RoR: Forum

Not sure if I entirely agree with the analysis in the attached link, but this theory would explain why the people posting here tend to be more right-wing than non-Objectivist libertarians. Caveat: correlation, of course, is not causation.

Post 1

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 3:14pm

You have to define your terms. "Right wing" usually means "church, family, and nation." In America, "nation" brings with it free enterprise by tradition from Benjamin Franklin and the other merchants of the revolution through the great age of invention and enterprise. But all of that is subsidiary for conservatives. Many conservatives here and on other Objectivist discussion sites post rants and videos against the Federal Reserve banks and the international (Jewish) banking conspiracy that enslaves us with debt.

Also, when it comes to the draft, they say on the one hand, that if a free nation cannot muster the troops it needs, then its wars are unjust. On the other hand, if you criticize their wars, you are unpatriotic... and perhaps so: after all, what makes patriotism a primary virtue? (It can only be a secondary virtue for a citizen of a free republic.)

Ayn Rand echoed the conservatves -- her patriotism was the love of an immigrant; I understand that -- in claiming that America is the freest nation on the planet. On the other hand, the Heritage Foundation offers this tally:

1 Hong Kong
2 Singapore
3 Australia
4 New Zealand
5 Ireland
6 Switzerland
7 Canada
8 United States
9 Denmark
10 Chile

Jim Henshaw said that he could not move anywhere because his only language is English, and yet we have six English speaking places including Canada, Australia and New Zealand ahead of the USA in economic freedom. My ex read Atlas Shrugged as a teenager. She is in Denmark this week and raving about the place in her emails. And when I was in Switzerland, I had a heck of a time getting anyone to speak German to me: they all wanted to practice their English!

It is a known identification that in claiming a "natural law" derivation for "natural rights" Ayn Rand only secularized the religionist theory that our rights come from our Creator. This comes up (rarely) when someone actually discusses "rights." We can all agree on Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, but where in the stars is it written that you have a right to a speedy trial by a jury? Ayn Rand was not sure that you have a right to a handgun, though she granted the right to a rifle.

Ayn Rand claimed repeatedly that she was not a "conservative" and yet conservatives, not liberals, were drawn to her philosophy.

Post 2

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 3:52pm

Michael:

She is in Denmark this week and raving about the place in her emails.

I was there in about 2002 to get a hearing aid there for about $1200 which would cost about $5,000 here. I paid for my trip of 10 days with the savings.

What a miserable little country Denmark is. I was shafted for over $1,000 for the rental of a sub-compact car that was smaller than anything here on the road at that time. I got shafted by the audiologist who serviced people from the UK in several days while I couldn't get delivery until after more than a week so that I'd have less time to get any adjustments. He was miffed that I (inadvertently) didn't book my accommodations at his recommended place (he probably got a cut) and gave me wrong directions from the Aarhus airport so that after about 24 hours traveling I was driving throughout the countryside asking road workers, in English, for directions to a little place they didn't know of, and I was going around in circles ready to bed down by the roadside. I got food poisoning from a fast food joint trying to be like McDonalds. There were two TV stations and of course the radio stations had no interest for me because of the language. The Internet connection in the hotel lobby was exorbitantly expensive. I presented my traveler's checks to the local bank and they had to delay redemption for several days even though I had all my credentials before I could pay my audiologist's bill and I could have missed my return flight home.

I stayed for the bulk of the time with a couple who had a farm. He was a retired university professor and they were very nice to me but the lasting impression that has stayed with me and typifies my memory of Denmark was the sight of a very, very frightening fox that I spied from my car. It was something out of a horror novel of Transylvania, It was explained to me that the fox population was ravaged by an infestation of parasites that get under the skin and destroy the fur so that they have no protection from the cold in the winter and they die. Misery, misery.

So there.

Sam WIJG?

Post 3

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 4:39pm

The author starts with the bad assumption that 'Conservative' and 'Liberal' are fundamental categories that cover all varieties of political thought applicable in this context.

Trying to push Ayn Rand into the conservative category as if that were necessary because she somehow doesn't fit in the liberal category is a mistake. I found the reasoning very fuzzy.

He states that Conservatives love Rand. That is silly - some love her, some don't even know her, and some hate her with a passion.

He says, "...there’s also a streak in Ayn Rand that is very right-wing and explains in part why, despite her atheism and despite the obviously anti-conservative elements of her thought, nonetheless there are deeper elements that are very appealing to the conservative mind. Those are, firstly, her absolutism and secondly, her attempt to ground the case for liberty in nature."

He refers to "deeper elements that are appealing to the conservative mind" - the "conservative mind?" Give me a break! He needs to define and justify the concept "conservative mind" before that argument makes any sense. Her absolutism is a reasoned position that contrasts with altruistic or low self-esteem positions that value or use large doses of uncertainty or humility.

"Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter’s stomach, is an absolute.
***
“There are no absolutes,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute."

And she grounds the case for man's liberty in the the nature of man and the requirements of his life. It has to come from there, or from some mystical source, like the concept of God, or from government - Did I miss anything there? Where else would one go to derive rights?

The author doesn't grasp her epistemological approach - that leads to most of this fuzziness. But, here is where this fellows friction with Rand really comes from: "It is entirely possible to frame libertarian principles in a completely different way, to argue that it is capitalism that has lifted up the poor more effectively than any social programme – and that if you really care about the underdogs and losers in the world, that a free society with open and competitive markets is in fact your best bet for lifting up the unprivileged and less advantaged. But that wasn’t Rand’s way of making the argument. Her way of making the argument is one that fits in better with the right-wing point of view."

That is a liberal's moral viewpoint that is being held heart-deep by a libertarian. He doesn't understand, or perhaps doesn't agree with rational egoism... and that is what is rubbing him the wrong way - that and an aversion to certainty. Rand worshiped genius and ability - not the losers, unprivileged, or less advantaged.

Post 4

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 4:45pm

Jim,

You said, "...this theory would explain why the people posting here tend to be more right-wing than non-Objectivist libertarians."

Maybe you are mistaking Objectivism as having a right wing bias, when in fact many Libertarians have come from a left wing background and don't grasp that Objectivism is neither left nor right.

Post 5

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 5:29pm

I don't think people here are very right wing vs libertarian. I do think that some of the more right wing people here are more outspoken, particularly on the subject of war.

Post 6

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 5:59pm

Michael: Jim Henshaw said that he could not move anywhere because his only language is English, and yet we have six English speaking places including Canada, Australia and New Zealand ahead of the USA in economic freedom.

I said I prefer warm places, which explains in part why I live in aggravatingly statist Hawaii. Also, average economic freedom for a populace is not the same as an individual's economic freedom. I'm married to a physician who earns well into six figures, so moving to a country with far more socialized medicine than here would, personally, result in less economic freedom.

Steve: Maybe you are mistaking Objectivism as having a right wing bias, when in fact many Libertarians have come from a left wing background and don't grasp that Objectivism is neither left nor right.

I would not say that the philosophy of Objectivism has an overall right wing bias, because I don't think it does, but rather that the observed beliefs of many if not most of the people posting on this website skew right-wing, at least regarding foreign policy. Whether the most frequent posters on this particular site are a representative sample of all Objectivists I can't say.

Post 7

Monday, August 16, 2010 - 7:13pm

Jim,

You'd have to say what the dividing line is that you are using in the foreign policy area before anyone reading your post could make a decision as to whether you are correct or bringing a bias of your own to bear.

Post 8

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 4:59pm

Dean,

I don't think people here are very right wing vs libertarian. I do think that some of the more right wing people here are more outspoken, particularly on the subject of war.

But there's murkiness in the concepts -- introduced by a faction of Republicans called NeoCons. It's NeoCons that want war.

In the old days, it was the Democrats that got us into -- and prolonged our involvement in -- wars. Now, it's a faction of Republicans, but that doesn't make it a "right wing" thing to do -- it doesn't make it a "Conservative" thing to do. NeoCon philosopy, like a mixed economy, is all mixed up and jumbled to the point where principle breaks down. The most telling example is that NeoCon republicans -- supposedly "conservatives" -- are for a welfare-state.

On deeper analysis, NeoCons argue for anything -- both home and abroad -- which will end up growing the government. Instead of admitting this, they hide behind purposefully random and contradictory principles. In her national run in politics, Sarah Palin -- a "small-government" republican -- was character-assassinated by NeoCons such as David Frum.

Ed

Post 9

Wednesday, August 18, 2010 - 6:38pm