The Thread Where We Ask Ourselves: Does Nick Actually Like Ayn Rand?

well?

finally an Ayn Rand thread

The answer is yes

C'mon how is that a question. I love Ayn Rand. Me = Awesome Libertarian who votes Republican.

but her books, nick, they're awful!

I liked Atlas Shrugged. Sure it was repetitive and most of the characters lacked depth, but I enjoyed the message.

lol

explain to me/us the message

and I say that not at all condescendingly, or even adversarially. I'm genuinely interested in what my right-leaning friends (ie you, Steve, George, Whetz, Will, etc) have to say about politics/philosophy.

even way back on middle school bus rides there was this obvious difference in worldview between us guys, and its still compelling to me.

I mean, meat and potatoes of it, we should work for ourselves not for others. Now that doesn't mean the byproduct of any individuals mind should be reserved for ones self, but the creator should be rewarded based on the contribution they've made towards the well-being of others. Basically, if one uses their mind it shouldn't be considered selfish to reap the rewards and most definitely shouldn't be considered property of a corporation or social entity like the government. Someone shouldn't be given anything for contributing nothing.

the creator should be rewarded based on the contribution they've made towards the well-being of others

or punished, of course.

what if the product is bad for them? its successful but it makes everyone less well-off? ie, tobacco

what do we do about that?

and

Someone shouldn't be given anything for contributing nothing.

no one in our society contributes nothing

it sounds nice in theory, everyone getting what they deserve, a perfect meritocracy, but reality is messier. it is easy to systematically disenfranchise certain groups of people and take advantage of power. the dice rolled a certain way historically and now for the people with power its a question of values. as an absolute rule "acting in one's own self interest" doesn't actually go very far b/c it is hard to actually figure out what is in one's own self-interest in the long run. e.g. should the richest man in the world spend massive amounts of money on charity. on a superficial level this would not seem to be in one's own self-interest and therefore anti-Randian, but in the long run politically it might be a good move. the "self-interest" logic can be twisted to support all types of different behavior depending on what kind of picture of the future you want to paint and how you want to depict one's present behavior shaping the future. to me its a question of how far do you want to go in adopting the intricacies of Rand's politics and how relevant you think they are today. imo they're very much a product of her era and don't help us out much these days.

I mean, I was just giving kind of a summary of the book not trying to defend Rand's view. I admitted that I liked the message, not saying that I agree with it on all levels. What idea borne out of philosophy doesn't have its short-comings? This is Rand's expression of a perfect world from her own musings. Perhaps I wasn't very clear in my summation, but in the novel, the world has to collapse on itself by means of the industrialists of society, the self-made men and thinkers who each perform their craft expertly going on strike. Atlas Shrugged is kind of a big "meh" from the people who create. I think Rand felt, as you said, the dice had rolled the wrong way historically and now the system which was in place was twisting people like the idealists who go on strike. I mean, I don't think she was trying to say, fuck the little guy, because even the disenfranchised can work hard and hone their craft and earn their paycheck. I don't really know why I'm defending this. I think certain welfares are necessary, but the people that take advantage of the system aren't seeing the big picture. Our society as a whole should do the best it can to see our fellow man progress and excel, but our nature speaks differently. I do think if there was less of a support net, we'd really be able to see what men can achieve, or of course, what horrors they're capable of committing. If a rich man donates to charity and gets some kind of self-gratification from it then that's great. In that book it's the type of people who do things for political gains or to make themselves feel better who are the villains. So you would agree with her in that sense from your argument. I don't know if you've read the book, but you're absolutely right, the both of you. The world is a twisted place, just as twisted as it was in Rand's time as it is today, which is why in her utopian vision, the world must collapse for such a philosophy of hers to succeed. I think it would be a nice thought, but I'm not blind enough to disregard the shortcomings of the world. And to Kyle, perhaps I misspoke when I said something about doing something for the well-being of others. The truth is, in the book, the product isn't the important thing its the ideals and morals behind the producers in this vision of a "Randian" society. They help people by employing them and becoming larger so they may employ those who truly want to work and earn a living. In the Randian sense, a tobacco farmer who employed thousands to harvest his crops would be an important figure. Now, a tobacco farmer not as capable in production who calls in political favors to have his competitor shut down, would be the villian. Now I know you would say, "But Ayn Rand, if said Tobacco Farmer shuts down his competitor doesn't it open up more land, factories, and monetary opportunities for him to employ an equal amount of people and benefit them anyway?" Well the idea that Rand is trying to put forth is that the less capable farmer would be simply that, less capable of contributing than the man he put out of business with his tongue rather than his scythe. Anyhow, like I said, its a nice thought.

that's a legit response. i don't know enough specifics about Ayn Rand to get too into it, just that most people into her are insane or haven't really thought it through too much.

although, "If a rich man donates to charity and gets some kind of self-gratification from it then that's great. In that book it's the type of people who do things for political gains or to make themselves feel better who are the villains."

I kinda meant to use philanthropy as an example of getting into a sort of grey area where being altruistic can also be personally beneficial.