My Tax Day Letters to Congress

Yesterday was an extremely busy day. As a matter of fact, I am still recovering. I have the unfortunate habit of working too much, and all the late nights have started to add up. Regardless, I rattled off some letters yesterday to my Representatives in the Senate, as well as President Obama. I seem to have misplaced Mr. Obama's letter, so I will add it in a later post. It is similar enough to this one that you will get the point. To Mr. Linder, my Representative in the House, I sent a thank you card. He does a good job and seldom disappoints me. I am willing to excuse the approval of Hillary to Obama's cabinet in view of the fact that it removes her from the Senate. It is one of the few things the President has done right in recent months. So, without further ado, my letter. Make of it what you will. Rumor has it I'm a Right Wing Extremist.

Mr. Chambliss and Mr. Isakson,
I am writing you this letter in the hope that you will give me a few minutes of your time to understand my point of view. I have long been disappointed with your performances as my representatives in the Senate. You do not uphold the Conservative principles of limited government and individual liberty that are the cornerstones of Republicanism. To be fair, you are not the only guilty parties in Congress. However, you are the ones who represent me and I feel it is past time to make my opinions clear to you. You have not only lost my vote, but I will make sure every Republican I know is aware of your voting record and the affect your decisions have on the lives of the people. You have been in office too long, and signed off on too much spending and regulation. It is time for you to be replaced in the Senate by truly Conservative politicians who will fight back against the Democrat majority and represent the views of the people. Because I know you are busy men, I will not burden you with criticism and diatribe. I will simply give you some suggestions to do with as you will.
1. I suggest you read Atlas Shrugged. I am sure you're sick of hearing about it, so in the interest of brevity, I am including copies of the more important pages from my own edition of the book. Ms. Rand left Communist Russia because of the tyranny and poverty imposed on the people by her government. She saw first-hand what an over-bearing government does to its people.
2. Please take the time to read some history. This will back up the points made in Ms. Rand's book. Collectivism does not work, and you cannot make it work. It doesn't matter why you want an earmark or an entitlement, the results are the same -bigger government and higher taxes.
3.Making everyone equal only brings people down. Who do you expect to keep the country going when we are all equally poor? You can print money all day, but we all know that makes things worse. The only way government has to generate income is through taxes. I appreciate that you opposed the recent bailouts. However, you supported Bush's stimulus package which was both unnecessary, and unfair to the people who have worked hard and made the appropriate decisions in their personal lives. It is not government's job to help people or redistribute wealth. By supporting the stimulus, you helped open the door for the current round of bailouts and regulation. It is hypocritical for you to say that you support one and not the other. Both were wrong.
America is a great country, and I would like it to stay that way. You were elected to do a job, not enforce your personal ideology, or to try to help people. I hope you will take a moment to evaluate your actions and the consequences they have for the rest of us. Please consider putting forth some real solutions that will instill the American people and the world with the confidence we need to move forward in a positive direction. My suggestion to you is that we need less government, not more. Less regulation, not more. America was founded on the principles of individual liberty and freedom. It is time to reacquaint ourselves with the concept. The Fair Tax would be a good place to start. Thank you for your time and consideration, Senators. I hope that you will not simply disregard my letter because you don't like what I have to say. Whether you agree with me or not, I have a right to my opinion. I respect you as my representatives in Congress, for better or worse. I hope you will extend me the same respect as a citizen under your governance. We both have a huge responsibility as Americans. I hope you prove yourself worthy of that distinction in the future.

After I wrote the letters, I stood in line at the post office for 45 minutes to mail them. After all, everyone was trying not to pay those nasty taxes just yet. After getting my son from school and taking him to a friend's house, I was on my way to the Tea Party with 15,000+ people, where I was happy to hear that some of them had sent similar letters and copies of Atlas Shrugged. There's hope for this country yet.
More on the Tea Party later...

Where is John Galt? #1

For those of you familiar with Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, you will know what I'm talking about. For the rest of you; for God's sake, read the book. I'm happy to say sales have skyrocketed lately, so the kid at the local bookstore chain might actually know what you're asking for. This book made a huge impact on me when I read it in college. I am confident in saying it changed my worldview, opened my eyes, and gave me the strength to fight for the ideas this country was formed around, rather than accept the country it has become. Fifty and some odd years after its first publication, Atlas is true now more than ever. It was the fertilizer my young mind needed to grow into the well-informed and self-motivated person that I am today. Looking back, it helped me develop a strong personal philosophy and standard of value that has led me to be a political artist and activist. Some would agree, sarcastically, that it is indeed fertilizer. I think my favorite criticism of Ms. Rand's work and philosophy came from someone who said, her books are just written for young angst-ridden girls who have no concept of self. The small-mindedness of people will never cease to amaze me.

This drawing is the second in a series of Americana images I am working on....

The entire article is available at Modern Conservative

Ayn Rand on Libertarianism

Yesterday, I read this great article that addresses some of the issues I have with my personal philosophy. I consider myself to be both a Libertarian and an Objectivist. For those of you who are familiar with Rand's writings and speeches, you know she had a low opinion of Libertarians. As this article from Organized Exploitation points out, the Libertarian Party has come a long way, and Miss Rand could be a little rigid in her ideas. Here is the full article:

Friday, February 27, 2009

Debating Ayn Rand

I received quite a lot of flack, particularly at FreeRepublic, for my post last week where I proffered my opinion on what I perceive to be the possible death of the GOP. One of the most intriguing responses I received was attacking Libertarianism, and doing so by throwing an assembly of interview questions with Ayn Rand discussing with her, her disdain for the Libertarian Party.

I found this to be quite interesting, in that Rand has defined the philosophy by which I have come to attempt to live my life. In that the Libertarian movement has not died, as I am sure she wished it would have, I decided to respond to her thoughts on the movement. While obviously she cannot possibly respond, I hope you will be kind enough to respond to some of my thoughts on the matter with your own. If anyone else reading is a blogger as well, I would also be interested in doing some cross-posting on the matter.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]

AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.

My immediate response to this particular line of thought is that Rand provided this answer in 1971. Thirty-seven years later, I don't believe that there exists in the Libertarian movement, any semblance of a grouping of anarchists that have any kind of voice in any matter. I agree with her thoughts on anarchists in general, that they are simply another style of collectivist, and that they are the scum of the intellectual world. I can't say of the intellectual world of the left, since I think that nearly four decades later, there is no home left anywhere politically for an anarchist. Perhaps some anarchists would feel like calling themselves Libertarians, but I do not believe that at this point in time, Libertarians would accept being associated with anarchists, much less believe that Libertarianism's makeup is heavily laden with anarchists.

Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]

AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.

This statement on her part, I think, had so much more to do with her pure absolutism more than anything. I think to Rand it was much more relevant to teach people something through honest discourse, and she therefore loathed the idea that anybody would stain her ideas by grandstanding with them politically. There is such an element of propagandizing and dishonesty that pervades political discourse, that I don't believe she felt it possible for people to learn anything via a political campaign. So she ultimately seems to have taken the approach that I see many disheartened conservatives take, in that they vote grudgingly for the Republican candidate, despite not thinking he is the right choice.

This is an argument that I hear a lot of. That being that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. It is not an argument that, for me, falls on deaf ears. It makes all the sense in the world. Every election is a battle, and particularly this last election. I voted for John McCain, despite hating myself for it, because I felt a deeper need to see Barack Obama not step foot into the White House. I couldn't stand John McCain. If he was conservative enough, and principled enough, to lead the party, he would have beaten Bush in the first place eight years ago, and also wouldn't have needed to make back-room deals with Huckabee to sabotage Romney in the South during the primaries this time around. So in that respect, I fully understand her position that it would be a "moral crime" to vote otherwise. However, it should be known that it was a personal crime against my own morality to have supported someone like John McCain, who, to be perfectly honest, would have simply wound up being a watered-down version of Obama anyway.

Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]

AR: They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.

This exchange follows the previous one nicely I think, in that it is an extension of Rand's thoughts on the men pursuing politics through the Libertarian Party. If you're educated in Objectivism, you'll understand immediately that it's really the "collection of misfits" here that she's disgusted with. The "men of every persuasion" she discusses, I think, made her hate the party. She very much wanted people to view Objectivism as a new way live their lives and I don't think she could stand that so many people she felt belonged in a different classification would gather into a group simply to be "anti" whatever elese there was. She believed people should live for things, not against them, and that people needed to be taught to live for themselves as their own highest purpose. With such an assemblage of different people grouping together to be against other principles, she felt that they were not making choices for their own benefit, but rather against the benefits of others.

