I'm going to assume that anyone reading the following post is familiar with the novel "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand as well as basic Libertarian concepts. A lot of really foundational Libertarian principles are expressed in this book, and I won't go over them here. Read it for yourself. Or, in lew of that, read my previous articles on "The Nature of Liberty" posted below.



What I did want to do is use Ms. Rand as an example for this discussion, since she is a perfect example of an "Atheist Libertarian" who completely failed to grasp the contradictory implications of her beliefs.



Let me be very clear from the outset, THERE CAN BE NO SUCH THING AS AN ATHEIST LIBERTARIAN; ATHEISM AND LIBERTARIANISM ARE IN FACT COMPLETELY INCOMPATIBLE! I cannot grasp how Rand failed to understand this, as judging by this particular work she was an exceptionally brilliant political philosopher.



Why are atheism and liberty so incompatible? Simply this: The only objective moral reference for an atheist is the natural world, and primarily the animal world of which man is supposedly a part. Rand herself made references to the animal world in her book as an argument against forced charity; the fact that an animal always takes care of itself by instinct, in fact MUST take care of itself, as there is no charity in the animal world. This is indeed a valid example.



But what Rand seemed to completely ignore in making her point is that THERE IS ALSO NO LIBERTY IN THE ANIMAL WORLD! There is no protected private property in the animal world, it's survival of the fittest. If I'm bigger and stronger than you, then I DESERVE to live and you DESERVE to die. In fact, It's MORAL! The political model of nature is FASCISM! (Note: I'm using the term "fascism" in the general sense of "might makes right", not as a reference to the actual Italian Fascist party platform, though they surely would have agreed with this notion;) If this is the only objective reality from which to take your example, how could you ever, on your own, without a religious influence, come to the conclusion that the "animal" called man should live under any system but anarchic defacto-fascism?



The mistake Rand made was that she used survival of the fittest as an example WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF PRIVATE PROPERTY, i.e. the strongest BUSINESS wins. But again, there is no private property in the animal world. So from what objective moral reality does Rand draw the concept of private property? She never gets around to explaining this, which is rather unusual since this is the absolute bedrock foundation of her beliefs.



Isn't it very odd that you can leave all the other "decorative" beliefs of Libertarianism; free market, legal drugs, legal sodomy; but if you take away the lynch-pin of private property, it immediately devolves into it's diametric opposite, fascism? As I've said in previous articles, this is the foundational concept of any politcal philosohpy from which all it's other beliefs must spring; that philosophy's view of private property.



So where can any libertarian draw their foundational concept of private property, if not from nature?



THOU SHALT NOT COVET.



Gee, where does that come from? I think it's some old book, I can't quite remember the name...This commandment not only recognizes that private property exists, but also that covetting property for which you did not work and/or barter is wrong. Coupled with THOU SHALT NOT STEAL, this is the absolute foundation of property-based liberty.



In a future article I'll have to explain how Christianity is in fact the very root of the libertarian concept, but I think I've demonstrated here that any atheist who considers themself a libertarian is not being intellectually consistent. If you're going to be an atheist, fine. But EMBRACE those fascist leanings, dammit! If you beleive in liberty without a higher power then you don't really know WHAT the hell you believe, you're just grasping at straws in the dark.



I'll also have to write an article explaining how and why Ms. Rand could be so completely backwards on this subject. She was of the oppinion that Christianty was diametrically opposed to her views, when in fact, as you have seen, you cannot have liberty without some kind of benevolent god. Rand's mistake, and the harmoniousness of her beliefs with Christianty start to become clear when we start to view them both through the lens of contract law. I'll go into greater detail in the future.



And I'll also explain why the creator god HAS to be the God of Christianity, and why I believe that this conclusion can be arrived at OBJECTIVELY, by which I mean WITHOUT FAITH. I'll save it for later, but I'll leave you with the basic premise: God only wants you to have faith that he will keep his promises, not faith that he exists or that the stories in the Bible are true.