Is today's world better than ever?

[Hotu Matua]

In your opinion, has the world become a better place as years go by?

Is it better than in Ayn Rand's times?

If it is better, is it becaue laissez fair capitalism and freedom have been on the rise?

I think this is by far the best moment in history, despite all its problems.

People live more years, and live better.

The level of freedom, comfort, knowledge, techonology, is better than ever.

I wouldn't give up this time for any other time in the past.

Do you agree with me?

If not, why?

And if you do, is it because capitalism and reason are winning the battle over collectivism and superstition?

Edited November 18, 2009 by Hotu Matua

[dollardoctrinaire]

The US is richer than ever. In places like Chile, socialists were crushed in favor of the free market and look how it has made them richer. In places like China, Hong Kong, South Korea etc the free market reigns, though civil liberties are not preserved. Laissez Faire and individualism are winning the fight against collectivism and the proof is in the pudding. Obama is screwing up so badly that it is almost guaranteed that a Republican will win in 2012 which would mean less socialism and more capitalism (not giving a clean chit to the GOP here, please note). I don't think there is a "recession" either. I think that is a deliberate ploy by the government to bring in more regulations and crush the free market. Also have a look at Miss Rand's book sales. They're through the roof! Something must be going right for that to happen! The only major barrier I see is Islamic totalitarianism, which will need to be dealt with by continuing the War on Terror and focusing it on Iran, Saudi Arabia etc. I am not averse to using nuclear bombs against those people.

Edited November 18, 2009 by dollardoctrinaire

[Jake_Ellison]

I don't think there is a "recession" either. I think that is a deliberate ploy by the government to bring in more regulations and crush the free market.

Actually, the government is about the only entity that agrees with you that there's no recession.

But there is one.

[Zip]

Isn't the increase in Ayn Rand's books directly attributable to how many things are going wrong?

[SapereAude]

In your opinion, has the world become a better place as years go by?

If it is better, is it becaue laissez fair capitalism and freedom have been on the rise?

What do you base the premise of your statement on?

Laissez faire capitalism is certainly not on the rise. Our current govt is doing everything in its power to destroy it. The previous admin wasn't much better.

Since you start with a faulty premise it is hard to answer your question.

[TLD]

In your opinion, has the world become a better place as years go by?

Is it better than in Ayn Rand's times?

I have to say no - in nearly all respects.

First, its conditions in the US on which we need to primarily focus, not the "world."

Then the answer lies almost solely in the trend toward Statism.

Even medical advances are at risk with a Govt. takeover of HC.

[softwareNerd]

In your opinion, has the world become a better place as years go by?

Since the 1980's China has seen huge improvements. Since the late 1990's India has seen huge improvements. Since the fall of communism, all the iron-curtain countries have seen huge improvements. These are mostly attributable to increasing freedom in these countries (i.e. moves toward Capitalism).

In the last few decades, U.S. and Western Europe have seen slow but steady improvements in real standard of living. In terms of ideology, Thatcher and Reagan marked quite a positive change from the decade or two that preceded them. With it, came actual economic progress too. How it compares to the past depends on what one compares against. For instance, the early 1900's were a pretty bad period -- ideology-wise. most of the world was emerging from living under emperors and discovering unfettered democracy. So, one ended up with the Soviets, the Nazi's, Mao and FDR. On the other hand, if one compares it to the ideology of the founders, one sees it as recovering only a small part of what had been given up.

If one narrows one's focus to about a single decade, then things look like they're going downhill for the U.S.: the rise of Islamic militancy, Alan Greenspan's last hurrah, and the shift of the country to the left following the crash of 2008.

I think the best guess going forward is that the world will continue to get better in economic terms, and the longer the horizon the more certain one can be of this. At the same time, there are many cases where the long-term is of no relevance to an individual's life. For example, to a person living through the 1917 Russian revolution, it was not relevant that the iron curtain would come down some years after he was dead. For someone in his 30s in 1929, it would be small consolation that the economy would finally recover from the machinations of Hoover and FDR when he was in his late 50s. Similarly, Cuba and North Korea will probably be free some day, but that's small consolation to people who have lived their lives under dictatorships. (And, there are many who won't even make it to the other end of an extended crisis: the crisis will kill them either literally or effectively.)

So, even though the world will turn out well in the real long run, regions and countries have been known to stay pretty bad for decades... i.e. for most of the life-times of people who lived through those decades. In summary, there's good news for my grand-children, but maybe not for me!

[Zip]

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Disraeli

Any recession is caused by government intervention. I would not be surprised if there is one, the blame lies squarely on the shoulders of the extremist leftwing Obama administration who, by intervening in the free market, cause disastrous results for the economy.

Please tell me that the bolded part is sarcasm...

[2046]

I think everything is going to hell. Western civilization is on path toward dictatorship. I don't think it's the closest it has ever been, that was during World War 2, but it is turning back in that direction since the times of the fascist president Roosevelt. Of course, people have freewill so no one can say what will happen, but that is the path we are going toward and people will have to make a choice eventually. As Mises stated in reference to fascism: "The issue is always the same: the government or the market. There is no third solution." The mixed economies will continue to decline until the crossroads are reached: choose freedom or slavery.

Yes, it is true we have great technology and certainly enjoy a high standard living now, of course it is better than Ayn Rand's time. It would take a second type of Dark Age, where people lose their humanity and come to literally regard scientific knowledge as abhorrent and dangerous with data, technology, and knowledge itself being lost, forgotten, or censored in order to achieve the kind of withering loss of progress that would have to make something like the Depression Era seem like paradise. That's not to say some kind of massive depression couldn't occur in the future and wipe out large amounts of wealth and the world could be hurled into a never-before-seen collapse that would require liquidation of massive amounts of malinvestments and crushing global poverty, chaos, and war. Who knows, if things do keep going down the current path and people don't change their ideas then that will be inevitable and dictatorship is definitely a possibility. With the rise of religion and the Total State, maybe my bleak second Dark Age scenario isn't totally implausible. However, I think the progress of the human race in 2009 could and should be immensely better than it is currently and would be if not for the many chains holding it back. You could always say that about any time, though.

I recommend this article "The Republic Becomes the Empire" wriiten by an American journalist named Garet Garrett in 1952. I don't totally agree with it, but it provides some perspective of a past generation that was a lot closer towards totalitarianism than during my lifetime.

http://mises.org/story/3636

Edited November 18, 2009 by 2046

[Hotu Matua]

What do you base the premise of your statement on?

Laissez faire capitalism is certainly not on the rise. Our current govt is doing everything in its power to destroy it. The previous admin wasn't much better.

Since you start with a faulty premise it is hard to answer your question.

I think the world has been getting better:

Life expectancy, literacy and GDP per capita have been steadily rising all over the world. Few countries, mainly in SubSaharan Africa, escape this general improvement. These are all hard data.

Totalitarism is held only in very few rogue states. Most enjoy a level of freedom of speech, religion, thought,

Technology has brough a level of comfort no seen before. We know about the universe around us more than ever.

I prefer to live in 2009 than in the early eighties, when Ayn Rand died.

This means to me that the world has been improving.

However, when I hear Leonard Peikoff on his lecture "Why Should One Act on Principle?" saying that the wrong principles of today's pragmatism are winning, or when I read some of you saying that we are becoming a more collectivist socialized society, or a less rational society, I am bewildered.

If we are worse off, why we seem to be better than ever?

Edited November 18, 2009 by Hotu Matua

[SapereAude]

I think the world has been getting better:

Life expectancy, literacy and GDP per capita have been steadily rising all over the world. Few countries, mainly in SubSaharan Africa, escape this general improvement. These are all hard data.

Totalitarism is held only in very few rogue states. Most enjoy a level of freedom of speech, religion, thought,

Technology has brough a level of comfort no seen before. We know about the universe around us more than ever.

I prefer to live in 2009 than in the early eighties, when Ayn Rand died.

This means to me that the world has been improving.

However, when I hear Leonard Peikoff on his lecture "Why Should One Act on Principle?" saying that the wrong principles of today's pragmatism are winning, or when I read some of you saying that we are becoming a more collectivist socialized society, or a less rational society, I am bewildered.

If we are worse off, why we seem to be better than ever?

That isn't what I addressed in your statement.

I addressed the falseness of your statement "because laissez fair capitalism and freedom have been on the rise?"

I would like specific information about where laissez faire capitalism is on the rise.. because I will start applying for visas now.

Laissez faire capitalism is dying a horrible death.

Some economies, China being the best example, are opening up their economies but it is not Laissez faire capitalism.

I don't want to split hairs here.. I honestly hate the Objectivist tendency to split hairs over semantics. But laissez faire capitalism is a pretty specific standard.

So say if you like that you think the situation in the world is improving. That is an arguable point.

But when you say it is because laissez faire capitalism is on the rise I'm going to demand you tell me where this is happening.

[Hotu Matua]

That isn't what I addressed in your statement.

I addressed the falseness of your statement "because laissez fair capitalism and freedom have been on the rise?"

I would like specific information about where laissez faire capitalism is on the rise.. because I will start applying for visas now.

Laissez faire capitalism is dying a horrible death.

Some economies, China being the best example, are opening up their economies but it is not Laissez faire capitalism.

I don't want to split hairs here.. I honestly hate the Objectivist tendency to split hairs over semantics. But laissez faire capitalism is a pretty specific standard.

So say if you like that you think the situation in the world is improving. That is an arguable point.

But when you say it is because laissez faire capitalism is on the rise I'm going to demand you tell me where this is happening.

Quovadis:

I did not state that laissez faire capitalism is on the rise. I asked a question. I wondered.

If we could agree that the lives of men have improved in average over the last decades (say, from the date of publication of AS) and if we agree that capitalism is the best (or only) political system that brings prosperity to people, we could then come to the conclussion that capitalism has been increasing, and that more freedom is being gained, in average.

Certainly I am talking about averages here. We know that some years, in some countries, we may find recession, wars, violence, loss of freedoms. But in general, as a world, it seems as if we have been improving, and if this is the case, the logical cause is more capitalism, not less. More freedom, not less.

Edited November 18, 2009 by Hotu Matua

[SapereAude]

Quovadis:

I did not state that laissez faire capitalism is on the rise. I asked a question. I wondered.

If I misinterpreted your statement I apologize, I think you can see how that statement could be read a couple different ways.

[TLD]

I think the world has been getting better:

Life expectancy, literacy and GDP per capita have been steadily rising all over the world. Few countries, mainly in SubSaharan Africa, escape this general improvement. These are all hard data.

Totalitarism is held only in very few rogue states. Most enjoy a level of freedom of speech, religion, thought,

Technology has brough a level of comfort no seen before. We know about the universe around us more than ever.

I prefer to live in 2009 than in the early eighties, when Ayn Rand died.

This means to me that the world has been improving.

However, when I hear Leonard Peikoff on his lecture "Why Should One Act on Principle?" saying that the wrong principles of today's pragmatism are winning, or when I read some of you saying that we are becoming a more collectivist socialized society, or a less rational society, I am bewildered.

If we are worse off, why we seem to be better than ever?

Who is "we"? Ask if "you" are better off?

As a healthy person, my life expectancy has not essentially changed since the 80s.

Economically, this is the worst time since then. ETC.

So why would I prefer today? There are always tech. advancements, but they are insignificant to the average citizen compared to remaining problems and a trend toward Statism. Do you want an iPod or peace and freedom?

Internationally, totalitarianism remains strong, terrorism is a long-term threat, nuclear threats are greater than ever, etc.

I can't see your perspective. On the other hand, I do my part in fighting the Govt. trend and attempt to live my life as free from coercion and negative economic impacts as possible.

[Hotu Matua]

Who is "we"? Ask if "you" are better off?

Yeah, I am better off, as well of most of my relatives, friends and colleagues. Are you surprised?

If you are surprised, why would you expect me, my relatives, friends or colleagues to be worse off?

As a healthy person, my life expectancy has not essentially changed since the 80s.

Are you kidding? You have now more chances to survive that the chances your parents had at the same age.

For example, if you suffer a heart attack, or a cancer, or a serious car accident, your chances of survival have increased a lot.

And not just survival: you have better chances to have a productive, flourishing life.

If Stephen Hawking was born when Ayn Rand was born, what had been his chances to develop a theory of time, black holes and the like?

Economically, this is the worst time since then. ETC.

On which hard data could you support that statement? What is the curve of GDP per capita, PPP, in your State, your country and the world in general?

A poor mother in the supermarket today has a variety, amount and quality of food available to her which is not comparable by any standard to the variety, amount and quality she had in the time where AS was written. She has a chance to make a deal with other poor lady living in Philippines via Internet.

I remember my childhood. I was lucky to have ten or twenty good books my parents could buy for me. Now I can read thousands of them on Internet. My bookshelves are filled with lush atlases, encyclopedias, etc. I have now the chance to participate in forums like this one with people from all over the world.

I am very, very wealthy!!

And the history of my wife is similar. She was born in a small village, spending her life milking cows and pushing a finger through hen's cloacal openings to check whether an egg was on is way or not. Now she is a pediatrician who can go to Paris in holidays.

So why would I prefer today? There are always tech. advancements, but they are insignificant to the average citizen compared to remaining problems and a trend toward Statism. Do you want an iPod or peace and freedom?

Are you kidding again?

Tech advancements have never been so marvelous, so far-reaching, so accesible to the John Doe.

Millions of Africans can make phone calls through cell phones, or watch the World Cup, or get drugs against AIDS.

And this is the result of more capitalism, not of more statism.

I want an iPod and peace and freedom. Indeed, iPods generally go ALONGSIDE peace and freedom. If in doubt, ask any North Korean what was his last dowload from iTunes.

Internationally, totalitarianism remains strong, terrorism is a long-term threat, nuclear threats are greater than ever, etc.

I am afraid you do not know what totalitarism is. Totalitarism, among other things, prevents you and me to be talking freely about Totalitarism in a forum like this. Ayn Rand accurately described when a totalitarian rule has come in power.

I agree Statism is far from declining, and we are fighting against it, but its ugliest and most unbearable expression, totalitarism, has been eliminated in most of the Earth, and now only lingers in rogue states as Cuba, North Korea, and some few Islamic countries.

I can't see your perspective.

You are seeing it just on your screen. Objectivism online, just at your fingertips. Internet. Google. The coke or the Kenyan coffe on your desk. Outside your window, the Prius rushing, the planes roaring. Far away, the Burj Dubai towering, the human genome being unlocked.

This is all the product of an increasing awareness about freedom, reason, and capitalism.

[TLD]

'Hotu Matua'

Are you kidding? You have now more chances to survive that the chances your parents had at the same age.

For example, if you suffer a heart attack, or a cancer, or a serious car accident, your chances of survival have increased a lot. And not just survival: you have better chances to have a productive, flourishing life.

We were only talking about the last 2 decades.

With such a trend toward Statism here, I do not believe the average person today has a better chance to be productive. The economic opportunities lost are and will continue to be immense.

COl has increased significantly in the last several years; that will get worse if the likes of Obama get their way.

But sure - and you did not need to explain - it is a better life in many respects if you look back 20+ years.

I want an iPod and peace and freedom. Indeed, iPods generally go ALONGSIDE peace and freedom. If in doubt, ask any North Korean what was his last dowload from iTunes.

You might not be able to have both fully.

Ask those N Koreans how much freedom they have?

Ironically, you speak of N Korea as if they are florishing, yet you talk of Totalitarianism as if that is not what exists there. (Yes, you did note it "lingers" there - as if it is going away.)

Totalitarianism can exist at different levels. Chinese and Koreans can't talk on these types of forums as easily as we can.

If you think that it is not growing in the U.S., then you do not understand Obama and how he was able to get elected.

True Capitalism is certainly not on the rise; but the desire for other countries to play a bigger role in the global economy is leading them - under Govt. control for the most part - to be somewhat freer totalitarians.

[Hotu Matua]

We were only talking about the last 2 decades.

With such a trend toward Statism here, I do not believe the average person today has a better chance to be productive. The economic opportunities lost are and will continue to be immense.

COl has increased significantly in the last several years; that will get worse if the likes of Obama get their way.

But sure - and you did not need to explain - it is a better life in many respects if you look back 20+ years.

You might not be able to have both fully.

Ask those N Koreans how much freedom they have?

Ironically, you speak of N Korea as if they are florishing, yet you talk of Totalitarianism as if that is not what exists there. (Yes, you did note it "lingers" there - as if it is going away.)

Totalitarianism can exist at different levels. Chinese and Koreans can't talk on these types of forums as easily as we can.

If you think that it is not growing in the U.S., then you do not understand Obama and how he was able to get elected.

True Capitalism is certainly not on the rise; but the desire for other countries to play a bigger role in the global economy is leading them - under Govt. control for the most part - to be somewhat freer totalitarians.

North Korea is a totalitarian State. I used irony here. North Koreans do not have neither freedom nor iPods. If you ask a North Korean about his last download from iTunes, he will most likely answer he has no iPod to download any music to, because he has no electricity at home several hours a day, to start with.

High tech normally goes alongside peace and freedom.

I think that even when capitalism suffers here and there (e.g. it is unfairly accused of financial crisis and protectionist trends come back for a while) the global tendency is towards a wider recognition of freedom and capitalism as the only proved way to generate wealth and prosperity.

If this was not the case, then how can we explain the overall trend to prosperity and freedom in the world?

Ayn Rand legacy, alongisde the legacy of other great men, has had influence on people minds and world affairs. It has not gone unnoticed.

People say that Atlas Shrugged has been the most influential book of their lives (only people saying the same about the Bible outnumber them). This has to have an effect.

People like Von Mises or Friedman, even while not Objectivists themselves, must have had some positive influence to account for these trends.

I do not question the need to fight every single day against irrationality, collectivism and altruism. What I am wondering here is whether, based on hard data, we should he happy and more optimistic, and take this world trends as a motivation to keep going and achieve the full enchilada, instead of preaching doom beforehand.

Realism does not mean pessimism. In a race, the fact that the frontrunner realizes he is winning, doesn't mean he will now slow down and take things easily. It means he will be motivated to keep running, as he doesn't want to lose the advantage he has got.

[C.W.]

North Korea is a totalitarian State. I used irony here. North Koreans do not have neither freedom nor iPods. If you ask a North Korean about his last download from iTunes, he will most likely answer he has no iPod to download any music to, because he has no electricity at home several hours a day, to start with.

High tech normally goes alongside peace and freedom.

I think that even when capitalism suffers here and there (e.g. it is unfairly accused of financial crisis and protectionist trends come back for a while) the global tendency is towards a wider recognition of freedom and capitalism as the only proved way to generate wealth and prosperity.

If this was not the case, then how can we explain the overall trend to prosperity and freedom in the world?

Ayn Rand legacy, alongisde the legacy of other great men, has had influence on people minds and world affairs. It has not gone unnoticed.

People say that Atlas Shrugged has been the most influential book of their lives (only people saying the same about the Bible outnumber them). This has to have an effect.

People like Von Mises or Friedman, even while not Objectivists themselves, must have had some positive influence to account for these trends.

I do not question the need to fight every single day against irrationality, collectivism and altruism. What I am wondering here is whether, based on hard data, we should he happy and more optimistic, and take this world trends as a motivation to keep going and achieve the full enchilada, instead of preaching doom beforehand.

Realism does not mean pessimism. In a race, the fact that the frontrunner realizes he is winning, doesn't mean he will now slow down and take things easily. It means he will be motivated to keep running, as he doesn't want to lose the advantage he has got.

There is a lot to be said about how we live today. Today's generations are certainly the wealthiest to have ever lived. We have many benefits from the industrial revolution and its ongoing consequences. But this progress has been slowed.

I chose my avatar as a reminder of what we could have had: a flying car. We were promised flying cars (well, by people who see developments in science and technology!). We don't have flying cars, and many other great things, because the economy has been slowed dramatically. Today's statist economists crow when our "mature" economy has a year of 3% growth. Just see what we could do with freedom! I have also heard Objectivists say that there really have not been any new scientific discoveries since the 19C.

You just have to keep perspective.

Philosophically, man's freedom and happiness have been under attack in the modern era since Kant. That attack is as intense as it has ever been, primarily because man has a defender, Ayn Rand. In the U.S. we have seen our economic freedoms being eroded for about a century now. That attack has also reached a level not seen since the 1930's. These attacks make us feel as if the world is closing in and our future uncertain. It seems that all we have attained and all we could achieve are at risk, and more so than before.

[Hotu Matua]

I have also heard Objectivists say that there really have not been any new scientific discoveries since the 19C.

Where? Who? How?

[C.W.]

Where? Who? How?

I was standing in the lobby of a hotel in Boston before a Ford Hall Forum speech. I'm sorry, I do not remember the hotel or the year. I don't remember if it was a speech by Ayn Rand or Leonard. I do remember three comments.

The lobby was fairly full. Standing nearby were three or four of the professors we went to hear at conferences (but not Leonard Peikoff). They were covering several different subjects over several minutes while they waited for someone. They talked about astronomy and the red shift briefly (doen't mean distance, they thought).

One professor, speeking with conviction, said something that I have used often. Apparently referring to some shared experience, he said that the word couple could mean as many as eight.

The comment that I mentioned was that in the speaker's judgment there had not been a fundemental discovery in science since the turn of the century. All that we had seen was the extension or application of previous discoveries. He took this lack of progress as the result of Kantian philosophy.

I have not been in contact with these people since then to ask follow-up questions.

[D'kian]

The comment that I mentioned was that in the speaker's judgment there had not been a fundemental discovery in science since the turn of the century. All that we had seen was the extension or application of previous discoveries. He took this lack of progress as the result of Kantian philosophy.

That depends on what he means by fundamental.

One can argue the last fundamental dicoveries were Relativity and Quantum mechanics, in the early 1900s, and everything since then has been "merely" an extension or aplication of these.

This ignores developments like string theory in physics, and tons of dicoveries and developments in other fields. Biology has certainly amde many "fundamental" discoveries since 1900, including the discovery of DNA, the development of genetic engineering, and a slow but steady advance on figuring out how exactly genes work. And that's just genetics. Since then developments like the electron microscope and the scaning-tunneling microscope have advanced the knwoledge of cell structure and function significantly. hell, the cytoskeleton wasn't discovered until the early 80s. Astronomers have found things like Black Holes, the Big Bang (well, evidence for it) and inferred the existence of dark matter. Oh, in physics there's atomic theory and particle physics, but that, too, began early last century.

I would agree there ahve been no scientists of the caliber of Einstein in a while, but then I would ask this question: how many fundamental discoveries in physics between Newton and Einstein?

Discuss

[Hotu Matua]

I was standing in the lobby of a hotel in Boston before a Ford Hall Forum speech. I'm sorry, I do not remember the hotel or the year. I don't remember if it was a speech by Ayn Rand or Leonard. I do remember three comments.

The lobby was fairly full. Standing nearby were three or four of the professors we went to hear at conferences (but not Leonard Peikoff). They were covering several different subjects over several minutes while they waited for someone. They talked about astronomy and the red shift briefly (doen't mean distance, they thought).

One professor, speeking with conviction, said something that I have used often. Apparently referring to some shared experience, he said that the word couple could mean as many as eight.

The comment that I mentioned was that in the speaker's judgment there had not been a fundemental discovery in science since the turn of the century. All that we had seen was the extension or application of previous discoveries. He took this lack of progress as the result of Kantian philosophy.

I have not been in contact with these people since then to ask follow-up questions.

Thanks for your explanatin, C.W.

Personally, I believe that there have been many Hank Reardens, John Galts and Howard Roarks out there. They are a tiny minority compared with the world population, but still a significant absolute number to make this world a better place.

Characters in Ayn Rand's novels were inspired by real men and women. Those men and women did exist in Rand's time, and they exist now.

Quantum physics, quarks, contraceptives, antibiotics, and specially genetics are all part of the XX century.

We have had not just better technology, but revolutionary knowledge, real breakthroughs.

I agree that science could have run much faster without the chains and cuffs of statism. But free minds are not stopped so easily.

Our science is far, far away from what scientists in XIX could have imagined. They laid the foundations, but our contemporary free men are also laying the foundations of what will come next.

Ayn Rand philosophy itself is growing, not declining. And this must be having a positive impact. If we deny the positive effect of Objectivism on mankind than we deny the strength of truth and reason, and the very nature of man. We should be the first ones to claim victory for the forces of good, not doom and defeat.

Ayn Rand was clear that the USA would become a dictatorship IF the course of evens kept unchanged. But through her work, and the work of people after her, and around her, our Titanic has been slowly drifting away from the icebergs. We are not out of danger, certainly. We are in the middle of a war. Irrationality surrounds us, besiege us. But we must be sure of our own victory. John Galt was always sure. It can't be otherwise.

Edited November 21, 2009 by Hotu Matua