Devoneaux said:
mfeff said:
alfinchkid said:
In Search of Username said:
hyper snips
See the problem with Objectivism is that it fails to confront the issue that the great have power over the small, and that the already great hindering the small that seek to become great, in an effort to maintain their own greatness.
I suppose it depends on how one wants to look at it. Objectivism does address it, and has an expectation set forth as a part of it's epistemology.
Rand is addressing the failures of the implementation of the Marxist ideology -> Stalinist socialism. Under that system the "possibility" of private ownership as vehicle to manifest self interested future, (means of production a nod to the Lockean system), was impossible.
In many ways this was "alienation" of labor from the proletariat which was the very thing that Karl Marx was interested in getting away from. Rand (for my money) was offering an analysis of two very different economic systems. Eventually adopting a very Aristotelian-modified-version of oligarchy, however, linking that to civic virtue, another nod to the Apollonian. That is to say, that a civic duty was associated with personal duty and responsibility to the point of being an aesthetic in and of itself. I tended to see it as almost an expansion of the clan or city state identity to national identity. Almost like a post modern version of the arete. Not so much in the way of handouts (unless the person felt that charity was the way to go), but that the people at the top would use reason and sound judgement to select those who would also bolster up the body and politic all the way down. Probably say this was the earliest manifestations of the trickle down economic policies and the beginnings of the corporate republic/globalization initiative (user friendly term for empire).
Rand has always struck me as someone that valued hard work and self discipline. Unfortunately I think she underestimated the irrational aspect of human kind, was woefully unaware of "monkey sphere", and gave human beings way to much credit when it came to playing fair and a propensity for being lazy.
The simple fact is that we live in a world where you only move up IF AND ONLY IF someone else somewhere lets you. I can think of no situation where, directly or indirectly this is not the case. This is also why Social Darwinism was incorrect, since the entire philosophy doesn't address the idea that someone is poor because someone else might be keeping him there.
Not sure if this is a sentiment that I am able to sign off on.
There are plenty of opportunities off the grid. As I mentioned before... anarcho-capitalism.
Social Darwinism is an interesting cat.
The assumption is that someone has the might and power to actually "keep" another person in check and beat down within the market system is just a little weak sauce.
The breakdown comes in when advancement is stymied intentionally to maintain the status quo, or the illusion of it.
I certainly cannot speak for the rest of the world but there are tons of opportunities to advance oneself within the US, even if one is of meager means. I fault the Objectivist standpoint, specifically Rand's assertion that companies would actually play fair. Period. The use of asymmetrical warfare, corporate espionage, keiretsu, leveraging positions of holdings/speculation, unfair and predatory lending practices, rigging of games, casino wall-street; as not being in the spirit of the civic advancement as a gauge of social virtue.
Technically, it is not a fault of the objectivist position, it is a fault of people not living up to it's rigorous standards. It's an applied personal philosophy more than it is a social model.
I think the idea was clearly that free markets would "tech up" to provide better and cheaper products to the populace under a linear competition model rather than socialize and limit the creative gene that is associated with socialistic systems.
That is to say that the profit motif would drive ingenuity. It often does.
This is where government comes into play. The ultimate purpose of the government (as it applies to America) is to protect and maintain the rights and freedoms of the citizenry.
Not really. From where does these rights derive? Where does the government derive it's authority?
This is why we have laws like Minimum wage(which could stand to be higher) and child labor laws, because when we didn't, the working class were readily exploited.
Not really.
History shows that without government interference, the great will exploit and control the small.The ultimate implications of Ayn Rand's belief, that the great have a right to control the weak and small is something i'd expect to hear from the personal writings of a totalitarian leader, not an "enlightened" author.
There is a lot wrong with these statements. You have used the word "right" several times, not really sure Rand actually said that, tossing the burden o' proof on you to source. The "great" usually don't bother trying to control the weak, the weak, being weak, are more "funneled" into roles (in deterministic fashion) for which they serve the best and or find their comfortable level of achievement.
Another word here I am going to have some issues with is "enlightened", really need you to define what you mean by that exactly. The way that you use it is as a pejorative, implying that she did not/does not measure up to you notion of the term.
I simply mentioned, and will elaborate, the serious (western) Buddhist practitioners found Objectivism and Ayn Rand's dissertations to be especially difficult to work through as they relate to the philosophies of the contemporary religious practice.
I tend to note that Rand's philosophy being post modern, being heavily influenced by Kant, Kirk, and certainly Fredrick Nietzsche... as well as Heidegger, Husserl, Schopenhauer... as well as others are similar to modern Buddhist lay positions and postulates. Considering it is of historical significance that those philosophers were greatly influence by the religion, for many the combined efforts and dialog often solves some of their issues although the continental philosophies also create new ones.
It's a lot like what this guy has to say. As far as the Dharma is concerned Rand has some issues... but she is worth serious consideration... under glass.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Galt
Couple issues I had with Rand:
She was somewhat naive when it came to human reason, that is the human critter operates from an irrational very subjective viewpoint (failure to develop a reflexive self checking objective practice).
She demonstrated gross neglect in calculating limits of materials, resources, and capability. (she often lived in fantasy land when she discussed future technologies)
She failed to address the solid work that Marx did undertake as it related to conflict theory, for her every human issue had a logical (oft times linear) solution. Ignoring her own underlying emotional tensions as they related to others. She seemed to have a hard time seeing the peasant for what it was... a peasant. (That is I often thought she wanted to peasant to rise up, in a Marxist fashion, and "want more" for themselves... angry that they didn't, rather they just sat around "asking" for their share.)
I tend to find her more of a Romantic at heart... disappointed by people at every turn.
It's late... sorry for run on sentences and shit...