Posts Tagged ‘Ayn Rand’

True and False Religious Freedom

May 2, 2018

https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/27/opinions/paul-ryans-firing-of-patrick-conroy-should-worry-us-all-parini/

The conservative attitude towards religion, and religious freedom, has long been convoluted.  Conservatives have always been vocal about their traditional rights and privileges, and denounce any violation of their “religious freedom.”  However, conservatives have generally been slow to protect the religious freedom of others who disagree with them.  It is natural that this should be so.  Being authoritarian, conformist and conservative are not necessarily the same things, but are definitely connected.  To be authoritarian is to be inclined to submit to “proper authority” and conversely to expect obedience when one occupies a position of authority; to be conformist is to seek to obey the social norms of those around one; and to be conservative is to resist change and to prize stability.  There have been plenty of conformists who were conforming to liberal peers, and there have been plenty of liberals who either sought to obey a charismatic leader or sought to be one.  But the essence of “liberal” is to value change, particularly change that aims to establish equality of all individuals; to be “conservative” is to resist change and to value the stability of a hierarchy.  Thus a conservative is more likely to judge other religions to be “wrong,” not merely in the sense of being mistaken but to be positively harmful.  Other religions challenge the traditional social order and moral values of one’s own group.

Historically, Evangelicals have disrupted social norms, but have done so in the name of a “return” to “tradition” or “heritage.”  Sometimes the “return” is actually something quite novel, but rarely is it recognized as such by its adherents.  For example, through Middle Ages and the Enlightenment there was no systematic culture war between Science and Religion.  Most of the educated people, and thus most of the scientists and philosophers, were themselves clergy or monks, or at least educated at religious schools.  As the Enlightenment moved towards the Modern period, there were increasing numbers of atheists like Hume and Nietzsche, but also many intellectuals who were believers (Descartes, Kant, Leibniz, Kierkegaard, etc.).  Likewise, most religious thinkers accepted the teachings of science, and sought to offer theological responses to developments in the natural and social sciences.  The intense “Culture Wars” we accept as normal only really began in the 20th Century, with the publication of The Fundamentals.  In attacking Darwinism and science as a whole as an alien ideology, Fundamentalist Protestants redefined what it was to be a Christian, without really realizing what they were doing.  While once almost every Christian recognized that the Bible had allegorical as well as historical truths and often felt the allegorical, moral meanings were more important than historical literalism, today large portions of American Protestantism argues that unless the Bible is 100% literally historically true, it can’t be trusted to have any moral or spiritual value.  This would have struck most Christians as absurd for the first 1900 years of our history.

In the case of the Prosperity Gospel, even preachers who recognized that they were changing the traditional teachings of their religious communities have simultaneously denied that they were anything other than Bible-believing conservatives.  Jim Bakker turned the Assemblies of God from an anti-materialistic Evangelical subculture resisting too much integration into the commercial or political mainstream into avid consumers and political players, fully comfortable with and even hungry for wealth and power.  The religion that taught “You cannot love God and Money” and “The love of money is the root of all evil” was transformed into a religion that not only accepts money, but expects it as the reward of faith and which measures spiritual worth by financial worth.  This is way beyond the notion of the “Protestant Work Ethic.”  Our Puritan ancestors might have thought that hard work was a virtue and that God would bless the faithful with material rewards for their labors, but we go further; we look at a billionaire and assume that he is morally and spiritually praiseworthy, since God wouldn’t give a bad person money.  This is a radical change from the Biblical witness, which has a much more nuanced and mixed view of prosperity.

But the Prosperity Gospel and other forms of conservative Evangelicalism do share one thing in common:  religious intolerance.  While they jealously guard their own religious freedom, those “liberals” challenge the social order and the rightness of their own views by threatening to bring in other perspectives.  In the face of such threats, conservatives are likely to respond either defensively or judgmentally.  Glenn Beck famously denounced “progressive” churches that advocated for “social justice,” warning his millions of television viewers and radio listeners to flee such evil places; he was quite unaware that his own Mormon religion was itself one of those “social justice” churches until the leaders pointed out that he was changing their traditional religious message to suit his 21st Century agenda.  Paul Ryan behaves defensively; a Jesuit challenged his views, threatened his moral authority, and rather than just let the priest spout his powerless words, Ryan gave him the only power true Christianity has ever known:  martyrdom.  Ryan fired a chaplain for expressing his religious views.  That is pretty much the opposite of the “religious freedom” Republicans pride(!) themselves for upholding.  But today, “religious freedom” often means nothing more than the freedom of conservatives to enforce their values and views on others and demand accommodation, while denying any sort of accommodation to others.

Paul Ryan’s devotion to the writings and teachings of Ayn Rand are well documented.  It is often forgotten that Rand hated Christianity more than she hated Democrats, likely more even than she hated Socialists.  She correctly saw that Christianity means raising up the weak and pulling down the mighty (see Luke 1:46-55), the very opposite of her teaching that the rich are smarter and more virtuous than the rest of us.  She also saw that Christianity is not about worldly social structures and power, but is “mystical,” in her words, rather than materialistic.  Many conservative politicians and religious leaders alike claim to be both Christian and followers of Rand, but they are either liars or fools, and Ayn Rand would be the first to say so. That is why she urged people not to vote for Ronald Reagan, even when he was running against a Democrat (http://www.openculture.com/2014/10/in-her-final-lecture-ayn-rand-denounces-ronald-reagan-the-moral-majority-anti-choicers-1981.html). In attacking the Capitol chaplain for praying as his religion taught him, saying he was too “political,” Ryan was in fact imposing his politics on another person’s religious freedom; and furthermore, he was attacking someone who actually had a thorough working knowledge of religion, had studied it and was mentored spiritually as well as academically.

It is worth noting that Pope Francis is the first Jesuit Pope.  The Jesuits have a long history of both intense intellectual achievement, and vigorous social activism.  In fact, during the days of European colonialism and the genocide of the American peoples, the Jesuits were frequently attacked by the rich and powerful because they opposed the enslavement and robbery of the poor.  They were even “irrevocably” dissolved more than once.  Compared to what some of them suffered, Father Conroy’s loss of a plum job is so minor as to barely register on the Martyr Meter.  But from a political perspective, it is important.  He was fired for practicing his faith.  Unlike Kim Davis, he didn’t deny anybody else the right to do what they wanted; while she in good conservative tradition asserted her “religious freedom” to deny others their freedom, Father Conroy simply prayed.  Yet she is held up by Republicans as a victim of religious persecution, while he is fired from his job.  Certainly, if “religious freedom” means anything, and if Evangelicals will demand the freedom to speak about their faith, to witness to people even when they have made it clear they don’t want to be witnessed to, then for them to not stand up to defend Conroy is sheer hypocrisy—-or else it is an indication that the phrase “religious freedom,” which sounds so glorious, means something very different in the mouth of a Republican.

Advertisements

An Open Letter to My Congressional Representative

December 7, 2017

As I’ve said, most responses I’ve gotten from politicians look more like MadLibs than genuine communications; but First Amendment remedies are more legal, more moral and, I think, more likely to succeed than the Second Amendment remedies so often recommended by conservative politicians and pundits.  And I’m told that physical letters weigh more heavily with the Unlearned Elders of Washington than do phone calls, which themselves have more impact than email or petitions.  So, having tried petitions, tweets, e-mail and phone, I’m now trying actual letters.  I urge you to do the same.

Congressman Brett Guthrie

2434 Rayburn H.O.B.
Washington, DC  20515

 

Dear Congressman:

I oppose both tax plans, at least so far as any information has been shared with the people you work for. This tax plan is a budget buster, relying on bookkeeping tricks and flat-out fictions to look like it “only” raises the deficit a trillion dollars. It will raise my taxes, perhaps not immediately but in a few years, so any extra I get will go into savings, as Joseph saved during the years of plenty to withstand the coming famine. Taxes on the poor will be raised immediately. The LORD commands that we care for the poor (gleaning laws, Jubilee, restrictions on creditors etc.) and the prophets excoriate those who raise taxes on the poor to fatten the rich (see Isaiah 10:1-3, Amos 2:6-8, etc.).

Not only do your tax plans violate the Gospel and the Law, they violate economic sense and experience. You are following the theories which Gov. Brownback tried in Kansas; the result was the near bankruptcy of his state, until even most business owners were asking him to raise their taxes. It didn’t stimulate the economy then and won’t now. Kansas survives because it is part of a United States that is doing better; in particular, states like New York are contributing more to the Federal budget than they take out, and subsidize states like Kentucky and Kansas. Trickle-down economics will turn our economy into a trickle, when you are promising a flood of prosperity.

You seem to be calculating how much you can bleed your voters to feed your donors before we notice the pain. You offer us temporary cuts and later tax hikes, but give the wealthy permanent cuts. Either you intend to trick us, or you (as has been said) plan to make the tax cuts for everyone permanent despite the fact that this would push the deficit over two trillion dollars; and you know that this will only harm the economy, as it has in Kansas, Louisiana and elsewhere.

Reject this rushed, half-assed process that passes tax cuts for the wealthy in the dead of night, and leaves future generations to clean up your messy, thoughtless, hand-scribbled law. Start over, and do tax reform the way Reagan did: over years, working through committees, getting the best information and negotiating sound, thoughtful legislation.

