The Influence of Ayn Rand on American Society...

Post Reply New Topic

ONE important caveat per your recent comment on human difference and group identification is that NORDIC societies per their historical success in the Nordic Model for economy are largely homogenous societies where for the MOST part everyone looks relatively the same IN EXTERIOR appearance.

With Muslim immigration into Sweden has come a great deal of resentment towards the difference in color and religion as well. The indigenous folks are not as keen on providing financial support either.

Humans ARE IN INHERENTLY and CULTURAL ENVIRONMENTALLY DISCRIMINATORY social ANIMALS TO WHAT IS DIFFERENT IN PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL DIFFERENCES DEVIATING substantially FROM the perceived norm.

And conflicts of immigration into these countries, in some cases, proves out just how inherently and culturally discriminatory these conflicts can be.

THE MELTING POT OF THE US, MAKES IT INHERENTLY AND ENVIRONMENTALLY HARDER TO SHARE AND MAKES IT HARD FOR THOSE WHO ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT TO SURVIVE, AT TIMES.

Without a social welfare state at least as strong AS currently exists in the U.S., anarchy could arise and that would not be fun for anyone, except sadists and masochists and other empathy lacking folks.

PEOPLE WHEN CHALLENGED ENOUGH, will do WHATEVER IT TAKES FOR SUBSISTENCE.

AND yes, if MS. Rand was still alive she would reap THESE 'benefits' of her philosophy if ever truly instituted in any society, she lived in.

The old saying be careful what ya wish for most definitely does apply here, OVERALL.

IF STATISTICS ARE CORRECT FOR THE FOLKS HERE ON THE Autism spectrum, given enough time, even the majority of folks who are against social welfare will be receiving it, if they live long enough.

And then the tune may change to a different broadcasting station. :)

As again, people WILL DO WHATEVER IT TAKES TO SURVIVE. :)

aghogday-

I still have enough hope and faith in the American potential for inclusiveness that such a Nordic model could ultimately work.

Yes, while I always address facts as is, Human WILL, FAITH, BELIEF, and HOPE is what moves the mountains of human beings.

FACTS ARE JUST EMPTY SHELLS WITHOUT THE EMOTING POWER OF EMOTION FOR HUMAN PROGRESS.

SO YES, I too retain hope, as logic is only skin deep, as I KNOW 100% as TRUTH as I could move NO MOUNTAINS UNTIL I GOT MY EMOTING EMOTIONS BACK THAT DO INCLUDE FAITH, BELIEF AND HOPE.

WITHOUT THAT LIFE AIN'T 'SH**'.

AND LIFE IS 'SH**'.

WITH THE POWER OF HUMAN WILL AND FAITH, BELIEF, AND HOPE I'M MOVING METAPHORICAL HUMAN MOUNTAINS EVERYDAY including moving THE EMOTIONS OF HUMANS EVERYDAY TO THE TUNE OF THOUSANDS AT TIMES IN ONE DAY THROUGH THE NON-VERBAL POWER OF HUMAN NATURALLY GOD GIVEN EXPRESSED PRAISE DANCE.

YES PRAISE IS EMOTION TOO, AND A POWERFUL VOICE TO SWAY THE HEARTS OF HUMANKIND. :)

IF I COULD DO IT AFTER BEING THE 'HUNCH BACK OF NOTRE DAME' WITH 19 MEDICALLY DOCUMENTED DISORDERS IN THE 'CELLAR AND ATTIC' OF MY BEDROOM AS ALMOST A COMPLETE SHUT-IN FOR FIVE YEARS..

IMAGINE WHAT HEALTHY FOLKS COULD DO IF THEY JUST DEVELOPED THE WILL, FAITH, BELIEF AND HOPE OF JOB.

And perhaps one day they will.

And I DO RETAIN FAITH, BELIEF AND HOPE THAT THEY WILL TOO. :)

AS HUMAN EVOLVES IN LOVE AND DEVOLVES IN HATE.

AND rEVOLUTION LOVE IS WHERE i AM HEADED 'RIGHT' NOW!

And there are others walking with me as ONE FORCE OF LOVE.

AND NO THEY DO NOT KNOW ME, AS IT FORCE AND NOT HUMAN ALONE.

IT IS LOVE THAT IS ALLONE.

ALL WONow.

Have a great day, friend. :)

^^^
And you have a great day, too.

I like to look at Atlas Shrugged as a warning. Greed isn't a positive thing, but it is the chief motivator for many innovators. To compel people to give of their talent without what they'd deem as desirable compensation only discourages innovation.

Without these innovators, society would lose out on a lot of incredible things.

A free society needs to allow various avenues of reward so that all creators are encouraged to create.

I don't think anyone is saying that innovators shouldn't reap the rewards for their work. And it should be remembered, there have been inventors who have had rewards and accolades for inventions stolen by the big businesses they had worked for, after said big businesses claiming that the inventors and innovators, having been in their employ, made their innovations the product of the company - even if the work was don on the innovators own time. Private business can be the bad guy when it comes to the small innovator as much - if not more - than government or society.

Tesla came to mind as I read your post K.

Absolutely. Tesla was robbed by another probable Aspie, who happened to be a shameless self promoter.

There are times when individuals can only gain rights or privileges, or improve their standard of living as individuals, by banding together as a group. Individual employees have virtually no power to change their terms of employment when arguing with a large employer, who can easily replace them or load their work onto others if they quit. Only by banding together can the playing field be leveled. Likewise, large public works (interstate highway systems, Great Walls, etc) can only be accomplished by the coordinated work of many.

Usually when I use the term 'in general,' I mean 'mostly' or 'most of the time.' For example, 'In general, humans are smarter than pigeons,' is an accurate statement, but does not apply to all humans.

1)slippery slope argument. It's about as accurate as when anti-libertarians such as myself cite Somalia as a paragon of libertarian philosophy applied to the real world.
2)there are times when the rights of two or more individuals are in conflict, and not everyone's rights can be upheld. In that situation, it is proper to apply the utilitarian principle.

Ayn Rand was a terrible person, and her followers are even worse.

Actually, most people whom I have known, that are motivated primarily by Machiavellian greed, have been starkly unimaginative.

Generally, a person who has something substantive to contribute to society has a vision and is willing to steamroll anything in his/her path in order to fulfill that vision. Steve Jobs didn't value wealth for his own sake, and he lived in a residence that, although it was nice, was something that anyone with median income could have. He didn't live like a billionaire, but he devoted every resource he had to achieving his vision for the world. He devoted everything to remaking the world into his own image. All that went to his own comfort are luxuries that most people could theoretically have if they lived frugally and saved.

There may be rich men who are motivated mostly by greed, but the majority of them don't really contribute anything new to society. They might be able to sense when an upstart corporation is most likely going to create a new market of some substitute good, but they're as likely to shut down an innovation, in order to destroy a rival substitute that risks their dominance, as invest in it and make it worthwhile. Most of the time, they do something in-between, and you end up with a hobbled and castrated version of their former threat.

No, I don't think that unadulterated greed is a source of creativity, and if anything, I think that an excess of greed, where greed has a purely self-serving role, can undermine the imagination. Where greed serves the role of fulfilling the vision, then it has meaning and use.

There's sort of an implied straw man here. Free enterprise is not about everybody building his own shack in the woods and living in isolation from everybody else. It is about voluntary cooperation for mutual benefit. Workers have the right to organize, but not to coerce others nor to seize or damage others' property.



If they truly benefit all – which roads do, and the Great Wall probably did not – they can be accomplished without coercion.



I could be mistaken but I believe the intention was to allude to the Constitution. When the Framers stated that certain powers would be granted the government in order to further the "general welfare" they did indeed mean the welfare of all. They would have been horrified by the notion that some individuals must be sacrificed in order to benefit the collective.



Sometimes a slippery slope argument is correct. The last century saw a parade of regimes which committed wholesale slaughter in the name of the People or the Volk or some other alleged "greater good". Since principles do matter, it would behoove anyone who espouses similar principles to explain exactly what would prevent his ideas from leading to similar results.



Somalia might or might not be a good example depending on the stated principles of the person you're talking to. Since I'm not an anarchist and Somalia has never had a government which defended individual rights, it has nothing to do with me. (I don't self-identify as "libertarian," either, unless it's in the widest possible sense as the alternative to "statist.")




One man's rights are delimited by everybody else's. Sometimes honest men can disagree, and it is necessary to bring in the law to determine where the line should be drawn between your right to swing your arm and my right not to be harmed or menaced by someone's arm-swinging. This does not mean that our rights clash, or conflict, or cancel each other out. I don't believe it's ever proper to throw out the principle of rights. Law without rights is arbitrary at best, despotic at worst.

It's great to talk about individualism, but the truth is the individual is impotent. It's only when we join together for common cause that we have power.

It would be pretty bad for me if I had to fix the plumbing, my car, and write my own books so I had something to read!

Whoa, give Rand herself a break. I think she meant well. Her followers, though, I agree with you on.

I am not so sure that she did mean well, though her interpretation of that would probably be different from mine. It has always concerned me what a (theoretical) Randian culture would mean for the unproductive - the elderly retired, children with disabilities, adults with brain damaging head injuries, adults who for some reason or other could not personify her ideals. In her world, would they simply be consigned to the rubbish tip? And anyone who didn't share that philosophy - off to the gulag?