Con-con
Cool Raiden moving without awkward feel Ice Cream Partier
Joined: 02 May 2009 Posts: 6892 Warnings: 1
Location: Palm Springs, CA Gender: Male Age: 20
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 2:10 am Post subject:
Ayn Rand Subject description: That grumpy, chain-smoking ol' Russian was one crazy broad.
Arguably one of the most influential libertarians, Ayn Rand was a Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright and screenwriter. She is widely known for her best-selling novels "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged", and for developing a philosophical system called Objectivism. Rand advocated rational individualism and laissez-faire capitalism, categorically rejecting socialism, altruism, and religion. Her ideas remain both influential and controversial.
So have you read any of her novels? You've probably at least heard of Atlas Shrugged, right? Maybe even played BioShock (which is one giant reference and critique of Objectivism)? Okay, we've all seen Watchmen I think. Rorschach is an Objectivist. Actually, Moore got a bit of it wrong (probably due to him disagreeing with it a lot as he is a crazy, crazy man who considers himself an Anarchist, believes both capitalism and communism are retarded and worships a snake deity he doesn't think is real), but whatever; Rorschach was actually based on the DC hero The Question (I HAVE HIM IN ACTION FIGURE FORM!) who was created by Steve Ditko, an actual Objectivist. The Question presents Objectivism better, but I digress.
Joined: 30 Aug 2010 Posts: 311 Warnings: 0
Location: On the road. . . Age: 618
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 7:13 am Post subject:
Nate wrote:
I find the egotism of most libertarians I have talked to to be really fucking annoying.
That's a shame. While I don't outright agree with some of their fiscal views, in my experience I do find them to be of a positive mindset when it comes to individualism, which I always appreciate. I don't know, maybe it's a breath of fresh air from the absolutely dogmatic and officious twats. Plus, half of 'em have a decent sense of humour.
John wrote:
Didn't labor unions work for decades in order to get rid of that shit?
Some might argue about how her shit was turned into that shit, but I agree with you.
Didn't labor unions work for decades in order to get rid of that shit?
Actually, labor unions were a free market response to industry cartels which then sought to cripple them by lobbying governments to criminalize organized labor. Of course, as with most things in general, once unions began to have the same powers as corporations, they too became corrupt and able to exploit others. Much of the effort to keep marijuana illegal at least here in the United States is from prison worker and law enforcement unions, for example.
Similarly, Alan Greenspan who was a friend of Rand and wrote Objectivist literature ended up running the Federal Reserve (a free market no-no) for years and despite writing in favor of an objective standard for the monetary supply later would debate against it.
Joined: 04 Dec 2009 Posts: 4685 Warnings: 0
Location: BROther Base MGO Name: JKILLAZ224 Gender: Male
Posted: Thu Nov 18, 2010 12:40 pm Post subject:
Kade Storm wrote:
Some might argue about how her shit was turned into that shit, but I agree with you.
Assuming I'm reading this right; The US adopted Laissez-faire policies during the late 19th century. The corporations exploited this (long hours, low pay etc.), which started to piss people off, thus the creation of labor unions in order to set certain things straight.
"Atlas Shrugged" (which I guess she wrote around the time she came up with "Objectivism") wasn't released until 1957.
Ravi Singh wrote:
Actually, labor unions were a free market response to industry cartels which then sought to cripple them by lobbying governments to criminalize organized labor.
I wasn't denying that labor unions fit in with the free market. I'm no Capitalism hater. I was just saying that, from my understanding, those cartels (as well as monopolies) were the result of corporations exploiting certain Laissez-faire policies.
Now that I think about it, yeah, you're right. I shouldn't have said they were against Laissez-faire itself.
MercuryLemur
Cool Raiden moving without awkward feel
Joined: 01 May 2008 Posts: 6838 Warnings: 0
Location: Detroit... HALP MGO Name: Mercury_Lemur88 Gender: Male Age: 25
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 12:31 am Post subject:
From a literature standpoint, I feel her two most well-known novels are absolute horseshit, with Roark and Galt being the two most one-dimensional Mary Sues I've ever read, as if she wanted to shoehorn her philosophy into the novel, but couldn't think of a way to do it subtly so we're left with these ham-fisted one-trick-ponies. It begs the question in my mind, if these poorly-written characters are so central to the plot, why not just right a manifesto on Objectivism? Why bother masking it as a work of fiction?
That said, objectivism does have its merits; I'm not opposed to the philosophy itself, just the asinine way she presented it in her novels.
Con-con
Cool Raiden moving without awkward feel Ice Cream Partier
Joined: 02 May 2009 Posts: 6892 Warnings: 1
Location: Palm Springs, CA Gender: Male Age: 20
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 4:06 am Post subject:
Like Mercury was kinda saying, her "fiction" work is really just philosophy text books. It's good if you look at it like that, and not as an actual story. As a story, it really isn't much. I wouldn't say it's horrible, just nothing to shine a light on. So, you know what? It's like Avatar, except not hippie philosophy. And the story isn't generic like Avatar's.
Joined: 06 May 2006 Posts: 24777 Warnings: 2147483647
Location: Los Angeles, CA MGO Name: Ravi Singh Gender: Male Age: 25
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 1:38 pm Post subject:
John wrote:
Assuming I'm reading this right; The US adopted Laissez-faire policies during the late 19th century.
John wrote:
I was just saying that, from my understanding, those cartels (as well as monopolies) were the result of corporations exploiting certain Laissez-faire policies.
The corporations exploited this (long hours, low pay etc.), which started to piss people off, thus the creation of labor unions in order to set certain things straight.
The corporations did exploit the powers the government was giving them. Unions, too, were a free market reaction to the preferential treatment which allowed them to pretty much dictate an artificial market. Of course, what you're saying is kind of a misunderstood notion anyways though because while the differences in wealth between the poor and the rich was large during the second industrial revolution, it was much better than it was before it.
John wrote:
"Atlas Shrugged" (which I guess she wrote around the time she came up with "Objectivism")
No, it was likely to be sometime before she managed to publish The Fountainhead in 1943.
John wrote:
Now that I think about it, yeah, you're right. I shouldn't have said they were against Laissez-faire itself.
Well you're partially right. The union monopolies that exist right now are against it. So are the major corporations that dominate the market, as they always have been doing. In fact, some of the main villains in Atlas Shrugged are CEOs.
MercuryLemur wrote:
From a literature standpoint, I feel her two most well-known novels are absolute horseshit, with Roark and Galt being the two most one-dimensional Mary Sues I've ever read, as if she wanted to shoehorn her philosophy into the novel, but couldn't think of a way to do it subtly so we're left with these ham-fisted one-trick-ponies.
There are other characters. Yeah she probably would go irate if anyone mentioned that they preferred the realistic portrayals of Hank or even more-so, Eddie, (see: Mozart Was a Red) but these characters do exist.
Econs wrote:
I know nothing of her work, so I have to ask wether she writes fiction or nonfiction?
Both, but there are much better reading material out there unless you're strictly looking for Objectivist philosophy.
Ronok wrote:
Like Mercury was kinda saying, her "fiction" work is really just philosophy text books. It's good if you look at it like that, and not as an actual story. As a story, it really isn't much. I wouldn't say it's horrible, just nothing to shine a light on. So, you know what? It's like Avatar, except not hippie philosophy. And the story isn't generic like Avatar's.
Atlas Shrugged does seem to borrow stuff from Garet Garrett's The Driver to ridiculous levels. With that said, I actually enjoyed the overall story, just found some of it to be necessary to the plot. This is apparently because fans kept on asking questions after The Fountainhead and so she answered them. Sound familiar?
Joined: 04 Dec 2009 Posts: 4685 Warnings: 0
Location: BROther Base MGO Name: JKILLAZ224 Gender: Male
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 3:41 pm Post subject:
Ravi Singh wrote:
Stuff
And this is why I'm glad I can't vote yet.
Okay, so;
1.) There were more causes to industries abusing their workers/the market than just getting too much leg room from laissez-faire policies.
2.) Laissez-faire is more of a counter to Socialism (as in; it supports the free market and is, for the most part, against government intervention) as opposed to a simply being a free pass to let companies do and get away with whatever they want (which is what I mistakenly thought it was.)
3.) Labor unions, as I said, weren't against laissez-faire itself, but is actually compatible with the free market.
Quote:
Well you're partially right. The union monopolies that exist right now are against it.
But I wasn't talking about modern labor unions, so yes, I am wrong.
This pretty much tears whatever I intended with my original post down to ashes;
Quote:
In fact, some of the main villains in Atlas Shrugged are CEOs.
The more you know, I guess.
Anyway, since I'm starting to get back into the habit of reading, I plan on reading "Atlas Shrugged" sooner or later.
Con-con
Cool Raiden moving without awkward feel Ice Cream Partier
Joined: 02 May 2009 Posts: 6892 Warnings: 1
Location: Palm Springs, CA Gender: Male Age: 20
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 7:39 pm Post subject:
John wrote:
Anyway, since I'm starting to get back into the habit of reading, I plan on reading "Atlas Shrugged" sooner or later.
You'll be getting a big jump on things. Most people seem to discover Rand between 17 and 25 years old. I know I first heard of her from my high school Latin teacher (who was a socialist) and I became really interested in Objectivism after playing BioShock. A friend of mine in school was an Objectivist too, and he demanded I read Rand for years. I started with Anthem though, but it's pretty short and only really touches on the philosophy.
Joined: 06 May 2006 Posts: 24777 Warnings: 2147483647
Location: Los Angeles, CA MGO Name: Ravi Singh Gender: Male Age: 25
Posted: Fri Nov 19, 2010 8:39 pm Post subject:
John wrote:
Laissez-faire is more of a counter to Socialism (as in; it supports the free market and is, for the most part, against government intervention) as opposed to a simply being a free pass to let companies do and get away with whatever they want (which is what I mistakenly thought it was.)
Laissez-faire just pretty much means free from government intervention. Intervention includes tariffs, subsidies, grants, loans, central banking, bail outs, anti labor laws, anti consumerist laws, etc.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot post calendar events in this forum
Log in
Register
© 2002, 2003 - 2011 The Snake Soup.
THE 'SOUP |
THE GAMES |
THE BRIEFING |
THE FEATURES |
THE JUNK |
THE SITE |
THE LINKED
Calendar
Ayn Rand
