Ayn Rand

jduster

I am fully aware that there was a previous thread on Ayn Rand which was locked because the community digressed into a discussion about deregulation and drugs. I hope that we can stay on topic on this thread. There is a chance that a moderator will write a laconic post and then lock this thread, but if not, I hope we can all discuss this maturely.

Personally, I disagree with Rand.

I did read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged years ago and I used to have a favorable opinion of her, until I learned more about her.

She did not innovate much in philosophy. Most of what she wrote, she simply borrowed from other philosophers and repackaged those ideas. The idea of selfishness is not a new or groundbreaking one. Her novels, in my view, were not very well written. The humans in her book are stilted and don't act like actual human beings. She depicted a fantasy land where women are inferior and its virtuous for men to rape them.

Her philosophy of government is incoherent. She believed that the government should fund military, police, courts, and a few other vital functions, but she is against taxes altogether, so it would be impossible to pay for those things. She did suggest a voluntary lottery to fund the government, but what happens when that does not result in enough revenue.

She was dogmatic, intolerant, and bigoted. She was an extremist. Conservative activists claim that they admire Rand, though in Objectivism, there is no gray areas. You can't agree with some of her economic views and disagree with her on other matters. Either you agree with it all or you are a filthy bum.

If anyone thinks otherwise, I would be happy to discuss.

WhoWee

Have you ever agreed with another person on every single issue?

jduster

no. but generally, another person would not snub you if you did not agree 100% with their entire philosophy.

Prairie

I've not read Rand and have only read about her. But my perception of her is that she's a part of a greater snapshot of the past. And from the bits I have read her philosophy seems undeveloped, though none the less apparent. I'd probably place my own philosophies at the other end of the scale to her's because I see libertarian approaches as fundamentally unsustainable.

WhoWee

Why is it "fundamentally unsustainable"?

phinds

I think Rand is a great read for teenagers but she's too immature for the real world. I offer this as an opinion and I have no interest in justifying it. I read her in my teens about 50 years ago and I encouraged my kids to read her back when they were teens, not because I think she's right but because she presents ideas in a way that spurs interesting conversation and I found her very entertaining.

WhoWee

my bold
What more could she have asked for from a reader?

BWV

Adam Smith said that self-interest was a sufficient condition for a market economy to efficiently allocate resources. He never said selfishness was a virtue or something to be celebrated. Ayn Rand took what was a negatively framed statement and turned it into a positive one.

mheslep

Interesting observations, but at least a little support would help the discussion:Ok, such as?Agreed. Her characters are 2D, almost cartoonish in cases.

The assertion that she's incoherent is based, then, on her failure to fund even a limited government? I don't recall that to be the case. Can you show some passages or writings where this is shown?

Yes, that's Rand, and I can support that in detail.
I think that should be libertarians for the most part, and only libertarians of the Rand bent, not the Milton Friedman bent. Its not so much Conservatives that (widely) express support for Rand. Yep.

mheslep

Yes! Nicely done.

phinds

Oh, she wanted to be, in fact INSISTED on being, taken serious as a philosopher more than being entertaining as a writer. That I don't do.

Prairie

Well... this is only my perspective, but I perceive libertarianism as a philosophy that's vulnerable to the conflicts and competition that can arise in society. A society upholding individual interests translates, to me, into competing interests. And that's what I perceive as being unsustainable. In a growing population, a society has only so much room for libertarian freedoms. So, I guess it's the competitive nature that can grow from the idea which I don't trust as being sustainable.

BWV

how do you construct a society without competing interests?

also how does one decide what is in the group interest?

WhoWee

If the competition is strictly between individuals and the playing field is level - I disagree. However, if the competition is between ideologies and individuals are subject to pressures from this competition - I would agree.

Prairie

An excellent test for myself was to ask myself if society removed concepts of rights, freedom, equality, universality, etcetera from the dialogue, what principles would I then be left with on which to construct a just society?

I'm a little pressed for time right now, but I'll get back to you on this, and on WhoWee's post.

Prairie

If the institutions of creating a level playing field includes maintaining concepts like equality and universality, I can only see this as conflicting with the natural and inherent diversity among humans. There are many things like age, gender, physical and emotional capacity, personal interests, sexual orientation not to mention attitude, prejudice and bigotry which can all contribute to the diversity of the human experience. A just society would respect human diversity, not create an artificial level playing field. I see "equality" as a knee jerk reaction to the perceived unfairness of that diversity by trying to "create" equality.

Edit: Equality is a good system of dealing with inequality... but there other ways of perceiving the world around us. Unfortunately, we western nations seem to believe we have a monopoly on human principles and values and inaccurately label them as universal among humanity.

WhoWee

I didn't say anything about leveling the playing field - quite the opposite.