Posted on 08/22/2012 12:12:50 PM PDT by Publius
Paul Ryan is Romney’s pick for Vice President and now Ayn Rand’s name is on everyone’s lips.
Many on the left are pillorying Ryan as an unrealistic “ideologue” because of his Rand connection. Many on the right accede, quickly trying to set aside Ryan’s admiration for "Atlas Shrugged" as youthful indiscretion. “Every young conservative has a fascination with Ayn Rand at some point,” Romney’s strategist Eric Fehrnstrom says dismissively.
But hold on. If we actually consider the essence of what Rand advocates, the idea that her philosophy is childish over-simplification stands as condemnation not of her position but of the many adults from whom this accusation stems.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
One doesn’t have to embrace Objectivism to appreciate Rand’s deadly accurate characterizations of Leftist villains.
People who have escaped from totalitarian societies such as Ayn Rand often have a much sharper perspective than those of us who were fortunate to be born here. One of my co-workers was born in Cuba... his dad was police chief in a major town when Castro took over. His dad was a political prisoner for 15 years. His dad died shortly after being released because of the poor conditions that he experienced in prison. My coworker appreciates the freedom that we enjoy in this country much more most of us native born people.
There is nothing wonderful, in practice about Western free markets combined with Rand’s communist state ordered atheist, humanist society (in the name of freedom FROM religion - Western ethics and morals). It is not what the founders created.
You have to have basic ethics and morals in a society applied to businesses or you end up with corruption, killers, theives and connivers. See the real estate fake loan shake down.
You have to have ethics and morals in the people of a free society or you get liars, theives, drug and sex addicts, murders, rapists, adulters/family breakdowns, and other social diseases. (See the inner cities with is spreading with the spread of humanism.) With Rand’s model you have to have a police and welfare state to keep order for people who have no ethical structure within themselves and none taught to them in society.
You have to have ethics in western science and medicine or you end up with fake science like global warming hoaxes, gay gene hoaxes, or rationalized medical treatments like abortion, killing the weak (aka, assisted suicide), eugenics, genocide... All of this comes out of anti-Western Rand’s social ideal from practice in atheist societies.
In other words, Rand’s world view does away with everything that makes man different for an animal - darwinism! What an ideal. It worked so well in the Soviet Union!
Well said!
Heh.
For too long, we have allowed public discourse to be focused on "issues," while we ignored the essential ideas which are essential to liberty for individuals.
Americans should hold fast to the Founders' ideas of liberty instead of allowing its leaders to plunge it into the depths of European-style socialism, in violation of their Constitution's limitations.
If Paul Ryan's reading of Ayn Rand challenges the Bidens of the world to confront the ultimate tyrannical consequences of their ideology, then more power to Paul Ryan. That's a plus for the youth of this nation.
From the Liberty Fund Library is "A Plea for Liberty: An Argument Against Socialism and Socialistic Legislation," edited by Thomas Mackay (1849 - 1912), Chapter 1, excerpted final paragraphs from Edward Stanley Robertson's essay:
"I have suggested that the scheme of Socialism is wholly incomplete unless it includes a power of restraining the increase of population, which power is so unwelcome to Englishmen that the very mention of it seems to require an apology. I have showed that in France, where restraints on multiplication have been adopted into the popular code of morals, there is discontent on the one hand at the slow rate of increase, while on the other, there is still a 'proletariat,' and Socialism is still a power in politics.
I.44
"I have put the question, how Socialism would treat the residuum of the working class and of all classes—the class, not specially vicious, nor even necessarily idle, but below the average in power of will and in steadiness of purpose. I have intimated that such persons, if they belong to the upper or middle classes, are kept straight by the fear of falling out of class, and in the working class by positive fear of want. But since Socialism purposes to eliminate the fear of want, and since under Socialism the hierarchy of classes will either not exist at all or be wholly transformed, there remains for such persons no motive at all except physical coercion. Are we to imprison or flog all the 'ne'er-do-wells'?
I.45
"I began this paper by pointing out that there are inequalities and anomalies in the material world, some of which, like the obliquity of the ecliptic and the consequent inequality of the day's length, cannot be redressed at all. Others, like the caprices of sunshine and rainfall in different climates, can be mitigated, but must on the whole be endured. I am very far from asserting that the inequalities and anomalies of human society are strictly parallel with those of material nature. I fully admit that we are under an obligation to control nature so far as we can. But I think I have shown that the Socialist scheme cannot be relied upon to control nature, because it refuses to obey her. Socialism attempts to vanquish nature by a front attack. Individualism, on the contrary, is the recognition, in social politics, that nature has a beneficent as well as a malignant side. The struggle for life provides for the various wants of the human race, in somewhat the same way as the climatic struggle of the elements provides for vegetable and animal life—imperfectly, that is, and in a manner strongly marked by inequalities and anomalies. By taking advantage of prevalent tendencies, it is possible to mitigate these anomalies and inequalities, but all experience shows that it is impossible to do away with them. All history, moreover, is the record of the triumph of Individualism over something which was virtually Socialism or Collectivism, though not called by that name. In early days, and even at this day under archaic civilisations, the note of social life is the absence of freedom. But under every progressive civilisation, freedom has made decisive strides—broadened down, as the poet says, from precedent to precedent. And it has been rightly and naturally so.
