Ayn Rand is dead. Liberals will miss her.

[Daelak]

I too remember when first read Howard Zinn and nobody else. What magical days those were.

What do you think the US right wing is? Where do you think the ideology formed?

[Theodarzna]

What do you think the US right wing is? Where do you think the ideology formed?

The America right emerges out of a lot factors, but if I had to give it a direct ancestral heritage in this country I would trace it to a core conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton over exactly what sort of country they were intending to build. Jefferson envisioned the land of the Yeoman farmer, free, autonomous and to some extent self governing. Local power was seen as the ideal power root of government and the institution of the family was thus much more relevant. Hamilton may have agreed with some of Jefferson's positions but in the end he had a vision of America much more centered around capitalism and commerce.

Things have obviously waxed and waned over the years and changed radically but I'd say that is somewhat of the birthplace of Conservatism in America. But some of American conservatism will be inherited and informed from Britain and Europe over the next century.

[Daelak]

The America right emerges out of a lot factors, but if I had to give it a direct ancestral heritage in this country I would trace it to a core conflict between Jefferson and Hamilton over exactly what sort of country they were intending to build. Jefferson envisioned the land of the Yeoman farmer, free, autonomous and to some extent self governing. Local power was seen as the ideal power root of government and the institution of the family was thus much more relevant. Hamilton may have agreed with some of Jefferson's positions but in the end he had a vision of America much more centered around capitalism and commerce.

Things have obviously waxed and waned over the years and changed radically but I'd say that is somewhat of the birthplace of Conservatism in America. But some of American conservatism will be inherited and informed from Britain and Europe over the next century.

Jefferson would be more of an apt comparison, who held 200 slaves and believed that the white male land-owning class were of superior intellect and the only race who could be entrusted with governance. He came from the mid-Atlantic, an area that enjoyed over-representation on the federal level and virtually no dissent or opposition locally due to the authoritarian and brutal laws and tactics employed by people of Jefferson's status, comparable to the deep south, another incubation hub for authoritarian and right wing ideology.

Not really, the father of the modern conservative/US right is Goldwater, who was virulently against the CRA and VRA, and focused on 'states' rights', a canard used by 19th and 18th century US right-wingers in their quest to ensure the nullification of federal authority to spread their slave society to the west and Central America.

[Theodarzna]

Jefferson would be more of an apt comparison, who held 200 slaves and believed that the white male land-owning class were of superior intellect and the only race who could be entrusted with governance. He came from the mid-Atlantic, an area that enjoyed over-representation on the federal level and virtually no dissent or opposition locally due to the authoritarian and brutal laws and tactics employed by people of Jefferson's status, comparable to the deep south, another incubation hub for authoritarian and right wing ideology.

Not really, the father of the modern conservative/US right is Goldwater, who was virulently against the CRA and VRA, and focused on 'states' rights', a canard used by 19th and 18th century US right-wingers in their quest to ensure the nullification of federal authority to spread their slave society to the west and Central America.

I believe Hamilton also believed in the property holding White Male to rule the land. Hip modern musicals aside he sympathized with the dispossessed slave owners after the Haitian revolution, likely owned some slaves himself.

I would say modern conservatism is split between Neo-Conservatism of the Charles Krauthammer set and the Paleo-Conservatism that is not exactly Goldwater like but is definitely oppositional to the State as a managerial force on society and the economy.

- - - Updated - - -

As an aside, I think @Daelak your views and presentation don't pass my "Are they a rational person?" test. You seem set on presenting "My side is the paragon of good, all else is perdition!" sort of vibe in your posts. I am not saying that necessarily represents your earnest or heartfelt opinions, but usually anyone who thinks in that level of black and white thinking is hard to take seriously.

[Daelak]

I believe Hamilton also believed in the property holding White Male to rule the land. Hip modern musicals aside he sympathized with the dispossessed slave owners after the Haitian revolution, likely owned some slaves himself.

I would say modern conservatism is split between Neo-Conservatism of the Charles Krauthammer set and the Paleo-Conservatism that is not exactly Goldwater like but is definitely oppositional to the State as a managerial force on society and the economy.

He wrote that he held slaves for its status, since of course the federal government was run by the over-represented Mid-Atlantic and Deep South because of the concessions made by midlanders and New Englanders before founding, like the electoral college and 3/5th compromise. If he lived in a time when the mid-atlantic region and Deep Southern region were getting beaten at expanding west, he would of sided with the abolitionists.

The Neo-conservative movement is not borne from the right wing, it is rather enabled by both establishment parties leaders' because of the political and military realities of the post-WW2 reconstruction of the west. Goldwater is the unassailable father of the modern conservative movement, which is really the ideology of Sam Houston and Jefferson Davis but converted to 20th century nomenclature and dog-whistles. They despise federal authority, and want their single-party states to run roughshod over the rights and lives of their citizens, who given their chance, would deem them subjects, and forego any responsibility of the state to educate and protect their citizens from injustice. This is precisely the reason why the confederacy had so many soldiers to fight for them; they were too uneducated and impoverished to realize that their handlers were sending them to die for an ideology that is incompatible with liberal democracy.

[Theodarzna]

He wrote that he held slaves for its status, since of course the federal government was run by the over-represented Mid-Atlantic and Deep South because of the concessions made by midlanders and New Englanders before founding, like the electoral college and 3/5th compromise. If he lived in a time when the mid-atlantic region and Deep Southern region were getting beaten at expanding west, he would of sided with the abolitionists.

The Neo-conservative movement is not borne from the right wing, it is rather enabled by both establishment parties leaders' because of the political and military realities of the post-WW2 reconstruction of the west. Goldwater is the unassailable father of the modern conservative movement, which is really the ideology of Sam Houston and Jefferson Davis but converted to 20th century nomenclature and dog-whistles. They despise federal authority, and want their single-party states to run roughshod over the rights and lives of their citizens, who given their chance, would deem them subjects, and forego any responsibility of the state to educate and protect their citizens from injustice. This is precisely the reason why the confederacy had so many soldiers to fight for them; they were too uneducated and impoverished to realize that their handlers were sending them to die for an ideology that is incompatible with liberal democracy.

Could, Would, Should, without a time machine we won't know the answer to that.

I am curious if you would not simply favor one party rule by the Democrats then? If in your cosmology they are the sole and only force for good against a pernicious evil, why not install the Democrats as the sole party and ignore letting conservative minded voters even have a vote at all? After all if they are objectively wrong, why have the process?

[Daelak]

Could, Would, Should, without a time machine we won't know the answer to that.

I am curious if you would not simply favor one party rule by the Democrats then? If in your cosmology they are the sole and only force for good against a pernicious evil, why not install the Democrats as the sole party and ignore letting conservative minded voters even have a vote at all? After all if they are objectively wrong, why have the process?

Since he was from New York, he may have been ambivalent about slavery from an economic POV, however the vast majority of non-merchants and New Yorkers strongly opposed blacks from being treated as property and being denied their chance towards pursuing their destiny.

Of course not, if the Union executed all confederate military and political leaders after the civil war, and didn't have to face the resistance from ex-confederates destroying and murdering people during reconstruction, we would of had a healthy multi-party democracy in which they would be forced to form coalitions to run the government.

US conservative ideology isn't merely just a disagreement with democrats on how to run the country, they want to nullify the federal authority, leaving the states' to their own devices, their own form of governance, and from what you can see in conservative led states', is basically non-governance and a precipitous slide into poverty and vast inequality.

- - - Updated - - -

As an aside, I think @Daelak your views and presentation don't pass my "Are they a rational person?" test. You seem set on presenting "My side is the paragon of good, all else is perdition!" sort of vibe in your posts. I am not saying that necessarily represents your earnest or heartfelt opinions, but usually anyone who thinks in that level of black and white thinking is hard to take seriously.

It's just US history, nothing more, nothing less. It seems as though many people have a huge blank spot of US history from 1870-1970. Once you read more into this era of US history, you will see that the articles of confederation, white supremacist, Deep Southern Authoritarian ideology has never really changed since ratification.

[Halicia]

1. Randian philosophy is not dead, if anything Trump administration policies epitomize Randian thought;
2. Conservatives shitting on women and minorities is nothing new.

Trump is crony capitalism personified.

