Posted on 03/09/2010 4:51:09 AM PST by Walter Scott Hudson
Trying to force a wedge into a perceived “crack” is a waste of time.
I thought it was about conservative change, silly me.
“Trying to force a wedge into a perceived “crack” is a waste of time.”
Could you explain what you mean? I am not sure why people who value Tea Party rallies would be so consumed by Ayn Rand. I recall she was an atheist. The founding fathers were not libertarians to my mind, they were republicans.
The Tea Party is good for one reason and one reason only. To beat back those who wish to abolish liberty! This is one of just a few things conservatives, libertarians, independents, and a some specious democrats can agree on.
In a free society, folks are free to embrace any religion as they see fit, so liberty is perfectly compatible with Judeo-Christian culture. A libertarian Christian is free to worship as he chooses; likewise with a libertarian Hindu, so long as neither forces the other to close his business on another person’s holy day.
Christianity and Atlas are not incompatible. The Biblical ethic has never endorsed thievry either from the church or state. No where did Jesus suggest that one should confiscate the wealth of others for the common good. Charity is always a matter of conscience of the individual in Christianity. It is true that many religious people as do many non religious people warp the idea of Christian charity as the justification for any and every largess of the state. I may suggest though that it is no accident when socialist and communist regiems rise they see as a clear enemy the church.
The problem with trying to drive a wedge between the altruistic nature of Judeo-Christian charity, objectivity and production is this...
If it is in the objective decision of a producer to award a portion of his production to a religious organization or charity he has done so of his own free will and accord. There has been no implied or directed pressure to do so.
This is in sharp contrast to the moochers and looters in Atlas Shrugged who preyed upon the willingness of the victim to subvert his production through guilt or taxation. At no point in that book was religion brought up.
I took that to mean that religion was separate from either since participation in it wasn’t coerced by implied moral societal stigma or implied government/legal action.
This is one of those examples where I see the problems with the Atlas Shrugged society and the Rayndians in general. Any dissension is immediate cause of banishment from the group.
Personally, I believe the Tea Party should be embracing the economic principles of Milton Friedman, especially “Capitalism and Freedom” along with “Free to Choose”.
Spot on. I plan on going “Gault” as soon as I can.
mark
The problem, of course, with Objectivism is that it assumes virtue in the productive man. This was Rand’s capital mistake.
Christianity assumes Man is Fallen, and provides Restraint. Without quite meaning to, Rand falls into the trap that Nietzche fell into: the unaccountable Superman bound only by his own conscience and the clauses of Contract and free trade.
The real world, unfortunately, is filled with Gordon Gekkos. Christ recognized this. Rand was writing in a period in which 20th Century Progressivism was eclipsing Victorian Positivism and Nietzche was all the rage.
Objectivism is just another ideology for Supermen, but it’s one great strength is that it recognizes the virtue of free will and capitalism as virtues, not vices. Christianity’s strength is that it’s law’s recognize man’s fallen nature.
Objectivists don’t get this.
Best,
Chris
This guy is right on the money. Be an Objectivist/Randian, or be a Christian / "Religious person".
But don't pretend to be both at the same time. That's just having it both ways. I know some "Objectivist" Christians and they have an impossibly arrogant habit of inviting themselves into other people's business and making decisions "for their own good" but not lifting a finger toward the decisions that they themselves make, creating nothing but conflict.
Objectivism is nothing more than an apology for pure, arrogant, and self-interested heartlessness.
Could say more about myself but I better not.
Your post was very helpful and gives me some ideas for future reading.
Religion was brought up in the book. Who do you think Rand was referring to with the term, “mystics of the spirit”?
Atlas already shrugged.
Now Wang, owns all the factories.
Soon Wang will also have all the money. And all the jobs.
Then what?...
I have a quibble (perhaps more than a quibble). "Tea" stands for Taxed Enough Already. I see the Tea party movement as an effort to control taxes, control spending, and shrink the size of government. The end result would be more Liberty. But the implementation is through reducing government revenue.
My biggest bone of contention with (some) Libertarians is that they seem to make "maximizing my personal Liberty" the first and most important goal. Secondarily, they have (some) interest in shrinking the government's budget.
I think that we need to control government spending as the first task, and then focus on Liberty. I think that's the only way it will work.
Very few people take a philosophy (like objectivism) and follow it to the letter. There is a great deal about objectivism that is perfectly compatible with “limited government” type conservatives and even religious conservatives. People of various beliefs, ideologies and philosophical foundations can (and do) unify where their is overlap.
Where the various groups of the left unify around increasing government control over people, WE unify around freedom from the government and the collective. That is what you see in these “tea parties”, the unification of the myriad of freedom seeking people into a movement that is heading in the same general direction.
We are focused on a common enemy and it will remain that way until the enemy (forced collectivism) is ultimately driven into the ground. There will be plenty of time to debate the nuances of our beliefs AFTER we crush the collectivists, but until then, it is absolutely pointless to do anything other than cheer each other on.
If forced collectivism is what you oppose, how do you feel about the largest communist nation in the history of earth, now controlling what used to be our manufacturing base?
Just wondering.
Wake up people. This is not some theoretical game.
America is collapsing.
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.