Atlas

Do you remember the Greek myth about the giant Atlas? He was tasked to hold up the entire world. Ayn Rand used this story as a metaphor in her book Atlas Shrugged (must read). She equated Atlas with the producers of the world, the men/women of the mind, those whose creative effort brings into existence all of our material abundance. She noted that they labored under the strain of holding up the rest of the world, the moochers and looters, who couldn't be bothered with producing their own sustanence, just as Atlas held up the world in the myth. In a famous conversation in her book between two heroes, Fransico D'Anconia asks Hank Rearden what he would do if he saw Atlas, bent and bleeding, struggling with all his might to hold up the world. Hank doesn't know what he could do, and so turns the question back to Fransisco. Fransisco replys, "Tell him to shrug." (Hence the title of the book)

I find Miss Rand's metaphor extremely accurate. If you look around the world today it is clear that there is a minority of people who, through their tremendous effort, are supporting the rest. This support is manifest in many ways: welfare, foreign aid, medicare/medicade, social security, public works, etc. In all cases though the pattern is the same -- the most productive people (i.e. rich people) have their hard earned production taken away from them (via taxes) to support various 'noble' causes (i.e. handouts to moochers/looters).

My question is this: can this continue? (Of course it should not continue.) The moochers and looters have always relied on one implicit assumption: that there will always be some producer around for them to loot from. I would like to explore this assumption and see wether it is true.

There are two important factors that will determine whether there remain any producers in the world (or at least enough producers to support the rest). First, there must be people willing to produce. Second, they must be able to do so. The moochers/looters take for granted that the first condition will always be satisfied. They understand that there is a basic (and noble) human drive to be productive, and they count on some people to follow it. The second condition is never considered by the moochers/looters. They, having renounced the mind, are unable/unwilling to consider how things are produced and under what conditions such production is possible. They have the mentality that goods simply exist, and will always continue to exist. How? Somehow is the ubiquitous answer.

So let us consider each condition. Will there always be people willing to produce? To answer this we must consider what gets them to do so in the first place? They must have some motivation. Naturally, men's selfish desire to live (which is a good thing) usually serves as their motivation. But what if they knew that any action that they could take in an attempt to advance their good would ultimately not serve that end? Would it still serve as a compelling motivation? No. So in the realm of production, what could frustrate a persons attempts to further his good? The confiscation of his wealth is one thing. For example, you go to work in order to earn an income. Would you continue to do so if you recieved no income? No. (You may like your job, and have other secondary reasons for doing it, but they are not the primary reason. Earning an income is primary.) Also, it should be noted that it need not be all of you income that is confiscated for your motivation to be squashed. There is a critical level of confiscation, above which all motivation to produce is lost. So we have found one condition that will quell peoples desire to produce: confiscation of their wealth. (there are others, but it this is the most prevelant one today)

Next let us consider whether there exist conditions that make production impossible, even if hypothetically there remained some people willing to try. First let us note that when men are compelled by force, they cannot produce. Oh they can go through motions, perform manual labor, etc., but that is not the root of production. Production is a product of the mind, and the mind is paralyzed by force. Just look at the former Soviet Union; they had millions of people forced to labor and what did it get them? Starvation, stagnation, and the slow distruction of a nation. Not only can you not compell production, but you cannot restrain those who do produce and expect them to continue. Freedom is a neccacerry condition for production. When men are not free to make the decisions that are best for their productive enterprise, they cannot produce long. Production is an active process, that cannot survive stagnation. For example, suppose you own a development company. You obtain a section of land and start to build a housing subdivision on it. Half way through excavation you are served with a court order to stop building. Apparantly there is an endangered field mouse who may live on your property, and as such you are now restricted from developing it. You however have sunk millions of dollars into this project already, anticiating a large return after completion. Now you are stuck with a worthless peice of land that cannot be developed, and you go bankrupt. As a bonus, the bank that financed your expedition cannot bare the blow of your bankruptcey, and thus goes under too. Of course that was a made up example, and it only illustrates how one restriction hurts one person, but the principle is true across the board. Whenever there is a regulation placed on a producer it can only hinder his production, but never increase it. When regulation becomes total and complete, however, all production fails. (it is like chaining a man frome nose to toes, and then expecting him to be able to work)

In addition to regulation, confiscation of wealth also hinders production. In an industrial society business concerns are made possible by financing through capital. (such as the bank lending money to the developer in the above example) Banks however get their money through the savings of other producers. (see post below) If everyone's wealth is confiscated though, then there can be no excess capital to be put to good use, and thus no advanced in production. Even when confiscation is not total, the incentive to investors is diminished, and thus capital is reduced, thereby, through a chain effect, stunting production. (would you buy a stock if 75% of its earnings were taxed away?)

It is interesting that the very two things that are most popular today in our government, taxation and regulation, are the very things that cause production to cease.

Now any of you who know me know that I am a math/science geek, and the rest of the post will reflect this. I wanted to come up with a mathmatical and visual way a representing what I have argued above. So here goes:

• let p be a variable representing the fraction of producers in our society. (thus p = 0.30 means 30% of the people in our soceity are producers)
  let m be a variable representing the fraction of moochers/looters in our society. (thus m = 0.70 means 70% of the people in our soceity are producers)
• note that p + m = 1 because the total percent of producers added to the total percent of moochers/looters must be 100%. (so if the number of producers goes down, then the number of moochers/looters must go up)
• let a be a variable representing how much the producers can produce.
• let b be a variable representing how much the moochers/looters steal from the producers.
• define P(p,m,a,b) to be a function that represents the total excess production, meaning that which the producers produce less that which the moochers/looters steal.
• Then P = ap - bm , but because p + m = 1 , ==> P = ap - b(1 - p) = p(a + b) - b .

Now the looters assumptions can be quantified as follows: their assumption that there will always be those willing to produce is the same as assuming that p does not decrease, and their assumtion that production will always be possible is the same as assuming that a will not decrease. If that where true then the excess production could simply be determined by setting b at the appropriate level. The following graphs illustrate how setting b at different levels changes production, P.














The goal of the moochers/looters is illustrated in the third graph. They want to take as much as possible from the producers, while still having P > 0. (if P is less than 0, then people are starving).

However, a and p are not constants. As I argued above, they are diminished by the presence of confiscation and controls (represented by b). Thus, as long as b does not equal 0, a and p will be decreasing functions of b. The actual functional relationship may be very complex, but a good approximation is given here.

• let a(b,t) = a - ct^(db) . I realize that the math looks weird, but all that is going on is a is decreasing in time, t, and the speed at which it is decreasing depends on the size of b. (a, c, and d are just constants that can be figured out for particular cases) What this function represents is the diminishing of productive capacity by the presence of confiscation and controls.


• let p(b,t) = p -et^(fb) . This is the same idea as the function for a, p is diminishing as time goes on with speed set by b. This represents how the number of people willing to produce decreases in the presence of confiscation.

With thess additions our graphs change:

Of course the actual numbers in the graphs are made up, but what I am going for is a visual understanding of the problem, not a rigorous proof. As you can see, the very presence of controls and confiscation diminishes productivity, and the more the controls/confiscation, the faster it does so. Eventually the moochers/looters end up taking more from the producers than is produced (when the red line crosses zero). At this point the society is in trouble.





Ok, no more math stuff. Let me recap my point (cause I kinda got lost). Producers cannot be exploited indefinitely. If the confiscations and controls they are currently enduring are not lifted then they eventually will "shrug" and drop the world. The assumption of the moochers/looters that someone will always be there to produce, ...somehow..., is wrong. With their motivation squashed and their hands tied, even the best eventually will fall. What is the solution? Freedom of course.