American Values Network Bashes Ayn Rand

The amazing thing is that anyone can read through her stuff. She was NOT a good writer.

 

She would have been a fierce critic of the myriad of mideastern wars, Gitmo, rendition, the Patriot Act, and she wouldn't have shut up about it just because the one now doing it is black, like you and your ilk did.

Your post is a piece of trash, nothing but a personal attack on your political betters, based on nothing but opinion, and the last sentence is especially shameful.

 

This "admiration" for the man you describe is conjecture, based on private journal entries, never meant for anyone's eyes but her's. In those journals she herself dismisses her feelings as "idealizing". The entries have been distorted, and edited.

Second, Ayn Rand's contempt for anyone who initiates force is consistent thru her entire life's work.

You can disagree with her on philosophy specifics, but to call her a sociopath, and to say she "walks across bodies" is nothing but an immature, ill-informed, biased insult.

In other words, just what we've come to expect from you, and your ilk.

 

Hmmm.

I find it just as disconcerting that Obama is a marxist set on destroying our economic system, but it doesn't seem to bother the left.

BTW Who is Ayn Rand?

 

Unfettered capitalism ??? :laugh: :laugh::laugh:

With all the regulations at the federal, state, county and city levels?

With the EPA?

With the IRS?

Thanks for making my day. :smilewinkgrin:

 

"Might not vote for him" does not come close to the level of the personal attack you made on capitalists, or Ayn Rand. You make me laugh. I will waste no more time with you.

 

Excuse me while I get the manure shovel.

 

So... what?

 

If you think those are insults, you have a thin skin.

By the way, do you consider this substantive?
" ...the true ethic of unfettered capitalism- a world devoid of love, empathy, joy, God, compassion, and morality."

 

It really is difficult for some to take you on the left seriously when you come up with zingers like this.

 

Simply because Ayn Rand says something doesn't make it so.

In my opinion your statement is still a load of garbage. You claimed it is provable. I invite you to do so.

 

Regardless of whether its true or not, the initial question is: Why would conservatives laud one who believed it was true? Regardless of whether or not it *is* true, Ayn Rand certainly believed it to be AND thought such a world was ideal. Why then would she be lauded by Christian conservatives? That is how I took the question in the OP. And its a valid one.

 

Wrong. W.R.O.N.G. Ayn Rand's sole political philosophy was the doctrine of the Non-aggression principle which she derived from applying Aristotle's doctrine of the non-contradiction to the idea of individual liberty. Her political views did not allow for violence except for the case of self-defense.

As to her atheism, you're right that she was irreligious. But it's entirely possible to compartmentalize one's view of a philosopher or philosophy. For instance, I can agree with Person 1 on issues A thru M and disagree with that very same someone on issues N thru Z. In fact, with politics being the art of compromise, such is exactly what happens when persons of conflicting interest hammer out agreements. For what it's worth, Christian conservatives aren't the only ones who do this and it's simply disingenuous to imply otherwise.

 

1. I don't think anyone implied that Christian conservatives are the only ones who do this.
2. Rand was more than irreligious, she was anti-religion. She wasn't simply lacking in religion, she was against religion. To her, religion was an evil.
3. Most significantly, this anti-religion stance of hers is *integral* to her whole philosophy. Its not something that can be reasonably put in another compartment from here political philosophy.

Now, yes, there may be some pragmatic goals (ie. less governmental control) that conservative Christians have in common with Rand's ideas, but that is a different thing than lauding her position or philosophy. The essence of her philosophy is in opposition to Christianity. Faith was no better to her than liberal policies.

 

Why not ?

I certainly seperate Thomas Jefferson from his.