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 3.
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello Abaco,
    Can't say as I can blame you. But enjoy that fishing now, while it's still legal. And not a necessity for subsistence.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I did try that. (voting my conscience) But there was no one there. But I couldn't not vote so I held my nose and did it. What a contradiction that was. I had to reexamine my premises.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Temlakos 10 years ago
    Not only that: the ideological altruists betray their own stated goal. One can do no better for one's fellow man than by offering value for value in trade, and by putting public policies in place to foster such behavior.

    Of course I don't expect Henry Rearden to offer, in his defense, that he has done his fellow man a greater good than any policymaker could ever hope to do. But I can still argue to those policymakers that they defeat their own ostensible purposes--and when it's my good that's on the line, I must address my complaint to them.

    Notice: I said "ostensible." For I suspect these ideologues of having a darker purpose than they let on.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I can think of a lot worse than those you mentioned. Thieves, looters, rapists, pedophiles, murderers, politicians...

    Reformed smokers should be applauded - not degraded. That they changed their lifestyle to accept the reality of the dangers of smoking should be encouraged. No one sees 100% clearly from day one - there is some aspect of reality everyone misses.

    And I'd be very careful about religious zealots. It's very easy to get caught up in a broad net. Much better to stick to principles than labels.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 10 years ago
    Rather than use words such as Progressives, Altruists, Collectivists, I prefer to use words with stronger negative connotations, such as, Nazism, Fascism, Communism. Using those words to illustrate the terrible truths brings into focus the end result of such ideologies..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello allosaur,
    Doesn't the word "gamut" just sound like something the great Hillary would be neck deep in? Or maybe, should be?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ rockymountainpirate 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I have to write it in on the blank spot. It automatically kicks the ballot for hand counting I'm sure, but since I don't think, with the possible exception of the city level, that my vote counts anyway, I don't worry about it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Inspiration, unfortunately not expecting much of that any time soon. Guess I'm looking for someone who I can believe will believe in what he says so maybe he will try to stick to it. Even if I disagree with him on some issues. But some issues are too important to let slide. For instance, I am in full support of gun control and I fully believe that with a little more practice I will be able to hit the target every time.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ KSilver3 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I love that line, and absolutely agree. If I am being charitable with my own time or value, and I feel I am getting value in return (good feelings, pleasure, etc), than charity doesn't have to be a bad thing. However, when compelled, it's no longer charity. I guess we could separate charity from altruism in that way.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by kevinw 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello rockymountainpirate,
    How does that "No Confidence" work? I wish we had that on our ballot here in New Mexico. I have heard that there was a none of the above on the ballots in Nevada, not sure if it's true. I think that should be on every ballot. Then, maybe, a large enough group of registered republicans voting "none of the above" and causing a rhino to lose might have some influence over the direction of the party.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by radical 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    If you don't vote, you can't complain. Abstain from voting for candidates you don't like, and this may be all of them. Then write in your choice. As for propositions, most of them just expand the government, so vote no. You are sending a message albeit a very small one.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello autumnleaves,
    It does seem as if they go through linguistic gymnastics to obscure their intent on the proposals. A clear example of their dishonesty.
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by autumleaves 10 years ago
    No more voting for the lesser of Two evils for me! And I vote no on most propositions. One must read them carefully as sometimes NO means Yes the way they are worded. Our AG is quite good at obscuring the meaning on the ballot.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Hello RonC,
    Hear, hear, I am the exception to the reformed smoker. I quit 18 years or so ago and don't mind others that smoke around me... However, I have noticed many that can't handle it and act like nannies. :)
    Respectfully,
    O.A.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 10 years ago
    When I read "Progressives cover the gamut," I immediately thought of Hillary proudly proclaiming to be just that when she ran for president in competition with The One.
    Back then I only had Glenn Beck on his TV afternoon show to explain to me what a Progressive really was.
    If I'm not mistaken, Progressives "who cover the gamut" got Beck off TV with a threat campaign against his advertisers. At least that's how that smelled.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by Technocracy 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    Handicapping it as a race...

    Collectivists ahead by a nose
    Progressives tucked in tight to place
    Statists the dark horse charging outside to show
    Altruists far in the rear trying to keep up
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by RonC 10 years ago
    There is nothing more obnoxious than a Statist with altruistic ambitions for the benefit of the collective. They rank right up there with reformed smokers and religious zealots.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 10 years ago in reply to this comment.
    I haven't voted in quite a while. I grew tired of the Bush/Clinton era (which still is going on) and the propositions here in Cal. It all seems so rigged to me... I'd rather go fishing...
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo