Philosophical Question

Those of you who read my posts know I am hardly a liberal. I consider myself a very moderate Democrat with some more liberal positions on certain issues.

I also consider myself an objectivist in the school of Ayn Rand, though not nearly as forceful and inflexible as her philosophy.

I was wondering if anyone is familar with her works and feels drawn to them in the same way. Does liberalism prevent an objectivist world-view?

I mean I do not accept the fact that welfare is slavery to the poor, but I feel that Rand's notions of individualism and self-assertion are both desirable and beautiful.

Lemme know whatcha all thing.

When was the first time you read Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead?

You would have to justify social spending as being in long term rational self interest, rather than altruistic.

In fact, I do believe that social programs are in my personal long term self interest, even though I have not (so far) needed to use them.

Besides the obvious value of social programs as an insurance policy (I am sure many Objectivists have purchased insurance policies), my long term interests are served by having an educated population that is productive.

I have a business - I want an educated labor pool to draw from for employees. I am going to get old - I want educated people to provide for my elder care. I desire a peaceful existence where I can prosper. If there is rampant poverty, there is going to be crime and social unrest. It is cheaper to prevent crime by education and social programs than to hire expensive law enforcement to capture criminals and then pay to keep them in prision...

One could go on and on like this forever. It is easy to be both a Democrat and and Objectivist.

And anyone who points this out is called an "altruist" which, to the Objectivist mind, is the highest sin.

To the Liberal, personal freedom is achieved by having equal access to the commons. (i.e. Education, health-care, equal rights, a clean environment, the courts, the police, the roads.) Liberals fight to make sure that all members of society have access to the commons.

The concept of "the commons" is anathema to the Objectivist. They beleive that all objects in the material world must be owned by someone in order for that object to be useful to society.

This is a distinctly Republican world-view; Therefore I say no... you cannot be a Democrat and an Objectivist. It's like being a Christian atheist.

On the other hand, these days a Democrat is just another word for "Republican", so maybe he has a point.

When I read "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged," I found them sensible, heroice, and worthy of emulation. The individualism, the courage of one's convictions, the self-confidence to stand up to those who would dare to tamper with a man's dream, all those things appealed to me.

I was thirteen years old.

Then, I grew up and went out into the real world where compassion and compromise and forgiveness were things I found I needed to receive as well as give.

Now, in my dotage, I find the Rand way of thinking to be precious and unconnected to the real world, hard-hearted and discriminatory, mean-spirited and mostly fantasy.

I tried reading "The Fountainhead" again a couple of years ago, and it was unbearable, bloated and self-indulgent. The movie, though, was terrifically photographed, I thought, and Gary Cooper was great.

People who read her for the first time are insufferable assholes for at least six months.

Still, reading Rand and calling yourself an Objectivist for a few years is an important phase in the development of any philosophically-inclined individual.

It's like learning your ABC's. It helps give a vocabulary and context as you read more nuanced philosophers.

I read Atlas Shrugged about 3 years ago and the Fountainhead about 2 years ago.

In the past year I've read Anthem, which I felt most strongly resonated with me.

hate to be blunt, but if you are an objectivist, you don't belong here.
Rand was staunchly anti socialist and you will find most dems believe in socialism to a limited (or complete) degree. Rand and Marx are polar opposites...It doesn't get any clearer than that. I honestly don't see how you are a democrat. Your views are most likely Libertarian.

for further reading:

http://www.LP.org/issues/platform/sop.html (statement of principles)

and http://www.LP.org/issues/platform/platform_all.html (complete LP platform...huge read)

you like. As with any philosophy or system of ideas, a reasonable person can agree with parts but not the whole.

I don't see that Rand and Marx are polar opposites and here's why: Marx provided a well-developed analysis of capitalism, pointed out the major problems, and offered some solutions. Rand never produced anything of the magnitude or importance of Das Kapital- to my mind, her "philosophy" is under-developed, mainly imbedded in her novels, and not very forceful in the way that Marx's arguments are. Consequently, it is difficult for one to really compare and contrast with Marx's work. Certainly there are aspects of Rand's work that are in opposition to Marx's ideas but I don't see her as a real rival of Marx in that she was no where near the thinker or writer Marx was.

I have read all her works. While she on the surface seems to espouse laissez-faire capitalism, I never got the idea she supports zero sum robber-baron capitalism (the Bush republican model for happiness).

There is a difference between keeping the wealth you create and the Bush Tax cut.

There is nothing mutually exclusive between her views and living in a proper civilized society.

...what Tao is to Taoism. It is 'the way' - the natural order of things. By letting this happen, all things will be in balance and the world will be right, in both a practical and, more importantly, a moral sense of the word 'right'.

This has been a VERY DESTRUCTIVE ideology, and is at the core of the free-market worship that so many people have today. It is the idea that drives globalization and the exploitation of every place on the planet by massive accumulations of private wealth and power.

Ayn Rand was right - philosophy does matter - it drives and shapes the world. But she was badly wrong on this one - free markets lead very quickly to tyranny and economic coercion. Left to their own, economies devolve into rigid caste systems, with a few having great power and many exploited despite their intelligence and hard work.

I started out my adult life as an Objectivist, having encountered Ayn Rand's book "Philosophy: Who Needs It" in my senior year of high school. I voted for Ron Paul (then a Libertarian) for president in 1988.

My transition (in political philosophy, at least) from Libertarian to Progressive Democrat came out of my experience working in the "free market" system.

The fundamental insight I had was that economic coercion was as real and as morally wrong as gross overt physical coercion. Further, an unregulated 'free market' soon became very unfree, and economic coercion quickly became rampant...

A person who is about to have his utilities disconnected, or be evicted, or who cannot feed his family is not truly a free agent. He is coerced - by destitution and economic need.

That good government protect us from economic coersion, and not just gross physical coersion is why I am a Progressive Democrat rather than a Libertarian.

Rand, in her own way, was as much an idealist as any of the leaders of the French Revolution. They just got to act out their ideals, and look where that went ...

I enjoyed reading "Atlas" and "Fountainhead." But there were certain glaring omissions, especially in the former.

In the real world, Hank Reardon would have been the biggest polluter on the east coast. Francisco (or whatever his name was) and Dagny both got their worldly goods through sheer accident of birth, IIRC, and of course those copper miners were pricks to gripe about poor working conditions. ...

And John Galt would have bored everyone to sleep with that monolog in the real world.

breed of empericism.

She makes much sense when reading her. I find myself nodding everytime I read what she has to say. I would say that she conflicts with liberalism only in that I don't think that she is an absolutist. What I mean by that is that she, by being an objectivist, is by nature pragmatic. She probably believes that virtue lies in moderation and liberalism (and for that matter anything) taken to its limit is bound to find fault because nature does not present life bound by unquestionable beliefs.

I don't think she would like liberalism qua liberalism. Part of her philosophy was based in pragmatics and anything that rejected obvious, worldly facts would probably be discounted...but such is my view - of which you asked.

Yes, I know that (an open minded Objectivist) is a logical possibility but not an empirical reality...but just for the sake of argument, see my post above (it is possible to be an Objectivist and a Democrat)

policies...due to the nature of philo. Our boys have been working on it for beyond 2000 years and if there was an answer...it would have been found. Asking if you can be Democrat and believe in Ayn Rand is like asking if you can be a lawyer and advocate global warming. Qua lawyer and qua advocate...it has no relevacny.

U can be a Democrat and an objectivist to an extent but the exceptions at each ideals' limits will cause problems that have no real world importance

LOL

First one, with lip curled through the entire reading. Read the next, believing it wasn't possible for any human being (Rand) to be so utterly inhuman and inhumane. I have not changed my mind, though I've forgiven Rand as I've gained an understanding of her particular situation.

Ayn Rand's #1 disciple, (until they had a falling out), Nathaniel Branden, wrote a fantastic piece on Objectivism - how it can help - and how it can harm a person. It's essential reading for anyone who has read and been influence by Rand.

This essay really helped my to assimilate my admiration for Ayn Rand and her work from the very negative aspects of her philosophy. It was what allowed me to be inspired by the good in Objectivism while making me aware of the psychologically limiting and sometimes damaging aspects of this philosophy.

It is available online here:

The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ayn/ayn03.html

and I LOVED the books. I was excited by her work as I had never been.

I think that her ideas of individualism and independence have value as an ideal - there is a healthy stance that can be developed from thinking/believing that one is self-sufficient, independent individual.

But in reality, in a modern society, none of us are truly self-sufficient. Few people grow their own food, dig their own wells, haul their own trash, etc. We all depend on one another. None of us are alone in this life - no matter how independent we may wish to feel, the truth is that we are dependent upon other people.

And it's a dependence that is based on trust, respect and appreciation,, not just money. What good does it do you to pay your water and sewage bill if the water isn't clean? What good does it do you to pay for medicine or food if it's bad?

