The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Ron Paul, Rand Paul and all the so-called "Libertarians" are NEITHER authentic conservatives NOR friends of liberty. They are as much a danger to America as any of the extremists (on the left and the right) in our country.
Objectively, Ayn Rand Was a Nut By Peter Wehner November 13, 2009 7:00 AM
According to Politico.com, Ayn Rand — the subject of two new biographies, one of which is titled Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right — is “having a mainstream moment,” including among conservatives. (Gov. Mark Sanford of South Carolina wrote a piece in Newsweek on Rand, saying, “This is a very good time for a Rand resurgence. She’s more relevant than ever.”).
I hope the moment passes. Ms. Rand may have been a popular novelist, but her philosophy is deeply problematic and morally indefensible.
Ayn Rand was, of course, the founder of Objectivism – whose ethic, she said in a 1964 interview, holds that “man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself.” She has argued that “friendship, family life and human relationships are not primary in a man’s life. A man who places others first, above his own creative work, is an emotional parasite; whereas, if he places his work first, there is no conflict between his work and his enjoyment of human relationships.” And about Jesus she said:
I do regard the cross as the symbol of the sacrifice of the ideal to the nonideal. Isn’t that what it does mean? Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used. That is torture.
Many conservatives aren’t aware that it was Whittaker Chambers who, in 1957, reviewed Atlas Shrugged in National Review and read her out of the conservative movement. The most striking feature of the book, Chambers said, was its “dictatorial tone . . . Its shrillness is without reprieve. Its dogmatism is without appeal . . . From almost any page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard, from painful necessity, commanding: ‘To a gas chamber – go!’”
William F. Buckley Jr. himself wrote about her “desiccated philosophy’s conclusive incompatibility with the conservative’s emphasis on transcendence, intellectual and moral; but also there is the incongruity of tone, that hard, schematic, implacable, unyielding dogmatism that is in itself intrinsically objectionable.”
Yet there are some strands within conservatism that still veer toward Rand and her views of government (“The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force,” she argued. “This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else.”), and many conservatives identify with her novelistic hero John Galt, who declared, “I swear — by my life and my love of it — that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”
But this attitude has very little to do with authentic conservatism, at least the kind embodied by Edmund Burke, Adam Smith (chair of moral philosophy at the University of Glasgow), and James Madison, to name just a few. What Rand was peddling is a brittle, arid, mean, and ultimately hollow philosophy. No society could thrive if its tenets were taken seriously and widely accepted. Ayn Rand may have been an interesting figure and a good (if extremely long-winded) novelist; but her views were pernicious, the antithesis of a humane and proper worldview. And conservatives should say so.
George Amedore & Christian Klueg for NYS Senate 2016 Pete Vroman for State Assembly 2016[/size][/color]
"For this is what America is all about. It is the uncrossed desert and the unclimbed ridge. It is the star that is not reached and the harvest that is sleeping in the unplowed ground." Lyndon Baines Johnson
Ron Paul, Rand Paul and all the so-called "Libertarians" are NEITHER authentic conservatives NOR friends of liberty. They are as much a danger to America as any of the extremists (on the left and the right) in our country.
Objectively, Ayn Rand Was a Nut
Making the claim that "all the so-called libertarians" are not Conservative or friends of liberty is just nonsense.
I agree that Ayn Rand was a nut.
Claiming "all Libertarians" are extremists and dangerous is simply more opinionated hate speech.
Find a bad person from a group and condemn everyone in the group?
All Libertarians contain a mixture of personal beliefs that water down the Libertarian beliefs that they would support.
There simply is no way to be pure Libertarian.
It is illegal.
You must accept laws and actions that are forced upon you.
I accept socialist actions for education and health care.
I would like to see more respect for individual rights and responsibilities and less government intrusion and control of the lives of so-called free men.
You want to use the force of the law to further your personal beliefs on abortion and force them upon others.
I actually agree with you about abortion.
I disagree that you should use the government to force your beliefs on everyone.
You act like Ayn Rand, who also espouses using the force of law against all others.
You go so far as to support taking the lives of living persons to keep you safe, knowing full well the people being killed will never and likely could never perform any action that would affect you in any way.
While feigning that all life is precious.
Your pro-life sheep's clothing doesn't support your pro-death policies.
Even though you know the facts; that more innocent die than soldiers in every military action.
That every military action is justified simply by words and not actual threats.
One simple thing defines a Libertarian.
Just one basic idea.
The idea is that the use of force is not to be used on others, except in self defense.
How is that rule harmful to America?
Twisting the definition of self defense to murder people and destroy countries based on legal arguments, when no actual threat exists, is what is harmful to America.
You want to give protective rights to the unborn, but not non-Americans.
I can accept that people choose to not reproduce by having abortions.
Their beliefs regarding abortion will simply cease to exist when they die.
It's self correcting.
Respect for others beliefs is fundamental to Libertarianism.
By asking the government to use the force of the law to arrest, incarcerate or kill those who resist, you violate the rights of others ton their own beliefs and use the force of the law, to force your beliefs upon them.
Who are you to regulate a person's rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Personal freedom to choose and accept responsibility for your own actions is a Libertarian and also a Conservative idea.
Forcing your beliefs on others is not.
You come on here claiming Libertarians are dangerous to America.
When it is your desire to force your beliefs on others and support the government doing so all around the world in defense of you, that is the danger.
The danger is that the rest of the world could give a damn about your beliefs and hates America for trying to force your beliefs on people all around the world.
It is the information age.
If they wanted Conservative Christian values and democracy to run their lives, that should be their choice, not forced on them at gunpoint.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Box, when you went to defend the south Vietnamese from the north Vietnamese, were you defending them from the tyranny of libertarianism from the north? The history books say communism, but that may be false. How about when the U.S. bombed Libya, was that to protect its citizens from Gadaffi's tyrannical libertarianism? How about WWII, was the US fighting against the tyranny of libertarianism in Nazi Germany fascist Italy, and Japan?
I'm glad Noam was able to redefine Liberty as tyranny, when the VAST MAJORITY of death and violence around the world is perpetuated by state tyranny.
Box, when you went to defend the south Vietnamese from the north Vietnamese, were you defending them from the tyranny of libertarianism from the north? The history books say communism, but that may be false. How about when the U.S. bombed Libya, was that to protect its citizens from Gadaffi's tyrannical libertarianism? How about WWII, was the US fighting against the tyranny of libertarianism in Nazi Germany fascist Italy, and Japan?
I'm glad Noam was able to redefine Liberty as tyranny, when the VAST MAJORITY of death and violence around the world is perpetuated by state tyranny.
Cissy discusses 'war deaths' and that is a good subject for discussion. How about Slavery??? Should we end slavery when there are war deaths? Should we help reduce disease in the USA when there are war deaths? Should we immunize children when there are War Deaths??? Should we help cure cancer, when there are WAR DEATHS???
I wonder if Cicero has ever considered doing any of these, or does his WAR DEATHS totally paralyze Cicero from any action other than this???
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Cissy discusses 'war deaths' and that is a good subject for discussion. How about Slavery??? Should we end slavery when there are war deaths? Should who end slavery? Slavery was an institution protected by the government. It was institutionalized. Are you saying you need a government to end their own policy of slavery?
Should we help reduce disease in the USA when there are war deaths? Should "we" ignore war deaths when "we" are trying to reduce disease death?
Should we immunize children when there are War Deaths??? Should "we" ignore war death because "we" immunize children
Should we help cure cancer, when there are WAR DEATHS??? Should we ignore war deaths because "we" help cure cancer???
I wonder if Cicero has ever considered doing any of these, or does his WAR DEATHS totally paralyze Cicero from any action other than this???
The fact is, immunizations, cancer cures, and cures for disease are done by small groups of specialized individuals. Absence of government will not stop human innovation in medicine.
Cissy discusses 'war deaths' and that is a good subject for discussion. How about Slavery??? Should we end slavery when there are war deaths?
Oh yeah, I forgot...who were the people running running the Underground Railroad? Governments? Or anti government extremists that ignored the federal government's Fugitive Slave Act?
Oh yeah, I forgot...who were the people running running the Underground Railroad? Governments? Or anti government extremists that ignored the federal government's Fugitive Slave Act?
They were very pro government patriots working to help those in need... AND WORKING TO CHANGE THE LAWS OF THEIR GOVERNMENT BY PEACEFUL MEANS.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
They were very pro government patriots working to help those in need... AND WORKING TO CHANGE THE LAWS OF THEIR GOVERNMENT BY PEACEFUL MEANS.
You mean that people actually DID SOMETHING instead of just whining and moaning and groaning???? What a novel concept! They probably even VOTED....WOW!!!!!!
JUST BECAUSE SISSY SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO...BUT HE THINKS IT DOES!!!!! JUST BECAUSE MC1 SAYS SO DOESN'T MAKE IT SO!!!!!
They were very pro government patriots working to help those in need... AND WORKING TO CHANGE THE LAWS OF THEIR GOVERNMENT BY PEACEFUL MEANS.
They were disobeying federal laws and risking prison time for violating the law of the land, upheld by the Supreme Court. They thought they were above the law, and disregarded the will of the people.
You mean that people actually DID SOMETHING instead of just whining and moaning and groaning???? What a novel concept! They probably even VOTED....WOW!!!!!!
Yeah, they BROKE THE LAW! Are you suggesting lawlessness as "doing something"? If someone disagrees with the Safe Act because it violates a person's right to self defense, would running illegal guns be "doing something"? Would box consider gun runners patriots?
Logged
