Our Next President

  • Thread starter Thread starter BListon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rich_Olszewski said:
Are you speaking of State Capitalism, popularly called Communism?

Glad to hear that Rand was a counter to an anti-religion system that the Catholic Church opposed. I presume that you don’t believe that her own beliefs weren’t just as virulently anti-religion and opposed by the Church. Believe what you will. 🤷
Click to expand...
So, Ayn Rand simultaneously supported both religion and anti-religion? That is quite a feat. I believe that Atlas Shrugged primarly stood against the atheistic state capitalism of her day, her atheism doesn’t shine forth in the actual book itself. That is a product of her actual beliefs, which are separate from the economic priniciples that she attempted to illustrate in her book.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Where is it written that individuals must subscribe to a particular economic theory? That you do so is fine, but I fail to see any obligation for others.
Click to expand...
I don’t require anyone to do anything. Its simply a question so I can gain some perspective. I usually find that the people who rail hardest AGAINST a particular economic theory have no set beliefs in economics themselves. I come from a school of thinking that subscribes to the notion that if you are going to criticise a particular thing you should be ready to propose a solution or replacement. Those who don’t are usually labelled “baseless complainers” in short order.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
So, Ayn Rand simultaneously supported both religion and anti-religion? That is quite a feat. I believe that Atlas Shrugged primarly stood against the atheistic state capitalism of her day, her atheism doesn’t shine forth in the actual book itself. That is a product of her actual beliefs, which are separate from the economic priniciples that she attempted to illustrate in her book.
Click to expand...
She was virulently anti-religion whether she said it on every page of her books or not.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I admire some of the work of Rand and all of Jesus, what does that make me? I guess because I subscribe to the writings of Stephen Hayes, that also makes me a Ninja! :nunchuk:
Click to expand...
I don’t care much for labels or “isms” anyhow; labels are for cans, not human beings,

Still, methinks that Rand and our LORD have zero in common. Our LORD would never defend the die-on-your-own-two-feet mentality of modern conservatism. We are to lOve and tend to the needs of our fellow human beings, not let them perish because they won’t let us be as rich as we want.

The world existing at the end of ATLAS SHRUGGED should be as hideous in prospect as any form of Socialism.

ICXC NIKA
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
I don’t require anyone to do anything. Its simply a question so I can gain some perspective. I usually find that the people who rail hardest AGAINST a particular economic theory have no set beliefs in economics themselves. I come from a school of thinking that subscribes to the notion that if you are going to criticise a particular thing you should be ready to propose a solution or replacement. Those who don’t are usually labelled “baseless complainers” in short order.
Click to expand...
Maybe so. I come from no “school of thinking,” and have so little interest in economics that I think it pointless for me to make any comment about this “School” or that one. It’s not my field and I’m incompetent to criticize any theory.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
The most notable theory of economics ever put together by a group affiliated with the Catholic Church is the School of Salemanca in the 1600s, who were disciples of St. Thomas Aquinas. These economic theories evolved to later become known as the Austrian School of Economics. As far as I know, the Catholic Church has put together theological principles on good governance and civil society and doesn’t endorse any one particular economic theory (although the Distributionist theory was put together by some early 20th century British Catholics. It never caught hold anywhere).

So, again, I ask, what economic theory do you subscribe to, because the Catholic Church doesn’t have one.
Click to expand...
Economics is no more than a subset of the broader field of psycho-social theory. I just gave you the outline of what is called Developmental Systems Theory. If you want, you can use it to examine economic questions or questions about how to promote a civil society in general.

Here’s an example of that:

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1467-8624.00113/abstract

If you like, I can send you the full text of the article.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Are you speaking of State Capitalism, popularly called Communism?

Glad to hear that Rand was a counter to an anti-religion system that the Catholic Church opposed. I presume that you don’t believe that her own beliefs weren’t just as virulently anti-religion and opposed by the Church. Believe what you will. 🤷
Click to expand...
No, I know Rand was anti-religion, as many utopians are. Both were anti-faith, and pro-abortion. But again, I don’t believe the Church has directly addressed Objectivism, but I’m sure there is much of it that doesn’t conform to Catholic teaching.

I do agree with Rand’s concept of indivudual rights, free will, and capitalism, but that’s about as far as it goes. Her writing was pretty pedantic, IMHO. More of a Anthem fan than an Atlas Shrugged fan (insert gratuituous Rush reference here).
 
bellasbane said:
Unless you are the CEO of are a private military company.🤷
Click to expand...
Strange, but most of the PMC’s I’ve know and worked with primarily functioned as bodyguards. I guess they could be different than those mean CEOs. 🤷
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Representatives freely and fairly elected by the people of a state are not a mob!

And so, the elderly and the people who have no medical coverage at all are no more than a greedy mob? 😦

This post IMO is rather uncharitable and hardly consistent with the Catholic Church’s understanding of representation of the people and our obligations to the needy. 😦 😦

Yeah, I know, we are all to take care of our neighbors, but can we afford it on an individual basis without some government assistance?
Click to expand...
Re. Representatives? (Self serving thieves and merauders of the treasury who only talent is getting their hands in my wallet!)

As far as mob, would you prefer the legislature be described as a hoard, gang, crowd, mass, multitude or throng? You are allowed a deeper respect for these people. As far as I am concerned, they are taking a portion of a person’s life with no compensation for it using the power of the state to accomplish their ends. Those ends are to have a beholding class of very wealthy and very poor to continue their electoral success so they can remain like furniture at the seats of power. For my two cents they long ago ceased being representatives of the people but more like for themselves.

Re. the elderly, disabled, abandoned mothers, children, and orphans

I am not advocating ignoring the poor, on the contrary I firmly accept it as good and necessary for the development of charity by the giver and gratitude by the receiver. These are virtues we need to develop our whole life long. However, once you begin the socialization of charity what follows is everyone else lining up to get their share of the largess and that include multi-international corporations who definitely don’t need it. All I ask for is for some intellectual honest recognizing what transfer payments are. It is another discussion altogether if it is the proper and right role of government and if it is should it be local or national?

As far as individual basis goes it used to be that way before big brother got in the act. Church congregations were and in some cases still are led by their pastors in setting up aid and caring for needy members.
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
So, Ayn Rand simultaneously supported both religion and anti-religion? That is quite a feat. I believe that Atlas Shrugged primarly stood against the atheistic state capitalism of her day, her atheism doesn’t shine forth in the actual book itself. That is a product of her actual beliefs, which are separate from the economic priniciples that she attempted to illustrate in her book.
Click to expand...
While the events of the book do not teach atheism as such, John Galt, in his monologue at the end, states: “Do not object that it pertains only to life on earth. I am concerned with no other. Neither are you.”

While that isn’t atheism per se, the denial of an eternal life fits hand-in-glove with atheistic principles.

ICXC NIKA
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top