The Man getting you down? With all the demands for government to just take over control of banks, and unconstitutional Bills of Attainder and whatnot, I’m getting a little anxious, just a little bit queasy.
So I take a bit of solace in reading people writing about Ayn Rand, and her ideas, and how, if worse comes to worst, maybe it wouldn’t be a bad idea to totally “Go Galt.” Check these out:
Caroline Baum at Bloomberg says Obama Needs AIG’s Liddy, Not the Other Way Around:
I’m not alone in noting the parallels in the government’s evolving response to the financial crisis. For a year I’ve been waiting for Paulson or Geithner to announce “the John Galt Plan to save the economy,” which is right out of Rand’s novel.
It wasn’t until the AIG bonus brouhaha broke last weekend and I watched government officials flailing to contain the fallout that I realized the government is losing its leverage. Or maybe it never had any leverage to begin with.
Let me explain. The government has been propping up teetering financial institutions, including AIG, Citigroup and Bank of America, creating the illusion that the banks need the government.
The government doesn’t care about these institutions. It cares about the stability of the financial system: the totality, not the parts.
Stuart Schneiderman writes about Going Galt from a psychological perspective:
Borrowed from Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged” the concept means that when taxes become confiscatory, they will become a powerful disincentive and people will choose not to work. If that is the only way they can exercise their freedom, then that is what they will do.
Edward Cline at Capitalism Magazine writes On The Left-Wing Reaction to John Galt, Ayn Rand, and Tea Parties:
This is because they thought she and her philosophy had been buried by that arch-conservative, Whittaker Chambers, wielding a shovel on one side of the grave, while that fellow-traveler and critic Granville Hicks wielded another on the other side, in a true demonstration of bipartisanship half a century ago. And hadn’t all the academics and pundits and book writers since then refuted her and her philosophy over time and ensured that she would not return to haunt them?
The cultural and political elite are upset that she has not been forgotten. That philosophy has returned to haunt them and aggravate their guilt. And they are in high dudgeon because they are being cast in the role, not as saviors, but as her black-hearted villains. They are discovering that ideas cannot be interred as permanently as their authors. Atlas Shrugged is on their minds.
And Yaron Brook at the Wall Street Journal keeps breaking it down into bite sized chunks, for savoring (and hopefully easy digestion) with Is Rand Relevant:
Rand also noted that only an ethic of rational selfishness can justify the pursuit of profit that is the basis of capitalism — and that so long as self-interest is tainted by moral suspicion, the profit motive will continue to take the rap for every imaginable (or imagined) social ill and economic disaster. Just look how our present crisis has been attributed to the free market instead of government intervention — and how proposed solutions inevitably involve yet more government intervention to rein in the pursuit of self-interest.
Rand offered us a way out — to fight for a morality of rational self-interest, and for capitalism, the system which is its expression. And that is the source of her relevance today.
There. That’s better. If you’d like, stand on one foot and say it with me:
Metaphysics: Objective Reality; Epistemology: Reason; Ethics: Self-interest; Politics: Capitalism