Posted on 10/12/2001 4:02:51 AM PDT by Mr. Polish-hammer
Just read "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand. Here is my take:
I think we all agree on the basic tenet that capitalism is good, and anything else is bad. However, Ayn Rand seems to take this to a whole new level, one which I don't like. She places capitalism into her own moral egoist philosophy; capitalism is not a means to an end, but an end in itself, a moral one. Acting in ones self-interest is moral, altruism is immoral. So donating to charity, in her mind, is immoral. To me, donating to charity is perfectly moral. What is immoral is when the government, or any other third party, forces one to be charitable. Any action done on voluntary terms, or any deal, is perfectly moral, and to call it immoral is non-sensical, if not scary.
To Ayn Rand, the lazy and incompetent, those without ambition, are immoral. Even if they seek no harm, mind their own business, and violate no ones rights, they are still immoral. Their only sin is to not be productive, which only harms society as a whole. It seems that Ayn Rand deems immoral that which does not benefit her, her being part of society.
Another strange aspect to her writing is her animus toward religion. Religion takes a beating in "Atlas Shrugged", being accused of fostering socialist mentality. Paradoxically, she praised the USA, especially its first one hundred years, as being the closest to her ideal. If religion fosters socialism, how does she explain the religous founding, and continuing religous existence of the USA? Moreover, why is it that the strongly socialist countries (USSR, Sweden, etc.) are strongly atheist, or have governments that despise religion?
Many inconsistencies are present in her writing. I'd be interested in hearing her defense. I know there are many fans on this forum.
Your encouragement to read criticallly is sound at all times.
But the difference with this imbroglio and Rousseau is that this involved consenting adults.
And Ms. Rand's personal failings do not represent a failing of her philosophy.
She was an athiest. Her philosohy of "objectivism" was her religion and she was her own god. I have an athiest friend who is the same way, so I know of what I speak.
(Sorry if I have offended some people. This is just my opinion. I have read Atlas and I really liked it, I just do not subscribe to all of her philosophy.)
I am an ardent and strident capitalist, and believe firmly in the superiority of capitalism. That said, I thought it was understood that what I was addressing were the problems of the "elephants", not the "ants".
I can agree with the "anti-capitalist" crowd to the degree that major, global corporations are destructive of the freedoms in exploited countries. HOWEVER, the solutions proposed by the "anti-capitalist" crowd are pure TYRANNY and I will fight them to the death to protect our Constitution and capitalism.
Agreed. They are the same tyranny as the militant right-to-lifers, the militant environmentalists, and the militant Islamics.
The solution to corporate corruption comes from re-asserting the integrity of the US Constitution. From top to bottom it has been violated.
Amen.
Corporations should not be taxed; nor should they be allowed to contribute to politicians in ANY way. (that means all PACS are closed). Lets face-it PACS practice institutional bribery.
Good suggestion.
OTOH, under a libertarian system, what is to stop a corporation from doing what "[m]any libertarians do not champion"? If we go by Atlas Shrugged, the use of raw economic power to defeat competitors (e.g., WalMart vs. Mom&Pop) is presented as the highest good. (In reality, a free society is probably much better served by having a lot more business owners than a WalMart universe would permit.)
2. Ayn Rand's idealizations never depicted a corporate polit' bureau which was efficacious. All of her successes were characterized by strong central figures and not political posers.
That's one of Chambers' main points. Real life is full of strong and competent villains, and not a few of them start out as good guys.
You've got that exactly wrong. To hear Barbara Brandon tell it (and she was there), Rand and Nathaniel Brandon announced their affair to the respective spouses, and strongly justified it precisely on the grounds of Rand's philosophy. Nathaniel Brandon's mind, it seems, was the only one on a high enough plane to earn Ms. Rand's sexual talents. (Not an appetizing thought, actually.)
Rand, of course, was completely hypocritical even in this: when Mr. Brandon later found a new lover, Rand denounced and excommunicated him, rather than "accepting" it, as she expected her husband and Ms. Brandon to do.
Forget the drama, the pseudo-sci-fi and the love stories intertwined throughout the book and concentrate, if you can, on the message.
John Galt put this radical notion forward, and too many critics (Chanbers included) choose to ignore it:
"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."
(I think he meant women, too.)
If ever there was an anti-collectivist credo, this is it.
You might find these links helpful, particularly the "first cause" argument in the first link:
Whether God exists?
Whether primary matter is created by God?
Some good general reference:
aquinasonline.com
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/
No one doubts the wisdom of Benjamin Franklin's axioms and advice just because
he was a drinker and womanizer.
Ayn Rand was not a saint, and misapplied her own code in her life.
This is nothing more than a personal failing, not a failing of Objectivism.
It cannot be said enough.
$
BTW, Fountainhead is the better book, read it first in any case.
(And as for Atlas Shrugged , the line "Who is John Galt" gets a little tedious when you see it for the 80 millionth time!)
I'm really hoping you forgot your < /sarcasm> tag....
Considering Rand pretty much sumarized the point of the book with "This is John Galt Speaking" chapter, I think she really could have spent less time on reiterating that collectivism is wrong and more on character development. Her ideas are powerful enough to make the book worth reading, but it could have been so much better.
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.