My Thoughts On "Atlas Shrugged"

A couple of weeks ago, I finished reading Atlas Shrugged. I have waited until I had some time to let it rattle around in my head (and it did not lack for room) and form some cohesive thoughts. With a book as epic and philosophical as this, I am probably going to do it injustice by trying to discuss it in a few paragraphs.But I will try.

Let me start by saying that I was totally overwhelmed by this book in many ways. For those of you that are unfamiliar with this story, Ayn Rand illuminated her thoughts on what she called objectivism vs. socialism. It is set in novel form and tells the story of a group of heroes that fight for the rights of individuals in a society that is being perverted by leaders that lead from the ideals of a socialist form of government. Rand does a superb job of showing the fallacies and inconsistencies of the progressive mindset. I gave up trying to count how many times I thought that she must have read the statements from the current administration and plugged them into the words from the leaders of the government in her book. It was eerily prophetic at the very least.

The basic premise of objectivism is that the individual is beholden to no one but himself and should not look out for any interest but his own. The objectivist does nothing that does not benefit himself. At a cursory glance, this seems to be a very selfish ideal, however, when it is played out in society, a person that embraces this ideal is interested in increasing his standard of life, which has reciprocal effects on society as a whole. The role of government is to get out of the way of the individual and let them succeed. One of my favorite parts of the book occurs when the heroine, Dagny is talking to a man and he is complaining about the state of Colorado, where all the industry seems to be thriving. He can't figure out what good Colorado's government is since they hardly do anything. I laughed aloud at the irony. The founding fathers would have loved that type of government.

Toward the end of this book, the main hero, John Galt, delivers a massive speech outlining the power of the individual and the fallacies of the collective, as espoused by the other side. It was here that I finally broke with Rand's philosophy. Galt stated that two things have held back the individual. One was people that continually suppressed others to gain their own power and talked about how men were beholden to give up themselves for the betterment of society. I agreed with Rand. It was the second group of surpressors that frustrated me. Rand placed the blame on religion. She stated that man has been using religion to enslave other men to think that they had no right to live for themselves and were to be enslaved to the religious leaders to tell them how to live.

I think that Rand had a very stunted view of religion. Rand stated that the religious leaders would use the idea of original sin to convince people that they were bad and that they had to work to be better. Rand believed that man was not bound by original sin and she hated the idea. Rand is missing the fact of salvation. Because of what Christ did at the cross, man does not have to be under the threat of sin. He has been freed to pursue what God has called him to do. This point shows that Rand has a very uninformed view of religion, as understood in the Scriptures.

I believe the founding fathers would have agreed with this. As our country was founded on Judeo-Christian principles, the founders believed that our rights were given to us by God and then we were to act on them. They were serving the society as a whole by creating a country that allowed men to be free. They saw that they were to use their freedom to allow man to thrive.

All in all, I am very glad that I read the book. Rand did a superb job of showing how socialism can only collapse on itself. She helped me to see the end game of that type of thinking and it is a total degredation of mankind. She also enforced the idea that man will thrive in freedom, both political and economic. This is a timely book. May its lessons permeate the thinking of our country in this timeless of aimlessness from decision makers

Five Thousand Year Leap-Principles 17, 18 and 19

OK, I finally finished "Atlas Shrugged," so I am returning to "The 5000 Year Leap." I hope to finish this off shortly, although it has been a fascinating read. I will post my thought on AS, as I have many, but I wanted to let them simmer. When you read a tome like that, there is a lot to digest. I didn't want to rush my thoughts, although it is fairly obvious to the most casual observer that "rushing to blog" is not a malady from which I suffer (I keed, I keed)

Principle 17: A system of checks and balances should be adopted to prevent the abuse of power.

This was a great chapter in that it explained the genius of the founders in how they related the three equal branches of government, as noted in the last chapter. The author thought it interesting to point out that many of the founders wanted to keep each branch's power so separate that no branch could do anything. Instead, they had to have some some system of allowing the branches to work together, lest nothing could get done. The branches had to have a method of restraints against the other branches, but still had to be dependent on the other branches for the government to be operational.

The main reasoning behind the "checks and balances" was to avoid the accumulation of too much power by any one branch. The founders were well aware from their dealings with the king of England that too much power invested in one individual is not a good thing. They also knew that the nature of power is to, more often than not, reach for more power and they wanted a means of restraining each branch's power.

