Atlas Shrugged

If we're talking about western style capitalism, then *I* don't think so. Naturally Rand would disagree. For example, I think she might critisize today's venture capitalists as leeches sucking the lifeblood from entrepreneurs. She'd probably argue that VC's should feel honored to support the ventures of those with good ideas and so should not take ownership positions in those enterprises but only charge a modest interest rate for the privilege of providing funding.But my only reason for participating in this thread was to question what appeared to be misleading characterizations of Rand's philosophy, which I don't believe is, as Dan so concisely put it, that it's okay to hit nuns with puppies.--Percy

Why not? You could even base your own religion on it like L. Ron Hubbard. Well, in the book, the male protagonist is this dynamic industrialist who discovers a way to create better, stronger steel which can be used by the railroad etc.The consortium of other steel producers and railroad magnates tried everything they could to prevent him from producing this new product because they argued, basically, that it would put the owners of the other outdated and poorly run steel plant out of business.They used all their clout, monetary, political, to try to force the protagonist to keep producing the same poorer quality steel that the other plants produced 'for the good of everyone. That's what I mean by 'being held back.'It's basically the sacrifice of the individual to maintain the status quo of society. That's why all the John Galts were basically faced with the choice of either bowing to the will of the masses by refusing to outperform or outproduce their peers, or removing themselves from society altogether.

Yeah, spot on man. She probably would do just that.

quote:

---

Not to the aristocrat, a largely hereditary status, but to a self-defining class of people characterized by their energy, ambition, creativity and achievements.

---

Which is exactly the claim the aristocrat advances. "Four generations from King to Swineherd" as they used to say in Ireland. Aristos were initially first and foremost self made men, who took others under their generous wing.So once again for the back of the class: Rand's book is an appeal to the romance of the aristocrat, the Heroic culture. It is a historical throwback, and should not be considered even remotely seriously by anyone who claims to hold democratic values dear.Custard wrote

quote:

---

The ubermensch concept isn't what she is touting in this novel. And pretty much anyone who has read Neitzche or taken philosophy 101 knows that Hitler's ideas are a pathetic corruption of Neitzche's ideas.

---

No True Scotsman, eh Custard?This message has been edited by contracycle, 02-28-2005 11:01 AM

You're describing the reality, not "the claim the aristocrat advances." Kings especially make every effort to hide humble origins. The aristocrat with his sense of inherited entitlement does not seem consistent with Rand. Heroic culture seems much closer to the mark.--Percy

quote:

---

You're describing the reality, not "the claim the aristocrat advances." Kings especially make every effort to hide humble origins.

---

No, I am describing the claim the aristo advances - that there is a special class of people that are more worthy than others. Kingship is a rather different issue - William Marshal, who was nearly king, never tried to conceal his origins, for example.

quote:

---

The aristocrat with his sense of inherited entitlement does not seem consistent with Rand. Heroic culture seems much closer to the mark.

---

I suspect you are defaulting to a limited Reformation stereotype of the aristo, or a later democratic criticism. You should not forget that in the early feudal era these individuals are without shadow of a doubt self-made men. And it is that demonstrated ability which makes them into nodes of power and allegiance, justified the claims to inherent, inherited quality.All Rand and Neitzsche do is drag up this ancient and poisonous hero cult and give it a modern gloss. And that is echoed in the Nazi regimes and its own arghument to inherent supremacy.

I agree with this. It's probably not relevant to the topic whether kings actually emphasized being self-made men or their status of inherited entitlement.--Percy

quote:

---

I agree with this. It's probably not relevant to the topic whether kings actually emphasized being self-made men or their status of inherited entitlement.

---

It is precisely relevant because Rand advances the SAME argument. Modern entrpereneurs also prefer to emphasise their personal over their inherited achivements, but money is as inheritable as a comital fief. Rands argument is an aristo apologetic.

My interest in this thread stemmed only from my perception that her views weren't being accurately represented. I agreed with your last characterization, but my interest doesn't extend to accurately tracing the historical origins of her views.--Percy

Well, first off, I am, to the best of my current abilities, an Objectivist. I've been reading through a lot of these posts, despite their age and have this to say:Raynd's theories of Objectivism are fantastic! They far surpass any form of idealogies I've encountered and I have tried to verse myself in as many forms as possible. However, her idealogies could only be applied where man decides to live as a rational being. Unfortunately, there does no seem to exist on the face of this planet, such an area. Despite this, I am a firm believer that if her ideas were put into common practise, the 'homeless' and 'destitute' would not NEED the jobs of the able who work at Wal-Mart (in Quebec or elsewhere) as there would be sufficient employment for all. The problem lies in the human element. As the saying goes, one bad apple spoils the bunch.

I suggest you watch the documentary "why we fight".I have extensive experience in defense contracting. The taxpayers are being robbed blind

As a veteran I concur (agree wholeheartedly)This message has been edited by anglagard, 04-21-2006 11:41 PM