When Alan Met Ayn: "Atlas Shrugged" And Our Tanked

Post Reply New Topic

Sorry about the delay, I'd been constructing a reply to this post when my work week started, then I kept getting side tracked by other topics. I wanted to address a few things though to clear the air a little and explain where I'm coming from.

My only real nit-pick here is the assumption that people are either totally for or against a certain set of ideas and influences when relatively few people are actually completely binary. Like the majority of Christians who don't take the bible completely literally, most people who find some value in Ayn Rand don't just replace all of their own opinions with hers but rather assimilate some of her philosophy into their own and perhaps modify a few of their preconceptions. The person who reads Atlas Shrugged and likes it might take a skeptical eye to government in general and welfare in particular (notice that corporate welfare / crony capitalism is a major villain in the novel), but is unlikely to just suddenly embrace full blown social Darwinism. Sure, it does happen, but then I wouldn't unequivocally condemn the bible (or even Das Kapital) as being works of evil because suffering has been caused by their adherents, much more so than anything Ayn Rand ever wrote. I hate to borrow a term from Inuyasha, but there really does seem to be a "derangement syndrome" among some people when Ayn Rand is brought up; I believe Noam Chomsky once referred to her as the most evil woman of the 20th century, which seems awful strong for someone who's "crime" was publishing an influential book.



Perhaps the usage is clumsy on my part; when I speak of moralizing I'm generally referring to using an unquantifiable emotional judgment as part of an argument. When I argue for a safety net of some sort, I do so on the utilitarian grounds that desperate people impose a greater long term cost than funding a few social programs. This is an argument that can be quantified and analyzed rationally in the absence of agreement on moral principles, which is the usual state of affairs in the world. Your arguments by contrast often presuppose that your moral values are right, and by extension anyone disagreeing is wrong, which you hammer home by calling them selfish, accusing people of not paying their "fair" share, accusing people of being social Darwinists, etc. In short, you're using populist rhetoric to support a particular worldview, but are not actually arguing as to why you and your worldview are the better idea. This is what I meant by "moralizing".



I mostly agree with you here, though in my case it's government and other claimants to power over me that I view askance. I identify as a libertarian as a label of convenience, but I'm definitely not of the "libertopian" school that so many seem to think is what libertarianism is all about. When you distill it down, I think what drives most libertarians (myself included) is the belief that we can get by just fine with a lot less government and regulations than we currently have, and would be better off doing so. I remain puzzled as to why such a simple concept makes us public enemy #1 to so many people, it's a fairly non-threatening position unless you're a government bureaucrat (a small demographic I'd imagine on WP).



Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on what's more irritating, but there are a few points I'd like to address.

Firstly, if it seems like I'm picking on you, it's only because I know you and thus am uniquely aware of the purity of your intentions. With a good chunk of the people here, I can't always tell if they're being serious, trolling, pushing an agenda, etc, but with you I KNOW that I can take your posts at face value. That being said, when I see you do things like call people names and get obviously bent out of shape over other people's views, I get both concerned and curious about what's going on since I know you aren't doing it for effect or to try and "win" a debate or score points. The impression I'm getting is that you're taking the things said here too seriously and too personally, and neither is conductive to having a healthy and enjoyable relationship with the PPR forum, I speak from experience here.

Which brings me to my second point; I'm not trying to piss you off or talk down to you, but rather to force a self-examination. You say that you post in here for intellectual stimulation, but as I've pointed out, lately you've often resorted to name calling and other questionable activities. I'd like to think that your primary reason for posting isn't to flame people or be a jerk, so when I see you consistently doing these things I'm going to point it out and request clarification. I know that you don't appreciate being generalized about and wouldn't hesitate to call out someone who did so frequently, so don't be surprised when I or some other poster points out when you do it too, glass houses and all.

Finally, though I disagree with many people here on many different things, what I try to keep in mind is that the vast majority came by their beliefs honestly and to give them the respect that calls for. That's all I'm really asking for here, that the simple courtesy be extended to people of opposite ideologies that even if you think they're wrong that you at least don't automatically assume some sinister motive for a position. I want smaller government because I think it would be better for everyone, and I think you'd find that most people of similar beliefs feel the same. I don't think that big government liberals want big government because they're a**holes or morons or anything like that, but because that's what they think is the best for everyone. [/can't we all just get along?]

No problem.



Just because my assumption does not directly apply to you does not mean it does not apply to many. Many people on this forum who self-profess as "conservative" or "libertarian" have shown themselves to be quite binary and utopian in their thinking.


The problem with utilitarian arguments is most people simply aren't interested. I also don't think it's reasonable for fiscal conservatives to place moral arguments on principles of fairness and human decency off-limits for being too "partisan" or "populist". To me it just looks like a rather lame attempt to deflect criticism that could really come and bite them. I could also make the utilitarian argument that the majority of humans tend to thrive better and lead more productive lives in a society that makes some social guarantees to stave off some of the capriciousness of nature.



The problem is the most vocal proclaimants of the "libertarian" label these days tend to be those with sentiments of the Tea Party movement. Basically an extreme form of Republican idiology without the more obvious sectarian religious agenda of past decades. Also, a lot of the criticism of government regulation tends to be vague and non-descript along with a disturbing "let's throw the baby out with the bath water" mentality. In any case the whole argument of less government/regulation vs. more government/regulation is really quite useless to me without going into specifics on particular programs/policies. I'm quite certain that there would be many instances where we would be in agreement as well as others where we would not. I think it would be disingenuous of me to make a broad-brush assumption that more regulation is good or less regulation good in general without thoroughly investigating each case. I also think it's pretty naive to think that the dismantling of major government programs is only a threat to a minority of government bureaucrats.


Sorry I can't always be of the emotionally detached mindset. Whether I like it or not, politics affects me in very real and tangible ways. I wish it was just intellectual, but I will always see a certain level of ignorance / tolerance of injustice as something personally threatening. As a quiet/introverted person who often struggles to get my words out in real life, I know that there are all kinds of nasty ignorant people in this world people who would step all over me if given the chance. I know from my own personal unfortunate experiences.


Contrary to your belief I am actually quite self-aware. The only people who I have flamed personally are people I simply do not care for at all, who I regard as bigots. If you can distance yourself from those particular personalities you have nothing to feel defensive about.


I do not need to assume someone has a sinister motive to believe that they may be ignorant and/or lacking in empathy for people who are less fortunate. I think some people just don't "get it" and this alone can be extremely irritating if their beliefs are harmful to many.

Can we all just get along? Unfortunately it looks like the answer is no. At least not in a world where mere survival can be such a struggle.

A couple of reviews relevant to this thread, apologies if they've been posted already:
http://www.buffalobeast.com/?p=3903
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

For what it is worth, speaking as one who is neither Tea Party nor Gilded [gelded?] -

the film mediocre, Ayn Rand nobody I would read - but as my wife points out it is strangely refreshing to watch a film pushing anything besides the Gilded Weltanschauung.

Saw today that Steve Sailor wrote a review of the movie. He liked it. I was thinking I'll have to watch the film with my father then. Dad is reading the book and seems to really be getting into.

Atlas Shrugged: Part I"
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2011/04/atla ... art-i.html

From the article:

Think of the Roosevelt-Mussilini New Deal grinding on with no war in Europe to eventually refuel our economy. Without the war in Europe and the Pacific the U.S. Economy would have dragged on for decades and decades with no real revitalization. It would just run on until it ran out. Sort of like the Dark Ages. Rome did not collapse in one day. The infrastructure of civilization just wore out (for lack of imperial maintanance) until a hundred years later the centralized rulership of Rome degenerated into the rule of local war lords and feudal masters. A similar thing might have happened to the U.S. in a world without WWII. Britain was near collapse, Germany collapses with the great depression and there would have been little to relight the fire.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 27 Apr 2011, 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Rand went off the rails (was it Taggart Transcontinental?) when she decided to become a Den Mother to a bunch of neurotic losers who hung on her every word and lit up cigarettes whenever she did. I never could become an Objectivist. I quite smoking cigarettes in 1962.

ruveyn

Last edited by ruveyn on 27 Apr 2011, 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Nearer would I, as I'll lit up when I feel like & not to whenever the 'high priestess' of BS did.