I.46
Throw away that whiskey bottle, Sara.
I have read quite a bit of Ayn Rand's work and seen and read many interviews. I certainly do not agree with a lot of her philosophy; I think that American altruistic tendancies have been of huge benefit to our society. But your characterization of Objectivism could not be much further from the mark.
Certainly she was influenced by the circumstances of her birth, as I am sure that you and I both were. Escaping from a totalitarian regime made her appreciate her freedom much more than the typical Obama voter. Trying to make the case that her philosophy could only work in a police state is completely baffling as every fiber in her being opposed communism, socialism and all powerful police states.
No one has more accurately predicted the eventual outcome of the socialist policies that have been eroding the system in our country than Ayn Rand. I am sure that you and I agree much more than we disagree, but I do not believe that your characterizations are fair or accurate. I personally fear a socialist hiding behind religion more than an athiest who believed to her core in the free market.
I don’t believe I have ever seen a person get it so wrong.
Do yourself a favor....read Rand instead of believing whatever it is you have been reading about Rand.
Keep in mind, it was forced altruism that Rand objected too.
If it was in your own rational self-interest to be altruistic (it made you fell better, or it made your community a better place etc.) then go for it.
It was the 'looters' who took from you to give to others and call it altruism that she thought was evil.
I have watched Rand’s minions in dicussion and activism. I have read her book. Watch what they do; not how they yap about “freedom.”
They have no respect for social freedom. They are social liberals - dictate culture in the public square from the top, down. They advocate social marxism.
I was not born yesterday so quit pretending that everyone who have studied your ideology is stupid for not seeing it for what it is.
Everyday Cubans didn't believe it could happen to them... and it did. The communists could take over here too. They're organized and we're not... My prayers for your friend... Just out of curiosity, how does he feel about the TSA?
She saw socialism warping the market. She did not see her own top down enforced amorality warping the human character and society to where economic socialism would be guarenteed via dysfunction. She did not see humanism’s political correctness replacing Christian morals and ethics in a top/down elitist rule.
Like most atheists, she understoodmaterialism and service to self (darwinism). It does not work on a cultural level for a free nation. It is amoral and without direction and inspiration. It is animalistic and legalistic.
With respect, Sara, no, you haven't. I cannot imagine how anyone who had could possibly characterize Rand's society as "communist state" and "ordered." It was exactly the opposite. That's one reason she is so cursed at by the Left today.
Rand got into quite a bit of trouble advocating the sort of social freedom that included a woman's right to sleep with whomever she wanted (including another woman's husband in Dagny's trysts with Hank Reardon). That was pretty hot stuff for the 1950's. Commonplace now, but there you are. Criticize her for immorality if you like but not for any dictation of culture from the top down. She was not by any stretch of the imagination a "social Marxist".
I'd encourage you to read Atlas Shrugged but you'd probably beat me over the head with it right about the time you got to the "This is John Galt Speaking" chapter, and I'd deserve it. :-)
In this country we all owe a great deal to many who have sacrificed themselves for the good of their fellow citizens... soldiers killed or maimed in battle come to mind. I am not familiar with her advocating someone giving their life or fortune for their country... especially since this is a concept always encouraged in totalitarian regimes.
Yet I know of many instances where someone did voluntarily give up their life or their fortune for the good of others and it was a good thing despite having no apparent benefit to the person who made the sacrifice. I think that she would say that unless the person felt that this action would somehow directly benefit at least their loved ones that this would be an irrational behavior.
Cubans had an island paradise that would probably be much more prosperous than Hawaii. They lost it all because of Communism and Socialism. I am not sure how my co-worker feels about the TSA. I know he loves this country and I know he fears for its future.
“People who have escaped from totalitarian societies such as Ayn Rand often have a much sharper perspective than those of us who were fortunate to be born here.”
You are SOOOOO right! There is a guy I know who lives in my precinct; he’s from Bulgaria. He swam the Black Sea for 13 hours to get to Turkey, avoiding various patrol boats. He NEVER misses voting in any election.
I have been swindled frequently over the years by persons who convinced me to give them things by appealing to my Christianity or convincing me that they were good Christians. So much so that I have become suspicious of people like Obama who wear their religion on their sleeves.
A capitalist society is based on trust; people who are trustworthy get ahead because others are willing to deal with them repeatedly. Criminals or the untrustworthy do not get ahead because once they are exposed others will not deal with them. Self interest encourages its own form of morality. We are not a homogeneous society anymore. There are all sorts of peoples and cultures of all religions and belief systems interacting. Ayn Rand had little or nothing to do with this. Without intrusive government interference everything tends to work out better.
Plug the hole in your head, Misterioso.
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.