What is an Objectivist's opinion on this statement?

[LOWvol]

"It is not the simplicity that makes Randian theory attractive, it is its elegance. It inherently encourages both productivity and frugality. It is attractive in the sense that it addresses the free-loader conundrum that socialism doesn't.

While the economics of Randism works, the political and societal implications have a few problems. Rand takes an "economic" system and makes it political and social. Her atheistic beliefs undercut the voluntary social safety-net that allows this sort of "free enterprise" capitalism work in this country for many years.

A better way to say it, is that economic theory works great as economic theory... but you can't use economic theory as social and political theory."

An aquaintance of mine was discussing Objectivism with me and this is what he said on the matter. I'd just like to hear what all Objectivists think about this. I myself don't particularly agree, and I'm sure the rest of you don't as well.

[Scott_Connery]

The only real thing to say is that anyone that thinks Rand's philosophy was an economic one simply hasn't read much.

Rand started with A=A, not Capitalism=good.

[The Lonely Rationalist]

Ironically, this reminds me of what Ayn Rand constantly said about Ludwig Von Mises (That he tries to use capitalism as a foundation for a moral theory).

[SD26]

"It is not the simplicity that makes Randian theory attractive, it is its elegance. It inherently encourages both productivity and frugality. It is attractive in the sense that it addresses the free-loader conundrum that socialism doesn't.

While the economics of Randism works, the political and societal implications have a few problems. Rand takes an "economic" system and makes it political and social. Her atheistic beliefs undercut the voluntary social safety-net that allows this sort of "free enterprise" capitalism work in this country for many years.

A better way to say it, is that economic theory works great as economic theory... but you can't use economic theory as social and political theory."

An aquaintance of mine was discussing Objectivism with me and this is what he said on the matter. I'd just like to hear what all Objectivists think about this. I myself don't particularly agree, and I'm sure the rest of you don't as well.

Interesting.

Does Rand advocate economic, political, and/or social theories?

Or is it a way to live?

Most other economic, social, and political theories are about collections of groups, not individuals. Rand's ideology is specific to the individual. How can one advocate for minorities when one doesn't advocate specifically for the individual above all?

Just typing out loud...

[Randroid]

I agree with Scott, your acquaintance has it backwards.

[Capitalism Forever]

Right. Your friend seems to think of it in the traditional, incorrect way:

economics -> politics

Whereas Objectivism is structured like this (with the specialized sciences directly derived from philosophy shown in brackets):

metaphysics -> epistemology -> [physics]

							-> [mathematics]

							-> [linguistics]

							-> ethics -> [economics]

									  -> politics -> [law]

									  -> esthetics[/code]

[ctrl y]

The only real thing to say is that anyone that thinks Rand's philosophy was an economic one simply hasn't read much.

Rand started with A=A, not Capitalism=good.

Logically, Objectivism may begin with A=A. Chronologically, Rand was a capitalist first, and worked backwards through ethics to epistemology and metaphysics. The trend is clear if you read her journals.

Edited August 11, 2009 by ctrl y

[Jake_Ellison]

That statement is wishful thinking. Instead of starting out with what is (metaphysics), the person starts out with what ought to be (altruism). And then, unlike liberals, he does it again, this time starting out with politics as a floating abstraction, not based on the morality he also created out of thin air (altruism).

He has two very obvious contradictions rather than just one fundamental error (the average liberal intellectual's refusal to rely on his senses). Your acquaintance does not seem very well versed in matters of politics and philosophy in general, let alone Objectivism. But, that means he has a chance to learn the error in his thinking-the graph Capitalism Forever posted above is not that hard to understand, all one has to do is accept the metaphysical premise of the three axioms. If he does that, he will be unable to rationalize away individualism and egoism, the obvious fact that one's self can be the only motivation for one's morality.

The reason why a free society made up of altruists cannot exist is because men are "philosophical" by nature. Freedom is based on individualism, while altruism is based on collectivism, the denial of the individual in favor of the nation, race, species, or fake reality (such as God). An individualist will not act out of a necessity to help the less fortunate, and an altruist won't defend freedom at the expense of forcing the individualists to help the poor, out of a necessity to preserve individualism, because both those actions are contradictory.

The claim is that the only way to prevent the government from forcing individualists to help the poor is if the individualists do this voluntarily. That means he gave away the moral high ground the creators of wealth rightfully hold. He doesn't address the fact that we managed to end up with 60% taxes in NYC, following precisely that logic. Altruists did not give up their ambition to create social justice, for the sake of a floating abstraction your acquaintance calls "Capitalism", that is practical but immoral for those who practice it.

Logically, Objectivism may begin with A=A. Chronologically, Rand was a capitalist first, and worked backwards through ethics to epistemology and metaphysics. The trend is clear if you read her journals.

That's hard to believe. No one starts with politics, every child knows far more about metaphysics and epistemology long before they hear about politics.

Edited August 11, 2009 by Jake_Ellison

[JMeganSnow]

Why is any "social safety net" required to make capitalism "work"? And how does atheism "undercut" that? All the atheists I know are quite charitable, maybe more than they should be, really.

There are far too many unproved assertions in this statement for it to be anything other than noise.

[L-C]

An individualist will not act out of a necessity to help the less fortunate

And helping the poor isn't what enables helping the poor. It is not and cannot be the central purpose.

[Maximus]

Logically, Objectivism may begin with A=A. Chronologically, Rand was a capitalist first, and worked backwards through ethics to epistemology and metaphysics. The trend is clear if you read her journals.

Rand studied Philosophy in college, she was well versed in ethics, epistemology and metaphysics.