The Betrayal of Ayn Rand

The Betrayal of Ayn Rand
An Open Letter to Objectivists

June 15, 2009

By Rick Koerber
Founder of the Free Capitalist Project

Long after her death, it’s sad to see so many Objectivists losing sight of Ayn Rand’s personal mission. Talking like an Objectivist, referencing the characters in her books, and using the vocabulary of her movement—are all poor substitutes for acting in accordance with the ideas of an Objectivist and working to usher forth the moral revolution she so passionately advocated.

While there are notable and significant exceptions too many Objectivists that I come across on a regular basis seem to be using their intransigent atheism to justify abandoning the actual hard work of BEING real radicals for capitalism. I’m writing this criticism, not to be sensational or to attack, but to rattle a few rusty mental cages among a crowd I consider to be my friends—friends however, who seem to have succumbed to what Ms. Rand regularly described as the ‘sluggish inertia of unfocused minds.’

Before I go any further let me also offer two very distinct caveats at the outset. Number one, I am not an expert on Objectivism—though I do consider myself a diligent student. Number two; I do not mean to suggest that most Objectivists are not thinking. I mean instead to suggest that a large number of so-called Objectivists seem to be entertained and satisfied by their own thinking—in some queer sort of intellectual masturbation—rather than translating their ideas into marketable, articulated tools for ‘building a new culture on a new moral foundation.’

Somehow, almost three decades after her death, a large body of self-proclaimed followers seems to be attempting, and in large measure successfully, a tragic historical revision; namely, equating the title Objectivist (and the less used phrase ‘radical for capitalism’) with the much less diligent pursuits of being an isolated, libertarian leaning atheist. This intellectual abdication is no simple error in judgment. It is the hallmark of second-handers and amounts to nothing less than a betrayal of Ayn Rand and her philosophy. Even worse, this betrayal is being perpetrated by a significant portion of those very people who claim to be her advocates and defenders.

Alright. If I’ve gotten the attention of my desired audience, so far my remarks have been the equivalent of taking a stick and poking it violently into a previously docile beehive. Before I’m overcome with a multitude of now irritated bees intent on me as their new target—let me back up and create some context.

I read Atlas Shrugged for the first time perhaps five years ago. So, in the world of Ayn Rand fans and students, I’m certainly not an old timer. I did, however, find Atlas Shrugged to be, quite simply, earth shaking. I literally fell in love with the characters. It wasn’t because I was enjoying the fiction. I often found the reading long and arduous. Instead, I found in Atlas Shrugged, a systematic articulation of the main conflict facing the modern world, in a way that I had only been struggling to come to terms with previously.

Nevertheless, when I finished reading the book I found myself in a sort of depression. I had grown so accustomed to coming home from the office and sitting down to spend a few hours with Dagny, Reardon, Francisco and John Galt—eagerly plowing through pages to learn how they were dealing with the moochers and looters, that when the story ended, it was like saying goodbye to new friends. I actually experienced a real feeling of emptiness and withdrawal for the first few weeks after finishing the book.

It didn’t take long however, for me to realize that it was not her characters that I had actually fallen in love with, it was Ms. Rand herself–the mind behind the characters. This realization sent me on my own personal odyssey. Soon I was reading the Fountainhead and not long after I had ordered every book I could find online, authored by Ayn Rand. I read everything. I read Objectivist Epistemology, the Night of January 16th, the Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, and on and on. I was like a starving man who had been invited to a banquet feast.

Oddly, while I was certain I had never read anything like Ayn Rand’s works, the material seemed somehow familiar. My own ideas were becoming more clear, and new related ideas were not hard to grasp at all. Ironically, I was so new to reading Ms. Rand that virtually no one around me knew enough to correct me when I would refer to her as “Ann Rand” rather than Ayn.

It didn’t take long before essentially every one of my seminars, every daily radio program, and every class that I was teaching had some reference to Ayn Rand or her books. For example, my recently completed four-hundred and forty-seven page student manual for my “13 Principles of Prosperity” course, contained forty-seven direct references and over one-hundred indirect references to Ms. Rand and her works. Some days I would talk about Comprachicos on the radio, during others I’d simply be quoting John Galt to one of my students. The bottom line is—I became a very sincere and diligent student of Ms. Rand and Objectivism.

Being a Mormon, and therefore a member of the larger “Christian” community, one of the most obvious contradictions in my new intellectual landscape was that Ms. Rand was an unapologetic, unwavering atheist. As time passed two related problems emerged. My religious friends and associates began regularly expressing concern about my unflinching advocacy of Ms. Rand’s ideas and at the same time so-called Objectivists would summarily dismiss me, my arguments, my ideas, and the movement I was building, because, in their words, I was a “God-believer.”

Nevertheless, I continued studying Ms. Rand and have also worked diligently to cultivate relationships and opportunities with people from all walks of life, including Objectivists. For example, a few years ago I was extremely excited to travel with an associate to southern California to meet Yaron Brook and a few of his colleagues at the Ayn Rand Institute. They represent, generally speaking, some of the exceptions that I mentioned earlier on.

Over time I’ve learned that while there exists an unfortunate camp of so-called Christians who just can’t stomach the idea that Ayn Rand, an unapologetic atheist might have known something worth studying—even more oddly and surprisingly, there exists a camp of so-called Objectivists who can’t seem to think past the possibility that there might be some of us “God-believers” whose beliefs do not necessarily clash with reason.

In 1963 Ms. Rand, in a letter to US Congressman Bruce Alger wrote:

In accordance with the principles of America and of capitalism, I recognize your right to hold any beliefs you choose—and, on the same grounds, you have to recognize my right to hold any convictions I choose. I am an intransigent atheist, though not a militant one. This means that I am not fighting against religion—I am fighting for reason. When faith and reason clash, it is up to the religious people to decide how they choose to reconcile the conflict. As far as I am concerned, I have no terms of communication and no means to deal with people, except through reason. If you find that your beliefs do not clash with reason and that your political views are rational—then that is the area in which we can communicate. I sincerely hope that we can.

I think it might do my Objectivist friends well to consider a few points drawn out by this quotation from Ms. Rand.

1) There is a difference in fighting for reason and fighting against religion. Ms. Rand’s mission was the former.

2) It’s possible for a religious person and an Objectivist to communicate and cooperate when they both agree that reason is the standard in any mutual communication or endeavor.

Much more could be said about brain-off tribalists, who are eager to exclude ‘outsiders’ as a means of self-preservation. But, relevant point to these considerations is that as ‘a radical for capitalism’ myself, I’m at a loss to explain why so many Ayn Rand followers evidently think such titles are merely a slogan or private label social tattoo of sorts. Or to put the matter even more succinctly, these days it’s hard to sort out the Objectivists who are fighting for reason from those who are simply fighting against religion. In my own experience, Objectivists have twice in this past month told me that they could not assist my Free Capitalist Project since we do not disallow religious beliefs as a standard of our membership. How irrational!

In the early 1960’s Ms. Rand wrote to Senator Barry Goldwater saying,

I regard you as the only hope of the anticollectivist side on today’s political scene, and I have defended your position at every opportunity…I am not suggesting that you should take a stand against religion. I am saying that Capitalism and religion are two separate issues, which should not be united into one “package deal” or one common cause. This does not mean that religious persons cannot crusade for Capitalism; but it does mean that nonreligious persons, like myself, cannot crusade for religion.

Ms. Rand’s willingness to have hope and confidence in someone, despite their differences in belief and opinion on a subject as significant as the existence of God—is far afield of the contemporary banter spewed forth by a large group of her followers today. Consider, I was just reading Jared Seehafer’s March 17, 2009 piece entitled, “Jesus Christ or John Galt? The Republican Party’s Identity Crisis” published by Capitalism Magazine (http://www.capmag.com), and thinking to myself—“He’s not advocating for reason, he’s fighting against religion.” It was this realization that caused me to go and dig up the two quotes used above from Letters of Ayn Rand.

In his essay Mr. Seehafer concludes,

Republicans who support capitalism need to understand that those who combine religion with politics are their enemies, and must be ostracized from the party. In order to be successful, they need to defend capitalism on ethical grounds, which means recognizing that their best pitchman is not Jesus Christ, but John Galt.

