"The Betrayal of Ayn Rand"

[Space Patroller]

I completely agree with Dr. Peikoff that a religious stance as the supposed basis for rights is incompatible with capitalism and that the ideology of religion is far more dangerous than socialism. But, if you can be religious and still fight for individual rights, then do so. The contradiction is yours, not ours.

I have 2 problems with Peikoff's asscessment:

1. There is no basic discontinuity between religion and socialism or, more correctly, welfare statism. ONe is the fullfillment of the other. Look at the structure of religios utopianism and utpias. Therefore one cannot be worse than the other since they are not in opposition. It can only be that a situation of one can be worse than that of the other.

2. Religion is not monolithic. The mainlin denominations are leftists along with the Nihilists which includes a large and maybe predominant number of atheists. The main body that is against socialism is relgious. So either way you are siding with a religious faction So religion cannot be wrose than socialism.

Now where would he be if it ws the case that the socialism divide was between religionists being against it and Nihilists being for it? Remember, Rand ID'ed religion as a primitive form of philosophy(RM). Nihilists are anti-philosophy For us, it's all about philospphy. To say then that religion is worse than socialism would be to say that primiative, limited philosophy is worse than anti-philosophy. This would be in contradiction to Rand's statement that "A man with principles, even the wrong ones, is better than a man with none". Religion by holding to the existence and supremecy of God at least holds to the a priori existence of the external world. The Nihilist is egocentric which is the psychological aspect of the doctrine of the Primacy of Consciousness. Nasty choice, that.

Beyond all of this. The "Progressive" movement, which liberalism sprang from and to which is is retrurning at lightspeed, according to a number of sources; notably the 1970's PBS seriese THE SECOND HUNDRED YEARS, was founded by about equal nulmbers of clergy, intellectuals and politicians. Can you see what each had to gain? The series did not mention that liberalism was returning to its roots, which migration had just begun

Edited June 23, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I have 2 problems with Peikoff's assessment:

Let me rephrase what I said. In terms of political states, theocracy is worse than socialism. While I agree that nihilism is worse than religion, Dr. Peikoff explained in his DIM Hypothesis Course why it is that nihilism must be short-range and cannot establish a state or a government, primarily because it is destructive rather than creative. (I was going to provide a link to the on-line DIM Course, but I can't locate it, so I don't if it is still available.)

The socialism we are moving towards is a European type of socialism, which definitely makes living qua man difficult; but recall that theocracy was the master of the Dark Ages. There is no appeal on earth for being ruled by heaven, and it took the genius of Thomas Aquinas and the rebirth of Aristotle to break their thousand year hold. Socialism inherently has the same basic flaw as communism -- a promise of a better life on earth, that becomes clear it is not true after a few generations, and all one needs is a better view of what is possible on earth and how government prevents that to break its hold. Notice how a lot of people are alarmed that DC will be heading the manufacturing of cars with Government Motors. One doesn't have that type of concern under theocracy.

While socialism and theocracy are both forms of Statism, theocracy is far worse -- especially if there is a return to the religious view of Augustine that science is the whore of the eyes. A truly religious stance aims to destroy man's life on earth qua rational being; socialism just wants to throttle him under the state. Both lead to destruction of the rational and independent mind, but theocracy aims for that as an ideal.

In short, modern American style religion is still tempered by Thomas Aquinas' influence, which is why they are not calling directly for, say, and Iranian style theocracy. But once they get power, they will force their religious anti-man morality onto all of us.

[Space Patroller]

I would think to be fully consistent with itself. theocracy would be socialistic or welfare state of some kind which is shy the mainline churches are headed there and why I don't see religion as "worse" in the sense of stroger but antagonistic to socialism, but rather the implimentation of "Give us this day our daily bread", but "worse" in the sense of , as the Portuguese say "Mais e mais forte" More and more strong. There were more religious socialist entities than atheistic ones.

I also wonder if socialism or whatever hasn't lsot is appeal to a better life for man and replace it with the garden snake or boll weevil to which to sacrifice man, which puts it in a kind of man-hating mode that makes it a kind of theocracy. Don't forget the eco's hate science as much as the Augustinians; look at their history. At least the old time theocrat wants to sacrifice human ambition for the sake of what they believe to be a higher being: But to sacrifice humnaity to the housefly?

I tend to think that what we are headed for is not European style socialism but something else that came out of Europe the economics of which was government rule over nominally private propety which was the economics of Naziism, which makes Peikoff a prophet.

I don't really know if we're in any significant danger of a theocracy. They hate each other, too. Look at the way the Evenagelicals trashed Romney and the way they hate the Catholics. Besides, the mainstream churches would come to power under a leftist culture anyway and may work from there. but can you picture the Episcopalians with the gumption to organize a theocracy? "There are no atheists in foxholes" is being replaced by "There are no Episcopalians if foxholes. The fundies also hated the Freemasons as some part of a global conspiracy so getting the religious together is like herding catsl

The danger I see is the Nihilist left and religious left which is the biggest secret alliance that you never heard of. Some 10 years ago Rush Limbaugh read a piece about the Democratic Party on a campaing to "Take back God". I think we ought to encurage and support that. It wouold bring the real nature of religion out in the open

Some time back I heard. well...

http://cockpit.spacepatrol.us/08jun.html

Hears a man who could be a theocrat.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Space Patroller

[whYNOT]

It seems to me that many people choose to avoid alliances with people they disagree with on the fundamental issue of God/religion out of some concern that the religious believer will seek to violate the rights of the atheist. Perhaps a pledge of sorts is in order for the religious believer who wishes to make common cause with objectivists. Galt's pledge reads as follows: I swear by my life and my love of it that I will not live for the sake of another man nor ask another man to live for mine.

Can we come up with something along those lines that a relgious believer should pledge before he will be accepted as a legitimate ally of objectivists?

Craig, Were you thinking along the lines of this:

"I swear by my God and my love of Him, that I will Honor and Esteem the Objectivists' dedication and commitment to Egoism and Reason ".

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Yes, Dr. Peikoff's Ominous Parallels still holds true, but what he is saying more recently is for that to happen, some sort of ideology must be in place, and he doesn't see socialism as having an ideology behind it in its current form. In other words, the ideal of socialism / communism has run out of steam, and the only passionate ideology on the horizon is a religious view. Environmentalism has an ideological steam behind it, but the average American will not currently give up creature comforts for the sake of the house fly, as you put it; but they might be taught to do things for the sake of God again. So, the real dangerous amalgamation is between the environmentalist Left and the religious Right -- preserving the house fly for the sake of God's Will. We are a ways away from this, as right now the religious Right cannot stand the environmentalist Left, especially since the Left has tended to be anti-religious in it own way. However, if you watched the new Battlestar Galactica, that type of amalgamation is already there in art.

"Danger, Will Robinson -- Danger!" to come back atcha

[Space Patroller]

Craig, Were you thinking along the lines of this:

"I swear by my God and my love of Him, that I will Honor and Esteem the Objectivists' dedication and commitment to Egoism and Reason ".

Ooo, that was cold

Not to mention being totally atheistic.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Space Patroller]

Yes, Dr. Peikoff's Ominous Parallels still holds true, but what he is saying more recently is for that to happen, some sort of ideology must be in place, and he doesn't see socialism as having an ideology behind it in its current form. In other words, the ideal of socialism / communism has run out of steam, and the only passionate ideology on the horizon is a religious view.

Which is totally compatible with socialism or some form of welfare statism

Environmentalism has an ideological steam behind it, but the average American will not currently give up creature comforts for the sake of the house fly, as you put it;

I have the utmost conficence in the public school system.

but they might be taught to do things for the sake of God again. So, the real dangerous amalgamation is between the environmentalist Left and the religious Right -- preserving the house fly for the sake of God's Will. We are a ways away from this, as right now the religious Right cannot stand the environmentalist Left, especially since the Left has tended to be anti-religious in it own way. However, if you watched the new Battlestar Galactica, that type of amalgamation is already there in art.

Did you open the link and read the article therein?

"Danger, Will Robinson -- Danger!" to come back atcha

Damn straight!

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Did you open the link and read the article therein?

I did now.

Look, I have no doubt that the religious Right is not really for full capitalism -- never said they were; and one thing we need is to get the religious Right out of the political spectrum. There is a sense in which the Right has been more for individualism, but their current acceptance of religion leads them to not uphold individual rights -- to be against unthrottled greed, as it where, which is anti-man. Objectivism basically says that our current political choices (of environmentalist / socialist Left or religious Right) is a choice of the lesser of two evils -- not the choice of good versus evil. Now, if the religionists can take the stance of some of the Founders who were religious but considered individual freedoms to be sacrosanct, then we can work with them; but they haven't shown that yet. That's why I added a link to Miss Rand's article, Man's Rights. If they can agree with that, then welcome aboard; otherwise, they are the ideological enemy.

[whYNOT]

Ooo, that was cold

Well, no, it wasn't meant to be either cold, or cutting. Sorry it looked that way.

Craig made, I thought a reasonable follow-up projection onto the original hypothesis of alliances, and I made the next projection onto that. [i thought].

It also wasn't meant to be satirical - despite it being based on Galt's Oath.

At the most, perhaps it was a little dry; and that's my Brit Dad's fault, not mine

[Space Patroller]

Well, no, it wasn't meant to be either cold, or cutting. Sorry it looked that way.

Craig made, I thought a reasonable follow-up projection onto the original hypothesis of alliances, and I made the next projection onto that. [i thought].

It also wasn't meant to be satirical - despite it being based on Galt's Oath.

At the most, perhaps it was a little dry; and that's my Brit Dad's fault, not mine

I was being funny, "toungue in cheek". It was actually right to the point

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Craig, Were you thinking along the lines of this:

"I swear by my God and my love of Him, that I will Honor and Esteem the Objectivists' dedication and commitment to Egoism and Reason ".

I think this is a reasonable request, if the religionists want to join us in our campaign for individual rights. I didn't think it was satirical or cold. It rather reminded me of Thomas Jefferson's quote on the Jefferson Memorial:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man."

Taken from a website dedicated to showing that Jefferson was not a Christian.

[Space Patroller]

I think this is a reasonable request, if the religionists want to join us in our campaign for individual rights. I didn't think it was satirical or cold. It rather reminded me of Thomas Jefferson's quote on the Jefferson Memorial:

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every from of tyranny over the mind of man."

Taken from a website dedicated to showing that Jefferson was not a Christian.

The big question is "what does individual rights mean?" This is based on two things.

the Christian looks at individual rights as "granted by God" and there's the old saw. "The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away" We look at individual rights as an essential element for human life. We don't "grant" or believe in, individtual rights. we recognize them.

Given that, the Christian idea of individual rights cannot be the same as ours so the term means two different things between us. Each of us looks at the ideas of the other and says "How is that individual rights?" For example. the Christian sees nothing wrong with thoroughly idcotrination an 8 year old into his belief system. I am appolled at the indoctrination of an 8 year old into ANY philosophical system: and I mean ANY! Yet the Christian does not do what he does out of evil but in an attempt to equip the child with the tools to learn right and wrong and that is how he was so equipped, it's a mistake, not evil unless it is carried out to an absurd degree.

This is why I say it is an alliance, not a love-fest. Ultimately, we will have to go after each other and they know it subconsciously. One can but hope that this can be settled non-violently. We have the advantage; our way works whether or not there is a God and theirs does not. If there is no God, their system collapses into nihilism.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Space Patroller

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I think at best the relationship of a die-hard Christian and an Objectivist regarding the issue of individual rights will be an ad hoc one. That is, the Christian may want his freedom to practice his religion and under capitalism this will be one of his rights, but as I have pointed out earlier, the Christian cannot conceive of why someone ought to be free to be immoral according to his standards. An Objectivist does not seek to impose a moral code by force of law, whereas a theocrat does want that. A proper political system -- i.e. capitalism with full recognition of individual rights -- is not imposing a morality, but rather setting up the conditions under which a man can be moral: morality ends where a gun begins. In other words, under capitalism there is no requirement that a man be rational or he will be thrown in jail; so long as he abstains from the initiation of force, he is free to live as he sees fit. The primary benefit under capitalism is that a rational man is free to be rational, though he cannot be forced to be rational; and he cannot be forced to follow some ethical code that is not of his choice. One could say that a fringe benefit of capitalism is that the religious can be religious, but capitalism is geared towards the rational man, not the irrational man, and all religions are irrational.

Edited July 13, 2009 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[whYNOT]

"One could say that a fringe benefit of Capitalism is that the religious can be religious...... (but)....all religions are irrational." T.M.M.

Exactly, on both counts. Which is why, I reckon, we got that appeal from the Mormon Church, in the first place. They recognise that Objectivism/Capitalism presents their best chance of freedom from interference from the State. Quite ironical.

My largest concern - almost an obsession - has been about Freedom. I realise that this comes in two parts which do overlap : Freedom from the State, and freedom from other people.

I believe that I can handle my 'neighbour', if it comes to that; but State interference has always been my greatest fear. For this reason, I'm puzzled by the stance of the A.R.I., in its decision to back a statist horse, rather than the religious, right-wing one - as the lesser of two evils, in the last election.

Not an easy decision, admittedly; ( reminds me of that old American unionist song - "One fist of iron, and the other of steel, If the right one don't get you, the left one will.")