Plenty of us have heard of Ayn Rand. Unfortunately, her ideals seem lost in the current tide of partisan bickering, and her philosophy takes the back seat in the titanic struggle between conservatism and liberalism. Objectivism must be discussed. Let's start here.

A basis of Objectivism, for ignorant Ones:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
2. Epistemology: Reason
3. Ethics: Self-interest
4. Politics: Capitalism

I read Ann Rand as a young college student and was impressed by her writing and philosophy. However, I do not consider myself a follower of Rand. She was far more complex than most realize, a mixture of conservative and liberal viewpoints and was one of the primary founders of libertarianism.

Hey moo42, did you ever take a look at the Atlas Shrugged thread you started? I responded and was wondering if you I was getting the same vibe from the book that you were.


On objectivism, I've glanced at the Ayn Rand institute website and it seems to be very similar to libertarianism, though I haven't really "studied" it. I'm like you on the partisan bickering. Our political class waste time discussing things that do not concern them and the public eats it up and picks sides. It is all pretty depressing.

Sorry i didnt respond to the Atlas Shrugged thread. Like you, i havnt officially studied objectivism, yet came to conclusions similar to yours simply by studying history and human nature. I agree wholeheartedly with your statements; unproductive behavior should not be subsidized by the government. I think that government should incorporate more of Rand's ideals, namely less restriction on business and a focus on embettering people through an emphasis on individual effort and achievement, not big-government spending sprees.

When i first realized Rand's ideas, they electrified me; they were so remarkably different from other idealogies, and their effect on me was almost intoxicating (eg "WOW, I've found something really wild that i can believe in!".) In fact, I still consider myself an Objectivist at heart. However, i do not wholeheartedly support Rand's emphasis on unfettered laissez-faire capitalism. I believe that capitalism is by far the best system, and that the government should refrain from interfering as much as possible, but historical precedents have shown that a totally free market causes problems, and that the government does need to intervene in situations regarding consumer safety. For example, airbags were not universally installed in cars until decades after their discovery; because doing so would have reduced the profits of the car companies. Dont get me wrong, I think that greed is good, but sacrificing safety for money is not. Your thoughts?

Also, i find Rand's foreign-policy theories intriguing. Unlike most libertarians, she does not categorically refuse the idea of intervention. Again, your thoughts?

I find Ayn Rand to be a tough subject. I like many of her ideas, but others are a little harder to swallow.

I think it is important to look at where she was coming from. Many of her ideas came about as a direct result of her having spent much of her life in the Soviet Union and as a counterpoint to the Soviet mentality. Had she grown up elsewhere she very well may not have been such a fan of capitalism or the market system for example.

__________________
"A calm sea does not make a skilled sailor."


"You can't step on a blind man's testicles twice."

She may have been biased, but that does that mean she is wrong? Admittedly, like any radical idealogy, her exact methods probably arent practicable in the real world, but we should strive to get as close to them as possible, while eliminating some of the more dangerous things in her beliefs (aka, laissez-faire capitalism).

I agree that there should be some government involvement, but as little as possible. For the most part though I think that government takes a lot of the incentive out of running a business.

I am mixed on the idea of intervention in foreign affairs. I find it absurd how we'll force "peace" and "democracy" on the Iraqi's who seemingly to a large extent do not want us there, but we'll turn a blind eye to areas like darfur and sierra leone when they're crying for international help. But then I don't understand half the shit our government does.

By no means am I trying to suggest that she was 'wrong'. I'm simply trying to point out that it's often difficult to understand WHAT someone is trying to say if you don't know WHERE they're coming from. What their context is.

She was a Russian Jew. And as such had pretty much the whole deck stacked against her. That she was allowed to leave Russia and that she survived is nearly miraculous, and a blessing for those of us who like to read (and think n stuff).

While I admire many of the ideas she supports, like individual liberty, there are two principle problems I have with Objectivism.

First, as you stated, laissez-faire capitalism has too many flaws to be universally aplicable.

Second, reason. Reason is a wonderful tool, perhaps the single greatest ability we humans have. But it is not the end all be all. It cannot answer all our questions. For example: love is not reasonable nor is it objective but it'd be hard to find anyone who would deny the benefits that love can bring. Of course, it can also bring suffering and mysery, like any emotion. but my point is, reason ALONE isn't the answer.

I think she was definitely on to something and I've been intrigued by her writings since I discovered her in highschool. I just think there's a few areas where she goes astray. And I think that her experiences in Soviet Russia had a lot to do with that.

__________________
"A calm sea does not make a skilled sailor."


"You can't step on a blind man's testicles twice."

Well said. The question of reason as the supreme source of guidance also disturbed me too. Were not the leaders of revolutionary France men who advocated a government of pure reason, and that by doing so, the misery of monarchy could be defeated? As history shows, their logic did nothing to stop the Reign of Terror. Men need some moral code to be held accountable for. If not, they are only accountable to themselves, and the reasoning of one person may not be correct.