Posted on 10/12/2001 4:02:51 AM PDT by Mr. Polish-hammer
There is context here. There is reason to hate the corruption that has decimated the heartland of America, and is eliminating the grower-merchant (American small farmer). The grower-merchant is a uniquely American creation, and was the base of individual power from which all of our founding fathers grew and flourished. There is a reason to hate the corporate influence which has decimated the way of life that our founding fathers enjoyed. There is reason to hate the corruption that has enabled harm to come to the poorest and least able to defend themselves -- corruption that has subverted justice, corruption that has subverted the most important duties of government. This hate is not only fomenting within the ranks of the Greens or leftists Democrats. Wake up and smell the coffee.
According to Dyer, the pandemonium which companies like Cargill, Con-Agra, Archer Daniels Midland, etc. have unleashed on rural America is responsible for the loss of over 1 million small to medium-sized farms since 1980. Indeed, in one twelve month period in the late 1980s more than 1 million people were forced from their land. In 1996 alone, 10,000 families in Oklahoma (one-sixth of all farm families in the state) lost their farms through bankruptcies and foreclosure. And it’s not just that; for those who manage to hold on, it often means holding on in grinding, unending poverty and a constant struggle just to meet the day-to-day necessities of life. The fact is, while only 20 to 25 percent (depending on who one counts as "rural") of the U.S. population live in rural areas, 38 percent of all people living in poverty live there. Sixty-seven percent of the nation’s substandard housing is rural, and 27 percent of the children in rural America are growing up hungry, forced to live in destitution even though the parents of most of them work. -- see Harvest of Rage by Joel Dryer
The press is replete with stories about how these companies have experimented on their land with genetically modified crops, and then have sued surrounding small farmers for compensation because their seed blew onto the farmers’ land and grew, or some of their crops were pollinated by the genetically modified crops.
There is much reason to hate the corporate influence on our congressmen and senators, for it is this influence that continues our destructive policies towards our environment, which in turn, radicalizes and emboldens the militant environmentalists, and we end up with tragedies like Klamath basin. (For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.)
There is much reason to hate the corporate influence on our government, which allowed the destruction of the hemp industry, which produced not only paper and rope, but also paint and varnish, and secured the success of DuPont’s petroleum-based and leaded paints and varnishes, which decimated thousands of children’s potential to become fully functioning adults. Hearst’s paper industry benefited most greatly from the collusion of the government in the decimation of the hemp industry. And the dioxins that are a byproduct of wood pulp bleaching have caused thousands of cases of cancer. The dioxins that were core elements of fertilizers used in this country for decades do not decompose in the soil. No. They remain whole and intact, and able to (according to EPA estimates) cause cancer in 1 in 10 of us. And would we have ever had to use the amount of fertilizer that this country has poured into its soil and water system, if we merely rotated crops with hemp? Hemp is the only plant that RE-NUTRIENTS the soil. Yes. Puts them back into the soil.
Would this country have been able to prevent the attacks of September 11 if the resources that have been spent on the War on Drugs had been applied to the defense of the United States against enemies foreign and domestic, if the resources had been applied to tracking foreigners who travel to this country and take advantage of the educational opportunities, both in university and in flight schools? Would this country have been able to prevent the deaths of 6000 innocents, if the resources and funds from narcotics trade (used by the terrorist organizations) were in the hands of farmers and business owners?
Would this country have seen the tragic events of February-April 1993, which, in turn, instigated the tragic event of OK City, if there were no War on Drugs, and the federales had not been able to obtain a false warrant for a mythical methamphetamine lab?
There are literally thousands of examples where influence (corporate and otherwise) has corrupted our government and our elected representatives. The Marine Osprey is a classic example. An excellent case now is that of missile defense, and the TRW scandal. One of the scientists accused the company of falsifying test results, and MIT scientists have backed her up. TRW fired the accusing scientist. Given the nature and importance of missile defense, and given the monetary investment of tax payer dollars in this program, the corporate standard operating procedure of eliminating dissenters appears to be at odds with the best interests of the American people.
