Conservativism/liberialism = Socialism

[Gobstomper]

Conservatives and Republicans are not supporters of the free market society. Like many of the Left, Bush and his minions have supported legislation that has had socialist undertones. While one socialist advocates for a "balance budget" through raising taxes (Kerry), the other socialist has placed a tariff on steel and lumber, supported federal funding of school vouchers, gave federal money to churches, substantially increased military spending, increased the military bureaucracy and all other government agencies. Such economic policies (fallacies) have ran the largest deficit in a president's tenure (http://www.ctj.org/html/debt0603.htm).

While those of the left are secular in their beliefs (e.g. favor freedom of association, support gay marriages and abortion) the costs of this secularism is ill economic policy with little regard for property rights. Accordingly Leftist and Democrats have had a tendency to demand higher taxes. However, in its promotion of secularism, the Left is seen as affirming liberty. Conservative leaning Republicans on the other hand, have advocated a limit to liberty. The cost at protecting your property rights is at your liberty. To them you have no choice on whether to marry someone of the same sex or whether you could have an abortion. But when one's right to liberty or property is compromised, government subsumes that one does not have a right to control their own life.

Be it through the abuse of my property or my liberty, each side continues to have a perverted sense of statism that will never end. They are supporters of extensive governance. We are not ends-in-ourselves but the means to the ends of those with power and influence that hijack government. We are to live at their expense. To be demanding of the things that take away my life, liberty and property and make them nil, why should anyone support either political spectrums?

We do not need and should not trust more government. Henry David Thoreau put it best when he said, “Government is best which governs not at all.” Government should not know what is best for me or for others. The real purpose of government is equality before the law. It is to protect ones right to his life, liberty and property; not establish inequality of condition through racist/discriminatory policies like reparations and Affirmative Action.

The law was created to protect individuals, not to make people live at the expense of others. 19th Century Austrian Economist Frederic Bastiat put it wisely, "The state is the great fictitious entity by which everyone seeks to live at the expense of everyone else." That is why we have interest groups, lobbies, political action commities, and businessmen that give money to political campaigns. These various groups want to use the government as a means to collect at your expense. Through government decree they create unlawful laws that only benefit themselves. They create laws whose legitimacy rest only so far that it is law, despite the pretense of such laws being unjust.

[WGD]

Politicians exist to pursue their own interests; it is only in their political competition that leads them to serve the public. I wonder then, if we are to safe guard our freedoms would it be wise to even vote?

Doesn't the first sentence contradict your whole argument?

The second sentence doesn't make any sense. How would you safe guard freedom just by not voting?

[Gobstomper]

There I deleted those sentences. They were rants leading to the idea of "no government" which I never came to.

[Capitalism Forever]

substantially increased military spending

What's wrong with that?

While those of the left are secular in their beliefs (e.g. favor freedom of association

Freedom of association means that you can limit access to your property based on whatever criteria you please. In a free nation, a black restaurant owner would be free to put out a sign saying "We serve no honkies here" and throw out any white people who try to enter his restaurant. (And the same would apply with the colors swapped, of course.) Not that I think that such behavior is rational or moral, but it would be legal.

The idea is that each man should be allowed to determine for himself what kind of customers/employees/employers/etc are best for him. An association would only materialize if BOTH parties agreed to associate.

THIS is freedom of association, and leftists support nothing of the kind. They are hell-bent against it.

It is true that neither all Democrats nor all Republicans are perfect Objectivists. But that is no reason to throw up our hands and walk away from the responsibility of choosing which of them it is better to have at the helm of America.

The ideology of modern "liberalism," which has thoroughly permeated the Democrat party, is diametrically opposed to man's life qua man; it's an embodiment of altruism right on par with communism. A liberal sees America--the nation of individualism--as the greatest evil in the world, "the worst threat to world peace." The goal of a liberal is to destroy America. He doesn't use direct force because that's against his pacifist ethics, but he is eager to enable America's forceful enemies, like they did with the Soviet Union and do now with Islamists.

Many conservatives are also influenced by bad ideologies, but they are not nearly as anti-American as liberals. In fact, patriotism is perhaps the only thing that all conservatives have in common. Other than that, conservatives are a very heterogeneous bunch; there is no single ideology they adhere to. Basically, the essence of modern conservatism is opposition to modern "liberalism" : a conservative is a person who doesn't like liberals. There are several possible reasons for this:

1. He rejects the secularism of liberals.

2. He rejects the socialism of liberals.

3. He rejects the pacifism of liberals.

Any ONE of these reasons is enough to make a person a conservative. Consequently, there are conservatives who:

1. are religious, socialist, and pacifist;

2. are religious and socialist but believe in self-defense;

3. are religious and pacifist but believe in capitalism;

4. are religious, but believe in capitalism and self-defense;

5. are secular and socialist but believe in self-defense;

6. are secular and pacifist but believe in capitalism;

7. are secular and believe in capitalism and self-defense.

And this is just a very rough sketch of the diversity among conservatives. Go to a popular conservative forum, www.freerepublic.com, and see if you can find each of the 7 archetypes I have described above.

To sum up: All liberals are driven by one evil idea: altruism. Most conservatives are driven by varying mixtures of an evil idea (religion, a kind of altruism) and good ideas. Which of them would you like to lead America: those who are hell-bent on destroying her, or those who don't always know how to lead her best?

[argive99]

Excellent post Capitalism Forever. Very nicely laid out.

[Guest jrshep]

All liberals are driven by one evil idea: altruism. Most conservatives are driven by varying mixtures of an evil idea (religion, a kind of altruism) and good ideas. Which of them would you like to lead America: those who are hell-bent on destroying her, or those who don't always know how to lead her best?

Can one truly be said to hold a good idea if one simultaneously holds a fundamental idea that is the antithesis of that "good idea"? Isn't this exactly the reason why the Libertarian Party is not in fact pro-freedom despite all their claims to be pro-freedom?

If I remember correctly, Miss Rand considered the defenders [conservatives] of Capitalism (America) to be a graver threat to freedom than the attackers [liberals]. If I understand correctly, this is why Dr. Peikoff voted for Clinton instead of Bush senior, and I speculate that it is his same reason for his (apparent) intent to vote for Kerry.

So, the question is: Just who is more hell-bent on destroying Capitalism (America), the liberals or the conservatives?

Edited July 25, 2004 by jrshep

[Capitalism Forever]

Can one truly be said to hold a good idea if one simultaneously holds a fundamental idea that is the antithesis of that "good idea"?

Of course not. Most conservatives are nominally religious (or even nominally devout !) but do not actually believe in "turning the other cheek."

In one of her autobiographic books (The Path to Power, if I remember correctly) Margaret Thatcher describes how her pastor explained the morality of a soldier's job during WWII. Its essence was this: you should love your enemies, in that you kill them lovingly.

In a speech to the Church of Scotland General Assembly, Lady Thatcher said:

I believe that by taking together these key elements from the Old and New Testaments, we gain a view of the universe, a proper attitude to work and principles to shape economic and social life. We are told we must work and use our talents to create wealth. 'If a man will not work he shall not eat,' wrote St. Paul to the Thessalonians. Indeed, abundance rather than poverty has a legitimacy which derives from the very nature of Creation.

While Christianity itself is a thoroughly altruistic set of ideas, not all people who call themselves Christians are altruists. If they were, America would be nowhere.

If I remember correctly, Miss Rand considered the defenders [conservatives] of Capitalism (America) to be a graver threat to freedom than the attackers [liberals].

Have you got an exact quote?

[Capitalism Forever]

Excellent post Capitalism Forever. Very nicely laid out.

Thanks!

[stephen_speicher]

Have you got an exact quote?

I happen to have one quote handy so I can save jrshep the trouble. This is from The Letters of Ayn Rand,, p. 309:

"... nor to remind you that the crucial steps on the road to dictatorship, the laws giving government totalitarian powers, were initiated by Republicans -- such as the draft bill, or the attempt to pass a national serfdom act for compulsory labor."

There are several other relevant quotes by Ayn Rand, but I do not want to take the time to look for them right now.

However, note Peikoff's words in OPAR, p. 376:

"Precisely because of their pretense, the conservatives are morally lower than the liberals; they are farther removed from reality -- and, therefore, they are more harmful in practice."

[Guest jrshep]

I happen to have one quote handy so I can save jrshep the trouble.

Thank you Stephen. I am using a Macintosh, and given that the Objectivism research CD is not available for Macs, I never purchased. I'm sure it would be a great help.

Beyond your quotes, I'd also suggest the article, "Conservatism: An Obituary," by Miss Rand. It's in the book, "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal."

In a battle of ideas, opponents to reality and truth don't have a leg to stand on UNLESS their opponents give them one. The liberals struggle for statism doesn't stand a chance in the face of reason, but it does when the conservatives apologize for them, which they must do as they share their altruistic morality.

[argive99]

If I remember correctly, Miss Rand considered the defenders [conservatives] of Capitalism (America) to be a graver threat to freedom than the attackers [liberals]. If I understand correctly, this is why Dr. Peikoff voted for Clinton instead of Bush senior, and I speculate that it is his same reason for his (apparent) intent to vote for Kerry.

So, the question is: Just who is more hell-bent on destroying Capitalism (America), the liberals or the conservatives?

From what I understand, in his DIM hypothesis lectures, Dr. Peikoff argued that religion is the greater threat to mankind in the long run than Marxism. His reasoning was that the Marxist left does not have any principles or ideas to offer, they stand for Disintergration and therefore are ineffectual. However, the religous right has old school religion to offer and this does have a set of principles and rules for living life. Unfortunately, these principles are not for living life on earth, thus they stand for Misintegration which according to Peikoff is the greater threat. I agree.

This follows statements made by AR herself to the extent that the Conservatives were the far greater danger to liberty because they constantly betray the principles of liberty after paying lip service to them whereas the liberals are openly and explicitly hostile to liberty in the first place. She made a statemtent (which unfortunately I do not know the source of) that "if something bad happens, blame the Liberals, if something terrible happens, blame the Conservatives." Again, she was stessing the notion that betraying a value is worse than openly being hostile to it.

As for Capitalism Forever's excellent description of the ideas and realities of the modern left and right, I agree with him totally even though as I have indicated I agree with both Rand and Peikoff that the far greater danger in the long run is with the religous, intrinsicist right. I don't see that as a contradiction. The left, as Capitalism Forever has stated, has rejected every idea necessary for the living of life in a free Republic. They seem to have rejected values themselves. The right still clings to the idea of holding values and defending principles; they just have sworn allegiance to terrible principles. Of the two, they seem to me to be the only ones that are redeemable.

Compare Michael Moore and Ann Coulter. Moore is lost in a sea of irrational hatred. Coulter, although she wears her 'Cross' on her sleeve, reconginizes that a war of ideas is being fought but just doesn't fully understand the sides. IMO, she is the far more valuable person, even though she has embraced fundamental ideas, ie religion, which are inimical to man.

[individualistchick]

Asking which is worse (leftists or conservatives) is similiar to asking a farmer who is responsible for the raid of his henhouse - the fox that ate the chickens or the dog that didn't protect them. Both are obviously at fault.

Collectivists will always attack capitalism since it is the nature of the ideas they hold. But they can accomplish their ends only if there is little or no resistence. There's an equal hazard posed by the false defenders of capitalism. Regardless of name they give themselves, one can't move when bogged with philosophical muck.

[Travis P.]

IMO, she is the far more valuable person, even though she has embraced fundamental ideas, ie religion, which are inimical to man.

I'm confused. You first seemed to be arguing that the religious right was a greater threat. But then you argued that the religious right was more redeemable. If it's the only redeemable movement, shouldn't it be less of a threat? I'm unsure that a person, who claims one of the things that should be part of our war on terrorism is converting the muslims to christianity, is really more valuable.

[pvtmorriscsa]

From what I understand, in his DIM hypothesis lectures, Dr. Peikoff argued that religion is the greater threat to mankind in the long run than Marxism.

Isn't one of the tenets of Marxism to replace religon with itself? Or at least worship of the state?

Been a while since I read up on what the Marxists say about themselves.

[Charles]

Such economic policies (fallacies) have ran the largest deficit in a president's tenure

Many analysts would have us believe this is not a bad thing.

[Charles]

From what I understand, in his DIM hypothesis lectures, Dr. Peikoff argued that religion is the greater threat to mankind in the long run than Marxism. His reasoning was that the Marxist left does not have any principles or ideas to offer, they stand for Disintergration and therefore are ineffectual. However, the religous right has old school religion to offer and this does have a set of principles and rules for living life. Unfortunately, these principles are not for living life on earth, thus they stand for Misintegration which according to Peikoff is the greater threat. I agree.

Indeed: Marxism stands for life on earth but fails because it doesn't know what it means to live. Religion stands for life post death, and succeeds in so much as it knowingly prevents life now.

[Charles]

TRAVIS P: "I'm unsure that a person, who claims one of the things that should be part of our war on terrorism is converting the muslims to christianity, is really more valuable."

I agree; In a battle of ideas an irrational set versus another irrational set, i.e. emotion v.s emotion just heats things up more. A secular, rational argument could be the only succesful way of 'bringing them round'.

Having said that, I expect those playing the xtian card (Bush) are doing it tongue in cheek anyway and trying to kill ideas with guns. Iraq anyone?

pvtmorriscsa: "Isn't one of the tenets of Marxism to replace religon with itself? Or at least worship of the state?"

Ayn Rand states in CTUI, that since God died, as it were, Society has just filled in the blank. So instead of doing things for God, we do them for society.

The thing about Marxists is; thats exactly what they say about themselves too.

[Capitalism Forever]

His reasoning was that the Marxist left does not have any principles or ideas to offer, they stand for Disintergration and therefore are ineffectual.

I'll have to read Dr. Peikoff's exact words, but I don't think it's correct to say that the Left does not have any ideas to offer. The kind of people who blow up SUV dealerships for the "sake of the planet," wring their hands about the "mistreatment" of mass murderers at Guantanamo Bay, or volunteer to be human shields to protect Saddam's regime, are ones who have very strong convictions--and utterly irrational ones. Although I have yet to familiarize with DIM, on the face of it I would say that Leftism is an extreme case of MISintegration.

Now, the politicians of the Left are indeed unprincipled pragmatists (most of them anyway--Patty "Osama Mama" Murrey would be another case of Mad Commie Disease). But pragmatism for a politician means doing whatever it takes to get elected--and if the constituents of a politician have extremely irrational ideas, that means his politics will be influenced by those ideas.

[Capitalism Forever]

You [argive99] first seemed to be arguing that the religious right was a greater threat.  But then you argued that the religious right was more redeemable.

We need to distinguish between the true fanatics (who are definitely irredeemable and a threat equally great to liberals and Islamists) and those who merely embrace religion because they have been taught that atheism is un-American (many of whom may well be redeemable by being taught about Objectivist ideas).

Or, to put it in a nutshell: The Religious Right is not all of the Right.

[Yes]

In fact, patriotism is perhaps the only thing that all conservatives have in common. Other than that, conservatives are a very heterogeneous bunch; there is no single ideology they adhere to. Basically, the essence of modern conservatism is opposition to modern "liberalism" : a conservative is a person who doesn't like liberals.

