"Collectivism does not preach sacrifice as a temporary means to some desirable end. Sacrifice is its end—sacrifice as a way of life. It is man’s independence, success, prosperity, and happiness that collectivists wish to destroy.
Observe the snarling, hysterical hatred with which they greet any suggestion that sacrifice is not necessary, that a non-sacrificial society is possible to men, that it is the only society able to achieve man’s well-being." Ayn Rand
I would like to see anyone make a functioning political system in accordance with these principles which does anything to "achieve man’s well-being".
I mean, for starters there is the complete mischaracterisation of what collectivism can be. In here in Australia have socialised health care - that is collectivism, isn't it? We sacrifice for it, we pay a levy and taxes, but we end up with a safety net of health care for all of the people in the country. So, that is a desirable end that we achieve which contributes to the well-being of all. It doesn't destroy anyones independence, prosperity or happiness - the sacrifice is a reasonably small increase in tax burden, a couple of % if that, and in return there is security and peace of mind for people about something that is fundamental to their happiness, their ability to be independent and to achieve prosperity - their health.
Is there no taxation in the non-sacrifical society? Is everything just done through private enterprise? Is anything non-profitable simply neglected and discarded? Sounds fab
I can understand how those that are already incredibly wealth can look to objectivism with great interest - it is a society in which their wealth and power advantage over others is maintained and entrenched. It is a philosophy for "great men", like the characters in her books. What has always puzzled me is why so many people that are clearly not "great men" in the Randian sense are drawn to her philosophy - it offers them a future in which they have nothing to enjoy but service to the great men.
Hysterical hatred... read that quote again, and see if you can find which side of the coin its coming from.
What has always puzzled me is why so many people that are clearly not "great men" in the Randian sense are drawn to her philosophy - it offers them a future in which they have nothing to enjoy but service to the great men.
Because Objectivism teaches self-reliance, self-esteem, individualism and the moral virtue of pursuing ones own rational self-interest. Those are the qualities that make men great. If I have to be consigned to a life of service, I would want it to be in service of such men--men who demand my best efforts not my sacrifice.
Hysterical hatred... read that quote again, and see if you can find which side of the coin its coming from.
Read one of the rants TheNewWorldMan has subjected me to and you will know exactly where the hatred comes from.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
How did you derive that statement from the quote I posted?
Is that your way of refuting that quote or is this just your usual non sequitur?
That quote is from a non fiction essay. Want more?
"Collectivism holds that the individual has no rights, that his life and work belong to the group . . . and that the group may sacrifice him at its own whim to its own interests. The only way to implement a doctrine of that kind is by means of brute force—and statism has always been the political corollary of collectivism." Ayn Rand
Except that billions of people around the world happily do things for others, with no guns pointed at them or other threats. Look at Mother Teresa--someone must have been torturing her, eh?
Since you continue to belittle and misrepresent Ayn Rand and Objectivism, maybe the best way to deal with you is this sort of cut and paste response. Since your argument is with her, I should just let her argue back. On second thought, that is too much effort. The ignore button is much simpler and was probably designed for people like you. So, if you plan to launch into one of your timeless rants, save your energy, I wont see it.
Translation: "I can't rebut your points about Objectivism having never been tried in the real world, so I'm putting my fingers in my ears and singing 'la la la I can't HEAR you'!"
All Objectivism is anyway is a fig leaf the wealthy elite came up with to try and justify their own selfishness, greed and exploitation of others. An effort to brainwash the serfs into thinking they deserve their lot in life because the rich are somehow better than they are. Well, I know a load of self-serving hooey when I smell it, and Objectivism is it.
__________________ NOTE: To posts seriously comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler, I respond only with pictures of cute, fuzzy animals.
Because Objectivism teaches self-reliance, self-esteem, individualism and the moral virtue of pursuing ones own rational self-interest. Those are the qualities that make men great. If I have to be consigned to a life of service, I would want it to be in service of such men--men who demand my best efforts not my sacrifice.
Read one of the rants TheNewWorldMan has subjected me to and you will know exactly where the hatred comes from.
I am puzzled as to why you addressed, out of anything raised in my post, these two points which were really side-line issues, and didn't provide any response to my questions about the practical application of objectivism, nor my criticisms of the objectivist interpretation of collectivism.
