Ayn Rand was crazy. Movie at 11.

[Razorgeist]

Wow Ive always found Ayn Rand's philosophy to be abhorrent but I never knew she sunk that low.

[Junghalli]

Objectivism did seem to me like sociopathy elevated to a moral philosophy. This doesn't really surprise me.

But with Rand, there’s something more pathological at work. She’s out to make the world more sociopath-friendly so that people like Ayn and her hero William Hickman can reach their full potential, not held back by the morality of the “weak,” whom Rand despised.

A sociopath practicing enlightened* self-interest in the interests of other sociopaths? I don't know whether to find that ironic or appropriate.

* For a certain value of it anyway.

[Formless]

The whole idea of "enlightened" self interest sounds to me like a way to quietly admit that there is nothing enlightened about self interest. It implies that there is another kind of self interest-- the kind real amoral people display. Greed, selfishness, and an attitude of "everyone who isn't me can suck it."

[Marcus Aurelius]

Objectivism did seem to me like sociopathy elevated to a moral philosophy. This doesn't really surprise me.

But with Rand, there’s something more pathological at work. She’s out to make the world more sociopath-friendly so that people like Ayn and her hero William Hickman can reach their full potential, not held back by the morality of the “weak,” whom Rand despised.

A sociopath practicing enlightened* self-interest in the interests of other sociopaths? I don't know whether to find that ironic or appropriate.

* For a certain value of it anyway.

Yes, it is ironic but also somewhat telling. Objectivism as a philosophy is obsolete, since we know for a fact that cooperation is usually a more successful survival strategy for a social animal species than uncontrolled self-interest. The cooperators are not the weak but the strong that have marginalized the sociopaths during the course of evolution. In fact you could say that the sociopathic individuals are the parasites that "ride along" with the success of the cooperating social species. There a some special circumstances where sociopathy is advantegous, but in general it is not. Without the so called "weak" human society would not exist at all and we would all be solitary hunters, or more likely the whole evolutionary line would have gone extinct millions of years ago, since primates do not make very good solitary predators.

From a scientific point of view Ayn Rand's philosophy is as outdated as platonism and other idealistic philosophies. Anyone who understands what the epistemological basis of Rand's philosophy is and is not dogmatically minded should recognize that immediatelly. Her philosophy is not coherent with the external reality and scientific knowledge. (Rand's epistemology is based on a rather naive variant of correspondence theory, which is one of the reason real philosophers do not take her very seriously, but that does not change the logical outcome; in fact it reinforces it.)

[The Yosemite Bear]

Sounds like she would have loved Leo & Leob except for being gay.

[mr friendly guy]

Because I am lazy I used wiki to read up what happened to said sociopath, it turned out he was hanged. But that wasn't the interesting bit, because the wiki article has a bit on what Ayn Rand thought of him in her journals.

Rand also expressed sympathy for Hickman, writing, "The first thing that impresses me about the case is the ferocious rage of a whole society against one man. No matter what the man did, there is always something loathsome in the 'virtuous' indignation and mass-hatred of the 'majority.'... It is repulsive to see all these beings with worse sins and crimes in their own lives, virtuously condemning a criminal..."[5]

Well unless those condemning Hickman actually did worse and murdered a little girl and then dismembering her to fake a ransom, even Rand's perverse tu quoque argument fails.

[The Yosemite Bear]

At least the submissive half of L&L deticated his prison parole & death to medicine.

[Darth Yan]

this...wow. I disliked the old bird cause she was crazy and racist, but idolizing a serial killer. damn this bitch was a psycho. I actually know a site that idolizes her. we should spread it to all her fanwhores.

[Anguirus]

You know, the description of what Hickman did is just...ugh. I can't remember the last time I've been so viscerally affected by prose. Maybe I just don't read enough "true crime stories."

The "ferocious rage of a whole society" I imagine is just them feeling what I'm feeling. Because most people, no matter how lazy or dumb, have the empathy to imagine themselves as that little girl or as that father.

[Simon_Jester]

The whole idea of "enlightened" self interest sounds to me like a way to quietly admit that there is nothing enlightened about self interest. It implies that there is another kind of self interest-- the kind real amoral people display. Greed, selfishness, and an attitude of "everyone who isn't me can suck it."

More or less, I suppose.

I don't expect to find many people who are friendly to my stance - which can be regarded, appropriately enough, as left-libertarianism - on this forum. But I do want it known that not everyone who identifies as such is a 'Tea Bagger', or holds a great deal of sympathy for them.

Fair enough. I am not a left-libertarian; I am not sure there is a word for what I am; I tend to call myself a "social republican" by choice, but that's half because it lets me mingle European and American political terms for my own amusement.

But I will at least say that unlike right-libertarianism, left-libertarianism is not a blatantly failed model. Therefore, it merits consideration by intelligent people, which I respect.

[Teleros]

The whole idea of "enlightened" self interest sounds to me like a way to quietly admit that there is nothing enlightened about self interest. It implies that there is another kind of self interest-- the kind real amoral people display. Greed, selfishness, and an attitude of "everyone who isn't me can suck it."

I think it's meant to mean something more like "self-interest that helps others", that's all. Ie:

It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.

So yes, the "enlightened" bit is something of a qualifier. Ordinary self-interest is basically selfish, but if it helps others we call it enlightened. Rather like publically giving lots of money to charity to feel good or show off - it may be for selfish reasons, but you're still doing good.

As for Ayn Rand... regardless of her frankly crazy fawning over a walking advert for the death penalty, she comes across as one of those people who found a good idea (ie, free trade, market economics, the invisible hand and all that stuff Adam Smith wrote about), misunderstood it, and like any good fanatic promptly took it to extremes. There is a reason Adam Smith tells us to be wary of businessmen, avoid monopolies, and so on:

By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it.

Pretty much sums up how too many people read the Wealth of Nations IMHO .

[Formless]

I know what its supposed to mean, but I find it funny what it unintentionally implies-- its not the self interest that makes it good for society, its the part about being enlightened. In other words moral. Quite a concession for someone who thought moral people were weak.

[Simon_Jester]

I know what its supposed to mean, but I find it funny what it unintentionally implies-- its not the self interest that makes it good for society, its the part about being enlightened. In other words moral. Quite a concession for someone who thought moral people were weak.

Like most philosophers who have even the slightest respect for self-interest, she needed some way to express the concept that wouldn't amount to telling her followers to go in a corner and masturbate continuously until they died of thirst.

Therefore, they at least needed a sense of "self-interest" that included time scales longer than "one second from now..." which involves some minimal degree of "enlightenment."

[Covenant]

Despite the fact that many discard these theories, the one idea people still cling to is the hackneyed "Self-Ownership" philosophy. I call it hackneyed because you hear it over and over again, and it's really nothing more than the concept that you're your own person--which is pretty much a fundamental issue of ethics and certainly not a Rand or Libertarian concept given her and her philosophy's hatred of the ramifications of such Self Ownership and Personal Sovereignty.

Affixing "Libertarianism" taints it with the stupidity of the core philosophy and gains nothing in the exchange--one can understand the concept of right of self without needing to reference one hypocrisy of Libertarian thought, and should do so. It's a cancer that should be entirely excised. We are not independent, sovereign entities--we depend on each other, and have responsibilities to each other. We as people only function when we collaborate, anything less than that and we're over-glorified animals eking out an existence.

So those who are still trying to be hyphenated-libertarians, just accept that the concept was flawed, and that people do make mistakes, and that you're not a bad person for having once believed something silly. Just move on and stop trying to rationalize or justify the concepts at heart. I think these kinds of "Oh, I'm a _____ libertarian, not one of those crazy sorts," things just let it linger for no other reason than people have an irrational fear of admitting they were wrong about something in the past.

[Liberty]

This is somewhat troublesome to me.

You see (and this is relatively hard to admit on this forum), I do indeed incline to a form of political libertarianism, in that I believe that the rights of men are best secured under voluntary conditions. [snip] I don't expect to find many people who are friendly to my stance - which can be regarded, appropriately enough, as left-libertarianism - on this forum.

This is really kind of a nitpick, but you might want to update your language if you intend to hang around this forum long.

[Thanas]

This is somewhat troublesome to me.

You see (and this is relatively hard to admit on this forum), I do indeed incline to a form of political libertarianism, in that I believe that the rights of men are best secured under voluntary conditions. [snip] I don't expect to find many people who are friendly to my stance - which can be regarded, appropriately enough, as left-libertarianism - on this forum.

This is really kind of a nitpick, but you might want to update your language if you intend to hang around this forum long.

And who asked you to backseat moderate?

It might be his second language, so you might want to cut him some slack and stop what you are not supposed to do.Don't automatically assume the worst unless you have proof.

[Einzige]

So those who are still trying to be hyphenated-libertarians, just accept that the concept was flawed, and that people do make mistakes, and that you're not a bad person for having once believed something silly. Just move on and stop trying to rationalize or justify the concepts at heart. I think these kinds of "Oh, I'm a _____ libertarian, not one of those crazy sorts," things just let it linger for no other reason than people have an irrational fear of admitting they were wrong about something in the past.

Except that right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism are essentially two entirely separate phenomenon. Those of the libertarian left tend to seek a more level distribution of resources without reliance on the State (which serves and will continue to serve the interests of the owning class). I hardly think it's an "irrational fear" when almost every other form of redistributionism - that is, statist redistributionism - has either degenerated into totalitarianism (Marxist Communism) or created massive amounts of backlash against it (Western welfare states). All we look for is a way to avoid these pitfalls; we do not presume, as most right-libertarians do, that our opinions can be objectively proven, or are applicable to everyone everywhere.

This is somewhat troublesome to me.

You see (and this is relatively hard to admit on this forum), I do indeed incline to a form of political libertarianism, in that I believe that the rights of men are best secured under voluntary conditions. [snip] I don't expect to find many people who are friendly to my stance - which can be regarded, appropriately enough, as left-libertarianism - on this forum.

This is really kind of a nitpick, but you might want to update your language if you intend to hang around this forum long.

And who asked you to backseat moderate?

It might be his second language, so you might want to cut him some slack and stop what you are not supposed to do.Don't automatically assume the worst unless you have proof.

I am a native English speaker, and I should have chosen my words more appropriately; for that I apologize. I was really trying to draw on the traditional liberal phraseology, which is admittedly quite out of date.

[ThomasP]

Except that right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism are essentially two entirely separate phenomenon. Those of the libertarian left tend to seek a more level distribution of resources without reliance on the State (which serves and will continue to serve the interests of the owning class). I hardly think it's an "irrational fear" when almost every other form of redistributionism - that is, statist redistributionism - has either degenerated into totalitarianism (Marxist Communism) or created massive amounts of backlash against it (Western welfare states). All we look for is a way to avoid these pitfalls; we do not presume, as most right-libertarians do, that our opinions can be objectively proven, or are applicable to everyone everywhere.

I'd suggest it's also important to note that, much like the original Marxists, left-libertarians have no real interest in private capitalist ownership, at least of "means of production". Proudhon distinguished between "property" and "possession", where the latter would be contingent on usage (edit: so that one could "possess" a house by living in it, but not "own" it in the sense of moving out of it and then charging rent to make a profit), and he did make allowances for "products of labor" and ownership of the tools of that labor. He also emphasized worker's associations in lieu of a State or private corporations, which would be another important distinction.

Left-libertarianism entirely excludes the corporate apologism found in the capitalist libertarianism of Rand and co, which is perhaps the most glaring defect of all - by not realizing the hypocrisy of being against government-sponsored "coercion" but being all for unregulated corporate power.

[Liberty]

This is somewhat troublesome to me.

You see (and this is relatively hard to admit on this forum), I do indeed incline to a form of political libertarianism, in that I believe that the rights of men are best secured under voluntary conditions. [snip] I don't expect to find many people who are friendly to my stance - which can be regarded, appropriately enough, as left-libertarianism - on this forum.

This is really kind of a nitpick, but you might want to update your language if you intend to hang around this forum long.

And who asked you to backseat moderate?

It might be his second language, so you might want to cut him some slack and stop what you are not supposed to do.Don't automatically assume the worst unless you have proof.

First, I was not attempting to moderate. I found the wording used mildly offensive, but I realized it was probably unintentional on his part, so I mentioned it as a nitpick. And I added "if you want to hang around this forum long" not as a threat or anything but rather because I know if he were to be misogynistic in the future everyone would be all over him for it - and by everyone I don't mean moderators, I mean everyone. So, as a nitpick, I thought I'd point that out. I see now that I should have been more clear in my wording. Besides, this thread isn't in the history forum, so I don't know why you were peeved.

[Thanas]

I see now that I should have been more clear in my wording.

Thank you.

Besides, this thread isn't in the history forum, so I don't know why you were peeved.

Do you think "no backseat moderating" applies only to the history forum?(no need to answer that.)

And I am not angry with you.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Nitpic While Hickman qualifies as a narcisstic sociopathic  killer, unless I missed a couple more victims he wasn't a Serial murderer

[Alerik the Fortunate]

Well, it mentioned he strangled another girl, and murdered his friend's grandfather for some loose change, if that counts as serial killer.

[The Yosemite Bear]

yes¸ three or more murders over a period of time between killings for sexual or ego gratification. So I missed a couple of victims

[Covenant]

Aww goddammit man, stop talking so fancy-fied, it doesn't lend any additional credibility. I'm not moddin', I'm just aggravated.

Except that right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism are essentially two entirely separate phenomenon. Those of the libertarian left tend to seek a more level distribution of resources without reliance on the State (which serves and will continue to serve the interests of the owning class). I hardly think it's an "irrational fear" when almost every other form of redistributionism - that is, statist redistributionism - has either degenerated into totalitarianism (Marxist Communism) or created massive amounts of backlash against it (Western welfare states). All we look for is a way to avoid these pitfalls; we do not presume, as most right-libertarians do, that our opinions can be objectively proven, or are applicable to everyone everywhere.

Chomsky claims that this whole libertarian thing refers not to the insane market principles of the right, but to this anti-state anti-authority freeness that I just called anarchistic. That might be true outside the US, and they're free to call it what they wilt, but I admit a language barrier is keeping me sour to the term regardless of what hyphen you stick in front of it.

But this is what I'm talking about--what is Libertarian? As a term it's deceptive, confusing, and senselessly broad. Left Libertarian and Right Libertarian share nothing in common except a distrust of government, and that's hardly got a thing to do with individual rights. You can even roll the damnable Minarchists in there to confuse the whole thing.

It's also too convenient to say that these things are not testable or verifiable objectively, and even if you did the fault may not be with the theories but with the situation--as it is not applicable to all situations. What you've got there isn't just an admitted shortcoming of an egalitarian philosophy, it's turning your theory into matter of faith.

It is an inherently useless system because it has no plans for transition by merit of it's inability to be tested or planned for. By design it can't be proven more effective than an existing system, and it is only definable by it's opposition to government. As no situation exists currently where you can simply be ungoverned except within despotic hellholes, we can't even allow such people to go off and voluntarily experiment on their own. The only way to ever benefit from this system is asking a governmental body that has proven effective to take measures to be less effective, or seek ways to make it so ineffective (either by voting or by populist coercion) that a state of statelessness becomes the norm, and then a restructuring of property, land ownership and popular control can be tested. You may as well build a castle out of pies, since at least that is objectively verifiable.

[Einzige]

It's also too convenient to say that these things are not testable or verifiable objectively, and even if you did the fault may not be with the theories but with the situation--as it is not applicable to all situations. What you've got there isn't just an admitted shortcoming of an egalitarian philosophy, it's turning your theory into matter of faith.

It is an inherently useless system because it has no plans for transition by merit of it's inability to be tested or planned for. By design it can't be proven more effective than an existing system, and it is only definable by it's opposition to government. As no situation exists currently where you can simply be ungoverned except within despotic hellholes, we can't even allow such people to go off and voluntarily experiment on their own. The only way to ever benefit from this system is asking a governmental body that has proven effective to take measures to be less effective, or seek ways to make it so ineffective (either by voting or by populist coercion) that a state of statelessness becomes the norm, and then a restructuring of property, land ownership and popular control can be tested. You may as well build a castle out of pies, since at least that is objectively verifiable.

Your points would be quite valid -- if I were treating this as a political ideology. But I'm not. I regard it instead as an approach, and a rather open-ended one at that, which by its very nature is applicable only in select situations. If the people you're trying to reach are unresponsive or openly hostile to one thing, then you might as well try anything you can until you get it right. The entire Left today is not only demoralized, but glued to approaches that didn't even work that well a century ago. I'm just trying to encourage them to think in new directions.

I don't believe it possible now to overthrow the State and capitalism at once and immediately, and probably it wouldn't be a good idea either. But if, as I think likely, these Tea Partiers do influence the course of public opinion, and we find over time that the already emaciated welfare State continues to be whittled into nothingness, then it only seems prudent to stop relying on it and start trying to build organizations outside of the State that can be used to fill the vacuum. Slowly - extremely slowly - I would hope that these organizations (untaxed worker's co-operatives ala Mondragon, communes, etc.) would begin assuming the functions of the traditional State. If we can co-opt some of the rhetoric presently being tossed around towards this end, so much the better.