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.

###

Capitalism, Mormonism, and the Bible

Its not uncommon for me to receive questions via Facebook or email regarding my convictions as a capitalist and my religious identity as a Mormon.  Recently,  a sincere Facebook friend posted a few questions on my Facebook wall and I thought I’d answer them publicly for the benefit of all who read here regularly and who might have similar questions.

My Friend Writes: “Rick, your religious beliefs intrigue me, I will say I am an evangelical Christian and believe the Bible and take it as literal.  I have never heard you say anything that contradicts what I believe (as far as principal goes).”

My Response:  Well, being a Christian (specifically a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints) I too “believe” the Bible.  What this statement means to me, may be something different than it means to you.  So, to clarify – let me briefly explain what I’m attempting to express.  I will outline a few basic points that describe my beliefs regarding the book commonly referred as the Bible.

1. First, it’s important to clarify just what book is being referred to as “the Bible.”  Not everyone agrees.  Not even most Christians agree.  For example, the King James Version of the Holy Bible is much different than the New Revised Standard edition of the Holy Bible.  Also, the New American Bible based upon the Latin Vulgate is quite different in substance than most Protestant bible’s because it includes an additional set of whole books that includes Tobit, Judith, First and Second Maccabees, The Book of Wisdom, and Ecclesiasticus (not to be confused with Ecclesiastes).  Also, when different language versions of these editions there can be many differences.  So, in summary, when someone asks me my opinion about “the Bible” if it is for a matter of specific discussion related to a verse or a chapter of a book within the Bible, the first thing that must be determined is, “What book, specifically, are we talking about?”

2.  As a Latter-Day Saint, I generally use the King James Version as the primary source of my own Gospel Study from the Bible.

3.  I believe that the bible, generally, is what it is set apart to be, an inspired collection of written testaments of the Gospel, including a record of God’s dealings with certain groups of people over thousands of years.

4.  I believe it is important to translate books correctly, and that there have been errors, omissions, and mistranslations of the book, but that generally speaking, it is God’s Word to man, through inspired prophets who completed the task of reducing God’s word to written form.

5.  Regarding the literalness of the Bible, I generally take the Bible at face value.  Where the text suggests it is allegorical or metaphorical, I take it as such “for example, I do not believe there was an actual physical dragon who chased an actual physical woman into the wilderness, as described in Revelation Chapter 12 – I believe that is symbolic language.  Where the text does not suggest as much, I take it as literal, meaning the stories of Noah, Abraham, Moses, etc.  However, it is also important to note, that I am not a mystic and I do not believe any text “speaks” without considering the intention of the writer.

6.  In summary, I believe the Bible to be an indispensable written work for all sincere disciples of Jesus Christ.  I am not a fan of Constantine or the councils that ratified or codified the existing text as “complete” but I do believe, in the context I’ve described, that the hand of God was instrumental in protecting and preserving the essence of the Book and as a central tenant of my faith believe it is a canonical text.

My Friend Next Writes:  What makes Mormonism different from other evangelical Christian faiths?  I understand this is likely a subject matter that would take more time then you have available and more space then is allocated for a single post on Facebook, but if you could at the very least give me some web links or recommendations for books to read, I would really appreciate it.

My Response:  Yes, you are correct his is an important, and deep discussion.  I will address it in two ways.  First, regarding the request for links.  I would start with http://www.lds.org and http://www.mormon.org.  Second, as a convert to “Mormonism” and a study of Christian history myself (I studied early Christian history at the University of Denver – which certainly, by itself doesn’t make me an expert, just an above average interest student), a short compare/contrast list between my faith and “other evangelical Christian faiths” is as follows.

1.  I believe in an active Priesthood directed by living Apostles and Prophets.
2.  I believe that living Apostles and Prophets have authority to continue reducing God’s word to man, in the form of an open cannon of Scripture and therefore I believe that there are additional, complimentary texts to the Holy Bible, as part of the Cannon – namely, the Book of Mormon, the Doctrine and Covenants, and the Pearl of Great Price.

In my own judgment, I judge that all other significant differences boil down to these two.

While these differences are important, and the doctrine related to them is detrimental to the salvation of man, I will say that I believe the common ground that exists between Evangelical Christians and “Mormons” is more important and more detrimental.  Among these shared common beliefs are:

1.  I believe that Jesus of Nazareth, was the Christ, the only begotten Son of God, and is now a living, resurrected being.  I believe he is one of three members of the Godhead or Holy Trinity.

2.  I believe that the Gospel of Jesus Christ is the most important message on Earth and that life’s most important questions and choices boil down to our individual quest for knowledge, truth and light.

In summary, I would simply conclude that religion is a cultural mixed bag, traditionally being filled so such a great extent with mysticism and oppression that all religious claims should rightly be viewed with careful discernment, and any who claim to speak for or by the power of God should not be given a pass on standards of truth, morality, or justice.  I am not a mystic, and reject all forms of tyranny over the mind of man.  My advice to all believers and unbelievers is to constantly “check your premise”, “keep thinking” and be always willing to admit that your mind has yet room to expand and your faith has yet roots to grow.

>>>Learn more about capitalism

God is a Capitalist: Answering Ruble Fisher

This past week a Facebook friend of mine, Ruble Fisher, wrote on my Facebook wall the following critique of my oft repeated observation that “God is a Capitalist.”

Rick, you definitely have not forgotten to suggest that God is a Capitalist, but I must say that this is not true. God’s economic system is Consecration, not Capitalism. Capitalism, Communism and Socialism all have the same flaw; they are man-made systems that ultimately lead to only one place, and that is destruction.

I answered Ruble on his wall, but since that time I’ve had several people who can’t access my post, ask about my response.  So, I figured I’d just post it here (with some minor edits and several additions based upon Ruble’s subsequent responses).

I wrote: Ruble, the error in your logic is that you’ve made my proposition a tautology. You choose to see the concept referred to in my statement, by the word Capitalism, as a man made concept. You then connect this choice with your choice—to see everything not directly made by God as doomed to destruction. So in essence what you are saying is that, “Whatever is made by God will prevail, whatever is not made by God will fail and whatever Rick says (including his choice of the term Capitalism) is made by Rick, not God and therefore it is self-evidently true that Capitalism will fail.”

However, here is the challenge put to you, that you ignore.  The concept I refer to when I use the term Capitalism (and this is not my choice uniquely) is the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.

When I say that “God is a Capitalist,” I am making the argument that the concept of capitalism is NOT man made. This is the challenge you ignore by defining the proposition as a tautology and simply assuming through your restatement of your proposition that capitalism is “man made.”

Since it is an assertion inseparable from your tautology, if I want to engage you in rational discussion, I can’t respond without you claiming that whatever I say or whatever concept I uphold is “man made” since I (the one speaking) am indeed a man. Or, in other words, your position boils down to the claim that MAN can never understand God well enough to accurately label God’s truths or laws and subsequently communicate them to others.  While you don’t make this argument explicitly, its implied in your position.

Your stance, of course, is self-evidently false, when at the same time you claim that God’s system is consecration. You see, the word consecration is also a “man made” term and therefore—according to your position—our understanding of God’s truths or laws is always limited by our man made articulations or choice of terms.

Certainly, you would agree (and its consistent with the position you take) that someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.  Right?  Since any such communication is going to be limited by man’s inherent fallibility (the core of your position).

The consequence, therefore, of your position is that in order to be rationally consistent you have to abandon either the tautology or your claim that you know and have properly labeled God’s system as consecration.

I suspect you would choose giving up the tautology. If its possible for you to argue that you have an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, then certainly you are forced to admit the possibility that I might also have made an accurate conceptualization of God’s law, regardless of the term I use (which would therefore include my use of the term Capitalism).

Your only argument could be that since the “word” consecration is used in the scripture and the word capitalism is not, your word (and the conceptualization attached to it) is not man made, while mine is.  This, of course, would make any conversation between us on the subject meaningless, because I could just point out every word used in defense of your position, that is not scriptural, and that effort would become infinitely regressive.

On the chance that I’m right, and that you’d be willing to give up the tautology and actually engage in the discussion over WHY I contend that God is Capitalist, then let me advance the next stage of our intellectual exchange.

I would begin by suggesting that Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being established in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept and obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE (of either the body or the mind) against any man or group is unjust and immoral. (Notice, my not so subtle argument by articulation).

This would therefore fence out any participation in CONSECRATION by tyrants. Or more simply, CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny. Because, CONSECRATION is the surrender of all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value. YET, any attempt at CONSECRATION by any group of Christians is ultimately undermine without a fundamental respect for the tenants of CAPITALISM.

