Originally posted by Bosse de NageNo. The capitalists trumpet Rand as a champion of their cause, but they don't really want to observe even the minimal standards for a 'free market' that she suggests. What they all want is government intervention in the market on their behalf. They want a rigged game.
I was wondering whether any wealthy individuals today ascribe their success to following Ayn Rand's principles.
Originally posted by rwingettI agree, end guvamint sponsored welfare, corporate and personal.
No. The capitalists trumpet Rand as a champion of their cause, but they don't really want to observe even the minimal standards for a 'free market' that she suggests. What they all want is government intervention in the market on their behalf. They want a rigged game.
2 edits
Originally posted by dryhumpIf it's based on a 'pie in the sky' conception of the individual, then her asking that you be 'responsible for your-Self' is just as empty as the marxist asking that you be collectively responsible on the basis of some pie in the sky dialectical materialism. You basically said that, 'it's pie in the sky, but at least it ends with a conclusion that I've already assumed.'
Yeah, its pie in the sky. At least it asks you to be responsible for yourself, though.
Finally, if you're really super-keen on all this capitalist individualism buisness, then put away your Rand and read Adam Smith (and chapter 5 of Locke's 'Second Treatise'😉 The philosophy's better, and they spare you the bad poetry.
If Ayn Rand's thought is utopian, then it is worthless. If....
Originally posted by shavixmirFour legs good, shavixmir bad.
That's a tautology and a waste of finger practice.
What you're saying is also complete rubbish.
Take for instance Roman times. All free peoples were equal, all slaves were equal, but not free.
Free people are equal in Freedom. Equal people are free in equality.
What the hell are you saying? Twisting words, me thinks.
Originally posted by bjohnson407I haven't read adam smith. I definitely would have liked atlas shrugged better if it had been about 400 pages shorter. I read Thomas More's Utopia and macswain recommended Atlas Shrugged. I'll have to try Smith, maybe he presents a more practical view of human interaction.
If it's based on a 'pie in the sky' conception of the individual, then her asking that you be 'responsible for your-Self' is just as empty as the marxist asking that you be collectively responsible on the basis of some pie in the sky dialectical materialism. You basically said that, 'it's pie in the sky, but at least it ends with a conclusion that I've a ...[text shortened]... the bad poetry.
If Ayn Rand's thought is utopian, then it is worthless. If....
Originally posted by bjohnson407There's nothing 'pie in the sky" about being responsible for ones own decisions.
If Ayn Rand's thought is utopian, then it is worthless. If....
What's the alternative? Make others responsible for your decisions?
A utopia is portrayed in Atlas Shrugged, but it is used to make a point. No one is under any utopian illusions, there will always be those that think the best way to deal with their fellow man is by waving a big stick at him.
2 edits
Originally posted by dryhumpI certainly didn't mean my comments as a dig against you. I have respect for anyone who can stomach all 1200 pages of that book. I've only read "Anthem," the "Virtue of Selfishness" and a bit of "The Fountainhead." I couldn't bring myself to take on the big one. I should. I certainly don't deny its influence.
I haven't read adam smith. I definitely would have liked atlas shrugged better if it had been about 400 pages shorter. I read Thomas More's Utopia and macswain recommended Atlas Shrugged. I'll have to try Smith, maybe he presents a more practical view of human interaction.
I would definately recommend reading selections from Smith's "Wealth of Nations" and chapter 5 of Locke's "Second Treatise."
I don't know if I would go so far as to say that its more practical. I think that Rand is basically standing on their shoulders. One might accuse Rand of not contributing much in the way of theoretical substance to their classical liberalism. Although her down right fanatical enthusiasm certainly enlivens the discussion. I have my reasons for being skeptical of classical Liberalism, so Rand doesn't really appeal to me.
In fact, she strikes me as an overly enthusiastic fanatic who makes an idol of a system of thought that claims to reject all idols. Hail Market! Hail Individual! etc.
I sincerely would like to know what's Rand got that Locke ain't got?
Originally posted by WajomaThey are under the utopian illusion that capitalists actually want a free market. Nothing could be further from the truth. And how does socialism relieve one from being responsible for one's own decisions?
There's nothing 'pie in the sky" about being responsible for ones own decisions.
What's the alternative? Make others responsible for your decisions?
A utopia is portrayed in Atlas Shrugged, but it is used to make a point. No one is under any utopian illusions, there will always be those that think the best way to deal with their fellow man is by waving a big stick at him.
Originally posted by bjohnson407I should tell you that I didn't read all 1168 pages. I skipped about thirty pages worth of a radio address very close to the end. So I read 1138 pages. I'll read the smith book and locke's stuff, too. I am pretty new to the area of political thinking so I am just trying to find out what some of the best minds have said about this stuff. If you could recommend anything else I'd be grateful.
I certainly didn't mean my comments as a dig against you. I have respect for anyone who can stomach all 1200 pages of that book. I've only read "Anthem," the "Virtue of Selfishness" and a bit of "The Fountainhead." I couldn't bring myself to take on the big one. I should. I certainly don't deny its influence.
I would definately recommend reading selec ...[text shortened]... etc.
I sincerely would like to know what's Rand got that Locke ain't got?
Originally posted by rwingettThose that do not advocate a free market are not capitalists....because.....THAT IS WHAT CAPITALISM IS.
They are under the utopian illusion that capitalists actually want a free market. Nothing could be further from the truth. And how does socialism relieve one from being responsible for one's own decisions?
Private ownership of property.
A complete separation of the state from economics just as there is a separation of state from religion.
Free trade in a free marketplace.
The absence of force from human relations – with government confined to keeping things that way.