Like I said the other day, for a bunch of gun-loving neanderthals, we sure do some interesting reading. $:-)
Posted on 08/27/2003 12:46:25 PM PDT by Mr.Atos
"Don't set out to raze all shrines — you'll frighten men. Enshrine mediocrity — and the shrines are razed . . . Kill by laughter. Laughter is an instrument of human joy. Learn to use it as a weapon of destruction. Turn it into a sneer. It's simple. Tell them to laugh at virtue. Don't let anything remain sacred in a man's soul — and his soul won't be sacred to him. Kill reverence and you've killed the hero in man"
In a famous speech from Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead (p. 637), arch-villain Ellsworth Toohey explains one way to seize power over an entire country...
His strategy is working.
Today, even a quick glance at newspaper headlines reveals the ongoing dismantling of freedom. It is true that the old guard of totalitarianism is largely dead — the Soviet Union is dissolved, the Berlin Wall is ten years fallen, and formerly communist countries are adopting limited market reforms. But statism is hardly beaten — it is simply reappearing in new guises, to fit the latest fashions of the masses...
What is killing freedom? Is it economic stupidity? The power of pressure groups moving unimpeded against a disinterested, complacent population? A conspiracy among the politicians and the press to maintain their modern-day Camelots?
Certainly, these are important culprits. But they are mere foot-soldiers compared to the looming commander whose spirit is the source of the disintegration of liberty: Ellsworth Toohey.
The essential evil of Ellsworth Toohey is his naked hatred of the good for being good.
Toohey was after power. And he knew that one cannot rule those of integrity, confidence, happiness, and pride. Toohey's whole aim was to destroy these qualities — to obliterate the shining spirit which represents joyous self-fulfillment. He sought to undermine a man's self-esteem and joy for life by destroying reverence. As Rand wrote in an early sketch of the character, his arsenal was not material, but spiritual, and centered on a sneer: "His chief weapon is mockery. A great, all-embracing nihilistic ridicule. Allow nothing to remain sacred in a man's soul. Earnestness towards any conception, the mere conception of earnestness itself, is the base of reverence. Allow nothing to be important to a man's spirit. Laugh it out of existence. Laughter, not as joy, but as destruction" (Journals of Ayn Rand)...
Ellsworth Toohey's greatest enemy was reverence — the precise opposite of his demoralizing, life-negating sneers. To revere a thing is to hold it in the full context of one's values, to see its immediate connection to one's highest value — one's life — and to grant it a soul-filling recognition and salute. It is a considerable task, for it presumes the achievement of self-esteem, confidence, and conscious values. But it is also the stuff of exuberant joy — the ecstatic state of being fully alive.
As such, it is absolute poison to tyrants everywhere, who thrive on the extinguished spirits of entire nations. The survival of civilization requires not just a political revolution, but a spiritual renaissance. It is either the screeching of punk rock, or the splendor of an exultant symphony. It is Andy Warhol, or it is Thomas Jefferson. It is nihilistic sneering, or a passionate reverence for being alive. Only one leads to freedom, and it will take nothing less to defeat the would-be totalitarians once and for all.
(Excerpt) Read more at freeradical.co.nz ...
There are a few recent examples of fairly orderly revolutions such as communist East Europe and the Soviet Union. The velvet revolution in Czeckoslovakia and the Sandanista hand over of power Nicaragua also come to mind.
They are the exception though, so your point is well taken.
I don't know, but I refuse to accept a 'determined' future. I have faith that consciousness is not a cruel trick. ;^)
Consciousness is a fascinating subject. I don't think we have any better understanding of it now than we did 10,000 years ago.
You and I are going rounds, yet we do not functionally disagree... only fundamentally.
The ability to choose does not guarantee men will choose correctly. And it it for this reason that the reality of consequences must be maintained. The Left would like to see a world, indeed they attempt to construct that world, where men are free from the consequences of their bad actions and poor judgment. But these are fundamental aspects of learning and development for both individuals and then populations/cultures. By denying reality they destroy the very minds they intend to nurture. Again we agree. But, their methodologies evolve from the notion that Man, although capable of being good, will not choose correctly and must be guided. Altruism is born of the charitable desire to help men overcome the primative necessities of choice... or the megalomaniacal desire to overrule their choices. The Autonomist desires neither and yet holds the same fundamental view.
There is talk of virtue in your principles, and yet there is no defined values on which to base that virtue. One must be good righteous and noble to be virtuous, and yet most are incapable of this, so one merely fools oneself by trying. This view has a corrupting aspect to one's outlook that offers little definition by which to evaluate on's own character and holds nothing of value in the being of others, concluding that they are 'crust'. "Scrape'em off, Claire."
You previously challenged the princples of Objectivism. Ironically, while promoting rational self-interest, it is the Objectivist who can find value in his fellows, is capable of love, recognizes the need for minimal order (in the protection of the fundamental right - property), can offer his being in the defense of the values that he owns and that he recognizes in his fellow. These things may all be grouped within the concept of happiness, and that is afterall the ultimate goal of each human spirit. Joy! A philosophy of life acknowledges the primacy of the living, recognizes the value of each in terms of the potential and establishes the ideal and a means to achieve it. It sets a goal, not for mankind (Die Mensch), but for Man (Das Man - the one)... one at a time. Objectivism, holds that:
1. Reality exists as an objective absolute — facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.
2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.
