You're right, Unnamed hasn't really described "Randian ethics" - coherently or otherwise. Your intimation that he's somehow gotten it wrong is unwarranted.
But in any case, Unnamed is broadly correct in stating that "right wingers" inappropriately treat the "individual" as the sole foundational unit of society and unduly over-emphasize, to the point of fetishization, the importance of such "individual's" "freedom," which is nearly always defined by "right wingers" in some question-begging way.
The only reason the philosophical incoherence of "right wingers'" worldview doesn't result in a self-perpetuating feedback loop of increasing incoherence and raving idiocy - if it doesn't result in that, which I think is still an open question - it's because "right wingers" turn out to be their own worst examples. Cf., e.g., open-carriers in Starbucks, state legislators proudly campaigning on anti-science platforms, you, etc.
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2014-06-20 01:52 am (UTC)But in any case, Unnamed is broadly correct in stating that "right wingers" inappropriately treat the "individual" as the sole foundational unit of society and unduly over-emphasize, to the point of fetishization, the importance of such "individual's" "freedom," which is nearly always defined by "right wingers" in some question-begging way.
The only reason the philosophical incoherence of "right wingers'" worldview doesn't result in a self-perpetuating feedback loop of increasing incoherence and raving idiocy - if it doesn't result in that, which I think is still an open question - it's because "right wingers" turn out to be their own worst examples. Cf., e.g., open-carriers in Starbucks, state legislators proudly campaigning on anti-science platforms, you, etc.