Political Philosophy of Ayn Rand = World's Last Hope?

you sound like someone afraid of the truth so I can understand your fear of comparing Rand's words via the Galt character as opposed to the teachings of Jesus - no question that Galt/Rand/right wing extremists are antichrist

 

Do a google search on Obama/Kenya and what do you find?? Oh you don't want to do that? Are you, like, someone "afraid of the truth"?? Seriously, dude, get a clue.

(just so there is NO misunderstanding, I am NOT a birther. My point, if it wasn't already obvious, is that a google search is not the way to discover what is true or false.)

 

Can it, sure. Been done any times, humans not always nice.
Should it, no. But that is why governments should be accountable to it's citizens.

 

This was an answer to my question?

 

I don't understand what's so difficult to comprehend here. You are told that Rand wants the government limited to retaliatory/defensive force and then ask how, given such a limitation, the government can stop criminals and invaders. I don't understand your reasoning. Why would limiting force to defense and retaliation only prevent a govt from exercising it's duty to protect us? It is USING force to stop criminals and invaders now under that current limitation so obviously it CAN do it with those limitations. Of course the govt also oversteps it's morally acceptable bounds too but that's another topic.

 

All he was arguing there was that Objectivism and Christianity are incompatible . . . which is exactly what Rand said. Do we really need citations for that?

"Christ, in terms of the Christian philosophy, is the human ideal. He personifies that which men should strive to emulate. Yet, according to the Christian mythology, he died on the cross not for his own sins but for the sins of the nonideal people. In other words, a man of perfect virtue was sacrificed for men who are vicious and who are expected or supposed to accept that sacrifice. If I were a Christian, nothing could make me more indignant than that: the notion of sacrificing the ideal to the nonideal, or virtue to vice. And it is in the name of that symbol that men are asked to sacrifice themselves for their inferiors. That is precisely how the symbolism is used."

Playboy Interview: Ayn Rand
Playboy, March 1964

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/religion.html

 

Another one that does not wrap their brain around a specific idea. If a Nation is strong enough to defend itself form all threats it is automatically strong enough to use aggressive action. Clear up your lack of understanding?

 

Why bother with a google search? Most of us know Rand is an atheist and that Galt's speech was her personal philosophical statement on a variety of subjects including religion. I don't need to do a google search to know this stuff. Yes, Rand was anti Christian which stems from her rejection of the arbitrary in epistemology as well as her rejection of the mind/body dichotomy. Mr. Truth isn't interested in a discussion on the subject. He's doing this to be hostile.

 

So we can bomb the milky way into the next millennia. I get that. What are we debating again??

 

I never said we should do so. If ideas actually translate into real world application.

 

Ok, fine. Then address the subject under debate and stop straw manning us. The limitations imposed on governments concerning the use of force is not about the material resources at the government's disposal but you acted as if that was what the debate was about.

 

Do not attempt to tell me what I can bring up, you are not qualified. FYI, I was replying to comments to what I posted and as we can see reality is now straw manning to some, those that cannot handle the truth always fall back on such tired claims. Get back to me when you can actually discuss the implementation of ideas into reality, until then do not bother.

 

Yes is an answer in most people's worlds. Not in yours?

I answered yes, a gov't can, just like a pvt citizen can.
With our form of gov't we can make a change.

You seem to want no or little gov't because the people may do something you don't like. Guess what, they're people and they will do things you don't like.

 

Unless you're a fox TV correspondent or RW radio talk show host, doubtful.

 

Never said it was. Where do you see any such suggestion in my post?

Go to the public library or jstor if you like.

 

Everybody knows that. I was talking about the AynRand in this forum.

 

It never ceases to amaze me how so many from the far right claim to be good moral "Christians" while embracing the ideology of the Ayn Rands of this world. If these people would only trouble themselves to actually READ what Rand wrote and then compare those idiocies to the Bible they would clearly see that she was antichrist. As her crazed ideas reflect so many ideas in the Republican party (some, not all) it proves that one cannot be a Republican and a Christian.

 

Humanity has logically disputed these ideas over and over again throughout history so for you to ask someone to show how they are wrong suggests, along with your forum name, that you are speaking from a position of extreme bias. Evolution is a process and every time we try to create and enforce an objective morality through any kind of ideology which restricts our evolution humanity rejects it and it does so by necessity.

Also:

CAVETT: … You can (*)(*)(*)(*) away valuable hours of your life reading Ayn Rand—her wretched appeal to the young, her wretched writing, her wretched person.
She was supposed to be on my show; I was kind of sorry she wasn’t, because I was kind of laying for her. I did not succumb, as a kid, to being enthused by Ayn Rand, and that sense of power, as every kid was at one time until they outgrew it. The old bag sent over a list of fifteen conditions for appearing with me, or for appearing with anyone, I guess. One of them was, ‘There will be no disagreeing with Ms. Rand’s philosophy.’
GREEN: You’re kidding.
CAVETT: No! I wrote at the bottom of the list, to be sent back to her, ‘There will be no Ms. Rand, either.'”
............................................................................................................................
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” — [Kung Fu Monkey — Ephemera, blog post, March 19, 2009] ― John Rogers

 

Rick Santorum has a different view than most Republicans.

I do see what you are saying. You are talking about the Barry Goldwater influence of the Republican Party that started back in the 1960's. There are elements of the Republican Party that are trying to move closer to the center and modernize the party. The Republican Party appears to be paralyzed by an unhealthy nostalgia of the way America was back in 1776. Don't worry though. Over time it will correct itself. The Republican Party hasn't lost enough ground to make any changes. The party still has about 20 more years of belly aching about abortion but I think they have less time than that with the pandering to the upper class. I think that the average Republican is becoming more educated as we speak and won't allow them to keep making bad policy. Those old Reagan worshippers are starting to die off. People born after 1973 may be against abortion but understand that it's a lost cause. That same age group is more educated than older generations. They also aren't as spoiled as previous generations. Some of the older generations never seen bad economic times and by the time they did they were already pocketing pensions, retirement and social security. It is inevitable that the Republican Party will change. I don't think it's too far away. It would come sooner if Republicans would unite, make a list of demands and vote democrat until the demands are met.