Ayn Rand Wouldn't Approve of Paul Ryan

[howardroark]

I've noticed that the village idiot has already tried to link Paul Ryan with Ayn Rand. So here's an article from a non-Objectivist biographer of Ayn Rand:

EARLY in his Congressional career, Paul D. Ryan, the Wisconsin representative and presumptive Republican vice-presidential nominee, would give out copies of Ayn Rand’s book “Atlas Shrugged” as Christmas presents. He described the novelist of heroic capitalism as “the reason I got into public service.” But what would Rand think of Mr. Ryan?

While Rand, an atheist, did enjoy a good Christmas celebration for its cheerful commercialism, she would have scoffed at the idea of public service. And though Mr. Ryan’s advocacy of steep cuts in government spending would have pleased her, she would have vehemently opposed his social conservatism and hawkish foreign policy. She would have denounced Mr. Ryan as she denounced Ronald Reagan, for trying “to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.”

[...]

 Yet when his embrace of Rand drew fire from Catholic leaders, Mr. Ryan reversed course with a speed that would make his running mate, Mitt Romney, proud. “Don’t give me Ayn Rand,” he told National Review earlier this year. “Give me Thomas Aquinas.” He claimed that his austere budget was motivated by the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, which holds that issues should be handled at the most local level possible, rather than Rand’s anti-government views.

This retreat to religion would have infuriated Rand, who believed it was impossible to separate government policies from their moral and philosophical underpinnings. Policies motivated by Christian values, which she called “the best kindergarten of communism possible,” were inherently corrupt.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/ayn-rand-wouldnt-approve-of-paul-ryan.html

[howardroark]

Here's one from someone who works at the Ayn Rand Institute:

Whether he likes it or not, Paul Ryan’s worldview is going to be defined in large part by its distance from philosopher Ayn Rand’s. Ryan is on record as praising Rand’s novel “Atlas Shrugged” and her moral defense of capitalism. He’s also on record as rejecting Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism.

So, where does Ryan sit in relation to Rand?

[...]

But don’t be too quick to leap from these broad proclamations to the conclusion that Ryan is an avowed Randian on rights. Even if we leave aside Ryan’s Catholic dogma about souls and embryos, which Rand completely rejected, and focus only on the economic issues for which Ryan is most known, the differences remain stark.

[...]

Think of what this implies for the entitlement state, a subject near to Ryan’s heart. Rand saw entitlements as a violation of individual rights on a massive scale. This is why she opposed Social Security when FDR enacted it in the 1930s, why she rejected Medicare when Johnson proposed it in the 1960s and why she held that the whole entitlement state should be phased out and ultimately abolished.

[...]

Ryan’s goal, by contrast, is not to end the entitlement state but to save it. His budget reflects that view: it preserves Medicare, albeit in a less costly form, and it actually increases Social Security spending, from 4.75 percent of GDP to 6 percent, according to the CBO. Although Ryan regularly invokes individual rights, he does not stand by them consistently. Not even on economic issues, where he is best.

For anyone who believes in limited government, it is a positive sign that a leading politician talks seriously about individual rights, and this clearly is due in part to Rand’s influence. But to take rights seriously, as Rand advised? That will require a much more principled agenda.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/08/17/ryan-rand-and-rights/

[howardroark]

Yaron Brook (President of the Ayn Rand Institute) weighs in on the connection between Paul Ryan and Ayn Rand. The article has a video of the interview with Yaron Brook, so I suggest you check it out.

Yaron Brook, president of the Ayn Rand Institute, says some of Ryan's proposals — including his controversial budget — do not follow Rand's philosophy of limited government. The Ryan budget would reduce the size of the federal government from 24% of GDP to around 20% by cutting many government programs — primarily for the poor — as well as taxes — primarily for the rich. But Brook says he would like to see even bigger cuts in government spending and Medicare.

"I don't think Ryan, even in his political philosophy, is as radical as I am or as radical as Ayn Rand would be," says Brook in an interview with The Daily Ticker. "Maybe he is in terms of his long-term vision and is just a practical politician."

Even though Brook says Ryan's plan is "nowhere near" what the economy needs to save it from a "debt disaster," he is quick to defend it against attacks."It brings expenses back to 2008 levels," he says. He's also "shocked" that Ryan's plan has been criticized so severely.

Read more: http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/paul-ryan-no-ayn-rand-disciple-fiscal-moderate-172822069.html

[B_B_C]

"Thomas Aquinas"

preached that incest was better than masturbation and homosexuality because it allowed procreation

[howardroark]

"Thomas Aquinas"

preached that incest was better than masturbation and homosexuality because it allowed procreation

He also laid the foundations for the Christian view of rights. But yeah, it would be much better if Paul Ryan were an Objectivist, instead of an Aquinas-loving Catholic.

[howardroark]

Here, David Weigl (who worked for the libertarian Reason magazine) claims that Paul Ryan's former praise of Ayn Rand was pandering, and not ideological or philosophical commitment:

Starting in 2010 or so, though, Rand became controversial again. The reason: Religious liberals thought they'd found a wedge between libertarian Republicans and the religious right. The apex of this? Probably the time a liberal activist with a gigantic Bible hassled Ryan at the 2011 Faith and Freedom Conference in D.C. In a later interview with Robert Costa, Ryan, the congressman said he "rejected [Rand's] philosophy" of Objectivism. He was a Catholic. She decidedly was not.

And I buy that. You don't agree with everything a philosopher says if you admit to reading that philosopher. I'd bet there are people with tattoos of Freud quotes who don't buy his theories about Shakespeare's plays. Ryan's trouble comes from the way he described his Rand-lovin' in that 2005 Atlas Society speech. "I go to the 64-page John Galt speech, you know, on the radio at the end," he said.

Since Ryan isn't actually an atheist, I just read this as a pander. The Galt speech is one of the most aggressive arguments against Christianity you will ever read.

[...]

[a quote from John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged:]

    What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge-he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil-he became a mortal being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor -- he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire-he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness; joy -- all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was -- that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love -- he was not man.

    Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

[Straw Man]

Howard - Ryan says that Rand's philosophy reduces human interaction to mere contracts

do you agree with this perspective

btw - where on this planet has anything even remotely similar to Rands philosophy ever been implemented

I think you said on another thread that all taxation is theft.   Is that part of Rands philosophy too or just your opinion (we'll ignore the obvious that when someone steals from me they don't usually use that money to build roads, pay for a military, create social safety nets, etc..)

[howardroark]

Howard - Ryan says that Rand's philosophy reduces human interaction to mere contracts

do you agree with this perspective

No, it's bullshit informed by his backward Catholic philosophy.

btw - where on this planet has anything even remotely similar to Rands philosophy ever been implemented

As I pointed out before - there is no libertarian country, but the freer a country the more successful it generally is. There is no impoverished free country - that's something your side can't say of its approach.

I think you said on another thread that all taxation is theft.   Is that part of Rands philosophy too or just your opinion (we'll ignore the obvious that when someone steals from me they don't usually use that money to build roads, pay for a military, create social safety nets, etc..)

All taxation is theft by definition. It is not contingent on what is done with that money. And yes, that simple and true logic does have a presence in libertarian philosophy, including Objectivism as well as the political philosophy of the great economist/philosopher Murray Rothbard.

[Straw Man]

No, it's bullshit informed by his backward Catholic philosophy.

As I pointed out before - there is no libertarian country, but the freer a country the more successful it generally is. There is no impoverished free country - that's something your side can't say of its approach.

All taxation is theft by definition. It is not contingent on what is done with that money. And yes, that simple and true logic does have a presence in libertarian philosophy, including Objectivism as well as the political philosophy of the great economist/philosopher Murray Rothbard.

If Ryan's assesment of Rand is "bullshit" then tell us why because from what I know about it he's basically right that the philosopy would basically have the goverment enforce contracts and the border and that' pretty much about it.   Can you explain the benefit to society (if any) of all individuals pursuing their own perceived rational self interests

If there is no libertarian country, including our own, then why should we give a shit about something that's never actually been implemented in real life.     

I looked up the defiintion of taxation and there was no mention of theft.  I also looked up the word theft and there was no mention of taxation so where the heck are you getting your defintions

[howardroark]

If Ryan's assesment of Rand is "bullshit" then tell us why because from what I know about it he's basically right that the philosopy would basically have the goverment enforce contracts and the border and that' pretty much about it. 

Having government enforce rights and contracts is very different from "reducing human interaction to mere contracts."

 Can you explain the benefit to society (if any) of all individuals pursuing their own perceived rational self interests

Go read yourself some Adam Smith.

But in short:

• No one's rights are violated
• People are allowed to live peacefully
• People are allowed to be independent
• Freedom and property rights promote innovation and entrepreneurship
• The profit/loss system directs resources to where they are most needed
• Decisions are made by people in the civil society instead of technocrats in government

Those are all good reasons as to why countries like Luxembourg and Singapore outperform America economically, despite being at a severe disadvantage when it comes to natural resources.

If there is no libertarian country, including our own, then why should we give a shit about something that's never actually been implemented in real life.     

Yeah, IDK why the founders gave a shit about creating a new country based upon a new idea and a new system of governance when it had never been tried before. 

I looked up the defiintion of taxation and there was no mention of theft.  I also looked up the word theft and there was no mention of taxation so where the heck are you getting your defintions

Would you disagree that theft is the forceful taking of someone's property? Would you disagree that taxation is the exact same?

[howardroark]

In short, libertarian political philosophy rests on the notion that structuring society on violent and coercive institutions is anathema to civilization and progress itself.

[Straw Man]

If you can't answer or are unwilling to answer the questions then just say so but don't tell me to go read someone else.          

If "having government enforce rights and contracts" is very different from "reducing human interaction to mere contracts." then what is the difference.  What did Ryan leave out?

By what measures are you saying that Luxembourg and Singapore outperform the US economically and what proof do you have to support this claim.   BTW - do either of those countries steal from their citizens via taxation?

I would completely disagree that taxation is theft.   I thought I had already made that point clear but I guess  not.

[Option D]

I've noticed that the village idiot has already tried to link Paul Ryan with Ayn Rand. So here's an article from a non-Objectivist biographer of Ayn Rand:

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/15/opinion/ayn-rand-wouldnt-approve-of-paul-ryan.html

So Paul Ryan didnt follow Rands Teaching.

The same Paul that called Atlas Shrugged Required reading for his staff?