NationStates Jolt Archive

In my opinion both her fiction and her philosophy are garbage. But some people disagree. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476767&page=7)

What say you?

I wholeheartedly agree. Such tripe.

She's not even a good writer.....why should we take her seriously?

But kids in high school all over the world take her seriously...

well now if youre going to start a thread on why ayn rand sucks, shouldnt you give some support for your position?

But kids in high school all over the world take her seriously...

I am in high school. I doubt we all take her seriously across the world...infact I bet most don't!

well now if youre going to start a thread on why ayn rand sucks, shouldnt you give some support for your position?


Ever read one of her books?

How old are you?

The real question: should ayn rand be kept in the young adult section of book stores?

Her fiction is fine, her philosophy is fucked.

well now if youre going to start a thread on why ayn rand sucks, shouldnt you give some support for your position?

Check the thread I linked for a view on one reason why I think she is wrong.

Semi-Agree!
Its all bad to me.

The real question: should ayn rand be kept in the young adult section of book stores?

And should her "philosophy" be kept in the fiction section? Next to the bad fiction books? Like L Ron Hubbard?

And should her "philosophy" be kept in the fiction section? Next to the bad fiction books? Like L Ron Hubbard?


Philosophy is a genre seperate from fiction. Her novels belong in fiction or young adult fiction.

Who is she?

the women is nuts

Anyone who creates a cult of objectivity and it follows Hubbard or Yogi.
She was nuts.

Who is she?

A writer whose bad novels reflect her extreme economic libertarian views; her followers consider her a serious philosopher and call themselves objectivists.

A writer whose bad novels reflect her extreme economic libertarian views; her followers consider her a serious philosopher and call themselves objectivists.

Needless to say she was from Russia. :P

Check the thread I linked for a view on one reason why I think she is wrong.
so this thread is only for whining about her?

Melkor's response will be amusing.

I find it amusing also that there are so many Ayn Rand detractors. I haven't even *read* anything of hers.

I did, however, watch a South Park episode where Sherrif Barbrady read "Atlas Shrugged" and reviewed it scathingly, so thats my opinion.

And I suspect that's where most of the detractors' reviews hale from too. Either that or you just don't like philosophy (I don't) or you prefer Marx, or both.

so this thread is only for whining about her?

No. I was actually hoping some more people would tell me I was wrong and why. But so far it hasn't happened.

Melkor's response will be amusing.
Agreed. I'm breaking out the popcorn for this.

As for Rand, after reading some of her works, I came to the conclusion that it was an extream reaction to the Russian Communist Revolution. In many ways, Atlas Shrugged is a responce to the idea of state take over of industry. If Communism is the extream on one end, Rand is the extream on the other.

I admit I was laughing hard at the whole triad about gold being used as money and how this is better than paper dollars because gold has real value, unlike paper bills.

The fact that gold has value only because people set the value (like they do with paper money) seems to have slipped by her there.

No. I was actually hoping some more people would tell me I was wrong and why. But so far it hasn't happened.
Well, that's because most Randian detractors aren't worth my time. Case in point, the fine posters on this thread seem to think that saying "she was nuts" or simply accusing her philosophy of being fiction is sufficient detraction.
What you are requesting is that someone use an M60 to destroy an ant mound, and most people (ie me) just can't be fucked.

Agreed. I'm breaking out the popcorn for this.

As for Rand, after reading some of her works, I came to the conclusion that it was an extream reaction to the Russian Communist Revolution. In many ways, Atlas Shrugged is a responce to the idea of state take over of industry. If Communism is the extream on one end, Rand is the extream on the other.

I admit I was laughing hard at the whole triad about gold being used as money and how this is better than paper dollars because gold has real value, unlike paper bills.

The fact that gold has value only because people set the value (like they do with paper money) seems to have slipped by her there.

I like the pirate who gives everyone gold bars to represent the money that has been "looted" from them.

Take Ayn Rand seriously?

Only if you're Rush.

Well, that's because most Randian detractors aren't worth my time. Case in point, the fine posters on this thread seem to think that saying "she was nuts" or simply accusing her philosophy of being fiction is sufficient detraction.
What you are requesting is that someone use an M60 to destroy an ant mound, and most people (ie me) just can't be fucked.

Yet another reason why objectivism would never work. Because it's proponents can't be bothered to take the time to try and explain it to people that don't already agree with it.

It is a matter of opinion. Her views could be taken as anarcho-capitalism, which is nothing new, where the individual and buisness are the most important thing, and of course this idea does not appeal to those who feel the need for community is necessary for our way of life to continue, which it is.

In an ideal capitalist state: Buisness rules all, government has little to no control over the economy, and imposes little to no regulations, allowing buisness to run freely, as in laise-fair economics. (spelling?)

In an ideal objectivist state: Buisness rules all, as does the individual. Government has little to no control, period, and each man is effectively his own boss. Furthmore, the worship of oneself becomes the only religion, leaving behind organized religious ideals.

Either one is a bad choice, and objectivism could be seen as the antithesis to marxism, and should be taken as seriously. It is a philosophy, a well thought out one, despite my personal disagreement with it, and if the United States continues on the path it is now, it is most likely the far future of the nation.

Hell, the book Jenniffer Government would be the ultimate extreme of the objectivist philosophy, if John Nike managed to destroy the government, instead of falling to it.

The fact that gold has value only because people set the value (like they do with paper money) seems to have slipped by her there.
Gold has a number of electronic and industrial applications (like just about every other mineral). That, at least, makes gives it a greater intrinsic value than paper money, which (ironically) isn't even good for toilet paper as it can give you cuts in places you don't want to think about (or so I understand).

In my opinion both her fiction and her philosophy are garbage. But some people disagree. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476767&page=7)

What say you?

And they say TASS was biased... I think Anny appeals to a certain type of person. The type of person who is off their meds and living in a bubble world.

In all my life and in eight or so years of hearing the name Ayn Rand tossed about, I have never read a word of her works. This isn't because I was privy to any reviews or information pertaining to the subject matter, but because any author whose works are so widely adored is almost guaranteed to have a fanbase overflowing with people who can't think for themselves. If you need a book to discover your philosophy, you aren't experiencing life.

Who is she?

She's a Russian expatriate who as a consequence of viewing Stalinism first-hand developed a radically opposite theory about the state (namely, that there isn't one; only a collection of purely self-interested individuals who live in close proximity), human nature (there is nothing but pure self-interest to properly motivate it, and anyone who thinks differently is another damn dirty altruist just like Hitler or Stalin), ethics (altruism leads to the Holocaust; rank egoism leads to dogs and cats living together in peace), and economics (pure, unadulterated capitalism is the only moral system of government, and the only one that can ensure the plentiful existence of resources for all deserving people).

I am of course somewhat caricaturing her, but not as much as you might think: she really does attribute things like the Holocaust, slavery in the Roman era, etc. to altruistic models of government, and she also really does say that there is no such thing as collective good, only aggregate goods of the self. Generally speaking, her ideas have been toyed with and discarded by just about every philosopher since Plato as simple-minded and facetious. Personally, I see her as the Gordon Gecko of the literary world, and her qualifications for "philosopher" rank right up there with Dr. Phil.

Her views could be taken as anarcho-capitalism

nah, she hated that stuff - more than she hated people who didn't smoke, even.

Gold has a number of electronic and industrial applications (like just about every other mineral). That, at least, makes gives it a greater intrinsic value than paper money,
In a time and place where people need gold for that type of industrial applications, yes, and assuming that the person you're trading with can use it (I can't. In my "industry" gold has no real value, except as something bright and shinny to distract students with, but I can do that with a bubblegum wrapper. ;) ). But, in any case, she meant it as a exchange medium, tying to make the point that paper money is worth how much people say it is worth and that somehow gold doesn't fall into this catagory.

which (ironically) isn't even good for toilet paper as it can give you cuts in places you don't want to think about (or so I understand).
*winces* Ouch, ouch... damn you Fiddlebottoms! I'm going to be thinking of that the rest of the day!

Gold has a number of electronic and industrial applications (like just about every other mineral). That, at least, makes gives it a greater intrinsic value than paper money, which (ironically) isn't even good for toilet paper as it can give you cuts in places you don't want to think about (or so I understand).

But it's market value can hardly be said to be based on those industrial applications. It is valuable because people think it is pretty and like to make shiny things from it.

nah, she hated that stuff - more than she hated people who didn't smoke, even.

She certainly did have a thing about smoking.

And why do all of her women characters have a rape complex?

And why do all of her women characters have a rape complex?
Damned if I know, reading some feminist commentary on her is a great way to get some laughs though.

Yet another reason why objectivism would never work. Because it's proponents can't be bothered to take the time to try and explain it to people that don't already agree with it.
You'll have to wait for Melkor if you want someone to play teacher for you, or you'll have to read yourself past elementary level. Until then, you expect me to make a serious argument when the opposition thinks that "The type of person who is off their meds and living in a bubble world" or "Take Ayn Rand seriously? Only if you're Rush" are inciteful commentary?
Nawh, I have some red and green paint, and I really want to see which color dries the fastest.

She sounds like somebody I wouldn't be inclined to agree with...

You'll have to wait for Melkor if you want someone to play teacher for you, or you'll have to read yourself past elementary level. Until then, you expect me to make a serious argument when the opposition thinks that "The type of person who is off their meds and living in a bubble world" or "Take Ayn Rand seriously? Only if you're Rush" are inciteful commentary?
Nawh, I have some red and green paint, and I really want to see which color dries the fastest.

Well, check the thread I linked at the start, and tell me why I'm wrong about industrialists being the real looters.

She sounds like somebody I wouldn't be inclined to agree with...
Well, some of her books make interesting reads (as long as you remember that they are works of philosophy and NOT novels). I was proud of myself that I didn't throw the book out of the window once.

*winces* Ouch, ouch... damn you Fiddlebottoms! I'm going to be thinking of that the rest of the day!
When I first heard about my friend's "experiment", my first thought was that I'd never be able to touch a dollar again. I still have a hard time handling cash in restaurants.

You'll have to wait for Melkor if you want someone to play teacher for you, or you'll have to read yourself past elementary level. Until then, you expect me to make a serious argument when the opposition thinks that "The type of person who is off their meds and living in a bubble world" or "Take Ayn Rand seriously? Only if you're Rush" are inciteful commentary?
Nawh, I have some red and green paint, and I really want to see which color dries the fastest.

Insightful commentary is unnecessary, seeing as how Ayn Rand certainly didn't practice it herself. But then again, if you actually think that Social Darwinism is anything other than justification, I suppose that you'd dissagree. If you are not of such an inclination though, it is safe to assume that Rand is kind of like Neitzche after the syphilis kicked in.

In my opinion both her fiction and her philosophy are garbage. But some people disagree. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476767&page=7)

What say you?

Who and what now?

She's a Russian expatriate who as a consequence of viewing Stalinism first-hand developed a radically opposite theory about the state (namely, that there isn't one; only a collection of purely self-interested individuals who live in close proximity), human nature (there is nothing but pure self-interest to properly motivate it, and anyone who thinks differently is another damn dirty altruist just like Hitler or Stalin), ethics (altruism leads to the Holocaust; rank egoism leads to dogs and cats living together in peace), and economics (pure, unadulterated capitalism is the only moral system of government, and the only one that can ensure the plentiful existence of resources for all deserving people).

I am of course somewhat caricaturing her, but not as much as you might think: she really does attribute things like the Holocaust, slavery in the Roman era, etc. to altruistic models of government, and she also really does say that there is no such thing as collective good, only aggregate goods of the self. Generally speaking, her ideas have been toyed with and discarded by just about every philosopher since Plato as simple-minded and facetious. Personally, I see her as the Gordon Gecko of the literary world, and her qualifications for "philosopher" rank right up there with Dr. Phil.
I have not read her books, so I am only vaguely aware of what she thought, but I do know that a number of libertarians associate themselves with her philosophy.
You note that her ideas have been discarded by a number of philosophers since Plato, as if this lends credence to her opponents. Yet, since the dawn of civilization, we have had continual war, disease, and poverty. I'm not suggesting that the world would be perfect under her philosophy, nobody would, but it makes you think. Maybe the fact that so many have refuted it is not evidence of its error.

I fell in love with Rand in 9th grade when I read Anthem. It's kind of like her little intro book, much like Marx's TCM. I did The Fountainhead essay contest, then graduated to Atlas Shrugged. With the exception of John Galt's 100 page speech at the end where he repeats himself a hundred thousand times, I liked it. The whole rape fantasy thing was wierd though. Those three novels were good, but the rest of her stuff was dissapointing. At the time (high school and college) I was very drawn to the philosophy. I have always been an individualist, and have always rejected the whole "collective" mindset, i.e. organized religion/welfare state/communism/the borg.

But since then I have realized that since I am not the owner of my own corporation, and do not have the money to start my own business, pure objectivism doesn't really apply to me. Everyone of intelligence is NOT going to be able to run their own company. I am still quasi-libertarian, but realize that the objectivist branch lives in as much of a bubble as the pure communism camp- good in theory, it could work in a small group maybe, but completely unapplicable in a sizable population.

You'll have to wait for Melkor if you want someone to play teacher for you, or you'll have to read yourself past elementary level. Until then, you expect me to make a serious argument when the opposition thinks that "The type of person who is off their meds and living in a bubble world" or "Take Ayn Rand seriously? Only if you're Rush" are inciteful commentary?
Nawh, I have some red and green paint, and I really want to see which color dries the fastest.


Well, he may be trying to incite you ;)

I fell in love with Rand in 9th grade when I read Anthem.

[...]


[...] I am still quasi-libertarian, but realize that the objectivist branch lives in as much of a bubble as the pure communism camp- good in theory, it could work in a small group maybe, but completely unapplicable in a sizable population.


Bravo.

-snip-

You deserve this.

*hands you a box of cookies*

Bravo.


You deserve this.

*hands you a box of cookies*

Thanks for the praise and cookies (chocolate chip, my favorite!), but any particular reason?

Thanks for the praise and cookies (chocolate chip, my favorite!), but any particular reason?


A text book case of a kid growing up.

We should hope that your accolades serve to motivate the Toys-R-Us Kids.

But since then I have realized that since I am not the owner of my own corporation, and do not have the money to start my own business, pure objectivism doesn't really apply to me.

But shouldn't you aspire to be a business owner? Like maybe a railroad tycoon, or a steel baron, or a mining magnate? :)

Well, he may be trying to incite you ;)

The funny thing is the comments were inciteful, just probably not insightful.

But shouldn't you aspire to be a business owner? Like maybe a railroad tycoon, or a steel baron, or a mining magnate? :)

This could be you:

http://www.hcima.org.uk/blacktie/images/banner_mid.gif

Who wouldn't want to be him?

nah, she hated that stuff - more than she hated people who didn't smoke, even.

Smoking is cool. And will make you popular.

Well, he may be trying to incite you ;)
Har.
*throws a pencil at New Granada*

Either one is a bad choice, and objectivism could be seen as the antithesis to marxism, and should be taken as seriously. It is a philosophy, a well thought out one, despite my personal disagreement with it, and if the United States continues on the path it is now, it is most likely the far future of the nation.

Ha ha ha that is funny the US is so far away from an objectivist society our government is spending more and more every year on its statist programs you must be a comedian.

Ha ha ha that is funny the US is so far away from an objectivist society our government is spending more and more every year on its statist programs you must be a comedian.

If by statist programs you mean the military.

If by statist programs you mean the military.


"Statist" is one of those words like "heritage" that signal the speaker has a screw loose.

I've only read one of Ayn Rand's novels, Anthem, for school in 9th grade. I didn't really have much of an opinion on it; it was more interesting than some of the books I've read in English class, but otherwise it wasn't very striking.

To be frank, I find the idea of 'enlightened self-interest' (the idea that humanity is best served by having everyone work for their own self interest, but in a nice way) to be naive at best. Take one look at your average day of traffic. It barely manages to work with the amount of regulation we have- it often doesn't considering how many thousands of Americans die in traffic accidents each year. And she thinks that could work without a government, with everyone looking out for themselves and no one else?! Madness...

Bravo, AllCoolNamesAreTaken! Indeed, the extreme ends of the economic spectrum do sound appealing in principle; if you try applying them to reality, though, you find that they're impractical at any level larger than a small town where everyone already knows each other. The trick, then, is to find the proper balance between the two that does the greatest net good for humanity and the least net harm.

"Statist" is one of those words like "heritage" that signal the speaker has a screw loose.

If I had a screw loose I would make a cheese dick insult about a word instead of
giving facts to support my answer. I guess it is alot easier for you to make knee jerk chicken shit comments than to prove that you know what you are talking about.

To be frank, I find the idea of 'enlightened self-interest' (the idea that humanity is best served by having everyone work for their own self interest, but in a nice way) to be naive at best.

I find the idea humanity is best served by giving power to politicians who have nothing but their own self interest in mind and could give a shit less about the average citizen to be naive.

If I had a screw loose I would make a cheese dick insult about a word instead of
giving facts to support my answer. I guess it is alot easier for you to make knee jerk chicken shit comments than to prove that you know what you are talking about.


You shouldnt flame on this forum.


You're welcome to read about anarchism in this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?s=) and this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?s=) and this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?s=).

You shouldnt flame on this forum.


You're welcome to read about anarchism in this thread this thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?s=) and this thread http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?s= and this thread
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/search.php?s=.

I am fighting fire with fire.

To be frank, I find the idea of 'enlightened self-interest' (the idea that humanity is best served by having everyone work for their own self interest, but in a nice way) to be naive at best.

I'm not sure Rand was talking about enlightened self-interest. I think she was talking about pure, naked, unabashed self-interest.

I'm not sure Rand was talking about enlightened self-interest. I think she was talking about pure, naked, unabashed self-interest.
Fine, I'll bite.
Yes, in fact, she was talking about "pure, naked, unabashed self-interest", as would be, ever so blatantly, obvious you put even the slightest bit of effort into reading something about her philosophy.
"Enlightened" Self-interest means Self-Interest motivated by a rational analysis of the matter at hand, where one chooses the option that offers the best possible consequences. The premise behind it is that, while it might appear to be better for me if I started robbing people, the break down in law and order that would result from such a course of action would (inevitably) bite me in the ass.
Further, it holds that people will work together for mutual gain. It profits the boss to pay the workers enough that the workers will come in tommorow. It profits the workers to do their work properly. Both groups have, based on enlightened self-interest, decided that thigs will be better if they help each other.

Fine, I'll bite.
Yes, in fact, she was talking about "pure, naked, unabashed self-interest", as would be, ever so blatantly, obvious you put even the slightest bit of effort into reading something about her philosophy.
"Enlightened" Self-interest means Self-Interest motivated by a rational analysis of the matter at hand, where one chooses the option that offers the best possible consequences. The premise behind it is that, while it might appear to be better for me if I started robbing people, the break down in law and order that would result from such a course of action would (inevitably) bite me in the ass.
Further, it holds that people will work together for mutual gain. It profits the boss to pay the workers enough that the workers will come in tommorow. It profits the workers to do their work properly. Both groups have, based on enlightened self-interest, decided that thigs will be better if they help each other.

My post was deliberate understatement.

I admit that I have not devoted too much time to reading Rand because I was not impressed enough by what I have read to want to go back for more. Having already sunk 1200 pages of reading time on Atlas Shrugged, I was not too inclined to throw time away when there are so many better authors to read.

It might certainly be rational to rob if you thought you would get away with it.

"Enlightened" Self-interest means Self-Interest motivated by a rational analysis of the matter at hand, where one chooses the option that offers the best possible consequences. The premise behind it is that, while it might appear to be better for me if I started robbing people, the break down in law and order that would result from such a course of action would (inevitably) bite me in the ass.
Further, it holds that people will work together for mutual gain. It profits the boss to pay the workers enough that the workers will come in tommorow. It profits the workers to do their work properly. Both groups have, based on enlightened self-interest, decided that thigs will be better if they help each other.

The problem with that, to me, seems to be the assumption of not only a lack of an emotional element (it may not rationally fit your self-interests to rob, murder, or otherwise hurt someone, but such things happen anyway due to emotions), but of a pretty good intelligence for all of the populace (it's not readily obvious to many that robbing someone promotes lawlessness, which would probably be bad for them). The philosophy assumes a uniformity of intellectual reasoning capacity and emotional blankness that, frankly, don't exist.

I'll also note that, in the 'factory owner has an incentive to pay a reasonable amount to keep employees from walking' example, you don't take into account the possibility that this is the only employment in the area, so the factory workers are screwed unless they take the risk of moving to another area.

*hopes that other posters on both sides won't ruin this opportunity for a civil discussion with their usual crude, thoughtless crap*

The problem with that, to me, seems to be the assumption of not only a lack of an emotional element (it may not rationally fit your self-interests to rob, murder, or otherwise hurt someone, but such things happen anyway due to emotions), but of a pretty good intelligence for all of the populace (it's not readily obvious to many that robbing someone promotes lawlessness, which would probably be bad for them). The philosophy assumes a uniformity of intellectual reasoning capacity and emotional blankness that, frankly, don't exist.

She assumes no such thing people who do not act rational will suffer in a objectivist society. If they do not act rational with money or work they will starve there will be no safety net for them.

I'll also note that, in the 'factory owner has an incentive to pay a reasonable amount to keep employees from walking' example, you don't take into account the possibility that this is the only employment in the area, so the factory workers are screwed unless they take the risk of moving to another area.

They either move or they continued to get skrewed by their employer. How is that differant than now?

She assumes no such thing people who do not act rational will suffer in a objectivist society. If they do not act rational with money or work they will starve there will be no safety net for them.


I think the point is it assumes that human-beings are rational actors who can take all of the factors into account and come to a logical decision, or that they are all capable of being so. In a world of limited rationality and imperfect information, I think that is a really questionable proposition.

It also assumes that it is desirable for people to behave in such a manner. That is also debatable.

She assumes no such thing people who do not act rational will suffer in a objectivist society. If they do not act rational with money or work they will starve there will be no safety net for them.

You forgot the third option. It seems that people who are tied to a location for some irrational reason (such as taking care of their family or not seeing any better opportunities elsewhere) do not generally have the decency to just quietly move to the side and starve.

No, when push comes to shove, they'll shove. And bleating about them having no moral justification to wave that gun in your face while they mug you really doesn't do a lot.

I think the point is it assumes that human-beings are rational actors who can take all of the factors into account and come to a logical decision, or that they are all capable of being so. In a world of limited rationality and imperfect information, I think that is a really questionable proposition.

It also assumes that it is desirable for people to behave in such a manner. That is also debatable.

If you do not believe people will act rational than how can you support the idea of a strong government. What if your government leaders who you have given so much power are irrational. That is much worse than your common irrational citizen.

You forgot the third option. It seems that people who are tied to a location for some irrational reason (such as taking care of their family or not seeing any better opportunities elsewhere) do not generally have the decency to just quietly move to the side and starve.

No, when push comes to shove, they'll shove. And bleating about them having no moral justification to wave that gun in your face while they mug you really doesn't do a lot.

Why would they kill some one who is giving them a job. If they do not like the job they are free to quit and go some where else. If they chose violence then they will be dealt with like criminals.

Why would they kill some one who is giving them a job. If they do not like the job they are free to quit and go some where else. If they chose violence then they will be dealt with like criminals.
Lack of reading comprehension for the lose.

You forgot the third option. It seems that people who are tied to a location for some irrational reason (such as taking care of their family or not seeing any better opportunities elsewhere) do not generally have the decency to just quietly move to the side and starve.

No, when push comes to shove, they'll shove. And bleating about them having no moral justification to wave that gun in your face while they mug you really doesn't do a lot.
I think the point lies somewhere in this post here. The one you replied to. Lets see if we can find it.

HOLY CRAP, IT'S BOLDED. MY GOD!

Lack of reading comprehension for the lose.


I think the point lies somewhere in this post here. The one you replied to. Lets see if we can find it.

HOLY CRAP, IT'S BOLDED. MY GOD!

Now do not get your panties in a ruffle honey. I read what they said I just disagree that poor people have a right to get money from other people by government force. If they are in a bad situation it is usually(not always) from there poor decisions. Government programs do nothing but enable poor decisions people make. I know you will disagree and give some emotional bullshit excuse why the government has a right to steal my money and give it to some one else but I personally think stealing is always wrong.

I find that Atlas Shrugged, despite all its shortcomings, has for me been quite a good motivational book.

But I suppose that's just me (I suspect that I've always had a hang for arrogance, eversince I noticed how much better I was than everyone else at school).

What say you?
Is this a trick question?

Government programs do nothing but enable poor decisions people make.
Yes, I suppose it was a poor decision on my father's part to die of lukemia leaving his wife with two very young children and no job.

Be very, very thankful you have not found yourself in such a situation, for people do not run up to help you even when the poor decision was due more to your goverment deciding to use chemicals in their war in Vietnam and not using enough shielding for their x-ray equipment.

Funny that.

Fine, I'll bite.
Yes, in fact, she was talking about "pure, naked, unabashed self-interest", as would be, ever so blatantly, obvious you put even the slightest bit of effort into reading something about her philosophy.
"Enlightened" Self-interest means Self-Interest motivated by a rational analysis of the matter at hand, where one chooses the option that offers the best possible consequences. The premise behind it is that, while it might appear to be better for me if I started robbing people, the break down in law and order that would result from such a course of action would (inevitably) bite me in the ass.
Further, it holds that people will work together for mutual gain. It profits the boss to pay the workers enough that the workers will come in tommorow. It profits the workers to do their work properly. Both groups have, based on enlightened self-interest, decided that thigs will be better if they help each other.
Meh? :confused: Isn't "pure, naked, unabashed" opposed to "enlightened"?

In my opinion both her fiction and her philosophy are garbage. But some people disagree. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476767&page=7)

What say you?
I think she had a lot of good points, and a lot of interesting ideas, but I don't embrace her philosophy as a whole. Like most things I've read, I took away some cool stuff but was not converted into a hard-core follower.

I am, however, endlessly fascinated by the polarization around Rand's writing. People seem to either love her or hate her. Either they're a hard-core Randian, or they insist that nothing she wrote had any value at all. Kind of reminds me of the love-or-hate dichotomy when it comes to Hillary Clinton.

Meh? :confused: Isn't "pure, naked, unabashed" opposed to "enlightened"?
No. Enlighten simply means tom "To impart information to" or "make clear" something. As it is commonly used, it means to be Morally Enlightened, but being enlightened about other things (like the consequences of your actions) is just as valid.

Yes, I suppose it was a poor decision on my father's part to die of lukemia leaving his wife with two very young children and no job.

Be very, very thankful you have not found yourself in such a situation, for people do not run up to help you even when the poor decision was due more to your goverment deciding to use chemicals in their war in Vietnam and not using enough shielding for their x-ray equipment.
No, but it apparently was a poor decision on his part to join the military, a proffession which includes getting killed in the job description. State Sponsored butchery is one of those things that occurs when you start giving the government the authority to "decide whats best", and everything that happens to you after that point is your fault for not enforcing minarchy.
Funny that.
Everything's funny if you think about it long enough.

I think the point is it assumes that human-beings are rational actors who can take all of the factors into account and come to a logical decision, or that they are all capable of being so. In a world of limited rationality and imperfect information, I think that is a really questionable proposition.
Human beings are amazingly adaptable, and, in a situation where the alternative is death, they can be very rational. So long as you offer them an easy way out, though, they'll take it.
It also assumes that it is desirable for people to behave in such a manner. That is also debatable.
It is very desirable to minimize government interference and encourage progress, and such things can only be accomplished by forcing people to think for themselves.

She occassionally had interesting ideas, but they were said much better by other philosophers (eg Nietzsche). She was also clearly blind to the faults in capitalism (did she really think all poor people are too lazy to live?) and concluded too readily that capitalism always rewards hard work and talent. She also contradicted herself; is it really in the self-interest of a worker to submit to the capitalist overlords rather than resisting?

Her fiction is fine, her philosophy is fucked.

Her fiction is shallow. She never creates characters that you can feel anything for, because they are all completely one dimensional. Her fictional world is completely unbelievable, even with a suspension of disbelief, and her fiction goes into long "philosophical" discourse - where what she really tries to do is repeat the same thing over and over again, as if saying it enough makes it true.

I've only read one of Ayn Rand's novels, Anthem, for school in 9th grade. I didn't really have much of an opinion on it; it was more interesting than some of the books I've read in English class, but otherwise it wasn't very striking.

To be frank, I find the idea of 'enlightened self-interest' (the idea that humanity is best served by having everyone work for their own self interest, but in a nice way) to be naive at best. Take one look at your average day of traffic. It barely manages to work with the amount of regulation we have- it often doesn't considering how many thousands of Americans die in traffic accidents each year. And she thinks that could work without a government, with everyone looking out for themselves and no one else?! Madness...

Bravo, AllCoolNamesAreTaken! Indeed, the extreme ends of the economic spectrum do sound appealing in principle; if you try applying them to reality, though, you find that they're impractical at any level larger than a small town where everyone already knows each other. The trick, then, is to find the proper balance between the two that does the greatest net good for humanity and the least net harm.

Was Anthem the little pamphlet-book about some scary world where the commie's are rationing candles. My girlfriend's sister had a Rand-complex and that was about the only thing available to read when we were visiting her at Vassar. I then made a quick foray into Atlas Shrugged... Sweet Jesus in Hell, that woman can pound at a point until its dead. I thought L. Neil Smith's Libertarian, "an armed playground is a polite playground," dystopianism was drivel, I'd rather read L. Ron Hubbard, or better yet, chew glass for a year.

Oh, and I'm having a laugh at all the hagiography over Melkor. Had a discussion once about how the word dollar necessarily identifies you as American, and how apparently anybody who works pays 20% income tax. I just can't be impressed by a moderator(what!?!) who drops that many obscenities and can't be bothered to fill out his 1040EZ. I guess getting your witholding back would just encourage the state:headbang: .

In all my life and in eight or so years of hearing the name Ayn Rand tossed about, I have never read a word of her works.

I don't blame you. I did it just to see what all the fuss was about, and it was all I could do to actually read through the whole damn book.

I find the idea humanity is best served by giving power to politicians who have nothing but their own self interest in mind and could give a shit less about the average citizen to be naive.
As long as I have some chance of voting the ****-wad politicians out if they ***** the pooch. Rand's vaunted "rugged industrialists" are essentially untouchable. Oh and if you think property is a natural thing rather than a artifact of "statism", abolish the state sometime and see how long you can keep your property. I suspect most of your wealth will be consumed in ammo alone.:mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :sniper: :sniper: :mp5: :mp5: :mp5: :rolleyes:

She also contradicted herself; is it really in the self-interest of a worker to submit to the capitalist overlords rather than resisting?
Considering how most Communist revolutions tend to end out, yeah. Better the devil you know.

As long as I have some chance of voting the ****-wad politicians out if they ***** the pooch.
Yeah, you're right! There's no corruption in our government at all, and they always know whats best. That's why they need to have life and death power over us, and why they're the best spenders of our profits.
Rand's vaunted "rugged industrialists" are essentially untouchable.
Obviously, someone's never read The Fountainhead. Howard Roarke (her ubermensch) gets "touched" time and again by every damn fool who he rubs the wrong way.
Oh and if you think property is a natural thing rather than a artifact of "statism", abolish the state sometime and see how long you can keep your property. I suspect most of your wealth will be consumed in ammo alone.
So, just because someone might try to rob me, that means that property isn't real? I guess that human life and one's virginity are "statist" constructions as well?

Considering how most Communist revolutions tend to end out, yeah. Better the devil you know.

It's possible to resist capitalism without being Marxist, actually.

She assumes no such thing people who do not act rational will suffer in a objectivist society. If they do not act rational with money or work they will starve there will be no safety net for them.

They either move or they continued to get skrewed by their employer. How is that differant than now?

Ayn Rand the best-known modern proponent of Hobbe's, "nasty short and brutish," lifestyle. There are Russians who look back with nostalgia. I suspect there'd only be a few hundred, "Competent Men," who would look back on an Objectivist Non-Republic with any kind of fondness.

The differants between the situation for a screwed employee here-and-now and for a screwed employee in Rand's Objectivist Utopia(R), is the difference between:

A 40-hour work week
Weekends
OSHA
At least a minimum wage
Unemployment insurance
At least some semblance of recourse in the event of wrongful termination

,and:

Third world sweat shops
Cheap child labor
Being fired for trying to organize a union
One word, "Saipan"
Another word, "Pinkertons"


All that said, anyone who votes against unionizing their shop deserves whatever (stuff) their boss decides to dump on them.

The philosophy assumes a uniformity of intellectual reasoning capacity and emotional blankness that, frankly, don't exist.

Not to mention that it assumes that anything that happens to anyone is their own fault. No "acts of God". Starting out in a poor situation vs. starting out rich doesn't make a difference at all to how likely you are to succeed, according to Rand. You know, because money only matters if you are really intelligent and already have it.

I'll also note that, in the 'factory owner has an incentive to pay a reasonable amount to keep employees from walking' example, you don't take into account the possibility that this is the only employment in the area, so the factory workers are screwed unless they take the risk of moving to another area.

Sometimes, it isn't even a matter of "risk". Sometimes, it is a complete impossibility for someone to move. Why? Because moving takes, *gasp*, MONEY. And if you don't already have it, and can't get a job to get it, then you are stuck where you are, now aren't you?


Considering how most Communist revolutions tend to end out, yeah. Better the devil you know.

Yes, because it's either, "follow Rand" or "be a damn pinko Communist." There are no other options! Bow to those who can't think for themselves and need everything to be an either/or, black/white proposition!

State Sponsored butchery is one of those things that occurs when you start giving the government the authority to "decide whats best", and everything that happens to you after that point is your fault for not enforcing minarchy.

Uh-huh... Again Pinkertons.

"Hey if you don't want to give up your civil rights to some rich guy. Nobody's forcing you to eat," see how I resisted the urge to use the upyours smiley. :cool:

I'll also note that, in the 'factory owner has an incentive to pay a reasonable amount to keep employees from walking' example, you don't take into account the possibility that this is the only employment in the area, so the factory workers are screwed unless they take the risk of moving to another area.


Alright so basically this goes back to the employer's self interest yeh? These are examples of things that happen in capitalist societies as they stand right now. Why then would these things come up in a society that Rand describes?
For example, it is in the best interest of the employer to give a wage that allows the employee to feed themselves and their family, as a half starved worker is not going to be as effecient as a full one. Also, if they aren't being paid enough to support a family then you don't have a work force for the future do you? less kids = less future workers. I'm not saying kids should be looked at as a workforce, but eventually some of them will become just that.
So, it is within reason to assume in a Randian society that the employer would have to offer reasonable wages...Now in a society like ours where the government tries to provide for the poor, the employer doesn't need to. The employer can continually rip off the employee and count on the government to provide. In effect the employee gets a lower standard of living and the government gets drained.
So, in either system the employer acts rationally and profits, but in one version the employee's well being is part of the employer's self-interest. Which one sounds better?

By thinking that a capitalist under a Randian society would act the same as they do now would mean you assume they would not be fully rational. However, this is what she advocates, and if the employer is not rational then they eventually get pushed out by people who are. This was in no way meant to be an immediate cure-all, but in time it would seem the irrational people at the top would get discarded.

Alright so basically this goes back to the employer's self interest yeh? These are examples of things that happen in capitalist societies as they stand right now. Why then would these things come up in a society that Rand describes?

Maybe because they have happened in the societies closest to those that Rand describes, and that is precisely why we have social programs to avoid them?


So, it is within reason to assume in a Randian society that the employer would have to offer reasonable wages...Now in a society like ours where the government tries to provide for the poor, the employer doesn't need to.

The government didn't always do so. And people weren't paid reasonable wages. This might lead a rational person to realize that the government trying to provide for its people has nothing to do with the fact that businesses will generally pay the lowest wages they can get away with, and if we are talking about unskilled labor with a workforce that has no place else to go, that means pretty low.

By thinking that a capitalist under a Randian society would act the same as they do now would mean you assume they would not be fully rational. However, this is what she advocates, and if the employer is not rational then they eventually get pushed out by people who are. This was in no way meant to be an immediate cure-all, but in time it would seem the irrational people at the top would get discarded.

That's really cute, except that there are no people who are as Rand described. She created completely 1-dimensional characters because she thought it would make her point. The only point it made is that Rand's ideas don't work when you start involving real human beings, who have more to them than, "I am a smart industrialist," or "I am a lazy bastard who wants everyone else to do things for me."

Yeah, you're right! There's no corruption in our government at all, and they always know whats best. That's why they need to have life and death power over us, and why they're the best spenders of our profits.
No, I said you could vote the corrupt out. If you enough people choose not to. I guess they like their getting. I didn't say it was a bloody utopia. Just better than bend-over-and-grab-your-knees capitalism. That is to say Laissez Faire(sp).

Obviously, someone's never read The Fountainhead. Howard Roarke (her ubermensch) gets "touched" time and again by every damn fool who he rubs the wrong way.
I said I never finished Fountainhead. Your observational skills are exemplary. Besides, in reality, as opposed to long-winded bad fiction. Howard Roarke would have a posse of well paid hangers on to beat the shit(there I've said it) out of any damn fool he rubbed the wrong way. Repeat after me, "Pinkertons."

So, just because someone might try to rob me, that means that property isn't real? I guess that human life and one's virginity are "statist" constructions as well?
No taking your stuff is only robbery if there's a law against it. Otherwise its a hostile takeover. Anti-statists who talk about robbery and murder are kind of silly. Sure there's a moral element, but that's a slippery slope that leads to things like compassion for the poor or God-forbid justice.

Not to mention that it assumes that anything that happens to anyone is their own fault. No "acts of God". Starting out in a poor situation vs. starting out rich doesn't make a difference at all to how likely you are to succeed, according to Rand. You know, because money only matters if you are really intelligent and already have it.

Ok you have a point with the "acts of God", though it could be argued that you should've made arrangements to ensure your safety. However, if it was really unforseeable then i guess the best you can do is try to rebuild.
However, on the point of starting out poor. If you actually read atlas shrugged you'd see a solution to this. You have to earn your inheritance. If you can't manage the fortune and business enterprise then you don't deserve to inherit it simple as that.

Yes, because it's either, "follow Rand" or "be a damn pinko Communist." There are no other options! Bow to those who can't think for themselves and need everything to be an either/or, black/white proposition!
Hm, let me think about what Letila said. She proposed violently resisting the capitalist overlords, now, gimme a second, what is the only group that has ever done that to even limited success?
The name of that idealougy is right on the tip of my tongue, starts with a C . . . Consumerism? Concordant analysis?
Damn, I appear to be drawing a blank, maybe you could figure it out for me?

The government didn't always do so. And people weren't paid reasonable wages. This might lead a rational person to realize that the government trying to provide for its people has nothing to do with the fact that businesses will generally pay the lowest wages they can get away with, and if we are talking about unskilled labor with a workforce that has no place else to go, that means pretty low.

Ford's five dollar day? I don't really know just how successful he was, but umm i do seem to remember that he was a rather big deal. Anyways, the point i'm making is employers who think rationally and take into account as much as they can will also provide for their employees. Not all the employers back then thought about the long term and what ended up happening? The governement stepped in and regulated them, not entirely in their best interests. If however, the majority of business owners were capable of rational long term thought then maybe we could see a Randian society work out. That is a rather big 'if' i'll admit. It doesn't mean that her theories are invalid though, just that people would rather not be responsible for themselves.

Ok you have a point with the "acts of God", though it could be argued that you should've made arrangements to ensure your safety. However, if it was really unforseeable then i guess the best you can do is try to rebuild.
However, on the point of starting out poor. If you actually read atlas shrugged you'd see a solution to this. You have to earn your inheritance. If you can't manage the fortune and business enterprise then you don't deserve to inherit it simple as that.
Since my boredom threshold doesn't quite reach trudging through another bout of Rand-tripe just so I can say I drank the Kool-Aid, where pray tell does this unearned inheritance go and who the hell is going to take it? Probably not the started out poor people.

Not to mention that it assumes that anything that happens to anyone is their own fault. No "acts of God". Starting out in a poor situation vs. starting out rich doesn't make a difference at all to how likely you are to succeed, according to Rand. You know, because money only matters if you are really intelligent and already have it.
Absolute agreement.
Even if everybody is a Howard Roarke or a Robert Heinlein, there will be losers. If everybody's a, "rugged industrialist," labor costs would tend to skyrocket. I don't know whether that would lead to massive unemployment or a lot of very competent men working in crappy jobs for crappy wages or total economic meltdown or all of the above, but there would be some combination of the above.

No, I said you could vote the corrupt out. If you enough people choose not to. I guess they like their getting. I didn't say it was a bloody utopia. Just better than bend-over-and-grab-your-knees capitalism. That is to say Laissez Faire(sp).
So people deserve if they are stupid or unlucky and the government gets them, but if they're stupid or unlucky and a private citizen gets them, then the citizen is the capitalist oppressor?
World-Class philosophy you've cranked out there.
I said I never finished Fountainhead. Your observational skills are exemplary. Besides, in reality, as opposed to long-winded bad fiction. Howard Roarke would have a posse of well paid hangers on to beat the shit(there I've said it) out of any damn fool he rubbed the wrong way. Repeat after me, "Pinkertons."
And, in reality, Hester Prynne would have invented an army of steam-powered mechanical men to kill those who had wronged her. And, in reality, we'd (apparently) just make a bunch of stuff up to prove our argument because knowing what your talking about is so hard.
And while we're at it, in reality you never read The Fountainhead because, in reality, you only read picture books.
In reality.
No taking your stuff is only robbery if there's a law against it. Otherwise its a hostile takeover. Anti-statists who talk about robbery and murder are kind of silly.
No, you're kind of silly for missing my point. According to your logic, anything that I can physically do (but is prohibited by law) the right to be free from it is a statist artifact. Therefore, you don't have a right to property, to control of your life, or to your life at all.
Sure there's a moral element, but that's a slippery slope that leads to things like compassion for the poor or God-forbid justice.
Yeah, justice. Like prohibiting theft and murder based on the fact that no one has the right to control another through force. Not all morals are your morals, the sooner you realize this, the sooner you can start to mature.

Ok you have a point with the "acts of God", though it could be argued that you should've made arrangements to ensure your safety. However, if it was really unforseeable then i guess the best you can do is try to rebuild.
However, on the point of starting out poor. If you actually read atlas shrugged you'd see a solution to this. You have to earn your inheritance. If you can't manage the fortune and business enterprise then you don't deserve to inherit it simple as that.

Yes, but that is still someone who has something to inherit. What about someone who has no inheritance - whose parents have nothing to leave them?

A person who starts out living in a slum *might* get to the point of owning a business one day. Maybe. But, simply because of where they started, they are much less likely to get there than the guy whose parents already owned a business, or at least were middle class.

And I do have to ask, how can you possibly be so naive? Yes, one can argue that you should have made arrangements for acts of God, if that person truly believes that all human beings have unlimited resources. Of course, if you live in the real world, where people actually have limited resources and have to pay for things, it just doesn't work that way.


Hm, let me think about what Letila said. She proposed violently resisting the capitalist overlords, now, gimme a second, what is the only group that has ever done that to even limited success?

(a) Where did Letila mention violence? She said they should resist - she didn't say how.

(b) The way things were done in the past is not necessarily the only way to do them.


Ford's five dollar day? I don't really know just how successful he was, but umm i do seem to remember that he was a rather big deal. Anyways, the point i'm making is employers who think rationally and take into account as much as they can will also provide for their employees. Not all the employers back then thought about the long term and what ended up happening? The governement stepped in and regulated them, not entirely in their best interests. If however, the majority of business owners were capable of rational long term thought then maybe we could see a Randian society work out. That is a rather big 'if' i'll admit. It doesn't mean that her theories are invalid though, just that people would rather not be responsible for themselves.

And this is the problem with all "pure" economic philosophies, be it pure capatalism, communism, etc. They all absolutely rely on something that simply doesn't fall within the realm of reality - people being perfect - being better than they have ever been.

Yes, but that is still someone who has something to inherit. What about someone who has no inheritance - whose parents have nothing to leave them?

And this is the problem with all "pure" economic philosophies, be it pure capatalism, communism, etc. They all absolutely rely on something that simply doesn't fall within the realm of reality - people being perfect - being better than they have ever been.

Let's take two examples shall we? We have the same person, they are exceptionally talented and lets say they get born into a wealthy family, well then they inherit the fortune and everything is happy yeh?
OK, same person, but this time they start out in a slum. Ok, so they get an education right, because for most advancement in the modern world you need an education. Sure, then once they've done that they can go get a good job and prosper while doing that, as they are exceptional we have no reason to assume they wouldn't prosper. From there maybe they start their own business or invest or who knows what. The point is they've still become successful. They had to work a hell of a lot harder for it and they still don't have the same resources the rich version did, but then how is that different than capitalism now? As long as you act rationally class lines become relatively flexible, allowing you to improve your lot. No one is saying you should be able to become a tycoon.

And second, would you prefer a philosophy of mediocrity? one that does not tell you to be ambitious and instill a sense in a person that they must be responsible and rational in order to succeed? Never did i say they must be perfectly rational, that would be absurd, but if they could be rational enough to see long term effects or even to hire people who could see long term effects, then maybe a Randian society would be possible. Yes people have emotions and they make mistakes, and yes under this sytem they would pay for it. If you make too many emotional decisions you hurt your income the same as if you make too many mistakes. It doesn't ask you to make no mistakes, just to decide what would likely be best, if that happens to be a mistake then you accept he consequences and move on.

OK, same person, but this time they start out in a slum. Ok, so they get an education right, because for most advancement in the modern world you need an education.

Where do they get a decent education with no money? You are basically saying, "We assume they get everything they need automatically, because otherwise my idea doesn't work." Well, sorry, but nobody gets an education automatically. In a country which provides public education, any child can get *some* education, but even then we aren't talking about world-class education, now are we? And I can pretty much guarrantee that Rand would be heavily opposed to public education.

Sure, then once they've done that they can go get a good job and prosper while doing that, as they are exceptional we have no reason to assume they wouldn't prosper.

Once again, your naivete is astounding. "Once you get an education, you can get a really great job and everything is hunky dory." Of course, that first assumes that you get an education - that even if one is provided you don't have to drop out early to get a job so that you can, you know, survive. Second of all, it assumes that you get a full education - college and all - because that's the only way you are going to jump right into a job that pays pretty well (and even then, you are actually unlikely to be getting paid much right out).

And finally, you fall into Rand's trap. "If someone is exceptional, they will automagically do well." Once again, unfortunately, reality doesn't work that way.

And second, would you prefer a philosophy of mediocrity? one that does not tell you to be ambitious and instill a sense in a person that they must be responsible and rational in order to succeed?

Rand's philosophy doesn't tell you to be ambitious, unless you are exceptional. Everyone else is just supposed to be happy with their lot in life - working for those who can be immediately shown to be exceptional.

Not to mention that Rand's philosophy completely wipes out the better parts of humanity, such as empathy, love (no, Rand's version of love is not actually love), and responsibility to others.

When it comes right down to it, Rand's philosophy is, in many ways, one of mediocrity - no better than it's polar opposite. In the end, they would both lead to similar situations.

Never did i say they must be perfectly rational, that would be absurd, but if they could be rational enough to see long term effects or even to hire people who could see long term effects, then maybe a Randian society would be possible. Yes people have emotions and they make mistakes, and yes under this sytem they would pay for it. If you make too many emotional decisions you hurt your income the same as if you make too many mistakes. It doesn't ask you to make no mistakes, just to decide what would likely be best, if that happens to be a mistake then you accept he consequences and move on.

If only people were better than they've ever been....

Such a system would only "work", if just about everyone were damn near perfectly rational. Otherwise, there is no punishment for being irrational - you get the short-term benefits and move on.

Indeed, the most benefits to an industrtialist might be from starting new companies, making some profit while treating the workers like shit, and then closing up and moving on the next business venture.

Rand assumes that nobody wants more than they deserve, and that everyone will pay another what they deserve. Reality doesn't work that way. Most people want more than they work for. Most people want to pay as little as they can get away with - to hell with what is deserved.

If you do not believe people will act rational than how can you support the idea of a strong government. What if your government leaders who you have given so much power are irrational. That is much worse than your common irrational citizen.

Because I don't necessarily believe that rationality is the be all and end all of good decision-making.

Anyone who has read enough ancient Greek philosophy knows that seemingly logical thought processes can lead to conclusions that are just plain wrong.

Also, on a personal note, most of the best decisions I have made in my life cannot be rationalized.

Now do not get your panties in a ruffle honey. I read what they said I just disagree that poor people have a right to get money from other people by government force. If they are in a bad situation it is usually(not always) from there poor decisions. Government programs do nothing but enable poor decisions people make. I know you will disagree and give some emotional bullshit excuse why the government has a right to steal my money and give it to some one else but I personally think stealing is always wrong.

Who said they have a right to anything? I certainly didn't. Personally, I think the only right we have is to attempt to defend what we want by any means available -- physical, mental, social. Anything else is a fiction and means absolutely nothing when faced with cold reality.

And of course if they choose violence they'll be treated like criminals. You seem to somehow magically assume this means they won't choose violence.

Government taxation may be theft (or it may not, I liken it to negative option billing.. so long as you use the services provided by it, you are making an implicit agreement to pay the charges it sets) but it effects everybody of the same economic means roughly the same amount and can be controlled by the electorate. Personal theft gives no such assurances.

Not all people have opportunities visible to them (key word is visible). To think that the people who don't quietly slink away and starve is foolish. They will find other opportunities.. opportunities that go against your supposed rights. The sad truth is that you will have a portion of your goods taken from you no matter what the system. It's just that taxation and social welfare allows you to have a voice in the taking.

Now do not get your panties in a ruffle honey. I read what they said I just disagree that poor people have a right to get money from other people by government force. If they are in a bad situation it is usually(not always) from there poor decisions. Government programs do nothing but enable poor decisions people make. I know you will disagree and give some emotional bullshit excuse why the government has a right to steal my money and give it to some one else but I personally think stealing is always wrong.

Because its not stealing if the government says its OK. :)

But seriously ... do you really believe that people end up poor because of their bad choices alone?

So people deserve if they are stupid or unlucky and the government gets them, but if they're stupid or unlucky and a private citizen gets them, then the citizen is the capitalist oppressor?
World-Class philosophy you've cranked out there.

Straw man. I didn't say anything like that. I said, and this is a last ditch attempt to see if you pay attention to anything, that you had some recourse to remove corrupt politicians in a democracy. I didn't say it would be a fucking paradise, it isn't, I simply said it would be a damn sight better than an objectivist world, it is.

And, in reality, Hester Prynne would have invented an army of steam-powered mechanical men to kill those who had wronged her. And, in reality, we'd (apparently) just make a bunch of stuff up to prove our argument because knowing what your talking about is so hard.
And while we're at it, in reality you never read The Fountainhead because, in reality, you only read picture books.
In reality.

Very ad hominem. This is why I'm ignoring you now, not because I disagree with your idol's "Philosophy."

The reason I didn't read anything of Rand's beyond Anthem and the first chapter of Atlas Shrugged is because her writing gives turgid a bad name. I disagree with a whole lot of Heinlein but I read his books because they are interesting as opposed to shit.

Sorry this is as polite a response as I can give to the preceding. More polite than it deserves.

If drinkink the kool-aid is a necessary pre-requisite to, "knowing what your talking about," watch Fahrenheit 911 some time. Its not as hard as wading through Rand's, "writing," but I doubt you'd waste a hunk of your life on it...

No, you're kind of silly for missing my point. According to your logic, anything that I can physically do (but is prohibited by law) the right to be free from it is a statist artifact. Therefore, you don't have a right to property, to control of your life, or to your life at all.

Yeah, justice. Like prohibiting theft and murder based on the fact that no one has the right to control another through force. Not all morals are your morals, the sooner you realize this, the sooner you can start to mature.

That's your world, not mine. I consider things like a police force devoted to the protection of public safety to be a good thing. I believe that compassion for the less fortunate is a good thing. I believe that there is such a thing as a community and that it can be a good thing if enough of the people in it act responsibly. I don't think that living like wild animals in some anarcho-capitalist hell-hole is a good thing. What might help you to gain maturity is to work in a Saipan sweat shop for a few years. There's some good free capitalism for you.

Melkor still hasn't shown up has he? Damn shame.

She assumes no such thing[sic] people who do not act rational will suffer in a objectivist society. If they do not act rational with money or work they will starve[sic] there will be no safety net for them.



They either move or they continued to get skrewed[sic] by their employer. How is that differant than[sic] now?


Rand didnt have the insight into the usefulness of things like safety-nets in terms of enlightened self-interest that John Rawls did, it's one reason she's a second-rate philosopher.

This aside, civilized countries make sure that there is a safety net for people, the stronger the better.

Human beings are amazingly adaptable, and, in a situation where the alternative is death, they can be very rational. So long as you offer them an easy way out, though, they'll take it.

It is very desirable to minimize government interference and encourage progress, and such things can only be accomplished by forcing people to think for themselves.

I don't dispute that human beings are very adaptable. I also don't question that they can be very reasonable when required to be so. However, I do dispute that that necessarily means they are capable of making the kind of decision making that is in their "enlightened self-interest" all of the time. The main reason is limited and imperfect information. First of all, there are overall limits to human knowledge. We do not understand everything about the workings of the universe, our planet, or even our own bodies. Secondly, there are limits to what any given individual can know. The entirety of human knowledge is too vast for any one individual to know, and so their knowledge base will be even more limited. Moreover, some of the things we "know" are wrong, and the individual is bound to have interpreted at least some information incorrectly. In that kind of reality, it is impossible to know what all of the consequences of your decisons will be, and make a decision that maximizes your self-interest.

In the example already given, how would the individual know that robbing someone would lead to a breakdown in social order? Or for another example, a person 30 years ago probably did not know that using CFC's was contributing to a hole in the ozone layer, increasing their risk of skin cancer, which certainly was not in their best interest. Or today, the best information I have suggests that CO2 is contrinbuting to the phenomemenon of climate change, and that affects my decisions regarding which mode of transportation to use. But I am not 100% certain that climate change is taking place, or what the consequences of it will be. Arguably the best we can do is to make educated guesses based on the limited information we have and hope they work out. And we probably shouldn't hold it against other people if they don't. They are usually victims of lack of information rather than failure of rationality.

Also, please provide your definition of progress, as that is a notoriously vague and subjective term.

Ok you have a point with the "acts of God", though it could be argued that you should've made arrangements to ensure your safety. However, if it was really unforseeable then i guess the best you can do is try to rebuild.
However, on the point of starting out poor. If you actually read atlas shrugged you'd see a solution to this. You have to earn your inheritance. If you can't manage the fortune and business enterprise then you don't deserve to inherit it simple as that.


A poor person can't "earn an inheritance" if he doesn't have rich family members to inherit the money from.

Its important to remember that birth into wealth or poverty is not merit-based in any sense whatsoever at all.

It is in the self-interest of wealthy elites to exclude others and put stumbling blocks in the way of their servants becoming wealthy too.

Who would confiscate businesses and redistribute the wealth based on the ability of each (assumingly equal) person's ability to "earn his inheritance?"

What does this crude stick-figure of an idea have to do with the real world?

Also, if they aren't being paid enough to support a family then you don't have a work force for the future do you? less kids = less future workers. I'm not saying kids should be looked at as a workforce, but eventually some of them will become just that.


First of all, that assumes that it is anyone's self-interest to look that far ahead. The way modern executives manage things quarter to quarter suggests that no-one running a company thinks that far ahead. In part because modern executives are not the kind of owner-operators that Rand envisions. And never will be. Their goal is to maximize their next paycheque, not the long-term success of the company. Completely rational.

Also, a future workforce is exactly what children would be valued as in a Randian society. There is certainly not much room to place any emotional value on them.

No, but it apparently was a poor decision on his part to join the military, a proffession which includes getting killed in the job description. State Sponsored butchery is one of those things that occurs when you start giving the government the authority to "decide whats best", and everything that happens to you after that point is your fault for not enforcing minarchy.

Everything's funny if you think about it long enough.

Not everyone who fought in Vietnam chose to be there. They did have the draft you know. Which I suppose you will try to use as an example of the evil coercive powers of the state. But that's just reality. You do not have complete autonomy. And even Rand did not support a full withdrawal from Vietnam.

Her fiction is shallow. She never creates characters that you can feel anything for, because they are all completely one dimensional. Her fictional world is completely unbelievable, even with a suspension of disbelief, and her fiction goes into long "philosophical" discourse - where what she really tries to do is repeat the same thing over and over again, as if saying it enough makes it true.
See, now THIS I can agree with.

I think Rand has some interesting ideas, and I think she even manages to present many of them in an elegant manner, but she often buries this interesting material within layer after layer of shlock.

Not to mention that she had some seriously fucked up ideas about gender relations and sex. Poor lady.

Not everyone who fought in Vietnam chose to be there. They did have the draft you know. Which I suppose you will try to use as an example of the evil coercive powers of the state. But that's just reality. You do not have complete autonomy. And even Rand did not support a full withdrawal from Vietnam.

Careful mentioning, "reality," Hooked oN Phonics Fiddlebottoms VIII will throw that in your face. Reality is for people who can't stomach Ayn Rand.

Straw man. I didn't say anything like that. I said, and this is a last ditch attempt to see if you pay attention to anything, that you had some recourse to remove corrupt politicians in a democracy. I didn't say it would be a fucking paradise, it isn't, I simply said it would be a damn sight better than an objectivist world, it is.
Yes, but since we're dealing in reality here, it should be noted that corrupt politicians are almost never removed by Democracy, and those times that they are finally disposed of, they've been at the corruption for years because the vaunted "people" are too stupid and disengaged to do shit about it.
In an objectivist world, if you're tired of your boss, you quit. Yeah, maybe you'll starve, but at least your boss doesn't have thugs and prisons waiting for you the instant you decide you don't like him.
Very ad hominem. This is why I'm ignoring you now, not because I disagree with your idol's "Philosophy."
She's hardly my idol, but since no one else was going to mount a defense, I had to step in.
And the ad hominem was justified to highlight my point: I have no justification for my attacks against you or my assertions regarding The Scarlette Letter, in the exact same way that you have no justification for your assertions.
But, since "in reality" now means "in the world that I'm bullshitting about because I can't prove my point", then I figured it would be a fun game to play.
The reason I didn't read anything of Rand's beyond Anthem and the first chapter of Atlas Shrugged is because her writing gives turgid a bad name. I disagree with a whole lot of Heinlein but I read his books because they are interesting as opposed to shit.
Very ad hominem. That is why I'm ignoring you now, not because you disagree with Rand's Philosophy.
If drinkink the kool-aid is a necessary pre-requisite to, "knowing what your talking about," watch Fahrenheit 911 some time. Its not as hard as wading through Rand's, "writing," but I doubt you'd waste a hunk of your life on it...
Ve are drinkink ze Kool-Aid vile ve practise our ak-ccents, yes?
*ahem*
And, yes, I might expect you to read a bit more thoroughly (like gaining an understanding of her philosophy through reading an essay or two, as opposed to whining about her novels) before commenting. No one, after all, said you had to open your mouth.
You made the desicion to start, there were no evil capitalists threatening you with their evil money, and so you get to suffer a bit.
That's your world, not mine. I consider things like a police force devoted to the protection of public safety to be a good thing.
It should be obvious that I feel the same. Straw man, much?
I believe that compassion for the less fortunate is a good thing.
Again, compassion is fun and makes the world a nicer place. Government enforced compassion, however, isn't fun and makes the world a less free place (nor is it really compassion).
I believe that there is such a thing as a community and that it can be a good thing if enough of the people in it act responsibly.
Again, the community is useful, it allows for stability and expanding profit margins. However, once that community starts shoving things down its member's throats, it is dangerous.
I don't think that living like wild animals in some anarcho-capitalist hell-hole is a good thing.
No, because being caged dogs, neutered and held in line by government masters is so much better.
What might help you to gain maturity is to work in a Saipan sweat shop for a few years. There's some good free capitalism for you.
That depends. Are the workers in the shop free to negotiate under their own terms (via unions if they feel so inclined), freed from oppressive government taxation, free to quit or be hired? Somehow, I doubt it.
Straw-fucking-man.
Melkor still hasn't shown up has he? Damn shame.
It seems he has more sense than to wade into shit like this. Good on him.

Not everyone who fought in Vietnam chose to be there. They did have the draft you know.
They chose to vote people into office who might call upon the draft, and then they chose not to resist when the time came. Those who don't fight tyrrany deserve to suffer its chains.
Which I suppose you will try to use as an example of the evil coercive powers of the state. But that's just reality.
Yeah, its reality, and, yeah, that's the coercive powers of the state.
You do not have complete autonomy.
No, but I don't have eternal life either. Does that mean I shouldn't fight to preserve every second of it I've got?
And even Rand did not support a full withdrawal from Vietnam.
And she hated Libertarians, which just shows that someone can have good philosophical ideas and still be wrong about things.

And, Sadwillowe (note how I can argue and spell names correctly, rather than reverting to school yard fumblings of the tongue), we weren't discussing "reality-reality" we were discussing "baseless claims that I'll never be able to back-up, nor will I bother to, but am going to make anyway because I can, so there-reality." There is difference, it is subtle buts it is there.

First of all, that assumes that it is anyone's self-interest to look that far ahead. The way modern executives manage things quarter to quarter suggests that no-one running a company thinks that far ahead. In part because modern executives are not the kind of owner-operators that Rand envisions. And never will be. Their goal is to maximize their next paycheque, not the long-term success of the company. Completely rational.
And the goal of a politician is to win the next election, not the long-term success of anything. At least the executive is working towards a goal that means something more than base popularity.
Or have you forgotten Social Security, Deficit Spending, and a thousand other fun US-debacles?

God, I hardly know where to start. A few things do need to be pointed out, however:

Rand has been dead now for a little over 20 years. In the wide majority of cases [excepting, off the top of my head, Marxism], philosophies in general are not taken seriously at all until at least decades after a philosopher's death. The fact that most people here do not care for it one bit is not the least bit surprising, as generations before us have invariably regarded money as something that was come upon by force, looted from others or inherited; the concept of [i]making money is still more or less still a new one. In medeival times, vast amounts of wealth could only be attained with armies; they were come upon by force at the expense of many lives [and in some cases more resources than it was probably worth]. This tradition, having been a part of our history for so long, is not likely to be shaken off any time soon. For this reason, the conception of "robber-barons" is likely to continue for some time. Like any other group of people, some of them are dishonest and accomplish their goals by fraud, and some are honest, hard-working producers who deserve every penny they make.

Objectivism is also the first philosophy in human history to consistently uphold the principles of the Primacy of Existence (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_RealityIsAbsolute.html); all the others deviate at some point, generally with a concession that moral or metaphysical correctness is a matter of public vote or opinion; that reality is at some point down the road dictated to us not by our senses, but by the news shows on TV or by 60 million Frenchmen.

A lot of people are jumping to some pretty ridiculous conclusions about the philosophy without bothering to familiarize themselves with it [and understandable mistake, I've done it a few times myself]; and I would venture to guess that most of its critics here are only nominally familiar with it. Consider, for a moment, that most of you are high school or college students, and Objectivism remains largely ignored in academic circles. In one of the more recent posts, while discussiong children, I see someone mention offhand that "There is certainly not much room to place any emotional value on them." To me, this speaks volumes to the misconception of Objectivism as some sort of hard-line, anti-emotionalist viewpoint. Nothing I've read in Objectivist literature indicates this to be the case; rather we suggest that one should not make policy of some emotional whims or dictate their terms to others. There's plenty of room to place emotional value on anything you want, provided this value doesn't destroy anyone else's ability to do the same. The practice we object to is the idea that everyone should be made to value some random citizen's offspring to the point where we're forced to pay for them . The same principle can [and should] be applied to homeless people, whites, indians, immigrants, natural citizens, [i]or business tycoons [since corporate welfare is precisely as ridiculous as its blue-collar counterpart].

Also, I've noticed several people have decided to raise the "theory-practice dichotomy" which [like most conventions of modern philosophy] is utterly useless. Theory dictates practice; if something can't be made to work given the paramaters listed in its accompanying theory then there's something wrong with the theory. If a plumber was installing pipes in your home and kept fucking it up, you wouldn't expect him to scratch his head [or ass] with a befuddled expression on his face, saying "Well, I guess it just doesn't work in practice," you'd ask him to change his goddamn plans--provided you want the pipes in your house. The same convention applies to every facet of reality, be it plumbing equipment or philosophical axioms.

In a nutshell, Objectivism suggests that civilization can [and should] exist without the threat of force at every turn. The idea that things like roads and electric poles won't get built unless the government makes us is tantamount ot the idea that life would be utter chaos without a horde of [armed] babysitters standing over us, making sure that society's needs are met. Some people apparently think that without, say, a subsidized fire department, private firms would charge like a million dollars to put down a blaze. Yet, anyone who bothers to examine comparisons between the two sectors almost invariably discovers that goods and services are remarkably cheaper in the private sector than when they become subsidized, chiefly as a result of the added tax revenue and manpower necessary for regulating these kinds of things. The whole idea of a free trade system is that your customer possess the means to pay you, and the wide majority of people who have their house burn down could not possibly afford an up-front fee of $1 million. Capitalism is invariably attacked with at best a half-knowledge of how a proper capitalist system should exist, and still more seem to forget that it's never been done. Many people point to the Industrial Revolution with a disapproving frown and expect me to concede my point with little or no explanation; but the fact of the matter is proper capitalism wouldn't have either manner of special interest groups at the helm of our government--be they businessmen or civil rights activists or union lobbyists. Government should not attempt to prop up private citizens [present-day] or massive conglomerates [Industrial Revolution] any more than it should be obligated to buy me a free steak dinner every April 16th to soften the blow.

Valid criticisms of Objectivism are likely to exist somewhere [Rand's views on sex strike me as largely over-analytical], but those I have read here--particularly the ill-educated attempts to compare her to Nietzsche--are laughable at best and exasperating at worst.

It is in the self-interest of wealthy elites to exclude others and put stumbling blocks in the way of their servants becoming wealthy too.
No. The wealth of their servants, having nothing to do with their own lives, is unimportant to "elites." It is in the interests of alturistic governments to maintain a healthy amount of poverty, that they can continue to gain votes and power.
Who would confiscate businesses and redistribute the wealth based on the ability of each (assumingly equal) person's ability to "earn his inheritance?"
Hypothetically, the government could do so, via a high inheritence tax. The money, then gathered, could be distributed evenly among those "coming of age." Those with merit would use the money to build business, status and personal power. Those without merit would squander the money and fail.

No. The wealth of their servants, having nothing to do with their own lives, is unimportant to "elites." It is in the interests of alturistic governments to maintain a healthy amount of poverty, that they can continue to gain votes and power.
Just curious, it seems on one hand there's an assumption that the elites will rationally look ahead and realize that paying their workers properly is in their best interests in the long term (a practice that, while I agree with it, there has not been a lot of general acceptance or practice of in history), but will not look ahead and see, just as rationally, that having a class of impoverished people that are beholden to them (a practice that, as you point out, is known and practiced by most every government around) is also in their best interests if they wish to maintain servants?

Just curious, it seems on one hand there's an assumption that the elites will rationally look ahead and realize that paying their workers properly is in their best interests in the long term (a practice that, while I agree with it, there has not been a lot of general acceptance or practice of in history), but will not look ahead and see, just as rationally, that having a class of impoverished people that are beholden to them (a practice that, as you point out, is known and practiced by most every government around) is also in their best interests if they wish to maintain servants?
Because when you go to the lowest element, you get the lowest quality work: butlers who steal, nannies who ignore the children, cooks that think stir-fry is an acceptable meal to prepare for fancy dinner occassions.
Using a broader definition of "servant", we can consider the lack of impoverished NASA scientists and the rarity with which lawyers starve. Those with skills will be able to leverage better positions, and that leaves the attempted abusers with inferior, disgruntled help.

Ayn Rand the best-known modern proponent of Hobbe's, "nasty short and brutish," lifestyle. There are Russians who look back with nostalgia. I suspect there'd only be a few hundred, "Competent Men," who would look back on an Objectivist Non-Republic with any kind of fondness.

Yes I am sure those millions of Russians who died in the Gulags where very fond of the golden age of Communism. Could you please tell me when and where there was an Objectivist Non-Republic? I must of missed that in history class

The differants between the situation for a screwed employee here-and-now and for a screwed employee in Rand's Objectivist Utopia(R), is the difference between:

A 40-hour work week
Weekends
OSHA
At least a minimum wage
Unemployment insurance
At least some semblance of recourse in the event of wrongful termination

,and:

Third world sweat shops
Cheap child labor
Being fired for trying to organize a union
One word, "Saipan"
Another word, "Pinkertons"



Yes all these wonderful government programs and regulations that keep the common man from starting his own business are so wonderful. I just love how it cost millions of dollars to start up a business because of bullshit regulations and laws. Government regulations insure that the elite will be the only ones with the means of starting new businesses and the common man will always be his servant. I see you are really a Eltist Corporate slut masking as a defender of worker rights.

And should her "philosophy" be kept in the fiction section? Next to the bad fiction books? Like L Ron Hubbard?
The library I work at keeps her books in the fiction section. Of course thats probably because most were in that type of format.....

...I see you are really a Eltist Corporate slut masking as a defender of worker rights.
I'd be careful about statements like this. Seems a bit baitish to me.

*points to forum title*

<snip since i didnt read it anyway

PHEW. i was reading through this thread to see what had happened since all the whiners had their say and i had just come to the conclusion that fiddlebottoms must be your puppet because you hadnt posted yet!

it was a scary moment.

If by statist programs you mean the military.
The military is a statist program.


"Enlightened" Self-interest means Self-Interest motivated by a rational analysis of the matter at hand, where one chooses the option that offers the best possible consequences. The premise behind it is that, while it might appear to be better for me if I started robbing people, the break down in law and order that would result from such a course of action would (inevitably) bite me in the ass.
Further, it holds that people will work together for mutual gain. It profits the boss to pay the workers enough that the workers will come in tommorow. It profits the workers to do their work properly. Both groups have, based on enlightened self-interest, decided that things will be better if they help each other.
People are not motivated by a rational analysis of the matter; if they were, nobody would ever drink alcohol or take other drugs.

In a capitalist economy, things will be better if the workers and the boss help each other. But the same could be said for a socialist economy. Self-interest would dictate the same thing.

Objectivism is also the first philosophy in human history to consistently uphold the principles of the Primacy of Existence (http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Metaphysics_RealityIsAbsolute.html); all the others deviate at some point, generally with a concession that moral or metaphysical correctness is a matter of public vote or opinion; that reality is at some point down the road dictated to us not by our senses, but by the news shows on TV or by 60 million Frenchmen.

of course, the fact that it all goes horribly wrong the instant objectivism tries for objective morality, in a comically inept and sad way, doesn't really matter.


"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between 'is' and 'ought.' "

hah!

Because its not stealing if the government says its OK. :)

But seriously ... do you really believe that people end up poor because of their bad choices alone?

No not always but usually that is the reason why.

of course, the fact that it all goes horribly wrong the instant objectivism tries for objective morality, in a comically inept and sad way, doesn't really matter.


"The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation between 'is' and 'ought.' "

hah!
Wikipedia article, "Critiscism" section. You people are too predictable. The thing I love about the internet is it makes everyone an "instant expert" on anything they should care to google. You read this one article [and, perhaps, Hume's summary of the is-ought "problem"] and suddenly you know everything about Objectivism's faults.

The is-ought "problem"--like just about everything else to come out of that festering stinkhole Hume called a mouth--is ridiculous. Attempting to use Hume to discredit Objectivism is like like trying to play the World Series with a football: you're evaluating a philosophy using the terms and conditions of a completely different philosophy.

Because I don't necessarily believe that rationality is the be all and end all of good decision-making.

It is nice to know that you disagree with the scientific method.

The is-ought "problem"--like just about everything else to come out of that hole that Hume called a mouth--is ridiculous.

yeah...

ok, let's see you deduce an 'ought' from an 'is'. should be no problem, right?

PHEW. i was reading through this thread to see what had happened since all the whiners had their say and i had just come to the conclusion that fiddlebottoms must be your puppet because you hadnt posted yet!
No need to worry. He's much more into the whole "rationality" and "intellktualizm" business, whereas I prefer to mock people's spelling and talk about "reality."
All that borderline seriousness damn near killed me.

Yes all these wonderful government programs and regulations that keep the common man from starting his own business are so wonderful. I just love how it cost millions of dollars to start up a business because of bullshit regulations and laws. Government regulations insure that the elite will be the only ones with the means of starting new businesses and the common man will always be his servant. I see you are really a Eltist Corporate slut masking as a defender of worker rights.

Yes, but a total lack of government regulations is no better - because then the elite - the rich - have complete power to make the decisions of who stays and who goes. The people end up with little to no voice at all.

yeah...

ok, let's see you deduce an 'ought' from an 'is'. should be no problem, right?
God, I love it when people try to trap me with bullshit like this.

Man, since he [presumably] has a significant emotional and physical stake in the preservation of his conciousness is] ought not be destroyed because to do so assumes you could have no moral with such an act being reciprocated on you. Anything less is an attempt to fabricate reality on your own terms rather than the terms of existence itself; demanding differing standards for yourself above others or vice versa is an attempt to override reality to suit your own wishes. Rights as such exist because man does--the "ought" is a consequence of our existence in the first place, since it would be hard for rights to exist without a person to apply them to.

Hume's philosophy relies on the is-ought "problem" because, simply put, it can't exist without some way of undermine some way of knowing the nature of things and how they ought to be treated within the context of reality. While his motives may not necessarily have been overtly malevolent, the is-ought problem has led modern philosophers to conclude that no moral evaluation is even possible, and that there is, essentially no such thing as philosophy at all [and somehow knowledge of this gives them claim to the title of "philosopher"]. The is-ought "problem"--whether it meant to or not--implies that any inference at an 'ought' is impossible, which in turn has given rise to this philosophical cult of "grayness;" i.e. that things by their nature are neither good nor evil, or that good and evil don't exist or that it's all in your head or whatever else.

Basically, it's an attempt to destroy moral stipulations that Hume didn't agree with or couldn't find a way around; kind of like how Sin was devised to scare people away from doing things the Catholic Church didn't take kindly to. In abstract, it really is more or less the same principle. It's kind of amusing to see you deploy this "problem" now, but I'll bet if you and I [or, say, me and $HUME_FOLLOWER] got into a debate about workers rights or welfare, I would eventually stumble across something to the effect of "Because they're poor, they deserve a leg-up," which is every bit an evasion of the is-ought "problem" as you seem to be endicting upon Objectivism. The is-ought "problem" is ridiculous because there is literally no possible way of adhering to it without blatantly contradicting yourself every time you make a moral judgement or decision. If the is-ought "problem" is valid, then morality doesn't exist at all. If morality doesn't exist, then just what the hell are we arguing about?

Because when you go to the lowest element, you get the lowest quality work: butlers who steal, nannies who ignore the children, cooks that think stir-fry is an acceptable meal to prepare for fancy dinner occassions.
Using a broader definition of "servant", we can consider the lack of impoverished NASA scientists and the rarity with which lawyers starve. Those with skills will be able to leverage better positions, and that leaves the attempted abusers with inferior, disgruntled help.
This seems to suggest even more strongly that the elite as a whole will want to maintain a larger under-privileged class, if only to ensure that they don't have to choose from the dregs when picking their employees.

I think our difference is that you seem to be operating with the assumption that those in power will compete strongly with each other in order to ensure they obtain the best service, whereas I operate with the assumption that those in power will collude with each other in order to ensure that they all maintain "good enough" service while maximising their resource accumulation.

There's examples on both sides, so I can't say that your belief is any less correct than mine, but I think that the Objectivist philosophy (at least from what I know of it) is rather reliant on your assumption being the one that is primary in reality -- and I don't know that that's true either.

No. The wealth of their servants, having nothing to do with their own lives, is unimportant to "elites." It is in the interests of alturistic governments to maintain a healthy amount of poverty, that they can continue to gain votes and power.

Hypothetically, the government could do so, via a high inheritence tax. The money, then gathered, could be distributed evenly among those "coming of age." Those with merit would use the money to build business, status and personal power. Those without merit would squander the money and fail.


That sounds extremely workable in the real world.

I know I'd vote for the government to take my inheritance away so it could be given to poor people ;)

Yes I am sure those millions of Russians who died in the Gulags where very fond of the golden age of Communism. Could you please tell me when and where there was an Objectivist Non-Republic? I must of missed that in history class



Yes all these wonderful government programs and regulations that keep the common man from starting his own business are so wonderful. I just love how it cost millions of dollars to start up a business because of bullshit regulations and laws. Government regulations insure that the elite will be the only ones with the means of starting new businesses and the common man will always be his servant. I see you are really a Eltist Corporate slut masking as a defender of worker rights.


You shouldn't flame on this forum, we have rules against it.

Where does it cost millions of dollars to start a business?

The military is a statist program.


People are not motivated by a rational analysis of the matter; if they were, nobody would ever drink alcohol or take other drugs.

In a capitalist economy, things will be better if the workers and the boss help each other. But the same could be said for a socialist economy. Self-interest would dictate the same thing.


Drinking is very rational, taking drugs can be as well.

There are few more efficient - both in terms of cost and effort - ways to get very acute enjoyment and pleasure.

If people didnt behave more or less rationally, the market wouldn't work.

the is-ought problem has led modern philosophers to conclude that no moral evaluation is even possible, and that there is, essentially no such thing as philosophy at all [and somehow knowledge of this gives them claim to the title of "philosopher"].

not in my experience. any particular names you're thinking of?

btw, the name is the is-ought gap, not 'problem'. it is so called because it demonstrates a logical gap between 'is' statements and 'ought' ones. it would only be a problem if one unreasonably demanded that the gap between is statements and ought statements not exist.

The is-ought "problem"--whether it meant to or not--implies that any inference at an 'ought' is impossible

no it doesn't. for example, the following argument is perfectly possible:

you ought not murder humans.
socrates is a human.
therefore you ought not murder socrates.

Basically, it's an attempt to destroy moral stipulations that Hume didn't agree with or couldn't find a way around

that's just about the worst misreading of hume i've ever heard of.

It's kind of amusing to see you deploy this "problem" now, but I'll bet if you and I [or, say, me and $HUME_FOLLOWER] got into a debate about workers rights or welfare, I would eventually stumble across something to the effect of "Because they're poor, they deserve a leg-up," which is every bit an evasion of the is-ought "problem" as you seem to be endicting upon Objectivism.

only if i tried to claim such an ought statement as deriving from the is, rather than a more primal ought (resting, eventually, on the kind of society i desire to live in).

it certainly would not follow from the statement "these people are poor" that we should help them. not without the inclusion of an additional premise, such as "we should help those less fortunate than ourselves". this premise might at first be unstated, but pretty much everybody who thinks that we should help some particular set of poor people would come up with it if pressed.

If the is-ought "problem" is valid, then morality doesn't exist at all.

how come every time we've discussed this you always start from the position that morality must be objective in order to exist, when clearly the facts of the world disagree with you?

how come every time we've discussed this you always start from the position that morality must be objective in order to exist, when clearly the facts of the world disagree with you?


An anarchist arguing with an objectivist about the facts of the world... oh dear me oh my.


At any rate, it has always struck me that *ethics* is based in objective standards and *morality* is not.

The most compelling ethical standard, in my opinion, is that of Kant and Rawls.

At any rate, it has always struck me that *ethics* is based in objective standards and *morality* is not.

how so?

ein volk ein reich ein fhurer ein objective morality :P

/runs for cover

They chose to vote people into office who might call upon the draft, and then they chose not to resist when the time came. Those who don't fight tyrrany deserve to suffer its chains.

Yeah, its reality, and, yeah, that's the coercive powers of the state.

No, but I don't have eternal life either. Does that mean I shouldn't fight to preserve every second of it I've got?

And she hated Libertarians, which just shows that someone can have good philosophical ideas and still be wrong about things.


What if they didn't vote for the people who brought in the draft? I suppose they could hav escaped the draft and fled to Canada, but given that we have universal health care, that would hardly be a very Randian thing to do.

Wasn't "fighting against tyrrany" (in that case Soviet Communism) the rationale for being in Vietnam in the first case? See how quickly your empty slogans can be turned against you?

I would suggest that her hatred of Libertarians was irrational. Just like her hatred of homosexuals.

No need to worry. He's much more into the whole "rationality" and "intellktualizm" business, whereas I prefer to mock people's spelling and talk about "reality."
All that borderline seriousness damn near killed me.
you did a pretty good job or i wouldnt have had that moment of panic

but there is no sense putting the popcorn into the microwave until melkor shows up. he makes the whole thread worth reading. (in that "i never read all of what he writes" kinda way)

Ayn Rand's philosophy isn't all that bad, really. There are some parts that I naturally disagree with (there being no free education or healthcare, supposedly), but overall, it's really not as ridiculous as I once thought.

However, what of the factories and manufacturing plants? Can private interests always be trusted to stay within environmental safety standards? This isn't an issue of government control; rather, it's an issue of greed, and an issue of whether the people will give a damn.

I believe in the right to allow everyone to pursue their own interests and receive rewards for doing good work. However, I don't believe in the "right" to pollute (and possibly destroy) the atmosphere. Would the people finally get sick of the people who are running these facilities and overthrow them, finally modernising and cleaning the machinery? Or, would it simply go "unpunished"?

I need some time to think about this.

No not always but usually that is the reason why.

That is such an incredibly naive and simplistic viewpoint, I don't even know where to begin.

The military is a statist program.


Yet the military is necessary to protect and enforce the private property rights that Randians value so highly.

It is nice to know that you disagree with the scientific method.

First of all, rationality and the scientific method are two different things.

Second of all, just because I recognize the limits of something does not mean I disagree with it.

Yet the military is necessary to protect and enforce the private property rights that Randians value so highly.

Huh. I didn't know that I needed a small armed force to protect my house from "invaders".

but the fact of the matter is proper capitalism wouldn't have either manner of special interest groups at the helm of our government--be they businessmen or civil rights activists or union lobbyists. Government should not attempt to prop up private citizens [present-day] or massive conglomerates [Industrial Revolution] any more than it should be obligated to buy me a free steak dinner every April 16th to soften the blow.


So in other words, pure capitalism is a practical impossibility.

Huh. I didn't know that I needed a small armed force to protect my house from "invaders".

Stops those damn Canadians from invading and taking your house away from you though, doesn't it?

Huh. I didn't know that I needed a small armed force to protect my house from "invaders".

No, but you probably require a police force. Private property necessarily requires recognition and enforcement, which requires some sort of state apparatus, even if it is a minimal one. That state would then need to be able to protect itself against its neighbours, hence a military. Your private property rights would not be worth a whit if your country was over-run tommorow by invaders.

Stops those damn Canadians from invading and taking your house away from you though, doesn't it?

Yeah, but I can do that with my 12-gauge and my solid, 3' oak branch. :p

Excuse my ignorance, but who's Ayn Rand?

I heard her name somewhere, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Excuse my ignorance, but who's Ayn Rand?

I heard her name somewhere, but I can't quite put my finger on it.

Look her up on Wikipedia. You'll either be pleased, disgusted, or in a grey area about her philosophy.

Nothing I've read in Objectivist literature indicates this to be the case; rather we suggest that one should not make policy of some emotional whims or dictate their terms to others. There's plenty of room to place emotional value on anything you want, provided this value doesn't destroy anyone else's ability to do the same.



So you don't tell people what they should do but you tell them how they should think?

So you don't tell people what they should do but you tell them how they should think?

Wow, you totally skewered that one.

...we suggest that one should not make policy of some emotional whims or dictate their terms to others.

See what I mean?

In my opinion both her fiction and her philosophy are garbage. But some people disagree. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476767&page=7)

What say you?
I went through a phase many years ago where I was fascinated with Ayn Rand's writings. Fortunately, I got over it.

Obviously SHE believes in what she writes about. I see her as a kind of more philosophical Ann Coulter. :D

Wow, you totally skewered that one.



See what I mean?

What am I supposed to take from "we suggest that one should not make a policy of emotional whims"?

I went through a phase many years ago where I was fascinated with Ayn Rand's writings. Fortunately, I got over it.

Obviously SHE believes in what she writes about. I see her as a kind of more philosophical Ann Coulter. :D

I see her that way, too. She makes sense on some points, but on others, she's just "out there".

What am I supposed to take from "we suggest that one should not make a policy of emotional whims"?

It's a simple statement that says one shouldn't act purely on emotion.

It happens to be good advice.

Look her up on Wikipedia. You'll either be pleased, disgusted, or in a grey area about her philosophy.
I'm in the grey area about her philosophy. Seems to me like she's a hardcore laissez faire capitalist. While this idea theoratically makes sense, and sounds good, it will never work because individual greed inevetable ruins society. That's how the Great Depression started.

And no, I'm not a commie. :)

I'm in the grey area about her philosophy. Seems to me like she's a hardcore laissez faire capitalist. While this idea theoratically makes sense, and sounds good, it will never work because individual greed inevetable ruins society. That's how the Great Depression started.

And no, I'm not a commie. :)

1: I'm in the grey area as well, and I agree with the whole greed complex.

2: Do you mean that in the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist sense? Because I'm sure as hell not a "Commie" like that.

I'm in the grey area about her philosophy. Seems to me like she's a hardcore laissez faire capitalist. While this idea theoratically makes sense, and sounds good, it will never work because individual greed inevitably ruins society. That's how the Great Depression started.
Yes, sorta. Good point.

1: I'm in the grey area as well, and I agree with the whole greed complex.

2: Do you mean that in the Marxist/Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist sense? Because I'm sure as hell not a "Commie" like that.
What I'm trying to say is that democracy is good insofar as it gives freedoms, which means that the citizens are happier and better off, and the government doesn't abuse them nearly as much as a totalitarian government. Capitalism however, needs to be controlled and regulated. How much control is up to the individual country. Complete control is a bad idea because it's incompatible with democracy.

I'm in the grey area about her philosophy. Seems to me like she's a hardcore laissez faire capitalist. While this idea theoratically makes sense, and sounds good, it will never work because individual greed inevetable ruins society. That's how the Great Depression started.

And no, I'm not a commie. :)

Well, the Great Depression was to my knowledge one of the many historical events that she ever so casually left out of her analysis because it doesn't fit her idea of how the world should be. That being said, if she was pressed to explain it, she would probably say that the problem lay not in the market itself, but in the altruistic impeding of the market mechanism by some (presumably government) entity.

What I'm trying to say is that democracy is good insofar as it gives freedoms, which means that the citizens are happier and better off, and the government doesn't abuse them nearly as much as a totalitarian government. Capitalism however, needs to be controlled and regulated. How much control is up to the individual country. Complete control is a bad idea because it's incompatible with democracy.

Democracy can be a good thing, but it requires moderation. If people are allowed to vote on things to oppress the minority, then why bother?

People shouldn't be able to control others in such a manner just because the "right" is given to them.

Democracy can be a good thing, but it requires moderation. If people are allowed to vote on things to oppress the minority, then why bother?

People shouldn't be able to control others in such a manner just because the "right" is given to them.
That's why we have bills of rights.

I think it was implied that everything needs to be in moderation.

Well, the Great Depression was to my knowledge one of the many historical events that she ever so casually left out of her analysis because it doesn't fit her idea of how the world should be. That being said, if she was pressed to explain it, she would probably say that the problem lay not in the market itself, but in the altruistic impeding of the market mechanism by some (presumably government) entity.
Ha! Back in them days, the market was more or less laissez faire. There's no way she would wriggle her way out of it, my friend, no way at all.

Is she still alive?

That's why we have bills of rights.

I think it was implied that everything needs to be in moderation.

Well, we still have states that keep throwing out the right of marriage for homosexuals, and the outlook for abortion is looking especially foggy.

I'm saying that individual rights shouldn't be a case of the state. We shouldn't be able to vote on whether or not somebody can do something as trivial as walk nude in public (or drink alcahol, even), or something as "big" as getting an abortion.

Ha! Back in them days, the market was more or less laissez faire. There's no way she would wriggle her way out of it, my friend, no way at all.

Is she still alive?

She died about thirty years ago.

how so?


Ethics, at least Kantian ethics, are based on the idea - very roughly put - that things should be consistant and universalized. "act only by the maxim you will as universal law" &c.

Are you familiar with John Raws? Like other great philosophers, his impact is felt not "decades after his death" (as melkor would have us believe is significant) but was felt during his life and still is.

Rawls came up with a way to reconcile self-interest with ethics and justice, by means of a thought experiment called "the original position."

In this "original position," reasonable actors negotiate the social contract behind a "veil of ignorance," which means they have no knowledge of their positions in the world, and can only reasonably make self-interested decisions that affect everyone, regardless of arbitrary factors such as birth status or talent. It is a pretty elegent mechanism for deciding whether a "truly enlightented" self interest would dictate certain actions and policies, or whether they are inconsistant and contradictory.



This isnt the best explanation of it, but I'm reading for class at the moment, so I'll expand on it later.


Nozick's book was written in response to Rawls'

Well, we still have states that keep throwing out the right of marriage for homosexuals, and the outlook for abortion is looking especially foggy.

I'm saying that individual rights shouldn't be a case of the state. We shouldn't be able to vote on whether or not somebody can do something as trivial as walk nude in public (or drink alcahol, even), or something as "big" as getting an abortion.
But you must understand, different societies have different moral standards and different ways of thinking. You can't just overthrow a cultural mindset with a piece of paper, even if it a constitution. Unfortunately, individual rights are a case of the state, and it's always gonna be that way.

Gay marriage? Let the fags at it, I'm all for it.
Abortion? Best form of birth control there is, I'm all for it.
Public Nudity? Now there's an idea I've been advocating for a very long time.

But you must understand, different societies have different moral standards and different ways of thinking. You can't just overthrow a cultural mindset with a piece of paper, even if it a constitution. Unfortunately, individual rights are a case of the state, and it's always gonna be that way.

Gay marriage? Let the fags at it, I'm all for it.
Abortion? Best form of birth control there is, I'm all for it.
Public Nudity? Now there's an idea I've been advocating for a very long time.

1: Well, it shouldn't be the "right" of anyone to tell anyone else how to live.

2: Agreed.

Something I forgot to mention:

One of the most important features of Rawls' social contract is that it is necessarily *unanimous,* that is, every single reasonable individual would agree on it, solely on the basis of self-interest.

The result of reasonable, self-interest actors negotiating the social contract behind the veil of ignorane of arbitrary factors would be a set of policies that achieved "maximin," a term from game theory, that state at which the minimum gain is maximized.

Parsed out, this means that the social contract would tolerate inequality so long as it maximized the good for the least well off.

Clearly, this is neither an anti-socialist nor anti-capitalist theory.

Ethics, at least Kantian ethics, are based on the idea - very roughly put - that things should be consistant and universalized. "act only by the maxim you will as universal law" &c.

Are you familiar with John Raws? Like other great philosophers, his impact is felt not "decades after his death" (as melkor would have us believe is significant) but was felt during his life and still is.

Rawls came up with a way to reconcile self-interest with ethics and justice, by means of a thought experiment called "the original position."

In this "original position," reasonable actors negotiate the social contract behind a "veil of ignorance," which means they have no knowledge of their positions in the world, and can only reasonably make self-interested decisions that affect everyone, regardless of arbitrary factors such as birth status or talent. It is a pretty elegent mechanism for deciding whether a "truly enlightented" self interest would dictate certain actions and policies, or whether they are inconsistant and contradictory.



This isnt the best explanation of it, but I'm reading for class at the moment, so I'll expand on it later.


Nozick's book was written in response to Rawls'

Just to be clear, Rawls doesn't suggest a position of self-interest or egoism in his original position so much as mutual disinterest on the part of subordinating rights to others. Put more simply, a person in the original position is not explicitly seeking to create a best purely for himself or herself, as this is something that Rawls considers a worldview left behind the veil of ignorance; it may be the case that such a worldview benefits you in society, and it may not, and behind the veil of ignorance no one knows which option is correct. Rather, a person operates out of a sense of mutual disinterest: I am simply not interested in subordinating my rights in our hypothetical society simply for some other person's benefit, just as you are disinterested in sacrificing for me for arbitrary reasons.

The key distinction is one of arbitrariness. If I can be reasonably sure that some possible law benefits me, then as an egoist I very well might make such a law even if it arbitrarily harms someone else. A good example of this is the law of exile in Athens: every year, the people of Athens would gather and select one person in the city to heap with scorn and throw out of the city for a 20-year exile. Now, such a law benefits society, because it provides people with a handy scapegoat for their problems and encourages inclusion in the face of a single "other". From an egoist perspective, therefore, I very well might accept the enactment of such a hypothetical law behind the veil of ignorance because the benefits to society are relatively assured and it is highly unlikely that I would suffer. Rawls, however, would argue that the idea of mutual disinterest allows us to dodge this problem, because in a state of mutual disinterest I wouldn't care about the benefits to all other people in society; instead, I would only care about the possible unjust action of society toward me, and I would be highly unlikely to accept such an arbitrary law no matter how much society benefits, because the benefit of society doesn't matter.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent, but I'm fairly familiar with Rawls and I wanted to clear up any confusion.

1: Well, it shouldn't be the "right" of anyone to tell anyone else how to live.

2: Agreed.
1. By your reasoning, it wouldn't be the government's "right" to tell me that I can't go out and chainsaw your family to death one sunny evening.

2. I'm glad we agree on something. :)

1. By your reasoning, it wouldn't be the government's "right" to tell me that I can't go out and chainsaw your family to death one sunny evening.


As long as it doesn't cause harm to another person?

Just to be clear, Rawls doesn't suggest a position of self-interest or egoism in his original position so much as mutual disinterest on the part of subordinating rights to others. Put more simply, a person in the original position is not explicitly seeking to create a best purely for himself or herself, as this is something that Rawls considers a worldview left behind the veil of ignorance; it may be the case that such a worldview benefits you in society, and it may not, and behind the veil of ignorance no one knows which option is correct. Rather, a person operates out of a sense of mutual disinterest: I am simply not interested in subordinating my rights in our hypothetical society simply for some other person's benefit, just as you are disinterested in sacrificing for me for arbitrary reasons.

The key distinction is one of arbitrariness. If I can be reasonably sure that some possible law benefits me, then as an egoist I very well might make such a law even if it arbitrarily harms someone else. A good example of this is the law of exile in Athens: every year, the people of Athens would gather and select one person in the city to heap with scorn and throw out of the city for a 20-year exile. Now, such a law benefits society, because it provides people with a handy scapegoat for their problems and encourages inclusion in the face of a single "other". From an egoist perspective, therefore, I very well might accept the enactment of such a hypothetical law behind the veil of ignorance because the benefits to society are relatively assured and it is highly unlikely that I would suffer. Rawls, however, would argue that the idea of mutual disinterest allows us to dodge this problem, because in a state of mutual disinterest I wouldn't care about the benefits to all other people in society; instead, I would only care about the possible unjust action of society toward me, and I would be highly unlikely to accept such an arbitrary law no matter how much society benefits, because the benefit of society doesn't matter.

Anyway, sorry for the tangent, but I'm fairly familiar with Rawls and I wanted to clear up any confusion.


You're right, but self-interest behind the veil of ignorance is almost the 'other side of the same coin' to what you're talking about, inasmuch as the end result of both is the same.

Whether you look at it as a function of 'disinterest in subordinating rights' or 'self-interest,' at the end of the game, 'maximin' is still reached.

It's sometimes it makes it more clear to people who aren't familiar with the theory to use the terminology of self-interest, since its essentially six of one, a half dozen of the other.

Democracy can be a good thing, but it requires moderation. If people are allowed to vote on things to oppress the minority, then why bother?

People shouldn't be able to control others in such a manner just because the "right" is given to them.

Every right has appropriate limits, and with every right comes responsibility.

As long as it doesn't cause harm to another person?
How about drug use, then? If you choose to snort cocaine on a regular basis, you're hurting yourself certainly, but it could also be argued that society is being hurt because of the chance that you may become broke and kill someone to get money for your next fix.

All hypothetically speaking, of course, but if you are a coke addict, you have my sympathies:cool:

Every right has appropriate limits, and with every right comes responsibility.
You hit the nail on the head. How much responsibility is up to society to decide.

You're right, but self-interest behind the veil of ignorance is almost the 'other side of the same coin' to what you're talking about, inasmuch as the end result of both is the same.

Whether you look at it as a function of 'disinterest in subordinating rights' or 'self-interest,' at the end of the game, 'maximin' is still reached.

It's sometimes more clear to people who aren't familiar with the theory to use the terminology of self-interest, since its essentially six of one, a half dozen of the other.

Except that Rawls himself is clear to point out that there is a difference: as I noted above, self-interest may allow arbitrary rules to be enacted. It was a central concern of his project that he eliminate arbitrary rules from his rules-creation process, because no matter who benefits, everyone can agree that arbitrary rules are unjust rules. Hence his distinction between caring only about oneself, and simply not being caring about the benefit of another. It is the latter, and only the latter, formulation that people would adopt behind the veil of ignorance. I realize it's a fine distinction, but it's also a crucial one to understanding Rawls.

Are you familiar with John Raws? Like other great philosophers, his impact is felt not "decades after his death" (as melkor would have us believe is significant) but was felt during his life and still is.

Rawls came up with a way to reconcile self-interest with ethics and justice, by means of a thought experiment called "the original position."

In this "original position," reasonable actors negotiate the social contract behind a "veil of ignorance," which means they have no knowledge of their positions in the world, and can only reasonably make self-interested decisions that affect everyone, regardless of arbitrary factors such as birth status or talent. It is a pretty elegent mechanism for deciding whether a "truly enlightented" self interest would dictate certain actions and policies, or whether they are inconsistant and contradictory.

Wow. I need to look up John Rawls at the library. I'm reading Democracy's Discontent by Michael Sandel(Lots of pretty pictures...:rolleyes: ), and he refers to Rawls several times.

Well, the Great Depression was to my knowledge one of the many historical events that she ever so casually left out of her analysis because it doesn't fit her idea of how the world should be. That being said, if she was pressed to explain it, she would probably say that the problem lay not in the market itself, but in the altruistic impeding of the market mechanism by some (presumably government) entity.

That's the problem with laissez faire capitalists. Apparently, pure capitalism has never existed and that's why capitalism appears to screw up all the time. Despite its massive impurity, though, everything we have today comes from it.

In my opinion both her fiction and her philosophy are garbage. But some people disagree. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476767&page=7)

What say you?
We share the same opinion, then. I thought her work was laughably paranoiac drivel at best.

I loved Anthem.

No, but it apparently was a poor decision on his part to join the military, a proffession which includes getting killed in the job description. State Sponsored butchery is one of those things that occurs when you start giving the government the authority to "decide whats best", and everything that happens to you after that point is your fault for not enforcing minarchy.
Kinda didn't have much of a choice, there being this small thing called a draft...

Everything's funny if you think about it long enough.
Where's Eut's trout smilie when you need it? ;)

You hit the nail on the head. How much responsibility is up to society to decide.

Be careful ... you might rankle the Randians with that kind of collectivist talk .... :)

But kids in high school all over the world take her seriously...

yep, we should all do what high school students say so

I personally love Ayn Rand's work and philosophy. It struck a major chord with me and redefined how I looked at politics, philosophy, and life.

It's interesting that the concept of the "rational self-interest" was also brought up by Rand, the only place I'd heard of it before was from various anarcho-communist philosophers.

The fact that most people here do not care for it one bit is not the least bit surprising, as generations before us have invariably regarded money as something that was come upon by force, looted from others or inherited; the concept of making money is still more or less still a new one. In medeival times, vast amounts of wealth could only be attained with armies; they were come upon by force at the expense of many lives [and in some cases more resources than it was probably worth]. Do you mean like how the concept of ownership is a positive right granted by society and enforced with armies, sometimes at the expense of lives?

Capitalism is invariably attacked with at best a half-knowledge of how a proper capitalist system should exist, and still more seem to forget that it's never been done. Sounds a lot like criticisms of communism.

As long as it doesn't cause harm to another person?The problem with such a term as "harm" is that "harm" is subjective, and, as such, does not have to be proven. Therefore, it would be unwise to make a law based upon the specific concept of harm.

The one worst criticism I can level at Ayn Rand is that she spoke out at one of McCarthy's witchhunts as an auxilliary witness of sorts.

You can be pretty damn sure that no Hank Rearden or Dagny Taggart would have done that.

Which makes Ayn Rand at best a Dr. Stadler, at worst a Dr. Ferris.

Pathological hatred of everything even remotely left, created through the shock of growing up in the USSR is my diagnosis. She wouldn't be the first.

The one worst criticism I can level at Ayn Rand is that she spoke out at one of McCarthy's witchhunts as an auxilliary witness of sorts.

You can be pretty damn sure that no Hank Rearden or Dagny Taggart would have done that.

Which makes Ayn Rand at best a Dr. Stadler, at worst a Dr. Ferris.

Pathological hatred of everything even remotely left, created through the shock of growing up in the USSR is my diagnosis. She wouldn't be the first.
My uncle is kind of like that. He grew up in the USSR.

My uncle is kind of like that. He grew up in the USSR.
And there is nothing really wrong with that. Well, perhaps there is conceptually, but he's still entitled to his opinion, as Ayn Rand (would a Dagny Taggart change her name to make it easier for all the imbeciles who couldn't be bothered to properly pronounce or remember her real name?) was to hers.

But we should always keep the reasons in mind when we read her books.

1. By your reasoning, it wouldn't be the government's "right" to tell me that I can't go out and chainsaw your family to death one sunny evening.
Not to stick my nose in, but I think the general idea being expressed is the concept of, "My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose."

I believe that all individuals should have the right to conduct their lives in whatever manner they see fit, provided that their doing so does not directly interfere with another individual's right to do the same.

In other words, me getting married to somebody of my own gender will not in any way stop you from getting married to your partner, so I should be free to make that choice. Me choosing to use birth control does not force you to use birth control, nor does it force you to engage in sexual activity with people who use birth control if you feel birth control is wrong. However, me killing you will obviously prevent you from pursuing your life. Me stealing your wallet is a direct assault on your ability to lead your life. And so forth.

Not to stick my nose in, but I think the general idea being expressed is the concept of, "My right to swing my fist ends at the tip of your nose."

I believe that all individuals should have the right to conduct their lives in whatever manner they see fit, provided that their doing so does not directly interfere with another individual's right to do the same.

In other words, me getting married to somebody of my own gender will not in any way stop you from getting married to your partner, so I should be free to make that choice. Me choosing to use birth control does not force you to use birth control, nor does it force you to engage in sexual activity with people who use birth control if you feel birth control is wrong. However, me killing you will obviously prevent you from pursuing your life. Me stealing your wallet is a direct assault on your ability to lead your life. And so forth.
Ok, that makes sense.

And there is nothing really wrong with that. Well, perhaps there is conceptually, but he's still entitled to his opinion, as Ayn Rand (would a Dagny Taggart change her name to make it easier for all the imbeciles who couldn't be bothered to properly pronounce or remember her real name?) was to hers.

But we should always keep the reasons in mind when we read her books.
Indeed-eo.

Ok, that makes sense.
That's one of the things I can agree with Rand about. I have no patience for people who presume to tell me how to conduct my life, nor do I have patience for people who claim that they are oppressed every time I make a personal decision that they don't like.

Examples:
-Christians who cry that they are oppressed because public funds are not being spent on celebrating Christian religious holidays.
-Anti-gay activists who claim that a gay couple's marriage in some way makes it impossible for straight people to have marriages.
-Men who cry about how they're being figuratively castrated by women who want the right to hold their own jobs, control their own lives, or own their own bodies.

There are some people who just seem to have a very over-blown sense of their own importance. They also seem to think that our laws guarantee them a right to be happy all the time, and a right to never have their feelings hurt. They seem to think that it is a direct assault on their freedom when somebody else disagrees with them. In other words, they are little crybabies. :)

STOP BUYING SHIT BOOKS!

Stop borrowing them, stop reading them, stop talking about them.

If you don't like it, stop lining the author's pockets.

STOP BUYING SHIT BOOKS!

Stop borrowing them, stop reading them, stop talking about them.

If you don't like it, stop lining the author's pockets.
Some people buy and read books BEFORE deciding whether or not they are going to like the book. An unfortunate side effect of this is that such people will occasionally purchase and read a book that they end up disliking. They will sometimes talk to other humans about the book they read (and disliked), and will share the reasons why they disliked the book.

If you don't like hearing people talk about books, it would probably be wise for you to avoid threads that discuss authors and their writing.

Some people buy and read books BEFORE deciding whether or not they are going to like the book. An unfortunate side effect of this is that such people will occasionally purchase and read a book that they end up disliking. They will sometimes talk to other humans about the book they read (and disliked), and will share the reasons why they disliked the book.

If you don't like hearing people talk about books, it would probably be wise for you to avoid threads that discuss authors and their writing.
Some people have better things to do with their lives then hope their pathetic attempts at whit resound in tittering from complete strangers on the internet.

Some people do not feel the need to hate the first {{number}} books by an author and then proceed to read everything else written by them, as the author of this read appears to have done.

Some people will provide actual information about the book and actual reasons for liking/disliking it.

Some people love hearing other people talk about books and get pissed off when the thread in question contains little to nothing in the way of actual discussion on the content of said books.

In answer to the original poster:

Philosophically speaking, Rand's arguments are valid (though she is occasionally a little over-fond of using straw man arguments). As such, they should be taken as seriously as the writings of any other philosopher.

Whether you agree with them or not is another matter entirely.

It's a simple statement that says one shouldn't act purely on emotion.

It happens to be good advice.

And if that were where Rand stopped, she might have a point. However, she expects even emotion to be purely and completely rational. The only way you can love someone, according to Rand, is if you love their power/intelligence/money/what-have-you. You can't simply love a person in his/her entirety.

The one worst criticism I can level at Ayn Rand is that she spoke out at one of McCarthy's witchhunts as an auxilliary witness of sorts.

You can be pretty damn sure that no Hank Rearden or Dagny Taggart would have done that.

Which makes Ayn Rand at best a Dr. Stadler, at worst a Dr. Ferris.

Pathological hatred of everything even remotely left, created through the shock of growing up in the USSR is my diagnosis. She wouldn't be the first.

Nobody is a Rearden, Taggart, Stadler, or Ferris. That's the problem. They are all completely one-dimensional characters and thus, in the end, represent nothing.

I disagree with Ayn Rand, even though her argument is valid. She says that people only work in their own rational self-interest. Yet, this only works in theory because people aren't automatons! If what she says is true, everybody thinks in the same manner, nobody should analyze anything that happens around them for the sake of doing so (that would not be self-interest), and everybody would be the same because they would all be differentin their self-interest.

For example, if I were a Randian, what would I say about Wal-Mart? One one hand, it is the triumph of the individual enterprise and "man's ability to think." On the other hand, Wal-Mart's stamping out other businesses through competition is impeding on "the right to earn money," and its low, low prices might be stamping out the drive towards individual enterprise by enabling goods to be distributed to more people "who don't deserve it" (once again, money is Man's ability to think), and that is "altruism". Would I want Wal-Mart destroyed, or would I want Wal-Mart to survive and thrive? Would I just want people to keep starting businesses, so long as Wal-Mart isn't in mind (it wouldn't be self-interest otherwise), and have them fail? Or, would I just not care, because paying attention to the way businesses affect society is "caring for your fellow man?"

Ayn Rand should not be viewed as a planner of society, but as a person who describes the different self-interests of different aspects of society; Rand has alot of insight when it comes to the psychology that drives the individual businessman in a capitalist society, despite her literary hubris. You cannot have a society with one single self-interest and/or one single method of carrying things out. This is where Ayn Rand is wrong.

-------------------------------------

I'd just like to add that an Objectivist was Federal Reserve Chairman from 1985 to 2006, Alan Greenspan.

Ayn Rand should not be viewed as a planner of society, but as a person who describes the different self-interests of different aspects of society; Rand has alot of insight when it comes to the psychology that drives the individual businessman in a capitalist society, despite her literary hubris. You cannot have a society with one single self-interest and/or one single method of carrying things out. This is where Ayn Rand is wrong.


In other words not everyone is going to think and act the way she expects them to?

Kinda didn't have much of a choice, there being this small thing called a draft...


Where's Eut's trout smilie when you need it? ;)

Apparently the draft was no excuse. I already raised that point and was told that's the way state coercion works, and his failure to oppose the tyranny of those who sent him to war was his own fault as well. I pointed out that the alternative was probably to escape to Canada, which is hardly a Randian paradise, but no bites.

not in my experience. any particular names you're thinking of?
The restauarant I used to work in carried a magazine about modern philosophy on its rack. Inside, I discovered much of what I relayed to you. This observation has been made by everyone from professors to Time magazine and a smattering of people in between.

However, I'd be interested to hear, out of idle curiousity, just what your "experience" is.

btw, the name is the is-ought gap, not 'problem'. it is so called because it demonstrates a logical gap between 'is' statements and 'ought' ones. it would only be a problem if one unreasonably demanded that the gap between is statements and ought statements not exist.
I'm aware of the parameters of the is-ought gap/problem. Both uses are legitimate. Observe. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is-ought_problem) I'll go boil your crow now; I hope you're good and hungry.

Thanks for completely evading the point by the way. It damaged your credibility far more than any rebuttal on my part ever could. Seems like whenever we butt heads, you do about 2/3 of the work for me. No wonder I'm such a glutton for punishment.

no it doesn't. for example, the following argument is perfectly possible:

you ought not murder humans.
socrates is a human.
therefore you ought not murder socrates.
This is exactly what you told me one post ago was philosophically impossible. If this "problem/gap/nonsense" is consistently applicable we would quickly discover that your second statement requires an "is" [and the "ought" that follows I should hope is obvious enough for me to not have to point out] every bit as much as any counterexample I could care to create. Last post you were telling me how ZOMG HARD it would be to infer an "is" from an "ought" and now you've turned around and done precisely that: "Socrates is a human/You ought not murder socrates." So basically, if I'm reading this right, "is-ought" is invalid, but "ought-is-ought" is perfectly acceptable? Rubbish.

If that's not a blatant inference of an "ought" from an "is," then I'm black. You seem to think that by including an introductory premise, this exonerates you [and presumably Hume] from making the same mistakes that you're charging me with making.

that's just about the worst misreading of hume i've ever heard of.
Why am I not surprised that you chose to leave out an explanation? For someone who so firmly believes my philosophy is riddled with holes, you sure do a piss-poor job of explaining why. Similarly, I've noticed that you rarely bother to dissect my conclusions of your chosen philosophers.

only if i tried to claim such an ought statement as deriving from the is, rather than a more primal ought (resting, eventually, on the kind of society i desire to live in).
This is exactly what I'm talking about when I claim that the is-ought "problem" is a convention devised to do away with moral declarations that Hume [and presumably you] don't agree with. You get away with validating your own chosen axioms by claiming that they're "primal oughts." This is a blatant double standard, and anyone with two neurons to rub together for warmth should be able to see right through it. Since what is and isn't a "primal ought" is "eventually resting on the society you desire to live in," you're basically admitting that what is and isn't a "primal ought" relies on whatever moral/metaphysical axioms support your preconceived notions about how humans ought to interact with each other, ignoring the rather obvious properties of how they actually do interact with each other. It's a subtle way of reaching for a utopia that never has existed and never will. It's whim worship, pure and simple. This thesis bears absolutely no connection with reality.

it certainly would not follow from the statement "these people are poor" that we should help them. not without the inclusion of an additional premise, such as "we should help those less fortunate than ourselves". this premise might at first be unstated, but pretty much everybody who thinks that we should help some particular set of poor people would come up with it if pressed.
This is just a pitiful extrapolation of your previous comments. You claim that the presence of this precious "additional premise" exonerates its conclusions from the parameters of your is-ought "problem;" once again you've failed to provide any clarification; as if the axiom that we should "help the less fortunate" is some primordial axiom that need not be explained or validated.

Bravo. You've done absolutely nothing to disprove a single word I've written. Want my advice? Quit while you're ahead. Or rather, quit while you're as close to ahead as you're ever going to get. Your explanations are vague where they even exist at all, and rather than answering me point by point [which, you'll notice, I take the time to do with every post] you evade the bulk of it and claim to debunk by way of single sentences like "that's the worst reading of Hume I've ever seen" and other--slightly longer, but equally ridiculous--tripe.
how come every time we've discussed this you always start from the position that morality must be objective in order to exist, when clearly the facts of the world disagree with you?
Yes, clearly. You've done such a stunning job of proving it. My mouth is literally hanging open in awe.

Well, maybe not awe as such, but believe me; it's a-hangin'.

I disagree with Ayn Rand, even though her argument is valid. She says that people only work in their own rational self-interest.
No, she doesn't. You completely do not get the point of ethical philosophy, do you?

Ethical philosophy is concerned with what people SHOULD do, not with what they actually do do. That certain individuals often do act irrationally is an indictment not of Objectivist ethics but of those individuals.

Yet, this only works in theory because people aren't automatons! If what she says is true, everybody thinks in the same manner,
Not true, because each individual has his own wants and desires. As long as those wants and desires are chosen RATIONALLY, that's fine.

For example, if I were a Randian, what would I say about Wal-Mart? One one hand, it is the triumph of the individual enterprise and "man's ability to think." On the other hand, Wal-Mart's stamping out other businesses through competition is impeding on "the right to earn money," and its low, low prices might be stamping out the drive towards individual enterprise by enabling goods to be distributed to more people "who don't deserve it" (once again, money is Man's ability to think), and that is "altruism". Would I want Wal-Mart destroyed, or would I want Wal-Mart to survive and thrive? Would I just want people to keep starting businesses, so long as Wal-Mart isn't in mind (it wouldn't be self-interest otherwise), and have them fail? Or, would I just not care, because paying attention to the way businesses affect society is "caring for your fellow man?"
OK, here you miss the basic issue. Individualism vs. collectivism is a matter of FUNDAMENTAL MOTIVES. As long as one is acting in a rational manner towards his own rational goals, he is acting morally. It does not matter if others benefit, as long as the benefit of others is not his primary motivation.

This is exactly what you told me one post ago was philosophically impossible. If this "problem/gap/nonsense" is consistently applicable we would quickly discover that your second statement requires an "is" [and the "ought" that follows I should hope is obvious enough for me to not have to point out] every bit as much as any counterexample I could care to create. Last post you were telling me how ZOMG HARD it would be to infer an "is" from an "ought" and now you've turned around and done precisely that: "Socrates is a human/You ought not murder socrates." So basically, if I'm reading this right, "is-ought" is invalid, but "ought-is-ought" is perfectly acceptable? Rubbish.

If that's not a blatant inference of an "ought" from an "is," then I'm black. You seem to think that by including an introductory premise, this exonerates you [and presumably Hume] from making the same mistakes that you're charging me with making.

No. It is not "is-ought," it is "ought-ought." You cannot go from "Socrates is a human" to "You ought not to murder Socrates." That would be "is-ought." What you can do, and what was done, is start with a general "ought" statement, apply it to a specific circumstance, and get a specific "ought" statement. That's basic deductive reasoning.

you ought not murder humans.
socrates is a human.
therefore you ought not murder socrates.


Congratulations, you have just discovered the syllogism.

Anyway, so many people get so caught up in the more superficial aspects of Objectivism that they ignore the more fundamental ones: metaphysics and epistemology.

As Objectivist ethics and politics necessarily follow from Objectivist metaphysics and epistemology, refute the latter and you've refuted the former.

you ought not murder humans.
socrates is a human.
therefore you ought not murder socrates.
This is exactly what you told me one post ago was philosophically impossible. If this "problem/gap/nonsense" is consistently applicable we would quickly discover that your second statement requires an "is" [and the "ought" that follows I should hope is obvious enough for me to not have to point out] every bit as much as any counterexample I could care to create. Last post you were telling me how ZOMG HARD it would be to infer an "is" from an "ought" and now you've turned around and done precisely that: "Socrates is a human/You ought not murder socrates." So basically, if I'm reading this right, "is-ought" is invalid, but "ought-is-ought" is perfectly acceptable? Rubbish.

If that's not a blatant inference of an "ought" from an "is," then I'm black. You seem to think that by including an introductory premise, this exonerates you [and presumably Hume] from making the same mistakes that you're charging me with making.

well, we've reached the source of your problem. i'd suggest actually reading the wiki article (though it isn't particularly well structered or written - but the internet is bound to have better) and our earlier exchange(s) for content this time and get back to me when you realize where you went wrong above - it's rather ridiculous.

A question for Randians:

If you set about to consciously structure society in a way so that people who do not think the same way you do (or at least do not use the same thought process as you do) are likely to fail, is this not a form of social coercion that is at least as powerful, it not more so, than the coercive powers of the state?

Objectivism is (ironicly) way to dogmatic for my taste and I really don't see why she hated libritarianism so much

She didn't. What Rand disapproved was was the Libertarian movement as it existed at the time. Objectivist politics IS a libertarian ideology.

And Objectivism is not "dogmatic". You've just had too much exposure to the Anti-Reason Institute (which, ironically, likes to refer to itself as the "Ayn Rand Institute"). Stay away from it as much as possible.

A question for Randians:

If you set about to consciously structure society

We do not seek to "structure" society at all.

Whatever happens as a result of free individuals freely interacting with each other in a non-coercive manner, happens.

We do not seek to "structure" society at all.

Whatever happens as a result of free individuals freely interacting with each other in a non-coercive manner, happens.

So you mean anarchy?

No.

Note the modifier "non-coercive".

Anarchy allows coercive relationships as well as non-coercive ones.

No.

Note the modifier "non-coercive".

Anarchy allows coercive relationships as well as non-coercive ones.

Like it or not, you are advocating for a particular form of structuring social relations. And like it or not, even without the coercive power of the state, coercion will exist.

Like it or not, you are advocating for a particular form of structuring social relations.
Except that I'm not. Government is not society.
And like it or not, even without the coercive power of the state, coercion will exist.
Yes, that's what I just said.

Except that I'm not. Government is not society.

Agreed. But that does not address my point. You are positing a way in which social relations should be structured. With or without a government or state apparatus.


Yes, that's what I just said.

No. What you said was that relationships in the Randian society would be non-coercive (many Randians who have posted here have not gone that far: they said they would not be based on violence, seeminly allowing for softer forms of coercion). My response is that coercion will indeed exist, in fact it is built into the very structure you posit.

Ultimately, I think that the Randian ideal might work in an extremely small community, such as Galt's Gulch. It would be impossible to make work on the level of a country as large as, say, the United States. In fact, it would probably be irresponsible to do so.

I think it would be an interesting social experiment if a bunch of Randians got together and purchased an island someplace and tried to live out the Randian ideal. I just wouldn't want any part of it.

I think it would be an interesting social experiment if a bunch of Randians got together and purchased an island someplace and tried to live out the Randian ideal. I just wouldn't want any part of it.I agree. It would be interesting to see what would happen, and, as another poster pointed out, this would be the only way it would or could happen.

No. It is not "is-ought," it is "ought-ought." You cannot go from "Socrates is a human" to "You ought not to murder Socrates." That would be "is-ought." What you can do, and what was done, is start with a general "ought" statement, apply it to a specific circumstance, and get a specific "ought" statement. That's basic deductive reasoning.
*gets it*
So . . .
You ought not take possessions from other humans under any circumstances
Socrates is a human
You ought not take possessions from Socrates under any circumstances

I mean, it so obvious, morality is based on making general statements that happen to feel right (without any philosophical backing), phrasing them as "oughts", and adding an arbitrary "is" step in the middle to cover your ass. Morals stem, not from judgment, dieties, common sense, ethics or reason, but, rather they stem from redundancy!
*dances in the streets*

Government is not society.

Although some might argue that it should be. =)

Ultimately, I think that the Randian ideal might work in an extremely small community, such as Galt's Gulch. It would be impossible to make work on the level of a country as large as, say, the United States. In fact, it would probably be irresponsible to do so.

Interestingly enough, communism could work on that type of small scale too. It's when you start to try and increase the scale that things go bad.

You ought not take possessions from Socrates under any circumstances

*whew*

And I almost stole the fern on his doorstep!

I am going to strike a slightly conciliatory tone here ...

I think at the end of the day, my primary problem with Rand and her followers is I just don't share their worldview both because it does not gibe with my ideals or with my own experience. They seem to advocate that society is or ought to be a series of atomized individuals who voluntarily choose to (or not to) enter into social relations (which may be non-violent or non-coercive, depending who you ask). The individual's primary responsibility is to themselves, and by maximizing their own individual self-interest, they maximize the broader societal interest.

My worldview is one where, whether they choose to be or not, all humans live in a complex world of interrelationships with all other humans as well as non-human life. These interrelationships create a complex web of rights and responsibilities. For example, I do not choose to enter into a social relationship with my family. But I am born into that relationship, and as a result of that and the fact that they raised me, I have obligations and duties toward my family, as well as rights as a family member. I also feel that I have obligations toward my ancestors and the past generations who have left me the world that I live in (which is in many regards better than the one they were born into) and to future generations, to ensure that the quality of life I have enjoyed as a result of the work of past generations is maintained (i.e. that I am going to leave the world at least as good of a place as I found it). I also have obligations towards animals, trees, and other forms of life. There is still plenty of room for individual choice; an individual still has obligations to themself, and there are many social obligations I can choose to assume, and corresponding rights I can receive. I can choose who I do business with and so forth. However, I recognize that there are many relationships and obligations over which I have little or no choice. My better world would be one in which more people recognized and accepted those obligations (and not just the rights which attach to them).

I accept that many people (including Randians) may not share that worldview. I respect that people have done a good job of defending Rand's views on this threads: many "objectivists" that I have met previously had not thought through her ideas as carefully. I still do not think that the quality of her writing is that good, but I hopefully have a better appreciation and respect for her ideas.

Morals stem, not from judgment, dieties, common sense, ethics or reason, but, rather they stem from redundancy!
*dances in the streets*
*Joins the Dance*

What do we call our new philosophy?

I mean, it so obvious, morality is based on making general statements that happen to feel right (without any philosophical backing)

well, sort of.

maybe.

divine command theorists can still go round claiming that whatever the gods say is right, is (though that approach also has it's problems). but for the rest of us it looks like ethics will ultimately be grounded in moral sentiments and intuitions.

what sort of 'philosophical' backing should they have? we can't derive the ethical rules from the facts alone, we can't observe them directly, and the fact that people disagree strongly about them sort of undermines any claim to being self-evident.

In answer to the original poster:

Philosophically speaking, Rand's arguments are valid (though she is occasionally a little over-fond of using straw man arguments). As such, they should be taken as seriously as the writings of any other philosopher.

Whether you agree with them or not is another matter entirely.

Actually no, they are not. For the sake of brevity, I would simply point out that her entire epistemic justification for Objectivism, namely that people can use sensory input combined with reason to infer the objective truth about the world, was undercut along with all other sense-datum theorists more than fifty years ago by Wilfred Sellars in Empiricism and the Philosophy of Mind.

For further reference, I refer you here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilfred_Sellars

To put it simply, the central epistemic premise of Rand's objectivism, that we can have an objective understanding of reason through experience combined with reason, was undercut about ten years before she even began to achieve any kind of prominence. She is ignored by the analytic philosophical community, and with good reason.

I mean, it so obvious, morality is based on making general statements that happen to feel right (without any philosophical backing), phrasing them as "oughts", and adding an arbitrary "is" step in the middle to cover your ass.

Yes, it is, more or less. The only way you can arrive at an "ought" statement legitimately is through moral conviction, that is, what "feels right." You can develop your moral propositions logically, and you can test them to see if they do indeed "feel right" in all circumstances, but ultimately, yes, "morality is based on making general statements that happen to feel right."

divine command theorists can still go round claiming that whatever the gods say is right, is (though that approach also has it's problems). but for the rest of us it looks like ethics will ultimately be grounded in moral sentiments and intuitions.

And even the idea that "whatever the gods say is right, is" is based on "moral sentiments and intuitions" about the deity (or deities) and his/her/their role in the world.

In other words, me getting married to somebody of my own gender will not in any way stop you from getting married to your partner, so I should be free to make that choice. Me choosing to use birth control does not force you to use birth control, nor does it force you to engage in sexual activity with people who use birth control if you feel birth control is wrong. However, me killing you will obviously prevent you from pursuing your life. Me stealing your wallet is a direct assault on your ability to lead your life. And so forth.

Me pissing or dumping industrial solvent or spraying malathion in your drinking water is a direct assault on your ability to lead your life. Who prevents me, or more properly, some malicious individual from doing these things. I can see some sort of vestigial remnant of government that's allowed to survive the Great Libertarian Revolution going after some poor Joe Blow, but what if a corporation or some rugged industrialist decides they want what little you got? Whatever structure is supposed to prevent infringement upon your negative rights pretty much folds when it meets a plutocrat more powerful than itself. I just don't see anything able to successfully prevent, "direct assaults," that doesn't turn into a de facto state.

That's one of the things I can agree with Rand about. I have no patience for people who presume to tell me how to conduct my life, nor do I have patience for people who claim that they are oppressed every time I make a personal decision that they don't like.

Examples:
-Christians who cry that they are oppressed because public funds are not being spent on celebrating Christian religious holidays.
-Anti-gay activists who claim that a gay couple's marriage in some way makes it impossible for straight people to have marriages.
-Men who cry about how they're being figuratively castrated by women who want the right to hold their own jobs, control their own lives, or own their own bodies.

There are some people who just seem to have a very over-blown sense of their own importance. They also seem to think that our laws guarantee them a right to be happy all the time, and a right to never have their feelings hurt. They seem to think that it is a direct assault on their freedom when somebody else disagrees with them. In other words, they are little crybabies. :)

Agreed. I'm not a violent person by any stretch, but when I hear the words, "I'm offended," I reflexively reach for my machete. Even when I otherwise agree with the person saying it.

I don't know if she should be taken seriously as a philosopher. I know I don't like her philosophy one bit, but whether or not it's a "serious" philosophy, I'm not sure. However, she's a horrible fiction writer. Her dialogue often sounds like a boring political debate and her characters are flat, unconvincing versions of human beings. As far as "novelists who write with an overriding political theme" are concerned, she knows nothing of George Orwell, no great novelist himself. She just can't write. Boo to Ayn Rand, and boo to the weeks I spent reading Atlas Shrugged.

Yes, it is, more or less. The only way you can arrive at an "ought" statement legitimately is through moral conviction, that is, what "feels right." You can develop your moral propositions logically, and you can test them to see if they do indeed "feel right" in all circumstances, but ultimately, yes, "morality is based on making general statements that happen to feel right."

Incorrect.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

She proved clearly and conclusively that morality, properly understood, is not a series of whims that just happen to "feel right" but an objective code for living that is consistent with man's fundamental nature as a being that must act in its own rational self-interest for its survival.

Incorrect.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

She proved clearly and conclusively that morality, properly understood, is not a series of whims that just happen to "feel right" but an objective code for living that is consistent with man's fundamental nature as a being that must act in its own rational self-interest for its survival.

Do you hear that sound?

Do you hear it?

Shhhhhh!

Do you hear it?

What is it?

What do you hear?

SILENCE!

I'm sorry dearie, but if anyone had "conclusively proven" anything at all about morality, you'd hear a bit more commotion.

Meanwhile, I've seen all sorts of evidence that someone acting only in their own self-interest will shit on other people. I would hardly call that moral.

Incorrect.
Your powers of debate appear somewhat underwhelming right now.

She proved clearly and conclusively that morality, properly understood, is not a series of whims that just happen to "feel right" but an objective code for living that is consistent with man's fundamental nature as a being that must act in its own rational self-interest for its survival.

no, she didn't. even if it were possible to do so, her argument is such utter crap that it would be of no help anyway. not only does she misunderstand the gap between is and ought, she just plain gets the 'is' wrong. and then she can't even stick to what she claims fell out of her argument and boldly equivocates on the whole thing. pitiful.

Your powers of debate appear somewhat underwhelming right now.

No more underwhelming than they usually are, really.

Incorrect.

You would do well to familiarize yourself with the writings of the eminent 20th-century Russian-American philosopher Ayn Rand.

She proved clearly and conclusively that morality, properly understood, is not a series of whims that just happen to "feel right" but an objective code for living that is consistent with man's fundamental nature as a being that must act in its own rational self-interest for its survival.

Any human being functioning at 1/3 mental capacity can clearly see that Ayn Rand should have been beaten with a sock full off quarters for her convictions on anything. In fact, the most intelligent human beings can save time by simply placing themself on the polar opposite of any debate she had taken part in, or completely oppose any ideology she embraces.

Any human being functioning at 1/3 mental capacity can clearly see that Ayn Rand should have been beaten with a sock full off quarters for her convictions on anything. In fact, the most intelligent human beings can save time by simply placing themself on the polar opposite of any debate she had taken part in, or completely oppose any ideology she embraces.

While that would be funny, it'd be so much more fitting for somebody to actually hold a gun to her head. :p

What Rand advocated is certainly a philosophy.
A philosophy I once embraced but have since tossed aside.
If the poor are starving, they will eat the rich. Best to toss them a bone every once and awhile.

In my opinion both her fiction and her philosophy are garbage. But some people disagree. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=476767&page=7)

What say you?

Take her seriously? As a writer, merely abysmal. As a "philosopher", she makes me seem like Plato.

If the poor are starving, they will eat the rich. Best to toss them a bone every once and awhile.

So if the poor are suffering it is in your rational self-interest to give to charity. Being charitable does not break Rand's teaching of selfishness.

Any human being functioning at 1/3 mental capacity can clearly see that Ayn Rand should have been beaten with a sock full off quarters for her convictions on anything. In fact, the most intelligent human beings can save time by simply placing themself on the polar opposite of any debate she had taken part in, or completely oppose any ideology she embraces.

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

I defy you to refute a single word she ever said or wrote.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention, because several words she said and wrote have been refuted in this thread. Selective retention on your part. For starters, her views on gender relations and homosexuals are idiotic.

Congratulations, you have just discovered the syllogism.

Unlike, "Existence exists," which isn't so much a syllogism as boneheaded. But it does sound real deep.

Apparently you haven't been paying attention, because several words she said and wrote have been refuted in this thread.

There have been no refutations. There have been several failed attempts at refutation, but nothing more.

There have been no refutations. There have been several failed attempts at refutation, but nothing more.

In your view. Selective retention.