# Tea Party and Objectivism



## Objectivist (May 8, 2011)

I have been sitting back and watching, silently biding my time, as the tea party has grown in America. All of this time I have wondered to myself, how can these people possibly compare their beliefs to those of Ayn Rand.
Those who classify themselves as part of the tea party consider themselves conservatives, usually fiscally as well as socially. Therefore I am forced to ask myself, how does this comparison come up. How could any tea party member side with Ayn Rand.
This angers me beyond belief! Rand and Objectivism both preach the evils of religion! Use of the mind and rationalization are the key aspects that everyone seems to ignore!

So I'm going to say this. It is impossible to be a "conservative" and Objectivist. You cannot believe in god. So stop putting up all of these signs about Galt and agreeing with Rand, because you are not. Stop, Stop, Stop.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 8, 2011)

because their corporate masters like her. I don't know why they need some old communist to tell them it is okay to be selfish.


----------



## code1211 (May 8, 2011)

Objectivist said:


> I have been sitting back and watching, silently biding my time, as the tea party has grown in America. All of this time I have wondered to myself, how can these people possibly compare their beliefs to those of Ayn Rand.
> Those who classify themselves as part of the tea party consider themselves conservatives, usually fiscally as well as socially. Therefore I am forced to ask myself, how does this comparison come up. How could any tea party member side with Ayn Rand.
> This angers me beyond belief! Rand and Objectivism both preach the evils of religion! Use of the mind and rationalization are the key aspects that everyone seems to ignore!
> 
> So I'm going to say this. It is impossible to be a "conservative" and Objectivist. You cannot believe in god. So stop putting up all of these signs about Galt and agreeing with Rand, because you are not. Stop, Stop, Stop.




As an objectivist, do you always group all people into conveniently recognized groups to embrace or despise.  I am a Conservative and not devoted to a religion.  As a Conservative, I see all government as a money laundering scheme and, as such, want to reduce their work load.

To me that is what Conservatism is.  Remove as much power as possible from the central and move it always closer and closer to the people.  You may have heard the slogan of the Conservative:  "Power to the people".

I don't care so much if Rand was an objectivist.  I'm not even really sure what that is.  However, Rand warned of Collectivism and THAT is the part of her life view that I embrace.

It seems tro me that Rand endorsed and promoted the ability and the resourcefulness of the individual.  Whether it be God, a Union, a Political Party or any other renouncing of self in favor of an outside guide for morality, well bing or intellect in place of self interest, it seems to run counter to Rand's basic thinking.

By that standard, nobody is worthy of espousing Rand's philosophy since all of us strive to combine with someone or some group to reinforce our beliefs.  Even John Gault had his little commune comprised of individuals to support each other.

The ultimate individualist living as a part of a Collective.  Ain't irony sweet?  Ain't life a bitch?

The real question then becomes whether you are the legitimate arbiter of Rand's philosophy and whether Rand would support a Central Power to bless or dismiss the interpretation of her ideas as filtered through the lives of those within whom they resonate.

Would Rand recognize YOU as THE central power?


----------



## code1211 (May 8, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> because their corporate masters like her. I don't know why they need some old communist to tell them it is okay to be selfish.




Selfish is an interesting word.

Mother Teresa gained great joy from helping those who were Universally revilied by the society.  The Catholic Church will very likely make her a Saint.  Kind of the Hall of Fame for Catholics.

The more she served others, the closer to God she imagined herself to be.  She was in her own mind literally walking on the dead to gain a place in Heaven.  Everything she did throughout her adult life was aimed at the singular goal of eternal reward.  

Is this not the most selfish thing you have ever heard of?


----------



## jillian (May 8, 2011)

Objectivist said:


> I have been sitting back and watching, silently biding my time, as the tea party has grown in America. All of this time I have wondered to myself, how can these people possibly compare their beliefs to those of Ayn Rand.
> Those who classify themselves as part of the tea party consider themselves conservatives, usually fiscally as well as socially. Therefore I am forced to ask myself, how does this comparison come up. How could any tea party member side with Ayn Rand.
> This angers me beyond belief! Rand and Objectivism both preach the evils of religion! Use of the mind and rationalization are the key aspects that everyone seems to ignore!
> 
> So I'm going to say this. It is impossible to be a "conservative" and Objectivist. You cannot believe in god. So stop putting up all of these signs about Galt and agreeing with Rand, because you are not. Stop, Stop, Stop.



"conservative" doesn't, historically, have anything to do with "religion". conservatism has to do with a view to maintaining the status quo.

randians aren't conservatives, they are government hating reactionaries. and what i believe you're referring to is "social conservatism" which is nothing more than the radical right attempting to intertwine their beliefs with our political system.


----------



## Midnight Marauder (May 8, 2011)

You're stupid enough to believe this exact same talking point hasn't come up on a message board this size, at least a hundred times?

It has.

Really old and stale, you're about a year behind on your parroted talking points, s0n.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 8, 2011)

> I have been sitting back and watching, silently biding my time, as the tea party has grown in America. All of this time I have wondered to myself, how can these people possibly compare their beliefs to those of Ayn Rand.



Your frustration is understandable as your perception of the TPM is predicated on the misconception that the movement is some independent political entity   its not. Indeed, there is no such thing as the Tea Party per se, as theyre mostly republicans. By its members own admission, 7 out of 10 TPM members are republicans or republican leaning independents. All TPM members in the House are republicans. 

So if you think the TPM is a neo-libertarian movement based on the childish and inane philosophy of Ayn Rand, then youre clearly mistaken. The TPM is made up mostly of the old Bush Base, the same social conservatives who shut down McCain in 2000 after his New Hampshire primary victory. In addition to the Bush Base, youve got pseudo-/quasi-libertarian republicans with a sprinkling of various rightist fringe groups. 

So no need to feel frustrated or disappointed  the TPM is simply American political business as usual. 



> To me that is what Conservatism is. Remove as much power as possible from the central and move it always closer and closer to the people.



As long as where ever the power ends up, the people understand and acknowledge the rule of law in the context of our Constitutional Republic  something which has been demonstrated to not be the case historically and currently, where the people have been subject to the tyranny of the majority.


----------



## Smash_Hits (May 8, 2011)

Objectivist said:


> I have been sitting back and watching, silently biding my time, as the tea party has grown in America. All of this time I have wondered to myself, how can these people possibly compare their beliefs to those of Ayn Rand.
> Those who classify themselves as part of the tea party consider themselves conservatives, usually fiscally as well as socially. Therefore I am forced to ask myself, how does this comparison come up. How could any tea party member side with Ayn Rand.
> This angers me beyond belief! Rand and Objectivism both preach the evils of religion! Use of the mind and rationalization are the key aspects that everyone seems to ignore!
> 
> So I'm going to say this. It is impossible to be a "conservative" and Objectivist. You cannot believe in god. So stop putting up all of these signs about Galt and agreeing with Rand, because you are not. Stop, Stop, Stop.




It isn't like objectivists are much better. You worship Ayn Rand, they worship God.


----------



## Truthmatters (May 8, 2011)

well they both do believe failed ideas even in the face of their history of failure.


----------



## Bfgrn (May 8, 2011)

code1211 said:


> You may have heard the slogan of the Conservative:  "Power to the people".



WOW, I never knew those people were really conservatives...


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 8, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > because their corporate masters like her. I don't know why they need some old communist to tell them it is okay to be selfish.
> ...



You really don't know her motives, she didn't have to do all that to get closer to god(if there is one). We all gain something out of giving .


----------



## Mad Scientist (May 8, 2011)

Objectivist said:


> I have been sitting back and watching, silently biding my time, as the tea party has grown in America. All of this time I have wondered to myself, how can these people possibly compare their beliefs to those of Ayn Rand.
> Those who classify themselves as part of the tea party consider themselves conservatives, usually fiscally as well as socially. Therefore I am forced to ask myself, how does this comparison come up. How could any tea party member side with Ayn Rand.
> This angers me beyond belief! Rand and Objectivism both preach the evils of religion! Use of the mind and rationalization are the key aspects that everyone seems to ignore!
> 
> So I'm going to say this. It is impossible to be a "conservative" and Objectivist. You cannot believe in god. So stop putting up all of these signs about Galt and agreeing with Rand, because you are not. Stop, Stop, Stop.


The point of the book is that eventually the producers in society will tire of being taxed out of their profits, tire of being told how to run their business by bureaucrats and just stop working. The question becomes; "What will we do when the Producers stop Producing"? A modern example of this is when businesses move to other states that have less intrusive taxes and laws on business. Or just go overseas.

Conservatives want to feed and care for the Golden Goose.
Liberals want all the golden eggs now thus killing the Golden Goose.


----------



## code1211 (May 8, 2011)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> > > To me that is what Conservatism is. Remove as much power as possible from the central and move it always closer and closer to the people.
> >
> >
> >
> ...


----------



## code1211 (May 8, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > You may have heard the slogan of the Conservative:  "Power to the people".
> ...





Liberals tend to want to centralize power to an elite.

Conservatives tend to want to de-centralize power to the levels closest to those it affects.

In that sense, the people you picture are Conservatives.  Since government cannot and should not legislate morality or personal preferances of the pursuit of happiness, they are also.

Centalizing power far from those over whom it is execised is the goal of Liberal policy.

If you are in favor of individual liberty and individual rights and responsibility, you are a Conservative.  If you are in favor of regulating everything and removing as much individual choice and individual resposibility as possible from the individual, you are a Liberal.

This is actually pretty simple stuff.


----------



## xsited1 (May 8, 2011)

Objectivist said:


> I have been sitting back and watching, silently biding my time, as the tea party has grown in America. All of this time I have wondered to myself, how can these people possibly compare their beliefs to those of Ayn Rand.
> Those who classify themselves as part of the tea party consider themselves conservatives, usually fiscally as well as socially. Therefore I am forced to ask myself, how does this comparison come up. How could any tea party member side with Ayn Rand.
> This angers me beyond belief! Rand and Objectivism both preach the evils of religion! Use of the mind and rationalization are the key aspects that everyone seems to ignore!
> 
> So I'm going to say this. It is impossible to be a "conservative" and Objectivist. You cannot believe in god. So stop putting up all of these signs about Galt and agreeing with Rand, because you are not. Stop, Stop, Stop.



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3My4MHr51c]YouTube - Keep On Trollin&#39; Baby![/ame]


----------



## Bfgrn (May 8, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



What a pile of absolute bullshit. Conservatives since man began walking upright have tried to create an aristocracy. They are as anti-democracy as it gets. You right wingers today want to create a plutocracy. Power in the hands of the elite; CEO's, corporations and captains of industry.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 8, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



Reagan H. Bush and W. Bush all expanded thr Federal governmernt. you calling them liberal?


----------



## Truthmatters (May 8, 2011)

The only people the right ever seems to fight for is the wealthiest people


----------



## Bfgrn (May 8, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> The only people the right ever seems to fight for is the wealthiest people



Yea, the 'right' of the big guy to step on the little guy...


----------



## Big Fitz (May 8, 2011)

Objectivist said:


> I have been sitting back and watching, silently biding my time, as the tea party has grown in America. All of this time I have wondered to myself, how can these people possibly compare their beliefs to those of Ayn Rand.
> Those who classify themselves as part of the tea party consider themselves conservatives, usually fiscally as well as socially. Therefore I am forced to ask myself, how does this comparison come up. How could any tea party member side with Ayn Rand.
> This angers me beyond belief! Rand and Objectivism both preach the evils of religion! Use of the mind and rationalization are the key aspects that everyone seems to ignore!
> 
> So I'm going to say this. It is impossible to be a "conservative" and Objectivist. You cannot believe in god. So stop putting up all of these signs about Galt and agreeing with Rand, because you are not. Stop, Stop, Stop.


All those who smell disinformation, or an 'agent provocateur', raise their hand.

::uts hand up:::

The post reeks of class warfare and collectivist thought.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 8, 2011)

Truthmatters said:


> well they both do believe failed ideas even in the face of their history of failure.


Huh.  Failed ideas.  You mean like Soviet Russia, like Maoism, like German National Socialism?  Like Narco-socialism a la Pol Pot and Ho Chi Minh?  Nicaragua, El Salvador, Cuba and Venezuela?

How many millions and now approaching billions of people, throughout history have to die before you accept your collectivist centralized power structures are failures?

Old joke.  How do you know a nation's an oppressive socialist tyranny?  They use the words "People's Republic" in their name.


----------



## code1211 (May 8, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...





Do you think that she spent her life doing something that she reckoned to be less than fulfilling?


----------



## Smash_Hits (May 8, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...




Her brand of selfishness helped people. She took joy from other's joy, unlike Rand's characters. I don't really give a shit about why she devoted her life to helping people, I just think it's great that she did.


----------



## code1211 (May 8, 2011)

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





I am a Conservative and that is not what I want.  Reqad the Constitution and you will understand that it is a document which both creates and places strict limts on the powers of a Federal Government.

Since that time, Liberals like FDR, Johnson, Nixon, Clinton, Bush and Obama have strived with all of their resources to transfer the power from the individuals and the states to the Federal Government.

Organizations generally recongnized as liberal have sought to have the Federal Government inject itself into State's Rights issues.

Liberals want the power of Government moved as far from the people to be governed as it can be moved.  Conservatives want that power splintered and moved as close to the people to be governed as possible.

That, by the way, is the definition of Liberal and Conservative in today's politics.  That is why the topic of Federal Spending is so important.  If my money is to be confiscated and laundered by thieves and liars, I would like to have those thieves and liars closer to me so I could spit in their face.


----------



## code1211 (May 8, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...




Yes.  To paraphrase the great philosopher, Forrest Gump, Liberal is as Liberal does.

Is Bush as Lberal as the Big 0?  No.  Bush spent money like a sailor on three day leave.  The Big 0 spends money like a pimp with three days to live.

You have to be impressed by a guy who racks up 3 TRILLION dollars of debt in two years when he has more than 2 TRILLION to spend each year.

If you find a stack of brand new $100 bills worth 1 million dollars, it's 43 inches tall.

A stack of brand new $100 dollar bills worth a Billion Dollars is taller than the Empire State building.

A stack of $100 bills worth our national debt is 8000 miles tall.

If you found that stack in Hong Kong and it was blown over by the prevailing winds, it would go past the east coast of China, past Japan, past Hawaii, past California and finally deposit several billion dollars in Las Vegas.

This, by the by, would probably be a better use than the actual use this debt was built upon.


----------



## code1211 (May 8, 2011)

Smash_Hits said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...




I had a teacher in Junior high School who was about 5 feet tall and quite venerable.  She taught me.  This is to say that she caused me to learn.  She did so with a very stern and unforgiving approach while at the same time doling out meager rewards of praise when earned and appreciation when deserved.

She loved to teach and to watch children learn.  In pursuing this, she was fulfilled.

Paul McCartney, as I understand it, loved to create and to perform music.  I thoroughly enjoyed his work.  He loved to do it and was fulfilled by so doing.

Brett Farve loved to play football, Ernie Banks loved to play baseball, George Patton loved to lead men in battle, Mozart loved to create music, Picasso loved to create art and all, as I understand it, were fulfilled by this occupation.

Whatever the cause on one's joy, pursuing that joy is the exercise of selfishness.  If you are to put yourself in a position to judge the outcomes, then do so, but all are acting on urges based in selfishness.

I thought it was selfishness that you were condemning.  Apparently, I misunderstood.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 8, 2011)

> Brett Farve loved to play football



Oh don't get me started...


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 8, 2011)

Objectivist said:


> I have been sitting back and watching, silently biding my time, as the tea party has grown in America. All of this time I have wondered to myself, how can these people possibly compare their beliefs to those of Ayn Rand.
> Those who classify themselves as part of the tea party consider themselves conservatives, usually fiscally as well as socially. Therefore I am forced to ask myself, how does this comparison come up. How could any tea party member side with Ayn Rand.
> This angers me beyond belief! Rand and Objectivism both preach the evils of religion! Use of the mind and rationalization are the key aspects that everyone seems to ignore!
> 
> So I'm going to say this. It is impossible to be a "conservative" and Objectivist. You cannot believe in god. So stop putting up all of these signs about Galt and agreeing with Rand, because you are not. Stop, Stop, Stop.



What if a person has objective evidence in the existence of God? Would not the philosophy of objectivism then require them to follow that evidence and believe in God?

What if a person is a conservative yet does not believe in God? Are they also prohibited from liking Rand? 

Do you actually have a brain that works, or are you simply a program that is designed to think it exists independently?


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 8, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Truthseeker420 said:
> ...



Some people are completely incapable of understanding anything that does not fit their selfish world view. You should consider the possibility that you are wrong about everything you think.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 8, 2011)

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



*Reagan *expanded the Federal Government and it's powers. don't forget to add him.


----------



## Truthseeker420 (May 8, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Truthseeker420 said:
> 
> 
> > code1211 said:
> ...



What? Rand is very simplistic, she's not that hard to figure out. I just disagree with her.


----------



## editec (May 9, 2011)

I doubt most TP folks are big readers.

Generally speaking, of course.


----------



## sinister59 (May 9, 2011)

Objectivist said:


> I have been sitting back and watching, silently biding my time, as the tea party has grown in America. All of this time I have wondered to myself, how can these people possibly compare their beliefs to those of Ayn Rand.
> Those who classify themselves as part of the tea party consider themselves conservatives, usually fiscally as well as socially. Therefore I am forced to ask myself, how does this comparison come up. How could any tea party member side with Ayn Rand.
> This angers me beyond belief! Rand and Objectivism both preach the evils of religion! Use of the mind and rationalization are the key aspects that everyone seems to ignore!
> 
> So I'm going to say this. It is impossible to be a "conservative" and Objectivist. You cannot believe in god. So stop putting up all of these signs about Galt and agreeing with Rand, because you are not. Stop, Stop, Stop.



governments a damn hobby to teabasggers , they think they know something . 
 their objective is to make America  3RD world country , destroy our government and replace it with a bigoted right wing skin head country .


----------



## Big Fitz (May 9, 2011)

editec said:


> I doubt most TP folks are big readers.
> 
> Generally speaking, of course.


Really?  And you base this ass plucked opinion on what?  Usually I find the converse true from those Tea Partiers I've spoken to.  Many have read little summer fluff books like The 1000 year leap, Atlas Shrugged, Road to Serfdom, The Real George Washington... lots of books off of Glenn Beck's reading list.

Of course, they don't read much.  Maybe some bodice rippers in between watching Inside Edition, TMZ and Judge Joe Brown.  It's how they stay so informed about legislation, policy, politics and current news events.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 9, 2011)

sinister59 said:


> Objectivist said:
> 
> 
> > I have been sitting back and watching, silently biding my time, as the tea party has grown in America. All of this time I have wondered to myself, how can these people possibly compare their beliefs to those of Ayn Rand.
> ...


You really believe this fucknuttery?

Seriously?  Explain how.


----------



## sinister59 (May 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> sinister59 said:
> 
> 
> > Objectivist said:
> ...


no


----------



## code1211 (May 9, 2011)

Truthseeker420 said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> > Bfgrn said:
> ...





I feel that Reagan was a benign place marker when it comes to expanding the executive powers.  I'm not sure he really expanded it so much as simply going along with the flow.  He was saddled with an adversarial Congress and the reluctant cooperation between Tip O'Neil and reagan is legendary.

Still, power is the ultimate aphrodisiac, so it is likely that the expanded it, but just not as noticably as the others.  Just me, no citations.


----------



## Smash_Hits (May 9, 2011)

Big Fitz said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I doubt most TP folks are big readers.
> ...



All of Rand's work is shit from a literary perspective. Care to read some proof?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/business/20070915RAND_nyt_atlasreview.pdf
Books: The Solid-Gold Dollar Sign - TIME
Whittaker Chambers -- Big Sister is Watching You

Her characters are wooden, her plots are ridiculous, and her writing is overly dramatic (although it still manages to be fucking dull...). Perhaps, if her writing was better, I wouldn't despise Rand and her ilk so much. I think its the fact that the books are so bad, combined with the fact that people just like them because they provide an intellectualization for unchecked greed and amorality.


----------



## Quantum Windbag (May 9, 2011)

Smash_Hits said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...



Just an FYI, opinions are not proof.

Mencken thought her first novel admirable, her first Broadway play had both critical and popular appeal, and "The Fountainhead" was hailed as masterful by the NYT. For every disparaging criticism of her literary style you can find a rave review that cites the same points. Intelligent people understand this, and form their own opinions.


----------



## Smash_Hits (May 9, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Smash_Hits said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...




Opinions certainly aren't proof, but the people at the NYTimes are a hell of a lot more qualified than you or I.

And notice that I DID make an opinion.


----------



## code1211 (May 9, 2011)

Smash_Hits said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...




And here I thought her work provided a guideline for self reliance, resistance to idealogues and the nobility of the human striving for something better.

The definition of art is that it causes a second creation in the audience after the first creation by the artist.

Rand obviously create very different things in each of us.  Does this make her work art?


----------



## Big Fitz (May 9, 2011)

Smash_Hits said:


> Big Fitz said:
> 
> 
> > editec said:
> ...


Wow.  do some background on your 'impartial critics'.  You gave me the equivalent of the Nazi Press Corps talking about how bad Churchill is for England.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 9, 2011)

Quantum Windbag said:


> Smash_Hits said:
> 
> 
> > Big Fitz said:
> ...


And we all know how reliable the critics are.

Star Wars anyone?

The Salt Shaker

Just one example of a 'lackluster' review on a brief summer's entertainment.


----------



## Big Fitz (May 9, 2011)

really?  Are they now?

Walter Duranty - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



> While Duranty has been criticized generally for deferring to Joseph  Stalin's and the Soviet  Union's official propaganda rather than reporting news from  Moscow, the major controversy regarding his work is his reporting on the  great famine of 19321933. Since the 1970s, Duranty's work has come  under increasingly harsh fire for reporting there was no famine, even  while it was clear from his personal exchanges that he was fully aware  of the scale of the calamity.
> 
> 
> Robert Conquest has written several books, starting in  the 1970s including _The Great Terror_ and _Harvest of Sorrow_,  most recently _Reflections on a Ravaged Century_ in 1990, which  have been critical of Duranty's reporting from the Soviet Union.
> ...



Are they better?


----------

