The news concerning the box office malaise of the new movie Atlas Shrugged has not been sanguine for Ayn Rand acolytes and the breed of libertarian who worships at her feet. It must seriously depress the likes of Rand disciple Alan Greenspan, for example, to behold the low level of attention from the hoi polloi. Rand, for those unaware, was a Russian emigree who became the foremost voice for capitalism, extoling the need for "selfishness" (in her Virtue Of Selfishness)then penning two thick novels: The Fountainhead (which became a forgettable Gary Cooper vehicle in the 40s) and Atlas Shrugged.
Most of the semi-educated morons that diss atheists and praise capitalism also aren't remotely aware that Rand was one of the most outspoken pro-capitalist atheists, though this may be too much cognitive dissonance for menial minds. For example, in her 'Virtue of Selfishness' she wrote (page 38):
"There is no greater delusion than to imagine one can render unto reason what is reason’s and unto Faith what is Faith’s…..Either reason is an absolute to a mind, or it is not- and if it is not, there is no place to draw the line, no principle by which to draw it, no barrier faith cannot cross, no part of one’s life faith cannot invade.
Faith is a malignancy that NO system can tolerate with impunity, and the man who succumbs to it will call on it in precisely those issues where he needs reason the most."
So are these squalling bratskies prepared to call Rand a "filthy atheist"? Well, probably not, because she's a strong proponent of the type of elitist capitalism proffered in 'Atlas Shrugged' (yet they bellyache about Dem "elitists" and beg for one -party states, unaware they'd most likely be the serfs in such states and getting no benefits from anywhere!) But I digress.
Anyway, the new film's producer, John Aglialoro, who spent $20 million of his own money to finally put Rand's vision on the big screen, is giving up on Atlas' wider dissemination. The film will not now expand to 1,000 screens (as originally projected) nor will any further parts of the intended trilogy be produced or filmed. (N.B.: The second part is where hundreds of people die horrifically of asphyxiation, and the best part for Randites is that they all totally deserved it for being "looters", e.g. parasitizing the work of the creators.) As for Part III, doubtful anyone will miss a three hour long monologue!) So this is it! Finito! And who's to blame? Why those creepy, nasty "libber" film critics who never gave it a fair chance! Or so claims Aglialoro as he whines:
"Why should I put up all of that money if the critics are coming in like lemmings?I'll make my money back and I'll make a profit, but do I wanna go and do two? Maybe I just wanna see my grandkids and go on strike."
BWAAAHAHHAAWAAWAA! No one likes me or me film! The tragedy is that this codswallop is what these Randians really think: that we (liberals who argue on behalf of social safety nets and a decent welfare state) hate them because they're great and we deliberately sabotage their grandiose ideas because they'd create a society in which we wouldn't be able to achieve success with our paltry little intellects. HORSE FUDGE!
In fact, even in her prime Rand was damned near a psychotic and certainly a certifiable neurotic like most of her crazy Libertarian-Objectivist followers, who evidently now have even infested the high IQ societies like Mensa and Intertel. One of the latter group with whom I have had run-ins (Kort Patterson), was actually featured in several blogs from 2009.
Most noteable was a re-printing of my piece, 'The Tattered Illusions of Knowledge', which examined in depth the basis for what were called "toxic assets" in the wake of the 2008 financial meltdown. I specifically addressed Patterson's claim that there was no such thing and that the term "toxic assets" amounted to a travesty of language. To rebut him I merely had to cite a number of FORTUNE pieces noting the havoc wrought by "$55 Trillion" in credit default swaps absorbed by banks (which event Patterson evidently never heard of.) In his rejoinder to my original piece Patterson insisted that I'd evinced little demonstration that I knew what Libertarianism was or how it worked. Then and there I had to correct him in a subsequent article.
I informed him that I regarded Libertarianism (after its main progenitor, Ayn Rand) as little more than an economic creed and roughly the political-economic equivalent to creationism. Worse, they have come to their "Objectivism" and its application more by a process of accretion (of different authors, voices) than formulation of a coherent, self-consistent philosophy. The truth is there are so many assorted Libertarian voices of the past and present, one never knows who speaks for most current day followers. One can perhaps look at Ayn Rand, in her treatise ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’, but I’ve had freethinker Libertarians at cocktail parties tell me in no certain terms I shouldn’t use her as the standard for their econ credos. Rand herself once insisted she was “not a Libertarian”. So who else?
Well, how about Charles Murray writes in ‘What it means to be a Libertarian’ (p. 6):
“It is wrong for me to use force against you, because it violates your right to control of your person....I may have the purest motive in the world. I may even have the best idea in the world. But even these give me no right to make you do something just because I think it's a good idea. This truth translates into the first libertarian principle of governance: In a free society individuals may not initiate the use of force against any other individual or group”
Of course, this is also undoubtedly where the pet Libertarian canard that “taxes equal theft" comes from. But looking at it objectively this is arrant twaddle and illogical to boot. I mean “libertarian principle of governance”! This is an oxymoron! Governance presumes and demands the non-passive act of governing, which means someone is actively setting standards of expected action, and also providing the means to uphold and enforce them. Else, what’s the point? It’s all an exercise in mental masturbation. In other words, unless someone (coercively) enforces governance, it will be meaningless. Now, maybe there IS a docile libertarian principle of “governing suggestion”- but this in no way is the same as “governance”!
Anti-statism is a central tenet of libertarianism, but it rests on no foundations, other than the so-called libertarian principles babbled by Murray and others. For example, Frank Chodorov, quoted by David Boaz of CATO Inst. in ‘Libertarianism: A Primer’, goes so far as to write:
“Society is a collective concept and nothing else; it is a convenience for designating a number of people... The concept of Society as a metaphysical concept falls flat when we observe that Society disappears when the component parts disperse”
Boaz himself joins in on what the “individual” means:
“For libertarians, the basic unit of social analysis is the individual.... Individuals are, in all cases, the source and foundation of creativity, activity, and society. Only individuals can think, love, pursue projects, act. Groups don’t have plans or intentions”
But, as Prof. Ernest Partridge puts it in his (2009) blog piece on ‘Liberals and Libertarians’ cited in my earlier article:
“Now consider the implications of this denial of the 'independent existence' of 'the public and society.' If there is no 'public,' then there are no 'public goods' and there is no 'public interest.' If there is no 'society,' then there is no 'social harm,' or 'social injustice' or 'social (and public) responsibility.' It then follows that government has no role in mitigating 'social injustice' or promoting 'the public interest,' since these terms are fundamentally meaningless. Poverty and racial discrimination, for example, are individual problems requiring individual solutions”.
I assured Patterson and his brethren that if Boaz’ concept held sway and government force was not used in Alabama in September, 1963 (JFK federalizing the Alabama National Guard to enforce school integration) we’d still be a segregated nation, with blacks sitting in the back of the bus, ‘colored’ water coolers and restrooms, and the rest. Only someone totally divorced from history and reality would claim individual African-Americans at the time could have obtained their civil rights with mere individual effort and no government input.
Meanwhile, The Libertarian Party Principles state:
“We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.”
Again, this is more inherently contradictory twaddle and piffle. Interference with the lives of others is permitted, so long as it’s not “forcible interference”. Anti-coercion libertarians do not simply oppose coercion they also claim to legitimately define it. Their definition excludes much that others would see as coercion. To me, the TABOR law in Colorado, because it continuously and aggressively scales back tax support for the public domain (based on the past year’s population and growth) is coercion and very vicious besides. Right now, thousands of disabled people across the state stand to lose their services thanks to TABOR and controls like it. All with the best intentions of course, that we not “take by force” those hard-earned gains of the filthy rich bastards ensconced in one of several of their 45,000 square foot mansions in Aspen! As one critic has put it (to do with Libertarians’ convoluted principles):
“Libertarians make exceptions for defense of property and prosecution of fraud, and call them ‘retaliatory force’. But retaliation can be the initiation of force: I don't need force to commit theft or fraud. This is a bit of rhetorical sleight of hand that libbies like to play so that they can pretend they are different from government”.
