Skip to content

Random Rand: America’s Persecuted Minority

September 24, 2009

I’ve been reading Nathaniel Branden’sMy Years With Ayn Rand”. I’ve been reading it for quite some time now, in limited doses, for one of the same reasons as I can’t watch Obama on TV: I find Branden to be overbearingly pretentious and egotistical. So, it has been slow going. I generally read a couple of pages at a time, then need to put it down whilst muttering “what an utter ass”.

Today, though, I came across a snippet from a lecture Ayn Rand gave in 1961, at the Ford Hall Forum called America’s Persecuted Minority: Big Business and it really struck a chord with me. While I liked and agreed with most of the premises found in Atlas Shrugged , I found it a bit tedious and self-aggrandizing.  However, I did love The Fountainhead and We The Living. I’ve also enjoyed many of Rand’s speeches and lectures and find her to be frighteningly prescient.

As she was here:

“If a small group of men were always regarded as guilty, in any clash with any other group, regardless of the issues or circumstances involved, would you call it persecution? If this group were always made to pay for the sins, errors, or failures of any other group, would you call that persecution? If this group had to live under a silent reign of terror, under special laws, from which all other people were immune, laws which the accused could not grasp or define in advance and which the accuser could interpret in any way he pleased—would you call that persecution? If this group were penalized, not for its faults, but for its virtues, not for its incompetence, but for its ability, not for its failures, but for its achievements, and the greater the achievement, the greater the penalty—would you call that persecution?

If your answer is Yes, then ask yourself what sort of monstrous injustice you are condoing, supporting, or perpetrating. That group is the American Businessman.

“Whenever, in any era, culture, or society, you encounter the phenomenon of prejudice, injustice, persecution, and blind, unreasoning hatred directed at some minority group—look for the gang that has something to gain from that persecution, look for those who have a vested interest in the destruction of these particular sacrificial victims. Invariably, you will find that the persecuted minority serves as a scapegoat for some movement that does not want the nature of its own goals to be known. Every movement that seeks to enslave a country, every dictatorship or potential dictatorship, needs some minority group as a scapegoat which it can blame for the nation’s troubles and use as a justification of its own demands for dictatorial powers. In Soviet Russia, the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie; in Nazi Germany, it was the Jewish people; in America, it is the businessmen.”

Now let me define the difference between economic power and political power: economic power is exercised by means of a positive, by offering men a reward, an incentive, a payment, a value; political power is exercised by means of a negative, by the threat of punishment, injury, imprisonment, destruction. The businessman’s tool is values; the bureaucrat’s tool is fear.

“What is economic power? It is the power to produce and to trade what one has produced. In a free economy, where no man or group of men can use physical coercion against anyone, economic power can be achieved only by voluntary means: by the voluntary choice and agreement of all those who participate in the process of production and trade. In a free market, all prices, wages, and profits are determined—not by the arbitrary whim of the rich or of the poor, not by anyone’s “greed” or by anyone’s need—but by the law of supply and demand. The mechanism of a free market reflects and sums up all the economic choices and decisions made by all the participants. Men trade their goods or services by mutual consent to mutual advantage, according to their own independent’ uncoerced judgment. A man can grow rich only if he is able to offer better values—better products or services, at a lower price—than others are able to offer.

“Wealth, in a free market, is achieved by a free, general, “democratic” vote—by the sales and the purchases of every individual who takes part in the economic life of the country. Whenever you buy one product rather than another, you are voting for the success of some manufacturer. And, in this type of voting, every man votes only on those matters which he is qualified to judge: on his own preferences, interests, and needs.”

“A businessman’s success depends on his intelligence, his knowledge, his productive ability, his economic judgment—and on the voluntary agreement of all those he deals with: his customers, his suppliers, his employees, his creditors or investors. A bureaucrat’s success depends on his political pull. A businessman cannot force you to buy his product; if he makes a mistake, he suffers the consequences; if he fails, he takes the loss. A bureaucrat forces you to obey his decisions, whether you agree with him or not—and the more advanced the stage of a country’s statism, the wider and more discretionary the powers wielded by a bureaucrat. If he makes a mistake, you suffer the consequences; if he fails, he passes the loss on to you, in the form of heavier taxes.

“A businessman cannot force you to work for him or to accept the wages he offers; you are free to seek employment elsewhere and to accept a better offer, if you can find it. … A bureaucrat can force you to work for him, when he achieves the totalitarian power he seeks; he can force you to accept any payment he offers—or none, as witness the forced labor camps in the countries of full statism.”

The entire lecture, in audio, which I highly recommend, can be found here:


The above really hit home regarding all business as a whole, but particularly now. First with the “pitchfork wielding” frenzy against corporate bonuses – and sure, some were perhaps arguably undeserved as the businesses were failing.  That is up to each BUSINESS to decide. But mostly, the outrage was spurred on as a way to scapegoat and to pit people against “Big Business”.  Start your own successful business and then you can set bonuses that you perceive are “fair”.  Next came the demonizing of pharmaceutical companies and insurance companies. (as well as a new persecuted group; “Tea Baggers”, as those who simply question their Government and bureaucrat messes are now called)

I’m not an idiot. I know that insurance companies aren’t my best buddy. I know they aren’t perfect and all warm and fuzzy. A large part of the problem is too much Government /Bureaucratic interference as it is in the form of “mandated coverage” for every little thing under the sun. But they also aren’t *supposed* to be warm and fuzzy and perfect. They are run by humans, their consumers are humans. Humans are flawed and far from perfect.  The market (a truly Free one), the people, CAN, and HAVE, adjusted and evolved to fix those kinds of flaws.  Freedom isn’t supposed to be Utopian either. Frankly, I’m annoyed that we even have to try to define Freedom; it just *is*.

Of one thing I am certain, however. Bureaucracy isn’t adaptable nor does it ever evolve.

6 Comments leave one →
  1. Reiuxcat permalink
    September 24, 2009 3:19 pm

    “Freedom isn’t supposed to be Utopian either. Frankly, I’m annoyed that we even have to try to define Freedom; it just *is*.” SNB

    Summed up nicely.

    • snarkandboobs permalink*
      September 24, 2009 5:15 pm

      Thankies. It just annoys me when Freedom is discussed like it is some policy wonky thing. It’s *supposed* to be a Given, you know?

  2. September 24, 2009 3:56 pm

    Great work. I liked Ayn, she had a great mind.

    Can you imagine if she was alive now, what she’d think and the persecution that would follow? She would be handed the race card, no doubt.

    • snarkandboobs permalink*
      September 24, 2009 5:16 pm

      Definitely, Josie. And how sad 😦

    • IrishBob permalink
      September 25, 2009 10:46 pm

      I met Ayn Rand… also knew her long time “friend”, Nathaniel.

      He once started a “school for free enterprise” or some such title.

      In 1962 my friend Bill bought two copies of Atlas Shrugged. Each of us tried to read it to completion.

      Nope. Couldn’t do it…….the FIRST time.

      It took a year or more, but wisely, a friend slipped a copy of ANTHEM to us, and that was what we needed to once again delve into Shrugged. Finished it, read book one again a few years later, but read John Galt’s…….what? 80 pages or so? Over and over again.

      It was definitely not the writing style of a romantic Irishman like me. It was more “Soviet Sex”.

      Hey, I just coined a good one.

      Dagny and Hank’s love making: “You, Me, let’s “do it”. Now. Yep, Soviet Sex.

      But the book is priceless for the dialogue by “burrocrats” near the end of the book, and while we were hard core Constitutional Farm Boy Midwestern Honor Culture Unreconstructed No Nonsense No Mercy Combat Veteran (terrorist) Guys, we still had a hard time believing that the words which she placed in the mouths of those wimpy butt slime, could be taken from today’s newspaper, or internet report on Washington.

      Alas, we fought to awaken the Sheep for Forty years, to no avail. We saw the “night of the long knives” (Obama) quite clearly even then, but we failed to grasp the absolute mesmerized state of the American Sheep.

      Ayn, you were right.

      So were we.


  3. snopercod permalink
    September 25, 2009 12:54 pm

    Dear Snarky–

    You might like Anthem, too. Sample:

    “The greatest guilt today is that of people who accept collectivism by moral default; the people who seek protection from the necessity of taking a stand, by refusing to admit to themselves the nature of that which they are accepting; the people who support plans specifically designed to achieve serfdom, but hide behind the empty assertion that they are lovers of freedom, with no concrete meaning attached to the word; the people who believe that the content of ideas need not be examined, that principles need not be defined, and that facts can be eliminated by keeping one’s eyes shut. They expect, when they find themselves in a world of bloody ruins and concentration camps, to escape moral responsibility by wailing: “But I didn’t mean this!”

    Those who want slavery should have the grace to name it by its proper name. They must face the full meaning of that which they are advocating or condemning; the full, exact, specific meaning of collectivism, of its logical implications, of the principles upon which it is based, and of the ultimate consequences to which these principles will lead.”

    —Ayn Rand, in Anthem

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: