Ayn Rand's Anachro-Capitalism

[Nordic Kid]

So, maybe I'm a little behind the times, but just several months ago I picked up Rand's monstrous tome "Atlas Shrugged."I began because I'm seeing more and more of this stuff recently. My ex-girlfriend was almost controlled by Rand, per se- she actually structured her entire life around the book, like it was God. It was a little unnerving...and a lot of my colleges at the ol' University seem to be "Fundamentalist Randians"- I mean, they can quote that book more fluently that Laurence Oliver could quote Shakespeare! So naturally, I was curious what these people believed in.

Anyhow, I'll save her religious message for another place and time, but what caught my eye as strange was the whole "Virtue of Selfishness" thing. It essentially boiled down to a society where the rich people were all these geniuses who ran around and solved the world's problems, and government and religion were evil represses of the mind, especially altruism. And so on. And so on.

Now, what I'm wondering is, Does anyone here think society would work if you eliminated all government regulations and restraint? This seems to be totally counter-intuitive- one read through "Lord of the Flies" should be enough to get that concept down, but even still, if you look at most nations that have no regulations or locations where regulations are totally ignored (eg China, Afghanastan, Guatemala) you end up with the rich business owners trampling the poorer classes. Maybe a Randian wouldn't object to that, but as one who believes in "Do unto others as you would have done unto you", I find that highly offensive. Now, I'm not advocating that everyone be paid the same, but really, shouldn't there be less of a disparity between the owners and the workers? Would the owners really be responsible? Would everyone benefit? After all, the cheapest form of labor is slavery, and if "greed is the highest virtue", what's to stop these owners from making us all slaves?



So, any thoughts on why this philosophy is coming so popular today?

[Soundsurfr]

So, maybe I'm a little behind the times, but just several months ago I picked up Rand's monstrous tome "Atlas Shrugged."I began because I'm seeing more and more of this stuff recently. My ex-girlfriend was almost controlled by Rand, per se- she actually structured her entire life around the book, like it was God. It was a little unnerving...and a lot of my colleges at the ol' University seem to be "Fundamentalist Randians"- I mean, they can quote that book more fluently that Laurence Oliver could quote Shakespeare! So naturally, I was curious what these people believed in.

Anyhow, I'll save her religious message for another place and time, but what caught my eye as strange was the whole "Virtue of Selfishness" thing. It essentially boiled down to a society where the rich people were all these geniuses who ran around and solved the world's problems, and government and religion were evil represses of the mind, especially altruism. And so on. And so on.

Now, what I'm wondering is, Does anyone here think society would work if you eliminated all government regulations and restraint? This seems to be totally counter-intuitive- one read through "Lord of the Flies" should be enough to get that concept down, but even still, if you look at most nations that have no regulations or locations where regulations are totally ignored (eg China, Afghanastan, Guatemala) you end up with the rich business owners trampling the poorer classes. Maybe a Randian wouldn't object to that, but as one who believes in "Do unto others as you would have done unto you", I find that highly offensive. Now, I'm not advocating that everyone be paid the same, but really, shouldn't there be less of a disparity between the owners and the workers? Would the owners really be responsible? Would everyone benefit? After all, the cheapest form of labor is slavery, and if "greed is the highest virtue", what's to stop these owners from making us all slaves?

All your points are valid. The other glaring problem with Rand is the assumption that everyone has the same level of opportunity.

[Nordic Kid]

Especially that one there, my man. That everyone has the same level of opportunity is the greatest myth of the 20th century- that through hard work, everyone can magically be a millionaire and have their own private castle and so forth.

It reminds me of then tycoon JD Rockefeller built libraries and funded universities so that everyone could have an equal opportunity....save that, well, if you're working 15 hours a day at minimum wage, where are you gonna get the time to read a book or take a college class?:teeth: Plus, well, SOMEONE's gotta do the grunt work (until robots make us all obselete:teeth: And those people have a right to live, like everyone else.

Best Regards, Michael

[Timothy Leary]

Rand's not perfect, but she got enough about things right.

Does anyone here think society would work if you eliminated all government regulations and restraint?

If the changes were gradual, perhaps.
But not if the changes happened "overnight".

[Alien]

Now, what I'm wondering is, Does anyone here think society would work if you eliminated all government regulations and restraint?

I think Tony Soprano would think it was working very well indeed!


After all, the cheapest form of labor is slavery, and if "greed is the highest virtue", what's to stop these owners from making us all slaves?

I'm not so sure about that, but only because slavery isn't a very efficient way to have a cheap labor force. After all, you have to feed them, house them, medicate them .... More likely would be the nineteenth century model, minimum wage for all!

I'm not against capitalism, in fact it has proven to be the best way to generate wealth our sorry species has yet come up with. It has to be regulated though, or Mr Burns will use up and pollute the whole world in his pursuit of profit. And there has to be some system to force a reasonable distribution of wealth or the powerful will end up with most of the cake.

[neocon_voter]

So, maybe I'm a little behind the times, but just several months ago I picked up Rand's monstrous tome "Atlas Shrugged."I began because I'm seeing more and more of this stuff recently. My ex-girlfriend was almost controlled by Rand, per se- she actually structured her entire life around the book, like it was God. It was a little unnerving...and a lot of my colleges at the ol' University seem to be "Fundamentalist Randians"- I mean, they can quote that book more fluently that Laurence Oliver could quote Shakespeare! So naturally, I was curious what these people believed in.

Anyhow, I'll save her religious message for another place and time, but what caught my eye as strange was the whole "Virtue of Selfishness" thing. It essentially boiled down to a society where the rich people were all these geniuses who ran around and solved the world's problems, and government and religion were evil represses of the mind, especially altruism. And so on. And so on.

Now, what I'm wondering is, Does anyone here think society would work if you eliminated all government regulations and restraint? This seems to be totally counter-intuitive- one read through "Lord of the Flies" should be enough to get that concept down, but even still, if you look at most nations that have no regulations or locations where regulations are totally ignored (eg China, Afghanastan, Guatemala) you end up with the rich business owners trampling the poorer classes. Maybe a Randian wouldn't object to that, but as one who believes in "Do unto others as you would have done unto you", I find that highly offensive. Now, I'm not advocating that everyone be paid the same, but really, shouldn't there be less of a disparity between the owners and the workers? Would the owners really be responsible? Would everyone benefit? After all, the cheapest form of labor is slavery, and if "greed is the highest virtue", what's to stop these owners from making us all slaves?



So, any thoughts on why this philosophy is coming so popular today?

The only slavery Ayn Rand opposed in Atlas Shrugged was the enslavement of the producers to the looters. That was the reason the producers/inventors/the talented wanted to escape. They wanted to escape the Marxist dictum:
"'‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1501673&postcount=42

Ayn Rand predicted the welfare state:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1503960&postcount=62

Neocon_Voter

[Nordic Kid]

Rand's not perfect, but she got enough about things right.



If the changes were gradual, perhaps.
But not if the changes happened "overnight".
Doubt it. History shows us that over time, governments become more and more centralized, even if at one point and time the governments grow less so. Heck, we'd be back to being slaves for Rockefellers and Vanderbuilts soon enough. Bottom line is, if you tell someone that the highest good is "greed", per se, then why give a hoot for your employees? Health standards? Envirnmental conditions?

[Nordic Kid]

I think Tony Soprano would think it was working very well indeed!



I'm not so sure about that, but only because slavery isn't a very efficient way to have a cheap labor force. After all, you have to feed them, house them, medicate them .... More likely would be the nineteenth century model, minimum wage for all!

I'm not against capitalism, in fact it has proven to be the best way to generate wealth our sorry species has yet come up with. It has to be regulated though, or Mr Burns will use up and pollute the whole world in his pursuit of profit. And there has to be some system to force a reasonable distribution of wealth or the powerful will end up with most of the cake.
:teeth:

Well, the 19th century model might as well be called only one step above slavery. Reading and of Upton Sinclair's books is enough to be convinced of that.

Of course, capitalism is a great thing as you said. We just have to make sure we keep our principles and not throw them to the wind in the name of progress or whatever else.

[themuzicman]

It doesn't work, because men aren't rationally selfish. Ayn Rand's books reflect a view of man that says that we all take the long term investment view of reality, and will treat people fairly because we know doing so will benefit us in the long run.

Which is a crock. One only need look to the exploitation of workers in the 1800s to see that Rand's view is completely bogus.

The Barons of industry ran men into the ground, heedless of their safety concerns or long term viability.

What's funny is that Rand takes the same motivations that somehow make business people "good" and makes government types "bad." It's almost as though there are two different species of humans: business people and political types.

The fact is that we all have an irrational, short-sighted, selfish nature, that when combined with knowledge of good and evil is capable of some pretty evil things.

Thus, anytime you have power, there will be people exploiting it, regardless of whether it is governmental or commercial or even religious.

So, what's the answer? As we do in the US, provide limits to what government can do, put limits and laws in place to limit what businesses can do, protect the rights of individuals, and constantly seek to establish a balance which creates wealth for all.

Which is definitely NOT the Rand solution.

Michael

[Nordic Kid]

The only slavery Ayn Rand opposed in Atlas Shrugged was the enslavement of the producers to the looters. That was the reason the producers/inventors/the talented wanted to escape. They wanted to escape the Marxist dictum:
"'‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his need."
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1501673&postcount=42

Ayn Rand predicted the welfare state:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=1503960&postcount=62

Neocon_Voter
But really, how realistic IS that situation, of the business owners being enslaved to the society? Maybe that was true in Soviet Russia, but Rand's attempt to tell America that was going on here sounds rather dishonest. If my father wasn't in a labor union, he'd have a Mexican working his job and I'd be out starving on the street with him.

Of course, a welfare state is only as good as the people to whom it contributes. Norway is a perfect example of how a welfare state can work. In fact, you can go to the state university and recieve an education there- as good as one in America- for free. (http://www.uio.no/english/student_life/scholarship.html)

Of course, I'm not explicitly advoacting anti-capitalism- rather, I just become instantly suspicious of anyone who tells me that a radical stance on either political spectrum is the best solution.

Cheers,

Michael

[Nordic Kid]

It doesn't work, because men aren't rationally selfish. Ayn Rand's books reflect a view of man that says that we all take the long term investment view of reality, and will treat people fairly because we know doing so will benefit us in the long run.

Which is a crock. One only need look to the exploitation of workers in the 1800s to see that Rand's view is completely bogus.

The Barons of industry ran men into the ground, heedless of their safety concerns or long term viability.

What's funny is that Rand takes the same motivations that somehow make business people "good" and makes government types "bad." It's almost as though there are two different species of humans: business people and political types.

The fact is that we all have an irrational, short-sighted, selfish nature, that when combined with knowledge of good and evil is capable of some pretty evil things.

Thus, anytime you have power, there will be people exploiting it, regardless of whether it is governmental or commercial or even religious.

So, what's the answer? As we do in the US, provide limits to what government can do, put limits and laws in place to limit what businesses can do, protect the rights of individuals, and constantly seek to establish a balance which creates wealth for all.

Which is definitely NOT the Rand solution.

Michael
You sir, are epic:teeth:

Especially when one reads through any Ida Tarbell or Upton Sinclair book- especially "The Jungle"- that book nearly wrentched my guts out. It's amazing our ancestors all didn't die of disease and pestalence from those foods they ate back then!

To quote Vanderbuilt, when asked if he felt any sympathy for the public due to his price gouging-railroad monopoly-<i> "The public be damned!"</i>

Heck, while you're here, maybe you could explain this to me as well- why did Rand use "reason" so much? It almost became a meaningless buzzword that popped up over and over and over again in her work..."The rational man works hard...irrational men believe in God...selfsihness is rational"...etc.

[themuzicman]

"reason" is the faith of libertarianism.

[Nordic Kid]

What do you mean? :?

[themuzicman]

To a religion, "faith" is the basis for actions with respect to that religion. I believe that God is X and desires Y, therefore I do Y, and thus Y is good.

To libertarianism, "reason" is the basis for actions with respect to that religion. I reason that reality is X, and that my best interests suggest Y, therefore I do Y, and thus Y is good.

The only difference is that the human is God.

Michael

[neocon_voter]

Have all of you posters actually read Atlas Shrugged and/or Fountainhead ? (I mean from the first page to the last)

Neocon_Voter

[Soundsurfr]

Have all of you posters actually read Atlas Shrugged and/or Fountainhead ? (I mean from the first page to the last)

Neocon_Voter

Yes.

[themuzicman]

I've read Atlas Shrugged.

[LostSheep]

I read it also, when I was a teenager. I think it appeals to young people, with a lot of idealism. I don't mean to imply that it's message is right however. I think it just appeals to a young mentality.

[Nordic Kid]

No, I only read John Galt's speech. I skipped over the rest and read "The Virtue of Selfishness" to save time- it's the whole message condensed into a readable format. Most of Atlas Shrugged looked like angry, unadulterated rhetoric- especially her anti-God message, although that's a whole different subject.

[casaba]

It's amazing our ancestors all didn't die of disease and pestalence...

Just think of the millions who aren't here because of those who did die of disease adn pestalence.

That is what bothered me most about proponents of Objectivism (Rand's brand of thought): they deny the role of chance and believe that every bit of good fortune they have is a result of their hard work. The Objectivism Club at my university was populated by rich, white students that felt they have worked so hard to get where they were.

And, no, NeoConVoter, I haven't read either of Rand's epics, but that doesn't mean I cannot comment your statements and her philosophy: "the enslavement of... the producers/inventors/the talented" by the "looters"(workers?)? The only 'enslaver of producers' I've seen is the greed for another dollar--just what Rand promotes, no?


[I must say that I am very encouraged to see such an outpouring of reasonable thought in this thread. In the standard debate&argument mode of TWeb, I get the feeling on every issue there are two monoliths of thought at opposing ends of the spectrum. Makes me wish there was some more middle ground in a lot of the discussions here; though, I'm not really one to talk considering my political leanings.]

[neocon_voter]

Just think of the millions who aren't here because of those who did die of disease adn pestalence.

That is what bothered me most about proponents of Objectivism (Rand's brand of thought): they deny the role of chance and believe that every bit of good fortune they have is a result of their hard work. The Objectivism Club at my university was populated by rich, white students that felt they have worked so hard to get where they were.

And, no, NeoConVoter, I haven't read either of Rand's epics, but that doesn't mean I cannot comment your statements and her philosophy: "the enslavement of... the producers/inventors/the talented" by the "looters"(workers?)? The only 'enslaver of producers' I've seen is the greed for another dollar--just what Rand promotes, no?
]

OK, first:
Atlas Shrugged has nothing to do with the labor vs management / proletariat vs bourgeoisie struggles. That;s some other genre.

Atlas Shrugged is more of a talentless vs talented. The looters are not workers. They are the talentless competition who are opposed to the talented who are outpacing them. They are the moochers. Their solution for fairness is for either the talented to stop being so talented, and stop making better products, or at least share their formulas so they can compete.

IOW, if it was a track event, the fastest runners would be ordered to slow down so that the rest of the runners have a chance to win.

One of the main characters, for example, is the highly motivated/successful steel industrialist, Hank Reardon. His talentless brother Philip is highly resentful of his brother's success. Philip and their mother apply guilt to Hank to help Philip out. (you have so much and your brother has so little, etc) Hank doesn't mind and is very generous to Philip. But Philip uses the money to support groups that would bring people like Hank down.

Read it.
Its basically , I.M.H.O., a fantasy for hard workers who have had to share their fruits with the their less motivated peers. IOW, what if all the good workers could just escape one day, and the moochers had to fend for themselves for a change.

Just think, if one day all the 'doormats' of the culture disappeared. Those 'left behind' who took advantage of the doormats, via guilt usually, would have to do their own chores.

Neocon_Voter

[casaba]

OK, first:
IOW, what if all the good workers could just escape one day, and the moochers had to fend for themselves for a change...



...nearly every American, Brit, French, and German would go to sleep hungry.

I don't think people who seriously espouse the views of Rand have a clue as to how much each individual in the Western world depends on the society norms. As one example, ninety-nine out of a hundred Americans have no idea the real value of things they buy--they simply follow the price tag. Go to a market in a country where people know better how to "fend for themselves" and you won't see any price tags. They know that the value of a good depends on the buyer and seller coming to an agreement; if you don't know the value of something to you, you are going to do a pretty poor job of 'fending for yourself'. Through a history of 'mooching', first off the earth itself and later off the rest of the world's population, Americans have had the good luck of finding themselves the wealthiest country in the world; somehow Objectivists believe that is fair.

I.M.O.: Every Americans alive today (myself included), would be worse off if they had solely what they could 'fend for themself'.

[themuzicman]

Life in the US, were it to adopt libertarian/randian philosophies would wind up as Thomas Hobbes' state of nature: Violent, Brutal, and Short.

Michael

[neocon_voter]

...nearly every American, Brit, French, and German would go to sleep hungry.

I don't think people who seriously espouse the views of Rand have a clue as to how much each individual in the Western world depends on the society norms. As one example, ninety-nine out of a hundred Americans have no idea the real value of things they buy--they simply follow the price tag. Go to a market in a country where people know better how to "fend for themselves" and you won't see any price tags. They know that the value of a good depends on the buyer and seller coming to an agreement; if you don't know the value of something to you, you are going to do a pretty poor job of 'fending for yourself'. Through a history of 'mooching', first off the earth itself and later off the rest of the world's population, Americans have had the good luck of finding themselves the wealthiest country in the world; somehow Objectivists believe that is fair.

I.M.O.: Every Americans alive today (myself included), would be worse off if they had solely what they could 'fend for themself'.

In that case, then, I suppose we better not let the talented escape.
What do you propose to force them to stay here and keep producing. Perhaps, chain them to their desk/lab/workbench?
After all, the masses are depending on them. Countless masses.

If you're one of the talented, perhaps, a word to the wise; hide your talent. Don't build a better mousetrap. If the masses discover your talent, you will forfeit your freedom.

...and casaba, Atlas Shrugged has nothing to do with Americans exploiting the rest of the world. That is some other topic. If you're in that mindset, then my first sentences will make no sense to you. We're just talking past eachother. You seem to be thinking Atlas Shrugged is about rich vs poor , or capitalist vs the exploited laborers. But its not. Its closer to capitalist vs other capitalists. But the capitalists with no talent are trying to hinder the capitalists who are producing better products. The capitalists with no talent consider it unfair to have to compete with the capitalists who keep coming up with better products. Their argument in the book is that if some companies keep producing better products, that will result in chaos because after the expense the other companies put into their plants, they'll have to undo everything and expensively adjust to keep up with the pace-setters. So they would have the government on their side produce legislation to either slow down the pace-setters, or make the pace-setters out of their own pockets, help the other companies adjust to the industry changes. IOW, stop being so talented.

Neocon_Voter

[Nordic Kid]

Just think of the millions who aren't here because of those who did die of disease adn pestalence.

That is what bothered me most about proponents of Objectivism (Rand's brand of thought): they deny the role of chance and believe that every bit of good fortune they have is a result of their hard work. The Objectivism Club at my university was populated by rich, white students that felt they have worked so hard to get where they were.

And, no, NeoConVoter, I haven't read either of Rand's epics, but that doesn't mean I cannot comment your statements and her philosophy: "the enslavement of... the producers/inventors/the talented" by the "looters"(workers?)? The only 'enslaver of producers' I've seen is the greed for another dollar--just what Rand promotes, no?


[I must say that I am very encouraged to see such an outpouring of reasonable thought in this thread. In the standard debate&argument mode of TWeb, I get the feeling on every issue there are two monoliths of thought at opposing ends of the spectrum. Makes me wish there was some more middle ground in a lot of the discussions here; though, I'm not really one to talk considering my political leanings.]
Well, that we have no middle ground highlights how great we can all get along with each other inspite of our differences- heck, some people here have nothing idealogically in common, but still have relatively reasonable, civil discussions on all issues. THat's why TWeb rocks:teeth:

We can see both sides of an issue and not go, "BLARRRGHHH, YOU BABOON! HOW CAN YOU BE SUCH AN UNREASONABLE CAD TO BELIEVE THAT DRIVEL!" osv....

[Timothy Leary]

Doubt it.

I was speaking in theoretical terms only.
Drastic changes very rarely work out. If you went from our current system to complete anarcho-capitalism overnight, you'd ruin the country. The same is true in the reverse, if you went overnight to socialism you'd ruin the country. Gradual changes in either direction are not nearly as damaging as immediate change.

History shows us that over time, governments become more and more centralized, even if at one point and time the governments grow less so.

It has been said that from time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots.

Heck, we'd be back to being slaves for Rockefellers and Vanderbuilts soon enough.

You know, as much as people complain about that period of history - and I agree, it wasn't kosher - it was a heck of a lot better than it had been before. Context people, context! We like to convientely forget what life was like before those times. Remember serfdom? fuedalism? absolute monarchies? People took on these conditions because it offered them a better life.

In the end, they realized that the power to change their conditions was already in their own hands - that's when we invented the union.

As I said before, change is gradual.

Bottom line is, if you tell someone that the highest good is "greed", per se, then why give a hoot for your employees? Health standards? Envirnmental conditions?

Whoever said that the highest good is greed? That's a straw man made up by socialists.

[casaba]

In that case, then, I suppose we better not let the talented escape.
What do you propose to force them to stay here and keep producing. Perhaps, chain them to their desk/lab/workbench?
After all, the masses are depending on them. Countless masses.

If you're one of the talented, perhaps, a word to the wise; hide your talent. Don't build a better mousetrap. If the masses discover your talent, you will forfeit your freedom.

...and casaba, Atlas Shrugged has nothing to do with Americans exploiting the rest of the world. That is some other topic. If you're in that mindset, then my first sentences will make no sense to you. We're just talking past eachother. You seem to be thinking Atlas Shrugged is about rich vs poor , or capitalist vs the exploited laborers. But its not. Its closer to capitalist vs other capitalists. But the capitalists with no talent are trying to hinder the capitalists who are producing better products. The capitalists with no talent consider it unfair to have to compete with the capitalists who keep coming up with better products. Their argument in the book is that if some companies keep producing better products, that will result in chaos because after the expense the other companies put into their plants, they'll have to undo everything and expensively adjust to keep up with the pace-setters. So they would have the government on their side produce legislation to either slow down the pace-setters, or make the pace-setters out of their own pockets, help the other companies adjust to the industry changes. IOW, stop being so talented.

Neocon_Voter

I can remember a story we read in maybe 6th grade making a similar critique, in which the hero (i.e. strong and talented) is laden with weights in a dance performance so that he 'looks no better than any other dancer'. (I'm sure several Twebbers will be able to supply the title; the guy's goofy name, surname starting with a B?) That story was perhaps the first time I was disturbed by something I read at school. I don't remember any teacher telling me that the story was ludicrous but I felt it was; the feeling that the author was using hyperbole to attack an idea instead of honest discussion. Years later, reading Objectivist discussions (I was for four years a troll on the university Objectivist mailing list), I felt the same, and now, with your description of "talented" and "untalented", I get the exact same ill feeling.

How is this division in "talented" and "untalented" determined? The whole 'us and them' mentality bothers me. I am guessing that you consider yourself part of the 'talented' us. Why is that?

I think that empathy is missing in Objectivism--and in your statements above. It is a blame game of 'I could have made it so much better if everybody else hadn't held me back'. How about, 'You could have been so much worse off if you didn't have the support of everybody else'? I feel that Individualism-Objectivism-(extreme) Libertarianism is deeply flawed, lacking a proper understanding of society's role in our lives.

[Alien]

I can remember a story we read in maybe 6th grade making a similar critique, in which the hero (i.e. strong and talented) is laden with weights in a dance performance so that he 'looks no better than any other dancer'. (I'm sure several Twebbers will be able to supply the title; the guy's goofy name, surname starting with a B?)


Harrison Bergeron by Kurt Vonnegut. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harrison_Bergeron


That story was perhaps the first time I was disturbed by something I read at school. I don't remember any teacher telling me that the story was ludicrous but I felt it was; the feeling that the author was using hyperbole to attack an idea instead of honest discussion.I agree. Vonnegut was a great author, but his "exaggeration for effect" was sometimes more effect than reality. Still, I'll forgive him anything for the punchline of Sirens of Titan.


Years later, reading Objectivist discussions (I was for four years a troll on the university Objectivist mailing list), I felt the same, and now, with your description of "talented" and "untalented", I get the exact same ill feeling.Yes, it seems to be based on a false perception.


How is this division in "talented" and "untalented" determined? The whole 'us and them' mentality bothers me. I am guessing that you consider yourself part of the 'talented' us. Why is that? By results, apparently. If you are successful you deserved to be, and if you fail you deserved that too. It's interesting also, that those who use undoubted talent to succeed through crime aren't considered admirable.


I think that empathy is missing in Objectivism--and in your statements above. It is a blame game of 'I could have made it so much better if everybody else hadn't held me back'. How about, 'You could have been so much worse off if you didn't have the support of everybody else'? I feel that Individualism-Objectivism-(extreme) Libertarianism is deeply flawed, lacking a proper understanding of society's role in our lives.Bingo!

And based on an arguable premise. Do we really have to "deserve' everything that happens to us?

[Kristian Joense]

Ehh, wasn't Ayn Rand in favor of public courts, police and the like ? In other words just another Statist ? Most of the Anarco-capitalists that I have read on the net are decidedly against Ayn Rand's objectvisim and generally have a low opinion of her, either that or in the case of some they disagree strongly with her while still having a high opinion of her and her writings.

Also these people typically do anything BUT assume that people are "rationally selfish" as themuzicman put it and certainly not basically good or anything like that at all.

"Life in the US, were it to adopt libertarian/randian philosophies would wind up as Thomas Hobbes' state of nature: Violent, Brutal, and Short."

You hear that claim being repeated over and over again, but never ever being defended. I on the other hand have seen some pretty impressive defenses of the opposite position by the likes of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_herman_hoppe), Stephan Kinsella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Stephan_Kinsella), Roderick Long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderick_Long), Lew Rockwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llewellyn_H._Rockwell%2C_Jr.) Gustave De Molinari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_de_Molinari) and Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), among others.

[Augustine2004]

the opposite position by the likes of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_herman_hoppe), Stephan Kinsella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Stephan_Kinsella), Roderick Long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderick_Long), Lew Rockwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llewellyn_H._Rockwell%2C_Jr.) Gustave De Molinari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_de_Molinari) and Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), among others.

I'm surprised you do not mention mises. Do you know www.mises.org and www.lewrockwell.com?

Superior to Rand.

If you want my opinion of Rand, read on. I've read both Atlas and Fountain cover to cover. I finished with a feeling of weirdness. To some extent I agree with Rand, but Christian she aint.

Contrary to popular opinion, Christianity does not require big government. Look at prophet Samuel's attempts to discourage the people from getting a king, for one thing. We do need governing, but we can't get GOOD government on our own. All we can get is BAD government. We'll just have to muddle through without big government. Do you really prefer Bush's administration to small government? If you do, I have nothing more to say to you.

[Kristian Joense]

"I'm surprised you do not mention mises. " Yeah, to to be VERY technical he wasn't an anarchist. One of the very few differences in opinion between him and Rothbard. But he favored seccesion, so it really wasn't a difference in practice.

"Do you know www.mises.org and www.lewrockwell.com?"

Ohh, I certainly do. www.mises.org is one of my favorite sites or to be more precise www.mises.org/blog.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

So, maybe I'm a little behind the times, but just several months ago I picked up Rand's monstrous tome "Atlas Shrugged."I began because I'm seeing more and more of this stuff recently. My ex-girlfriend was almost controlled by Rand, per se- she actually structured her entire life around the book, like it was God. It was a little unnerving...and a lot of my colleges at the ol' University seem to be "Fundamentalist Randians"- I mean, they can quote that book more fluently that Laurence Oliver could quote Shakespeare! So naturally, I was curious what these people believed in.

Anyhow, I'll save her religious message for another place and time, but what caught my eye as strange was the whole "Virtue of Selfishness" thing. It essentially boiled down to a society where the rich people were all these geniuses who ran around and solved the world's problems, and government and religion were evil represses of the mind, especially altruism. And so on. And so on.

Now, what I'm wondering is, Does anyone here think society would work if you eliminated all government regulations and restraint? This seems to be totally counter-intuitive- one read through "Lord of the Flies" should be enough to get that concept down, but even still, if you look at most nations that have no regulations or locations where regulations are totally ignored (eg China, Afghanastan, Guatemala) you end up with the rich business owners trampling the poorer classes. Maybe a Randian wouldn't object to that, but as one who believes in "Do unto others as you would have done unto you", I find that highly offensive. Now, I'm not advocating that everyone be paid the same, but really, shouldn't there be less of a disparity between the owners and the workers? Would the owners really be responsible? Would everyone benefit? After all, the cheapest form of labor is slavery, and if "greed is the highest virtue", what's to stop these owners from making us all slaves?



So, any thoughts on why this philosophy is coming so popular today?

Hmm, well your points would be valid if you were working from an accurate interpretation of Rand's ideals. I don't mean that as an insult but I think I should clarify a few points.

First and foremost, the thread title has a blaring error: not only was Rand not an anarchist, she hated anarchy. You said you've read The Virtue of Selfishness, you must remember the multiple invectives against anarchy as "disgusting collectivism at its worst." (Paraphrasing.) So the notion that Rand wanted to get rid of all government is a flawed base to begin your analysis.

If it interests you, in the '60s when Rand's philosophy was the most popular, Roy Childs, an actual anarcho-capitalist, wrote a now famous Open Letter (http://no-treason.com/wild/Childs_Open_Letter_to_Rand.html) to her to convince her (or her followers) of the virtues of anarchism within the Randian framework.

Side note: this isn't a nitpick about your understanding, just following the order of your thoughts with responses: regarding your sister, have you ever read Rothbard's The Sociology of the Ayn Rand Cult (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard23.html)? It's a pretty scathing critic of the Cult of the Individual. Worth reading if you want the whole scoop on Rand and the small scale results of her extreme egoism.

The second biggest flaw in your analysis is the "greed as the highest virtue." Her book is called The Virtue of Selfishness, but you are mistakenly equating greed with selfishness. They are two different things. I don't know which version of the book you have, but if it has her introduction, read that. She makes this distinction clear. Selfishness is not a brutish, "I take whatever I want notion" it's "rational self-interest." She lays down as a moral principle that a person has a duty to consider his or her own self interest, and to do so in as rational a manner as possible. Greed, on the other hand, is an emotional, non-rational way of looking at self interest, which she deplores. She places limits on the pursuit of self interest in terms of "the non-initiation of force" (an old libertarian standby).

Is the philosophy becoming popular today? Which one, since our terms are so confused here? Objectivism certainly is not. Most people see that as a bit extreme, and rightly so, considering the way Rand and her follower present themselves and their philosophy. "Libertarianism" is becoming something of a buzz word, but whether or not true libertarianism is gaining popularity is difficult to say. I think a lot of people, unfortunately, are thinking this sort of soft-lefty-libertarianism—meaning, legalize marijuana but lets perpetuate the tax 'n' spend welfare state—is true libertarianism, which it isn't.

(BTW, I've always called them "Randroids." It seems to get the idea across.)

[Tickle Me Mercury]

All your points are valid. The other glaring problem with Rand is the assumption that everyone has the same level of opportunity.

There's no such assumption in Rand's work, in the way you're implying it. Equality of opportunity does not mean equality of circumstance, it never has.

Especially that one there, my man. That everyone has the same level of opportunity is the greatest myth of the 20th century- that through hard work, everyone can magically be a millionaire and have their own private castle and so forth.

I think this is another great misunderstanding. No one thinks that, through hard work we're all going to become millionaires. I think such a view confuses success with opulence.

I think we also forget how very radical the notion of extending "property rights" to all people was at the conception of this country. The dream of this country is not that you too WILL be a millionaire, it's that you are entitled to keep what you earn, without having to turn it over in part or in whole to some arbitrary feudal lord or aristocrat.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

It doesn't work, because men aren't rationally selfish. Ayn Rand's books reflect a view of man that says that we all take the long term investment view of reality, and will treat people fairly because we know doing so will benefit us in the long run.

Just a nit-pick, she wasn't saying that men are rationally self-interested—some of her later statements about her loathing of humanity would indicate she thought just the opposite—she was saying that we should be rationally self interested as a matter of moral principle.

To put this into allegory, I would guess that as a Christian you believe that men should be "Godly," to use a simple term. But I'm certain that you don't think men are Godly, and the ills of the world are caused by just that, we aren't what we should be.

An objectivist might say the same thing: the world is in such a sorry state because we aren't rationally selfish.

[Storico]

I'd like to go off Mercury's post (#33) and say this: Ayn Rand's 'Anthem' is one very, very cool book. If you can get any one message out of it, it's that thinking for yourself and being yourself is the one thing nobody can ever take away from you. That isn't anarchy, though. That's a celebration of the individual, who is in this case trapped by those who want to see him as merely a number, merely a function. We're more than pawns in a state system. We get to 'keep' what we earn, without turning it over to anyone -- and if what we earn is individuality and the chance to think for ourselves, we can keep that, too.

Is that idealistic? Sure. But I wonder, who here's read Anthem? You have to read it to know exactly what I'm talking about. The main character goes from sharing his identity to owning his identity, and I think that's something profound, in terms of politics -- if we're going to be under any kind of political system at all, it should be one where everyone can think and can speak out loud and can have his or her own, individual rights, free from what the state decrees.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

I'd like to go off Mercury's post (#33) and say this: Ayn Rand's 'Anthem' is one very, very cool book. If you can get any one message out of it, it's that thinking for yourself and being yourself is the one thing nobody can ever take away from you. That isn't anarchy, though. That's a celebration of the individual, who is in this case trapped by those who want to see him as merely a number, merely a function. We're more than pawns in a state system. We get to 'keep' what we earn, without turning it over to anyone -- and if what we earn is individuality and the chance to think for ourselves, we can keep that, too.

Is that idealistic? Sure. But I wonder, who here's read Anthem? You have to read it to know exactly what I'm talking about. The main character goes from sharing his identity to owning his identity, and I think that's something profound, in terms of politics -- if we're going to be under any kind of political system at all, it should be one where everyone can think and can speak out loud and can have his or her own, individual rights, free from what the state decrees.

Anthem is one of my favorites of her books, especially the last two chapters.

Anyone who wants to get a "feel" for what Rand is all about (at least the good things that she's about), should check out that book.

[Teallaura]

Well, that we have no middle ground highlights how great we can all get along with each other inspite of our differences- heck, some people here have nothing idealogically in common, but still have relatively reasonable, civil discussions on all issues. THat's why TWeb rocks:teeth:

We can see both sides of an issue and not go, "BLARRRGHHH, YOU BABOON! HOW CAN YOU BE SUCH AN UNREASONABLE CAD TO BELIEVE THAT DRIVEL!" osv....

No, we can't - that takes all the fun out of it! :no:



To stray further off topic, congrats on actually putting a Poli Sci thread in Poli Sci! :thumb: You would not believe how many Civics threads we get in here! :argh:






Haven't read the book - does seeing the movie count? :wink:






Okay, leaving now.... :outtie:

[Storico]

NO, SEEING THE MOVIE DOES NOT COUNT! :tongue: :ahem: :teeth:

[Timothy Leary]

NO, SEEING THE MOVIE DOES NOT COUNT! :tongue: :ahem: :teeth:
The Atlas Shrugged movie came out already? And I missed it???
I thought it wasn't going to be out until 2009?

[Nordic Kid]

I was speaking in theoretical terms only.
Drastic changes very rarely work out. If you went from our current system to complete anarcho-capitalism overnight, you'd ruin the country. The same is true in the reverse, if you went overnight to socialism you'd ruin the country. Gradual changes in either direction are not nearly as damaging as immediate change.



It has been said that from time to time, the tree of liberty must be watered by the blood of patriots.



You know, as much as people complain about that period of history - and I agree, it wasn't kosher - it was a heck of a lot better than it had been before. Context people, context! We like to convientely forget what life was like before those times. Remember serfdom? fuedalism? absolute monarchies? People took on these conditions because it offered them a better life.

In the end, they realized that the power to change their conditions was already in their own hands - that's when we invented the union.

As I said before, change is gradual.



Whoever said that the highest good is greed? That's a straw man made up by socialists.
Well, I agree with your serfdom and feudalism part. Life is better than then, but to say that it was better is only speaking in relative terms- after all, working 14 hour days in highly toxic environments with no chance of advancing or salary raise...doesn't sound that great to me :P

And Rand did come out and say herself and say greed was the highest good. As Dagney Taggart said, "I'm not in business to help people, I'm in business to make money." Maybe I'm reading that too narrowly, but within Randian ethics, where onesself is the highest good, one is hard pressed to wonder why someone would think otherwise. As a Christian, I find that sort of individualism repulsive (that is, man is alone and fighting against the universe by himself.)

Cheers,

Michael:smile:

[Nordic Kid]

Ehh, wasn't Ayn Rand in favor of public courts, police and the like ? In other words just another Statist ? Most of the Anarco-capitalists that I have read on the net are decidedly against Ayn Rand's objectvisim and generally have a low opinion of her, either that or in the case of some they disagree strongly with her while still having a high opinion of her and her writings.

Also these people typically do anything BUT assume that people are "rationally selfish" as themuzicman put it and certainly not basically good or anything like that at all.

"Life in the US, were it to adopt libertarian/randian philosophies would wind up as Thomas Hobbes' state of nature: Violent, Brutal, and Short."

You hear that claim being repeated over and over again, but never ever being defended. I on the other hand have seen some pretty impressive defenses of the opposite position by the likes of Hans-Hermann Hoppe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hans_herman_hoppe), Stephan Kinsella (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/N._Stephan_Kinsella), Roderick Long (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roderick_Long), Lew Rockwell (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llewellyn_H._Rockwell%2C_Jr.) Gustave De Molinari (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustave_de_Molinari) and Murray Rothbard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Rothbard), among others.
Why should that even have to be defended? History serves as a record enough for how it has happened when anachro-capitalism took over- especially in the progressive era and right after the roaring 20's. The Number one cause of communism is...anachro-capitalism:P

Problem is, when everything is left to businesses, either one class tramples the other, or one class is highly ignorant about how to manage money. For example, when Harding and Coolidge became president, the idea was "The business of America is business" (how's that for a dry statement?:teeth: But actually said by Calvin Coolidge!) Problem was, the business was irrational, and with no safeguards, banks were stupidly offering wildly large sums of money to people on loans. The banks didn't ask but 10% collateral for the full worth of any of those loans- and eventually offered nothing at all. And a lot of people bought junk with it, and on top of that, artificially inflated stock prices...so when the banks realized, "Oh snap! We don't have any money left because we loaned it all!" and started calling in the debts, banks runs occurred...banks ran out of money. So people sold their stocks. So the stock market collapsed. And eventually all the kings horses and all the kings men came tumbling down:teeth: Bear in mind, during the 30's, the American communist party was at an all time high...

That's the problem with anachro-capitalism. Not capitalism, mind you, I happen to be fond of that. I'm no card carrying commie! It's just when you throw everything up to people with no restrain, people make stupid decisions. Greed is blind, and does not think of future consequences.

On a side note, I've read a lot of writing from lewrockwell.com, but I can't say the same for the other sources you listed- it'll get put on my "to-do" list.:p However, I do know Rothbard's analysis for the great depression was rather wanting- not that Keynes's was perfect either.

[Nordic Kid]

wait wait wait. What?! There's a movie out now?

[Tickle Me Mercury]

The Atlas Shrugged movie came out already? And I missed it???
I thought it wasn't going to be out until 2009?

I maybe she means The Fountainhead?

There was a movie made in the 50's I believe.

[Kristian Joense]

"Why should that even have to be defended? History serves as a record enough for how it has happened when anachro-capitalism took over- especially in the progressive era and right after the roaring 20's. The Number one cause of communism is...anachro-capitalism:P"

Ehh, the roaring 20's where ANYTHING but an example Anarcho-capitalism. I think you don't even know what that IS.

[Augustine2004]

Ehh, the roaring 20's where ANYTHING but an example Anarcho-capitalism. I think you don't even know what that IS.

Nordic Kid, you'd get a fail in history and political science.

You possibly think that the world can be made perfect. I concede that if we had minimal government everywhere (I'm not really an anarchist - just a Christian, one who takes the Bible as the main textbook for his life), the world will not be perfect. We're just too stupid, sinful, limited, etc.

So that would mean we need big government (any government that does more than the minimum requirements spelled out in the Bible - to punish the evildoer and praise the good citizen) to make the world perfect. Tempting isn't it, eh, Nordic Kid?

[Timothy Leary]

I maybe she means The Fountainhead?

There was a movie made in the 50's I believe.

Since when am I a she, HRM?

Anyways, yes they're making Atlas Shrugged into a movie. Angelina Joline will be starring in it, but I haven't kept up on it since Stephen Van Dyke scammed people in the Hammer of Truth site/scandal.

[Timothy Leary]

Well then you see, the "capitalism" of that era is what led to those improvements. It was not a quick nor an easy transition, but in the end the market brought about constantly imporving conditions, did it not?

Well, I agree with your serfdom and feudalism part. Life is better than then, but to say that it was better is only speaking in relative terms- after all, working 14 hour days in highly toxic environments with no chance of advancing or salary raise...doesn't sound that great to me :P

And Rand did come out and say herself and say greed was the highest good. As Dagney Taggart said, "I'm not in business to help people, I'm in business to make money." Maybe I'm reading that too narrowly, but within Randian ethics, where onesself is the highest good, one is hard pressed to wonder why someone would think otherwise. As a Christian, I find that sort of individualism repulsive (that is, man is alone and fighting against the universe by himself.)

Cheers,

Michael:smile:

[Teallaura]

Since when am I a she, HRM?

....:poke: I'm a she!


By the way, I was kidding about the movie - I have no idea if one has ever been made before... :shrug:



















































Um, don't bother, I'll see myself out...

:eek:

[Storico]

:hehe: Teal.

Ayn Rand's 'We The Living' was made into a movie. So was 'The Fountainhead'.

I'm interested to see what they do with 'Atlas Shrugged'. I don't know HOW the heck they'd script it OR condense it into a two or three hour movie without ruining it.

I'm really wondering why nobody, to my knowledge, has done 'Anthem'. Unless Rand specifically denied people the rights to it..... but 'Anthem' is more powerful in book form, I think. It really almost HAS to be a book. It's a repressed person writing when he's never been allowed to write before. That's probably why it's never been touched. Just as well, I guess.

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Since when am I a she, HRM?

Anyways, yes they're making Atlas Shrugged into a movie. Angelina Joline will be starring in it, but I haven't kept up on it since Stephen Van Dyke scammed people in the Hammer of Truth site/scandal.

I knew there were rumors of an Atlas Shrugged movie, I just didn't know if there was an older version or something.

And yeah, the "she" was Teal!

[Tickle Me Mercury]

:hehe: Teal.

Ayn Rand's 'We The Living' was made into a movie. So was 'The Fountainhead'.

I'm interested to see what they do with 'Atlas Shrugged'. I don't know HOW the heck they'd script it OR condense it into a two or three hour movie without ruining it.

I'm really wondering why nobody, to my knowledge, has done 'Anthem'. Unless Rand specifically denied people the rights to it..... but 'Anthem' is more powerful in book form, I think. It really almost HAS to be a book. It's a repressed person writing when he's never been allowed to write before. That's probably why it's never been touched. Just as well, I guess.

We The Living was a movie too?

[Timothy Leary]

From Wikipedia:

Film Rights to the novel Atlas Shrugged were purchased by the Baldwin Entertainment Group in 2003. Lions Gate Entertainment has picked up worldwide distribution rights; James V. Hart has written the first draft two-part screenplay, and his screenplay is now being fully developed by writer-director Randall Wallace; Angelina Jolie has been confirmed to play the role of Dagny Taggart, and Brad Pitt is rumored to be cast as John Galt. Both are fans of Rand's works. The film adaptation is projected to be made as a trilogy, with staggered release-dates for each of the three films.

IMDB says it will be released next year

[Storico]

...Brangelina has been cast (maybe)? Oh dear. Way to take a book and Hollywoodify it for all it's worth.

And Mercury -- yup, a version of 'We The Living' came out in 1986. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092194/ :smile: It's really not too bad at all.

[Nordic Kid]

"Why should that even have to be defended? History serves as a record enough for how it has happened when anachro-capitalism took over- especially in the progressive era and right after the roaring 20's. The Number one cause of communism is...anachro-capitalism:P"

Ehh, the roaring 20's where ANYTHING but an example Anarcho-capitalism. I think you don't even know what that IS.
Well, first off, according to Wikipedia, anarcho-capitalism (also known by other names, most frequently as free-market anarchism or simply market anarchism) is a form of individualist anarchism * that advocates the elimination of the state; the provision of law enforcement, courts, national defense, and all other security services by voluntarily-funded competitors in a free market rather than by taxation; the complete deregulation of nonintrusive personal and economic activities; and a self-regulated market. So yes, Rand's work was anachro-capitalistic. Secondly, I used the roaring 20's as an example- because, Mrs. Joense, can you name ONE nation who actually adopted those principles? Can you make a better comparison? I'll be here waiting.

Oh, unless you count Medeival Iceland's anachro-capitalism. But you can relate to that on a personal level, right?

I'll be waiting right here for an answer....

Maybe the pre-progressive era would have been a better example. I should have used that one, with the Vanderbuilts and Rockefellers and what have you- after all, Grant wasn't the most competant president. Is that a fair comparison?

When you are citing another source you must provide a link to that source.

[Nordic Kid]

Nordic Kid, you'd get a fail in history and political science.

You possibly think that the world can be made perfect. I concede that if we had minimal government everywhere (I'm not really an anarchist - just a Christian, one who takes the Bible as the main textbook for his life), the world will not be perfect. We're just too stupid, sinful, limited, etc.

So that would mean we need big government (any government that does more than the minimum requirements spelled out in the Bible - to punish the evildoer and praise the good citizen) to make the world perfect. Tempting isn't it, eh, Nordic Kid?
No, I actually don't think the world can be made perfect through big government, but I sure as heck think anacro-capitalism is not a good way to start improving anything, fyi.

Of course, if you'd read a couple posts after my opening one, you'd have notice that I was careful to note that I did NOT support big government, rather, a moderate sized one would be optimal. One that does not require large budgets or makes large defecits, you know. One that doesn't need to constantly intervene in people's activities. So I guess if I don't support anarchy I support...some totalerian government? Or am I misreading you?

Indeed, I take the bible as the textbook for my life (or try, anyhow), but the problem is, punishing the evil doer and praising the good man isn't as simple as 1-2-3. You don't just walk down to Enron and yell "BAD KENNITH LAY! BAD, BAD KENNITH LAY! YOU DESERVE A TIME OUT!" and expect all the world's problems to be solved do you, eh?

and btw, the only class I'd probably fail is spelling:teeth: If that's a class in America, anymore.

[neocon_voter]

Well, first off, according to Wikipedia, anarcho-capitalism (also known by other names, most frequently as free-market anarchism or simply market anarchism) is a form of individualist anarchism * that advocates the elimination of the state; the provision of law enforcement, courts, national defense, and all other security services by voluntarily-funded competitors in a free market rather than by taxation; the complete deregulation of nonintrusive personal and economic activities; and a self-regulated market. So yes, Rand's work was anachro-capitalistic. Secondly, I used the roaring 20's as an example- because, Mrs. Joense, can you name ONE nation who actually adopted those principles? Can you make a better comparison? I'll be here waiting.

Oh, unless you count Medeival Iceland's anachro-capitalism. But you can relate to that on a personal level, right?

I'll be waiting right here for an answer....

Maybe the pre-progressive era would have been a better example. I should have used that one, with the Vanderbuilts and Rockefellers and what have you- after all, Grant wasn't the most competant president. Is that a fair comparison?

Don't forget, non-government interference not only means not hindering management in favor of labor, but also means the government shouldn't be allowed to assist the companies,(so called corporate welfare).
Ayn explained this on her Mike Wallace interviews (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ayn+rand+mike+wallace), (I don't remember which one of these 3)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ayn+rand+mike+wallace&search=Search

She also explained her position on the Donahue program (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ayn+rand+donahue&search=Search):
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ayn+rand+donahue&search=Search

IOW, companies would have to be able to stand on their own two feet.

Neocon_Voter

[Tickle Me Mercury]

Don't forget, non-government interference not only means not hindering management in favor of labor, but also means the government shouldn't be allowed to assist the companies,(so called corporate welfare).
Ayn explained this on her Mike Wallace interviews (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ayn+rand+mike+wallace), (I don't remember which one of these 3)
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ayn+rand+mike+wallace&search=Search

She also explained her position on the Donahue program (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ayn+rand+donahue&search=Search):
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=ayn+rand+donahue&search=Search

IOW, companies would have to be able to stand on their own two feet.

Neocon_Voter

That's exactly right. When government gets involved in a "pro business" manner, then the system is no longer Capitalism, but Mercentilism—an error of hubris equaled only by Socialism.

[Timothy Leary]

NeoCon, are you turning into a PaleoCon?

[Augustine2004]

Nordic Kid, I wasn't clear what I meant by big government. To repeat, I meant government that goes beyond the biblical duties (punish the evildoer and praise the good citizen), period.

Moderate government, whatever you meant by that, is still in my book "big government." Government that thinks it can better the world for all the world's people or a big part of the world by doing more than what the Bible requires. To be sure, some people support big government simply because they think it benefits THEM. I strongly suspect the Bush family (GHWB, GWB, Jeb, etc.) is a good example.

[Nordic Kid]

Dear neo,

Unfortunately, I'm still working on cruddy old dial-up internet :( Do you know of any written transcripts of the interview? I'll do some looking myself later today when I get a chance.

Anyhoo, I think if businesses/labourers "stood on their two feet" without support or rejection, tsomeone's gonna get trampled. Let's throw monopoly laws out the window- how are businesses going to rreact to that? They're going to band together, set prices, and gouge the public. Now let's also throw union laws out the window- what if employees demanded exhorbatant checks in the mail each week? Full medical and dental? A 10% pay raise each year? You'd drive businesses into a hole in the ground. This is due to the fact that people, on a collective level, are irrationally greedy and don't take the others position into consideration. Rand may have said that people, then, should be rationally selfish, but that has as much chance happening as of us standing sinless before Christ:teeth:

Now I understand this is a gross over-simplification of the matters, but the bottom line is, over time, one group would have "all the rights" while the other would suffer. This is where a neutral 3rd party arbitrator should step in to "level the playing field"- not so that we're all making the same wages, but so that we all can, at least, live.

Cheers,

Mike

[Nordic Kid]

Heyo,

Ok. Sorry if I misunderstood. But, if I may ask, how much of a government should we have to support this basic morality? Do we need the Securities and Exchange Commission? FDA? FDIC? All three of them, I think, could be classified as big government bueracracies, but all three of them greatly added to benefitting the general welfare of the nation- the first to regulate monopolies, the second to make sure food quailites meet a minimum standards, the third to make sure if a bank goes "ka-put" that you'll have $100,000 insurance on it, per se.

Now, some of the rules they come up with are absurd, such as regulating that business must have seperate sinks for seperate activities, stoves must be so far away from sinks, etc- and when the rules arbitrarily change, the businesses have to restructure their stores. Now that much of it is ridiculous, I submit. But the important part is the fundimental equality that it forces businesses to provide to workers.

And on Bush...have you ever heard of http://www.newamericancentury.org/?

That's a little scary...if it isn't a hoax.

[Timothy Leary]

Nordic Kid, before we get into this conversation, I'd like to ask one question - and I don't mean to sound rude or condescending at all in asking it, I mean it honesty - do you understand the economic principles of Supply & Demand?

Dear neo,

Unfortunately, I'm still working on cruddy old dial-up internet :( Do you know of any written transcripts of the interview? I'll do some looking myself later today when I get a chance.

Anyhoo, I think if businesses/labourers "stood on their two feet" without support or rejection, tsomeone's gonna get trampled. Let's throw monopoly laws out the window- how are businesses going to rreact to that? They're going to band together, set prices, and gouge the public. Now let's also throw union laws out the window- what if employees demanded exhorbatant checks in the mail each week? Full medical and dental? A 10% pay raise each year? You'd drive businesses into a hole in the ground. This is due to the fact that people, on a collective level, are irrationally greedy and don't take the others position into consideration. Rand may have said that people, then, should be rationally selfish, but that has as much chance happening as of us standing sinless before Christ:teeth:

Now I understand this is a gross over-simplification of the matters, but the bottom line is, over time, one group would have "all the rights" while the other would suffer. This is where a neutral 3rd party arbitrator should step in to "level the playing field"- not so that we're all making the same wages, but so that we all can, at least, live.

Cheers,

Mike

[Augustine2004]

And on Bush...have you ever heard of http://www.newamericancentury.org/?

That's a little scary...if it isn't a hoax.

Nordic Kid, I’m afraid of the neoconservatives (New American Century) also. No, I’m afraid it’s no hoax, not at all.

To be blunt, you’re naive. Clearly, you believe generally that big government does more good than bad.

I believe that every big government divides its people into two classes: one is a parasite on the other. The parasitical class certainly benefits from big government, but how would you know that the other class still benefits from it on a net basis? And in which class do you think you are in? I ask not to embarrass you, but as a start to making a point. See, if you say you’re a member of the parasitical class, I may have to modify my argument accordingly. On the other hand, if you say you’re of the other class, I would ask why in heaven’s name would you support big government? Just how did you manage to weigh the good that your class get from the government with the bad and come up with a net balance of overall good?? Please show me.

[Nordic Kid]

Nordic Kid, I’m afraid of the neoconservatives (New American Century) also. No, I’m afraid it’s no hoax, not at all.

To be blunt, you’re naive. Clearly, you believe generally that big government does more good than bad.

I believe that every big government divides its people into two classes: one is a parasite on the other. The parasitical class certainly benefits from big government, but how would you know that the other class still benefits from it on a net basis? And in which class do you think you are in? I ask not to embarrass you, but as a start to making a point. See, if you say you’re a member of the parasitical class, I may have to modify my argument accordingly. On the other hand, if you say you’re of the other class, I would ask why in heaven’s name would you support big government? Just how did you manage to weigh the good that your class get from the government with the bad and come up with a net balance of overall good?? Please show me.
You can call me Michael, btw :P

Well, we agree on that much, then. To be honest with you, I always get wierd looks in public whenever I tell people I'm Christian, but I think neo-cons are whacked out. If you hate that aspect of big-government- the attempts to force America on the world, the idea that they can save America with their rule only- then we're in the same boat. On that, anyhow. Tis refreshing to see someone else like that.

Anyhow.

I would say you are being naive by reducing everyone into 2 classes- society doesn't quite function like that. I'm part of the working class, actually. A fulltime college student, and I work 2 jobs. But I realized something about the "working class" and the "white collar" groups of people- if any group can gain the upper hand, they crush the other. With that in mind, let's say we make govenment small- let's have them not deal with regulations. So let's say a guy manages to monopolize a given industry, gouge the public, and decide that it will only issue a paycheck that barely keeps employees alove. Sound unrealistic? Well, it already happened in the 1880's under Vanderbuilt. To quote him, when he asked about what he thought of people protesting this, he said, "The public be damned!" And really, what's to stop people from doing that if the government elimitaes things like, say, the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or the Security and Exchange Commissions? How many more Enrons would we have, do you think? I'd say that regulations benefit me.

Not only that, but what would you say to people like Ida Tarbell and Upton Sinclair, who exposed the Standard Oil Trust and the Meat Packing Industry? I guess they missed the message. And I guess the owners had no problem with extorting one class of people to do all the work. Their "rational greed" really didn't benefit anyone but themselves. Where does that leave you and I, assuming you are a working class person?

Again, government needs regulation for those kinds of people. I'm not trying to be arrogent, but don't you think you're looking at this too much in terms of black and white? Only in a true welfare system like in Europe does that happen often, like Norway, unfortunately. But in America, the averge person is only on Welfare 2-3 years...is that so parasitical?

[Nordic Kid]

Nordic Kid, before we get into this conversation, I'd like to ask one question - and I don't mean to sound rude or condescending at all in asking it, I mean it honesty - do you understand the economic principles of Supply & Demand?
Yes, what of it?

[Timothy Leary]

Yes, what of it?

The reason I asked that, is because if

Let's throw monopoly laws out the window- how are businesses going to rreact to that? They're going to band together, set prices, and gouge the public. Now let's also throw union laws out the window- what if employees demanded exhorbatant checks in the mail each week? Full medical and dental? A 10% pay raise each year? You'd drive businesses into a hole in the ground.

That scenario happened, the unions and the buisnesses would balance each other out.

If the first scenario happened, it would not be sustainable for a very long time for two reasons:

1) People would not be able to afford the products
2) Sooner or later, someone would figure out how to do it better.

The demand would be far less than the supply because it would be beyond the costs of most people. That would force the company to bring its prices lower in order to make better profits.

[Augustine2004]

I’m going to call you Nordic Kid, because it’s more specific than Michael Corleone. Whoops that slipped out. (Just kidding.)

Black and white? You think there are people who neither benefits from government nor suffer from it, on a net basis? Maybe there are many of those around. Maybe not. Why bother thinking about them? The underclass isn’t worth bothering thinking about, anyway, right?

Again, I agree that we need good government. Repeat, GOOD government. Can we create good government? Nah. We’re too bad & too stupid & too unwise.

Besides the government creates an incentive structure that attracts power-thirsty people. It seems like as a rule they are more evil minded than the rest of us. Napoleon, hmmm? Why don’t you go around with your hand inserted under your coat like in those portraits?

On the other hand, the better the people are, the better the free market works. Moreover, the incentive structure of the free market tends somewhat to make the people better. Division of labor. Why don’t you read Murray Rothbard, Power and Market and Bertrand de Jouvenel On Power?

More power to the masses, hmmm?

[Augustine2004]

Possibly I should offer this clarification. Any part of the government can do anything, as long as everybody outside the part knows what’s going on and is willing to let it go on. Assisted death is excluded, however. This is not a good definition because it permits too many cases that I don’t want to happen.

Rothbard explains the principle of no aggression (and no chicanery, I’d add) much more clearly in Man, Economy, and State, including Power and Market than I ever could.

[joel]

Now, what I'm wondering is, Does anyone here think society would work if you eliminated all government regulations and restraint?

This seems to be totally counter-intuitive- one read through "Lord of the Flies" should be enough to get that concept down, ...After all, the cheapest form of labor is slavery, and if "greed is the highest virtue", what's to stop these owners from making us all slaves?[/quote]
That's not what Rand said. Objectivism says that individual rights must be protected.

Bottom line is, if you tell someone that the highest good is "greed", per se, then why give a hoot for your employees? Health standards? Envirnmental conditions?
Not greed, but rational self interest. It is not in your rational self interest to harm your employees or the environment. If someone does not act in their rational self interest (by say, harming their employees, etc), then they are not acting according to natural law, and nature will take care of them.

Plus, well, SOMEONE's gotta do the grunt work (until robots make us all obselete:teeth: And those people have a right to live, like everyone else.
As technology increases, the bottom level of grunt work increases. People use phrases like "making us all obsolete" or "putting us out of a job". But what really happens is that human labor is freed up to be spent on greater things. But there will always be the bottom rungs on the ladder (whatever is currently called "grunt work"). If you attempt to cut off the bottom rungs, then you are only hurting the people at the bottom, so that they can't ever get on the ladder to start climbing upward. So, yes, the "grunt work" jobs are important.


Now I understand this is a gross over-simplification of the matters, but the bottom line is, over time, one group would have "all the rights" while the other would suffer.Not true. Rand supported the concept of unalienable rights.

I would say you are being naive by reducing everyone into 2 classesI would say you are wrong to divide people into "classes."

[joel]

What's funny is that Rand takes the same motivations that somehow make business people "good" and makes government types "bad." It's almost as though there are two different species of humans: business people and political types.
The difference is that business people can (and should!) justly achieve great things, and gain profit. Political types cannot do anything except by initiating coercive force, which is evil and unproductive.


So, what's the answer? As we do in the US, provide limits to what government can do, put limits and laws in place to limit what businesses can do, protect the rights of individuals, and constantly seek to establish a balance which creates wealth for all.

Which is definitely NOT the Rand solution.
As was said before, Rand was not an anarchist and not a statist. Objectivism says that the government should protect individual rights, and only protect individual rights. Anything less is anarchy. Anything more is statism. Protecting individual rights is the balance which creates wealth for all.

Life in the US, were it to adopt libertarian/randian philosophies would wind up as Thomas Hobbes' state of nature: Violent, Brutal, and Short.
No, because those philosophies require the protection of individual rights (i.e., the protection against the initiation of force and fraud).

[joel]

I think that empathy is missing in Objectivism--and in your statements above.
No, empathy is missing from anarchy (not protecting our own and others' individual rights), and statism (actively violating others' individual rights via the government).


It is a blame game of 'I could have made it so much better if everybody else hadn't held me back'.
No, the issue is you (or whoever) could have made it so much better if everybody else hadn't held you back by violating your rights. That's the only kind of "holding back" that is censured in Objectivism.

[Augustine2004]

Joel, welcome! Your posts here, also!