Who is Ayn Rand? Why is she important to you?

[LJ_Reloaded]

('Romantic Manifesto')

What the advocates of a slave system, be it Chinese Communism or Statist quasi socialism aka Euro nations, fail to recognize or identify, is the moral and ethical concept stated above.

If human freedom, individuality and choice mean nothing to you, then yes, you can conceive of a 'hybrid' system. In reality, mixing poison with water doesn't change the poison, but the water become lethal.

So too will any attempt to diminish human freedom to the collective will.

Such attempts have always led to armed conflict and will again.

Amicus

Your definition of freedom will lead to armed conflict, between the haves and the have-nots.

 

[jeanne_d_artois]

I know who she is.

She is NOT important to me.

Jeanne

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Then the math clearly says we will see a collapse of civilization.

There is not enough room in the marketplace for 300 million innovators. There isn't enough room for 1 million. Consider how many people issue patents in America every year. Under 20,000. Consider how many of those patents actually make money.

That's a lot of people left out in the cold. A lot of people with nothing to lose, and revolution on their minds.

The Capitalists of today are forgetting one major rule: access to the bread and circuses are the opiate of the masses. Knowing that, you do not want the people to sober up. The FASTEST way to sober them up is to take away their bread... and we're doing that.

I failed to make my point clear.

America is becoming an oligarchy. In a short while the government will outlaw competition with the annointed providers. And the corporate providers wont invest a rat's ass in the quality or performance of their goods and services. The peasants will take it or do without. We'll be like Albania and Cuba 20 years ago.

But every peasant wont passively submit to the new order. Many will join an underground economy of innovators and free enterprise. Its already happening.

I raise a garden in my yard. Mostly I grow melons, tomatoes, and cucumbers. Quality produce! Its my hobby. I give some of the produce away and I trade some if it. When a pal catches a surplus of fish I trade watermelons for fish....or whatever. County Code Enforcement isnt happy with me but I dont sell anything and virtually everyone in this development owns fruit trees and flowering plants.

This is what I mean by innovation.

 

[Huckleman2000]

[...]
This is what I mean by innovation.

So, subsistence bartering is the great engine of a new Randian economy? Her grandparents in Czarist Russia must be so proud.

 

[Miss_Pixie]

She is imporatnt to me simply because she made me think, and seek out other possibiltes.

 

[CharleyH]

I remember when you were a fairly pleasant fellow here. Now, it seems you've turned into a very bitter and angry old man.

Ami? Pleasant? I doubt it, EVER. Nevertheless, if you discard his opinions you do a disservice to yourself. His opinions are valid . He speaks to a portion of the population that you may never come in contact with in your lifetime. Don't dismiss his thoughts, learn from them.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

So, subsistence bartering is the great engine of a new Randian economy? Her grandparents in Czarist Russia must be so proud.

Pretty much. When Randian economics takes away your jobs and sends them overseas, that's all you have left.

 

[Huckleman2000]

Does it occur to anyone else that those who are most vociferously against the idea of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" because they think they'd contribute more than their "fair share", are also the ones who you'd expect to wind up on the taking end of the equation?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

So, subsistence bartering is the great engine of a new Randian economy? Her grandparents in Czarist Russia must be so proud.

Rand was right about how our economy works in practice, and she was right about subsistence bartering being the outcome after producers become weary from the abuse and oppression of the oligarchy.

But there's more to it.

Since 1960 our government has quietly moved millions of smart Americans from commerce, manufacturing, agriculture, construction, technology, etc to LAW, EDUCATION, HUMAN SERVICES, BANKING, and allied vocations. Guidance counselors make nuthin anyone wants. Lawyers create nuthin but conflicts. And teachers are expensive babysitters for America's pampered, brittle, neurotic children.

The collapse of the nation is unfolding before our eyes!

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Does it occur to anyone else that those who are most vociferously against the idea of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" because they think they'd contribute more than their "fair share", are also the ones who you'd expect to wind up on the taking end of the equation?

Indolence is the culprit NOT greed. People are lazy and unmotivated. Give them 3 hots and a cot and they'll nap the day away.

 

[Liar]

Ayn Rand is relevant to me because I enjoy political discourse, and she makes it bloody annoying at times.

She had some good ideas, but as all ideologists, she presents an ideal that is not completely compatible with the complexity of the real world.

And there's a certain clique of people who read her writings like Holy Scripture, deify her person, blow her importance absudly out of proportion and see any objection to her ideas, any nuance other than the purest of Randism, any attempt to problematize, as nothing but evil, statist freedom hating. Moreso than with any other political thinker I've ever seen. Even a hardcore Maxist can be reasoned with.

I don't talk religion with Talibans.

 

[Pure]

Statism

ami quoting rand: "Statism needs war, a free country does not. Statism survices by looting, a free society survives by production."

Rand recognized statism: the rise of the federal gov't power; its spending and size, which reached new heights under Reagan, and headed skyward under Johnson and 'his' Vietnam war. Hence she opposed both persons and their policies.

Some figures about the US Gov spending, below. In essense, for 2010, military expenditures about 900 billion; one quarter. Total expenditure on everything 3,700 billion.

Total for Iraq and Aghan wars over 900 billiion.

The US economy arguably NEEDS war. Its war spending is greater than the next ten nations of the world, and is perhaps the majority of the WORLD's military spending.

As far as "looting" goes, HOW is this paid? Taxes and borrowing from, for example, the Chinese. Borrowing partly 'loots' from the present citizens, who pay interest, and also from future generations.

Citizens under such burdens have their freedom severely limited as Rand and other have stated. Ami and most mainstream conservative IGNORE big gov't when it come to military spending.

If one goes by Ms. Rand, the gov't extracting amost a trillion a year to "defend", and about 10 billion a month to fight in Iraq and Aghanistan is one which loots from and oppresses its citizens:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2010-05-12-afghan_N.htm

Pentagon spending in February, the most recent month available, was $6.7 billion in Afghanistan compared with $5.5 billion in Iraq..

It might be mentioned that it's far from anyting resembling pure capitalism of the economiy depends on industries on the gov't payroll as 'defense contractors.'


Other measures of 'statism' might include the issue of arbitrary arrest, possible and actual under the Patriot Act.

Imprisonment, too, is relevant: Some rough figures from Wiki

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

The United States has the highest documented incarceration rate in the world.[1][2] The U.S. incarceration rate on December 31, 2008 was 754 inmates per 100,000 U.S. residents, or 0.75%.[3] The USA also has the highest total documented prison and jail population in the world.[1][4][5]

According to the U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS): "In 2008, over 7.3 million people were on probation, in jail or prison, or on parole at year-end — 3.2% of all U.S. adult residents or 1 in every 31 adults."[6]
--

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/downchart_gs.php

total expenditure 3,700 billion

'defense' 900 billion 24%

pensions 770 b
health care 830 b

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States

4% of GDP is defense-related.

By the end of 2008, the U.S. had spent approximately $900 billion in direct costs on the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars.

 

[patrick1]

the view from europe

Just a reminder to this sometimes usa-centred forum: Ayn Rand is one of those writers whose american popularity mostly baffles us europeans. She is a truly terrible stylist, and I think some people mistake the density of her prose for meaning. But for me some of her libertarian ideas are enjoyably provocative as long as you don't turn them into a religion or torture them into a system of thought.

 

[LaRocha]

I read Ayn Rand in high school because I saw an interview of hers from a documentary played on Bravo television. There was nothing underground about it. I went to the mall and got some of her books from the chain book store. If I hadn't read most of Plato first I never would've been so interested in someone posing philosophical questions on television. I read Atlas Shrugged, then I went to the County library and read We the Living, Anthem, and possibly Fountainhead. Plato made me want to study philosophy in college, Ayn made me think about applying to work with the Lackawanna/Conrail Railroad.

The John Galt Speaks portion of Atlas is possibly the most long-winded, boring, essentially meaningless/redundant monologue in the history of fiction. Her editor was asleep at the wheel. Her books gave me boners, because her female characters were essentially whores. I knew that you couldn't have much philosophical content in a novel, so I checked out Capitalism: Unknown, Virtue of Selfishness, Romantic Manifesto. Without having had my first formal philosophy class I knew the problem with Ayn was that she didn't have a firm understanding of the folks who came before her, as she never referenced any works of other philosophers. This is a similar problem to Ludwig Wittgenstein in Tractatus, save he had a very firm understanding of Peano, Frege, Russell.

It was only later that I ran into the Randists and anti-Randists. Neither seemed to have read her core novels and also her non-fiction. It's always baffling to me how people only read a couple books by one author before dedicating every conversation to them. Read all the works of note by an author or philosopher before you take up their position or choose to denigrate them.

 

[ishtat]

I read Ayn Rand in high school because I saw an interview of hers from a documentary played on Bravo television. There was nothing underground about it. I went to the mall and got some of her books from the chain book store. If I hadn't read most of Plato first I never would've been so interested in someone posing philosophical questions on television. I read Atlas Shrugged, then I went to the County library and read We the Living, Anthem, and possibly Fountainhead. Plato made me want to study philosophy in college, Ayn made me think about applying to work with the Lackawanna/Conrail Railroad.

The John Galt Speaks portion of Atlas is possibly the most long-winded, boring, essentially meaningless/redundant monologue in the history of fiction. Her editor was asleep at the wheel. Her books gave me boners, because her female characters were essentially whores. I knew that you couldn't have much philosophical content in a novel, so I checked out Capitalism: Unknown, Virtue of Selfishness, Romantic Manifesto. Without having had my first formal philosophy class I knew the problem with Ayn was that she didn't have a firm understanding of the folks who came before her, as she never referenced any works of other philosophers. This is a similar problem to Ludwig Wittgenstein in Tractatus, save he had a very firm understanding of Peano, Frege, Russell.

It was only later that I ran into the Randists and anti-Randists. Neither seemed to have read her core novels and also her non-fiction. It's always baffling to me how people only read a couple books by one author before dedicating every conversation to them. Read all the works of note by an author or philosopher before you take up their position or choose to denigrate them.

My Bolds added to the above quote. I would emphasise it more and say that I am convinced that Ayn Rand never read some of the major philosophers at all. I don't think for example that anyone who understood Kant could have confected the third rate claptrap she peddled.

It is my observation that the followers of Rand believe in her rather than analyse her, there is a characteristically uncritical religiosity in their approach.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Does it occur to anyone else that those who are most vociferously against the idea of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" because they think they'd contribute more than their "fair share", are also the ones who you'd expect to wind up on the taking end of the equation?

Uh, factually wrong.

The Red, Republican voting states are net TAKERS of Federal welfare dollars. We here in the Blue liberal states are net CONTRIBUTORS.

Pure:

Your theory breaks down when you throw in the example of the Cayman Islands and Dubai. Both are ultra capitalistic entities, in fact they're tax havens. They engage in no wars of foreign conquest. Yet they are also totally bankrupt.
Edited to add: Don't take this as saying you didn't refute Amicus. You did. The military industrial complex DOES evolve into a fatal liability to any free country. There is just more complexity to this issue than what you said.



*sigh* This discussion is going absolutely nowhere when these oft-repeated facts keep getting ignored...

 

[Huckleman2000]

Uh, factually wrong.

The Red, Republican voting states are net TAKERS of Federal welfare dollars. We here in the Blue liberal states are net CONTRIBUTORS.[...]

Um... so my observation sorta rings true, since those most against the Marxist slogan would likely be the Red-Staters. Ironically enough.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Um... so my observation sorta rings true, since those most against the Marxist slogan would likely be the Red-Staters. Ironically enough.

Those are where you'll find the loudest self proclaimed supporters of Ayn Rand.

 

[past_perfect]

I actually learned about Ayn Rand for the first time here on this board. She provided some invaluable insights for me.

First: Never try to listen to an audio-book version of "Atlas Shrugged" unless you really do want to go to sleep.

Second: There was a good reason why I never heard about her.

Third: If mediocre writing and fuzzy thinking passes as philosophy in America, I might still have a shot at fame and adoration there, since I am capable of both.

Fourth: Since I might call my book "Atlas Fucked", you would probably not have to read it in High School.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LJ is confused about what a capitalist is.

A capitalist is a person who owns the means to create goods and services for the market. The capitalist pays all the costs of production and keeps all the profits, if any.

The American system is a happy blend of capitalism and socialism, to wit: The People pay the costs of production and the owner keeps the profits, if any, or gets a bail-out from taxpayers in the event of failure.

 

[AngeloMichael]

Who is Ayn Rand?

I can't some it up better than a man I respect and admire to the utmost did not too long ago when others were curious about her and her philosophy, sadly he is no longer with us.

The fairest and simplest explanation of Objectivism is that its the philosophy of being an asshole. It is self-congratulating narcissism esteemed as the highest virtue. She equates anything remotely socialized in government as slavery and her ideal society amounts to...well, lets use her own quote:

When I say "capitalism", I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

Now hopefully I don't have to spell out the inherent problems in that, but it does seem eerily familiar to our pre-20th century society where everyone was fucked but a few elite robber-barons who owned everything and treated the national economy as their personal playground to destabilize on a whim.

Her philosophy isn't well respected within the larger field, in fact most contemporary and later philosophers hardly regarded it as a philosophy at all. Its regarded as simplistic, not well thought out, and virulently anti-academic. Her main following was amongst college students and business types, presumably because it gave them moral license to be self-important assholes and claim 110% of the credit for all of their accomplishments. Family, friends, upbringing, schooling, society, government, community didn't help me to get where I am, I did it all myself sort of thing.

Objectivists tend to be obnoxious douchebags of the highest order. It has taken on something of a cult following comparable to Scientology, minus the thetans, amongst its followers.

As for the TG comparisons, no he didn't misinterpret all that much. Assholery as a virtue is pretty much right on the mark.


Also, you made a wise choice. Asking other people to summarize her is MUCH less painful than actually reading her shit. "53 page speech by John Galt" is a phrase that should scare away even the most adventurous reader from ever picking up Atlas Shrugged. And yes, it is what it sounds like. An actual 50+ page speech from one of the characters. You might be thinking that 'Christ himself doesn't even have enough worthwhile to say to fill 53 full pages' and you'd be right. Noone does. Except apparently the pseudo-protagonist of an Ayn Rand novel.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Snerk. Philosophy is the illicit spawn of astrology and navel-gazing.

 

[amicus]

Ami? Pleasant? I doubt it, EVER. Nevertheless, if you discard his opinions you do a disservice to yourself. His opinions are valid . He speaks to a portion of the population that you may never come in contact with in your lifetime. Don't dismiss his thoughts, learn from them.

~~~

If memory serves, although one could scroll back, DKMoon was referring to BoxLicker, not moi.

And, in reality, I am quite a pleasant fellow and many here will attest to that.

You have expressed a cloistered existence, from your theoretical point of view from Communist Portugal over the years. That, and much more, for you and many here, who have been educated by the Liberal Left and kept supporting your views by absorbing only that media information which conicides with your world view...the harsh reality of an opposing viewpoint, such as mine, although shared by hundreds of millions, comes across to you as an alien thought process.

There is a Human Events article in my in-box today, explaining how Viet Nam was really the turning point in combatting International Communism and containing that evil political system from conquering Asia.

For most anti-war people of the 60's through today, that point of view is rejected out of hand and not even considered remotely valid as it would conflict with what you think you know about world politics.

If you wish I can provide a link to the piece...perhaps I will anyway...

Don't dismiss his thoughts, learn from them.

Thank you, CharleyH, that is the best one could hope for on this forum.

Amicus

edited to add:

The Vietnam War was a tragic and dismal failure -- if you believe what liberal historians and the media say about it.

But here’s the politically incorrect truth: The Vietnam War was in fact the most important -- and successful -- campaign to defeat communism ever waged. Without the sacrifices made and the courage displayed by our military, the world might be a very different place today.

So argues Vietnam War expert (and veteran) Phillip Jennings -- and in The Politically Incorrect Guide™ to the Vietnam War, he marshals all the facts and arguments to prove it.

There was no link to the article...just a book promo...

ami

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

LJ is confused about what a capitalist is.

A capitalist is a person who owns the means to create goods and services for the market. The capitalist pays all the costs of production and keeps all the profits, if any.

The American system is a happy blend of capitalism and socialism, to wit: The People pay the costs of production and the owner keeps the profits, if any, or gets a bail-out from taxpayers in the event of failure.

Dude, I know all that. In America we socialize the failures of business and capitalism-ize everything else.

But that doesn't change the fact that the Randroids tend to live in parts of the country which get more Federal welfare dollars than are contributed.

If they had to actually take their own medicine they'd be doomed. Hell, their logic demands that they log off the Intarwebs, since it wouldn't even exist without the evil confiscationalist Government's funding and intervention.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

LJ

I dont believe real Randoids accept Federal money.

People call themselves all kinds of things but the Real McCoy walk the talk.