Liberals vs. Conservatives

[Three_Times_Great]

in her Lexicon, Ayn Rand adds an entry about liberals and conservatives that, despite being written almost 30 years ago seems to resonate with our current political situations regarding the two-party system:

“Conservatives” vs. “Liberals”

Both [conservatives and liberals] hold the same premise—the mind-body dichotomy—but choose opposite sides of this lethal fallacy.

The conservatives want freedom to act in the material realm; they tend to oppose government control of production, of industry, of trade, of business, of physical goods, of material wealth. But they advocate government control of man’s spirit, i.e., man’s consciousness; they advocate the State’s right to impose censorship, to determine moral values, to create and enforce a governmental establishment of morality, to rule the intellect. The liberals want freedom to act in the spiritual realm; they oppose censorship, they oppose government control of ideas, of the arts, of the press, of education (note their concern with “academic freedom”). But they advocate government control of material production, of business, of employment, of wages, of profits, of all physical property—they advocate it all the way down to total expropriation.

The conservatives see man as a body freely roaming the earth, building sand piles or factories—with an electronic computer inside his skull, controlled from Washington. The liberals see man as a soul freewheeling to the farthest reaches of the universe—but wearing chains from nose to toes when he crosses the street to buy a loaf of bread.

Yet it is the conservatives who are predominantly religionists, who proclaim the superiority of the soul over the body, who represent what I call the “mystics of spirit.” And it is the liberals who are predominantly materialists, who regard man as an aggregate of meat, and who represent what I call the “mystics of muscle.”

This is merely a paradox, not a contradiction: each camp wants to control the realm it regards as metaphysically important; each grants freedom only to the activities it despises. Observe that the conservatives insult and demean the rich or those who succeed in material production, regarding them as morally inferior—and that the liberals treat ideas as a cynical con game. “Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value. The conservatives want to rule man’s consciousness; the liberals, his body.

note: the terms liberal and conservative are used generally, and do not reflect EVERY person calling themselves these, but instead are representative of general trends and policies within these political groups. of course there will be outliers of individuals who dont follow these patterns, but they are the exceptions, not the rule.

now notice: NEITHER OF THESE IDEOLOGIES CARES ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS. this is undeniably true today. no reasonably aware person can observe the antics of the Bush administration or the Obama administration and deny that both represent threats to your freedom, in all of its forms: political, social, economic, intellectual.

convervatives put a value on “tradition” and thus try to force religion on everyone. they misinterpret the founding of America as a “Christian Nation” and think this grants them some superior right to impose a “soft theocracy” where any values or behaviors deemed “not Christian” are forbidden. they give only lip-service to freedom and property rights and are more than willing to spend extra tax dollars on city projects or capital building renovations or endless deficits or tribute statues to Reagan or increased spending on entitlements such as medicare, as long as they think it will help them get elected. conservatives also believe that it is America’s right and duty to “police the world” and spread “freedom and democracy”, even when this involves misappropriating taxpayer funds, lying to the American people, violating the sovreignty of other nations or imposing American “values” as demands for trade and economic assistance.

liberals, on the other hand, put no values on tradition at all, and tend to sneer at religion and traditionalism in general. they feel themselves “progressive” and talk about “equality” without giving a moment’s pause to actual freedoms or individual rights; they want to pull everyone down to the same level by “spreading wealth around” and taxing the “rich” to give it to the poor. liberals impose economic restrictions and advocate for government power in markets and oversight of any and every area of production they can get into, and tend to spend us into deficit and debt even faster than conservatives do (if this is even possible). they have zero respect for property rights, and “levelling the playing field” is all they care about economically because they see anyone who has less than someone else as a “victim” of this other person who has more than they do. liberals do not understand what drives economic production nor what it means to be a free society, and they, just like conservatives, pay only lip-service to freedom and individual rights, just enough to get elected. liberals also impose political correctness on society through social engineering and selective grants and funding to certain programs over others; they demand that we are all “tolerant”, yet they are completely INtolerant of any viewpoint or political ideology or belief which does not include their utopian egalitarianism. for example: liberals talk about tolerance and diversity, but do not tolerate individuals who speak out against gay marriage, because these people do not have a RIGHT to hold such beliefs, and they automatically label anyone who opposes a “black” president a “racist”.

neither ideologies cares about your freedom. they both want to control you, just from different angles; although today, they are merging at an increasing rate. when Ayn Rand wrote that passage, it was quite a bit different than it is today. but it still stands true. philosophically, both ideologies oppose the body and the mind to each other and seek control of one or the other (or both, typically), just as long as they get to be the ones writing the rules that everyone must live by.

and they are counting on your ignorance and blindness to continue this charade. most people never see how they are so effectively contained and compartmentalized into little marginalized boxes, told what to think and how to feel regarding “the other side”, and end up supporting politicians and political machines that care only about their own power.

Ayn Rand said it best: ““Control,” to both camps, means the power to rule by physical force. Neither camp holds freedom as a value”. it is no surprise that we have been brought to the state we are in today, a nanny-state entitlement society of whining children demanding handouts while we spend ourselves into debt so fast that our national debt from the last 225 years combined has more than TRIPLED in just the last 8 years alone, and counting unfunded obligations is astronomically higher even than that.

all this is due to the ignorance of the average American, who has bought into the “liberal vs conservative” lie. both parties are different in how they want to control and enslave you, but with regard to your freedom and individual rights to life, liberty and property, they are two sides of one and the same oppressive statist coin.

[Sauwelios]

@Three Times Great

now notice: NEITHER OF THESE IDEOLOGIES CARES ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS. […]

neither ideologies cares about your freedom. they both want to control you, just from different angles […]

all this is due to the ignorance of the average American, who has bought into the “liberal vs conservative” lie. both parties are different in how they want to control and enslave you, but with regard to your freedom and individual rights to life, liberty and property, they are two sides of one and the same oppressive statist coin.

This world is the will to power. Freedom is just a kind of power. There is therefore nothing morally wrong with either ideology, and your references to “your freedom”, as if you not only care about my freedom but about me, are disgusting. And “oppressive statist coin”! Oh no, oppression! Oh no, disregard for the “truth” (self-evident or not) that I was “created by [my] Creator” with the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, etc.!

[Knox]

@Sauwelios

@Three Times Great

now notice: NEITHER OF THESE IDEOLOGIES CARES ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS. […]

neither ideologies cares about your freedom. they both want to control you, just from different angles […]

all this is due to the ignorance of the average American, who has bought into the “liberal vs conservative” lie. both parties are different in how they want to control and enslave you, but with regard to your freedom and individual rights to life, liberty and property, they are two sides of one and the same oppressive statist coin.

This world is the will to power. Freedom is just a kind of power. There is therefore nothing morally wrong with either ideology, and your references to “your freedom”, as if you not only care about my freedom but about me, are disgusting. And “oppressive statist coin”! Oh no, oppression! Oh no, disregard for the “truth” (self-evident or not) that I was “created by [my] Creator” with the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, etc.!

If you reduce life to a single force or principle, be it “will to power”, “universal will”, “conatus”, or what have you, then morality becomes a meaningless concept. It’s incorrect then to say there’s nothing morally wrong with either ideology. Without moral foundation, both ideologies fade into senselessness.

In political philosophy, however, the will to power can be assumed, and it is the collective culture which is doing the willing. The question becomes, what is the most efficient path to power, a question which I believe has a single solution, though maybe not a dynamic solution.

I think TTG, in quoting Rand, is criticizing the political association itself, that is the submission of the individual will to the collective will. The problem with that, if you want to call it a problem, is that the individualist can’t really develop a political philosophy at all (at least not while maintaining their individualism), as the individual merely sees the collective as an obstruction to his will to power, regardless of the nature or structure of the polis in question.

[Three_Times_Great]

exactly, knox; such is the insurmountable obstacle which individualism is faced with. individualism can never, ever compete against the power of the collective. man the individual drowns and perishes under the weight of the many, and this will always be so. it is necessarily so.

yet, that doesnt have to stop us from pointing out the implications of this fact in our current political systems, such as the fundamentally false dichotomy that we are fed every day from our political machines. exposing both “sides” of politics for what they are could possibly form the basis for a new political system, one that is more representative not of “the majority” but of individualism itself, of true freedom as much as it can possibly be manifested within social systems… i dont think it will ever happen, but at this point it is still a remote possibility.

[Sauwelios]

@Knox

@Sauwelios

@Three Times Great

now notice: NEITHER OF THESE IDEOLOGIES CARES ABOUT YOUR FREEDOMS. […]

neither ideologies cares about your freedom. they both want to control you, just from different angles […]

all this is due to the ignorance of the average American, who has bought into the “liberal vs conservative” lie. both parties are different in how they want to control and enslave you, but with regard to your freedom and individual rights to life, liberty and property, they are two sides of one and the same oppressive statist coin.

This world is the will to power. Freedom is just a kind of power. There is therefore nothing morally wrong with either ideology, and your references to “your freedom”, as if you not only care about my freedom but about me, are disgusting. And “oppressive statist coin”! Oh no, oppression! Oh no, disregard for the “truth” (self-evident or not) that I was “created by [my] Creator” with the “unalienable rights” of life, liberty, etc.!

If you reduce life to a single force or principle, be it “will to power”, “universal will”, “conatus”, or what have you, then morality becomes a meaningless concept. It’s incorrect then to say there’s nothing morally wrong with either ideology. Without moral foundation, both ideologies fade into senselessness.

That’s what I meant: there’s nothing morally wrong with anything.

[felix_dakat]

I think TTG, in quoting Rand, is criticizing the political association itself, that is the submission of the individual will to the collective will. The problem with that, if you want to call it a problem, is that the individualist can’t really develop a political philosophy at all (at least not while maintaining their individualism), as the individual merely sees the collective as an obstruction to his will to power, regardless of the nature or structure of the polis in question.

Why can’t an individual see the collective as a vehicle for gaining power? Isn’t that what politicians and tyrants usually do? Machiavelli’s was a political philosophy wasn’t it? Isn’t Rand’s philosophy a political one? I think so.

[Three_Times_Great]

“the collective” is precisely that: a vehicle for gaining power. power over others, at the expense of others. that is exactly why Rand opposed collective political systems, and why she advocated for the only political system that puts the individual before the “group” and grants individual rights at the admission that the individual has the right to live for his own sake, by his own means, and with neither an expectation to help others nor an expectation that others will help him: laissez-faire capitalism.

it is this affirmation of individual freedom which so-called liberals and conservatives of today both reject.

[felix_dakat]

Laissez-faire capitalism does nothing to prevent people from “gaining power. power over others, at the expense of others.”

[Knox]

@felix dakat

Laissez-faire capitalism does nothing to prevent people from “gaining power. power over others, at the expense of others.”

Everybody is trying to gain power, even at the expense of others, if necessary. That’s what life is. What’s your point?

The invisible hand only ensures that those who bring the greatest benefit enjoy the greatest reward. Collectivism, in promoting the unnatural and irrational ideal of equality, only ensures that reward is distributed to everybody, just because they’re alive, which suppresses the will to power and reduces every individual life to meaninglessness.

[Knox]

@Sauwelios

That’s what I meant: there’s nothing morally wrong with anything.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but by saying there’s nothing morally wrong with anything, you imply that everything is morally justified. I don’t think the will to power leads to that conclusion.

[Three_Times_Great]

@felix dakat

Laissez-faire capitalism does nothing to prevent people from “gaining power. power over others, at the expense of others.”

yes it does, actually.

[Only_Humean]

@Knox

The invisible hand only ensures that those who bring the greatest benefit enjoy the greatest reward.

And it does so perfectly, by defining “benefit” as “that which is rewarded”…

[Sauwelios]

@Knox

@Sauwelios

That’s what I meant: there’s nothing morally wrong with anything.

Maybe I’m splitting hairs, but by saying there’s nothing morally wrong with anything, you imply that everything is morally justified. I don’t think the will to power leads to that conclusion.

It does, as it leads to master morality. The values of master morality are “good and bad”, not “good and evil”; and they are relative, not absolute. Everything is relatively good, as opposed to “bad”. Everything is absolutely justified.

[Jakob]

@Three Times Great

@felix dakat

Laissez-faire capitalism does nothing to prevent people from “gaining power. power over others, at the expense of others.”

yes it does, actually.

It is true that laissez faire capitalism prevents people from gaining power at the expense of others others, unless you consider hiring people against low wages abusive.
One thing that would not have been possible in a laissez-faire capitalist state is for the state to spend 300 billion dollars or euros of taxpayers money on corrupt bankers. There simly would not be enough tax money to go to such obscene excesses. That is why, in the crisis of the 30’s, bankers were jumping out of the windows - they were not rewarded for fucking up, but had to face the consequences.

[matty]

@Knox

Collectivism, in promoting the unnatural and irrational ideal of equality, only ensures that reward is distributed to everybody, just because they’re alive, which suppresses the will to power and reduces every individual life to meaninglessness.

That’s not what collectivism means to me. Rather, collectivism is an extension of that “will to power” by the process of concerted collective action. Thus, a more equitable distribution of rewards is just a happy by-product of the collectivist process. And, what is more, the individual thrives all the more as a consequence - ie. becomes a more effective social agent. Liberty, equality, fraternity, as the French say…