Ron Paul said in book he doesn't agree with Ayn Rand philosophically

[Todd]

1. http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Ron_Paul_Education.htm

" Q: You said you want to abolish the public school system.A: We elected conservatives to get rid of the Department of Education. We used to campaign on that. And what did we do? We doubled the size. I want to reverse that trend.
Q: What about public schools? Are you still for dismantling them?
A: No, I'm not. It's not in my platform.
QWhen you ran for president in 1988, you called for the abolition of public schools.
A: I bet that's a misquote. I do not recall that."



Abolition of public schools would be libertarian. Moving public schools' authority to the local/state level is Conservative.

That is a great example of his differences with the anarchists.

 

[wild03]

Okay, maybe im misrepresentating agnostics with this 50/50 approach. Personally speaking, the agnostics i have debated with never made a point out of saying that it is more likley that god does not exist. Most of them say that atheists are just as unreasonable as the religious. It seems both sides are given equal weight. I know some agnostics that go to church or babtise their childeren, just incase. That seems a bit silly to me. Agnostics like this are sitting on the fence. I think the agnostics that giv more weight to the none-existance of god have jumped off the fence and become a type of atheist. Whatever they are called I think they are more resonable than the fence sitters.

Cheers

You bring an interesting point, On "Objectivism: the philosophy of Ayn Rand" Peikoff writes

"the agnostic is the man who says: "We can't prove that the claim is true, But we can't prove that it is false, either. So the only proper conclusion is: we don't know; no one knows; perhaps no one can know."
Agnosticism is not simply the pleading of ignorance. It is the enshrinement of ignorance"

and continues,

"The agnostic miscalculates. typically, he believes that the he has avoided taking any controversial position and is thus safe from attack. In fact, he is taking a profoundly irrational position. In struggling to elevate the arbitrary to the position of cognitive respect, he is attempting to equate the arbitrary with the logically supported."

As nick points out, there are shades of agnosticism, T.H. Huxley, the inventor of the term defines it as:

"Agnosticism is not a creed but a method, the essence of which lies in the vigorous application of a single principle. Positively the principle ,may be expressed as, in the matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it can carry you without other considerations, And negatively, in matters of the intellect, do not pretend the conclusions are certain that are not demonstrated or demonstrable. It is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can produce evidence which logically justifies that certainty"

At one end you could be skeptic about God's existence on the other you can claim that the question is insoluble, that we cannot prove or disprove God's existence through empirical evidence or deductive proof.

This second position is the one most people mean when they attack agnosticism when it comes to God. This is what Peikoff refers to and what you mean by "50/50".

The subject is not an easy one. and as pointed out before being a "middle of the roader" is probably not a defendable position. For what I have read Rand probably considered herself an atheist. I used to consider myself an agnostic close to atheist just like nick but as I look more into it I'm leaning more towards atheist.

Take the unicorn for example: If one is agnostic about their existence but for all practical purposes uses their non-existence for all cognitive processes, Is one really agnostic? or just a non-believer?

Also I would like to point out that Rand is not objectivism. Rand discovered the philosophy but any errors by her or her followers are not errors of objectivism. for example I don't agree on her use of "Evil" but this does not mean that objectivism should be discarded. As with any philosophy it will get refined with time as new people contribute to it.

 

[wild03]

I agree, I am not talking about 1000 years ago I am talking about 10k + years ago. 1k years ago nearly every tribe around had been touched by civilization (monotheism being the most telling factor and the most dangerous). Pre - history is not "pre" it is history and it has humans in it for a very long while that managed not to drop nukes on each other OR wage global war or have global catastrophe.
Tribal anarchy is what got be interested in libertarianism anyway.

I am not an environmentalist I just see every life form (not just humans) as having a right to exist. If that is some how un-liberty minded, tell me exactly, what is liberty mindedness about?
Personally I don't care to be surrounded by buildings, shopping centers or many other houses... I prefer animals, trees and lots of space. Should I not have this liberty because its better for the whole of mankind that we keep building corporate empires and if so I thought this was about the individual, not the collective.


Has anyone ever read The continuum concept? I highly recommend it.

Berry, you bring contradicting arguments. 10k years ago life was far from simple and pure. Mortality rate most have been tremendous people hardly reached their 40's. Babies and mothers died form childbirth and infection.

If you really believed in every life form's right to exist, to you take medications for infections? or a virus? after all viruses and bacteria are lifeforms too, so are roaches and rats and all kids of pests.

The reality is that we live is a violent world. every other higher life form survives by eating others from the plants up. To revert back to an Amish society is to condemn countless of people to suffering and death, Walk around a modern hospital now days and you'll see the countless of lives that are saved because of modern technology. Simple things as an aerosol for asthma or an antibiotic.

Those people are life forms too.

I prefer animals, trees and lots of space. Should I not have this liberty because its better for the whole of mankind that we keep building corporate empires and if so I thought this was about the individual, not the collective.

You certainly can have this liberty you speak of, But only if you earn it, you have no right to take it from someone else. This means that you have the right to purchase as much land as you like and live in it as you please. You have no right of imposing your believes on everyone else.

"Observe, in this context, the intellectual precision of the Founding Fathers: they spoke of the right to the pursuit of happiness—not of the right to happiness. It means that a man has the right to take the actions he deems necessary to achieve his happiness; it does not mean that others must make him happy." Ayn Rand

 

[Romantarchist]

As a Christian Libertarian, I would like to say that Ayn Rand disgusts me. Any philosopher who tries to claim that selfishness is a virtue and a good thing, that reason is the only source of knowledge and truth, and that charity and helping others is wrong is someone I'm staying far far away from. She isn't a real freedom fighter. She has more in common with Marx and Hitler than she does with Thomas Jefferson, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, etc. It annoys me that the Free State Project puts her on their posters, I think they should remove her.

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 1

http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2008/04/narcissism-and-scapegoating-of-ayn-rand.html

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 2

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

 

[wild03]

As a Christian Libertarian, I would like to say that Ayn Rand disgusts me. Any philosopher who tries to claim that selfishness is a virtue and a good thing, that reason is the only source of knowledge and truth, and that charity and helping others is wrong is someone I'm staying far far away from. She isn't a real freedom fighter. She has more in common with Marx and Hitler than she does with Thomas Jefferson, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, etc. It annoys me that the Free State Project puts her on their posters, I think they should remove her.

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 1

http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2008/04/narcissism-and-scapegoating-of-ayn-rand.html

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 2

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

I'll check the links later, From your post I can tell that you do not understand her philosophy.

I read her book "The virtue of selfishness" and did not find any reasons to believe that selfisness is bad. In fact her arguments against altruism are excellent.

What else would you use in the search for knowledge? Feelings? intuition? Whim?

According to her philosophy charity and helping others is not wrong at all, Nick has explained this many times already.

On the contrary, Marx and Hitler were altruists

 

[Romantarchist]

I understand her philosophy quite well, actually. I prefer Jesus', who lived his whole life for the sake of others. I also agree with Immanuel Kant when he says that a moral person overcomes their own personal desires, and instead chooses to do what is morally right, regardless of pleasure or inconvenience. BTW, the way she defined "selfishness" and "altruism" is just crazy. When you say that Altruism is "only living for others" and Selfishness is simply "pursuing one's own interests", of course you're going to come out with a warped perspective.

 

[AutoDas]

Have you ever considered you're not actually helping the person by alms? Ayn Rand has said she is against charity being a morally acceptable goal, not against helping people, which I think can only happen through selfishness.

I understand her philosophy quite well, actually. I prefer Jesus', who lived his whole life for the sake of others. I also agree with Immanuel Kant when he says that a moral person overcomes their own personal desires, and instead chooses to do what is morally right, regardless of pleasure or inconvenience. BTW, the way she defined "selfishness" and "altruism" is just crazy. When you say that Altruism is "only living for others" and Selfishness is simply "pursuing one's own interests", of course you're going to come out with a warped perspective.

This is the reason why I'm atheist and libertarian. You're religion says you should live for the life of others, but there are no people attached to my waist so I am not responsible for them.

 

[Romantarchist]

I understand that teaching the poor to be self-reliant is the ultimate goal, and one of the kindest things you could do for them. This is what missionaries in Central America are doing right now, actually. But that's still you giving up your ego and conveniences for the sake of others, which I believe is the right thing to do. I'm not really concerned with myself in this R3volution; I have a comfortable life. Other people in America don't. That's why I'm doing my part to get Ron Paul & his friends into the government.

Actually a true Christian lives for others, himself, and most importantly, for God. There are passage in the Bible where Jesus praises honest entrepreneurship and profits.

And that ends my involvement in this thread.

 

[Dustancostine]

"When you have civilized men fighting savages, you support the civilized men, no matter who they are."

Wonder who Ayn would have supported in the Soviet Afghan mess.

She didn't consider communist civilized, but the worst kind of brute. So clearly the Afghans.

 

[Dustancostine]

As a Christian Libertarian, I would like to say that Ayn Rand disgusts me. Any philosopher who tries to claim that selfishness is a virtue and a good thing, that reason is the only source of knowledge and truth, and that charity and helping others is wrong is someone I'm staying far far away from. She isn't a real freedom fighter. She has more in common with Marx and Hitler than she does with Thomas Jefferson, Murray Rothbard, Ron Paul, etc. It annoys me that the Free State Project puts her on their posters, I think they should remove her.

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 1

http://uncabob.blogspot.com/2008/04/narcissism-and-scapegoating-of-ayn-rand.html

The Real Ayn Rand: Part 2

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

The most ignorant statement yet on this thread. I highly doubt you know much about Rand or objectivism.

 

[Dustancostine]

I prefer Jesus', who lived his whole life for the sake of others.

. When you say that Altruism is "only living for others"...... of course you're going to come out with a warped perspective.

You contradict yourself in your post.


Btw: Jesus did not live his entire life for others. He did what his father asked him to do.

 

[JosephTheLibertarian]

I agree with much of Ayn Rand. An idealist philosophy that we will never see in its purity. The most it can do is influence, but I hope it doesn't influence us in the wrong direction.

 

[wild03]

I understand that teaching the poor to be self-reliant is the ultimate goal, and one of the kindest things you could do for them. This is what missionaries in Central America are doing right now, actually. But that's still you giving up your ego and conveniences for the sake of others, which I believe is the right thing to do. I'm not really concerned with myself in this R3volution; I have a comfortable life. Other people in America don't. That's why I'm doing my part to get Ron Paul & his friends into the government.

Actually a true Christian lives for others, himself, and most importantly, for God. There are passage in the Bible where Jesus praises honest entrepreneurship and profits.

And that ends my involvement in this thread.

Speaking of the bible,

The best way to teach the poor to be self reliant is to teach them free market economics not that "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24)

Maybe they are giving up those conveniences because they believe that once they die they will have a special place in heaven. What better deal that to sacrifice 60 years for a guarantied eternity?

A true Christian should live for God, It just happens that he said to live for others, And when he says the contrary, well too bad for those others i.e. When Abraham was about to sacrifice his son. and Genesis 19:8 comes to mind, the father giving his daughters away.

To bad you decided to jump into the thread the way you did, This could have turnout to be a rational discussion on Rands views of selfishness, etc. It would have clarified some of the false misconceptions you have on the subject.

 

[DriftWood]

I might be out of line here.. but Christian (and its offspring Islam) values seem very anti-capitalist. I wonder what the world would have been like without this anti-capitalist movement. Maybe the dark ages would not have been so dark and the world would have developed quicker.

Cheers

 

[nickcoons]

I understand her philosophy quite well, actually.

If you did, then you wouldn't be claiming that she thinks that charity and helping others is wrong, because that's fundamentally incorrect. This is akin to saying that you truly understand Ron Paul's position, and then claim that he wants to invade Iran.

I prefer Jesus', who lived his whole life for the sake of others. I also agree with Immanuel Kant when he says that a moral person overcomes their own personal desires, and instead chooses to do what is morally right, regardless of pleasure or inconvenience.

One does not "overcome their own personal desires" when they are charitable. They are being selfish and pursuing their own interests, just as Rand has described, and I'll explain why.

If you donate $5 to charity, you do so because you believe it to be the right thing, you value it, or you value the cause; maybe you're donating to fighting a disease that your wife is encumbered by. The same is true if you donate your time or other supplies.. all of these actions are you acting in your own self-interest, your self-interest being that you want to help others because it is something you value, and Rand would say that you are living consistent with your values. This is not "living for others."

Living for others is forced upon people in socialist societies. Where, instead of you donating $5 to your favorite cause, I steal (through taxation) $5 from you and donate it to my favorite cause, and then expect you to happily comply because it's your duty to be altruistic. This is what Rand and Objectivism opposes.

BTW, the way she defined "selfishness" and "altruism" is just crazy. When you say that Altruism is "only living for others" and Selfishness is simply "pursuing one's own interests", of course you're going to come out with a warped perspective.

Those definitions sound very reasonable to me. How would you define them?

I think the view of most people regarding selfishness and altruism is warped, not Rand's view. People are taught from a young age that selfishness is a bad thing and we should be altruistic. So these words have built-in negative and positive connotations, respectively. When someone comes along and offers reasonable definitions of the words, you find those definitions unacceptable because they don't fit into the mold of what selfishness and altruism are that has been ingrained into you.

 

[Tanner]

Actually a true Christian lives for others, himself, and most importantly, for God.

This entire argument assumes faith in the possibility of an afterlife. The real reason for living for others in this case is that there is incentive of a reward, or more accurately, fear-inspired punishment after death; it is absolutely true that one has very selfish goals to reach if they have faith in an afterlife. In other words, one is not truly living for others as the individual is completely self-interested in "getting to Heaven" / "avoiding Hell." There mandate is set by the dogma "do as I say or else," which is a threat based on fear and violence. If there was a positive and negative afterlife, would it not be more loving of others to give them your right to enter the positive and take their place in the negative? Of course, this would be great injustice.

After all that, know that I would never accept any infringement on anyones right to practice any religion or lack thereof. I was raised Protestant, educated and disciplined in a Catholic school by a Zoroastrian, a Buddhist, Taoists and Hindus. I studied the histories and languages of the Greeks and Romans to better interpret Judaism, Islam, the mystics of Egypt and the wise men of Persia. I have learned a great deal about reality and peoples; I cannot accept faith, but I will never impede on your right to follow. There are generally good individuals that exist regardless of faiths, and that's why Ron Paul is usually correct.

To respond to a previous post that I did not quote, attaching a moral judgement to the word selfish is inaccurate. I am not called upon to defend Rand herself, but to denounce her philosophy without knowing the terms invalidates the argument. Rational Selfishness. Following blind desire and whims do not a reasoning person make.

 

[rational thinker]

Oh dear. This old mix-up again.

A/gnosticism is about what you can and cannot know.
A/theism is about what you do or do not believe.

So one can be agnostic without being atheistic if one does not know that the supernatural exists, but chooses to believe that it does anyway.

But as someone brighter than I pointed out, everyone, from the Pope to Richard Dawkins, is by definition agnostic because none of us can know anything about the supernatural.

The real question, then, is how honest we can be about it.

 

[Leroy_Jenkems]

This entire argument assumes faith in the possibility of an afterlife. The real reason for living for others in this case is that there is incentive of a reward, or more accurately, fear-inspired punishment after death; it is absolutely true that one has very selfish goals to reach if they have faith in an afterlife. In other words, one is not truly living for others as the individual is completely self-interested in "getting to Heaven" / "avoiding Hell." There mandate is set by the dogma "do as I say or else," which is a threat based on fear and violence. If there was a positive and negative afterlife, would it not be more loving of others to give them your right to enter the positive and take their place in the negative? Of course, this would be great injustice.

After all that, know that I would never accept any infringement on anyones right to practice any religion or lack thereof. I was raised Protestant, educated and disciplined in a Catholic school by a Zoroastrian, a Buddhist, Taoists and Hindus. I studied the histories and languages of the Greeks and Romans to better interpret Judaism, Islam, the mystics of Egypt and the wise men of Persia. I have learned a great deal about reality and peoples; I cannot accept faith, but I will never impede on your right to follow. There are generally good individuals that exist regardless of faiths, and that's why Ron Paul is usually correct.

To respond to a previous post that I did not quote, attaching a moral judgement to the word selfish is inaccurate. I am not called upon to defend Rand herself, but to denounce her philosophy without knowing the terms invalidates the argument. Rational Selfishness. Following blind desire and whims do not a reasoning person make.

[Gasp] You just used your reasoning mind instead of "blind" faith! Heretic!

Excellent post.

 

[wild03]

Oh dear. This old mix-up again.

A/gnosticism is about what you can and cannot know.
A/theism is about what you do or do not believe.

This definition is no different from say skeptic. and this is true when agnosticism is used as a method; expressing both an epistemic and a moral ideal.

But agnosticism when applied to the question of God's existence means one believes that this issue is intractable or insoluble.

This is the agnosticism that I refer to. Michael Shermer provides a case for this type of agnosticism in his book "how we believe".

In the article "Shermer's Agnosticism A philosophical Examination" Shawn Dawson provides a brief criticism of this type of agnosticism.

So one can be agnostic without being atheistic if one does not know that the supernatural exists, but chooses to believe that it does anyway.

But as someone brighter than I pointed out, everyone, from the Pope to Richard Dawkins, is by definition agnostic because none of us can know anything about the supernatural.

I don't believe you are correct here. If someone chooses to believe in something for which he has no proof he/she is no longer agnostic. (see Huxley's definition)

 

[therealjjj77]

If Ayn Rand's primary philosophy is objectivism, why does Ron Paul disagree with it? Isn't Ron Paul's philosophy that each person should take responsibility for their own lives and not depend on the government? This sounds very similar to objectivism in which each person is to focus on their own well-being primarily. Am I missing something?

The very premise that people have certain rights that should not be infringed is entirely different from the animal world.

When you see injustice done, it is not just you that would feel that way. It is virtually universal. Where an animal would kill, torture, or maim one of it's own kind for no reason and think nothing of it, we have a serious problem with doing so.

Take for instance your property. Everyone has a sense of property ownership and if someone tries to violate that, we certainly are not pleased with the situation and believe it should be recompensed.

Or if you see a strong person harming a weaker person, you want to stop it. That's quite opposite of the animal kingdom. There is nothing objective about that.