You are discovering the philosophies of Ayn Rand.

That is a good thing. I have been an Objectivist since I first learned what that meant.

I have been very lonely in my views as many of Ayn's supporters are. Perhaps now that we are reaching desperation as a culture, her philosophies will save us from the failed ideologies of Socialism and government controlled capitalism.

If you are interested in learning more about this wonderful philosophy, check it out here. Two lectures by Leonard Piekoff.

intro to Objectivism part 1

intro to Objectivism part 2

I tell you it will open your eyes.

Don't know why this wouldn't work so try this.
http://tinyurl.com/24kc2k
and this
http://tinyurl.com/24kc2k

Ayn Rand is very readable.

Is it Richard? I thought it was Wretchard?

I would recommend reading Atlas Shrugged as well, definitely a worthwhile read.

Yanni, your links don't work for me, I get a can't be found message.

My all time favorite book is "Atlas Shrugged", I re-read it every five years.

What would socialists do if all the productive people stopped working?

What would the eco-nuts do if noone had any new ideas on how to actually make wind turbines productive? It's not the eco-nuts who are being productive, all they do is protest, they never come up with real plans to solve the problem.

If you haven't read Altas Shrugged, read it and see how close eco-nuts are to some of the characters in the novel. Socialists never produce, they only protest.

"What would socialists do if all the productive people stopped working?"

In a word, Starve.

Ideas such as those put forth in this filmclip are fundamental to western civilization, and to classical liberalism.

They are also the reason I despise collectivism in any form, be it socialism, religionism, or conservatism.

For further related reading, see:
i) http://www.fahayek.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=46
ii) http://www.libertarian.ca/
iii) http://www.reason.com/

"What would socialists do if all the productive people stopped working?"

If the looters can't eat the productive peoples' work, then they would literally eat the productive people.

After which they would 'starve'.

The inescapable and sad testimony to our times, is that Gary Cooper could not deliver that speech today, to a jury of his peers, and have it understood by that jury. In spite of all of our advances in knowledge about the processes of learning, science, and our human interactions, we have succeeded in reducing the collective intellect below that of the time The Fountainhead was made. Accepting the premise of Cooper's speech, that would mean that we have failed at our most crucial societal task - education of the individual. The Fountainhead could not be made today, at least, not as the important intellectual movie it was when it was released. In that intellectual form, it could not find a market, and would be relegated to seen as an "art" film.

I've read Atlas Shrugged. I found it long, hectoring and tendentious. And having met Objectivists from time to time, I find them to generally be fanatical, intolerant cultists.

Ayn Rand......cripes. She makes Dr.Fruitfly look smart. Thank God she's kaput.Dr.Suess produced more intelligent work then she ever did.

Yup, they are quite the fanatics. With the cornerstone beliefs that reality actually exists and that 2+2=4 is an absolute truth.

Enjoyable. I had never heard of this particular movie. I looked it up on imdb and the plot keywords include "selfishness" and "egotism."

Having not seen the movie, maybe that's more accurate than I know...but it made me smile nevertheless.

The views expressed by Cooper in this film are based on classical liberal thought of the supremacy of the individual and the individual's rights.

Collectivists, whom apparently have infiltrated this forum, do not understand why it is always wrong for the collective to oppress and steal from the individual, but Rand did.

At its best, parts of the North American conservative movement understands this too, such as the Fraser & Cato think tanks, and the Goldwater & Reagan style republicans.

However, as can be seen with current leadership on the right (Bush and Harper), at the moment the big government collectivists/conservatives are in power.

Perheps the former had read their Locke, Mill, Hayek and Friedman, but I very much doubt the Bush/Harper statists are much influenced by these great thinkers.

I haven't "just discovered" Ayn Rand. Just discovered the clip.

And while pure Ayn Rand objectivism is a utopian notion, it is an important philosophy to study and understand, as it so pointedly demonstrates the utter immorality and intellectual bankruptcy of both relativism and socialism.

(And Wretchard is Richard Fernandez)

The first comment at Richard's* blog is:

bobalharb said...

Basic gibberish. He couldn't have built whatever it was he blew up without the grade school teacher the middle school teacher the high school teacher the college teacher the engineering school the concrete truck driver the carpenters the timber industry the makers of nails the glass makers and couldn't make his case other than in a court of law which requires....
...-

For more:
I, Pencil
My Family Tree as told to Leonard E. Read (1958)
[...]

The lesson I have to teach is this: Leave all creative energies uninhibited. Merely organize society to act in harmony with this lesson. Let society's legal apparatus remove all obstacles the best it can. Permit these creative know-hows freely to flow. Have faith that free men and women will respond to the Invisible Hand. This faith will be confirmed. I, Pencil, seemingly simple though I am, offer the miracle of my creation as testimony that this is a practical faith, as practical as the sun, the rain, a cedar tree, the good earth. ...-
http://www.econlib.org/LIBRARY/Essays/rdPncl1.html
(* Richard Fernandez, aka Wretchard The Cat.)

And while pure Ayn Rand objectivism is a utopian notion, it is an important philosophy to study and understand, as it so pointedly demonstrates the utter immorality and intellectual bankruptcy of both relativism and socialism.

Couldn't have said it better Kate. To a socialist,the only morals are THEIR morals, bankrupt as they may be. They have always believed in a "hand-out" (with your tax money) versus a "hand-up"! After all. How can you rule over somebody if you don't make them dependant on you?

Oh...and Happy Mother's Day all.

A is A

Always found the Ayn Rand preschool in the Simpsons quite funny.

Yes it is Utopian. Bu some of the best knocks against collecitvism and defence of capitalism, property rights (inteelectual and phsysical) are to be found in Rand's writings.

Objectivism is taken too far when it gets into the "drowning man" questions. Would you save a drowning stranger...how is it in your self interest to do so. It becomes somewhat forces in extremis.

Good contributions to thought. I have met some roarks in my life so far and I have met roark wannabe's. The true roarks have never heard of Howard and have just lived their lives as they would.

Nice find

As an actor Cooper was just providing a sock puppet for Ayn Rand's philosophy of rational egoism (ethical self interest) and objectivism (reality based thinking).

As a libertarian I accept much of the ethical egoist ideals...an individual must think as an individual and act in his own best interests in an ethical and civil way. When everyone strives for their own best interests (which is human nature) this creates the civil productive and creative society.

Rand's philosophy of ethical egoism dovetails with the intent of the US bill of rights and delclaration of independence. These were manifestos of a governing system which serves the individual and holds the individual to be the core element of society and the and the key political unit.

Rational egoism is a complete repudiation of group identity politics and collectivist entitlement.

Why rational egoism has come under attack is because if the rise and acceptance of post modern leftist philosophies which tell the individual he exists for the collective and must sacrifice himself for the collective and the state....the ant colony society.

Intersting that Richard resurrected the ethical egoism in The Fountainhead" as a comparison between socialist and liberal democratic orthodoxies. He is correct in asuming the self -destructive alturism of socialism denounces self worth, personal interests or personal values as "selfishness" and as stated in Richard's article, a man politically conditioned to have no self worth or ownership of personal property/acheivement/empowerment is just a suicidal robot for the state ( a drone ant in the colony)...this is the antithesis of ethical egoism promotes the value of self worth, self interest and rewards the product of individual effort and creativity.

When you look at things in the macrocosim the past 60 years of political discourse have been dominated by forces of self-depredating alturism/statism and rational egoism debating just how much of an individual's procuctivity, property and life can be demanded by the state ( presumably now governing for the collective and the individual).

In that sense all western democracies have deviated from their original governing intent to protect the rights of the individual to a omnipotent collectivist apparatis which deals in group identiy politics and group entitlements.

Today, a gifted uncompromisingly principled man like Howard Rourke or John Gault would taunted by a leftist media as selfish and unpatriotic for their success for charging what they feel their talent is worth...under the guise of "paying your fair share", the state makes the most talented and productive pay a "more fair share" than the rest. (we see this with the love affait the Star has with Conrad Black)

There is still much in Rand's 2 dialogs on the talented individual and the greed and envy of the collectivist state that hold lessons for us today.

Never mind today -- Cooper could barely give the speech at the time. He couldn't make heads or tails of it and was reduced to memorizing it and simply reciting it almost phonetically, placing the emphases where he guessed they'd be most appropriate.

That is the problem with Libertarianism/Objectivism in a nutshell: the majority of people aren't as intelligent as your average Libertarian/Objectivist. Watching a single episode of Jerry Springer reveals this, or just riding the subway on an average day.

As the far greater writer Whittaker Chambers wrote in his classic, devastating pan of Rand in National Review, every page of her writing screams: You, to the concentration camp, go!

http://www.nationalreview.com/flashback/flashback200501050715.asp

Her stuff is an ok starting point for people struggling in a socialist nanny state like we are, but it is just science fiction set on earth. It is fine for teenagers but really: at least move up to Jane Austen if you are looking for something better written, better observered and sounder of mind. There are many better writers out there whose philosophies are far less sinister.

Read Flo King's (another superior writer) devastating essay about Rand's personal hypocrisy in King's With Malice Toward All and elsewhere:

http://www.nationalreview.com/king/king200405280928.asp

An even funnier bit will be the reported "Atlas Shrugged" film adaptation Brad Pitt and Co are trying to secure.Although many,many have tried before and failed. Rand was so notorious in her life for never giving an inch, no surprise there, with the adaptation "The Fountain Head" she sold the rights at the time for a record price, and kept complete control. The scope, sweeping vistas, wild narrative and serious edit "Shrugged's" over the top soliloquizes will need won't have the same luxurious effect, but, if, he pulls it off and gets it financed. I will laugh my ass of when all the Hollywood lefty's get caste as Balph, Hank Reardon, Thompson, Wyatt and such. It's the Ocean's 15 cast in the Ayn Rand classic. The old babe would shit herself. Stephen, bang on... The Ayn Rand preschool bit in the Simpsons is fantastic.

The book, and Rand's writings, are fundamental to my political thoughts and moved me across the spectrum from left through centre to right and placed me as the libertarian that I am today. I read the books of Rand as a first year student at University during my summer job over 20 years ago. Her poistion is utopic but very relavant and is clearly a rebuke of many of the movements trying to take control of the public including the environmental terrorists.

So, like Kate I discovered her writing long ago, and was refreshed by it again to day on video.

Thanks

Katy said: "That is the problem with Libertarianism/Objectivism in a nutshell: the majority of people aren't as intelligent as your average Libertarian/Objectivist"

Actually rational libertarianism is not prefixed on Rand's objectivist theology...rational libertarianism is essentially individualist,and democratic populism in a rational balance.

Secondly, "Intellegence" is not a requirement to get the civil respect due an individual by either society or the government.

People who cannot enunciate the details of libertarian thought are not excluded from the adoption of libertarian individualist civil liberty.

Steven said: "Yes it is Utopian. Bu some of the best knocks against collecitvism and defence of capitalism, property rights (inteelectual and phsysical) are to be found in Rand's writings."

Correct. I'm not a great believer in objectionst thought some is practical most is utopian,,,it is Rand's enunciation of rational egoism or ethical self interest mor correctly civil idividualism which I except as being self evident.

The key message in rational egoism is this:

Rational egoism is a complete repudiation of group identity politics and collectivist entitlement.

This is why traditional constitutional democracies which held the individual as the primary political unity are in conflict with leftist collectivist philosophies which entrench group entitlements over individual rights.

Traditionally this was the great debate between left and right in the federal arena until the past 30 years where it became a debate about how much the individual owes to the collective.

Temperamentally, I am a natural libertarian. I have a horror of other people's weakness, stupidity and incompetence. Left to my own devices, I would happily retreat into a misanthropic world of my own, preferably in a lighthouse with high speed internet.

However, I am a Christian, and libertarian/objectivist philosophies are ultimately incompatible with Christianity, which, whatever one cares to say about it, cannot be said to value the strong and brilliant over the stupdi and the weak...

So, alas, I am resigned to being the world's worst Christian, when it would be so much easier to be the world's greatest Objectivist.

Atlas Shrugged is a great political polemic, but not that great as a novel. I love Ayn Rand and have read a lot of her work. She uses the novel as a tool to explain her philosophy, and she does that fairly well. I have never, however managed to wade my way through "The Fountainhead"

If you can find a copy, there is a really good book called "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" which is a collection of essays, mostly by Rand but by other people as well. It even includes an essay by Edward Greenspan, written while he was an economics professor about how the only possible way to run a monetary system is on the gold standard! I wonder what happened to him when he went to the Fed.

Surprisingly for such a smart person, Kate has missed my broader point: that most people are simply not that bright, certainly not as bright as most libertarians and objectivists tend to be.

They are very book smart indeed, but often not very 'people' smart. And one thing that becomes very clear when you put down the books and look at real people is that the freedom and (psuedo)intellectual heft demanded of Rand's philosophy would frighten most average or below average people into a state of inertia, or inspire them to dangerous, destructive behaviour.

Not even Rand herself could make her own philosophy work in real life, even with all her considerable intellectual and financial resources. A keen observer of certain aspects of human nature, she revealed herself to be almost childishly foolish when it came to other aspects, concerning human sexuality in particular. Not an unheard of achilles heel among the cerebral. She made a great noise about how her husband was her Ideal Man, but he quickly revealed himself to be a passive, non-too-bright, average fellow who just happened to be rather tall and handsome. Rand mistook his taciturnity for depth. So a female masochist married a male submissive, with predictably awful results...

Being pedantic isn't the same as being wise.

Kathy: I thnk you better read a little more on rational libertarianism...it is basically classic liberal democratic idealism...that was forged by members of the reformed anglican church.

In any event clasic linertarianism is forged upon ethical egoism not objectivist secularity.

The idea that you can't be a Christian and accept ideals of individual freedom is inconsistant with the classic libertarianism ( of which ethical egoism is a component).

Oh poor Kathy, so knowledgeable and intelligent but ham-strung with the mystic belief in an almighty, but invisible deity.

An invisible deity has a lot in common with a non-existent deity.

Perhaps study some astronomy and get an idea of how absolutely large nature is and then get back to me on the guy who made it all from nothing and also has a personal interest in my sex-life among other less important matters.

And what has your god got against Africa anyway?

Rand is the extreme of what might be. If we could free ourselves from the collective to just get part of the way to her world, we would be such a better, freer and more prosperous society.

As it is now, we are quite a way down the road in the other direction and take a peek at the shape this planet is presently in. Most societies are not worth living in. The one's that are worth living in are starting to charge too much .... what's next?

In the Objectivist philosophy, anyone can be successful. Not everyone, but anyone. That's better than no one without government connections isn't it?

Reality cannot help but prevail in the end. That is a law of nature. The Utopian Collectives State that is continually being foisted upon us by either the communists or the religionists can only continue to lead to unending conflict and misery. That has already been proved in every way possible.

Yanni, tell the truth: typing all those creaky cliches in a big rush like that brings you pretty close to orgasm, doesn't it?

Doesn't that thumping noise the hot water heater in your parents' basement make keep you up at night?

Kathy,

Your last note tells me I have hit a nerve.

I haven't had parents for forty years. I am a successful semi retired business man ... happily living on the West coast with a great view.

I got here by following the philosophy of Ayn Rand. That is, to avoid government in my life as much as humanly possible, work hard and be creative.

Worked for me!

Cheers

Yanni,

You write to my friend, Kathy Shaidle:

"And what has your god got against Africa anyway?"

Well, He's my God, too. And He doesn't have anything against Africa. But it begs the question: who is against Africa? And another: who is for Africa? It would seem that ethical egoism would preclude you even bothering about Africa, as there is an ocean and a continent between you and Africa. I, for one, am for Africa, and take time out of my day and money out of my wallet to give assistance for the people of that continent [and other places]. That we are aware of Africa and problems and suffering there touches us at a very basic human level: these people are either like me or not like me. If I make the connection that they are like me, then are there moral consequences to that connection?

Pursuing Rand's objectivism might bring some people more prosperity, but it would be a prosperity at the exploitation and upon the suffering of others. Egoists never seem to get around the notion that they willingly use people for their own ends, that those "beneath" them are merely instruments. Objectivism is really the objectification of other human beings, seeing them as tools to be used rather than as subjects who have equal value as persons. Roark the architect was willing to use laborers, financiers and others to achieve his personal goal, without acknowledgement that the essential contribution of those others represent their investment in that goal, which Roark would never accede to having become a "common" goal. No, emphatically, it was all his, as the project was all about him. What rot.

We're certainly not equal in talents or intelligence or looks or physical strength or wealth or earning potential. But there is a basic human equality, human beings as human beings, that the "ethical egoists" refuse to acknowledge, as it conflicts with their ubermensch aspirations, and would make it difficult to continue objectifying fellow human beings.

God, save us from "ethical" egoists. And God has: Jesus, His Son, hardly an egoist, One who has had infinitely more influence over the course of the world and human minds and hearts than Ayn Rand and her literary spawn, John Gault, Howard Roark, etc. He is the One who shows us what it means to be human without the inhumanity of which each human is capable, objectivist and Christian alike. BTW, I'm with Kathy in competition for the status of worst Christian, struggling as I do to overcome egoism and the sins attendant to it.

Yanni,

That you, at your advanced age, still sound like a teenaged boy who's just discovered A Bunch of Big Words with which to shock his relatives around the Thanksgiving dinner table is really nothing to boast about.

Also: "I struck a nerve" is a rhetorical device favoured mostly by those who simply aren't as intelligent or mature as they think they are.

Ultimately, objectivism is parasitical because one can only be as selfish as Rand demands by relying upon the selfless altruism of others. Presumably Howard Roark left his sickly aging parents in the hands of such people, the better to pursue his career.

"Yanni, tell the truth: typing all those creaky cliches in a big rush like that brings you pretty close to orgasm, doesn't it?"

Even though I have disagreed with Kathy on a lot lately, moments like this remind me how great she is.

"And my response - Find the average of these three numbers; 100, 130, 150.

(See? Objectivists are smarter. )

Posted by Kate at May 13, 2007 12:19 AM"

You mean do it without a calculator? Horrors! Better question...Mr.19 year-old clerk...what is my change from a fiver($5.00) for the $4.86 bill, WITHOUT looking at the till? (BTW...126.6666666 to infinity)

More seriously, Yanni, I find the typical atheist's oscillation between egotism and self-deprecation depending on the circumstances to be rather odd. One moments he's talking about the supreme importance of the individual; the next moment he's talking about "How can God care about my sex life when the universe is so darn big?" If you're so important, why shouldn't he care?

Roark the architect was willing to use laborers, financiers and others to achieve his personal goal, without acknowledgement that the essential contribution of those others represent their investment in that goal, which Roark would never accede to having become a "common" goal. No, emphatically, it was all his, as the project was all about him. What rot.

Those people who worked in the Roark project did so for pay. They did so willingly. As far as I know Roark was not presented as a totalitarian dictator who used force to get people to work with and for him a slaves.

Your arguments that these people were put upon by the rich uncaring man is the cry of the lowly unionist or worse the idiotic anarchist who doesn't think anything in life can possibly be fair. Grow up, life isn't fair, it is what you make it. That is the reality. Everything else in contrived and false.

Feeling sorry for and tossing money into the African vortex is a choice you make and I don't criticize you for it. Perhaps that is how you get your orgiastic warm fuzzies. So be it. I have better places to put hard earned money to use.

I might also add that you will find no greater selfishness, and lack of caring for others than in a line up for the slop at a government trough.

The indolence found in the collectivist welfare cult is stunning. If they were doing some thing good with their lives they might be forgiven their plunderous self-interest, but they are OWED

And discussing the matters of a deity, I won't waste my time because it is a non-entity we are dealing with here. At least until there is genuine proof of such a power. I don't foist my Atheism on others, and I do subscribe to basic Christian values at least where it states to not commit crime and don't covet etc. I see no reason to love and care for people whom I don't know.

Sorry I didn't mean to shout that last bit, I forgot to close the bold after the word OWED

Rand was a greater philosopher than writer of fiction IMHO. The ideas of Rand can cut most rants of the left down to what they really are; worship of power and the destuction of the individual. The power of the left was realized in the 20th century in both national and international socialism.
Some of you may not agree with all aspects of her ideas but please avoid the charicatures of the left.As too the ethics of emergencies she addressed that issue in her non fiction.

Ayn's most important contribution was probably doing the same thing with capitalism that Emmanuel Kant did for the idea of God with his categorical imperative. She devised a brilliant argument for capitalism as a moral idea.

She was a genius, and like most people of genius or great power, she was very flawed. In Judgement Day, by Nathaniel Brandon, you can read about how she justified their torrid affair for years, because it was consistent with her philosophical orientation. And this was while her husband and Brandon's then wife all lived in the same building. Her husband eventually drank himself to death.

So her philosophy of the virtue of selfishness was consistent, but the fallout to people she loved and cared about was tremendous.

Nathaniel Brandon of late has been lacing his comments with the famous quotation by Joseph Campbell: "Follow your bliss." This has caused people to buttonhole him about the whole idea of God, and he says that although Ayn would speak dismissively about "mystics", he is quite sure she never read a book about mysticism in her life.

I have never admired John Kenneth Galbraith, but in The New Industrial State he discusses a group that certainly would fit Ayn Rand's ideas, pure research scientists.

He explains that prior to the atomic bomb no self-respecting research scientist would have troubled themselves to consider what the ramifications of their discoveries might be. Pure research in and of itself, leading to the fruition of its value, was a high ideal that should not be molested.

Well, today of course we're dealing with genetic engineering, and soon, no doubt, people will be attempting to create human life in a test tube. Should this be scrutinized? Should monitors be placed on those creating Frankensteins and even more diabolical weapons systems than we have now? Or should the brilliant originality of the genius who conceives of them be left to pursue its own course outside of the criticism of people who could be affected by it?

So it all gets to be rather complicated, doesn't it?

Ayn also detested the Libertarian Party. I found this troublesome when I worked very hard for the election of Harry Browne. Ayn correctly envisioned the variety of marginal points of view that would flock to the idea that liberty was the only touchstone in order to ratify a campaign.

I have always been in agreement with Viktor Frankl, that the United States should have a Statue of Responsibility on the west coast to match the Statue of Liberty on the east coast. Liberty requires responsibility, and without it liberty can generate drug-ridden, maggot-invested, rock-n-roll superstars.

Incidentally, Gary Cooper never understood what Ayn was talking about. She worked with him time and time again, and he really wanted to get it, but in the end he just didn't have whatever was required to absorb the brilliant idea that she was advancing.

In the end, Ayn was a genius, and as I said, regrettably genius brings with it inherent flaws. And so the ultimate product is the genius along with the flaws. Still, Atlas Shrugged was a favorite in the Reagan White House, and Rand advanced an argument when the days were darkest for capitalism and individual initiative. And the genius of her vision will always be with us to draw from.

Note to Kate: I wish some of these subjects would not disappear so quickly. It discourages one from their best efforts.

I am a fan of Ayn Rand amd have been for a number of years. That being said, Rand's philosophy encounters the problem ulitmately encountered with every other philosophy, the concept of absolutism.

Phliosophies do not exist in a vaccum. While philosophically, A is A, in reality they are believe and carried out by imperfect men.

I find myself disagreeing with both Yianni and Kathy on this one. I too am a Christian, but I beleive that Rand's writings did point out humanists issues, particularly those of capitalism vs, statism exceptionally well.

The issue always comes down to absolutism. Are Rand's theories correct? They could be if you dont believe in a higher power. And if you do, do they still work? Yes.

The real issue, is that philosophy is not science. In order for any philosophy to truly work, the test subjects (man) would have to be absolutely perfect, whatever that may mean. Communism could work if it wasn't for those niggling little feelings that imperfect men sometimes get, the feelings of freedom and ambition.

I understand that from Rand's viewpoint, there can be no compromise. It has to be absolute. If not, then she would have been seen as, at lest inconsistent, at worse, utterly inept.

That's the same belief systems in general. For instance, Christ spoke only about two hours that has been recorded in the Bible. But from those two hours have come 34,000 different versions of Christianity, everything from Catholocism (and every order in it) to Rev. Fred Phelps and the Westboro Baptist Church that teaches us "God Hates Fags".

The problems arise when one professes to know all, and tries to convince others. In actuality, we know nothing.

And that fine by me...

Yanni, that's PWNED (you are showing your age ;)

In response to Kate's update: I think her point was that the average is not the median, and so it is wrong to say that by definition 49% of a given population will be under the average, as her example shows (in her example, 33% of the population (the IQs 100, 130, 150) is under the average IQ of 127). Indeed, by definition, half the population is beneath the median, not the mean. But Kathy's point holds for a high sample, since if we assume an even distribution about the mean, and a very large sample, the mean and the median converge, and then it's safe to say that 49.99% of the population will have a below average IQ. So Kathy is right practically speaking, but Kate is right technically speaking.

N Branden has since revised his original book Judgement day, as many of the people in that book complained it was fiction, as for Frank O Connor I think he was 80 something when he died...
The point about absolutism is that death is final and that reality is real but our understanding of it maybe revised and that ideas have consequences for example, all collectivism leads to death and destruction now that is absolutism.

Fr Brian Stanley said

Roark the architect was willing to use laborers, financiers and others to achieve his personal goal, without acknowledgement that the essential contribution of those others represent their investment in that goal, which Roark would never accede to having become a "common" goal. No, emphatically, it was all his, as the project was all about him. What rot.

Stanley, no one was using anyone. Don't you think that the labourers and financiers are also using Rourke to their own ends. Were the labourers slaves who were forced to do what Rourke them to do, or did they do it of their own free will. Rourke, as an architect sold his design skills, the labourers sold the strength of their backs in an act of capitalism between consenting adults. Everyone has their won agenda.

I used to work as an electrician, and have done on many large projects. No one forced me to, I was very happy to work for my pay check and pay my mortgage and support my family. The architect may have designed the building because thats what he needed to do for his ego. My ego is satisfied with being a good father and husband. The architect used me to his ends, I used him to mine. We both had different goals. His were met with my skills, mine were met with the paycheck I earned from his skills.

Despite the fact that I didn't work as an electrician for ego satisfaction, I still proudly point out buildings that I worked on when I drive around the city with my family.

mbaron,

That is the same point I made. But you must know that todays workers ... having gone through the government school system, are all 'special' and feel that they should be as important as the people who sign their paychecks.

In their world, the bricklayer is as important as the architect. Granted they need each other, but my guess is that there are a lot more bricklayers than Architects.

If the building falls down, it is not the bricklayer who takes the hit. It's guy with the ... what is called ... oh yes ... responsibility .... that would be the architect.

I am always amazed at how much the average Joe resents the idea that the guy who owns the company he works for makes so much more money than he does. But then, that's all part of the "just society" mantra. All things must be fair an equal. Everyone gets a ribbon for merely showing up. Why should the guy who sacrificed and risked everything and provided jobs for others get more.

I am with you where you have every right to feel proud to have participated in a lofty project, but that you have the courtesy to acknowledge that the idea and brains behind it belonged to someone else.

I have never envied people who have a lot more than I have or that are much smarter, I salute them. It's good to know that I am not the standard by which everything is judged. If that were the case I would be frightened too.

However, I am already frightened when I observe the stupidity of out present day politicians and realize how much power they now have over our lives. Selling collectivism, got them where they are. The general poplulation who buys their BC frighten me even more.

It was the faithful gave power to the Spanish inquisitors, just as the faithful are blowing the world up for Allah. It's all the same group think. It always leads to mindless acts of violence and conflict and never ends.

A belief is not a fact. The more we actually know, the less we have to believe. You cannot 'know' something without evidence that it is true. That is a simple fact that collectivists and religionists ignore. And always at their peril.

Misery, they name is collectivism.

The Greek says, "The problems arise when one professes to know all, and tries to convince others. In actuality, we know nothing.

And that fine by me..."

A classic error in thinking, because we don't know everything therefore we know nothing. What utter hogwash.

We know a great many things from how to cure certain diseases to sending a man to the moon. The fact that we haven't cured all disease or visited all the planets does not change what we do know or how we came to know it. It was man's mind that discovered these things and figured them out. It was not a 'gift from god' or the state that uncovered the absolute facts of reality that make these things possible, it was thinking human minds following a rational methodology.

"And while pure Ayn Rand objectivism is a utopian notion, it is an important philosophy to study and understand, as it so pointedly demonstrates the utter immorality and intellectual bankruptcy of both relativism and socialism."

A caller once asked Harvey Mansfield on C-Span what he thought about Ayn Rand.

What he said.

Speaking as a founding member of the Libertarian Party of Alberta, in 1972, I personally never made it through Atlas Shrugged, or the Fountainhead, though I tried a few times. But then, I don't like fiction much in the first place. My favourite Rand work is "Objectivist Epistemology", and I also thought that "The Virtue of Selfishness" and "Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal" were excellent.

Ms. Rand's problem (from my perspective) is that as a novelist she had a (for me) disconcerting ability to detach from (what I see as) reality. I was much more impressed by the reasoning of her colleague and sometimes close associate, Mr. Branden, whose twelve essay series "Objectivism" I originally heard on vinyl. For those of you who are interested, there is an excellent interview with Mr. Branden, largely about Ms. Rand and their relationship, available here: wiredforbooks.org/nathanielbranden/index.htm

In a thread shortly following this one, Kate references some of the works of Mr. Den Beste. I highly recomment his essay "I am an ethical cynic" - denbeste.nu/essays/cynic.shtml - which covers a number of interesting matters relating to the limits of applying any single philosophical approach unthinkingly, including extremist libertarian utopianism.

Of course, we wouldn't have those sorts of problems if we just put engineers in charge of everything ;-)

Does an objectivist become a rugged individualist, accountable and answerable to no-one, before or after he gets out of poopy diapers?

The antecedent of the syllogism in your question is false, Richard, therefore its consequent is irrelevent.

bravo Yanni exactly as I feel too.

Ha... Dick Ball Said "Poopy"....
Guess where he falls in the IQ balance!

"poopy diapers"?????? How dare you Rick. They can't use diapers anymore.Just 1 sheet of TP.Why, I am soooo angry,I think I'll just go sit in the corner and have a temper tantrum until you come clean my butt!

On any given day Kathy is bristling, with a highly individualized and unique eloquence, and with passion and humour, against the rising tide of state collectivists who wish to alter our language and our western rules of engagement with enforced group-think stupidity. So I'm surprised she wasn't even a bit stirred by the sentiments expressed in the clip.

49% of the population is below average. Kathy stated -- and I agree with her, in large part -- that "they require a great deal of shoving this way and that to make them do the right thing, in the form of laws, social stigma, and so forth."

But what if they are the ones doing the shoving? What if their laws, their social stigmas, rule the day? Would "law" have that same nice ring to it?

What if those who wish to force collectivism on everyone see in the stupid/outraged not people who need guidance, but a political force to be harvested and put to use against recalcitrant individuals who are not stupid?

Looking at the lessons of the last century, it's obvious that enforced, large-scale collectivism has been unparallelled, in both its desire and capacity, to run roughshod over any groups -- Catholics, Buddhists, Protestants, etc -- who might best provide reasonable guidance to the "stupid".

I personally believe that enforced collectivism is an ascendent force in the dissolute West, and a grave danger, so I guess it's not surprising that I found the courtroom clip to be stirring and eloquent. I mean, it's not scripture, it's just an argument to be made that state collectivism is ominous and absurd in equal measure.

BTW, Ayn Rand's personal life is about as relevent, in the specific context of Kate's presentation of them, to Howard Roark's arguments as the applied schemings of a pedophilic priest might be to the tenets of Catholicism. Surely ideas can be considered without pointing out the private failures of those who posit them.

Richard's piece is superb, and acute, and insightful. Those who make collective claims on behalf of future humanity can indeed be clearly seen, at all times, to live fulsomely in the present, for themselves. Their attempts to reassemble their dissolute selves by constructing a social machine with power over others is actually disgusting, and must be resisted at all costs.

If things were to get to the point -- and it doesn't seem all that far off, at times -- where all doctors would be required to perform abortions, under penalty of charges that to do otherwise would be to violate women's rights to their own body, or priests required by law to perform weddings ceremonies for gay couples, or siblings, say, I suspect Kathy would see more clearly the value of the ideas in Roark's speech. Again, it's not scripture, or counterforce to scripture, it's just a few important core ideas that are worth discussing.

Ayn Rand is a very poor substitute for reading Friedrich Hayek.

Farmer Joe,

That's merely your opinion. My point was that nobody's mind is being changed here today.

I'm fine with how little I know. I wasn't trying to convince others to think like me.

The fact is you think rational thinking has led to your conclusions when in fact, if you haven't done the scientific methodology, it's either hearsay or conventional wisdom.

There have been many things accepted as fact throughout the years that have later been debunked. Who knows... maybe your argument that there isnt a higher power my be debunked one day too....

WELL, AS ONE WHO HAS studied the design and application of IQ testing...

Essentially these tests were DESIGNED to set, as the average score, a score of 100. So yes, of course, the average person has an IQ of 100. This is theoretical, by the way, because in different countries, cultures, and time frames, this will not always be the case. But in Canada, it's about right. Now, IQ test scores show up as a 'bell curve' when you plot them. Most people are in the middle, with only a small percentage above IQ 130, or below IQ 70.

So yes, about 1/2 the popultaion is below 100, but that half is not retarded. Most people in that half are just below avereage, that's all.

It is clearly true that to understand complex intellectual problems, one's intelligence has to be quite a bit above average. Only a minority of the Canadian population reads ANY books for leisure. Fewer still read non-fiction, and fewer again read complex political theory, purely out of interest.

Such people tend to seek out each others' company, from common interest. They also tend to strongly over-estimate the prevalence of their own behavior in the population. It's actually quite rare.

Be aware that among Canadian adults, about 25% have a serious psyhopathology. It's not just a bunch of YOUR family members that are 'crazy' -- everyone has some. About 1% are schizophrenic.

ALSO, don't forget about the large % of the population which simply does not care about political philosophy. The top ten Google hits this week might include Shakira, but Ayn Rand will not appear in the top 10, ever.

Yanni:

Kudos for withstanding the personal attacks and eloquently expressing some of the principals of objectivism and libertarianism.

Johannes:

"Indeed, by definition, half the population is beneath the median, not the mean. But Kathy's point holds for a high sample, since if we assume an even distribution about the mean, and a very large sample, the mean and the median converge, and then it's safe to say that 49.99% of the population will have a below average IQ. So Kathy is right practically speaking, but Kate is right technically speaking."

Wrong again. There is no proof that intelligence is evenly distributed about the mean. In fact, I would assume the opposite, that there is a larger spread above the mean, but alas I have no proof.

Regarding the original comments from Kathy Shaidle:
"Many, many people are just stupid. By definition, 49% of the population is below average."
Oh, the irony that these two statements are joined together!

