What laws today would Ayn Rand agree with and which would she oppose?
Rand had only 3 basic rules of morality. Nobody has the right to infringe on another person's rights by way of: 1. initiation of force, 2. coercion, or 3. fraud. Any law that enforces that moral code, I assume she would find acceptable. Any laws outside of that code would be an infringement of man's natural rights. Examples of moral laws: laws against violent crime, theft, extortion, fraud, etc. Examples of immoral laws: minimum wage laws, employer mandates, regulation of commerce not related to fraud, the draft, forced segregation as well as forced integration, etc.
Do you agree Ayn Rand was often Stoic?
Yes, I agree that Ayn Rand was often stoic. Both her and the Stoics advocated the supremacy and absolutism of reason as man's guide. However, Rand and the Stoics diverge ethically. This point is easily seen with a side-by-side comparison of what they each took to be the primary virtues for mankind: The Stoics championed 4 primary virtues: (1) moral insight (or wisdom; or prudence) (2) self-control (or temperance) (3) courage (or fortitude) (4) justice Yet Rand championed 3 primary virtues: (1) rationality (aimed at the value of Reason) (2) productiveness (aimed at the value of Purpose) (3) pride (aimed at the value of Self-Esteem) The most glaring difference is Rand's inclusion of pride as a primary virtue. This makes her ethics more Aristotelian than Stoic.
Do you agree with Ayn rand?
Do you "generally" subscribe to what Ayn Rand advocates. After you have finished answering that ... What about her views on here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wpzDdTrw5...
As a liberal, do you agree with Ayn Rand in any way?
As a moderate and thinker; In only one way.Roark’s contract with Peter, the weak willed, significantly lower skilled architect, should have been honored in full and precisely. Thus Roark had grounds to be angry and had every right to have his work be used solely on the terms he set. How he over-dramatically brought his case to court was wrong in all aspects. A cheap dramatic device at best so he could make his windy speech.In summation.No, she was utterly wrong as a putative philosopher for most all of her work and even more so as a person. Even as a child of the Red Menance /McCarthyist years of WWI onward.She was an obvious misanthrope, as someone stated here in a response. That is an understatement or under-estimation of her amorality as a person, wanna-be cult figure and writer. She could tell a story. But a viciously, abusive bi-directional romance is not art, and her writings certainly are not a guiding philosophy to run any nations government by.‘All that glitters is not Gault.’
What laws that we have today do you think ayn rand would agree with and oppose?
She would--and did--oppose any law that diminished individual sovereignty, something John Locke first proposed. The theory is this: if you are not your own sovereign (self-ownership) then how can you give to the social contract what you don't have? You have to have it first. And what you "have" is what Jefferson and the founders called "self-evident". "Individual sovereignty was not a peculiar conceit of Thomas Jefferson: It was the common assumption of the day..." http://www.friesian.com/ellis.htm And so Rand wrote: "Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature as a rational being. Individualism holds that a civilized society, or any form of association, cooperation or peaceful coexistence among men, can be achieved only on the basis of the recognition of individual rights..." http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/indivi... The Tenther movement, which is the movement to "nullify" within any of the states those federal laws which the state dismisses as being outside of the Constitutional powers of the federal government. Think they can't do that? Jefferson and Madison told them to do it, because the Tenth Amendment says they have certain right, and when the Federal govt. goes out of bounds, it breaks the Tenth. http://tenthamendmentcenter.com/2012/11/... http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/02/virginia-declares-emperor-has-no-clothes-ndaa-nullified.html http://www.prwatch.org/news/2012/11/11858/will-gop-governors-really-try-nullifying-obamacare
What Laws that we have today would Ayn Rand agree with? And which would she oppose?
Rand held that the only moral social system is laissez-faire capitalism. Her political views were strongly individualist and hence anti-statist and anti-Communist. She exalted what she saw as the heroic American values of rational egoism and individualism. As a champion of rationality, Rand also had a strong opposition to mysticism and religion, which she believed helped foster a crippling culture acting against individual human happiness and success. Rand detested many prominent liberal and conservative politicians of her time, including prominent anti-Communists, such as Harry S. Truman, Ronald Reagan, Hubert Humphrey, and Joseph McCarthy.[39] She opposed US involvement in World War I, World War II[40] and the Korean War, although she also strongly denounced pacifism: "When a nation resorts to war, it has some purpose, rightly or wrongly, something to fight for – and the only justifiable purpose is self-defense."[41] She opposed U.S. involvement in the Vietnam War, "If you want to see the ultimate, suicidal extreme of altruism, on an international scale, observe the war in Vietnam – a war in which American soldiers are dying for no purpose whatever,"[41] but also felt that unilateral American withdrawal would be a mistake of appeasement that would embolden communists and the Soviet Union.[40] She said also that she considered the anti-Communist John Birch Society "futile, because they are not for capitalism but merely against communism." [3] I would have to say she would have felt about Iraq the same way she felt about Viet Nam, since it has been proven that "self defense" isnt really an issue in that situation. As someone who believed in individualism, she probably would have disliked the Patriot Act and the illegal wiretaps done under the guise of national security. She would have fiercly supported church and state and have opposed any attepts by the Vatican to pay off families of abused children and insisted on very harsh penalties for priest child molestors. As a supporter of laizzez faire capitalism she would have opposed tarrifs and tightening of tax laws that drive businesses out of "America and into third world countries. Hope that helps. Pax - C.
Do you agree with Ayn Rand's political philosophy?
No I do not agree with Ayn Rand's political philosophy. Let's get it straight what Ayn means with her word definitiions... By “happiness” Rand meant “rational self-interest.” For her, “virtue” consisted of doing what “secured” your life and well-being. You can hardly regard a philosophy that exalts selfishness and condemns altruism as the basis for a good society. I definitely desire: Free Markets, Limited Government & Fiscal Responsibility. Keep it REAL! Individuals are given their Constitutional inalienable rights from our CREATOR.... not from any individual. To be able to come to the same conclusions as Ayn Rand, does not mean that I agree with her presuppositions. I think the free-market system is the system most compatible with Biblical values and principles when tied to religious faith. Christianity distinctly confirms the importance of all human work within the created order, and thus the dignity that work holds. Ayn Rand thinks there is a political panacea to all of our problems. There is no total political panacea, and most Americans know it. Those who regard this as a holy week with Easter and Passover know it best. Keeping faith, civically and spiritually, honors liberty better than any objectivist shrug.
Do you agree or disagree with Ayn Rand that "We can evade reality, but we cannot evade the consequences of evading reality"?
Sure, because reality (ie. cause and effect) will always proceed on its own terms, regardless of whether humans pay attention or not.It’s like how you can ignore a house burning down, but just ignoring it does not prevent the foundation from crumbling, because ignoring what is going on does not change the outcome.But if you pay attention and try to work against the negative stuff happening in reality, then you can begin to evade the consequence of not paying attention, because if you notice a small fire starting, you can grab a water bucket and douse it out before it grows to big and out of control.Another way to look at it is like the Titanic steering toward the iceberg. If the captain steering the boat had taken care to pay attention to reality sooner, then there might have been time to steer the ship off into a new, safer course. But by not paying attention to reality, the ship just collides directly into the iceberg.