Are We Living It?

Why is it when one points out to Randies that their 'philosophy' basically breaks down to "me, me, me, - and the world will all just work out" that we are told it's because we simply just don't understand? Kind of like teenagers, no? I think Ayn would be more upset with her Randies that take this cop-out than she would be with the 'socialists' who point it out. Well, maybe not as upset as she would be that there is no place on the earth where here philosophy has worked - unless you like vacationing in Somalia. As referred to in the wiki piece, Phil Dick nails it when his Charles Freck, attempting suicide, decides to go out with a copy of Fountainhead because he hopes when it's found accompanying his body that "would prove he had been a misunderstood superman rejected by the masses and so, in a sense, murdered by their scorn." Sniff, sniff. Again, there's that creepy sense of adolescence, no? At least Lord of the Rings made for some entertaining orc movies.

Phillip Dick.... now you're talking. The only writer who ever really "understood everything". Briliiant. The best. My favorite. May have to read some again tonight, thanks for bringing him up. mm

Why is it when one points out to Randies that their 'philosophy' basically breaks down to "me, me, me, - and the world will all just work out" that we are told it's because we simply just don't understand?

Kind of like teenagers, no?

I think Ayn would be more upset with her Randies that take this cop-out than she would be with the 'socialists' who point it out. Well, maybe not as upset as she would be that there is no place on the earth where here philosophy has worked - unless you like vacationing in Somalia.

As referred to in the wiki piece, Phil Dick nails it when his Charles Freck, attempting suicide, decides to go out with a copy of Fountainhead because he hopes when it's found accompanying his body that "would prove he had been a misunderstood superman rejected by the masses and so, in a sense, murdered by their scorn."

Sniff, sniff.

Again, there's that creepy sense of adolescence, no?
At least Lord of the Rings made for some entertaining orc movies.

Yes, you don't know what you are talking about.

Leaving aside your woeful lack of economic understanding, it would appear that you view adults as children, Objectivists (and I) respect rational adults and expect them to behave well generally, which they do. Rational adults understand that they do not live in a vacuum and that in order to survive we must, by and large, trade value for value with our fellow man. Our fellow man is very much in our thoughts. Objectivism is not irrational narcissism.

Objectivists hold that RATIONAL selfishness is a virtue. They, and I, hold that anything less is either horrifically self destructive or deceptive and/or immoral.

When I do a favor for my neighbor, indeed I am selfishly serving my OWN values--I want a neighborhood where we are all looking out for each other and we all view each other as potential trading (both pecuniary and non-pecuniary) partners and behave accordingly--over and above the minimum ethical standards of honesty and respecting each others rights. My obligation is to myself to promote an environment that supports my own rationally values.

Objectivists are not anarchists and rational people understand the need and value of the state. Fully rational people, unlike yourself, however, understand that the rights of the individual supersede the whims of the state or those of the majority.

Those who attempt to ridicule Objectivism, usually, when scratched to reveal their principles, essentially believe that might makes right and that rights are granted by who ever is in power.

So, which are you? Or do you HAVE principles?

I am prepared for the change of subject that will follow.

"trade value for value with our fellow man." Shouldn't one side be forced by fear to trade for lesser value? Fear of implied violence by either gangsters or government agents?

See, here's one of those big fundamental differences in philosophy. I was brought up Jewish and am an active Jew. We are taught this: If you help your neighbor its because he needs help. END OF STORY. No selfishness, no bonus points for afterlife reward, no nuttin'. You do it because its the RIGHT THING TO DO. So, I know not everyone feels that way. Some people help the neighbor because they think they are doing something "morally right" or they hope they'll get good deed points for the kingdom of heaven or something. And if you feel that way, you do not feel the way I do. There's a difference. Neither is right or wrong, but they are very, very different. And furthermore, some of us truly believe that the absolute right of the individual is pared back some in a democracy. I don't want a gun to "defend myself". I don't believe in anarchy, I believe in participatory democracy and shared responsiblity. I realize not everyone thinks this way. For instance, you don't, Mark. But I don't call your way out as "wrong". And I don't put up my way as "right". I am happy with my lot in life. I am happy sharing some of that with my fellow Americans. Its a privilege and an honor. mm Okay. Now you "moderate me" and yell at me ....

See, here's one of those big fundamental differences in philosophy. I was brought up Jewish and am an active Jew. We are taught this: If you help your neighbor its because he needs help. END OF STORY. No selfishness, no bonus points for afterlife reward, no nuttin'. You do it because its the RIGHT THING TO DO. So, I know not everyone feels that way. Some people help the neighbor because they think they are doing something "morally right" or they hope they'll get good deed points for the kingdom of heaven or something. And if you feel that way, you do not feel the way I do. There's a difference. Neither is right or wrong, but they are very, very different. And furthermore, some of us truly believe that the absolute right of the individual is pared back some in a democracy. I don't want a gun to "defend myself". I don't believe in anarchy, I believe in participatory democracy and shared responsiblity. I realize not everyone thinks this way. For instance, you don't, Mark. But I don't call your way out as "wrong". And I don't put up my way as "right". I am happy with my lot in life. I am happy sharing some of that with my fellow Americans. Its a privilege and an honor.

mm Okay. Now you "moderate me" and yell at me ....

What does any of the above have to do with A. Rand's books?

If you are referring to the quote below; your perspective is no different than Mark's. You do a good deed for your reasons; he does it for his. You made a judgment as to what the "right thing to do" is and so did Mark. The difference is that Mark outlined his criteria for the right thing; you did not.
So this is not "one of those big fundamental differences in philosophy."

When I do a favor for my neighbor, indeed I am selfishly serving my OWN values--I want a neighborhood where we are all looking out for each other and we all view each other as potential trading (both pecuniary and non-pecuniary) partners and behave accordingly--over and above the minimum ethical standards of honesty and respecting each others rights. My obligation is to myself to promote an environment that supports my own rationally values.

Edited by Dex, 23 July 2010 - 09:12 AM.

So while you can infer some conspiracy issues, such as the attempt by the government to keep the banks and some autos from collapsing as a parallel to those policies in Atlas Shrugged, we're really not dealing with the same issues

Taking the funds of bond holders who, in good faith loaned funds to GM and had those funds confiscated to support the unions sounds perfectly fine to me.
(Much of the work is now being outsourced to Mexico to save, not the workers or the companies but the unions and their extravagant benefits.)
And those poor bankers...who received their contributions after they got their bonuses?
Have you even looked into the beneficiaries of Freddie, Fanny and the friends of Angelo?
How's King Henry of GS doing?
Multi millions of dollars taken from the people.

Looters in bed with moochers, sucking the producers dry? It all sounds perfectly Randy to me.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 23 July 2010 - 07:07 PM.

If you want government to intervene domestically, you're a liberal. If you want government to intervene overseas, you're a conservative. If you want government to intervene everywhere, you're a moderate. If you don't want government to intervene anywhere, you're an extremist
Joseph Sobran

Why is it when one points out to Randies that their 'philosophy' basically breaks down to "me, me, me, - and the world will all just work out" that we are told it's because we simply just don't understand?

Kind of like teenagers, no?

I think Ayn would be more upset with her Randies that take this cop-out than she would be with the 'socialists' who point it out. Well, maybe not as upset as she would be that there is no place on the earth where here philosophy has worked - unless you like vacationing in Somalia.

As referred to in the wiki piece, Phil Dick nails it when his Charles Freck, attempting suicide, decides to go out with a copy of Fountainhead because he hopes when it's found accompanying his body that "would prove he had been a misunderstood superman rejected by the masses and so, in a sense, murdered by their scorn."

Sniff, sniff.

Again, there's that creepy sense of adolescence, no?
At least Lord of the Rings made for some entertaining orc movies.

Yes, you don't know what you are talking about.

Leaving aside your woeful lack of economic understanding, it would appear that you view adults as children, Objectivists (and I) respect rational adults and expect them to behave well generally, which they do. Rational adults understand that they do not live in a vacuum and that in order to survive we must, by and large, trade value for value with our fellow man. Our fellow man is very much in our thoughts. Objectivism is not irrational narcissism.

Objectivists hold that RATIONAL selfishness is a virtue. They, and I, hold that anything less is either horrifically self destructive or deceptive and/or immoral.

When I do a favor for my neighbor, indeed I am selfishly serving my OWN values--I want a neighborhood where we are all looking out for each other and we all view each other as potential trading (both pecuniary and non-pecuniary) partners and behave accordingly--over and above the minimum ethical standards of honesty and respecting each others rights. My obligation is to myself to promote an environment that supports my own rationally values.

Objectivists are not anarchists and rational people understand the need and value of the state. Fully rational people, unlike yourself, however, understand that the rights of the individual supersede the whims of the state or those of the majority.

Those who attempt to ridicule Objectivism, usually, when scratched to reveal their principles, essentially believe that might makes right and that rights are granted by who ever is in power.

So, which are you? Or do you HAVE principles?

I am prepared for the change of subject that will follow.

Yes, on the surface, it appears not to be irrational narcissism... as long as the scale of application doesn't go much beyond the end of one's nose.

Rand's objectivism has an implicit assumption of frictionless successful extrapolation from one's personal inner workings to the external world of chaotic inter-relations of complex, if not contrary, human beings. Objectivism holds us as automatons with a built-in program for optimizing personal gain at every moment in every interaction with others. It rarely works within a family unit (ask any exasperated parent of the ultimate in objectiveness, a teenager) let alone an enormous and complex society such as ours.

When faced with that inherent inefficiency, rather than face it or even inject some empathy that a lot of the friction is due to other human beings' conflicting wants and frailties, the Randy objectivest instead starts to whine about being misunderstood by lesser beings and/or begins to add a lot of conflating and hyperbolic adjectives about not being allowed their perfect way by all us lesser beings - and as such, my gosh, well, the world is just gonna stop turning - and THEN you'll see!

But the objectivest will object - "hey, I can optimize across the spectrum!" But how do you do that with 300 million other people? Representative government? "Oh no, can't have that! That leads to big bad government with whims that supersede super mens' wants. Oh my, can't have that!"

Throughout her childhood, Ayn's mother periodically scooped up all of her toys and gave them to other kids - think of the tantrums, if she was only allowed to express them. Do you think she would evolve a strong sense of empathy? As an adult, Rand became first, and foremost, an irrational narcissistic alarmist - maybe ya can't blame her, but do ya need to join her?

75% Say Free Markets Better Than Government Management of Economy, Political Class Disagrees

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely Voters prefer free markets over a government managed economy.

Not surprisingly, America’s Political Class is far less enamored with the virtues of a free market. In fact, Political Class voters narrowly prefer a government managed economy over free markets by a 44% to 37% margin

Outside of the Political Class, free markets are preferred across all demographic and partisan lines. This gap may be one reason that 68% of voters believe the Political Class doesn’t care what most Americans think. Fifty-nine percent (59%) are embarrassed by the behavior of the Political Class.

http://www.rasmussen...class_disagrees