Posted by Diarmuid on January 28, 2002 at 03:59:03:
In Reply to: Re: Leeches posted by isaac on January 27, 2002 at 20:32:01:
: any rand probably would have blamed the leech's behavior on the leech. please, diarm, don't tell us what rand WOULD say if you don't know what she HAS said. fundamental to ayn rand's philosophy is to not blame the actions of the individual on the society.
That's horseshit. I don't have AS right here, but you're going to get chapter and verse on this one.
: that's marxism you're thinking about, and in thinking that objectivism is just anti-marxism, yo'ure making a paper-man error.
No I'm not. Rand and Lenin are two sides of the same coin. Rand's family suffered under Marxists, Lenin's suffered under Czarists. Both pretended their political crusades weren't personally motivated. I don't buy it.
: : Fact: Rand was a childish five who was enraged that the rest of the planet didn't think like fives.
: hahaha, that's a fact? that she was childish?
: can you back that up at all? how would you define that word, and how would you back it up, in such a way that it's a verifiable fact rather than a personal opinion? i'd be interested to see that.
: leeches aren't profitable.
Sometimes they are. That's what kills fives: intrusive, non-individuals can often contribute very well to the bottom line.
: : Rand's ideas have taken America by storm for the last 20 years. And the current situation is as close to her Utopia as Stalin's Russia was to Marx's.
: diarm, what are you talking about? are you referring to her book sales? atlas shrugged was rated the number 2 influential book in the lives of americans (after the bible) by the library of congress. or are you referring to the proliferation of objectivist clubs and subscribers to the newsletter? if you're talking about the political policies that have been put in place, yo'ure sadly mistaken. likewise if you're talking about leading philosophical trends. moral relativism, affirmative action, progressive education, equal oppertunity... america is full of this shit. hell, more people in the us today believe in astrology than did in medieval europe, when augustine wrote about how there are plenty of (very good) reasons for believing it's nothing but hoodah. our current situation isn't very close to her ideal, you're right about that. it's pretty far from it, and not surprising, since the philosophies she espoused aren't very popular here.
: this really kinda upsets me. my country was FOUNDED on (basically) her ideals, and look how it's turned out.
You country was founded on the principle that "Those who own the country should run it" (Hamilton). "We are a republic, not a democracy" (Washington). Talking about the proposal that landless men should be permitted to vote.
I agree that Randism chimes well with that philosophy: if property rights are absolute, it's stupid to allow propertyless men to influence Government thinking. It's also stupid to allow a guy with one acre of land to have the same number of votes as a guy with a million acres. Hamilton was a very smart man who saw that democracy and absolute property rights could not co-exist. He valued absolute property rights above democracy, hence his policy.
But your country went down the one-man, one-vote path and turned away forever from a Randist stance.
: diarmuid, what's so personally offensive about ayn rand? someoen can't even mention her in passing without you throwing a fit. or is it just so i'll talk to you?
Personally? Nothing. It's just that she's so obviously wrong, it's strange that I can't find many criticisms of her on the WWW.
To my knowledge, these posts of mine are the only non-Marxist criticism of Rand on the Internet. If you're like me, you view Marxism as a religion, not a political philosophy. I think the record should show that a non-religious critique of her is possible, indeed easy. Given that her ideas are so hugely popular, I think posterity needs that.