Mr. Seehafer, like many “quick-to-the-punch” atheists, evidently does not see the contradiction of his own position. He indicts Republicans for mixing religion and politics and yet he himself brings the two together in his self-created, albeit artificial and irrational dichotomy of Jesus Christ vs. John Galt. His, ‘purge through ostracization’ is the same conservative approach taken by Republicans against Objectivists over the last five decades. Perhaps even more ironically, Ms. Rand, the creator of John Galt’s character, has actually said that,

Jesus was one of the first great teachers to proclaim the basic principle of individualism—the inviolate sanctity of man’s soul and the salvation of one’s soul as one’s first concern and highest goal…

I suppose that Mr. Seehafer and my other friends like him would not want to throw out the Declaration of Independence because Jefferson was a “God-believer” and the document itself (being political) references “Nature’s God,” the “Creator,” and “the Supreme Judge of the world.” I suppose also that Mr. Seehafer is not interested in throwing out the Constitution of the United States simply because so many of its drafters were “God-believers” who invoked his name during the convention. Ms. Rand argues instead that;

The Founding Fathers were America’s first intellectuals, so far, her last. It is their basic political line that the New Intellectuals have to continue. Today, that line is lost under layer upon layer of evasions, equivocations and plain falsehood; today’s Witch Doctors claim that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was faith and uncritical compliance with tradition; today’s Attila-ists claim that the basic premise was the subordination of the individual to the collective and his sacrifice to the public good. The New Intellectuals must remind the world that the basic premise of the Founding Fathers was man’s right to his own life, to his own liberty, to the pursuit of his own happiness—which means: man’s right to exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; and that the political implementation of this right is a society where men deal with one another as traders, by voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. The moral premises implicit in the political philosophy of the Founding Fathers, in the social system they established and in the economics of capitalism, must now be recognized and accepted in the form of an explicit moral philosophy…The world crisis of today is a moral crisis—and nothing less than a moral revolution can resolve it: a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the American Revolution.

The point, being missed by Mr. Seehafer and so many of my Objectivist friends, is that the question of God and issues of religion have become their knee-jerk excuse for idleness, laziness, crassness and disengagement. The mission we have before us, all of us who love our lives, is to advocate for this moral revolution. The only required foundation for that, according to Ms. Rand, is a shared commitment to two essential principles: a) emotions are not tools of cognition; b) no man has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. All other philosophical contradictions—including issues surrounding God and religion—will be resolved, in time, by a group of reasonable and thinking people.

Why is it that such a large number of so-called Objectivists like to write or speak, but few can demonstrate that they’ve devoted any significant thought whatsoever or any meaningful, sustained action to bringing about a veritable, tangible movement as described by Ms. Rand?

It was several years ago, after picking up a copy of For the New Intellectual for the first time, that I boarded an airplane and felt the challenge I’m attempting to convey today. I’m certain that I must have read the majority of that essay with my jaw literally gaping open. It’s probably the only flight in my life that I don’t remember uttering a single word to any other passenger. For the New Intellectual, is the most comprehensive and detailed call-to-action for those of us who value truth and love our lives – more than anything I’ve ever come across.

We reformed businessmen could benefit from the efforts of Objectivist intellectuals who can free themselves from their own irrational mental indulgences. Yet, I regularly meet so-called Objectivists who can quote or paraphrase—nothing—from that essay. How is this possible? How is it possible to be an Objectivist, or anything close, and not be committed to the revolution advocated by Ms. Rand?

Long before I had started reading Atlas Shrugged I was engaged in an effort to organize at least 300,000 members into a “free capitalist” cause. My organization, the Free Capitalist Project, advocates for capitalism as the foundation of a moral revolution to sanction and complete the political achievement of the Founders. I wonder how many so-called Objectivists even recognize that language.

The second-hander’s dream of tribal prestige is no substitute for getting on with the business of this revolution. This is no theoretical project and no amount of theoretical posturing will do.

