Reason TV: Ayn Rand’s relevance
posted at 12:15 pm on November 2, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
Reason TV kicks off its Ayn Rand retrospective this week with a look at how suddenly relevant the philosopher and novelist has become. A-list Hollywood stars want to make a movie from Atlas Shrugged, and suddenly “going Galt” has become a popular catchphrase for producer strikes. Who would have guessed that the era of Hope and Change would have produced Rand as a counter-cultural phenomenon?
Well, perhaps Rand herself would have foreseen it — and in fact she did, in Atlas Shrugged:
Just how much has Rand and her Objectivism returned to the fore? Her book, with no particular marketing campaign of which I’m aware, is just outside the top 100 books on Amazon, at #103. This is a perfect example of what Nick Gillespie calls “the long shelf life of Ayn Rand,” which springs from the natural impulse of a free people when confronted with statism, even so-called benevolent statism. In the novel, the producers of the world act individually, but eventually all reach the same conclusion.
I agree with Nick that Rand may wind up being more relevant to this century than she was to the last. Rand’s message got a little lost as a result of the Cold War and its aftermath; we focused on Soviet statism as an external threat rather than progressive statism as an internal threat. At the moment, we have a clarity on that point that we never quite had in the previous 50 years.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »
He/she/it doesn’t even know what the message is.
It’s the Obamacrats’ first reaction to fleck spittle at conservative Christians, no matter WHAT the charge or the issue.
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 1:23 PM
Neither can I, but she’s not running for President.
Rand’s concern was for societal entities trying to destroy the “I” for the sake if the “we.” Atheistic powers wanted to do this through government and Theistic powers seek to do this through things like “social justice.”
Anthem is set in an essentially atheistic setting. Regardless, the powers that seek to exalt themselves while requiring the individual to subject himself to the whole can be observed in both atheistic and theistic parameters.
As a Christian I can filter Ayn’s general view of the individual (which includes responsibility to the individuality of others) and find value in her aversion to forces that try to subjugate the one to the masses.
mankai on November 2, 2009 at 1:24 PM
As usual, you exclude the growth in the cost of fringe benefits.
As to Obama not planning on taking over health care, you haven’t read any of the bills, have you.
MarkTheGreat on November 2, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Rand doesn’t say labor is irrelevant. Her point was that without leaders, entrepreneurs, risk takers, or those that start businesses then there would be no physical laborers.
I work at a large corporation and am in a high skill, high wage job, but without the vision of the company founders I wouldn’t have this job.
This goes straight to the heart of the union problem. The unions seem to think that a company can’t exist without them. Not true. Labor is one of the most basic inputs like capital and equipment. The knowledge and skill of those higher up the food chain like engineers for example are more valuable, and less available inputs. Unions are the greedy, grasping trying to claim what isn’t theirs.
DerKrieger on November 2, 2009 at 1:25 PM
I’m sure BB also assumes that the “rich” will just continue to produce and earn money at the same rate — and happily surrender their wealth rather than “Go Galt” in some form –if/when the gov’t takes over healthcare.
Silly liberals.
Fly_in_Ointment on November 2, 2009 at 1:25 PM
Social conservatism is virtually indistiguishable from social liberalism. The only difference is what part of your life they want govt to control.
MarkTheGreat on November 2, 2009 at 1:26 PM
Agreed.
davidk on November 2, 2009 at 1:26 PM
DING
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 1:27 PM
There is a line (I don’t remember, but it might be in the the Galt address) where she indicates that the physical laborer is mooching off the minds of the people that thought up the labor he is being paid to do. Over and over again, she comes back to the replaceable nature of physical labor. She demeans it.
Granted, she was writing this in the hayday of big labor and in living memory of ubiquitous unemployment, so I can understand how her perception might be a bit twisted.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 1:28 PM
Actually, the poverty rate halved during the War on Poverty. Urban decline had a number of causes, but the war on poverty was not one of them, save, perhaps, to the extent to which more people could afford to move to the ‘burbs.
Middle class is in some ways worse off, given that income has been flat and the cost of necessities like out-of-pocket health care and a college education are rising much faster than inflation. That the economy is growing and efficiency is increasing but the middle class is seeing no benefits while the well-off see dramatic gains in income suggests that the game is rigged.
Bleeds Blue on November 2, 2009 at 1:29 PM
I am focusing on the bright side of that. The more real Doctors who Go Galt, the more demand there will be for
quacksalternative medicine.Sigmund on November 2, 2009 at 1:30 PM
The war on the news will be televised just not on any channel anyone is watching ;)
Selling the Drama, Who’s Competing For Your Attention? Cable News War.
I added a link to Rob Bartlett’s Blog he put up everyone’s top 5 favorite books.
I can come up with 2 so far :)
Dr Evil on November 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM
I still say that a strike by the ‘Galts’ of this country would get their attention.
If the Statists think that the achievers and producers – the people who actually produce the wealth they so cavalierly steal – are the root of evil, Then how would they like it if we all stopped producing wealth for them, for even a short time.
Juno77 on November 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM
That is a gross oversimplification.
I am generally libertarian in my instincts, but even Ron Paul is Pro-Life… which is not a “control” issue any more than registering sex offenders is a “government control issue.” Protecting the innocent AND protecting local control of community standards are very conservative values.
Let’s go to an extreme… The feds coming in and forcing a state or a locale to “allow” pedophiles to work in local schools on the premise that the federal government is superior to community standards and these ex-cons should have their “rights”… is that the “conservative” position?
mankai on November 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM
Have you any idea – the tiniest clue – how tired that argument is? How easily debunked? How absurdly simplistic?
Please, get help. Consider this your intervention.
TheUnrepentantGeek on November 2, 2009 at 1:33 PM
But of course most Objectivists see Communism and Christianity as equally ideologies. What is John Galt’s unreadable speech, but a long tirade, written in the language of total dehumisation, on the twin “mysticisms,” the “mystics of muscle” (basically Communists and egalitarians) and the “mystics of spirit” (Christians), both groups being equally evil, equally anti-life, and equally deserving of extinction?
aengus on November 2, 2009 at 1:34 PM
Maybe…
It might be that the line is somewhat blurry. A large amount of what “social conservatives” want is not control of the lives of other people, but to be free to condemn immoral behavior publicly and not be forced to accept what they find unacceptable. A lot of this goes to what gets forced on them via public schooling, pop culture, or some “anti-discrimination” laws.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM
s/b dehumanisation
aengus on November 2, 2009 at 1:35 PM
Go for it. You’re a geek, get me some figures.
Bleeds Blue on November 2, 2009 at 1:36 PM
Does anyone trust Hollywood to make this movie?
Cindy Munford on November 2, 2009 at 12:18 PM
Hollywood enabling the concept of capitalist individualism, in contravention of all that they’ve promoted and endorsed since the era of Wilson, Mussolini & Hitler?
Check your premises!
This will be a bastardization on a level of Robert Heilein’s Starship Troopers, a seminal work exploring the responsibilities of citizens in a free society, reduced to utter drivel.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Guess what… for the trillions spent to move some people slightly above the poverty line, the government destroyed the black family, drove businesses out of the inner cities and the ensuing debt and set of entitlements led to…
The answer is to cut taxes and regulation. Would you suggest that we go back to the wealth-creating tax and regulation policies of 1979? As much as lefties like Krugman hare Reagan, I don’t hear them advocating such a policy.
As for the cost of tuition… I worked with Financial Aid for a decade… stupid libs never realized that for every increase in available aid, the cost of tuition rose accordingly. Had they understood markets, they would have known that.
mankai on November 2, 2009 at 1:37 PM
Not mooching. She’s acknowledging that
Hmmm. Given the terrible, horrible, no-good, very bad “no growth” you cited in income levels since the 70′s, you’re now conceding that people are SOMEHOW getting wealthier and moving away from the Democrat-controlled poverty centers known as our inner cities.
But, hey. The government has already taken over student loans and is trying to take over health care. Because that will NOT have to be paid for in taxes. Ever. It’s just “free” when the government takes over it. And no massive government program ta thas ever been enacted has EVER cost more than initially projected before implementation. EVER. That NEVER HAPPENED IN HISTORY *COUGHmedicaresocialsecuritymedicaidpubliceducationCOUGH*
The simple truth you are evading (again) is that either you pay for these things voluntarily (preferable, as you can pay as much or as little as you see fit), or you pay by coercion through taxes (which means you pay what a politician says you “should” pay, and you pay for it regardless of what you get out of it).
There is no free lunch. I’ll take free will over coercion.
We know what you and your ilk want. You want to be the one doing the coercing.
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 1:37 PM
She doesn’t call it “mooching” when the laborer has the moral integrity to know where his meal and his pay are coming from and acts accordingly.
Very few laborers do, though. That was her point. That’s why Eddie Willers is portrayed sympathetically. He had not the ability to move the world, but he did have the moral integrity to help the movers move it.
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 1:39 PM
I’ll help the lefties out here:
It’s fairly easy to debunk Atlas Shrugged: It’s a novel, and hence a work of fiction, and hence a straw man. Rand builds up her straw man and then knocks it down. So therefore it’s meaningless.
Of course, that misses the point. Atlas Shrugged was simply an entertaining way for Rand to introduce her philosophy of Objectivism and how it relates to the functioning of a productive society. So the issue for debate should be: “Is Objectivism valid?”
I won’t try to argue that here. For that argument, read the book. But note that Rand was a personal witness to the Communist takeover of Russia. She saw the end result of irrationalism combined with power, and wanted to warn the world of the danger of that path.
ZenDraken on November 2, 2009 at 1:43 PM
“You want to be the one doing the coercing.”
Indeed, Bleeds Evil’s credo is slavery to the hilt.
As for ATLAS, it is a didactic sledgehammer of a book that makes PILGIM’S PROGRESS look a model of subtlety, turgid in its aesthetics but dead-on politically.
Rand is actually optimistic in hoping for a Galt. The Statist actions in the book will cause a “strike,” or more properly a lockout (as people are legally PREVENTED from producing), in any case. Economics is the ecology of human action, and statist intervention is like a deliberate oil spill, or something like this…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_sparrow_campaign
ebrown2 on November 2, 2009 at 1:43 PM
Among them, driving out business with excessive regulation, taxation and attempts to unionize them, as well as rampant, one-party government corruption (Democrat) that has led to generations of people dependent (who have never known otherwise) on handouts from politicians, welfare that encourages not working over working (why work flipping burgers if you get more money sitting on your ass and taking a welfare check?), encouraging the breakdown of civil society by inserting government as the “final arbiter” of what “should be” in these urban centers, making government-run schools less safe than prisons, etc.
