Speak for Yourself: Letters
Please allow me to express my delight with the exceptional look, feel, and content of The New Individualist over the past year. The aesthetic quality is superlative, with graphics and photos adding immensely to each piece in the publication, while the content is feisty, hard-nosed, and unapologetic. I must also note that even when addressing issues of concern, TNI's editorial position appears to be one of optimism and pro-activity, representing a refreshing and much-needed change from some other philosophical magazines I have read.
Keep up the good work and the good fight. How wonderful to be enlightened and entertained simultaneously with each new issue!
Jack Criss
In the interests of full disclosure: Our Fall 2005 issue ran a favorable review of a book by Mr. Criss; he has also advertised it in these pages. In addition—coincidentally, but subsequent to receiving his kind letter—I invited him to write for TNI and he has graciously agreed. However, I swear by my life and my love of it that there have been no “quid pro quos” behind any of these arrangements. —RJB
THRILLED. . .
I had just received my spring e-mail from author Lee Child’s website announcing his new Jack Reacher thriller when I opened my [April] New Individualist and discovered, with surprise and a good deal of joy, Robert Bidinotto’s piece on my favorite reading material [“The Best Thriller Writers—Ever”].
Objectivism has sustained me for one-half century now, but I never expected this bonus support for some of my favorite authors. In today’s society, there are few opportunities to cheer out loud, but the sheer moral audacity of guys like Mitch Rapp and Jack Reacher and the pint-sized but wonderfully fearsome Sean Dillon help make some of the wretchedness of today’s moral wasteland bearable. The literate decency and humor of Robert B. Parker’s Spenser have given us years of great pleasure and laugh-out-loud moments. David Morrell, Robert Crais, and Nelson De Mille are on our bookshelves, as well.
So, thank you once again. I know of no way I can ever balance the ledger between what my family and I have received from Ayn Rand and folks like you, who carry on in the name of reason, and what small compensation we can offer in return.
Oakley K. Davidson
The thanks are ours, Mr. Davidson. —RJB
. . . AND NOT SO THRILLED
I am a fan of TNI and its editor, and, as each issue states that views are those of individual authors, not trustees of The Atlas Society, Robert Bidinotto is within his prerogatives to state his opinions on any subject. What I must do, not as a trustee but as a reader, is express my total and vehement disagreement with his April issue commentary about the Fox Television program “24” [“The Gospel According to Jack”]. To remain silent is impossible.
The show’s hero, Jack Bauer, is a government agent—indeed, assigned by the President of the
Clearly, in this show, an agent of the
Several arguments or semi-arguments are used, for instance, that the terrorists using are extreme measures to attack the country and the country has a right to reply with extreme measures—that we have a right to defend ourselves by any and all means. But the core of the argument defending the use of torture by the
This, of course, is a reference to Ayn Rand’s essay “The Ethics of Emergencies,” reprinted in The Virtue of Selfishness. The problem is that the TNI article’s application of the ethics of emergencies represents a complete misunderstanding of the idea, and, as a result, leads to an appalling conclusion—all in the name of Objectivism. The Objectivist concept of an “ethics of emergencies” has no application to the actions and choices of government under any circumstances. Let me explain.
The concept of an ethics of emergencies arises in the context of Objectivism’s view of the nature and purpose of morality. Morality is a set of principles that guides one’s choices and actions in the furtherance of one’s life. Such principles, based on the objective requirements of man’s life, necessarily must be formulated within the context of the human lifespan. Where no reference to principles is possible, because any normal life is impossible, the only action open to one is to restore conditions under which life is possible. If there are no life-enhancing choices, there are no principles. There is only the immediate attempt to restore the conditions required by life. One example used by Ayn Rand was a lifeboat at sea with more passengers than the boat could hold. There are no principles for deciding who should go overboard; Objectivist morality is not applicable. Every man for himself.
The ethics of emergencies cannot apply to governments. Governments are not guided by the principles of morality. Governments and government agents do not choose their actions by reference to principles for the furtherance of man’s survival or the enhancement of life—not the life of the government employees and not the life of citizens. Instead, government has a specific mission—the protection of the rights of its citizens—and specific, delimited powers to carry out its mission; as well as specific laws, regulations, and rules for using its powers. In their capacity as government employees, the agents of government are not acting on the principles of morality (although their actions are not inconsistent with morality, in the sense that government has a legitimate role in relation to the lives of its citizens and their pursuit of their lives in accordance with morality).
A functioning government cannot abandon all limits on its legitimate, delegated powers in the face of an emergency and begin to violate the rights of its citizens, including by torturing them. Since government is not guided by the principles of morality, it cannot declare that morality is no longer possible or applicable and act totally without restraint, rules, or limits—as would an individual caught in a blazing building or at the epicenter of an earthquake.
In “24,” Jack Bauer is an agent acting for a fully functioning government, complete with SWAT teams under his command, and with full military backup. Even if lifeboat situations were applicable to government, which they are not, this would not be a lifeboat situation. Yet, he begins to torture anyone he personally suspects of harboring crucial information. His victims have not been arrested, charged, tried, or convicted of anything. He simply suspects them. Some are citizens, some may be in the country illegally, some are foreign diplomats.
It is true that the country is under attack by terrorists and the danger is horrific. Perhaps this is equivalent to war on
When government has declared an emergency because of war or some other crisis, the result almost always has been disastrous—a curtailment of rights that persists long after the supposed emergency.
