Today on Blogcritics
Home » A case for objectivism

A case for objectivism

Please Share...Tweet about this on Twitter0Share on Facebook0Share on Google+0Share on LinkedIn0Pin on Pinterest0Share on TumblrShare on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

I believe that in the short term people are quick to jump when they see negative politics, but after a while, they wise up. People soon realize that rude attacks on adversaries is not what politics should be about. That is what is happening how. I think that when people like Howard Dean call Bush a “gang leader”, only die-hard socialists who are starving for red meat cheer. The rest of America, who look at it more objectively, just see political hacks who have no real new ideas, just a pot full of mud to throw.

I am sometimes mystified by how I ever became a libertarian. I attended public school, went to Penn State, and majored in Liberal Arts. I majored in American Studies, and studied a lot about culture from many great professors.

While pondering the immortal words of Socrates when he said “I drank what?,” I had a realization stemming from my naiveté, and my belief that not everyone can be as liberal as Sean Hannity makes them out to be. It was that I was cheated on education. I never learned about conservative social philosophies like Objectivism.

Don, over at Anger Management mentions Ayn Rand and objectivism quite a lot, and I did some research and found how much my thought coincides with objectivism. From what I can see, objectivism is based on individualism, the free market, and a libertarian attitude. It seems to make sense. I have to read more of it.

Don highly recommends that I read her book. I will do that.

Powered by

About Tom Bux

  • Eric Olsen

    Thanks Tom and welcome! You and Al Barger will be best buddies.

  • http://www.murphyhorner.com Murphy Horner

    Keep your wits about you, but that book is awesome! I love Rand!

    I wouldn’t buy into everything, but she has some very interesting points.

  • http://www.well.com/~srhodes Steve Rhodes

    I don’t want to be mean, but your education should have covered basic writing and proofreading (demogoging, ides, put) before objectivism (which was covered in a critical thinking philosophy course I took at North Central High School in Indianapolis).

    The whole post could use a good edit, but particularly this passage:

    I think that when people like Howard Dean call Bush a “gang leader”, only die-hard socialists who are starving for red meat cheer. The rest of America who look at it more objectively see political hacks that have no real new ides, just a put full of mud to throw.

  • mike

    Just don’t become a “pro-war” libertarian. That stuff is ridiculous. “No big government, but let’s build schools and hospitals in Iraq!” Totally off the wall.

    Start at LewRockwell.com or Wanniski.com before Al leads you down the wrong path.

  • http://tombux.blogspot.com Tom

    I am pro-war in the case of our current state. September 11th has changed forever our place in the world. We are targets by fundamentalists who aim to destroy us. We must destroy them before something worse than 9/11 happens.

  • Eric Olsen

    Very wise Tom, very wise. Per Steve’s suggestion, I did a small edit.

  • http://macaronies.blogspot.com Mac Diva

    You are a college graduate, Tom? Oh my!

  • Eric Olsen

    Whoa, this place is pretty Darwinian – not that it could really be otherwise and not suck. But …

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    Scary.

  • http://www.morethings.com/log Al Barger

    And does “scary” = “not true”?

    Atlas Shrugged may be the most important book of the century, heartily recommended.

    You may however wish to start with her previous book, The Fountainhead. Ms. Rand later in life described it as an “overture” to Atlas. The Fountainhead is shorter, and perhaps more succint.

    There are no characters in common between the books, but the social situations of The Fountainhead are a kind of premonition of the apocalypse of Atlas Shrugged.

    Stand back Mike, for my [and Ayn’s] evil influence will prevail. Mwa-ha-ha!

  • John Mudd

    If you’re going to do puns on my last name, you definitely should learn how to spell puddle.

    Cheers.

  • http://www.particleman.org/ Particleman

    I’ll chime in here and vouch for what others are saying. While Rand might make some good points, I wouldn’t take it all at face value. I read The Fountainhead some time ago so i don’t remember the details, but I do remember thinking Rand went over board with a lot of her ideas. And you might as well read Fountainhead first. It’s shorter and, from what I’ve heard, says about the same things.

  • http://fando.blogs.com Natalie Davis

    Particleman, I have read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. I will not debate the matter in this forum, but will say only that while she made many good points, her selfishness and shallowness undercut the valuable ideas she had. And much of what she posited flies in the face of many of my most deeply held beliefs about humans and why we are on this earth.

  • http://www.martinlitho.com Ralph Del Rio

    There is no doubt that Atlas Shrugged is on a short list of books including Brave New World, 1984, Cats Cradle and Clockwork Orange. As time goes on William Gibson and Phillip K. Dick will be on this list. You know books like Catcher in the Rye, A Separate Peace and The Great Gatsby used to say alot more than they do now.

  • Eric Olsen

    I think Rand’s “enlightened self-interest” was a necessary and powerful antidote to the totalitarian collectivism of communism and fascism, which had particular appeal among intellectuals at the time. Democracy is built upon the indivisible unit of the individual and she helped reenforce that point.

  • Sam

    Tom

    I accidentally stumbled on to this page while looking for something else. I am an Objectivist and a big admirer of Rand. If you have any specific questions about the philosophy send me an E-mail and I will be happy to help.

  • A former Rand-fan

    During my university years I also used to be a big fan of Rand.

    I grant it that her works are entertaining, but her philosophy stands on several massive fallacies and her characters and stories are pure fiction.
    Especially in our days when the economy of the whole world is governed by a handful non-productive speculative billionaires and corrupt politicians, John Galt, the productive genius and self-made millionaire is just a fairy tale.
    He may be reality only under rare circumstances; if one is really an exceptional talent in a field, and if one has the means to somehow manage his talents. Maybe.

    But even then, in reality you will see that more talented figures as hers will end up nowhere in this world, if they are not born into “the right place at the right time” and/or if they don’t subscribe to the overwhelmingly immoral trend of science, business and politics of our days’ “free world”, which is a “morality” of mediocrity, looting, mass-deception, envy, greed for unearned wealth and often sheer cruelty, that is the exact opposite of the grand ideals Rand advocates.
    Oh, with the exception of selfishness, of course.
    But the main problem is this: it is the ideal of selfishness that has made our world into what it is today.

  • Boeke

    Jennifer Burns has written a new book about Rand: “Goddess of the Market: Ayn Rand and the American Right”. I just saw Burns lecture on the book in a Miller Center Lecture on PBS at UVA. Burns book is more interesting than Rand was.