Rationalizing Selfishness &#0151 The Legacy of Ayn Rand

Comments

1. 

   October 17, 2007

   Guest

   I remember reading one of her books in college, and I was disgusted by it then.  I didn't realize that she was still having an impact.
2. 

   October 17, 2007

   Guest

   Oh, absolutely.  Libertarians often admire Objectivism because it refutes yet another set of bugaboos — transfer payments, subsidy, and the Nanny State.  But choosing between Statism and Objectivism is a false choice, just as the choice she cites (between murder and suicide) is a false choice.
3. 

   October 17, 2007

   Guest

   This explains a lot about the dorks who control the media.
4. 

   October 17, 2007

   Guest

   For the Godless and society as a whole, this has increasingly become the Code of ethics for social conduct. Sounds like a fair “trade” but it is a snake waiting for the opportunity to devour:

   But without altruism and self-sacrifice, how do people relate to one another? Ayn Rand says through exchanges that promote mutual advantage, what she called a "trade." In other words, as if each of the parties were businesses, not people.

   What about those who have little to “trade”? What about the unborn, the physically handicapped, the feeble and elderly? What is their exchange that “promotes mutual advantage”. With less to offer, with less to give for the “trade”, they become lessened in the social eyes of worth or value and ultimately become a target for prejudice. The danger in Ayn’s self serving kind of premise is obvious. We have to look beyond what is only good for us in the “mutual advantage”, or we all become snakes in the grass.
5. 

   October 17, 2007

   Guest

   The reality is the Republicans have always been trying to please both the objectivists and the christians. So much so that many get the two confused. They feel that preventing people from getting unearned or undeserved results is a Christian virtue. It isn't. That is what we call grace. It is a good thing. Many conservative thinkers eat from both trees and don't really keep track of where things came from.
6. 

   October 17, 2007

   Guest

   JPII's personalism flies in the face of Rand's objectivism.  Read up on your JPII and you'll be able to counter any of these fools pretty easily.

   I'm always quite unimpressed with those that fall of the philosophy of Rand.  I was intrigued by her books in high school.  I read at least 4 of them to be able to do a report on her.  By the end of it, even I, as a high school kid, was able to recognize how selfish and self-serving her philosophy was – and how morally ugly it was.

   So if college, wall street, and older are falling for her writings – it must only be because they want to.  Because they need someone to validate their selfish ways.
7. 

   October 17, 2007

   Guest

   the heresy of 'objectivism' is probably the worst of modern lies.

   the heresy of libralism fallows directly afterwards. 

    the republicans love objectivism because it favor wealth and the existing power structure and the democrates favor libralism because it favors big government and communsitic solcialism.

    

   both or objectivly evil.  I really wish there was a third party alternative.  As is I have to vote for the power hungery who want to let corporate america slow cook the poor and marginalized or the power hungery who want to kill the poor and middle class outright through genicide and thought control.  What a choice.

    I always vote against genecide though because the other is at least a slow poision.

    
8. 

   October 17, 2007

   Guest

   Fishman,

   the third way is laissez-faire.  Rand's error was mistaking the cause of the evil of transfer payments.  Taking from the politically unpopular and giving to the politically powerful is evil, but Rand mistook the excuse given for doing so as the actual motivation.  Charity may be cited as the reason for doing so, but the actual reason is to reward voters and contributors.

   Laissez-faire removes much of the motivation for rewarding voters and contributors this way, by recognizing that the government has no legitimate reason to take from one group and give to another.  Libertarians do not regard private charity as mala in se the way Objectivists do, but as far as I know, most Objectivists are not interested in coercing others into their uncharitable worldview.
9. 

   October 17, 2007

   Guest

   I've never run across the concept of laissez-faire except in passing

   This explination of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire

   of it would seem to idicate that is has a great number of problems the first of which is a complete misestimation of human nature nearly in the order of mangintude of communism.

    

   laissez-faire seems to make the assumption that people who gain power will not dishonestly maintian it to the detriment of the entire society where as communism made the assumption that it was not nessary for people to have the ability to better themselves for an economy to function. 

   communism completly ignores the dignity of the human person and the value of just reward.  Laissez-faire seems to assume that whatever reward someone is reaping to be just or that justice is objectively unimportant and not the business of the state as far as economics is concerned.

    

    

    
10. 

    October 17, 2007

    Guest

    Fishman,

      Yeah, I agree that it's too bad there isn't a viable third party alternative in the USA.  I wonder how Jesus would vote if he had been born as an American Citizen.  I know it's an absurd question for many reasons, but really….I just can't believe that he would or could compromise Truth (himself)  by voting for the lesser of two evils represented by a candidate of one of the parties.  I'm not trying to advocate that we don't bother voting by the way, but just trying to answer the question about what to do?  It's an interesting thought that perhaps some of the Republican policies are pro-abortion in the sense that they contribute to the causes for abortion which as the Church has clearly stated goes hand in hand with moral culpability for abortion.  Jesus didn't really seem all that interested in politics though, so maybe there is a lesson in that for all of us.
11. 

    October 17, 2007

    Guest

    There is a third party, His name is Jesus Christ and we can vote for Him every day of our lives. We can know He is behind the scenes in ways we can not begin to imagine and trust Him no matter what choices (good or bad) the elected make for us.

    As for the election, we are voting for a man (and his supporters) within a political party, an obviously faulty individual (so is the nature of all persons) who may be even more faulty than we imagined once he is in office. Still we must vote and vote for the best man who (as far as we can determine) will do the Will of God.

    This is the fix we are in, better than most systems, better than no choice at all… not perfect but that is the struggle, that is our work.
12. 

    October 17, 2007

    Guest

    I don't think that the respondents were honest in their response that the Bible is the most influential book in their life. On the other hand Rand's followers like Greenspan have no reason to lie so their response is to be believed. That would put Rand's book and philosophy at the top for all practical purposes. The society reflects that. We are all in pursuit of our own happiness. We stay in our comfort zone. When the power goes out all hell breaks loose. It's all shallow virtue out there, regardless of who's in power.

    However there's never been more contrast between the two parties than there is currently. Those for whom the distinction is blurred are looking for a candidate to rise from the dead. 
13. 

    October 17, 2007

    Guest

    Years ago I heard that Caspar Weinberger, the Secretary of Defense under Ronald Reagan and George Bush (41) was a protege of Ayn Rand.

    I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged when I was about 19 or 20 and predictably got a lot of justification for rationalizing my selfish behavior from them.

    Sad to see she's still such an influence.
14. 

    October 19, 2007

    Guest

    this is the culture war.. for man it is already lost… for God already won.

    The end of the nation and the world will come ( most likely ) long after then end of my own life, but they will come as all things must end.

    So I trust it all over to God.
15. 

    October 22, 2007

    Guest

    Oh, geez. Ayn Rand. In high school I was something of a trouble-maker, and I had a wonderful English teacher who decided to take me under his wing as a form of discipline. Rather than receiving a detention (for what I can no longer remember), he and I had the agreement that we would read The Fountainhead and meet once weekly to discuss the book before school. Needless to say, as devout Christians we were both appalled to encounter such a mindset–and such an influential mindset at that!

    It became quite obvious that the "hero" of the story was the emotionless capitalist, bent on screwing everyone else over for his own benefit, while the weaker anti-hero was the one who was slave to his emotions. Yessir, if nothing else, Ayn Rand taught me that I can't be truly happy unless I learn to unlearn compassion and all those things that Christ stood for.

    How do people actually BUY INTO this philosophy? Does it quiet the conscience, those little pricks of guilt they may feel? Or as objectivists, have they shed the very memory of empathy?
16. 

    October 24, 2007

    Guest

    J.M.J.

    Who is John Galt?

       Interesting comments, but I do feel the need to add some thoughts from the other side of the coin.  What everyone seems to be doing here, including our separated brother Charles Colson, is a primary misdefinition.  They are thinking of "benevolence" when they say "altruism."  Benevolence is behavour from your heart, while altruism is practiced at the point of a gun [i.e. the taxing powers of government].

    "The word 'altruism' was coined in the early nineteenth century by the French philosopher Auguste Comte (who also invented the word sociology).   For Comte, altruism is not simple benevolence or charity, but rather the moral and political obligation of the individual to sacrifice his own interests for the sake of a greater social good. It should be noted that Ayn Rand did not oppose helping others in need, provided such actions are voluntary. What she opposed was the use of coercion–that is, the initiation of physical force–in social relationships. The doctrine of altruism, in Rand's view, is evil partially because it serves to justify coercion, especially governmental coercion, in order to benefit some people at the expense of others." (George Smith, Ayn Rand on Altruism, Egoism and Rights)

         I full well believe in practicing benevolence, and do in both an organised form [through the Knights of Columbus, the Disabled American Veterans, and various other organisations] and individually; I have a SIGNIFICANT problem with being forced to do so at the point of a gun.  This has become a increasingly problematic issue as the difference between Left and Right seems to keep fading into a fog, and our rights as men granted by Almighty GOD seem to be forgotten or imagined as privileges granted by a paternalistic government. In the words of Barry Goldwater:  "A government big enough to give you everything you want is big enough to take everything you have."

          Instead of the constant self-congratulation over knocking down the straw man, actually read it.  Adie, you asked how people could actually buy into this philosophy; I guess the question is how could you NOT?  You might want to check your premises; our difference is that I believe that it is my right and duty, taken upon myself freely to help others, but the government does not have a right to command that from me.  Nothing in any of Rand's books said word one about unlearning compassion; they did say that people did not have a right to DEMAND it from you; it had to come from your own choice.  As rarely as I find myself defending an atheist against believers, I must find myself doing so simply for the right of things.  I do not defend her behavour; however, the comments I read here were not arguments against her actual ideas, but attacks against the straw man her ideas were reduced to in an excess of reductio ad absurdam.  The biggest thing here is primarily freedom; our government does not have the right to give charity [as is actually illustrated in our Constitution; you will find NOWHERE is the leviathan called the Welfare State actually authorised; this was a creation by Franklin D. Roosevelt {the biggest consolidator since the Great Consolidator, Abraham Lincoln}].  Benevolence and charity are to come from individuals and groups, but not from the Federal Government.  If State or Local governments wish to give to those in need, they are closer to the actual need and can tailor it MUCH better than the Federal gov't can.