Topic: Campaign for Liberty
The Libertarian Movement is evermore Impotent, while Ron Paul is more Potent, but Why? Libertarian leadership severed themselves from the root ideas that made their limited government ideas possible. They have floundered for 40 years. Ron Paul acknowledged his ideological roots and has flourished like never before in his 30+ year history in politics. Philosopher Ayn Rand holds the key to the future of Individual Freedom, and Libertarians better jump on board or recognize they, as a political force, will not be victorious in their professed war for liberty.by Nick Flint
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, August 13, 2008
Can the Libertarian leadership of today - or even Ron Paul - make this claim: That they were Individualists (under the essential characteristics of personal objectivity and independence) from the time they could remember?
No one in history had before. One woman did.
Ayn Rand was an implicit Individualist from the time she could remember. As a young child, she was fiercely independent and chose her own values, rather than following the opinions of others. She accepted nothing on faith or based solely on what others said. To her, the evidence of her own senses was the most important thing to use in order to apprehend, to comprehend, to integrate reality for her own purpose, in pursuit of her own values and happiness. Living on earth and being free to choose one's values was never more championed in the history of man than it was by this fiery lioness who became known as an intellectual Midas, indeed the most outspoken and vociferous critic of statism in the 20th century. There were none in the public arena of debate who were her peers for many years.
Ayn Rand infused inspiration or awe to everyone that had met her and had personal conversations with her. She was polite to ordinary people she encountered who inquired about her ideas, but hostile to collectivist ideas, which see could see dripping from the bromides, the slogans, and euphemisms regular people would mindlessly parrot every day.
The founder of the Libertarian movement, Murray Rothbard, met Ayn Rand back in the 60s. George Reisman gives an account of the meeting in his treatise "Capitalism: A Treatise on Economics". Rothbard was quoted as saying (and I'm paraphrasing here) that being near Ayn Rand and her brilliance was akin to being Prometheus, and flying too close to the sun. We all know what that means.
Since then, all theo-Libertarians have used such metaphors as looking at the sun as their code for "but I don't want to give up my theism to secure my Individual Rights firmly in reality! I want to say God gave me my rights! If I say otherwise, my family, friends, associates would disown me! I'm so afraid to see reality!"
Ever since that day, Rothbard and his inner circle of theo-Libertarians decided to go full ahead, and use every argument they could borrow for Capitalism, as taken from Ayn Rand and her fellow intellectuals. Rand and her intellectual allies were generating startlingly clear new philosophical integrations across ethics and politics (to name only two branches of philosophy most everyone knows). The fevered enthusiasm for rational and good ideas was taking form in NYC, the intellectual annex of Moscow, during the intellectual rise of Miss Rand's nascent philosophy in the 60s.
Ever since 1957, world-wide statists from America to Russia had known their time was limited. An idea whose time had come had been born: a rational code of morality. The statist elites may not have quaked in their jackboots, but they did implement their plans for counter-revolution to thwart Objectivism's rise, which worked fairly well. (See my prior article here.)
So sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll were the collectivist matrix that swept aside many young minds into the trash bin of history, but via Ayn Rand, the Libertarian movement sprang forth, seemingly fully formed, and its leaders proclaimed that statism's days were numbered.
But the statist elites implemented their plans to take over that political party, which was an easy goal to achieve since Fabian fascists and Communist socialists had been doing so for more than half a century by then.
So it is interesting but hardly a surprise that the Libertarian founders and leaders never publicly acknowledged Ayn Rand and Objectivism as the source, the Fountainhead, of their political ideas. They eschewed Ayn Rand's rational ethical theory and said in effect "we don't need to declare ethical roots, people of all stripes can send us their money if they want liberty... we'll deliver!" Never a more Marxist-Leninist approach could've been used.
Ha. What a monumental failure the Libertarian movement has been. A political movement co-opted by a tug of war of immoral, amoral, and theo-moral agents.
That she was never acknowledged by the Libertarian founders and leaders is one of the main reasons why Ayn Rand later despised them and denounced the Libertarian movement. But she also recognized the folly of trying to make political changes in a culture that morally is still bound to the deathly ideas of secular and religious collectivisms of every stripe.
Ayn Rand essentially said to the Libertarians: You can't put the cart before the horse, you must champion a rational ethical code, root Individual Rights firmly on this earth, if you expect your political aspirations to bear fruits of your labor against statism.
Time to understand and acknowledge Ayn Rand?
One man did: his name is Ron Paul. In his most recent, bestselling book, "The Revolution: A Manifesto", Dr. Paul places Ayn Rand's magnum opus fictional novel (and an international bestseller for more than 50 years) "Atlas Shrugged" firmly into his reading list, a couple of entries below Ayn Rand's one-time intellectual ally, Isabel Paterson's book, "The God of the Machine" (which, it seems, both Dr. Paul and Ayn Rand highly enjoyed).
But the most gracious acknowledgement to Ayn Rand is in what Dr. Paul writes after the entry: "I consider all of Rand's novels worth reading, in spite of my strong disagreements with her on important matters." Dr. Paul it seems, can't escape the theo-Libertarian code.
Which is fine. Myself as a (newly coined term) 'John Galt Republican' voted for Ron Paul in 2008 and even gave a 10 minute caucus speech in advocating for people to vote for Dr. Paul. I was pleased my county exceeded the state percentage for Dr. Paul, but my passion outlived his campaign, and here I am fighting for liberty and the right ideas on Nolan Chart.
Today, Ron Paul has embarked upon his highly successful Campaign for Liberty... and I have embarked on my own private Campaign for Liberty, but we're approaching the goal from two respects: he's a theo-libertarian, and I'm an 'John Galt Libertarian' (again, newly coined term).
But you know why I loved Ron Paul so much? Not only was he being honest about political problems at the Federal level, not only was his career a paramount of integrity in action, but he was an Ayn Rand admirer and student. I watched his NH radio interview where he SAID, loud and clear, for all radio listeners, that Ayn Rand was one of his primary influences during the 60s, that influenced him while learning about economics, politics, and individual rights.
As Ayn Rand might say, "God Bless Ron Paul. The only conservative/libertarian I can respect."
I don't know how many objectivists voted for Ron Paul, but all I knew was that him running was almost like being able to witness Ayn Rand running for President (though she never would have, and thought it would make any woman extremely unhappy, in a romantic sense. If you were the most powerful person in the world, almost every man you met couldn't measure up in achievement!)
The Genesis of the Individual, Ayn Rand
Ayn Rand at the age of nine decided she wanted to be a writer. Bored in her classes (being the top student), she would read ahead, finish her lessons, then sit in the back, crouched behind her book 'wall' and write her childhood fictional stories.
The last thing Miss Rand had wanted in her life was to be a teacher, or a philosopher. She did have, however, a thorough grasp of ancient philosophy, having attained her classical humanities background as a student at the University of Leningrad. She witnessed the soviet revolution of 1917, her father's business was nationalized, and her family was thrown out in the streets. She immigrated to America in 1926. Her first goal as a writer was to tell the world about the horrors of the Russian revolution, and with her first book, "We the Living", in 1936, she captured her first commercial success as a novelist.
Ayn Rand, the reluctant (but brilliant) philosopher, and the most popular 20th-Century champion of Individual Rights.
Ayn Rand originally presented her first philosophical essay entitled "The Objectivist Ethics" at the University of Wisconsin 1961 Symposium on "Ethics of Our Time". It is very fitting to consider how during that same year, President John F. Kennedy addressed Congress and challenged Americans to go to the Moon before the end of the decade.
While Americans were looking to the stars, Ayn Rand was unveiling to mankind the way to the stars through the liberty of the Individual's Rights that are grounded firmly on earth, and not upon anyone's version of heaven.
To the Stars Through Liberty
The John Galt Republicans and the John Galt Libertarians will be those principled political activists who espouse the ideas of Individualism, as rooted by Ayn Rand in the bedrock of reality.
Watch for us, Ron Paul. Those of us who've admired your courage during the 2008 Presidential campaign will salute you on our way up, into power, in 2008 and beyond, during America's 2nd Moral Revolution. Those of us John Galt Republicans who found their politcal aspirations due to being first 'Ron Paul Republican' won't deny our roots in your political efforts.
For the Silk Revolution, with an intellectual debt to Ayn Rand and others yet to be named,
The views expressed in this
article are those of Nick Flint only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Nick Flint is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Rand was good but she wasnt always right. Most of her commentary is dated because it was couched in the terms of the cold war. Perhaps communism is a vampire that will rise again, increasing her relevance again. Her second major probelm is she didnt handle criticism well. If an ideology is survive and grow it should be handle criticism. As an example, she never identified sufficient axioms or definitions to prove the necessity or uniqueness of a political system from her ethical system; she merely claimed to.
Well, the clue boat is on the horizon but I'll semaphore it back to you.
Libertarianism has failed for one reason only - it is a movement rife with individuals such as yourself who actively disinvite theo-libertarians, even moreso than constitutional libertarians.
Ron Paul may have been long awaited by people like you, but he didn't get 1.5 million votes from Rand's worshippers. He got them by waking up theo-libertarians and constitutional libertarians. And the movement isn't spreading amongst people who can rattle off the tenets of objectivism. Those thinkers were all accounted for well beforehand.
It is growing amongst people who hold God or the Constitution dearest. And that viewpoint will not change, no matter how honeyed Rand's argument.
For the love of all that's good and sweet in the world, stop kicking us in the crotch at every opportunity! We want to be your friends, we want to make the changes, and we want to bring others! Surely you can see that by forcing us out, it is in fact YOU who is killing the libertarian movement?
Beatnik: very true: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjwuGHPilwI
Paul gets more inspiration from some founding fathers than Ayn Rand. Rand's extremist individualism (to be differentiated from a rugged individualism), that want to negate any group-feeling or solidarity or metaphysical reality ultimately lead to nihilism. There is a newly created "Objectivist Party" in following of Ayn Rand. Limited govt. and individual liberty AND responsibility yes, but objectivism no. Rand is clearly distanced from religious, family and other realities and values.
As I understood it, despite being an atheist Rand was not anti-religion or anti-faith. She merely saw the danger of allowing religion and politics to be intertwined, and sought to avoid the inevitable result when witch doctors and militarists collude: deception and abuse of the masses for the benefit of a few elites (usually by way of war, which Rand especially disapproved of).
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2008-08-15 16:48:48
Hi Nickalis,
From what I've seen the hardest barrier to overcome in the GOP is religious intolerance, or more aptly, Faith-Based Intolerance. Many faiths do not come with a religion but their adherents are just as intolerant. I'm convinced it is the blind faith, not the religion, that is the crux of intolerance.
As a faithless, non-religious, anti-religionist and a staunch supporter of religious freedom and first amendment..."congress shall make no law...", that part, I don't distinguish between faiths, I simply support an individual's right to not have government passing laws in support of some other faith.
Trying to make an objectivist world is just as abhorrent to me as trying to make a Christian world, or and Atheist world or a Scientologist world. Faith is simply a filter through which we see our world. Faith determines how we choose to believe regarding questions that have no single acceptable, definitive answer. When one person tries to insist everyone use the same filter I find it oppressive no matter how "enlightened" the oppressor thinks their views are. I exercise my right to use all the tools in my bag to both understand and influence my world.
I didn't expect so many of Dr. Paul's supporters to remain in the GOP after he dropped out. Many of them I know were expecting a sudden, sweeping change of faith that would turn the GOP around and go off marching in Ron Paul's direction. Of course in reality these things happen slowly. I'm glad so many figured that out and decided to stick around long enough to help start the change solidly while neither party has any good candidates.
Fortunately, Dr. Paul brought in a whole bunch of young people and the intolerant faithful are mostly elderly. I'm not sure if your Rand-based faith is any less intolerant than the majority intolerant Christian Republicans but I'm willing to wait and see. I knew many of Dr. Paul's supporters who were the worst kind of evangelical faithful. I wish I had a dollar for every time I heard one of them start a discussion by saying, "What you NEED to understand is...." In otherwords, "You couldn't possibly support Dr. Paul unless you share my faith in [insert favorite Alex Jones topic here]."
If the John Galt Republicans can avoid the worst of that then the only challenge will be the intolerance coming from the other direction, TOWARDS the JGRs.
Good luck on both fronts.
-Jahfre Fire Eater
Things could change more quickly given that dynamic but it will still take a long time and consistent effort.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
