For the Ayn Rand lovers

[38special]

How do you know she never said that?

How do we know you've never said you hate guns?

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to prove she said it, not someone else to prove she didn't.

 

[Arthur Dent]

How do we know you've never said you hate guns?

You can't prove a negative. The burden of proof is on you to prove she said it, not someone else to prove she didn't.

It's up to me to prove someone else's claim?

 

[Bond 281]

It's up to me to prove someone else's claim?

7/10 troll.

 

[John Galt]

I thought it was rather funny, actually.

But, yes it does make her a hypocrite. Do as I say, not as I do.

Troll alert!

 

[JetGirl]

Here's the dealio...if you PAY INTO IT, then you have a fair share that is YOURS.
A "hypocrite" would be someone living on Welfare complaining about social programs and people sponging off the government.

 

[Hawkeye]

It's up to me to prove someone else's claim?

If you're trying to use it to prove some point -- yes.

 

[melensdad]

I thought it was rather funny, actually.

But, yes it does make her a hypocrite. Do as I say, not as I do.

No it doesn't make her a hypocrite, apparently you don't understand the term. Nor do you grasp the actions.

She did not, as you put it, "do as I say, not as I do" she simply followed the existing law which required her pay to be deducted. Had she not followed the law and paid the tax she would have been jailed as a tax evader.

As for her ideals, she did oppose Social Security/FICA and Medicare but since she paid into those systems involuntarily she had every right to expect to take back some of her own money.

 

[Benny]

It's up to me to prove someone else's claim?

I'm guessing you must live under a rock.

Would you like him to quote everything she's ever said to prove it to you? That sure would be easy.



Or you could post your proof of her being a hypocrite in one single link...Whichever you think would be easier.

 

[Arthur Dent]

When you preach against something, regardless of whether you pay into it, and take advantage of it that makes you a hypocrite. In my eyes.

All a matter of opinion.

 

[melensdad]

When you preach against something, regardless of whether you pay into it, and take advantage of it that makes you a hypocrite. In my eyes.

All a matter of opinion.

She didn't pay into it, the money was extracted against her will and taken from her by force. Had she not "paid into it" she'd have been imprisoned. To then take the money back is not being a hypocrite, its being smart.

To speak against the forced extortion and then to reclaim the extorted money is not hypocritical.

To be hypocritical she'd have not paid into it, she'd have spoken against it, and then she'd have claimed the money too.

 

[rambone]

If you can't refute the message, attack the messenger.

 

[rambone]

For the Big Government lovers

U.S. National Debt Clock

 

[Fletch]

I dunno. It seems to me that a minarchist libertarian is pretty much the political embodiment of Objectivism.

Not at all. The reason why has already been posted upthread: libertarians have a penchant for amorality, which is anti-Objectivist. It's my read that the vast majority of libertarians have a desire for complete amorality, which I (like Rand) find incompatible with the notion of rights. Rand was also peeved that libertarians tended to seem to adopt the results of her work without doing the work, which (as anyone who's read her non-fiction would know) is the greater point.

However, there is no doubt that Rand was conflicted; even her own description of Objectivism has problems. In The Virtue of Selfishness, she ultimately gives the State the power of monopoly on Force, which is completely at odds with everything else she'd written up until that point. She paints a picture of free men trading freely among themselves, under the watchful eye of a duly-appointed/elected sheriff, who is the only person with a gun.

 

[SirRealism]

Not at all. The reason why has already been posted upthread: libertarians have a penchant for amorality, which is anti-Objectivist. It's my read that the vast majority of libertarians have a desire for complete amorality, which I (like Rand) find incompatible with the notion of rights. Rand was also peeved that libertarians tended to seem to adopt the results of her work without doing the work, which (as anyone who's read her non-fiction would know) is the greater point.

Can you give an example of an issue where libertarians' amorality shows itself in conflict with Objectivism?

 

[Fletch]

Can you give an example of an issue where libertarians' amorality shows itself in conflict with Objectivism?

It's the conflict between base hedonism and enlightened self-interest. Rand held up a man's happiness as his ultimate end, but this is seized upon by amoral libertarians as an "anything goes" statement when it is nothing of the sort.

Most of us here know the satisfaction that comes from productive work, from developing our skills and talents and applying them to some end. It's a Maslowian sort of thing, a process of self-actualization that takes us to the ultimate expression of ourselves. (Rand no doubt would bristle at having Maslow invoked in a discussion of her work, but she pretty much hated everyone who wasn't her.)

So what we have is the conflict between the "libertarian" who trains himself to be the best that he can be and puts that to work for his own profit, versus the "libertarian" who sits on a couch and smokes weed all day. Both are "happy", but only one is Objectivist.

 

[SirRealism]

It's the conflict between base hedonism and enlightened self-interest. Rand held up a man's happiness as his ultimate end, but this is seized upon by amoral libertarians as an "anything goes" statement when it is nothing of the sort.

Most of us here know the satisfaction that comes from productive work, from developing our skills and talents and applying them to some end. It's a Maslowian sort of thing, a process of self-actualization that takes us to the ultimate expression of ourselves. (Rand no doubt would bristle at having Maslow invoked in a discussion of her work, but she pretty much hated everyone who wasn't her.)

So what we have is the conflict between the "libertarian" who trains himself to be the best that he can be and puts that to work for his own profit, versus the "libertarian" who sits on a couch and smokes weed all day. Both are "happy", but only one is Objectivist.

Oh, OK, so you're not saying there's an overt call to hedonism in libertarianism... just a choice that some people make.

 

[Fletch]

Oh, OK, so you're not saying there's an overt call to hedonism in libertarianism... just a choice that some people make.

It depends on what libertarian you talk to. Libertarianism as a whole boils down to the rule against the initiation of force. Most hedonists are adamant about that being the only rule, but then again so are a lot of non-hedonists. The problem with that being the only rule is that it still leaves a lot of room for anti-social behavior that causes harm to others without the harm being provable.

So we add in the notion of property rights, which philosophically follows from the self-ownership principle, and to which a lot of libertarians will acquiesce (but not all -- left-libertarians in particular seem to have problems with it). From this grows the philosophical economics of laissez-faire capitalism, which goes a long way toward providing a set of guidelines for behavior. But even that doesn't really satisfy what one might call the "moralists", such as Rand and myself.

I believe we need to be free because my own First Axiom (my equivalent of Gibbs' rules from NCIS) is that "there is no morality at gunpoint" -- ie, if you force me to make a moral choice, I am not, and cannot be, moral for having chosen it. It is only if I am completely free to make a choice, and I make the moral choice, that I am moral. But -- and this is crucial for me -- we should want and encourage people to make moral choices, even if we don't force them to do so. There is a social structure to human relationships, one which need not (and should not) be codified by the State, but which libertarians as a whole are far too willing to discard as unimportant. This is where I think the hedonistic message creeps in.

I think the real issue comes down to needing a rule without making a rule. That is, I think we need an expectation of behavior from one another, something along the lines of "you need to be aiming at something bigger". Rand laid this out in Objectivism: the greatest sin is the refusal to think or to act according to Reason. Some of us call it self-government: yes, it may be entertaining to get wasted on a daily basis, but that doesn't mean that it's a good idea. I have my own reasons, ones which Rand would surely hate, but which are not allowed to be discussed at INGO.

 

[dross]

Libertarianism doesn't advocate hedonism, nor is it amoral. Objectivism is a philosophy, libertarianism is a political movement.

I have strong personal moral beliefs. I just don't think they should be codified into law, and applied to others by force. I can make the argument about my moral beliefs, I can use persuasion, I can vote with my wallet, I can boycott those who disagree, I can withdraw my association from them, I can stand in front of their house or their business and protest them. None of these are incompatible with libertarianism.

I might strongly disagree with the morality of something, and still fight tooth and nail to keep it from becoming prohibited by law. These can be consistent.

As to Ayn Rand, she was far from perfect. She failed personally in many ways, and because of her absolutist stances on many things, she has hoisted herself, and so deserves much of the criticism she receives.

Yet, she did two things that we should respect and revere her for. One, she made a great popular case for freedom, written in the form of a novel, thereby reaching many, many people. The other thing she did was make the moral case for economic freedom, again, making it accessible to people who would otherwise it might have never reached.

To be a hypocrite about taking money from government programs requires you to have expressed the belief that others shouldn't take that money. I"m not aware she ever did that.

 

[Fletch]

Libertarianism doesn't advocate hedonism, nor is it amoral.

You've been talking to different libertarians than I have.

I have strong personal moral beliefs. I just don't think they should be codified into law, and applied to others by force. I can make the argument about my moral beliefs, I can use persuasion, I can vote with my wallet, I can boycott those who disagree, I can withdraw my association from them, I can stand in front of their house or their business and protest them. None of these are incompatible with libertarianism.

I agree with this statement, but I'm not sure it's sufficient.

 

[griegeba]

A quote from Robert A. Heinlein, " There is no worse tyranny than to force a man to pay for what he does not want, merely because you think it would be good for him.