That’s a good point. It probably explains also why no one seems to have challenged her on that question.
She starts with “Man is a rational being”, but man is also a social being. As far as we know, our species and those preceding it for tens of millions of years have been social beings. Her ideal human isn’t really human at all. It’s one thing to put that person in fiction, especially Romantic Fiction, but it’s another thing altogether to imply that reality is that way.
Ironically similar to communism (from a lack of realism standpoint), though personally I’d rather strive to be like a demi-god (which is what someone like Galt, and to a lesser degree Rourke, amounts too), than an ant or a cog in the great machine of state. I’d rather think of Mankind as heroic than as replaceable, disposable machines…
I do concede that MMV however, and am willing to let boats float and skirts be blown up in any way folks find most agreeable.
-XT
Obviously, all her writings are from decades ago, and we’ve learned an awful lot about “human nature” since then. Everything in her ethics and politics is based on her vision of “Man [always masculine singular] as rational being.” Especially her view of “human rights,” that’s based on the needs of a volitional consciousness. She never acknowledged that our brains might have content that we didn’t obtain cognitively. (This, by the way, is why I don’t believe that she ever took mind-altering drugs, including antidepressants.)
The only way to access Rand in the 21st century is to read Leonard Peikoff. He does have the benefit of recent study, yet stubbornly considers Objectivism to be a closed system. If Rand didn’t think it, it’s wrong. He has made himself incapaple of uttering any word that would contradict Rand, regardless of the evidence. And of course anyone who disregards evidence isn’t qualified to be called an Objectivist.
Funny you should mention him, because I was thinking about Peikoff when I wrote that Rand did not have access to what we’ve learned in the last 20 years or so about human evolution. I’m not aware of any modification he has made to her philosophy based on new scientific evidence. Not that I follow his stuff at all, but they have convinced themselves that they have uncovered the one, true, unalterable truth.
Just a question for your, panache. You’re gay, right? How did Objectivism deal with homosexuality? My sense is that it would treat it as a psychological impairment. Am I wrong about that, and if not, how did that affect your involvement with the movement? I don’t mean to be too personal, so feel free to decline to answer if you are not inclined to do so.
I have to wonder how the nation of Randesia will recruit soldiers, willing to take an oath to die, if necessary, to protect their fellow Objectivists.
Blackwater?
Why can’t working 8h a day pay for your needs? Depends on your needs I’d say.
Peikoff has explained and extrapolated Rand’s writings, but he will never contradict her, on any subject, including:
The straight Objectivist party line is that homosexuality is a “psychological detour,” caused by negative relationships with other males at an early age. It involves one’s “faking reality,” by pretending that one’s partner is of the opposite sex. There’s also something about boys being taught that a woman should be worshipped, but not touched.
(There aren’t enough :rolleyes:s for this.)
The amazing thing is that Peikoff is still spouting this crap, in spite of allegedly having gay friends, and admitting that no therapist has ever succeeded in “curing” a gay patient. This was one of the two issues that led Rand to pronounce me “hopelessly irrational,” not because I’m gay, but because I didn’t consider it a problem. Rand can be somewhat excused, having been of an older generation; Peikoff has no excuse. And I have to add that even though Rand was homophobic, she never brought up the subject; she only offered her opinion when specifically asked.
The other issue that led to my “banishment” had to do with Objectivist esthetics. I totally agree with her “romantic realism” and her particular taste in art, and especially music . . . the “benevolent and heroic sense of life.” But there is a whole lot of additional art, and especially music, that is definitely not benevolent and heroic that I truly love and always will. Rand would never listen to Beethoven, because of his “malevolent sense of life,” and she considered Mozart to be “pre-music.”
(More :rolleyes:s)
Assuming that’s a serious question, why would that be a problem? Once Randesia (not be be confused with Rhodesia) had been established, a true Objectivist would be willing to fight, and die, for it, if it were existentially threatened. One thing I can tell you, Randesia would not have invaded Iraq. It probably wouldn’t have participated in Gulf War I.
This is all well and good but when you just stick to discussing big-picture ethical values for the average person, but you can’t possibly take the next step rationally and extrapolate that to value to come up with an ‘objective value’ for things. The market dictates the value based on circumstances (such as supply and demand) but at the edges, there will always be people who rationally value that object differently. The market is an arbiter that comes up with a consensus. Value, just like morals, are highly dependent upon the individual and their circumstances. This becomes readily apparent when discussing objects that humans need to survive. When an individual is faced with extreme discomfort or the death of themselves, or someone they value, the calculus changes. The market value isn’t the rational value anymore. Period. In the case of an extremely wealthy person the situation is reversed. Using the example of the milk and the starving neighbor - if in your own personal situation, a container of milk is practically worthless (to you) because you have 300 others - you’re giving up very little perceived value. That individual transaction is entirely dependent upon the circumstances and context of the individuals involved. Sure the milk is still made up of the same stuff. A still equals A. But the moment you involve disparate people into the equation, it changes everything. And when you don’t have an objective value for things, the objectiveness of your values falls apart. I suppose that worded a bit poorly, but I think you get my drift. These rules are all fantastic from the perspective of ‘the average person’. But if you turn the equation around - if you’re the starving person who made a couple of bad choices, or was a bit unlucky, or was taken advantage of - what do those scenarios look like to you? Again, this ‘system’ only works if everyone involved is equal in every way possible by eliminating the extremes at either end. And you cannot do that without wealth redistribution. So either I suck at this (which is entirely possible) or, taking Rands own arguments far enough, she is arguing against herself.
This far into the thread and you still don’t know the answer to this? Ah, the sorrow and the black pity of it!
The answer is, they would recruit soldiers in a similar way to the American military’s current all volunteer force. Recruits would join for similar reasons to why they join today…enlightened self interest coupled with an open eyed decision on each individual potential soldiers to risk his or her life in the defense of what they believe in. If you are scratching your head and wondering if I’m making this all up, recall that Ragnar Danneskjold was able to recruit crews to man his war ships and engage in fighting (with heavy losses some years) against the British Royal Navy, the most powerful fighting force Rand describes in her novel.
A few differences and drawbacks to the military forces in Randesia, when compared to the US would be: It would be MUCH smaller. Perhaps more efficient, perhaps with less sophisticated weapons, but certainly a much smaller organization in terms of soldiers and in terms of the bureaucracy. Another key difference is that foreign adventures like Iraq and even Afghanistan would be nearly impossible (as John pointed out), for a variety of reasons. It would mainly be a defensive force, though ‘defensive’ could certainly stretch to defending interests abroad.
-XT
I’m sure Randesian super-heroes would have MORE sophisticated weapons, no? 
I don’t know about that. Rand wasn’t an isolationist. And her position on dictatorships was that they were illegitimate because they didn’t have the assent of the people and therefore had no sovereign rights, and the U.S. could invade and overthrow them any time it wanted. The only thing that mattered was whether or not it was in the U.S.'s best interests to do so.
From the Playboy interview of Rand:
She opposed Vietnam and Korea because she saw it as altruism writ large - the U.S. sacrificing its own while meddling in others’ affairs. But if you could convince her that the U.S.'s self-interest was at stake, she had no problem in theory with the concept of preventive war.
She would not have supported Gulf War I if the whole stated reason for it was to help the Kuwaitis - you would have had to convince her that U.S. vital interests were at risk. And she might have supported Gulf War II if she had been convinced that Saddam had WMD and was planning to use them against Americans.
However, she hated war, so she might have advocated other measures like blockades.
I daresay! But, of course, not all conflicts are a matter of existential threat.
Suppose that Randesia borders on the Objectivist nation of East Aynia, with who they have never, ever been at war. And there are vast strategic reserves of coproplite and dilithium crystals in those border regions.
And let us suppose that the Treaty of Dabneyville was as precisely and cogently written as our own Second Amendment, with a perfect and unequivocal clarity that the border of Randesia includes those disputed regions. Clearly, no true Scotsman…err. Obectivist…could claim that they do not, no one could claim that the River Brandon is the actual border, as is posited by the irrational and emotional citizens of East Aynia. Because the Treaty of Dabeyville says precisely that!
Without question, it is in the enlightened self-interest of Randesia to defend her Reason-given rights! No doubt, the Army of Randesia is an all -volunteer force, as not true Sc…Objectivist! will ask someone to sacrifice themselves. If, however, someone should volunteer to do so, well, that’s their own lookout, no? Just like its entirely OK for someone to be charitable if it makes them feel good.
If you get your sorry ass killed, well, you most likely will not benefit, even if your side wins. The citizens of Randesia will benefit, of course, and you have the happy pride of knowing you have sacrificed for the greater good…oh, wait, no, that won’t quite work, will it?
And if you get all shot up and crippled, turned out in the streets of Galtberg to beg, well, you’re in deep kim chee, no? Randesia does not approve of parasites and moochers.
“Hell, No, We Won’t Go Because Its Not In Our Enlightened Self-interest To Do So!”
Its not just that the government is forcing people to pay for it. The government is forcing you to pay for the education of my children under threat of putting you out of your home. Isn’t that sort of coercion immoral? Isn’t that exactly what Ayn Rand would say?
Wow, I can’t believe anyone before Ayn Rand ever thought that there was an objective reality. In all of human history, she was the first one to think of that and to realize the consequences of that fact. The Obvious conclusion is that you owe nothing to your community, you should live for yourself and only engage in charity to the extent you feel like it.
So is Objectivism flawed (perhaps so deeply flawed as to make it silly) or you are immoral?
I lean towards that conclusion myself. I suspect Ayn Rand is warmly regarded as a philosopher amongst the denizens of AIG and Goldman-Sachs, who took Philosophy 101 to fill out their liberal arts requirement, and Basket Weaving was already full…
Sadly the mass murder class was fairly open, so Stalin, Lenin and Mao (not to mention Lil’ Kimmy and Father and that Pol Pot guy) were able to take that as…well, not an elective, it seems to have been a core class in what passes for philosophy on the communist side of the house.
All things considered, I’m thinking that if some one is going to twist a philosophy all out of shape, I’d rather have the AIG and Goldman-Sachs crowd simply trying to get rich, as opposed to the playful efforts of guys like Stalin, ehe?
YMMV of course…and isn’t it fun to do these little strawmen? Especially since, at least in my own example, it’s so…well, apt.
-XT
:rolleyes:This is like asking who would win in a fight - Jesus or Ghandi. Since Objectivism explicitly prohibits using violence or the threat of violence to coerce, I suppose the two countries would use logic and reason to reach a non-violent agreement on where their border should be.
A statement which simply demonstrates your own ignorance about Objectivism. In fact, I find this whole line of argument that “Objectivism is bad it’s for greedy, selfish jerks” to be not up to the usual standards of excellence of this board.
AIG and Goldman Sachs would probably be examples of what Rand referred to as Looter companies (General Motors would just be a Moocher company). These are companies who through their political relationships and manipulations manage to siphon off great amounts of wealth.
I mean it’s like you haven’t even read the book for Christ’s sake!
The only way to evaluate Objectivism’s view of public education is to make an honest intellectual effort in separating “education” from “government organized education.” It will be difficult for most people to do this because everyone alive today was born into a system where government education was already in place. Government Education DOES NOT EQUAL Education. They are 2 different things. Sometimes govt education results in education. You certainly hope that govt education is effective in providing education.
The USA’s first president George Washington learned trigonometry mathematics from his brother-in-law. He didn’t learn in it public school.
Objectivism looks favorably on Washington’s brother willingly teaching trigonomery. And objectivism is also favorable to Washington himself willingly learning it. No school taxes were forced from Washington’s brother and George didn’t violate any truancy laws by not going to a public school.
Now consider that most (not some – most) high school graduates today cannot even apply trigonometry even though it’s part of the standard curriculum.
If govt education is equivalent to education, then why are high school graduates not competent with trigonometry?
Is that a failure of “public education” or Objectivism? There is no definitive answer to that.