326 Chapter 13
solutionto eachhomeworkexercise.Supposeyou havetwo teachers.Oneis a libertarian
andthe otheris me, an Objectivist.Theproblemwe assignis, “Whatis the bestsocial
systemfor governingsociety?” The libertarianteachersayshe doesnot carewhatepiste-
mologicalmethodanyoneemploysin findingsolutions.Thislibertarianwill be satisfiedif
otherpeoplerepeat,backto him,whathe believesto be the correctsolution:“We should
rejectoverbearinggovernmentpower.I opposethe initiationof the use of forceagainst
personor property,especiallywhenthatuse of forceis initiatedby the State.” Whenthe
libertarianexhibitshis indifferenceto howpeoplearriveat that conclusion,that is akinto
a mathteacherbeingokaywithstudentsnot showingtheirworkon theirhomeassign-
ments.Thatlibertarianteacherremainscontentif studentspeekat the backsectionof the
textbookfor the answers,not botheringto apprehendthe principlesnecessaryfor solving
the mathproblems.Yet it wouldbe betterif the studentscouldlearnthe principles
involved.In thatcase,whentheyare confrontedwithmathproblemsof a similartypein
theireverydayexperiences,theycan deductivelyapplythe principlestheyweresup-
posedto havelearnedin mathclass.In contrastto the libertarianexample,as an Objecti-
vistI am the mathteacherwhoexpectsstudentsto showtheirwork.Whensomeone
providesthe “correctanswer,” absentof employingthe rationalmethodfor findingand
validatingit, that“answer” is meaningless.PersonL“saying” the wordswhichexpress
truth,whilenot knowinghowto validatethattruth,exemplifiesno moreunderstanding
on PersonL’s partthandoesa parrot’s squawking.Oneunderstandslibertyandrights
insofaras one understandstheirsecular,empirical,inductivevalidation.
Thisprincipleprovidesfurtherevidenceof thatpointstressedin BookOne—that
reasonandlibertyare coterminous,eachrelyinguponthe other.It is throughinductive
reasoningthatwe justifythe necessityof liberty.Likewise,we requirethe absolutefree-
domof peacefulactionin orderto reasonfully—to thinkour ownuniquethoughts,to
expressthem,and to maturatethemfullyby translatingthosesamethoughtsintopeace-
ableactions.Thisshouldbe the ultimaterebuketo that assumptionwe examinedin partII
and in BooksOneand Two—that secularEnlightenmentreason,takento its finalextreme,
leadsto illiberalityandtotalitarianism. TheReligious RightandPostmodernist Left
wouldhaveus believethatto exercisecold,atheisticreasonconsistentlyis to supporta
governmentthat outlawseveryreligion.In fact,the reverseis true—the one sort of system
thatallowsfor consistentlyrationalatheismis one thatallowsfor peopleto thinkany
thought,wiseor unwise,peaceably.Thatinvariablyincludesthe freedomof religion—to
holdany religiousbelief,or no religiousbelief,peaceably.A nationthatoutlawsevery
religionis a nationthat deniesyou the libertyto cometo atheismhonestly.
Thisis howI figurethat.To say that,uponreflectionandmeditation,youhavede-
cideduponatheismrequiresthatyoupossessedandpossessthe freedomto mullover
this topicandexamineeverypertinentoption.For youto haveenactedthe freedomto
rejectHinduism,for instance,you wouldhaveneededthe legaloptiontoembraceHindu-
ism.It wouldhavemeantthatyou couldholdany beliefsin yourhead—includingrelig-
iousbeliefs—absentof the threatof violentreprisal.Wereyoudeprivedof the optionto
denounceatheism,youwouldbe forciblydeprivedof the capacityto decideuponand
proclaimyouratheismby yourownfree will.Therefore,a communistnationthat coerces
you to professatheismdiminishesatheismby attemptingto proscribeyou fromarriving
at an atheisticconclusionthroughhonestmeans.It is irrationalto proclaimthatpeople
becoming“extremistsfor rationality” willresultin theirenactingilliberallegislationto
forceeveryoneto be atheisticandrational,for thatlegislationwouldbe the pinnacleof
unreason.It wouldbe unreasonon twogrounds—it wouldbe self-contradictoryon the
groundsmentioned,andit wouldthreatenviolenceagainstpeacefulpeople,thereby
denyingthemthe abilityto act on theirownthinking.A religiouspersonmustbe ableto