[quote]Sloth wrote:
This is Big-Government philosophy
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.
–PlayboyÃ?¢??s 1964 interview with Ayn Rand
[/quote]
Actually, this is an example of the classic “bait and switch.” We were discussing the concept of altruism, and you seamlessly transition to a out of context quote concerning [/quote]
Seamlessly? Jeaton, it was not I who introduced charity as a topic. In fact, it was yourself.
I simply shared Rand’s thoughts concerning charity, with everyone.
Rand is a villain. She’s the useful idiot of true collectivists. She’s the one they all point to and say, “See? Told you about them free-market types.” I can feel some pity for her, since she experienced communism. But, it doesn’t erase the fact that she was a paranoid who made an enemy out of the good. It’s her followers who should know better.[/quote]
Well said. Rand is nothing but a brand of Marxist - she shares the same materialist assumptions about human behavior and she has the same Rousseau-ean persecution complex of the most virulent class warrior.
And, you are exactly right - nothing is maikng the case for socialism/social democracy than the Rand and her followers (and fellow traveling ideologues). Put a Rand acolyte on in front of a sensible audience and let them make their pitch with their favorite abstractions - and that audience will leave the room thinking socialism never sounded better.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
A moral obligation need not be a legal obligation. Moral obligations can often be enforced by shaming, and even shunning. Moral obligations can be nothing more than widely held customs and norms. Perhaps there’s no law that a husband must risk his life, if even in the slightest way, to save his wife from rape. Yet, I’d hope that our society still sees it as the moral obligation of the husband to risk even his very life to protect his family. [/quote]
This is a good example of why such discussions often go nowhere. One must recognize a common anchor or “pivot point” from which the discussion will be moored.
We have gone from a discussion of the actual long term effects of altruism on a society to one on the vagaries of legal and moral obligations.
However, we can bring your example back in context with the original discussion. There need be no moral or legal obligation for me to risk my life in order to protect my family from harm. I simply have to value them to a degree equal to if not greater than that of my own existence. If I do value them to this degree, then no level of moral nor legal obligation can stop me from taking action and putting myself in harms way. If I did not value them to this degree, then no level of legal nor moral obligation would be sufficient to compel me in the moment necessary to do so.
To further bring the discussion home, consider the following.
True altruism as defined by Rand would be more akin to a situation in which I sacrificed a thing of greater value for the benefit of something of lesser value to me. In this case it would require me to risk my existence in order to protect another man’s family INSTEAD of protecting my own.
Remember the quote that began this topic:
“As a matter of fact, the person who loves everybody and feels at home everywhere is the true hater of mankind. He expects nothing of men, so no form of depravity can outrage him.â??
â??You mean the person who says that thereâ??s some good in the worst of us?â??
â??I mean the person who has the filthy insolence to claim that he loves equally the man who made that statue of you and the man who makes a Mickey Mouse balloon to sell on street corners. I mean the person who loves the men who prefer the Mickey Mouse to your statueâ??and there are many of that kind. I mean the person who loves Joan of Arc and the salesgirls in dress shops on Broadwayâ??with equal fervor.”
Altruism demands that I make no value judgment whatsoever concerning the safety or existence of my own child and that of a unknown child half a world away. In fact, in order to display true altruism I would have to opt in the favor of the unknown child half a world away (assuming that I loved and valued my own child).
With all this in mind, does the concept of acting in one’s rational self interest make more sense?
Rand is a villain. She’s the useful idiot of true collectivists. She’s the one they all point to and say, “See? Told you about them free-market types.” I can feel some pity for her, since she experienced communism. But, it doesn’t erase the fact that she was a paranoid who made an enemy out of the good. It’s her followers who should know better.[/quote]
Well said. Rand is nothing but a brand of Marxist - she shares the same materialist assumptions about human behavior and she has the same Rousseau-ean persecution complex of the most virulent class warrior.
And, you are exactly right - nothing is maikng the case for socialism/social democracy than the Rand and her followers (and fellow traveling ideologues). Put a Rand acolyte on in front of a sensible audience and let them make their pitch with their favorite abstractions - and that audience will leave the room thinking socialism never sounded better.
[/quote]
“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
Ayn Rand
“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
Ayn Rand [/quote]
This quote might as well have been uttered by a radical leftist, and let’s face it, it was. This is nothing but pure Rousseau: men need to be liberated from the chains of society and given absolute free reign over his own life.
This is Marxist liberation theory wrapped in a different paper, nothing more. Ayn Rand wasn’t just wrong - she wasn’t original.
“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
Ayn Rand [/quote]
This quote might as well have been uttered by a radical leftist, and let’s face it, it was. This is nothing but pure Rousseau: men need to be liberated from the chains of society and given absolute free reign over his own life.
This is Marxist liberation theory wrapped in a different paper, nothing more. Ayn Rand wasn’t just wrong - she wasn’t original.[/quote]
Again,
Of all the valid criticisms of Rand’s philosophy, why do people always seem to take the “straw man” approach.
I would be happy to consider your point of view, providing you backed it with substance.
Simply stating an apple is an orange does not make it so.
“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
Ayn Rand [/quote]
This quote might as well have been uttered by a radical leftist, and let’s face it, it was. This is nothing but pure Rousseau: men need to be liberated from the chains of society and given absolute free reign over his own life.
This is Marxist liberation theory wrapped in a different paper, nothing more. Ayn Rand wasn’t just wrong - she wasn’t original.[/quote]
Again,
Of all the valid criticisms of Rand’s philosophy, why do people always seem to take the “straw man” approach.
I would be happy to consider your point of view, providing you backed it with substance.
Simply stating an apple is an orange does not make it so. [/quote]
Well… because the way you concisely stated Rand’s position was so rediculous, it has to have been a straw man itself. What rational person would trade something of great value for something of lesser value? That’s stupid. Nobody would do that. Nobody would argue for that. Not even Marxists argue for that, certainly not Social-democrats.
The elaboration on the previous page though, casting a world of altruisms as one where no value judgements are made… that is interesting… but similarly thoroughly removed from the world.
“Civilization is the progress toward a society of privacy. The savage’s whole existence is public, ruled by the laws of his tribe. Civilization is the process of setting man free from men.”
Ayn Rand [/quote]
This quote might as well have been uttered by a radical leftist, and let’s face it, it was. This is nothing but pure Rousseau: men need to be liberated from the chains of society and given absolute free reign over his own life.
This is Marxist liberation theory wrapped in a different paper, nothing more. Ayn Rand wasn’t just wrong - she wasn’t original.[/quote]
Again,
Of all the valid criticisms of Rand’s philosophy, why do people always seem to take the “straw man” approach.
I would be happy to consider your point of view, providing you backed it with substance.
Simply stating an apple is an orange does not make it so. [/quote]
Well… because the way you concisely stated Rand’s position was so rediculous, it has to have been a straw man itself. What rational person would trade something of great value for something of lesser value? That’s stupid. Nobody would do that. Nobody would argue for that. Not even Marxists argue for that, certainly not Social-democrats.
The elaboration on the previous page though, casting a world of altruisms as one where no value judgements are made… that is interesting… but similarly thoroughly removed from the world.
And these are not the same thing.[/quote]
Just another pipe bomb of ignorance and misdirection?
Or just trying to get a response?
Because otherwise it is fairly obvious that you have not read the material. Read the quote posted in the original posts.
I am not asking anyone to follow her philosophy. I certainly do not.
I would simply prefer she be attacked for what she actually did say, rather than for the the misinformation passed along by those who did simply read the wiki.
And by the way, you were doing a pretty good job of making her point.
"What rational person would trade something of great value for something of lesser value? That’s stupid. Nobody would do that.
But what happens when a government takes a portion of your wealth and then “they” get to decide how to apply the value hierarchy in spending it. What if your beliefs and values dictate that all human life is sacred and the government then goes and uses you money, they sacrifice it towards the funding of abortion clinics.
You, by proxy, are now an enabler and unwilling participant in abortion. You may be a rational person, but you have now traded something of great value for something of lesser value, or in this case, no value to you.
[quote]John S. wrote:
No, I give to charity and I do not hold it as a moral obligation.
Once you put charity as a moral obligation you have accepted collectivism. If it is a moral obligation then your society will make it into a law and you go right into communism. Then the “charity” will be robbed by the politicians and your society will eat itself when the money runs out. Don’t believe me, watch what happens when social security runs out.[/quote]
Collectivism - Wikipedia. Do you see your self as totally independent ? Or do you need others ?[/quote]
I am what they call interdependent. I see value in a society but only if the society is that of free people. If force is used your society is worthless.
[quote]John S. wrote:
No, I give to charity and I do not hold it as a moral obligation.
Once you put charity as a moral obligation you have accepted collectivism. If it is a moral obligation then your society will make it into a law and you go right into communism. Then the “charity” will be robbed by the politicians and your society will eat itself when the money runs out. Don’t believe me, watch what happens when social security runs out.[/quote]
Collectivism - Wikipedia. Do you see your self as totally independent ? Or do you need others ?[/quote]
I am what they call interdependent. I see value in a society but only if the society is that of free people. If force is used your society is worthless.
[/quote]
do you see value in the collective efforts of the highway system or in educating the masses
[quote]John S. wrote:
No, I give to charity and I do not hold it as a moral obligation.
Once you put charity as a moral obligation you have accepted collectivism. If it is a moral obligation then your society will make it into a law and you go right into communism. Then the “charity” will be robbed by the politicians and your society will eat itself when the money runs out. Don’t believe me, watch what happens when social security runs out.[/quote]
Collectivism - Wikipedia. Do you see your self as totally independent ? Or do you need others ?[/quote]
I am what they call interdependent. I see value in a society but only if the society is that of free people. If force is used your society is worthless.
[/quote]
do you see value in the collective efforts of the highway system or in educating the masses[/quote]
Again,
Of all the valid criticisms of Rand’s philosophy, why do people always seem to take the “straw man” approach.
I would be happy to consider your point of view, providing you backed it with substance.
Simply stating an apple is an orange does not make it so. [/quote]
There is no straw man. Rand’s point of view is that society is nothing more than a prison which shackles the individual. Rand wants to liberate oppressed individuals from this purportedly cruel prison. This thinking is the progeny of the radical Rousseau, not the product of any liberalism (old-meaning).
She wants to liberate it from society and all of the Burkean “little platoons” that make up civilization - that way, the individual has none of the “false constraints” that otherwise hold them back from fulfilling their life’s desires, whatever those desires be, subject to no collective qualification or moral opprobrium. She is more than happy to rip up the blueprints of society and rebuild some version of it on her concept of Reason and the abstractions that come from it.
This is pure, unalloyed naked Leftist thought. The only difference is that Rand’s radical prescription includes the use of material productivity - amassing property - in pursuit of that radical agenda.
Let’s cut to the quick and save ourselves the trouble - Rand has nothing to offer conservatism or classical liberalism, and whatever “libertarianism” is supposed to be, it isn’t classical liberalism. So let’s stop pretending so.
Again,
Of all the valid criticisms of Rand’s philosophy, why do people always seem to take the “straw man” approach.
I would be happy to consider your point of view, providing you backed it with substance.
Simply stating an apple is an orange does not make it so. [/quote]
There is no straw man. Rand’s point of view is that society is nothing more than a prison which shackles the individual. [/quote]
You do not know what you’re talking about. If you had read her work, you’d be ashamed of what you just wrote, out of ignorance.
She talks numerous times about the advantages of living in a society, provided that that society is civilised. By what you said, Rand would claim that a man is better off on a deserted island yet this is one of the examples she rails against.
I’ve read Ms. Rand’s works for over 30 years. You MIGHT have read 30 minutes ABOUT it on the Huffington Post.
do you see value in the collective efforts of the highway system or in educating the masses[/quote]
Free men/women that voluntary give to the efforts sure. I believe in private roads and private schools. I also believe in communities collecting donations to build roads/schools/fire departments/police departments.
But the second you use force to collect that is when you crossed the line and your society will eventually eat itself.
Again,
Of all the valid criticisms of Rand’s philosophy, why do people always seem to take the “straw man” approach.
I would be happy to consider your point of view, providing you backed it with substance.
Simply stating an apple is an orange does not make it so. [/quote]
There is no straw man. Rand’s point of view is that society is nothing more than a prison which shackles the individual. Rand wants to liberate oppressed individuals from this purportedly cruel prison. This thinking is the progeny of the radical Rousseau, not the product of any liberalism (old-meaning).
She wants to liberate it from society and all of the Burkean “little platoons” that make up civilization - that way, the individual has none of the “false constraints” that otherwise hold them back from fulfilling their life’s desires, whatever those desires be, subject to no collective qualification or moral opprobrium. She is more than happy to rip up the blueprints of society and rebuild some version of it on her concept of Reason and the abstractions that come from it.
This is pure, unalloyed naked Leftist thought. The only difference is that Rand’s radical prescription includes the use of material productivity - amassing property - in pursuit of that radical agenda.
Let’s cut to the quick and save ourselves the trouble - Rand has nothing to offer conservatism or classical liberalism, and whatever “libertarianism” is supposed to be, it isn’t classical liberalism. So let’s stop pretending so.[/quote]
No.
This was not Rand’s vision or point of view.
I honestly can not conceive a means to have derived any of the above from her writings, assuming one had truly read them.
She simply envisioned a (in my opinion unachievable) civilized society in which men could relate to one another as honest traders of value. No coercion. No open nor hidden threat of violence.
In such a society, real producers would be respected and appreciated. Those with lesser productive ability could not be rounded up, manipulated, and used as pawns by moochers and con men to vote (force by majority or mob rule) the redistribution of the just rewards of the most productive.
Criticize it for what it is, a version of Utopia that will never exist.
As I have said before, Rand simply overestimated man’s ability to act in his own rational self interest. She either ignored or was unaware of whole stages of development that had to be attained, included, and ultimately transcended before anyone could begin to see the world from this vantage point. And assuming such a critical mass of “transcended” men could be reached, would it not seem obvious that higher Utopian levels would exist?
She apparently assumed mind could reach a level where matter (biology) would not overcome. There is a point in which environmental stressors can bring down the strongest of men.
After all, even Christ Jesus came to a moment in which the too battered body temporarily overtook the mind. “Father, why have You forsaken Me?”
I honestly can not conceive a means to have derived any of the above from her writings, assuming one had truly read them.
She simply envisioned a (in my opinion unachievable) civilized society in which men could relate to one another as honest traders of value. No coercion. No open nor hidden threat of violence. [/quote]
You are making my point for me. She envisioned a society that had, as its only real nexus between humans, the cash nexus and she wanted no “coercion”, which meant that she believed in a world that had no restraints or rules outside of the individual seeking his/her happiness (whatever that happiness was). In her view, “civilization” would never be “civilized” unless those social constraints of society telling you that there are some things you can do and some things you can’t were removed and the individual was completely liberated. She just simply focused her “liberation theory” on economics.
You haven’t refuted anything I have said - in fact, if your “explanation” of her Utopia is correct, it supports exactly my point.
[quote]In such a society, real producers would be respected and appreciated. Those with lesser productive ability could not be rounded up, manipulated, and used as pawns by moochers and con men to vote (force by majority or mob rule) the redistribution of the just rewards of the most productive.
Criticize it for what it is, a version of Utopia that will never exist. [/quote]
Correct on both accounts. It is worthy of criticism (it would be nothing but Hell on Earth), and it is not conservatism or classical liberalism, so Randians need to stop trying to shoehorn her philosophy into conservatism/classical liberalism. Second, she wanted Utopia, as you have said - and that’s the stuff of good, old-fashioned, naive radicalism (ask a communist).
She didn’t overestimate anything - she simply got Human Nature dead wrong on the merits. And need further proof that Rand’s philosophy is hardly distinguishable from the superstructure of Marxism? Look at your last sentence - classic: “assuming some [perfect, unattainable version of Man that confounds Human Nature] chould be reached, couldn’t a Higher Utopia exist?”
Again, you are making my point for me.
Wrong, wrong, wrong - and this demonstrates more flaws in her thinking. She presumes moral relativism first of all, an error. Second, she assumes that “nature” can’t “overcome” certain aspects of the mind needed for said Utopia and that environmental stressors have caused the ruination of her precious paradise.
It’s hard to no where to start. It is the classic philosopher’s arrogance, and it is rife with problems. Her ultimate problem, though? There isn’t an “ism” that couldn’t work if Men could just elevate themselves to put aside their Human Nature - their passions, thei irrationality, etc. - and agree to a governing set of principles. This would be true of the most redistributionist communism you could think up as well as for Randian capitalism. Her Utopia is nothing special and built on the same idiocy of every Utopian construct, including that of the Marxists.
This is no different than the “false consciousness” aspect of Marxism and other radical leftist thinking, so let’s call a spade a spade.