Did Ayn Rand help the socialist cause?

[blankslate]

Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand disciple at one point.... funny how he was unable to see how the economic policies that he helped bring into being could end up with the 2008 debacle.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uq0pygjQK74

I guess we should hold Senator Graham and President Clinton responsible for the repeal of the firewall.

 

[Anarchist420]

Alan Greenspan was an Ayn Rand disciple at one point.... funny how he was unable to see how the economic policies that he helped bring into being could end up with the 2008 debacle.

It pisses me off when people keep saying that nonsensical bullshit... he expanded credit like it was going out of style, well beyond what it would have been in a free society.

 

[sm625]

It is ironic most of the people here who would harp on rand would also respond with "tldr" when you actually take the time to eviscerate their mindless crap.

 

[momeNt]

I think she did because she promoted greed and pretty much said it was a universal virtue... and due to that, irrational liberals often associate libertarianism with Randian "selfishness". In reality, however, greed is not universally rewarded in a free society because it's not in anyone's self- interest to be greedy in a free society.

Critique what I just said if you disagree.

I agree with you about the fact that she became a figure for liberals to rally against, and knock what she couldn't articulate properly (greed as she calls it, versus how Mises discusses the motives of human action) and use it to attack libertarian concepts of a free society.

Quotes like eskimospy's are used to bash the concept of a free society and ingrain in our minds that we must be always under authoritarian control otherwise we all become rapists, thieves, murderers, etc. Communists/authoritarians biggest boogeyman is freedom, and what we would become if we were to ever have it.

 

[fskimospy]

I agree with you about the fact that she became a figure for liberals to rally against, and knock what she couldn't articulate properly (greed as she calls it, versus how Mises discusses the motives of human action) and use it to attack libertarian concepts of a free society.

Quotes like eskimospy's are used to bash the concept of a free society and ingrain in our minds that we must be always under authoritarian control otherwise we all become rapists, thieves, murderers, etc. Communists/authoritarians biggest boogeyman is freedom, and what we would become if we were to ever have it.

No, quotes like mine are meant to emphasize that Ayn Rand's novels exist in a fantasy world filled with unrealistic characters that bear almost no resemblance to actual human beings. Notably, such a fantastical place is required for her theories to actually work.

 

[momeNt]

No, quotes like mine are meant to emphasize that Ayn Rand's novels exist in a fantasy world filled with unrealistic characters that bear almost no resemblance to actual human beings. Notably, such a fantastical place is required for her theories to actually work.

Only in fantasies, another boogeyman of sorts, if humans are savage beings that must always be under the control of authoritarian style government, who are the individuals running the government, are they not also the same human savages that seek to protect us from ourselves? How does that work?

Authoritarian and communist societies both also only exist harmoniously with society in fantasy worlds, yet that's all see around us. It appears that there are mainly two types of people, those who seek to control (govern) and those that wish to be controlled (governed). A free society can only last as long as it can withstand the wills of those seeking to control (this is your gangs, evil corporations boogeyman) and in the case of governed societies, it only lasts as long as those that govern can be restrained in their governance. Currently I think we are losing our restraint on government, so it eventually will be out of control shortly.

 

[Anarchist420]

Only in fantasies, another boogeyman of sorts, if humans are savage beings that must always be under the control of authoritarian style government, who are the individuals running the government, are they not also the same human savages that seek to protect us from ourselves? How does that work?

+1

 

[fskimospy]

Only in fantasies, another boogeyman of sorts, if humans are savage beings that must always be under the control of authoritarian style government, who are the individuals running the government, are they not also the same human savages that seek to protect us from ourselves? How does that work?

Pretty simply, it's the reason we have 3 branches of government.

 

[Anarchist420]

Pretty simply, it's the reason we have 3 branches of government.

I disagree. The reason why was because the Federalists wanted to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else... and they made it happen by putting together a load of lies and non-sensical arguments (while the predictions made by their opponents actually turned out to be correct) that enough people in the right places would believe.

 

[blankslate]

It pisses me off when people keep saying that nonsensical bullshit... he expanded credit like it was going out of style, well beyond what it would have been in a free society.

It pisses me off when people deny facts like ostriches with their heads in the ground.

How was Alan Greenspan's successful fight to keep Brooksley Born from having the Commodities Futures Trading Commission from regulating derivatives counter to Ayn Rand's views?

It's awfully convenient to state that Alan Greenspan betrayed Ayn Rand's views when He tried to adhere to them in his policies in ways that helped damage the economy that he was supposed to be the maestro of.

He handed out credit like it was going out of style? If he hadn't fully bought into self regulating markets voodoo and allowed the CFTC to regulate derivatives one avenue by which people were given mortgages they shouldn't have gotten would have been closed off.

If he hadn't supported the repeal of Glass-Stegall investment banks wouldn't have been gambling with funds acquired from the commercial banks.

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such as that they were best capable of protecting their shareholders and the equity in the firms..."

Too bad the banksters let their hunger for quick short term gains override their "enlightened self-interests". Or maybe not, since they probably knew that they could get a bail out.

 

[momeNt]

It pisses me off when people deny facts like ostriches with their heads in the ground.

How was Alan Greenspan's successful fight to keep Brooksley Born from having the Commodities Futures Trading Commission from regulating derivatives counter to Ayn Rand's views?

It's awfully convenient to state that Alan Greenspan betrayed Ayn Rand's views when He tried to adhere to them in his policies in ways that helped damage the economy that he was supposed to be the maestro of.

He handed out credit like it was going out of style? If he hadn't fully bought into self regulating markets voodoo and allowed the CFTC to regulate derivatives one avenue by which people were given mortgages they shouldn't have gotten would have been closed off.

If he hadn't supported the repeal of Glass-Stegall investment banks wouldn't have been gambling with funds acquired from the commercial banks.

"I made a mistake in presuming that the self interests of organizations, specifically banks and others, was such as that they were best capable of protecting their shareholders and the equity in the firms..."

Too bad the banksters let their hunger for quick short term gains override their "enlightened self-interests". Or maybe not, since they probably knew that they could get a bail out.

The bold is where Greenspan is wrong, as well as you for attributing the failure to self-interest and libertarian principles. What brings things into balance is not simply self interest, but rather competing self interests. There is zero competition in our currency and our currency is not derived from the free market. Deregulating needs to start from the bottom up with the currency, not from the top down, as fiat money is not a creation of the free market but rather from regulation.

 

[blankslate]

What brings things into balance is not simply self interest, but rather competing self interests

That's the thing since there was no competing self interest it was just as well to leave the regulations in place or not obstruct the regulating of the relatively new derivatives until such competition could be allowed to take place.

Economic theory also allows for natural monopolies in some cases as well. I'm not saying that currency management falls under this but while there was one it was incredibly stupid to remove regulations that keep banksters from screwing up too much.

The problem I have with any singular theory about things that rely on human behavior is that the ones that say it must be this way or it must be that way attract people with utopian fantasies.

I think that in reality that there should be a mixed economy however the followers of any utopian fantasy economic model won't allow for a good mix (as it were). Keep in mind that I'm not only talking about people who subscribe to objectivism.

 

[QuantumPion]

I suggest the OP reflect on what Thulsa Doom says here.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-Nf...barbarian_1982_thulsa_dooms_monologue_part_2/

A fictional character with a very real point. A society without enforceable rules fails in advance by virtue of the ignorance of human nature.

I shall contemplate this on the Tree of Woe.

 

[Anarchist420]

I think that in reality that there should be a mixed economy

The state doesn't work and mixed economies don't work and even if they did, they wouldn't be ethical. Arbitrary central planning cannot create absolute middle ground and when it's attempted, things get as unstable as the San Andreas fault line... we were born into a world where not everything is equal.

 

[momeNt]

Adam Smith even has a word to say on it.

The man of system, on the contrary, is apt to be very wise in his own conceit; and is often so enamored with the supposed beauty of his own ideal plan of government, that he cannot suffer the smallest deviation from any part of it.

He goes on to establish it completely and in all its parts, without any regard either to the great interests, or to the strong prejudices which may oppose it. He seems to imagine that he can arrange the different members of a great society with as much ease as the hand arranges the different pieces upon a chess-board. He does not consider that the pieces upon the chess-board have no other principle of motion besides that which the hand impresses upon them; but that, in the great chess-board of human society, every single piece has a principle of motion of its own, altogether different from that which the legislature might choose to impress upon it. If those two principles coincide and act in the same direction, the game of human society will go on easily and harmoniously, and is very likely to be happy and successful.

If they are opposite or different, the game will go on miserably, and the society must be at all times in the highest degree of disorder.

Is the answer to this maybe to have 3 separate branches of the Federal Reserve? No, the answer is freedom in gold.

 

[fixbsod]

The best thing to come out of Ayn Rand was inspiration for BioShock

 

[blankslate]

The state doesn't work and mixed economies don't work and even if they did, they wouldn't be ethical. Arbitrary central planning cannot create absolute middle ground and when it's attempted, things get as unstable as the San Andreas fault line... we were born into a world where not everything is equal.

Yeah that's why Canada's economy is failing. Right? Oh wait.

Ethical is arguable. I would suggest that an economy that has less inequality and regulations in place to keep certain people from blowing a multitrillion dollar hole in said economy is more ethical.

Keep in mind Canada did lower some taxes while keeping in place regulations similar to the Glass-Steagall act

Not everyone will act ethically in an economy that Ayn Rand followers dream about..
In fact it seems like more people would act unethically

Some would act ethically of course but not all.

Perhaps a person like Henry Ford would be more or less ethical as far as exercising a good amount of "enlightened self interest". That's one who comes to mind immediately.

 

[Anarchist420]

Yeah that's why Canada's economy is failing. Right? Oh wait.

Canada's economy sucks ass. Just my humble opinion

Ethical is arguable.

Putting a gun to someone's head for their money is not ethical.

Not everyone will act ethically in an economy that Ayn Rand followers dream about..

Of course they wouldn't, because she supported foreign aid, user fees for things, and IP. They also wouldn't because the economy would fall apart from too much greed or it could never even get started in the first place. Rand wasn't much of a libertarian, she was a statist with neocon leanings.

In fact it seems like more people would act unethically

We have nothing to prove that that would be case... and lack of ethics would not be rewarded in a free society because people wouldn't have a monopoly on force to turn to when they wanted something.