Paul McKeever

Jeffrey Smith, over at solopassion.com, had a similar concern. Perhaps a more workable re-wording would be: ""Government must prevent persons from committing Injustices, using force if necessary". Well, keep in mind that 15 addresses Injustices that have already occurred (i.e., retaliation), whereas 14 deals with the prevention of an Injustice (i.e., defence). I see your point in respect of 14 standing alone, but putting a pre-condition on the right of self-defense worries me even more. As I see it, if a person were to say, shoot another individual in the leg to prevent the second individual from harming the first person, there might very well be a trial of the first person if there is reasonable grounds for entertaining the possibility that the first person acted irrationally/wrongfully. That, to me, would be a safer approach that forbidding self-defence where it is not "reasonably practicable" to call and wait for the police. For example, if we were to use the "reasonably practicable" approach, a person might get shot waiting for the police he has called because he fears imprisonment should he not wait for the police (who might get a flat tire on the way to the crime scene). And might such law be interpreted exactly that way: i.e., might those who dislike self-defence argue that the "reasoanbly practicable" approach requires a person to take the risk of getting harmed? Well, I think you are mixing two things. 1) the idea that, to discourage crime, we should take more than an eye for an eye, and 2) the idea that it costs money/time/etc to investigate and prosecute. Re: 1) - The facts of reality impose nothing more than an eye for an eye, and I do not believe the government should do so either. I see no rational basis for it. For example, what is the philosophical difference between a 110% penalty for theft, and giving life imprisonment to those who litter? Re: 2) - I submit that point 16 includes the idea that the cost of investigation, prosecution, etc. "resulted from the Injustice". It leaves open the defence of one person by another. If someone has a succinct but less ambiguous way of wording that point, I'm all ears. Good point. Perhaps this could better be worded: "16. To ensure justice prevails, Government shall impose, upon a person who has committed an Injustice, a negative consequence of no greater or lesser magnitude than that which resulted from the Injustice.

Source: http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2009/02/28/2nd...back-requested/ I begin this entry with an expression of thanks to all who took the time to read, think about, and comment upon, the first draft of the Charter for Government. In particular, I would like to thank David Odden over at ObjectivismOnline.net (in the discussion forum). He was looking for a better integration/explanation of the interaction of rights of life, liberty, and property. Most of what has been changed in the second draft (below) was inspired by his critique. You will see that one definition, “injustice”, has been added. It is a definition which I propose is applicable to a government, rather than to an individual (in my view, one can do an injustice to oneself, and this definition does not serve that purpose). The other major change was to the politics section. Gone is any mention of rights, not because of any objection to the concept, but because I think a more fundamental political issue deals with rights implicitly: consent. Accordingly, the politics section now focuses on government’s role in ensuring that relations among individuals are consensual. The new politics section uses “consent”, instead of something like banning “the initiation of coercive physical force”, because the latter is not sufficient to explain why there ought to be laws against defamation, why pre-emptive strikes are morally right, etc….at least, not without straining the concept of “force” to include things that involve nothing physical (like fraud, defamation, etc.)…I’ve never been a fan of such straining. I think, with this second draft, we’re getting closer to something that more robustly represents a set of rules for rational governance. I sincerely hope that you will give it a read and provide any feedback you think is appropriate (save flames and ad hominems, of course). Having brought up the first draft of A Charter for Government at last Sunday’s meeting of the Freedom Party of Ontario executive, I can now disclose to you the intended purpose of the Charter for Government (which title will probably be changed to something like “Statement of Principles”): the idea is to guide those who interpret Freedom Party of Ontario’s founding principle, and who make policies for the party (which policies must, according to the party constitution, be consistent with the founding principle). The party’s founding principle is: “Every individual, in the peaceful pursuit of personal fulfillment, has an absolute right to his or her own life, liberty and property”. The purpose of the Charter/Statement of Principles is to ensure that that founding principle is not treated as a floating abstraction (as might be done by libertarians). The idea would be to require anyone who wants to be on the policy-making executive of the party to agree with, and to agree to support, the Charter/Statement of Principles. And now, without further delay, I present to you the 2nd Draft of A Charter for Government: A Charter for Government - SECOND DRAFT - Definitions 1. In this Charter: Reality is that which exists. A Fact of Reality is something that is true about Reality. A True belief or claim is: one consistent with the Facts of Reality, as identified by a strictly logical process of thought about that for which there ultimately exists physical evidence that has been perceived by a human being. An Arbitrary belief or claim is: one for which no physical evidence has been perceived by a human being. A False belief or claim is: one that is contrary to the Facts of Reality because it is illogical, or because it is contrary to physical evidence as a determined by a strictly logical process of thought. Government is a number of governed individuals who, jointly or severally, have and rationally exercise the authority to make, interpret, and enforce objective laws. Injustice means: obtaining or controlling the use of any material or spiritual value without creating the value or obtaining the value from another person with that other person’s consent. Reality 2. The conclusions, decisions, actions, words, deeds, policies, proposals, laws and regulations of government must always be founded solely upon, and must always be consistent with, True beliefs and claims. 3. Government must never express or imply any False or Arbitrary belief or claim. 4. Government must never expressly or implicitly sanction, and must never cause or allow itself appear to sanction, in any way, any False or Arbitrary belief or claim. Reason 5. Government must never attempt to discourage or prevent any individual from thinking or acting rationally and must never condemn or punish any individual for thinking or acting rationally. 6. Government must never attempt to persuade or coerce any individual to think or act irrationally, and must never praise or reward any individual for thinking or acting irrationally. 7. Government must never condemn or punish any individual for his rational thoughts, words or deeds. 8. Government must never praise or reward any individual for his irrational thoughts, words or deeds. Self 9. Government must never attempt to persuade or coerce any individual to make other individuals’ survival, relief, or happiness a higher value or priority than his own survival, relief and happiness. 10. Government must never in any way attempt to condemn or punish any individual for making his own survival, relief and happiness his highest purpose or priority. 11. Government must never attempt to praise or reward any individual for making other individuals’ survival, relief, or happiness a higher purpose or priority than his own survival, relief and happiness. Consent 12. Government must commit no Injustices. 13. Government must use force to prevent persons from committing Injustices. 14. Government must not use force to prevent or penalize in any way a person’s rational attempt to use force to prevent a person from committing an Injustice. 15. Government must, and only government may, use force against a person to ensure that justice prevails when the person has committed an Injustice. 16. To ensure justice prevails, Government shall impose a negative consequence of no greater or lesser magnitude than that which resulted from the Injustice. Law 17. All laws must be objective and objectively justifiable so that individuals know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law requires or forbids persons to do and why; what constitutes a wrong, an offence, or a crime; and how force will be used against a person who commits a wrong, offence or crime.

I think you may quite enjoy my coming paper on Libertarianism vs. Objectivism, for that reason (i.e., the focus on hierarchy). It's a first-time approach for me, based on a journal I used to enjoy as a grad student in psych: Journal of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, I think it was called. The approach involves: 1. I write an article 2. Another person writes an article contra 3. I rebut 4. A number of invited commentators comment 5. The whole package is released to the readership at once. I've a little left to do on my article. Philosophy Ph.D. student Peter Jaworski (from what I can tell from my past debates with him: a Humean skeptic-libertarian) will write the contra piece (he'll have about a month to write it...we're both very busy).

Hi David: Thanks for giving this so much thought. Re: the Definition given for "Government", David writes: Hmmm. That was not my intent. Perhaps the phrase "governed individuals" confuses? I used the adjective "governed" to make it clear that no individual is "above the law", as it were. That's a very good point. I don' t have a quick solution just yet, but I will certainly give it some thought. I will also have to think back to why I avoided using the "initiation" wording. It is probably due to the fact that my experience with it is that, too often, the underlying principles are ignored in its interpretation, such that the "initiation" wording leads some people to think all that matters is "he started it"...which is insufficient to accommodate such things as pre-emptive strikes where there is evidence that an attack will otherwise occur. Another excellent point. Thank-you. I most certainly will have to address threats. Re: Clause 14, David writes: I agree with you: I do not think it right that you cannot defend another person. Perhaps "...another individual’s attempt to violate the former individual’s life, or the life of any third individual"? Re: Clause 15, David writes: Re: Clause 16, David writes: David: I must thank you some more. Your comment - with which I agree - reminded me of that nightmare of a song "Sign, sign, everywhere a sign". I'll have another look at the justice section, in light of your comments concerning it. Thanks.

Ah yes. Well, I had given that some thought. It's a bit tricky, because - at least in Canada, but probably in all common law jurisdictions - theft is both a civil and a criminal wrong. At common law, it's referred to as a "conversion", and the remedy is chiefly compensatory (i.e., pay the 50 cents for the candy bar), though, in exceptional cases, the wrong-doer may be required to pay the victim damages for mental distress or to pay him punitive/exemplary damages (i.e., money paid to punish the wrongdoer and make an example out of him...this usually requires more than just theft, and will normally require something such as malice). Yet the very same act is also criminal and the punishment there may well be different. For example: the government could impose a fine, or imprisonment. I do not believe that that implies that the eye-for-an-eye principle is violated. Rather, the criminal law is taking into account the cost to everyone in society, rather than just to the chocolate bar vendor in question (which is why, as a matter of criminal law, the chocolate bar vender is not a party, but simply a witness...the head of state is a party, and it is suing the alleged criminal under criminal laws). As you might imagine, given the above, it would be easy to get very bogged-down in defining justice within this Charter. I went the 'broad strokes' route, but there may be a better wording that remedies your concern. Having spent the last 3 or 4 hours shoveling snow, that wording eludes me at the moment.

The following is a work-in-progress. I am not at liberty to say, at this point, the use to which the following document might be put, so I name it, provisionally, “A Charter for Government”. I am interested in any meaningful comments, criticisms, or suggestions you may have. No matter what may be your personal philosophy, and no matter what might be your personal beliefs, I would like to hear from you. Please submit your comments in the comments section: http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2009/01/18/deb...for-government/ Insults and flame-bait will be discarded: please avoid ad hominem attacks toward me or toward other commenters, but do not be afraid to express a judgment that something in the document is true/false, good/evil, virtuous/vicious. A Charter for Government - FIRST DRAFT - Definitions 1. In this Charter: Reality means: that which exists. Fact of Reality means: something that is true about Reality. True belief or claim means: one consistent with the Facts of Reality, as identified by a strictly logical process of thought about that for which there ultimately exists physical evidence that has been perceived by a human being. Arbitrary belief or claim means: one for which no physical evidence has been perceived by a human being. False belief or claim means: one that is contrary to the Facts of Reality because it is illogical, or because it is contrary to physical evidence as a determined by a strictly logical process of thought. Government means: a number of governed individuals who, jointly or severally, have and rationally exercise the authority to make, interpret, and enforce objective laws. Reality 2. The conclusions, decisions, actions, words, deeds, policies, proposals, laws and regulations of government always must be founded solely upon, and always must be consistent with, True beliefs and claims. 3. Government must never express or imply any False or Arbitrary belief or claim. 4. Government must never expressly or implicitly sanction, and must never cause or allow itself appear to sanction, in any way, any False or Arbitrary belief or claim. Reason 5. Government must never attempt to discourage or prevent any individual from thinking or acting rationally and must never condemn or punish any individual for thinking or acting rationally. 6. Government must never attempt to persuade or coerce any individual to think or act irrationally, and must never praise or reward any individual for thinking or acting irrationally. 7. Government must never condemn or punish any individual for his rational thoughts, words or deeds. 8. Government must never praise or reward any individual for his irrational thoughts, words or deeds. Self 9. Government must never attempt to persuade or coerce any individual to make other individuals’ survival, relief, or happiness a higher value or priority than his own survival, relief and happiness. 10. Government must never in any way attempt to condemn or punish any individual for making his own survival, relief and happiness his highest purpose or priority. 11. Government must never attempt to praise or reward any individual for making other individuals’ survival, relief, or happiness a higher purpose or priority than his own survival, relief and happiness. Consent LIFE 12. Government must use force to ensure that no individual does anything to another individual’s body without the latter individual’s consent (i.e., that no individual violates another individual’s life). 13. Government must not violate any individual’s life. 14. Government must not use force to penalize in any way an individual’s rational attempt to defend against another individual’s attempt to violate the former individual’s life. 15. Government must, and only government may, use force in a retaliatory manner to ensure justice prevails when an individual has done something to another individual’s body without the latter individual’s consent. LIBERTY 16. Government must use force to ensure that no individual restricts or directs another individual’s actions without the latter individual’s consent (i.e., that no individual violates another individual’s liberty). 17. Government must not violate any individual’s liberty. 18. Government must not use force to penalize in any way an individual’s rational attempt to defend against another individual’s attempt to violate the former individual’s liberty. 19. Government must, and only government may, use force in a retaliatory manner to ensure justice prevails when an individual has violated another individual’s liberty. PROPERTY 20. Government must use force to ensure that no person does with a thing that which a property right allows only another person to do with the thing, unless the former person has the latter person’s consent so to do it (i.e., that no person violates another person’s property). 21. Government must not violate any person’s property. 22. Government must not use force to penalize in any way a person’s rational attempt to defend against another person’s attempt to violate the former person’s property. 23. Government must, and only government may, use force in a retaliatory manner to ensure justice prevails when a person has violated another person’s property. Justice 24. To ensure justice prevails, when a person has violated another person’s life, liberty or property, Government shall impose a negative consequence of no greater or lesser magnitude than that which resulted from the violation. Law 25. All laws must be objective and objectively justifiable so that individuals know clearly, and in advance of taking an action, what the law requires or forbids persons to do and why; what constitutes a wrong, an offence, or a crime; and how force will be used against a person who commits a wron

I've quite enjoyed reading the back and forth. I'll just add the following: 1. Context of the statement: My statement to the person who was about to take the course was a one paragraph response. It was neither an essay nor a treatise. In my experience, a great many students of Objectivism wrongly make the argument that, according to Objectivist philosophy, theft is wrong because you risk getting caught. Because that has been my experience, and because the person to whom I was writing was speaking specifically about why it is wrong to steal, I wanted to save him some time. Specifically, I was providing him with a heads-up about a common error, and steering him to one of Ayn Rand's most influential discoveries: the second-hander. I quoted that student, in my post, where he says he is going to be reading Rand's essays first-hand. Moreover, I know the student also to be someone who, has for some time, been studying Objectivism. The purpose of my blog post (i.e., the entry above) was to share that response with others who may go down the non-essential path I describe in my response. I thought it particularly important to point out this non-essential argument particularly because at least one other student of Objectivism has told me that he had heard a tape in which Nathaniel Brandon made said non-essential argument. 2. I see nothing in Grames' response to my question to him/her that would indicate Grames considered anything I said to be false. Accordingly, based upon what Grames has written since I posed by question to him/her, I take Grames' "lame" response to mean that he/she thinks other information - a different tip to the student in question - would have been more helpful because my response to the student "assumes agreement on prior knowledge". Well, yes, my response does assume agreement on prior knowledge: ( 1 ) the only person I was trying to help, with my response, was the student in question, not his class, ( 2 ) the student in question has given me reason to believe that he has an interest in, and has studied to some extent, Objectivism, and the student made it clear that he was going to be reading Ayn Rand's works first-hand to obtain his understanding of ethics as it applies to the issue of theft such that, even if he has not a firm grasp of the importance of thinking in terms of principles, he will soon obtain one and will see how my comment about second-handers relates thereto. Doubtless, in his efforts, he will read numerous essays by Ayn Rand in which she does not reduce everything to, say, the axioms. I fully expect he will read essays by Rand in which she writes of second-handers yet does not write that "mind you, what I've been saying about second-handing a lame point because you might not have read my other essays in which I write about principles per se". Though many a Rand essay does not reduce things to, say, the axioms or to the importance of thinking in principles, I am quite certain that the student will not find such of her essays to be lame, and that each one will fill-in a hole in his knowledge. As to "agreement on prior knowledge" when it comes to sharing, on my blog and here, my response to the student: my blog, and this discussion board, are read primarily by students of Objectivism, many of whom are quite well versed in Objectivist metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Yet, as I say, they nonetheless commonly make the error of thinking that the reason one should not steal is: one might get caught and have to spend time in jail. 3. As to whether the other students in the class would find a response about principles to be more helpful in their studies than a response about second-handing, we'll have to agree to disagree. If a person who knows nothing about Objectivism - someone who, quite probably, knows little about philosophy at all - and wants to know why theft is wrong, I think they will find "because existence exists", for example, to be rather useless. Ayn Rand drew people's interest to her philosophy primarily because of her portrayal not only of the ideal man, but of the second hander and his chronic misery. Give a philosophy student a quick glimpse of the impracticality of second-handing, and his interest in the viciousness of it will follow...and, thereafter, if all goes well, he will learn about epistemology and metaphysics.

Hi Grames. Do you say "Lame" because there is no epistemology in the answer, or because you think my answer to be incorrect? If the former well, heck, there are no axioms in the answer either. It is not necessary for every one-paragraph note to an acquaintance to include a full-scale reduction. It is quite appropriate to make a statement about ethics without opening up a discussion about epistemology and metaphysics. If the latter, what did you find incorrect in my statement? I did not state that thieves steal to be happy. Of course, clearly, individuals attempt to become happy by stealing. That such attempts will fail, clearly, was my last point.

source: http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2009/01/13/why...-nor-practical/ Why Theft is Neither Ethical Nor Practical January 13, 2009 by Paul McKeever Tom, an acquaintance of mine, is about to commence an ethics course. The outline for the course states: "The first part of the course addresses the challenge that the egoist (sometimes called the amoralist) poses for moral philosophy…The egoist is a person who doesn’t care about morality – all the egoist cares about is his or her own advantage and happiness, and he or she will be prepared to break any of our standard moral rules in order to secure it- just as long, that is, as he or she can get away with it." Tom explains: "…if I do decide to argue for egoism in that seminar, I know someone is going to ask something like: “Wouldn’t it be in your interests to steal, so don’t we need rights as a way of limiting peoples self interest, or everyone would be stealing and civilization would collapse”, so I’m going to have to make sure I fully understand why it’s not in someones rational self interest to violate peoples rights, to counter that argument. I’ll probably re-read a few chapters of [Ayn Rand's book, The Virtue of Selfishness] and [her book Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal] to make sure I fully understand my arguments." A year or more ago, I was discussing the ethics of theft with a student of Objectivism. I was surprised to hear him opine that theft is wrong because, for example, one might get caught and spend years in prison. However, one might, alternatively, never go to prison. One might be very good at not getting caught. And it is not the case that the virtuousness or viciousness of theft depends upon the skill of the thief. Neither is efficacy the same as practicality. Accordingly, I gave to Tom a response similar to that which I gave to the aforementioned student of Objectivism: "Do not make the mistake of making such arguments as “you might get caught and have to spend life in jail”. Though true, that is not essential. The essential point is that, when you attempt to make theft your method of continuing to exist, you make yourself dependent upon the production of others: you cannot steal what someone else has not produced. By neglecting rational production, you make yourself akin to a helpless baby, begging for a teat. Thievery is not a mode of survival. It is the surrender of your fate to others. Moreover, because thievery entails a neglect of earning, happiness - not the alleviation of sadness, but happiness - cannot be obtained."

What a wonderful compliment. Thank-you. Nice.

Here's how I actually celebrated Reason's Harvest this year: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=m8eO5Sv5MUE

Woo-hoo! Have a good one Zip!

Hello all: Just a reminder that tomorrow (November 28, 2008) is Reason's Harvest: the holiday for the rational individual. Some of you may have watched my 2007 Reason's Harvest video ( http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=5Va-X85zljw ). I've just uploaded a new one for 2008: Enjoy...and GO THANK YOURSELF! Paul

Hi all: Here's a link to today's "Just Right" show on radio CHRW (94.9 FM, London, Ontario, Canada), with Robert Metz (co-founder of Freedom Party of Ontario, and the party's current president). Robert's topic today: Money, Credit and Morality. Metz discusses Rand, Peikoff, Paterson and others. Don't miss this one! http://www.freedomparty.org/justright/BROA...120-justRIGHT... Note: ALL past broadcasts of Robert's radio program are archived and available for free online at his web site, http://www.justrightmedia.org . Cheers, P.

Hi JohnS. I thought I made it pretty clear - by my recommendation that they just point a gun at my head and rob me rather than pretending it's not theft by having the government do it for them - that I oppose wealth redistribution. I try not to bob my head when someone is saying something I disagree with. I'm not sure which comment you are referring to re: me stopping to bob my head, but - if I get a chance - I'll try to have another look at it and give an explanation (if there is one). Sometimes, it's nothing more than a distraction in the studio, or a concentration (by me) upon some other matter. In short: I don't think I've ever been accused of hiding my views on wealth redistribution of any sort, and I think I regularly make it pretty clear that "charity" isn't charity when it is does via a threat of force or physical force. Here's a link to a recent interview by Canada's most well-respected political interviewer, Steve Paikin: Listen to my answer when he asks "What do we owe one another?"...and keep in mind that this interview occurred and was distributed, WHILE I was running for public office (September 2007). Keep in mind, also, that I was speaking on behalf of an entire political party. Hopefully, thereafter, you will have reason to change your assessment concerning my integrity. Cheers, Paul Now you're thinking like an employment lawyer ;-) ...and like every rational individual should (which is NOT to imply that all employment lawyers are rational).

Exactly. You know, one of the nuttiest things about these wage control laws is that they are wrong EVEN by an altruistic ethics. Here they are talking about the poor, and about living, yet the government of Ontario (Canada) went ahead with increases to the minimum wage KNOWING and ADMITTING that the increases would CAUSE the loss of 10s of thousands of jobs. It's irrational egoism that is at the heart of a lot of these proposals. Thanks Soth. Imagine how much worse it might have been, though, if I - or someone with similar views - hadn't been their to offer up a counter-argument. We'd probably have been 'treated' to a discussion not about whether there should be a living wage, but about how high it should be set.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=6rkb5orSAbQ

VIDEO TITLE: Gold, Inflation, Fractional Reserve Banking, and Ayn Rand's Ethics LOCATION: DESCRIPTION: A response to those who think the ethics of Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, is consistent with fractional reserve banking. In the first part of this video, Paul McKeever gives the general history of how gold came to be money, how banks came into being, how banks started to lend on a fractional reserve, how and why central banks were formed, and how gold was replaced with paper. In the second part, Paul explains the true nature of inflation, and exactly what it was that Ayn Rand found to be ethically wrong about it.

Source: http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2008/10/29/pau...lume-1-issue-1/ If you set out to change someone’s mind, first ensure that he has one. The hollowing of trees follows the hollowing of heads. Praise to hate, condemn to love, refrain from judgment to feel nothing at all. Every mind is a woman, every truth is a man.

URL: http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=W8XlFTaGIWU Description: In Canada, the Harper government shifted $45M of a $3B arts and culture budget: from some arts and culture projects to others. In Quebec, artists were organized to take to the street and hype up the shift as "cuts" to the arts. The entire event was staged to whip-up fears that English Canada was trying to squash French culture, and thereby to regain political support for the French Nationalist secessionist Bloc Quebecois party during the federal election leading up to the October 14th, 2008 vote. On October 9th, 2008, Freedom Party leader Paul McKeever was a panelist on the Crossroads Television (CTS) program "On the Line" with host Christine Williams. The panel discussed the issue described above.

Oh, I've read that essay EC and, rest assured, if you watch my video to the end, you'll see that I condemn the notion that a life boat scenario makes cannibalism ethical.

Does ethics apply in "life boat" or emergency situations? In such situations, is cannibalism right? http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=et9-MG3HviM

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=WR-JSdCUmQU

I gave it a bit of thought before responding. In Canada, he is a regular read amongst many "conservatives". His original article, at The Western Standard, got more comments (over 70) than most newspaper columnists receive on major daily newspaper sites. Also, although Ayn Rand can be found to be insulted on an almost daily basis in newspapers, it is rare for them to get into a discussion of the nature or implications of Objectivism, into a description of the scenes in "Atlas Shugged" etc.. Unlike professional columnists, Yoshida seems to have gone out of his way to misrepresent Rand, her philosophy, and her novel. Given the readership he obtained with the article (arguably owing to the fact that it was about Rand) - and given the fact that I've read far too many comments by conservatives who misconstrue Objectivism and Atlas Shrugged in a manner similar to that described by Yoshida, I felt a response was warranted and useful (especially for those who might be put off - because of Yoshida's misdescription - from reading Atlas Shrugged for themselves). Keep in mind: Whitaker Chambers is - at least today - a nobody also. It is what he wrote, not who he is, that makes the National Review believe there is something to be gained from reproducing his review of Atlas Shrugged every 5 or six years. Cheers, Paul

Original Source URL: http://blog.paulmckeever.ca/2008/08/02/atl...taker-chambers/ In an article titled “On Libertarian Bolshevism”, conservative blogger Adam T. Yoshida argues that we see two approaches being proposed to achieve a free society that not only are doomed to fail, but also make it more difficult for a “Reactionary Libertarian” to achieve a freer society. Yoshida implies that the Reactionary Libertarian has an approach that can achieve freedom in a society that is either indifferent to, or hostile to, the goal of a free society: “going back to some older social structures and institutions”. Yoshida says that first of the two allegedly flawed approaches is a libertarianism which advocates liberty without actually caring whether or not it is achieved. He is most certainly correct to suggest that there are many self-styled “libertarians” who like to talk about principles, integrity and freedom only to make themselves feel like lonely geniuses, but who believe a free society to be impossible. It is that misguided pessimism which explains why you can rarely find a “libertarian” willing to help out at election time. But, so defined, such lazy, excuse-making, libertarian paralysis is not an approach to the achievement of anything at all. Yoshida is far too generous in giving such despondency the status of an “approach” to “construct liberty”*, and his mention of such libertarianism adds nothing to his argument. Accordingly, I will add nothing further in respect of the first “approach”. Yoshida labels his main target – the so-called second approach – “libertarian Bolshevism”: a movement of fellows who are “...to regular supporters of liberty what Communists are to Social Democrats – extreme in method, rhetoric, and ideal and, ultimately, harmful to the overall cause”. He offers up, as the alleged libertarian Bolshevik’s approach, the approach of the heroes and heroines in author/philosopher Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”, which he describes as follows: In Rand’s book a libertarian society is created when all of the great minds of the world voluntarily withdraw their services and then, following the inevitable collapse of civilization that follows, take over to run things. The society envisioned by Rand in the final pages of Atlas Shrugged could only be a dictatorship and, given the descriptions of all that preceded it, probably a brutally oppressive one at that. Responding to commenters, he later makes more explicit his connection of the story of heroes in “Atlas Shrugged” to Bolshevism: Re-read Atlas Shrugged and consider the implications of the last chapter. [Rand’s] small cadre, like the Bolsheviks, wins through the total collapse of society and afterwards could only rule in the fashion described (the men of the minds ruling by their own will alone) through an absolute dictatorship...what a Randian society...entails is a form of totalitarianism – a boot stamping on the human face forever that happens to be marked ‘Liberty’ Chambers 101: The Fine Art of Straw-Manning, Smearing, and Defaming At least three things need to be said about Yoshida’s description and use of Atlas Shrugged and of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism. Obvious things first. “Bolshevik” is a term that refers not to a “small cadre”, but to “the majority” of a collectivist movement in Lenin’s Russia. Yoshida’s use of the term in conjunction with Rand, the arch anti-collectivist who escaped Russia (where her family was expropriated) to make her home in the freest country in the world, is utterly inapt and offensive. His is a shameful attempt to imply hypocrisy on Rand’s part, and it is a smear of the sort made routinely by society’s pathetic little liars on the left. That is not entirely surprising, however, given that, in response to comments to his article, Yoshida has explained: My interpretation of [Atlas Shrugged] has a long history, going as far back as Whitaker Chambers who wrote that, from every page of the book a voice could be heard commanding, out of necessity, “you, to a gas chamber – go!”. Either through ignorance or manipulation, Yoshida neglects to mention that Whitaker Chambers’ review of Atlas Shrugged was, famously, even more misrepresentative of the book’s content and meaning than Yoshida’s. It has been argued, in recent years, that Chambers’ own review is evidence that Chambers did not even read “Atlas Shrugged”. Yoshida neglects to mention that Chambers had himself been a communist spy working with Russia and, such being the case, he apparently considered Rand’s untainted defence of capitalism and the pursuit of happiness something he needed to combat. He neglects to mention that Chambers was writing his “Atlas Shrugged” book review for William F. Buckley’s National Review, and that Buckley was, throughout his life, trying to reconstitute and maintain conservativism in the USA in such a way as to exclude any person or group who had integrity; any person or group who did not accept the notion that everything – including the facts of reality and ethics - can be the subject of a compromise if some sort of gain can be achieved, or loss avoided, in the immediate term. National Review has re-printed the article a number of times (in 1990, 1999, and 2005) since its initial publication decades ago (1957), precisely for the purpose of trying to keep conservativism a short-sighted, pro-mystical, anti-individualist, pro-central-planning, non-Objectivist movement. The article was a smear designed to influence the nature and course of conservativism in the USA and, if Yoshida does not know it, he has not done the tiniest bit of research into the sources from which he chooses to “learn” about Ayn Rand’s philosophy and works. Second, there is nothing about Atlas Shrugged which could lead any rational person to conclude that the heroes in “Atlas Shrugged” intended or would have to “rule” society as dictators. Quite the opposite is true. In Atlas Shrugged, the heroes do not attempt to win their freedom by means of coercive physical force: they win it passively, by refusing to produce that which cannot be produced without rational thought. The heroes refuse to think and produce for the rest of society. A dictatorial government attempts to use laws, threats and coercive physical force (including torture) to require the rational, productive people in society to continue thinking and producing. Toward the end of the book, the government straps the book’s hero to a torture machine in an effort to force him to agree to rule society: "Get this straight," said Dr. Ferris, addressing him for the first time. "We want you to take full power over the economy of the country. We want you to become a dictator. We want you to rule. Understand? We want you to give orders and to figure out the right orders to give. What we want, we mean to get. Speeches, logic, arguments or passive obedience won't save you now. We want ideas-or else. We won't let you out of here until you tell us the exact measures you'll take to save our system. Then we'll have you tell it to the country over the radio." He raised his wrist, displaying a stop-watch. "I'll give you thirty seconds to decide whether you want to start talking right now. If not, then we'll start. Do you understand?" Galt was looking straight at them, his face expressionless, as if he understood too much. He did not answer. [...] "Number three," said Ferris, raising a finger in signal. The mechanic pressed a button under one of the dials. A long shudder ran through Galt's body; his left arm shook in jerking spasms, convulsed by the electric current that circled between his wrist and shoulder. His head fell back, his eyes closed, his lips drawn tight. He made no sound. When the mechanic lifted his finger off the button, Galt's arm stopped shaking. He did not move. The dictatorial government’s attempt to make Rand’s hero assume the role of dictator fails because no rational person would want the job, and because every individual’s mind is sovereign: no amount or type of force can cause someone to think if they choose not to do so. In Atlas Shrugged, the dictatorial government – employing various taxes, wealth redistribution schemes, and outright slavery - finds its coercive efforts powerless to cause the novel’s heroes to produce anything. Coercion being no replacement for rational thought, the dictatorial government is powerless to save the economy, and it falls as the lights go out in New York City. In the last chapter of Atlas Shrugged, Rand’s heroes and heroines return from their hideaway in Galt’s Gulch because the rest of society has – in their absence - learned that survival and happiness depend not upon government’s laws, threats and guns, but upon each person’s choice to produce and voluntarily to trade values by thinking and acting rationally. Contrary to what Yoshida says, in the last chapter of Atlas Shrugged, society has finally rejected totalitarianism and is ready voluntarily to embrace a system in which government and economics do not mix. For Yoshida to use “Atlas Shrugged” as a proof that Rand’s ideal society is one of necessity governed by totalitarian government is evidence either of his failure to have read and understood “Atlas Shrugged”, or of intellectual dishonesty in the Chambers tradition. Third, Atlas Shrugged was a novel. The purpose of the novel was to portray the ideal man in a way that explained to the reader Rand’s metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics and esthetics. It was not a proposal for how to achieve freedom in an unfree world. Ayn Rand did write about that subject explicitly in her non-fiction and she did not, in her non-fiction, advocate a repeat of John Galt’s plan. Nor have I ever heard any Objectivist or libertarian of note suggest that the path to freedom is a repeat of what the character John Galt did in Atlas Shrugged. Yoshida is straw-manning both Objectivists and libertarians. “Man of Integrity” Does Not Imply “Revolutionary Dictator” Having misrepresented Atlas Shrugged and its implications, Yoshida implicitly argues that an Objectivist approach for the achievement of a freer society: ...requires such a wrenching change – a jump from Tuesday to Friday – that it could never be achieved by any means compatible with freedom. [...] The Libertarian Bolshevik, on the other hand, doesn’t worry about [various problems associated with various proposals to eliminate oppressive laws] because they simply intend to sweep everything aside at once, using the magic which can only be accompanied