82 Comments

1. joeblough:

This is almost disappointingly simple. Disappointing in the sense that it is so simple that it is nearly unbelievable to most of those that haven’t read Rand deeply and given the literature some thought.

As it is often said in the tech trade — any technology, if sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic.

Rands writings seem prophetic to us, in the same way that 19th century technology seemed magical and prophetic to the primitives of that time.

At the same time Rand’s writings actually are prophetic in the looser sense that they are accurately predictive.

The fact is that Rand projected and modeled the details of her stories on the principles that drive real people in the real world in real situations.

It is the accuracy of her principles that give her made up details their eerie prophetic quality. That is to say, that when one is done reading those stories it is hard not to feel that the world really does work that way — because it does.

For a year or so after reading Atlas Shrugged I stopped reading the papers (we still got our news in paper form in those days). And to this day I read much less than I might otherwise be tempted to do, given my level of interest in events.

The broad strokes and trends are easily predictable once the underlying principles are understood. Don’t trust me on that. Read the material and try it yourself. I sure works for me.

And the details take on a very different sort of significance when they are viewed in an accurate and realistic context.

Oh, and she was right about Atlas Shrugging.

Think about it.

Apr 13, 2009 - 1:44 am 2. TennesseeVolunteer:

I was introduced to Atlas shrugged by a totally moment of chance two years ago. After reading it, so many things in our world becoame much more simple. It was childs play to know that our administration and its leader would be ‘total incompetents’. OUr leader has never accomplished anything real and their acknowledgement that men and women of achievement can be ruled as a ‘zero sum game’ was , and is, sheer idiocy.
My only problem with Ayn Rand is she does not account for the children of successful people. going galt is irrelevant when you have kids. Somebody fought the good fight for me, I must do the same for mine. However, knowing ‘what we know’ can make all the difference in how you treat the world and how it treats you!

Apr 13, 2009 - 4:48 am 3. WhyamInotsurprised?:

I for one have grown more cynical about man. What we are seeing today in politics and economics, both nationally and globally, is the same thing Rand predicted because she studied “human nature.” Combining her experience living in the soviet bloc and the American experience, she understood the “cycle” that would lead to the weakening of a democratic republic. My most recent thinking is that most people through, ignorance and laziness, are just mediocre. And because they are mediocre, they elect politicians who are also mediocre and promise them the easy life. Politicians don’t serve the people who elect them, lawyers aren’t interested in justice, and business executives and the boards of directors who support them are not beholding to the shareholders, only to the short term dollar.

The great scam is on. The looters are doing it big time and the slackers who are promised the easy life, i.e. bailouts from their daily personal responsibility because they are “victims”, cheer government largess. They can’t see through their own mediocrity the consequences of this new system of redistributing the wealth. If the justice system would work, a lot of this would stop. If politicians stood up to the “Prez gone wild” he would never be allowed to fire the CEO of a publicly traded company. We have a very mediocre man as president because the voting public at large is mediocre. There are no standards, no morals, no accountability, no consequences. A Bernie Madoff is offered up to appease the angry masses when the Fed’s knew for years what he was doing. They used him and they are playing the mediocre, ignorant masses.

I agree with your thoughts on Rand but unfortunately, your request that people read her works and “think” will not be taken up by our mediocre society. Of course there is that segment that thinks, and works to understand life and will undertake the effort to read her work, but unfortunately, they are in the minority. They are the leaders but who will listen to them when thee mediocre just want to feel good and only listen to those who give them the mediocre BS they feel entitled to hear. God help us!

Apr 13, 2009 - 4:54 am 4. elvis:

…and Obama is a second-hander

Apr 13, 2009 - 5:00 am 5. Craig:

I love Ayn Rand…but all she did was build a fictional story using her sharp insight from her life in Russia and the ominous warnings layed down by authors like F.A. Hayek.(The Road to Serfdom- 1944).

She did a much better job of delivering the message by capturing our imagination. That doesn’t make her a prophet, but it does make her more fun to read than Solzhenitsyn.

Apr 13, 2009 - 5:06 am 6. Brian Richard Allen:

That Ms Rand was employing simple logic and reason was as obvious to me as was the nose on my face, even way back when, more than 50 years ago, at sixteen, I first discovered her work. Within a month of that glorious day I’d sped-read her every word and was well into my second reading of both The Fountainhead And Atlas Shrugged.

Except in the sense that great wisdom always comes to be called “prophecy,” there was and is nothing prophetic about Ms Rand’s work. Only reason and logic — and consequences.

And, sad to say, Atlas has not shrugged at all.

Atlas no balls (are you listening Mr Wagoner?) — and is either running away or running cap and begging cup in hand to The Looters.

But there is a Galt’s Gulch and I’m living there!

Brian Richard Allen
Los Angeles CalifO’ZEROcated 90028
And the Far Abroad

Apr 13, 2009 - 5:20 am 7. Paul Hsieh:

Thanks for a terrific essay, Amit!

The original Tea Party protesters were not just fighting against higher taxes but *for* something positive — the idea of individual rights. And in the process they helped create the greatest nation on earth.

Similarly, today’s Tea Party protesters need to do more than just oppose bad government bailouts. They also need to support the positive case for limited government and capitalism. Fortunately, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged provides us with precisely the positive case we need — a philosophy that defends the morality of rational self-interest and the importance of freedom in allowing honest men and women to pursue their own happiness.

Ayn Rand’s ideas provide the necessary intellectual foundation that Americans need to save America. Let’s hope more people read her books and debate her ideas. The future of our country may well depend on it!

Apr 13, 2009 - 6:37 am 8. Noesis Noeseos:

#2, TV: Rand’s ideas are appropriate for civil society, the marketplace, where people, acting independently, thrive as a result of their mutual diligence, foresight, and honesty. The good state is the state that, as Rand has suggested, operates according to objective law. She has problems with children, however, because the family is the domain of love, which she has called “exception making.” Even John Galt did not spring fully formed like Athena from the crown of Zeus but was at one time a child. It is in the realm of nurturing that Rand’s ideas, even though they may be used to help children become responsible adults, nevertheless remain inadequate.

The mistake of collectivists (the sincere among them), is that they, on the other hand, expect civil society and the state to operate like a family, with the government as nurturer and provider and the people as perpetual children. In that scenario there is no room at all for either producer or citizen.

Apr 13, 2009 - 6:50 am 9. Pastor of Muppets:

Seriously? I would say that the last couple of years have been a complete and total refutation of Ayn Rand’s philosophies.

Witness Alan Greenspan, Rand’s top acolyte, whimpering before congress:
The 82-year-old Mr. Greenspan said he made “a mistake” in his hands-off regulatory philosophy, which many now blame in part for sparking the global economic troubles. He quoted something he had written in March: “Those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholder’s equity (myself especially) are in a state of shocked disbelief.”
He conceded that he has “found a flaw” in his ideology and said he was “distressed by that.”
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122476545437862295.html?bcsi_scan_480D3B10BA88531A=ORr8EEkzD95ufd2o4K7RgAwAAAD7wNgH&bcsi_scan_filename=SB122476545437862295.html

Witness the “best and the brightest” on Wall Street, the “John Galts” of our society, completely destroying our financial markets through sociopathic greed:

Cassano was president of AIG’s financial products division, which trafficked in the credit-default swaps, or CDS, which we learned earlier proved so dangerous.
Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa) angrily recited the tale of Cassano’s tape: He earned $280 million in cash — more than AIG chief executives — and for every dollar his financial products unit made, 30 cents came back to Cassano and other top execs.
After the unit lost $11 billion, Cassano was fired Feb. 29 of this year, Braley pointed out, and got to keep $34 million in bonuses and was kept on as an AIG consultant at a salary of $1 million per month.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/livecoverage/2008/10/joe_cassano_the_man_who_brough.html

According to Ayn Rand, none of this should have happened. If this had been one of Rand’s pulp novels, Joseph Cassano should have acted in a “rationally self interested way”, and would not have hijacked AIG to turn it into his own personal wealth vacuum. In Rand’s novel, Alan Greenspan would now be living in some John Galt-esque best-and-brightest utopia, not being roped before congress to explain why he put his confidence, and by extension, America’s confidence, into a deregulated system that could be so easily hijacked and exploited by reckless sociopaths.

Apr 13, 2009 - 7:00 am 10. Shaun:

Objectivism is simply founded in a belief that reality is objective and rationality (and our senses) are the only means we have for knowing the validity of a proposition.

After analyzing the philosophy for months, it simply changed my life. I was able to think –systematically– with an actual coherent understanding of reality for the first time.

It might sound odd to actually argue it, but it’s true: my grades improved in school, in speech and debate I began to win more and more rounds, and my understanding of the “next step” became uncanny.

Rand wasn’t so much a prophet as a logician and rationalist. It reminds me of what “Sherlock Holmes” was written to have said:

“From a drop of water, a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other.”

The same is true for philosophy, politics and economics.

Apr 13, 2009 - 7:07 am 11. Bill Perron:

If someone has never had a true mystical experience it is easy to denigrate mysticism, but if you have had one, (or as in my case several) then you know better. Since I have been earning my Objective Survivor’s existence for 30 years now as a professional magician and psychic reader I agree with the Rand philosophy of Objectivism, but also know without a doubt that there is so much more that can also be learned by opening one’s mind to the mystical as well.

Apr 13, 2009 - 7:16 am 12. Will:

I propose a concerted effort to make Atlas Shrugged number one on the Amazon best seller list by giving our friends a copy for the Fourth of July to remind us why the Declaration of Independence was necessary then and why it is still relevant now.

Will

Apr 13, 2009 - 7:35 am 13. chris in Toronto:

To Will #12: Good idea. Don’t forget birthdays and other significant life events.

Apr 13, 2009 - 8:05 am 14. John Galt:

Dramatization of “This is John Galt Speaking”

Part 1 – About 5 min
————
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W_qQt9IrUc0

Part 2 – About 5 min
———
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wpo3OoyUUUc

Parts 3 & 4 – About 9 min
————-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V-kTeWozXQ

Apr 13, 2009 - 8:17 am 15. one of my own:

You’ re all atheist worshipers.

Apr 13, 2009 - 8:27 am 16. CrossBow33:

Atheists, perhaps. Worshipers, hardly!

Apr 13, 2009 - 11:03 am 17. donttreadonme:

I always take Rand with a grain-of-salt. Having read ALL her writings (Fountainhead…Shrugged..We The Living…Anthem) and essay collections, her discourse on human nature is dead-on. Her Objective underpinnings of economic theory are also dead-on. Her musings that a lit cigarette is a metaphor for a bright, rational mind..not so much (note her death due to lung cancer..oops). Her conclusion that faith and reason are unable to co-exist is also bugnuts. Whether you “believe” or not, you can no more disprove God than grow wings and fly to the moon. A man, contrary to Rand, CAN be as equally awed with the natural wonder of a sunset in Maui as with the man-made engineering feat of the Golden Gate Bridge. A man can believe that God endowed us with the ability to be rational, self-interested creatures without being contradictory. And a poster (I believe it was Friar Kermit) above sited scumbags such as Greenspan and Fassano as living proof that Objectivism fails. Eh? Artificially manipulating market interest rates and/or fraudulently gaming the reinsurance and credit risk analysis regime would not last a day in Galt Gulch. Think before you post, Brother Beaker!

Apr 13, 2009 - 12:05 pm 18. LucyH:

Thanks for this article. I very much like the way you go beyond the popular, simple characterization of Ayn Rand as prophetic to analyze *how* and *why* she was able to so accurately predict today’s events.

Your analogy of the scientist offers a great parallel to illuminate how important it is to recognize the foundations of new intellectual achievements if one is to fully understand, appreciate, and apply them. And in the case of Ayn Rand’s philosophy, that means understanding her epistemology and ethics, which provide the basis for her politics and economics.

It is heartening to see important philosophical ideas from a pro-reason, pro-man, pro-individualsm outlook on life getting so much attention these days. I hope people will take notice and try to learn more.

Apr 13, 2009 - 12:43 pm 19. Phoenix48:

I fully concur with Master; I’m no fan. After reading THE FOUNTAINHEAD a few years beyond college, I skipped the memo to attend any future seminars. Having since caught some of Rands taped interviews via C-Span retrospectives, I found the woman down right creepy.

To me she’s little more than L. Ron Hubbard’s crazy auntie. In place of a weird creation myth incorporating space aliens as mystical revelation for a cult masquerading as a religion Rand enchants disciples with philosophy masquerading as economics. Its a really annoying cult of superiority; believers are achievers – everybody else graded somewhere between mediocre and ‘looters.’

I’m sticking with the American improvement on all those dead (mostly) european philosphers like Hobbs, Lock, Burke ect – who lived a rapacious thousand years of western strife before daining to wittily espouse suggestions conserning improvement for variations on a theme; Rights of Man.

I love my Constitution with my every breath. I like the Bill of Rights more every day. Devinely inspired and Devinely bestowed. I am free because it is my birthright. Get used to it. There is no expiration date. Nor is there some loophole every census taking on who qualifies.

I learned everything I ever needed to know about looters as a passenger at my fathers side in our car as a seven year old in 1966, long before the 24 hr news cycle and a renewed facination with Ann Dandy Randy. The Hough neighborhood, Cleveland Ohio. We thought we were just taking a well know shortcut my father had traveled many times to pick up my Aunt, a nurse working at the Cleveland Clinic.

This day we happened into a race riot in full bloom. The ‘looters’ were well armed and very pissed off. They were shooting AT US. Obviously the perps had some ‘issues.’ It was after all the sixties.

Well we have some issues today as well. I for one am still comforted by the fact that Somalia is where most of the pirates live. We did pretty good as a culture before Rand showed up – and we haven’t had too many social breakdowns since she departed.

It’s great some folks find inspiration in her writings. Its still a FREE COUNTRY at the moment. I just deeply question the sincerity of most of the converts who have jumped into the Objectivinst camp when it comes to claiming a genuine interest in improving on our liberties.

Memo Guys & Gals – you sound real snooty about liberty. It really comes off like you all are into the South American version; the good life is very very exclusive.

Apr 13, 2009 - 12:54 pm 20. bob:

Ayn Rand didn’t know who or what she was–

“But whereas most contemporary thinkers make an attempt to describe human nature in terms of a dichotomy of interacting psyche and physique, or an inseparable wholeness of these two elements within particular embodied selves, all the exponents of the Perennial Philosophy make, in one form or another, the affirmation that man is a kind of trinity composed of body, psyche, and spirit. Selfness or personality is a product of the first two elements. The third element (that quidquid increatum et increable, as Eckhart called it) is akin to, or even identical with, the divine Spirit that is the Ground of all being. Man’s final end, the purpose of his existence, is to love, know, and be united with the immanent and transcendent Godhead. And this identification of self with spiritual not-self can be achieved only by ‘dying to’ selfness and living to spirit.”

Huxley–The Perennial Philosophy

Apr 13, 2009 - 1:50 pm 21. LucyH:

Regarding the issue of mysticism: Mr. Ghate is absolutely right about the irony of the term “prophet.” Reason consists of integrating sensory material; all our knowledge starts there. Mysticism consists of believing in the absence of sensory evidence (or in the face of contradictory evidence). Clearly these two approaches cannot be reconciled.

As Rand writes in _Philosophy: Who Needs It_, “Mysticism is the claim to some non-sensory, non-rational, non-definable, non-identifiable means of knowledge, such as ‘instinct,’ ‘intuition,’ ‘revelation,’ or any other form of ‘just knowing.’ Reason is the perception of reality, and rests on a single axiom: the Law of Identity.” Her ability to predict was based on evidence, reason, and logic–not instinct or revelation.

Ayn Rand was too smart and too scrupulous to ever take things on faith; thus the scientific approach described in this article makes perfect sense. And only on the grounds of *reason* can freedom, capitalism, and America be defended.

Apr 13, 2009 - 2:18 pm 22. Don Kenner:

Paster of Muppets:

Everyone can be criticized, but those who wish to slam Rand should retire the argument that Rand’s ideas were writ large in Bush era economy. Any half-intelligent person who spends an hour with her ideas can see that Rand’s views and the views of Clinton/Bush (and Greenspan) were diametrically opposed. Greenspan has LONG SINCE renounced Rand’s ideas on a totally free economy. Indeed, the very fact that he held his job puts him against Rand. Of course Greenspan is going to view his policies as “hands off.” His whole life and identity is wrapped up in that persona. That doesn’t make it so.

Bush was much closer to the truth when he said “I guess I pretty much threw my free market principles in the garbage.” Yes, and Greenspan held the lid open. How exactly are Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac an example of “unregulated capitalism?” Both government spending and government intervention in the economy increased markedly under Bush, whatever conservatives may claim. You may regard this as good or bad, but it ain’t Rand. Not even close. If you want to argue that Rand’s ideas, were they actually put into practice, would result in catastrophe, go ahead; make that argument.

Your logic goes like this: Rand believed in free enterprise. Bush (or whoever) believed in free enterprise. Bush’s economic guru, Greenspan, was once an objectivist. Ergo, Rands ideas have been tried and failed. With this stunning logic, one could convict the local PTA of being communists. Come up with some new material.

Apr 13, 2009 - 4:43 pm 23. Noesis Noeseos:

#20 bob: Perhaps, but if we surrender our powers of independent reason, we risk, while searching through the Dark Night of the Soul, that we shall prostrate ourselves before the dazzling apparition of a false Messiah and all the organized hosts of his community.

Apr 13, 2009 - 4:46 pm 24. John Cooper:

Thanks Amit for a great summary of an extremely brilliant and complex woman and her philosophy.

Apr 13, 2009 - 4:59 pm 25. Gozer the Carpathian:

I’ve tried. Seriously I’ve tried reading the book. I’ve got it sitting on my shelf and it’s the huge paperback version. Bought it a few years back when getting deep into Eve online’s economy. Started reading it and BAM.

The book reads like a brick.

Seriously, I just can’t get into it. So I can only take your guy’s words on it that she was right.

Apr 13, 2009 - 5:05 pm 26. Tom Arico:

I used to be a big Rand devotee until I Actually read her writings. I knew she was an Atheist but did not realize how wrong she was on Judeo-Christian values until I read Atlas. She seemed to believe Religious faith was a contributing factor in the downfall of society. She was wrong. The downfall of society is mans abdication of personal responsibility to the State.

Apr 13, 2009 - 9:09 pm 27. Steve Thyng:

It is beyond me how anyone can have even the slightest acquaintance with Ayn Rand’s works and totally miss the point that one must not simply ‘accept her philosophy’, but must actually engage their own minds to think it through for themselves. Understand her premises and follow their logical development. You will come up with Objectivism. And give her credit for writing a 1000+ page novel (Atlas Shrugged) in which she demonstrates through fiction how her philosophy actually works. Now how many philosophers have ever had the courage to attempt such a thing? None that I know of. Try reading it, and if you make it to page 300 you will be just beginning to understand what she is talking about. The rest will be easy, and pleasurable.

Apr 13, 2009 - 9:52 pm 28. Rogan:

Rand was brilliant and correct.

Far from refuting her ideas, the Clinton, Bush, Obama era actully confirm them. As government intruded more and more in the economy a breakdown was inevitable, according to Rand’s philosophy. The current crisis was caused by government manipulation of markets, not by free markets.

As Don Kenner wrote, those who wish to criticize Rand should at least try to understand her ideas and what is happening in the world today. “Pastor of Muppets” clearly doesn’t have a clue about either. Only someone who is completely ignorant of government actions over the past 20 years (and back to the New Deal) could be unaware of the innumerable ways that Democrats in particular, but also Bush and compromising Republicans allowed the government to force businesses into irresponsible and irrational business practices – like offering risky mortgages to unqualified borrowers.

I doubt Pastor has even read Rand, but then I’ve noticed that a lot of Leftists (and religious conservatives) are desperate to attack her even though they don’t really understand her ideas. They have at least some dim awareness that Ayn Rand’s philosophy, if widely promulgated, means the end of the ethics of self-sacrifice and the politics of statism.

Apr 13, 2009 - 10:07 pm 29. incinerator-of-idiots:

For Pastor of Muppets:The fact that greenspan was an acolyte of Ayn Rand’s in the 60s and early 70s doesn’t mean that he still is an objectivist.He became the fed chairman, an institution that Rand opposed on principled grounds.
However, he joined the Fed after ayn’s death.The hypocrite that he was, he blamed the financial crisis on “flaws” in his ideology(implicitly referring to Ayn’s philosophy)as if he ever had any.
Greenspan is the quintessence of second handers who used Ayn rand to further his “career”.

Apr 13, 2009 - 11:50 pm 30. william Blake:

Which one are you?

Apr 14, 2009 - 4:44 am 31. malcontent:

Amit, thank you so much for this. I too am tired of people treating Ayn Rand as if she were Nostradamus and not a thinker. Atlas Shrugged is filled with the kind of off-handed comments you hear every day and most of us let slide by. She understood the philosophical root of each of those comments and where they would ultimately lead. Her brilliance was in her ability to logically follow a philosophy to its ultimate end.

Apr 14, 2009 - 5:13 am 32. Michael Smith:

Pastor of Muppets wrote:

“Seriously? I would say that the last couple of years have been a complete and total refutation of Ayn Rand’s philosophies.”

Your statement merely illustrates your ignorance of Rand’s philosophy.

Rand was an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism, which she defined as follows:

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

By contrast, what has occurred over the last few years under Bush is simply a continuation of the trend of destroying the last remnants of capitalism in America and replacing them with fascism — through the endless expansion of government power, government controls and government regulation — accompanied by the continual erosion of individual rights.

For instance, the last 8 years has seen the following:

1) Massive increase in the welfare state through the establishment of a vast new entitlement program, the prescription drugs for seniors, as well as ongoing increases in spending for Medicaid and SCHIP. Health expenditures in the last 8 years have increased 85.6%, an increase of $327.1 billion.

2) Massive increase in Federal spending on Education, up 103.3%, an increase of $34.6 billion

3) Expansion of farm subsidies. Agriculture expenditures up 26.2%, an increase of $19.7 billion

4) Substantial increase in Federal spending on public housing and urban development. Housing and Urban development spending is up 69.8%, an increase of $21.5 billion.

5) Huge increase in spending on Transportation, which is up 65.1%, an increase of $27.1 billion.

6) Total Federal spending has increased 63.8%, an increase of $1.149 TRILLION per year.

Source: <a href:”http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf”Federal Spending Pages 78 – 79

7) We’ve had a continuation of the “Affirmative action mortgage loan program” that was given teeth by the Clinton administration. Government-sponsored entities Freddie and Fannie have purchased trillions of dollars in questionable loans, while Democrats in Congress assured us there was no risk from these agencies.

Along with the spending increases, the income tax system has gotten even more “progressive”. Despite some tax rate cuts, the upper income earners are paying more of the tax burden than ever before.

* The top 1% of income earners pay 39% of all income taxes, up from 37% when Bush took office.

* The top 25% of all income earners now pay 86% of all income taxes, up from 84% when Bush took office.

* Individual income tax collections are up 21.4% and corporate tax collections are up 66.6% since Bush took office.

Source: <a href:“http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2009/pdf/hist.pdf”Tax Collections Page 31

9) Along with the spending and tax increases, government regulations have increased enormously. The Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) — the master set of books containing all the federal regulations — occupies 25 feet of shelf space at the library of Congress and has over 73,000 pages. It’s pages of regulations — which are double-columned, double-sided, fine print — would stretch 4.5 miles if laid end to end.

Over 51,000 new regulations have been added since 1995, when Republicans took control of Congress. The Bush administration has added over 30,000 of these. So much for “Republican deregulation“.

Right now, some 50+ federal agencies, commissions, departments etc are working on finalizing over 3000 additional regulations.

Source: <a href:”http://cei.org/cei_files/fm/active/0/10KC_2008_FINAL_WEB.pdf”Competitive Enterprise Institute

These regulations are promulgated and pushed by regulators and bureaucrats from over 100 federal agencies and commissions, the most well-known of which include, besides the IRS, the FRB and FDIC, the EPA, FDA, SEC, CFTC, NLRB, FTC, FCC, FERC, FEMA, FAA, CAA, INS, OHSA, CPSC, NHTSA, EEOC, BATF, DEA, NIH, FNMA, FHA and the FLMA.

In addition to these economic regulatory agencies and their interference, we have a fiat money supply under the control of a central bank with virtually unlimited power to manipulate that currency as it sees fit. First Greenspan, and then Bernanke, piloted the Fed on a relentless course of expanding the money supply and credit.

And now that we are at the end of Bush’s administration, all the Democrats, liberals and leftists want us to believe that because Bush has an “R” after his name, the last 8 years have been an orgy of “laissez-faire” “deregulation“, cutting of government services and spending, “tax cuts for the rich” and “tax cuts for big business”.

But that’s utterly preposterous! What we are witnessing is not the failure of capitalism — capitalism has been all but destroyed — rather, we are witnessing the failure of the regulatory/welfare state — failing precisely as Rand predicted it would.

Rand was right — and so is her philosophy.

Apr 14, 2009 - 5:33 am 33. Neil Parille:

Although I think Rand is worth reading and had many good things to say, I question Mr. Ghate’s claim that Rand was well versed in economics and politics. Her writings show little knowledge of economic and political theory.

I’d recommend the Barnes/Nyquist blog for some informed criticism of Rand’s ideas:

http://www.aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/

Apr 14, 2009 - 6:01 am 34. John Galt:

Pastor of Muppets

1. If you think about Alan Greenspan for a second you’ll realize that what he was doing was paradying Francisco D’Arcona. He started out operating the fed under Bush 1 on Objectivist Principles. Clinton forced him to a different policy. He went along with the edict and started giving out free money. Bush 2 did it even more. Alan Greenspan went along with exactly what they wanted. His comment was “I gave you exactly what you wanted and I’m SHOCKED it didn’t work. What went wrong? I don’t understand it!?! If you give money away are you saying that people won’t act in their own long term interests?” Everyone took what he said as if he had lost his marbles, but it is the exact opposite.

2. AIG and others were created because the government gave them (Fanny and Freddie et. al.) the money, and told them to do exactly what they did. Give away the money for nothing and don’t bother to check if people could possibly afford it. Carter started it, Clinton continued it. When you give away 200 billion that’s x 30 which gets you a huge influx of cash given away and artificial assets on the books which they then used to leverage ever more risky investments because they didn’t care, they were playing with someone else’s money (the government) and their greed ran roughshod.

In a Randian system, the causal factor (giving away money for nothing generated by the government) would never have happened. Further the consequences would be born by the stupid people that caused it because it couldn’t exist at such a huge scale as it got to without the assistance of government. This is also true of the FDA authorizing drugs that then kill thousands. The drugs would normally come to market slowly and the market would test the efficasy and safety of the drug. Even if there was a problem, it would be very issolated. The FDA has created a system where, once a drug is authorized, it goes to market big and to millions of people overnight because it has cost billions to get it authorized. The stakes are far to high for a failure and with patent limitations on time, they have to make the most of it while they can. End result is far more death at the hands of government.

Sorry for the spelling, no spell checker on this computer… Point is still the same. This isn’t a failure of capitalism, this is a failure of government.

Apr 14, 2009 - 6:18 am 35. Tennwriter:

I think of Saint Ayn as a prophet because her followers are a religion (and Saint Heinlein is the male prophet). And she’s got that whole kind of crazy, hard-driving vibe that seems to be associated with female prophets, at least in fiction.

When I hear of things like 53 pg. speeches I’m turned off.
That’s in general, bad writing.

As to the arguement that Ayn Rand was without faith, well, she got up out of bed in the morning, and put her foot on the ground didn’t she? That’s faith. She has evidence, but she does not know the ground will support her. The Bible is filled with evidence, its not a fifty-fifty thing, the reasonable man will believe, but in the end you do have to make a step by faith because evidence only takes you so far.

Apr 14, 2009 - 6:23 am 36. John Galt:

Gozer the Carpathian:

Try “Loving Life”: It’s much easier, shorter, and clearer simply because of its breviety and non-fiction. Or go to “The Virtue of Selfishness” by Rand. Gets to the point quickly and concisely.

Apr 14, 2009 - 6:24 am 37. acj:

America has lost its competitive edge. It has become a mundane non-manufacturing giant. It has become dependent on energy from other countries and has chased cheap labor around the world. It has also made other countries toxic waste dumps.
Our finest hour was during the early industrial age when innovations came together with immigrants-brainstorming and using virgin resources.
If America is to regain it’s drive to be competitetive and strong, we must rely on our scientific and worldly understanding of human survival.
As a planet full of humans, we must find a better way for everyone to find a purpose without ruining the world-population included.

Apr 14, 2009 - 7:06 am 38. RT:

Neil Parille: “I question Mr. Ghate’s claim that Rand was well versed in economics and politics. Her writings show little knowledge of economic and political theory.”

I question your questioning — what exactly are you claiming, a) that she didn’t write that much about economic or political theory or b) she did, but not ‘knowledgeably’? And are you distinguishing writing about ‘theory’ from writing about the subject itself?

Apr 14, 2009 - 12:12 pm 39. The Shadow:

Could Rand be the ultimate cause of the current economic diasaster with her philosophy of selfishness?

Apr 14, 2009 - 2:51 pm 40. Dave Surls:

“The culmination of her work was to present an entirely new moral code, one based on each man living as an end in himself, using reason to achieve his own success and happiness.”

As a couple of posters have noted that theory is great…as long as you don’t have kids. Try living entirely for yourself AND raising kids and see how far you get.

Not a problem for Ayn Rand or the heroes in her books…’cause they don’t have kids.

Sorry, but in the real world selfishness isn’t always a virtue and altruism and self-sacrifice aren’t always sins.

Apr 14, 2009 - 3:42 pm 41. Good Lt.:

>Could Rand be the ultimate cause of the current economic diasaster with her philosophy of selfishness?

“One of the methods used by statists to destroy capitalism consists of establishing controls that tie a given industry hand and foot, making it unable to solve its problems, then declaring that freedom has failed and stronger controls are necessary.”

—Ayn Rand, 1975

Looks like she had that canard pwned 34 years ago.

YOU FAIL. Try again.

Apr 14, 2009 - 5:46 pm 42. Al:

Right on, Amit.
I teach introductory philosophy at the high school level, and assign Rand’s work Anthem. While she (like all humans) has flaws, I think she is the most unappreciated philosopher of the 20th century, and there is a deliberate effort by the “open minded” left to ignore or sabotage her. I view her as an important contributor to the broader philosophy of Natural Law / Natural Rights / classical liberalism (which has been built by diverse thinkers from Aristotle and Cicero, to Aquinas, to Locke and Jefferson). Understanding her philosophy strengthens us in the age old struggle for the dignity of Man. Unfortunately I am not presently optimistic that most people, even most Americans, want true dignity. Hope I’m wrong.

Apr 14, 2009 - 5:50 pm 43. Kastco:

#2 Tennesseevolenteer
It is because we wanty our children to live and prosper in a world that values and rewards morality and achievement that one decides to go Gault

Apr 14, 2009 - 6:32 pm 44. The Shadow:

There is a huge conflict between Rand’s philosophy and the Gospels preferential option for the poor

Apr 14, 2009 - 7:27 pm 45. donttreadonme:

42. Al,
Right on! Check out The Shadow’s posts if you want an example of no dignity, if not downright naivete.

Apr 14, 2009 - 8:32 pm 46. LucyH:

Several people have brought up the issue of children; in particular, there seems to be a belief that having and raising children creates a contradiction—that without children, one could be selfish, but with them, one must be at least to some degree altruistic or self-sacrificial.

This is a misunderstanding of what selfishness and altruism mean. Selfishness doesn’t mean acting on one’s whims, doing whatever one feels at the moment, or living in such a way that one has no regard for other human beings. And altruism doesn’t mean having “good will” toward others or acting to help others. Rather, rational selfishness means *acting in one’s own long-term self-interest* in a way that is proper to man—pursuing rational values, living a virtuous life, and doing everything possible (in this context of rationality, respecting others’ rights, etc.) to achieve your own happiness. Altruism, on the other hand, requires that you renounce what is most important to you, that you give up that which gives *you* the most selfish pleasure, and that you instead focus on delivering your wealth, energy, indeed your very life, to the service of those who are *not* of personal value to you.

Any decent, thinking, rational person who has children *is* going to place their well-being as a top value in life. Any decent parent is going to think about their child’s physical and psychological health in making decisions that affect the whole family. If you make a reasoned choice to have children, it follows that you are going to get great *selfish* pleasure from your children’s existence, their development, health, and happiness. Their well-being is very much in a rational parent’s self-interest. To talk of raising children as if it is “selfless” ignores all this.

And the fact that sometimes you’d rather sleep in, but the kids get you up too early, or you wish you could buy a cool new car, but you stick with the old mini-van so you can afford to send the kids to piano lessons and soccer camp, well, those *are not* sacrifices to people who really value their children. A sacrifice would consist of *giving up* your child’s lessons, for example, and instead giving that money away to support children in Africa or the latest “save the snails” campaign out of a sense of moral duty, against your own family’s interests.

Apr 14, 2009 - 10:35 pm 47. Ellen K:

Once upon a time, every child had the same general background. Two parents, reading books with Dick and Jane, and stories that weren’t just for small segments of the population, but for everyone. Children back then learned the fables of “The Ant and the Grasshopper” or the story of “The Little Red Hen.” They were stories designed to teach values. Now we have stories from all over that often teach nothing more than distraction and the history of people who have little to do with our nation. This failure has led to generations of children who do not know how to strive or succeed because it has never been expected of them. They are sheltered well into their 30’s by parents who cushion every step and soften every blow. These are the Obama voters. They think such things as universal health care is a magical fiat that can be done at will. They don’t look at the bigger picture of rationing, less critical high cost solutions or access to the depth of care we can now get. Instead they have this utopian view of America as the epitome of socialism, in the best views of George Soros and his friends at Moveon.org. If there ever was a villain, it is he. Down the road, as this generation realizes its folly, I predict there will be upheaval. While presidents such as Kennedy and Clinton rode into town on waves of personal charm, it takes more than charm to run a nation. I believe once the higher taxes and failure of businesses to thrive hits these voters in the pocketbook, we will see some shifts back to a more moderate representation. Or at least that is what I hope. Because right now all three parts of government are being run by liberals that have embraced European style Green party platforms-to our detriment.

Apr 14, 2009 - 11:07 pm 48. Cheney '08:

Just the fact that Ayn Rand rivals Elvis for earning more two dozen years after her death than when she was alive is inspiring. I’ll be enjoying a pitcher of TEA today in her honor.

Apr 15, 2009 - 2:56 am 49. Dave Surls:

“Any decent, thinking, rational person who has children *is* going to place their well-being as a top value in life.”

Yeah, and people who don’t have kids come up with absurd philosophies like Objectivism.

Or I should say they come up with personal philosophies that work for them and then absurdly try to apply them to the whole world.

This is what Ayn Rand said…

“Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.”

And, that’s swell…as long as you’re not a parent. Which, fortunately, Ms. Rand wasn’t.

I agree with Ayn Rand on a lot of issues…but, her overall philosophical system is non-viable.

Apr 15, 2009 - 3:23 am 50. Michael Smith:

The Shadow asked ominously:

Could Rand be the ultimate cause of the current economic diasaster with her philosophy of selfishness?

To be selfish is to be concerned with one’s own self-interest. And, assuming one wishes to remain alive, to prosper and achieve happiness, acting in one’s own self-interest requires that one plan not just for today, but for the future as well.

Is it in one’s self-interest to take out a home mortgage loan one cannot repay? No, for it ultimately leads to foreclosure, the loss of the home and the ruining of one’s credit rating.

Is it in one’s self-interest to loan money to people who cannot repay it? No, for it ultimately leads to loss of the money — which is why, left to their own devices, bankers and mortgage lenders have historically refused to make such loans. It took government action in the form of the Community Reinvestment Act, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the FHA and a whole host of other government actions and agencies to force such loans to be made. The only reason all those federal agencies and programs exist is because self-interested lenders, left to their own devices, refused to make the loans the government thought poor people deserved.

Is it in one’s self-interest to buy mortgage-backed securities that contain loans that will eventually become non-performing? No, for ultimately the value of those securities will plunge when the bad loans surface and the foreclosures hit. This is why private investors would never have invested in such loans — not until the government-controlled cartel of bond rating agencies preposterously gave those securities a “AAA” rating — and even then most of those securities were purchased only by government-sponsored entities Freddie Mae and Fannie Mac.

Is it in one’s self-interest to sell insurance policies — in the form of credit default swaps — to investors that do buy mortgage-backed securities that contain loans that will ultimately become non-performing? No, just as it is not in one’s self-interest to sell life insurance polices to people who have terminal illnesses.

Is it in one’s self-interest to agree to demands by the United Automobile Workers union for wages and benefits 50% higher than those paid by one’s competitors — as was done by Ford, GM and Chrysler? No, for it ultimately makes one uncompetitive and leads to loss of market share, the shrinking and disappearance of profits and, ultimately, bankruptcy.

Was it in the self-interest of the UAW workers to make those wage and benefit demands? Ask the tens of thousands that have lost their jobs over the last decade.

Is it in one’s own self-interest to bilk investors in a Ponzi scheme? Ask Bernie Madoff, who now sits in jail facing a stiff prison sentence to be followed, if he ever gets out, by utter impoverishment.

In summary, this financial crises was not caused by the philosophy of self-interest — it was caused by it’s opposite — the philosophy of sacrifice. It was the doctrine that we must sacrifice to help the “needy” and “poor” that motivated all those government plans to force loans that private, selfish lenders and investors would not make of their own volition.

And now that the various institutions that were forced to sacrifice for the sake of the “needy” and the “poor” are in trouble, the philosophy of sacrifice demands that YOU make sacrifices for THEM. Hence, the bailouts — hence, YOU and YOUR money as the next sacrificial offering on the alter of altruism. All of which, incidentally, is the exact OPPOSITE of Rand’s philosophy.

Apr 15, 2009 - 4:45 am 51. Michael Smith:

Dave Surls does what so many critics of Objectivism do — he denounces Obejctivism without actually addressing its content, i.e. without supporting his claims at all. He simply ignores everything written by LucyH and offers empty, unsupported insertions instead.

In fact, Rand addresses the issue of parenting both in her non-fiction (See the Objectivist) and in her novel, “Atlas Shrugged”. Rand stated quite clearly that parenting could be a proper career, provided one approached it rationally (as outlined so clearly by LucyH) — which means parenting is completely consistent with Objectivism.

So tell us, Dave and all you other critics of Objectivism, why is a philosophy of reason “non-viable”? When does the abandonment of reason “work better” than the use of reason in living one’s life and dealing with reality? Why is it “absurd” to grasp that reason is your only means of gaining knowledge and your only tool for successfully dealing with reality? Show us when and how irrational behavior helps a person remain alive, prosper and achieve happiness.

The fact is, you won’t make it through a single day alive without the use of your reason. Try abandoning reason for a single day and see what happens.

Apr 15, 2009 - 5:09 am 52. Dana H.:

“Try reading [Atlas Shrugged], and if you make it to page 300 you will be just beginning to understand what she is talking about.”

While this is true, I recommend just reading the book for the story first and not getting sidetracked trying to figure out all of the philosophic nuances. Then later go back and re-read it (including all of Galt’s speech, which you probably glossed over the first time through). This way, you’ll get both the undiluted pleasure of reading a really exciting story, and the pleasure of seeing how the events of the story relate to Ayn Rand’s unique philosophy. (And you’ll also see the superficiality of both the fans and detractors who describe Atlas Shrugged as a political tract.)

Apr 15, 2009 - 11:39 am 53. Dana H.:

As an Objectivist parent of two kids, I have to respond to the comments from those who think that raising children is incompatible with Objectivism. Their assumption seems to be either that children are an agonizing burden or that rational selfishness consists of doing whatever you feel like whenever you feel like it (i.e., hedonism) — presumably meaning that changing your child’s dirty diaper is an unselfish act.

I dearly love my children and get great selfish pleasure from them; it is in anticipation of this pleasure that I had them in the first place. As for the less-appealing aspects of parenting (temper tantrums, illnesses, etc.), *rational* selfishness means recognizing cause and effect. It means that if you want the pleasure that children bring, you must be prepared to accept the inconveniences. If not, you shouldn’t be having children.

What would the alternative be? Someone who had children for no particular reason, or because they felt they had a duty to procreate, or because they just screwed up. Now tell me, what sort of parents would you rather have — those who eagerly wanted children, fully knowing and accepting the responsibility it would entail, or those who had children out of duty or carelessness?

Apr 15, 2009 - 12:05 pm 54. The Shadow:

Dana H – You have set up a false dichotomy

Apr 15, 2009 - 1:14 pm 55. Matt Miklautsch:

What is the false dichotomy? Either you have children because of the pleasure you expect to obtain raising them or you have them out of duty (God wants us to “be fruitful and multiple”) or you have children accidently through carelessness.

And there are children in Galt’s Gulch. Rand simply chose not to have children herself. It does not mean that she was somehow against having children as such.

Apr 15, 2009 - 2:18 pm 56. Seerak:

Neil Parille wipes out his own credibility thusly:

I’d recommend the Barnes/Nyquist blog for some informed criticism of Rand’s ideas:

When I discovered the ARCHN blog, I picked an article at random and started reading — the “Does Ayn Rand understand Objectivism?” post — and saw that they were making shit up in the very first paragraph.

That was all I needed to know about that blog. “Informed”, it is not.

And, that’s swell…as long as you’re not a parent. Which, fortunately, Ms. Rand wasn’t.

Well, in light of how little you clearly understand about parenting — that it’s an 18-year long choice, which just as easily fits into one’s priorities as any other commitment, that raising children can just as easily yield many years of joy as can other options, and that the best thing for a child is to be selfishly *wanted* by rational parents — I desperately hope you aren’t one either, Surls.

Apr 15, 2009 - 2:41 pm 57. RT:

Dana — excellent points.

I would point out too — on this version of ’selfishness’ (where any burden or inconvenience allegedly requires an act of ‘unselfishness’ on our part to deal with it), no one could ’selfishly’ hold a job, either. After all, there are plenty of boring meetings to go to, grunt work that ‘has to be done’ even if you don’t particularly enjoy it, sometimes late nights or missed weekends, etc., etc., etc. But of course, you’re willing to ‘bear’ the ’suboptimal’ parts of the job because it’s part of the price you pay to hold and practice a job that, holding the full context, you love.

Apr 15, 2009 - 2:42 pm 58. Seerak:

There are no puppies in Galt’s Gulch, however, so clearly no dog owner could ever be an Objectivist either. After all, Ayn Rand was a known cat person.

/non sequitur sarcasm

Apr 15, 2009 - 2:46 pm 59. Dave Surls:

“Dave Surls does what so many critics of Objectivism do — he denounces Obejctivism without actually addressing its content, i.e. without supporting his claims at all.”

No, actually, I didn’t do that. I quoted Ayn Rand, and directly addressed her remarks.

“Rand simply chose not to have children herself.”

That’s good. because she was a really selfish person…and she probably would have been a really bad parent…though you never know for sure, of course.

“presumably meaning that changing your child’s dirty diaper is an unselfish act.”

Of course it is. You’re not changing dirty diapers because it makes you happy (unless you have a fetish about dirty diapers)…you’re doing it for baby. That’s called altruism, my friend.

And, I didn’t help one of my sons do his taxes this morning because I enjoy doing taxes, or because I’m going to get something out of it…I did it to help HIM…not me. The only thing I get out of it is the satisfaction of helping someone else.

Apr 15, 2009 - 3:02 pm 60. DonnaB:

In one of Ayn Rand’s non-fiction books – Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal – is a transcript of a lecture given by her at the Ford Hall Forum in Boston dated April, 1964.

The title is: “Is Atlas Shrugging?”

Miss Rand said:

“As the title of this discussion indicates, its theme is: the relationship of the events presented in my novel Atlas Shrugged to the actual events of today’s world.

Or,to put the question in a form which has often been addressed to me: “Is Atlas Shrugged a prophetic novel – or a historical one?”

The second part of the question seems to answer the first: if some people believe that Atlas Shrugged is a historical novel, this means that it was a successful prophecy.

The truth of the matter can best be expressed as follows: although the political aspects of Atlas Shrugged are not its central theme nor its main purpose, my attitude toward these aspects – during the years of writing the novel – was contained in a brief rule I had set for myself: “The purpose of this book is to prevent itself from becoming prophetic.”"

The rest of this lecture by Rand is well worth reading. It is as relevant today as it was in 1964.

Another eye-opener is a book entitled “The Ominous Parallels”……..The end of freedom in America by Leonard Peikoff – with an introduction by Ayn Rand.

As a proud “Randroid” I have read everything published by her starting at the age of 15. I was so enthralled I would skip school (in the ’60s) to go to the public library to search for articles in magazines written by her. Later, I ordered her speeches on LP’s (those round plastic thingys), and subscribed to her newsletter until she died.

Apr 15, 2009 - 3:19 pm 61. Rogan:

I, too, am an Objectivist parent. My two-year-old son is a selfish value to me and I would defend him with my life – and that would not be self-sacrifice. I want more children, as well. Only someone who has no understanding of Objectivism could so misconstrue the philosophy as to think rational selfishness makes parenting impossible.

As I said in my earlier post, I am always amazed at how eager people who have no understanding of Rand’s ideas are to attack her and her philosophy. Although I don’t have the exact quote at the moment, perhaps Rand herself addressed this issue by noting how tenaciously many men cling to their vices and how easily they surrender their virtues.

Someone who wants to cling to the ultimate vice, the failure to think for oneself, can sense even without reading Rand that she is their worst enemy. Rand’s philosophy is the ultimate reproach to those who cling to an out-of-focus existence.

Apr 15, 2009 - 11:00 pm 62. devilof76:

“You’re not changing dirty diapers because it makes you happy (unless you have a fetish about dirty diapers)…you’re doing it for baby. That’s called altruism, my friend.”

So it would make you happy to not change the diapers?

Apr 16, 2009 - 3:11 am 63. Michael Smith:

I wrote:

Dave Surls does what so many critics of Objectivism do — he denounces Obejctivism without actually addressing its content, i.e. without supporting his claims at all.

Dave Surls replied:

No, actually, I didn’t do that. I quoted Ayn Rand, and directly addressed her remarks.

Sure, you quoted her as follows:

Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.

And then you made this statement:

And, that’s swell…as long as you’re not a parent.

That hardly qualifies as “addressing her remarks”. Instead, you simply asserted a claim — without any support — that Rand’s statement precludes the possibility of parenting, i.e. you asserted the claim that to be a parent necessarily means contradicting Rand’s position.

But did you offer us any analysis or reasons or evidence to support that notion? No.

Did you show how and why parenting necessarily requires behavior contradictory to Rand’s position? No.

Have you addressed any of the excellent points made in other comments (see for instance the comments of LucyH and Donna B) showing how and why good parenting is fully consistent with the morality of rational self-interest that Objectivism advocates? No.

No, rather than do any of that, you stick to the simplistic notion that if one undertakes any unpleasant activity — any activity that does not yield immediate satisfaction or pleasure to you, but instead benefits others — activities such as changing your baby’s diaper or helping your child with taxes — that said activity cannot be motivated by self-interest and must be altruistic.

But this is demonstrably false, as other commenters have explained. Your motivation in changing the diapers or helping with the taxes rests on the fact that you value both the baby and the child — you value their well-being — and pursuing, protecting and promoting one’s own values is the very definition of acting in rational self-interest.

Now, if you went door-to-door through random neighborhoods changing the diapers of stranger’s babies and doing the taxes of random kids on the streets — neither of which you have any particular reason to value — while permitting your own baby to suffer in a dirty diaper and your own child to struggle with his taxes — that would be altruistic.

It is clear that you have taken only a most superficial look at Objectivism, seen what appears at first glance to be problems in its application and practice, and concluded that it is — to use your own words — “absurd” and “non-viable”. That’s understandable — Objectivism challenges and contradicts so much of what is viewed as completely non-controversial that such misgivings and misunderstandings are to be expected.

But the fact that you cling to your views in the face of the explanations offered in these comments demonstrates that you are beyond a simple misunderstanding and into active evasion of the truth. Why do that? What do you gain by closing your mind to the truth?

Apr 16, 2009 - 4:49 am 64. Dana H.:

“And, I didn’t help one of my sons do his taxes this morning because I enjoy doing taxes, or because I’m going to get something out of it…I did it to help HIM…not me. The only thing I get out of it is the satisfaction of helping someone else.”

Great! Would you help me with my taxes? I’m having some trouble with them, and they are now overdue, so it should give you great satisfaction to help me out.

Or is there something about the value of your son to you that makes you more willing to do his taxes than mine? If you can answer that question, you might start to understand how helping those you value is selfish in the best and noblest sense of the word.

Apr 16, 2009 - 6:00 am 65. Rogan:

Michael Smith:

Your comment above is excellent – you explained Objectist ideas in a clear, easily understandable way that no one can misunderstand without active evasion… which is why you final question is so pertinent. Why is it that so many will work so hard to evade facts of reality rather than rethinking mistaken ideas?

In regard to political issues, the evasion is clearly self-destructive, as people vote for politicians like Obama, who intend to put into practice policies that have been tried and failed over and over on every continent on Earth. They have never worked, and yet people “feel” that they are morally right to support them in the face of all the suffering they have caused in the past.

As Rand wrote, “The power of morality is the greatest of all intellectual powers – and mankind’s greatest tragedy lies in the fact that the vicious moral code men have accepted destroys them by means of the best within them”. This does not excuse the evil that results, but it does shed light on possible motives behind the massive evasion required to support policies and ideas that can only achieve destruction in practice.

Apr 16, 2009 - 6:11 am 66. Alan Furth:

The problem with Objectivism and it enshrining of logical, right-brain rationality, is that it can too easily lead to what Jerry Z. Muller calls “pseudo-objectivity”: the attempt to substitute abstract and quantitative knowledge for concrete and qualitative knowledge. In my opinion, more than greed and sociopathy, an extreme form of pseudo-objectivity is what led Wall Street to have a blind faith in the mathematical models that gave triple A’s to CDO’s that blew as soon as the credit crisis burst.

And when it comes to prophecy, more than Ayn Rand (or Karl Marx which so many liberal pundits see today as the new Nostradamus), I see Friedrich Von Hayek as the champion. His warnings on the potentially disastrous consequences of our tendency to consider mathematical reasoning as the Holy Grail of science, and science as the only valid form knowledge, were right on spot.

I discuss these issues in detail in a recent blog post:

http://alanfurth.com/a-whole-new-mind-for-finance

Apr 16, 2009 - 7:27 am 67. Alan Furth:

Correction to my last post:

The problem with Objectivism and its enshrining of logical, right-brain rationality, is that it can too easily lead to what Jerry Z. Muller calls “pseudo-objectivity”: the attempt to substitute abstract and quantitative knowledge for concrete and qualitative knowledge. In my opinion, more than greed and sociopathy, it is an extreme form of pseudo-objectivity what led Wall Street to have a blind faith in the mathematical models that gave triple A’s to CDO’s that blew as soon as the real estate bubble burst.

And when it comes to prophecy, more than Ayn Rand (or Karl Marx, which so many liberal pundits see today as the new Nostradamus), I see Friedrich Von Hayek as the champion. His warnings on the potentially disastrous consequences of our tendency to consider mathematical reasoning as the Holy Grail of science, and science as the only valid form knowledge, were right on spot.

I discuss these issues in detail in a recent blog post:

http://alanfurth.com/a-whole-new-mind-for-finance

Apr 16, 2009 - 7:31 am 68. Paul -Indiana:

#49 “Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others …
=======================================================
His own sake can include bringing up children. One of my favorite sounds is a baby laughing. Especially mine.

Apr 16, 2009 - 10:23 am 69. Michael Smith:

Alan Furth wrote:

The problem with Objectivism and its enshrining of … rationality, is that it can too easily lead to …….. “pseudo-objectivity“………and … an extreme form of pseudo-objectivity…..led Wall Street to have a blind faith in the mathematical models that gave triple A’s to CDO’s that blew as soon as the real estate bubble burst. (emphasis added)

Objectivism does indeed hold reason as an absolute — it holds that reason, which is defined as the faculty that perceives, identifies and integrates the data provided by man’s senses — is man’s only means of gaining knowledge. As a corollary of this principle, Objectivism rejects as invalid any attempt to acquire knowledge by any non-sensory, non-rational means — including, most especially, a rejection of the notion of faith as a means of gaining knowledge.

Thus, the notion that Objectivism’s dedication to reason as an absolute can lead one to believe in something on “blind faith” is ludicrous. To the contrary, Objectivist epistemology explicitly rejects, as invalid, the very notion of faith.

Apr 16, 2009 - 10:30 am 70. Dave Surls:

“So it would make you happy to not change the diapers?”

Indeed. Not changing diapers makes me VERY happy. However, baby needs to have the diapers changed so I sacrifice what makes me happy and do what needs to be done, whether it makes me happy or not.

‘So tell us, Dave and all you other critics of Objectivism, why is a philosophy of reason “non-viable”?’

I already have done that. It might be viable for you, and that’s fine by me. You can be selfish 100% of the time, if that’s what works for you. But, in my situation I have to put the interests of others ahead of my own selfish concerns (not always, but some of the time), so Objectivism is not a viable option.

In my life, there’s a time and a place for selfishness and there’s also a time and a place for selflessness.

Apr 16, 2009 - 10:33 am 71. Dana H.:

*Sigh*. No matter how carefully you explain that rational selfishness does not mean hedonism, that it does not mean doing whatever you feel like doing whenever the whim strikes you. No matter that you explain that it *does* mean acting and thinking in your *long-range* self-interest, which may include doing things you’d rather not do at the moment (especially if you are prone to dropping context). No matter that you explain how it is selfish to help those you love.

No matter any of this, some people will never get it (or don’t want to).

Apr 16, 2009 - 10:58 am 72. Alan Furth:

Michael Smith wrote:

“Objectivism rejects as invalid any attempt to acquire knowledge by any non-sensory, non-rational means — including, most especially, a rejection of the notion of faith as a means of gaining knowledge.”

Michael, fair enough, this is in theory a clear implication of Objectivism. But the hubris with which Wall Street stubbornly tries to use mathematical models to predict market dynamics cannot be called rationality, much less scientific integrity. I would love to see how many financiers who fall into this intellectual trap call themselves Objectivists… perhaps those who do would benefit from your illuminating remarks on the tenets of the philosophy

Alan

Apr 16, 2009 - 11:28 am 73. Dave Surls:

“Hedonism is a school of philosophy which argues that pleasure has an ultimate importance and is the most important pursuit of humanity.”–wiki

“Main Entry: he·do·nism…1 : the doctrine that pleasure or happiness is the sole or chief good in life”

“…the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life.”–Rand

Ayn Rand was a hedonist.

By definition.

Apr 16, 2009 - 12:21 pm 74. Paul Hsieh:

Rational selfishness means doing what’s actually in one’s long-range self-interest, which is not synonymous with doing “what one feels like”. It’s comparable to rational pursuit of health. If someone wants to live in a rational fashion to maximize his long-range physical health, it requires using reason to determine what’s the best diet, exercise, etc., then exercising specific virtues and mental discipline to actually follow through on one’s plan.

It does not mean, “eat what you feel like when you feel like”. That’s the exact opposite of a rational healthy diet.

Similarly, just “doing one what feels like” is the opposite of rational pursuit of self-interest. Instead, a long-range rational pursuit of self-interest includes cultivation of specific virtues (such as honesty, integrity, productiveness, etc.). A Mafia crime boss or a con man is not in fact actually pursuing his long range rational self interest, even if he thinks he is (any more than a couch potato eating chocolate chip cookies is pursuing his long range physical health, even if he erroneously thinks he is).

As to why certain values like honesty, integrity, productiveness, etc. are necessary for one’s rational self-interest (as opposed to life of predation), I highly recommend the book by Dr. Tara Smith (professor of philosophy at Univ. Texas – Austin) entitled, “Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist” (Cambridge Univ Press):

http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rands-Normative-Ethics-Virtuous/dp/0521705460

Apr 16, 2009 - 2:33 pm 75. LucyH:

Ayn Rand was not a hedonist. Not only does the entire content of the Objectivist ethics contradict hedonism, but Rand herself explicitly repudiates it in several places:

1. “I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence….” (“Playboy’s Interview with Ayn Rand,” pamphlet, 8).

2. “This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism–in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. ‘Happiness’ can properly be the *purpose* of ethics, but *not* the *standard*….” She also writes that the ethical approach of the hedonists is “an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild.” (“The Objectivist Ethics” from _The Virtue of Selfishness_.)

(These quotes are also available in full in _The Ayn Rand Lexicon_ ed. by Harry Binswanger. Look under “Hedonism.”)

I realize that philosophy is not an easy subject, and the Objectivist philosophy, which challenges so many ideas accepted as bromides for millenia, can be particularly difficult to grasp. It takes a lot of mental effort. However, even if one were not familiar with these particular articles, a basic knowledge of the Objectivist ethics should make the assertion, “Ayn Rand was a hedonist. By definition” seem quite suspect.

Furthermore, while I can see how the difference between a moral purpose and a moral standard might not be immediately apparent, it should become clear on further reading and thought. Unlike many people, intellectuals included, Rand is scrupulous about defining her terms and making very clear on what fundamental ideas her arguments rest. Ayn Rand’s approach to ethics is probing, thoughtful, and deep; her ethical theories will neither be verified nor contradicted by an out-of-context phrase quoted in a wiki.

For anyone who honestly wants to better understand Ayn Rand’s view of ethics, check out _The Virtue of Selfishness_.

Apr 16, 2009 - 3:16 pm 76. Dave Surls:

“Ayn Rand was not a hedonist.”

Yes, she was.

By definition.

Apr 16, 2009 - 10:21 pm 77. Michael Smith:

Dana H commented:

No matter that you explain how it is selfish to help those you love.
No matter any of this, some people will never get it (or don’t want to).

Yes, since man is a being of volitional consciousness, he can choose to ignore the evidence, evade all the explanations that are being offered and merely repeat — senselessly and mindlessly — his claims.

Thus, we encounter this statement:

But, in my situation I have to put the interests of others ahead of my own selfish concerns (not always, but some of the time), so Objectivism is not a viable option.

Here Dave Surls simply ignores our numerous and well-stated explanations why taking care of those one values and loves — even when doing so is unpleasant and/or laborious — is indeed pursuing one’s “own selfish concerns”. He’s ignored those explanations on the implicit premise that if he refuses to acknowledge their existence, they won’t be real.

How and why anyone thinks it can work to simply pretend the other party’s explanations and arguments don’t exist — to pretend it when those explanations are right here on the screen for all rational people to see — is beyond me. But that’s Dave Surls’ modus operandi — and judging from his fresh attempt to smear Rand by calling her a hedonist, he’s sticking to it.

Unless he changes tactics, I won‘t respond to him further. One does not bother maintaining an intellectual response to insults or accusations that are put forth in the same spirit in which obscene graffiti is written on bathroom walls — not once it becomes clear that the other party’s motive is not to understand your ideas or even to persuade you of the truth of his, but rather to merely smear that which they are unable to rationally address or answer.

However, all rational, i.e. all honest, inquiries about the meaning and application of Objectivism are still welcome.

Apr 17, 2009 - 5:47 am 78. Dave Surls:

“Here Dave Surls simply ignores our numerous and well-stated explanations why taking care of those one values and loves — even when doing so is unpleasant and/or laborious — is indeed pursuing one’s “own selfish concerns”.”

You are in error. When you’re taking care of a child it’s THEIR interest that’s important, not your interest. And, you are NOT pursuing YOUR selfish concerns, you’re pursuing THEIR concerns. And, no one with a brain in their head cares whether you find it enjoyable or not. Baby needs to be fed, no matter how YOU feel about it. Your selfish concerns mean nothing, and there is no virtue in selfishness when a child needs to be fed.

Apr 17, 2009 - 10:22 am 79. Dave Surls:

“No matter that you explain how it is selfish to help those you love.”

If you’re helping someone else because you love them, then you’re not being selfish, by definition.

Selfish

“1: concerned excessively or exclusively with oneself : seeking or concentrating on one’s own advantage, pleasure, or well-being without regard for others”

If you’re helping someone else, then it’s pretty unlikely that you’re being selfish. If doing so makes you happy, then it’s selflessness that’s a virtue, not selfishness (in that particular case).

And, you folks aren’t making rational arguments that defend Ayn Rand’s absurd pronuncements. You’re simply redefining words so that they mean what you want them to mean.

It’s not selfish to help those you love. Period. End of discussion.

Apr 17, 2009 - 12:47 pm 80. Daniel Barnes:

Dave Surls:
>And, you folks aren’t making rational arguments that defend Ayn Rand’s absurd pronuncements. You’re simply redefining words so that they mean what you want them to mean.

Dave Surls is quite right.

Compare his dictionary definition – which is similar to most dictionary definitions , in that it talks about behaviour that is “excessively” or “exclusively” preoccupied with one’s self – to Rand’s obvious fudge:

“Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.” (Rand, Introduction to “The Virtue of Selfishness”).

Note how Rand 1) does not, and never did, name the actual dictionary this alleged “dictionary definition” comes from and 2) how she has obviously elided the “excessive” or “exclusive” qualifications we find in actually-existing dictionaries. She simply redefines words so they mean exactly what she wants them to mean, rather like a character out of “Through The Looking Glass’.

Apr 18, 2009 - 5:14 pm 81. Michael Smith:

Daniel Barnes claimed:

She simply redefines words so they mean exactly what she wants them to mean, rather like a character out of “Through The Looking Glass’.

False.

My American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, published in 1969, defines “selfish” as follows: “Concerned chiefly or only with oneself.”

Note that this definition is consistent with the use of the suffix “-ish“. Neither it, nor the suffix “-ness“, implies any moral evaluation of the qualities being described.

For instance, the definition of the word “babyish” is “of, like or relating to a baby” — and it does not include the word “excessively”. Note that the definition of “selfless” or “selflessness” does not include the addition of the word, “excessively”.

It is true that the term “selfish” has come to mean more than mere “concern with one’s own interest” in popular usage. But Daniel Barnes, by quoting Rand out of context, implies that Rand evades what the term has come to mean in popular usage.

Let’s look at a more complete quote of what Rand said on the subject:

The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word “selfishness” is not merely wrong: it represents a devastating intellectual “package-deal,” which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.

In popular usage, the word “selfishness” is a synonym of evil; the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word “selfishness” is: concern with one’s own interests.”

This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests. It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.

There is a fundamental moral difference between a man who sees his self-interest in production and a man who sees it in robbery. The evil of a robber does not lie in the fact that he pursues his own interests, but in what he regards as to his own interest; not in the fact that he pursues his values, but in what he chose to value; not in the fact that he wants to live, but in the fact that he wants to live on a subhuman level (see “The Objectivist Ethics”).

If it is true that what I mean by “selfishness” is not what is meant conventionally, then this is one of the worst indictments of altruism: it means that altruism permits no concept of a self-respecting, self-supporting man—a man who supports his life by his own effort and neither sacrifices himself nor others. It means that altruism permits no view of men except as sacrificial animals and profiteers-on-sacrifice, as victims and parasites—that it permits no concept of a benevolent co-existence among men—that it permits no concept of justice. (Emphasis in original) From: Introduction to “The Virtue of Selfishness”

Interesting, isn’t it, that Daniel Barnes did not choose to quote the entire passage — that, instead, he took one sentence out of context to make it appear that Rand had lamely attempted to evade the issue. But as any honest reader can see, she addresses the problems with the popular definition and she does not simply make up a new definition to fit her whim. Her definition is, in fact, the only possible definition consistent with the rules of the English language and the use of the suffixes “-ish” and “-ness”.

Apr 19, 2009 - 4:56 am 82. Michael Smith:

One more thing: I note that the very dictionary to which Daniel Barnes links in his post above does not include the term “excessively” in its definition of selfish.

The definition Barnes linked to is as follows -

“Selfish”:

1) devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one’s own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.
2. characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself: selfish

It would seem that Barnes’ own reference has also “elided” out the term “excessively”.

In fact, the definition here is consistent with Rand’s definition — it does not include any moral connotation or implication that selfishness is bad or wrong.

Apr 19, 2009 - 5:11 am