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

[jademunky]

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.

If she were an elected official, influential donor or leader of a political party I would be much less forgiving.

 

[Adam Jensen_v1legacy]

The basic jist I get from Ayn Randian philosophy is that special and talented people are being held back by societal norms and conformity. And strive to overcome the norms and conformity.

But apparently this and her other philosophies related to it are looked down by the political and philosophical mainstream.

And really I never seen a proper criticism and counter-argument against Randian Philosophy.

So I am hoping you guys would deliver on it.

Simple, really. Her philosophy attracts sociopaths. If I asked you to describe someone who thinks so highly of themselves that they feel like they're being held back by societal norms, you'd very likely describe a sociopath. And these days you'd definitely describe an incel as well.

"I built a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small."

And who gets to decide what is art, what is scientifically important enough to warrant ignoring ethics and morality and who is great or small? All those things exist to serve humanity, not their creators. And since we're remembering Bioshock, you should recall Cohen and Steinman. Did their art and science serve humanity in any way?

Ayn Randian philosophy is inherently sociopathic, and as such it is literally dangerous to society. Personally, I see all Ayn Rand followers as enemies.

 

[jademunky]

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.

No, I think I get the point, I just don't see it as as much a deal-breaker as everyone else does. It's the ideology the demands humans stop being human in order to work that I have a problem with.

 

[Samtemdo8_v1legacy]

The basic jist I get from Ayn Randian philosophy is that special and talented people are being held back by societal norms and conformity. And strive to overcome the norms and conformity.

But apparently this and her other philosophies related to it are looked down by the political and philosophical mainstream.

And really I never seen a proper criticism and counter-argument against Randian Philosophy.

So I am hoping you guys would deliver on it.

Simple, really. Her philosophy attracts sociopaths. If I asked you to describe someone who thinks so highly of themselves that they feel like they're being held back by societal norms, you'd very likely describe a sociopath. And these days you'd definitely describe an incel as well.

"I built a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small."

And who gets to decide what is art, what is scientifically important enough to warrant ignoring ethics and morality and who is great or small? All those things exist to serve humanity, not their creators. And since we're remembering Bioshock, you should recall Cohen and Steinman. Did their art and science serve humanity in any way?

Ayn Randian philosophy is inherently sociopathic, and as such it is literally dangerous to society. Personally, I see all Ayn Rand followers as enemies.

And your comment on this line of text?

"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."

 

[Trunkage]

The basic jist I get from Ayn Randian philosophy is that special and talented people are being held back by societal norms and conformity. And strive to overcome the norms and conformity.

But apparently this and her other philosophies related to it are looked down by the political and philosophical mainstream.

And really I never seen a proper criticism and counter-argument against Randian Philosophy.

So I am hoping you guys would deliver on it.

Simple, really. Her philosophy attracts sociopaths. If I asked you to describe someone who thinks so highly of themselves that they feel like they're being held back by societal norms, you'd very likely describe a sociopath. And these days you'd definitely describe an incel as well.

"I built a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small."

And who gets to decide what is art, what is scientifically important enough to warrant ignoring ethics and morality and who is great or small? All those things exist to serve humanity, not their creators. And since we're remembering Bioshock, you should recall Cohen and Steinman. Did their art and science serve humanity in any way?

Ayn Randian philosophy is inherently sociopathic, and as such it is literally dangerous to society. Personally, I see all Ayn Rand followers as enemies.

And your comment on this line of text?

"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."

I think she meant it about everyone else but I see it as a commentary on Capitalists. Yes, they might provide the building and resources but they don't do the actual work. Which is fine until they take a share that's way bigger than fair. But, ask for what is fair makes the worker a parasite, apparently.

I remember a whole bunch of Capitalist claiming that slavery is good for the slave. They sure didn't care what the neighbours thought.

They don't listen to regulatations which is fine until they radiate their workers, cover them in asbestos, kill 50 000 unborn babies in a couple of years, send countries into bloody warfare just so they can get diamond or even just send the finance world into a tailspin by falsifying documents and paying off credit agencies. And then blaming the government and asking for handouts. But, apparently, we are the parasites

Its like some Capitalists only read Wealth of Nations and didn't realise it was a sequel to Theory of Moral Sentiment. They don't realise that Capitalism is DESIGNED to have feedback loops that funnel people to appropriate choices. But then, most people still don't realise how restrictive Capitlaism actually is. Pretending Capitalism is about Freedom is ridiculous. It's just freedom than the Soviets or under a monarchy. Which is not hard

 

[Kwak]

Is Libertarianism different in any meaningful way?

 

[Kyrian007]

OT: The premise of Altas Shrugged is that an architect, who deems himself special, is given a project. The people purchasing the plan didn't like what he made and went in a different direction. So the architect BURNT THE PROJECT TO THE GROUND, based on the grounds that it should be down his way.

No, that's "The Fountainhead".

"Atlas Shrugged" is where some guy called John Galt creates a perpetual motion machine, then disappears off with all the rich and talented people in the USA to a secret valley ("Galt's Gulch") and leaves society to collapse because only the immoral, greedy, thieving, big state thickos are left to run the useless, bovine herds of the irrelevant masses. In the end they have to beg him and his pals to rescue them, and the USA is saved when they comes back and install a functioning (Objectivist) society.

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.

I'd say Goodkind is an amusing example though. He made his villains socialists to demonize them, but in order to make them evil he had to make their leaders literal bodysnatchers. He also screwed up Objectivism with his protagonists as well. Yes, they were willing to work harder create and innovate and sacrifice to be worthy of being leaders... he did make them feel like genuinely good people whom anyone would love to be put in charge. But they were also born with the most powerful magic abilities in that universe. It kind of undercuts the 'sweat equity' message of Objectivism.

 

[Agema]

But they were also born with the most powerful magic abilities in that universe. It kind of undercuts the 'sweat equity' message of Objectivism.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think Objectivism stops to consider or care that one man is born with an IQ of 160 and another with an IQ of 80: it's just tough shit for the latter.

That said, Objectivism can be viewed in the context that the capitalism of the postwar era was one where salaries were relatively good even at the low end, social mobility and economic growth was high with the fruits experienced by the vast majority of society, so even the modestly talented could lead productive lives and think of bettterment. Consequently, it was easier to dream of a utopian capitalist society that would work for everyone.

That era disappeared in the 1970-80s, and the current capitalism looks far less rosy for the masses. Arguably, that stagnation for the less advantaged was of course connected to increasing implementation of the very laissez-faire capitalism Objectivism supported.

 

[CheetoDust_v1legacy]

Is Libertarianism different in any meaningful way?

Libertarians aren't necessarily opposed to charity and helping people. at least libertarianism isn't. There are a lot of dickheads though.

 

[warmachine]

No proper criticism or counter-argument against Objectivism is made in this book and is an exercise left to the reader. It's that laughably naive and unrealistic.

I once read Atlas Shrugged as I know it's influential in US culture and it's a political essay in novel form. Jesus fucking Christ. It's ridiculous even for heroic fiction.

 

[warmachine]

I think Bioshock illustrates how a society of unrestrained, fantasy-clever, sociopathic assholes can't work.

Spoiler alert.




Andrew Ryan, top dog of his city finds himself overtaken by the business empire of the even more visionary and ruthless criminal, Frank Fontaine. The kind of success story by a working class man Ryan advocates. So Ryan attacks Fontaine for his criminal activities and steals his business empire, in violation of his own stated philosophy. Why? Because Ryan is an unrestrained, sociopathic asshole. The Objectivist fantasy was undone by the traits advocated by Objectivism.

And, of course, Fontaine fakes his own death and recruits an army for his civil war. From the desperate who lack the talent, resources and good fortune to avoid being crushed by the economic system and left to rot. An army recruited through charity. The natural consequence of Objectivism cynically exploited by its successes and leading to its downfall.

 

[Trunkage]

I think Bioshock illustrates how a society of unrestrained, fantasy-clever, sociopathic assholes can't work.

Spoiler alert.




Andrew Ryan, top dog of his city finds himself overtaken by the business empire of the even more visionary and ruthless criminal, Frank Fontaine. The kind of success story by a working class man Ryan advocates. So Ryan attacks Fontaine for his criminal activities and steals his business empire, in violation of his own stated philosophy. Why? Because Ryan is an unrestrained, sociopathic asshole. The Objectivist fantasy was undone by the traits advocated by Objectivism.

And, of course, Fontaine fakes his own death and recruits an army for his civil war. From the desperate who lack the talent, resources and good fortune to avoid being crushed by the economic system and left to rot. An army recruited through charity. The natural consequence of Objectivism cynically exploited by its successes and leading to its downfall.

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

 

[Trunkage]

Is Libertarianism different in any meaningful way?

It really depends on the Libertarian. For example, there are a bunch of them calling themselves Paternal Libertarians. They promote ideas like thinking about how to nudge society a little. For example, instead of having treats at the checkout, put healthy snacks instead.

These ideas are generally frowned upon by other Libertarians. A lot of them focus on feedback loops thst help maintain society though. So I don't see it as a big leap between the two groups.

They really like laws enforcing society. Their issue is that we've 'clearly' already figured out the best laws and don't need to add regulations to support those laws. I think this is a terrible assumption and why I don't generally get on with them. Just becuase laws exist, doesnt prove that they work or are effective or unbiased.

So, while they like small government, they generally aren't no government. Most of them would baulk at privatising the police force. They supremely dislike all handouts, including to farmers in the US as they think this destabilise the market. Only some think privatising all roads is a good idea

Like most ideologies, there is just as much difference between Libertarians as there are between them and other ideologies

 

[warmachine]

I think Bioshock illustrates how a society of unrestrained, fantasy-clever, sociopathic assholes can't work.

Spoiler alert.




Andrew Ryan, top dog of his city finds himself overtaken by the business empire of the even more visionary and ruthless criminal, Frank Fontaine. The kind of success story by a working class man Ryan advocates. So Ryan attacks Fontaine for his criminal activities and steals his business empire, in violation of his own stated philosophy. Why? Because Ryan is an unrestrained, sociopathic asshole. The Objectivist fantasy was undone by the traits advocated by Objectivism.

And, of course, Fontaine fakes his own death and recruits an army for his civil war. From the desperate who lack the talent, resources and good fortune to avoid being crushed by the economic system and left to rot. An army recruited through charity. The natural consequence of Objectivism cynically exploited by its successes and leading to its downfall.

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Objectivism still maintains property law and the like, so theft and murder are things that aren't acceptable. In Fontaine's case, his crime was smuggling from the rest of the world, risking them discovering Rapture and big governments invading and leeching the place.

 

[Silvanus]

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Not all things were acceptable in Rapture; there was still law and punitive measures to enforce it (primarily protecting business interests).

Fontaine was a smuggler, IIRC.

 

[CaitSeith]

snip

Because Objectivism has no line to differentiate between breaking from the norms of conformity for betterment of society, and sociopathic megalomania.

It's a fact that power corrupts, but objectivism insists that corruption of the powerful is always better than not letting the most powerful individuals do whatever they want.

 

[CaitSeith]

Because she was a shameless hypocrite, fraud, scam artist and was basically the Donald Trump of her time.

Ouch! That's a little too far. At least her ideas weren't just regurgitating what she watched the previous night at whatever the equivalent of Fox News was back then.

 

[Kyrian007]

But they were also born with the most powerful magic abilities in that universe. It kind of undercuts the 'sweat equity' message of Objectivism.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think Objectivism stops to consider or care that one man is born with an IQ of 160 and another with an IQ of 80: it's just tough shit for the latter.

That said, Objectivism can be viewed in the context that the capitalism of the postwar era was one where salaries were relatively good even at the low end, social mobility and economic growth was high with the fruits experienced by the vast majority of society, so even the modestly talented could lead productive lives and think of bettterment. Consequently, it was easier to dream of a utopian capitalist society that would work for everyone.

That era disappeared in the 1970-80s, and the current capitalism looks far less rosy for the masses. Arguably, that stagnation for the less advantaged was of course connected to increasing implementation of the very laissez-faire capitalism Objectivism supported.

A fair point, but it wasn't just abilities for the main characters. The main guy was the scion of the two most powerful wizard families on the planet, and the main female was the most feared engineered magical weapon in that world. A little more monarchial 'divine right' than Atlas Shrugged would be comfortable with I think.

 

[Nielas]

I think Bioshock illustrates how a society of unrestrained, fantasy-clever, sociopathic assholes can't work.

Spoiler alert.




Andrew Ryan, top dog of his city finds himself overtaken by the business empire of the even more visionary and ruthless criminal, Frank Fontaine. The kind of success story by a working class man Ryan advocates. So Ryan attacks Fontaine for his criminal activities and steals his business empire, in violation of his own stated philosophy. Why? Because Ryan is an unrestrained, sociopathic asshole. The Objectivist fantasy was undone by the traits advocated by Objectivism.

And, of course, Fontaine fakes his own death and recruits an army for his civil war. From the desperate who lack the talent, resources and good fortune to avoid being crushed by the economic system and left to rot. An army recruited through charity. The natural consequence of Objectivism cynically exploited by its successes and leading to its downfall.

Bioshock 2 had an even better example. A company is formed to build a monorail system that will link the various sections of Rupture. However, the project is expensive and the advent of personal bathyspheres (1-2 person submarines) eats into its market. The company is on the verge of bankruptcy but the big investors are all friends and allies of Ryan. If he lets capitalism take its course, these people will lose their wealth and Ryan's power base will take a significant hit. Instead, Ryan forces a bank to give the monorail company loans so the investors could cash out. Since the loans could not be repaid, the bank went belly up and hundreds of working class people lost their savings. This caused an economic depression in Rupture from which it never recovered. Ryan knew very well what would happen but was willing to wreck Rupture's economy in order to preserve his power base.

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

Because she was a shameless hypocrite, fraud, scam artist and was basically the Donald Trump of her time.

Ouch! That's a little too far. At least her ideas weren't just regurgitating what she watched the previous night at whatever the equivalent of Fox News was back then.

No that fair. She just used alternate names to benefit from Government safety nets and payments, while lobbying Regan to remove them because of the leeches who use them.
So she was trying to drain the swamp, while guzzling swamp water in secret.