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 11.
The result is raising the amount of people who refuse to accept the candidates offered by a single party system of two faces both of whom are similar in political beliefs.
It's also the only morally acceptable way to go.
I don't vote for evil period. Someone else can take the blame next time. Since no candidates are running that are not either Left wing statist corporatist fascist or left wing corporatists statists which is the definition of Democrats and Republicans or Dinos and Rinos the only choice is to not play their game especially when they keep strengthening their defenses against ever having free and honest elections.
I'm far from opting out. Down to and including reminding the military of their oath of office. And I don't have to violate my moral values to take those options.
In this case the game is rigged so never mind getting in the arena even buying a ticket to the fight gives aid and comfort to the wrong side. the only way to win is by NOT participating and thankfully we still have that provision in whats left of the Constitution.
To wit, the assumption gets made that reason and rational thinking requires the elimination of passion and emotion. This is not true.
Use your reason to make decisions using all available information. Use your passion to drive you on the course of you decisions.
Objectivists are not emotionless, neither was Spock.
I don't vote the openly leftists at all and it's a way of punishing the Republicans for going left and turning traitor to the nation and he Constitution
Meanwhile I will probably vote no on every tax increase and every measure that is antithetical to freedom and independence. Another blank space is judges that run unopposed and non-partisan candidates on the local level. No such thing as non partisan.
The other three options are don't vote at all, don't register and especially not for Republicans or Democrats and three wait for the military to uphold their oath of office.
But voting for any form of left wing socialist fascism isn't going to happen. I'm a Constitutionalist not a traitor.
https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/faq#...
Why does it have to be Objectivism or Conservatism?
Why not take the best from both and meld them together?
(Granted I have a lot more studying to do about both)
Why does it matter to you what someone else believes or doesn't believe about a religion?
Just wondering...
No one said that a political candidate cannot be supported who doesn't agree '100% with Ayn Rand'. Ayn Rand didn't say that either. You made it up to try to intimidate your targets as 'extremist'. It is you and your misrepresentations that insist on packaging a religious agenda in a political campaign and then gratuitously insist that others go along with it in the name of a common "alliance". You aren't going to accomplish anything politically without allies. If you want political alliances then drop the religious nonsense and the obnoxious proselytizing. There is no alliance between religion and Ayn Rand's philosophy and no political alliance possible that includes pushing a religious agenda. It does not belong here and it does not belong in politics.
"Conservatives who don't obnoxiously push their religion are often open to reason in many realms."
As I stated before, you're not going to catch flies with vinegar. If the only way you can look at someone who isn't 100% Objectivist is with contempt, you're going to be a lousy missionary of Objectivism. Your attitude has to be one of patience in explanation - not condescension. You can't force someone to change their mind.
You don't have to agree 100% with someone philosophically to work with them politically. But you aren't going to accomplish anything politically without allies.
Load more comments...