Comments on: Atlas Shrugged Part II

By: wortwechsel

wortwechsel — Thu, 13 Dec 2012 09:02:10 +0000

I’m much too late to the game, but just wanted to drop a bit of knowledge on you. A major component of Greece’s financial problems is the widespread tax evasion. You know – rich people benefitting from roads, telecommunications, water supply, law enforcement, educated workforce, etc. – but not wanting to pay for it.

By: P R O M E T H E A N

P R O M E T H E A N — Thu, 04 Oct 2012 23:21:02 +0000

I personally know some people Ayn Rand talks about. If you don’t know any, you don’t know what genius and brilliance is.

Commenter Kevin Haskell ‘gets’ what the whole, simple thing is all about: it’s about mentally superior people not being hindered by mentally inferior people – inferior ONLY in the sense that they lack the intellect to produce anything of lasting value. In every other sense all life is of equal value. It’s about preventing and stopping humanity shooting itself in the foot. If you’re against that then you’re against yourself!

By: donjoe

donjoe — Tue, 02 Oct 2012 22:30:12 +0000

What a pathetic attempt to resurrect a thoroughly beaten and discredited cynical and sociopathic ideology.

By: FrankC

FrankC — Sat, 22 Sep 2012 22:59:27 +0000

Hitler, Rand, Tea party, the beat goes on.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 11:08:04 +0000

Yawn.Widely know worldwide?I don’t know any Europeans who know these Raynian rants..Are you being anglocentric?I am willing to bet my Turkish and Arab friends don’t know her either.

And before you lecture me on economy, maybe you want to critizise not Greece but the economy of my country, Germany (home of high taxes and rudeness ;)).

Greece is not exemplary for Europe, as you claim.Maybe you should stop these insults, since the financial crisis (like all these before) started in English speaking countries.

Our living standard is still pretty high.No, I don’t live on wellfare, and I am not a communist.You think we should be more Randian?No, thanks, not necessary.And yes, I take showers (someone actually asked this because I was against Nafta^^)

Maybe Greece should ask itself if it needs all those tanks and soldiers.

Concerning taxes:Frankly, I don’t care.I have to pay all kinds of stuff&people I dislike (propaganda news I don’t even watch anymore, most old grumpy people, some immigrants who want to kill me for being atheist, lazy/dumb people [you surely agree they exist, just ask Mrs.Rand], infrastructure no one needs but those who build them, worthless politicians).

In some sense, I even pay part of the gifts my country makes in order to be successfull at brown nosing.For goodness sake, at least this is changing.

I even pay for those old guys who think only about themselves and lived better lives than I could expect to live (if I take demographic indicators).

I’d rather transfer all my money to Greece, instead.Some of them are honest “cheaters”.^^Others may really need it.

Today, in the age of the internet, just ask philosophers what they think about Ayn Rand.Most philosophers will give you a short list of things.

The bible is pretty influential too, but that does not change the fact that it’s bs.

I summarize: Somewhere in the world something is not perfect.Some person claimed to have the solution, without any proof.Therefore that person must be relevant.Not logically entailled.

Rands influence on the guys who advised Russia’s rebirth as capitalist nation shows what it’s worth.

Somehow, that comment seems to be rude.Sorry, have a nice day.But you are totally clueless about Europe.

By: Melanie (New Zealand)

Melanie (New Zealand) — Fri, 21 Sep 2012 07:50:39 +0000

Mr X, the works of Ayn Rand are widely known worldwide and the fiscal and economic woes of Europe,as demonstrated by “the People’s State of Greece” – which MY far-off country for goodness sake has poured our tax dollars into – indicate her relevance to us all.

By: Michael Conti

Michael Conti — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 22:39:22 +0000

“Atlas Shrugged: Part I is in many ways charmingly oblivious to its inherent contradictions and the fact that its capitalist titans appear to be squatting in old, abandoned Dynasty sets, eating food-court baked potatoes”

Carina Chocano
New York Times
-

By: Michael Conti

Michael Conti — Fri, 14 Sep 2012 22:36:00 +0000

I think by now we’ve learned that Ayn Rand’s philosophy is about as reliable as her own commitment do it. Did you know she took social security, but only under her husband’s name? She was a fraud and environmentally ignorant.

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Tue, 11 Sep 2012 21:06:59 +0000

” I also found it problematic that she illustrated her wanton desire for the fall of society, along with the deaths of millions, so that the whole thing could be built back up by the heroes in the story.”

I must have missed that detail. Can you tell me where she expressed a “wanton desire…to see the deaths of millions?” While it has been many years since I’ve read her works, I must have overlooked that bit.

I would find it very strange indeed to hear someone like Rand, who rejected the use of force as the destruction of that which she considered central to Man’s ability to survive and thrive, which was his ability to use reason, advocate the forceful deaths of millions. Do you have the quote?

By: Editor

Editor — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:44:16 +0000

Igor: Ray Kurzweil (not “KurzweilAI”) has not stated his political position publicly to my knowledge, or that he has one. He is not involved directly in KurzweilAI, and we don’t base selection of content on our personal political positions.

By: Igor K

Igor K — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:08:21 +0000

Ray KurzweilAI is a libertarian. In my experience, most entrepreneurs do not like government bureaucrats to get in their way. Why are people surprised that Ray has a political position or that he chooses to include it in his free newsletter?

By: Bob Vasquez

Bob Vasquez — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 21:02:49 +0000

Is that DrJDSJr saying that? I could have sworn that it was John Galt. Or, since JDS doesn’t want anyone to know his real name; maybe it is John Galt in disguise. I just love that phrase, “It’s appallingly clear”.

By: John Galt

John Galt — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:59:36 +0000

Just dropped by to say hello to all you little, mostly unproductive and untalented people stuck in a rut!

I feel your anguish. But not to worry. John is here to untangle this mess.

Got to continue remaking the world. Remember: [When] One [is] for One[self], One [is] for All.

By: DrJDSJr

DrJDSJr — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 19:20:17 +0000

It’s appallingly clear that much of the commentary here is made by those who have neither taken the time nor expended the energy to examine the core question that is at the heart of Rand’s philosophy: Do we accept the primacy of the individual or will we be subsumed into the collective and subjected to the will of whoever whores and pimps him/herself into power? Will you decide what you get or not get to do or will I decide for you?

By: Robert Nugent

Robert Nugent — Mon, 10 Sep 2012 11:20:17 +0000

Rene,
I felt the same way about her work too until I actually read Atlas Shrugged about a year ago. I was surprised with how compelling her arguments are in spite of my preconceived notions of her ideas being out-dated.
One of the parts that I did like about it was that she points toward logic, science and reason as the only things that we should use to guide our actions and decision-making. She also champions excellence in any profession (including entertainment) and conveys that nothing can be a substitute for sound thought and thousands of hours of dedicated practice in developing a skill or creating an innovative product.
A major part of her philosophy that I discovered while reading the book, and now agree with, is that people who work hard, achieve something great, and then receive rewards, shouldn’t need to be apologetic for doing well for themselves. If you’ve earned something, you should be able to enjoy it.
I also liked how she incriminated the capitalist characters in the book who stayed in business by lobbying the government for support instead of remaining competitive, illustrating that she wasn’t just supporting the wealthy and elite. This sort of thing goes on all the time in today’s world, and it disgusts me.
On the other hand, I find her dismissal of the rest of society in the book is in bad taste. I am very optimistic about humanity in that I see great potential in nearly every person I encounter. I also found it problematic that she illustrated her wanton desire for the fall of society, along with the deaths of millions, so that the whole thing could be built back up by the heroes in the story. And I think most libertarians would agree that there’s room in society for all individuals, not just the ones we agree with. We wouldn’t wish them harm just because they don’t agree with our philosophy. I got the distinct impression that Ayn Rand did wish them harm (while ludicrously saying that she denounced violence).
That said, I think that what she has to say is worth hearing out. There are some really good things that I took away from that book that challenged my ideas about how people should even behave. I don’t think people can criticize her philosophy with any credibility until they’ve actually read some of her works. I have also read some of Nietzche’s work recently and find his philosophy to be as full of holes as Rand’s. He often went on rants about the inferiority of women and people who live in warm climates (those with dark skin). But that doesn’t mean that some of the things he said weren’t incredibly insightful and useful to listen to.
Give Rand a chance. I think you might be pleasantly surprised. She wouldn’t have been worth her salt as a writer if she hadn’t pissed some people off.

