Jim A.

The "Health Care" bill passes

88 posts in this topic

The Republicans are enabling the leftist Democrats. The Republicans are making the Democrats´ "successes" possible. Sans the Republicans, the Democrats would be much less effectual. Remember Ayn Rand´s observation that the appeasers make the "successes" of the evil possible.

In Atlas Shrugged it was the victims like Dagny and Rearden, who made the victory of evil possible because they were ignorant of the principle of the sanction of the victim. Would you condemn Dagny and Rearden and "vote against" them or would you try to reach and teach them as John Galt and Francisco did?

Likewise, in our current context, would you condemn and vote against those who, in whatever limited way, have expressed opposition to the growth of the welfare state because they have been "ineffectual" in stopping it -- or -- would you teach them what they need to know to be effectual?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Likewise, in our current context, would you condemn and vote against those who, in whatever limited way, have expressed opposition to the growth of the welfare state because they have been "ineffectual" in stopping it -- or -- would you teach them what they need to know to be effectual?

It is better to light a single candle than to curse the darkness. Light enough candles and the darkness is banished.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republicans hate, to use your term, mankind for its inherent tendency towards evil. How is that any better.

While this is true of SOME Republicans, in my experience they are a very small number. The moonbat liberal Democrats, on the other hand, are virulent man-haters and they control the party.

I was thinking of the current Republican leadership, and its commitment to the politics of religion. Otherwise, when we're talking about actual human beings, I get along far, far better with Republicans and Conservatives than I do with today's Democrats and Progressives -- even in situations where political POVs don't come up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Republicans are enabling the leftist Democrats. The Republicans are making the Democrats´ "successes" possible. Sans the Republicans, the Democrats would be much less effectual. Remember Ayn Rand´s observation that the appeasers make the "successes" of the evil possible.

In Atlas Shrugged it was the victims like Dagny and Rearden, who made the victory of evil possible because they were ignorant of the principle of the sanction of the victim. Would you condemn Dagny and Rearden and "vote against" them or would you try to reach and teach them as John Galt and Francisco did?

Likewise, in our current context, would you condemn and vote against those who, in whatever limited way, have expressed opposition to the growth of the welfare state because they have been "ineffectual" in stopping it -- or -- would you teach them what they need to know to be effectual?

I see no contradiction whatsoever between voting for the Democrats, when that is appropriate, and at the same time trying to enlighten the Republicans, by means of intellectual activism. I am trying hard to reach whosoever is willing to listen to me, here in Sweden. They are not many, but they are often Conservatives. I do not *ostracize* or insult grassroots conservatives here in Sweden, notwithstanding the fact that I refuse to vote for their politicians for the time being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So by Poland not being capable of defending Nazi Germany, Poland "enabled" Nazi Germany, and was responsible for WWII?

I'm just blown away by this. Every Republican except 1 voted against the health care bill, and virtually all Democrats voted for it. The Republicans are the ones who stopped Hillary and the Dems from taking over health care in the 90's. How in your tortured logic does this mean we should vote for Democrats instead of Republicans? So without these Republicans constantly voting "no" and trying to stop these bills from passing, if we had a complete Democrat dominated government then somehow these bills would stop being proposed? Democrats will stop trying to advance socialist legislation if Republicans went disappeared?

So again, to sum up your ideas: Because the Republicans are not completely effective in blocking the Democrats' attempts to bring socialism into America, this means the Republicans are worse, and we should vote for Democrats? And if the Republicans went away, then they would stop "enabling" the Democrats, and we'd somehow have less attempts to bring socialism into America?

No, you´ve got me all wrong, Carlos. I said that the Republicans are enabling the Democrats, not that the Poles enabled the Nazis.

Just how are the Republicans enabling the Democrats? Well, you have to remember that politics is not just about voting. More importantly, it is about advocating ideas. And the Republicans are advocating all the *wrong* ideas today, at least most of the time. Sure, the Republicans *sometimes* vote against bad legislation (although they probably more often vote *for* bad legislation, but I am not an expert on that, since I am Swedish). But as long as the Republicans continue to advocate for such dead wrong ideas as altruism, duty ethics, collectivism, intrisicism, mysticism, original sin etc. they will be laying the groundwork for socialism, or at least statism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Republicans hate, to use your term, mankind for its inherent tendency towards evil. How is that any better.

While this is true of SOME Republicans, in my experience they are a very small number. The moonbat liberal Democrats, on the other hand, are virulent man-haters and they control the party.

I was thinking of the current Republican leadership, and its commitment to the politics of religion.

I still don't see that kind of man-hatred. Is there some particular Republican leaders you had in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just how are the Republicans enabling the Democrats? Well, you have to remember that politics is not just about voting. More importantly, it is about advocating ideas.

But only political ideas.

One cannot expect, nor is it necessary, to agree with a candidate's total philosophy—only with his political philosophy (and only in terms of essentials). It is not a Philosopher-King that we are electing, but an executive for a specific, delimited job. It is only political consistency that we can demand of him; if he advocates the right political principles for the wrong metaphysical reasons, the contradiction is his problem, not ours.

A contradiction of that kind will, of course, hamper the effectiveness of his campaign, weaken his arguments and dilute his appeal-as any contradictions undercut any man's efficacy. But we have to judge him as we judge any work, theory or product of mixed premises: by his dominant trend. [Emphasis, AR]

But as long as the Republicans continue to advocate for such dead wrong ideas as altruism, duty ethics, collectivism, intrisicism, mysticism, original sin etc. they will be laying the groundwork for socialism, or at least statism.

As Ayn Rand noted, "It is not a Philosopher-King that we are electing." Philosophical problems are primarily the fault of philosophers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just how are the Republicans enabling the Democrats? Well, you have to remember that politics is not just about voting. More importantly, it is about advocating ideas.
Ok, I'm getting a headache from the usage of the words "Republicans" and Democrats." And I use the plural because this is a Collectivistic formulation. "The Republicans" aren't a monolithic mass of mankind that all share a brain; it is a party affiliation of a large group of individuals that share some varying "allegiance" to a a subset of a pick-list of labels, such as "Smaller Government", "Limited Government", "Founding Fathers", "The Constitution", "Pro-Business", "Individual Rights", "Family Values", "States Rights", "Fiscal Responsibility", "Right to Life", "Traditional Values", "Freedom", and some other slogans and buzz-words. Some of these things correspond to rational principle, such as Individual Rights, Limited Government, and Freedom, but many of the others are improperly understood, just plain wrong, or evil. It's a grab bag. . . and they grab their own handful. Some are awful; some are pretty good, in context.

It is our job, as American Objectivists defending our lives, to put the right ideas out there to the extent we can, whether directly through writing and speaking, or by giving ammunition to others, or by donating time or money, or whatever propagates rational principles, or, if you're a teacher, rational principals (had to say that). But this business of generalizing and demonizing "All Republicans" is patently false in its very premise. We are not Collectivists here.

On the other hand, when someone has espoused a principled party line, such as an avowed Communist or Socialist, then the appellation stands for something, something evil, and the generalization holds. But you have to establish that the moniker represents a consistent set of principles before you can make a consistent judgement. The "Republicans", even the "Conservatives", do not represent a coherent philosophical position, only a general sense of wanting "what made this country great in its heyday". I think that's actually somewhere in the vicinity of what "Conservative" means. But the range is from Objectivist Sympathizers (Steve Bailey... anyone else?) thru limited government economic free marketers, thru WF Buckley-oid hypocrisy, all the way to the worst of the fundamentalist Christian Right. There are a lot to choose from and I would think it would be in our interest to know who's who, highlight the differences, make those specific stands an issue for support or opposition, and generally to behave rationally. I do not see sweeping judgements from non-essentials, as in a party affiliation so loosely defined, as behaving rationally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok, I'm getting a headache from the usage of the words "Republicans" and Democrats." And I use the plural because this is a Collectivistic formulation.

Yes! And thank you.

The "Republicans", even the "Conservatives", do not represent a coherent philosophical position, only a general sense of wanting "what made this country great in its heyday". I think that's actually somewhere in the vicinity of what "Conservative" means. But the range is from Objectivist Sympathizers (Steve Bailey... anyone else?) ...

Steve Bailey IS an Objectivist and has been for as long as I have known him -- about 20 years. He's running for Congress in Colorado's 2nd District and is leading the pack so far in the Republican primary. He hopes to beat the incumbent Democrat and you can help with his campaign (link).

sbailey_hirez.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It is our job, as American Objectivists defending our lives, to put the right ideas out there to the extent we can, whether directly through writing and speaking, or by giving ammunition to others, or by donating time or money, or whatever propagates rational principles, or, if you're a teacher, rational principals (had to say that). But this business of generalizing and demonizing "All Republicans" is patently false in its very premise. We are not Collectivists here.

You are misunderstanding me, if you take me as condemning *all* Republicans. I understand that collectivism is wrong. Some Republicans are better than others. But I maintain that all in all, the Republican Party tends to promote bad ideas, because *most* of their politicians do so. Of course, since politicians are not professional philosophers, it is largely just an error when they advocate such ideas as altruism and duty ethics, but the fact remains that advocating those ideas *is* harmful.

I agree with you 100% that working to spread the ideas of Objectivism is much more important than complaining about the state of the world. Even though I have written many posts here recently, I invest much more time in constructive intellectual activism to spread Objectivism here in Sweden.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with you 100% that working to spread the ideas of Objectivism is much more important than complaining about the state of the world. Even though I have written many posts here recently, I invest much more time in constructive intellectual activism to spread Objectivism here in Sweden.

It is better to light one candle than to curse the darkness.

Bob Kolker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Bailey IS an Objectivist and has been for as long as I have known him -- about 20 years. He's running for Congress in Colorado's 2nd District and is leading the pack so far in the Republican primary. He hopes to beat the incumbent Democrat and you can help with his campaign (link).

That's awesome Betsy! I'm going to contribute to his campaign :D

Liberty is Prosperity is a great campaign slogan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Steve Bailey IS an Objectivist and has been for as long as I have known him -- about 20 years. He's running for Congress in Colorado's 2nd District and is leading the pack so far in the Republican primary. He hopes to beat the incumbent Democrat and you can help with his campaign (link).

Colorado!

Reminds me of Atlas :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites