Well, it’s a good thing we’ve weakened the hell out of our Judea-Christian tradition (mysticism). See marriage-dirvorce-cohabitation stats, out-of-wed-lock birth rates, serious debate for redefining what’s left of marriage, entertainment content, public dress and speech, and etc. Yeah, plainly, social liberalism ushered in anti-welfarism by the truckload. Oh, wait…
If I was a randian-libertarian, this is the video I’d try to hide. Hyper social individualism is collectivist welfarism.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, it’s a good thing we’ve weakened the hell out of our Judea-Christian tradition (mysticism). See marriage-dirvorce-cohabitation stats, out-of-wed-lock birth rates, serious debate for redefining what’s left of marriage, entertainment content, public dress and speech, and etc. Yeah, plainly, social liberalism ushered in anti-welfarism by the truckload. Oh, wait…
If I was a randian-libertarian, this is the video I’d try to hide. Hyper social individualism is collectivist welfarism.[/quote]
No its not and believing in faiy tales prevents you from seeing it.
Morals are inspired by economio necessity and not by an invisible man in the sky.
Since Judeo Christian values do not necessarily call for the abolition of a welfare state they do nothing do fight it, they just make dupes out of those who follow them and thus slowly erode.
Abolish the welfare state and people will follow a conservative morality, not because they suddenly find Jesus, but because they are fat, lazy and complacent and always follow the path of least resistance. If personal responsibility is thrust upon them that makes them conservatives, if they are constantly being bailed out they become liberals.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If I was a randian-libertarian, this is the video I’d try to hide. Hyper social individualism is collectivist welfarism.[/quote]
Agreed on this point. More broadly, though, this video is fantastic - it finally unleashed the truth: Randian-libertarianism ain’t Western conservatism, ain’t never been Western conservatism, and ain’t a natural ally of Western conservatism.
Ms. Rand simply confirms what most sensible people have known all along - that this brand of “libertarianism” belongs in the family tree of radical, continental, left-wing thought whose seeds were fertilized from the blood of Rousseau, not the tree of Adam Smith, David Hume, Edmund Burke, and the Founding Fathers.
And that truth shall set us free.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
If I was a randian-libertarian, this is the video I’d try to hide. Hyper social individualism is collectivist welfarism.[/quote]
Agreed on this point. More broadly, though, this video is fantastic - it finally unleashed the truth: Randian-libertarianism ain’t Western conservatism, ain’t never been Western conservatism, and ain’t a natural ally of Western conservatism.
[/quote]
True, but quite irrelevant when it comes to her analysis of the weakness of the American conservative position.
Irrelevanz drivel, she has done no such thing, you havent read much of Rousseau and are of course neatly sidestepping the issue that indeed the truth does set us free, but not if we reject it with cheap attacks on the bearer of bad news.
[quote]orion wrote:
True, but quite irrelevant when it comes to her analysis of the weakness of the American conservative position.[/quote]
She doesn’t have an analysis of the “weakness” of the American conservative position, because she gets the premise wrong from the outset.
I have read plenty of Rousseau, sorry to disappoint - and I haven’t sidestepped anything: I merely noted that we can now dispense with the fiction that somehow libertarianism - the child of left-wing ideology - is an ally of Western classical liberalism.
The sooner we do this, the sooner we put libertarians where they belong - in the camp along the fringe with similarly-minded Marxists, socialists, and Scientologists - and the adults can return to their regularly scheduled programming.
And since Orion shares Ms. Rand’s and Mr. Marx’s blind devotion to economism, I’d offer up Albert Jay Nock’s quote to such ideological nonsense:
I have sometimes thought that here may be the rock on which Western civilization will finally shatter itself. Economism can build a society which is rich, prosperous, powerful, even one which has a reasonably wide diffusion of material well-being. It can not build one which is lovely, one which has savor and depth, and which exercises the irresistible power of attraction that loveliness wields. Perhaps by the time economism has run its course the society it has built may be tired of itself, bored of its own hideousness, and may despairingly consent to annihilation, aware that it is too ugly to be let live any longer.
Well, thankfully, due to the twin evils of hedonism and nihilism that the libertarian swears represents the moral code of the universe, we’re getting to see first hand a society “bored of its own hideousness and consenting to self-annihiliation”.
[quote]orion wrote:
No its not and believing in faiy tales prevents you from seeing it. [/quote]
Fairy tales? I’m not a libertarian. Thought I’d made that clear…
Oh, then I guess I’ve arrived at my moral beliefs via economic necessity. Can’t begrudge me that. Nor can you blame my religion, since it didn’t inspire my moral beliefs.
Judeo-Christian values build a common and cohesive civic life. Libertarian social liberalism builds bi-polar individuals. Oh, they’ll come along for the party (woo look at my liberty and freedom!), but in the end, they don’t want to be stuck, alone, paying the consequences. Human nature. Something that takes generation upon generation, layer upon layer, of traditional values to tame (and still, not without a continued threat of emergence).
Not happening.
Epic fail in this thread.
Ms. Rand is simply stating that American conservatism insofar as it is not based upon logic is doomed to fail. Basing a society on mysticism or tradition is bound to dissolve the society into a ruin of chaos and slaughter. If conservatives defend the country by claims to those things, they are doomed.
American conservatives do so out of fear btw. Imagine how opponents would demagogue this issue, if conservatives refuted Chrisitan principles of altruistic morality!! To say that no one owes anyone else anything, that self-sacrifice is evil, would get those candidates booted quickly.
[quote]orion wrote:
Morals are inspired by economio necessity and not by an invisible man in the sky.
[/quote]
Then why did Ayn Rand suggest Aquinas as a Philosopher to study because of his writing on Natural Law?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Adam Smith
[/quote]
Adam Smith? You mean that copied his ideas from Richard Cantillon?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Epic fail in this thread.
Ms. Rand is simply stating that American conservatism insofar as it is not based upon logic is doomed to fail. Basing a society on mysticism or tradition is bound to dissolve the society into a ruin of chaos and slaughter. If conservatives defend the country by claims to those things, they are doomed.
American conservatives do so out of fear btw. Imagine how opponents would demagogue this issue, if conservatives refuted Chrisitan principles of altruistic morality!! To say that no one owes anyone else anything, that self-sacrifice is evil, would get those candidates booted quickly.[/quote]
Headhunter, in another thread:
America has to decide…be a nation of God or a nation gripped by Satan.
To which I replied (and still reply):
[i]If America decides to be a nation of God, then America’s symbol would be that of the Christian cross, not a dollar sign, and your suggestion commits treason against your Ayn Randian version of society.
You should really make up your mind. If Man serves God, he can’t be an end unto himself. [/i]
Would the real Headhunter please stand up?
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Adam Smith? You mean that copied his ideas from Richard Cantillon?[/quote]
You mean that Adam Smith cited to?
Parroting yet another idiotic nugget from Murray Rothbard? Get smarter.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Epic fail in this thread.
Ms. Rand is simply stating that American conservatism insofar as it is not based upon logic is doomed to fail. Basing a society on mysticism or tradition is bound to dissolve the society into a ruin of chaos and slaughter. If conservatives defend the country by claims to those things, they are doomed.
American conservatives do so out of fear btw. Imagine how opponents would demagogue this issue, if conservatives refuted Chrisitan principles of altruistic morality!! To say that no one owes anyone else anything, that self-sacrifice is evil, would get those candidates booted quickly.[/quote]
Headhunter, in another thread:
America has to decide…be a nation of God or a nation gripped by Satan.
To which I replied (and still reply):
[i]If America decides to be a nation of God, then America’s symbol would be that of the Christian cross, not a dollar sign, and your suggestion commits treason against your Ayn Randian version of society.
You should really make up your mind. If Man serves God, he can’t be an end unto himself. [/i]
Would the real Headhunter please stand up?[/quote]
Very simple – Rand was an atheist. There is zero chance that an atheistic philosophy based on Aristotle will EVER become the predominant philosophy in this country (much of Rand is straight out of Aristotle). Therefore the choice is God or Satan. If we can’t have a country based on Reason, we’ll have to have one based on religion. I prefer God.
Of course, we pretty much have one, where most embrace Christian morality, and therefore the country graduaLLY dissolves. Hence my thread on the National Socialist option; only totalitarianism becomes an option at some future (soon?) point. Irrationality can only keep order at gunpoint.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Very simple – Rand was an atheist. There is zero chance that an atheistic philosophy based on Aristotle will EVER become the predominant philosophy in this country (much of Rand is straight out of Aristotle). Therefore the choice is God or Satan. If we can’t have a country based on Reason, we’ll have to have one based on religion. I prefer God.[/quote]
This is an incoherent defense of the position.
Ms. Rand herself says that religion/God/Providential moral code is incompatible with her version of the One True Utopia. A belief in these “fairy tales” is diamterically opposed to Man being and End Unto Himself. Can’t have both.
Yet, that is what you attempt. But you can’t have “Randian-ism Lite” because the US won’t adopt an atheistic persuasion - her dogma doesn’t permit it.
So, which are you, HH? A Randian? Or not?
EDIT: I’d restate this yet again:
You should really make up your mind. If Man serves God, he can’t be an end unto himself.
What you suggest, HH, is that Man serve two Masters, each with a different mission that contradict one another. You haven’t offered a solution, nor has anyone else.
Ayn Rand makes sense here… are you even listening to her argument?
Here’s what she’s saying. The left tends to claim that it represents science and progress – that it’s empirically better, and that it makes people’s quality of life increasingly better. Left-of-center types even call themselves “progressives.” The right tends to concede the point, and this worsens their case. Sometimes conservatives display actual animosity to science and empirical analysis; more often they just kind of ignore it, and focus on religion and tradition instead. It’s a bad persuasive strategy. Why not say, instead, “Look, the numbers really are on our side”? I think, in large part, that conservative (economic) policies are actually better supported by the evidence, and they actually make people’s lives better. Socialism isn’t actually scientific or progressive at all! So why let them get away with saying it?
The people you really want on your side, the practical people, are generally interested in what works, and what makes living conditions better. If you want to persuade them – and you do – you just can’t concede the field to the left. If you focus on religion, then eventually, demographically speaking, you’ve got an aging electorate, and you’re losing the highly educated – you’re losing voters, and you’re losing the people who’ll come up with the best ideas. (Yes, there are plenty of educated religious people, and smart people who aren’t formally educated, but you know what I’m saying here. There’s a serious cost to a political movement if it dumps the secular/scientific population altogether. Especially when you notice that a lot of business leaders fall into that population.)
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Ayn Rand makes sense here… are you even listening to her argument?
Here’s what she’s saying. The left tends to claim that it represents science and progress – that it’s empirically better, and that it makes people’s quality of life increasingly better. Left-of-center types even call themselves “progressives.” The right tends to concede the point, and this worsens their case. Sometimes conservatives display actual animosity to science and empirical analysis; more often they just kind of ignore it, and focus on religion and tradition instead. It’s a bad persuasive strategy. Why not say, instead, “Look, the numbers really are on our side”? I think, in large part, that conservative (economic) policies are actually better supported by the evidence, and they actually make people’s lives better. Socialism isn’t actually scientific or progressive at all! So why let them get away with saying it?
The people you really want on your side, the practical people, are generally interested in what works, and what makes living conditions better. If you want to persuade them – and you do – you just can’t concede the field to the left. If you focus on religion, then eventually, demographically speaking, you’ve got an aging electorate, and you’re losing the highly educated – you’re losing voters, and you’re losing the people who’ll come up with the best ideas. (Yes, there are plenty of educated religious people, and smart people who aren’t formally educated, but you know what I’m saying here. There’s a serious cost to a political movement if it dumps the secular/scientific population altogether. Especially when you notice that a lot of business leaders fall into that population.)[/quote]
Well, libertarians could always start a Libertarian party and show us how it’s (getting elected) done…
No, libertarians need to adopt our philosophy, or go their own way. Rand and friends arne’t our political comrades.
Now, allow me to summarize the Rand video. “Conservatives should be libertarians.”
Libertarians are lousy at winning elections, no question there.
That’s not the point. The thing is, the Republican party has, as a part of its platform and policy and electorate, sort of a rough pro-business, pro-efficiency orientation. (Think people who read The Economist, not people who vote libertarian.) Now imagine if you lost that component and became primarily a Christian and populist party. I think you’d be a lot less successful.
[quote]AlisaV wrote:
Libertarians are lousy at winning elections, no question there.
That’s not the point. The thing is, the Republican party has, as a part of its platform and policy and electorate, sort of a rough pro-business, pro-efficiency orientation. (Think people who read The Economist, not people who vote libertarian.) Now imagine if you lost that component and became primarily a Christian and populist party. I think you’d be a lot less successful.[/quote]
They, the GoP, certainly could take such advice. If, they wanted to be about as electable as the Libertarian Party…
Conservatives aren’t voting for the Libertian Party, and wouldn’t vote the New Libertarian Party (formerly known as the GoP). But, in the end, the GoP can do as it wishes. However, conservatives would simply follow conservative candidates to their new political home(s). We aren’t libertarians (Capital or lowercase ‘l’) or ‘moderate libertarians.’ We’re conservatives.