It is my belief that as human individuals, we are born into this world with natural rights that are inviolate; Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Property or Happiness which has been expressed eloquently by Thomas Jefferson. Anything less puts us in the status of slaves, indentured servants and farm animals. My impetus for this blog is to serve as the clarion call to others, like minded or not, that our freedom is at stake in a world of increasing collectivism.
The Tea Party Movement is a part of the American tradition. It is what the elite few who want to rule the many, as the current Democrat Party and many old-line Republicans, would oppose. It is something I believe Ayn Rand would support. It comes from a unique tradition of local home rule, where government was no further from the governed than one day’s horseback ride, and individual interests were more important than are community interests. That led to the more involved citizen, the town hall meetings and even the vigilante movement. From the early days, the Tea Party Movement is but an extension of American traditions and perfectly correct. Surely, the Old World, such as England and France, would never permit such a thing, as their traditions were inclined to be bloody conflicts, not peaceful demonstrations. The differences are cited in the Changing Face of Democrats, Our Libertarian Roots Lost, on Amazon and claysamerica.com.
Rand was sort of a goofball, but she was mostly right about the nature of groups versus the nature of individuals. Personally, I believe Milton Friedman was a much better standard bearer in the cause of liberty than was Ayn Rand. She was simply a repugnant person.
@Clay: The Tea Party movement and Objectivism, specifically Ayn Ran and the book Atlas Shrugged, are different things. I am sure there are some Tea Party people that subscribe to Objectivism and more that would agree with most of it, but I would not for a minute consider the two interchangeable.
You have to consider the genesis of the two. The Tea Party movement is a response to the "disenfranchisement' of a spectrum of people that would normally be associated with the republican party and the libertarian movement. This disenfranchisement didn't start with Obama, but with the downward trend of the GOP in the last 10-12 years for sure. As the dems moved left, the GOP decided to make it's tent bigger and took up that vacuum by moving further left. Remember, nature abhors a vacuum. The problem is, if you expend the platform to include everyone and everything, you end up standing for nothing. Basically, the GOP lost it's soul, and winning was more important than substance and values. In the end they ended up giving it away to the dems, which in retrospect, wasn't the worst thing to happen.
So, we were left with a sizable group of people that are pissed off with how they are being represented by the party they would normally associate themselves with. The coagulation of these people was crystalized by the election of Obama, and the fabian socialist agenda he and his cohorts in the congress. In a sense, they did us a favor by showing their true colors. As chuck would say, how they are the scum of the earth.
Would Ayn Rand support the Tea Party? I think you would be surprised by her response. I would ask you a question that may lead to your own conclusion: Is the Tea Party movement a rational one or not?
@Chuck: Rand was a peculiar character. The best objective analysis you can read on Objectivism would be here: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html
She was dogmatic, unforgiving, and set a standard which is as difficult to attain as is the standard set by many christian faiths. Just my opinion. In either case, you may be dooming your self to failure and feeling worse off. Just my opinion. Rand also was a little morally loose and she never had kids. I think if she did, it would have tempered her a bit. I also disagree with her on the life issue. I am pro-life, she was not. Considering she came from communist russia, I would have hoped she wouldn't have been such a materialist, but such isn't the case. A disappointment of sorts.On the other hand, she was reviled by the left and NOW, and still is, even though she was a "strong woman". I guess beliefs trump personal achievement. In an objective way, she should have been upheld by the feminazis, but was not. She was too rational for them.
As far as Milton goes, he was an incredible person whose presence on this planet is surely missed. We still have Dr. Sowell though.
I would say she was a genius. That said, she was also an incredible asshole. The way she treated Branden and everyone else around her was a testament to this. My aim isn't to demean her because I consider her life and work to be an invaluable gift to the human race, but she sucked as a spokesperson (in the non-literary sense)for liberty because of her personality.
7 comments:
The Tea Party Movement is a part of the American tradition. It is what the elite few who want to rule the many, as the current Democrat Party and many old-line Republicans, would oppose. It is something I believe Ayn Rand would support. It comes from a unique tradition of local home rule, where government was no further from the governed than one day’s horseback ride, and individual interests were more important than are community interests. That led to the more involved citizen, the town hall meetings and even the vigilante movement. From the early days, the Tea Party Movement is but an extension of American traditions and perfectly correct. Surely, the Old World, such as England and France, would never permit such a thing, as their traditions were inclined to be bloody conflicts, not peaceful demonstrations. The differences are cited in the Changing Face of Democrats, Our Libertarian Roots Lost, on Amazon and claysamerica.com.
Rand was sort of a goofball, but she was mostly right about the nature of groups versus the nature of individuals. Personally, I believe Milton Friedman was a much better standard bearer in the cause of liberty than was Ayn Rand. She was simply a repugnant person.
@Clay:
The Tea Party movement and Objectivism, specifically Ayn Ran and the book Atlas Shrugged, are different things. I am sure there are some Tea Party people that subscribe to Objectivism and more that would agree with most of it, but I would not for a minute consider the two interchangeable.
You have to consider the genesis of the two. The Tea Party movement is a response to the "disenfranchisement' of a spectrum of people that would normally be associated with the republican party and the libertarian movement. This disenfranchisement didn't start with Obama, but with the downward trend of the GOP in the last 10-12 years for sure. As the dems moved left, the GOP decided to make it's tent bigger and took up that vacuum by moving further left. Remember, nature abhors a vacuum. The problem is, if you expend the platform to include everyone and everything, you end up standing for nothing. Basically, the GOP lost it's soul, and winning was more important than substance and values. In the end they ended up giving it away to the dems, which in retrospect, wasn't the worst thing to happen.
So, we were left with a sizable group of people that are pissed off with how they are being represented by the party they would normally associate themselves with. The coagulation of these people was crystalized by the election of Obama, and the fabian socialist agenda he and his cohorts in the congress. In a sense, they did us a favor by showing their true colors. As chuck would say, how they are the scum of the earth.
Would Ayn Rand support the Tea Party? I think you would be surprised by her response. I would ask you a question that may lead to your own conclusion: Is the Tea Party movement a rational one or not?
@Chuck:
Rand was a peculiar character. The best objective analysis you can read on Objectivism would be here: http://www.nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html
She was dogmatic, unforgiving, and set a standard which is as difficult to attain as is the standard set by many christian faiths. Just my opinion. In either case, you may be dooming your self to failure and feeling worse off. Just my opinion. Rand also was a little morally loose and she never had kids. I think if she did, it would have tempered her a bit. I also disagree with her on the life issue. I am pro-life, she was not. Considering she came from communist russia, I would have hoped she wouldn't have been such a materialist, but such isn't the case. A disappointment of sorts.On the other hand, she was reviled by the left and NOW, and still is, even though she was a "strong woman". I guess beliefs trump personal achievement. In an objective way, she should have been upheld by the feminazis, but was not. She was too rational for them.
As far as Milton goes, he was an incredible person whose presence on this planet is surely missed. We still have Dr. Sowell though.
"Rand was a peculiar character."
I would say she was a genius. That said, she was also an incredible asshole. The way she treated Branden and everyone else around her was a testament to this.
My aim isn't to demean her because I consider her life and work to be an invaluable gift to the human race, but she sucked as a spokesperson (in the non-literary sense)for liberty because of her personality.
Best,
Chuck
I would agree with that.
Color me flattered.
Heehee
Post a Comment