James Randi and Objectivism

[real american]

I am interested in knowing what James Randi and people here think of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. As many of you must know Ayn Rand was athiest and considered the founder of Objectivism, which is the belief that you must live your live by reason and rational thinking. Objectivist are also usualy (all the ones I know are) strong capitalist. Ayn Rand is quoted saying:

When I say "capitalism," I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

 

[ehcks]

So not only freedom of capitalism but also freedom from capitalism?

 

[real american]

I think that in her own way the answer is freedom of and from, she was very interesting in her views. She also said

In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgments, convictions and interests dictate.

 

[Weak Kitten]

What level of Government control is she talking about? Freedom to lie about your competitors? About your product? Freedom to drive the competition out of business through undercutting and then raise your prices through the roof? Freedom to buy up or intimidate all the manufacturers of machinery for making your product so that no one can make a competing product? Freedom to use substandard or outright toxic materials in your products and not tell the consumers?

Freedom is a great word to wave about, until you find out the actual price of total freedom.

 

[hgc]

... Objectivism, which is the belief that you must live your live by reason and rational thinking.

"Objectivists" may claim their belief is that you must live your life by reason and rational thinking, but that doesn't automatically endow the writings of Ayn Rand with those qualities. Just sayin'

 

[Gazpacho]

I am interested in knowing what James Randi and people here think of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. As many of you must know Ayn Rand was athiest and considered the founder of Objectivism, which is the belief that you must live your live by reason and rational thinking.

... subject to the requirement that your reason and rational thinking must always lead you to the same conclusions as Ayn Rand: that capitalism is natural and undeniably good, that the world is divided into supermen and mediocrities, that the latter should kiss the former's boot for being allowed to live. Disagreement with Rand's program marks you as anti-man, anti-reason and anti-life, and proves that you desire the extinction of mankind. I've been there. It's trash.

 

[joesixpack]

Ayn Rand lived under the delusion that humans are solitary creatures. They are not. Human beings are social animals and they are only capable of surviving in groups.

Rand had a "All or nothing" world view. She saw any encroachment on her desire to do whatever the **** she wanted as the slippery slope to totalitarian mind control as in "Anthem". Her response is to say that all control of the individual is bad.

Both sides of that argument are really quite silly. No one advocates an ant colony society where every individual is only allowed to work for the common good, and Rand's idea of total freedom of the individual is absolutely impossible.

ETA: Check out this link http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm I'm curious to hear what an Ayn Rand fan has to say about this.

 

[mikeyx]

I am interested in knowing what James Randi and people here think of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. As many of you must know Ayn Rand was athiest and considered the founder of Objectivism, which is the belief that you must live your live by reason and rational thinking. Objectivist are also usualy (all the ones I know are) strong capitalist. Ayn Rand is quoted saying:

randi is not about objective anything hes about debunking. Its as close minded as woo.

 

[Beerina]

Ayn Rand lived under the delusion that humans are solitary creatures. They are not. Human beings are social animals and they are only capable of surviving in groups.

This is completely wrong -- she recognized the incredible value in specialization of individuals when they pursued their own desires and skills.

Inherent in her writings are the voluntary interactions of free people, allowing them to build a bigger society than anyone could alone.

A railroad? Assumes people buying passage and shipping. Other people.

Steel? Engines? Mining? Etc. all assume other people freely choosing to interact socially and professionally.

That's probably one of the biggest misunderstood things -- people think, gee, humans are social creatures, and therefore some of them (i.e. the "state") should mandate forced interactions, thus completely abandoning the concept of freely-chosen interactions between rational individuals.

 

[joesixpack]

people think, gee, humans are social creatures, and therefore some of them (i.e. the "state") should mandate forced interactions, thus completely abandoning the concept of freely-chosen interactions between rational individuals.

To which "forced interactions" are you referring? I hope you're not going to say "Paying taxes" because that's what it generally boils down to in my experience with Objectivists.

Seriously, I don't see a lot of forced interactions in my world, except that I have to pay bills. Good thing too because I need things like electricity and water/sewer services. I don't see people compelled to go to church or compelled to interact with anyone, so I am really baffled by this concern.

As far as the "state", yeah, I have issues with them. I'd like it if more people had a say in how things were run. As things seem to be going now, there are fewer and fewer people in control of more and more.

 

[hgc]

As far as the "state", yeah, I have issues with them. I'd like it if more people had a say in how things were run. As things seem to be going now, there are fewer and fewer people in control of more and more.

They've bought their government with their hard-earned money, so cheese off.

 

[Kid Eager]

So, everybody has rights but nobody has responsibilities?

 

[Pup]

When I say "capitalism," I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism—with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

That kind of thing always seems like it would lead on a circular path.

People get tired of being ripped off by totally unregulated lying cheating companies, so they form a group that will only buy from certain companies that meet the standards of their group. There's still separation of state and economics; it's a voluntary group.

But people like the idea so much, more join, until companies find they need to meet the group's standards of trustworthiness to get any business.

So some businesses start lying and pretend to meet the standards. Group members find out and kick them out. There are arguments, so the group sets up arbitration. There are intimidation and fights, so they set up bodyguards and peace-keepers. All that costs money, so they require dues to be a member, but because it's nice to not be ripped off and be protected from fraud, consumers are willing to pay.

Before long, you have a government, with laws, courts, police and taxes, and you're right back where you started.

 

[Stomatopoda]

I've never met an Objectivist younger than 19 or older than 21.

 

[joesixpack]

I've never met an Objectivist younger than 19 or older than 21.

LOL It does seem like a phase.

 

[joesixpack]

That kind of thing always seems like it would lead on a circular path.

People get tired of being ripped off by totally unregulated lying cheating companies, so they form a group that will only buy from certain companies that meet the standards of their group. There's still separation of state and economics; it's a voluntary group.

But people like the idea so much, more join, until companies find they need to meet the group's standards of trustworthiness to get any business.

So some businesses start lying and pretend to meet the standards. Group members find out and kick them out. There are arguments, so the group sets up arbitration. There are intimidation and fights, so they set up bodyguards and peace-keepers. All that costs money, so they require dues to be a member, but because it's nice to not be ripped off and be protected from fraud, consumers are willing to pay.

Before long, you have a government, with laws, courts, police and taxes, and you're right back where you started.

The only path that anarchy can take is back towards government. It's surprising that more people don't see this.

 

[fuelair]

I am interested in knowing what James Randi and people here think of Objectivism and Ayn Rand. :

Not much here.

 

[tsig]

What level of Government control is she talking about? Freedom to lie about your competitors? About your product? Freedom to drive the competition out of business through undercutting and then raise your prices through the roof? Freedom to buy up or intimidate all the manufacturers of machinery for making your product so that no one can make a competing product? Freedom to use substandard or outright toxic materials in your products and not tell the consumers?

Freedom is a great word to wave about, until you find out the actual price of total freedom.

For one person to have absolute freedom everyone else must be his slave.

 

[hgc]

The only path that anarchy can take is back towards government. It's surprising that more people don't see this.

No joke. Humans prefer, unsurprisingly, to live in civilized society. That's why the philosophical anarchists are so few.

 

[real american]

I've never met an Objectivist younger than 19 or older than 21.

No in my case, most I have met are older (meaning 30's to 50's), they also tend to be very militant on their athiesm and capitalist views.