NationStates Jolt Archive

I just wanted your opinion on the woman. I only know the basics of her philosphy. I disagree that humans themselves tend to be naturally good. There are bad apples everywhere, and in a society without law, they ruin everything. However, I like how she emphasized that the individual is to be independent, and that collectivism is inherently bad. I have minor disagreements, of course, but I find she's a genius.
She also seems like a brave woman. With no formal college education, she not only became a respected scholar, but also went against the grain of her time. She also seemed to be the lone woman in the male dominated world of acadamia.

I just wanted your opinion on the woman. I only know the basics of her philosphy. I disagree that humans themselves tend to be naturally good. There are bad apples everywhere, and in a society without law, they ruin everything. However, I like how she emphasized that the individual is to be independent, and that collectivism is inherently bad. I have minor disagreements, of course, but I find she's a genius.
She also seems like a brave woman. With no formal college education, she not only became a respected scholar, but also went against the grain of her time. She also seemed to be the lone woman in the male dominated world of acadamia.
The same argument used against pure communism can be used against pure capitalism - the perfect man does not exist, the human race is not perfect. They will exploit, they will destroy everyone around them and they will do whatever the can just to gain a bit of pleasure.

Whazza whoozza?

Not familiar with the woman, so I can't really say.

When she says that we are inherently good, she means according to her morality, which states that you should do what ever is in your best interests. She wasn't all that great.

When she says that we are inherently good, she means according to her morality, which states that you should do what ever is in your best interests. She wasn't all that great.
That part I disagree with her on. It sounds almost as if selfishness is the best way to go. But she was okay overall.

Why is "I'd shoot her if she wasn't already dead" not an option?

Alan Stang wrote some pretty interesting articles on her. Go to www.etherzone.com

Why is "I'd shoot her if she wasn't already dead" not an option?
Because we don't do that in acadamia.

The same argument used against pure communism can be used against pure capitalism - the perfect man does not exist, the human race is not perfect. They will exploit, they will destroy everyone around them and they will do whatever the can just to gain a bit of pleasure.
I agree pure capitalism is impossible, but a capitalist society is desirable. She did not argue for the economic aspects of capitalism, but rather, capitalism is the only system with a moral basis.

if you are interested in her, you should read up on the internal politics of her organization.

it sorta leads you to the "madwoman" option.

if you are interested in her, you should read up on the internal politics of her organization.

it sorta leads you to the "madwoman" option.
Of course I think she was kookoo, just like Karl Marx. He too, was a brilliant philosopher, as he was one of the most astute observers of capitalism.

I agree pure capitalism is impossible, but a capitalist society is desirable. She did not argue for the economic aspects of capitalism, but rather, capitalism is the only system with a moral basis.
Except that morality is subjective, not objective and subject to different interpretations by different people.

On a side note, did anyone who's familiar with Rush's 2112 album know it was largely based on Ayn Rand's works, especially the Fountainhead? Neil was into her philosophy bigtime, and so am I. Who the hell can argue against individual freedom and freewill? Commies! Besides, I live a hedonistic lifestyle, which she partially supported :P

Except that morality is subjective, not objective and subject to different interpretations by different people.
Then I'll replace that word with liberal. Communism, fascism, and traditional monarchies have all proven themselves to be illiberal. Liberalism is objectively moral, I could argue, because it allows the individual to seek his own morality. Obviously, restrictions will always be in place, such as morality can be sought only in a non-violent fashion. However, as of yet, a liberal system allows a person to seek his own morality farther than any illiberal systems. The only liberal system that humanity has yet thought of is capitalism. Therefore, for the time being, capitalism is the most moral of the three. If morality to a person means working at a church every Sunday, it's an individual perogative under capitalism. If it means owning a business, that's also an individual perogative. The illiberal systems of fascism, communism, and monarchy are moral to some, but not to all.

On a side note, did anyone who's familiar with Rush's 2112 album know it was largely based on Ayn Rand's works, especially the Fountainhead? Neil was into her philosophy bigtime, and so am I. Who the hell can argue against individual freedom and freewill? Commies! Besides, I live a hedonistic lifestyle, which she partially supported :P
She supported it because, as she felt, it was moral. I feel it is immoral. Then again, that's the beauty of capitalism. Your hedonistic lifestyle would be illegal in a Communist, fascist, or feudal system, unless you were one of the priviledged few (although by definition, economic priviledges ought not to exist under communism).

The biggest problem, however, is that I haven't read her book, Atlas Shrugged. I feel that I'm inferior to anyone in debates about her, because I haven't read her signature peice. However, before I do read it, I have to ask if she is a good fiction writer.
But please, cut me some slack. I'm only a teen. I'm not even in college, like most of you are past.

The biggest problem, however, is that I haven't read her book, Atlas Shrugged. I feel that I'm inferior to anyone in debates about her, because I haven't read her signature peice. However, before I do read it, I have to ask if she is a good fiction writer.
Read it then. Its a good read, even if I was trying not vomit during some of the chapters.

Then I'll replace that word with liberal. Communism, fascism, and traditional monarchies have all proven themselves to be illiberal. Liberalism is objectively moral, I could argue, because it allows the individual to seek his own morality. Obviously, restrictions will always be in place, such as morality can be sought only in a non-violent fashion. However, as of yet, a liberal system allows a person to seek his own morality farther than any illiberal systems. The only liberal system that humanity has yet thought of is capitalism. Therefore, for the time being, capitalism is the most moral of the three. If morality to a person means working at a church every Sunday, it's an individual perogative under capitalism. If it means owning a business, that's also an individual perogative. The illiberal systems of fascism, communism, and monarchy are moral to some, but not to all.
Communism has never been done before properly (as many people have pointed out) so it is impossible to say that it is illiberal, if done properly, it is in theory just as liberal as capitalism could be.

Read it then. Its a good read, even if I was trying not vomit during some of the chapters.
So, I'm guessing that it's one of those books like Mein Kampf. Insightful, but not exactly a book most people love reading. But hey, if Alan Greenspan is able to cherrypick through her philosophy, so could I. After all, I bet that Rand detested the Federal Reserve's existence. Now, her own friend is heading it.

On a side note, did anyone who's familiar with Rush's 2112 album know it was largely based on Ayn Rand's works, especially the Fountainhead? Neil was into her philosophy bigtime, and so am I. Who the hell can argue against individual freedom and freewill? Commies! Besides, I live a hedonistic lifestyle, which she partially supported :P

1. I'm a major Rush fan, so yes. [Edit: It's really only the song 2112, not the whole album. I really doubt "A Passage to Bangkok" is inspired by Ayn Rand ;)]

2. It's based more on the novel Anthem specifically, in that the man is living in a society which opresses his expression (music).

3. He gave up her philosophy once he found out she had denounced rock music, around 1978.

If anyone doesn't know what we're talking about, you can find lyrics to Rush's 2112 here: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/2112.html [The stuff in single quotes are little descriptions and a story included in the lyric jacket]. It's from the album 2112 released in 1976. Running time: 20:31.

Communism has never been done before properly (as many people have pointed out) so it is impossible to say that it is illiberal, if done properly, it is in theory just as liberal as capitalism could be.
I believe it has been. No, not the one in the USSR, but in Cambodia. Whether or not Maoism can be considered a form of communism (and I believe it is) is subject to debate. However, I have studied the Maoist regime of Pol Pot. It was the closest thing to Marxist (and Maois) philosophy that I have ever read.
Pol Pot was, in some ways, a genius and a radical at the same time, because he was convinced of the sucess of communism. He thus tried to create the super collectivist state. He closed all markets, hospitals, schools, and most importantly, Buddhist monasteries. He emptied cities (Phnom Penh had only 15% of its original population by 1980) and sent them to collective farms. Families were separated, and he wanted anyone on the farm to depend on eachother, even if that meaned heartbreak. He abolished private property, and even currency. He was led into the same arrogance of many communist leaders, convincing him that he could conquer a lot. He tried to conquer Southern Vietnam, yet the Vietnamese sent an occupation force to Phnom Penh. It'd be interesting to see what would've happened if the Vietnamese never invaded. However, I believe that if Pol Pot stayed in Cambodia, communism would be a fact of life. It wasn't pure, but it was the closest to pure communism humanity has ever been. Mao would've been green with envy if he was alive (or was he? I can't remember).

1. I'm a major Rush fan, so yes. [Edit: It's really only the song 2112, not the whole album. I really doubt "A Passage to Bangkok" is inspired by Ayn Rand ;)]

2. It's based more on the novel Anthem specifically, in that the man is living in a society which opresses his expression (music).

3. He gave up her philosophy once he found out she had denounced rock music, around 1978.

If anyone doesn't know what we're talking about, you can find lyrics to Rush's 2112 here: http://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/2112.html [The stuff in single quotes are little descriptions and a story included in the lyric jacket]. It's from the album 2112 released in 1976. Running time: 20:31.
It was probably because of who rock brought to their concerts. It was a breeding ground for communist, even though the majority of rock listeners (and rock musicians) aren't communists. But the communists I know love rock. They couldn't stand a minute, however, of country, or swing music (or did she denounce these, too?).

I believe it has been. No, not the one in the USSR, but in Cambodia. Whether or not Maoism can be considered a form of communism (and I believe it is) is subject to debate. However, I have studied the Maoist regime of Pol Pot. It was the closest thing to Marxist (and Maois) philosophy that I have ever read.
Pol Pot was, in some ways, a genius and a radical at the same time, because he was convinced of the sucess of communism. He thus tried to create the super collectivist state. He closed all markets, hospitals, schools, and most importantly, Buddhist monasteries. He emptied cities (Phnom Penh had only 15% of its original population by 1980) and sent them to collective farms. Families were separated, and he wanted anyone on the farm to depend on eachother, even if that meaned heartbreak. He abolished private property, and even currency. He was led into the same arrogance of many communist leaders, convincing him that he could conquer a lot. He tried to conquer Southern Vietnam, yet the Vietnamese sent an occupation force to Phnom Penh. It'd be interesting to see what would've happened if the Vietnamese never invaded. However, I believe that if Pol Pot stayed in Cambodia, communism would be a fact of life. It wasn't pure, but it was the closest to pure communism humanity has ever been. Mao would've been green with envy if he was alive (or was he? I can't remember).

I wouldn't call Cambodia the closest we have gotten (Cuba), and I really don't think that it even got close, but I'd defer to someone who knows a bit more (like Free Soviets once he gets on...).

2112 was based on Anthem. A pretty good book that can be read in an afternoon. 2112 follows it's plot very closely. I strongly vote genius. I know her personal life was a mess, but whose isn't? This does not detract from her philosophy. She provided a moral basis for capitalism as the only just economic system at a time when the rest of the world was convinced tha.t communism was the way of the future. She did much to shape the intellectual dialog in the US and her influence is felt to this day.

So, I'm guessing that it's one of those books like Mein Kampf. Insightful, but not exactly a book most people love reading. But hey, if Alan Greenspan is able to cherrypick through her philosophy, so could I. After all, I bet that Rand detested the Federal Reserve's existence. Now, her own friend is heading it.
Insightful...eh, not really, just a massive propaganda piece, but it has the detail/character development that I like. Even if I was disargeeing with every point that she made.

I believe it has been. No, not the one in the USSR, but in Cambodia. Whether or not Maoism can be considered a form of communism (and I believe it is) is subject to debate. However, I have studied the Maoist regime of Pol Pot. It was the closest thing to Marxist (and Maois) philosophy that I have ever read.
Pol Pot was, in some ways, a genius and a radical at the same time, because he was convinced of the sucess of communism. He thus tried to create the super collectivist state. He closed all markets, hospitals, schools, and most importantly, Buddhist monasteries. He emptied cities (Phnom Penh had only 15% of its original population by 1980) and sent them to collective farms. Families were separated, and he wanted anyone on the farm to depend on eachother, even if that meaned heartbreak. He abolished private property, and even currency. He was led into the same arrogance of many communist leaders, convincing him that he could conquer a lot. He tried to conquer Southern Vietnam, yet the Vietnamese sent an occupation force to Phnom Penh. It'd be interesting to see what would've happened if the Vietnamese never invaded. However, I believe that if Pol Pot stayed in Cambodia, communism would be a fact of life. It wasn't pure, but it was the closest to pure communism humanity has ever been. Mao would've been green with envy if he was alive (or was he? I can't remember).

Yeah, he was alive. The communists took Cambodia April 17, 1975. Mao died sometime in '76.

Yeah, he was alive. The communists took Cambodia April 17, 1975. Mao died sometime in '76.
Oh. Well, he must have supported this little start-up state. During the reign of the Khmer Rouge, China officially supported them, especially once Vietnam occupied Cambodia. Hell, even the US supported them, because at the time, China and the US were allies.

Oh. Well, he must have supported this little start-up state. During the reign of the Khmer Rouge, China officially supported them, especially once Vietnam occupied Cambodia. Hell, even the US supported them, because at the time, China and the US were allies.

China and Cambodia were staunch allies. In fact, China attacked Vietnam for invading Cambodia. They had a nasty little three-month war in late '78/early '79, sometime around then. About 20,000 people were killed. Vietnam won.

Insightful...eh, not really, just a massive propaganda piece, but it has the detail/character development that I like. Even if I was disargeeing with every point that she made.
Oh, okay. But I'm sure it isn't propaganda. She did have something to say, and it wasn't what she knew was false. If so, why did she support it so much?

China and Cambodia were staunch allies. In fact, China attacked Vietnam for invading Cambodia. They had a nasty little three-month war in late '78/early '79, sometime around then. About 20,000 people were killed. Vietnam won.
I thought it was just a police action by China, because China wanted to "teach Vietnam a lesson". And I also thought that the Chinese withdrew because they just wanted to show their disgust. I guess the Vietnamese won though. You're more of an expert on this than I am.
Then again, I wonder if the Vietnamese have ever lost a war. It seems like they are the military equivilant of the energizer bunny.

I thought it was just a police action by China, because China wanted to "teach Vietnam a lesson". And I also thought that the Chinese withdrew because they just wanted to show their disgust. I guess the Vietnamese won though. You're more of an expert on this than I am.
Then again, I wonder if the Vietnamese have ever lost a war. It seems like they are the military equivilant of the energizer bunny.

Yeah, Cambodia launched nearly a hundred (maybe hundreds) of attacks on Thailand, Cambodia, and (I think) Laos, trying to regain territory that was part of the ancient Khmer empire hundreds of years ago. Vietnam got pissed, sent in between 100,000 and 200,000 troops, and scrubbed the floor with the Khmer Rouge. China got pissed, tried to teach Vietnam a lesson, but ended up being taught a lesson instead. Vietnam did in fact lose to many people over the centuries: China and France, who occupied Vietnam at various points in history. The U.S. would have beaten the shit out of N. Vietnam in less than three months had it not been for the rules of engagement, but then again, that's a topic for a different thread.

Oh, okay. But I'm sure it isn't propaganda. She did have something to say, and it wasn't what she knew was false. If so, why did she support it so much?
Nothing says that propaganda has to be false.

bump (just this once)

Patron saint of nutbars everywhere. And one of the crappiest "novelists" I ever yawned my way through - her wooden, emotionally-flatlined characters remind me of 1950s Soviet tractor art.

Judging from what I've read so far on this thread, I would have to say that I'm the only one who has bothered to read her work.

When I first read Rand's work ("Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" was the first of her books that I read) I had only recently come across the idea of laissez-faire capitalism; I agreed with the idea of less government interference with society and more privatisation but not to the extent laissez-faire capitalism proposed. After reading some of her works I now agree that laissez-faire capitalism, as well as being a practical political-economic system, is the only moral system because it protects an individual's rights, which I did not comprehend prior to reading her work.

I have not read enough of her work to fully grasp her philosophy, Objectivism, but I know enough to know that she made no exceptions. When it came to accepting people into her circle of friends she was very rigid in who was allowed into her group. Rand's own rigidness and the rigidness of her philosophy are probably the main reasons of what turns people off from following it; they see it as being no different to mainstream religions. However, the main difference between Objectivism and mainstream religion is that Objectivism contains no contradictions, hence it's rigid nature. Many have tried to criticise Objectivism over the years, all have been successfully rebutted by Objectivism's proponents.

As for her famous novel "Atlas Shrugged", I would have to agree that it is not perfect. She did not have any major editing done to the work, which is the reason why you will see mistakes throughout the book. Also, some of parts of the books seem repetitive. The book's protagonists seem to repeat the same themes on a number of occasions. The book's main protagonists appear unnaturally superhuman to many; they sleep for a few hours a day and spend most of their day working on tasks without effort and with ease. Many, including Objectivists, mistaken this as Rand's idea of what a human should be like. However, the aim of her main protagonists was to show what she believed was her ideal human being, that such human beings are possible and that everyone in general should strive to be the best human they can possibly be during their lifetime. As for the book, the main aim was to show what would happen to society if it were run by those who rejected rationality and reason and that those who had not rejected it were merely working towards their own destruction by accepting the actions of the collectivists and making no attempts to fight against them. You need only look at communist, African and totalitarian societies to realise that Rand was right.

If you consider yourself to be an individual I suggest that you read some of her work. I believe that you can't past judgment on her work and her philosophy unless you read it for yourself.

Judging from what I've read so far on this thread, I would have to say that I'm the only one who has bothered to read her work.

When I first read Rand's work ("Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal" was the first of her books that I read) I had only recently come across the idea of laissez-faire capitalism; I agreed with the idea of less government interference with society and more privatisation but not to the extent laissez-faire capitalism proposed. After reading some of her works I now agree that laissez-faire capitalism, as well as being a practical political-economic system, is the only moral system because it protects an individual's rights, which I did not comprehend prior to reading her work.

I have not read enough of her work to fully grasp her philosophy, Objectivism, but I know enough to know that she made no exceptions. When it came to accepting people into her circle of friends she was very rigid in who was allowed into her group. Rand's own rigidness and the rigidness of her philosophy are probably the main reasons of what turns people off from following it; they see it as being no different to mainstream religions. However, the main difference between Objectivism and mainstream religion is that Objectivism contains no contradictions, hence it's rigid nature. Many have tried to criticise Objectivism over the years, all have been successfully rebutted by Objectivism's proponents.

As for her famous novel "Atlas Shrugged", I would have to agree that it is not perfect. She did not have any major editing done to the work, which is the reason why you will see mistakes throughout the book. Also, some of parts of the books seem repetitive. The book's protagonists seem to repeat the same themes on a number of occasions. The book's main protagonists appear unnaturally superhuman to many; they sleep for a few hours a day and spend most of their day working on tasks without effort and with ease. Many, including Objectivists, mistaken this as Rand's idea of what a human should be like. However, the aim of her main protagonists was to show what she believed was her ideal human being, that such human beings are possible and that everyone in general should strive to be the best human they can possibly be during their lifetime. As for the book, the main aim was to show what would happen to society if it were run by those who rejected rationality and reason and that those who had not rejected it were merely working towards their own destruction by accepting the actions of the collectivists and making no attempts to fight against them. You need only look at communist, African and totalitarian societies to realise that Rand was right.

If you consider yourself to be an individual I suggest that you read some of her work. I believe that you can't past judgment on her work and her philosophy unless you read it for yourself.
I'm actually skipping around right now reading Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Man, she was strict. But the more I read of her, the more I find I agree with her.
For one, she said that seeking a PhD for yourself is better for society than, say, digging an irrigation ditch in Africa. Why? Because with a PhD, I can find ways to farm with far less water. She endorses an idea I've been afraid to mention, but I'm glad she supports: building an economy is the best form of charity.
I also agree with her (mostly) on another subject: war in general. War is started by groups that either run an illiberal economy, or even a mixed regime. It is akin to looting. I can think of a modern example. Saddam Hussein needed cash to rebuild his country (and his palaces) after the Iran-Iraq war. Allowing for a free market, however, would ruin his power. So he invaded Kuwait, the equivilant of an ungarded bank. He was intending to loot that country's financial resources for his own use, and make Kuwait a full provence of Iraq. I also agree with her on the draft. While it is immoral, it supports the most useless of all military branches: the army. It isn't totally useless, but it didn't have the premier role like it did before airplanes, or cruise missiles.
However, I find it hard to agree with her that all war (with the exception of self defense, of course) is immoral, because it is an act of looting by a statist regime. Elements of a statist regime existed in the federal government during the three wars of her career (WWII, Korea, and Vietnam), but, as she even predicted in the sixties, a rising political star (she singled out Ronald Reagan) would help to eliminate such a government. That he did to a very large extent. Anyhow, I'm Wilsonian on foreign policy issues. War is necessary for peace. I believe Wilson was sincere when he said WWI was to make the world "safe for democracy", and I believed he failed because he didn't have any support for it back home. I subscribe to this ideaology, and believe that this is a legitamit cause for war. Even if statist elements are involved, a well executed war of national domination will encourage capitalism and individual liberty to flourish.
I have to admit, I've only started reading her books. I don't necessarily agree with her on all points, but from what I was being told on here, I'm surprised how much I do agree with her. I'm actually excited to read more of her writtings, even if she was a selfish hedonist.

Nothing says that propaganda has to be false.
True. By definition, we're all bombarded by propaganda from everyone. Did you know that it is estimated that most humans see up to 15,000 propagandic images every day?

Yeah, Cambodia launched nearly a hundred (maybe hundreds) of attacks on Thailand, Cambodia, and (I think) Laos, trying to regain territory that was part of the ancient Khmer empire hundreds of years ago. Vietnam got pissed, sent in between 100,000 and 200,000 troops, and scrubbed the floor with the Khmer Rouge. China got pissed, tried to teach Vietnam a lesson, but ended up being taught a lesson instead. Vietnam did in fact lose to many people over the centuries: China and France, who occupied Vietnam at various points in history. The U.S. would have beaten the shit out of N. Vietnam in less than three months had it not been for the rules of engagement, but then again, that's a topic for a different thread.
It makes me feel comfortable to know that they were once occupied. I was hoping that Vietnam wasn't made of uber soldiers.

I found her "overly rational" she often did not take the emotional state of humanity into account. She was too logical - there is such a thing.

As for her philosophy, I disagree with most of it. I support collectivism, at least to some extent.

I haven't read any of her strictly philosophical discourses, I've only read the novels Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged which I thought were extremely entertaining reads but I disagree with several aspects of her philosophy.

She belives all humans have the same potential for greatness and when one fails at life one has only to blame oneself. There is a very important point I think she shares with communism - the belief in equality of all people's abilities and decency. I think it is at this point that both Objectivism and communism trip up... it is obvious not all people are born equal, some are born smarter than others, some stronger, some are born crippled. Therefore it is nearly impossible to enforce a communist society where all people are equal and working harmoniously and it is also a fallacy for Objectivists to say that the only reasons for failing at life is laziness and lack of willpower. Theres much more to failing at life - maybe the person is just weaker and not as intelligent as his peers. Ayn Rand explicitly rejected biological/genetic 'predeterminism' and that I think totally ignores reality and undermines the soundness of her philosophy.

Communism and objectivism would only work if people were morally perfect - in both communism and objectivism there is never dishonesty or cheating among people. Howard Roark in 'The Fountainhead' for example achieves his success through nothing but ability. This is impossible in real life where corporate high rollers use deception, connections, and other methods other than just raw ability. Thats why the articles from Ayn Rand Institute are a total farce... no-talents like Leonard Peikoff extol and fawn over today's corporate moguls, glorifying them as prime movers even though all corporate bosses cheat, lie, and pull connections, completely contrary to the teachings of Ayn Rand and objectivism.

I haven't read any of her strictly philosophical discourses, I've only read the novels Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged which I thought were extremely entertaining reads but I disagree with several aspects of her philosophy.

She belives all humans have the same potential for greatness and when one fails at life one has only to blame oneself. There is a very important point I think she shares with communism - the belief in equality of all people's abilities and decency. I think it is at this point that both Objectivism and communism trip up... it is obvious not all people are born equal, some are born smarter than others, some stronger, some are born crippled. Therefore it is nearly impossible to enforce a communist society where all people are equal and working harmoniously and it is also a fallacy for Objectivists to say that the only reasons for failing at life is laziness and lack of willpower. Theres much more to failing at life - maybe the person is just weaker and not as intelligent as his peers. Ayn Rand explicitly rejected biological/genetic 'predeterminism' and that I think totally ignores reality and undermines the soundness of her philosophy.

Communism and objectivism would only work if people were morally perfect - in both communism and objectivism there is never dishonesty or cheating among people. Howard Roark in 'The Fountainhead' for example achieves his success through nothing but ability. This is impossible in real life where corporate high rollers use deception, connections, and other methods other than just raw ability. Thats why the articles from Ayn Rand Institute are a total farce... no-talents like Leonard Peikoff extol and fawn over today's corporate moguls, glorifying them as prime movers even though all corporate bosses cheat, lie, and pull connections, completely contrary to the teachings of Ayn Rand and objectivism.
Certainly some do, but not all. I believe that, unlike Ayn Rand, bad apples can be scattered throughout the place. However, considering that in the US today, most millionaires are self-made. Bill Gates is the richest man alive (and one of the most powerful) because he invented something far superior than anything at the time. Ray Kroc, legendary CEO of McDonalds, was a blender salesman that believed in McDonald's so much, that he invested in it. And from an anecdotal point of view, my grandfather built a sucessful real estate/construction business because he was hard working.
Humanity certainly isn't littered with those capable of being multibillionaires, but everyone can have their niche. If they exploit it, they can be perfectly happy and productive in life. Of course, you'd say that collectivism is the best way to overcome this. I say this is true only for those who are brain dead, or perhaps those severly retarded. Otherwise, humans can overcome their disabilities. I know I have.

Why is "I'd shoot her if she wasn't already dead" not an option?

So would I and I'm normally a pacifist.

She supported it because, as she felt, it was moral. I feel it is immoral. Then again, that's the beauty of capitalism. Your hedonistic lifestyle would be illegal in a Communist, fascist, or feudal system, unless you were one of the priviledged few (although by definition, economic priviledges ought not to exist under communism).

Genuine communism doesn't have an élite. Capitalism does, though. I seriously doubt the poor have the option of engaging in hedonism.

I found her "overly rational" she often did not take the emotional state of humanity into account. She was too logical - there is such a thing.

My view exactly. She's a grade A example of how logic can lead to authoritarianism.

I thought it was just a police action by China, because China wanted to "teach Vietnam a lesson". And I also thought that the Chinese withdrew because they just wanted to show their disgust. I guess the Vietnamese won though. You're more of an expert on this than I am.
Then again, I wonder if the Vietnamese have ever lost a war. It seems like they are the military equivilant of the energizer bunny.
The 1979 China-Vietnam war is generally considered a Chinese victory... China could easily have conquered Vietnam... several Vietnam guerilla armies penetrated the jungles of southern China but were annihilated while the Chinese army defeated Vietnamese soldiers guarding the pass to Hanoi which made the Vietnamese capital undefended. China withdrew because it didn't really want to conquer Vietnam (which would draw the ire of the USSR), just incite a bit of chaos in northern Vietnam as a punishment for border disputes, Vietnam invasion in Cambodia, and purported Vietnamese abuse of Chinese nationals. The UN also put pressure on China since world opinion held that in this instance China was the wrongdoer. Both sides lost a lot of people though and I think Vietnam was right to oust the Khmer Rouge.

That part I disagree with her on. It sounds almost as if selfishness is the best way to go. But she was okay overall.

Well, under her conceptualization, it's not just the best way to go, but the only way to go. One of her basic premises is that all creatures act out of self interest and that self-interest is, fundamentally, their own survival. As John Galt said, "There is only one fundamental alternative in the universe: existence or non-existence--and it pertains to a single class of entities: to living organisms."

I used to love Rand when I was a teenager. The Objectivist viewpoint that reality is exclusively defined by our sense perceptions and that only reason is capable of then evaluating that sensory data and making an objective decision was easy to digest and very sustaining. Also, I'm sure I thought toting around books like Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness was far preferable than being seen with books like The Witch of Blackbird Pond or anything from the Sweet Valley High series.

The problem is, however, when you look at her ideas and, indeed, the way she practiced them in her own life, things get messy. Her views sounds less and less reasonable and rational and more and more, harsh, didactic and authoritarian, mirroring the very systems of thought they were designed to oppose. She also displayed a profound lack of understanding of human psychology (as well as capitialism and the forces that drive it, for that matter) which indicates that her philosophy, while interesting, is purely academic and so rarified as to be not truly applicable to everyday life.

Was she a genius? Well, that definition is vauge. Is she on par with people like Einstein, Darwin and Adam Smith? Probably not. Is she on par with people like Kant, Nietzsche and Jung? Most likely. She makes good points, sometimes, and, ironically enough, usually in bad prose. Her ideals in practice, however, are flawed because they lead to the very same end result that she was attempting to refute.

Certainly some do, but not all. I believe that, unlike Ayn Rand, bad apples can be scattered throughout the place. However, considering that in the US today, most millionaires are self-made. Bill Gates is the richest man alive (and one of the most powerful) because he invented something far superior than anything at the time. Ray Kroc, legendary CEO of McDonalds, was a blender salesman that believed in McDonald's so much, that he invested in it. And from an anecdotal point of view, my grandfather built a sucessful real estate/construction business because he was hard working.
However part of business rests on charm and social skills to pull connections. Some clients may settle for a lousier product if the lousier product's maker is their personal friend. This irrationality governs human behavior and thus makes a real free market impossible. Objectivism however rejects the notion that work should be tainted with our emotions and human likes/dislikes. Notice that all the prime movers in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged - Roark, Rearden, etc. - are all sociopaths with no friends but are wildly successful just because of their skills. This is absolutely impossible in real life where human interaction and relations is as important as skills. Surely BIll Gates and your grandfather made a lot of friends who they could rely on when the time comes in business. I am not saying this is a bad thing, in fact we should all make friends in life or business, but it disproves Objectivism which pictures people as isolated individuals who don't need the help of others or society. And when a salesman is trying to sell you something he will of course focus only on the good things about the product and won't talk about the bad aspects. Though this is deceptive this is totally legitimate business tactics but also would not fit with Objectivism's faith in complete rationality and complete knowledge.

Humanity certainly isn't littered with those capable of being multibillionaires, but everyone can have their niche. If they exploit it, they can be perfectly happy and productive in life. Of course, you'd say that collectivism is the best way to overcome this.
True, but I also agree with you that collectivism will make everyone equally poor. I'm for capitalism but not just the unbridled capitalism that Ayn Rand thinks is practical in real life. I think compassion and charity are positive values too.

I agree that most people if they worked hard will live a decent life. But Ayn Rand and orthodox Objectivism believed if people worked hard enough anyone could achieve anything they wanted. It is obvious that not many people can be an Albert Einstein, no matter how hard they worked or how much they wanted to reach the goal. Ayn Rand is wrong to disregard people's natural, genetically-determined traits.

Hardwork and love of one's work is one of Ayn Rand's themes, as is illustrated by her respect for the manual laborer Mike in Fountainhead. That is why I like Ayn Rand's definition of excellence vs. mediocrity... excellence is passion and mediocrity is laziness. However in real life excellence and mediocrity are defined by prejudicial views of class and occupation. For example there may be a very hardworking, reliable janitor who has found his niche but society will never give him the respect he deserves because his occupation is considered by most to be lowly.

Objectivism is, to some, a very cold philosohpy.

Metaphysics: Objective Reality
Epistemology: Reason
Ethics: Self-Interest
Politics: Laissez-Faire Capitalism

Existance exists, rational thought, altruism is self-destructive egoism, and completely unregulated trade among people are the basis of an Objectivist philosiphy.

Just a reminder.

wow coincidence, I just bought Atlas shrugged yesterday after wanting to buy it for quite a while. I havent started it yet so can't comment on her philosophy but what do reckon was her best book?

wow coincidence, I just bought Atlas shrugged yesterday after wanting to buy it for quite a while. I havent started it yet so can't comment on her philosophy but what do reckon was her best book?

For story or for a clear statement of her philosophical ideals? For story, I think We The Living is probably her best prose. For philosophical ideals, and avoiding her outright objectivist treatises, I'd say The Fountainhead lays it all down and Atlas Shrugged shows what she thinks happens when it all goes wrong.

She's the exact opposite of me:

Metaphysics: Subjective Reality
Epistemology: Intuition
Ethics: Golden Rule
Politics: Amarcho-Communism

My view exactly. She's a grade A example of how logic can lead to authoritarianism.
You got spanked on that so hard that I wonder why you're trying that bullshit again.

When you can show how 1 = 1 can ever lead to "authoritarianism", then I will listen to you on this. Until then, consider this your reminder that you're just a fucking lunatic.

She's the exact opposite of me:

Metaphysics: Subjective Reality
Reality isn't what you want it to be. Ergo, you're a fucking loon.

Epistemology: Intuition
I could "intuit" that 2+2=5 or that a large dose of cyanide won't kill me, but that doesn't make it so (and in fact is demonstrably false). Ergo, you're a fucking loon.

Ethics: Golden Rule
She advocated that.

Politics: Amarcho-Communism
Ah yes. The oxymoron stemming from your metaphysics and epistemology.

However part of business rests on charm and social skills to pull connections. Some clients may settle for a lousier product if the lousier product's maker is their personal friend. This irrationality governs human behavior and thus makes a real free market impossible. Objectivism however rejects the notion that work should be tainted with our emotions and human likes/dislikes. Notice that all the prime movers in the Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged - Roark, Rearden, etc. - are all sociopaths with no friends but are wildly successful just because of their skills. This is absolutely impossible in real life where human interaction and relations is as important as skills. Surely BIll Gates and your grandfather made a lot of friends who they could rely on when the time comes in business. I am not saying this is a bad thing, in fact we should all make friends in life or business, but it disproves Objectivism which pictures people as isolated individuals who don't need the help of others or society. And when a salesman is trying to sell you something he will of course focus only on the good things about the product and won't talk about the bad aspects. Though this is deceptive this is totally legitimate business tactics but also would not fit with Objectivism's faith in complete rationality and complete knowledge.
I both agree and disagree with this. To some people, socialization is ncessessary to survive. To others, however, friends are mere ornaments. I do not particularly agree with Rand when she says such redicolous things such as sharing is a form of collectivism. Yet I do feel that individual humans are capable of much more than even most of us realize.[/quote]

True, but I also agree with you that collectivism will make everyone equally poor. I'm for capitalism but not just the unbridled capitalism that Ayn Rand thinks is practical in real life. I think compassion and charity are positive values too.
I think the misconception is that Objectivism is just some weird philosophy that absolutly no one could follow without going mad, like sopholism. I disagree. It's possible to cherry pick in objectivism. Alan Greenspan was a friend of Rand, and look at him. He's in the position that I have a feeling Rand dispised.
I agree that most people if they worked hard will live a decent life. But Ayn Rand and orthodox Objectivism believed if people worked hard enough anyone could achieve anything they wanted. It is obvious that not many people can be an Albert Einstein, no matter how hard they worked or how much they wanted to reach the goal. Ayn Rand is wrong to disregard people's natural, genetically-determined traits.
Again, I reiterate that we humans don't know half the things we are capable of. People who sociologically isolate themselves, loners, are sometimes preffered for a certain line of work. They thrive as professionals. I know that many generals have said that special forces are filled with them, for their ability to work alone. I don't know enough about Objectivism to know if I'll follow an orthodox strain, although I probably won't. However, half of the reason why objectivism is so slowly accepted, even in academia, is beause no one these days seems comfortable being alone. I have a feeling that this is what Rand is speaking out against. She repeatedly says that once a victim is disarmed ideaologically, he even seeks his own demise. She felt that society has been trained for too long to be socially dependent, and in some aspects, I agree. Then again, I'm sort of a loner myself, so I'd bet I'd find it easier to accept objectivism. I wonder if Greenspan is.
Hardwork and love of one's work is one of Ayn Rand's themes, as is illustrated by her respect for the manual laborer Mike in Fountainhead. That is why I like Ayn Rand's definition of excellence vs. mediocrity... excellence is passion and mediocrity is laziness. However in real life excellence and mediocrity are defined by prejudicial views of class and occupation. For example there may be a very hardworking, reliable janitor who has found his niche but society will never give him the respect he deserves because his occupation is considered by most to be lowly.
It is unfortunate that society must be like this, and with this, I agree completely. However, if the janitor loves working as a janitor, what more can we ask from him?

You got spanked on that so hard that I wonder why you're trying that bullshit again.

When you can show how 1 = 1 can ever lead to "authoritarianism", then I will listen to you on this. Until then, consider this your reminder that you're just a fucking lunatic.

That alone doesn't, but logic can and often does lead to viewing people as abstract concepts and other things that lead to authoritarian views. I see it in capitalist economics all the time.

Reality isn't what you want it to be. Ergo, you're a fucking loon.

How do you know? The fact that people disagree on so much seems to suggest that reality isn't objective. Look at differing ideas of attractiveness or the existance of neonazis convinced that they are right.

I could "intuit" that 2+2=5 or that a large dose of cyanide won't kill me, but that doesn't make it so (and in fact is demonstrably false). Ergo, you're a fucking loon.

I don't see why you would. Neonazis regularly use logic to "prove" that the Holocaust never happened, but that doesn't mean that they are right.

She advocated that.

Egoism is the opposed of the Golden rule unless I'm thinking of a different one.

Ah yes. The oxymoron stemming from your metaphysics and epistemology.

It's not an oxymoron at all. Voluntarily choosing to share products you helped make isn't an impossibility.

The 1979 China-Vietnam war is generally considered a Chinese victory... China could easily have conquered Vietnam... several Vietnam guerilla armies penetrated the jungles of southern China but were annihilated while the Chinese army defeated Vietnamese soldiers guarding the pass to Hanoi which made the Vietnamese capital undefended. China withdrew because it didn't really want to conquer Vietnam (which would draw the ire of the USSR), just incite a bit of chaos in northern Vietnam as a punishment for border disputes, Vietnam invasion in Cambodia, and purported Vietnamese abuse of Chinese nationals. The UN also put pressure on China since world opinion held that in this instance China was the wrongdoer. Both sides lost a lot of people though and I think Vietnam was right to oust the Khmer Rouge.
So I was right. It was just a little action to let Vietnam know that its northern neighbor wasn't happy.
And I agree that Vietnam did the right thing. But in a way, I almost wish it didn't. The Khmer Rouge was an experiment, and the closest humanity has ever come to communism. Would it cause internal revolt? Would Pol Pot morph into George Orwell's Big Brother, an omnipresent figure that exists in the mythology of the leadership? Or, would humanity embrace this strain of communism. I doubt the latter would've happen. Even Stalin would've thought that Pol Pot was off his rocker.
But like I said, it was best that Vietnam invaded. They ended the worst genocide that Cambodia has ever known. I wonder, though, if the collective farms disapeared during the Vietnamese occupation.

I used to love Rand when I was a teenager. The Objectivist viewpoint that reality is exclusively defined by our sense perceptions and that only reason is capable of then evaluating that sensory data and making an objective decision was easy to digest and very sustaining. Also, I'm sure I thought toting around books like Objectivist Epistemology and The Virtue of Selfishness was far preferable than being seen with books like The Witch of Blackbird Pond or anything from the Sweet Valley High series.
Are you sure you're not related to her?

The problem is, however, when you look at her ideas and, indeed, the way she practiced them in her own life, things get messy. Her views sounds less and less reasonable and rational and more and more, harsh, didactic and authoritarian, mirroring the very systems of thought they were designed to oppose.
As she would've argued, it would've been her choice. But I do agree she was weird.
She also displayed a profound lack of understanding of human psychology (as well as capitialism and the forces that drive it, for that matter) which indicates that her philosophy, while interesting, is purely academic and so rarified as to be not truly applicable to everyday life.
Perhaps she got the forces of capitalism wrong, but why psychology? We humans know far too little to judge who's right: the psychologists or Ayn Rand. However, I have a feeling it was influenced by Sigmund Freud. Rand had an anti-social philosophy, and Freud seemed to have an anti-social psychology: either everything was your fault, or your mother's.
Was she a genius? Well, that definition is vauge. Is she on par with people like Einstein, Darwin and Adam Smith? Probably not. Is she on par with people like Kant, Nietzsche and Jung? Most likely. She makes good points, sometimes, and, ironically enough, usually in bad prose. Her ideals in practice, however, are flawed because they lead to the very same end result that she was attempting to refute.
Don't know much about Nietzche, except his famous quote: "What doesn't kill you only makes you stronger". I find that philosophy not only true, but very comforting in my life. Unfortunatly, I haven't seen Fight Club yet.

You got spanked on that so hard that I wonder why you're trying that bullshit again.

When you can show how 1 = 1 can ever lead to "authoritarianism", then I will listen to you on this. Until then, consider this your reminder that you're just a fucking lunatic.
That alone doesn't, but logic can and often does lead to viewing people as abstract concepts
No, it can't and never does, you lunatic.

Now show that logic can lead to "authoritarianism". Remember: you're going to have to use logic to show it.


Reality isn't what you want it to be. Ergo, you're a fucking loon.
How do you know?
I want that reality has that I have a million dollars.

*waits*

Nope, I don't have a million dollars. You're a fucking loon.


I could "intuit" that 2+2=5 or that a large dose of cyanide won't kill me, but that doesn't make it so (and in fact is demonstrably false). Ergo, you're a fucking loon.
I don't see why you would.
Irrelevant. The fact remains that I could, and that is what matters.

Neonazis regularly use logic to "prove" that the Holocaust never happened,
No, they use faulty reasoning. Learn the difference, lunatic.


She advocated that.
Egoism is the opposed of the Golden rule unless I'm thinking of a different one.
You're thinking of egoTism. Learn the difference.


Ah yes. The oxymoron stemming from your metaphysics and epistemology.
It's not an oxymoron at all.
Certainly is. You need a government for it. Ergo, oxymoron.

Patron saint of nutbars everywhere. And one of the crappiest "novelists" I ever yawned my way through - her wooden, emotionally-flatlined characters remind me of 1950s Soviet tractor art.Isn't it interesting how orthodox libertarians are just as dogmatic as orthodox communists? It's like they attract the same personalities and that it is only a question of which gets to them first or second. This may explain why a great many aged market zealots used to be commies in the sixties.

Today market zealots argue that they see the inevitable picture of "The Future". After visiting the Soviet Union in 1919, Lincoln Steffens said, "I have seen the future and it works". Selective eyesight was necessary in both cases.

When the IMF / World Bank wanted to build a hydroelectric damn in Guatemala, the natives who would have been flooded out protested - and were massacred by the Guatemalan army. Capitalists have a rather Stalinistic attitude toward hurrying the "inevitable" and how to deal with those who stand in the way of their notion of progress.

Likewise the WTO, IMF and World Bank worked together to force many African nations to dismantle their health care systems and privatize everything in the midst of the AIDS crisis. Hence there is no heath care infrastructure left. Doctors formerly employed by their governments were suddenly unemployed and forced to go into private practice. They soon discovered that their impoverished patients couldn't afford to pay them. Market zealots assumed that plucky entrepreneurs would fill the vacuum; but apparently there is little profit to be made in treating poor people, so the only outside help comes from charity. JAMA, The Journal of the American Medical Association, estimates that every year, about 1.5 million Africans die of HIV/AIDS. Privatization has been the capitalist equivalent to Stalin's Five Year Plans.

And it is not only AIDS. Many water-borne diseases, formerly thought to have been vanquished forever, are back thanks to privatized water treatment facilities. Apparently, market zealots feel people should have to pay for clean drinking water, and unsurprisingly many can't afford it. That’s sort of what happens when you put basic services up to the highest bidder: not everyone gets them - and in poor countries most people don't get them.

Most philosophers are total nutters anyways. I had one philosophy teacher who would read articles from the Weekly World News and I had another who didn't quite understand the concept of a joke.

Most philosophers are total nutters anyways. I had one philosophy teacher who would read articles from the Weekly World News and I had another who didn't quite understand the concept of a joke.
I'd have to agree. I took a week long philosophy class at a college program for high schoolers. I have to say that the teacher, who was seeking a PhD in philosophy, seemed quite normal (except his occaisonal quips on extensensualism). He was the guy, however, that taught me that there's a school called sopholism. They believe that anything outside their minds doesn't exist, and that everything is an elaborate mind game. In fact, they may have started existing only a short time before hand. They never had a childhood, they reason, and are filled with memories of one that didn't happen. It's a very weird school of thought.

No, it can't and never does, you lunatic.

Now show that logic can lead to "authoritarianism". Remember: you're going to have to use logic to show it.

The best example is eugenics. That sacrifices freedom for a logical end. If you focus on the logic, it seems like a good idea.

I want that reality has that I have a million dollars.

*waits*

Nope, I don't have a million dollars. You're a fucking loon.

Value is a subjective concept. You don't have it because others believe you don't have it

Irrelevant. The fact remains that I could, and that is what matters.

I could use logic to show those things. From your point of view, I wouldn't be applying logic correctly. From my point of view, you aren't applying intuition correctly.

You're thinking of egoTism. Learn the difference.

Egoism is the ethical view that all actions should benefit the doer. It is the opposite of altruism, which holds that all actions should benefit others.

Certainly is. You need a government for it. Ergo, oxymoron.

No, you don't.

I agree with you wholehearteldy Letila. I was one of those people who studied Raynd, looked into her history, discovered that she was just angry because her father had been ruined by Lenin (her father was a factory owner, and was one of the more exploitive of ones. He firmly applied the rule of Iron wages.) and invented for herself a philosophy, which she elaborated on in the confines of her own mind. She was never an Objective Realist. She created her own little fantasy world in her head, in which, she, once again, was a factory Tzarina, relishing in the beauty of her own "achievement". After thoroughly studying her philosophy, my initial interest and respect for her turned into the realization that she, indeed was, quite insane. So...after dejectedly leaving the ideas of Raynd for those who would actually profit from them, (the businessmen, and economic politicians) I started reading Marx. Anyone who truly reads Marx, instead of listening to the hearsay they have recieved from countless other Classical liberals, realizes that his philosophy makes a great deal more sense than even Adam Smith's does. That is because it grants those who have never before held it, all the power they need to run their own affairs. Read Marx. Seriously. Don't try any of that intellectual masturbation that has run so thick and steamy through this forum.

No, it can't and never does, you lunatic.

Now show that logic can lead to "authoritarianism". Remember: you're going to have to use logic to show it.
The best example is eugenics. That sacrifices freedom for a logical end.
No, it doesn't. It sacrifices freedom for an imposed irrational end.

If you focus on the logic, it seems like a good idea.
No, it doesn't.

Try again.


I want that reality has that I have a million dollars.

*waits*

Nope, I don't have a million dollars. You're a fucking loon.
Value is a subjective concept.
Irrelevant. We're talking about *reality*, not *value*. Don't try to shift the context, loon.


Irrelevant. The fact remains that I could, and that is what matters.
I could use logic to show those things.
No, you couldn't. Not correctly, anyway.

From your point of view, I wouldn't be applying logic correctly. From my point of view, you aren't applying intuition correctly.
Oh I am applying it correctly: intuition = wish = desire = "what feels right".


You're thinking of egoTism. Learn the difference.
Egoism is the ethical view that all actions should benefit the doer. It is the opposite of altruism, which holds that all actions should benefit others.
And how is "treat others as you would wish to be treated" not benefitting the doer? Oh wait--IT DOES BENEFIT THE DOER! Lunatic.

BAAWA, I really think you should be looking critically at yourself, at this point. My impression of you goes as follows: NO Letila, you're wrong, nope, wrong again, shut up! you're wrong! I'm right, you're wrong! That is it!

Where the FUCK is the reason in saying "you're wrong" simply because you are disagreed with. Pull your foot out of your mouth, your argument is losing credibility so fast it is making my head spin!! OH WAIT!!!!!! IT ISN'T EVEN AN ARGUMENT AT ALL!!!! IT IS SIMPLY AN INTELLECTUALLY IMMATURE RANT!!! Grow up and get out of a critical discussion forum. The one thing I have learned is never to try reasoning with an Objectivist. They are more ignorant than the Fundamentalist Christians which plague my poor country.

No, it doesn't. It sacrifices freedom for an imposed irrational end.

No, it doesn't.

Try again.

From a logical POV, creating better humans is very rational. However, is is the emotional impact on individuals that makes it wrong.

Irrelevant. We're talking about *reality*, not *value*. Don't try to shift the context, loon.

You were talking about money, which is a measure of value.

No, you couldn't. Not correctly, anyway.

Who defines correct logic?

Oh I am applying it correctly: intuition = wish = desire = "what feels right".

And how is "treat others as you would wish to be treated" not benefitting the doer? Oh wait--IT DOES BENEFIT THE DOER! Lunatic.

Not if that means sacrificing yourself for others.

To answer your question Letila, logic is something that no one person will ever have a monopoply of. Some people seem to have a large defficiency, such as those who fail to see that their argument is a farse. The most truly logical person will never be an idealist. Or even a realist. This person will simply see that caring at all about ideology is absolutely futile, and will only care at all about attempting to silence the rantings and ravings of the illogical mind. But it is safe to say, that the person that holds the greatest amount of logic will probably believe in the idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" of which the name I cannot remember. That is what an entire summer without reading will do to you. You forget all these buzzwords that faux-intellectuals will throw around in an attempt to give their argument more meaning.

To answer your question Letila, logic is something that no one person will ever have a monopoply of. Some people seem to have a large defficiency, such as those who fail to see that their argument is a farse. The most truly logical person will never be an idealist. Or even a realist. This person will simply see that caring at all about ideology is absolutely futile, and will only care at all about attempting to silence the rantings and ravings of the illogical mind. But it is safe to say, that the person that holds the greatest amount of logic will probably believe in the idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number of people" of which the name I cannot remember. That is what an entire summer without reading will do to you. You forget all these buzzwords that faux-intellectuals will throw around in an attempt to give their argument more meaning.

The term you're looking for is "utilitarianism". I briefly held that view until I realized that it was too easy for someone to abuse by creating a Matrix, for example. Everyone would be happy and cared for, but it didn't take into account the obviously hateful nature of the action.

Have you ever noticed that people only corrupt when in a position of power? Not high power, and not high corruption but people will tend to abuse the power given to them. However, a person with no power doesnt have any reason to be 'evil'

I both agree and disagree with this. To some people, socialization is ncessessary to survive. To others, however, friends are mere ornaments. I do not particularly agree with Rand when she says such redicolous things such as sharing is a form of collectivism. Yet I do feel that individual humans are capable of much more than even most of us realize.
Doing business - moving products and making money - is synonymous with a capitalist economy. And in business one has to interact with countless people in order to be successful, in order to convince them to buy your product or invest in your company. Objectivism's insistence on total individualism is completely incompatible with the very nature of capitalism in real life.

I think the misconception is that Objectivism is just some weird philosophy that absolutly no one could follow without going mad, like sopholism. I disagree. It's possible to cherry pick in objectivism. Alan Greenspan was a friend of Rand, and look at him. He's in the position that I have a feeling Rand dispised.
However the uncompromising, highly distinctive points that make Objectivism unique are the impossible ones, the ones we most often discard- such as the rejection of compassion, the belief in emotionlessness and total rationality. I think the once you have cherrypicked the tenets of Objectivism that are more realistic, for example hard work and free market competition, you are left with more conventional values that have been mentioned since the dawn of time from Confucianism to Adam Smith to the 'Protestant work ethic'... by excluding the extremist views of Objectivism we are left with plain old traditional capitalist schools of thought which are fully compatible with charity and human emotion. So I'd argue that if you cherrypick it then you can't call yourself an Objectivist, merely just another a capitalist, and to follow Objectivism one would most likely go mad.

Again, I reiterate that we humans don't know half the things we are capable of. People who sociologically isolate themselves, loners, are sometimes preffered for a certain line of work. They thrive as professionals. I know that many generals have said that special forces are filled with them, for their ability to work alone. I don't know enough about Objectivism to know if I'll follow an orthodox strain, although I probably won't. However, half of the reason why objectivism is so slowly accepted, even in academia, is beause no one these days seems comfortable being alone. I have a feeling that this is what Rand is speaking out against. She repeatedly says that once a victim is disarmed ideaologically, he even seeks his own demise. She felt that society has been trained for too long to be socially dependent, and in some aspects, I agree.
Again I view Objectivism as an either-or thing... orthodox Objectivism cannot be modified without losing its unique character and reverting to some less extremist form of capitalism. Therefore when I praise certain aspects of Ayn Rand's philosophy I do so as a capitalist, not an Objectivist.

And I think only a tiny minority of people can truly reach success as total individualists. These would most likely be scientists who make such a groundbreaking discovery that it guarantees them a comfortable life forever. Even if they have no people skills, no one can deny their achievement. However less talented scientists must constantly call favors, look for grants, and seek connections in order to get funding for their research - all of which requires plenty of interaction with society.

Special forces people must be both individualist and a good component of a social unit... they often work in teams and certain infiltration missions require plenty of social interactions. For example right before the Iraq war Hispanic special forces were all over Baghdad gathering intelligence (Hispanic because they looked like the Arabs). They were the individualist, working alone on missions, but also they had to be able to, for their personal safety and on short notice, skillfully insert themselves into the surrounding society.

Then again, I'm sort of a loner myself, so I'd bet I'd find it easier to accept objectivism. I wonder if Greenspan is.
I highly doubt it... to reach such positions of power in this world one must have a network of confidants, allies, and friends.

It is unfortunate that society must be like this, and with this, I agree completely. However, if the janitor loves working as a janitor, what more can we ask from him?
I wouldn't ask more from the janitor. This is an unavoidable and regrettable aspect of real life capitalism... since a capitalist economy is all about making money, the money made is more visible and respected than day-to-day dedication to work.

No, it doesn't. It sacrifices freedom for an imposed irrational end.
From a logical POV, creating better humans is very rational.
No, it's not.


Irrelevant. We're talking about *reality*, not *value*. Don't try to shift the context, loon.
You were talking about money,
I was talking about WISHING FOR MONEY, you stupid fuck. It was to demonstrate that reality doesn't give two shits about your wishes.

You are amazingly fucking stupid.


No, you couldn't. Not correctly, anyway.
Who defines correct logic?
Reality.


Oh I am applying it correctly: intuition = wish = desire = "what feels right".

And how is "treat others as you would wish to be treated" not benefitting the doer? Oh wait--IT DOES BENEFIT THE DOER! Lunatic.
Not if that means sacrificing yourself for others
Does that person wish to be sacrificed?

No, it's not.

I don't see how it isn't. If you're opposed the lack of freedom that it creates, keep in mind that capitalism denies freedom as well. I suppose you haven't figured that out by now, though.

I was talking about WISHING FOR MONEY, you stupid fuck. It was to demonstrate that reality doesn't give two shits about your wishes.

You don't want money. You want the benefits of money, in this case value.

You are amazingly fucking stupid.

As though that makes your position look good. You can't understand come close to comprehending the basics of anarcho-communism even after being explained to dozens of times that it has no state.

Does that person wish to be sacrificed?

No, but the point is that sometimes you must sacrifice your own needs and wants for the good of others. That goes completely against egoism.

Doing business - moving products and making money - is synonymous with a capitalist economy. And in business one has to interact with countless people in order to be successful, in order to convince them to buy your product or invest in your company. Objectivism's insistence on total individualism is completely incompatible with the very nature of capitalism in real life.
Again, I sorta agree and disagree. Businesses need interaction, but not the type that qualifies as a full-fledged relationship. As Rand would see it, working in a group would mean an endless series of corruption and kickbacks. I agree to this to an extent. Many of the corrupt executives of a few years ago were working together. I'm sure that many execs wouldn't be corrupt if they were alone. I mean, some people must excel working in groups, but the potential for corruption is there. I think that's what she saw: the larger the group, the more it feels entitled to steal from a minority, whether legally or illegally. It's the basis of populism. She argues that an individualistic government doesn't, at the very least, insure that the state is a rogue nation.j
Of course, I must say that I think most people work fine in small groups. But the larger the group, the more the discord. And generally, the greater the capacity for corruption.

However the uncompromising, highly distinctive points that make Objectivism unique are the impossible ones, the ones we most often discard- such as the rejection of compassion, the belief in emotionlessness and total rationality. I think the once you have cherrypicked the tenets of Objectivism that are more realistic, for example hard work and free market competition, you are left with more conventional values that have been mentioned since the dawn of time from Confucianism to Adam Smith to the 'Protestant work ethic'... by excluding the extremist views of Objectivism we are left with plain old traditional capitalist schools of thought which are fully compatible with charity and human emotion. So I'd argue that if you cherrypick it then you can't call yourself an Objectivist, merely just another a capitalist, and to follow Objectivism one would most likely go mad.
The only thing she brings that should make most everyone happy, however, is the fact that she is anti-collectivism. I'm sure that Smith and Confucious would agree with her, but when they were alive, collectivism wasn't understood as a distinct concept. Then again, Confucious actually seemed to endorse it.
She also has a point about compassion. It can be good, but I think that the best form of compassion is working for yourself. Get a PhD or an MBA. Buy as much as you can. These acts are the greatest form of charity not particularly because they are for you, but because you help the economy this way, and give it a chance to spread to impoverished regions. Digging an irrigation ditch in Africa can only go so far. After all, the locals will be dependent on the ditch forever, unless, using a PhD in some agricultural science, you find a cheap way to use less water, and grow more crops. Confuscious got this right, when he said, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."

And I think only a tiny minority of people can truly reach success as total individualists. These would most likely be scientists who make such a groundbreaking discovery that it guarantees them a comfortable life forever. Even if they have no people skills, no one can deny their achievement. However less talented scientists must constantly call favors, look for grants, and seek connections in order to get funding for their research - all of which requires plenty of interaction with society.
But again, I really think that they have no idea what more they can do. They can do a lot more. Neurologists now know that only 10% of your brain is active while you're awake. The rest activates at night. What if we can figure out how to use the other 90% all the time?
I wouldn't ask more from the janitor. This is an unavoidable and regrettable aspect of real life capitalism... since a capitalist economy is all about making money, the money made is more visible and respected than day-to-day dedication to work.
I guess, however, that this is the ultimate point of individualism (not necessarily objectivism, but I believe Rand is a great advocate for individualism in general). Anyhow, she wanted so that everyone found sucess on their own. If they're happy sweeping dust, fine. Ayn Rand is happy for him.

I agree with you wholehearteldy Letila. I was one of those people who studied Raynd, looked into her history, discovered that she was just angry because her father had been ruined by Lenin (her father was a factory owner, and was one of the more exploitive of ones. He firmly applied the rule of Iron wages.) and invented for herself a philosophy, which she elaborated on in the confines of her own mind. She was never an Objective Realist. She created her own little fantasy world in her head, in which, she, once again, was a factory Tzarina, relishing in the beauty of her own "achievement". After thoroughly studying her philosophy, my initial interest and respect for her turned into the realization that she, indeed was, quite insane. So...after dejectedly leaving the ideas of Raynd for those who would actually profit from them, (the businessmen, and economic politicians) I started reading Marx. Anyone who truly reads Marx, instead of listening to the hearsay they have recieved from countless other Classical liberals, realizes that his philosophy makes a great deal more sense than even Adam Smith's does. That is because it grants those who have never before held it, all the power they need to run their own affairs. Read Marx. Seriously. Don't try any of that intellectual masturbation that has run so thick and steamy through this forum.
I actually think that Marx is credible not because of his prediction of a communist revolution. Their were always ways to make profit in society, and Communism wasn't necessary. By using his predictions, it certainly isn't nessessary today, especially in the West and Japan.
Anyhow, Marx will endure for another reason. He was one of the most astute observers of capitalism I have ever heard of. Looking at what he said about capitalism, I'm surprised he wasn't one himself.

BAAWA, I really think you should be looking critically at yourself, at this point.
I don't remember asking you anything.

So keep your fucking whining to yourself.

No, it's not.
I don't see how it isn't.
And I don't see how it is. Since you have the onus of proof...

If you're opposed the lack of freedom that it creates, keep in mind that capitalism denies freedom as well.
Proof?


I was talking about WISHING FOR MONEY, you stupid fuck. It was to demonstrate that reality doesn't give two shits about your wishes.
You don't want money. You want the benefits of money, in this case value.
Irrelevant. I was talking about WISHING FOR MONEY. It was to demonstrate that reality doesn't give two shits about your wishes.


You are amazingly fucking stupid.
As though that makes your position look good.
It does, especially when you can't discern between someone talking about money and someone talking about wishing for money to show that your wishes don't mean shit to reality.

You can't understand come close to comprehending the basics of anarcho-communism even after being explained to dozens of times that it has no state.
And you can't understand, no matter how many times it's been explained to you that it requires a state, and that exploitation of workers is marxist nonsense and that logic is not authoritarian and that profit is good and that property is not theft.


Does that person wish to be sacrificed?
No, but the point is that sometimes you must sacrifice your own needs and wants for the good of others.
Do you? Prove it.

I dissagree with her philosopies in may respects but I respect them. One thing that pisses me off is we have an Objectivist on a board I got to. He's VERY intolerant of others beliefs and, tends to treat the philosophies of Ayn Rand and, other Objectivists as a fundamentalist would the bible, so my first experiences with those beliefs were negative.

I dissagree with her philosopies in may respects but I respect them. One thing that pisses me off is we have an Objectivist on a board I got to. He's VERY intolerant of others beliefs and, tends to treat the philosophies of Ayn Rand and, other Objectivists as a fundamentalist would the bible, so my first experiences with those beliefs were negative.
That's bad. In case this thread is making you think this, btw, I'm not an objectivist. I just agree with her on a surprising number of her points.

bump

Again, I sorta agree and disagree. Businesses need interaction, but not the type that qualifies as a full-fledged relationship. As Rand would see it, working in a group would mean an endless series of corruption and kickbacks. I agree to this to an extent. Many of the corrupt executives of a few years ago were working together. I'm sure that many execs wouldn't be corrupt if they were alone. I mean, some people must excel working in groups, but the potential for corruption is there. I think that's what she saw: the larger the group, the more it feels entitled to steal from a minority, whether legally or illegally. It's the basis of populism. She argues that an individualistic government doesn't, at the very least, insure that the state is a rogue nation.j
Of course, I must say that I think most people work fine in small groups. But the larger the group, the more the discord. And generally, the greater the capacity for corruption.
But corruption isn't just collusion within a closely knit group to take advantage of others. Whenever there is a market exchange, even in the bounds of a casual and not full-fledged relationship, there will always be irregularities, corruptions, and emotional factors. For example people would most likely buy a product from a charismatic salesman than from a boring one.

Ayn Rand assumes that the ideal Objectivist businessman will appreciate the work of an underling and pay him according to "the market." But the market is a subjective thing - what employee wages should be has in large part to do with the employer's greed, personality, and a lot of random factors. Non-rational elements are injected into a businessman's behavior. Two different bosses would most likely pay different amounts to the same employee for the exact same work. In real life many corporate bosses couldn't care less about the manual laborers they employ... for the CEOs all they want is more profit and thus instead of a populist tyranny by the majority we more commonly have a minority of extremely wealthy people who will always try to pay the laborers as little as possible.

The only thing she brings that should make most everyone happy, however, is the fact that she is anti-collectivism. I'm sure that Smith and Confucious would agree with her, but when they were alive, collectivism wasn't understood as a distinct concept. Then again, Confucious actually seemed to endorse it.
She also has a point about compassion. It can be good, but I think that the best form of compassion is working for yourself. Get a PhD or an MBA. Buy as much as you can. These acts are the greatest form of charity not particularly because they are for you, but because you help the economy this way, and give it a chance to spread to impoverished regions. Digging an irrigation ditch in Africa can only go so far. After all, the locals will be dependent on the ditch forever, unless, using a PhD in some agricultural science, you find a cheap way to use less water, and grow more crops. Confuscious got this right, when he said, "Give a man a fish, he eats for a day. Teach a man to fish, he eats for a lifetime."
I agree... a highly effective way to improve an economy is upgrading the skills and motivations of workers, not just the state giving out welfare. However I wouldn't mind at all giving some money from time to time to someone down on their luck, or helping out on a job for free... its just my personal preference. I think Ayn Rand's philosophy on charity is completely reprehensible... she shows contempt for handicapped people in The Fountainhead and she rejects the concept of family, friendship, and human friendliness in general.

Confucianist government approaches fascism and there is bit too much emphasis on society and social conventions at the expense of the individual, but Confucius also believed deeply in individual fulfillment and happiness - constant self-improvement and dedication to one's role/occupation. Hence the Confucian emphasis on education and Confucianism's profound influence on the success of East Asian capitalism.

But again, I really think that they have no idea what more they can do. They can do a lot more. Neurologists now know that only 10% of your brain is active while you're awake. The rest activates at night. What if we can figure out how to use the other 90% all the time?
Once we achieve such levels of arcane knowledge you describe then true communism could probably be a realistic thing (through mind control) and true Objectivism would probably be possible too as everyone can be nearly completely knowledgeable about market conditions and thus be hyper-rational participants in a free market... today much of business is conducted with intuition since no one can truly grasp all the complexities and unknowns involved with the market. But that is all extremely absurd to think about now... its way way far in the future and none of this brain research we are pondering has any bearing on the applicability of philosophies right now, right here on earth today.

I guess, however, that this is the ultimate point of individualism (not necessarily objectivism, but I believe Rand is a great advocate for individualism in general). Anyhow, she wanted so that everyone found sucess on their own. If they're happy sweeping dust, fine. Ayn Rand is happy for him.
Yes and I think that in a way is a worthy form of compassion.

Are you sure you're not related to her?

Hmmm, I'm not sure how to take this.


As she would've argued, it would've been her choice. But I do agree she was weird.

The point is, though, that her reasoning outlaws personal choice as effectively as the Communism she denounced. She just redefined leaders so that she could be on top.


Perhaps she got the forces of capitalism wrong, but why psychology? We humans know far too little to judge who's right: the psychologists or Ayn Rand. However, I have a feeling it was influenced by Sigmund Freud. Rand had an anti-social philosophy, and Freud seemed to have an anti-social psychology: either everything was your fault, or your mother's.

Well, I was more commenting on the actions of her characters in her book where everyone who embodied her philosophy was a hero and everyone who didn't was a villain. Admittedly, when an author is writing a work of fiction as a vehicle for thier philisophical ideas, this is to be expected. When the characters become little more than mouthpieces for their author's philiosophy, stripped of all individual personality, that's just bad storytelling.

However, her personal life was a shambles. From basically "arranging" a marriage between two of her supporters, Nathaniel and Barbara Branden, even though they weren't particularly interested in each other to then insisting that she and Nathaniel have a "rational" affair, now that they were both married, to drop kicking him out of her movement when he finally said no. An apocryphal tale also tells of her finding out economist Murray Rothbard's wife was a devout Christian and, subsequently, ordering him to convert her to athiesm in six months or divorce her. Rothbard, who was agnostic, told her he would do no such thing and that, frankly, it wasn't any of her business. This led to a schism between them because she found Rothbard's wife's theism irrational and his acceptance of it intolerable.

I agree with you wholehearteldy Letila. I was one of those people who studied Raynd, looked into her history,

I know enough about Rand to see that what you have written is nothing more than bitter collectivist garbage that is probably a result of an unsuccessful attempt to outdebate a number of Objectivists.

discovered that she was just angry because her father had been ruined by Lenin (her father was a factory owner, and was one of the more exploitive of ones. He firmly applied the rule of Iron wages.)

Rand and her family lived above the chemist which was owned by her father. I think it is quite narrow-minded of you to suggest that Rand's anger stems merely from the confiscation of her father's shop, although if my father owned a shop and we were all suddenly kicked out from it for no real reason then I'd probably be quite pissed. The numerous examples of historical events she wrote to demonstrate points relating to her philosophy should show you that her anger stemmed from other sources.

and invented for herself a philosophy, which she elaborated on in the confines of her own mind.

I get the impression that you imply that Rand merely conjured her philosophy out of thin air. Rand majored in history, minored in philosophy, during her time at university. She graduated with high honours. Add to this the many years she studied philosophy in her own time up to point she began conceiving her philosophy and you realise that she certainly was no overnight pop philosopher.

She was never an Objective Realist. She created her own little fantasy world in her head, in which, she, once again, was a factory Tzarina, relishing in the beauty of her own "achievement".

This argument is ad hominem. It does not demonstrate how Rand was not an objective realist.

After thoroughly studying her philosophy, my initial interest and respect for her turned into the realization that she, indeed was, quite insane.

Again, you do not demonstrate any points to support you argument.

So...after dejectedly leaving the ideas of Raynd for those who would actually profit from them, (the businessmen, and economic politicians)

Again, this demonstrates how little understanding you have of Rand. Rand did not believe that all businessmen were righteous (refer to Orren Boyle et al in Atlas Shrugged); it ultimately depend on the code of values which they held. This applies not only to businessmen but to all people. Do you honestly think that any businessman can lie, cheat and steal to make a profit and get away with it by simply proudly declaring "I read Atlas Shrugged and I can do anything I want!"? I don't understand who you refer to with your term "economic politicians" but your thorough study into the life and works of Ayn Rand should have made you realise that a cornerstone of Rand's politics/economics was a separation between the economy and the state.

I started reading Marx. Anyone who truly reads Marx, instead of listening to the hearsay they have recieved from countless other Classical liberals, realizes that his philosophy makes a great deal more sense than even Adam Smith's does.That is because it grants those who have never before held it, all the power they need to run their own affairs.

Gee, that's brilliant! From the very moment I am born I am suddenly entitled to these vast amounts of power without having done any work. Here's a Rand term that should be familiar to you: by what right?

Read Marx. Seriously. Don't try any of that intellectual masturbation that has run so thick and steamy through this forum.

You obviously have not been on this forum long enough to realise that this forum does not ooze the rich white cum of the traditional liberalists, libertarians, capitalists and objectivists but is overrun by the spermicide of the anarchists, communists, socialists, fascists and liberals.

I take note that after you wrote your post you accused BAAWA of pointless ranting and raving against Letila, even though he demonstrates the flaws in Letila's arguments. Yet you have just done that towards Rand with you half truths and untruths.

One final word to everyone. I have mentioned this before but I will do so again. The reason why Objectivism may appear authoritarian to you is that the philosophy contains no contradictions and therefore no exceptions are made. If this does not appeal to you then by all means find another philosophy which better suits your value system. Once again, I advise that you read her work before you past judgement on her and her philosophy.

Liberalism is objectively moral, I could argue, because it allows the individual to seek his own morality.

If this was taken seriously, this would mean it was amoral, it has no regard for morality, not that it is objectively moral.

If this was taken seriously, this would mean it was amoral, it has no regard for morality, not that it is objectively moral.
However, it is the only system that allows every man to find his own morality. It would not mean it'd be amoral. Communism is amoral because it seeks to abolish any form of morality. Just ask Pol Pot. Besides, every person has their own moral code that he lives by. All forms of government except liberal capitalism do not allow this. Therefor, liberal capitalism isn't immoral.

But corruption isn't just collusion within a closely knit group to take advantage of others. Whenever there is a market exchange, even in the bounds of a casual and not full-fledged relationship, there will always be irregularities, corruptions, and emotional factors. For example people would most likely buy a product from a charismatic salesman than from a boring one.
I do agree with that. That part is just human nature, pure and simple.

Ayn Rand assumes that the ideal Objectivist businessman will appreciate the work of an underling and pay him according to "the market." But the market is a subjective thing - what employee wages should be has in large part to do with the employer's greed, personality, and a lot of random factors. Non-rational elements are injected into a businessman's behavior. Two different bosses would most likely pay different amounts to the same employee for the exact same work. In real life many corporate bosses couldn't care less about the manual laborers they employ... for the CEOs all they want is more profit and thus instead of a populist tyranny by the majority we more commonly have a minority of extremely wealthy people who will always try to pay the laborers as little as possible.
That I also agree with.

I agree... a highly effective way to improve an economy is upgrading the skills and motivations of workers, not just the state giving out welfare. However I wouldn't mind at all giving some money from time to time to someone down on their luck, or helping out on a job for free... its just my personal preference. I think Ayn Rand's philosophy on charity is completely reprehensible... she shows contempt for handicapped people in The Fountainhead and she rejects the concept of family, friendship, and human friendliness in general.
I'm reading her book Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal right now, and that's why I started this thread. I didn't find much about her social attitudes in her philosophy. But that last part about social interaction I'd have to reject. She can provide a basis for individualism and capitalism (which I mostly agree with), but she can't override human nature.
As for charity, I wouldn't mind giving a buck or two to people. In fact, I can call myself a hypocrite for reading anything by her, because I tend to give to panhandlers whenever I see them. However, many feel that capitalism is greed, and no good can ever come from it. This is not true, and Rand was trying to prove that. Capitalism was especially under assault at the time. Roosevelt was a mixed blessing for it, saving capitalism by ruining it. Every government afterward until Reagan seemed to hold this view, and Rand wanted to disprove it. I just think she went overboard doing it.


Once we achieve such levels of arcane knowledge you describe then true communism could probably be a realistic thing (through mind control) and true Objectivism would probably be possible too as everyone can be nearly completely knowledgeable about market conditions and thus be hyper-rational participants in a free market... today much of business is conducted with intuition since no one can truly grasp all the complexities and unknowns involved with the market. But that is all extremely absurd to think about now... its way way far in the future and none of this brain research we are pondering has any bearing on the applicability of philosophies right now, right here on earth today.
Well, look on the bright side. When we do reach it, no one has to lay a philosophical groundwork down to explain how we can apply so much extra brain power. Ayn Rand and Karl Marx have done that for us.

However, it is the only system that allows every man to find his own morality. It would not mean it'd be amoral. Communism is amoral because it seeks to abolish any form of morality. Just ask Pol Pot. Besides, every person has their own moral code that he lives by. All forms of government except liberal capitalism do not allow this. Therefor, liberal capitalism isn't immoral.

Communism doesn't seek to abolish all morality. It is opposed to capitalism for moral reasons. It isn't really sentient, so I don't see it can seek anything.

Communism doesn't seek to abolish all morality. It is opposed to capitalism for moral reasons. It isn't really sentient, so I don't see it can seek anything.
I still consider the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia to be the purest form of communism, not because of the means, but the ends. There was no morality code there, because the Khmer Rouge sougth to end the thought process. They didn't make it in time, but they sure made a lot of progress to that end in just four years. It'd be interesting to see what communism would evolve into there. It was messed up by the Vietnamese.

I still consider the Khmer Rouge regime in Cambodia to be the purest form of communism, not because of the means, but the ends. There was no morality code there, because the Khmer Rouge sougth to end the thought process. They didn't make it in time, but they sure made a lot of progress to that end in just four years. It'd be interesting to see what communism would evolve into there. It was messed up by the Vietnamese.

They had a morality, albeit a flawed one. Why else would they oppose capitalism?

They had a morality, albeit a flawed one. Why else would they oppose capitalism?
The government elite certainly did. But by 1979, the peasants of Cambodia were rapidly loosing their's. Even if most peasants' were making their morality out to be that they don't oppose the Khmer Rouge, there were ideaological holdouts, no doubt. Capitalism has no idealogical holdouts on morality, as capitalism (at least liberal capitalism) is not imposing a moral system.
But I do see your point now, even though the system itself couldn't be considered moral because it wasn't universal. Capitalism doesn't have that problem, as every possible moral code is its morality.

I read a little lecture given by Alan Greenspan (and a similar one came from Rand herself). As I've said repeatedly, I'm not an objectivist. But I find their philosophy on capitalism to be compelling. They got me to agree on one thing I always found wrong, but never cared to say (as there is no recent case of it): anti trust lawsuits.
Really, they are arcane. The Sherman antitrust law doesn't punish monopolies, per se, but companies "with the intent to monopolize". If a company lowers prices, then they're accused of wiping out the competition. If they coordinate prices with other companies, they're accused of a conspiracy. When the government fixes prices, of course, they're hailed as saints.
The case they both used was an old case against ALCOA in 1961. In the opinion, Judge Learned Hand says that there was nothing preventing ALCOA from growing in size. They just brought forth a suit simply because of how big it was. But what harm could it do to the consumer, without hurting itself?
The other compelling case was for Standard Oil, John Rockerfeller's company. At the time Standard Oil could be first considered a trust by economists, the shoe industry was still three times as large as the oil industry. Standard Oil did what no one did before them, by building massive drilling and refining capacity. Again, if they weren't broken up, what unethical practice would prevent Standard Oil from always remaining dominant in its field? Investor's money tends to flow to where it can gain the greatest returns. If Standard Oil overcharged the consumer, and threatened the economy, money would instantly flow to a different company. After all, rich oilmen at the turn of the last century weren't in short supply, even if they didn't work at Standard Oi.
The other thing Greenspan points out is that the government mistakes its own regulations as a sign of businesses failing their obligations, and thus, regulating the industry more. I can think of a recent example at Chicago's O'Hare, the nation's busiest airport. The FAA targets on-time flights to be at 82%, but this summer, at O'Hare, it was just 67%. The FAA ordered such airlines as United and American Airlines to cut the number of flights. In the short term, it may help. But has the government considered that its protectionist policies may fuel this fire?
For example, even though it is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, the government has given United three bailouts, each going into nine digit figures. They can't pay their employees' pensions, but they sure as hell found enough money to repaint their fleet. In a free market, they'd be bought out, and those pensions would be saved.
Another protectionist policy on our airlines is the treatment of foreign carriers. They may only fly from their homecountry and back, and may not make domestic flights in the US. This is all to save a few union jobs, but is it fair to consumers? I doubt it. There are many foreign airliners of equal or better quality than US carriers, and if allowed a chance to compete, they would lower air fares drastically. In fact, they may make enough returns to retain the jobs that may be lost. Flying is kept expensive for a reason, people. In the name of "working men", the government makes all of us pay high air fares by supporting inefficient, bloated airliners, and banning foreign ones. This, I'm sure, has Mr. Greenspan appalled.

To sum it up, my point is that trusts aren't a bad thing. Usually, they build entire industries, like US Steel and Standard Oil did (even, I could argue, AT&T and Microsoft). Even more disturbing, some like GE weren't true trusts, but rather, just did some price fixing that made the feds suspicious.
But anyhow, if a trust was really unethical, competitors spring up.

It's a shame that Alan Greenspan has done a complete backflip (considering the articles he wrote that were included in "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") and is now head of the Federal Reserve, the very organisation he so avidly opposed. I regard him as a Dr. Robert Stadler.

While many Objectivists have traded their old religions for the Church of Ayn Rand, most of the Objectivists I know - myself included - do not consider her infalliable. By her own admission to Nathaniel Branden, she really did not have a good grasp of psychology. That is easily the weakest part of her theories. However, that does not discount the brilliance of her political and epistemological work.

Presently, there is a split in Objectivism. There are those who believe that Objectivism is only what Ayn Rand said is and it is not open to interpretation or dissent. That group is largely represented by people like Leonard Peikoff and organizations like ARI. However, there is another (and growing) group of Objectivists that believe Objectivism, by its very nature, must be an open system that evolves and grows over time and with increased understanding of our universe and ourselves. That group is represented by such people as David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden and organizations like the Objectivist Center.

Was Ayn Rand brilliant? Absolutely. Was Ayn Rand perfect? Certainly not. Towards the end of her life, she did seem to value loyalty more than truth. However, Rand laid down the framework for a truly revolutionary philosophy. It is now up to us to continue her legacy, build on her work, and make Objectivism the best system we can. According to a study by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club, Atlas Shrugged is the second-most influential book in America. Only the Bible was considered more influential.

Yes, there are those that bound themselves by the dogma I've seen so labored over in this thread. However, they represent an increasingly dwindling segment of the Objectivist movement as organizations like the Objectivist Center have cast off the unnecessary shackles imposed by those afraid to question Rand.

It's a shame that Alan Greenspan has done a complete backflip (considering the articles he wrote that were included in "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") and is now head of the Federal Reserve, the very organisation he so avidly opposed. I regard him as a Dr. Robert Stadler.
I don't see that Greenspan has made a total betrayal here. As he was then, he still remains a great economist. I believe that even if he isn't an adherant of objectivism today, he most certainly gained intellectual experience from her. I keep repeating I'm not an objectivist, but Rand is the best philosopher I've seen defend capitalism. She takes the traditional "faults" of capitalism, like greed, and uses it to defend it. Capitalism, as she shows, harnesses the worst traits in humans to improve all of our lives.

I'm very disappointed of the lack of a "both" option

however, I agree with many aspects of her philosophy

(I haven't read the rest of the thread, so I hope this response doesn't offend anyone)

While many Objectivists have traded their old religions for the Church of Ayn Rand, most of the Objectivists I know - myself included - do not consider her infalliable. By her own admission to Nathaniel Branden, she really did not have a good grasp of psychology. That is easily the weakest part of her theories. However, that does not discount the brilliance of her political and epistemological work.

Presently, there is a split in Objectivism. There are those who believe that Objectivism is only what Ayn Rand said is and it is not open to interpretation or dissent. That group is largely represented by people like Leonard Peikoff and organizations like ARI. However, there is another (and growing) group of Objectivists that believe Objectivism, by its very nature, must be an open system that evolves and grows over time and with increased understanding of our universe and ourselves. That group is represented by such people as David Kelley and Nathaniel Branden and organizations like the Objectivist Center.

Was Ayn Rand brilliant? Absolutely. Was Ayn Rand perfect? Certainly not. Towards the end of her life, she did seem to value loyalty more than truth. However, Rand laid down the framework for a truly revolutionary philosophy. It is now up to us to continue her legacy, build on her work, and make Objectivism the best system we can. According to a study by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club, Atlas Shrugged is the second-most influential book in America. Only the Bible was considered more influential.

Yes, there are those that bound themselves by the dogma I've seen so labored over in this thread. However, they represent an increasingly dwindling segment of the Objectivist movement as organizations like the Objectivist Center have cast off the unnecessary shackles imposed by those afraid to question Rand.
I hope that this second camp evolves further. However, the nice thing about Rand was that her entire philosophy seemed to revolve around the good of capitalism. Hopefully, they don't stray too far from that central idea. I also hope that these new objectivists stop their blantant opposition to religion, but that's just a personal preference.
Anyhow, since you're an objectivist who's very knowledgeble about your movement, perhaps you'd know this: despite being chairman of the fed, do objectivists still consider Greenspan one of their own?

It's a shame that Alan Greenspan has done a complete backflip (considering the articles he wrote that were included in "Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal") and is now head of the Federal Reserve, the very organisation he so avidly opposed. I regard him as a Dr. Robert Stadler.
I don't see that Greenspan has made a total betrayal here. As he was then, he still remains a great economist. I believe that even if he isn't an adherant of objectivism today, he most certainly gained intellectual experience from her.
Now it's time for an amusing anecdote. And it's true, to boot.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas (whom I have met a couple times) was talking with Alan one day when he was at the Capitol for some hearing and photo op. Ron brought with an original manuscript of Greenspan's essay in C:TUI/The Objectivist.

Ron asked Alan "Do you remember this?"
"Yes"
"Do you remember the article?"
"Yes"
"Would you sign the article for me?"
which, Alan did.
Ron: "Would you like to write a disclaimer?"

Mises.org used to have the MP3 for the speech where I heard this up, but I remember it quite well, as I was there at the Mises Institute when Ron gave that speech.

To sum it up, my point is that trusts aren't a bad thing. Usually, they build entire industries, like US Steel and Standard Oil did (even, I could argue, AT&T and Microsoft). Even more disturbing, some like GE weren't true trusts, but rather, just did some price fixing that made the feds suspicious.
But anyhow, if a trust was really unethical, competitors spring up.
It should be noted that it was the US Government which created and mandated AT&T into the monopoly it became (just in case anyone didn't know).

Now it's time for an amusing anecdote. And it's true, to boot.

Rep. Ron Paul of Texas (whom I have met a couple times) was talking with Alan one day when he was at the Capitol for some hearing and photo op. Ron brought with an original manuscript of Greenspan's essay in C:TUI/The Objectivist.

Ron asked Alan "Do you remember this?"
"Yes"
"Do you remember the article?"
"Yes"
"Would you sign the article for me?"
which, Alan did.
Ron: "Would you like to write a disclaimer?"

Mises.org used to have the MP3 for the speech where I heard this up, but I remember it quite well, as I was there at the Mises Institute when Ron gave that speech.
Well at least he didn't leave his roots too much. But really, I find the Fed good for Capitalism. They have an economic control that can be seen by capitalists as more legitamite than a tax. Besides, the banks need a bank to turn to, and the banks need at least some form of a regulatory body to make sure that banks don't try to lend more than they have, thus hurting the economy.

It should be noted that it was the US Government which created and mandated AT&T into the monopoly it became (just in case anyone didn't know).
I actually didn't know, but I'm not surprised. The utilities industry was probably more regulated than any industry, even today.

I hope that this second camp evolves further. However, the nice thing about Rand was that her entire philosophy seemed to revolve around the good of capitalism. Hopefully, they don't stray too far from that central idea. I also hope that these new objectivists stop their blantant opposition to religion, but that's just a personal preference.
Anyhow, since you're an objectivist who's very knowledgeble about your movement, perhaps you'd know this: despite being chairman of the fed, do objectivists still consider Greenspan one of their own?

The so-called Kelley camp is flourishing. A lot of people have grown sick and tired of Peikoff's moralizing and condemnations over what essentially amounts to differences of opinion and taste, which are certainly allowable. Those of us that agree with David Kelley just believe that Ayn Rand didnt have all the answers; thus, it is up to all of us to find those answers and figure out what they mean to Objectivism.

Example: Ayn Rand was very much opposed to homosexuality. So was Nathaniel Branden early in his careeer. However, as our understanding of how the human mind works has evolved, we've discarded the notion that homosexuality is a disease or a sin. Ayn Rand and her core followers did not adapt their view to this new information. Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley, and others like them have.

The whole point of the Kelley-Peikoff split is the principle that one can be an Objectivist and not have to agree with everything Rand ever said. As far as religion, Objectivism is inherently atheist on either side. However, the Kelley side tends to appreciate the virtues of toleration a bit more. We understand that it is impossible for us to completely cut off ties with anyone who follows any religion and instead seek to extend to them the same courtesies given us.

As far as Greenspan goes, I'm really not sure. I think the ARI crowd has pretty much disavowed him. I don't know about the Objectivist Center group, though. From what I can tell, he's regarded at the very least as someone who left the movement.

I just wanted your opinion on the woman. I only know the basics of her philosphy. I disagree that humans themselves tend to be naturally good. There are bad apples everywhere, and in a society without law, they ruin everything. However, I like how she emphasized that the individual is to be independent, and that collectivism is inherently bad. I have minor disagreements, of course, but I find she's a genius.
She also seems like a brave woman. With no formal college education, she not only became a respected scholar, but also went against the grain of her time. She also seemed to be the lone woman in the male dominated world of acadamia.

I tend to think that humans are basically good, as it's too much trouble (costs too much in energy expended) to be truly bad.

The fact that there are "bad apples" doesn't negate the proposition, in my eyes.

(( Otherwise we'd be in a constant state of "Anarchy" and chaos, which is precisely what the far-left would like, according to the "do as you please and don't worry about the consequences as mommy will make it all better for you" ideal of the hyper-liberal. [Issues with "Mom", perhaps,...? Perhaps..! :) ] ))

But I think that the seed of even the best idea can grow into weird and whacky fruit.

She IS definitely a genius in that she coalesced an idea of the heroic individual that holds much sway, and will always hold much sway with positive enterprising people of the world.


-Keiki'olu I'ake'oke'o
Current "Big-Diggah" and "Chief Head-Whompah"

"May prosperity and freedom from silly rules be your destiny..!"

The so-called Kelley camp is flourishing. A lot of people have grown sick and tired of Peikoff's moralizing and condemnations over what essentially amounts to differences of opinion and taste, which are certainly allowable. Those of us that agree with David Kelley just believe that Ayn Rand didnt have all the answers; thus, it is up to all of us to find those answers and figure out what they mean to Objectivism.

Example: Ayn Rand was very much opposed to homosexuality. So was Nathaniel Branden early in his careeer. However, as our understanding of how the human mind works has evolved, we've discarded the notion that homosexuality is a disease or a sin. Ayn Rand and her core followers did not adapt their view to this new information. Nathaniel Branden, David Kelley, and others like them have.

The whole point of the Kelley-Peikoff split is the principle that one can be an Objectivist and not have to agree with everything Rand ever said. As far as religion, Objectivism is inherently atheist on either side. However, the Kelley side tends to appreciate the virtues of toleration a bit more. We understand that it is impossible for us to completely cut off ties with anyone who follows any religion and instead seek to extend to them the same courtesies given us.[
That's good. I have a feeling that the orthodox objectivists feel that religion is collectivist, and inherently a bad thing. However, religion can be a personal thing, not exactly collectivist. At least that's what I know.

As far as Greenspan goes, I'm really not sure. I think the ARI crowd has pretty much disavowed him. I don't know about the Objectivist Center group, though. From what I can tell, he's regarded at the very least as someone who left the movement.
Still, Greenspan probably got some of his intellectual experience from Ayn Rand. He may not be a total objectivist anymore, but he recognizes the same things about capitalism as Rand did: that capitalism is the only moral, legitamite system, and the government shouldn't interfere. Even though he is the Fed chairman, he doesn't necessarily support government subsidies, or protectionism.

Well at least he didn't leave his roots too much. But really, I find the Fed good for Capitalism. They have an economic control that can be seen by capitalists as more legitamite than a tax. Besides, the banks need a bank to turn to, and the banks need at least some form of a regulatory body to make sure that banks don't try to lend more than they have, thus hurting the economy.
Nonononononono. Fed = frac-reserve banking = badbadbadbadbad
What Has Government Done To Our Money (http://www.mises.org/money.asp) by Murray Rothbard

That's good. I have a feeling that the orthodox objectivists feel that religion is collectivist, and inherently a bad thing. However, religion can be a personal thing, not exactly collectivist. At least that's what I know.

In all honesty, the orthodox Oists brought it on themselves. Peikoff and company wanted to kick Kelley out of the movement because he had the "audacity" to speak at a libertarian function and they interpreted that as giving moral sanction to the anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-syndicalists in the Libertarian Party. :p So, Kelley (rightly so, IMO) pointed out exactly how they had violated the principles of Objectivism by holding adherence and loyalty to Rand as the highest virtue - not thinking in and of itself. Rather than let them shut him down, he and those of like mind walked away and started the Objectivist Center. (Pardon, that was a quick and dirty version.)

Still, Greenspan probably got some of his intellectual experience from Ayn Rand. He may not be a total objectivist anymore, but he recognizes the same things about capitalism as Rand did: that capitalism is the only moral, legitamite system, and the government shouldn't interfere. Even though he is the Fed chairman, he doesn't necessarily support government subsidies, or protectionism.

Greenspan is probably the best person to be Fed Chairman if there has to be one... but I'd be hard pressed to find an Objectivist that thinks there does.

In all honesty, the orthodox Oists brought it on themselves. Peikoff and company wanted to kick Kelley out of the movement because he had the "audacity" to speak at a libertarian function and they interpreted that as giving moral sanction to the anarcho-capitalists and anarcho-syndicalists in the Libertarian Party. :p So, Kelley (rightly so, IMO) pointed out exactly how they had violated the principles of Objectivism by holding adherence and loyalty to Rand as the highest virtue - not thinking in and of itself. Rather than let them shut him down, he and those of like mind walked away and started the Objectivist Center. (Pardon, that was a quick and dirty version.)
Good for him. Speaking to a party that is very close to Objectivist beliefs doesn't exactly mean he endorses his left wing.



Greenspan is probably the best person to be Fed Chairman if there has to be one... but I'd be hard pressed to find an Objectivist that thinks there does.
Being simply an admirer of Rand's philosophy, and not an objectivist (I disagree with some of her crucial points), I feel that the Fed can be kept around. After all, it's better than having the government's main economic control in the hands of Congress. Imagine if they were to determine interest rates.