I don't think he's moved on, Arthur, though he probably no longer reads Rand or even mentions her. What likely happened is that he read Rand at some point and found her thinking supportive of his. The way he sees government's roles and responsibilities is very close to hers -- limited government, entrepreneurial freedom, low taxes, being responsible for yourself no matter what your circumstances, etc. I see his thinking as pretty close of Tea Party thinking, with government not being the provider of human freedoms but the guarantor of those freedoms, which is how Rand saw it too.
Ed ----- Original Message ----- From: Arthur Cordell To: [email protected] ; 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 10:21 PM Subject: Re: [Futurework] [Ottawadissenters] Godamn Gummint!! I think that Ryan was an early enthusiast of Rand's ideas, but moved on. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick Sent: Friday, September 07, 2012 5:02 PM To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION'; [email protected] Subject: [Ottawadissenters] Godamn Gummint!! We've been hearing a lot about Ayn Rand and 'objectivism' now that Paul Ryan is Romney's choice for VP in the forthcoming US election, so I decided to find out what I could about Rand and her philosophy. I thought of reading "Atlas Shrugged" or "The Fountainhead", but when I looked at them at a local bookstore I found them far too thick and the print far to small. So I picked up a cheap little book of columns and comments that Rand and other Objectivist's had written a few decades ago. Interestingly, though not surprisingly, Alan Greenspan is one of the contributors to the book. The sections that I've read so far, written by Rand herself, deal with the role and purposes of government in an objectivist society. As Rand sees it, government's only role is to ensure the freedom of the citizen and to protect his property. That is why you need cops within the country and an army to keep out foreigners who might infringe on the citizen's freedom. Beyond these simple roles, government has no responsibilities. If people are inadequately housed, getting decent housing is up to them; if they are hungry, they should make some money and get some food; if they are ill, it's up to them to find and pay a doctor; and of course getting an education is up to them too; etc. Everyone should strive to rise to the top, but of course only the cleverest and most committed will. Above all, people should not depend on government, whose only role is to ensure that they are free to do the things they want to do. I could read on, but I may not. From an ideological point of view, It's interesting stuff, but using it as a basis for how government should operate in this complex, changing and globalized world could lead to massive mistakes such as budgetary restraints where stimulus may be needed, cutting back on important government programs or not initiating them, and catering to entrenched corporate interests. It's a rather extreme ideology which appears to have no place for common purposes or the reality that people really do care for one another. I find it scary that politicians could look upon it as a set of principles on which their programs should be based. Ed __._,_.___ Your email settings: Individual Email|Traditional Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required) Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch to Fully Featured Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe __,_._,___ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [email protected] https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
