-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, Cash, it’s one of the big books making the ‘conservative’ rounds.
Agreed, Glass. Conservative is the wrong descriptor. Pro-Capitalist is clearly a better way to define her philosophy here.
One of the questions that I was curious about was whether you agree with her assertion that the end result of ‘nationalization’ of industry is that the industry becomes led by people who have no idea how to run it. Her example of the Rearden Industries collapse after he has to sell off the divisions and then after he leaves strikes me as plausible.
posted
first off, you need to know that it was lauded by the Conservatives even when i was a child, it's not new to the rounds. I think i liked it better when i read it as a SciFi story. primarily because most SciFi tends to the Idealistic and the "eventual" Godhood of mankind.
"Nationalisation" in Ayns world was about grasping "small" people seeking control of something they didn't earn control of by way of "populism" rather than competence ...
she was after all born raised and educated in Soviet Russia. Womens rights were tied deeply into the russian communist issues... It's too easy to ignore that, and that's why she doesn't fit into the mold the Conservatives wanted to put her in.
i have a much less idealistic view about "control" and "rights to ownership" than she does...
if you haven't read the Fountainhead? You need to read it too...
In business, real inventors are not really capable of bringing their inventions to market.Being an inventor requires people to think differently from other people. Like artists, they have a way of looking at what is there and then seeing what isn't, or what is missing. This makes them less able to make their ideas "fit" into the general population. That's the job of development. Developers that are good cannot get in front of a group of shareholders and convince them to lend him money. That's someone elses job entirely...
you getting my drift here?
Ayn had an idealistic notion of the "perfect capitalist" Steve Jobs is sort of held forth as one today. It's mythology... Even Edison had teams of lawyer that made beuacuop bucks off him... to be honest? IMO her work is not even good fiction. It's not bad fiction, but i've read much better romantic fantasy. The idea that there are just a few individual around the world that make everything work is juvenile. There's no magic steel that's cheap and last forever either
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
one more thing? that whole notion of "perfect people" is something Glen Beck suffers from too... i think it's a side effect of the phenethylamines they like so much
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure I would consider it 'good fiction' or fiction at all...though technically it quailifies. More like 'fictionalized philosophy'.
quote:"Nationalisation" in Ayns world was about grasping "small" people seeking control of something they didn't earn control of by way of "populism" rather than competence ...
Isn't that pretty much the same thing that is happening now? By nationalizing industries, aren't countries doing just that? Taking control by gunpoint that which they didn't create or 'earn'?
quote:In business, real inventors are not really capable of bringing their inventions to market
While slightly beyond where I was going with this, I can't say that I disagree. Inventiveness has been correctly described as 'art in application form'. That mentality doesn't lend itself to the arena of marketing well imo. I fully accept that it takes teams of people with differing skills to bring an idea to sellable form. However, those that do so should be the ones that reap the benefit of that effort.
quote:one more thing? that whole notion of "perfect people" is something Glen Beck suffers from too...
There are no perfect people...only imperfect people trying to do the best they can as often as they can.
posted
Isn't that pretty much the same thing that is happening now? By nationalizing industries, aren't countries doing just that? Taking control by gunpoint that which they didn't create or 'earn'?
which ones did the US Govt take? my understanding is that everybody the govt bailed out was going to fail-
"taking" a successful co would bring out the guns right?
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't referring to anything in the U.S. in particular. Most of the examples that I was thinking of was outside of the U.S. (for the moment). It's the calls for nationalization that have me concerned currently. Rand's conclusions about the end result of such a path and the mentality behind it struck me as both plausible and inevitable (sadly).
quote:"taking" a successful co would bring out the guns right?
-------------------- It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so. Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SeekingFreedom: I wasn't referring to anything in the U.S. in particular. Most of the examples that I was thinking of was outside of the U.S. (for the moment). It's the calls for nationalization that have me concerned currently. Rand's conclusions about the end result of such a path and the mentality behind it struck me as both plausible and inevitable (sadly).
quote:"taking" a successful co would bring out the guns right?
Would it? What if it was 'for the greater good'?
what are we trying to talk about here?
in the US, we assume that the Greater Good will be served by each person looking out for him or herself.
in fact? Greenspan was one of the big promoters of deregulation and he said it best.
the lack of self interest shown in the mortgage,bond,( and even oil commodities markets, *my own addition to the list*) was breathtaking....
how did AIG get itself stuck? "obviuosly" they were lied to right? who lied to them and why aren't they in jail?
if the general population of the US understood just how much of their savings-pensions were going to China to fund Chinese growth, and not to growing our economy to make jobs for their grandchildren?? i believe there would be a lot more well dressed people at "occupy"....
why isn't anybody asking where did all this money really go? it did disappear....
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
I would suggest when you think of nationalization in terms of Ayn Rand you also think of Corporationalization. (he-he I just made a word. You must call me Shakespear for the rest of the day.)
Pfizer would not exist as a thriving company in Ayn Rand's world. The geniuses would be the men and women who created the drugs just as Rearden created his steel. To have to put the ownership of it into the hands of CEO's is completely antithetical to Ayn Rand's hypothesis.
I tell you true. Without Corporationalization and Conglomerates of Unusual Sizes (Westley calls them C. O. U. S.'s but assures me they don't really exist. I digress, and turn my thoughts away from the fire swamp.) globalization could not occur. The loudest complainer, in effect, is the largest enabler.
By the way, and completely off the topic. It appears that I have a 50/50 chance of being laid off by the end of the month. If any of you come across an opportunity in the Twin Cities area that would pay somewhere in the range of 40,000-50,000 a year I would be very grateful for a PM. As most of you should know my background is in security and security systems with a strong bent in customer services. Oh...I am also a stock market enthusiast who is capable of soundly beating market averages on yearly returns (usually).
Thank You...and now back to your regularly scheduled commentary.
-------------------- No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues. Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Good to see you again, Shakespear. I hope the job search works out for you. It's a rough time to be looking.
As for Pfizer, I'm not sure it wouldn't exist in Rand's world. Midas Mulligan was another major character who's only true 'talent' was his ability to know who to invest in. His profits came from aiding those who had ideas and drive but not enough capital to push them forward. I see this as analogous to corporate\private investors.
Glass, I apologize for the apparently round about way of my questioning, it was not intentional. I'm trying to find a way to formulate this concept because Rand's novel encapsulates some philosophical beliefs that I see increasingly around me personally and in the media.
John Galt's speach toward the end of the book speaks to the core of my concern.
That 'NEED' supercedes 'ABILITY'.
This is the part of her book (which I understand comes from her time in Russia), that is clearly based on Communistic principles. "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."
The mentality behind this belief system and the results of it on a culture are one of the main themes in Atlas Shrugged and I see some opinions\actions today that strike me as dangerous because of it.
posted
Rand portrays the effects of Communistic policies on a culture and examines the individual attitudes that support them.
The 'need' is what a person is judged (subjectively) to require to survive in a 'fair' manner with those around them. Rand describes (quite accurately imo) how this turns even good men into beggars. Since one's 'need' must be decided by someone (to be fair) the only way to increase one's resources is to plead that one's 'need' requires more than one is recieving. As such, begging and pleading become the means of acquiring instead of work.
In contrast, 'ability' is also based on subjective judgment. If the 'judge' decides that one is not contributing to the fullest extent of one's 'ability', only punishment awaits. No reward is given for extra effort and sacrifice because your 'need' hasn't changed and this extra effort is simply within your 'ability' and should be expected rather than seen as more than normal.
Thus, this mentality encourages people to hide their abilities (for fear that more will be expected from them for equal or even less recompense) and provides reward for abandoning one's pride and simply being the best beggar in the group.
My question, I guess, is am I reading this philosphy correctly and isn't this what is being pushed by various groups both within and outside of the U.S.?
posted
isn't this what is being pushed by various groups both within and outside of the U.S.?
of course it is being pushed by various groups... utopian notion are always being pushed around by various groups and individuals...
however,
when i listen to the 24-7 war of words now being waged primarily between fox and msnbc? all i hear is one side accusing the other side of being extreme...
there have been dreams of utopia since we lost our ability to "just be" like animals do.... it's the primary part of what makes us not animals... it's the basis for worship, since we (mostly) expect God to be Perfection embodied...
in a perfect world ? communism would not be needed, but it would work... (don't take to mean i want communism, i don't) freemarket capitalism would also work because everybody would take responsibility for their actions. Instead, waht we really see today is capitalism where people do everything they can to avoid responsibiltiy, and particularly to make sure somebody else pays for mistakes and even other expenses....
China IS communistic.... they happen to be capitalistic too.. but the Govt there manages every facet of the money right down to how much manufacturers can charge for toothpaste
isn't that what we really are against here in the USA? Govt control over our lives? We recognise that we have to have rules of engagement so nobody loses an eye, but we don't want the refereee arbitrarily choosing who wins and who loses...
-------------------- Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise. Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
