Rand also died a lonely woman. I would however recommend her books for the type of people who think life owes them a living. They are not my favourite books but that doesn’t mean they are completely irrelevant.

September 15, 2009 @ 3:14 pm | Comment

I read it too…what a superb review. I also incidentally had the same reaction to reading Rand’s book than you did, as well as reading them essentially back to back.

I think the characters in a Rand book are meant to elicit a similar reaction than say, James Bond might. Whenever I watch a James Bond film I feel for a fleeting moment that I want to be him, that he in some way is the ideal man.

Ultimately, being an adult man these feelings dissipate, but the feeling is effective enough that I will immediately watch any James Bond film upon its release- even the bad ones.

I think the fascination with Rand results also from her ability to channel the conservative feeling of resentment- how they are pawns to the great, monolithic liberal majority that controls all media and the direction of the country. All of her heroes and heroines are alienated loners who simply don’t get along with the rest of society.

Rand exerts a huge influence on the American right. Even today, 50 years after Atlas Shrugged was published and almost 30 years since her death, many conservatives talk openly about ‘going Galt’, i.e. removing themselves from a productive economy, as if it would somehow compel Barack Obama from, I don’t know, not raising the marginal tax rate by a fraction of a percent.

September 15, 2009 @ 3:35 pm | Comment

I’m, in general, a fan of Rand and economically conservative. From where I see it, the trouble with a lot of Rand’s thought (and rightist thought for that matter) is the ignoring of the economic concept of externalities. Ideally, a person should be free to do his own thing, and not be compelled to do anything for anyone else unless he is willing. However, few people realize that some of our actions can and DO affect others, and hence DO need to be compensated.

So, it is immoral for a government, or authority figure, to force people to do good to each other. Forced altruism is not altruistic at all. I DON’T think we are necessarily in this together, unless we want to be. But it is also immoral for companies that pollute my water and air to do so freely without either being punished or forced to do something in compensation. A person’s rights end at the point another person’s rights are affected.

Which is what kinda makes things a bit frustrating with cap and trade (which actually used to be the right’s answer to environmental policy), since some people assume that being free means to do whatever you want regardless of how it affects others. I see NO problem with doing everything possible to lower taxes to most people across the spectrum (including the rich, there is nothing immoral with being wealthy) while heavily taxing activities negatively affect others.

So while the concept of freedom that Rand extols is valid (and I’d MUCH rather the political environment get closer to her side of things than where it’s going), her actual ideas fully expressed are kinda silly and ignorant of reality on the ground.

September 15, 2009 @ 4:12 pm | Comment

Chip, I may not agree with everything you’ve said, but I agree with a lot of it, and it’s reasonable. Unfortunately, Rand purists will never get that far.

September 15, 2009 @ 4:15 pm | Comment

Rand’s an idiot and an embarrassment to the right and the libertarian movement in general. Her recent idolisation can only be seen as a commentary on the intellectual death of the right, killed by rampant greed. Her stuff at best could be described as Nietzsche for Dummies and that would be charitable. The fact that her writings aren’t studied by any major university speaks volumes.

The people who rave about Rand need to be reading Nietzsche, Hayek, von Mises etc etc, but doubtless lack the brains.

September 15, 2009 @ 4:39 pm | Comment

I am not a Rand fan either.

Still, Richard, if someone does not think that society should force those that have to give to those who don’t, or does not strive to equalize everyone’s outcomes regardless of their input – that does not make him less caring than you about the welfare and development of others.

To take this to an extreme – is a person who preaches communism more or less caring than you about the welfare of others? On one hand, his plan will definitely give of the total pie to others. On the other hand, it will make the pie smaller, limit people’s basic freedoms, and ultimately lead to economic collapse. So – who is morally superior, you or him?

September 15, 2009 @ 6:45 pm | Comment

Is a person who preaches free market capitalism, privatization, and rampant deregulation more or less caring? The natural tendency of capitalism is for a small percentage of the population to end up owning the majority of assets. The pie is bigger, but less makes it down to the majority. If we go extremes of deregulation and let the bottom line of this minority of asset holders decide what constitutes morally acceptable ways of accumulating those assets, then what is the result? Where do “basic freedoms” go in that situation? Dror presents an interesting point, but things aren’t that rosy at the other extreme. Capitalism has thrived and produced great nations not because of its inherent “morality”, but because of democratic governing principles resulting in the popular regulation (i.e. enforced altruism) of those who seek to control the “pie”.

September 15, 2009 @ 8:30 pm | Comment

“The natural tendency of capitalism is for a small percentage of the population to end up owning the majority of assets.”

This is a very bold statement. However, if you look at the world’s “socialist” countries you will find that in most of them there is a small elite that owns most of the country, the gap between rich and poor is extreme, and there is almost no middle class. America is no exception, and you can see that the middle class is shrinking in line with the growth in government control over the economy – culminating in the current singular transfer of wealth from the middle class and the poor to the very rich through government bailouts and the creation of new money (which mainly serves those at the top of the heap) .

In addition, many things that low income people in developed countries take for granted would not have been available without free enterprise and the “evil” rich. Furthermore, many people that people in “socialist” countries take for granted would also not have been available without the “evil” entrepreneurs who invented them for developed markets. As long as a market is free and government does not protect the oligarchy from losing power, people are free to advance up the ladder through hard work and clarity of mind. This does not mean we should not help the weak, but it definitely does not mean we should cancel the free market or try to make sure everyone get the same outcome. We should harness the power of the market and the human pursuit of incentives to achieve our social outcomes, but we should not try to equalize or cancel these natural tendencies, since doing so would cause a net loss to everyone.

September 15, 2009 @ 9:48 pm | Comment

Also “If we go extremes of deregulation and let the bottom line of this minority of asset holders decide what constitutes morally acceptable ways of accumulating those assets, then what is the result?”

You are making a very big assumption here as well. The assumption that without regulation and government support it would at all be possible for this “minority of asset holders” to wield so much power. Let me ask you this: Can you name one longstanding monopoly that is not government-owned, government-sanctioned, or otherwise protected from competition through government regulation and licensing?

Government is a tool in the hands of those in power. The more power government has, the more power the elites have. Karl Marx, by the way, understood this very well; in today’s terms, his views regarding government would be considered anarchist. Too bad that many of his so-called disciples in the quest for “justice” and “universal welfare” are not as astute.

September 15, 2009 @ 9:55 pm | Comment

Dror, this is becoming a continuation of our thread below, and I don’t want to get dragged into that topic again, about government-enabled cartels. We all get your take on this. Bottom line truth: Good government breaks cartels and enables competition. The courts do this all the time and at times our system, miraculously, allows this process to actually work, despite all the system’s flaws. From yesterday’s NYT:

Giving voice to the anger and frustration of many ordinary Americans, Judge Jed S. Rakoff issued a scathing ruling on one of the watershed moments of the financial crisis: the star-crossed takeover of Merrill Lynch by the now-struggling Bank of America.

Judge Rakoff refused to approve a $33 million deal that would have settled a lawsuit filed by the Securities and Exchange Commission against the Bank of America. The lawsuit alleged that the bank failed to adequately disclose the bonuses that were paid by Merrill before the merger, which was completed in January at regulators’ behest as Merrill foundered.

He accused the S.E.C. of failing in its role as Wall Street’s top cop by going too easy on one of the biggest banks it regulates. And he accused executives of the Bank of America of failing to take responsibility for actions that blindsided its shareholders and the taxpayers who bailed out the bank at the height of the crisis.

The sharply worded ruling, which invoked justice and morality, seemed to speak not only to the controversial deal, but also to the anger across the nation over the excesses that led to the financial crisis, and the lax regulation in Washington that permitted those excesses to flourish.

You see, Dror, government can take steps to right the wrongs of the cartels. They can. You have to get out of the notion that there’s only evil up there. I get you don’t like government. It can be a force for good, and for not so good. Bottom line – sound regulation and government by rule of law are things to aspire to, perhaps the chief goals of a good government. The elites are those who should be running government – brilliant people, Rhodes and Fullbright scholars, people with prestigious degrees and deep experience and knowledge (a degree is not essential, but brilliance is). I know you have a thing about big government, but I have some tragic news for you: It isn’t going away, and we have to work with what we’ve got.

Andy, what has made democracy great is that it allowed so many members of society to thrive. And there will always be those on the bottom, but in a democracy like ours, which encourages people with scholarships and endowments and laws against discrimination, the possibility of rising up is greater. Democracy sucks on so many levels, but there is still something admirable about the successful ones.

What so irks about Rand (among other things) is her equation of merit with wealth, and not taking into account that a lot of wealth comes not by hard work but by connections, by patronage, by cronyism and by, in effect, criminal activity (witness all the contractors who slithered into Iraq to grab their piece of the pie). It is fine to want to go it alone. But if you do live in a society, you DO have to pay back to it whether you want to or not. You still have to file and pay your taxes. It is NOT a free ride, not for anyone. You don’t have to give to charity, but sometimes your tax dollars will be used in ways that may not seem to be for your own personal immediate good, like endowments for the arts, scholarships, foreign aid, disaster relief. Should you be forced to pay for these things with your tax dollars? Afraid so, because it’s these types of things that make a society, that make a country great. There will always be waste or disagreement on how much should be spent on what. But I look at societies that make it a high priority to champion art and knowledge, that help the disadvantaged get on an equal footing, that encourage participation and contribution to the betterment of society as a whole – these are to me very positive things, and many of our most successful zillionaires like William Gates and Warren Buffett fully agree, and have gone on the record saying the Estate Tax (as an example of something Rand would have hissed about) is an important tool that must not be eliminated and that the rich do indeed deserve to be highly taxed, as they enjoy so many advantages.

Mr. Buffett said that in the last 20 years, tax laws have allowed the “superrich” to become richer.

“Tax law changes have benefited this group, including me, in a huge way,” he said. “During that time the average American went exactly nowhere on the economic scale: he’s been on a treadmill while the superrich have been on a spaceship.”

I’m not for handing out free stuff to everybody and encouraging waste and laziness. But the Randian celebration of selfishness and disregarding others is moronic and goes against all the principles of enlightenment that have made America in many ways a great country. The supreme irony is that so many wingnuts embrace both Rand and Christianity, and the two are incompatible. Jesus’ advice that if you have a second coat, you should give it to the poor would have given Rand a bleeding ulcer. Reading the Beatitudes, her head, no doubt, would have spun around on her shoulders, eventually dislocating and landing on her neighbor’s lawn.

September 16, 2009 @ 1:49 am | Comment

Richard,

But isn’t the common census that Jesus encouraged people to do good things of their own free will, as opposed to being obligated to by government and regulations? That’s the way I’ve looked at it. So they aren’t necessarily in conflict. Besides, didn’t Anthem emphasize choosing to do good for others by choice?

September 16, 2009 @ 2:32 am | Comment

No government should force its people to go out and do things they don’t want to do (with some exceptions, like having to get a driver’s license if you want to drive). No one has challenged that notion.

Jesus encouraged altruism, compassion with no strings, generosity, and it can be argued, non-materialism (blessed are the poor, blessed are the meek). To the best of my memory, he didn’t say anything about the role of government in this process, but said this was a core part of life, giving to others, sharing. So yes, Jesus encouraged people to do good things and spoke well of being poor, and even meek. Rand hates altruism, forced or otherwise. Rand devotes many dead trees to disparaging charity and giving. In Rand’s world, it is all about Me, and everything revolves around that. Fine. No crime against that. But do you think that is compatible with the messages of the Beatitudes? Rand’s god is Money. Literally. Do you find that compatible with Jesus’ messages?

I am not a Christian and have my issues with Christianity (and all organized religions). I am not saying I believe what Jesus said in the Sermon on the Mount was right or wrong. What I am saying is that it is utterly incompatible with the Randian philosophy of money being the guiding force in life, and compassion being a sign of weakness and laziness. Thus it is bizarre to see wingers who are so obsessed with the Bible and abortion and evolution cite Rand as their intellectual mentor. The two worldviews are at logger-heads.

September 16, 2009 @ 2:48 am | Comment

I Think A Good Way to Solve Social Problems Is To Rob the Rich and Give To the Poor

In a society, of its gap between rich and poor is too big, we agree that there should be ways to alleviate that. This post wants to claim that the way to alleviate that is to rob the rich and give it to the poor. Of course most countries’ constitutions protect private properties. But we can also revise our constitutions to declare that it’s legal to rob rich people and give it to the poor. Under that constitution, if you are rich and your properties are not robbed, then you are in an illegal status.

This post will, from the academic perspective of liberal economics, talk about what private property can be robbed. In other words, private property is robbable.

First, let me define what private property is. Priviate property is simply physical things that are owned by an individual, such as houses, cars, cash, bonds.

Now,, let me define two classes of rich people. The first class are rich people with no ability to create more wealth, or that his wealth is disproportional to his ability to create weath. One example is a illiterate homeless person who has won the lottery. Another example is George Bush. The second type of rich people are those who have great abilities to create wealth, so that even though they have a lot of money, they do indeed create a lot of wealth as well. One example is Bill Gates. This post wants to claim that both of these two classes are robbable.

Let’s first talk about the first class of rich people, those without abilities to create wealth. I think whether you are a leftist or a rightist, you agree that this class of people is clearly robbable. Even the most capitalist people here agree that only the smart and capable make money and they deserve the money because they earned it. So, what about those incompetent who did not earn their money through their own abilties? Well, we can just leave them enough money for them to live comfortable lives, then rob the rest of it. That will not even affect their lives.

Furthermore, all people, regardless of wealth, will die someday, there’s no one that can live forever. Therefore, their wealth will eventually be robbed, or at least eventually be robbed by the God of Death. The “real” money that one earns in his life is the amount that he has spent. THe amount that he has not spent will be given to others (children,friends,lovers,etc) when he die. And if you inherit too much money, your lives will often be miserable. So why not just leave a little to your children, and give the rest to those who need it?

America realize that it’s too dangerous to let a dumb person have too much wealth. Therefore the inheritance tax in America is as high as 90%. For example, for a billionare, he can leave a maximum of 100 million to his children. OF course that 100 million is more than enough for his children to survive.

Now let’s talk about the second class, those wealthy people with real abilities to create wealth. Can we rob their wealth? I certainly believe we can, and that also won’t affect their lives.

First, if those kinds of rich people spent every penny they earned in their lifetimes, then they don’t have to worry about being robbed. But he has bought all the houses he needs, all the cars he needs, all the stocks he needs, all the food he needs, all the vacations he needs, all the women he needs, but still has 20 billion left in his account. Then I’m sorry, but we’ll take that 20 billion since you are not using it. And without those 20 billion, you’ll still live richly.

For example, in movies, we see businessmen getting blackmailed into paying millions of millions of dollars to thugs. But after they made their payment, their lives are still as rich as before! It made no difference in their lives. So why are they complaining? Of course it’s bad to give money to thugs, so why not give it to not so bad people?

Also, in ancient times, people store wealth in physical mediums. When a family has extra rice left, it’ll store it in his rice-vault. If he has too much rice stored, he’ll give some to the poor, because otherwise it’ll be spoiled by mice in the vault anyway.

But in modern times, wealth is stored in the memory registers of computers. In fact, such non-physical storage is equivalent of saying that the society owes you services in various forms. But a person cannot accept all the services all the time. Well, if that’s the case, why not let others rob some? If your savings account grows every year, and your usage rate is slower than the growth rate, then clearly these money are not being utilized efficiently, so why not give them to more efficient uses?

Therefore I propose a “savings tax”: anything savings account in the bank larger than 100,000 will encur a tax rate that goes up as your savings go up. If your savins account reach 100 million, then the tax rate reaches 90%, 10% of 100 million will be more than enough for you to live well.

Of course, if you use your savings to invest, and the money becomes the stocks of yoru company, then you will not be taxed. This way, it forces rich people to contribute their money to society in useful ways, and perhaps stimulate the economy, instead of giving it to their children and grandchildren.

September 16, 2009 @ 5:03 am | Comment

Richard: I still didn’t receive from you ONE example of a longstanding monopoly that meets the requirements I listed. To point out an instance of a judge doing something useful within a system in which government gives banks immense power carries very little weight. The Mafia keeps the streets in order – does it mean we should encourage them to expand their operations?

As for “No government should force its people to go out and do things they don’t want to do (with some exceptions, like having to get a driver’s license if you want to drive). No one has challenged that notion.” – It looks like you do not fully grasp the meaning and consequences of what you are preaching. But, the government – as you may know – has no resources of its own. All it has is what it takes from other people. So, when you talk about government giving away all sorts of things to everyone, you are necessarily talking about the government taking it away from someone (and forcing him to give it to others).

September 16, 2009 @ 5:45 am | Comment

Dror, I never said I had any such example. Cartels are government-enabled or else they couldn’t rise to be cartels. Then, good, Democratic government can undo the Republican-fostered cartels. Thank god for democracy.

So, when you talk about government giving away all sorts of things to everyone, you are necessarily talking about the government taking it away from someone (and forcing him to give it to others).

So you probably think using a portion of the tax revenues collected in the suburbs to build basketball courts for deprived kids in the inner city is a form of socialism, taking the money away from working people and using it for purposes they may not be interested in. Alas, this is too big a topic to be addressed here, as it’s about the very role of government and what it means to be a nation and a society. And Dror, much as I love you as a friend, we obviously have two different and irreconcilable worldviews.

We are a nation and a society, and all great nations use their wealth to the benefit of their people, and to the world. They took my tax dollars and helped Muslims whose lives were wiped out by the tsunami. Excellent. They took my tax dollars and used them to help children orphaned by an earthquake in Sichuan. Wonderful. They used my tax dollars to help fight malaria in Africa, and to help send military equipment to Israel. Fine. And then they used my tax dollars to pay for an idiotic war in Iraq and a doomed war in Afghanistan. I am unhappy about that. But you know what? We won’t always be happy with how the government spends our tax money, which is why we try to elect the most brilliant, most responsible leaders to man the ship. And if we aren’t satisfied, we unelect them. But part of being a member of society is contribution. Sometimes we even have to contribute by performing military service. That’s a lot to ask, and a lot of us may not want to do it, but we do it anyway because living in a great society doesn’t come for free. Again, this is the social contract – if you want the benefits of being an American citizen, there is a tradeoff. Most of us understand this and are happy to be contributing members of society, happy that, as much as we detest paying taxes, there is visible good that comes from it. PBS, NPR, the Peace Corps. I know, a lot of dumb programs as well, but the system will never be perfect, and there will always be corruption and waste, though luckily we have a system that works pretty well at exposing them. So my bottom-line here is yes, we do have to pay for things for other people because we are civilized and we are a society. This is the price you pay for being an American (or a German or a Dane), and it has been like this for a long time, to the betterment of humanity. You don’t like it, you can always renounce your citizenship. Where you will find a no-strings, do-your-own-thing government that will provide you with roads and running water and electricity with no commitment whatsoever from you I don’t know,. But I do know it will be a place bereft of culture and humanity, and not a place I’d care to visit anytime soon.

September 16, 2009 @ 8:35 am | Comment

Math, very cute line in your diatribe above: “Another example is George Bush.” Why can’t you always be that entertaining? I actually laughed.

Chip, forgot to address your point about Anthem: I consider Anthem a dangerous book (more a pamphlet, really), one in which the hero at the end seems intent on creating his own utopia. It preys on all of Rand’s sources of hysteria, like the evil council that cherishes mediocrity and conformity and will go to any length to suffocate indviduality, and features her typically improbable hero who seems to have been born in a vacuum-sealed bubble and then somehow plopped down onto planet earth. Hate it with a passion.

A relative of mine, 20 years old, is going through his Ayn Rand phase as most teenage males in America do (and it’s almost always men who get swept up with Ayn Rand, for whatever reason); I’m hoping he grows out of it soon.

September 16, 2009 @ 9:00 am | Comment

“A relative of mine, 20 years old, is going through his Ayn Rand phase as most teenage males in America do (and it’s almost always men who get swept up with Ayn Rand, for whatever reason); I’m hoping he grows out of it soon.”

I was exactly 20 when I read Rand, then grew out of it by about 22. I don’t think that’s particularly unusual.

September 16, 2009 @ 9:12 am | Comment

@Richard:

“Cartels are government-enabled or else they couldn’t rise to be cartels. Then, good, Democratic government can undo the Republican-fostered cartels. Thank god for democracy.”

– It is a historical fact that cartels thrived under both democratic and republican government. The bigger the government, the bigger the business.

” you probably think using a portion of the tax revenues collected in the suburbs to build basketball courts for deprived kids in the inner city is a form of socialism”

– Of course it is! It is up to any group of people to decide how to use their funds, but the closer this decision is made to the ground, the better it will be. Even if I wish to give to other, why do I need to pay a Federal Income tax and lose sight of my money? There are myriad better alternatives. The best one is through community organizations that have nothing to do with government.

Also – Personally, I do not think the US should pour money helping other countries, since – as you know – the net value of this to the world and the US is arguable and does not necessarily serve long-term US interests. In addition, once you agree that America has a god-given right to spread civilization at gun point across the globe… you are already on the slippery slope that leads to Iraq, Vietnam, and Abu Gharib…

September 16, 2009 @ 9:51 am | Comment

I don’t think my point was read correctly. Actually, Dror’s point original point about communism is correct, but nobody was talking about communism which is a proven failed system. My point was that if you are going to present the immorality of a state-controlled economy, don’t ignore the immorality of an extreme laissez-faire system (by extreme laissez faire I am talking about truly free market without any government control or regulation-an equally idealistic and crazy concept). The whole discussion of capitalism vs. communism is absurd anyway, and I think that ignoring these extremes, we get to the heart of the disagreement which is how much a government should involve itself in the economy and how the pie should be distributed.

Dror further brought up the point that in socialist states it is still the fact that a minority controls the majority of assets. No shit. If you read what I wrote, I never said that I advocated splitting the pie equally a la the mythical communist paradise. “Socialist” governments can still build up wealth through capitalist mechanics, no? Therefore, there will still be a small percent of people who control the most wealth-“natural tendency of capitalism”. A “socialist” system simply forces those with that wealth to share more of it. Actually, if such a state is democratically run, I would prefer to think of it as the people of that nation have through popular support of certain legislation forced those with the most to share a greater portion of their winnings with the rest through government distribution.

Of course, I’m not sure that Rand was all that concerned with all the isms, but more with the providing an argument for the inherent morality of greed and selfishness. Her idea was to narrate and sanctify the mythical rise of an individual based on his or her own merits alone. But Richard is right to point out that this is as much a fantasy as the “communist paradise” people love to hate on. The fact is success is more given than created out of thin air.

It’s hard to discuss something “morally” as it is not an objective way of discussing an issue. I guess that I am in agreement with Richard that those that take, should give back. Unfortunately, I don’t believe that free individuals will willingly give back a fair amount of what they take. Therefore, whether it be culture, religion, or government some sort of social institution must be in place in order to fairly (fair to the successful and fair to rest, fair does not necessarily mean equal) distribute the success and wealth of those who rise above the froth.

The functional question therefore becomes what is the “most fair” way of determining “fair distribution”. As I said above, I agree with Dror that communism as an extreme does not produce fair outcomes. However, neither does a system of unrestrained capitalist accumulation. Democracy seems to have proven itself a decent means of distribution in that every member of a society can have a some say (however small) in how assets are absorbed and redistributed by the government.

America seemingly has such a system in place, but to me, we are at a point where the balance has been in favor of a wealthy minority for too long and the government has been simply abysmal in properly and fairly distributing the funds that it absorbs. We have a broken health care system, a broken education system, a broken political system…the list goes on, and the problem is this is not a new list, how long have politicians played lip service to education and health care when trying to get elected and then come up short when in office? To me, fair distribution means providing a level playing field to engender success no matter the circumstances of an individual’s birth and to protect basic freedoms, our government has failed to do this for a long time now. This is not only immoral but against the social contract that we all thought we had signed. Unfortunately, this crisis comes at a time when our politics have devolved to a point where the argument of moral superiority of Ayn Rand vs. Karl Marx is somehow more important than the debate over how to fix a broken government.

September 16, 2009 @ 10:00 am | Comment

@ Richard: By the way – how would you call the process by which the Obama’s government is currently taking thousands of dollars our of your own pocket and giving it to the country’s largest banks?

If that’s what The Messiah Obama is doing, I can’t see how you can expect any other government to behave differently. The only solution is to take away the government’s power to do such things…

@AndyR: I never suggested to abolish government. As noted Above, nor am I an Ayn Rand fan. My basic point of departure on any issue is that government should be avoided at all costs. The natural tendency to call for more government each time government fails to deliver is a lethal instinct. That said, there is nothing immoral about a free society in the way it is described in America’s founding documents. All I am asking is for America to live by the values of its founding fathers (apart from slavery…).

September 16, 2009 @ 10:14 am | Comment

that government should be avoided at all costs = that government should be avoided as much as possible

September 16, 2009 @ 10:17 am | Comment

Sorry, Richard, but your core premise is false: conservatives didn’t like Rand. From early on, the conservative establishment dismissed her as a dangerous nut — e.g. Whittaker Chambers’ remark in National Review that every page of Atlas Shrugged seemed to be shouting at the unworthy: “to the gas chamber, go!” It’s not just that her social program is explicitly atheist and amoral, it’s that despite being a “refugee” from Soviet totalitarianism, her ideology reeks of totalitarian excess, while her economics lacks the sophistication and realism of thinkers on the right like Schumpeter, Hayek, and Friedman — none of whom believed in wiping the slate clean but in fixing the existing system. If you start spouting Ayn Rand in a roomful of Republicans you’re going to get arched eyebrows and mouthfarts in response. On the other hand …

Rand appeals primarily to a kind of young libertarian who dreams of a “rationalist” utopia that has more than a dash of Spencerian social Darwinism. This is similar to the young leftist who reads The Republic and believes we need to create a society controlled by a selfless elite (The Guardians — later reformulated by communist thinkers: see Karl Popper). We all met these people in high school and college and may have been interested in (or repulsed) by their vision of utopias, but ultimately anarcho-capitalist Randian and totalitarian Platonic utopianism are the dalliances of the youthful and immature, not adult philsophy. You suggest this is a “young male” thing and I agree, though I knew dozens of girls in college who also loved Rand as a kind of exercise in feminist wish-fulfillment. (A woman can be as big an asshole as any man!)

Now you will definitely find overlap between Rand and the “I only love business, screw the rest of society”-types in the GOP and the Democratic center-right, the kind of folks who worshiped at the feet of Alan Greenspan, who had been a Rand acolyte in his youth. (Ask these people if they’re conservative and they will assure you they are simply RINOs.) At the same time, the problem with saying that “Person X is an influence on conservatism” today is that movement conservatism was utterly destroyed by the Bush-Rove years, leaving it impossible to say who a prominent conservative intellectual is anymore. Buckley died but conservatism died before he did. Beck and Limbaugh, who are not nearly as Randian as you suggest, do not constitute thinkers but engines of rage, while the GOP itself is infested with “Whatever-gets-Republicans-elected-ism,” which is both shitty for conservatism and, as shown by Joe Wilson’s “you lie!” outburst, shitty for the country.

September 16, 2009 @ 10:31 am | Comment

Thanks, Matthew. Schumpeter is especially relevant these days (not that Hayek and Friedman aren’t…). I am working on a post summarizing his predictions regarding capitalism’s demise. Scary.

September 16, 2009 @ 10:50 am | Comment

Busy now, but one quick word to Mr. Stinson: Rush Limbaugh loves Ayn Rand and quotes her frequently. I don’t think I said actual conservatives (people who are conservative in a traditional, sane way, as opposed to the Limbaugh-Beck-Malkin brand) love Rand, and as you say, they may have rejected her. I honestly don’t know. But the current Fox News-style conservatives – or call them libertarians if you prefer – embrace her. You can hear Glen Beck for yourself extol her right here. Tell me the present day Fox News gasbags don’t adore Ayn Rand. But in all seriousness, I appreciate your intelligent comment, and agree with most of it.

And Dror, I was being quite tongue-in-cheek when i said cartels are formed only by Republicans and then broken only by Democrats. Obviously both parties have their fingers in the till.

September 16, 2009 @ 10:53 am | Comment

“The old principle, who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one , who does not obey does not eat . ”

Trotsky

September 16, 2009 @ 11:52 am | Comment

Okay Dror, so we both agree government can be quite awful. However, I don’t think we can or should avoid it. I will always speak out when I think irrational forces are taking power. I will be active in calling out the fringe wingnut racists who see National Public Radio as an instrument of the devil and who see Obama as a Muslim communist Nazi. Maybe actual dealing with the government should, as you say, be avoided as much as possible, but you and I should never forget what happens when bad people are given the keys to the kingdom. Never again.

Still not exactly sure what you mean when you say government should be avoided, by the way.

Thanks to Matt and Andy R for your excellent comments above.

September 16, 2009 @ 12:21 pm | Comment

” I will always speak out when I think irrational forces are taking power”
– It is rational of power to corrupt and spur the quest for additional power.

By avoided I mean that it’s role should be reduced to a minimum, as it is defined in the US constitution, and that even in areas that require government involvement due to externalities/spillovers/neighborhood effects – that involvement should be done through (temporarily) incentivizing private enterprises and not through government monopolies.

September 16, 2009 @ 2:40 pm | Comment

Ayn Rand appeals to people whom I usually consider to be social misfits, and have never had to work with others to find an answer or build a consensus, and because they have not done so, believe that it is much better for the brilliant individual (always themselves, of course) to take the “Triumph of the Will” approach.

I like the phrase “Nietzsche for Dummies”. Ayn Rand dumbed down Nietzsche so that any social misfit could blame all his/her ills on the rest of society, instead of recognizing the shortcomings looking back at him/her in the mirror.

Society demands a high price. Often it is silly and stupid, but there is nothing wrong with asking brilliant people to also explain the logic of their positions regardless of how intelligent they may think themselves to be. Persuasion and communications are the answer, not steamrolling over others as Ayn Rand advocated.

If she wasn’t of Jewish extraction, I’m sure that Adolf Hitler would have found solace in her company, especially as he was spending more time in the bunker in 1944-45. In those final months, Hitler blamed all his failures on the shortcomings of the German people, who he felt betrayed him and let him down. From his point of view, it had nothing to do with his own failed strategies and over-concentration of power, which he would never even countenance.

How very objectivist!

September 16, 2009 @ 5:48 pm | Comment

Paul,
Hitler was not exactly the world’s greatest believer in free markets. Not sure he would have been a Rand fan.

Anyway, there’s enough reason not the like her writings…

September 16, 2009 @ 9:34 pm | Comment

AndyR is out of his shoes! Who can “determine” the laws of capitalism( making profit) better than money makers themselves…. if they were to determine anything of the sort? Certainly not leftists or the social activists of the B.H.Obama type ! They aren’t ready for the mission at least not until they realize that an indefinite( very huge) Market has laws of his own that the best capitalists try to comprehend, respect and, of course, use to their own profit. Again, it’s certainly not the ignorant Vandals from across the aisle.

September 17, 2009 @ 12:05 pm | Comment

Paul Denlinger is an “ad hominem” cracked pot! He thinks that to be popular is a sure indication that one is right( teenage philosophy). He affirms that Ayn Rand ended her life in the same solitary manner as A.Hitler( of very poor taste). Hey! Paul, unless you die in a jumbo-plane crash you generally die alone anyway and it doesn’t make much of a difference if your mother-in-law holds your hand or not.

September 17, 2009 @ 12:19 pm | Comment

@Richard — Rand was apparently an atheist, which is one reason why the evangelical segment of the right wing has historically kept her at arm’s length. But her core philosophy of “I got mine, so fuck you, and if you disagree you’re Commie” is so appealing that they seem to have gotten over her lack of faith.

September 17, 2009 @ 12:28 pm | Comment

Vaara, agreed. Funny how they cherry-pick. Rush, who is beloved by the fundamentalists, stands up for Rand all the time, but carefully oits a key foundation of her deranged philosophy.

Rain, welcome! You’re off to an inauspicious start with your two comments, each of which starts with a slam at other commenters. Three strikes and you’re out.

September 17, 2009 @ 11:39 pm | Comment

I’ve enjoyed this discourse very much. Extreme view points are always interesting to dissect. Isn’t it interesting that in espousing a philosophy of “I have mine, so fuck you,” most people forget that they “got theirs” under conditions that allowed them to get it: public education, public highways, public water and electricity systems, fire and police protection, etc. Also, concentrating on one’s own well being at the expense of others only works in the short term or on desert island. Without significant support from those around us, our individual achievements are quite limited by our own physical frailty and our individual mental capacity. I would argue that the most logical way to behave in one’s own interest, in the long term, is to live in an order, civil society where risk and benefits are shared in way that enhances everyone’s lives.Rush Limbaugh doesn’t seem to realize that they only reason he is tolerated now is that he rose through the system he despises. Imagine if he had started out as an obese, drug addicted demagogue. No one would have given him the time of day. It’s only from his perspective of living in a Palm Beach mansion, driving a Maybach and having a national audience, that he is able to spew out the self reliance, anti-governmental garbage.

September 18, 2009 @ 5:45 am | Comment

The big irony is how much of today’s wealth is generated through our corporate kleptocracy and cronyism. All those people who are handed lucrative contracts due to their connections, all the insider trading, hell, the entire financial crisis – the law of the land, especially among the rich, is plunder and cheat. And yet young men in finance adore Ayn Rand.

September 18, 2009 @ 5:58 am | Comment

For the young who have not encountered the presentation of any seemingly unified theory that explains the adult/governmental world to them in a functional way, Rand is often their first encounter with a complete-seeming perspective. Naturally they try it on for size, and in the absence of alternatives they think it fits. Those who never evaluate it against anything else, reality included, and who remain provincial and isolated continue in it. That is so much easier than continuing to grow.

I used to use ANTHEM as a high school reading to illustrate what happens when a story becomes a sermon. It is so obvious in structure and so glaring in its many literary faults that it works well as an example of “what not to do” for 10th graders. It also sparks some good discussions, but most high schoolers recognize that it is not a template for life.

September 18, 2009 @ 8:43 am | Comment

I don’t really know how to respond to Rainhand’s reponse…did I ever mention “the left” or Obama? Did I ever say who I thought should control taxation/distribution of assets other than a democratic government? I thought I was talking on a general enough level to not be read that way, obviously there’s no accounting for crazy interpretations.

Who ever said that a government can “determine” the laws of capitalism? I said that a government or other social institution can determine how to “fairly” force the minority that inevitably accummulates the most assets under capitalism to give back a portion to the society from which such wealth came. I said this in order to try to get beyond the brewing ideological debate of communism vs. deregulation (a debate you obviously have trouble thinking beyond) and actually discuss the real question which is how much and by what means should a society’s assets be taxed and re-distributed. Nothing of what I mentioned above has anything to do with the basic mechanics of a captalist system. So your criticism is wildly off point…

If you think that an economy is best “regulated” by the people who most profit from it, that’s great (and it’s not that far from what we’ve had for the last 20+ years in the USA thanks to our government representatives being bought up one by one by lobbyists-notice that I used the general term “government representatives” without mentioning party-another dualism your mind seems to be stuck in). To me, such an arrangement lacks an appropriate amount of oversight and balance. Because if the winners determine the rules, what happens to the losers? Do they and their families just wallow as a caste of disenfranchised untouchables with no hope of advancing in a system that only benefits those who have already won the game? Is this fair? Is this protecting “basic” freedoms? Of course, like most people you seem more concerned about picking a political fight, than protecting any individual rights…which basically makes you a party shill, congratulations!!!!

Next time, I suggest actually reading a comment before responding to it…it’s always good to see new people on here…but I think most of us even in disagreement try to be intelligent about things (even Math)…

(I am now convinced that the problem with the world today is that everyone is over- and mis- informed and everyone takes the simple questions for granted. Not surprising really, since most of us though technically “literate”, don’t even take the time to try to comprehend what we read…*sigh* in the words of NOFX “the idiots have (truly) taken over.”)

September 18, 2009 @ 9:51 am | Comment

Rand is Nietzsche for stupid people. Hilarious.

September 18, 2009 @ 10:46 am | Comment

AndyR. Stop whining about being misread: 19. “I don’t think my point was read correctly..” 37. “..crazy interpretations”. It is you who do not understand yourself. For instance you write: “Who ever said that a government can “determine” the laws of capitalism? I said that a government or other social institution can determine how to “fairly” force the minority that inevitably accummulates the most assets under capitalism to give back a portion to the society from which such wealth came.” That is precisely, under capitalistic context, to re-write capitalism!! Aren’t you “fairly forced”(oxymoron)to admit having contradicted yourself…unless I have -once again- misread you.

September 18, 2009 @ 1:12 pm | Comment

[…] excellent Jonathan Chait-penned essay on Ayn Rand has generated a lot of praise and criticism, in addition to some well placed barbs, including this particularly funny one: There […]

September 20, 2009 @ 2:31 pm | Pingback

Ayn Rand
In 1998, I read The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged back to back. I admit, I was intrigued. It sounded good, at least on first reading. The story of the titans, men of iron will and vision and ruthless compassion (never sentimental sympathy or pity or altruism), working against the cold, wicked establishment machine that rewards sloth and conformity and imitation. Howard Roark. Henry Reardon. (What’s up with the love of those initials?)

(((((((((love on the basis of 2 instances??????? ))))))))))))

So virile, so flawless, so committed to their ideals. Of such single purpose, and so perfectly disciplined.

(Hank Rearden the disciplined adulterer??)

At the same time, something struck me as being decidedly “off” about this scenario. (And it’s the exact same scenario in both books.) The characters are embarrassingly one-dimensional, right out of a comic book. They are good or bad. The one character who hovers and hesitates, never sure whether he should give in to the dark side or stand up for what he knows is right, Gail Wynans in The Fountainhead, ends up blowing his brains out. (He is the only character I can think of in the two books who isn’t either godlike or utterly despicable.)

EDDIE WILLERS- morally perfect but average intelligence)
RICHARD STADLER brilliant scientist but believes men must be forced
REARDEN- lack of moral clarity which kept him tied to his wicked wife
cheryl taggart- hero worshipper but mistakingly marries james taggart
Gail Wynand- independent and brilliant but must force people.

And the stories are inane, patently ridiculous, and yet they definitely hold your interest. There is something archetypal about them, absurd but archetypal, figures that are symbols: Leeching Bureaucrats, Hangers-on, Idealistic Achievers, Weak-kneed Corporate Yes Men, Genius Inventors (or Architects), etc. I admit, I was riveted. At the same time, I was sickened. What Rand glorifies above all else,of course, is money, which must be earned with no help from others. Altruism, any sense of charity are weaknesses, bad things. We have our right to it because we worked hard for it, and any talk of owing anything back to society is the work of venal, sluggish bureaucrats and lascivious, cynical celebrators of conformity (think Ellsworth Tooey in Fountainhead) plotting to sabotage men of hard work, to rob them and bleed them dry in the name of altruism.

Okay. As a believer in the social contract and the notion that we are all in this together, and as someone who knows from first-hand experience that giving to others, contributing to them and helping them succeed are, above all else, the things that make life truly meaningful and great – as this kind of person, I knew fairly quickly that Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism” was anathema to my nature. And ironically, those who choose her as their guiding light, those who swallow her simplistic snow job of rugged individualism, the power of the will, the joys of not caring

Did the people In Gults gulch care about each other? Did they risk lives to save Galt at end of novel. Oh you probably did not get that far. You mean care for each other against each other’s will and enforced by the government)

about or even considering others as we strive to attain our goals – these people nearly always struck me as social misfits, fanatics and, well, kind of creepy. (A lot of engineers I knew in Silicon Valley were Randian purists who met all these criteria.)

(I met some creepy people who read this review>)

They include, of course, the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck,

(There is always a point in an essay criticizing Ayn Rand where I start wondering if the person who wrote it has even read one sentence of her work. This is one of the funniest.
Rush Limbaugh? Beck? Are you aware that she is an atheist? They might reference her to make our economy more free market. But they are not even for complete laissez-faire capitalism.))

whose primary message is that “they” – those who are not Randian uebermenschen – want to take away what is rightfully “ours,” and that giving is a sign of weakness, and that we must engage in a constant struggle against the leeches, the Ellsworth Tooeys.

Which is all just a run-up to an article I read today, a superb review by the talented Jonathan Chait of some new biographies of Ayn Rand that helped me better understand just how vile and fraught with hypocrisy her “Objectivism” is. It is wonderfully relevant to the current political climate. It is wonderful reading, not just for insights into Rand’s intellectual dishonesty but into the current right-wing hysteria over healthcare. Just a brief snip (and this is kind of random – it’s all great reading):

For conservatives, the causal connection between virtue and success is not merely ideological, it is also deeply personal. It forms the basis of their admiration of themselves. If you ask a rich person whether he ascribes his success to good fortune or his own merit, the answer will probably tell you whether that person inhabits the economic left or the economic right. Rand held up her own meteoric rise from penniless immigrant to wealthy author as a case study of the individualist ethos. “No one helped me,” she wrote, “nor did I think at any time that it was anyone’s duty to help me.”

But this was false. Rand spent her first months in this country subsisting on loans from relatives in Chicago, which she promised to repay lavishly when she struck it rich. (She reneged, never speaking to her Chicago family again.)….

???

The final feature of Randian thought that has come to dominate the right is its apocalyptic thinking about redistribution. Rand taught hysteria. The expressions of terror at the “confiscation” and “looting” of wealth, and the loose talk of the rich going on strike, stands in sharp contrast to the decidedly non-Bolshevik measures that they claim to describe. The reality of the contemporary United States is that, even as income inequality has exploded, the average tax rate paid by the top 1 percent has fallen by about one-third over the last twenty-five years. Again: it has fallen. The rich have gotten unimaginably richer, and at the same time their tax burden has dropped significantly. And yet conservatives routinely describe this state of affairs as intolerably oppressive to the rich. Since the share of the national income accruing to the rich has grown faster than their average tax rate has shrunk, they have paid an ever-rising share of the federal tax burden. This is the fact that so vexes the right.

One reality-based blogger who read the same review remarks:

Jonathan Chait reviews two (!) biographies of Ayn Rand, an astoundingly muddled thinker who was, apparently, also an astoundingly unpleasant human being. She’s worth studying, as any pathological phenomenon is worth studying, and her thinking (if it can be called that) still has influence over part of the Right; her very shallowness has a deep appeal for adolescent males of all ages and both sexes.

(actually references a paragraph that is totally ad hominem and no content. 65 words in the paragraph and 23 are insults:
astoundingly muddled
astoundingly unpleasant human being
pathological phenomenon
her thinking if it can b called that
very shallowness
deep appeal to adolescent males.)

What’s most astounding is how completely unoriginal it is. A college friend showed me some Randite document just after I’d finished reading Also Sprach Zarathustra for a course.

(( This criticism I’ve heard before but its pretty uncommon. oh its unoriginal too!!! why all this furor. shes just a copycat.))

At once I saw the relationship: Rand is Nietzsche for stupid people

(read argumentum ad hominem in wikipedia.)

Another says of the review:

It’s great and I don’t have much to say about it. One thing that does always strike me about Rand, however, is that there strikes me as something particularly odd about the Randian tendency to assume that the business executive class generally constitutes the most intelligent segment of society. As if an Albert Einstein is just a kind of middleweight hack but the VP for Marketing at Federal Express is one of ubermenschen.

Again this guy has never read her.
did u read Atlas Shrugged?

If you want to understand the America of Beck-Limbaugh, this is absolutely essential reading. Ayn Rand is a uniquely American phenomenon, and unfortunately, whoever wants to understand present-day America must first know Ayn Rand.

(Rand’s ideas that would make Beck and Rush scream:
1) Abortion legal
2) legalize drugs
3) No safety net whatsoever
4) No draft
5) This country was not founded on religion
6) Pride is a virtue
7) Faith is useless to gain knowledge
8) Atheism

.

Baked by Richard @ 2:12 pm, Filed under: General

July 6, 2011 @ 10:02 am | Comment