The Prometheus League
Breaking News and Updates
- Abolition Of Work
- Ai
- Alt-right
- Alternative Medicine
- Antifa
- Artificial General Intelligence
- Artificial Intelligence
- Artificial Super Intelligence
- Ascension
- Astronomy
- Atheism
- Atheist
- Atlas Shrugged
- Automation
- Ayn Rand
- Bahamas
- Bankruptcy
- Basic Income Guarantee
- Big Tech
- Bitcoin
- Black Lives Matter
- Blackjack
- Boca Chica Texas
- Brexit
- Caribbean
- Casino
- Casino Affiliate
- Cbd Oil
- Censorship
- Cf
- Chess Engines
- Childfree
- Cloning
- Cloud Computing
- Conscious Evolution
- Corona Virus
- Cosmic Heaven
- Covid-19
- Cryonics
- Cryptocurrency
- Cyberpunk
- Darwinism
- Democrat
- Designer Babies
- DNA
- Donald Trump
- Eczema
- Elon Musk
- Entheogens
- Ethical Egoism
- Eugenic Concepts
- Eugenics
- Euthanasia
- Evolution
- Extropian
- Extropianism
- Extropy
- Fake News
- Federalism
- Federalist
- Fifth Amendment
- Fifth Amendment
- Financial Independence
- First Amendment
- Fiscal Freedom
- Food Supplements
- Fourth Amendment
- Fourth Amendment
- Free Speech
- Freedom
- Freedom of Speech
- Futurism
- Futurist
- Gambling
- Gene Medicine
- Genetic Engineering
- Genome
- Germ Warfare
- Golden Rule
- Government Oppression
- Hedonism
- High Seas
- History
- Hubble Telescope
- Human Genetic Engineering
- Human Genetics
- Human Immortality
- Human Longevity
- Illuminati
- Immortality
- Immortality Medicine
- Intentional Communities
- Jacinda Ardern
- Jitsi
- Jordan Peterson
- Las Vegas
- Liberal
- Libertarian
- Libertarianism
- Liberty
- Life Extension
- Macau
- Marie Byrd Land
- Mars
- Mars Colonization
- Mars Colony
- Memetics
- Micronations
- Mind Uploading
- Minerva Reefs
- Modern Satanism
- Moon Colonization
- Nanotech
- National Vanguard
- NATO
- Neo-eugenics
- Neurohacking
- Neurotechnology
- New Utopia
- New Zealand
- Nihilism
- Nootropics
- NSA
- Oceania
- Offshore
- Olympics
- Online Casino
- Online Gambling
- Pantheism
- Personal Empowerment
- Poker
- Political Correctness
- Politically Incorrect
- Polygamy
- Populism
- Post Human
- Post Humanism
- Posthuman
- Posthumanism
- Private Islands
- Progress
- Proud Boys
- Psoriasis
- Psychedelics
- Putin
- Quantum Computing
- Quantum Physics
- Rationalism
- Republican
- Resource Based Economy
- Robotics
- Rockall
- Ron Paul
- Roulette
- Russia
- Sealand
- Seasteading
- Second Amendment
- Second Amendment
- Seychelles
- Singularitarianism
- Singularity
- Socio-economic Collapse
- Space Exploration
- Space Station
- Space Travel
- Spacex
- Sports Betting
- Sportsbook
- Superintelligence
- Survivalism
- Talmud
- Technology
- Teilhard De Charden
- Terraforming Mars
- The Singularity
- Tms
- Tor Browser
- Trance
- Transhuman
- Transhuman News
- Transhumanism
- Transhumanist
- Transtopian
- Transtopianism
- Ukraine
- Uncategorized
- Vaping
- Victimless Crimes
- Virtual Reality
- Wage Slavery
- War On Drugs
- Waveland
- Ww3
- Yahoo
- Zeitgeist Movement
-
Prometheism
-
Forbidden Fruit
-
The Evolutionary Perspective
Daily Archives: April 5, 2017
House OKs tablet gambling for those flying out of Arnold Palmer … – Tribune-Review
Posted: April 5, 2017 at 5:16 pm
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
The rest is here:
House OKs tablet gambling for those flying out of Arnold Palmer ... - Tribune-Review
Posted in Gambling
Comments Off on House OKs tablet gambling for those flying out of Arnold Palmer … – Tribune-Review
Bratislava passes measure to ban gambling from May – World Casino Directory
Posted: at 5:16 pm
In Slovakia, the city council for the nations capital and largest city, Bratislava, has reportedly passed a measure that will ban gambling from the first day of next month although current license holders are to be permitted to continue operating until their existing authorizations expire.
According to a report from The Slovak Spectator newspaper, the body passed the measure against casinos and other gambling venues such as slot parlors on March 30 following months of debate although the license for the citys Banco Casino inside the Crowne Plaza hotel is not due to expire until 2021, which will be three years after the nearby facility operated by Olympic Entertainment Group in the Eurovea Galleria shopping mall is to be forced to close.
It will not work in such a way that we will wake up tomorrow and all the gambling venues will be closed but we finally have an instrument to begin pushing them away, Bratislava mayor Ivo Nesrovnal reportedly stated following last months vote.
The newspaper reported that the upcoming ban is expected to see the city lose almost $3.2 million a year in tax revenues for a budget that last year amounted to $365.9 million although Nesrovnal declared that this would not present a problem for the capital or its 433,000 residents.
We will replace the drop in revenues, Nesrovnal told the newspaper. This was not a vote about money but about values.
The Slovak Spectator reported that the city council attempted to pass a similar prohibition in February but failed to gain enough votes while the looming ban is due to come under scrutiny after the Slovak Association Of Amusements And Games declared that it was prepared to go to court in order to have the move overturned.
The first vote failed to ban gambling but in todays vote the regulation passed and the mayor chose the result according to his preferences, Slovak Association Of Amusements And Games spokesperson Dominika Lukacova told the newspaper before pointing out that the prohibition would most likely lead to a proliferation of illegal gambling.
For its part, Olympic Entertainment Group, which operates four casinos in Bratislava that last year reported gross gaming revenues of $8.7 million, proclaimed that it intended to join with gambling proponents to help overturn the coming ban. The Tallinn-based operator moreover stated that it runs eight casinos in Slovakia that employ some 324 people and chalked up 2016 takings before tax of just over $17.5 million.
The Bratislava city council has this year adopted two completely contradictory decisions regarding a petition to ban gambling operations, read a statement from Madis Jaager, Chief Executive Officer for Olympic Entertainment Group. The position of the Slovak Association Of Amusements And Games is that the second decision adopted by the city council is null and void because it is not possible to adopt multiple decisions concerning the same petition and, therefore, the first decision not to satisfy the petition has to be considered valid. The Slovak Association Of Amusements And Games is planning to challenge the decision from March 30 in court.
Bratislava passes measure to ban gambling from May was last modified: April 5th, 2017 by Adam Morgan
EstoniaSlovakiaolympic entertainment grouptallinnmadis jaagerbratislavabanco casinoivo nesrovnalslovak association of amusements and gamesdominika lukacova
Read the original:
Bratislava passes measure to ban gambling from May - World Casino Directory
Posted in Gambling
Comments Off on Bratislava passes measure to ban gambling from May – World Casino Directory
Euthanasia: How is it done, and what’s it like putting down something you’ve vowed to care for? – Stuff.co.nz
Posted: at 5:15 pm
STACEY KIRK
Last updated15:45, April 5 2017
123rf.com
There are strong arguments and emotions on both sides of the euthanasia debate.
It's not uncommon for a distraught a pet owner, standing by Rover as he's put down in a veterinary clinic, to lament "I wish we could have done this to Grandma," MPs investigating euthanasia have been told.
Parliament's Health Select Committee is nearing the end of its inquiry into euthanasia, and its MPs requested for specific evidence to be given on the mechanics of the process by leading veterinarians and an anaesthetist.
While they hadsat through months of public submission hearings on the moral, legal and ethical points around euthanasia, little evidence had been given on the process itselfand what it felt like for the clinician performing it.
David Unwin/Fairfax NZ
MPs were told in committee today, that very few vets would opt to prolong an animals suffering, even though it's the thought of saving animals' lives that drew them to the profession.
Dean of Massey University's Veterinary School Jenny Weston said it was difficult to draw too many parallels between animals and humans, but few vets would prefer to prolong suffering rather than put an animal down.
READ MORE: *Euthanasia may be answer to incurable pain, says pain expert *Susan Austen in court on euthanasia drug charges *Charges laid over importing euthanasia drug *Both sides of the euthanasia debate *Explainer: euthanasiadebate
SUPPLIED
Wellington lawyer Lecretia Seales' was denied by the court a right to die at the time of her choosing with help from a her doctor. But her husband Matt Vickers carried on her fight, and with the help of former MP Marion Street, delivered a petition to Parliament, which has resulted in the parliamentary inquiry.
"As a profession, we don't have a compulsory requirement for a debrief as there are in other professions - where you can go and unburden your soul about what might be troubling you.
"I think there would be almost no veterinarians, who when there is a sick animal that's in pain, and there is no treatment available, would have any concerns about it," she said.
Often, while it could be a harrowing procedure for the owners, it was one they were most thankful for.
ROSS GIBLIN/FAIRFAX NZ
Matt Vickers, husband of Lecretia Seales, still hopes Government will put forward a bill to legalise voluntary euthanasia.
"Bizarrely it's one of the most appreciated things by clients - is you get more cakes and boxes of chocolates from grateful clients after doing a good job of euthanasing a much loved animal than you do for repairing a terribly fractured leg," she said.
Questions over whether pets would need to beeuthanasedas frequentlyif quality palliative care existed, were incomparable to a subsidised public health system, she said.
However the process with pets often triggered emotional responses if owners had also watched a loved family member suffer in their last years.
"Certainly, there's a majority of times when youreuthanasingsomebody's pet and the ownerwill comment that 'I wish we could have done this to grandma' and there's certainly a strong view that we are kinder to animals."
Asked about the issue of consent, Weston explained to MPs fundamental differences between animals and humans, and their relationships, made it difficult to draw comparisons.
"I always look at animals I've viewed as property, even when they are companion animals and are very much like a child for a lot of people.
"So it is very different for the medical profession, I would imagine, they would only be asked to assist somebody to die by that person," she said.
The animal belonged to a person,and if thatowner consented that they want it to be put to sleep then the vet would do that.
"And as a person, if you can't own your own body and say what you wish to happen, then I would not want to consider at all that a person is the property of another person who would," Weston said.
HOW IT WORKS
In the way the euthanasia process was carried out, it was typically very peaceful and not dissimilar between animals and humans.
"It's a huge overdose of an anaesthetic, so generally the drug enters the bloodstream and the animal just stops breathing, the pupils dilate and the heart stops beating," said Weston, in the case of animals.
"It works on the brain to shut down the activity on the body. So the heart will keep on beating for a minute or two and the pupils dilate instantly, which is a sign of brain function.
"So as long as you've correctly found the vein then it's usually very peaceful. Sometimes if, in particularly old and very-close-to-death animals, the circulation is compromised and it doesn't act as quickly."
But in those cases, the animal would have totally lost consciousness even though there might be apparentgasping and the expansion of the chest in the moments before they died.
New Zealand Society of Anaesthetists President Dr David Kibblewhite outlined a similar intravenousmethod for the committee, by which barbiturates were administered in humans. They could also be delivered orally, which was more common.
He was only able to speak on the processes he was aware of overseas, because while death could sometimes be an outcome of increased pain medication in a terminal patient's final days,no doctor in New Zealand had actually carried out the euthanasia procedure.
But it was not complicated, and in fact occurred on an almost daily basis as part of open heart surgery.
In that instance a person would be given a sedative and a muscle relaxant, and would then be delivered the barbiturate that would "arrest" or stop the heart.
A heart cannot be beating, or drawing oxygen, while a surgeon is operating on it. It's restarted once the procedure is complete.
In a euthanasia procedure it wouldn't be restarted.
"It's not all that complicated really."
-Stuff
More:
Posted in Euthanasia
Comments Off on Euthanasia: How is it done, and what’s it like putting down something you’ve vowed to care for? – Stuff.co.nz
GRAPHIC IMAGES: Pinetown community calls for euthanasia of killer pit bulls – Highway Mail
Posted: at 5:15 pm
THE Pinetown community is calling for two pit bulls that savagely attacked and killed two Jack Russells last week to be euthanised.
Jethro McNamee said his three Jack Russells, Jack, Jill and their baby, AB, lived at his girlfriends home in Balfour Road in Pinetown for the last year. He dropped them off every morning before going to work. His girlfriend, Natasha Clerk, also has a Jack Russell named Duke.
Jill, Jack and AB as a family.
However, on Friday, 31 March their world was shattered when two ferocious pit bulls forced their way into the fenced-off property and front gate at his girlfriends home and attacked two of the four Jack Russells.
The attack set off the security alarm and Blue Security arrived at the house and informed the owners about a dog attack in progress. The reaction officers fired three shots into the air to get the pit bulls off the premises. The police and community watch members were also alerted.
When McNamee arrived at the property, he found his male dog, Jack, unable to move due to the massive wounds on his neck. The female dog, Jill, was found dead a short distance away from Jack.
Jills stomach was ripped open and her intestines were hanging out. There was also a huge chunk of her neck that had been bitten off. The other two dogs, Duke and AB were missing at the time.
Jill was was fatally killed when the pitbulls attacked her. Her stomach was ripped open and her intestines hanging out. She also had a chunk of her neck bitten into.
McNamee said he called for the third dog, AB, and he came running out from the bushes on the other side of the property where he had been hiding. Duke reportedly ran out the gate when Blue Security arrived.
I tried to give Jack some water but he wouldnt drink. A community member, Russel Mallory, helped me by driving Jack and I to the Kloof and Highway SPCA for emergency treatment for Jack but staff said his wounds were too extensive for them to treat so instead they stabilised him and we took him to Everton Veterinary Clinic, said McNamee.
He left Jack in their care and went to look for Duke, but three hours later received a call to say Jack had gone into a coma and stopped breathing.
Jack has massive wounds to his neck. He went into a coma and stopped breathing. Dr Evans at the Everton Vet said he had died due to haemorrhaging.
McNamee went to fetch Jacks body and the veterinarian, Dr Evans, told him the damage to Jacks spine would have left him paralysed and Jack died due to the haemorrhaging.
I took Jack home and my father and I buried Jack and Jill together. They died protecting AB and Duke, who were the younger pets, said McNamee.
The pitbulls were removed from the owner, Abel Khumalos property and taken to the Kloof and Highway SPCA. Khumalo was away in Pretoria at the time.
The community has called for the dogs to be euthanised as this is not the first time the dogs escaped from their yard. Some community members said they were petrified to walk past the property due to the violent nature of the dogs and the gate left open at times. Theres also a Rottweiler on the premises.
Kumalo shares a fence with Pinetown Boys High School. The school gate is next to his gate where the dogs ran out. Jethro said he spoke to the owner on Sunday who is determined to get his dogs back.
However, inspectors at the Kloof and Highway SPCA told Jethro that they will investigate the premises but can not force Khumalo to relocate his dogs if the yard is safe for the animals. They also said they can not force the owner to euthanise the dogs. However, the inspectors did say they were concerned about the community attacking the dogs.
Community members threatened to shoot the dogs if they see it in the community again.
Personally, I dont want to see those dogs again either because I still have two dogs on my girlfriends property. Those pitbulls have tasted blood now and I have no guarantee that they wont attack again, said Jethro.
Jethro filed a charge for keeping a ferocious animal against Khumalo at the Pinetown SAPS on the same day as per advice given to him by a Metro Police officer, Sean Jooste.
My dogs were my family. They were on the property for a year and this is the first time weve had any dog enter the property, said Jethro.
SPCA responds Barbara Patrick, manager of the Kloof and Highway SPCA, confirmed that the pitbull dogs are currently at the Kloof and Highway SPCA and they have not been contacted by the owners as yet with regards to taking their dogs home.
However, Barbara did speak to the owner, his two children and a member of the community and gave them advice on Friday.
Each and every case is dealt with and there is no specific protocol used for dog attacks, said Patrick.
Khumalo was not available for comment at the time of going to press.
Do you want to receive news alerts via WhatsApp? Send us a WhatsApp message (not an sms) with your name and surname (ONLY) to 060 532 5409.
You can also join the conversation onFacebook,TwitterandInstagram.
Go here to see the original:
GRAPHIC IMAGES: Pinetown community calls for euthanasia of killer pit bulls - Highway Mail
Posted in Euthanasia
Comments Off on GRAPHIC IMAGES: Pinetown community calls for euthanasia of killer pit bulls – Highway Mail
Willson: Hippocrates would have supported euthanasia – Rocky Mountain Collegian
Posted: at 5:15 pm
Editors Note: All opinion section content reflects the views of the individual author only and does not represent a stance taken by the Collegian or its editorial board.
Alongside embryonic stem cells and abortion, the practice of physician-assisted death is one of todays most contested bioethical issues. Those opposed to aid in dying argue that the practice is out of line with fundamental medical principles, mainly those based upon the oft-quoted Hippocratic Oath. Such a claim, however, is erroneous as modern-day Hippocratic Oaths are not identical iterations of the ancient Greek declaration. I would actually go so far as to argue that physician-assisted death is supported by contemporary physicians pledges. With this in mind, I believe we should view Death with Dignity not as an issue at all, but rather as a new, necessary form of treatment that has grown out of a rapidly evolving medical landscape.
Physician-assisted death (PAD) refers to a patients conscious decision to end their life by way of lethal substances using the direct or indirect involvement of a physician. A situation where this practice might be employed is in the case of terminal cancer. If the affected patient knows they are going to die within X number of months and does not wish to undergo painful chemotherapy and/or palliative treatments until then, they can hasten death with the help of a licensed physician.
Few statesonly six plus the District of Columbiahave legislation permitting physician-aided death. This is in large part due to persistent qualms about the supposedly immoral nature of helping someone die. A large part of these beliefs are influenced by religious dogma, especially in the Catholic Church, as well as pro-life political movements. But, particularly in the medical field, some argue that helping a patient reach lifes end diametrically opposes the primary tenets of the Hippocratic Oath: primum non nocere, or, first, do no harm.
There are twothings wrong with this argument.
First, the above mentioned phrase is not actually from Hippocrates eponymous oath but is believed to have come from his work, Of the Epidemics. Granted, there is similar language found in the actual Hippocratic Oath: I will use treatment to help the sick . . . but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. The only reason I point out this discrepancy is to show that the argument of primum non nocereis not technically a part of the physicians pledge and thus should not be a major argument for anti-PAD oath-takers.
Secondly, many modern medical schools have their own versions of the Hippocratic Oath, drawing elements from the original text, while some do not require them at all. Thats not to say that some schools are more ethical than others, just that certain institutions view the practice of medicine in different waysas they should, for the field is subject to change as major advancements or discoveries are made.
The genuine Hippocratic Oath, written circa 400 BCE, stresses admirable values, such as treating patients with the best of ones skills, handing down medical knowledge to subsequent generations, and ensuring patient consent to treatment. But, some elements of the oath, such as those pertaining to religion or those forbidding abortions, fell by the wayside over the years. Some parts of the oath were adopted into modern versions, while others were omitted. These variations show not only a growing individualism in perception of medical practice, but epitomize the complexity and subjective nature of bioethics.
Interestingly, only 14 percent of modern day Hippocratic Oaths forbid euthanasia.If a doctor argues that they cannot perform PAD due to its conflict with a sworn pledge, it is statistically unlikely that their oath actually forbade the practice.
Even when discounting the semantics of Hippocratic Oaths, I firmly believe that we are the captains of our souls as well as our own bodies. If diagnosed with a terminal illness and given the option of: a) undergoing painful treatment until natural death, or b) ending things quickly in a relatively painless way, I am positive I would choose the latter. Wouldnt you?
But, dont just take my word for it. Six states and the District of Columbia have already legalized PAD, and it can be expected that number will increase in coming years. The growing level of acceptance can be seen on both ends of the patient-provider spectrum.
Patients have a number of reasons for supporting euthanasia: alleviation of negative side effects; regaining a sense of control over an otherwise ungovernable illness; and eliminating fears of the future, such as worsening quality of life and/or becoming a burden on loved ones.
Physicians too are able to see why support of PAD should be given. As medical practitioners, physicians aim to show every patient care and compassion, while also providing their best advice for course of treatment. To discount the compassionate nature of euthanasiaits literally giving a patient asked-for relief from painis to discount the shared message of all Hippocratic Oaths: to avoid wrongdoing towards the patient. If a sick person is suffering and a doctor has the ability to end that pain, why wouldnt they?
We shouldnt argue that PAD is wrong because it violates the Hippocratic Oath. Instead, we should debate why this practice is still inaccessible to so many who are suffering. Unfortunately, Im out of paper space, so thatll have to be a discussion for another day.
Note: I have chosen not to use the familiar term physician-assisted suicide due to its perpetuation of prejudice and negative sentiments towards individuals who choose to die with dignity.
Lauren Willson can be reached at letters@collegian and online at @LaurenKealani
Excerpt from:
Willson: Hippocrates would have supported euthanasia - Rocky Mountain Collegian
Posted in Euthanasia
Comments Off on Willson: Hippocrates would have supported euthanasia – Rocky Mountain Collegian
Bangladeshi father’s cry for euthanasia prompts Indian clinic to treat patients pro bono – Times Now
Posted: at 5:15 pm
Bangladeshi father's cry for euthanasia prompts Indian clinic to treat patients pro bono Times Now Fruit seller Tofazzal Hossain sparked a rare debate about euthanasia in conservative Bangladesh in January when he pleaded with the authorities to allow his grandson and two sons to die. All three suffer from Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy, a rare genetic ... |
The rest is here:
Bangladeshi father's cry for euthanasia prompts Indian clinic to treat patients pro bono - Times Now
Posted in Euthanasia
Comments Off on Bangladeshi father’s cry for euthanasia prompts Indian clinic to treat patients pro bono – Times Now
How Ayn Rand’s ‘elitism’ lives on in the Trump administration
Posted: at 5:14 pm
Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.
Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.
As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.
Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.
That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.
These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.
Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.
Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.
Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.
How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?
Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.
Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.
Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.
Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.
In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,
The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.
Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.
Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says
When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?
Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.
Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?
The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.
Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.
This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.
The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements
But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.
Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,
The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.
So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?
I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.
Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.
Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.
The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.
To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.
Read this article:
How Ayn Rand's 'elitism' lives on in the Trump administration
Posted in Ayn Rand
Comments Off on How Ayn Rand’s ‘elitism’ lives on in the Trump administration
No sympathy for the poor: How Ayn Rands elitism lives on …
Posted: at 5:14 pm
Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.
Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.
As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.
Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.
That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.
These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.
Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.
Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.
Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.
How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?
Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.
Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.
Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.
Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.
In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,
The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.
Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.
Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says
When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?
Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.
Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?
The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.
Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.
This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.
The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements
But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.
Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,
The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.
So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?
I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.
Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.
Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.
The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.
To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.
Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
See the article here:
No sympathy for the poor: How Ayn Rands elitism lives on ...
Posted in Ayn Rand
Comments Off on No sympathy for the poor: How Ayn Rands elitism lives on …
How Ayn Rand’s ‘elitism’ lives on in the Donald Trump …
Posted: at 5:14 pm
Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.
Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.
As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.
Whats in common with Ayn Rand?
Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.
That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.
These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.
Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.
Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.
Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.
What is Ayn Rands philosophy?
How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?
Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.
Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.
Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.
Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.
No sympathy for the poor
In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,
The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.
Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.
Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says
When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?
Telling it like it is
Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.
Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?
The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.
Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.
Building ones fortune
This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.
The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements
But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.
Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,
The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.
So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?
I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.
Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.
Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.
The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.
To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.
Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Trumps secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, has said Ayn Rands novel Atlas Shrugged is his favorite book. Mike Pompeo, head of the CIA, cited Rand as a major inspiration. Before he withdrew his nomination, Trumps pick to head the Labor Department, Andrew Puzder, revealed that he devotes much free time to reading Rand.
Such is the case with many other Trump advisers and allies: The Republican leader of the House of Representatives, Paul Ryan, famously made his staff members read Ayn Rand. Trump himself has said that hes a fan of Rand and identifies with Howard Roark, the protagonist of Rands novel, The Fountainhead, an architect who dynamites a housing project he designed because the builders did not precisely follow his blueprints.
As a philosopher, I have often wondered at the remarkable endurance and popularity of Ayn Rands influence on American politics. Even by earlier standards, however, Rands dominance over the current administration looks especially strong.
Whats in common with Ayn Rand?
