Thursday, March 26, 2009
Two new ModCon posts
We're helping Liberals invalidate our own philosophy.
Saturday, March 21, 2009
Thank You for Your Service
I think the author's tradition of honoring a fallen soldier every year is a very touching and fitting tribute to the huge sacrifice they made in the name of freedom.
My disdain for Michelle Obama is only surpassed by my feelings toward her husband.
Liberals Say Pffft! I say Bring it on!
I've been slacking a little on the blogs lately. Please forgive me for having a million projects going at once. There are some links to some awesome artists in the article.
Those of you interested, should also look into the National Tea Parties. There are a couple coming up.
Friday, March 13, 2009
Let's See What Congress is up to
Most Americans probably believe a bill has to have majority support in Congress before it can become the law of the land. Sadly, this common sense expectation is totally wrong. Congressional leaders routinely pass laws that a majority opposes. DownsizeDC believes every bill should have to stand or fall on its own merits. Toward this end we have crafted the “One Subject at a Time Act” (OSTA).
Please go to the DownsizeDC website and check out all of their efforts to reign in government. If you are wondering why you should care, take a look at what Congress is currently working on (see list below), then judge for yourself whether or not they even know what their jobs are any more. The list of Bills is courtesy of Liberty Maven. You can get detailed info on individual Bills at GPOAccess.gov.
And lastly, for a change of pace, here’s a bill that we can all get behind:
Senators http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
Representatives https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml
Thursday, March 12, 2009
Destroying the Economy to promote Socialism
Have you noticed how quickly the government and entitlements have grown since January 20th? Rather than waste time with a rant, I will direct you to the information so you can judge for yourself.
Barack Obama is Destroying Our Economy on Purpose. Description: A pair of radical
The plan calls for the destruction of capitalism in
This interview must be e-mailed all over the country. Americans must awaken and understand the goal of these radicals and what is to come if they succeed. Time is of the essence. Obama is not over his head as some have claimed; he knows exactly what he is doing. Understand the Cloward-Piven Strategy, the rules of Saul Alinsky and their Cultural Marxist world view and you will understand that what is occurring is not by mistake.
Google Cloward- Piven, below and you will see clearly what the strategy of the left really intends for this country.
THE SITE http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=6967
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Formula For Hate
Where is John Galt? #1
For those of you familiar with Ayn Rand and Atlas Shrugged, you will know what I'm talking about. For the rest of you; for God's sake, read the book. I'm happy to say sales have skyrocketed lately, so the kid at the local bookstore chain might actually know what you're asking for. This book made a huge impact on me when I read it in college. I am confident in saying it changed my worldview, opened my eyes, and gave me the strength to fight for the ideas this country was formed around, rather than accept the country it has become. Fifty and some odd years after its first publication, Atlas is true now more than ever. It was the fertilizer my young mind needed to grow into the well-informed and self-motivated person that I am today. Looking back, it helped me develop a strong personal philosophy and standard of value that has led me to be a political artist and activist. Some would agree, sarcastically, that it is indeed fertilizer. I think my favorite criticism of Ms. Rand's work and philosophy came from someone who said, her books are just written for young angst-ridden girls who have no concept of self. The small-mindedness of people will never cease to amaze me.
This drawing is the second in a series of Americana images I am working on....
The entire article is available at Modern Conservative
Thursday, March 5, 2009
My Upcoming Art Show
This is a group show with the ladies I meet for a painting group every week. Everyone is invited to attend, and I will link to my featured paintings below the info. I hope to see you there!
Color, Light, and Shadow
exhibit by Buford Artists' Group Sugar Hill, GA
My Scarlet Liberty
Spinning with the Winds of Change
Frances and Avery
Wednesday, March 4, 2009
Atlanta Snow Days 2009
Although we can usually hope for one day of snow in early March, we rarely have it for long. This year the snow has hung around for 5 days. These are all pictures from my yard. We were unable to drive anywhere, because the roads around our house were sheets of ice. As you can guess, we're not equipped to deal with this kind of weather around here.
Ayn Rand on Libertarianism
Yesterday, I read this great article that addresses some of the issues I have with my personal philosophy. I consider myself to be both a Libertarian and an Objectivist. For those of you who are familiar with Rand's writings and speeches, you know she had a low opinion of Libertarians. As this article from Organized Exploitation points out, the Libertarian Party has come a long way, and Miss Rand could be a little rigid in her ideas. Here is the full article:
Friday, February 27, 2009
Debating Ayn Rand
I found this to be quite interesting, in that Rand has defined the philosophy by which I have come to attempt to live my life. In that the Libertarian movement has not died, as I am sure she wished it would have, I decided to respond to her thoughts on the movement. While obviously she cannot possibly respond, I hope you will be kind enough to respond to some of my thoughts on the matter with your own. If anyone else reading is a blogger as well, I would also be interested in doing some cross-posting on the matter.
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian movement? [FHF: “The Moratorium on Brains,” 1971]
AR: All kinds of people today call themselves “libertarians,” especially something calling itself the New Right, which consists of hippies, except that they’re anarchists instead of collectivists. But of course, anarchists are collectivists. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left, which has given them up. So the right picks up another leftist discard. That’s the Libertarian movement.
My immediate response to this particular line of thought is that Rand provided this answer in 1971. Thirty-seven years later, I don't believe that there exists in the Libertarian movement, any semblance of a grouping of anarchists that have any kind of voice in any matter. I agree with her thoughts on anarchists in general, that they are simply another style of collectivist, and that they are the scum of the intellectual world. I can't say of the intellectual world of the left, since I think that nearly four decades later, there is no home left anywhere politically for an anarchist. Perhaps some anarchists would feel like calling themselves Libertarians, but I do not believe that at this point in time, Libertarians would accept being associated with anarchists, much less believe that Libertarianism's makeup is heavily laden with anarchists.
Q: What do you think of the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “A Nation’s Unity,” 1972]
AR: I’d rather vote for Bob Hope, the Marx Brothers, or Jerry Lewis. I don’t think they’re as funny as Professor Hospers and the Libertarian Party. If, at a time like this, John Hospers takes ten votes away from Nixon (which I doubt he’ll do), it would be a moral crime. I don’t care about Nixon, and I care even less about Hospers. But this is no time to engage in publicity seeking, which all these crank political parties are doing. If you want to spread your ideas, do it through education. But don’t run for President—or even dogcatcher—if you’re going to help McGovern.
This statement on her part, I think, had so much more to do with her pure absolutism more than anything. I think to Rand it was much more relevant to teach people something through honest discourse, and she therefore loathed the idea that anybody would stain her ideas by grandstanding with them politically. There is such an element of propagandizing and dishonesty that pervades political discourse, that I don't believe she felt it possible for people to learn anything via a political campaign. So she ultimately seems to have taken the approach that I see many disheartened conservatives take, in that they vote grudgingly for the Republican candidate, despite not thinking he is the right choice.
This is an argument that I hear a lot of. That being that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote. It is not an argument that, for me, falls on deaf ears. It makes all the sense in the world. Every election is a battle, and particularly this last election. I voted for John McCain, despite hating myself for it, because I felt a deeper need to see Barack Obama not step foot into the White House. I couldn't stand John McCain. If he was conservative enough, and principled enough, to lead the party, he would have beaten Bush in the first place eight years ago, and also wouldn't have needed to make back-room deals with Huckabee to sabotage Romney in the South during the primaries this time around. So in that respect, I fully understand her position that it would be a "moral crime" to vote otherwise. However, it should be known that it was a personal crime against my own morality to have supported someone like John McCain, who, to be perfectly honest, would have simply wound up being a watered-down version of Obama anyway.
Q: Libertarians advocate the politics you advocate. So why are you opposed to the Libertarian Party? [FHF: “Egalitarianism and Inflation,” 1974]
AR: They are not defenders of capitalism. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely, because they allegedly want to educate people through a political campaign, which can’t be done. Further, their leadership consists of men of every of persuasion, from religious conservatives to anarchists. Moreover, most of them are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas. Now, I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas.
This exchange follows the previous one nicely I think, in that it is an extension of Rand's thoughts on the men pursuing politics through the Libertarian Party. If you're educated in Objectivism, you'll understand immediately that it's really the "collection of misfits" here that she's disgusted with. The "men of every persuasion" she discusses, I think, made her hate the party. She very much wanted people to view Objectivism as a new way live their lives and I don't think she could stand that so many people she felt belonged in a different classification would gather into a group simply to be "anti" whatever elese there was. She believed people should live for things, not against them, and that people needed to be taught to live for themselves as their own highest purpose. With such an assemblage of different people grouping together to be against other principles, she felt that they were not making choices for their own benefit, but rather against the benefits of others.
It's interesting to me that someone who wrote for a living felt that the people considered the leaders of the Libertarian Party at the time were nothing more than publicity hounds. I personally find myself in a position to want to write and put forth ideas that I feel can help. I find it hard to believe that other writers or speakers discussing Liberty and Freedom and Capitalism at the time felt like they would just talk about such concepts out of self-promotion. Rand seemed particularly upset that they would steal her ideas and not credit her, as she should have been. I'm admittedly ignorant of who took what ideas from her, but it seems to me she wouldn't have been so upset had these same people been able to convey her ideas and teach people with such ruthless competence as herself and Peikoff were capable.
As to her point that it is impossible to educate through a political campaign, it is difficult to disagree. One learns nothing by listening to different people spouting different canned talking points. But I have to disagree that the political campaign is useless in spreading education. We see it now more than ever. Freedom and Liberty are, I think, more on the table now than ever before in my entire lifetime due primarily to Ron Paul's recent political campaign. Without that political campaign, it is impossible for me to believe that we would now have people again discussing F.A. Hayek and Milton Friedman and yes, Ayn Rand as heroes of economy and philosophy as vehemently as we are. We also would not see movements like the Campaign for Liberty or Young Americans for Liberty. It's doubtful that educational reading by authors like Tom Woods would be so popular as it is now. Making important ideas highly visible to inspire people to educate themselves cannot be considered a bad thing.
Q: Have you ever heard of [Libertarian presidential candidate] Roger MacBride? [FHF: “?” 1976]
AR: My answer should be, “I haven’t.” There’s nothing to hear. I have been maintaining in everything I have said and written, that the trouble in the world today is philosophical; that only the right philosophy can save us. Now here is a party that plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. I dislike Reagan and Carter; I’m not too enthusiastic about the other candidates. But the worst of them are giants compared to anybody who would attempt something as un-philosophical, low, and pragmatic as the Libertarian Party. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency.
This quote, I think best sums up Rand's issues with the Libertarian Party. Her belief that "the trouble in the world today is philosophical" is never moreso evident than it is today. Every person needs a philosophy to guide them, and Rand could not see a consistent philosophy that drove the Libertarian Party, and was angered that she became so associated with it.
I cannot speak to the beginnings of the Libertarian Party and whether or not it had a true guiding philosophy. But I can speak to where it is now. Libertarians believe in small government, true free-market capitalism, liberty and freedom as inherent for all, not given or granted, and respect of that freedom by all and for all.
Liberty, Freedom and Respect are ideas that sure seem like good philosophy to me.
For more from Organized Exploitation: http://organizedexploitation.blogspot.com This is a great site, that I just found through friends at Digg. I look forward to more articles from them. This piece has inspired me to do some writing about Rand, as well as the current project I am working on with her quotes. I will try to post both here shortly.