I liked the differentiation made between personal and social responsibility. Gary notes that Rand emphasized personal initiative, but separate from social responsibility. It seems the political left seized on at least part of this (It's the economy, stupid) while also trying to hold up social construction. What seems to be missing on all our parts is personal moral virtue, the kind that leads to altruistic behavior--caring for orphans, refugees and extremely ill--those who cannot yet contribute.
Thanks. Yes, while the left too often counts on govt to help those in need, the right often dismisses the need. As Rand famously wrote: "It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers...in a shipwreck [a man] should help his fellow passengers, though not at the risk of his own life. But this does not mean that after reaching shore, he should devote his efforts to saving [them] from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have."
As I noted earlier, Greenspan's ideas are quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. One of them shares her "reverence" for gold. Yet she made the dollar sign, of the Federal Reserve Note, the symbol of her religion, not gold. And the symbol at the head of her casket was reported the dollar sign, not a gold bar. Your reasoning is again conflicted, which would negate it as a legitmate philosophy according to Rand.
Garmoco: Are you open to the possibility that you could be wrong about your belief in god/christianity and your criticisms of the philosophy of Objectivism?
If your answer, deep down, to either of these questions is "no", then debate is futile. You are only interested in preaching, not learning.
If yes, what evidence or argument would it take for you to change your mind?
Asdaqwe: "Debate" no. Dialogue yes. Even Solomon "studied proverbs and honestly tested their truth" (Ecc. 12:9). I intended to inform Christians about O.ism from our worldview, not irritate O.ists. But dying depressed and lonely, as Rand did, doesn't appeal. Nor did O.ism serve Mike Milken. My dad was a Hank Reardon, distanced from his family by work. My mentor a Howard Rourke, brilliant but also distant. My wife a Dagney, loving but unable to sit a spell. O.ism got unconditional love?
Whoever claims "*unconditional* love" of Objectivism is not an Objectivist. If that were a pre-requisite of the philosophy, Rand would have only to make a claim and not go to the lengths that she did to try to prove it.
I do however know some other "philosophies" that require such unconditional adherence and allegiance.
Rhodes Scholar, billionaire and legendary "dean of global investing" Sir John Templeton told me: "My advice to a school of business management is to teach the manager to give unlimited love and he or she will be more successful," or be client-focused. Rand's "selfishness is a virtue" morphed into "shareholder maximization," which Jack Welch just termed the "dumbest idea ever." John even wrote a book entitled Agape Love, or unconditional love. Read it, as I read Selfishness. Then we can chat.
Your digression into personal examples is telling. You reveal why you have chosen idol worship of that which -- by definition -- can't be proved.
Note to other commenters (on YouTube or otherwise) who disagree:
This person is only interested in preaching to the choir (figuratively and literally), not debate. He believes he has already found truth and has willfully turned off the part of ones mind responsible for questioning ones own beliefs. Leaving only a shallow pit filled with bible quotes.
Danger: Thinking Christian!? Yes, I am free to determine truth by scripture, tradition, reason and experience. "Ayn says" isn't adequate when thirty years on the Street do not confirm "man is a noble being" or "the moral purpose of my life is productive achievement." Unlike you, I am free to learn from and quote Solomon as well as Rand. She must be crushed that you remind me of my fundamentalist friends who can't breathe w/o a Bible verse. Think for yourself! Live for others as yourself!
Note: Reality is the only authority, if one can even call it that. Rand is the author of Objectivism and therefore is its authority. However, for Objectivism to be true and useful, it must follow reality. Rand would be the first to agree -- as I bet you will, in an attempt to defend the bible.
In any case, further conversation is futile.
As *you* stated in your first reply: "Debate: no".
You demonstrate my primary fear about O.ism: half truths are more dangerous than untruths. I actually said "Debate: no. Dialogue: yes." Similarly, Rand taught the virtues of personal responsibility but sadly denounced social responsibility, resulting in the "lethal dose of strychnine" in the "glass of freshly squeezed juice." You guys are so anxious to debate, you can't have a civil dialogue about our differences. By definition, anger is not rational. At least be true to your half-truth.
Greenspan is not a capitalist. There is no capitalist country on Earth today.
