Objectivism & Libertarians
The Philosophy of Freedom & Its Practitioners
Who is John Galt?

For some time I have pondered the rather significant divide I see between people across the political spectrum. In discussions with people on various forums, there seem to be generally two sides of the discussion or issue. One side seems to rely on reasoned analytical thought and the other more on emotion or feelings.

While the spectrum is fairly well divided between the camps usually identified as liberal or conservative, in reality it is more like the visible light spectrum in its variance between the red and blue wavelengths. In other words, people’s political divisions are no more well defined than are a given person’s perception of color.

For example, red is scientifically defined as a certain wavelength of light. But the eye of each person registers a range of wavelengths which the brain interprets as red. Similarly, it appears that the political and philosophical inclinations of people are like the spectral continuum of visible light.

Thus, in what follows, it must be understood that things are addressed in generalization which are broadly true but in specific instances will not always apply.

In my experience, one other thing I have noted but never considered until recently is that the “Hollywood crowd” is largely of the liberal persuasion.

Being of a rather analytical bent, I have wondered what would lead a person to adopt a belief system to one side or the other of the political or philosophical spectrum. Some I can understand because they espouse rational and reasonable ideas at least to some degree. Yet others embrace concepts and ideas which, when implemented, have proven time and again to be destructive.

I pretty well discounted environmental because I have known people who grew up in circumstances quite similar to my own which are almost diametrically opposed to my political and philosophical stance.

Recently, I had something of an epiphany which is the subject of my current prosaic effort.

The particular sequence of events which led up to this realization are a series of events in the political arena involving George W. Bush and the war on terrorism in general and specifically the war which liberated the Iraqi people from a dictator of cruelty and inhumanity rivaling that of Adolf Hitler: Saddam Hussein.

Those from the left of the political spectrum, the liberals, socialists, communists, and similarly inclined [collectivists] have persistently attacked President Bush for acting in what is, to all appearances, the best interests of the United States of America subsequent to an attack by a rather nebulous enemy, the subscribers to a virulently radical sect of Islam. I say rather nebulous because it is rather different than being attacked by a nation, e.g., Japan or Germany in previous World Wars. This enemy has no country, no specific geographic location. Instead it blends into the background like the predator and strikes when its prey becomes inattentive to its presence.

This type of enemy is particularly insidious because there is no specific place one may go to confront and destroy it. It is more like a pathogen in the human body which must be cleaned out by the administration of an antibiotic which seeks out the pathogen wherever it might take hold and destroy it there.

There are people who profess to be Americans who decry the war on terrorism as viciously aggression, as unjustified, as unwarranted and who advocate compromise or attempts at a treaty or some means of placating this enemy. They seem to have no grasp that this enemy is not one that will be placated. It is bent on destroying the way of life which defines the civilization of the Western world, the civilized industrial world.

I grappled with this problem for some time and in a conversation with my daughter recently, I found what I think might be a plausible explanation for the totally incomprehensible ideas I have encountered. She asked specifically why would Hollywood celebrities almost unanimously take the anti-war and in this case anti-American perspective.

In this case, I say anti-war is anti-American because the people who initiated this war see the destruction of America as their goal and their moral and sacred religious mission. To oppose the war to save America is then to oppose the survival of America and hence must be judged anti-American.

In answer to my daughter’s question, I recalled something to which I had been exposed a number of years ago and that regards human brain function and organization. Specifically, it deals with the science relating to the right brain-left brain functions in the human being.

The table following illustrates the functions performed in each cerebral hemisphere.

Note that the right brain operates on feeling, imagination, belief and fantasy among its qualities. These are all things which seem manifest in the creative among us humans. These are the artists, writers, actors and others who provide us with the entertainment industry whether it be theater, motion pictures or television. I suspect that certain giants of industry may also have been right brain types. For example, Henry Ford made his fortune by making the assembly line a reality. It was a relatively simple idea yet one which did not come to fruition in the manufacture of automobiles until Ford applied it. His success in retrospect is undeniably magnificent. And the element involved is creativity, imagination, intuition perhaps, those right brain functions. But he also possessed enough left brain objectivity to bring it to a profitable and prosperous fruition.

I find it interesting that the scientists who define the various brain activities and functions include philosophy (which entails politics) and religion as right-brain functions. I similarly find it interesting that these two functions, particularly philosophy, are considered as functions of the brain which are NOT logical or reality based or ascribe to fact as a basis of knowledge.

Considering the vast importance of philosophy to the daily life of the average man, I find it rather unsettling that those involved in science, particularly research into the human brain, have relegated philosophy to the realm of the irrational.

At least one philosophical system, Objectivism, is almost exclusively a left-brain function according to the definitions provided above.

I think it rather intuitively obvious that the advancement of human knowledge and standard of living would not have achieved the level it has, especially in the United States, without this diversity of people whose creativity and ingenuity are marvelous contributions but there are areas of endeavor in which they are detrimental as well because these qualities are not those required to best deal with their situation.

From my rather limited contacts and experience, I find that liberals seem to fit the description of the right-brain dominant type person. Conservatives, on the other hand, tend to be more likely left-brain dominant but retain a significant level of the right-brain dominant functionality.

Further, the libertarians/Libertarians I have known tend to be even more toward the left-brain dominant personality types.

What are the implications of this particular line of reasoning? As far as their personal lives or even their professional lives, probably relatively little if any real adverse effects to anyone but themselves.

But what of such people when they become involved in political matters which have an impact on the lives of everyone in the society? Since decisions rendered in the political realm have the necessary result of impacting every individual who lives in the society, their actions and ideas then become a concern for the welfare of all.

A government has a single legitimate purpose which is succinctly stated in our founding documents and that is to protect the rights of the citizen. For a government to perform that function, it must be able to objectively and critically define where the rights of the individual exist and what constitutes a violation of those rights.

Once the philosophical aspect of such a task is completed, the government must then restrain itself to the actions necessary to its purpose. Government must never be permitted to become the tool of some to implement their desires by force using the coercive nature of government as the vehicle to coerce the cooperation of the citizens to support such undertakings whether or not those citizens agree.

Further, since government actions and decisions affect a society in a manner no other entity may, its actions must be measured, calculated and implemented to not do any harm or to minimize whatever harm might result never forsaking the “Law of Unintended Consequences”. The range of government influence in a society and its economy are universal, i.e., government actions affect the entirety of that society or economy.

From an economic perspective, government is a liability. Government produces nothing as a product or service which when marketed in society, provides economic growth or expansion. Government is a consumer of some portion of the wealth produced by a society through its economic activities. The greater the percentage of the productivity government consumes, the more detrimental it is.

While government is a very necessary entity, in order to maintain a healthy society and economy, the government must be limited to its most essential and necessary function. That was quite succinctly defined by our founders in the Declaration of Independence by the statement (italics mine):

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

Thus, those entrusted with the power to act as agents of the government must be people who respect the objective purpose and role of government. They must be people who respect the rights of their fellow citizens and who are not willing to use force against any man except in response to his act of aggression.

The most fundamental definition of a criminal act is the initiation of force against one’s fellow man. Whether it is done by a single individual or a group of any size, the initiation of force is the fundamental definition of a criminal act.

People who are right brain dominated are more inclined to substitute feelings or emotion for judgment. They are the type of people who are inclined to suggest rehabilitation for the criminal rather than punitive incarceration despite the principle of justice involved if one approaches the problem of criminal behavior from an objective, analytical point of view.

They are the types who are inclined to appease an aggressor in the hope of the aggressor being satisfied with his current level of occupation of another’s property or nation. They do not or cannot or will not recognize that by acceding to the aggressor, they are in fact encouraging further aggressive behavior.

This is evidenced by the fact that despite their acquiescence to one act of aggression, they seem surprised when it is followed by further aggression. A classic case in point is Hitler’s Germany prior to WW II exhibiting repeated aggressive actions despite Neville Chamberlain’s persistent placating actions.

Yet, the most fundamental of human motivations is manifest and one which is routinely employed by responsible parents over their own children.

It is the application of the basic truth that rewarding desired behaviors nurtures and results in repetition of that behavior and the punishment of undesired behaviors tends to curtail that behavior. Yet it seems completely beyond the grasp of these people that the same actions that molds a child’s behaviors will convey precisely the same effect on an aggressive adult be it a bully, a criminal or a rogue political leader like a dictator.

A prevalence of such people have arisen in the American political arena over the past 50-100 years and the results have been a steady decline in the productive ability of America at large, a foreign policy of nebulous direction and rather random irrationality and a domestic policy which is leading toward a socio-fascistic state in which government controls and regulates virtually every action of a private citizen and confiscates an ever larger share of his wealth for redistribution to others within and without the American society.

The domestic policy has led to the insidious taxation of inflation to the point that the value of the American dollar is roughly one-tenth what it was 40 or so years ago. We have enormous government debt which is concealed from public awareness by methods for which politicians wish to send corporate officers to jail yet they ignore their own actions which have a far greater impact on the economy because they have their sticky fingers in everyone’s pockets.

At least a corporation with corrupt officers can only harm those who can be duped into investing in their stock. But in the case of government, you have no choice but to comply when they come for your property if you wish to remain free of incarceration.

These people who are emotion driven seem to be the one’s more inclined to pursue a career in public service. But in fact, what they are serving is not the public but their own egos and power lust. They find themselves a niche in the political hierarchy and award themselves handsome salaries. They fabricate problems for which they then stimulate a public cry for legislation to correct.

Almost invariably, the Law of Unintended Consequences resulting from their solution creates a real problem. Again, they offer a legislative solution to the problem created by their original legislation and the beginnings of the perpetual motion machine of government regulatory structure is set in motion.

Since the government’s first venture into meddling in the economic sphere about 100 years ago, an area which is Constitutionally prohibited to it, the fall out has been a geometric growth of the regulatory schemes and mechanisms which have served to slow and disorganize the economy generally. Intervention into the normal market self corrective mechanisms have resulted in economy wide recessions and one major depression.

Yet the people who are at the root of the problem have blamed every one of their victims and continually seek to evade responsibility for the disaster they have brought about. It seems they “feel” that they have done nothing bad despite the results of their actions because they wanted or hoped to produce something beneficial.

Thus, for the reason that their lack of rationality and objectivity makes them a potential disaster when they are permitted to act in the political realm without proper restraint, i.e., coercively, they should never be entrusted with political power or if they are only briefly. It is people like these who make term limits almost a necessity for they will not honor the concept of the founders, that being the concept of the citizen legislator who serves a term or two and returns to his productive role in society. These are the people whose beliefs and behaviors seem most often manifest in their abuse of such power which makes them exceptionally dangerous to the population at large when acting in this capacity.

And while the liberals are dangerous in large measure when entrusted with unrestrained political power, Conservatives can perhaps to a lesser extent be similarly dangerous.

War is a horror which should be eschewed but there do come the occasions when it is inevitable. The present war on terrorism is such a situation. Once the necessity for war is inevitable, it is incumbent upon a government being the protector of its citizens’ lives and property to pursue that effort as aggressively and persistently as possible to eradicate the enemy which has declared the war upon it. This is not a time for feelings or intuition or believing that if we can just get them to understand us, then they will cease to hate us and cease to pursue our destruction. This is a child’s fantasy world. What is really needed for such an environment is someone with the ability to focus, apply reason and logic with deliberate calm and care in choosing the best manner to pursue the destruction of those who would destroy us.

The free world did not choose this war. It has been declared on civilization by people who believe that murdering innocent people guarantees them rewards in the afterlife. Acceptance of an afterlife in itself is irrational enough but to compound that belief with an evil that actually enshrines murder (and suicide in the process) is beyond the conception of a rational man.

President George Bush is an example of the Conservative who exhibits the evidence of a danger of the same nature as do liberals. While his pursuit of the war has been admirable for the most part, I also have the perception that he has acquiesced to some extent against what his mind tells him is a proper course of action in deference to the political responses of many of our own citizens including press and politicians as well as entertainment celebrities who don’t seem to grasp the concept that it is the American way of life, a life of freedom and individual rights and self determination, that the Islamo-fascists seek to destroy. Far too many American political office holders are far too concerned with the opinion other nations might hold of us. We are fighting a war of survival of our culture, our way of life and they are worried about someone being offended. Frankly, I don’t get that idiotic perception at all.

Yet, while his pursuit of the war on terrorism has been pursued admirably toward the defense and survival of the United States and its way of life in freedom, he has also pursued socialistic fascistic activities of the Federal government which are every bit as destructive as are the Taliban and the most extremist of the terrorists who are sworn to destroy us and our way of life.

The specifics include his pursuit of further regulation of the American business endeavor and then this most recent expansion of the LBJ welfare state, prescription drugs. While he seems to be cognizant of the negative effect of taxes on the economy and on the lives of people subjected to those taxes and in that vein pursued actually reducing tax rates, he seems to have lost sight of the corollary of that very idea which is the fact that there is no free lunch.

For example, it is the inherent responsibility for each individual to provide for the sustenance of his own life. It is immoral to impose on another that responsibility yet that is the specific result of legislation of a welfare state which attempts to force financial support of some people onto others who have no legitimate obligation in that respect. It is immoral in two perspectives. First, it usurps the individual’s rights to his life by subrogating his responsibility for the sustenance of his life. Such an action deprives such a man of the most basic tool for building self esteem, the fact that he is supporting himself to whatever level his capacity permits. Second, it enslaves the man on whom this obligation is thrust by abrogating his right to his life and the derivative right to ownership of any and all wealth which his life’s efforts might produce.

This is the immorality of the welfare state which in itself is a product of the politician who is right brain driven, i.e., less inclined to approach life from a reasoned perspective. And this is the basis of the danger they pose to civilization and a society which provides an environment of freedom and individual rights which has demonstrated itself to be the most beneficial for mankind at large.

Return to Main Page