What is your view of Libertarianism and Ayn Rand?

[Traitorfish]

Unfortunately there is a group of left-wing trolls on this forum...

Ayn Rand is interesting as a philosopher and lies firmly in the Aristotelean tradition...

And at times veers surprisingly close to Marx because of that. Funny, eh?

I read few books in which the characters are credible and realistic. Rand's characters are no more unrealistic than most authors. After AR's literary period we went into the anti-hero (Little Big Man) phase and have been locked-in ever since. I recall a few years ago Peter Jackson made LotRs into a movie and changed Tolkein's Aragorn - a Rand type character if there ever was one - into a whiny, "I don't want to be King" wuss.

Aragon is a classical pagan hero, all obsessed with service and destiny and whatnot. That's the complete opposite of the "I am the Promethean form-giver" mentality of Rand's heroes. The fact that they both tend towards individualism and elitist doesn't really suggest any fundamental similarity.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I also find it interesting the idea that readers today are incapable of sympathizing with characters who lived before say the 1930s.
Of course, this problem, as always, only seems to crop up for Rand. No one seems to have besmirched the works of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or even say, Edgar Rice Burroughs on these grounds. Historical fiction seems to be a thriving Genre. But only in the case of Rand is it that people feel a sudden aversion to ye olde times.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

Check your premises, you might identify the contradiction - help below if you need it

I need more help. Like for instance where I criticize Ayn Rand. So please explain that contradiction to me.

I will help you along: I did criticise those who are idolising AR (giving examples why I feel little incentive of reading AS), not AR herself because of the precise reason you mentioned.

I do however spot you avoiding criticism from those who did read AR in this very thread. So, my observations were actually confirmed once again

edit: Damnit man, you consciously snipped the very reason: "It's the attitudes like these ..." from my post to be able to make your smart arse reply. If this had been a misunderstanding, fine. The sad thing is, you realise what I'm saying, but consciously do not want to address it. Thank you for illustrating my point better than I could have.

 

[ParkCungHee]

I started reading the Fountainhead once, managed to get through a whole bunch of terrible prose and drivel about how doric columns are the world's greatest evil, but when I got to the bit where her super-perfect-avatar-of-objectivism-with-no-flaws main character literally rapes someone but hey it's cool because he's so awesome you should feel privileged that he chose to rape you

Like most paid-by-the-pound Fantasy Novelists, Rand couldn't resist throwing her fetishes in there. Hers just is a bit more frightening then Ed Greenwood's thing for naked shoulders.

 

[Ayn Rand]

And at times veers surprisingly close to Marx because of that. Funny, eh?

Hmm... I am trying to think of parallels and I'd be interested to explore this point. Do you mean that both had a historical theory of material progress? I suppose both had a theory of coercion and the State at the centre of their politics. However, whereas Marx was obsessed with ownership of capital, I think Rand saw the ownership of knowledge as the driving force of "historical development". Capital, for Rand, was arguably just one technological form of the "will-to-knowledge" that is the engine of Rand's philosophy.

I do however spot you avoiding criticism from those who did read AR in this very thread. So, my observations were actually confirmed once again

I only read people giving an opinion, rather than specific criticism. Some people are posting to say they don't like Rand's ideas or books - fair play to them. Do I really need to acknowledge that or construe it as criticism? To me that seems more to be just an exchange of perspectives.

 

[Traitorfish]

Hmm... I am trying to think of parallels and I'd be interested to explore this point. Do you mean that both had a historical theory of material progress? I suppose both had a theory of coercion and the State at the centre of their politics. However, whereas Marx was obsessed with ownership of capital, I think Rand saw the ownership of knowledge as the driving force of "historical development". Capital, for Rand, was arguably just one technological form of the "will-to-knowledge" that is the engine of Rand's philosophy.

There are a few parallels, I was specifically thinking about their ethical philosophy, both of them holding not only a conception of humans as possessing an ergon which drives them towards rational activity, but specifically conceiving of that rational activity as creative; a sort of Aristotelian Homo faber. The difference is, very broadly, that Marx was concerned with this creativity as part of a social totality, while Rand approached it in largely individualist terms, so while he comes to regard capitalist society as the alienation of man from his creative nature, she regards it as their unification. (The fact that he views creation as a continuous process, while Rand views it as more of a finite event, plays into this.)

I also find it interesting the idea that readers today are incapable of sympathizing with characters who lived before say the 1930s.
Of course, this problem, as always, only seems to crop up for Rand. No one seems to have besmirched the works of Shakespeare, Tolstoy, or even say, Edgar Rice Burroughs on these grounds. Historical fiction seems to be a thriving Genre. But only in the case of Rand is it that people feel a sudden aversion to ye olde times.

I also like the idea that the reason we can't sympathise with them was because everyone from the neolithic to 1960, everyone, everywhere, thought and acted like 1930s robber barons. As opposed to maybe that being specific to, say, books about 1930s robber barons.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

I only read people giving an opinion, rather than specific criticism. Some people are posting to say they don't like Rand's ideas or books - fair play to them. Do I really need to acknowledge that or construe it as criticism? To me that seems more to be just an exchange of perspectives.

There's no need at all. All I said it's an observation.

But I'm glad we're clear on my point about lack of incentive on my part to read AS.

 

[Murky]

I myself enjoy her works a great deal. Certainly it's a matter of taste - and reasonable people may disagree.

Rand of course, emphasizes the strength and self reliance of the individual. That must seem reactionary to today's generation, brought up in a virtual welfare state. We don't trust such people today - they're usually rich and successful.

Can you name a rich and successful person that doesn't rely on others for anything? How many successfully corporations have just one employee?

 

[ParkCungHee]

I also like the idea that the reason we can't sympathise with them was because everyone from the neolithic to 1960, everyone, everywhere, thought and acted like 1930s robber barons. As opposed to maybe that being specific to, say, books about 1930s robber barons.

BRB tossing my notes for a graphic novel based on the life of Hugh O'Neil.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

Hey so should some guy who gets his legs blown off fighting for our (United States) country get unemployment benefits if he has a little trouble finding a job?

It's not an entitlement when it is part of the job description and provided by the employer.

 

[ParkCungHee]

The expectation that contracts and agreements will be backed by an outside force is in and of itself an entitlement.

 

[Crezth]

It's not an entitlement when it is part of the job description and provided by the employer.

Oh, yes it is. Why should my hard-earned tax dollars pay for some parasitic kid? Losing your legs is a matter of personal responsibility. What a chump!

 

[warpus]

New to these boards and I notice Liberterianism comes up quite often. Now I know I can read up on it from several different sources and what not, but it seems there are a good few of you here who hold some sort of viewpoint that can be classed along the lines of libertarianism, and I would like to hear your personal take on it and also your personal take on Ayn Rand and how much weight her views fit into your viewpoint on the matter. As for those with opposing viewpoints of negative views on the matter, please no ridicule, I am seriously curious and would like to hear reasonable discourse on the matter, thanks.

I don't know too much about Rand, but from what I've heard her ideas don't belong anywhere in modern society.

Same with Libertarianism - on the surface it seems like a worthy ideology - it does after all concern itself with liberty, which is a worthy goal.

The problem is that Libertarians seem to place liberty on a pedestal, and blindly worship it without the consideration of any other factor. This leads to a lot of good ideas, but also a lot of very horrible ones.

 

[Cutlass]

I'm not sure how much that 'only' really has to do with minarchism. I'm not an expert on the subject--I just think what I think and couldn't care less what box you put my in--the point of minarchism is to make the state as small as possible. I have heard that point before, and would agree with your assessment of it rolleyes, but I don't think that's quite where that statement comes from.

I'm not quite sure I understand your response to my post. So let me clarify what I was trying to say.

This concept that "just get rid of as much of the government as possible and we'll all have maximum liberty" idea that floats around is, to me, an utter sham. Because quite frankly this little to no government that people around here describe just certainly would not tolerate any liberty at all for most people. It would be virtual slavery for most people. Most people would be reduced to the conditions where they did what they are told to do every moment of their lives. And those that did not could expect extreme retribution and punishment up to and including death.

And so there is no liberty to be had in the extreme libertarian world.

 

[Traitorfish]

One of the weirder things about Rand is that, as much as she's supposed to be the ulra-capitalist extraordinaire, she's not actually very pro-capitalism. She liked to go on about how one-man tycoon operations are great, sure, but at the same time she regarded companies without a towering Duce of an owner-CEO, which is to say the overwhelming majority of companies as they actually exist in the real world, as beneath contempt. Atlas Shrugged white-hat-black-hat motif where the "good" companies are all called "Somethingson Widgets" and all the "bad" ones are called things like "Amalgamated Widgets". The preoccupation with grand Promethean Übermenschen becomes so great that loathing for "collectivism" loses socio-economic context and just becomes a generalised hatred of sharing in itself, even when that places her in direct opposition to capitalism as it has actually developed.

