How does everyone lean politically, philosophically?
Posted by Razbojnik 13 years, 3 months ago to Philosophy
Interested: How does everyone in Galt's Gulch lean politically and philosophically?
In order to start off the discussion, I'll chime in for myself: I am Conservative politically, and leaning Libertarian, though I have serious political and practical reservations about Libertarianism regarding foreign policy and illegal drugs. I am also a Christian, so my admiration of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy stops when it comes to my voluntary altruistic tendencies, in keeping with my religious tenets. (And as I truly understand it, Ms. Rand's objections to altruism stemmed, at least in part, to her regarding Christians as some sort of mind-numbed robots, blindly following "leaders" without rational consideration. I don't think, as I understand it, she had an objection to rational, willful altruism as practiced by sincerely believing Christians. At least that's what I've heard.
Anyway, interested in what others' stances are!
In order to start off the discussion, I'll chime in for myself: I am Conservative politically, and leaning Libertarian, though I have serious political and practical reservations about Libertarianism regarding foreign policy and illegal drugs. I am also a Christian, so my admiration of Ayn Rand's Objectivist philosophy stops when it comes to my voluntary altruistic tendencies, in keeping with my religious tenets. (And as I truly understand it, Ms. Rand's objections to altruism stemmed, at least in part, to her regarding Christians as some sort of mind-numbed robots, blindly following "leaders" without rational consideration. I don't think, as I understand it, she had an objection to rational, willful altruism as practiced by sincerely believing Christians. At least that's what I've heard.
Anyway, interested in what others' stances are!
Clay Barham
It is only mysticism that can permit moralists to get away with it. It was mysticism, the unearthly, the supernatural, the irrational that has always been called upon to justify it—or, to be exact, to escape the necessity of justification. One does not justify the irrational, one just takes it on faith. What most moralists—and few of their victims—realize is that reason and altruism are incompatible"
Philosphy Who Need It? AR, Lexicon
They confused where socialism and communism were and I explained were political stances fall from Far Left to Far Right.
I am with you on the Libertarians in part. I love the focus of their message on freedom / personal liberty. It saddens me that a great number of people want to use their liberty to get stoned and that's the primary reason they are in the party. Don't tell me otherwise, people. In the college age range, in aggregate, that's their motivation. As they age, their desire for "liberty" goes away along with their desire to get stoned and they find another party. I think a libertarian foreign policy would be a welcome change to the current situation. We have one foreign policy when it comes to the Reps and Dems. Hasn't been a difference between the two since Reagan, and he was an anomaly. You probably fear the Libertarians would be too "wimpy" on foreign policy. We currently have a policy of lying to get into preemptive war, with the president starting it and the congress not declaring it. Let's take the Libertarian foreign policy and fine tune it when we get it! What we're doing now is a disaster.
I think you are completely wrong on Ayn Rand's view of altruism and its potential compatibility with Christianty. Ayn Rand starts from the premise that "There is no God and I'm developing my moral code with my own mind. Now tell me why MUST I help others, absent God telling me to?" You read Matthew 5, and Jesus says even those following the Old Testament didn't have their morality where God wanted it, much less those creating their own "I'm a law unto myself" moral code. The standard to meet is in V48 of that chapter. To the Christian, ones moral code is supposed to be BETTER than what Ayn Rand or anyone else comes up with. Don't be ashamed of that. Make no apologies for it. Don't seek compatibility with it. They sure aren't going to reciprocate around here. As others have mentioned below, Ayn Rand would have been fine if you were charitable as long as you didn't do it for any reason that God would have been happy with.
One thing I have noticed is that during the great depression, neighbor helped neighbor. Later we institutionalized this and now just let the government do it. I think we lost something very important when this happened. So as a conservative I want to take this function away from government and pull it back to the local neighbor level. Is there any middle ground for us to come together?
"Conservatives picked a really bad brand name. 'Conservative' means 'nothing original and no fun.' 'conservative used to mean 'smaller government' but it doesn't even mean that anymore. It just means 'buzzkill' "
for myself, how can I say I am for limited government and then choose to ban certain things, like marijuana, but not others like cigarettes and alcohol? How can I say, leave me alone and then tell others their moral choices are not correct-and I might make a law just to underscore that fact? How can I profess patriotism to a flag, regardless of the state of the Union it represents? How can I agree to procedures that require one to swear on a Bible, and then that's okay-they swore on the Bible, they must have told the truth! none of these examples are even close to anything like anarchy or its opposite, legislating my every move, my every breath.
"Cigarettes are annoying but not in the same class as alcohol, and therefore should not be made the scapegoat of high taxation" this assumes taxation as a penalty is ok-just which things should be penalized? and polygraphs don't always work, particularly on sociopaths/psychopaths who have a high liklihood of being in court in the first place :)