Beck on Obama's "Enough money" idea

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This one by Beck is really cute.

It speaks for itself.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxJ4_ODvC0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxJ4_ODvC0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxJ4_ODvC0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Michael

[imurray]

This one by Beck is really cute.

It speaks for itself.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxJ4_ODvC0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxJ4_ODvC0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxJ4_ODvC0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Michael

If you keep watching Beck, your brain will atrophy. He said it himself: “I say on the air all the time, 'if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’“ Mr. Beck is, after all, "a rodeo clown."

I get the point he's making here though. I feel the same way about health care reform. I personally was for reform, but I wouldn't help push it unless congress agreed to be the first to change its plan. I guess I took this comment to be Obama's attempt at empty populist rhetoric, which I don't like in and of itself, but nothing more menacing than that. When I watch Beck I wait for the rubber coated feeding spoon to pop out of my television screen. "Goo goo gaa gaa, mmmmm."

Ian

Edited May 5, 2010 by Panoptic

[Prometheus]

This one by Beck is really cute.

It speaks for itself.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxJ4_ODvC0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param'>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxJ4_ODvC0&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSxJ4_ODvC0&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

Michael

If you keep watching Beck, your brain will atrophy. He said it himself: “I say on the air all the time, 'if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’“ Mr. Beck is, after all, "a rodeo clown."

I get the point he's making here though. I feel the same way about health care reform. I personally was for reform, but I wouldn't help push it unless congress agreed to be the first to change its plan. I guess I took this comment to be Obama's attempt at empty populist rhetoric, which I don't like in and of itself, but nothing more menacing than that. When I watch Beck I wait for the rubber coated feeding spoon to pop out of my television screen. "Goo goo gaa gaa, mmmmm."

Ian

I find Obama's statement to be part of an extremely congruous pattern. I agree with you that Beck is not a sage, but I find it disconcerting that you go out of your way to slam him as a propagandist while making Obama's heinous statement seem like an innocuous platitude.

I do not think it was empty at all, rather it was full of meaning; a rare moment when the mask slips and his real character is on display.

It is clear, and it has been for some time, that Obama is no friend of free markets, or free men.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you keep watching Beck, your brain will atrophy. He said it himself: “I say on the air all the time, 'if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’“ Mr. Beck is, after all, "a rodeo clown."

Ian,

I'm thinking of making a Beck Corner here on OL...

Michael

[imurray]

If you keep watching Beck, your brain will atrophy. He said it himself: “I say on the air all the time, 'if you take what I say as gospel, you’re an idiot.’“ Mr. Beck is, after all, "a rodeo clown."

Ian,

I'm thinking of making a Beck Corner here on OL...

Michael

Haha. Who's stopping you?

[9thdoctor]

I'm thinking of making a Beck Corner here on OL...

Here’s one vote against. Beck now attempts to define the nation’s virtues as Faith, Hope and Charity.

“Observe Reagan’s futile attempts to arouse the country by some sort of inspirational appeal. He is right in thinking that the country needs an inspirational element. But he will not find it in the God-Family-Tradition swamp.”

Ayn Rand, The Sanction of the Victims

Mutatis mutandis?

I’ve only seen excerpts of Beck's show, some were good, but some were just screamingly awful. And his persona is so clownish. I’m sure I could dig up some Keith Olbermann clips that are consonant with Objectivism, but it wouldn’t represent the total of what he stands for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OEaz1gK2FM

[Prometheus]

I'm thinking of making a Beck Corner here on OL...

Here’s one vote against. Beck now attempts to define the nation’s virtues as Faith, Hope and Charity.

“Observe Reagan’s futile attempts to arouse the country by some sort of inspirational appeal. He is right in thinking that the country needs an inspirational element. But he will not find it in the God-Family-Tradition swamp.”

Ayn Rand, The Sanction of the Victims

Mutatis mutandis?

I’ve only seen excerpts of Beck's show, some were good, but some were just screamingly awful. And his persona is so clownish. I’m sure I could dig up some Keith Olbermann clips that are consonant with Objectivism, but it wouldn’t represent the total of what he stands for.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7OEaz1gK2FM

Well, what you say largely rings true. Beck is a recovering alcoholic who was able to right himself under the auspices of faith. Obviously, I reject such things, as Beck could have just as easily found his own internal strength and used that to change his life. He instead chose to offer his spirituality to God in return for divine action to improve his life. He outsourced his destiny to something outside of his control, and yet somehow took control of his life, which is a bewildering dichotomy that splinters his mind and body.

As for Olbermann, I can guarantee that the man has never uttered a word in defense of the individual, or Man in general. He is obsessed only with the appearance of Men. Groups and collectives of all sorts dominate his irrational and immoral mind. All he sees is race, gender, sexual orientation, etc and how they relate to advancing a statist agenda through victimization politics.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

I don't share Rand's opinion of Reagan.

Also, after making a holy mess out of my own different families, I don't think family and tradition are swamps. I regret I didn't value mine more, but I used to take Rand's words to heart. So I lost my families. Now I hold on to the the family I'm building with Kat with everything I've got. Believe me, family is a HUGE value (among many values, but still a value).

Hell, I don't even think belief in God is a swamp, so long as it is not forced on others. And I don't find Beck's emphasis on Faith, Hope and Charity, within the context he presents it, offensive.

Beck's idea doesn't just come from the church. He holds that character is the backbone of our republic, and that government cannot legislate character, but we need to think about what good character means. In A Patriot's History of the United States by Schweikart and Allen, which he promotes, these authors hold that the USA has attained greatness because here, good character is the foundation of liberty, and liberty (based on good character) is the foundation of property. I basically agree with this approach (although on another thread, I have read some reservations of this book). Liberty without good character results in gang wars and property without liberty and good character results in dictatorships.

I think Schweikart and Allen's approach is where Beck got the idea to present 3 character virtues as a rallying point, even aligning them. In other words:

Faith, Hope and Charity = Good character,

... but...

Faith also corresponds to character,

Hope also corresponds to liberty, and

Charity also corresponds to property.

Although Beck is pumping these old-time Big Three, he also pumps the individual, self-reliance, integrity, and other major virtues, most of which are consonant with Objectivism.

Also, with the exception of faith in God, his focus is not the same as others. And even on God, his idea is that this is a personal issue, not a government-mandated one.

I have seen him several times ask a person about what they mean when they use the term charity--whether they mean taking something out of their own pocket and giving it of their own free will because they think it is good to do so, or whether they believe in taking stuff by force from one person and giving that to another because they think it is good to do so. He divides charity into the giver flavor and the taker flavor, and obviously he thinks the takers are evil.

I see nothing to disagree with there.

Also, about hope, his view of hope--with truth and the individual at the root--is vastly different than the audacity of hope proposed by Obama. Beck stresses over and over that we need equal justice (his basis of hope), not social justice (the Progressive basis of hope).

I agree with that, too.

To be honest, I'm not fully comfortable with the Faith, Hope and Charity thing. But then I look around me. Within the context of where we are right now, and considering the target audience needed to make small-government, low-tax, strong defense changes in our laws, I am not all that bothered.

The good Beck is doing, getting people interested in the Founding Fathers, getting people to discuss limited government as a viable option, getting people to act according to their own conscience and speak out, getting people to feel that it's OK to have good character and celebrate others who have the same, getting people to see what is behind the claims of politicians (and the government-protected part of big business) on all sides, getting people to adopt nonviolence as their proper expression of not remaining silent anymore, and on and on and on, far, far outweighs a disagreement over religion for me.

Our founders believed in Faith, Hope and Charity. It didn't kill them. I don't think Beck's version will kill anyone either. He holds--strongly--that people have a right to be atheists if they so choose. That means you and me, if we so choose.

I couldn't agree with him more.

Michael

[Prometheus]

Dennis,

I don't share Rand's opinion of Reagan.

Also, after making a holy mess out of my own different families, I don't think family and tradition are swamps. I regret I didn't value mine more, but I used to take Rand's words to heart. So I lost my families. Now I hold on to the the family I'm building with Kat with everything I've got. Believe me, family is a HUGE value (among many values, but still a value).

Hell, I don't even think belief in God is a swamp, so long as it is not forced on others. And I don't find Beck's emphasis on Faith, Hope and Charity, within the context he presents it, offensive.

Beck's idea doesn't just come from the church. He holds that character is the backbone of our republic, and that government cannot legislate character, but we need to think about what good character means. In A Patriot's History of the United States by Schweikart and Allen, which he promotes, these authors hold that the USA has attained greatness because here, good character is the foundation of liberty, and liberty (based on good character) is the foundation of property. I basically agree with this approach (although on another thread, I have read some reservations of this book). Liberty without good character results in gang wars and property without liberty and good character results in dictatorships.

I think Schweikart and Allen's approach is where Beck got the idea to present 3 character virtues as a rallying point, even aligning them. In other words:

Faith, Hope and Charity = Good character,

... but...

Faith also corresponds to character,

Hope also corresponds to liberty, and

Charity also corresponds to property.

Although Beck is pumping these old-time Big Three, he also pumps the individual, self-reliance, integrity, and other major virtues, most of which are consonant with Objectivism.

Also, with the exception of faith in God, his focus is not the same as others. And even on God, his idea is that this is a personal issue, not a government-mandated one.

I have seen him several times ask a person about what they mean when they use the term charity--whether they mean taking something out of their own pocket and giving it of their own free will because they think it is good to do so, or whether they believe in taking stuff by force from one person and giving that to another because they think it is good to do so. He divides charity into the giver flavor and the taker flavor, and obviously he thinks the takers are evil.

I see nothing to disagree with there.

Also, about hope, his view of hope--with truth and the individual at the root--is vastly different than the audacity of hope proposed by Obama. Beck stresses over and over that we need equal justice (his basis of hope), not social justice (the Progressive basis of hope).

I agree with that, too.

To be honest, I'm not fully comfortable with the Faith, Hope and Charity thing. But then I look around me. Within the context of where we are right now, and considering the target audience needed to make small-government, low-tax, strong defense changes in our laws, I am not all that bothered.

The good Beck is doing, getting people interested in the Founding Fathers, getting people to discuss limited government as a viable option, getting people to act according to their own conscience and speak out, getting people to feel that it's OK to have good character and celebrate others who have the same, getting people to see what is behind the claims of politicians (and the government-protected part of big business) on all sides, getting people to adopt nonviolence as their proper expression of not remaining silent anymore, and on and on and on, far, far outweighs a disagreement over religion for me.

Our founders believed in Faith, Hope and Charity. It didn't kill them. I don't think Beck's version will kill anyone either. He holds--strongly--that people have a right to be atheists if they so choose. That means you and me, if we so choose.

I couldn't agree with him more.

Michael

Mr. Kelley,

I must say that your response is thoughtful, and very similar to my own current feelings. After I had posted in here earlier, I got to thinking. Ninth Doc was slamming Beck for his Big 3, and so I asked myself: What is so wrong about these things, if carefully applied in the correct context? I could not find a negative, and I think you wonderfully described why there is not.

I think Beck is an easy target for intellectually lazy people, who are more interested in name calling than they are refuting his ideas. Limited gov't is an idea that NEEDS to go mainstream, and I will never join a circular firing squad against anyone who seeks to limit the state, while freeing my to pursue my interests. I would tolerate a parade of Beck's over another single sniveling collectivist.

I am confused as to how he remade himself, and it is not the path I would have chosen. But I do not have a problem with someone having faith in something so long as it is private, as he does.

Edited May 7, 2010 by Prometheus

[9thdoctor]

As for Olbermann, I can guarantee that the man has never uttered a word in defense of the individual, or Man in general.

I agree with your characterization, but I guarantee you I can find a 1-2 minute excerpt where he’s perfect. It might take more effort than I’m willing to invest to find it, but this is like the Drake Equation, the universe is just too big, it's got to be out there.

I don't share Rand's opinion of Reagan.

I gave my opinion of Reagan here, it’s certainly less negative than Rand’s:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8406&view=findpost&p=95632

Also, after making a holy mess out of my own different families, I don't think family and tradition are swamps. I regret I didn't value mine more, but I used to take Rand's words to heart. So I lost my families.

You feel that Rand’s words led you to not value your family? I’m confident you now recognize it was a misreading, but that’s for you to say.

Faith, Hope and Charity = Good character,

I see God, Family and Tradition as code words for anti-abortion, anti-gay adoption/marriage, 10 Commandments in the classroom/courtroom, school prayer, equal time for Intelligent Design…there’s plenty more flora and fauna but that’s enough to qualify Rand’s swamp characterization. I’ve seen enough Glenn Beck to know where he stands on these issues. A quick YouTube search turns up his interviews with Pat Robertson, with the author of the Left Behind series, and a whole collection about Mormons. Mmm, then Binswanger and Brook? Even Penn Jillette, so sure, no doubt there’s some good excerpts out there too. I'll get excited about the MSM host who instead lists some of the Objectivist virtues: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.

The idea of a Glenn Beck Corner, presumably to appear in between the Robert Bidinotto Corner and the Ed Hudgins Corner, well, I just think you ought to know that there’s opposition in the ranks. A vote cast against. Also, I'd say John Stossel's a much better choice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'd say John Stossel's a much better choice.

Dennis,

Stossel's a really good idea, too.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This, to me, stands as one of the top great moments in American political discourse.

I get enormously moved every time I see it. It brings tears to my eyes.

It's Beck talking about the Statue of Liberty during his 2010 CPAC speech. The idea of reading Lazarus's poem the way he did (even with the flub at the end) is simply breathtaking.

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

Michael

[9thdoctor]

MSK, I wonder if you’d consider an after-the-fact vote on featuring Glenn Beck so prominently? From the reaction I’m seeing I believe the nays will outnumber the yeas, I don’t think it will even be close. Speaking for myself, it makes me cringe to see Beck featured on the main page. Among non-Objectivists, I’d readily support John Stossel, Thomas Sowell, and/or Matt Ridley (thumbs up for The Rational Optimist), while to my ear Beck ranks below Christopher Hitchens it terms of consonance with Objectivism.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dennis,

It makes some people cringe to see me feature anarchists so prominently, too.

I guess I just have that effect on people at times...

Michael

[sbeaulieu]

Aside from the likes of Beck and Stossel, who else in the national eye comes close to advocating for the individual?

~ Shane

[Backlighting]

MSK "The good Beck is doing, getting people interested in the Founding Fathers, getting people to discuss limited government as a viable option, getting people to act according to their own conscience and speak out, getting people to feel that it's OK to have good character and celebrate others who have the same, getting people to see what is behind the claims of politicians (and the government-protected part of big business) on all sides, getting people to adopt nonviolence as their proper expression of not remaining silent anymore, and on and on and on, far, far outweighs a disagreement over religion for me"

Ditto for me!

[Dennis Hardin]

Aside from the likes of Beck and Stossel, who else in the national eye comes close to advocating for the individual?

~ Shane

Well, there is Dennis Miller, who, aside from being exceedingly clever, is also a huge admirer of Ayn Rand (but unfortunately not her atheism). Miller shows some very encouraging signs of being a staunch moralist in the cause of individualism. And then there’s Charles Krauthammer, a secular, pro-choice conservative who is also a big critic of the intelligent design nonsense.

Stossell is probably the closest thing to an Objectivist in the national media. I know for a fact that he has attended some Atlas Society events in the past. Some of his comments on O’Reilly make me wonder to what extent he really believes in laissez-faire.

I would rate all three as far superior to Beck. Faith, hope and charity? Give me a break. I’m sorry. In terms of his grasp of American values, the man is a fool.

BTW: There is a self-proclaimed Objectivist on Fox News: Jonathan Hoenig, who appears on the financial news show, Cashin' In, on week-ends. It is fascinating to watch him argue for such things as abolishing social security and the minimum wage. He should be commended for his courage and his ability to make sound, rational arguments in the midst of a cacaphony of discordant pundit hysteria.

Edited June 7, 2010 by Dennis Hardin

[sbeaulieu]

Aside from the likes of Beck and Stossel, who else in the national eye comes close to advocating for the individual?

~ Shane

Well, there is Dennis Miller, who, aside from being exceedingly clever, is also a huge admirer of Ayn Rand (but unfortunately not her atheism). Miller shows some very encouraging signs of being a staunch moralist in the cause of individualism. And then there’s Charles Krauthammer, a secular, pro-choice conservative who is also a big critic of the intelligent design nonsense.

Stossell is probably the closest thing to an Objectivist in the national media. I know for a fact that he has attended some Atlas Society events in the past. Some of his comments on O’Reilly make me wonder to what extent he really believes in laissez-faire.

I would rate all three as far superior to Beck. Faith, hope and charity? Give me a break. I’m sorry. In terms of his grasp of American values, the man is a fool.

BTW: There is a self-proclaimed Objectivist on Fox News: Jonathan Hoenig, who appears on the financial news show, Cashin' In, on week-ends. It is fascinating to watch him argue for such things as abolishing social security and the minimum wage. He should be commended for his courage and his ability to make sound, rational arguments in the midst of a cacaphony of discordant pundit hysteria.

I really like Dennis Miller. However, his stint in the commentator's box for the NFL wasn't his shining moment. He was too smart and comments he made sailed over most viewers...haha!

I'll take a look into those folks, Dennis. Thanks!

~ Shane

[anthony]

MSK, I wonder if you’d consider an after-the-fact vote on featuring Glenn Beck so prominently? From the reaction I’m seeing I believe the nays will outnumber the yeas, I don’t think it will even be close. Speaking for myself, it makes me cringe to see Beck featured on the main page. Among non-Objectivists, I’d readily support John Stossel, Thomas Sowell, and/or Matt Ridley (thumbs up for The Rational Optimist), while to my ear Beck ranks below Christopher Hitchens it terms of consonance with Objectivism.

And they are all fine intellectual individualists.

Beck, on the other hand, does not pretend to be an intellectual.

His value, imo, is in encouraging a large audience to go back to basics: the Idea that the US was founded upon, and the proud independence of Man (albeit, with one supreme Authority).

That audience will be the bedrock of the future - and they will abhor any State interference in their lives.

Without this predominantly free spirit, can those tiny minorities - O'ism and libertarianism being the ones I'm concerned about - survive and flourish? To say nothing of capitalism.

I have the impression that my experience of 'religionists' differs from what you in America have known. In my case, I'm exposed to an even mixture - Hindus, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, Anglicans, Methodists, Dutch Reformed, and more.

I've generally found a large measure of tolerance, and acceptance of my personal views. We respectfully "intersect" in many ways, intellectual and political, when talking one on one.

Otherwise, we amicably agree to disagree

So, for me, between Religion, and the rabid dog that is Statism ("We know what is best for you"), it's no contest.

But that's my experience.

Before anything else, you and I require freedom.

Tony

[sbeaulieu]

Before anything else, you and I require freedom.

Tony

I couldn't agree more. Let's be realistic. Any change, significant change specifically, requires time. As much as I'd love to have an Objectivist majority, it will never happen overnight. Not everyone is willing to change. Think of the millions that would have to convert their way of thinking and acting. Common ground (the overlapping circle) is the necessity to visualizing and actualizing our "freedom." Outright cries of "no" because of Becks out there that utter some things we agree with vs everything we agree with nets us this result...sitting on the sidelines and waiting. We all know what that gets us...nada, zip, zero. Take what we can get by those willing to stand up for the likes of us. Once traction is gained, it's only a matter of time.

~ Shane

[anthony]

Before anything else, you and I require freedom.

Tony

I couldn't agree more. Let's be realistic. Any change, significant change specifically, requires time. As much as I'd love to have an Objectivist majority, it will never happen overnight. Not everyone is willing to change. Think of the millions that would have to convert their way of thinking and acting. Common ground (the overlapping circle) is the necessity to visualizing and actualizing our "freedom." Outright cries of "no" because of Becks out there that utter some things we agree with vs everything we agree with nets us this result...sitting on the sidelines and waiting. We all know what that gets us...nada, zip, zero. Take what we can get by those willing to stand up for the likes of us. Once traction is gained, it's only a matter of time.

~ Shane

Thanks, Shane. Well said.

I enjoy your optimism for a future Objectivist majority.

Me, I'm firstly a 'surviver', only then, a 'flourisher'.

This whole debate is one of autocracy versus theocracy - partial, or complete - it seems.

Playing devil's advocate to my argument above, anyone could rightfully point out that a theocrat is just as likely as a Statist to tell us "we know what's best for you."

But while I'm being pragmatic, I may as well argue further.

The two options:

Most importantly, the theocrat is probably going to agree to separation of Church and State (most Western governments observe this.)

His basic premise being altruistic, he will advocate that each of us is our brother's keeper, but has no way, and imo, little will, of enforcing that.

i.e., his altruism is more a volitional charitableness.

And, - a lttle facetiously- the several 'rival' religions will ensure some healthy competition.

All this adds up to a reasonably self-limiting government.

Capitalism would be at little risk. Individualism, if largely because of the value of man's 'immortal soul', would continue to be respected.

The Statist/autocrat, on the other hand, has no such restraints, or rivals to power.

His basic premise, among others, is also altruistic; BUT, here it's a double whammy: altruism would be imposed on us (it would be inescapable); we would be forced to not only be our brother's keeper directly - but also indirectly, via crippling taxation. The only business of such Statism is self-growth and self-perpetuation, and that would put paid to capitalism eventually, and lead to the end of personal liberty.

This is a simplistic argument I know. It reduces to a pragmatic, sort of 'Pascal's Wager' level. One way is 'half-lose', 'half-win'.

But the other is 'lose-lose.'

Neither way would be the rationally moral choice, but with the urgency of the situation, does one have that luxury?

Tony (the new Republican )

[sbeaulieu]

I enjoy your optimism for a future Objectivist majority.

Me, I'm firstly a 'surviver', only then, a 'flourisher'.

Optimism is my middle name ;) But I agree, you have to work on yourself first, your house, your neighborhood...you get the gist.

This whole debate is one of autocracy versus theocracy - partial, or complete - it seems.

Playing devil's advocate to my argument above, anyone could rightfully point out that a theocrat is just as likely as a Statist to tell us "we know what's best for you."

But while I'm being pragmatic, I may as well argue further.

The two options:

Most importantly, the theocrat is probably going to agree to separation of Church and State (most Western governments observe this.)

His basic premise being altruistic, he will advocate that each of us is our brother's keeper, but has no way, and imo, little will, of enforcing that.

i.e., his altruism is more a volitional charitableness.

And, - a lttle facetiously- the several 'rival' religions will ensure some healthy competition.

All this adds up to a reasonably self-limiting government.

Capitalism would be at little risk. Individualism, if largely because of the value of man's 'immortal soul', would continue to be respected.

The Statist/autocrat, on the other hand, has no such restraints, or rivals to power.

His basic premise, among others, is also altruistic; BUT, here it's a double whammy: altruism would be imposed on us (it would be inescapable); we would be forced to not only be our brother's keeper directly - but also indirectly, via crippling taxation. The only business of such Statism is self-growth and self-perpetuation, and that would put paid to capitalism eventually, and lead to the end of personal liberty.

This is a simplistic argument I know. It reduces to a pragmatic, sort of 'Pascal's Wager' level. One way is 'half-lose', 'half-win'.

But the other is 'lose-lose.'

Neither way would be the rationally moral choice, but with the urgency of the situation, does one have that luxury?

Tony (the new Republican )

I'll take the 'half-win' over inaction. Whatever it takes to keep the Statists from gaining more ground. I'd rather a theocrat as my neighbor. As long as he's not trying to push his 'wares', we're groovy.

~ Shane

[Charles R. Anderson]

I believe Glenn Beck is a valuable ally in what has become a desperate fight to preserve freedom in America from Obama and his socialist hordes and manipulators.

Mike has effectively stated how what Beck has been doing has been a good thing. He is definitely able to get large numbers of Americans to read and consider books with important ideas, such as Atlas Shrugged and The Road to Serfdom. Yes, he is a religious man, but so are most Americans. He serves as a bridge to get Americans to read Ayn Rand for her ideas, despite the fact she was an atheist. For many, that was a barrier they could not overcome and they would not read her work because of it. Yet Beck has and that he has made it OK for other believers to do so also. Most will retain their religion, but most will come away from the reading with a greater respect for individuality, rationality in other domains, productivity, self-responsibility, and a different viewpoint on good human character.

Beck is eccentric and some of his acting is annoying to me, but I am willing to put up with it because it appeals to enough Americans that he has built a large audience for issues which have never before had a large audience. I love history, especially American history. The more he encourages people to read, the better off we will all be. As he has pointed out, ignorance of America's history is a serious deficiency if we are to defend the essential American idea that we each have an equal, sovereign individual right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. He also makes it clear that the Declaration of Independence defined legitimate government as that which protects those individual equal, sovereign rights. The Constitution is the document that limits the government to that function. These are extremely important lessons that the vast majority of Americans had forgotten. Many are renewing this knowledge now and this is a great help in moving our society toward one which appreciates individuality, reason, and productivity much more than our has recently.

Glenn Beck has stated over and over that he has just been awakened to many important lessons in our history and about the evils of socialism in the last few years. This is a man whose character was not John Galt-like and he has really just seen the possibility of a whole new world. He is reading many books while he is spending prodigious time on his business and media pursuits. He has not had the luxury of sitting in an ivory tower to devour these books and ponder over the merits of each paragraph carefully. It is clear that some of his understanding is not as deep yet as it might be wished, but then it should not be a surprise. Judge him in the context of his life. I think he deserves to be cut some slack. In that context, I think he deserves a pat on the back.

One of the great faults with many who think of themselves as Objectivists, is that they make the perfect the enemy of the good. In the process, they often discourage the good from trying to become more perfect or others who are not yet good from trying even to become good. Men of good character are always of value. They are rare enough. We should learn to welcome them.

John Stossel is a man who has thought longer and who does so carefully. I enjoy his show and admire his work.

While Judge Napolitano has some religious beliefs I do not share, I also find him interesting and generally a strong force for the good.

Charles Krauthammer is good, as are John Fund, Alan Reynolds, Richard Rahn, Mark Steyn, Robert Romano, Rebekah Rast, Chris Edwards, Byron York, Thomas Sowell, Walter E. Williams, Larry Elder, Jonathan Hoenig, Michelle Malkin, and even Ann Coulter. I am also a fan of PJTV. I do not agree with all the people in this list all the time, but I do find them interesting and useful.

I have serious doubts about whether most people can be Objectivists. It is certainly true that few Americans now want to ask so much of themselves. I also think that Objectivists will have to ratchet their numbers up slowly over time and as their become enough of them, some additional people will join in. Most people will not join in until almost most people are already Objectivists, in the best case. Few people have the character to be very different than others, at least not too different. This is why most Americans are Christians, while most Indians are Hindus, and most Iranians are Muslims. At best, it will be a long time before most Americans are Objectivists. Meanwhile, it would be great if they simply believed in the Declaration of Independence and the real Constitution.

[Brant Gaede]

Charles, I'd say yours is a very good and very objective post. Thank you for taking the time to put it up here.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

This is why most Americans are Christians, while most Indians are Hindus, and most Iranians are Muslims. At best, it will be a long time before most Americans are Objectivists. Meanwhile, it would be great if they simply believed in the Declaration of Independence and the real Constitution.

Have you noticed that you put Objectivism in the same category as a religion? Hmmm....

I find that a bit disturbing. Do you ?

Ba'al Chatzaf