DescentBB

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I am not terribly familiar with Ayn Rand, so perhaps you would do me the service of pointing out specifically why Ayn Rand == Conservatism != Christ, if indeed you comprehend it well enough, because I don't buy it. In my experience statements about Christ's incompatibility with free systems of government or enterprise stem directly from a failure to appreciate either freedom or the gospel.

Okay.

Ayn Rand wrote:Faith is the worst curse of mankind, as the exact antithesis and enemy of thought.

Ayn Rand wrote:I swear, by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.

Mark 12:29-31 KJV wrote:And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:

And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.

And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Finally, some words from conservative Tea Party star Paul Ryan:

Paul Ryan wrote:The reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand.

I think that “live for” quote may refer to slavery and servitude, more than “love”.

Spidey wrote:I think that “live for” quote may refer to slavery and servitude, more than “love”.

It refers to the evils of altruism and self-sacrifice.

So he credits a philosopher (of sorts) for inspiring him to get into public life and therefore he must bear the burden of anything that philosopher ever said if it runs counter to anything he ever says?!?
I was inspired to explore many things by people I only admire for particular things they did or said and in no way am I a hypocrite because some of what they do or say runs counter to what I say I'm for.

It seems to be a silly criticism you are making. There are liberals who were inspired by Rush Limbaugh to get into talk radio! they admire his effective methods and ability to move people but they sure don't follow his ideology. Couldn't Ryan have found things he liked in her words and that inspired him?

Tell me, are all Muslims who respect Muhammad as their prophet in favor of racism and murder in the name of Allah?
If not, are they hypocrites for denouncing the murder and racism perpetrated by others in the name of Allah because they are followers of Muhammad's teachings?

Will Robinson wrote:So he credits a philosopher (of sorts) for inspiring him to get into public life and therefore he must bear the burden of anything that philosopher ever said if it runs counter to anything he ever says?!?

Paul Ryan's economic policies, especially his budget proposal, are clearly Randian in substance.

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So he credits a philosopher (of sorts) for inspiring him to get into public life and therefore he must bear the burden of anything that philosopher ever said if it runs counter to anything he ever says?!?

Paul Ryan's economic policies, especially his budget proposal, are clearly Randian in substance.

And this proves what regarding Ryan and Christianity?

Will Robinson wrote:

null0010 wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:So he credits a philosopher (of sorts) for inspiring him to get into public life and therefore he must bear the burden of anything that philosopher ever said if it runs counter to anything he ever says?!?

Paul Ryan's economic policies, especially his budget proposal, are clearly Randian in substance.

And this proves what regarding Ryan and Christianity?

I was never trying to equate Paul Ryan himself with Christianity, I was trying to show that he is a Randian Objectivist.

Rand may well be a nut, but as a political statement that quote is not out of harmony with loving your neighbor as you love yourself. You can only love your neighbor as you love yourself because you love yourself. Selflessness is a fruit of the spirit. It is not in harmony with Christianity to legislate it.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Rand may well be a nut, but as a political statement that quote is not out of harmony with loving your neighbor as you love yourself. You can only love your neighbor as you love yourself because you love yourself. Selflessness is a fruit of the spirit. It is not in harmony with Christianity to legislate it.

Ayn Rand despised religion and her Objectivist philosophy directly opposes faith:

Ayn Rand wrote:The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man's power to conceive- a definition that invalidates man's consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence...Man's mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God... Man's standard of value, say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure of God, whose standards are beyond man's power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith....The purpose of man's life...is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question.

She is right, but she is also confused. Confused because she probably believes that she is speaking against the God of the Bible. But the Bible, and God who inspired the Bible, does not ask of men what most of religion demands of them. Jesus clearly states that he does a lot of the things that are written of him in the bible in order that we can know that what he says is true. God does not demand blind faith. God expects faith based on evidence that he is who he says he is, and is trustworthy. That's pretty much par for the coarse for atheists, in my experience. I'd still like to see what's so wrong with her political views (not saying there isn't anything, necessarily).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I'd still like to see what's so wrong with her political views (not saying there isn't anything, necessarily).

I disagree with Ayn Rand for philosophical reasons; I don't expect everyone to have this view. Personally I think the problem with objectivism is the same as the problem with communism: both ideologies expect people as a whole to behave in a certain way when that is not a realistic expectation. Objectivism, like communism, works only in ideal circumstances, with everyone following the "rules." The biggest difference is that objectivism can be applied on an individual level.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:

Krom wrote:... In corporate America all the extra productivity above average you bring to the table pretty much gets used exclusively to line the pockets of the people further up the ladder that had virtually nothing to do with your work. Just because you are more productive than someone else doesn't mean you will be compensated more for it.

Isn't that the American Dream? Work hard, come up with a better idea than the next guy and make a fortune? That idea seems to be more and more unattainable now. The system is now rigged against the individual and I don't think most Americans realize it yet.

TC, I appreciate that you believe that, and I wouldn't say that you're wrong out-of-hand, but I personally need to know just how the system is "rigged against the individual." In my mind, in order for the problem you describe to be dealt with effectively, it must be called out in precise terms. In other words, until you, or I, or anyone else runs up against it and has experienced where it is--where it starts and where it ends--how can it be dealt with? I'll tell you that my assumption is generally that people are so poorly equipped, morally and intellectually, to pursue the American dream that it is little wonder that not many realize it, relatively speaking; so--and again without dismissing your concerns--when I hear that the system is stacked against the individual, I cannot help but realize that in my own experience it is specifically the individual that is stacked against the individual, and no one who decries the system seems to recognize this reality. Having said this I think it would be incredible to believe our system to be perfect, except in principle as a free market. Wherever there is interplay with people inequities are sure to crop up which are not supported by principle, and recognizing and dealing with such inequities is one of the tasks of life, so by all means call it out where you see it.

One example I have is getting a college degree. It's now getting so expensive that student debt has surpassed credit card debt. Students will be in hock for perpetuity just to get a degree. But since corporations are farming out their degreed employees to foreign countries, I guess college degrees will become a thing of the past and service jobs will be the dominant employment opportunity in this country. Service jobs that don't have health insurance or retirement opportunities either. Servitude until death. That's not what made this country a place that everyone else desired to come to. A local company called Datalogic just canned 125 employees and sent those jobs over to Vietnam. Our legislators need to quit giving tax incentives, ie. tax breaks, to corporations that don't even bother to say thankyou.

Not everyone can be a Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerberg and fall into the right slot in life. Most of us want to get a steady, reliable, good paying occupation and support a family in happiness and security. A college degree is very beneficial ticket to that dream. Sure, one can make a living at some service job and hope to climb the ladder, it happens all the time. But it's not a guarantee for most of us. We're headed back to conditions right before the 1930's and it won't be pleasant.

callmeslick wrote:while I will quibble about the fact that 'class warfare' commencing(I feel it has been going on forever), I agree with much of the above. Having been one of those 'brats' you refer to, although always gainfully employed, and benefitting from not three but eleven generations in this country before me, I have spent much of my life in well-to-do circles. In such circles, I have been arguing for years those very fears for the future you express above. What kind of life do we leave our descendants if they have to be isolated from the masses and hiring some sort of mercenary protection to hold onto their assets? In my opinion, the rewards to the wealthy of maintaining various societal economic equalizers more than offsets any drag on our making higher returns on investment.

Maybe you're the exception, and there are always exceptions, no slam against you, but on average, second and third generation wealth is abused by the heirs, if they don't burn through it outright. They get spoiled and lose that work ethic that their forbears valued. They'll either party till there's no more money or become some powerful tyrant that has no clue about what hard work really is because they've never known work. Why work when someone inherits that giant trust fund windfall. Go play!

I'm the product of first generation wealth. My grandparents were farmers and laborers and had no wealth, but they lived comfortable lives by the 1950's. My father got a college degree and made it good for his wife and kids (me and my sister and brother). Not rich, but nicely middle class. But any part of my parent's wealth I may inherit will not be going to any of my siblings. My portion of the chain will be broken and someone less fortunate will benefit from it.

tunnelcat wrote:[Maybe you're the exception, and there are always exceptions, no slam against you, but on average, second and third generation wealth is abused by the heirs, if they don't burn through it outright. They get spoiled and lose that work ethic that their forbears valued. They'll either party till there's no more money or become some powerful tyrant that has no clue about what hard work really is because they've never known work. Why work when someone inherits that giant trust fund windfall. Go play!

Well, I'm from a family that is considered FFV(First Families of Virginia), and go back to planters from the late 1600's in the colony. Like I said, I've spent my life from prep school through adulthood in the company of many old money heirs. Not more than a handful would come remotely close to your description. Most old families firstly pride themselves on their education and productive employment. One's role is to grow the family money, not piss it away. Secondly, and I can cite one example from my own family a few generations back, derelicts and playboys are generally given a stipend and told to piss off permanently. On a side note, which might prove enlightening, most old money types, from a very young age are taught two key lessons, and expected to adhere to them: 1) Investments should be extremely conservative in nature(sell high, buy low, and diversify) and 2) Political networking, across party lines, will serve one very well for a lifetime.