Posted on 02/02/2007 11:18:17 AM PST by Ed Hudgins
Rand had the conception of a society based on shared, rational individualist values and mutual consent. The "rational" is crucial since the more extremely irrational individuals are -- Islamo-fascists, human-hating envornomentalists, envy-driven communists -- the more apt they'll be to not care whether they take your freedom or your money.
In a culture based on rational, principled individualism, each of us would freely pursue our own rational values—whether nurturing a child to maturity or a business to profitability; whether writing a poem or a business plan; whether designing a building or laying its bricks.
It’s no paradox that such individualism would produce a benevolent society in which we each would be enriched, entertained, educated, enlightened, and inspired by the achievements of others.
The political and economic system that embodies these principles is called capitalism. It should be defended as a moral ideal, and its principles must be rooted in the minds, hearts and character of citizens and in the institutions of society.
It just means they can't get drunk with the rest of us!
AS started me on the road out of the idolatry of statism. Another helpful books was Ken Kerns' The Owner-Builder and the Code.
She wouldn't have disagreed with you on that.
That was my first thought too. But then I decided to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were just speaking from ignorance.
If you read the founding fathers, you would realize how important they considered society in our country, that everybody for themselves is not what they envisioned for America.
Look, son, the writings of the founders, and the founding of the coutry, was based on liberty, which functions at the individual level. There was already society whence they came, and a hundred other places as well. Hell, the Soviet Union (a place with which Ms. Rand was intimately familar) considered society to be as important as you do. The problem was that they put society above the individual. The question the honest person must ask oneself is, for what did (and do) people come to America? Freedom. Period.
But, there is a difference between that....which Rand did show to be in error, a good thing....and no social cohesion, which is the opposite extreme that Rand proposes.
Can you give me one example of Rand endorsing "no social cohesion"? Go ahead. I'll wait.
Conservatism is not on either extreme, but in the middle.
"I do not think that word means what you think it means."
Well said, Ed. It's so ironic that many of the antagonists on this thread (and anywhere Ayn Rand, or even libertarianism is the subject) cite "Me-ism", or ego-centrism, as the problem with our philosophy, when excessive subjectivity (or insufficient objectivity) is an entirely self-centered affliction. They are so wrapped up with their own feelings, their own point of view, that it is impossible for them to take a rational, outside view of the situation, if only for a moment.
Thanks!
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.