I know this may seem like a bit of an odd question but I’ve been wondering about it for the past few days and for some reason I can’t escape the feeling that it (atheism) would be a rather ‘conservative’ point of view (that is, at least in title), and yet I’m constantly being called a liberal because of my social and political leanings. I'm just wondering what your views are on this.
PS: I’ll be gone for a few days but I will catch up with this thread when I return.
Why don't you simply come up with a list of superficial arbitrary insults and aim them at me? Rather than digest the concepts. It is clear you are not. Broaden my horizons? A very small percentage of what I have read and engaged is Objectivism. You are misconstruing my words and I do not think you understand the point. I do not believe that people are either egoists or altruists. I also know that many people articulate their explicit morality in a myriad of other ways. I believe that by nature everyone is an egoist. The singular nature of the mind and it's ability to make a choice necessitate this. Collective consciousness is an oxymoron. You may wish to give your last piece of bread to a starving child, but it is still a decision made in an egoistic fashion. It is what you want and decide. It is your moral choice. Self sacrifice or altruism will necessarily result in the destruction of the individual if practiced, which it cannot be. People choose what they think is right, with their brain, on their own behalf, based on their convictions, even when that entails supporting, fostering and growing the dependent welfare state.
And your claim that my philosophy is nearly identical to AR's and the claim that you have an eclectic philosophy do not support me being wrong and you being right. Rightness is not a function of how many sources your opinion comes from. And I held the vast majority of my convictions before I ever read Ayn Rand. I simply think she does a great job of articulating much of it and I use a lot of the same words.
Faith, by definition is illogical. Noncontradiction is necessary for logic to exist. Logic and contradiction are mutually exclusive. Your friend, the theist, is extremely contradictory and illogical if he believes in God being all knowing, all powerful, responsible for creation, able to perform miracles.........
"A state has responsibility to take care of its citizens." Says who? By what standard? Why? I say the state has a responsibility imposed by individuals with rights to ensure people are left free from others feeding on them. Obviously, I believe it is wrong to give the government power to take care of some at the expense of other individuals. I will not argue that the government does not have the power to attempt this. They obviously do. But it is first and foremost an immoral violation of the only thing that can properly morally command rights, the individual.
Your use of the word dogmatic: I do not at all espouse a conviction by dictae. There is no source, like the bible or AR or some invalid metaphorical abstract concept that I use to support a conviction. Commitment to noncontradictory logic and reason is not and cannot be dogma. If you are using it to suggest that I strongly believe something, like 2+2=4, then fine, go ahead. But that is ineffectual and meaningless in this conversation.
This is why I do not like to claim being an O'ist. Because people like you run with it and claim that since AR was nuts in some way, then so am I. My statement that one should go somewhere else to work if they don't like it does not stem solely from AR. And again, simple does not in any way mean wrong. You do not know me enough to know that I don't know what it is like for the poor and unemployed. I have plenty of sympathy and empathy for those who suffer. I just don't think it is right to base a society on need. Practically speaking, I would not suggest that it is a good idea to simply fire the current government and replace it with people who understand why morality properly centers around the individual and Marxian wealth redistribution grows and sustains the lower class, but would endorse a slow transition. Iow, I don't think, now, because of what has been done, the millions of uneducated financially and psychologically codependent masses can do what it would take to get some new skills and go somewhere else to work. I am for a laisser-faire 'survival of the fittest' profit motive economy, but that does not mean I think we should go kill all the nonproducers. We should stop telling them, by no longer celebrating altruism like the church, that it is their right to have other people's shit.
Our government is now set up to be corrupt. It is the way business in Washington gets done. Special interest groups get lobbyists to bribe representatives. Both the rich and the poor get hand-outs and they are both corrupt. Buying out banks, forcing sub-prime loans......
it is supremely clear that the war and the military industrial complex, not the New Deal, got us out of the depression.
After just watching a documentary (WWII in Color: Britain at Bay), I heard this: "By 1940 the US was out of the Great Depression with industry and economy booming. But a poll taken in July of 1940 showed that only 8% of Americans favored joining the war in Europe". It seems you have been getting some bad information. I love that you use the phrase "it is supremely clear". It shows that you are supremely overconfident in your understanding of history.
Finally a point that I can agree with. The Federal Reserve was probably the worst creation of our economic history - and they are still loaning the government fake and devalued money. Their manipulation of our money supply threatens to end the dollars position as the Worlds reserve currency.
The Creature From Jekyll Island is a great book. Know it? I don't think we are ever going to escape it as long as people keep voting for big government and don't see the ass raping our country is giving us. Nothing short of slavery, imo. Surely, we can come up with a better way to advance our human position other than slavery to each other and the Fed.
I think that the "moral majority" and other vocal, religious fundies on the Right may polarize atheists towards the Left. Personally, my views don't coincide with the Left or the Right. My tendency is to vote Democrat as the lesser of two evils.
Also, the importance of individual civil liberties weighs more heavily than other issues for me. The Right seems to hold these liberties less dear. They seem to confuse nationalism with patriotism. Also, there is a tendency on the Right to go for overly simplified, emotion driven solutions such as:
i've seen plenty of equally emotion driven and/or illogical statements from the left:
*if you oppose illegal immigration, you are a racist or xenophobe. (AND it's mainly a 'white America' issue. never mind how many other countries have far worse laws than us and never mind the MANY non-white Americans including legal immigrants who are 'conservative' on this issue.)
*if you support the second amendment, and gun rights, you are a looney toon or a victim of outdated 'religious mindset'
* rail on conservatives for things like the Patriot Act, even though Dems had a large part in passing that also.
* all anti-war......til a Dem pres starts one anyway.
* use the word 'racist' like conservatives do 'socialist', abusing and misusing it all the time.
*fast to point out if someone uses a biased conservative source, but more than willing to use equally biased liberal sources and not care.
* a totalitarian ban on smoking inside buildings enforced by government thugs is best for everyone......instead of people choosing their own environments (work or play) responsibly like mature adults, since they already have other options for non-smoking places without removing other people's existing choices.
The points I made were simple bulleted items. They, in my opinion, were about as common sense as the bulleted points I seen above....which also didn't exactly go into detail. I do not feel that...
"use the word 'racist' like conservatives do 'socialist', abusing and misusing it all the time." needs any more explanation than "This is a Christian nation. We have "In God We Trust" on our money" does.
Catchphrases like "we're all immigrants" are truly no more clever, as the right's not usually complaining about all 'immigrants'. That's one example of a simple leftwing catchphrase that doesn't work
"Is it really enough that a token Diego and unenlightened regime share your views to make them not racist?"
My point with the part of the comment in parenthesis is simply that you always hear certain liberals making jokes that make it seem as if 'white racism' is the only source of the rights opinions on immigration issues. btw, it is NOT just some 'token Diegos'. Plenty of black Americans and other minorities are conservative on immigration issues, (and for many other reasons than 'racism') without even stating where I stand personally. All I'm saying is that oversimplifying an issue AND limiting it to 'white America' is racist itself.
A quote attributed to Thomas Jefferson said it best over 200 years ago.
"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property until their children wake-up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs."
Don't forget these!:
If people let government decide what foods they eat and
what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in
as sorry a state as are the souls of those who live under
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
I predict future happiness for Americans if they can
prevent the government from wasting the labors of the
people under the pretense of taking care of them.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826),
letter to Samuel Kercheval, July 12, 1816
The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from
those who are willing to work and give to those who would
Thomas Jefferson (1743 - 1826)
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from
those who are willing to work and give to those who would
I have no sympathy for those unwilling to work. If one expects that the government should meet their needs without a contribution from them then they have broken a social contract which assumes a modicum of responsibility of a citizen - the consequences are theirs.
For those unable to contribute through no fault of their own, the social contract demands they not be left without the basic requirements of a dignified life. A moral society protects the weakest of society, the very young and the old.
"For those unable to contribute through no fault of their own, the social contract demands they not be left without the basic requirements of a dignified life. A moral society protects the weakest of society, the very young and the old."
What social contract? I didn't agree to that shit. A moral society doesn't force other people to take care of things arbitrary groups of people want the government to try and fix. It is my wish to choose where 100% of my money and effort go. I would rather help those I care about and deem worthy. I do not wish to reward laziness. The welfare state pays for needing, not producing. It creates addicts, not producers. You want to help someone, great, but you are really going to call yourself moral by putting a gun to my face and making me help them too?