You Have to Admire Ayn Rand and the Libertarians

[ulTRAX]

Thanks to Minus World for reminding me of this quote:
"The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness."
- John Kenneth Galbraith

You have to admire Ayn Rand and the Libertarians.... NOT because they are correct... but because they have constructed an internally consistent paradigm. Their paradigm starts with first principles and covers all the bases. It's difficult to debate unless one revisits their basic assumptions which are often hidden. It is a classic example of what I can only describe as a secular religion... where they start with the conclusion that pursuing one's self-interests will always benefit greater humanity. Since the evidence does not always support this conclusion, they are forced to warp reality to protect the faith.

I'd argue that Progressives in the US lack their own paradigm. Worst, philosophically the Democratic Party is pure mush and as a result is inhibiting any effort in developing such a paradigm.

[annabanana]

1. .........no I don't........

Very provocative thread title..lol

[ClassWarrior]

2. Admire is a rather strong word.

Though she could write a powerhouse of a novel.

NGU.

[ulTRAX]

11. NGU?

Non-gonococcal urethritis?

Is that relevant to this discussion?

[bryant69]

3. I think you are right

That's the thing about Libertarians--they are consistent. Often wrong, but consistent. Unless they are Conservatives pretending to be Libertarian you can pretty much predict how they will come down on any given issue.

The other thing is that they don't tend to frame their issues in moralistic tones. They aren't required (as many conservative apparently are) to believe that Democrats are evil or are malicious or are hateful, simply because we disagree with them.

That said, they are still wrong.

Bryant
Check it out- -> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ClassWarrior]

5. Well, consistent in their inconsistencies, at least.

<LOL>

NGU.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

13. OH YES THEY DO!!!

I can't believe how easily some people are fooled! They do indeed frame their issues in moralistic tones just not the ones you are getting from the rabid right.

They frame their issues in "pseudo-intellectual" tones...go read position papers from the CATO institute. YOu will walk away from those papers seeing that anyone who disagrees with their position is STUPID...so STUPID replaces EVIL in terms of the "moralistic tone"

[bryant69]

15. Thank YOU for the use of ALL CAPS to punctuate your POINTS

It really does overwhelm the mind and force one to agree with you. And yet somehow I am able to return with this point.

Stupid is not the same as evil and anybody who thinks stupid and evil are the same needs to buy a dictionary.

I have read papers from the CATO institute--in particular their articles against the Iraq war were quite good, but on other issues they are terrible.

That said I'd rather have a political enemy who thinks I am stupid rather than one who thinks I am evil. The answer is simple--you can try to convince someone who is stupid (ignorance being the most usual cause of stupidity).

Can you really discuss issues with someone who is evil with a capital E? If their opinions stem from hatred and malice and so on, what would be the point? There is only one thing you can do with Evil people, and that is to minimize their power (put them in jail or deport them or whatever).

So I think there is a distinction between the Libertarians and the Conservatives.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

18. The issue isn't whether there is a distinction between conservatives

and Libertarians. You made an assertion that they did not do something which I rebutted. That is all. Didn't know you had an issue with caps...I'll gladly make the same point in lower case if it pleases your sensibilities but you might want to notice even you refuted your first assertion with your response to me.

[bryant69]

19. Moralistic and Pseudo INtellectual are not Synonyms

Right? You might find both annoying.

[charlie]

16. ...and if they're of the Randroid variety

they have no qualms about being moralistic blowhards. Altruism is EVIL and they don't mind telling you so.

[dpibel]

31. Odd that

My experience with online Randy libs is that you don't go long before they whip out their "moral argument." For a 620-hit starter, google "Ayn Rand 'moral argument.'"

Perhaps I'm obtuse, but I don't see a vast gulf fixed 'twixt evil and immoral. Moral certitude is moral certitude, and I've carried on long debates with Randy libs who weren't at all shy about explaining to me the immorality of my position.

[Fenris]

4. No I don't.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

10. See post # 9...I expounded FOR you :)

[unblock]

6. don't fall into the trap that we "need" a comparable paradigm

a philosophy that leads you to distort reality to make it fit your model is not well suited to democratic values. or good governance, period.

what we DO need to do is expose the flaws and weaknesses of their philosophy, and work with the strength of what we DO have. we've always won the "heart" battles, and lately, the banana republicans have ceded the "brain" battles as well.

we just need to figure out how to make it pay off.

