Here of late the famous classic novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand has become more popular that ever in its entire 52-year published history. I myself have read Atlas Shrugged many times over the past 30 years. It is not only an engaging fiction novel that grabs the reader’s attention from start to finish, but also an amazing philosophical accomplishment -– and I think one that started a new intellectual revolution of ideas. It is a story of what happens to the world when the mind of man goes on strike.

In this context, Atlas Shrugged has many, many messages to offer to the reader. Volumes could be written regarding the meaning and impact of these messages. But for the space of this blog, I will focus briefly on two of my favorite messages, with my own commentary: who actually went on strike, and John Galt’s final message to the world (Galt being the novel’s hero).

The first message deals with who actually went on strike. While most favorable book reviews and commentary of Atlas Shrugged tend only to focus on the businessmen, the entrepreneurs, and the industrialists who were the “strikers” against a world that was enslaving them, there was so much more to the makeup of the actual striker. Exactly who was the striker?

I think that many reviews, readers, and even admirers, of Atlas Shrugged tend to forget that it was not only the entrepreneurs, industrialists, and prominent businessmen that went on strike, but also the philosophers, historians, doctors, engineers, scientists, teachers, writers, poets, artists, music composers, including many of the common laymen (laborers, truckers, secretaries, etc.). I think it is equally important to recognize that it was not only single individuals that went on strike, but also many couples (married or not), including couples with children, all of whom went on strike. In short, it was the thinkers, i.e., the producers, who went on strike, from every section and part of the economy and society, from every walk of life.

They all went on strike so as not to provide, or leave to, any part of their lives, work, wealth, efforts, and ideas (their minds) to the “moochers and looters” of any section and part of the economy and society (including especially the crony capitalists, the unions, the special-interests groups, the statists from all walks of life, all government leeches, and the government power-lusting politicians and bureaucrats). Remember, Galt said he would stop the motor of the world: he meant he would stop the creative, thinking mind of the world –- from every section and part of the economy and society. In the end, most strikers where ordinary people who just quit on their own accord without Galt’s influence.

It is also interesting to note that Ayn Rand purposefully withdrew first such thinkers and workers as the philosophers, the historians, the doctors, the engineers, the scientists, the teachers, the writers, the artists, and music composers. Ms. Rand than began to withdraw secondly the entrepreneurs, the businessmen, and the industrialist. If you recall, for example, it was a sculptor who set up a simple foundry in Mulligan’s Valley -- before another businessman, who went on strike and came to the Valley, took over the foundry and hired the sculptor to work for him -- and then Hank Rearden took that business over, after he himself went on strike and arrived in the Valley, hiring both the previous owner and the sculptor to work for him.

In addition to the above example, here is an excerpt from the conversation between the novel’s heroine, Dagny Taggart, and the great composer, Richard Halley, who is on strike, and whom Ms. Taggart eventually meets in the Valley, after she crashes her plane there. Mr. Halley speaks to her about the nature of the artist, and he concludes:

“…For if there is more tragic a fool than the businessman who doesn’t know that he’s an exponent of man’s highest creative spirit – it’s the artist who thinks that the businessman is his enemy.”

As an artist and composer, I personally have no desire to start or run my own business, nor to own or even manage a company. Yes, the idea has been tempting to me in the past. But though I choose art and music, I am very glad and even grateful that there are those men and women –- those individuals –- who are willing to take the risks and have the true desire to start and run their own businesses, or to own and manage a company. I am glad that there are those people who want to be publishers, gallery owners, or artist agents. I admire that. I also admire those incredible entrepreneurs and industrialists of the world who are the true driving forces of a free-market social system, not some statist deadwood in Washington, D.C.

I want businessmen, businesswomen, entrepreneurs, and companies of every kind imaginable -– from the small business to the giant corporation -- to have complete, unhampered, unregulated individual and economic freedom, the freedom to compete to the greatest extent of their abilities and to succeed at the highest levels they are capable of. I do not envy or hate their lives, their abilities, their success, or their wealth. I cheer it on. I, like anyone else, can only benefit and prosper from complete unregulated economic freedom for everyone.

The true businessman is not my enemy; he is my ally in freedom and prosperity. It is coercive government force and control, along with the crony capitalists, crony businessmen, and special-interest groups who favor government interference and manipulation for their own benefit, that are the true enemies of our freedoms and liberties, our individual rights and property rights, our work and relationships, our prosperity and wealth, our dreams and happiness. In short, they are the true enemies not only of our individuals lives, but the true enemies of life itself.

The other message from Atlas Shrugged deals with John Galt’s final message to the world.

Towards the end of the story, Galt delivers his famous “This is John Galt speaking” radio broadcast. He points out what is causing the world’s social and economic crisis and chaos, and makes very clear what is philosophically necessary to rid the world of its corruption and chaos, as well as what will bring back freedom, economic prosperity, and social peace. Not long after his speech, John Galt is captured by the American corrupt statist government.

The corrupt government imprisons Galt, trying desperately to convince him to tell them and the world how to fix America’s social and economic crisis and chaos. They believe Galt has some “secret formula” that will fix everything. But of course, he doesn’t. But what Galt does have is a message for America that will solve its social and economic crisis and chaos. The corrupt government sets up a plan to have Galt speak to the nation via TV, to force Galt to offer his solution and message of hope. They force Galt to the TV studio at the point of a gun. At the part where Galt is to appear on national TV and deliver his message, he stands up and moves to the side, exposing the gun aimed at him for all of America to see on national TV. Then Galt says this:

“Get the hell out of my way.”

One cannot enslave another man and force him to be a productive, prosperous individual; one can only force another man to produce enough to survive and exist like an animal in chains, or die. One cannot force another man to think nor to be free (either is a contradiction); one can only force another man either to blindly follow orders, rot in slavery, or die. This is the difference between Capitalism (where there is the recognition and protection of individual rights and property rights, where all property is privately owned, where there exists individual freedom, and a free, peaceful division of labor society), versus that of Statism (where man’s life belongs to the state, where the government controls the economy using force and tyranny, and everyone lives in the collective rat’s nest of feudalism).

It’s either one or the other: Capitalism or Statism, individual freedom or collective slavery, individual rights and liberty or coercive government force and tyranny, freedom of thought or forced indoctrination and censorship, economic freedom or labor-camp enslavement, productiveness or stagnation, prosperity or impoverishment, abundance or starvation, happiness or misery, life or death.

These are our only choices. Unfortunately, the Obama Administration, along with most of the U.S. Congress and our Judicial System, all support the latter, i.e., Statism and force. So does the supposed G-20 nations. But it will only be to our demise, our peril, and our destruction, whether they know it or not. I fear they know it, and our impoverishment, our starvation, and even our deaths are the price they are willing to pay to maintain their political power over free individuals. Period.

However, the true thinkers and producers of the world -- from all walks of life -- are waking up to this madness. They no longer feel guilty for wanting to live as free individuals, for wanting freedom and liberty, for wanting their rights and property protected, for wanting prosperity, for wanting wealth, for wanting happiness, for wanting life! They are becoming proud for wanting to live as free individuals. They are no longer willing to be the victims that continue to sanction the very hatred and tyranny against them. At some point the true thinkers and producers of the world, each as individuals and together as a group of individuals -- which will hopefully include much of the American public -– will reach the same conclusion that John Galt did, and openly stand up to the statists, the socialists, the environmentalists, the crony businessmen, the unions, the government leeches, the government power-lusting politicians and bureaucrats, and all the other “moochers and looters,” and loudly proclaim:

“Enough is enough! You have no “right” and no claim to our individual lives, our liberty, our freedoms, our individual rights, our property rights, our property, our work, our productivity, our money, our wealth, our happiness! Our individual lives, our freedom, our rights, our property, our work, and the economy do not belong to the state or the government, nor to any other group, nor to any of you statist zealots! The state, the government, does not own man’s life, or any part of it! The state, its politicians, and its cronies do not own our individual lives, our freedom, our rights, our property, our work, our wealth! In addition, you statists and socialists do not own our individual lives, our freedom, our rights, our property, our work, our wealth! Only we, each as free individuals, own our individual lives, our freedom, our rights, our property, our work, our wealth! Our lives, our freedom, and our rights belong only to each of us as free individuals by birthright, by the very nature of who we are individually as conceptual human beings, and do not require any government’s or anyone else’s permission or decree! Our property, our work, and our wealth belong only to each of us as free individuals who have acted and produced such, for our own voluntary and peaceful use, action, consideration, and exchange! We create the government, and it exists only to protect our freedom, our rights, and our property! The government does not exist to enslave! We recognize now that you desperately need our individual lives, our minds, and our productivity, and you will take them at the point of any coercive government force and gun necessary. But your statist game is up. We do not need you or your cronies! You need us, but we do not need you! Therefore, we send this message to you…"

“Get the hell out of our way!”

Keynes’ Quote:

For full text, see Project Gutenberg eBook - The Economic Consequences Of The Peace.

What a mess Mr. Keynes has gotten us into! In my world, he is not a laissez-faire economist by any stretch of the imagination, but a true statist-oriented economist. Any power-lusting and power-seeking statist politician or crony-capitalist would fall in love with this type of economist – and they have.

For my own commentary regarding the obsession for political power, see my previous posting “Political Power At All Costs.”

From these thoughts, the next logical move was to define some terms.

Economic Definition of Inflation:

From www.inflationdata.com-- According to Webster's New Universal Unabridged Dictionary published in 1983 the second definition of "inflation" after "the act of inflating or the condition of being inflated" is:

 "An increase in the amount of currency in circulation, resulting in a relatively sharp and sudden fall in its value and rise in prices: it may be caused by an increase in the volume of paper money issued or of gold mined, or a relative increase in expenditures as when the supply of goods fails to meet the demand.”

This definition explains the basic economic causes of inflation, and shows that inflation is not defined as the increase in prices, as many people believe, but as the increase in the supply of money that causes the increase in prices, i.e., inflation follows the laws of cause and effect: inflating the money supply “causes” inflation which it turn “causes” price increases, amongst other things. And, when a government-controlled central bank does expand the money supply with complete reckless abandonment, especially a money supply not based on a gold standard, watch out! Then, if you can, run to get your investments and savings out of that particular expanded, inflated currency as fast as is humanly possible. Hyper-inflation is just around the corner. Anyone think that this might include the U.S. dollar some day … someday very soon?

Reality check: we just got one more step closer to this scenario this past Wednesday, January 28, 2009, with the U.S. House of Representatives majority vote passing the multi-hundred-billion dollar “bailout-spending” scam-bill. The U.S. Senate could be that final nail….

Quoting Ayn Rand on Inflation:

From inflation, on to that which government interference and control also destroys: wealth.

Economic Definition of Wealth:

My own thoughts on wealth:

And, finally, a wake-up for all those who thought that a house was one’s best investment:

Houses are not investments:

From George Reisman’s Blog on Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture, in his article “Falling Prices are not Deflation but the Antidote to Deflation,” Dr. Reisman explains why houses should not be regarded as investments. It must be remembered that a house is still a depreciating consumer good, even though the depreciating value is slower than most other goods. So why are houses regarded as investments today? To partially quote Dr. Reisman from his posting:

”Only decades of inflation and credit expansion could make it possible for people to think of the houses they occupy as an investment. In reality, a house is a consumers’ good, just like an automobile or a refrigerator. The only difference is that it depreciates more slowly than they do. Only a long string of years in which inflation took place more rapidly than houses depreciated enabled their prices to rise every year and people to come to regard them as a source of financial gain. If not for inflation and the rise in prices that it produces, it would be very clear that housing is a wasting asset, a slowly wasting asset to be sure, but a wasting asset nonetheless.”

Ouch! Dr. Reisman is definitely a true laissez-faire economist (i.e., reality based and reason oriented), for sure. To which I say, thank you for that.

Also, the blogsite The Rational Capitalist adds some additional commentary to this subject. I recommend visiting this blog when you have some time.

My closing thought for the day:

One of my favorite pastimes is “puttering” in our yard on weekends, working in the garden and doing a bit of landscaping, when needed. With so much of my time and work spent indoors in front of a computer, it’s nice to retreat outside once in awhile to venture into the outdoors and experience nature directly. And venture I did, just a couple of days ago.

I enjoy getting out into the fresh air and sunshine, tending to the various shrubs and flowers throughout our yard, and getting “up close and personal” to … spiders? Yes, spiders. And, boy, do we have some “big” garden spiders here in the Southeast U.S., including the beautiful yet startling black-and-yellow argiope (argiope aurantia). See some “startling” pictures and read about this species at this University of Michigan Museum of Zoology Animal Diversity Web page.

After working in the yard for about two hours, cleaning up the “cuttings” and gathering the garden tools to put back into the shed, I was approaching the side of our house where the garage door is, when “something” caught the corner of my eye, right above a bush, to which I turned and looked and gasped “Yikes!”

After I composed myself, I took a closer look, fascinated by such a large spider. I have seen the black-and-yellow argiope before, as they are fairly common here. But this particular one webbing “her” way between the bush and our garage wall was quite the sight. I say “her” because only the female of this spider species can get so large and so colorful, while the male is only one-third or so as big. She was just sitting there on her web, rocking in the breeze, spread out from leg tip to leg tip to at least three inches! Though they can bite if provoked, the bite is not harmful to most humans. Argiopes tend to mind their own business, and are not interested in the indoors. Which is just fine by us.

I immediately went to retrieve my wife from her own weekend activities, to witness this awesome sight, and also to let her know how close to the garage door the spider was. I didn’t think my wife would have appreciated being surprised by “Ms.” Argiope when opening the garage door.

Once seeing this beautiful specimen, my wife wanted to photograph “Ms.” Argipoe. So we got our Kodak digital camera and clicked away. I suggested to my wife that we should name our neighborly spider. We thought about it, and decided to call her Miss Scarlett, after another famous southern bell. Miss Scarlett just sat there on her web, completely undisturbed by our constant back-and-forth movements taking pictures. Actually, I think Miss Scarlett enjoyed the attention, though she wouldn’t let on about it. You know how these southern bells are.

Now, you are probably wondering why I call Miss Scarlett our Free-Market Spider. Well, after all the pictures were taken, and I finished cleaning up the yard and putting the tools away, I sat for a spell and thought about what had just transpired.

Here I was, enjoying some of my earned leisure time in the freest country in the world, using these marvelous modern gardening tools to care for our plants and landscape, including using a two-wheeled wheel barrel made of a man-made reinforced plastic material that is almost indestructible -– all made possible by the wonderful, competitive, division-of-labor, wealth-producing, capitalist “free-market” system (redundancy never hurts) -- all the while caring for various plants and flowers to beautify and add color to our yard, mowing the lawn with a wonderful Craftsman mulching lawn mower, all occurring around the very nice home we own, built on a wonderful piece of property we also own, when there “she” was, Miss Scarlett, the big garden spider. She was just sitting there, taking it all in -- and taking full advantage of, I might add, a nice, sunny spot, built and provided for by human beings –- by man, the thinking, conceptual animal.

I pondered how wonderful existence, capitalism, the division of labor, individual freedom, private property, and wealth production are. My dream world…

Then reality hit, and I couldn’t help think just how much unnecessary interference, regulation, mandating, taxation, and control there is by our “statist-socialist-communist-environmentalist” oriented dingbat, lunatic political leaders and government officials -- coming at us from every level of government, local-state-federal -- over our freedoms, rights, property rights, income, wealth, finances, including all commerce and business. From a personal point, I can only image how much more could be possible, and how much more I could achieve, if I were able to retain more disposable income and wealth to save and spend, even possibly establishing more personal time to spend with my work or pastimes.

Gee, if I could actually keep more of my earned income and wealth from being taxed to death, and have more of my personal time back instead of using it to earn money to pay taxes, what could I possibly spend more disposable income, wealth, and time on? Oh, I don’t know, how about:

- saving more money for my future security, benefiting a bank or investment company, or

- contribute more money to our favorite private charities, benefiting their activities,

- buying a bigger house and yard with more plants and flowers, benefiting the seller,

- paying someone to help care for my larger yard, benefiting a landscape company, while

- using the time I save from yard work reading and writing, adding to my knowledge, and

- buying more books to read, benefiting the book stores, writers, and authors, or

- paying someone else to mow my lawn, benefiting a lawn-maintenance company, while

- using the time I save from mowing my lawn playing my piano more, and

- paying for professional piano lessons, benefiting the piano teacher, or

- buying more meals out, benefiting the area restaurants and cafes, or

- buying a bread machine to make my own bread, benefiting the bread machine manufacturer, or

- buying better garden tools, benefiting the hardware store, garden shop, and tool manufacturer, or

- maybe build another “man-made” sunny spot providing a home for another garden spider, and

- spending more time with my wife, which would make her very happy.

There was a time when people were proud of using the correct definition of words when speaking and writing, and made every effort possible to apply those correct definitions to the correct context (of the subject matter in which they spoke). If honest mistakes were made and the wrong word was accidentally used out of context (usually due to not clearly understanding a word), apologies were made, the mistake was corrected, the dust would settle, and rational discussion would go on. Or, using the wrong word was a deliberate attempt at humor by purposefully using a word out of context.

For example, one cannot “inoculate” people against certain ideas, but one can “indoctrinate” people against certain ideas. Or for humor, one might say that they wear “stun” glasses, instead of sunglasses.

I’ve certainly had, and occasionally still do have, my own share of using the wrong word in my writing or discussion, thinking that the definition of the word I am trying to use fits the context of the subject matter at hand, but it quickly becomes apparent that the word is wrong. As a musician, I know immediately the wrong note or chord applied, but since I am not a professional wordsmith, word application is a little more challenging. But I digress.

Obviously, not all of history was so innocent of misusing words, of course. But the purposeful skewing and mixing of words, and their definitions, to deliberately mislead and obscure, seemed to be the exception to the rule, not the norm of expressive behavior.

Not any more.

In the confines of this post, I limit the discussion to the latest, deliberate bastardization and misuse of language by the current political class and media in the popular phrase “America’s Addiction to Oil.”

To which I say, “What a crock!” Let’s start with a definition for addiction.

From Merriam-Webster Online: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/addiction

Addiction - 1: the quality or state of being addicted [to devote or surrender (oneself) to something habitually or obsessively] <addiction to gambling> 2: compulsive need for and use of a habit-forming substance (as heroin, nicotine, or alcohol) characterized by tolerance and by well-defined physiological symptoms upon withdrawal; broadly: persistent compulsive use of a substance known by the user to be harmful.

Now, I am no doctor or psychologist, but I think we can infer that an addiction is a certain type of psychological behavior that is associated with certain desires and needs that become compulsive, obsessive, or habitual, which may also develop into a physiological need. Because of this, I think we can say that addiction is a type of behavior that is irrational in nature. Thus, addictions are potentially bad for us because the irrational fixation for certain desires and needs may become destructive to our life; they represent subjective and negative forces against life. For example, an obsessive fixation on and abnormal fear of germs may lead a person to compulsive hand washing addiction, lasting for hours and damaging skin.

Conversely, we can conclude that the opposite is true, that a type of psychological behavior that is rational in nature – non-addictive, normal, healthy mental behavior - is associated with certain desires and needs that are not compulsive, not obsessive, and not habitual. That is, a rational psychological behavior associated with healthy and normal desires and needs is NOT an addiction, but a proper, objective, good, and rational process for living, enhancing, and enjoying our lives; it represents an objective and positive force supporting life. For example, a normal, objective awareness of germs, and what they can do, leads people to wash their hands for a moment after they handle raw meat, avoiding contamination.

Dependency is also another term associated with addiction that needs to be addressed. As with desire or need, to be dependent upon a thing does not necessarily imply “addiction” to that thing. Again, context is important. For example, we depend upon the sun to continue to supply plentiful sunlight so we can grow food and survive, but this doesn’t mean that we are “addicted” to the sun or to sunlight. This type of dependency is neither compulsive or obsessive, and is considered rational. However, being compulsively and obsessively dependent on the drug cocaine to the point where one resorts to crime to fulfill the irrational need for cocaine would qualify that dependency as an addiction, and therefore, it would be considered irrational.

For simplicity’s sake, I will refer to those desires and needs associated with addiction as irrational desires and needs for something, and those desires and needs associated with normal, non-addictive behavior as rational desires and needs for something.

In my opinion, a rational dependency, desire, or need for a drug or substance or resource is NOT an addiction, even if that rational dependency, desire, or need is for a substance that we know to be potentially harmful or dangerous to our life, such as the use of radiation for X-rays or fighting cancer, or the use of uranium to produce electricity inexpensively and cleanly, or the use of insulin to stabilize diabetes.

Here, I would continue to argue that our dependency, desire, and need for oil is rational – it is NOT an irrational desire or need – it is NOT an addiction. We rationally depend upon, desire, and need oil to help enhance and better our lives. We, as human beings, rationally and objectively depend upon, desire, and need all kinds of drugs, substances, and resources to help enhance and preserve our way of life, our health, our wonderfully high standard of living, our prosperity, our wealth, our property, our businesses, our careers, our happiness, our dreams, and ultimately, our very life.

Our rational and objective dependency, desire, and need for oil is no different. We use oil in the production and manufacturing of health and medical products, everyday home and food products, farming and agricultural products and processes, toys and entertainment products and devices, medical-scientific-technological research and development, and yes, the various fuels and gasoline to run all types of machines, equipment, trains, tractors, trucks, boats, and automobiles. All of these things benefit us and make our lives prosperous.

For politicians and the media to label our desire and need for oil as an “addiction” – implying that it is an irrational dependency, desire, and need, and, I think, a deliberate attempt to also imply that it is evil and immoral – is to imply that our dependency, desire, and need for all things that make our lives safe, healthy, happy, and productive are also “addictions,” and therefore, irrational, evil, and immoral.

This means that to describe our rational dependency, desire, and need for oil as an “addiction” is to directly imply that we also have an “addiction” - an irrational, evil, and immoral dependency, desire, and need - for all the other things that enhance and better our lives, things such as individual freedom, individual rights, property rights and our property, wealth, prosperity, good health, and happiness.

How “purposefully and deliberately” twisted, malevolent, sick, disgusting, and absurd an idea is that?

And yet, this is the type of venom that is purposefully spewed out everyday by the media, our politicians, government officials, and several cowardly, leftist-appeasing private businesses, corporations, and organizations. I don’t think these folks are innocently misusing words, and they are definitely not messing with context for humor’s sake.

Using the word “addiction” to describe our dependency, desire, and need for oil is not only an attempt to distort and skew the context in which we use and need oil, it is also a deliberate, despicable, conniving attempt to convince us that our dependency, desire, and need for oil is irrational, evil, and immoral. If these people can convince you to “feel” guilty, shameful, and immoral for rationally and objectively wanting and needing those things to make your life healthy, happy, productive, and prosperous, then they have succeeded in convincing you to build the gallows on which to hang yourself. Or, at best, live in a filthy, miserable feudal system.