Would Ayn Rand be called Anarcho-capitalist today?

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: BADecker on September 30, 2018, 09:35:16 AM

....
This means that Rand's whole philosophy of selfishness is greatly flawed. Everything is a gift. Almost exactly opposite of selfishness.[/color][/size][/b]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-kXok4tznU

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

Quote from: byteball on September 29, 2018, 11:56:19 PM

Quote from: BADecker on September 29, 2018, 04:57:43 PM

The failure of Rand's philosophy exists in the fact that everything was given to her, freely... everything important, that is. Consider, where would you get another arm if you lost yours? Where would you get an eye?

You mean, she is privileged through being woman, white, educated, probably healthy at least physically, Russian, Jewish, American? - No.
But what about her ancestors, who fought for millenia for placing her into her position? They lost, won, suffered incredible sufferings. It all had imprints on her. Everything is free, and at the same time, nothing is free in this world. It's wrong to suppress people whose only crime is being capable and normal.

I mean that all people, including Rand, have the basic things that they have, because they were given to them. These include their body and the way nature provides food, air, and water for them. These things are way more important for life than all the political campaigns, ever.

What this means is that everything is a gift from God through nature. Without the gifts that are given through nature, nobody has the ability to do political campaigns, or even work or think.

Possibly the biggest gift we have is the gift of self. Nobody can give self to anybody else except through the things they have been given in nature... through reproduction. That's the only way people can be made by other people, and it is a gift to these people that they can give this gift to their children.

This means that Rand's whole philosophy of selfishness is greatly flawed. Everything is a gift. Almost exactly opposite of selfishness.

Cool

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: byteball on September 29, 2018, 11:56:19 PM

Quote from: BADecker on September 29, 2018, 04:57:43 PM

The failure of Rand's philosophy exists in the fact that everything was given to her, freely... everything important, that is. Consider, where would you get another arm if you lost yours? Where would you get an eye?

You mean, she is privileged through being woman, white, educated, probably healthy at least physically, Russian, Jewish, American?
But what about her ancestors, who fought for millenia for placing her into her position? They lost, won, suffered incredible sufferings. It all had imprints on her. Everything is free, and at the same time, nothing is free in this world. It's wrong to suppress people whose only crime is being capable and normal.

Rand was penniless when she came to the US, and earned everything through hard work.

RE your question "Would she be called an anarcho-capitalist," she considered herself a laissez faire capitalist, and rejected anarchism.

However I believe...not certain...the meaning of these terms has changed since the 1930s, and certainly crypto has changed aspects of capitalism's potential.

Rand believed in hard money, eg, gold and silver, and as such there's no doubt she would have been a strong advocate of bitcoin and other peer-to-peer currencies. She advocated the State but for the fewest possible activities.

byteball

member

Activity: 266

Merit: 42

The rising tide lifts all boats

Quote from: BADecker on September 29, 2018, 04:57:43 PM

The failure of Rand's philosophy exists in the fact that everything was given to her, freely... everything important, that is. Consider, where would you get another arm if you lost yours? Where would you get an eye?

You mean, she is privileged through being woman, white, educated, probably healthy at least physically, Russian, Jewish, American?
But what about her ancestors, who fought for millenia for placing her into her position? They lost, won, suffered incredible sufferings. It all had imprints on her. Everything is free, and at the same time, nothing is free in this world. It's wrong to suppress people whose only crime is being capable and normal.

Spendulus

legendary

Activity: 2926

Merit: 1386

Quote from: byteball on September 29, 2018, 11:44:10 AM

I bought her book of essays "Capitalism. The Unknown Ideal" written in 1946-1966 a few days ago and one of her main theses appears to be that USA slowly descend into fascism: the kind of statism that preserves "property rights" (socialism seizes property) but puts the means of production under direct and total control of State.
I bought it in Russian and I didn't find all the important quotes from the blurb yet, but they are (partially in my own back translation):

Quote

Individual rights, freedom, justice, progress — these are the philosophical values, theoretical goals and practical results of Capitalism.

Capitalism is the only system that enables people to reach abundance in production, and the key to Capitalism is personal freedom.

The moral justification of Capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism — with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

If Capitalism wouldn't exist, every honest intellectual would be obliged to apply all his mental faculties and efforts to create it.

And finally:
Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future — if mankind is to have a future.

She was a great writer, and thought issues through far better than most ever understand them . You've picked a great set of essays there. It varies in quality and relevance to today's issues.

BADecker

legendary

Activity: 3906

Merit: 1373

"Selfishness" was too destructive of a word for Rand. So, she and Brandon started using "objectivism."

However, someone who is selfish looks very similar to one who is truly selfless. They both act the same way. They both get the same results through what they do. But Rand's form of selfishness was always aimed at her or society's betterment, rather than betterment of the recipients of the good things she did with her selfishness.

The failure of Rand's philosophy exists in the fact that everything was given to her, freely... everything important, that is. Consider, where would you get another arm if you lost yours? Where would you get an eye? How about a life if you die? These things are fantastically great machines that you are given, but can never find a replacement as good as the original, no matter how much you pay. Yet Rand considered that giving for the sake of the recipient was completely wrong.

Youtube search on "Ayn Rand interview."

Cool

byteball

member

Activity: 266

Merit: 42

The rising tide lifts all boats

I bought her book of essays "Capitalism. The Unknown Ideal" written in 1946-1966 a few days ago and one of her main theses appears to be that USA slowly descend into fascism: the kind of statism that preserves "property rights" (socialism seizes property) but puts the means of production under direct and total control of State.
I bought it in Russian and I didn't find all the important quotes from the blurb yet, but they are (partially in my own back translation):

Quote

Individual rights, freedom, justice, progress — these are the philosophical values, theoretical goals and practical results of Capitalism.

Capitalism is the only system that enables people to reach abundance in production, and the key to Capitalism is personal freedom.

The moral justification of Capitalism lies in the fact that it is the only system consonant with man’s rational nature, that it protects man’s survival qua man, and that its ruling principle is: justice.

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned.

When I say “capitalism,” I mean a full, pure, uncontrolled, unregulated laissez-faire capitalism — with a separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

If Capitalism wouldn't exist, every honest intellectual would be obliged to apply all his mental faculties and efforts to create it.

And finally:
Capitalism is not the system of the past; it is the system of the future — if mankind is to have a future.

Topic: Would Ayn Rand be called Anarcho-capitalist today? (Read 211 times)