23

Ayn Rand versus conservatives

Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
425 comments | Share | Best of... | Flag

Since so much of Galt's Gulch Online content has become conservative headline aggregation posting and commentary over the last several months, let's discuss what Ayn Rand thought of conservatives and conservativism. She put forth quite a bit of commentary on the subject, particularly after Atlas Shrugged came out.

To put it bluntly, she considered conservatives as big a danger to this country as she did liberals/progressives, considering both leading the country down a path towards statism, socialism, anti-capitalism, and most importantly-anti-freedom. Following is just one quote, there are a number:

“Conservatives”

Objectivists are not “conservatives.” We are radicals for capitalism; we are fighting for that philosophical base which capitalism did not have and without which it was doomed to perish . . .

Politics is based on three other philosophical disciplines: metaphysics, epistemology and ethics—on a theory of man’s nature and of man’s relationship to existence. It is only on such a base that one can formulate a consistent political theory and achieve it in practice. When, however, men attempt to rush into politics without such a base, the result is that embarrassing conglomeration of impotence, futility, inconsistency and superficiality which is loosely designated today as “conservatism.” . . .

Today’s culture is dominated by the philosophy of mysticism (irrationalism)—altruism—collectivism, the base from which only statism can be derived; the statists (of any brand: communist, fascist or welfare) are merely cashing in on it—while the “conservatives” are scurrying to ride on the enemy’s premises and, somehow, to achieve political freedom by stealth. It can’t be done.

The Objectivist Newsletter

“Choose Your Issues,”
The Objectivist Newsletter, Jan, 1962, 1

So What Do You Think Conservatives


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 13.
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The contradiction of individualism and altruism. Is this the question to today's androids (a computer brain without a mind to control it) that causes self destruction?
    My understanding of conservatism is a conservation of principals intended in our constitution.
    Your right, one cannot be altruistically individual.
    One can only make a choice and except the consequences, that's about as "altruistic" as it gets, however, it's still a choice. One with sound mind would never deny self but might chose to take a chance in favor of another.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    It turned out that Wilke was no better and she was sorry for her support of him. Often she did not vote, but there have been 'clear-cut' choices, even though neither was good, like keeping McGovern out under her phrase "anti-Nixonites for Nixon".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by jtrikakis 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sorry you wrong and so are those whom think like you. I make no apologies for my faith.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by edweaver 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I agree. The only way it is relative at all is a small government is fiscally responsible or it doesn't remain small and limited.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ab -- it's not because both parties in power are statist (as they become worse), but that both are based on the same wrong philosophy. Spread the right ideas and the parties will follow. The hard part is spreading the right ideas, but there are no shortcuts. In politics all we can do is oppose the worst in all realms for as long as it lasts at all. Whether the right ideas can be spread in time is an open question, as is how much can be tolerated in the meantime, but the right ideas required are much more than political philosophy and policy.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The President is equal to both of those branches in relation to the responsibility to protect individual rights, property, and the nation. He also has the 'bully pulpit' from which influence of public opinion as well as the ability to eliminate a great deal of the bureaucracy and control how it interacts with citizens.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -4
    Posted by jimjamesjames 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I invented "necessary fictions," so they exist. I use them which validates their value to me. So there!!!

    An example of a necessary fiction of great value, the irrational belief in a God. To paraphrase Napoleon, "Religion keeps the poor from murdering the rich" which is way beneficial for we rich. It is a NECESSARY fiction because it improves my quality of life.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Conservatism: An Obituary" in Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal based on a lecture at Princeton University, based on a lecture given at Princeton University Dec. 7, 1960. and reprinted as a pamphlet in 1962.

    The Lexicon quote is from “Censorship: Local and Express” in Philosophy: Who Needs It and first published in The Ayn Rand Letter in three parts in 1973.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Objectivism is the same philosophy today that it was when Ayn Rand formulated it. It still doesn't try to rationalize flying pigs in the name of reason.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Compromising principles such as pro-freedom and individual rights will not gain Objectives anything.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    She rejected faith, which is the opposite of reason, as a means of knowledge and she rejected emotions as a tool of cognition. She did not reject "everything outside the bounds of reason". She distinguished between means of knowing and other faculties, and therefore rejected all forms of the supernatural.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    ed; I don't see that 'fiscal responsibility' has anything to do with individual freedom and rights. It's just arguing about who can rob you better.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ayn Rand distinguished herself from the libertarians because of their attempt to start with politics divorced from a philosophical foundation and because of the prevalence of anarchism among libertarians of the time. She recognized that terms like "liberal" and "conservative" were very imprecise and did not want her philosophy associated with either a vague jumble or its opposite. She characterized the libertarians as part plagiarizing her ideas and part contradicting them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I'm just not sure that conservatives really want a smaller government in the same terms of Objectivism. It strikes me that conservative arguments for 'smaller gov't' are more about efficiency rather than limiting gov't involvement and intrusions into the daily, normal activities of humans. A good example is the idea of block grants to the states for welfare, education, etc. put forth by Cruz. In order to get the money to be able to 'block grant', they still have to tax which still is an imposition of force and they also get to determine which state get's how much money under what rules, reg's, etc

    That's not pro-liberty, Objective, or even constitutional..
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ewv 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Reason is a faculty of the human mind. It is not rationalizing and is not synonymous with 'logic' or 'deduction', even when those are performed properly. Reason is "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses" (Ayn Rand's definition). The means by which we do this is concepts.

    To the extent that man, as he evolved from the earliest times, used his conceptual faculty to understand the world, he used reason, and in that sense it has always "been around before Aristotle", whether or not used properly.

    Plato was the first philosopher to systematize philosophy, and he formulated most of the basic questions. But Aristotle was the first to systematically identify and uphold the validity of reason as the means of knowing within the role of consciousness as grasping existence, and the purpose of personal happiness in this world as the ideal -- in contrast to Plato's mysticism and sacrifice, and his misuse of conceptual thought to rationalize both.

    The intellectual battle ever since has been a duel between Plato and Aristotle.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ycandrea 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That sounds real nice, but the President does not have that kind of power. A lot depends on Congress and the Supreme Court too.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    james; I think you're mixing things up here. You seem to be comparing 'seeking the function of reason' which I look at as man's only ability to survive, to the 'fading away' of understanding 'determining right or wrong or a feeling of guilt.'
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo