Objectivism - Is It Flawed?

[Wry Catcher]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

Objectivism fails the test of pragmatism, as does Communism, lassiez faire capitalism, and other Utopian ideas.

Q. Why

A. Human Nature

 

[Picaro]

One charge frequently leveled against the Church is that it was broadly anti-intellectual – that the leaders of the church preferred faith to reason and ignorance to education. In fact, this is a considerable distortion…Christians quickly recognized that if the Bible was to be read, literacy would have to be encouraged; and in the long run Christianity became the major patron of European education and a major borrower from the Classical intellectual tradition.

I think this is a bit of a historical rewrite. The Church was not a monolithic structure but had many, often contradictory parts. In the Middle ages it was pretty much the only institution that offered an education. If you wanted an education you needed to be a priest or other Church official. Not everyone who joined the Church shared it's theology but they did get an education.

Education of the general population was not a Church goal. They kept the services in Latin to give it an aura of mystery and the priest would tell you what it said, to the best of his ability anyway. Probably varied greatly.

I can give a detailed response to this later; some is partly true, but much is an incomplete assessment. For now, I'll point out that education was very expensive, and in feudal states guess who could afford educations for the most part, and at the political levels, who had the most to say about who got Bishoprics, parishes, etc., in feudal states? Hint one: It wasn't Popes and Cardinals in Rome.

 

[Bonzi]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

Objectivism fails the test of pragmatism, as does Communism, lassiez faire capitalism, and other Utopian ideas.

Q. Why

A. Human Nature

You can say that about ant absolute promoted by anyone. No racism is also impossible, as is no discriminating

 

[Toro]

Ayn Rand is directly responsible for markets collapsing since the DOT COM bubble.
Her, "If it feels good, do it!" Policy, clearly a Liberal Policy, when applied to finance, is suddenly embraced by neo-cons to justify greed.

I doubt she ever had any real influence but she espoused the exact opposite of a Liberal Policy. Her's was every man for himself.

She had to have influence ..she lived in a commune with Alan Greenspan who was in her inner circle and he was Chairman of the Federal Reserve 1987 -2006..she had to have influenced his thinking...

In her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Greenspan wrote a chapter arguing for the gold standard.

During his younger years, he was very much under her influence. But as he grew older - like most of us - he moved away from her philosophy somewhat, even though he believed that markets generally knew best. The fact that he was appointed chair of the FOMC, an institution stridently dogmatic libertarians oppose, is testament to that.

Rand and Greenspan were on good terms until her death in 1982.

 

[alang1216]

One charge frequently leveled against the Church is that it was broadly anti-intellectual – that the leaders of the church preferred faith to reason and ignorance to education. In fact, this is a considerable distortion…Christians quickly recognized that if the Bible was to be read, literacy would have to be encouraged; and in the long run Christianity became the major patron of European education and a major borrower from the Classical intellectual tradition.

I think this is a bit of a historical rewrite. The Church was not a monolithic structure but had many, often contradictory parts. In the Middle ages it was pretty much the only institution that offered an education. If you wanted an education you needed to be a priest or other Church official. Not everyone who joined the Church shared it's theology but they did get an education.

Education of the general population was not a Church goal. They kept the services in Latin to give it an aura of mystery and the priest would tell you what it said, to the best of his ability anyway. Probably varied greatly.

I can give a detailed response to this later; some is partly true, but much is an incomplete assessment. For now, I'll point out that education was very expensive, and in feudal states guess who could afford educations for the most part, and at the political levels, who had the most to say about who got Bishoprics, parishes, etc., in feudal states? Hint one: It wasn't Popes and Cardinals in Rome.

It's hard to be complete in just a few sentences so I look forward to your detailed response. I fear it too will be incomplete too since it will need to cover 2,000 years, dozens of cultures, numerous kings, invasions, technical changes, etc.

 

[danielpalos]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

Only when cognitively dissonant with scientific methodology.

 

[Indeependent]

Ayn Rand is directly responsible for markets collapsing since the DOT COM bubble.
Her, "If it feels good, do it!" Policy, clearly a Liberal Policy, when applied to finance, is suddenly embraced by neo-cons to justify greed.

I doubt she ever had any real influence but she espoused the exact opposite of a Liberal Policy. Her's was every man for himself.

She had to have influence ..she lived in a commune with Alan Greenspan who was in her inner circle and he was Chairman of the Federal Reserve 1987 -2006..she had to have influenced his thinking...

In her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Greenspan wrote a chapter arguing for the gold standard.

During his younger years, he was very much under her influence. But as he grew older - like most of us - he moved away from her philosophy somewhat, even though he believed that markets generally knew best. The fact that he was appointed chair of the FOMC, an institution stridently dogmatic libertarians oppose, is testament to that.

Rand and Greenspan were on good terms until her death in 1982.

1 less asshole for the world to deal with.

 

[Toro]

Ayn Rand is directly responsible for markets collapsing since the DOT COM bubble.
Her, "If it feels good, do it!" Policy, clearly a Liberal Policy, when applied to finance, is suddenly embraced by neo-cons to justify greed.

I doubt she ever had any real influence but she espoused the exact opposite of a Liberal Policy. Her's was every man for himself.

She had to have influence ..she lived in a commune with Alan Greenspan who was in her inner circle and he was Chairman of the Federal Reserve 1987 -2006..she had to have influenced his thinking...

In her book, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Greenspan wrote a chapter arguing for the gold standard.

During his younger years, he was very much under her influence. But as he grew older - like most of us - he moved away from her philosophy somewhat, even though he believed that markets generally knew best. The fact that he was appointed chair of the FOMC, an institution stridently dogmatic libertarians oppose, is testament to that.

Rand and Greenspan were on good terms until her death in 1982.

1 less asshole for the world to deal with.

That’s nice.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Ayn Rand is directly responsible for markets collapsing since the DOT COM bubble.
Her, "If it feels good, do it!" Policy, clearly a Liberal Policy, when applied to finance, is suddenly embraced by neo-cons to justify greed.

I doubt she ever had any real influence but she espoused the exact opposite of a Liberal Policy. Her's Hers was every man for himself.

Survival of the fittest. No matter what is done, it ALWAYS comes back to that. Nature is too strong to beat

Preach Loudly Enough and You Can Get Away With Practicing the Opposite

Survival of the Fatherest. Allowing birth privileges makes competition meaningless and its winners pre-ordained.

Not everyone can be a winner. This works in nature for a reason.

You Pathetic Traitors Are Bootlicking Buttboys for the Bosses

In order to advance out of this crippling patrician decadence, those born with talent should get everything the rich give to the slime that oozes out of their trophy wives. But every genius has to be humiliated by the HeirHead brats or he would use his talent against this aristocratic tyranny and easily turn your pre-ordained winners into losers. Your brownnosing slogan "Life Isn't Supposed to Be Fair!" can be turned against your Masters.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Most animals work together at some level, but there are always leaders. When society tried to make everyone equal, it weakens

When society works together it is stronger. It should enable everyone to get an equal start in life, irrespective of their parents fortunes and failures. How they do after that is then totally on them.

Equal start in what way?

I'd say a good education and health care at minimum. Maybe mentoring and life skills too if the parents aren't up to it.

Public education is available to everyone. Health care too.
As for the latter, well, even kids from wealthy parents don't get much of that.....

More of Your "Poor Little Richboy" Lies

Except for the richkids living off an allowance, college and even job training means work without pay and living like a teenager who is afraid to grow up. Graduates steal jobs from more talented people who have too much self-respect to live like that. The Diploma Dumbos' submission to the will of economic bullies causes permanent damage to their personalities. The corporate conformists wind up all hollow inside and have to convince themselves that their higher salaries make up for that.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

When society works together it is stronger. It should enable everyone to get an equal start in life, irrespective of their parents fortunes and failures. How they do after that is then totally on them.

Hahaha...that's a good one. Starts out the same...so, just how in the world do you propose that happens?
Let me guess....(example)...a successful person successful people running their own business makes businesses make $1 million a year...let's tax $900,000 of that, and give it to people who make less so their kids can have an "equal start".
When will this idiotic thinking ever die?

The Best Criticism Money Can Buy

When will dishonest richloving flunkies who make up absurd descriptions of their opponents' ideas ever die? Only when we eliminate the mind control by the rich that makes their boytoys feel such descriptions must be logical because "superior intelligence is the way the rich got rich."

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

When society works together it is stronger. It should enable everyone to get an equal start in life, irrespective of their parents fortunes and failures. How they do after that is then totally on them.

Hahaha...that's a good one. Starts out the same...so, just how in the world do you propose that happens?
Let me guess....(example)...a successful person running their own business makes $1 million a year...let's tax $900,000 of that, and give it to people who make less so their kids can have an "equal start".
When will this idiotic thinking ever die?

As Bonzi pointed out, we already have food, education, and health programs for kids. I would make sure they are robust and well-funded and available to all kids. No child should be punished for the sins of the father. I don't think we need a 90% tax rate to pay for that.

I would keep the estate tax and maybe make it even stronger. If your child can't get a good start in life with only a $5 million nest egg, well they need to get out of the way and let others take over. We don't need a nobility.

Okay....give me one example, just one. Where any style of communism works. Just one.
You don't think there are poor in France? There are and plenty of them. You don't think there is nobility in China? Russia? Venezuela? Vietnam? The old Soviet Union? Cuba?

Karl Marx Was the Sex Slave of a Patty Hearst Type Duchess

Communists are Capitalists, Jr., and have the same unearned elitist conceit. So all that is just a strawman, no matter how many times the 1% has told you it's either/or. Eliminate birth privileges and there will be no false alternatives to Capitalism.

 

[Ava]

I was an Objectivist when I was in school. I only disposed of my Ayn Rand books a few years ago.

