This is the best defence and explanation of rational conservatism that I have ever heard.
I wonder what our board conservatives make of this speech?
http://www.youtube.com/v/oTf6NK0wsiA
Great videos of a wise woman. How many Americans can grasp that faith and tradition are not reasonable arguments for capitalism or conservatism. That being new isn't a good argument for liberalism. Science, reason and even morality will support or discredit traditions and new ideas.
I think people are blown away.
i think it is more of a vote of insignificance...
from Wikipedia...
QuoteAyn Rand... vociferously opposed socialism, altruism, and other contemporary philosophical trends, as well as religion. ...
Altruism is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest.
Quote from: stephendare on May 04, 2008, 01:45:58 AM
It literally sickens my stomach to realize how far away the republicans and the neofascists have come from true conservatism.
yes, you are the face of true conservatism. true conservatism hates capitalism. it is also not rooted actually in conserving anything. rather it is rooted in an "evolving idea" of what the constitution is. yes, in true conservatism, pluralism is king and nothing is absolute.
Quote from: stephendare on May 04, 2008, 11:07:15 PM
Quote from: Driven1 on May 04, 2008, 11:05:29 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 04, 2008, 01:45:58 AM
It literally sickens my stomach to realize how far away the republicans and the neofascists have come from true conservatism.
yes, you are the face of true conservatism. true conservatism hates capitalism. it is also not rooted actually in conserving anything. rather it is rooted in an "evolving idea" of what the constitution is. yes, in true conservatism, pluralism is king and nothing is absolute.
wow. do you EVER know what you are talking about? Ayn Rand is the high Priestess of Capitalism. But you would have to read books to know that.
um...that would be Ann Coulter thank you very much. plus, she looks better.
Rand was a committed atheist and an extreme individualist. Her use of the word "faith" and the following remark on religions place in society would be of no surprise. From this short clip I'm not sure if she is speaking of conservatives in general or a certain division of the movement. I agree, in general, with Rand that blind dependence on tradition OR a new idea for it's own sake is irrational. I tend to disagree somewhat on her assertion that depending on tradition is more irrational. Most tradition is an accumulation of wisdom that new ideas should be measured against. What would be irrational is throwing away the new idea or blindly accepting it without measuring it's worth against against the old. I see no problem with promoting and upholding capitalism from a purely intellectual viewpoint and don't see a large problem, in general, from either party other than disagreement on the degrees of government interference and control.
In Ayn Rand's intellectual worldview pure laissez-faire capitalism would be the rule.
As a side note, I found it very interesting that Rand's short novel, Anthem, written and published in England in 1937, and reflecting her horror at a social collectivist society, was refused publication in the United States.
I must say that it is amusing to see that Stephen posted simultaneous threads on WF Buckley and on Ayn Rand claiming alternatively that they are both true conservatives. This is funny because Buckley helped to drum Rand out of the conservative movement by defining conservatism in such a way that fringe groups like the Rand supporters or the John Birch Society were really not included. Not only were these groups bad associates politically but they were at odds with traditional conservative thought. If you are looking for the intellectual roots of conservatism, read Russell Kirk or Edmund Burke.
So, in short, Ayn Rand was a disagreeable, libertarian atheist who was in no way conservative. Frankly, I have always been puzzled that people were attracted to this very strange individual.
Here is as good a shorthand definition of traditional conservatism as you will find, courtesy of Russell Kirk:
QuoteKirk developed six "canons" of conservatism, which Russello (2004) described as follows:
1. A belief in a transcendent order, which Kirk described variously as based in tradition, divine revelation, or natural law;
2. An affection for the "variety and mystery" of human existence;
3. A conviction that society requires orders and classes that emphasize "natural" distinctions;
4. A belief that property and freedom are closely linked;
5. A faith in custom, convention, and prescription, and
6. A recognition that innovation must be tied to existing traditions and customs, which entails a respect for the political value of prudence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell_Kirk
Stephen: I just explained to you the roots of conservatism and Rand aint it. She is at best a weird off shoot of the movement. But, I think that instead she was on a totally different path.
As for the politicians, I think it is important to distinguish between the conservative thinkers and intellectuals and the Republican politicians. First, it is easy to be pure if you never have to get elected. Second, to get elected you have to pander to the uneducated masses. And finally, not all Republican politicians (or even most probably) are Buckley/Kirk/etc. conservatives.
Quote from: stephendare on May 04, 2008, 11:14:17 PM
I can see how you would identify with Ms Coulter and not know who the hell Ayn Rand is.
But I guess you are somehow, magically an authority on conservative ideas.
That explains quite a bit.
And let me hazard a guess that your still to thick to have listened to her speech.
nice.
http://www.youtube.com/v/LKCZ8-ZAT88
i heard Jamie Lee Curtis was originally born with both male and female parts. Can anyone confirm this?
QuoteSo, in short, Ayn Rand was a disagreeable, libertarian atheist who was in no way conservative. Frankly, I have always been puzzled that people were attracted to this very strange individual.
Wow. I really dont' know where the hell this thread is going.
For the record, I have to agree with RG in this quote that Rand was not a "conservative" as we define it politically. She seperated herself from the conservatives and the liberals. She was her own being and had her own ideals and philosophy....both politically and socially. She was an Objectivist. Her principals were merely that a man must be true to himself...be completely selfish in every action he takes based on logical and rational thought. Conservatism's base is rooted in illogical reglious ideals. There is little reason to why conservatives believe something should be one way and not the other save for the fact that it's just how they 'feel' it should be...usually because God says so.
She may well be defined as a fiscal consersative, but socially, her views could be summed up by saying, every man for himself. But, that statement should not be confused with the use of force in order for someone to forge a path in his/her life as she was a strong opponent to the use of force in any way...this would not be a truely selfish path to take as it would only end in the demise of the individual who made the concious choice to use force.
As for your comment, RG, that she was "disagreeable", there are a great many masses in this country that not only believe in the principles she taught, but who LIVE by them. She may not have been your style, but then again, you're a member of the religious-right so I would expect nothing less from you.
Btw, Driven, I can confidently say (having been a student and current firm believer in Objectivism), if Ms. Rand were alive today, she would not associate herself with the likes of Ann Coulter. Ann is the direct opposite of reason, logic, rationality and selfishness.
like i said, i heard JLC was a hermaphrodite at birth...can anyone confirm this?
Quote from: Driven1 on May 05, 2008, 09:27:51 AM
like i said, i heard JLC was a hermaphrodite at birth...can anyone confirm this?
I think we all understand the point you're trying to make, however, there is written record of Ayn Rand's thoughts, ideas and beliefs. This is how I, or anyone familiar with her, can make statements about her even though we've never been in the same room with her. If there are the same type of written records regarding the state of JLC's genitalia at birth, then we would all be talking about penial-va-jay-jay.
ok...after a little research, it seems that it may only be a strong hollywood rumor that JLC was a hermy...
http://urbanlegends.about.com/od/jamieleecurtis/a/jamieleecurtis.htm
Quote from: stephendare on May 05, 2008, 01:12:50 AM
River.
Thank you I do not need to be lectured on the history of Conservativism, frankly. You certainly are entitled to your favorite vintage.
Frankly, I think you do. While there are certainly different factions and nuances within the conservative movement, none of them attempt to advance the ideology which you espouse. And, while maybe there is some odd conservative splinter group out there which is supporting Barack Obama, I have never heard of it. If nominated, he would be one of the most liberal Democrat nominees ever (if not the most).
QuoteSurely there are a number of people who don't think that Kirk's anti semitic comments about the Capitol of America not being Jerusalem reflect all of Conservativism.
Kirk was a devout Christian who was first concerned with the interests of the US. In this, he was more of a paleo-con isolationist.
QuoteIn fact your claim is slightly lunatic in its provenance, and mostly made in order to be ornery. There have been many great thinkers and many contributors to the Movement.
Lunatic? I am not the one claiming that Buckley would be supporting Obama. :D
Quote
We at least share, I hope, a mutual admiration for Buckley.
Indeed we do. Now, if you would just read some of his magazine, National Review, and take its contents to heart, you could cleanse your mind. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on May 05, 2008, 12:43:01 PM
And Im not really sure about River's ad hominem attacks on a woman he never met. I guess thats why Midway has been calling him out so frequently.
Are you saying now that she was a nice woman? Because from what I have read, she was rather disagreeable personally.
QuoteI suspect he hasnt read her work either.
I havent read the complete works of Al Franken either but I have read enough of it and about it to know that I do not agree with him (or Rand).
QuoteI guess thats why Midway has been calling him out so frequently.
Despite the attempt to double team me, you and midway have scored nary a point on me. ;)
I wonder if Stephen will associate himself with this article from the Ayn Rand Institute? For some reason, I doubt it. Anyway, here it is:
QuoteInvestigate Big Congress, Not Big Oil by Alex Epstein
Posted by ARI Media at 11:38 AM
With gasoline prices exceeding $4 a gallon in some states, politicians are responding as usual: Blame Big Oil First. Several prominent senators have once again summoned industry leaders to Capitol Hill, subjecting them to yet another barrage of rhetorical questions, interruptions, accusations, and sermons. The lawmakers' goal, claims Sen. Patrick Leahy, is to identify "causes of the rising price of oil on which Congress can act." But the foregone conclusion is that "price gouging," "collusion," and "market manipulation" by Big Oil, or speculation by financiers, is responsible.
The simple fact that such Congressional investigations are designed to obscure is that the prices of oil and gasoline are determined by supply and demandâ€"which neither private oil companies nor speculators have any power to dictate in their favor. If they had such market mastery, then why didn't they use it in the 1990s, when gasoline was selling at a barely profitable $1 a gallon? To be sure, speculators can bid up pricesâ€"but they only do so when they believe that oil will become even more expensive in the future, and only make money when they are right.
The question Congress should really be asking, then, is: What nonmarket factors are distorting supply and demand? If they sought an honest answer, they would discover that much of the blame lies with Congress itself.
No one disputes that environmentalist laws passed by Congress have cut off some of our most promising and plentiful sources of oil. In the name of safeguarding a tiny portion of caribou habitat in the Alaskan wilderness, drilling is prohibited in the Alaska National Wildlife Refugeâ€"a potential source of 1 million barrels a day, 5 percent of America's daily oil consumption. Also off-limits is 85 percent of America's coastline, which Shell estimates contains some 100 billion recoverable barrelsâ€"13 times America's annual oil consumptionâ€"and the vast majority of oil shale in Colorado, which Shell estimates at 1.5 trillion barrels.
Congress should publicize these facts, prepare an inventory of how many oil-rich areas they have blocked off, and bring in economists to estimate how much all of this raises gas prices.
And how about the effects of Congress's open hostility toward the future of oil? Our politicians damn oil as an "addiction" to be eliminated, and seek to cutâ€"by up to 90 percentâ€"the use of oil and other vital fossil fuels that make our standard of living possible. Congress should ask oil executives how this possible forced cut in demand affects their industry. It should ask whether they feel safe to make the billion dollar investments and decades-long plans that oil production requires when Barack Obama, a leading presidential candidate, can uncontroversially proclaim that "the country that faced down the tyranny of fascism and communism is now called to challenge the tyranny of oil." Is it a coincidence that the much-maligned speculators think oil will become even scarcer in the future, and are acting accordingly?
In addition to investigating its own impact on gasoline prices, Congress should investigate how its economic policy partner, the Federal Reserve, has raised our gas prices by lowering the value of the dollars we buy gasoline with. The Fed, along with the Treasury Department, has for years had an inflationary policy that has caused the value of the dollar to plummet relative to other currencies. Were it not for this devaluation of the dollar, oil prices would likely be 40 percent lowerâ€"as they are for those on the Euro. Why not call a free-market economist to the stand and ask how much more expensive Alan Greenspan, Ben Bernanke, and Henry Paulson have made our gasoline?
Americans deserve to know the storyâ€"in all its gory detailâ€"of what their government has done and is doing to cause high prices at the pump, and to make gasolineâ€"indeed, all energyâ€"more scarce and more expensive in the future. A congressional investigation of Congress would be a great public service.
Alex Epstein is an analyst at the Ayn Rand Institute, focusing on business issues. The Institute promotes Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Randâ€"author of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
Copyright © 2008 Ayn Rand® Institute. All rights reserved.
http://theobjectivestandard.com/blog/2008/05/investigate-big-congress-not-big-oil-by.asp
Interesting screed. Any proof that she would think these things?
BTW, why is it her intellectual heirs seem to not agree with your position?
Your links do not support your statements. The fact is the oil companies want to drill but are not being allowed to do so by government. This is a classic Randian dilemma and the solution to this would be for government to get out of the way and allow the productive members of society to drill oil:
QuoteThe main conflicts of the book surround the decision of the "individuals of the mind" to go on strike, refusing to contribute their inventions, art, business leadership, scientific research, or new ideas of any kind to the rest of the world. Society, they believe, hampers them by interfering with their work and underpays them by confiscating the profits and dignity they have rightfully earned. The peaceful cohesiveness of the world disintegrates, lacking those individuals whose productive work comes from mental effort. The strikers believe that they are crucial to a society that exploits them, denying them freedom or failing to acknowledge their right to self-interest, and the gradual collapse of civilization is triggered by their strike.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged
Quote from: stephendare on May 30, 2008, 05:30:21 PM
exactly. But it would have to start over from scratch for that to happen, if only because you cannot seperate the non subsidized oil men from the subsidized.
And incidentally, my links DO support my claims, as they are in reference to the characters and plotline of Atlas Shrugged.
This subsidy argument is really garbage when you consider that the oil companies pay more in taxes than the bottom 75% of American taxpayers. You can stop repeating it now because it doesnt hold water. ;)
We wouldnt need Saudi oil if we exploited our own resources.
Stephen, I thought we had put the global warming hysteria to bed. Do we need another lesson on this subject? ;)
Let me know when the average temperatures start to rise again. ;)
One more time:
The hottest year on record (which record only goes back decades BTW) was 1998. No year has been hotter than that since:
QuoteThe record year for world temperatures was 1998, ahead of 2005, according to WMO data.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1171501720080112?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
Also, the highly variable weather patterns of the past, which occurred without the input of man, tend to indicate that the warming that has occurred is natural:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f8/Ice_Age_Temperature.png)
QuoteThis figure shows the Antarctic temperature changes during the last several glacial/interglacial cycles of the present ice age and a comparison to changes in global ice volume. The present day is on the left.
The first two curves shows local changes in temperature at two sites in Antarctica as derived from deuterium isotopic measurements (δD) on ice cores (EPICA Community Members 2004, Petit et al. 1999). The final plot shows a reconstruction of global ice volume based on δ18O measurements on benthic foraminifera from a composite of globally distributed sediment cores and is scaled to match the scale of fluctuations in Antarctic temperature (Lisiecki and Raymo 2005). Note that changes in global ice volume and changes in Antarctic temperature are highly correlated, so one is a good estimate of the other, but differences in the sediment record do no necessarily reflect differences in paleotemperature. Horizontal lines indicate modern temperatures and ice volume. Differences in the alignment of various features reflect dating uncertainty and do not indicate different timing at different sites.
The Antarctic temperature records indicate that the present interglacial is relatively cool compared to previous interglacials, at least at these sites. The Liesecki & Raymo (2005) sediment reconstruction does not indicate signifcant differences between modern ice volume and previous interglacials, though some other studies do report slightly lower ice volumes / higher sea levels during the 120 ka and 400 ka interglacials (Karner et al. 2001, Hearty and Kaufman 2000).
It should be noted that temperature changes at the typical equatorial site are believed to have been significantly less than the changes observed at high latitude.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
You are reading the first chart and the data incorrectly. And, I didnt say that the temps post-2000 were below the 1880 to 2008 temperature average (which are the only years for which we have actual thermometer readings for temperatures). I said that the warming has apparently stopped. Would you like to see the dramatic drop in temps so far for 2008?
BTW, is the co-recipient of the Nobel Prize incorrect in this statement?
QuoteRajendra Pachauri, the head of the U.N. Panel that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with former U.S. Vice President Al Gore, said he would look into the apparent temperature plateau so far this century.
http://www.reuters.com/article/environmentNews/idUSL1171501720080112?pageNumber=2&virtualBrandChannel=0
And the output of solar energy alone is not the only non-human factor which could be causing the warming. Read the following:
QuoteMilankovitch cycles are the collective effect of changes in the Earth's movements upon its climate, named after Serbian civil engineer and mathematician Milutin Milanković. The eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession of the Earth's orbit vary in several patterns, resulting in 100,000-year ice age cycles of the Quaternary glaciation over the last few million years. The Earth's axis completes one full cycle of precession approximately every 26,000 years. At the same time, the elliptical orbit rotates, more slowly, leading to a 21,000-year cycle between the seasons and the orbit. In addition, the angle between Earth's rotational axis and the normal to the plane of its orbit moves from 21.5 degrees to 24.5 degrees and back again on a 41,000-year cycle. Currently, this angle is 23.44 degrees and is decreasing.
