Paul Ryan's Voter Values Speech 9/14/2012

[Foxfyre]

You are saying that Ryan and Romney base their philosophy on a moral structure predicated on the non-existance of God? Surely not. Nobody, and I mean nobody is that ignorant of Ryan and Romney's religious beliefs.

As far as I can tell, Romney has no governing philosophical principles.

Ryan, on the other hand, has been clear about the level of Rand's influence on his thinking: "the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand."

And yes, thinking people take the truth they can learn from any teacher, including Ayn Rand, and disregard what they cannot accept as truth. One can embrace the truths that Ayn Rand taught without embracing the whole.

Reading a philosophical text (particularly one seeking to indulge in political philosophy) isn't about looking for divine revelation, though I suppose Randians sometimes ironically have a quasi-religious reaction to her atheist teachings. I would not agree that "thinking people" arrive at conclusions after rejecting the premises that lead one to them.

Okay so you totally ignored my post in response to your accusations re Ayn Rand.

So let me ask you this.

Who is the more selfish?
A/ The person who expects a substantial reward for his/her work and sees that as his/her property to do with as he/she wishes?. . . or . . . .

B/ The person who expects to share in and benefit from what I earn?

 

[Foxfyre]

Hmmm. Crickets. interesting no?

 

[midcan5]

I know I hit it out of the park when my reputation goes down.

Paul Ryan makes me cry, he reminds me so much of the nerdy sophomore who just got elected head of the class, tears stream down the faces of the fans. Girls in cheerleader outfits break into song. Speaker Boehner cried so hard when he heard Ryan's speech of a lost America, he had to run to the ladies room.

"“What are all these people crying about?” I imagine someone unfamiliar with our extraordinary national talent for hypocrisy asking while watching the conventions. It might even cross the mind of such a person that nowhere on this poor old earth of ours have there ever been people so caring of each other’s feelings as today’s Americans. Either the television networks had some kind of device on their cameras able to instantly locate tearful faces in a vast crowd of delegates, or they had nothing else to show, since there seemed not a dry eye in the house. The speakers choked up when mentioning their immigrant grandparents, their own supposed humble beginnings, their wonderful families sitting right there in the audience, whose adoring faces were then shown with eyes growing moist." The Crying Game by Charles Simic | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...er-values-speech-9-14-2012-a.html#post5993211


When people mention Adam Smith I wonder if they have ever read him?

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." Adam Smith

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

"I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." Adam Smith


"The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another. Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice." Adam Smith

 

[Greenbeard]

So let me ask you this.

Who is the more selfish?
A/ The person who expects a substantial reward for his/her work and sees that as his/her property to do with as he/she wishes?. . . or . . . .

B/ The person who expects to share in and benefit from what I earn?

Therein lies your problem. The Randian fetish for some "maker/taker" or "producers/moochers" dichotomy misses the point entirely. The point of the "we're all in this together" philosophy that Ryan falsely implied he accepts because it is "true and obvious" is that this dichotomy fails. Instead, that philosophy moves beyond the narcissism (which for Randians is generally rooted in their atheism) that obliges these folks to identify themselves as some kind of übermenschlich "makers."

So in answer to your question: the manifestation of the Randian cult of what I called "the divinity of the self-indulgent individual" (which you've conveniently shorted to "selfish[ness]," despite losing some of the meaning) is identifiable in the question itself, not in any answer to it.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

So let me ask you this.

Who is the more selfish?
A/ The person who expects a substantial reward for his/her work and sees that as his/her property to do with as he/she wishes?. . . or . . . .

B/ The person who expects to share in and benefit from what I earn?

Therein lies your problem. The Randian fetish for some "maker/taker" or "producers/moochers" dichotomy misses the point entirely. The point of the "we're all in this together" philosophy that Ryan falsely implied he accepts because it is "true and obvious" is that this dichotomy fails. Instead, that philosophy moves beyond the narcissism (which for Randians is generally rooted in their atheism) that obliges these folks to identify themselves as some kind of übermenschlich "makers."

Having self interests makes one a narcissist? That's a gross over-simplification.

 

[Foxfyre]

I know I hit it out of the park when my reputation goes down.

Paul Ryan makes me cry, he reminds me so much of the nerdy sophomore who just got elected head of the class, tears stream down the faces of the fans. Girls in cheerleader outfits break into song. Speaker Boehner cried so hard when he heard Ryan's speech of a lost America, he had to run to the ladies room.

"“What are all these people crying about?” I imagine someone unfamiliar with our extraordinary national talent for hypocrisy asking while watching the conventions. It might even cross the mind of such a person that nowhere on this poor old earth of ours have there ever been people so caring of each other’s feelings as today’s Americans. Either the television networks had some kind of device on their cameras able to instantly locate tearful faces in a vast crowd of delegates, or they had nothing else to show, since there seemed not a dry eye in the house. The speakers choked up when mentioning their immigrant grandparents, their own supposed humble beginnings, their wonderful families sitting right there in the audience, whose adoring faces were then shown with eyes growing moist." The Crying Game by Charles Simic | NYRblog | The New York Review of Books

http://www.usmessageboard.com/clean...er-values-speech-9-14-2012-a.html#post5993211


When people mention Adam Smith I wonder if they have ever read him?

"People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary." Adam Smith

"What improves the circumstances of the greater part can never be regarded as an inconveniency to the whole. No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable." Adam Smith 'The Wealth of Nations,' Book I Chapter VIII

"I. The subjects of every state ought to contribute towards the support of the government, as nearly as possible, in proportion to their respective abilities..." Adam Smith


"The great source of both the misery and disorders of human life, seems to arise from over-rating the difference between one permanent situation and another. Avarice over-rates the difference between poverty and riches: ambition, that between a private and a public station: vain-glory, that between obscurity and extensive reputation. The person under the influence of any of those extravagant passions, is not only miserable in his actual situation, but is often disposed to disturb the peace of society, in order to arrive at that which he so foolishly admires. The slightest observation, however, might satisfy him, that, in all the ordinary situations of human life, a well-disposed mind may be equally calm, equally cheerful, and equally contented. Some of those situations may, no doubt, deserve to be preferred to others: but none of them can deserve to be pursued with that passionate ardour which drives us to violate the rules either of prudence or of justice; or to corrupt the future tranquility of our minds, either by shame from the remembrance of our own folly, or by remorse from the horror of our own injustice." Adam Smith

I have not only read Adam Smith, but I have taught Adam Smith as well as those who followed and expanded on his theories. He was well aware that any productive thing could be intentionally used for less than noble purposes. And he was well aware that the choices we make will become the people we are. And none of that justified the government taking over what should be left as the choice of the private sector.

So I ask you the same question:

Who is the more selfish?
A/ The person who expects a substantial reward for his/her work and sees that as his/her property to do with as he/she wishes?. . . or . . . .

B/ The person who expects to share in and benefit from what I earn?

 

[midcan5]

[So I ask you the same question Greenbeard ran from:

Who is the more selfish?
A/ The person who expects a substantial reward for his/her work and sees that as his/her property to do with as he/she wishes?. . . or . . . .

B/ The person who expects to share in and benefit from what I earn?

That's not a question, that's an answer. Ask something that requires real comparison and maybe you'll get an answer.



"Rector and Sheffield are right that we shouldn't take our society's material progress for granted. But the trouble with this line of reasoning is that Americans today don't live in the 1890s or another bygone era. And they generally don't reside in the bush of Botswana or some other impoverished land, either.

As is customary for humans, Ameri*cans inhabit a particular space and time. They live in communities and need access to the resources that will help them participate fully in those communities. This means they need basics, such as a decent-paying job, health insurance and retirement security. At present it also often means needing cell phones, computers and reliable cars.

The biblical social ethic reflects this sense of particularity. The Jewish pro*ph*ets and Jesus were not bowled over by the fact that the poor of their times lived large compared to the cavemen. They spoke precisely against the marginalization of economically disadvantaged people within their social contexts." Relative poverty: Where Adam Smith and the Bible agree | The Christian Century

 

[Greenbeard]

Having self interests makes one a narcissist? That's a gross over-simplification.

Self-interest does not make one a narcissist.

I am talking specifically about the Randian philosophy that, apparently, is the driving force behind the current GOP vice presidential candidate. This is a philosophy that holds that self-sacrifice and altruism are affirmatively "evil" (that's Rand's word).

To see ostensible followers of Christ embrace a philosophy that teaches the moral wrongness of self-sacrifice is surreal.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Having self interests makes one a narcissist? That's a gross over-simplification.

Self-interest does not make one a narcissist.

I am talking specifically about the Randian philosophy that, apparently, is the driving force behind the current GOP vice presidential candidate. This is a philosophy that holds that self-sacrifice and altruism are affirmatively "evil" (that's Rand's word).

Now you are making a strawman (like Obama). Ryan has never said that self-sacrifice in and of itself is evil.

 

[Foxfyre]

[So I ask you the same question Greenbeard ran from:

Who is the more selfish?
A/ The person who expects a substantial reward for his/her work and sees that as his/her property to do with as he/she wishes?. . . or . . . .

B/ The person who expects to share in and benefit from what I earn?

That's not a question, that's an answer. Ask something that requires real comparison and maybe you'll get an answer.



"Rector and Sheffield are right that we shouldn't take our society's material progress for granted. But the trouble with this line of reasoning is that Americans today don't live in the 1890s or another bygone era. And they generally don't reside in the bush of Botswana or some other impoverished land, either.

As is customary for humans, Ameri*cans inhabit a particular space and time. They live in communities and need access to the resources that will help them participate fully in those communities. This means they need basics, such as a decent-paying job, health insurance and retirement security. At present it also often means needing cell phones, computers and reliable cars.

The biblical social ethic reflects this sense of particularity. The Jewish pro*ph*ets and Jesus were not bowled over by the fact that the poor of their times lived large compared to the cavemen. They spoke precisely against the marginalization of economically disadvantaged people within their social contexts." Relative poverty: Where Adam Smith and the Bible agree | The Christian Century

It is a question. Any conservative can answer it easily and without reservation. Only the modern day liberal refuses to answer such a question but insists on attacking the question or the questionaer or reframing the question into something that seems to be more easy to defend.

Where in the Bible, Old or New Testament, is it written that any person can absolve himself from responsibility for concern for the sick, the poor, the hungry, the naked, the homeless etc. by turning it over to the government to do? Most especially when the government will collect the means from somebody else leaving you relatively unscathed? Do you honestly believe this is the charity Moses taught? Or Jesus? Or Adam Smith? The imperfect choices made by imperfect people may require remedy from time to time, but they do not eliminate the larger universal truths involved.

In his The Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith allowed for very minimal involvement of government in dispensation of charity, but must be restricted. He said "to push it too far is destructive of all liberty, security, and justice."(ibid) This in no way negated his opinion that the best charity for the vast majority is opportunity provided by a free market capitalistic system.

Which brings us back to Ryan's line in his speech in which he resists a system in which everything is free but us.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

To see ostensible followers of Christ embrace a philosophy that teaches the moral wrongness of self-sacrifice is surreal.

FF explained it quite clearly that one can find truth in someone and not have to accept the whole of one's philosophies as unshakeable truth. So again, you're offering another strawman there.

This is really a double strawman, because you presume to imply that Ryan's philosophy is anti-Christian when in fact he has embraced many Christian values. And in fact, he has made a solid argument that Obama has attacked freedom of religion (a very strong Christian value).

 

[Greenbeard]

Having self interests makes one a narcissist? That's a gross over-simplification.

Self-interest does not make one a narcissist.

I am talking specifically about the Randian philosophy that, apparently, is the driving force behind the current GOP vice presidential candidate. This is a philosophy that holds that self-sacrifice and altruism are affirmatively "evil" (that's Rand's word).

Now you are making a strawman (like Obama). Ryan has never said that self-sacrifice in and of itself is evil.

I'm talking about his favorite philosopher and the inspiration for his public service.

Perhaps you believe he arrived at her conclusions without specifically committing himself to any of the premises on which they're based. Perhaps. But I'm not sure why that should make you feel better.

Even if you think he was led to his beliefs by some other faith or philosophical framework (or none at all, as it's been suggested here that perhaps he picked and chose whatever sounded good without thinking through the argument and precepts upon which the conclusions are based), it still led him to the same place that an ethical framework explicitly built around the idea that there is no god, death is the end of existence, and altruism is evil led Rand.

I don't particularly want Ayn Rand or Paul Ryan anywhere near the federal government; certainly not in leadership positions.

 

[Greenbeard]

This is really a double strawman, because you presume to imply that Ryan's philosophy is anti-Christian when in fact he has embraced many Christian values. And in fact, he has made a solid argument that Obama has attacked freedom of religion (a very strong Christian value).

His budget framework has been attacked by the American Catholic hierarchy as failing the moral standards set by their faith. So I can't say for sure what the guy is, beyond what he calls himself.

 

[edthecynic]

“My men’s bible study group talks frequently about controlling our lust, thoughts, and eyes. Yes the problem and responsibility are ours, but is it really reasonable for the women of the church to make it THIS difficult for us?”

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Self-interest does not make one a narcissist.

I am talking specifically about the Randian philosophy that, apparently, is the driving force behind the current GOP vice presidential candidate. This is a philosophy that holds that self-sacrifice and altruism are affirmatively "evil" (that's Rand's word).

Now you are making a strawman (like Obama). Ryan has never said that self-sacrifice in and of itself is evil.

I'm talking about his favorite philosopher and the inspiration for his public service.

Perhaps you believe he arrived at her conclusions without specifically committing himself to any of the premises on which they're based. Perhaps. But I'm not sure why that should make you feel better.

Even if you think he was led to his beliefs by some other faith or philosophical framework (or none at all, as it's been suggested here that perhaps he picked and chose whatever sounded good without thinking through the argument and precepts upon which the conclusions are based), it still led him to the same place that an ethical framework explicitly built around the idea that there is no god, death is the end of existence, and altruism is evil led Rand.

I don't particularly want Ayn Rand or Paul Ryan anywhere near the federal government; certainly not in leadership positions.

Yes__ I know what you're talking about. But it's a strawman to take a philospher's statement (who he draws inspiration from) and automatically attribute it to him.

And why do you assume that because Ayn Rand did not believe in God that she could not extrapolate virtuous principles? Conversely, why do you presume to think that one who believes in a deity cannot find virtue in her philosophies? It is dogma (no other word for it), for a person to presume that a Christian cannot find virtue in the findings of an atheist and visa versa.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

This is really a double strawman, because you presume to imply that Ryan's philosophy is anti-Christian when in fact he has embraced many Christian values. And in fact, he has made a solid argument that Obama has attacked freedom of religion (a very strong Christian value).

His budget framework has been attacked by the American Catholic hierarchy as failing the moral standards set by their faith. So I can't say for sure what the guy is, beyond what he calls himself.

Not that I buy your finding (in fact I believe otherwise); but the American Catholic hierarchy is supposed to be final arbitrator of morality? The same organization that presided over the pedophilia epidemic is afforded a monopoly on morality?

 

[Foxfyre]

This is really a double strawman, because you presume to imply that Ryan's philosophy is anti-Christian when in fact he has embraced many Christian values. And in fact, he has made a solid argument that Obama has attacked freedom of religion (a very strong Christian value).

His budget framework has been attacked by the American Catholic hierarchy as failing the moral standards set by their faith. So I can't say for sure what the guy is, beyond what he calls himself.

Depending on whose biography you read, Paul Ryan was likely interested in Ayn Rand theories as were all of us in college economics have been. Rand was required reading for most of us as were those who opposed Rand's theories, and was frequently a topic of formal debates during my college years and since that time.

And yes, Ryan has been criticzed by ultra-liberal Roman Catholic Bishops who head agencies that are heavily dependent on government money. And that is widely reported in the leftwing media and waved like dirty linen by liberals on message boards.

Less noted however is Ryan's response to questions about that:

In an interview with David Brody, he said: "Those principles are very, very important,” Ryan said. “And the preferential option for the poor, which is one of the primary tenets of Catholic social teaching, means don’t keep people poor, don’t make people dependent on government so that they stay stuck at their station in life; help people get out of poverty, out into a life of independence.”


And then subsequently. . . .

In spite of the fact that DeLauro completely ignores the latitude allowed to prudential judgments based upon Catholic principles, her charge will be repeated ad nauseam against the Romney-Ryan ticket over the next 90 days.


DeLauro’s interview April 17 was prompted by the arrival of three more letters to Congress from two Catholic bishops, once again accusing the Ryan budget of hurting the poor and failing the measure of Catholic social teaching.


Ryan knew he had more explaining to do, so on April 29 he sent a four-page letter to the president of the USCCB, Archbishop Timothy M. Dolan of New York, explaining how his budget was guided by the principles of Catholic social teaching. Ryan argued that as a Catholic he was justified in taking into account the bigger picture of the entire economic situation facing the nation. He argued there was a moral obligation “implicit” in Catholic social teaching to address “difficult basic problems before they explode into social crisis.”


The supportive letter of May 18 Ryan received in response from Dolan was hardly noticed. But the major points Ryan made in both his Brody interview and his letter to the archbishop were clearly acknowledged: “The principles of Catholic social teaching contain truths that need to be applied,” wrote Dolan, by the application of “prudential judgment.”
Paul Ryan?s Catholic Problem - The Daily Beast

If you go back to the speech as reflected in the OP, Ryan remains committed, unwavering, and absolutely convinced of the rightness of his cause and he defends it eloquently. The fact that he and almost all of us who have studed any economics appreciate the good points of Ayn Rand philosophy cannot honestly be interpreted as an unqualified endorsement of everything Ayn Rand believed. If you believe that, then you would realistically have to agree with every single thing Barack Obama stands for, has said, has written, and has proposed as policy in order to vote for or support Barack Obama.

I don't agree with Paul Ryan on everything. I don't agree with Mitt Romney on everything. But I am convinced they believe what they are saying on the campaign trail and neither will intentionally do anything to hurt America.

I cannot say the same for Barack Obama.

 

[midcan5]

"When I paddle my kayak in Hither Hills State Park in Montauk, I'm glad it belongs to all of us." (link below)

[So I ask you the same question Greenbeard ran from:

Who is the more selfish?
A/ The person who expects a substantial reward for his/her work and sees that as his/her property to do with as he/she wishes?. . . or . . . .

B/ The person who expects to share in and benefit from what I earn?

That's not a question, that's an answer. Ask something that requires real comparison and maybe you'll get an answer.

It is a question. Any conservative can answer it easily and without reservation. Only the modern day liberal refuses to answer such a question but insists on attacking the question or the questionaer or reframing the question into something that seems to be more easy to defend.

Where in the Bible, Old or New Testament, is it written that any person can absolve himself from responsibility for concern for the sick, the poor, the hungry, the naked, the homeless etc. by turning it over to the government to do? Most especially when the government will collect the means from somebody else leaving you relatively unscathed? Do you honestly believe this is the charity Moses taught? Or Jesus? Or Adam Smith? The imperfect choices made by imperfect people may require remedy from time to time, but they do not eliminate the larger universal truths involved.

In his The Theory of Moral Sentiments Smith allowed for very minimal involvement of government in dispensation of charity, but must be restricted. He said "to push it too far is destructive of all liberty, security, and justice."(ibid) This in no way negated his opinion that the best charity for the vast majority is opportunity provided by a free market capitalistic system.

Which brings us back to Ryan's line in his speech in which he resists a system in which everything is free but us.

It is not a question, it is an assumption based on a rigid ideology you follow and believe according to your posts and ideas. It is the ideology of Ayn Rand or modern American libertarianism - neither is good for America. Neither is supported by our preamble. Government was not founded to be a plutocracy for the haves, your values are the modern privileged American values that are at the root of the recent near collapse of the economy. Unregulated greed in two words.

Allow me to rephrase the question: er assumption....

Who is the more selfish?

A- The person who through no choice of her own was born into a nation in which her connections and abilities allow her to take advantage of the tools, education, and infrastructure of America, who then makes great sums of money using both the natural resources and social resources of this great nation, but refuses to honestly and sufficiently pay back to that nation and its social structure and culture a fair amount? (see I can bias the question too)

B- The person who through no choice of their own was born into a nation in which the prospects and opportunities of that nation exist, but are out of reach for them due to family income, class position, educational situation, familial tragedy, intelligence level, or a downturn or change in working opportunities. But feels they too should have the right to participate in the nation's resources that exist for all its citizens and not just the privileged. (think natural resources, do they not belong to all)

See how simple it is to have another worldview, less selfish and self centered.

"But there are other libertarian positions, such as that against anti-discrimination laws, which shock the conscience; like Hayek, I believe that there are things worth doing that the free market cannot do. Here then, is an attempt to outline what is good about libertarianism, and then contrast what doesn't make sense. The conclusion I draw is that like most human belief systems, libertarianism mixes practicality with some idealism unrelated to human nature. Therefore, as much as I sympathize with most of the diagnoses and some of the prescriptions, I am not a libertarian." Why I Am Not a Libertarian

_

 

[Foxfyre]

Having self interests makes one a narcissist? That's a gross over-simplification.

Self-interest does not make one a narcissist.

I am talking specifically about the Randian philosophy that, apparently, is the driving force behind the current GOP vice presidential candidate. This is a philosophy that holds that self-sacrifice and altruism are affirmatively "evil" (that's Rand's word).

Now you are making a strawman (like Obama). Ryan has never said that self-sacrifice in and of itself is evil.

Nor did Ayn Rand. What she said: “Self-sacrifice? But it is precisely the self that cannot and must not be sacrificed.”

Ayn Rand experienced first hand the evil of government enforced sacrifice of the people's self interests. She rightfully knew that it was precisely self interest that was the driving engine behind prosperity, productivity, and innovation that is the result of people who are free. Off to church now. Back in a few. . . . .

 

[Greenbeard]

Yes__ I know what you're talking about. But it's a strawman to take a philospher's statement (who he draws inspiration from) and automatically attribute it to him.

And why do you assume that because Ayn Rand did not believe in God that she could not extrapolate virtuous principles? Conversely, why do you presume to think that one who believes in a deity cannot find virtue in her philosophies? It is dogma (no other word for it), for a person to presume that a Christian cannot find virtue in the findings of an atheist and visa versa.

I'm not suggesting they can or cannot as some general principle. I'm saying when it comes to the basic ethical precepts underlying their world views--how ought one live a good life--they stand in stark contrast. See below.

Rand recognized this and she was rather acerbic in her handling of the Judeo-Christian world view.

Not that I buy your finding (in fact I believe otherwise); but the American Catholic hierarchy is supposed to be final arbitrator of morality? The same organization that presided over the pedophilia epidemic is afforded a monopoly on morality?

You talk as if I'm a Catholic. I don't claim to follow their faith or conscientiously abide by their teachings. Mr. Ryan, on the other hand, does.

Now you are making a strawman (like Obama). Ryan has never said that self-sacrifice in and of itself is evil.

Nor did Ayn Rand.

Sure she did. On tape even.

Rand: Ah.. Yes... I agree with the fact, but not the estimate of this criticism. Namely, if I am challenging the base of all these institutions, I'm challenging the moral code of altruism. The precept that man's moral duty is to live for others. That man must sacrifice himself to others. Which is the present day morality.

Wallace: What do you mean sacrifice himself for others? Now we're getting to the point.

Rand: Since I'm challenging the base, I necessarily will challenge the institutions you name, which are a result of that morality. And now what is self-sacrifice?

Wallace: Yes...What is self-sacrifice? You say that you do not like the altruism by which we live. You like a certain kind of Ayn Randist selfishness.

Rand: I will say that, "I don't like" is too weak a word. I consider it evil. And self-sacrifice is the precept that man needs to serve others, in order to justify his existence. That his moral duty is to serve others. That is what most people believe today.

Wallace: Yes...Were taught to feel concern for our fellow man. To feel responsible for his welfare. To feel that we are as religious people might put it, children under God, and responsible one for the other. Now why do you rebel? What's wrong with this philosophy?

Rand: But that is in fact what makes man a sacrificial animal. That man must work for others, concern himself with others, or be responsible for them. That is the role of a sacrificial object. I say that man is entitled to his own happiness. And that he must achieve it himself. But that he cannot demand that others give up their lives to make him happy. And nor should he wish to sacrifice himself for the happiness of others. I hold that man should have self-esteem.

Wallace: And cannot man have self-esteem if he loves his fellow man? What's wrong with loving your fellow man? Christ, every important moral leader in man's history has taught us that we should love one another. Why then is this kind of love in your mind immoral?

Rand: It is immoral if it is a love placed above oneself. It is more than immoral, it's impossible. Because when you asked to love everybody indiscriminately. That is to love people without any standard To love them regardless of whether they have any value or any virtue, you are asked to love nobody.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=viGkAZR-x8s]Ayn Rand - Objectivism vs Altruism - YouTube[/ame]