DescentBB

I've finally figured out the real reason for the rise of the Tea Party, Egoism. It's an age old ideal that's gaining ground again in the fight against it's polar opposite, the liberal ideal of Collectivism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collectivism

The last century idol and proponent, Ayn Rand, is the new idol they ascribe to follow.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand

http://www.nationaljournal.com/politics ... e-20110323

I'd like to know how this egoism ideology can be combined with the ideals of Christianity in the Prosperity Theology of modern Evangelicals.

Mark 10:25 wrote:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

This one should be interesting. Honestly, I think there's a pretty good discussion possible in here, even if it has to wait until the imminent flames die down a bit.

---------

From a financial perspective, I think egoism ("folks should do what's in their self-interest") is a decent comparison; it fits pretty well with Tea Party ideas about competition in a capitalist economy, in contrast to collectivism ("folks should do what's in the interest of all") which Tea Partiers tend to see as a socialist ideal.

However, from an ethical perspective, I'm not sure that description fits well. Rather than the egoist "do what's best for oneself", Christians and Tea Party folk tend to want broad regulation on ethical issues, which really more of a collectivist thing.

In the financial sense, I personally think tc's question is relevant. In context, the scripture she quoted is a lesson about the relative importance of money and God. To Christians, this is a good question, especially since a lot of political ideals about wealth (protect it, compete for it) conflict with Christian ideals (don't cling to or depend on it, freely give it).

---------

[Edit:] On a personal note, regarding the last question:
You're right, prosperity theology (w) isn't compatible with the scripture you quoted at all. I grew up in a 'prosperity' church, so I know that wacky theology firsthand; it doesn't fit Christ's teaching.

tunnelcat wrote:...
I'd like to know how this egoism ideology can be combined with the ideals of Christianity in the Prosperity Theology of modern Evangelicals.

Mark 10:25 wrote:
"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

I'm no evangelical and not even a Tea Partier allthough I share many fundamental values with both groups so I'm going to butt in anyway

I'd like to know if just because I agree with a lot of the opinions of Ayn Rand that according to you ego is the cause. You insult me to suggest I don't think it through and have no reason other than self for what I believe. Add to what I believe, since you don't know me or most of the people you just made this assertion about, that you make this insult as a calculated tactic that is part of an ideological crusade you are part of. Not because you have any particular specialty in psycology or even political science.

I'd like to know if you considered the quote from Mark 10:25 is merely a cynical commentary on the morality of the average rich man living in the time it was written. And then, with that in mind, looking at who was rich back then and how they built their wealth you might want to rethink assigning equivalency to the average wealthy person today. Apparently only to those that don't carry the water for the left like you do get this criticism though. And was it just careless of you, because it seems you have no comment toward the morality of the rich people who do agree with you...or are you suggesting the Tea Party is of higher moral standards than all the wealthy so they should all be on your side and are hypocrits for pretending to be good people?

I think once again with that bogey-man Tea Party fixed in your sights you have reached elbow deep past your sphincter to try and pull out yet another contrived partisan attack veiled as intillectual commentary.

tunnelcat wrote:I'd like to know how this egoism ideology can be combined with the ideals of Christianity in the Prosperity Theology of modern Evangelicals.

.....damn!! That sounds like the kind of question one would see on the final exam of a graduate philosophy course. It will be fun seeing where it goes, but congrats just for phrasing that one! Now, off to ponder. And, where did I put that 'blue book' (for those old enough to remember....)?

callmeslick wrote:...where did I put that 'blue book' (for those old enough to remember....)?

I used those during grad school less than ten years ago. They're still around.

Will Robinson wrote:I'd like to know if you considered the quote from Mark 10:25 is merely a cynical commentary on the morality of the average rich man living in the time it was written. And then, with that in mind, looking at who was rich back then and how they built their wealth you might want to rethink assigning equivalency to the average wealthy person today..

nice rationale, but I suspect it to be just that. It's comforting to think, "Jesus wasn't referring ALL rich people", but to do what you suggest above is to state that the message wasn't intended to be timeless. Wouldn't that run counter to the faith? For what it's worth, in my experience, that New Testament passage is the one which is most commonly ignored by the most people who would like to think themselves to be Christian. It sure has always seemed pretty straightforward to me, but feel free to explain how the morality of the wealthy members of Jesus' contemporary society differed from those in Rand's time or the present.

Will Robinson wrote:)I'd like to know if just because I agree with a lot of the opinions of Ayn Rand that according to you ego is the cause. You insult me to suggest I don't think it through and have no reason other than self for what I believe. Add to what I believe, since you don't know me or most of the people you just made this assertion about, that you make this insult as a calculated tactic that is part of an ideological crusade you are part of. Not because you have any particular specialty in psycology or even political science.

I'd like to know if you considered the quote from Mark 10:25 is merely a cynical commentary on the morality of the average rich man living in the time it was written. And then, with that in mind, looking at who was rich back then and how they built their wealth you might want to rethink assigning equivalency to the average wealthy person today. Apparently only to those that don't carry the water for the left like you do get this criticism though. And was it just careless of you, because it seems you have no comment toward the morality of the rich people who do agree with you...or are you suggesting the Tea Party is of higher moral standards than all the wealthy so they should all be on your side and are hypocrits for pretending to be good people?

I think once again with that bogey-man Tea Party fixed in your sights you have reached elbow deep past your sphincter to try and pull out yet another contrived partisan attack veiled as intillectual commentary.

Ayn Rand herself brought up the term "Rational Egoism", not me. I'm just connecting the dots here. And no, I don't have a degree in political science, ethics or philosophy. I just see what's going on with our culture and keep trying to find out why things go the way they do. One can learn and question, not listen to the demagogues.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer? ... untainhead

She even wrote in her book, 'The Virtue of Selfishness', that egoism is a rational code of ethics and that altruism is destructive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness

Now what I want to know is how this jibes with the Christian code of altruistic ethics when most are part and parcel members of the Republican Party and the Tea Party? That's why I quoted Mark 10:25, just one verse out of many in the Bible extolling that people should be altruistic and helpful to others, not take as much as they want, when they want and to hell with those lesser humans that can't help or protect themselves. There are also references to respect your elders, one also forgotten in this conservative egofest of politics. I also don't let most of the Dems and our President off either. Poisoned air is poisoned air, and D.C. is rife with it.

As for the Tea Party, it's central tenet has "egoism" as their core ethic.

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/blo ... -a-chance/

What the Republicans and Tea Partiers are advocating is the "Starve the Beast" strategy, to destroy government in order for the wealthy and corporations to steal from everyone else freely, consequences to society be damned. All I've heard from both of these parties is to cut the deficit, NO MATTER WHAT. And I haven't heard one wit about cutting Defense Spending from these guys. It's all about cutting "entitlements" for those poor, lazy people and gutting all the protective agencies that keep our air and water clean, our food safe to eat, our roads and infrastructure in one piece, and our banks honest. What really frosts me is the attempted defunding of Planned Parenthood (which they succeeded in doing in D.C.), all over the 3% of abortions that they perform. Kill the whole animal for one bad tooth.

There's no talk about creating checks and balances to correct government and private enterprise's problems. They just want to throw government away except for defense spending, and let capitalism rule! In fact, they don't believe that private enterprise has any problems and that it should have free reign. Good things for all will naturally follow. B.S.! It's their golden child that can do no wrong. I'm not saying rich people are bad or ungodly. There are quite a few billionaires that publicly advocate raising their own taxes to fund our government.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing- ... he-wealthy

What we have here is:

The War on the Weak

“There are quite a few billionaires that publicly advocate raising their own taxes to fund our government.”

There is nothing stopping anybody from paying more to the government…that sounds like BS to me.

tunnelcat wrote:..
Ayn Rand herself brought up the term "Rational Egoism", not me. I'm just connecting the dots here.
..

I didn't take issue with the term or the concept. I took issue with the dot connecting you do.
You sure do a lot of strawman construction with your creative interpretations of events and comments. Same ★■◆●, different day.

Hm, tc's post seems to be driven by her perspective (she admitted as much), and I personally think she's wrong to apply it to tea party ethical values... but there is some validity to the original post:

A central tenet of Tea Party economics is "sink or swim, everyone should fight for their own piece of the pie". It's effectively "do what's in one's own interest", which is a pretty good definition of egoism (and IMO, runs counter to Christ's example in many ways).

Christ the commie?

Seems a lot of egoism is coming from both sides not just the Christians and Republicans. Seems to me imho that most posters on this site seems to suffer from a mild to extreme forms of self worth including my self.

So how egotistical is this.

FALSANI:
Do you believe in sin?

OBAMA:
Yes.

FALSANI:
What is sin?

OBAMA:
Being out of alignment with my values.

The above was in 2004, when Obama was interviewed about his religious views by Cathleen Falsani who worked for Chicago Sun Times as columnist.

FALSANI:
What happens if you have sin in your life?

OBAMA:
I think it's the same thing as the question about heaven. In the same way that if I'm true to myself and my faith that that is its own reward, when I'm not true to it, it's its own punishment.

FALSANI:
Do you have people in your life that you look to for guidance?

OBAMA:
Well, my pastor [Jeremiah Wright] is certainly someone who I have an enormous amount of respect for.

FALSANI
Do you still attend Trinity?

OBAMA:
Yep. Every week. 11 oclock service.

Ever been there? Good service.

FALSANI:
Do you pray often?

OBAMA:
Uh, yeah, I guess I do.

Its' not formal, me getting on my knees. "I think I have an ongoing conversation with God". I think throughout the day, I'm constantly asking myself questions about what I'm doing, why am I doing it.

"I think I have an ongoing conversation" by asking himself questions?

Heretic,The spirit of man is the candle of the lord. .

Lol, TC, you cannot take absolute truth and make sense of the wishy-washy ass crap we hear all the time. You can only use it to identify it.

flip wrote:Heretic,The spirit of man is the candle of the lord. .

A candle can only be lit by the lord. The candle is the symbol of man and the fire is the lord. Two different entities not one and the same.

Well, I take that verse to mean that as you meditate or think upon things he brings enlightenment. I believe that is what both Paul and Obama are referring to when Paul says "praying ceaselessly". I mean I've never "heard" the voice of the Lord, but when I have a question, I can usually get an answer just by thinking about it, and I usually can tell right off if it's evil or not. I think that's the real intent of Obama's statement. Not a distorted one.

ThunderBunny wrote:Christ the commie?

Technically, the early Christian community as described in Acts fits the idealized system of communism to a T. (Note that said system is very different from the forms of "communism" that eventually popped up in the real world.) Members of the community gave up all their possessions to the Church leaders, who distributed them to everyone based on what was needed. I feel like the man himself would be far more down with that than that goofy "prosperity theology," and certainly much more than any of Rand's utter insanity.

Foil wrote:A central tenet of Tea Party economics is "sink or swim, everyone should fight for their own piece of the pie". It's effectively "do what's in one's own interest", which is a pretty good definition of egoism (and IMO, runs counter to Christ's example in many ways).

Well, it's America. If you want a peice you better get it. If you don't bother to go out and get it, you can starve.

SilverFJ wrote:

Foil wrote:A central tenet of Tea Party economics is "sink or swim, everyone should fight for their own piece of the pie". It's effectively "do what's in one's own interest", which is a pretty good definition of egoism (and IMO, runs counter to Christ's example in many ways).

Well, it's America. If you want a peice you better get it. If you don't bother to go out and get it, you can starve.

sounds good, except for the fact that a huge number of folks are so constrained by economics, access to quality education and health issues as to make 'going out and getting it' beyond difficult. If you wish to see those people starve, if and when they fail to 'get it', you have an extremely cruel view of a society, one which I don't share, nor ever wish to see become reality. Think about it: what you just suggested was that, for example, the disabled, those with learning disabilities, those folks with zero access to capital, starve. Freaking starve! Talk about running counter to Christ's example, that runs counter to simple human decency.

I had zero access to capital, so I threw on a backpack, stuck out my thumb, hitch-hiked to a city, got enough work to buy myself a plane ticket, went to Alaska, got a job there, and now I make almost more money in my summers and falls than I know what to do with.

America.
And I don't know how contrary to the word of God that is.
Check out 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

SilverFJ wrote:I had zero access to capital, so I threw on a backpack, stuck out my thumb, hitch-hiked to a city, got enough work to buy myself a plane ticket, went to Alaska, got a job there, and now I make almost more money in my summers and falls than I know what to do with.

very admirable of you(seriously, it is). However, had you grown up with a physical handicap, or simply been a single, poor female, could it have happened the same way? What if you had failed? You are in your twenties, now, what happens if you get crippled by your choice of career at, say, age 32? Should our society not provide you a base level of support? I am not supporting the concept of living in luxury, but a basic level of food, healthcare and such should not be beyond this nation to ensure.

If I become crippled at 32 I'm going to turn one of my many, many, many firearms on myself. I have too much pride to exist in that fasion.

SilverFJ wrote:And I don't know how contrary to the word of God that is.
Check out 2 Thessalonians 3:10.

The Second Letter to the Thessalonians is traditionally attributed to Paul of Tarsus, and is really nothing more than proselytism.

SilverFJ wrote:If I become crippled at 32 I'm going to turn one of my many, many, many firearms on myself. I have too much pride to exist in that fasion.

lovely sentiment. Now, as to the letter from Paul the Apostle. I suspect neither he nor Jesus would have extended those exhortations to those unable or prevented from working, don't you?

No, he would have healed them. But since that's no longer an option, people now have to work or count on the non-manditory charity of others.

So much for living in a modern, "civilized" society, then.

A vast number of the people who hold that opinion pay no taxes.

Will Robinson wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:..
Ayn Rand herself brought up the term "Rational Egoism", not me. I'm just connecting the dots here.
..

I didn't take issue with the term or the concept. I took issue with the dot connecting you do.
You sure do a lot of strawman construction with your creative interpretations of events and comments. Same ****, different day.

The absolute revulsion to anything pertaining to socialism (collectivism) coming from the Tea Party seems to say otherwise. The signs they hold up at their rallies are always vilifying Obama and those evil liberals and their programs as commie and socialistic, AND, which they claim are destroying our country. Prove it. They and their representatives keep yelling that we need to get rid of that big, bad government and keep it totally out of our lives. Sounds a like something Ayn Rand herself would champion.

Foil wrote:Hm, tc's post seems to be driven by her perspective (she admitted as much), and I personally think she's wrong to apply it to tea party ethical values... but there is some validity to the original post:

A central tenet of Tea Party economics is "sink or swim, everyone should fight for their own piece of the pie". It's effectively "do what's in one's own interest", which is a pretty good definition of egoism (and IMO, runs counter to Christ's example in many ways).

Foil, I disagree. I don't think it's wrong to apply it to the Tea Party. Everything I've heard from them is all about self, me, me, me, not about others. What they forget is that we live as a vast society that forms the United States. We're not a bunch of individuals out trying to survive by ourselves. We're mostly a group that all depend on one another to make this nation great and strong. Only as a collective can this nation be powerful and live in bounty. If we were a bunch of little towns and settlements, we'd be steamrolled by some other nation that happened to believe in a little strength in collectivism. There's power in numbers.

Now I'm not for full collectivism, even though I tend towards liberalism. We'd stifle and die under our own laziness. What bothers me is that as a nation, we need to have a little of both systems if we are to function as a whole, and people are forgetting that. If people didn't do things for their own benefit or enjoyment, we end up no better than the Soviet Union. But this shift towards pure Capitalism may even violate Ayn Rand's own tenets, that the government should exist for protecting the people. That shouldn't mean just national security by the way. I notice that both right wing parties go all collective on that one aspect of our government. What I'm talking about is food and drug safety, clean water and air, fair markets that don't favor the select few at the expense of the masses, a stable infrastructure for travel and commerce, etc, etc. These things all affect us one way or another. Tea Partiers and Republicans are trying to destroy all those government programs EXCEPT defense spending. What do they want, to defend a nation of poor people at any expense? What good is that?

I haven't even touched on health care cost and housing, which is slowly eating away at our middle class. All the right wingers want to do is privatize things and make them MORE expensive for people that can least afford it. Unregulated Capitalism does not value people, only profits. There needs to be some checks and balances put in, not outright removal. Everything being done in Washington and Wall Street is favoring those that are wealthy right now. If you're poor, you're dog meat, even if your circumstances were not of your own making. Climbing the ladder out of the pit of poverty is getting almost impossible.

I'm still waiting for CUDA to respond to those Christian values meshing with Tea Party values. Give me a reason why many, if not all, right wingers claim to be Christians and yet seem to extol the virtues of egoism at the same time.

SilverFJ wrote:If I become crippled at 32 I'm going to turn one of my many, many, many firearms on myself. I have too much pride to exist in that fasion.

My very plan exactly. Since I refuse to be bled dry by a medical system I can no longer afford and which values profits above actual medical care, why bother using it? It's done almost squat to help me most of my life anyway and since they don't believe in assisted suicide as a option (yes, I know we have that in Oregon, but you need a doctor to say you have only six months to live), my blessed handgun is my out when I eventually get some terminal illness.

Civilized Society is a very subjective term, someone who desires freedom, will probably have a different definition than someone that say, places comfort and security over all else.