Yup. Government and the massive government effort to assert itself over “poverty” had NOTHING to do with this.
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 1:43 PM
It’s the story of Katrina: Those that wait for the Government to rescue them, got left behind in a nightmare of hell, those who do for themselves got out and got to safety. Private businessess were quick to get in to start cleaning up and re-open. Can you imagine what New Orleans would look like had the private businesses chose not to return?
TN Mom on November 2, 2009 at 1:44 PM
Yes, I totally agree on the Rand/Bioshock connection. Amazing game, if not one of the best ever.
Watch the movie: The City of Lost Children . After one sees this, one realizes where Bioshock creators stole most of their ideas.
Oh, and they are making a Bioshock movie and Bioshock 2 game.
nottakingsides on November 2, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Personally I didn’t think much of John Galt. Rather than simply going and finding employment elsewhere (and continuing to be a PRODUCER) in response to his employer doing what they damn will wished their factory (even if it was to implement a stupidly socialist structure – they, as owners, had every farking right to do so) – he sets out to ‘stop the motor of the world’.
Not that I don’t agree with a lot of Ann’s ideas. There are Moochers and Looters and Producers. We can see evidence of this all around us. From the welfare queens of New Orleans to the halls of congress and the ‘rednecks’ on the factory floor.
I think there needs to be a balance between the pure selfishness of John Galt and the socialists tendancies of the society he lives in.
People ought to earn their own way and enjoy the fruits of their labor without government (or society) stealing from them to give to those who would rather take from others. But there should be room for _some_ compassion and sacrifice (just not forced compassion and sacrifice).
CrazyFool on November 2, 2009 at 1:48 PM
Eddie was my favorite character.
It ticked me off that she killed him off (and how).
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 1:48 PM
They’ll just be replaced with doctors from Africa. Going on strike won’t work because anyone, born anywhere in the world is a potential American according to the ‘propositional nation’ idea.
aengus on November 2, 2009 at 1:50 PM
I got the impression that Bioshock was supposed to be condemning Rand. Basically, showing that a society set up according to her beliefs would descend into anarchy and insanity — but I’ve only read reviews of it, not actually played it.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM
I’ve been torn.
I think what she might have used him to portray is the idea that when the mind (the producers and creators) leave society or stop doing what they do, the good people out there like Eddie are the real ones who are going to suffer – the ones who don’t deserve to.
I think he’s left behind on purpose as a warning.
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 1:51 PM
Rand makes the point that the Founders (Theists) created a Republic that limited the control of the “majority” to control the individual… and the Founders not only believed that rights came from Nature’s God, but they also believed in basic Christian values in the area of altruism.
There is no conflict.
Altruism is and should be as individualistic as all other endeavors. Government has no right to force financial benevolence and more than it should restrict it as a matter of individual choice.
mankai on November 2, 2009 at 1:52 PM
Galt crystallizes the Randian motto: “I swear by my life and my love
of it that I will never live for the sake of another man nor ask
another man to live for mine.” No sacrifice, no altruism, no feelings,
just pure egotistical selfishness, which Rand declares to be supreme
logic and reason.
Are you just reciting from cliff notes? I appears fairly obvious you’ve read neither Atlas Shrugged, or The Fountain head.
You must first be able to say “I”, before you can say “I love”. If you cannot first assign a value to who and what you are, what you have to offer to anyone else cannot be valued.
The sanctimonious tone of your lack of understanding of what you speak, displays an ignorance of the subject by an order of magnitude. If your attention span is capable of more than that of a collectivist soundbyte platitude, go back and digest the prescience of her vision, and then come and try to play with the Big Dogs of HA.
This an “adult swim” only here child, go back and wade in the kiddie pool over at Daily Kos willya
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Just remember that altruism is the sacrifice of the self for others.
Helping others is not altruism. Consuming yourself and destroying your own life to sustain another is altruism.
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 1:54 PM
Or, white flight, the riots, a changing economy, massive de facto subsidies for suburban development, bias in mortgage lending and so on. Here in the DC area, the affluent suburbs have a good number of the ills you tick off — meddling bureaucrats, government run schools and so on — and yet they thrive.
Of course a lot of cities are coming back, too.
Bleeds Blue on November 2, 2009 at 1:55 PM
…and yet all the other characters celebrate their happy little utopic future while the otherwise supremely stable Eddie goes insane and lets himself die of exposure. Basically, he is treated like Judas (though it is the female lead {name escaping me as I write this} that betrays Galt with a kiss) for having insufficient faith in the way of Galt.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 1:57 PM
Damn, the paste did’nt capture the addressee! The above was intended for this moron!
I can’t go along with this kind of philosophy.
davidk on November 2, 2009 at 1:11 PM
No offense intended for Ace’s crowd, brothers in arms and all that.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 1:58 PM
There’s no explicit philosophical conflict between Objectivism and Christianity but consider that Galt talks of “mystics of the spirit” (belivers in God) the way Lenin talked about property owners and there’s a lot or potential for things to go wrong. For instance Objectivists will say that in a fully Objectivist system the people will naturually shed their illusions (religion). Okay, but what if they don’t?
aengus on November 2, 2009 at 2:01 PM
-Ayn Rand
mankai on November 2, 2009 at 2:01 PM
It’s typical of the people who have never read Rand but pretend that they have. You can tell these people – they never cite anything from the books or talk about her ideas.
They merely attack you or attack their caricatures of Rand and people who like her and claim they’re “refuting Rand.” Calling her “immature,” “dangerous,” “unrealistic,” “impractical,” or what have you. Rand portrayed these people in AS as the glitteratti, societal aristocrats, liberals (like Lilian Rearden, Jim Taggart, Balph Eubank, etc.). They’re always saying things like “oh, don’t be so impractical,” or “we need to be more pragmatic about this,” or “it seems to me that society should sacrifice more for the common good,” etc.
That’s not to say some of her ideas can’t be criticized or shouldn’t be – but Rand haters seldom even articulate WHICH ideas of hers are to be criticized because they don’t even attempt to articulate them correctly.
They’re just revealing that they haven’t even read the front matter of any of her work, let alone UNDERSTAND her ideas.
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 2:01 PM
Then you get a society ruled by one ganga of mystics versus the other.
They argue about many things, but both stand united against the mind.
Personally, I find the mystics of spirit to be MUCH more tolerable, as long as they’re not trying to push their spiritualism on others via government. And even when that happens, things like abortion restrictions are benign in comparison to things like forcing you off your health insurance to go onto GovernmentCare.
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 2:03 PM
This is one of the most frustrating parts of giving aid to students. There are a great many who are quite scholastically able, but the financial burden grows ever worse.
But give enough aid long enough – by public OR private means – and schools will simply jack up tuition, gouge the students more and continue as usual. Sometimes the new money is used for little that is beneficial; colleges are trying to be everything to everyone and it’s costing accordingly.
Mere price caps are hardly likely to solve the problem. At the same time, the alternative is to leave students hanging in the breeze until colleges cut costs down out of desperation, and that is a big ugly can of scorpions to open.
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 2:06 PM
True. I guess Ayn would argue that men would help others as a result of some selfish interest… which I might add has its counterpart in Christian theology.
To wit… every action of every man is tainted with sin. All come short of the glory of God in all. We do not love our neighbors in the exact same way we love ourselves. Each act of goodness is poisoned by some degree of self.
The difference would be that Ayn would see no problem with such a taint, whereas the Christian would recognize his deficiency and regret the taint. But there is no conflict in accepting the idea that the state has absolutely no right to claim a role of benevolence on the behalf of the governed.
mankai on November 2, 2009 at 2:07 PM
I’ve only read Atlas.
I’m generally fine with most of her ideas (except that I find her concept of sexual relationships a bit twisted). But there were an number of ways that Atlas was poorly written, and I think part three actually detracts from the whole.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 2:09 PM
1) Correct both are ideologies… and although quite different, they share a common premise: that the purpose of man is to serve, or in other words, altruism.
2) Unreadable, yet you read it. Dehumanizing, yet you are still human. Perhaps you mean to say that it went against what you had learned to be moral to such an extent that you couldn’t help but feel attacked by it.
3) As for equal evilness, yes you could hold that to be true, but nuance can be used so as to apply priorities or respective levels of “danger”. communism is obviously the most dangerous in the short term, and has to be fought and defeated immediately. The philosophical premise of communism (altruism) does lie in Christianity, but it is a more slow-acting force. People can completely intellectually compartmentalize it and advocate capitalism (although for the wrong reasons)… but over time it will philosophically unarm men to resist and defend against socialism. Bismarck (the original Mr. Conservative of Europe) implemented the first welfare system under the label of “Practical Christianity”. Years of capitalists apologizing for their wealth as if it was a sign of shame, and giving it away to buy esteem in the eyes of their fellow altruists. Today we can’t even fight the New Deal. Instead conservatives rail against “Big” Government, as if the “Bigness” of something was a moral criterion. Conservatives are terrified of being accused of wanting to strip medicare/medicaid/social security from the budget. “Wanting people to starve” is now the attack used against them. Ask yourself why the USA looks the way it does today, and what altruism has to do with it.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 2:09 PM
He saw that the same thing was happening all over – what good would it do to go somewhere else when the same thing would happen?
It’s called Capitalism, and even though it’s far from perfect, it works. Unlike the other Statist systems that have failed every time.
Juno77 on November 2, 2009 at 2:10 PM
I still say that a strike by the ‘Galts’ of this country would get their attention.
If the Statists think that the achievers and producers – the people who actually produce the wealth they so cavalierly steal – are the root of evil, Then how would they like it if we all stopped producing wealth for them, for even a short time.
Juno77 on November 2, 2009 at 1:32 PM
You might be right, but it hasn’t yet, and it has already begun. Look at the flight from California & New York!
Noonan imbibed heavily of the Kool-Aid of Obama’s Hopium, and only yesterday sobered up and observed that increasingly,the men of means and ability are no longer in attendance at the posh gala affairs she attends.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703363704574503631430926354.html
Sanity begins to strike the vestiges of reason that still remain, but is it too little, too late. How many will toil in futility and defiance before the realization of the obvious?
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Vocational schools.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 2:10 PM
Yes, and I don’t see the problem with valuing the self as a “taint.”
God instructs you to value yourself, as you are the only one of you there is. Your body is a temple, etc. the INDIVIDUAL is a sacred thing, too. You can’t provide any kind of meaningful value others if you don’t first value yourself.
Selfishness in the Objectivist meaning of the word is a feature, not a bug. It doesn’t mean the unconditional adherence to one’s own self above all others regardless of circumstances. It means that an individual must know their own values and pursue them .
Giving money to a homeless man on the street is not altruism or sacrifice IF you value the homeless man being able to buy a cup of coffee (or whatever else). A soldier giving his life for a comrade is NOT a sacrifice if the dying soldier held the life of the other as a high value (indeed, an even greater testament to the character our fighting men and women).
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 2:12 PM
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 1:57 PM
The lead character is Dagny Taggart.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 2:13 PM
This is also where Rand resembles Marx: convinced that the “system” is stacked against true reform, she demands a violent revolution. That her characters don’t fight it with arms but rather by destroying the economy of the Earth (thereby killing off most of the human population), is kind of beside the point.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 2:15 PM
There we go. “Dagny” is such an odd name that I tend to forget it.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 2:16 PM
Yeah, that’s one of the areas I think a lot of people probably go off the rails with her on. Myself included.
An interesting theory – basically, she thinks that if you want it and you hold the object of your affection as a value, you are morally sanctioned in pursuing it. The religious would point this out and say “AHA! See? If there is no higher authority to answer to for such actions, chaos would ensue.”
I think she’s just being consistent in her philosophy (which, if you read about her life, gave her problems in this area). The government, nor God, hold authority over her mind or her desires and her values. Freedom means freedom in all respects, least of all the bedroom.
So be it, I guess. ;-)
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 2:17 PM
Must be repeated.
Shambhala on November 2, 2009 at 2:20 PM
I don’t agree. Marx was fighting a revolution to enslave the masses to the dictats and whims of a political cabal.
Galt’s strike is a struggle for freedom of the individual soul, the inviolate mind and the creative energy of human thinking. The producers, no longer to be willing to be persecuted, hated, looted and scorned for the sin of pulling society out of the swamp of nature and sustaining it, simply refuse to bear the chains.
And look what happens.
Who are shackling them? Marx, the mystics of spirit and muscle, rampant collectivism et al.
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Every college or university has a “cost per student” figure where they simply break even. Financial Aid is built on this figure. Many “scholarships” are simply discounts to entice certain students to attend. All colleges function with a “discount rate” goal… and the ultimate goal is to discount to a rate that insures a positive cash-flow as well as a large enough FTE figure (full time enrollment).
Now, when the government throws in money for “poor” students (grants, loans, work-study, etc.), all they do is eliminate the discount. For example… let’s say it costs $10,000 per student to cover all expenses relating to housing, feeding and educating him… the college will publish a cost of $20,000/year and then entice students with scholarships and loans whereby the student sees a “scholarship” of $5000 (real or not) and the balance is plugged into a combination of government loans and private (parent) loans…
When the government gives money to students, all the college does is reduce the discounts. Better to get real money from the government than try to get students to come based on discounts (unfunded scholarships). The people that get screwed are the middle class… who are taxed to support the government loan and grant programs.
So the middle class cries for more grant and loan programs when prices rise… thus driving up the cost of education (reducing the discounts)… as the colleges up their prices in response to the response… why?… because this puts pressure on the government to keep pace by increasing loan and grant programs… and the merry-go-round goes round.
Guess who benefits from the increased funds… Administrators and faculty… who by-and-large vote Democratic.
mankai on November 2, 2009 at 2:21 PM
Trying one now, in a fashion; a community college with a focus on computer repair and culinary arts.
If that combo can’t get me decent employment I don’t know what will…if there’s two things that can be counted it’s that there will always be a plentiful supply of people who break their toys, and of course everyone everywhere needs to eat.
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 2:22 PM
Then you get a society ruled by one ganga of mystics versus the other.
They argue about many things, but both stand united against the mind.
Personally, I find the mystics of spirit to be MUCH more tolerable, as long as they’re not trying to push their spiritualism on others via government. And even when that happens, things like abortion restrictions are benign in comparison to things like forcing you off your health insurance to go onto GovernmentCare.
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 2:03 PM
Yes, and people often incorrectly point to the thugs of Labor and the Mystic’s enimity as proof they are not related. But just as siblings, they quarrel most fearsomely between eachother precisely as they feel most threatened by their similarity.
The Labor collectivist and the labor collectivist are distinguishable only by the merest nuance. One pleads for sacrifice and service for the rewards found only in a ever in the future utopia that never comes, and the Mystic for the rewards found in a future after-life that does not exist. Beyond that there is no real difference.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 2:23 PM
I hope admiration for Ayn Rand doesn’t cause conservatives to oppose Wall Street regulations and stand on behalf of the bankers who are gaming the system and milking our Treasury dry. The biggest coup that Wall Street has achieved is convincing the free marketers that their looting of our economy was good for our country because they represent John Galt.
John9400 on November 2, 2009 at 2:24 PM
Thank you for the detailed information. Wasn’t quite able to put all the pieces of the puzzle myself.
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 2:24 PM
That’s an interesting definition of sacrifice (though I think I remember Rand using something like that). Normally, a sacrifice is the payment part of an exchange with a deity — the the one doing the sacrifice intends to gain more benefit from that exchange than he loses with the sacrifice. On a secular level, we tend to use “sacrifice” to mean a person giving up something of value so that society as a whole will gain something of a larger value (so much so that the person making the sacrifice values it more than their sacrifice).
Restricting “sacrifice” to mean voluntarily giving up something of value to gain something of lesser value would seem to invalidate the term.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 2:24 PM
This is just gratuitous non-sense. The Thomas Jefferson also resembles Marx in that sense. You might as well have muttered “…she… she… she’s an IDEOLOGUE!!!!!~!” like Bill O’Reilly does and considered that to be a point against her.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 2:25 PM
Actually, Rand would call them “moochers” and refuse them a dime of bailout money, consequences be damned.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 2:26 PM
So I am right in saying that Objectivists think there is basically no difference between Communists and Christians. That’s what I thought.
aengus on November 2, 2009 at 2:28 PM
Good points in both your posts…
Scripturally speaking, the only specific reason given for seeking marriage by Paul is to satisfy the urge for sex (1 Cor 7). In that agreement, the parties are not to “defraud” each other. That is, the understanding for marriage is that your body becomes the only outlet for the sexual satisfaction of your mate and you may not restrict that area.
This differs from Ayn’s view on the surface, but ultimately both parties theoretically individually benefit from Paul’s view of marriage on a physical. Of course, Paul adds that a man must “love” his wife in a sacrificial manner… but ultimately that is also to his benefit. The concept of the reward for the faithful believer is never far from Paul… and seeking such a reward is encouraged.
mankai on November 2, 2009 at 2:28 PM
That’s a bit of a stretch.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 2:31 PM
Having studied what kind of ruin the Socialist/Communist/Fascist/Progressivist/Marxist/.. ideologies have brought to many societies, there has to be a way of stopping this kind of scourge dead in it’s tracks.
It’s a question of either stopping this type of system before it becomes too powerful to resist, or wait until it ultimately fails and start over.
Personally I would go with Option #1.
Juno77 on November 2, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I’m generally fine with most of her ideas (except that I find her concept of sexual relationships a bit twisted).
Yeah, that’s one of the areas I think a lot of people probably go off the rails with her on. Myself included.
I think that both fans & foes alike would agree, the woman did not want for lack of ego. Dagny Taggart’s propensity for traipsing from bed to bed was not unlike how Rand conducted her intimate liasons, perhaps she thought that was more woman than any one man deserved.
The sought degradation through sex thing of Domique in Fountainhead was more than just a touch strange. For that I have no explanation, nor understanding. And I’ll remain happy to keep it that way.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 2:32 PM
I’d say that she saw no difference between Communism and what was popularly viewed as Christianity. Mike Wallace tries to make the case in his 1959 interview of Ayn that socialist programs are born out of Christian values… but the Founders were devout men who rejected such a connection.
The idea of “social justice” Christianity is foreign to the Christianity that founded the nation. Ayn rejects “social justice” in the same interview that she praises the ideals of the Founders… so without knowing it, she criticizes one view of Christianity while praising another.
mankai on November 2, 2009 at 2:33 PM
This is pure context-dropping.
The government creates the FDIC, therefore destroys competition between banks on the measure of risk to depositors, and THEN as a RESULT must regulate reserve ratios.
If you don’t like systemic risk then why don’t you advocate scrapping the original problem (gov-intervention) rather then rail against the bankers who work in the most regulated industry on the face of the earth.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 2:33 PM
Perhaps the increase in financial aid and subsequent increase in tuition is intended as payback to the EDU world for their service as bastions of leftist correct-think.
ignatzk on November 2, 2009 at 2:37 PM
Yep. Their one and only correct point (IMHO) is when they object to based on religion but implemented and enforced by the secular state. They are unable or unwilling to distinguish between separation of the institutions of the church and the state* and a state where there are individuals influenced by religion(s) and make laws with more than a trifling basis in morality.
To borrow from the Bioshock example, an Objectivist would refuse to obstruct a law preventing creation of Little Sisters on the grounds that some ‘magical sky fairy’ said it was wrong, and likely dismiss the fact that it ‘felt’ wrong to allow such things. One would be then reduced to making the case that it was damaging to the well being of others on a physical/mental/economic basis, and make an extremely convincing case of it.
*See the Catholic Church in the Medieval Ages for an easy example of when the institutions weren’t separated.
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 2:38 PM
Well, Rand had a special hatred for those who used the government to game the free-market system (James Taggart and his boys in Washington, etc.). A proper reading of Rand doesn’t interpret the desire for less government regulation as a call to engage in economic anarchy.
She DID advocate for strong legal authority to protect individual rights and property rights. This would include laws against fraud, embezzlement, etc. And we ahve those laws. I don’t think our economic woes stem from a lack of these laws – they stem from people evading those laws, cozying up with government in an attempt to gain leverage over competitors, working with government to get deals, tax breaks (using govt as a protection racket) etc.
Rand hated that sh*t, and so do (I’d guess) most people across all spectrum.
Good Lt on November 2, 2009 at 2:39 PM
See how that works?
right2bright on November 2, 2009 at 2:42 PM
Oh, I agree that the government should not intervene to assume risk for bankers. The problem is the government has already intervened. No government in the world is going to allow for the type of catastrophic crash that the financial system needs to cleanse itself. So you either regulate the financial industry or you keep socializing losses while privatizing profits.
Conservatives defending bankers who are absolutely raping American taxpayers will be what dooms the GOP when(not if) the whole economy comes crashing down. Having fewer regulations would not have averted this financial crash. Allowing the financial sector to crater would have averted this twist moral hazard we’ve created now, but it would not have averted the crash itself. And therein lies the problem with a “pure” ideology like Galtism when applied to the real world.
John9400 on November 2, 2009 at 2:43 PM
I hope admiration for Ayn Rand doesn’t cause conservatives to oppose Wall Street regulations and stand on behalf of the bankers who are gaming the system and milking our Treasury dry. The biggest coup that Wall Street has achieved is convincing the free marketers that their looting of our economy was good for our country because they represent John Galt.
John9400 on November 2, 2009 at 2:24 PM
A “free market” is one not tainted by the advantage of regulatory “stacking the deck”, but with obviuos ly necessary rules that dicourage monopolistic coercion and stifling of innovation. It is a fine line I admit, but its distinction can wait till its needed, as we crossed lightyears beyond that lines proximity resides in the here vand now.
One thing at a time, we’ll jump off that bridge when we get to it.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 2:43 PM
But the “wall of separation between Church and State” comes from Thomas Jefferson’s writings correct? From what I remember of reading Rand people simply wake up and discard their religious illusions. Or is Church-State division explicitly mentioned in Rand’s philosophy?
aengus on November 2, 2009 at 2:45 PM
I think Ayn created a false dichotomy when she stated that argument for conservatism was being made on either religious or rational basis and if conservatives chose to make a religious argument they, by default, surrendered the rational to the other side.
I see her primary point, but one can make a rational argument for conservative ideals based on certain religious beliefs for it is those very beliefs that lead an individual to the rational arguments.
She is right to say that we cannot argue “You should be for low taxes because God likes low taxes.” But as an individual, I can take my economics education, view the facts and systems as I study them in light of religious claims… and conclude the validity of my position is consistent with both the facts and with my religious understanding.
In fact, I may conclude that the reason the system I support is the most rational is because it is derived from the conclusions I’ve drawn from my religious understanding after having subjected those beliefs to the facts (evidence).
Ayn says “look around” and see what one version of Christianity has wrought on mankind… but that does not delegitimize all forms of Christianity (one of which gave us the Constitutional restraints she spoke of with admiration).
mankai on November 2, 2009 at 2:51 PM
Seeing as there are Randians out and about, I wroe a couple of pieces a while back comparingtoday to Rand’s writings. It represents a nascent beginning as a writer and ant feedback would be greatly appreciated if you’ve the time. Just leave your thoughts in the comments if you have input.
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/08/01/the-methodology-of-subversion-and-the-undermining-of-liberty/
http://papundits.wordpress.com/2009/08/03/the-3rd-coast-and-the-3rd-world/
Also FYI, if any of you are in Chicago-land, ther is an Objectivist discussion group U of Chicago tonight at 7PM in Harper 125. It would be cool to bump into some of the HA crowd in person.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Right wing extremist whackjob!!!!!
James on November 2, 2009 at 2:52 PM
Damn typos! My blog efforts are not as sloppy as my posts, trust me.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 2:53 PM
The crash would never have happened if the regulations hadn’t created the boom that it is crashing from in the first place.
That aside, the real problem with banking and crashes is the lack of a mechanism to effectively distribute the cost of a crash to the people with their money in the banks. In 1930, whoever got their money out first in the case of a run on the bank lost nothing, while someone who didn’t stood to lose everything. Deposit insurance removes the risk of a run, but, by doing so, removes the system from market forces to a certain extent.
Count to 10 on November 2, 2009 at 2:54 PM
Again, that wall is meant for the institutions themselves. We do not appoint people pastors/bishops/etc. because of their position in the Senate or House, nor vice-versa. Nor do we have one court for the secular world and another internal court for the church.
While Jefferson was definitely one of the more…vehement…of the Founding Fathers, all of them as well as a good portion of the American populace at large were well aware of what could happen when a religious organization got too cozy with the secular institutions of government. In England, for example, an attempt was made to impose a “book of common prayer” on ALL churches.
That is more or less her stance, although in Anthem there are allusions to a “people’s revolution” long ago that directly resulted in the current collectivist system, although many details are left to the reader’s imagination. There is no mention of just who lead the whole thing, nor the specific motives behind it, but there is a specific reference to some kind of direct and (probably non-peaceful) mass action that took down the old system.
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Or you emancipate the public by deregulating it all and privatizing both the gains and losses.
Your logic is strenuous. You agree that the initial premise (FDIC) is bad, but then insist that we must double-down, all-while lamenting the cost of doing so and blaming the individuals who work in this most highly-regulated of industries. You want more of the disease, essentially thinking that we can get it right if we just try hard enough. It won’t work. The system will work, we just need the right people! The right regulations! This is a fantasy.
You must be joking? By pure ideology I suspect you mean pure market capitalism. Please point out to how pure market capitalism is involved with the banking crisis? Again, the most heavily regulated industry in the world. Every bank is insured by a central bank. There is no market here.
Instead of pure capitalism we have some corporatist mishmash, some disgusting stew… And you insist that we can just “get the recipe right”!
And therein lies the problem with an irrational doctrine that pretends to be non-doctrinal like the current system when applied to the real world.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 2:58 PM
They DON’T represent John Galt. They are the biggest looters, most of whom support our Moocher in Chief. Soros is the biggest looter and s/b one of the most feared men alive.
Schadenfreude on November 2, 2009 at 3:00 PM
So I am right in saying that Objectivists think there is basically no difference between Communists and Christians. That’s what I thought.
aengus on November 2, 2009 at 2:28 PM
I would never be so bold as to imply that I can speak for Objectivists as whole in the broad-brush manner you imply. And as should be clear if you read accurately the phrase “like siblings”, as we all know not even identical twins are exactly alike. So your “basically without difference” verbiage is not particularly germaine.
I do beleive that I used the word similarity whem describing the practice of each, so I’d appreciate if you could keep up with the rest of the class, or are you just trying to be malicious and your mis-characterization intentional?
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 3:04 PM
I’ll be back to keep in this convo in prep for tonights repartee at U of C. But I’m jones-in for a smoke, be back in 10.
Cheers!
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 3:06 PM
You can’t make a rational argument on an irrational premise. You can use proper logic all you want following the irrational premise, but the entire chain-of-logic is rendered irrational.
You can rationally come to the same conclusion that you in parallel reach for your religious reasons, and if they do not contradict you can very well act logically. What happens when they do contradict? Which will overpower you? I think that you are avoiding the problem.
.
Facts and evidence exist in the natural and rational. You can compare them with the supernatural and irrational, for they by your very metaphysics exist in separate plains. Unless you claim that you personally saw a miracle (something which contradicts everything you know about the natural and rational) and decide to rule-out the possibility that you were simply under a misapprehension, you can’t do this.
Rand doesn’t just say that one “version” of christianity is irrational, but that it’s very premise is irrational. She has no problem admiring the work of the christian founders, even though she does point out that it contains certain contradictions… she still however recognizes it’s historical significance and it’s intellectual value.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 3:13 PM
Instead of pure capitalism we have some corporatist mishmash, some disgusting stew… And you insist that we can just “get the recipe right”!
And therein lies the problem with an irrational doctrine that pretends to be non-doctrinal like the current system when applied to the real world.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 2:58 PM
Haven’t yet made it for a smoke, but this is dead nuts on. far too many who disparage capitalism in mistaking it for corpratism. The irony of course is then they mistakenly try to remedy that which is mis-identified as capitalism, with yet more corporatism. And then they wonder how they keep arriving in the same place.
Now its smoke time!
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 3:16 PM
For someone who doesn’t believe in God the distinction between a “future utopia” and a “future after-life” of reward is so slight as to be practically meaningless. You yourself called it the “merest nuance”.
If you’re going to be condescending and write pretentiously you’d come off a lot better without the typos.
aengus on November 2, 2009 at 3:18 PM
Wow! Ayn Rand posts seem to bring out the troll brigade even faster than Sarah Palin posts.
PoliTech on November 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM
You stumbled onto something, because anime fans would feel at home with Atlas‘ themes of apocalyptic collapse and reform as elite conspiracy.
When Bill Gates lost 30% of his net worth in a single year, were you any better off? A lot of people allowed to ride along were also screwed. Gates can’t even realize his whole net worth at one time, the SEC would block the sales.
Yes the language of the enabling acts are quite modest. It’s the arbitrary powers of the czars that are extreme, as in, seizing 90% of an exec’s pay and forbidding him to collect more this year.
Chris_Balsz on November 2, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Very bad example, since it’s trivial to prove that pedophilia:
1) Involves individuals who are not legally capable of giving consent.
2) Harms someone.
Do you think the govt has the right to decide which adults can and can’t get married?
Do you believe that govt has the right to tell someone what they can and can’t do with their own property?
Do you believe that govt has the right to tell people which drugs they can put into their own body.
The list goes on, but it involves things that cause no harm to unwilling third parties.
MarkTheGreat on November 2, 2009 at 3:34 PM
I have no problem with those who wish to be free to express their opinions towards others without fear of govt punishment.
I wish that this was all that many social conservatives wanted.
MarkTheGreat on November 2, 2009 at 3:35 PM
The notion that every human action– sporting jewelry, nepotism, industrial competition, adultery, flipping burgers, administrative justice– demonstrates a system of values, and that these values can be conscious and deliberate and consistent rather than arbitrary and imitative, is a electrifying idea. Even if you disagree violently with Rand’s values you are challenged to explain your own. That’s why the novel has lasted so long.
Chris_Balsz on November 2, 2009 at 3:39 PM
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 2:06 PM
2/3rds of those in college, would be better off with an associates degree, or never going to college in the first place.
MarkTheGreat on November 2, 2009 at 3:40 PM
I’d like to be the Brigadier General, but I don’t quite know who is in the ranks yet.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 3:40 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »