Why in the world did you start the wretched thing?
When it comes to a fantasy, the looters can be whoever you prefer to blame for your obstacles in life.
Sort of. Rand’s philosophy is not particularly generous toward fraud and misleading conduct, which is one of the primary breakpoints where people who like to just point and laugh at it don’t quite connect with her Imagination Unicorn Kingdom. Rand (or, a better example, Piekoff - a dude who can actually construct an argument without drifting off into invective) would not necessarily approve of the conduct that led to the current economic situation, but she also would reject government intervention as any kind of a solution to that problem. Her approach would be more similar to the radical free market perspective - let all the businesses that did stupid things fail. Anybody who falsified data is liable for the consequences of that falsification, which means we’d probably be burning a few CFOs and public relations dudes at the stake right now. Honestly, that solution would work to an extent, and opinions are split on whether or not that would resolve the recession faster, but you’ll find a fairly universal agreement that the consequences of such a sequence of events would be undesirable to say the least, because we operate under the silly assumption that having steady income is, you know, good and desirable.
Of course, the whole analysis breaks down when you consider the fact that Rand would reject virtually every element of modern government. Income taxation is immoral. Welfare is immoral. Social security is immoral. Government-sponsored road improvement projects are immoral. Public education is immoral. Rand would reject modern society as a fundamentally broken, compromised, immoral structure, so while she might approve of the pillorying of the Wall Street Captains of Failure, she would not approve of, you know, anything else about the situation, or even the method by which people are seeking redress against these fellows.
Rand doesn’t have a philosophy. She has justifications.
this is in print but i can’t get a complete Fritz Leiber?
That’s about as brief and cutting of a critique as I’ve ever read. Well-said.
I think the main flaw, the point where her belief structure breaks down, is that not everyone who is driven remains so for their entire lives. People change, and may become more or less driven as they age. Once they achieve success, someone who is a producer may become a leech. But by that point, they may be so powerful that they can clamp down on any opposition to the point where they simply cannot fail. cf. DeBeers.
Or any established autocracy.
It was Rorschach’s unwillingness to change, inability to change that caused his own demise.
Not quite. Philosophically, the central problem with the Objectivist argument is epistemological and relates to their hard rationalist stance towards truth (they confuse metaphysical truth and the knowledge of that truth), which misinforms much of the rest of her reasoning, but the central argument cannot be dismissed offhand. The problem is that it is very much an idealized argument - “just stop welfare” doesn’t make a whole hell of a lot of sense in a universe where people don’t know how to interact with a pure capitalist system, just like most of their proposed solutions. I wouldn’t go tossing it away out-of-hand, though - there have been some fairly interesting examinations of the philosophy from both sides. The problem with Objectivism in general has always been its association with Ayn Rand - most followers revere her as some kind of turbo-bitchy deity, and her acidic rhetoric poisons most arguments in which anything she ever said could become an issue (though I do appreciate the fact that she follows proper grammar with her pronouns). Awesome in a debate round but for a civil discussion it becomes a stumbling block, as her Donahue appearance well indicates.
That’s why I prefer Piekoff for dry logical argumentation. He’s got as much of a boner for her as the rest of them, but he seems to keep it in a separate box from the rest of his writing.
As for the book, I certainly understand WHY it’s popular - it might not be good, but it’s entertaining. I remember forcing myself to read it back in my senior year of high school and thinking that if she had just shut her damn gob about the philosophy, the story was at least workable in a big, Duplo-blocks kind of way. She’s like Dan Brown with an agenda.
Observation that totally misses the joke - Rorschach was derived from The Question, who in turn reflected the sort-of Objectivist ideals of the guy who originally created him back in the…was it the forties?
Matt’s two sentence summation of Ayn Rand wasn’t meant to be an exhaustive critique. It was meant to be a pithy summation. Which it was.
As for the other criticisms you level… Jesus. You’re analyzing Ayn fucking Rand. Why? It’s a childish philosophy for childish people. Objectivism’s problem doesn’t come from one or two quarters; it’s flawed from beginning to end. Their epistemological arguments are laughably weak. Their discussion of morality exists completely ignores fundamental facts about human psyche, and in fact revels in their ignorance. Of course, without understanding such facts, they can’t possibly understand what drives them to create their own flawed “philosophy”, and thus the whole thing ends up being nothing more than a series of justifications.
Which leads us right back to Matt’s excellent summation of the philosophy. More could be said, but there’s no need.
How in the hell is this a compliment?
I believe Rorschach is more in line with Mr. A than The Question (Q&A) also by Steve Ditko.
The Question became some kind of populist Zen character.
It’s an extremely apt impression. Dan Brown’s book was equally predictable (even more so) and much more badly written. But people seem so enamoured with the ideas.
Good call. I only know about Steve Ditko’s deeper history in the loosest possible sense of the word. Hell - I only heard that he was an Objectivist by way of iFanboy.
Ah, they must have finished the Turner Diaries. Those siwwy widdle nutjobs!
I never looked into the basics of the philosophy but I think most people dislike the face of it rather than the basis she developed. Her views on relationships is a typical oddity but what gets me so much about the modern camp is all the warmongering.
Nathaniel Branden had it right a long time ago when he commented that they simply lack reasonableness. Even the hardest anarcho-capitalist (one involved in society anyway) doesn’t always look a gift horse in the mouth.
WTF? Will anarcho-capitalism just die already. It’s an oxymoron.
If you’re an anarcho-capitalist, you’re a libertarian. BLARHGHSLDJF:SLKJ!
Actually, I found that part of Brian’s post to be fine. THIS is what had me shaking my head:
But I might just feel that way because it didn’t have any pictures of cute fuzzy animals.
Except Rorschach was insane.
If you’re an anarcho-capitalist, you’re a libertarian.
Uhm… no.
Possibly. My problem with is the basis; it’s terrible & poorly thought out. Don’t get me wrong; a lot of thought went into it. But it was crappy thought. It doesn’t mesh well with the way things actually are. It doesn’t even mesh terribly well with itself.
Nathaniel Branden had it right a long time ago when he commented that they simply lack reasonableness. Even the hardest anarcho-capitalist (one involved in society anyway) doesn’t always look a gift horse in the mouth.
That’s what I was trying to say, but your summation is much clearer. I need to check out this Nathaniel Branden chap.