Libertarianism clearly posits initiation of force for what it identifies as its minions’ interests and calls it righteous retaliation, and uses the big lie technique to define everything else as “evil initiation of force". (As they would certainly call JFK’s nationalization of the Alabama National Guard in ’63 to force school integration) They support the initial force that has already taken place in the formation of the system of property (e.g. the seizure of Native American lands and violation of umpteen treaties), and wish to continue to use force to perpetuate it and make it more rigid. It is this inchoate ethics that translates into the system’s weakness and exposes Libertarians as true hypocrites, maybe a slight cut under the fundagelicals and their Repuke cohort.
The long and short of it is every belief system has its evangelical “scriptures”, designed to help proselytize the unwashed masses to their cause. The Campus Crusade for Christ uses Josh McDowell’s ‘Evidence That Demands A Verdict’, Scientology uses Ron Hubbard’s ‘Dianetics’, and Libertarians use ‘Libertarianism in One Lesson’ (I am also cracking up just writing the words)
In the absence of counterargument all these tracts are semi-convincing. However, they can all be easily rebutted because of their weak, exposed flanks: the many exceptions that must be omitted in order for their so-called principles and dogmas to be convincing.
I warrant Libertarianism and its fanciful world of minimal force might work in a fantasy universe where all citizens are equally educated and have equal access to facts and information, and equal opportunities to advance their social-economic station. But that is emphatically not the world we inhabit, whether Kort concedes it or not. This is why Libertarianism will remain the province of the very few, though it is disturbing to behold all the inroads it’s made into the high IQ societies like Mensa and Intertel lately. To read some of the assorted letters and articles is almost like witnessing a collective mind-virus unleashed, by people whose “bible” is ‘Atlas Shrugged’. So in that sense, I am elated that the movie has effectively flubbed at the box office, at least not to make any further instalments worthwhile. The less this mindrotting meme circulates the better for us all. But the film going public itself appear to have delivered the final verdict and essentially shrugged its collective shoulders.
Finally, we are in a position to answer a plaintive letter writer's complaint to our local libertarian-infused rag. He wrote in yesterday's paper:
"You are all about people that make a 6-7 figure income, but lambast people that make a 5 figure income and tell us we have to make sacrifices for the good of all. We shouldn’t complain if our income and pension are cut or taken away all together, but if anyone says anything about taking something away from the rich you come unglued.
We are all contributing to the economy. People with a 5 figure incomes are contributing more than the rich. Our income goes to mortgages, gas, car payments, groceries, clothes, health insurance, restaurants, movies, etc. Businesses haven’t been doing much lately for the economy. Many big businesses have been sitting on their money or hiring people from overseas, not here.
I’m tired of your continually telling me I have to sacrifice, but the wealthy shouldn’t be asked to contribute. You don’t ask them to reduce their income or lose their benefits or perks. Why are they so special but the ordinary worker is expected to sacrifice what they have worked for all their lives?”
This is refreshing because it comes from an ordinary working guy who actually gets it! He gets that the system is draining the resources of those like him as it extends massive tax benefits to those who least need them! His differentiating the 5- and 6-figure incomes shows that he understands that it's spurious to talk of both sets of earners as if they're in the same wealth class. He is smart enough to know they aren't, and hence ought to be in proportionately distinct tax classes. Thus, a $250,000 earner ought to be taxed at least at three times the rate, e.g. 45% (and preferably four) of a $45,000 earner. Now as to answering his question, from a Randian-Libertarian point of view which the paper would take: "Those people (with 6-figure incomes) are special because they are likely the wealth-makers and job creators. The workers simply benefit from them, by having jobs at all. Hence, stop whining and keep giving those tax breaks to them to make more jobs!"
Of course this is utter BS. If it was so then why are these supreme "creators" of wealth sitting on more than $2 trillion instead of creating jobs for our citizens? Why are they not creating more wealth for us all by actually keeping jobs in the U.S. instead of sending them to Bangalore, and even constructing $1 billion job centers there? Why are they not repairing the infrastructure (the least you'd expect a grandee creator to be able to do) instead of leaving it for later generations who'll have far fewer resources to work with as the rich capitalists (INCLUDING THE CHINESE, WHO ARE NOW INTO CAPITALIST FRENZY!) squander what we have.
Inquring minds want to know, but don't expect the Randian lackeys or their clueless savants and slaves to tell you!
No comments:
Post a Comment