[W:816] A Lesson from Atlas Shrugged

[code1211]

I like your first wife. Do I know her?

I'm not sure.

Do you have a pair of small puncture wounds on your neck?

 

[code1211]

Not at all. But if one thinks that is the end of moral philosophy, one is stunted, indeed.

I think a major difference for a liberal philosophy is to modify that question only slightly and add the modifier "all". Should "all" personal effort and talent be linked to personal reward and compensation? Or, reverse the question: should all compensation and reward be linked to personal effort and talent? As has been noted earlier, relative compensation in our current economic system is not directly linked to personal effort and talent.

A significant, even predominant, factor of reward and compensation is "luck of the draw". I obtained distinctive and quantifiable advantage at birth because I'm caucasian, heterosexual, male, American, and had educated parents and grandparents - and suffered no significant physical detriments. If I was more physically gifted, I might have made it in professional football or baseball. I could have been a pilot, if only my vision was 20/20. A series of gates have been raised before me because of my immutable characteristics, but others have not appeared for similar reasons. Am I more or less "worthy" because of them?

Worthy? Economically, that has nothing to do with anything.

Relative need is the thing that determines economic value and that can change in the twinkling of an eye.

Water might be a very valuable thing if there is not enough to go around. People will pay dearly to get it.

During Flood season, Sand Bags become valuable and water is considered a nuisance. People will pay to get rid of it. However, the water is STILL water.

It is the same with anything. If it is needed, it has value. If it needed AND is rare, then it has greater value.

In an ECONOMIC exchange, value is traded for value. The value is not determined by anything other than what can be demanded from another to get it. If someone will pay you to do it or deliver it, then there is value.

If you offer a product or a service and nobody will pay you for it, then there is no value.

When you exit economics, none of that matters.

Friendship or love are given freely. A labor of love is privilege. To be able to give that labor as a gift that you receive by the giving. Taking and giving with love is like the relationship of a flower to a bee. They do it because it is their life.

When you mix commerce with anything else, it doesn't work. In a relationship where affection and/or sex is used as currency, the end is nigh.

 

[Dacke]

What I put forth:
1. Objectivism and Libertarianism (i.e. the brand of libertarians that stem from Locke and Russeau) are similar in conclusions, and are a slightly different shade in many core concepts.

I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that there is a straight line from Rousseau to Objectvism and Libertarianism. Rousseau was very much the counter-voice of the time he lived in. Not really an Enlightenment thinker and certainly not a person any Libertarian or Objectivist would ever mention in a positive sense.

2.Therefore many of the same criticisms work for both.

I am not sure what "many of the same criticisms" means, but if you can present an argument that works against both Libertarianism and Objectvism at once, I guess you are right about this. However, I can criticise both the Democrats and ISIS for being collectivists, but never would I claim this means that Democrats are ISIS.

What you responded to (as far as I can tell)
1. These two philosophies are the same thing

No. Let me spell it out for you; They. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.

2. That rand hated libertarians and this somehow means something or is somehow a compelling argument.

If Rand herself took distance from Libertarianism it should indeed be a quite compelling and evident argument that the two are not at all the same. Most contemporary Objectvists are very hostile towards Libertarianism too.

As I have already pointed out more than once, Libertarianism is not really a philosophy. All that there is to Libertarianism is the NAP, whereas Objectvism presents a complete worldview and a complete set of virtues.

So.. here you go, I mapped out the conversation for you. Lets see if you are able to pick up from this point or if you will continue to be confused.

You did not point out how the exchange actually went, but those who are interested can go back in the thread and look to find out that you are the one who is wrong. But, who cares?

 

[code1211]

Well the Democrats keep speaking. They do not like Ayn Rand. Clear as can be, they hate the woman. I said it upfront.

Personal responsibility seems to be a thing they are terrified might catch on.

 

[code1211]

There is nothing Conservative about Objectivism at all. It is Liberalism in its purest form; The celebration of reason and individual capability and the disregard of religion and sacrifice. Only one being shallow here is you since the only reason you call her Conservative is because she was for Capitalism.

A habit of some is that they dislike a person or a thought and categorize them as another thing they dislike.

Might make them more comfortable.

 

[Slartibartfast]

I am not sure how you came to the conclusion that there is a straight line from Rousseau to Objectvism and Libertarianism. Rousseau was very much the counter-voice of the time he lived in. Not really an Enlightenment thinker and certainly not a person any Libertarian or Objectivist would ever mention in a positive sense.

The words family and line have completely different definitions, try again.

I am not sure what "many of the same criticisms" means, but if you can present an argument that works against both Libertarianism and Objectvism at once, I guess you are right about this. However, I can criticise both the Democrats and ISIS for being collectivists, but never would I claim this means that Democrats are ISIS.

You are correct you could, and there may even be some criticisms that work for both philosophies. However, I never did once claim they are the same philosophy (in terms of objectivism and libertarianism), I only claimed that they have many similarities so therefore similar criticisms work for both.

No. Let me spell it out for you; They. Are. Not. The. Same. Thing.

That was never a point of disagreement. Of course they are not the same thing.

If Rand herself took distance from Libertarianism it should indeed be a quite compelling and evident argument that the two are not at all the same. Most contemporary Objectvists are very hostile towards Libertarianism too.

This means precisely nothing in terms of any logical argument or meaning. Adherents of similar philosophies hate each other all the time over minor differences. Look at all the factions in the various islamist groups as an example.

As I have already pointed out more than once, Libertarianism is not really a philosophy. All that there is to Libertarianism is the NAP, whereas Objectvism presents a complete worldview and a complete set of virtues.

I am sure any of the libertarians of this forum would strongly disagree with you that libertarianism is not a philosophy. Especially given that libertarianism has all the trappings of a philosophy. You should study it more if you are making this mistake.

You did not point out how the exchange actually went, but those who are interested can go back in the thread and look to find out that you are the one who is wrong. But, who cares?

Given how many things I pointed out that you got wrong in my reply here, I can understand why you are still confused about what happened in this exchange.

 

[TomFitz]

Because the "slightly stricter" system Liberals demand is less like a slight change and more like a "boot on the throat".

That is why the return to record high stock market closes took 5 YEARS under the boot on the neck policies of Obama and 5 MONTHS under the less strict regulations of the President.

A real world comparison of recoveries using the real world outcomes of real world approaches.

I guess you Trumpsters take your lead from der fuhrer.

If you’re going to lie and make ridiculous claims, you might as well go all the way!

Your first sentence is nothing more than an empty stereotype.

The rest is obviously false. Ridiculously so.

Trump did not produce an instant magic boom. That’s partisan bs.

 

[code1211]

Conservatives like to hold up Atlas Shrugged as a holy text full of valuable lessons (about the virtues selfishness, greed and free markets apparently) because they know outside their circles it's an obscure book that few people will read. Get the summary, give up and they can at least insist we should have read it to the end to discuss it properly and claim a 'point.' I know what's in Mein Kampf too, but don;t need to read it.

The other reason they prefer Atlas shrugged is it reflects their modern 'values' far more accurately than that other book they always lay claim to - you know the one where the wandering Jew goes around helping the poor and needy for free.

You seem to think you know a whole bunch about things you know nothing about.

You must be a Democrat-Socialist!

 

[Dacke]

I am sure any of the libertarians of this forum would strongly disagree with you that libertarianism is not a philosophy. Especially given that libertarianism has all the trappings of a philosophy. You should study it more if you are making this mistake.

Then those Libertarians are straight out wrong. The only thing Libertarianism is built on is the notion of non-initiation of force. Libertarianism does not really present any metaphysics or epistemology and is not too concerned with what people choose to do as long as they do not harm others in what they do. Objectvism, on the other hand, is a complete philosophy that presents all of these things and is much more strict in its guidelines. For example, you could be a devoted Christian and a Libertarian, but you could certainly not be a devoted Christian and an Objectvist as Objectvism is very "in-your- face" about religion.

I know my Libertarianism better than I need to know it. I have read enough to know I am not making any mistakes here.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Then those Libertarians are straight out wrong. The only thing Libertarianism is built on is the notion of non-initiation of force. Libertarianism does not really present any metaphysics or epistemology and is not too concerned with what people choose to do as long as they do not harm others in what they do. Objectvism, on the other hand, is a complete philosophy that presents all of these things and is much more strict in its guidelines. For example, you could be a devoted Christian and a Libertarian, but you could certainly not be a devoted Christian and an Objectvist as Objectvism is very "in-your- face" about religion.

I know my Libertarianism better than I need to know it. I have read enough to know I am not making any mistakes here.

You forget about the philosophical reasoning behind NAP and those foundations, which is indeed a philosophical exercise.

Epistomology is not a requirement for something to be a philosophy.

Ancient Greek thoughts about the four humors are an example of a philosophy that had no such component.

 

[code1211]

Or maybe if he lost a general a generation later would have had the same insight and rome would have continued to exist but with different borders. There is no reason rome had to be the way it turned out.

Yet the lessons of history continue on unabated except a slight schedule alteration.

History always moves forward. The great people are the ones who act as the hinges. Everything that came before is different than everything that came after.

We still say "Cross the Rubicon" when we are looking at or reviewing a massively consequential, revolutionary decision.

As in, when Jacob Frey decided that the mob's violence was preferable to him protecting his citizens, he was crossing the Rubicon in the opposite direction trying to get out of town running from his duty. Pretty much Caesar in reverse.

This is the perfect example of the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[code1211]

Yes, I am sure you are very proud of this post.

However, if you must know, I arrived at my point of view after probably a decade (off and on) of study on philosophy, various religions, just plain observation, and social science.

It seems like a study of those things would lead you to seeking actions and ideas that would promote personal freedoms and liberty.

Your choice seems to have led you elsewhere.

Why?

 

[Slartibartfast]

History always moves forward. The great people are the ones who act as the hinges. Everything that came before is different than everything that came after.

We still say "Cross the Rubicon" when we are looking at or reviewing a massively consequential, revolutionary decision.

As in, when Jacob Frey decided that the mob's violence was preferable to him protecting his citizens, he was crossing the Rubicon in the opposite direction trying to get out of town running from his duty. Pretty much Caesar in reverse.

This is the perfect example of the wrong man in the wrong place at the wrong time.

And again, there is no special reason why some rubican needs to be crossed at that place or at that time, there is no requirement that history proceeds this or that way.

I am (and I suspect you are) personally happy that history worked out the way it did (at least the bulk of it), but that is because we have the internal personal view. But that internal personal view is in no way an objective criteria for judging whether or not people are a necessary fulcrim that someone else couldn't fulfill creating a slightly different history, but humanity and discovery still moves forward.

In terms of Atlas Shrugged, if Reardon didn't invent the blue steel, perhaps Bob Smith does fifteen years later and perhaps this Bob Smith isn't a very political person and none of the other story happens. The blue steel still exists and thats the important thing.

I think you are WAY overstating the importance of these people.

 

[Dacke]

You forget about the philosophical reasoning behind NAP and those foundations, which is indeed a philosophical exercise.

Why of course, but Libertarianism is still not a philosophy. It does not really say anything about what the world is and what it consists of or how one is to orient themselves in the world. Libertarianism is, pretty much, just an ideology.

Of course - as we see in the Libertarian movement - it is possible to engage in lenghty, philosophical discussions about whether the NAP applies to a certain issue and often we see that Rothbard may say x, where as Block says y and Hoppe says z. At the end of the day, there is no correct answer on the most difficult questions. What is agreed upon is Austrian Economics, Capitalism and the NAP (which comes with self-ownership). Libertariaism does not tell you what happiness is or how to achieve it. It does not tell you to choose between selfishness and altruism and has no real opinion on God. The typical Libertarian stance on these questions is "As long as it does not harm anyone else, be my guest."

 

[code1211]

Capitalism is easy to understand and so is Ayn Rand.

Capitalism is this. Parties work in tandem to exchange value for value and both agree on the value.

We say in sales, customers do not buy things, customers buy benefits.

If I held up a new 1000 dollar bill and told you you can own it for a mere $500. would you buy it? I say most would refuse to buy the legal tender 1000 for only $500 being suspicious it has no value.

In most sales situations, the seller knows more about the product and its value than does the buyer.

The wise buyer educates themselves before the transaction begins. Companies that employ a three bid demand in purchasing are effectively mandating education of the purchasing agent.

Given the proper knowledge, the buyer would know that the bill is either good or bad. The decision would be informed by that knowledge.

A good salesperson is a good teacher.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Why of course, but Libertarianism is still not a philosophy. It does not really say anything about what the world is and what it consists of or how one is to orient themselves in the world. Libertarianism is, pretty much, just an ideology.

Of course - as we see in the Libertarian movement - it is possible to engage in lenghty, philosophical discussions about whether the NAP applies to a certain issue and often we see that Rothbard may say x, where as Block says y and Hoppe says z. At the end of the day, there is no correct answer on the most difficult questions. What is agreed upon is Austrian Economics, Capitalism and the NAP (which comes with self-ownership). Libertariaism does not tell you what happiness is or how to achieve it. It does not tell you to choose between selfishness and altruism and has no real opinion on God. The typical Libertarian stance on these questions is "As long as it does not harm anyone else, be my guest."

Lol, ok. I already pointed out the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism, but feel free to continue with this.

 

[code1211]

I pointed out correctly it was not to any caucus Mitch made the statement and Mitch was explaining it in 2010 and not during the election period.

Anyway, we have known from No less than Jan 20, 2017 that Democrats planned to make Trump a one term president. And fortunately that is failing as we speak.

Mitch failed if you must blame him and so will Democrats fail to make Trump a one term president.

With respect, the Democrat-Socialists planned to make the president a NO term President.

The meeting on January 5, 2017 in the oval Office with the traitorous slime involved was the back up plan.

 

[code1211]

Generally it means social democrat, or at least its similar to that point of view, however progressive tends to be the american term.

Historically, they would be FDR's policies or similar.

Usually it does not veer so far left as to venture into socialism or communism. However, like most american political labels, the meaning can be different to different people as well, but for me, that is what I mean by the term.

The political stances of FDR were Socialist. The idea that his approaches were sensible or even legal is questionable.

In retrospect, his top down strangulation of the economy might have been a millstone around the neck of the American Economy and therefore the world economy.

It's possible that FDR was to the 30's what Obama was to the 00's and the 10's.

S&P posted an All Time High Close again yesterday. About 6 years to get there under Obama's policies. About 6 months to get there under the President's policies.

Going back in time is not possible. We are in a unique situation right now right here.

We saw what Obama's policies did AFTER the recession ended in June 2009.

Now we get to see what the mirror image policies will do in the same place and the same situation.

 

[code1211]

I have no clue what a social democrat means.

I was an ordinary Republican hating Democrat who also hated the Rich people.

When I was a Democrat, I was the product of my parents who taught me that even if rich people were not bad people, they were evil in many ways.

At some point, it occurred to me that no matter what else was happening in the lives of the rich, it made no impact on my life.

If they got poor for some reason, I did not automatically get rich.

When I grasped the concept that my life and fortunes rose and fell based on my actions and attitudes, it was life changing.

 

[Slartibartfast]

The political stances of FDR were Socialist. The idea that his approaches were sensible or even legal is questionable.

In retrospect, his top down strangulation of the economy might have been a millstone around the neck of the American Economy and therefore the world economy.

It's possible that FDR was to the 30's what Obama was to the 00's and the 10's.

S&P posted an All Time High Close again yesterday. About 6 years to get there under Obama's policies. About 6 months to get there under the President's policies.

Going back in time is not possible. We are in a unique situation right now right here.

We saw what Obama's policies did AFTER the recession ended in June 2009.

Now we get to see what the mirror image policies will do in the same place and the same situation.

In both cases, the presidents set the stage for a golden age for working people.

In the case of FDR, it did not happen until after WW2 and with Obama it just recently ended with COVID.

 

[code1211]

look at the link, It goes to a wikipedia article which is a good enough summary.

But in a nutshell, I advocate what I view as a healthy mix of capitalism and social spending and generally that too much capitalism or too much socialism are both bad and a balanced approach is best for everyone and will promote the highest level of social achievement and wealth overall (in general)

Sounds like a Reagan Democrat or a Trump supporter.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Sounds like a Reagan Democrat or a Trump supporter.

Given that Trump is trying to remove social security and medicare, I am not sure from what perspective you are trying to come from here.

 

[code1211]

Ayn Rand was NOT a conservative. You thinking she was demonstrates that you simply dont know wtf you are talking about.

Given her age and her experience, everything she writes deals with the great questions of governance that she actually faced.

The recession of monarchy, the rise of democracy, the rise of Naziism, Socialism and Fascism and influence of Capitalism on all of them were woven into her thought process.

It is not possible to understand her writing if the reader looks at it with 21st Century sensibilities.

 

[code1211]

Libertarianism and objectivism are similar enough that they are effectively interchangeable. Individualism, the strength of will, the purpose of choice and force, etc. Slightly different starting premises, but effectively similar enough that the came counter arguments work

My reading of Atlas Shrugged is a cautionary tale with lessons reflected by the Quarterly Profit mentality of our national, international and globalist industries.

In the 50's when she was writing this, the era of globalism was only a glimmer as the US was rebuilding the world. However, she recognized the dangers of the "right now" measure of success.

Reardon was building his rail lines using steel that would last forever. In that world of government intrusion to pick the winners and losers, quality meant nothing. Every day the managers woke up and re-set according to that particular day.

When every day is a re-set with no regard to the cause and effect from the previous actions, then rational thought based on real world outcomes is irrational.

I FEEL that this is the same thing that allows the acceptance and even the appreciation of mobs destroying cities today.

A daily re-set that washes away real world cause and effect in favor of capricious allegiances to stylish stupidities based on the advice of useful idiots who can play competitive sports, sing and dance or tell jokes.

 

[code1211]

To the best of my knowledge Ayn Rand's writing has not been translated into any other language. Her appeal is restricted to the United States. I read The Virtue of Selfishness. That was all I could stand of that pompous bore. I enjoy investigating different points of view. What I look for are facts and insights. There are no facts and insights in the writings of Rand, only value assertions presented as though they are the absolute truth.

Are all of your actions purely selfless?