This is the premise for Apostle Stephen L. Richards (who was an attorney, grandson of Apostle Willard Richards and mentor to the late President Gordon B. Hinckley), teaching that CAPITALISM IS THE FOUNDATION OF GOD’S CELESTIAL LAW. He taught:

“Many people misunderstand and misinterpret capitalism. They think that because the word “capital” is used to designate the system that its chief purpose is to make wealthy men who are usually called capitalists and whose wealth, it is feared, is too often accumulated at the expense of poorer classes.

I admit that there are instances, altogether too many, where this comes about. But this is not the true concept of capitalism. The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.

It is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty. For one I do not want to lose it.  But we will lose it if we do not understand it and recognize its virtues.  It is not the capitalistic system itself that makes some men rich and some men poor. The men themselves do that, again with some exceptions. The system merely offers the opportunities. “

Ruble then responded.  I’ll address his response, in line by line fashion, for clarity.

Ruble writes 1: Rick, honestly, I am really trying to follow your logic, but I am unable to do so. Capitalism was not inspired by God, nor was it made by you.

I agree I did not “create” capitalism, but I have argued that it is in fact God’s doctrine.  You don’t address my argument you just ignore it.  You see, I’ve defined Capitalism as, “the concept that the initiation of FORCE by one man (or group) against another (man or group) is immoral and unjust.” The basic premise of capitalism, justifying this moral position, is that man is free by right, and that all men have an equal claim to liberty.

Again, I suggest that this plan/system of men being “free” (Which I, and many others call Capitalism) is indeed authored by God.

• “…under [Christ's] head ye are made free, and there is no other head whereby ye can be made free.”  (Mosiah 5:8)
• “Wherefore men are free according o the flesh; and all things are given them which are expedient unto man. And they are free to choose liberty and eternal life, through the great Mediator of all men, or to choose captivity and death, according to the captivity and power of the devil; for he seeketh that all men might be miserable like unto himself.” (2 NE 2:27)
• “I stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage.”  (Gal:5:1)
• “Now the Lord is that Spirit: and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty.” (2 Cor. 3:17)
• “…according to the Spirit of God, which is also the spirit of freedom which is in them.” (Alma 61:15)
• “For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.”  (Rom. 8:2)
• “That every man may act in doctrine and principle pertaining to futurity, according to the moral agency of man, which I, the Lord God, had given him…” (Moses 4:3)

Finally, on this I would also point out that you have completely ignored that excellent quotation I provided from an Apostle of the Lord who uses the SAME articulation of CAPITALISM that I have used and that is at issue here.

Let me remind you that he clearly pointed out, “The capitalistic system in its inner essence, is little, if anything, more than a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and enjoy the rewards of his efforts. In my estimation, it is a most precious thing and it is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”

The reason this quotation is important is that it directly counters your claim that Capitalism was not inspired by God.  It does so in two ways.

1. Elder Richards clearly articulates that Capitalism is “a man’s free right to work, to choose his work, and…. is indispensable to the liberty and freedom of which America boasts.”
2. The Doctrine and Coventants makes clear that the Constitutional law of the United States which supports “that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges” was indeed inspired by him.

Ruble Writes 2: Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism that is helping the inhabitants of this Earth to know the difference between good and evil. Each of these systems are evil, and God has nothing to do with them.

I have already addressed the core of your argument above, namely that God did not create capitalism.  However, you now take the matter even further, so I’ll provide some additional insight regarding your claims that “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism”, your claim that “each of these systems are evil” and you last claim that “God has nothing to do with them.”

RE: “Capitalism is simply another economic system like Socialism and Communism.”

1. Why?  You have ignored my arguments to the contrary.
2. You offer no analysis as to how these are similar, except to repeat, implicitly, your contention that they are all “man made.”  But certainly I’ve addressed that.  But, to be clear, TRUTH is not man made, and ideas either conform to the TRUTH or they do not.  I have argued that CAPITALISM conforms the the essential Gospel truth related to the agency of man.  I have argued that God has authored this system and provided an explanation and scriptural support.  But, you simply keep repeating your assumption.  My question to you is, what if it’s not true Ruble… what if God did indeed establish the “Capitalistic system.”  I’m presenting that case, and you are ignoring it completely, and ignoring the statement by a Latter-day Apostle on the subject without any explanation.
3. How are these systems alike, besides your claim that they are man made?
4. I suggest they are extremely different.  First, Socialism and Communism are Godless.  Second, Capitalism acknowledges the supremacy of individual rights (which are central to the American System established by God) and Socialism and Communism seek to eradicate these fundamental rights.Lest you think this is just my assertion, let me quote Engles to you from his “Principles on Communism” 1847,“Moreover, since the management of industry by individuals necessarily implies private property, and since competition is in reality merely the manner and form in which the control of industry by private property owners expresses itself, it follows that private property cannot be separated from competition and the individual management of industry. Private property must, therefore, be abolished and in its place must come the common utilization of all instruments of production and the distribution of all products according to common agreement – in a word, what is called the communal ownership of goods.  In fact, the abolition of private property is, doubtless, the shortest and most significant way to characterize the revolution in the whole social order which has been made necessary by the development of industry – and for this reason it is rightly advanced by communists as their main demand.”
   
5. Finally, I suggest that the Church has made clear distinction between these systems. Consider for example the following statement from Elder Albert E. Bowen who said,“The Lord must want and intend that His people shall be free of constraint whether enforceable or only arising out of the bindings of conscience. … That is why the Church is not satisfied with any system which leaves able people permanently dependent, and insists, on the contrary, that the true function and office of giving, is to help people [get] into a position where they can help themselves and thus be free.” (The Church Welfare Plan, Gospel Doctrine manual, 1946, p. 77.)

RE: “Each of these systems are evil.”

1. Why?  Same argument right?  They are all man made?  I’ve addressed that.
2. What would you say is actually evil about Capitalism?  We need not delve into the others because I’ll readily concede they are evil.
3. You’re still ignoring Elder Richards who directly contradicts your point when he says that the capitalistic system is “precious” and “indispensable to liberty.”  Is it your argument then, that he is simply mistaken?

RE: “God has nothing to do with them.”

1. I’ve already addressed this point above.
2. God is the author of man’s agency, certainly you would agree to that.  Capitalism is the name given to the philosophy of holding man’s agency sacred, as I’ve explained, so how can it be argued that God has nothing to do with it?
3. Do you really mean NOTHING?  Do you agree with the scripture that says not even a sparrow falls to the earth without his notice and sanction?
4. If I have not been convincing previously, perhaps you’ll consider President McKay’s suggestion in the Church News of 11/27/1954 that:The “Individaulistic, capitalistic, free enterprise system” has been the God inspired means of enabling men to raise to a level of prosperity unprecedented in “all historic time.”
   
5. Perhaps you’ll also consider Apostle Mark E. Peterson’s explanation and warning in the Church News of  April 16, 1950.“How many Latter-day Saints truly believe in the Constitution of the United States?  That Constitution stands for free initiative.  That is free agency.  In a business sense we have spoken of it as free private enterprise.  Are the Latter-day Saints as a people willing to accept the principle of free enterprise?  There are some among us who are teaching that free enterprise is wrong.  These same individuals would do away with the capitalist system, setting forth its many abuses.” He goes on to suggest that “Free Enterprise” generally and “Capitalism” specifically are both in a general sense “free agency—the principle to which Latter-day Saints are committed.”

Ruble Writes 3:  God’s economic system is Consecration.

1. Yes, but you do not define Consecration and at the same time have ignored my statement that, “Someone using the term consecration is not necessarily doing so in a way that accurately conforms with or communicates God’s law.”
2. Also, I argue that Consecration requires a group of men first committed to the fundamental principles of Capitalism, i.e, eschewing the initiation of force.  You ignore my argument and simply say you “disagree.”  But, why?
3. How could you ever consecrate something if a) you did not have it in your possession and b) it was not yours (by private property right) to give in the first place.  “How can we give if there is nothing there? Food for the hungry cannot come from empty shelves. Money to assist the needy cannot come from an empty purse. Support and understanding cannot come from the emotionally starved. Teaching cannot come from the unlearned. And most important of all, spiritual guidance cannot come from the spiritually weak.”(Marion G. Romney, First Presidency Message October 1984)
4. Any group of people who get together, as you later suggest, to live the law of consecration will suffer the same fate as that suffered by the early pilgrims who had to learn first hand how to overcome the evil of collectivism and institute the Godly inspired virtues of individuals rights, individual stewardship, and the protection of men’s individual liberty. Or in other words, how can this group ever consecrate effectively without capitalism?  You seem to believe their is some other way but you don’t elaborate.
5. You also ignore Elder Richard’s statement that the system of Capitalism, “Is the only tried and tested system of free enterprise in this world and every other opposing system is built on an abridgment of personal liberty.” Is it your suggestion that Elder Richards simply forgot about Consecration in his assessment that Capitalism (since he does not mention consecration) is the ONLY system that has been proven to protect our freedoms.
6. Perhaps you might say, “all these things are incorporated in consecration” but this would mean we agree because this is what I have said in essence, that consecration is not possible without Capitalism.  Whether you say it my way or say it like, “Consecration contains all the principles of capitalism” then you are agreeing with me that God is a Capitalist because for him to be a consecrationist he would have to “be” that by first “assuming all of the qualities of a true capitalist.”

Ruble Writes 4:  However, there are some good principles found within the Capitalistic system, one of which is private property rights.

1. You are contradicting yourself.  You have already said that you did not believe that God “had anything to do” with Capitalism.  Yet now you say it has some “good principles.”

• The scripture is clear that we should, “lay hold upon every good thing, and condemn it not..” and that the followers of Christ will “cleave unto every good thing…” (Moro. 7:19,28)
• The scriptures also clearly state that, “…every good gift cometh of Christ.” (Moro. 10:18) and that “Every good gift”, “cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” (James 1:17)

Ruble Writes 5: Your “claim” that the concept that “God is a Capitalist” is not man made is something which I agree with. The “God of this World” is the author of Capitalism, and the God of this world is the enemy of all righteousness.

1. Ruble, its hard to take you seriously when you get to this point.  Are you kidding?  Do you believe that the God of this world is Satan? The God of this World is JESUS CHRIST.  And, on this point, you and I will have to agree, that HE is the author of Capitalism, which was my argument in the first place.
2. Ruble, in all sincerity, Satan is a liar, and he is NOT the God of this world.  If you have been misled or deceived on this fundamental, core doctrine of the Gospel, perhaps we ought not be having this conversation yet.  Please consider,

• “My heart tonight is filled with thanksgiving unto the Almighty God. Through the gift of His Son, who is the God of this world, we have been so magnificently blessed.” — Gordon B. Hinckley, Feb. 2001
• “Jesus Christ is the God of this world. He has made it very plain in his many self-introductions.” — Spencer W. Kimball, Nov. 1977
• “His identity and his relationship to God, the Eternal Father, and as “the God of this earth,” was clearly explained when he as the risen Lord, following his crucifixion and resurrection, appeared to his people in the land Bountiful on this continent.” — Harold B. Lee, November 1973.

Ruble Writes 6: God is a consecrationist, not a Capitalist. That is simple and understandable.

It’s only simple and understandable if a) you do not define “consecrationist”, b) ignore my challenges to your definition and my counter definition—remember I originally argued that to be a consecrationist meant one who, “surrenders all RIGHT to waste, to horde, to control for unproductive use and to gratify at the expense of value.”  I would agree with you that God is a consecrationist, but I would argue that it first presupposes that he is first and foremost a capitalist, as I’ve been arguing.

Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive?  What about Capitalism or Consecration creates this dichotomy?

Ruble Writes 7: Your logic is not so simple or understandable.

Okay?  What exactly don’t you understand?  Where am I being unclear?

Ruble Writes 8: To be consistent Rick, I uniformly abandon the tautology, and I stand solidly with my claim that I know and properly label God’s system “Consecration”.

Great.  I thought we would agree on abandoning the tautology.

Ruble Writes 9: [Beginning by quoting my earlier statement] “Consecration is NOT POSSIBLE without the foundation of CAPITALISM being in place first. Or, in other words, a society must first accept obey God’s law that to initiate FORCE against any man or group is unjust and immoral.” Your connection here is faulty and illogical.

Okay?  What is faulty about it?  Or Illgoical?

Can you consecrate without first having the private right of ownership?

Can you consecrate while resisting the idea that the initiation of FORCE is unjust and immoral?

Can any society live by consecration while tyrants abound who would mooch, or loot the wealth of the “order?”  I posit, that this is exactly why previous experiments failed, because men needed more time in our generation perfecting their ideas with regards to freedom, liberty, individual rights, and therefore CAPITALISM.

What logic allows you to counter my statement?

Ruble Writes 10: The connection between force initiation and Capitalism is strange to me. I read your explanation, but it simple does not logically hold up.

Hmmm, what do you mean?

I simply defined capitalism?  What about that definition is strange?

Stephen L. Richards also defined the system of Capitalism in consistent terms with my statements?  Did you misunderstand his statement as well?

Consider, “There are only two fundamental questions (or two aspects of the same question) that determine the nature of any social system: Does a social system recognize individual rights?  — and: Does a social system ban physical force from human relationships?

The answer to the second question is the practical implementation of the answer to the first…

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned…In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary.  Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions, and interests dictate.” (Ayn Rand: “What Is Capitalism?” Nov. 1965)

Ruble Writes 11: [Again beginning by quoting my argument first] “CONSECRATION is only possible absent tyranny.” I don’t agree! There can be tyrrany everywhere. We only need a group of people who truly understand the power of the Priesthood, and they will overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith.

1. Okay, finally you’ve addressed my argument.  Kind of.  What do you mean that there can be tyranny everywhere.  Certainly that statement is true by itself, but my argument was that the presence of tyranny (i.e. one or more tyrants who do not respect the basic premise of capitalism, or for the sake of further clarity, any person who does not respect the agency of man) threatens any chance of consecration.  You don’t address this.  You simply make a counter assertion.How could any number of Priesthood holders live God’s law without first casting out the tyrants?  I think Rev. Ch. 12 sets the precedent.* Note, a capitalist does not believe that ALL force is tyrannical.  It is the initiation of force that is tyrannical, but it is morally just to respond to tyranny with force in self-defense (separate argument if you want to have it.)
2. When you say that this “group of people” would have to first understand “the power of the priesthood” what you are essentially saying is that they would have to understand the fundamental tenant of a capitalist.  Right?  D&C 121:41
3. I would go a step further and say they would have to voluntarily agree to be bound by the priesthood, and would have to enter into such an agreement through covenant (private agreement based upon individual rights, including property rights).  Or in other words, we are agreeing on this point, because you have no argument against what I’ve clearly defined as Capitalism.
4. It is dangerous and naive to think that because “a group of people who truly understand the Priesthood” will ever “overthrow the powers of darkness through their faith” if that is what you are advancing as the only requirement.The implication is that somehow faith alone will “do the trick.”  It will not.  Faith is essential, no doubt.  But, the fundamental agreement mentioned in #2 and #3 above is essential.  To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the current members of the Quorum of the Twelve and the Quorums of Seventy don’t “truly understand the Priesthood.”  I don’t think that is what you’re wanting to to do here. Is it?The Saints have been working at this for a long time, but the stumbling block has been the PRIDE of our members who accept the deceptions of the adversary, for example, rejecting capitalism through misunderstanding and mis-attribution.  Additionally, the brethren teach that in addition to UNDERSTANDING the Priesthood this same group would have to:a) commit to live by the principles
   b) have a legal right to do so and the ability to defend that legal right
   c) become temporally self-reliant and surplus generating and
   d) united through love and service to and with one another.

   These are just a few things.  I suggest that before ANY of this is affected the PRINCIPLES of CAPITALISM have to be established first, because once again TYRANNY through FORCE (of either the body or the mind) is the way Satan seeks to destroy the AGENCY of man and with that goes the chance of living in a united order.

   In modern history, neither Capitalism nor its higher, supplemental manifestation of CONSECRATION has yet been possible among any sizable group of people because no sizable group has yet established legitimate civil authority over the tyranny brought about by the members of that same society having their hearts so set upon the things of the world and gaining the the honors of other men.  It will take a moral revolution, lead indeed by those who understand the Celestial law and have covenanted to live by it, before the day of Capitalism and Consecration fully comes.  Thank goodness, God is a Capitalist—and that the revolution has begun.

Ruble Writes 12: In conclusion, Capitalism is not necessary in order to have consecration. Enoch had no knowledge of Capitalism and he created God’s consecrated society on Earth.

1. Ruble,  with respect, I suggest your biggest stumbling block is that you do not define terms.  Your argument is not against Capitalism but against some idea of what capitalism means “to you” that you have not been clearly defining.  You have yet to advance an argument against Capitalism as I have represented it—yet it is to my original argument that you’ve been intended to respond.
2. Your statement about Enoch not having any knowledge of Capitalism is to suggest that he did not have any knowledge of THE CONCEPT we’re calling capitalism and that suggestion, on your part, is without foundation.  My argument is that CAPITALISM is at its core based upon timeless truths and governed by eternal principles.  No one, Enoch included, can prosper without being mindful of these truths, and the degree to which we are mindful determines the degree to which we prosper.
3. Also, your statement about Enoch is also revealing because using the same logic I could argue that “the ‘Mormon’ Church isn’t God’s true Church because Enoch was a member of God’s true Churcha nd he never heard of it, or of the Book of Mormon for that matter.”The “NAMES” we use to define concepts do not bind the truth—in fact it is the other way around.  To the extent that we are not deliberate and diligent in educating ourselves, including taking responsibility for having a consistent rational framework for organizing our conceptual understanding of the world, we are blinded to greater truths.

My own conclusion is that, God is a Capitalist, Enoch is a Capitalist, I am a Capitalist, Jefferson is a Capitalist, Joseph Smith is a Capitalist, etc., …. you get the picture.  The men upon whom the light of truth has shined and from which social revolution has taken place to advance the eternal cause of liberty—these men are true Capitalists.

Now, with all due respect I’ve invested quite a bit of time and energy taking your casual “stabs” at an argument very seriously.  Before you answer would you please consider the following invitation of mine….

1. Read my whole argument before responding.
2. Read the references contained in my argument.
3. When responding make arguments, not just claims.  An argument consists of three essential ingredients.  First a claim (which you are good at already), second is data or an appeal to the factual basis that substantiates your claim (logic is suitable but so is reference to external realities) and finally a warrant or the “reasoning” behind why your data supports your claim.
4. Finally, will you spend some time refining your point?  I mean no disrespect when I say, you haven’t really begun to come to terms with what I’m saying when I say that “God is a Capitalist.”  You are simply launching random thoughts at a concept that seems offensive to you and it makes it a rather lengthy and cumbersome task to address all of your statements when we’re not diving very deeply into a very rich and rewarding subject.

I appreciate you taking the time to a) consider my statement, b) respond to it in a way that is both challenging and passionate and c) doing it without using techniques that are uncivil.  I look forward to further discussion… but again, I hope you’ll consider my 4-fold invitation.

Thanks for reading.

Are You a Capitalist, by 1886 Standards?

For many years now I’ve been using the title “FreeCapitalist” and have enjoyed watching the odd expression in the faces of others as they attempt to contemplate my meaning. I have my own reason’s for calling myself a capitalist, and a few of them are not what most would suspect. In this same line of thinking, I am always learning something new. Recently I stumbled across something that related directly to my own personal reasons for using the title. Surprisingly, it was while I was reading an essay first published in 1886 by Rev. James W. Cole entitled, “Earning the Capital.” I thought it might be valuable to re-publish a portion of his essay to illustrate a point about capitalism that is seldom noticed in our world today, one hundred and twenty two years later.

Selection from “Earning the Capital” By Rev. James W. Cole

What is capital? Most writers on economics answer, “Capital is surplus; the storage of the labor of the brain and muscle; the overplus from the daily needs and uses of men.” If this general definition be a true one, it can apply only to the outer, material forms of wealth. For one’s wealth does not consist solely in the possession of money, however vast that sum may be. A simple definition of the word will show this. Strength is strongness. Length is longness. Breadth is broadness. Wealth is ” wealness ” or wellness; things that make for one’s well-being.

Is the miser a wealthy man? Do the millions of gold some men get tend to their well-being? Is it not true that the getting of money develops in some the baser elements of their nature, so that occasionally you may see persons whose riches have but served to make them meaner than the meanest poverty could ever make them? Can such persons be truthfully said to be wealthy or well-being persons?

The word, you see, has broken away from its original foundation, and is by many persons regarded as simply synonymous in meaning with money. But money is not an end; it is a means to an end, and that end is nobly to live the life that is given you. If money or any other product of the earth will help you do that, then get it, get all you can of it; but if it would hinder you in your development of true manhood, then avoid it. Earn something else by your brain and muscle, if you would be wealthy.

