11 Comments

1. John Galt says:
   May 1, 2012 at 3:57 am

   Fair point.

   Atlas Shrugged could probably do with being issued in an abridged version.
2. Mike says:
   May 1, 2012 at 7:59 am

   I’ve been a CC fan for some time, but you lost me there.
   People who don’t understand, shouldn’t comment.
   Objectivism has no need of enemies, just look around at its friends.

   Mike
   ps see you at James Delingpole tomorrow?
3. mark says:
   May 2, 2012 at 3:23 am

   People who don’t understand should comment, they are the only people who should comment, though in a randian world, no one would answer.
4. Sam Duncan says:
   May 2, 2012 at 4:16 am

   Whatever, Mike. I suppose I should be annoyed and worried that I’ve turned off a “long time” fan, but actually it seems to me that this is exactly what we’re talking about. I’m commenting because I don’t understand why a perfectly reasonable analysis of the world’s problems necessitates a humourless aversion to comment.

   I’ve said it before, but I think it comes from Rand’s cultural background. It’s a very Russian take on the world: I’m 100% right, anyone who disagrees with the tiniest detail is 100% wrong, end of story. There’s a lot of good stuff, really good stuff, in Rand’s writings, but that’s not good enough for the Objectivists: you either swallow it whole or not at all. As an individualist, I can’t do that.
5. Mr Ed says:
   May 2, 2012 at 5:49 am

   I didn’t follow the book through, a rant against clocks on buildings put me off. Rand had the intolerance of the Bolsheviks, if not the violent and murderous tendencies.
6. Mike says:
   May 2, 2012 at 9:46 am

   @Mark - fair call
   @Sam - you have characterised the problem very well, in fact. It is that if there exists an objective reality, then you must accept that there *is* a position that is 100% right and whoever disagrees with it is wrong. Not your position, or my position, but that one exists. That’s where the pragmatists (I use the term in the philosophical sense) see “humourless”. But I know some people who were personal friends of Ayn Rand, and she actually had quite a wicked sense of humour.
7. John Galt says:
   May 2, 2012 at 5:12 pm

   In truth though, Ayn Rand’s philosophy of “Objectivism” or “Rational Self-Interest”, while it fits libertarians quite well, does have the disadvantage of appearing hard-hearted and selfish when initially encountered.

   It is only when you look at the intended consequences (as opposed to the the unintended consequences) of rational self-interest that you realise that it’s purpose is to restore power and freedom of action to the individual and remove the corrupting power of the state.

   Some of the terminology used in Atlas Shrugged while to a certain extent accurate, can be seen to be deliberately offensive, specifically the terms “Looters” and “Moochers”.

   However, I suspect that I am preaching to the choir.
8. NickM says:
   May 2, 2012 at 8:34 pm

   I’m with Sam here. I find the idea of their being something like holy-writ for libertarians somewhere between weird and disturbing. Can there even be objective truth in the affairs of people? It seems to me that most of the C20th was spent trying to find finality on matters which don’t have one. Whether it be Freud working out the human mind or Marx working out how history works (yes, a C19th figure but it took until the last century* for people to start putting it into action) or Hitler with his Final Solution or even Gordon Brown with his end to boom and bust. I have an explanation for all of this. With a sly dig at the dear old Viennese pervert I call it “physics envy”.

   *Am I the only one who still feels a bit odd saying that about the C20th?
9. CountingCats says:
   May 2, 2012 at 10:00 pm

   My comment to this is:

   http://www.countingcats.com/?p=1047

   My opinion stands.

   Mike, were you at Delingpole in Brisbane tonight? You a banana bender?
10. Sam Duncan says:
    May 3, 2012 at 3:00 am

    My take is actually slightly different to Nick’s: I have no objection to the idea of an objective reality or truth. Indeed, that was one of the things I liked about Atlas. I take his point about human affairs, though: the objective reality of those is so fluid and ever-shifting that, in all reasonable practical terms, it’s as good as unknowable. But what gets my goat is the arrogance of the Objectivists in refusing to countenance the possibility that they may be wrong in even the tiniest degree about what objective reality is.

    And yes, the nagging thought that kept creeping to my mind all through my explorations of Rand’s works was that it’s the application of “physics envy” (good term) - normally a flaw of the Left - to classical liberalism.

    I think, in the end, libertarians and Obectivists view each other in exactly the same way: well-meaning, on the right lines, but ultimately, and fatally, flawed.

    “Am I the only one who still feels a bit odd saying that about the C20th?”

    Nope. “2000” still sounds all futuristic to me.
11. here says:
    May 31, 2012 at 5:29 am

    Virtually all of the opinions on this blog page dont make sense.