Did Ayn Rand sincerely believe that Objectivism would be good for mankind?

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@bldysabba

And the point is that welfare(particularly in terms of food or secondary/tertiary healthcare - a case can be made for primary healthcare) is not a public good. I did read the article on public services. Here is the third sentence “The term is associated with a social consensus(usually expressed through democratic elections)”

Well, actually, that is the second sentence. Did you happen to read beyond it?

@wiki page on public services

Public services tend to be those considered to be so essential to modern life that for moral reasons their universal provision should be guaranteed. […] Here, service ranges from a doctor curing an illness, to a repair person, to a food pantry.

The wiki page goes on to list a whole bunch of public services, including health care, public housing, social services, as well as education, law enforcement, military, public transportation, telecommunications, waste management, and so on and so forth.
Nothing that you’ve provided suggests that welfare is a private good, which was your contention.

@bldysabba

I have provided such an explanation. I am asking a different poster than you to tell me if he does not regard this explanation to be sufficient, and why.

If this was in reference to me and to our exchanges, you have not asked any such thing. Specifically, I asserted:

@Hentor

Welfare is not a private good anymore than Highway 70 is. Welfare serves the public intent to not have fellow citizens starve, as medicare and similar programs serve the public desire to prevent others dying painful unnecessary deaths.

…in response to which you directed me to read a wiki page on public goods. If you think you have explained your point on this, it has eluded me.
I will reiterate that providing a social safety net, as well as providing other public services, are desirable societal goals. Most people prefer to have socially supportive public services like (in the US) TANF, ADFC, Medicare and so on not because they benefit from them directly but because their absence pricks the conscience in a substantial way. There is no sufficient reason for us to modify this approach so as to serve the desires of the conscience-deficient.

Which is exactly where things start getting quite subjective.

Everything leading up to decisions about social services is objective? A=A, for example? This is in my opinion an example of the oversimplified way that Rand and followers of Rand interpret the world.

Unless you have a referendum that establishes there is, in fact, a social consensus, what you’re really doing is forcing the minority to go along with what the majority thinks is right.

trinopus and iClaudius have responded exceedingly thoroughly and brilliantly to this; I can add nothing further. So here goes nothing: we do have referenda. They are called elections and votes. This is the established means for determining what our priorities are. The nice thing is that you are not compelled to be a part of this experience. You are free to go and join another society if you are not content with this process for making such decisions on a societal level.

Which is why, no matter who is in the majority, our aim should be to keep such forcing to a minimum.

It’s a childish illusion to imagine that if not for democratic elections determined by majority vote, you would be free of force or coercion. Someone else will be more than ready to step in to coerce you.

And this principle, along with the definition of ‘public goods’, helps us identify a useful and usable framework for the things that are the proper roles of government and what it should be involved in. When you extend the role of government beyond public goods, not only is it fully likely that you’re forcing one group of people to work for the benefit of another, you’re also diluting the accountability for government’s primary task - provision of public goods. This is a dangerous road to go down.

Ah, it seems now that your point is that the government should only be involved in things that can be defined as “public goods.” That’s just crazy.

[Melab]

I think she did, but I have to disagree with (some) her conclusions. Some of her philosophy’s essentials are good, but I disagree that self-preservation at all costs is ethical. Some prominent Objectivists advocate the use of torture and Guantanamo Bay, but I think they are enemies of liberty in this respect and I don’t support torture at all.

[Trinopus]

@Hentor_the_Barbarian

. . . Everything leading up to decisions about social services is objective? A=A, for example? This is in my opinion an example of the oversimplified way that Rand and followers of Rand interpret the world. . . .

A=A is a fine postulate. Or axiom. It sits there and looks pretty…and goes nowhere. It fails utterly to address transformations and operations. Is 2 + 2 = 4? The axiom is silent. Is taxation = coercion? The axiom provides no hint. It is one of the most blatant dead ends in the history of philosophy.

It is, also, contradicted every now and then, as in “When is a dog’s tail not a dog’s tail?”

(When it’s a wagon…)

[Nzinga_Seated]

@Melab

I think she did, but I have to disagree with (some) her conclusions. Some of her philosophy’s essentials are good, but I disagree that self-preservation at all costs is ethical. Some prominent Objectivists advocate the use of torture and Guantanamo Bay, but I think they are enemies of liberty in this respect and I don’t support torture at all.

Are these Objectivists stretching the philosophy to justify torture, or is this something Rand would approve? I think it is stretching it to the hilt to pretend that torture is self-preservation. Unless there is literally a ticking time bomb that the torturee has set and refuses to defuse.

[FinnAgain]

@Trinopus

It is, also, contradicted every now and then, as in “When is a dog’s tail not a dog’s tail?”

(When it’s a wagon…)

Or how can we have absolutes with A and Not A when a photon can be a wave and a particle, in two places at once, etc…

[msmith537]

@Nzinga_Seated

Are these Objectivists stretching the philosophy to justify torture, or is this something Rand would approve? I think it is stretching it to the hilt to pretend that torture is self-preservation. Unless there is literally a ticking time bomb that the torturee has set and refuses to defuse.

Why would you think Rand would approve of torture when one of the fundamental tenets of Objectivism is opposition to violence or the threat of violence as a form of coercion?

@Melab

I think she did, but I have to disagree with (some) her conclusions. Some of her philosophy’s essentials are good, but I disagree that self-preservation at all costs is ethical. Some prominent Objectivists advocate the use of torture and Guantanamo Bay, but I think they are enemies of liberty in this respect and I don’t support torture at all.

