More on Ayn Rand

5 07 2011

Courtesy of the egregores blog

In her own words:

In conclusion, let me touch briefly on another question often asked me: What do I think of President Reagan? The best answer to give would be: But I don’t think of him—and the more I see, the less I think. I did not vote for him (or for anyone else) and events seem to justify me. The appalling disgrace of his administration is his connection with the so-called “Moral Majority” and sundry other TV religionists, who are struggling—apparently with his approval—to take us back to the Middle Ages, via the unconstitutional union of religion and politics.

Intellectual puzzles like this fascinate me. Why do good “Christian conservatives” have to make apologies for their interest in obviously anti-Christian figures? To get in their heads a bit, I would try to make my own apologia:

Some conservative Christians seem to despise the notion that they are forced to be charitable. That is, if I choose to feed the poor, it is my choice and only my choice, and I will take from what is rightfully mine to do so. Otherwise, where would virtue be in all of it? Virtue cannot be forced. The notion that the poor have a right to not be poor is fundamentally anti-Christian. The system is built so that there are winners and losers, and if we just all accepted that, the losers wouldn’t lose as badly, and the winners wouldn’t take as many marbles home, and things would be better in general (though not “perfect” at least from the loser’s perspective). It is thus not a question of whether or not to help the losers, but how to help them. The losers are not guaranteed anything by definition because they lost. Whether or not they get fed should be up to the winners to decide, freely. That is why it is important to evangelize the winners using Opus Dei and other apostolates to the VIP’s. That is how the Gospel will really be spread.
Read the rest of this entry »