Devilstower on Greenspan and the death of Randian Objectivism:
There’s something in Ayn Rand’s works that appeals to everyone at some point in their lives. Everyone wants to identify with the specialness of Dagny Taggart or Howard Roark or John Galt. Everyone feels, at some point in their lives, as if they are the true hub of the universe.
Then rational people grow the hell up and get over it. There’s no more substance to Rand’s objectivist view than there is in a child fantasizing about being a fairy princess, and even less to admire.
John Galt is dead. We can only hope he stays buried.
Yup. For me, my Rand phase was during the early 90s — coincided with the Gingrichian Republican Revolution, I suppose. It didn’t last very long, probably died by the time of the Clinton impeachment. By way of reference, my capital “L” Libertarian phase started earlier and ended later — maybe from 1990 to 2000.
Neither Libertarianism or Objectivism deal very well with externalities or market distortions that accompany large concentrations of wealth. (As to the latter, someone I know recently suggested an analogy to gravity, where chunks of it here and there lead to elegant, creative systems but a huge mass of it leads to a system-destroying black hole. I’ll have to think about that.)
Well, before the Libertrollians start whining about this one, let me just put one fact out there: Libertarianism has never worked, in any sense, and never will.
Oh, and my favorite quote on both subjects, from the massively-acclaimed video game BioShock:
Your post makes several questionable statements but offers neither proof nor logic to support them.
“Neither Libertarianism or Objectivism deal very well with externalities or market distortions that accompany large concentrations of wealth.”
Nonsense.
(1) Large concentrations of wealth only occur if they are earned in a free system.
(2) What evidence do you have? (None.)
(3) As opposed to what? Socialism? Monarchy?
(4) The current economy has nothing to do with Objectivism, despite one deluded old man’s claims, and everything to do with a century of betraying the American people to central banks and central planners.
Gingrich had almost nothing to do with Objectivism and is a poor reason to either take up or abandon Objectivism. You did not learn its principles and treated it as a fad based on, apparently, spurious reasons.
That you are so easily swayed from the love of reason and freedom, which contrary to that quote are the biggest reasons people find Rand, proves that you are lacking the understanding and/or courage to be a man.
To be clear, I said that my interest in Objectivism coincided with the Gingrichian, Republican Revolution – not that there was a causal relationship.
You’re right, I didn’t offer proof. But then, neither have you. We’re spitting text at each other on a blog, not conducting an experiment. But, thanks for calling me names, questioning my courage, and whatnot. So, cordially, please get bent.
Large concentrations of wealth occur in a variety of ways. I suppose that earning it in a free system could theoretically be one of them, but I doubt this is the most common path.
As for dealing with externalities, I have yet to hear a convincing explanation of how either Objectivism or Libertarianism will deal with pollution effectively. Both have a tendency to declare that everyone should be able to do with their land as they please but then declare that this right stops at the property rights of their neighbor. Are these systems declaring that an individual may not allow one bit of particulate matter to leave his property by air, water, or otherwise and enter on to the property of another without that person’s permission? I don’t know. I’ve never seen a concrete answer.
The old “but we’ve never seen it in its pure form” dodge seems to be common to every political philosophy ever created. Certainly we’ve heard it from the communists. At the moment, I think I hear the conservatives starting to sing the chorus.
As opposed to what? A practical blend of capitalism, socialism, republicanism, and democracy, I suppose. Whatever seems to keep us as happy, healthy, and productive as we can manage; treating none of it as dogma.
Yes,both communism and capitalism may both work better next time ,if tweaked a little.
On the whole, I prefer a system of interaction where wealth is concentrated via earnings, rather than via campaign contributions and lobbying. This is our current glorious middle ground.
I quite agree, Doug, with your underlying premise that there is no utopia. But ideals have a useful place as goals to be reached for. In the give-and-take of real life, nobody’s ideals are ever going to be fully met.
We’re about to get dogma aplenty, I’m afraid. Huge majorities tend to do that.
