I’m sure that every dictator honestly believes that.
I missed the edit window, and I’m posting from work. Please forgive my tortured wording in that last post.
So if you have a fantastical and impregnable supersuit that allows you to kill people, fly and blow up tanks, with an essentially limitless power source and the magical capacity to keep you alive and both a human and a robot who live only to serve you…
then Rand’s philosophy becomes workable.
Okay, I’ll buy that.
Otherwise, it’s so superficial and contrived that most adults see it as a non-starter.
EXACTLY! How anyone who’s grown up in a capitalist environment can say $ isn’t the be all/end all is beyond me.
Objectivism is Gordon Gekko gone haywire. So yes, it’s “ALL about the Benjamins.” :rolleyes:
sigh You know, it’s really frustrating to discuss Objectivism with people who think:
- Anybody who has any shred of admiration or liking for it must be a raving wacko Randroid who won’t hear anyone else’s viewpoint, and
- They know everything there is to know about it because they heard something from somebody once, and
- Objectivism is all about rampant selfishness and the “I’ve got mine so fuck you!” mentality.
None of those are true, btw, if you’re at all interested in what Rand is actually saying instead of getting your info from the sound-bite crowd.
And if you were interested at all and don’t want to just take potshots, the reason I think Iron Man is very Objectivist is because Tony Stark invented the technology for his armor, he built it (nearly singlehandedly, but certainly all within his own company) and he claims it as his own, not something the the government can appropriate “for the greater good” simply because they need it. It has nothing to do with killing anyone, blowing up tanks, or anything similarly destructive.
Cite, please?
Why do you assume that I get my info on Rand from sound bites? I got my info on Rand from reading Atlas Shrugged, Anthem and The Fountainhead. I do have to admit to skipping a few pages of the diatribe at the end of Atlas Shrugged, as my eyes went glassy and I started to look like Wendy in the movie version of The Shining upon reading Jack’s book.
If you think blowing things up was my main point, please go back and read what I wrote again. Your rebuttal changes nothing, because my point is that Objectivism may work in a fantasy world, but it doesn’t in reality.
That’s why I’m not surprised that a comic book depiction of a superhero makes a more compelling argument for Objectivism than a movie that apparently tries to take on a realistic depiction of Atlas Shrugged.
Both quotes come from her 1974 commencement address at West Point. The full context for the first quote is in a discussion of (read: attack on) Kantian philosophy, which she viewed broadly as being intrinsically self-destructive because, as I understand it, of the way she saw it as divorcing morality from reason. It is a distillation of her general antipathy towards Kant, built up over the preceding speech:
The context for the second is in providing a rational basis for service that does not involve “because I want to live my life for other people” and, in fact, draws from the exact opposite premise:
For the most part I agree with you about this–as it’s depicted in Atlas Shrugged, Objectivism would have a hard time surviving in its pure form in the real world. I have no illusions about the fact that most (all?) people are far more shades-of-gray than the characters in AS. But I see no harm in trying to live up to its better principles: treating each other with respect, dealing with them as traders (however you want to define this–in a lot of cases it has nothing to do with money) and living your life according to your own highest values (within the context of recognizing that your rights don’t extend to impinging on other people’s rights). In my mind, there’s absolutely nothing wrong with looking out for one’s own self interest in a rational way–if you don’t, who will? But what a lot of Rand detractors don’t realize is that “self interest” doesn’t necessarily mean just “self.” It means “what you, personally, value.” I see nothing particularly moral about making sacrifices that you don’t want to make in order to benefit someone who means nothing to you. On the other hand, making sacrifices to benefit another person whom you value (for example, a spouse or a child) or a cause that you consider important, is perfectly moral to an Objectivist. I don’t get why people have such trouble with this. Do people genuinely want to sacrifice their own values to others’ ‘needs’? That seems like one of two things is happening: either they’re getting something out of it (in which case it’s kind of a value in itself) or something pathological is going on.
The Golden Compass made $370M worldwide. It cost $180M to make and that wasn’t good enough to earn a sequel.
Atlas has so far earned $3M against the $10m it cost to make. It’s per screen take plummeted last week and it’s hard for me to imagine there being any foreign demand for this film. In other words, Parts II and III seem to be doomed unless they get made as an act of charity.
There’s little purpose in describing Rand’s philosophy in these terms other than deception by omission. Your description of Randian Objectivism here is indistinguishable from any episode of Mr. Rogers. Surely not stating the inherent morality of Objectivism objectively is a violation of Objectivism itself.
The third possibility is that you’ve bought into a cartoonishly stupid depiction of how people act in the world by reading a science fiction book as if it were somehow reflective of reality.
Fine, whatever. You know, there really isn’t much point in debating this sort of thing, because it’s unlikely that either side is going to convince the other, especially when one or both sides insists on depicting the other side as idiots because they don’t share the same views as they do. So you go ahead and insult me, and I’ll go back to work and do something productive, and we’ll both get what we want. Mmkay?
I apologize for being perhaps unduly snarky.
However, please re-read what you wrote. Essentially, you said a) that you recognize the excessively and falsely dichotomous depiction of reality in Atlas Shrugged, but b) it all must come down to a dichotomy between getting something of value in exchange or something is pathological.
It also seems to me, as I alluded to in my Mr. Rogers comment, that you are trying very hard to shoehorn a lot of more palatable stuff into Rand’s philosophy than what is really in there. So, again, perhaps too much snark, but at the same time I haven’t seen this as a real discussion about Rand’s philosophy.
Well, part of that is the definition of “value.” A lot of Rand detractors seem to want to make it all come down to money. There can be value in simply doing something you feel is right, or using your time, energy, and/or money to support a cause that you agree with. I am by no means a supporter of everything Rand espouses. Like I’ve said before, I pick and choose. I pay taxes because, even though there are many things that the government uses taxes for that I don’t support, I realize that part of living in a society is helping to support it (plus, I value not going to jail 
). The part I define as “pathological” (and yes, I have known people like this) is when someone gives and gives far past they point they can reasonably afford the time, energy, and/or money because someone else’s “need” is more important than their own self interest. In my mind, the children’s books “The Giving Tree” and “Rainbow Fish” are both pathological, and I wouldn’t let any (hypothetical) child of mine anywhere near them, for just this reason. “Self interest” is a very nebulous concept–it varies for each and every person. That’s why I get annoyed when the anti-Rand people try to define it in a particular way for every person. Once size does not fit all when it comes to self-interest, and yes, some people’s definition of “self interest” is immoral, because it violates other people’s rights.
Sorry if my comments are a bit scattershot and short–I really am at work and don’t have time (or, honestly, the desire) to write an essay on the subject.
And then blows up a building because they stole it from him. Or something.
Overall, it’s still quite hard for me to be debating Objectivism with you because you appear to be disowning or at least not arguing for great unpalatable swaths of it.
Let me just ask you this, then. All of the resources that the “pathological” person would give and give, or really, the Objectivist would themselves give through their own rational self-interest… where do they come by these resources to begin with?
(Note, by the way, that I am not at all endorsing the suggestion that there is anyone in reality who selflessly gives to the point of exhaustion. This is a cartoonish characterization better suited to fantasy land.)
Rand’s truly defining characteristic - the one that attracts certain personality types and repulses most people - is that it preaches a lack of responsibility to others. It touts nonsense like respecting other people as “equal traders,” but it means that only in a very cold way. There is no room in Rand’s philosphy for actually caring about other people, and especially not for any kind of compassion, mercy or responsibility to the weak, or sense of moral obligation to a larger community. It’s a sociopathic apologia masquerading (in a sanctiminious and deluded way) as a paen to individualism. In Rand’s fantasies, the haves are a bunch of special flowers being stifled in their “creativity” by having to pay fair wages and taxes.
Rand’s basic premise that those at the top of the corporate food chains are some kind of tortured, artistic, creative lights is, of course, beyond asinine and if all the corporate CEO’s really did go on strike, it would not be any loss. If you want to see what happens when the government lets all those special flowers do whatever they want without any regulation or oversight, you need only to look at the banking and real estate disasters of the last few years, not to mention shit like the BP oil spill.
I wonder what Rand would have though about companies shipping jobs overseas, and keeping all their money in offshore accounts to keep from paying taxes (while simultaneously reaping all the benefits of the taxes paid by others). On second thought, I’m sure she wouldn’t have given a shit. She was Michele Bachmann with a worse haircut and a higher IQ.
I do find it a little curious that right wingers like Ayn Rand, since she preached an ideology that was the ethical opposite of Christianity (and explicitly said so).
One of the only things I actually admire about her was that she was openly atheistic and had no fear of criticizing god beliefs at time when that wasn’t commonly done, but I do find it strange that it doesn’t bother teabaggers.
If #3 isn’t true, explain why the modern GOP believes she’s Ronald Reagan with breasts!
It’s not my fault they’re deluded! 
Well, yes and no. I’ll admit that it’s been quite awhile since I’ve read any of Rand’s works in depth (even Atlas Shrugged) and I honestly have more interesting things to do than go look up cites. There are definitely parts of Rand’s philosophy that I consider, if not impalatable, certainly unworkable in the real world. Big parts, really. Every day I’m alive, I get more and more cynical and disillusioned by the capacity of humans to do immoral things and rationalize them. I think that many humans (particularly those in powerful positions) are very good at rationalizing these kinds of things, and are very likely to succumb to the temptation to do immoral things in order to make money or gain power or status (and this by no means confined to any side of the political spectrum). So really, while I think Objectivism has a lot of very good points, I don’t believe that much of it is workable in the real world. Ditto socialism and communism. People are greedy, and self-interest is defined more in reality not so much as “I’m going to get mine and screw you” as “I’m going to get mine because if I don’t, somebody else will grab it all, so why not me?” I find this rather repugnant, but I’m not deluded enough to think it’s not true. For proof, look at any after-Christmas sale.
Depends on the resources, and the person. In the case of money and other tangible things: some earn them. Some get them by other means (inheritance, etc). But I’m also talking about energy and emotional investment, which come from within each person.
Mostly, yeah. But I’m not kidding that I’ve known people like that. Fortunately he outgrew it, but when I knew him, he prided himself on being “selfless” to the point where he would subsume his own interests to “others.” I honestly think he was doing it on purpose, and possibly to get a rise out of me (he was like that…weird guy), but like I said, he outgrew it. He’s fine now.
Well, no. If you say there’s no room in Rand’s philosophy for caring about other people, I suggest you read Francisco d’Anconia’s speech on love/sex from AS, and also some of her nonfiction about romantic love. Yeah, okay, she doesn’t have much room for the sappy kind of “He’s a heel and he treats me badly, but I *lurrrrve *him” claptrap, but I don’t see that that’s a negative.
As for the special flowers–again, Rand’s heroes are “ideals” (to her), not necessarily real people. And as for paying fair wages–did you read the part in AS where Rearden’s steelworkers have their own private union, he pays them more than the regular union scale, and he considers it worth it because he hires only the best workers? Yes, I recognize that it doesn’t always work that way in the real world, and CEOs/industrialists are quite likely to cut corners and try to screw the workers–but is that any better than unions where workers can’t be fired even when they’re caught not only sleeping on the job, but actually having set up a little “sleeping area” inside the factory where they spent most of their days until they got caught? (Yes, this is a real story–my spouse told me about it, when he worked at a factory during the summer in college). Or unions where they drive the company out of business because they won’t budge on ridiculous wages for doing the kind of work you could train a reasonably intelligent monkey to do? There are two sides to the story, and the “special flowers” aren’t always wrong.
Yeah, I know. There are a lot of scumbags at the top ranks, and damn few Ayn Rand heroes.
I can’t speak to this–I’m not religious, or right wing. I consider myself somewhere between a small-L libertarian and a classical (founding-fathers-style) liberal.