Ayn Rand on Conservatives

[Dustin]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:
As an aisde, there all sorts of charitable organizations and churches to help those in need. This is a non-issue. [/quote]

Time is short at the moment, but notice your mention of chruches? Churches, along with church related associations, are always mentioned as key parts of the libertarian solution to a welfareless state. Indeed, I don’t believe I’ve had this conversation with a libertarian who didn’t mention churches. So, how then can we dismiss ‘mysticism?’ I mean, if we assure the reluctant that the rough edges of capitalism are smoothed over by ‘mysticism and mystics’ aren’t we admitting to the social power of ‘mysticism’? Isn’t it being depended on to provide an answer to the question “what’ll happen to the needy?” Now, if something has that much weight in society, how can anyone advise to abandon it in their arguments?[/quote]

You are making generalizations about libertarians. Some are Christian, some aren’t. I’m certainly not trying to dismiss mysticism. Churches serve an important function w/r/t charities.

[Dustin]

[quote]phaethon wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:
C. I’m not sure where you are going with this? If one can afford to give to charity, then do so. This is a simple concept.
[/quote]

If Libertarians do not hold it up as a guiding principle then charity is unlikely to fill the needs of the needy in a libertarian society. For instance I believe that if 90% of people became like orion or lift, private charity would not be enough to help the needy.

Because the people who are out in support of libertarianism don’t really care one way or another about private charity. If all the supporters were at their local soup kitchen helping out each weekend then it might be reasonable to believe that private charity would do well in their society. But it seems the libertarians around here want to leave the helping to others.

[quote]Dustin wrote:
As an aisde, there all sorts of charitable organizations and churches to help those in need. This is a non-issue. [/quote]

Now you are relying upon churches and the like. The problem is they are generally conservative institutions that are diametrically opposed to your libertarian principles. So as long as these institutions remain strong you are unlikely to have a libertarian culture and society.

In fact every charitable organization I can think of is filled with socialist humanists and/or with conservatives. Neither of which are your friends. Where are the charities run by libertarian minded people? Where is the push by these kinds of people to help out the needy and downtrodden?

While these charitable institutions remain strong there is no hope of a libertarian society. Simply because the people doing all the assisting are not libertarian minded folk (for the most part).

Do you donate your time or money to helping the needy? For the most part conservatives do and are willing to. I’ll even have to give it to the far left wackos that they try to help the needy. In my experience libertarians don’t.[/quote]

I’m not going to go point by point here. There is no need to as all you have done is make generalizations. You can’t come to the conclusion that “the people doing all the assisting are not libertarian minded folk”.

Some libertarians give to charity, some don’t. Just like conservatives, liberals, or humanists.

[Sloth]

[quote]Dustin wrote:

[quote]Sloth wrote:

[quote]Dustin wrote:
As an aisde, there all sorts of charitable organizations and churches to help those in need. This is a non-issue. [/quote]

Time is short at the moment, but notice your mention of chruches? Churches, along with church related associations, are always mentioned as key parts of the libertarian solution to a welfareless state. Indeed, I don’t believe I’ve had this conversation with a libertarian who didn’t mention churches. So, how then can we dismiss ‘mysticism?’ I mean, if we assure the reluctant that the rough edges of capitalism are smoothed over by ‘mysticism and mystics’ aren’t we admitting to the social power of ‘mysticism’? Isn’t it being depended on to provide an answer to the question “what’ll happen to the needy?” Now, if something has that much weight in society, how can anyone advise to abandon it in their arguments?[/quote]

You are making generalizations about libertarians. Some are Christian, some aren’t. I’m certainly not trying to dismiss mysticism. Churches serve an important function w/r/t charities.

[/quote]

No, and that’s fine. I suppose my response was more in line with Rand and her comments. Now, I’m not saying all libertarians are Randians, but she and her comments are the topic. So, my responses tend to be made with her in mind.

However, libertians who do think of charity as a moral good will need to do alot better than “If you do, than do. If you don’t, than don’t” In order to have any hope of instilling confidence, libertarians would have to be seen as actively cultivating such a moral principle in society. Lukewarm support isn’t going to garner support for dismantling the welfare state.

And charity can’t and has never been able to do it all. Not by a long shot. Mostly it has been the existence of larger intact families. Charity is the second line of defense. And today, with the family breaking down, charity doesn’t have a chance.

You would need a society that can do without a welfare state. For that, you will first need a moral code. Then you will need to inculcate society with that moral code. Then, maybe you have the conditions for self/local reliance. Not before.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

Ms. Rand again, FTW!! â??“Moral cowardice is the necessary consequence of discarding morality as inconsequential. It is the common symptom of all intellectual appeasers. The image of the brute is the symbol of an appeaserâ??s belief in the supremacy of evil, which means–not in conscious terms, but in terms of his quaking, cringing, blinding pan…ic–that when his mind judges a thing to be evil, his emotions proclaim its power…”[/quote]

Just saw this.

Headhunter, a comment on cowardice (even if wrong) suits you - because if there is one thing I have learned about you in this thread, it’s that you are not unfamiliar with cowardice.

[pat]

I always thought that Ayn Rand’s philosophies are basically drivel even though I may agree with what she says. She just plain doesn’t make good arguments.
Besides, Liberal vs. Conservative were different in things in the time this video was made. Back at that time I would have very much been considered a liberal. Now these same beliefs are considered conservative. While the liberals of today have “progressed” to a much more communist/ socialist perspective which she maligns as well.

She does not establish well that conservatives of that time want to adhere to old principals simply because they are old and liberals of that time held fast to new principals simply because they are new.

She’s a very boring speaker…

[Dustin]

[quote]pat wrote:

She’s a very boring speaker…[/quote]

This, I can agree with.