What is Digg?332 Comments
- SaladCactusKing, on 07/12/2008, -6/+70I'm pretty ***** glad this was not a centerfold
- btschul, on 07/12/2008, -5/+30This is one of the most interesting things I have read on digg for a long time. I keep trying to read Atlas Shrugged, but I get about 30 pages in, and get distracted, and then forget about it.
- inobla, on 07/12/2008, -1/+24I'm John Galt, Bitch!
- rocker935, on 07/12/2008, -1/+23Ayn Rand was a famous philosopher who advocated for capitalism and hated any type of socialism or communism. And as to why you should care, because in a debate/discussion about economics, her name is sure to come up. And no matter what side you take it would be beneficial to have an understanding of her and her philosophies.
- inactive, on 07/12/2008, -3/+25I'm not a big objectivist fan, but she influenced two great modern works of Art ,Bioshock and The Incredibles.
- shdwfthsun, on 07/12/2008, -2/+22I'm digging this up for intelligent conversation, not because I agree with Rand's views.
- aladrin, on 07/12/2008, -7/+27I'm amazed. SO many people have no clue. Even if Atlas Shrugged didn't clue you in (and it should have, as it's said a billion times), objectivism is about being rational and thinking, instead of blindly reacting to emotion.
How the hell can you say that's wrong? Our brain is the 1 thing that separates us from mere animals. - Roguecop, on 07/12/2008, -2/+21I recommend following Atlas Shrugged with Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas. Two opposing ideologists one of pure reason, the other of abject unreason. The common factor.... fierce individuality. I like the order/chaos dichotomy between the two.
- halcyonic, on 07/12/2008, -25/+43There is a certain irony in Ayn Rand's philosophy in that she held "reason", which she defined roughly as "an objective view of reality," as the ultimate goal of life, and yet psychological studies prove time and again that people, when viewed objectively and scientifically, are fundamentally irrational. Animal training, conditioning with rewards and punishments, is a far more accurate model and effective guide to molding human behavior than any of her nonsense.
Rather than providing a guide for improvement, Rand's philosophy has served mostly as (ironically) a rationalization for discrimination ("if they're poor it's their own fault", "black people are incapable of the same kind of civilized reason that white people are", "women can't be trusted with anything important because they're too emotional", etc.), and consequently a blinder to the inadequacies of capitalism and free markets that arise from humanity's basically impulse-driven nature. - Kakaze, on 07/12/2008, -2/+18An unregulated economic system can work but businesses should not be allowed to interfere in government and government should have an extremely limited hand in business.
It's because of businesses influencing government that we have copyright laws stretching to infinity and ridiculous things like trademarks on common words and such insidious things as the DMCA.
Businesses should stay businesses and not play politicians at the same time and the only time the government should ever step in is when something is seriously wrong.
Otherwise the customers should be the regulating force in the system. - Darren07, on 07/11/2008, -9/+21Great... now Hollywood will ruin her greatest work (Atlas Shrugged)...
- BetterOffEd, on 07/12/2008, -1/+13I realize that this is gonna go completely against popular cliché, but if you actually read these old articles, you'll find there's PLENTY of great writing gems in Playboy... With human interst/profile stories (Ayn Rand, Miles Davis, etc.), pop culture, and possibly the *best* short fiction from Vonnegut, Palahniuk, etc.
- inactive, on 07/12/2008, -5/+16Digitalhair,
I didn't know what the word "proselytizing" meant until I saw it on "That Guy" quiz just a few submissions ago. And because the world revolves around me, I am calling you out, sir.
You are now, That Guy. - inactive, on 07/12/2008, -4/+14"The world doesn't work in absolutes"
*IS THAT AN ABSOLUTE?* - desertDenizen, on 07/12/2008, -0/+10Your argument could equally apply to 90% of digg comments. Like this: Nobody asked you what you think of AlorsMerde's comment about black and white.
See the problem? - Ymeg, on 07/12/2008, -4/+13A is A.
- Intangible360, on 07/12/2008, -1/+9Well argued sir.
- chopsky, on 07/12/2008, -2/+10That makes absolutely no sense.
Any scientific method is merely the effect of man's use of reason and logic (the cause). - sweetholymosiah, on 07/12/2008, -2/+10"PLAYBOY: What is the dividing line, by your definition, between a mixed economy and a dictatorship?
RAND: A dictatorship has four characteristics: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private property, and censorship. Above all, this last. So long as men can speak and write freely, so long as there is no censorship, they still have a chance to reform their society or to put it on a better road. When censorship is imposed, that is the sign that men should go on strike intellectually, by which I mean, should not cooperate with the social system in any way whatever. "
My favourite point of this interview, is that she does not define herself against something that she disagrees with. She is not an anti-communist, anti-socialist, or whatever.. and most importantly, she suggests that our American economy is not capitalist, it is a mixture of control. Capitalism is an idea that has yet to be fully realized. - captZEEbo, on 07/12/2008, -17/+25I don't really understand that logic. What is your justification that American corporations are exploiting workers? Also, why don't you think an economic system can work with no regulation? There is virtually no regulation on the internet yet and it seems to be working great. Furthermore, all the regulation government passes or tries to pass seems to hinder the internet. A perfect example of how deregulation works great. Companies can self-regulate well when there is adequate competition. The problem with brick and mortar businesses is the LACK of competition b/c of govt granted monopolies and too MUCH regulation. Regulation almost universally hurts the small businessman that tries to compete with big business. The cost to abide by regulation is too great for small business and big business then becomes a monopoly. Let the consumers choose which regulations they want to pay for instead of forcing every consumer to abide by the same regulation (which is not always good for the consumer).
- pensivewombat, on 07/12/2008, -8/+16She's a pretty terrible writer, but that doesn't mean her philosophy is any good either. Although there are some nuanced differences, It suffers from the same fundamental flaws as libertarianism (I know the Ron Paul crowd will go crazy over that, but it's true).
First off "Objectivism holds that, since reason is man's basic tool of survival, rationality is his highest virtue. To use his mind, to perceive reality and to act accordingly, is man's moral imperative." This is ovjectively false since billions of species with no reasoning whatsoever are perfectly capable of surviving. I supposed that Hungry > Eat is a form of reasoning on a basic level but it is perceived instinctually and not through reasoning.
"PLAYBOY: Weren't Hitler and Stalin, to name two tyrants, in control of their own lives, and didn't they have a clear purpose?
RAND: Certainly not. Observe that both of them ended as literal psychotics. They were men who lacked self-esteem and, therefore, hated all of existence. Their psychology, in effect, is summarized in Atlas Shrugged by the character of James Taggart. The man who has no purpose, but has to act, acts to destroy others. That is not the same thing as a productive or creative purpose. "
This is only true because Rand is deciding what purpose counts as "productive or creative" a luxury that her supposedly consistant philosophy does not afford. If "man exists for his own sake, that the pursuit of his own happiness is his highest moral purpose, that he must not sacrifice himself to others, nor sacrifice others to himself" then there is no way to question what causes happiness. Hitler and Stalin went insane because they lost. (Obviously most people would hold that they were always insane, but Rand's philosophy wouldn't allow that statement until they act without their own intrest in mind i.e. refusing to surrender in the face of overwhelming odds) On the other hand, if Playboy had brought up someone like Pol Pot Rand would have been forced to concede that he did rather well for himself.
When it comes to the practical application of Objectivism to a sociopolitical system you run into even more hilariously ironic situations. As wealth becomes more and more unbalanced there will be masses who are unfed and, acting in their own self interest (this of course assumes a democracy, but so far history has shown that demoracies work out better in the long run, so an objectivist society would likely be democratic), vote for a system of radical wealth redistribution.
I could go on, but I'm tired. - inactive, on 07/11/2008, -1/+9but it will increase book sales no matter what. Also keep in mind that they have been trying to make Atlas a movie for many many years, but there have been setbacks
- pensivewombat, on 07/12/2008, -0/+8that said, as wrong as this is it is still a nice discussion piece and better than most of the stuff on digg recently, therefore: dugg.
- Rainmaker90, on 07/12/2008, -1/+8"nothing is a matter of right and wrong." That's 2 of them! Hypocrisy ftw.
- Ulisses, on 07/12/2008, -18/+25Atlas Shrugged is about the worst book I ever read.
Which I didn't actually, it's the first book I ever laid down to never pick up again.
And I feel an afinity towards objectivism. What a terrible writer this woman is. - Spudster, on 07/12/2008, -1/+8I think she's presenting a false dichotomy there.
- Spudster, on 07/12/2008, -4/+11Ayn Rand was a bit of a neocon from what I hear. Even Ron Paul lamented her pro war stance.
- Kakaze, on 07/12/2008, -1/+8Unlike tigers and skunks humans don't have any natural defences other than their minds. So reason is our basic tool of survival.
We make our defences out of the materials around us using logic and reason to determine the best design for the intended result. A tiger, meanwhile, has his teeth and claws and just goes all out with them when he's in danger. No thought involved other than "danger" or "hungry". - pensivewombat, on 07/12/2008, -2/+9In fairness, both of those are pretty harsh critiques of objectivism. (maybe not the Incredbles as much as Bioshock, but it can certainly be read that way.)
- chopsky, on 07/12/2008, -2/+9Too true.
- tharkang, on 07/12/2008, -1/+8Who is John Galt? ;-)
- adam2112, on 07/12/2008, -2/+9I'm digging this because Neil Peart would want me to.
- desertDenizen, on 07/12/2008, -1/+7Try the unabridged book on tape, available at many libraries. It's about 36 hours long, but the version I listened to was performed by an excellent reader, and made a solo cross-country roadtrip fly by.
- inactive, on 07/11/2008, -14/+20thanks for digging this
- Spudster, on 07/12/2008, -5/+11Colbert really rips Rand a new one here:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vA-15pE5soA - PrometheusBorn, on 07/12/2008, -2/+8I thought this was an interesting passage in context of today's political landscape and trend:
"RAND: A dictatorship has four characteristics: one-party rule, executions without trial for political offenses, expropriation or nationalization of private property, and censorship. Above all, this last. So long as men can speak and write freely, so long as there is no censorship, they still have a chance to reform their society or to put it on a better road. When censorship is imposed, that is the sign that men should go on strike intellectually, by which I mean, should not cooperate with the social system in any way whatever.
PLAYBOY: Short of such a strike, what do you believe ought to be done to bring about the societal changes you deem desirable?
RAND: It is ideas that determine social trends, that create or destroy social systems. Therefore, the right ideas, the right philosophy, should be advocated and spread. The disasters of the modern world, including the destruction of capitalism, were caused by the altruist-collectivist philosophy. It is altruism that men should reject."
Where are we? How far have we come? One thinks of a dictatorship typically as the ones of old with Hitler, Stalin, Khrushchev... but are we so far off today? It's not necessarily a government with only one person at the head.
1. One party rule: Are the democrats and republicans that different? Do we really have a choice? No matter which way you vote, your screwed. Just by different "degrees".
2. Executions without trial: Fortunately, I think we're safe from this. But convictions without trials? How far off are we from that? Once we cross that line.... how many more generations do we have?
3. Nationalization of Private Property: If you make 100k a year, how much of this goes to taxes through income? How much of what you take home is retaxed when you purchase something else? Almost half your money is gone... gone to a country whose leaders still overspend this.
4. Censorship: Ahh.. I think we see evidence that the government tries. Look at the MSM, it's essentially a propaganda tool controlled by - who I'm not really sure. But this is a very interesting thing worthy of much discussion: The arrival of the internet has changed the landscape on this front. We, diggers, redditers, whoever, cannot be easily censored. Sure, the government can take control of the internet at some point in time, but before we get there we can have a powerful influence... someday.
It's the one thing that gives me hope that this country isn't doomed, that perhaps our fathers who died for a country of true liberty didn't die in vain for this to happen to us. - pensivewombat, on 07/12/2008, -4/+10I don't know why, but I just remembered this quote from The West Wing (it's from memory so i'm paraphrasing): "There are occasionally times when we see and absolute right and an absolute wrong, but those days almost always end with body counts. Aside from catastrophe there are very few un-nuanced moments in American politics."
Let's say you have something like a minor change in tax law. It will (almost) invariably help some and hurt others to a certain extent. Is it wrong to hurt a few to help the masses? You could say that since more people benefit this is good. You could say that you are giving disincentives to be wealthy. You could also say that there are plenty of incentives to be wealthy but those who are struggling require a baseline amount of capital to effectively enter the market. I don't pretend to know the answer but I know none of those responses are absolutely correct.
In conclusion, ***** Ayn Rand. - tdkyo, on 07/12/2008, -0/+6Yeah just like the Categorical Imperative. Oh wait, Rand hated Kant.
- Overcyn, on 07/12/2008, -1/+7i think the key to reading her books is to skim over the boring parts. Shes really long winded. I loved the fountainhead and i skipped a few chapters here and there.
- inactive, on 07/12/2008, -3/+9That makes no sense. You said: "making money does you no good when people murder you". How the hell does that relate to capitalism or Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
In a proper government, according to Ayn Rand, criminals are punished for initiating physical force and people are free to create wealth. - garths, on 07/12/2008, -7/+12This was a very interesting read. Whether or not you agree with her she is obviously very sharp, and dealt well with some of the interviewer's trickier questions.
On the other hand, Atlas Shrugged was a gigantic pain in the ass. It had some interesting ideas, but was crammed into a gigantic tome of poorly written garbage, filled with ridiculously unbelievable caricatures of "good" and "evil". - rocker935, on 07/12/2008, -24/+29If my last comment wasn't enough, then here is more. In the interview she proclaims that she believed in absolutes
-------------------------
PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged you wrote, "There are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil." Isn't this a rather black-and-white set of values?
RAND: It most certainly is. I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world. Let us define this. What is meant by the expression "black and white"? It means good and evil. Before you can identify anything as gray, as middle of the road, you have to know what is black and what is white, because gray is merely a mixture of the two. And when you have established that one alternative is good and the other is evil, there is no justification for the choice of a mixture. There is no justification ever for choosing any part of what you know to be evil.
PLAYBOY: Then you believe in absolutes?
RAND: I do.
-------------------------
The world doesn't work in absolutes, nothing is a matter of right and wrong. Someone who analyzes the world through right and wrong is someone who sees the world like a computer, 1s and 0s. But the world isn't a computer. - inactive, on 07/12/2008, -0/+4racist much?
- Ymeg, on 07/12/2008, -3/+8Peikoff (heir to rand) disagrees her view on relations in regards to man/woman.
Her view on relationships are her opinions, and these are not necessarily reflected in her philosophy. - Hangly, on 07/12/2008, -7/+12I never really bought the idea that strong people seek only their own development and narrow self-interest. That sounds like a weak person to me.
Rather I agree with Gandhi (and Jesus, lol) that strong people are by nature loving and selfless. - weremanatee, on 07/12/2008, -0/+5More like Plato vs. Aristotle. It boils down to primacy of consciousness (Plato) vs. primacy of existence (Aristotle).
- sphigel, on 07/12/2008, -1/+6Yeah, life was miserable. That's why people flocked to this country. Your argument is complete *****. You could look at anyones life anywhere in the world at that time and by our standards today you would call their life miserable. I would argue though that the life of an American during the late 19th and early 20th century was far better than most in the world.
- hiPpymIck, on 07/12/2008, -0/+5Spanish proverb (i think)
there are three sides to any argument
your side
the other guys side
and..
the truth
(include humor for best result) - inactive, on 07/12/2008, -6/+11Try again. It took me a long time and lots of effort. I swear it will pay off. As an aside, people often say the book changes their lives.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 335 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is