[POLITICS] Why do people look down on Ayn Randian philosophies?

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

I'll answer.

Because So-Called 'Progress' without thought of the ramifications of your self-serving actions to the overall world is the very antithesis of reason.

Car companies were aware of Climate Change [https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/] way before any of us had any idea. They buried the lead because it would be bad for profits. Now the ice caps are melting, parts of the world are quickly becoming too hot for human life [https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/03/asia/india-heat-wave-survival-hnk-intl/index.html], and those waters are arising [https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/sealevel.html].

Big Pharma [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/24/opioids-crisis-big-pharma-drugs-carnage] pushed and pushed for opioids to become more common place. How did that work out for us? Well, last year Opioid overdoses killed more people than car accidents [https://www.cnn.com/2019/01/14/health/opioid-deaths-united-states-surpass-road-accidents/index.html].

But who cares? Those CEOs are at the top of their industry. They are the elite. They are the ones without peers. Silly thoughts like Morality should not shackle such ambition. Nevermind the stats that show with the increase of Opioids' proliferation into the mainstream, so did a noticeable spike in crime [https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/07/06/626176621/with-more-opioid-use-people-are-more-likely-to-get-caught-up-in-the-justice-syst]. Men like Anthony Rattini [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/19/opioids-crisis-appalachia-painkillers-drugs] are men of vision, and should not be subject to any petty laws we have no matter what he has done.

It's sanctimonious self-aggrandizing drivel that is on par with Manifest Destiny and The White Man's Burden. "We're so great that it would be a crime to restrain ourselves with thoughts of others over our current wishes!"

Great. Obtain all that wealth. And let some guy who is just literally stronger than you come to your house and take it from you. Obviously, there's no mortality so there's nothing wrong with it. He is the superior man. If you worked so hard for it and you didn't protect it, you obviously didn't deserve it, right?

I mean, it's only logical. If there's no moral right and wrong, we can do anything! Including taking the spoils of your work, because why the hell shouldn't i?!

 

[Trunkage]

Also, can we talk about Altas Shrugged movie? How it's probably the Antithesis of Objectivism?

 

[jademunky]

..And she utilized the same hospitals and physicians she thought should have the right to turn her away. Her seeing doctors as slaves that should not be bound by ethics to treat her, yet she deemed it necessary to use that to her advantage when she was the one in need of assistance. If the physicians that treated her adhered to her ideology, she would not have been able to seek treatment as she was relying on doctors that accepted government funding rather than the private, wealthy physicians that you paid out of pocket for at the time. In her world, the physicians that were willing to take the government payments she required would not exist.

If I were a marxist who grew up in a capitalist society, would it be hippocritical of me to make the best of it and work within a system I did not create and get a paid job? Society told her that she had no choice but to pay into social security and do things in a certain way.

I happen to think this highlights just how good an idea such government programs are and it undermines objectivism but does not leave her personal integrity in shambles.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

..And she utilized the same hospitals and physicians she thought should have the right to turn her away. Her seeing doctors as slaves that should not be bound by ethics to treat her, yet she deemed it necessary to use that to her advantage when she was the one in need of assistance. If the physicians that treated her adhered to her ideology, she would not have been able to seek treatment as she was relying on doctors that accepted government funding rather than the private, wealthy physicians that you paid out of pocket for at the time. In her world, the physicians that were willing to take the government payments she required would not exist.

If I were a marxist who grew up in a capitalist society, would it be hippocritical of me to make the best of it and work within a system I did not create and get a paid job? Society told her that she had no choice but to pay into social security and do things in a certain way.

I happen to think this highlights just how good an idea such government programs are and it undermines objectivism but does not leave her personal integrity in shambles.

Its more that she thought such programs were morally repugnant, and weak. If you're not rich enough to afford treatment, its because you're too weak to be rich and strong. And yet she was more than willing to spend Government money on herself, anonymously, when it suited her, all the while decrying those who did and calling for the termination of such programs.

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

 

[Lil devils x_v1legacy]

..And she utilized the same hospitals and physicians she thought should have the right to turn her away. Her seeing doctors as slaves that should not be bound by ethics to treat her, yet she deemed it necessary to use that to her advantage when she was the one in need of assistance. If the physicians that treated her adhered to her ideology, she would not have been able to seek treatment as she was relying on doctors that accepted government funding rather than the private, wealthy physicians that you paid out of pocket for at the time. In her world, the physicians that were willing to take the government payments she required would not exist.

If I were a marxist who grew up in a capitalist society, would it be hippocritical of me to make the best of it and work within a system I did not create and get a paid job? Society told her that she had no choice but to pay into social security and do things in a certain way.

I happen to think this highlights just how good an idea such government programs are and it undermines objectivism but does not leave her personal integrity in shambles.

In addition to what Silentpony stated above, It wasn't just that she used the services because they existed, it was also that according to her own beliefs, if she could not afford to use the private doctors that actually existed at the time she utilized public care, then under her proposed beliefs, she deserved to not receive care at all. It isn't like the private doctors she could pay out of pocket for the best care didn't exist, they did, it was that she was too weak, poor and disabled to afford to be able to use them, she herself was then one of " the parasites" that she thought deserved to die at that point. If the private doctors did not exist, there would be a case made for her using the system she riled against, but they certainly did and she chose to cower and use the doctors and care she publicly condemned in secret while telling others that they should be forced to die instead of use them themselves.

 

[jademunky]

If you want some other shitty Objectivist fiction, you can also read the execrable fantasy works of Terry Goodkind - but I recommend you don't.

Or do. It has magic dominatrixes (and lots of em!) & is quite porny at times if you're into that kinda thing.

I'm going to have to go with Agema, really just because I've always found Terry Goodkind to be totally shit. Though I haven't read anything by him in at least 15 years, on account of it being so shit, so maybe he got better at it?

Prolly not. It's been at least that long for me as well but he strikes me as the type that equates change with weakness.

 

[MrCalavera_v1legacy]

My guess is that her philosophy was more of an excuse for rich twats to stay rich twats, and feel better about themselves.

Here's what Murray Rothbad, an right wing, ancap, libertarian, Austrian School etc. economist had to say abouy Randroids:

If the glaring inner contradictions of the Leninist cults make them intriguing objects of study, still more so is the Ayn Rand cult ... [f]or not only was the Rand cult explicitly atheist, anti-religious, and an extoller of Reason; it also promoted slavish dependence on the guru in the name of independence; adoration and obedience to the leader in the name of every person's individuality; and blind emotion and faith in the guru in the name of Reason.[105]

Can we talk about the only reason she got notoriety?

She hated Communism.

Eh, that wouldn't be enough. Plenty of vocal writers hated communism, especially around that time, in the US, but only Rand got this kind of recognition. Cause she went a step further and renounced any kind of community as counter-productive.

Ayn's thoughts on this?

"the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should."

Truly, she was ahead of her time and knew that... We. Live. In a society.

 

[jademunky]

In addition to what Silentpony stated above, It wasn't just that she used the services because they existed, it was also that according to her own beliefs, if she could not afford to use the private doctors that actually existed at the time she utilized public care, then under her proposed beliefs, she deserved to not receive care at all.

But surely you can see the philosophical distinction between how things should ideally be and how things actually are. That she, as a person, caved to the perfectly reasonably desire for help when shit got too rough doesn't necessarily negate her fantasy where everyone is so super-heroic (in the classical sense) and self-sufficient that oh my god I don't even know what I am defending anymore please disregard.......

It isn't like the private doctors she could pay out of pocket for the best care didn't exist, they did, it was that she was too weak, poor and disabled to afford to be able to use them, she herself was then one of " the parasites" that she thought deserved to die at that point. If the private doctors did not exist, there would be a case made for her using the system she riled against, but they certainly did and she chose to cower and use the doctors and care she publicly condemned in secret while telling others that they should be forced to die instead of use them themselves.

See this is where you and I differ.

I see someone who made some political niche-fetish-porn who suddenly found herself in Homer Simpson Stonecutter territory. Only instead of choosing to say things like "Helping others makes our own lives better and makes us better people...." other things were said.

 

[jademunky]

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Also, can we talk about Altas Shrugged movie? How it's probably the Antithesis of Objectivism?

It's hilarious, and the fact that there are 3 of them with plummeting budgets and popularity is, basically, a scathing indictment of it in the eyes of its own philosophy.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

Basically yeah: http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
She took SS and medicare under the name Ayn O'Connor, her legal married name, so no one would be suspicious, the same year she died
Reagan was getting ready to implement her ideas of getting rid of medicare.

 

[jademunky]

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

Basically yeah: http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
She took SS and medicare under the name Ayn O'Connor, her legal married name, so no one would be suspicious, the same year she died
Reagan was getting ready to implement her ideas of getting rid of medicare.

"The year she died" being highly relevant.

She was a dying old woman! Yes she probably was concerned about her legacy and all that and knew that would be embarrassing but also knew that she had bills to pay and did not want to spend the end of her life in some kind of mission home or subsidized housing (I deal with people who do, it is a special kind of hell, the housing less so).

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

Basically yeah: http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
She took SS and medicare under the name Ayn O'Connor, her legal married name, so no one would be suspicious, the same year she died
Reagan was getting ready to implement her ideas of getting rid of medicare.

"The year she died" being highly relevant.

She was a dying old woman! Yes she probably was concerned about her legacy and all that and knew that would be embarrassing but also knew that she had bills to pay and did not want to spend the end of her life in some kind of mission home or subsidized housing (I deal with people who do, it is a special kind of hell, the housing less so).

Yes she's too old to care, but what about people too poor, crippled or in debt to care? Its just too convenient she reached 'age should count' when I'm really old, but until then it doesn't. Reeks of desperation and hypocrisy.
I doubt in his dying days Bernie Sanders will be all "Fuck the poor, fuck the blacks and underprivileged, give me money Gramps wants the blue pill and 18 year old Playboy Bunnies! Yehaw Texas!"

Its great Ayn Rand died being able to choose nursing care vs government care vs no care. Most of the poor people she hated never got that choice. They simply got no care

 

[Agema]

Its more that she thought such programs were morally repugnant, and weak. If you're not rich enough to afford treatment, its because you're too weak to be rich and strong. And yet she was more than willing to spend Government money on herself, anonymously, when it suited her, all the while decrying those who did and calling for the termination of such programs.

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

The defence usually goes that taxation is theft so welfare is the proceeds of theft, so people who have had to pay tax deserve to claim as much money back off the government as possible because of what has been stolen from them in the first place.

She was a dying old woman! Yes she probably was concerned about her legacy and all that and knew that would be embarrassing but also knew that she had bills to pay and did not want to spend the end of her life in some kind of mission home or subsidized housing (I deal with people who do, it is a special kind of hell, the housing less so).

Or to put it another way, eventually reality didn't mix well with her intellectual fantasy and she was probably too arrogant to admit her error.

 

[Baffle]

Its great Ayn Rand died

Yep.

 

[Trunkage]

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

Basically yeah: http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
She took SS and medicare under the name Ayn O'Connor, her legal married name, so no one would be suspicious, the same year she died
Reagan was getting ready to implement her ideas of getting rid of medicare.

"The year she died" being highly relevant.

She was a dying old woman! Yes she probably was concerned about her legacy and all that and knew that would be embarrassing but also knew that she had bills to pay and did not want to spend the end of her life in some kind of mission home or subsidized housing (I deal with people who do, it is a special kind of hell, the housing less so).

Your missing the point. She was a hypocrite. She took what she derided. She didn't have to but she did anyway.

Now, I think she should get all this treatment because that's my beliefs. And also because the one trigger Ive noticed for people turning from conservative to liberal is the need to use welfare when they actually did need it.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

Pretty much sums up why Objectivsm is wrong.

"What is the difference between a Man and a Parasite:

A Man builds, a Parasite asks, "Where's my share?"

A Man creates, a Parasite says, "What will the neighbors think?"

A Man invents, a Parasite says, "Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God."

 

[jademunky]

Or to put it another way, eventually reality didn't mix well with her intellectual fantasy and she was probably too arrogant to admit her error.

Yeah pretty-much.

I think I find human weakness & obvious blind-spots more endearing than you do.

 

[The Rogue Wolf]

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

Basically yeah: http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
She took SS and medicare under the name Ayn O'Connor, her legal married name, so no one would be suspicious, the same year she died
Reagan was getting ready to implement her ideas of getting rid of medicare.

"The year she died" being highly relevant.

She was a dying old woman! Yes she probably was concerned about her legacy and all that and knew that would be embarrassing but also knew that she had bills to pay and did not want to spend the end of her life in some kind of mission home or subsidized housing (I deal with people who do, it is a special kind of hell, the housing less so).

She used the very system she wanted to deny the rest of us, calling us "parasites" for desiring to use it, and thinking that it was better for US to die than have it available to us- but SHE somehow DESERVED it. That is the height of hypocrisy, and hypocrites should be mocked and derided at every turn.

 

[Agema]

I think I find human weakness & obvious blind-spots more endearing than you do.

I can find them endearing, in many people. There is the idea about loving people for their flaws as well as their virtues.

However, in people who encourage selfishness, greed, contempt for the unfortunate, who are full of prejudice and vindictiveness, who mask all this under a delusion of ultra-rationalism and aggressively propagate this whole toxic bundle as a socio-political movement, I'm much more inclined to take the stance "fuck you, scumbag".

Mind you, there are occasions I feel a little sympathy for her. It can't have been easy to have the Bolsheviks destroy her life and hopes for the future in Russia when she was young. And much later, she was both intellectually and romantically dumped by her lover and main acolyte Nathaniel Branden (surely agony for a narcissist like her), and her reaction is a glimpse of genuine anguish. She had feelings, and she suffered like any other human. On balance, however, it's not like she suffered that much and I think she was just a mightily unpleasant person who ended up encouraging a substantial amount of suffering for people less fortunate than she ever was.