5 ms·

Sadly, yet another author who either did not bother to read and think about Ayn Rand's work, or, worse, pretends to have NOT understood it.

by relic17 16y ago

forensic 16y ago
explain
- sp332 16y ago
  Rich people already have power. Trying to minimize their political power, in favor of a more "democratic" system, is just denying the reality that the rich are powerful. If the government antagonizes rich people, the rich will fight back economically until they get what they want anyway (with lots of collateral damage). On the other hand, if you give the rich political power to begin with, you are merely acknowledging that they have power. Then they can wield it more effectively, and (Ayn Rand hopes) society will be better off. Edit: Also, income inequality is no big deal if the rich aren't stepping all over the poor. As the article points out, the super-elite in Shanghai haven't stopped the middle class in China from exploding, and average income is growing strongly despite the financial crisis. The super-elite aren't hurting anything.
  - forensic 16y ago
    That's a fair point but I don't think it is obvious from Atlas Shrugged. You can read that book in many ways.
    - brc 16y ago
      You know I've wanted to read Atlas Shrugged for a long time but I can't find a copy that isn't in microscopic brain-hurting print and crappy paper. Any ideas?
      - Eliezer 16y ago
        Read Heinlein instead.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
      - forensic 16y ago
        I only read e-books and audiobooks. So don't ask me. (Actually, sometimes I am forced to read dead trees because there is no alternative.)
      - tomjen3 16y ago
        Atlas Shrugged for the kindle: [http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-ebook/dp/B003SWZ8JA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=A8WELHUS1CTB6&s=digital-text&qid=1294308128&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-ebook/dp/B003SWZ8JA/ref...] You can get a kindle app for Android, iPhone, Mac and Windows for no charge.
      - joubert 16y ago
        You can also wait for the movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
        tomjen3 16y ago
        When I clicked that link I though you were making a clever joke. But they did actually film it - and it only took them 35 years to get it done.
  - GrooveStomp 16y ago
    The super-elite aren't hurting anything - in China. In that article the author draws a connection between the faster-than-expected recovery in wealth of the American-super-elite vs. the still struggling middle and lower classes. This connection suggests (but certainly doesn't prove - not by a longshot) that the super-elite are affecting the economic recovery of the non-super-elite.
  - huherto 16y ago
    Ok, Just for kicks I propose a variation of the bicameral system: You can vote for one seat at the lords chamber. The weight of your vote is proportional to the taxes you have paid. You can vote for one seat at the commons chamber. Everybody's vote weights the same.
- relic17 16y ago
  "Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: iconic libertarian, preeminent defender of the free market, and (at least until recently) the nation’s foremost devotee of Ayn Rand. When the high priest of capitalism himself is declaring the growth in economic inequality a national crisis, something has gone very, very wrong." The above paragraph suggests that the author is aware of Ayn Rand and disagrees with both her (who was not libertarian) and the libertarians. Then the author goes on to imply that the free market is responsible for the rising income inequality and to put all the rich under the same common denominator, with no regard for the source of their wealth (note how many names are cited and the widely varying reputations of the businessmen in question). Ayn Rand is very explicit on the distinction of gaining wealth through thoughtful and productive effort on the one hand and through special privileges on the other. It is this observation that the author has ignored. Second, the author concludes that "the lesson of history is that, in the long run, super-elites have two ways to survive: by suppressing dissent or by sharing their wealth", so they must choose one of these options. This message ends an article that would constitute a weak response to Ayn Rand (if the article was meant to be one). It sanctions a systems that says: the rich, no matter how they got to be rich in the first place, should either abuse the rest of the population, as they often did in feudal times, or will have to see their property seized by force, as it is done in socialist and communist countries. Otherwise, they cannot survive. Well, that's a very dangerous proposition for individual rights.
chunkbot 16y ago
Rand's philosophies are far from universal truths.
- relic17 16y ago
  My intention was not to imply that Ayn Rand's philosophy is the universal truth, though I find it very logical. My intention was to say that the author, who refers to Rand in the opening paragraphs in a manner suggesting philosophical opposition, goes on to make a weak argument. If the author was really familiar with Rand's work (which the reference implies), she (the author) would hardly lump all the rich under the same common denominator, without consideration for the source of their wealth (ability vs. privilege), and conclude that they are all awaiting the same grim fate - turning either into victims or dictators.

Sadly, yet another author who either did not bother to read and think about Ayn Rand's work, or, worse, pretends to have NOT understood it.

by relic17 16y ago

Sadly, yet another author who either did not bother to read and think about Ayn Rand's work, or, worse, pretends to have NOT understood it.

forensic 16y ago

explain

sp332 16y ago
Rich people already have power. Trying to minimize their political power, in favor of a more "democratic" system, is just denying the reality that the rich are powerful. If the government antagonizes rich people, the rich will fight back economically until they get what they want anyway (with lots of collateral damage). On the other hand, if you give the rich political power to begin with, you are merely acknowledging that they have power. Then they can wield it more effectively, and (Ayn Rand hopes) society will be better off. Edit: Also, income inequality is no big deal if the rich aren't stepping all over the poor. As the article points out, the super-elite in Shanghai haven't stopped the middle class in China from exploding, and average income is growing strongly despite the financial crisis. The super-elite aren't hurting anything.
- forensic 16y ago
  That's a fair point but I don't think it is obvious from Atlas Shrugged. You can read that book in many ways.
  - brc 16y ago
    You know I've wanted to read Atlas Shrugged for a long time but I can't find a copy that isn't in microscopic brain-hurting print and crappy paper. Any ideas?
    - Eliezer 16y ago
      Read Heinlein instead.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - forensic 16y ago
      I only read e-books and audiobooks. So don't ask me. (Actually, sometimes I am forced to read dead trees because there is no alternative.)
    - tomjen3 16y ago
      Atlas Shrugged for the kindle: [http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-ebook/dp/B003SWZ8JA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&m=A8WELHUS1CTB6&s=digital-text&qid=1294308128&sr=1-1 http://www.amazon.com/Atlas-Shrugged-ebook/dp/B003SWZ8JA/ref...] You can get a kindle app for Android, iPhone, Mac and Windows for no charge.
    - joubert 16y ago
      You can also wait for the movie http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0480239/
      - tomjen3 16y ago
        When I clicked that link I though you were making a clever joke. But they did actually film it - and it only took them 35 years to get it done.
- GrooveStomp 16y ago
  The super-elite aren't hurting anything - in China. In that article the author draws a connection between the faster-than-expected recovery in wealth of the American-super-elite vs. the still struggling middle and lower classes. This connection suggests (but certainly doesn't prove - not by a longshot) that the super-elite are affecting the economic recovery of the non-super-elite.
- huherto 16y ago
  Ok, Just for kicks I propose a variation of the bicameral system: You can vote for one seat at the lords chamber. The weight of your vote is proportional to the taxes you have paid. You can vote for one seat at the commons chamber. Everybody's vote weights the same.
relic17 16y ago
"Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan: iconic libertarian, preeminent defender of the free market, and (at least until recently) the nation’s foremost devotee of Ayn Rand. When the high priest of capitalism himself is declaring the growth in economic inequality a national crisis, something has gone very, very wrong." The above paragraph suggests that the author is aware of Ayn Rand and disagrees with both her (who was not libertarian) and the libertarians. Then the author goes on to imply that the free market is responsible for the rising income inequality and to put all the rich under the same common denominator, with no regard for the source of their wealth (note how many names are cited and the widely varying reputations of the businessmen in question). Ayn Rand is very explicit on the distinction of gaining wealth through thoughtful and productive effort on the one hand and through special privileges on the other. It is this observation that the author has ignored. Second, the author concludes that "the lesson of history is that, in the long run, super-elites have two ways to survive: by suppressing dissent or by sharing their wealth", so they must choose one of these options. This message ends an article that would constitute a weak response to Ayn Rand (if the article was meant to be one). It sanctions a systems that says: the rich, no matter how they got to be rich in the first place, should either abuse the rest of the population, as they often did in feudal times, or will have to see their property seized by force, as it is done in socialist and communist countries. Otherwise, they cannot survive. Well, that's a very dangerous proposition for individual rights.

chunkbot 16y ago

Rand's philosophies are far from universal truths.

relic17 16y ago
My intention was not to imply that Ayn Rand's philosophy is the universal truth, though I find it very logical. My intention was to say that the author, who refers to Rand in the opening paragraphs in a manner suggesting philosophical opposition, goes on to make a weak argument. If the author was really familiar with Rand's work (which the reference implies), she (the author) would hardly lump all the rich under the same common denominator, without consideration for the source of their wealth (ability vs. privilege), and conclude that they are all awaiting the same grim fate - turning either into victims or dictators.