Posted on 08/28/2010 7:06:10 PM PDT by Mojave
This past spring, the Financial Industry Inquiry Commission held hearings on the world's recent financial crisis. The star witness was Alan Greenspan. The Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan translated Greenspan's typically elusive testimony this way: "I didn't do anything wrong, and neither did Ayn Rand by the way, but next time you might try more regulation."
There were obviously many reasons for the Great Recession. But I believe Noonan got to the root of one particular evil.
Fortune magazine once labeled Greenspan "America's most famous libertarian, an Ayn Rand acolyte." (While Rand formally rejected libertarianism, libertarians nonetheless admire her.) But today, both libertarians and Randians are disassociating themselves from Greenspan as quickly as Wall Street.
Burns is a liar.
Maybe I'm not connecting the dots here, a link would be helpful, but I fail to see how the rejection of our moral obligations caused the recession
Greenspan may have been a Randian when he was young, but I never got the impression that what he did while in power was what she would have recommended.
Many folks wonder (out loud, even) if it was Rand herself who ghost-wrote those articles attributed to Greenspan in her books.
Her followers used to claim (falsely) that Ayn sold more copies than the Bible. You would think that they would be pleased to have her called a Goddess.
Amazing.
Ok, Christians intensely dislike Rand because she was atheist,,got it. Personally I think one of the stupidest things any man could do would have been to date the woman.
That said, an attempt to lay the *any* blame for this recession upon her philosophy, is one of the most uneducated, unsupportable things i’ve ever read.
If she ever wrote 2+2=4, there seems to be a bizzarro lunatic sect that would declare it to be wrong, and feel like they are somehow protecting God by doing so.
Just how can anyone after reading any of Rand writing or books mix Christianity and Objectivism???
I've read them all and the main reason I reject Objectivism is it's lack of any Christian values
What silliness. Greenspan was the CEO and CFO of a counterfeiting ring known as The Fed. His primary job was to convince the American public that this ring of gangsters was operating on it’s behalf. This behavior is hardly a characteristic of libertarianism, Libertarianism or Objectivism. Greenspan is no different than your typical mobster or conman. In a rational society he would be Maddof’s cellmate.
Rand would rejoice that our companies and the affluent are sitting on unprecedented wealth while our government and nonprofits are struggling financially.
Really? Our government is broke because of greedy businesses?
But of course the Sermon on the Mount, whose messenger borrowed a donkey, an upper room, and a tomb during Holy Week alone, suggests that we are to lend to anyone in true need.
And this is a justification for massive government debt?
The biblical discouragement of unholy alliances should have named that tune as syncretism. But the angry white man of 1994 sings on at today's tea parties. And his anger is still primarily over economic issues. ... How might more of us be found joyfully working in God's harvest rather than angrily wasting time, talent, and treasure drowning tea?
So the economic mess is the responsibility of people trying to limit government. Got it.
The author also takes shots at Larry Burkett, Dave Ramsey, and Glenn Beck. It's quite the hit piece. Rand was a mean, nasty little person as the author points out repeatedly. But his assertion that somehow that makes her loathing of big government wrong is asinine.
“the core of the right-wing ideology that Rand spearheaded was a rejection of moral obligations to others.”
I would like to see anything that Rand wrote, which rejected morality as a basis for ANY dealings with anyone. As a further aside, Nearly everything the woman wrote was warning us about the very policies of the US government, and of the other corruption, which brought us the recession in the first place.
Utterly incredible. It’s sad to see a Christian magazine publishing sheer stupidity in the name of affirming Christian principles. Why not just write an honest article detailing the trainwreck of her personal life? It’s a silly exercise to try to prove every idea she had was wrong. If she would have been a aeronautical engineer, would this bozo be busily trying to prove that an atheist cannot possibly design a good inlet for a jet engine? It’s laughable.
Ooooh... Collective Salvation, anyone?
You would think that they would be pleased to have her called a Goddess.
The writer claimed “Goddess of the free market”. Exactly when was the last time in America that there was a free market economy, rather than a centrally-planned economy?
You’re making some good points.
Then what does this suggest?
For the kingdom of heaven is like a man traveling to a far country, who called his own servants and delivered his goods to them. And to one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one, to each according to his own ability; and immediately he went on a journey. Then he who had received the five talents went and traded with them, and made another five talents. And likewise he who had received two gained two more also. But he who had received one went and dug in the ground, and hid his lords money. After a long time the lord of those servants came and settled accounts with them.
So he who had received five talents came and brought five other talents, saying, Lord, you delivered to me five talents; look, I have gained five more talents besides them. His lord said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant; you were faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord. He also who had received two talents came and said, Lord, you delivered to me two talents; look, I have gained two more talents besides them. His lord said to him, Well done, good and faithful servant; you have been faithful over a few things, I will make you ruler over many things. Enter into the joy of your lord. Then he who had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you have not sown, and gathering where you have not scattered seed. And I was afraid, and went and hid your talent in the ground. Look, there you have what is yours.
But his lord answered and said to him, You wicked and lazy servant, you knew that I reap where I have not sown, and gather where I have not scattered seed. So you ought to have deposited my money with the bankers, and at my coming I would have received back my own with interest. So take the talent from him, and give it to him who has ten talents.
For to everyone who has, more will be given, and he will have abundance; but from him who does not have, even what he has will be taken away. And cast the unprofitable servant into the outer darkness. There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I just cannot believe the guy actually wrote this. The very essence of her view of dealings with others, was that it should be based solely upon reason and virtue, never upon force. She thought morality was a virtue. The problem is that we cannot agree upon terms, some people seem to think that “morality” is to agree that anyone, anytime, has a full right to claim the labor and property of others,,,,
This of course, is actually the bedrock of Obamunism.
Rothbard wrote that many of the "philosophical insights" Rand claimed as her creations were actually stolen from a number of Jesuit writers.
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.