If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   President of Ayn Rand Institute says Ayn Rand's philosophy is unelectable. Bonus: rips Ron Paul for not being Randian enough. Difficulty: auto-play video in link   (finance.yahoo.com) divider line 190
    More: Obvious  
•       •       •

1142 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Jun 2011 at 11:22 AM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



190 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2011-06-27 11:02:42 AM
RAND PAUL!
 
2011-06-27 11:25:24 AM
Not even Ron Paul (R-Ky.), who named his son (now a U.S. Senator) Rand, gets high marks from Brook. "I don't think Ron Paul comes at it from a Randian, truly individualistic perspective," he says. "You can see that on some of the social issues," like gay marriage and medical marijuana, "where he'll default to...'states can decide' rather than taking an individual rights perspective."

Because Ron Paul is not a libertarian he is a confederate who likes to pretend he is a libertarian.

He also believes states should be able to create official religions and pass religious laws.
 
2011-06-27 11:26:03 AM
Are they just trolling us now?
 
2011-06-27 11:26:30 AM
Ah, Randroids. Like Bolsheviks, only with dollar sign instead of a hammer and sickle.
 
2011-06-27 11:28:00 AM
They can't be serious. What red-blooded American Christian Conservative wouldn't want to vote for a philosophy that formed the basis for modern Satanism?
 
2011-06-27 11:28:04 AM
Ayn Rand thread!

l-userpic.livejournal.com
 
2011-06-27 11:28:07 AM
Ayn Rand provides a "moral and ethical defense of capitalism"

It does? really? saying "I am more powerful than you, so I take what I want" is not moral or ethical.
 
2011-06-27 11:30:00 AM
For decades there has been this unholy alliance between the Religious Republicans and the Corporate Republicans. Their cherished ideologies are completely incompatible with each other, but without the alliance where each partner overlooks the peccadilloes of each other they would not be able to elect many candidates. Much less a majority outside specific regions.

Unfortunately it has taken a lot longer for that alliance to fracture than I thought it would. The capacity for American delusion is much bigger than I thought it would be.
 
2011-06-27 11:31:33 AM
static.guim.co.uk

Do I make you feel Randian?

/yeah, baby, yeah!
 
2011-06-27 11:32:37 AM
Second, Ayn Rand was an atheist and her philosophy of rational self-interest runs afoul of the Judea-Christian values of charity and taking care of others.

Nah. The dollar worshipper wing has the holy roller wing all hyped up about the dreaded homosexual agenda.
 
2011-06-27 11:33:22 AM

Corvus: It does? really? saying "I am more powerful than you, so I take what I want" is not moral or ethical.


The argument is more that if a right isn't absolute and unfettered, it's not "really" a right. Therefore, all taxation is an infringement to the right to property.

It's a defense, but not one with particularly sound foundations. (She's also prone to neglecting information costs.)
 
2011-06-27 11:34:59 AM

Tax Boy: Do I make you feel Randian?

/yeah, baby, yeah!


mooreslore.corante.com

I came.
 
2011-06-27 11:35:05 AM

Mad_Radhu: They can't be serious. What red-blooded American Christian Conservative wouldn't want to vote for a philosophy that formed the basis for modern Satanism?


Actually there are differences:

Church of Satan: Believes small children should not be hurt
Ayn Rand: Believes small children can be hurt if it means corporate profits!!! No one should tell businesses they can't have child labor with no safety laws.

The Church of Satan is actually more moral than objectivism.
 
2011-06-27 11:36:03 AM
I'm also pretty sure that Ayn Rand wouldn't reject the theory of evolution. Nor would should speak in favor of intelligent design being taught as science in the class room.

Though technically, she wouldn't be in favor of class rooms at all.
 
2011-06-27 11:36:18 AM

Corvus: Not even Ron Paul (R-Ky.), who named his son (now a U.S. Senator) Rand, gets high marks from Brook. "I don't think Ron Paul comes at it from a Randian, truly individualistic perspective," he says. "You can see that on some of the social issues," like gay marriage and medical marijuana, "where he'll default to...'states can decide' rather than taking an individual rights perspective."

Because Ron Paul is not a libertarian he is a confederate who likes to pretend he is a libertarian.

He also believes states should be able to create official religions and pass religious laws.


I see we're done here.

Seriously, how hard is it to figure out Paul is this neo-confederate semi-dominionist, not some libertarian champion of freedom and liberty.
 
2011-06-27 11:37:34 AM

Corvus: Ayn Rand provides a "moral and ethical defense of capitalism"

It does? really? saying "I am more powerful than you, so I take what I want" is not moral or ethical.


It's an Official Philosophical Framework, so it does provide an ism to ennoble your swinish behavior. Your morals and ethics don't have to be good, just internally consistent.
 
2011-06-27 11:38:19 AM
I love when my father-in-law claims to be libertarian, while being against flag burning, abortion, drugs, gay marriage, and the right of the press to print whatever they want.

Libertarian is the new christian. A lot of people claim to be it, but don't really quite grasp what it means.
 
2011-06-27 11:39:58 AM

abb3w: Corvus: It does? really? saying "I am more powerful than you, so I take what I want" is not moral or ethical.

The argument is more that if a right isn't absolute and unfettered, it's not "really" a right. Therefore, all taxation is an infringement to the right to property.

It's a defense, but not one with particularly sound foundations. (She's also prone to neglecting information costs.)


That's not a moral or ethical justification at all.

I don't know if the understand what those words mean.

"unfettered rights" would be completely immoral and unethical because

A) Nothing would stop people infringing on others people liberties (being immoral)
B) They would allow for unfair competition practices not based on actual competition (Unethical)


For example the ability to own a slave was an "unfettered right" which took the rights away from others.
 
2011-06-27 11:39:58 AM
President of Ayn Rand Institute says Ayn Rand's philosophy is unelectable unintelligible

There. Fixed that for you, Mr. Bootstrap.

First, Rand was a true laissez faire capitalist who believed in "no government regulation, controls or intervention," Brook says. "Nobody in their Republican party right f*cking mind has that true vision of a separation of economics from state, just like we separate church from state."

These people are very sick and need help. It's perfectly ok to work on a theory academically, it's another to want to harm people by implementing it in society.
 
2011-06-27 11:41:35 AM
Objectivism takes a few good ideas about personal freedom and capitalism and transforms them into derp. No, donating to charity is not the same as communism, you twat.
 
2011-06-27 11:42:12 AM

AntiNerd: Unfortunately it has taken a lot longer for that alliance to fracture than I thought it would. The capacity for American delusion is much bigger than I thought it would be.


You're neglecting the effect of the prosperity gospel, and the fraction of religious thought that considers worldly wealth a sign of God's blessing.
 
2011-06-27 11:42:47 AM

Corvus: abb3w: Corvus: It does? really? saying "I am more powerful than you, so I take what I want" is not moral or ethical.

The argument is more that if a right isn't absolute and unfettered, it's not "really" a right. Therefore, all taxation is an infringement to the right to property.

It's a defense, but not one with particularly sound foundations. (She's also prone to neglecting information costs.)

That's not a moral or ethical justification at all.

I don't know if the understand what those words mean.

"unfettered rights" would be completely immoral and unethical because

A) Nothing would stop people infringing on others people liberties (being immoral)
B) They would allow for unfair competition practices not based on actual competition (Unethical)


For example the ability to own a slave was an "unfettered right" which took the rights away from others.


... with literal fetters.
 
2011-06-27 11:44:08 AM
Why does the Ayn Rand Institute have a website?

Do they not know that they are relying upon public infrastructure to transfer their freedom packets? Shouldn't they be on an intranet?
 
2011-06-27 11:45:45 AM
Randroids:
i64.photobucket.com
 
2011-06-27 11:48:35 AM
www.savetheshack.com

Here is a seldom seen photo of the Ayn Rand Institute.
 
