5 ms·

> what this reveals about how Objectivism operates in practice...the movement's central contradiction Is it only the gatekeepers of Rand's legacy that exhibit

> what this reveals about how Objectivism operates in practice...the movement's central contradiction Is it only the gatekeepers of Rand's legacy that exhibit this discrepancy, or was it contradiction from the beginning? I seem to remember the first Objectivist herself accepted assistance from the Federal government near the end of her life. Anyway, to someone with a distant outsider's view of this movement, it can seem that it misses something fundamental about the human psyche as it evolved to operate in co-dependent groups.

thrance 2y ago
Not really a defense of this clown ideology, but Rand would be acting rationally (if a bit hypocritically) by accepting the Government's check. In her views, it's the State that's acting irrationally by offering support in the first place. On a similar subject, she believed disabled people (or more generally, people unable to work) should not receive any help other than from "voluntary charity" [1], a fact I find absolutely disgusting and should discredit this ideology to any sane person. [1] https://youtu.be/rM4HqlqQYwo https://youtu.be/rM4HqlqQYwo
notahacker 2y ago
Even her fictional utopia Galt's Gulch is basically a commune, a commune where people cosplay at being hardnosed capitalists who won't give anything for free by charging each other token amounts for everything...
- lazystar 2y ago
  Exactly - theyre all non-conformists, and you can be a non-conformist and join them in their commune if you act just like them in every way.
- fireburning 2y ago
  [dead]
kbelder 2y ago
She addressed the problem with accepting assistance in relation to student tuition assistance. Briefly, she said hate the game, not the player. The students have a structure imposed upon them, and it's not irrational or unethical to take the aid the government provides since the government still regulates them and taxes them in various ways. However, it would be unethical to advocate for increasing that assistance (because the benefit is taken forcibly from others).
btilly 2y ago
Accepting assistance is perfectly in accord with her philosophy. You can verify her position from https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-question-of-scholarships/?nab=0 https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-question-of-scholarshi.... She views taxation as theft. Those who agree and advocate against this theft, may morally accept government largesse as restitution. But those who accept both the taxation and the redistribution become complicit in the theft, and are therefore immoral. There is a lot to criticize in her views. But this piece of it is not inconsistent. Only bizarre to someone who doesn't understand her.
- glenstein 2y ago
  Right, and I think there has unfortunately been an avalanche of low effort gotchas along these lines. My favorite (or least favorite?) example is from Jennifer Burns' biography Goddess of the Market, which charges that title "The Fountainhead" was a haphazard last second choice, selecting a word that never appears in the novel. But slight problem with that, a climactic conversation about ideals, perhaps the climactic articulation of values in the book, occurs between two main characters who use the term "fount" as a stand-in term for the wellspring of human creation, value, and meaning. Fountainhead, then, is who the main character is, and nothing other than typical artistic restraint in selecting a title that simultaneously points to the intellectual center of the novel without being browbeating about the term itself. I actually emailed Jennifer Burns and pointed this out at one point but didn't hear back. I do think the collapse of many of Rand's closest interpersonal relationships, the depression and drinking that her husband went into, as well as the legacy of her institute and estate, are quite damning. As of course is the shallow treatment of complicated topics, the fundamental misunderstanding of Kant that inspired the name of the whole philosophy, and the inapplicability of principles to mortals who wrestle with personal flaws. Those are real, but the social security thing isn't.
  - btilly 2y ago
    One of the major reasons why there are so many low effort gotchas is that her message is so emotionally uncomfortable for many. Facing what is legitimate in her criticisms is hard. And so people only consider her views long enough to come up with easily rejected caricatures. The arguments that they then use to reject those caricatures show how they did not actually process her point of view. But this is not just a problem that faces non-Objectivists. For example consider how Ayn Rand rejected the scientific evidence for smoking causing harm. She never had a logical argument. What she had was such an overwhelming emotional commitment to smoking being good that she would latch on to any plausible sounding argument against smoking being bad. For a more current example, look at Alex Epstein's arguments on global warming. It quickly becomes apparent that he has such a strong emotional alignment with the great good caused by fossil fuels that he easily accepts any argument, no matter how flawed, that they might also cause harm. Compounding the trouble, global warming presents the exact kind of tragedy of the commons that undermines the economic theories by which Objectivism should lead to an economic utopia. This fact adds to the emotional dynamics for ignoring evidence that reality doesn't actually work in the ways that Ayn Rand claimed.
isleyaardvark 2y ago
People often say there is no contradiction by looking at it on a philosophical level, but it's interesting to look at it at a more meta level, namely the fact that Rand felt she needed SS. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/#:~:text=Pryor%3A%20I%20had,should%20take%20help. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/#... > Pryor: I had read enough to know that she despised government interference, and that she felt that people should and could live independently. She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn't like, which was Medicare and Social Security. > I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job, she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our politial discussions. From there on - with gusto - we argued all the time the initial argument was on greed. She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn't watch it. Since she had worked her entire life and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn't feel that an individual should take help. Emphasis added. If a successful writer, who built their success on their supposed keen insights on business, the economy, and their relation to the government, if that writer could be totally wiped out and feel the need to take Social Security, what chance do the less successful have? Or should they just die?
- loki49152 2y ago
  She didn't "feel like she needed Social Security". In fact, she instructed her fiduciary to not apply for it on her behalf because she didn't need it, and her detractors would use her participation to smear her. Her fiduciary convinced her to be enrolled by citing her own "restitution" argument and the fact that, as a fiduciary, she had an obligation to pursue all of her client's financial interests to the extent of her ability under the law. That's what you just cited above. At Rand's death, her estate was estimated to be worth somewhere between $500,000 to $2 million dollars. Rand didn't feel she needed it. Her fiduciary did risk management for her.
  - isleyaardvark 2y ago
    I stand corrected, thank you.

