This why Republicans are in no more hurry to repeal ObamaCare than Democrats have been to repeal the Patriot Act. Every politician thinks that once they get their hands on a totalitarian power structure, they can dictate benevolently and wisely. They are hesitant to toss aside the structure because of the "good they can do" with it. The Founding Fathers knew different, and gave us a framework to stave off such inane ambition. Unfortunately, we are tossing it aside.
Yeah, there really is no way of using “big government to do conservative things.” Four words: No Child Left Behind.
“Rand reminds the Right that there is no acceptable form of totalitarianism - even one based on Biblical tenets. It not her atheism they hate, per se - it’s her admonition that the Right isn’t going to produce better quality dictators than the Left does. “
This, times infinity.
The problem is, without moral absolutes, you'll quickly find there are no limits to any evil. A Republic such as America can only last while it is a moral nation.
Personally, I find much of Rand's ideology to be spot on. I'm just not sure that you can derive all morality from the principles she does.
“Just as in the material realm the plundering of a country’s wealth is accomplished by inflating the currency—so today one may witness the process of inflation being applied to the realm of rights. The process entails such a growth of newly promulgated ‘rights’ that people do not notice the fact that the meaning of the concept is being reversed. Just as bad money drives out good money, so these ‘printing-press rights’ negate authentic rights.”
I see her point in this, the real bear is to determine what is a "authentic right", and what is invented to placate the libertine.
The Roe v Wade decision is a good one to look at in this context. The supreme court, in their ruling said that there was a "right to privacy" implied by the Constitution itself. I think conservatives do themselves a disfavor by objecting to this. It is obvious to me, if you take a look at the first 5 Amendments, that the enumerated rights absolutely imply personal privacy as well. I mean, what the hell else are we supposed to take from the right to be secure in our papers? I do not think this is an 'imaginary' or 'made-up' right, any more than the right to defend oneself is, which is implied by the 2nd (and the common law).
Where we go awry is when people claim as a 'right', that which is dependent upon someone else providing that right for them. By this, I mean stupid notions of a 'right to housing' or a 'right to a job' or similar nonsense. What those 'rights' really mean is that you want to use the government to enslave someone else to provide you with material things. The fact that I have the right to speak, worship the God of my choosing, to bear arms, or not to have personal privacy invaded by the government does not obligate anyone else in any way. I have these rights because I am endowed with them by my Creator, by virtue of my being born a human being.
I believe that to say that you have a 'right' to force someone to bake you a cake is ridiculous, and shows what Rand was talking about. We're seeing that crap in action every day now as the Republic crumbles.
I'd like close by returning to the Roe v. Wade decision briefly, though I'm not particularly interested in arguing the abortion issue. Where I think the court went wrong in that decision was not in saying that we have a right to privacy, (I'd claim it is self-evident that we do), but rather, their mistake was not in correctly identifying abortion as the premeditated murder of a human being. Had they done so, they would have been force to rule against it. It is clear to me they were making a political ruling for whatever reason, and they cloaked it in terms of 'privacy' because they didn't have a better hook to hang it on.