Objectivism doesn’t believe in “self preservation at all costs”. For example, just because you are starving does not give you the right to take what someone else has.
What is not clear to me why Rand believes that coercion through the implied threat of violence or incarceration by duly elected government is fundamentally worse than coercion through the implied threat of economic force by large corporations.

[BrainGlutton]

@Trinopus

A=A is a fine postulate. Or axiom.

It is neither. It is a strangely coy and abstruse invitation to anal. “Anal Ayn,” they used to call her.

[Trinopus]

I ain’t that randy.

[IClaudius]

@msmith537

What is not clear to me why Rand believes that coercion through the implied threat of violence or incarceration by duly elected government is fundamentally worse than coercion through the implied threat of economic force by large corporations.

Like many people with extreme, myopic beliefs, her anti-government sensibility is anchored to experiences in her early life - specifically, the childhood trauma of seeing her father’s business and estate confiscated and the family forced to flee.

[Hentor_the_Barbarian]

@Trinopus

I ain’t that randy.

Oof. I flee what you did there.

[Melab]

@msmith537

Why would you think Rand would approve of torture when one of the fundamental tenets of Objectivism is opposition to violence or the threat of violence as a form of coercion?

Objectivism doesn’t believe in “self preservation at all costs”. For example, just because you are starving does not give you the right to take what someone else has.
What is not clear to me why Rand believes that coercion through the implied threat of violence or incarceration by duly elected government is fundamentally worse than coercion through the implied threat of economic force by large corporations.

See Leonard Peikoff on torture.

[Melab]

@IClaudius

Like many people with extreme, myopic beliefs, her anti-government sensibility is anchored to experiences in her early life - specifically, the childhood trauma of seeing her father’s business and estate confiscated and the family forced to flee.

She called this psychologizing and I agree with her that it’s a horrible way to refute someone’s beliefs. Also, it strikes me as being in poor taste.

[IClaudius]

@Melab

She called this psychologizing and I agree with her that it’s a horrible way to refute someone’s beliefs. Also, it strikes me as being in poor taste.

Sorry, that’s a category mistake. I clearly didn’t attempt to *refute *her beliefs by citing her childhood. I purported to explain why she might have the specific views she did. I was responding to someone who expressed incredulity that she could have such myopic views about the agency of coercion, so I said what I did in response with the shared assumption that these were extreme views which require explanation.

Specifically, I said it was the understandably traumatic confiscation of her father’s estate that led her to viewing government collectivism as the main source of evil in the world, ignoring the oppressive nature of private relations. This is entirely self evident. She didn’t become a high-polemicist, libertarian philosopher and avatar of capitalism because of disinterested work in the library.

[Melab]

@IClaudius

Sorry, that’s a category mistake. I clearly didn’t attempt to *refute *her beliefs by citing her childhood. I purported to explain why she might have the specific views she did. I was responding to someone who expressed incredulity that she could have such myopic views about the agency of coercion, so I said what I did in response with the shared assumption that these were extreme views which require explanation.

Specifically, I said it was the understandably traumatic confiscation of her father’s estate that led her to viewing government collectivism as the main source of evil in the world, ignoring the oppressive nature of private relations. This is entirely self evident. She didn’t become a high-polemicist, libertarian philosopher and avatar of capitalism because of disinterested work in the library.

Yes, it can explain what to turned her to those ideas, but it doesn’t debunk the validity of her ideas.

[IClaudius]

@Melab

Yes, it can explain what to turned her to those ideas, but it doesn’t debunk the validity of her ideas.

Agreed. In fact I think it makes her more sympathetic. What happened to her and her family was a great injustice.

[bldysabba]

Just managed to get access to the board from a non blocked IP address for the first time in a week. I want to tell the people arguing on the public goods issue that a) They’re wrong and b) as soon as I have regular access to the board again and a bit more time, I promise to come back and start a thread on the topic. It’s a debate worth having.

[tim314]

@Lemur866

That means, since selfish capitalism puts more bread in more mouths, selfishness is more moral than altruism and philanthropists are assholes.

I think you’re setting up a false dichotomy between capitalism and philanthropy. I would say we are better off having people give to charity and help people out of the goodness of their heart and what not in addition to having a basically capitalist system.

It certainly does not follow from anything you said that “philanthropists are assholes”. That seems like such a leap that I’m wondering if I’ve been whooshed.

[Trinopus]

Also, the premise is wrong. Selfish capitalism doesn’t put more bread in more mouths. Selfish capitalism, judiciously taxed, does. The combination of a strong economy with a tax-funded safety net, protects more people than a strong economy with private donations to charities.

So long as the taxes aren’t so high that they kill the economy, it works, and works better than any other system ever tried.

[Melab]

@Trinopus

Also, the premise is wrong. Selfish capitalism doesn’t put more bread in more mouths. Selfish capitalism, judiciously taxed, does. The combination of a strong economy with a tax-funded safety net, protects more people than a strong economy with private donations to charities.

So long as the taxes aren’t so high that they kill the economy, it works, and works better than any other system ever tried.

Yeah, but you shouldn’t treat those selfish capitalists as means to an end. Kind of degrading to them, in my opinion.

[Molesworth_2]

Pretty sure she spent the last years of her life living off welfare.

So if she thought her morally bankrupt ideology was good for mankind she was still enough of a hypocrite that she didn’t think that the negative aspects of her vile and selfish ideology would apply to her when she was facing her darkest hours.

In my books that makes her an incredibly short sighted and awful human being.

The fact that she has followers in this day and age astonishes me.