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 3.
Hiding me doesn't change the validity of my questions.
I am not sure why I cannot get a straight answer to fundamental questions and it seems to expose the lack of substance of Objectivism.
I have asked this multiple times in this forum and for some reason, no one will answer me directly.
If you want to use that excuse to hide me, that's your own rationalization speaking - not logic. The other option is simply to say you disagree and leave it at that.
If a person values his or her own life and well-being, and those of others, that person (using reason) will derive one system of ethics that separates “right” from “wrong”. If instead a person’s highest value is obedience to the dictates of some deity or earthly ruler or “society”, that person will derive a different system of ethics and a different conception of “right” and “wrong”.
A person’s values are shaped by a complex mixture of genetics (nature), upbringing (nurture) and most of all, the amount of thinking that person chooses to do regarding the nature of the world and his or her place in it. The values that each person adopts lead (through the use of reason) to the system of ethics that he or she adopts.
A culture that encourages its members to value life is more “fit” and able to survive and flourish than one that does not.
It's a case by case evaluation....where as liberals are openly now socialists but conservative i wouldn't even use the term it's meaningless...
If you're unable to use reason in a logically rational way, you have nothing of value to offer to an Objectivist,
.
My own evaluation was based on comments of friends from other countries and others unknown met along the way. "What happened to your country? It is such a fascist police state now?" Another: "no matter our differences we always considered America to be the hope of the world a shining light of freedom. What happened?"
I shrugged and could only agree. "I can't deny that. I've noticed it myself."
So.. with that introduction in the 1980's after a stint in the military I worked as a police officer fo for the old Panama Canal Zone. We worked for the Pan Canal Government branch not the company branch and provided local police services though we were federal and one of four at that time. One of three I think that had nation wide police powers. After the canal treaty there remained three. Washington DC, White House, and Bureau of Indian Affairs. The rest were territorial such as PR, Guam, Samoa. Soon after the Department of Defense Police was added and over the years almost every agency and department ended up with it's own federal police including all the law enforcement agencies.
A good many of them and the major portion were instituted during the first Bush Presidency. So much for smaller government and a kinder gentler thousand points of light. No matter he may have temporarily called off the IRS Dogs of War but it only went so far.
In the end the amount is now what 30 plus certainly not more than 40. End conclusion a police state in the making.
At that time the Representatives carried out a political revolution the Contract With America. Most of it was passed most of it was rescinded or quashed and not just by the increasingly socialist fascist left the still separate Democrat liberals.
Much of it was - and in answer I'm sure to the provisions of the contract which threatened them directly - carried out by the so called conservative Republicans the well entrenched and of course the rest is history.
The Republicans drifted ever leftward and now are part and parcel of the left mostly Republicans in Name only and a few still claiming to be conservative but....
Their claims and their actions do not coincide.
and have not through 27 years from Bush One to Obama The Last and that is a hopeful statement as the two parties have become one and far far from any conservative principles being discussed here.
That I submit is part of the problem.. You are discussing something that no longer exists.
However the fix is easy. Quit callijng the remnants conservatives decide if there is any group commonality and use names such as Libertarian, Constitutionalists or none of the above for the 30 plus percent of citizens no longer represented.
Example: I can reason that because of my experience with my car, if I push down on the gas pedal (and verify that the transmission is set to "Drive") that the engine will engage, fuel will undergo combustion, the explosive force of that combustion will result in the movement of pistons, which connected to my drive shaft will result in my car moving forward. By my logical calculations regarding past behavior, I anticipate this activity. But none of the logic actually pushes down the pedal. I act in faith expecting the outcome logically derived to be a future event to become the reality of the now.
Faith becomes an even more pronounced feature of action when dealing with autonomic/sentient actors. We can anticipate to some degree how they will act, but the reality is often frustrating because both parties more than likely are operating on different information and some is likely to be fallacious (I won't go into the often illogical acts).
I think one of the things that many people get confused about faith is that they relegate faith only to the realm of actions relating to outcomes which may or may not come following death. Because they envision no method with which to verify any conclusions (and reject existing ones), they are discounted as potentially valid motives. As a result they conclude that faith itself is flawed, rather than there simply being a shortfall in imagining a test of validation.
Again, to me, logic is a method of extrapolating from the past what we can expect to happen in the future. Faith is the impetus propelling us to act on that logical derivation. If the action does not result in the desired outcomes, it does not indicate a lack of faith, it indicates a flaw in either our premises or logical derivation.
Load more comments...