by dictatorship. In response, the Western Standard’s Peter Jaworski comments that: I like to think of liberty as a “guiding star” of sorts. We ought, as best we can, to move in that direction, even if we already know that we can only get so far. I have condemned Jaworski’s advocacy of libertarianism elsewhere, but he is more or less correct in this part of his response to Yoshida. As an Objectivist, as a proponent of freedom, and as leader of the pro-reason, pro-freedom Freedom Party of Ontario, I consider freedom – i.e., control over ones own life, actions, and property – a guiding star (one logically necessitated by the facts of reality, including the nature of man). For that reason, in 2005, I designed logos for Freedom Party International (see explanation and description here: http://www.freedomparty.org/about/about.the.logo.htm) and for the Freedom Party of Ontario (see explanation and description here: http://www.freedomparty.on.ca/about/about.....on.screen.pdf), each of which features Polaris in the asterism Ursa Minor (Polaris is the “north star” or “pole star” by which sailors, for centuries, determined their latitude and orientation). That year, I also wrote a forward to Freedom Party of Ontario’s party policies, in which I explained that the party’s policies: “...do not and are not intended to represent an exhaustive or ultimate set of policy implications resulting from the party’s founding principle: they do not describe a final destination. Rather, they set out ports of call along the way to a freer, more personally responsible Ontario society. As such, they allow Freedom Party’s leadership to determine the right direction for the governance of Ontario, and to steer accordingly. Nor are these policies exhaustive. Ethics, not law, is the foundation of political freedom. Laws designed to protect individual freedom are a necessary, but not sufficient, condition of individual freedom and personal responsibility. Changes in governance do tend to influence the dominant code of ethics, though law’s influence is limited, especially where the law is not respected. And, because a change in ethics takes place only within the mind of an individual, change in the dominant ethical code of society inevitably is gradual. Freedom Party of Ontario, being a political party, must be satisfied with its role: to attempt the restoration of the necessary legal and political framework for an ethical, hence free, society. In fulfilling that role, Freedom Party must be cognizant of the fact that pro-freedom changes to the law are likely to be transient if they are made so quickly that ethics has no chance to catch up. The policies that follow have been chosen in light of the fact that just as the erosion of freedom has been gradual, so will the restoration of freedom take time, patience, ethical growth and, with respect to changes in governance, gradual steps. Although these policies specify ports of call, they do not specify which ports of call should be approached first, how quickly they should be approached, or what course should be charted around obstacles to their approach. Such decisions must be made in light of current events, and with wisdom concerning what is politically feasible. In short, it is utterly false for Yoshida to state or imply that those who – like myself - refuse to compromise their ethical commitments are, of necessity, people who would resort to coercion in a misguided effort to achieve freedom, or people who propose overnight, revolutionary change. A gradual restoration of freedom does not require one to compromise ones commitment to freedom, ones rational code of right and wrong, ones commitment to reason, or ones commitment to the facts of reality. To the contrary, freedom cannot be restored if such compromises are made. Freedom versus Coercion, Not via Coercion Perhaps most outrageous of all are Yoshida’s admissions, made in rebuttal to commenters: ...I’m not absolutely opposed to dictatorship, certainly not in the Roman fashion, where it is necessary. I’m a life-long fan of, for example, Augusto Pinochet. But what a Randian society...entails is a form of totalitarianism – a boot stamping on the human face forever that happens to be marked “Liberty”. and that: Moving towards liberty is going to require time and some degree of coercion – I think that we need to be realistic about that. No genuinely democratic government, for example, is ever going to be able to do away with Medicare. I do not think it is unfair, or misrepresentative, to sum up these two statements as follows: Yoshida does not reject totalitarianism per se. He is opposed to “genuinely democratic government”, and believes that freedom can be achieved through – and only through - coercion. He nonetheless expects the reader to believe his claim that he loves freedom, to take his advice when it comes to the matter of how a freer society should be achieved, and to believe that his so-called “libertarian Bolsheviks” are the people who undermine the efforts of his Reactionary Libertarian ilk to achieve a freer society. I submit that freedom means control over ones own life, liberty and property; it requires physical force to be used only to defend or restore that control; it requires the absence of coercion. Totalitarianism refers to a system in which everyone’s life, liberty and property can be or is controlled by the state; in which force is used, by the state, to obtain that control; in which government has unlimited jurisdiction to coerce the governed. Though I do not think “totalitarian” is the technically correct descriptor for an autocratic monarch whose main aim is to reduce the scope of government’s involvement in the economy, someone who does not oppose totalitarianism is not truly a lover of freedom. The opinion of such a person on matters of how to achieve a freer society is not merely worthless. It is poison that, in the end, serves only those who abhor freedom. *NOTE: I reject the notion that liberty is something that one constructs, but that is an issue for another article.