Posted on 03/02/2009 7:40:50 AM PST by aic4ever
I received quite a lot of flack, particularly at FreeRepublic, for my post last week where I proffered my opinion on what I perceive to be the possible death of the GOP. One of the most intriguing responses I received was attacking Libertarianism, and doing so by throwing an assembly of interview questions with Ayn Rand discussing with her, her disdain for the Libertarian Party.
(Excerpt) Read more at organizedexploitation.blogspot.com ...
I agree. In the mid-80’s I was a Libertarian. The party was in pretty good shape then. But it later got taken over by whack-o’s and weird-o’s. I think we even had pedophials in the party. “Hey, we got our rights too!”
I now call myself a lower case “l” libetarian.
Simple, you aren't free if you are spending your time hiding from being shot at or if you are held economically hostage. I know the current division is Iraq, so we can use that as an example. We know the first Gulf War really was to protect our trade interests with Kuwait and others in the region regarding oil (like it or not, it is our lifeblood.) Since the cession of hostility treaty, we had an agreement to patrol Iraq's sky to ensure they complied with the various terms. In addition to defying those terms (breaking a treaty), they continued to fire on our aircraft (act of war), sponsor terrorism against us and our allies (act of war), attempt to assassinate a former president (act of war). We can argue all day if it where philosophically right to go in, but the fact of a matter is a President has to make the best decision with the information in front of him.
Jefferson, of whom the Libertarians often hold up as an ideal, had the same choice to make. Islamic 'pirates' where interfering with our shipping lanes, demanding protectionism payments, then breaking the agreement with those. Jefferson made the choice instead of 'non interference', he invaded their base countries.
>> The neo-cons are not conservatives, but rather they are and always have been liberals. That’s who is currently running this nation’s foreign relations policy.
Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, William F. Buckley, and Ronald Reagan are hardly liberals. These are men that believe(d) that it was and is in the best interest of this country to export those values that made America great. This includes the use of force to eliminate threats to American sovereignty in the Soviet Union, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
>> So there will be war, whether we actually need one or not.
It is the fundamental belief of conservatism that evil must be resisted. Certainly we prioritize these evils, as we cannot slay all dragons at once. But, if we allow evil to flourish unchecked worldwide, we will be less secure at home.
>> How does making war all over the world promote freedom in the U.S.?
“Promote” is the wrong word. “Protect” is more appropriate. How does allowing evil threats to remain unchecked protect freedom anywhere?
SnakeDoc
I often call myself an “objectivist, small “l” libertarian, Republican, Tory”.
We all know that Ayn Rand was an atheist and adulterer. Unlike most adulterers, Ayn Rand concocted a philosophy which justified her reprehensible behavior. Although Rand rejected Christ, she did believe in the concept of the “perfect man”. She writes of such men her novels—Howard Roark in The Fountainhead and John Galt in Atlas Shrugged. These men, like Christ, are completely sinless and totally perfect in every way. They never make any mistakes, do anything wrong, or say anything which isn’t true. As much as I loved reading Miss Rand’s novels growing up, I have come to the conclusion that some of her heroic characters could never really exist in real life, therefore they were really just fantasy.
The One who was perfect, blameless, and totally without sin arrived 2000 years ago, rose from the dead, and is seated at the right of hand of the Father. That is the simple truth which Miss Rand could never bring herself to accept.
Because the Republican Party, like the Church itself, is a man made institution, it is occaisionally corrupted by wicked and sinful men who use it for their own evil designs. I have never found fault with the Republican Party platform. But I do recognize that nothing in life, least of all politics, is perfect.
People are mistaken if they believe there is such a thing as a perfect political party, church, or any other man made institutions. Because man is sinful and imperfect, so are the institutions he creates. Should the Libertarian Party ever grow to the size of the current Democrat and Republican parties, it too, would experience the effects of corrupt and evil men. The Liberatarian Party is no more perfect than the Republican Party.
Miss Rand and her libertarian/objectivist followers exist because they fill a void in the philosophical spectrum: They are capitalists and strong proponents of individual liberty yes; but they believe that man is the be-all end all power in the universe. Traditional conservatives believe otherwise. They understand the innate weakness of man and the institutions he creates, yet they also understand there is Savior who came and promised redemption for all those who accept Him into their hearts.
