US Politics Mega-thread - Page 29

On December 08 2012 18:38 HunterX11 wrote:
Tax incentives are like pork: politicians all claim to be against it in general, but always demur over specifics. It is one of the few truly bipartisan issues in that sense. That a few Republicans intentionally promote nonsensical plans they never intend to go into effect (and occasionally have to vote against themselves when the Democrats call their bluff) doesn't really change the political calculus all that much except for influencing voters.

This odd little woman is attempting to give a moral sanction to greed and self interest, and to pull it off she must at times indulge in purest Orwellian newspeak of the “freedom is slavery” sort. What interests me most about her is not the absurdity of her “philosophy,” but the size of her audience (in my campaign for the House she was the one writer people knew and talked about). She has a great attraction for simple people who are puzzled by organized society, who object to paying taxes, who dislike the “welfare” state, who feel guilt at the thought of the suffering of others but who would like to harden their hearts. For them, she has an enticing prescription: altruism is the root of all evil, self-interest is the only good, and if you’re dumb or incompetent that’s your lookout.

She is fighting two battles: the first, against the idea of the State being anything more than a police force and a judiciary to restrain people from stealing each other’s money openly. She is in legitimate company here. There is a reactionary position which has many valid attractions, among them lean, sinewy, regular-guy Barry Goldwater. But it is Miss Rand’s second battle that is the moral one. She has declared war not only on Marx but on Christ. Now, although my own enthusiasm for the various systems evolved in the names of those two figures is limited, I doubt if even the most anti-Christian free-thinker would want to deny the ethical value of Christ in the Gospels. To reject that Christ is to embark on dangerous waters indeed. For to justify and extol human greed and egotism is to my mind not only immoral, but evil. For one thing, it is gratuitous to advise any human being to look out for himself. You can be sure that he will. It is far more difficult to persuade him to help his neighbor to build a dam or to defend a town or to give food he has accumulated to the victims of a famine. But since we must live together, dependent upon one another for many things and services, altruism is necessary to survival. To get people to do needed things is the perennial hard task of government, not to mention of religion and philosophy. That it is right to help someone less fortunate is an idea which ahs figured in most systems of conduct since the beginning of the race. We often fail. That predatory demon “I” is difficult to contain but until now we have all agreed that to help others is a right action. Now the dictionary definition of “moral” is: “concerned with the distinction between right and wrong” as in “moral law, the requirements to which right action must conform.” Though Miss Rand’s grasp of logic is uncertain, she does realize that to make even a modicum of sense she must change all the terms. Both Marx and Christ agree that in this life a right action is consideration for the welfare of others. In the one case, through a state which was to wither away, in the other through the private exercise of the moral sense. Miss Rand now tells us that what we have thought was right is really wrong. The lesson should have read: One for one and none for all.

Ayn Rand’s “philosophy” is nearly perfect in its immorality, which makes the size of her audience all the more ominous and symptomatic as we enter a curious new phase in our society. Moral values are in flux. The muddy depths are being stirred by new monsters and witches from the deep. Trolls walk the American night. Caesars are stirring in the Forum. There are storm warnings ahead. But to counter trolls and Caesars, we have such men as Lewis Mumford whose new book, The City in History, inspires. He traces the growth of communities from Neolithic to present times. He is wise. He is moral: that is, he favors right action and he believes it possible for us to make things better for us (not “me”!). He belongs to the currently unfashionable line of makers who believe that if something is wrong it can be made right, whether a faulty water main or a faulty idea. May he flourish!

On December 09 2012 06:54 Boblion wrote:
When an American woman tries to understand Nietzsche you get Ayn Rand.

On December 09 2012 06:54 Boblion wrote:
When an American woman tries to understand Nietzsche you get Ayn Rand.

On December 09 2012 07:11 TheTenthDoc wrote:


I think you may mean when a Russian woman whose family was torn about by the October Revolution tries to understand Neitzsche you get Ayn Rand. Though that's a much smaller group of people, I suppose.

On December 10 2012 04:59 sc2superfan101 wrote:
Republicans are whiners. they're gonna crack and lose control of the party very soon, and I'm gonna laugh in all their moderate faces when they never win another election again.

so afraid to go over the fiscal curb that they'll continue protecting the middle class from it's own ridiculous voting/spending habits. yeah... this nation is screwed big time.


off-topic: "Let the author of Myra Breckinridge go back to his pornography and stop making allusions to Nazism."

(is about all I have to say about Gore Vidal)