Why the hate on Ayn Rand?

[HansMustermann]

Concerning the hilited portion of the quote above, what the hell was she talking about when she said, "It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..."? Did she seriously believe that the people who were appalled at this monster killing and dismembering a kid (when he could have just as easily given her back for the ransom money, by the way) actually had worse crimes in their own lives? WTF??!!!

It gets worse. You may want to skip this if you're not in the mood for hoorror.

That guy dismembered the girl alive.

He claimed at the process that he strangled her first, but the autopsy found no signs of that. Worse yet, his own description said that the blood was coming out in little spurts when he was cutting her limbs off, i.e., the heart was still beating. The girl had also not been anesthetised or anything, since, again there were no traces of that found at the autopsy. So, yeah.

But that didn't stop the, basically, "oh, you're a hypocrite and worse than him" accusation that is still a favourite of psychopaths and Rand followers everywhere. Being one of those "collectivist" sheep is apparently by itself worse.

Also note that by his own statement, the girl had been wonderfully cooperative up to that point and hadn't annoyed him or anything. The only reason was, he apparently just suddenly decided to live an earlier fantasy he had told a former accomplice about, namely to take someone apart and leave bits of them all over town. (Not that there would be any justifiable reason, mind you.)

But the reason I mentioned that is, basically, because it kinda nails what Rand thought about your obligations to the rest of society. She's not saying to give the neighbour's kid a bottle of milk... but if you take that kid apart alive, she'll think you're some kind of romantic, dashing adventurer, and the prototype of a Real Man.

And I'd say that that also puts some other parts of her work in a different light.

E.g., the rest of the world falling apart and starving in Atlas may not be as much just to contrast to the libertarian utopia, but basically just a fantasy to see those who don't share her views starving to death. Basically think point 36 on the Crackpot Index: "40 points for claiming that when your theory is finally appreciated, present-day science will be seen for the sham it truly is. (30 more points for fantasizing about show trials in which scientists who mocked your theories will be forced to recant.)" Sorta. She goes one step forward and fantasizes the world falling apart and starving for not properly appreciating psychopaths.

 

[HansMustermann]

You are correct. Pure altruism is an impossibility. However, if you hold the position that an altruistic action is inherently more ethical than an action motivated by self-interest without regard as to what the action is, then it follows that the most ethical actions are ones in which the actor does not benefit in any way.

I think you'll find that nobody holds that kind of view, where the action doesn't matter. I.e., combating it is a bit of a (perhaps unintentional) strawman.

Trivial example: raping a woman because one thought she needed to be shown she needs a real man, the so called "corrective rape" would not be considered ethical at all by anyone, even if a case were to be made that one was motivated by just wanting to help.

Trivial example: killing a few elderly because one thinks it's good for the economy (as per the case made in another thread) would not be considered ethical by anyone, no matter how much one is motivated by altruism there.

I think you'll find that virtually all actual philosophical or moral systems do take the act into account. In fact quite inherently.

It's only Rand's followers that seem to oversimplify it all to a world with no shades of grey. A world where there are no shades of grey between valuing someone's being helpful, and legally mandating that they help everyone in sight. Or no shades of grey between expecting _some_ degree of participating in society, and having no right to live for oneself at all. Or no shades of grey between having some economic regulation at all and being sued if you buy coal and sued if you don't, or between punishing guys like Hickman and just giving arbitrary laws to criminalize as many people as possible. Or yes, between valuing some help and some kind of dysfunctional system where the act doesn't matter, only the motivation behind it does.

Or if any shades exist, they're a slippery slope that can't end until it reached the bad extreme.

In fact the _only_ ones I've even heard arguing that only the motivation matters and the act doesn't, are the BS-ers attempting to make a guilt-trip and justification for antisocial behaviour. You know, the kind of argument that boils down to "that guy may have ran off with the money in the pension fund, but you only give to charity to feel good about yourself, so you're just as bad." Or Rand herself reducing Hickman's real crime to just being a non-conformism. That's the only people who need to gloss over the real act and make it sound like only the motivation matters. Because otherwise there's no way to put an equals sign between a criminal and someone who (you guess) only does good for some selfish motivation.

Bonus points if one needs to do postulates that boil down to claiming to read someone's mind, to support that charge.

BTW I've actually read posters on this forum that hold this position.

Then you should have no problems finding a few quotes to support that assertion.

I don't think it's an accident that Auguste Comte, the 19 century French philosopher who originated the term was admired by Karl Marx.

Who cares who admired him? Marx also was a fan of Adam Smith, for example.

Also note that while a lot of people claim to admire Mother Thresia, dam few want to be live their lives like she did.

And here we go again with the extreme cases. I'll assume you want to take her as a shining example of altruism, fine, let's go with that then.

Nobody said that everyone is a perfect altruist, nor expected them to be such. You'll find that expectations for living in society are a bit more relaxed and flexible. In fact, most people seem to work by a sorta keeping the balance system.

Sure, we may admire people who we perceive as better (justified or not), but nobody said we claim to be the same or demand the same from everyone.

So basically your point is...?

 

[Beerina]

Well... "Objectivism" is BS and bad enough as it is, and there is something to be said about her crackpot followers and theories on the whole... but for me basically her trying to justify rape and then using the the-bitch-wanted-it defense about her rape scene, is pretty much the rock bottom. You can't get much lower than that.

So it's butt-ironic, then, that rape is the most common fantasy of women, even if they have actually been raped? And before someone says, "Evidence?", go google it you lazy sods.

So she included it as an attempt at erotica. People react negatively to it, just like they do to studies that show rape is a common fantasy. "He took her with the authority of ownership," is how she put it, IIRC.

Now why would an intelligent woman try to play the meme game and say, "nope, nope!" like many lesser intellects around here and the world do?

Tell me.





As for economics, she essentially had the correct answer -- why the West produced more and more. She gave rationale as to why that was, which was, in slightly more modern terms, removing the punishing, slowing burden of much of the state, which drags the economy simply by being so large and intrusive.

Julian Simon said much the same thing, except from a point of research, theory, and prediction, which came true.


To all you detractors, I submit you are the crackpots. You are the ones following the unproven disproven belief that big government, rather than, at best, riding herd on the power of freedom-based capitalism, is the cause and greatness of the west.

When Julian Simon says that the core of his theory, that economic freedom correlates to the fastest gains in productivity and quality of life, as actually measured, and that that "isn't even debated among economists anymore," is he wrong? And that was 20+ years ago.




Stare into the mirror, my friends. You see a quasi-religious woo believer right there. You are exactly at the same point, God surely must exist! Most certainly!

 

[Darat]

So it's butt-ironic, then, that rape is the most common fantasy of women, even if they have actually been raped? And before someone says, "Evidence?", go google it you lazy sods.

...snip...

You seem to have the same problem that beset Ayn Rand which is that you cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality.

 

[Hellbound]

To all you detractors, I submit you are the crackpots. You are the ones following the unproven disproven belief that big government, rather than, at best, riding herd on the power of freedom-based capitalism, is the cause and greatness of the west.

This is a classic Either-Or fallacy.

I'm not for big government, but I still think Rand was a crackpot. And just because she may have been right about some things, by no means indicates she was right about anything else.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

To all you detractors, I submit you are the crackpots. You are the ones following the unproven disproven belief that big government, rather than, at best, riding herd on the power of freedom-based capitalism, is the cause and greatness of the west.

...snip...

To address what has actually been discussed in this thread - you are saying the people (like myself i.e. those you call "detractors" of Rand) who believe that we do have a moral obligation and a moral right to intervene when a child is being abused are "crackpots" and someone who thinks not only do you have no obligation to intervene but in her ideology it is irrational and immoral to intervene is the "non-crackpot".

If protecting children from being abused is a crackpot idea then I am more than willing to be labelled a crackpot.

 

[Beerina]

So it's butt-ironic, then, that rape is the most common fantasy of women, even if they have actually been raped? And before someone says, "Evidence?", go google it you lazy sods.

...snip...

You seem to have the same problem that beset Ayn Rand which is that you cannot distinguish between fantasy and reality.

Respond to the observation properly, rather than cryptic name-calling. Rape is the most common fantasy, and eroticism is done of it. If you have a problem with that, say so directly.

 

[Darat]

Respond to the observation properly, rather than cryptic name-calling. Rape is the most common fantasy, and eroticism is done of it. If you have a problem with that, say so directly.

Well I thought my point was quite clear. A "fantasy of rape" is not the same as being raped.

That you equate a "fantasy of rape" with actual rape shows that you are not able to distinguish the difference between a fantasy and reality, which is part of the problem Ayn Rand had, i.e. she mistook her fiction for reality.

 

[Beerina]

I hate Rand for her love for child killer Walter Hickman. It takes a sociopath to admire a sociopath.

How many have killed in the name of religion? Dictatorship? Communism? Socialism? And they were not "sociopaths" in the common sense, keep in mind.


ETA: The above makes no sense -- I had thought Hickman was some kind of deranged Objectivist people were taking a cheap shot at and was unaware of the context.

 

[Darat]

How many have killed in the name of religion? Dictatorship? Communism? Socialism? And they were not "sociopaths" in the common sense, keep in mind.

How would you describe Hickman?

 

[Beerina]

To address what has actually been discussed in this thread - you are saying the people (like myself i.e. those you call "detractors" of Rand) who believe that we do have a moral obligation and a moral right to intervene when a child is being abused are "crackpots" and someone who thinks not only do you have no obligation to intervene but in her ideology it is irrational and immoral to intervene is the "non-crackpot".

If protecting children from being abused is a crackpot idea then I am more than willing to be labelled a crackpot.