As for me, I’m sticking it out with my Church and my Party warts and all. It is impossible to create perfect organizations which are inhabited by men.
My favorite was the “blue candidate” http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2297471.stm . Technically atypical of LP candidates, but nonetheless a perfect symbol of it’s transformation into the Loopy Party.
lol, at least he has a sense of humor about it.
I liked that you posted that, actually. I never feel like “carrying the mantle of Rand” as you put it is really the right way to go. I do base a lot of my thinking in Objectivism, but I don’t believe it can be the be-all, end-all to the ideas of libertarianism. Libertarianism and Conservatism, in my opinion are very closely linked in terms of philosophies, and if not voting Libertarian, I will vote Conservative.
I feel so much like the Republicans have lost the message of Freedom and Liberty, and perhaps that is why I’ve chosen to be Libertarian. However, given the performances we just witnessed at CPAC, I believe the ideas of Freedom and Liberty and Respect will be coming back to the Republican Party, and coming back strong.
I strongly disagree that this is the root of Objectivism, yes, her atheism does play to a degree in her statements and it is important to see this as a filter for her words, but the philosophy of Objectivism isn't an 'excuse' for atheism or reprehensible behavior- it was created as the antithesis of Communism- the prime example of collectivism. I follow a lot of Objectivist philosophy, yet don't see it in conflict with my Christianity. To freely choose Christ, one must first be free. To freely say "I love Christ" one must first be able to say "I". Collectivism isn't just about economic collectivism, there are many who try to control our beliefs, thoughts, and feelings. Allowing any form of collectivism gives up the freedom to choose God.
-—Collectivism isn’t just about economic collectivism, there are many who try to control our beliefs, thoughts, and feelings. Allowing any form of collectivism gives up the freedom to choose God.-—
Well said.
We see a whole lot of the trying to control our beliefs, thoughts and feelings every time we turn on the TV....
I’ve been considering a book for a while “Christian Objectivism” however, I’m afraid the folks on TBN would put a fatwa on me. :->
You must be joking...
Objectivism, while it is certainly informed by libertarian principles, is not libertarianism. It is an unusually good attempt to reform politics and philosophy from first principles, but like all such attempts the author tends to stray (and waste a good amount of time) by declining to "stand on the shoulders of giants."
One of the issues we are discussing is Rand's attempt to reconcile Nietszche, one of the giants she does acknowledge, with Aristotle, another of the ones she acknowledges and on whose body of work most of her method is based. Aristotle found that the existence of God, the "unmoved mover," was a necessary consequence of his philosophical and logical system. Rand, while embracing the system, attempted to place that godhead on man, or perhaps more accurately the ubermenschen who Rearden and Dagny Taggart represent. What is interesting about this is that central issues such as soul and sin are not bypassed by this but merely repositioned, and figure large in what is nominally an atheistic system.
We're working over these issues chapter by chapter. Come join us!
The point was that the rank-and-file of the GOP is conservative. The leadership is a mess.
SnakeDoc
Ain’t that the truth.
I won’t joke about that one. I used to work in a church office of a demomination whose various members would send out SOSes when they thought some leader or congregation was stepping too far out of line so everybody would know not to fellowship with them.
I will name no names, but that is how it works sometimes.
Doubtful. The definition of "true libertarianism" is as slippery as that of "true socialism," and the failures of the former will, as with the latter, be blamed on never actually having tried the "true" version.
The primary problem with libertarianism is actually pretty mundane: it doesn't account well for its own requirements -- chief among which is that the vast majority of the population must agree with and follow a particular set of moral tenets, before it can work.
Even more than our Consitutional government, "true libertarianism" (whatever else it means), stands or falls on the principle stated by Mr. Adams so long ago:
"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other."
In a practical sense, one can see the difficulties inherent in trying to create a libertarian society, by looking at the libertarian position on "the market." Libertarians seem inevitably to demand that "the market" should decide on moral issues -- as if "the market" is capable of such things in the first place.
A look at the shenanigans that "the market" have perpetrated on the economy lately should give libertarians pause: while the government certainly set the stage for the difficulties, the sheer magnitude of the problem is traceable, not to government, but rather to the hubris and often downright dishonesty of the gigantic financial houses that essentially define "the market."
This country is a long way from libertarianism. The trough is too big and there is too much room for the pigs to feast.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.