I got some insight into the universality of failed uptopian ideas by doing home exchanges with former east Germans and their views of Communism ,before and after.A pervasive theme was that communism fell because no one believed in the system in the end.Those who administered it did so for personal gain,and the perks of party leadership status
A general paranoia built and by the fall, half the people were spying on the other half making dossiers of suspicious people.Teachers were suspicious just becasue they were teachers so I would have had a secret Stazi dossier,and there would have been colleagues I was unaware of documenting me.
This recalls our own McCarthy era. I remember as a grade schooler my parents listening intently to the hearings on the radio and still I remember my mother talking about how dangerous Eva Gardner was.I was only 10 years old or so but I can still feel the atmosphere of those times.Hardly anyone had a TV at that time.
So when we saw certain paranoia traits in our own leaders it hit home that our system was being viewed from within as failing. That has been proven true.
Rumsfeld , Cheney,Wolfowitz would have had similar roles in any regime at any time;they’re character types.Leaders want revealed what they think is working well,and blame others for what isn’t working,namely the press and liberals,trial lawyers,labor unions and the NEA.Enemies vary,but as Voltaire said,’the more things change the more they stay the same.’
Bess attributes the current state of the economy to “central planners”. Ha! That’s really funny. I guess banking deregulation is something like central planning, in a not-at-all kind of way.
Meanwhile, Bess thinks large concentrations of wealth only occur if earned in a free system. OK, someone isn’t familiar with concepts like lobbying, no-bid contracts, insider trading, etc. Being ignorant of all the common ways that wealth can be created by shortcuts, unfair dealing and advantages, etc., is the best way to think that wealth is always fairly created by hard work alone.
Whoa! Everybody sit down. I agree completely with T.
Speaking of black holes and the end of everything.
I’m just in a really good mood, as I voted at one of Marion County’s satellite voting locations of Friday. MUCH easier than going through the mail-in absentee process. ;)
Blind squirrel finds nut. Now which of us is that squirrel?
Off topic, but I saw video of that batty Orlando anchorwoman interviewing Joe Biden. I most loved the, “Joe the Plummer said…” part. I’m thinking the McCain campaign has gone to that well a few too many times.
Could “Joe the Plummer said…” soon overtake “St. Paul writes…” on Sunday mornings?
The externalities problem (along with the related transaction-costs problem and even the free-rider problem) is also what made me realize that Libertarianism was unworkable in practice.
Which is not to say that regulation (which is how we account for externalities, transaction costs, and free riders) is always done well, of course. But it’s often the only *workable* solution – 350,000 (say) Marion county households suing a polluter for the $5 annual loss of enjoyment they each suffered on account of occasionally smelling his pollution is *not* workable, although it appears to be the libertarian school answer to pollution.
Also, I hate it when libertarians interrupt anyone who says “Well, we live in a democracy” with: “We don’t live in a democracy! A democracy is what they had in Athens!! We live in a constitutional republic!!!, since it is almost always distracting (the main point of whatever is being discussed is usually not about the character of democracy), insulting (the person who brought up democracy usually has a good understanding of how our country functions and will have noticed that they are not called to weekly assemblies in the town square to vote on all important matters as was the case in Athens) and wrong – definition of democracy (as opposed to “pure democracy”) means a “is government by the people in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.”
In their favor, Libertarians usually write shorter sentences. :)
Nice discussion.
Massive wealth is also passed along via inheritance, intrinsically undemocratic though there’s no chance in hell we’ll give that up.
Plus all kinds of criminality, collusion, cheating, and old-boys kinds of behaviors that can be a problem under communism, capitalism or whatever.
Funny how not everybody naturally plays fair.
Didn’t take long before the Randroids came out, claiming that anyone who won’t perpetuate their class-based slavery system is “against reason and freedom”.
Three seconds of research proves Objectivism and Libertarianism to be unreasonable, idiotic, and harmful. But they won’t do that – it goes against the mindset of their cult.
Odd how Ayn Rand was against religion, but not-so-inadvertently started her own…
Damian,
That’s not odd. It’s perfectly predictable.
Like the Communists, she didn’t want the competition. Dogma is a jealous god.
Doubt is the harbinger of reason, and intellectual humility the handmaiden of tolerance.
Branden,
Okay, maybe it’s irony. Actual irony for once. Not fake irony like people seem to revel in.