To sanction the torture of citizens by the
Apparently, Kiefer Sutherland, who plays Jack Bauer, came up with the only remotely reasonable defense of the show when challenged by critics. He said, “Its just entertainment”—and hoped that no one would take it seriously as a guide to anything.
Walter Donway
Trustee, The Atlas Society
I very much appreciate and respect the concerns and thoughtful arguments raised by Walter Donway, a friend, TAS colleague, and occasional TNI contributing writer. He rightly notes something that I wish to stress to readers: Opinions in signed articles are solely those of the author, and they do not necessarily represent the views of The Atlas Society (our publisher), or of its trustees and staff. That emphatically includes my own articles.
That said, and my authorial independence established, I continue to respectfully disagree with Mr. Donway on this issue.
First, I dispute the contention that events depicted on “24” each week “would not be a lifeboat situation”—i.e., an “emergency,” as
Each episode of “24” fits this definition precisely. A terrorist attack in progress, to culminate within the next 24 hours, threatens massive loss of human life unless thwarted. This season, a nuclear device destroyed an American city and others were set to go off. In such an emergency, anyone’s primary responsibility is to “combat the disaster”—to foil the terrorists, end the danger, and restore civilized living conditions.
Mr. Donway writes, “Even a government under attack by bombing or invasion cannot declare itself no longer limited and start violating the rights of its citizens.” As
Given the emergency (an ongoing terrorist nuclear attack) where “normal life is impossible” and “there are no principles,” how, then, can there still be principles of “rights”?
And if it is true that during emergencies individuals are entitled to do whatever they must in order to protect their lives, why does that entitlement not extend to those individuals who happen to draw government paychecks? Why shouldn’t they, too, do whatever they can to defend their lives and values—especially when only they may have the training and resources to end the crisis?
Even the most benign governments find themselves compelled to assert extraordinary emergency powers during wartime. The unrestrained carnage and horrific mayhem that takes place on battlefields, the sweep of armies across private lands, the bombing and occupation of cities, the confiscation of private properties, the rounding up of citizens suspected of being enemy collaborators, and, yes, the ugly battlefield interrogations of enemy captives—all of this takes place routinely in the context of war, which is the resolution of conflict by means of unrestrained violence. I share Mr. Donway’s distaste for such brutality. And no sane person would want his government to declare a permanent state of emergency (a contradiction in terms) to perpetuate it.
But during a wartime crisis, we should not handcuff those best suited to vanquish a murderous enemy and end the madness—especially when such restraint would be unilateral. The proper course is to establish clear oversight, rules, and procedures to govern extraordinary and extreme uses of force by government agents during emergencies and wartime—and to make sure that their “emergency” powers do not continue one minute longer than absolutely necessary. —RJB
PAN’S LABYRINTH: TAKE TWO
As an avid reader of TNI and also a film enthusiast, I’m always eager to read Robert Jones’s movie reviews. However, his negative critique of Pan’s Labyrinth in the April 2007 issue surprised me.
His claim that the message of the film is “this Earthly life is but a vale of tears” is defensible only if taken completely out of context. Yes, there is a great deal of evil and suffering for the characters in the non-fantasy world, but they’re living under the heel of a fascistic sadist. The indictment is of the evils of fascism, not of life on Earth in general.
Mr. Jones’s initial beef with the film is that “the narrator cannot shut up,” because information is given (in his view, excessively) about how the Princess is supposed to one day return to her parents. Contrary to what Mr. Jones would have us think, this doesn’t give away the ending, and without it the course of the following events wouldn’t make sense. Is the fantasy kingdom purely imaginary? Is it real but Ofelia isn’t the Princess? Or is she truly the King’s daughter? From these questions drama arises, and none of the answers are given away in the opening narration. Rather than eliminating suspense, the narration provides the grounding for it.
It’s odd how Mr. Jones also complains that “there is no mystery or suspense” in Ofelia's story, yet bemoans the dominance of the Spanish Civil War plotline, which is rife with tension. He further ignores the fact that there is ample mystery in determining the relationship between fantasy and reality within the film.
Ultimately, I see the theme of the film as the struggle for freedom. The bravery of Mercedes and the guerillas in the face of great evil, and Ofelia’s use of her imagination to resist fascism in her own way (if she’s indeed imagining it), serve as examples of the difficulty, and necessity, of guarding one’s beliefs, even when faced with horrific opponents.
Perhaps Mr. Jones was a bit hasty in portraying Pan’s Labyrinth as a shallow, derivative film in his zeal to declare that “the ‘independent revolution’ is over.” I think rational audiences could find plenty of benefit from a viewing.
David Gilmour
I am a new subscriber to The New Individualist and love it. Your “Soliloquy” to Al Gore [“The Gospel According to Al,” May 2007] is timely. I’ve been in a running argument with a friend, an engineering Ph.D., who doesn’t think much of Gore personally but buys his argument on global warming and environmental issues in general and the statist remedies he prescribes. My friend says he is an atheist (he was raised a Mormon), but given your observations on the theological nature of Gore’s approach, I am now wondering if he isn’t seeking a replacement religion. I can’t wait until you post the article on your website so I can refer him to it.
“Cheerleaders for American Defeat” [“Soliloquy,” January/February 2007] was also outstanding.
Keep the good stuff coming.
Thanks, welcome aboard—and globally warm wishes to you, Cary. —RJB