Friday, November 14, 2008
[T]he government's role is to protect each person's right to practice his or her religion as a private matter and to forbid them from forcibly imposing their particular views on others. And this is precisely why I find the Republican Party's embrace of the Religious Right so dangerous.And he hasn't even touched the sprint towards socialism we have witnessed during the Bush administration, which would be bad enough alone!
If a woman chooses not to have an abortion for reasons of personal faith, then I completely respect her right to do so. But she cannot impose her particular religious views on others. Other women must have the same right to decide that deeply personal issue for themselves.
Having said that, he indirectly does cover it: The Republican's "compassionate conservatism" is really just the misuse of the state to force everyone to practice the Christian "virtue" of charity.
Two Good Editorials on Greenspan
Harry Binswanger noted yesterday the publication of two good editorials on Alan Greenspan that appeared in smaller newspapers. One appears in Montana's Big Sky Business Journal and is by someone I've never read before, Evelyn Pyburn. She opens her article this way:
Anyone who has ever read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead, both of which are novels by Ayn Rand, knows that the most dangerous traitor of all is the compromiser. Quite ironically as a former Ayn-Rander, Alan Greenspan proved Rand’s point most dramatically before Congress, last week.The other one appears in the Grand Junction Free Press, and is by Linn and Ari Armstrong.
Blogging while I travel is a very hasty affair, and I frequently forget to contribute to roundups as a result. So this week, I am not in the roundup, which is posted over at Rule of Reason.
It's not about her.
Stephen Bourque isn't just alive and kicking. He's blogging, too, and has a good post on why mentioning Ayn Rand every fifth word isn't exactly the best way to raise the level of an intellectual discussion:
With this in mind, I would not wish to grant my intellectual foes a favor by contributing, however inadvertently, to the idea that Objectivists are followers of a "gospel according to Rand." When I argue points with friends and colleagues, I do not frame my statements in the form, "Well, Ayn Rand said..." or, "As an Objectivist, I believe that..." Why should this convince anybody? Listeners (or readers) who disagree with Ayn Rand to begin with will not be convinced by merely repeating her position on matters, and those who are unfamiliar with her work should not take her - or anyone else's - word for it. Anyone who is worth arguing with should care only about facts and their connections to principles. Mentioning Ayn Rand every few sentences would do more harm than good.His focus is on intellectual activism, but he takes LB's essay, also worth a read, on the personal importance of the philosophy as his point of departure. And watch out for an interesting identification there regarding a common saying. I was lucky enough to have had my teach me that very distinction when I was very young. And no, Dad was not an Objectivist and, I am sure, had never heard of Ayn Rand at that age.