Objectivism did not originate with Ayn Rand.

[dawg]

That philosophy has existed, in one form or another, since the beginning of recorded history. It has been known by lots of names, but one of the oldest and simplest names for it is "evil".

Most modern people are confused about the concept of evil. Thanks to movies and popular culture, they imagine pure evil as some kind of demonic force that seeks to create misery and pain for its own sake - demons like those portrayed in movies like "The Exorcist", "Omen" and "Legally Blonde". But that is not the case.

True evil would never seek to impose pain and suffering just "because". After all, where's the gain in that? No, true evil seeks to please the self at all costs. Other people simply do not matter.

Evil will tolerate you if there is no cost in doing so, or if evil might somehow stand to gain from your continued existence. On the other hand, if your death can enrich evil, even if only slightly, then it sucks to be you. You are expendable. Nothing personal, you see.

Jesus Christ taught, "Love your neighbor as yourself." Whether you believe in his divinity or not, this is a pretty good definition of "goodness". Objectivists consider this teaching of his to be immoral. They seek only to serve the self, and admire those most who take no consideration at all for the needs of others.

The very fact that one of our two great political parties should be in thrall to such a philosophy is terrifying. It is, in a very real sense, the fulfillment of many of the fire-and-brimstone end-times sermons I heard growing up in a small Baptist church, only there's a real twist to this story. Most of the so-called Christians have pledged their lot with the Objectivists.

[FSogol]

1. K & R. Well said. n/t

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Oink, oink. Sneer." - RepubliBagger Ojectivists (R)

[The Magistrate]

3. Very Ttue, Sir, And Well Said Indeed

[annabanana]

4. Clearly stated, and very difficult to argue with.

And since I agree with you, I won't try.

[Odin2005]

5. K&R

[DirkGently]

6. Evil can be malice, lack or empathy, or failure of enlightened self-interest. Rand embraced all 3.

[immoderate]

7. I have a friend who is an objectivist.

And I ask him, "How can I tell if someone is acting on objectivist principles, or just being a dick?"

He didn't have an answer.

--imm

[hifiguy]

8. There have always been sociopaths

It is only in the last 30 years that sociopathy has become something to be admired in the name of laissez faire "capitalism." As Thom Hartmann has long pointed out, no societal institution rewards sociopathy as much as does big business. It is nearly impossible to succeed in the large scale corporate world without being a complete and utter sociopath.

It will destroy this country.

[Capitalocracy]

13. Here's what I want to know.

Has our acceptance and edification of sociopaths led to more people becoming sociopaths or embracing sociopathic behavior?

Hard to imagine the answer would be no.

[Qutzupalotl]

9. I object to objectivism,

so I shunned Atlas.

[mistertrickster]

10. John Kenneth Galbraith quote about conservatives--

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.

[Lyric]

11. Objectivism is basically aggressive Satanism.

When right-wingers promote and defend "Greed is Good" Randian principles, they are literally defending the core principles of the worst interpretation of Satanism and utterly rejecting the core principles of Christianity. After all, Rand doesn't JUST say that greed is good; she also says that altruism (the opposite of greed) is BAD. A big part of Objectivism is the idea that to be altruistic is to be immoral, unnatural, and irrational. By that standard, the Jesus spoken of in the Bible is an immoral, weak, unworthy parasite whose self-sacrifice was both stupid and sinful.

Actually I take it back--LaVeyan Satanism isn't as bad as Objectivism, because it allows for things like choice, democracy, and even altruism if you CHOOSE to be altruistic. Objectivism opposes these things utterly. Satanism says, "Do what thou wilt", and accepts that sometimes you WANT to help others. Objectivism says, "NEVER do something against your own best interests." It stands firm on the principle that altruism is NEVER good.

And they think they're going to be "raptured" for being so virtuous. They think they're earning some kind of heavenly reward for utterly rejecting every principle that Jesus died for and embracing a philosophy created by a woman who HATED religion, and who opposes every good and decent deed that religion is capable of inspiring.

How can anyone be THAT stupid?

[dawg]

12. I saw an interview with LaVey, many years ago.

I'm not entirely sure it was LaVey himself, but I'm certain it was someone representing the LaVeyan branch of Satanism. I found it shocking how much his philosophies and attitudes coincided with those of economic conservatives. In general, his arguments were more rational and consistent than the Randians.

As a Christian, it was an eye-opening experience for me. "So this is what I'm up against", I thought.

Then, lots of things started making more sense to me.