Ayn Rand on Conservatives

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]AlisaV wrote:

Ayn Rand makes sense here… are you even listening to her argument?[/quote]

Uh, I am - which is why I said her analysis was wrong based on a faulty premise. I’ll address why below.

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 “right” does concede some of this “progress” from science, etc. - I don’t disagree with that. But she overstates it, and her entire point is based on a false choice - that “tradition” and “empiricism”, “science”, etc. is mutually exclusive. It isn’t.

Left-liberals - and libertarians - suffer from a dread case of Scientism (and Economism) these days, and when conservatives warn them of it, it ain’t resorting to superstition or overrelying on emotion.

This is the key you and other libertarians can’t seem to fully get comfortable with -conservatives warn of limits. Conservatives - the real ones, in my view (others may disagree) - are the true guardians of the great Western tradition of reason because they aren’t afraid to warn the Zealots (libertarians and many leftists) of the hubris and ignorance.

But, to be fair, conservatives (the real ones, in my view) must provide the same warning to the Reactionaries as well, the folks who actually do overrely on superstition and emotion in light of experience and reason. These Reactionaries aren’t really conservatives in the Western sense, because they aren’t “conserving” institutions that make up the best of the West.

That said, Ms. Rand is a radical. She isn’t much of an empiricist either, as the true empiricist could never, ever, ever be so woefully ignorant of Human Nature in her theory. Once she does, she ceases to be an empiricist at all - and this holds true for pretty much all libertarians these days (maybe not all, not the ones around here, for sure).

To be blunt, Ms. Rand and the libertarians around here aren’t hard-nosed empricists - who formed well-considered ideas on experience and evidence - they are, in fact, the opposite: despite plenty of evidence, they purposefully ignore experience and evidence and promote their ideology with the deliberate whistling past of experience and evidence. We see it nearly every thread when one of our libertarians make their case.

That’s a zealot or an ideologue, and that is what Ms. Rand is, as well as our PWI libertarians.

So, I agree with your point about a need for empricism and the need to counter the Left’s self-trumpeting monopoly on it. But here’s the problem - libertarians are hurting that mission, not helping it, which is why, as has been said many times, libertarians - wild-eyed zealots as much as the REactionaries they decry - are not natural allies of conservatives.

[Headhunter]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Not at all. In a popular Republic, majority rules. To embrace a morality of rational selfishness would cause a politician to be voted out; most people are altruists or at least propound altruism as morality. It is far too easy to sacrifice, for example, GM bondholders to UAW members because there are more of them and if you believe in self-sacrifice. Therefore we cannot expect Ms. Rand’s philosophy to win in a republic, even though it would save the world if it did.

Christian morality is thus embraced, which is incompatible with capitalism. Thus America MUST evolve into a national socialist state, the ultimate altruistic state; our best hope is that it will be quasi-Christian.

There is no contradiction of the sort you think btw. There is no contradiction at all in fact. I just recognize that altruism is really a death-wish, we embrace it, and are therefore destined for electronic feudalistic national socialism.

[AlisaV]

I’m not a big Ayn Rand fan, just to be clear here. She doesn’t have a whole lot to offer, it’s easy to poke holes in her philosophy, she’s dogmatic … she’s not a great example of an empirical outlook. It’s also really common for libertarians to make bad arguments, and I’m becoming more and more aware of that and trying to resist it.

I’m pretty much okay with the kind of classical conservatism you’re talking about. It’s not for me, but it’s probably good for the country to have some classical conservatives. Temperamentally, I’m more about hope than limits – I’d rather play the role of saying “This could work!” and leave the “No, it can’t” to someone else – but we need the “no, it can’t” types to keep us realistic.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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]

You need to calm down. So defensive. I’ve actually read Adam Smith, and most of Smith’s ideas came from Cantillon, but Cantillon explained it better and Smith was a little off on his explanations.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[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]

What’s with the choice of reason or faith. How about all ya’ll come to the Catholic Church and have reason and faith.

[Headhunter]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[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]

What’s with the choice of reason or faith. How about all ya’ll come to the Catholic Church and have reason and faith.[/quote]

The moral ideal of Christians is a man who allows himself to be tortured to death for strangers – not even for family or friends, but for strangers, most of whom who did ‘the Happy Dance’ every time he screamed in agony.

The above is hardly a model for a modern dynamic industrial society; of course Obama and the rest of the criminals are de-industrializing the country – altruism, destruction of the Greatest Nation, for a world full of criminals and scum…they ARE following Christian self-sacrificing and self-abasement.

Yes, Obama is practicing Christian morality alright.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[text telling me what is happening rather than what you think][/quote]

I’ll sum up.

1. Randian philosophy - atheistic capitalism - would save the world if implemented and is the Perfect Solution.

2. Christianity is incompatible with the Perfect Solution, and is thus wrong.

3. But, since the Perfect Solution isn’t achievable, a Christian political economy will do.

4. A Christian political economy will ultimately result in a national socialist state, but it would be preferable to other kinds of national socialists states.

But you continue to leave the question unanswered: which master do you think we should serve? The Randian one or the Christian one?

Sounds to me like you merely see the Christian political economy as the realistic “least worst” choice, given practical constraints. But if you are a true Randian, Christian political economy is incompatible with what is right, so it isn’t ok as an “alternative”.

Forget what practical problems - which master does Headhunter hold allegiance to? Atheistic capitalism? Or Christian political economy? Since you unequivocally endorse Randism as the “world saver”, I’d guess you an atheist capitalist, but I will let you tell me.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]AlisaV wrote:

I’m not a big Ayn Rand fan, just to be clear here. She doesn’t have a whole lot to offer, it’s easy to poke holes in her philosophy, she’s dogmatic … she’s not a great example of an empirical outlook. It’s also really common for libertarians to make bad arguments, and I’m becoming more and more aware of that and trying to resist it.

I’m pretty much okay with the kind of classical conservatism you’re talking about. It’s not for me, but it’s probably good for the country to have some classical conservatives. Temperamentally, I’m more about hope than limits – I’d rather play the role of saying “This could work!” and leave the “No, it can’t” to someone else – but we need the “no, it can’t” types to keep us realistic. [/quote]

Fair points all, and I admire your commitment to reason, empiricism and general open-mindedness. You don’t appear to be afraid to call a spade a spade.

But, a few points I want to cement (not necessarily in reaction to anything you said):

1. This brand of libertarianism - Randism, Rothbardism, whatever - is not the progeny of anything this country was founded on. It has no legitimate connection to the Founding Fathers or the American Revolution. So, let’s not pretend so. It isn’t a matter of taxonomy or pure semantics - it matters substantively. So, let’s call it what it is - continental political theory not organic to the American classical liberalism we associate with the Founders.

2. This libertarianism is less empirical than more. It is constructed from all kinds of unrealistic assumptions about human history and human nature. It defies experience and evidence to attempt to preach a brave new world based on New Rules that heretofore have no bon fide connection to human activity.

With these in mind, we can all have an honest debate as to what “ism” we should observe going forward. But, without these averments, and with libertarians trying to pretend that their radical theory is really just a return or a restoration of Old Principles, we can’t have that discussion.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

You need to calm down. So defensive. I’ve actually read Adam Smith, and most of Smith’s ideas came from Cantillon, but Cantillon explained it better and Smith was a little off on his explanations.[/quote]

I’m not un-calm, I’m just not willing to suffer fools gladly, and your pestering Rothbardian nonsense deserves a rebuke.

Most of Smith’s ideas didn’t come from Cantillon - Smith’s works are a compendium of a lot of thought at the time, which he notes, and he even cites to Cantillon (thus acknowledging credit to him).

The idea that Smith piggybacked Cantillon is incorrect, but popular among the Rothbardian dipshits. Me telling you so is not me being “excited”.

[Headhunter]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[text telling me what is happening rather than what you think][/quote]

I’ll sum up.

1. Randian philosophy - atheistic capitalism - would save the world if implemented and is the Perfect Solution.

2. Christianity is incompatible with the Perfect Solution, and is thus wrong.

3. But, since the Perfect Solution isn’t achievable, a Christian political economy will do.

4. A Christian political economy will ultimately result in a national socialist state, but it would be preferable to other kinds of national socialists states.

But you continue to leave the question unanswered: which master do you think we should serve? The Randian one or the Christian one?

Sounds to me like you merely see the Christian political economy as the realistic “least worst” choice, given practical constraints. But if you are a true Randian, Christian political economy is incompatible with what is right, so it isn’t ok as an “alternative”.

Forget what practical problems - which master does Headhunter hold allegiance to? Atheistic capitalism? Or Christian political economy? Since you unequivocally endorse Randism as the “world saver”, I’d guess you an atheist capitalist, but I will let you tell me.[/quote]

Now you’re getting it! Finally! Ms. Rand was an optimist, thinking that Reason would triumph. While it may eventually, that would occur ONLY when a majority of people accept Aristotle’s definition of Man and that being moral is doing what enhances Man.

We have to go through a lot prior to that ever happening. I’m assuming that human societies reflect the moral code of the majority of a people and that code is currently Judeo-Christian ethics. That code destroys the Great while praising the Small – as Nietzsche pointed out, its a slave morality which gives rise to ‘the Ultimate Man’, the man who is like a gentle cow that seeks only comfort and pleasure, the simple pleasures of cattle. The destruction of Man as man, reducing Man to a cretin with an i-pad who seeks sex without responsibility and drugs to blank out his consciousness, is the goal. Barack Obama is an excellent example of ‘the Ultimate Man’.

When the cattle have all died out, probably from some disease like AIDS that they create just by being who they are, the strongest will survive. Maybe then the true history of MAN can begin.

Since this is a statement of my personal philosophy, I will sign it (and perhaps like Nietzsche, nail it over the door to my house

THE HEADHUNTER

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[wandering text][/quote]

So, you think Christianity (or any other religion, or any belief in a moral code beyond the terrestrial Man) is both false and an obstacle on the path to Utopia?

Yes or no?

[Headhunter]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

[wandering text][/quote]

So, you think Christianity (or any other religion, or any belief in a moral code beyond the terrestrial Man) is both false and an obstacle on the path to Utopia?

Yes or no?[/quote]

Of course. Morality based on anything other than the nature of Man is meaningless and its practioners eventually have to resort to violence.

The IRS, the KGB, and the Taliban are all results of mystical moralities. They are the logical consequences of mysticism.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Of course. Morality based on anything other than the nature of Man is meaningless and its practioners eventually have to resort to violence.

The IRS, the KGB, and the Taliban are all results of mystical moralities. They are the logical consequences of mysticism.[/quote]

Super. This has helped clarify - you are an atheist-capitalist who flirts, frankly, with a brand of fascism (I mean that definitionally, not as an unvarnished pejorative). Your ideas are completely foreign and antithetical to any Western canon of liberty or the Founding Fathers.

Good to know. But, I will say this - given this admitted philosophical detachment from (and rejection to) any American concept of ordered liberty, your “advice” as to what America should or should not do is considerable in a new (and lesser) perspective.

[Dabba]

I don’t know why TB23 is making such a stink about libertarianism not being directly descended from the enlightenment/founding era or that it is not a part of the conservative tradition. It’s no secret that most modern libertarians were harshly critical of conservatism. All the major libertarians from Milton Friedman to Murray Rothbard all made clear that they were not conservatives and that they did not align themselves with that tradition.

It’s quite clear that libertarianism and conservatism are cut from two different cloths. The only fuzzy area is that they happen to agree on some matters economic (usually for entirely different reasons as well).

Btw, TB23, I will respond to your comments in the other thread, just haven’t had time lately.

[AlisaV]

TB, you make good points, like the way you argue, etc.

I hear a lot about human nature from conservatives. I want to caution that “human nature” is not constant over time, and not identical between people. I know essentially no history, so I don’t have a lot of confidence in this, but it does seem that “human nature” – what people value, what actions they’re willing to take – has undergone various changes over time. More immediately, I know for a fact that whenever someone says “human nature is such and such” there’s a good chance that I’ve met a counterexample.

When you say “libertarianism is against human nature” – I say, “which humans?” Most libertarian folks I know actually practice what they preach: they don’t order people around, and they can manage their own lives responsibly without being ordered around, and they find a happy and well-adjusted balance that way. And I think this is a good way to live. I don’t know, beyond a layman’s level of reading, what effects different social and economic forms of organization will have on society. It’s possible that some people really like coercing, and some people really like being coerced (possibly the same people!) and that this will never change – I don’t know. That’s an awfully grand aerial view. And after all, it’s never going to be up to me to be Supreme Dictator of All the World to impose all my personal views on it. But I’d rather stick with the people whose “human nature” is such that they find life more interesting and productive without a lot of force majeure.

[Dabba]

[quote]AlisaV wrote:
TB, you make good points, like the way you argue, etc.

I hear a lot about human nature from conservatives. I want to caution that “human nature” is not constant over time, and not identical between people. I know essentially no history, so I don’t have a lot of confidence in this, but it does seem that “human nature” – what people value, what actions they’re willing to take – has undergone various changes over time. More immediately, I know for a fact that whenever someone says “human nature is such and such” there’s a good chance that I’ve met a counterexample.

When you say “libertarianism is against human nature” – I say, “which humans?” Most libertarian folks I know actually practice what they preach: they don’t order people around, and they can manage their own lives responsibly without being ordered around, and they find a happy and well-adjusted balance that way. And I think this is a good way to live. I don’t know, beyond a layman’s level of reading, what effects different social and economic forms of organization will have on society. It’s possible that some people really like coercing, and some people really like being coerced (possibly the same people!) and that this will never change – I don’t know. That’s an awfully grand aerial view. And after all, it’s never going to be up to me to be Supreme Dictator of All the World to impose all my personal views on it. But I’d rather stick with the people whose “human nature” is such that they find life more interesting and productive without a lot of force majeure.[/quote]

Good post. Most appeals to the “human nature” argument are just a last resort when trying to debunk a logically superior position.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dabba wrote:

I don’t know why TB23 is making such a stink about libertarianism not being directly descended from the enlightenment/founding era or that it is not a part of the conservative tradition. [/quote]

I’ll tell you exactly why - there are those of us that do want to restore some sense of our political traditions, but we can’t quite get that message across due to “libertarians” who are conflating their brand of radical theory and the American political tradition (i.e., “legalizing weed and prostitution and being able to sell your body parts on eBay and privatizing courts is just what the Founding Fathers were talking about in the Constitution!!!”

Trust me, we need the distinction, because practical politics needs the clarity in this modern age when the national Democratic party is transforming into a party of Social Democracy. The alternative to creeping Social Democracy is not libertinism, nihilism, anarchy, or in Headhunter’s case, fascism, but rather the tradition of ordered liberty made famous in 1776.

Thus, I am raising a “stink” to ironically “clear the air”.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Dabba wrote:

Good post. Most appeals to the “human nature” argument are just a last resort when trying to debunk a logically superior position.[/quote]

Here is the other problem with our libertarians - they say really, really dumb yet smug things like this. It’s nothing more than a tacit admission of immaturity, naivete and youth. As such, it’s pretty darn hard to take them seriously.

AlisaV, I will get you a response shortly (probably tomorrow).

[Dabba]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Dabba wrote:

Good post. Most appeals to the “human nature” argument are just a last resort when trying to debunk a logically superior position.[/quote]

Here is the other problem with our libertarians - they say really, really dumb yet smug things like this. It’s nothing more than a tacit admission of immaturity, naivete and youth. As such, it’s pretty darn hard to take them seriously.

AlisaV, I will get you a response shortly (probably tomorrow).
[/quote]

Oh come on, TB, even the resident conservatives here know that there are none more smug than you.

And, no, it is not an admission of those things. Frankly, the fact that you discerned that from my one short sentence is quite troubling.

[Dabba]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’ll tell you exactly why - there are those of us that do want to restore some sense of our political traditions, but we can’t quite get that message across due to “libertarians” who are conflating their brand of radical theory and the American political tradition (i.e., “legalizing weed and prostitution and being able to sell your body parts on eBay and privatizing courts is just what the Founding Fathers were talking about in the Constitution!!!”[/quote]

What? Who the hell is saying that the founders wanted this? Most libertarians think that the founders didn’t go far enough, so I’m really not sure where you’re getting this from.

Trust me, we need the distinction, because practical politics needs the clarity in this modern age when the national Democratic party is transforming into a party of Social Democracy. The alternative to creeping Social Democracy is not libertinism, nihilism, anarchy, or in Headhunter’s case, fascism, but rather the tradition of ordered liberty made famous in 1776.

If it only it was that simple, I’d be all on board.