Posted on 02/25/2010 6:50:35 AM PST by Walter Scott Hudson
MINNEAPOLIS, MN The Tea Party must embrace egoism and reject the false morality of Judeo-Christian altruism if it hopes to effectively advocate for a capitalistic society, says a leading advocate of objectivist philosophy. Craig Biddle, editor of The Objective Standard and author of Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and the Facts that Support It, spoke Tuesday at an event hosted by the University of Minnesotas Ayn Rand Study Group. His presentation was entitled Capitalism: The Only Moral Social System, and covered the fundamentals of objectivist philosophy applied to politics.
During a question and answer session, Biddle was asked about the Tea Party movement and how it might effectively advocate for capitalism. The answer delved into territory Biddle described as controversial. Biddle stated the Tea Party movement had reignited interest in Rand, citing increased sales of her book Atlas Shrugged. Biddle claimed the novel is commonly misread. It is not fundamentally a political novel, he told those assembled. It is fundamentally a philosophical novel challenging Judeo-Christian ethics by advocating a morality of selfishness, and showing that morality [to be] what freedom depends on.
Biddle opined the Tea Party should think beyond politics. [The debate] is about ethics, he said. More fundamentally, its about epistemology and metaphysics. The core issue is egoism versus altruism, or selfishness versus sacrifice, according to Biddle. If it is true that sacrifice is morally good, Biddle argued, you cannot defend capitalism, because capitalism enables selfishness. People who want to advocate capitalism have to muster the courage to challenge the status quo morality.
A summary of Biddles presentation: Capitalism is widely regarded as the most practical social system. Empirical evidence supports the premise that freer societies are also wealthier, and therefore better able to service their needs. Objectivist philosophy argues capitalism is also the only moral social system, because it is the only system which recognizes and protects the requirements for human life. In short, those requirements are rational thought and productivity; one must secure food and shelter to continue living, which is obtained through productive action guided by rational thought. The only thing which can prevent one from acting on their rational thought to fulfill a self-serving interest is force. Every alternative to capitalism relies upon force to prevent selfish action and compel sacrifice on behalf of the group. Sacrifice is the exchange of something of greater value for something of lesser value, a suicidal practice on a long enough timeline. This is why capitalism is both demonstrably more practical than any other system, and the only moral system.
Based on the above argument, Biddle claimed there is no reason to support the premise one should act altruistically. The difficultly in arguing for egoism, Biddle says, is that altruism is taught by religion, specifically from the bible. Tea Partiers need to challenge what their mommy and the preacher told them about morality, Biddle said. The stakes he presented were nothing less than existential. Do we want to live and achieve happiness? Or do we want to suffer and die?
Glenn Beck, and Rush Limbaugh, and Thomas Sowell, and Walter Williams, and Jeff Jacoby, and all the people on the right who claim that they want capitalism and claim that they want freedom [are still] going to church on the weekends, Biddle concluded. You cant win by ignoring [this issue]. Youre either going to challenge the false morality thats caused this problem, and advocate the true morality that can solve this problem, or youre going to go the wrong direction.
What. Ever.
That is a nonsense argument. Two-thirds (34) of the States are required to seat and send delegates to a constitutional convention, and three-quarters (38) of the States are required to approve any of the changes it puts forth in its draft. Federal officials and officers are prohibited from being delegates to the convention.
Nobody, and I mean nobody, has the power to get 38 States to approve a radical agenda. If they did, they could have easily passed any number of constitutional amendments through congress, a far easier task.
No, a constitutional convention is going to be the most conservative, in the classical sense, not right wing, meeting that has ever taken place. It is not even worth assembling until the various States know that particular resolutions already have close to 3/4ths approval.
Four top university constitutional scholars have already submitted what they are believe are necessary changes to the constitution, and *not a one* of those suggested changes is radical at all. In the public forums, while suggesting even more changes to the constitution, they are even more conservative.
A constitutional convention is *not* going to be a revolution, but a restoration. The old idea that it is “unthinkable”, is dead. This is not to say that it will be voluntary. Circumstances are likely to force every part of it, such as an economic collapse.
This is an account of a recent event, the most basic definition of news. Wouldn't you rather be informed of the various efforts to hijack the movement?
BS! Altruism is good, it is what makes us a society. The difference between capitalism and socialism is that under capitalism, altruism and charity is voluntary and not state mandated. To donate your own money to a cause or needy people is a noble thing. To take other peoples money and "donate" to whatever is theft.
Curiously, Biddle's larger argument actually seemed to allow for that, even though he didn't seem to realize it. He talked about how it is not necessarily sacrificial to help people. If you see the value in helping someone, if it is worth it to you to do so, your are making a fair trade, he argued. The specific example he used was feeding children. If you give of your excess to help another, by Biddle's standard, it is not a sacrifice, just a trade. If you help someone else fed their child at the expense of your own, that is a sacrifice, and doesn't make sense. So he would say charity isn't really altruistic. It's an interesting argument. Not sure I buy it. But it is interesting.
I couldn't agree more with that sentiment. One way or another, my son will get a more comprehensive education than public school can provide. We need a return to classical education utilizing the Socratic method to teach people how to think instead of what to think.
Let him and his cohorts get their own damn group. Why are they trying to co-opt the Tea Party?
Is Objectivist just a fancy term for no-nothing egghead?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.