Jeff Tucker’s article about potato chip bags is also one of the greats:
So, you look down on people who demand things of others, but the point of looking down on them is because you expect them to behave a certain way? How is that not demanding of people?
And, in her criticism of philosophy (in essays and speeches) she tries to discredit some of the most insightful philosophers (Kant particularly) that lived and thought against her philosophy. She is worse than Hegel in demanding things of others.
I realize this. But, you have to see that in reality she was buddy/buddy with the Rothschilds…a stridently anti-market, corporatist family. In my eyes, it would seem that she is endorsing their success as the kind of “market” success that she “promoted.” Making her entire philosphy a way of endorsing the " I loan money to the State so it can tax you and pay me back"-type of success.
And as for the strawman point, that is the way that most people see her. It is even more the direction of understanding that the Establishment propaganda machine is pushing. So trying to fight the tide of that is not a good plan, that is my point. There are less polemic pseudo-libertarian writers to promote rather than “demanding” that the majority of people read 1000 pages (two choices on this) of Rand’s book to “really get it.”
@ Neodoxy
Atlas Shrugged.
I’m pretty sure Rand refused to buy government bonds because she believed it supported government spending.
-
Irrespective.
-
Who cares?
Why does no one see the contradiction in her friendship with people who loan money to states? She couldn’t overlook Rothbard’s wife’s religion, but she can overlook the atrocity of making the government tax people to pay back bankers?
“So, you look down on people who demand things of others”
It depends upon the exact situation. Generally I do, however, as I think you more or less have to if you’re a libertarian in the sense that it doesn’t matter if someone expects something, but you have a big problem if someone supports taking things from other people. At any rate, simply because I understand, do not oppose, and generally admire this way of thinking does not mean I employ it.
“but the point of looking down on them is because you expect them to behave a certain way?”
In some cases it is, in most cases it isn’t. You probably look down on Hitler. Do you really think that he would have changed his ways for you if he had known you were alive.
“And, in her criticism of philosophy (in essays and speeches) she tries to discredit some of the most insightful philosophers (Kant particularly) that lives and thought against her philosophy. She is worse than Hegel in demanding things of others.”
Yes, Rand was an intolerant bitch who I would ague didn’t even understand the is-ought dichotomy (have you ever read the relavent section in “The Virtue of Selfishness”?) and probably wasn’t really qualified to talk on philosophy anyway. In reality her philosophy was hopelessly underdeveloped (she never wrote a treatise on the subject) and simplistic.
“There are less polemic pseudo-libertarian writers to promote rather than ‘demanding’ that the majority of people read 1000 pages (two choices on this) of Rand’s book to ‘really get it.’”
I don’t think anyone here is doing that.
Skeptic,
Really? I’m surprised that you disliked her writing style that much. I found her style fairly appealing although the antithesis of the world “brief” should be “Atlas Shrugged”. I do recommend the audio book more than the novel, however.
Mmmm. It is an implicit criterion in the head of everyone who says something along the lines of, “you don’t get it,” but never gives any explanation (not that I need or want one here).
Well, she didn’t purposefully make the endorsement you’re suggesting, since she claimed her principles prevented her from doing the very thing you say her philosophy is supposed to support. I just thought I should point that out, I don’t feel a need to defend her. I haven’t even read any of her works, not having felt the need due to the fact that I had already read Hazlitt, Hayek, Mises, Rothbard etc. before having heard of her (I’m not American).
Wow, I guess in my mind I pictured everybody on this forum being American, for some reason.
“Mmmm. It is an implicit criterion in the head of everyone who says something along the lines of, “you don’t get it,” but never gives any explanation (not that I need or want one here).”
What?
Clayton -
Fucking read, kid.
Thanks for all the suggestions, I just now got enough time off work to start watching/reading them.
As to the Rand discussion, as I remember her antagonism to libertarianism centered around her feeling that “They” plagiarized her political philosophy while discarding the morality, epistemology and metaphysics behind it. That’s as I remember it, not my position (trying to keep out of the debate).
I can definitely see not making it through Atlas Shrugged, if I hadn’t been so blown away by Anthem I doubt I would have ever made it through the slow intro (initial 200-250 pages) of Atlas Shrugged.
The main thing I think I gained from Rand that I’m not sure I would otherwise have attained was a sense of the integration of ideas, I viewed the world with completely different eyes after reading a lot of her work. She took me from seeing the world with a childs eyes as a disconnected mess, to seeing how everything is interrelated. I don’t get the sense that I would have achieved that through anything else that I’ve read. I’m curious whether anyone has gotten deeply into Rand after already being knowledgable about libertarianism and if they attain a heightened sense of integration from her?
“Fucking read, kid.”
Fucking write, pops.
This is what I’ll do for you:
I don’t know how you could not understand that.
“This is what I’ll do for you”
You really are too kind.
It might be good if you started by showing who said “you don’t get it”. You introduced that concept out of nowhere. You were originally seemed to indicate that trying to get people to read Atlas shrugged was not a good way to get them introduced to the topic, yet I see no one here trying to do that, all that has been said in favor of the book is that it is a good book.
So what are you talking about? Are you talking about what you said and your arguments were criticized? If you admit that you haven’t read Rand then why don’t you just accept that you’re wrong?
There you go again.
I said along the lines of it.
My “seeming indication” was just in your mind. I didn’t say anyone was. I merely added to my point, I wasn’t even arguing with you (people can say things that don’t need “argued” with).
When I said, “along the lines of ‘you don’t get it’,” I was refering to the comment about my acceptance of a strawman, which is evident that his implication was that I didn’t get what Rand was really saying. All I said is that, by not giving explanation, I am left to infer that I must read her fiction for myself (or at least consult an authority).
It may be a good book. I am not contesting that.
My aversion is to get you to read between the lines. Exo you’ve got. Eso you don’t; same with “gotlucky: the shamed.”
And to be honest, the most prescient criticims I made were addressed by one person. She cohorted with pseudo-libertarian, rhetorical, ideology and the most infamous family in modern banking. Seriosuly, the family that eventually loaned money to the British Monarch. Is it any wonder why people think the things they do about libertarianism? With that kind of a mouthpiece for it?
I have read Rand, just not her fiction…