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

[Intense]

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)

You do know that Rand was an Immigrant, right? Check out "We The Living" sometime. Maybe even "Anthem", it's a short enough read.

 

[Foxfyre]

Back for a few and then I have to be at the rehab center to lead the morning worship as the regular speaker cannot be there this week. This is a ministry done without any form of compensation for people who don't know our names and wouldn't remember them anyway. Most of these same people serving in that ministry are also supporting the work in orphanages, one in Juarez Mexico, the other overseas; they work with welfare families at their own expense and with no acknowledgement; some work with the addicted; some to help heal marriages that are in trouble and serve out of the goodness of their hearts in many other ways as well as giving generously of their resources.

And I would give very strong odds that every single one of these people embrace at least some concepts of Ayn Rand's economic theories. And not a single one of them embrace Ayn Rand's views of God or that the natural state of humankind is to be evil.

To attempt to demonize Paul Ryan by accusing him of emulating Ayn Rand is evil, however, when it is obvious from Paul Ryan's life, his words, and his deeds that he does not idolize Ayn Rand and he does not emulate her. He freely admits that he learned from her, and as a yoiung man was enamored with her theories, as did we all who studied economics at all in college; perhaps some in highschool as well. We also learned from reading Adam Smith, Locke, Hobbes, Malthus, and more recently Hayek and Friedman. We took the best from each and found areas of disagreement with all.

I judge people with how they have lived their lives and by what they do, not just by what they say.

 

[Foxfyre]

Okay, off to the rehab center. Back in a few.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

And I would give very strong odds that every single one of these people embrace at least some concepts of Ayn Rand's economic theories. And not a single one of them embrace Ayn Rand's views of God or that the natural state of humankind is to be evil.

Ayn Rand is rooted in conservatism. Conservatism is not rooted in Ayn Rand.

I've never once, seriously studied Ayn Rand. It's a mistake liberals make, to assume that all of us or even most of us directly derive a the lion share or a significant portion or of our political values from her philosophies.

 

[edthecynic]

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.

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]

So basically Rand is saying that the fireman who sacrifices his life to save someone without first determining the VALUE of the person he is saving is immoral.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, Rand is not saying that at all. It is interesting that I, out of the understanding of my faith, and she, out of reasoned Atheism, came to the same conclusion that nobody can be obligated for the welfare of another and still be free. What is our moral duty must be our choice and it is not for others to decide for us.

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.

None of that disallows us to give from a giving heart or to show compassion to others. It is the concept of whether we are free to choose to do that or whether others (i.e. the government) shall be given power to require us to do it that is the issue. She saw the inherent evil in one man requiring service from another, and how there can be no freedom, no respect for human dignity, no sense of human worth when government or the Church or anybody else can force people to serve other people and eventually the amibitions of government itself or the dictates of any other.

 

[daphillenium]

We really shouldn't care at all what politicians "say." That's one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. Everyone votes for people based on what they "say" they believe. This speech of his is just like the rest. He tells his "base" what they want to here. Just look at how they vote.

 

[Foxfyre]

We really shouldn't care at all what politicians "say." That's one of the reasons we are in the mess we are now. Everyone votes for people based on what they "say" they believe. This speech of his is just like the rest. He tells his "base" what they want to here. Just look at how they vote.

If we do not require character, a particular point of view, a basic respect and appreciationfor basic American values from our leaders, we are finished as a free people and as a great nation.

 

[Greenbeard]

No, Rand is not saying that at all. It is interesting that I, out of the understanding of my faith, and she, out of reasoned Atheism, came to the same conclusion that nobody can be obligated for the welfare of another and still be free. What is our moral duty must be our choice and it is not for others to decide for us.

I guess the question then presents itself: how many folks "agree" with Ayn Rand because they don't understand what she's saying?

You have a quote in front of you where she explains her well-known philosophical belief that altruism is inherently evil because it conflicts with her deification of self-absorption and self-love (which obviously animates her political ideas). She posits the inherent immorality of recognizing any social obligation, any personal belief that one "must work for others, concern himself with others, or be responsible for them." That has nothing specifically to do with government; governmental obligations simply fall under the broader umbrella of all social obligations to one's fellow human beings, all of which are equally offensive to Rand.

And you say you "came to the same conclusion" as Rand? I assume by that you mean on the more banal point that you both dislike paying taxes, not that you fundamentally think altruism is evil based on your conception of the self (although I'm making an assumption there--I have no idea what your faith teaches you about the self or altruism).

It's interesting to me that you folks seem to think this is somehow off-topic in a discussion of values. This is a thread about a man who identified this particular philosopher as his greatest influence--indeed, "the reason I got involved in public service." That raises very serious questions about the values that animate his life and certainly his approach to public service. The defense of Ryan seems to be that maybe he has a very superficial understanding of her ideas ("hey, we both dislike taxes and government!") and thus doesn't actually agree with the thoughts of his favorite thinker. But in preserving his values, that interpretation calls into question the man's intellect.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It is true that president obama had a lot of problems not of his own making. But he also came in with one-party rule, and the chance to do everything of his own choosing. The obama economic agenda failed, not because it was stopped, but because it was passed.

This was a great opening to the speech. Obama got everything passed that he wanted passed and look at the results? It's not in our best interest to reward failure and excuses.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It's interesting to me that you folks seem to think this is somehow off-topic in a discussion of values.

You know as well as I do, that it's a tangent and that it largely has been a detour into existentialism.

 

[Peach]

"This year’s Republican campaign may be the most dishonest in history. A couple of weeks ago I listed 10 major falsehoods and gaffes of Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan. He repeated several of them in his Tampa speech, and added a few more. In honest political debate, when a candidate says something that is not true, he is confronted by journalists and the public, and either gives evidence that it is true, or backs off. Ryan continues to insist on repeating known falsehoods, to the extent that even Fox Cable News lamented his dishonesty."Top Ten Repeated Paul Ryan Lies | Informed Comment

And info on Romney.

"Almost immediately, however, it became clear that Romney's path to recovery was a complete failure. Bain's revenues continued to decline, and the company was soon bleeding red ink." Mitt Romney's Federal Bailout: The Documents Pictures | Rolling Stone

"How the GOP presidential candidate and his private equity firm staged an epic wealth grab, destroyed jobs – and stuck others with the bill." Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Politics News | Rolling Stone

PRyan has the "values" of convicted FELONS. "I WANT, I CAN GET, and I DON'T CARE WHO GETS HURT".

 

[Greenbeard]

It's interesting to me that you folks seem to think this is somehow off-topic in a discussion of values.

You know as well as I do, that it's a tangent and that it largely has been a detour into existentialism.

It's only a detour from the applause for a campaign speech you seem to be seeking with this thread. It's certainly not a detour from exploring the values that shape Ryan's approach to his role in public life.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

It's interesting to me that you folks seem to think this is somehow off-topic in a discussion of values.

You know as well as I do, that it's a tangent and that it largely has been a detour into existentialism.

It's only a detour from the applause for a campaign speech you seem to be seeking with this thread. It's certainly not a detour from exploring the values that shape Ryan's approach to his role in public life.

It's been an often illogical attack fest on Ayn Rand in a futile and sadly transparent attempt to dismiss Ryan. Maybe you should reconsider your strategy and regard the man's talking points directly.

 

[Peach]

PRyan speaking about values is like Bush discussing Mensa. It doesn't fit!

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

PRyan speaking about values is like Bush discussing Mensa. It doesn't fit!

It'd be helpful if you replied to points in the speech.

 

[Foxfyre]

No, Rand is not saying that at all. It is interesting that I, out of the understanding of my faith, and she, out of reasoned Atheism, came to the same conclusion that nobody can be obligated for the welfare of another and still be free. What is our moral duty must be our choice and it is not for others to decide for us.