 

Yours truly,

 

P.S. I am not just spouting uninformed and partisan opinions. In addition to numerous Scriptures, I have gathered objective empirical and historical data. I won’t bore you with a full bibliography, but I suggest this future reading for whatever intern might end up actually reading this letter:

Which states are most dependent on Federal funds? https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/

What Happens When You Take Ayn Rand Seriously? https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously

Thank you for your time.

 

Another open letter to my senator, Mitch McConnell

December 5, 2017

I’ve tried repeatedly to phone my senator, but his phone never answers and his voicemail box is conveniently full.  I’ve also tried the contact form on his web page, but his responses fail the Turning Test.  I’ve been told that physical letters have more impact, so I’m mailing this tomorrow.  I am not, alas, overly optimistic that it will actually be read either.  So that maybe another human being will read some of this and give me a rational comment in response, I’m posting it here.  Besides, this blog needs more recent content!

Senator Mitch McConnell

317 Russell Senate Office Building

Washington, DC 20510

 

 

Dear Senator:

I’ll try to state the main points quickly, since I doubt any human being is going to bother reading this anyway. Your answers to my previous calls and e-mails have been so off-target that I know no one bothers to read past the subject line. But I’m told that physical letters get a bit more attention, so I’ll try again.

I’ll give the conclusion first, and then the proofs leading up to it. This tax cut is a scam. It will raise my taxes, perhaps not this year but certainly in ten. However, tax cuts for the millionaires and billionaires, like you, your donors and Trump, are made permanent. You promised and still promise to give the middle-class and poor people a “big, beautiful tax cut,” and even say that you’re raising taxes on the rich. That is a lie, but you can make it the truth. Make the tax cuts for corporations and for the super-rich temporary, as you propose to do for the middle-class. Make the tax cuts for the middle class and poor permanent. The numbers that you have deigned to release suggest that you could do this easily, since the amounts you wish to raise from the middle class by abolishing their tax cuts match the money you wish to give away to the super-rich. You say that you need the ability to take the cuts back from the middle class if giving huge breaks to the rich doesn’t jump-start the economy. That’s insane. Instead, you should make the rich prove that having these big, beautiful tax cuts will encourage them to create jobs. If the economy tanks, they’ll have shown they don’t deserve or need tax cuts to stimulate the economy since it grew for over eight years without the cuts, but they’re still rich so they have enough money and to spare. This would go a long way towards convincing people that the GOP cares about its voters, and not only its donors.

Now for some backing for this suggestion. After eight years of hypocritical whining about how terrible it was that President Obama and the Democrats had passed a health-care bill without any Republican votes (though incorporating Republican ideas and soliciting Republican input throughout the process), your party rammed through a tax reform plan with less popular support, not even a pretense of seeking bipartisan input, and with so little discussion that few if any of the people who voted for it had any idea what it said. You said the ACA was rushed, but it was discussed in committees and debated publicly for nearly a year. Your tax plan was rushed through in about two months. During this time, the government has moved closer to a shutdown; but rather than deal with that first and work on tax reform for a year, you chose to ram through an ill-conceived tax cut for the wealthy. The CHIP program was allowed to expire; but rather than deal with insurance for sick children, some of whom may die, you felt it was more urgent to cut taxes on corporations so they could create jobs when we have extremely low unemployment rates already. I suppose some of the nurses who get laid off due to the loss of funding for children’s health can get jobs as gravediggers. Economists tell us that ending DACA could cost the U.S. economy $280 billion dollars (see http://fortune.com/2017/09/05/daca-donald-trump-economic-impact/), but you thought it was more urgent that we cut taxes to corporations when the CEOs tell us bluntly that most likely they will not invest the money in job growth, but use it for stock buybacks, dividends and executive bonuses. You are relying on economic theories and predictive models used by Gov. Brownback in his disastrous experiment with the Kansas state economy, which led to reduced economic growth and massive deficits. Kansas can survive because it is part of a United States that is generally doing better economically; in particular, New York and California pay in far more to the Federal government than do most “red states” like Mississippi, Alabama or our own home state, Kentucky (see https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the-federal-government/2700/). If you do to the nation what your party did to Kansas, the nation might not survive. In fact, it seems unlikely that the world economy could survive.

I understand that conservatives want to reduce taxation on general principle. I am in favor of sound, frugal economic policy. What the GOP is proposing is not that. You say this is a middle-class tax cut, but anyone who can read knows this is another of your “alternative facts.” In the real world, this is a middle-class tax hike, giving people like me a few dollars now only to yank it away just as I will be needing to retire. It is a major tax cut for the wealthy and for corporations. That is why the tax cuts for the poor and middle class, if they get them at all, will disappear in a few years, while tax cuts for the super-wealthy and for corporations are permanent no matter how badly the economy does in the future.

Rather than simply be negative, please let me offer the following suggestion: Reverse your priorities. Make the tax cuts for corporations temporary, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires temporary, and the tax cuts for the middle class permanent. Instead of eliminating deductions that middle-class and poor people need, like the tax deduction for medical expenses, keep them, and cut tax deductions for private jets, for golf courses and other things that only benefit Donald Trump and other billionaires. Right now, you are proposing cutting taxes for corporations and the wealthiest sliver of the American population by shifting more of those expenses onto the poor and the middle-class. You say that doesn’t matter, because we’ll have so much economic growth that we’ll be able to renew the tax cuts for the middle-class when they are set to expire. If that is true, then why not just reverse that reasoning? If, as Republican economic theorists claim, the economy grows in ten years, we could renew the tax cuts for corporations and for the wealthy at that time; so schedule those cuts to end in ten years. Let the tax cuts for working people be the ones that are permanent. Show that you care about voters, not just donors.

Also, you claim we need tax reform because you want to simplify the process of paying taxes by reducing the number of brackets. That is absurd. If you really want to make it easier for us to pay our taxes, let the IRS send out a bill (see https://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/16/technology/personaltech/turbotax-or-irs-as-tax-preparer-intuit-has-a-favorite.html). The government has our tax information already. The only reason the task of calculating our taxes is thrust upon us is because lobbyists for the finance industry have paid you and your colleagues to keep both the taxpayer and the IRS doing the same job of computing our taxes, so we’ll have to keep paying Intuit, H&R Block and others to help us with our taxes. If the government handled our taxes the way most other nations do theirs, we could reduce fraud as well as anxiety for millions of people. Right now, paying taxes is like trying to pay for a meal at a restaurant without seeing the bill, and getting punished if our numbers don’t match what the waiter says we ordered. I suggest instead that you, the waiter, hand us the bill, and if we need to dispute part of it we can deal with that.

When I was in college, Republicans were the party of hope, of international engagement, of moral principles, of sound, clear-eyed economic realism, and above all of patriotism. I didn’t always agree with Republican positions, but most of my best friends were Republicans or Libertarian. The conservatives I knew were able and willing to discuss evidence and to debate rationally. That Republican party is dead, and you, sir, are one of its murderers. As Bobby Jindal famously said, the Republicans have become “the Stupid Party.” My Libertarian friend once debated an avowed Communist who claimed Marxism was the only “fair” system. He replied simple, “But Robert, it doesn’t work.” Kansas is just one of several Republican states, as well as some nations, that have tried to apply the theories of Laffer and Ayn Rand. Those policies have failed, and hurt a lot of people, although the rich like you may not have noticed (see https://qz.com/895785/laffer-curve-everything-trump-and-republicans-get-wrong-about-trickle-down-economics-and-reaganomics/ and https://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously). Instead of being the realistic party facing down dewy-eyed, empty-headed idealists, you continue to push policies that have brought corporations, states and even nations to the edge of ruin. You are the party of dewy-eyed, suicidally-devout fanatics The party of Reagan would not do this. Regan worked for years on tax reform, talking across the aisle, allowing Congressional committees to do their work, and so on. And when the policies didn’t work and deficits ballooned, despite the reassurances of the Hayek-Laffer school, he backed off instead of doubling down. I say to you what the Libertarian said to the Marxist: What you propose doesn’t work, so try something else.

 

Yours truly,

A Gamer Looks at Politics: the government shutdown (pt. iv)

October 16, 2013

A Gamer Looks at Politics:  the government shutdown (pt. iv)

So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.

—-Gary North

 

Thus far, I have tried to discuss the strategy of the Republican party by looking at its moves.  I have shared my impression that their opposition to health care reform was a political tactic to attempt to win the White House, a tactic which failed; and now, faced with the consequence of having lost their best chance to meaningfully influence the health care debate, they are attempting to derail all reform efforts as part of their ongoing presidential campaigning.  In order to regain the leverage they threw away, they are engaged in political brinksmanship, threatening to essentially destroy the United States as the preeminent nation on the planet unless they are allowed to dictate the terms of its survival.

All of this assumes, however, that the GOP actually wants the nation to survive.  Some clearly are patriots; whether you agree or disagree with their policies, it is obvious that there are millions of Americans, from the rank-and-file to some of the leaders, who deeply love this nation.  In fact, some studies have shown that the more deeply someone loves the symbols of the nation, or the more deeply someone is grateful to the military for its work defending the nation, or the more generally patriotic a person is, the more likely it is that this person will be conservative.  This is not surprising; the person who loves what the nation is will naturally want to conserve it, while the one who wants radical change is likely not to feel any great commitment to things that are or have been.  This does not, however, prove that Republicans as a whole, or as a party, are more or less in love with the nation than are Democrats.

Many Republicans openly doubt that Democrats are committed to this nation.  They view the Democrats as a collection of gays, racial minorities, feminists, non-Christians and the poor who care only about their own little group.  However, when you add up the list of people who are seen as “other” by the people Sarah Palin referred to as “real America,” you find that the really real America is in fact that polyglot, cacophonous amalgam.  No doubt there are still many millions with allegiance more to their own group than to the nation; but for the most part, the old revolutionaries of my childhood have stopped trying to chop holes in the hull of the ship of state, and now spend their energies wrestling over the wheel.

The GOP, on the other hand, has become an alliance of groups that openly admit they do not have the best interests of the nation at heart, if “the nation” is the United States, established according to the Constitution and governed by principles of representative democracy.  For the last forty years, one of the most powerful blocs within the Republican party has been the Evangelicals, or so-called “social conservatives.”  They are impelled by a range of motives.  Some simply love Jesus and seek to express their faith as they understand it.  Some believe that the problems of the nation will be solved if everyone becomes an Evangelical.  Of these, there are two main types:  social conformists and Deuteronomistic patriots.™[1]  Social conformists believe that the greatest problems facing the nation are social division and disagreement; if everyone would just have the same values and goals, all our other problems would quickly vanish. The Deuteronomistic patriots, by contrast, are those Evangelicals whose patriotism is shaped by the view of history that underlies the “Deutonomistic History” in the Old Testament.  The Deuteronomistic History includes the books of First and Second Samuel and First and Second Kings, and outlines how God blessed Israel when it followed the covenant with God as described in Deuteronomy, and cursed it when the people broke the covenant.  This way of thinking holds that if the United States suppressed “sin” (such as homosexuality and female equality) then God would protect the nation from harm.[2]  This may be superstition and may be a reaction to the free-floating anxiety many feel, but it is not essentially anti-American.

Many Evangelicals, however, have little allegiance to the United States, precisely because they are Evangelicals.  Many are eschatological anarchists.  They do not care what happens to the United States or the world, because this world is the realm of Satan.  Any strong governmental or quasi-governmental power is likely the future tool of the Antichrist.  Better to have war, genocide, persecution and mass rape than to have the blue-helmets of the United Nations rolling across the landscape with their ever-efficient and all-powerful “Peacekeeper” armies, imposing the world dictatorship of their Secretary General (see the Left Behind books and movies).  Wars, earthquakes, famine, ecological and political disasters are all signs of the End Times, and therefore a good thing; and in particular, war in the Middle East shows that we are one step closer to Armageddon, when Jesus will finally return to rule the world.  Of course, eschatological believers don’t expect to actually have to endure most of these horrors they wish to unleash; they expect the Rapture to carry them away into Heaven before the seas become lifeless and the skies burn (whether from nuclear war, global warming or the star Wormwood).

The other powerful group within Evangelical political thinking are the Dominionists.  This group expects that the kingdom that Jesus will establish for his followers will be on this Earth, once Christians have replaced the representative democracy of the Constitution with a theocracy.  They openly proclaim that they intend to use the democratic institutions to undermine democracy, since democracy means allowing rights to non-evangelicals of all sorts.[3]  To the Christian Dominionist (particularly according to the Christian Reconstructionism advocated by Gary North and Rousas Rushdoony) anything that weakens any aspect of the United States as it exists today is good, because that will help create the power vacuum into which the true followers of Jesus can take over.  They promote the politics and economic theories of Ayn Rand (while ignoring the fact that Rand thought all religious believers were nut jobs more dangerous even than the Communists) because her sort of extreme laissez-faire capitalism means a weak central government unable to prevent a theocratic revolution.  They promote the destruction of all government social services, because they want people to depend entirely on churches for education, health care, and help for the elderly.  They seek to replace public education with homeschooling and religious schools, and promote state vouchers to divert funds from the public school system as a way to weaken it.  They promote fear and hatred of Muslims and other religions, because they want Christianity to be the ruling religious and political power.  They despise most other Christians because the vast majority of Christians would oppose their plans to impose a Mosaic Covenant theocracy on the nation.

To the Evangelical Anarchists, a debt default would be quite literally a godsend, something they will unhesitatingly work towards.  The eschatologists expect to be snatched up into Heaven as the economic and political chaos begins.  The Christian Reconstructionists want to cause political anarchy so they can take over; a national default will force a bankrupt America to shut down, leaving them to take over all functions of government.  And for every self-conscious Christian Anarchist, there are countless others in the Religious Right who endorse these policies without realizing the intent behind them or the inevitable conclusion that would follow if these policies were ever fully implemented.

A second group that has recently coalesced to sabotage democracy is the neo-Confederates, a.k.a. “Tea Party.”[4]            We can argue that the Tea Party is a fraud created by FOX News to gin up ratings (who can forget the footage of a FOX news producer leading the crowds in anti-government chants at a Tea Party rally?[5]) and financed by billionaires seeking tax breaks and weakened consumer protection laws, or that the Tea Party is just a rebranding of the Religious Right.[6]  However, it is also a revival of the political theories and, to a large degree, the aspirations of the Confederacy.  Much of its political theory rests on the writings of John C. Calhoun, the South Carolinian politician who fought long and hard for the preservation of slavery and the rights of Southern states to preserve their “peculiar institution” despite the fact that the pro-slavery vote was a minority view among voters nationwide.[7]  His theories, particularly the Tea Party favorite, “state nullification,” were designed to empower a white population that feared being overrun by non-whites; and even today, the racist motivations of Calhoun’s doctrine haunt Tea Party political thinking like some covert possession by the ghost of the Old South.  In fact, focus group studies have found that racial fears motivate much of the GOP rank-and-file.[8]  There is a widespread perception that “real America” is being swallowed up by racial minorities, gays, non-Christians, and generally people who are not the core Republican demographic:  whites, particularly older white males.  When the Old South saw that its traditional ways were being threatened by increased immigration and the voting strength of the North, Southern politicians like Calhoun began to argue that their states had a right to either leave the Union outright, or to simply ignore all national laws they didn’t like.  Today, the neo-Confederates see the future, where gays can get married and whites will be a minority and Muslims will soon reach 2% of the population and become the second-largest religious group in America; and they don’t like that future any more than Calhoun liked the idea of blacks voting.  It isn’t usually hatred, exactly; I wouldn’t call it “racism” as much as “xenophobia.”  It is just a fear that these new voters will change things for the worse, that they are not yet ready for the rights and burdens of democracy, and that their political aspirations have to be suppressed until they are.  And if it takes wrecking the greatest superpower the world has ever seen to save that romanticized, “Father Knows Best” world a little longer, that is a small price to pay.

As a game player, all of this does make a certain sense to me.  After all, as I look at the moves and try to determine the strategies of both parties, it certainly seems as if one party is consistently pushing the nation closer and closer to a complete breakdown.  Why do that, if you seriously love this nation and want to preserve it?  Simply because of a misreading of Ayn Rand?[9]  Or is their patriotism more like the love a weak, insecure man professes for his wife right before beating her, until he finally kills her rather than lose control of her?  Or, perhaps, is the solution to the mystery to reject the initial premise, that they love America at all?

Plato compared the state to a ship, and the leader to a captain.  If the GOP is the would-be captain, then Calhoun is the iceberg-lover who drew its chart; the Tea Party is the First Mate who wants to crash the vessel against as many icebergs as it takes to sink it; and the Religious Right is the pilot who believes that ramming through icebergs is the only way to reach Tahiti.  It seems logical, given the fact that we have seen the GOP steer straight for the iceberg of default more than once, to conclude that at least part of its strategy is dictated by groups that really want to sink the ship.  Perhaps the best analogy is something like “Betrayal at House on the Hill,”  “Battlestar Galactica” or “Are You a Werewolf?”   Some of the players are trying to solve the problem, but one or more are actually trying to sabotage the group.  Ostensibly, they seem to be cooperating; but when the moment is right the traitor turns on them and tries to feed the whole group to the monsters or robots or whatever.

As I write this, the news is that the Senate is struggling to find a plan to avoid default on the national debt and reopen the government, while the Tea Party, or anarchists, or neo-Confederates, or Cylons or werewolves (choose your term) in the House of Representatives argue that default is not a bad thing after all, and is certainly better than allowing Obama to win by letting the Affordable Care Act begin to go into effect.   Putting everything together and reflecting on the results, it seems very likely that the Tea Party will refuse any real compromise, demanding either surrender or default.  Most of their constituents have less stake in preserving the United States or avoiding another economic meltdown than they have in promoting their anti-national agenda.  In essence, they are gambling with someone else’s money, since they win even if they (and we) go broke.  Boehner and McConnell have to decide whether to let them stay in the game, knowing they will flip the table if they get mad, or kick them out of the room so the party leaders can finish the game with the Democrats as strongly as they can.  Given the tensions in Team GOP, it is really hard to predict what its next move will be.  Are the Republicans going to play “Presidential Monopoly,” read the polls that show the public demands a solution, and try to find one?  Or are they going to play “Werewolf” and try to win by destroying the group?

The Democrats seem to be made up of some who mix of “Sim City” or “Civilization,” trying to build a strong nation by balancing taxes, infrastructure, military and economic development, while others play “Monopoly” and try to get as many government services (utilities and railroads) and different colors (purples, greens, etc.) as they can.  They don’t want to play “Werewolf” anymore, and are refusing to play anything if that is their only choice.  Given that the Democratic games are more pragmatic and less paranoid, they will probably seek to make some sort of a deal.  However, they are winning the “Monopoly” game and have little reason to give up.  Also, they may not fully realize that the their opponents are playing a different game, and may not want to “win” at all.

