Ayn Rand's objectivism and laissez-faire capitalism

sephir0th

I've started reading and studying some of Ayn Rand's philosophies recently. I will admit, at this point, I am not well-read on the subject but have read a few articles and understand the core concepts. I intend to read Atlas Shrugged, or at least give it a go

I'm wondering if anyone here has studied it and has valid criticisms of her philosophy or where it is flawed?

coffee_cake

sephir0th wrote: »

I've started reading and studying some of Ayn Rand's philosophies recently. I will admit, at this point, I am not well-read on the subject but have read a few articles and understand the core concepts. I intend to read Atlas Shrugged, or at least give it a go

I'm wondering if anyone here has studies it and has valid criticisms of her philosophy or where it is flawed?

I thought atlas shrugged was great tbh, was very glad I read it. Fairly good reflection of a lot of human nature
Not such a fan of fountainhead


... and now I'm out of here before robin has a fit

Branch Meeting

loda pish tbh

fitz0

It's a poorly written book full of 2 dimensional characters and shallow insinuations that the poor are subhuman. Rand's philosophy denied all the irrationality inherent in everyday human interaction for a romanticised view of creative genius being the pinnacle of humanity. Everyone that wasn't one of the creative and productive select were either enablers, workers or 'moochers'.

It's worth bearing in mind that for all of Rand's philosophising and opining the objective human ideal, the woman herself was anything but rational. Adam Curtis examines her as part of his series 'All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace.'

The book is worth reading for the effect the philosophy has had on the late 20th century, particularly politicians. I read it as an impressionable teen and was utterly convinced by it's arguments but on a reread the arguments and scenarios are utterly ridiculous. The characters are pretty awful people mostly and thoroughly unlikeable.

Dades

Check out the Atlas Shrugged mega-thread for reference.

Maybe this one will go better.

sephir0th

I'm finding it difficult to see how this could work with regards education. If I'm born into a really poor family, am I well... just screwed if all educational institutions are privately owned?

coffee_cake

sephir0th wrote: »

I'm finding it difficult to see how this could work with regards education. If I'm born into a really poor family, am I well... just screwed if all educational institutions are privately owned?

Not at all. In many countries, private education is cheap enough that poor families can and will save to send their children there. It's not quite the same as here! Especially if there is a lot of competition

http://www.economist.com/node/21550251

It's interesting to note that making state education free was the spark to drive up to 80% of families to send their children to fee paying schools

In India, for example, between a quarter and a third of pupils attend private schools, according to the OECD, a Paris-based think-tank (and others have private tutors). In cities the proportion is more like 85%, reckons Geeta Kingdon, who conducts research in Mumbai and elsewhere for the Institute of Education in London.

A government decision in 2007 to make primary schooling compulsory and free boosted private-school numbers.

http://www.nextbillion.net/blogpost.aspx?blogid=736


http://www.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/serials/files/policy-report/2005/9/cpr-27n5-1.pdf
n I have found private schools
in battle-scarred buildings in Somaliland
and Sierra Leone; in the shanty town of
Makoko built on stilts above the Lagos
lagoons in Nigeria; scattered among the
tin and cardboard huts of Africa’s largest
slum, Kibera, Kenya; in the teeming townships perched on the shoreline of Accra,
Ghana; in slums and villages across India;
among the “floating population” in Beijing; and in remote Himalayan villages in
China. Indeed, I have yet to find a developing country environment where private schools for the poor don’t exist.

. But
in other countries—China and Ghana, for
instance—where public schools charge low
fees or “levies,” we find that sometimes
the private schools are undercutting public schools, because the really poor can’t
afford the public option. What makes
the private schools financially attractive is
that they allow the parents to pay on a daily basis—perhaps 10 cents a day—rather
than to pay for the full term up-front as
they must for the public schools

That last article is a fascinating read, actually

Nodin

I've always thought it an attempt to intellectualise a deep love for the notion of Russian feudalism, meself.

robindch

sephir0th wrote: »

I'm wondering if anyone here has studied it and has valid criticisms of her philosophy or where it is flawed?

Rand's view is that being a self-obsessed bastard is good and she demonstrated the falsehood of that by her own troubled life.

Otherwise, well, what Jim Wright said:

http://www.stonekettle.com/2011/11/who-is-john-galt-that-was-bumper.html

magicbastarder

a friend's comment on facebook recently:

Dear right-wing America. Ayn Rand died on welfare, of obsessive smoking caused, in part, by her inability to loved or be loved by another human being. Ayn Rand had no friends. Ayn Rand is what humanity looks like when it tries to live in the airless vacuum of selfishness. A cancer-riddled, friendless, childless woman, dying alone on the charity that she spent her life decrying for others. And if that isn't an absolute picture of the word failure, then I don't know what is.

Chuck Stone

sephir0th wrote: »

If I'm born into a really poor family, am I well... just screwed if all educational institutions are privately owned?

In libertopia (they say) there would be all sorts of providers of education; churches, charities, private, home schooling, community based - just not anything by the damn gubberment. Moreover, the well manicured hidden hand of the fabled free market (FFM) would drive down the costs of getting a good education because the FFM would see to it that scarce resources reach their true price without government interference which invariably inflates the cost.

True extrication of 'the state' from education would, of course, mean that the government would have to stop rigging the game in favour of the stake-holders of society and start dismantling the state created societal structures from the 'business' end (no pun intended). No more socialised education costs providing graduates for the private sector. No more over-paid under-performing educators insulated from the FFM magnifying glass. No more iron-clad pensions. No more job security for state educators. No more socialised cost hobby degrees that tend to channel people towards a steady PbS/CvS job.

Will this happen in my lifetime in Ireland or anywhere resembling it? Lol, no.

pH

It seems to be mainly concerned with the fact that people like Bill Gates and Ingvar Kamprad aren't quite as rich as they deserve to be and that's the no 1 problem facing the world today.

Brian Shanahan

sephir0th wrote: »

I'm wondering if anyone here has studied it and has valid criticisms of her philosophy or where it is flawed?

It is not a philosophy, and Rand was bat-guano insane.

Objectivism boils down to "two fingers to you I've got mine. Oh, and that house you built with your own two hands, that's now mine. Why? Because I'm better than you."

The only thing you need to know about Ayn Rand is that she formed a large part of her "thinking" based of her admiration of a serial killer, and what she thought were his good qualities (the same ones which lead to him becoming, at the time, the most prolific murderer in the US).

coffee_cake

Is this all just going to be ad hominems?

Brian Shanahan

bluewolf wrote: »

Is this all just going to be ad hominems?

Detailing the fact that Rand was an insane worshipper of psychopathy who wouldn't even follow the tenets of her philosophy is not ad hominem, it is a valid line of attack.

Ad hominem only applies when the attack on the person has no relevance to the validity to their argument.

coffee_cake

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Ad hominem only applies when the attack on the person has no relevance to the validity to their argument.

As indeed it doesn't here - either it makes sense on its own merits or it doesn't.

robindch

bluewolf wrote: »

Is this all just going to be ad hominems?

Well, before posting, I removed my ad-homs

But more seriously, is there anything inaccurate in my view that Rand believed that being utterly selfish is right and proper?

Brian Shanahan

bluewolf wrote: »

As indeed it doesn't here - either it makes sense on its own merits or it doesn't.

And one of any philosophy's merits is that its author is not bat-guano insane and basing a large part of his/her system off the morals of a psychopathic serial killer.

Objectivism fails that part of the test hard (it also fails all the other tests, including the one about whether it can work in reality).

oldrnwisr

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Detailing the fact that Rand was an insane worshipper of psychopathy who wouldn't even follow the tenets of her philosophy is not ad hominem, it is a valid line of attack.

Ad hominem only applies when the attack on the person has no relevance to the validity to their argument.

No, neither of your claims about Rand in this post are valid arguments.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

It is not a philosophy, and Rand was bat-guano insane.

This is an example of the ad-hominem fallacy. You haven't attempted to demonstrate a flaw in objectivism, you've merely attacked the person making the claim. That's playing the man, not the ball.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

The only thing you need to know about Ayn Rand is that she formed a large part of her "thinking" based of her admiration of a serial killer, and what she thought were his good qualities (the same ones which lead to him becoming, at the time, the most prolific murderer in the US).

This is an example of Poisoning the Well. You are presenting unfavourable information for the purposes of undermining the claim being made, i.e. Objectivism.

Neither of these are valid critiques of objectivism. There are valid criticsms to be made though.

Let's look at this quote from Rand for example:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

In so much as this quote is a summary of objectivism, the highlighted section shows why it is a poor idea. We are social animals. The evolutionary path that we have taken makes us highly dependent on the concept of society in order to make individual progress. As John Donne once said: No man is an island, entire of itself.

Blowfish

oldrnwisr wrote: »

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

[/I]In so much as this quote is a summary of objectivism, the highlighted section shows why it is a poor idea. We are social animals. The evolutionary path that we have taken makes us highly dependent on the concept of society in order to make individual progress. As John Donne once said: No man is an island, entire of itself.

The two are by no means mutually exclusive though.

The pursuit of happiness for the vast majority of people includes social and societal interaction, precisely because of the mutual benefit involved.

sephir0th

oldrnwisr wrote: »

We are social animals. The evolutionary path that we have taken makes us highly dependent on the concept of society in order to make individual progress. As John Donne once said: No man is an island, entire of itself.

Rand doesn't deny that though? She has no issue with social relationships, mutual friendships, gift giving etc. Her issue as far as I can gather is with pure altruism (sacrifice of your own self-interest) being deemed as a morally good thing. This would surely coincide with gene centric evolution - as Dawkins described in The Selfish Gene.

oldrnwisr

Blowfish wrote: »

The two are by no means mutually exclusive though.

The pursuit of happiness for the vast majority of people includes social and societal interaction, precisely because of the mutual benefit involved.

Agreed, it's not necessarily mutually exclusive. It's just that the degree to which self-interest trumps all other considerations under Rand's view which is troubling.

sephir0th wrote: »

Rand doesn't deny that though? She has no issue with social relationships, mutual friendships, gift giving etc. Her issue as far as I can gather is with pure altruism (sacrifice of your own self-interest) being deemed as a morally good thing. This would surely coincide with gene centric evolution - as Dawkins described in The Selfish Gene.

Self-interest can be complicated from an evolutionary perspective since it is genetic self-interest rather than individual self-interest that is often important. So you have parents sacrificing themselves for their offspring, salmon and mantises dying through the act of reproduction, the propagation of homosexuality as a means of female fecundity etc.

Altruism is rarely pure in any context, but Rand's interpretation of pure altruism leads her to draw bad conclusions. As I said to Blowfish above though, it all depends on the degree to which self-interest is prioritised. Altruism to varying degrees has serious benefits:

The evolution of reciprocal altruism

The Origins of Virtue

Brian Shanahan

oldrnwisr wrote: »

This is an example of the ad-hominem fallacy. You haven't attempted to demonstrate a flaw in objectivism, you've merely attacked the person making the claim. That's playing the man, not the ball.

No, I think that you'll find the fact that Rand was insane very relevant to the usefulness of Objectivism as a philosophy.

Just because something is a personal attack, does not automatically make it ad hominem. To achieve that, you have to ensure the personal attack is also irrelevant to the substantive matter. And a person's sanity is completely relevant to their philosophy's utility.

This is an example of Poisoning the Well. You are presenting unfavourable information for the purposes of undermining the claim being made, i.e. Objectivism.

She made him one of the central heros in one of her novels detailing her philosophy of Objectivism. She undermined the philosophy long before I was born.

sephir0th

oldrnwisr wrote: »

Self-interest can be complicated from an evolutionary perspective since it is genetic self-interest rather than individual self-interest that is often important.

That's a good point, I wonder does Rand address this. i.e. when she speaks of self-interest does she take shared genes into account.

oldrnwisr

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

No, I think that you'll find the fact that Rand was insane very relevant to the usefulness of Objectivism as a philosophy.

Just because something is a personal attack, does not automatically make it ad hominem. To achieve that, you have to ensure the personal attack is also irrelevant to the substantive matter. And a person's sanity is completely relevant to their philosophy's utility.

OK, to deal with the second paragraph first, remember it is you who in making a counterargument has the burden of proof in this situation. It is encumbent on you to show how a personal attack is linked to the validity of the proposition being presented.

What you have said is this:

1. Ayn Rand was insane (a point you have not supported with evidence)

2. Therefore, objectivism is bollocks.

Even if we grant the first statement as true, there is no logical continuation from the premise to the conclusion. You at no point, with reference to examples of objectivist philosophy, show how the sanity of the author attaches to the integrity of the idea.

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

She made him one of the central heros in one of her novels detailing her philosophy of Objectivism. She undermined the philosophy long before I was born.

Again like the insanity quip, you have made no attempt to show how her admiration of a serial killer undermines her philosophy. What you have esseentially said is: Well this person thinks that Stalin was great so therefore their idea that grass is green must be wrong. You haven't attacked the philosophy you have attacked the person proposing it. That's a bad foundation for an argument. Let's look at this visually.




Right now, you're languishing in the orange zone. If you want to attack objectivism and show how it is misguided or flawed fine, but attacking Rand in the hope of undermining objectivism isn't going to work. Certainly not here anyway.

magicbastarder

i didn't think a debate on whether ayn rand is as crazy as a ****house rat would turn into a lesson on how to argue.

Zillah

Objectivism sounds awesome and is wonderfully appealing on many levels until you spend a few minutes thinking about how society might look if it was implemented. I'm all for rewarding the creative drivers of society, for limiting our mandatory obligations to each other, but you really need a minimum social net supported by reasonable taxes.

sephir0th

robindch wrote: »

But more seriously, is there anything inaccurate in my view that Rand believed that being utterly selfish is right and proper?

So is Rand's objectivism based on the premise that rational self-interest is at the core of our nature? She is not a biologist so is it possible that she just basically got it wrong and never took genetic self interest into account?

I'm not sure if her vision is to create a happier human race or an optimal one in terms of productive output and advancement.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mark Hamill

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I dont really see much difference in these two situations. The problem with the top down rule from government bureaucrats is when you get a bunch of self interested idiots in charge who don't quite understand that their stability is reliant on everyone else being stable enough to support their jobs and lifestyle. The problem with the spontaneous social order of freely interacting individuals is the same thing. Anyone who gets into a position of power (political, financial etc.) but forgets that such power is reliant on the rest of the population being able to support the economy that defines that power is going to cause everyone problems.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.