Wealthcare: Ayn Rand's Retardation. Damn you Spelling Nazis!

[The Minsky Moment]

Smith begins with the assumption that human beings are not natural egoists, but that sympathy and a concern for the welfare for others are a basic attribute of human nature.

Rand on the other hand begins with the fact of existence and (in open violation of Hume's Guillotine - but that is another story) infers from that fact that self-interest is the only basis for all value judgments.

The two views are not literally contradictory in that Rand doesn't deny the possibility that some people may have sympathetic feelings (although she does appear to reject the Smithian notion of innate sympathy for Others as a category), but as accounts of a theory of morality they are very much in tension with each other.

[grumbler]

Well, such a moral solipsism ("one's own happiness or rational self-interest") even after taking into account the reference to laissez-faire capitalism can't be fairly defined as a mere 'Fuck the workers'; actually is far closer to 'Fuck everyone'.

Laissez-faire capitalism is not only close to, but right on top of, "fuck no one."  That is precisely its problem.

Errr... I'm not really sure I have understood you correctly, but I think you haven't understood me.

I meant that we can't reduce objectivist labour ethics to "fuck the workers" merely because Rand mentioned laissez-faire capitalism in the same paragraph than "one's own happiness or rational self-interest". 

However I can't accept capitalism, laissez faire or otherwise, is right on top of 'fuck no one'. Even Adam Smith was enough of a realist to write than "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices". And let's not even enter to consider the ethics, if there is one, behind - for example - tobacco industry...

In other words capitalism has nothing to see with morals. While not interested in fucking anyone if there is no gain in it, capitalism sees nothing basically wrong in fucking everyone and everything for profit. It's a jungle out there, greed is good, only the strong survive, etc, etc... A mindset quite prone to embrace objectivism, I would say.

Well, since you are repeating my argument as an argument against my argument, I can guess you didn't understand my point.  LF Capitalism is not about "fucking" anyone.  In fact, by definition LF Capitalism doesn't "fuck anyone" since everyone gets what they 'deserve."  The problem, as Adam Smith and I noted and you reiterated, is that LF Capitalism doesn't fuck over those who deserve to be fucked over.

[The Minsky Moment]

Rand and Marx OTOH have some elements in common - they are both extreme materialists and both view the consequences of the expression of rational self-interest as the embodiment of Reason.  For Marx, self-interest drives similar situated persons within a particular economic order (a Class) to become conscious of themselves and pursue autonomy and power.  The revolution of the proletariat is simply the logical end point of this process, and is objetively justified simply by virtue of being that endpoint.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well, since you are repeating my argument as an argument against my argument, I can guess you didn't understand my point.  LF Capitalism is not about "fucking" anyone.  In fact, by definition LF Capitalism doesn't "fuck anyone" since everyone gets what they 'deserve." 

Only by LF Cap's own definition of desert, which renders this argument tautological.

[Razgovory]

Rand and Marx OTOH have some elements in common - they are both extreme materialists and both view the consequences of the expression of rational self-interest as the embodiment of Reason.  For Marx, self-interest drives similar situated persons within a particular economic order (a Class) to become conscious of themselves and pursue autonomy and power.  The revolution of the proletariat is simply the logical end point of this process, and is objetively justified simply by virtue of being that endpoint.

This is why I'm wary of "reasonable people".

[Caliga]

Rand on the other hand begins with the fact of existence and (in open violation of Hume's Guillotine - but that is another story) infers from that fact that self-interest is the only basis for all value judgments.

The two views are not literally contradictory in that Rand doesn't deny the possibility that some people may have sympathetic feelings (although she does appear to reject the Smithian notion of innate sympathy for Others as a category), but as accounts of a theory of morality they are very much in tension with each other.

Yes, I think this is completely accurate.  As I posted earlier, I don't think Rand ever argued that it was *wrong* to be charitable, but rather it was *wrong  to feel/be compelled* to be charitable.  Be as charitable as you want to, just so long as you're doing so because it makes you happy, and not because someone is trying to coerce you.  This is probably one of the reasons libertarians like her so much, since they tend to support charity-based welfare but despise government-mandated welfare.

[DontSayBanana]

Isn't the proper term 'Randroid'?

Either way, somebody was feeling Randy.

[grumbler]

Yes, I think this is completely accurate.  As I posted earlier, I don't think Rand ever argued that it was *wrong* to be charitable, but rather it was *wrong  to feel/be compelled* to be charitable.  Be as charitable as you want to, just so long as you're doing so because it makes you happy, and not because someone is trying to coerce you.  This is probably one of the reasons libertarians like her so much, since they tend to support charity-based welfare but despise government-mandated welfare.

Adam Smith would agree with her, so this is hardly an extreme position.

[Neil]

I suspect Smith would be appalled by some the mindsets of modern Capitalists.

I would imagine that Smith would be appalled by most things about this modern world.  Caring what people who have been dead for centuries would think is a terrible idea, and leads to all sorts of national mental defects.

[Caliga]

I would imagine that Smith would be appalled by most things about this modern world.  Caring what people who have been dead for centuries would think is a terrible idea, and leads to all sorts of national mental defects.

I agree.  The modern fixation of American conservatives on what the "Founding Fathers" would have thought about modern society is puzzling and a bit alarming, especially since many of them appear to think they were religious fundamentalists for some reason unknown to me.

[The Minsky Moment]

Adam Smith would agree with her, so this is hardly an extreme position.

I don't think Rand would agree that a generalized sympathy for others is hard-wired into human nature and that is a very big difference between the two.

[The Minsky Moment]

I would imagine that Smith would be appalled by most things about this modern world.  Caring what people who have been dead for centuries would think is a terrible idea, and leads to all sorts of national mental defects.

It's not a matter of caring about what they would think; it is a matter about caring about the ideas they expressed, many of which do still have bearing on how we see and understand the world we live in.  Take away all the accumulated knowledge of wisdom of those who came before us, and we are back being cavemen again.

[Neil]

I would imagine that Smith would be appalled by most things about this modern world.  Caring what people who have been dead for centuries would think is a terrible idea, and leads to all sorts of national mental defects.

It's not a matter of caring about what they would think; it is a matter about caring about the ideas they expressed, many of which do still have bearing on how we see and understand the world we live in.  Take away all the accumulated knowledge of wisdom of those who came before us, and we are back being cavemen again.

But it is the responsibility of each generation to think about the ideas of the generations before, not to idolize, nor to rebel unthinkingly against.

[grumbler]

I don't think Rand would agree that a generalized sympathy for others is hard-wired into human nature and that is a very big difference between the two.

I agree that Smith and Rand would disagree about many things.  I was simply pointing out that not every position taken by Rand is an "extreme" one, except to those whose meds dosage is too low.

[The Minsky Moment]

[I don't think Rand would agree that a generalized sympathy for others is hard-wired into human nature and that is a very big difference between the two. I agree that Smith and Rand would disagree about many things.  I was simply pointing out that not every position taken by Rand is an "extreme" one, except to those whose meds dosage is too low.

The issue with her is not so much the actual positions she takes (which would slot her in roughly with the secular, libertarian, isolationist right) as the ways in which she advocates and justifies those positions and the vehemance and sheer nastiness used to brand opponents.