Why “non ideal people” need to start shouting a bit

August 14, 2012 at 6:53 AM (Uncategorized)

The new Vice Presidential pick for the Republicans, Paul Ryan, is a long term Washington guy, with an engaging manner and a deal more brains than their last VP pick.

When Mr. Ryan was interviewed by the Weekly Standard, he was firm about his belief in Objectivism, the philosophy created and promoted by Ayn Rand.

(My source for what she said about her beliefs is the 1959 Mike Wallace interview with her, and it’s transcript)

She’s an atheist, and she espouses vigorous absolute Social Darwinism (in layman’s terms “survival of the fittest,”)

She said religious belief of any kind was a sign of weakness.

I’d love for other atheists who lurk to explain that yes, in fact atheists do abide by codes of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ that don’t include abandoning one’s fellow beings to their fate if they are less than ideal, because yeah she’s tougher and different than other atheists writings I’ve read.

And, going father back into *her* seminal influences we find FrederickNietzche.  Enough said.

Alan Greenspan was a follower.  Paul Ryan is another.

Why?

Her books appear to be love songs to two things. (I’ve read Atlas Shrugged in it’s entirety.  I’ve read parts of The Fountainhead

Completely unfettered lethal capitalism (and I don’t use the word lethal as hyperbole.  I have personal experience of capitalism gone lethal, so that’s what I call it’s extremes.)

And allowed, even institutionalized, self-interest. Ones own desires, are the ultimate goal.

Human beings, in her world, have no inherent worth or dignity.  They must rise to some arbitrary level of worthiness before they should be aided.

If they cost a dime, do not spend that dime.  They aren’t worth it.  They are given rights by nature apparently, but not *value* by nature.
Charity, especially that based in a belief system has no value

She’s also against the use of force.

Some followers of hers say, but we like helping people…it gives *us* joy, so therefore we will do it.

Come on now.  If the human animal is given ‘permission’ by a given philosophy to act selfishly.

98% of the time they’re going to do it.

What I wonder is…

Evangelical’s who love politicians who love Rand must have made a mental agreement to be ‘cafeteria’ Randians.  Embrace the social Darwinism but forget the militant atheism.

NeoCons who love Rand, must have just ditched the ‘against the use of force’ idea.

And all of them have missed the part where she indicated she was pro choice.

So a great part of her philosophy is embraced for its capitalist idealism and fiscal conservatism…

(and privately for the social darwinist part)…

Religious conservatives don’t seem to worry or care, that to Rand the Crucifixion was torture or folly, and that Ryan, according to his interview with the Weekly Standard in March of 2003  makes Ayn Rand required reading for his staff.

They don’t need to scan Paul Ryan too much.  He’ll save the wealthiest a great deal of money, never mind about the place of Deity  in his priority list.

Do religious conservatives ever worry that they’ll get a President (or vice President) that will share their views on fiscal policy, but laugh their faith out of the room?

Human beings have value.  By being here.  One either accepts that axiom or rejects it.

In the disability community, this axiom is paramount.  If all of us, regardless of type or level of impairment live in a society that recognizes our value, and is ok with educating us appropriately, and working on assistive tech or living adaptation to allow us in…..then at least some of us might be safe, some of the time.

But if we live in a society whose political leaders reject the idea that each person has value, what happens?

The first to be endangered, ignored, abandoned…are the ones it is most difficult to discern the ‘value’ in…

The ones that move differently…or look differently.

Maybe the ones who are physically unable work-for-money.

Maybe the ones who’ve retired from work-for-money.

The ones who Objectivist philosophy (if not each individual Objectivist) dismiss.

I knew an Objectivist in college.  A really bright guy.  Who nonetheless admitted to me that the first time he saw me, and my different way of movement….the first thing he was, was, and I quote: “repulsed.”

I used to think he said that because he was just a jerk.  Now, I think at least part of the reason he said that, was that he had been influenced enough by what he read to have that reaction… Unconsciously…..There, his head said, goes one of those non-ideal people.  I am repulsed by that, because this is one of these situations where Rand says I should be repulsed.

What a sad, sad way to be educated about difference.

But this is the reason why us “non-ideals'” need to fight.

Because the deck is more and more stacked against us as followers of these sorts of things gain traction, influence and power.

Advertisements

2 Comments

  1. merlynleroy said,

    Most atheists (me included) don’t think much of Ayn Rand’s intellect. She was hypocritical (she lived on government assistance while decrying it) and stated she would not vote for a woman for president (using no logic at all). Just because we happen to agree on one metaphysical question is no reason to agree with her on anything else.

    • imfunny2 said,

      Thanks for sharing 🙂 the more I dive into what she espoused the more incredibly dangerous I think many of her views are

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: