The Pope v. Libertarianism


George H. Smith

Recommended Posts

No one needs Ayn Rand. We are not her children, and she is not our mother.

Thanks for the tip. I could never have figured that out on my own.

You don't seem familiar with the essays that Rand wrote criticizing the pope (one was on birth control and abortion), so you didn't get the point of my remark. Nor, so far as I can tell, do you have a sense of humor.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one needs Ayn Rand. We are not her children, and she is not our mother.

Thanks for the tip. I could never have figured that out on my own.

You don't seem familiar with the essays that Rand wrote criticizing the pope (one was on birth control and abortion), so you didn't get the point of my remark. Nor, so far as I can tell, do you have a sense of humor.

Ghs

What I'm trying to say is, is there anything Ayn Rand could do or say about the article you linked to, that you couldn't just as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one needs Ayn Rand. We are not her children, and she is not our mother.

Thanks for the tip. I could never have figured that out on my own.

You don't seem familiar with the essays that Rand wrote criticizing the pope (one was on birth control and abortion), so you didn't get the point of my remark. Nor, so far as I can tell, do you have a sense of humor.

Ghs

What I'm trying to say is, is there anything Ayn Rand could do or say about the article you linked to, that you couldn't just as well?

That wasn't my point at all. Don't assume that others on this list are as dense as you are.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one needs Ayn Rand. We are not her children, and she is not our mother.

I was Ayn and Frank's only child. Born in 1944 I was given up for adoption. The only reason I wasn't aborted was she was between novels.

--Brant Gaede O'Connor

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't my point at all. Don't assume that others on this list are as dense as you are.

Ghs

Undensify me, then? What exactly was your point?

What's in it for him?

--Brant

or you?--and he already did all that could be done: he tossed you the ball--twice--but you didn't run

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't my point at all. Don't assume that others on this list are as dense as you are.

Ghs

Undensify me, then? What exactly was your point?

It was a joke, as I explained in my first reply, one that implicitly referred to at least two replies to papal doctrines written by Ayn Rand. If the reference escaped you, that's probably because you are unfamiliar with those major articles by Rand. Instead, you assumed that I am stupid enough to believe that no one other than Rand, including myself, could write an adequate response to the "arguments" of Francis, when in fact an intelligent high school student could easily demolish them. So you posted your condescending comment instead of thinking this through.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "arguments" are conclusions withouth data or dogmatic ukases conforming to Church Doctrine maintaining its philosophic status quo as the Church feeds off the poor while doing all it can to make more of them.

--Brant

but Rand would burn down the house

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's in it for him?

--Brant

Well, this pointless exchange does give me a chance to burn off some of my frustration for being a week late on a book, Herbert Spencer: A Reader, which will be published as a real book by Libertarianism.org. This is one in a series of Readers for L.org that I am co-editing with Marilyn Moore, and for which I am writing lengthy introductions. The first anthology, Individualism: A Reader, was submitted over two months ago and should be published fairly soon. Our next anthology will be Critics of State Education: A Reader. We are committed to an additional three Readers after that, though the topics of those volumes have not yet been finalized.

In theory, we are compiling and editing a Reader every two months, but with the stress of writing weekly essays for L.org., that has proven a difficult schedule to keep.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't my point at all. Don't assume that others on this list are as dense as you are.

Ghs

Undensify me, then? What exactly was your point?

It was a joke, as I explained in my first reply, one that implicitly referred to at least two replies to papal doctrines written by Ayn Rand. If the reference escaped you, that's probably because you are unfamiliar with those major articles by Rand. Instead, you assumed that I am stupid enough to believe that no one other than Rand, including myself, could write an adequate response to the "arguments" of Francis, when in fact an intelligent high school student could easily demolish them. So you posted your condescending comment instead of thinking this through.

Ghs

It's true, I am unfamiliar with those articles. What are they, exactly?

Instead, you assumed that I am stupid enough to believe that no one other than Rand, including myself, could write an adequate response to the "arguments" of Francis, when in fact an intelligent high school student could easily demolish them. So you posted your condescending comment instead of thinking this through.

I think you've assumed far too much about what I've assumed. My point was exactly the opposite. Anybody could make a strong case against Francis' position, hence why we don't need Ayn Rand.

What bothers me, though, is that no one who wasn't already familiar with the two articles you mentioned would get the reference. Hence, yes, those people would "get it", but they are precisely the people who would be least interested in (re)reading them. While anybody who wasn't already familiar with them would get the impression that only Ayn Rand would be capable of refuting them (or at least that her opinion on the matter is the only authoritative one), making Francis' arguments seem far more important than they really are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, like I said, Rand would burn down the house (and all within it). That is something she was especially good at: hard-nosed polemical writing. That is what I got from George's first post, which was only an introductory remark to the link he posted.

--Brant

oh, yes, and the humor (leave the humor, bring the cannolis--uh, I mean the other way around)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That wasn't my point at all. Don't assume that others on this list are as dense as you are.

Ghs

Undensify me, then? What exactly was your point?

It was a joke, as I explained in my first reply, one that implicitly referred to at least two replies to papal doctrines written by Ayn Rand. If the reference escaped you, that's probably because you are unfamiliar with those major articles by Rand. Instead, you assumed that I am stupid enough to believe that no one other than Rand, including myself, could write an adequate response to the "arguments" of Francis, when in fact an intelligent high school student could easily demolish them. So you posted your condescending comment instead of thinking this through.

Ghs

It's true, I am unfamiliar with those articles. What are they, exactly?

Instead, you assumed that I am stupid enough to believe that no one other than Rand, including myself, could write an adequate response to the "arguments" of Francis, when in fact an intelligent high school student could easily demolish them. So you posted your condescending comment instead of thinking this through.

I think you've assumed far too much about what I've assumed. My point was exactly the opposite. Anybody could make a strong case against Francis' position, hence why we don't need Ayn Rand.

What bothers me, though, is that no one who wasn't already familiar with the two articles you mentioned would get the reference. Hence, yes, those people would "get it", but they are precisely the people who would be least interested in (re)reading them. While anybody who wasn't already familiar with them would get the impression that only Ayn Rand would be capable of refuting them (or at least that her opinion on the matter is the only authoritative one), making Francis' arguments seem far more important than they really are.

I would have thought that the structure of my question -- Where is such-and-such when we really need one? - would have tipped off even the clueless, but I guess I was wrong.

One of Rand's articles was Requiem for Man, which was an attack on Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum progressio. I think she also wrote another similar article, but I don't recall the title offhand.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Of Living Death" (Boston, FHF, Dec. 8, 1968)--published in The Objectivist Sept. and Oct. 1968 (came out in December)

"Requim for Man" July, August and Sept. 1967, also in The Objectivist.

--Brant

Ah, yes -- "Of Living Death." Given how my attempt at humor went over, that's what I should have called this thread. 8-)

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, yes -- "Of Living Death." Given how my attempt at humor went over, that's what I should have called this thread. 8-)

George,

I once started to write a song in Portuguese that I, unfortunately, lost back during my crazy days. (I can't remember the words for the life of me--and that pisses me off because they were just right. I was too zonked and my long-term memory was on forced vacation, I guess. :smile: )

The song was a message from a father to his newborn son. In the song he promises he will never teach his son things he himself doesn't know.

You are arguing with a person who wants to teach everybody things she herself doesn't know, and when called out about it, instead of educating herself, she wants to teach some more.

:smile:

For the record, it's reasonable to assume--on a site called Objectivist Living--that people would be aware that Ayn Rand wrote articles.

I would say Rand blasted some Papal Encyclicals (and people who follow politics would know that because of Paul Ryan), but when you are discussing with folks who teach others what they don't know, who cares about details? Let's just get it on record that Rand wrote articles and that will be a big advance in the discussion.

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

I was Ayn and Frank's only child. Born in 1944 I was given up for adoption. The only reason I wasn't aborted was she was between novels.

--Brant Gaede O'Connor

For real?????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was Ayn and Frank's only child. Born in 1944 I was given up for adoption. The only reason I wasn't aborted was she was between novels.

--Brant Gaede O'Connor

For real?????

You bet! And the bitch disinherited me when I switched over to the Brandens' side in 1972.

--BRANT GAEDE O'CONNOR!!!

her disinherited heir (and I should have gotten that "intellectual heir" thingy too, which might explain my male-pattern baldness!)

at least Dad kept me on his Christmas card list

(I'm sooo bitter)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one needs Ayn Rand. We are not her children, and she is not our mother.

Ayn Rand ended up being a Den Mother to several off center types.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now