Whose read atlas shrugged?

[Republic Now!]

I'm not finished yet but it seems to me her point wasn't for unregulated capitalism as much as it pointed out how when you regulate to the point where you can't make a profit you have to bow to the will of the bureaucrats will to survive.

Well, Rand believed that society must be based upon a level of "fair" competition. The common metaphor used is of a race; you could use your power and influence to sabotage the other competitors and win, but Rand claimed this was immoral, because you don't benefit yourself by doing so. It's better, according to her, to have your competition be the best, so that when you are victorious, it is because of your own strength instead of a technicality. Plus, you have to push yourself to be better.

I think this lies in the misunderstanding of Rand that she believed in a society of competition with everyone striving to win, when really she wanted a society where everyone was capable of pushing themselves to perfection, appropiate competition being a natural part of this process.

I'll admit that Rand is difficult to read, especially Shrugged. She's angry, shrill, and hateful much of the time and wants the takers DEAD. Her philosophy is half baked at best. She comes under fire from many conservatives for being an atheist. Nevertheless, she makes a lot of good points.

She does seem to, in some ways, undermine human dignity. It's a shame, really, because she had a very brilliant idea, but it seemed to be tainted by her experience with the extreme of soviet collectivism.

 

[haymarket]

What do you believe was her brilliant idea?

 

[Fletch]

Is it my turn now to get on my high horse and insult you about things I also have no knowledge of you doing or not doing?

Here you go. Read this. Now you can say that you have actually read something of hers and I might actually believe you.

"Man's Rights" by Ayn Rand - The Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Why isnt it taught in schools? Cuz generally you dont go to school to be taught self interest and greed are acceptable.

 

[Dickieboy]

What do you believe was her brilliant idea?

My opinion, objectivism, but since you read the 'minimum' you should have already known that...wondering now!

 

[Dickieboy]

Why isnt it taught in schools? Cuz generally you dont go to school to be taught self interest and greed are acceptable.

But that is exactly what is taught in school...? Self-interest is the quintessential reason for being in school; you know desire for one to be educated. Greed…typically everyone is for himself when it comes to grades else everyone would agree to whole class averaging and all would attain the same grade…

 

[Einzige]

The problem boils down to the fact that Rand was not particularly libertarian on most anything - not only did she endorse the Vietnam War and believe that President Nixon did not go far enough in prosecuting it, but she was also quite socially conservative on issues like gay rights, not being well-predisposed at all towards the burgeoning gay liberation movement. Simply being a cheerleader for capitalism does not make one a libertarian (and, of course, Rand hated libertarians):

... I disapprove of, disagree with and have no connection with, the latest aberration of some conservatives, the so-called “hippies of the right,” who attempt to snare the younger or more careless ones of my readers by claiming simultaneously to be followers of my philosophy and advocates of anarchism. Anyone offering such a combination confesses his inability to understand either. Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs.

Now, of course, her "Libertarian - Right" supporters will forgive these things in a way they wouldn't for a "Libertarian - Left" partisan, because American 'libertarianism', so-called, is basically Pavlovian in its responses towards banal corporatist rhetoric.

If you want a real individualist - a radical individualist who went so much further than Ayn Rand that he left her in the dust a century before she wrote - you need look no further than the gentleman in my avatar:

They say of God, "Names name thee not." That holds good of me: no concept expresses me, nothing that is designated as my essence exhausts me; they are only names. Likewise they say of God that he is perfect and has no calling to strive after perfection. That too holds good of me alone.

I am owner of my might, and I am so when I know myself as unique. In the unique one the owner himself returns into his creative nothing, of which he is born. Every higher essence above me, be it God, be it man, weakens the feeling of my uniqueness, and pales only before the sun of this consciousness. If I concern myself for myself, the Unique One, then my concern rests on its transitory, mortal creator, who consumes himself, and I may say:

All things are nothing to me.

But this is too much, too much! American 'libertarians' want to be "rugged individualists", not genuine individuals. They are content to march in lockstep with their Mises and their Hayek in their pockets, like all the rest of the 'individualists'.

 

[Dickieboy]

If you want a real individualist - a radical individualist who went so much further than Ayn Rand that he left her in the dust a century before she wrote - you need look no further than the gentleman in my avatar:

So you're into egoist anarchism? I have trouble accepting the means of property rights and disregard for society in EA myself...but to each his own.

 

[Einzige]

That gentleman, incidentally, is Herr Max Stirner, the man who actually "stood the Hegelian dialectic on its head".

He is not read today, because his egoism is consummate, and cannot be reduced to mere cheerleading for a political or economic ideology. For Stirner, the individual is the All-In-All, absolutely independent of society. 'Capitalism' is a God as foreign to him as the 'working class' or the 'welfare State'.

 

[Einzige]

So you're into egoist anarchism? I have trouble accepting the means of property rights and disregard for society in EA myself...but to each his own.

You have "trouble" with it because it doesn't fit into a politically palatable niche the way the writings of a bad noir fiction authoress from the 40s, who stole from Mencken and Nietzsche and committed the Unpardonable Sin of trying to make Nietzsche fit with his nemesis Aristotle.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

But that is exactly what is taught in school...? Self-interest is the quintessential reason for being in school; you know desire for one to be educated. Greed…typically everyone is for himself when it comes to grades else everyone would agree to whole class averaging and all would attain the same grade…

When he says "in our schools" i would think he means public schools. The public school system should not advocate greedy and selfishness. It should teach basic skills.
the only place Atalsh Shrugged should be read is at a university.

 

[Dickieboy]

You have "trouble" with it because it doesn't fit into a politically palatable niche the way the writings of a bad noir fiction authoress from the 40s, who stole from Mencken and Nietzsche and committed the Unpardonable Sin of trying to make Nietzsche fit with his nemesis Aristotle.

Actually my ‘trouble’ has nothing to do with Rand as I tend to not evaluate ‘philosophers’ against each other but rather to what I BELIEVE. I find ‘whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property’ incredible uncivil. Further anarchism in Stirner’s philosophy means to abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members. These are a bit too extreme…for me.

 

[Einzige]

Actually my ‘trouble’ has nothing to do with Rand as I tend to not evaluate ‘philosophers’ against each other but rather to what I BELIEVE. I find ‘whoever knows how to take, to defend, the thing, to him belongs property’ incredible uncivil. Further anarchism in Stirner’s philosophy means to abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members. These are a bit too extreme…for me.

They weren't, apparently, 'too extreme' for Thatcher, who proclaimed:

There is no such thing as society.

And Stirnerians don't want to abolish society. That would mean it exists as a concept to be opposed. 'Society' is simply a collection of individuals who are acting according to rote, stereotyping and self-stereotyping in turn.

But this is all entirely too much for Rand, who just wants an excuse to seem against-the-grain in the liberal 1950s while remaining fully supportive of the American Cold War effort.

 

[Dickieboy]

When he says "in our schools" i would think he means public schools. The public school system should not advocate greedy and selfishness. It should teach basic skills.
the only place Atalsh Shrugged should be read is at a university.

OH...I agree. Atlas Shrugged is WAY too long for grammar school. As to ‘advocate greedy and selfishness’ they typically do not but the way school is in measuring proficiency these two characteristics are developed. I believe one must first anchor their own foundation (greed and self-interest) before they can exercise charity and altruism…

 

[Einzige]

OH...I agree. Atlas Shrugged is WAY too long for grammar school. As to ‘advocate greedy and selfishness’ they typically do not but the way school is in measuring proficiency these two characteristics are developed. I believe one must first anchor their own foundation (greed and self-interest) before they can exercise charity and altruism…

The idea that "greed and self-interest" are the "foundation" of anybody's existence is absurd. The Self exists prior to any 'feeling', whether that of selfishness or that of altruism. It is an unfathomable thing, and to reduce it to a set of behaviors - "all altruism is rooted in selfishness!" - is to betray the Self as an extant property.

 

[Dickieboy]

They weren't, apparently, 'too extreme' for Thatcher, who proclaimed:

Superfluous…

And Stirnerians don't want to abolish society. That would mean it exists as a concept to be opposed. 'Society' is simply a collection of individuals who are acting according to rote, stereotyping and self-stereotyping in turn.

So you ARE into egoist anarchism. Kinda confused on how your lean is Lib.-left but anarchist IS the extremest right …:roll:

 

[Einzige]

So you ARE into egoist anarchism. Kinda confused on how your lean is Lib.-left but anarchist IS the extremest right …:roll:

Anarchism has nothing to do with right-wing politics. Historically it was rooted in the political Left; Stirner himself associated with, and considered himself part of (though ideologically separate to), the far-left Young Hegelians.

Prodhoun? Bakunin? Kropotkin? Steiner? Oh, those right-wing anarchists!

 

[Spartacus FPV]

And Stirnerians don't want to abolish society. That would mean it exists as a concept to be opposed. 'Society' is simply a collection of individuals who are acting according to rote, stereotyping and self-stereotyping in turn.

But this is all entirely too much for Rand, who just wants an excuse to seem against-the-grain in the liberal 1950s while remaining fully supportive of the American Cold War effort.

She seems to get that quite clearly, start at the 3 minute mark.



I swear its nothing but misrepresentations and straw men from her critics.

 

[YoungConserv]

When he says "in our schools" i would think he means public schools. The public school system should not advocate greedy and selfishness. It should teach basic skills.
the only place Atalsh Shrugged should be read is at a university.

Are universities at the state level not public schools?

 

[TheDemSocialist]

Are universities at the state level not public schools?

True but higher education is what i meant.. If Atlas Shrugged is going to be required reading in high school might as well teach Marx as well.

 

[YoungConserv]

True but higher education is what i meant.. If Atlas Shrugged is going to be required reading in high school might as well teach Marx as well.

I did had a leftist English teacher that had us read portions of it as well as some Other touchy feelly tripe.

 

[LowDown]

What do you believe was her brilliant idea?

It's just my opinion, but she has a clear eyed view of human nature, which is that people are selfish and self centered. The rational system of government is one that recognizes that and harnesses those tendencies. Create a system in which exploitative relationships are for the most part win-win and that protects property rights while keeping things fair and you have a system that can work and can last, unlike leftist utopian dreams. No, it won't be a perfect system. Perfection in human institutions is impossible.

 

[TheDemSocialist]

It's just my opinion, but she has a clear eyed view of human nature, which is that people are selfish and self centered. The rational system of government is one that recognizes that and harnesses those tendencies. Create a system in which exploitative relationships are for the most part win-win and that protects property rights while keeping things fair and you have a system that can work and can last, unlike leftist utopian dreams. No, it won't be a perfect system. Perfection in human institutions is impossible.

Quick question how do you "keep things fair" especially coming from an Ayn Rand pov?

 

[Fletch]

Yes, it happens even in highly regulated societies. But it happens less.

The market does a laughable job of "punishing" businesses with harmful products or practices, because most of the time the public has no clue that anything harmful is going on. Part of that magical free market "invisible hand" you guys think exists depends on things like individuals being informed and then making rational decisions based on self-interest.

We are not rational creatures, we know very little about the world around us, and we often act against our own interests.

The punishment that the market delivers upon a corrupt or harmful operator is to make it difficult to acquire that which they most desire--easy wealth. What a free market requires--and why there is so much resistance to it--is a society that lives buy the code of 'buyer beware' and not the code of 'let the state do my thinking for me.' In a free market, you dont start with the sassumption that a product is safe or that a business is trustworthy, it is their responsibility to prove that ot you. Reputation, therefore, is the single greatest commodity that a business owner can have. If you put out a crappy or unsafe product, you are finished. That is the punishment the market hands down. The punishment the state hands down is for criminal behavior.

As for your last sentence, it 2/3 false. We are rational creatures, an we know a great deal about the world around us. The true part of your statement is that we often act against our own interests. But if we do that, reality punishes us. The problem we see now is that the state steps in to limit or erase entirely the damage irrational actions create. While that may be a big hearted response, it also increases the irrational at the expsnse of the rational. So keep suppoorting the things you do and the first 2/3 of your sentence will become more and more accurate.

 

[poweRob]

Cloud Atlas is a more fulfilling read.

So's McNally's Road Atlas.


j/k