Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Skylark1

Regulars
  • Posts

    39
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Skylark1 got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Objectivism is Rational Centrism   
    In a previous thread I was offered two mentally-stimulating articles to read in order to provide the Objectivist context for political discussion:
    https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2016/07/liberal-right-vs-regressive-left-and-religious-right/
    https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/
    While I have mentally recorded those articles as defining the Objectivist context for discussion, I thought I should add that I consider it to be wrong.
    We know from history that the Left/Right distinction had its beginning in the French parliament of 1789. Those who favored maintaining France as a kingdom were seated on the right side of the room; those who favored removing the king by means of revolution were seated on the left side.
    The basics of right-wing and left-wing politics have made their way into  21st-century America as conservatives and liberals, respectively. Objectivism, which is a relative new-comer, wishes to revive the laissez-faire ideals of the 19th century (which lasted for about 15 years and ended with the publication of the Communist Manifesto). There are many ideological ways to divide right from left, e.g., nationalist vs. one-world socialist. According to late 1960s vernacular, the distinction was between "pigs" and "hippies." In reality, it was a distinction between self-control and extremes of hedonistic behavior. In the words of Timothy Leary, "Turn on, tune in, drop out". Another way of defining the difference is with the words "status quo" versus "change" (whatever is entailed by the word "change," but it usually entails some kind of revolutionary rhetoric).
    Objectivism redefines this distinction in terms of property rights.  Property rights have long been considered the domain of the political right, while the political left wants to do away with property rights in favor of a more communal idea concerning the individual. The political right maintains a concern with individual rights - although not always strictly and with much hemming and hawing on where to draw the boundaries. The political left considers individual rights to be an outright hindrance to its ends.
    Ayn Rand placed no such right-wing boundaries on human rights. Her goals and ideals are revolutionary, and so there remains an element of European radicalism, i.e., an element of revolutionary expression exists in her philosophy. But it favors removing the faith-bound orientation of the right-wing and replacing it with a rational basis. While both sides are grounded in variations on faith, whether religious or mystical (right and left, respectively), they are self-defeating principles which relegate the purpose of serving individual happiness to a more-or-less indirect goal, if that. If not a goal on Earth, then happiness (or really, bliss) is at least a goal in Heaven for those on the right.
    So my take on the political spectrum is at least traditional, and is held by pretty much everybody except Objectivists. The idea that Objectivism is right-wing while all statist approach are left-wing seems to place Objectivism up on a very high perch from which it looks down on various forms of statists fighting toward goals that really aren't in opposition at all because they place the individual in the awkward position of being a slave to the State versus slave to God or some other deity. Either way, the individual is considered to be of relative unimportance.
    I believe that placing Objectivism in the center, the rational center, that is, at least maintains the right- and left-wing distinction where Objectivism takes whatever is potentially rational on both sides and uses it for its own rational ends.
     
     
     
     
     
×
×
  • Create New...