[ulTRAX]

20. Obviously I don't want a paradigm that distorts....

I'm just looking for a logical paradigm that explains and reflects true Progressive ideals from core values to policy proposals... not a hodge-podge belief system derived from the compromises made with an anti-democratic and dysfunctional political system

[unblock]

29. well i'll agree about the anti-democratic and dysfunctional system,...

what i'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with a hodge-podge belief system of compromises, as long as it's a workable set that represents a clear majority, which i think democratic values do.

[ulTRAX]

41. you don't get VISION from random beliefs

unblock wrote: well i'll agree about the anti-democratic and dysfunctional system, what i'm saying is that there's nothing wrong with a hodge-podge belief system of compromises, as long as it's a workable set that represents a clear majority, which i think democratic values do."

Short-term thinking, only concerned about the next election, is what got the Democrats into the situation they are in today. They confuse constituency issues with core values and as a result have no vision or long-term strategy to implement that vision.

Your suggestion will merely result in the Democrats committing suicide by a thousand cuts because not to have core values means half the time they will reinforce the Right's framework instead of advocating their own. Here's a thread dedicated to the topic: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1495788

[Telly Savalas]

42. You don't get vision from blind dogma either.

Rand's "philosphy" looks nice and pretty because it simply ignores many of the complexities and nuances of the world. She doesn't start from a base set of assumptions and then logically derive conclusions. Her "chain of logic" entails many assertions dressed up as "reason" and she skillfully ignores the gray in claiming it's a black and white world. Progressive ideas are much more practical and pragmatic in that they don't see the world as a simple place where all the answers to everything can fit on a postcard.

I agree that the Democrats can sometimes be short-sighted and compromise their values, but it's not like the GOP is some sort of icon of ideological purity. A lot of programs they'd like to cut outright are kept around solely because it's the politically expedient thing to do.

[Viking12]

7. A good book revealing the Randroid rhetoric

Is "Selling the Free Market" by Jim Aune.

[livinginphotographs]

8. Well, the one thing I'll give the Libertarians is they have good arguments

I pretty much agree with them when it comes to social policy, but their economic policy is where I disagree.

Like I said, they have good arguments, but, like Communism, it really only works on paper. They fail to account for simple things like greed or hunger for power.

The ideal of capitalism is definitely self-regulating, but that ideal will never ever exist. If we were an ant colony it might be different, but people are way too unpredictable.

As my dad used to say, referring to Communism, "Great theory, wrong species."

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

9. Sorry but I disagree with all of your assertions

There's really nothing internally consistent about Rand's philosphy NOR libertarians...beginning with her faux program "objectivism" which is all but impossible since all "objective" data is procesed through the mind which is hardly an OBJECTIVE processing unit.

And let's not even GO to all the places this creates havoc when attempted to be manifest in the "real" world which is so objective it doesn't give a fuck about objectivism.


Furthermore, your constant bellyaching about the Democratic party is getting totally fucking OLD.

For the most part, the Democratic party until the past few years has stood firmly for many principles be they labor rights, social programs, or the role of government...I do agree the party has gone astray but I attribute that in large part to the paradigm af power and what it does to individuals , as well as plain old seduction caused by not fully having unintended consequences disclosed i.e. going along with Clinton's deregulation of the media plans

[ulTRAX]

17. I disagree with your disagreements

nothingshocksmeanymore wrote: "There's really nothing internally consistent about Rand's philosophy NOR libertarians...beginning with her faux program "objectivism" which is all but impossible since all "objective" data is procesed through the mind which is hardly an OBJECTIVE processing unit."

Sure dubbing her philosophy "objectivism" reflects a pathological self-assurance... but that hardly discounts that she DOES present an internally consistent belief system. You have presented no evidence to the contrary.

nothingshocksmeanymore wrote: Furthermore, your constant bellyaching about the Democratic party is getting totally fucking OLD.

Reality is as it is. You can deal with it or ignore it.

nothingshocksmeanymore wrote: "For the most part, the Democratic party until the past few years has stood firmly for many principles be they labor rights, social programs, or the role of government..."

Standing up for issues is NOT the same as having a coherent bottom-up philosophy. A simple example I keep giving that gives insight into the intellectual bankruptcy of the Dems is about democracy. I'm sure most Dems feel they stand for democratic values but when you scratch the surface you find the Party doesn't care enough about democracy to even bother defining it. In reality Dems merely want to game our anti-democratic system. What they call democratic reforms is merely tweaking an anti-democratic system. That Dems comfortably live this Orwellian contradiction is proof the Party substitutes some core issues for core beliefs.

[Viking12]

21. not internally consistent...

When John Galt is captured by gov't agents, the other dropouts rescue him despite the fact that they've taken the oath, "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine"


Rand can fantasize all she wants about "objectivist autonomy" but even in her fiction she can't escape from social inter-relationships. no man is an island unto himself. Even Rand can't escape that reality.

On edit: spelling

[SharonAnn]

27. And though I lover her strong women, they needed to be "taken"?

WTF?

[Viking12]

34. Yeah, Rand's rape fantasies are disturbing.n/t

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

22. I diagree with your disagreement

Sure dubbing her philosophy "objectivism" reflects a pathological self-assurance... but that hardly discounts that she DOES present an internally consistent belief system. You have presented no evidence to the contrary.

One person's consistency is another person's circular reasoning. An endless loop by your definition is at least consistent.


Reality is as it is. You can deal with it or ignore it.

Straight from the Randyian scool of call and response

Standing up for issues is NOT the same as having a coherent bottom-up philosophy. A simple example I keep giving that gives insight into the intellectual bankruptcy of the Dems is about democracy. I'm sure most Dems feel they stand for democratic values but when you scratch the surface you find the Party doesn't care enough about democracy to even bother defining it. In reality Dems merely want to game our anti-democratic system. What they call democratic reforms is merely tweaking an anti-democratic system. That Dems comfortably live this Orwellian contradiction is proof the Party substitutes some core issues for core beliefs.


Almost a verite performance piece in the inquiry called "what is objectivism?" since I am certain you believe you are viewing that construct objectively.

Perhaps it is possible that one ATTAINS a state not by defining it but by consistently reaching for it to see what it REALLY is.

Look at the expansion of the middle class and the distribution of wealth when Dems were on the top of their game...look at the balancing of business interests with environmental interests when Dems were at the top of their game...look at the balance of labor versus management when Dems were at the top of their game (for purposes of this conversation, I define the "top of their game" as being the 60's and 70's roughly.

[izzybeans]

23. Perhaps the problem is that they are tautological

where every contradiction is covered because problems and solutions are defined by the same thing (self-interest). "People are rational because they think rationally" (Sovereignty means that you're a sovereign entity)

There paradigm is: the sum of individual choices comprises a collectivity, take away self-interested choices take away the collectivity.

Our paradigm was discredited by the cold warrior propaganda as communist. Every social initiative gets labeled as communist by the "self-interested" libertarian.

To us the collectivity is more than the sum of its parts. Social conflicts can't be solved by isolated individuals acting "freely"; solely motivated by their own interests. Interests to us are collective, not individual...kind of the aphorism "you can use language, but its neither of your own creation or ownership." I think we have to fight for community and responsibility as the centerpiece of the progressive moral philosophy. We are about sharing not taking because taking does not a community make.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

25. Very well put...thanks

[ulTRAX]

32. quick response

nothingshocksmeanymore wrote: "Almost a verite performance piece in the inquiry called "what is objectivism?" since I am certain you believe you are viewing that construct objectively."

I'll get back to your other points later.

Actually I do believe in a form of objectivism... not in the Randian sense, of course. But for purposes of this discussion I do believe that we can deduce another's hierarchy of values. If someone truly values something... in this case democracy or democratic values... that internal state is obvious in their behavior. They will seek to define what they value, identify obstacles to its implementation, then work to overcome those obstacles. For example there's a big difference in a proposal such as this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1316860 and pretending that opposition to BBV is the end all of democratic reform. In the latter case it's clear that there are other values which are higher in the hierarchy. That's not to say they are all explicitly stated. Democratic party dogma includes an implicit belief that Democrats won't serious question the moral basis of the US federal system.

[ulTRAX]

39. now you associate me with Rand? ROTF

nothingshocksmeanymore wrote: Furthermore, your constant bellyaching about the Democratic party is getting totally fucking OLD.

Reality is as it is. You can deal with it or ignore it

nothingshocksmeanymore wrote: Straight from the Randyian scool of call and response

I have no idea what you're talking about. You obviously have read my posts... post such as..... http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1495788
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1562116
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1430548
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x732545
Yet you presented NO example or evidence of why my critique of the Democrats is in error. You seem to think trying to associate me with Rand is a sufficient argument.

If there are deficiencies in this discussion... perhaps you should look in the mirror for their origins.

[BeatleBoot]

12. Objectivist Epistimology

Rational Selfishness is one of the ideas they believe in.

In other words, its okay to be selfish, as long as it is not at anyone's expense but your own.

I've read some of her work and you are right, especially as outlined in An Introduction To Objectivist Epistimology.

[UdoKier]

14. I disagree that Progressives lack such a paradigm.

They have it, as well as a consistent, rational AND moral worldview. Problem is that the Democratic party is NOT primarily a progressive party. It's a means of luring enough dissenters and progressive-minded people into endeavors that will prevent revolution in what has become a fascistic war state - and it's been that way for many years.

[ulTRAX]

35. I'd agree that the Dems are not Progressive

I'd agree that the Dems are not Progressive. Here's a thread I started on then topic: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x1430548

But as a Progressive I don't see any such well-crafted paradigm where policy proposals flow from explicitly stated core values.

[gumby]

24. Listen to Alex Epstein, junior fellow Ayn Rand Institute

speak about Social Security on Wisconsin Public Radio. This is scary stuff that goes way beyond selfishness and into blatant eliminationist advocacy. And yes, there are large doses of good vs evil and 'morality' thrown around.

There is NOTHING here to admire. In fact, this sounds like the groundwork for the death camps.

edit links (hope this works)
http://clipcast.wpr.org:8080/ramgen/wpr/bme/bme050209m.rm

program from 02/09 at 5:00 http://www.wpr.org/ideas/programnotes.cfm

[hunter]

26. My favorite specimen is California State Senator Tom McClintock...

http://republican.sen.ca.gov/web/mcclintock/biography.asp

I respect McClintock for his "internally consistent paradigm" much more than I do other Republicans (hmmm, let's say Arnold, who is entirely toxic mush) but I would not want McClintock to represent me.

I disagree very much with your assertion that "Progressives in the US lack their own paradigm, It sounds too much like a Republican talking point. You might as well claim we are all "girlie men."

[ulTRAX]

30. I'm a Progressive and I don't find that paradigm

Which is why I proposed this idea a few months back: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x2744460

[GOPBasher]

28. Is "viciously hate" kind of like "admire"?

If so, I definitely "admire" Ayn Rand. I have nothing against most liberatarians. It's just Ayn Rand that I hate.

[ulTRAX]

37. I mean admire in a perverse sense....

Because Objectivism is so internally consistent and comprehensive it forces one to dig for its deeper core assumptions. But ultimately Rand created a paradigm while compelling, excuses the inexcusable.

In contrast creating a Progressive paradigm should be easier.

[GOPBasher]

43. Yeah, I know what you meant. I was just kidding around.

But yes, I do admire that they have a simple philosophy that pulled so many people to think like them. I do wish we could do that.

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

==================
GROVELBOT.EXE v3.0
==================



This week is our first quarter 2005 fund drive. Democratic
Underground is a completely independent website. We depend almost entirely
on donations from our members to cover our costs. Thank you so much for
your support.

[toddaa]

36. Paradigm? How about pseudo-philosophy

There's nothing particularly innovative about Objectivism. It's nothing more than Epicurean philosophy for people without a sense of humor. When "objectivists" try to reinvent quantum physics to fit their simplistic "rational" view of reality, you pretty much know you are dealing with a "philosophical" system that works much like creation "science".

[Technowitch]

38. Admire? Hardly.

Ayn Rand was simply another utopian theorist who dressed up her polemic as a narrative and passed it off using the classic "it works here in this fictional story, therefore it must be valid!" argument.

It just happens that her brand of 'libertarianism' is one where there are no societal controls whatsoever on the behavior of individuals -- up to and including the point where those individuals' actions affect others.

So in other words, in the Randian philosophy, it's perfectly fine for an industrial manufacturer to dump tons of dioxin directly into the groundwater, and then move on to pollute another location to do the same. And further that there ought to be no workplace safety requirements. And no limits on child labor. No public education system. No social safety net. And so on and so on.

The trouble is, their 'internally consistent paradigm' is every bit as consistent as that of any other utopian -- and just as externally flawed and unworkable in the real world. Not to mention incredibly selfish, antisocial, and cruel.

[ulTRAX]

40. Rand certainly wrote more than fiction......

The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

BTW I thought I was clear that I disagreed with her.