Atlas Shrugged, Part 4

Here is my summary of Part III of Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. As a reminder, my reason for devoting this time is both the recent movie, renewed interest in Ayn Rand, and the resurgence of libertarian thinking.

In III.1, Dagny finds “Atlantis,” the place where the producers of the world have come to “retire” as the engine of the world. Their motto is simple: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another person, nor ask another person to live for mine. Here is another element of her moral argument for her brand of libertarianism. If I choose to live off government aid, I am choosing to ask other people to provide for my life and sustenance. You do not help other people when you propose a philosophy of government that encourages them to do this. You are encouraging an immoral choice. In any case, John Galt tells Dagny that the producers of the world, the people who value the products of the mind, are on strike. He has the turn of phrase that the despoiling of reason has been the motive of every anti-reason creed on earth. The despoiling of ability has been the purpose of every creed that preached self-sacrifice. In a pointed comment about government health care, a doctor is present, making the point that rulers thought only of the welfare of the patient, with no thought given to what it takes to gain the knowledge to help the patient. Doctors have needs, and yet, to say so is to sound selfish and uncaring toward the patient.

            In III.4, Rand refers to “the kind of poor who want something for nothing.” I am not sure what she would for those who would be on everybody’s list of people who cannot provide for themselves. However, she is very clear that wanting something for nothing is an immoral choice.

            In III.7, John Galt finally speaks to the nation. Given the climate today generated by the Democrat Party and by Barack Obama, I would suggest that any reader of this essay should read the speech. In essence, he says the following. You as a society have sacrificed justice to mercy, independence to unity, reason to faith, wealth to need, self-esteem to self-denial, happiness to duty. We are on strike against self-immolation, Galt says. We are on strike against the creed of unearned rewards, unrewarded duties, the dogma that the pursuit of one’s happiness is evil, and the doctrine that life is guilt. Quite significantly, I think, Galt says that the nation has considered wealthy people as evil. Now, “we have chosen not to harm you any longer. We have chosen not to exploit you any longer.  We have chosen not to endanger you, nor to wear the shackles any longer.” The mind is basic human tool for survival. To think, to reason, is a choice. Reason is your means of survival. Happiness is a successful state of life. In a criticism of Christianity, Galt says that a doctrine that gives you, as an ideal, the role of a sacrificial animal seeking slaughter on the altars of others, is giving you death as your standard. In what I see as rhetorical flourish, Galt says that the only moral commandment is to think. All human virtue such as reason, purpose, and self-esteem, come from existence and consciousness. Rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride all come from these two facts. He refers to “worshippers of the zero,” those who want to just barely live, rather than achieving life. He criticizes Genesis 3 in a way that most Jews and Christians would find offensive and even off the mark. Yet, if one reads behind this, one can see the core values Rand promotes. Galt says that the myth declares that a human ate fruit of the tree of knowledge. Humanity acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was knowledge of good and evil, and thus moral knowledge. He was sentenced to earn a living through work and to sexual experience. Yet, all of this is a “fall,” when in reality, it is the origin of reason, morality, creativity, and joy. The “fall” is actually the greatest virtues of humanity. He ponders how it can be moral to serve the happiness of others, but not your own. If enjoyment is a value, why is it moral when experienced by others, but immoral when experienced by you? Galt gets into a criticism of the morality of sacrifice. Again, this is harsh criticism of religion at one level. Yet, if one is willing to reflect upon the way she understands sacrifice in this world, it can give one pause to reflect. Galt says that somehow, it has also become moral to live by the effort of others, rather than by your own effort. Under a morality of sacrifice, you sacrifice morality and self-esteem. You praise non-profit ventures and condemn those who make the profits that make non-profit ventures possible. You talk of something being “in the public interest,” and for “public benefit,” and of “public welfare.” In such statements, “the public” has become anyone who has failed to achieve any virtue or value. Galt says that the only proper purpose of a government is to protect the rights of individuals, which primarily means from physical violence. Government needs only the police, the army, and the courts. His point is that those now on strike in this mythical world Rand has created have already served “the public” by sharing the products of their thinking, expecting a rational return. They have already “served” and “returned back to the community,” simply by achieving their lives, which has overflown toward others with work and enjoyment. He states that “the looters’ state” will collapse, because it is deprived of its best slaves. He urges: “Do not let the hero in your soul perish.” I find this statement powerful.

            In III.8, leaders have some recognition that they have made a mess of things. The country is fall apart. What are they to do? The advice is simple. Reduce taxes and regulation. Get the government out of the way.