No, In my heart I know she's wrong. In my youth Ayn Rand and the Rational Man ha great appeal to me, but as I grew older I learned that man is not rational. In his core man is emotional and often works against his own self interest. Being rational is hard work and most people most times are working off different motivations. Logic and reasoning are more recent inventions and used even less frequently.
I actually think civilization works better than individuals. Civilization and government are not perfect, but I think fixing the framework is better than relying solely of the best interests of individuals.
In my youth Ayn Rand and the Rational Man ha great appeal to me, but as I grew older I learned that man is not rational. In his core man is emotional and often works against his own self interest. Being rational is hard work and most people most times are working off different motivations.
I think you're taking her term "Rational Animal" and applying your own definition to it. Being a rational animal doesn't mean "Rational all the time." It means that, in order to survive, man must be rational. The extent to which one survives and is happy is the extent to which that individual is rational, even if it means only rational now and then.
Logic and reasoning are more recent inventions and used even less frequently.
Logic is as old as advanced civilization. This is not a coincidence.
I actually think civilization works better than individuals.
It seems like you're also misinterpreting Rand's message here. She doesn't advocate the destruction of society and civilization, and she is not an anarchist. Indeed, she speaks volumes of the value of society to the individual, and she has multiple essays on the role of government. And not that government is a "necessary evil," but that a proper rights-respecting, rights-protecting government is good because it is of value to the individual.
The collectivism (with respect to government) that she opposed is that of the majority voting away the rights (including property rights) of others. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
I don’t quite understand Rand’s relevance in this current crisis. Where is the connection? All I can see are contradictions to what is actually happening.
In Atlas Shrugged, she presented a world on the brink of full-on economic collapse as a result of increasing governmental controls and favors, while the politicians and the people kept blaming the problem on the supposed "free market" and ultra-rich industrialists.
While there are many people who suggest that the current recession is the result of the free market, Rand's supporters (of which I am), suggest that the recession is the result of governmental controls and intervention in the economy, and that our form of government hasn't gotten even remotely close to Laissez Faire, at least not for over a century.
The short and skinny is that many see the events of Atlas Shrugged playing out in real life.
Of course, no one's really going to read this, since the link is dead.
Spending per GDP is the best actual metric I can come up with for visualizing the "size" or "power" of government in society. There's no 1:1 relationship with regulation, but the two are surely correlated.
In Rand's writing, government spending is equally detrimental to society - but you are correct that spending itself was not in question.
I do agree and recently read Atlas Shrugged and found it the worst book I ever read.
It used way too many cheap emotional tricks to push the case of being rational. I know Dangy is good and competent because she is described that way. The good guys are strong and beautiful and the bad guys are weak and ugly.
The problem with that book is that people and the systems described don’t work the way she was portraying them and after the 3 hour speech I wanted to punch Galt in the nuts.
Topical: I wonder how many epidemiologist jobs would be allocated in a society with a Rand-like religious adherence to the "invisible hand" of the free market.
13 comments
[ 2.6 ms ] story [ 37.2 ms ] threadI actually think civilization works better than individuals. Civilization and government are not perfect, but I think fixing the framework is better than relying solely of the best interests of individuals.
This comment is certified content free.
I think you're taking her term "Rational Animal" and applying your own definition to it. Being a rational animal doesn't mean "Rational all the time." It means that, in order to survive, man must be rational. The extent to which one survives and is happy is the extent to which that individual is rational, even if it means only rational now and then.
Logic and reasoning are more recent inventions and used even less frequently.
Logic is as old as advanced civilization. This is not a coincidence.
I actually think civilization works better than individuals.
It seems like you're also misinterpreting Rand's message here. She doesn't advocate the destruction of society and civilization, and she is not an anarchist. Indeed, she speaks volumes of the value of society to the individual, and she has multiple essays on the role of government. And not that government is a "necessary evil," but that a proper rights-respecting, rights-protecting government is good because it is of value to the individual.
The collectivism (with respect to government) that she opposed is that of the majority voting away the rights (including property rights) of others. Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what's for lunch.
While there are many people who suggest that the current recession is the result of the free market, Rand's supporters (of which I am), suggest that the recession is the result of governmental controls and intervention in the economy, and that our form of government hasn't gotten even remotely close to Laissez Faire, at least not for over a century.
The short and skinny is that many see the events of Atlas Shrugged playing out in real life.
Of course, no one's really going to read this, since the link is dead.
Because, from where I'm sitting, I'm not seeing where the government encouraged or rewarded self-destructive behavior.
In Rand's writing, government spending is equally detrimental to society - but you are correct that spending itself was not in question.
It used way too many cheap emotional tricks to push the case of being rational. I know Dangy is good and competent because she is described that way. The good guys are strong and beautiful and the bad guys are weak and ugly.
The problem with that book is that people and the systems described don’t work the way she was portraying them and after the 3 hour speech I wanted to punch Galt in the nuts.