Atlas Shrugged: Part 1 the movie directed by Paul Johansson based on the 1957 novel by free market advocate Ayn Rand.

Along with last week’s opening of part one of Atlas Shrugged, a movie based on the novel by libertarian zealot Ayn Rand, the economic philosophy of the “free market” and laissez-faire capitalism has been receiving a lot of buzz in the political arena. Rand wasn’t the first advocate of the free market, but 60 years after she reinvigorated the idea as a moral imperative her work is still impacting our political and economic discourse today.

This old economic philosophy was the driving force behind the libertarian Tea Party movement which cropped up recently in the midterm elections. They were a conservative freedom-loving group who presented themselves as the sort of down-to-earth and common-sense type folks that ordinary people could trust. And at first, the idea of simply allowing the free market to do its job, may seem to be a pure and simple common-sense solution to a freedom loving people’s complex economic troubles.

Newly elected leaders like Minnesota Governor Scott Walker and Republican Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin are putting the theory into practice in order to confront looming state debts. The idea being that the economic crisis which began in 2008 can be resolved by simply returning the economy to a free market, whether it be reducing government spending on social programs, cracking down on public sector unions, handing over government responsibilities to private corporations or deregulation of the private sector in general.

Rand believed, as Adam Smith did, in the notion of the “invisible hand.” She believed that national wealth production was best achieved through competition based on the motive of a man to make money: the so-called “profit motive.” It worked on the principle that the man who ran the best business and produced the most objectively superior product would make the most money, and would win out in competition, even if it turned that business into a monopoly.

Randites believe that the government should not interfere in the economy. But if we trust in the invisible hand will the country really be heading for a free market solution? Or will Americans find themselves further entrenched in corporate oligarchy?

A sense of growing distrust of large corporations has been growing among the American Public. From the 2008 mortgage and loan crisis, which has been attributed to the intentional and careless gambling of too big to fail banks, to the Citizens United ruling in the Supreme Court which allowed corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on political elections, people are beginning to view the influence of large corporations as the greatest threat to democracy.

And there’s a reason for this distrust because the corporations themselves who have acted as the champions of this free market philosophy haven’t really allowed this process to develop freely, in what would be the traditional democratic process. Rather corporations like Koch Industries began funding the election campaigns of people like Scott Walker, in order to get this free market started. But are these corporations really proponents of free markets? Or are they and their political representatives just saying that?

It’s hard to imagine how any large modern corporation came to exist as it does today without special treatment by the government. The U.S. Government feels obliged to subsidize big corporations or otherwise give them special treatment, because these corporations have such a huge impact on our economy. And corporations love subsidies, they love tax breaks, they love money! Even the Koch brothers, the flag-bearers of the Randian free market, the self made billionaires who own the second largest corporation in the country–the kind who like to say they built their entire empire all by the sweat of their own brows–eat the words of their own philosophy by their hypocritical actions.

Photo by freemarketmyass

Protesting the Wall Street bailouts at the Federal Reserve Chicago Board of Trade.

As Rand would say, any moral and honest libertarian should reject attaining influence in government, reject government loans, reject subsidies, and should reject the high taxes that fund those subsidies, because this is the anti-thesis to the free market. These policies create unfair competition, and represent a manipulation of the all-hallowed free market. Yet Koch industries accepts subsidies for cattle and logging. They are even involved in ethanol production, an energy source which they have publicly criticized. But in a letter to reassure their employees they explained that they’d began producing ethanol simply because the government was granting huge subsidies for ethanol production. Koch industries also spent $40 million lobbying the government, a large portion of which went to funding the Tea Party.

So who really believes in the free market? Is it the man on main street who knows he must close his shop, when Wal-Mart moves in offering products at lower prices? It certainly isn’t Wal-Mart, a company which has received over $1 billion in various forms of government subsidies.

Wether you believe in the free market or not, there is a major flaw in our economic thinking. We assume, as a rule of thumb in economics, that larger companies are simply those that have navigated the free market the most successfully, and therefore provided the best quality product to consumers–that they have played the best game according to the incontrovertible rules of economics. But this is a misconception.

In today’s world corporations have succeeded, not based on providing the best product or creating the best business. Instead, they have maximized profit by diminishing quality to lowest acceptable standard, by squeezing wages and by overburdening their workforce. Through these unethical, however legal, policies they have grown and swallowed other companies who could not compete with their harsh business practices. (Rand might have argued, that in a free market the employees would move to the better work environment, but that concept gets thrown out the window when there is a constant unemployment rate and therefore a desperate labor force.) These large businesses, having amassed a sheer size and volume that allows them to manipulate the government, can now leverage demands through lobbying efforts, that the man on main street would never even be able to attempt. And in the case the government did not act to prevent monopolies, corporations could very well acquire power over the people and the government itself because they have no sense of responsibility to the country.

Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand originally published in 1957 has become the Bible for conservatives, libertarians and other believers in the philosophy of the free market.

Rand might defend her philosophy against this scenario saying that the government’s meddling in the free market has already corrupted the potential for a working free-market system beyond repair, as was the case in her last great novel. She might also mention how her philosophy of Objectivism–the idea that objective standards be used to value a product and a business–has been subverted by huge investments by corporations in the deceptive practice of marketing and advertising. But the country that Rand was writing about 60 years ago, is a much different place now, and it would be thoroughly interesting to see how she might react to today’s world–a world of trans-national corporations, of predatory lending, hedge funds, globalism, neo-liberalism, derivatives trading and out-sourcing.

Although Rand is critical of her country, she writes with a sense of patriotism and admiration of being a citizen in the freest country on earth. And although, she trashes the term “social responsibility” as a means of serving the interests of people who do not work and contribute anything of value to society, a group of people she calls looters, nonetheless, her characters still have a since of responsibility for their society. The fact, that she wrote so much about what she saw was a flawed and disastrous economic system, is good proof of her personal sense of responsibility to her country. Additionally, within the pages of her work, Rand creates an industrial tycoon, who despite being profit-minded, pays his workers a wage much higher than the industry standard. And she creates a railroad Tycoon, who even has so much of a heart to takes charity on a destitute man who has snuck aboard her train. Even Adam Smith, realized the importance of what he termed the “home bias,” that a businessman should prefer to conduct his business within his own country, for the benefit of his own country. But in a world moving full speed ahead toward, neo-liberalism and globalism, these megalithic trans-national corporations have no sense of home bias, of responsibility or loyalty to a country, and their concern for people has diminished. The only thing that hasn’t changed is their motivation for profit.

Of course, to legislate that “sense of responsibility” doesn’t really solve the problem either because this creates a collectivist society by force. This is the evil that Rand was trying to warn people about. And although the concept of a society where everyone works for the common good sounds wonderful, Rand may have been very right about this one thing, it goes against human nature. If we’ve learned anything about democracy we know that people don’t agree, and they may never agree. And clearly, we all know what is in the common good isn’t always in the interest of everybody. The danger in socialism is not necessarily in the lack of motivation that accompanies the inability to make more money then your neighbor, which would be Rand’s argument. It is foreseeable that a society itself could actually profit in one way or another by adopting a utilitarian system of governance, but men themselves would not be free. If it is not inevitable, there is the grave potential that a socialist system leads to the establishment of a virtual dictatorship in order to determine and enforce what is best for the common good. Whether it be a group of scientists or a philosopher king, no dictatorship is a good dictatorship. We have to be free and empowered to act in our own best interest and in the interest of others in a democratic way.

The philosophy of the free market continues to live on because it may very well be the most natural and healthy economic system for a free people, but the free market is not the solution in and of itself. Despite Rand’s very compelling attempt to lay out an impregnable literary canon for the one and only rational economic system, there is no such thing as a pure economic solution. Without a sense of community, without some sense of honor and responsibility to a group of people which contains that free market, then there is nothing to prevent exploitation from being an acceptable component of business.

The question then is how do we restore that sense of responsibility? We must work to communicate awareness and develop a culture of action to reinvigorate our own communities, so that we can act together in unity on the national stage to reign in the ills of a free market on the loose. And if we cannot appeal to the CEOs of trans-national corporations, the very least we can do is work together with the businessmen in our own communities creating sustainable infrastructure, strengthening our own local economies, and investing in local renewable energy sources. Perhaps its naive, perhaps it violates the rules of economics, but this is the best place to begin.

USA, why you support dictatorship?

An Egyptian protester holds a sign that reads, ''No More US $ For The Bloody Mubarak Dictatorship''

Millions of people demonstrated in Egypt’s Tahrir Square in an unprecedented movement for democracy, yet US leaders and US media remain patently apprehensive of a change in government.

The US which purports to stand as a beacon of light for democracy around the world, seems to be holding its breath as this popular movement demands that a dictator step down from power. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton can only produce wary criticisms of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak demanding his government make needed reforms.

In an address to the Egyptian people, Clinton implicitly beckoned the Egyptian people back into their homes and encouraged use of the conventional political process to achieve reforms. She said all this while Mubarak’s brutal central security forces were violently breaking up demonstrations. Vice President Joe Biden claimed that Mubarak was no dictator on television just a day before Mubarak began shutting down lines of freedom of speech, first by disabling Facebook and Twitter, later turning off cell phone networks and internet access all together.

After 28 years under the Mubarak regime, the Egyptian people have no reason to believe that Mubarak will produce reforms now. And considering the regime has been propped up by the US Government since it’s inception, the people of Egypt must find the words of US Secretary of State Clinton disingenuous at best.

Rather than stand in solidarity with the Egyptian people in their pursuit of democracy, the US seems to be taking a neutral view on the events unfolding in Egypt. But the real view is anything but neutral. Egyptians know that the US has had a long-standing supportive relationship with the tyrannical Mubarak government. In fact, Egypt is the second largest recipient of US foreign aid because of it value as a geographically strategic ally in the Middle East.

The Egyptian people are fed up with Mubarak’s deference to US interests over the interests of his own people and they are justified in demanding that he step down. The response of US diplomats, however, has made it quite clear that the US is far more concerned about it’s own influence in the region, then being a beacon of light for democracy.

The US not only stands to loose its influential and illegitimate hold on the Egyptian government, but US officials are worried that democracy may actually be dangerous for Egypt! US leaders are afraid that the Muslim Brotherhood will commandeer the revolution. They echo Israel Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s fear that this popular revolt could lead to an anti-US Islamist theocracy like the one that was produced in Iran subsequent to the 1979 Revolution. And they’re afraid other nations will follow Egypt in this manner in a domino effect across the Arab world.

But here’s where a good knowledge of history becomes critical–a history that powerful leaders in the West tend to ignore. Long before the Iranian Revolution, the US had its meddling hands in Iran as well. In 1941, the CIA overthrew democratically elected Iranian President Mohammed Mossadegh, and installed the brutal Shah dictatorship in Iran, who oppressed the Iranian people, but protected US oil interests in the country. The Iranian people grew furious with the US control of their government, and it created an incredibly hostile attitude toward the US and it’s allies like Israel and Britain. The result? Iranian anger at the US intrusion of their government fueled conservative Islam and anti-US sentiment in response to the US threat to their country’s sovereignty. And so it’s no surprise, that when the people of Iran finally revolted against the Shah, he was replaced by an extremely anti-US Islamist.

Similarly in Egypt, the US support of the dictatorial Mubarak regime is creating resentment toward the US once again. Would it really be a surprise if a new Egyptian government developed a less-then-friendly attitude toward the US, when US interests stand as an obstacle to their right to democracy? Of course it shouldn’t be a surprise. The US has fueled anti-US sentiment itself by undermining democracies around the world for decades. It’s not because “they hate everything we stand for” as former New York City mayor Ruddy Giuliani would put it, its because we’ve been conniving in their governments for years.

But the Egyptian revolution is an enlightened revolution as compared to the revolution in Iran. It is a popular revolution, and so far is remaining a popular revolution. It’s not a Muslim revolution or an anti-US revolution. The Egyptian people understand, that it is up to them to take control of their government, but first the US must stand aside by cutting ties to Mubarak and allow the democratic movement in Egypt to move forward. A neutral stance in this case, is an opposition stance as long as we continue to prop up a dictator. If the US government continues to support Mubarak and act as an obstacle to democracy then the US should expect to be viewed as an enemy to the interests of the Egyptian people.

It would be an unusual foreign policy move for the US to take a ‘hands off’ policy in the unfolding events, but it is the best move. The US has an incredible opportunity to resolve tensions in the Middle East by demonstrating a measure of good faith and supporting the will of the Egyptian people. As for the potential domino effect of democratic movements and revolutions in the Arab world, this is not something to regard with apprehension. It is the most encouraging development in the Middle East for decades. Perhaps it will be the spark that sends Iranian revolutionaries into the street to end the oppressive dictatorship that has ruled the country as a reaction to the US infiltration of their government 50 years ago.

Today is the day proceeding Election Day and there is no time where patriotic sentiment runs higher. A competition arises between presidential candidates as to their national pride. And a great argument is engendered among citizens as to what vote will most benefit the country.

Senator John McCain’s nationalist slogan “Country First” implies invidiously that Senator Barack Obama won’t put the country first–as if Obama’s proposed “Change” will be a strike against the country. Obama claims otherwise, that his “Change” will strengthen the country.

But I’m rather put off by all the pageantry and this contest for Mr. Patriarch of America. I’m tired of listening to these unctuous politicians and their meretricious monologues about “this great country.” How can any man look out earnestly upon this society and be proud?

How could you overlook the fact that over 2.25 million Americans are incarcerated (2006)? How could you overlook the fact that 63% percent of American children do not grow up with both biological parents How could you not realize what this statistic indicates about the of our countries social health? How could you miss the fact that 9.5% U.S. adults–that’s about 18.8 million people, suffer from a depressive illness , where millions and millions more self-medicate themselves with illicit drugs or alcohol? How could you dismiss the fact that over 32,000 Americans commit suicide in a single year , even where many suicides go unreported due the stigma our culture attaches to it?

Photo by qwrrty

Is it really rational to get so worked up with anger and hate over this presidential election?

We’re fast approaching Election Day, but I’m not rallied behind one candidate or the other. I’m not struck with anticipation for Nov. 4. Would it be a crime to say I’m rather ambivalent?

Presidential Candidate John McCain even visited my home town, Durango, Colorado, just a week ago. It was the first time a presidential candidate had visited Durango in 48 years, but I really didn’t feel the need to hear him speak. What was he going to say that I hadn’t already heard before?

I could have marched outside the gates in protest with an Obama sticker on my forehead. I could have made myself a fancy McCain sign and cheered in the crowd. But I just can’t buy into that nonsense. How absolutely foolish all these folks look in their big white McCain/Palin sweaters and in their SUVs with “Obama/Biden ‘08″ bumper stickers. What kind of persuasive tactic is that anyway? It’s not an appeal to reason, that’s for sure.

Politics is this big absurdity. We all recognize it. We all know how dirty and unsavory it is. It’s about men with money and connections soliciting the vote. They’re not appealing to any noble standard of truth or harmony or righteousness. We don’t vote for a politicians because they are honest, or because we trust them. Its a big game–a tantalizing theatrical performance–where each player appeals to as many people as possible while revealing the least about what they really think. The candidates hand out promises in the form of tax-cuts and energy policies, like handing out candy to children and asking for their favor. In return, American’s vote for the man who promises them the most sugar and the actual direction of the nation as a whole is an afterthought.

As much as the big two candidates stress their differences, really, for all practical intents and purposes, they’re leading American in the same direction–the way it’s been headed for a long time. They only have trivial differences about the best manner to get to the same destination. Obama might offer government health insurance to citizens, which is just one additional step in many taken in the past toward a more socialist government. But McCain wants to establish a New New Deal, but this time instead of socializing the highway construction like Roosevelt did in the 1930s, we’ll be socializing the construction of nuclear power plants. In addition, both candidates backed the final draft of the bailout plan to spend $700 billion in tax payer dollars to rescue the financial industry, which gave the U.S. government partial ownership of many major banks.

McCain and Obama are both behind the continuing expansion of government. When I first heard Obama speak of “Change” I fantasized for a moment that he really meant to challenge the current paradigm of growing government. But I’ve found he represents the same paradigm with a new face and some unoriginal ideas. He’s just a politician. His message and his campaign are not revolutionizing politics. The supposed “fundamental change” he says he is going to bring this country, just isn’t fundamental enough. It’s not fundamental at all! But at least he is straight-forward about his intent to increase government spending.

McCain still speaks of the dying ideals of conservatism, and if I felt he really meant them, perhaps I would even vote for him. I like the “I’m-not-going-to-continue-to-throw-money-at-a-problem” McCain. I like the “freeze-government-spending” and the “I’m-a-Federalist” McCain. But Republicans like McCain will hail free markets, small government and power to the states when everything is fine, and when there’s a predicament like 9/11 or the housing crisis they swipe up unwarranted power and abuse it without a second thought and we end up with the Bailout Plan and the PATRIOT Act.

Whichever way you vote, this country heads down the same path. This is no revolution! Despite this, tensions run especially high between opposing parties. The streets are loose with blue and red zealots. Neighborhoods are split apart, marked overtly by yard signs that might as well read, “We don’t serve blacks.” Idiots from each faction hurl stupid insults at each other. What madness it is to believe so whole-heatedly in any politician! These people look and act like buffoons.

Photo by Bob Bobster

A family divided.

I’m not likely to vote for president in 2008. I’m sure there are folks out their who will hear this and gasp as if it’s an utter sacrilege, but I really think that abstention is the only respectable decision. It’s undignified to cast a vote for the lesser of two evils, especially when they are practically one in the same. And I’m definitely not going take part in this ridiculous political warfare, that divides families and communities.

When it comes down to it, politics is a very limited realm. Only so much can be accomplished with money and power. There is so much more that we can accomplish outside of political systems. It’s time to forgo the presidential rallies; let’s reunite with our neighbors and forget our party affiliations. Let’s take a personal investment in our communities. Let’s have an affect on the people in our lives. This is where real tangible progress is made. In the smiles and the warm embraces of those we love. Let’s have faith in our own power to bring good into the lives of the people nearest us. Whatever we do, we cannot place our faith in politics.

A funny story behind these pictures: My friend and I were looking for the social security office in town, when we happened across this unmarked building. I was utterly flabbergasted to find Homeland Security in my town. When I stepped out my car to take some pictures, a voice from a truck in the parking lot said, ''Can I help you?'' I responded paying him little attention: ''No, I don't need any help.'' Then he stepped out of the truck, pulled a badge from under his blue, collared shirt and asked me a little more aggressively, ''Can I HELP you?'' I told him how surprised I was to find Homeland Security in my home town, and that I was just curious what they were up to. ''Your not allowed to take pictures of this building,'' he interrupted. ''Why not?'' I asked. ''Because'' he reasoned. Perhaps the situation would have escalated, but my friend in the passenger seat of my vehicle, became worried, and told the man we were just looking for the social security office. On our way back, from the social security office I snapped a photo of the building in spite of the asshole who accosted me.

A problem that threatens national security is one of the most compelling reasons for the United States Government to take affirmative action. But let’s consider what national security for the U.S really entails in a global context.

If you listened to any of the three presidential debates this year, you have heard many areas of political concern listed as potential threats to national security. Among them are the economic crisis, energy independence, health care, entitlement reform, and even education. There are some valid concerns in each of these areas as to the stability of a nation, but national security entails more than that.

National security is about power and it is not only about the power to defend a nation’s borders; it’s about power to influence world affairs. It has less to do with fighting off terrorists, than guaranteeing our privileged place as a powerful nation.

Around the globe there is a power-complex. Each nation understands that power is achieved by economically out-competing other nations. Not only does a powerful nation have the resources to fight off threatening forces, it has the ability to influences its will upon other nations. Hence, there is a fear of falling behind in economic competition, that a country will not only loose power internationally, but will be made more vulnerable to the influence of other more powerful nations.

So fundamentally, national security is not really about security at all, it is about a pursuit of power between nations. When one nation has claimed superiority over others, other nations strive to meet or surpass that superiority. The superior state must then protect and improve its economic status, lest it loose power. And even those countries that have relatively little power, are forced to pursue power in order to protect themselves to some degree.

