Ayn Rand fans?

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

Hey, how many Rand fans do we have here? I've been reading her work over the past 9 months. I've read much of her non fiction, as well as Anthem, We the Living, The Husband I Bought, and Good Copy. Right now I'm reading her essays about capitalism. Post here if you are a fan. Post here if you hate her and what she stands for.

[Shai Gar]

i have never read their works but i have heard many good things about her works. i would love a chance to read them

[nBT]

rand was elaboratly discussed on the intj list. i think im for her. that is: just her ideas, not the rigid lifestyle she preached.

[CapnEnnui]

Oh, Hell no. Ayn Rand was a fool. Complete, utter bunk.

First of all, you have her logic trap about independence. It is foolish to believe we can be or are independent. With complete independence comes children who can't read, write, or add. Rand seems to really be lashing out at the concept that constant, selfless giving is good, by firing back with the equally ridiculous notion that constant, selfish taking is good. Both sides fail to see that there is a middle ground, and that the middle ground is the one that exists today. "I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch mine" is really what the world works on, because EVERYBODY is being selfish with EVERY action they take. I think most people who give give give do so because they believe they are better, or destined to live happily in the afterlife, or because they enjoy helping and giving, or for the image of a "good" person, or to actually try to BE a good person because they believe it to be good and they believe good to be the perfection that they should strive for. Nobody is NOT working in their own self-interest, because every action has a motivation or a reason.

Rand's world of "ethical greed" is one that would be bleak, hateful, desolate and an absolute hell. Look at how people have fucked up interpreting religion, with a message like "taking and self-serving is good" it doesn't take much effort to make it something destructive and counter-productive.

Reading Rand gave me no answers, it just made me realize why I'm not an objectivist or an absolutist. It's one thing to be a "realist" or a "pragmatist;" it's another to be ruthless, inconsiderate, and downright cruel. I always thought Rand was just lashing out at both Communism and the religious concept of complete altruism by taking the absolute opposite view without actually considering the faults of her own belief. We are not, and can not be, completely independent. We all learn from others, get resources we cannot provide ourself from others, and desire each other for companionship and support. Imagine the world where corporations are free to hire starving poor children for dirt pay, and transnational corporations can completely monopolize entire fields, then charge ridiculous amounts for a product people may need to survive. There are criticisms of Rand on the internet that everyone should read, despite all the internet Rand fanboys.

Ugh. Rand disgusts me to no avail. I guess you could say "I hate her and what she stands for."

[MacGuffin]

I used to be an Ayn Rand fan. Then I was no longer a teenager.

Just consider her the opposite of Karl Marx.

Neither one should be followed.

[coffeezombie]

Marxism would be a viable political philosophy except that it ignores the human nature of most people. Supposedly the idea is "to each according to his or her need," but there are plenty of people out there who think they "need" a whole lot of things that I don't really think they do. Others may think that I don't need a computer, cable television or even books, but I consider these things absolute necessities in my life. Basically, we are all selfish, but we shouldn't consider our selfishness a virtue like Rand does. It's quite possible to be "too selfish."

Basically, like most things, the idea is to be moderate when it comes to a personal philosophy. I wonder why so many philosophers have so much trouble doing this.

[Phenylethylene]

When I saw A Beautiful Mind, I was impressed at how succinctly the idea was expressed that the pursuit of selfishness is often not the best outcome for the group and wondered what Ayn would have said about that. See Prisoner's Delimma (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma).

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

Capn, are you a socialist?

[Sackanaka]

Is it too late for Ayn Rand to say, "It was just a joke, guys."?

[Hypnos]

I was never a big Rand fan (her writing was generally mediocre), but I was into her philosophy for a while. I'm still an individualist and a proponent of laissez-faire, but not by her arguments.

[PsiKik]

A friend lent me an Ayn Rand book, I read just a few chapters. All I remember about it was about some heiress to a railroad fortune. Seemed elitist to me. Dont think I missed much.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

A friend lent me an Ayn Rand book, I read just a few chapters. All I remember about it was about some heiress to a railroad fortune. Seemed elitist to me. Dont think I missed much.


Rand's philosophies, put into practice in real life, is what the United States started out as. Limited government laize faire (sp?) capitalism. Hardly elitist. I wouldn't judge a thinker by two chapters of her fiction.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

We are not, and can not be, completely independent. We all learn from others, get resources we cannot provide ourself from others, and desire each other for companionship and support.

Ugh. Rand disgusts me to no avail. I guess you could say "I hate her and what she stands for."

Rand never said we are completely independent. In what writing of hers did you get this or assume this idea? Of course we all learn from others, as we do in reading books and acquiring the knowledge of those who have passed on. Of course we get resources from others that we cannot provide ourselves, that's the beauty of capitalism and the specialization of work. And of course we rely on human relationships for companionship and support, do you really think that Rand's philosophy negates the need for interacting meaningfully with other humans?

Either you read her works with a predetermined conclusion to reject it or you didn't actually read that much of her work.

[giftedmadness@hotmail.com]

Loved Rand's works when I was college age. Haven't read them since. I have a feeling I'd like the philosophies just as much as before, but also realize that the real world doesn't work that way -- nor will it likely ever.

What do you attribute the success of the United States to? (And no I'm not saying that Ayn Rand is the answer.)

[Hypnos]

Ayn Rand at 100
http://www.reason.com/0503/fe.cy.ayn.shtml

[kralenpregn7]

For one to call Ayn Rand mediocre, makes me ponder endlessly,
(wow! I'm a poet and didn't realize it!)
What possible kind of upbringing would cause an individual to read a single paragraph by Ayn Rand, and conclude that it is mediocre?
Aside from this forum, I keep reading people sayin that She writes 'lazy handed'
Can someone enlighten me on what exactly 'lazy handed' is.
I mean, the woman is reported to have spent two to three days, on a single paragraph, at times....perfecting what she was trying to say, going through her list of possible word choices, ferociously,...
Is this lazyhanded?
Again, aside from my little attempts at humor, seriously,
can someone tell me what 'lazy handed' means?
I am aware that here in this modern society of ours, we, as humans, have the luxury of picking up old Webster, (which I did)
But Web couldn't help me on this one......
Anyone? Anyone?

[MacGuffin]

Ayn Rand is a decent thinker/idea woman, like most NTs.

Also like most NTs, she is not the best fictional writer.

[Jennywocky]

Ayn Rand is a decent thinker/idea woman, like most NTs. Also like most NTs, she is not the best fictional writer.

Heh, ain't that the truth?

(Usually NTs move towards the "geek factor" in their fiction, if they ever become successful... i.e., science fiction, where the ideas are the focus and not the story. That tends to be the problem: The story is not about the characters per se or the story, it's about the underlying ideas that NT wants to philosophize about, and in the hands of a somewhat unskilled narrator, this is pure doldrums. Boring as heck, no dramatic arc, nothing that people connect with on a personal level, and the characters are just pawns of the NT's ideas.)

[sbw]

I like her books, especially the fountainhead.

it seems to me, in retrospect, that rand was frustrated by what she perceived as 'most everyone being totally helpless.'

it also seems to me kinda like this is the only big question of philosophy/economics--simply, what do you do with all the people who are just going to spend their paychecks on booze and restaurant food and big screen tv's and go into debt and be totally boned if we ever go into a recession like we are right now...rand's thoughts on this One Big Question weren't necessarily any better or less spiteful than mine, but they were interesting.

Scott

[Marston]

What possible kind of upbringing would cause an individual to read a single paragraph by Ayn Rand, and conclude that it is mediocre?

Normal intelligence and reading ability.



I mean, the woman is reported to have spent two to three days, on a single paragraph, at times....perfecting what she was trying to say, going through her list of possible word choices, ferociously,...


That makes me sad.

[Ferrus]

Her aggregate work consists of badly written, distasteful polemics

[MasterMerk]

Whichever political or philosophical ideology you want to claim as "against human nature', I think Objectivism is the most whacked out of all of them.

Ayn Rand was an idealist at heart. The problem was that while some ideals are based on somewhat realizable bases, hers were utterly made up. She claimed this was all the end result of a "logical" thought process. Too bad there was nothing scientific or empirical to back it up. I mean come on, calling your philosophy "Objectivism" should be a warning right off the bat! You don't have to look far into her books to realise that she was prone to wishful thinking and catering to emotion of what should be rather than what is. This is no fault in itself, but she can't back any of it up with evidence.

I'd type her as an INFP all the way.

Oh, and this (http://books.iuniverse.com/viewgiftoc.asp?isbn=0595196330&page=1) is a good read.

[attila_the_hunny]

I liked her book, The Fountaihead, but I do not follow her philosophy...or ever really took it seriously, for that matter.

[xavierd]

I have read Atlas Shrugged and Anthem and enjoyed both. Her philosophy in general presents the ideal version of capitalism and individualism but no where in her works did I get the idea that we can live totally independent from each other. On the contrary, as was previously stated, we supply each other the goods and/or services that we could not otherwise produce ourself by way of mutal trade, i.e. you have a product that I could use to make my life easier so I am willing to pay you X dollars. What she spoke against was being parasitically dependent on others or what she called being a looter ie not having the ability to compete fairly so you call upon the government to cripple your competitor in the guise of leveling the playing field. She was also big on private property, which I also agree with, ie the product of your mind and abilities are yours and no one has the right to take them from you and the government is responsible for protecting this right.

I think her main focus was practicality. Most of her ideas seem to be centered around the idea that what we see is what we get, ie A is A. She thought we should trust our senses and move on from there and I think this works as a practical solution to day to day life but it seems to lack in areas such as metaphysics and epistemology.

Anyhow...I enjoyed most of her ideas and like all other philosophies I took what I liked and discarded the rest.

[Jennywocky]

I'd type her as an INFP all the way.

Or a delusional INTx.

Don't drop all irrational thinking on the shoulders of "F" folks, I don't think that's very fair or accurate. NT's who get lost in their own ideas can wander VERY far from reality.

[Nadiar]

Rand failed when she crossed over from philosophy to dogma. The interesting thing about philosophy is that you can hold opposing views. You can rationalize that its okay for your wife to sleep with other men because they're better than you in a theoretical discussion, but if it actually happens, you're probably not going to be 'okay' with it.

If you look at The Fountainhead, it portrays a much less dogmatic view than Atlas Shrugged.

And she's most certainly a Mastermind (INTJ)

[euterpenc]

I read the introduction or preface to the fountainhead and couldn't read any further. She was talking about Nietzsche, and did an incredible job of misinterpreting him. I being a fan of Nietzsche, I dislike those who give him and his work a bad name.

[omnirook]

Rand ... She was a gifted writer - it was impressive that she wrote in English when Russian was her native tounge. She produced one very good novel, "The Fountainhead." After that, she got into being a cult icon, and her writing became bloated to the point of being unreadable to anybody but her devotees - "Atlas Shrugged" is a perfect example of a talented writer turning out an unreadable piece of garbage.

Rand was born in Russia. She was born to Jewish parents who had done well under the Tsars - not all Jews were rounded up and interred under the Tsars; quite a few did quite well. When the Russian Revolution happened, Rand's family were dispossessed - and Rand never got over it. The seeds of her hatred of all manifestations of government power were planted, and she spent the rest of her life railing against government interference in - anything. There was, in her eyes, no case that could be made out for government regulation of any kind. There was, in her eyes, no case that could be made out for restrictions being placed on the wealthy - all good things came from the wealthy, the poor were just blood-suckers who dragged down and trampled on the glory that was private ownership. Naturally, she had followers.

And she took her position as "philosopher" quite seriously! In 4 typewritten pages, she "demolished" Immanuel Kant - or so she thought. Read her laughable attempts to get round Kant, and you will start to hear cackling - that's Kant, laughing in his grave. All Rand does is state that Kant's philosophy is incompatable w/her own (which is true) - so? Even if you disagree w/Kant - and others have - he is so monumental a figure in philosophy that to give him short shrift as Rand did was - obscene! You cannot dismiss a titan like Immanuel Kant w/4 pages that essentially say that his philosophy stinks because he questioned the possibility of anyone being truly objective. Rand's whole basis for objectivism was the physical sensory organs of the human being - organs that Kant spent many, many pages exposing as imperfect, liable to make mistakes, both in experiencing phenomena - and in interpreting them. Rand was relying on the fact that Kant's writing was so dense, so stylized that few readers who were not really, really into philosophy would take up Kant's work and at least realize that no one could dismiss him w/4 crabby, whiney pages of drivel - not when real philosophers had wound up in rubber rooms from trying to get round Kant's assertions. (Note - to date, nobody has successfully undermined Kant - nobody. Most philosophers simply ignore him and hope that nobody will object.)

[Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason" in a nutshell: Our senses are imperfect; the data that they collect is forwarded to a brain - that is also imperfect. That (imperfect) brain interprets the data that it receives - but the interpretation is inevitably flawed - not just because the data and the braind that interpreted it were imperfect, but because there is no such thing as a human being who is not prejudiced, both by his personal experiences and by the various assertions made and impressed upon him by the society in which he lives. In the end, nobody can truly know anything; in the end, all is opinion. Knowledge is beyond the human grasp; the best that man can do is make educated guesses and keep an open mind. Truth will remain elusive - forever.]

[int]

I've started Atlas Shrugged 7 or 8 times and can't get through it.

I think someone here pointed out that reading Galt's monologue near the end is just about all you really need. But I had a hard time with that too. Too slow getting to her point was part of the problem. Endless descriptions was another.

I have that problem with other philosophers/writers too.

[kralenpregn7]

'nothing to connect with on a personal level'
'boring' ?
YOU ARE FOR REAL!
All of you!
I knew it!

[Zephyrus055]

Kant a Titan in philosophy? Hah! I believe that grossly marginalizes David Hume, who in my opinion is 5x greater than Kant. Now Kant was smart, though his categorical imperative was stupid, and I do respect his critique on knowledge and gaining it from the senses. He is dead on that our senses and mind are imperfect, but this is where I follow Karl Popper. I think Karl Popper is another person in philosophy who is grossly marginalized. And still, I think Kant is over rated.

Now Ayn Rand commits the is/ought fallacy, and I'll leave it at that. Secondly, laissez faire economics has been demonstrated to be nasty, and government regulation is necessary for reducing the problems associated with it. But then again, economists back then wrongly believed that rigid rules, employee neglect and harsh coercive management were the keys to maximizing productivity and profit, while today this view is increasingly being discredited.

[Spring]

Her writing reminds me of a stupid debate I had in English class in junior high. Competition vs. Cooperation, which is better? It's a really stupid concept because people cooperate to better compete. As has been said before, we all have our selfish interests and we give from ourselves to eventually satisfy those interests. However, the benefit of understanding her philosophy is that you can understand that aspect of human nature.

Why should I give to the starving kids in Africa? Who else is gonna make my cheap Nikes?

Behold! Now I can think like a Republican!

[omnirook]

Kant a Titan in philosophy? Hah! I believe that grossly marginalizes David Hume, who in my opinion is 5x greater than Kant. Now Kant was smart, though his categorical imperative was stupid, and I do respect his critique on knowledge and gaining it from the senses. He is dead on that our senses and mind are imperfect, but this is where I follow Karl Popper. I think Karl Popper is another person in philosophy who is grossly marginalized. And still, I think Kant is over rated.