In one of the most poignant sections of his radio address, John Galt challenges:

If you find a chance to vanish into some wilderness out of their reach, do so, but not to exist as a bandit or to create a gang competing with their racket; build a productive life of your own with those who accept your moral code and are willing to struggle for a human existence…raise a standard to which the honest will repair: the standard of Life and Reason. Act as a rational being and aim at becoming a rallying point for all those who are starved for a voice of integrity—act on your rational values, whether alone in the midst of your enemies, or with a few of your chosen friends, or as the founder of a modest community on the frontier of mankind’s rebirth.”

I am a radical for capitalism. While there exists any number of different groups who could use a healthy criticism, today, I’m challenging my Objectivist friends who have become complacent and disinterested. The hollow, righteous sounding bromides so often uttered by feigned intellectuals so lucidly able to describe our culture’s impending doom—is no substitute for a deliberate, strategic and organized effort put forth in defense of Ms. Rand, Objectivism, and capitalism.

This criticism is an open invitation from some of us, who like you, have stepped out of that dismal gray vacuum of a bankrupt culture and are committed to ushering forth the producer revolution advocated consistently by Ms. Rand.

We, who are NOT about to die, salute you.

###

Indicted.

“In the filthy howling now going on all around us, ” said an editorial in the Banner, signed”Gail Wynand” in big letters, “nobody seems to remember that Howard Roark surrendered himself of his own free will.  If he blew up that building—did he have to remain at the scene to be arrested?  But we don’t wait to discover his reasons.  We have convicted him without a hearing. We want him to be guilty.  We are delighted with this case.  What you hear is not indignation—its gloating.  Any illiterate maniac, any worthless moron who commits some revolting murder, gets shrieks of sympathy from us and marshals an army of humanitarian defenders. But a man of genius is guilty by definition.  Granted that it is a vicious injustice to condemn a man simply because he is weak and small.  To what level of depravity has a society descended when it condemns a man simply because he is strong and great?  Such, however, is the whole moral atmosphere of our century—the century of the second-rater.”

“We hear it shouted,” said another Wynan editorial, “that Howard Roark spends his career in and out of courtrooms.  Well, that is true.  A man like Roark is on trial before society all his life.  Whom does that indict—Roark or society?”

—from Ayn Rand’s, The Fountainhead.

NOTE:  For detailed information about the controversies surrounding Rick Koerber and FranklinSquires visit http://www.franklinsquires.com

Top 25 Influences on the FreeCapitalist

It’s not uncommon for someone to approach me and ask my opinion of some leading figure in history. I enjoy conversations about historical figures, particularly those whose lives were dedicated to the cause of liberty. So many people today claim to be for the cause but so few actually live for it. I have often thought to myself that I felt more at home studying the lives of those who have gone before me than in the company of those who make it a common practice to only talk of freedom doing very little for it.

The following list is my “Top 25″ list of the most prominent individuals influencing my learning and development related to the cause of liberty. I have only included those individuals who are no longer living and while it was my privilege to be personal friends with only two on the list, I feel like I know each of them individually. There are, of course, many disagreements in philosophy among those on the list, however their ideas and attitudes towards government, church, and their fellow men harmonize quite consistently in the battle for liberty and freedom.

I’ve compiled the list in chronological order, as opposed to order of influence. I could list many others who have had a serious influence on me personally but have carefully selected these individuals for this list and have placed an asterisks next to the names of those I consider the “Top 5″ most influential to me and my intellectual development. I’m certain that as I continue to study additional individuals I might want to re-organize my list which is a prospect I happily anticipate.

1. Francis Bacon, 01/22/1561 to 04/09/1626, Philosopher/Statesman
2. John Locke, 08/29/1632 to 10/28/1704, Philosopher
3. Isaac Newton, 01/04/1643 to 03/31/1727, Intellectual, Physicist
4. Benjamin Franklin, 01/17/1706 to 04/17/1790, Polymath/Statesman
5. Adam Smith, 06/05/1723 to 07/17/1790, Moral Philosopher
6. George Washington, 02/22/1732 to 12/14/1799, Military/Political
7. John Adams, 10/30/1735 to 07/04/1826, Political Leader
8. Thomas Paine, 01/29/1737 to 06/08/1809, Intellectual
9. Thomas Jefferson, 04/13/1743 to 07/04/1826, Polymath/Statesman *
10. James Madison, 03/16/1751 to 06/28/1836, Political Leader
11. Brigham Young, 06/01/1801 to 08/29/1877, Religious/Political *
12. Frederic Bastiat, 06/30/1801 to 12/24/1850, Theorist/Political Economist
13. Joseph Smith, 12/23/1805 to 06/27/1844, Religious/Political *
14. Abraham Lincoln, 02/12/1809 to 04/15/1865, Political Leader
15. Susan B. Anthony, 02/15/1820 to 03/13/1906, Civil Rights Leader
16. J. Rueben Clark, 09/01/1871 to 10/06/1961, Legal/Religious
17. David O McKay, 09/08/1873 to 01/18/1970, Education/Religious
18. Ludwig Von Mises, 09/29/1881 to 10/10/1973, Economist/Philosopher
19. Napoleon Hill, 10/26/1883 to 11/08/1970, Author
20. Ezra Taft Benson, 08/04/1899 to 05/30/1994, Religious/Political Leader
21. Ayn Rand, 02/02/1905 to 03/06/1982, Author / Philosopher *
22. Ronald Reagan, 02/06/1911 to 06/05/2004, Political Leader
23. W. Cleon Skousen, 01/20/1913 to 01/09/2006, Author Legal/Political *
24. Milton Friedman, 07/31/1912 to 11/16/2006, Economics
25. Les McGuire, 12/07/1970 to 06/08/2006, Philosopher/Business

For those who want to learn more about the cause of individual liberty, who want to learn more about the FreeCapitalist Project, and for those who are looking for a “starting point” to initiate their own personal study, I highly endorse and recommend the study of these individuals. Additionally, I consider the following twenty publications, by these same authors, as essential primers for personal study regarding capitalism and freedom.

1. The New Atlantis, by Francis Bacon – 1627
2. Two Treatises of Government, by John Locke – 1689
3. The Theory of Moral Sentiments, by Adam Smith – 1759
4. The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, by Benjamin Franklin – 1771
5. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, by Adam Smith – 1776
6. Common Sense, by Thomas Paine – 1776
7. The Rights of Man, by Thomas Paine – 1791
8. The Age of Reason, by Thomas Paine – 1793
9. The Book of Mormon, published by Joseph Smith originally in 1830
10. The Law, by Frederic Bastiat – 1849
11. The Laws of Success, by Napoleon Hill – 1929
12. Human Action, by Ludwig Von Mises – 1949
13. Atlast Shrugged, by Ayn Rand – 1957
14. The Naked Communist, by W. Cleon Skousen – 1958
15. For the New Intellectual, by Ayn Rand – 1961
16. Capitalism and Freedom, by Milton Friedman – 1962
17. Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal, by Ayn Rand – 1966
18. The Proper Role of Government, by Ezra Taft Benson – 1968
19. Making of America, by W. Cleon Skousen – 1985
20. An Enemy Hath Done This, by Ezra Taft Benson – 1992

Who is Les McGuire?

If you’ve never read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand you’ll never fully understand this essay. So, before you go any further let me just recommend that if you’ve not yet done so, obtain a copy of that book and start reading. It has the potential to change your perspective on life. This was the case with me and it was also the case with my friend Les McGuire.

I remember hearing about Atlas Shrugged back in college, but for some reason I never decided to read it. Blank out (that’s for you objectivists). After going completely broke in 2001 I remember seeing my wife reading it and her encouraging me to read it, constantly. I even remember reading somewhere that President Ronald Reagan had reportedly said something like, “Next to the Holy Bible, I prefer to read Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand.”

Nevertheless, I still didn’t read the book. I remember hearing others joking around from time to time with the question “Who is John Galt?” but aside from knowing it was some allusion to Rand’s book, I just wasn’t that interested. As a matter of fact it wasn’t until another friend of mine told me that he could not understand how I could claim to believe in freedom, free markets and in America and still resist reading Ayn Rand, that I finally relented and read the book.

About my experience I can only say what is bound to be a serious understatement. I wish I wouldn’t have waited to so long to meet Dagny, Reardon, Francisco, Midas Mulligan, Ellis Wyatt and John Galt. I have since fallen in love with the book and its author. I don’t mean to say that I enjoy everything in the book, nor do I mean to suggest that when it comes to Ayn Rand I turn my brain off and give a blanket endorsement, of course I don’t mean that. But, I will say, that if you have any interest whatsoever in living a life that you love, it is time for you to get to know the characters of Ms. Rand’s book. Or should I say books? We’ll leave that for a different discussion.

It was reading Atlas Shrugged for the first time that I realized what it meant to be a man of the mind. Reading the book also helped me to remedy a number of intellectual contradictions that I’d been stewing over privately for years. Most notably, I was finally able to identify a rational explanation to my mental aversion related to the common notions of faith and religion. These concepts are, to me today, something entirely more useful than they were before I read Atlast Shrugged.

I could go on and on about the many different ways reading Ayn Rand quite probably saved my life. Reading Atlas Shrugged saved me from something much more profoundly disturbing than the demise of my physical body, mental death. The paramount hero in the book is John Galt, though the reader doesn’t really get a sense for this until at least half way through the book. In Galt’s famous radio address he says,

“Man’s mind is his basic tool of survival. Life is given to him, survival is not. His body is given to him, its sustenance is not. His mind is given to him, its content is not. To remain alive, he must act, and before he can act he must know the nature and purpose of his action…To remain alive, he must think.”

I had already reached a point in my life where after long struggle I had learned for myself the substance of what John Galt is here pointing out. However, it was Ms. Rand, through her characters, that gave me added courage to stay the course, and the idea that I was not alone.

Many objectivists are still surprised, that having become fully indoctrinated by Ms. Rand’s writings and speeches, I have managed to keep my “faith” and still hold my religious convictions. This too is a topic for another time and place, but let it here suffice me to say that thanks to Ms. Rand I now have a more firm grasp on many rational, conceptual formations critical to life beyond the typical mysticism so prevalent in the minds of so many today. I’m sure this could be discomforting to my fellow religionists and Ayn Rand disciples alike. But, like Ms. Rand’s classical protagonists, the discomfort of my associates does not tempt me to equivocate on matters of truth.

Over time, and after much study Ms. Rand and her fictional characters became prominent heroes of mine, and back to the topic at hand, also to my friend Les McGuire. A full description of the friendship between Les and I is, yet again, something for another time. But, it is important to explain that we were friends of the most rational kind. We were not friends because of mutual emotional affinity, childhood association, family or church connections, etc. Les and I became friends because of our common ideas and interests and this defined our relationship.

Unfortunately, Les and another friend of mine, Ray Hooper were tragically killed in an airplane crash in Provo, UT in June of 2006. With Les gone, I have found myself often returning to the characters of Ms. Rand’s novels for the familiar feeling that so closely resembles how it seemed when I was spending time with my friend.

Les and I did a morning talk radio program every day of the week for almost a year. We talked about subjects across the board, from silly to very serious. We shared our ideas together in a public form that was engaging and satisfying for us both. I’m not so sure we would have changed our pattern even if someone would have told us that the conversations weren’t going out over the airwaves, because the time we spent was rewarding all by itself.

One day, as Les and I sat discussing something – off the air – he turned to me and out of the blue asked, “Rick, if you had the opportunity to exchange your mind for one day with anyone who has ever lived, who would it be?”

The question was unexpected. The first thought that came to my mind was “I’d rather keep mine, thank you.” Les laughed and teased me from that day on for being so arrogant. I told him that if I was arrogant, then I was rationally so. My explanation to him was simply that in my estimation I had spent my life developing my own mind and it would be useless to exchange my brain with someone else only to return a day later with my own mind, remembering nothing from the experience.

I told Les at the time, “I’d rather have a good visit with anyone in history who had a brilliant mind and therefore be enabled to improve myself.”

“This,” I explained, “is why I read.” This is the point. Les and I agreed, that for both of us, reading had become a way to probe the minds of great men and women, to get to know them and their ideas, and to measure the value of their contribution to the intellectual marketplace of ideas.

“Improvement,” I later suggested in our conversation, “is my constant goal, not just an experience here or there.” I suppose each of us could answer the question Les asked me that early morning, and give different answers based on our unique life perspectives. But, to me, it boils down to one fundamental point. Do you love your life?

Are you living the life you would freely choose if nothing stood in your way? If you can honestly answer yes to these questions it speaks volumes about where you are headed in life and what you have to offer those you love as well. Improvement and progression are easy to talk about, but to live a life dedicated to such a goal takes more than simple wishing.

Just a few months before the plane crash Les started hosting his own radio program called “the Producer Revolution.” Every weekday morning at precisely 9:05am anyone in the world could tune in and hear Les make his bold yet quizzical pronouncement, “I am the man who loves his live.”

He started his show almost every day with this declaration. Of course, to the readers of Atlas Shrugged, he was obviously copying the statement of John Galt, early in his radio address – answering the then common question, “Who is John Galt?” But, why did Les do that? He even had custom plates for his Mercedes once again taking on the persona of John Galt. I don’t think very many of our friends have ever taken the time to think it through.

Les was a great example of someone who strived for perfection and progression in his life. I never saw him yield to the momentum of the tide of mediocrity. He loved his life and he loved those around him – starting with his wife, his children, his close family and friends. Anyone who spent any time around Les could easily see this, and could see that ideas like the one’s I’ve been talking about caused his entire demeanor to seem noticeably different than almost anyone who happened to be around him.

John Galt, in his radio address, goes on to answer, “I am the man who does not sacrifice his love or his values.” This, to me, is not simple fiction. It’s an invitation to live a different sort of life.

Not everyone is ready for Ms. Rand’s invitation (delivered through Galt), but in time – I’m convinced that almost all of us begin looking for it. Every man born into the world without serious mental defect has an innate sense that his life is important, that he is important, and that it is within his grasp to accomplish great things. It is not in the nature of man to be depressed or to harbor deep despair about the future. Apathy is not our natural state of mind.

Small children are the best example of how naturally hopeful and heroic the opportunity of life is to mankind. As Ayn Rand clearly explains in her introduction to The Fountainhead:

“It is not in the nature of man—nor of any living entity—to start out by giving up, by spitting in one’s own face and damning existence; that requires a process of corruption whose rapidity differs from man to man. Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one’s mind; security, of abandoning one’s values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future, at the dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man’s nature and of life’s potential. It does not matter that only a few in each generation will grasp and achieve the full reality of man’s proper stature—and that the rest will betray it. It is those few that move the world and give life its meaning…“

The key to living the heroic life is rediscovering that fire within. I have learned for myself that in order to understand the affairs of societies and nations, one must first come to understand the basic nature of men and their affairs.

In order to understand how to reform or improve a nation or a community, it is first necessary to clearly understand how to change individually. This is the tragic error of so many who set out to save the world with no real clue of how to save themselves.

There exists no shortage, in the world, of those whose own happiness seems eternally illusive to themselves and yet who at the same time naively and irrationally embark on a mission to save the world from their own despair. This is a dangerous condition for all those affected. No leader can be trusted who cannot first lead himself. No teacher should be trusted if he has not found in his own life the principled path to happiness. No politician, no businessman, no coach, no adviser, and no parent can effectively perform the sacred responsibility of guiding and directing others if they do not themselves know the ultimate destination of their prescribed path.

This is a critical difference between the producers and the consumers in the world. Beware of those whose own misery drives them to a constant and desperate search for escape from reality by ordering around others for their “own good.” Beware of those who have no vision of the future but thrive off of being a leader. Look instead for those who have a vision of the future and who have some principle-based reason for leading.

The greatest of all teachers has said, “By their fruits ye shall know them.” I know this advice to be sound and powerfully effective. There are innumerable voices in the world speaking to those looking for the reality of life, the path of freedom and prosperity and peace. It is important to discern between the voices of consumers, who simply seek to control and manipulate, from the voices of producers, who actually have a substantive desire and ability to lead.

Look for the producers, they are the men and women of the mind, who love their life. Most of us spend a significant portion of our lives yearning subconsciously for someone to help us find answers to discover this same state of mind. Unfortunately, too often were are unable to articulate the source of our gnawing discontent.

The metaphor created between the two main characters of the Wachowski brothers’ film The Matrix illustrates a similar situation.

Morpheus: . . . They got to you first, but they’ve underestimated how important you are. If they knew what I know, you’d probably be dead.

Neo: What are you talking about? What . . . what is happening to me?

Morpheus. . . I imagine that right now you’re feeling a bit like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit hole? Hm?

Neo: You could say that.

Morpheus: I can see it in your eyes. You have the look of a man who accepts what he sees because he is expecting to wake up. Ironically, this is not far from the truth. Do you believe in fate, Neo?

Neo: No.

Morpheus: Why not?

Neo: Because I don’t like the idea that I’m not in control of my life.

Morpheus: I know exactly what you mean. Let me tell you why you’re here. You’re here because you know something. What you know you can’t explain. But you feel it. You’ve felt it your entire life. That there’s something wrong with the world. You don’t know what it is but it’s there, like a splinter in your mind driving you mad. It is this feeling that has brought you to me. Do you know what I’m talking about?

How many of us have felt that exact feeling; a feeling of knowing something is wrong in the world but not able to explain it and not knowing what to do about it? It is no coincidence that most who come across this publication can identify with exactly what I’m saying.

A few years ago when I first met Les, after seeing that we had certain aligned interests, we talked about organizing our friends for the purpose of starting a revolution—a moral revolution that could sweep across the nation. We talked about the revolution’s ultimate objectives, what drove us in wanting to initiate such a revolution, the positives and negatives of doing so, and the most appropriate way we could do it.

Les later explained, while posting a response to a question online,

This is why I have the passion I do, because of the materialism and consumerism so prevalent in the world. I believe it will take a revolution to get us to that point where people live the lives they were sent here to live. When I first started to realize this, I asked myself, “What are we doing to save the Constitution of the United States?” Most everyone I knew then was basically broke, living paycheck to paycheck, selling their time for money. They were slaves; their time and energy were not their own. I met Rick; we talked about it, and we decided what we could do to prepare and help people get free. We agreed that if we could help them regain their labor and time back (financial independence) and then teach them the core principles of how to be a producer, we could effect massive change in the world.

Everything you see here, and everything we do, is aimed toward that end. If you understand this about us, much of what you see us do and say will make more sense to you.

Organizing a revolution is no small or temporary undertaking. If you are interested in the goals, mission, and purpose outlined here, then you are invited to join the revolution by making a public declaration, a personal commitment to live a principle-centered life. The following is what we call the FreeCapitalist Pledge™:

We who are not about to die, we who love our lives and who freely choose to acknowledge that ‘God governs in the affairs of men’;

Stand forth and individually pledge -

I choose to create more value in the world than I consume.

I choose to reject idleness, force, deception & graft.

I choose to think, to act and to govern myself.

I choose faith in principle not speculation or chance.

I choose liberty and life; happiness and peace.

In a world addicted to scarcity, I dissent.

I am a Capitalist.

This public declaration is the only cost of becoming a member of the FreeCapitalist Project, and it’s only the beginning. Individual members are invited to continue on a path of personal prosperity and civic service. Members are introduced to opportunities to learn, teach, attend local community councils, forums and study groups.

I am constantly grateful to have had amazing influences in my life like Ayn Rand and the characters of Atlas Shrugged. Even more importantly, I am grateful for peers, colleagues, family and friends who strive every day to exemplify the virtues and commitments of society’s producers.

If you did not know anything about my friend Les McGuire before June of 2006, I invite you to finish reading the FreeCapitalist Primer, and when you are finished I invite you to pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Don’t put it down until you’ve read for a while. It will take some time, but the investment is well worth it.

The opening line of Atlas Shrugged reads, “Who is John Galt?” When you’re finished with the assignment I’ve just given you, you’ll have a better understanding of why I titled this essay the way I did. Perhaps then, when you are little more familiar the ideas this Project, will you occasionally take the opportunity to substitute the phrase and at just the right time ask a friend, “Who is Les McGuire?”

“Are you living the life you would freely choose, if nothing stood in your way?” When you are ready to be a man or woman who loves your life – no excuse will do.

* This essay is taken from the most recent version of the FreeCapitalist Primer which can be downloaded as a FREE eBook.