What is your view of Libertarianism and Ayn Rand?

[Crezth]

As a matter of fact, Ayn Rand's philosophy is antithetical to the principles of democracy. She has consistently spoken about how awful she thinks it is that the poor can just vote away the wealth of the rich.

 

[amadeus]

[Rand] has consistently spoken about how awful she thinks it is that the poor can just vote away the wealth of the rich.

That is a bad thing, though. Why should mass consensus-based violence be more legitimate than individual, random violence?

 

[Crezth]

That is a bad thing, though. Why should mass consensus-based violence be more legitimate than individual, random violence?

Well, no, you're right. It's the difference between the principles of democracy and the principles of liberty. Rand lamented voting away the wealth of the richlings, but took her ideology a step further and was against democratic principles in a much stronger sense. Mainly she just didn't want any of those parasites and poors to enjoy any power over her precious richlings, even and especially if the latter broke the law.

I mean, she hated democratic governments because of their propensity for locking up people she saw as "great men."

 

[Gatsby]

Libertarianism: like most ideologies, works okay up to a certain point. Beyond that point it becomes detrimental. It would be interesting to know how libertarians define an "individual". Imo individuality is an illusion that only seems soild and real when viewed from a distance.

Ayn Rand (aka Alisa Zinov'yevna Rosenbaum): I wonder if she was a Soviet spy sent on a cultural subversion mission to the United States. From what I have read about her, she devoted her life to promoting some of the most extreme aspects of human nature and the capitalist mindset. If the Soviets wanted to plant long term seeds of destruction in the world's greatest bastion of capitalism, then they would do well to send someone who had the ability to encourage people to celebrate and exacerbate the aspects of capitalism which Marxists most despise.

 

[Terxpahseyton]

That is a bad thing, though. Why should mass consensus-based violence be more legitimate than individual, random violence?

Both can be good or bad, if you ask me.

 

[LordRahl]

Thanks for the link, I will check it out for sure, but I would also love to hear your own personal viewpoint on the matter (and amadeus if you're reading this) to get a balanced idea (thanks Ayn Rand the poster for making the effort to have discussion, it's been very educational!)

I gave up on serious discussion here years ago. You end up with a bunch of teens posting links to semi-related memes/videos, starting personal attacks, or putting words in your mouth. (Thanks to a number of posters already proving me right by the way).

Moderator Action: Please do not spam RD threads.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Ajidica]

You know, when you start out like a self righteous twit, don't be surprised when people treat you like a self righteous twit.

Moderator Action: Flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[JollyRoger]

I gave up on serious discussion here years ago. You end up with a bunch of teens posting links to semi-related memes/videos, starting personal attacks, or putting words in your mouth. (Thanks to a number of posters already proving me right by the way).

I want commend this post for the excellent demonstration of action in one's own rational self-referential interest.

 

[mangxema]

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.

Let's try this... Consider the following analogy: A mechanic is modifying a car for a race, and decides to lighten the vehicle by removing unnecessary weight. Removing the back seat is fine; removing the brakes is not. It seems to me that the 'little to no government people' you speak of are not really living in the spirit of minarchism as I understand it because they are disregarding that important limiting criterion. They've crossed the line (wherever that is) and kept chopping away.

I'm not trying to equate the two, but rather observing how inextricably linked they appear to be in modern American political discourse. I can't recall the number of conservative politicians and commentators I have seen talking about how they are inspired by Ayn Rand. The pro-individual anti-government ideas (to use more neutral terms than I would ordinarily use), on the basic 10-second soundbite level, sound identical coming from Rand and from the talking heads on TV.

Fair enough. I would just say that I don't believe those people to be particularly... sincere. I mean, with all the commotion over cap-and-trade, you'd be forgiven for forgetting that that's actually their free-market approach to the problem of pollution.

 

[JonBonham]

I gave up on serious discussion here years ago. You end up with a bunch of teens posting links to semi-related memes/videos, starting personal attacks, or putting words in your mouth. (Thanks to a number of posters already proving me right by the way).

But NOW it's Red Diamond and as OP creator I put forth that no more shall there be posted videos/memes or as per RD standards any personal attacks made. Honestly I would be thrilled to hear a serious explanation of Ayn Rand's ideas from your PoV (on top of me going out and finding out for myself etc.) And as for personal attacks, I would like to extend that to Rand or Marx or whoever comes up as I've seen in other threads the person themselves were dragged into the picture when discussing the idealogy. Let's avoid that, even if your point is, (x idealogy is flawed because author of x didn't live up to it). If you think it's flawed please show ways it is without taking in to account whether the person lived up to it or not. There's many negative things that can be said about Gandhi, MLK Jr., the Founding Fathers, etc, but I'm not interested in the persons themselves.

I hope I don't seem too nitpicky about words and such, but Rand definitely contributed by turning them on to libertarianism. I think the vast majority of people that read Rand's fiction liked the laissez-faire themes, but I don't think they continue on to read Rand's non-fiction, though maybe they've read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. It's sort of like Milton Friedman and his contribution to libertarianism; lots of people have read Free to Choose, but they didn't all go on to be monetarists.

