For the same reason I hate Karl Marx. Both are theoretical and have no grasp of human nature. Econo-Girl is suffering through an Ayn Rand book right now because it's good for her. And of course, one has to read it before dismissing it.
First of all, how can you trust someone who can't spell the simplest name in the English language? Especially if it's her own name.
The book describes a person who is an individual in a totalitarian state. Econo-Girl snorts with disgust because the author has no grasp of the underbelly of human nature, and therefore, human economies.
Is she so naive that there is no room for a contraband economy? Where is the very human dichotomy between what we say and what we do? And the resulting opportunity to make money off of it? And of course, the existence of an underground economy, resting on the reality of human nature, undermines totalitarianism.
Therefore it is Econo-Girl's conclusion that a totalitarian state is not possible in governing human beings. Ants, maybe, but not people.
Don't you feel better now?
19 comments:
I think the point is that totalitalian states crush the human spirit. Regular people are not paid nearly enough to use black markets on a regular basis.
Also, it is dangerous to use the underground economy. There is no such thing as police brutality - the police are brutal and that is the way it is. Get busted buying or selling something in the black market and you vanish, maybe forever.
Totaliarian states are possible. The people in power just have to be brutal. There is no room for things like human rights and stuff like that.
One of my friends gave me a book titled "Marxist Economic Theory". Once I read it, I will post my thoughts on the subject matter.
There is no amount of brutality that will erase human greed. That includes the greed of those in power who engage in corruption. They will instead use their power to make sure THEY are the ones making the bucks.
I read Marx and I hate him. I will re-read "Das Capital" again to engage in more meaningful dialogue with you. Marx thinks that capitalism is a necessary stage to go through to get to Socialism and then Communism. Lenin said, "No, let's do it NOW, forget that waiting around business. I don't have all day here."
Ayn Rand was Russian; her name is Ayn, not Ann, (pronunciation-as if Ine).
Ayn Rand, in the works of hers I have read, has never advocated the totalitarian state. No, growing up in Communist Russia (actually born 1905, so when the Bolshevik Revolution occurred, she would have been 12), she grew to hate the communist and near totalitarian state. She condemns it; no, she advocates capitalism, this is apparent in both 'Atlas Shrugged' and "Fountainhead'. Her characters may have been depicted, early in her works, in a state moving towards socialism, but this is so she can better show the philosophy and rationale of objectivism, for not many would see it if depicted in a world as such exists.
I do not know how you can say she advocates a totalitarian society; she clearly does not. She is capitalist through and through, she would condemn social security and welfare, for these are the makings of a scoialist state.
No darling, Econo-Girl did not mean to convey she SUPPORTS a totalitarian society, I meant to say she DEPICTS one.
She clearly does NOT support a totalitarian society, or her characters would be happy to be there.
But truly, they are not depicted in a totalitarian state. They are depicted in a state that is slowly moving towards a socialist state; which is in many ways totalitarian, but they are not there yet.
However, I do not see what is wrong with capitalism-full, unbridled laissez-faire capitalism.
If each produces as much as he is able, though he may not be at the top, and he might have to work under somebody, but a living, a great living, can be achieved, assuming, of course, that they maintain and do not breach their highest moral code, and accept no other.
I apologize; in We The Living, they do start out in a totalitarian state. All my references were to Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, which I'm still reading. I strongly reccomend all of her novels.
Clearly Econo-Girl needs to do more research. Though she is still not fond of Ayn Rand as a novelist, perhaps a refresher will change her opinion.
I apologize if it seems I'm forcing my opinions upon you. Just seemed as though I needed to defend my favorite author.
Anonymous, goodness gracious, no! Econo-Girl grows from her interactions with her readers.
I'm on "Anthem" now.
Ahh...that is my next endeavor, as soon as Atlas Shrugged is finished.
she's a radical who hates radicals
The true issue with Ayn Rand is that objectivism is the worst type of confused philosophy. It's a mash-up of various elements of ego-istic philosophy that she alone has declared to be original thought. There's a reason that she was never willing to publish in peer reviewed philospohical journals. Any belief system that gives greed free reign will result in it's worst possible manifestations. It's always struck me as sci-fi Social Darwinism that's rationalized to the nth degree
Orwell >>>>>>>>>>>> ayn rand
Greed does not reign in Ayn Rand's ideal society or government. Not in the least. People don't seem to be able to distinguish between a simple acceptance and admittance that people should live for themselves, and having complete and utter disregard for all other human beings and taking all they can get. The latter is what all of her antagonists do, all the while under the pretenses of selflessness and charity. Her protagonists are extremely motivated, capable, and honest above all things, and take what they deserve.
http://www.halolz.com/2009/06/29/video-francis-hates-left-4-dead/
Anon at 8:57:
That was extremely well said, and exactly what I was about to point out. Luckily you had already done it for me.
It is hard for me to grasp how such easy a concept can be missed, especially by someone who has read the book, unless they do it intentionally for some ulterior motivation.
Some of the repliers seem to have misunderstood what Econo-girl said. She was arguing that Ayn Rand's argument is meaningless because a fully totalitarian state is impossible. I don't think she wasn't confusing a Minarchist government with a totalitarian state.
Unless she was trollin?
*was
Its nice to forget about cartels, firms using dominant strategies in game theory to lie to each other, and raising prices beyond reasonable means by lying about costs to maximize profits. Of course, we don't live in a world where we can forget that. Rand never addresses the real world issues within a free-market system.
Yes, governments can be bad, but that's on;y telling half of the story.
Rand states that “selflessness is not immoral, therefore it’s moral to be selfish.” This is a blatant logical fallacy called a false reversal, which is like saying “if the ground is not wet then it’s not raining; therefore if the ground is wet then it is raining.” It’s possible not to be immoral, without being moral; by simply being a-moral: for example, an animal acts in its own interest, but it isn’t moral– it’s simply a- moral.
Sure, she is an interesting read, but agreeing with her is like trying to live in only part of the world.
Post a Comment