Goddess of the Market Author Jennifer Burns on Ayn Rand

[luminorguy]

Ayn Rand was one of the most extraordinary people in human history. Dr. Burns does a great job of explaining the essence of her work, and its significance to our humanity on this planet. Thank you, Dr. Burns.

[kropotkinbeard1]

The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/­2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an­_american_icon.html

[mkloppel]

I am an Objectivist. An Atheist. And a leader within my local TEA party. I may have some disagreements with theists but thats not why we work together, we work together on the grounds we have in common and put aside our differences while not leaving our principles at the door.

If you are an atheist and scared of the TEA party you shouldn't be, work with them and you will realize they can be persuaded to keep the religion personal and not governmental. This is important for our future.

[TimothyBragan]

It's probably just me but. Burns has somewhat of a bitchy leftard vibe to her.

[natritious1]

@TimothyBragan yeah especially her criticism of "I was rooting for her to overcome some things..." vagueness was annoying

[dduppie]

will to power... does she equate rand with nietzche?

[TimothyBragan]

@dduppie rand was obviously influenced by nietzsche

[Bigturns33]

She talked about Alan Greenspan... He quickly went in the other way of objectivism. When Nathaniel Branden first introduced Greenspan to rand, she was very put off buy him. They later developed a friendship but later on Greenspan went in the way from Rand and Mises principles.

[Wejer3]

Anyone who calls Ayn Rand, an atheist, a "Godess of the market" cannot have done a very through research. The first 30 seconds, with her stating that one does not *need* (on what standard?) to understand her deeper philosophical motivations for capitalism, confirms that her mind is passive and cannot take in the truth that is staring her in the face.

[Joem734]

Are you suggesting she is unaware of her atheism?

The point she is making is about the rough edges of Rand, and there were many. I loved that about her but many have a tough time throwing themselves behind Rand because of those things. Rand's explanations about selfishness, for example, are going to turn many off.

But, to use a cliche, you don't have to throw the baby with the bath water. That was her point. Leaders of the American right did, however, seem to do just that.

[Wejer3]

Obviously, you do not know even know what "selfishness" means. Let me suggest you to read "The Virtue of Selfishness" by Ayn Rand.

Until you have the book, you can find some quotes by searching for "Ayn rand lexicon" + selfishness at *Google*

[Joem734]

I'm well aware. Of course I have read the book. I have probably read 90% of everything she has put to paper. And, it seems you don't understand what I wrote previously.

[Wejer3]

Since you spoke in floating abstractions without defining your concepts, yes I would say that what you say either 1) makes it hard to understand how you think (if at all), or 2) the sign of you evading some crucial link in your logic.

Either way, you better rehearse yourself: you can find some quotes by searching for "Ayn rand lexicon" + selfishness at *Google*

[Joem734]

Why do you continue to ask me to google her? I have probably read 90% of every word she has published.

[Wejer3]

Because if I post a URL, google/youtube blocks my post. Otherwise, I would gladly make life easier for you.

[Joem734]

Oh, you just didn't get what my initial post meant.

[Sam26100]

The title I think is intended to draw people in, your criticizm doesn't apply to the book necessarily

[DukeAlba]

I think calling her Goddess of the Market was just a nice title mostly because she was such a champion of laissez-faire free market economics. It doesn't necessarily conflict with her atheism.

[TheFlamingNuns]

oh my gosh calm down. this lady knows way more about ayn rand than you do. and Goddess is just a metaphor. And you spelled it wrong.

[npina]

@TheFlamingNuns

this woman knows nothing about Ayn

[Jaspian]

Burns is wrong.

Selfishness IS a virtue.

[fomastephanovitch]

It's a good reason to explore things for yourself instead of listening to the herd.

[grantsinmypants2]

Whenever I hear conservatives trying to make religion and capitalism get along, I think about how porn stars behave when their fans get too pushy. They spend all their time encouraging their fans to pretend that they have a real relationship with them, and then when they "cross the line", they loudly start lecturing them about how it's all just fantasy.

They deal in contradictions, and spend all of their lives performing a balancing act...

[grantsinmypants2]

... It's the same thing with conservatives. They try and try and try to make religion and altruism the basis for individualism and capitalism (all while the country gets more and more socialist), and it never happens. All one can conclude is that they're in the game for power.

It's much easier to be a Beltway intellectual who, to quote Rand, slings ideas for a living, than it is to get a real freaking job.

[handselecta]

Did she sa y "herstorical context?"

[pulpBleacher]

Please, I've read A. Rand writtings, while she makes valid points throughout some historical backgrounds, her main objectivity was still state controls to contain entrepenureship. I dismiss her as a inside thinker. Unfortunately I've never met a woman economist who actually understands the business cylce and the casual-realist approach. Simply, they just do not get it. See Suze Gorman.

[spamsponge]

Did I see a "Quite spending..." sign?

[TheXroadr]

You can take the girl out of Russia but you can't take the Russia out of the girl. Forget the words, look at the practical results, she was a totalitarianist.

[gjsterp]

Do a google search and read and watch some of her videos.

While we may not believe in everything she says, it will make you think and ask questions.

In other words, seek more education.

[yocanbanconit]

The lighting on the guest is a disaster. Shame on Reason tv for such an amateur effort.

[spamsponge]

I dunno about "disaster", but it may simply be the lock of hair casting a shadow on her face. Switching the positions around might have helped.

[greenghost2008]

lol i supposed that was a very minarchist thing to say.

[yoshi3329]

Christian Libertarian?

There is wide agreement among conservative Christians that the Bible establishes three spheres of government: family, church, and state. If libertarians are anarchists how can the two ideologies co-exist?

[Joemantler]

As this is the first time I've heard of the "three spheres", I would disagree that there is "wide agreement". If you have links that explain the 3 spheres, I'd love to see them.

Christian Libertarianism works like this: I own my soul, you own yours. If you want to engage in acts I see as sinful, but take place between two consenting adults, I should not use the Gov't's police powers to prevent you from doing so. (con't)

[Joemantler]

I can, however, choose on whatever basis I prefer who I will or won't associate with, hire, fire, do business with, or dissuade others from doing the same. Thus, you can bring social pressures against something you disagree with without using the force of government.

Keep in mind that these sinful behaviors, according to who is speaking, might include drinking alcohol, wearing shorts, dancing, women exposing themselves (not wearing a burka), etc...

[fomastephanovitch]

"Quite spending our hard earned money".

Love the signs!

That one would have been written by a conservative, libertarians should have nothing to do with such dullards.

[mptfg]

Not bad, but the author completely misunderstand "self-interest". It IS a virtue.

[augenblick1]

Burns doesn't argue for or against the view that self-interest is a virtue. Rather, she is describing how when contemporary conservatives and libertarians read Rand, they can accept Rand's thinking on the market while ignoring or rejecting her moral views on selfishness. Burns isn't defending what SHE herself thinks; she's a historian describing how other people read Rand.

[Individualism101]

Oh lord, Rand must be spinning in her grave.

[cellardoor01]

Two libertarian females in one place? How has the universe not exploded yet?

[DeraJa]

Is Jennifer Burns an anarchist?

[somercet1]

And, BTW, Mangu-Ward and Burns are both "on" in this interview. Good job!

[somercet1]

I don't think of Rand's legacy as in politics, except second-hand. (I think Libertarians are weak tea, and under-achieving, compared to Rand. Rothbard is another matter.) Certainly, her defense of rational self-interest in the face of collectivism will survive and inform followers in that fight. I've only read her non-fiction, oddly enough. :-D I will read her novels, though, since I have an interest in romance fiction per se.

[Joem734]

Greenspan's actions certainly went against these beliefs. He was, however, one of the few people around Rand. Not inaccurate to mention him with Rand.

[jpchronic420]

Greenspan sold his soul to central banking. He knows its wrong, but the power was too much for him to resist. His essay in the objectivist newsletter is completely opposite to his actions of late.

[Joemantler]

I think the author makes a mistake tying Rand's desire for moral underpinning to religion; esp any particular religion.

[somercet1]

Since she was trying to replace religion, it makes sense to use religious terms to describe her efforts.

[Joemantler]

But the author made is seem as if Rand's concept of a moral underpinning meant a specific religion, stating that Libertarianism "...doesn't come with a built in morality. That's one of it's attractions to people. You could come in as a Christian Libertarian or a secular Libertarian or a Jewish Libertarian..." implying that this was exclusionary to Rand's concept of a moral underpinning.

[somercet1]

No, she wasn't claiming that Rand tied Objectivist morality to any religion. She said that Objectivism had it's own moral code and ethical philosophy, just as Christianity or Buddhism have, so that Objectivism is an entire approach to life *but* is exclusionary: you cannot be both strictly Christian and strictly Objectivist. But you can be Libertarian, or a classical Liberal, and a Christian/Muslim/Hindu/ad nauseum.

[CapitalistPhil]

This stupid woman has no idea what she is talking about.

[032125]

OK, now explain your statement, since you have chosen to run a drive by ad hominem without any explanation.

[Z14LDO]

What would she say about the cap & trade b/s.

[glennd7962]

As for religion, it's all made up crap to beging with, so all the threads on it are useless - they'll never listen to reason anyway. As for the philosophical point Ayn Rand makes about coercion and forcing one to pay charity, it's eminently sensible, but today's socialist-lite morons (who know nothing about what socialism actually is) just want to help everyone 40 years into the Great Society - how's it going for ya?

[Vodka2389]

This lady lost credibility when she said that Greenspan helped promote Rand's ideas throughout all these years. Makes me wonder whether she knows what she's talking about.

[glennd7962]

Greenspan was well known in Objectivist - and Libertarian - circles for a long time. Perhaps it is you who doesn't know what you are talking about?

[Vodka2389]

Greenspan is a central banker who recently blamed the crisis on capitalism. Calling him a proponent of free markets/freedom is rediculous.

[glennd7962]

Both our statements are true. he was very active in these movements in the past. He was also the head of the Fed, as well as holding several other positions in the Fed. I did not call

[corenothing]

what the heck, ain't weren't no Will to Power, but a Will for Life, young.

[Signofthedollar]

I bought her book, Goddess of the Market.  I agree that its author doesn't have to buy into the all of Ayn Rand's ideas, since she has own mind. That is the exciting thing about Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism is that it is not dogma. It demands that you use your brain. Jennifer Burns has written a very good book.

[LeGioNoFZioN]

thanks for the video, great conversation.

[MaterialGod]

The religious, from what I can gather, understand the genuine benefits of capitalism, but either because of their "morals", or because of their self-image in the eyes of the public with such "morals", they prefer to disassociate it from the Self as much as possible. They're thinking, they'll look like selfless servants of humanity and therefore more brownie points, so to speak. The public has a hypocritical streak as well: they never want to see another entity flaunting their selfishness.

[grraadd]

christianity speaks to our selfishness - helping others=earning points in heaven. That's OK.

You are doing good to others,because of your aim at the ultimate reward.There is too many priests who are praying to two gods at once and they are often preaching social equality and morality instead of christian ones...

Our civilisation was build on christian values:

freedom (free will), private property, wealth to be created and shared voluntary.

At least it's how I understand it... :-)

[MaterialGod]

The difference between religionists and those who aren't are that, as I see it, religionists aim for a reward upon death, while the non-religionists prefer to carpe the diem. This is life, right here on earth, and is not to be wasted. One helps someone if it is in his best interests, and never as a moral code in which you are less virtuous if you don't. Furthermore, the "helping others" argument begs the question, "Why help others but never your own?" And I do mean right here on earth.

[Joemantler]

It never hurts to believe that you can't get away with it, even if no one in this world catches you.

[eksortso]

@Joemantler In a real sense, we never do get away with it, because we ourselves know when we have done wrong. It's only psychopaths who feel no guilt, who cannot reflect upon their own thoughts and deeds. And looking at ourselves is hard enough as it is, because our senses are pointed outwards, and not normally inwards.

