Tags
altruism vs generosity, bill buckley, conservatives, irrationality, mysticism, rational, reason, theocracy, william buckley, william f buckley
When asked why she thinks conservatives justify the draft (forced service is viewed as slavery; while voluntary service in one’s own rational self interest is viewed as noble), Ms. Rand replied as follows:
“Because conservatives — if by “conservatives” we mean those who allegedly are against statism and uphold some form of capitalism — are undercut by the altruist morality. Altruism and mysticism are two prominent elements among conservatives. They have no rational philosophical base. So conservatism is full of contradictions. It is impossible to defend capitalism on an altruistic basis, and therefore they are forced into contradictions or into avliding intellectual issues altogether, instead, opting for folksy simplicity. There are few conservative intellectuals, and those that do exist are full of contradictions — and not only about the draft.”
To complete, somewhat, her picture and description of conservative intellectuals and their contradictions, here is her view of William Buckley when posed the question, “Other than atheism and religion, what differences do you have with conservatives like William Buckley?”
It would be simpler to ask what similarities there are: none. Reason vs mysticism is so fundamental a difference that politics is unimportant in that context. The first issue is reason versus irrationality — and religion and mysticism are irrational. Next comes morality and politics. Buckley and the conservatives advocate an organized religion very interested in politics — that is a theocracy [ED note: Not unlike the theocracy that exists in Iran; different only in the form of subjugation]: a society ruled by religious functionaries, as in ancient Egypt and the Middle Ages [Ed note: The Imperium and the Sacerdotium or "twin swords - temporal and spiritual rulers/masters]. This is one of the most primative types of society. Religious conservatives hold that man is a lowgrade helpless sinner and worm, theat life on Earth is a den of iniquity or vale of tears, that man must not aspire to solve his problems by using his mind. This last is the accusation these types leveled against nineteenth-century liberals [ED note: like Jefferson, Adams, Washington et.al]: they called it the “arrogance of reason” [Ed note: now we call it America]. Catholic conservatives, like Buckley, claim we should act on faith and bow to the Pope — the same Pope [Paul VI] who declared [in his encyclical, "Populorum Progressio", ] that capitalism is worse than Marxism, and that the only morality is altruism. What is there in common between them and me? (Lecture, “A Nation’s Unity” (Boston, Ford Hall Forum, 1972)
Here, I think it is necessary to define the theory of altruism in order to understand its immorality and its anathema to the existence of free men, let alone the practice of liberty:
Altruism Theory
What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.
Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.” ~ “Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World,” “Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand”
And:
There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into one “package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral guidance.
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes. ~ “Introduction,” “The Virtue of Selfishness”, viii. ~ Ayn Rand
It is your mind that they want you to surrender—all those who preach the creed of sacrifice, whatever their tags or their motives, whether they demand it for the sake of your soul or of your body, whether they promise you another life in heaven or a full stomach on this earth. Those who start by saying: “It is selfish to pursue your own wishes, you must sacrifice them to the wishes of others”—end up by saying: “It is selfish to uphold your convictions, you must sacrifice them to the convictions of others.” Galt’s Speech in “Atlas Shrugged” replayed in her non-fiction book, “For the New Intellectual”, 142 ~ Ayn Rand
You can read more on her thoughts and find associated references, if you are interested by going to the free web based version of her book: “The Ayn Rand Lexicon”
How much would you say, based upon your own observations, that the Republican/Conservative party and movement or modus operandi have changed, since Ms. Rand’s 1967 assessment of William F. Buckley and his fellow conservative “intellectuals”? Considering all the inherent contradictions, is it any wonder that they have been floundering for nearly 100 years like some discarded flotsam that drifts in and out on the waves of liberal popularity or disdain? Core beliefs and values cannot be contradictory. Intellectual arguments are won or lost on the reliability and consistency in application of core philosophy. You can’t be part religious no more than you can be part pregnant. You either are a person of faith or a person of reason. One negates the other by definition and by necessity.
Ed said:
This quote although it may on the surface sound oversimplified it does parallel the core beliefs in the Freedom of one’s Choice, “Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime.” The impression one would have from reading this statement as it stands alone, without the supporting context, also depends on one’s life experiences and education, where the method which one is educated would influence one’s interpretation of the true meaning.
”Core beliefs and values cannot be contradictory. Intellectual arguments are won or lost on the reliability and consistency in application of core philosophy.” I find this quote whether it is in its full context or not, exposes the destructive facts which are the main threat to Our Freedoms and Liberties and relates to my simplistic interpretation of one’s beliefs relating to one’s convenience.
Again in the interest of saving time and responding in length while answering your question about what I have observed about Republican/Conservatives and I would also include Democrats/Liberals to fall under the same category. As the sixties grew into the seventies I began to notice and label many party philosophies becoming more in line with their convenience and drifting further and further away from what is required to Protect and assist our country into becoming a more perfect union. I began to label many party leaders who had claimed to be Conservatives or Liberals as Convenient Conservatives or Convenient Liberals, which alienated me from becoming a member or either party and following any party lines.
In short, many philosophies whether they evolved from ancient times or modern times do contain substance and contradiction. Your beliefs in the philosophies of Ayn Rand is admirable and I enjoy absorbing her knowledge and thoughts, as I do the JBS, but I feel today’s issues must be addressed with a Constitutional and a prioritized method of thinking. I agree we all should have the right to strive for what we are willing to work and sacrifice for. The Globalization Issues which now face our country and threaten not only our existence which in turn will develop into our loss of Our Freedoms and Liberties does require a united effort by all Americans to prioritize placing America Needs, and Strength above everything else, just like U.S. did when entering WWII when facing enemies on two fronts, because most folks are living in denial if they refuse to recognize the peril our nation is currently in. I think this mindset does in its own way fall under Ayn Rand’s philosophy of sacrificing your own pursuit of happiness for others in regards to our nation as a whole. Well we may need to broaden that philosophy to encompass Our Nation for the good of our nation which relates to our personal ability to seek our individual pursuit of happiness once the threat to We the People is destroyed because without the U.S. and Our Constitution the freedom to believe in any philosophy will no longer be able to exist!
--Rick said:
The question of giving the dime is only problematic if one feels pressured to do so by external forces. If one is giving freely, that is generosity, and there is nothing morally wrong with being kind and generous. However, if one is giving because society is pressuring such giving or because the society is forcing the acceptance that it is only moral when one lives for everyone but himself. then the act of “giving” is immoral and an anathma to liberty if you believe each individual has the inalienable right to his own life, his own liberty, and his own pursuit of happiness. Liberty and altruism are opposites and can never find a place where they can exist in full simultaneously.
Core beliefs and living within them are exactly what this country needs from our leaders. If one has core beliefs that are built up around the premises established and ordained by the U.S. Constitution, as opposed to the vascilating pragmatism that we see from both parties today, then we can truly become one nation; one people. However, if we are willing to bend the rules or tolerate idiosyncratic behaviors such as changing a law for convenience and then changing it back when the opposite would provide the results desired, putting all morality and principle aside, then we cannot and will not ever be united in custom, vision or voice. History has proven that beyond doubt; yet, we are still refusing to learn history’s teachings. The price to be paid in liberty lost only gets higher and more tyrannical with each passing decade.
Of course, the Democrats are just as ill principled as the Republicans or the Social Conservatives. They are highlighted because that was the topic of the day – Social or Religious Conservatives. Both liberal Democrats and zealot Social Conservatives strive to be masters over their people, rather than servants of democracy. Both strive for power and neither gives a damn about the consequences of their actions, because they remain unaffected by them. Most of the harm doesn’t show up until they are gone from office and leave the consequences to be paid by their successors. Both are pragmatists and both have agendas driven by immoral sources. On the left, it is power; the ultimate in power to force people to live and behave in a certain way that suits their utopian vision. The far right would have people go back to the Middle Ages and serve two masters.
Take the abortion issue out of the equation and the religious right is no different than the far left. Both believe in forced sacrifice by individuals for the “greater good” as defined by them. Both would have you pay tribute to Caesar’s twin swords through taxes and tithes. All the while these pragmatists are seeking power and claiming to be interested in the greater good of man from all nations and walks of life, the work at enslaving the most free and extending just enough liberties to the most enslaved to pique their hopes for a better tomorrow. However, like the old saying goes, “their is no tomorrow; by the time it arrives, it is known as today”.
Chasing utopia is chasing an impossible dream. However, each individual chasing their own happiness with minimal restraint has been proven possible by the birth of a nation; our nation – the United States of America. We are the only nation that has followed this dream, somewhat, since our birth. What other nation offers the possibilities and quality of life offered here? When was the last time you heard of a boat full of people in search of a better life sailing for Venezuela, Cuba, Russia, China, Iran, or Libya? For what other nation do people regularly risk their lives and the lives of their spouses and children simply to enter on the hope that they will be allowed to remain?
Globalization will ultimately occur (if we don’t annihilate ourselves first). The question is do you want that globalized world to look, feel and function more like the United States, or do you prefer some other country to emulate. We can only win a war of philosophy by adopting and adhering to the moral principles of that philosophy. In my view, Capitalism and Objectivism are the twin towers of discipline and direction to get us the best we are capable of building for ourselves. Consider the U. S. Constitution and the 17th and 18th century class liberalism as a philosophy; strong, unwavering, optimistic, but realistic that establishing and maintaining such a treasure requires hard work and adherence to principles that serve the individual above all else. Compare that scenario with the philosophy of Objectivism and you will find more parallels than not. Neither is easy to masterand the temptations to compromise are many. However ever as JFK said about going to the moon; we don’t go because it is easy, we go precisely because it is hard.
Ed said:
Here is where you surprise me with this quote:
“Globalization will ultimately occur (if we don’t annihilate ourselves first). The question is do you want that globalized world to look, feel and function more like the United States, or do you prefer some other country to emulate.”
If Globalism is humankind’s destiny, then we will be better off annihilating ourselves first. Consider why Our Forefather created the three Branches of Government, which in turn creates a system of Checks and Balances. Each branch has the duty to oversee the other if one of the branches attempts to become too powerful negating the other [can you say Czars?].
We have also established the fact that man has never learned from History and is destine to repeat the same mistakes. One Global Government may sound good to some and may possibly work well at first, but in reality sooner than later, evil will overtake and control the globe as a totalitarian ruler or party will result in a fate for mankind far worse than Communism! Without a diversified globe, with many individual countries and different philosophies’ to create a balance which has the ability to keep evil dictators in check, the Core Principles which Our Forefathers envisioned for mankind will no longer exist. It is like Capitalism, the many different entities which compete for the market share holds costs of the product down and results in a better product, which in turn produces or offers a quality and affordable product to the consumers.
There cannot be Life without Freedom and Liberty because just ones mere existence is far worst then death.
Have you heard the new term which our leaders want to add to the “Unpatriotic Act”?
The new term is “Singular Cell Terrorist,” what do you think a single cell terrorist is?
--Rick said:
It’s nice to hear that I am still capable of surprise. The path to economic globalization began even before the NAFTA and GATT teaties. Since then we’ve had the Law of the Sea Treaty, the Kyoto Treaty and The World Trade Organization, to name just a few markers of where the United States, through the consent of the governed, has given up soverignty and allowed the progress toward a homeostatic world economy.
I use the phrase, “with the consent of the governed” because silence against something is consent for it: “All that is needed for the forces of evil to triumph is for enough good men to do nothing.” ~ Sir Edmund Burke. Year by year, congress by congress, president by president, our liberties have been eroded to the point that there is doubt as to whether America is a free nation or not. John McCain partnered with Senator Russ Feingold to author and pass the anti-free speech legislation, Campaign Finance Reform. The democrats are still looking to revive instead of revile “The Fairness Doctrine”, which, again, places limits on speech by creating an artificial politiacally correct “balance”; especially in talk radio, regardless of what the market or the people want.
A more recent example of free speech restriction is the threat that was made against Humana Corporation by Senator Max Baucus for telling the truth to their beneficiaries, and that is, if the Baucus plan is approved, they will suffer cuts in their benefits and increased costs. Their choices will also be limited and they may experience longer waits for harder to find services. These are not fictitious circumstances; they are, in fact, factually based changes that will occur and which demands that the company exercise its fiduciary responsibility and inform its customer base. Of course, a good local example is the court sanctioned hijacking of the rights of Massachusetts citizens to vote for their Senate replacement for Edward Kennedy, and instead allow a renegade Governor to select a replacement against the wishes of those he represents. Does that sound like a democracy to you? Where do you find solace in the “checks and balances” demonstrated here? This activity is more commonplace than most people think; either that, or more people are even more intellectually and morally repugnant than I think by knowingly accepting this behavior without extracting a penalty from their representatives.
Additionally, we presently have a government subsidized banking system, a government subsidized automobile industry, a government alliance with labor unions to give disproportional advantage to thugs over job creators and innovators who created businesses to deliver goods and services of benefit to mankind as well as their own rational self interest. We stand by and do not challange the evil of collectivism and fail to challange labor unions and their government allies; yet, allow government and labor to attack the very entity that created the ability for them to exist: the American business community. Government regulated business into failures; then, it works to correct those failure by blaming business and imposing even more regulation that solves absolutely nothing. But, the do give Americans their villian to blame, to draw and quarter, to vent their anger upon. All the while, the real villians remain in the background, uneffected, unscathed, and with it’s power intact.
Outside of a few esoteric peculiarities, we have fewer differences from the way our nation and our lifestyles are to those of Europeans. Our biiggest advantage is that we still have the common thread of speaking the same language instead of having 50 different languages spoken in 50 States. Even Canada is divided by language and cultural divisions which goes a long way to explain why that nation was never able to grow into an economic or political powerhouse. Canada’s weaknesses have nothing to do with America’s success and everything to do with their own failures. The same holds true for the South American countries; although, I will admit that if I ever had to live somewhere other than the United States, I would choose Costa Rica.
The United States as the name implies is united in language. It used to be united by a willingness to take risks and rugged individualism. It was united in demanding that every individual be given a fair chance out of the starting blocks ~ but no more. From the start onward, it used to be up to the individual to develop the brain power, the friendships, alliances and ambition to succeed. Today, more and more individuals hide in groups and expect the group to raise them up instead of their innate and developed abilities. Rugged individualism is out of the question; most people have become too lazy to even perform their jobs properly; yet demand even more for their haphazard output.
America is already well on the road to self-annihilation and demands the remaining few individualist self-immolate their hopes, their dreams, their properties and ultimately their individuality, otherwise known as their life; all for the good of those other than themselves. That is not liberty. It is, by definition “involuntary servitude” or outright slavery if you wish to define it as clearly as a naked emperor. The character of most Americans today is not what Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Franklin or Washington envisioned over 200 years ago. I believed that they would be disgusted with their progeny were they able to see what we’ve become, while riding the golden charriot of liberty that they built for us. Our only challange was to hold onto what we were given and we were even given prescient advice on how to do just that. Still, in my mind, we’ve failed and the grand-children of my generation, the irresponsible baby boomer generation, will be the first to pay for our sins. Most likely, most of our children are already less well off, but thankfully, we’ve raised them to be too stupid to realize it. In that vein, we are more like our politicians than we care to admit. Like them, we too will be gone when it’s time to pay the bill; but, we will have lived well in the process of destroying the greatest nation on earth.
Bottom line: you don’t need a nuclear device to self destruct or to annihilate “the world”. All you need is to stand by with your mouth shut as others do the work for you.
My definition of a single cell terrorist is any one person who demands self-sacrifice of others, or who would demand the practice of either pragmatism or altruism. The anti-terrorist single cell would be a man of principle who values and defends individual liberty understanding that rational self-interest is the only true path to free will or free choice.
Ed said:
Your Historic rendition is spot on, and your observances are also sadly correct, as I to fear that the future generations may never have the opportunities to experience Our Forefathers vision.
Quote: “Bottom line: you don’t need a nuclear device to self destruct or to annihilate “the world”. All you need is to stand by with your mouth shut as others do the work for you.”
Here is where many neglect or chose to be in denial of what is the true definition of what a Terrorist is, and who it is which possesses the right to make that determination? As you have stated many times defense of the citizenry is one of the few functions required by government. What we truly need to be concerned over will ultimately be, is will the defense of the Republic be required from a Power Abroad or will the defense be required a Power Within who is determined to sellout Our Republic for their own personal agenda or beliefs!
Quote: “My definition of a single cell terrorist is any one person who demands self-sacrifice of others, or who would demand the practice of either pragmatism or altruism. The anti-terrorist single cell would be a man of principle who values and defends individual liberty understanding that rational self-interest is the only true path to free will or free choice.”
I do enjoy reading the State of New Hampshire Bill of Rights and here are several excerpts which may have been purposely neglected by those with a questionable agenda:
X. Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought, to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of non-resistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
XXII. The Liberty of the Press is essential to the security of freedom in a state; it ought, therefore, to be inviolably preserved.
XXIII. Retrospective laws are highly injurious, oppressive and unjust. No such laws, therefore, should be made, either for the decision of civil causes, or the punishment of offences.
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defence of a state.
XXV. Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised or kept up without the consent of the legislature.
XXVI. In all cases, and at all times, the military ought to be under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power.