Let's say you're a self-made millionaire who made your money in a dot-com business. Just exactly how "self-made" are you? Did you attend public schools, use public transportation, use public roads? Did you have to provide your own electrical access, phone access, or other utilities? Do you have to provide your own police and fire protection? What about testing the quality of your water, food, medicine, etc? What about the internet - did you have to create the internet that is the back-bone to your success? How about the database structures and programming languages?

Do you get my point? You may think of yourself as a "self-made" millionaire but in truth, your success is dependent upon a ssocietal structure that was built by others that enables your success. You certainly did not do it all on your own - you did it on the backs of others who laid a groundwork for you.

As best I can tell, Objectivists and Libertarians take that groundwork for granted. These are things that belong to "we the people" without which our fictional hero here could not have been successful. Objs & Libs don't feel connected to this groundwork or to those who provided it, and that's the point that I take issue with.

Liberals believe that this groundwork should be equally available to all members of the society in order that there may be equal opportunity for all. All will not achieve the same, obviously, but we believe the opportunity should be available to all.

People of the left have a sense of interconnectedness that I think is missing on the right. We think that if the kid down across town gets as good an education as our kid, that makes our whole society better. We think that people are interconnected and interdependent and that the weakest link holds all of us back so we are willing to work to bring that weakest link up. We also think that the strongest provide a beacon of hope and inspiration to the weaker.

We think that because success is built on a groundwork provided by the public society, something is owed back to the society by those who achieve success in the society. Objs & Libs seem to think that "what I earned is mine" and not to be cognizant of a need to give back.

It is healthy to have a sense of oneself as self-sufficient and as an individual. But, as I see it, that needs to be balanced with a sense of connection and responsibility to the society of which one is a part.

I've only ever read The Fountainhead, but like you enjoyed it very much.

There is a Howard Roark speech (courtroom scene) in that book, that speaks to each individual recognizing his/her individualtiy, and striving to fulfill their own potential, and that is very laudable.

But a sense of society is also necessary, because as you point out, no one truly succeeds on thier own.

In merging the self and the society, I would remind that in The Fountainhead, Roark, had designed and facilitated the building of low-income housing projects that were both very functional, and artistically eye-catching. In himself, as hero of the story, there is no sense of greed, or personal agrandizement; he simply recognizes that he has a talent for architectural design, and seeks to develop it to its utmost.

To that degree, I to embrace the concepts of objectivism; to whatever degree it speaks to self-agrandizement and greed, I reject it. There are certain questions which the story does not really touch upon; not everyone can be a visionary, some must perform the more mundane taks of society - how exactly does one measure the superlatives of trash-hauling, etc.? Yet, Roark needed builders to realize his architecural deisgns, and so carpenters, brick-layers, et al, should ideally have a sense of pride in accomplishment for their work. Much better overall, than the "good enough" attitude many people in whatever their field apply as standards to their work.

I think in at least some respects, Rand was seeing a loss of pride-in-craftsmanship, and seeking to reinvigorate that.

Ayn Rand and Objectivism Resources at Nathanial Branden's site:
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/fs/new.html

The Objectivist Ethics in an Information Age Economy
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ess15.html

Who is an Objectivist?
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ess05.html

Objectivism and Libertarianism
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ess04.html

The Foundations of a Free Society
http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ess/ess02.html

Objectivism asserts a few important points.

Metaphysics - reality is real, and is knowable
Ethics - morality is concrete
Epistemology - act with self interest

Now... that being said, while she only supports self interested capitalism, and does (I accept the fact) only consider success as a function of personal effort and superiority, I still think there are gems in her philosophy.

First - she does not morally equivocate. She would never allow for someone to try to "understand" the villain. Evil is evil. 9/11 was evil, and there was no excuse for it. Similarly, I think the tactics of Palestine are evil, and the democratic party suffers for morally equivocating and finding justifications for something unjustifiable.

Second - there is no "we" greater than the least "I". I love the idea that a group of individuals is more powerful than a self-defined grouping. It does not assume that there is no purpose to grouping, but that the POWER of grouping comes from individual voices of dissent and opposition. Thesis, antithesis, synthesis.


Watcha think?

and lack of altruism in a society is pathetic. I'm a libertarian, but I'm no Rand devotee. I think her worldview is disgusting and isn't necessarily "rational" at all. I am with her on the mysticism thing, though -- I'm very against religion in government. And I'm hardly for government in the first place.