Since I started my weblog, I have been introduced to the philosophy of Ayn Rand. One of the books she wrote is Atlas Shrugged
. Her philosophy of life is Objectivism, of which she is the originator.I am NOT an Objectivist and nor, to my knowledge, are many Brits. I therefore thought it would be interesting to explore Ayn Rand's ideas with you today.
Objectivism, as I understand it, is a philosophy of life diametrically-opposed to Christianity, Islam, or any other faith.
Because of the growing influence of Islam in the West, and because the West seems to be ‘going astray’ and seems incapable of finding the strength to compete with that competing 'religion', I thought it would be very interesting and useful to explore and discuss Ayn Rand’s body of ideas on this forum.
I would be very interested to read your comments on the following three interviews which took place in the USA in 1959. Ayn Rand, a Russian immigrant to the US, is interviewed by Mike Wallace. I think you will find these interviews enlightening and interesting, even if you might disagree with the ideas expressed therein.
These interviews are in ‘black and white’. You will sometimes lose Ayn Rand from focus because of the haze of smoke billowing from Mike Wallace’s mouth. Please be tolerant. This was 1959, not 2007! (How interviewing styles have changed!)
Part 1:
Part 2:
Part 3:
©Mark Alexander
20 comments:
Mark, as you are aware, I have a deal of sympathy with the philosophy of Objectivism, though not myself a true Objectivist. The failing of Objectivism in my opinion is that it ignores the essential irrational side of man's nature. We are not perfect specimens of individual rationality; we come armed with countless flaws. Our mental makeup is driven by forces that Objectivism seems blind to.
Now as to this interview, yes it is a source for some great discussion, in fact, virtually every answer Ms. Rand gave can be addressed for its depth and perception, whether or not one agrees with her point.
In fact, I would go so far as to say that Ms. Rand's atheism is one of the few sources of that creed that I do not find objectionable, for her belief is born out of a purely rational mind, whether she is right or not is another matter; it is however, an understanding born out by the processes of a logical mind, and as she herself implies, as free and independent beings, we are free to follow our own minds, to seek our own happiness, which is exactly how it should be. She was not obsessed with the irradication of religion, though she had no time for religious dogma; well, come to that, neither do I, but her point was that we as irrational beings were easily led to foolish actions and their damaging consequences.
Who can now argue with her response to Wallace's question, as to whether the United States was headed towards dictatorship and tyranny, for who amongst us can not see the infringement upon our civil liberties which have been enacted on this nation over the intervening years since 1959; and this is far more evident in Britain, who among us denies the insidious hand of collectivism.
Altruism in the hands of government is not a blessing, for it is simply coercion marketed under the guise of compassionate virtue, it grants an undeserved perception of pious compassion upon a wolf in sheep's clothing, for it is one of the clearest forms of theft yet devised by thieves, yet unrecognized by the majority, because it has been sold to us as our collective virtue.
The interesting aspect here, which was not addressed in the interview, is the question of just where the concept of our collective responsibility comes from; of course it arises out of our Judeo Christian heritage, but is that the truth of the issue. This is where I am inclined to diverge from Ms. Rand's philosophy. I think that it may be one of the clearer examples of of the corruption of the central message of our original faith, for while the teachings of Christ, and I believe the Torah, admonished us to be nice to one and other, to help each other, I am not so sure that his message was one binding our existence to the service of others, as much as trying to get us to understand that by being kind and helpful to others, we could lead life's of less conflict and also we could find our own selves. To make this a little clearer consider, if one is a totally selfish individual, then human interaction becomes an unending series of conflict, albeit often of an extremely mild form, or not so mild as the case may be; not only that, but one is forced to look inwards to seek meaning and understanding, or seek relief from lonely despair by expending all your energies in external pursuits in order to prevent the loneliness of the "self" from encroaching too close to some often extremely unpleasant answers. When you get right down to it, "what is the meaning of life" becomes the central question of our existence, though for many, the barrenness of the question would seem to be second only to death in the league of things to be avoided. This is the part which Objectivism avoids for it really has no answers. This may not be true of every individual, but certainly is for the vast majority. Though in today's world, many are too busy to even understand the question.
Rand's philosophy certainly stirs up the animosity of the collectivists, socialists and all sundry shades of Marxism, and for that reason alone, one should consider delving into it, for it is indeed an anathema to everything those creeds stand for. Given the prevailing sentiments of much of the Western populations, it is small wonder that Objectivism is not the flavour of the day, heck, even Mike Wallace's antipathy to Ms. Rand's philosophy was plain for all to see.
Like any philosophy, Objectivism doesn't have all the answers, but it does seek to address many of them with clear, rational logic,and a wise mind can find much benefit in a search of it.
Just as fleas on a dog's body would appear to be meaningless, superfluous even, so too, human existence on earth can appear as pointless, no matter how much we like to think of our own importance. Come to think of it, I don't think fleas are cannibalistic, so maybe they get to be one stage better than us in the evolutionary chain. Not a comforting thought.
Interesting point about this interview clip, Ayn Rand's body language did not seem quite in tune with someone who was absolutely comfortable with the discussion in question, specifically her eyes; maybe just a case of being uncomfortable in front of the camera, or maybe something else, but it didn't distract from her points.
Richard:
Interesting point about this interview clip, Ayn Rand's body language did not seem quite in tune with someone who was absolutely comfortable with the discussion in question, specifically her eyes; maybe just a case of being uncomfortable in front of the camera, or maybe something else, but it didn't distract from her points.
I shall come back to your excellent comment very soon. But one thing I must comment on now. You mentioned her eyes. That, actually, is the very FIRST thing that struck me. They were going all over the place! She did indeed look ill at ease. I couldn't quite make it out.
Richard:
My problem with Objectivism is that it comes over as a cold, selfish philosophy. That doesn't mean to say that all Objectivists are cold and selfish. I happen to know that this is not the case. (I have a good friend who is an Objectivist.) But the philosophy itself comes over as being so, since it espouses the dubious 'virtue' of consideration of the self over consideration of one's fellow man.
From the point of view of economics, it eschews anything funded by public finance. Such a system would mean that roads, etc, would have to be funded privately. This would lead to chaos. Unadulterated chaos. Further, in whose interests would it be to build a road running from London to Edinburgh, or from New York to Boston, or from LA to Seattle? Moreover, who but someone like Bill Gates could afford such a venture.
I agree with Ayn Rand that government should be limited. But a truly laissez-faire economy/system, I believe, is beyond the realms of possibility in today's complex world.
Like all theories, it has its attractive points. But it is a theory and, like all theories, is not necessarily viable in reality.
Further, human beings, since the beginning of time, have found a need for a higher being, if only to give them solace and comfort when things in their lives go wrong. Where is the comfort in Objectivism? Where does an Objectivist find his solace?
This is not to say that there are not some excellent points made in this theory. But somehow, like all theories, they fall short when it comes to practice.
She said in the one of the videos that should her husband, an artist, need financial support, then she would be willing and prepared to help him. But she added that it would be out of "selfish love". The term "selfish love" is an oxymoron, since love, by its very definition, is NOT selfish. Were love to be selfish, what of the love of a mother for her child, or what of the love of a child for its parents?
This quotation sums up Ayn Rand for me. It is taken from Atlas Shrugged. It goes: ""I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, ..."
Where is the romanticism in this? Where is such a person's concern for the other? Where is the fulfilment in such a way of thinking? Don't we all sacrifice ourselves for others, in one way or another? Doesn't a good mother sacrifice herself for her children? Or a good husband sacrifice himself for his wife? Or doesn't an adult daughter or son sacrifice for his elederly, ailing parents, who so much require his/her help in their hour of need?
My God! Isn't the world a selfish enough place as it is, without introducing an even more selfish philosophy into it?
Her opening statement is as clear and rational as any human mind can verbalize. It is a reflection of the concepts and aspirations of freewill and individualism, which as individuals we are bound to by necessity, for any other action constrains our mental capacities, subverting them to the designs of others.
One of the reasons why I hold to the belief in the divine, is that the whole concept of the Judeo Christian faith is based on the one example ever set forth, of a philosophy that grants free and independent thought and action as the absolute right of the individual. Any clear reading of the Bible, and especially the New Testament, while admonishing people to live just and clean lives, at the same time allows for freedom of the individual to the dominion of his own existence. We speak of a supreme being with absolutely unlimited power, with the ability to demand whatever thoughts entered his mind, and yet we are granted the absolute right to seek our own salvation, and therein maybe our answer to the eternal question, our burden in this mortal existence is to seek out and find ourselves. The true self is for many a very scary concept, indeed, largely speaking what are the abuse of drugs and alcohol all about but the running away from the reality of our earthly existence, as far from the self as is possible. Here of course I am not talking of these things taken in moderation, but of abuse of such substances, usually on a massive overindulgence on a daily basis. The core message of the Bible was a covenant between God and the people of Israel, and through Christ, with the followers of the Christian faith. It is a blueprint for a life of contentment and happiness, for the constraints are simple and sensible, while the freedom granted is only bounded by the imagination of the individual. It is for us to find what we will be, if that isn't the ultimate expression of true love, I don't know what is.
Maybe I missed some other philosophy not well known to man in general, but with the possible exception of Buddhism, I can't think of any other philosophy that grants so much independence to adherents as individuals. Now, as to the practical applications and the obvious failings of the Church of Christ, then that is a totally different matter altogether, but of course, that is where faith is made subservient to ambition. As ambition has a marked tendency to corrupt action to fit the agenda,therefore any time you corrupt something, you end up by destroying it, or at the least, perverting it beyond all recognition or usefullness.
Rand's concept of the evil inherent in the action of human sacrifice to serve the needs or designs of others is largely correct, but especially so when coercion by government dictat is concerned. The fact that we may chose to serve the benefit of another out of our love or compassionate natures is only altruistic provided the action is performed as an act of free will, anything else, whether from obligation or mandated by authority, is simply an act of servitude.
My problem with Objectivism is that it comes over as a cold, selfish philosophy. That doesn't mean to say that all Objectivists are cold and selfish. I happen to know that this is not the case. (I have a good friend who is an Objectivist.) But the philosophy itself comes over as being so, since it espouses the dubious 'virtue' of consideration of the self over consideration of one's fellow man. - Mark
I believe we two have had this discussion before, and yes, I agree there is a coldness in Objectivism, it does indeed leave a large part of the human mind to flounder in the breezes of the unseen and unknown. There is a hunger in the human soul for something more than rationalization and consumptive existence. We really don't want to have our existence be the equivalent of that of the flea. The rational capacity of the human mind seeks meaning for its own existence, how could it be any other way, for while industrialization has brought benefits of wealth and comfort, it has done so at the same time as the decline in spiritual awareness that has overtaken our civilization. Whether or not it is the axe that has caused this decline, is in doubt, I for one, believe the main cause is the ascendancy of Marxism and its antipathy to God, (given that only one can be supreme). A true atheist would have no great animosity to religion, excepting those religions which seek to dominate the political arena, for what others thought, need have no bearing on any individual, so long as he is free to follow his own life's course. This is where Objectivism scores over other philosophies in my opinion, for it follows the golden rule. This is not to say that Rand did not have her little digs at faith, but they weren't central to her philosophy. She clearly stated her disagreement with the belief in the divine and saw in much of what organized religion produced, a stifling oppression of the freewill of the mind of man as an individual. Back to the Bible, it appears to me that the message is addressed to the individual and not to any arbitrary authority, no matter how so constituted. The message speaks to us, not to authority. We as societies, at least in the West, constitute our polities according to our collective will, at least that is the way it is supposed to happen, but that process has been subverted to serve ambitious design, by means of money, fraud and deceitful ideologies, playing on the wishful thinking of individuals too lazy, too stupid, too preoccupied to pay attention to just exactly what is transpiring, The whole democratic process in the West has been corrupted, not that it was ever perfection to start with, but now, in decay, we see the rot accelerating away, soon to be irreversible, if it isn't already. All our decisions as to who and what we like, are in effect determined for us by self appointed martinets, our associations have been ripped from our own hands and now follow guidelines and policies set down by faceless nonentities, who have arrogated to themselves the divine right of appointment whose perceptions of virtue are laid down as holy writ, as often as not to serve latent agendas for the sole benefit of the philosophies and ideologies of those same martinets.
Yes Mark, Objectivism does espouse a minimalist role for government, born out of a recognition of the insatiable rapacious nature of government bureaucracy. I would point out that the first major highways and almost all the canals of Britain were built by private finance, as were the railways, and all were extremely profitable in their day, it was only when the distorting hand of government intervened, that these industries became as leaches to the societies from which they drew their sustenance. Remember, up until the 1st world war, all the railway companies were viable, profitable entities; it was only when the exigencies of total war, allowed the hand of government to nationalize the railway companies for the duration, that those companies failed, for upon cessation of hostilities those companies were handed back their properties but in a much dilapidated state, and given the total interruption of the operating cash flow, it was no wonder that they floundered, which forced or more correctly allowed for government to take a hand in their operation, first by forced amalgamation, then by infusion of monies from the tax base, and finally by legislation and nationalization. The London North Western Railway, was in its day, the largest joint stock option company in the world, taking in all its requirements as raw material, fabricating everything it needed, with minor exceptions itself, ie. paper for printing and other assorted minor necessities, and producing a fully functioning transport system, making a healthy profit for investors, and all done within a community where the clientel ranged from some prosperous individuals, but where the majority did not have excess capital to squander upon frivolities, which kept a tight lid on the price structure of the company's daily operation. So it is not true that society cannot function under private industry, for the truth is that is exactly how it operated, prior to the first world war. That conflict was a turning point in so much of what has now come to pass. Mark, your concept of what is feasible within a laissez-faire capitalist economic society is coloured by your life's experience, for it is true that for all our lives, we have been subject to the prevailing perception that only government can operate all these essential industries, and because of this perception we have allowed the monster to grow ever larger while abrogating the common law pertaining to property rights to suit their own advantage.
Mark, consider, the very success of Maggie Thatcher's economic policies were founded upon the basis of withdrawing the dead hand of government from the business of business, to privatize the industry and allow business to find its own way; unfortunately some of that privatization was not quite so private... the PFI was and is ripe for corruption as events clearly have shown. Now there may be industries which are truly essential to the nation, here I am thinking of defense and armament production, but a sensible society would constrain the capacity of the government solely to the actions of its own necessity, the maintenance of a free civil society and the safety and defense of the realm. By granting them so much power, we have left them free to seek power and dominion over us, instead of acting as agents and servants on our behalf. As Ms. Rand says, we have allowed a malign disease to cloud our judgment and so we wither and decay, to eventual death.
If it feels good, do it. This is just american liberalism as it exists today. Self. Not responsibility. I agree that we are responsible for ourselves, however, what separates us from the animals is our care for our families and communities. Disconnected self-pursuit of personal happiness is a losing proposition. Self-absorption is at the root of all addictive disorders.
Why do liberals fail to recognize the problems with the Islamofacists? Live and let live. I am happy, therefore, if they leave me alone, let them be happy. Think of six billion people all doing their own thing with no regard for their fellow man. No regard for their family. No regard for their children. No regard for their spouse.
The true strong man, Atlas, inside us loves his neighbor, and his neighbor is everyone. But love does have boundaries. When love sees evil, love acts. It is a love of my children, my family, my country, and my God that propels me to fight the evil in the world today.
Bubba
Further, human beings, since the beginning of time, have found a need for a higher being, if only to give them solace and comfort when things in their lives go wrong. Where is the comfort in Objectivism? Where does an Objectivist find his solace? - Mark
Mark, here I agree with you without reservation. As I said, as a philosophy, Objectivism does indeed have several holes in its net.
Bubba, I agree, actions performed out of love, out of the generosity of the human heart are part and parcel of what makes us human, and Rand's philosophy would seem to overlook this central fact of human experience. But Rand's philosophy espouses the view that what motivates the actions of man while serving his self interest will of necessity serve the benefit of others for if interaction is to be beneficial in the long term, then an endless succession of conflict would obviously exclude any interaction but the first one. 25 centuries ago Socrates recognized this fact of human interaction and said almost exactly the same as Rand. For an association to be fruitful, it must be beneficial to both parties, anything else serves one party only, and therefore tends to be of short duration, forcing the victimized party to withdraw from further interaction with the selfish party. And forcing the selfish party to constantly seek out new parties in order to engage and trade with in order to sustain his own livelihood.
I think also, we, with our modern understanding of the word selfish, tend to load the word with a totally negative meaning, as in cold and heartless action, but is this necessarily true; consider, when you go out to work, do you go out with intent to serve the advantage of others, or do you seek the best advantage for yourself, of course the latter is the correct answer and is indeed selfish, irrespective of whether your actions present a net benefit to the other party or even third parties, and is there anything wrong in that...NO. In short, you don't do things for nothing, for that only leads to a sense of being used. When you purchase a watch, do you end up with a sense of being used, or a sense of wellbeing and happiness due to your purchase of something which you find desirable, of a choice freely made. Our perception of advantage or otherwise often blinds us to the actual truth of the nature of that transaction.
The Objectivist concept of selfish action is not the same as self-absorption; it is a rejection of the nature of servitude enforced by collectivism's claims upon the morality of men. Possibly Rand's greatest failing was in defining her philosophy in these terms, given the negative connotations of the word selfish, though given the morality of collectivism I'm not sure how else she could have phrased it, at least in a way that would have clearly explained in what position her philosophy stood in rejection of the morality of collectivism.
An interesting observation, I believe by Hannah Arendt, on the compassion for unconnected individuals when confronted with death and destruction. As individuals, we can only experience genuine compassion when it is someone near or dear to us who becomes the injured party, anything beyond the realm of our close connection is nothing more than an expression of horror, for we cannot have compassion in the abstract, it is simply meaningless and is more of an expression of our inner horror and revulsion of events happening beyond the scope of our own existence. This so called compassion for people and events far away, is more a reflection upon our own view of ourselves as good and virtuous as opposed to any genuine emotional connection to someone we will never hear of or see ever again. It is a reflection of our own ego. That is not to say that charitable endeavours are wrong, but I think that we often attach far to much sentiment to those actions without understanding the real virtue is in the free giving of aid. For an example of this, consider the endless bickering and recriminations over aid for the victims of the Asian tsunami several years ago. Who paid, and how much, and did everyone do everything possible. This became an exercise of egos jousting in a tournament, just who had the greatest compassion, the Postmodernist mind rampaging through the sewers of the human intellect.
One thing that this lady would have needed badly is a shampoo and set! Glamour and Ayn Rand do not go hand in hand!
It is interesting to note that this woman displays no joy, no humor, or no empathy. What is it about her "philosophy" that is attractive to her followers? Frankly, I can find nothing at all, but am open to being enlightened.
USIP I think most intellectuals are very dry characters emotionally, at least virtually all the ones I've seen. I think it has to do with the intensity of their thought processes. Because they focus so much on one set of ideas, they exclude the development of other aspects of human nature.
JAR:
Mark, your concept of what is feasible within a laissez-faire capitalist economic society is coloured by your life's experience, for it is true that for all our lives, we have been subject to the prevailing perception that only government can operate all these essential industries, and because of this perception we have allowed the monster to grow ever larger while abrogating the common law pertaining to property rights to suit their own advantage.
Not true! It has little or nothing to do with my life's experience. It has everything to do with my training in economics. There are certain things, to wit most utilities, which are better run by government. One cannot say that the privatization of the railways in the UK has been totally successful. And as for roads being built, as Ayn Rand suggests, totally privately, well, that would be a disaster. There would likely be major differences in the quality of the roads throughout the country, and there would be tolls all along the way, for nobody would build roads without making a profit.
Tolls are one thing on motorways or freeways, but would be quite something else on country roads. And who would dare build roads for a profit in areas with little, or virtually no, traffic? People living in the sticks would likely be left without any highways at all.
Ayn Rand's notions are theory only; and, I'm sorry to say, in part, not very well thought out theory at that!
It is one thing to say that government should be shrunk, but quite something else to say that government should have no rôle in economics at all.
Who, for example, would provide hospital care for people when there are pandemics? When people have to be hospitalized for months and months on end? Are you telling me that there is no rôle for government in such situations, even if the hospitals themselves are in private hands?
Quite frankly, I find some of her ideas good, but some of them are clearly whacko! Her judgement was so obviously coloured by her upbringing. She did, after all, escape from the USSR. Not all government intervention has to be Soviet-style.
By the way, did you notice how cold she was when she was asked about her parents? She said something to the effect that she had no idea whether they were alive or dead. And the way she answered the interviewer! Wow! Cold indeed!
USIP:
It is interesting to note that this woman displays no joy, no humor, or no empathy. What is it about her "philosophy" that is attractive to her followers? Frankly, I can find nothing at all, but am open to being enlightened.
I, for one, cannot answer you, since I do not find her ideas very attractive either. But, like you, I am open to being convinced. Perhaps I am missing something.
Not true! It has little or nothing to do with my life's experience. It has everything to do with my training in economics. There are certain things, to wit most utilities, which are better run by government. One cannot say that the privatization of the railways in the UK has been totally successful. - Mark
Mark, as I said previously, Objectivism does have some holes in it, some serious ones to boot. I would agree with you about the privatization of the railways too. My point was that prior to government intervention all those years ago, the railways were run on sound economic basis, and that government intrusion distorted their economic model. It is most probable that the clock cannot be turned back, as it seems government and "essential" industries are too cosy and too reliant upon each other. As you point out, Rand came from the Soviet Union, her opinions would appear to be the absolute antithesis of state control.
Personally, I myself am somewhat conflicted on this issue, for your point about the provision of essential services, which lacking a financial benefit to investors and yet a very necessary need by citizens does show a major flaw in this philosophy. I am with Rand in the idea of minimizing the hand of the state, for it of necessity, grants power and control to untold numbers of nameless Little Napoleons, (yes, yes, there are also very decent people who work within the government offices), and it is those characters who do such destruction to the wellbeing of the state. The problem is of course, that Objectivism accepts no accommodation with the obvious fact that there is an essential need of government within areas of the social sphere. In its war with the Little Napoleons, Objectivism seeks the unconditional surrender of government arms, an obviously totally impractical solution, and one which would give birth to other unpleasant monstrosities.
Well, we can both agree that there is a coldness at the heart of Objectivism, this still does not detract from the fact that Objectivism does have many ideas which could bring great benefit to the lot of individuals as they function within the living organism of society. To my mind, it forces individuals to be responsible for themselves, this is one aspect that grants a supreme benefit to that individual, for in carrying the burden of ones own responsibilities, one finds ones very own self-respect, an essential for an upright man. The current nature of man is so bent under the pressure of socialist doctrine and political correctness, that he has become servile, he unknowingly lives on his knees.
Your comment as to her coldness regarding her parents would seem to point to an unresolved family clash, either that or she was an abused child, which could also explain her general aloof manner. Then again, not everyone is the soft gooey, touchy feely type, it takes all kinds.
Another well-thought-out comment from you Richard. Thank you.
I think that you and I are largely in agreement on this issue, though we might differ in detail.
I, too, am in favour of less government rather than more. It is a disgrace, for example, how NuLabour, under 'dear' Tone, has made so many people reliant upon the state. The machinery of state has grown like Topsy under his watch.
