Comments on: The Czars come to America (Part II) http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-czars-come-to-america-part-ii/ Fri, 05 Mar 2010 06:08:48 -0800 hourly 1 By: Doug White http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-czars-come-to-america-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-1671 Doug White Wed, 30 Sep 2009 18:52:08 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=552#comment-1671 It is so incredibly frustrating to me to agree with you on so many issues, yet to find myself completely confused by some of the basic tenets of objectivism that you espouse. I have so many questions and problems with objectivist philosophy that I don't think I could put them all into this message, so I'll just try and come up with what I think is my biggest one. While it is easy to agree with many of the basic philosophies of Objectivism, it seems clear to me that we live in a world in which there are going to be disagreements, very serious disagreements about what is in everyone's 'self interest'. From environmental issues where those wishing to harvest the forests stand against those who fear the devastating effects of these actions; to class disagreements where those born into poor families and neighborhoods believe that the palying field of life should be evened out to remove the advantages of those born wealthy and the opposing views of the wealthy that their property is sacred; to the economic disagreements of what makes for the 'best' marketplace. These are all significant disagreements that are not going away anytime soon. My question to you concerning Objectivism is: What determines the proper outcome to these disagreements? I assume there can't be 'cast-in-stone' answers, like "it's always, always better to put economic concerns over environmental concerns.", or "society owes absolutely nothing to it's members in regards to leveling the playing field, if you were born poor, that's just your tough luck...better that the children of the wealthy inherit the planet...". So, who decides what is really in our 'self-interest'? Must we refer to the written doctrines of Ayn Rand? That's beginning to sound a bit like a religion. I mean, a hundred years from now there will undoubtedly be circumstances that Ms. Rand could not have forseen... should we simply assume her ideas are eternally correct? Or do we examine every situation carefully and make decisions based upon the specifics of the situation? And then once we have done that, how do we prevent those we decided against from simply ignoring the decision. Do we pass more and more laws that specifically mandate how one should act in every situation? Or do we put the power to decide right and wrong into the hands of those who have thoroughly studied Rand's doctrines, secure in the knowledge that they would always advocate the 'right' thing? And then when they die, they could pass that power on to their children and..... well, you see where I'm going.... Anyway, I'd love to hear a response. I've been trying to read as much as I can about Objectivism, I just picked up "The Virtue of Selfishness" and earlier today I listened to the audio of the debate you did in Boulder. Thanks for your time... dwhite@northcountry.com It is so incredibly frustrating to me to agree with you on so many issues, yet to find myself completely confused by some of the basic tenets of objectivism that you espouse. I have so many questions and problems with objectivist philosophy that I don’t think I could put them all into this message, so I’ll just try and come up with what I think is my biggest one.

While it is easy to agree with many of the basic philosophies of Objectivism, it seems clear to me that we live in a world in which there are going to be disagreements, very serious disagreements about what is in everyone’s ’self interest’. From environmental issues where those wishing to harvest the forests stand against those who fear the devastating effects of these actions; to class disagreements where those born into poor families and neighborhoods believe that the palying field of life should be evened out to remove the advantages of those born wealthy and the opposing views of the wealthy that their property is sacred; to the economic disagreements of what makes for the ‘best’ marketplace. These are all significant disagreements that are not going away anytime soon.

My question to you concerning Objectivism is: What determines the proper outcome to these disagreements? I assume there can’t be ‘cast-in-stone’ answers, like “it’s always, always better to put economic concerns over environmental concerns.”, or “society owes absolutely nothing to it’s members in regards to leveling the playing field, if you were born poor, that’s just your tough luck…better that the children of the wealthy inherit the planet…”. So, who decides what is really in our ’self-interest’? Must we refer to the written doctrines of Ayn Rand? That’s beginning to sound a bit like a religion. I mean, a hundred years from now there will undoubtedly be circumstances that Ms. Rand could not have forseen… should we simply assume her ideas are eternally correct? Or do we examine every situation carefully and make decisions based upon the specifics of the situation? And then once we have done that, how do we prevent those we decided against from simply ignoring the decision. Do we pass more and more laws that specifically mandate how one should act in every situation? Or do we put the power to decide right and wrong into the hands of those who have thoroughly studied Rand’s doctrines, secure in the knowledge that they would always advocate the ‘right’ thing? And then when they die, they could pass that power on to their children and….. well, you see where I’m going….

Anyway, I’d love to hear a response. I’ve been trying to read as much as I can about Objectivism, I just picked up “The Virtue of Selfishness” and earlier today I listened to the audio of the debate you did in Boulder.

Thanks for your time…
dwhite@northcountry.com

]]> By: Ja$on http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-czars-come-to-america-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-199 Ja$on Wed, 18 Mar 2009 18:21:37 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=552#comment-199 I was thinking a good nick name for Alan Greenspan would be "Anakin Greenspan." I was thinking a good nick name for Alan Greenspan would be “Anakin Greenspan.”

]]> By: Luis http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-czars-come-to-america-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-110 Luis Tue, 24 Feb 2009 22:57:23 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=552#comment-110 This is top-notch, clear, unequivocal commentary and analysis on this subject. Thank you. This is top-notch, clear, unequivocal commentary and analysis on this subject. Thank you.

]]> By: Dan Atkinson http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-czars-come-to-america-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-108 Dan Atkinson Tue, 24 Feb 2009 21:23:31 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=552#comment-108 Onkar, I enjoyed your essay, and I have an unrelated question. I believe that I understand why humans have rights, based on their need for survival, and that these concepts as such, do not apply to animals, for reasons that are well-explained in OPAR. However, how is this principle applied to those humans that are incapable of rational thought; i.e., the severely mentally handicapped, very young children, etc. Is there such a thing as partial rights? What legitimate role does the state play in these circumstances? Dan Onkar,
I enjoyed your essay, and I have an unrelated question.
I believe that I understand why humans have rights, based on their need for survival, and that these concepts as such, do not apply to animals, for reasons that are well-explained in OPAR. However, how is this principle applied to those humans that are incapable of rational thought; i.e., the severely mentally handicapped, very young children, etc. Is there such a thing as partial rights? What legitimate role does the state play in these circumstances?
Dan

]]> By: J. Will Baxter http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-czars-come-to-america-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-80 J. Will Baxter Wed, 18 Feb 2009 22:07:26 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=552#comment-80 I think that was an excellent article. I wish; however, that you had expanded your frame of reference from petty Czars to the dangers of national socialism. Don't get nervous about my comment. However, my recent re-reading of Adam Smith and observation of current events makes me very nervous about the merger of big miss managed business and big miss managed government (is there any other kind of government?). All this dangerous mix of poor allocation of resources and political opportunism needs is a marionette and an excellent orator for a leader. Should I be worried? Sincerely, J. Will I think that was an excellent article. I wish; however, that you had expanded your frame of reference from petty Czars to the dangers of national socialism.

Don’t get nervous about my comment.

However, my recent re-reading of Adam Smith and observation of current events makes me very nervous about the merger of big miss managed business and big miss managed government (is there any other kind of government?). All this dangerous mix of poor allocation of resources and political opportunism needs is a marionette and an excellent orator for a leader.

Should I be worried?

Sincerely,
J. Will

]]> By: Paul Richardson http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/the-czars-come-to-america-part-ii/comment-page-1/#comment-76 Paul Richardson Wed, 18 Feb 2009 14:35:46 +0000 http://blog.aynrandcenter.org/?p=552#comment-76 Well done. Well done.

]]>