Philosophy makes people go mad. Atheists often hark upon the evil of believing in religious dogma and creed but as we've seen in the 20th century, philosophy is just as bad. Whether it was Marxism, Fascism, National Socialism or Economic Neo-Liberalism people often die to create a utopia. As the Jews of Central Europe (who largely no longer exist) because the Nazis wished to create a paradise for the German Speaking people of Europe. Or the millions of kulaks, Ukranians, Chechens and other peoples Stalin liquidated to create a worker's paradise in the Soviet Union. I could go on and on but Year Zero often seems to be the goal of the people who actually crazy enough to philosophy. Which is why i'm fascinated by people in the United States or more specifically those who are aligned with the Tea Party movement in the United States which holds Ayn Rand's Objectivism, Atlas Shrugged and Libertarianism as the Second Coming of Reagan.
I've never read Atlas Shrugged, nor do I play to read a book that has a speech in the middle of it that goes on for 30 pages. That's sheer overkill, almost selfish of the author to put that in her book. But you don't need to read the book to understand what Objectivism or by an extension what libertarianism is about. Like most philosophies, it's core tenet is about pleasing humanity. Objectivism aims to increase people's perception of reality (since reality is only perceived by human perception of course) through logic and that self-interest, individual rights, laissez-faire capitalism and nasty industrial art from 1930's New York can help us cast off the shackles of tyranny.
These philosophies influenced many people; many of whom who'd have strange influence over the economic affairs of various nations. Milton Friedman - a staunch believer in laissez-faire capitalism utilized some of his free-market reform ideas like unbridled free trade on poor Latin American countries after it had been taken over like dictators like Augusto Pinochet of Chile and Galtieri of Argentina. In order for these economic policies to follow through, these regimes had to brutally repress their peoples civil rights and it lead to massive inflation which brought many of these nations ten step backwards instead of forwards into the loving arms of Free Market Capitalism sans Socialism. I especially feel bad for Argentina, Argentina was among one of the richest nations in the beginning of last century and now India with 800,000,000 helots are richer by GDP and GPP. How the mighty have fallen. Free market capitalism for poor countries is devastating as your country is flooded with cheap products from China, as state owned enterprises are sold to be privatized who then fire half the workers or destroy unions to lower wages and increase the hours worked per week. They cause massive inflation as central banks toy with interest rates to gain profits while the Middle Class is squeezed out of existence. This is what happened to Latin America in the 1970s. Brazil was spared one could suppose but it soon had a debt of over $100 billion dollars due to its Free Market dictators from the 1964-1985.
Another economic error caused by these libertarians was caused none other by Alan Greenspan. A devout disciple of Ayn Rand. Under his control, derivatives and subprime mortgages caused an early 2000s boom that all came crashing down in 2008. Even before a congressional hearing later that year he admitted that there was some flaws in his thinking. A method of thinking dating back to Ayn Rand and her rational-self interest to enrich oneself's without regulating the market. We're in a recession becomes of these fools. Now, this is when the story of the philosophy of selfishness becomes interesting. The worsening recession creates a movement within the US who basically hate the US government and dislike a whole bunch of things which Democrats and Republicans but more specifically George W Bush created while in office. Such as a large fiscal imbalance, two foreign wars, terrible schools, rising costs etc. and libertarianism soon took root among these "Tea Party" people.
Now, go forward two years and the US is facing an important election this year to decide which party controls the Congress. A xenophobic, racist, nationalist, war mongering party of libertarians or a do-nothing, hypocritical, pandering party of snakes in the grass. While US debt to GDP ration is getting higher and higher with a budget deficit of over 1 trillion dollars. Rand Paul (note Ayn Rand = Rand Paul), son of Ron Paul is launching his own bid for power states that he questions the legitimacy of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 mainly because of his libertarianism believes. Ultimately, this goes back to any argument involving libertarianism whether it be about free market economics or same-sex marriage. His argument is this, since people are rational and self interested beings having laws against hate crimes are dumb because only dumb people would do it. And if dumb people discriminated against people in say - restaurants then social pressure would create such a backlash that the dumb people wouldn't be racist ( Dr. Martin Luther King begins to toss in his grave).
Many intelligent people in response to this said that Rand Paul is dumb because by not banning hate crimes and segregation the government would be sanctioning this behaviour because it wouldnt be able to enforce it's laws or protect the liberties of people and by not being against it - it would seem to dumb racist people that since it's not against the law the US is a "free country" it's legal to be racist in the public sphere, thus making segregation legal and sanctionable by law because you have the supreme authority to discriminate against those who wish to do business with you. Rand Paul saw these comments and fled to Arkansas to lick his wounds and shut up ever since.
The libertarians are just getting started however, there was a piece in a newspaper in some US state about the evil of being charitable on a hot summer day by giving free lemonade by a woman named Terry Savage. No, people should be selfish and not give things away for free asserted the libertarian and if they do, it's socialist. To be honest, i'm not even sure what socialist is anymore. So I decided to look it up in a dictionary. Socialism : is an economic and political theory based on public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and allocation of resources [Thanks Wikipedia]. Since the business is privately owned, if it decides to be charitable with what it produces it's not necessarily socialist since it's not owned by the public. Americans on the whole are just confusing. The Classical Liberals are the social conservatives and the Classical Socialists can't even pass universal national healthcare.
Maybe the great moral tragedy isn't same-sex marriage, the legalization of marijuana or Obama winning a 2nd term of office. Maybe it's when selfishness, the idea of naked self-interest to satisfy your endorphin craving that hammers at your brain all day becomes popular (especially to the 1% of Americans who on 50% of the wealth in the country) chips away at American liberty until becomes another Chile.Fear-mongering by the far right has enflamed the unemployed masses of the American populace so much that xenophobia and a rampant anti-intellectualism may guarantee someone a seat in Congress or the Senate not to mention the White House. Can you imagine the Supreme Court nominees Sarah Palin would pick? America is doomed and the Libertarians aren't helping with their avarice.
Posts
4 comments:
Shoo,
You seem to have some very strong opinions on a book that you have admittedly never read. I would offer that your article exemplifies one of the biggest problems in America today which is people making bold statements about topics that they have not even ventured to study or make the slightest attempt to formally understand. There was a time in America when making bold statements about a book that one has never even read would relegate a person to the status of an intellectual bufoon, but somehow today, getting up to speed on a 1000 page book only requires reading a few sentences from a blog on the Internet, or an article or two from Newsweek. There was a time in this country’s downward spiral of intellectualism when intellectually lazy people would read the Cliff’s Notes in lieu of the actual book but I doubt you have even done that.
It reminds me of another example recently where the Attorney General of the United States spearheaded a massive lawsuit suing the state of Arizona, which would affect the lives of millions of people, over a law about which he said “I have not had a chance to; I have glanced at it; I have not read it”.
If you had read any of Ayn Rand’s books, you would know that her definition of “selfishness” is dramatically different from yours:
“When one speaks of man’s right to exist for his own sake, for his own rational self-interest, most people assume automatically that this means his right to sacrifice others. Such an assumption is a confession of their own belief that to injure, enslave, rob or murder others is in man’s self-interest—which he must selflessly renounce. The idea that man’s self-interest can be served only by a non-sacrificial relationship with others has never occurred to those humanitarian apostles of unselfishness, who proclaim their desire to achieve the brotherhood of men. And it will not occur to them, or to anyone, so long as the concept “rational” is omitted from the context of “values,” “desires,” “self-interest” and ethics.”
– Ayn Rand
In other words, you think that stepping on others to get what you want is beneficial, (this is how you define selfishness), and that in order to be a virtuous person, one must renounce such behavior and do the opposite, sacrifice oneself to others.
The alternative that you haven’t considered, is doing neither.
Dear Jerry,
Your defense of Ayn Rand puzzles me. I'm unsure if you think quoting people such as Ms. Rand herself is not "strawmanning" but you haven't directly tried to assert why Ayn Rand's theories (despite their disastrous affect they've had on humanity) are correct. Having faith in a crackpot author who's philosophy to her own knowledge was never fully fleshed out is in itself like not reading 1000 page book - yet you like to support it.
So, like you - I shall quote someone to make myself seem knowledgeble. Believing in Objectivism is like psychologist Albert Ellis though.... "It can result in hazardous psychological effects".
Post a Comment