3. Man — every man — is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. 4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church. (Copyright ©1962 by Times-Mirror Co.) I could try to reword it, but her own words are so succinct that why try.
It is not my attempt here to battle philosophies. I am an advocate for what works for each individual to find a means to act in accordance with his highest potential to the benefit of himself and those with which he shares a world. In this, I acknowledge (unlike the Autonomist) the value and virtue in Christainity and Judaism. Like an Objective philosophy, each acknowledge the better part of Man and strive to direct him to that end. Albeit heresy to suggest, one might even find some degree of similarity in the goals of Jesus and of Rand, only in their notions of Metaphysics being at extreme odds - Jesus' being the Will of God, and Rand's being objective reality. Jesus did afterall, free Man of the anchor of original sin.
The philospohies of Life are those that I advocate. The acknowledgement of Man as a heroic being - in the eyes of himself, or of God makes no difference - is most important. When he believes this and accepts it as his nature, only then, will he strive to achieve it. A Renaissance will follow accordingly.
The worshippers of death; the haters of Man; The nihilistic leftists collectivists are the one's that see Man as little more than a plague of the Earth. They have been running the show for far too long, and their impact on the minds and souls of men has been horrendous. I see how it could lead one to the conclusion that Man is hardly worth saving. Yet there is a changing of tides. If we embrace the ideas that encourage excellence, virtue and life, then we can overcome the cult of death. But, we must turn swords from one another first and unite against the one true enemy.
And most importantly, we must be careful not to become that which we despise.
The idea of honesty has become so degraded that many people today who are considered by others, as well as themselves to be completely honest and of the highest integrity are nothing more than second hand thieves, slavers, and cheats. When the average American citizen hears about a truly honest individual being honest, which is a newsworthy event these days, the almost universal reaction is that the honest person is a sucker or a dope.
The reason for this attitude today is that most people have no idea what honesty actually is, or why someone should be honest, and if they did, they would not choose it. Most people care more about what others think they are than what they are. In fact, most people's only identity is what other people think they are. Honesty, for them, is making everyone believe they are honest.
Honesty is a moral characteristic. It is part of a person's chosen view and code of life. It is the choice to live according the truth, in this case, the truth that no individual can enjoy, without betraying his own character, more than he can produce or earn by his own effort. Honesty is the choice to never seek to have or be more than one is worth, that is, what he has earned. But this requires a person to know how to determine how much they are worth. This is what most people neither can or want to know how to do.
Most people just want everybody to believe they are honest, decent people, and are convinced if that is what people think they are, then that is what they are, and it does not matter if they are enjoying comforts, and pleasures, and a life they never could have enjoyed by their own efforts. Everyone receiving benefits from any government program, and anyone working in any government, "job," receives those benefits and pay from the government which took them from those who produced them by force or the threat of it. Taxes are nothing but theft, and anyone who benefits from those taxes is a receiver of stolen goods. That is not honest.
There is a lot of talk these days about self-esteem. When I say that someone who's life is dependent on the government in any way is essentially a thief or mooch, a secondhand one at that, some people think this is a threat to the self-esteem of such people. Well, I do not want such people to have self-esteem. That is what everyone who would like to keep them dependent on government would like. I want these people to have genuine self-esteem, the self-esteem that comes from being self-sufficient, from knowing that a person is worth something, not because society, or the government, or their friends say so, but because they are, and they know it, even if everyone says they are not. That's real self-esteem, and it's available to anyone who wants to earn it.
You may be surprised that an autonomist cares about the self-esteem of others. If so, you still misunderstand autonomy. An autonomist is not an isolationist. An autonomist loves the society of others, loves to interact with others, loves to share with others to all their mutual benefit. But, a society where men can associate freely and benevolently depends on the society being comprised of a certain kind of people, and one necessary characteristic of such people is honesty.
There is another reason the autonomist cares about how others choose to live. It is none of the autonomist's business how other's live, but he cannot feel anything but a kind of bewildered sadness at the fact that so many choose to throw away their lives on so many things that can never benefit them, but only harm them and ultimately destroy any possibility happiness. The autonomist hates to see so much potential human good wasted, and despises the fact that they have made the world he must live in such an unhappy place.
Hank
Like I said the other day, for a bunch of gun-loving neanderthals, we sure do some interesting reading. $:-)
Just one comment:
Finally, as for the Bill of Rights, I think we have to fight like hell to preserve. It may well yet come to armed conflict (although I am still optimistic), but overall, I'd like to think good sense will prevail.
The Bill of Rights, and the entire Constitution for that matter, actually is not a law meant for individual citizens, in any either limiting their actions or providing any benefit. The Constitution is meant to limit and control the government. The Bill of Rights specifically limits the government by saying in essence, "in these things the government must never interfere in the lives of its citizens."
