John Galt vs. John Ross
Electoral politics is hard when you are a radical. Some libertarians ignore the difficulties and trudge on. Others dream of alternative victory conditions, ways to win without mucking about the messy business of realistic electoral politics. It is good to dream. Dreams give hope. But dreams can also inspire action, so it behooves us to examine our dreams, lest they lead us astray.
In this chapter we will examine two particularly vivid dreams, each from massive works of libertarian fiction. The dreams are dramatic, violent, the stuff of good fiction. But are they good strategy for the real world? We should ask, because some libertarians act on these dreams, and some of the consequences are not pretty.
The John Galt Strategy
John Galt is the driving force behind the events in Ayn Rand’s magnum opus Atlas Shrugged, a sprawling mix of mystery novel and prime time soap opera capped with a bad James Bondish ending. The characters are sharply drawn, mythic. The heroes are smart and good looking. The villains are incompetent weasels with ugly names. The plot drags at times, the sex scenes are unbelievable and unerotic, but the speeches sparkle. The novel is not meant to be realistic; it is philosophy made concrete.
The background is a vaguely drawn alternate America, in which continental philosophy has conquered popular consciousness. Self-sacrifice is the sole basis for morality, and Reason is passé, supposedly disproven. Capitalists are caricatured as evil money grubbing materialists, and treated accordingly.
John Galt is a Hegelian hero. He “helps” the bad guys by giving them what they claim to want. Galt encourages the great capitalists and Aristotelian thinkers to drop out of society and let their persecutors experience the logical consequences of their “altruistic” philosophy. Once society collapses under its contradictions the people will yearn for the return of the capitalists, and a new era of liberty and reason can commence.
I do not believe that Ayn Rand intended her followers to carry out John Galt’s strategy. Elsewhere her stated strategy was to spread her philosophy to the intellectual elite, who would then convey that philosophy through education and art to the masses, who would then vote for capitalism friendly politicians. Political activism was premature, yes, but not intellectual activism.
Nonetheless, I have met many a libertarian who did embrace John Galt’s endgame thinking. For those within the Libertarian Party, the purpose of the party was not to win elections now, or even foster liberty. The party’s purpose was simply to be there and be on the record against big government for the day when the economy crumbles and the masses search desperately for an alternative. Some of them even celebrated the Party’s destructive side effects: if the LP plays the spoiler and helps elect the worse of the Demopublican evils, then all the better. Other libertarians of this Galtian mindset eschew activism altogether, and favor grumbling on the sidelines as government grows bigger. They consider me corrupted by activism, and they may be correct.
I’d rather be a bit corrupt than a neener dancer on the sidelines as society collapses. I am a man of action, but not as much as John Ross’ fictional character…
The John Ross Strategy
John Ross is the author of Unintended Consequences, an immense book sold mainly through gun shows. In many respects Unintended Consequences is the opposite of Atlas Shrugged. Whereas Atlas Shrugged takes place in a vaguely drawn alternate America, Unintended Consquences could take place any time now. Whereas Rand’s characters are mythical, or even cartoonish, John Ross’ characters are grittily realistic, with flaws and super powers limited to being very good shots and well acquainted with the old Loompanics library of mayhem. You can easily imagine one of his characters showing up at your local shooting range, pot belly and all. Whereas Atlas Shrugged sacrifices realism in favor of philosophy, Unintended Consequences features the most detailed and realistic action sequences I have read anywhere. Whereas Atlas Shrugged ends with a weak attempt at a James Bond like plot, Unintended Consequences is mostly an action packed thriller which puts the James Bond books to shame.
Spoiler alert! If you want to fully experience the adrenaline rush that Unintended Consequences has to offer, you might want to skip the rest of this article until after you read the book. But please come back and read the rest before you even think about acting on its conclusions!
You might not know it from its beginnings. Unintended Consequences does start slowly, taking its time telling the history of America’s gun culture and establishing its main characters. When the hero, Henry Bowman, an avid shooter gets set up by gun-grabbing government goons, however, the adrenaline rush begins and does not let up for hundreds of pages. The adrenaline comes from two sources. First, the action scenes are richly detailed and believable. The author is less pushing a philosophy than educating you, the reader, in what to do should this grim scenario befalls you. The second source of adrenaline is the very disturbing moral decision made by the heroes.
Henry Bowman comes to the opposite conclusion: big bad government feeds on itself. The worse you let it get, the worse it becomes. By the time it gets bad enough to justify armed resistance, however, it is too late: the government will have already confiscated private firearms. The time for violence is before the government takes away the guns.
Yikes!
Who is Right?
At risk of momentarily sounding like a terrorist, I fear that John Ross makes the more compelling argument. Big government works. The Hindu caste system lasted for centuries. Ditto for the Japanese shoguns and the Chinese civil service. Rome did not fall in a day, and the eastern half of the empire Rome created lasted for a thousand years afterwards. Freedom is fragile and needs to be fought for. I am not a Hegelian.
Yes, I realize that sudden increases in government can inspire reaction. Bailouts and Barack Obama did inspire the tea parties. But will they roll back all the damage done by Bush and Obama? I’m not holding my breath. We have yet to fully recover from the Roosevelt years, after all.
But I’m not arming myself to the teeth and training to be an assassin either. I am a Christian and a family man, not to mention a bad shot. Violence makes for a good read, but a bad life to live through. Moreover, even if I didn’t have these moral qualms and physical limitations, I still wouldn’t implement the Henry Bowman strategy.
It wouldn’t work. Violence against government makes government bigger. Timothy McVeigh saved Bill Clinton’s presidency and inspired many of the measures put into the USA PATRIOT Act. Libertarian violence could only succeed if it completely succeeded. And to successfully take down a government with violence usually requires another government, or a faction within the target government in the case of a coup d’etat. Even if liberty-minded gun owners had the firepower to take down their government, only a fraction could be convinced to use it until it is too late. Our government isn’t that bad, and it won’t be until after the guns are grabbed.
A grim dilemma indeed! Fortunately, there is an escape.
The Milsted Alternative
Big government feeds on crises. Bad government makes crises. Big bad government feeds on itself. If we who love liberty grumble on the sidelines or stick to unrealistic strategies, the authoritarians will win. We must fight now.
But we need not fight with violence! We still have free speech and free elections. Let us use them productively. Play to win. And here is the secret to winning:
Government feeds off problems. So fix the problems!
When times are dire, people naturally look to authorities for answers. When times are good, they question their leaders. America seriously considered a third party president, after the Cold War ended and during a quarter century economic boom. To make things better, we must make things better.
Holistic Politics is all about making things better.
