Ayn Rand and Objectivism

  • Thread starter Thread starter Sherlock
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sherlock
  • You don’t seem to be able to understand this, and so I’m afraid you are narrowing Catholicism to your particular version.*
If you were less condescending, you might be able to understand what I have been saying.
  • You have your ideas as to how that is to be best accomplished, which excludes supply-side economics. I don’t agree, and the Church would not rule with you either: there is room, in Catholic theology, for good Catholics to disagree on the means to common goals.*
There is no room in Catholic theology for supply side “economics”. Supply side “economics” is NOT a real economic theory - it is merely the implementation of Objectivist ideology.

The “economic” theories of Objectivism are nothing but an ideology imbued with the spirit of antichrist. No matter how you cut it, greed is a vice, not a virtue. An economic theory that elevates greed to the highest good cannot be reconciled with Catholicism.
 
You wrote: “If you were less condescending, you might be able to understand what I have been saying.”

Oh, I understand you well enough. I think you’ve made your position perfectly clear. People who advocate supply-side economics are Objectivists, in your eyes. How you square that with reality is another matter entirely…I guess you have elected yourself Pope in these matters. I am willing and able to admit of different approaches to achieving common goals, something you are not. But then, I’m not speaking infallibly…

You wrote: “There is no room in Catholic theology for supply side “economics”. Supply side “economics” is NOT a real economic theory - it is merely the implementation of Objectivist ideology.”

Wrong. If you want to make such a preposterous claim, you had better be equipped with something other than your holier-than-thou opinion.

You wrote: “The “economic” theories of Objectivism are nothing but an ideology imbued with the spirit of antichrist. No matter how you cut it, greed is a vice, not a virtue. An economic theory that elevates greed to the highest good cannot be reconciled with Catholicism.”

Well, we can agree on this, at least. Greed is always a vice. The Objectivist “philosophy” can be said to be an “ideology imbued with the spirit of antichrist”. We are not in disagreement there.

Let me ask, if I may: have you been disappointed in your life recently? Have you experienced frustration in your professional life? Have things not gone your way? Are you perhaps in a state of disarray, looking for someone to blame? If so, I recommend prayer, not the coveting of your neighbor’s goods. I think that this will make you a much more balanced, happy, and intelligent Catholic.
 
Sherlock

Oh, I understand you well enough. I think you’ve made your position perfectly clear. People who advocate supply-side economics are Objectivists, in your eyes.

Obviously you don’t understand what I talking about. Many “believers” in supply side economics have no idea that supply side economics is not a real economic theory, but is, in reality, an ideological philosophy imbued with the spirit of Ayn Rand. I don’t think that most believers in supply side economics are Objectivists, I think that they are usually ignorant and women that have been deceived by men who are true followers of Ayn Rand. In the same way, I don’t think that most Protestants wish to be opposed to Christ’s Church, even though they are opposing Christ and his church out of their ignorance.
  • Greed is always a vice. The Objectivist “philosophy” can be said to be an “ideology imbued with the spirit of antichrist”. We are not in disagreement there.*
Good, we agree on something. Now do a little research on the men who developed the theory of supply side economics, you might learn something about their sympathy for Positive Objectivism.
  • Let me ask, if I may …*
Has anyone ever told you that your presumption and condescending arrogance is highly offensive? Please leave the personal insults out of your posts, it makes for better discussion.
 
Matt,

You wrote: “Many “believers” in supply side economics have no idea that supply side economics is not a real economic theory, but is, in reality, an ideological philosophy imbued with the spirit of Ayn Rand.”

Actually, many “believers” in some of the elements of supply-side economics see it as a recognition of the reality of human nature in the economic sphere: people will work hard for their families, but not necessarily for the State. If you tax creativity, creative people will be creative in figuring out how to avoid being taxed. If you punish hard-working people for getting ahead, they will stop working hard. The old Soviet Union was a textbook on how to reduce a people to unthinking, uncaring, hostile and corrupt dependence. (I have friends from Moldovia with horror stories…)

What benefits the family benefits society, and Catholic social teaching recognizes this. I am not sure how much you have studied Objectivism, but, in case you haven’t, I can tell you that this concept of the family as the essential building block of society is rejected in Objectivism in favor of an overiding emphasis on the individual. And so it is with the Libertarian party, the closest approximation to a political party that advances views that could be considered Objectivist. This is at odds with most conservative views (though of course one can find a range of opinions within what could be called conservatism.)

You ask, “Has anyone ever told you that your presumption and condescending arrogance is highly offensive?”

No. No one has suggested that, even over the course of a hundred-plus posts…nor have I lost my green square (heh).

I’m sorry that you find my concern for you presumptious and condescending, but my sentiments are heartfelt. I have found that when opinions similar to yours have been expressed, I am often dealing with someone who is rather young, or disappointed in some aspect of their life that leads them to blame others (those who earn more than they do; people in positions of authority; etc.) for their misfortune. I am in sympathy with those individuals, and was offering my sincere prayers for you if you are in a similar predicament.

God Bless…
 
Sherlock

*And so it is with the Libertarian party, the closest approximation to a political party that advances views that could be considered Objectivist. *

The Libertarian party has never been an influence in this country. Reagonomics, on the other hand, was a pure implementation of Objectivist ideology, and it unleashed a wave of personal and corporate greed that is still unchecked in this country. Under Reagonomics, our country went from being the world’s greatest creditor nation, to the world’s greatest debtor nation in less than four years. Reagan piled more debt on the citizens of the USA than all the previous presidents combined. Bush Junior, who is recycling the failed ideas of Reagonmics, took the nation from a budget surplus of 300 billion to a budget deficit of half a trillion in just two years. Bush’s fiscal irresponsibility has inflicted upon us both the largest government budget AND the largest government deficit in our nation’s history. These are facts that can’t be pooh-poohed away. If you think that the economics of greed is helping the working families in this nation, you are out of your mind.

As we peer into society’s future, we – you and I, and our government – must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering for, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without asking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Eisenhower’s Farewell Address to the Nation, January 17, 1961

*I’m sorry that you find my concern for you presumptious and condescending, but my sentiments are heartfelt. *

Do you think anybody believes you? You weren’t expressing “heartfelt” concerns, you were insulting me, and I am offended by it.

I have found that when opinions similar to yours have been expressed, I am often dealing with someone who is rather young, or disappointed in some aspect of their life that leads them to blame others (those who earn more than they do; people in positions of authority; etc.) for their misfortune.

Again, you are not only wrong, you are way out of line with your arrogant and insulting comments. Why can’t you just leave the insults out of your posts? You don’t know me, and you are only making a fool of yourself with your inane speculations about the state of my soul and the quality of my life.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top