What did I just read? Ayn Rand's Philosophy.

[Traitorfish]

There has never been and will likely never be a successful model of objectivism except in fantasy. There are adherents but they are a subculture that is dwindling instead of growing. The most popular among them is Ron Paul, but he has no real chance of being President.

Ron Paul isn't an Objectivist. Rand Paul has expressed Randian sympathies, but given the fact that he's quite explicitly Christian, he can't be considered a thorough adherent.

 

[Murky]

Ron Paul isn't an Objectivist. Rand Paul has expressed Randian sympathies, but given the fact that he's quite explicitly Christian, he can't be considered a thorough adherent.

I'd say he's a lightweight adherent of libertarian style Objectivism. He's not a strict fundamentalist Randian by any means because he couldn't get elected to anything then.

About the only part of the philosophy that I partly agree on is being self-sufficient as possible. I don't like the idea of being dependent on the government for basic survival but it's nice to know some help is there regardless of my race, skin color, religious beliefs, etc.

You just have to realize that as a member of a community you have some responsibility for the well-being of others and they do for you also. Human beings like helping each other. I mean simple things like helping your neighbor move some furniture or raking leaves for an elderly person. Stuff like that doesn't cost anything and helps other people.

 

[Traitorfish]

I'd say he's a lightweight adherent of libertarian style Objectivism. He's not a strict fundamentalist Randian by any means because he couldn't get elected to anything then.

I don't see how he's an Objectivist at all. The metaphysics, anthropology and ethics are all self-evidently incompatible with Christianity, so all you have is a limited proximity of politics.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

uses these as examples as to why America is the greatest country in the world.

I love how that does not seem to require further explanations. I am tempted to assume to have never met an American who earnestly argues that way and isn't somewhat shall we say limited in intellectual exercise.

 

[Neonanocyborgasm]

Her philosophy ultimately stems from the idea that the individual should be intellectually, emotionally, and financially self sufficient.

And that is the problem, for there exists no (functioning) society where everyone is self-sufficient. It is impossible for every person to have everything he wants for himself without depending on others. That's why we have trade, cooperation, and organization precisely because it is impossible to survive otherwise, outside of a hunter-gatherer society. Neither is it possible to have a society without government, regardless of what communists or objectivists will tell you, because in any society with surplus, there has to be management of that surplus, or else it will be wasted. The absurdity that is objectivism, taken to its natural conclusion, would devolve into little more than anarchy, with everyone for themselves, each pursuing selfish motives without any regard to cooperation.

She is simply one philosopher among many in the modern world.

Unfortunately, not all philosophy is good philosophy.

 

[Leoreth]

And that is the problem, for there exists no (functioning) society where everyone is self-sufficient. It is impossible for every person to have everything he wants for himself without depending on others. That's why we have trade, cooperation, and organization precisely because it is impossible to survive otherwise, outside of a hunter-gatherer society. Neither is it possible to have a society without government, regardless of what communists or objectivists will tell you, because in any society with surplus, there has to be management of that surplus, or else it will be wasted. The absurdity that is objectivism, taken to its natural conclusion, would devolve into little more than anarchy, with everyone for themselves, each pursuing selfish motives without any regard to cooperation.

The irony is that the holy grail of Objectivism, the free market, only exists as long as there is division of labour and thus cooperation. If everyone strived for self-sufficiency, it would bring an end to all (free) markets.

 

[cegman]

The irony is that the holy grail of Objectivism, the free market, only exists as long as there is division of labour and thus cooperation. If everyone strived for self-sufficiency, it would bring an end to all (free) markets.

I don't know if Ayn wants complete Self-Sufficiency but just because someone is Emotionally spiritually and financially self-sufficient doesn't mean they are producing everything they need to live. A blacksmith (medieval reference for simplicity) can be emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient under Lutheran ideas and financially what he produces himself means he isn't relying on money from other people for himself. (His wife on the other hand) This does not mean he doesn't have to buy iron or coal from somewhere else. It also doesn't mean he is producing his own food or clothing. All it means is that he is able to do work and people are willing to pay him for that work in a way that makes him self-sufficient.

 

[Traitorfish]

That simply means that he isn't subservient to anyone, not that he isn't dependent on them. Describing it as a state of "self-sufficiency" is just ideological posturing, it's not sociologically meaningful.

 

[JollyRoger]

I don't know if Ayn wants complete Self-Sufficiency but just because someone is Emotionally spiritually and financially self-sufficient doesn't mean they are producing everything they need to live. A blacksmith (medieval reference for simplicity) can be emotionally and spiritually self-sufficient under Lutheran ideas and financially what he produces himself means he isn't relying on money from other people for himself. (His wife on the other hand) This does not mean he doesn't have to buy iron or coal from somewhere else. It also doesn't mean he is producing his own food or clothing. All it means is that he is able to do work and people are willing to pay him for that work in a way that makes him self-sufficient.

It does seem he is relying on money from other people.

 

[Icaria909]

That simply means that he isn't subservient to anyone, not that he isn't dependent on them. Describing it as a state of "self-sufficiency" is just ideological posturing, it's not sociologically meaningful.

Maybe I was wrong to use the phrase self-sufficiency, but I do believe it was the closest statement that defines what her philosophy is trying to get at.

 

[cegman]

Ok maybe I defined things wrong. when I said money I meant "money given outside financial transactions" aka charity. Financial "self-sufficient" doesn't mean that you don't make financial transactions it means you don't rely on what somebody else earns.

And really my anecdote wasn't simple enough for you to understand what I meant? Glad I didn't try to do something more complex.

 

[JollyRoger]

Ok maybe I defined things wrong. when I said money I meant "money given outside financial transactions" aka charity. Financial "self-sufficient" doesn't mean that you don't make financial transactions it means you don't rely on what somebody else earns.

And really my anecdote wasn't simple enough for you to understand what I meant? Glad I didn't try to do something more complex.

But if there is no market for what the blacksmith is doing, then how is he going to eat? If he can afford the raw materials to do his job, how is he going to eat? He is dependent on forces outside his control for sufficiency.

 

[Cutlass]

Ok maybe I defined things wrong. when I said money I meant "money given outside financial transactions" aka charity. Financial "self-sufficient" doesn't mean that you don't make financial transactions it means you don't rely on what somebody else earns.

And really my anecdote wasn't simple enough for you to understand what I meant? Glad I didn't try to do something more complex.

The issue ignored from that perspective is that there is no possibility of everyone being self sufficient through their own work in a market economy. It has never happened in the past, and it will never happen in the future. So the very foundation of it is a strawman.

 

[cegman]

But if there is no market for what the blacksmith is doing, then how is he going to eat? If he can afford the raw materials to do his job, how is he going to eat? He is dependent on forces outside his control for sufficiency.

Once again by financially self-sufficient doesn't mean completely self-sufficient I would call that and economic problem not a finance problem. You could argue that (in medieval example) he is reliant on his king for protection and if that king fails to protect him and his store burns down he's unable to work. There are many other things outside our control that can prevent us from being <i>financially</i> self-sufficient. That is why this is an ideal and a goal not what will always happen.

 

[cegman]

No on is completely self sufficient. No one has argued that they are completely self sufficient. There is a huge difference between being financially self sufficient and being completely self sufficient.

 

[Cutlass]

And yet there remains no possibility of all people being financially self sufficient in a modern economy. Which means the whole framework of the Randian philosophy remains a strawman.

 

[JollyRoger]

I have been fairly sufficient at selling straw. There is always a market.

 

[Leoreth]

No on is completely self sufficient. No one has argued that they are completely self sufficient. There is a huge difference between being financially self sufficient and being completely self sufficient.

Just outright say that Objectivists don't want to pay taxes.

It's not a philosophy if you have to bend over backwards to clad "I don't want to pay taxes" in seemingly fundamental terms.

 

[cegman]

I've never said I'm an Objectivist. I don't know if they don't want to pay taxes. I don't mind paying taxes. A government is necessary. For example the EPA was sorely needed in the 1970s when lakes were so polluted you couldn't live near them. Look at the example of the Blacksmith. The King has to protect him. Therefore the Blacksmith should pay a tax to the king for this service. The King should not give the Blacksmith money for food if the Blacksmith doesn't supply him a service.

PS JollyRoger I'm surprised you have any extra straw to sell with the number of strawmen you make a day. You'd be better off selling those strawmen.

 

[JollyRoger]

What I do with my straw supply is in my rational self interest.