Ayn Rand

[Jekyll]

If I want an intelligent critique of totalitarianism, I'll read Annah Arendt or, heck, George Orwell, not Rand. As far as I'm concerned, her kind of extreme individualism mixed in with selfishness and self-righteousness is as bad as the totalitarianism she's supposedly denouncing. I'm convinced that a society built on her rules would be nightmarish.

Skip Orwell, go streight for a Diary of a Man in Despair.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0715630008/102-1452195-2448900?v=glance&n=283155

It's like 1984 as it should have been written and it's a legitimate autobiography of life under the Nazis.

I can not recommend this book enough.

 

[Orwell]

I personally think that people with your views ("Give me others' money, through this social program!") are much more selfish than people with my views ("Keep your f***ing hands off my stuff, and I promise to keep my hands off yours. Let's each go out on our own and make our own way in life. I won't bug you, and you don't bug me.")

Which is more selfish? Is it selfish to want to keep what you have earned? No. Is it selfish to want what others have earned? Yes.

That's a nice example of short term thinking: you're totally forgetting that what is received is often given back, one way or the other. I'm pretty sure that you have already benefited countless times from the tax money of others.

 

[Melendwyr]

He hadn't the authority to override standing orders, and only had Dagny's word for it that they were overrode by new orders. By what stretch of the imagination could this be his decision to make?

Unfortunately, totalitarian leaders are rarely rational. Disobeying a change of orders is likely to be lethal. That's the whole point behind the scenario: either option is potentially disasterous.

He must make the decision because he's the one on the spot. Circumstances demand it -- you seem to be objecting from the perspective of some kind of societal model in which the soldier is only a part in a larger system.

It should at least be as complete as possible. A decision made without calling his superiors would have been little more than guesswork.

Calling his superiors was not an option, given the circumstances.

Wouldn't it have been nice if the Leaders had been right behind the door, and the soldier could just nip out for a moment and check? Sure. That wasn't an available option.

Looks like he had every intention of doing this non-option, but Dagny would rather shoot him for not obeying her without question and then blame it on his not thinking for himself...

You've come to preconditioned conclusions about what the passage must mean, then tried to justify those conclusions by twisting the meaning.

I suppose you think Dawkins' The Selfish Gene is morally reprehensible for not advocating altruistic behavior?

 

[Ian Osborne]

Calling his superiors was not an option

Then why did he say, "I'll ask the chief"?

 

[Freakshow]

That's a nice example of short term thinking: you're totally forgetting that what is received is often given back, one way or the other. I'm pretty sure that you have already benefited countless times from the tax money of others.

And I'm pretty sure that when you weigh how much I have payed in taxes compared to how much I have benefited from the tax money of others, I am coming out way behind.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And I'm pretty sure that when you weigh how much I have payed in taxes compared to how much I have benefited from the tax money of others, I am coming out way behind.

Are you protected from invasion by a military? Do you ever drive on an interstate? Do police patrol your community? Are criminals prosecuted? Do you have access to a clean water supply? To parks? Libraries? Have you ever had federal student loans?

Taxes pay for a lot of stuff that benefits everybody.

 

[specious_reasons]

Unfortunately, totalitarian leaders are rarely rational. Disobeying a change of orders is likely to be lethal. That's the whole point behind the scenario: either option is potentially disasterous.

He must make the decision because he's the one on the spot. Circumstances demand it -- you seem to be objecting from the perspective of some kind of societal model in which the soldier is only a part in a larger system.

Calling his superiors was not an option, given the circumstances.

Wouldn't it have been nice if the Leaders had been right behind the door, and the soldier could just nip out for a moment and check? Sure. That wasn't an available option.

"given the circumstances"

One thing I noticed, you're arguing the correctness of the situation in the context of the book, and the critics (like me) are arguing that the situation is only possible in Rand's nightmare world.

The "don't think, don't make a decision" option was to refuse Dagny entry until she showed proper credentials. Yet, somehow this becomes a decision he has to make? To describe how unrealistic this scenario is, the guard turns his back to a potential threat, so that she can draw a gun on him without being seen.

This guard was so weak-willed and pathetic that he couldn't react to being threatened? What kind of men was the Army training?

Other people have mentioned this, but the world of Atlas Shrugged requires that there are only two types of people in the world: the heroes and weak-willed, selfish people. If the guard showed any level of competence, Dagny would have failed.

Again and again, the book requires that 99.9% of the world's people to be completely incompetent. It's just not realistic.

 

[Freakshow]

Are you protected from invasion by a military? Do you ever drive on an interstate? Do police patrol your community? Are criminals prosecuted? Do you have access to a clean water supply?

My share of which is mostly/all paid for by taxes and fees that I pay.

To parks? Libraries?

Rarely use the first. Never use the second.

Have you ever had federal student loans?

No.

Taxes pay for a lot of stuff that benefits everybody.

You are arguing as if you assume that I pay no taxes. I pay far more taxes than the average American. And "benefits everybody" is not the sole thing to consider when deciding whether or not to pay for something with tax money.

 

[CFLarsen]

And I'm pretty sure that when you weigh how much I have payed in taxes compared to how much I have benefited from the tax money of others, I am coming out way behind.

What kind of selfish thinking is that?

If you think you are entitled to coming out ahead - or even break even, who do you think should come out behind?

According to your thinking, someone will "lose". Who should that be?

 

[TragicMonkey]

You are arguing as if you assume that I pay no taxes. I pay far more taxes than the average American. And "benefits everybody" is not the sole thing to consider when deciding whether or not to pay for something with tax money.

And Oprah Winfrey pays more taxes than you do, therefore she's entitled to call you a leeching parasitical thief of "her share" of tax money, eh?

A nation is not a business. You do not invest a sum, and get a return. You put into it as much as the nation can get, and you get out of it, alongside a host of side benefits, a safe place to exist and make your money and have your possessions. You owe civilization operating costs. The more wealth you have, the more civilizating is benefitting you, therefore the more you ought to pay.

 

[Freakshow]

And Oprah Winfrey pays more taxes than you do, therefore she's entitled to call you a leeching parasitical thief of "her share" of tax money, eh?

I don't want her share.

A nation is not a business. You do not invest a sum, and get a return.

It should be run more like a business.

The more wealth you have, the more civilizating is benefitting you, therefore the more you ought to pay.

No, my wealth did not come from getting more benefit form the government. It came from my own hard work. I am not being benefitted from government more than people that make much less. In fact, I am benefitting from government much LESS than they are. If someone else has their school, house, food, and medical care paid for them by the government, and I pay all of my own bills myself from my own hard work, then exactly how am I benefitting from government more than they are?

 

[TragicMonkey]

No, my wealth did not come from getting more benefit form the government. It came from my own hard work. I am not being benefitted from government more than people that make much less. In fact, I am benefitting from government much LESS than they are. If someone else has their school, house, food, and medical care paid for them by the government, and I pay all of my own bills myself from my own hard work, then exactly how am I benefitting from government more than they are?

How are you keeping this wealth? What is stopping other people from walking up to your house, breaking in, and taking everything you own? What is stopping your employer from deciding to keep your paycheck instead of paying you? What is stopping every store, company, and business you do business with from taking your money and not delivering any goods or services in return? What is stopping anyone from knocking you out and stealing your kidneys? What is stopping someone from lighting your house on fire, stealing your pets, and smashing your car up with a baseball bat?

Civilization. Law. Order. Consequences. Other people agreeing to behave in a certain way. That's what you're paying for. Without that, you'd only be able to possess what you can personally defend, all the time, and you'd only be able to acquire what other people would allow you to have.

 

[Freakshow]

How are you keeping this wealth? What is stopping other people from walking up to your house, breaking in, and taking everything you own? What is stopping your employer from deciding to keep your paycheck instead of paying you? What is stopping every store, company, and business you do business with from taking your money and not delivering any goods or services in return? What is stopping anyone from knocking you out and stealing your kidneys? What is stopping someone from lighting your house on fire, stealing your pets, and smashing your car up with a baseball bat?

Civilization. Law. Order. Consequences. Other people agreeing to behave in a certain way. That's what you're paying for. Without that, you'd only be able to possess what you can personally defend, all the time, and you'd only be able to acquire what other people would allow you to have.

And you are again talking as if you assume I pay no taxes. Or that I want to pay no taxes. Neither of which are true.

 

[TragicMonkey]

And you are again talking as if you assume I pay no taxes. Or that I want to pay no taxes. Neither of which are true.

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm pointing out that you're getting something from paying taxes. And it is indeed proportional to the amount you are paying. The more wealth you have protected by civilization, the more you owe to that civilization for supporting your possession of that wealth. A migrant worker who lives in a tin roofed shack is getting less out of civilization than you are, and you are getting less out of civilization than the Olsen Twins. Civilization is only protecting his shack, while it's protecting your computer and collection of antique doorknobs*, and the Olsen Twins' corporate empire.




*I just assume everyone collects antique doorknobs, unless it's specifically stated otherwise.

 

[Freakshow]

I'm not assuming that at all. I'm pointing out that you're getting something from paying taxes. And it is indeed proportional to the amount you are paying. The more wealth you have protected by civilization, the more you owe to that civilization for supporting your possession of that wealth. A migrant worker who lives in a tin roofed shack is getting less out of civilization than you are, and you are getting less out of civilization than the Olsen Twins. Civilization is only protecting his shack, while it's protecting your computer and collection of antique doorknobs*, and the Olsen Twins' corporate empire.




*I just assume everyone collects antique doorknobs, unless it's specifically stated otherwise.

Ah, I understand. Sorry, one thing I didn't make clear: services like law enforcement, military, legal system, monetary system, etc., I have no problem with. Provided that the tax system is somewhat fair (which I don't think ours necessarily is).

The problem I have is with social spending. Our system allows some to be lazy irresponsible f***s and get their house/food/medical care/retirement plan from money that *I* made. And that is theft.

 

[TragicMonkey]

The problem I have is with social spending. Our system allows some to be lazy irresponsible f***s and get their house/food/medical care/retirement plan from money that *I* made. And that is theft.

And sometimes it works the other way, where people who are genuinely in need of assistance due to circumstances beyond their control get screwed thanks to red tape.

Some social spending is justified, some is not. Sometimes people abuse the system, and sometimes the system abuses people. The principle is sound, it's the application that's problematic. Too much bureaucracy, too many agencies, too many laws and regulations and unskilled workers and mountains of paperwork.

I think the welfare system needs serious reform, yes, but I don't think it's either unnecessary or wrong to have it at all.

 

[CFLarsen]

Ah, I understand. Sorry, one thing I didn't make clear: services like law enforcement, military, legal system, monetary system, etc., I have no problem with. Provided that the tax system is somewhat fair (which I don't think ours necessarily is).

The problem I have is with social spending. Our system allows some to be lazy irresponsible f***s and get their house/food/medical care/retirement plan from money that *I* made. And that is theft.

Also known as the "There will always be work for those who want to work" fallacy.

 

[Zbu]

And sometimes it works the other way, where people who are genuinely in need of assistance due to circumstances beyond their control get screwed thanks to red tape.

Some social spending is justified, some is not. Sometimes people abuse the system, and sometimes the system abuses people. The principle is sound, it's the application that's problematic. Too much bureaucracy, too many agencies, too many laws and regulations and unskilled workers and mountains of paperwork.

I think the welfare system needs serious reform, yes, but I don't think it's either unnecessary or wrong to have it at all.

Very true. What welfare systems do is provide a net for capitalism that keeps it going. When someone is screwed over by the system and is unable to find work, their belief in capitalism understandably falters. What welfare systems do is keep people believing in the dream while being able to participate in it at least to a level of survival. If you take that way with the mistaken ideal that people who want to work will always find it--which is definitely not always the case with specialized skillsets which seems to be the norm--then what you do is undermine the capitalist foundation which this country sits upon. It's not perfect, but neither is capitalism, and you will always get some people who try to con the system and try to get a free ride with benefits with no intention of ever working again. Laziness and ease is part of human nature and partially what the American Dream stands for: the ability to work for a set amount of time and enjoy those benefits as one sees fit. But cancelled it outright is throwing out the baby with the bathwater: welfare benefits are the foundation of capitalism. Without it, don't expect the jobless and the disillusioned to participate or even allow people to participate. Revolutions start that way, even in America in these times.

 

[Piscivore]

No kidding, moron.

No kidding she was justified, or no kidding I'm wrong?

Look, you're obviously very defensive about this, but I am interested in her ideas. When you feel like discussing it absent the hysteria and insults let me know.

I would hope that the IT person is being paid money that is roughly equivalent to the value of the work he is doing. So what is the problem?

So would I. I'm not sure that's actually what happens, though, listening to the IT people of my acquaintance.

And I don't have a problem with that, I was offering an explanation for Dcdrac why someone might opt to call IT rather that "thinking for themselves" and solving the problem on their own, that's all.

 

[specious_reasons]

Look, you're obviously very defensive about this, but I am interested in her ideas. When you feel like discussing it absent the hysteria and insults let me know.

I find myself troubled by Rand's philsophy. Not the least of which is that I empthasize with some or most of the values that are encoded in them.

Heck, when the subject of "how can atheists have ethics" gets discussed, I wind up sounding Objectivist - often to my own surprise. Enlightened self-interest works, better than most other codes of ethics. Yet, it's not perfect. There are often circumstances that hide the "correct" enlightened choice.

So, what I often find frustrating about Atlas Shrugged is the super human way in which the heroes make their choices. There's no acknowledgement that people work on imperfect information all of the time, and the choices they make are flawed. Taggert and Reardon make mistakes because they don't hold true to the Objectivist principle, not because they're missing information. Or, if they are missing information, the best guess they make turns out all right.

I'm reminded of the opening of the book. Dagny is riding on a train. She wakes up because she senses the train has been stopped for too long. When she goes to investigate, she discovers that the conductor is waiting for a signal, and has been wating for hours. She gives the order to ignore the signal. I began expecting the book to start with a train wreck. Silly me.