Recently, historian and Rand expert Jennifer Burns wrote how Rands sway over the Republican Party is diminishing. Burns says the promises of government largesse and economic nationalism under Trump would repel Rand.
That was before the president unveiled his proposed federal budget that greatly slashes nonmilitary government spending and before Paul Ryans Obamacare reform, which promised to strip health coverage from 24 million low-income Americans and grant the rich a generous tax cut instead. Now, Trump looks to be zeroing in on a significant tax cut for the rich and corporations.
These all sound like measures Rand would enthusiastically support, in so far as they assist the capitalists and so-called job creators, instead of the poor.
Though the Trump administration looks quite steeped in Rands thought, there is one curious discrepancy. Ayn Rand exudes a robust elitism, unlike any I have observed elsewhere in the tomes of political philosophy. But this runs counter to the narrative of the Trump phenomenon: Central to the Trumps ascendancy is a rejection of elites reigning from urban centers and the coasts, overrepresented at universities and in Hollywood, apparently.
Liberals despair over the fact that they are branded elitists, while, as former television host Jon Stewart put it, Republicans backed a man who takes every chance to tout his superiority, and lords over creation from a gilded penthouse apartment, in a skyscraper that bears his own name.
Clearly, liberals lost this rhetorical battle.
What is Ayn Rands philosophy?
How shall we make sense of the gross elitism at the heart of the Trump administration, embodied in its devotion to Ayn Rand elitism that its supporters overlook or ignore, and happily ascribe to the left instead?
Ayn Rands philosophy is quite straightforward. Rand sees the world divided into makers and takers. But, in her view, the real makers are a select few a real elite, on whom we would do well to rely, and for whom we should clear the way, by reducing or removing taxes and government regulations, among other things.
Rands thought is intellectually digestible, unnuanced, easily translated into policy approaches and statements.
Small government is in order because it lets the great people soar to great heights, and they will drag the rest with them. Rand says we must ensure that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements, while rising further and ever further.
Mitt Romney captured Rands philosophy well during the 2012 campaign when he spoke of the 47 percent of Americans who do not work, vote Democrat and are happy to be supported by hardworking, conservative Americans.
No sympathy for the poor
In laying out her dualistic vision of society, divided into good and evil, Rands language is often starker and harsher. In her 1957 novel, Atlas Shrugged, she says,
The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all their brains.
Rands is the opposite of a charitable view of humankind, and can, in fact, be quite cruel. Consider her attack on Pope Paul VI, who, in his 1967 encyclical Progressio Populorum, argued that the West has a duty to help developing nations, and called for its sympathy for the global poor.
Rand was appalled; instead of feeling sympathy for the poor, she says
When [Western Man] discovered entire populations rotting alive in such conditions [in the developing world], is he not to acknowledge, with a burning stab of pride or pride and gratitude the achievements of his nation and his culture, of the men who created them and left him a nobler heritage to carry forward?
Telling it like it is
Why doesnt Rands elitism turn off Republican voters? or turn them against their leaders who, apparently, ought to disdain lower and middle class folk? If anyone like Trump identifies with Rands protagonists, they must think themselves truly excellent, while the muddling masses, they are beyond hope.
Why hasnt news of this disdain then trickled down to the voters yet?
The neoconservatives, who held sway under President George W. Bush, were also quite elitist, but figured out how to speak to the Republican base, in their language. Bush himself, despite his Andover-Yale upbringing, was lauded as someone you could have a beer with.
Trump has succeeded even better in this respect he famously tells it like it is, his supporters like to say. Of course, as judged by fact-checkers, Trumps relationship to the truth is embattled and tenuous; what his supporters seem to appreciate, rather, is his willingness to voice their suspicions and prejudices without worrying about recriminations of critics. Trump says things people are reluctant or shy to voice loudly if at all.
Building ones fortune
This gets us closer to whats going on. Rand is decidedly cynical about the said masses: There is little point in preaching to them; they wont change or improve, at least of their own accord; nor will they offer assistance to the capitalists. The masses just need to stay out of the way.
The principal virtue of a free market, Rand explains, is that the exceptional men, the innovators, the intellectual giants, are not held down by the majority. In fact, it is the members of this exceptional minority who lift the whole of a free society to the level of their own achievements
But they dont lift the masses willingly or easily, she says: While the majority have barely assimilated the value of the automobile, the creative minority introduces the airplane. The majority learn by demonstration, the minority are free to demonstrate.
Like Rand, her followers who populate the Trump administration are largely indifferent to the progress of the masses. They will let people be. Rand believes, quite simply, most people are hapless on their own, and we simply cannot expect much of them. There are only a few on whom we should pin our hopes; the rest are simply irrelevant. Which is why she complains about our tendency to give welfare to the needy. She says,
The welfare and rights of the producers were not regarded as worthy of consideration or recognition. This is the most damning indictment of the present state of our culture.
So, why do Republicans get away with eluding the title of elitist despite their allegiance to Rand while Democrats are stuck with this title?
I think part of the reason is that Democrats, among other things, are moralistic. They are more optimistic about human nature they are more optimistic about the capacity of humans to progress morally and live in harmony.
Thus, liberals judge: They call out our racism, our sexism, our xenophobia. They make people feel bad for harboring such prejudices, wittingly or not, and they warn us away from potentially offensive language, and phrases.
Many conservative opponents scorn liberals for their ill-founded nave optimism. For in Rands world there is no hope for the vast majority of mankind. She heaps scorn on the poor billions, whom civilized men are prodded to help.
The best they can hope for is that they might be lucky enough to enjoy the riches produced by the real innovators, which might eventually trickle down to them in their misery.
To the extent that Trump and his colleagues embrace Rands thought, they must share or approach some of her cynicism.
Firmin DeBrabander, Professor of Philosophy, Maryland Institute College of Art
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Firmin DeBrabander | The Conversation
http://bsmedia.business-standard.com/_media/bs/wap/images/bs_logo_amp.png 177 22
Read more:
Posted in Ayn Rand
Comments Off on How Ayn Rand’s ‘elitism’ lives on in the Donald Trump …
Adam Smith Institute’s Eamonn Butler Extols Ayn Rand – The Objective Standard
Posted: at 5:14 pm
Portrait of Ayn Rand Courtesy of Ayn Rand Archives
Though she died in 1982, huge numbers of people still come to Ayn Rand through her novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shruggedand their lives are changed as a result. No wonder. These novels assert the nobility of using your mind to reach your full potential.
So begins a brief but remarkable article by Dr. Eamonn Butler, Director of the Adam Smith Institute.He continues: Rands heroes are individualists who live by their own creative talentsexisting for no one else, nor asking others to exist for them. They stand by their own vision and truth: a vision built on their own values and a truth built on fact and reason, not on the false authority of others.
Butler not only observes that Rands heroes are fundamentally rational, independent thinkers, he also highlights her principle that minds cannot be forced to thinkand notes the power of this immense idea:
Creativity, and therefore human progress, depends on people being free to think and act in pursuit of their own values. That is a powerful case for liberty, values, mind, reason, creativity, entrepreneurship, capitalism, achievement, heroism, happiness, self-esteem and pride. And against the life-destroying consequences of coercion, extortion, regulation, self-sacrifice, altruism, wishful thinking and refusing to use ones mind.
That is an eloquent portrayal of Rands ideas regarding mans need of freedom and the consequent evil of coercion. Note on which side of this equation Butler places self-sacrifice, altruism, and the refusal to think. Spot on.
Butler also notes the increasing global popularity of Rands works, citing statistics about her book sales in various countries; Google searches for Ayn Rand (Sweden leads the world on this count); and various political figures from the United States, Sweden, Estonia, and Australia, who have been influenced by her ideas.
Read Butlers full article here.
Its great to see such a prominent thinker at such a renowned think tank recognizing the nature and importance of Rands ideas. I suspect that if Adam Smith and Ayn Rand were alive to see it, they would greatly appreciate this development.
Three cheers to Dr. Butler and the Adam Smith Institute for writing and publishing this importantarticle.
Related:
Sign up to receive our free weekly newsletter.
Read the original:
Adam Smith Institute's Eamonn Butler Extols Ayn Rand - The Objective Standard
Posted in Ayn Rand
Comments Off on Adam Smith Institute’s Eamonn Butler Extols Ayn Rand – The Objective Standard