Total Posts:64|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ayn Rand

Wallstreetatheist
Posts: 7,132
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 12:39:17 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
What is your opinion on Rand's Objectivism as well as her ethical egoism?
DRUG HARM: http://imgur.com...
Primal Diet. Lifting. Reading. Psychedelics. Cold-Approach Pickup. Music.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 8:05:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'm most impressed with her epistemology, which matches up pretty closely with what we've since discovered about the functioning of the human brain. I agree with the basics of her ethics, but think that some of the conclusions which she came to, involving things like sexual morality and wartime ethics, are very wrong-headed and contradictory. Her politics are naive, but she acknowledged that a concrete political framework would still need to be formed. As for aesthetics, I agree with her about what constitutes art, but I disagree with her concerning what constitutes good art.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 8:22:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Her philosophy is just about as as effective and useful as the Communism she despised: sure, it works "in theory", but in practice would just be awful.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 11:26:10 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 8:22:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Her philosophy is just about as as effective and useful as the Communism she despised: sure, it works "in theory", but in practice would just be awful.

Her philosophy can be observed on a spectrum: the countries that are closer to her extreme are more successful, peaceful, and productive than those on the other end. Hong Kong, for instance, where the tax rate is one of the lowest in the world, has flourished with an almost-capitalist system. There's no reason to think more of the same 'stuff' that has brought the masses out of poverty wouldn't be just as effective as a nation moved more in that direction.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 11:37:19 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I realize that anything positive I say about Rand's philosophy will not be taken as seriously as if I didn't have Ayn as my avatar. I could come across to some as a zealot drone :)
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 11:46:32 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I don't think that reason is "objective" per se, but it's the best thing we have. I strongly agree with her rejecting altruism and putting the individual over the group.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 11:47:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
These are interesting.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
RobDeSenelstun
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 12:28:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 12:39:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is your opinion on Rand's Objectivism as well as her ethical egoism?

As far as an integrated cohesive and scientifically verifiable philosophy is concerned, there are rivals. We are all objectivists, only a very small percentage of us know it.

She will yet have her day, of that I am sure.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 12:31:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 11:26:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2013 8:22:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Her philosophy is just about as as effective and useful as the Communism she despised: sure, it works "in theory", but in practice would just be awful.

Her philosophy can be observed on a spectrum: the countries that are closer to her extreme are more successful, peaceful, and productive than those on the other end. Hong Kong, for instance, where the tax rate is one of the lowest in the world, has flourished with an almost-capitalist system. There's no reason to think more of the same 'stuff' that has brought the masses out of poverty wouldn't be just as effective as a nation moved more in that direction.

The problem is, of course, that her philosophy WAS an extreme, just as the communist philosophy is an extreme. Her inability to see that is why I'm so dismissive of her. I shouldn't have to pick through so much of the crazy to get to the good. Simplifying her philosophy to equate it to "low taxes" (you weren't really doing that, I grant, but still) is like simplifying Communism to say that "countries with tax-supported welfare systems, like Sweden, have lowered their poverty levels by leaps and bounds".
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
RobDeSenelstun
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 12:36:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 12:28:27 PM, RobDeSenelstun wrote:
At 3/7/2013 12:39:17 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
What is your opinion on Rand's Objectivism as well as her ethical egoism?

As far as an integrated cohesive and scientifically verifiable philosophy is concerned, there are NO rivals. We are all objectivists, only a very small percentage of us know it.

She will yet have her day, of that I am sure.

Spell check would not pick this up, but my enemies would...
RobDeSenelstun
Posts: 18
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 12:49:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 11:47:18 AM, bossyburrito wrote:
These are interesting.


I know...brilliant isn't it! Thanks for adding clips. I love the way she doesn't give a sh1t out the populist (bubblegum) view, she states the truth as it is...bare as babies a bum.

If she ha a pair they'd be armour plated!
Magic8000
Posts: 975
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 12:55:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." "John Rogers

Sorry, couldn't resist. Her philosophy seemed a bit crazy from what I've read.
404 coherent debate topic not found. Please restart the debate with clear resolution.

"So Magic8000 believes Einstein was a proctologist who was persuaded by the Government and Hitler to fabricate the Theory of Relativity"- GWL-CPA
Eitan_Zohar
Posts: 2,697
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 1:50:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 11:37:19 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
I realize that anything positive I say about Rand's philosophy will not be taken as seriously as if I didn't have Ayn as my avatar. I could come across to some as a zealot drone :)

The term is "Randroid", I believe.
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 4:29:36 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 12:55:14 PM, Magic8000 wrote:
"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." "John Rogers

Sorry, couldn't resist. Her philosophy seemed a bit crazy from what I've read.

http://tinypic.com...
Well, I'm screwed.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 4:41:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 12:31:39 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 11:26:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2013 8:22:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Her philosophy is just about as as effective and useful as the Communism she despised: sure, it works "in theory", but in practice would just be awful.

Her philosophy can be observed on a spectrum: the countries that are closer to her extreme are more successful, peaceful, and productive than those on the other end. Hong Kong, for instance, where the tax rate is one of the lowest in the world, has flourished with an almost-capitalist system. There's no reason to think more of the same 'stuff' that has brought the masses out of poverty wouldn't be just as effective as a nation moved more in that direction.

The problem is, of course, that her philosophy WAS an extreme, just as the communist philosophy is an extreme. Her inability to see that is why I'm so dismissive of her. I shouldn't have to pick through so much of the crazy to get to the good. Simplifying her philosophy to equate it to "low taxes" (you weren't really doing that, I grant, but still) is like simplifying Communism to say that "countries with tax-supported welfare systems, like Sweden, have lowered their poverty levels by leaps and bounds".

Hahahaha, she admitted her position was extreme, and was proud of it. She wrote an entire article about how she is disturbed that 'extreme' positions are looked down upon for simply being extreme. The belief that man owns his life is an extreme position says more about the society it is said in, not the belief itself.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:01:04 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 4:41:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2013 12:31:39 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 11:26:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2013 8:22:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Her philosophy is just about as as effective and useful as the Communism she despised: sure, it works "in theory", but in practice would just be awful.

Her philosophy can be observed on a spectrum: the countries that are closer to her extreme are more successful, peaceful, and productive than those on the other end. Hong Kong, for instance, where the tax rate is one of the lowest in the world, has flourished with an almost-capitalist system. There's no reason to think more of the same 'stuff' that has brought the masses out of poverty wouldn't be just as effective as a nation moved more in that direction.

The problem is, of course, that her philosophy WAS an extreme, just as the communist philosophy is an extreme. Her inability to see that is why I'm so dismissive of her. I shouldn't have to pick through so much of the crazy to get to the good. Simplifying her philosophy to equate it to "low taxes" (you weren't really doing that, I grant, but still) is like simplifying Communism to say that "countries with tax-supported welfare systems, like Sweden, have lowered their poverty levels by leaps and bounds".

Hahahaha, she admitted her position was extreme, and was proud of it. She wrote an entire article about how she is disturbed that 'extreme' positions are looked down upon for simply being extreme. The belief that man owns his life is an extreme position says more about the society it is said in, not the belief itself.

Ignoring the repercussions of the concept of society is extreme.

I actually agree with most of her positions in a vacuum. But once we actually put it in a real-world setting, it collapses in on itself in ridiculousness.

She believes that all altruism is bad, but that if there were no unions or government interference that employers would treat their employees well (Roark). That's not just a contradiction, it's stupidity. It is the opposite of reality. What actually happens is that the rich manipulate the poor and sell sawdust as sausage while working them to death.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:04:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:01:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 4:41:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2013 12:31:39 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 11:26:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2013 8:22:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Her philosophy is just about as as effective and useful as the Communism she despised: sure, it works "in theory", but in practice would just be awful.

Her philosophy can be observed on a spectrum: the countries that are closer to her extreme are more successful, peaceful, and productive than those on the other end. Hong Kong, for instance, where the tax rate is one of the lowest in the world, has flourished with an almost-capitalist system. There's no reason to think more of the same 'stuff' that has brought the masses out of poverty wouldn't be just as effective as a nation moved more in that direction.

The problem is, of course, that her philosophy WAS an extreme, just as the communist philosophy is an extreme. Her inability to see that is why I'm so dismissive of her. I shouldn't have to pick through so much of the crazy to get to the good. Simplifying her philosophy to equate it to "low taxes" (you weren't really doing that, I grant, but still) is like simplifying Communism to say that "countries with tax-supported welfare systems, like Sweden, have lowered their poverty levels by leaps and bounds".

Hahahaha, she admitted her position was extreme, and was proud of it. She wrote an entire article about how she is disturbed that 'extreme' positions are looked down upon for simply being extreme. The belief that man owns his life is an extreme position says more about the society it is said in, not the belief itself.

Ignoring the repercussions of the concept of society is extreme.

I actually agree with most of her positions in a vacuum. But once we actually put it in a real-world setting, it collapses in on itself in ridiculousness.

She believes that all altruism is bad, but that if there were no unions or government interference that employers would treat their employees well (Roark). That's not just a contradiction, it's stupidity. It is the opposite of reality. What actually happens is that the rich manipulate the poor and sell sawdust as sausage while working them to death.

Three words: competition and choice.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:08:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:01:04 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 4:41:33 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2013 12:31:39 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 11:26:10 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 3/7/2013 8:22:19 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
Her philosophy is just about as as effective and useful as the Communism she despised: sure, it works "in theory", but in practice would just be awful.

Her philosophy can be observed on a spectrum: the countries that are closer to her extreme are more successful, peaceful, and productive than those on the other end. Hong Kong, for instance, where the tax rate is one of the lowest in the world, has flourished with an almost-capitalist system. There's no reason to think more of the same 'stuff' that has brought the masses out of poverty wouldn't be just as effective as a nation moved more in that direction.

The problem is, of course, that her philosophy WAS an extreme, just as the communist philosophy is an extreme. Her inability to see that is why I'm so dismissive of her. I shouldn't have to pick through so much of the crazy to get to the good. Simplifying her philosophy to equate it to "low taxes" (you weren't really doing that, I grant, but still) is like simplifying Communism to say that "countries with tax-supported welfare systems, like Sweden, have lowered their poverty levels by leaps and bounds".

Hahahaha, she admitted her position was extreme, and was proud of it. She wrote an entire article about how she is disturbed that 'extreme' positions are looked down upon for simply being extreme. The belief that man owns his life is an extreme position says more about the society it is said in, not the belief itself.

Ignoring the repercussions of the concept of society is extreme.

I actually agree with most of her positions in a vacuum. But once we actually put it in a real-world setting, it collapses in on itself in ridiculousness.

She believes that all altruism is bad, but that if there were no unions or government interference that employers would treat their employees well (Roark). That's not just a contradiction, it's stupidity. It is the opposite of reality. What actually happens is that the rich manipulate the poor and sell sawdust as sausage while working them to death.

Rand wasn't against organized labor so long as it didn't seek preferential treatment from government.

"Organized labor has been much more sensitive to the danger of government power and much more aware of ideological issues. Its spokesmen have fought the government in proper, morally confident terms whenever they saw a threat to their rights. (To name a few examples of such occasions: the attempt at labor conscription in World War II, the issue of U.S. contributions to the Soviet-dominated International Labor Organization, President Kennedy"s attempt to impose guidelines in the steel crisis of 1962.) Labor"s concern was aroused only in defense of its rights; still, whoever defends his own rights defends the rights of all. But labor was pursuing a contradictory policy, which could not be maintained for long. In many issues"notably in its support of welfare-state legislation"labor violated the rights of others and fertilized the growth of the government"s power. And, today, labor is in line to become the next major victim of advancing statism.

It was business, not labor, that initiated the policy of government intervention in the economy (as long ago as the nineteenth century)"and business was the first victim. Labor adopted the same policy and will meet the same fate. He who lives by a legalized sword, will perish by a legalized sword."
- Ayn Rand -
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:24:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:04:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

Three words: competition and choice.

What does that even mean?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:26:46 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:08:17 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Rand wasn't against organized labor ...

Pretty sure your quote says she is. It's a grudging acknowledgement of labor doing some good, while at the same time a prediction of doom.

People are far less like Atlas Shrugged than like Bioshock.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,280
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:40:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:26:46 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:08:17 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Rand wasn't against organized labor ...

Pretty sure your quote says she is. It's a grudging acknowledgement of labor doing some good, while at the same time a prediction of doom.

People are far less like Atlas Shrugged than like Bioshock.

She was against organized labor's use of government force. The idea of assembling, negotiating, and striking is certainly within Objectivist ideals; find one case where she says that it isn't. After all, isn't the whole theme of Atlas Shrugged a strike?

And Bioshock used Randian trappings to create an interesting setting for a game. It's not a disciplined and well-thought-out critique of objectivism; the designer himself establishes this. The pseudo-Objectivist villain violates the principles of objectivism from day one, initiating violence on those who disagree with him (a cardinal sin, if there is such a thing, in objectivism). As Levine himself said: "I wasn't setting out to make a game about objectivism, I was setting out to make a game about someone who had a very strong belief in a philosophy that was similar to this philosophy.It's a cautionary tale about wholesale, unquestioning belief in something."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:44:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:24:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:04:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

Three words: competition and choice.

What does that even mean?

There are no monopolies in the free market. Therefore, there is always an alternative to choose.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:51:23 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:44:05 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:24:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:04:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

Three words: competition and choice.

What does that even mean?


There are no monopolies in the free market. Therefore, there is always an alternative to choose.

Except: that's not what actually happens in the modern age.

There ARE monopolies in a free market, because once one party rises to power, they see to it that no one else does.

It's not just government that interferes in markets.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:54:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:40:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:26:46 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:08:17 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Rand wasn't against organized labor ...

Pretty sure your quote says she is. It's a grudging acknowledgement of labor doing some good, while at the same time a prediction of doom.

People are far less like Atlas Shrugged than like Bioshock.

She was against organized labor's use of government force. The idea of assembling, negotiating, and striking is certainly within Objectivist ideals; find one case where she says that it isn't. After all, isn't the whole theme of Atlas Shrugged a strike?

And Bioshock used Randian trappings to create an interesting setting for a game. It's not a disciplined and well-thought-out critique of objectivism; the designer himself establishes this. The pseudo-Objectivist villain violates the principles of objectivism from day one, initiating violence on those who disagree with him (a cardinal sin, if there is such a thing, in objectivism). As Levine himself said: "I wasn't setting out to make a game about objectivism, I was setting out to make a game about someone who had a very strong belief in a philosophy that was similar to this philosophy.It's a cautionary tale about wholesale, unquestioning belief in something."

See, and that right there is why Rand's philosophy fails so miserably: It works in theory, but not in practice. I could make the same complaints about every communist state, too, that they abandoned "real" communism. The point is that in her made-up, terribly characterized novels, it works out great, but once you look at it from a "what would actually happen" perspective, you realize that it would almost immediately degenerate into oligarchy.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 5:59:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:51:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:44:05 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:24:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:04:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

Three words: competition and choice.

What does that even mean?


There are no monopolies in the free market. Therefore, there is always an alternative to choose.

Except: that's not what actually happens in the modern age.

There ARE monopolies in a free market, because once one party rises to power, they see to it that no one else does.

It's not just government that interferes in markets.

You're wrong from the very first sentence for a very simple fact : there are no free economies in the world.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:02:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:54:56 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:40:57 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:26:46 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:08:17 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Rand wasn't against organized labor ...

Pretty sure your quote says she is. It's a grudging acknowledgement of labor doing some good, while at the same time a prediction of doom.

People are far less like Atlas Shrugged than like Bioshock.

She was against organized labor's use of government force. The idea of assembling, negotiating, and striking is certainly within Objectivist ideals; find one case where she says that it isn't. After all, isn't the whole theme of Atlas Shrugged a strike?

And Bioshock used Randian trappings to create an interesting setting for a game. It's not a disciplined and well-thought-out critique of objectivism; the designer himself establishes this. The pseudo-Objectivist villain violates the principles of objectivism from day one, initiating violence on those who disagree with him (a cardinal sin, if there is such a thing, in objectivism). As Levine himself said: "I wasn't setting out to make a game about objectivism, I was setting out to make a game about someone who had a very strong belief in a philosophy that was similar to this philosophy.It's a cautionary tale about wholesale, unquestioning belief in something."

See, and that right there is why Rand's philosophy fails so miserably: It works in theory, but not in practice. I could make the same complaints about every communist state, too, that they abandoned "real" communism. The point is that in her made-up, terribly characterized novels, it works out great, but once you look at it from a "what would actually happen" perspective, you realize that it would almost immediately degenerate into oligarchy.

Precisely when has Ayn Rand's utopia been practiced?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:04:19 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:51:23 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:44:05 PM, bossyburrito wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:24:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:04:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

Three words: competition and choice.

What does that even mean?


There are no monopolies in the free market. Therefore, there is always an alternative to choose.

Except: that's not what actually happens in the modern age.

There ARE monopolies in a free market, because once one party rises to power, they see to it that no one else does.

It's not just government that interferes in markets.

How exactly do they "see" that no one else does. Remember: they cannot use force.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:09:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 3/7/2013 5:24:00 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 3/7/2013 5:04:10 PM, bossyburrito wrote:

Three words: competition and choice.

What does that even mean?

It means those two things destroy monopolies -- destroy doesn't even go far enough; they make monopolies impossible. Show me a monopoly, and I'll show you a company that benefited or was made possible by government aid.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:20:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
"She believes that all altruism is bad, but that if there were no unions or government interference that employers would treat their employees well (Roark). That's not just a contradiction, it's stupidity. It is the opposite of reality. What actually happens is that the rich manipulate the poor and sell sawdust as sausage while working them to death."

From this I can tell you are only familiar with the semblance of Ayn's philosophy. Think of it this way: Man owns his life. That is essentially the philosophy (at least the part that pertains to this dialogue).
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/7/2013 6:41:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Yes, in a Randian Utopia, everything would be peachy-keen. But the same can be said for every theoretical utopia. Her principles would not work in an actual society.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!