No freedom or liberty one believes the Bill of Rights provides can be lost, because the Bill of Rights did not provide the right to speech, press, religion, firearms, etc. in the first place, it only made it illegal for the government to attempt to limit those freedoms. The government has made many Constitutionally illegal regulations in an attempt to limit these freedoms, but even if the government outlaws them all completely, we can never actually loose them.
When the government acts immorally, as when it attempts to regulate those liberties the Constitution forbids them to regulate, it is immoral to comply with that government's regulations. It is also stupid to tell the government you do not intend to comply.
I have a personal "don't ask, don't tell," policy. I never ask any government agency or agents permission to do anything, and I never tell any government agent or agency what I have done or intend to do. It rarely happens, but if some government agency happens to discover you have done something it disapproves of, it is just a matter paying the "squeeze," and moving on. I deal with the government in exactly the same way I deal with any parasite. I avoid them in every way possible, but when they force themselves on me, I do whatever is necessary to eliminate the pests from my affairs.
Hank
Don't even think about 'justice,' either. It's seldom to be found in today's legal system. Ask anyone who's been through a family court experience.
The courts and the government's endorsement of the doctrine of "positive liberty" has granted them endless leave to interfere in the lives of all of us.
Positive liberty confuses freedom with power - perhaps deliberately. It calls for the government's active participation in the removal of obstacles that prevent individuals from realizing their 'potential'. One might also ask who the arbiters of that 'potential' might be. The doctrine of positive liberty has come to mean that certain groups should be provided the means (and always at the expense of others) to 'level the playing field'. Each and every affirmative action and entitlement program finds its rationale in this notion.
What makes such ideas so popular with statists is that it grants them license that they would not otherwise have to wield power on an ever-increasing scale. What makes such ideas so popular with greivance groups and the entitled classes is that it promises an endless cornucopia of goodies - always, of course, at someone else's expense. That is, until the poor mule pulling that particular wagon of enslavement either keels over and dies or kicks the traces and turns on the driver. However, positive liberty conflicts with the Founders' Constitution. To actualize positive liberty requires the violation of private property rights. Such violation combined with the seemingly widespread acceptance of positive liberty may explain why Clarence Thomas refused to discuss "natural law" during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. To point out the inconsistency between natural law and affirmative action programs might have endangered his confirmation.
Been there. It's what prompted me to take a hard look at the whole system. There's rot everywhere.
I see where my own views may bend the edges of both Objectivism and Autonomism. But I really don't see how those two philosophies differ... except in regards to the postion of the mailbox perhaps.
Well, in that case, I'll just say what I say to my wife about such incidentals, "Honey, tell me where you want me to put it and I'll but there, and I'll love it."
Thanks for the interesting conversation.
Hank
There are a few reponses that I think require additional clarification.
Noumenon...So why would you, Mr.Atos, think it impossible for a dictatorship to ever come to America? Why makes it impossible? Do you believe that we are somehow immune to a fate which has fallen to so many great nations in the past? Show me the guarantee that such a thing could not happen in America. Is it the Constitution? The Bill of Rights? The rule of law? Good intentions?
Answer: I do not. But the only hope I can offer is the one that I have every morning... my son's face. Perhaps it is very "Dagny" of me, but he is of too much value to me to abandon trying to prevent the holocaust that would follow from your prescient prognostications and engulf his life in the terror of 1860-65 revisited.
Hank Kerchief...Now how could you for a moment suppose that, "no opinion of yours concerning his existence is relevant... even at the point of your gun," pertains to someone who does not believe human beings can be changed nor has any desire to? What would an person who believes no one deserves what they have not earned by their own effort and has no claim on anyone else's life be using a gun for, except self-defense?
A clarification of this point is found at the beginning of that entry... If the answer is "No," then your perspective is suspect to the point that your opinion is irrelevent. If one believes that Man is a degenerate being that must be controlled and ultimately confined by the cage of tyrannical authority (as does the modern left), the only way that this can be inflicted against the unwilling, is by the threat of death; at the point of a gun. I'm going to assume that this does not apply to you specifically.
Thank you, again.
Atos
I admit I may have misunderstood the intent of you comment, but if I understand it, I would have to disagree with it.
Freedom is like life, you either have it or you don't. There is no way to "modify" life, one can only end it. There is no way to modify freedom, there only ways to limit it. If by modify you mean diminish, than certainly freedom has been modified. But freedom that is limited is really a kind of slavery. Even the slaves enjoyed a certain level of personal choice, but no one would think of confusing some choice (such as that which slaves were allowed) with freedom. I do not confuse the limited level of choice left to us by our government with freedom either. I call it what it is, limited tryanny, becoming less limited every day.
Hank
Oh yes, this is one of the most insidious concepts foisted on people for a long time. It's the same old socialist/collectivist redistribution scheme dressed up in the language of rights and liberty. Your analysis is exactly right, and very well stated.
Thanks!
Hank
Indeed. Your view represents the epitome of moral relativism.
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.