On its face, deregulation might appear Randian, but not when the deregulation is being done piecemeal in a manner to only benefit certain owners to the detriment of the populace at large.

And the Orwellian restriction of freedoms certainly doesn't lend itself to a workers paradise.

[Theodarzna]

Since he was from New York, he may have been ambivalent about slavery from an economic POV, however the vast majority of non-merchants and New Yorkers strongly opposed blacks from being treated as property and being denied their chance towards pursuing their destiny.

Of course not, if the Union executed all confederate military and political leaders after the civil war, and didn't have to face the resistance from ex-confederates destroying and murdering people during reconstruction, we would of had a healthy multi-party democracy in which they would be forced to form coalitions to run the government.

US conservative ideology isn't merely just a disagreement with democrats on how to run the country, they want to nullify the federal authority, leaving the states' to their own devices, their own form of governance, and from what you can see in conservative led states', is basically non-governance and a precipitous slide into poverty and vast inequality.

It's just US history, nothing more, nothing less. It seems as though many people have a huge blank spot of US history from 1870-1970. Once you read more into this era of US history, you will see that the articles of confederation, white supremacist, Deep Southern Authoritarian ideology has never really changed since ratification.

I think most Americans have a blank spot for everything before 1919 that didn't directly involve the Civil War or the California Gold Rush.

Nullifying Federal Authority, would that not be Anti-Authoritarian? After all it seems your problem is not with authoritarianism but who is the authority. I think in general you have this strangely skewed and very partisan view of history that looks more like a cosmological struggle between good and evil, you even believe the Northerners to be these progressive types with liberal social and racial values.

- - - Updated - - -

It's just US history, nothing more, nothing less.

As another point, I find it odd self proclaimed Democrats, Liberals and Progressives have no become jingoistic warhawks beating the Drum of American exceptionalism and Imperium. Considering the sum total of America's sordid bloody history, I find it odd people who see themselves as this educated bunch would suddenly try to don this ultra-nationalism whilst also complaining about nationalism.

[Berengil]

That's also wrong, she hated libertarianism and refused to have anything to do with it. If you think Objectivists are libertarians go look up Leonard Peikoff criticizing George Bush for not destroying Iran or his praise of banning the ground zero mosque and the burqa in France as "wartime necessities". Not the types of thing you generally hear from libertarians.

That's something that confuses me about Rand. A lot of her philosophy sounds like textbook libertarianism, not all, but a lot of it.

And then she turns around and spews her hate at them.

Sometimes, I think she was the first troll.

[Wells]

That's something that confuses me about Rand. A lot of her philosophy sounds like textbook libertarianism, not all, but a lot of it.

And then she turns around and spews her hate at them.

Sometimes, I think she was the first troll.

Libertarianism leaves the door open for personal altruism. Objectivism views it as immoral. Its sociopathy dressed up as ideology.

[PizzaSHARK]

Rand was never what you would consider politically conservative. I don't know why the linked article is associating the two. Her philosophy is far more aligned with libertarians, who have clear disagreements with conservatives. It's just that liberals tend to use government power more, so her philosophy is less hostile to conservatives.

Yeah, isn't objectivism basically the idealistic objective of libertarians? The way I hear most libertarians talk about what they want us to become, you could just about substitute Rapture in.

[Exedore]

Yeah, isn't objectivism basically the idealistic objective of libertarians? The way I hear most libertarians talk about what they want us to become, you could just about substitute Rapture in.

Not exactly.

First, Objectivism is a philosophy and encompasses a lot more than just a view of government. Libertarians tend to focus on minimizing government, but don't have strong feelings on personal morals or society (religion, etc).

As far as political views align, extreme libertarians would likely hold the same views on government as Objectivsm's, but I wouldn't say "most" agree with it.

[Deletedaccount1]

That's something that confuses me about Rand. A lot of her philosophy sounds like textbook libertarianism, not all, but a lot of it.

And then she turns around and spews her hate at them.

Sometimes, I think she was the first troll.

The main 5 tenents of Objectivism that Rand and Peikoff argued are absolute for metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics are these:

1. Reality is objective.
2. One should always follow reason and never think or act contrary to reason. (I take this to be the meaning of "Reason is absolute.")
3. Moral principles are also objective and can be known through reason.
4. Every person should always be selfish.
5. Capitalism is the only just economic system.

Libertarians agree with all of these generally except 4 and maybe 2. Rand's hatred for altruism is bizarre. What she considers altruism is what most libertarians consider to be collectivism but she seems to use altruism and collectivism interchangeably in her writings. Peikoff fleshed it out a bit since he's an actual philosopher unlike Rand but it still doesn't make much sense.

[Exedore]

Rand's hatred for altruism is bizarre. What she considers altruism is what most libertarians consider to be collectivism but she seems to use altruism and collectivism interchangeably in her writings. Peikoff fleshed it out a bit since he's an actual philosopher unlike Rand but it still doesn't make much sense.

If I remember correctly, whether altruism is viewed by Objectivism as good or bad goes to the motivations for it. If you're altruistic because it makes you happy (you gain benefit), then it's okay. If you're doing it because you're guilted into, e.g. your religion says you need to tithe, it's bad. Though it's unclear on altruism at cost to self, since that could also provide benefit. But it's other tenant may say that's not logical.

[Mormolyce]

Abortion is an issue beyond a rights issue, that obfuscates the entire substance of the Pro-Life position, I.E. "Is this a living person and does it not have a right to exist?"

Even if it did that wouldn't mean its rights supercede the mother's, whose body it's in.

- - - Updated - - -

The main 5 tenents of Objectivism that Rand and Peikoff argued are absolute for metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics are these:

1. Reality is objective.
2. One should always follow reason and never think or act contrary to reason. (I take this to be the meaning of "Reason is absolute.")
3. Moral principles are also objective and can be known through reason.
4. Every person should always be selfish.
5. Capitalism is the only just economic system.

Libertarians agree with all of these generally except 4 and maybe 2. Rand's hatred for altruism is bizarre. What she considers altruism is what most libertarians consider to be collectivism but she seems to use altruism and collectivism interchangeably in her writings. Peikoff fleshed it out a bit since he's an actual philosopher unlike Rand but it still doesn't make much sense.

Which is odd because 4) is the only one I would even give the time of day. The rest are philosophically laughable.

[Deletedaccount1]

Which is odd because 4) is the only one I would even give the time of day. The rest are philosophically laughable.

No they are not. Moral realism and non-skeptical realism are positions held by the majority of philosophers at most philosophy departments. Judging from that statement, I seriously doubt you have any kind of background in philosophy.

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

- - - Updated - - -

If I remember correctly, whether altruism is viewed by Objectivism as good or bad goes to the motivations for it. If you're altruistic because it makes you happy (you gain benefit), then it's okay. If you're doing it because you're guilted into, e.g. your religion says you need to tithe, it's bad. Though it's unclear on altruism at cost to self, since that could also provide benefit. But it's other tenant may say that's not logical.

Rand argued the first point you mentioned that altruism is fine if it makes you happy but Peikoff later rejected that in his account of Objectivist ethics.

I really, really like Michael Huemer's critique of Objectivism. He's a professor CU Boulder who wrote it up a few decades ago. That section linked in particular is a good critique of Rand's rejection of altruism.

http://www.owl232.net/rand.htm#5.2

[Deleted]

No they are not. Moral realism and non-skeptical realism are positions held by the majority of philosophers at most philosophy departments. Judging from that statement, I seriously doubt you have any kind of background in philosophy.

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

using appeals to authority and peer agreement to justify your positions doesn't really demonstrate a great philosophical aptitude either

[Deletedaccount1]

using appeals to authority and peer agreement to justify your positions doesn't really demonstrate a great philosophical aptitude either

Those subjects are incredibly in depth, I'm not going to write a 3 paragraph response when I don't have to. Even if you disagree with those positions, they are not "philosophically laughable".

[Mormolyce]

No they are not. Moral realism and non-skeptical realism are positions held by the majority of philosophers at most philosophy departments. Judging from that statement, I seriously doubt you have any kind of background in philosophy.

https://philpapers.org/surveys/results.pl

I like how you say majority of philosophers in philosophy departments like that's supposed to mean something.