Paul Ryan and Humans as Assets

I haven’t Blogger’d in a while, so I feel a need to step up the arrogant soap-boxing for a change.

Found out just now that Mitt Romney chose Paul Ryan as his running mate. To celebrate this momentous occasion, I’ve decided to take a gander at the academic side of Paul Ryan so we can all see what sort of running mate Romney sought. Let’s look at an article he wrote for the Heritage Foundation back in 2010 titled, “The Cause of Life Can’t be Severed from the Cause of Freedom.”
You can read the article yourself. Being fair, its well-written. And even if you don’t agree with Ryan, you’ll learn a lot about him and his argument is, if nothing else, solid. But, in the words of Inigo Montoya, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”
Ryan’s entire article, which you can read in the link just above, is an argument suggesting abortion deletes human rights from unborn humans. Now, for the time being, I’m not touching that topic with a 10 foot poll (yes, I said poll, as in “Survey SAYS!”). Not because I don’t have an opinion or a reasoning for that opinion, but because it wouldn’t matter if I told you the Devil himself lived in every fetus until it was 6 months into gestation, you’d still believe abortion was an abomination. Likewise, if I told you that I proved every human fetus was sentient and its pain receptors worked at conception, you’d still believe in a woman’s right to choose. No amount of logic will ever change anyone on this topic…So, I’m not going there. 
What I want to discuss is the comments he made at the end of the piece. 
Ryan states “‘pro-choice’ liberals are deeply pessimistic” choosing fear and denigration of life. He states that they fear “too many choices and too many children”. Following his line of reasoning, I’ll allow this set of comments. It’s basic political banter. It’s the next set of comments that warrant this insanely long blog post. 
“On balance, we [pro-life conservatives] see human beings as assets, not liabilities. All conservatives should find it easy to agree that government must uphold every person’s right to make choices regarding their lives and that every person’s right to live must be secured before he or she can exercise that right of choice.”
Apparently, few have caught this bizarre faux pas. Here Ryan uses the economic terms “asset” and “liability” to describe the very creatures he claims to be giving humanness to. 
In reality, Ryan does believe in pro-life, but not because that child deserves the right to have a choice and chance, but because he views that child as an asset. In true capitalist fashion, Ryan sees those with brute muscle as assets, simple machinery to be hoarded, kept in reasonable maintenance, and (if not bought and sold) traded for his own benefit. 
Now, the average conservative would suggest I’m just attacking Ryan. Not true. Ryan proclaims a strong love for the theories of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand argues that selfishness in the economic sphere is the true oil in the cog of the Invisible Hand. Therefore, Ryan must only think in pure selfish terms. And, since he believes in the twisted and romantizied version of capitalism, and believes that humans are by their nature “assets” and not “liabilities”, it stands that he believes nothing more than the working class are machines to be traded between companies. 
Till next time, keep your eyes closed and your mind open. 

7 thoughts on “Paul Ryan and Humans as Assets

  1. Spoken like a person that has no children. Children are assets. Assets that bring parents closer than ever. Assets the provide endless memories for loving grandparents. Assets that bring happiness and a new chance for life to be better. They are the ultimate future.

    Ryan is talking about what children bring to our lives, not as a material possession.

  2. By that argument, you cannot speak about the 19th century since you never lived in it. You cannot discuss the moon because you didn't give birth to it.

    I understand children are the future of the world, that they do great things to their parents (at least the ones that don't beat them), and that children are assets in the humanistic sense. But spoken like a true Randian

  3. I see I was right about the children. You can read and study about the 19th century or the Moon. But you do not know yourself till you see yourself in your own children's eyes.

    I also see a young man with a Marxist education from one of today's liberal colleges and probably with a large student loan.

    The free market has brought more people out of poverty and bondage

  4. I'm only going to point out one thing here. And I really hope you open your mind to at least this one simple fact.

    FREE MARKET AND DEMOCRACY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.

    Free market is not a "system of governance". Democracy is not an economic system. Not only are the two NOT synonymous, the two are capable of being completely separate. Just look at the German

  5. Modernization theory only suggests a relationship between democracy and development (and modernization theory is only one of many generally accepted theories). The causal mechanism is less clear. Also, you are inserting into that theory (prematurely) that only free markets bring enough development to produce democracy. And, since free markets on a state-level scale have never existed, your

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *