Courage and Moral Rectitude Lacking

I popped over and read the comment thread that Billy Beck links to in his post Comment Abroad.

In the thread, which is a discussion of voting Democratic for the purpose of creating political gridlock, with an Objectivist slant, there are a number of references to Rand’s book Atlas Shrugged.

The references to this tome center around what it will take to effect change in the political hell we currently reside.  Will the change be effected by the agonizingly slow creep of Objectivist friendly educators into the education systems, mass civil disobedience, or by the political process?

Though I think that Objectivist friendly educators in the education system would be beneficial, the fruits of this would not be seen for generations to come, and that may very well be too late.

Mass civil disobedience simply will not happen.  Too many individuals desire to reside in the palm of the state.

Participating in the political process is simply robbing Peter to pay Paul and a freedom pipe dream.

At the risk of sounding naïve, I’ll reference Rand’s Atlas Shrugged and state the following.

The main protagonists in this tome are all titans of various industries who make the conscious decision to withhold their sanction from the state.  Some of the protagonists arrive at this decision rather quickly, others need to be beaten down time, and time again, prior to arriving at this decision.  Are there any titans of industry, today, anywhere in the world, who have this type of courage and moral rectitude?  Are there any titans of industry who even contemplate, even vaguely, withdrawing their sanction of the state?  I would say not.

Titans of industry, today, are more apt to ask for additional state interference to protect their markets from competitors, at the expense of the state’s lamprey grip on the fruits of their production, rather than advocating freedom from the state.

Until such time that this world we live in sees men and/or women, leaders, of the character type portrayed by Francisco d’Anconia, Ragnar Danneskjöld, or Elias Wyatt, individuals who destroyed the entities, the businesses, which the state voraciously feeds on, and who assiduously decline to contribute to the coffers of professional jobholders and jobseekers, the decline into socialism will continue.

Posted by on 11/03 at 08:10 AM

  1. There’s no doubt about it. There’s a hint i my previous comment as to why.

    Used to be that the focus was on individual titans of industry. They founded the companies, controlled them, and were far and away the majority stockholders, if not virtually sole holders.

    Today, it’s completely different. All major corporations have tons of stockholders and it is a rare instance when the founder even owns 10 or 20 percent—even when that is enough for control.

    And the state has been smart, of course. They’re partners in industry now, i.e., were a fascistic political system.

    This thing isn’t going to change until we hit rock bottom, and I have no idea when that will be.

    Posted by Richard Nikoley  on  11/03  at  06:50 PM

  2. Rich, I agree that “...this thing isn’t going to change until we hit rock bottom.”

    As I mentioned in my post, business owners are more apt to desire a snuggle in bed with the state, rather than to go it alone with the market, which of course means the rock bottom is camouflaged by the illusory safety marketed unceasingly by the state.

    I still assert that there are no titans, big business names, say a Jack Welch type, or Buffett or Gates, who have the courage to stand up and rally other big business names to say to the state, enough is enough, let the market work, rather than allowing the state to suckle while at the same time it holds a gun to their head to ensure the state gets it cut of the fruits of their labor.

    Posted by John Venlet  on  11/04  at  07:30 AM

  3. To your second paragraph, I agree. My point was that big business is no longer structured in a way where it would be possible even if we had founders courageous enough to do it.

    Posted by Richard Nikoley  on  11/04  at  09:51 AM

  4. Rich, I understood your point.

    The larger point I’ve been attempting to elucidate, conceding to your point in your last comment, is there are no household name businessmen, or women, today, like those I mentioned in my earlier comment, who would speak to individual freedom and actual free markets.  Instead, they cozy up to the state, through large donations to political aspirants, in the false hope that the state will not, at some future point in time, too badly pillage them for the “common good.”

    Posted by John Venlet  on  11/04  at  11:50 AM

Name:

Email:

Location:

URL:

Smileys

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Submit the word you see below:


Next entry: American Ingenuity in Foreign Lands

Previous entry: John Kerry Apologist

<< Back to main