I am puzzled as to why you addressed, out of anything raised in my post, these two points which were really side-line issues, and didn't provide any response to my questions about the practical application of objectivism, nor my criticisms of the objectivist interpretation of collectivism.
You have to keep in mind that Objectivism is inherently extremist. It really is a cult-like ideology, in that Ayn Rand held she was 100% correct about everything. No room for compromise or seeing any value in any viewpoint whatsoever save her own. And this unswerving, fanatical loyalty to an idea that has never been tried on any scale in the real world.
I may have been a tad harsh in my last post where I characterized Objectivism as just an attempt by the rich to justify their own greed and dominance. I'm reasonably sure Rand had nobler ideas when she came up with it. But most of the people trumpeting it are--surprise, surprise!--the wealthy elite who it preaches are superior. That, and the occasional college kid.
__________________ NOTE: To posts seriously comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler, I respond only with pictures of cute, fuzzy animals.
You have to keep in mind that Objectivism is inherently extremist. It really is a cult-like ideology, in that Ayn Rand held she was 100% correct about everything. No room for compromise or seeing any value in any viewpoint whatsoever save her own. And this unswerving, fanatical loyalty to an idea that has never been tried on any scale in the real world.
I may have been a tad harsh in my last post where I characterized Objectivism as just an attempt by the rich to justify their own greed and dominance. I'm reasonably sure Rand had nobler ideas when she came up with it. But most of the people trumpeting it are--surprise, surprise!--the wealthy elite who it preaches are superior. That, and the occasional college kid.
I have some familiarity with her work (I've read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, though I will admit I couldn't put myself through the whole big Objectivist monologue sequence), I've never actually talked to a follower, so I am actually interested to hear someone actually try to put together a coherent political platform out of her ideas - I doubt it is possible, really, and it would no doubt be quite opposite to anything I would like to see, but an attempt would at least give us something more to talk about in this thread.
I have some familiarity with her work (I've read the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, though I will admit I couldn't put myself through the whole big Objectivist monologue sequence), I've never actually talked to a follower, so I am actually interested to hear someone actually try to put together a coherent political platform out of her ideas - I doubt it is possible, really, and it would no doubt be quite opposite to anything I would like to see, but an attempt would at least give us something more to talk about in this thread.
The basic problem with Objectivism is, ironically, the same problem that exists with Marxism: it's contrary to human nature.
__________________ NOTE: To posts seriously comparing Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler, I respond only with pictures of cute, fuzzy animals.
I am puzzled as to why you addressed, out of anything raised in my post, these two points which were really side-line issues, and didn't provide any response to my questions about the practical application of objectivism, nor my criticisms of the objectivist interpretation of collectivism.
Two reasons. 1) It was my last post of the night 2) It took Ayn Rand a lifetime to lay out the practical application of Objectivism, so it is not likely that I could do it justice in a paragraph or two on this forum. But to expand on the point I was making in my previous post, Objectivism is more than just a political philosophy, it is a philosophy for living and guiding ones actions. That it may not reach political reality in my lifetime isnt all that important, that I, personally, have and will continue to benefit from it is really all that matters.
__________________ The precept: “Judge not, that ye be not judged” . . . is an abdication of moral responsibility: it is a moral blank check one gives to others in exchange for a moral blank check one expects for oneself. . .The moral principle to adopt in this issue, is: “Judge, and be prepared to be judged.”
-Ayn Rand
I consider brotherhood to be hard-wired into human reproductive biology. If one set of parents has multiple male offspring, then, viola! You have brotherhood. Families are the simplest collective. If you are an Objectivist, and you consider collectivism to be evil, this means ipso facto you consider the family evil. This is why I don't give much credence to Objectivism, since it contradicts human biology. Where ideologies conflict with physical reality, the ideology usually ends up the bug on the windshield.
If you are not an Objectivist, your mileage may vary.
Was I supposed to be getting this information: Brotherhood only exist within the boundary of families, nothing more, unlike socialism, requires everyone in a society to be a part of a even greater one.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Quick liberals, start supporting capitalism by buying more Che T-shirt! 100% Sweat shop made!
Linear Mode
