Ayn Rand versus conservatives
Posted by Zenphamy 9 years, 5 months ago to Philosophy
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
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
Previous comments... You are currently on page 14.
"Most people can't think, those that try mostly don't do it well, but the very few that can, they are the only ones that count."
It often strikes me that there's really only two types of human; those who want others to be controlled and those that can't imagine why anyone else would have the right/authority to control them.
I don't believe in fairy dust, magic incantations, ghosts or flying pigs, but as a former liberal agnostic I have gone through somewhat of a long evolution in which I logically and rationally reasoned there is a God.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Co...
You're absolutely right, they had legislation ready to trot out so that a "crisis would not go to waste".
A few months ago, there was a science article about the possibility of life on an exoplanet. In a casual conversation I brought up with him, his remarks to me were “You don’t really believe in the possibility of life elsewhere do you?” His point of view is a religious point of view where he believes in creation and the whole store right out of the bible. He’s a good guy and I can respect his views without having to incorporate them as my own.
Even though it’s a logical fallacy to prove a negative and we do have proof of evaluation, he still believes what he believes. You see, science is never done, it’s never settled and we should always keep an open mind. The vast majority of people on our planet believe in a higher being, which alone is a metric that needs to be included.
If "conservatism" was properly defined, wouldn't it have the same meaning?
Why is it so egregious to believe/hope for in an afterlife? Why does it matter to anyone how the teachings of Rand fit into my moral code or anyones?
Unless I'm pushing what I believe on you or anyone I do not understand why people get so bent each time I mention faith in any context. A moral code doesn't have to be yours or mine, its simply a measure. If a politician is willing to put his neck on the line professing his moral code then its there to be chopped off if he fails to live up to it.
No skin off my nose.
If anything, all of us should hope to know as much about a candidate and why he/she makes the decisions he/she does (whether we believe as they do or not). A profession of faith make knowing easier.
which periodical, but I think it was in The Ayn Rand Letter--I believe, at any rate, it is reprinted in
The Objectivist Lexicon; Ayn Rand A to Z-- in which she dealt with "conservatives" vs. "liberals". She used to always put those words
in quotation marks.
Load more comments...