 

[Ayn Rand]

One of the weirder things about Rand is that, as much as she's supposed to be the ulra-capitalist extraordinaire, she's not actually very pro-capitalism. She liked to go on about how one-man tycoon operations are great, sure, but at the same time she regarded companies without a towering Duce of an owner-CEO, which is to say the overwhelming majority of companies as they actually exist in the real world, as beneath contempt. Atlas Shrugged white-hat-black-hat motif where the "good" companies are all called "Somethingson Widgets" and all the "bad" ones are called things like "Amalgamated Widgets". The preoccupation with grand Promethean Übermenschen becomes so great that loathing for "collectivism" loses socio-economic context and just becomes a generalised hatred of sharing in itself, even when that places her in direct opposition to capitalism as it has actually developed.

It's easy to take that viewpoint based on the popular analysis of Rand's main characters [Dagny Taggart, Henry Rearden etc] but in fact, it's worth pointing out

i) These characters are not actually considered ubermensch but are all peers of one another. For people of high ability, these characters are just average - what counts as gifted is really a matter of perspective.

ii) There are many, many mentions of ordinary workers, small firms etc in Rand's book. There are also many examples of free and voluntary sharing between them - often based on some kind of trader's honour system.


It was not Rand's intention to make people feel inferior when reading her book. She was really delivering her message to the maybe 1% of people who identify with the characters as roughly equal. Now, that gets a lot of people feeling inferior or aggravated but it is certainly not deliberately designed to provoke. Throughout her novel, Rand accurately describes many of the feelings, experiences and thought processes which some of her readers have been through. Others who have not been through those experiences, may struggle to identify with it.

 

[Ajidica]

Meh. My biggest problem with Rand is that she lacks any ability for historical analysis. In Atlas Shrugged she has a railroad obsession and when she talks about it in her later essays, she holds it up as an example of the power of capitalism to make a country prosper. While completely ignoring the vast amounts of government fiscal support, land deeds, land-grant universities, and Credit Mobiler.
When some of your best examples relied completely on what you are ranting against, there is a problem.

 

[ParkCungHee]

i) These characters are not actually considered ubermensch but are all peers of one another. For people of high ability, these characters are just average - what counts as gifted is really a matter of perspective.

By definition, ubermensch are equal to ubermenschen. Just because you say that someone is completely normal, doesn't mean they are. This is known as the Bullseye Rule.

 

[Traitorfish]

It's easy to take that viewpoint based on the popular analysis of Rand's main characters [Dagny Taggart, Henry Rearden etc] but in fact, it's worth pointing out

i) These characters are not actually considered ubermensch but are all peers of one another. For people of high ability, these characters are just average - what counts as gifted is really a matter of perspective.

ii) There are many, many mentions of ordinary workers, small firms etc in Rand's book. There are also many examples of free and voluntary sharing between them - often based on some kind of trader's honour system.

But even that is a voluntary, spontaneous and finite sort of cooperation, there's no structural collectivism involved. Rand wasn't, fundamentally, an advocate for private property and free markets, she was an advocate of unfettered elitism-individualism, and conceived of laissez faire capitalism as a means to that end. The idea that laissez faire capitalism may not always constitute an emancipatory system, or that it might not produce an elite that corresponds to her Promethean ideal, is never really resolved, and instead the many examples which gnaw at the roots of her socio-economic ideals are dismissed as the conspiracy of statist "looters". For all her claims to objectivity, the cart of the Idea is placed firmly before the horse of external reality.

 

[aelf]

I agree with your point in general - but as we proceed towards specifics it does become necessary to start picking up more information so that we can deal with the nuances and subtleties of a subject.

Otherwise [and I know this was not your argument] one does get to a point where we are "arguing for ignorance" and may as well ask "what is the point in reading anything at all".

So while I respect those who criticise capitalism and their right to do so, something as nuanced as Ayn Rand's epistemology, for example, and its application to her overall philosophical World-view, does require some knowledge and intellectual effort if any kind of a meaningful discussion in depth is going to occur [and I mention the epistemology as this really is central to the actual theory, as Objectivists will agree].

Hey, I'm interested in discussing Randian epistemology and what makes Objectivism, well, Objectivism. I read Atlas Shrugged a couple of years back, but I find it difficult to extract the essence of the philosophy from all the storytelling devices and the rhetoric employed in the book. Maybe you'd like to start by enumerating some of its basic ontological and epistemological tenets?

Most people are obsessed with discussing the practical aspects of Objectivism and libertarianism, but all that result are just pointless arguments about what government should and should not do and about whether it's a force for good or evil. Take this as an opportunity to 'go back to basics' and discuss the theoretical roots from which the vehement disagreements on practical issues originate. I'm sure it's going to be at least much more enlightening than the usual fare.