So, where did that 'empathy is a sin' drivel come from?

[ponderingturtle]

Ayn Rand wasn't imaginary. She promoted her own brand of philosophy called Objectivism. Her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtues of Selfishness, and Capitalism is central to Libertarianism. Although she denounced Libertarian party, they embraced her and her philosophy as does much of the Republican Party. She also was an avowed atheist. Also, a fiction writer. Her two best known books were The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged. Two books that were emblematic of her selfishness ethos.

She did also idolize a psychopathic child killer, that is the perfect man, totally selfish.

 

[acbytesla]

She did also idolize a psychopathic child killer, that is the perfect man, totally selfish.

I didn't know that. She was articulate. And she wasn't stupid. She was very clear that she thought religion was ridiculous.

But almost everything she wrote made a hero out of being self centered. Maybe I shouldn't say that. I only read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged plus a few other writings. She wrote a lot more. But those two books were by far her most popular. They are also both symbolic of her philosophy of selfishness. .

 

[The Great Zaganza]

She was pretty blind, or probably rather willfully ignorant.
Everything she had she got because of public programs or friends helped her out - on her own, she wouldn't have made it to the US or get anything but the most menial job.
The system that she is upset about is what gave her the chance to be one of its greatest and least coherent critics.
Seriously, her books are utter crap, completely inconsistent internally, depending entirely on sci-fi technology and people not acting like people. She is profoundly ignorant of economics, capitalism, socialism and communism.
Anyone inspired by it doesn't spend much time in the real world.

 

[acbytesla]

She was pretty blind, or probably rather willfully ignorant.
Everything she had she got because of public programs or friends helped her out - on her own, she wouldn't have made it to the US or get anything but the most menial job.
The system that she is upset about is what gave her the chance to be one of its greatest and least coherent critics.
Seriously, her books are utter crap, completely inconsistent internally, depending entirely on sci-fi technology and people not acting like people. She is profoundly ignorant of economics, capitalism, socialism and communism.
Anyone inspired by it doesn't spend much time in the real world.

And yet she is idolized by the right. I have heard dozens of leading Republican politicians praise her to an extreme.

 

[dudalb]

Didn't it begin with Ayn Rand and those from the conservative libertarian sphere who began to see her as a messiah? AAAgh ahhell beat me to it.

Actually goes back to Nietzsche. Ayn Rand never tired of denying she was influenced by Nietsche, but in reality she was.
And, btw, it;s wrong is equate all Libertarians with Ayn Rand, but clrar you don;t like anybody who is not on the political left.

 

[acbytesla]

Actually goes back to Nietzsche. Ayn Rand never tired of denying she was influenced by Nietsche, but in reality she was.
And, btw, it;s wrong is equate all Libertarians with Ayn Rand, but clrar you don;t like anybody who is not on the political left.

Oh, please Dud, no one said all. That said Rand's objectivist philosophy has been embraced by a many, if not most that embrace Libertarianism. I think Libertarianism isn't generally any better than Rand's objectivism. Both are simplistic and selfish.

 

[ahhell]

As a small l libertarian, I do not agree.

Objectivism makes a lot more sense when you realize she was a Russian refuge from the commie's revolution. It's reactionary and necessarily flawed as a result. But it makes sense in its context. I'm not an objectivist to be clear. I'm just saying I get why she got there. The supposedly rationalist cult is at least interesting.

Go to some libertarian event and you'll quickly realize there's more types of libertarians than there are libertarians and they all seem to insist that anyone that disagrees is no true Scotsman.

Conservatives definitely have a complicated relationship with Rand. The atheism and radicalness of her ideas don't sit well with most conservatives.

 

[acbytesla]

As a small l libertarian, I do not agree.

Objectivism makes a lot more sense when you realize she was a Russian refuge from the commie's revolution. It's reactionary and necessarily flawed as a result. But it makes sense in its context. I'm not an objectivist to be clear. I'm just saying I get why she got there. The supposedly rationalist cult is at least interesting.

Go to some libertarian event and you'll quickly realize there's more types of libertarians than there are libertarians and they all seem to insist that anyone that disagrees is no true Scotsman.

Conservatives definitely have a complicated relationship with Rand. The atheism and radicalness of her ideas don't sit well with most conservatives.

Which ones? I agree with libertarians espouse ithe social ideas of live and let live. It's the ideas I hear espoused about economics and against almost all government spending and regulations is where I think it is a bankrupt and antisocial.

 

[arthwollipot]

The problem is that libertarianism is founded on the demonstrably false principle that when left to their own devices, people will tend to behave in ways that are good for society as a whole.

 

[acbytesla]

The problem is that libertarianism is founded on the demonstrably false principle that when left to their own devices, people will tend to behave in ways that are good for society as a whole.

It's pure Adam Smith. "Individual ambition serves the common good." The best results happen when everyone does what is best for themselves. The problem is, it's just not true. The best results happen when people work in their own best interests and society's. If you ignore what is best for society. It is more likely than not the results will be nowhere near the best results, even if it serves that particular individual.

 

[arthwollipot]

It's pure Adam Smith. "Individual ambition serves the common good." The best results happen when everyone does what is best for themselves. The problem is, it's just not true. The best results happen when people work in their own best interests and society's. If you ignore what is best for society. It is more likely than not the results will be nowhere near the best results, even if it serves that particular individual.

In fact what is best for the individual sometimes is actively harmful to society, because it is the individual who decides what is best for them.

 

[Trausti]

It's pure Adam Smith. "Individual ambition serves the common good." The best results happen when everyone does what is best for themselves. The problem is, it's just not true. The best results happen when people work in their own best interests and society's. If you ignore what is best for society. It is more likely than not the results will be nowhere near the best results, even if it serves that particular individual.

It is true. In the Soviet Union they allowed small private plots, perhaps 3% of the arable land. These private plots were vastly more productive than the collectives. This was true for Vietnam, too. Once it abandoned collectives for private farms, it went from net rice importer to net rice exporter. Greed was good for both the private farmer and society.

 

[acbytesla]

It is true. In the Soviet Union they allowed small private plots, perhaps 3% of the arable land. These private plots were vastly more productive than the collectives. This was true for Vietnam, too. Once it abandoned collectives for private farms, it went from net rice importer to net rice exporter. Greed was god for both the private farmer and society.

That's just one example. I can present you with countless examples where it doesn't and hasn't. Individuals bank land and property and don't use it despite society's needs.

NIMBYism almost never benefits society. Land owners that prevent access to lakes, beaches, and even National Monuments don't offer the best results. Wealthy neighborhoods block transit projects. Businesses buy out competition to prevent destructive capitalism.

John Nash in his Nobel Prize winning paper proved that Adam Smith was wrong. It's not that personal ambition doesn’t serve the common good. But that it very often DOESN'T.

Throughout the Midwest, farm after farm after farm use the best land in America for corn. Is that the best use of that land? Is it the best result for the American economy that Bill Gates owns 260,000 acres of US farm land? Is it in society's best interests that huge chunks of the wealthy own as much as 30 percent of residential property?

Personal ambition without a conscience leads to corruption and dystopia.

It leads to Martin Shkreli who bought up necessary drug patents and increased prices by as much as 80 times. It led to Tino De Angelis, Enron, Bernie Madoff, Herstatt Bank and countless other frauds. It led to the real estate fraud and America's biggest bank bailout of the 2000s. It led to the biggest wave of US foreclosures. It has led to the United States having the highest healthcare costs in the world and simultaneously mediocre at best health results. It has led to a sizable increase In homelessness and poverty.

I could go on and on.

 

[Trausti]

That's just one example. I can present you with countless examples where it doesn't and hasn't. Individuals bank land and property and don't use it despite society's needs.

That doesn't prove it isn't true. We're communicating with computers because a lot of people wanted to make a lot of profit. Do you think Apple's motivation to introduce smart phones was about societal good or corporate profit? But, clearly, we've all benefited greatly.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's only cherry picked Adam Smith - almost none of his most vocal fans seem to have read much of his stuff, if at all.

People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.

- Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

 

[Trausti]

It's only cherry picked Adam Smith - almost none of his most vocal fans seem to have read much of his stuff, if at all.



Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations

That still doesn't disprove that "individual ambition serves the public good." I mean . . . unlocking that individual ambition after the end of communism was a very good thing.

 

[acbytesla]

That doesn't prove it isn't true. We're communicating with computers because a lot of people wanted to make a lot of profit. Do you think Apple's motivation to introduce smart phones was about societal good or corporate profit? But, clearly, we've all benefited greatly.

Did you just skim over this line?

John Nash in his Nobel Prize winning paper proved that Adam Smith was wrong. It's not that personal ambition doesn’t serve the common good. But that it very often DOESN'T.
But since you pointed out that about Apple, do you think their decision to do all their manufacturing in China and Asia is a positive for America? How about hundreds even thousands of US companies transferring their manufacturing abroad? Do you think Exxon's use of single wall tankers in the Gulf of Alaska benefited the US?

Profit only minded companies leads to low wages and an inability of employees to make a quality living.. And while I agree that the state owning all industries and property is certainly not the answer, the abuses of unbridled capitalism are many.

 

[Trausti]

Did you just skim over this line?

John Nash in his Nobel Prize winning paper proved that Adam Smith was wrong. It's not that personal ambition doesn’t serve the common good. But that it very often DOESN'T.
But since you pointed out that about Apple, do you think their decision to do all their manufacturing in China and Asia is a positive for America? How about hundreds even thousands of US companies transferring their manufacturing abroad? Do you think Exxon's use of single wall tankers in the Gulf of Alaska benefited the US?

Profit only minded companies leads to low wages and an inability of employees to make a quality living.. And while I agree that the state owning all industries and property is certainly not the answer, the abuses of unbridled capitalism are many.

Nash didn't disprove that individual ambition serves the public good. He simply expanded on game theory. That obviously doesn't explain why private enterprise outperforms the collective. And noting that manufacturing moved overseas is kind of a red herring. Certainly, individual ambition benefited China and all these other places that saw the wisdom of the profit motive. Don't get me wrong, I think a country should look after and help its own. That's why I voted from Trump. But the really is you have benefited if you've cheaply bought smart phones, etc., that were made overseas.

 

[acbytesla]

Nash didn't disprove that individual ambition serves the public good. He simply expanded on game theory. That obviously doesn't explain why private enterprise outperforms the collective. And noting that manufacturing moved overseas is kind of a red herring. Certainly, individual ambition benefited China and all these other places that saw the wisdom of the profit motive. Don't get me wrong, I think a country should look after and help its own. That's why I voted from Trump. But the really is you have benefited if you've cheaply bought smart phones, etc., that were made overseas.

You really treat it as if it is a religion. You don't understand the economic disaster of Trump’s policies and threats against everyone. The moron is a bull in a china closet wreaking economic havoc everywhere. Do you think his tariff policies are helping US manufacturing? Or US farmers? US industries can't sell almost anything abroad because of the animosity and distrust he has sown abroad. Tesla use to be able to sell cars in Europe. Now can't hardly give them away. Tourism in the US has fallen off a cliff. Canadian farmers are supplanting US farms in overseas grain sales. Soybean prices have fallen off a cliff since China retaliated and for the first time in 30 years isn't buying any American soybeans. Hell, even US arm sales have gone down precipitously.

And Trump being Trump and his insistence to hide the facts he is manipulating all the economic data. Just as he did with the Trump Organization.
Maybe 20, 30, 40 years ago some protectionism may have done some good. Instead, this is the equivalent of closing the gate after the cattle got out.

 

[Pixel42]

It's pure Adam Smith. "Individual ambition serves the common good." The best results happen when everyone does what is best for themselves. The problem is, it's just not true. The best results happen when people work in their own best interests and society's. If you ignore what is best for society. It is more likely than not the results will be nowhere near the best results, even if it serves that particular individual.

Anthropogenic climate change is the ultimate example.