Ayn Rand: Genius or Idiot?

[Klington]

Discuss.

[Inquirius]

I read Atlas Shrugged when I was in high school and was mesmerized by it. Isn't it great that every teenage boy likes to identify with John Galt, even when we are generally completely useless to society at that stage in life?

I used to think she was a genius. I've since grown out of that destructive mindset.

[Lakenburgh]

Hmm at least if I understand the theory behind it right, kinda none of the above.

The idea that humans are guided by self perseverance and due to that to a certain kind of egocentricity in their acts isn't so creative quite the opposite ... seems like logical thought if you watch nature and our own history.
So I think the basic ideas are quite solid in describing what comes natural to nearly all living things. Which is neither genius nor stupidity only observant.

[Klington]

Jul 9, 2010 10:10:49 GMT -5 Inquirius said:

I read Atlas Shrugged when I was in high school and was mesmerized by it. Isn't it great that every teenage boy likes to identify with John Galt, even when we are generally completely useless to society at that stage in life?

I used to think she was a genius. I've since grown out of that destructive mindset.

Explain. I want to hear your opinions on her philosophy.

[Pompadoodle]

I'm gonna have to go with 'idiot'.

Rand completely ignores or disparages some of the basic facts of human existence and modern society:

- Empathy. Our feeling for others leads more-or-less directly to the 'golden rule', charity, compassion and all of the other positive aspects of our being in the world that Rand despised. And it turns out that empathy is hardwired (google Mirror Neuron and see what you get).

- Historicity. Socio-economic systems are the products of particular historical/ ideological circumstances. But Rand treats capitalism as if it were some sort of ahistorical 'natural law'. Which of course is nonsense- there is nothing more natural or inevitable about capitalism than any other socio-economic system.

- Social Cohesion. Why do we have the welfare state which Rand hated so much? Part of the answer is this: it gives lots of poor people a stake in the status quo. The first welfare provisions were actually introduced by Bismarck, no leftist softie he, but a person with vastly greater intelligence than Rand who understood the need for social cohesion. Take away the welfare state, introduce massive inequality and what you have is a revolutionary situation. The alternatives are welfare or a police state- not welfare or right-wing libertarianism.

- Markets vs Capitalism- Rand fundamentally misunderstood the nature of capitalism. From its genesis in the trading companies of the 17th-18th centuries, capitalism has been about the subversion and elimination of market competition, NOT about its promotion or extension. Rand hated the state- fair enough- but she failed to see that corporations are hierarchical organizations that are very similar to the state, and exist in symbiosis with the state. Capitalism is, and always has been, about the securing of monopolies by fair means or foul.

I'll leave it at that for now.

[Takaram]

pompadoodle summed it up pretty well, I think.

[Guy]

My happiness comes from your happiness. I happily pay taxes as I know it funds public institutions, which help other people (especially those in need).

Idiot.


People don't give to charity. Even if there will be no taxes at all, not even close to 30% of your income would go to charity. The reason is that there will be the ones who won't, and thus it is seen as unfair. Even people who support high taxes wouldn't necessarily give to charity.

If you don't feel any empathy, I don't care. I'll force you to pay. The majority feel empathy.

[Pompadoodle]

Yep, good point from Guy.

The whole 'charities would provide' argument that you hear from the right-wing libertarians is pure nonsense.

On top of what Guy says, consider this:

Capitalism is inherently cyclical. With Rand-style deregulation, the system would become much more cyclical.

Charitable giving as a proportion of personal income doesn't appear to vary much from one point in the cycle to another.

Charitable income from assets will of course go down during an economic downturn.

Thus: total charitable income will, if anything, fall during economic slumps.

But: economic slumps are precisely when the need for welfare spending is greatest.

Thus: private charity is no substitute for government welfare spending.