posted by Erik
They are all in the news today because Paul Ryan is rightly being linked to Ayn Rand, and Ryan said he liked Rage Against the Machine. Morello made this comment: "I don't care for Paul Ryan's sound or his lyrics. He can like whatever bands he wants, but his guiding vision of shifting revenue more radically to the one percent is antithetical to the message of Rage...Basically the only thing he's not raging against is the privileged elite he's groveling in front of for campaign contributions."
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/tom-morello-paul-ryan-is-the-embodiment-of-the-machine-our-music-rages-against-20120816#ixzz23uoR30pX
Ayn Rand wanted to separate State and economics, as the church is separated from State. I admire this, but would take it a step further, and dismantle the State. In the end, she was a minarchist (if not an individualist anarchist if her logic was followed consistently). If Paul Ryan is a "Randite" then its odd that he is in politics at all, but I suppose he's their to be the vanguard, and dismantle the State up to a point.
This is an age old debate: individualism, or collectivism, or some mix of both? Should 1) people use the state to their end or 2) skip the use of the state all together. Within the first option we have everyone from Jefferson, to Marx, to Lenin, to Pol-Pot..., not to mention Royalty. Within the second option we have Benjamin Tucker, to Kropotkin, to Bakunin, to Rocker... One option thinks the state is needed, the other that the state will ultimately become a tool. Apparently up to this point in time, the latter group is not mistaken.
Rand basically thought humans savage, if not incorrigible, or on the other end of the spectrum, and this end should be the vanguard running the State to protect property, or all citizens would have to be armed. I'm one to think that most people are dumb, or inhumane, as noted in an earlier post in summarizing the Chik Fil A ordeal, but deep down I think human nature is good, and the bad are "outliers" in the 'bell-curve' of human action. If Rand thinks the opposite, then why let anyone amass power in the form of a government, as there is a risk of 'savages' in suits protecting us, settling disputes, enforcing taxes, and contracts. Further, if she is claiming individual sovereignty as the key to liberty, like Locke, then how is a state possible, even if its a form of popular sovereignty? In this regard, she is like Marx, Hegel, and Hobbes, Statist, and outside of real libertarianism, i.e. libertarian socialism. Though the Lib-Party pledge is the Non-Aggression Principle, the idea that they are even involved in state politics begs the question.
Rand, like Locke, defended the "consent theory of government." Yet as many, including Hume, Josiah Tucker, and Bentham (panoticon), pointed out, the consent theory destroys government. Further, the only way government keeps it power, or sovereignty over individuals, is via taxation-- no consent allowed here, just aggression. Another problem is monopoly, and hypocrisy. If justice is objective, how can a government decree it is just to carry out certain actions, and forbid all others from doing the same? Sovereignty is freedom, and its all or none. Unless of course you believe in popular sovereignty, but to me this is an oxymoron.
Whether Rand, Ryan, or Morello (frequently sporting an IWW hat) has the right plan to reach individual sovereignty is questionable, but it is the ability to question and succeed in resistance that matters-- the theory of sovereignty over absolutist "machines" of power. I think only Morello gets this, or wants it. I'm doubting Ryan Paul does, and likewise Rand believed in the necessity of the machine, though small.
The closer we can get to individual sovereignty and voluntary institutions the better, in my opinion. Morello has one idea on how to get it started on his head: "Take the power back" IWW style, with Rudolf Rocker-like syndicalism. I understand this line, but it scares me because power and hierarchy are the machine, the state, the enemy of sovereignty or liberty. I prefer to get there as an individualist, not a collectivist, but realize that there is room at the table for both, and think that's how it will work (not should work) as long as a State is not allowed at the table.
"Liberty is the not the daughter, but the mother of order." Pierre-Joseph Proudhon
No comments:
Post a Comment