When that noble man, the late Prof. Louis Agassiz, was asked why he did not use his great talents to gain money, when he was offered three hundred dollars each for a course of six lectures, he replied with lofty scorn, ” I cannot afford to lecture for money.” To him there were far more valuable and wonderful things in this world than money. Alas! that there are but few like him.

The citizens of ancient Rome were wont to place the statues and images of their great ancestors on pedestals, and in the vestibules of their houses, in order to remind themselves and their children of those ancestors’ virtues and glorious deeds, and to inspire them to emulate them; and for one hundred and seventy years they allowed no painted or graven image of a deity among them, with the result, as Plutarch tells us, that for two hundred and thirty years after the founding of Rome no husband deserted his wife, nor any wife her husband, and for six hundred years there was no parricide known, and for forty-three years, during the reign of Numa Pompilius, the temple of Janus, the god of war, continued closed, there being no war, nor sedition, nor conspiracy.

Would that Americans could be diverted long enough from their worship of Mammon to cultivate some of the virtues of those old heathen! Perchance, then, they might, for the peace of their families and the good of the republic, imitate the example of that famous Themistocles of Athens, who, when two suitors, one a poor man and the other rich, sought for the hand of his daughter in marriage, chose the poor man, saying he desired as a son-in-law a man without riches, rather than riches without a man.

But now you are a man, and a man of business desires and wishes to succeed in some particular business. You have virtues and some talents, but, it may be, very little money, perhaps none. Can you succeed without money? Certainly. Some of the richest men in this country began their business life without a dollar. Nature is just as ready to help you to get riches as she was to help them. She will give as good returns today and tomorrow as yesterday.

Money is but one of the numerous and valuable things to be found in her vast storehouses on land, and in the seas, and in the air, and in the sun, and you can get it out if you wish and will. Perhaps you have heard it said that, ” it takes money to get money.” No, it doesn’t. Money is not a loadstone, drawing its kind only. Money is only lumps of matter dug out of the ground, and shaped in certain forms and stamped with a design, and you can get an abundance of it without digging in the earth for it, and trying to catch it with another piece of the same kind.

What! Get money without capital? No, with capital. Why, man, you are a capitalist! Wages are only a form of income. An everyday laborer is a capitalist. Every person to whom God has given brains and a good body is a large capitalist.

Your mind, your muscle, is your capital, and with them you may earn what you will. All the riches of the world are the product of the labor of brain or muscle. Your brain may be a veritable gold mine if you will but develop it.

In 1882, at Christie’s rooms, London, a little daub of matter, only twelve by nine inches, that a brain had put on canvas, sold for thirty thousand dollars. It was Meissonier’s “Napoleon the First in the Campaign of Paris.” The same artist’s “1814″ was sold for one hundred and seventy thousand dollars; eight years later, Millet’s “Angelus” brought one hundred and ten thousand dollars, and Murillo’s “Conception of the Virgin” one hundred and seventeen thousand dollars. Great fortunes, you see, that the brain produced.

The musician Paderewski spent a few weeks in this country a year ago, and then carried home with him one hundred and seventy-five thousand dollars, as the proceeds of his brain.

Sir Walter Scott was a silent partner in the firm of the publishers of his books. The firm failed, and he was involved in debt six hundred thousand dollars in consequence. He was then fifty-six years of age. Summoning all the energy of his mighty brain to the task, he labored incessantly, by night and day, sending out volume after volume, until in five years he had paid it all by the product of his brain. Yes, brains are great money-getters, if you use them for that purpose.

The son of a farmer in the state of New York, a sickly lad, Samuel J. Tilden, so used his brains as to bring him a fortune, by the practice of law, of five millions of dollars. A Swedish young woman, Jenny Lind, twenty-eight years of age, came to the United States with nothing but her voice, that her brain had cultured, and in ninety-eight nights she had sung out of the pockets of the American people seven hundred and twelve thousand dollars. Another Swede, Ole Bornemann Bull, so manipulated a violin as to draw out of the same American people in a single season more than a hundred thousand dollars; while an American-born lad of English ancestors, Edwin Booth, so used his brains while an actor, that in less than two months’ time he had taken in from the people of San Francisco alone, over ninety-six thousand dollars.

But why multiply instances in literature, art, oratory, music, the drama, all going to prove that your brain is your capital, and that all you need to do if you wish for money is to use it.

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.