In so far as Objectivism has played a role in libertarian politics, I just don't see the influence anywhere. The major debates within the Libertarian Party in the 1970s, for example, were typically between the radical libertarians (Murray Rothbard, later joined by antiwar.com editor Justin Raimondo and others) and the minarchists/minimal-statists. Ed Clark, the Libertarian candidate in 1980, was part of the latter and characterized libertarianism as "low-tax liberalism." The disputes continued in the 80s and Clark and David Koch (of the Koch brothers) left the party. The party had more influence from the radicals in the 80s, culminating in the 1988 nomination of Ron Paul. The 90s and 2000s were uneventful on the national level and I don't think there was as enthusiasm within the party as there was in the 70s and 80s. The party's leadership has more and more started to cater to disaffected Republicans rather than the libertarian faithful. It's sad, and I think you can see the influence on the 2012 GOP nominations race as lots of libertarians are defecting to the GOP so they can vote for Ron Paul, and regardless of Paul wins or loses, I don't think a lot of people are going to switch back to the LP.

tl;dr version: Rand who? No Objectivist caucus in the LP.

thanks for the informative reply! I had always been wondering how much Ayn Rand's ideas themselves directly were linked to or influenced Liberterianism and you've cleared that wonder up pretty much. On a different note, I'd be very much interested in hearing your own personal opinion on Objectivism itself though?

 

[Cutlass]

That is a bad thing, though. Why should mass consensus-based violence be more legitimate than individual, random violence?

You see though, if you looked at it objectively, everyone would realize that the rich are the ones made better off by the welfare state. It maximizes their wealth and purchasing power over the long run.

 

[Cutlass]

Let's try this... Consider the following analogy: A mechanic is modifying a car for a race, and decides to lighten the vehicle by removing unnecessary weight. Removing the back seat is fine; removing the brakes is not. It seems to me that the 'little to no government people' you speak of are not really living in the spirit of minarchism as I understand it because they are disregarding that important limiting criterion. They've crossed the line (wherever that is) and kept chopping away.

OK. That's fair enough. But the line isn't always as clear cut in where it should be.

 

[amadeus]

I had always been wondering how much Ayn Rand's ideas themselves directly were linked to or influenced Liberterianism and you've cleared that wonder up pretty much. On a different note, I'd be very much interested in hearing your own personal opinion on Objectivism itself though?

Objectivism is more than just supporting lassiez-faire capitalism, and beyond Rand's views on the economy and politics, I don't know that much about it. What I've read about it didn't really appeal to me and the same applies to parts of her political philosophy.

You see though, if you looked at it objectively, everyone would realize that the rich are the ones made better off by the welfare state. It maximizes their wealth and purchasing power over the long run.

You are exactly right.

 

[Leoreth]

After leaving this thread yesterday evening, I couldn't help but ponder Objectivism a little, and came up with a question.

If the prime principle of Objectivism is self-interest and by Rand's own perception of the world, only a tiny minority of all people is "gifted", isn't it only rational for the rest of society to organize in states and creating welfare systems out of their own self-interest? It appears that they are acting just as they should in the framework of Objectivism, so why is their behavior considered immoral?

 

[Traitorfish]

That is a bad thing, though. Why should mass consensus-based violence be more legitimate than individual, random violence?

You're the capitalist, you tell us.

 

[Cutlass]

Objectivism is more than just supporting lassiez-faire capitalism, and beyond Rand's views on the economy and politics, I don't know that much about it. What I've read about it didn't really appeal to me and the same applies to parts of her political philosophy.


You are exactly right.

And so all the reasons for opposing welfare just flew out the window....

 

[Ayn Rand]

After leaving this thread yesterday evening, I couldn't help but ponder Objectivism a little, and came up with a question.

If the prime principle of Objectivism is self-interest and by Rand's own perception of the world, only a tiny minority of all people is "gifted", isn't it only rational for the rest of society to organize in states and creating welfare systems out of their own self-interest? It appears that they are acting just as they should in the framework of Objectivism, so why is their behavior considered immoral?

"Gifted" people are just one advantageous product of a free society - and a very good one. Everyone benefits when first-rate minds invent and design new products, art or buildings [to name a few things] so it's in the interests of all to give as much possible freedom to the most talented members of society.

However, Objectivism is really more about rationality and freedom than it is about elevating a gifted elite. It's quite easy for people to become jealous or resentful of others who have done well, which is one of the major themes explored in Objectivism. But in reality, an Objectivist society should in principle be good for all members, as everyone benefits from better art, better buildings and so on. However, anyone who is rational and lives a good life is potentially a good Objectivist, it doesn't matter how wealthy or "elite" they are.

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

That's an odd avatar for you to adopt

 

[Crezth]

Ayn Rand, the philosophy sounds idealistic on the order of the Utopias of the 19th century. What logic is there in expecting men to act as they have never done in the history of forever?

 

[Ayn Rand]

That's an odd avatar for you to adopt

I was having a discussion about the old one with Traitorfish, and decided to abandon the undifferentiated historical mythology for something more thought-provoking

Ayn Rand, the philosophy sounds idealistic on the order of the Utopias of the 19th century. What logic is there in expecting men to act as they have never done in the history of forever?

Politically I think it is Utopian - but art and philosophy are driven by vision rather than morbid acceptance of the status quo.