What a moronic post.
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.
Did they want a nanny state? No.
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.
Conservatism is not on either extreme, but in the middle.
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."