Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site ritcv.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!epsilon!zeta!sabre!petrus!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!ut-sally!seismo!rochester!ritcv!abh6509
From: abh6509@ritcv.UUCP (Hudson)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Rand and Responsibility
Message-ID: <9176@ritcv.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 15-Dec-85 22:52:43 EST
Article-I.D.: ritcv.9176
Posted: Sun Dec 15 22:52:43 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 18-Dec-85 19:57:41 EST
References: <2aafa81e.a51@apollo.uucp>
Reply-To: abh6509@ritcv.UUCP (Andrew)
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
Lines: 33

In article <2aafa81e.a51@apollo.uucp> christensen@apollo.uucp (Wendy Christensen) writes:
>I have been looking in on this "real-libertarianism vs. brain-damage-libertarianism
>vs socialism vs ..." discussion for a while now. What surprises and disturbs me is
>that I have seen no reference, even from the libertarians (who ought to know better)
>of responsibility. I see lots of talk about freedom, liberty, property rights, reason
>vs. force, but no mention of the necessary balancing agent, responsibility. Many of
>the straw men (for that is what they are, at bottom) set up by the statists and
>socialists could be much more effectively demolished with intelligent reference to
>and use of responsibility. Responsibility is basic throughout Rand's work, and I
>find it astounding that this aspect of her philosophy has not entered into these
>discussions. Perhaps some of the more irresponsible "Randroids" only want to claim the
>easy parts? I would like to see explanations for this strange omission. Anyone 
>willing to take up this challenge?
>
>w. christensen
>I am responsible for the opinions expressed above.

Ok, ok! I admit it! I've been using Rand's Individualism as a rationalism
soley to further my own ends. There. Its out. Ok? 

As far as responsibility goes, lets just keep in mind that a majority
of her works were written before this Republic of Welfare State, USA
got really going. I don't think that she ever dealt directly with the
aspect of trading between  Modern Socialism (Soc Sec et al) and
hardcore poverty.  I sort of got the impression that if the good
guys were unbridled, their achievements would make up for not
having a welfare safety net. Sort the old fashioned way, sort
of the good part of what Ronny is making bad. 

Is this general enough??
Irresponible enough??

A. Hudson