Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

Fair enough, if your attack is based on a distrust of most "-isms", then I have no issues with an attack on objectivism. My issue is more the inaccurate and simplistic (both IMO) method you are using to attack it. In general though, I would agree that hard core objectivists are silly, but at the same time I think there is some important arguments in Rand that one should at least consider when trying to create their own world view.

As for altruism, I was thinking you were taking a broader definition of the world, including helping your fellow man. That was not the definition Rand was using. Even self-sacrifice was something she wasn't against (i.e. she would respect a soldier who died for his nation, a person who died for a cause they believed in, etc).

The difference with her was more of motivation. You can help if you wanted to, you could sacrifice if you thought it was worth dying for. It was not good to do it because you have been told to do it. That is what Rand was saying. She disliked the state, the church, or the society telling people to self sacrifice, and that they should do so because it is a virtue or it was their duty to do so (that was her definition of altruism). What she was calling for was a rational approach to it, not an emotional approach.

Her "John Galt Speech" really goes into this quite sufficiently, and if I had to recommend any of her writing I would recommend that.

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

At the end of the day, I confess have zero faith in the human capacity to do "the right thing" unless it is mandated, or unless it becomes social orthodoxy to do so.

This is why I so detest Rand, and and am so suspicious of her motivation

This does NOT, contrary to what some may thing, make me a raging Maoist, it simply means I am a believer in collective responsibility and in the importance of a social order based on the collective. Without a healthy measure of "individualism" to have acuminated resources of their own, no one would be capable of the type of self sacrifice i speak of.

I believe self sacrifice is not only a virtue, but THE human virtue, and a virtue too rare to be left to everyones personal convenience or whim. I believe in fact, no society could exist under that premise.
Rome did not decline becuse they partook in orgies, it declines becuse it's public institutions failed.
But THAT, is another discussion

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

At the end of the day, I confess have zero faith in the human capacity to do "the right thing" unless it is mandated, or unless it becomes social orthodoxy to do so.

This is why I so detest Rand, and and am so suspicious of her motivation

This does NOT, contrary to what some may thing, make me a raging Maoist, it simply means I am a believer in collective responsibility and in the importance of a social order based on the collective. Without a healthy measure of "individualism" to have acuminated resources of their own, no one would be capable of the type of self sacrifice i speak of.

I believe self sacrifice is not only a virtue, but THE human virtue, and a virtue too rare to be left to everyones personal convenience or whim. I believe in fact, no society could exist under that premise.
Rome did not decline becuse they partook in orgies, it declines becuse it's public institutions failed.
But THAT, is another discussion





I am always of good cheer Nathan
In case you havent noticed, I have no put you on ignore as I have some of the dunderheads on here. (DUM1, Blue(balls)Dog, 1niottoowiseguy and other assorted dipshits)
Ever wonder why ?
(Sure you have)
I havent, becuse within your militant libertarian ranting and raving, there is a glimmer of knowledge and common sense
Your problem is, if I may say (and even if I shouldnt) is that you are steeped in a mindset that sends you into a rage and defensiveness when you discuss it, and that is when you become less then rational, and end up attaching yourself to douchbags and shithooks becuse you think you have common enemies
Caaaaaaaaalm yourself Nathan, and although I disagreee with you on most things, you have something to contribute to a conversation. I have heard you articulate the Libertarian agenda with great skill, till someone contradicts yiou, then yiou get just plain silly

Just my two cents

Originally Posted by TakuanSoho

But where does your "collective responsibility" end. You can use that to excuse almost ANYTHING the state does. Rand goes into this quite well in her book flushing this out.

Now, yes simplistic people can take Rand and say really stupid things, but that doesn't take away from her arguments. Even Rand's somewhat bizarre personal life doesn't take away from her arguments.

The point being that your interpretation of Rand is about as deep as someone conservative's reading of Marx or most people's reading of any philosopher. Even if you disagree with her, when you say something like "Rand is a fascist", you are not attacking her, you are merely sounding like a parrot, because it is pretty much against everything she wrote. Now of course I can take any writing and make it fascist, but again the work stands before how people interpret it because, well, people can interpret nearly anything any way they want.

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

In my view, elements of fascism would be the logical conclusion should Randism become a social reality, and I cant help but think she knew that. (She was frankly, too smart not to)
To me, it is a short slide down a steep slope between opposing mandated altruism, and eliminating the need for mandated altruism.
Paranoid ?
History shows, no,,I am not

I also see her (and i brefly touched on this but did not elaborate) as a socio-political PT Barnham, who found an interesting but not highly regarded point of view, and sold it from the back of her buggy in the form of a prolific writing career. I think she cultivated a fiollowing of angry somewhat put upon folks, and convinced them that their pain was their strength, and to embrace it, and allow others to embrace their pain as well, as opposed to collaberating to do away with it.

Thats my story...i'm stckin to it !

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

In my view, elements of fascism would be the logical conclusion should Randism become a social reality, and I cant help but think she knew that. (She was frankly, too smart not to)
To me, it is a short slide down a steep slope between opposing mandated altruism, and eliminating the need for mandated altruism.
Paranoid ?
History shows, no,,I am not

I also see her (and i brefly touched on this but did not elaborate) as a socio-political PT Barnham, who found an interesting but not highly regarded point of view, and sold it from the back of her buggy in the form of a prolific writing career. I think she cultivated a fiollowing of angry somewhat put upon folks, and convinced them that their pain was their strength, and to embrace it, and allow others to embrace their pain as well, as opposed to collaberating to do away with it.

Thats my story...i'm stckin to it !

Originally Posted by nathanbforrest45

I am sorry but I don't see how you can claim she would slip into fascism. Perhaps we need to define fascism. Want to take a stab at it?

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

I fully understand the Utopian nature of her scenarios. I also understand that such a society would be unattainable, and I believe she know it as well.
I don’t believe however, that she intended for her target audience to know those things, and that’s why I referred to her as a con artist as opposed to delusional psychotic

It is important to understand, who her target audience was. One would think considering the length, quasi intellectual complexity and wordiness of her work, she was targeting the high minded and intellectual. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

The high minded and intellectual for the most part dismissed her outright, except for a well calculated percentage who were seduced by her “Feel good through feeling bad, be happy through feeling angry” philosophy. These were the useful idiots who disseminated and propagated the sugar coated version of her “Darwin on crack” philosophy to those who now embrace “Randism” as their populist pseudo Libertarian guidepost

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

Her preachings are a hook, and a dog whistle to the hateful, the bitter, and the paranoid.
It is a “latch on” haven for those afflicted with “mean world syndrome” and a nudge in the ribs saying, “WE know the truth, THEY don’t”.
It is a “feel good in reverse” philosophy, in which there is a premium on cynicism and anti altrusim. (Is my view equally cynical ? Probabaly)

I believe you give her and her agenda the benifit of the doubt to a fault

Originally Posted by smart makes a comeback

At the end of the day, I confess have zero faith in the human capacity to do "the right thing" unless it is mandated, or unless it becomes social orthodoxy to do so.

This is why I so detest Rand, and and am so suspicious of her motivation

This does NOT, contrary to what some may thing, make me a raging Maoist, it simply means I am a believer in collective responsibility and in the importance of a social order based on the collective. Without a healthy measure of "individualism" to have acuminated resources of their own, no one would be capable of the type of self sacrifice i speak of.

I believe self sacrifice is not only a virtue, but THE human virtue, and a virtue too rare to be left to everyones personal convenience or whim. I believe in fact, no society could exist under that premise.
Rome did not decline becuse they partook in orgies, it declines becuse it's public institutions failed.
But THAT, is another discussion