Quotes about Free Thinking - “As nature has uncovered from under this hard shell the seed for which she most tenderly cares - the propensity and vocation to free thinking - this gradually works back upon the character of the people, who thereby gradually become capable of managing freedom; finally, it affects the principles of government, which finds it to its advantage to treat men, who are now more than machines, in accordance with their dignity.”.....
In Rand’s case, the acorn didn’t fall far from the tree. I don’t trust him or support many of his kookball views.
Rand is a youngish crackpot, but I think dignity is a poor word for what he means—or at least for what I hope he means. Dignity suggests more face-saving than substantive rights and freedoms, and it appears to be a tortured avoidance of referring to rights and freedoms—suggesting that somehow they are parochial ideas not necessary for those under Islam’s disgusting grip.
Rand is a youngish crackpot, but I think dignity is a poor word for what he means—or at least for what I hope he means. Dignity suggests more face-saving than substantive rights and freedoms, and it appears to be a tortured avoidance of referring to rights and freedoms—suggesting that somehow they are parochial ideas not necessary for those under Islam’s disgusting grip.
Mohammedanism, aka the kinder more discrete name ‘islam’, was a problem in the Phillipines in the ‘50’s, via the Huk rebellion. It, along with the Chinese communists, Laotian communists, Cambodian communists, andd Burmese communists, were a problem in Thailand, in the early 1970’s. Obviously, it raised it’s ugly head during the Munich Olympics in 1972, and was voiced by a punk named Yasser Arafat and his Palestine Liberation Organization, and the connected airplane hijacking, Meditterranean cruise ship terrorism, etc.
In that definition, Rand Paul’s dignity theory begs the question:
“Who’s hand is in his pocket?”
What is the source and who is the author of this piece?
“Neoliberals and neoconservatives have misunderstood human dignity…”
“the principles we must remember if we are to advance security, peace, and human dignity.”
“human dignity”
Anti-concept
“The world has a dignity problem,…”
“world”?
The collective? Assigning “dignity” to the collective “world” and setting yourself up as the arbiter of how to fix the straw man, eh Rand? Newspeak, bullcrap, twisted totalitarianism. Invent-a-phrase fraud. “Hope and change” was already taken.
from…
http://objectivistanswers.com/questions/2406/is-the-term-social-justice-an-anti-concept
Is the term “social Justice” and anti-concept?
For background on “social jistice,” refer to the Wikipedia article on that topic. The article begins:
Social justice generally refers to the idea of creating a society or institution that is based on the principles of equality and solidarity, that understands and values human rights, and that recognizes the dignity of every human being.[1][2] The term and modern concept of “social justice” was coined by the Jesuit Luigi Taparelli in 1840 based on the teachings of St. Thomas Aquinas and given further exposure in 1848 by Antonio Rosmini-Serbati.[1][2][3][4][5] The idea was elaborated by the moral theologian John A. Ryan, who initiated the concept of a living wage. Father Coughlin also used the term in his publications in the 1930s and the 1940s. It is a part of Catholic social teaching, Social Gospel from Episcopalians and is one of the Four Pillars of the Green Party upheld by green parties worldwide. Social justice as a secular concept, distinct from religious teachings, emerged mainly in the late twentieth century, influenced primarily by philosopher John Rawls. Some tenets of social justice have been adopted by those on the left of the political spectrum.
For information on “anti-concepts,” refer to that topic in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. The essence of an anti-concept is a “package-deal” of concepts that confuse and confound one’s thinking by mixing conflicting concepts together into a single “package” that may be difficult to separate into component parts.
If “social justice” is an “anti-concept,” one must ask what conflicting elements it attempts to unite into a single disarming “package.” From the Wikipedia excerpt above, one can identify “equality and solidarity” mixed together with “human rights” and “the dignity of every human being.” That certainly would appear to fit the meaning of an “anti-concept.” Objectivism observes that one cannot uphold and protect individual rights and human dignity by trying to make everyone “equal” and in social “solidarity.” Objectivism also focuses on individual rights, which isn’t necessarily the same as human rights, particularly if or when the latter is interpreted to mean abridging the individual rights of some in order to grant other kinds of “rights” to others.
Note also that the expression “social justice” itself attempts to elevate the concept of justice to the “social” or “societal” level. Justice, as a virtue in Objectivism, focuses on individuals — how individuals are evaluated by other individuals. Social justice tends to suggest some sort of “justice” by an entire society (in “solidarity”) toward individuals within the society, i.e., between a society and its members, on the deeper premise that individuals are allegedly always part of a society and beholden to it, with the well being of the “society” as the fundamental “value,” and the individual “members” as merely the pawns of the society.
The Lexicon topic mentions “polarization” as an example of an anti-concept. An editor’s comment at the end of the Lexicon topic also states:
Some other terms that Ayn Rand identified as anti-concepts are “consumerism,” “duty,” “ethnicity,” “extremism,” “isolationism,” “McCarthyism,” “meritocracy,” and “simplistic.”
“Social justice,” being a little older in its roots (and a compound expression in the first place), seems somewhat easier to separate.
/link explanation
OUTSTANDING observation/research, Cincinatus’ Wife. Fascinating thread.
music to accompany this post…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M9BNoNFKCBI
The problems:
Deceit, debt (enslavement), death. Conmen, crooks, criminals, socialists, scumbags, deceivers, democrats, republicans, governments, collectivists, statists, totalitarians, etc., etc. are involved in all three. Witness history. Witness current events.
Dignity? Something else for them to steal…expropriate.
Can I have some dignity Mr. Scam Artist?
He’s a western doctor, so human dignity probably to him, relates to his role in caring for patients. That would be treating patients with dignity. It would involve talking with patients to make sure they understand their disease and the proposed treatment, rather than treating them as a vet treats cattle. It would involve alleviating pain and suffering or embarrassment and shame. Maybe it could be looked at as a doctor (authority figure) having a decent bedside manner with a vulnerable individual. Soothing their pain and fear and working with the goal of healing them. It’s professional medical ethics - or used to be before humanism.
But he’s also a libertarian. And libertarians have no governing values nor ethics except to be free to do whatever they want to do. To be free means the same as defined in the book of Satan - do as thy wilt - without consideration of the ethical nature and consequences of certain actions and policies enacted by the government. They promote homosexuals changing the meaning of marriage via government and school brainwashing, which they look at as “freedom”, but it comes without consideration that a healthy society is built on traditional marriage and family and the consequences of demolishing that natural state of affairs. The governing principal of libertarianism is the government shalt not judge good from evil. That right to judge good from evil only belongs to the individual.
Libertarians do not acknowledge natural law and are careless in analyzing the consequences of the government violating natural law. They are careless in analyzing the consequences of an unethical government policy. If ethics stands in the way of their most important value of “economic freedom” - materialism - (like boycotting business with Cuba because the Castro dictator mistreats his subjects and threatened to nuke us) that ethic is seen as none of our government’s business. Free trade is more important and assumed to be the balm that heals all evil.
Our government practices violations of human dignity when they molest and frighten children at the airport in the name of getting Islamic terrorists. Our criminal justice system has lost all sense of dignity in dealing with the public since it has named everyone as potential terrorists and redefined crime into terrorism. Libertarians are against this.
When Rand speaks of Muslims being angry because they are treated with no dignity, he’s probably referring to the government abuses of Sharia law. But since he’s a libertarian and advised by libertarians, God only knows what he’s talking about. Which is why libertarians are detrimental to leadership the same as liberals. They have no governing principals of ethics and no ability to measure it’s consequences on the society. A weak and broken society can not achieve economic freedom.
“Dignity” problem? Why not use the word “liberty”.