thrance 2y ago

Not really a defense of this clown ideology, but Rand would be acting rationally (if a bit hypocritically) by accepting the Government's check. In her views, it's the State that's acting irrationally by offering support in the first place. On a similar subject, she believed disabled people (or more generally, people unable to work) should not receive any help other than from "voluntary charity" [1], a fact I find absolutely disgusting and should discredit this ideology to any sane person. [1] https://youtu.be/rM4HqlqQYwo https://youtu.be/rM4HqlqQYwo

notahacker 2y ago

Even her fictional utopia Galt's Gulch is basically a commune, a commune where people cosplay at being hardnosed capitalists who won't give anything for free by charging each other token amounts for everything...

lazystar 2y ago
Exactly - theyre all non-conformists, and you can be a non-conformist and join them in their commune if you act just like them in every way.
fireburning 2y ago
[dead]

kbelder 2y ago

She addressed the problem with accepting assistance in relation to student tuition assistance. Briefly, she said hate the game, not the player. The students have a structure imposed upon them, and it's not irrational or unethical to take the aid the government provides since the government still regulates them and taxes them in various ways. However, it would be unethical to advocate for increasing that assistance (because the benefit is taken forcibly from others).

btilly 2y ago

Accepting assistance is perfectly in accord with her philosophy. You can verify her position from https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-question-of-scholarships/?nab=0 https://courses.aynrand.org/works/the-question-of-scholarshi.... She views taxation as theft. Those who agree and advocate against this theft, may morally accept government largesse as restitution. But those who accept both the taxation and the redistribution become complicit in the theft, and are therefore immoral. There is a lot to criticize in her views. But this piece of it is not inconsistent. Only bizarre to someone who doesn't understand her.

glenstein 2y ago
Right, and I think there has unfortunately been an avalanche of low effort gotchas along these lines. My favorite (or least favorite?) example is from Jennifer Burns' biography Goddess of the Market, which charges that title "The Fountainhead" was a haphazard last second choice, selecting a word that never appears in the novel. But slight problem with that, a climactic conversation about ideals, perhaps the climactic articulation of values in the book, occurs between two main characters who use the term "fount" as a stand-in term for the wellspring of human creation, value, and meaning. Fountainhead, then, is who the main character is, and nothing other than typical artistic restraint in selecting a title that simultaneously points to the intellectual center of the novel without being browbeating about the term itself. I actually emailed Jennifer Burns and pointed this out at one point but didn't hear back. I do think the collapse of many of Rand's closest interpersonal relationships, the depression and drinking that her husband went into, as well as the legacy of her institute and estate, are quite damning. As of course is the shallow treatment of complicated topics, the fundamental misunderstanding of Kant that inspired the name of the whole philosophy, and the inapplicability of principles to mortals who wrestle with personal flaws. Those are real, but the social security thing isn't.
- btilly 2y ago
  One of the major reasons why there are so many low effort gotchas is that her message is so emotionally uncomfortable for many. Facing what is legitimate in her criticisms is hard. And so people only consider her views long enough to come up with easily rejected caricatures. The arguments that they then use to reject those caricatures show how they did not actually process her point of view. But this is not just a problem that faces non-Objectivists. For example consider how Ayn Rand rejected the scientific evidence for smoking causing harm. She never had a logical argument. What she had was such an overwhelming emotional commitment to smoking being good that she would latch on to any plausible sounding argument against smoking being bad. For a more current example, look at Alex Epstein's arguments on global warming. It quickly becomes apparent that he has such a strong emotional alignment with the great good caused by fossil fuels that he easily accepts any argument, no matter how flawed, that they might also cause harm. Compounding the trouble, global warming presents the exact kind of tragedy of the commons that undermines the economic theories by which Objectivism should lead to an economic utopia. This fact adds to the emotional dynamics for ignoring evidence that reality doesn't actually work in the ways that Ayn Rand claimed.

isleyaardvark 2y ago

People often say there is no contradiction by looking at it on a philosophical level, but it's interesting to look at it at a more meta level, namely the fact that Rand felt she needed SS. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/#:~:text=Pryor%3A%20I%20had,should%20take%20help. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ayn-rand-social-security/#... > Pryor: I had read enough to know that she despised government interference, and that she felt that people should and could live independently. She was coming to a point in her life where she was going to receive the very thing she didn't like, which was Medicare and Social Security. > I remember telling her that this was going to be difficult. For me to do my job, she had to recognize that there were exceptions to her theory. So that started our politial discussions. From there on - with gusto - we argued all the time the initial argument was on greed. She had to see that there was such a thing as greed in this world. Doctors could cost an awful lot more money than books earn, and she could be totally wiped out by medical bills if she didn't watch it. Since she had worked her entire life and had paid into Social Security, she had a right to it. She didn't feel that an individual should take help. Emphasis added. If a successful writer, who built their success on their supposed keen insights on business, the economy, and their relation to the government, if that writer could be totally wiped out and feel the need to take Social Security, what chance do the less successful have? Or should they just die?

loki49152 2y ago
She didn't "feel like she needed Social Security". In fact, she instructed her fiduciary to not apply for it on her behalf because she didn't need it, and her detractors would use her participation to smear her. Her fiduciary convinced her to be enrolled by citing her own "restitution" argument and the fact that, as a fiduciary, she had an obligation to pursue all of her client's financial interests to the extent of her ability under the law. That's what you just cited above. At Rand's death, her estate was estimated to be worth somewhere between $500,000 to $2 million dollars. Rand didn't feel she needed it. Her fiduciary did risk management for her.
- isleyaardvark 2y ago
  I stand corrected, thank you.