Objectivism & the Republican Party?

[Zloth]

This NPR story surprised me this morning. I didn't think anyone was buying into this philosophy anymore, which was why BioShock could screw around with it without worrying about picketers. Given her views on religion, I wouldn't think a Republican would want to be associated with her at all, even if they agree on some things.

 

[dteowner]

It's just the latest attempt by the left to manufacture a high-brow insult. As the article points out right off the hop, the attack has no real meaning in this day and age, but some lefties throw it out there anyway with a sanctimonious chuckle, proving their superiority because they can remember an author's name.

 

[Thrasher]

You should read the quotes in the article from John Boner and other congressional Republicans. They sound like Rand quotes.

 

[dteowner]

I did. There certainly is some overlap between repubs and Rand, but it's a pretty big leap from cherry-picking a few quotes to declaring that the two sets are identical. I expect I could do a similar match-up between Barack and Marx/Lenin given the desire (starting with his infamous "balance the wealth" quote) and then declare Obama and the dems to be Marxists based on it, but that would be equally flimsy logic. And, there would be people completely convinced that my logic was proof positive just as there are people buying the whole Rand thing.

 

[Thrasher]

Yes, I see your point. The question is whether Republicans believe in the ammoral concepts of Rand (i.e. that self-serving greed and deregulation is best).

Rand would get rid of government entirely. She's more of an anarchist.

 

[Zloth]

What I still think is odd is that Republicans would say anything real positive about Rand at all. I'm not thinking so much about what the Democrats would do with that as what other Republicans would do with it - namely turn the conservative Christians against them. "Listen to what representative So & So's favorite author has to say about the teachings of Jesus!"

 

[dteowner]

You do get some of that, as seen with some repub candidates in recent elections getting "primaried from the right", but in general it's an "enemy of my enemy" kind of thing where the social conservatives will support a fiscal conservative that isn't strong on the "faith and values" junk and the fiscals won't undercut a social conservative when they start rattling on. Disclaimer- I would dismally flunk a "faith and values" party litmus test so it's possible my perception of the situation from a social conservative's viewpoint might be flawed.

 

[Zloth]

And this pops right back into the news again.

So what was the guy's name that created Rapture in BioShock?

 

[dteowner]

The whole Ayn Rand thing is a lazy troll for the leftie media. As long as the sheep keep lapping it up, they'll keep trotting the corpse out from time to time.

 

[Thrasher]

Well except for the fact that Ryan is self-professed believer in the theories of Ayn Rand, except for her atheism, of course.

 

[Corwin]

I remember arguing about her back when I was in high school, and most of you weren't even born!!

 

[JemyM]

The parties are cultural constructs more than ideologies as far as I concern. You therefore get very different interpretions of what they have to offer depending on what kind of person you are. Rand works better with extreme liberalism than social conservatism and the republican party have both.

 

[rossrjensen]

Rand was an influential writer, why would it be surprising that her thoughts influenced a member or members of a political party, particularly Republicans?

As for Bioshock, it drew inspiration from Ayn Rand's work, but it wasn't really criticizing it. Remember who the real villain turned out to be -- a person Rand would have characterized as a looter. In Atlas Shrugged, society crumbles because of the meddling of looters too.

 

[Zloth]

Well except for the fact that Ryan is self-professed believer in the theories of Ayn Rand, except for her atheism, of course.

Except atheism is pretty much required for Rand's brand of politics. She's saying that people shouldn't give to the poor. You've earned that money yourself, the poor have no right to it. I don't know any major religion that wouldn't take issue with that.

 

[Thrasher]

Rand wasn't even discussed in my political science class. Wasn't she generally viewed as a crackpot not worthy of serious attention?

 

[rossrjensen]

Atheism is in no way a requirement. Rand was an atheist but she states pretty explicitly in her books that religious affiliation has no bearing on her philosophy. And she never said it is wrong for a person to give to the poor (though perhaps the idea of making poor complacent non-producers would be a problem), she was against people being compelled to give money to the poor. If you are inclined to give away your money, I believe Rand would have said that you were doing so to serve your own self-interest.

 

[rossrjensen]

Rand wasn't even discussed in my political science class. Wasn't she generally viewed as a crackpot not worthy of serious attention?

Well Rand is somewhere between political science, philosophy, and literature, and isn't covered in any of those subjects in public schools or universities for the most part. It doesn't mean her ideas are without merit.

 

[Thrasher]

Well it turns out that her ideas were dismissed by academia and the politics back in the day.

 

[Impregnator]

Yes, I see your point. The question is whether Republicans believe in the ammoral concepts of Rand (i.e. that self-serving greed and deregulation is best).

Rand would get rid of government entirely. She's more of an anarchist.

How was Rand wrong? Of course people operate off of self serving greed. You play games you like for yourself; you eat food you like for yourself; etc. You want the money of those who earned it for your benefit, out of greed while calling those who want to keep what they earned greedy.

When Mother Teresa died she barely received news coverage, and then the fucking Princess died and Holy Shit, who gives a fuck about a person who actually lived there life completely selflessly serving those no one wanted to even be around. Even when people do something nice, they usually have greedy incentives. I think these debates, more than anything, show how fucking retarded everyone is. Everyone, but themselves should lead a life of selflessness and their actions should benefit all mankind, as they post on a site dedicated to a greedy activity that is a frivolous waste of money. But all of us playing crpgs, we have proved beyond a doubt we enjoy greedy, self-serving, money-wasting activities that benefit no one but ourselves. People are extremely greedy, and Rand’s philosophy (which cannot seriously be considered without reading far more of it, just as Marx’s philosophy, or anyone’s) is proved every second of every day by not just us here on this site, but by the aggregate actions of humankind. Humanity is synonymous with self-serving greed, and it has been hardwired into by evolution.

Watch or read any information on why people are attracted to each other. Greed is our hardwired MO. No one performs selfless acts like marrying the diseased fatty with the bad genes and heart of gold if you have better-gened alternatives or the fatty is loaded and would help you live your greedy life the way you want. Notice how people are always strong supporters of the rights they believe in? How about when people suddenly change their more “enlightened” opinion of subject X, when X is threatening to encroach on their backyard.

Before you condemn her philosophy, read about it, and find out what the goal of it was.

Also, what is an amoral concept? Are you saying in a supposed free society there is moral agreement? Ethics is no longer a school of philosophy? Please articulate on how her belief’s were immoral.

 

[Thrasher]

Well it seems that you don't appreciate or believe in selfless actions, so there really isn't any argument or definition of morality that will satisfy you.