Started By
Message
re: Hugh Freeze Quote Ayn Rand????
Posted on 2/5/13 at 8:18 am to aggressor
Posted on 2/5/13 at 8:18 am to aggressor
quote:
Thanks for at least making a coherent argument.
While it is true that Objectivism is not as strongly accepted by academics as other philosophies it is hardly the case it is ignored either. UNC, Pitt, and Texas all have supported research on both and the later 2 have tenured profs who are Objectivists. Rating the success of a philosophy by how popular it is with academics is hardly a pure argument. Most philosophy departments are overwhelmingly liberal.
I agree Rand's philosophy is popular with "lay" people (though I fail to see why that is a bad thing, the Philosophy profs I had in school were the ultimate ivory tower elitists that truly seemed to live in their own world). Rand dealt with reality and the human condition and instead of trying to change human nature people should accept it and work with it. People work in their own self interests and are going to be most strongly driven by that.
I also don't think Rand's philosophy is the whole story. Her combining of her philosophy with economic and political theory are what is interesting and rings true. Does Rand go too far in terms of lack of governmental intervention or relying on people operating in their self interest? Maybe, but that's an opinion. It's a worthwhile exercise to learn about different ideas that may conflict with your own.
Where'd you get the info on the faculty members at Texas and Pitt who are Objectivists? And while I understand your point a/b academics being overwhelmingly liberal in their politics I think it's safe to say most scholars don't reject Objectivism on political grounds. For one, once you start muddying philosophy w/ politics and economics you run into some labeling problems: for instance, Rand's brand of economics is a/b as liberal as it gets. The liberal/conservative divide in our native politics doesn't hold true across academic disciplines to say nothing of the politics of other countries. No, the real reason there aren't (m)any(?) academic philosophers is b/c Rand wasn't much of a philosopher. Her philosophy therefore has many structural problems: it doesn't say much useful a/b actually constructing and running a gov't, at times many of the tenets are in direct opposition w/ each other, etc.
And while I admire your instinct to seek out a diversity of opinions to challenge your own beliefs that doesn't mean you have to ascribe to Rand's philosophy any greater merit than it deserves.
This post was edited on 2/5/13 at 8:24 am
2
Posted on 2/5/13 at 8:27 am to CowTownReb
The problem we have is that each side carries a poison pill of statism/authoritarianism.
Left and right are confused descriptions without their authoritarian and libertarian counterparts. You can be a godless Darwinian and a lean so far left that you fall off the map, but as long as you stay away from authoritarianism, I have no problem with you. I am more interested in one's approach to implementing those beliefs and the role of government in carrying out the implementation thereof.
Left and right are confused descriptions without their authoritarian and libertarian counterparts. You can be a godless Darwinian and a lean so far left that you fall off the map, but as long as you stay away from authoritarianism, I have no problem with you. I am more interested in one's approach to implementing those beliefs and the role of government in carrying out the implementation thereof.
This post was edited on 2/5/13 at 8:29 am
Posted on 2/5/13 at 8:38 am to KaiserSoze99
quote:
The problem we have is that each side carries a poison pill of statism/authoritarianism.
Fascism, communism, socialism are all anti-individual at their core and merely different iterations of left-wing statism.
Obama is a statist. The only question that remains is what flavor of statist is he.
This post was edited on 2/5/13 at 8:38 am
Posted on 2/5/13 at 8:47 am to MonroeTiger80
I agree. The Christian Conservative who wishes to force his or her religious beliefs on others is no different than the goose-stepper in terms of statism and destroying the liberty of the individual. That's not all Christian Conservatives, but only the ones who can't separate their religious convictions from political.
Both sides have enacted their statist will on the individual under the guise of "protecting" people.
Is it so bad to let people make wrong decisions and suffer the consequences? It's like aggressor said earlier. Greed has to be balanced by fear in the market place. Bad decisions must be punished with failure and loss. Nothing is more damaging to liberty than dependence. We should be treated as adults. The Statist wants to treat us like children. The left wants to tell us what to do with our money and the right to wants to tell us what to do with ourselves.
Both sides have enacted their statist will on the individual under the guise of "protecting" people.
Is it so bad to let people make wrong decisions and suffer the consequences? It's like aggressor said earlier. Greed has to be balanced by fear in the market place. Bad decisions must be punished with failure and loss. Nothing is more damaging to liberty than dependence. We should be treated as adults. The Statist wants to treat us like children. The left wants to tell us what to do with our money and the right to wants to tell us what to do with ourselves.
This post was edited on 2/5/13 at 8:48 am
Posted on 2/5/13 at 9:02 am to KaiserSoze99
CrowFusian BootStrap Theory.
"Grab your boots, strap them on and pull until you are independent of the shackles of government destined to take the fruit of thy labor and pass it on to the lazy and weak. For it is to be said here and now that once you can take care of yourself, you need not others to do for you what you can do for yourself.
CrowFucious
"Grab your boots, strap them on and pull until you are independent of the shackles of government destined to take the fruit of thy labor and pass it on to the lazy and weak. For it is to be said here and now that once you can take care of yourself, you need not others to do for you what you can do for yourself.
CrowFucious
This post was edited on 2/5/13 at 9:03 am
Posted on 2/5/13 at 9:15 am to KaiserSoze99
quote:
Is it so bad to let people make wrong decisions and suffer the consequences? It's like aggressor said earlier. Greed has to be balanced by fear in the market place. Bad decisions must be punished with failure and loss. Nothing is more damaging to liberty than dependence. We should be treated as adults. The Statist wants to treat us like children. The left wants to tell us what to do with our money and the right to wants to tell us what to do with ourselves.
Well, yes, it can be bad to make people bear the full brunt of their failure. For one, it inhibits the very risk taking that you claim to value as a free market proponent. And two, it's essentially a pretty shitty way to live: constantly in fear. That doesn't mean people should be guaranteed a living wage at the expense of those who do work or any nonsense like that. But it does mean we can work to smooth the edges of a purely market based economy by implementing a social safety net. Such a failsafe is a recognition that not everyone is the sum of strictly their own personal initiative and abilities, and that those that struggle are not down solely b/c they were judged wanting by the market. The goal of a market economy is to maximize output, and things such as public education, infrastructure upgrades, and unemployment insurance go a long way towards helping us get the most out of our resources and increase that all important marker of economic success: our GDP. A purely market based economy may give you maximum freedom, but frankly living in densely populated areas REQUIRES the surrender of certain freedoms in order to produce a smoothly functioning society. And in reality, a market can be just as constraining on your freedom as a gov't.
Posted on 2/5/13 at 9:20 am to Bench McElroy
quote:
Most college football coaches are hard-core Christian Republicans
Conservative Christian does not equal objectivist. In fact, the core philosophy that selfishness is good is pretty incompatible with Christianity.
Posted on 2/5/13 at 9:27 am to MFn GIMP
quote:
Conservative Christian does not equal objectivist. In fact, the core philosophy that selfishness is good is pretty incompatible with Christianity.
If you are truly a christian and believe all the teachings of jesus then you most likely are a socialist.
Posted on 2/5/13 at 9:30 am to CHSgc
I don't disagree. It's removing ALL fear and taking away ALL consequences that has caused the problems we have right now.
Government should only play a role to help blunt (not eliminate) the sting of failure and harness the power of ambition ("greed") to maximize economic power.
Pure laissez-faire is too unforgiving. I don't advocate anarchy, only LIMITED government that rewards self-reliance. Government assistance in failure should be sufficient to prevent total disaster, but limited to the point that recipients feel rescued, not rewarded.
Government should only play a role to help blunt (not eliminate) the sting of failure and harness the power of ambition ("greed") to maximize economic power.
Pure laissez-faire is too unforgiving. I don't advocate anarchy, only LIMITED government that rewards self-reliance. Government assistance in failure should be sufficient to prevent total disaster, but limited to the point that recipients feel rescued, not rewarded.
Posted on 2/5/13 at 9:35 am to oklahogjr
quote:
If you are truly a christian and believe all the teachings of jesus then you most likely are a socialist.
If that is what you believe, you missed the point of charity. Government is force. Forced charity is not charity, but theft. Jesus advocated giving freely. The only way a Christian can truly be a follower of Christ is by exercising his free will to do good, rather than being forced to do it. How has one truly demonstrated his discipleship when he had no choice, no temptation to do something other than God's will?
Posted on 2/5/13 at 10:06 am to CowTownReb
quote:
quote:
FIFY. Conservatives aren't atheists.
If you honestly can read a book like Atlas Shrugged and not see the parallels to the modern world and how private industry reacts to business I feel sorry for you. Fortunately the folks in Texas get it, that's why NY and California businesses and millionaires keep moving here. At some point people get tired of working their arse off and taking risks just so the government can tax it all away, thus Atlas Shrugged.
I beg to differ, sir.
It's the neo-cons that aren't atheists. Republicans are neo-cons. They aren't conservative. Not at all.
Limited government conservatives and constitutionalists don't give a shite what people believe or who they have sex with, or how they have sex, or what they ingest or what they print on money, or what a woman does with her body, or countless other mandates.
Conservatives care about lower taxes and spending less. In everything -- including defense. The government which governs best is that which governs least. Choice rules all. And the more choices the better. Leave the choices to the individual and keep the government's hand out of his pocket.
You are describing a libertarian and not a conservative. The terms are muddled but in modern American terms a libertarian is a fiscal conservative and social liberal (essentially wanting as little government interference as possible and maximum freedom. A conservative is a fiscal conservative and social conservative (opposing abortion, gay marriage, and being a proponent of morals as a driver of policy).
Posted on 2/5/13 at 10:21 am to aggressor
I would say it this way:
American Liberal:
Statist on ecomomic issues. Goverment should control means of production and distribute evenly to all.
Libertarian on social issues. for gay marriage, abortion, narcotics, etc.
American Conservative:
Statists on social issues. oppose gay marriage, abortion, narcotics, etc.
Libertarians on economic issues. Taxes, means of production, etc.
Neo-Con/Progressive (they are the same, despite their idiotic hostility toward each other):
Statist on most social and economic issues, but try to appear as though they are not. They pick and choose pet issues to be libertarian on, but only to get more votes. In the end, they are simply hardcore Authoritarians and only serve to extend and maintain their power. frick them.
Libertarians (not to be confused with the Libertarian Party):
Libertarian on most social and economic issues. For limited government, but still for government. What else can I say?
American Liberal:
Statist on ecomomic issues. Goverment should control means of production and distribute evenly to all.
Libertarian on social issues. for gay marriage, abortion, narcotics, etc.
American Conservative:
Statists on social issues. oppose gay marriage, abortion, narcotics, etc.
Libertarians on economic issues. Taxes, means of production, etc.
Neo-Con/Progressive (they are the same, despite their idiotic hostility toward each other):
Statist on most social and economic issues, but try to appear as though they are not. They pick and choose pet issues to be libertarian on, but only to get more votes. In the end, they are simply hardcore Authoritarians and only serve to extend and maintain their power. frick them.
Libertarians (not to be confused with the Libertarian Party):
Libertarian on most social and economic issues. For limited government, but still for government. What else can I say?
This post was edited on 2/5/13 at 10:22 am
Posted on 2/5/13 at 10:28 am to KaiserSoze99
quote:
Jesus advocated giving freely.
he advocated paying whatever the rulers said to pay.
Posted on 2/5/13 at 10:30 am to CHSgc
quote:
quote:
Thanks for at least making a coherent argument.
While it is true that Objectivism is not as strongly accepted by academics as other philosophies it is hardly the case it is ignored either. UNC, Pitt, and Texas all have supported research on both and the later 2 have tenured profs who are Objectivists. Rating the success of a philosophy by how popular it is with academics is hardly a pure argument. Most philosophy departments are overwhelmingly liberal.
I agree Rand's philosophy is popular with "lay" people (though I fail to see why that is a bad thing, the Philosophy profs I had in school were the ultimate ivory tower elitists that truly seemed to live in their own world). Rand dealt with reality and the human condition and instead of trying to change human nature people should accept it and work with it. People work in their own self interests and are going to be most strongly driven by that.
I also don't think Rand's philosophy is the whole story. Her combining of her philosophy with economic and political theory are what is interesting and rings true. Does Rand go too far in terms of lack of governmental intervention or relying on people operating in their self interest? Maybe, but that's an opinion. It's a worthwhile exercise to learn about different ideas that may conflict with your own.
Where'd you get the info on the faculty members at Texas and Pitt who are Objectivists? And while I understand your point a/b academics being overwhelmingly liberal in their politics I think it's safe to say most scholars don't reject Objectivism on political grounds. For one, once you start muddying philosophy w/ politics and economics you run into some labeling problems: for instance, Rand's brand of economics is a/b as liberal as it gets. The liberal/conservative divide in our native politics doesn't hold true across academic disciplines to say nothing of the politics of other countries. No, the real reason there aren't (m)any(?) academic philosophers is b/c Rand wasn't much of a philosopher. Her philosophy therefore has many structural problems: it doesn't say much useful a/b actually constructing and running a gov't, at times many of the tenets are in direct opposition w/ each other, etc.
And while I admire your instinct to seek out a diversity of opinions to challenge your own beliefs that doesn't mean you have to ascribe to Rand's philosophy any greater merit than it deserves.
Tara A. Smith-Professor of philosophy and holder of the BB&T Chair for the Study of Objectivism and holder of the Anthem Foundation Fellowship for the Study of Objectivism[2] at the University of Texas at Austin
LINK
James G. Lennox-Canadian by birth, Lennox is a founding member of the Ayn Rand Society, affiliated with the American Philosophical Association, Eastern Division, and has served frequently on its Steering Committee.
LINK
Rand was a classical liberal which is VERY different than the modern liberal. Her beliefs only really fit with Libertarians in today's politics.
I don't disagree that Rand's philosophy, politics, or economic theories were perfect or that I agree with all of them but I do think she was a lot more right than she was wrong. All philosophy has flaws as it is an inexact science by nature. Do I think Rand is Aristotle? No, but I would take her philosophy over Neitzsche.
Posted on 2/5/13 at 10:32 am to CHSgc
quote:
Rand's brand of economics is a/b as liberal as it gets.
Huh? Unless you mean liberal in the classical sense...
Posted on 2/5/13 at 10:36 am to oklahogjr
quote:
he advocated paying whatever the rulers said to pay.
You mean when he said "give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's"? Yes, he advocated paying taxes. What did Caesar use those taxes for? It certainly was not for any welfare program. At no time did Jesus advocate TAKING money from one and giving it to another BY FORCE.
You sound just exactly like Michael Moore.
Posted on 2/5/13 at 10:38 am to Razorologist
quote:
quote:
Communism: clearly a threat to 21st century America.
No kidding, right?
Am I more afraid of government or unregulated corporations (unregulated people)?
Corporations and it's not even close. The US government is the last thing I'm scared of in this world of powerful MNC's, NGO's, IGO's etc. I wish our government was strong enough to stand up to them. But, I guess the revolving door is too big to close.
Ayn Rand...no love for things like the EPA/FDA. Well, that's just awesome. I want a new planet and all these "privatized world of anarchy" people can have at it. I'll watch you eat each other with my telescope.
If that is how you truly feel I fear for you. The government will always be far more powerful than a corporation ever could be. The government can take everything from you and even kill you if it so decides to. I was very fortunate as an adolescent to live in Cold War West Germany and got a chance to go to Berlin and travel (with an escort) across Checkpoint Charlie into East Berlin. It is staggering to me that people don't understand just how far a government started with the best of intentions can go in terms of oppressing its people.
Are corporations all cake and ice cream? Of course not, corporations are about maximizing profit. The key is a corporation is much more easily controlled than the government and can never have the same power over your life as the government. You can choose to buy their products or not. You can choose to work for them or not. Is minimal regulation of corporations a good idea? Sure, anything that goes completely unchecked will abuse its power eventually. Still it can never touch the power of government.
Posted on 2/5/13 at 10:43 am to KaiserSoze99
quote:
What did Caesar use those taxes for? It certainly was not for any welfare program.
In the Roman Empire, the first emperor Augustus provided the 'congiaria' or corn dole for citizens who could not afford to buy food. Social welfare was enlarged by the Emperor Trajan.[2] Trajan's program brought acclaim from many, including Pliny the Younger.
wikipedia welfare, historically it started with the romans.
Posted on 2/5/13 at 10:46 am to oklahogjr
quote:
quote:
Conservative Christian does not equal objectivist. In fact, the core philosophy that selfishness is good is pretty incompatible with Christianity.
If you are truly a christian and believe all the teachings of jesus then you most likely are a socialist.
Jesus was not a politician nor did he subscribe to a political philosophy because too many things he said conflicted to have a singular ideal. For instance Jesus advocated mercy and forgiveness but not he also did not denounce all laws. His message was not one of politics but of the spirit and to try to take the few quotes we have from him that have been re-translated multiple times designed for the context of something else entirely and getting his political views is crazy. Personally I am always highly suspect anyone that tries to think they have the inside track on what Jesus or God "really" meant because they are typically trying to twist His meaning to their own beliefs.
Posted on 2/5/13 at 10:53 am to Eric Nies Grind Time
quote:
Why is he quoting an atheist? Needs to get right with God.
Didn't google the person saying it after he googled his quote for the day.
Page 7 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News