4 ms·

I hate to bring this to a general discussion of capitalism/Rand etc., but I have a question: How is Rand's "liberty" supposed to be provided? It seems to me w

I hate to bring this to a general discussion of capitalism/Rand etc., but I have a question: How is Rand's "liberty" supposed to be provided? It seems to me we already live in a universe where people have as much free will as we ever will. Some people use this free will to restrict the free will of others. Sometimes this is a government, sometimes it's a corporation, or sometimes it's a kidnapper. But what hypothetical external agent could ever ensure that no one's free will will be restricted? To have such a system would necessitate restricting people's free will so that they couldn't restrict each other's free will; it would be a self-defeating situation. This is analogous to the set of all sets in mathematics, or other paradoxes that arise by having "all powerful" objects. Humans are so free, that we are free to kill ourselves (for instance), and remove our freedom. Likewise, we are free to disable our own free will. How could Rand change things so that this is not the case? In my view, governments are the result of the utter freedom we have as humans. It is simply absurd to think of getting rid of the systems that restrict freedom; if we did, the freedoms granted would simply create new systems, like corporations, or another government, that would replace all the functions of the system we got rid of. Let me put it another way: It seems we already have maximal liberty. How are things ever going to be better in that respect?

unalone 17y ago
I was going to submit this a few days ago, but I don't like Rand-only discussions. However, I'd like to contribute to the thread with this recent Slate article, which abruptly reversed almost all my remaining positive feelings about Rand: http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/ http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/ Not only was she a hypocrite who ignored her own teachings when things got personal, she worshipped a serial killer who raped and dismembered a 12-year-old girl, because she saw him as a hero defying society.
- dgordon 17y ago
  Considering how much just about every other quote in that article was taken out of context, I would expect that was too.
  - unalone 17y ago
    The Branden quotes weren't taken out of context. It was the Branden affair that first led me to doubt her words, and that's pretty much as it happened. Back-up of the mass murdering psychopath bits: http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm FTA: According to Rand scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra, she deliberately modeled Renahan - intended to be her first sketch of her ideal man - after this same William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." So she modeled her initial Randian Hero after the psychopath. In the original version of her first novel We the Living: "What are your masses [of humanity] but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" Sounds Jokereqsue, no? Of The Fountainhead's hero, Howard Roark: He "has learned long ago, with his first consciousness, two things which dominate his entire attitude toward life: his own superiority and the utter worthlessness of the world." And: The editor also provides the briefest and most detail-free synopsis of Hickman's crime possible: "He was accused of kidnapping and murdering a young girl. He was found guilty and sentenced to death in February of 1928; he was hanged on October 20, 1928." As far as I can tell, this is the one and only reference to Hickman's victim to be found anywhere in the book. Ayn Rand never mentions the victim at all in any of her journal entries. The closest she comes is a sneering reference to another girl, "who wrote a letter to Hickman [in jail], asking him 'to get religion so that little girls everywhere would stop being afraid of him.'" Pretty damning. And there's much, much more.
danteembermage 17y ago
I think this whole argument implies an interesting normative method for evaluating government policy. Your implication seems to be that restricting some freedoms for some people ends up producing an overall increase in freedom relative to no restriction. The obvious crimes come to mind first but the framework could be applied elsewhere. Take copyright for example, do I have the freedom the control my own creative work however I like, or does the freedom not to have to constantly worry about the source of media outweigh the freedom to control my creations. More succinctly, in a world without copyright are we more or less free? It's not obvious to me. Singapore is a case in point, freedom not to be caned for minor infractions vs. freedom to walk around relatively safely in a high density metropolis. Again who is more free is not clear. I think you are wise to suggest there might be "maximal" achievable liberty. Does the culture of society affect the attainable liberty opportunity set? It seems like it must.
dantheman 17y ago
I'll say we haven't reached maximal liberty, all one has to do is look at the drug war, education, and medicine. You'll quickly see limitation on your liberty. The way things are better is when people are free to choose what they want through voluntary interaction without force. If I want certain standards for a school or a doctor, I seek those out -- If I want to go to witch doctor that's ok too. I'd highly recommend Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia if you're interested in this question.

unalone 17y ago

I was going to submit this a few days ago, but I don't like Rand-only discussions. However, I'd like to contribute to the thread with this recent Slate article, which abruptly reversed almost all my remaining positive feelings about Rand: http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/ http://www.slate.com/id/2233966/ Not only was she a hypocrite who ignored her own teachings when things got personal, she worshipped a serial killer who raped and dismembered a 12-year-old girl, because she saw him as a hero defying society.

dgordon 17y ago
Considering how much just about every other quote in that article was taken out of context, I would expect that was too.
- unalone 17y ago
  The Branden quotes weren't taken out of context. It was the Branden affair that first led me to doubt her words, and that's pretty much as it happened. Back-up of the mass murdering psychopath bits: http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm http://michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm FTA: According to Rand scholar Chris Matthew Sciabarra, she deliberately modeled Renahan - intended to be her first sketch of her ideal man - after this same William Edward Hickman. Renahan, she enthuses in another journal entry, "is born with a wonderful, free, light consciousness -- [resulting from] the absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling. He does not understand, because he has no organ for understanding, the necessity, meaning, or importance of other people ... Other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should." So she modeled her initial Randian Hero after the psychopath. In the original version of her first novel We the Living: "What are your masses [of humanity] but mud to be ground underfoot, fuel to be burned for those who deserve it?" Sounds Jokereqsue, no? Of The Fountainhead's hero, Howard Roark: He "has learned long ago, with his first consciousness, two things which dominate his entire attitude toward life: his own superiority and the utter worthlessness of the world." And: The editor also provides the briefest and most detail-free synopsis of Hickman's crime possible: "He was accused of kidnapping and murdering a young girl. He was found guilty and sentenced to death in February of 1928; he was hanged on October 20, 1928." As far as I can tell, this is the one and only reference to Hickman's victim to be found anywhere in the book. Ayn Rand never mentions the victim at all in any of her journal entries. The closest she comes is a sneering reference to another girl, "who wrote a letter to Hickman [in jail], asking him 'to get religion so that little girls everywhere would stop being afraid of him.'" Pretty damning. And there's much, much more.

danteembermage 17y ago

I think this whole argument implies an interesting normative method for evaluating government policy. Your implication seems to be that restricting some freedoms for some people ends up producing an overall increase in freedom relative to no restriction. The obvious crimes come to mind first but the framework could be applied elsewhere. Take copyright for example, do I have the freedom the control my own creative work however I like, or does the freedom not to have to constantly worry about the source of media outweigh the freedom to control my creations. More succinctly, in a world without copyright are we more or less free? It's not obvious to me. Singapore is a case in point, freedom not to be caned for minor infractions vs. freedom to walk around relatively safely in a high density metropolis. Again who is more free is not clear. I think you are wise to suggest there might be "maximal" achievable liberty. Does the culture of society affect the attainable liberty opportunity set? It seems like it must.

dantheman 17y ago

I'll say we haven't reached maximal liberty, all one has to do is look at the drug war, education, and medicine. You'll quickly see limitation on your liberty. The way things are better is when people are free to choose what they want through voluntary interaction without force. If I want certain standards for a school or a doctor, I seek those out -- If I want to go to witch doctor that's ok too. I'd highly recommend Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia if you're interested in this question.