Since the Democrats assume that the Republicans are still playing Presidential Monopoly, as they are, they will interpret the GOP intransigence as a political tactic, one which is backfiring or which is designed to help particular Republican Congressmen but not the party as a group.  If the GOP leadership can rally the “moderates,” then this is in fact the game they will be playing, and at the last possible moment, when both sides believe they have extracted as much as they can from the other, they will end this.  But if the GOP is led by the Tea Party, the game will become more like Russian Roulette with one player who is suicidal and another who doesn’t realize the gun is really loaded.  The Tea Party and Evangelicals will gladly pull the trigger for both sides.


[1] All right, I can’t trademark “Deuteronomistic patriots;” nevertheless, I coined the phrase and I am laying claim to it. Until I drop anonymity, please footnote the phrase and attribute it to “Philosophical Scraps” if you use it.

[2] This sort of thinking underlies the claim by Rev. Falwell and Rev. Robertson that the 9/11 attacks took place because of the widespread feminism and liberalism of the United States in the 1990’s, that Hurricane Katrina struck New Orleans because of the Gay Pride parade held in the French Quarter earlier that year, or that Hurricane Sandy was punishment for legalized abortion.

[3] See for example Deborah Caldwell’s exposé, “The Far-Right Christian Movement Driving the Debt Default,” Huffington Post, 10-14-2013 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/deborah-caldwell/christian-dominionism-debt-default-_b_4097017.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009 )

[4] Bruce Bartlett, “For Many Hard-Liners, Debt Default is the Goal;” New Republic 10-14-2013 (http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/14/for-many-hard-liners-debt-default-is-the-goal/?partner=yahoofinance&_r=0 ) ; also Michael Lind, “The South is Holding America Hostage,” Salon, 10-13-2013 (http://www.salon.com/2013/10/13/the_south_is_holding_america_hostage/)

[5] Danny Shea, “Fox News Producer Caught Rallying 9/12 Protest Crowd in Behind-the-Scenes Video,” 11-19-2009, (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/09/19/fox-news-producer-caught_n_292529.html)

[6] Chadwick Harvey, “Tea Party Activists are just Evangelicals in Colonial Disguise;” PolicyMic 6-26-2012 (http://www.policymic.com/articles/10086/tea-party-activists-are-just-evangelicals-in-colonial-disguise)

[7] Sam Tnenhaus, “Original Sin:  Why the GOP Is and Will Continue to be the Party of White People;” New Republic, 2-10-2013 (http://www.newrepublic.com/article/112365/why-republicans-are-party-white-people)

[8] Stan Greenberg, James Carville, and Erica Seifert, “Inside the GOP:  Report on Focus Groups with Evangelical, Tea Party, and Moderate Republicans;” Democracy Corps,10-3-2013 (http://www.democracycorps.com/Republican-Party-Project/inside-the-gop-report-on-focus-groups-with-evangelical-tea-party-and-moderate-republicans/)

[9] ANYONE who claims to be a Christian and to be a follower of Ayn Rand has definitely misread Ayn Rand.

Work and Philosophy: Psychological Interlude Chapter Two: Development (pt. ii)

December 3, 2012

Work and Philosophy:  Psychological Interlude

Chapter Two:  Development (pt. ii)

 

 

As people approach retirement, they enter the stage of Integrity vs. Despair.  We would expect that people would be concerned with the practicalities of retirement, such as pension and long-term health care.  However, Erikson says that the deeper need is to feel that one’s life was worthwhile.  The person who successfully resolves this stage has successfully resolved them all (even if retroactively) and will be content; the person who has not will be haunted by regrets, disgust, or possibly the desire to turn back the clock and somehow redo what was not done right before.   It would not be surprising then if many older workers, or managers, would want to return to the youth they let slip away too fast, or never really had.  No wonder that there should be a booming market for testosterone boosters and plastic surgery!  In the U.S.A. where the employer is often also the health care provider, this is a workplace issue.  Will employers provide health insurance that covers various varieties of medical rejuvenation?  Will older workers seeking to replay their Intimacy vs. Isolation battle side with younger workers dealing with Generativity vs. Stagnation, or will they seek to deny contraception coverage to them in order to fund their own Viagra?

Developmental theory suggests that what people want from work will change with time, and that people at different stages of life will have very different views of what is just or necessary.  This may lead different generations to clash over moral obligations of society and of employers, particularly if one or both sides of the conflict have failed to positively resolve some developmental crisis.  Erikson confirms that the younger, Stage 6 workers may well be sexually needy and promiscuous, or isolated and alienated, depending on how they failed to achieve real intimacy; and older workers or employers may see all young adults as examples of the maladaptation of some.  Likewise, some older workers can be greedy and cynical, self-important and dogmatic, or just bitter; and younger workers (or perhaps younger employers or managers) may come to see all older workers through that same lens.

Even leaving aside these potential generational conflicts, and dealing only with relatively well-adjusted people, the worker’s needs change with time, and his or her attitudes towards work will change.  The job that once seemed wonderful because of all the exciting, happy coworkers may come to seem dead-end or just trivial.  The job that was once prized for its opportunities may fail at delivering long-term security.  The stereotypical “good job” once implied you worked your whole life for one employer, retired with a pension and health benefits, and in between you were satisfied to get a good paycheck and fair raises for continued good work and loyalty to the company.  That has largely broken down.  Once one might be “married to the job;” but now most Americans change jobs and spouses pretty freely, and have even less faith in their employers than they do in their marriage partners.  Throughout the 1980’s until today, we have seen repeated, spectacular examples of companies driven into bankruptcy by the poor decisions, greed and sometimes utter criminality of their executives; and always, it is the workers who lose their pensions and health care while the executives bail out with golden parachutes.  For every one who goes to jail for a few years, hundreds go from prosperity to prosperity at new companies while their former employees are left in the rubble of the old ones.  Losing faith in the free market and employers to provide adequately for them regardless of their own efforts, many fight to preserve their Medicare and Social Security, while simultaneously attacking those who still have jobs and are demanding wage and health security for themselves.  Anyone who listened to the health care debates in 2009 will remember that while the pundits and demagogues framed their objections in terms of “individual liberty,” the loudest, most passionate and most repeated cries were, “Leave my Medicare alone!”

What has happened is that whereas health care was part of the worker-employer contract for many years, now more and more employers are finding ways to break that contract, or are just failing to honor it by failing to survive through the greed and folly of those at the top.  Consequently, over the years workers have sought to use government as part of the labor institution.  It would be the guarantor of last resort for pensions and health benefits, the arbiter in disputes of worker safety and fairness, and so on.  Younger workers, who often valued autonomy more than security, did not care for this and were happy enough with jobs that offered immediate paychecks and little else; older workers often cared only about preserving the benefits they relied on.  And the majority, in that Generativity vs. Stagnation, have conflicting priorities.  Some may want a more creative job; others a more flexible one that allows them to pursue non-work creativity and particularly family; others may want chances for advancement in exchange for their labor; and others, having fallen into the trap of self-absorption, cared only for immediate profits no matter the expense to others.

My point is, the notion of a “free market” hermetically sealed off from “government” is artificial.  Not only does the government intervene in the market for its own ends; those in the market need government to intervene, both to protect individuals from exploitation by others and to take up the slack when workers’ needs are not matched by their work opportunities.  Social Security and Medicare are interventions in the market, as Ayn Rand said; but before government intervened to provide them it was negotiated between employers and employees.  And by “negotiated,” of course, I mean workers in unsafe conditions receiving starvation wages; workers striking to try to force employers to pay a living wage; employers hiring thugs to beat up strikers; strikers fighting back, attacking scabs, rioting; and the government finally intervening in the form of police joining the strikebreakers.  And when unions are outlawed, as they often were, then only outlaws have unions; no wonder the Mafia took them over!

In the intersection between law, developmental psychology and work, the law and employers do intervene to regulate the Intimacy vs. Isolation activities of workers—-generally in favor of Isolation.  The company picnics and office parties that used to encourage non-business interaction between coworkers have largely vanished, partly due to legal liabilities.   The employer who can keep the worker as busy and tied to the job as possible will see profits; whether that satisfies the worker’s psychological needs is the worker’s problem.  The Generativity vs. Isolation crisis was traditionally resolved by having the father work and seek career advancement, while the mother took care of the family side of generativity.  Employers, for their parts, knew they had to pay the man enough to support his family on one paycheck.  Now, employers know they can effectively get the same worker for half the price, since workers accept that both spouses will work; what was once a choice or luxury for many is now the social default.  In addition, most marriages end in divorce, and most parents will end up as either both employees and primary caregivers of children, or paying child support.  For younger workers (Stage 6) this may be seen as a future problem only; and for older ones (Stage 8) it is the past.  Will either be willing to give up some potential wages or benefits for someone else’s problem?  Will they be willing to pay taxes to help Stage 7 workers meet their workplace needs?  When workers have needs the marketplace won’t meet, they will seek other means to meet those needs, which very often means appealing to government.  And in addition to class and gender differences, generational and developmental differences may place working citizens in conflict with one another, turning the marketplace and the political sphere into a single continuous battlefield.

POSTSCRIPT: Would Ayn Rand Join the GOP? (pt. 2)

October 1, 2012

POSTSCRIPT:  Would Ayn Rand Join the GOP? (pt. 2)

 

In her interview on The Colbert Report, Rand scholar Jennifer Burns identifies three aspects of Rand’s philosophy that she considers vital for understanding its reception by American conservatives:  rationality, selfishness and laissez-faire capitalism.[1]  While conservatives generally like Rand for the latter two, they generally reject her views on rationalism.  For example, Paul Ryan has said that reading Ayn Rand is what inspired him to get into politics, and he requires his staff to read her fiction.  However, he also says that when he read her philosophy, Objectivism, he “of course” rejected it because of its atheism.  In other words, he, and most American conservatives who claim to be inspired by Ayn Rand, treats these three elements of her philosophy as independent modules, to be swapped in and out at will.  In the case of laissez-faire capitalism, this is not true.  Rand’s defense of capitalism is the conclusion of the rest of her philosophy.  Capitalism is the best economic system because it recognizes, affirms and rewards selfishness.  Systems that seek to repress selfishness ultimately destroy nations that adopt them.  Only capitalism, based on selfish striving, can generate the wealth that would be necessary to improve the lives of others.[2]  Anything else is simply criminal robbery of the rich, generating nothing good.[3]  Ultimately, any system other than pure laissez-faire capitalism is simply a step on the road to Stalinism.[4]  Either the individual is completely free of all controls and regulations, or the individual is a slave.  There is no middle ground.

Rand’s faith in capitalism is logically dependent, therefore, on her positive evaluation of selfishness.  This in turn is dependent on her definition of “selfishness” and its link to rationality.  As she writes:

 

            The Objectivist ethics proudly advocates and upholds rational selfishness—which means: the values required for man’s survival qua man—which means: the values required for human survival—not the values produced by the desires, the emotions, the “aspirations,” the feelings, the whims or the needs of irrational brutes, who have never outgrown the primordial practice of human sacrifices, have never discovered an industrial society and can conceive of no self-interest but that of grabbing the loot of the moment.

 

The Objectivist ethics holds that human good does not require human sacrifices and cannot be achieved by the sacrifice of anyone to anyone. It holds that the rational interests of men do not clash—that there is no conflict of interests among men who do not desire the unearned, who do not make sacrifices nor accept them, who deal with one another as traders, giving value for value.[5]

 

 

So it is not just any selfishness, but only rational selfishness that Rand upholds.  Furthermore, that is the basis for her rational capitalism.  The rationally selfish person does not desire to exploit anyone.  The worker does not desire to rob the boss; neither does the boss wish to rob the worker.  The rationally selfish banker does not persuade poor people to take out loans they will not be able to repay, simply to get a bigger bonus; the rational banker explains the terms, risks and benefits of the loan and expects the rational customer to take it or not.  In such a rational world, there would be little need of regulations; the free market and the informed consumer would be enough.  And the rationally selfish person takes personal responsibility, which means he or she doesn’t attempt to shift the costs of his or her errors onto others.  Rand would say that applies, for example, to the old person who didn’t plan adequately for retirement; a rationally selfish person would not want Medicare or Social Security.  It would also apply to the millionaire banker who engaged in foolish or criminal trades; he or she would be liable for the losses to those he or she deceived.

As Burns points out, today’s conservatives like Rand for her defense of selfishness and capitalism; and as Weigel points out, politicians often simply grab snippets of quotes to use without regard to their context or true meaning.  And as I said, sometimes that matters, and sometimes it doesn’t.  What happens to selfishness when we take rationality out of the equation?  Quite simply, Objectivism collapses into Nietzschean nihilism.  If selfishness is not based on rationality, then it is based on whim; and that is the essence of Nietzsche’s subjectivism.[6]  And the whims of individuals naturally clash, so instead of the free and orderly market of fair traders Rand envisions, we end up with reciprocal robbery and caveat emptor.  And if you introduce religion into Nietzsche, that simply becomes a tactic in the struggle between wills to subjugate one another.  It is the philosophy of the underman, of the failure.

Most American conservatives would say they are not throwing out rationality; they are only adding religion to Rand’s essentially rational philosophy.  In much the same way, I am not killing you; I am just quickly adding an ounce of lead to your heart.  Religion is not rational; both its detractors and its adherents agree to that.  Rationality is what everyone can observe and agree to; it is the objective, the publicly discernable, the factual.  Rationality is the natural; religion is the supernatural.  When Paul Ryan, or any other politician claims to be defending rational selfishness while also defending belief in God, that politician is asserting the right to be irrational, and to set public policy based on whims, fantasies and/or wishful thinking.  You believe, as Ayn Rand did, that a woman should have control over her own body?  You are wrong; God told me that we men have the responsibility to defend the unborn person, which I know to be a person because God told me.  You believe tax money should not be spent to teach creationism because it isn’t rational?  You are wrong; God has told me that the world was created in a totally supernatural and unverifiable way, and I have every right to demand my particular religious belief be taught in public schools.

A fully rational society, like Rand describes, would probably be a pretty nice place to live.  Government would let you live your own life according to your own morals, instead of trying to impose values on you.  You would not be required to take care of the unborn embryo in your body, or the poor person outside your door; you would have every right to choose to do either.  Sellers of goods and services would not try to cheat you, and would freely take responsibility for their own mistakes; so there would be no need for government inspections of meat packing factories or of stock brokerages.

However, we do not live in this rational utopia, and it is unlikely that we ever shall.  First, it is clear to any unbiased observer that “rational” individuals by Rand’s standards are as rare as warm winter days in Wisconsin.  When people defend the right to be “selfish,” they are rarely if ever defending the right to be rational; more usually, they are defending the right to promote their own self-interests at the expense (or at least disregard) of others.  What for Rand is a principle of social harmony (like Kant’s Categorical Imperative or Spinoza’s confidence that rational people’s interests won’t really conflict) becomes, for many of Rand’s self-professed disciples, something more like Callicles’ notion that the superior man should live as a wolf among sheep, using his wits and strength to exploit others at will.  Rand complains that this is a distorted meaning of “selfishness,” foisted on us by the preachers of “altruism” (primarily Christianity).  She admits that her definition of “selfishness” is not the usual one, although she argues that hers is more correct.[7]  In reality, it has more in common with Kant’s definition of autonomy than it does with what we commonly think of as “selfish;” Rand comes close to quoting Kant’s Categorical Imperative herself.[8]  But neither Kant nor Rand would have any room for the voice of God overruling natural reason, universal logic and the normal laws of causality.  To be “selfish,” or “self-directed” as Kant would put it, is to trust reason and reason alone, not any outside authority and least of all a supernatural one.  And it is to desire that oneself should be judged by those same standards, and to be willing to condemn oneself if one fails to live up to them.  Very, very few are willing to abide by the strictures of rationality, or even capable of putting their own desires and prejudices aside long enough to try.

Second, since American conservatives continue to let God into the conversation, there is no rational way to resolve conflicts.  The same Bible that is used to justify persecuting homosexuals or banning abortion also denounces  greed and selfishness.  “He who has two shirts must give to him who has none.”  Both the Hebrew and the Christian Scriptures put severe limits on what one can do with one’s own property, in the interest of protecting the poor.  Every Bible passage that can be used to argue that the poor are lazy and/or dishonest can be countered by one that claims the poor are God’s special children, victims of oppression by the rich, and/or unfortunate brothers and sisters who deserve our love and help.  If anything, the number of Bible passages on the liberal end swamps the conservative side, which is why Rand rejected Christianity as an irrational, mystical attack on selfishness for the sake of “altruism” and the self-sacrifice/suicide of the individual.

When politicians claim to be arguing in favor of Ayn Rand’s rational selfishness, they are generally either self-deceived or lying.  That is a problem because Rand minus rationality is not “Rand Lite;” it is nihilism.  Paul Ryan, Rand Paul and the others do not offer us Ayn Rand improved by the blessing of Jesus; they offer us mere subjectivism, irrational whims and the clash of will-to-power with will-to-power, disguised as religious prophecy and moral crusade.  It is no wonder that our politics today consists almost entirely of point-scoring, excoriating Them for doing something We praised last week, ad hominem attacks, red herrings, circular reasoning and every other logical fallacy ever cataloged.  We have to rely on emotional manipulation and subterfuge, when we have lost faith in rationality and facts to lead us to solutions that all or even most can share.


[2] Ayn Rand, “Collectivized Ethics,” in The Virtue of Selfishness (New York:  Penguin Group USA, Inc. 1964) p. 97

[3] “Collectivized Ethics,” pp. 95-6.

[4] “The Monument Builders,” in The Virtue of Selfishness, pp. 100-101

[5] Ayn Rand, “The Objectivist Ethics,” in The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 34

[6] “The Objectivist Ethics,” p. 33

[7] “Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness

[8] “Objectivist Ethics,” p. 30

Would Ayn Rand Join the GOP? (Postscript) pt. 1

September 24, 2012

POSTSCRIPT:  Would Ayn Rand Join the GOP?

 

I recently had three doses of Ayn Rand:  listening to a panel discussion on The Diane Rehm Show, an interview with Jennifer Burns on The Colbert Report, and watching The Fountainhead.  The two discussions raised a very interesting question, which the movie began to address.  These three together prompted me to reexamine my earlier discussions on Ayn Rand and the modern conservative movement in the U.S.

The Diane Rehm Show focused on Rand’s influence on Republican politicians, including Paul Ryan.[1]  The panelists discussed Rand’s philosophy, the various elements of it and whether she would support Paul Ryan today.  Jennifer Burns, author of Goddess of the Marketplace, recounted Rand’s rejection of Ronald Reagan and her warning people against him, comparing this to the similar views expressed by Ryan.  Asked whether she would support Paul Ryan, Burns replied:

 

I think it’s a pretty safe bet that she would not. We have a lot of evidence, as much evidence as one can have from a deceased historical figure on views of analogist politicians. So one of the last things she ever published was a denunciation of Ronald Regan and it was specifically because Ronald Regan mixed religion and politics.

And because he supported the abolition of abortion so he was pro-life and she wrote a letter to her followers saying, “Reagan is the worst kind of conservative. He’s a dangerous man who’s mixing religion and politics, who doesn’t understand the fundamental importance of the separation of church and state. Don’t vote for him and don’t support him.” So I think she would look at Paul Ryan in much the same way as someone who, while he sounds close to her in economic and fiscal matters, has really missed a lot of her larger messages about the proper role of government.

 

 

Journalist David Weigel, asked about the way conservatives pick and choose the elements they like from Rand, had a slightly different view.  He said:

 

 

There are no avowed atheist Republicans in Congress. I think in the speech Jennifer’s talking about, which she — what Rand referred to as the god-family tradition swamp which is not something that you ever hear a Republican say. The way they square this circle is by saying, government when it intervenes is going to mess up. When it intervenes in charity it’s going to screw that up.

But take government out of the way and churches are going to fill the gap. Churches are going to provide what poor people need, individual relationships are going to pull people out of bad economic straits. That’s how they get around and I like the way that Jennifer’s putting that. I think it’s coherent in a couple of ways. It’s not a coherent adaptation to everything that she says but that’s not uncommon in politics. I mean, a lot of politics is aphorism and taking a quote and using it for your own purposes.

And that’s, you know, when Ryan talks about Rand, it’s not in the greatest detail. He just mentions John Galt’s speech, some passages in the novel about the meaning of money. They’re interesting, but I think, when people refer to “Atlas Shrugged,” they’re referring to a novel that takes quite some time to read, it’s a 1,000 pages long and the way that it gets into politics is just in a couple metaphors and analogies. So I think it’s fair they take some of that and just, you know, staple it to the other things they believe as religious, you know, as religiously influenced conservative politicians.

 

 

That is, of course, the question I asked at first:  is it legitimate to take elements of Rand’s philosophy, and not others?  Is it legitimate to borrow from Rand’s philosophy and Christianity, and claim to be honest to both?

It is not necessary to accept everything a philosopher says to feel indebted to that philosopher, or to reasonably claim to be a student.  Sometimes, there may be some minor part of the philosopher’s thought one chooses to ignore.  There have been many who thought of themselves as Platonists or Neoplatonists, but not all endorsed Plato’s ideas on censoring the arts.  Other times, a philosopher may have large parts of his or her thought that can be detached.  Many thinkers are influenced by Kant’s ethics, without having any interest in his epistemology.  But there are key concepts that are really essential to a philosopher’s thought, such that if one of those concepts is missing the whole thought is changed into something else.  If you decide you really like Aquinas, except for the Aristotleanism in his thought, you aren’t really a Thomist; you’re an Augustinian.  Returning to the question of Rand’s thought, what is truly essential, truly foundational in her thought, such that if it is removed the whole thing becomes something else?  What happens to her thought, if you do try to adopt Objectivism without that key element?

In watching The Fountainhead, I could see why someone like Paul Ryan might think he could just pick parts from Rand willy-nilly without the whole thing collapsing.  In a piece of philosophical fiction like that, there is dramatic development rather than systematic development.  Just as the movie-makers chose to ignore the atheistic elements and to only vaguely hint at the rape scene, so too a reader might selectively choose which scenes and lines were personally interesting, while ignoring others.  The character of Howard Roark is very compelling, and in some ways admirable.  He is creative, he is true to himself and his principles and his art, he demands no break or mercy for himself.  He is hard on others but even harder on himself, insisting that he will neither exploit nor be exploited.  He is called “selfish” by others, and does not dispute the word; but his claim that all interactions between people should be free exchanges rather than any sort of compulsion is the opposite of what most of us normally mean by “selfishness.”[2]  The movie is a celebration of the importance and nobility of the individual creative spirit, and an indictment (if not a straw-man slander) of “collectivism” and the forces of conformity.

Philosophical fiction can be very valuable.  It gives the writer the opportunity to present the abstract concepts in a more concrete and lively form.  Engaging the reader or viewer by head and heart together might help some understand concepts that they would misapply if they only had the intellectual side alone, and tried to integrate these concepts into their own affective existence.  On the other hand, philosophical fiction has limits and dangers.  The writer doesn’t necessarily have to present opponents fairly or accurately, and doesn’t have to present possible problems or flaws accurately.  The Hero is opposed by Villains.  The villains can be as despicable, stupid and ineffectual as the writer wants, and the hero’s plans and principles will always work out in the end.  It is easy to get swept up in the dramatic presentation, and to fail to ask the critical questions.  How many people really would say of themselves, as Toohey does, that they deliberately praise and cultivate mediocrity?  I’ve known some who did, but none who had the self-awareness to fully realize just what they were doing, and none who would have had the honesty to admit it to anyone else if they did ever realize it.  An insane tyrant like Stalin might have done so, but a supposedly typical newspaperman in America?  Roark may rape Dominque, but it’s okay because she falls in love with him because of it; this may be likely in a romance novel but in real life, such behavior is beyond abysmal.  But more concerning to the philosopher, in the film or novel ideas are weighted by their dramatic value, not their intellectual priority.  Roark’s claim that he wishes only to interact with others in a free exchange of equals is a clear statement of one of the essentials of Rand’s philosophy; but if I hadn’t first read her philosophical essays, I likely would have missed the full significance of that part.  Roark’s rationality comes through, somewhat, in his devotion to principles and to architecture; but the full ethical significance of it is really overwhelmed by the overarching themes of genius versus mediocrity and individualism versus the herd. The connections between his creativity, his devotion to his art, his willingness to labor in menial obscurity rather than to design products the marketplace demands, his invitation of martyrdom and his insistence on treating everyone as an equal rather than dominating where he can, all these connections are never made explicit.  To understand why Rand thinks the characters make sense and their motivations are believable, it is necessary to read more than her fiction.

To be continued….


[2] Ayn Rand, “The Fountainhead,” (film) Warner Brothers Pictures, 1949

A modern philosopher in a postmodern world.

February 17, 2012

Well, I do intend to get back to my series on the philosophy of work.  However, I have been grading tests and so on, and thus have not had time to write.  Not, at least, here.  I did, however, have plenty of time to write a chat with my daughter.  Here’s part of it:

[2/14/12 11:21:57 AM] teh.parents: Two weeks is the midterm, then we move into the moderns.  I’m more of a modern philosopher.[2/14/12 11:22:05 AM] teh.parents: Using the term academically, of course.

[2/14/12 11:22:15 AM] JEUNE FILLE: i was about to say, but you were too fast for me…

[2/14/12 11:22:17 AM] teh.parents: Since “modern” actually means 100 years old.

[2/14/12 11:22:39 AM] JEUNE FILLE: ok then

[2/14/12 11:22:42 AM] JEUNE FILLE: half modern.

[2/14/12 11:23:15 AM] teh.parents: I’m still inclined to think postmodernism was a mistake.

[2/14/12 11:23:35 AM] JEUNE FILLE: tu insultes mon pays actuel!

[2/14/12 11:23:52 AM] teh.parents: It’s one thing to say there are perspectives, another to jump to the conclusion that therefore there is no truth at all.

[2/14/12 11:25:06 AM] teh.parents: As Harry Frankfurt says, you can’t survive very long without truth.  Not Truth, but simple recognition of objective reality.

[2/14/12 11:26:07 AM] teh.parents: I think Stephen Colbert may have diagnosed the perils of postmodernism most succintly when he coined “Wikiality” and “Wikilobbying”

[2/14/12 11:27:01 AM] teh.parents: The first says that truth is democratized, so “true” is whatever we all agree that it is; the second says that truth is a commodity to be produced and sold.

[2/14/12 11:27:44 AM] JEUNE FILLE: oui.

[2/14/12 11:27:45 AM] teh.parents: So in the first, the population of elephants is growing, and in the second, Microsoft is a caring company because they pay people to write articles about how caring they are.

[2/14/12 11:27:55 AM] JEUNE FILLE: haha

[2/14/12 11:28:25 AM] teh.parents: And the idea of checking reality to see if these are true seems almost quaint.

[2/14/12 11:28:42 AM] JEUNE FILLE: lol

[2/14/12 11:28:56 AM] teh.parents: wol

[2/14/12 11:29:03 AM] teh.parents: Weeping out loud

[2/14/12 11:29:07 AM] JEUNE FILLE: what has the philosophical response been to it all though?

[2/14/12 11:30:14 AM] teh.parents: Well, I’m not really a 21st century philosopher.  But I’m not sure anyone else is, either, since there hasn’t been a new job created in ten years.  So all the work is being done by 20th century philosophers.

[2/14/12 11:30:59 AM] teh.parents: The Wittgensteinians would say that we all play our separate language games, with some debate over how permeable the borders of different language games are.

