In defence of Ayn Rand (or those bloody kids...)

The old saying goes that those who are conservative when young have no heart, and those who are not conservative when old have no common sense. Or something along those lines. Now exactly what “conservative” means is beyond me (I think it has something to do with thinking it the height of wit to refer to the prime minister as Ju-liar). However I’ve discovered, with some unease, that I am increasingly capable of occasionally considering the writings of Gerard Henderson or, (shock and/or horror), Dennis Shanahan, with something other than involuntary loathing.

Is this normal? Am I a freak? Am I submitting to the aforementined platitude? Fuck, it’s a depressing thing indeed if the entirety of a person’s cultural and political development can be reduced to some condescending axiom.

I dunno. At the risk of engaging in reckless self rationalisation, I think there may be a kernel of something appealing in what the old bastards are getting at with their endless railing against “greenies”, “pinkos” and ”latte sipping, ivory tower dwelling, basket weaving, doo gooding” elites.

Don’t get me wrong – conservatives’ endless desire to castigate by way of puerile labels is unarguably retarded. But what I do like about the basket of political opinions termed conservative is those generally referred to as “libertarian”. That is, self determination, anti-authoritarianism and the unrelenting arrogance of the “get out of my way” viewpoint, encapsulated by none other than that fucked up prophetess of “objectivism”, Ayn Rand.

Rand has provided “progressives” with something of a paradoxical difficulty for yonks. While promoting female characters who are strong, self defined and active agents in a “masculine” world, she also manages to provide those female characters with a range of submissive sexual proclivities not far off the kind of kitcsch goings on in novels with titles like “Spanking Stories” or “Ms M’s school for naughty girls”. But more to the point, while her staunch promotion of the invisible hand and lassaiz faire markets is anathema to most progressives, her almost anarchistic opposition to statism and authoritarianism is likely to appeal to many of those lefties.

And its that anti-statism that also appeals to me. (Somewhat paradoxically, given that I work in government). Maybe it’s a mark of arrogance, but I just don’t consider there to be many people in the world who are really in any position to tell me how to live my life. Elected governments are a convenience in that they provide services which I desire, and for that I am willing to contribute revenue to them by way of taxes. But when they start telling me whether I can go see a movie or not, what books I can read, what God I can or can’t believe in, what man/woman/donkey/tree I can or cant fuck….well it really “gets my goat” (as Mavis, calling from Ipswich, is wont to scream at Alan Jones on the morning shift…)…

And the thing is, the “progressives” are just as capable of this kind of behaviour as the “conservatives”. Most traditional leftist parties are all about increasing government control of the marketplace through the use of regulation, nationalisation or other forms of direct government intervention. While a degree of government involvement in any free market is a good thing, too much of it inevitably leads to gross inefficiencies, not to mention consolidation of far too much power in the hands of bureaucrats (like me). Similarly, excessive increases in personal income tax, or company tax, can be viewed as governments directly constraining the freedom of individuals (or, shareholders, by way of companies) to economic self determination. And this is just economics - we haven’t even started talking about those issues “wrapped up” in the burqua – the right of non-western cultures to self determination vs the universal right of women to be considered equal to men and not cloistered behind layers of heavy black cloth.

Anyway, maybe I’m becoming an anarchist in my old(er) age. That’s more appealing – anarcho syndicalist has a better ring to it than cranky old fucker ranting at “those bloody kids”…

singing while Rome drowns (or, ostriches)

Theres a scene from Eric the Viking where an island sinks beneath the waves, following the spilling of innocent blood by one of Eric's men. The island's inhabitants, refusing to acknowledge the sinking of their home, sit atop a hill singing joyfully until the last voice is reduced to drowned gurgle. I cant help relating those singing islanders to anthropogenic climate change skeptics, singing joyfully away while the water gets higher every year.

I guess another hack allegory would be that of the ostrich with its head in the sand - in any case, the point of the image is the willful denial of the nasty shit going on around you, simply because you dont want to have to confront said nasty shit.

The extent to which this is actually occuring at the moment is arguable, because its not yet obvious enough to a majority of people that there is actually any nasty shit happening. While cyclones Yasi et al, or the QLD floods had an obvious impact, I think that many people are having trouble making a link between these things and anthropogenic climate change. Or, maybe they are subconsciously, but dont like the implications when anyone points it out - witness the hysterical outrage when Bob Brown suggested a link between use of fossil fuels and extreme weather events.

The question is, how long will people be able to keep up the facade? What level of extreme event does it take for a majority to sit up and make a clear decision that some action must be taken? My thinking is that this species is still sufficiently unevolved that we are only capable of responding to immediate and obvious threats - my guess is that its going to take something like a sudden increase in sea levels, or explosive methane hydrate outgassings in Canada/Northern Eurasia, before we gain a sufficient quroum or consensus, to warrant action.

By which time, of course, it may be too late anyway.

The other possibility, which I find far more frightening, is that our potential for self deception is so great that the "climate skeptics" will be able to continue their denial ad infinitum. Sea levels rising explosively? Must be due to the patterns of sun spots. Greenland iceshelf collapsing? Too many overweight polar bears pushing the ice ever downwards...

Of course another potential is that there may be no sudden event, no change which is obvious enough for the Daily Telegraph to pick up on. That may be even more catastrophic. Much like the frog in the slowly boiling pan of water, we might never get the chance to figure out the shit that we are in, until its closed over our heads. So to speak.