What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand

[Denny Crane]

Hmmm. Earlier you were talking about the founders and I assume you mean the founders of our great country, which means we'd be talking about how education was viewed in the 1700s. But maybe we should just drop it all and enjoy the last days of summer lol?

Uh, no. I really mean that the way public schools were funded from pre-1776 until the 1960s (OK, late 1950s and I won't quibble).

It is relevant because if they viewed public education as something the federal government or even state governments must provide, it would have been written in the Constitution along with similar enumerated services like the mail system, court system, patent system, mint, military, etc.

 

[mobes23]

Uh, no. I really mean that the way public schools were funded from pre-1776 until the 1960s (OK, late 1950s and I won't quibble).

It is relevant because if they viewed public education as something the federal government or even state governments must provide, it would have been written in the Constitution along with similar enumerated services like the mail system, court system, patent system, mint, military, etc.

So you're saying no federal money should be used for schools because it wasn't provided in the constitution, right? Don't you think it's possible that changes that have occurred over time might lead them to a different conclusion if they were to see the post-combustion engine, transatlantic flight, post-telegraph/radio/interwebs, nuclear energy world we live in today? Yes our government has changed a lot over time, some for the worse, but some for the better. Government in the U.S. is certainly very different from the founding days, but I think it's a big stretch to say the founders would throw it all out.

We'll obviously never know how they'd feel...we're pretty much arguing whether the 1992 Dream Team would beat the 2012 U.S. Olympic team because in either case we'll never know. (My money is on the '92 Dream Team...anyone else get to see that team play at the Tournament of the Americas in PDX? It was a blast.)

 

[Denny Crane]

So you're saying no federal money should be used for schools because it wasn't provided in the constitution, right? Don't you think it's possible that changes that have occurred over time might lead them to a different conclusion if they were to see the post-combustion engine, transatlantic flight, post-telegraph/radio/interwebs, nuclear energy world we live in today? Yes our government has changed a lot over time, some for the worse, but some for the better. Government in the U.S. is certainly very different from the founding days, but I think it's a big stretch to say the founders would throw it all out.

We'll obviously never know how they'd feel...we're pretty much arguing whether the 1992 Dream Team would beat the 2012 U.S. Olympic team because in either case we'll never know. (My money is on the '92 Dream Team...anyone else get to see that team play at the Tournament of the Americas in PDX? It was a blast.)

No, I don't think things have changed that would lead them to a different conclusion. They first formed a govt. that was too weak in terms of diplomacy and military, then fixed those issues by forming a VERY weak federal govt. that had the diplomatic and military authority required. Some argued against the Bill of Rights because they felt it unnecessary, since the federal govt. should never have the power to trample on those rights enumerated.

Certainly, they'd be horrified by a federal govt. that is 20% to 25% (and soon 40%) of the entire economy.

And yes, I agree that no federal money should go toward education nor should they regulate it.

 

[barfo]

The primary difference between Republicans and Libertarians is that Republicans want to go back to the 1950s, whereas Libertarians want to go back to the 18th century.

If the founders wanted government buildings to have indoor plumbing or the internet, they would have mentioned it in the Constitution.

barfo

 

[Rastapopoulos]

They're both genii.

No. One knew about 5 languages by the time he was five and made amazing contributions in the field of philosophy of science, logic, ethics and political philosophy, and managed to be a crusading reformist politician. The other wrote doorstop novels of staggering dullness.

And you might come up with a reason Mill would be appalled by Ayn Rand.

Because he values non-turgid prose?
Because he argued that the state should help every individual experience the "experiments in living" that true freedom required and (because he wasn't a nutjob) he realized that that would require an extensive social safety net?

Tell you what: find me a passage in Rand that expresses a cogent thought and that you think Mill would agree with.

Every one of our founders would be appalled by what the nation has become.

Deism never caught on? They let the slaves go?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

If the founders wanted government buildings to have indoor plumbing or the internet, they would have mentioned it in the Constitution.

They'd be most outraged that we don't realize they intended the second amendment to cover suitcase nuclear weapons.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

An oldie but a goodie:

“Two novels can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other involves orcs.”

 

[Denny Crane]

The primary difference between Republicans and Libertarians is that Republicans want to go back to the 1950s, whereas Libertarians want to go back to the 18th century.

If the founders wanted government buildings to have indoor plumbing or the internet, they would have mentioned it in the Constitution.

barfo

And you call Libertarians extreme.

 

[Denny Crane]

No. One knew about 5 languages by the time he was five and made amazing contributions in the field of philosophy of science, logic, ethics and political philosophy, and managed to be a crusading reformist politician. The other wrote doorstop novels of staggering dullness.



Because he values non-turgid prose?
Because he argued that the state should help every individual experience the "experiments in living" that true freedom required and (because he wasn't a nutjob) he realized that that would require an extensive social safety net?

Tell you what: find me a passage in Rand that expresses a cogent thought and that you think Mill would agree with.

They both value individuality and abhor govt. intervention and believed "selfish" capitalism results in the best result for society as a whole.

 

[Denny Crane]

And FWIW, Rand spoke English, French, Russian, and could read German.

 

[MARIS61]

And FWIW, Rand spoke English, French, Russian, and could read German.

So do you mean she couldn't speak German, and she couldn't read English, French or Russian?

Or are you just saying she was completely self-absorbed in 3 and 1/2 languages?

 

[jlprk]

1st graph: Either a great secret has been kept, that education spending doubled in the last 2 years, or...the government was reorganized and education agencies under other departments were put into the Dept. of Education.

2nd graph: What a coincidence. Yet another SAT comparison using 1969, the all-time peak, as the baseline.