By: Bri

Bri — Sun, 09 Sep 2012 00:38:04 +0000

I think the only reason we’re being subjected (pun intended) to this is because Ryan is a Randi. It’s the same old republican tautology. I’m sorry to say this but it’s really a catch 22. To steal a line from The Matrix, morphious says we all have choices. Merv responds “wrong, choice is an illusion between those with power and those without. On the books we are a democracy. In reality we are an oligarchy.

By: Bri

Bri — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 23:02:17 +0000

It only figures tha Ryan falls for that twaddle. It says a lot about the man and his ego.

By: René Milan

René Milan — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 22:10:13 +0000

Everybody is “hated” by someone. I “hate” my noisy neighbor, but I will not attempt to remove him from my neighborhood. The hatred toward J and G never has kept them from achieving their successes. Of course in gun country some lunatic might some day do it (to emerging innovators).

By: René Milan

René Milan — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 21:55:08 +0000

no, bores.

By: Neublek

Neublek — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 14:50:55 +0000

nope.

By: Mr.X

Mr.X — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 13:11:59 +0000

Objectivism haha.Funniest thing I ever heard (not sure, but).Maybe we should call her work “Ranting Rand’s Religion”.That way, everyone would know beforhand how he is going to spend his time if he chose to read some of her stuff, or what cause he is supporting.

It seems outside of the USA nobody knows about her (hm, what does that say about me).The most important thing to get known in the US seems to be controversial and let media know about it, but one needs to avoid being shot/killed or taken prisoner.

By: Bri

Bri — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:37:59 +0000

For a real eye opener everyone here should watch Born Rich by one of the Johnson and Johnson heirs. Most elite rich lose their drive to excel . Most major developments happen from chance circumstances. Having a brilliant mind doesn’t mean you’ll creat something useful. Many of the top inventors had tremendous psychological problems often times being socially inept. To follow them blindly because of thier success would be folly. Each and everyone of them could not succeed if it weren’t for the help and support of countless people who never got any of the rewards. Look at Einstein he almost didn’t make it countless times in his life. At one point he was a total failure and wanted to commit suicide. His job as a patent clerk was lowly because he coolant get a good job. Even his top theory could easily have failed. He couldn’t figure out the math. He almost lost to a mathematician. It’s really only because they figured it out at the same time and the mathematician was gracious that he prevailed. In Rands world if the mathematician had won she would blindly follow him. The only reason we’re discussing this is that she was determined and received a lot of help because she was unusual. Many other theories have far more merit but we waste time talking about her cause she achieved a level of success. Unfortunately we debate her twisted ideas because we think there is something to them from her success. So many other lesser and greater philosiphers aren’t debated or made into movies because they didn’t rise to prominence. I’d focus on the ideas themselves rather than the cult of personality that arose around her. Her ideas are a complete dead end. Get over it. Move on to more current trains of thought. It’s like a broken record that keeps skipping back. Get up and put it to the next track already. I can’t stand hearing the same old pablum over and over.

By: René Milan

René Milan — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 12:12:34 +0000

Thank you James.

By: René Milan

René Milan — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:47:18 +0000

Do you have any evidence that her “ideas” are scary, and to whom, or is this just conjecture or projection ?

By: René Milan

René Milan — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 07:32:54 +0000

I have no argument with you, just used your quote to demonstrate that there are in fact people who call themselves “Randian” which seems to show that they at least consider her to be a philosopher. The “NAME-ian” construct is usually not applied to appreciators of fiction writers.

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:28:08 +0000

Giulio, her romantic fiction/sci-fiction was only the platform which she used to express and clearly present her very real, and very controversial philosophy.

You might consider the non-fiction books she wrote regarding her philosophy.

For the New Intellectual (1961)
The Virtue of Selfishness (1964)
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (1966)
The Romantic Manifesto (1969)
The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution (1971)
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (1979)

There have been a great deal more written about her works after her death.

According to the Library of Congress, just after the Bible, her book “Atlas Shrugged” was listed as being the most influential book on Americans – ever. Not bad since the book was only released in 1957.

