Atlas Shrugged: what do you think?

[Murky]

You totally disagree with individualism?

There are way more votes than people who have read both the book and diverse reviews of it. I'll get the rest of my reviews from peer reviewed sources (and/or read it myself, after a few other books).

If you have ever read any of the drivel spewed from the Ayn Rand Institute you would understand what I mean. It's the impersonal disregard for the well-being of the environment and other people that bothers me about it.

 

[Ecofarm]

I think it is the assumed concern for the environment and others that you disbelieve. If you are willing to think, for just a novel moment, that people are inherently good and will maxamize even ecologic and social profit when a populace makes informed choices, well... Thanks for the confidence. Seriously, any lasting change comes from the ground-up, not top-down. Restricting the capitalist liberty of individuals restricts our creative capability. There are other downsides to socialist ideology that I think Ayn illustrates eloquently.

"The [environmental] revolution [err, evolution] will not be televised" -Gil Scott Heron
Nor will it be the result of socialist economic policy. I believe there is more harm done through international regulation than progress (even if promises are 100% met - example, Kyoto).

 

[Murky]

I think it is the assumed concern for the environment and others that you disbelieve. If you are willing to think, for just a novel moment, that people are inherently good and will maxamize even ecologic and social profit when a populace makes informed choices, well... Thanks for the confidence. Seriously, any lasting change comes from the ground-up, not top-down. Restricting the capitalist liberty of individuals restricts our creative capability. There are other downsides to socialist ideology that I think Ayn illustrates eloquently.

"The [environmental] revolution [err, evolution] will not be televised" -Gil Scott Heron
Nor will it be the result of socialist economic policy. I believe there is more harm done through international regulation than progress (even if promises are 100% met - example, Kyoto).

People are not inherently good towards others. History has shown that most people are the opposite. Doing what's right is a learned trait.

 

[drachasor]

I think it is the assumed concern for the environment and others that you disbelieve. If you are willing to think, for just a novel moment, that people are inherently good and will maxamize even ecologic and social profit when a populace makes informed choices, well... Thanks for the confidence. Seriously, any lasting change comes from the ground-up, not top-down. Restricting the capitalist liberty of individuals restricts our creative capability. There are other downsides to socialist ideology that I think Ayn illustrates eloquently.

"The [environmental] revolution [err, evolution] will not be televised" -Gil Scott Heron
Nor will it be the result of socialist economic policy. I believe there is more harm done through international regulation than progress (even if promises are 100% met - example, Kyoto).

Humans have a natural ability to feel empathy for others. That's a fact. There are other good traits that we naturally have. We aren't purely good, perhaps not mostly good on average, but we have the potential for good. Objectivism isn't about being good, and I don't see how you somehow think that Objectivism would bring about lasting good changes (that seems to be your suggestion).

Global Warming would go out of control before anyone tried to do anything about it, if everyone was Objectivist. Charities would be few and far between as well (you basically never get what you "pay for" out of a charity, and the free rider problem would pretty much doom them -- society benefits, but the giver doesn't).

So most people aren't saying humans are inherently good. We ARE saying that Objectivism is inherently BAD however. It just isn't good for society, just like totalitarianism is no good. Pure capitalism isn't good either (monopolies kinda ruin it). There are a number of ways to set up society and the government that are no good, and the trick democracies have to solve is to find them.

Honestly, I have a hard time believing that an Objectivist society could remain a democracy for long. The benefits to corruption are just too great. If most people believe Objectivism was the way to go, then pretty soon we'd get an oligarchy (possibly run by corporations). Those are DEFINITELY bad, because they generally don't care about the people they step on (and with control of the media and the internet, too few would find out to do anything). Heck, just look at all the lies the Bush administration has said, constantly said, and how few people know about them! 50% of Americans still think Saddam had something to do with 9/11! That's an example of what corruption and poor information flow can do.

You definitely need a society that espouses virtues such as altruism. Sure, not everyone will have such virtues, but it frames good and bad in the proper context. Heck, America wouldn't exist today if the founders had been Objectivists. Washington certainly would have been willing to become King, for instance. The greatest social, cultural, and governmental improvements we have had, have largely come from people genuinely trying to make the world (or some part of it) a better place -- they have not been motivated by self-interest.

Now self-interest certainly exists as a motivator, and it has its uses (such as the market). It just can't go unchecked.

-Drachasor

 

[drachasor]

People are not inherently good towards others. History has shown that most people are the opposite. Doing what's right is a learned trait.

People can have an instinct for good, but we also have bad instincts. I'd say being ethical is a learned trait (or habit). That is, doing the right thing most of the time is a skill to be honed and practiced.

-Drachasor

 

[Norbert]

Marx had a LOT more to say than just his specific theory of communism! Sure, a lot of what he said was centered around communism, but that certainly doesn't make it necessarily wrong. One can certainly admire a philosophy for the lines of inquiry they open up and/or pursue, even if they got parts wrong. Nobody, for example, believes classical hedonistic utilitarianism anymore, but that doesn't make Mill a bad moral philosopher!

I'm additionally not wholly convinced that anybody has really refuted Marxist communism. At least, the closest things to refutations I hear are "OMG LOOK AT THE USSR AND CHINAAAA" or "IT TOTALLY DOESNT GET HUMAN NATURE!!!!!", neither of which is particularly satisfying.

If the two major historical examples of nations adhering to a certain philosophy are hellholes, it kind of decreases the faith in that philosophy, doesn't it? Not to mention that I don't think Marxism DOES get human nature: another strike. Come to think about it: the most often used arguments against National Socialism are the Countries that practiced it and the dehumanizing effect of irrationalism. If those aren't valid arguments, then what is?

 

[Trieste]

The

look at the countries where socialism happened argument doesn't makes sense to me. With socialism you can look at Russia and China and see that it's a terrible idea, or you can look at western Europe and Scandinavia and see that it's amazing.

--------------------------

Fifty: All anyone says against Marxism is "look at the countries that tried it" and "it doesn't get human nature"; both of those reasons are kinda vague

Norbert: Look at the countries that tried it, and it really doesn't get human nature

 

[Norbert]

The

look at the countries where socialism happened argument doesn't makes sense to me. With socialism you can look at Russia and China and see that it's a terrible idea, or you can look at western Europe and Scandinavia and see that it's amazing.

--------------------------

Fifty: All anyone says against Marxism is "look at the countries that tried it" and "it doesn't get human nature"; both of those reasons are kinda vague

Norbert: Look at the countries that tried it, and it really doesn't get human nature

Umm...Europe practices "social democracy." We are talking about Marxist/Maoist Communism. There's a big difference.

 

[Ecofarm]

Washington certainly would have been willing to become King, for instance.

What makes you think that it was in Washington's best interest to be a king, assuming he was interested in democracy and justice by the people?

The greatest social, cultural, and governmental improvements we have had, have largely come from people genuinely trying to make the world (or some part of it) a better place -- they have not been motivated by self-interest.

Evidence?

Now self-interest certainly exists as a motivator, and it has its uses (such as the market). It just can't go unchecked

It serves purposes other than the market, I assure you.

 

[Narz]

Started to read Atlas Shrugged but got bored with it. The Fountainhead I enjoyed at the time I read it though, I was in the right place mentally/emotionally to receive it. Eventually I evolved beyond that place.

Still think it's a decent book though for anyone who is too enamored with the idea that you should sacrifice your own good for others. Ideally, one's actions should serve both oneself AND others.

A quote I like, ah shucks can't remember.

Something like, If you aren't for yourself, who will be. If you are only for yourself, why bother. Something like that.

 

[innonimatu]

Umm...Europe practices "social democracy." We are talking about Marxist/Maoist Communism. There's a big difference.

No there isn't, not for the purpose of this discussion. Both marxists and the later social democrats were concerned essentially with the same problems, problems which the "Randians" would deny even exist. They only disagreed on some methods for action.

And if you're going to hold China and the Soviet Union as examples of Marxist countries, I'll offer present-day Somalia and Iraq as examples of fully capitalist countries. Iraq is a really good example, didn't Bremer basically abolished the state and tried to privatize everything figuring that the free marked would produce democracy?

What makes you think that it was in Washington's best interest to be a king, assuming he was interested in democracy and justice by the people?

Assuming he wasn't an "objectivist", you mean?

 

[drachasor]

What makes you think that it was in Washington's best interest to be a king, assuming he was interested in democracy and justice by the people?

It seems I've been mistaken about what "self-interest" means as far as Objectivists are concerned. It's a lot less coherent than I thought.

That said it is clearly in Washington's self-interest to be a King. He'd probably live better and longer. If he has desires that aren't in this self-interest, then they'd be non-self-interested desires. That's in terms of the traditional meaning of self-interest.

and here's some Objectivist crap:

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_pobs5

Moral selfishness does not mean a license to do whatever one pleases, guided by whims. It means the exacting discipline of defining and pursuing one's rational self-interest. A code of rational self-interest rejects every form of human sacrifice, whether of oneself to others or of others to oneself. The ethics of rational self-interest upholds the exercise of one's mind in the service of one's life, and all of the specific value-choices and character attributes which such exercise entails. It upholds the virtues of rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride. It does not advocate "survival at any price."

Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason.​

Reason is an attribute of the individual. Thought is a process performed not by men, but by man—in the singular. No society, committee, or "organic" group can do it. What a group can do in this regard is only: to leave the individual free to function, or to stop him.

The basic political requirement of Man's Life is freedom.

"Freedom" in this context means the power to act without coercion by others. It means an individual's power to act according to his own judgment, while respecting the same right in others. In a free society, men renounce a lethal method of dealing with disagreements: the initiation of physical force.

Force is the antonym and negation of thought. Understanding is not produced by a punch in the face; intellectual clarity does not flow from the muzzle of a gun; the weighing of evidence is not mediated by spasms of terror. The mind is a cognitive faculty; it cannot achieve knowledge or conviction apart from or against its perception of reality; it cannot be forced.

The proper political system, in essence—the system which guards the freedom of man's mind—is the original American system, based on the concept of inalienable individual rights. "[T]he source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival."

The Founding Fathers were right about the fact that rights are political, not economic, i.e., that they are sanctions to act and to keep the products of one's action, not unearned claims to the actions or products of others. And they were right about the fact that the proper function of government is the protection of man's rights.

Man's rights, Ayn Rand observes, can be violated only by physical force (fraud is an indirect form of force). A political system based on the recognition of rights is one that guards man against violence. Men therefore deal with one another not as potential killers, but as sovereign traders, according to their own independent judgment and voluntary consent. This kind of system represents the methodical protection of man's mind and of his self-interest, i.e., of the function and purpose on which human life depends.

Government is the agency that holds a monopoly on the legal use of physical force. In a free society the government uses force only in retaliation, against those who start its use. This involves three main functions: the police; the military; and the courts (which provide the means of resolving disputes peacefully, according to objective rules).

and here's something from Peikoff's website:

Q: During the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech College, there was a professor, a holocaust survivor, who blocked a door against the shooter so that his students could escape safely. And although he died in the process, the students did escape. Is this an act of altruism that Objectivism classifies as immoral?

A: No. As you present it, it was a heroic act in defense of the professor’s values.

Assuming a professor does not have reason to despise his students, then they are a value to him. He is the adult who has chosen to take these youngsters in hand, to help increase their knowledge and develop their minds, and thereby to guide and safeguard their young lives. It is virtually implicit in this task that, in any professional context, and where possible, he care about his students, and act to preserve them from physical harm. A professor passionate about the intellectual life of his students, but unconcerned with their physical survival in his classroom has a real problem.

By contrast, and assuming no special personal attachments among the students, if one student decided to risk his life to save the others, I would regard that as highly dubious morally; in fact, I would think him weird. If he has no grounds, personal or professional, to value the lives of these students so highly as to risk self-destruction, then, according to Objectivism, his action is altruistic and, as such, immoral.

As always, in these situations, the risk factor enters. No matter how dedicated the professor, he should not expose himself to what he knows is certain death to save his students. He must always remember that his life, properly, is the standard of his values, and that he can take professionally-related risks, even grave ones, only in the name of preserving his values and thus (selfishly) furthering his life.

It follows from the foregoing that there was no a priori obligation on the part of the professor to act as he did. Only he can judge instantaneously the net sum of the value and danger involved.

Sidenote: Apparently Peikoff and related Objectivists don't believe in Global Warming.

 

[Trieste]

Norbert: You really can't say that that it's a bad idea to pay a bit more in taxes to help out what Ayn would call moochers, or to hold capltal in the common trust because "China and the USSR are evil and they do it" because Europe does it more than China and Russia and China and Russia don't really do more than pay lip service to those ideals.

Narz: this? I think it's someone's sig. It's beautiful

If I am not for myself, who will be for me? If I am [only] for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?
- Avoth 1:14

innonimatu:

... i love you

 

[Pasi Nurminen]

I'll admit I don't know much about Ayn Rand, but that's only because on the few occasions I've tried to read anything written by her, I've fallen asleep at the wheel. She's the master of using so many complex words to say so precious little.

 

[Fifty]

If the two major historical examples of nations adhering to a certain philosophy are hellholes, it kind of decreases the faith in that philosophy, doesn't it? Not to mention that I don't think Marxism DOES get human nature: another strike. Come to think about it: the most often used arguments against National Socialism are the Countries that practiced it and the dehumanizing effect of irrationalism. If those aren't valid arguments, then what is?

But I've never been satisfactorily convinced that those nations actually ADHERED to the philosophy, andy more than the democratic republic of congo or north korea are wonderful democracies.

And I just dont get the human nature argument. Look, if you actually examined what assumptions about human nature are required for the free market (the basic supply/demand extremal equilibrium models) to work as in theory, you'd sound just as nuts as a communist view of human nature.

 

[Ecofarm]

1 fundmental assumption about human nature required for the free market: a desire for personally qualified efficiency.

There is also 1 fundamental assumption regarding requirements:
An informed consumer.
The devil is in the externalities.

This, I propose, is the current reason for market failure; not the ill-will of mankind, but the ignorance.

 

[Fifty]

1 fundmental assumption about human nature required for the free market: a desire for personally qualified efficiency.

There is also 1 fundamental assumption regarding requirements:
An informed consumer.
The devil is in the externalities.

This, I propose, is the current reason for market failure; not the ill-will of mankind, but the ignorance.

The free market system, in the classical formulation, requires people to be perfectly rational, and to have perfect knowledge of preferences and perfect information regarding all available options. Firm models also require costless entry and exit of firms. Now if capitalism never existed in practice, and you just looked at those theoretical requirements for it to work properly, you'd go "WTH, this capitalism business is completely wrong about fundamental aspects of human beings". The point, of course, is that just because something has wacked out requirements in its theoretical form does not mean that its garbage. Just as a semi-free market with non-rational consumers and imperfect information works well on some levels, communism may work well on some levels and maybe even work better.

I don't know enough about political theory to level an opinion as to whether communism is correct or not, and my tendancy is definitely to be skeptical of it, and for all I know great arguments might be out there against it, but my point is just that the two most often touted refutations of it (USSR and human nature) are quite poorly reasoned.

 

[drachasor]

So here's a thought experiment for the Objectivist ethic:

Put 5 Objectivists in a small room, toss in a grenade and close the door. They all die.

Put 5 Utilitarians in a small room, toss in a grenade and close the door. The one with the fastest reflexes dies.

-Drachasor

 

[Fifty]

So here's a thought experiment for the Objectivist ethic:

Put 5 Objectivists in a small room, toss in a grenade and close the door. They all die.

Put 5 Utilitarians in a small room, toss in a grenade and close the door. The one with the fastest reflexes dies.

-Drachasor

classical utilitarianism is bunk too but not even close to as bad as Objectivism

Anywho, when confronted with those scenarios Objectivists will usually pull some silly copout utilizing 20/20 hindsight and totally ignoring what serious rational choice theory would say about the situation.

 

[El_Machinae]

Wouldn't the fastest Objectivist shove the weaker/slower Objectivist onto the grenade?