• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atlas Shrugged movie

Will you go see the Atlas Shrugged movie?


  • Total voters
    37
Well I was referring to your notion that she heavily influenced modern conservativism. Yes, I know Limbaugh, Hannity love her work, but I wanted to know why YOU thought she had a major influence? Since you brought it up, do you really believe that the idea that one can be selfish and moral is a paradox? I would to hear your ideas on this.


Tim-

Ahh, there were two assertions I made in that comment and I guess I picked the wrong one. :)

I base it on observations. For example, I forget who, but there are a few congress people and senators which love to hand out ayn rand books to freshmen. Also there was the chair of the fed, appointed by conservatives who was an ayn rand desciple. Several people on this forum idolize her and her ideology, generally they are on the more libertarian side of conservatism. lots of little observations like that, granted the more I think about it, the more examples I will be able to dredge out of my brain.
 
So essentially protecting the wealthy from the poor, each other, and their foreign counterparts.

Can ya give us any examples where this kind of paradise actually exists?

America, or do you not have police and law courts in your state?
 
Ahh, there were two assertions I made in that comment and I guess I picked the wrong one. :)

I base it on observations. For example, I forget who, but there are a few congress people and senators which love to hand out ayn rand books to freshmen. Also there was the chair of the fed, appointed by conservatives who was an ayn rand desciple. Several people on this forum idolize her and her ideology, generally they are on the more libertarian side of conservatism. lots of little observations like that, granted the more I think about it, the more examples I will be able to dredge out of my brain.

Ah, ok, thanks. I've never met two conservatives alike. Seriously, I mean that. There are common ideologies from both sides of the spectrum; liberals, conservatives, all seem to be fluid to some degree depending on the static issue. Let's take a glaring example of an issue people generally think has one ideological tag assigned to it. Legalizing weed. As a conservative, one might think that conservatives are diametrically opposed to legalizing pot, however, I'm a conservative and I am not against it. Conversely, almost all, if not all liberals I know are not against it either. Does it make me liberal? The answer is no. It makes me a conservative who is for legalizing marijuana.

If I could nail down a single phrase that describes liberals, and conservatives, IMO, I would say something like this. Conservatives tend to think in absolutes, meaning, something is either good, or it's bad, whereas Liberals tend to think in potentialities; something could be good, or it could be bad. Now, when you look at this, and really take a close look, they're not that far off are they? Conservatives tend to throw out exceptions when reasoning, and liberals actively look for the exception to influence their reasoning. Example, the death penalty. Conservatives, place no rational value to the exception that some innocent people will be executed, and favor the death penalty. Liberals, place rational value to the exception of innocent life lost, and reason to themselves that because innocent life can be lost, that the death penalty should be abolished.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that because of the above, I am coming to realize that political ideologies, and socio-ideologies are more flexible than most people think. Further, an ideology can be diagnosed without any indication of political, or sociological philosophy from the subject. It is my contention that ideology is a combination of one's genes and their environment, and is more about how we reason, and react to everything, than simply how we view a political, or sociological issue.

For instance, I think a test can be devised that proves my point, if one assumes that the above notion that conservatives think in black and white, and liberals in grey. Without any questions on any specific political, or sociological issues, one could tell by how the participants respond whether they are liberal, or conservative, simply by how they reason what is good, or what is bad. I think that with a great deal of accuracy, a double blind study could show that simply by their answers to non political, or sociological questions we could predict a subjects political ideology.

Before the test, the interviewers would determine the subjects ideology, and record the data. Now the testing begins, and the test scorers would not know the results of the prior interviews, and would score the tests based on multiple choice questions to various questions that relate to a black and white answering style to one that allows for grey. My guess is that conservatives will mostly choose black and white answers, and liberals will mostly choose grey. The tricky part is devising testing questions that can have multiple choice answers that are correct but appear as though only one is correct to the test taker.. :)


Tim-
 
Ah, ok, thanks. I've never met two conservatives alike. Seriously, I mean that. There are common ideologies from both sides of the spectrum; liberals, conservatives, all seem to be fluid to some degree depending on the static issue. Let's take a glaring example of an issue people generally think has one ideological tag assigned to it. Legalizing weed. As a conservative, one might think that conservatives are diametrically opposed to legalizing pot, however, I'm a conservative and I am not against it. Conversely, almost all, if not all liberals I know are not against it either. Does it make me liberal? The answer is no. It makes me a conservative who is for legalizing marijuana.

Oh I know, thats an inherent danger in speaking in generalities, there will always be exceptions. However, in this case, I was focusing on the movers, shakers, and thought makers for that very reason (people on this forum tend to be more intelligent than your average bear).

If I could nail down a single phrase that describes liberals, and conservatives, IMO, I would say something like this. Conservatives tend to think in absolutes, meaning, something is either good, or it's bad, whereas Liberals tend to think in potentialities; something could be good, or it could be bad. Now, when you look at this, and really take a close look, they're not that far off are they? Conservatives tend to throw out exceptions when reasoning, and liberals actively look for the exception to influence their reasoning. Example, the death penalty. Conservatives, place no rational value to the exception that some innocent people will be executed, and favor the death penalty. Liberals, place rational value to the exception of innocent life lost, and reason to themselves that because innocent life can be lost, that the death penalty should be abolished.

I completely agree with this. As a liberal, I tend to give complicated answers to simple questions because I dislike reducing complexity because I feel like its reducing accuracy. And that tendancy is something I noticed about people a long time ago.
 
Fake libertarian :2razz:

That (for each category) should added to the "Lean" selection for all those that fantasize about being politically what they are not.
 
My morality demands it of me and everyone :)

Morality is like a religion, stripped of the ceremony, figureheads and nifty stories.
It's quite unusual that we find it appropriate that we separate state and religion but we still demand that people follow something just as subjective.

I honestly think that the sincere commitment to moral beliefs, would be shown, if you had to be responsible for it yourself on a regular basis.
 
Morality is like a religion, stripped of the ceremony, figureheads and nifty stories.
It's quite unusual that we find it appropriate that we separate state and religion but we still demand that people follow something just as subjective.

I honestly think that the sincere commitment to moral beliefs, would be shown, if you had to be responsible for it yourself on a regular basis.

While I fully appreciate a firewall between church and state. I fully expect and want people to vote their moral views, even if derived from religion and to seek a society where they can see those morals established, even if those morals are different from mine. That doesn't give me any discomfort at all, because of the essential fact that we need to seek a common morality in which to establish and conduct ourselves in society. We can do so without the more formal trappings of religion as we have shown by the fact that this country is healthy in that respect.

And yes Harry, I do things on the basis of morality alone already, however, in my moral view certain results are moral, not just actions, and I cannot achieve those results alone.
 
While I fully appreciate a firewall between church and state. I fully expect and want people to vote their moral views, even if derived from religion and to seek a society where they can see those morals established, even if those morals are different from mine. That doesn't give me any discomfort at all, because of the essential fact that we need to seek a common morality in which to establish and conduct ourselves in society. We can do so without the more formal trappings of religion as we have shown by the fact that this country is healthy in that respect.

Well I'm quite annoyed that some people think they need to decide my personal moral convictions for me.
I'm fully capable of giving and helping with causes that are important to me.

I think there should a separation between your morality and state.


And yes Harry, I do things on the basis of morality alone already, however, in my moral view certain results are moral, not just actions, and I cannot achieve those results alone.

I think there is a vast contradiction that lies in your words, nothing outright but something I keep picking up.

Either there are enough "moral" people to help further your beliefs or there aren't even though, oh so many profess to be.
If so many of you actually had these high and mighty notions of helping humanity, it wouldn't take prompting from a "noble" authority to see them through.

So basically, yes I am putting into question the sincerity of these moral beliefs.
 
Well I'm quite annoyed that some people think they need to decide my personal moral convictions for me.
I'm fully capable of giving and helping with causes that are important to me.

I think there should a separation between your morality and state.

I think such a saparation is impossible. A moral point of view is fundamental in how one regards society and societal issues.

I think there is a vast contradiction that lies in your words, nothing outright but something I keep picking up.

Either there are enough "moral" people to help further your beliefs or there aren't even though, oh so many profess to be.
If so many of you actually had these high and mighty notions of helping humanity, it wouldn't take prompting from a "noble" authority to see them through.

So basically, yes I am putting into question the sincerity of these moral beliefs.

You may call them into question if you wish, thats fine with me. However I feel unmoved by your questioning. Ultimately though, I think we just view morality from different angles. I always do find it odd when people think the only expression of morality is personal action though rather than administrative types of considerations. Both are necessary.
 
I think such a saparation is impossible. A moral point of view is fundamental in how one regards society and societal issues.

If that's the case, then the sky is the limit on whatever you want to do.
I hope you can accept the responsibility for the good and the bad that is done in the name of common morality.

You may call them into question if you wish, thats fine with me. However I feel unmoved by your questioning. Ultimately though, I think we just view morality from different angles. I always do find it odd when people think the only expression of morality is personal action though rather than administrative types of considerations. Both are necessary.

Actions speak louder than words.
I can sit here all day and talk about what I think the government needs to do for other people, doesn't make me moral at all.

I believe that the most revealing thing about a non government charity society is, that it reveals much more about "the people" and they don't want to face reality of who they really are.
 
If that's the case, then the sky is the limit on whatever you want to do.
I hope you can accept the responsibility for the good and the bad that is done in the name of common morality.

Precisely, the sky is the limit. And yes, I accept my failures and successes.

Actions speak louder than words.
I can sit here all day and talk about what I think the government needs to do for other people, doesn't make me moral at all.

I believe that the most revealing thing about a non government charity society is, that it reveals much more about "the people" and they don't want to face reality of who they really are.

Are you making the assumption that I do not privately donate time or money? (and thanks for reminding me, I need to give some to this forum)

As I said, both are required, personal action and societal considerations. Simply giving to charity is always a bandaid to fundamental problems that create the need for charity in the first place and at the same time we need to do things personally because its an aspect of being a good person (but not the only aspect, which you seem to contend)
 
Last edited:
Are you making the assumption that I do not privately donate time or money? (and thanks for reminding me, I need to give some to this forum)

I'm directly saying that you will also be forced to face that you are a self interested person.

As I said, both are required, personal action and societal considerations. Simply giving to charity is always a bandaid to fundamental problems that create the need for charity in the first place and at the same time we need to do things personally because its an aspect of being a good person (but not the only aspect, which you seem to contend)

Then do more than give, do something.
There is nothing preventing you from starting a charity or foundation to do something to directly alleviate the problems of the world.
 
Last edited:
One of the most basic considerations of morality is in how we treat others, specifically in a non selfish or harmful manner. The idea that one can be selfish and moral is a paradox.

Ayn Rand and her idea of egoism is quite controversial. Yet, I imagine she was mostly right. Altruism is basically living your life for the sake of other people. You've heard the terms "nice guys finish last" and "the good die young." Well, they're true and I think Rand was trying to point that why they're true. When does self-preservation become selfishness?
 
Ahh, there were two assertions I made in that comment and I guess I picked the wrong one. :)

I base it on observations. For example, I forget who, but there are a few congress people and senators which love to hand out ayn rand books to freshmen. Also there was the chair of the fed, appointed by conservatives who was an ayn rand desciple. Several people on this forum idolize her and her ideology, generally they are on the more libertarian side of conservatism. lots of little observations like that, granted the more I think about it, the more examples I will be able to dredge out of my brain.

There is no such thing as the "libertarian side of conservatism."
 
I'm directly saying that you will also be forced to face that you are a self interested person.

I fail to follow your reasoning. But yes I am self interested in the sense that I do want to live my life and be fairly successful at it, but as far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with our conversation.

Then do more than give, do something.
There is nothing preventing you from starting a charity or foundation to do something to directly alleviate the problems of the world.

Starting yet another charity to do the same thing other charities are doing, yet be less efficient compared to just giving to another charity due to a separate bill for administrative costs, plus time taken away to take care of the office stuff rather than doing something positive seems impractical and inefficient as compared to helping habitat for humanity with direct labor (not that I do that particular charity, but to make a point).

When does self-preservation become selfishness?

When others are harmed by your actions. The way I see it, there are three positions. Selfishness (which is evil), a neutral position (which is neither evil nor good), and selflessness (which is good).
 
Last edited:
When others are harmed by your actions. The way I see it, there are three positions. Selfishness (which is evil), a neutral position (which is neither evil nor good), and selflessness (which is good).

FAILURE. I'm sure you meant to say when people are harmed by your INaction. Selfishness, as Rand proposed, did not entail stealing or committing fraud for the sake of personal gain. Ayn Rand did not support the actions of Mr. Potter because Mr. Potter stole for his own self-interest. You really have to expand your argument of selfishness harming others. Objectivists and Libertarians strongly support the idea of the individual doing whatever they may wish to do so long as it doesn't harm another person. Therefore, stealing or committing fraud for your own selfish gain is morally represensible. But refusing to give to charity for whatever reason is not.
 
There is no such thing as the "libertarian side of conservatism."

I disagree. Libertarianism as a concept is great, but it fails to account for the human equation sufficiently.

At some level, rights will always get trampled. Can a 5 year old contract? Do we limit rights of the insane, and how do we go about deciding who is insane? Libertarianism doesn’t have an adequate solution for these complex sets of issues. Conservatism does.

