12 minutes. Some nice quotes from Enlightenment era philosophers. O’Neill is the editor of Spiked!, which I believe is akin to the UK version of Reason.
What a great quote!
I in general support many parts of libertarianism. But as I have gotten older I have come to favor the 2 party system over a 3 or more party system. In a democracy, or a democratic republic like ours, I think the 2 party system works best. Reason being is that the democratic republic does still favor majority rules. If you requirement for a majority of only 34% or 26% to win in the ballot box than it’s potentially going against the will of the majority of the country. Meaning that politicians can do fine with a 3rd or a quarter of the country behind them, while leaving the other 63% or 74% enduring policy and politicians they don’t really like.
At least with a two party system, in theory at least, you can only immiserate 49% of the population and at least half of the public is satiated.
So rather than introduce new parties into the system, its best to engage the existing parties to take seriously the concerns of most Americans. That way we at least achieve common interests, if by different tactics.
The only other thing I would favor is to do away with the party system altogether as was originally intended by the founding fathers. But nature abhors a vacuum, and party will eventually raise it’s head again, if not just in a different form.
Rand was a racist and elitist and her racism was the product of her “philosophy.” She was all for individual liberty provided you lived your life according to her subjective values. Otherwise she was fine with you literally being exterminated.
From what I have read some libertarians have tried to get her cultists to disavow her racism but that would be blasphemous.
I think reality has shown us that she was a sociopath (just look at her personal life) who tried to make being a sociopath a sort of heroism.
I’m not @beliigerent, but I’ll just say a couple of things, if you don’t mind.
I’m not acquainted with any Rand “cultists” in real life, so I can’t speak to that.
@ racism. Classical Liberals tend to be very high on Openness, and low on Disgust, among other marked personality differences. The opposite profile, being low on trait Openness, and high on Disgust, often goes with tribalism, ethnocentrism, fear of the unknown, protective in-group behavior. Not to say that there are no racists among us, but if you look at personality trait research, you wouldn’t predict a lot of Tribalism among people with a typical Classical Liberal personality type. There’s a nice article about personality research and political party up thread. As I recall, Classical Liberals tend to be lower in Compassion, and higher in Logic, Systemizing, and Analytical Reasoning. That may be why there are only 7% of women with this political personality, if you will. Men tend to be higher in systemizing, and women higher in empathizing.
With Rand, you take the things that are good and meaningful. You can find eugenics or racism, or something we find abhorrent in a great many thinkers and historical figures from the past. We’d have to toss out a lot of wise people.
Rand came out of the USSR where she saw the atrocities of Communism. She’s good about showing where that leads, and how it corrupts the human soul. For that alone, I’m glad we have a Rand. Unfortunately, she’s been right about Communism leading to tragedy, repeatedly. And she writes some great heroes. There’s nothing racist or sexist in her novels, that I can recall.
So, about Rand. I think she’s like anyone you read. You take the things that are good, the bits of insight that ring true. Her philosophy isn’t complete, I don’t try to make it some kind of code for my life. My values are VERY different than Rand, in the way I live my life. I am Christian, and for me, the only person who sets that kind of an example is Jesus Christ.
OMG, and that’s like the worst thing is the world! Any contribution to philosophy and thought she made should be ignored.
You hit the nail right square on the friggin head! 
