Flutterby™! : GOP reconfiguring Rand

Next unread comment / Catchup all unread comments User Account Info | Logout | XML/Pilot/etc versions | Long version (with comments) | Weblog archives | Site Map | | Browse Topics

GOP reconfiguring Rand

2012-08-11 15:15:35.671832+00 by ebradway 12 comments

As y'all know, I haven't been a fan of Ayn Rand since around age 19. There was a period from about age 15 to 19 where I was the guy handing out copies of The Fountainhead. And I did go to the Atlas Shrugged movie on opening night with a friend (who is still a devotee). To be clear, I don't call myself an "Objectivist" but I've read most of her books and appreciate Rand's position in the canon of Western Philosophy.

What I don't get is how Paul Ryan and Ron Paul can square their position on abortion with Rand's philosophy? It seems pretty clear to me that Objectivism would leave the abortion choice up to the woman. And, at most, expect the state to ensure safe and open access to the necessary medical procedures.

Sure, there's the whole issue of the unborn child's rights. And I could see Ayn Rand's philosophical mind struggling with the concept: what rights does an embryo have in utero? I'd have to read back through more of her books than I want to, but I strongly suspect that Rand would side with the mother because her sentience can be objectively established.

[ related topics: Politics Objectivism Books Sexual Culture Movies Bay Area Civil Liberties Philosophy ]

comments in descending chronological order (reverse):

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-22 00:30:04.482618+00 by: Dan Lyke

Giggle! Awesome.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-21 21:03:25.665383+00 by: TheSHAD0W


"Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan" is an anagram for "my ultimate Ayn Rand porn".

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-15 16:06:09.490839+00 by: Dan Lyke

Sonofabitch, I thought the Android was better than iOS for such things. Damn. think I fixed it.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-15 15:49:48.592752+00 by: TheSHAD0W [edit history]

^ link fixed.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-15 14:31:06.704195+00 by: Dan Lyke [edit history]

I haven't watched this Brit Hume interview of Paul Ryan, but Ryan allegedly rejects Objectivism: http://foxnewsinsider.com/2012...s-and-his-chemistry-with-romney/

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-14 18:17:53.374384+00 by: Dan Lyke

Atlantic: If Paul Ryan Were an Atlas Shrugged Character, He'd Be a Villain.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-13 18:49:48.869519+00 by: petronius [edit history]

Re Exodus: Thumpers would point out that Mosaic law also demands you keep kosher, yet they don't. The New Covenant replaced the original one. Rand's thought is a starting point, not an end point.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-12 11:57:03.548996+00 by: andylyke

apropos the bible Exodus 22:21 -

"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."

So the destruction of the fetus, according to Mosaic law, is not a sin, nor a crime, but a civil tort, to the extent that it offends. (Ignoring the "woman's husband" archaism) Amazing how many thumpers ignore the text.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-12 05:45:37.249293+00 by: ebradway

I actually got this reply on Twitter:

@ebwolf Paul Ryan agrees with her economic beliefs but believes abortion takes innocent life. Why is that hard to understand?

The GOP picks and chooses from Rand just like they do from the Bible.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-12 04:42:02.378746+00 by: Dan Lyke

I don't remember specifics of Rand's take, but I have always taken Objectivism in the light that the sentience of the fetus is irrelevant: the creature exists only thought the support of the mother, and the mother has the right to withdraw that support. To say the fetus has any "right to life" says that the mother doesn't, which is antithetical to the core of Objectivism.

But, of course, the GOP picks and chooses which Rand it wants to hold as a model.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-11 23:58:00.98864+00 by: ebradway

Shadow: I hadn't looked at Ron Paul's voting record on abortion, so I assume you are correct. That would place Ron Paul in a similar position to Jimmy Carter when Roe v. Wade was decided. As President, he was not supposed to allow his personal convictions to supercede the law of the land, as decided by SCOTUS.

As for Paul Ryan... well... That's another can of worms.

#Comment Re: made: 2012-08-11 18:23:03.74353+00 by: TheSHAD0W

Ron Paul is morally anti-abortion, but he has never proposed banning it; rather, he is against government funding for it, which is entirely within libertarian (much less Randian) philosophy.