Brief Critique of Two Ayn Rand Articles

[In response to the article “History is Against the Republicans,” a person I don’t know who is on the Yahoo! Group suggested I read two Ayn Rand articles, “Man’s Rights” and “Nature of Government.” This is a brief summary of what I thought of the articles].

In "Man's Rights," I get a little troubled with the equation of "capitalism"--then and now--with "free market." I try to explain to friends, etc. of other non-libertarian bent that capitalism as practiced is itself far too structured, regulated, and biased toward the "owners" of capital for it to be useful as a mechanism of adjusting disparity in economic opportunity. The outcomes gear too much to the structuralism that we have become rather immune to accepting. I usually say a garage sale, a lemonade stand, and the contraband economy are more accurate descriptions of how the fundamental "physics" of markets work to help all of society by maintaining an equilibrium where effort justifies the outcome, individually helping ourselves by at the same time helping others. That seems to be more of the point of how all "rights" of property are protected if we each take care of our own. I suppose it is terminology for the days in which she wrote. If so, it is my own concepts that suffer the need for definition.

Also in the essay, and in the "Nature of Government," I'm uncomfortable with the absence of a conviction for a source of legitimacy for self-government.  As she rightly says, that governments and "divine right of kings" cannot be their own self-sufficient justification for rule. Therein lies the brilliance of the Dec./ Independence to establish those "natural rights" which overrule the rights of kings, parliaments, and/mobs. It makes no difference on one's spiritual beliefs or thoughts on a "creator," for or against an "order" greater than ourselves, but humanity or governments certifying their rights by unilateral declaration are equally void. Hence the problem in the US/Constitution was resolved that the entire "people" collectively were the legitimate source of power. This got rid of all the "divine absolutions," for kings or creators, and hence transcended individual desires with a collective will. And, unfortunately, 310 million people to 1 me ultimately overrules my will if by nothing else than they can all figuratively "wrestle" me to the ground, whether I am in my right or not. I usually try to tell friends, etc. that their power over me is null and void because if outnumbered even three to one, or 310 million to 100,000, the absolute truth of the matter is, as long as the Dec./Ind. remains, society's collective consent or coercion is null and void because "nature" itself is the source of legitimate "truth." But then we are all stuck arguing about that, since none of us really can bludgeon the others' beliefs about that matter.  It makes me shutter everytime I have to explain to friends that the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights is irrelevant and useless because "those" monstrosities are given by the collective governments, "phony rights" which they can just as easily, and often do, withdraw.

Again, it comes down to legitimacy: "State of Nature" providing the justification for necessary government (Hobbes) or rights of nature  and mutually agreed law protecting everyone from everyone else.

As far as what can be done about it, it comes down to patient education of all or waiting until such acts of universal horror (the unthinkable of nuclear war in the Middle East) cause such a POV shift that people would be eager to learn quickly how they gave up over the last 220 years their ownership of their govenrment, and bestowed their legitimacy upon a lie of a "social" contract without verification [or enforcement].

History is Against the Republican Party

Historically, the Democratic Party is the "oldest" party in our two-party system, built first by Jefferson and Madison, then embedded by Jackson and van Buren. The RP was the third generation of the Hamilton-Adams faction, following from Federalists and Whigs, of which Clay and Webster were the most important bridges between the Founders and the "father" of the Republican Party, Lincoln. Until the Civil War, the Democrats, for the very, very wrong reason of slavery, and for opposition to tariffs, to public works, to "paper" currency but strong for states rights within the federalism defined by Amendment 10 under "strict constructionism," were actually the "conservatives." As all along, the Democratic Party was/is/will be strong on "bribing" to get votes under the "old" machine deal, and ever since under FDR's "New Deal" scams.

Whereas the Whigs, Free Soilers, and the "Liberty" parties were for tariffs to protect nascent industry, very right to oppose slavery (dah), but for Clay's et. al. "American System" of public works, the Republicans were, cough, cough, the "liberals." Always nationalist, the RP etc. heritage was originally for loose interpretations of the Constitution. The Republican Party was fundamentally changed by Teddy Roosevelt's Monolith of progressive intervention.

The parties have flip-flopped, and we can blame both TR and FDR for making it possible. TR gave away conservative "castles" (those core principles in the Constitution related to the Federal departments that had no right to exist) in our nation that did not belong to him, and FDR gave away the coffers which belonged to everyone.

With little to offer people the past 70 years OTHER than the pricniples of letting people have people political liberty and freer decisions over economics, GOOD things all, the RP coalition's conservative wing is constantly getting clobbered in Congressional elections by Democrats, and by neo-conservative "liberals" in the excutive branch (Nixon, and the Tale of Two Bushes). The reason? We who are conservatives and libertarians have a hard time selling the premium of liberty (political) and freedom (economic) when the "liberals" (in the DP and RP) sell at rummage sale prices their "social contract" of poverty because it is deceivingly equal and feed the cultural "beast" ("the New Age opiate of the poor and uninformed"?) its diversions and selfish indulgence to keep WE the People from what Peter is really stealing from Paul and vice versa--our sovereignty, individually and as a nation.