Oh, OK, you are right, I think Ayn Rand is immoral as well. I was trying to distinguish the highly stylized, idealistic world painted in the first thousand pages of Atlas Shrugged and the morally bankrupt (or at relied upon by the morally bankrupt to dismiss their obligations to society) philosophy laid out in the last 100 pages in John Galt’s monologue.
Rand explicitly said that it is not immoral to give up personal things in support of your values. She specifically said that she would throw herself in front of a bullet aimed at her husband, because she would not want to exist in a world that did not contain him.
This isn’t really that hard a distinction to make. The concept of sacrifice has to do with conceding that others’ needs trump your own. For example, she would reject the notion that if you have a sandwich and another person doesn’t, it’s somehow moral to give your sandwich to the other person and starve yourself in an act of sacrifice.
But she would have no problem giving money to a poor artist who created works she values. She’d have no problem giving up her own money in support of a larger cause she believed in.
In fact, she did just this. Her publisher wanted to cut out part of Galt’s speech to save printing costs. Rand voluntarily accepted a lower royalty rate in exchange for leaving Galt’s speech intact. Rand was also apparently quite charitable to her friends when they were in need. In Atlas Shrugged, the community of people in Galt’s Gulch supported artists who had no source of income, because they wanted to encourage such art and they felt the artist worthy of their charity.
This is a direct refutation, straight from Rand, of spoke-'s claim that Rand believed that giving possessions to another was immoral regardless of circumstance. It’s flatly not true, Rand repeatedly shows cases in her fiction and non-fiction where it isn’t true, and she had directly rebutted it in interviews.
spoke-, consider it ignorance fought. If you keep repeating it, I’ll have to just consider it to be a dishonest smear.
Rand clearly states in one of the interviews I linked to that she only finds largess to others objectionable when its characterized by putting others’ interests or well-being ahead of your own–i.e., making their needs paramount and yours secondary.
If you can help someone without causing yourself harm in the process (and if, according to her beliefs, they are in a position to deserve it), then she’s fine with it.
This has been stated over and over again in this thread not only by me and Sam Stone, but by panache45 who knew her personally. One gets the impression that you are simply talking and not listening.
The question is actually even starker than that. Its not whether or not you give him money because YOU feel sorry for him. The question is whether or not the GOVERNMENT can take your money and give it to him because they think its good policy.
I think the answer is that in a democracy (a real democracy), if your government decides to do this you are morally obligated to comply. If you decide you don’t like it then you can vote, run for office or do what Reardon did and abandon all your worldly possessions and drop out of society. Maybe we will beg you to come back.
What you shouldn’t do is refuse to pay your taxes and equate taxation to theft. Taxation without representation may be theft or extortion (so maybe the handful of Republicans that live in Washington DC have an argument) but taxation with full representation (and the whackos that believe in this Ayn Rand stuff tend to be located in places that are overrepresented in our government) is not.
So assuming that you are living in a real democracy then how is it immoral to take from you to give to that beggar?
The biggest downside to this notion that taxes are inherently bad is that we have a humungous national debt that is going to drag us down for decades going forward. Tax and spend is infinitely preferable to borrow and spend during normal economic situations, at least politicians have to politically pay for every dollar they spend. The trend in the US has been for conservatives to increase government benefits and lower taxes. Perhaps Ayn rand might not have embraced borrow and spend but many of her adherents do at least prefer borrow and spend over tax and spend.
Missed the edit window…
ETA - Sam, since you mentioned sandwich-giving, I’m wondering if you’re thinking of my post far upthread where I used the illustration of a policewoman giving her sandwich to a homeless person. I felt this would be moral in Rand’s view because, like the policewoman said, she had a home and plenty of food. So therefore she wasn’t putting his needs before her own (and besides she could easily have picked up another sandwich at a convenience store or fast food restaurant). So I’m curious to know your take on that situation if it was what you were referring to.
(panach45 did say however that Rand would have found the officer’s actions objectionable not because she gave away her sandwich but because the homeless guy had put himself in that position and therefore wouldn’t have deserved it. So in that case the error lies in giving something to someone who didn’t deserve it rather than in giving something to someone, period.)
I know a lot of folks who quote Rand who would disagree with you. They do not believe they should pay taxes except for services they directly consume.
If Objectivism boiled down to just that, then I don’t think anyone would ever talk about it.
And yet oddly enough I have not heard of a single Rand idealist abandoning their worldy possession for their ideals.
And that is where she would be wrong. The notion of taxes as extortion in a democracy is not really the same as the notion of taxes as extortion when a local Afghan warlord takes half your crop in exchange for not killing you.
I think this is a difficult question, because there are many ways to look at it. For example, I happen to believe that a minimal level of public healthcare and social welfare is a good idea - not because I think that all the people who would claim it are more deserving of my money than say, my child is, but because a society in which the poor can starve to death or die because they can’t get medical treatment is ultimately unstable and this will lead to a level of social unrest that will not be healthy for anyone. Where would Rand come down on this? I can’t speak for her, but I think she’d be okay with it, because my desire to help those people is in support of my own value system and in defense of my own way of life.
Really, when it comes down to it, what Rand was against was the notion of “From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” The notion that need triumphs over individual rights, and that moral behavior is determined by how many of your own desires and goals you are willing to sacrifice to support someone else who lives outside your own value system.
How about that cop giving the beggar a sandwich? The morality of the act is completely determined by the police officer’s motivation. If the police officer was also hungry and poor, but gave her sandwich away to a stranger in a gesture of self-sacrifice, Rand would find that immoral. If the police officer gave the sandwich because it really wasn’t a sacrifice to her, and perhaps because it would make her job easier in the future and because her own value system included giving starving people a sandwich when it wasn’t really a sacrifice, then I don’t think it’s a problem. Rand wouldn’t glorify the act and praise the cop for her virtue - she’d probably just say, “Whatever. It was your sandwich. Give it or not as you see fit. It doesn’t make you a better person, but it doesn’t make you bad, either.”
OK. Admitting an error is not all that common around here. I commend you for that.
But… can you tell us why you think she is immoral? Immoral in what way based on what morality? If you tell me you’re a Christian, then I can see where you would think she was immoral. If you tell me you’re a socialist, then I can see it, too. But there are many flavors of morality out there, and I’ve seen a lot of straw men sent up in this thread about Rand thinks this and Rand thinks that, when she simply doesn’t.
Too many equate putting your own interests paramount with actively screwing other people. That is plain wrong.
Ayn Rand said that in an ideal world, taxation would be voluntary because government would only provide services that benefit all equally, and therefore everyone would voluntarily contribute their share. But she admitted that this ideal state was not likely to exist any time in the near future, and therefore taxation for necessary government functions was acceptable.
As for paying for services they ‘directly consume’, that’s not accurate either. You don’t ‘directly consume’ a police force or a military. What she meant was that your tax should be in proportion to your benefit - not your income. She would have advocated a flat tax that everyone pays, and would not have supported a progressive tax that charges people more based on their ability to pay more. And of course, she would never accept a government program which taxes some and gives the benefits to others.
Have you looked? Or are you just assuming? Are you including in that people who refuse to take government aid that’s available to them because of their principles, or who do not seek charity when they’re down because they don’t believe in it?
You seem to have a need to paint Rand’s followers as a bunch of greedy selfish people who take and take and never give. In my experience, that’s simply not the case.
This is one of Rand’s more famous quotes:
People who want to smear the philosophy as greedy and selfish focus on the first half of that statement, and ignore the second half. The second half is absolutely as important as the first. Followers of Rand don’t scream for the government to help them when their business is in trouble. They don’t seek government grants for their own activities and game the system to get benefits they didn’t earn. They don’t vote for laws which punish others to their benefit. They don’t seek to use the government to control others’ behavior or protect their own jobs or industry. They don’t march on Washington demanding free health care, free education and free housing paid for by the ‘rich’. Are these acts not also greedy?
Is reading comprehension on the decline? To clarify: I’m surprised that on the SD, people show so much contempt for Rand’s ideas. I would imagine a meeting place of people professed to be open minded could debate in good faith about something they disagree with, without showing disdain for those that do agree with some of what she wrote. Guess I’m just expecting some manners, but am quickly finding that’s an unrealistic expectation on the Dope as well.
Very good, Sam. Thanks.
And thanks again for taking the time to answer so many of my questions and in such detail. Your insights are helping to flesh out my admittedly sketchy knowledge of Rand and what she was trying to say and I do appreciate it.
To be fair, that is not what your quoted language is saying. It says:
“He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”
I think you have overlooked the word “must”
the quote does not say:
“He may exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others (unless he CHOOSES to) nor sacrificing others to himself (unless they CHOOSE to). The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.”
Well, its mostly because of how her work is used by people these days. Its been a while since I read Atlas Shrugged and I don’t remember much of it because I found it so poorly written and filled with silly ideas. The only part I have reread recently (a few years ago when I found out that Greenspan was into Ayn Rand) was the manifesto at the end of the book and it seemed to give license for some pretty selfish immoral behaviour and indeed a lot of people use it to support their selfish immoral positions.
And what you’ve done is created a Venn diagram in your head of Rand quoters intersected with people who have their own pet theories of fair taxation. This intersection of people (which is not the point of this thread) is who you’re arguing with.
If you want to debate Rand’s writings, then debate what she actually said. If you want to debate with the nameless people in your Venn diagram, you’re just shadowboxing. I say “shadowboxing” because I don’t see anyone in this thread stepping in to represent the people in your Venn diagram. You’ve created a straw man in other words.
Which means… what?
This thread and the context of msmith’s quote is about Rand’s writings and not about the compliance of her followers matching fictional characters.
Do most of the Christian followers “sell all their wordly possessions to give to the poor”? No they don’t, but that’s irrelevant to the point that gospels has Jesus saying it. The number of followers who comply with that parable is irrelevant to the fact that Jesus said it.
But Rand paid her taxes. You seem to be stuck a lot on how some wingnuts who like her end up acting. So what? This is primarily a thread about what Rand’s philosophy is. Although it’s not really on topic, I guess it can’t be avoided to argue about the goodness/badness of her philosophy. However, if you want to argue about what the nutcases think, then I really think it would be better to start a separate thread for that. Frankly, I don’t think anyone here will defend the nutters.
Based on which moral code? Accord to Rand’s it is immoral. According to other codes, it’s not. There is no one absolute moral code. I say that as someone who enjoys Rand’s novels, am sympathetic to much of her philosophy, but don’t buy into her certainty that she has uncovered the one and only truth.
Again, I’m not really interested in what “many of here adherents” do or don’t do. Unless, of course, one of them pops into this thread and starts saying how she loves Ayn Rand’s philosophy and thinks we should borrow and spend like George Bush. Rand would have absolutely hated Bush.
Yeah but you were making some pretty broad accusations about the efficacy of socialism and the virtue of unrestrained capitalism with low taxes. Its almost as if the last 2 years didn’t happen for you.
Yep France has definitely got its problems but its not exactly the basketcase that you seem to think it is.
The phrase “unless they CHOOSE to” is implied by the next sentence “pursuit of his own rational self-interest.” The rational self-interest gives the human being the choice.
How the hell do you parse the EXIT signs in buildings? Do you only look for “EXIT IF YOU CHOOSE TO DO SO” signs? Because if your eyeballs happen to accidentally glance upon a naked unqualified “EXIT” sign, then you must find your belongings and leave immediately!
Reading your unsophisticated restatement of Rand’s quote is both hilarious and painful.
I’ve missed a lot of this thread, and I’m not enough of a masochist to get caught up. So here are Rand’s own words about sacrifice (from Galt’s speech):
*”Sacrifice” is the surrender of that which you value in favor of that which you don’t. . . . If you own a bottle of milk and give it to your starving child, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to your neighbor’s child and let your own die, it is.
If you give money to help a friend, it is not a sacrifice; if you give it to a worthless stranger, it is. If you give your friend a sum you can afford, it is not a sacrifice; if you give him money at the cost of your own discomfort, it is only a partial virtue, according to this sort of moral standard; if you give him money at the cost of disaster to yourself — that is the virtue of sacrifice in full.
*Rand pointed out that values are hierarchical, and you should never sacrifice a higher value, for the sake of a lower one . . . or a non-value. If the family next door is starving, and you give them a can of beans . . . it’s with the understanding that you value your neighbors more than you value a can of beans. Even if you don’t know them, you’d have the feeling that “they’re human beings just like me, so all other things being equal, I can empathize with their suffering and give them the beans.” But what if “all other things” aren’t equal? What if you know that these people have never done anything to better their situation, and have a habit of stealing from anyone who tries to help them? Then those people would be no value to you, and you shouldn’t help them. (You might do something to help their innocent children, though).
Notice that this entire scenario presupposes rational values. If you value slothfulness, dishonesty and thievery rather than hard work, honesty and self-sufficiency, the entire scenario collapses.
***This is why Rand always said that we need a moral revolution before a political one. ***An entire society in which everyone is free to act on his own rational self-interest can only exist if at least most of the people are rational enough to know what their self-interest is. A society of thieves and mystics can’t survive under any system.
And this is where Rand starkly disagrees with many of her critics, the ones who object, “What about human nature?” Rand’s view of human nature is one that includes rationality, honesty, independence and success. When her critics talk about “human nature,” they’re implying that people are irrational, dishonest, dependent and unsuccessful. Obviously most people fall somewhere in the middle; that’s why even in a “laissez-faire” society, you still need enforceable laws to protect people from the misdeeds of others. And nobody comes around to grab that can of beans out of your cold dead hands, and gives it to your neighbors, deserving or otherwise. They’re your beans, and it’s your choice.
In my experience, people who whine about the negative aspects of “human nature” are revealing an awful lot about themselves.
Thanks, panache45. I have to leave right now but will read your post when I return.
I’d also be very interested in hearing more about your experiences with Rand…how you came to know her, what you took from the experience, whatever anecdotes you’d like to share, etc.
(But only if you’d care to do so, of course.)
They seemed to be doing fine until they encountered smallpox and firearms.
The US is 13th behind such small government states like Norway and Sweden.
Even France and Germany aren’t the sort of disasters you might expect given your premise (they are about $1000-$2000 below the US)
Yeah, the US was having trouble before Obama. I don’t know if you recall but we were getting pretty close to the collapse of the international financial system.
Its not because you prefer to look at statistics that reinforce what you already believe?
So the US, a city state in China and Singapore? Didn’t you say something before about discounting small homogenous states? Maybe that means that Sweden isn’t such a bad example to use.
You and I have very different notions of what constitutes a failed economic system (or even a poor economic system).
I don’t think that was the question at all. If youa re looking for an argument against someon who does not believe in proerty rights then I’m sorry if I misled you. I believe in proerty rights, I also believe in taxes.
Nope, not if that is how people are using her work.
So taxes are fine as long as you approve of their eventual use. Gotcha.
I happen to think that we should levy taxes to provide for the general welfare of the nation. This includes public education, universal healthcare, social security and other forms of redistributive welfare.
Why would I pick out the idea I like the most to smear Rand? I bet there are things in the Communist manifesto that you would agree with. Why not emphsize THOSE things instead of emphasizing the stuff you don’t like. The overall direction of her philosophy is to provide freedom to the selfish and immoral to be as selfish and immoral as they want. In other words an whole country full of the people who caused the mortgage meltdown.
I have two points.
John Galts speech does in fact contemplate making sacrifices. Dying for your children, contributing to causes you find worthy, etc. Galt just had a problem with the government (or social expecations (or whatever)) forcing you to make sacrifices you didn’t really want to make (is it really a sacrifice if you want to make it? Kinda like is it really bravery if you aren’t afraid?). This is the idea I find repugnant, the idea that I shouldn’t have to contribute to the social kitty except to the extent I approve of how that societal money will be spent.
Second the Editor should have cut the first thousand pages by about 80% and cut Galts speech by about 50% and it would be much much more readable.
[/QUOTE]