A new tyranny will arise from the ashes of the old one. Objectivists see no need to exert control over others, but that leaves a massive power vacuum that parasites seek to fill.

If we are going to win minds via a home school movement, we will forever be relegated to a sufficiently small movement that we will continue losing. This is why the concept of Galt's Gulch is somewhat appealing. The exclusivity of the group is key.

Sure, Galt retreats to his hidden valley and he's happy, but everyone else? For them Atlas Shrugged ends and Mad Max begins. Why is the common Joe supposed to get excited about that?

True enough, but not everybody has to agree for it to function. We would have to convince enough of the population to get the free-enterprise, rights-res-
pecting government in place. It will be very hard. It can't be done just at the political level. It is necessary to change the way people think about metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Perhaps we can start with the home-school movement. That's not perfect, because some home-schoolers teach their children based on religion; but it's better than public, because that's not so entrenched, and one home-schooler does not have such power over another home-schooler in the next house.

Galt advises the people to go on strike--in the way he did.
At the end, when the tyranny collapses, he says they are going back to the world.

Need to pass the 90% for passage rule and a 1 year sunset provision for all existing laws at the same time.

Not yet, but I'll put it on my list. Thanks for the suggestion!

This is precisely why I propose requiring higher percentages for passage of legislation. In Florida, if an initiative gets on the ballot, it can become part of the Florida Constitution with only a 60% passage. This is definitely NOT high enough. I think 90% might be high enough, but I am not even sure that is high enough.

Exactly !! I have far more to fear FROM government in the USA today.

In fact, it is the government mob that uses force against individuals instead of defending them from force.

True, but you left the government looters out of the equation. Government looters are like cockroaches. A robber/burglar likely only has an effect on one family at a time. The rate at which government looters can seize power, if left unchecked, is transformational to a society.

Just curious, blarman, but did you ever read "Atlas Snubbed" by Ken V. Krawchuk? It's been a long time since I've read it, but it is a rather irreverent and totally unauthorized sequel to "Atlas Shrugged". To an Ayn Rand purist it is heresy. Nevertheless, I enjoyed the read.

The happy ending in Atlas Shrugged is the least realistic aspect of the book. I love reading Atlas Shrugged, but the idea that looters would get out of the way? C'mon! The ending to Atlas Shrugged is ridiculous, as in worthy of ridicule. It is the least reasonable thing that Ayn Rand ever wrote or did.

Requiring a much higher threshold for passage of legislation would have two positive effects:
1) Less legislation would get passed, minimizing the effect of future legislation's impact on producers.
2) There would be far less power for looters to accumulate and distribute, and for moochers to benefit from.
This is precisely why requiring a higher percentage threshold for legislation passage ... will never happen.

The most important point of your well-written comment is in parentheses "(should be)". The fact is that mobs do gain power by force precisely because such force is not dealt with by government.

"To say- by reason, is not enough, humans are rational but are (more often) rationalizers- making up supposed reasons to justify feelings."

Bingo. If we were as rational as we think we are, a lot of things could work themselves out through debate and discourse. Instead, we get wars based on the lust for power. And sometimes, it is precisely the tolerance of the majority which allows a minority to usurp power and inflict coercion and tyranny.

The story is fine, but it's missing the happy ending. In Atlas Shrugged, society doesn't rebuild itself into an Objectivist utopia. (It doesn't rebuild itself at all.) No one is actively trying to persuade people to adopt a new system of government espousing Objectivist principles. They just get a twenty-minute lecture from Galt about how they've brought this all on themselves (true though it undoubtably is). And to what end? Nothing is specified. Is Galt inviting the common people to the Gulch? Not so much - the invite list is pretty exclusive. So while the Objectivist may place himself or herself in the Gulch, the common person (i.e. non-Objectivist) who reads this simply goes "What about me? You're just going to leave me here?"

It's all fine to have a great protagonist who goes through trials and overcomes them. That's the hero's story. The key comes in making the hero relatable to the common person. When you're talking philosophy/religion, you have to give the reader something to aspire to with enough conviction to make them change their existing philosophy in order to adopt another. If the author is asking why conservatives don't become Objectivists, one has to compare the respective heroes involved and what each hero offers in their vision of the future. That's what ultimately has to sell.

Ain't that the truth!

"A great story with a happy ending"? What about
Atlas Shrugged?

Not everyone has to agree for it to function. For instance, in more than one society that manages to function, there are criminals: robbers, burglars, wife-beaters. etc. who get arrested, tried, and sent to jail, and the society continues to function.

Altogether intelligent, insightful, and civil comments, which is why this is my favorite site for posts.

My essential point in reviving Burke is to ask: Can a government founded on the realities of both human nature and human experience/history be derived essentially deductively to arrive at two or three (at most) principles to be applied absolutely in defining and bringing into existence a government. Are there additional principles or generalizations about man and society--beyond those in the logical structure suggested by Ayn Rand--that are relevant to government? I try to illustrate this toward the end of Part II of the article with the principle that man's reason must be protected in its freedom of action in society and, since initiation of force is the only way to violate that freedom, the only job of government is to ban the initiation of force from human relations. Is that indeed the only foundational principle we require to define and implement government?

With all due respect, I think labeling Burke's ideas as conservative is folly. Conservatism stems from the Judeo-Christian philosophy. I'd bet less than .01% of self-titled conservatives could even tell who Edmund Burke was. Attributing conservativism to Burke is a stretch to say the least, especially when one looks at the proposed three pillars.

1. Rejection of abstract philosophical principles. I don't think this is it at all. It comes down to how one derives those principles in the first place, because in the end, both libertarians and conservatives both believe strongly in individual rights and freedom from overbearing government. The existence and nature of God is quite an abstract principle - just one that libertarians and conservatives (especially among themselves) happen to disagree on.

2. Appeal to traditions. This is an argument of perspective rather than principle. Atheists see what theists believe and attribute it to tradition instead of looking at the underlying principles involved. When one gets down to brass tacks, derivation - while important - should be secondary to the actual principle itself. Much of this devolves into an argument of chocolate over vanilla rather than "is it ice cream?"

3. I'm not really sure why this is argued to be a separate point, because its a rehash of #2.

In regard to revolutions, the French Revolution was anarchy and chaos. It was the extreme frustration which comes from a people who were ignored by their government leaders. If it began with "conservative" principles as the author claims, it turned away from those to anarchy and chaos and unnecessary bloodshed (via the guillotine). Amidst the naming of an impressive list of other conflicts, the one most pertinent was rather obviously missing: the American Revolution. If one wants to point at a classically conservative revolution, I can think of no better example.


"Does conservative rejection of Objectivism—in some instances, a consciously articulated rejection of Objectivism’s “extremism” (insistence that principles be held with total consistency)—proceed from conservative abhorrence of rationalistic utopianism (Ayn Rand fashioned Galt’s Gulch as “the Utopia of Greed”)?"

I'd actually argue that - specific principles aside - the reason that Objectivism has failed to sweep the world (let alone conservatives) is that it lacks a great story with an inspiring ending. While they are absolutely critical, principles are cold, dry things which only a small fraction of the masses are willing to delve into for any amount of time. One doesn't attract the masses with principles; even Christ had little success here which is why he predominantly taught in parables and stories. It is absolutely critical for an ideology's perpetuation and growth to have a great story with a happy ending. I hate using Hollywood, but take the movie "Titanic" for example: horrible principles, but a box office smash because it appealed to the masses with its end vision of love winning out - even over death. Take other wildly successful movies and similar themes arise.

Remember, you are proselytizing and change takes energy of conviction. Only a rare handful develop the necessary energy of conviction based on principle alone. There has to be hope for a brighter future. What is the value proposition brought by Objectivism to the conservative? Sure there are principles, but is there an end game of the soul that makes adherence to those principles meaningful (heaven)? Is there a hero to emulate? Is there a local support group (congregation)? I think that if there is any single principle (pun intended) upon which "Objectivism's extremism" is unappealing to conservatives, it would be in its extreme individualistic focus - a focus which pointedly eschews family. Regardless one's disagreement with the various theist religions, they are at least self-perpetuating to a large degree. One is free to criticize tradition, but one does so inherently recognizing that it is that inertia of tradition which provides the first significant opposition to cultural change.

If you want three actual pillars of conservatism, I would suggest the following:

1) Mankind's shared heritage as common creations of a single Supreme Being underpin a belief in equality and freedom of choice.
2) Governments are instituted by men so as to promote individual choice and accountability, but ultimate accountability and reckoning is not to be had in this life.
3) It is the vision of the afterlife and its dependence upon defined, unalterable principles which drives one to action in both one's personal life and governance.

WDonway has written an incisive article.
It occurs to me that many critics of Objectivism do not understand it and are really finding fault with Libertarianism. To me, government is important in Objectivism in establishing and preserving the level of stability and rules essential for human flourishing. Such government tho' essential is to be strictly limited. An Objectivist society is not about voting but on requiring compliance with the fundamentals.
There could be a lot of voting, not for government as it should not do much or have much power, but in voluntary associations in, say, charity, sport, culture, business and housing. Voting could set rules which members much obey. Members have choices of complying, rationalizing, or leaving.

The problem that jbrenner describes of mobs gaining power by force is (should be) dealt with by government carrying out its proper role of stopping the use of force by mobs against individuals.

The issue I have is, exactly what are the fundamentals? Who sets them and how? To say- by reason, is not enough, humans are rational but are (more often) rationalizers- making up supposed reasons to justify feelings.

There is nothing in Objectivism that requires every individual to agree to it. That wasn't my point. What I am saying is that the temptation of a sufficient number of parasites (as defined in The Fountainhead -which I saw last night while commenting on this thread) toward a more base human nature overwhelms a laissez faire government. Examples in American history prove that multiple times. It does not take a voting majority of parasites to cripple a society of producers (although arguably we have one now); it only takes a few well-placed looters (the two President Roosevelts and Woodrow Wilson, for instance). The assumption of Teddy Roosevelt to the presidency upon McKinley's assassination is a classic example. Teddy Roosevelt was placed in the VP position precisely so that he would have less of an impact. That boomeranged on the three of the greatest producers of all time (JP Morgan, Rockefeller, and Carnegie - the latter two of which succumbed to the error of altruism after Morgan's death).

Parasites use force, and have no compunction about its application. They consider use of such force their "right". We lack sufficient willingness to shrug them off soon enough or often enough. Look at how beasts of the field or desert only occasionally shrug off mosquitoes.

My point is summarized in this portion from Ronald Reagan's inaugural address as governor of California in 1967:
"Freedom is a fragile thing and is never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people.Those who have known freedom and then lost it have never known it again. Knowing this, it is hard to explain those who even today would question the peoples capacity for self rule. Will they answer this: If no one among us is capable of governing himself, then who among us has the capacity to govern someone else? Using the temporary authority granted by the people, an increasing number lately have sought to control the means of production as if this could be done without eventually controlling those who produce. Always this is explained as necessary to the people's welfare. But, the deterioration of every government begins with the decay of the principle upon which it was founded. This is true today as it was when it was written in 1748."

Thanks for commenting! I would be interested in how you would state the "challenge" that you perceive.

As for the objection to Objectivism, there is nothing in Objectivism requiring that every individual agrees to a government as defined by the philosophy. Because that government would be an institution operating solely to respond to the initiation of force by any individual against any other. So, if 75 percent of those in a given geographic area decided to create a government, it would not affect the rest of the population unless someone wish to commit a crime or other act of force. Objectivist philosophy of government posits no positive obligation of any kind of any individual. Only the obligation to refrain from the initiation of force.

So not everyone has to agree to create a government. Mooches and looters to the extent they attempted to rely on force would be answered by government force.

This is the utopian ideal of an Objectivist society and government. It rests on the single principle of protecting every individual's exercise of reason in a social context.

For the Burkean challenge to this approach, see the article. And thanks again for commenting.

********