transcendental concerns are best left to the individual.
Hmmm - not much of a split here:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.ariwatch.com/RelentlessPropaganda.htm
And Peikoff, the Crown Prince of Objectivism, sounds positively bloodthirsty in his demand the US launch an aggessive war against Iran, which will blow back in our faces even worse than Afghanistan or Iraq.
Finally, I'd dispute the assertion Douglas is a "nationalist." He's a Neocon, which is a trans-nationalist ideology.
Sorry, Mike. I must not have made myself clear. The link you provide shows that the motivation is overwhelmingly defensive. The facts can be debated. You may conclude what you will about the evidence at the time and the accuracy of those assessments. The vast majority of those quotes demand action in the face of a perceived threat. Only one or two speak to nations-building. Wilsonian principles played little role in vast majority of the quotes from those links.
ReplyDeleteI had some differences at the time and since. I explicitly raised the question of nations-building with those in the Objectivist movement that I knew personally. I was disappointed that only one person even thought of the issue. I also noticed only a handful of conservatives raised this issue. You’re right to bring it up but I wouldn’t use this as a litmus test——almost every camp fails by this measure if I remember the conversations at the time.
The question of how to fight a war (if and when it is warranted) and what are the obligations are to the losing side is an important topic I don't see it adequately addressed by Objectivists, libertarians, or traditional conservatives. Perhaps this is why nations-building filled the void. Cicero was widely read and admired by the founding fathers. I examine his views on this matter here.
Instead of just damning one side or the other, different camps on the right need a fruitful dialog. It has to continue at another time and place as DD has been overgenerous with his comments section.