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 7.
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Because the individual creates his own morals in the vacuum of self, rationalizing his needs as paramount. A hermit's moral code could make it perfectly rational to accost someone for companionship, hold and rape a that person and force her/him to live in an isolated cabin until the hermit died. In the hermits morality it would be justified because the hermit was lonely or required a second set of hands to split the workload, or his/her physical need overwhelmed his/her desire to be alone. Anyone could justify anything and, because he sees it as his some need that he must have and should not be denied, reason it to be perfectly acceptable (moral).

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Depends on what you view as God. Whatever force or power allowed me to exist and think - other than the public schools - is fine with me. For one I have never been afraid of the dark.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    And go one step further. If all things cease to exist except space and then space ceases to exist what is left?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Faith requires no evidence. Reason requires evidence. There is one version that says if what we are doing doesn't work we will bounce off that wall and muddle blunder on to something else. That's called dialectic faith. It didn't work either.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    A point for you just for good posting if nothing else . As for divine right it does change. Ask the King of France who had his taken by a certain Madame G
    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?.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by conscious1978 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Do you have a direct answer to my question?

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment deleted.
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by james464 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    "Divinely provided"

    How is a divinely provided morality subjective? Because we do not know if the divinity will change?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by james464 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    People make themselves slaves. I simply want to understand why you elevate reason as the ultimate means of man's perception and deny that you are using faith in reason to achieve this.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -2
    Posted by james464 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I know that something cannot come from nothing. If you can refute that, I will listen.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by james464 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Sometimes our education blinds us to reality and I simply believe, as you believe in reason being man's ultimate means of perception, that your faith in reason has limits which cannot address much of the metaphysical.

    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.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by james464 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok, tell me if you agree with this....do you use faith to learn anything?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • -1
    Posted by james464 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Ok but you still didn't answer the question....is consciousness (sorry, should have used this vs conscience) related to reason? Do you not need consciousness to be able to reason? If you do, where does consciousness come from?
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo