Considering the constant need for scapegoats required by political
movements today; in this time when the traditional bigotries are less
effective then they were in the days of minstrel shows and segregated
lunch counters, it's not surprising to see article after article telling
us just how bad for everyone (everyone of course means Randian
Rangers) it is to allow older people to survive past the end of wage
earning, what with how much it costs us real working-folk (and
parasitic political journalists) to maintain that surplus population.
After all, back in the dog eat dog golden age, people knew their place
and had the decency to die in their 50's and 60's after a few years of
abject poverty and disease - like God and the Conservatives intended. Too old to work? Die Grandpa, die.
We are asked by Liberals ( and how we hate Liberals) to
tolerate the strain of civilized values on the economy these days, and
those values require constant inflow to the Medicare and Social Security
systems, but of course it's rarely mentioned that today's recipients
have been paying into those funds for their entire working lives and
that future recipients are building credit for themselves as well as
supporting current recipients. In fact that's how private insurance
plans work too but at a higher cost.
But I've talked this to death and my rant today has more to do with the more important things in life -- like cars and driving. David Frum writes in Newsweek today that
"old people" once again are jeopardizing the prosperity and safety of
the eternally and righteously young and -- if we allow it -- they are
going to bankrupt our country -- because after all, that undefined category of drivers: the elderly,
has more accidents than anyone but teenagers. It's hard, of course to
argue that teenagers are going to bankrupt us in that way, but really,
the most common tool of douchebag Republican flim-flam artists like Frum
is to create categories and attribute the proposed characteristics to
all individuals in that group. Of course by bankrupting the economy,
Frum really means his insurance rates might go up - you know just how
his health insurance rates are so high because so many people have to
resort to the most expensive health care: the emergency room.
In the interests of glasnost, I have to mention that
I'm old, but with 20/20 vision, unimpaired senses and reflexes; with
decades of accident free driving, on and off of race tracks and in high
performance cars, I have to weigh a million miles and 50 years of
experience in rain, snow, sleet and dark of night against the skills of
chubby cheeked Dave, whom I'm willing to bet would soil himself in
circumstances I've safely dealt with since before he was born. SUV
drivers have a higher accident rate, so do those who like to talk or
smoke while driving. Frum is silent about those ad hoc groups. Could
it be that this really isn't about economics or about safety on the
road?
But we have to get them off the road, says the Frumster. We have to cut them all off from society and relegate them
to dependency and poverty because, this isn't actually about cars or
safety, it's about shirking responsibility, about increasing economic
disparity - the foundation of modern Conservatism. It's about promoting
poverty and suffering so that the elect can live better while their
parents are put out on ice-flows to die where we don't have to see or
pay. Don't weed out bad drivers, let's disenfranchise millions of good
ones and justify it with fallacious arguments.
Why not simply require vision and driving tests for those
over a certain age? (perhaps 16 for New York drivers) That way guys
like Paul Newman and me can continue to race cars into their
octogenarian decade and the incurable menaces of all ages -- the
cellphone addicts, the people who stop on tollway entrance ramps and
slow down for green lights -- the incurably confused -- can be put into
oil drums and sunk to the bottom of the Marianas trench along with
David Frum. Why not argue for decent public transportation like they
have in decent countries so that perhaps I could actually get somewhere
without driving? What are you -- a tax and spend socialist? Let them get chauffeurs!
"Why not argue for decent public transportation like they have in decent countries so that perhaps I could actually get somewhere without driving? What are you -- a tax and spend socialist? Let them get chauffeurs!"
ReplyDeleteI go almost everywhere with Charlie. I don't have a car here in the city, and rarely need one.
If I can't walk to where I need to go, and there's no public transportation to get me there, I can rent a Zip Car.
I'm finding I like driving less and less.
But sometimes I do wish there were some kindly gentleman who would consent to be my chauffeur, while I sat in the back seat eating tiramisu!
Randian Rangers? - Decent countries? Kind of tales the point of discussion off the table.
ReplyDeleteYes, Randian Rangers.
ReplyDeleteNever in the history of literature, philosophy or civilization has a more disturbed and character disordered person received so much adulation as Alisa Rosenbaum. Here is Michael Prescott’s account of Ayn Rand’s adulation of one William Edward Hickman, a serial killer who kidnapped, murdered and dismembered a child. Yes, a serial killer whom Ayn Rand thought the most 'perfect' man.
As they say, there is no accounting for distaste.
Perhaps. I have read the vast majority of what Rand has written over many yeas, rereading a good portion of it, some several times. I am familiar with the link you posted, I will only say that the intent (with respect to philosophy and political ideology) of your post is clear IMO and I will not argue it. I would serve no useful purpose.
DeleteI will however state that anyone who has actually read Rand realizes that the events surrounding Hickman's serial killings does not describe Rand's person nor her philosophy; as Hickman's act are in direct contradiction to everything Objectivism and Rand stood for. One of her basic premise is that every man (read humankind) has the right to his life, which of makes it explicit that no man has the right to take that of another. Unless of course it is in self defense.
No one philosophy is perfect, nor is any one philosopher perfect in their person. If Rand saw Hickman as the perfect man it was most certainly not for his heinous acts. If it was to illustrate something philosophical it escapes me as to why she would have chosen Hickman as the reference. At any rate is was foolish to have done so.
Ayn Rand's Objectivism and her strong advocacy for individualism as opposed to collectivism are valid views and deserving of strong consideration. Some of the most heinous crimes ever committed against a people were committed by advocates of collectivism. I'm sure I need not point out who they were.
I do remain curious about Shaw's reference to "decent countries" and the obvious implication ours is not.
DeleteRN, you speak of collectivism and indivdualism as if they were separate, diametrically opposed philosphies. They are more like different sides of the same coin. At the heart of both philosophies is a total disregard for the rights and worth of others.
DeleteI have read Ayn Rand. As a young, naive English major, I was fascinated by Ayn's big stories. However, I soon lost any admiration for her concept of individualism. Working cooperatively, sharing, providing for the good of all, being your neighbor's keeper, responsibility to promote the greater good are all values rejected by Rand. What fascinates me is how on earth Rand fits in the conservative mantra of "America is a Christian nation founded on Christian values." Rand takes her biblical stance from Cain, staring down God defiantly with a flip, "Am I my brother's keeper?"
Collectivism also has no room for cooperation and respect of the rights of others. Rather than encourage cooerative ventures, collectivism merely masquerades as promoting cooperation while in reality it simply limits power to a small group and lulls the rest into believing that they are valued.
Neither of these philosphies offer much benefit to most of us. They simply set us against one another in a continual state of "not peace" to paraphrase Hobbes. The absence of war is not the same thing as peace. When we guard constantly against the possible taking by others, who are also attempting to survive, of what we need to survive, that's not peace.
Rand offers an empty, soulless model that essentially calls for the isolation of the individual from all the best of the emotions that make us human--empathy, caring, loving, kindness. In her world, such displays are weaknesses to be disdained. Funny thing is that collectivism also rejects those emotions, instead fostering a resigned acceptance bordering on despair that permeates the collective becasue there is no encouragement of the growth of the indivdual.
It seems so obvious that it's difficult to imagine how we consistently ignore that the potential for harmony lies in a respect for the itegrity of the individual coupled with a committment to responsibility for the good of the socety. Let's say that I have plenty of food. If my neighbor is hungry, should I not feed him? Rand would deem it not to be my responsibility. After all, the neighbor should have laid aside provsiosn for the future. The pure collectivist would take my food and redistribute it but only after collecting a share for personal use. If I and my neighbors come together and feed our neighbor, then have we not aspired to the best of human behavior? But perhaps there are others who are hungry. Does it not make sense for us to join together and devise a plan whereby we contribute on a regular basis to ensure that those who are hungry have access to sustenance?
Ayn Rand's so-called objectivism is the self-centeredness of a small child. My three-year-old grandnephew believes that the world revolves around him. Oc course, that's partly due to the smallness of his world--parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles etc. All of whom give him enough attention to conferm his believe that he is the center of the universe. However, there will come a time when he will ahve to recognize that he is but a grain of sand in our known universe. I think that Ayn Rand spent her entire life trying to disavow that she was but a grain of sand; we all are.
RN, you didn't read my comment correctly. I QUOTED another writer's "decent countries."
ReplyDeleteSometimes I think we could avoid a lot of misunderstanding just by being careful readers.
Sheria,
ReplyDeleteRight on. Rand's philosophy is a poor hashing-out of issues dealt with much better by others. J.S. Mill on individual liberty is a thousand times more worthwhile than anything Rand ever wrote.