Saturday, January 16, 2010

Ayn Rand Was Too Restrained

Subdued. Moderate. Muted. Not words one generally associates with the forthright and fiery Ms. Rand. But ones that are completely accurate today, given that Obama's latest horrific suggestion is too outlandish even for Rand's magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged, in which she offered such (to many) barely believable items as "The Equalization of Opportunity Bill," the "Anti Dog-Eat-Dog Act," and the like.

The Empty Suit in Chief -- check that, the suit that is full of it 18 hours per day -- (vampires have to sleep sometimes, or at least hide from the light) -- has proposed a Financial Crisis Responsibility Fee "to cover expected losses in the Troubled Asset Relief Program."

Wasn't TARP the program that was actually supposed to turn a profit when the banks (most of whom had their arms twisted to take the money) paid it back with interest?

Naturally, the equal protection clause of the Constitution being the least favorite of this Administration's (among a long list), some firms won't be asked to pay it. Who are the lucky few allowed to opt out? GM, Chrysler, delinquent mortgage borrowers and - not least, of course - Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

"From each according to his ability to each according to his need" is the operative principle of this Federal government and they mean it.

It's time somebody started pushing for jail time for this fool. The guy is a public menace. Sorry, I would write something stronger here but - with this clown - I've just entirely lost my capacity to be truly outraged.

6 comments:

Ted Amadeus said...

Even Ayn Rand never envisioned anything as corrupt, collectivist and fascist as the system now being foisted upon the American proletariat by their "vwondrrrful und gloooorious" Congress and of course, "Our Dear Leader, who knows what is best for U.S."
Under "social justice", those who never worked a day in their lives, or spent them mooching off others are "entitled" to MORE of something for nothing: It's the kind of system that shuts down an airport for six hours and throws a man in jail for kissing his sweetheart goodbye, while the FULSOB* bureaucrat who was supposed to be keeping an eye on things but was talking on the phone instead, gets off Scot free.

* The U and the L stand for "union labor", I'll leave the definitions of the other initials to your verdant imagination.

clay barham said...

WHO VALUES LIFE MOST?
There are only two different political systems in the world. One is the oldest which is where the elite few rule the many. That has been around since man first walked on the earth. These are the Chiefs, Kings, Emperors, Sultans, Caliphs and dictators, regardless of labels. The other has been around for almost 400 years in one place, America. Ayn Rand is one of the best describing how we work. It is where individual interests are more important than community interests, where the people rule themselves through constitutions, charters, elected representatives and law. The value of individual life is greater in the newer system, primarily because it rises out of religious beliefs, mainly Judeo-Christian teachings. Look at who gives the most help to Haiti, and who the least. For those nations that do not value individual life, the help provided is mainly for image, while America actually helps. America is condemned for it because that help is seen as unnecessary in saving lives deemed worthless. Claysamerica.com.

Jeff Perren said...

"The value of individual life is greater in the newer system, primarily because it rises out of religious beliefs, mainly Judeo-Christian teachings."

Clay (or Ted, or anybody), help me out here. I always find it genuinely puzzling when Christians side with Ayn Rand, who was philosophically opposed to all the essentials of that religion.

What am I missing?

As to the historical question of the basis of the U.S. system, I offer two sources:

1. The arguments of Dr. William Martin, and

2. The statements of the Founders themselves, such as:

"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion..." Adams (Treaty of Tripoli, 1797 - signed by President John Adams)


"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." Madison (Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, 1785)

I'm not looking to start a lengthy and vitriolic debate on the subject. I'm just curious how individuals who like Rand, yet strongly embrace Christianity, get to their positions, especially those who - like yourselves - are thoughtful people.

It's puzzling to me, and I make no assumptions about your motives, rationality, or anything else. I'm genuinely open on the subject.

Ted Amadeus said...

The Founding FATHERS never intended for America to be, as the popular Papist assertion remains "a Christian nation", but rather a neutral state founded in individual liberty and limited government. I don't exactly know where their ideas and philosophy sprang - it wasn't exclusively the so-called "enlightenment" or any particular religion, "Christian" or non - but I suspect it was a cross-assembly and extrapolation of their common beliefs of what would work best. Being a big fan of God and the Bible, and therefore one who advises against religion (of ANY kind) and it's pyramid/collectivist structure, Ayn Rand appeals to me as the clearest crystallization of the previously-uncollated Founders' beliefs and ideas into a unified epistemology.

Ken said...

Isn't it "from each according to his ability, to each according to his utility in increasing my power?"

Jeff Perren said...

lol, Ken. I guess that's another instance of the difference between Marxist theory (not so great to begin with) and Marxist practice.