I’ve read and pondered exactly what to say in this thread and I must admit that it is a bit of a quandary. After all, it’s apparent that ElectricFetus has never really read Rand and therefore is really saying nothing at all but rather emoting his disgust at what he thinks she probably said. Things he heard she meant. So, why even bother posting towards him? No meaningful discussion of any sort can come out of it, it seems. All previous attempts in this thread have elicited nothing of the sort anyway.
Everyone else in the thread, while not being Randites, is already seemingly in possession of, at least, the basics of her
very simple message. So, no there exists no need to debate with them about the finer points of Randian philosophy. All that can come from it, likely, are simply heads nodding and repeated declarations of “yup.” (Although, I’m sure, a “yup” obscured by a more sophisticated and abstract delivery method.)
There’s always a possibility of addressing the invisible multitude of lurkers. Guests who might easily swayed to one side or the other. Seekers of knowledge of this or that abstract of Randian lore. Worshippers. Detractors. Neutral parties.
Or, how about actually addressing the original post? There’s a novel idea. Too bad that I know little about Chomsky except Universal Grammar and monotonous droning. However, I’m surprised, really, that anyone would even be surprised that their viewpoints are, where they converge, diametrically opposed. Of course Chomsky would loathe her writing. How could he not?
Anyway.
I suppose I’ll do it like this.
One post to bash my head against Fetus’s wall.
Then another post with the actual possibility of meaningful returns.
So, on to the artist formerly known as WellCookedFetus.
ElectricFetus,
A few points I’d like to make regarding your series of posts. First and foremost is that you have not shown in a single sentence of your diatribes to have read and/or understood a single thing that Rand wrote. That’s really more insulting that you might think as she was really so simple-minded. Easy to read. Easy to digest. Easy to pick out the bullshit from the gems.
I been quoting her this whole time! I don't normally speak of "sacrificing to others"!
You haven’t quoted her a single time. Not once. Are you going to refer to this:
” For example Rand speaks of her philosophy as that it is virtuous not to sacrifice to other, but (of course) not to have them sacrifice themselves for you.”
That’s not a quote. Do you need a definition of “to quote?”
Or this:
"For example Rand directly said "[man] neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself" I have made reference repeatedly now, I have deconstructed it and refuted its flaws. Do you deny she said this? If I misinterpreted it how so?"
A reiteration of the previous “quote.” Completely ripped out of context and stuck, dangling like an entrail, on the wall.
Ever read had Mark Twain wrote about the
oesophagus?
Or this:
"Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue."
You realize that this is not Rand speaking? Yes?
Moreover, you demonstrate in your reactions to this paragraph that you don’t understand the terms involved. What do you think is meant by the words: altruism, self-sacrifice, selfishness?
Your words:
This is apathy: to not care about others, at least in action, for it would be wrong to help others in need as that would be self-sacrificing. Imagine you see someone being robbed, you could intervene and risk getting robbed or murder yourself (sacrifice) or you can just stand back and watch, which do you think Rand would have gone with? I think if Rand was her now she would argue that in the world her philosophy creates there would be no robbers, but we don't live in that world and will never live in that world until after the extinction and replacement of homo sapiens.
Indicate that your understanding is deficient.
Do you honestly believe that Rand’s philosophy doesn’t allow for one to put themselves in harm’s way for another human being? That it expressly forbids it?
How superficial you are!
What value does a human being hold, do you think?
You see. This:
Let say we have two people in the desert and only one of them has water, the one holding the water is a follower of Rand's ethical selfishness, so he does not give water to the other
Is a non sequitur.
Can’t you conceive of a value that maintaining a companion might have? Do you think that Rand could not as well?
Idiotic.
As to an eventual fight to the death for the last drops of water, do you think that this would be unique to a Randian encounter? Please.
One more thought on your misconception of Rand as a purveyor of solitary action:
To improve chances of making the great profitable discoveries and of running the company right, requires a lot of help, yet the owners of said companies can think they did it all themselves, that they alone are what keeps the cooperation afloat, thanks to philosophies like Rand's, Rand implores the 'Tooheys' of the world to think they are 'Reardens'.
Provide me a quote in which Rearden demonstrates that he is not utterly aware of the importance of having an efficient group of people surrounding oneself. Provide me a quote in which Rearden demonstrates contempt for is employees and dismisses their actions on behalf of his end product. Provide me a quote in which Rand puts forth the proposition that one leech off the efforts of others.
I dare you.
Anyway.
This is a perfect segue to my next point: The contempt that you unwittingly have displayed towards “the poor.”
“Protect the helpless ones, who all look up to you, and to defend them. To the end.” –Manowar, Defender.
It’s a liberal curse, unfortunately. Helping those who can’t help themselves. You belittle them in your aggrandizement of yourself. You’re the savior, they’re the saved. They’ll all look up to you. Right?
The Marquis spoke of a switch operator earlier in this thread.
The Marquis said:
There was even the switch operator whose name I can never remember, who in Rand's world was far from being a slave, but rather a respected employee who took pride in his work and was respected and paid accordingly. A man who knew his worth, and respected those who also had worth.
This is a
very important point when it comes to a typical liberal’s misinterpretation of Rand.
To that liberal, this switch operator is one of “the poor” who is being oppressed and is in need of saving. He can’t possibly be a follower of Rand’s philosophy as he is not what they would think of as a “Hank Rearden.”
There aren't very many real life Reardens,
Please explain to me, Mr. Fetus, why this switch operator can’t be a ‘real life Rearden?’ All that you had to say about him in the previous postings was that there are no switch operators anymore.
Irrelevant.
What about a McDonald’s employee? A Walmart associate? A dishwasher?
Tell me why any of these oh-so-poor-and-downtrodden couldn’t be a ‘real-life Rearden?’
There’s a comic strip that someone posted here many moons ago meant to mock Rand. Gaily speaking of the failure of Galtville due to the lack of dishwashers, ditch-diggers, and so on.
How contemptuous that comic was of “the poor.” None of them are worthy to be in Galtville, are they, Mr. Fetus?
Poor diseased animals.
Charity cases. Nothing more.
No, its just if you want to argue about her philosophy, why not do it directly from her explicit dictations of her philosophy by her in her essays and manifesto? Why do you use her work of fiction "Atlas Shrugs" when her non-fiction "Virtue Of Selfishness" is a far superior source in defining and describing her philosophy?
Why is “Virtue of Selfishness” a ‘far superior source?’ Have you read it? Have you compared it to Atlas Shrugs?
Why use fiction? It provides working models that wrinkle out ambiguities of language prevalent in a clinical setting.
Ever tried to explain to someone how to hammer a nail? Don’t you think that it might be easier to show them, instead?
Some odds and ends:
Now, and this is important, can that work in REALITY? Can we have a whole society based on such moral rigidity, and particularly one based on Rand's vision.
Why do you use the word ‘rigidity?’
Is there a zero tolerance aspect to being a Randite?
Any more so than any other formal school of thought?
Isn’t it possible to read philosophy and gather your own method of living rather than simply following by rote?
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”
Do you have to swallow everything whole? Or reject it so?
Now, and this is important, can that work in REALITY? Can we have a whole society based on such moral rigidity, and particularly one based on Rand's vision. No, no we can't. Not everyone can get by on their products without advertising that said products exist, nor is say bribery always wrong (Like how Lincoln supposedly bribed his way to getting emancipation passed).
So, you advocate fat-catism?
Also, interesting that you bring up Lincoln. You know that in many ways he was a thoroughly deplorable man? Yet, he freed the slaves.
The ends justify the means, yes?
You do know that Lincoln didn’t really
like negroes? In fact, he wanted to send them all “back to Africa” after the war. But, he didn’t get his way. Lincoln is a perfect example of the contempt that liberal can hold towards those in need of salvation.
From Herr Lincoln:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
And:
“I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]”
From:
The Lincoln Douglas Debates.
Hardly the best example for you to bring up. Hardly a hero.
Which brings us to this little gem by you:
Watch logic in action: They are inferior, I am superior, therefor I can own them as slaves, they are my private property to do with as I please, to beat, whip and rape.
Oh. Logic. See how it twists and turns.
You do know that pure logic can lead to really idiotic conclusions very easily?
Did Lincoln whip, beat and/or rape those inferior to him?
Do you?
(It’s interesting to note here that he was pushed into freeing the slaves by knee-jerk reactionism. Much like what you’re presenting here. That’s an aside, however.)
This one’s good:
Let say I want more profit, so I fire all my workers and replace them with robots, as a result I'm able to produce more products of better quality for cheaper, I and the customer win, but my former employees don't, but any services to provide for them in antithesis to the free-market as I will have to pay for it.
Little tidbit.
Did you know that Henry Ford created the concept of the weekend?
Why? So that his workers would have time off to go on little drives in the cars which they could now afford to buy due to their decent wages.
Was he selfish in creating the 40 hour work week?
Oh yeah that why median wages have gone up and average hour worked have gone down... oh wait the opposite happened! There a difference between theory and reality.
1. Not everyone is smart enough to realize that strangling yourself is not exactly erotic.
2. There is a necessary fluctuation of wages. Up and down. Do you know how many businesses go bankrupt because they provide too well for their employees?
One of the big problems with the present labor movement is that the relationship between worker and employer is so often adversarial. They each tend to fall into this stance of trying to squeeze the most that they can get from the other. Surely not the best system that could be envisioned.
I’m curious. What relationship do you think Rearden had with his employees? Dagney? James? Tell me what you think. Provide quotes to back up your ideas.
3. Actually, one of the latest tricks of the greedy is to keep more workers employed part-time so as to avoid the need to give benefits and etc.
most people aren't capitalist, they are laborers
Ever heard of technicians?
Yeah because not like Bill Gates has not given $28 billions to charity. Heck its not like one can find a list of rich philanthropists.
What does that have to do with anything?
Oh. Wait. It has to do with your misunderstandings and feelings about what Rand must have said and meant.
That’s right.
