Rand, reagan, founding fathers ethical conflicts

[stevesmith1547]

Hi.

I have a couple of problems sorting out massive conflicting ethics of a group of people that are usually revered by the same people. Can anyone explain these brief examples of what I mean? Thank you.

If a man proposes to redistribute wealth, he means explicitly and necessarily that the wealth is his to distribute. If he proposes it in the name of the government, then the wealth belongs to the government; if in the name of society, then it belongs to society. No one, to my knowledge, did or could define a difference between that proposal and the basic principle of communism.

- Ayn Rand

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it

But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

- B Franklin

I urge you, as emphatically as I can, not to support the candidacy of Ronald Reagan. I urge you not to work for or advocate his nomination, and not to vote for him. My reasons are as follows: Mr. Reagan is not a champion of capitalism, but a conservative in the worst sense of that word – i.e., an advocate of a mixed economy with government controls slanted in favor of business rather than labor (which, philosophically, is as untenable a position as one could choose – see Fred Kinnan in Atlas Shrugged, pp. 541-2). This description applies in various degrees to most Republican politicians, but most of them preserve some respect for the rights of the individual. Mr. Reagan does not: he opposes the right to abortion. (Ayn Rand Letter IV.2, 1975)

What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don’t think of him – and the more I see, the less I think. I did not vote for him (or for anyone else) and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called “Moral Majority” and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling – apparently with his approval – to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics. (“Sanction of the Victims,” 1981; in The Voice of Reason)

[Reidy]

What these quotes establish is:

1. Franklin and Rand disagree about property rights.

2. Rand did not like Reagan.

Apparently you see a problem in the fact that, in either case, some people admire both. At least three possible explanations come to mind, and more than one might be at work in a particular case:

- The admirers admire the two figures for different reasons, or

- They are intellectually inconsistent, or

- They don't know all the facts, such as the Franklin quote above, and might change their mind if they found out.

(Not an exhaustive list)

Let's suppose that somebody admires Rand for the right reasons. He might also admire Franklin's scientific talent, his role in the American Revolution or what have you, but not his ideas on this subject. This is not an inconsistency, although it would be If somebody claimed to agree with them both about property rights. That would be his problem, not Rand's. (For the record, I don't recall her mentioning Franklin one way or another.)

The same possibilities apply to the Reagan example; any of the three explanations, or maybe others, singly or together, could be at work. I admire him for bringing the USSR down and for steering a large tax cut through congress, but not for what he had to say on abortion.

Rand said repeatedly that thinking is volitional. Being right on one topic does not guarantee that you'll identify why you're right, in principled terms, and apply that to thinking elsewhere. The fact that people can and do hold mutually inconsistent beliefs is not a problem for her theory.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Reidy

[Nicky]

Who are these "same people"?

[dream_weaver]

I found one indirect reference which only acknowledges him via one of his inventions in "The Fountainhead" where Miss Rand prefaced a heater with "Franklin."

Edited August 16, 2012 by dream_weaver

[softwareNerd]

I found one indirect reference which only acknowledges him via one of his inventions in "The Fountainhead" where Miss Rand prefaced a heater with "Franklin."

Google "Franklin Heater" or "Franklin Stove". Edited August 16, 2012 by softwareNerd

[dream_weaver]

Google "Franklin Heater" or "Franklin Stove".

Yes. Those are they.

Edited August 17, 2012 by dream_weaver

[stevesmith1547]

what kind of disingenous nonsense is this? rand and franklin dont have minor differences here, they have fundamental diametrically opposed ethics. Rand clearly states that the ethics bejamin franklin proclaims are uncontested communism, this is perfectly clear. This is not a minor difference on one singular issue. You cannot possibly simultaneously support two such fundamentally different opposing ethics without being guilty of hypocritical and inconsistent double standards. What franklin says there is way beyond anything obama has ever said. This is is as impossible and incompatible as supporting Limbaugh and Mahers views at the same time - worse than that, even, So, who you gonna choose: rand or the First American?

Edited August 17, 2012 by stevesmith1547

[softwareNerd]

what kind of disingenous nonsense is this? rand and franklin dont have minor differences here, they have fundamental diametrically opposed ethics.

And, if so, what of it? The point of this thread is not clear? Is it to discuss whether the founders were commies?

[Nicky]

Let me make it easy for you, Steve. Einstein was openly a Socialist. There's no need to misinterpret any of his quotes to paint him as one, the way you're doing with Franklin.

And yet, I admire him, and I admire Ayn Rand too. Now it's your turn to explain what the problem is with that.

[oso]

what kind of disingenous nonsense is this? rand and franklin dont have minor differences here, they have fundamental diametrically opposed ethics. Rand clearly states that the ethics bejamin franklin proclaims are uncontested communism, this is perfectly clear. This is not a minor difference on one singular issue. You cannot possibly simultaneously support two such fundamentally different opposing ethics without being guilty of hypocritical and inconsistent double standards. What franklin says there is way beyond anything obama has ever said. This is is as impossible and incompatible as supporting Limbaugh and Mahers views at the same time - worse than that, even, So, who you gonna choose: rand or the First American?

This has been adressed. Just because you admire someone, doens't mean you admire their entirety.

[stevesmith1547]

my issue is the teabagger types I regularly see proclaiming their semi-religious love for Rand, Reagan, Founding Fathers (sacrilegious to ever criticize any of these) not to mention other equally and utterly incompatible ideals, such as libertarianism, which rand couldnt stand either, blustering nationalism, which she couldnt stand either and so on. The rampant ignorance and incompatible reality of these double standards is what confounds me. But perhaps the teabagging nonsense is not as prominent at this site?

"This has been adressed. Just because you admire someone, doens't mean you admire their entirety. "

^this has been addressed. You cannot possibly reconcile Rands very basic, fundamental ethic concerning wealth in society with franklins complete opposite. He is a communist, to her. This is not just a minor difference. This is a cornerstone of her entire philosophy, of everything she devoted her life to. At the very least, franklins views should prompt americans to thoroughly revise the current dialogue in US politics concerning the evils of socialism and their simultaneous love of franklin

Edited August 17, 2012 by stevesmith1547

[Nicky]

Again: that Franklin quote, while not exactly well put, isn't advocacy for socialism. What the founders called "welfare" isn't the same welfare people get in the mail these days. Maybe that's why you think he is calling for the government to redistribute wealth, centrally plan the economy, or any such nonsense.

In fact, a lot of that quote is true, the only questionable part is the notion that because most property is the result of societal convention (which it is), it is therefor not private property, but the public's to dispose of. That isn't true, that's a rationalization for his ultimate conclusion (that the government has the right to tax). But nowhere does Franklin suggest that property is the public's to redistribute, all he says is that it is that individuals have an obligation to contribute to societal welfare (again, not the welfare of the poor, society's welfare: which in those days was understood to be national defense and law enforcement, not wealth redistribution and the running of the economy).

That is not socialism. In fact, Franklin was very much an individualist, and an advocate for limited government. The disagreement between Rand and Franklin isn't capitalism vs. socialism, it's voluntary support for the government vs. governmental power to tax (and initiate force to achieve it's proper role, in general).

[stevesmith1547]

"Again: that Franklin quote, while not exactly well put, isn't advocacy for socialism. "

how would you term a philosophy that states that anything beyond a temporary home, a bow, his clothing and other little Acquisitions belongs to the public and anyone who doesnt agree to that should go live among savages because he is not fit for civil society? Because, lets be honest here, if Obama should say such a thing today, the accusations of communism would never end

"But nowhere does Franklin suggest that property is the public's to redistribute,"

Huh???

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it

But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition.

Edited August 17, 2012 by stevesmith1547

[Nicky]

how would you term a philosophy that states that anything beyond a temporary home, a bow, his clothing and other little Acquisitions belongs to the public and anyone who doesnt agree to that should go live among savages because he is not fit for civil society?

I'd term it as "Steve Smith's blatant re-imagining of something Ben Franklin never meant to suggest".

[stevesmith1547]

he never meant to suggest what he blatantly stated huh? Yeah, I thought I'd find the same anti-intellectual dishonesty here as one finds among the teabaggers

Edited August 17, 2012 by stevesmith1547

[stevesmith1547]

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it

But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

==

anything beyond a temporary home, a bow, his clothing and other little Acquisitions belongs to the public and anyone who doesnt agree to that should go live among savages because he is not fit for civil society.

^that is a perfectly honest and correct paraphrase. Its a shame you dont have the moral fibre to answer my question

Edited August 17, 2012 by stevesmith1547

[Nicky]

Grow up, get back to me when you do.

Franklin wrote:

"society by its laws may dispose of it, whenever public welfare demands it", with public welfare being a very specific and very limited thing that would require a very limited amount of the average citizen's property.

You left that part out, and are instead pretending that he said that society may dispose of any property for any reason, the way the socialists are doing it today.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Nicky

[Ninth Doctor]

he never meant to suggest what he blatantly stated huh? Yeah, I thought I'd find the same anti-intellectual dishonesty here as one finds among the teabaggers

[Nicky]

MOds should just close registration for three months before and after the Pres. elections. Save us from a lot of talking point related discussions.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Nicky

[stevesmith1547]

^thats a very cowardly surrender. Its a shame you cant answer a relevant political question instead. Even more cowardly that a randian wishes my voice was silenced.

Edited August 17, 2012 by stevesmith1547

[stevesmith1547]

"society by its laws may dispose of it, whenever public welfare demands it", with public welfare being a very specific and very limited thing that would require a very limited amount of the average citizen's property.

You left that part out, and are instead pretending that he said that society may dispose of any property for any reason, the way the socialists are doing it today.

Lets have a look at that very limited amount of property:

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it

But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.

The truth is, quite plainly, that youre the one pretending. anything beyond a temporary home, a bow, his clothing and other little Acquisitions is the property of the public and anyone who doesnt agree to that should go live among savages because he is not fit for civil society.

Edited August 17, 2012 by stevesmith1547

[Ninth Doctor]

I don’t think it would take much time in the quote mines to find Founding Fathers endorsing slavery, why don’t we debate that instead? This amounts to argument from authority, why not build a case for or against property rights, or limits thereto, and defend it yourself? At least that way we’re not left wondering what the historical context of a statement was, from someone long dead. In this case, if you Google it, you’ll find that this Franklin quote comes from a letter to Robert Morris. I assume this is the Robert Morris who financed the Revolutionary War, and who afterwards couldn’t get repaid because the Federal Government under the Articles of Confederation had no taxing power. There’s a Rousseauian flavor to it that makes me wonder if Franklin, then residing in France (1883), was going through a phase and maybe this doesn’t jibe with the rest of his writings. If someone dug out another quote from Franklin that contradicts this, would that settle it and redeem property rights for all time? What is this, a New Testament Epistle that was inspired by God and therefore has to be reconciled with the Gospels and the book of Revelation?

There’s plenty more to say about this, but I’m afraid the OP has shown himself to be insufferably rude, so who’s going to bother? Besides Reidy covered it well enough.

[Ninth Doctor]

MOds should just close registration for three months before and after the Pres. elections. Save us from a lot of talking point related discussions.

Thank goodness you're not in charge of the guest list!

[Spiral Architect]

Reidy did nail this one down already - You can like people for different values they bring to the table. If I disliked every musician I disagreed with my music collection would by several thousand albums short. As for quote mining, if your going to get up on a soap box and make a point on a philosophy forum you should at least understand the information and people in the context they were written. In the end it is the same thing really, liking people for their values and understanding quotes for when they were said, context is a bitch since it requires critical evaluation on your part up front.

[Ninth Doctor]

Franklin, then residing in France (1883),

BUTTERFINGERS!!

Make that 1783. How embarrassing.

http://press-pubs.uc.../v1ch16s12.html

By 1883 he was, of course, residing in Philadelphia.

Edited August 17, 2012 by Ninth Doctor