[2/14/12 11:31:08 AM] teh.parents: So that’s one for postmodernism.

[2/14/12 11:31:37 AM] JEUNE FILLE: hm.

[2/14/12 11:32:02 AM] teh.parents: The Marxists would say our intellectual categories are created by our material substructure, so the very world we live in is an intellectual construct of our economic situation.

[2/14/12 11:32:07 AM] teh.parents: That’s two.

[2/14/12 11:32:28 AM] teh.parents: Sartre— well, you know.  That’s three.

[2/14/12 11:33:22 AM] teh.parents: Simone Weil, Iris Murdoch and the other new Platonists—-against.

[2/14/12 11:33:38 AM] teh.parents: But they’re hardly discussed, really.

[2/14/12 11:33:52 AM] JEUNE FILLE: i know of people in france and europe thinking beyond etc, but mainly they just take what has been given and analyze according to that, which in turn creates new things, but isn’t necessarily as groundbreaking i think.

[2/14/12 11:34:04 AM] JEUNE FILLE: i see

[2/14/12 11:34:30 AM] teh.parents: Weil is really interesting to me, but I haven’t had time to work on her in years.

[2/14/12 11:35:43 AM] teh.parents: The Objectivists try to stay rooted in objective reality, and to maintain an epistemology of receptivity instead of assuming that we actively manufacture our world (with the further idea that since it’s manufactured, there is no shared reality).

From here on, the conversation wanders to the relative merits of Rand; so I’ll end the discussion.

I know that this is a rather superficial description of “postmodernism.”  And to an extent, I intend it as such, since I’m more interested in its manifestations in popular culture than in the more nuanced formulations that may be put forth by philosophers and literary critics.  I see the abandonment of truth as a widespread social-political movement.  Once it was Marxists who would say that our minds construct our world, and our truths are only the ideologies of oppressors.  Now, one is even more likely to hear this argued by a radio shock-jock with a high school education (and a drug habit and about 400 extra pounds).  In the USSR, people starved by the millions because agricultural policy was set by political and ideological agendas, and damn the science.  Only those scientists who were willing to abandon the essence of scientific method, and conform their “scientific” pronouncements to suit the party’s politics, were listened to at all.  Eventually, the denial of truth virtually destroyed Soviet agriculture, and they were forced to import food from people who did not deny the effects of selective breeding on crops.  In the U.S. today, economic, climate, energy and other policies is largely set by people who deny climate science for political and ideological reasons.  Even a reasonable and harmless gesture towards acknowledging the science, like Chu’s suggestion that we could significantly reduce global warming by lightening the color of roofs and highways, is met with violent resistance, ridicule, contempt and even rage.  Those who use science and observation to reach conclusions are met with the same hatred that the Soviets turned towards those scientists who spoke a scientific theory that seemed to conflict with the economic-political structure of the power elite, and for the same reason.  Just as the Left used to deny objective truth to defend ideological convictions, so now the Right demands the same privilege today.  Just as a Soviet scientist could be branded a traitor for speaking a scientific truth that offended against political orthodoxy, so now the Right brands any scientist whose theories are “bad for business” as a traitor.

The “modern” mindset insisted that there was such a thing as “truth” and that we could find it.  It erred, often, in mistaking some narrow vision of the truth (European, imperial, etc.) for all truth.  For this, postmodernism was and is a valuable corrective.  But what has replaced modern hubris is postmodern chaos.  As the postmodern conception has played out in the wider culture, it has come to mean that there is no truth, not even objective truths about reality going on under one’s nose.  And as Frankfurt has said, a society that doesn’t know what the truth is can’t really function.  It doesn’t know what to do, how to respond to events or even what those events are.  Our politics today seem like the spasms of an amoeba shocked by an electric spark.  Blind and deaf, it can only twitch and try flowing first this way, then that, until the assault either stops or kills it.  We don’t know what to do about climate change, or the recession, or most of the other important challenges facing us, because we refuse to listen to any truth we don’t like.  And in the Disinformation Age, you can find any truth you want, somewhere on the internet, to save you from the inconvenience of objective reality.   You can live in your own world, with the “truths” of your own race or class or party or religion, until actual, objective truth kills you.  Or as Frankfurt might put it, you can choose bullshit and hope for the best, or you can choose truth, simple reality about the world around you, and try to guide your life accordingly.

On Integrity in an Extramoral Sense

January 30, 2012

On Integrity in an  Extramoral Sense

 

A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesman and philosophers and divines.  With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do.

R. W. Emerson

 

Why do we philosophers care so much about integrity?  Should we?  Or is this a sham value that we are attempting to foist onto the masses?

Usually, people use the word “integrity” to mean something like moral uprightness, honesty, or reliability.  This meaning is based on a more fundamental sense:  to be integrated.  When a person’s actions are consistent with each other, with the principles he or she professes and (usually) the values of society, we say that person “has integrity.”  The person holds together, his or her life is of a piece, and we admire this.  It may be an esthetic admiration before it becomes a moral one.

If anyone admires consistency, it is the philosopher.  Most people say they admire the person of integrity, but it is hard to find much evidence.  Most people value social harmony more than personal integrity; those who support the values and goals of the rest of us are “good” even if those values are inconsistent with each other, or if those values espoused conflict with the “good” one’s personal actions.  But to the thinker, consistency of thought is the very defining characteristic.  If you can’t or won’t put thoughts together consistently, you aren’t a thinker.  And while the mathematician can be a consistent thinker but a dissolute fellow, the philosopher deals in ethics.  Ethics is the marriage of rationality and behavior; to be a philosopher is not only to have thoughts, but to have thoughts about life and values.  So the philosopher values integrity in behavior as a manifestation of consistency of thought.  From an amoral love of rational consistency, the philosopher developed this moral evaluation of integrity.

Kierkegaard argues that truth (particularly truth about life) is paradoxical, so it may seem inconsistent.  However, he does offer the first argument in favor of integrity of thought and action.  In the Concluding Unscientific Postscript he has the fictitious author Johannes Climacus argue that “Truth is Subjectivity.”  This is not a claim that truth doesn’t matter, that it’s all opinion and that all that matters is sincerity.  As argued in Kierkegaard on Sin and Salvation, “subjectivity” means first of all moral subjectivity:  the striving to find what is true and good and then to live accordingly.[1]  Primarily, it is a plea for integrity.  Again, though, this sort of lack of integrity seems so universal that we must ask whether there is anything wrong with it.  It may even be the human norm.  But Kierkegaard goes further, in the first volume of Either/Or.  There, the esthetic person is the one who lives on whim, and is unable to find one unifying goal or principle for his or her life.  Lacking this, the self dis-integrates:  the person collapses to a mass of conflicting and contradictory psychological forces.  Kierkegaard’s writings use several words to describe this condition, including “despair,” “perdition,” “insanity” and “the demonic.”  Only when the person chooses to live reflectively and to adopt rational, universal values does he or she find integration and fulfillment. [2]

From another direction, the Objectivist says the same thing:  “To introduce into one’s consciousness any idea that cannot be so integrated…. an idea that clashes with the rest of one’s concepts and understanding of reality—-is to sabotage the integrative function of consciousness, to undercut the rest of one’s convictions and to kill one’s capacity to be certain of anything.”  (Nathaniel Branden, “Mental Health versus Mysticism,” in The Virtue of Selfishness).  Or as Rand puts it, “Happiness is a state of non-contradictory joy” (“The Objectivist Ethics,” in The Virtue of Selfishness).  Happiness is impossible without integrity, since without it one is at war with oneself; and ultimately, to reject reason is to reject the means we humans have to pursue life itself.  To reject integrity is to reject survival.

I think Rand would agree with Kierkegaard that such integrity is in fact rather rare.  Most people simply believe whatever the group around them believes, or what gives them the most comfort and confirms their own prejudices. Many, including most self-appointed leaders (whether the TV preacher, the politician, the campus prophet or the water-cooler maestro) don’t even know the truth; they just say what will have the best results.[3]  The result is that both the individual and the group dis-integrate.  Truth is reality, and while reality is at times paradoxical or obscure, it is what it is.  Contradictory ideas cannot both be true in the same way at the same time; that’s simple logic.  Integrity, in the epistemological and extramoral sense, means that truth matters; and that is to say that reality is real.  Integrity is sanity.

 


[1] W. Glenn Kirkconnell, Kierkegaard on Sin and Salvation:  from Philosophical Fragments to Two Ages (London:  Continuum International Publishing Group, 2010) p. 91

[2] W. Glenn Kirkconnell, Kierkegaard on Ethics and Religion:  from Either/Or to Philosophical Fragments (London:  Continuum International Publishing Group, 2008) pp. 20-23

[3] See Harry Frankfurt, On Bullshit (Princeton, NJ:  Princeton University Press, 2005) for more on this

Would Ayn Rand Join the GOP Today? (pt. 3: The Thugs)

January 24, 2012

Would Ayn Rand join the GOP Today?

            The short answer:  No.

The longer answer:  No, no, a thousand times, no!

The still longer and fuller answer:  that will take awhile.

The Thugs

I have said that faith and force are corollaries, and that mysticism will always lead to the rule of brutality. The cause of it is contained in the very nature of mysticism. Reason is the only objective means of communication and of understanding among men; when men deal with one another by means of reason, reality is their objective standard and frame of reference. But when men claim to possess supernatural means of knowledge, no persuasion, communication or understanding are possible. Why do we kill wild animals in the jungle? Because no other way of dealing with them is open to us. And that is the state to which mysticism reduces mankind—a state where, in case of disagreement, men have no recourse except to physical violence.    Ayn Rand, “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” in Philosophy:  Who Needs It

 

Ayn Rand clearly would not be a Democrat.  She states clearly that such things as Medicare are steps on the slippery slope to socialism, collectivism, and the death camps of Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.  Only physical force can compel a person to give up his or her wealth to support complete strangers.  That is true whether the strangers are some king or Dear Leader in a distant capital, or the poor one one’s doorstep.  “In a fully free society, taxation—-or, to be exact, payment for government services—-would be voluntary.” (“Government Financing in a Free Society,” in The Virtue of Selfishness.)  Taxation, with or without representation, is slavery.

But there are other forms of slavery.  In fact, any government based on irrational principles must resort to violence; and chief among the irrationalists are the mystics. The mystic does not make laws based on rationality; “Faith is the commitment of one’s consciousness to beliefs for which one has no sensory evidence or rational proof.”  (Nathaniel Branden, “Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice,” in The Virtue of Selfishness.)  The same Republican party, and generally the same individuals who denounce the “economic enslavement” that is the forced payment of taxes to support Medicare, also support paying taxes to fund Bible classes in public schools.[1]  If anything is a violation of Ayn Rand’s rationality, it would be requiring her to fund a course in a public school that teaches as historical fact that Jesus rose from the dead—not as a matter of faith, but a matter of fact as well-proven as the fact that George Washington did not rise.  If anything is a violation of the Objectivist’s rationality, it is forcing that person to pay taxes to support a school system that treats the religious doctrine of Creationism as a scientific fact, just as well documented as the theory of evolution which is endorsed not only by 99% of all professing scientists but even by the leaders of most Christian denominations, including the Roman Catholic Church (the largest religious organization on the planet and in the U.S.).  The only way the radical agendas of the Christian Coalition, or the state school boards of Texas and Kansas and similar institutions can be carried out is through the barrel of a gun.

The mystic is a person who abandons reason, and therefore is left rudderless to navigate reality:  “A mystic is a man who treats his feelings as tools of cognition.  Faith is the equation of feeling with knowledge.”  (“Mental Health versus Mysticism and Self-Sacrifice”)  Every Republican presidential candidate who is considered “mainstream” has publicly done this.  Republican strategists deny the science of global climate change by saying, for example, “I think that every American, if they really thought about it, would have a gut feeling that some of the numbers that these scientists are putting out are not right.”[2]  Not “evidence,” not “rational belief,” just “a gut feeling.”  And based on that gut feeling, we have a tax code that subsidizes oil production and use while even minimal steps to curb global climate change (like painting roofs and highways white) are ridiculed.  Evolution, which is pretty much a foundational concept in biology, is dismissed.  Presidential contenders openly discuss outlawing homosexuality, while contending that it violates the rights of energy producing corporations to limit fracking, even if it causes earthquakes in Ohio or combustible drinking water in Pennsylvania—-because God hates homosexuality but supports commercial property rights.*

But in a contest between mystics and socialists, Republicans and Democrats, which is worse by Objectivist standards?  Given Rand’s deep-seated  hatred of socialism (which she identifies with Stalinism and the murder of millions of her people), I suspect she might fear the Democrats more.  She does, after all, say that government is the greatest potential danger to the rights of an individual—a thought often on the lips of many Republican politicians (lips, but perhaps not minds).  But before we decide, consider this paragraph from “The Objectivist Ethics”:

The avowed mystics held the arbitrary, unaccountable “will of God” as the standard of the good and the validation of their ethics.  The neomystics replaced it with “the good of society,” thus collapsing into the circularity of a definition such as “the standard of the good is that which is good for society…

So the mystics and the socialists are in fact morally equivalent.  Both are irrational, both subordinate the needs of the individual to some “greater good” which is determined by the irrational impulses of the leadership and their desire for glory, and both depend on a combination of force legitimized with propaganda.  If you accept the argument that the Democrats are socialists (something they would deny since they advocate what can be called a mixed economy at most), you have to accept the other side of Rand’s argument:  that the mystics are in fact no different, except that one subordinates the rational individual to the good of society and the other subjugates the rational individual to the will of an unknowable God, as interpreted by theocrats and divines.  Both lead, inevitably, to the rule of the thug.

The thug is one who uses force instead of rationality to deal with others.  Essentially, this is criminal, as in Rand’s repeated catch-phrase “the looters and the thugs.”  You can’t loot effectively without thuggery; even if you manage to obtain your loot through trickery rather than force, you won’t be able to hold onto it when others come to reclaim what was stolen.  But thuggery can be carried out under the guise of government too, whenever the government resorts to force or threat to trample on the rights of individuals.  And this is so whether it is a socialist regime trampling on individual property rights, or a mystical regime trampling on the rights of rational individuals to live according to their own reason.  Rand would say there really is no difference between the looter, the socialist, the thug and the mystic.  All agree that society and ethics are based on irrational whim; it is only a “question of whose whim: one’s own or society’s or the dictator’s or God’s.”  As soon as you abandon rationality as the basis for human interaction, the only alternative is brute force.  Socialism government and theocracy alike are, in the end, only thuggery legitimized by calling it “government.”

I’m not sure what Rand would have made of the spectacle of teenage girls, pregnant women and grandmothers being pepper-sprayed while protesting noisily but nonviolently.  She might have seen the OWS movement as a bunch of moochers, as their critics have described them.  However, listening to them speak for themselves, I find the argument unconvincing.  I’m sure there were plenty of moochers in the group, but the same can be said of a Tea Party rally—-after all, Rand considered Medicare to be an archetypal example of mooching and socialist folly, so anyone who protested “Obamacare” to defend “Medicare” would strike the Objectivist as just another socialist.  But plenty of people protested, and still protest the looters, those who got away with fraud and criminality for personal gain.  And from the Objectivist standpoint, even those who demanded bailouts not because they were crooks, but merely because they ran their banking and investment firms incompetently were immoral.  They did not take responsibility for their own failures.  If the world economy was ready to collapse because a bunch of 1%ers were reckless and foolish, how is that my fault?  Then why did I pay to save them?  The bailout was explained as necessary to save everyone from an economic depression.  If I set a fire in my backyard and burn down my neighbors’ houses, I will be liable for the cost of repairing the damage I have done.  I certainly won’t be allowed to profit from playing with fire.  Why, the OWS movement asks, should the billionaire and multi-millionaire executives of financial institutions be rewarded for playing with fire, instead of being compelled to clean up the mess their own incompetence and/or criminality created?

I’m not saying that Rand would agree with this.  For my purposes, I don’t even have to be right.  My point is this:  there are rational arguments in favor of the OWS as well as against it.  This is an argument that should be settled rationally.  It was not settled before the Occupy movement began; in fact it wasn’t even addressed.  If anything, the looters who profited by causing the financial firestorm were investing a small part of their profits into making sure the problem remained buried, by hiring lobbyists and paying politicians and buying advertising anonymously through Super PACs to make sure people debated everything else except why the economic arsonists were not being held responsible.    Rather than engage the OWS movement and argue rationally, clubs and toxic gases were used to silence them.  Seems to me, and to a lot of people, like the Republicans who called for and cheered this force were evolving (pun intended):  from mystics, to looters, and finally to thugs.

What difference does any of this make?  Who cares what Rand would say about the Republican Party today?  For an answer, I must resort to Rand herself:

If man’s thinking is to be valid, this process must be guided by logic, “the art of noncontradictory identification” —- and any new concept man forms must be integrated without contradiction into the hierarchical structure of his knowledge.  To introduce into one’s consciousness any idea that cannot be so integrated, an idea not derived from reality, not validated by a process of reason, not subject to rational examination or judgment—and worse:  an idea that clashes with the rest of one’s concepts and understanding of reality—-is to sabotage the integrative function of consciousness, to undercut the rest of one’s convictions and to kill one’s capacity to be certain of anything. (“Mental Health versus Mysticism,” italics author’s)

When some conservative blogger or commentator or radio pundit parrots Ayn Rand’s phrases such as “moochers and leeches,” it may seem no more harmful or significant than a parrot who endlessly repeats, “Bird’s can’t talk; I’m an elephant.”  But in fact, this mass of self-contradictory premises can only be maintained by a self-induced psychosis.  It is insane and the insanity will only grow.  And it is this insanity that lies behind not only the violence against the OWS movement, but also the endorsement of secessionist militias by Republican politicians in Oklahoma, and the threat of armed violence by Tea Party politicians in Nevada and elsewhere.*  No individual or group can be this schizoid and defend the freedom of anyone.  Either be Christian, or follow the atheist Ayn Rand:  don’t try to schlep her along on your trip.  You will always have a voice in the back seat shouting at you that you’re going the wrong way—-or perhaps, you’ll find her driving and shouting at you believers to shut up and stop your nonsense right now!

Or as the mystics would say:  “Elijah then came near to all the people, and said, “How long will you go limping with two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” ‘  1 Kings 18:21.


[1] as in, for example, Ft. Myers FL in the 1990’s; see http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/week146/cover.html

* Oh, and have you read what the Bible says about private property?  For example, if you buy someone’s land, you have to give it back after fifty years; no permanent property transfer is allowed.  You can’t even plant crops on your own land unless the central government/Temple allows it.  Lev. 25:3-13