Atlas Shrugged; or How I Learned to Love the King

So many of you Ayn Rand acolytes are probably wondering how I could make the leap from Objectivism to Neoreactionary. It took some prodding but eventually I got there. It actually wasn’t that radical of a leap. I assume that you are certainly against the current state of affairs (how can anyone blame you?). You pride yourself on being a person of reason. As people of reason, you should have no problem hearing us neoreactionaries out.

I know your biggest concern is about capitalism and individual rights. I agree that those are very important things. I like those things. Many neoreactionaries like those things as well. In fact, you will be in great company in our camp as many neoreactionaries are influenced by the great Austrian philosophers. As I am sure you are aware, the term “rights” has been mutated to the point that it is no longer recognizable. Rights used to stand for your natural rights and governments were not allowed to violate those rights. However, that is no longer the case. Rights have now become new nomenclature for something we like to call “gimmedats.” Gimmedat Social Security, gimmedat EBT, gimmedat Obamacare… you get the picture.

Going back to your concern about rights, how do you feel about voting? Do you consider voting a right my Randian friend? If so, we are going to have a problem. Voting really only exists in realm of democracy. As our good friend FringeElements points out, democracy is merely Communism Lite. And I know how you guys feel about Communism… you hate it. You guys love your capitalism and I don’t blame you. It is a fantastic system for an economy. As I mentioned earlier, I bet you (just like us) love those anarcho-capitalists over at LvMI. However, you need to realize that having a political voice in government is not the same as your natural rights. If you are able to drop the notion that voting = freedom, then you will be able to embrace being a neoreactionary.

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities.” Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

We neoreactionaries agree that democracy is a dangerous system of government to have.  If you desire liberty, you will not find it in a democracy. While we derive some of our philosophy from anarcho-capitalists, like Mises, we also realize that anarchy is simply not workable. Speaking of anarchy, you don’t happen to be an anarchist, do you? I hope not. Ayn Rand certainly wasn’t. Did you know that? Here she is on TV talking about the proper role of government:

I won’t get into her advocacy of voluntary taxation in the video but she is right about the role of government. Ultimately, the role of government is extremely limited because it’s only role is to protect your rights.

“The only proper, moral purpose of a government is to protect man’s rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence—to protect his right to his own life, to his own liberty, to his own property and to the pursuit of his own happiness.” Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness

She is also right that to have such a government would not cost much money at all. Here is a lovely snippet from our good friend Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s book Democracy The God That Failed (p 54):

taxation under monarchs - hoppe god that failed pg 54

Not bad right? Only 5 to 8% taxation.  That is certainly better than the current state of taxation affairs in most Western nations which is around 50%. Yes, it wont be voluntary but to only take 5-8% involuntarily is certainly a massive improvement over 50% of your taxes being taken from you involuntarily. Monarchy doesn’t sound so bad now does it? At least under a king, the markets are free, unlike in a democracy, where we are all socialists now! Nobody wants to be a socialist, especially not you, not me, nor any of the other neoreactionaries.  So you see, we have a lot in common.

Please don’t tell me you are one of those open-borders types. What kind of person would advocate such a thing?! Not Ayn Rand! That’s for sure. The good folks over at VDARE searched long and hard through Atlas Shrugged but they found out that Rand was no advocate of foreign immigrant invasion.

“The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, TO PROTECT YOU FROM FOREIGN INVADERS; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breaches or fraud by the others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law.“ Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Rand wasn’t for open-borders and neither are we neoreactionaries. Perhaps we have more in common with her than you do.

Personally, I think Ayn Rand would love to live in a neoreactionary society. We have a few models in mind that we would like to emulate:


Hong Kong

Hong Kong



Those are nice places to live, aren’t they? They look absolutely beautiful. There is a secret to their success (besides laissez-faire capitalism): they don’t don’t have democracy there. You heard that right. There are no mobs to appease with socialism and gimmedats. Just pure unadulterated laissez-faire capitalism. It is certainly better than Detroit! But they can vote in Detroit, so aren’t they free? So you see, you need to separate this idea of your political rights from your individual rights. Just because you can vote does not mean you are free. Just because you can’t vote doesn’t mean you aren’t free either.

Much like the plot of Atlas Shrugged, we too seek what we like to call an ‘Exit.’ This is essentially our version of “Who is John Galt?” We would like to eventually have our own society where our vision can be enacted.

