Social Conservatives. They think they are such great people. But they just don’t get it. The premise, unsupported by any concrete logic, is that if there is a God, then that God must want the same type of happiness for everybody. The premise seems intuitive at first glance, but if you meet enough people around the world, and you are capable of using logic, then you have to finally conclude that the premise is horribly and without a doubt flawed. God does not want the same type of happiness for everybody. I’m sorry, Mike Huckabee, if that hurts your feelings, but God does not want everybody to experience the same type of happiness that you experience in your life. So stop trying to use our government to force your religion onto everybody else. Get a frickin clue, man.
Okay, in all fairness, I would like to point out that Liberals are making the same mistake of trying to force their “religion” onto everybody else when they try to use the government to spread the wealth around from rich people to poor people. It’s just another example of trying to use government to force your “religion” onto other people. You may not think of it as “religion”, but it is YOUR concept of what is right, and you are forcing it upon other people. Whether it is your concept of what is right, or some catholic monk’s concept of what is right, it is still religion, one way or the other. Six of one, or half a dozen of the other. If you are forcing somebody’s concept of what is right onto other people, then you are forcing your “religion” onto other people.” If you want to help poor people, then go help poor people. Don’t use the government to steal money away from rich people without their consent. I have been poor several times in my life, but I have never wanted to steal money from rich people. I don’t want anything from anybody unless they offer it to me. That is why I don’t gamble and I don’t play the lottery. I only want what I have worked hard for. I don’t want the government to steal from people who are more fortunate than me. I don’t care if some of those people didn’t work hard for what they have. Because I am happy for other people to have as much as they can possibly have. And I don’t want any of what they own unless they offer it to me freely. And even then I will feel guilty taking it, because I will know in my heart that I did not work hard for it, so I will probably feel compelled to give something back to that person in return, no matter how rich they are. I always want to give out more than I receive in order to create a favorable balance of generosity. But, the government should never force anybody to be generous. If a rich person doesn’t want to help me then I don’t want his help. I’ll be happy for him, from a distance.
Now the government is taking from the rich, the middle class, and, through negative influence on the economy, everyone else. I have hope for the future, but it will be harder than ever to help people realize what a free market economy would be like since the government has interjected itself in the form of loans, gifts, and purchase of shares in banks, insurance companies, and the auto industry. Some of this may have been justified in the short run by the need to stabilize financial institutions, but now the CEOs are less free and their every move is subject to examination by the public which has funded them. The government already was involved in mortgages, transportation, the mail, health care, small business loans, education, etc., etc. It was difficult in 2007 to explain persuasively how the free market works and why it leads to greater prosperity. It will be ever so much more difficult in 2009.
Objectivism is a limited and unrealistic philosophy at best. It’s like hinging your belief system on the idea that people should be nice all the time. It doesn’t happen.
The economy is so fully entrenched in a different sort of capitalism than the idealistic laissez-faire ideal that to suddenly switch over to a genuinely “free market” system would cause economic collapse like never before. You said it yourself: “Some of this may have been justified in the short run by the need to stabilize financial institutions…”
That need is going to be there from time to time, since the market operates in a cyclical fashion. Eliminate all regulation is naive; eliminating much of the regulation is smart. Too bad most Objectivist drones don’t realize that a total “hands off” approach is as deeply flawed as the current system.
What’s really amazing is that people are still aware of and concerned about “Objectivist drones.” College students were excited about Ayn Rand and Objectivism way back in the 60′s. This is an enduring philosophy/cult or set of beliefs.
Couldn’t we just make an effort towards slowly decreasing the size of government? Would that be so wrong? Or have we evolved to the point that a steadily increasing Nanny State is the only resort?
Two things:
First to Pantyhose, I think you are confused about what is objectivism. Objectivism does not equal libertarianism even though libertarianism was greatly influenced by Rand’s philosophy. Also, there is far more to objectivism than its support of laissez-faire capitalism. It attempts to answer the same basic questions that most philosophical movements attempt to answer: What is the nature of man? What is happiness and how do we attain it? What is justice? What is the best way for men to relate to one another?
Also, I don’t know what you are referring to with your comment objectivism is hinging on everyone being nice. Objectivism doesn’t hinge on everyone doing anything. It adamandly rejects any sort of collective necessity of that sort. The essence of objectivism, at least on regard to human behavior, is rational self interst of the indivial will lead that individual to a more complete fulfilled life, in contrast to the deep unhappiness found when an individual lives for the sake of others at his expense.
Drones indeed.
Second to AR, I don’t follow what you mean about God not wanting the same type of happiness for everyone. I do agree with your overall blog post. The Left and the Right both use government force for the purpose of social engineering. Whether it’s the left raising taxes to ensure economic fairness or the right banning alcohol sales on Sundays to keep the sabbath holy, they both seek to force the values of one group of people onto everyone else. They both share the same evil.
I’m not sure what I meant in the first paragraph either! LOL That is funny. I know what I usually mean when I say that, but it does not seem to apply to this article.