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 »
You’ve got the causality backwards. It was the regulations that created the gaming. Then the demand for new regulations to forbid what the previous regulations required. Then new regulations to fix the holes caused by the previous regulations. then new regulations to …
MarkTheGreat on November 2, 2009 at 3:44 PM
I’m inclined to agree with you, although I’d like some solid research to that fact…
But the thing is that it’s almost become a universal requirement for everything but the lousiest jobs. A college degree is the new HS diploma, and if you don’t have it you’re pretty well screwed.
Maybe as an extension of privacy rights, one’s educational record should not be allowed to be investigated by potential employers, except for high school graduation/GED achievement? Just a thought…
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 3:46 PM
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
Ah so, the fact that I am handicapped due to injuries and thus effecting my ability to type, it should mean that my thoughts are not worthy of consideration?
Many pardons sir, if my use of a vocabulary strikes you as pretentious, the use of sometimes obscure words helps reduce the quantity needed to convey the thought. As pointed out of above, my participation in forums such as this is with some difficulty. So I make use of what I can to alleviate a motor dysfuntion.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 3:46 PM
The solution to bad regulation is more bad regulation?
Where does it end?
MarkTheGreat on November 2, 2009 at 3:46 PM
“We will work under directives and controls, issued by those who are incapable of working. They will dispose of our energy, bacause they have none to offer, and of our product, because they can’t produce. Do you say that this is impossible, that it cannot be made to work? They know it, but it is you who don’t-”
~Ayn Rand~
This sums up every single politician and policy maker IMO.
Archimedes, you can still afford to smoke? Loved the two articles you linked. Very good.
24K lady on November 2, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Various insurance companies tried to offer deposit insurance prior to the market crash. Govt refused to allow it. Govt already regulated the insurance market prior to 1929.
There is nothing wrong with deposit insurance, just as there is nothing wrong with health or life insurance. The problem comes when the insurance is issued by govt or heavily regulated by govt.
MarkTheGreat on November 2, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Much of what Rand stood for, I’m on board with. However, Atlas Shrugged was a tedious bore, and Rand’s objectivist philosophy is throughly un-conservative. Orwell, Hayek, Kirk, and dozens of other writers also warned about the evils of conservatism, but did so in a way that was neither torture to plow through not repugnant in myriad other ways. These are the writers and philosophers we should turn to during the present discontents, not a hack like Rand.
paulzummo on November 2, 2009 at 3:51 PM
The lights turning off.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 3:51 PM
That’s because the govt has pretty much outlawed skills tests when hiring.
MarkTheGreat on November 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Err, above should read “evils of collectivism.” Probably shouldn’t try to blog after doing 2 hours of yardwork.
paulzummo on November 2, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Wow! Ayn Rand posts seem to bring out the troll brigade even faster than Sarah Palin posts.
It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.
Ayn Rand
PoliTech on November 2, 2009 at 3:23 PM
Truly one of my fave lines of Rand’s, and speaks volumes to the spat I seemed to have provoked with aengus. There-in sir, are found the similarities of which I alluded to.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Charleze Theron as Dagney? No.
Angelina Jolie Yes.
Jolie’s political leanings are much more in line with Rand.
kurtzz3 on November 2, 2009 at 3:53 PM
Here is my understanding of that quote and it is most relevent in the plot thread involving Ellsworth Toohey in The Fountainhead and his neice Katie Halsey. She’s a small character but pivotal to the Socialist principle that it is noble to sacrifice your life and labor for the good of others. Ellsworth guides her into charity work – shades of Obama’s “Volunteer” movement. Eventually she comes to resent the people she “helps” because they are ungrateful for what she “gives them”. She sacrifices her own future for theirs and it is a deal with the devil. She ends up bitter and confused wondering what it was all for and if she made any difference at all. It is the fundamental flaw in the belief that sacrificing self leads to self fulfillment for anyone who is not completely insane or lobotomized.
You do no one any favors if you sacrifice your own labor and years of your life for their sake. If you volunteer your time, do it for yourself – for your own personal selfish growth. Anything else makes you a tyrant ruling in a kingdom called compassion.
That statement is bsically a manifest against the principles of socialism – not an edict to be selfish and never volunteer or give to charity or serve in the Military. When the “greater good” does not serve you first and foremost then it is a lie – a perversion of our natural rights to self.
that or you think that sin taxes and the nanny state is a good thing in which case I have no arguments that will sway you to understanding the concept of freedom in its’ most basic form. I think we are lost. I think this generation is lost in the mind of Katie Halsey. Environmentalists. Do gooders who know what’s best for us and will force it on us and resent us for not appreciating their sacrifices … the fact that you don’t see that statement by Rand the way I read it tells me we are fundamentally lost as a society.
BrideOfRove on November 2, 2009 at 3:53 PM
The solution to bad regulation is good regulation, which may mean:
—The right kind of regulation, in the right amounts, with the right methods.
—Less regulation in general
—(very rarely) More regulation in general.
The third one can be pretty much discounted for the moment, seeing as how we’ve crossed the line of too much regulation in general about ten miles back.
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 3:55 PM
Heh, good one.
I always did want to be a pirate.
;-)
LegendHasIt on November 2, 2009 at 3:55 PM
0_o Really? What qualified as a ‘skills test’?
I’m asked to do basic mathematical computations and situational exams on many fast-food/big-box store applications. Don’t those test math and interpersonal skillsets?
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 3:56 PM
Archimedes, you can still afford to smoke? Loved the two articles you linked. Very good.
24K lady on November 2, 2009 at 3:49 PM
Thgank you Ma’am for the kind words, it is much appreciated.
And smokes now going at $10 a pack, not really. So I rration them out to 5-10 a day and relish it as an act of non-pc rebellion, and age wise being now on “the back 9″ cutting back is probably not a bad thing either.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 3:59 PM
The solution to economic regulation (which is by definition bad) is economic freedom… just like the solution to slavery is freedom.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 4:04 PM
ebrawer, I hope you don’t think that I’ve accused you of trolling, you’re not of course, (feeding the trolls a bit – yes … but it’s understandable).
Archimedes: Ayn Rand was almost prescient in much of her writing. Heres another quote that seems appropriate for the day, especially when considering the House “Government Run Medical System” vote coming up …
A modern day soothsayer, if you will.
PoliTech on November 2, 2009 at 4:06 PM
The example does not put forth that society should legalize pedophilia… the point is that local communities should be able restrict the “rights” of pedophiles (post prison) regardless of what the federal government tells them. You addressed a false premise. The conservative position is for local standards.
This also allows for the argument that child pornography… since it already exists… is of no harm to anyone and should be legal.
1. The government (local community) has a compelling interest in who is allowed to get married. I believe states should be allowed to afford those privileges (or restrict that privilege) to whomever they like. Should the conservative position be that the federal government forces a state to afford the privilege of marriage to all adults regardless of the will of the states? And you know it’s coming… this opens the door to polygamy, etc.
2. You use government to apply to all forms of council. I distinguish between federal government and community standards. Are you opposed to zoning laws? Can a community say that a property within a certain distance of an elementary school cannot be used for adult purposes?
3. All these issues are independent of one another… but the central issue is the same. If a local community has a problem with crack heads smashing cars and raping women, then the local community should be able to outlaw the drug. There are still many counties that outlaw alcohol on the basis that it is detrimental and causes a very real threat to local peace.
“Ingesting things” is not a Constitutional right.
Should I be able to walk wherever I want? Should I be able to fire off rounds wherever I want? Should the government tell me where I can have sex with 10 other consenting adults?
mankai on November 2, 2009 at 4:06 PM
The time of Galt is long over. It’s time to go Ragnar.
promachus on November 2, 2009 at 12:25 PM
My emotions are with you on this, but reason says we’re not quite there yet.
American politics are forever like a pendulum and possibly Obama and the Progressives have hit their apex. If we manage to rid our selves of this manace, the pendulum may swing back with a vengeance this time to counteract the last 70 yrs of drift leftwards.
However if not, and we fail to wright the ship of state in ’10 & ’12, I agree the situation will become desperate. Desperate times call fo……
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 4:07 PM
Archimedes: Ayn Rand was almost prescient in much of her writing. Heres another quote that seems appropriate for the day, especially when considering the House “Government Run Medical System” vote coming up …
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.
Ayn Rand
A modern day soothsayer, if you will.
PoliTech on November 2, 2009 at 4:06 PM
Man, it is amazing to be reminded of all the great quotes Ayn left to posterity. And it is comforting to find her ideals still remembered here. I am really looking forward to this Obectivist thingy going on tonight at U of Chicago, it should be interesting to see what kind of crowd will show.
Archimedes on November 2, 2009 at 4:16 PM
Repeal of Glass-Steagall.
Refusal to regulate derivatives.
Refusal to regulate securitization.
All three were the direct result of appeals to less regulation and letting the free market work. All three are major contributors to the situation we find ourselves in now.
So all regulations are bad and the cure is to let the banks do whatever the hell they want and threaten that we won’t bail them out if they put our economy at risk(which everyone knows is a lie)? Thank god you’re not in charge of anything in this economy.
Regulations are vital to keep our financial sector functioning. Why do you think we have a SEC(useless though they’ve been)? Or are you against having an agency to check up on the banks as well? Your ideological purity is laughably naive.
John9400 on November 2, 2009 at 4:24 PM
I laughed at this, very good. In fact both Galt and Ragnar acted at the same time. Galt and Ragnar acted in two different and complimentary ways: Galt withdrew his mind, while Ragnar withdrew material goods.
Rush Limbaugh has been talking about going Galt for months now, mentioning almost weekly that when he thinks it’s all over he’ll move to New Zealand and/or spend his money before the government can take it, and make sure that the last check he writes will be to the IRS and that it will bounce.
Ah I get it now. Well so long as they aren’t outright sophists I don’t mind expensing the effort. The philosophical battle has to start somewhere.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 4:30 PM
The Galtian strikers DON’T Destroy the economy. They merely remove themselves from it. “The Powers That Be”, socially and politically are the ones that destroy the economy.
LegendHasIt on November 2, 2009 at 4:35 PM
I wrote the following on my little blog several month ago:
I like Atlas Shrugged. There is fundamental truth concerning the basics of good and bad government in this book. Truth is what it is. Whether it comes from Rand or Thomas Paine. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense is a brilliant body of work that God used in the beginnings of this nation, although Thomas Paine himself eventually became a Deist and rejected the Bible in his later years.
All wisdom comes from God. When Rand, Thomas Paine, or anyone speaks of things like liberty, individual freedom, self reliance, self government, they are speaking wisdom and that wisdom comes from God. Whether they believe it or not.
Just as the earth itself comes from God, so too does wisdom. You can worship the earth yet still deny the One who made the earth. You can worship reason and common sense, yet deny the One Who is Reason and Common Sense.
It is unfortunate, but the way of man. Worship the creation, yet deny the Creator. Yes, Ayn Rand’s books expose the lies, corruption and waste of big government, while revealing the truth and wisdom of self government. Yet she denies the Author and Source of all Truth and Wisdom, Jesus Christ.
Unfortunate.
JellyToast on November 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Basel II was under effect. The regulators failed.
First of all, there is no free-market involved in the matter. Either the market is free or it is not. If you mean “more market forces”, then sure, but then you still have all your work left to you: the regulations that were left-over (i.e. 99% of the regulatory-regime) were still in place. This podcast explains this quite well: http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/10/calomiris_on_th.html
Yes, other then theft and fraud which are already covered by property law.
Not threaten, that isn’t absolute enough. You could be bluffing. Inform them that all regulation of their industry will wind-down over some timeframe. You must of course inform them well in advance.
Excuse me, but systemic risk is introduced by the FDIC and the regulatory regime at large IN THE FIRST PLACE. You in effect subjugate us to them and them to us and then say “look, now we can’t let them do xyz because it’ll affect us!” – emancipate everybody and the problem is solved.
Mmm, juicy ad populum, with a dash of petitio principii.
I thank reality that I’m not in charge of the economy as well. Being a regulator would be rather evil and boring, would it not?
Regulations are vital to keep the regulatory regime functioning. We have an SEC to get FDR reelected. I am against agencies to “check-up” on the banks like I am against the NKVD “checking-up” on what I write.
Finally in regards to the bit about ideological purity – what of your ideological purity in regards to regulation? This is nonsense. You seem to require contradiction, irrationality, and hypocrisy of a person in order to take them seriously. Sorry, but I have none to offer you. Is this so that you can feel yourself to be at parity?
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 4:55 PM
Just a heads up in case Count to 10 is a marxist: under marxist reasoning (pardon the oxymoron), the ability to produce creates a duty to do so for those who cannot. As such, removing themselves consists of theft.
I don’t agree that the universe was created in the first place. I don’t consider the concept of nothing to be real. In other words, I don’t agree with your premise. The concept of Ex nihilo, and everything that you hold to follow is bullshit.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 5:07 PM
I have no sense of purity with regards to regulation. There is good regulation being proposed and there is bad regulation. I support getting out there in front of the good regulation instead of retreating to uselessly trite fantasy world quotes like:
That’s so cute. Just like when people talk about how in a perfect world nobody would have nuclear weapons. Or how the world would be such a better place if there was no hunger.
John9400 on November 2, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Heh, by their way of thinking, I guess that even the death of producers should be highly regulated….. For; if a farmer dies and can no longer plant and harvest, it is the dead farmer’s fault if his neighbor starves.
LegendHasIt on November 2, 2009 at 5:15 PM
Oh well.
JellyToast on November 2, 2009 at 5:18 PM
I’m sorry – has anyone mentioned yet that Atlas Shrugged is nearly unreadable dreck?
Jaibones on November 2, 2009 at 5:28 PM
Atlas Shrugged is far from unreadable. As a novel, it is too long and does become tedious in parts, but not so much that it couldn’t be read. I feel the same way about The Fountainhead, though it was a better ‘read’.
We The Living is probably Rand’s best book of fiction, though it is billed as semi-autobiographical. I think it is her best fiction novel and details the beginnings and evolution of Soviet statism incredibly well.
I always thought AS was more a philosophical treatise couched in a novel than purely a book ‘to read’.
Regardless of it’s limitations as a ‘novel’ if you’ve read it, especially recently, there is no denying Rand’s prescience as related to current events and if you’ve read anything she wrote about environmentalists, she’s dead on.
catmman on November 2, 2009 at 5:46 PM
My position is that regulation is bad by definition. And of course your have a sense of ideological purity in regards to regulation! You are always for good regulation I presume? Saying that you’re against “bad” regulation and that this false-concession makes you nuanced and wise is just too… cute, as you would put it.
Which part is fantasy? That slavery is bad? Or that economic regulation is bad? Are you saying that economic regulation is an inevitable evil? Or that it is not evil because it is inevitable? Well?
I am for nuclear weapons (in the hands of my side in a war). Hunger is very useful as well, such as against the 6. Armee in Stalingrad or the 3rd Egyptian Army in the ’73 war.
Instead of debating for your premise (the FDIC), you’ve set up this false dichotomy between me and my “naive ideological purity” and you and your wise, nuanced, and savy intellectual contradictions. It’s downright hilarious. The free-market caused the crisis even though it didn’t exist, but the regulations failed because the ratio of “good” to “bad” regulations got too low in the most heavily regulated market on earth or something. Who is naive? Who is utopian? We just need the right people! We just need the right rules to fix the bad ones! We just need everybody to act in the common interest! Greed of bankers is causing this! If only the bankers wanted less profit…?
Get ready, because it’s going to get worse. Prepare for more failures. Prepare for the destruction of the dollar. Prepare for catastrophe. The seeds of self-destruction have long been planted. Soon you’ll control everything and nothing.
The Götterdämmerung will come.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 5:47 PM
It’s been my general experience that people who use the word “dreck” have no idea what it means. It just sounds really really smart.
BrideOfRove on November 2, 2009 at 6:14 PM
A good part of America is waking up to the threat of Socialism, now that Liberalism has let the mask slip. One day soon, Socialism will wake up to the fact that in America, Socialism is not welcome.
These people have had a free lunch for long enough. Time to pay the tab.
EMD on November 2, 2009 at 6:18 PM
What exactly have I said that was a contradiction? There are good regulations and there are bad regulations. Just like there are good necessary laws and there are bad unnecessary laws. That’s just common sense. Well, common sense to those of us who don’t live in the same naive fantasy world you seem to inhabit.
Without regulation, you have anarchy. Anarchy, like communism, works OK in the abstract. In the real world, not so much.
John9400 on November 2, 2009 at 6:25 PM
I find Rand more memorable as a personality, a character, and a kind of apostle of individuality, than as an actual writer. Her novels, to me, are turgid and unreadable and her “philosophy” impenetrable. But the idea of John Galt is great.
rrpjr on November 2, 2009 at 6:26 PM
ARI has been great with us teachers. They have donated to many teachers in my school class sets of Anthem, Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. The kids really like Anthem. My favorite line in Atlas, which I think sums up the education system in the US today, is when the main character says she is not afraid of competition from people of equal or better ability, she is more afraid of competition from those who are mediocre. The books are long and therefore not the same as reading Vince Flynn or James Patterson, so not for everyone, but if you give them time they are worth it. I even saw a person at the pool reading Atlas Shrugged this summer. I highly suggest the ARI site. Personally, I think you are way better off reading Atlas Shrugged than the Palin book.
arizonateacher on November 2, 2009 at 6:28 PM
“Pure ideology” as you call it is clear of contradictions by definition. It is “extreme”, as you might put it. You want “capitalism” but you want it with controls. There is an internal contradiction there.
Not good economic regulations. Again I challenge the premise. Conceding a good-bad regulation dichotomy is avoiding the point and is practically tautological. Of course a bad regulation is bad… Because it’s bad.
Correct… Because I agree with the premise (that laws are needed). At that point it is easy to concede that there could be bad laws.
Like the fantasy world where we have a dollar backed by nothing, banks who pose no risk to depositors, and green energy that will only appear if we make enough sacrificial offerings.
Hahaha.
1) Lack of economic regulation is NOT anarchy. You need property rights and laws to create a legal framework in which property is defined and the sanctity of contract is honoured.
2) Communism is anarchy. Read up on Marx if this confuses you.
3) Neither anarchy or communism work in the abstract. Here you’re falling into the trap of the theory-practice dichotomy – there is none. Anarchy doesn’t work because there is no objective framework of law in one geographical area, thus competing gangs fight for control. Anarchy is a transitory state you might say. Communism doesn’t work because it’s suicidal. I won’t elaborate on that…
In the real world the most heavily regulated industry in the world just underwent a crisis, and you seem to be calling for more “good” regulation as a solution rather then question the whole damned premise. And in the real world you are telling me that I am the naive one… Can’t you taste the irony? It’s positively ferrous!
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 7:02 PM
I wish my school had participated in program back when I was a student. I only got to read Rand in university. It would have saved me from many mistakes I made out of faulty philosophy.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 7:08 PM
There has never been an academic English professor for the past 50 years who would take Ayn Rand seriously as a writer, or thinker. She was beyond the pale in academia, as the professors were promoting Lolita and Ulysses and the Vagina Monologs and other such modern “masterpieces”.
Dhuka on November 2, 2009 at 7:10 PM
And who decides what constitutes property rights? Who has ownership rights and who has the legal standing to assert claim on a property in the event of foreclosure? Who decides when a contract is valid? What gives a bankruptcy judge the right to cancel a legally sanctified contract? At what point do the actions of a firm fall outside the legal framework? Why it almost sounds like you need a lot of regulations to allow a market to function. Imagine that…
John9400 on November 2, 2009 at 7:34 PM
Finally, I have been searching for John Galt all these years and here he is in all his post-industrial exceptionalist glory!
alohapundit on November 2, 2009 at 7:51 PM
I read Atlas Shrugged this last summer. It’s a must read on anybody’s bucket list.
Mojave Mark on November 2, 2009 at 7:56 PM
If you would read Friedrich Von Hayek’s “Road to Serfdom”, and other Austrian economists from the 30′s who were afraid of Hitler and all socialism, you will find that he does not advocate for a system of non-regulation but that regulation should in fact exist to provide a level playing field and give businesses a structured marketplace with which to operate freely in. By doing this, you make the operating environment predictable, which in turn, allows for a free market that works. The problem comes when the government thinks it can manipulate or control any market by dictating regulations that affect outcomes.
Ayn Rand follows in this line of thinking and takes it a step further to illustrate why a free market brings out thebest in man, and how exceptionalism especially American exceptionalism has brought about the greatest technological breakthroughs in mankind’s history. She wrote the book in the 40′s and if you trace history that has occurred since then, America has accomplished a great many things that other countries (including Russia) couldn’t dream of accomplishing because of their socialist policies on their markets and by extension suppression of freedom of their people.
alohapundit on November 2, 2009 at 8:00 PM
One of the oddest things I ever learned about the Cold War was that Soviet agents who successfully stole American technology were sometimes told “Good job, comrade…but there is no way in Siberia we can copy this.”
I hadn’t thought about that possibility before, but given the state of the nation and their system of government, it’s hardly a total surprise.
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 8:21 PM
Is a subsidy a property law? Is forced insurance a property law? Is a state-enforced monopoly a property law? Are production quotas property laws? Are price controls property laws? Is rent-control a property law? Are CAFE standards property law? Is government ownership of radiowaves a property law? Is censorship a property law? Is the requirement minority-ownership a property law? Is eminent domain a property law?
You are grossly conflating property law, who’s purpose is to define units of property, with economic regulations.
Property is something to which you own the exclusive right to use to the exclusion of every other person in the universe, trade, and destroy.
Economic regulations destroy the concept of property are NOT property laws, they are anti-property laws.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 8:30 PM
I’d love to hear how banning naked short selling destroys the concept of property. Go ahead. I’m all ears.
John9400 on November 2, 2009 at 8:54 PM
Because it puts some kind of limit on capitalism! That’s SOCIALISM!!1!1!eleventy!1
/raving wingnut emulation
Dark-Star on November 2, 2009 at 9:06 PM
You don’t seem to make a distinction between outright fraud and contract violation (which should be the only instances in which government should get involved) and the mountain of regulations that encourage gaming the system. Have enough laws on the books, and everyone becomes a criminal.
The entities that caused this economic meltdown are the large banksters acting with the encouragement and support of the federal government. Monstrosities such as Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, and Citibank would have failed long ago if it weren’t for the taxpayer-funded support of the federal government.
In a free market relatively absent of government intrusion, there is no such thing as “Too Big To Fail”. Show me a corporation deemed by the government as such, and I’ll show you a company who only exists due to laws designed to benefit them over their competitors, and have the cops well-bribed to prevent any change in the status quo.
The banks own our government now. Don’t forget that. Show me where these angels exist that will bring honesty and free-market principles back to our country. They don’t exist, this is why our founding fathers envisioned a federal government with few and defined powers.
TheMightyMonarch on November 2, 2009 at 9:50 PM
Sheep and Lions
Schadenfreude on November 2, 2009 at 10:48 PM
New article, just in time…Glenn Beck likes her too.
Schadenfreude on November 2, 2009 at 11:00 PM
The premise of being able to sell something is owning it. If you own it, it follows that you can sell it. Banning the sale of something by definition thus prohibits the full use of one’s property. The government’s purpose is to legally establish and defend property, not destroy it or the rights of it’s owner.
A stock exchange is not a government institution, and can thus set its own rules in which case the success or failure of said stock exchange will depend on whether individuals are convinced that trading on it is safe and voluntarily do so.
Government intervention on stock exchanges is an abrogation of property rights, and ensures that we don’t get a voluntary Hayekian order that will establish the best set of rules, but rather succumb to the mediocre thinking that lead to horrors such as the Sherman Act.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 11:06 PM
Wow. You don’t even know what a naked short sell is, do you?
John9400 on November 2, 2009 at 11:27 PM
Of course I know what a naked short is. Or did you not understand my answer? You do know what a principle is, don’t you? I explained how I approach the question in in general terms of principle.
Here, I’ll make it simpler: I am against the government regulating naked shorts. I am agnostic as to a private stock exchange establishing it’s own rules.
You understand this? Now that you know the principles involved in my reasoning, guess what I would answer if you asked me if I was for the SEC regulating xyz? Now that I think of it, why did you even ask the question? I told you I was against the SEC itself a bit back. Of course I’m against any action by an entity that I am against.
Let’s say I told you I was a vegetarian. Would you ask me if I wanted to eat some chicken? If I said no, would you ask me if I wanted beef instead?
I hope the socratic method will work.
ebrawer on November 2, 2009 at 11:43 PM
BINGO +1000.
This is the Progressive’s insatiable and immeasurable lust: to control the choices of others. Vermin like the one to whom you addressed this are still lower, though. They’re satisfied merely to gain the vicarious thrill of watching others control the choices of the producers, so long as they get the sadistic pleasure of seeing them controlled.
But, ah, what a great cover the “needy” provide. Say it’s for the poor, or the uninsured, or the children, or the favorite downtrodden group of the day, or even something more nebulous like “the future of the nation” and it’s deuces wild.
JDPerren on November 2, 2009 at 11:51 PM
So basically you live in a fantasy world where stock markets should operate without any government rules or regulations. Someone rips you off on a trade? Tough cookies! That’ll teach you not to invest in that market.
Must be nice to live in a world of “principle” that has no relation to reality.
You’re like HotAir’s own version of an idealistic young communist dreaming of a worker’s paradise.
John9400 on November 2, 2009 at 11:55 PM
Ayn cries from her grave.
Schadenfreude on November 2, 2009 at 11:59 PM
By rip-off I suspect you mean defraud and not “unreasonable price”. In that case, I already told you that the role of government is to stop fraud and theft of property and protect the sanctity of contract. That means stopping “rip-offs” on trades. Are you purposefully forgetting what I said or do you just have problems retaining too many things at once?
Obviously I don’t live in a world with economic freedom, which is why I advocate changing that. You’re basically down to an inverse is-ought fallacy: the is-not/ought-not fallacy. I suppose that it is inevitable… oh and look at what comes next!
A beautiful ad-hominem to finish. Here, I’ll return the favour:
You’re like HotAir’s own version of an idealistic young fascist* dreaming of a third way paradise.
* The beauty of my example is that while I am obviously not a communist, you are obviously a fascist**.
** I am prepared for the eventuality that you do not know what fascism means. Here is some reading material*** in case:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Position
*** I am also prepared for the eventuality that you will criticize the use of wikipedia as a last resort. In that case google yourself for reading material: http://www.google.com/search?q=economics+of+fascism
ebrawer on November 3, 2009 at 12:22 AM
Nice. Thanks for pulling a Godwin! Somehow not unexpected.
John9400 on November 3, 2009 at 12:40 AM
It seems giving up speaking of sacrifice and giving up the benefits of others’ sacrifices are themselves sacrifices, whether Rand speaks of them as sacrifices or not. Rand seems to demand those sacrifices and to want to enjoy the benefits of them. There’s more than a hint of the master in Rand, taming and directing those around her as best she can. Nor do I mean to suggest she’s simply wrong to do so. Ruling and being free seem to be a hard problem.
Kralizec on November 3, 2009 at 1:02 AM
What is this bullsheet about Angelina Jolie being a Rand Fan? If that is the case then how does she explain her Che Guevara tattoo?
Sharke on November 3, 2009 at 1:17 AM
I read both Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead before I even got to high school. Why dont kids learn how to read today? No one requires them to, nor teaches them the value. A true shame.
di butler on November 3, 2009 at 1:25 AM
Hmmm is the book interesting? I mean does it have a plot? Cause… Oh heck I could slog through an uninteresting book just for the personal growth, I suppose. But really? That is asking a lot. I want to read Gingrich’s Washington book though, there is always a plot to history.
Since this conversation was so over taken by intellectual primping I thought I would add my ever so humble… non-intellectual perspective.
And don’t worry about my IQ, it’s fine, thank you very much.
Pompous much?
petunia on November 3, 2009 at 1:28 AM
I have to say I enjoyed her non-fiction books more than her fiction. Atlas Shrugged is a great book but I did find her literary writing a little painful at times – couldn’t stomach her love scenes and also got a little irritated at the way every sunset she describes seems to be full of “sparks.” But the speeches…oh man, it doesn’t get any better than that.
However, the kind of writing she displays in the Atlas Shrugged speeches is the way she writes in her non-fiction works. I never recommend AS to people who have never read any Rand, instead I always point people to her 3 best non-fiction works: “Capitalism,” “The Virtue of Selfishness” and “The New Left.” These books contain virtually everything you need to defeat the left. TVOS contains the best explanation of human rights I have ever read and no other book will convince you that socialism is evil, short of “Socialism” by Mises (and that’s a HARD read).
I don’t think the fact that she promoted atheism should be a problem to religious people at all. I’ve met tons of religious people who were Rand fans. In fact one of Rand’s greatest friendships was with the Mike Hammer author Mickey Spillane, a fervent believer in God. It never affected their relationship. Incidentally I’m reading some of Spillane’s early books now. They’re hilarious. I love that old hard boiled detective fiction.
Sharke on November 3, 2009 at 1:28 AM
Correction above:
Sharke on November 3, 2009 at 1:29 AM
Hey thanks! That was just the kind of thing I was looking for. I often do better reading non-fiction myself.
And Rand is dead now right? So that atheist thing is over for her now anyway. One way or another.
petunia on November 3, 2009 at 1:32 AM
Hollywood’s latest fad.
Johan Klaus on November 3, 2009 at 1:42 AM
Are you a marxist?
Johan Klaus on November 3, 2009 at 1:52 AM
I thank God that I was out of school in the fifties and that my children attended private schools.
Johan Klaus on November 3, 2009 at 2:02 AM
I liken Rand’s philosophy to Emerson’s in “Self Reliance.” Both belittle the coercion of altruism as a phony piety imposed by another form of the collective. Giving one’s money or assistance to another is a higher good when it comes from the self as an expression of the ego, not from some abstract notion that derives its coercion from some nebulous groupthink.
True “charity” comes from a self-directed desire to give to another because such giving satisfies the giver’s ego; ie., I give because I choose to give, not because it meets with the approval of others or their definition of what is appropriate to give. If in giving to another, I weaken that other–their ability to direct their own lives, then my efforts are destructive to the worth of that other. I thus become a destroyer of the value of that individual’s self or ego.
Jim Taggart and his mother, as well as the other do-gooders, viewed themselves as arbiters of how another individual’s wealth, energy, or motives should be directed. They smugly position themselves as above the fray; their assumed superiority in judging the behavior of others regarding the redistribution of wealth is their point of pride. (This attitude is epitomized in the attitude of the Obamas of the world.)
(This has been a most instructive and thoughtful thread, provoking some valuable insights. Thanks.)
onlineanalyst on November 3, 2009 at 6:29 AM
Good thread, I’m learning a lot.
AS was not my favorite book, I found parts of it to be really boring, but then there would be an intense “a-ha!” kind of moment that made it worthwhile to keep going. When she gets rolling with the “speeches”, grab a jumbo mug of coffee because they are all about 40 pages too long. (Did she not have an editor?) But the points she makes are so valuable for this day and age, it should be a must-read for everyone.
I’ll be looking for her other books now. Guess it’s time for a trip to the library.
Boudica on November 3, 2009 at 7:16 AM
The book is often elevated to some higher level, but it is quite obviously a novel. Not sure why you put that in quotes. And it’s limitations come in several forms: ridiculous characters, fantasy science, a nearly complete failure to grasp human nature, an adolescent sexual theme.
All of her legitimate points are exaggerated to the absurd, making good characters silly, and evil ones even sillier.
As a novel it sucks. You can diminish that to it’s not “a good read” if you wish, but that doesn’t make this book into anything more than that.
Jaibones on November 3, 2009 at 7:17 AM
PS I loved it until about page 500.
Jaibones on November 3, 2009 at 7:19 AM
Agreed, but that is the foolish ideal that more schooling begets a “better class of people, a better employee”. It’s only true in the sense that you need a four year degree in college to catch up with what high school graduates knew two generations ago. When you go to the grade school and high school level with roughly the same number of hours/days as you did 50 years ago, but the school curriculum has been “dumbed down to allow for pupils with poorer reading and math skills, and poorer skills of deductive reasoning, and instead are fed a pablum of
leftist social engeering classes instead of the 3 Rs, they need college to just catch up. But the extra 4 years of schooling still doesn’t seem to fill the “maturity gap” that todays teens to 20s seem to have versus only a few decades ago.
Jeff from WI on November 3, 2009 at 7:27 AM
engineering oops..lol
Jeff from WI on November 3, 2009 at 7:27 AM
“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.”
Every morning i read those words, and try to live them on a daily basis. They rate right up there with Gene Kranz’s “Tough and Competent” that I keep written on my whiteboard at work.
