As one who denounced an ego, how could Nietzsche be an egoist? Some of my biggest issues with Rand are her horrid readings of Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche.
I don't have an objection to this video, but just a general annoyance. What happened to philosophy dealing with real life situations? How many of us will be deserted on an island? How many of us will be on a railroad line confronted with saving 1 person or five from being killed by a train? Or any of the other million inane hypotheticals people create. I want a philosophy that helps me approach my life each day, not absurd situations I will never face.
I don't believe Ayn Rand had any understanding of pareto optimality and her concept of selfishness was, just that, our common understanding of the meaning of that word. Many Rand apologists out there. Like a sociopath could know what is pareto optimality in social interactions. They lack social abilities, hence why they are look so socially awkward
I don't believe Ayn Rand had any understanding of pareto optimality and her concept of selfishness was, just that, our common understanding of the meaning of that word. Many Rand apologists out there.
i'm confused, how is trade not dependent on someone else? don't they have to agree to value what you worked to produce? if they have bread and you have metal, what do they care about trading with you? isn't your life then dependent on their care for your product to trade for food?
Trading is voluntary exchange- I can trade & i can also not trade. note: the word can.
Objectivism is a very simple yet logical yet simultaneously it is very intricate philosophy as it goes over & overturns ideas of altruism & blind selflessness. Most people who oppose it, never really fully understood it in the first place.
To exist in this world, one must coexist with others. One can choose to live in isolation of others & to ignore others, but this is not rational
thus to exist alongside others one must choose either to use force or not use force & compulsion- ie trading.
One has a right to one's own property & one's own self & his own labor. The only limit of his rights is the equal rights of others. If he were to use force to infringe on other's properties, labors or selves, then all sanction on his property, rights & self is lost. And the violator becomes a criminal. Becoming a criminal, he must always be at least one step ahead of his
pursuers. This obviously becomes rather unfeasible for the common man. And it is thus far more rational to be a trader & voluntarily enter society- but this is all voluntary. He chooses what & when & where & how he trades- for what purpose? that is for him to decide
1. How can you say trading doesn't depend on other people? I agree that its better than stealing because you produce something that you yourself might be able to use, however 'trading' by definition involves exchange, thus needing others
2. I agree relying/stealing on others till the point of dependency is bad, however what if instead you just decide to do a one-off steal and there was no way of finding out who did it? Would that be OK since you don't become a parasite?
this is my whole problem with her views on 'selfishness' that she has redefined the word!
she says she believes in being selfish then goes on to describe a lifestyle that i and no one i know would concider 'selfish' because that isnt what the word means to us. so pick a different word!!
the annoying this is i totally agree with all her views on this but its just confusing to invent new meanings for words
I'm a slacker. I'm offended by the use of the word slacker in this video. I don't steal from others. I simply don't feel a need to be greedy, reckless or wasteful with my limited work life. I prefer to take the time to stop and smell the roses and enjoy the kind of life that 'I' want to live, not to work for another in a frail attempt to appease someone's elses vision of accomplishment. Being a slacker is the truest for of individualism. I am not a slave to anything, including an ideology.
Slacking is the ONLY way to live. Anything else is slave morality.
My worldview is shaped by a movie called _Slacker_ by Richard Linklater. It's on YT and I've got it saved under my favorites if you want to check it out. It could probably elaborate on these ideas if you are interested. Otherwise, I'm not really interested in engaging in these standard semantic games which typify religious zealots.
Honestly this sounds exactly like Objectivism. You just don't seem like you have a goal in life. All Objectivism is is the same thing you stated but it lays out a system and a way of government that lets people go out and do what they want to do in their life. Correct me if I'm wrong. My other question is does your philosophy say it's wrong to want to accomplish something like write a novel, design a building or run a successful business?
Yes, I was trying to explain this to my wife (who only speaks Spanish) ... the word "egoista" in Spanish = selfish in a negative light, and so I told her it wasn't "egoismo" but "egoismo racional" rational egoism. not just raw selfishness or destructive selfishness.
Your argument around 5:00 collapses Rand's utopian view of lassez-faire. Essentially, if one uses another or objectifies them in anyway without a mutual agreement then such an act is irrational. However, in a society where capitalism is already pervasive, one makes no agreement; in fact one has no opportunity to arrange such an agreement but nonetheless succumbs to being a wage slave and thus objectified under the threat of starvation and/or social stigma. Thus, capitalism is irrational.
Question about argument around 3:00 about happiness being consistent with death, according to Rand.. What if a person's life is miserable; he has some terminal illness and death is inevitable regardless of any preventative measure. What if this person's only solace is in the peace of death; wouldn't happiness then be consistent with death? This view also seems to be compatible with notion of happiness being gained through achievement.
Ayn Rand was the greatest advocate for minority rights in the 20th century. No matter the babble you speak about collectivism and social justice all rational societies realize it is bad to steal. So your defense of the goverment stealing portions of an individuals life is merely justifying the crime afterwards. Slavery is wrong even when it's voted into law by a majority or approved of by them. I belong to me not the state or society!
According to Rand, selfishness means being able to support one's self by one's effort and not sacrificing himself nor others. But when we raise livestock for food, aren't we doing exactly just that?
Randists will object and say that there is a line between animal and human sacrifice, and that line is defined by man's ability to reason. But they cannot deny that even in humans reasoning ability varies widely. Is it okay for us to sacrifice the mentally retarded?
ummm, we have something called laws. killing human beings [not includng assisted suicide] is ILLEGAL . just because she says selfish doesnt mean unlawful or anarchist. what you are talking about is fascism that was used by nazis. but little do you realize that the mentally ill make us stronger, doctors and geneticist study them, therapists help them live independent lives. all of those people are working and get paid through various means more than not charity and churches and private funding.
Actually, Nietszche did not have any values or ethics. He denied the concept of an objective morality, replacing it with the concept of Will to Power; the rule of the whim.
Months ago, everyone ignored a comment which said:
How'd F. Castro succeed if living @ the expense of others kills yer means of survival?
Rand's options: A. Castro=ok B. Castro=failure.
But Castro's an evil success, right?
The capper was:
Of COURSE it's wisest to do what's best for your survival and (GENERALLY) to do it non-infringingly. But mislabeling this platitude 'virtue' and 'selfishness' doesnt make it a new philosophy.
What are you trying to prove? Castro survives by sacrifising others to himself. Is that moral? Is Objectivism wrong because this is possible? Is the world non-existant and the only standard of ethics Will to Power? What is your point?
I think they may have ignored the comment because Cuba isn't really regarded as a success story by many Cubans. It is actually a great example of what Rand views as evil, collectivism. I don't think you understand "what's best for your survival". Rand would not consider being a parasite a thing that was "best" for your survival. Yet that is what altruism advocates. I think you are over simplifying her philosophy.
"stealing is not a rational decision, if your happyness dependends on stealing..." "you are depend on others" not yourself. Castro is a parasite and not productive.
Why do people continue to misappropiate Nietzsche in this way? Have you even read any of his works? "The canny ego sees his own advantage in the advantage of many" - Thus spake Zarathustra. Rand was an intellectual midget. Heres an idea, read Kant, Nietzsche, Plato, or and decide for yourself rather than relying on the feeble interpetations of someone who obviously had no idea what they were talking about.
Ayn Rand in a nutshell: The poor man is evil or hed be rich, whereas someone like say, Andrew Carnegie who slaughtered entire families because they went on strike, was a hero. I guess you have to be rich to have the right to strike.
Ayn Rand depended completely on others to make a living. She did not run the presses which printed her book. She did not buy the books. Her protagonist did not work in the mills where the metal was forged for the railroad, nor did he lay any track. In other words, they were COMPLETELY dependant on the largesse of others to get ahead.
Yes, but it was in their own selfish interest as well as her own selfish interest that the business relationship existed. She herself deplores the formation of monopolies- an economic phenomenon that she says would simply not happen under a perfectly free society- hence your idea that she, if she was truly independent, should control every aspect of her book's construction, is not the point she is making.
I dont think you get the point. In the book, it exaggerated the importance of the mind, however it does not mean that an objectivist will not utilize the 'work' of others, as long as there's a fair trade. A value for a value.
Remarkable nonsense. The obvious appeal of Randian silliness is that it's very over-simplified and full of self obsessed insecurity, a caveman throwback of thought.
And by the way, a parasite doesn't kill the host, otherwise it would be a parasoid. And there's nothing more exploitative than Austrian libertarian capitalism. You should LOVE being compared with simple slimy organisms that leech off the productivity and energy of others, it's very Randian!
What do you mean by "bankers and managers" don't give anything? If you mean they do not produce anything then that is false, because one does not have to produce a material good for trade to be rational and self-reliant, one can produce services as well, and thats exactly what bankers and managers do.
Everyone is dependant on other organisms for their nutrients, energy and their very existence, except perhaps photosynthysising plants. Only lone wolfs can live without selfishness in Rand's sense, selfishness is rational as she defines rationality. Bankers & managers give nothing, but i think she'd suport them.
Rand is very different to the traditional Egoist i believed her to be though (perhaps less defensible unles she can as she boasted bridge the is/ought gap with regards to existing).
You should know that parasites do act rationally, they for the most part do not kill their host. Therefore acting as a parasite can be a rational approach. This objectivism is a load of crap.
It's important to realize that what she talked about can only be applied to humans. We don't worry about whether animals used reason to guide their actions because they don't have reasoning abilities. They survive using their instincts as we do our reasoning abilities, so when a parasite/animal leeches/kills instinctively, it isn't bad or irrational. A human, who chooses to be a parasite in the figurative sense despite understanding *property* and *consent*, has no such excuse.
Well, you have a whole c lass of wealthy people living off the blood and sweat of wage earners, but if you hear them talk about it you think it was the other way around. Does that fit your definition of parasite?
Nope. A parasite operates without a consensual relationship; by human standards it would be violating the rights of others. Not liking the terms of your employment contract is not the same thing as being forced, coerced, or defrauded.
Have you read Atlas Shrugged?Industrialists dont live off the blood and sweat of anyone, it is their ideas that give those wage earners their jobs in the first place.
Yes, I've read Atlas Shrugged a few times. I found it a bit cartoonish in it's depiction of it's characters, the heroes striking "heroic" poses and stances, while the villians are insidious and without any redeaming qualities.
Capital is useless without labor. Watch what happened in situations where hyperinflation occurs, Currency becomes near worthless and commodities and labor trump it.
Capital results from conserving the fruit of labor, labor is not the fruit of conserving capital.
It takes no intelligence to dig ditches and do menial labor. It takes great amounts of intelligence to design buildings railroads dams etc. Anyone can do menial labor, so why should they be paid more when their supply is so great?
If your idea of labor is limited to digging ditches and menial labor, no wonder you are an Ayn Rand fanatic.
There is no large projects designed singularly. Even if there were, that individual would use a computer, so all the computer hardware and software designers would be "standing behind him" so to speak.
No large projects such as dams, railroads etc are built by private capital but by government (collective) efforts. Private capital also works in associations and wants govt insurance.
But even if it were so and there were the great minds working heroically alone against the mindless collective to realize his dream, without labor to realize it, his work would come to naught.
You know, electricians, pipefitters, millwrights, tool and die makers, heavy equipment operators, high stel workers.
All the people with manual skills that make ideas into reality. Craftsman, tradesman, etc. SKILLED laborers.
Next time your sewer line is plugged, call Howard Rourke.
No, but most people can do menial labor. Supply is great for maids, plumbers, carpenters, and skilled laborers. Not to many people can design aircraft that stay in the air and run companies without bankrupting them. The latter tasks deserve significantly more compensation. It is their minds that make the work of all those laborers possible.
The truth is, the supply for skilled labor is drying up. Mostly because many people don't wish to do physical labor.
The point I made that it is neigh on impossible for one man to design a plane, building, or dam. And those that do rely on CAD programs and the like for modern design. They are not lone wolfs.
Many, many engineered items come down to the project site with a design but no PRACTICAL way to execute the design. That requires a field engineer. And he relies on a tradesman.
I have seen it time and time again. Sure there is a piece of paper but no practical way to get it done. Until some guy with a tool and practical experience makes it happen.
Look at many of the great cathederals of Europe. These weren't engineered in a modern sense but designed to stand by masons who had practical understanding of what would make them stand.
Regardless og Hawking physical restrictions, putting his ideas into practical ablications requires skilled workers who make it happen. If not, it just stays on paper. A pretty piece of egotism.
Have you even read the Fountainhead? Roarke did know how to do skilled labor and demonstrated that throughout the book. Why don't you read her works before you criticize them?
Yes, I have read mauch of Ayn Rand's work. That was my earliest criticism in my thread. First off, they are fictional, so they can be created with or without flaws to create the authors point.
Rand's heros strut across her stage, striking heroic poses. The villian, the Toomeys, if you will, are all scurilious, scheming rogues with no redeeming characteristics. I feel like I am reading a comic book. Nuance is absent.
Xainish. Cripes, I read the books back in the mid seventies. The fact that I remembered Toohey as Toomey is of small consequence after 30 years. That is close enough.
Continue on worshiping Rands every word and fart. The funny thing is that Ayn Rand would not even dain to piss on most of the fanboys that praise her and fawn over her like neutered minions.
But her self-serving ego did not know many limits.
bad assumption. i am not a fan of rand. However, I do find utility in peter keeting, toohey and catherine in making a comparison to the enemies of individual liberty. However, it makes it seem like you've not even read the book when you get the characters names wrong.
The point I was trying to make is that you should be paid in accordance with the amount of brainpower, education, and talent you have to demonstrate in order to do your task. I am not negating the abilities of skilled laborers, their labor is needed and valuable, Rand never refuted this. But to compare what a plumber does, which almost anyone can learn, to what an engineer has to do to design a dam, is ridiculous. They are paid in accordance with supply and demand.Not everyone can be an engineer
I undsestand your point. Unfortunately, in the US, the highest paid occupations are salesman, mass marketers, amd financial speculators. it is extremely rare that a lone inventor comes up with a great new invention, and rarer yet when he markets it himself.
Most engineering feats are done in teams. with computer software created by other teams. Education and rarity alone does not earn wealth. If that were so Doctors of Divinity and PharmD's would be the highest paid individuals on earth.
You need to wake up...first the "industrialists" don't hardly play a role in the economy. The last 20 year or so years has been dominated by finiance, who largely don't produce any wealth, in fact they extract it by minipulating the value of money. It's a house of cards about to come down. Regardless, they are all parasites because they don't do the actual work. You must has a golden parchute? Tell me the truth have you ever held a job?
Can we be truly independent and at the same time live in a society? If so is there a way to scientifically measure the applied concept of personal responsibility?
Are my questions really going to be answered on youtube? :-)
Yes it is possible, because the means of trading a value for a value is dependent on each individual. Meaning (in its simplest form), if I needed a chicken's egg, and I have wheat that I worked hard for, I can happily trade it with a person who has a chicken egg, the means is totally dependent on me, because I wouldnt have been able to trade if I didnt have any wheat in the first place
To LetFreedomRing13: Furthermore, the NEOCON cabal have PROMOTED corruption with large corporations, offering them power and protection while the NEOCONS "work the crowd" for public support. You forget, that I WORKED FOR ENRON and saw these evils up close and personal. I met Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove and Karen Hughes who had offices AT ENRON HQ. I also dispute the concept that the Constitution was written for capitalists. It is a document to protect and enforce the will of the PEOPLE.
If you are writing for a British publication, use defence, but the American defense has the advantages of greater antiquity, similarity to the words from which it was derived, and consistency with words like defensible.
then u could pay tax(or what u like to call it) to a healthcare system+social security, to gain or to protect yourself against getting unemployed and save ur family from being poor.
Government didn't facilitate anything. The corporations who bribed the politicians facilitate everything. Corporate greed is the problem, not government.
You need to read up on fascism which is what America is right now. The bankers took over in 1913 and have been controlling the ship since. If you don't believe it then realize that the banker bailout was a SCAM designed to give Paulson & Bernake the key to your wallets. They have stolen over $8.5T from you so far. Government as a whole didn't do it. Corrupt criminals placed into power are the ones doing it for financial gain. Greed is a drug that leads once decent people to commit criminal acts.
Since when does greed equate to happiness? Greed is an addiction worse than crack cocaine because smoking crack kills only one person. Greed ends up killing millions or possibly the entire human race. Check out what Monsanto is doing. They are making a power play to control the world's food supply. If they succeed then you and millions of others may die. Not everyone can afford a $50 loaf of bread. Tough luck, huh?
Government is the problem. If you cant see this I can help explain in more detail. Free markets have produced the greatest prosperity in the world statism ultimately leads to stagnation. Our current market failures are not a result of free-market decision, but more-so the result of government influence within the free-market.
Its easy to say corporations and greed are the problem. You couldn't be further from the actual truth.
Were you aware that objectivism is ANTI-American and ANTI-Christian?
Are you aware that the current American system is NOT capitalistic but CORPORATE SOCIALISM where hundreds of billions of dollars are handed out to large corporations every year and has for many, many years in the form of deductions, exemptions, incentives and free services. Large American could not exist without the general public underwriting their operations often without any say so about it.
Objectivism is not anti-american or anti-christian. While Rand did not believe in God, so never once tried to force her opinion upon us.
I do agree that our american market is anything close to Laissez-faire...
Lets not forget these large corporations that you denounce were propped up not by the free market but by government lobbying that has allowed them to grow to the extent they have without fair competition (ie...cable companies, utility companies.)
I do not denounce large corporations except to say that they deceitfully claim to be capitalistic in the US. ANYTHING BUT. They practice and encourage CORPORATE SOCIALISM aka FASCISM. They have worked very hard to deceive the public to claim otherwise. America needs to know that the system currently in place has as it;s ultimate goal totalitarian dictorship. Very often such people quote Ayn Rand in support. I have read Atlas Shrugged and she is definitely anti-Christian, anti-charity.
First off, Rand definitely was anti-christian and also anti-charity. Does that make here any less American? Does that totally discredit her economic philosophy? I thought our country was founded on freedom including the freedom of religious belief and opinion and also the freedom to do what you want with the money you earn, correct me if I'm wrong.....
Maybe I'm out of line by asking, but how much of your income goes to charity? or are you simply being hypocritical?
Many believe that America was founded as a Christian nation. If you accept that then Rand is most definitiely anti-American. However even further, read the PreAmble to the Constitution which implies that government will act for the benefit of the PEOPLE in many ways. Now the Constitution is flexible enough to allow many paths to that end which MAY include Rand. What I object to is the patent dishonesty of US corporations who claim to be moral AND patriotic. They are neither.
Rand was not anti-American, in fact she promoted the ideas of limited government which was at the core of the founding fathers beliefs. I could care less what her religion was, or yours is for that matter. That does not make her anti-American.