And though I am sympathetic to the philosophy, it is fundamentally flawed, like all philosophies. Its framework was based on a theory about how people should act, as opposed to how they actually act. People are fundamentally social animals and are often driven by impulses other than rationality.

Also, Rand was a bit of a whackjob. She thought health warnings about smoking were a government conspiracy. She died of cardiovascular disease caused by the effects of smoking and had lung cancer.

I still have her books, Toro, and wish Objectivism could work but, alas. lol

 

[Wry Catcher]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

Objectivism fails the test of pragmatism, as does Communism, lassiez faire capitalism, and other Utopian ideas.

Q. Why

A. Human Nature

You can say that about ant absolute promoted by anyone. No racism is also impossible, as is no discriminating

"No racism is also impossible, as is no discriminating"? Huh?

Human nature is not a term which describes the individual, it describes all the attributes and flaws of all human beings.

Example from the Platform's Preamble:

As Libertarians, we seek a world of liberty; a world in which all individuals are sovereign over their own lives and no one is forced to sacrifice his or her values for the benefit of others.
Seems to be Randian

We believe that respect for individual rights is the essential precondition for a free and prosperous world, that force and fraud must be banished from human relationships, and that only through freedom can peace and prosperity be realized.
Utopian and completely impractical

Consequently, we defend each person’s right to engage in any activity that is peaceful and honest, and welcome the diversity that freedom brings. The world we seek to build is one where individuals are free to follow their own dreams in their own ways, without interference from government or any authoritarian power.
And who or what enforces the activities of the individuals who follow the road less traveled?

In the following pages we have set forth our basic principles and enumerated various policy stands derived from those principles.

These specific policies are not our goal, however. Our goal is nothing more nor less than a world set free in our lifetime, and it is to this end that we take these stands.
2016 Platform | Libertarian Party

 

[RWNJ]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

The only philosophy that works is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If everyone followed this simple solution almost all of the worlds problems would disappear.

 

[Bonzi]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

The only philosophy that works is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If everyone followed this simple solution almost all of the worlds problems would disappear.

True, but it won't happen cause there are too many people out there looking for suckers

 

[RWNJ]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

The only philosophy that works is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If everyone followed this simple solution almost all of the worlds problems would disappear.

True, but it won't happen cause there are too many people out there looking for suckers

Also, too many who love themselves and no one else.

 

[Bonzi]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

The only philosophy that works is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If everyone followed this simple solution almost all of the worlds problems would disappear.

True, but it won't happen cause there are too many people out there looking for suckers

Also, too many who love themselves and no one else.

Not love. Self indulgent, which really is not loving yourself

 

[RWNJ]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Culturally, Objectivism advocates scientific advancement, industrial progress, objective (as opposed to “progressive” or faith-based) education, romantic art—and, above all, reverence for the faculty that makes all such values possible: reason.

Politically, Objectivism advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

The only philosophy that works is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." If everyone followed this simple solution almost all of the worlds problems would disappear.

True, but it won't happen cause there are too many people out there looking for suckers

Also, too many who love themselves and no one else.

Not love. Self indulgent, which really is not loving yourself

You cannot have self indulgence without self love

 

[pinqy]

It's been years since I've read Atlas Shrugged, but, this philosophy sounds pretty close to my line of thinking.

What are some observable flaws to this philosophy?

Morally, Objectivism advocates the virtues of rational self-interest—virtues such as independent thinking, productiveness, justice, honesty, and self-responsibility.

Game Theory has clearly demonstrated that in many cases cooperation is a better strategy than pure self-interest. Example:
You and an opponent have two choices in the game: Cooperate or Defect, and you cannot know your opponent's choice until after you have made yours. If you both Cooperate, you each receive $50. If you both Defect, you each receive $20. If one person Cooperates and the other Defects, the one who cooperates receives $5 and the one who defects receives $90.
If you use rational self interest, you will see that if your opponent Cooperates, you will get $50 for cooperating and $90 for defecting. You are better off Defecting.
If your opponent Defects, you will get $5 for cooperating, and $20 for defecting. You are better off Defecting.
But your opponent is also rational, comes to the same conclusion, and you both Defect and get $20. You would both be better off if you both cooperated.

Plus rational self-interest assumes perfect information and an eye to long-term consequences. Those are not often true.

Politically, Objectivism

advocates pure, laissez-faire capitalism—the social system of individual rights and strictly limited government—along with the whole moral and philosophical structure on which it depends.

Pure capitalism has a big problem with Externalities. Externalities is a cost or benefit that is paid or gained by someone who had nothing to do with its creation.
If I dump my factory's toxic waste in the river, it flows downstream, becomes someone else's problem and I have no incentive or reason to not pollute. Those downstream will suffer. Additionally, those people who are not downstream will be affected by the higher prices of my goods if I institute pollution controls, so it's in their self interest to encourage the pollution.

On the other hand, let's say I hire private security to keep my store safe. I have regular patrols of armed guards. The store next to mine benefits from this added security because my guards deter anyone from robbing his place too. So he benefits without paying a dime.

There is no pure free market solution.