Sciblings, I request your assistance in an important venture.
I recently learned that Ayn Rand's The Fountainhead was a top read among UC Berkeley undergrads in 1987 and 1997. This dismaying fact drove me to start assembling a reader, The Ayn Rand Deprogrammer. I've spent the last several weeks reviewing possible texts for this important new work. Here is the first candidate for inclusion, and going forward, I would appreciate any suggestions that you have for the Deprogrammer.
Mary Gaitskill: Two Girls, Fat and Thin
I spent much of my vacation reading Mary Gaitskill's Two Girls, Fat and Thin, where Ayn Rand is presented as Anna Granite, an amphetamine-popping, average looking, salon-holding kook who writes The Bulwark. Gaitskill depicts the salons held in Rand's apartment in the development of her second book, Atlas Shrugged (which apparently included Alan Greenspan!).
Gaitskill does a bizarro sex scene even better than Rand (from Two Girls):
She crouched in the darkened room, her face almost contorted with fear. He stood still in the doorway, arms loose at his sides, an amused sneer on his mouth. She felt her lip curl. She darted forward and then she felt her body, helpless and frail, crushed against chest. She felt her fists and elbows beating against his form. She thought she felt a deep, silent laugh well up in his chest. Effortlessly, he lifted her body and carried her to the stone sculpture. It was not an act of love, or an act of hate. It was an act of contempt, an act of detachment and brutality. Asia knew that she was being utterly debased by him. Yet the debasement was bound to an exaltation that made her moan. Their mouths locked; there was pain that tore her body and ecstasy that wrenched her soul. He crucified her on his stone.
Gaitskill attacks Rand in many ways, most directly through an article written by one of the two protagonists:
This cultural utopia of greed, expressed in gentrification and the slashing of social programs, has had its spokesperson and prophet for the last fifty years, a novelist whose books are American fantasies that mirror, in all its neurotic excess, the frantic twist to the right we are not experiencing. Anna Granite, who coined the term "the Truth of Selfishness," has been advocating the yuppie raison d'etre since the early forties; it is only now that her ideas are being lived out, in mass culture and in government.
This book requires a lot of investment for the Ayn Rand critiques, but it is probably worth it. I love the depiction of Ayn Rand's public lecture; it reminded me of visits to the Cato Institute.
Call for Submissions
If you think this is an important venture, please suggest texts in the comments for inclusion.
- Log in to post comments
Michael Schermer's book Why People Believe Weird Things has a chapter on why he is no longer an Objectivist, and why he now believes Objectivism to be a cult. It contains some highly interesting stuff about Ayn Rand.
Ewww. I have to bleach my eyes after reading that sex scene.
One of my friends is a nonagenarian retired professor who once served as his university's coordinator for the visiting speakers program. One such visiting speaker was Ayn Rand. It drives me absolutely freaking crazy that during the past dozen years we've never gotten anything more out of him than (a) what they had for lunch and (b) Rand wore a jeweled dollar-sign brooch. He must have nodded off during her talk and the Q&A session... Or just forgot the whole thing.
My book suggestions:
The Ayn Rand Cult, by Jeff Walker
Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature, by Greg S. Nyquist
Are Capitalism, Objectivism, and Libertarianism Religions? Yes!: Greenspan and Ayn Rand debunked, by Albert Ellis (one of the founders of cognitive-behaviorial therapy)
On the Atheist Experience podcast website, I found a link to the Shermer chapter mentioned above. Enjoy.
http://www.2think.org/02_2_she.shtml
Ah, yes. Rand is _so_ horrible.
She:
Believed in an objective reality.
Believed that people should be rational.
Believed that people own their lives and property and should be the ones to decide how those are used.
Believed that the initiation of violence was universally wrong.
Believed that only voluntary social interactions among peaceful individuals were proper.
Believed that art should uplift rather then degrade the human spirit.
Yup. What a horrible person AR was to believe and promote such sick ideas. Insane. Crazy.
And what idiots so many people are for accepting such nonsense.
Yup.
Right.
Tobias Wolff's novel "Old School" (nothing to do with the movie of the same name) includes a wonderful and deflating episode in which Rand herself visits the narrator's boarding school.
Someone needs to start an It Just Bugs Me page for Atlas Shrugged.
------------------
It is an interesting exercise to compare Ayn Rand's forward to Atlas Shrugged (she claims that she is the only novelist in history to write about a new idea) with L. Ron Hubbard's forward to his Mission Earth series (he claims that if you don't find it uproariously funny your'e obviously exactly the sort of shumck he was trying to ridicule, and no, he's not kidding). I am quite sure the two were never in the same room together, as the Universe would have collapsed from the accumulated hubris. On that note--
http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Fountainhead_Earth
------------------
At the beginning of the novel, Dagney's train is held up for hours by a red signal. She deduces, with the awedome power of her Intellect, that the signal must be faulty and that the train can safely proceed, dismisses the engineer and runs the signal. (Note: the novel does not begin with a train crash.)
------------------
The entire first section concerns the "irrational" resistance faced by industrialist Hank Rearden when he decides, having just produced the first experimental sample, implied to be a few grams, of a revolutionary new copper alloy (reportedly in spite of his paid research staff who merely held him back every step of the way),
* to convert his company's entire production over to this new alloy
* that from now on, all civil engineering contracts filled by his company will use the alloy exclusively
* All this will be carried out without conducting any field testing...or any testing at all, for that matter.
Apparently, as a captain of industry and Prime Mover of civilisation, Rearden has it in his power to simply Know, with the awesome power of his Pure Intellect that this new copper alloy (which, incidentally, happens to be green) will not develop any unanticipated problems without resorting to the soul-destroying tedium of empirical verification.
Dagney Taggart muses that if all these worry-warts had lived in an age before the efforts of great men of...er...something...like Rearden, they would have died young of disease and privation, so even if the bridge they are crossing crashes down due to metal fatigue, those useless whingers should just be grateful for the undeserved scraps of lifespan they had already managed to fritter away.
Slightly later on, Rearden laments his recent plight to Dagney, remarking dolefully that in better days, he would have used his position to extort sexual favours from business partners such as herself.
------------------
Further reading:
Daily Kos: RIP John Galt
Russ writes:
What Rand believed doesn't match up with what she shows in her novels.
For example, in Atlas Shrugged Rand reveals an unsubtle family-hating subtext. Look at the way she portrays the living relatives of the heroes. For example, Hank Rearden's morally defective mother didn't conveniently die around the time he turned 21, like Dagny Taggart's and Francisco D'Anconia's respective parents, so he has to put up with her well into his 40's. None of the heroes has any children, nor plans to, even though at the end of the novel Francisco daydreams about the "eyes of youth looking at the future with no uncertainty or fear." Where will these kids come from, Roger Marsh's cabbage patch?
Atlas also projects boundless contempt for ordinary people, like the ones Dagny has to provide transportation for in her railroad. (Yes, successful business people let their customers know how much they despise them.) Given the heroes' world view, I can see why they would want to trigger a Malthusian die off in the U.S. to eliminate all the standard-issue people, with their families and their religions and their altruistic beliefs, who don't meet heroic philosophical standards.
Actually Chris, I'd prefer it if you actually give the rest of us an inkling of what your difficulties are with this book and you express "dismay" at it's popularity within a particular cohort before I'll respond further...
And ironically considered the highest virtue to be selfishness--the most intrinsically subjective value that I can think of.
The Science Pundit writes:
Not to mention Rand's obsession with self-esteem, despite the problems that delusion causes. Terror management theory disillusions us about self-esteem as well.
Have you ever noticed how libertarians and communists are more or less the same? Apart from the ownership of property detail, they share a utopianism. In the absence of the state, people will all miraculously live in peace and prosperity and harmony and non-violence. And not at all like people live in Somalia now...
Chris, I recommend the text at the link for your deprogramming purposes. It's short and to the point.
BTW, if you are confused, remember that socialism is not communism. The ideal of communism is that after a brief transitional period, the state withers away to nothing. Utterly utopian: beautiful and, to my mind, impossible.
For your entertainment: The Abridged Atlas Shrugged.
Also, Robert M. Slade had an interesting review from the early days of the Web.
Unless they are Native Americans.
@ Russ
There's nothing wrong with believing that individuals should be rational.
There's everything wrong with constructing a worldview that presupposes that people will be rational. People, as a class, do not behave rationally.
People, as a class, do not behave rationally.
As a class of what? Now there's a rational thought.
You might find it of use to review some of the arguments I made in this Fark thread.
The most essential problem with Randites are simply that their belief is a form of Scriptural Inerrancy, akin to the form of Biblical Inerrancy that results in Young Earth Creationism.
The most essential problems with Rand's philosophy (at least as expressed in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal) are
1) She considers the conceptual extension of the self known as "Property" as an inviolable absolute "right", which must be taken as a Primary Premise amounting to Tenet of Faith. This cannot be justified via the Second Law of Thermodynamics, while benefits to providing some small limits to said "right" can be.
2) Like most economists today, she neglects cumulative effects of de minimus information costs for transactions in evaluating net results. (I am wont on the slightest provocation to compare the economic assumption of Perfect Information to not merely the proverbial Spherical Cow, but constituting assumption of a Spherical Cube.)
Having had C:tUI pressed on me first, I've not bothered with the Fountainhead.
Russ: Believed that the initiation of violence was universally wrong.
Alas, also not sustainable under the Second Law, but only if declared as a Primary Proposition amounting to Tenet of Faith.
STM: Apparently, as a captain of industry and Prime Mover of civilisation, Rearden has it in his power to simply Know
...indicating a similarity of ignorance between Randites and the modern form of creationists known as "Intelligent Design Proponents" as to what is actually involved in the process of Engineering Design.
F*ck. I may have to get around to reading that piece of sh*t to better attack her, now. Thanks a lot....
The Science Pundit: And ironically considered the highest virtue to be selfishness--the most intrinsically subjective value that I can think of.
Actually, that depends on how subtle you are in defining the "self". Perhaps someone might arrange to interview the Hensel twins about it? Their perspective on it would appear unique within the human experience.
Almost anything by Kropotkin
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/kropotkin/KropotkinCW.html
or Emma Goldman
http://dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/goldman/GoldmanCW.html
I would add to the list Russ posted that she believed that the rational application of human ingenuity and effort (scientific and economic advancement) did more to better the human condition than mysticism and religion and their various proscribed acts of atonement, charity, penance, and prayer
She deserves some credit for advocating an alternative viewpoint to religion. Yes, it fails on many levels----as does every other attempt by religion, philosophy and ethics to develop a universal moral system.
And never understood that property is a social construct.
Objectivism has a few good ideas, but is ultimately so rigid that you can't actually live your life by it unless you completely disconnect yourself from society, so in principle, it is kind of like a cult.
I enjoyed reading some of Rand's work (Atlas Shrugged, Anthem), and I agree with maybe 70% of her ideas, it's just the other 30% that throw me off. For instance, Rand was an avowed atheist, and completely opposed to any state-sponspored religion (completely support). But she was so alienated from growing up in the USSR that she opposed essentially ANY government involvement, which is fine in theory until you start wanting things like roads and basic public services. Runaway Capitalism exploits the underclass and destroys the environment, which is arguably as great an evil as government involvement. Interesting to think about...
Believed in an objective reality.
Believed that people should be rational.
The above two presume that Rand practiced what she preached. In practice she was extremely opinionated and allowed her followers to believe that what she said was the unvarnished truth.
Believed that people own their lives and property and should be the ones to decide how those are used.
But denied that peoples' interests and decisions could come into conflict in a way that the conflicting parties could not resolve on their own.
Believed that the initiation of violence was universally wrong.
Depending, of course, on how one defines initiation vs. retaliation. It's not as cut-and-dried as some would have you think.
Believed that only voluntary social interactions among peaceful individuals were proper.
Both unrealistic and bizarrely isolationist.
Believed that art should uplift rather then degrade the human spirit.
So she plagiarized from Plato. So did a lot of people. The problem is that any given person's ideas of "uplifting" vs. "degrading" isn't going to agree with everyone else's. And Plato was probably wrong anyway -- his conception of art and music was overly paternalistic, to say the least.
Yup. What a horrible person AR was to believe and promote such sick ideas. Insane. Crazy.
And what idiots so many people are for accepting such nonsense.
As someone once said about a now-forgotten net.kook of past times, the entire point of Ayn Rand's works is to make the world as comfortable a place as possible for Ayn Rand. Everything she said and did was in service to that end, and it happened to appeal to a certain subset of the population given to obsessive revenge fantasies against people they think are holding them down.
As for idiots... who knows? A lot of Randroids are otherwise bright people with a severe case of arrested moral development. As the sort of person who, along a different growing-up track than I had, could easily have come to follow Randian philosophy, there's a certain subset of people who, though considered smart, always flip to the end of the book to find out the answer and are sometimes particularly vulnerable to easy answers. Those who get exposed to Rand before being taught proper critical thinking skills think Rand explains everything, as Objectivism, in its barebones form at least, seems to be pretty self-contained. With a little bit more maturity under one's belt though, Objectivism looks a little like CS Lewis' trilemma -- the logic may be solid, but the premises seem to be false.
(In a way, for what it's worth, if Dagny was Rand's Mary Sue, one gets the sense that Rand thought at least for herself the whole thing didn't apply -- Dagny's glomming on to John Galt despite the attentions of two other men and her own status as a leader of industry is exactly the sort of thing Rand doesn't seem to want her followers to be.)
(Please excuse the capital letters I use; I'm uncertain how to do italics etc. here. I'm not trying to "shout.")
Believed in an objective reality.
Believed that people should be rational.
The above two presume that Rand practiced what she preached. In practice she was extremely opinionated and allowed her followers to believe that what she said was the unvarnished truth.
THIS IS A FALLACY. A DOCTOR WHO SAYS SMOKING IS BAD FOR ONE EVEN AS HE PUFFS AWAY IS STILL TELLING THE TRUTH. "PRACTICING WHAT ONE PREACHES" HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE VALIDITY OF IDEA "X."
Believed that people own their lives and property and should be the ones to decide how those are used.
But denied that peoples' interests and decisions could come into conflict in a way that the conflicting parties could not resolve on their own.
NOT TRUE. WHAT SHE SAID WAS THAT PEOPLE WHO BEHAVE RATIONALLY DO NOT HAVE TO BE IN CONFLICT, IF ONE DOES NOT DESIRE WHAT DOES NOT BELONG TO ONE.
Believed that the initiation of violence was universally wrong.
Depending, of course, on how one defines initiation vs. retaliation. It's not as cut-and-dried as some would have you think.
THERE ARE, INDEED, BORDERLINE CASES. BORDERLINE CASES DO NOT DEFINE A PRIMARY PRINCIPLE.
Believed that only voluntary social interactions among peaceful individuals were proper.
Both unrealistic and bizarrely isolationist.
SO, BETTER TO _FORCE_ OTHERS TO ACT AS ONE WANTS THEM TO ACT AND TO USE VIOLENCE? NOW _THAT_ IS UNREALISTIC AND BIZARRE.
Believed that art should uplift rather then degrade the human spirit.
So she plagiarized from Plato. So did a lot of people. The problem is that any given person's ideas of "uplifting" vs. "degrading" isn't going to agree with everyone else's. And Plato was probably wrong anyway -- his conception of art and music was overly paternalistic, to say the least.
SO, BECAUSE PEOPLE DISAGREE ON DEFINITIONS, WE SHOULD JUST GIVE UP?
----
As to other points people have raised:
Rand wrote primarily about adults because only adults have full rights and the intellectual development to deal with them.
Rand never said that people _are_ or _will be_ rational. She said they _should_ act rationally.
Rational selfishness, i.e., rational self-interest, i.e., what is actually beneficial to one's life, is the opposite of subjective.
The problem with "self-esteem" in the social sciences is that it is misidentified/misdefined. The "delusion" is believing that the "ideal" is existing sans self.
Rand defended the "common" _and_ the "superior" person...as long as they were rational, productive, etc. It is collectivism that treats individuals as interchangeable parts to be tossed aside for a mythical "greater good."
Many if not most libertarians (and virtually all Objectivists) are _not_ anarchists; i.e., they believe that a government is necessary, but only as long as it is limited to defending individual rights.
As rights are contextual, not "absolute" regardless of context. A straw man fallacy to maintain otherwise.
Property is not a "social construct." It is real. What is "social" is that rights need to be defined and defended within a society. Indeed, rights only apply in a social context.
I certainly live my life by Objectivist principles. I am hardly "disconnected" from society. Quite the opposite. Living morally can be difficult. Many people prefer license to do whatever they want without censure or negative consequences and so attack principles as "rigid."
The worst environmental violators have been and always are governments: see USSR, US gov, etc.
Paul Murray writes:
What about the super-rich who use their property to restrict other people's rights and freedoms? The man who founded Dominoes Pizza has applied his fortune towards political activism to outlaw abortion in the U.S., for example. A couple of multi-millionaires who succeeded in Silicon Valley have used their money to support white-supremacist groups. And oil sheikhs have notoriously used their money to spread radical Islam. Should we respect these individuals' decisions as to how they use their lives and property?
Anonymous:
First, you can use HTML tags. That's what I did.
To an extent you're right, but the simple fact is that not only do Rand's beliefs not work in the real world (the partial implementations that we have seen have been an utter train wreck that opened the government to a level of corruption not seen since the late 19th century) but she didn't even make the effort to live by the rules she set for herself.
Her opinion on disputes between rational actors is demonstrably a crock. Some resources are zero-sum in nature. Some logically considered opinions are irreconcilable, even in life-or-death situations. There will still be a need for a mediator and codified legal structures for the mediator to go by.
The difficulty of the non-aggression principle does not lie in "borderline" cases. Two parties in a dispute can have wildly opposed view of which one is the aggressor and still be able to make a reasoned case for it; without deeper analysis, the non-aggression principle borders on a justification for paranoia, and probably isn't of any use at all in isolation. As for forced social interaction... you don't usually get to pick your coworkers at a job, or your neighbors in a community. It's one thing to assert that one must keep one elbows out of one's neighbor's plate; that's common courtesy. It's an entirely different to raise a principle that primarily serves as a social lubricant to a point of dogma to the degree that Rand does. The point of the rule of law is to make sure that such principles are applied in a consistent manner for all of society.
Property is to a certain extent an animal instinct (territory, in its most basic form, seems to be a lizard brain thing, or perhaps even lower), but concepts of property are very much a social construct.
Lastly, what Rand might call "collectivism" is what orthodox economics calls "economy of scale" -- it is in the best interest of society if all concerned pool their resources to a sufficient extent to provide for the common welfare. It eliminates unnecessary duplication of effort and enables people to specialize in the areas of knowledge that they're good at. This point is something Rand either never understood or blatantly ignored in her works -- her heroes, who could never have become what they were without the framework of society to build on, were portrayed as having no need for it, and her fantasy messiah John Galt would, in the real world, be no different from someone like Joe Newman or Dennis Lee, a nonentity with an unworkable idea and a flair for self-promotion. (And, if you want comparisons of other characters, maybe D'Anconia = one of the himbos from The Hills, Taggart = Paris Hilton (with a sinecure job managing a hotel), and Reardon = Amar Bose (coasting for the rest of his life on one significant innovation).)
At the end of the day, Rand was nothing more than a reactionary with an extremely misanthropic view of the world.
Who was John Galt?
An asshole.
Nemo:
Yeah, true, but I like "snake oil salesman" better.
Where was this book when I was going through my Ayn Rand phase? I would have read far less of her crap.
Here's an quote from Ayn Rand from the link Colorambler provided:
This doesn't sound like someone show believed "that people own their lives and property and should be the ones to decide how those are used" and "the initiation of violence was universally wrong". It sounds like a spoiled, racist, laissez-faire capitalist brat.
I haven't read much Rand, but I get the suspicion that she is both good and original--but the parts that are good aren't original, and the parts that are original aren't good.
OK, that's a bit too cute, and I don't really dislike her. But I do think some of that accusation should stick to her, but only because she puffed herself up so much to seem like she had figured it all out for the first time in history.
I would be happy to be instructed otherwise by more informed readers.
Chris, I wouldn't worry TOO much about how widely read The Fountainhead is - that novel was also my first introduction to Rand, and I found it pretty disgusting and unethical from the start. As an aside, I absolutely loved Two Girls, Fat & Thin, and may have to have a small crush on you for having read it (I never seem to encounter Gaitskill fans).
Almost 15 years ago, the Critiques Of Libertarianism web site was one of the earliest web sites. I still routinely add to it, and plan a major overhaul in the next year or so.
I have an index just for her:
Criticisms of Objectivism (or Ayn Rand).
Ayn Rand was a truculent, domineering cult-leader, whose Objectivist pseudo-philosophy attempts to ensnare adolescents with heroic fiction about righteous capitalists.
This index has about 50 links (doubtless some have rotted.) Nice to see some new ones popping up here: I'll add them.
Please, do write The Deprogrammer. It would be very handy to have the best points consolidated in one place.
Check also Libertarianism in One Lesson, Libertarianism in One Lesson; The Second Lesson, Quotations relevant to libertarianism. and A Non-Libertarian FAQ. for various comments on Rand.
Anonymous (I forgot to add my name last time):
To an extent you're right, but the simple fact is that not only do Rand's beliefs not work in the real world (the partial implementations that we have seen have been an utter train wreck that opened the government to a level of corruption not seen since the late 19th century) but she didn't even make the effort to live by the rules she set for herself.
** Sadly, your example is fallacious. Bush is and never was anything resembling a believer in freedom. Simply using the rhetoric does not make one a defender of liberty or capitalism. Bush and Clinton and etc. and what happened with them are simply examples of what happens when one abandons freedom. Greenspan was not an Objectivist as Fed chairman; the opposite, in fact.**
** Again, the tu toque fallacy: the truth of X is not determined by a practitioner's failure to follow X. Rand got herself in personal trouble precisely when she did not follow her own philosophy.**
** Examine Hong Kong vs N. Korea, USSR vs US, E. Germany vs W. Germany, and on and on and on: the "real world" demonstrates that the _closer_ a country is to following the principles of freedom, the better off it and its citizens are.**
Her opinion on disputes between rational actors is demonstrably a crock. Some resources are zero-sum in nature. Some logically considered opinions are irreconcilable, even in life-or-death situations. There will still be a need for a mediator and codified legal structures for the mediator to go by.
** Another straw man of her ideas on conflicts vis a vis views on rational actors. If you cannot even present an accurate view of her statements, then it is pointless to offer any kind of analysis here.**
The difficulty of the non-aggression principle does not lie in "borderline" cases. Two parties in a dispute can have wildly opposed view of which one is the aggressor and still be able to make a reasoned case for it; without deeper analysis, the non-aggression principle borders on a justification for paranoia, and probably isn't of any use at all in isolation.
** This, of course, makes no sense. If you're sitting on your porch minding your own business, and I come up and punch you in the nose or take your chair and leave with it without your permission, there is no "borderline" there nor any confusion. Just because I _claim_ YOU were the aggressor makes no difference in the simplicity of the situation. That's what objective courts are for: evidence etc. As for "paranoia"? A radical non sequitur." "isolation"? Of what? Of whom? A person? Again, rights (and non-initiation of aggression) apply _only_ in a social context.**
As for forced social interaction... you don't usually get to pick your coworkers at a job, or your neighbors in a community.
** Wild confusion here as to what constitutes "force" in a social setting vis a vis rights. This is what is a "crock." Only ignorance, real or feigned, could possibly confuse working with people one has not "chosen" with rights'-violating force. It is voluntary as long as you can quit a job you do not like.**
Property is to a certain extent an animal instinct (territory, in its most basic form, seems to be a lizard brain thing, or perhaps even lower), but concepts of property are very much a social construct.
** Wrong. Territoriality is not the same as property.**
Lastly, what Rand might call "collectivism" is what orthodox economics calls "economy of scale" -- it is in the best interest of society if all concerned pool their resources to a sufficient extent to provide for the common welfare.
** Confusion again. This is not what Rand called "collectivism." She supported large groups of people working voluntarily together, e.g., businesses working to achieve "economy of scale." Any intro philosophy text can demonstrate that the above characterization has nothing to do with "collectivism" as a political or social theory.**
At the end of the day, Rand was nothing more than a reactionary with an extremely misanthropic view of the world.
**Ah, a good, old ad hominem fallacy. Rand was revolutionary, not reactionary; she loved people (i.e., individuals) and devised a philosophy that best describes the proper way for people to interact peacefully in society and to achieve the greatest happiness for themselves.**
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
Oh. Wait. Were you serious about that? Yikes.
What I always find amazing is the stunning historical ignorance of Randites. Laissez faire has been done. It works great if you can be one of the propertied class. Everyone else gets screwed.
The tu quoque fallacy does not apply here. We are discussing the cult of personality that has grown around Ayn Rand. If it can be demonstrated that the person does not follow her own stated philosophy, yet her followers maintain her infallibility, then the proposition logically fails.
Objectivism/Libertarianism? Fascism, table for one.
I can sum up the fundamental problem with Rand's notion of " capitalism" in two words: "cost externalization." [1]
If John Galt's industries produce so much pollution that people are dropping dead in the streets (as in 19th Century London), but he saves enough by cutting corners to live somewhere else and breathe bottled air when he visits, whose property rights are being violated and what recourse do they have?
Note that one of the sure-fire ways to get Rand foaming at the mouth was to mention pollution control laws, despite the fact that they are readily modeled by purely capitalistic economics.
[1] Her contrived fantasies about human nature are something else again.
You want reading matter?
Strangely enough [1], John Ringo's Legacy of the Aldenata novels describe about the closest I've ever seen to a Randian society in literature. Of course, Ringo does do the whole science-fiction "make the details internally consistent" thing, so the species (the Posleen) is bioengineered to support Rand's kind of predestined caste system.
@ ALL RANDITES,
This is not a debate about Ayn Rand. This effort seeks to collect essays for the Ayn Rand Deprogrammer, which will be distributed to all students at UC Berkeley using taxpayer dollars liberated from the rich.
Russ wrote:
The problem is that she had very strange notions of "objective reality" and "rational." For example, Rand rejected quantum mechanics on philosophical grounds, because it didn't fit her notion of objective reality. As part of rationality, she conjured a "fallacy of the stolen concept" that is not a fallacy. Arguably, one could draw a connection between that conjured fallacy and the objection to proof by contradiction by mathematical constructivists. But the latter can be discussed in terms of formal logic, and Rand explicitly said that formal logic shouldn't be used to analyze philosophical notions. That objection was prudential, since any formal analysis of axioms such as "existence exists" quickly shows it either to be vacuous or just a container for sneaking in her various notions. Which process is what the rest of the world calls ideology rather than rational.
Hell, just have the students at Berkely play the game Bioshock -- its entire setting is the ruins of an Objectivist-style "utopia" which collapsed under its own ideological baggage.
Russ:
Do you plan on providing an explanation, or are you just going to assert and run? Brian X's original claim seemed quite reasonable to me. What is the concept of property if not an enhanced and codified version of "this is mine"? I'm afraid your "Nuh-uh!" just won't cut it with me.
That horrible contradiction was my whole point.
To reject Objectivism is to accept the following:
1. There is no "reality." Saying one is "out of touch with reality" is a positive statement.
2. People should be irrational/illogical.
3. No one owns his own life; all people are and should be slaves.
4. No one has a right to own property; anyone for any reason can take whatever they want from someone.
5. Using coercion and violence against innocent others is the basis of all proper social interactions. Might is right.
6. Only involuntary actions are proper; forcing others to do or not do what they want is the essence of how people should be treated.
7. Art should be degrading to the human spirit and treat people as worthless scum.
There's a word for people who believe such things.
I've witnessed plenty of evidence here of people who embrace and promote such tyrannical and self-contradictory ideas.
You deserve each other.
** This, of course, makes no sense. If you're sitting on your porch minding your own business, and I come up and punch you in the nose or take your chair and leave with it without your permission, there is no "borderline" there nor any confusion. Just because I _claim_ YOU were the aggressor makes no difference in the simplicity of the situation.
Assuming my father didn't kill your parents to take the land the house is built on from them.
Nice one Blake. Also worth considering: Altas Shrugged 2: One Hour Later.
Two words: false dichotomy. There's a word for people who use such arguments.
back to the main point, matt ruff's sewer, gas and electric trilogy is a hilarious spoof of the randian worldview. complete with a guest shot of a holographic rand in a hurricane lamp.
Straw man? You choose to believe certain things about Objectivism, and specifically Ayn Rand. Other people disagree, and have actual arguments to support their position. You cry "Is Not!", spray some No True Scotsman(tm) around, and finish with ad hominem attacks on people you can't convince.
There is a very *short* word for people like you.
1. There is no "reality." Saying one is "out of touch with reality" is a positive statement.
No, not at all. In fact the fallacy here is assuming that the idea of an objective reality necessarily leads to Objectivism; to assert otherwise is to accuse almost every philosophical tradition out there -- including the logical positivism that our modern world is built on -- of intellectual dishonesty.
2. People should be irrational/illogical.
See 1. Objectivism does not have a monopoly on reason, and in fact can be demonstrated to be irrational in some key respects.
3. No one owns his own life; all people are and should be slaves.
Black and white thinking to a rather painful degree. One can accept the principle that human beings are individual actors without disclaiming the necessity of interdependence on others.
4. No one has a right to own property; anyone for any reason can take whatever they want from someone.
This runs utterly counter to any sane foundation for society. That's why we have government in the first place.
5. Using coercion and violence against innocent others is the basis of all proper social interactions. Might is right.
Some might is needed, to protect the rights of individuals in society and to insure the common welfare. Might is a tool like any other; right comes from a social contract, and might is what's used to enforce it.
6. Only involuntary actions are proper; forcing others to do or not do what they want is the essence of how people should be treated.
Maybe if you're a 30-percenter. Most people find that level of authoritarianism to be unconscionable, and it's highly dishonest of you to claim that !Rand leads to this.
7. Art should be degrading to the human spirit and treat people as worthless scum.
Horseshit. Between this strawman and your earlier Platonism, you seem to be incapable of understanding art as anything but a propaganda mechanism. Art is first and foremost a medium of expression, primarily for the artist and secondarily for the consumer. Whether it uplifts, degrades, or (fancy this) simply entertains is up to the artist and no one else.
Russ, you might win some kind of award for ideological purity coming to conclusions like this about people who don't accept Randian thinking, but your utter lack of understanding of concepts of moderation, compromise, or nuance is evidently nonexistent.
Confusion again. This is not what Rand called "collectivism." She supported large groups of people working voluntarily together, e.g., businesses working to achieve "economy of scale." Any intro philosophy text can demonstrate that the above characterization has nothing to do with "collectivism" as a political or social theory.
There's no meaningful difference except that the "collectivism" of government is (supposed to be, at least under rule of law) for the common benefit and the "collectivism" of business is for the benefit of the investors. (The fact that some businesses like REI, King Arthur Flour, or credit unions are run as collectives doesn't change that, as the employees and customer-members are still shareholders.) But Rand only supported the kind that created profit for a few stakeholders, and it seems to me she considered everyone else either a useful idiot or outright evil.
And of course AR turned a blind eye to the tragedy of the commons, and indeed to all instances of "what if someone doesn't act according to my fantasies" and other types of "things going wrong."
In other words, AR was right up there with Lenin and Stalin. All three had societies which would work perfectly as soon as a few generations of Lysenkoist evolution altered human nature.
Because all of the demonstrated benefits of society and culture should be dismissed as meaningless. Even Isaac Newton, possibly the all-time champion of self-regard, gave credit to others for the opportunity to do even better.
I read Rand in college, the only time to read it, but if you haven't gotten over her by your mid-20s, you haven't developed as a person.
Given Greenspan's role in the economic disaster ( in his congressional testimony he said he "found a flaw" in his system and was in "in a state of shocked disbelief") perhaps this isn't so much a game as their future job market.
Colorambler,
Yes, I know.
And I assert that A is not A and a map is not the territory.
Will Russ' head explode?
I assert that A is not A, and a map is not the territory.
Will that make Russ' head explode?
I assert that A is not A, and a map is not the territory.
Will that make Russ' head explode?
(Third time lucky posting?)
Oh, and Russ:
Rand's entire philosophy seemed to be dedicated to being the polar opposite of Marxist communism, even when Marx might actually have been right about something. That's reactionary by its very definition, and hardly ad hominem. (And yes, it's possible to be reactionary and revolutionary, but I would tend to sum up the results by playing "Won't Get Fooled Again" by the Who.)
Russ:
Calling Rand a reactionary is not ad hominem if you realize that her entire philosophy is based around being not-Communist in any way, shape or form, even when Marx might have been right about something. And "reactionary" and "revolutionary" are not mutually exclusive (cf Daltrey/Townshend, "Won't Get Fooled Again").
ChrisH:
I have no specific recommendations (apart from the obvious, Michael Shermer's essay), but the Non-Libertarian FAQ by Mike Huben is pretty good for sources.
The note about "false dichotomy" by Dunc suggests something with an overview of the assorted types of logical fallacies might be in order. There's a decent taxonomy to look through over at FallacyFiles.org.
I'd disrecommend Bioshock; I suspect it's not subtle enough, as I'm aware of one Randite blogger who essentially reacted with "oh, it's an obvious anti-Rand screed in bad disguise; I'll ignore the message".
Considering that Russ seems to have a problem with nuance and shades of gray, I would add Neil Stephenson's "Diamond Age" to the reading list:
Several other parts of the book appear to address other of the problems with Rand's ideas.
A more general question in the way of broader background: does anyone know of good technical literature on what triggers people in general to change their minds? Presumably, knowing why they change their minds might help understand how to get people to change their minds about Ayn Rand.
I think the point that Russ makes is a classic example of the libertarian innocence by association arguments. Basically, you say, "libertarians just believe in justice for everybody, and no government interference in your life, and puppies, and rainbows!"
Then in reality you see these people defending the indefensible. The slavish servitude of these so-called rational lovers of freedom advocating unlimited corporate power, as if government is the only entity capable of interfering in our lives or accomplishing great social evil. Not to mention the practiced and consistent rejection of the historical necessity of government intervention, again and again, in response to the most egregious and harmful types of corporate greed that resulted not just in harm but in the deaths of hundreds.
This is the great lie of the libertarian. The notion that the vague and fluffy ideals they quote as being libertarian (but are actually pretty universal) have anything to do with the practice of their ideology. The global warming denialist, anti-regulatory, laissez-faire, teenage boy fantasy wankery is the reality of this ideology. Reading Ayn Rand and loving it as a teenager is bad. Never outgrowing her degenerate and despicable message of selfishness and George Bushian certainty is unforgivable.
Its strikingly obvious that almost no one here has ever read Ayn Rand or has an inkling of an idea of what Objectivism is. My favorite is by the guy who claims that "the self known as Property" is contrary to the secound law of thermodynamics. It's funny because it shows that he dosn't understand neither.
Come to think of it, why do libertarians and Objectivists never think of government as a collaborative business created and run in the interests of its citizens (i.e. its shareholders)? You would think that would slot rather neatly into their worldview, if they were truly as rational as they fancy themselves...
Many do but it depends on the nature of the government and how they respect individual rights. It's not that Objectivist don't beleive in government. However they do feel the only proper role of government is to protect individual rights and enforce contract.
Let's be careful with the word libertarian. Some of us still like the word and find it useful to describe our political philosophy.
Here's an anarchist critique of Rand. Whether you agree with anarchists or not, I think it's important to recognize that the bastardization of libertarian philosophy by people like Mises and Rand is a recent phenomena.
Bruce: Its strikingly obvious that almost no one here has ever read Ayn Rand or has an inkling of an idea of what Objectivism is. My favorite is by the guy who claims that "the self known as Property" is contrary to the secound law of thermodynamics. It's funny because it shows that he dosn't understand neither.
The phrase was "conceptual extension of the self known as Property"; sorry if the modifiers weren't clear. I'm referring to "what is known as Property, and is a conceptual extension of the self." For indirect clarification on that idea, see Larry Niven's short story "Grammar Lesson". (Possibly also worth adding to the deprogramming list.)
Additionally, the wording I used was "This cannot be justified via the Second Law of Thermodynamics, while benefits to providing some small limits to said "right" can be." This is not the same as "contradicts". It merely suggests that to the extent the 2nd is an (exceedingly accurate) representation of Objective reality, a limit on the right of Property derived therefrom is more Objective than the idea of Absolute Property.
And yes, I've read some Rand; specifically, I made it through the whole of "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal". (I also used up two pads of post-its page to annotate and to bookmark all the formal logical errors.)
Anonymous: [...]
Forgot to fill in the name field; sorry.
Sound familiar: "You atheists have never read the bible and don't understand jesus."
A low hanging fruit with Greenspan conceding error here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/24/business/economy/24panel.html?_r=1
Nathaniel Branden distances himself from his mentor here:
http://rous.redbarn.org/objectivism/Writing/NathanielBranden/BenefitsAn…
khan:
In Michael Shermer's essay, he presented Rand's four-point description of Objectivism. If that's to be taken as her definitive summation of the philosophy, there's little more to be said -- the entire thing falls apart with her idea of an objective morality and the overselling of self-interest.
I recommend this article:
http://www.alonzofyfe.com/desire_utilitarianism_2.shtml
Brian X writes, "Come to think of it, why do libertarians and Objectivists never think of government as a collaborative business created and run in the interests of its citizens (i.e. its shareholders)? You would think that would slot rather neatly into their worldview, if they were truly as rational as they fancy themselves..."
Apply a little thought here, Brian X. It's that pesky use of force thing that distinguishes government from business.
Do you fancy your post to be "rational"?
Brian X writes, "... the entire thing falls apart with her idea of an objective morality ..."
Just because you claim it, Brian X, doesn't make it so. Please explain the errors you believe she made in developing her ethical/moral principles.
MarkH writes,"The slavish servitude of these so-called rational lovers of freedom advocating unlimited corporate power, as if government is the only entity capable of interfering in our lives or accomplishing great social evil."
You seem to want to mix things up just enough to confuse. For instance, your use of the phrase "unlimited corporate power." If you mean the success that is derived from satisfying the desires of voluntary consumers, then, yes, I advocate that.
But if it involves the use of force or fraud, then I advocate punishment.
You continue to obfuscate with, "Not to mention the practiced and consistent rejection of the historical necessity of government intervention, again and again, in response to the most egregious and harmful types of corporate greed that resulted not just in harm but in the deaths of hundreds."
Again, I reject the notion of government "intervening" in response to "greed." I advocate the notion of government intervening in response to the initiation of force by an individual or a group of individuals (corporation if you must).
Being deliberately obtuse and redefining terms to suit his/her argument? Infidel Epic Fail!
Typical.
Which terms did I "redefine," LanceR. And while you're at it, please provide the correct definitions.
May I recommend a comic? From "The Man Who Hates Fun", the secret origin of Dascha Rand:
http://fictioncircus.com/mwhf/comic.php?date=20070326
infidel Please explain the errors you believe she made in developing her ethical/moral principles.
See earlier.
She also presumes that morality is finitely expressible (and thus, expressible via a finite set of ethical principles), that ethics is invariant for (and not an Objectively defined function of) the moral entity and the environment of the moral choice for said entity; she fails to define an Individual so as to resolve the Ship of Theseus riddle, and her rejection of the very possibility of "society" having meaning is flawed.
Those are just the ones I noticed this evening, mind you.
To what extent does a seller have the obligation to be informed about the product, and to what extent does the seller have the obligation to insure the buyer is informed about the nature of the product?
Oh, I'm surprised no one has posted Become an Objectivist in Ten Easy Steps. It's pretty hilarious to anyone who's encountered several of these folks.
I swear, I step away from the blog momentarily because I'm busy, and then you go and do something spectacular like this. It's a little more subtle, but I happen to think works of fiction are useful for this sort of thing. I recommend Jennifer Government,also because it's a fun read. Aldous Huxley's Brave New World is underrated I think. Still, I think the best deprogramming might be to simply read the introduction to Anthem's 50th anniversary edition. I read it on a plane, what waste of my time that was. Just reading her working title for the book, the whole story is completely delineated and reveals her as a massive fraud who did nothing more than recycle old ideas.
I got on the plane barely familiar with Rand and relatively open minded to her idea, and got off the plane wondering why anyone would buy her books.
Oh, I almost forgot, read any book on anthropology or neurology (I'm avoiding psychology altogether, lest Objectivists have more in common with Scientologists than they care to admit). Human being are NOT rational animals by any means. Never have been.
I think this is a great idea for a project. A mind is a terrible thing to waste.
For completeness sake, be sure not to overlook Wm. F. Buckley's vicious obituary of Rand, "Ayn Rand, R.I.P.". I can't be certain after so many years (it's apparently not available online) but if I recall correctly it was the cover story for that issue of National Review.
Since there seemed to me to be quite a bit of overlap between the ideological tropes of self-described 'conservatives' and 'objectivists' ("I've got mine, Jack, hands off of my stack"), it was a bit of a surprise at the time to read WFB's catty good-riddance on the occasion of her death. As I recall, Buckley's primary beef with Rand seemed to be that she wasn't a good enough Catholic (!) for his tastes. If nothing else, it's worth reading for sheer comedic value.
I will suggest George Lakoff's latest book "The political mind : why you can't understand 21st-century politics with an 18th-century brain". While not addressing Rand directly, he demonstrates that the assumptions we hold regarding "enlightnement reason" (that it is passionless, that it is abstract/non-physical, that it directly fits the world as it is, etc.) are incorrect from a neuro-scientific standpoint.
Another book I recently read that has bearing is "Mirroring People: the new science of how we connect with others" by Marco Iacoboni.
very good sites
I would suggest that for those who seek TRUTH a deprogramming text starts with "The Closing of the American Mind" by Alan Bloom and then moves through some moderate understanding of thought at least from Plato to Pirsig...
To see people who don't know that the Enlightenment occured and credit Rand with the start of investigation of reality using logic is a sad thing to see.