Don't read "Atlas Shrugged"!

Simple answer.

That book sucked.

SVreX wrote: I believe the ultimate conclusion of her "selfish" idea is tyranny. Probably militarily enforced.

Then you are missing the point utterly and completely. The entire second half of the Atlas Shrugged epic centers around how evil it is to coerce people by force. You're missing the point just as badly as people who claim that "capitalism" means "ripping the little guy off for everything you can". There is a large difference between "selfish" as it is commonly used and "Rational self-interest", which is Rand's actual term. She just used "selfish" in order to polarize it a little.

I'm going to jump into what I think is SVreX's corner here.

I don't think he's suggesting that if a society were to function per Rand's ideals, that it would be tyrannical. I think he's suggesting that Rand is an idealist, and that if you were to attempt to run a real society based on her philosophy exclusively, it would devolve into totalitarianism and tyranny.

Capitalism is not about the big guy ripping the little guy off, but if you expect an economy to run based on an idealistic capitalist model, which relies upon unchecked commerce, people will eventually take advantage of the system and it will devolve into people hording economic power and leveraging it to rest economic power from others.

Communism works great in theory too. Heck, most theories work great in theory.

Ultimately I think, and suspect this is what SVreX was getting at, that you can not run a society based upon a single philosophical model. People are too different and no one model is perfect. You need room for all philosophies to mingle and balance each other.

Once a group identifies a particular philosophy as "the right one" and gains enough power to organize a whole society by that one philosophy, that group will devolve into totalitarianism, because that is the only way to control all contrary ideas that will naturally surface.

My impression of the main weakness of Rand's philosophy is that it does not extend the basic philosophy of allowing people to pursue their own self interests, to allowing people to pursue philosophies other than rational self interest.

>Off topic: I love about this board how often I find myself arguing strongly against someone on one topic, and then find myself arguing the same point alongside them on another.

GameboyRMH wrote:

neon4891 wrote: Why do I get a fealing that Libertarian is the most prominant political veiw point on here. I could be wrong, maybe I'm just hitting all the threads with that focus, who knows.

I noticed that a while back...I'd say that in order, they are: Most prominent: Libertarianism In a close second: Conservativism (the old fashioned type...Archaeo-Conservativism?) Tied at a close third: Neo-Conservativism/Liberalism In the interest of not floundering this thread I won't say what I think about libertarianism.

Yeay, I feal validated. On a side note, Whole flounder are interesting to clean, But they look like a baby Halibut.

neon4891 wrote: Why do I get a fealing that Libertarian is the most prominant political veiw point on here. I could be wrong, maybe I'm just hitting all the threads with that focus, who knows.

Because this community is organized around grassroots motorsports. As car people, that means most of us: have a bit more money than average but aren't rich, we have a hobby that is fairly independent, and have a propensity to solve our own problems and fix our own stuff.

Mostly, we just want the freedom to pursue our interests. We have a comfortable amount of stuff, but put in a lot of work for what we have.

We value people who work hard, and are innovative in technical prowess and skill. We have clear and objective rubrics to measure how successful someone is along those lines. Even the less "successful" are still enjoying themselves and can see how they contribute to the sport/community.

Is it really surprising that this sort of people will lean towards being "libertarian"? And I'm going to say that we're small 'l' "libertarians", mostly.

There's also a lot of cross interest with guns and (to a lesser degree) airplanes, boats, and other vehicles. Those communities are also notoriously libertarian-to-conservative. Now whether we like those things because we have a libertarian mindset, or liking those things has moved us to be more libertarian is another matter.

Salanis wrote: >Off topic: I love about this board how often I find myself arguing strongly against someone on one topic, and then find myself arguing the same point alongside them on another.

+1

Not bad, Salanis!

I'm still waiting for Angry to check back in.

Must have started snowing! (I was in a tee shirt all day!)

I devoured all her books when I was about 14 - at which point I realized that nothing's as black and white as the pictures she paints. Some interesting ideas, but you get sick of the BFH.

Salanis wrote: an idealistic capitalist model, which relies upon unchecked commerce, people will eventually take advantage of the system and it will devolve into people hording economic power and leveraging it to rest economic power from others.

Whoa whoa whoa. Time out. Capitalism is not unchecked. That would be economic anarchy. Capitalism, at it's core simply is the private ownership of the means of production ("capital goods" for you Marxists). Capitalism can co-exist with with the main tenant of a government: protection of it's people.

That's one of those little myths I am loathe to see perpetuate.

Osterkraut wrote: economic anarchy

You know, that's how I always thought of

No! Must...resist...urge...to flounder....

GameboyRMH wrote:

Osterkraut wrote: economic anarchy

You know, that's how I always thought of No! Must...resist...urge...to flounder....

Broiled or pan-sear?

SVreX wrote:

Salanis wrote: >Off topic: I love about this board how often I find myself arguing strongly against someone on one topic, and then find myself arguing the same point alongside them on another.

+1 Not bad, Salanis!

Absolutely. Keeps it interesting.

SVreX wrote: I'm still waiting for Angry to check back in. Must have started snowing! (I was in a tee shirt all day!)

SVreX, when you ask if i'm a believer, i assume you mean a believer in christ? my answer is that i believe that the story of christ's life is a good tool to get kids to do the right thing when they're too young to understand just doing it because it's right. my first-grader is at a christian school and my pre-schooler is at a lutheran school. does it make me a hypocrite, to pretend that i believe? yes, but i don't feel bad about it.

objectivism makes more sense to me than christianity.

Osterkraut wrote:

Salanis wrote: an idealistic capitalist model, which relies upon unchecked commerce, people will eventually take advantage of the system and it will devolve into people hording economic power and leveraging it to rest economic power from others.

Whoa whoa whoa. Time out. Capitalism is not unchecked. That would be economic anarchy. Capitalism, at it's core simply is the private ownership of the means of production ("capital goods" for you Marxists). Capitalism can co-exist with with the main tenant of a government: protection of it's people. That's one of those little myths I am loathe to see perpetuate.

Which makes the point the SVreX and I are making. We don't let Capitalism go unchecked because it wouldn't work. As good as the basic ideas that Rand and other similar thinkers may have, if you were to implement it and expect it to run perfectly, it would devolve in a similar fashion.

I read Atlas Shrugged back in the day. I actually enjoyed the whole thing. It's not a book I suggest to other people though! I think it's very cool to find other people who've read it of their own volition and enjoyed it, not to use as a literary BFH for browbeating others.

neon4891 wrote:

GameboyRMH wrote:

Osterkraut wrote: economic anarchy

You know, that's how I always thought of No! Must...resist...urge...to flounder....

Broiled or pan-sear?

the later with some shrimp

Salanis wrote:

Osterkraut wrote:

Salanis wrote: an idealistic capitalist model, which relies upon unchecked commerce, people will eventually take advantage of the system and it will devolve into people hording economic power and leveraging it to rest economic power from others.

Whoa whoa whoa. Time out. Capitalism is not unchecked. That would be economic anarchy. Capitalism, at it's core simply is the private ownership of the means of production ("capital goods" for you Marxists). Capitalism can co-exist with with the main tenant of a government: protection of it's people. That's one of those little myths I am loathe to see perpetuate.

Which makes the point the SVreX and I are making. We don't let Capitalism go unchecked because it wouldn't work. As good as the basic ideas that Rand and other similar thinkers may have, if you were to implement it and expect it to run perfectly, it would devolve in a similar fashion.

Unchecked ideal capitalism would be fine. It's those mettlesome humans that screw things up...

Objectivism's capitalism would be called anarcho or laissez-faire capitalism. Let's get pedantic with these things, shall we?

Officer Barbrady: "And then I read this: 'Atlas Shrugged' by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of s(beep)t I'm never reading again!"

Man, I tried to read that book. I just couldn't finish it. Rand's ideas may have coincided with mine to a large degree (rationalism as the best way to live) but she sucked as a writer.

Jensenman wrote: Man, I tried to read that book. I just couldn't finish it. Rand's ideas may have coincided with mine to a large degree (rationalism as the best way to live) but she sucked as a writer.

I thought the story carried it quite well for everything except Galt's radio address. Roughly 120 pages of "HOLY E36 M3! I GET IT ALREADY!"

AngryCorvair wrote:

SVreX wrote: I'm still waiting for Angry to check back in. Must have started snowing! (I was in a tee shirt all day!)

SVreX, when you ask if i'm a believer, i assume you mean a believer in christ? my answer is that i believe that the story of christ's life is a good tool to get kids to do the right thing when they're too young to understand just doing it because it's right. my first-grader is at a christian school and my pre-schooler is at a lutheran school. does it make me a hypocrite, to pretend that i believe? yes, but i don't feel bad about it. objectivism makes more sense to me than christianity.

I didn't actually ask. I thought I was referring to something you had once said.

Doesn't matter- I wasn't trying to chase a religious rabbit.

I was asking you to elaborate on the idea that within Objectivism the theist and the atheist can peaceably coexist given that the one side disagrees in the strongest way possible with the existence of any power higher than the rational mind.

How would that look in the real world? Is it Libertarianism or Objectivism?

Do you have any comments on the Wiki link I posted earlier which seems to disagree with your assertion that Rand's philosophy does not disallow for the coexistence of the atheist and the theist?

What do we do with the people who are not equipped to be rational?

How does a society function with all manners of "less thans"? How do we deal with those that are mentally or physically incapacitated? What about those who are just a "drain on society"? Who makes those decisions?

I'm asking you to describe for me how it plays out in the real world, because if this is nothing more than an intellectual excercise in impossible absolutes, then I am out, and stand by my original comment that I think she's kinda weird.

Lesley wrote: I devoured all her books when I was about 14 - at which point I realized that nothing's as black and white as the pictures she paints. Some interesting ideas, but you get sick of the BFH.

Wow, 14? Awesome. I was 18. and by 20, I realized much the same thing. I like the concept, but the ideals are something I could never live 'up' to—without feeling bitter and cynical about myself and everything around me.

Bitter and cynical sound like fairly apt words to describe Ms. Rand.

Every way someone can dream up to run a society and live a life is not the ultimate solution. Striving for one where you take serious pride in being the best you can and appreciate those around you doing the same sounds good to me. Our current desire to reward laziness and revel in watching successful hard working people fail can make me plenty bitter without the help of Ms. Rand.

I agree.

I guess my core question is about the "selfish" world view she discusses as opposed to one that is focused on serving others.

I find the later to be infinitely better in the long run, though I would certainly agree we've screwed it up a bit.

Ayn Rand is one of those writers that use 4627 pages where three sentences will do. I like to call those authors pretentious windbags :)