Ayn Rand on conservatives

[Dude#1279435]

Eh what are they good for?.....

GOP-- there's nothing grand about calling yourself old while trying to market your principles to the young.

Granted there's the issue of capitalism without regulations, but I've felt you needed an alarmist like Rand, someone who lived in Russia in the early 1900s. I think what made Rand appealing was her relentless and unapologetic tone. Goddess of the Market was an apt title for a book.

Conservatism: An Obituary

This essay, based on a lecture given at Princeton University in December 1960, was first published as a pamphlet in 1962 and later anthologized in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966 and 1967).

courses.aynrand.org

[excerpt]

That is the choice which today’s political leaders are determined to evade. The “liberals” are trying to put statism over by stealth — statism of a semi-socialist, semi-fascist kind — without letting the country realize what road they are taking to what ultimate goal. And while such a policy is reprehensible, there is something more reprehensible still: the policy of the “conservatives,” who are trying to defend freedom by stealth.

If the “liberals” are afraid to identify their program by its proper name, if they advocate every specific step, measure, policy, and principle of statism, but squirm and twist themselves into semantic pretzels with such euphemisms as the “Welfare State,” the “New Deal,” the “New Frontier,” they still preserve a semblance of logic, if not of morality: it is the logic of a con man who cannot afford to let his victims discover his purpose. Besides, the majority of those who are loosely identified by the term “liberals” are afraid to let themselves discover that what they advocate is statism. They do not want to accept the full meaning of their goal; they want to keep all the advantages and effects of capitalism, while destroying the cause, and they want to establish statism without its necessary effects. They do not want to know or to admit that they are the champions of dictatorship and slavery. So they evade the issue, for fear of discovering that their goal is evil.

Immoral as this might be, what is one to think of men who evade the issue for fear of discovering that their goal is good? What is the moral stature of those who are afraid to proclaim that they are the champions of freedom? What is the integrity of those who outdo their enemies in smearing, misrepresenting, spitting at, and apologizing for their own ideal? What is the rationality of those who expect to trick people into freedom, cheat them into justice, fool them into progress, con them into preserving their rights, and, while indoctrinating them with statism, put one over on them and let them wake up in a perfect capitalist society some morning?

These are the “conservatives” — or most of their intellectual spokesmen.

One need not wonder why they are losing elections or why this country is stumbling anxiously, reluctantly toward statism. One need not wonder why any cause represented or upheld in such a manner, is doomed. One need not wonder why any group with such a policy does, in fact, declare its own bankruptcy, forfeiting any claim to moral, intellectual, or political leadership.

 

[Dude#1279435]

More from the link above. Sad, and wish they'd take that "conservative" title and chuck it in the trash. Genius what Rand says here really.....

[excerpt]

In recent years, the “conservatives” have gradually come to a dim realization of the weakness in their position, of the philosophical flaw that had to be corrected. But the means by which they are attempting to correct it are worse than the original weakness; the means are discrediting and destroying the last remnants of their claim to intellectual leadership.

There are three interrelated arguments used by today’s “conservatives” to justify capitalism, which can best be designated as: the argument from faith — the argument from tradition — the argument from depravity.

Sensing their need of a moral base, many “conservatives” decided to choose religion as their moral justification; they claim that America and capitalism are based on faith in God. Politically, such a claim contradicts the fundamental principles of the United States: in America, religion is a private matter which cannot and must not be brought into political issues.

Intellectually, to rest one’s case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one’s enemies — that one has no rational arguments to offer. The “conservatives’ ” claim that their case rests on faith, means that there are no rational arguments to support the American system, no rational justification for freedom, justice, property, individual rights, that these rest on a mystic revelation and can be accepted only on faith — that in reason and logic the enemy is right, but men must hold faith as superior to reason.

Consider the implications of that theory. While the communists claim that they are the representatives of reason and science, the ’conservatives” concede it and retreat into the realm of mysticism, of faith, of the supernatural, into another world, surrendering this world to communism. It is the kind of victory that the communists’ irrational ideology could never have won on its own merits.

Observe the results. On the occasion of Khrushchev’s first visit to America, he declared, at a televised luncheon, that he had threatened to bury us because it has been “scientifically” proved that communism is the system of the future, destined to rule the world. What did our spokesman answer? Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge answered that our system is based on faith in God. Prior to Khrushchev’s arrival, the “conservative” leaders — including senators and House members — were issuing indignant protests against his visit, but the only action they suggested to the American people, the only “practical” form of protest, was: prayer and the holding of religious services for Khrushchev’s victims. To hear prayer offered as their only weapon by the representatives of the most powerful country on earth — a country allegedly dedicated to the fight for freedom — was enough to discredit America and capitalism in anyone’s eyes, at home and abroad.

Now consider the second argument: the attempt to justify capitalism on the ground of tradition. Certain groups are trying to switch the word “conservative” into the exact opposite of its modern American usage, to switch it back to its nineteenth-century meaning, and to put this over on the public. These groups declare that to be a “conservative” means to uphold the status quo, the given, the established, regardless of what it might be, regardless of whether it is good or bad, right or wrong, defensible or indefensible. They declare that we must defend the American political system not because it is right, but because our ancestors chose it, not because it is good, but because it is old.

America was created by men who broke with all political traditions and who originated a system unprecedented in history, relying on nothing but the “unaided” power of their own intellect. But the “neo-conservatives” are now trying to tell us that America was the product of “faith in revealed truths” and of uncritical respect for the traditions of the past (!).

It is certainly irrational to use the “new” as a standard of value, to believe that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is new. But it is much more preposterously irrational to use the “old” as a standard of value, to claim that an idea or a policy is good merely because it is ancient. The “liberals” are constantly asserting that they represent the future, that they are “new,” “progressive,” “forward-looking,” etc. — and they denounce the “conservatives” as old-fashioned representatives of a dead past. The “conservatives” concede it, and thus help the “liberals” to propagate one of today’s most grotesque inversions: collectivism, the ancient, frozen, status society, is offered to us in the name of progress — while capitalism, the only free, dynamic, creative society ever devised, is defended in the name of stagnation.

The plea to preserve “tradition” as such, can appeal only to those who have given up or to those who never intended to achieve anything in life. It is a plea that appeals to the worst elements in men and rejects the best: it appeals to fear, sloth, cowardice, conformity, self-doubt — and rejects creativeness, originality, courage, independence, self-reliance. It is an outrageous plea to address to human beings anywhere, but particularly outrageous here, in America, the country based on the principle that man must stand on his own feet, live by his own judgment, and move constantly forward as a productive, creative innovator.

The argument that we must respect “tradition” as such, respect it merely because it is a “tradition,” means that we must accept the values other men have chosen, merely because other men have chosen them — with the necessary implication of: who are we to change them? The affront to a man’s self-esteem, in such an argument, and the profound contempt for man’s nature are obvious.

 

[Dude#1279435]

I think Rand would've had high praise for Reagan. (She died in '82.) The others after, not so much. Trump you'd have seen fireworks going on all over the place with her hahaha.

 

[Dude#1279435]

It should be noted Rand was a "registered" Republican. She voted for em, but it didn't mean she had to like them.

I get excited and teary-eyed for America when I read Rand. Conservatives, I may as well rub sandpaper in my eyes. Well at least we're not as bad as Democrats! Gimme a break.

 

[Dude#1279435]

I don't really understand this one or know if it's even true. I'll take her word on it and assume it was some weird loseritis back in the 60s.....

This leads us to the third — and the worst — argument, used by some “conservatives”: the attempt to defend capitalism on the ground of man’s depravity.

This argument runs as follows: since men are weak, fallible, non-omniscient and innately depraved, no man may be entrusted with the responsibility of being a dictator and of ruling everybody else; therefore, a free society is the proper way of life for imperfect creatures.

Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state.

Dictatorship — this theory asserts — believe it or not, is the result of faith in man and in man’s goodness; if people believed that man is depraved by nature, they would not entrust a dictator with power. This means that a belief in human depravity protects human freedom — that it is wrong to enslave the depraved, but would be right to enslave the virtuous. And more: dictatorships — this theory declares — and all the other disasters of the modern world are man’s punishment for the sin of relying on his intellect and of attempting to improve his life on earth by seeking to devise a perfect political system and to establish a rational society. This means that humility, passivity, lethargic resignation and a belief in Original Sin are the bulwarks of capitalism. One could not go farther than this in historical, political, and psychological ignorance or subversion. This is truly the voice of the Dark Ages rising again — in the midst of our industrial civilization.

The cynical, man-hating advocates of this theory sneer at all ideals, scoff at all human aspirations and deride all attempts to improve men’s existence. “You can’t change human nature,” is their stock answer to the socialists. Thus they concede that socialism is the ideal, but human nature is unworthy of it; after which, they invite men to crusade for capitalism — a crusade one would have to start by spitting in one’s own face. Who will fight and die to defend his status as a miserable sinner? If, as a result of such theories, people become contemptuous of “conservatism,” do not wonder and do not ascribe it to the cleverness of the socialists.

Such are capitalism’s alleged defenders — and such are the arguments by which they propose to save it.

 

[highfigh]

I would hope that "Please grasp fully the implications of this argument: since men are depraved, they are not good enough for a dictatorship; freedom is all that they deserve; if they were perfect, they would be worthy of a totalitarian state." means to say that 'they are not good enough as leaders' because of their depravity.

 

[Trell]

A decade old article on Ayn Rand, bold added by me.

As an exercise, apply her philosophy to the anti-vaxxer and what fate they deserve.

How Ayn Rand became the new right's version of Marx | George Monbiot

George Monbiot: Her psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into their doormats

www.theguardian.com

>>>It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the postwar world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.

Rand was a Russian from a prosperous family who emigrated to the United States. Through her novels (such as Atlas Shrugged) and her nonfiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness) she explained a philosophy she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. ...

Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government intervention in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The millionaires, whom she portrays as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with the result that the nation collapses. It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness, by one of the heroic plutocrats, John Galt.

The poor die like flies as a result of government programmes and their own sloth and fecklessness. Those who try to help them are gassed. In a notorious passage, she argues that all the passengers in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate. One, for instance, was a teacher who taught children to be team players; one was a mother married to a civil servant, who cared for her children; one was a housewife "who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing".

Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. ...

Ignoring Rand's evangelical atheism, the Tea Party movement has taken her to its heart. No rally of theirs is complete without placards reading "Who is John Galt?" and "Rand was right". ...<<<

 

[Dude#1279435]

A decade old article on Ayn Rand, bold added by me.

As an exercise, apply her philosophy to the anti-vaxxer and what fate they deserve.

How Ayn Rand became the new right's version of Marx | George Monbiot

George Monbiot: Her psychopathic ideas made billionaires feel like victims and turned millions of followers into their doormats

www.theguardian.com

>>>It has a fair claim to be the ugliest philosophy the postwar world has produced. Selfishness, it contends, is good, altruism evil, empathy and compassion are irrational and destructive. The poor deserve to die; the rich deserve unmediated power. It has already been tested, and has failed spectacularly and catastrophically. Yet the belief system constructed by Ayn Rand, who died 30 years ago today, has never been more popular or influential.

Rand was a Russian from a prosperous family who emigrated to the United States. Through her novels (such as Atlas Shrugged) and her nonfiction (such as The Virtue of Selfishness) she explained a philosophy she called Objectivism. This holds that the only moral course is pure self-interest. We owe nothing, she insists, to anyone, even to members of our own families. She described the poor and weak as "refuse" and "parasites", and excoriated anyone seeking to assist them. ...

Atlas Shrugged, published in 1957, depicts a United States crippled by government intervention in which heroic millionaires struggle against a nation of spongers. The millionaires, whom she portrays as Atlas holding the world aloft, withdraw their labour, with the result that the nation collapses. It is rescued, through unregulated greed and selfishness, by one of the heroic plutocrats, John Galt.

The poor die like flies as a result of government programmes and their own sloth and fecklessness. Those who try to help them are gassed. In a notorious passage, she argues that all the passengers in a train filled with poisoned fumes deserved their fate. One, for instance, was a teacher who taught children to be team players; one was a mother married to a civil servant, who cared for her children; one was a housewife "who believed that she had the right to elect politicians, of whom she knew nothing".

Rand's is the philosophy of the psychopath, a misanthropic fantasy of cruelty, revenge and greed. ...

Ignoring Rand's evangelical atheism, the Tea Party movement has taken her to its heart. No rally of theirs is complete without placards reading "Who is John Galt?" and "Rand was right". ...<<<

I a way I wouldn't argue with you. Laissez faire capitalism doesn't work. That which doesn't have regulations. Her objectivist cult, an affair, and even her atheism.

But she isn't wrong about capitalism either. It isn't a perfect system (ie some regulations) but it's the only system that's ever worked. The industrial revolution wasn't achieved through more gov't intervention but less. I get perturbed with conservatives who throw all her ideas in the trash based on her atheism. The idea being capitalism does more for the poor because when you generate enough capital there are more resources available for such charity. Low taxes, not no taxes etc. And a general getting people off their asses. Honestly, I never hear it communicated from conservatives. Rand works best as an ideal IMO. Something to strive for but, I know, not exactly realistic. Paul Ryan dumping her for Thomas Aquinas due to political pressure etc. Lamentable IMO.

In one regard I'd have to say Republican have improved. They've largely gotten religion out of their politics. I know they attend church, but they don't announce it either. Well except when Trump holds up a bible and his base gobbles it up LOL.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Mike Huckabee-- a guy who is religious, and frankly I believe has the right to broadcast his religious ideals if he wants. But I'm not sure how faith defends the broader benefits of capitalism. Religion is socialist by nature and in stark contrast to the essence of capitalism. That's been the conflict with Republicans for probably as long as their inception.

 

[Trell]

I a way I wouldn't argue with you. Laissez faire capitalism doesn't work. That which doesn't have regulations. Her objectivist cult, an affair, and even her atheism.

But she isn't wrong about capitalism either. It isn't a perfect system (ie some regulations) but it's the only system that's ever worked. The industrial revolution wasn't achieved through more gov't intervention but less. I get perturbed with conservatives who throw all her ideas in the trash based on her atheism. The idea being capitalism does more for the poor because when you generate enough capital there are more resources available for such charity. Low taxes, not no taxes etc. And a general getting people off their asses. Honestly, I never hear it communicated from conservatives. Rand works best as an ideal IMO. Something to strive for but, I know, not exactly realistic. Paul Ryan dumping her for Thomas Aquinas due to political pressure etc. Lamentable IMO.

In one regard I'd have to say Republican have improved. They've largely gotten religion out of their politics. I know they attend church, but they don't announce it either. Well except when Trump holds up a bible and his base gobbles it up LOL.

Capitalism comes in many forms and has evolved over time, like so many other economic systems, but it has some severe negative consequences that is the reason for various regulations and implementation of social safety nets.

One example is the Nordic countries that are social democratic with strong safety nets, but they are also very capitalistic and successful. Other examples are to be found in Europe, and I guess Canada as well for a country nearer to you.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Another favorite of mine. Glad the era of the "war hawk" is gone. "Servitude" to our country by force LOL. Plus it just ended up with people in the up and up paying off politicians so their kid didn't get drafted. There will always be boots on the ground, but the technology has prevented these huge wars from the past.

—Ayn Rand Lexicon

The Ayn Rand Lexicon: This mini-encyclopedia of Objectivism is compiled from Ayn Rand’s statements on some 400 topics in philosophy, economics, psychology and history.

aynrandlexicon.com

Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.

If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?

The most immoral contradiction—in the chaos of today’s anti-ideological groups—is that of the so-called “conservatives,” who posture as defenders of individual rights, particularly property rights, but uphold and advocate the draft. By what infernal evasion can they hope to justify the proposition that creatures who have no right to life, have the right to a bank account? A slightly higher—though not much higher—rung of hell should be reserved for those “liberals” who claim that man has the “right” to economic security, public housing, medical care, education, recreation, but no right to life, or: that man has the right to livelihood, but not to life.

One of the notions used by all sides to justify the draft, is that “rights impose obligations.” Obligations, to whom?—and imposed, by whom? Ideologically, that notion is worse than the evil it attempts to justify: it implies that rights are a gift from the state, and that a man has to buy them by offering something (his life) in return. Logically, that notion is a contradiction: since the only proper function of a government is to protect man’s rights, it cannot claim title to his life in exchange for that protection.

The only “obligation” involved in individual rights is an obligation imposed, not by the state, but by the nature of reality (i.e., by the law of identity): consistency, which, in this case, means the obligation to respect the rights of others, if one wishes one’s own rights to be recognized and protected.

Politically, the draft is clearly unconstitutional. No amount of rationalization, neither by the Supreme Court nor by private individuals, can alter the fact that it represents “involuntary servitude.”

A volunteer army is the only proper, moral—and practical—way to defend a free country. Should a man volunteer to fight, if his country is attacked? Yes—if he values his own rights and freedom. A free (or even semi-free) country has never lacked volunteers in the face of foreign aggression. Many military authorities have testified that a volunteer army—an army of men who know what they are fighting for and why—is the best, most effective army, and that a drafted one is the least effective.

It is often asked: “But what if a country cannot find a sufficient number of volunteers?” Even so, this would not give the rest of the population a right to the lives of the country’s young men. But, in fact, the lack of volunteers occurs for one of two reasons: (1) If a country is demoralized by a corrupt, authoritarian government, its citizens will not volunteer to defend it. But neither will they fight for long, if drafted. For example, observe the literal disintegration of the Czarist Russian army in World War I. (2) If a country’s government undertakes to fight a war for some reason other than self-defense, for a purpose which the citizens neither share nor understand, it will not find many volunteers. Thus a volunteer army is one of the best protectors of peace, not only against foreign aggression, but also against any warlike ideologies or projects on the part of a country’s own government.

Not many men would volunteer for such wars as Korea or Vietnam. Without the power to draft, the makers of our foreign policy would not be able to embark on adventures of that kind. This is one of the best practical reasons for the abolition of the draft.

 

[Dude#1279435]

Me: There's something wrong with capitalism's pronunciation. It sounds like you're capitalizing on people, taking advantage of them.

Conservative: Yeah, what's your point?

Me: Well it's ass-backwards. The only system that has ever worked is capitalism. Yet it sounds terrible. Socialism sounds better. It rolls off the tongue smoother and kinder. Yet socialism doesn't work.

Conservative: Oh, I never thought about it like that.

Me: Yeah, that's my point. You're trying to sell something positive, but it's an uphill battle because you need to reach the young early on this. You assume words like conservative and the American way have meaning, but really they're just vague generalizations. Plus your ideas on tax cuts for the rich are goofy. Someone over there needs to just come out and say it: The wealthy are special and deserve deep tax cuts because they stimulate the economy more than anyone else. We as an American people below them benefit more from them than any other because they produce jobs. Their innovations help us to have more sh-t in our houses at the lowest price possible than any other nation.

Conservative: [.....]

 

[Dude#1279435]

An old boss one said, Democrats call conservatives racist and then they just walk away.

My point would've been That's the point: they don't fight back.