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

[MJR81]

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.

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.

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).

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? …

You hit on a lot of good points here, especially about property not being an inherent and fundamental right (i.e. slavery), Rand defining a human individual as a creatures enslaved to pleasure vs pain (essentially no different from animals), and her assumption that a pure free market will somehow magically lead us to utopia.

I really think that Christianity and Objectivism are two incompatible religions. Sure, she, like Marx, might have made a mildly good point here and there–even a broken clock is still right twice a day–but I don’t think you can separate her economics from her radical, atheistic egotism, since the former is rooted in the latter.

I don’t know if anyone on this thread has brought this up yet or not–but some of you might be aware that Anton LaVey, the founder of the Church of Satan, said his concept of Satanism was based entirely on Rand’s Objectivism.

I wrote a lengthy piece on the evil of Rand, and on laissez-faire versus Hamiltonian dirigism. Anyone who cares to read it can find it here: romuloadvocate.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/why-extremist-atheistic-capitalist-ideologues-are-just-as-evil-as-extremist-atheistic-communist-ideologues/

 

[carn]

I wrote a lengthy piece on the evil of Rand, and on laissez-faire versus Hamiltonian dirigism. Anyone who cares to read it can find it here: romuloadvocate.wordpress.com/2012/08/31/why-extremist-atheistic-capitalist-ideologues-are-just-as-evil-as-extremist-atheistic-communist-ideologues/

From your blog post:
"Economists representing Austrian School ideas have had considerable influence over global policy-making, and several MPS members have even won Nobel Prizes in economics. This has led to a craze in what is termed today as market “liberalization” (i.e. markets “liberated” from all or most forms of government oversight). "

When and where was this craze put into practice?

tu-chemnitz.de/wirtschaft/vwl2/downloads/material/Staatsquote.pdf

(In german, but its just different countries with percentage of state expenditures relative to GDP).

From these numbers it seems no market liberalization craze happened between 1990 and 2008 in OECD states. (Although some did considerable reduce expenditures - netherlands and swedes for example - only one is below 35% percent.) So when and where did it happen?

"and who is consequently part of the MPS pantheon, argued in his Theory on Moral Sentiments:

“niversal happiness…is the business of God and not of man… Hunger, thirst, the passion which unites the two sexes, the love of pleasure, and the dread of pain, prompt us to apply these means for their own sakes, and without any consideration of their tendency to those beneficent ends which the great Director of nature intended to produce by them.”4"

You seem to object the idea that universal happiness is business of God and not of man. If so, in what way is universal happiness mans (or even governments) business from a catholic point of view?

You also seem to prop up a lot of strawmen, e.g.:
"Rand, the MPS, and other anti-statists preach that all forms of government are inherently at odds with one’s “individual liberty” to fulfill nearly whatever he perceives as his personal self-interest. "
Rand does not preach that all forms of government are inherently at odds with ones individual liberty. (Example: One of her “noble” chars at the end of Atlas shrugged updates the constitution, which would be completely pointless if all forms of government are at odds with Rand ideas. )

To help you understand the issue Rand and many other people proposing a limited/no state, this passage is helpful:

"Perhaps the best analogy to use to illustrate the proper and naturally lawful relationship between the individual and his state is to use the most basic and immediate social unit: the family.
…
But the parent is justified in taking such measures because she is an emotionally, intellectually, and morally superior figure possessing legitimate authority.
…

And so it should be between with the relationships between governments and their citizens. "

So just as parents are superior to children and therefore have legitimate authority over them, government is superior to some/many people and should have legitimate authority over them (thats what i read from your words, correct me if i misunderstood.)

For libertarian leaning people that claim is simply outlandish, because they will note first that people working in government and also top government people are humans just like anyone else (so why should they be as vastly superior compared to their subjects as parents are obviously superior at least compared to yound children?) and second that the decisions they tend to make (e.g. nuke japan, invade japan, starve japan or negotiate with murderous bloodthisty rulers of japan for lasting peace, can any human be wise enough to realy decide what is the best option?) are so complex and so beyond reliable human knowledge that mere humans even if they are the best of the best will often fail anyway (therefore they should only decide things that must be decided and keep their hands of the rest) and third that you shoot your own leg

“The unfortunate truth is that even today in our modern and sophisticated age, whole populations still often think and act as irrationally as children.
…
And this is why the general population must be able to express their natural right to participate in the creation of authority.”

since if the ruled are like children system brakedown is unavaoidable, when those dumb children realize that they can vote for the parent, which offers the most sweets. But if they arent that dumb the whole justification falls apart.

 

[JIB]

You hit on a lot of good points here, especially about property not being an inherent and fundamental right (i.e. slavery),

Um, what?

Slavery is a violation of people’s rights to themselves. A proper understanding of property rights does not allow for slavery.

 

[Glennford]

I’ve been reading Edwin for at least 13 years, and while he is always very smart, he’s still an Episcopalian seeking cover on non-judgemental Catholic message boards where he can be the interesting non-Catholic who is better informed on the RCC than its members. That particular CV shows a lack of growth, or perhaps decisiveness. Rome is the eternal city, and Edwin’s may be the eternal journey there.

I think 13 years, but I have to search my memory for who the token smart Episcopalian was on Dave Armstrong and Steve Ray’s boards. I’m pretty darn sure that was Edwin, but I am getting old now!

–

Rand appeals to those who want an able argument against state-run redistribution, but why not just make the argument yourself instead of climbing onboard such a questionable train? Rand’s condemnation of state-run redistribution it indellibly tainted by her opinions on human value and the role of charity. Dump Rand as fatally flawed, and simply argue against government thuggery and theivery yourself. You have a lot less baggage than she does, I’m sure.

 

[Contarini]

I’ve been reading Edwin for at least 13 years, and while he is always very smart, he’s still an Episcopalian seeking cover on non-judgemental Catholic message boards

Non-judgmental? Seriously? Your own post contradicts your claim.

In fact I come here because this is one place where people can be counted to hold my feet to the fire on why I’m not a Catholic!

where he can be the interesting non-Catholic who is better informed on the RCC than its members. That particular CV shows a lack of growth, or perhaps decisiveness. Rome is the eternal city, and Edwin’s may be the eternal journey there.

While your remarks are quite a propos as a statement on my journey or lack thereof, they are entirely irrelevant as a contribution to this thread, unless perhaps they indicate that I’m making some valid points that you don’t want to hear and from which you wish to distract.

Edwin