[POLITICS] Why do people look down on Ayn Randian philosophies?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT
 

jademunky:

Silentpony:

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

Basically yeah: http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
She took SS and medicare under the name Ayn O'Connor, her legal married name, so no one would be suspicious, the same year she died
Reagan was getting ready to implement her ideas of getting rid of medicare.

Silentpony:

jademunky:

Silentpony:

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

Basically yeah: http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
She took SS and medicare under the name Ayn O'Connor, her legal married name, so no one would be suspicious, the same year she died
Reagan was getting ready to implement her ideas of getting rid of medicare.

"The year she died" being highly relevant.

She was a dying old woman! Yes she probably was concerned about her legacy and all that and knew that would be embarrassing but also knew that she had bills to pay and did not want to spend the end of her life in some kind of mission home or subsidized housing (I deal with people who do, it is a special kind of hell, the housing less so).

jademunky:

Silentpony:

jademunky:

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

Basically yeah: http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
She took SS and medicare under the name Ayn O'Connor, her legal married name, so no one would be suspicious, the same year she died
Reagan was getting ready to implement her ideas of getting rid of medicare.

"The year she died" being highly relevant.

She was a dying old woman! Yes she probably was concerned about her legacy and all that and knew that would be embarrassing but also knew that she had bills to pay and did not want to spend the end of her life in some kind of mission home or subsidized housing (I deal with people who do, it is a special kind of hell, the housing less so).

Yes she's too old to care, but what about people too poor, crippled or in debt to care? Its just too convenient she reached 'age should count' when I'm really old, but until then it doesn't. Reeks of desperation and hypocrisy.
I doubt in his dying days Bernie Sanders will be all "Fuck the poor, fuck the blacks and underprivileged, give me money Gramps wants the blue pill and 18 year old Playboy Bunnies! Yehaw Texas!"

Its great Ayn Rand died being able to choose nursing care vs government care vs no care. Most of the poor people she hated never got that choice. They simply got no care

Silentpony:
Its more that she thought such programs were morally repugnant, and weak. If you're not rich enough to afford treatment, its because you're too weak to be rich and strong. And yet she was more than willing to spend Government money on herself, anonymously, when it suited her, all the while decrying those who did and calling for the termination of such programs.

Its not that she used Social security, that's all well and good. Its that she was publicly against it, while privately using it that makes her a hypocrite.

The defence usually goes that taxation is theft so welfare is the proceeds of theft, so people who have had to pay tax deserve to claim as much money back off the government as possible because of what has been stolen from them in the first place.

jademunky:
She was a dying old woman! Yes she probably was concerned about her legacy and all that and knew that would be embarrassing but also knew that she had bills to pay and did not want to spend the end of her life in some kind of mission home or subsidized housing (I deal with people who do, it is a special kind of hell, the housing less so).

Or to put it another way, eventually reality didn't mix well with her intellectual fantasy and she was probably too arrogant to admit her error.

Silentpony:

Its great Ayn Rand died

Yep.

jademunky:

Silentpony:

jademunky:

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

Basically yeah: http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
She took SS and medicare under the name Ayn O'Connor, her legal married name, so no one would be suspicious, the same year she died
Reagan was getting ready to implement her ideas of getting rid of medicare.

"The year she died" being highly relevant.

She was a dying old woman! Yes she probably was concerned about her legacy and all that and knew that would be embarrassing but also knew that she had bills to pay and did not want to spend the end of her life in some kind of mission home or subsidized housing (I deal with people who do, it is a special kind of hell, the housing less so).

Your missing the point. She was a hypocrite. She took what she derided. She didn't have to but she did anyway.

Now, I think she should get all this treatment because that's my beliefs. And also because the one trigger Ive noticed for people turning from conservative to liberal is the need to use welfare when they actually did need it.

Pretty much sums up why Objectivsm is wrong.

"What is the difference between a Man and a Parasite:

A Man builds, a Parasite asks, "Where's my share?"

A Man creates, a Parasite says, "What will the neighbors think?"

A Man invents, a Parasite says, "Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God."

Agema:
Or to put it another way, eventually reality didn't mix well with her intellectual fantasy and she was probably too arrogant to admit her error.

Yeah pretty-much.

I think I find human weakness & obvious blind-spots more endearing than you do.

jademunky:

Silentpony:

jademunky:

The hiding it, if true, totally does.

The using it, after being forced to pay for it for a large portion of her life does not.......necessarily. Even if one is officially against it.

Basically yeah: http://www.openculture.com/2016/12/when-ayn-rand-collected-social-security-medicare.html
She took SS and medicare under the name Ayn O'Connor, her legal married name, so no one would be suspicious, the same year she died
Reagan was getting ready to implement her ideas of getting rid of medicare.

"The year she died" being highly relevant.

She was a dying old woman! Yes she probably was concerned about her legacy and all that and knew that would be embarrassing but also knew that she had bills to pay and did not want to spend the end of her life in some kind of mission home or subsidized housing (I deal with people who do, it is a special kind of hell, the housing less so).

She used the very system she wanted to deny the rest of us, calling us "parasites" for desiring to use it, and thinking that it was better for US to die than have it available to us- but SHE somehow DESERVED it. That is the height of hypocrisy, and hypocrites should be mocked and derided at every turn.

jademunky:
I think I find human weakness & obvious blind-spots more endearing than you do.

I can find them endearing, in many people. There is the idea about loving people for their flaws as well as their virtues.

However, in people who encourage selfishness, greed, contempt for the unfortunate, who are full of prejudice and vindictiveness, who mask all this under a delusion of ultra-rationalism and aggressively propagate this whole toxic bundle as a socio-political movement, I'm much more inclined to take the stance "fuck you, scumbag".

Mind you, there are occasions I feel a little sympathy for her. It can't have been easy to have the Bolsheviks destroy her life and hopes for the future in Russia when she was young. And much later, she was both intellectually and romantically dumped by her lover and main acolyte Nathaniel Branden (surely agony for a narcissist like her), and her reaction is a glimpse of genuine anguish. She had feelings, and she suffered like any other human. On balance, however, it's not like she suffered that much and I think she was just a mightily unpleasant person who ended up encouraging a substantial amount of suffering for people less fortunate than she ever was.

The Rogue Wolf:

She used the very system she wanted to deny the rest of us, calling us "parasites" for desiring to use it, and thinking that it was better for US to die than have it available to us- but SHE somehow DESERVED it. That is the height of hypocrisy, and hypocrites should be mocked and derided at every turn.

If she were an elected official, influential donor or leader of a political party I would be much less forgiving.

Samtemdo8:
The basic jist I get from Ayn Randian philosophy is that special and talented people are being held back by societal norms and conformity. And strive to overcome the norms and conformity.

But apparently this and her other philosophies related to it are looked down by the political and philosophical mainstream.

And really I never seen a proper criticism and counter-argument against Randian Philosophy.

So I am hoping you guys would deliver on it.

Simple, really. Her philosophy attracts sociopaths. If I asked you to describe someone who thinks so highly of themselves that they feel like they're being held back by societal norms, you'd very likely describe a sociopath. And these days you'd definitely describe an incel as well.

Samtemdo8:
"I built a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small."

And who gets to decide what is art, what is scientifically important enough to warrant ignoring ethics and morality and who is great or small? All those things exist to serve humanity, not their creators. And since we're remembering Bioshock, you should recall Cohen and Steinman. Did their art and science serve humanity in any way?

Ayn Randian philosophy is inherently sociopathic, and as such it is literally dangerous to society. Personally, I see all Ayn Rand followers as enemies.

trunkage:
Your missing the point. She was a hypocrite. She took what she derided. She didn't have to but she did anyway.

Now, I think she should get all this treatment because that's my beliefs. And also because the one trigger Ive noticed for people turning from conservative to liberal is the need to use welfare when they actually did need it.

No, I think I get the point, I just don't see it as as much a deal-breaker as everyone else does. It's the ideology the demands humans stop being human in order to work that I have a problem with.

Adam Jensen:

Samtemdo8:
The basic jist I get from Ayn Randian philosophy is that special and talented people are being held back by societal norms and conformity. And strive to overcome the norms and conformity.

But apparently this and her other philosophies related to it are looked down by the political and philosophical mainstream.

And really I never seen a proper criticism and counter-argument against Randian Philosophy.

So I am hoping you guys would deliver on it.

Simple, really. Her philosophy attracts sociopaths. If I asked you to describe someone who thinks so highly of themselves that they feel like they're being held back by societal norms, you'd very likely describe a sociopath. And these days you'd definitely describe an incel as well.

Samtemdo8:
"I built a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small."

And who gets to decide what is art, what is scientifically important enough to warrant ignoring ethics and morality and who is great or small? All those things exist to serve humanity, not their creators. And since we're remembering Bioshock, you should recall Cohen and Steinman. Did their art and science serve humanity in any way?

Ayn Randian philosophy is inherently sociopathic, and as such it is literally dangerous to society. Personally, I see all Ayn Rand followers as enemies.

And your comment on this line of text?

"What is the difference between a Man and a Parasite:

A Man builds, a Parasite asks, "Where's my share?"

A Man creates, a Parasite says, "What will the neighbors think?"

A Man invents, a Parasite says, "Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God."

Samtemdo8:

Adam Jensen:

Samtemdo8:
The basic jist I get from Ayn Randian philosophy is that special and talented people are being held back by societal norms and conformity. And strive to overcome the norms and conformity.

But apparently this and her other philosophies related to it are looked down by the political and philosophical mainstream.

And really I never seen a proper criticism and counter-argument against Randian Philosophy.

So I am hoping you guys would deliver on it.

Simple, really. Her philosophy attracts sociopaths. If I asked you to describe someone who thinks so highly of themselves that they feel like they're being held back by societal norms, you'd very likely describe a sociopath. And these days you'd definitely describe an incel as well.

Samtemdo8:
"I built a city where the artist would not fear the censor, where the scientist would not be bound by petty morality, where the great would not be constrained by the small."

And who gets to decide what is art, what is scientifically important enough to warrant ignoring ethics and morality and who is great or small? All those things exist to serve humanity, not their creators. And since we're remembering Bioshock, you should recall Cohen and Steinman. Did their art and science serve humanity in any way?

Ayn Randian philosophy is inherently sociopathic, and as such it is literally dangerous to society. Personally, I see all Ayn Rand followers as enemies.

And your comment on this line of text?

"What is the difference between a Man and a Parasite:

A Man builds, a Parasite asks, "Where's my share?"

A Man creates, a Parasite says, "What will the neighbors think?"

A Man invents, a Parasite says, "Watch out, or you might tread on the toes of God."

I think she meant it about everyone else but I see it as a commentary on Capitalists. Yes, they might provide the building and resources but they don't do the actual work. Which is fine until they take a share that's way bigger than fair. But, ask for what is fair makes the worker a parasite, apparently.

I remember a whole bunch of Capitalist claiming that slavery is good for the slave. They sure didn't care what the neighbours thought.

They don't listen to regulatations which is fine until they radiate their workers, cover them in asbestos, kill 50 000 unborn babies in a couple of years, send countries into bloody warfare just so they can get diamond or even just send the finance world into a tailspin by falsifying documents and paying off credit agencies. And then blaming the government and asking for handouts. But, apparently, we are the parasites

Its like some Capitalists only read Wealth of Nations and didn't realise it was a sequel to Theory of Moral Sentiment. They don't realise that Capitalism is DESIGNED to have feedback loops that funnel people to appropriate choices. But then, most people still don't realise how restrictive Capitlaism actually is. Pretending Capitalism is about Freedom is ridiculous. It's just freedom than the Soviets or under a monarchy. Which is not hard

Is Libertarianism different in any meaningful way?

Agema:

trunkage:

OT: The premise of Altas Shrugged is that an architect, who deems himself special, is given a project. The people purchasing the plan didn't like what he made and went in a different direction. So the architect BURNT THE PROJECT TO THE GROUND, based on the grounds that it should be down his way.

No, that's "The Fountainhead".

"Atlas Shrugged" is where some guy called John Galt creates a perpetual motion machine, then disappears off with all the rich and talented people in the USA to a secret valley ("Galt's Gulch") and leaves society to collapse because only the immoral, greedy, thieving, big state thickos are left to run the useless, bovine herds of the irrelevant masses. In the end they have to beg him and his pals to rescue them, and the USA is saved when they comes back and install a functioning (Objectivist) society.

If you want some other shitty Objectivist fiction, you can also read the execrable fantasy works of Terry Goodkind - but I recommend you don't.

I'd say Goodkind is an amusing example though. He made his villains socialists to demonize them, but in order to make them evil he had to make their leaders literal bodysnatchers. He also screwed up Objectivism with his protagonists as well. Yes, they were willing to work harder create and innovate and sacrifice to be worthy of being leaders... he did make them feel like genuinely good people whom anyone would love to be put in charge. But they were also born with the most powerful magic abilities in that universe. It kind of undercuts the 'sweat equity' message of Objectivism.

Kyrian007:
But they were also born with the most powerful magic abilities in that universe. It kind of undercuts the 'sweat equity' message of Objectivism.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think Objectivism stops to consider or care that one man is born with an IQ of 160 and another with an IQ of 80: it's just tough shit for the latter.

That said, Objectivism can be viewed in the context that the capitalism of the postwar era was one where salaries were relatively good even at the low end, social mobility and economic growth was high with the fruits experienced by the vast majority of society, so even the modestly talented could lead productive lives and think of bettterment. Consequently, it was easier to dream of a utopian capitalist society that would work for everyone.

That era disappeared in the 1970-80s, and the current capitalism looks far less rosy for the masses. Arguably, that stagnation for the less advantaged was of course connected to increasing implementation of the very laissez-faire capitalism Objectivism supported.

Kwak:
Is Libertarianism different in any meaningful way?

Libertarians aren't necessarily opposed to charity and helping people. at least libertarianism isn't. There are a lot of dickheads though.

No proper criticism or counter-argument against Objectivism is made in this book and is an exercise left to the reader. It's that laughably naive and unrealistic.

I once read Atlas Shrugged as I know it's influential in US culture and it's a political essay in novel form. Jesus fucking Christ. It's ridiculous even for heroic fiction.

I think Bioshock illustrates how a society of unrestrained, fantasy-clever, sociopathic assholes can't work.

Spoiler alert.

Andrew Ryan, top dog of his city finds himself overtaken by the business empire of the even more visionary and ruthless criminal, Frank Fontaine. The kind of success story by a working class man Ryan advocates. So Ryan attacks Fontaine for his criminal activities and steals his business empire, in violation of his own stated philosophy. Why? Because Ryan is an unrestrained, sociopathic asshole. The Objectivist fantasy was undone by the traits advocated by Objectivism.

And, of course, Fontaine fakes his own death and recruits an army for his civil war. From the desperate who lack the talent, resources and good fortune to avoid being crushed by the economic system and left to rot. An army recruited through charity. The natural consequence of Objectivism cynically exploited by its successes and leading to its downfall.

warmachine:
I think Bioshock illustrates how a society of unrestrained, fantasy-clever, sociopathic assholes can't work.

Spoiler alert.

Andrew Ryan, top dog of his city finds himself overtaken by the business empire of the even more visionary and ruthless criminal, Frank Fontaine. The kind of success story by a working class man Ryan advocates. So Ryan attacks Fontaine for his criminal activities and steals his business empire, in violation of his own stated philosophy. Why? Because Ryan is an unrestrained, sociopathic asshole. The Objectivist fantasy was undone by the traits advocated by Objectivism.

And, of course, Fontaine fakes his own death and recruits an army for his civil war. From the desperate who lack the talent, resources and good fortune to avoid being crushed by the economic system and left to rot. An army recruited through charity. The natural consequence of Objectivism cynically exploited by its successes and leading to its downfall.

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Kwak:
Is Libertarianism different in any meaningful way?

It really depends on the Libertarian. For example, there are a bunch of them calling themselves Paternal Libertarians. They promote ideas like thinking about how to nudge society a little. For example, instead of having treats at the checkout, put healthy snacks instead.

These ideas are generally frowned upon by other Libertarians. A lot of them focus on feedback loops thst help maintain society though. So I don't see it as a big leap between the two groups.

They really like laws enforcing society. Their issue is that we've 'clearly' already figured out the best laws and don't need to add regulations to support those laws. I think this is a terrible assumption and why I don't generally get on with them. Just becuase laws exist, doesnt prove that they work or are effective or unbiased.

So, while they like small government, they generally aren't no government. Most of them would baulk at privatising the police force. They supremely dislike all handouts, including to farmers in the US as they think this destabilise the market. Only some think privatising all roads is a good idea

Like most ideologies, there is just as much difference between Libertarians as there are between them and other ideologies

trunkage:

warmachine:
I think Bioshock illustrates how a society of unrestrained, fantasy-clever, sociopathic assholes can't work.

Spoiler alert.

Andrew Ryan, top dog of his city finds himself overtaken by the business empire of the even more visionary and ruthless criminal, Frank Fontaine. The kind of success story by a working class man Ryan advocates. So Ryan attacks Fontaine for his criminal activities and steals his business empire, in violation of his own stated philosophy. Why? Because Ryan is an unrestrained, sociopathic asshole. The Objectivist fantasy was undone by the traits advocated by Objectivism.

And, of course, Fontaine fakes his own death and recruits an army for his civil war. From the desperate who lack the talent, resources and good fortune to avoid being crushed by the economic system and left to rot. An army recruited through charity. The natural consequence of Objectivism cynically exploited by its successes and leading to its downfall.

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Objectivism still maintains property law and the like, so theft and murder are things that aren't acceptable. In Fontaine's case, his crime was smuggling from the rest of the world, risking them discovering Rapture and big governments invading and leeching the place.

trunkage:
My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Not all things were acceptable in Rapture; there was still law and punitive measures to enforce it (primarily protecting business interests).

Fontaine was a smuggler, IIRC.

Samtemdo8:
snip

Because Objectivism has no line to differentiate between breaking from the norms of conformity for betterment of society, and sociopathic megalomania.

It's a fact that power corrupts, but objectivism insists that corruption of the powerful is always better than not letting the most powerful individuals do whatever they want.

Silentpony:
Because she was a shameless hypocrite, fraud, scam artist and was basically the Donald Trump of her time.

Ouch! That's a little too far. At least her ideas weren't just regurgitating what she watched the previous night at whatever the equivalent of Fox News was back then.

Agema:

Kyrian007:
But they were also born with the most powerful magic abilities in that universe. It kind of undercuts the 'sweat equity' message of Objectivism.

Maybe, maybe not. I don't think Objectivism stops to consider or care that one man is born with an IQ of 160 and another with an IQ of 80: it's just tough shit for the latter.

That said, Objectivism can be viewed in the context that the capitalism of the postwar era was one where salaries were relatively good even at the low end, social mobility and economic growth was high with the fruits experienced by the vast majority of society, so even the modestly talented could lead productive lives and think of bettterment. Consequently, it was easier to dream of a utopian capitalist society that would work for everyone.

That era disappeared in the 1970-80s, and the current capitalism looks far less rosy for the masses. Arguably, that stagnation for the less advantaged was of course connected to increasing implementation of the very laissez-faire capitalism Objectivism supported.

A fair point, but it wasn't just abilities for the main characters. The main guy was the scion of the two most powerful wizard families on the planet, and the main female was the most feared engineered magical weapon in that world. A little more monarchial 'divine right' than Atlas Shrugged would be comfortable with I think.

warmachine:
I think Bioshock illustrates how a society of unrestrained, fantasy-clever, sociopathic assholes can't work.

Spoiler alert.

Andrew Ryan, top dog of his city finds himself overtaken by the business empire of the even more visionary and ruthless criminal, Frank Fontaine. The kind of success story by a working class man Ryan advocates. So Ryan attacks Fontaine for his criminal activities and steals his business empire, in violation of his own stated philosophy. Why? Because Ryan is an unrestrained, sociopathic asshole. The Objectivist fantasy was undone by the traits advocated by Objectivism.

And, of course, Fontaine fakes his own death and recruits an army for his civil war. From the desperate who lack the talent, resources and good fortune to avoid being crushed by the economic system and left to rot. An army recruited through charity. The natural consequence of Objectivism cynically exploited by its successes and leading to its downfall.

Bioshock 2 had an even better example. A company is formed to build a monorail system that will link the various sections of Rupture. However, the project is expensive and the advent of personal bathyspheres (1-2 person submarines) eats into its market. The company is on the verge of bankruptcy but the big investors are all friends and allies of Ryan. If he lets capitalism take its course, these people will lose their wealth and Ryan's power base will take a significant hit. Instead, Ryan forces a bank to give the monorail company loans so the investors could cash out. Since the loans could not be repaid, the bank went belly up and hundreds of working class people lost their savings. This caused an economic depression in Rupture from which it never recovered. Ryan knew very well what would happen but was willing to wreck Rupture's economy in order to preserve his power base.

CaitSeith:

Silentpony:
Because she was a shameless hypocrite, fraud, scam artist and was basically the Donald Trump of her time.

Ouch! That's a little too far. At least her ideas weren't just regurgitating what she watched the previous night at whatever the equivalent of Fox News was back then.

No that fair. She just used alternate names to benefit from Government safety nets and payments, while lobbying Regan to remove them because of the leeches who use them.
So she was trying to drain the swamp, while guzzling swamp water in secret.

Kyrian007:
A fair point, but it wasn't just abilities for the main characters. The main guy was the scion of the two most powerful wizard families on the planet, and the main female was the most feared engineered magical weapon in that world. A little more monarchial 'divine right' than Atlas Shrugged would be comfortable with I think.

The dude was also a prophecised messianic chosen-one as well. Like any good Randian protagonist.

Objectivism is regarded as naive because it can't handle basic problems and Rand largely claimed they're not really problems. Consider the Tragedy of the Commons. Rand probably claimed everything's privately owned, so there's no commons. Alas, no one owns the sea or the fish in them, so anyone can fish as much as they like. Until fishing areas become over-fished and crash. Randians would probably claim it's in no one's rational self-interest to crash fishing stocks. Never mind someone over-fishing to make as much short term profit as possible then walking away, this happened with Atlantic northwest cod in the 90's anyway and still hasn't recovered. Because lots of people are irrational, selfish assholes and a political philosophy that doesn't take into account pervasive irrationality is a joke.

trunkage:

warmachine:
I think Bioshock illustrates how a society of unrestrained, fantasy-clever, sociopathic assholes can't work.

Spoiler alert.

Andrew Ryan, top dog of his city finds himself overtaken by the business empire of the even more visionary and ruthless criminal, Frank Fontaine. The kind of success story by a working class man Ryan advocates. So Ryan attacks Fontaine for his criminal activities and steals his business empire, in violation of his own stated philosophy. Why? Because Ryan is an unrestrained, sociopathic asshole. The Objectivist fantasy was undone by the traits advocated by Objectivism.

And, of course, Fontaine fakes his own death and recruits an army for his civil war. From the desperate who lack the talent, resources and good fortune to avoid being crushed by the economic system and left to rot. An army recruited through charity. The natural consequence of Objectivism cynically exploited by its successes and leading to its downfall.

My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

From what I remember, he was smuggling Rapture tech and bringing bibles to the city.

Randian philosophies don't work because it's impossible to structure a society around everyone being a selfish dirtbag. Only a small percentage of people can be selfish dirtbags until society breaks down completely. People who follow Ayn Rand don't understand that they can only take advantage of their philosophy if no one else does, and if everyone follows their philosophy then it won't work.

Imagine a line at a grocery store. Someone cuts in line. The person who cut in line would be a Randian, they're too important to waste their time with your stupid social norms. Everyone in line grumbles and is annoyed, but the line continues moving.

Now imagine if everyone is a Randian and everyone wants to cut to the front of the line. Does the line move? Nope. If everyone is constantly trying to cut to the front of the line then no one ever gets to pay for their groceries and leave.

Any philosophy that completely stops working if too many people adopt it is a bullshit philosophy.

Silvanus:

trunkage:
My first question had always been: how is Fontaine a criminal if all things are acceptable? That part never made sense to me

Not all things were acceptable in Rapture; there was still law and punitive measures to enforce it (primarily protecting business interests).

Fontaine was a smuggler, IIRC.

I always got the impression 'illegal' in Rapture was 'anything Ryan didn't like you doing'

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here