Interesting article on Ayn Rand

[mhaze]

But Rand frequently said government regulation distorted the free market. That is the Lib fundy position.

????

That's not a Lib fundy position, that is pretty much the definition of the term.

government regulation --- INTENDS to distort the free market

This is your naive understanding of modern EP based on a lack of research into the arguments. You can't use philosophical ideas to disprove EP anymore than you can to disprove evolutionary theory itself......

Naive Position???

The question was exactly the reverse, an assertion by you that scientific methods could disprove Rand's concepts.

I've noted that the article your brought in sucks bigtime, that does not "disprove EP", because I was laughing so hard at this supposed science I couldn't think straight. So, it just sucks. I've also noted that Dawkins didn't support your ideas about "EP disproving Rand", but seems like you ignored that.

....Remember, you're talking to mere mortals easily fooled by junk science than can be dismissed out of hand with simple ideas. This is way too profound.

It's simple first semester college logic. Let's rethink what profound is, if we may. We need a profound to be profound.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/junk_science

Assertions that have the appearance, but not the actuality, of scientific support; A cluster of assertions, publications, and experts that have the appearance, but not the actuality, of a scientific specialtyhttp://www.google.com/url?url=http:...cience&usg=AFQjCNE-ztHIgvwo19YTb5nywvrmGo2RSQ​

The junk science is truly stuff like that review article on AP that reaches conclusion which are already not just obvious but which have been well understood for hundreds of years. So we've proven that you've got at least a percentage of junk science in EP, and we've proven that you are not going to "debunk Rand using EP".

 

[leftysergeant]

The question was exactly the reverse, an assertion by you that scientific methods could disprove Rand's concepts.

And you are still shouting loud enough not to have heard my evidence based on the fossil record that science does disprove the blithering sociopath's theory. Being human means taking care of each other. Taking care of each other fitted our ancestors to survival. Selfish people unable to understand that they need the collective and are thus obligated to take care of the collective as well as their own egoistical butts are not fit to survive.

The blithering sociopath's opinions to not stand the test of a million years worth of fossils of disabled people who were nurtured by the collective.

 

[Joey McGee]

I've noted that the article your brought in sucks bigtime, that does not "disprove EP", because I was laughing so hard at this supposed science I couldn't think straight. So, it just sucks.

No one cares what you think about science, mhaze, you're a climate change denier on a skeptical forum.

I've also noted that Dawkins didn't support your ideas about "EP disproving Rand", but seems like you ignored that.

You misunderstood my point. I said Dawkins supports the science of EP, here is him in an hour long interview with David Buss talking about how hacks misunderstand the science, there's another a hour long video of him with Steven Pinker, he's out there helping to gain recognition. Seems like you just don't get it.

It's simple first semester college logic. Let's rethink what profound is, if we may. We need a profound to be profound.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/junk_science

Assertions that have the appearance, but not the actuality, of scientific support; A cluster of assertions, publications, and experts that have the appearance, but not the actuality, of a scientific specialtyhttp://www.google.com/url?url=http:...cience&usg=AFQjCNE-ztHIgvwo19YTb5nywvrmGo2RSQ​

The junk science is truly stuff like that review article on AP that reaches conclusion which are already not just obvious but which have been well understood for hundreds of years. So we've proven that you've got at least a percentage of junk science in EP, and we've proven that you are not going to "debunk Rand using EP"

You have obviously taken zero effort trying in to engage in understanding how EP is science, therefore no one should spend any effort trying to engage you on it.

 

[mhaze]

....Selfish people unable to understand that they need the collective and are thus obligated to take care of the collective as well as their own egoistical butts are not fit to survive.

The blithering sociopath's opinions to not stand the test of a million years worth of fossils of disabled people who were nurtured by the collective.

Yes the great monuments in Egypt, the Inca and Mayan ruins, even the Great Wall of China are testaments to your point of view.

Glad I didn't live in those places. But given your predilection for such, I think there are likely some project that you could go contribute to today.

No one cares what you think about science, mhaze, you're a climate change denier on a skeptical forum.
You misunderstood my point. I said Dawkins supports the science of EP, here is him in an hour long interview with David Buss talking about how hacks misunderstand the science, there's another a hour long video of him with Steven Pinker, he's out there helping to gain recognition. Seems like you just don't get it.

You have obviously taken zero effort trying in to engage in understanding how EP is science, therefore no one should spend any effort trying to engage you on it.

Now that's a nice bit of obfuscation, ad hominems, re framing, misrepresentation, and outright denial. You have I assume given up on the valiant effort to debunk Ayn Rand with the erudite principles of Easy Psychobabble.

Yep, I just don't get it.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

????

That's not a Lib fundy position, that is pretty much the definition of the term.

....

I could read this several ways. Perhaps you can clarify.

You think "position" and "definition of the term" are two different things.

OR

You think a true Libertarian is not a fundy and Libertarian fundamentalist means something else.

 

[mhaze]

I could read this several ways. Perhaps you can clarify.

You think "position" and "definition of the term" are two different things.

OR

You think a true Libertarian is not a fundy and Libertarian fundamentalist means something else.

Government regulation starts with the premise that the greater good of society is served by restricting, controlling, taxing, licensing and in other ways, shaping the activities of business.

As I recall, Rand was not opposed to government regulation in general and accepted it as having necessary functionality, just as she accepted the need for an army, police forces and law in society. She noted that these things were often subverted for the benefit of special groups and in other means hostile to free enterprise, and thus should be minimalized. Indeed, "regulation" is often a guise for the takeover of whole industry segments.

I have no idea how you can relate this reality with "true" or "fundamentalist" Libertarians.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Government regulation starts with the premise that the greater good of society is served by restricting, controlling, taxing, licensing and in other ways, shaping the activities of business.

As I recall, Rand was not opposed to government regulation in general and accepted it as having necessary functionality, just as she accepted the need for an army, police forces and law in society. She noted that these things were often subverted for the benefit of special groups and in other means hostile to free enterprise, and thus should be minimalized. Indeed, "regulation" is often a guise for the takeover of whole industry segments.

I have no idea how you can relate this reality with "true" or "fundamentalist" Libertarians.

I agree with your description of Rand's position that regulations were subverted. The reason she belongs in the Libertarian fundy group is that she saw ALL regulations as subverted.

OSHA regulations, for example, protect workers. So if you believe it subverts the free market because such 'greater good' regulations force the 'owner' to do right by the worker, then that's Rand's position.

 

[mhaze]

I agree with your description of Rand's position that regulations were subverted. The reason she belongs in the Libertarian fundy group is that she saw ALL regulations as subverted. ....

No, that's not what Rand thought at all, and neither is it the position of those who more or less follow her line of thought today. As for whether some subgroup of Libertarians believe that, who knows. I suspect we could do away with 90% of all government regulations and never miss them.

I drug up a bit of stuff Rand said on the underlying subject. Regulation (a form of legislated administrative law) is of course not outright considered subverted. If for example one applies these ideas to

1. Housing and mortgage regulation
2. Air Traffic control regulation
3. Private property regulation

It's easy to see current US government activity that is outside the scope, and inside the scope, of this approach to "what government should be".

Ayn Rand, The Nature of Government

...
Observe the basic principle governing justice in all these cases: it is the principle that no man may obtain any values from others without the owners’ consent—and, as a corollary, that a man’s rights may not be left at the mercy of the unilateral decision, the arbitrary choice, the irrationality, the whim of another man.

Such, in essence, is the proper purpose of a government: to make social existence possible to men, by protecting the benefits and combating the evils which men can cause to one another.

The proper functions of a government fall into three broad categories, all of them involving the issues of physical force and the protection of men’s rights: the police, to protect men from criminals—the armed services, to protect men from foreign invaders—the law courts, to settle disputes among men according to objective laws.

These three categories involve many corollary and derivative issues—and their implementation in practice, in the form of specific legislation, is enormously complex. It belongs to the field of a special science: the philosophy of law. Many errors and many disagreements are possible in the field of implementation, but what is essential here is the principle to be implemented: the principle that the purpose of law and of government is the protection of individual rights.

Today, this principle is forgotten, ignored and evaded....

​

 

[Mycroft]

""Collectivism" vs the free market does not preclude Libertarianism fundamentalism. I agree communism clearly played a key role in forming her philosophy.

But Rand frequently said government regulation distorted the free market. That is the Lib fundy position.

So we are in agreement.

 

[easycruise]

And you are still shouting loud enough not to have heard my evidence based on the fossil record that science does disprove the blithering sociopath's theory.

Umm, You haven't shown any evidence yet. No links, nothing. This is all you've said..""The existance of so many ancient remains of severely disabled people who clearly lived a long time with those disabilities shows that we are designed to live in collectives in which individuals cared about each other.""

Maybe those "severely disabled people" were rich aristocracy and could take care of themselves?

Being human means taking care of each other.

No it doesn't. That's a left-wing canard. How do you explain the constant warfare and aggression among humans throughout history? Face it, we are a violent species. For example, peaceful trading of silk for spices to the betterment of both parties in the times of Marco Polo is the very rare occurence. The much more common procurement method is the pillage and ransacking of cities by marauding invaders. Or, in Rand's modern version, by the government "looters" hell bent on wealth redistribution by any means possible. Usually by way of strangling regulation of businesses.

The blithering sociopath's opinions to not stand the test of a million years worth of fossils of disabled people who were nurtured by the collective.

You do not know if anyone was truly "nurtured". Rank speculation.

The typical Randian "hero"in the ice ages would have been whacked up side the head for hogging community resources and all the chicks would be trying to mate with the little nebbish who always seemed to have a little extra food to share.

Huh? The "nebbish" wouldn't be "hogging community resources" too? Please explain. You fail to realize that the "typical Randian hero" was a self-sufficient person who paid workers an agreed upon wage to help achieve his success. Whether he shares the fruits of that success (at no charge) or not is his decision to make. What Rand objects to is forced charity, which really is not charity at all. It's literally at the point of a gun (if you don't abide).

 

[Skeptic]

You seem to have some generalizations about idealized Rand "hero characters", and you seem to refer back to one or two of Rand's books or selected parts of it. You have described something that might have been the left wheel well of a Cadillac, instead of a Cadillac.

Is it? Take her heroes in any novel of her you care to name. Insofar as they are actual characters -- and not just mouthpieces for Rand's philosophy -- their actions are always that of people who consider truth-telling, integrity, justice, benevolence (monetary and otherwise), etc., etc., to be very important: far more important than naked self-interest. Her explanation that such people are "really" egoists is simply not convincing.

 

[mhaze]

.....The "nebbish" wouldn't be "hogging community resources" too? Please explain. You fail to realize that the "typical Randian hero" was a self-sufficient person who paid workers an agreed upon wage to help achieve his success. Whether he shares the fruits of that success (at no charge) or not is his decision to make. What Rand objects to is forced charity, which really is not charity at all. It's literally at the point of a gun (if you don't abide).

hahahaha! Yep, it be dat darn capitalist Rand hero that gave all those people jobs. Darn that reality! Darn it, it just keeps coming back....

Is it? Take her heroes in any novel of her you care to name. Insofar as they are actual characters -- and not just mouthpieces for Rand's philosophy -- their actions are always that of people who consider truth-telling, integrity, justice, benevolence (monetary and otherwise), etc., etc., to be very important: far more important than naked self-interest. Her explanation that such people are "really" egoists is simply not convincing.

Well....what you are saying is that YOUR concept of egoist, self-interest and so forth differ from hers by the extent of your noticing there were dichotomies.

Also, I think I mentioned this earlier but maybe not or not in this context...

...these characters are not static, they do experience a process of self realization, personal growth, whatever you'd like to call it. For example in AS, that is signaled by their vanishing. The net contributions to society which you mention as evidence that they are not "really egoists"....

Doesn't that preceed their vanishing?

Dagney Talbert for example, has been asserted to be the worst villian, because she stuck it out the longest....

 

[Skeptic]

For example in AS, that is signaled by their vanishing

Indeed. But a self-interested egoist would never consider giving up all the money, power, and so on just to make a point like that. Sure, Rand says that self-respect and honesty are more important than money and power -- but that is precisely what Plato said 2400 years before that.

Calling this "egoism" is true only in a trivial sense: in the same sense Socrates or the Christian martyrs who looked to heaven or those who hid Jews during the holocaust were all "egoists" because they did what they considered the best for themselves in some sense.

In other words, where Rand is correct -- when she thinks truth-telling or integrity are more important than power -- she is saying nothing new, but only what Kant and Plato and the rest said long before. Where she is original -- all human transactions should be based on self-interest in the usual sense of self-interest, the one that involves money as the sole determiner of value -- she is clearly wrong.

Rand's work is good and original -- only the original part isn't any good, and the good part not original...

 

[leftysergeant]

Maybe those "severely disabled people" were rich aristocracy and could take care of themselves?

Among the Neanderthalers and Homo habilis?

No it doesn't. That's a left-wing canard. How do you explain the constant warfare and aggression among humans throughout history? Face it, we are a violent species. For example, peaceful trading of silk for spices to the betterment of both parties in the times of Marco Polo is the very rare occurence.

And it made a greater contribution to the spread of civilization and science than did all the wars that were fought in the same time frame.

 

[mhaze]

Indeed. But a self-interested egoist would never consider giving up all the money, power, and so on just to make a point like that. Sure, Rand says that self-respect and honesty are more important than money and power -- but that is precisely what Plato said 2400 years before that.

Calling this "egoism" is true only in a trivial sense.....

Well, I've bolded the part that is not an accurate statement relative to the characters in AS.

What occurs in AS is that various characters find things being taken away from them, bit by bit. Sometimes it is outright takings, other times it is partial, through regulation, and other times they are offered a titular position, or even greater wealth if they agree to the takings, and the loss of control. Coexistent with that, they are asked to acknowledge their position and role in a collectivist society, one in which "owning something" does not mean actually owning it at all. Now refer back to the statement of yours I bolded, and you see the difference.

Those doing the takings are called "the looters".

You can see the plotline of AS is somewhat different than your take on it. In a very general sense, characters vanishing from the society they lived in is not different than people, for very good reasons, historically moving from one country or continent to another.

AS portrays relatively staticly self interested egoists, cast in a societal context moving actively in the direction of collectivism. The story is of that conflict, and the way that individuals first attempt to cope, and adapt, and then resist, and then simply say NO. That is the process of self realization and character development I mentioned.

I don't know of this issue being addressed by the classical philosophers.

 

[EGarrett]

Obviously this reply is like trying to fight a tidal wave of ignorance with a bucket and a paper towel, but the few people who have reasonable thought processes should probably comment on most of the "difficult" topics (including libertarianism and racism alongside Ayn Rand) that tend to reduce 90% of people here to childish and irrational behavior.

I'm going to try to reply to the people who have working minds on the matter and ignore the ones who give indications that they are responding at a sub-rational level.

I don’t understand the vitriolic hatred of Rand.

I don’t think she makes a very good “philosopher”, and when I look at the principles of “objectivism” I see some ideas I would agree with, some I think are questionable, and others I would disagree with, but that’s true with most philosophies. One should see it as a starting point for a discussion.

Take objectivism out of the picture, and her novels still provide some interesting ideas worthy of discussion. Whatever faults one believes she has, the sheer popularity of her works should indicate there are substantial ideas there that resonate with people.

Absolutely. There's some sort of adolescent-level vicious reaction on the part of people who don't understand Rand's philosophy, probably because they think (in their utter ignorance and lack of investigation) that Rand's ideas contradict things that they were taught or believed were right from the most base and infantile-level of their development.

The funny thing is, even though Rand wasn't a great politician or ambassador of her thoughts, if you actually listened to some of her interviews, you'd find that her ideas aren't so scary and are actually very good. She really was a brilliant person who devoted her mind, wholly and honestly, to developing her own theory of life. That alone makes her conclusions worthy of some honest consideration.

Just to note, Ayn Rand:

1. Was not a racist.
2. Did not believe on ignoring people in need.
3. Did not hate charity or those who chose to help out others.
4. Did not hate love or marriage.
5. Did not advocate murder or violence.
6. Had no problem with giving and receiving gratitude.

But she had her own REASONS for these things that are not the standard societal line. LISTEN to her own words, not what some half-read half-wit tells you were her words.

It wasn't the usual heap of regurgitated, anti-Rand memetic defense mechanisms, I have to give that much credit.

The real problem is that, yes, society is indeed driven forward by a small handful of individuals. This is the polar opposite of what the politician tells you -- that you, the common yokel, are the important one, and all society should be oriented around you. Even if it slows down those who are hauling you forward into future society. Some even go further and declare those people to be evil, what's keeping you down, thus memetically requesting authorization for the politician to beat them on the head even more, with the attendant, designed-in kickbacks to said politicians to get back out of the way.

Yes, but it's also important to point out that Rand saw EVERYONE as an individual who should take responsibility for their own life and use their own mind, not just the people in power or people who had wealth.

You can be an Ayn-Randian hero, so to speak, if you're a poor fruit farmer in Guatemala. If it's your own fruit farm and you honestly decided that that's your best path for taking care of yourself or that's what you enjoy most.

Rand tried to show that if you are an egoist, you will act morally, no matter how sorely tempted, since telling the truth (for example) is always the most "realistic" thing to do, because by lying I create "self-deception" and thus hurt myself.

But it just doesn't work, no matter what point you start with -- if only because, as Adeimantus already told Socrates, if selfishness is my guide, it is surely far better to appear moral and caring and just, than to actually be moral and caring and just. If I act in such a dishonest way I might deceive you about the truth, but I am not deceiving myself; so Rand's attempt to hang morality on the self-interest of not deceiving oneself simply doesn't work.

But if you lie to others or put out a false front, you will 1) Likely be stressed and unhappy and 2) Likely be caught. Thus it is not best to appear honest and moral, it is best to BE honest and moral.

Self-interest and intelligence is all you need to end up as a moral person.

 

[mhaze]

Obviously this reply is like trying to fight a tidal wave of ignorance with a bucket and a paper towel, but the few people who have reasonable thought processes should probably comment on most of the "difficult" topics ,......

Just to note, Ayn Rand:

1. Was not a racist.
2. Did not believe on ignoring people in need.
3. Did not hate charity or those who chose to help out others.
4. Did not hate love or marriage.
5. Did not advocate murder or violence.
6. Had no problem with giving and receiving gratitude.

But she had her own REASONS for these things that are not the standard societal line. LISTEN to her own words, not what some half-read half-wit tells you were her words....

Well said...

One could add to that list

7. She couldn't have cared less about an issue such as gay marriage.
8. She was an atheist, but did not hate religion or people who were religious. I get the impression she considered it irrelevant.

 

[easycruise]

Among the Neanderthalers and Homo habilis?

You are saying there was no heirarchy among the tribes? No old and wise shaman, elderly witch doctor, gray haired medicine man, long time leader of the pack?

The blithering sociopath's opinions to not stand the test of a million years worth of fossils of disabled people who were nurtured by the collective.

Still waiting for that evidence. Might you be showing it anytime soon? You are basing your claim on existence and location of piles of bones? Meanwhile, I would think it would be much more likely that fossil bones were the result of cannibalism, not nurturing our disabled elders. Especially during desperate times, especially common during the Neanderthal era. Even in modern times such as in the Donner Party!

http://articles.latimes.com/2010/may/02/opinion/la-oe-rarick-20100502

Being human means taking care of each other. Taking care of each other fitted our ancestors to survival.

Hitler sold tons of his book, too.

Yea, do tell about how Hitler "took care of" and "nurtured" the Jews. And please explain the liberal left's predilection for abortion and partial birth abortion. Gotta love how the lefties these days "take care of" and "nurture" their young.

Progressives tend to be more artistic types and woulld be more likely to at least comment on how realisticly characters are developed. Rand sucked at that.

You clearly haven't read Rand's books. You are just parroting left-wing propaganda. In Atlas Shrugged, her character development of Hank Reardon was excellent. At first he placated and tolerated his greedy, slacker, mooching brother-in-law, and then later on he just cut him off and kicked him to the curb. In the Fountainhead, Howard Roark at first tolerated the atrocious government methods and people against him and then ultimately fought back.

 

[easycruise]

You can see the plotline of AS is somewhat different than your take on it. In a very general sense, characters vanishing from the society they lived in is not different than people, for very good reasons, historically moving from one country or continent to another.

Excellent point. Perhaps another example is people movement from high tax states in the US to low tax states and from union controlled states to right-to-work states.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576317140858893466.html

Heck, even the Hollywood lefties did it when they wanted to move out of the US when George Bush was President!! Ha!

 

[mhaze]

Excellent point. Perhaps another example is people movement from high tax states in the US to low tax states and from union controlled states to right-to-work states.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703730804576317140858893466.html

Heck, even the Hollywood lefties did it when they wanted to move out of the US when George Bush was President!! Ha!

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/06/migration

That's a LOT OF PEOPLE giving the middle finger up sign to the collectivest, arrogant, looter mentality of the dim witted and elite progressive states.

Granted it is not a "pure" Rand style vanishing. Those migrating may still have some parts of the virus of collectism and progressivism. Rand wrote in the abstract, for example I do not recall "Republican" or "Democrat" ever mentioned one in AS. Rand in her non fiction writings mentioned that many Republicans were essentially socialist.

Like Rand or not, we are watching AS unfold right now.

Well, that's likely a good reason for the porno-smear campaign style rhetoric against Rand by the .... uh .... folks that are causing the on going collapse, and the ongoing migration, and the yet to come collapse of the pension funds, retirement accounts, commercial real estate market, overseas Treasury bill market, US dollar as reserve currency standing, oh enough of a rant.

Sheesh...she even predicted piracy on the high seas.

But hey, I collect dystopian movies so no doubt I'm on the fringe. I'm sure most people collect movies that promote the message "Government is good and Saves Us from Bad Evil Capitalists...".

Like the tear jerker Erin Brockovich film

No....wait....


...