It's interesting to me that someone who wrote for a living felt that the people considered the leaders of the Libertarian Party at the time were nothing more than publicity hounds. I personally find myself in a position to want to write and put forth ideas that I feel can help. I find it hard to believe that other writers or speakers discussing Liberty and Freedom and Capitalism at the time felt like they would just talk about such concepts out of self-promotion. Rand seemed particularly upset that they would steal her ideas and not credit her, as she should have been. I'm admittedly ignorant of who took what ideas from her, but it seems to me she wouldn't have been so upset had these same people been able to convey her ideas and teach people with such ruthless competence as herself and Peikoff were capable.

As to her point that it is impossible to educate through a political campaign, it is difficult to disagree. One learns nothing by listening to different people spouting different canned talking points. But I have to disagree that the political campaign is useless in spreading education. We see it now more than ever. Freedom and Liberty are, I think, more on the table now than ever before in my entire lifetime due primarily to Ron Paul's recent political campaign. Without that political campaign, it is impossible for me to believe that we would now have people again discussing F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman and yes, Ayn Rand as heroes of economy and philosophy as vehemently as we are. We also would not see movements like the Campaign for Liberty or Young Americans for Liberty. It's doubtful that educational reading by authors like Tom Woods would be so popular as it is now. Making important ideas highly visible to inspire people to educate themselves cannot be considered a bad thing.

Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: “?” 1976]

AR: My answer should be, “I haven’t.” There’s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.

This quote, I think best sums up Rand's issues with the Libertarian Party. Her belief that "the trouble in the world today is philosophical" is never moreso evident than it is today. Every person needs a philosophy to guide them, and Rand could not see a consistent philosophy that drove the Libertarian Party, and was angered that she became so associated with it.

I cannot speak to the beginnings of the Libertarian Party and whether or not it had a true guiding philosophy. But I can speak to where it is now. Libertarians believe in small government, true free-market capitalism, liberty and freedom as inherent for all, not given or granted, and respect of that freedom by all and for all.

Liberty, Freedom and Respect are ideas that sure seem like good philosophy to me.

For more from Organized Exploitation: http://organizedexploitation.blogspot.com This is a great site, that I just found through friends at Digg. I look forward to more articles from them. This piece has inspired me to do some writing about Rand, as well as the current project I am working on with her quotes. I will try to post both here shortly.

The Ayn Rand quotes, continued...

...very little has been said about actual life under communism, about living beings, not slogans and theories. Theories against practice...I don't give a damn about theories. I do give a good deal about human beings...
...the individual against the collective. That problem interests me above all others in my writing...The plot of my novel is entirely fictitious. The background and circumstances which make the plot possible are entirely true.

The apparent enthusiasm for the manual worker, for the afflicted and for social justice; serves as a mask to facilitate the refusal of all obligations, such as courtesy, truthfulness, and above all, respect or esteem for superior individuals...[In regard to] Dictatorship, we have seen only too well how they flatter the mass-man, by trampling on everything that appeared to be above the common level.

Everything accepted on faith or someone else's authority is only a warmed over spiritual hash.

...the means have become the end...

If all of life has been brought down to flattering the mob, if those who can please the mob are the only ones to succeed - why should anyone feel any high aspirations and cherish any ideals?...

Instead of preaching more collectivism, men must realize that it is precisely collectivism, in its logical consequences - a subtle, unnamed, unofficial, but still all-powerful collectivism - that is the cause of mankind's tragedy...since collective ethics are claimed to be necessary for collective economics - take a look, gentlemen, we have those ethics already. We have them and we don't like them; it is not a pretty picture.

The first cornerstone of his convictions is equality... all possess intrinsic value by the mere fact of having been born in the shape of men...
this talk is on a grand scale, staggering, magnificent, its bromides well hidden under the latest scientific terms, the whole worked out on a formula of saying things that sound profound until one stops to think of what exactly they mean and finds they mean nothing... beliefs are important to them only as a means to an end... he is not bothered by his inconsistencies, by the vagueness and illogic of his convictions. They are efficient and effective to assure the ends he is seeking...

Once the equality of men is established, the advantages to his type are obvious... assure him of superiority...
The liberals and humanitarians are now faced with a choice: either admit that their are differences among men more profound and irrefutable than those of money or aristocratic birth, and therefore fight for the rights and freedom of the best among men, rights and freedom which the average men do not want, do not understand and cannot use or protect, and stop the damnable preoccupation with the "poor" as such, the poor who have no distinction beyond their poverty; or - deny these ideals... bring mankind down to the level of the masses...

It's the aggressive, imperious expressions that are awful - on these people who are supposed to stand for equality, freedom, kindness, justice, etc...

All artistic creation has a philosophy. The first condition of creation.

Did Ayn Rand have a premonition of Obama?

Some of these quotes are amazingly eerie, in their description of characters resembling Obama. Although he claims to be the agent of 'Change', he is quite the personification of socialist dogma. He is Elsworth Toohey in his arrogance and quest for power, and Peter Keating in his whiny
For those of you who are new to my blog, thanks for joining me. These installments are research for future paintings, and the answer to a friend's request for more Rand.

...His thinking is muddy enough to [demand] an absolute obedience to those ideas from others, but not from himself. He isn't above...accepting money when doing so is quite safe although not quite clean, and forgiving in his "friends" the crimes for which he would destroy an "enemy".

He is a very prominent figure. Especially popular among the semi-literate lower classes... rather indifferent themselves, but will not tolerate any disrespect or disbelief of his authority...

He hates all successful people. A successful man, in any line, is his personal enemy. He rejoices at every failure and at the fall of every idol.

The human herds. All the gatherings of average humanity which have but one aim: to ruin all individuals and individuality, to put "we" instead of "I" everywhere, to have a herd of submissive insiders against everyone outside who "does not belong", everyone who has the courage and conscience to walk alone. The tyranny of number, of multitude, of the average. Communism already established - unofficially.

A mob's feeling of omnipotence is its most jealously guarded possession and therefore a dangerous thing to wound. The mob can forgive any insult or crime except one: challenging its ultimate power... but to see a man who has freed himself from it entirely, who has nothing in common with it, a man who does not need it and who openly disdains it - this is the one crime a mob can never forgive.

...He made an unintelligent speech, full of common platitudes, showing a complete lack of imagination or originality. He had the nerve to speak in defense of the people, the country, the world and soon!...

Everything centered around one idea - one propaganda - and that idea fed to the people until they mentally suffocate.

A terrific machinery crushing the whole country and smothering every bit of life, action and air.
A picture of the state, strangling the individual. A picture of the masses showing who and what those masses are, their ideas, and their rise against the unusual and higher man.

Kira: "But there is a life, a life that I saw, that I was waiting for - and I have a right to it. Who is taking it away from me and why are they doing it?"

The All-Pervading Propaganda: It's ridiculous, far-fetched connections. Its intentionally vulgar,"popular" style and artificial bravado. Glorifying of the drudgery and the "everyday". Its main methods: employment - enforced meetings, "social activists", demonstrators, enforced deductions of pay for "patriotic" enterprises; and schools - enforced study of unscientific "social sciences", a "red" angle on all activities.

The individual against society and a time when society is at its worst and makes itself felt most strongly.

Ayn Rand quotes for Muchacho

Muchacho Enfermo requested more Ayn Rand quotes and I am happy to comply. Because I am a huge fan of her writings, I have decided to do a series of paintings based on them. These quotes are from: Journals of Ayn Rand, edited by David Harriman with a Foreward by Leonard Peikoff. I will not be able to post everything at this time, so expect a series.
I am posting the quotes as I will use them, so you will need to read the book to get the full context of each one. Keep in mind that my work qualifies as propaganda and I intend to use these quotes to reinforce my own views. The imagery will, of course, do the same.

Life is achievement...Give yourself an aim, something you want to do, then go after it, breaking through everything, with nothing in mind but your aim, all will, all concentration - and get it.

...theme is that of humanity - warped by a corrupt philosophy -is destroying the best in man for the sake of enshrining mediocrity... bitterly denouncing a world that seems to have no place for heroism.

...her dominant premise is that men are responsible for the ideas they choose to take... she cites the ideas that have led to the moral corruption in the world, and her implication throughout that men choose to accept these ideas or not...

Your life, your achievement, your happiness, your person are of paramount importance. Live up to your highest vision of yourself no matter what circumstances you might encounter. An exalted view of self-esteem is a man's most admirable quality.

Do not paint one side of the world, the polite side, and be silent about the rest; paint a real picture of the whole, good and bad at once, the "good" looking more horrid than the bad when seen together with the things it tolerates. Men see only one part of life at a time, the part they have before their eyes at the moment. Show them the whole.

...One cannot believe one thing and do another, for such a belief isn't worth a nickle and that's what humanity's doing.

...men act on feelings, not on thoughts.

Show the silent terror that is life at present, the silent terror that hangs over us, chokes us, that everybody feels and nobody can define, the nameless thing that is the atmosphere of humanity.

Show that the mob determines life at present and show exactly who and what that mob is...show that all humanity and each little citizen is an octopus that consciously or unconsciously sucks the blood of the best on earth and strangles life with it's cold sticky tentacles.

Communism, Democracy, Socialism are the logical results of present day humanity. The nameless horror of [these systems], both in their logical end and in the unconscious way that they already rule mankind.

...I want to show that there is no good at present, that the "good" as it is now understood is worse than the bad, that it is only the result, the skin over a rotten inside that rules and determines it: I want to show that all the conceptions of the "good", all the high ideals have to be changed, for now they are nothing but puppets, slaves, and accomplices to the horrible [stifling] of life. There are too many things that people just tolerate and don't talk about.

Show them the real, one and only horror - the horror of mediocrity.

...to be loved by the mob is an insult and that to be hated is the highest compliment it can pay you.

He half-consciously realizes that he possesses something sublime, and that he is going to be condemned for possessing it. From this - his tense, wild, ferocious attitude.

They are too small and weak to feel with all their soul - and they disapprove of such feelings... They are too small and profane themselves to know what sacredness is - and they disapprove of anything being too sacred.

A small soul choked with a poisonous ambition to dominate and crush everybody and everything..."I know that I am inferior and therefore I don't want to let anything superior exist". This is subconscious of course, because one of those muddy souls would never admit it to itself. Consciously it believes that "we are all equal" and defends that equality with all the jealous, greedy zeal of a bulldog that has his teeth sunk into a piece of meat; the dull despotic zeal of mediocrity that is [concerned with] the equality of those above, which it wants to pull down, and not with those below, which it [allegedly] wants to pull up.

Okay, these aren't the most uplifting quotes, but I'm just going in order. The parallelsto modern times and political action are appropriate however. It is amazing tome how many of the problems she foresaw have come to pass, and no one cares.
I would like to know where the hell is John Galt?

Ayn Rand Quotes

For those of you who don't know, I'm a huge Ayn Rand fan. If you want a little perspective into my personality, read some of her work. If you're new to Rand, I suggest Anthem and We the Living first. My all time favorite, of course, is Atlas Shrugged, but no self-respecting artist would go through life without reading the Fountainhead.

That being said, I decided to follow up yesterday's EFCA post with a couple of quotes from Ayn Rand pertaining to Unions and government intervention in business.

Needless to say, I am wanting now, more than ever to have that meeting with John Galt. I probably flatter myself that my leaving society would have all that much impact on the world, but one can dream. I'd certainly like a little vacation from the current level of government sponsored insanity and generalized buffoonery.

Quotes:

Unions and trade associations are not directed against employers or the public but against the best among their own members…This is one of the most obvious demonstrations of the fact that collectivism does not aim at any kind of “justice” or “fair play”, or protection of the weak [man] against an actual infringement of his rights by the strong for the sake of the weak – stopping ability for the sake of incompetence – not just robbing the production of the able, but stopping him from producing – not raising the weak in any way whatever, but simply forcing the strong down to the level of the moron. (Of course, if you do that, you destroy the world – weak and strong both and the weak do not profit by this – not even for the moment).

…Man will not produce if all the essential elements involved are not under his rational control, i.e., if they are not understandable to him, and therefore, predictable, so that he can set his purpose and plan of action, his end and means accordingly…If his productive activity has to depend upon the arbitrary decision/whim of some human agency, against whom he has no recourse and no chance (such as the government) – he will not produce.