The beauty of this system is that it provides a peaceful means of repair when one group gets out of line. Instead of a full-blown revolution or violence, the power can be transferred through non-violent means, which is always preferable.

Principle 18: The unalienable rights of the people are most likely to be preserved if the principles of the government are set forth in a written Constitution.

This idea is fairly simple and finds its roots in the Anglo-Saxon common law of England. The assemblies ruled by the common knowledge of the law, but found it destroyed when the Norman invaded. They had not taken the time to codify it. The American Constitution and the state constitutions that preceded it were some of the first in modern history to be written down.

The author takes time to note that Thomas Hooker, a minister in Connecticut, helped to initiate one of the first written constitutions in 1639 in his home state, not long after the Mayflower Compact in 1620. Although not very well known, Hooker deserves his place among the fathers of our democracy.

One final thought on this idea was that the founders were convinced that many voices writing the Constitution were better than one . Although it severely dragged out the time for the drafting, the American Constitution was no doubt a stronger and better thought out document.

Principle 19: Only limited and carefully defined powers should be delegated to government, all others being retained in the people.

This principle is more important than it is usually given credit for, as it is a major sticking point between the progressives and the founders. The founders rightly allowed for the fact that the nature of government is to grow and so determined to limit the power of the federal, or common, government, while at the same not allowing the federal government to weaken such that is was useless(....although, in my mind, it is an interesting thought.)

The author also took time to note that at first the states were reluctant to ratify the new Constitution, fearing the encroachment of the federal government. It was these fears, that led to introduction of the bill of rights, giving power to the individuals and keeping it from the federal government.

One final thought that I found fascinating was the fact that the author believes (and I greatly concur) that the founders would vehemently disagree with the 17th amendment, which allows for senators to be elected by popular vote. Before that amendment, senators were appointed by their state legislatures and were beholden to them. If a bill was in congress that threatened states's rights, they had representation to counter that bill. By allowing the senators election by popular vote, the senators became beholden to the same issues that surrounded the representatives and getting(and staying) in power. This was done in 1913, and is very much a progressive idea, as it took power away from the state and consolidated it in Washington, D.C., allowing the federal goverment to continue to nibble away at states' sovereignty.

Mice Beware!

Last weekend, Carmen brought home a new cat. For those of you that read my blog regularly, you know that we lost Gorbachev a couple of months ago. We have been waiting until we move, but caved in and brought this guy home. His name is Rasputin (note the russian theme).

He seems to be a decent cat, as far as cats go, but I have been waiting on making a call on him. He seems to be pretty nice and actually enjoys being around people. So far, so good.

This morning he won my approval when Carmen called me in to look in the room that he stayed in last night. There was dead mouse on the floor. Given that we live near the woods, I am not shocked or suprised by mice. I just don't want them running around the house. A cat that will take care of mice and lizards is all right in my book. Rasputin has begun to earn his keep.

He seems to be pretty laid back. Notice his casual demeanor as he sleeps:

And he doesn't seem too worried about the dogs. Today he took over Anna's bed: (she was not happy about it)

And so life goes on at the Copeland household. Animals everywhere.

The 5000 Year Leap-Principles 14, 15 and 16

Good Stuff in these three principles. The author discusses some of the basic rights that humans should enjoy to the reasoning behind the creation of the separation of powers.

Principle 14: Life and Liberty are secure only so long as the right to property is secure.

This was a great chapter and as I was reading, I kept seeing so many discussions from "Atlas Shrugged" in here. I guess I shouldn't be amazed that the concepts of natural law and freedom pervade all types of liberty.

The author begins with the basic premise that man was given dominion over the earth by God to subdue it. It follows logically that man cannot subdue unless he has control. Control requires that man has exclusive rights to what he is subduing, hence, private property rights are necessitated.

The author also points our that four things would happen without the right of property ownership:

1. People would lose their stuff after they improved to anybody else.
2. A person would lose the fruits of his labor.
3. Bands and gangs would go about taking as they wanted.
4. Everything would be on a meager level as there would be always be the threat of attack from accumulating anything.

It is also pointed out that Locke maintained that a threat to property rights is essentially a threat the essence of life itself. If a person puts effort into an activity, then the they own the right to that property, whether it is physical or intellectual. This is a major theme in "Atlas Shrugged."

The author also stated that it is the job of the government to protect this right and that it was not until 1936 that the Supreme Court perverted (my words) the general welfare clause of the Constitution to advocate the redistribution of wealth obtained by the government. Notice that this came swiftly on the heels of the progressive movement.

Principle 15: The highest level of prosperity occurs when there is a free-market economy and a minimum of government regulations.

The author starts off by mentioning that impact that Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations had on the founding fathers. His principles for an economic system fit right in line with the philosophies of the founding fathers.

The author also mentions four rules that are inherent in the free-market system: 1. The freedom to try; 2. The Freedom to buy; 3. The Freedom to sell; and 4. The Freedom to fail. I quickly noted that the current and previous administration have taken away the fourth right from several larger companies and have handicapped the economic recovery.

There is considerable discussion of the role of Adam Smith and then his disappearance thanks to the adherents of Karl Marx and the fact that modern academia has passionately embraced Marx at the expense of Smith. The author points out that he has seen a ressurgence in interest for Smith, but based on the direction of our current administration, I find that very hard to believe.

Principle 16: The government should be separated into three branches- Legislative, Executive and Judicial.

This chapter was primarily a historical discussion of the three branch system of government that we currently use. The author begins by discussing the Greek philosopher, Polybius. Polybius ended up being taken taken to Rome when Greece was captured by Rome. Through his years there, he became enamoured with the Roman government and traveled throughout the Roman empire. He first postulated the idea of three equal branches of government: an executive monarch, a senate and a popular assembly.

Once the Romans adopted an emporer, Polybius' ideas disappeared, until they were rediscovered by Charles de Montisquieu, an 18th century French Baron. The founders were deeply influenced by Montisquieu's improvements on Polybius's ideas. Montisquieu postulated that the executive branch should have one ruler instead of multiple executives. The founders took his ideas and even improved on those.

There is also a discussion of John Adam's role in bringing about the three separate branches of government. Adams stood alone in his own state Constitutional Conventions and even that of the USA in calling for the three separate branches. I think it is obvious that he was proven right, and even some of his own contemporaries eventually agreed with him. Although it is not well-remembered ,the current system of "separate but equal" branches is almost single-handedly attributable to John Adams.

The 5000 Year Leap-Principles 11, 12 and 13

Ok, as I mentioned earlier, I am working diligently to get through "Atlas Shrugged." It is so briliant and so timely. However, I felt a need to read some more in "The 5000 Year Leap." Here is a brief summary(mingled with some interesting and witty social commentary from myself) of the 11th, 12th and 13th principles.

Principle 11: The majority of the people may alter or abolish a government which has become tyrnnical.

This chapter is fairly self-explanatory. The founders believed that rights given to people were derived not from the government, but from God, therefore, when any government had become tyrranical or oppresive to the majority, they had the right to throw off that government. They were then tasked with the job of forming a new government. It should be noted, that the author quoted from Locke's Second Essay Concerning Civil Government, which the founders relied on heavily. It should also be pointed out, as Locke did, that the power to revolt does not lie with a minority, but only the majority.

Principle 12: The United States of America shall be a republic.

The first thing most of us think about when seeing this principle is the pledge that we say (used to say) and quoting "and to the republic for which it stands." The author explains in this chapter exactly what type of government the founders were creating. There has been a lot of misuse of the term "republic" and the term " democracy." They are often used interchangeably, when they are not the same. A democracy is a government that is ruled by the people. They have to make decisions as a whole, and this often leads to mob rule (or mobocracy) or tyranny. The authors notes that the early Greek city-states tried this model and most disintegrated into tryanny.

A republic is one in which there are elected representatives that act of behalf of the people and whose power is derived from these people. The american system is a republic and logically so. A true democracy can only work in a small area and for a limited amount of people. America was a young and growing nation and a republic could be expanded to fit the growth of the country.

The author also spends some time discussing the erosion of the word "democracy" in the early 1900's. A group known a Intercollegiate Socialist Society (one of the early progressive groups in America) began to use the word democracy to refer to socialism. The group later changed it's name to "The League for Industrial Democracy." Obviously, they were not using the term "democracy" to apply to the classical sense, but sufficiently watered it down enough to diffuse its meaning.

Woodrow Wilson was surrounded by a number of the early leaders of this group and heavily influenced by their philosophy. One would think that a simple glance at the multitude of failed nations espousing socialist philosophy would have been enough to see that this system cannot sustain itself. These leaders went on to take powerful leadership positions throughout the nations and have set precedents that have continued to this day. Their influence has greatly weakened the country and the dedication that many have had to the vision of the founders.

Principle 13: A Constitution should be structured to permanently protect the people from the human frailities of their rulers.

This idea is a major crux in the difference between progressives and conservatives. Progressives will often preach that the Constitution was written over 200 years ago by mainly farmers, while the times have changed. I vehemently disagree with this statement. While the statement may be factually true, it is meant to imply that the Constitution should change with the times.

The founders wrote the Constitution to deal with one issue that never changes, the human condition. The founders understood that power corrupts and that men have the tendency to continue to collect power. The Constitution was derived to restrain that tendency and place no absolute power in the hands of any one group or individual. The government must be controlled or it will become tyrranical. This is just another example of the brilliance of those "farmers" and their keen ability to understand the human condition.

The Non-Political Political Pageant

I ran across this article that I found on the foxnews website. Apparently, during the Miss USA pageant, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked a question by Perez Hilton concerning gay marriage and she did not give the pre-approved answer.

The funny (read : sad, pathetic) part of the story is certainly not that Prejean stated her mind on that subject. It's that there is a furor at all. Here is why this really disappoints me:

1. If, as the head of the pageant stated, this is to be a non-political event, do they have judges that are controversial, and allow them to ask a question that is obviously a political flashpoint? Her answer either way would have created controversy, which leads me to my second point.

2. The only reason there is a "controversy," is because it is a trumped up one by the media. If she had spoken in favor of gay marriage, I am certain there would have been no story. The only controversy is that the media is outraged that there are people that do not agree with them or the viewpoints they espouse.

3. If, as Keith Lewis(the pageant head), stated, this event is to be a non-political event, did he feel the need to express his opinion on the subject and that he did not like her opinion? The correct answer for him would have been that they encourage their contestants to form their own opinions and then speak their minds, being true to their convictions. His opinion is of absolutely no relevance to this story.

4. I have known enough pageants contestants in my life to have heard the same story at every pageant I have ever seen. The say the standard lines about wanting women to be intelligent, beautiful, independent women that have opinions on subjects. Why else would they ask them about world peace so much? Why is it, that as soon as someone has an opinion that they don't like, they create a controversy.

The controversy is not in Prejean's remarks. The controversy should be in the fact that their should never have been a "controversy" in the first place.

I have to say that I am very impressed with Prejean's stand and glad to see that she has not stepped down from her remarks. Isn't this the kind of woman that the pageants claim to want to produce? Or is that just rhetoric while they produce a mainstream media friendly winner that goes along with what she thinks people want her to be?

The 5000 Year Leap-Principles 9 and 10

A friend of mine from college emailed me last week and reminded me that I needed to get off my duff and keep blogging on what I am learning in this book. (my words, not his) Unfotunately, I have also started reading Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and have become completely engrossed in that book. That book is blowing my mind. It was published in 1957, but could be ripped out of todays' headlines. I will blog about that later.

Back to The 5000 Year Leap. Here is principle 9:

To protect man's rights, God has revealed certain principles of divine law.

This principle is a derivative of the idea/truth that God has endowed each human with certain rights. Because God has given each person these rights, He also revealed divine law, which is used to protect, promote and preserve these rights.

A good basis for these laws is found in the 10 commandments. In these commandments, one can see that they are determined to assist man in relating to God, his fellow humans (community) and himself. Although this is not the extent of what God revealed in regards to divine law, it is a good basis and relatively easy to see how having laws derived from these principles ensures that the rights given by God cannot be usurped or tread upon by other people.

The author also expounds on how humans are given unalienable duties that correspond to their unalienable rights. In order for the rights to be preserved, man must act in certain ways. The author calls these public duties and private duties, with public duties being enforceable by law and the latter not being enforceable and up to the integrity of the indiviual.

Principle 10 is as follows:

The God-given right to govern is vested in the sovereign authority of the whole people.

The author begins the chapter by recounting the words of Algernon Sidney, who was beheaded by King Charles II for stating that kings did not have a divine right to rule and that the right to rule was vested with the people.

The author also quotes John Locke, in stating that the right to rule emanates from the people and that anyone that does not use the correct methods to come into power does not have the right to be obeyed. The founders deeply believed this same idea. They believed that rulers were the servants of the people and that the people had the right to elect or remove a leader. They believed that God did not give any man the right to rule over others unless that power was given to him by the people. This idea was reflected in the Constitution of 1787 and multiple state Constitutions.