2011-06-27 11:49:06 AM

AntiNerd: For decades there has been this unholy alliance between the Religious Republicans and the Corporate Republicans. Their cherished ideologies are completely incompatible with each other, but without the alliance where each partner overlooks the peccadilloes of each other they would not be able to elect many candidates. Much less a majority outside specific regions.

Unfortunately it has taken a lot longer for that alliance to fracture than I thought it would. The capacity for American delusion is much bigger than I thought it would be.


Unfortunately the corporate Republicans have found out how to win over the Religious republicans: Prosperity Doctrine - the richer you are the more God likes you and if you are poor it is because you are a bad person.
 
2011-06-27 11:49:18 AM

Epoch_Zero: Why does the Ayn Rand Institute have a website?

Do they not know that they are relying upon public infrastructure to transfer their freedom packets? Shouldn't they be on an intranet?


Better yet, they use it to ask for donations. (new window)
 
2011-06-27 11:49:38 AM
Ah, Objectivism. The political equivalent of sociopathy.
 
2011-06-27 11:50:04 AM

schrodinger: I'm also pretty sure that Ayn Rand wouldn't reject the theory of evolution. Nor would should speak in favor of intelligent design being taught as science in the class room.

Though technically, she wouldn't be in favor of class rooms at all.


wow
 
2011-06-27 11:53:07 AM

abb3w: AntiNerd: Unfortunately it has taken a lot longer for that alliance to fracture than I thought it would. The capacity for American delusion is much bigger than I thought it would be.

You're neglecting the effect of the prosperity gospel, and the fraction of religious thought that considers worldly wealth a sign of God's blessing.


Like this?
 
2011-06-27 11:57:50 AM
Doesn't the existence of an Ayn Rand institute go against the very principles Ayn Rand herself stood for?

I guess not, actualy. Her philosophy was more along the lines of "don't conform to someone else's ideas unless that someone is me".

OK. I stand corrected.
 
2011-06-27 11:59:07 AM

skullkrusher: schrodinger: I'm also pretty sure that Ayn Rand wouldn't reject the theory of evolution. Nor would should speak in favor of intelligent design being taught as science in the class room.

Though technically, she wouldn't be in favor of class rooms at all.

wow


That was a little overboard. She'd be in favor of private school.
 
2011-06-27 11:59:43 AM

regindyn: skullkrusher: schrodinger: I'm also pretty sure that Ayn Rand wouldn't reject the theory of evolution. Nor would should speak in favor of intelligent design being taught as science in the class room.

Though technically, she wouldn't be in favor of class rooms at all.

wow

That was a little overboard. She'd be in favor of private school.


heh ding ding
 
2011-06-27 12:02:08 PM
Who is William Edward Hickman?
 
2011-06-27 12:04:45 PM
Well, yeah. Rand, much like Keynes or Marx, cannot be put into practice without a nearly superhuman degree of discipline. Even dictatorships and monarchies only very rarely achieve that degree of rigid adherence to principle -the last to do so probably predate these economic theories entirely- and those are forms of government where you only have to get one person on board. For any kind of oligarchy, republic, junta, or other form of government where you need more than one person to implement policy, it becomes basically impossible. When democracy enters the picture the situation gets even worse, because then you have to get whole populations on board. Seldom has the metaphor of herding cats ever been more appropriate.

Even Keynes hasn't ever been implemented correctly. People like the hard-times side of Keynes, where social spending balloons to try and pull the economy out of its tailspin. But that's only half of the story. Keynes recognized that the debt this incurs must come due someday, and he had a solution for that: when times are better, slash social spending and use the surpluses to pay off the debt.

Most economic philosophies cannot be implemented piecemeal, and Keynes is no exception. Without this second half of Keynes, you can't sustain the first: it's the solution to the whole "spend your way out of debt" problem. But one need only look at the current situation in Greece to see the problems with implementing that. When times are bad and the country can barely even afford to borrow money, the people still riot rather than give up what they've come to depend on. When times are good and those things might actually be affordable, trying to cut them would be met even less favorably, possibly sparking outright rebellion.
 
2011-06-27 12:08:49 PM
 
2011-06-27 12:10:30 PM

meat0918: Seriously, how hard is it to figure out Paul is this neo-confederate semi-dominionist, not some libertarian champion of freedom and liberty.


The funny thing is when the conversations get like this:

"Both parties are bad! You can't trust any candidate with a D or an R after his name! Vote Ron Paul!"

"Ron Paul has an R after his name."

"Yeah, but that doesn't count, stupid!"

"Why?

"Derp."
 
2011-06-27 12:13:36 PM
NewportBarGuy:
It's perfectly ok to work on a theory academically, it's another to want to harm people by implementing it in society.

Alan Greenspan and the last 40 or so years of US economic policy would like a word with you.

If you listen hard enough, you can hear the bastard laughing at us.
 
2011-06-27 12:15:48 PM
Millenium - Keynes! Keynes, keynes, keynes keynes keynes

Unlike Rand, Yaron Brooks, Ron Paul, Rand Paul - well, pretty much everyone in this article - I'm pretty sure Keynes wasn't an objectivist. Nor was he mentioned in this article.

In fact, I'm almost certain that this article had absolutely nothing to do with Keynes or Keynesianism whatsoever.
 
2011-06-27 12:16:50 PM

First, Rand was a true laissez faire capitalist who believed in "no government regulation, controls or intervention,"


That is not what laissez faire capitalism means because it creates a missing markets problem.
 
2011-06-27 12:17:25 PM

Corvus: That's not a moral or ethical justification at all.


Well, it's arguing about rights, which involves making ought-assessments rather than is-assessments. So, yes, it's a moral/ethical argument. It's just you (and I) consider one or more of the starting premises to be something you'd term immoral.

And I was oversimplifying the position considerably, so you should read her actual position to get an accurate understanding. Her essay collections Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness are probably most relevant. (The other collection The Romantic Manifesto seems less relevant to the economics.) You can try finding a pirate PDF, visit your local library, or actually pay real money for them. They're less readily found in used bookstores than her fiction, but more worthwhile.

Her basic error is the one Hume notes in his "A Treatise of Human Nature": trying to derive an "ought" from "is". If you're paying attention and reading with a critical eye, it's not hard to spot the assorted errors.
 
2011-06-27 12:17:28 PM

flup: Doesn't the existence of an Ayn Rand institute go against the very principles Ayn Rand herself stood for?


Not really. The name "Objectivism" comes from an assertion that reality and all its aspects existed objectively: that is to say, they exist independently of any particular observer. This is where the whole "A is A" platitude comes from: things are what they are, and popular opinion or perception cannot, in and of themselves, change that. It makes for an interesting defense mechanism against unpopularity.

Anyway, if you're going to study things that supposedly don't depend on an observer, the best tool we have is multiple observers. To do that you need a gathering of some kind, and an institute is merely a formalization of that gathering.

I'm not an Objectivist. I do think her specific perspective on individual rights happens to be dead-on, but I think the philosophical contortions Rand had to go through to reach that point were not merely unnecessary, but frankly rather silly. Not much more so than what most other philosophers go through, but enough that her word shouldn't be taken as gospel.
 
2011-06-27 12:18:13 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: Epoch_Zero: Why does the Ayn Rand Institute have a website?

Do they not know that they are relying upon public infrastructure to transfer their freedom packets? Shouldn't they be on an intranet?

Better yet, they use it to ask for donations. (new window)


Love it.
 
2011-06-27 12:19:40 PM

Millennium: I do think her specific perspective on individual rights happens to be dead-on


Which perspetive is that? Seriously, I'm not familiar of her having a unique perspective on individual rights.
 
2011-06-27 12:23:38 PM

LockeOak: Corvus: abb3w: Corvus: It does? really? saying "I am more powerful than you, so I take what I want" is not moral or ethical.

The argument is more that if a right isn't absolute and unfettered, it's not "really" a right. Therefore, all taxation is an infringement to the right to property.

It's a defense, but not one with particularly sound foundations. (She's also prone to neglecting information costs.)

That's not a moral or ethical justification at all.

I don't know if the understand what those words mean.

"unfettered rights" would be completely immoral and unethical because

A) Nothing would stop people infringing on others people liberties (being immoral)
B) They would allow for unfair competition practices not based on actual competition (Unethical)


For example the ability to own a slave was an "unfettered right" which took the rights away from others.

... with literal fetters.


pffft. I snerked.
 
2011-06-27 12:24:23 PM

Scrotar: Millenium - Keynes! Keynes, keynes, keynes keynes keynes

Unlike Rand, Yaron Brooks, Ron Paul, Rand Paul - well, pretty much everyone in this article - I'm pretty sure Keynes wasn't an objectivist. Nor was he mentioned in this article.


My point was to explain that yes, Rand's philosophy is unelectable, but so is any economic policy. This being Fark, the problems with Rand were clearly going to be covered by other posters, and Marx has already been done to death and well beyond in too many threads and other fora to count (Rand, by contrast, has merely been done to death, and thus isn't quite past the point of fanatical argument).

But that leads to the question: if her theories aren't electable, what about others? Keynes, the current title-holder for most fashionable economic theory, was going to come up in this thread whether or not I mentioned him first. We might as well get started early.
 
2011-06-27 12:26:03 PM
Heh... Unelectable? Her philosophy only makes sense if you're a pampered college student who has never had to work for a living and provide for a family or were born into wealth.

Her prose is also quite shiatty...
 
2011-06-27 12:27:01 PM

DamnYankees: Philip Francis Queeg: Epoch_Zero: Why does the Ayn Rand Institute have a website?

Do they not know that they are relying upon public infrastructure to transfer their freedom packets? Shouldn't they be on an intranet?

Better yet, they use it to ask for donations. (new window)

Love it.


FWIW, there's nothing inherently anti-Objectivist to solicit donations or to give them. The recipient(s) of those donations is what makes that determination.
 
2011-06-27 12:29:21 PM

Millennium: flup: Doesn't the existence of an Ayn Rand institute go against the very principles Ayn Rand herself stood for?

Not really. The name "Objectivism" comes from an assertion that reality and all its aspects existed objectively: that is to say, they exist independently of any particular observer. This is where the whole "A is A" platitude comes from: things are what they are, and popular opinion or perception cannot, in and of themselves, change that. It makes for an interesting defense mechanism against unpopularity.

Anyway, if you're going to study things that supposedly don't depend on an observer, the best tool we have is multiple observers. To do that you need a gathering of some kind, and an institute is merely a formalization of that gathering.

I'm not an Objectivist. I do think her specific perspective on individual rights happens to be dead-on, but I think the philosophical contortions Rand had to go through to reach that point were not merely unnecessary, but frankly rather silly. Not much more so than what most other philosophers go through, but enough that her word shouldn't be taken as gospel.


I contest. Her's are MUCH more contortion-ey.

Typically philosophers create ideas from the ether, spend chapters meticulously defining them, closing all loopholes to ENSURE internal consistency.

Ayn Rand wrote a fairy tale.

She's no more philosophical than Aesop. Which teaches us such deep concepts as "slow the fark down so you don't fark shiat up all the time." and "How to take two random animals, apply personalities to them, and use them as allegories for human weakness"

The _____ and the ______.

/btw... We should have a vote enabled thread of that, if it doesn't already exist.
 
2011-06-27 12:32:12 PM
I never understood the lefts hatred to objectivism. I have been told for some time What is wrong with Kansas, why are these people voting against their own interests, while hating on a philosophy that posits acting on your own interests.
 
Displayed 50 of 190 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report