Just saying…

Spidey wrote:Civilized Society is a very subjective term, someone who desires freedom, will probably have a different definition than someone that say, places comfort and security over all else.

Just saying…

Those who give up just a little freedom for comfort and security don't deserve any freedom.

Tc not for a collective?

TC wrote:It about how we should decide on what we as a collective are willing to spend on extending life at all costs

SilverFJ wrote:

Spidey wrote:Civilized Society is a very subjective term, someone who desires freedom, will probably have a different definition than someone that say, places comfort and security over all else.

Just saying…

Those who give up just a little freedom for comfort and security don't deserve any freedom.

I'd like to know in what twisted world view caring for the least fortunate members of society constitutes "giving up a little freedom."

I'm glad we have speed limits, silver...

SilverFJ wrote:A vast number of the people who hold that opinion pay no taxes.

and a vast number holding that opinion pay plenty of taxes.

Heretic wrote:Tc not for a collective?

TC wrote:It about how we should decide on what we as a collective are willing to spend on extending life at all costs

Well, it's a valid question since our entire country is being bankrupted by this very dilemma. People don't want to die, but they are willing to spend theirs and everyone "elses" money (read, the money in the health insurance collective risk pot) to survive at all costs, even if it doesn't have such a positive outcome for the buck, like say "living" for more than 1 a year after said expensive treatments.

Top Gun wrote:I'd like to know in what twisted world view caring for the least fortunate members of society constitutes "giving up a little freedom."

Me too. What ever happened to cooperation and altruism?

SilverFJ, just what would you do to get your groceries and gas and communications if no one had decided in the past to build the infrastructure you now drive your truck on or to grow the food that you buy to eat everyday? Go hunting on your horse and use smoke signals?

.

tunnelcat wrote:SilverFJ, just what would you do to get your groceries and gas and communications if no one had decided in the past to build the infrastructure you now drive your truck on or to grow the food that you buy to eat everyday? Go hunting on your horse and use smoke signals?

...that would be freakin' awesome. Too bad there's no way to steadily live that nowadays, I've tried for a while to see if it was possible. Too much privatized land.

Bet wrote:That makes you an awesome individual, I mean that. But, there is no such thing as extra money. Get a financial adviser to do something with the money you don't need right away. If the political climate changes in the coming years those health vouchers you will receive in lieu of medicare, coupled with money you have saved, may not be enough to give you long term care. The people with money will have no problem but those who are middle class or lower can lose everything they ever worked for. The hospitals will place a lien on everything you own.

Well, thanks! The thing is, the reason I do so well is that I invest nearly everything I make, I own 2 successful businesses which take all my time when I'm not on the ranch, that's why I post something like 5-6 times here in 20 minutes then go, I've got money in the bank, retirement plans, and gold in the ground if everything collapses. I think I'll be okay, only because I didn't rely on the government and taxpayers to take care of me. Every adult has had a shot at the American dream. If they haven't grabbed their slice, it's not my fault, it's theirs.

Bet wrote:So, you're saying you can't handle it? A strong guy like you? I see little kids that can handle it pretty well.

Little kids haven't tasted the awesome, rockin' adventure ride that my life has been so far . It isn't that I couldn't handle it, it's that I wouldn't want to. What a cooler next step than to find out what it's all about and pass on (or die trying)? Also, there is no flippin' way on the planet that I could handle being a burden on family and friends, on the American taxpayer, on hardworking families trying to take care of their own. No thanks, I'll go out with dignity.

SilverFJ wrote:

tunnelcat wrote:SilverFJ, just what would you do to get your groceries and gas and communications if no one had decided in the past to build the infrastructure you now drive your truck on or to grow the food that you buy to eat everyday? Go hunting on your horse and use smoke signals?

...that would be freakin' awesome.

Hah! x2

Isaac wrote:I'm glad we have speed limits, silver...

Well, I think Montana was doing quite fine before they instituted a speed limit a while back. Reasonable and prudent would've been fine with me.
If you're on a straightaway on a clear day with no other cars around and you're Dale Jr. it would be absolutely R&P for you to travel at 130mph if you wanted. Or if you're me, I don't think that on a road with literally nobody else on it, I don't see a problem with hauling 90mph down the interstate. We still had suggested speed limits for sharp curves like anywhere else, which any idiot should know to follow.

Here in ATL on 285, you gotta run 90 just to keep from getting run over.

Speed limits are for the people who can’t drive.