1
2
3
4
The problem is that the creaters and producers sometimes lose out to the tricksters, the crooked and the corrupt. Ideas can get stolen, and often the bullE36 M3ters steal jobs from the masters.
That even happens in Ayn Rand novels. Look what happened to Howard Roark. Are the guys riding those private jets to Washington truly the master car builders?
It's interesting that a poster thought that Rand's views didn't come off well in her fiction. I'd say that fiction is where they present the best. Her non-fiction is preachy, and the logical flaws are hard to dodge. Whereas when clothed in Howard Roarke heroism, they seem quite natural and inspiring.
I actually see similarities between Randian libertarianism and Marxism. not in the core beliefs - which are diametrically opposed in many ways; but in their disconnect from reality (intererestingly, they are both products of the same region.) Both sound incredible if you buy in and accept the underlying assumptions. But mankind is generally neither heroic nor selfless. We're a mishmash - weak, unfocused, sinful.... political systems have to work with that reality.
WTH is going on in this thread? I keep seeing the dismissal of Rand's ideals because humans are flawed. So what if we are flawed. Do we assume we cannot succeed thus encourage and teach failure? No. We try to be the best we can and keep trying to be better. Trying to run a country by encouraging those around us to be the best they can is not a flawed system. Trying to run a country by saying everyone is an incapable moron is a sure fire way to run the country into the ground.
MrJoshua wrote:WTH is going on in this thread? I keep seeing the dismissal of Rand's ideals because humans are flawed. So what if we are flawed. Do we assume we cannot succeed thus encourage and teach failure? No. We try to be the best we can and keep trying to be better. Trying to run a country by encouraging those around us to be the best they can is not a flawed system. Trying to run a country by saying everyone is an incapable moron is a sure fire way to run the country into the ground.
The best I heard so far was the statement that here philosophy can work well on a personal level. But that it is too idealistic to attempt to enact on a societal level.
For my part, I believe a healthy society needs to allow for all stripes. When you start giving primacy to a single philosophy, it will slide into totalitarianism.
I don't think her philosophies are bad, I just don't think they're the Best or the Only.
Salanis wrote:MrJoshua wrote:WTH is going on in this thread? I keep seeing the dismissal of Rand's ideals because humans are flawed. So what if we are flawed. Do we assume we cannot succeed thus encourage and teach failure? No. We try to be the best we can and keep trying to be better. Trying to run a country by encouraging those around us to be the best they can is not a flawed system. Trying to run a country by saying everyone is an incapable moron is a sure fire way to run the country into the ground.
The best I heard so far was the statement that here philosophy can work well on a personal level. But that it is too idealistic to attempt to enact on a societal level.
For my part, I believe a healthy society needs to allow for all stripes. When you start giving primacy to a single philosophy, it will slide into totalitarianism.
I don't think her philosophies are bad, I just don't think they're the Best or the Only.
In an Ayn Rand novel, the most talented, most innovative, hardest working individual always wins in the end.
But that is fiction. Real life doesn't always work that way. Sometimes John Galt drowns in Hurricane Katrina before he can get his plans for a turbine to the secret place where he can build them only for the worthy. And sometimes politics and the rich and powerful keep the John Galts of the world from every building anything. John Galt and Howard Roark don't always win in the end, and the Robber Barons who do, aren't always anything like Ayn Randian Heroes to be admired.
I'm still trying to figure out why Libertarians claim similarities while Rand unilaterally dismissed Libertarianism.
There are political similarities. But Rand's viewpoints are significantly more all encompassing, and there is a wide divergence the minute they leave the political arena.
I think there are a lot more Libertarians on this board than there are Objectivists (or Randists, as Mike Wallace said 
)
Libertarians claim similarities to Objectivism because we all basically believe that each individual's rights are supreme, and we should be free of OUTSIDE obligations we do not choose to accept and free of outside restrictions on our personal lives (so long as we do not impinge on another individual's rights).
Rand disapproved of Libertarians because Libertarians think it is OK to be a slacker or a druggie or a religious fanatic, as long as you bear the cost and consequences of those choices. Rand thought that Libertarianism allowed non-rational lifestyles, which are therefore non-Objectivist.