So my Randian Objectivist friends, who pride themselves in being rational beings, can you consider that perhaps we neoreactionaries are right about the failures of democracy? I’ll let you guys sleep on it. In the meantime, in case I haven’t convinced you, perhaps some additional reading may convince you. Read them and come back to me. Being the rational beings that Objectivists claim to be, I have no doubt that you will consider my neoreactionary proposal. I won’t lie, you will find some politically incorrect thoughts in our neck of the woods. It’s okay though, it’s all in good fun.

Suggested Reading:


This entry was posted in Reactionary and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Atlas Shrugged; or How I Learned to Love the King

  1. If only those Hong Kong protesters knew what they were asking for. We can’t not seize power and then complain when someone else does (ancaps). Powerful but small regional state, free markets, controlled borders, anti-liberal paradigm and traditional culture. NRx meets tradition meets markets.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. infowarrior1 says:

    The only objection I hear so far about neoreaction is the lack of social mobility that the ancien regime exemplifies which disallows the cream from rising to the top due to the vested interests of the hierarchy seeking to preserve their status, leaving them hostile to any upstart geniuses or talented men. And they seek to do anything in order to prevent themselves being overshadowed by such men.

    Liked by 1 person

    • soapjackal says:

      Thats actually a pretty good critique. Would be very interested in this as a topic. Especially the pragmatic and moral consequences of the initial (old school aristocracy) and the alternatives.


  3. @infowarrior1

    The only objection I hear so far about neoreaction is the lack of social mobility that the ancien regime exemplifies which disallows the cream from rising to the top due to the vested interests of the hierarchy seeking to preserve their status, leaving them hostile to any upstart geniuses or talented men.

    I think the response to this is the same as the response to the 5-8% GDP taxation. We can all sit around and talk about how things should be until the cows come home. The problem is that regardless of how perfect things seem on paper, we should base policy on what we know works, and what we currently have doesn’t work.

    I think we do have an hierarchy, even if it’s not an extremely rigid one. How many people go from rags to riches like the proverbial ghetto rap star or the athlete (and do we want them there?)? How many of the middle class even climb the cloistered stairs into fortune? America, and any other nation of “equals” always has groups that are more equal than others. We tend to settle into our castes by IQ. This is why it’s unsurprising that the Chinese immigrant is a neurologist in three generations while three generations of urbunus africanus yields no improvement. Lest we get too focused on race, let’s also admit that country yokels rarely get out of the trailer either.

    If I might horribly misquote our Lord and Saviour, the classes will always be with you. The only people who took a genuine crack at creating a classless society wracked up a ton of bodies in the name of egalite from Bordeaux to Beijing. And they still didn’t get it. The real question ancaps and libertarians should mull is over the least damaging form of hierarchy that causes the least sociopolitical and cultural strife while allowing for maximum liberties to the most people. This very well might exist in an hierarchy. Most people have no problem getting kicked around by permanent bureaucrats (whose offspring also often become bureaucrats) with no fancy title besides “Director of x.” Would a small stable monarchic system or even a controlled aristocracy constitute an improvement in function over our current pseudo-bureaucracy? If Singapore, Hong Kong, Monaco, Liechtenstein, and UDI Rhodesia are any indications, yes.


    • infowarrior1 says:

      @Karazmov Idea

      I have no objection to your comment nor to hierarchy. But that the natural aristocracy do not take their proper place at the top due to established interests preventing their rise.


  4. Ansible says:

    That photo you posted of Monaco is shopped. The tower surrounded by fields in the bay does not exist. It looks as real as this picture:

    Please replace with something more suitable:


  5. Hanfeizi says:

    Sadly, Hong Kong isn’t really that nice a place to live unless you’re extremely rich, nor is Monaco. As a denizen of the middle class, I prefer Shanghai over Hong Kong- you can afford a much nicer quality of life in the former than the latter. Though I’ll give you Singapore- which, ironically, is the most democratic of the three. I’d move to Singapore in a heartbeat if I had a plan. 😉


    • Staniel says:

      The reason Hong Kong and and Monaco aren’t great for the middle classes is because all the intelligent rich people who know the value of living there have driven up the prices in Monaco to $58,300 per sq. meter, the highest in the world. Monaco also has the lowest poverty rate in the world. Monaco is THE city on the hill. I don’t know as much about the state of Hong Kong and Singapore.


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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s