Posted on 03/06/2007 2:42:33 PM PST by RWR8189
When Ayn Rand finished writing "Atlas Shrugged" 50 years ago this month, she set off an intellectual shock wave that is still felt today. It's credited for helping to halt the communist tide and ushering in the currents of capitalism. Many readers say it transformed their lives. A 1991 poll rated it the second-most influential book (after the Bible) for Americans.
At one level, "Atlas Shrugged" is a steamy soap opera fused into a page- turning political thriller. At nearly 1,200 pages, it has to be. But the epic account of capitalist heroes versus collectivist villains is merely the vehicle for Ms. Rand's philosophical ideal: "man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
In addition to founding her own philosophical system, objectivism, Rand is honored as the modern fountainhead of laissez-faire capitalism, and as an impassioned, uncompromising, and unapologetic proponent of reason, liberty, individualism, and rational self-interest.
There is much to commend, and much to condemn, in "Atlas Shrugged." Its object – to restore man to his rightful place in a free society – is wholesome. But its ethical basis – an inversion of the Christian values that predicate authentic capitalism – poisons its teachings.
Mixed lessons from Rand's heroes
Rand articulates like no other writer the evils of totalitarianism, interventionism, corporate welfarism, and the socialist mindset. "Atlas Shrugged" describes in wretched detail how collective "we" thinking and middle-of-the-road interventionism leads a nation down a road to serfdom. No one has written more persuasively about property rights, honest money (a gold-backed dollar), and the right of an individual to safeguard his wealth and property from the agents of coercion ("taxation is theft"). And long before Gordon Gekko, icon
(Excerpt) Read more at csmonitor.com ...
Sounds like a Banner op ed!
Libertarianism has as much to do with culture and society as it has to do with government and legislation.
Libertarianism has to do with freedom and personal accountability - don't infringe upon others' freedom and don't use force to coerce - let people reap the rewards of thier actions. How does that run counter to common societal morality and lead to evil?
I've read that Rand defends selfishness and criticizes altruism. Is that true?
Yes it is.
I've read that the apostle Paul said if a man won't work he won't eat. Is that true?
I think so. I've definitely read similar sentiments in the Old Testament. But that's not exactly selfishness, nor does it contradict Jesus' altruism.
I'm not an atheist so I'm more interested in the practicalities of what we learn from Atlas Shrugged. This is going to sound crazy to many and I understand why but in this day and age if one is going to be a philosophical purist one must abandon faith or hard science at some point. It may sound intellectually dishonest but I have some what of a duality in my belief system.
Example - The Bible is the Word of God and infallible but current hard science tells us that we exist in one of an infinite number of multiple universes connected via the 10th or 11th dimension which is imperceptible to us outside of theoretical physics. Eventually one or the other has to be wrong or there is info missing that negates the obvious contradiction.
Now I have a job and a family and I don't have the time or motivation to dedicate decades of my life to proving out one or the other. The same thing goes with Libertarianism and Christianity. It is enough for me to realize that GOD created us with total free will to do anything on the earth that we want but we will eventually have to own up to what we thought, spoke and did. So if GOD sees fit to give me ultimate, unlimited freedom restricted only by the physical laws of nature and my body's biological interraction with the environment who is man or his institutions to restrict me, especially in regards to percieved morality, other than to prevent me from infringing upon another's liberty by force or fraud?
To me the statement that Libertanianism leads to evil is irrelevant and nonsensical because by our very nature we are perfectly free and completely selfish, i.e. evil. A philosophy that tell me to respect the liberty of others and holds me personally accountable for what I do leads to a good outcome for me and those around me. I will do things that are evil and so will everyone else but as long as that evil deed only affects me or thier evil vices only affect them then there is no reason to use force to prevent these things from being done. I will use force to protect my liberty though and I would expect others to do the same.
nor does it contradict Jesus' altruism
He was the only one who's altruism was true altruism, and in the end He was able to return to Himself that which was sacrificed. So I would imagine that, and I could be very wrong in this assumption, even Rand would agree that this one act of altruism wasn't weakness or detrimental to society.
Read this Stossel, and then think of the question that TOC executive director David Kelly asked on the John Stossel Special called "Greed"; "Who help mankind more, Michael Milken the 'Junk Bond King' that went to prison, or Mother Teresa who helped the poor in Calcutta?"
The point may be that seemingly selfish actions help others due to the symbiotic nature of humanity's interactions, yet altruism can't be depended on for any improvement in the human condition because it is a false incentive.
There are baser motivations behind altruism, such as; self-gratification, praise from others, expected future reciprocal gain, increased stature in the community, or even to gain influence over others.
By chance, I personally learned years later that I had benefited from Milken's selfishness when it was revealed that Bill McGowen had obtained funding from him for MCI Telecommunications through our struggling years.
Mother Teresa? I suppose she gave me slight hope that I might live a long life in spite of careless living.
Greed--Not Kindness--Gets Things Done
"Who's John Stossel?"
That was Virgil Rosanke's reaction when "20/20" interviewed him for one of my TV specials. Without Rosanke and others like him, I couldn't have a steak dinner tonight, but I and most of the people he makes dinners possible for are unknown to him. He makes our dinners possible anyway.
Is Virgil Rosanke a philanthropist? No. Is he a government worker? Not that either. He's just a guy who delivers propane to heat water for cattle to drink. Why does he do it? To make money.
If pursuing profit is greed, economist Walter Williams told me, then greed is good, because it drives us to do many good things. "Those areas where people are motivated the most by greed are the areas that we're the most satisfied with: supermarkets, computers, FedEx." By contrast, areas "where people say we're motivated by 'caring'" -- public education, public housing etc. -- "are the areas of disaster in our country. . . . How much would get done," Williams wondered, "if it all depended on human love and kindness?"
Greed gets people to cooperate. If you want to benefit from other greedy people, you have to make sure they benefit from you. Consider one of the wonders of our age, the supermarket. There are thousands of products on the shelves. How'd they get there?
When I posed that question about just one of those thousands of products -- a piece of beef I bought for my dinner -- I found a trail back to an Iowa farm. That's how I learned about Virgil Rosanke, and how he learned about me.
We taped David Wiese and his family, farmers in Manning, Iowa, as they put in 14-hour days fixing fences, digging ditches, harvesting hay, and feeding the cattle. They don't do it for me and my neighbors -- but I'm glad they do it.
"Do you think it's because they love people in New York?" Williams asked. "No, they love themselves. And by promoting their own self-interest, they make sure New Yorkers have beef."
The Wieses are just the first in a long series of people who, by caring about themselves, make sure I get my steak. Wanda Nelson keeps the packing house clean. Rosanke delivers propane. Other people slaughter the cattle and butcher the beef; they rely on people who make their knives, their overalls and their protective gear. Then there are the people who make the plastic that seals the meat, who run the machines that do the sealing, who pack the meat in boxes, make the boxes, inspect the boxes, and run the freezer facilities. Still other people track orders by bar code, which means they need the people who make the bar code machines. Eventually, packed steak is delivered to Randall Gilbert, a truck driver, who hauls it to New York.
No one person made my dinner possible. It took thousands of people to get me the food. And none of them did it for me. As economist Adam Smith put it, "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest."
Rosanke and the others don't particularly care if some TV correspondent gets his steak, yet they cooperate to make it happen, motivated by self-interest -- what many call greed. Think about that next time you listen to my colleagues sneer at the "greed" and "selfishness" of private business. They don't realize that the institution they celebrate, government, is far less effective at serving humanity.
"In a free market, you get more for yourself by serving your fellow man," said economist Williams. "You don't have to care about him, just serve him. I'd feel sorry for New Yorkers in terms of beef. If it all depended on human love and kindness, I doubt whether you would have one cow in New York."
Does anything get done based on "human love and kindness"? Well, a nonprofit group called City Harvest collects donations of restaurants' surplus food for the poor. But where does that food come from? Greedy people like Virgil Rosanke produce it, and greedy restaurateurs buy it. Kindness can only give away the goods self-love provides.
Copyright 2006 Creators Syndicate
Yes, of course... but that attention should come at the private level, not from government largesse. It should be a personal choice, not a public obligation. Otherwise, you get what we have today... decaying systems that have little hope for long-term viability.
Thank you. I will put the volume on my reading list (long the list is, and frequently interrupted with the likes of "Star Smashers of the Galaxy Rangers" - Harry Harrison).
I am not a follower of Saint Ayn the Devine and I don't find her thinking on the economic and social ramifications of laissez-faire capitalism to be "thorough." I actually find it to be shallow and superficial - very much like Rand herself. I find her "objectivist" theory, along with her rational egoist ethics, to be unsupportable when placed into practice by human beings. Her own life was a illustration of the failure of objectivism. She thought that she could "prove" to her husband, her lover and her lover's new woman (all of them discussing it together) that is was objectively rational for her lover to continue their sexual relationship instead of choosing a younger woman. Its not that she failed to convince him, its that she thought it was a matter of rational, logical objective discourse - thus exposing the true flaw; humans are not rational.
Likewise her economic theories don't reflect one significant aspect of economics- its about human beings - and it must take into account that economic actions by humans are not always undertaken rationally.
Oh, I like this bit very much. I plan on stealing this and using it under the right circumstances. Bravo!
That's a very interesting perspective. Oddly, I agree with you; but I still feel that libertarianism can be used to provide peace of mind to those who don't deserve it and that altruism, even if it's not what's keeping the wheel's of the economy turning, benefits a society in less tangible ways.
I would be honored. :-)
Is the author's misuse of the word, greed, intentional?
The noun greed has 2 meanings:
Meaning #1: excessive desire to acquire or possess more (esp material wealth) than one needs or deserves
Meaning #2: reprehensible acquisitiveness; insatiable desire for wealth
Why would he give examples of econmic acitvity that fall within the normal range, and use a word that means a pathological acquisitiveness?
We know that liberty requires protection or government will, over time, trample the rights of the individual. So too will that same government trample economic rights, either by direct regulation or indirect benefits to favored economic actors. This too, requires constant vigilence to guard against oppression. That being said, it does not mean that society is not entitled to have economic activity regulated in some fashion to guard against private predators acting against the interests of the whole.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.