So the United States government is not going to think twice about a decision to abridge freedoms in the name of ensuring economic power. The state only exists to perpetuate itself. Concerns for rights and freedoms of the people are always secondary. Just consider a few examples in recent history such as the governments purchase of mortgage giants Fanni Mae and Freddie Mac, their partial ownership of banking institutions, or the enactment of the Patriot Act. These are all incredible infringements upon the peoples freedoms, for the sake of national security.

This pursuit of power requires the sacrifice or freedoms. Often, this sacrifice is justified with the intent of garnering more freedoms in the long-term, but over the long-term it is obvious that this pursuit of power among nations becomes a perpetual course with no end in sight. It follows logically, that as the power-struggle between nations continues, more and more freedoms will be abridged in the name of national security. The struggle for power is an unending process, and the freedoms sacrificed along the way are not likely to be returned to the people.

And really just about anything can constitute a threat to national security if it threatens to damage a nations power status. If it simply bares an effect on the economy it can become a national security issue. Free people aren’t inclined to be efficient, and so freedoms by themselves can be considered a national security issue. The Chinese government knows this well, and can thank its success as an economic power to it’s people’s lack of freedoms. And if there are too many homosexuals and not enough offspring to populate the military and the work force, gay rights could potentially become a threat to national security as well–the way it has in powerful nations of the past, and still is in China.

Is it not obvious how the pursuit of power is the enemy to freedom? Is it not obvious that social harmony between peoples cannot be accomplished through means of power?

Considering all this, national security should be more appropriately recognized as the reckless pursuit of power it is. It should be recognized as the violation of respect and trust for our fellow human beings around the world. It should be cited as the sole evil of modern society.

A month or so ago I received a call to action email warning against the governments ever- increasing interference with the “American ideal” of the free market economy. The author warned that the United States government is ever approaching an “anti-thesis to freedom” in the form of communist socialism. The email was specifically criticizing the government’s recent rescue of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, a subject appropriate for the author–an ambitious capitalist who operates a Down Payment Assistant program. He drew an illusion to each act of government interference to the loss of a star on the flag. I made the following reply:

Photo by fauxto_digit

The fist of power so-commonly represented on the hands of monuments to our forefathers.

Dear Sir,

Perhaps, you’ve yet to realize that government does not exist separate from economic systems. It is in the state’s best interest to maximize, or at least stabilize, the economy, in order to secure a position as a world power. The government must interfere with laissez-faire capitalism (as you can see by the recent failure of several high-profile financial institutions) otherwise it collapses in upon itself in due time. A free market economy is volatile on a large scale and can only survive with a government entity to manipulate and regulate it. As markets grow, the government will have to interfere more often, and there is a necessary decrease in freedoms.

But what would you prefer? Would you prefer to live in a powerful nation or a free nation? Do you see what happens to free nations, which are not powerful? Take Tibet for an example, a country whose government is in exile and has been occupied by a powerful country, China. Now, I imagine you would rather lose all of the stars on the American flag, than loose the benefits of being an American and live in Tibet. I on the other hand, would prefer to live in a free nation because this is the only right way to live.

The pursuit of power requires the sacrifice or freedoms. Often, it is justified with the intent to garner more freedoms over the long-term,but over the long-term it is obvious that this pursuit of power among nations becomes a perpetual course with no end in sight. You see, when one nation has claimed superiority over others, other nations strive to meet or surpass that superiority. The superior state must then protect and improve its economic status, lest it loose power. And even those countries that have relatively little power, are forced to pursue power in order to protect themselves to some degree. The struggle for power is an unending process, and the freedoms sacrificed along the way are not likely to be returned to the people.

And the whole bit about communism is so out-dated. I certainly am no communist sympathizer, but if you think that the United States government is going to think twice about a decision to abridge freedoms in the name of ensuring economic power, you’re wrong. The state only exists to perpetuate itself. Concerns for rights and freedoms of the people are always secondary. It’s just that the Communists were more upfront about it.

Sincerely,

Preston Benson