give me an example when fully unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism existed. In which there are no taxes, and the government consists of the courts, the military, and the police. Give me an example of capitalism, the social system based on protecting individual rights fully.
I don't pretend to be an expert on her work, just an interested person. So I will take your word on that. But I take it you are separating her work from her personal opinions. Thats understandable and acceptable. But I think posters that don't care for her are reacting to the strange things she would say on occasion, and I don't think you can fault them for that too much. By todays standards, some of it is very hard to swallow. That stacked on top of a philosophy that is already counterintuitive in many ways to lots of people, makes her a tough sell.I have found her fiction not to my liking and honestly have started in more than once only to become disinterested before finishing. So I am trying to be careful to not argue outside of my personal experience. I am interested in some of the quotes I have read attributed to her regarding male and female relations. I am a man who has lived his whole life working very hard to treat women as complete equals and it is "troubling" to hear somewhat odd quotes from a person who so many people seem to want to follow... the hero worship of men, no woman should want to be president and such. I am sure she was just a product of her time to some extent but hopefully the people that are taking her philosophy to heart are not also adding her personal idiosyncrasies to the mix.Funny thing is, she didn't seem to want followers or to start a movement. I have read that she repeatedly asked people to not form groups in her name. I see this as one of the wise things about her. Yet eventually, I guess people did, in defiance of her wishes.Maybe sometime in the future I will be able to grit my teeth and power through her fiction and then I will be able to say for certain that I was not converted to a fan. : )
Quaunaut (and I guess AynRandfan) missed my point entirely. I never said Rand herself believed those statements. Therefore, facts about plot points in Rand's book are irrelevant. What I said was that her philosophy has been _used_ in such a way as to justify classism, racism, sexism, etc. (or at least viewpoints that have the same effect). Specifically, they take the basic idea that "Self-interested rationality is the ideal to which people should strive" and contort that into "If people are unhappy and unsuccessful, it is because they failed to be sufficiently self-interestedly rational." Not only does the former quite simply not imply the latter from a purely logical standpoint, but the former states a dangerous and misleading ideal regardless.Why? Lots of reasons, but most of them boil down to facts about the fundamental psychology of people as a species. People are irrational, and they always will be. They rely on unsubstantiated intuition, and they (yes, even the most "rational" of us) favor immediate over delayed gratification. Further, it's not even reasonable to talk about them being "mostly rational" since any irrationality introduced into a rational framework results in an irrational framework. Consider, for instance, a person who has the irrational goal of, say, murdering all first-born children. That person could undertake that goal in an entirely rational fashion, from beginning to end, but we would never call them rational. Then there's the issue of what actually constitutes a rational goal (the joy of eating an oreo now? the joy of eating lots of oreos later? having the most amount of money when you die?...), but this is already too long a post. :)People are governed by irrational urges that tend towards immediate gratification that they then, at best, rationalize. Since Rand's philosophy fails to model that fact, policy conclusions based on that philosophy will inevitably be themselves flawed.
This is a tough one. She has something to say. But she seems to be one of those people who like to play with words. Cutting them very thinly.Jumping at the "selfish" is something I think she wanted people to do. She was using that to get noticed. I went over to youtube and watched some of her interviews and I believe she clearly meant that a person needs to look after their own self-esteem first and then selfishly protect and love the ones that are important to them. Also, I don't think she had any love for Democrats or Republicans or any other party.And when she talks about capitalism she doesn't mean anything that we know today. In fact she would be against what we have today.I get the feeling a lot of people are missing the point of what she is saying by miles and miles. And truthfully, I think she liked, and meant for it to be that way.Very interesting. Nice digg.
Anthem is my favorite. We the Living is good as well, as is The Fountainhead. Anthem is so short, how can it be tedious? It's a great story. 2112 and Anthem FTW!
Thank you, I am 20 hours into the audio book and I want to slap each character with a brick.Every one of them is a goddamn stawman.This is not a criticism of the philosophy but the way she tries to make her points are just painful.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
As it happened, I read Atlas Shrugged before I saw the movie Fountainhead (Gregory Peck), which movie was horrible - totally lost the whole point in my opinion. But Atlas Shrugged has been my bible ever since, from about 1963.The movie Atlas Shrugged may never be completed - there was a recent Digg submission about that.
your using a handle like nickcommie may be grossly misleading people. Yes, who ARE you? Oh never mind, I looked at your profile, you go on my blocked list for airhead.
I continue to be totally astounded by all those who reject reason and thereby refute their own minds. I go way back, Atlas Shrugged became my bible in 1963, and I actually bought and read that 1964 Playboy!
aynrandfanJul 13, 2008
give me an example when fully unregulated, laissez-faire capitalism existed. In which there are no taxes, and the government consists of the courts, the military, and the police. Give me an example of capitalism, the social system based on protecting individual rights fully.
opaquemurdockJul 13, 2008
I don't pretend to be an expert on her work, just an interested person. So I will take your word on that. But I take it you are separating her work from her personal opinions. Thats understandable and acceptable. But I think posters that don't care for her are reacting to the strange things she would say on occasion, and I don't think you can fault them for that too much. By todays standards, some of it is very hard to swallow. That stacked on top of a philosophy that is already counterintuitive in many ways to lots of people, makes her a tough sell.I have found her fiction not to my liking and honestly have started in more than once only to become disinterested before finishing. So I am trying to be careful to not argue outside of my personal experience. I am interested in some of the quotes I have read attributed to her regarding male and female relations. I am a man who has lived his whole life working very hard to treat women as complete equals and it is "troubling" to hear somewhat odd quotes from a person who so many people seem to want to follow... the hero worship of men, no woman should want to be president and such. I am sure she was just a product of her time to some extent but hopefully the people that are taking her philosophy to heart are not also adding her personal idiosyncrasies to the mix.Funny thing is, she didn't seem to want followers or to start a movement. I have read that she repeatedly asked people to not form groups in her name. I see this as one of the wise things about her. Yet eventually, I guess people did, in defiance of her wishes.Maybe sometime in the future I will be able to grit my teeth and power through her fiction and then I will be able to say for certain that I was not converted to a fan. : )
halcyonicJul 13, 2008
Quaunaut (and I guess AynRandfan) missed my point entirely. I never said Rand herself believed those statements. Therefore, facts about plot points in Rand's book are irrelevant. What I said was that her philosophy has been _used_ in such a way as to justify classism, racism, sexism, etc. (or at least viewpoints that have the same effect). Specifically, they take the basic idea that "Self-interested rationality is the ideal to which people should strive" and contort that into "If people are unhappy and unsuccessful, it is because they failed to be sufficiently self-interestedly rational." Not only does the former quite simply not imply the latter from a purely logical standpoint, but the former states a dangerous and misleading ideal regardless.Why? Lots of reasons, but most of them boil down to facts about the fundamental psychology of people as a species. People are irrational, and they always will be. They rely on unsubstantiated intuition, and they (yes, even the most "rational" of us) favor immediate over delayed gratification. Further, it's not even reasonable to talk about them being "mostly rational" since any irrationality introduced into a rational framework results in an irrational framework. Consider, for instance, a person who has the irrational goal of, say, murdering all first-born children. That person could undertake that goal in an entirely rational fashion, from beginning to end, but we would never call them rational. Then there's the issue of what actually constitutes a rational goal (the joy of eating an oreo now? the joy of eating lots of oreos later? having the most amount of money when you die?...), but this is already too long a post. :)People are governed by irrational urges that tend towards immediate gratification that they then, at best, rationalize. Since Rand's philosophy fails to model that fact, policy conclusions based on that philosophy will inevitably be themselves flawed.
herbertwestJul 14, 2008
This is a tough one. She has something to say. But she seems to be one of those people who like to play with words. Cutting them very thinly.Jumping at the "selfish" is something I think she wanted people to do. She was using that to get noticed. I went over to youtube and watched some of her interviews and I believe she clearly meant that a person needs to look after their own self-esteem first and then selfishly protect and love the ones that are important to them. Also, I don't think she had any love for Democrats or Republicans or any other party.And when she talks about capitalism she doesn't mean anything that we know today. In fact she would be against what we have today.I get the feeling a lot of people are missing the point of what she is saying by miles and miles. And truthfully, I think she liked, and meant for it to be that way.Very interesting. Nice digg.
nickcommieJul 14, 2008
I think you're confusing capitalism (an economic system) with democracy.
aynrandfanJul 14, 2008
who is you?
ouzomeJul 24, 2008
Anthem is my favorite. We the Living is good as well, as is The Fountainhead. Anthem is so short, how can it be tedious? It's a great story. 2112 and Anthem FTW!
ouzomeJul 24, 2008
cha ching! Too bad beguiledfoil is spouting off without actually reading the article. whoopsies!
seigaSep 4, 2008
@bloodrave.How the f**k were you dugg down?@digitalhair:What??
changaSep 29, 2008
Thank you, I am 20 hours into the audio book and I want to slap each character with a brick.Every one of them is a goddamn stawman.This is not a criticism of the philosophy but the way she tries to make her points are just painful.Comment is buried, click here to see the rest.
striker101Nov 16, 2008
As it happened, I read Atlas Shrugged before I saw the movie Fountainhead (Gregory Peck), which movie was horrible - totally lost the whole point in my opinion. But Atlas Shrugged has been my bible ever since, from about 1963.The movie Atlas Shrugged may never be completed - there was a recent Digg submission about that.
jazzbeauxAug 27, 2011
Gregory PecK? I'm wondering what the hell you really saw...it wasn't the Fountainhead....
striker101Nov 16, 2008
Right, ARF, it's possible to skip too much. I did "some" skimming the first time thru, but read every word the second time.
striker101Nov 16, 2008
your using a handle like nickcommie may be grossly misleading people. Yes, who ARE you? Oh never mind, I looked at your profile, you go on my blocked list for airhead.
striker101Nov 16, 2008
I continue to be totally astounded by all those who reject reason and thereby refute their own minds. I go way back, Atlas Shrugged became my bible in 1963, and I actually bought and read that 1964 Playboy!
aynrandfanNov 17, 2008
I hear Heinlen was an anarchist, therefore, the opposite ideas
hobobobMay 14, 2009
Bioshock reference. Amazing.