Without the state

Atlas Shrugged the Movie...

I freely admit to have never read Ayn Rand's doorstop of  a book 'Atlas Shrugged' . To be honest the  sheer repellent awfullness of 'The Fountainhead' was enough to make sure I never went near anything by her again. I was thus, underwhelmed to say the least, by the idea that anyone would waste good money on making a film from anything she had written.

I know it is possible of course to make good movies out of bad books - and believe me even if Atlas Shrugged is 10 times better than The Fountainhead it is still a bad book - but the reviews don't seem encouraging. The Randites of course love it and pop out of the woodwork to heap venom on any critical reviewer.

I still think this is probably a good summary though:

‘There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.'

Why are atheists so mean ?

Image via Wikipedia

For some reason - I suppose because they are having an impact - writers promoting a secular approach to society seem to be getting a hard time from the god-botherers lately. The idea that secularism is somehow a dangerous thing seems to me to be stretching the bounds of credibility mre than a little, but it hasn't stopped the Pope and various other clerics from sounding off.

Strangely however, some atheists are joining in, arguing that Dawkins et al are too strident. Now if you have read the Butterflies and Wheels blog, you will know that Ophelia Benson is unlikely to give such nonsense an easy ride and you would be right. In response to a particularly silly post by someone called Karla McLaren, described by the blog on which it appears as:

"...a hugely informative and clear-eyed assessment of the state of the atheist movement.”

she forthrightly responds "I don’t agree. I think it’s just the 14 millionth installment of 'new atheists are bad and mean ick.' "

Make sure you read all the comments too.

To be honest I'm not sure why we need  'new (or gnu) atheism'. Old style anti-clericalism and anti-theism does me just fine. I'm happy too to respond to those who argue that atheism is a religion with the riposte that in that case, not collecting stamps is a hobby. That doesn't mean that atheism is empty of values, just that those values are based on a different way of thinking about the world than that applied by theists. An atheist morality is not a house of cards, it is based on a realistic asessment of how people relate to each other in society.  

Related articles

• No gods, no masters...and NO MARTYRS (scienceblogs.com)

Build Counter-Power, Create an Authority Vacuum - from C4SS

The prospect of a state collapsing brings forth worries about a “power vacuum,” an unrestrained state of nature where chaos rules until the strong take over. But chaotic conflict is produced by efforts to seize power and exert power over other people. It is not the rejection of rulership, but the struggle to achieve rulership, that creates deadly conflict. The negation of authority, as advocated by anarchists, does not necessitate the chaotic mess associated with the phrase “power vacuum.” Anarchy would mean that power is dispersed among individuals who would rather safeguard each others’ freedom than rule over each other. And if power is firmly in the hands of organized people then there is no power vacuum. In politics, the word power generally signifies the ability of an individual or group of individuals to influence the decisions of others. Authority is an attempt to legitimate the exercise of power to compel obedience or allegiance to the higher ranks. Anarchists reject authority in favor of individual autonomy. Anarchy means that individuals have ultimate decision-making power over their own lives, and the only social arrangements recognized as legitimate are those that are based on consensual cooperation. When authority amasses and exercises political power against people, it creates conflict. Hence the axiom that “anarchy is order, whereas government is civil war.” The very concept of having no rulers often encounters fears of a power vacuum – an unsustainable, dangerous situation that can only end in the re-establishment of rulers. But the rejection of authority does not mean that power is up for grabs — it means that power is widely distributed, making it harder for tyrants to usurp. The practice of anarchism fills society with empowered individuals, diffusing power throughout society so that no authority can take it over. Interactions of free individuals – the everyday pursuit of needs and desires combined with the recognition that mutual respect for freedom is the best way to realize needs and desires – build counter-power. Organizations of social cooperation that are established for the mutual benefit of participants, not for the power of some at the expense of others, help keep power dispersed in a fashion that safeguards individual liberty. Institutions of authority can be subverted or seized for the purpose of dispersing power. Certainly, anarchy requires a number of people to accept the idea, but this true of any state of affairs that does not rest on brute force alone. A state can only exist so long as it can muster a significant level of allegiance. Every individual has the decision of whether to obey the decrees of those trying to amass power, or to follow the logic of appeals to disperse power. The creation of dispersed power establishes a basis from which authority can be effectively challenged. When individuals possess power over their own lives, it means they have no personal power vacuum that tyrants could exploit. Power held by ordinary individuals gives them a greater stake in a functioning society as well as a more effective means of preventing social catastrophe. The rejection of authority, as advocated by anarchists, does not mean that a nightmare scenario associated with the phrase “power vacuum” is likely. It means the power that authority monopolizes will be dispersed among the people.

Originally posted at the Center for A Stateless Society by Daniel Worden.

C4SS News Analyst Darian Worden is an individualist anarchist writer with experience in libertarian activism. His fiction includes Bring a Gun To School Day and the forthcoming Trade War. His essays and other works can be viewed at DarianWorden.com. He also hosts an internet radio show, Thinking Liberty.

The pursuit of happiness

In her latest post on Time Goes By, Ronni Bennett asks 'what is happiness'. As ever an interesting post, as are the comments. I was particularly happy (sorry!) with my own comment, which by chance drew on some other thoughts I am having about 'life', so I am reproducing them here.

I think too many people confuse pleasure with happiness. Pleasure has its place, but is transitory. Happiness is deeper. Paradoxically we achieve happiness by embracing our whole life experience, good and bad. Rejecting a part of our life, for whatever reason, devalues the whole, and therein lies UNhappiness.

Ayn Rand at Harry's Place

I've never read Atlas Shrugged - I couldn't take any more after The Fountainhead, which has to be the worst book I have ever read. Repellent philosophy,appalling writing and non-stop whinging.

Rand clearly stills rings bells with some people though. My review of The Fountainhead is probably my most read blog post ever.

http://ibanda.blogs.com/panchromatica/2005/01/the_fountainhea.html

If you want real libertarian fiction, with a hero who is a whole human being, with a joy in life that comes bursting off the page, who is full of good humour and gentility, who deeply cares for his fellow human beings and who avoids and subverts the state at every opportunity then read H E Bates' books about Pop Larkin, starting with The Darling Buds of May.

Betty Bowers Explains Traditional Marriage to Everyone Else

How to be an artist (perhaps)

It's a truism I suppose, that as we get older, our tastes change and develop. My own late involvement in things artistic, coupled with thoughts about ageing as covered by Ronni Bennett has however caused me to think about this rather more deeply

I'm not alone in developing an interest in art late in life. Grandma Moses for example took it up even later than me, in her 70s. I want to know however if there are common factors or triggers. Grandma Moses was an embroiderer before she took up painting. Harry Bell, as I remember from our school days together, seems to have had a natural talent for drawing, but didn't fully pursue it until his 40s, when he went back to university and took a Fine Art degree.

In my case I've always been as much interested in the idea of creativity as in being creative. I first read Arthur Koestler's wonderful book The Act of Creation, some years ago and I suppose that ties in with one of my other interests, philosophy. I remember years ago on a training course, coming across Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis and in the course of some quiz, scoring highly on the Adult and Child axes, which according to the tutor was a strong indicator of creativity. I have to admit however, that after thirty years working in local government, I didn't come across many people who were obviously creative- or at least who tried to be creativity to their daily work. Any signs of a creative spark were seen not as something to encourage or build upon, but to be stamped out like a fallen ember from the fire.

It seems possible therefore that one factor that drives people towards creative activities in later life is that in their working lives creativity was suppressed. I have no idea of the conditions of Harry's working environment, but I know it was in the Civil Service, which from my contacts over the years is even more suspicious of new ideas than local government.

I do wonder how much creativity is locked up and suppressed by the demands of work, and what the impact would be for all of us if that creativity could be set free.

Funny stories

When I make a joke, it doesn't harm anyone; you can take it or leave it. But when Congress makes a joke, it's a law.

Will Rogers (attrib)

...and in the same vein:-

Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for.

There's no trick to being a humorist when you have the whole government working for you.

This country has come to feel the same when Congress is in session as when the baby gets hold of a hammer.

On being an atheist...

I never thought I would be commending something by Christopher Hitchens but here it is:

My own response has been to issue a challenge: name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer. As yet, I have had no takers. (Whereas, oddly enough, if you ask an audience to name a wicked statement or action directly attributable to religious faith, nobody has any difficulty in finding an example.)

No, the fact is that the bacilli are always lurking in the old texts and are latent in the theory and practice of religion.

Serenity and Libertarianism

For some bizarre reason, the film Serenity (and its TV series precursor - which I haven't seen yet) have been claimed as 'libertarian'.  For those who haven't seen it, the film is centred on  the exploits of the crew of a space ship led by a veteran of an interplanetary civil war (on the losing side).

The film opens with a bank robbery, in a scene recalling 'The Wild Bunch', although as one commenter claims here, because the money comes from taxation it has already been stolen so that doesn't count! By that logic I could hang around waiting for someone to be mugged, knock the mugger over the head and legitimately walk off with the proceeds.

I think the problem is that the people making these claims are not really familiar with Science Fiction as a literary form. They seem to think it began when they discovered it. Looking back though to the early days you will find nothing new in Serenity, not as science fiction, not as a film nor in its ideas. It isn't a bad film, just not especially original on any count.

The big bad government - the 'Alliance' - is a supposed coming together of the US and China. Joss Whedon, in the extras to the Serenity DVD sees this as positive, but you wouldn't know that from the discussion in Blogistan. It isn't an original concept by any means but ironically probably the best known version of it comes from Jerry Pournelle, an arch neocon, although in his case we have the 'Co-Dominion', an uneasy alliance between the US and the USSR. Nor would you know that the driver for humanity leaving earth was overcrowding and pollution - neither of them I suppose particularly high priorities for your average right libertarian.

The film itself is equally derivative - it contains elements of Star Wars, Alien and many others as well as drawing heavily on Whedon's own work. The character of River Tam is clearly another version of Buffy, while the Reavers recall both the myriad demons and monsters from Buffy, (especially in the climactic battle between River and the Reavers) as well as innumerable zombie films.

So is it indeed libertarian?

The short answer I suppose is no. The longer answer is 'only if you think libertarians have a monopoly on liberty' (which to be fair is what many do indeed think!) In practice it is a pirate movie - if Serenity is libertarian then so is 'Pirates of the Caribbean'.