What Liberals Don’t Understand About Ayn Rand

[MARIS61]

Simply not true.

Regulation of markets makes them not free and enables businessmen to block entry to others.

That, in fact, is the theme of Atlas Shrugged.

Do you even read the stuff you link to?

The quote is from your article, which you are now arguing is BS.

Your "rebuttal" is nonsense, BTW.

 

[Denny Crane]

Do you even read the stuff you link to?

The quote is from your article, which you are now arguing is BS.

Your "rebuttal" is nonsense, BTW.

The word "avarice" does not appear in the article even once. So much for it being some quote. Maybe you should read the article.

Again, a free market is a free market. It's when the govt. regulates and businesses buy congressmen that the free market becomes regulated, distorted, and govt. acting on behalf of the incumbent businesses.

The very types who lobby business for regulations that harm their competition are the villains in Ayn Rand's books.

 

[mobes23]

Near as I can tell, conservatives misinterpreting Rand seems like a bigger problem than how the liberals view her.

 

[Denny Crane]

Near as I can tell, conservatives misinterpreting Rand seems like a bigger problem than how the liberals view her.

Exactly how do conservatives misrepresent Rand?

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Exactly how do conservatives misrepresent Rand?

They think she had something worthwhile to say.

 

[mobes23]

Keep in mind, the only time I ever even discussed Rand was in college, so my sampling is basically anecdotal. First off, someone already said it, but liberals generally don't give a rip about Rand one way or another...call it a misinterpretation or apathy, but either way most liberals that I've known don't do anything with Rand. So does it really matter if it is misinterpretation or apathy?

As far as conservative types go, Rand very frequently gives them a license to be an asshole (talking mainly about the virtue of selfishness here). They treat Rand in an almost religious way, as if she has somehow has rationalized that their asshole ways are justified. I've seen a few hardcore Rand types that are self starters that are motivated by her in a generally positive way, but more often than not when I hear Rand mentioned, it's associated with one asshole move or another.

In short:

Liberal: Rand = interesting author perhaps worthy of a read = no impact on their motivations/actions
Conservative: Rand = atheistic godlike figure = asshole license that definitely impacts their motivations/actions

 

[Denny Crane]

I can't argue with what your perception is from your anecdotal experience.

Mine is that few conservatives talk about Rand at all. Libertarians do, and they're the most consistent (and correct, IMO) in their political philosophy.

Personally, I've read a lot of detail about Objectivism and find it fine. I've read about Utilitarianism, too, which is more in sync with my own views of things. J.S. Mill is a must read, IMO.

And what you say about Rand and conservatives I find is true of FDR and progressives. The guy had a LOT of faults, particularly when it came to racial issues, and his policies were literally lifted from the Nazi Party Platform of 1920. Read it here: http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf

 

[mobes23]

Yeah, as far as I'm concerned, it's all good with people that understand Rand well on an intellectual level. It's the people that hold her up in a way that borders on religious that make me sick to my stomach. Strong proof on what a geek I am, I had a good, crazy smart buddy in college and we'd semi-frequently hang late night as parties were winding down belligerently talking Rand. That we weren't out trying to get lucky instead is one of life's regrets lol

Edit: yeah, we also had some On Liberty thrown in those discussions and it is good stuff.

 

[Rastapopoulos]

Personally, I've read a lot of detail about Objectivism and find it fine. I've read about Utilitarianism, too, which is more in sync with my own views of things. J.S. Mill is a must read, IMO.

You realize that John Stuart Mill would be appalled and disgusted by Ayn Rand, right? And that he was an actual genius while she was a shrill hack?

 

[Denny Crane]

You realize that John Stuart Mill would be appalled and disgusted by Ayn Rand, right? And that he was an actual genius while she was a shrill hack?

They're both genii.

And you might come up with a reason Mill would be appalled by Ayn Rand.

Every one of our founders would be appalled by what the nation has become.

 

[barfo]

They're both genii.

And you might come up with a reason Mill would be appalled by Ayn Rand.

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of Rand-y was particularly ill.

Every one of our founders would be appalled by what the nation has become.

Bullshit. I'd bet every one of them would be tremendously impressed. The country was a pretty much a shithole when they ruled the land.

barfo

 

[MARIS61]

Bullshit. I'd bet every one of them would be tremendously impressed. The country was a pretty much a shithole when they ruled the land.

barfo

this.

 

[MARIS61]

The word "avarice" does not appear in the article even once. So much for it being some quote. Maybe you should read the article.

The quote is the part in italics.

The comment about it by me is not.

Maybe you should learn how to post quotes rather than just cut and paste entire articles.

 

[oldmangrouch]

Businessmen like free markets until they get into a market; once they are in it they want to block entry to others.

This is why true free markets can never exist. The avarice of businessmen will always necessitate regulation.

Simply not true.

Regulation of markets makes them not free and enables businessmen to block entry to others.

That, in fact, is the theme of Atlas Shrugged.

I find it interesting that you are both defining the issue as capitalist vs capitalist. When Bill Gates and Steve Job have a dispute, I find it very hard to care. If one of them defrauds the consumer or illegally dumps toxic waste - I DO care. In those situations, who is going to deal with the problem if not the big, bad government? In the absence of law (or morals, if you prefer), capitalism becomes purely predatory.

 

[MARIS61]

I find it interesting that you are both defining the issue as capitalist vs capitalist. When Bill Gates and Steve Job have a dispute, I find it very hard to care. If one of them defrauds the consumer or illegally dumps toxic waste - I DO care. In those situations, who is going to deal with the problem if not the big, bad government? In the absence of law (or morals, if you prefer), capitalism becomes purely predatory.

That was my point also.

 

[Denny Crane]

John Stuart Mill, of his own free will,
On half a pint of Rand-y was particularly ill.



Bullshit. I'd bet every one of them would be tremendously impressed. The country was a pretty much a shithole when they ruled the land.

barfo

That's why they cried, "give me socialized medicine or give me death?"

 

[mobes23]

That's why they cried, "give me socialized medicine or give me death?"

It's a credit to where we are today as a society that we can focus on making healthcare affordable/available to everyone. Your comparison of today's issues versus issues at our countries founding is irrational. Obviously, there are values that were important to our founders that are still important to us, but to say a current issue is unimportant because it wasn't important then makes no sense.

 

[Denny Crane]

It's a credit to where we are today as a society that we can focus on making healthcare affordable/available to everyone. Your comparison of today's issues versus issues at our countries founding is irrational. Obviously, there are values that were important to our founders that are still important to us, but to say a current issue is unimportant because it wasn't important then makes no sense.

Socialized "anything" is contrary to Liberty.

While many of the founders favored public education, their idea of it was far from truancy laws and govt. run schools. Jefferson, for example, built a public school using his private money. The "public" nature of it was that it was open to "all" to enroll. "All" being free men.

They expressly prohibited direct taxation of the people in the Constitution. I don't think they'd like the IRS at all.

 

[barfo]

Socialized "anything" is contrary to Liberty.

This is the sort of quote that makes people think libertarians are extremist nutjobs.

While many of the founders favored public education, their idea of it was far from truancy laws and govt. run schools. Jefferson, for example, built a public school using his private money. The "public" nature of it was that it was open to "all" to enroll. "All" being free men.

They expressly prohibited direct taxation of the people in the Constitution. I don't think they'd like the IRS at all.

They wouldn't like not having slaves, or allowing women to vote, either. The idea that the founders had all the answers is preposterous. Worship of the founders is getting to be very much like worship of Jesus. Pretty soon you'll be telling me John Adams was born to a virgin.

barfo

 

[mobes23]

Socialized "anything" is contrary to Liberty.

While many of the founders favored public education, their idea of it was far from truancy laws and govt. run schools. Jefferson, for example, built a public school using his private money. The "public" nature of it was that it was open to "all" to enroll. "All" being free men.

They expressly prohibited direct taxation of the people in the Constitution. I don't think they'd like the IRS at all.

Again, I think it's a stretch to say what the founders would say about the world today. Education is a difficult example because it was not nearly as important at the founding. Taxation is also a very loaded issue because they were reacting against taxes by Great Britain and also the bulk of the power resided with states rather than the federal government. All of which makes constitutional law so difficult...the framers lived in a very different time and it can be difficult to interpret what they'd think about a lot of things that didn't exist then or have changed over time.

 

[Denny Crane]

Again, I think it's a stretch to say what the founders would say about the world today. Education is a difficult example because it was not nearly as important at the founding. Taxation is also a very loaded issue because they were reacting against taxes by Great Britain and also the bulk of the power resided with states rather than the federal government. All of which makes constitutional law so difficult...the framers lived in a very different time and it can be difficult to interpret what they'd think about a lot of things that didn't exist then or have changed over time.

So you're saying that we've diverged radically from their view of how things should be. That's my point.

 

[Denny Crane]

This is the sort of quote that makes people think libertarians are extremist nutjobs.



They wouldn't like not having slaves, or allowing women to vote, either. The idea that the founders had all the answers is preposterous. Worship of the founders is getting to be very much like worship of Jesus. Pretty soon you'll be telling me John Adams was born to a virgin.

barfo

Seems like anything not socialized is extreme to you. Eh?

 

[mobes23]

So you're saying that we've diverged radically from their view of how things should be. That's my point.

No, but I'm pretty sure you already knew that. It seems like this board is more about arguing for the sake of arguing rather than discussing ideas. It gets tired.

Many things in the world have changed since the founding, which should be pretty obvious.

In the 1700's, a person trying to earn their way in the world did not need an education to achieve success. In 2012, an education makes it MUCH easier (not required, just a lot easier) to earn your way. So, a framer of the Constitution would have a different view on education than they might if they saw the world today. This doesn't mean we have "diverged radically...from how things should be". It means education was less important in the 1780s than it is now, which would obviously impact how education is perceived, valued, funded.

On the education front, are you arguing that we should fund education to the extent we did when the Constitution was ratified because that's what the framers did?

 

[VanillaGorilla]

No, but I'm pretty sure you already knew that. It seems like this board is more about arguing for the sake of arguing rather than discussing ideas. It gets tired.

Many things in the world have changed since the founding, which should be pretty obvious.

In the 1700's, a person trying to earn their way in the world did not need an education to achieve success. In 2012, an education makes it MUCH easier (not required, just a lot easier) to earn your way. So, a framer of the Constitution would have a different view on education than they might if they saw the world today. This doesn't mean we have "diverged radically...from how things should be". It means education was less important in the 1780s than it is now, which would obviously impact how education is perceived, valued, funded.

On the education front, are you arguing that we should fund education to the extent we did when the Constitution was ratified because that's what the framers did?

He said "we've diverged radically from their view of how things should be" and you obviously left that part out to make your argument work. Don't do that.

 

[Denny Crane]

No, but I'm pretty sure you already knew that. It seems like this board is more about arguing for the sake of arguing rather than discussing ideas. It gets tired.

Many things in the world have changed since the founding, which should be pretty obvious.

In the 1700's, a person trying to earn their way in the world did not need an education to achieve success. In 2012, an education makes it MUCH easier (not required, just a lot easier) to earn your way. So, a framer of the Constitution would have a different view on education than they might if they saw the world today. This doesn't mean we have "diverged radically...from how things should be". It means education was less important in the 1780s than it is now, which would obviously impact how education is perceived, valued, funded.

On the education front, are you arguing that we should fund education to the extent we did when the Constitution was ratified because that's what the framers did?

On the education front...

Historically the education system rocked, though the segregation issue made that education system not so even. I in no way suggest that we should still have segregated schools, though there are studies that show all girls schools do a better job of educating girls, etc.

Ever since the dept of education was formed, the quality of education, as measured against what other nations do, has declined severely. At the same time, spending has increased almost 5x (in inflation adjusted terms), and per pupil spending is up 15x+ (in inflation adjusted terms).

So it's clear to me that spending more and spending HOW we spend isn't a good idea.

 

[mobes23]

He said "we've diverged radically from their view of how things should be" and you obviously left that part out to make your argument work. Don't do that.

Fine, but I don't think it makes a difference one way or another as far as my argument is concerned. I was just trying to shorten the quote, not trying to get fancy to make an argument.

 

[mobes23]

On the education front...

Historically the education system rocked, though the segregation issue made that education system not so even. I in no way suggest that we should still have segregated schools, though there are studies that show all girls schools do a better job of educating girls, etc.

Ever since the dept of education was formed, the quality of education, as measured against what other nations do, has declined severely. At the same time, spending has increased almost 5x (in inflation adjusted terms), and per pupil spending is up 15x+ (in inflation adjusted terms).

So it's clear to me that spending more and spending HOW we spend isn't a good idea.

Isn't the pertinent comparision how the founders funded education back in the 1700s?

 

[Denny Crane]

Isn't the pertinent comparision how the founders funded education back in the 1700s?

I don't think education funding methods changed through the 1960s.

 

[Eastoff]

Any opinions on the movie "Waiting for 'Superman'?"

 

[mobes23]

I don't think education funding methods changed through the 1960s.

Hmmm. Earlier you were talking about the founders and I assume you mean the founders of our great country, which means we'd be talking about how education was viewed in the 1700s. But maybe we should just drop it all and enjoy the last days of summer lol?