I’m sure you can find some good in anyone, including Hitler, it doesn’t make up for the overall picture of who he was. Her racism was justified by her philosophy. It’s not that she had this philosophy (such that it was) while also being a racist. Her philosophy is racist. She referred to her belief system when justifying the genocide of American Indians. Saying this means that not only is she OK with what happened to them but, since it wasn’t wrong and even necessary, she would have participated (because, if she said she wouldn’t have participated she would be a liar when she said it was the right thing to do). I don’t know about anyone here but to me, a person who is capable of killing women and children simply because their culture is different, is a sociopath. Especially when that person has the benefit of hindsight and is decades removed from the events she is describing. Here is what she said:
“Now, I don’t care to discuss the alleged complaints American Indians have against this country. I believe, with good reason, the most unsympathetic Hollywood portrayal of Indians and what they did to the white man. They had no right to a country merely because they were born here and then acted like savages. The white man did not conquer this country…”
“They (Native Americans) didn’t have any rights to the land, and there was no reason for anyone to grant them rights which they had not conceived and were not using. What was it that they were fighting for, when they opposed white men on this continent? For their wish to continue a primitive existence, their ‘right’ to keep part of the earth untouched, unused and not even as property, but just keep everybody out so that you will live practically like an animal, or a few caves above it. Any white person who brings the element of civilization has the right to take over this continent.”
This is what her philosophy can justify: genocide.
She tried to redefine racism in order to hide her own.
She also believed that racism was more prevalent among “white trash” in the South than their “intellectual betters.” Apparently the genius didn’t ask herself who exactly owned slaves (it wasn’t the poor “white trash”) and who invented racism in the US (those who had a personal interest in seeing blacks remain slaves and after the Civil War preventing them from having political power). In her mind the intellectuals, who were of a higher socioeconomic status, were incapable of primitive thinking like racism.
You can’t ignore something that does not exist.
I should also add that Rand was not a philosopher, she was an ideologue.
Martin Luther said some REALLY ugly anti-semitic garbage.
James Watson, Nobel prize winner for being a co-discoverer of the DNA double helix, said some really racist things. You don’t have to like him as a person, but I doubt you want to forget DNA exists.
Kant (and a lot of other philosophers I’m sure) said disparaging stuff about women.
Washington and Jefferson actually owned slaves. I don’t want to burn their words, or remove them from our history.
Woodrow Wilson actually showed the racist The Birth of a Nation (formerly called The Clansman) in the White House. I’d be happy to remove Wilson from our history. Ha! Progressives love him, so apparently they overlook this too.
If you look at the intellectual history of mankind, you’ll find all kinds of brilliant people who THOUGHT or SAID things we’d find abhorrent.
Forgive me if I’m not burning Rand’s books because she went off and spouted some racist nonsense about Native Americans or other ethnic groups in an interview or an essay.
If I set that precedent, I’d have to burn A LOT of books.
Freedom of THOUGHT and freedom of SPEECH are core values from the Enlightenment. See video I put up yesterday.
Rothbard and Rand were confidants before they were enemies … Not really sure when or why the splinter between Rand and Libertarians emerged, clearly it did, but there wasn’t always that rift…
You completely missed the point. Rand’s philosophy, or more correctly her ideology, justified genocide. It could almost be seen as condoning genocide as a virtuous and necessary act. You can cherry pick anything from anyone but is that actually saying you admire or follow that person’s “philosophy?” Or is it saying the opposite since you reject essential parts. It’s like saying you believe in God but follow Rand. It doesn’t work that way because atheism is an essential part of her belief system.
The comparison to Jefferson is faulty. One could easily say that his views on freedom and civil rights existed in spite of his personal life unlike Rand whose views existed because of, and were expressed in her personal life. You can see two Jeffersons but there is only one Rand. When she said those things about Indians she was not expressing a belief that was separate from her “philosophy” but a belief that was a product of her philosophy. It is an essential element of her “philosophy.”
Martin did not say antisemitic garbage he was an anti-Semite. His antisemitism was part of his religious beliefs. Kant may have held certain opinions on women that were current at the time. Watson is a scientist, not a philosopher. He is not peddling a utopia.
The thing about the people you mention is historical context. Yes, Aristotle probably held some beliefs we would find abhorrent. But he lived around 2,500 years ago. Rand died in 1982. She was well aware of the Holocaust. When we judge Rand we are judging a contemporary, not a historical figure who lived in a different time.
In short, that racist nonsense may be nonsense to you but to Rand it was an essential part of her beliefs.
It’s also interesting that you bring up the Enlightenment because Rand’s beliefs do not coincide with some of the most important philosophers of that movement. And Rand did not believe in freedom of thought and speech or even human rights.
If true, thus the conflict with libertarians. Did she ever say as much? Its been a decade since I’ve read Rand.
When you believe, as she did, that a superior culture (based purely on subjective perception) has the right and even the obligation to destroy an inferior culture (not simply the culture but the people) then how can someone say she believed in freedom of thought or speech or human rights? It’s one thing to believe a culture is superior to another but it’s another thing to believe that inferiority does not have the equal right to exist.
The quote you posted is “take over this continent”, not “exterminate the natives”. Conquest and genocide are two different things, just ask the Mongols.
While clearly she had a very low opinion of natives who didn’t use the land they lived on like the rest of civilization… I don’t see a call for genocide there, merely an excuse for conquest.
Most cultures have made rationalizations for their conquest of “lesser” folks. If I have to hate everyone who engaged in conquest then that’s all the Romans, Greeks, Chinese, Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Persians, Ottomans etc… I have to hate everyone who ever lived in a society successful enough to grow.
Throughout history humans really need no excuse for conquest. Strong groups take what they can, while they can. That’s how the world works.
Because for whatever else she may have said, she talked about the the freedom, aims, desires, happiness of the individual pretty relentlessly. Anthem is basically a poem to individual will. She talks about freedom of the individual repeatedly elsewhere. She almost worships man’s will, at least in her early work, and the things I’m familiar with. It’s fundamental, as I understand her. I’m not an expert.
BTW, people like BF Skinner, who did not believe in free will as we think of it, do not used words like wants, desires, aims, goals. Those are common Rand terms. Many of BF Skinner’s ideas give me the creeps, but I teach his work all the time, and we still use his work in my field. So, yeah. If we threw him out because he doesn’t really jive with all of our ideals, we wouldn’t have Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Take the good.
I was referring to the current PC persecution of of Wrong Think and Wrong Speech. And I was using examples I assumed you’d likely be familiar with. There are plenty of current people who are being criticized for their essay, or a chapter in their book, or something they said two decades ago. That’s fine, so long as it doesn’t infringe on academic freedom, or it becomes an attempt to not tolerate dissenting ideas of any kind. In my field, you can look back at the 1990’s and find quotes by some of the best minds in my field that now sound backward to us. Yeah, that is basic Enlightenment Era stuff. The video clip I put up does a nice job with tying contemporary accusations of Wrong Think with that.
At people like Martin Luther or the more contemporary, Watson. I will disagree with them on some points, while still valuing their contributions, probably because they weren’t personally totalitarian killers. I’m grateful we had Luther. BTW, I don’t think you were saying that Luther is equivalent to Hitler. You were making an argument along the lines of someone saying “Hey, Castro really cared about healthcare and education,” while ignoring the fact that he was a murderous totalitarian. Yeah. I care a lot more when the person we’re talking about moves into action and becomes a a murderous dictator. We don’t convict people for their thoughts. That was the Inquisition. That’s what I was trying to get across there.
BTW, Ireland has a Che Guevarra Stamp now which blows my mind. @Legalsteel
Hi Nick. Just a word about zerohedge. I didn’t know what they were until sometime last year I guess. I think it’s pretty shady. Tyler Durden is a character from Fight Club. Anyway, you probably know that.
I wonder now about how much content on the web is mixed in with propaganda meant to divide us.
No. She said that the fate that befell the Indians was justified when Europeans took over this continent.Yes, I’ll ask the inhabitants of Baghdad about Mongolian genocide…oh wait…the Mongols killed everyone.
Again, what peoples have done in the past is one thing, what Rand believes is another. By validating genocide because of cultural differences she validates future genocide for the same reasons. Using her logic Hitler was right since he believed the Jews stood in the way of the German people’s ability to fully express themselves.