I guess the question then presents itself: how many folks "agree" with Ayn Rand because they don't understand what she's saying?

You have a quote in front of you where she explains her well-known philosophical belief that altruism is inherently evil because it conflicts with her deification of self-absorption and self-love (which obviously animates her political ideas). She posits the inherent immorality of recognizing any social obligation, any personal belief that one "must work for others, concern himself with others, or be responsible for them." That has nothing specifically to do with government; governmental obligations simply fall under the broader umbrella of all social obligations to one's fellow human beings, all of which are equally offensive to Rand.

And you say you "came to the same conclusion" as Rand? I assume by that you mean on the more banal point that you both dislike paying taxes, not that you fundamentally think altruism is evil based on your conception of the self (although I'm making an assumption there--I have no idea what your faith teaches you about the self or altruism).

It's interesting to me that you folks seem to think this is somehow off-topic in a discussion of values. This is a thread about a man who identified this particular philosopher as his greatest influence--indeed, "the reason I got involved in public service." That raises very serious questions about the values that animate his life and certainly his approach to public service. The defense of Ryan seems to be that maybe he has a very superficial understanding of her ideas ("hey, we both dislike taxes and government!") and thus doesn't actually agree with the thoughts of his favorite thinker. But in preserving his values, that interpretation calls into question the man's intellect.

I don't think a comparison of Paul Ryan's values with those of Ayn Rand are at all off topic. Even the Christian Science Monitor, a publication that tends to lean pretty far left at times, has made a compelling case for Paul Ryan's freely admitted study of Ayn Rand's philosophy. That same publication has also been honest that Rand has also moved on from those studies to form his own value system.

But it is not only dishonest to quote Ayn Rand in ways that demonize her without including any mitigating factors; it is dishonest to portray that because Paul Ryan, or any of us can find theories of Ayn Rand to appreciate, that we embrace all that she said about everything.

For instance, is it really so terrible to suggest that some people are more worthy of charity than others? Or that some are more worthy of rescue if you have to make a choice? If you have the choice to rescue a convicted rapist or an innocent child, and cannot rescue both, which do you choose?

A close look at Ayn Rand's view of selifishness is the concept that one person should never be required, as a matter of obligation, and apart from his/her choice, to perform service for another. The life of the rescuer is just as a valuable, and just as worthy of consideration, as is the one to be rescued. To assume that we cannot look to preserve our own life and to protect our own interests, and to increase our holdings as we are able, is to deny the modern American conservative view of what freedom is.

None of that negates the concept of virtue and selflessness when we choose to help another, even at expense of our own well being or at sacrifice of our very lives. But we cannot be free if another requires us to give up what we have on behalf of any other. Nor should we have power to require others to risk their lives or their livelihood or what they have to assist or save us. Each life is equally important and freedom allows either complete choice of what to risk or give away.

The modern America liberal tends to look at it that if Citizen B has need, he or she is entitled to what Citizen A has acquired. It is a mindset that we all belong to each other and we all own everything together. It looks completely unselfish. But it is a concept in which nobody is free.

 

[candycorn]

Ryan was disaster of a pick and it becomes more apparent every day. He often contradicts his running mate.

 

[Foxfyre]

Ryan was disaster of a pick and it becomes more apparent every day. He often contradicts his running mate.

And that relates to the OP how?

 

[oldfart]

First, I thank both Foxfyre and Gatsby for dealing with my post in a collegial manner. I think I understand your perspective much better. The series of posts you have made, however, do not resemble any debate or discussion I have ever seen. I see no facts or logical arguments, just some feel-good opinions for one side and gratuitous bashing of the other.

Gatsby can correct me if I am wrong, but I understand the topic to be the values cited by Ryan in a specific speech on a specific day. Most of us are doing our best to discuss those values whether or not we agree with them or even agree with what values he holds.
For me it is an interesting topic and requires ability to think critically about specific concepts. Using it to spoutr assigned speaking points to bash Obama, Republicans, or anybody else is not, in my opinion, suitable for this thread.

OK, so you think this is about the speech. Gatsby provided a 25 minute video, 16 excerpts on various topics ranging from Obamacare and abortion to Romney’s charitable endeavors, then provided a link to the entire text of the speech. While the speech was delivered at a “values conference”, Ryan’s speech spent almost no time on values but was long on praising Romney and bashing Obama. If the subject is values, why quote all the other stuff?

Later on there are posts praising Romney for his charitable acts, unrelated to anything in Ryan’s speech. You seem to have opened up the discussion to further praise of Romney and Ryan outside the content of the speech, but to also cry foul if anyone says anything negative concerning either candidate.
OK, let’s talk about one of the Ryan quotes.

“And i can assure you, when mitt romney is elected, we will get to work – on day one – to repeal that mandate and all of obamacare.”

That is the excerpt in its entirety. What does that quote have to do with values? It’s a policy statement.
But since we are discussing the speech, that quote raises a few questions. For one it contradicts Romney’s most recent statement that he intends to keep those portions of Obamacare which he likes, such as community rating (no penalty for pre-existing conditions). Ryan himself has steadfastly proposed a budget that uses the $780 billion of savings in Medicare administrative costs negotiated by Obama with the health insurance industry to fund tax reductions.

Now this statement and its contradiction does say a lot about values.

First, is the Romney—Ryan ticket breaking faith with the health insurance industry by keeping community rating and forcing them to accept high risk pre-existing conditions and removing the offsetting revenue that the individual mandate provided? Is it ethical to take a negotiated compromise and announce that you oppose all portions that benefit you and renounce the portions that benefited the other party? This is exactly what the Romney-Ryan ticket has done and Ryan has underlined the breach of trust in his speech.

Second, what other parts of Obamacare will the Romney—Ryan ticket decide to keep? What concessions will they offer the health insurance industry to in exchange for dropping the individual mandate? The ACA is a done deal, accepted by the health insurance industry. Does the public have a right to know how Rpmney-Ryan intend to rewrite the law? If so, when were they going to provide the answers? We all know what is in the ACA, we don’t know what is in the Romney—Ryan revisions. To put off disclosure until after the election is intellectually dishonest and morally craven. That tells me a lot about Ryan’s values: they do not include intellectual honesty or respect for the rights of the American voter to know what they will do once in office.

Finally, If the intention all along was to keep many of the elements of Obamacare, why did Ryan use an absolute statement in his speech? Did he intend to mislead? Again it raises a question of fundamental honesty.

So my question to you is, “Do you intend to discuss any of the policy statements in Ryan’s speech? And if we are discussing Romney and Ryan’s moral character and values, do I get to bring up animal cruelty?

On the subject of honesty and personal attacks, perhaps Foxfyre would like to defend the following statement:
.” But there is not a single story in which Romney enriched himself at the expense of somebody else or in which the Romneys wallow in a lavish lifestyle. His critics love to point to the jobs he eliminated when he was fixing an ailing entity or corporation, but they never point out the tenfold more jobs that were created as a result of his efforts.”
“Conversely, where is the criticism of the Obamas enriching themselves at the expense of the taxpayer and their lavish lifestyle that we pay for?”

There are several thousand American workers who lost their jobs so that Bain capital could and Romney could make millions through devices such as unfunding pension plans and letting the taxpayers through the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation take the hit. The assertion that Romney created tenfold more jobs than he destroyed is an assertion even Romney does not try to make, he claims to simply not know. I have seen no evidence of either personal enrichment or lavish life style on the part of the Obama’s. You state as fact opinions which can be and have been factually rebuted. And exactly where do these allegations appear in Mr. Ryan’s speech?