Ganryu on November 3, 2009 at 7:36 AM
I like to marry that to “Who must do the hard things? He who can.” ~Trevanian
They’re not as oxymoronic as they might first appear. They create a nice set of bookends within which to live both freely and responsibly. But maybe that’s just me…
shibumiglass on November 3, 2009 at 9:03 AM
Petunia,
If you are still reading this, Rand realized that not everyone (especially the business executives she hoped to reach) would have the time or energy to crank through a 1000+ novel, so she collected the most relevant philosophical extracts from her novels into an anthology called FOR THE NEW INTELLECTUAL, with an introductory essay that discusses the nature of the two basic types of collectivist, the Attilas (those who employ brute force) and witch doctors (those who venerate rationalism unconnected to reality).
ebrown2 on November 3, 2009 at 9:24 AM
EBrawer,
“I don’t agree that the universe was created in the first place. I don’t consider the concept of nothing to be real. In other words, I don’t agree with your premise. The concept of Ex nihilo, and everything that you hold to follow is bullshit.”
This is one of the -real- errors in Objectivism, defining the universe as “everything that exists” and then conflating it with the present space/time continuum, thus committing the fallacy of argument by definition.
The equation “Universe = Existence” is an equivocal and question-begging definition in favor of naturalism that Angeles perpetrates in his DICTIONARY OF PHILOSOPHY, but more reputable philosophical dictionaries avoid. In point of fact, William Lane Craig, the chief modern defender of the Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA), attacks the very idea of a “beginning of existence” in his debate with the atheist Peter Atkins.
ebrown2 on November 3, 2009 at 9:37 AM
“a 1000+ -page- novel,”
ebrown2 on November 3, 2009 at 9:39 AM
Jaibones on November 3, 2009 at 7:17 AM
Oh yeah!?
Well…you smell!
Sheesh! Pardon me for expressing my opinion…
catmman on November 3, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Ayn Rand was a SATANIST!
Her books are almost word for word identical to her best buddy Anton La Vey’s SATANIC BIBLE.
If you people do not realize this you are incredibly stupid.
MaximusConfessor on November 3, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Ayn Rand was a rather hack intellectual, in my opinion. But each to his own.
AnninCA on November 3, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Loved Atlas Shruggrd and Fountainhead. My only criticism of Ayn is she can’t write a good love scene. (Galt and Taggart)
Bevan on November 3, 2009 at 12:04 PM
It’s not a fallacy, it’s called an Axiom.
The equation you’re looking for is A = A, the law of Identity as established by Aristotle… Existence exists. This is axiomatic. It’s the foundation of logic.
I too disagree with the concept of a beginning of existence. Too many atheists fall for the “what existed before existence” line, which is a contradiction.
And so I’ll reiterate my point… Ex nihilo is bullshit.
ebrawer on November 3, 2009 at 12:15 PM
The problem is the Laws of Thermodynamics seem universal, and a red-shift has been observed by astronomers. So we’re all moving away from each other, and cooling off as we move.
Chris_Balsz on November 3, 2009 at 1:04 PM
Love the Rand thread! No time to read it all, so I’ll just throw out my small gold coin of opinion.
Atlas Shrugged is a life changing novel. To those who despise it, hate it, are revolted by it, they are the looters (or the looter-wanna-be’s). They are seeing their ugly selves in a mirror and they hate it.
bonnie_ on November 3, 2009 at 1:17 PM
I have had this experience of being hated by those I helped. Some people are in a situation by there own doing. When we rescue them, then they don’t pay for there mistakes, and free has no value to them. Whats free for them is hard earned by you. I like the saying ” give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, teach him to fish and he will eat a life time”.
Blaming others for your problems, and not looking at what you did to contribute to your circumstance, is the underlying problem. We must learn from our mistake and always improve, not blaming others. They come for help blaming others and saying they are a victim of circumstance, you help them, and unknown to you they envy you. Again they think you got what you have because of what others gave you, and not by your own efforts. Envy is a deep pain for them. When you have problems your self, and cannot help them or you see them becoming spoiled and cut assistance, then they are happy your being brought down, and now blame you, and what to kill you.
Ed Laskie on November 3, 2009 at 1:19 PM
“It’s not a fallacy, it’s called an Axiom.”
The principle of non-contradiction says nothing about anything existing beyond or outside the present space-time continuum, as long as it -exists,- period. If you say that the Universe is the set of all things that exist, theists will obviously agree that the set (Universe) does not have a beginning, because God, a member of that set, does not. Existence has always existed. The evidence that we currently have shows that the present space-time continuum) has not always existed, therein lies the problem. Atheist philosophers generally (with a few unhappy exceptions) take care to define “universe” in line with its standard non-question begging usage to avoid the fallacy.
In short, you cannot go from
A) The universe is the set of all things that exist.
to
B) The universe is only our present space/time continuum.
by definition without argument.
ebrown2 on November 3, 2009 at 1:31 PM
Taken literally, you accuse Anton LaVey of plagiarizing fiction about architecture and industrial transport.
Chris_Balsz on November 3, 2009 at 2:47 PM
While true that still can’t solve the contraction that is the concept of the existance of non-existance. Remember the big bang only theorizes about the universe expanding from a single point of no entropy. And that point existed.
No no, you can’t claim that God created the universe AND that he is part of the universe. By auto-defining God as part of the universe by begging the question that if he is posited to exist he must be part of the universe, you render the concept of God a non-supernatural, rational, and a non-universe creating concept… Which of course defeats the whole point.
You can’t avoid this by setting-up a “time” and “before-time” dichotomy as subsets of the universe and assigning God to the before-time subset. It is sheer sophistry.
An axiom such as the law of identity (A=A, or, existance exists) is NOT begging the question, it is the metaphysical root of reality… It is the premise of all logic. To even mutter the words “I think you are begging the question…”, you postulate for the existence of “I”, and accept the law of identity.
ebrawer on November 3, 2009 at 3:04 PM
MaximusConfessor on November 3, 2009 at 10:30 AM
Ummm…The Fountainhead was published in 1943. Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957.
The Satanic Bible was published in 1969.
Perhaps you should re-arrange your comment if it is a serious one.
catmman on November 3, 2009 at 3:30 PM
“No no, you can’t claim that God created the universe AND that he is part of the universe.”
Absolutely not, that is the problem with the OBJECTIVIST equivocation of A and B above. You are fallaciously assuming that A -reduces- to B and then projecting that confusion onto theists. The non-question begging definition of “universe” is B.
“The universe is (only-is implied by Objectivism, but is the point at issue) our present space/time continuum.”
If “universe” is defined as the set of ALL things that exist subsumed under logical possibility (definition A-which I accepted for argument’s sake, remember that I have always been arguing that B is the proper definition of “universe”, then God did not create the set (Universe) since, contra Peikoff and Sartre, God is not self-created but self-existent. He would be the creator of the space-time continuum and all that exists within it. When theistic and most non-theistic thinkers use the term “universe,” they are using the “B” definition. No sensible theist would talk about God transcending the universe as God transcending -existence- itself.
On the B definition, that which has the property of existence would -not necessarily be limited- to the space- time continuum. That is exactly the point being argued. I have every respect for the principle of non-contradiction, which is why I’m rejecting your confusion of definitions.
ebrown2 on November 3, 2009 at 3:52 PM
Ok I think I follow you… You’re saying that the universe is a subset of existence, thus God can exist and create the universe. There’s many ways to go about this… Please forgive the verbosity of the following, it goes with the subject:)
1) By saying that God created the universe, you presume two states: the state preceding the universe in which God existed, and the state following the act of creation in which both exist. These two states presuppose the concept of time… which has not yet been created in state 1.
2) You’re using the law of identity to justify God as a axiom – why not just identity the universe as a axiom, rather the identify it as a creation of an axiomatic self-existance. You’re just increasing the steps… Any justification for doing so can be recursively used to presuppose an infinate-chain of creators – and since infinity is merely a potential, one must postulate a beginning to the recursive chain – at which point the axiomatic existence of the universe as the whole of existence is the logical conclusion.
In other words, the B definition is irrational… Which makes perfect sense, since reason operates within the universe as a logic system. So if you would concede that definition B is irrational, I’ll agree with you… But you seem to suggest that B is rational, and dismiss A. Do you have a rational basis to offer for B? And as a corollary, the basis for the dismissal of A?
ebrawer on November 3, 2009 at 5:11 PM
Is Hollywood Schizophrenic?
So now they are interested in Capitalism via Ayn Rand? Is it just because Hollywood’s Socialistic/Marxists worldview is so in vogue that its no longer in vogue to be part of it?
Irenaeus on November 3, 2009 at 7:36 PM
“Ok I think I follow you… You’re saying that the universe is a subset of existence,…”
Here’s the problem right here, you are equivocating between the two definitions of “universe” that I posted above. If we take (A) to be the definition, then we have to use the term “space-time continuum” instead of “universe” for (B), or else we commit the fallacy of argument by definition by way of the fallacy of equivocation.
“thus God can exist and create the universe. There’s many ways to go about this… Please forgive the verbosity of the following, it goes with the subject:)”
So much so that this reply won’t contain it.
“1) By saying that God created the universe, you presume two states: the state preceding the universe in which God existed, and the state following the act of creation in which both exist. These two states presuppose the concept of time… which has not yet been created in state 1.”
That is a part of the response to “2” below.
“2) You’re using the law of identity to justify God as a axiom – why not just identity the universe as a axiom, rather the identify it as a creation of an axiomatic self-existance. You’re just increasing the steps… Any justification for doing so can be recursively used to presuppose an infinate-chain of creators – and since infinity is merely a potential, one must postulate a beginning to the recursive chain – at which point the axiomatic existence of the universe as the whole of existence is the logical conclusion.”
No, I am an moderate realist in the Aristotelian/Thomist tradition, so both axiomatic defenses and attacks on God’s existence (i.e. theistic and anti-theistic “ontological” arguments, the latter being what I’m objecting to from Objectivists) are unsound as far as I’m concerned. Another problem arises in that if I take your point about infinity to be true, (and, by the way, {g}) then I would have to reject the Aristotelian notion of the successive experience of time being real (because that WOULD generate an actual infinity with all the foolish paradoxes that would entail) in favor of the notion of the tenseless presentism (B-theory of time) of a certain Prussian philosopher that Rand just adores. [about as much as I do]
“In other words, the B definition is irrational… Which makes perfect sense, since reason operates within the universe as a logic system. So if you would concede that definition B is irrational, I’ll agree with you… But you seem to suggest that B is rational, and dismiss A. Do you have a rational basis to offer for B? And as a corollary, the basis for the dismissal of A?”
As a matter of fact, Prof. Craig, who I mentioned earlier, has devoted his life to the examination of this problem, and this article is a fairly decent intro to his prime argument…
http://www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html
His arguments against the position you’re proposing are here:
http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/ultimatequestion.html
He discusses the notion of divine temporal relations here: (free registration required to view)
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5387
I don’t know when they will close replies on this, so if you want to start a thread over at the Reasonable Faith forum, or take a look-see at my old blog
saturninretrograde.blogspot.com
feel free.
ebrown2 on November 3, 2009 at 8:07 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 Next »