A Poke at Objectivism
I was involved in a Facebook thread the other day, discussing the
financial bailout of 2009-10, and the outrage generated by giant
financial firms handing out bonuses in amounts that matched or
exceeded the taxpayer-funded bailouts. One participant said, “It’s
like we are watching the story line of Atlas Shrugged played out in
real life.” To which I replied, ”Except there is no John Galt and no
hidden valley in Colorado where geniuses know how to extract power
from static electricity in the air.”
Obviously, I was poking fun at dear old Ayn Rand: she required a
superhuman John Galt and a science fiction power source for her band
of heroes to be able to Stop the Motor of the World. But real world
problems require real world solutions. Another participant suggested
that term limits would help solve the problems. Now I’m not
necessarily against term limits per se; but trying to solve
the problem of voter inertia, apathy, disinterest and voluntary
ignorance by fiat seems more like curing the symptom, leaving the
underlying cause unchanged, and still capable of finding some other
route to manifest its pathologies. And I certainly don’t think
term limits are in anyway consistent with
Ms. Rand. Any government intervention that abrogates/limits
the actions of the individual would be anathema to her.
I am very aware of Rand’s philosophy, having fallen prey to its
siren call back in my college days. I read it all, and for six
months or so, measured all my personal relationships by the worth of
persons I dealt with, and how they measured up to me and my
perfectly unadulterated self-interest. My God, I was
obnoxious. Still, no one comes away from Atlas Shrugged (and the
rest of Rand’s long expositions) unaffected. Libertarians are
the Masons to Objectivism’s Knights Templar, they carry in their
politics the kernel of Rand’s mostly outlandish utopian ideals
(utopian in a dark sense, but nevertheless self-consistent in the
fictional universe that works according to her precepts). And that’s
why Libertarian thought appeals to so many, particularly those of us
who read Rand in our youth: of course we want to have less
interference in our lives, more of our own money and more personal
freedom. But the fact is, we apparently don’t wish to pay the price
necessary to make that happen.
Because if voters are not willing to live up to the potential that
Rand (and Jefferson, for that matter) require of them, then they
(we) get what we deserve. Every individual is responsible for his
actions and must accept the consequences thereof. No one is
satisfied with the financial bailout (except those who were bailed
out, and especially those who were bailed out and then
rewarded themselves with massive bonuses to boot). Perhaps we would
have spiraled into a Great Depression, perhaps not. The fact is that
the Paulsen (and Bush by implication) bailout was structured so that
it was done with no strings attached, here’s the money, hope things
get better, call me, we’ll get together for drinks. By re-electing
people (specifically Bush/Cheney) whose corrupt policies refused to
keep an eye on the financial institutions that screwed the world,
and then refused to force them to be accountable with the funds used
to save them after they themselves were screwed, we got what we
deserved.
© 2010 Chuck Puckett