Ayn Rand

When someone refers to Rands philosophy as promoting greed, would abolish charity, or is an advocate of "ultimate selfishness" I know they have read little if any of her works. Basically, she argues that one should pursue ones "rational self interest" and she explains the difference between that and greed. I'm not going to try to explain her philosophy here though. If anyone is truly interested I suggest beginning with her book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology". That will give you a start. Personally I'm not completely sold on everything she has to say but to pass her off as some kind of quack is just ignorant in my book. I might add, for you so called conservatives, that she is considered one of the key founders of the modern conservative movement. Ironic isn't it? An atheists philosophy admired by conservatives.

 

I think she had some decent ideas, but she fails to make any distinction between private charities and public assistance. I have no problem with charity, charity works, and a society without the social glue of charity to hold it together is not going to fall apart rather quickly.

 

Plagiarism is not cool, yo.

http://www.ctlibrary.com/ct/2005/january/27.34.html

 

That loathsome woman was a hypocritical johnny on the spot when it came time to collect social security and medicare.

 

She did indeed draw a distinction between private charity (which she endorsed) and public assistance (which she abhord).

 

No she wasn't because she advised others that it was ok to accept assistance when needed, the justification being that you are simply recovering what was wrongly taken from you.

 

Well you could say that her words are predicated somewhat in the state of Africa. There are many critiques of "Aid" out there which suggest the culture of Aid Africa is mired in is precisely why most people below the Sahara live below the poverty line and there's a lot of truth to that as well.

 

If what has happened with the government under Obama is socialism, then Reagan was a socialist too.

 

You couldn't be more wrong if you tried and what's particularly amusing is that the Objectivist view of Government is easy enough to discover with minimum effort. The Ayn Rand Lexicon provides us with Ayn Rand's views and opinions on a wide range of subjects. From the Lexicon on Government

The police and the military under Objectivism would literally be identical to what we now have. What would be different is that some laws would necessarily be repealed since they would be regarded as improper in a fully free country but that's a separate issue.

 

Individualism can reach a point where misanthropy sets in. If a philosophy is based primarily around every man for himself, it can lead to narcissism.

 

Oh god, I just love it when you libs come on here and show your ass.

 

We see quite a bit of narcissism in the world today apart from the kind of individualism endorsed by Rand's philosophy and I'm not at all convinced that Objectivism leads to narcissism at all. This essay by psychotherapist Dr. Micheal Hurd provides some perspective on the effects of attempts by modern progressive educators to raise student self esteem:

 

the message of Ayn Rand was freedom, self determination, and small government. Her books are hard to read, but if you can get through them you may be awakened to some reality. What she wrote about is happening today. John Galt and Dagney Taggart are alive and trying to be successful in the USA in spite of government intervention and over regulation. See my sig.

 

But does Rand account for cowboys in Wallstreet playing games with financial products?

I mean without regulation nowadays it's way too easy for those - supposedly pursuing their own happiness and therefore morally sound in rand's eyes - to make huge fortunes at the expense of everyone else, including the state. As I mentioned in the OP I haven't read her books but with little knowledge her philosophy suggests to me that the individual's advancements will inevitably benefit the majority.

Doesn't the financial crisis absolutely refute this? - and expose the dangers of deregulation?

 

It's a nice sentiment, but it's not clear that an individualist society is more productive. In fact, it seems to me that many of the less individualist societies are better off – the ones who care for their poor can rely on the poor to keep the economy humming with demand, and keep things moving. The ones who pay for the medical expenses of their citizens don't have as many people who lose productivity due to illness. It's stuff like that you might want to look into, and it's the reason why so many in Europe look at America and cringe. It's why austerity is such a terrible idea for Spain right now.

...And selfish greed above all else. If the only message you got from Ayn Rand was freedom and self-determination, then you were reading it wrong.

John Galt is a fantasy. The idea of Galt's Gulch, that a few rich, powerful inventors can squirrel away from the rest of the world, is pure nonsense. Much like the idea that their ilk are being squashed by government intervention and overregulation. I mean, can you back up this statement at all, or is it just another Limbaugh-esque talking point? The reason our economy is in the dumps is because of a major global recession and private debt, leading to budget-sheet issues, sluggish investment, and low demand.

On a side note, when talking about how heavy-handed Rand's writing is, I always found this quite amusing.

 

Here's my take in dot points:

1. I've read the fountainhead, and I liked it. Couldnt read Atlas Shrugged though, too retarded.
2. Her philosophy is contradictory in so many ways and deeply flawed in my opinion.
3. Ayn Rand is a strange woman. After preaching a creed of complete individualized selfishness, it turned out she was a drug addict on welfare.
4. Its funny that she fled Russia the same time Isiah Berlin and Vladimir Nabokov fled. One was a philosopher, the other a writer. She tried to be both, and where they succeeded, she failed.

 

I suggest that you read Atlas Shrugged. She does not advocate unregulated capitalism, her message is that over regulation hurts everyone. When the govt steps in to try to make things FAIR and take business from the successful and give it to the unsuccessful everyone loses.

Taggart transcontinental is a very successful railroad in the book. the govt passed a law called the equalization of opportunity law that allowed the govt to take some of Taggarts lines and give them to railroad companies that had failed due to bad business decisions------almost exactly what obama did with GM.

 

I suggest that you read Atlas Shrugged. She does not advocate unregulated capitalism, her message is that over regulation hurts everyone. When the govt steps in to try to make things FAIR and take business from the successful and give it to the unsuccessful everyone loses.

Taggart transcontinental is a very successful railroad in the book. the govt passed a law called the equalization of opportunity law that allowed the govt to take some of Taggarts lines and give them to railroad companies that had failed due to bad business decisions------almost exactly what obama did with GM.

 

What would you call increasing the size of government, doubling the debt, raising taxes, and expanding government agencies and power?

 

...Really? Obama took resources from other automobile companies and gave them to GM? Of course, the reality is far more nuanced – the government gave GM a loan, which they haven't paid back yet, in order to prevent it from going under. And you're going to claim that the end result was negative? The bailout essentially saved the company, and hundreds of thousands of jobs, many of them in American manufacturing. Is this simply bad because of government, or what? Am I missing something here?

 

The problem with this is that under Objectivism the government would have no way of getting funding save via voluntary donations. That makes the free rider problem even worse than under our tax system and because of that people would very quickly stop paying.

How is a government supposed to operate a military or police force when it has zero money?

 

yes, you are missing something. The GM bailout was done to save the UAW. If GM had gone through bankruptsy it would have been broken up into smaller more efficient companies. Each of those new companies would have had to have a union representation vote. The UAW could not risk losing out, so they traded their support of obama for the GM bailout. Obama used our money to buy the union votes. GM is once again on the financial ropes, their stock is tanking and they are losing money every month. Will we bail them out again? Will obama save the UAW again?

Funny how the non-union car factories in the south are thriving, the workers are getting good pay and good benefits and are putting out great products. BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Toyota, Hyundai, Subaru, Kia all building cars in non union factories. Why does Detroit need the UAW?

 

Really? How do you know this?

 

I love the way the first step people jump to when talking about a voluntary government is the military. Rand acknoweldged that there was a need for taxes for a few things, but not many.

Why don't we start by making Social Security voluntary. Contribute if you want to be eligible for benefits. Benefits will be a fair share of whatever comes in through voluntary contributions. Get the program off the budget completely. Then disband things like the department of agriculture and all of its subsidies and incentives. There are a lot of similar programs that could either be cut or made voluntary long before the military would have to be addressed.

 

Retirement insurance is a private good. You can't compare it with the military.

For example, even in an Objectivist system where the government is paid for by voluntary donations, I would still be protected by the military whether I paid for it or not. Therefore, I have zero incentive to pay. I would not be the only person to realize that. Pretty soon you'd have basically no one paying for the military and it would fall through.

Its the same with police and fire services. If I don't have to pay but I still get the benefits, then I'm not going to pay.