I sense I have touched a nerve -- another suggestion, to you, that you are the one not on stable ground.

Not having a moral obligation is not the same thing as not acting to save the child, much less not wanting to.

"Think of the children!"

From what you quoted earlier, you seem to think there's no right to interfere. From it:

and if you really take objectivism and push it to it's ultimate question, you have to conclude, from her philosophy, that society as a whole does not have a responsibility for all of its children. What that means is that if you have an abused child, a child that is being beaten or tortured next door you have no obligation and no right to interfere under objectivism. It's not your problem.

I would disagree with that conclusion. Children would be protected by the same rights-securing laws and police that adults are, a feature of Objectivism. This is a red herring, Darat. Shame on you.

 

[phiwum]

How many have killed in the name of religion? Dictatorship? Communism? Socialism? And they were not "sociopaths" in the common sense, keep in mind.

I honestly don't understand your point.

Because many have killed for religion, etc., admiration of a sociopathic killer is perfectly sensible?

(Note: I have no opinion on Rand's regard for Hickman, but your response is surely irrelevant and just plain weird.)

 

[Beerina]

How would you describe Hickman?

A common-sense sociopath. But that's probably not what you're after.

No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'

Note these things come from her notes, not published (by her) works, AFAIK. Hence there is no context aside from the crude juxtaposition to this horrific act.

She saw mass outrage to one singleton event, and noted it's power, probably considering its use as a tool by politicians as well as the knowing and deliberate complicity by the population itself with the population joyously participating in the indignation.

 

[Beerina]

I honestly don't understand your point.

Because many have killed for religion, etc., admiration of a sociopathic killer is perfectly sensible?

(Note: I have no opinion on Rand's regard for Hickman, but your response is surely irrelevant and just plain weird.)

No, of course not. She wasn't admiring him for being a sick child killer. See the post above.

 

[Beerina]

Well I thought my point was quite clear. A "fantasy of rape" is not the same as being raped.

That you equate a "fantasy of rape" with actual rape shows that you are not able to distinguish the difference between a fantasy and reality, which is part of the problem Ayn Rand had, i.e. she mistook her fiction for reality.

Please point to where I do this. As for her writings, she admitted they were over the top, unachievable in reality, IIRC. That does not mean the principles were incorrect.

 

[Darat]

I sense I have touched a nerve -- another suggestion, to you, that you are the one not on stable ground.

Not having a moral obligation is not the same thing as not acting to save the child, much less not wanting to.

"Think of the children!"

From what you quoted earlier, you seem to think there's no right to interfere.

I am quite happy to say that an ideology as Rand proposed that means people do not have a moral obligation to stop a child being abused "touches a nerve" - the fact that it doesn't to you, well I'll let others draw their own conclusion.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

From what you quoted earlier, you seem to think there's no right to interfere. From it:



I would disagree with that conclusion. Children would be protected by the same rights-securing laws and police that adults are, a feature of Objectivism. This is a red herring, Darat. Shame on you.

If you disagree show me how your conclusion follows from her works then.

 

[marplots]

...As for her writings, she admitted they were over the top, unachievable in reality, IIRC. That does not mean the principles were incorrect.

That is an interesting comment. So, I gather you would say that the principles are correct but fantasy (correct in some unreal place)? Or am I putting too much on the phrase: "unachievable in reality"?

 

[Hellbound]

That is an interesting comment. So, I gather you would say that the principles are correct but fantasy (correct in some unreal place)? Or am I putting too much on the phrase: "unachievable in reality"?

This is a good point.

Communism is, in principle, correct but in reality unachievable.

Complete laissez faire capitalism model is, in principle, correct but in reality leads to monopolies that unfairly exploit the comsumer and dangerous/ineffective products.

This is true for a lot of things, because the philosophies typically state "this is how humans should be, abnd wouldn't everything be great!" and ignore "this is how humans are, here's the best way to deal with it".

 

[marplots]

Why are Rand supporters uniformly such abrasive, dismissive, nasty people? Honestly, you can read a hundred such threads and all philosophy aside, the Rand proponents are the ones being nasty on a purely personal level, as in the post above.

Not sure what the deal is there.

My guess is that the psychology works like this...
I have struggled to understand something that is not in my expertise*.
I have not explored anything contradictory at this time.
What I have learned matches up with what I already know in a fundamental way.
I made discoveries and maybe even had an epiphany.
These are personally felt and powerful.
I now possess arcane knowledge.
Anyone who disagrees is either uniformed or truculent and is attacking 'me' because they are judging my ability to see and grasp Truth.
It is not possible for disagreement to be valid because if someone understood the material like I understand it, they would have the same experience and would also be as convinced by it as I was.

Pretty much the same for a lot of beliefs other than Rand-ism.

*"expertise" as used here means a body of knowledge that includes a full exploration as part of picking up the 'body' (instead of a limb or two). Hence, I do not think trained philosophers would evince the the same sort of 'nasty'.