"They require a great deal of shoving this way and that to make them do the right thing, in the form of laws, social stigma and so forth."

This particular attitude is, in my opinion, dangerous. As William F. Buckley once said, he would rather be governed by the first 200 names from the Boston phone directory than any 200 Harvard faculty picked at random.

In general, some people will always attempt to assert more control over other people, and as long as this is true, libertarianism is unachievable in any pure form. However, it is a wonderful philosophy to live by.

The problem with collectivism is avoiding the transition from giving to others freely towards enforced redistribution and coercion. Sometimes it is a fine line. And many people do not even acknowledge the difference.

Wow greek you really take the cake. You believe in God, but sending man to the moon is hearsay.

The antithesis of freedom is not association, it is authority. The collective is not the enemy of individual liberty unless participation in said collective is non-volitional. Thus we have the notion of freedom of association.

This is a fine point I'm trying to make here, and I don't wish to denigrate anyone's contribution to the discussion above (which I must say I have appreciated and enjoyed), but your enemy is neither the collective nor the individual, it is the authoritarian.

That said, it is reasonable to consider also that in general humans have found over time and on balance that on occasion is it advantageous to delegate certain types of authority, within limits of course, not to put too fine a point on it.

So I would have to say, when all the vectors are factored in, that it is a matter of weighing, for any approach vector to the solution of any problem, the valuables produced by the approach in comparison to the valuables consumed by it. It is reasonable to cast aside those approaches which are either not practicable or offer very low returns.

The problem with the authoritarians is that they feel they are not subject to the matter of the axiological debates pertaining to the issues of value that I mentioned in the previous paragraph, and the problem with the anarchists (a fancy word for liberty extremists) is that they feel they are not bound by the value resulting from the interplay between association and (metaphorically) Reynold's scaling factors. (Actually, bureaucrats have problems with Reynold's numbers too, but let's leave that aside for now.)

Meanwhile, the rest of us try to work around those kinds of people, in various ways, such as avoidance, and war. It has always been so. And, so far, it has worked pretty well, over the millennia, improvement-wise, net net. So, if I may, I'd like to close with three quotes that I think are relevant to the competing directions in the domain of discourse we have at hand here.

A long time ago (as I mentioned, it has always been), Plato said that "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men". I agree. The public collective is always a threat to the good man, unless the collective is tamed by volition.

Now technically I'm a fiscal conservative and a social liberal (using the old meaning of the terms), so am I left or right? And this brings us to my second, more recent quote, from Mr. Ronald Regan:

"You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, 'The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits'".

In conclusion, I should like to note that freedom has a value, and association has a value, and the question of their balance is not theoretical, is is completely pragmatic: what is your value function? What is your utility? Don't look at me, I'm not you. Which brings us to my final quote from the great libertarian utilitarian, Mr. John Stuart Mill, who much to the chagrin of his father's best friend Mr. Bentham, said, in his essay On Liberty:

"Neither one person, nor any number of persons, is warranted in saying to another human creature of ripe years that he shall not do with his life for his own benefit what he chooses to do with it. All errors he is likely to commit against advice and warning are far outweighed by the evil of allowing others to constrain him to do what they deem his good."

You can read Mr. Mill's On Liberty here: www.bartleby.com/130

mbaron: Alan Greenspan was chairman of the fed, and the author of articles about the importance of the gold standard, which he conviently ignored once he was Fed chairman. Edward Greenspan is a Toronto lawyer.

Tom Wolfe's comment about Marshall Macluhan is equally appropriate vis-a-vis Rand: "He hit some very large nails not quite squarely on the head". She was quite right about many things, and quite wrong about others. Rape may, in fact, be exciting for specific women with specific men, but as a general way of relation between sexes, it's a non-starter. Still, I would like to see both The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged made as series for TV; both are too complex for a single movie.

Farmer Joe,

Thanks for your assesment, but like most things on the Internet, your opinion really doesn't matter to me, or anyone else for that matter.

You obviously have little ability to consider or understand points of view that aren't yours.

All the best...

Again you are in error Greek. Just because I reject your assertions and misrepresentation of Rands ideas (she never claimed to 'know all',merely that by following the right methodology knowledge is attainable) does not mean that I do not understand them. It is in fact because I do fully understand them that I reject them.

And if the things that I say or are that are on the internet don't matter to you, and that you are not here trying to change anyone's mind then why are you not only participating in an internet forum but responding to my posts? The question answers itself.

Nice try, Farmer Joe...

You obviously aren't deep enough to understand Rand, if you simply can't understand me...

Have a great day

Nice try, Farmer Joe...

You obviously aren't deep enough to understand Rand, if you simply can't understand me...

Have a great day

There was a study released sometime in the last few years, the name and source of which escapes me at this time. But essentially what the results referred to were these traits: those who are of average or lower intelligence will tend to think of themselves as of higher intelligent than they actually are, while those of high intelligence will tend to think of themselves as of a lower intelligence than is factual.

Based on my interactions with people throughout a long career in an *applied science* and production field, with supervision of a large number of diverse employees at times, and also based on my observations from birth to an advanced age, and into retirement, I would have to say the findings of that study were about spot on.

You can take that for what it is worth when digesting some of the assertions made in the posts preceeding this one.

As to the *average* debate you can consider this: half the drivers on the roads today are less competent than the median. And they go to great strides to prove it every day.

Greek said, "The real issue, is that philosophy is not science. In order for any philosophy to truly work, the test subjects (man) would have to be absolutely perfect, whatever that may mean."

The issue according to Rand (and I agree) is that in far to many instances philosophy is not treated as science. Applying non rational epistemology's to non existent metaphysics and then inexplicitly wondering why life becomes such a mess.

You seem to believe that no philosophy can work, yet every single one of us has a philosophy that we follow with varying degrees of success. You claim to be a fan of Rand's but obviously have never read her essay 'Philosophy who needs it' from the book of the same name which goes into this in detail.

It is not that people have to be 'perfect' for a philosophy to work but for the philosophy to acknowledge that it's purpose is for the benefit of people, not God, or the State, or the trees or whatever else one can imagine. And as such you treat people as people because as Rand has pointed out A is A. And you don't get very far pretending that A is B.

Oh yah, and...

Have a great day.

The Greek said, "Rand's philosophy encounters the problem ultimately encountered with every other philosophy, the concept of absolutism."

This is true, she did encounter the problem and also found an elegant solution. And it is this, truth is highly dependant on context. In the right context something can be absolutely true in the wrong context it is absolutely false.

Let's use the example of blood transfusions.

Can one transfer blood from one human being to another without any negative consequences? The answer is both true and false depending upon the context.

We have through the use of the scientific methodology and process through the year's learnt that it is true when you match up all of the blood types, RH factors, and screen for blood born diseases. And that it is false when one fails to account for all of these factors.

The point being that contradictions do not exist in nature and that it is in our power to grasp and understand the world, because it is a rational one and we have the ability to think rationally. The rub is that we have to choose to do so and that it takes discipline, hard work, dedication and a ruthless devotion to the facts of reality to connect all of the dots.

Funny how a well proven methodology that can produce life saving blood transfusions, antibiotics, vaccines etc. is rejected by so many people when it comes to philosophy.

It is so much easier to just throw up ones hands and state 'we know nothing' like you Greek.

And discussing the matters of a deity, I won't waste my time because it is a non-entity we are dealing with here....I don't foist my Atheism on others,...

But, but, you just did. Why else point out your views?

I see no reason to love and care for people whom I don't know.

Presumably you present your views here for some other reason.

Farmer Joe,

Me thinks thou dost protest too much...

Who are you trying to convince of your opinion? Yourself?

What's the matter Greek? Worried that the arguments make too much sense, and that others are reading them? I thought you said you didn't take any of this serious since it was on the 'Internet'. That it just doesn't matter.Yet you just can't pull yourself away can you?

It's too bad your arguments are nothing more than simplistic and fallacious personal attacks. But what can one expect from someone who doesn't think that truth or knowledge are possible. One wonders how such people remember how to tie thier own shoelaces let alone operate a keyboard.

But by all means do keep trying. Maybe you just haven't found the right insult yet.

Farmer Joe,

You have some serious issues. Now re-read your post and try applying what you claim to your actions.

Seek some help... please

So you have no problem dishing it out, but obviously can't take it. Poor little Greek, did I hurt your feelings?

No, not at all... By your posts and your ranting, you are obviously a fool.

I feel pity more for you than anything...

All the best...

Coming from someone who himself admits he knows nothing that means so very little. However did you come up with a standard by which to make such a judgement? Let me guess, it must have been divine inspiration.

No, by reading your posts. It's not unlike a temper tantrum a child would have. I disagree with you, yet you feel the need to try to convince me and other here of your point of view. Can you not just walk away and leave it at that?

But your insistence of trying to prove yourself right, while denegrating me (and by proxy, millions of other who believe in a higher power) shows that you are indeed a fool.

Now, I think even you would consider yourself not as intelligent as Albert Einstein, but here are a few of his gems...

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

So arguably the world's greatest physicist believes there is room for rational though and God, not unlike what I think.

Time to grow up Farmer... The world is not black and white as Rand claims.

BTW, I am staring at number of books on my bookshelf right now including; Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, We The Living, For The New Intellectual, The Romantic Manifesto, and the Virtue of Selfishness.

I am familar with Rand's works, and I still disagree. Philosophy is not some sort of Pablum to be fed to the unthinking masses, not unlike what you have portrayed here. What makes you any different than the looters and the moochers portrayed in AS? You have taken what Rand as written as gospel and have refused to consider any other option. Is that what she meant by using one's mind? To blindly follow?

I also have a copy of the Bible on the same bookshelf, and I don't believe everything that was written in that either.

But I do believe in the intent of both Christ's words and Rand's words.

I'm tired of playing with you. You talk a big game, but are unable to think outside the ideological box you have formed about yourself.

Thus, comes my reasoned opinion, that you are indeed a fool.

Good luck with everything in your sheltered existence...

I am ending my portion of this delightful conversation. No sense in chatting with someone who lives by the credo "my way or the highway".

You have been bested...

You have got to be kidding?

You are the one who is obviously trying to convince themselves. You have claimed to be done with me a number of times already and just keep coming back for more.

And you are such a hypocrite to boot. I have no problem if other people want to believe in God as long as they don't try to jam those belief's down my throat. But you seem to have a big problem with those of us who don't and have done more than your share of name calling and denigration. Respect is a two way street, that you have trouble driving down.

You claim to know nothing, and have a problem with absolutes yet you clearly have an absolute belief in a god of which there is no physical evidence. And you offer no proof(because there is none,it's called it faith for a reason)you just take other peoples word for it and 'believe' because it makes you feel good. Your rationalizations are laughable.

Since you believe in the 'intent' of Christ's words lets have a look.

How's about those good ol Christian family values?

"For I am come to SET A MAN AT VARIANCE AGAINST HIS FATHER, AND THE DAUGHTER AGAINST HER MOTHER, AND THE DAUGHTER IN LAW AGAINST HER MOTHER IN LAW. And a MAN'S FOES SHALL BE THEY OF HIS OWN HOUSEHOLD."

-Matthew 10:35-36

If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

-Luke 14:26

"Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

-Luke 12:51-53

I just feel the love all over after reading those.
And what about that warm fuzzy peace on earth thing?

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace but a sword."

-Matthew 10:34

"Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one."

-Luke 22:36

What's the Christian word for Jihad?

"But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."

-Luke 19:27

Greek why don't you do everyone a favour and follow the advice of this piece of scripture.

"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hyprocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

-Matthew 6:5-6

Looks like your Lord might just be thinking of you as a hypocrite himself for coming out of the closet like this.

In the words of Stewie Griffin, "Victory is Mine!"

Have a faith filled life Greek.