Posted on 01/13/2018 10:52:45 AM PST by Kaslin
I appreciate many aspects of Ayn Rand’s work (such as hard work, accountability, and free market capitalism) but I do not monolithically support all of her views on everything. (I abhor her atheism.)
I think anyone who does subscribe to every aspect of beliefs is foolish.
she would not have wanted people whose worldview was anti-reason, anti-reality, anti-capitalist, and anti-individual rights
Brillant point! Let’s stipulate open borders was acceptable to Ann. They would come to a country that had no freebies from the government. You can have a welfare state. You can have immigration. You cannot have both.
Want to come here and work even at the risk of starving to death, unloved, and even unwelcome? The come on in. If you make it then our country is better off. If you don’t then you serve as a cautionary tale to others.
When Rand writes that one of her characters actually burned down his accomplishments rather than have them taken over by “grabbists”, might we safely assume she DOES BELIEVE in a wall/border of some type? Do we burn down America? Oh the humanity! You produce; you survive and if you must you do everything possible to KEEP your achievements to do with what you wish.
‘Rand would have been completely in favor of Trump’s “America First” philosophy.’
the Rand Institute is ardently pro abortion; fire and brimstone ardent...
Sounds like she’s describing legal immigrants.
Uh....so?
Because she was an atheist William F Buckley split with her. She despised him as a result , going so far as to look over any list of people attending a party and avoiding invitations if Buckley was on the list.
from National Review back in December 1957:
I seriously doubt it. If she did, she'd be wrong, because libertarians (as opposed to anarchists) believe in sovereignty—both individual and national.
A nation that can't control its borders—or that doesn't have borders—isn't a nation at all.
If I recall correctly, there were various libertarian objections to international trade agreement—such as NAFTA and GATT—which were based on the their violation US sovereignty.
I don't agree with Trump on “merit” based immigration. How would most of us be here if our impoverished elders arriving at Ellis Island had to prove ahead of time they had a skill which benefits this country? That's Australia's method.
Ayn Rand, escaping Soviet Russia, came with nothing but ambition and a work ethic like most immigrants..
But this is not the America Ayn Rand emigrated to in the 1900’s. It wasn't Laissez-Faire then, it's now an over-regulated, over-taxed, intellectually disarmed country.
Dollars freely given (not those awarded by governments) are a measure of productivity. Some people do derive immense satisfaction in life being productive. Others, like myself, have attempted to produce enough in life that I and my family can live comfortably and pursue whatever our interests might be.
If one wishes to spend significant time praying, for example, having produced enough to avoid starvation or exposure is required. Unless one is into self-denial, then an even more comfortable existence is possible.
And finally, if one wishes to be charitable to others, it would make sense to maximize one's effectiveness in providing that charity. If Mother Theresa had been born with the business skills of Donald Trump, then she might have been able to donate a billion dollars worth of charity. How sad if she chose poorly and allowed some people to suffer needlessly.
Perhaps we need a discussion on what constitutes "merit".
When I was hospitalized several years ago I had an opportunity to learn a little about some of the nurses who cared for me.
One was a delightful young black lady with a fascinating accent who came from Nigeria. She had arrived in the U.S. by virtue of having a sponsor. She became aware of an opportunity to attend nursing school and, as a result, need never starve or find herself on welfare in the U.S. Her "merit" is her attitude.
Liberals are forever quoting the poem attached to the Statue of Liberty; "Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses ...". They always stop short of the phrase "... yearning to breathe free".
‘Rand would have been completely in favor of Trump’s “America First” philosophy.’
so is Trump ardently pro abortion, in tune with the Rand Institute? perhaps ‘completely in favor’ doesn’t describe the relationship in reality...
Two completely separate issues. I’m not seeing the correlation.
Just to clarify, in the 20th C., one needed a sponsor to get off of Ellis Island. The sponsor, in essence, guaranteed to take care of the immigrant until a a job could be found. There were zero, none, no handouts from taxpayers. Charity teaching hospitals and private clinics took care of poor people.
I don’t know how 19th C. America handled immigration. But one thing not being discussed enough is under our current system, diseases of the early 20th C. now wiped out are returning to our cities. And that’s with free medicine via emergency rooms.
She wasn’t retarded so I’m guessing she wouldn’t agree with this clown Binswanger.
I think she would’ve been for a merit-based immigration policy. I think she clearly recognized a state’s right to sovereignty, and I think she would’ve endorsed the right to keep that sovereignty in tact.
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.