Why is Ayn Rand wrong?

[Libertarian_for_Life]

@Snowflake

There I said it. Everyone else was thinking this. Don’t shoot the messenger.

Nah, I’ll applaud you good sir

I’ll start with a slow clap maybe others will join…

clap

pause…

clap

[I_Ryan]

@Libertarian_for_Life

Tell me how anarcho-capitalism has anything to do with a government at all

It just depends whether (a) you define the word “government” to be a word which does convey that the institution described is a monopoly or whether (b) you define it to be a word which leaves that aspect unspecified. If choose the latter, you can thereby differentiate between “monopoly governments” and “nonmonopoly governments”, merely “governments”, which is what I do and suggest that others do. For, if you differentiate in such a way, to elucidate the position of the anarchocapitalists becomes much more easy. (Incidentally, it also renders the label, “anarchocapitalism”, to be a misnomer, which I consider to be a favorable result.)

[jtucker]

Yes, to understand her comment, you have to imagine the LP in 1971 or so. Chomsky was saying similar things about the hippie part of the New Left at the time: it was irrationalist and dangerous to the cause. It seems to me that her comments an anarchism are a commentary on the superficial theory that says that there should be no boundaries or order in life or thought.

[AnonLLF]

@Eioul

@Scott F

Basically in many ways yes. She completely ignores the issue of corporatism

No, she doesn’t.

and ignores the whole natural law/natural rights tradition except locke(probably because of it’s religious especially christian associations).

Because natural law is quite silly, actually.

As a off topic side point, as much as I hate postmodern art I think her idea of objective based aesthetics is absurd.It just goes round in circles.

I will admit it is the least extensive part of her philosophy, but nothing about it is absurd. Many people completely misunderstand her aesthetic theory, as in they’re under the impression the only objectively good art in Rand’s opinion is “romantic realism”, but that simply isn’t true.

Ok. I see now your right about the corporatism issue. I was wrong.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/businessmen.html

She didn’t mention it much outside of her writings in her talks I don’t think , plus I can’t remember hearing a modern objectivist talk about it.

First off, I don’t think natural law is silly.It actually makes the most sense of any ethical philosophy I’ve ever heard and I believe any relativist/subjectivist ethics is inherently untenable But that’s besides the point. What I meant was she ignored this whole body of thought which was basically a superior version of what she articulated.Maybe she didn’t want people to know that christians came up with natural law .

Why isn’t her aesthetic theory just about romantic realism? In what way is that a misunderstanding? I admit I agree with rand at some points on art but I just don’t think it can be objectively based like she tries to do and no objectivist has ever properly explained how it can be done.

"The proper forms of art present a selective re-creation of reality "

this excludes the possibility of science fiction of a wildly unusual bizzare type unlike our world today.

Rand was soo hung up on an artist or composers purpose or premises she dismissed music or art offhand.

In Esthetics

“A work of art is a specific entity which possesses a specific nature. If it does not, it is not a work of art. If it is merely a material object, it belongs to some category of material objects—and if it does not belong to any particular category, it belongs to the one reserved for such phenomena: junk”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/subjectivism.html

Rand hated subjectivism(rightly so) but in aesthetics she never realised it’s the only position that makes sense.

[AnonLLF]

@I. Ryan

@Libertarian_for_Life

Tell me how anarcho-capitalism has anything to do with a government at all

It just depends whether (a) you define the word “government” to be a word which does convey that the institution described is a monopoly or whether (b) you define it to be a word which leaves that aspect unspecified. If choose the latter, you can thereby differentiate between “monopoly governments” and “nonmonopoly governments”, merely “governments”, which is what I do and suggest that others do. For, if you differentiate in such a way, to elucidate the position of the anarchocapitalists becomes much more easy. (Incidentally, it also renders the label, “anarchocapitalism”, to be a misnomer, which I consider to be a favorable result.)

While I understand what your saying(I think- are you highlighting the difference between monopoly government and non monopoly government aka general voluntary authority ?)

It’s always important anarcho-capitalists stress they are not left wing anarchists and do not wish to abolish all authority or hierarchy.This will make sure your taken more seriously because I don’t think anyone except a few leftists actually believes in or thinks its a good idea to abolish hierarchy/authority.

I think it would be confusing to use this when talking to non libertarians but if it works then I don’t see why not.The only problem would be to avoid people who assert that we can have a government (in the political sense to use what I think is your labels) which is political and not a monopoly which is the fundamental minarchist & statist error.

Personally I like referring to myself as an anarchist or at times libertarian.

[Eioul]

@Scott F

Why isn’t her aesthetic theory just about romantic realism? In what way is that a misunderstanding? I admit I agree with rand at some points on art but I just don’t think it can be objectively based like she tries to do and no objectivist has ever properly explained how it can be done.

Romantic realism is just a genre that Rand liked the best. Things like Surrealism still apply to her aesthetic theory, and in fact she liked Dali’s work.

"The proper forms of art present a selective re-creation of reality "

this excludes the possibility of science fiction of a wildly unusual bizzare type unlike our world today.

No, because science fiction still has some elements of reality. The idea of the definition is simply to differentiate art from things like rocks found in nature, but also make a clearer boundary between things like paintings created by rational minds and buckets of paint accidentally knocked over by a dog. The effort to create a painting is an effort to create something about reality.

Rand hated subjectivism(rightly so) but in aesthetics she never realised it’s the only position that makes sense.

All things that exist in the world can be objectively understood. This includes art.

We took the discussion pretty off-track, PM me if you want to keep talking about this.

[scineram]

Libertardians are stealing her ideas.

AND THAT IS STEALING!

[EternalSanction]

@The Late Andrew Ryan

Also does anyone else find it funny that galt’s gulch was an anarchist society?

Yes, absolutely. Like I stated here, though, I don’t believe Objectivism is incompatible with voluntaryism; I believe that Rand-worshippers are incompatible with reality.

[The_Late_Andrew_Ryan]

Objectivism is compatible with volunarism. It’s minarchy that’s not compatable with it.

[onebornfreedotblogsp]

@alimentarius

Why is Ayn Rand wrong when she says this:

Anarchists are not defenders of capitalism, they are collectivists. They’re a group of publicity seekers who rush into politics prematurely. Capitalism is the one system that requires absolute objective law, yet they want to combine capitalism and anarchism. That is worse than anything the New Left has proposed. It’s a mockery of philosophy and ideology. They sling slogans and try to ride on two bandwagons. They want to be hippies, but don’t want to preach collectivism, because those jobs are already taken. But anarchism is a logical outgrowth of the anti-intellectual side of collectivism. I could deal with a Marxist with a greater chance of reaching some kind of understanding, and with much greater respect. The anarchist is the scum of the intellectual world of the left.

The Libertarian Party plagiarizes some of my ideas, mixes it with the exact opposite—with religionists, anarchists, and just about every intellectual misfit and scum they can find—and they call themselves Libertarians, and run for office. It is the last insult to ideas and philosophical consistency. They are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable.

I think it’s a bad beginning for an allegedly pro-capitalist party to start by stealing ideas. Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d are intellectual cranks.

To answer your question, here’s what Roy Childs Jr, in his brilliant “Open Letter To Ayn Rand”, said in 1969.

It pretty much “wipes the floor” with Ms Rand in this one area.