The Milankovitch theory[1] of climate change is not perfectly worked out; in particular, the largest observed response is at the 100,000-year timescale, but the forcing is apparently small at this scale, in regard to the ice ages. Various feedbacks (from carbon dioxide, or from ice sheet dynamics) are invoked to explain this discrepancy.
Milankovitch-like theories were advanced by Joseph Adhemar, James Croll and others, but verification was difficult due to the absence of reliably dated evidence and doubts as to exactly which periods were important. Not until the advent of deep-ocean cores and a seminal paper by Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton, "Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages", in Science, 1976,[2] did the theory attain its present state.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles
And here is a chart:
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7e/Milankovitch_Variations.png)
QuoteThis figure shows the variations in Earth's orbit, the resulting changes in solar energy flux at high latitude, and the observed glacial cycles.
According to Milankovitch Theory, the precession of the equinoxes, variations in the tilt of the Earth's axis (obliquity) and changes in the eccentricity of the Earth's orbit are responsible for causing the observed 100 kyr cycle in ice ages by varying the amount of sunlight received by the Earth at different times and locations, particularly high northern latitude summer. These changes in the Earth's orbit are the predictable consequence of interactions between the Earth, its moon, and the other planets.
The orbital data shown are from Quinn et al. (1991). Principal frequencies for each of the three kinds of variations are labeled. The solar forcing curve (aka "insolation") is derived from July 1st sunlight at 65 °N latitude according to Jonathan Levine's insolation calculator [1]. The glacial data is from Lisiecki and Raymo (2005) and gray bars indicate interglacial periods, defined here as deviations in the 5 kyr average of at least 0.8 standard deviations above the mean.
Quote from: stephendare on June 03, 2008, 05:39:27 PM
Occam's razor, River.
Occam's razor.
I agree. The most obvious cause of warming would be the sun. Thanks for bolstering my argument. ;)
Quote from: stephendare on October 14, 2008, 09:18:35 PM
Quote from: stephendare on May 04, 2008, 01:45:58 AM
It literally sickens my stomach to realize how far away the republicans and the neofascists have come from true conservatism.
This is from Ayn Rand's writings.
http://www.youtube.com/v/VHrHMLeWCrA
The video and commentary do not match. Looks like someone tried unsuccessfully to be clever...
A 1991 poll? Really? Is anything conducted via a poll from 20 years ago at all relevant to the present?
And if turn-out for the movie really is abysmal, then wouldn't that mean that there aren't as many tea-partiers in the country as they (whomever "they" are is entirely open for discussion, quite honestly) would have us believe?
And then in turn would it not follow that, if that's indeed the case, they're an over-represented (or at least over-vocal) minority in the grand scheme of American politics?
Paul Johansson makes a great B-series TV antagonist. Not sure if he's ready to make the jump to B-movie director. :) "Atlas Shrugged - directed by Dan Scott"
Quote from: stephendare on May 05, 2008, 12:49:23 AM
Buckley disagreed with rand primarily on the subject of faith. As you are probably aware, his Catholic faith was very important to him and perhaps his best work on firing line was the series of discussions he had with Malcolm Muggeridge.
Ayn Rand was certainly no fringe character River, which you know quite well. Both Milton Friedman and Alan Greenspan were directly influenced by her work, and greenspan still considers himself an objectivist. I take it you havent actually read her works.
Conservativism has many roots. Sadly most of the neofascists and new right have no idea whatsoever what their ideas are based on.
One of those roots that preceded Ayn Rands was Thomas Jefferson. Theoretical founder of the republican party. A conservative who advocated 1) states rights 2) minimal government intervention 3) ultimate liberty of the individual. He also defined 1) absolute distrust of the military 2) firm separation of religion and state 3) total suspicion of "big business". As time passed, he changed to, what would be defined today as the left, when he saw the consequences of the French revolution and became the 3rd president. After his election, he promply did his Louisiana purchase without congressional approval, clearly destroying his conservatism. Yet todays conservatives worship him as the american founder of conservatism.
Jefferson opposed the constitution, actually voted against it, until he settled with the bill of rights.
After his completed term, he ushered in James Madision, writer of the constitution, with open arms. As a federalist.