The essense of Conservatism is the defense of tradition.

Even in the modern Conservative, we see the defense of faith-based values and class distinction.

Conservatives attempt to make themselves attractive by their "defense" of capitalism as a tradiitional American value, and their defense of property rights.

But when it comes to such items as civil rights, and a woman's right to an abortion, the Conservatives show their true colors- that they do not hold individual rights as a tradition.

[Capitalism Forever]

The essense of Conservatism is the defense of tradition.

That's what the word originally used to mean. But then, "liberalism" used to mean laissez-faire. The meanings of both words have changed so much over the past century that they have absolutely nothing to do with their original meanings anymore.

Even in the modern Conservative, we see the defense of faith-based values and class distinction.

Class distinction?? I have never heard an American conservative talk about class distinction.

But when it comes to such items as civil rights

What do you mean by "civil rights" ?

and a woman's right to an abortion, the Conservatives show their true colors- that they do not hold individual rights as a tradition.

As far as abortion is concerned, most conservatives simply think that the human-to-be in the woman's womb is already a human, and therefore has rights. Thus, when they oppose abortion, they think that they are actually defending individual rights.

[Kitty Hawk]

If I remember correctly, Miss Rand considered the defenders [conservatives] of Capitalism (America) to be a graver threat to freedom than the attackers [liberals]. If I understand correctly, this is why Dr. Peikoff voted for Clinton instead of Bush senior, and I speculate that it is his same reason for his (apparent) intent to vote for Kerry.

So, the question is: Just who is more hell-bent on destroying Capitalism (America), the liberals or the conservatives?

And yet, Ayn Rand voted for the conservative Nixon over the liberal McGovern.

Here's what she said:

I am not an admirer of President Nixon, as my readers know.  But I urge every able-minded voter, of any race, creed, color, age, sex, or political party, to vote for Nixon - as a matter of national emergency.  This is no longer an issue of choosing the lesser of two commensurate evils.  The choice is between a flawed candidate representing Western civilization - and the perfect candidate of its primordial enemies.

If there were some campaign organization  called "Anti-Nixonites for Nixon," it would name my position.

The worst thing said about Nixon is that he cannot be trusted, which is true: he cannot be trusted to save this country.  But one thing is certain: McGovern can be trusted to destroy it.

(From "A Preview: Part III," The Ayn Rand Letter, August 28, 1972.)

I view the present election also as a matter of national emergency. We are at war. One candidate will (and already has, however haltingly) defend America unilaterally. The other wants to defer to the United Nations and our so-called allies. One is willing to use preemptive force, the other will respond only after being attacked. Kerry and the liberals are living in a dream world where Islamists are friendly guys who just need to be reasoned with. Bush and Rumsfeld are not so benighted.

[Capitalism Forever]

That's a great quote from Ayn Rand, Kitty Hawk. And I think exactly the same can be said about Bush vs. Kerry!

[Kitty Hawk]

In the context of what is going on in the world today (the Islamist global jihad), and whether to support Republican or Democrats, here is one excellent illustration of the gulf between the two:

The Censorship Whine

Which party do you want defending that flag?

[Kitty Hawk]

Kerry and the liberals are living in a dream world where Islamists are friendly guys who just need to be reasoned with.  Bush and Rumsfeld are not so benighted.

To back up that statement, here's an excerpt from an LA Times article (linked in TIA Daily today):

"We haven't done the work necessary to reach out to other countries," Kerry said. "We haven't done the work necessary with the Muslim world."

The president responded: "That's a misunderstanding of the war on terror. Obviously, we have a clear — a difference of opinion, a clear difference of opinion about the stakes that face America.

"The best way to protect the American homeland is to stay on the offense. It is a ridiculous notion to assert that because the United States is on the offense, more people want to hurt us. We're on the offense because people do want to hurt us."