Loosing The Information War

I know Rand believed that Politics was the last branch of Philosophy to pursue if one wanted to bring bout lasting change within a society but as far as spreading the ideals of a philosophy goes I can't help but think that decision was shortsighted.

In the US in the 1940's Leonard Read began calling himself a Libertarian and later in 1955 another early Libertarian named Dean Russel suggested that the movement call itself by that name. But Rand wrote "We The Living" in 1936 so obviously her development of the philosophy of Objectivism began well before that. Why has Libertarinism outpaced Objectivism in the public sphere?

The Objectivist reason for putting aside political machinations has always been that in order for there to be real change that individuals within society must integrate the reason and meaning of the philosophy in order for any change to be lasting or for it to work. There is a great article on of all things the video game "BIOSHOCK" that explains this thinking well. The long and the short of it is that the game is set in a future where apparently Objectivist principals have been forced upon a society that has not integrated the tenants of the philosophy into their lives and the ensuing mayhem (in the game) can be traced back to that fault.

I, personally agree with that assessment and the horrible outcome such a radical shift would create. The thing is that we Objectivists are a rational lot. We would no more advocate the immediate and complete imposition of laissez faire capitalism on a nation addicted to the welfare state and all it's "freebies", than we would suggest that a four year-old (a being capable of self-directed action) should be left alone to do as it wishes.

The logical course of action would be to incrementally dismantle the welfare state, not to abolish it at the start. All the while the political leaders, activists and public supporters, who would be knowledgeable and respected Objectivists would be active in the public, expressing the philosophy at the root of their politics to individuals and business. This would spread the ideas behind the politics, the philosophy behind the public facade.

The two main political ideals in the west today are conservatism and liberalism but I would bet that of all those who call themselves "Conservatives" or "Liberals" only a small fraction agree on every point of politics or philosophy encapsulated in those words. In a way the Liberal and Conservative politicians of today are doing already what I imagine the Objectivist Politicians of tomorrow should do.

Objectivism and Libertarinaism have taken two different paths, a public, dare I say populist one and an academic, private one. How have they fared in spreading the ideals behind the politics?

Libertarinism as a political ideal is taught at university's all over the world. Libertarinism has achieved almost a third party status in American politics, no small feat for a practical political ideology less than 100 years old. If you tell a reasonably political person that you are a Libertarian he/she will know what that means, will recognize the basic ideals behind that system.

Objectivism, politically is an unknown, now that isn't such a bad thing when you realize that an "Objectivist" Party is a misnomer (because the word refers to all the ideals of the Philosophy not just the political branch) but the Political ideals, by whatever name they happen to become known by (Capitalist Party, Individualist Party) are also politically virtually unknown and therein lies the problem.

Political ideals spread philosophical ideals. Retuning to the popular political ideologies, the so-called Neo-Conservatives in US politics today are largely concerned with imposing morality. The political ideal of Conservatism is spreading the philosophy and ideals of the Christian religion. Liberals in their quest for what they consider a "just society" are similarly spreading the philosophy of socialism.

When the voter steps into the booth, he/she may not believe all that is held within the philosophy of the political party but he has been exposed to it. A large portion of that philosophy has already become a part of his thinking process, his exposure to it has started him thinking about it. When the Liberal leaning Joe-six-pack hears someone comment on "excessive wealth" philosophically he has been prepared by the political machine to accept that there is such a thing. When Conservative Billy-Bob reads in the newspaper how teen pregnancy is on the rise he has been politically indoctrinated to blame that loose morality on the modern world and perhaps secular multiculturalism.

This is the advantage that Libertarianism has gained over Objectivism. In spite of the fact that Libertarianism as a political ideology is a mixed bag of Anarchists, classic liberals, Anarcho-capitalists and other radical and fringe elements, by seeking to be a political ideal it has been able to move into the mainstream, not just of politics but of ideas and ideals.

In modern warfare there is a thing called the information war. It encapsulates not only gathering information but disseminating it. Objectivism is loosing the information war.

As I sit here and type this post, the spell checkers in my computer's operating system, on my browser and in the "Blogger" program on this site don't even recognize the word Objectivism, but it does Libertarianism...

Sovereign Man, Servant State.

States are a construct of man, they can not exist except in the presence of men and the rule of law, they are a creation of men, ensured by men.

But every day the rights of men are confounded by the constructs of their states. Political scientists talk about the “Sovereign State”, which is to say the Westphalian model, under which States were given the status formerly held by nobility, that of a sovereign. When the Westphalian state reached its apogee in the late 19th century, as the illegitimate child of that original unlawful hierarchy, the only thing that had changed was who/what wore the robe of regent. States have become our hereditary nobility so today individuals find the boot on their throat does not belong to an Emperor, King or Queen, but to the state, their sovereign state…

The Westphalian concept takes the individual and places him subservient to the state, for the state has sovereignty and men merely have rights, as granted, when granted, (it seems) by the state. That political aberration makes the sculpture its own creator and forgets the artist entirely.

But that perversion is impossible, states are not conscious, nations do not create! The state is the employee of the people or at least that was the intent. That was the noble thought implicit in the US constitution, but what people in democracies all over the world have done by default, design or dread is sanction their own replacement. We’ve created the sovereign state and made servants of men.

How did this happen?

Incrementally.

Government to be controlled must be limited, it must have a single solitary function to protect the individual rights, life, liberty and property. But the instant government is permitted to stray, to expand that duty one iota to any other social assurance or general welfare, no matter how noble the intent or how pure the cause, the free man starts laying the foundation of his own prison.

Who let this happen?

All of us.

If you have ever said, in response to some personal outrage, that “there ought to be a law” , you are responsible. If you’ve ever looked to the big hand of government instead of looking to your own flesh and will, you are the cause. If you have ever followed the surge of the mob, the call of the collective and derided “the other” you are to blame. But more, if you’ve ever stood silent and watched it all… you are the problem still.

We need to remake the system. I don’t want to live as a servant in a sovereign state. I want us all to be sovereign in a state that serves, and that is the ideal that should have been.