Another example of the corrupting corporate influence is the bail-out of the inefficient, over-priced, and would-have-failed-even-without-September-11 airlines and it is happening right now. Is the cheap, efficient airline – Southwest – reducing its schedule, laying off staff? NO.
I cannot speak for every left-leaner or tree hugger. I can only speak for myself, and my own concerns. But I have found, in my short time here on earth, an never-ending source of frustration and amazement (and occasionally hate) in watching our congresscritters contort themselves, their policies, their beliefs, and their duty, via attempts to justify their actions taken in support of a PAYING CUSTOMER, i.e., a campaign donor. And it just so happens that in this society, corporations happen to be the PAYING CUSTOMER a whole lot of the time.
In a world where unrestrained consumerism, careless industrial production and militarism squander natural resources and despoil the earth, people long for environmental restoration. We examine the massive interlocking systems that threaten the future of the human family in all three areas:
• The increasing concentration of wealth in a small segment of the world’s population leaves millions destitute. The global economy is a case study in injustice. It guarantees that more than a billion people struggle to survive in absolute poverty. Any disturbance, such as drought or civil strife pushes them over the edge, even to the point of massive starvation. The people of the world have a right to equitable and sustainable economic and social development!
• The brutality of this century and the militarization of the world culminating in the threat of nuclear war have given the quest for peace a new urgency. The absurdity of nation-states seeking to protect "national security" while threatening to destroy human civilization and endangering the biosphere has become obvious. This has prompted urgent action for disarmament, peacemaking and peacekeeping. Nations are increasingly being asked voluntarily to surrender a modicum of national sovereignty in the interest of global survival. The people of the world have a right to peace!
• The uncontrolled development of commerce and industry are destroying the world’s eco-systems. Habits of runaway consumerism are using up nonrenewable natural resources at an accelerating pace. The industrial system which sustains this consumerism is laying waste to vast areas of fertile land, and depriving millions of persons of air fit to breathe and water fit to drink. The people of the world have the right to a healthy and productive life in harmony with nature!
It was in this spirit that more than a thousand of us gathered in Seoul, Korea, in March 1990, for the World Council of Churches’ Consultation on Justice, Peace, and the Integrity of Creation.
Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian, and your statement is a blatant lie. Hope you're keeping up those big contriubitons to the church in support of your local confessional, Mr. Hypocrite.
Why do you think it's odd? She emigrated here from the USSR after watching what happened there when the communists took over, IIRC.
(See Prodigal Son's #26).
'Nuff said.
Sure, it's preachy dialogue and trite characterizations. But very intellectually stimulating.
What she is saying is that man's life and worth must be measured by something more than whether he lived in service to others. If the highest value is to serve others, then life is nothing more than a daisy chain of slavery.
Nothing wrong with helping someone out, but it should not be the highest value, or even raised to the level of a value.
Besides, I can't give you the shirt off my back, if I haven't pursued my own self-interest and earned the shirt in the first place.
When self-immolation becomes a virtue and man is most virtuous when serving as a sacrifice for the need of others, you have a society of cannibals who serve their meat well-done.
Chambers' critique has been picked apart in depth by me and several others in previous threads, so
for brevity's sake let me just say this of "Big Sis is Watching You."
The first and last words of his essay are too far apart.
However, one day after class I was talking to him about Rand, and he pointed out to me that although Rand was right about many things, there was nonetheless a certain "viciousness" to her. I've never forgotten that particular insight. It marked the beginning of the end of my atheism.
I also agree with you about her animus about religion, which was so strong that she threw Rothbard out of her circle for marrying a Christian woman. I think you're right about her having a revelation about human potential. She was a humanist in the best sense, but what Rand didn't get was that the glory of mankind that she promoted so vigorously comes from our connection to God. It is merely a reflection of God's glory. To truly exalt mankind, one must truly exalt God. Remember that we are made in God's image and likeness (and aas Voltaire once said, mankind promptly returned the favor.)
Nevertheless, I would recommend Rand. She does get preachy and she was not a great writer, but she makes some very valuable contributions that no one else was making at the time.
Well, that explains why it's still an effective review.... ;-)
Seriously, Chambers points out in capsule form the real and damning difficulties with Rand's philosophy, as it's laid out in Atlas Shrugged.
For example, there is a plentitude of empirical evidence to support Chambers' contention "that the pursuit of happiness, as an end in itself, tends automatically, and widely, to be replaced by the pursuit of pleasure with a consequent general softening of the fibers of will, intelligence on 'man as a heroic being' 'with productive achievement as his noblest activity.'"
Chambers also pinpointed something else: "In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls 'productive achievement' man's 'noblest activity,' she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau."
We can agree that productive achievement is a good thing. However, it is inescapably true that the efficiency and financial power of huge corporations (e.g., WalMart) -- which many FR libertarians champion, and which are indeed a logical outcome of Rand's philosophy -- have also ushered in the "managerial political bureau" Chambers warned us about. (At this point people like Ron Perleman and Bernie Schwartz spring to mind....)
Well, I disagree about there being a plenitude, but that is why competing philosophies, religions and mores serve to self-correct in a free market place of ideas.
Chambers also pinpointed something else: "In the name of free enterprise, therefore, she plumps for a technocratic elite (I find no more inclusive word than technocratic to bracket the industrial-financial-engineering caste she seems to have in mind). When she calls 'productive achievement' man's 'noblest activity,' she means, almost exclusively, technological achievement, supervised by such a managerial political bureau."
Throwing in "political bureau" suggests that the growth of powerful private interests would somehow have power over those who choose not to deal with them. As Rand advocates a laissez-faire capitalism, government would not be involved with business at all (as it too often is today). You would no more be compelled to deal with Microsoft than you would the corner grocery down the street that donates to the Brady Center.
We can agree that productive achievement is a good thing. However, it is inescapably true that the efficiency and financial power of huge corporations (e.g., WalMart) -- which many FR libertarians champion, and which are indeed a logical outcome of Rand's philosophy -- have also ushered in the "managerial political bureau" Chambers warned us about. (At this point people like Ron Perleman and Bernie Schwartz spring to mind....)
At present, some of these corporations have undue power to compel because of government interference in the market, not in spite of it.
Absent the power to compel (i.e. government power), a corporation, no matter how large, cannot make you do or buy anything you don't want.
Another cool thing I got out of his book was regarding electricity. Did you know that when they first started to experiment with electricity it was thought to have "special" powers? The book Frankenstein was much more scary to people when it first came out than when I read it in the early 80's.
Back to Ayn.
I admit I have mixed views on Ayn. I simply don't like nasty people. When people aren't nice to other people, whether online or in general life, I tend to react against it. No need for it. She has some good points, but delivery is half the battle in these matters.
Another cool thing I got out of his book was regarding electricity. Did you know that when they first started to experiment with electricity it was thought to have "special" powers? The book Frankenstein was much more scary to people when it first came out than when I read it in the early 80's.
Back to Ayn.
I admit I have mixed views on Ayn. I simply don't like nasty people. When people aren't nice to other people, whether online or in general life, I tend to react against it. No need for it. She has some good points, but delivery is half the battle in these matters.
God is all; God is everything, Omnipresent, Omnipotent, the One Mind and One Life that is. In the words of Ernest Holmes, "I thank the God that is that the God they told me about isn't."
There is surely a meaness in Rand, most evident in Atlas Shrugged perhaps, that makes one wonder. Her views on altruism are best seen as a caricature of the Marxist critique of the Protestant ethic. And, her personal life and the whole imbroglio with the Brandens and her husband reminds one of Rousseau's despicable abandonment of his children to orphanages.
Well, read early, read often, and read critically!
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.