Now Ayn Rand commits the is/ought fallacy, and I'll leave it at that. Secondly, laissez faire economics has been demonstrated to be nasty, and government regulation is necessary for reducing the problems associated with it. But then again, economists back then wrongly believed that rigid rules, employee neglect and harsh coercive management were the keys to maximizing productivity and profit, while today this view is increasingly being discredited.

It is possible to acknowledge Kant w/o mentioning Hume - w/o slighting Hume. I mentioned Kant because Rand had tried - in her "Philosophical Dictionary" - to discredit Kant w/a mere 4 pages of text that did not even amount to a gloss, let alone the serious treatment that he deserved - even from someone who disagreed w/him ... "The Categorical Imperative" was Kant's weakest work - he would have agreed, though it was, to him, his most important work ... My favorite philosopher is Schopenhauer.

[meshou]

Rand's philosophies, put into practice in real life, is what the United States started out as. Limited government laize faire (sp?) capitalism. Hardly elitist. I wouldn't judge a thinker by two chapters of her fiction.The Founding Fathers were absolutely elitist. They wrote pages and pages about why the common man ought not to be able to make his own decisions. The ellectoral college wasn't just because of voting limitations of the time, but to be a check on the Teeming Masses incase they did something absolutely stupid.

They also didn't forsee a global interconnected economy where most people didn't farm. Or the great depression. Or a country of three hundred million people spanning a continent.

Ryand was an utter twat, and it's teenagers who are impressed by her philosophy. She was also a sub-par writer with horrible pacing issues. You do not pause in the middle of a novel and have a hundred page monologue that has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the story unless you suck.

[Utopmk]

giftedmadness@hotmail.com

Off topic, but I still think it's funny they wouldn't let him change his name. :lol: :theclap:

[ikneaddough]

I read Atlas Shrugged, and found it to be long-winded, repetitive and boring.

That being said, after wading through all the fictional drudge Ayn did have some good points to make. Her philosophy does have many merits. As other posters have mentioned though, she does take a very extremist view.

My one problem with Ayn is her black and white view of the world. There are so many unnavoidable grey areas in political science and ethics.

Ayn bases her philosophy on reason. Reason however, is not the only element upholding a society. I myself am more of a humanist, because we must never forget that our great rational minds still inhabit animal bodies. Emotion undeniably plays a role in any human being's decision making process. Ayn fails to take this into account. Her model society might work, if humans were emotionless machines.

[Faust06]

I'm reading the Fountainhead right now (which is apparently the one book worth reading) and I'm enjoying it.

[Sisyphus]

Ayn Rand makes me want to eat my own head with a spoon. I'd dip bits of toast into the brain and sometimes scoop bits of brain out with a knife and then spread them on the toast. I'd sprinkle on salt and perhaps a bit of paprika.

[TheUniqueOne]

i don't think rand was particularly original in anything she said...also, from what i can tell her fiction is very heavy-handed, leaving almost nothing up to the reader for personal interpretation or extrapolation. suffice to say, i imagine reading her work would be very unenjoyable.

[TheUniqueOne]

oh yeah...if anyone wants to read egoism that's better than rand, i would highly recommend max stirner's "the ego and his own"...anyone read it/know about it?

[rek]

I love her and all her books. That's not to say I agree with her completely on every issue, but I do in general hold the same beliefs (you know, the ones proven by facts and years of history - the ones that prove all forms of socialism don't work). She's definitely my favorite fiction author, in fact the only fiction books I've really enjoyed were hers. However I much prefer the works of Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek, or Milton Friedman.

The entire idea of politics is based on the false premises that someone in the world knows what is right for everyone else and that such a person has some inherent right to force their beliefs onto everyone else. I'm fine with living next to socialists, they just aren't fine with living next to me. Give me back my country and my freedom you power hungry fools!

[Nox]

Generally, I approve of Ayn Rand. I immensely enjoyed Atlas Shrugged, and it has influenced my thought greatly. She was a fan of reason (and moral reasoning) and capitalism, both of which I support.

Where I tend to separate ways with her is what she chose as the premise for her ethics (rational self-interest). I imagine the self-interested egoist whose friends compete for his attention. Dagny, I think, manages to sleep with no less than three guys throughout the book. When she leaves one for another (they're friends btw), it's justified on the basis that one provides more value than another.

Another point that I generally find distasteful is the lack of respect or decency for others. Part of rationality is accepting the fact that others hold different opinions than yourself. At this point you can either convince them using logic or resort to force. A third alternative is simply to ignore them. It seems somehow base to expect that others hold exactly the same opinions as yourself 100% of the time, or else they are unvaluable, or perhaps even evil and depraved. It's inhuman.

[omnirook]

The Founding Fathers were absolutely elitist. They wrote pages and pages about why the common man ought not to be able to make his own decisions. The ellectoral college wasn't just because of voting limitations of the time, but to be a check on the Teeming Masses incase they did something absolutely stupid.

They also didn't forsee a global interconnected economy where most people didn't farm. Or the great depression. Or a country of three hundred million people spanning a continent.

Ryand was an utter twat, and it's teenagers who are impressed by her philosophy. She was also a sub-par writer with horrible pacing issues. You do not pause in the middle of a novel and have a hundred page monologue that has absolutely nothing to do with the rest of the story unless you suck.

I met Rand a few times before she died because my employer was friendly w/her. I wouldn't say that she was an "utter twat." She had "issues," yes, but I did not get the feeling that she was cruel. She was unhappy. Years earlier, my employer had read her work and had written a letter to her. Since the letter was delivered via the publisher, he did not expect her even to get the letter. But she did, and she read it, and she answered it - by tracking my employer down at his office and showing up in person. Harry had written some letter! He did not agree w/her, and she showed up ready to do battle. They wound up keeping in touch over many years. Rand had grown tired of pscychophants and hangers-on, just wanted one genuine person who would stand his ground - that was Harry, all right. The fact that she was an insomniac of the first order and that Harry kept irregular hours was the perfect excuse for her to keep calling him in the middle of the night to talk. He'd pick up the phone and "You know, Harry ..." would be the start of a 2 hour session. Harry: "She would begin the conversation right where we had left off. No 'Hello, how are you?' - nothing - just start talking." Ayn Rand was a sick, lonely old woman when she died. She was not a stupid woman, had never been that, but she was a very stubborn woman and got trapped in her status as libertarian guru and suffered the consequences of being revered by her followers. It made genuine interactions almost impossible. (Her private life had never been happy.)

[omnirook]

I love her and all her books. That's not to say I agree with her completely on every issue, but I do in general hold the same beliefs (you know, the ones proven by facts and years of history - the ones that prove all forms of socialism don't work). She's definitely my favorite fiction author, in fact the only fiction books I've really enjoyed were hers. However I much prefer the works of Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek, or Milton Friedman.

The entire idea of politics is based on the false premises that someone in the world knows what is right for everyone else and that such a person has some inherent right to force their beliefs onto everyone else. I'm fine with living next to socialists, they just aren't fine with living next to me. Give me back my country and my freedom you power hungry fools!

And what proves that capitalism does work? Is it the one tenth of one percent of the population who are truly wealthy - and miserable - Park Avenue is littered w/psychiatrists' offices? Or is it the next 9.9 percent of the population who are prosperous - and miserable - they are the ones at whom those pharmaceutical ads are aimed? Or is it the remainder of the population that is poor - and miserable, but nobody gives a damn, w/the media keeping their existence so carefully hidden that they themselves wonder why they can't afford to "live the life" on $10/hour? Which of those 3 groups prove that capitalism "works?"

[Nox]

And what proves that capitalism does work? Is it the one tenth of one percent of the population who are truly wealthy - and miserable - Park Avenue is littered w/psychiatrists' offices? Or is it the next 9.9 percent of the population who are prosperous - and miserable - they are the ones at whom those pharmaceutical ads are aimed? Or is it the remainder of the population that is poor - and miserable, but nobody gives a damn, w/the media keeping their existence so carefully hidden that they themselves wonder why they can't afford to "live the life" on $10/hour? Which of those 3 groups prove that capitalism "works?"

All of them do...or perhaps rather movement between them. I've spent the last year living in the bottom two. I worked at 7-11 make $7.85 an hour...I could afford an apartment, food, and even internet access (not to mention paying for car payments + insurance). It's called budgeting. Eventually, I decided I hated it and quit. I was unemployed for 8 months thereafter...3 months of which was spent homeless. I now enjoy a $20 an hour job, doing what I enjoy doing. Socialism wouldn't even allow this.

[omnirook]

All of them do...or perhaps rather movement between them. I've spent the last year living in the bottom two. I worked at 7-11 make $7.85 an hour...I could afford an apartment, food, and even internet access (not to mention paying for car payments + insurance). It's called budgeting. Eventually, I decided I hated it and quit. I was unemployed for 8 months thereafter...3 months of which was spent homeless. I now enjoy a $20 an hour job, doing what I enjoy doing. Socialism wouldn't even allow this.

Socialism or statism? - you are confusing and conflating the 2. Do not forget that Socialism works quite well in Western Europe. Western Europe enjoys a far better "quality of life" rating than the United States. There is not one "good factor" on which we do not lag far behind - and not one "bad factor" for which we do not "take the cake."

[MasterMerk]

oh yeah...if anyone wants to read egoism that's better than rand, i would highly recommend max stirner's "the ego and his own"...anyone read it/know about it?

I agree with him on many issues. Notably his anti-dogmatist position, empiricism, anti-ideology (I'm an individualist anarchist). Much, much easier to relate to reality than Rand IMO.

[TaylorS]

Marxism would be a viable political philosophy except that it ignores the human nature of most people. Supposedly the idea is "to each according to his or her need," but there are plenty of people out there who think they "need" a whole lot of things that I don't really think they do. Others may think that I don't need a computer, cable television or even books, but I consider these things absolute necessities in my life. Basically, we are all selfish, but we shouldn't consider our selfishness a virtue like Rand does. It's quite possible to be "too selfish."

Basically, like most things, the idea is to be moderate when it comes to a personal philosophy. I wonder why so many philosophers have so much trouble doing this.

At least Marx made important contributions to economics and sociology, despite the fact that his unrealistic utopian vision that got turned into a ridiculous cult. Rand contributed nothing to the world but a ridiculous cult and crappy novels.


However I much prefer the works of Ludwig von Mises, FA Hayek, or Milton Friedman.

Yuck, I hate the free market fundies. Sorry, but people like Hayek who think government intervention in the economy inevitably sends a country on a slippery slope to totalitarianism are idiots.


Socialism or statism? - you are confusing and conflating the 2. Do not forget that Socialism works quite well in Western Europe. Western Europe enjoys a far better "quality of life" rating than the United States. There is not one "good factor" on which we do not lag far behind - and not one "bad factor" for which we do not "take the cake."

conflating statism with socialism on one hand and capitalism and liberty is the MO of the free market fundies. There are plenty of anarchist and left-libertarian literature (not that I'm an anarchist, though I agree with thier critiques of the corporation) on how capitalism and liberty are inhierently opposed because the corporation is an alienating, authoritarian, un-democratic institution.

[omnirook]

At least Marx made important contributions to economics and sociology, despite the fact that his unrealistic utopian vision that got turned into a ridiculous cult. Rand contributed nothing to the world but a ridiculous cult and crappy novels.

Marx understood economics very, very well.

Not even a capitalism-leaning economist can afford to ignore Marx' work, can escape the plain fact that nobody before and nobody since has so systematically examined and so carefully delineated the market economy.

In fact, Marx' work suffers because there are very few who can discipline themselves to sit still for the months of slow, careful reading that it takes to get through Marx' massive work and understand the exhaustive analysis that Marx provided.

But the influence of his work cannot be denied.

All economists, regardless of their politics, owe Marx a deep bow because Marx gave his terminology such carefully detailed definitions, terminology which to this day is still part of the economics lexicon.

Marx understood the inherent flaws in capitalism and explained them in exhaustive detail, leaving no discernable detail untouched. He understood that capitalism was, in essence, a system that allowed a tiny number of people - whom he called "capitalists" - to exploit w/o mercy the great mass of humanity. He understood and explained how capitalists owned every institution and controlled every move of the government and how the people were duped at every turn.

What Marx did not understand was that capitalism was but the cruellest, barest, leanest and meanest manifestation of the human social dynamic - that the social dynamic was evolved, inherent, and immutable - and that the best that could be done was mitigation, that the "system" could not be fundamentally overturned, that, at best, its worst effects could be mitigated.

Some of Marx' solutions to the problem were utopian - and have never been implemented anywhere - and never will be. That portion of his work - the lesser portion by far, it might be added - can be ignored. But the greater portion of his work - the analysis of how the market economy works - cannot be ignored. What truly should not be ignored is his earth shaking realization that the workers are not w/o power - that their labor is itself a commodity and can be w/held to force the capitalists to grant better wages, better work conditions, and better living conditions. That is where efforts should be made - but where very little effort is being made. How sad!

[sbw]

And what proves that capitalism does work?

does this help?

"The standard of living of the common man is highest in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs." --Ludwig von Mises

Scott

[omnirook]

does this help?

"The standard of living of the common man is highest in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs." --Ludwig von Mises

Scott

It's well enough to say that - now prove it.

The United States has the highest number of "wealthy entrpreneurs" - yet, by every accepted standard, it also has the lowest average standard of living among the world's wealthiest nations. We can start w/highest infant mortality rate and work our way to shortest average life-span and hit all the bases in between, including highest rate of crime, lowest literacy rate, and toss in the fact that the US is the only member of the G/8 that does not have a national healthcare plan. Find me a statistic for a quality of life factor where the United States scores better than its fellow wealthy countries - hell, when it comes to literacy and higher education, the US lags behind some of the world's poorest countries ... People make such statements and believe that they can get away w/making such statements only because they feel that they can rely on the ignorance of the average American - which is further proof that America's average standard of living is very low compared to its great wealth.

EDIT: added left-out word "way"

[sbw]

It's well enough to say that - now prove it.

The United States has the highest number of "wealthy entrpreneurs" - yet, by every accepted standard, it also has the lowest average standard of living among the world's wealthiest nations. We can start w/highest infant mortality rate and work our to shortest average life-span and hit all the bases in between, including highest rate of crime, lowest literacy rate, and toss in the fact that the US is the only member of the G/8 that does not have a national healthcare plan. Find me a statistic for a quality of life factor where the United States scores better than its fellow wealthy countries - hell, when it comes to literacy and higher education, the US lags behind some of the world's poorest countries ... People make such statements and believe that they can get away w/making such statements only because they feel that they can rely on the ignorance of the average American - which is further proof that America's average standard of living is very low compared to its great wealth.

agreed regarding education its all fucked up--with regard to the quote, is he wrong, or is is just that its an old quote? did america used to be like that?

inflation seems to be whats killing the broke-ass people amongst my friends and acquaintances...but people also spend money on dumbass shit all the time. we should distinguish between the unable-to-work and the working-but-still-broke. and of course you pointed out the education problem which is directly related to the restaurant meals and gigantic speakers problem.

Scott

[TheUniqueOne]

does this help?

"The standard of living of the common man is highest in those countries which have the greatest number of wealthy entrepreneurs." --Ludwig von Mises

Scott

Not sure if this thread is dead or not...but a common Austrian School tactic is to say things that are completely unsubstantiated by the facts. They seem to confuse assertiveness with veracity.