The Influence of Ayn Rand on American Society...
23 Dec 2014, 5:52 pm
luan78zao wrote:
The_Walrus wrote:
You "sign" a "social contract" when you agree to live in your country. The "terms and conditions" of being allowed to live in, presumably, America, include paying income tax. If you don't like it, you are free to move to, say, Bermuda, and renounce your citizenship.
That assumes that the government actually owns all the land and everything on it, and citizens are merely permitted to reside, as tenants, so long as they obey the landlord's arbitrary rules.
(Of course, this is called feudalism.) Perhaps that makes sense in the UK. It is absolutely not the philosophy expressed in the American founding documents.
No, it doesn't assume that.
Have you ever read the US declaration of independence?
Quote:
We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
If the government is to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, it needs to be funded. We, as peoples, have decided that governments work best as representative democracies (with or without an elected head of state). We have consistently decided to elect representatives who feel that taxation is the best way to fund governments. Consequently, we have consented to taxation.
You seem to have this strange idea that the government is some kind of independent taskmaster, answerable to no one, rather than a democratically elected body that requires the consent of the governed. We have agreed to be taxed so that the government can function.
Again, you have four options: accept the decision of the electorate, try and change the decision through the system, leave and live in another system that better suits your tastes, or overthrow the system. Overthrowing could either see yourself and like minded individuals somehow seceding from your country, or you could appoint yourself as an undemocratic leader so the consent of the governed no longer matters. If you feel that democracy always results in the tyranny of the majority, then only one of those systems is going to work for you, as of course democratic assertion of your ideals would be tyranny...
23 Dec 2014, 6:22 pm
The_Walrus wrote:
If the government is to secure Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness, it needs to be funded. We, as peoples, have decided that governments work best as representative democracies (with or without an elected head of state). We have consistently decided to elect representatives who feel that taxation is the best way to fund governments. Consequently, we have consented to taxation.
Thank you for supporting my position. Since not all of the people consent to taxation, the government's claimed power to tax is unjust and invalid.
One word you won't find in the Constitution: "democracy." The Founders hated the idea that a majority could use the apparatus of the State to force its will on a minority.
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand
24 Dec 2014, 9:57 am
The_Walrus wrote:
And murderers don't consent to being imprisoned, yet I don't see you advocating against prison for murderers?
Murderers choose to violate the rights of others. This is an action which has logical consequences. People do have the right to defend themselves.
So, you see all citizens as criminals?
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand
07 Jan 2015, 2:06 am
Are you an American male who reached the age of 18 after 1973, and you were never drafted into the military? You have the influence of Ayn Rand to thank.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 25148.html
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
07 Jan 2015, 2:31 am
luan78zao wrote:
Are you an American male who reached the age of 18 after 1973, and you were never drafted into the military? You have the influence of Ayn Rand to thank.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 25148.html
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... 25148.html
Just because Martin Anderson, who had helped Nixon come up with ending the draft, had been a disciple of Ayn Rand hardly means Rand's influence had led to it. As a matter of fact, we might have had universal healthcare in America had Watergate not derailed Nixon's Presidency, so I'm more likely going to credit that to the occasional spark of humanity in Nixon's soul than I would that heartless harpy.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
10 Jan 2015, 12:01 am
Kraichgauer wrote:
Just because Martin Anderson, who had helped Nixon come up with ending the draft, had been a disciple of Ayn Rand hardly means Rand's influence had led to it.
You crack me up. Rand Derangement Syndrome at its most predictable.
Suppose there was a senior government advisor who was not only a Roman Catholic himself, he had studied for years under a Catholic leader known for his intransigent opposition to abortion. Suppose that this advisor was named as the prime mover behind some new legislation restricting access to, yep, abortion. Would you then be able to discern a Roman Catholic influence on government, or would you declare it to be unconnected, random, out of the blue?
Quote:
As a matter of fact, we might have had universal healthcare in America had Watergate not derailed Nixon's Presidency, so I'm more likely going to credit that to the occasional spark of humanity in Nixon's soul than I would that heartless harpy.
The existence of humanity in Nixon's soul has not been proven. Not being a man of high principles, he was probably motivated by narrow political goals (trying to woo the youth vote). But the person who pitched the idea to him did have principles: Objectivist principles. I guess it would cause you physical pain to acknowledge that?
Ayn Rand stood against corporatism, subsidies, bailouts, protective tariffs, regulations intended to stifle competition, corporate welfare of any kind. She defended equal rights of women and every kind of minority. She called for the abolition of all "sodomy laws" which criminalized homosexuality and other consensual adult behavior. (How many other public figures were taking this stand in the '60s?) She opposed the Vietnam War, as a senseless waste of lives and resources. And yes, she was an outspoken opponent of the military draft, at a time when that position was associated chiefly with the sort of people no GOP politician would give the time of day.
Ayn Rand wrote:
Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.
If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?
If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?
None of these was a random opinion. They all follow logically from the Objectivist tenet that individual rights are the foundation of a civilized society.
No wonder you hate Ayn Rand so much that you feel compelled to snarl incoherent insults at the very mention of her name.
_________________
"We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission – which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force." – Ayn Rand
Kraichgauer
Veteran
Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.
10 Jan 2015, 12:31 am
luan78zao wrote:
Kraichgauer wrote:
Just because Martin Anderson, who had helped Nixon come up with ending the draft, had been a disciple of Ayn Rand hardly means Rand's influence had led to it.
You crack me up. Rand Derangement Syndrome at its most predictable.
Suppose there was a senior government advisor who was not only a Roman Catholic himself, he had studied for years under a Catholic leader known for his intransigent opposition to abortion. Suppose that this advisor was named as the prime mover behind some new legislation restricting access to, yep, abortion. Would you then be able to discern a Roman Catholic influence on government, or would you declare it to be unconnected, random, out of the blue?
Quote:
As a matter of fact, we might have had universal healthcare in America had Watergate not derailed Nixon's Presidency, so I'm more likely going to credit that to the occasional spark of humanity in Nixon's soul than I would that heartless harpy.
The existence of humanity in Nixon's soul has not been proven. Not being a man of high principles, he was probably motivated by narrow political goals (trying to woo the youth vote). But the person who pitched the idea to him did have principles: Objectivist principles. I guess it would cause you physical pain to acknowledge that?
Ayn Rand stood against corporatism, subsidies, bailouts, protective tariffs, regulations intended to stifle competition, corporate welfare of any kind. She defended equal rights of women and every kind of minority. She called for the abolition of all "sodomy laws" which criminalized homosexuality and other consensual adult behavior. (How many other public figures were taking this stand in the '60s?) She opposed the Vietnam War, as a senseless waste of lives and resources. And yes, she was an outspoken opponent of the military draft, at a time when that position was associated chiefly with the sort of people no GOP politician would give the time of day.
Ayn Rand wrote:
Of all the statist violations of individual rights in a mixed economy, the military draft is the worst. It is an abrogation of rights. It negates man’s fundamental right—the right to life—and establishes the fundamental principle of statism: that a man’s life belongs to the state, and the state may claim it by compelling him to sacrifice it in battle. Once that principle is accepted, the rest is only a matter of time.
If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?
If the state may force a man to risk death or hideous maiming and crippling, in a war declared at the state’s discretion, for a cause he may neither approve of nor even understand, if his consent is not required to send him into unspeakable martyrdom—then, in principle, all rights are negated in that state, and its government is not man’s protector any longer. What else is there left to protect?
None of these was a random opinion. They all follow logically from the Objectivist tenet that individual rights are the foundation of a civilized society.
No wonder you hate Ayn Rand so much that you feel compelled to snarl incoherent insults at the very mention of her name.
Okay, Nixon had ended the draft to court the youth vote. Happy? I'm still not going to give her minion credit.
As for Rand's support for ending sodomy laws and ending the Vietnam War - good for her. Shows you a stopped clock is right twice a day.
_________________
-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer
| Similar Topics | |
|---|---|
| I am a bad influence. |
24 Feb 2024, 5:57 pm |
| The influence of the Internet on your life |
09 Apr 2024, 9:32 pm |
| Anthropologist explains how work has shaped society |
29 Jan 2024, 6:41 pm |
| MT Greene: Rapper Wannabe on American Idol in '02? |
10 Feb 2024, 11:21 am |