Capitalism means the separation of state and economics - the very existence of a federal reserve disproves the idea that the USA is a capitalist state.
It is wholly ridiculous to substitute reason for faith - the two are incompatible.
Tito: Our Bible contains the Wisdom literature. Jesus said to love with heart, soul and MIND. We do not reject the mind. We simply know there is evil genius and the human mind is quite limited, as PhD's prove daily on Wall Street. But thanks for being reasonable rather than angry toward me. Rand would approve. And as I said in the video, she had a couple things right (glass of freshly squeezed juice), as Karl Marx did. I simply do not believe giving an even break is impoverishing to markets.
The bible contains not a single connection between idea and reality. It is not on the same grounds as any secular philosophic textbook because it assumes the reader will accept anything written inside it on faith - without proof or appeal to logic - excluding it from rational debate.
Even if in the bible, Jesus said the same things as Ayn Rand, it would not make it valid. Rand's philosophy is unique in that it is scientific, tied to reality.
From this, Rand proved that man has certain rights
Tito: I can see why Rand and Branden despised humility. Wow. So reality came into existence with Rand during this century? Gosh, and I wasted all that time studying Greco-Roman history, as your friend Grants suggested. So the Founding Fathers were wrong that we had certain inalienable rights before Rand handed them down?
YouTube doesn't offer a zero-star rating, so it's a good thing you disabled the ratings.
Perhaps Mr. Moore should actually READ Ayn Rand's work before he professes to know a single thing about her or her beliefs. Perhaps after doing so, he'll realize that Greenspan and the current financial crisis can in no way be linked to her.
If by some off-chance (he claims) he has read her work (which isn't apparent here), then his outright evasion of reality is quite astounding.
I assume those I quoted haven't read her either? Surely even you admit she was an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism. The 4/28 Financial Times featured an editorial by Henry Kaufman that began: "The Fed has been hobbled by at least two major shortcomings that were primarily responsible for the current and several previous credit crises. [Second] its commitment to laissez faire economics were big mistakes and justify fundamental overhaul of the Fed."
Anything that a central bank does is, by definition, a violation of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism.
That's just too obvious to miss.
You're simply afraid of Objectivism because it's positions on metaphysics and epistemology are the biggest threats to Christianity's destructive hold upon man's mind even created. So instead you're trying to slander Objectivism on a political and moral level so that no one will seek to understand the philosophy any deeper.
Last response to grantsinmypants2: You gotta get a job, as Rand directed! But thank you for validating my point about O being the biggest threat to Christianity ever. Most Christian leaders have considered Rand a lightweight, as Bill 'Buckley did, but perhaps they'll now pay attention as, apparently, when people don't believe the Truth of Christianity, they'll fall for anything. And I bet there will be dollars in Objectivist heaven as Rand will insist on it!
"Surely even you admit she was an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism."
Yes, I do. Which is why I know her ideas are in no way responsible for the financial crisis. Because there is no laissez-faire capitalism today.
Quoting the Financial Times does not make you or them right. In fact, that contradiction of a quote demonstrates how little they really know. Laissez-faire implies a COMPLETE seperation of state and economics. i.e. No Fed. So how can a Fed then be committed to laissez-faire?
Let me quote Rand herself, from The Meaning of Money: "To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history; a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America." You should read her. And she chose the dollar sign as the symbol of her reverence. How will objectivists worship the dollar if the Fed doesn't print them?
Please tell me you're kidding. The Fed was only established in 1913. Do you believe the Dollar is only 96 years old? Obviously not. Americans have been trading with Dollars (originally backed by gold) for centuries. Please do some research. Then MAYBE I'll continue this discussion.
America had many, many currencies over the years. But Rand didn't make any of them the symbol of her religion or have a symbol of them at the head of her casket. Take an objective, scientific look at your dollar, the one Rand reverenced, and you'll see the words "Federal Reserve Note."
Garmoco, you're wrong. Objectivists follow the Austrian School of Economics. See Objectivist Economist, George Resiman, or the now famous, anti-Fed, Austrian Economist, Peter Schiff (who predicted the crash). Note that in his book, Crash Proof, he recommends, Ayn Rand's book: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Read,The Virtue of Selfishness, and you'll see that Moore replaces Rand's meaning for today's pejorative meaning.
Finally, an intelligent response. Yet my mentor Sir John Templeton, a Rhodes Scholar and dean of global investing about whom I wrote two books, was a member of the Mount Pelerin Society. Yet he had no objection to my contrasting his worldview with that of Rand. John knew the central question is whether selfishness is a virtue or vice. My books cite Rand's shipwreck from the Virtue of Selfishness as I cannot believe our soldiers and firemen in the Trade Center were immoral as they sacrificed.
Stop aiming at this admittedly lightweight messenger and you may eventually see why heavyweights like the Library of Congress, The Economist, The Financial Times, Worth, professors and some Nobel-level economists see clear connections between Rand, Greenspan and our current crisis. At least you're thinking about it. All I ask. Thanks for your interest.
Maybe if you had paid a little less attention in church, and read maybe one or two books about our Greco-Roman heritage you would realize that you just used the elementary fallacy of appeal to authority; identified - over 2500 years ago - by Socrates if I recall correctly.
Besides, religionists regard all of those "authorities" as anti-Christian, liberal media.
If you're going to appeal to authority, at least appeal to one that you claim to respect. Pitiful.
Second reply to Grants: I have a degree in political science and was an advisor to Jack Kemp. I began the seminar by describing the Greco-Roman heritage which, along with Judeo-Christianity, shaped the West. I also detailed the biblical approach to political-economy. Will send it to you if you give me your address. But again I ask, why do Randists read her books, appeal to the authority of Objectivism, and quote Piekoff, etc., rather than reason their way to their own philosophy? Contradictory?
I can say with all honesty that this video has not one grain of truth regarding Rand. But my question is, why the appeal to authority? That is not an intellectual argument. Yes I have heard the supposed connection of Greenspan to Objectivism all over the place. But all people ever point out is Greenspan's fleeting encounter with Rand, not bothering to analyze the policies he supported and matching them up with Objectivist principles.
Reply to Randroid: You appeal to the authority of Rand even in your email address! If reason is sufficient and Revelation unnecessary, wouldn't each Randist reason his or her way to Objectivism without her writings? She simply substituted herself for God; John Galt for Jesus Christ; the dollar sign for the Cross; and Atlas Shrugged for the Bible. If the highest compliment is imitation, even she unwittingly admired Christianity. Oh yes, do Randists read the Bible before denouncing it?
You seem to be conflating two aspects of refutation when people are discussing issues. One is when a person would cite an authority for specific quotes or information on a given topic. The other is citing an authority in order to stop the discussion altogether, and this is what you have done in your previous comment above. I have seen/heard most of those critics of Rand whom you quote in your presentation, however because of my understanding of Objectivism I know they are superficial critiques.
Third response to Randoid: That's the beauty of constructing reality purely according to your own reason; you don't have to believe anyone who disagrees with you. And that, my friend, is why the world is now in a credit crisis. Alan Greenspan didn't allow any more dissent at the Fed than Rand did in her cult. Why don't you think rather than rely on your "understanding of Objectivism"?
I will not argue this point, I will simply state for the record that Objectivism is not the mirror of religion. O.ism is not a faith, does not teach dogma, is not revealed truth from on high, and can never properly be considered a cult. It's not rationalism that leads to the conclusion that G.span isn't an O.ist but an objective evaluation of his record.
I can understand Objectivists now running from Greenspan. Yet the Ayn Rand Lexicon included his writings. Leornard Piekoff, with whom I've enjoyed chatting, wrote the introduction for Harry Binswanger, the associate of Rand who edited it. Apparently, they had not yet grown to think of Greenspan the way you do. But of course, the human mind is prone remember the past to its own advantage. That's why you Objectivists now imitate we Christians who wrote our beliefs down millennia ago! Just kidding!
Greenspan's writings are in the lexicon because they are in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal which is a collection of essays put together by Rand under her own supervision during her lifetime. And there is nothing in those essays that Greenspan then wrote that is contradictory towards O.ism. They are O.ist principles applied to the field of economics. It is obvious from G.span's history at the Fed that he has distanced himself from O.ism and his own writings in those essays.
Reality forces you to conform a bit once you leave a cult for the real world. I actually feel some compassion for Greenspan as he's obviously a conflicted individual desperately trying to reconcile the hard lessons of a hard world to an unreal, utopian philosophy. If only the titans of Wall Street were as "noble" and "productive" for society as Rand imagined.
Your presentation is very thoughtful and provocative. It scares me actually! So much of the information isn't even realized or acknowledged yet it is so influential on so much of our lives. I wish that we Christians would be able to get back to Scripture's meaning and impact instead of letting our financial system being undergirded by such concepts by Ayn Rand.
Thank you Phyllis. Yes, morality abhors a vacuum too! Christianity abandoned the field of economic morality, focusing exclusively on sexual morality, and Rand filled it. Don't really blame the Objectivists as much as us. As you can see from the responses, at least they're passionate and knowledgable about the subject! They may get it wrong but at least they get the fact that love or money will make the world go round.
And they say that the Liberals and the Conservatives are enemies. What a laugh.
Alan Greenspan hasn't been an Objectivist or a capitalist for 40 years.
Printing money backed by nothing, dictating the interest rates at which money can be lent, and forcing banks to underwrite mortgages that are bound to default is NOT laizzes-faire capitalism and has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's philsophy.
Absolutely spot on!
loveghost1962 2 years ago
I liked the differentiation made between personal and social responsibility. Gary notes that Rand emphasized personal initiative, but separate from social responsibility. It seems the political left seized on at least part of this (It's the economy, stupid) while also trying to hold up social construction. What seems to be missing on all our parts is personal moral virtue, the kind that leads to altruistic behavior--caring for orphans, refugees and extremely ill--those who cannot yet contribute.
givingproject 2 years ago
Thanks. Yes, while the left too often counts on govt to help those in need, the right often dismisses the need. As Rand famously wrote: "It is only in emergency situations that one should volunteer to help strangers...in a shipwreck [a man] should help his fellow passengers, though not at the risk of his own life. But this does not mean that after reaching shore, he should devote his efforts to saving [them] from poverty, ignorance, neurosis or whatever other troubles they might have."
Garmoco 2 years ago
As I noted earlier, Greenspan's ideas are quoted in The Ayn Rand Lexicon. One of them shares her "reverence" for gold. Yet she made the dollar sign, of the Federal Reserve Note, the symbol of her religion, not gold. And the symbol at the head of her casket was reported the dollar sign, not a gold bar. Your reasoning is again conflicted, which would negate it as a legitmate philosophy according to Rand.
Garmoco 2 years ago
Garmoco: Are you open to the possibility that you could be wrong about your belief in god/christianity and your criticisms of the philosophy of Objectivism?
If your answer, deep down, to either of these questions is "no", then debate is futile. You are only interested in preaching, not learning.
If yes, what evidence or argument would it take for you to change your mind?
asdaqwe3d331e 2 years ago
Asdaqwe: "Debate" no. Dialogue yes. Even Solomon "studied proverbs and honestly tested their truth" (Ecc. 12:9). I intended to inform Christians about O.ism from our worldview, not irritate O.ists. But dying depressed and lonely, as Rand did, doesn't appeal. Nor did O.ism serve Mike Milken. My dad was a Hank Reardon, distanced from his family by work. My mentor a Howard Rourke, brilliant but also distant. My wife a Dagney, loving but unable to sit a spell. O.ism got unconditional love?
Garmoco 2 years ago
"O.ism got unconditional love?"
Whoever claims "*unconditional* love" of Objectivism is not an Objectivist. If that were a pre-requisite of the philosophy, Rand would have only to make a claim and not go to the lengths that she did to try to prove it.
I do however know some other "philosophies" that require such unconditional adherence and allegiance.
asdaqwe3d331e 2 years ago
Rhodes Scholar, billionaire and legendary "dean of global investing" Sir John Templeton told me: "My advice to a school of business management is to teach the manager to give unlimited love and he or she will be more successful," or be client-focused. Rand's "selfishness is a virtue" morphed into "shareholder maximization," which Jack Welch just termed the "dumbest idea ever." John even wrote a book entitled Agape Love, or unconditional love. Read it, as I read Selfishness. Then we can chat.
Garmoco 2 years ago
Your digression into personal examples is telling. You reveal why you have chosen idol worship of that which -- by definition -- can't be proved.
Note to other commenters (on YouTube or otherwise) who disagree:
This person is only interested in preaching to the choir (figuratively and literally), not debate. He believes he has already found truth and has willfully turned off the part of ones mind responsible for questioning ones own beliefs. Leaving only a shallow pit filled with bible quotes.
asdaqwe3d331e 2 years ago
Danger: Thinking Christian!? Yes, I am free to determine truth by scripture, tradition, reason and experience. "Ayn says" isn't adequate when thirty years on the Street do not confirm "man is a noble being" or "the moral purpose of my life is productive achievement." Unlike you, I am free to learn from and quote Solomon as well as Rand. She must be crushed that you remind me of my fundamentalist friends who can't breathe w/o a Bible verse. Think for yourself! Live for others as yourself!
Garmoco 2 years ago
Note: Reality is the only authority, if one can even call it that. Rand is the author of Objectivism and therefore is its authority. However, for Objectivism to be true and useful, it must follow reality. Rand would be the first to agree -- as I bet you will, in an attempt to defend the bible.
In any case, further conversation is futile.
As *you* stated in your first reply: "Debate: no".
asdaqwe3d331e 2 years ago
You demonstrate my primary fear about O.ism: half truths are more dangerous than untruths. I actually said "Debate: no. Dialogue: yes." Similarly, Rand taught the virtues of personal responsibility but sadly denounced social responsibility, resulting in the "lethal dose of strychnine" in the "glass of freshly squeezed juice." You guys are so anxious to debate, you can't have a civil dialogue about our differences. By definition, anger is not rational. At least be true to your half-truth.
Garmoco 2 years ago
Greenspan is not a capitalist. There is no capitalist country on Earth today.
Capitalism means the separation of state and economics - the very existence of a federal reserve disproves the idea that the USA is a capitalist state.
It is wholly ridiculous to substitute reason for faith - the two are incompatible.
tito2502 2 years ago 2
Tito: Our Bible contains the Wisdom literature. Jesus said to love with heart, soul and MIND. We do not reject the mind. We simply know there is evil genius and the human mind is quite limited, as PhD's prove daily on Wall Street. But thanks for being reasonable rather than angry toward me. Rand would approve. And as I said in the video, she had a couple things right (glass of freshly squeezed juice), as Karl Marx did. I simply do not believe giving an even break is impoverishing to markets.
Garmoco 2 years ago
The bible contains not a single connection between idea and reality. It is not on the same grounds as any secular philosophic textbook because it assumes the reader will accept anything written inside it on faith - without proof or appeal to logic - excluding it from rational debate.
Even if in the bible, Jesus said the same things as Ayn Rand, it would not make it valid. Rand's philosophy is unique in that it is scientific, tied to reality.
From this, Rand proved that man has certain rights
tito2502 2 years ago
Tito: I can see why Rand and Branden despised humility. Wow. So reality came into existence with Rand during this century? Gosh, and I wasted all that time studying Greco-Roman history, as your friend Grants suggested. So the Founding Fathers were wrong that we had certain inalienable rights before Rand handed them down?
Garmoco 2 years ago
YouTube doesn't offer a zero-star rating, so it's a good thing you disabled the ratings.
Perhaps Mr. Moore should actually READ Ayn Rand's work before he professes to know a single thing about her or her beliefs. Perhaps after doing so, he'll realize that Greenspan and the current financial crisis can in no way be linked to her.
If by some off-chance (he claims) he has read her work (which isn't apparent here), then his outright evasion of reality is quite astounding.
chopsky 2 years ago 5
Reply to Chopsky:
I assume those I quoted haven't read her either? Surely even you admit she was an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism. The 4/28 Financial Times featured an editorial by Henry Kaufman that began: "The Fed has been hobbled by at least two major shortcomings that were primarily responsible for the current and several previous credit crises. [Second] its commitment to laissez faire economics were big mistakes and justify fundamental overhaul of the Fed."
Garmoco 2 years ago
Anything that a central bank does is, by definition, a violation of the principles of laissez-faire capitalism.
That's just too obvious to miss.
You're simply afraid of Objectivism because it's positions on metaphysics and epistemology are the biggest threats to Christianity's destructive hold upon man's mind even created. So instead you're trying to slander Objectivism on a political and moral level so that no one will seek to understand the philosophy any deeper.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Last response to grantsinmypants2: You gotta get a job, as Rand directed! But thank you for validating my point about O being the biggest threat to Christianity ever. Most Christian leaders have considered Rand a lightweight, as Bill 'Buckley did, but perhaps they'll now pay attention as, apparently, when people don't believe the Truth of Christianity, they'll fall for anything. And I bet there will be dollars in Objectivist heaven as Rand will insist on it!
Garmoco 2 years ago
"Surely even you admit she was an advocate of laissez-faire capitalism."
Yes, I do. Which is why I know her ideas are in no way responsible for the financial crisis. Because there is no laissez-faire capitalism today.
Quoting the Financial Times does not make you or them right. In fact, that contradiction of a quote demonstrates how little they really know. Laissez-faire implies a COMPLETE seperation of state and economics. i.e. No Fed. So how can a Fed then be committed to laissez-faire?
chopsky 2 years ago
Let me quote Rand herself, from The Meaning of Money: "To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history; a country of money--and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America." You should read her. And she chose the dollar sign as the symbol of her reverence. How will objectivists worship the dollar if the Fed doesn't print them?
Garmoco 2 years ago
Please tell me you're kidding. The Fed was only established in 1913. Do you believe the Dollar is only 96 years old? Obviously not. Americans have been trading with Dollars (originally backed by gold) for centuries. Please do some research. Then MAYBE I'll continue this discussion.
chopsky 2 years ago
America had many, many currencies over the years. But Rand didn't make any of them the symbol of her religion or have a symbol of them at the head of her casket. Take an objective, scientific look at your dollar, the one Rand reverenced, and you'll see the words "Federal Reserve Note."
Garmoco 2 years ago
Garmoco, you're wrong. Objectivists follow the Austrian School of Economics. See Objectivist Economist, George Resiman, or the now famous, anti-Fed, Austrian Economist, Peter Schiff (who predicted the crash). Note that in his book, Crash Proof, he recommends, Ayn Rand's book: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. Read,The Virtue of Selfishness, and you'll see that Moore replaces Rand's meaning for today's pejorative meaning.
Intellisecular 2 years ago
Finally, an intelligent response. Yet my mentor Sir John Templeton, a Rhodes Scholar and dean of global investing about whom I wrote two books, was a member of the Mount Pelerin Society. Yet he had no objection to my contrasting his worldview with that of Rand. John knew the central question is whether selfishness is a virtue or vice. My books cite Rand's shipwreck from the Virtue of Selfishness as I cannot believe our soldiers and firemen in the Trade Center were immoral as they sacrificed.
Garmoco 2 years ago
Response to Grantsinmypants from Gary Moore:
Stop aiming at this admittedly lightweight messenger and you may eventually see why heavyweights like the Library of Congress, The Economist, The Financial Times, Worth, professors and some Nobel-level economists see clear connections between Rand, Greenspan and our current crisis. At least you're thinking about it. All I ask. Thanks for your interest.
Garmoco 2 years ago
Maybe if you had paid a little less attention in church, and read maybe one or two books about our Greco-Roman heritage you would realize that you just used the elementary fallacy of appeal to authority; identified - over 2500 years ago - by Socrates if I recall correctly.
Besides, religionists regard all of those "authorities" as anti-Christian, liberal media.
If you're going to appeal to authority, at least appeal to one that you claim to respect. Pitiful.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago
Second reply to Grants: I have a degree in political science and was an advisor to Jack Kemp. I began the seminar by describing the Greco-Roman heritage which, along with Judeo-Christianity, shaped the West. I also detailed the biblical approach to political-economy. Will send it to you if you give me your address. But again I ask, why do Randists read her books, appeal to the authority of Objectivism, and quote Piekoff, etc., rather than reason their way to their own philosophy? Contradictory?
Garmoco 2 years ago
I can say with all honesty that this video has not one grain of truth regarding Rand. But my question is, why the appeal to authority? That is not an intellectual argument. Yes I have heard the supposed connection of Greenspan to Objectivism all over the place. But all people ever point out is Greenspan's fleeting encounter with Rand, not bothering to analyze the policies he supported and matching them up with Objectivist principles.
normativeRandroid 2 years ago 3
Reply to Randroid: You appeal to the authority of Rand even in your email address! If reason is sufficient and Revelation unnecessary, wouldn't each Randist reason his or her way to Objectivism without her writings? She simply substituted herself for God; John Galt for Jesus Christ; the dollar sign for the Cross; and Atlas Shrugged for the Bible. If the highest compliment is imitation, even she unwittingly admired Christianity. Oh yes, do Randists read the Bible before denouncing it?
Garmoco 2 years ago
You seem to be conflating two aspects of refutation when people are discussing issues. One is when a person would cite an authority for specific quotes or information on a given topic. The other is citing an authority in order to stop the discussion altogether, and this is what you have done in your previous comment above. I have seen/heard most of those critics of Rand whom you quote in your presentation, however because of my understanding of Objectivism I know they are superficial critiques.
normativeRandroid 2 years ago
Third response to Randoid: That's the beauty of constructing reality purely according to your own reason; you don't have to believe anyone who disagrees with you. And that, my friend, is why the world is now in a credit crisis. Alan Greenspan didn't allow any more dissent at the Fed than Rand did in her cult. Why don't you think rather than rely on your "understanding of Objectivism"?
Garmoco 2 years ago
I will not argue this point, I will simply state for the record that Objectivism is not the mirror of religion. O.ism is not a faith, does not teach dogma, is not revealed truth from on high, and can never properly be considered a cult. It's not rationalism that leads to the conclusion that G.span isn't an O.ist but an objective evaluation of his record.
normativeRandroid 2 years ago
I can understand Objectivists now running from Greenspan. Yet the Ayn Rand Lexicon included his writings. Leornard Piekoff, with whom I've enjoyed chatting, wrote the introduction for Harry Binswanger, the associate of Rand who edited it. Apparently, they had not yet grown to think of Greenspan the way you do. But of course, the human mind is prone remember the past to its own advantage. That's why you Objectivists now imitate we Christians who wrote our beliefs down millennia ago! Just kidding!
Garmoco 2 years ago
Greenspan's writings are in the lexicon because they are in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal which is a collection of essays put together by Rand under her own supervision during her lifetime. And there is nothing in those essays that Greenspan then wrote that is contradictory towards O.ism. They are O.ist principles applied to the field of economics. It is obvious from G.span's history at the Fed that he has distanced himself from O.ism and his own writings in those essays.
normativeRandroid 2 years ago
Reality forces you to conform a bit once you leave a cult for the real world. I actually feel some compassion for Greenspan as he's obviously a conflicted individual desperately trying to reconcile the hard lessons of a hard world to an unreal, utopian philosophy. If only the titans of Wall Street were as "noble" and "productive" for society as Rand imagined.
Garmoco 2 years ago
Your presentation is very thoughtful and provocative. It scares me actually! So much of the information isn't even realized or acknowledged yet it is so influential on so much of our lives. I wish that we Christians would be able to get back to Scripture's meaning and impact instead of letting our financial system being undergirded by such concepts by Ayn Rand.
phyllisw2954 2 years ago
Thank you Phyllis. Yes, morality abhors a vacuum too! Christianity abandoned the field of economic morality, focusing exclusively on sexual morality, and Rand filled it. Don't really blame the Objectivists as much as us. As you can see from the responses, at least they're passionate and knowledgable about the subject! They may get it wrong but at least they get the fact that love or money will make the world go round.
Garmoco 2 years ago
And they say that the Liberals and the Conservatives are enemies. What a laugh.
Alan Greenspan hasn't been an Objectivist or a capitalist for 40 years.
Printing money backed by nothing, dictating the interest rates at which money can be lent, and forcing banks to underwrite mortgages that are bound to default is NOT laizzes-faire capitalism and has nothing to do with Ayn Rand's philsophy.
Try harder next time light weight.
grantsinmypants2 2 years ago 11