Paul Ryan “Has Got Some Bibles”, No Word on Whether or Not He’s Read Any of Them

So there’s a meme I’ve been building on for a a while, and it’s how the modern Republican party, guided by the economic “principles” of Ayn Rand (deconstructed here…btw, it’s a hilarious coincidence that Bioshock’s Randroid pro/antagonist has the same last name as the real world subject of this post) is at complete odds with the moral principles of one Jesus Christ.  This wasn’t a particular difficulty for Ayn Rand, she was a committed Atheist.  It’s a bit of a larger conundrum when allegedly “Christian” politicians adopt the same amoral moral code as the aforementioned Atheist (one of pure reason and profit).

It’s what leads to uncomfortable moments like this….

While I’m not really into the citizen-journalist-camera-bible-ambush thing…when dealing with flaming hypocrites that want to screw over the weak in favor of the rich and claim it’s in the name of Christ…I’m fine with pretty much everything up to, and perhaps including, flaming whips.

Larger media outlets are now slowly growing the (female) balls necessary to call out this hypocrisy of, literally, biblical proportions.

Advertisements

Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Sick People

BELMONT, MA—Though Mitt Romney is considered to be a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination, the national spotlight has forced him to repeatedly confront a major skeleton in his political closet: that as governor of Massachusetts he once tried to help poor, uninsured sick people.

via Mitt Romney Haunted By Past Of Trying To Help Uninsured Sick People | The Onion – America’s Finest News Source.

I made this point, non-satirically, a little while back.  Anybody who calls themself a Republican and a Christian, should also add “hypocrite” to that list.

The reason one should do so is captured in this post, which is about the two completely incompatible ideologies that inform the Republican voter base.  One based on the teachings of Christ, the other on the teachings of Rand.

As we have seen recently, with the Republican “Path to (Greater)  Prosperity (for the top 1%, Feudalism for the Rest)“, the Rand side won, *huge*.

Note:  This Randian fascination is real, and you don’t have to take my word for it.  Today Gary Johnson, former (R-Gov NM), made it explicit in his bid for the nomination.

Gary Johnson, the Republican former governor of New Mexico, skipped formation of an exploratory committee and went right for the big show. “I am running for president,” he blasted on Twitter Thursday as he made the same announcement in person from the New Hampshire statehouse.

He also offers reassurance that he’s not a rigid libertarian. In the Weekly Standard interview, he said his fiancee asked him what she should read to better understand his philosophy, and he recommended “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand.

“I think I view the system the same way that Ayn Rand views the system –that it really oppresses those that create, if you will, and tries to take away from those that produce and give to the non-producers,” Johnson said.

[full story]

I remember Jesus’ Parable of the Leeches.  I think it went something like…

John 12: 8 – For the poor you always have with you, but you do not always have me.

John 12:9 – Therefore you must crucify the poor, as you will me, and then they’ll be gone and glorious capitalism can finally take hold.

Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand Died, and Andrew Ryan Created Rapture (an exploration of a lack of morality in economics)

I’ve recently had the pleasure of playing through Bioshock a second time, and, well, I’m more blown away than I was the first time.   The first time through I largely missed the story, simple following instructions and playing through.  On the second I sat and listened more closely, and enjoyed it quite a bit more.

Allegedly a first-person-shooter, Bioshock could be better viewed as a story about what happens when morality is removed from science, and when ‘the market’ is given full sway over the running of a society.  A cautionary tale about what can go wrong when ego runs amuck, Bioshock is perhaps the single greatest artistic deconstruction of Rand’s “philosophy.”

In “Bioshock” the game is set in an underwater creator’s paradise called “Rapture”.  In “Atlas Shrugged” the paradise is called “Galt’s Gulch.”   The main question of the book Atlas Shrugged is the simple query, “Who is John Galt?”   Adorned on poster’s throughout Rapture is a similar query, “Who is Atlas?”  There are, most likely, agreat many more literary references in the games, but alas, it’s been a long time since I waded through Rand’s thousand page rants.

UPDATE: Someone put a good video together of Andrew Ryan’s speeches.  These are interspersed throught the game.

The storyline of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead is largely the same.  A true creator wishes to by unimpeded by petty morals and government and any social economic concerns, and strives for a Utopian idealistic objective existence, free from the influence of others.   What makes the Bioshock storyline so interesting is that it begins as the Randian ideal society (“Rapture”) is falling apart after new wrinkle is thrown into the equation.

In Bioshock, this wrinkle is embodied in a type of sea slug that creates “Adam” a gene mutating/controlling substance refined and implemented outside of pesky government institutions like the FDA or FBI.  All that matters is that it works for some people and there is a market for it.  Sure, it drives people crazy and kills a few of them, but in the truly free Randian market, it is the buyer who must totally beware. The concept of product liability is an item left for the courts, of which there are none is Rapture, because who wants pesky judges deciding what is allowable and what is not.  “Let the market decide” is the mantra of the objectivist, and of Andrew Ryan, Bioshock’s very own John/Howard Galt/Roark.

The problem with such concepts, and of Objectivism in particular, is that they essentially boil down to “might makes right.”   This is easy to see in the objectivist viewpoint as illustrated by Rand herself.

If you want this translated into simple language, it would read: 1. “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” or “Wishing won’t make it so.” 2. “You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” 3. “Man is an end in himself.” 4. “Give me liberty or give me death.”

The biggest problem with this is in Number 3, which completely misses the fact that in order for something to be “true” in any objective sense, it must both be stated as a proposition and agreed upon by another.  One man simply shouting the truth and assuming it to be the whole truth, is invariably alone and a bit whacked in the head.    A single perspective simply cannot hold in the face of the fullness of reality.  One viewpoint does not a complete picture make.

Indeed, as Rand illustrates in her further explanation…

  1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
  2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
  3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

…there is no place for emotion or love in this philosophy.  To love oneself is a good thing, but this love is demonstrated in service to others, and those that show no love for others, demonstrate a lack of love for themselves.   In Rand’s philosophy, to show love and provide service for another is a bad thing.  Indeed, it is often considered the worst thing.

To be sure, there should be a fair exchange rate for services agreed upon, and Rand tries to deal with this in her fourth bullet point.

4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

These concepts, as stated, are completely contradictory when put into practice, as Bioshock illustrates so graphically.  How can a state and economics not be mixed?  What does this look like the real world?   Who is it that guarantees these freedoms?   Obviously Rand relies on government as arbiter, but doesn’t want to pay for it, as all taxation is considered “theft.”  The only way government can be an enforcer of rules is if it has the power to enforce them.  The only way it can have that power is through underwriting and regulating the economic system of a country, and basically being the biggest player at the table.  Someone, or something has to keep the playing field level for a market to stay stable.  Without a regulating force, the table becomes tipped and the little stack loses to the big stack, to draw a Hold ‘Em analogy, more often than a level playing would predict.

As we have seen recently in the United States and global capital markets, without the oversight of someone, then there will always be that weak link, that greedy man lost to himself.  The problem of objectivism when applied to the real world is that there is always someone like Bioshock’s “Fontaine,” ready to break one rule (the violence one) in order to follow the other rule (one’s own happiness is the highest good).

The compromise that free people of the world have settled upon is giving up that ultimate power to a system of government that, throug a series of checks and balances, reaches a certain type of stability.  Perhaps the greatest single sign of this, in the U.S. at least, is the very well entrenched notion that ulitmate power is limited by time.  Yes, a President can do many things in the name of peace and security (like go to war and spy on their own citizens), but in time that power fades, as the time is added to the equation.  Naturally limiting a temporary imbalance of power.

It is in this time dimension that the power becomes balanced, as it allows the system to change and adjust itself in a natural feedback loop of democracy [1].   Truly despotic systems have to be, essentially, stable ones.  It is only through a long term, stable vision of despotism (viewed as one individual’s utopia), backed by the ultimate power of the state, wherein one’s dreams (other’s nightmares) can be realized.  In this aspect the entire world owes a favor to George Washington, and any other “first” leader who follows him, in that they demonstrated how to relinquish the reigns of power as dictated by the laws of the state.

To humble themselves before the law, they make the changing law supreme, and not the fickle will of man.

[1]The only constant is change, to put it poetically, and it is our own limited lifespans that create the need for a moral, a.k.a. emotional, element in the system.   This is not to say that the emotional element should dominate the system, as system dominated by morals dictated from the top tend to eat themselves as they bask in their own greatness (i.e. the divine right of Kings), but morality is an essential part of any stable system.

And “morality” is a shared sense of the goodness (and badness) of things.

Objectivism, and “Rapture” both fail in this regard, as morality and emotion are necessary part of any stable economic system.  Without them the system will eat itself eventually and often much sooner than much later.

Like it says in the title…from International Politics to Video Games.

Peace.

General advice on playing Bioshock: Hack everything, especially turrets and camera.   Use that wrench to save ammo. Then use ammo liberally on the Big Bros.   Take pictures of everything, especially Houdini’s (it makes it a lot easier to reload when you are invisible) and Big Bros (any help you can get with kicking their ass is appreciated).  Act morally toward the Little Sisters, as it matters in the end how you treat the weak and defenseless…

FINAL SPOILER:  The Best of Andrew Ryan.

Where to Fucking Start…

…umm, I wrote a book. Seriously. I did. It’s one helluva book, to be honest.

While I was being detained by the State of Texas due to a familial reaction to my book, I ran across a newspaper story (yes, they still, for some reason, print newspapers) that talked about how a basketball team lost a game 100-0. In what can only be called bizarro world the team that LOST was featured on news programs and the coach of the team that WON was fired.

This is a perfect example of how farked up our culture has become. We do not reward excellence, or even temporary perfection, we reward pathetic losership. We parade it around, and laugh at it, and feel better about ourselves. And instead of trying to make the losers better people and player, we put them on pedestals and penalize those that play good defense and know how to put the ball in the hole.

A nutjob former commie named Ayn Rand wrote a couple thousand pages (in two books) about a culture that promoted the pathetic as the amazing. In those books she was lampooning Communism. If she were alive today, she would realize that Corporate America and our Corporate Media, is the hellish reality she hoped to avoid.

Welcome to the distopia, twenty-four years behind schedule.