OK, I have a disability, but I'm more right-wing

Post Reply New Topic

I should have been more explicit: I was referring to modern America.
While the founders would be seen as conservatives today, they were the radical left of their day.

Ok

I guess abortion with specific illnesses would be eugenics. The people that call for such would come under this.

I'm sure you can find people of a leftist bent calling for violence against right benders today, just as you can the opposite.

Yes and no. Going back in time, social responsibility was part of conservatism to some extent - but it was a very paternalistic, ineffective type of social responsibility, which was often farmed out to religious groups.

For ex. in the UK, Margaret Thatcher represented a break with this tradition. I remember an interview with Tilda Swinton where she mentioned that her father, a land owner and army officer, broke with the Tories because of Thatcher's rejection of social responsibility. According to Wikipedia, the Swintons are one of only three families in the UK who can trace their unbroken land ownership and lineage back to before the Norman conquest. I'm not saying people like Major General Swinton is Mother Theresa by any means, but a thousand years of being responsible for an area can instill a certain sense of duty and an understanding for complexities.

The extreme libertarians are an anomaly. Historically, people may have deluded themselves into thinking they were more socially responsible than they really were, but Ayn Rand-style freedom seeking is really a very modern idea, and closely related to fascism.

Good for the Swintons!

If John Locke, the Scottish Enlightenment, and the American Revolution are modern.



Hold on. You think Mussolini and Hitler were fervent individualists, principled opponents of collectivism, and explicit admirers of the American Declaration of Independence and Bill of Rights?

Don't you remember John Lock's famous saying, "All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state"? Or maybe that was Obama. I get them confused.

I don't think right to carry firearms is a particularly 'right wing' idea in itself, but of course I also don't think 'the democrats' are the best representation of 'the left.' Either way I have no real issue with people carrying guns.

I see no issue with the existence of welfare for people in poverty...I am not about to support the end of EBT/food stamps, medicaid or things like heat assistance for the winter and what not, as I understand 'disability' isn't the only thing that contributes to poverty it would be ridiculous only to help people in poverty if they are disabled. Also though SSI disability is welfare....its not based on the person having paid into social security or whatever.

Either way if the right isn't 'anti-disability' how do they propose they'd help the disabled? Tell them 'just go get a job.'?

IDK I regard Nazi Germany as a more right wing/fascist type system than anything leftist...and they were known for their practice of 'eugenics' and attempts at exterminating undesiribles, so not so sure this is entirely correct. But yes leaving citizens to die and/or exterminating them are essentially equally as bad.

Well the other part of that was they were supposed to have access to treatment and care within their communities rather than being housed in overcrowded psychiatric hospitals. But that part was kind of neglected, ensuring most just became homeless street wanderers. It's not to late to improve mental health care in communities.

...or if you read my posts like the Devil reads the Bible.

I don't think Ayn Rand's ideas are so deeply rooted in Locke, the Scottish Enlightenment or the American Revolution.

Sure, there's lots of ideological window dressing, but the roots of the ideology come from something along the lines of "That is my toy car, and you can't have it"



Why do you believe these things come from political philosophy? You must have a very high opinion of the human race and its capability for rational thought.

Secondly, the US has never had a public soul searching about fascist ideas in political life. It's so fascinating how these people think they are so bloody original.

I don't really agree with abortion just because a test shows the developing embroy/fetus could turn out to be a disabled child. However I think the right is more anti-abortion in general, not really concerned with simply making sure it doesn't move into the territory of eugenics.

In normal social situations I don't see much point in disclosing my condition. However when it comes to something like employment I'd certainly find it much easier to disclose and have accommodation. Otherwise I am the aloof, anti-social rude person that works too slow, doesn't follow instructions too well(I forget them, I'd probably need to write them down and have that be ok.) I don't think I'd really have much chance keeping a job unless the employer/company has some understanding of my condition and how it effects me.

Also I think it's a little ridiculous to call all assistance of any level 'coddling' that seems a bit insulting most people do need assistance from time to time...it's not being overly soft on someone to provide accommodations for their disability, I don't think, but that is what the word seems to implicate.

Um, I'm looking at one of your posts … two, now … and reading the actual words therein, and assuming that your words and grammar are intended to convey the usual meanings. Is that how the Devil reads? I confess that I'm not up on the reading habits of imaginary beings. How else does anybody read?



You are mistaken. Her overall philosophy drew heavily from Aristotle, as she cheerfully acknowledged, but in the area of politics (which was never her primary focus) she was in solid agreement with the American Founders.





Sez you.



To the extent that that toy car is the product of my mind and my work, it is mine – and if you want it, you're going to have to offer something of value in trade, or else ask to be given it as a gift. On what grounds do you claim the right to take it by force (the only other option)? Do my mind and my labor belong to you? Am I your slave?

All of mankind's material progress over the last few centuries is due to the development of property rights. If you aren't scratching out a living as a subsistence farmer – which has been the fate of nearly all human beings since prehistory – thank the thinkers who came up with property rights.



Those are expressions of a political philosophy – a particular view on what sort of principles ought to govern people living in groups. This whole thread is about differing political philosophies, and whether they are appropriate for individuals in certain circumstances. To say that Thinker A's ideas are "closely related" to those of Ideological Group B is to invoke political philosophy.

And if you claim that the ideas of an arch-individualist are closely related to the most notoriously brutal of the collectivists, you're going to be challenged. Back it up, if you think you can.



I already dined, so I think I'll pass on this word salad.

Not completely. Sometimes it's a case of preventing the child from suffering. Like if the baby is born with some painful, terminal illness. Why make it suffer?


Is that because people's time is freed from having to defend their belongings? So they can focus on other things like science, etc.?

Google it.



This quote is about democracy, and pretty much something anyone can agree on, but not about freedom from responsibility for others, as described in The Fountainhead. The quote does not go into detail about specific rights.



Of course. I try not to believe everything I read. Rand is very inconsistent.



Aha, so we agree on the source.



Nope. It's to invoke psychology. I didn't mention any thinkers. I'm thinking of practical policies. The fruits of the tree, so to speak.



Calling Hitler a collectivist is meaningless. His political ideas are a jumble of random stuff, where the most coherent idea is that Jews are bad. Same goes for Mussolini, except for the bit about the Jews. The conflict between arch-individualism and tribalism is central to fascism. It can never agree with itself, much like Ayn Rand. Hitler and Mussolini were essentially propaganda geniuses, not thinkers, very good at channeling the rage of the masses. There were fascist philosophers, but they had minimal influence on policy.



Ah, sarcasm - the last refuge of the out-of-ideas

Why did you get so worked up about this anyway?

{Nesting quotes omitted in the name of sanity. Confused readers should look upthread.}

I'm talking to you, not to Google.



I think we are using words differently. To you, words carry a sort of vague emotional connotation, rather than a clear-cut denotation. Nowadays it's common to refer to the freer countries of the world as "democracies." So if somebody praises the American Revolution, she must be praising democracy, and everybody likes that, right?

Well, to the ancient Greeks, the American Founders, and Ayn Rand, democracy meant precisely one thing: absolute majority rule. So the quote is indeed "about democracy," in part: it describes how the Founders explicitly rejected democracy in favor of a government based on the principle of individual rights.

And it's clear that most people today don't agree that the purpose of government is to protect individual rights. Were that the case, we'd all be living under very different governments.



I'm fond of The Fountainhead, but contextually it's only an overture to Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. Her more detailed essays on man's rights are readily available.



Rand wasn't some kind of infallible deity, she certainly made mistakes – but I've found Objectivism to be both internally consistent and a consistent description of reality.



Not in the least. The fact that Rand was morally opposed to coercive taxation (or coercive anything else) does not imply that her primary motive was a childish desire to 'keep her stuff.'

I love the music of Beethoven, but if you concluded "Ah, so Beethoven is the primary focus of your life," you'd be wrong.

Drawing conclusions about the motives and psychology of public figures is a bit dodgy. I'd want to find some kind of statement from the person, a diary entry, a letter, something which supports my interpretation. Even a series of focused actions. (If a politician spends decades determinedly striving after power, I think it's fair to conclude that he's at least partly driven by powerlust.) Otherwise, you know, it looks like you're just making things up.

So … once Ayn Rand achieved financial success, it would have been perfectly natural for her to complain now and then about the taxes she had to pay. Well, I've read nearly all her writings – including the published letters and private journal entries – and offhand I don't remember her even mentioning the subject. Certainly there's no repeated litany of complaints, and no scrambling to find tax shelters or other extraordinary means to keep her earnings. That's the support you'd need for your conclusion, and it doesn't exist.



You're thinking of practical policies, and you're comparing a writer to a genocidal murderer? How many death camps did Ayn Rand operate?



Actually Hitler and the Nazis were consistent, explicit, devout collectivists, committed to glorifying and empowering the Party, the nation, the Volk, at the expense of the individual.









Du bist nichts, der Volk ist alles.

--------



Pick some other historical figure, someone whom many people admire and find to be a lifelong source of inspiration. Insult that person, misstate his views, baselessly impugn his motives. Compare him to Hitler. If there are any admirers of the person about – or even people who think he's not all that bad – they'll let you know soon enough.