In re-reading Atlas Shrugged I am definitely seeing more than I did the first time. Or rather, I am better able to see parallels between Atlas and today’s world. Today I read the following in the chapter with the discussion of Directive 10-289 which would give the government complete control over the economy. Two of the points in the directive were giving of all copyrights and patents to the government and that no new patents or copyrights can be issued (i.e. no new products can be created).  One of the participants of the discussion questions whether these directives apply to books as well.

“But this is a matter of the spirit,” said Lawson; his voice had a tone, not of rational respect, but of superstitious awe.

“We’re not interfering with anyone’s spirit. But when you print a book on paper, it becomes a material commodity – and if we grant an exception to one commodity, we won’t be able to hold the others in line and we won’t be able to make anything stick.” [ed: This is from Wesley Mouch, the head of the government board that will implement the directive.]

“Yes, that’s true. But -”

“Don’t be a chump, Gene,” said Dr. Ferris. “You don’t want some recalcitrant hacks to come out with treatises that will wreck our entire program, do you? If you breathe the word ‘censorship’ now, they’ll scream bloody murder. They’re not ready for it – as yet. But if you leave the spirit alone and make it a simple material issue – not a matter of ideas, but just a matter of paper, ink and printing presses – you accomplish your purpose much more smoothly. You’ll make sure that nothing dangerous gets printed or heard – and nobody is going to fight over a material issue.”

When I read this, I immediately thought of the current push towards restricting political speech, especially the amendment to the Constitution proposed by the Senate Judiciary Committee to give Congress and the states the power to control political spending. The proponents of such measures would have us believe that speech can be separated from the means of disseminating it, that ideas can be separated from the means of communicating them. In essence, they want to reduce the freedom of speech to the freedom to speak on the street corner to those within the reach of your own voice. Anything else, even just having a loud speaker or hiring another person to speak from another street corner, would require money, either directly or as an in-kind donation, and that is what they seek to control.

The arguments given today in support of limiting political speech follow almost exactly the logic given in the quotation above, and I can imagine the meeting in a smokey backroom somewhere.

“But we are talking about limiting speech, of censorship.”

“Don’t be a fool. Do you want some tea bagger to point out how the money and pork we bring to our districts is paid for by the taxes they pay or the money we borrow, which they then pay for via higher taxes and higher inflation? And we aren’t restricting anyone’s speech anyway, they can stand in the street and talk all they want, but when you make a television advertisement, publish a book, or make a movie, then we are just talking about money. Its not a matter of censorship, we are just talking dollars and cents. No one is going to fight for that.”

Photo from http://todayinheritagehistory.wordpress.com/

In seeking to give everyone “equal” voice, the government must of necessity limit everyone to the whispers of those least able to speak. This would make America in to some sort of vast, totalitarian library with the government acting as the librarians, and remember, librarians are not just there to shush you, they also determine what books are available on the shelves.

Something to think about the next time you hear someone say, “Money is not speech.”