Objectivism does indeed make some very valid points. But it is theoretical and, as all theories, would lose something in the practice. Theories are attuned to the 'ideal world'. You and I know only too well that this world is anything but 'ideal'.
One of my major criticisms of Objectivism is that it takes the idea of private enterprise to its extreme. Extremes of any kind are rarely good. Personally, I favour the 'golden middle way', all the time trying to reduce the rôle of the state wherever and whenever possible. But I think you will agree that there are instances in which the state can do things better. Take, for example, SBB, the Swiss railway network. That is state controlled, yet it makes a profit, and is extremely efficient. Trains run on the dot, and the standard of the railway is exceptional. The United States, with all its free enterprise culture, can offer no railway network to compete with SBB (Schweizerische Bundesbahn).
One problem with privatized railways is that they have little incentive to offer a service in remote areas, so people living in such areas are left stranded.
Then one has the problem of the provision of roads. I cannot imagine anything more chaotic than placing the organization of the building of roads in private hands. Of course, the roads themselves can be built by private companies, and usually are; but their provision should be for the government, for only then can we ensure that remote areas can be provided with a good road network.
As you know, I have only recently returned from the States. I am always appalled by the state of many of the roads there. I think it is true to say that we have far better roads in the United Kingdom. Their surfaces are renewed regularly. In the States, it is very common to come across potholes in the roads. That very rarely seems to happens in the UK.
Mrs Thatcher privatized water. That, too, has been a mixed blessing. The price of water has gone up and up, and now the water companies are pressurizing people to go over to water meters. I disagree with water meters fundamentally. Water, like air, is a necessity of life. Water meters only serve to force poorer people to conserve water unnecessarily. After all, with the rainfall the UK gets, there should be absolutley no shortage of the commodity.
Placing people on water meters encourages people to flush their toilets far less (a health hazard and very bad for the sewerage system). It also forces poorer people to use their washing machines less than they otherwise would. That, too, is not good, especially where there are children in the household, or old, infirm, maybe incontinent people.
Added to all this, the people who have made a killing out of all these privatizations are the people working at the top in these utility companies. It has hardly been a very democratic exercise.
So whilst I am definitely pro-private enterprise, and whilst I am definitely for less government rather than more, it's all a question of balance.
Further, if economics were to be divorced from government, as Ayn Rand advocated, then where would the money to wage war in times of great threat to our survival come from? Further, she said that if everything were to function as she suggests, there would not be any recessions. That's plain bunkum! Are there any examples of this to prove the point? I doubt it.
These are some of my objections to Objectivism on the economic front. But as I have already said, I find the philosophy incredibly cold. And what she said about "selfish love' really takes the biscuit! Anybody who talks about 'selfish love" doesn't understand the meaning of the word 'love'. That is the oxymoron par excellence!
Bubba:
If it feels good, do it. This is just american liberalism as it exists today. Self. Not responsibility. I agree that we are responsible for ourselves, however, what separates us from the animals is our care for our families and communities. Disconnected self-pursuit of personal happiness is a losing proposition. Self-absorption is at the root of all addictive disorders.
You've made some interesting points there. But excuse me for saying it, but don't animals also care for their 'families'? Haven't you ever seen how loving a cat can be with her kittens, or a bitch with her litter of puppies?
To love others is a most natural thing. To love nobody, or to have nobody to love one, is the ultimate in emptiness. That is surely why so many older people who have lost their spouses, and when their children have grown up, decide to get a pet.
So whilst I am definitely pro-private enterprise, and whilst I am definitely for less government rather than more, it's all a question of balance. - Mark
You wont get any argument from me on that score. I am as anti the arch capitalist as I am against the socialist. The only reason I will cut the capitalist some slack, is that in a free society we are given the freedom of choice as to whether to utilize his commodity. Now where I see the major flaw in capitalism is where private individuals are granted rights, usually by the authority of the state, where those rights amount to a monopoly, or are attached to an essential commodity of life...like for instance, water. since water, especially in somewhere like Britain, is an abundant commodity, there is no justification in allowing it to be monopolized. While some cost is justified...ie. the costs of storage and distribution; however these utilities, as has been shown by their effective costs and maintenance over the years, are minimal. The current trend, where these private utility companies are pushing for metering is just an exercise in manipulating the market in order to artificially inflate the value of that commodity. And yes, water is the perfect example of your point as to the necessity of a communal authority's control.
Mark, while I rail against socialism, I am no great fan of unfettered capitalism either, it's just that we, as in man, have not yet developed a better system for the generation of wealth, and thereby comfort and security, whereby the individual is granted freedom of action and freedom of thought. An imperfect system, but one which does grant advantages to all, albeit, disproportionately.
Hey Mark, maybe you and I should put our thinking caps together, for sure we could come up with some better philosophy than Marx and Engels, and probably one with a bit more heart and soul than Objectivism; but then again, the best laid plans of mice and men! Mankind has had enough of intellectual social engineers, as I have said before, we need a God to save us from our own follies. We need to learn to be a little more accepting of the failings of others, while at the same time, being more resolute in the face of provocation, as Thomas Hobbes once said - "Be sociable to those that will be; be formidable to those that will not".
I guess it all boils down to the simple fact, that we can all live in this world with a Bill Gates, or a Richard Branson, without any undue interference, but a Che Guevara, a Saddam Hussein, or an Adolf Hitler is the death of us and our freedoms and must of necessity be resisted at all costs.
Richard:
You wont get any argument from me on that score. I am as anti the arch capitalist as I am against the socialist.
This is somewhat surprising news!
The current trend, where these private utility companies are pushing for metering is just an exercise in manipulating the market in order to artificially inflate the value of that commodity. And yes, water is the perfect example of your point as to the necessity of a communal authority's control.
Traditionally, it was always so, and it should have remained so, too. Now, after the 'water boards' have been privatized, they can be bought up by foreigners. What if the Saudis or the Russians bought Scottish Water, for example? How would the Scots like that?
Water, like air, should be ours for the taking. People should only be charged a price to cover the cost of collecting water, storing it, and bringing it to their homes. It should not be a commodity used for profit.
Hey Mark, maybe you and I should put our thinking caps together, for sure we could come up with some better philosophy than Marx and Engels, and probably one with a bit more heart and soul than Objectivism ...
What a delicious thought!
Mankind has had enough of intellectual social engineers, ...
Yes, I think so. Theories are just that: theories.
This is somewhat surprising news! - Mark
It is not the ability of the Capitalist to make lots of money which I object to, but the manipulation of markets for advantage, by the expediency of the wholesale purchase of politicians, which I find so totally objectionable. This of course is not laissez-faire capitalism, but a type of oligarchy.
Reading a history of the Roman empire and its many failings resulting in its demise, it would appear that this particular failing was largely instrumental in the eventual destruction of the state, for the willingness of the people to seek cohesive actions for the benefit of the state was destroyed by a process of powerful individuals seeking personal advantage, with the consequent growth of cynicism amongst the populace, who were constantly displaced of their rights, all ending in a situation where few were prepared to make the necessary sacrifices which would guaranty the security and continued fiscal health of that state. In short, the wealthy classes came to believe that the cost of defending Rome was an undue burden upon their comforts, and the ordinary people felt little but resentment to the to sacrifice of their blood in defense of what appeared to them, in defending the comforts of those same rich individuals, as a consequence, the core part of the citizens of Rome, opted out of the main obligation of the duties of citizenship, and the whole system sought to purchase its security by paying mercenaries, with the consequences of historical fact we all know, at least those of us who could be bothered to read a book or two. Simply put, nobody thought that it was their responsibility to shoulder the burden as they were all too busy following their own ends. Put another way, they all became fat, lazy and stupid...remind you of anyone?
Actually, I should have finished that last sentence a little differently
Put another way, they all became fat, lazy and stupid...but armed with a firm conviction of their superior virtue.
Yes, Richard. It all sounds so horribly familiar, doesn't it?
Post a Comment