GoogleDocs: "The Cult of Randianism? - part 2"

11-20-09

12:19 AM

To continue...

"But wait—Ayn, you know that letter I just got informing me that my equity line of credit is being frozen despite my perfect credit history, and despite the fact that I bought a house I could actually afford?
Yeah, fuck you for that, too."

Mm.

Now the comments.

"There have always been and there will always be, assholes. ARAs are just one type of assholes. There are asshole Christians, asshole liberals, asshole civil rights activists, asshole atheists, asshole feminists, asshole environmentalists, asshole lawyers, asshole bankers, asshole professional athletes, asshole Hollywood actors, asshole mechanics, asshole building contractors, asshole IRS auditors, asshole postal workers, asshole chefs, asshole fundamentalist preachers, and asshole journalists like Andrew Corsello. The only point -- the ONLY point -- made here is that some assholes really don't like other kinds of assholes; sometimes the enmity is intense enough that the 'other' gets blamed for all sorts of bad stuff that has very little to do with beliefs and everything to do with attitude."

Intoning that the author of this post 

is an asshole, I take?

"The ARA description rings true in my experience, but the notion that Ayn Rand's theories caused the financial meltdown is ignorant. This article would have been much more interesting had the author taken the time to look deeper into the economics of the meltdown, and learn the dynamic story of how Rand's own acolyte, Alan Greenspan, became the ultimate opponent of one of Rand's core economic principles: sound money. In so doing, Greenspan, and the other central bankers of the world who followed his lead, not once, but twice, inflated enormous financial bubbles of phony money that caused terrible pain when they exploded."

Hm. I agree with that it was a rather 

shallow investigation. I also want to 

know what the flaw in whatever 

theory Alan was talking about is.

--oh. There's a "next" at the comments

One of the comments mentioned 

someone I couldn't find, is how I saw it. 

"This article is foolish. Exactly which free market policies of Greenspan are at fault for our current dire economic situation.? None. Greenspan gave up the free market system when he became chairman of The Fed. The Federal Reserve is inherently anti-free market with its bureaucratic manipulation of interest rates and currency values. Not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which destabilized the housing market. i cannot think of two organizations which less exemplify the ideas of Ayn Rand."

Yeah, the article kind of assumes that 

Objectivism is a cult, and deals with everything 

that touches it in a likewise fashion.

"This article is pure trash. Rand resonates because of these principles: 1. An individual's life belongs to himself. 2. Physical forces is not a proper way to deal with others. 3. The proper purpose of government is to protect individuals from force or fraud. Are these the principles of "assholes" or immature undergraduates? I think not."

Ah, so you are already infected I see? :P

"Yes, Rand's writing is useless both as literature and as philosophy, although valuable as compost. But, I knew that when I was 19. I have no idea why Corsello thinks "recovering" from Rand is so difficult; I "got done" with her the moment I got done slogging through her dreadful prose, if not well before. As for blaming all our economic woes on Rand's odiferous blast radius, let's not overstate the case. The very fact that these people gulped down that load of codswallop and then kept it down was a pretty good indication of where they were headed—and with what limitations of character and intellect—anyway."

lol Quite true with that last sentence. 

How is Rand's writing useless?

"There is no denying the effect of Rand's writing on teenagers. It's characteristic of propaganda aimed at teenagers. If they only believe in these true principles, they will find their triumphant place in life leaving their worthless competitors in despair! How exhilarating! Thus the emotional hook which fosters belief resistant to criticism, logic, and reality. This sort of propaganda works on teenagers and other ignorants because they have not yet been vaccinated with enough worldly cynicism, let alone been exposed to more sensible alternatives and counter-arguments. Even if you are not ignorant, it is difficult to answer Randian "when did you stop beating your wife" assertions that you must believe or you are a looter. The perverse framing is pervasive in Rand's books. I maintain a lengthy list of criticisms of Rand, her cult and her philosophy at: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html"

Sweet! Let's take a look... after I get 

to the rest of the comments.

"Only someone gullible enough to follow Ayn Rand would say that you need to have an ideology in order to be free."

Yeah, that's the same spot where I 

kind of went, "Huh? Really?"

"I remember when GQ was a classy magazine, better than Playboy. Now it's sunk below National Enquirer, the New York Times, and the Daily Gurgler. Truth be said, I think National Lampoon has better taste and talent now than does GQ. Look at that article above, so "bravely" bylined by Andrew Corsello. It's so vulgarly puerile, so sophomoric, so malicious. It isn’t even worth quoting. Corsello has the mind of a cockroach, the epistemology of an ant, and the ethics of a whore. What’s your answer to John Galt, Mr. Corsello? To Howard Roark? To Ragnar Danneskjöld? I mean, what heroes have you to offer to replace them? Andy Warthog? John Close? Barack Obama? Reverend Wright? Or do you have any heroes? I can’t imagine you do."

Taking this in the cult view:

Why should non-Objectivism offer anything? 

It offers the truth. Well, I guess that's a 

benefit. It's a non-negative

(atheists talking about Christianity)

"Sparrowhawk [the one above] I could not have said any better myself. I find it rediculous that people blast the idea of America as a capitalistic country. It's the pathetic far left liberal media that is cramming the idea of socialism down our throats. It's absurd that GQ has to stoop to that level I am losing much of my respect for the magazine when I read garbage like this article. It is is apparent to me that Corsello is far from a gentleman, and is in fact a big part of the problem with media bias towards the left. Rand is a great author, and I have to say that Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite books. Is it not strange that our government is becoming more and more socialized and taking away private enterprise and eliminating the free market? I feel that Rand was warning of the very things that are happening in the United States today."

Yeah, it kind of looks like that, on both accounts.

"Those criticizing the tone of this article thoroughly miss the point. This was not meant to be a review of her works - spaghetti monster knows we've had enough of those. The title alone should give you some indication as to what kind of piece it's going to be. Are ARAs that humorless? Do they fail to see that the author wrote a humours and witty indictment of Ayn Rand's mirthless spawn? It's brillian commentary - and yes, it's unabashedly an opinion piece. If read as such, it really is one of the most enjoyable things I've read in a while!"

Nods.

"The asshole doth protest too much, methinks. While perhaps quite stylish in some readers' eyes, this article is simply incompetent, from subtitle to end. Let's glance at the author's prime examples illustrating his two basic complaints. First, there is Greenspan, held up for his supposed Randian role in the economic mess. Well, the simple fact is that deregulation has not been happening, by his urging or anyone's: overall there was more regulation than ever -- go check out the Federal Register -- and the financial and housing industries are among the most heavily regulated of all. So when analyzed on even that superficial level, one should begin with the suspicion that this mess is a failure of the regulatory state, not the free market. And to characterize Greenspan as some Randian champion of deregulation and free markets is ridiculous: the man assumed the role of the central controller of the heart of our economy! That would be the precise opposite of what Rand or any Objectivist would do; while in Rand's orbit, Greenspan himself argued in print that the job he would later on should not even exist. (See http://bit.ly/BHBte and http://bit.ly/GdO5p) Then there is Exhibit B: Michael Malice, the author's perfect picture of a Flaming Randian Jerk. Aside from amply illustrating the fact that being a flaming jerk is independent of whether one is an Objectivist, there is that telling word in the article's introduction of Mr. Malice: anarchist. To anybody with a clue, this shouts that he is certainly no Objectivist and did not pay much attention to what Rand said in the books he's so lovingly collected to bolster his being a flaming jerk. (See http://bit.ly/3Do0yC and http://bit.ly/2yhMpF) The examples abound, but you get the idea. Fail."

Mhm.

http://www.capmag.com/article.asp?ID=5353

"This from the Leftist "Mother Jones" publication is one of the milder expressions:

"In a historic moment, former Fed chair Alan Greenspan acknowledged he had been wrong for years to assume that government regulation was bad for markets. Whoops--there goes decades of Ayn Rand down the drain.""

So... why was he wrong? What are his reasons?

"Rightist publications are joining in the smear: Forbes magazine's online blog states:

"Greenspan, protege of Ayn Rand and the driving mind behind the notion that risk can be contained by having ever growing numbers of market players taking pieces of that risk, has now admitted that 'Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief.' [...] "The whole concept of self-regulation through self-interest is now dead,""

... o...k. And what is being looked 

at? How is this being backed?

"In response, I posted this comment on the Forbes site:

The lesson people have drawn from Greenspan's failure is exactly backwards. Greenspan, "the maestro," and his dream-team staff, couldn't figure out how to run the economy. It was the Fed's expansion of the money supply (1% interest rates!) that created the bubbles. So interventionism has failed, as it always does. Can anyone seriously say, "an even smarter version of Greenspan will get it right next time"?

The article says self-regulation is now dead. Okay, what's the alternative? Regulation by the state--i.e., by new Greenspans? Forbes, above all publications, should be clear that the alternative to self-regulation is state dictation, the command economy.

Deregulation? There were 51,000 NEW regulations added over the last 12 years. Banking, housing, and insurance are the most regulated areas of the economy. They are strangled by regulations. This is the failure of the regulatory state.

As to Greenspan, this is the penalty of betraying Ayn Rand's philosophy. To paraphrase Lloyd Bentsen's famous riposte: Dr. Greenspan, I knew Ayn Rand, and you're no Objectivist."

Mkay... what's that "1% interest rates" thing about?

"I can't say I knew Alan Greenspan, though, being an associate of Ayn Rand, I met him a few times in the 1960s. But by 1970--almost 40 years ago--I and a couple of other Objectivists in that circle already realized that Greenspan was compromising on her philosophy. Little did we know how far his anti-Rand journey would take him. As the years rolled on,

• he was hailed as the man who "saved" Social Security--by extending its confiscatory power,
• when Bill Clinton's State of the Union address called for socialized medicine, he rose to his feet, standing next to Hillary Clinton in giving a standing ovation to that proposal,
• he became head of the mammothly anti-capitalist Federal Reserve, directing the government's manipulation of money and credit,
• he provided a laudatory dust-jacket blurb for a book attacking Ayn Rand (by a woman he had "irrevocably" condemned in print in 1968). Yet he repeatedly refused to contribute to or lend his name to the Ayn Rand Institute,
• he wrote, in 1995, that government central banking is a necessity: "Only a central bank, with unlimited power to create money can guarantee that such a process ["a cascading sequence of defaults"] will be thwarted before it becomes destructive." (Note that we just witnessed this "cascading sequence of defaults"despite --or, actually, caused by --our central bank.),
• he wrote in his autobiography about coming to reject Objectivism: "as contradictions inherent in my new notions began to emerge . . . the fervor receded",
  
• and now he has blamed free markets (as if we had them!) for his failures at the Fed. In conceding that his "ideology" was wrong, he was understood to be saying Ayn Rand was wrong--even though he had long ago forgotten or evaded every essential of what Ayn Rand stood for.

"

Oh.

"How much did he forget? Consider this interview with him from a year ago:

Fox Interviewer: "Now you were a great admirer, in fact an acolyte, of Ayn Rand, the great philosopher, who believed in the absolute most limited role that the government could play in people's lives. She probably wouldn't have been a fan of the Federal Reserve Board, would she?

Greenspan: "Well, uh, I don't know, because we never discussed that in particular."

He doesn't know that Ayn Rand opposed the Fed?! Every Objectivist knows it."

Yeah.

"From "Common Fallacies About Capitalism," in that book:

"All government intervention in the economy is based on the belief that economic laws need not operate, that principles of cause and effect can be suspended, that everything in existence is 'flexible' and 'malleable,' except a bureaucrat's whim, which is omnipotent; reality, logic, and economics must not be allowed to get in the way. This was the implicit premise that led to the establishment in 1913 of the Federal Reserve System . . ."

Perhaps Greenspan would claim, absurdly, he never read that particular article. But look at his own article in CUI, "Gold and Economic Freedom":

"But the process of cure was misdiagnosed as the disease: if shortage of bank reserves was causing a business decline--argued economic interventionists--why not find a way of supplying increased reserves to the banks so they never need be short! If banks can continue to loan money indefinitely--it was claimed--there need never be any slumps in business. And so the Federal Reserve System was organized in 1913."

So his statement that "he never discussed that in particular" with Ayn Rand is either evidence of how much his evasions have automatized or is an outright lie."

Hm. So what was the flaw that he saw 

in Objectivism?

"For a breath of fresh air, look at this analysis of the financial crisis:

"The excess credit which the Fed pumped into the economy spilled over into the housing market--triggering a fantastic speculative boom. Belatedly, Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve tried to sop up the excess reserves and finally succeeded in braking the boom. But it was too late: by mid-2008 the speculative imbalances had become so overwhelming that the attempt precipitated a sharp retrenching and a consequent demoralizing of business confidence. As a result, the American economy collapsed."

Pretty good summary, isn't it? Only it was written not about today but about 1929--by Alan Greenspan. I simply changed the dates, made it the housing market instead of the stock market, and inserted Greenspan's name. For the original, See his "Gold and Economic Freedom," in CUI, p. 101."

Ooo.

"Back to the Fox interview of a year ago:

"But I think she [Ayn Rand] recognized that there are lots of institutions which we would be better without, but nonetheless probably require them if indeed society as a whole decides to do that. Remember, we live in a democratic society and that compromise is the very essence of a democratic society. Because if we're all individuals with different ideas and we want to live together we have to do that.""

I see... Why not just not live together, eh? 

Why democracy? Why the compromise?

"This--about the world's most famous opponent of compromise? The woman who wrote:

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube." "

That's what came to my mind too.

"The essence of Greenspan's testimony is: "a wrong ideology was to blame, not me." What ideology? Well, in the popular mind it is Ayn Rand's. "

And his reaction is predicted by her philosophy.

"So the meaning, which certainly has been seized on by the commentators, is: Greenspan belatedly realized how foolish he has been to believe in Ayn Rand's philosophy. The ideology of freedom, as taught by Ayn Rand to Greenspan, is what caused the current financial catastrophe.

What makes this especially revolting, is that the real destroyer of the economy is Greenspan, through his inflation-generating last years at the Fed."

Mm.

"Not everyone is fooled by Greenspan. Note this interview on CNBC's "Power Lunch" today with two former Federal Reserve Governors: Wayne Angell and Robert Heller.

CNBC reporter: Congress lately has been play the blame game, gentlemen. They had the hearings in the House Oversight Committee. Former Chairman Greenspan testified there. It got a little testy between him and Chairman Henry Waxman. Let's remember what they were saying to each other last week. Listen to this:

[Video: of hearings:]

Waxman: Your view of the world, your ideology was not right. It was not working.

Greenspan: Precisely. No, that's precisely the reason I was shocked, because I've going for 40 years or more, with very considerable evidence that it was working exceptionally well.

CNBC reporter: A pretty contrite Alan Greenspan there. Wayne Angell, do you blame him for the crisis we are in right now?

Angell: Yes, but not for what he says he now has repentance on. His ideology was correct. Markets do work--as long as the Federal Reserve doesn't do any harm. But his Fed, policywise, did a great deal of harm, creating an unsustainable housing bubble, and the crash of that bubble was soon to follow. And that was what was wrong, not letting markets work.

CNBC: In other words, keeping rates as low as he did for as long as he did?

Angell: That's it.

CNBC: Robert Heller, do you think so? Did he keep money too cheap for too long?

Heller: That's right. And after that, the Fed then took rates very high, kept them high again. And that really pricked the bubble."

Oh. So the flaw was Alan Greenspan. 

Dammit - that isn't very helpful.

"Let's return for one final look at Greenspan's statement: "Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder's equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief." 

What this means is: "I am shocked that lending institutions actually fell for the trap I set for them when I inflated the money supply." And, of course, the whole purpose of his inflating the money supply was to get them to behave just the way they did--to increase loans. So he is in shocked disbelief that faking the supply of credit actually had financial consequences.

Once again he is saying, "I didn't fail; it was you people out there who failed; you believed in the reality of the faked credit I created--where was your self-interest in doing that?" "

Ohhhhhhh, he was being Dagne to 

a non-existent John Galt?

"It turns out that if you wrap bankers from head to toe in regulations, then spin them rapidly around for awhile, they then stagger around and walk into walls. Who'd have thought it? It is on this basis that Alan Greenspan finds a flaw in his ideology.

If Greenspan had set out deliberately to destroy freedom, he couldn't have done a more thorough job of destruction."

Oh.

That's the end of the article. "Alan Greenspan vs. Ayn Rand and Freedom

by Harry Binswanger  (November 7, 2008)"

http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=21857

link basically says the same thing the above one does.

Now to Exhibit B of that comment: Michael Malice.

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_FAQ#obj_q3

"Anarchism is the most irrational, anti-intellectual notion ever spun by the concrete-bound, context-dropping, whim-worshiping fringe of the collectivist movement, where it properly belongs."

I'm still not sure what she's referring to 

when she's talking about "anarchism".

"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological groups or movements, in order to “do something.” By “ideological” (in this context), I mean groups or movements proclaiming some vaguely generalized, undefined (and, usually, contradictory) political goals. (E.g., the Conservative Party, which subordinates reason to faith, and substitutes theocracy for capitalism; or the “libertarian” hippies, who subordinate reason to whims, and substitute anarchism for capitalism.) To join such groups means to reverse the philosophical hierarchy and to sell out fundamental principles for the sake of some superficial political action which is bound to fail. It means that you help the defeat of your ideas and the victory of your enemies."

Hear hear.

But what does this have to do with Malice?

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

That one again? So, as I take from the context 

of Michael's assholeness, this is in reference to 

"Above all, do not join the wrong ideological 

groups or movements, in order to "do something.""

"Oh, writer of little brain, how you reveal your fear of what this giant in philosophical thinking does to your comfortable little world! And so you attempt to misrepresent her and her ideas. This article should be an embarrassment to GQ; you haven't a crumb of understanding of her ideas or who the proponents of Objectivism are. Too bad for you that the truth hurts so much. Stick to non-intellectual subjects; this one is way over your head."

Quite a few comments had similar content. 

About either a third or half, so far, look to have 

been of agreement. 

"All well and good but it's a long way from "teenagers suck and Ayn Rand isn't much of a writer" to "we could have avoided the financial crisis if only we'd had more vote buying, graft and nonsensical rules for the benefit of big campaign donors.""

Nods.

"Bravo, and let the howling begin! As a previous poster stated, the comments speak for themselves. It seems there are two things you can count on when a Democrat is elected president: a resurgence of Ayn Rand horse shit, and increased attacks on abortion clinics. As far as Rand-recovery is concerned, I will add that taking a "Basic Logic: Fundamentals and Fallacies" course may help (night school, anyone?) When the great "Go Galt" strike...er...ideological/financial exodus happens, I'm often told (rather dramatically, of course) that I will eat my words. Believe me, if we can find a gulf big enough to hold the self-inflated egos, I'll render the map and pay for gas (indeed a weak and altruistic act for the betterment of everyone BUT me). Fuck Ayn Rand? No. Fuck John Galt."

Hm.

"Excellent article. To be fair to Rand, it was probably her early experience under totalitarian Communism that drove her quite insane. Greenspan, however, has no such excuse. I recall his pathetic mea culpa (my entire worldview was idiotic, duh!) but I do not believe his sincerity any more than I would a scorpion's. I also appreciate the confirmation to bypass "Atlas Shrugged". In "We the Living [Dead]" and "The Fountainhead" I discovered nothing but isolationist dystopian nightmares---extremely tedious descriptions of a loveless, lonely hell in the preachy tone of wounded, angry ideologue. And now what perfect confirmation you have here in comments here from those humorless, cold-blooded AR assholes themselves. Their Kool-Aid is indeed a potent brew and they aptly make your case for you. It is a hideous, dark world these Darwinian predators inhabit. Ultimately, they are only capable of understanding 'might makes right', and it's high time to cull the pack."

Intriguing comment.

"Great article. I found many of Corsello's criticisms of Rand followers to be true. Rand was a brilliant lady who's ideas ring true to a lot of people. I never had a problem with her prose, but I'm not a stickler for style. I've always had a problem with her inflexibility towards the suffering of others. This rigidity is echoed in many of her followers. When coupled with a sense of superiority, it's downright irritating. There have been a number of anti-Rand articles in the news lately. New York Magazine recently published a review of the new Rand biography that touches on many long standing critiques. A year ago Newsweek published an article proclaiming Rand the biggest asshole philosopher of all time. If you were a true Rand follower, would you really care about these articles? Shouldn't you be basking in the collapse of the shell of a society we've been living in ready to move to the mountains of Colorado to start your own society with all the other assholes. Rand's notoriously thin skin seems to have been transferred to many of the comments on this page. Don't you see. It's you people that Corsello was writing about. The rest of us just read a couple of her books and thought, "Hey there's a smart lady with some interesting ideas." Also, the rape fantasy thing that she has in a lot of her books is very unsettling."

Huh. Another intriguing comment.

"While the old New Atheists like Ayn Rand, as well as the new New Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens, are certainly vulnerable for their style—“assholes” comes pretty close to the mark--this should not obscure the fact that their greatest vulnerability lies in the content of their writings. Eric Hoffer, who spent his lifetime studying mass movements, very aptly observed: “Add a few drops of venom to a half truth and you have an absolute truth.” According to Hoffer, the ideologies that underlie mass movements (and the movement Rand spawned certainly meets all the criteria) must by necessity be based on notions that cannot be readily proved or disproved. And what more fertile ground for half-truths than the infinitely complex and little understood realm of human behavior that Rand made her stock and trade? The possibilities herein are almost as boundless as with other-worldly entities like heaven and hell. But many advances have been made in the study of human behavior over the past decades. The extremely naïve, simplistic and dogmatic theories of social behavior upon which Arendt and her acolytes base their ideologies have not weathered the test of time well. David Sloan Wilson, Peter Turchin and Jonathan Haidt have been in the forefront in compiling recent scientific research and findings that counter the New Atheist doctrines, putting them in a format understandable to the general public and then disseminating them to the public. Here’s just one article from Wilson, “Survival of the selfless” published in “New Scientist,” that gives a hint of their endeavors: http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources/publications_resources/New%20Scientist.pdf Turchin gives an excellent example of how a social model with just slightly more complexity than that used by Rand can lead to completely different conclusions. The highly simplistic, Manichean universe created by Rand is inhabited by groups that come in two discrete types: producers and parasites. Furthermore, her “moral” solution is that the producers should embrace the “virtues” of greed and selfishness. Now compare Rand’s universe to this one posited by Turchin, almost as simplistic as that imagined by Rand, but with three discrete types: prosocial (altruists), free-riders (selfish and greedy) and moralists: “Unconditional cooperators (altruists) are vulnerable to exploitation by self-regarding free riders. Moralistic punishers (or moralists, for short), unlike altruists, attempt to ensure that others also contribute by punishing free riders. If, despite their efforts, the majority fails to contribute to the common pot, moralists stop contributing themselves (thus, they are conditional cooperators). A moralist, thus, is a second-order cooperator because it creates public good (ensuring that all cooperate) while bearing some fitness costs (because punishment is costly).” “Mathematical models and experiments with real people show that when public good games are played by mixtures of altruistic, selfish, and moralistic strategies the outcome tends to one of two extremes. Either the moralists succeed in forcing free riders to contribute to the common pot, or moralists fail to do so, and then nobody contributes (except for unconditional altruists, if any are present). In other words, either the group achieves a cooperative equilibrium, or succumbs to the ‘tragedy of the commons.’ “ http://cliodynamics.info/PDF/WarComplx.pdf The purpose in citing this example is not to imply that Turchin’s model, when applied to highly complex modern societies, is valid. The purpose is to illustrate that Rand’s model, which she embraces as if it were the one true faith, is only one of many possibilities."

http://evolution.binghamton.edu/dswilson/resources/publications_resources/New%20Scientist.pdf

Fascinating! And I agree - Rand may be 

too Aspergerish in her psychologic 

(excluding the possibility of alternatives)

evaluations.

http://cliodynamics.info/PDF/WarComplx.pdf

Read about 1/7th of the way through... I'll read some 

more tomorrow maybe.

"Corsello's first three sentences tell us a good deal about how much he knows about Ayn Rand and the world we live in. To start, he claims Ayn Rand was mirthless. Well, she was serious-minded, but she wrote some very funny short stories and was sometimes very funny when answering questions at the Ford Hall Forum Lectures she gave in Boston annually for many years. He says she hates God. Nonsense, she simply had no respect for belief in something which was not based on reason. She had no reason to believe God existed, so she could hardly hate what does not exist. As for the Great Recession, that started with a spike in oil prices which strained the mortgage and loan markets with their risky sub-prime loans and too easy money from the Federal Reserve. The sub-prime loans had long been required by Federal government policies and political pressure to deal with excessively high home prices due to local government home development restrictions. There were also the usual businessmen counting on the too big to fail and easy money bandwagon, but most of this was within the context of a mixed economy, rather than a Capitalist economy. Corsello claims, as many others have, that Rand appeals mostly to the very young and naive. It is true that many ideas outside the mainstream appeal mostly to those who are young and still searching for a philosophy and worldview. One could say the same of socialism, evangelicalism, Scientology, and Vegan beliefs, I would think. Some young people wish simply to assert their independence from their parents and rebel. Apparently, Corsello longed to view himself as misunderstood and underrated. I came to respect the work of Ayn Rand when I was 18 and I appreciated the fact that she helped me to further my understanding of many things, but I had already understood most of her message. I was not misunderstood or underrated and I knew it. I was a thinking individualist who wanted to exercise his sovereign right to choose his own values and manage my own life in accordance with those chosen values. I had already rejected the idea that others had a right to choose my values for me and micromanage my life. Ayn Rand agreed and she had thought through many of the fundamental arguments more fully than I had and she had integrated her ideas more completely. I benefited from this immensely and greatly appreciated it. Sure, she did not like facial hair and I have a beard. OK, so she may not have ever chosen to have me in her circle of close friends. That is fine. I believe in freedom of association and so did she. The big thing was that she was prepared to allow everyone to choose their own values and manage their own lives. She showed that it was the Capitalist system that allowed people the most flexibility in doing this. It allowed us to seek out those who shared a value with us or had a value to trade to us, so that we could find a harmonious way to pursue our individual paths to our happiness. The alternative was government and government was all about forcing people to live their lives according to someone else's values, which were usually constantly changing and largely self-contradictory. Each law or dictate locked in a momentary value or goal which limited the options of the individual and often threw him into a muddle. This article is very resentful of her great work. I suppose that is not surprising of someone who closes their article with the statement: Andrew Corsello is a subnormal nonentity. It is sad that you think so. Most people manage to live their lives trading values with those around them in such a way that they are normal entities or even honorable entities. Ayn Rand thought everyone had it in them to be an honorable entity, provided they did not expect the unearned and the undeserved. Perhaps you missed the many 'common' men she treated with respect in her novels and also in her personal life."

I think you misunderstood the context. That or 

you're being condescending. Corsello, I think, was 

being deliberately acidic as satire. I suspect 

he knew that Randians would be the ones 

most likely to read the post. 

Well... I might be wrong about that part.

But... look at his words about Randians - 

his last sentence is akin to the example 

that he gave in the example of Malice's 

reply to the panhandler - 

... actually no. I'm thinking of examples 

in Atlas Shrugged and Aqua-something 

Hunger Force, which is on at rather early 

(or late, depending on which way you 

define it) hours. 

Essentially, in the view of Objectivism, 

it's an appeal to pity. Unless it's just plain 

satire. Might even be a combination of 

both. 

"Mr. Corsello, (and all you randy admirers) you have missed her fascination with William Hickman! See: http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm for the gory (literally) details. If this is the sort of behavior that is defensible (much less, admirable) under a philosophy, I want no part of that philosophy!"

http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0595267335/qid=1117392726/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-5621977-4462201?v=glance&s=books

If Rand is indeed a leech via the use 

of universals and morals, she stands 

as an inrony and in the shadow of her 

novel Atlas Shrugged, but... perhaps 

only in that sense. Perhaps she should 

have been around for some of the 

YouTube Christians, who asked 

atheists what atheism has to offer :P

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/criminal_mind/psychology/child_abduction/6.html?sect=19

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/ayn-rand-the-bitch-is-back/comment-page-4/

"Malcolm Gladwell is a guy who knows how to write compellingly readable stories. The takeaway in his bookOutliers The Story of Success is quite unRandian — it is that luck plays an enormous factor in out-sized success. That is a factor the Randians prefer to ignore.

What I find so weird about Rand is that there are more than a few people I respect who gobbled up her work. These are not ARAs — but are otherwise rational folks who never quite went full tilt into ARA-hood. But they have a huge respect for her work. Me? I prefer “lessers” like Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson and John Maynard Keynes.  I prefer John Stuart Mill’s Harm Principle of Liberty over Rand’s Objectivism."

http://www.dangerousminds.net/index.php/site/comments/ayn_rand_assholes/

http://salon.com/life/feature/2009/11/10/recovering_republican/index.html

http://www.amazon.com/reader/0743471091?_encoding=UTF8&ref_=sib_dp_pop_ex&page=16#reader-link

Huh!.

"I had to check out that guys link above.

http://www.martybeckerman.com/kill-fatty-modestly-sized-proposal

LOL! Somebody's been snookered here. Not sure if it's Salon Readers or Salon editors.

So how does the author of that comport with the man who wrote?

disdaining the weak while never analyzing why they are weak; always seeing the effect but never the cause, which on a mass scale perpetuates the effect.

This is good too:

When millions upon millions of people remember you for something that you no longer represent

Thinking millions upon millions remember you is a nice fantasy for you. Unlikely. Also thinking that you no longer represent what you used to, is similarly just a fantasy. See above link. You must just like to bang liberal chicks. Once she dumps you too, you'll be back to your insufferable loudmouth ways.

You remind me of that guy who wrote I Hope They Sell Beer in Hell.Funny for the first couple anecdotes. Then just a one-joke loudmouth."

http://www.martybeckerman.com/kill-fatty-modestly-sized-proposal

Holy shit.

The comments seem to talk about stuff that 

I would have to know more about to understand, 

and, given that I got to this article due to a 

reference - 

"Discovering Lenny Bruce, Marx, Marcuse, Crowley, Burroughs and the Firesign Theatre deprogrammed my teenage ass but good and by the time I was 14 and I soon stopped caring about Ayn Rand altogether. (In my case I was young enough not to have had any shameful, reactionary moments to cringe about and regret, not like young Marty Beckerman)" - 

and that it has been substantiated... buh bye.

"By the time I was in my twenties and living in the Wall Street area of Manhattan, I’d see young, obviously Republican, stock broker types reading Atlas Shrugged on the subway and I’d feel silent contempt for them. Discovering Ayn Rand after high school is bad enough, but to discover her post-college is true pathetica. Her strident greed is good moralizing about the ‘virtues of selfishness’ (one of her best known non-fiction titles) would have an appeal to would be Gordon Gekkos, of course, but… yuck. Talk about an impoverished intellectual diet."

'Splain?

"Many people who loathe Ayn Rand tend to go on about what a cack-handed writer she was, but this is not strictly true because her books, even the 75,000 page Atlas Shrugged are real page turners. I can absolutely see why Atlas Shrugged is still one of the all time best selling books in history—I was captivated by it myself, of course. The characters are vivid. The book’s plotting—which has tons of relentless momentum despite the novel’s legendary heft—is a tour de force."

Hm.

"It’s Rand’s dialogue that seals her reputation as an author you just can’t take seriously. To be fair, she was writing in her second language, but the problem with her books is that no one actually speaks to one another, they just make speeches at each other. "

Nods.

"Hectoring, long-winded speeches. It’s fine to read stuff like that as a teenager, but when I crack open one of her books today, I shake my head in disbelief at how bombastic and horrible her writing is. It’s Dan Brown level tripe."

Nods.

"If you don’t believe me, try this one for size, the trailer for King Vidor’s screen version of The Fountainhead with a script by Rand herself. Can you imagine how difficult it was for the actors to get their lines out and try to sound convincing saying them?!?! (It’s one or the other!)"

...ok. Sure.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swOxKu80JpU&feature=player_embedded

God that trailer is cheesy. 

Are you sure that's Rand's 

fault, or just shitty acting? 

But, seeing as the script was 

written by Rand (not just the 

spoken parts?), then yeah, 

artificial and contrived.

But I agree with a comment 

on the video:

""Peter Keating, Selfish, Weak!"

LOLOLOLOLOL

Anyone acquainted with the book will laugh at this nonsense."

Are you sure that this "production" 

wasn't the result of contradicting 

styles of thought? After all, her movie 

version works are infamous hell holes. 

Whether that's the fault of Rand, or 

of the culture she was trying to put 

herself in, I'm not sure.

"What the fuck was that? Howard Roark is suppose to have red hair. Everyone in that trailer just completely shattered the original descriptions presented in the book. Isn't the idea of turning the book into a movie a little ironic too??"

Exactly.

"If you don’t believe me, try this one for size, the trailer for King Vidor’s screen version of The Fountainhead with a script by Rand herself. Can you imagine how difficult it was for the actors to get their lines out and try to sound convincing saying them?!?! (It’s one or the other!)"

So, no, I contend this one.

"Here’s a clip of Ayn Rand on Phil Donohue’s talkshow that I recall seeing at the time it originally aired. She got really peevish with both Phil and the audience at points. Check her out. Who talks like that?"

So... let me get this straight... 

she talks weird; Q.E.D., her philosophy 

is bullshit? And yes, that's a straw man.

However, I don't think it's inaccurate 

in describing the basic argument that 

you're basically making.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTmac2fs5HQ&feature=player_embedded

These are clips that I've already seen 

from researching her stuff. 

And yes, when I saw her, her talking 

looked strange and interesting to me, too. 

She reminded me, a bit, of how my grandparents 

look and talk. And, surprise! She looks to 

be about that age, too.

"*One quick thing I wanted to say about Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

 is that it is an unfairly ignored and misunderstood work on how concepts are formed, shunned by academia simply because it was written by Ayn Rand. Had it been written by Bertrand Russell, Alfred North Whitehead or Wittgenstein, it would be (rightfully) celebrated as an important philosophical treatise.I may think Ayn Rand sucks as a novelist, but I highly recommend this book."

Wow. Another reference to that book. 

I'll check it out if I can.

Hm...

http://search.swagbucks.com/?t=w&b=0&q=read%20Introduction%20to%20Objectivist%20Epistemology%20online%20torrent%20pdf

http://www.objectivismonline.net/archives/2008_01.html

"

Spot the Logical Fallacy

By Paul from NoodleFood,cross-posted by MetaBlog

Today's edition of "Spot the Logical Fallacy" comes from the medicolegal world:

1) A pregnant mother who had a prior Caesarean section now wants to deliver her next baby at home.

2) Her obstetrician warns her that it's dangerous and advises the she have the baby in a hospital.

3) The mother ignores her doctor's advice and has a home birth anyways.

4) The baby is born with "severe brain damage".

5) The doctor gets sued. According to the article, "Plaintiffs told prospective jurors earlier this week that they are seeking more than $13 million in damages."

Question: Can you spot the logical fallacy in the plaintiff's case? More importantly, will the jury?

Answer: The doctor's defense lawyer correctly states, "[T]he physician should not be held accountable 'for choices she didn't make, and for choices she counseled against.'"

Extra credit question: Would this sort of thing increase or decrease medical costs?

Thank you all for playing!

Posted by Meta Blog at 7:54 AM | TrackBack"

The moral behind this story being that 

blaming others for your faults leads 

to higher costs overall.

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=17935

"I am reading Bernstein's "Objectivism in One Lesson" and I have a question on the basis of Ethics.

If I am understanding correctly, contrary to Kant and his deontologism, objectivist's ethics links values with facts and ethics with the life of a man qua man.
If something promotes man's life qua man, it is good. Not because it follows a rule enacted by God, society, or the whim of an individual, but because it favours man's ability to live a flourishing life, to achive his long term purposes.

But then, why is it inmoral to steal one dollar from a millionaire?
In which way stealing that dollar prevents him from surviving, from living a plenty life of man qua man, from achiving his ideals, values or projects?

In fact, if we were to ask that man if the loss of such a dollars has impacted his ability to survive or advance in his goals, I think he would answer no.
Still, he would be angry, at least moderately angry, and would consider the thief a thief.

What is the basis for the inmorality of this one-dollar theft?"

Hm. Because making money is virtuous

and stealing results in overall loss. 

While the loss in this case is small, 

it still extrapolates greatly into the 

future, being that there is now one 

less dollar for this apparently-creative 

mind (since I'm making the assumption 

that the millionaire got the money via 

the free market) to create more overall 

wealth. So, in a rather real way, if it 

is the case that you are taking 

one dollar from a mind that is able to 

offer you a lot of value from that dollar 

in exchange for more dollars from you, 

you are stealing a better world from yourself. 

That's how I'd frame it, without the 

morality bits. Ayn Rand would probably 

simply call it immoral... no, that's off... 

I just see the transition into morality 

as a tad excessive.

Additionally, if everything thought this 

way - (the what if everyone did it 

argument) - then that millionaire wouldn't 

be a millionaire for long. There are a 

lot more than a million people in the 

world. And those most of them 

would not be inclined to steal, at least 

right now, of the billions (or whatever) 

on the planet, a good amount would 

go by that reasoning, and therefore, 

why would anyone try to make a lot 

of money?

And that I pointed out that I used 

the argument from moral principle 

(i.e. Do you want everyone to go 

by this thought and have it as 

something to live by?) is not to 

say that you shouldn't. Hypocrisy 

is quite useful. Christians use it, 

and, when not caught, reproduce 

successfully... well... or that might 

be why the world is in the state 

it's in today... And it's not just 

Christians. I have irrationality 

towards that specific ideology 

because I grew up with it; 

and yes, I'm still trying to figure 

out my own paradoxes.

So... yeah, if you stole one dollar 

from a millionaire, it wouldn't be 

a big impact, no. If it became 

a trend, it would be. So, don't 

get addicted XD 

And this also speaks to your inability 

to make a dollar. Or is it that the 

millionaire has made it impossible 

for you to make money, either 

by deceit or whatnot? In that case, 

the millionaire has stolen from you. 

Is it stealing to steal your money 

back? :P

"Principles, that's why it is wrong to steal from anybody who hasn't been violating anybody else's rights. By stealing you are violating the principle of rights and going against the fact that man is the being who survives by reason"

And you could go that route, too. 

However, it becomes rather linked 

with the morality part that I think 

is almost a God-gap of transition. 

Y'know - 'and then a miracle happens.'

"By stealing you are violating the principle of rights and going against the fact that man is the being who survives by reason, something you need to recognize to support your life as best as you can, instead counting on force or trying to thwart people's knowledge of the facts of reality. Once this is done, once you've conceded the principles, there's not much of anything left to stop you from it becoming a slippery slope of doom basically to seeing how much you can evade applying your ideas, how long you can keep from concluding that anybody can steal from you or that you can murder somebody for a few dollars because rights don't matter to you."

Pretty much.

"All the money in the world isn't going to help you if there is no value created to back them up because everybody is trying to get by by stealing, you'd all starve if everybody counted on just taking food from somebody else whenever they were hungry."

Argument from effect and "if everyone 

followed it".

"So, if you can see, the single dollar being stolen is less about what it does directly at the moment to that man who was robbed than to what it does to the thief long term, the consequences to their thought process and then their life in practice."

Nods. The dollar might be more costly 

to you than to the millionaire!

"Objectivist morality is not relative to a subjective interpretation of the economic value of a dollar to another person. The "immorality" in your example comes in to play as soon as the thief disregards the millionaire's individual rights. In this case, his right to spend that dollar he earned however he wishes."

Nods. Kinda... Again, I'm more wishy-washy 

in this sort of this because it's in the line 

of "rights" and "morality", something in 

Rand's Objectivism that I'm still trying to 

understand.

"People have to stop trying to justify stealing by referencing to 'minuscule' objects as the exception. The concept of theft is not defined by the quality, quantity, or personal value-estimates related to the item of theft. They have no essential connection to the concept of stealing and this is therefore a fallacy by defintion by non-essentials. What difference does it make if its one dollar or a million? There is no entity which is personal property which is the exception to the rule. It doesn't matter if its money, or candy bars, or a gym membership. Stealing/theft is to take (the property of another or others) without permission or right, esp. secretly or by force. How is a dollar, or any other list of concretes an exception to this? Theft is theft. Force is force. Force and good are opposites. You cannot say that you will use force to acheive the good, this is a contradiction. "

Nods. So, what are these "rights"

derived from? 

"Also, who are you to judge what the relationship of that dollar to that millionares values? Why do you get to decide, "Oh, well its just a dollar. I mean he's got another 999,999, he'll be fine." Well what about my dollar? How the guy down the street who wants in on his buck?"

You mean, why is he using quantity 

as a means of hiding the principal?

"And if we can each take a dollar from that millionaire, why not take a bunch more dollars from others whom we judge 'able' to afford it. Why stop at dollars? That furniture store down the road is like a warehouse, they won't miss one sofa. And so on... the socialist trickle."

Nods.

"It is immoral because it is parasitic. You take the form a dictator which judges and decides for him what is good and his best interest, and then you lay claim to his private property. You suspend honesty, integrity, pride, rationality, productivity... How can one still lay claim to moral ground after laying aside all of his primary virtues? Force and morality are opposites, one destroys choice, the other thrives off it. 

I could go on, but the issue is crystal clear. Its not the dollar or the donut your laying claim to primarily, but rather another mans life. "

Nod.

"The basis is the principle of individual rights.

By stealing a dollar you are admitting that you do not accept the principle of the individual rights of man, which of course means that should anyone 

steal from you then you have no basis of complaint since you don't recognise individual rights.

If nobody recognised individual rights then there would just be widespread theft, in fact people wouldn't bother producing since it would be stolen. Either there would be dictatorship or gang warfare.

A slave no longer has a purpose, other than to escape."

Property tax, income tax...

"We all agree that a theft is a theft.

By my question is about the philosophical basis of this inmorality. Is it inmoral beacuse it violates a principle set by society, the State, or God, or is it inmoral beacuse it affects the survival and flourishing of other man's life (which would mean, because it affects reality for other man).

If you tell me that it is because of a principle, the principle of property rights, this starts sounding dangerously Kantian to me. "

?

"If A, a poor man, is stealing one dollar from B, a millionaire, I could not tell my children that A is making something inmoral beacuse A is making B difficult to survive qua man, advance his projects, achieve his long-term goals, obtain or mantain his values, etc. I could not tell my children that beacuse it is untrue. Reality does not back me up."

??

"However, I can tell my children that A is being inmoral because there is a universal principle related to respecting other individual's property. If the principle is violated, even for one dollar, we go down the slippery slope and get all kind of crimes and THEN we would have a survival qua man issue. Or I could tell them that stealing is bad becasue God included a "Thou shalt not steal" in the Ten Commandments, or anything like that. However mystical the explanation, in the end it would mean that there is a universal principle, a norm that has to be upheld for the duty itself."

So... case-by-case versus universal?

"A judge considering this case in a court, would condemn A for the sake of uplifting or protecting an abstract, universal PRINCIPLE, expressed legally in terms of property rights, and not for the sake of consistency with reality. 

Reality, the objective and undisputed reality, would most likely show that A did get a direct survival benefit from the dollar (say, buying a plate of rice) while the millionarie was not affected in his survival or long-term values and purposes.

I guess I am missing something important here. Please help. "

I'm not sure I got yours, either...

Part of it is that I'm not sure what you're saying: 

"basis of this inmorality. Is it inmoral"

Basis of this in morality? Basis of this immoraly? 

Is it in moral? Is it immoral? What are you asking?

"We all agree that a theft is a theft."

No, we don't. Who is "we" and what 

do you define as "theft"?

"By my question is about the philosophical basis of this in[ ]morality. Is it inmoral[immoral] beacuse it violates a principle set by society, the State, or God, or is it inmoral[immoral] beacuse it affects the survival and flourishing of other man's life (which would mean, because it affects reality for other man)."

So, Society/God/The State, or others in reality, is your question?

"If you tell me that it is because of a principle, the principle of property rights, this starts sounding dangerously Kantian to me. "

Kantian? I've heard reference of this before, 

but nothing that stuck with me...

"If A, a poor man, is stealing one dollar from B, a millionaire, I could not tell my children that A is making[doing?] something inmoral[immoral] "

Why are you focusing on your children, 

assuming that you either have them 

or are referencing a theoretical?

And why couldn't you say that?

"beacuse A is making B difficult to survive qua man, advance his projects, achieve his long-term goals, obtain or mantain his values, etc."

...huh?

"I could not tell my children that beacuse it is untrue. Reality does not back me up."

Oh. How so?

"However, I can tell my children that A is being inmoral[immoral] because there is a universal principle related to respecting other individual's property."

Ok... So why are you going by 

"because there is a universal principle" instead of 

"beacuse A is making B difficult to survive qua man, advance his projects, achieve his long-term goals, obtain or mantain his values, etc."?

"If the principle is violated, even for one dollar, we go down the slippery slope and get all kind of crimes and THEN we would have a survival qua man issue."

So... the violation of the universal principle leads 

to A vs B stuff?

"Or I could tell them that stealing is bad becasue God included a "Thou shalt not steal" in the Ten Commandments, or anything like that. However mystical the explanation, in the end it would mean that there is a universal principle, a norm that has to be upheld for the duty itself."

So, so long as the explanation is universal, 

you're fine with it?

Moving on because I got distracted 

and don't deem the comment important 

enough to continue on...

"What I challenge here is the premise number 2. 

Wouldn't it better to state that "Stealing generally puts an obstacle to other men in their way to fulfillment" and that "Therefore, stealing is generally wrong" ?

If we can show at least one single case in which stealing did not represent an obstacle for another man's survival or path to fulfillment, then premise 2, as stated, would be invalid."

Hm.

"QUOTE (ifatart @ Nov 16 2009, 10:03 AM) 

I think you are wrong. If a political system says it is OK to steal a dollar from him, then on principle it provides him no property rights protection. A dollar may be what you choose to take - someone else may choose to steal more.

On principle he should be afraid for his life, his factory, his wallet - everything, since nothing is safe and nothing is protected. He is at the mercy of any random person and how much that person chooses to steal.

Take it one step further...

If a political system says it is ok to steal a dollar from him, what happens when one million people each steal one dollar? "

Mhm...

"QUOTE (Hotu Matua @ Nov 15 2009, 11:42 PM) 

But then, why is it inmoral to steal one dollar from a millionaire?
In which way stealing that dollar prevents him from surviving, from living a plenty life of man qua man, from achiving his ideals, values or projects?

This is a curious question. Presumably the thief needs this one dollar to survive (which seems unlikely) but why must he steal it from anyone? Can't he earn it? Is there no one who will lend it to him or donate it to him if he asks?

On the larger point, are you sure you understand the stated justification for protecting everyone's right to property? The millionaire will no doubt survive the theft of this single dollar but is his survival being at stake really the stated reason it is immoral to steal it?"

Nods.

"QUOTE (ifatart @ Nov 16 2009, 10:03 AM) 

I think you are wrong. If a political system says it is OK to steal a dollar from him, then on principle it provides him no property rights protection. A dollar may be what you choose to take - someone else may choose to steal more.

On principle he should be afraid for his life, his factory, his wallet - everything, since nothing is safe and nothing is protected. He is at the mercy of any random person and how much that person chooses to steal.

I think you did not understand my point, ifatart.
I am not arguing in favor of permitting small thefts.
I fully agree with you and with everyone here on property rights.

My point is that Joseph Ratzinger, Immanuel Kant, Peter Singer and Karl Marx would also agree with us.... based on an entirely different metaphysics, epistemiology and ethics.
So, what I want to know is in which sense our ethics does provide a rational basis for condemning this one-dollar theft.

Is our ethics based on reason and reality, or in principles that are rooted, in the end of the day, in the mystical realm?"

Ahhhh. I see.

"QUOTE (Hotu Matua @ Nov 16 2009, 05:34 PM) 

We all would agree with it. But again, what is the rationale for this principle?

Why would you agree with a principle, unless you know the rationale for it?

As for the rationale for the principle of individual rights, it relies on philosophy:

I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.--Aristotle

It relies on a whole lot of other knowledge, and principles. For one, it relies on the rationale for principles and abstract thinking, in general. Then, it relies on Objectivist Ethics, which in turn relies on the nature of men and life. And all of the above relies on the three axioms. You know, philosophy.

QUOTE (Hotu Matua @ Nov 16 2009, 05:47 PM) 

My point is that Joseph Ratzinger, Immanuel Kant, Peter Singer and Karl Marx would also agree with us.

That's not true. "

Hm.

"QUOTE (Jake_Ellison @ Nov 16 2009, 11:00 AM) 

Why would you agree with a principle, unless you know the rationale for it?

As for the rationale for the principle of individual rights, it relies on philosophy:

I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law.--Aristotle

Well, I think I am still early in the process that Aristotle once went thorugh.
For the time being, I can tell you honestly why I do not steal one dollar from a millionaire (or steal a kiss from a lady)

1) I fear law (the wrath of the State)
2) I fear loss of respect from my family, friends and colleagues (the wrath of society)

(If I had answered this question some years earlier, I would have added a third one: "I fear God".)"

And I, honesty, because I didn't earn it. 

However, I have had people giving stuff 

to me left and right, which I'm hoping 

I earned via psychological and household 

help means, because I would love to 

get a job - and this is unrelated to 

this comment - because I'd love 

to make money. It's starting to become 

so I can start building stuff - like 

building a company name and stuff, 

but it's starting as that I want 

to earn it, rather than be given it. 

However, I do fear going to jail 

and/or being shot for not paying 

taxes. But that's not exactly 

why I avoid it. I have been avoiding 

it because I consider taxes theft 

and the continued exacerbation 

of leeching.

"That is, nowadays, the foundation of my not-stealing-one-dollar-from-a-millionaire or not-forcing-a-lady-for-a-kiss.

It means that the principle I am following here is "Do not do things that make the State or the society angry with you, even if you do not fully understand why" "

Isn't it interesting how that works? :P

"QUOTE (Hotu Matua @ Nov 16 2009, 05:14 PM) 

1) I fear law (the wrath of the State)
2) I fear loss of respect from my family, friends and colleagues (the wrath of society)

http://www.dangerousminds.net/index.php/site/comments/ayn_rand_assholes/

Do you have an opinion on whether stealing is a good thing, or whether there even is such a thing as good and bad?"

Who cares? Just don't upset The State! 

Freedom? Nah - we gotta protect you... 

from yourself. lulz.

"Osprey says:

Yeah, have to agree with your conclusions.  I do think her argument on the non-existence of God & the afterlife is rather lame, however.  She does seem perhaps a little more tolerant than Dawkins & Dennett, who I think are promoting an existentialism on meth, lol.  Whatever, I don’t really care what she thinks, this was more a trip down memory lane with the video clips. Thanks"

lol Lame because she took the common 

stance of "the proof is on you"?

"My main issue reading Ayn Rand was how anti-science she was. Big building projects and large engineering projects like large railroads are good. But we never meet people investigating the world at large that makes the engineering ultimately possible. And the few times we see anything like pure research going on the researchers are unambiguously bad people.

It also annoyed me how good people are good looking and bad people are ugly. That’s a common problem with a lot of writers even decent writers. But when you can’t write well it becomes all the more annoying.

The problem with Rand is not her writing style as much as the fact that the ideology is profoundly evil in many different ways."

Hm.

"Ayn Rand’s logic behind her rejection of God is the same as Siddhartha Gautama’s. The Buddha said that he didn’t believe anything that he didn’t experience or couldn’t prove with his own senses. The things she’s saying are nearly identical with the Buddha’s writings.

What’s sad is that she departed from the Buddha’s ideas on attachment. He went for less attachment as a way to happiness, she went for more."

That's sad because...? she was greedy, 

which was consistent with her philosophy?

"In high school a friend of mine was reading “Atlas Shrugged” and my literature teacher recommended I read “the Fountainhead” saying it would “change my life.”

It was sweet of him, because he thought I was smart, but I’m glad to say I never really liked the book. I was like.. hey this character’s IS socialism.. what the fuck?

In university I met (and my friend dated) a very beautiful poet who was obsessed with Ayn Rand. Extremely dogmatic she believed in pure selfishness, and behaved accordingly. She made herself pretty miserable.

She also had herpes, and sometimes we couldn’t decide which of the two was more unfortunate. This lead to much joking about how liking Ayn Rand can in fact give a person herpes, and the concept of “Rand herp” was born.

“Rand herp” is identical to the “Ayn Rand Asshole” - a personal with a virulent strain of Rand / Obectivist devotion that just won’t go away. And it burns."

Hm. Are you sure she adhered 

to the doctrine entirely? Helping 

others is not anti-selfishness. 

Not enough detail... 

And the herpes is incidental. 

Sounds more like confirmation bias.

"I borrowed a copy of “Introduction to Objectivist Epistomology” from a then-new Objectivist friend of mine my freshman year of college (he had a whole shelf of her books). I couldn’t make it more than 50 pages without getting so annoyed I had to put down the book, because of all the ridiculous, unprovable, and generally bad assumptions that she makes in order to construct a philosophical framework for what the ideal behavior of man is. Many of her ideas appeal to me on the surface, but once you realize that her assertions are dogmatic in nature, she becomes a bit more like a ranting priest than a philosophical “genius” as she’s touted by her followers.

Such a waste print and paper that woman’s writings are…"

I slightly agree.

"“Check her out. Who talks like that?”

Too few people, I would say. Is her unapologetic atheism too much for you?"

According to the article, 

I would lean on a Yes, at the 

time of publication.

"And the gratuitous comparison to Dan Brown? Dan Brown’s poor writing (as opposed to his extremely skillful storytelling) appears to be due to his incompetence with words.  Whereas whatever you might think of her hectoring, long-winded dialog—and we are talking about philosophical novels after all— that’s hardly a criticism that can be leveled at Ayn Rand."

It is if you're talking in the context 

of entertainment. Although, I personally 

don't agree, as I like her style as I 

found it in Atlas Shrugged. Though, 

I'm not sure I'd have the same 

opinion if I read it instead.

"I am not a fan of Rand’s philosophy but I can understand how she came to her conclusions and “outlooks”.

The thing people forget is that most philosophers are influenced by their own times / experiences. In the case of Rand it was a system that she as a child saw as suppressing and oppressing. So once she had the opportunity to create “the perfect society” she took to it.

The end result is her Objectivism and all it’s faults. She based it all on a system she considered entirely wrong and she tried to conceive the “perfect world” opposite her experience.

But the world is not just black and white, and this is why her radical ideas lead to as much destruction as her own childhood experiences.

Karma…. etc."

Hear hear.

"Rand was an over complicated version of Nietzche. The supermen that Nietzche talked about were the same people as Rand’s intellectual elite. They served the same purpose, and are obviously now obsolete ideals.

Talking shit about Rand’s teachings is like bitching about Plato being a fascist who hated democracy. At the time it made sense that both of them would come to their conclusions, even how fucking trivial it may seem now.

Someone brought up that the teaching of Buddha are parallel to Rand, well Nietzsche is also a very close parallel with Buddhism. The problem with philosophy is, the more you tend to open your mouth the more you get wrong. Rand wrote to much, and didn’t edit her writing very well, which possibly why you didn’t like to read it(OP).

Also anyone who thinks they like Rand, should just stop reading her and read Nietzche, he comes to a much better conclusion with his stuff IMO."

Huh. I guess I'll look for some of his writings.

"Corsello writes an entertaining article, and since it’s published in GQ, I’m assuming that’s all it’s meant to be…entertaining.  He comes up with a couple of good metaphors, and flogs them for all he’s worth.  However, like most critics of Rand, he does not actually tackle the ideas at any point.  He attempts to disprove her philosophy by attacking her writing style, her tone of voice, and the (admittedly true) high-handedness of her followers…in short, by criticizing everything except the philosophy itself.  

Metzger, your closing comment about “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology” makes your own commentary more even handed than Corsello’s, recognizing that this is a set of ideas.  I think it should be criticized as such, and not on the basis of the personalities of the people who read them.

In the end, it’s only Corsello’s ersatz Dennis Miller writing style that makes his piece worth reading and sets him apart from the many internet trolls who knee-jerkingly shout “NAZI!” every time they read the name Ayn Rand."

Nods.

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: “The Lord of the Rings” and “Atlas Shrugged.”

One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves hobbits, elves, and wizards."

Mm. Nods.

"I came upon Rand in my mid-thirties.  While I embrace the objectivism wholeheartedly, as others have pointed out I find the official position of her followers in regards to religion is illogical. Several years ago, I attended a meeting of the Ayn Rand Institute.  After, I contacted them with questions pertaining to religion and rather than address them they advocated I attend more meetings. Isn’t that one of the earmarks of a cult?"

Nods. It's kind of ironic.

"In college I decided to read “Atlas Shrugged” as an effort to broaden my literary range, which at that time was limited to science fiction. I ended up having to force myself to finish the thing, because I found myself continually arguing with the characters, assumptions, and premises of the story, although I couldn’t quite put into words what I found so offensive about it. Age and maturity and experience have finally given me the words:

Her “utopia” is a world without justice."

... What do you mean by "justice"? 

A world without punishment?

"I would like to take this opportunity to gloat: I first read The Fountainhead when I was 13 and thought it was a terrible piece of poop even then.

To everyone else who actually liked (or still likes) her fiction: LOL @ U"

I haven't read it. I didn't like the start. 

While laughing has its place (evolutionary 

survival benefit), it also has the new 

opposing irony, that of the effect of 

"having the last laugh". 

I've started to eschew this entire 

"laughing at others" thing in an 

attempt to understand the causes.

Essentially: aren't you being rather 

dismissive? But then - hey, interact 

with me only so far as you want.... 

lol I say to someone I am not in fact 

interacting with.

"RandalV says:

Good afternoon everyone,

It always amazes me exactly how much vitrol there is out there about a philosophy that can really be boiled down to 1) focus on the facts and 2) fight for the best life you can.

Most Objectivists I know are polite, friendly, and joyous. Yes, there are angry, bitter people that call themselves Objectivists and attempt to use the philosophy as a bludgeon. In my experience, they are usually young and have a superficial understanding of it. They see the word “selfish” and think that means you should be a jerk; when what it means is that you should be productive, protect your loved ones, protect your freedom, aspire to your best.

A philosophy that tells you to love your life shouldn’t be this controversial.

Regards,

Randal V"

Nods.

"Spencer says:

I’m an asshole first and a fan of Rand second.

I just wanted to point out that most of this criticism is aimed at poor storytelling, and how assholes have interpreted her work. Not much time is spent arguing the philosophy behind it. That seems like a rather ad-hominem attack.

And the 4th paragraph shuns reading her work as an adult, claiming it’s understandable to make that mistake only at a young age.
Really? So if you’re interested in reading a popular novel at a later age, you’re pathetic?

I like Rand for the simple rule; “don’t initiate force on another”, which is more than can be said for other philosophies.

But that’s just my opinion, and I’m an asshole."

Nod.

"I won’t deign to waste my time criticizing the cynical, nihilistic smear piece by GQ.

However, you mention you were a “an unabashed Ayn Rand fanatic when [you were] in 7th or 8th grade.” And that by the age of 14 you had given up on Rand. Really?! Only 14? Correct me if I’m wrong but isn’t that at most only the 9/10th grade? You were a fanatic one year and disdainful the next?

My guess is that you never really studied Rand’s philosophy. And how could you given only one or two years worth of introduction. Also at such a young age, how much exposure to philosophy in general did you have to make an informed decision upon the merits of Objectivism? Personally I first read Rand in 12th grade and have been studying ever since. I’ve had years to research her philosophy and other philosophies as well and I intend to continue.

The reason I think you never understood Objectivism is the way in which you liken it to Gordon Gekko. No where in the Objectivist literature will you find a justification for greed. Greed is simply the unquenchable desire to obtain that which you seek. People can be greedy for good values or bad values, i.e., non-values. A person can be greedy when it comes to getting A’s on a test which makes them study hard and build good productive habits or a person can be greedy for getting as many people in bed with them without regard to who those people are ultimately you contract an STI like herpes. A person’s greed all depends upon their value system. Greed as such is not the defining criterion, it is not a primary. And it certainly wasn’t Rand’s either.

For those interested in finding out what Rand really thought I would suggest starting with her fiction. Although Intro. to Oist Epistemology is a seminal achievement for philosophy, it’s not a good starting point for new readers of Rand."

Good points.

"Honestly, even as a teenager I couldn’t get more than one chapter into anything Rand wrote.  I thought it was the most dreadfully written crap I’d ever laid hands on—and I read Crime and Punishment, all of James Joyce, War and Peace.  In short, I was not averse to THICK and dense.  I just found her horrifically bad.  So horrifically bad that I couldn’t manage to give a rat’s butt about her “vivid” characters, because I really couldn’t get far enough in to meet them.  Awful.

And now that I know what I was spared by tossing those books in the trash, I find her ideas reprehensible.  So I think I’ll stick to my cardinal rule of “I don’t read crap.”"

How... detailed.

"You leave out what might be the best reason for her popularity among youth: the university faculties uniform condemnation of her work, sometimes even threatening people caught reading it.  I was at UCLA when an almost hysterical portion of the faculty let one and all know what kind of morons read her.  No discussions mind you, just think you think and obey.  Rand has flourished in this poisonous fertilizer.  You want to be a real rebel?  Just read her and champion her.  Your grade point average will drop like good intentions in hell.  Back in my day we all carried Atlas Shrugged under our arms just because."

LOL That would do it.

"Actually, she makes a lot more sense to me than Donahue on the issue of religion. As somebody who was enamored with her until I was about 18 (the age of reason?), I have to admit that as an older adult, I find her philosophy is shallow and that she’s an absolutely awful writer. Having said that, she is one of the people who got me thinking about big ideas at a relatively young age. So, I guess I look back on her the way I do the Easter bunny: It served a purpose at one point in my life, but I outgrew it."

Hm.

"I outgrew her as well, but not before spending a couple of my years of undergraduate philosophical study working to expand her arguments vis-a-vis Kant and Leibniz, believe it or not. Eventually, it became clear that the world was vastly more subtle and complex than I’d wanted to believe (indeed, there is not either/or so much as there are competing truths and competing goods that must be parsed).

Still, I believe Rand was good for me at the time and has been good for others who perhaps need to hear that they have some domain over how their lives turn out. Work hard, argue well, value the good — what’s wrong with that?"

The world is so enjoyably complex! ^_^

I would like to say "infinitely complex", 

but I'm not sure about that. Although, 

according to my mind, it almost might 

as well be. :P What I focus on are the 

basic parts and questions, in hope that 

I can effect the most important part, 

thereinby making the others insignificant 

in comparison to my goals.

"Work hard, argue well, value the good — what’s wrong with that?"

I know - it's interesting how a sort of 

twist appears in this sort of thing. 

I've been and am studying it.

"Ayn Rand exemplifies how “extremists” of any kind all start to look alike. Rand’s Romanticism is so like that of Communism, and yet they are supposed to be polar opposites. Something to think about, hmmmm?"

Indeed. 

And that's the end of those comments.

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/ayn-rand-the-bitch-is-back/comment-page-4/

"My actual problem with Rand — behind her blindingly horrific prose — is that she was pushing back against a totalitarian system in the Soviet Union, a corrupt and morally indefensible system she had every right to be infuriated by. But she applies that righteous fury and outrage to a Democracy, whose economy is Free Market based."

Agreed. A sort of mommie or daddy 

sort of complex of reversal.

"Hence, rather than challenging the politburo, she challenges Unions. Cooperative behavior seems to be hard for her to grasp. One suspects she would have disliked Consumer Reports, or Zagats, or Amazon’suser ratings."

Hm.

"Worst of all, Rand’s Objectivism has become the rationale for all manner of morally repugnant behaviour. However, I did take one personal lesson from Atlas Shrugged to heart: Anytime I see a parked car with aJohn Galt bumper sticker, I like to knock off one of the sideview mirrors, and leave it on the hood. I include a note stating my selfish, random act made me feel good, and therefore should be a perfectly fine act in their world."

Sounds like you're taking all Objectivists to be ARAs 

(imposing jerks). One of the principles of Objectivism 

is, I think, something akin to the NAP - the 

Non-Aggression Principle.

However, given additionally that "John Galt" is 

on the license plate, it is quite likely that I am 

the one making the error.

"I assume the recipients miss the irony . . ."

*shrugs* Dunno.

The comments...

"Eric Hoffer, who spent his lifetime studying mass movements, very aptly observed: “Add a few drops of venom to a half truth and you have an absolute truth"

Mayhap Ayn Rand would argue that 

the ARAs poisoned her philosophy 

and turned it into a cult?

"I’m not a Rand fanbois and actually have read much of her stuff (and certainly not for quite some time) but one thing I would give Rand credit for is the notion of Productive People vs Non Productive people and, in Shrugged, the Productive people essentially opting out of carrying the lazy along."

Mhm.

"When W came into office i 2000, 33% of tax filers were not paying federal income tax. When he left last year, it 39%. It appears under O, this number will get close to 50% in short order. What happens to a society when 60% are getting a free ride?"

Um, no. You've got it exactly backwards. 

Here is my premise that I'm going off of: 

taxes are extortion (theft). 

If you can show me otherwise or give 

me a rationalization that makes taxes 

not theft somehow, then I'll take back 

the rest of what I'm about to say in 

regard to this (not that I'll delete it, 

but I'll put it in perspective of the 

new outlook):

Taxes are extortion and theft. 

The "free riders" are those who 

have gone homeless or are living 

off of the taxes (in the category 

would also be politicians, likely). 

Therefore, politicians are "getting 

a free ride". 

To not file a tax report, is to say 

"no" to those who are getting 

a free ride. Thus, your 

"What happens to a society when 60% are getting a free ride?"

Is assuming that those who are 

being extorted (stolen from, i.e., 

taxpayers) are getting a free ride 

by not being stolen from. 

So, if 100% of people are "getting 

a free ride" by not getting stolen 

from, what happens? Wouldn't it 

be prosperity? 

Additionally, what if taxes were 

increased, so that no "free rides" 

were possible? What if taxes were 

increased to 100%? What if ALL 

of what you earned was taken 

by the people who represent 

the concept of "The State"? 

But, to answer that question 

in a different way: 

What happens if the "free riders" 

increase, thereby decreasing the 

stability of an instable extortion 

racket? CHAOS will follow. 

As when you remove mommie 

or daddy, something that was 

preventing learning, you will 

get confusion and chaos. 

"70%? Would they continue to vote for a system that rewards them and punishes the top 30-40%?"

Possibly.

"We have a generation that is used to free music downloads and free movie downloads—who will make the music or movies in 20 years, and will it be any good? Will we enjoy seeing Batman 8 or Saw 22 since they are less risky to make than an interesting, new, novel concept?"

And why do you think they are used to 

it? Are you forgetting how we, collectively, 

got here?

"Steven Soderbergh remarked last week that a movie like The Matrix would never get made today—like Matrix or not, it was a game changer at the time. (although I wish Matrix 2 or 3 hadn’t been made…)"

Mhm. And movies have been less worth 

watching. And I've started not bothering 

watching most of the new ones. This is 

entirely consistent with Rand's philosophy -- 

and it's leading to an overall death, 

and overall paralysis. And you blame it 

on those whom are being leeched?

"What happens if the US gets “used to” 10-12% unemployement like what plagues Europe and worse, Spain. Are we comfortable with permanent 10% U3 and 15-20% U6?"

Another Great Depression.

"I do know that if government running things was so great, then we should just go for 100% taxes on everything and let the government handle things for us."

Agreed. Government runs things shittily, 

so we should withdraw resources from 

it and let it go out of business.

"Are you saying there is such a thing as lazy and unproductive people? People who will vote for politicians to plunder the productive for their own benefit? Well, I have to question the rigor 9r your arguments — it sounds more like a religion than logic, more wishful thinking than reality based observations of how humans actually behave.
You mean there are large number of humans who prefer to ride in the wagon even when they see others struggling to pull it? Nah! You’re observations of how humans behave must somehow be wrong."

The comment was in response to the 

one I just responded to, and it says 

much the same thing.

"Exactly which free market policies of Greenspan are at fault for our current dire economic situation.? None. Greenspan gave up the free market system when he became chairman of The Fed. The Federal Reserve is inherently anti-free market with its bureaucratic manipulation of interest rates and currency values. Not to mention Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which destabilized the housing market. i cannot think of two organizations which less exemplify the ideas of Ayn Rand."

Yep. 'Nother mention of that.

"Never was a Robert Heinlein fan for similar reasons. The movie of “Starship Troopers” had fun camping up a fascistic/elitist theme that Heinlein actually believed in when he wrote it.

“The Fountainhead” was so painful to get through that I never read any more of her shit writing after that.

Going to have to agree that anyone that likes Rand has a tin ear for literature and dialogue.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste."

Try Atlas Shrugged. I didn't like Fountain either.

"“…but one thing I would give Rand credit for is the notion of Productive People vs Non Productive people and, in Shrugged, the Productive people essentially opting out of carrying the lazy along…”

Kort,

but, we Know that isn’t happening here: “a Democracy, whose economy is Free Market based.”

wherever that is…

“For years the satellite-spy-industry has flourished as a result of the “cold-war-fever” that plagued the United States and the Soviet Union: Extremely sensitive American and Soviet satellites have been orbiting the Earth with military objectives for years.

Today a complex “civilian” spy network has nurtured with roots in the U.S. government structure and scientific community. The use of satellites, government bureaus and their corporate counterparts, are a far more efficient tool for resource exploitation and social control.

The use of aerial photography and satellite imagery in the decision-making processes of local, state, and federal government is widespread. A spin-off from years of military development and space-age computerization, it is now apparent that individual collective privacy is being threatened from sources unseen.

State governments usually use aerial photography and satellite imagery for road and highway planning as well as floodplain mapping. The infamous U-2 is being used in California for a variety of purposes. Local governments have used remote-sensing technology for tax assessment purposes and land ownership….”
http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1977/1977-story25.htm
http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

where, exactly, is this “a Democracy, whose economy is Free Market based.”-Fantasia?

“Rand may still be a bitch.”, No Doubt.

But, I was under the impression that True Premises were a necessity of Valid arguments..
As always, I may be wrong, though, I’d like to learn ‘the right answer’..

And, if it helps, ‘Rand fanbois’ are, indeed, a pathetic lot, but, less pathetic than those that use Rand as a stand-in for those that believe that “Socialism Can’t Calculate”.

http://www.reasonforliberty.com/reason/socialism-cant-calculate.html"

http://www.projectcensored.org/static/1977/1977-story25.htm

http://www.libertyzone.com/Communist-Manifesto-Planks.html

"Read the 10 Planks of The Communist Manifesto to discover the truth and learn how to know your enemy..."

"Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state."

"1. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes. 

2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax. 

3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance. 

4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels. 

5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly. 

6. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State. 

7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state, the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan. 

8. Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture. 

9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries, gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equitable distribution of population over the country. 

10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production. "

"The people (politicians) who believe in the SOCIALISTIC and COMMUNISTIC concepts, especially those who pass more and more laws implementing these slavery ideas, are traitors to their oath of office and to the Constitution of the united States of America... KNOW YOUR ENEMY ...Remove the enemy from within and from among us.

VOTE LIBERTARIAN, the only political party in America that still firmly supports and diligently abides by the Constitution of the united States of America."

Oh irony. Voting in slavery. Do you 

get to decide what is voted on?

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2009/11/ayn-rand-the-bitch-is-back/comment-page-4/

"I was sent a copy of Atlas Shrugged by a friend of mine who insisted that I read it. I am 1/4 of the way done and while I must admit a lot of what Barry wrote about has merit, let’s be objective here."

LOL.

"The writing occurred in the mid 1950’s. It was a different world back then. A few lessons in the book still are relevant, but shouldn’t the book be judged by its time period FIRST?"

Good point... maybe. I recall historians 

who talk about judging people by their 

time period -- Thomas Jefferson was 

a slave owner; the such.

"Second of all, doesn’t it say something about the book that there is no other piece of fiction that speaks of today’s times in business the way that AS did for its era? I mean, what is the seminal piece of business fiction literature right now (spare the “Enron’s quarterly report” jokes!).

So far, my opinion of the book is that it is ok by today’s standards, pretty good by 1950’s standards. And hey, they are making it into a movie, in which Dagny Taggart will be played by Angelina Jolie in 2010 from what I read some time ago. And that makes it worthwhile to me "

I'm not really looking forward to it. 

The movies that I've seen Angelina 

Jolie in tend to be ones that were 

pop-culture-ish and that I didn't find 

all that omportant in the long run. 

Then again, maybe this movie will 

put Angelina in favor in my eyes, 

given that I like Dagne in the novel.

"Atlas Shrugged plays to the considerable egos of men/women of wealth and power. No idea is more pleasing to the rich and elite than the idea that they are inherently smarter and well prepared than the common man. "

Mhm. But that would be a misunderstanding of it. 

Not "inherently", but proven. And not "smarter",

necessarily, but more useful.

"Luck never enters the equation. They blame poor people for not being educated enough, or not working hard enough."

I agree. There's a certain element of 

rigid "people don't change" mentality 

that can come from it.

"It’s disgustingly used as a rationalization for their greedy, society-destroying behavior.

Let’s put the captains of industry on a desert island and see how they fare."

I agree. And it's a tad ironic. Atlas Shrugged 

talks about that very thing in Galt's speech... 

probably why you referenced it.

"What Reformed Broker said — we are probably going to be up to our ears in madly oscillating ARA’s pretty soon — but man it was worth it for the excerpt alone and the links, the links: You’re aces in my household BR (or was that asses, oh well, you get it).

Here’s a link in return, not nearly as fun though: http://tinyurl.com/ycrkvyg

Can’t even get a direct jobs bill off the ground in this poisoned political climate much less get it passed/signed into law. What a stinking mess."

Hm.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/11/unlike-the-new-deal-obamas-plan-does-not-put-people-on-the-public-payroll.html

http://www.registerguard.com/csp/cms/sites/web/opinion/22911939-46/story.csp?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed:+rgopinion+(The+Register-Guard:+Opinion)#ID:22911939

"Two-thirds of the stimulus went toward tax cuts, fiscal aid to states, and expanded unemployment benefits and food stamps. These efforts helped cushion the recession’s blow, saved public jobs and, by injecting demand into the economy, bolstered employment indirectly."

Huh. Indirect leeching.

"The remaining third of the stimulus, however, was expected to be the real jobs generator: $250 billion for infrastructure — roads, transit, water treatment — and for investments in energy efficiency, broadband access and other areas. But it is becoming clear that much of that spending is not producing many new jobs. Highway funds have put repaving crews to work, but $6.5 billion flowing to states and cities for energy projects has only just arrived and has created virtually no private-sector jobs yet."

Hm.

"The jobs impact is also paltry so far for the $3 billion in National Science Foundation grants and the $10 billion for the National Institutes of Health. And much of the $19 billion for health information technology will not be spent until 2011."

Huh?

"Administration officials argue that these investments, if done right, will lay the groundwork for growth for years to come. And they say that given the depth of the recession, it’s hardly a bad thing for the stimulus to deliver some punch a year or two from now. “We always recognized that America’s problems were not created in a week or a month or a year and that they were not going to be solved quickly,” Summers said. “We designed the Recovery Act to ramp up over time, through 2010, and to make sure that the investments we made were important for the country’s future.”"

So friggin' K-PAXish. Hard to tell if it will 

be good or bad...

"In addition, public-works programs take longer to get started than people realize, officials say. At a recent event at American University, White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein was challenged by economics professor Robert Lerman about direct job creation. Bernstein responded that there weren’t enough public works projects ready to be launched: “What (governors) were describing as shovel-ready wasn’t really shovel-ready.”"

Lying isn't a good sign.

"None of this persuades the critics, who also argue that the White House, facing a skeptical Senate, settled on too small a stimulus package to begin with."

lol 'You're not using the stolen loot the right way!"

"Long as the downturn may be, the need is greatest now, and they have difficulty accepting that a new jobs program would not move faster than the money now percolating through the system. “The administration might have put a higher priority on more labor-intensive spending and spending that had a more immediate employment effect,” said former labor secretary Robert Reich. “Basic research into photovoltaic cells is an important public investment, but it doesn’t have many jobs attached to it, or certainly not anytime soon.”"

How surprising.

"Others argue that there is plenty of direct job creation that could be done, short of heavy infrastructure, that could have lasting value. The liberal Economic Policy Institute has drafted a plan that, along with a new business tax credit for hiring that the White House is already considering, includes a pure public jobs proposal: giving money to states and cities to hire people to paint schools, board up vacant homes, staff child-care centers and reopen library branches."

lulz. The perfect crime.

"Lerman offers a variation: Pay people lower-than-market wages, maybe $8 an hour, and reserve the jobs for those who really can’t find better work. Instead of extending unemployment benefits over and over, the government would help people develop job skills and would get something in return. He estimates the cost of 1 million jobs (including supervisors) at $30 billion, or about $30,000 for each job created, compared with the $92,000 per job that the White House estimates its approach is costing."

Got to calibrate the cattle to proper efficiency.

"And taxpayers would be able to see clearly that the spending was putting people to work — instead of questioning, as many are now doing, the reliability of the job totals that the White House is attributing to the stimulus."

'Cuz ya gotta force people to do what 

they want to do!

"Conservative economists stand steadfast against any movement toward direct job creation. They concur with part of the liberal critique of the stimulus — that much of the spending is going out too gradually, and in the wrong places, to be of use. But they disagree that the government should have tried more direct efforts to create or retain jobs."

What are conservative economics?

"Jobs programs “sound so good in theory, but it just doesn’t work that way,” said Larry Lindsey, director of the National Economic Council under President George W. Bush. It would be better to stick with safety-net benefits for those most in need and to enact new tax cuts, such as a suspension of the payroll tax to encourage hiring. The New Deal jobs programs were less effective than memory holds, he said, a misperception he attributes to the government-funded writers and artists who depicted the work."

lol

"As it happens, an exhibit of New Deal-funded paintings is on display at the Smithsonian’s Museum of American Art, with striking images of government-paid men shoveling snow and industrial machinery revving up. But don’t expect to see any exhibits portraying the government’s response to the Great Recession: The National Endowment for the Arts distributed its $50 million in stimulus funds to arts groups and has no plans for direct payments to artists.

“It wasn’t for any new programs,” NEA spokeswoman Victoria Hutter said. “It’s being spent, it’s just not as visible” as the New Deal’s programs.

But with unemployment into double digits, might not pictures of people heading to work have been a welcome sight?"

Hm. Well, that's the end of that article.

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2009/11/unlike-the-new-deal-obamas-plan-does-not-put-people-on-the-public-payroll.html

"One confusion here is the strict demarcation between "growth policy" and "stabilization policy." Growth policy is an attempt to make the economy grow faster, and stabilization policy attempts to keep the economy as close as possible to that trend, i.e. to avoid business cycles."

Huh?

"When Republicans had the political microphone, they emphasized growth policy (because it allowed them to argue for what they really wanted, lower taxes, growth policy was simply the vehicle that allowed them to get there), and this was supported by academic work from people such as Robert Lucas who claimed that, from a welfare perspective, stabilization was of second order concern, growth policy was where policymakers should focus their effort if they wanted to enhance welfare. Summers' remarks reflect this type of thinking."

I have no clue what this means...

"MacGillis: "Instead Obama’s team has taken a more indirect approach, a prudence that critics on the left say is misplaced."

Prudence? What prudence? It's trickle down. It's Reaganomics lite.

"Let's give money to the banks, *so they can start lending again.*"

Yeah, right. Maybe next year.

True, that was the Bush administration, but, as regards stimulus, Obama basically continued where Bush left off.

What is so bad about giving money (wages) to people who would spend it? Well, we are told, it is because we need investment, i. e., savings. But let us suppose that a dollar spent is never saved. That's a hell of a multiplier, folks! The truth is, don't we get both? We get an immediate stimulus from spending, and we get eventual saving and investment. :)

Trickle down has failed. How about some bubble up economics?"

Hm.

"Yes, the Obama administration has been disappointing.

A friend from Chicago who knows Obama and has worked with him (and who is on the left) said, "Obama will break your heart.""

Does not surprise me.

"Of course, cutting marginal tax rates can have large distributional effects, and no effect on growth, but why let facts or reality intrude -- conservative economists must be allowed to define the political agenda. They must be obeyed, and treated as serious. Give them all Nobels!"

:P

"Real Person from the Real World said...

As the author of the main article points out, if there were direct make work programs, the howls of "socialism" would be deafening. FDR and the programs of the new deal are under attack by revisionists. The current last two generations don't know much about FDR, and chances are, not much was covered in school, so there is a willing audience to accept the revisionist point of view.

Would it be better to ignore the ranting? I don't agree that it would. There are other important battles to consider, such as health care, that would become more difficult to enact in such a poisonous atmosphere. I have a relative involved with fundamental baptists, and they are so conservative, the are as bad as the taliban. There was even an email running around the internet that Obama is backed by Global Elites, and the communists! The tangle of conspiracy and illogic and non-sense is very hard to dismiss.

What is the problem with jobs? Lots of issues.

1) while conservatives rant about illegal aliens (ie, latinos doing crap jobs like mowing lawns) we bring in techies vetted on entry level overseas, who may or may not have proper credentials to work at jobs paying $50/hr to $100+/hr. Why? The companies that take them on directly, Microsoft, et al, get work on the cheap. Meanwhile, thousands of small offices of foreigners rent out others, adding to competition for our own students, altho that game has gotten less lucrative, as companies move to VMS systems or say no to visas. Some of those jobs dried up, and it is really tough for the poor consultant/serfs as well as American born techies.

2) Look at the hoops people must go thru, to get any job. Resumes have to be tailored to demonstrate as an exact a "job fit" as the candidate can muster honestly (or dishonestly). "Passion" is overused, especially for a commodity admin job at a trucking company (ny Times recently described one calculated hiring example for the flunky job). Tests, psych-em-out interview questions that are supposed to weed out. Part of it is too many people for each job opening, and to a degree disguised discrimination for age or whatever.

More jobs would help. But it would take a lot more. While a few would probably help decrease the use of these fad HR techniques, they would linger on, to some extent.

The newest fad on the horizon and rising, sad to say, is the staffing company. Recruiting isn't the hotshot profession it once was.... Too many watched the foreigners and recruiters making a s_ _ _ _load of money and now they offer these services to companies, where the companies pay them a fee for X number of bodies of a certain skill set. These companies make the bucks, like the foreign middlemen did on techies, while the workers desperate to get a toe hold, smile, and go thru the same weeding out, with these middleman layer companies. Why? No benefits from the company, no headaches, a guaranteed level of mediocrity for a fee.

------
To solve our problems, I think one thing we need is to rethink the "outsourcing "PARADIGM" " for the BS it is. While it may make sense to outsource someone to butcher and prepare a steer, so you can buy your steaks, does it always make sense? These layers make the money and pay maybe half of it to the worker. There is no loyalty to the end client company. No interest in creativity that an employed worker might offer (not unless, he/she is one of the anointed few at top management level).

Another thing we need, are real jobs. Right now, we have too many jobs selling lies, advertising, marketing, et al.

ReplyNov 15, 2009 at 12:17 PM

paine said in reply to Real Person from the Real World...

"There was even an email running around the internet that Obama is backed by Global Elites, and the communists! The tangle of conspiracy and illogic and non-sense is very hard to dismiss"

its hard to dismiss because as metaphor it has validity
if larry summers isn't the white house
private nuncio from the stateless cosmopolite corporate elites what the christ is he ??

okay so the yahoos miss the real target and shoot at phantoms
but something that flies thru the air is shitting on their heads
that they got right

ReplyNov 15, 2009 at 01:10 PM

Real Person from the Real World said in reply to paine...

The book on the "superclass" listed all sorts of influential people, including the Pope. Influential elites are just people who can affect things. They are not necessarily a coordinated group that pulls puppet strings on Obama.

Sure, there are stateless interests (I work for one), that have no country, or maybe come to the US and more tied to home then their new country, but they are basically mercantilists. Come on, they do not control Obama.

Look at the man .... I think Obama is sincere and trying to keep to a middle course that will be acceptable to a majority. Having the far right conservatives troglodytes continually trash everything he tries to do, calling it part of some plot to take down the US, or turn the US into some sort of socialist worker paradise is nonsense.

We have to do something about the problems we have and respect the guy who got elected, and give him some credit for trying to fix things for everyone.

As for jobs, take a look... advertising, sales, marketing, and more sales, liars only need apply (to make the incentives and commissions). Meanwhile, take a look at the NYT article about their "systematic" approach to hiring one out of around 100 people, for a flunky job at a trucking company. There was an official excuse for each reject. Too qualified was one. THIS is BS. One of the problems in this country is how we hire. Why is it a crime to need a job? Why do generations have to be pitted against each other? Why the games? How valid are these games? AND, why trash latinos who's only crime is crossing an invisible border to do crap jobs, while Big Biz and foredign merchatilists, import visa serfs for jobs that could pay a US tech student/grad %50+-to-$100+/hr?"

Wow.

"I know a fair amount about boat building. It takes a substantial amount of labor to construct a yacht. I know less about tailoring, but I'd guess that a lot more labor goes into a $5000 suit than less expensive ones. If we are looking for jobs right now, isn't consumption right now a better strategy than research and education?"

Right. Because consuming creates 

resources.

past 12...