What I care about are the issues that matter. You can point to U.S. business as an evil, but U.S. business has brought the most prosperity than any nation in the world has ever seen. What would you rather have? More government control? Move to Europe
I believe that large corporations are necessary for the sake of business functionality. However, very often very dishonest. They claim capitalism, but discourage capitalist investment, business innovation, competititon, full employment. They manage public opinion, government support, laws and all things that effect them. There is a very small leap to...totalitarian dictatorship. Google "The Corporation" and "the Power of Nightmares" for details. Corporations are essential but out of control
Remember that most coercive monopolites can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention in the form of special regulations, subsidies or franchises. Coercive monopolies would not be able to sustain themselves for long in a free market that is free from govt controls. These monopolies that you speak of are a government created problem and should not be blamed on free market capitalism. I understand your point - I simply hope you understand where to direct your frustrations.
The principles that America is founded upon is government BY, FOR and OF the PEOPLE. The Declaration of Independence clearly says that self-determination of a PEOPLE is a God-given right. The PEOPLE can chose laissez-faire OR government directed policies or a blend of the two. THAT is their right and duty. Now I DO accept that the PEOPLE have NOT fulfilled their duty in many cases and America is the worse for it.
An increase in government-directed policies will be the destruction of this country - Rand was not the only one who foresaw this. She witnessed it first hand in the USSR.
Do you dispute the God given right of the PEOPLE to determine the direction of the government? Do you dispute the inherent nature of large corporations to limit or restrict altruistic behavior? Do you dispute the evidence that large corporations have an inordinate control of government? It seems to me the problem is...GREED. EIther greed of the PEOPLE to get free services or GREED of large corporation to get large amount of public money AND free services.
Todays liberals recognize the workers rights to their livelyhood but deny those same rights to business men. Hear me out. If workers struggle for wage increases it is hailed as a "social gain". If businessmen struggle for higher profits, this is deemedas "selfish greed".
In Solviet Russia the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie, in Nazi Germany it was the Jewish people and in America today it is the businessman.
The villian is the legislator not the businessman.
It seems that your interpretation of workers rights is bias by your membership of the Ayn Rand fan club. UNIONS in America were the result NOT of some Bolshevik influence but rather a reaction to CORPORATE ABUSE. Remember the ROBBER BARONS who used deceit, subterfuge and bribery to abuse workers in the last century and, in a sense, are subsidizing the SAME abuses or WORSE in the third world today where they can get away with it. Are their labor abuses? SURE but NOTHING AT ALL compared mgmt.
greed will unwind any economy if left unchecked. canadas banks are secure when others need bailouts because canada imposes restrictions. ayn was so wrong in her theories.
jnycnuk: rational actions will never "unwind" an economy. It is the IRRATIONAL actions - the theft, fraud, and various forms of dishonesty...not the least of which is inflation - that will kill the economy.
Be careful not to buy the nonsense served up in left-wing papers, that try to suggest the current crisis was the result of not enough government intervention. The fact is that the government facilitated and encouraged easy credit, bad loans, and bankruptcies.
paul: better control of institutions with the long term safety of the economy in mind is what the government's responsibility is. short term knee jerk reactions must be eliminated as they are the culprit of the dilemma now faced in the marketplace.
I think what he was trying to say starting at about 1:40 before the cut was,
the person who lives to try to extract wealth from person A loses his identity, no longer has a self, becomes focused on the target of their need, the person they want to feed off of.
Wow, now his (I guess) dad gets to it at around 5 minutes in. Good vid.
Based on the way Ayn Rand lived, yes I do think she believed in living a selfish life, which was to the detriment of those of other peoples. She was awful to her friends and family. Ultimately isn't the way you live the truth of anyone's philosophy ?
Peikoff, her intellectual heir, doesn't even know much about her earlier years in Russia, as she rarely talked about it. The closest thing you can get to an autobiography is "We the Living". Anyways, how she dealt with others was hardly detrimental.
Her marriage wasn't wrecked; both Frank and Nathanial agreed. Anyways, if two men love the same woman, then they must be of the same mind. If the woman doesnt want to choose to have a romantic relationship with only want, in other words if she wants both, and if the men do not have a problem in sharing the same woman, then its fine. Personally its not something I would want, but I certainly dont think its wrong if a party chooses to do what Ayn, Frank, and Nathanial did.
Quote from svannerman changed to the first person... "Even 'my' own rationality, or attempts at it, cannot serve as a stable and abiding source for 'my' own happiness-this is because 'I' am not always rational and because 'I' do not always rely on rationality for 'my' happiness." Sounds a bit different this way, all I can say to svannerman is to speak for yourself.
I think XOmniverse has made a mistake. He has taken his own views of what right or good actions are and attempted to also call these actions rational - in order to agree with Ayn Rand. The problem seems to be that all the examples XOmniverse gave for why theft is not rational also apply to the trade example. (i.e., you are still relying on the productivity of the other person in order to get what will make you happy from him or her).
It's more rational to steal. Same payoff, no trade needed.
Rand is an armature at philosophy, She misinterpreted almost every historical philosopher that she uses. She is sloppy, not considering the subtle differences between positions Christianity and Communism. Her "so called" solution to the problem of universals is just a re framing of the problem. This address of Happiness doesn't address the nihilist potion that there is no justification for seeking happiness. What justifies the pursuit of happiness. In short, what justifies being happy?
Could you elaborate on what you mean, because nature in the Aristotelian sense does not justify Rand. Rand's reading of Aristotle is about as bad as Hitler's reading of Nietzsche. As to the second point the nihilist says that neither the pursuit of happiness or unhappiness are justified, and thus there is no worthy action.
You say there is no worthy action. To think is an action. Therefore thinking is an unworthy action. You must first think in order to form the thought "there is no unworthy action". You are to be blamed for the same crime you are accusing of everyone who pursues happiness.
Since you undoubtedly think mankind is horrible, and no one is worthy of life, why continue to live? You clearly stated that there is no worthy action; the most righteous thing someone could do is not act; the only way to do this is to cease existing.
This in no way addresses my question. I am not claiming that being happy is wrong in itself, that would be stupid. Assuming by your comment, you would like to try to provide an answer to the question so I will clarify it for you. It is the case that you have an impulse that is biological to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. For this to count as a morally justified action, you must provide some reason as to why it is "good". That means you need to give an account of the good and work it in.
As it has been said, nature. Natural (or primal) instict of man is survival, and by improving your life your chances of survival increase, and what happens when you improve your life in a manner that you feel rigt with? It's obvious, you feel happier than before.
But As I said for feeling happier your achievements has to be in harmony with your moral code (built on reason), if not, there would be internal contradiction, and so, suffering.
Rand's points of view about seflishness and objectivism seem quite logical to some extent. Although i do not agree completely with her philosophy on "not giving love to those who are not worthy of it."
In any case i will have to read The Fountainhead and a couple more of her books to understand her philosophy completely.
Do the decisions for the sefishness promoted here have some degree of morality,i.e. consideration for others and the whole world?
The most selfish people I've encountered in my life are generally the most miserable. They are insecure,mistrustful & mostly negative; unpleasant to be around.
You have misunderstood what "rational selfishness" is. It just doesnt have anything is common with being a bastard. If you are rational, and thereby analize which is the best way to optimize your relations with others (and obteining mutual benefit) you will reach the logical conclusion that is being kind and cooperative. And dont forget that this benefit can simply be self-safistaction on helping others i.e. But, again, thats not altruism or charity, is rational egoism. You obtein pleasure.
I am not saying that externals cannot provide some happiness. I am saying that whatever is used as an external basis for happiness (e.g. - impermanent phenomena like "productiveness" and "products") will necessarily not serve as a stable and abiding source of happiness. Even our own rationality, or attempts at it, cannot serve as a stable and abiding source for our own happiness - this is because we are not always rational and because we do not always rely on rationality for happiness.
For example, a quadriplegic has a severely limited ability to be productive and to manipulate products and they are therefore more dependent than independent. Additionally, this limitation of ability to interact with the outside world does not necessarily mean that they will have a proportionally lowered capacity for happiness. Happiness itself is an internal state which we learn to associate with certain idiosyncratic triggers.
Because one's ability to be productive in exactly the way that one wants to be is not guaranteed, because the ability to be productive at all is not guaranteed, and because the ability to exchange one's own products for the products of others is not guaranteed, it does not follow that this is a reasonable basis for happiness.
This is because, though she is not basing her happiness on external persons and/or their products, she is still basing her happiness on her own ability to be productive and/or to produce some thing. In other words, it seems that she is still basing her happiness on external impermanent phenomena and the manipulation thereof - she is a slave to production and the manipulation of products for her happiness.
First, I am wholly unfamiliar with Ayn Rand and her philosophy and am therefore basing my comments on what you have presented here in this video. From what I understand, Rand seems to be saying that one's ability to have stable and abiding happiness and fulfillment is proportional and/or based on one's ability to be productive. If I am correct in stating that as her assertion, then this does not seem to be a tenable position to maintain.
not so much on being productive, but in using ones mind to the best of ones ability to achieve your purpose. Even a quadrapalegic has a mind, and as such, they can still be productive. Look at Stephen Hawking.
What I was attempting to suggest was that stable and abiding happiness cannot arise in dependence upon a dualistic mind. Such a dualistic mind, thinking that there is a "real" subject that perceives "real" objects, will manipulate either external phenomena and/or internal thoughts, sensations, etc. in order to generate happiness. I argue that this effort will ultimately not provide stable and abiding happiness because it is based on a false view (e.g. - "dualism").
Additionally, these dualistic "manipulations" ultimately only provide temporary forms of happiness. For example, let us imagine that eating ice cream makes me extremely happy. Because of this I eat ice cream quite frequently, but ultimately I become dissatisfied with it, so much so that it no longer brings me any happiness. I then move on to joyfully eating apples which then ultimately ends in the same disappointing way. Thus, I find that these dualistic manipulations never bring me what I want.
How'd Castro succeed if crime kills your means of survival?
Rand's options: A. Castro=ok / B. Castro=failure. But he's an evil success, right?
He rationally thought "it's in my interest to oppress; depending on (oppressing) others can BE my means of survival."
OF COURSE it's sensible to do what serves you and even (GENERALLY) to do it non-infringingly. But that extremely ancient bit of common sense isn't a new idea just because someone mislabels it "virtue" and "selfishness."
I get the argument and agree. Here's another angle (I am extrapolating this from John Galt's oath): An objectivist would not enslave another for the sake of their own happiness just on principle, because he/she expects others not to enslave them for their happiness. A rational person knows that you can't expect respect without giving it.
Is it not impossible to achieve happiness which is not dependent on others? Surely family, friends, and general interaction with other humans beings is surely essential for happiness?
Consider the joy of Tom Hanks' character, in the movie "Cast Away", when he finally manages to create fire. His was not only relief, but joy, even though he was alone on the island. The occurrence of human interaction is not a prerequisite for happiness.
I have just realised that the Buddhist perception of ultimate happiness/joy does not invoke human interaction either.
Also do you feel the purpose of morality is to merely fulfil the social contract rather than fostering behaviours that prevent suffering and promote well-being?
Rand was a so-so writer at best. She set up cardboard characters that had little dynamics to them (as in they don't change from beginning to end) and sends them through a perfect scenario to prove her point. Aesop wrote a ton of stories just like them. Too bad Phil Donahue didn't interview Aesop.
The best way to defend Ayn Rand...don't. Defend the message, not the messenger.
Example: Rand often allowed her emotion to influence her reasoning: smoking based on quality of life, thinking homosexuality was a psychological impairment because she felt it was disgusting, and so on.
However, her fictional and non-fictional works are very much based on solid, thorough reasoning. Her impromptu essays, articles, and quotes...not so much.
I chose "In Defence of Ayn Rand" rather than "In Defence of Objectivism" because the philosophy of the first (Ayn Rand) IS the second. Many objectivists like to forget that, in the hope that they can smear some of the credibility of the word "objectivism" onto their pet (usually libertarian) philosophy/anti-philosophy.
I should have said "Many non-objectivists like to forget that..." but my intended meaning, I think, was obvious enough (it would be nice to have an edit function on youtube...or is there one?).
I'm not following your points of personal criticism of Rand. Do you have sources, as your conclusions are inconsistent with the information I have reviewed on the subject?
To scotlumdi (accidentally removed your post): Dependency is founded on a lack of rationality; rationality implies productiveness. The productive produce what they need and want to survive and pursue happiness. In the context of trade: if A, to obtain something from B, must produce and provide X to B, A does so. The unproductive do not and, as a result, die if they do not take/receive from others.
I think that you will find a lot of unhappy babies.......when their mothers decide to roll them out into the street, so the can "fend for themselves" Dependency is also part of life and it is rationally based.
People who fail to make the distinction that you pointed out have yet to understand that cooperation with other human beings is in their own interests e.g. selfish. I can't imagine anyone would look at some punk robbing a liquor store and conclude "That is a man who is behaving in accordance with his rational self-interest."
Go back and do more research, you obviously haven't examined much of Rand's work based on your comment. She would never have agreed to that statement - she never opposed laws.
As Ayn Rand states, "my rights end where yours begin". You do what is right for your own rational self-interest as long as you do not infringe upon anyone elses rights or property. That is in a nutshell a simple overview of her philosophy. I urge you not to simple quote what I write as a assumption of her beliefs though - if there is one non-fiction book of hers that I would urge you to read it is "Capitalsim: The Unknown Ideal" - one of the few books in modern time that defend capitalism.
Your insolent tone is uncalled for. I am well read in Ayn Rand and her works.
Ayn Rand did not argue that it was not in one's rational self-interest to respect the rights of others e.g. she did not consider it some kind of weird exception to the rule of selfishness.
She was quite clear that there is a harmony of interest among men and that it was NOT in someone's rational self-interest to violate rights.
I'm not exactly sure what part of my original statement you take exception to, honestly.
maybe i read your statement as sarcasm, "robbing a liquor store as rational self-interest", I thought you meant that Rand stated this was okay..... that's why I took exception... Correct me if I took it wrong.
My exact quotation was "I can't imagine anyone would look at some punk robbing a liquor store and conclude "That is a man who is behaving in accordance with his rati
2:06 DOUCHEBAG ALERT!
JIIIAIIIIMIIIIEIIIS 1 month ago in playlist In Defence of Ayn Rand
Stealing is a rational decision if you're starving and you need the food.
shitthrowingmonkey1 1 month ago
As one who denounced an ego, how could Nietzsche be an egoist? Some of my biggest issues with Rand are her horrid readings of Aristotle, Kant, and Nietzsche.
Debordsbullet 4 months ago
Fatism is the other ism
jtincubus 9 months ago
Paul, I wish you lived in the states. I'd move to wherever you're at and vote for you.
bwood21390 1 year ago
I don't have an objection to this video, but just a general annoyance. What happened to philosophy dealing with real life situations? How many of us will be deserted on an island? How many of us will be on a railroad line confronted with saving 1 person or five from being killed by a train? Or any of the other million inane hypotheticals people create. I want a philosophy that helps me approach my life each day, not absurd situations I will never face.
bwood21390 1 year ago
"if that persons not producing..your not happy"
sounds like the basic structure of corporatism.
Admmusic2 1 year ago
HI Paul, (Are you familiar with satanic philosophy)
my question: What is the difference between randism & satanism. Both philosophies seems to be a replica of each other.
pls watch the vids:
Zeena LaVey And Nikolas Schreck Interview (Part 5)
Peter H. Gilmore "Inside The Church Of Satan" Part 1 (skip to min 3:20)
If u dont have the time, i understand.
TY
MauricioPerez1969 1 year ago
Comment removed
MauricioPerez1969 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I don't believe Ayn Rand had any understanding of pareto optimality and her concept of selfishness was, just that, our common understanding of the meaning of that word. Many Rand apologists out there. Like a sociopath could know what is pareto optimality in social interactions. They lack social abilities, hence why they are look so socially awkward
includao 1 year ago
The assumption from the chubby kid is that two people on a deserted island wouldn't work together to survive.
riethc 1 year ago
I don't believe Ayn Rand had any understanding of pareto optimality and her concept of selfishness was, just that, our common understanding of the meaning of that word. Many Rand apologists out there.
kokopelli314 1 year ago
i'm confused, how is trade not dependent on someone else? don't they have to agree to value what you worked to produce? if they have bread and you have metal, what do they care about trading with you? isn't your life then dependent on their care for your product to trade for food?
chuFFisTwo 1 year ago
@chuFFisTwo
Trading is voluntary exchange- I can trade & i can also not trade. note: the word can.
Objectivism is a very simple yet logical yet simultaneously it is very intricate philosophy as it goes over & overturns ideas of altruism & blind selflessness. Most people who oppose it, never really fully understood it in the first place.
To exist in this world, one must coexist with others. One can choose to live in isolation of others & to ignore others, but this is not rational
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
thus to exist alongside others one must choose either to use force or not use force & compulsion- ie trading.
One has a right to one's own property & one's own self & his own labor. The only limit of his rights is the equal rights of others. If he were to use force to infringe on other's properties, labors or selves, then all sanction on his property, rights & self is lost. And the violator becomes a criminal. Becoming a criminal, he must always be at least one step ahead of his
swu880 1 year ago
@swu880
pursuers. This obviously becomes rather unfeasible for the common man. And it is thus far more rational to be a trader & voluntarily enter society- but this is all voluntary. He chooses what & when & where & how he trades- for what purpose? that is for him to decide
swu880 1 year ago
1. How can you say trading doesn't depend on other people? I agree that its better than stealing because you produce something that you yourself might be able to use, however 'trading' by definition involves exchange, thus needing others
2. I agree relying/stealing on others till the point of dependency is bad, however what if instead you just decide to do a one-off steal and there was no way of finding out who did it? Would that be OK since you don't become a parasite?
Cool video btw!
soulrapture 1 year ago
....thats why i didnt have to watch more then 5 seconds of this vid (although i did in the end)
because you start of saying..
"an objectivist defn of 'selfishness' is much different, its more like self contained"
so...whats the point in that? why use the word if it doesnt mean what people will commenly know it to mean!??
its like me saying " i always try to be horrible to people, oh but ofcorse my definition of 'horrible' means to be really nice to them"
its completely pointless
mowgli123456789 1 year ago
this is my whole problem with her views on 'selfishness' that she has redefined the word!
she says she believes in being selfish then goes on to describe a lifestyle that i and no one i know would concider 'selfish' because that isnt what the word means to us. so pick a different word!!
the annoying this is i totally agree with all her views on this but its just confusing to invent new meanings for words
mowgli123456789 1 year ago
I'm a slacker. I'm offended by the use of the word slacker in this video. I don't steal from others. I simply don't feel a need to be greedy, reckless or wasteful with my limited work life. I prefer to take the time to stop and smell the roses and enjoy the kind of life that 'I' want to live, not to work for another in a frail attempt to appease someone's elses vision of accomplishment. Being a slacker is the truest for of individualism. I am not a slave to anything, including an ideology.
SBRslacker00 2 years ago
though that is irrational......How would you Finance your needs or generally your life? through others(taxes) or through yourself?
blackcrossunited666 1 year ago
I work to live. I don't live to work.
SBRslacker00 1 year ago
exactly....so slacking is not really a way to live ....Being Productive would keep you alive.
blackcrossunited666 1 year ago
Slacking is the ONLY way to live. Anything else is slave morality.
My worldview is shaped by a movie called _Slacker_ by Richard Linklater. It's on YT and I've got it saved under my favorites if you want to check it out. It could probably elaborate on these ideas if you are interested. Otherwise, I'm not really interested in engaging in these standard semantic games which typify religious zealots.
SBRslacker00 1 year ago
Slacking, a way to live?
How would you get what is an essential needs to live?
at least you are rich of course, you can afford that.
blackcrossunited666 1 year ago
I already answered your question.
SBRslacker00 1 year ago
Yep you completely duck out of life and do nothing. Sounds boring. Maybe you should clarify more.
th3dark3rsh33p 1 year ago
If you have a question, then you should probably ask it. I can't read your mind.
How can anyone 'duck out of life'? Do you mean suicide? Apparently, I haven't committed suicide. lmao
SBRslacker00 1 year ago
Honestly this sounds exactly like Objectivism. You just don't seem like you have a goal in life. All Objectivism is is the same thing you stated but it lays out a system and a way of government that lets people go out and do what they want to do in their life. Correct me if I'm wrong. My other question is does your philosophy say it's wrong to want to accomplish something like write a novel, design a building or run a successful business?
th3dark3rsh33p 1 year ago
Read Rand
2RagnarDanneskjold2 2 years ago
Yes, I was trying to explain this to my wife (who only speaks Spanish) ... the word "egoista" in Spanish = selfish in a negative light, and so I told her it wasn't "egoismo" but "egoismo racional" rational egoism. not just raw selfishness or destructive selfishness.
ltfallin 2 years ago
Your argument around 5:00 collapses Rand's utopian view of lassez-faire. Essentially, if one uses another or objectifies them in anyway without a mutual agreement then such an act is irrational. However, in a society where capitalism is already pervasive, one makes no agreement; in fact one has no opportunity to arrange such an agreement but nonetheless succumbs to being a wage slave and thus objectified under the threat of starvation and/or social stigma. Thus, capitalism is irrational.
rey9883 2 years ago
Question about argument around 3:00 about happiness being consistent with death, according to Rand.. What if a person's life is miserable; he has some terminal illness and death is inevitable regardless of any preventative measure. What if this person's only solace is in the peace of death; wouldn't happiness then be consistent with death? This view also seems to be compatible with notion of happiness being gained through achievement.
rey9883 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
How about "bloatism''? Lose some fucking weight fatty. Your flatulence is contributing to global warming.
wovokanarchy 2 years ago
Ayn Rand was the greatest advocate for minority rights in the 20th century. No matter the babble you speak about collectivism and social justice all rational societies realize it is bad to steal. So your defense of the goverment stealing portions of an individuals life is merely justifying the crime afterwards. Slavery is wrong even when it's voted into law by a majority or approved of by them. I belong to me not the state or society!
JonKevinCherry 2 years ago
It would seem the happiness of the Ranian Trader is dependent on others (the others with whom trade is conducted).
Therefore self-sufficiency is the only non-parasitical means of living.
Looking forward to seeing the Objectivists trying their hands at farming.
proudfootz 2 years ago
According to Rand, selfishness means being able to support one's self by one's effort and not sacrificing himself nor others. But when we raise livestock for food, aren't we doing exactly just that?
Randists will object and say that there is a line between animal and human sacrifice, and that line is defined by man's ability to reason. But they cannot deny that even in humans reasoning ability varies widely. Is it okay for us to sacrifice the mentally retarded?
philomonger 2 years ago
ummm, we have something called laws. killing human beings [not includng assisted suicide] is ILLEGAL . just because she says selfish doesnt mean unlawful or anarchist. what you are talking about is fascism that was used by nazis. but little do you realize that the mentally ill make us stronger, doctors and geneticist study them, therapists help them live independent lives. all of those people are working and get paid through various means more than not charity and churches and private funding.
jjmdirector 2 years ago
Not a very good argument, jjmdirector. By that reasoning, Randists should not resent progressive taxation since it is LEGAL.
philomonger 2 years ago
I would hate to be stranded on an island with this kid!
whatisdrunkal 2 years ago 4
@whatisdrunkal ::then if you were stranded in an island with him or anyonelse...that kind of thinking already makes you a dead man or woman :)....
phantom3dit 1 year ago
@whatisdrunkal Unless you were to see your good as his good, and vice versa, like division of labor, companionship, etc.
whiff1962 1 year ago
@whatisdrunkal Unless you were to see your good as his good, and vice versa, like division of labor, companionship, etc.
whiff1962 1 year ago
Actually, Nietszche did not have any values or ethics. He denied the concept of an objective morality, replacing it with the concept of Will to Power; the rule of the whim.
olvew 2 years ago
why can´t u film while Not in a car :P
BeHereNow21 2 years ago
Months ago, everyone ignored a comment which said:
How'd F. Castro succeed if living @ the expense of others kills yer means of survival?
Rand's options: A. Castro=ok B. Castro=failure.
But Castro's an evil success, right?
The capper was:
Of COURSE it's wisest to do what's best for your survival and (GENERALLY) to do it non-infringingly. But mislabeling this platitude 'virtue' and 'selfishness' doesnt make it a new philosophy.
Still awaiting a defense from Rand-lovers.
winocologist 2 years ago
What are you trying to prove? Castro survives by sacrifising others to himself. Is that moral? Is Objectivism wrong because this is possible? Is the world non-existant and the only standard of ethics Will to Power? What is your point?
olvew 2 years ago
I think they may have ignored the comment because Cuba isn't really regarded as a success story by many Cubans. It is actually a great example of what Rand views as evil, collectivism. I don't think you understand "what's best for your survival". Rand would not consider being a parasite a thing that was "best" for your survival. Yet that is what altruism advocates. I think you are over simplifying her philosophy.
marius2859 2 years ago
"stealing is not a rational decision, if your happyness dependends on stealing..." "you are depend on others" not yourself. Castro is a parasite and not productive.
threecards333 2 years ago
Why do people continue to misappropiate Nietzsche in this way? Have you even read any of his works? "The canny ego sees his own advantage in the advantage of many" - Thus spake Zarathustra. Rand was an intellectual midget. Heres an idea, read Kant, Nietzsche, Plato, or and decide for yourself rather than relying on the feeble interpetations of someone who obviously had no idea what they were talking about.
biggsy182 2 years ago
smoke my cock nuggets, you maggots of slavery!
grailmastah 2 years ago
Ayn Rand in a nutshell: The poor man is evil or hed be rich, whereas someone like say, Andrew Carnegie who slaughtered entire families because they went on strike, was a hero. I guess you have to be rich to have the right to strike.
DocFlamingo 2 years ago
Ayn Rand depended completely on others to make a living. She did not run the presses which printed her book. She did not buy the books. Her protagonist did not work in the mills where the metal was forged for the railroad, nor did he lay any track. In other words, they were COMPLETELY dependant on the largesse of others to get ahead.
drewlackey 2 years ago
Yes, but it was in their own selfish interest as well as her own selfish interest that the business relationship existed. She herself deplores the formation of monopolies- an economic phenomenon that she says would simply not happen under a perfectly free society- hence your idea that she, if she was truly independent, should control every aspect of her book's construction, is not the point she is making.
BenOliver2 2 years ago
I dont think you get the point. In the book, it exaggerated the importance of the mind, however it does not mean that an objectivist will not utilize the 'work' of others, as long as there's a fair trade. A value for a value.
Raistmar 2 years ago
Che Guevara > Ayn Rand
4Barbudos 2 years ago
Remarkable nonsense. The obvious appeal of Randian silliness is that it's very over-simplified and full of self obsessed insecurity, a caveman throwback of thought.
And by the way, a parasite doesn't kill the host, otherwise it would be a parasoid. And there's nothing more exploitative than Austrian libertarian capitalism. You should LOVE being compared with simple slimy organisms that leech off the productivity and energy of others, it's very Randian!
VariedInterest 2 years ago
To SuperiorSaviour
What do you mean by "bankers and managers" don't give anything? If you mean they do not produce anything then that is false, because one does not have to produce a material good for trade to be rational and self-reliant, one can produce services as well, and thats exactly what bankers and managers do.
ngbdkhg 2 years ago
Everyone is dependant on other organisms for their nutrients, energy and their very existence, except perhaps photosynthysising plants. Only lone wolfs can live without selfishness in Rand's sense, selfishness is rational as she defines rationality. Bankers & managers give nothing, but i think she'd suport them.
Rand is very different to the traditional Egoist i believed her to be though (perhaps less defensible unles she can as she boasted bridge the is/ought gap with regards to existing).
SuperiorSavior 2 years ago
You should know that parasites do act rationally, they for the most part do not kill their host. Therefore acting as a parasite can be a rational approach. This objectivism is a load of crap.
longsilver1 2 years ago
It's important to realize that what she talked about can only be applied to humans. We don't worry about whether animals used reason to guide their actions because they don't have reasoning abilities. They survive using their instincts as we do our reasoning abilities, so when a parasite/animal leeches/kills instinctively, it isn't bad or irrational. A human, who chooses to be a parasite in the figurative sense despite understanding *property* and *consent*, has no such excuse.
Vet223 2 years ago 2
Well, you have a whole c lass of wealthy people living off the blood and sweat of wage earners, but if you hear them talk about it you think it was the other way around. Does that fit your definition of parasite?
longsilver1 2 years ago
Nope. A parasite operates without a consensual relationship; by human standards it would be violating the rights of others. Not liking the terms of your employment contract is not the same thing as being forced, coerced, or defrauded.
Vet223 2 years ago
Have you read Atlas Shrugged?Industrialists dont live off the blood and sweat of anyone, it is their ideas that give those wage earners their jobs in the first place.
ajsharkmaniac07 2 years ago
Yes, I've read Atlas Shrugged a few times. I found it a bit cartoonish in it's depiction of it's characters, the heroes striking "heroic" poses and stances, while the villians are insidious and without any redeaming qualities.
Capital is useless without labor. Watch what happened in situations where hyperinflation occurs, Currency becomes near worthless and commodities and labor trump it.
Capital results from conserving the fruit of labor, labor is not the fruit of conserving capital.
hdfatboy2k 2 years ago
It takes no intelligence to dig ditches and do menial labor. It takes great amounts of intelligence to design buildings railroads dams etc. Anyone can do menial labor, so why should they be paid more when their supply is so great?
ajsharkmaniac07 2 years ago
If your idea of labor is limited to digging ditches and menial labor, no wonder you are an Ayn Rand fanatic.
There is no large projects designed singularly. Even if there were, that individual would use a computer, so all the computer hardware and software designers would be "standing behind him" so to speak.
No large projects such as dams, railroads etc are built by private capital but by government (collective) efforts. Private capital also works in associations and wants govt insurance.
hdfatboy2k 2 years ago
But even if it were so and there were the great minds working heroically alone against the mindless collective to realize his dream, without labor to realize it, his work would come to naught.
You know, electricians, pipefitters, millwrights, tool and die makers, heavy equipment operators, high stel workers.
All the people with manual skills that make ideas into reality. Craftsman, tradesman, etc. SKILLED laborers.
Next time your sewer line is plugged, call Howard Rourke.
hdfatboy2k 2 years ago
And not every one can do menial labor, despite great intelligence.
Ask Steven Hawkings.
And I have seen many a sharp engineer who can't seem to operate a screw driver.
hdfatboy2k 2 years ago
No, but most people can do menial labor. Supply is great for maids, plumbers, carpenters, and skilled laborers. Not to many people can design aircraft that stay in the air and run companies without bankrupting them. The latter tasks deserve significantly more compensation. It is their minds that make the work of all those laborers possible.
ajsharkmaniac07 2 years ago
The truth is, the supply for skilled labor is drying up. Mostly because many people don't wish to do physical labor.
The point I made that it is neigh on impossible for one man to design a plane, building, or dam. And those that do rely on CAD programs and the like for modern design. They are not lone wolfs.
Many, many engineered items come down to the project site with a design but no PRACTICAL way to execute the design. That requires a field engineer. And he relies on a tradesman.
hdfatboy2k 2 years ago
I have seen it time and time again. Sure there is a piece of paper but no practical way to get it done. Until some guy with a tool and practical experience makes it happen.
hdfatboy2k 2 years ago
True, but how many of those menial laborers could revolutionize quantum physics the way Hawking has? Your statement proves my point.
ajsharkmaniac07 2 years ago
I would say none. My point was in the hyperbole.
Look at many of the great cathederals of Europe. These weren't engineered in a modern sense but designed to stand by masons who had practical understanding of what would make them stand.
Regardless og Hawking physical restrictions, putting his ideas into practical ablications requires skilled workers who make it happen. If not, it just stays on paper. A pretty piece of egotism.
It is an interconnected web.
hdfatboy2k 2 years ago
Have you even read the Fountainhead? Roarke did know how to do skilled labor and demonstrated that throughout the book. Why don't you read her works before you criticize them?
ajsharkmaniac07 2 years ago
Yes, I have read mauch of Ayn Rand's work. That was my earliest criticism in my thread. First off, they are fictional, so they can be created with or without flaws to create the authors point.
Rand's heros strut across her stage, striking heroic poses. The villian, the Toomeys, if you will, are all scurilious, scheming rogues with no redeeming characteristics. I feel like I am reading a comic book. Nuance is absent.
hdfatboy2k 2 years ago
what the hell, you dont even have the characters names right
xainish 2 years ago
Xainish. Cripes, I read the books back in the mid seventies. The fact that I remembered Toohey as Toomey is of small consequence after 30 years. That is close enough.
Continue on worshiping Rands every word and fart. The funny thing is that Ayn Rand would not even dain to piss on most of the fanboys that praise her and fawn over her like neutered minions.
But her self-serving ego did not know many limits.
hdfatboy2k 2 years ago
bad assumption. i am not a fan of rand. However, I do find utility in peter keeting, toohey and catherine in making a comparison to the enemies of individual liberty. However, it makes it seem like you've not even read the book when you get the characters names wrong.
xainish 2 years ago
The point I was trying to make is that you should be paid in accordance with the amount of brainpower, education, and talent you have to demonstrate in order to do your task. I am not negating the abilities of skilled laborers, their labor is needed and valuable, Rand never refuted this. But to compare what a plumber does, which almost anyone can learn, to what an engineer has to do to design a dam, is ridiculous. They are paid in accordance with supply and demand.Not everyone can be an engineer
ajsharkmaniac07 2 years ago
I undsestand your point. Unfortunately, in the US, the highest paid occupations are salesman, mass marketers, amd financial speculators. it is extremely rare that a lone inventor comes up with a great new invention, and rarer yet when he markets it himself.
Most engineering feats are done in teams. with computer software created by other teams. Education and rarity alone does not earn wealth. If that were so Doctors of Divinity and PharmD's would be the highest paid individuals on earth.
hdfatboy2k 2 years ago
You need to wake up...first the "industrialists" don't hardly play a role in the economy. The last 20 year or so years has been dominated by finiance, who largely don't produce any wealth, in fact they extract it by minipulating the value of money. It's a house of cards about to come down. Regardless, they are all parasites because they don't do the actual work. You must has a golden parchute? Tell me the truth have you ever held a job?
longsilver1 2 years ago
Can we be truly independent and at the same time live in a society? If so is there a way to scientifically measure the applied concept of personal responsibility?
Are my questions really going to be answered on youtube? :-)
seneca4295 3 years ago 2
Yes it is possible, because the means of trading a value for a value is dependent on each individual. Meaning (in its simplest form), if I needed a chicken's egg, and I have wheat that I worked hard for, I can happily trade it with a person who has a chicken egg, the means is totally dependent on me, because I wouldnt have been able to trade if I didnt have any wheat in the first place
Raistmar 2 years ago
To LetFreedomRing13: Furthermore, the NEOCON cabal have PROMOTED corruption with large corporations, offering them power and protection while the NEOCONS "work the crowd" for public support. You forget, that I WORKED FOR ENRON and saw these evils up close and personal. I met Alberto Gonzales, Karl Rove and Karen Hughes who had offices AT ENRON HQ. I also dispute the concept that the Constitution was written for capitalists. It is a document to protect and enforce the will of the PEOPLE.
exenrontexas 3 years ago
Good explanation, Paul,
but it's "defense" not "defence."
gypsyfish300 3 years ago
FUCK YOU GOT MINE
Joe402 3 years ago
Enjoy preasent pleasures in such a way as not to injure future ones... Seneca
There is no longevity in being dependant/ parasitic.
eventide925 3 years ago
If you are writing for a British publication, use defence, but the American defense has the advantages of greater antiquity, similarity to the words from which it was derived, and consistency with words like defensible.
Entropy56 3 years ago
couldnt agree more. and i really like the comparison of stealing to an sacrifice of independence.
shtivegomz 3 years ago
then u could pay tax(or what u like to call it) to a healthcare system+social security, to gain or to protect yourself against getting unemployed and save ur family from being poor.
45a66 3 years ago
Government didn't facilitate anything. The corporations who bribed the politicians facilitate everything. Corporate greed is the problem, not government.
felicity5150 3 years ago
lol
ThorBarrett 3 years ago
You need to read up on fascism which is what America is right now. The bankers took over in 1913 and have been controlling the ship since. If you don't believe it then realize that the banker bailout was a SCAM designed to give Paulson & Bernake the key to your wallets. They have stolen over $8.5T from you so far. Government as a whole didn't do it. Corrupt criminals placed into power are the ones doing it for financial gain. Greed is a drug that leads once decent people to commit criminal acts.
felicity5150 3 years ago
Are you suggesting human nature is the problem, and we need to eliminate humans?
If not, how do you suppose we should go about creating a better society, if humans have an inherent desire to be happy(what you call greed)?
Why aren't politicians who are taking bribes, selling favors, guilty?
If politicians take bribes, why is it a good idea to put them in charge of our economy? Shouldn't we in fact separate them from it?
deinse81 3 years ago
Since when does greed equate to happiness? Greed is an addiction worse than crack cocaine because smoking crack kills only one person. Greed ends up killing millions or possibly the entire human race. Check out what Monsanto is doing. They are making a power play to control the world's food supply. If they succeed then you and millions of others may die. Not everyone can afford a $50 loaf of bread. Tough luck, huh?
felicity5150 3 years ago
Government is the problem. If you cant see this I can help explain in more detail. Free markets have produced the greatest prosperity in the world statism ultimately leads to stagnation. Our current market failures are not a result of free-market decision, but more-so the result of government influence within the free-market.
Its easy to say corporations and greed are the problem. You couldn't be further from the actual truth.
I can explain if you'd like.
LetFreedomRing13 3 years ago
Were you aware that objectivism is ANTI-American and ANTI-Christian?
Are you aware that the current American system is NOT capitalistic but CORPORATE SOCIALISM where hundreds of billions of dollars are handed out to large corporations every year and has for many, many years in the form of deductions, exemptions, incentives and free services. Large American could not exist without the general public underwriting their operations often without any say so about it.
exenrontexas 3 years ago
Objectivism is not anti-american or anti-christian. While Rand did not believe in God, so never once tried to force her opinion upon us.
I do agree that our american market is anything close to Laissez-faire...
Lets not forget these large corporations that you denounce were propped up not by the free market but by government lobbying that has allowed them to grow to the extent they have without fair competition (ie...cable companies, utility companies.)
LetFreedomRing13 3 years ago 2
I do not denounce large corporations except to say that they deceitfully claim to be capitalistic in the US. ANYTHING BUT. They practice and encourage CORPORATE SOCIALISM aka FASCISM. They have worked very hard to deceive the public to claim otherwise. America needs to know that the system currently in place has as it;s ultimate goal totalitarian dictorship. Very often such people quote Ayn Rand in support. I have read Atlas Shrugged and she is definitely anti-Christian, anti-charity.
exenrontexas 3 years ago
First off, Rand definitely was anti-christian and also anti-charity. Does that make here any less American? Does that totally discredit her economic philosophy? I thought our country was founded on freedom including the freedom of religious belief and opinion and also the freedom to do what you want with the money you earn, correct me if I'm wrong.....
Maybe I'm out of line by asking, but how much of your income goes to charity? or are you simply being hypocritical?
LetFreedomRing13 3 years ago
Many believe that America was founded as a Christian nation. If you accept that then Rand is most definitiely anti-American. However even further, read the PreAmble to the Constitution which implies that government will act for the benefit of the PEOPLE in many ways. Now the Constitution is flexible enough to allow many paths to that end which MAY include Rand. What I object to is the patent dishonesty of US corporations who claim to be moral AND patriotic. They are neither.
exenrontexas 3 years ago
Rand was not anti-American, in fact she promoted the ideas of limited government which was at the core of the founding fathers beliefs. I could care less what her religion was, or yours is for that matter. That does not make her anti-American.
What I care about are the issues that matter. You can point to U.S. business as an evil, but U.S. business has brought the most prosperity than any nation in the world has ever seen. What would you rather have? More government control? Move to Europe
LetFreedomRing13 3 years ago
I believe that large corporations are necessary for the sake of business functionality. However, very often very dishonest. They claim capitalism, but discourage capitalist investment, business innovation, competititon, full employment. They manage public opinion, government support, laws and all things that effect them. There is a very small leap to...totalitarian dictatorship. Google "The Corporation" and "the Power of Nightmares" for details. Corporations are essential but out of control
exenrontexas 3 years ago
Remember that most coercive monopolites can be accomplished only by an act of government intervention in the form of special regulations, subsidies or franchises. Coercive monopolies would not be able to sustain themselves for long in a free market that is free from govt controls. These monopolies that you speak of are a government created problem and should not be blamed on free market capitalism. I understand your point - I simply hope you understand where to direct your frustrations.
LetFreedomRing13 3 years ago
The principles that America is founded upon is government BY, FOR and OF the PEOPLE. The Declaration of Independence clearly says that self-determination of a PEOPLE is a God-given right. The PEOPLE can chose laissez-faire OR government directed policies or a blend of the two. THAT is their right and duty. Now I DO accept that the PEOPLE have NOT fulfilled their duty in many cases and America is the worse for it.
exenrontexas 3 years ago
An increase in government-directed policies will be the destruction of this country - Rand was not the only one who foresaw this. She witnessed it first hand in the USSR.
LetFreedomRing13 3 years ago
Do you dispute the God given right of the PEOPLE to determine the direction of the government? Do you dispute the inherent nature of large corporations to limit or restrict altruistic behavior? Do you dispute the evidence that large corporations have an inordinate control of government? It seems to me the problem is...GREED. EIther greed of the PEOPLE to get free services or GREED of large corporation to get large amount of public money AND free services.
exenrontexas 3 years ago
Lets talk about GREED.
Todays liberals recognize the workers rights to their livelyhood but deny those same rights to business men. Hear me out. If workers struggle for wage increases it is hailed as a "social gain". If businessmen struggle for higher profits, this is deemedas "selfish greed".
In Solviet Russia the scapegoat was the bourgeoisie, in Nazi Germany it was the Jewish people and in America today it is the businessman.
The villian is the legislator not the businessman.
LetFreedomRing13 3 years ago
It seems that your interpretation of workers rights is bias by your membership of the Ayn Rand fan club. UNIONS in America were the result NOT of some Bolshevik influence but rather a reaction to CORPORATE ABUSE. Remember the ROBBER BARONS who used deceit, subterfuge and bribery to abuse workers in the last century and, in a sense, are subsidizing the SAME abuses or WORSE in the third world today where they can get away with it. Are their labor abuses? SURE but NOTHING AT ALL compared mgmt.
exenrontexas 3 years ago
greed will unwind any economy if left unchecked. canadas banks are secure when others need bailouts because canada imposes restrictions. ayn was so wrong in her theories.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
jnycnuk: rational actions will never "unwind" an economy. It is the IRRATIONAL actions - the theft, fraud, and various forms of dishonesty...not the least of which is inflation - that will kill the economy.
Be careful not to buy the nonsense served up in left-wing papers, that try to suggest the current crisis was the result of not enough government intervention. The fact is that the government facilitated and encouraged easy credit, bad loans, and bankruptcies.
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
paul: better control of institutions with the long term safety of the economy in mind is what the government's responsibility is. short term knee jerk reactions must be eliminated as they are the culprit of the dilemma now faced in the marketplace.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
I think what he was trying to say starting at about 1:40 before the cut was,
the person who lives to try to extract wealth from person A loses his identity, no longer has a self, becomes focused on the target of their need, the person they want to feed off of.
Wow, now his (I guess) dad gets to it at around 5 minutes in. Good vid.
candleman99 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Ayn Rand---the L. Ron Hubbard of capitalism.
kurd55 3 years ago
SSSSssssssssssss
lol.
`-`
take the jawbreaker out of your mouth.
LimeTheSlime 3 years ago
Based on the way Ayn Rand lived, yes I do think she believed in living a selfish life, which was to the detriment of those of other peoples. She was awful to her friends and family. Ultimately isn't the way you live the truth of anyone's philosophy ?
formless777 3 years ago
Um... She emigrated here from Russia; there is no way you could know anything about Rand's family.
ProximaMinor 3 years ago
She had biographies you know...
formless777 3 years ago
Peikoff, her intellectual heir, doesn't even know much about her earlier years in Russia, as she rarely talked about it. The closest thing you can get to an autobiography is "We the Living". Anyways, how she dealt with others was hardly detrimental.
ProximaMinor 3 years ago
If you think wrecking marriages is good value then Ayn's your girl.
formless777 3 years ago
Her marriage wasn't wrecked; both Frank and Nathanial agreed. Anyways, if two men love the same woman, then they must be of the same mind. If the woman doesnt want to choose to have a romantic relationship with only want, in other words if she wants both, and if the men do not have a problem in sharing the same woman, then its fine. Personally its not something I would want, but I certainly dont think its wrong if a party chooses to do what Ayn, Frank, and Nathanial did.
ProximaMinor 3 years ago
You look like the current Polish president, Lech Kaczynski.
i0ii0iii0iiii0 3 years ago
Quote from svannerman changed to the first person... "Even 'my' own rationality, or attempts at it, cannot serve as a stable and abiding source for 'my' own happiness-this is because 'I' am not always rational and because 'I' do not always rely on rationality for 'my' happiness." Sounds a bit different this way, all I can say to svannerman is to speak for yourself.
niruobas55 3 years ago
I think XOmniverse has made a mistake. He has taken his own views of what right or good actions are and attempted to also call these actions rational - in order to agree with Ayn Rand. The problem seems to be that all the examples XOmniverse gave for why theft is not rational also apply to the trade example. (i.e., you are still relying on the productivity of the other person in order to get what will make you happy from him or her).
It's more rational to steal. Same payoff, no trade needed.
zacd1 3 years ago
Rand is an armature at philosophy, She misinterpreted almost every historical philosopher that she uses. She is sloppy, not considering the subtle differences between positions Christianity and Communism. Her "so called" solution to the problem of universals is just a re framing of the problem. This address of Happiness doesn't address the nihilist potion that there is no justification for seeking happiness. What justifies the pursuit of happiness. In short, what justifies being happy?
skrich2 3 years ago 4
Nature.
What "justifies" being unhappy?
PaulMcKeever 3 years ago
Could you elaborate on what you mean, because nature in the Aristotelian sense does not justify Rand. Rand's reading of Aristotle is about as bad as Hitler's reading of Nietzsche. As to the second point the nihilist says that neither the pursuit of happiness or unhappiness are justified, and thus there is no worthy action.
skrich2 3 years ago 3
That was a really worthwhile comment. Well done.
formless777 3 years ago
You say there is no worthy action. To think is an action. Therefore thinking is an unworthy action. You must first think in order to form the thought "there is no unworthy action". You are to be blamed for the same crime you are accusing of everyone who pursues happiness.
ProximaMinor 3 years ago
Since you undoubtedly think mankind is horrible, and no one is worthy of life, why continue to live? You clearly stated that there is no worthy action; the most righteous thing someone could do is not act; the only way to do this is to cease existing.
ProximaMinor 3 years ago
Haha realize what you just said skrich2, brain up. 'What justifies being happy'? What the fuck kinda question is that. Retard.
Fonzee11 3 years ago
This in no way addresses my question. I am not claiming that being happy is wrong in itself, that would be stupid. Assuming by your comment, you would like to try to provide an answer to the question so I will clarify it for you. It is the case that you have an impulse that is biological to pursue pleasure and avoid pain. For this to count as a morally justified action, you must provide some reason as to why it is "good". That means you need to give an account of the good and work it in.
skrich2 3 years ago
As it has been said, nature. Natural (or primal) instict of man is survival, and by improving your life your chances of survival increase, and what happens when you improve your life in a manner that you feel rigt with? It's obvious, you feel happier than before.
But As I said for feeling happier your achievements has to be in harmony with your moral code (built on reason), if not, there would be internal contradiction, and so, suffering.
Nadow 3 years ago
Comment removed
svanneman 2 years ago
Rand's points of view about seflishness and objectivism seem quite logical to some extent. Although i do not agree completely with her philosophy on "not giving love to those who are not worthy of it."
In any case i will have to read The Fountainhead and a couple more of her books to understand her philosophy completely.
jazzmanEE 3 years ago
Being rational is completely subjective.
Do the decisions for the sefishness promoted here have some degree of morality,i.e. consideration for others and the whole world?
The most selfish people I've encountered in my life are generally the most miserable. They are insecure,mistrustful & mostly negative; unpleasant to be around.
kub73158 3 years ago
You have misunderstood what "rational selfishness" is. It just doesnt have anything is common with being a bastard. If you are rational, and thereby analize which is the best way to optimize your relations with others (and obteining mutual benefit) you will reach the logical conclusion that is being kind and cooperative. And dont forget that this benefit can simply be self-safistaction on helping others i.e. But, again, thats not altruism or charity, is rational egoism. You obtein pleasure.
Nadow 3 years ago
Nadow,thanks- well put.
kub73158 3 years ago 3
you've got it backwards.
BanjoNaps 3 years ago
I am not saying that externals cannot provide some happiness. I am saying that whatever is used as an external basis for happiness (e.g. - impermanent phenomena like "productiveness" and "products") will necessarily not serve as a stable and abiding source of happiness. Even our own rationality, or attempts at it, cannot serve as a stable and abiding source for our own happiness - this is because we are not always rational and because we do not always rely on rationality for happiness.
svanneman 3 years ago 3
I do.
BanjoNaps 3 years ago
For example, a quadriplegic has a severely limited ability to be productive and to manipulate products and they are therefore more dependent than independent. Additionally, this limitation of ability to interact with the outside world does not necessarily mean that they will have a proportionally lowered capacity for happiness. Happiness itself is an internal state which we learn to associate with certain idiosyncratic triggers.
svanneman 3 years ago 2
Because one's ability to be productive in exactly the way that one wants to be is not guaranteed, because the ability to be productive at all is not guaranteed, and because the ability to exchange one's own products for the products of others is not guaranteed, it does not follow that this is a reasonable basis for happiness.
svanneman 3 years ago 2
This is because, though she is not basing her happiness on external persons and/or their products, she is still basing her happiness on her own ability to be productive and/or to produce some thing. In other words, it seems that she is still basing her happiness on external impermanent phenomena and the manipulation thereof - she is a slave to production and the manipulation of products for her happiness.
svanneman 3 years ago 3
First, I am wholly unfamiliar with Ayn Rand and her philosophy and am therefore basing my comments on what you have presented here in this video. From what I understand, Rand seems to be saying that one's ability to have stable and abiding happiness and fulfillment is proportional and/or based on one's ability to be productive. If I am correct in stating that as her assertion, then this does not seem to be a tenable position to maintain.
svanneman 3 years ago
not so much on being productive, but in using ones mind to the best of ones ability to achieve your purpose. Even a quadrapalegic has a mind, and as such, they can still be productive. Look at Stephen Hawking.
ajsharkmaniac07 2 years ago
What I was attempting to suggest was that stable and abiding happiness cannot arise in dependence upon a dualistic mind. Such a dualistic mind, thinking that there is a "real" subject that perceives "real" objects, will manipulate either external phenomena and/or internal thoughts, sensations, etc. in order to generate happiness. I argue that this effort will ultimately not provide stable and abiding happiness because it is based on a false view (e.g. - "dualism").
svanneman 2 years ago
Additionally, these dualistic "manipulations" ultimately only provide temporary forms of happiness. For example, let us imagine that eating ice cream makes me extremely happy. Because of this I eat ice cream quite frequently, but ultimately I become dissatisfied with it, so much so that it no longer brings me any happiness. I then move on to joyfully eating apples which then ultimately ends in the same disappointing way. Thus, I find that these dualistic manipulations never bring me what I want.
svanneman 2 years ago
How'd Castro succeed if crime kills your means of survival?
Rand's options: A. Castro=ok / B. Castro=failure. But he's an evil success, right?
He rationally thought "it's in my interest to oppress; depending on (oppressing) others can BE my means of survival."
OF COURSE it's sensible to do what serves you and even (GENERALLY) to do it non-infringingly. But that extremely ancient bit of common sense isn't a new idea just because someone mislabels it "virtue" and "selfishness."
victorcamel 3 years ago 2
I get the argument and agree. Here's another angle (I am extrapolating this from John Galt's oath): An objectivist would not enslave another for the sake of their own happiness just on principle, because he/she expects others not to enslave them for their happiness. A rational person knows that you can't expect respect without giving it.
Jazra02 3 years ago
Is it not impossible to achieve happiness which is not dependent on others? Surely family, friends, and general interaction with other humans beings is surely essential for happiness?
jpararaja 4 years ago 4
Consider the joy of Tom Hanks' character, in the movie "Cast Away", when he finally manages to create fire. His was not only relief, but joy, even though he was alone on the island. The occurrence of human interaction is not a prerequisite for happiness.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
That idea is mind blowing, though difficult to swallow being so counter-intuitive.
So where does love, loyalty, compassion, protection, honour, etc. fit into this concept of joy?
Surely the "joy" felt by Tom Hanks was similar to a sociopath's pleasure you have criticised previously i.e. short-term satisfaction?
jpararaja 4 years ago 2
I have just realised that the Buddhist perception of ultimate happiness/joy does not invoke human interaction either.
Also do you feel the purpose of morality is to merely fulfil the social contract rather than fostering behaviours that prevent suffering and promote well-being?
jpararaja 4 years ago
Rand was a so-so writer at best. She set up cardboard characters that had little dynamics to them (as in they don't change from beginning to end) and sends them through a perfect scenario to prove her point. Aesop wrote a ton of stories just like them. Too bad Phil Donahue didn't interview Aesop.
walrusdodges 4 years ago 3
The best way to defend Ayn Rand...don't. Defend the message, not the messenger.
Example: Rand often allowed her emotion to influence her reasoning: smoking based on quality of life, thinking homosexuality was a psychological impairment because she felt it was disgusting, and so on.
However, her fictional and non-fictional works are very much based on solid, thorough reasoning. Her impromptu essays, articles, and quotes...not so much.
BoruJudasDedrich 4 years ago
I chose "In Defence of Ayn Rand" rather than "In Defence of Objectivism" because the philosophy of the first (Ayn Rand) IS the second. Many objectivists like to forget that, in the hope that they can smear some of the credibility of the word "objectivism" onto their pet (usually libertarian) philosophy/anti-philosophy.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
I should have said "Many non-objectivists like to forget that..." but my intended meaning, I think, was obvious enough (it would be nice to have an edit function on youtube...or is there one?).
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Judas,
I'm not following your points of personal criticism of Rand. Do you have sources, as your conclusions are inconsistent with the information I have reviewed on the subject?
jwoodswce 4 years ago
To scotlumdi (accidentally removed your post): Dependency is founded on a lack of rationality; rationality implies productiveness. The productive produce what they need and want to survive and pursue happiness. In the context of trade: if A, to obtain something from B, must produce and provide X to B, A does so. The unproductive do not and, as a result, die if they do not take/receive from others.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Thanks for the explanation. I've also reviewed the portion of the video where you discuss this subject matter, to get a clearer understanding.
scotlumdi 4 years ago
I think that you will find a lot of unhappy babies.......when their mothers decide to roll them out into the street, so the can "fend for themselves" Dependency is also part of life and it is rationally based.
longsilver1 2 years ago 2
People who fail to make the distinction that you pointed out have yet to understand that cooperation with other human beings is in their own interests e.g. selfish. I can't imagine anyone would look at some punk robbing a liquor store and conclude "That is a man who is behaving in accordance with his rational self-interest."
5 stars.
XOmniverse 4 years ago
Thanks X.
PaulMcKeever 4 years ago
Go back and do more research, you obviously haven't examined much of Rand's work based on your comment. She would never have agreed to that statement - she never opposed laws.
LetFreedomRing13 3 years ago
It's a good thing I never said she opposed laws.
XOmniverse 3 years ago 3
As Ayn Rand states, "my rights end where yours begin". You do what is right for your own rational self-interest as long as you do not infringe upon anyone elses rights or property. That is in a nutshell a simple overview of her philosophy. I urge you not to simple quote what I write as a assumption of her beliefs though - if there is one non-fiction book of hers that I would urge you to read it is "Capitalsim: The Unknown Ideal" - one of the few books in modern time that defend capitalism.
LetFreedomRing13 3 years ago
Your insolent tone is uncalled for. I am well read in Ayn Rand and her works.
Ayn Rand did not argue that it was not in one's rational self-interest to respect the rights of others e.g. she did not consider it some kind of weird exception to the rule of selfishness.
She was quite clear that there is a harmony of interest among men and that it was NOT in someone's rational self-interest to violate rights.
I'm not exactly sure what part of my original statement you take exception to, honestly.
XOmniverse 3 years ago
maybe i read your statement as sarcasm, "robbing a liquor store as rational self-interest", I thought you meant that Rand stated this was okay..... that's why I took exception... Correct me if I took it wrong.
LetFreedomRing13 3 years ago
My exact quotation was "I can't imagine anyone would look at some punk robbing a liquor store and conclude "That is a man who is behaving in accordance with his rati