Objectivist Libertarianism is a cold, childish, irrational reflex to Socialism, rather than a Humanitarian Ideology.
It really should be called Objectivist ‘Libertine-ism’.
Ayn Rand was a Sophist in every horrible and deluded way.
She would redefine Good words and then pretend her new definition proved these things were Bad! She also re-defined Bad words so that they then became ‘Good’
Eg Faith, Altruism, and selfishness.
It takes a while for some people to realise what she is up to.
Many Happily go along with her charade because they are so enthralled with her fantastic claims of being able to discover an atheistic basis for Objective morality…which also creates a sophisticated argument that Bible based ethics… and belief in God are Evil!
It’s like an Opiate to them.
How it is that a philosophy which condemns the parable of the Good Samaritan as being evil, and be believed as being the work of Genius defies Credulity!
The Bible has the Explanation.
“And this is the Condemnation: that light is come into the world yet men love darkness rather than light, because their deeds are Evil”
“Professing themselves to be wise, there became fools”
True Libertarianism… the Spirit which motivated the Abolitionists was a caring/ loving spirit which worked to alleviate the suffering and injustice of humanity, not a philosophy of selfishness and Egoism!
How absurd Ayn Rand is!
How sheepish and superstitious are her adherents!
They must Bastardise History.
Rand did not discover an atheistic foundation for Objective morality.
Objectivists are not even Idealists. They are pragmatists.
She is a blind leader of the blind and both shall fall into the ditch.
Read more about The Failure of Objectivist Libertarianism Here:
Read Why Objectivists Hated Ron Paul and undermined his Libertarian Campaign for President.
Grasp why they allowed their AntiChrist hatred to overide their love of liberty and juscice Here:
10 thoughts on “Classic Libertarian Idealism Cares (Objectivism is as silly as Socialism)”
>>”How absurd Ayn Rand is!
How sheepish and superstitious are her adherents!
They must Bastardise History.”
You misunderstand and misinterpret Ayn Rand, and worse, you lump all Objectivists together as if we are a mindless group who all subscribe to the same values. It is true that an Objectivist will value his own life as being of paramount importance (this is because without his own life he cannot pursue the myriad of other values that makes living worthwhile), and human life in general as being sacrosanct. What is so ‘absurd’ about that?
>>”How it is that a philosophy which condemns the parable of the Good Samaritan as being evil…”
Please post a cited Ayn Rand quote to substantiate this assertion of yours.
I am an Objectivist and I commend the actions of the Good Samaritan as being moral according to Objectivist ethics. The Good Samaritan’s actions were that of a man responding to a value: another human being, in order to gain another value: a more harmonious world in which he may live. I would do the same if I came across a man who had endured such an injustice.
You should be ashamed of yourself for conducting your persistent, hateful and I would submit most ‘un-Christian’ attacks against Ayn Rand and her philosophy’s mindful adherents when you don’t even go to the trouble of getting your facts right.
Neither Ayn Rand nor mindful Objectivists are opposed to private, voluntary charity. Satisfying one’s own own sense of justice is a perfectly rational and self-interested act, as the Good Samaritan did.
I have nothing to be ashamed of Terry.
You ought to be ashamed of disseminating the works of such an inhumane and intolerant sociopath.
It is laughable that you plead ignorance of Objectivism’s fundamental
Antagonism towards Christian ethics and in particular… the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is Altruistic in it true sense… not as She Re-defined it.
This link is sufficient to make my point (though I am not a Catholic)
These are just a couple of the first sites Google provides when you search ‘Good Samaraitain and Altruism’
Rands entire Economics is a denial of Humanitarianism and endorsement of Absolute selfishness. She went out of her way to make this point.
At no point in Atlas shrugged do her heroes have any empathy for the plight of the ‘.little people.’
I ask you this…
Please tell me one charitable society Rand set up?
I bet NONE!
Tell me one which she didn’t set up yet which is fully funded by Objectivists?
I bet there will be less than 50 (if any) in the whole world!
Yet compare that to the Millions or real charities set up By Christians!
The ethic of the Good Samaritain is the exact opposite of Rands ‘Virtue of selfishness’.
The Objectivists in the Parable walk past the Beaten Jew on the opposite side of the way.
Peter Creswell applauded Mark Inglis for stepping over David Sharp….putting personal Glory ahead of trying to save a human being in need.
I add to this the Objectivist refusal to recognise an unborn child as being a Human being with rights… for the shear selfish convenience of being able to murder any inconvenient pregnancy…. It’s a henious crime of Massive proportion. I am not talking about Objectivism supporting State abortions but about Ego and selfishness.
>>”It is laughable that you plead ignorance of Objectivism’s fundamental
Antagonism towards Christian ethics and in particular… the parable of the Good Samaritan, which is Altruistic in it true sense… not as She Re-defined it.”
Where in my comment did I say anything about there not being an antagonism between Christian and Objectivist ethics? I referred only to the Parable of the Good Samaratin. And, where did Ayn Rand “redefine” the parable? I don’t know of her ever speaking of the Good Samaratin parable. Can you provide a quote please?
I asked you to provide an Ayn Rand quote to substantiate your assertion that Objectivism condemns the actions of the Good Samaratin. You did not provide one. It is because you cannot. There isn’t one. I explained how the Good Samaratin’s actions are perfectly consistent with Objectivist ethics. There is one assumption I have made though, and that is the man he was helping was not his enemy. I realise that *some* interpretations say that he was a Jew, and that Jews hated Samaratins, but that is conjecture. Even if he were a Jew, it would not make a difference anyway, since it is not rational to be a racist bigot. But if the man being helped had personally killed or supported the killing of the Good Samaratin’s daughter for example, THEN I would not agree with his actions. Maybe you would. THEN would would be in disagreement. But that is NOT the story. I am only commenting on the story as it is told.
>>”At no point in Atlas shrugged do her heroes have any empathy for the plight of the ‘.little people.’’
The moral (i.e. rational) ‘little’ people’s plight is inextricably tied to the plight of the *moral* (i.e. rational) ‘bigger’ people’s plight. She did not care for the plight of the immoral. Nor do I. She wrote a book about Atlases buckling under the weight of a world weighed down, not by ‘little’ people, but by *immoral* people. The theme of the book was to focus on showing how and WHY the world owes the Atlases a debt, not to highlight that the Atlases owe little people a debt.
>>”Please tell me one charitable society Rand set up? I bet NONE!”
The Ayn Rand Institute, a non-profit, which was established by proceeds from Ayn Rand’s estate (which itself was not so large – only a few hundred thousand dollars), has provided millions of dollars worth of free books to schools as well as student financial support.
Why should a person’s moral standing be determined by whether or not they establish a charitable society?
>>”I bet there will be less than 50 (if any) in the whole world!
Yet compare that to the Millions or real charities set up By Christians!”
That is just ludicrous. Firstly, there is no practical way to find out such information. Secondly, Christianity has existed for 2000+ years and has billions of followers, whereas Objectivism has been around for 50 years and has perhaps a few hundred thousands adherents at most.
>>”Peter Creswell applauded Mark Inglis for stepping over David Sharp….putting personal Glory ahead of trying to save a human being in need.”
Peter did not applause him for “stepping over” anyone. He applauded him for his achievement of climbing in Everest, and for having the correct decision to preserve his own life when *the facts* were there was absolutely nothing Inglis could have done to save Sharp’s life without forfeiting his own.
>>”I add to this the Objectivist refusal to recognise an unborn child as being a Human being with rights”
Objectivism does not have a position on abortion – Objectivsts do. Some Objectivists are completely anti-abortion, like this one: http://voices.yahoo.com/an-objectivist-condemnation-abortion-279562.html?cat=15. Abortion is an area of applied ethics, as so is not part of Objectivist philosophy directly.
Now are you going to provide two Ayn Rand quotes to substantiate your assertions or not? One for her philosophy condemning the Good Samaratin, and one for her “redefining it”. If you can’t or won’t, and you do not withdraw your assertions, what does that say about your intellectual honesty?
From the Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on Abortion.
Terry, where’s your intellectual honesty? It’s an outright lie that Objectivism does not have a position on abortion.
It is my understanding (confirmed in Leonard Peikoff’s top rated podcast at http://www.peikoff.com) that Objectivism does not require that one agree with everything Ayn Rand said in respect of any of the concretes in order to still be an Objectivist. To be an Objectivist one must agree with the fundamental philosophical tenets of her philosophy and apply them in one’s every day living, that is all. Objectivism leaves it up to the individual to arrive at their own ‘concrete’ judgments and conclusions.
You will note that it is the *Ayn Rand* lexicon, not the ‘Objectivism’ lexicon. It includes her personal views as much as it includes her philosophical views.
Terry, never mind Leonard Peikoff.
Where does Rand say that? Rand said
She also said
Of course, Rand has no objection to you being a Good Samaritan. But only if you feel like it. In fact, the Good Samaritan in the New Testament parable had a duty to help the beaten, robbed, half-dead traveler. And what would Rand say to that?
>>”Terry, never mind Leonard Peikoff.”
Dismissing what Peikoff says on this matter, being Ayn Rand’s legal heir, is disingenuous. My referencing him is entirely relevant.
>>”Where does Rand say that? ”
“My philosophy advocates reason, not faith; it requires men to think — to accept nothing without a full, rational, firsthand understanding and conviction — to claim nothing without factual evidence and logical proof. A blind follower is precisely what my philosophy condemns and what I reject. ” [Letter dated December 10, 1961, in Letters, p. 592]
>>’Of course, Rand has no objection to you being a Good Samaritan.”
Okay, so do you concede then that you are supporting me in my calling Tim out when he claimed Ayn Rand authored “a philosophy which condemns the parable of the Good Samaritan as being evil”?
>>”But only if you feel like it.”
If someone makes a judgment of fact or morality because they “feel like it”, they are NOT an Objectivist!
>>”In fact, the Good Samaritan in the New Testament parable had a duty to help the beaten, robbed, half-dead traveler. And what would Rand say to that?”
I never stated or implied there aren’t contentious issues between Objectivist and Christian ethics, the concept of duty being one of them, so I don’t know why you are trying to pin me on there being such a difference. The issue here is about Tim’s charges laid against things Ayn Rand said, which she never said. And now you too.
Of course sacrifice is central to Pauline Christianity. The conflict between Paul, as author of the doctrine, and James the Just plays out later in the nineteen year winter, as the conflict between the Roman church and the English common law.
And ‘existing for our own sake’ is far from a Heroic foundation for morality!
It does not get much shallower than that.
Hitler existed for his own sake.
That is absolutely pragmatic!
Why be honest, caring, trustworthy, etc etc, when being dishonest, uncaring, treacherous serves your ‘own sake’ better?
The obvious answer is there is *no objective reason* merely high sounding Sophist platitudes of the most Pompous variety!
Whereas Christianity is truly Idealistic, and places many things higher on the scales than mere ‘flurishing’, ‘Ego’, Profit, or delaying the Grim Reaper!
That is why it inspires Heroism, Honesty, Humility, and Compassion.