TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Ayn Rand
Pages (4): « 1 2 3 [4]

quote:

Originally posted by Meat187 How exactly did this thread come to American politics?

Ayn Rand has played a pivotal role in the current financial crisis. Much of her thinking has been adopted by libertarian and conservative politicians, as well.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

Because we're speaking American, and in America there are rules.

Whatever you believe about her writing, it is thought-provoking - and IMO that's all you can ask from an ethos.

quote:

Originally posted by stevebutabi Whatever you believe about her writing, it is thought-provoking - and IMO that's all you can ask from an ethos.

It's thought-retarding and pathological.










I think I'll hold out for better before I accept cartoonish character development and a plot-line shy on real-world applicability before I gun the car over to Galt's Gulch.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss let's not forget how different the Democrats were back then too: John F. Kennedy, December 14th, 1962: Sounds like today's Conservatives, eh?

I'm all in favor of tax cuts when the federal budget is running surpluses.

quote:

Originally posted by The17sss rrrrrrright. tax cuts are to blame.

Spending has increased, but it's disingenuous to pretend that revenue and deficits aren't also linked. This was an interesting (conservative) take on how revenue is indeed worsening the economic crisis. Not through lowering tax rates, persay, but by decreasing the labor pool that actually pays taxes:

quote:

This increase in unemployment has also hit tax receipts. Government revenue fell from a high of 2.7 trillion (in 2010 dollars) in 2007 to 2.1 trillion in 2010. If tax receipts reached 2007�s levels, we would cut $600 billion from the deficit. A drop in the need for unemployment assistance could easily cut federal spending by at least $150 billion. That�s already about half of last year�s deficit taken care of without making a single cut to any program. (And those figures do not take into account other areas where unemployment has increased federal spending.) The fastest, politically easiest way to reduce the deficit would be to restore the health of the labor market (which might be the same thing as saying that the fastest, easiest way to reduce the deficit would be to rub a lamp until a genie come out). This is not to say that there is not a cloud in the fiscal future of Medicare or Social Security, or that there is not waste in federal expenditures, or that making certain budget cuts would be a bad idea, or that taxes should not go up (it�s worth noting that we have had nowhere near a balanced budget since the Bush tax cuts passed). This is not even to say that there are no hard choices that face us in dealing with mounting debts. But the focus should be less on trying to shave off a billion here or there and more on getting the nation�s economic house in order so that it can get its fiscal house in order. http://www.frumforum.com/want-to-cut-the-deficit-jump-start-job-growth

I think some conservatives will take that as an argument for ending unemployment benefits (or "reforming" them), but the takeaway for me is trying to find ways to bolster the labor market without inducing further shocks to revenue through simultaneously decreasing what those that still pay taxes are paying into funding the budget. I have both an immediate family member and a roommate on unemployment currently, so I know how rough it is out there right now. I think both Medicare/Medicaid and Social Security reform will be on the table sooner rather than later (Obama's team has hinted as much, at least), but I'd hate to see them start playing with unemployment until they get the labor force stabilized.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Ayn Rand has played a pivotal role in the current financial crisis. Much of her thinking has been adopted by libertarian and conservative politicians, as well. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/warning/

that was a good doco.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker It's thought-retarding and pathological. I think I'll hold out for better before I accept cartoonish character development and a plot-line shy on real-world applicability before I gun the car over to Galt's Gulch.

I agree that her character development is cartoonish (although her prose is lovely) and that objectivism can be pathological and thought-retarding if applied wholeheartedly.

But, like with any philosophy, it's not always about the ethos itself but rather what you choose to take from it.

Sure, if you take objectivism as religion, all over a sudden your ideas, beliefs and interests are all that matter and there's no point to think beyond them, which some would say is a dead end.

Or, you can choose to take a softer view: that your own ideas, beliefs and interests are valuable, and that they should not be subjugated to those of others without vigorous consideration. IMO this is a very powerful, thought-provoking concept. It brings into review everything about yourself and your actions, which is healthy.

But even that interpretation can be used for no good, and if followed the wrong way by everyone, would make the world "nasty brutish and short". I think that when working within the confines of a social contract that adheres to things like property laws, basic human rights, etc. and also combined with good parenting that generates a moral conscience, a softer interpretation of objectivism can be quite valuable.

Thoughts?

quote:

Originally posted by stevebutabi Thoughts?

i'd like to know what, if anything, rand contributed to the essentially libertarian philosophy. a philosophy that pre-dated the evil soviet penis in her arse by more than a few years.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN that was a good doco.

One of my favorites and definitely instructive as to themes which shaped and still hold true to the current financial crisis.

quote:

Originally posted by stevebutabi I agree that her character development is cartoonish (although her prose is lovely) and that objectivism can be pathological and thought-retarding if applied wholeheartedly. But, like with any philosophy, it's not always about the ethos itself but rather what you choose to take from it. Sure, if you take objectivism as religion, all over a sudden your ideas, beliefs and interests are all that matter and there's no point to think beyond them, which some would say is a dead end. Or, you can choose to take a softer view: that your own ideas, beliefs and interests are valuable, and that they should not be subjugated to those of others without vigorous consideration. IMO this is a very powerful, thought-provoking concept. It brings into review everything about yourself and your actions, which is healthy. But even that interpretation can be used for no good, and if followed the wrong way by everyone, would make the world "nasty brutish and short". I think that when working within the confines of a social contract that adheres to things like property laws, basic human rights, etc. and also combined with good parenting that generates a moral conscience, a softer interpretation of objectivism can be quite valuable. Thoughts?

I've scarcely been able to eek through Rand's prose because, to say the least, I've found it dry, slightly clinical, over-abundant, and boring. There are small splashes of flair but overall it seems to adhere to an unedited, utilitarian framework which conveys very little over the staggering volume of its girth.

Rand is the second Soviet ex-pat I've read. The first was Nina Berberova whose book, The Tattered Cloak, I was able to plow through in a relatively short amount of time. Berberova's book is actually a collection of short-stories with an over-arching theme which would seem to have spoken to the overall Russian psyche. While Rand's locus was predicated on an idealized notion of what was possible in her version of the United States - a country less about actually being the United States and more about being both antithetical to the Soviet Union but also fraught with its perils - Berberova kept her stories relegated closer to home.

Berberova's stories ultimately ended tragically and had equally tragic back-drops. "The Tattered Cloak", a short story from where the book's title is taken, is about a young woman emerging into adulthood, having grown up with her father who's laughter sounds a little too much like he's actually crying and who seems to live in a perpetual state of mourning. Not a happy book by any means but I bring it up to illustrate a comparison between Rand and Berberova.

Berberova's stories seem to be her own internalization of how much of a duress the Soviet experience is. They are all about people who are put through life's grinder and who would seem, at least in part, to let their own humanity succumb to the tragedies of life. Rand, on the other hand, has dispensed with such an internalization for herself and instead co-opted American notions, such as the iconoclastic self-made man, who is John Galt (among her other protagonists - allusion intended) who, striking out on his own, is able to conquer the punishing ineptitude of a society who would fecklessly reward incompetence in its road to hell, paved with good intentions. Berberova's tragic backdrops are made two dimensional in Rand's world, with the abandoned wife and mother of the workaholic steal tycoon; whose gift of a bracelet made from his new formula would function as symbols on multiple levels, some of which are ironic.

Couched in Berberova's presentation is an admission that, perhaps though well-intentioned, her protagonists and antagonists (and sometimes distinguishing between the two is difficult) are all just selfish assholes who do little more than act against each others interest to the ruin of everyone concerned. There is no higher ideal to be realized. There's no notion of rising above petty concerns.

Rand, on the other hand, seems very preoccupied with higher ideals. She dismisses empathy and loyalty, for instance, as selfish indulgence which ultimately resolve in futility as they retard a greater progress. They only serve at narrowing a myopia that would do well to see the bigger picture. While doing so, Rand makes it clear that empathy and loyalty, as they exist in her world, are clearly undeserved. But that effort is merely contrivance concocted for the expediency of a fictional thematic scheme which, realized in today's real-world, by the likes of Greenspan, actually functions as a game-plan that undoes their nobility as it resolves in a grand feedback loop; recreating the incompetence of Rand's very antagonists into those who, in our world, would manifest as her very heroes.

Berberova, for her morose outlook conveyed in The Tattered Cloak, poignantly and efficiently reveals the fundamental lynch-pin of Rand's ruinous design. Like psychological nesting dolls, ultimately resolved in The Tattered Cloak, the manifestation of Rand's outlook is much like Berberova's expose' on heartlessness in the story, "Astashev in Paris", as the parasitic antagonist's mistress, heart-broken in the final act, sticks her head in the oven to succumb to carbon-monoxide poisoning.

(--->!!!COR VERSION, AHEAD!!!<---) Rand, for all intents and purposes, is the parasite feeding off the energy of acolytes like Greenspan who, finding his idealization of Rand's philosophy fully realized, is forced to concede in front of congress, no less - much like Berberova's doomed heroin in her own kitchen - that it has all been a sham, from the word, Who.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i'd like to know what, if anything, rand contributed to the essentially libertarian philosophy. a philosophy that pre-dated the evil soviet penis in her arse by more than a few years.

that's a question for a scholar, which I am not

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i'd like to know what, if anything, rand contributed to the essentially libertarian philosophy. a philosophy that pre-dated the evil soviet penis in her arse by more than a few years.

a moral defense/justification of capitalism and individual rights, rather than merely an economic justification. There were plenty of econ nerds arguing for free markets, but not many willing to assert it was a more moral system than collectivism. Rand was the first to do this in a major way.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt a moral defense/justification of capitalism and individual rights, rather than merely an economic justification. There were plenty of econ nerds arguing for free markets, but not many willing to assert it was a more moral system than collectivism. Rand was the first to do this in a major way.

I don�t think hobbes & locke et al were primarily concerned with economics, but rights and the extension of them, and I think they (and others) covered such issues with much more credibility than bitchface. Indeed, I couldn�t tell the difference between hayek and rand, except that hayek�s writing was so much better. They were both loonies though of course

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN I don�t think hobbes & locke et al were primarily concerned with economics, but rights and the extension of them, and I think they (and others) covered such issues with much more credibility than bitchface. Indeed, I couldn�t tell the difference between hayek and rand, except that hayek�s writing was so much better. They were both loonies though of course

Hayek was da man. Rand came across as a bitch and was probably too extreme, but she did have some good points..making a strong argument that coercion was an evil thing..not merely "impractical". I would probably be a commie bastard like you if I never read her stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by Capitalizt I would probably be a commie bastard like you if I never read her stuff.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker One of my favorites and definitely instructive as to themes which shaped and still hold true to the current financial crisis. I've scarcely been able to eek through Rand's prose because, to say the least, I've found it dry, slightly clinical, over-abundant, and boring. There are small splashes of flair but overall it seems to adhere to an unedited, utilitarian framework which conveys very little over the staggering volume of its girth. Rand is the second Soviet ex-pat I've read. The first was Nina Berberova whose book, The Tattered Cloak, I was able to plow through in a relatively short amount of time. Berberova's book is actually a collection of short-stories with an over-arching theme which would seem to have spoken to the overall Russian psyche. While Rand's locus was predicated on an idealized notion of what was possible in her version of the United States - a country less about actually being the United States and more about being both antithetical to the Soviet Union but also fraught with its perils - Berberova kept her stories relegated closer to home. Berberova's stories ultimately ended tragically and had equally tragic back-drops. "The Tattered Cloak", a short story from where the book's title is taken, is about a young woman emerging into adulthood, having grown up with her father who's laughter sounds a little too much like he's actually crying and who seems to live in a perpetual state of mourning. Not a happy book by any means but I bring it up to illustrate a comparison between Rand and Berberova. Berberova's stories seem to be her own internalization of how much of a duress the Soviet experience is. They are all about people who are put through life's grinder and who would seem, at least in part, to let their own humanity succumb to the tragedies of life. Rand, on the other hand, has dispensed with such an internalization for herself and instead co-opted American notions, such as the iconoclastic self-made man, who is John Galt (among her other protagonists - allusion intended) who, striking out on his own, is able to conquer the punishing ineptitude of a society who would fecklessly reward incompetence in its road to hell, paved with good intentions. Berberova's tragic backdrops are made two dimensional in Rand's world, with the abandoned wife and mother of the workaholic steal tycoon; whose gift of a bracelet made from his new formula would function as symbols on multiple levels, some of which are ironic. Couched in Berberova's presentation is an admission that, perhaps though well-intentioned, her protagonists and antagonists (and sometimes distinguishing between the two is difficult) are all just selfish assholes who do little more than act against each others interest to the ruin of everyone concerned. There is no higher ideal to be realized. There's no notion of rising above petty concerns. Rand, on the other hand, seems very preoccupied with higher ideals. She dismisses empathy and loyalty, for instance, as selfish indulgence which ultimately resolve in futility as they retard a greater progress. They only serve at narrowing a myopia that would do well to see the bigger picture. While doing so, Rand makes it clear that empathy and loyalty, as they exist in her world, are clearly undeserved. But that effort is merely contrivance concocted for the expediency of a fictional thematic scheme which, realized in today's real-world, by the likes of Greenspan, actually functions as a game-plan that undoes their nobility as it resolves in a grand feedback loop; recreating the incompetence of Rand's very antagonists into those who, in our world, would manifest as her very heroes. Berberova, for her morose outlook conveyed in The Tattered Cloak, poignantly and efficiently reveals the fundamental lynch-pin of Rand's ruinous design. Like psychological nesting dolls, ultimately resolved in The Tattered Cloak, the manifestation of Rand's outlook is much like Berberova's expose' on heartlessness in the story, "Astashev in Paris", as the parasitic antagonist's mistress, heart-broken in the final act, sticks her head in the oven to succumb to carbon-monoxide poisoning. (--->!!!COR VERSION, AHEAD!!!<---) Rand, for all intents and purposes, is the parasite feeding off the energy of acolytes like Greenspan who, finding his idealization of Rand's philosophy fully realized, is forced to concede in front of congress, no less - much like Berberova's doomed heroin in her own kitchen - that it has all been a sham, from the word, Who.

well written. I find Rand detestable for similar reasons. Like Sarah Palin, I'm not sure who's worse her or the idiots who hold her in high regard. If she lived in our times, I have no doubt she'd have her own show on Fox or conservative AM radio to spew her ill conceived philosophy.

COR version...

Ayn Rand's favorite south park character:



Favorite DJ:

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.