On many issues, I lean libertarian, but ultimately, I recognize that rights don’t matter if nobody cares to defend them. So when we hit an impasse on issues where the vast majority would prefer to not protect that right, forcing them to protect that one right jeopardizes all our rights as the vast majority no longer cares to defend that form of government. The better solution is in these areas where government are allowed to trample rights, to limit their scope as much as possible. States can block things the fed can’t. Counties have even more power then states, Cities more than counties, etc, etc.

That is what I call the conservative side of libertarianism.
 
FAILURE. I'm sure you meant to say when people are harmed by your INaction. Selfishness, as Rand proposed, did not entail stealing or committing fraud for the sake of personal gain. Ayn Rand did not support the actions of Mr. Potter because Mr. Potter stole for his own self-interest. You really have to expand your argument of selfishness harming others. Objectivists and Libertarians strongly support the idea of the individual doing whatever they may wish to do so long as it doesn't harm another person. Therefore, stealing or committing fraud for your own selfish gain is morally represensible. But refusing to give to charity for whatever reason is not.

You are correct I should have made that addition, to some degree, disregard for one's follow human can be evil. Its highly situational and perspective based though and the range is anywhere from sociopathic to apathetic to uninformed. However, I am not willing to discuss it from Rand's perspective, but my own as I think my own is correct (as a general tendancy, pretty much everyone views their own perspective as correct), so while it may fail from Rand's perspective, frankly, I don't care.
 
Last edited:
One of the most basic considerations of morality is in how we treat others, specifically in a non selfish or harmful manner. The idea that one can be selfish and moral is a paradox.


Only by people who define morality as "how much we can get others to give us".
 
Only by people who define morality as "how much we can get others to give us".

Given that what you just stated is a selfish attitude, I see no cause to modify my statement.
 
I disagree. Libertarianism as a concept is great, but it fails to account for the human equation sufficiently.

At some level, rights will always get trampled. Can a 5 year old contract? Do we limit rights of the insane, and how do we go about deciding who is insane? Libertarianism doesn’t have an adequate solution for these complex sets of issues. Conservatism does.

On many issues, I lean libertarian, but ultimately, I recognize that rights don’t matter if nobody cares to defend them. So when we hit an impasse on issues where the vast majority would prefer to not protect that right, forcing them to protect that one right jeopardizes all our rights as the vast majority no longer cares to defend that form of government. The better solution is in these areas where government are allowed to trample rights, to limit their scope as much as possible. States can block things the fed can’t. Counties have even more power then states, Cities more than counties, etc, etc.

That is what I call the conservative side of libertarianism.

I don't think libertarianism is great, specifically because it fails to account for the human equation. It assumes that, given freedom, people are going to be responsible in the use of said freedom and I think that's an absurd idea. Most people, given half a chance, will take advantage of any system which allows them to do so. Even those with the greatest claimed morality are going to do things that will better their own situation, even to the detriment of others. That's the biggest downfall of the system, that it doesn't impose controls on those who would play the system and ultimately harm others for their own benefit.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think that, for many, it needs to be imposed from above, rather than assumed from a level playing field.
 
You are correct I should have made that addition, to some degree, disregard for one's follow human can be evil. Its highly situational and perspective based though and the range is anywhere from sociopathic to apathetic to uninformed. However, I am not willing to discuss it from Rand's perspective, but my own as I think my own is correct (as a general tendancy, pretty much everyone views their own perspective as correct), so while it may fail from Rand's perspective, frankly, I don't care.

This is why Rand did not openly support pure selfishness but rational selfishness. She made that distinction very clear but her opponents commonly disregard it.

The Ayn Rand Institute: The Virtue of Selfishness
 
I don't think libertarianism is great, specifically because it fails to account for the human equation. It assumes that, given freedom, people are going to be responsible in the use of said freedom and I think that's an absurd idea. Most people, given half a chance, will take advantage of any system which allows them to do so. Even those with the greatest claimed morality are going to do things that will better their own situation, even to the detriment of others. That's the biggest downfall of the system, that it doesn't impose controls on those who would play the system and ultimately harm others for their own benefit.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think that, for many, it needs to be imposed from above, rather than assumed from a level playing field.

A good highlight of this is last week's "this american life" on NPR, the segment about the gift shop.

See No Evil | This American Life
 
That's great and all, but in many cases, I still see it as an evil.

And you have the right to hold that opinion, but make sure you don't mischaracterize Rand's views on the subject.
 
Back
Top Bottom