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:19:40 +0000

There is a good argument to be made that James Hughes is the one responsible for taking the libertarian roots out of Transhumanism and planting them in technoprogressive soil, where they apparently have taken hold.

I think there is another reason libertarian Transhumanism may have faded into the background, and that is the fact that so much modern technology does require the cooperation and large-money backing of major corporations and the government, and quite often, the combination of the two.

Libertarian Transhumanism still exists, but they are a disappearing breed, and mostly to be found in the DIY communities, or if not, quietly routing for more individual freedom while within the framework of the massive industries they work for.

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:14:06 +0000

Yes, they are treated that way. Look at how some people have directed their hatred at Steve Jobs and Bill Gates, for instance. Anyway, you’re point about posting anything someone wants on a blog here is fine, as long as it’s not about Any Rand. Her ideas are ‘so’ scary that I think even her name shouldn’t be mentioned (it gives too many lefties PTSD.)

By: HHiram

HHiram — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:10:27 +0000

Rand had close to zero functioning knowledge of any of the social or cognitive sciences. As a result, she falsely attributed success to individual merits rather than to social circumstances. Her entire philosophy rationalizes inequality by suggesting that the people at the top *deserve* to be there, when in fact the scientific evidence suggests that social environment is overwhelmingly the determining factor of an individual’s success.

People like Bill Gates are billionaires because they were at exactly the right place at the right time. In Gates’s case, that meant being in a middle school and high school that had access to computers almost a decade before PCs existed. One of his schoolmates there also happened to be at the right place at the right time – Paul Allen.

Rand’s philosophy holds that Gates is not only superior to the kid born to the crack-addicted single mother in the inner city, but that society should heap rewards on Gates at the expense of the inner city kid.

Of course Gates’s children will go on to be successful because of the advantages their father accumulated, and not based on any fundamental merit of their own. And by the same token, the children of the kid in the inner city will have little or no chance of starting businesses and becoming self-made billionaires.

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:09:30 +0000

So what have you settled for?

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:07:34 +0000

So, should Asimov refrained from writing about Artificial Intelligence because he hadn’t yet worked out how AI works?

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 06:03:41 +0000

I never said it was her intent to alienate the left. I would think that would only happen if she continued to publish one or a few kinds of works on a regular basis. It’s said to think that the left would be alienated if so much of the rest of the site continued to hold great science articles of a non-political value.

Perhaps the idea of the editor was to instigate discussion, and maybe another time, we’ll see something about Marx, and how forward thinking his ideas were about technology…okay…maybe there’s another example of a philosopher who might be actually associated with technology. Nietzsche, perhaps? Pythagoras?

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:54:51 +0000

“If Rand was a real SF writer she would have beaten the drum for hydrogen-powered vehicles. She had no real knowledge of science. She never gave a hint as to just what elements were in Rearden metal. Now if she had talked about carbon nanotubes she would have been writing science fiction.”

What? That’s like saying H.G. Wells should have never written “The Time Machine” because he didn’t have sufficient knowledge about how time travel might actually work.

A great science-fiction writer may or may not know the particulars of a science or what may or may not happen. Their goal is to open up people’s minds to possibilities that many people are too glued down with by present day realities so that the reader can start considering new avenues of thinking themselves. Sci-fi can open up the minds not just of the young, but of scientists who had never considered certain possibilities before because they were so off-the-wall that it took an eccentric sci-fi writer to pry the scientist’s mind open enough to consider something new?

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:45:54 +0000

I thought the first movie was mediocre, and did the book no justice. Perhaps the second will be different. As to the Cohen brothers, No Land for Old Men was overrated.

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:43:57 +0000

If Social Darwinism is no longer alive today, then I suppose that means everybody shares equal intelligence, have the same physical appearance, strength, and health, that the 1500-2000 billionaires, 10s of thousands of multimillionaires, and endless amount of millionaires and upper-income people, must be an illusion of some sort, and perhaps we are actually living in a simulated reality in which we only play a game in which everybody is treated differently according to those various kinds of status.

Rand never said people couldn’t collaborate, and as to those universities, companies, and government working together on various projects, they don’t work on ‘all’ projects together, and my guess is that rather a project is completely private or a corporate-government mix, that neither are hiring the least intelligent people they can find to develop those projects. My guess is that they try to find the cream of the crop when if comes to brains, meaning, the elite.

One of Rand’s main themes were that those were not the best of best, look up to and try to emulate that group of individuals in their study habits and work ethics. She was an elitist who believed reason was the guide that all people should use in their lives, and that the true elitist who used his reason to the best of his or her ability, should be admired and followed.

She knew full well train tracks and trains didn’t get built by one person. She just didn’t believe everybody working on the train tracks or the trains should all be designing them, and that everybody had a function according to their mental ability.

No big deal.

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:30:06 +0000

She never said people don’t need to work together. She said the brightest should lead and have their ideas left to be developed according to their own particular vision, and certainly not to politicians and hacks. She was an elitist who thought the elite should lead society as unhindered by lesser minds as possible, not that other people should never collaborate.

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:25:23 +0000

I’m fairly sure Rand would be more than a bit disgusted with a lot of what Paul Ryan has voted for, such as the bailouts.

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:22:12 +0000

No comment. ;)

By: Kevin Haskell

Kevin Haskell — Sat, 08 Sep 2012 05:21:31 +0000

“I’m not an Objectivist or Randian…,” Rene’, because like many philosophies that have been debated over time, interpretations of what “Ojbectivism” is has splintered. There are “Brandian” Ojbectivists, and Peikoff Ojbectivists, Randian Objectivists (those who claim to be some form of purists,) and many who just call themselves Objectivists even when they fail to agree with many of tenets of what Rand wrote.

That’s fine, but I’m not here to debate her philosophy or who might have outlined the value of the individual better than she did.

By: John Alfred Taylor

John Alfred Taylor — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:10:03 +0000

The sci-fi content of Atlas Shrugged is all fi and no sci. Where does the marvelous motor get its power? Out of the same hat a magician gets his rabbit.

By: Rob

Rob — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 13:42:47 +0000

lol Nothing gets liberals more upset than a Ran reference. They just can’t contain the hate. The book scares them to death.

By: grettir76

grettir76 — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 12:11:19 +0000

Well my first feeling after Part1 was vomit, this film is a total fantasy alright, I can see how some of our forum members on KurzweilAI like it. So its basically saying BIG goverment is evil and corrupt, it stands against progress at every turn and that the smart people want no regulations, the builders, the contributors to society, the entrepreneurs etc. This all is just very naive.

I got the feeling that the second part of the movie turns USA into a communist estate.

By: Bri

Bri — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 11:17:42 +0000

She was from very different times than today. That 1% is now moot.

By: Giulio Prisco

Giulio Prisco — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 06:35:49 +0000

Yes, Gorden, what you say is right. Don’t forget, though, that her work was intended as a reaction (at least this is how I interpret it) to an extreme collectivist spirit that denied individual value to everyone (she was a Russian refugee after all). By affirming the individual value of great industrialists she got a 1% right, which is better than nothing. I also affirm the individual value of the remaining 99% of little people, floor sweepers and others.

By: Bri

Bri — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 03:00:34 +0000

It’s me again the wee little guy. Nobody takes my bait. GORT stands for genetic optimized robotic technology. I add the I for intelligence. I never liked the movie The day the earth stood still. I thought it was dumb. That’s the problem. GORT was basically mindless. I don’t think AI will be. It may be at first as it learns but there’s going to be a new kid on the block. We may degenerate to our base selves and hang a few bankers and such but I don’t think GORTI will. There isn’t any sense to it. That’s why I say I’d vote for robo nurse. Even VICKI thinks that we have to be saved from ourselves. If you follow Asimov’s three laws of robot morality it’s the logical conclusion.. Just like Joshua in war games. Strange game. The only winning move is not to play. I think that I could talk till I’m blue in the face and almost none of you will see that the whole is what’s important. That everything is dependent on everything else. This movie doesn’t take into account the group mind. I’m talking about the child that’s just waking up. Yes there is more than enough computer power available to replicate a human mind. There just isn’t any coherent thoughts going though it. It still lacks the processing centers to make thoughts on it’s own. It hasn’t self organized yet. It will soon. We are working on that quite diligently and we will succeed. The movie portrays the collapse of capitalism as being partial. When it goes it will fall completely. No matter how much money and power the one percent has it will be meaningless. We will survive this but the old ways will be gone forever and we will need AI to pull us through. Like Ray says it’s an extention of us robots will take all jobs away. Every last one of them. It will also destroy all those silly notions of god and the devil. Don’t get me wrong. God exists independent of us and the Shiva or ultimate destroyer aspect of god is independent of humans and our philosophies. God didnt make man so he can be tormented by Satan. You won’t spend eternity in he’ll because you made the wrong choice. The infinite consciousness knows everything. Why would it make something knowing full well that it would be seduced by something else that it created and then make them spend the rest of time in Hell. It would be a very sadistic thing to do don’t you think? I mean true god knows everything which includes all the suffering that you would experience in Hell because he made you incapable of making the right choices. Why not make us not so infallible? If god makes you imperfect and then punishes you for your imperfections, who’s flat is it? Gods of course. Why make Satan? Why not unmake Satan? Why send your only son down to show how much he loves you and then make him suffer a horrible death? These are constructs of man not god. They reflect our inability to see the truth. I have no time to watch silly movies like this. They are interesting but are as nourishing to the intellect as a picture of water to a thirsty person. So many aspects of the premise are flawed. In a short time it’s going to get really ugly. Don’t seek to kill. Seek solutions. Don’t seek revenge. Seek unity.

By: Alex

Alex — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:49:29 +0000

Al Ruddy, the producer of the godfather wanted to make this movie casting Clint Eastwood as Hank Reardon among other near perfect casting ideas. He never made it and these two movies are garbage timed for political influence. How pathetic when the makers of lowest denominator art become politically pro-active.

By: Chris

Chris — Fri, 07 Sep 2012 01:18:48 +0000

I’m against suppressing any political ideology, lest people forget its history and be doomed to repeat it.

Yes, the editor has the *right* to risk alienating the Left on behalf of transhumanism by associating it with Ayn Rand. But I don’t think that’s what she *wanted* to do.

By: Lawrence Bryan

Lawrence Bryan — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:44:27 +0000

I see Ayn Rand is making a comeback of sorts what with one of her prominent followers running for VP. I can understand the allure of her ideas amongst young idealistic youth. I was one of them for a while, but got over it about the time my acne cleared up.

By: hal

hal — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:29:30 +0000

there were about three female characters in Atlas Shrugged and only one protaganist. Dagney Taggart is Ayn Rand. And John Galt is her her father, a modestly successful Russian Jew operating a small business when 12 year old Rand watched the mayhem of the bolshevik from the second strory window in downtown St. Petersburg. Many views are galvanized by early childhood perceptions of reality. And so it goes Kurt would say…

By: HHiram

HHiram — Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:27:31 +0000

Rand’s analysis was scientifically illiterate. Her “philosophy” of objectivism was a thinly veiled and very primitive Social Darwinism. As it happens, Social Darwinism had already been discredited by the time she began writing because both social scientists and ecologists realized that the capacity for cooperation and the formation of complex interdependent systems – not myopic selfishness – were the keys to Homo sapiens extraordinary evolutionary success.

Rands philosophy also ignores the basic concept of feedback, which is central to all complex systems. As a result, she and other right-libertarians are ignorant of the mechanisms by which advantage and disadvantage accumulate over time. Accumulative advantage and disadvantage are why the rich get richer and the poor get poorer – it wouldn’t matter if the *people* involved were all clones; their outcomes is determined overwhelmingly by *past* success and failure. This same logic applies in ecosystems (the “big fish” parable), in biochemistry, in information systems – in complex systems of all kinds.

Moreover, there is zero evidence to suggest that innovation can only occur within the context of atomized competitive units (i.e. individual entrepreneurs). Remember that the vast majority of scientific and technological breakthroughs are still produced by universities utilizing public (i.e. government) funding. Just scroll through the stories here on this site to see how many of the teams in the news are based at university labs, versus how many are private companies.

The notion that laissez-faire economics are somehow a prerequisite for scientific progress is patently absurd. And still worse is the notion that such progress *justifies* massive socioeconomic disparities.

The only reason Rand’s bankrupt ideas persist is because they tell gullible people what they want to hear: you should be as selfish as possible because that’s the best thing for society overall. It’s as devoid of factual support as any religion, but compelling for all of the same reasons.