[MaterialGod]

(Cont'd) If I may channel some of my own outlook, I would say that precedence of the afterlife over life itself to be a rather self-degrading practice, Compulsion in the material world for "eternal life" in heaven is not my idea of an ideal exchange. Although there are those who say otherwise, I prefer one life here on earth because here I can really make an impact, I can achieve things, and most importantly, I know I'm human. To me, Heaven is a state of immaterialism and dehumanization.

[GlennJericho]

I think you are somewhat accurate in your observations, but I think on a deeper level, the religious portion of Rand's followers agree with her theory of government, but to a lesser extent her theory of morals. Consider Martin Luthers's essay "On Christian Liberty," where he posits that "[a] Christian is the freest Lord over all things and subject to no one. A Christian is a lowly servant to all things and subject to everyone." (continued below...)

[GlennJericho]

So he recognizes that men are inherently free, but are morally bound to help others in order to be truely good. But this cannot be done under government compultion, as he notes "A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring forth good fruit" and "that the fruit does not bear the tree, nor does the tree grow on the fruit; but, on the contrary, the trees bear the fruit, and the fruit grows on the trees." (continued below...)

[GlennJericho]

So men must act philanthropically under their own power, not from coersion from the government.

There are still large socialistic tendencies attached to Christianity today, but given this view on theology, Christians can still accept Rand's views on government to a reasonable extent today.

[djyankee251]

great interview! thanks reason

[MaterialGod]

(continued pt2) So, to say that you don't like the selfish, and thus praising the selfless, makes for a total lack of human initiative, projecting credit to those who don't deserve it, usually the state or an omniscient God, and it ends up as a socialism, or at least a collectivist/non-individualist state of its own.

[greenghost2008]

she says to not work with non-objectivist when tring to promote and implement objectivism. It's near impossiable to get elected to office like that.

[MaterialGod]

(continued) However, I tend to think that socialism works against the self, it needs a "serve all but you" morality to get across so people can feel good about it for that moment. Capitalists, true capitalists anyway, are in it for a reason: they espouse that the self is fine. There is nothing bad about selfishness and it can prove to be a virtue for it does so much for yourself, and when others recognize it, they can for themselves and not interfere with others.

[MaterialGod]

The thing is, if one does not take into account that selfishness is a virtue, while espousing the individualistic creativity Rand advocated, then it becomes a contradiction of sorts, I feel. "Unselfish individualism" doesn't feel right. Here is the problem, I feel, of today's conservatives claiming that capitalism is designed to "serve one's fellow man", which I feel is as bad as socialist ideas. At face-value, socialism can seem like a paradise, and it looks like serving one's fellow man.

[greenghost2008]

Am i the only one who agress with 95 percent of what rand said.(my only disagreement is her method of implementing objectivism.)(I'm willing to work with libertarians)

[Yarcofin]

Can we stop the Rand worshipping and choose another video topic already. Starting to look like a bunch of teabaggers.

[shlobb]

only thing were worshiping here is freedom, liberty, and rights....what are you worshiping?

[VVick3d]

The magazine is called Reason. It draws a lot from Rand and her ideas.

[mrzack888]

2 really nerdish book nerds. libertarians are hypocrites. they're for making stuff and saving and free market and neoliberal globalization free trade, but are against protectionism to protect America's manufacturing market.

[andristic]

it seems obvious that a novelist should be a flawed individual. what else to write about?

[EvilDandy]

I consider myself to be an Objectivist, though not a Randian. Rand's philosophical system was designed so interconnectedly that you cannot say, "I'll take the political points but not the moral points". Of course you can, but that's like saying "I'll take the car, but can you put in an engine designed for a weaker car?"

[ErikNikolai]

Ayn Rand herself had some substantial flaws, though her philosophy is near perfect. I wonder how influential it would be today, if it allowed for the existence of a "rational creator" rather than being so militantly atheistic.

[terpis]

@ 1:30 - Whit Chambers is right on that. She's fundamentally the great (and very shitty) poet of market fascism.

@ 3:54 - "enforcement of contracts" -- the dry, kill-you-with-a-fountain-pen euphemism for keeping the system gamed, and the (deracinated, aside of course from the hated Jew-lib'rul) nigger-people she saw as existing to eat elite shit.

[shlobb]

can you translate this into coherent English? I don't speak imbecile.