What is morally wrong with socioecomic part of Ayn rans philosophy?

[carn]

With Romneys VP pick being a catholic, who also at least outrightly rejects Ayn Rans views in total, i expect some Rand bashing in the media soon. It seems that to many she is some kind of “antichrist” philosophically embodying all the evil capitalism stands for. But having read “Atlas Shrugged” and a lot of negative writing about Rand, i am still empty handed in trying to formulate what exactly is immoral about her ideas in these respects.

So i am asking here whether anyone can explain what is morally wrong with the socioeconomic part of her views.

Disclaimer: Please do not discuss, whether Rands atheism or her views about sex are wrong (most bashing against her does not seem to be aimed at these, in our time her views in these respects are close to mainstream, which is bad from catholic viewpoint, but another theme) or whether she erred about real life in some way or whether the policies following from her ideas would be harmful (first its often not a moral error to be mistaken about facts and from thie mistaken view propose something which is harmful, and second Marx did that with 100 Million dead added on it and yet he is not as “anathema” to modern socitey as Rand, so it cannot be the root of the bashing).

Taking “Atlas shrugged”, i can summarize what i understood as following:

1. Each human posesses inalignable rights, among these are at least life and property and the right to defend these against agressors.
2. There are more able and less able people in the world in terms of productivity. A higher productivity is good, as higher productivity leads to a better control over nature and thereby over the material quality of human existance. (the more able called by Rand “producer” as far as i remeber)
3. Some of the less able people have since the dawn of time devised methods to force the producers to give them (using direct force if other means fail) some of their excess production, so they can live beyond what their own skill could provide them with (called “looters”).
4. There is to some extent an overlap between the rich and the producers, as a highly productive person will have, at least ina somewhat property respecting society like for example the US, excess resources leading to wealth. Such persons truly have earned their wealth. And in a perfect society the groups should be identical. The rest of the rich tend to be looters.
5. One main aspect of the methods is feeding human envy, that the productive rich do not deserve what they earned and must therefore give to others, otherwise they are evil and force is aallowed to take what is not given.
6. As the looters neither respect nor understand what the producers accomplish, they will take it too far ony day, by “taxing” the producers so strongly, that they might fail to produce enough, that enough remains for them to continuing being productive, which then would lead to a collapse of society propelling it back several centuries.
7. In such case the producers should resists by not using their skills for the better of society, because by continuing to be as productive as they are, they enable the looters to continue and the longer the road is travelled, the harsher the breakdown should be. But the producers should not actively use force, as they must due to self interest the rights of the others. Therefore they just go on “strike” (as one working title of the book was), till either the looters get sensible or the otherwise inevitable collapse happens and the producers are then free to produce, building a society which is not based on looting those more productive.

However i turn it, i cannot see much moral error, except maybe for 2., because world is not that simply, there is not one scale for “able” and John Galt the genius engeneer might starve as John Galt the farmer and that is so obvious that i would claim it borders on morale failure not to see it. But that doesnt change much of the argument, as first Rand was probably aware of this and just for literary and argumentation reaons is sloppy there, and second there are certainly persons more productive as others under a given set of circumstances, like in a stable society exists.

1. can to some extent be incorrect (luck or inheritance also help getting rich, besides working hard or stealing), but morally the presumption has to be that anyone rich, who did not win in lottery or inherited or was found guilty of stealing, has earned his money honestly (do not judge,…). So its at most imprecise.

And the rest?

One cannot deny that there are looters throughout history and some even explicitly argued for taking from the rich because they do not deserve it and causing their societies to collapse or at least suffer very hard times. So the fear is not entirely imagined.

And the defense?
Stopping your enemies, who want to do you harm, by not doing anything and destroying your property, thereby causing them to suffer and die, because they need you for survival is to some extent cruel, but probably the least severe defensive measure imaginable.

So it seems that Rand suggested nothing but legitimate self defense against thiefs. That she saw more thiefs in the world, then there probably are, well paranoia is a disease, not a moral error.

In summary for me, i summarize the message of the 1000 pages of atlas shrugged, at least the socioeconomic parts, the following way:
Thou shall not steal.

 

[coachdennis]

I take my philosophical base from the words of the Bible and wisdom of the Church.

James 2: 14 - 17: 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

How do we live that out in a society is what we are called to do. The Church has wisely demonstrated that all economic systems have their limitations. Whichever form our society gravitates to, it must strive to be a reflection of the teachings of Christ.

From the Catechism:

2425 The Church has rejected the totalitarian and atheistic ideologies associated in modem times with “communism” or “socialism.” She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of “capitalism,” individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor. Regulating the economy solely by centralized planning perverts the basis of social bonds; regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.” Reasonable regulation of the marketplace and economic initiatives, in keeping with a just hierarchy of values and a view to the common good, is to be commended.

Jesus is my “philosopher”

 

[carn]

I take my philosophical base from the words of the Bible and wisdom of the Church.

I did not suggest to take philosophy from Rand. Its just i do not understand the fuss about her views.

James 2: 14 - 17: 14 What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? 15 Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. 16 If one of you says to them, “Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,” but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? 17 In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.

This only seems to imply that an individual is required to care about the needy. Not that anyone should force third persons to care about someone. Nor that should be taken from those that have more so much, that entire society comes down. Nor that in such case, people should not resist the forces bringing the society down throuhg this means.

The Church has wisely demonstrated that all economic systems have their limitations.

When and how did the Church demonstrate anything about any economic system?
As far as i know, Church teaches what a good society should achieve, and has never conducted sociological experiments about which society can achieve what.

regulating it solely by the law of the marketplace fails social justice, for “there are many human needs which cannot be satisfied by the market.”

Which needs?

If spritual needs are meant, then obviously neglecting these is a moral failure that is tied to Rands Atheism.

If its about keeping other from starving, it seems that for Rand and all her positive characters helping their fellow humans and saving them is never questioned and never doubted. Only when the help is without hope (as the needy is on a road, which is doomed anyway and cannot be convinced to change course) and dangerous for oneself, help is rejected.

Maybe Rands morale error is assuming that humans are decent enough to take care of poor people without the state forcing them to do so?

(That still doenst explain the hartred, i do not despise people, if their main error is having a too positive opinion about the human nature.)

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I did not suggest to take philosophy from Rand…

Ah, but you did. The ideas presented in your list 1-7 you may call socioeconomic, but they do speak of right and wrong, and so are definitely an expression of a philosophy. Rand’s philosophy is tightly bound to her rejection of religion as a force for good. You can try to dress it up in non-offensive language, but it is still her philosophy that is the issue, not some empirical scientific study.

 

[HouseArrest]

You answered your own question. Number 2 is flawed.Therefore every point that follows is flawed.

 

[sllhouette]

My thoughts: Take them with a grain of salt since I havn’t read the book. It looks like rand is reducing society to far to simplistic terms. It almost sounds like she is saying that government is by nature “looters”. This would be a false assumption.

Lets use the example of the basic agrarian society that in which there are ONLY looters and producers and not yet any government. What would we expect to happen when a looter comes for a producers goods? I would expect the producer to get out an axe and defend himself. Lets say hypothetically he couldn’t. I would expect that he would try to gather with the other producers and form a collective of producers that CAN defend themselves. You might even expect them to come together and find resources to pay for gaurds. They might even agree on a “tax” to pay for the gaurds.

What I feel rand is doing is esentially equating these collectives of producers with looters.

The need for government and the need for taxes is mathematically provable. The problem we have is that looters are using government and taxes.

So in comes the idea of ‘striking’ to deal with the looters. Lets again take this into the context of just one producer and one looter. Would the producer ever think of stoping his production just to deal with the looter? No. He would get out his axe and fight. Or try to position himself in such a position so as to avoid the looter. But I sincerly doubt that failing to produce would ever occur to him. In the same way, ‘striking’ does not occur to us. Instead we either fight politicaly, or we try to find the loopholes in the tax code.

Stopping your enemies, who want to do you harm, by not doing anything and destroying your property, thereby causing them to suffer and die, because they need you for survival is to some extent cruel, but probably the least severe defensive measure imaginable.

Actaully it could be more cruel than picking up a sword and fighting. By destroying your property, you not only cause yourself to suffer, but also your wife and children. By fighting you do not cause suffering on any innocent person. By destroying your property you become the agent by which the innocent suffer.

Does any of that make sense?

 

[fnr]

But having read “Atlas Shrugged” and a lot of negative writing about Rand, i am still empty handed in trying to formulate what exactly is immoral about her ideas in these respects.

Well, we’ll start with the fabrication of the world in Atlas Shrugged. Rand typically caricatures people who disagree with her philosophy and project it out to its ultimate extent through logic. Hence, it’s fiction. However, many of her adherents feel that her fictional universe is in fact reality, so feel that her fictional philosophy must be real too.

All of her philosophy can be summed up in the title of another less well known of her works, The Virtue of Selfishness.

Contrast that with the real world. If you want a libertarian philosopher who talks about actual history, read Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State, and Utopia. He admits that free market principles are great, but acknowledges that history is a messy thing. If, because of slavery, for example, someone owns ill-gotten property (or money, in the case of New York finance), there is not clear title to that property. His approach is compatible with reparations payments, but is fundamentally a free-market principle. Rand just throws real history in the dustbin.

So i am asking here whether anyone can explain what is morally wrong with the socioeconomic part of her views.

Rand describes the poor and those who do not work in enterprises she feels to be sufficiently productive as “moochers.” This is quite at variance with Christ’s message. Matthew 25’s sheep and goats parable is almost a diametrically opposed view of morality and economics to Rand’s Objectivism.

Taking “Atlas shrugged”, i can summarize what i understood as following:

1. Each human posesses inalignable rights, among these are at least life and property and the right to defend these against agressors.

Rand doesn’t really view “inalienable rights” in the same way they’re thought of constitutionally. Objectivism pretty much says that the only objective measure of “good” or “bad” is the individual’s own sense of pleasure or pain (in the quasi-Aristotelian sense of the term). Thus, people who pursue their own pleasure are good without leeching off others are “good” and all people who don’t are “moochers” (including kids, the elderly, and anyone who can’t get ahead in business). We might contrast this with Paul’s epistle to the Thessalonians, in which he urges “mutual charity,” in addition to his other letters urging self-sufficiency (you have to read these in their first-century context).

1. There are more able and less able people in the world in terms of productivity. A higher productivity is good, as higher productivity leads to a better control over nature and thereby over the material quality of human existance. (the more able called by Rand “producer” as far as i remeber)

This is where Rand and Christianity go splitsky. According to Rand’s philosophy, if humans are just left to themselves, their rationality will lead to a utopian reality, a view first set forth by Rand’s ubermensch John Galt. In essence, Rand is a utopian materialist. In Christianity, we believe that humanity’s fallen nature makes it such that we cannot through our own works attain utopia, but rather, that we live in the Kingdom of God, whereby we act in ways that are NOT just about production at all costs. The first 8 chapters of Acts tell us about the Apostles distributing food to widows, celebrating the Eucharist, sharing food with one another, and preaching forgiveness of sins. This is what we are to do as Christians.

Look at human history and see which vision is more telling. In the late 19th century, the Enlightenment had convinced everyone in Europe that a new age of rationality and gentility had prevailed and that, therefore, wars were a thing of the past. Except World War 1 came along, and the rational expectations of the civilized world shattered in the face of industrial scale barbarism. World War 2 showed us more of the same. Can we really expect the future to be one of peaceful capitalist tranquility?

1. Some of the less able people have since the dawn of time devised methods to force the producers to give them (using direct force if other means fail) some of their excess production, so they can live beyond what their own skill could provide them with (called “looters”).

These “looters” consisted of royalty and clerics for most of history, plus their bureacracies. And in American history, these “looters” consisted of inland northern farmers, traders, and industrialists. They were strongly in favor of using public funds to build roads, canals, lighthouses, and ports to facilitate their access to market. Later, these “looters” consisted of labor unions, which state governments forcibly suppressed when private security couldn’t (e.g., the Homestead Strike).

In modern times, the “looters” consist of companies that emit massive amounts of toxic materials into the air, water, and land. These PO-looters externalize the costs of their production, and impose health costs on people uninvolved in their transactions.

We don’t live in a capitalist economy, we’re a mixed economy.

1. There is to some extent an overlap between the rich and the producers, as a highly productive person will have, at least ina somewhat property respecting society like for example the US, excess resources leading to wealth. Such persons truly have earned their wealth. And in a perfect society the groups should be identical. The rest of the rich tend to be looters.

I went to high school at an elite boarding school with the children of Fortune 500 CEOs. Those not-so-brilliant kids still got into top-echelon universities, including the Ivy League. Yet I’ve met so many people working their tails off to make ends meet who are a lot smarter and talented than the kids with whom I went to high school. It’s a fantasy to imagine that the rich are any better or “productive” than everyone else, though they like to think they are.

1. One main aspect of the methods is feeding human envy, that the productive rich do not deserve what they earned and must therefore give to others, otherwise they are evil and force is aallowed to take what is not given.

What do you call patents? Copyright? Mortgage interest and employer healthcare deductions? Military patrols of the Gulfs of Aden and Hormuz? Aren’t we just subsidizing the status quo elite?

1. As the looters neither respect nor understand what the producers accomplish, they will take it too far ony day, by “taxing” the producers so strongly, that they might fail to produce enough, that enough remains for them to continuing being productive, which then would lead to a collapse of society propelling it back several centuries.

And those looters must sure be stupid to tax them that strongly! Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg!

1. In such case the producers should resists by not using their skills for the better of society, because by continuing to be as productive as they are, they enable the looters to continue and the longer the road is travelled, the harsher the breakdown should be. But the producers should not actively use force, as they must due to self interest the rights of the others. Therefore they just go on “strike” (as one working title of the book was), till either the looters get sensible or the otherwise inevitable collapse happens and the producers are then free to produce, building a society which is not based on looting those more productive.

Rand predicted the collapse of moocher society about 70 years ago. Still hasn’t happened.

 

[JIB]

Why attach it to Ayn Rand? There are plenty of Catholic economists/historians that support a free market system. Look at the Spanish Scholastics for example.

I see no problem with a Catholic advocating a pure market system. I do. I have studied the subject and find that market interventions lead to negative unintended (or oftentimes intended) consequences.

Ayn Rand had a much more overarching philosophy so I’d shy away from using anything from her.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Why attach it to Ayn Rand? There are plenty of Catholic economists/historians that support a free market system. Look at the Spanish Scholastics for example.

I see no problem with a Catholic advocating a pure market system. I do. I have studied the subject and find that market interventions lead to negative unintended (or oftentimes intended) consequences.

Ayn Rand had a much more overarching philosophy so I’d shy away from using anything from her.

The only Ayn Rand I’ve read is The Fountainhead. I would not say that free market economy is the core of her philosophy. The economic theory is only an incidental side effect to her central point which is the moral glorification of the totally selfish individual.

 

[JIB]

The only Ayn Rand I’ve read is The Fountainhead. I would not say that free market economy is the core of her philosophy. The economic theory is only an incidental side effect to her central point which is the moral glorification of the totally selfish individual.

Yup.

I cringe a bit when I hear about people being big fans of Ayn Rand. She starts from a place of pure selfishness. People get the idea that she’s what the free market is about because she’s a godless heathen that has no desire to help the poor.

 

[Contarini]

Disclaimer: Please do not discuss, whether Rands atheism or her views about sex are wrong (most bashing against her does not seem to be aimed at these, in our time her views in these respects are close to mainstream, which is bad from catholic viewpoint, but another theme) or whether she erred about real life in some way or whether the policies following from her ideas would be harmful (first its often not a moral error to be mistaken about facts and from thie mistaken view propose something which is harmful, and second Marx did that with 100 Million dead added on it and yet he is not as “anathema” to modern socitey as Rand, so it cannot be the root of the bashing).

So do you think that attacking Marxism for the “100 Million dead” is out of bounds? Do you think Marx’s atheism is irrelevant?

The fact that some people may be inconsistent in one direction doesn’t excuse you for being inconsistent in the other. The relevant point isn’t whether people who attack Rand for her atheism/immorality/harmful consequences fail to do the same with Marx, but whether the right approach is to stop attacking both or to attack both. If it’s the latter, then you have no case in Rand’s favor, do you? If it’s the former, you have a tough row to hoe with fellow conservatives. . . .

My own view, as so often, is both/and. I think that these considerations are relevant, but I agree that they’re not decisive (in either case). No Christian can be a thoroughgoing follower of either Marx or Rand, and it’s disturbing when Christians seem uncritical in their attitude to either of these figures. But the key claims each of these figures makes about economics and society need to be taken on their own terms.

1. Each human posesses inalignable rights, among these are at least life and property and the right to defend these against agressors.

From an orthodox Christian perspective, one can argue whether property is in fact “inalienable.” St. Thomas Aquinas thought that private property was a legitimate human convention, not a fundamental natural right. Pope Leo XIII seems to have taught that it was, in fact, a natural right–but he agreed with Aquinas that private property exists to serve the common good. It is thus not “inalienable” without serious qualification.

1. There are more able and less able people in the world in terms of productivity. A higher productivity is good, as higher productivity leads to a better control over nature and thereby over the material quality of human existance. (the more able called by Rand “producer” as far as i remeber)

This is good only in a highly relative sense, from a Christian perspective. Material goods are not the ultimate good. Ironically, this was most clearly stated by Pope Pius XI in his condemnation of socialism–he condemned even “moderate” socialism for its fundamental materialism. This would apply to Rand’s philosophy just as well, even though on an economic level her philosophy is the opposite of socialism. And this is where we see the relevance of the broader issue of atheism. Insofar as both socialism and Randian capitalism rest on fundamentally materialistic assumptions, the atheism of their founders is highly relevant and makes them incompatible with Christianity.

1. Some of the less able people have since the dawn of time devised methods to force the producers to give them (using direct force if other means fail) some of their excess production, so they can live beyond what their own skill could provide them with (called “looters”).

This is not, from a Christian perspective, a moral problem. The less able are not less worthy in the eyes of God than the more “able.” I think that this is also highly dubious as an account of human history–at least as much so as the Marxist narrative of history–but more to the point it’s either antithetical or irrelevant to Christian morality.

Now we could have a conversation about the extent to which it’s a moral/social problem for the lazy to live off the produce of others. (My answer would be that it’s a problem, but not as important a one as some modern Westerners believe.) But that’s not how you’re putting it–you’re quite frankly putting the problem in terms of the less able “looting” from others. (Again, I find this to be factually nonsense. Looting is pretty hard work and requires considerable ability of one sort or another–for literal looting you have to have impressive physical abilities, and for the more complex and metaphorical kind that Rand may be more concerned about you have to be quite clever. But that’s not really the main point.)

1. There is to some extent an overlap between the rich and the producers, as a highly productive person will have, at least ina somewhat property respecting society like for example the US, excess resources leading to wealth. Such persons truly have earned their wealth. And in a perfect society the groups should be identical.

I see nothing whatever in Christian morality that would support this vision of the perfect society.

1. One main aspect of the methods is feeding human envy, that the productive rich do not deserve what they earned and must therefore give to others, otherwise they are evil and force is aallowed to take what is not given.

No human being “deserves” to hoard wealth and keep it from those who have need. This is the fundamental point where orthodox Christianity and socialism agree over against Rand. If a person is starving to death, then that person “deserves” the products of my labor just by virtue of being a human being made in God’s image.

1. As the looters neither respect nor understand what the producers accomplish, they will take it too far ony day, by “taxing” the producers so strongly, that they might fail to produce enough, that enough remains for them to continuing being productive, which then would lead to a collapse of society propelling it back several centuries.

Leaving out Rand’s odd definition of “looting,” she may well have a valid practical point. Certainly outright socialism unduly depresses human productivity. Whether in fact the United States is in any danger of this is a matter of debate. What is certainly false is the claim that any government regulation–any rejection of Rand’s radically individualistic philosophy, in fact–will inevitably lead to these dire consequences. One can also argue (see Pius XI’s condemnation of “moderate socialism” again) that since material prosperity is not the highest good, the economic situation of, say, Eastern Europe in the 1980s is not something we have any moral reason to avoid. People who lived in Eastern Europe before the fall of Communism often have a certain degree of nostalgia for those days, which seem in retrospect less materialistic and full of simple pleasures. That certainly shouldn’t blind us to the terrible evils and injustices of Communism, but it should affect how we respond to this particular criticism of socialism/Communism. The fact that grocery stores carried only one kind of each available item, and didn’t have some luxury goods at all, was not necessarily a bad thing. The fact that party elites hypocritically wallowed in luxury while proclaiming an egalitarian philosophy was an evil, and the fact that they used brutal coercion to maintain their power was a much greater one.

1. In such case the producers should resists by not using their skills for the better of society, because by continuing to be as productive as they are, they enable the looters to continue and the longer the road is travelled, the harsher the breakdown should be. But the producers should not actively use force, as they must due to self interest the rights of the others. Therefore they just go on “strike” (as one working title of the book was), till either the looters get sensible or the otherwise inevitable collapse happens and the producers are then free to produce, building a society which is not based on looting those more productive.

Completely incompatible with orthodox Christianity. Our abilities and material blessings are given us in trust for the glory of God and the common good.

 

[Contarini]

1. can to some extent be incorrect (luck or inheritance also help getting rich, besides working hard or stealing), but morally the presumption has to be that anyone rich, who did not win in lottery or inherited or was found guilty of stealing, has earned his money honestly (do not judge,…)

That doesn’t make sense. Why is it only the rich we shouldn’t judge? We have more warrant for doing so than for judging the poor and unsuccessful–as the Randian philosophy does. (The entire Book of James could be considered quite “judgmental” toward the rich.)

To assume that success follows merit is to “judge” more people than to assume that it doesn’t.

And the choice is not between assuming that someone has “earned” their success by superior merit or assuming that he/she has somehow been dishonest. Much that happens in life is chance/providence. That’s the traditional Christian view. That’s one fundamental point of disagreement between Christianity and socialism, which assumes that inequality is simply a matter of oppression and can/should be altered by revolution (whether violent or gradual). But it’s no less a point of disagreement between Christianity and Rand’s philosophy.

One cannot deny that there are looters throughout history and some even explicitly argued for taking from the rich because they do not deserve it and causing their societies to collapse or at least suffer very hard times.

Certainly envy is very real, and it can be hard to draw the line between sinful envy and a legitimate zeal for justice. However, what’s clear is that Rand’s philosophy offers no help in doing so, because her assumptions about what is just are fundamentally different than those of Christianity.

Stopping your enemies, who want to do you harm, by not doing anything and destroying your property, thereby causing them to suffer and die, because they need you for survival is to some extent cruel, but probably the least severe defensive measure imaginable.

But the “harm” they supposedly want to do you is simply to take some of your excess wealth. Now whether that’s justifiable or not (which would depend on circumstances and is not simply wrong as Rand claims), it’s not the same thing as killing you or letting you die. What Rand is saying, essentially, is that it’s legitimate to kill people who threaten your property–which, again, is fundamentally contrary to Christian ethics. Human life is on a completely different scale than property.

And, again, her atheism shows here just as it does in Marxism. In both systems human life is devalued and material property overvalued. The fact that the systems have opposite views as to who should have the property is relatively trivial from a moral/spiritual point of view.

Marxism is, in my view, considerably superior to Rand’s philosophy, in the sense that it has considerably more good elements to it, even though the good is twisted by the false assumptions. The fact that it’s more destructive is no argument against this. In Lewis’s terms (applied to Weston and Devine in Out of the Silent Planet), Marxism is “bent” but Randianism is “broken.” Marxism takes principles of Christian charity and twists them; Rand denies them outright. The one Christian principle left in Rand is the sacred value of the individual, but even this is not only radically twisted but fatally abridged, because on your own showing individuals are valued by how much they “produce.”

In summary for me, i summarize the message of the 1000 pages of atlas shrugged, at least the socioeconomic parts, the following way:
Thou shall not steal.

But her definition of “steal” is not the orthodox Christian one.

Edwin

 

[manualman]

Rand is pathetic. She takes this legitimate point: “There are some extraordinary people in this world who are exceptionally talented in that they are able to organize a tremendous amount of production and efficiency. These people earn every penny they make, and often a lot more than they actually make.”

And plays the shell game when you aren’t watching closely so that you accept this point: “Rich people got that way via their extraordinary efforts and talents and poor people have earned their lot in life via their failure to produce.”

What Rand either fails to recognize (or hopes you don’t recognize so she could continue sucking up to the wealthy class for her own lifestyle) is that circumstances play a HUGE role in financial outcomes. I’ve been in enough business deals over the years to know that how good a schmoozer you are often has a LOT more to do with how much money you make than how much value you actually add to society via your labors.

There are a heck of a lot of nurses, teachers, engineers, cops, firemen and soldiers out there who have added one whale of a lot more value to society than some of the stock traders, bankers, investment advisors, etc that have gotten rich in recent decades. Rand never held an honest job in her life and wouldn’t know an economically productive activity from a “looting” one if her life depended on it. She proved this by leaching off others her entire life before milking her Rolodex into a self-serving cult of materialism. She’s all hat and no cowboy.

 

[migueltojose]

The only Ayn Rand book I read was Fountainhead and I liked it. Of course it was about 26 years ago. I think she had an theoretical idea that became a philosophy whether she meant for it too or not. First of all I thought the book was an enjoyable read. Of course the world she created was too far fetched but it served her purpose. It made you think. That’s a good start. Anyway, I think a good Catholic can appreciate Ayn Rand and her books just like anyone else, with reason and intellectual maturity you get what you get and dismiss the rest and move on. On her theoretical idea though I think she’s misunderstood. I think she was illustrading the value and beauty of man glorifying God in a sinister world. (I know she was a Jewish atheist but bear with me.) Not so unreasonable. Somehow she and or the idea got usurped and hijacked and she lost control. Whether or not she believed in God what she was espousing was the equivalent of man glorifying God with his time talent and treasure. And that those who are better at it will fare better than those who aren’t, theoretically. Realizing of course that the reality of the time was not theoretical. Our reality is complicated. Her ideas were an attempt to synthesize and simplify and were just as or more effective than most attempts. Not to mention the scathing critiques of what we would now refer to as secular relativism or political correctness. She was very insightful, and a woman at the time and still are easy targets. You know, ‘b’ word…

 

[carn]

Thanks for the (name removed by moderator)ut, but too much to answer to, so i concentrate on what i consider more relevant:

Rand did not suggest to abandon the state. She was in favor of state at least for national defense and police.

Regarding selfishness, while she always claims that only pure selfishness is good, she somehow thinks this pure selfishness would include ensuring that your fellow humans, which are not in conflict withyou, are not materially damaged by your actions and ensuring their survival if they suffer from some accident. Even if she calls it selfishness, it is not selfishness at least not pure.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Virtue_of_Selfishness
“Critics have disputed Rand’s interpretation of the term. Libertarian feminist writer Sharon Presley described Rand’s use of ‘selfishness’ as “perversely idiosyncratic” and contrary to the dictionary meaning of the term, Rand’s claims to the contrary notwithstanding.”

Rand means with selfishness something different than its usual connotations.

Regarding whether there actually are more talented people and less talented people in respect to productiveness, this is not a real moral issue, it is a matter of determining whether it is the case or not. Its only a moral issue, if someone determines this without checking the facts carefully, but many are guilty of that error.

Rand seems to consider the idea of human rights as for example written in the US consitution to be correct, she just seems to think that the constitution contains to many loopholes for the looters. Or in other words, the protection of human rights offered by the constitution is insuffitient in her eyes.

@sllhouette
A somewhat horrified no to the last point. Killing someone includes denying him access to owns resources, so just denying access is not as serious as killing him. Besides denying access often means doing nothing (at least in Rands line of thought) and doing nothing is very often morally neutral. As a defensive “action” its probably never wrong, because doing nothing does not harm anyone in itself.

@fnr
When and where did Rand predict collapse?

“And those looters must sure be stupid to tax them that strongly! Talk about killing the goose that laid the golden egg!”

Yes, some people are that stupid. In cambodia they managed to kill 1/8 th of the population by stupid economic reforms (the also murdered about another 1/8th). The soviets managed to have in one of the most fertile areas of the world several years with starvation. Great leap forward in China had a death toll in the tens of millions.

Still there are, and i personally know at least 1, who also knew people with similar opinons, communist, which consider 89 failure of the sort “they didnt do it right and too cautiously”.

@Contarini
The general criticism against Rand just doesnt add up. I know i can at ease argue in favor of Marx, socialism as ideal or real socialism or what great inspiration Che Guevera is. Nobody would realy look at me crosswise. But be a Randian (although i am none, as i said she made errors) and people would quickly turn impolite. And that although Marx and his ilk caused millions of people to die, while Rand at worst causes the US to have a smaller than european social security system. The negativity seems to be totally out of proportion.

“What Rand is saying, essentially, is that it’s legitimate to kill people who threaten your property–which, again, is fundamentally contrary to Christian ethics.”
Evidence?

All european and US laws allow the use of force in defense of property and they are still shaped by christianity. The only exception is that the force should not be totally out of proportion (e.g. gunning down children stealing from apple tree) and if possible should only be aimed at stopping the crime by injuring and not by killing (but if that is not possible, bad luck for the thief).

Regarding difficulty of looting, looting is about destroying or threatening to do so, producing is about creating and creating is a lot more difficult than destroying. Any idiot with a club can rob an owner of his car. Creating a car (which the owner either did himself or convinced others to do for him) is a lot more complicated.

Reagarding right to private property, whatever one calls it, for “You shall not steal.” to have any meaning, there must be some allocation of resources aka private ownership. By forbidding to take from the owners property without justification, a right of property is established. That the level of justification necessary to be allowed to ignore it is lesser than in respect to the right to live does not change that there is a right to property.

“Marxism takes principles of Christian charity and twists them; Rand denies them outright.”
Ouch!
Marxism considers “You shall not steal.” to be completely obsolete in respect to the state, as they think any private ownership of means of production to be illegal. But as they have no clear definition of means of production, that could also include ones garden, ones private tools, ones kitchen or even ones body, and therefore the state would, if in his wisdom he deems it necessary, also be allowed to confiscate these. (and unfortunately thats not theoretical, the crime commited by those trying to cross the border of the two german states was in judical reasoning considered to be about depriving the state of their workforce)

And at least the characters in atlas shrugs often act charible, just not against those they consider to be harming them and entire mankind.

"Our abilities and material blessings are given us in trust for the glory of God and the common good. "

Then the logical consequence is, that if some people act against the common good by destroying the work ethics of society and they depend on someones ability and resources, then that someone has to deprive them of this, to stop them. He would be assisting their crime by continuing to provide for them.

And since Paul also says “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”, i cannot see anything fundamentally wrong with depriving looters of things to loot, even if they starve afterwards.

 

[Mr_Kooper_513]

I don’t know the Catholic understanding of this, but I don’t think that it would be permissible to hurt another person in defending one’s property. At that point it seems that things are more valuable than people made in God’s image.

 

[carn]

I don’t know the Catholic understanding of this, but I don’t think that it would be permissible to hurt another person in defending one’s property. At that point it seems that things are more valuable than people made in God’s image.

You are wrong:
oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Self-Defense
"Self-Defense.—Ethically the subject of self-defense regards the right of a private person to employ force against any one who unjustly attacks his life or person, his property or good name. "

“DEFENSE OF PROPERTY—It is lawful to defend one’s material goods even at the expense of the aggressor’s life; for neither justice nor charity require that one should sacrifice possessions, even though they be of less value than human life in order to preserve the life of a man who wantonly exposes it in order to do an injustice.”

So killing to stop theft can be ok.

Of course with some caveats (which are mostly missing in case of defending ones life, reflecting the greater importance of the right to live):

" Here, however, we must recall the principle that in extreme necessity every man has a right to appropriate whatever is necessary to preserve his life. The starving man who snatches a meal is not an unjust aggressor; consequently it is not lawful to use force against him. Again, the property which may be defended at the expense of the aggressor’s life must be of considerable value; for charity forbids that in order to protect ourselves from a trivial loss we should deprive our neighbor of his life. Thefts or robberies, however, of small values are to be considered not in their individual, but in their cumulative, aspect. A thief may be slain in the act of carrying away stolen property provided that it cannot be recovered from him by any other means: if, for example, he can be made to abandon his spoil through fright, then it would not be lawful to shoot him. If he has carried the goods away to safety he cannot then be killed in order to recover them; but the owner may endeavor to take them from him, and if the thief resists with violence he may be killed in self-defense. "

The crucial aspect is that a justification for taking property against the owners will can exist. So if the government proclaims that everybody above certain wealth level has to pay 10% of property in taxes, so government can provide for the needy to save them for starvation, it is immoral to resist against that.

But if the government declares that the wealthy have to give up 90% to keep people from starving and
-nobody will starve if the government doesnt get 90%, 10% are more than enough to avoid starvation
-the taxation will seriously reduce wealth output
-and government will take this as excuse to tax/confiscate even more, which might lead to a collapse of society if repeated
then resistance would be legitimate. And as killing of all ascociated with government means effictively fighting a very bloody civil war, simply destroying ones property and hiding might be the less severe form of defense, as harming only ones own property and doing nothing are normaly less severe acts than killing someone else.

Rand might be mistaken about how often governments do the latter instead of the former (and i never read any opinion of her about government actually doing the former) and especially how often government might do this in some slow routine without noticing, but Atlas Shrugged is about government doing the latter. So i cannot see the real immoral thing.

It could be seen in painting anyone claiming to helping the poor or claiming that opponents do not want to help the poor as lying, but considering how often politicians actually do that and especially how often soviet communist did that, i cannot see this as a very serious error. If someone loses trust to a too large extent, after having been lied too often to, then its mainly the guilt of the people lying so often.

As an example, think about the VP candidate choice, that got me thinking about this issue again, wasnt he depicted pushing an elderly in a wheel chair over a cliff?
dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1389283/Grandma-thrown-cliff-Paul-Ryan-lookalike-anti-GOP-Medicare-advert-The-Agenda-Project.html

With such blatant lies flying around, the premise that controlling economy for charity purposes is just a lie, is understandable.

 

[mercytruth]

With Romneys VP pick being a catholic, who also at least outrightly rejects Ayn Rans views in total, i expect some Rand bashing in the media soon. It seems that to many she is some kind of “antichrist” philosophically embodying all the evil capitalism stands for. But having read “Atlas Shrugged” and a lot of negative writing about Rand, i am still empty handed in trying to formulate what exactly is immoral about her ideas in these respects.

So i am asking here whether anyone can explain what is morally wrong with the socioeconomic part of her views.

Disclaimer: Please do not discuss, whether Rands atheism or her views about sex are wrong (most bashing against her does not seem to be aimed at these, in our time her views in these respects are close to mainstream, which is bad from catholic viewpoint, but another theme) or whether she erred about real life in some way or whether the policies following from her ideas would be harmful (first its often not a moral error to be mistaken about facts and from thie mistaken view propose something which is harmful, and second Marx did that with 100 Million dead added on it and yet he is not as “anathema” to modern socitey as Rand, so it cannot be the root of the bashing).

Taking “Atlas shrugged”, i can summarize what i understood as following:

1. Each human posesses inalignable rights, among these are at least life and property and the right to defend these against agressors.
2. There are more able and less able people in the world in terms of productivity. A higher productivity is good, as higher productivity leads to a better control over nature and thereby over the material quality of human existance. (the more able called by Rand “producer” as far as i remeber)
3. Some of the less able people have since the dawn of time devised methods to force the producers to give them (using direct force if other means fail) some of their excess production, so they can live beyond what their own skill could provide them with (called “looters”).
4. There is to some extent an overlap between the rich and the producers, as a highly productive person will have, at least ina somewhat property respecting society like for example the US, excess resources leading to wealth. Such persons truly have earned their wealth. And in a perfect society the groups should be identical. The rest of the rich tend to be looters.
5. One main aspect of the methods is feeding human envy, that the productive rich do not deserve what they earned and must therefore give to others, otherwise they are evil and force is aallowed to take what is not given.
6. As the looters neither respect nor understand what the producers accomplish, they will take it too far ony day, by “taxing” the producers so strongly, that they might fail to produce enough, that enough remains for them to continuing being productive, which then would lead to a collapse of society propelling it back several centuries.
7. In such case the producers should resists by not using their skills for the better of society, because by continuing to be as productive as they are, they enable the looters to continue and the longer the road is travelled, the harsher the breakdown should be. But the producers should not actively use force, as they must due to self interest the rights of the others. Therefore they just go on “strike” (as one working title of the book was), till either the looters get sensible or the otherwise inevitable collapse happens and the producers are then free to produce, building a society which is not based on looting those more productive.

However i turn it, i cannot see much moral error, except maybe for 2., because world is not that simply, there is not one scale for “able” and John Galt the genius engeneer might starve as John Galt the farmer and that is so obvious that i would claim it borders on morale failure not to see it. But that doesnt change much of the argument, as first Rand was probably aware of this and just for literary and argumentation reaons is sloppy there, and second there are certainly persons more productive as others under a given set of circumstances, like in a stable society exists.

1. can to some extent be incorrect (luck or inheritance also help getting rich, besides working hard or stealing), but morally the presumption has to be that anyone rich, who did not win in lottery or inherited or was found guilty of stealing, has earned his money honestly (do not judge,…). So its at most imprecise.

And the rest?

One cannot deny that there are looters throughout history and some even explicitly argued for taking from the rich because they do not deserve it and causing their societies to collapse or at least suffer very hard times. So the fear is not entirely imagined.

And the defense?
Stopping your enemies, who want to do you harm, by not doing anything and destroying your property, thereby causing them to suffer and die, because they need you for survival is to some extent cruel, but probably the least severe defensive measure imaginable.

So it seems that Rand suggested nothing but legitimate self defense against thiefs. That she saw more thiefs in the world, then there probably are, well paranoia is a disease, not a moral error.

In summary for me, i summarize the message of the 1000 pages of atlas shrugged, at least the socioeconomic parts, the following way:
Thou shall not steal.

Ayn Rand was an atheist, capitalist, materialist, the flip side of an antheist, communist, materialist. She rejected the spiritual nature of human beings, and thus, the image of God in which the human race is created. Hopelessly bound to this life only.

God’s peace

Micah

 

[Contarini]

Regarding whether there actually are more talented people and less talented people in respect to productiveness, this is not a real moral issue, it is a matter of determining whether it is the case or not. Its only a moral issue, if someone determines this without checking the facts carefully, but many are guilty of that error.

The moral issue is ascribing value to human beings based on their talents.

The general criticism against Rand just doesnt add up. I know i can at ease argue in favor of Marx, socialism as ideal or real socialism or what great inspiration Che Guevera is. Nobody would realy look at me crosswise.

Oh, really? I would say, “you need to get out more and not just hang out with liberals,” except that you are on this forum, which is stocked with conservatives. So your claim really makes no sense at all.

And it’s not relevant. Your argument only makes sense if you’re arguing that Marx is rightly respected in spite of his flaws and Rand should get the same respect. I already posed this challenge to you and you didn’t respond. I said in my previous post that both Marx and Rand should be mined for any insights they may have in spite of their serious flaws. I’m not arguing that Rand should be rejected out of hand because she’s an atheist. I don’t know anyone who does argue this. What critics of Rand and of Randian Christians say is that the very things her Christian admirers like about her are fatally flawed by her atheist assumptions. And I gave a detailed response to you in which I made this argument. Responding to “the general criticism against Rand” is very weak–respond to the specific criticisms or let’s call it a day and move on to something else.

“What Rand is saying, essentially, is that it’s legitimate to kill people who threaten your property–which, again, is fundamentally contrary to Christian ethics.”
Evidence?

All european and US laws allow the use of force in defense of property and they are still shaped by christianity.

Weak argument–argue from actual Christian ethics, not from secular law “shaped by Christianity.”

Force is legitimate in response to armed robbery, because an armed robber may quite likely intend to kill you. But we’re not talking about that. We aren’t talking about anything that would normally be considered robbery or looting at all. We’re talking about such things as progressive taxation, aren’t we? And Rand is essentially saying that if progressive taxation is necessary to keep “non-productive” people from starving, then the “producers” are justified in just letting those non-productive people starve, because this is somehow “defense” against “looting.”

If I’m misunderstood your representation of her thought, please correct me.

Reagarding right to private property, whatever one calls it, for “You shall not steal.” to have any meaning, there must be some allocation of resources aka private ownership. By forbidding to take from the owners property without justification, a right of property is established. That the level of justification necessary to be allowed to ignore it is lesser than in respect to the right to live does not change that there is a right to property.

Right, and I’m not denying that. Of course you need justification–but unless I misunderstand her, Rand denies that any justification is possible.

It’s as simple as this: does Rand have a concept of the common good? This concept is absolutely central to orthodox Christian social ethics. If she rejects this concept–and everything I’ve heard/read indicates that she does–she’s fundamentally in disagreement with Christian ethics. You can’t abstract her defense of individual rights from what is wrong with her philosophy, because her conception of individual rights is rooted in the assumption that the common good has no moral force whatsoever.

“Marxism takes principles of Christian charity and twists them; Rand denies them outright.”
Ouch!
Marxism considers “You shall not steal.” to be completely obsolete in respect to the state, as they think any private ownership of means of production to be illegal.

That’s not really true. A state that, for instance, aided and abetted rich capitalists in concentrating property in their hands would be stealing by Marxist principles.

Both Marx and Rand redefine what “stealing” means, in opposite directions. Marx takes the concept of the common good in a direction that denies the rights of the individual–this misguided humanism actually dehumanizes people, because it justifies not just confiscation of property but violence against individuals in the name of the greater good.

Rand denies the common good and elevates private property and the individual dignity of the “producers” to an absolute good, which dehumanizes those who are not “producers.”

But as they have no clear definition of means of production, that could also include ones garden, ones private tools, ones kitchen or even ones body, and therefore the state would, if in his wisdom he deems it necessary, also be allowed to confiscate these. (and unfortunately thats not theoretical, the crime commited by those trying to cross the border of the two german states was in judical reasoning considered to be about depriving the state of their workforce)

Right. Hence, as I said, Marxism is “bent” and extremely destructive.

As Chesterton said, the problem in the modern world is that the Christian virtues have got loose in isolation and thus have become vices.

Then the logical consequence is, that if some people act against the common good by destroying the work ethics of society and they depend on someones ability and resources, then that someone has to deprive them of this, to stop them.

No, that doesn’t follow. Individual action to “deprive” other people rarely serves the common good–it’s only justified in extreme circumstances. And one has to balance “destroying the work ethics of society” against other factors. “Work ethics” are highly overvalued in Protestant society–Catholic societies are known for having considerably less “work ethics,” because other goods are valued more.

And since Paul also says “If anyone is not willing to work, let him not eat.”, i cannot see anything fundamentally wrong with depriving looters of things to loot, even if they starve afterwards.

Paul said that in a specific context–an early Christian community that took care of the poor. No one is arguing that people should simply be fed if they refuse to work–but if you make that requirement, *you have to provide work. *St. Paul’s words do not justify simply casting people on the mercies of the free market and telling them that if they starve it’s because they aren’t “productive” enough.

Also, you’re using a Protestant proof-texting method here instead of looking at the tradition of Catholic social thought as a whole.

Edwin

 

[Bill670]

Contrarini, I love your posts!! Brilliant! You are such a blessing to this forum!