21

Statists, collectivists, altruists, progressives

Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 10 years ago to Philosophy
95 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Statists, collectivists, altruists, progressives

These are some of the groups that are the most objectionable to objectivists. Their ideology is most closely aligned with socialism.
They often masquerade as Liberals, but they are not traditional Liberals of the period prior to the early twentieth century. They are the antithesis of traditional liberalism… of objectivism. Individualism is not a value they wish to foster. Self reliance, autonomy, sovereignty are the characteristics they wish to destroy or minimize. These were the foundational traits of those that built our nation and which it was founded on. Rand saw that the prosperity and Liberty of the people of America were inextricably linked to these characteristics and the corollary small, un-intrusive government. It was this state of governance and freedom that allowed people to pursue their aspirations, that fostered the industrial revolution, invention, entrepreneurship and creativity of the greatest age of increasing prosperity the world had ever seen. This period was the late nineteenth and early twentieth century.

Statists are those that believe that the government should be empowered over the people and that any problem that arises can be solved by government intervention. This is a fallacy of historic proportion. Anyone that objectively observes the unintended consequences of government meddling and that the bureaucracy always grows should recognize the lack of accountability and the increased burdens placed on the productive that inevitably results. Statists support other statists in power that believe they know better than individuals how to run their own lives and more authority should be granted to the government so they may force others to live as their utopian vision dictates. One’s individual will to live for their own sake on their own terms in pursuit of happiness is irrelevant. “A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.” Ayn Rand

Collectivists are those that believe in majority rule. Democracy is their cry. It is no better than mob rule. They care not for Republican principles or the wisdom the founders of our nation saw in them or the disdain they felt for true democracy. History has demonstrated repeatedly the folly and short lives of true democracies. Most Democrats and the Democratic Party are of this persuasion. Of course there are varying degrees of adherence but they are not called Democrats for nothing. There is also one more seemingly common believe among them that is also corollary. They believe in the common good over the rights of the individual. This is nonsense since the common good is not a superior moral principle over the rights of the individual, but it is often true that a side effect of upholding individual rights results in greater common good. Again they employ the voice of the majority… the mob to pressure government force on those who wish to be free from coercion. “Collectivism means the subjugation of the individual to a group—whether to a race, class or state does not matter. Collectivism holds that man must be chained to collective action and collective thought for the sake of what is called “the common good.” Ayn Rand

Altruists are the worst purveyors of sacrifice and servitude. They believe you have no greater responsibility than that to your fellow man. Your life, your good, your happiness and prosperity should be sacrificed to others. You have no right, no legitimate claim to live for your own sake. To every suffering person on the planet your duty is to support them even to your own detriment. That is your burden. Your life is not your own and you have no right to live it as you see fit while others need. Whether they are responsible for their condition, capable or not, it makes no difference. Their need is their claim upon your life, whether you know them or not, even if in some cases they may be better off than you. This is why they too convince the government to force/institute redistributive programs that take from the productive and give to every clamoring voice. The result is a system that grows and encourages takers and penalizes makers while increasing bureaucracy and building a constituency that will help maintain power for those in power. Some in power are altruists. Some only see the profit in playing the part. “Even though altruism declares that “it is more blessed to give than to receive,” it does not work that way in practice. The givers are never blessed; the more they give, the more is demanded of them; complaints, reproaches and insults are the only response they get for practicing altruism’s virtues (or for their actual virtues). Altruism cannot permit a recognition of virtue; it cannot permit self-esteem or moral innocence. Guilt is altruism’s stock in trade, and the inducing of guilt is its only means of self-perpetuation. If the giver is not kept under a torrent of degrading, demeaning accusations, he might take a look around and put an end to the self-sacrificing. Altruists are concerned only with those who suffer—not with those who provide relief from suffering, not even enough to care whether they are able to survive. When no actual suffering can be found, the altruists are compelled to invent or manufacture it.” Ayn Rand

Progressives cover the gamut. They are all of the above in varying degrees. They talk of needing modern approaches to problems largely created by their previous meddling and never recognize, or acknowledge that originally established principles and limited government was superior and equality of opportunity is far superior to attempts to produce equality of outcome. The two primary political parties are both invested in these ideologies, but the modern progressives and the most devoted, effective and destructive of the parties in this regard are the self- proclaimed progressives, which largely belong to the Democratic Party. There are worse political parties, (e.g. Socialist) but they hold little power. “The “liberals” are constantly asserting that they represent the future, that they are “new,” “progressive,” “forward-looking,” etc.—and they denounce the “conservatives” as old-fashioned representatives of a dead past. The “conservatives” concede it, and thus help the “liberals” to propagate one of today’s most grotesque inversions: collectivism, the ancient, frozen, status society, is offered to us in the name of progress—while capitalism, the only free, dynamic, creative society ever devised, is defended in the name of stagnation.” Ayn Rand

Anyone in power or supporting those in power that adhere to these ideologies is in contradiction and incongruent with objectivism.
Ayn Rand — 'I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.'

True capitalism or as close to laissez faire as possible promotes freedom of the individual and provides the greatest opportunity and prosperity for all. No crony capitalism, mixed market variant or centrally controlled market is superior.

O.A.


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 2.
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Dr. Carson impressed me at first but he is just too soft-spoken.
    When he recently made a statement about so-called assault weapons like the AR-15 not belonging in city areas, I decided that we do not need a Second Amendment tinkerer.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello jdg,
    I apologize if there was some semantic confusion. I will try to be more clear;
    Altruism = Sacrifice, Robin-Hoodism = I actually don't know. It could really mean anything you want it to at the time.

    Wouldn't the real issue for Objectivists to argue against be the destruction of language? The bastardization of words that allows "charity" to be replaced by "altruistic". The scrambling of definitions to create a vagueness (apparently that is a word) that allows "selfish" to describe a Bernie Madoff instead of a Hank Rearden. Where people who want to halt technology, cut back energy use and return to "a more natural life" are called "progressives" and "liberals". Where we don't know what the definition of the word "is" is and a constitutional scholar can use the words of a 200 year old document to become a king.

    Failing to show people that charity is not the goal of religious institutions is what will win them converts.

    Again, I apologize if I have misunderstood your intent
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Thanks, but I don't know that I could have matched yours. I don't mean to sound competitive, just admiring.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I haven't heard anything like that. But Cain was never a candidate I took seriously.

    There are some very good conservative black politicians (and pundits, such as Walter Williams and Larry Elder), but I doubt any of them will ever run. Dr. Ben Carson does not impress me. Mia Love does, but she's not even old enough to run for president.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Interesting.
    I've my own personal conspiracy theory that George Soros money may have been behind three white female accusations that Herman Cain made sexual advances.
    Cain had to be perceived as the greatest threat against candidate Obama.
    jdg, have you given any thought or heard or read anything along those lines?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I believe Alex Jones' theory: George Soros used some kind of blackmail against Rupert Murdoch to force Beck out, and to make Fox end Judge Napolitano's show as well. Soros hates libertarians (and Beck and Jones are the only talk show hosts who dare to mention Soros' name).

    The Soros-funded "Orange Revolution" in Ukraine probably provoked the war there as well. One wonders how much of his agenda is hideen even from his strongest allies on the left.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jdg 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    That's the kind of semantic confusion that Objectivists ought to be arguing against, not surrendering to. Robin-Hoodism and altruism are two different things.

    Besides, leaving the field of charity to nobody but the religious people will win them converts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    You're very welcome. I missed it more than I imagined I would. Good to be back in the thickets. Just don't want any brambles.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Zenphamy 10 years ago
    Excellent writing and very good points throughout. Thank you for the scholarship. + 1 and more if I could.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    That's awesome, thank you. And the republicans complaint was that the results would not help either candidate. Well no shit, gentlemen! That's the f&%^$ng purpose.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello Flootus5,
    So it is real. I don't know about subtracting votes but imagine the message sent if during, say, Mccain's run for president, instead of millions of republicans staying home and millions more (like me) holding their noses, and all of them voting for "none of the above". Coming from registered repub's that would send an undeniable message to the republican party.
    Edit; missed a line. That's a damn small box.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    As a reformed smoker myself, here is my position on it.

    Stopping smoking is good.
    Zealously haranguing other smokers to conform to your position is bad.

    I refrain from telling you how to live your life, pay me the same courtesy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    If she were Republican, the media would figuratively have her in a garrote for scandals, but the great Lady Hillary of the Haughty House of Clinton gets to have her Progressive pass as one of our more than equal elite betters.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonC 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I quit cold turkey a number of years ago after the state of the state message. Gov. Voinovich told us the state was in bad shape, but for 10 cents a pack more tax he thought he could save Ohio. He didn't get another dime of cigarette tax from me. But, I refused to change other habits, I still ate lunch and took breaks with all of my smoking friends. My wife says I'm stubborn, I don't think it is stubborn when you're right!
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Flootus5 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Here in Nevada we have the "controversial" option to vote for None of the Above. Not sure if that equates to one subtracting vote for each candidate, though.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by BeenThere 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    "Notice: I said "ostensible." For I suspect these ideologues of having a darker purpose than they let on."

    They sure as hell do....................a very deep seated hate of existence qua existence and, thus of life............most especially their own!!!

    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    This is also why I have chosen to trade certain issues for a little time. But if they don't meet certain criteria, I will definitely will be writing in "no confidence". Thank you for that. It definitely says something more than a blank spot does.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello WilliamShipley,
    The problem I have with people acting in a manner they believe to be altruistic is that the ideals they have that lead them to that goal are the same ideals that lead to the desire to force you to be altruistic as well. That is why the idea of altruism as a good thing must be challenged and shown for what it really is.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo