The Binary Circumstance

In an article for Capitalism Magazine, Leonard Peikoff makes the case that both political parties are bad for America, but the Republicans, because they are pushing us toward theocracy, are far more dangerous.

Given the choice between a rotten, enfeebled, despairing killer, and a rotten, ever stronger, and ambitious killer, it is immoral to vote for the latter, and equally immoral to refrain from voting at all because “both are bad.”

The survival of this country will not be determined by the degree to which the government, simply by inertia, imposes taxes, entitlements, controls, etc., although such impositions will be harmful (and all of them and worse will be embraced or pioneered by conservatives, as Bush has shown). What does determine the survival of this country is not political concretes, but fundamental philosophy. And in this area the only real threat to the country now, the only political evil comparable to or even greater than the threat once posed by Soviet Communism, is religion and the Party which is its home and sponsor.

The most urgent political task now is to topple the Republicans from power, if possible in the House and the Senate. This entails voting consistently Democratic, even if the opponent is a “good” Republican.

Thanks to Trey Givens for pointing me to this article.

From reading Ayn Rand’s biographies, I was left with the impression that Rand often voted for Democratic candidates, though vehemently opposed to their politics, because she could not abide the “conservatives’” promotion of religion. So Peikoff’s position seems consistent with her view.

I do not think it is necessary to vote for Democrats in all races. As I said before, in races where a Democrat has a strong lead, your vote is better spent voting for the Libertarian candidate if one is running because the type of government they envision is as close as you’re going to get to Rand’s ideas about government under our current system. A vote for the Libertarian candidate legitimizes liberty-based values.

Every man builds his world in his own image. He has the power to choose, but no power to escape the necessity of choice. If he abdicates his power, he abdicates the status of man, and the grinding chaos of the irrational is what he achieves as his sphere of existence - by his own choice. - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Source

Ayn Rand said, “A leash is only a rope with a noose at both ends.”

With the November elections less than a month away, the TV is full of campaign ads, especially for Senator Maria Cantwell (D-WA) and her Republican opponent Mike McGavick.

I have heard it said that Americans don’t make anything anymore, a comment on the decline of our manufacturing sector. It’s certainly an overstatement as there are many goods and services that originate in our country.

But it also occurs to me that we spend a disproportionate amount of our lives generating politics and manufacturing political races. It seems like there is always somebody running for something or some campaign to put a new law on the books. They’ve been talking about the 2008 presidential election since before the 2004 election.

The campaigns universally play upon the fears of voters: The opposition will be bad for you.

Politics is big business whether we’re talking about the millions spent on getting the thousands of candidates elected, initiative campaigns, or all the money spent by lobbyists trying to get their legislation into law at the local, state or federal level.

In the struggle of many to gain control of our government and to have it work in their favor and against their political opposition, we have lost an enormous amount of control over our lives.

All the time energy and money spent on politics could be put to much better use, like scientific research, health care or education. Instead it is spent on politics which in a country run by Democrats and Republicans ultimately means it will be spent to regulate markets in favor of special interests. That inevitably robs individual consumers of choice and the high quality and lower prices that come from competitive, free markets.

Not only are we paying for all the political races, we pay for the damage that politicians do once they get elected which makes many people feel like they have to spend even more money on political campaigns to undo the damage.

It’s a vicious cycle.

While the TV ads are all designed to make the voters feel they will have a better life if a particular candidate is elected or special law is passed, the reality is that the more political we become and the more time, energy and money we’re willing to devote to passing laws, the more power we surrender over our own lives and pocketbooks.

He who wishes to enslave others to his will, enslaves himself.

Just yesterday I posted a quote from Ayn Rand about altruism.

Today I see this article about a study that links altruism to war, something that I’ve done on this blog many times.

Having a common enemy brings out the best in men, a new study has shown.

Psychologists created an economics game, asking groups of volunteers to decide whether to keep money for themselves or invest in a group fund.

The men in the study were much kinder to groupmates if they thought that other groups were competing with them.

The findings, reported at the British Association’s Science Festival, may help explain the evolutionary roots of men’s interest and behaviour in war.

[…]

The scientists found that when people thought that their group was competing against outsiders from other universities, the group dynamic became different to when everyone was competing for themselves.

The men in each group became less self-orientated, and were more altruistic than before, approximately doubling their donations.

“The men actually helped their group by becoming more altruistic towards them,” said Professor van Vugt.

“We’ve labelled it the male warrior effect.”

For the women, there was no difference in their behaviour between when they were playing for the group, or for themselves.

I don’t completely buy the conclusions of the article. After all, the study was done playing a game and the stakes are much higher in a war than they are in simple economic game. Nonetheless, it’s something to think about.

Psychologically, however, I’m sure there’s a connection between men’s willingness to sacrifice themselves for the collective and war. You could not have wars of nations against nations or religions against religions unless individuals believed their lives were less valuable than the group.

I found it telling that the author can suggest that altruism is “the best in men” while at the same time linking it directly to the death and destruction that comes from war.