A liberty lesson delivered by Dan Sanchez from 'the slap heard round the world.'
 |
Ayn Rand Image Credit: Public Domain |
What John Galt Would Say to Will Smith
Guest post by Dan Sanchez
I'm not an avid follower of celebrity news -- truth be told I'm barely aware of who all these alleged celebrities are, or how they achieved this so-called status -- but there was an altercation at the Academy Awards last night that is not only consuming the attention of the media and the public, but is actually quite relevant to the ideas that this blog promotes. Call it a short hard lesson in liberty.
I'll let you look up the night's details if you haven't heard them yet, but this is what happened in brief. After the host Chris Rock delivered a joke about actress Jada Pinkett Smith, her husband Will Smith—the A-list actor—walked on stage and literally slapped Rock on live television. Smith then walked back and cursed the host from his seat.
As it turned out, later that night, Will Smith won the Oscar for Best Actor. In his acceptance speech, Smith tearfully apologised (although not to the person he struck).
Now, in a sense, this is a tempest in a teacup. In a world in which governments around the globe are waging wars on liberty, and in the Russian government's case even waging literal war on a civilian population, one highly-paid entertainer striking another in a public meltdown may be considered a distraction. But given that it is (appropriately or not) commanding public attention, we may as well try to extract lessons from it: especially for the benefit of teens and kids.
For most people, it is plain as day who was in the wrong on that stage. But it can be illuminating to reflect on exactly why.
Any young person would do well to frame what happened last night by reading "Galt's speech" from the best-selling novel Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. In that famous speech, Rand's character John Galt proclaims:
"So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others."This has been referred to by many others since as the "non-initiation of force" principle. The "initiation" part is key, because it establishes that forceful self-defense is legitimate. Understanding this principle is fundamental to understanding liberty and justice.
When judging any violent conflict, people naturally ask an important question -- and that important question is: "Who started it?" But a more precise phrasing would be: who started the violence? Who kicked off the force? Who initially violated someone else's person or property? In short (as you mother might have asked when you'd made your kid brother cry) who swung their fist first?
Will Smith clearly felt Chris Rock's joke was offensive and disrespectful. He may have thought it impugned his wife's honour. He may have regarded it as damaging to his family's reputation (although it can hardly be more damaging than how he responded).
But as Murray Rothbard wrote in The Ethics of Liberty, nobody has a property right in their reputation, because a reputation "is purely a function of the subjective attitudes and beliefs about him contained in the minds of other people." And a person, "can have no property right in the beliefs and minds of other people."
So, Rock's joke, whether it was funny or not, or all in good fun or even needlessly cruel, violated nobody's rights, and the one who initiated force was Smith, and was in the wrong.
It may seem silly to litigate a celebrity slap, but it is worthwhile to clarify these principles when they do come up because, however commonsensical they may seem, people reject them all the time (or misunderstand them, or ignore them... ), and we all suffer for that. For example, the way people frequently use the term "microaggression" threatens speech rights by blurring the line between non-violent behaviour and initiatory force. ("She microagressed me; that's hate speech!") And the bulk of public policy today uses government force to counter non-violent behaviour that some people find objectionable.
Liberty is constantly endangered because most people don't clearly see the line that separates just from unjust force. To save liberty, we need to educate the public (young people especially) about the ideas of liberty, especially the non-initiation of force.
To do that best, put down your phone replaying the slap, and pick up that book called Atlas Shrugged. Worst comes to worst, you can always use its weight in self-defence.
* * * *
12 comments:
I doubt Ayn Rand would say that, because it wasn’t exactly a vicious and violent attack. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall some of the good guys in her novels ended up either slapping or even punching people at times. One of them even blew up a building.
Good men can lose their cool when things they care about are under attack or insulted. It may be wrong strictly speaking, but it shows they at least care about their values.
But I doubt you can put Will Smith in that category - because he was doing it in defence of a woman who has disrespected and cuckolded him over the years. That’s the more significant thing in this context. That he did it trying to defend the honour of someone not worthy of it.
If you want to apply Objectivist morality to this incident, I don’t think the most significant moral lesson is the evil of force. The slap doesn’t even rate when it comes to harmful applications of force.
The more significant moral in my opinion is how successful and otherwise high value men can lose the plot when they allow themselves to become emasculated, and adopt the morality of self sacrifice in service to a woman who doesn’t deserve it. Not too different to Hank and Lillian Reardon.
Mark, if you read chapter 9 of Part 2 of Atlas Shrugged, it is clear that Rand did not endorse a slap. When Hank slapped Francisco for mistakenly believing he had betrayed him, she wrote that Dagny "knew that Rearden's life hung in the balance." Rearden, through a lack of self-control, had chosen violence (a few paragraphs earlier Rand wrote of Dagny's anticipation of what was to come: "'Hank, stop it!' Dagny's voice was a cry, and she drew back, knowing that violence was the most dangerous element to introduce into this moment.")
By introducing violence, Hank had chosen his own destruction, which only the mercy of Francisco prevented. In a society where rights are upheld, that retaliatory use of force is delegated to the state to use in an objective manner.
Correction: I should have written love, not mercy.
The fellow didn't blow up a building because he lost his cool. He blew up the building because his work was stolen in violation of his contract, and because stolen by government he had no other recourse. Far from losing his cool, he did to as soberly and seriously and with as low a temperature as even a cucumber might wish for.
As for Will Whatshisface, I know nothing about the personal situation, nor care to. Not interested. And, to be fair, barely relevant -- because we're not talking ethics, but the foundations of politics...
Well, that's what you're talking about, but I'm talking about something different. I'm pointing out that if you do know a bit more about his personal situation, there's a more relevant lesson there in my opinion - as opposed to the rather obscure and rationalistic connection Dan has made to the moral foundation of politics.
No Terry, Rand would not endorse a slap, and nor would I.
But I do think if Rand knew anything about Will Smith's personal life, the slap and it's relation to the non-initiation of force principle is not what she'd be focusing on.
A more incisive comment on the incident here, for those who are interested.
https://youtu.be/WDPCKBFOK8I
And here’s one that’s even more insightful again, and much shorter at 8 minutes. All a similar theme to what I’m saying.
https://youtu.be/hfTJ82HSJvg
I’ve considered myself an Objectivist for over 30 years, but this discussion (such as it was) has for me been the perfect demonstration of the limits of Objectivism, when you over-use it to try understanding reality.
Mark, I watched the whole excruciating 8 minutes. The "insight" may be summed up by what the host says at 3m 50sec: "Yes, men need to take over women’s decisions, because we need to save them from themselves." That notion is as far away from Objectivism (being rational and objective) as one can get. If a woman who is in a relationship with a man makes truly bad decisions and cannot be reasoned with, then the man, if he is rational, would leave that relationship and either live single or find a woman worthy of his love who can be reasoned with. The same can be said for a woman who is in a relationship with a man who makes bad decisions and cannot be reasoned with.
Mark, you said, "this discussion (such as it was) has for me been the perfect demonstration of the limits of Objectivism, when you over-use it to try understanding reality."
I'd suggest it's more a demonstration of the limits of my interest in the people, their work, or their personal lives. Which is almost zero. Hence using it to make only one point. Happy however if you wish to make others.
Terry, you’re taking that statement extremely and overly literally. Just like if someone says they’re going to “force the issue” when negotiating with someone, doesn’t mean they’re going to apply literal physical force. You’re also missing the context and generalising commentary that was focused on a much more specific topic. On reflection though it was not a good link to post, as it was a short clip from a longer 2.5 hour presentation that would have provided the context I know and assume, but others unfamiliar with his work would not. I’d usually encourage you to watch the whole thing, but I’ve seen enough of your modus operandi now to know we’re unlikely to find common ground.
Fair enough Peter, but I didn’t make the comment because I have a particular interest in Will Smith per se. It’s because we can see in his behaviour an extreme version of a widespread phenomena that negatively affects many men in our current age. We can learn from him because his life has been so public. We can connect this specific incident to the same unhealthy dynamic between him and his wife that afflicts many other men. The phenomena is not ‘insufficient recognition of the non-initiation of force principle’.
Post a Comment