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 7.
As soon as you interact with others a standard must be in place to normalize interaction between people, to respect each persons rights as human beings. Even here among objectivist's there is a desire to explore every aspect of the code and apply it because a standard is needed.Imagine an Atlantis with a hodgepodge of morality and no common personal thread (philosophy) providing mutual respect; it won't work.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pSISi...
uillotine. The term changed somewhat to 'source of power' and for a while on the west shore of the Atlantic it was the idea of citizens over government.
Changed once again and now it's one party system of government who get's to define their own center and all the trimmings... way off to the left
Isn't that just divine?.
How do you know there was "nothing" before there was "something"? That was your assertion; and I assumed you knew what your were saying, so an explanation should be simple.
How is a divinely provided morality subjective? Because we do not know if the divinity will change?
I simply bring to the table not a formal education in psychology or philosophy but an understanding of reality from a source external to myself.
I seek to have a dialogue within this forum, which is advocated from my understanding, to understand why your faith in reason as man's ultimate means to perception is valid.
Yes, confabulate is my objective, if that is what you really mean.
Load more comments...