After decades of anticipation, it's finally here: A movie based on Philosopher/Objectivist Ayn Rand's most famous novel, her masterpiece, Atlas Shrugged (1957).
Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart Grant Bowler as Hank Rearden Matthew Marsden as James Taggart Graham Beckel as Ellis Wyatt Edi Gathegi as Edwin "Eddie" Willers Jsu Garcia as Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia Michael Lerner as Wesley Mouch Nick Cassavetes as Richard McNamara Ethan Cohn as Owen Kellogg Rebecca Wisocky as Lillian Rearden Christina Pickles as Mother Rearden Neill Barry as Philip Rearden Patrick Fischler as Paul Larkin Sylva Kelegian as Ivy Starnes Jon Polito as Orren Boyle Michael O'Keefe as Hugh Akston Paul Johansson as John Galt (not shown fully)
Grant Bowler and Taylor Schilling as Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart
Taylor Schilling as Dagny Taggart, Vice-President in Charge of Operations for Taggart Transcontinental
Grant Bowler (from True Blood) as Hank Rearden
Matthew Marsden as James Taggart
Jim Taggart, Wesley Mouch, Paul Larkin, Orren Boyle clockwise around the table.
Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastian d'Anconia is looking a little ragged
Last year, producer John Aglialoro, who bought the rights in 1992, had to make the film or lose the option. Interview: Atlasphere
Atlas Shrugged was one of the biggest development disasters of the past few years. Lionsgate was ready to cast Pitt and Jolie as Dagny and Galt. Jolie is a well-known Rand enthusiast. Things fell through. In 2009 the novel's sales were making news as they tend to do during economic downturns (probably also to do with the political climate and ). Then there was going to be a Atlas Shrugged miniseries, then Charlize Theron was going to play Dagny. Aglialoro finally rushed to get started early in 2010 before he lost the rights to the movie.
I have been anticipating this moment for months and now that the trailer is finally out all I can say is I am blown away and so excited. So maybe the casting isn't perfect. So what? At least it has been done in some meaningful way - not totally intellectually compromised, and not some B-list movie either. Furthermore, it's just the first of three parts. Depending on the reception the next two parts could come quite quickly and with greater production value. Meanwhile, the release date is set at April 15, 2011.
UPDATE: The movie was screened to a private audience on February 25th to create some buzz. The reviews by Rand supporters were generally glowing. Here is one:
The skeptics are wrong. The completed film was shown today for the first time in a private screening. It is simply beautiful. With a screenplay faithful to the narrative and message of the novel, the adaptation is lushly produced. The acting, cinematography, and score create a powerful experience of the story.
Obviously if you are a detractor of Ayn Rand you probably won't enjoy a faithful adaptation. Sorry. But I think a wider scope of people will agree with Kelly that "This film is going to turbocharge the debate over Rand’s vision of capitalism as a moral ideal." Considering the film comes out on tax day while collective bargainers conduct a circus in several states it seems like something of a perfect storm for an objectivist debate.
Finally, check out this scene. If you have read the book, does it capture the moment well? For me it really does. I love the music, the acting, the production - It really gets me hyped.
Check out the reactions of other people who actually care in the comments section at the movie promotion site
I'm worried that the high school film class that was responsible for editing the trailer might also have other roles in the movie's production...
I also wonder how they'll converts the 50 pages or so in the book where Ayn Rand simply announces her philosophy in the middle of the book into movie form. I hope the movie cuts to black and is just a woman screaming it at you.
Yeah something about the way the trailer starts off by saying "IT'S FAKE", makes me somehow doubt the genuinity of the trailer. It sort of makes a mockery of the book, but it is funny in an absurd, cynical way.
Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
With Rand's philosophy institutions that operate at a loss such as NASA, public schools, the DMV, the FDA, ect would not likely exist and breakthroughs in theoretical science would be hard to achieve because they are not obviously financially viable but theoretical science has given us so many things that would be almost impossible to come by in a world that followed Rand's core valves like MRI's, Nuclear power, X-rays machines, and Chemotherapy for cancer patiences to name a few.
Oh my, it looks like second-handers made this movie I hope I am wrong...
EDIT: A soap-opera star directing it, and B-grade actors, even the cameras in the trailer looks cheap. This really would have been better unmade. And BTW, I think you all comment on some fan trailer with Bad Pitt the OP mistakenly linked to.
On February 12 2011 08:40 Torte de Lini wrote: "why don't you let me finish!"
...
Sounded so out of place and cheap.
The movie sounds interesting. I don't understand the plot nor why it has to be "part 1"
Yea, they didn't bother to explain the plot at all in the trailer. I think they are assuming that the target audience would have read the book. And it's part 1 because the book is something like 1400 pages long
On February 12 2011 08:40 Torte de Lini wrote: "why don't you let me finish!"
...
Sounded so out of place and cheap.
The movie sounds interesting. I don't understand the plot nor why it has to be "part 1"
Yea, they didn't bother to explain the plot at all in the trailer. I think they are assuming that the target audience would have read the book. And it's part 1 because the book is something like 1400 pages long
That or they botched the book so much that the plot is linear, one-dimensional and boring. So they add really nice music and one-two good actresses/actors.
On February 12 2011 08:21 Andtwo wrote: I'm worried that the high school film class that was responsible for editing the trailer might also have other roles in the movie's production...
I also wonder how they'll converts the 50 pages or so in the book where Ayn Rand simply announces her philosophy in the middle of the book into movie form. I hope the movie cuts to black and is just a woman screaming it at you.
Ogod, what this guy said about the philosophy thing. I'm still lolling over "I hope the movie cuts to black and is just a woman screaming it at you." Hehehoho.I cant help but laugh every reread of this line, thank you for the amusement andtwo.
On February 12 2011 08:40 Torte de Lini wrote: "why don't you let me finish!"
...
Sounded so out of place and cheap.
The movie sounds interesting. I don't understand the plot nor why it has to be "part 1"
Yea, they didn't bother to explain the plot at all in the trailer. I think they are assuming that the target audience would have read the book. And it's part 1 because the book is something like 1400 pages long
That or they botched the book so much that the plot is linear, one-dimensional and boring. So they add really nice music and one-two good actresses/actors.
Well, it's possible, but if they had reduced the plot to that, wouldn't that make it easier to release just in 1 part? I think expanding it into 2 or 3 would be much more conducive towards developing the plot, purely based on time constraints when considering the source material.
On February 12 2011 08:40 Torte de Lini wrote: "why don't you let me finish!"
...
Sounded so out of place and cheap.
The movie sounds interesting. I don't understand the plot nor why it has to be "part 1"
Yea, they didn't bother to explain the plot at all in the trailer. I think they are assuming that the target audience would have read the book. And it's part 1 because the book is something like 1400 pages long
That or they botched the book so much that the plot is linear, one-dimensional and boring. So they add really nice music and one-two good actresses/actors.
Well, it's possible, but if they had reduced the plot to that, wouldn't that make it easier to release just in 1 part? I think expanding it into 2 or 3 would be much more conducive towards developing the plot, purely based on time constraints when considering the source material.
Harry Potter breaks your logic that I was initially going to agree with.
On February 12 2011 08:45 HowardRoark wrote: Oh my, it looks like second-handers made this movie I hope I am wrong...
EDIT: A soap-opera star directing it, and B-grade actors, even the cameras in the trailer looks cheap. This really would have been better unmade. And BTW, I think you all comment on some fan trailer with Bad Pitt the OP mistakenly linked to.
Fear not Roark. Investor John Aglialoro paid good money for the rights to this movie, and he is determined to do justice to the original. Here is an interview with him.
This looks horrible. Set in modern day, railroads and the steel industry are hardly compelling topics of capitalism and monopolies, and the trailer made the movie seem like a suspense thriller.
This was my reaction when they first announced they would make the movie
The movie should never exist, like, you cant make a dramatic life/story of a philosopher/philosophy into a movie and have it be true to the subject. Itd be like making a movie about Newton, or Nietzsche.
cue dramatic music: Nietzsche: "Your church is weak, we dont need it! We are the immoralists!!" Priest: "Look, you pinheads are just getting desperate" next scene: Nietzsche is duct-taped to a pew with priests repeating "The sun comes up, the sun goes down. Tide goes in, tide goes down, never a mis-communication" end
How does that work? You cant explain it!
But seriously, trying to make an existential subject into some sort of drama takes a very very clear plan to turn into a movie, and it just cant be done Atlas Shrugged. There are too many things that you just need to sit and think about for a day or 2 to grasp in order to really appreciate the entire book. And im not even going to get started on the dialogue.
On February 12 2011 09:23 ShadowDrgn wrote: This looks horrible. Set in modern day, railroads and the steel industry are hardly compelling topics of capitalism and monopolies, and the trailer made the movie seem like a suspense thriller.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
Sorry for double posting.
She was very young when she supported communism though, like pre-15. She thought the ones in office would really represent the people, but they didnt, so she does a total 180. And even though you can find problems in any one philosophy, I do agree that she is a bit too idealistic. Her ideas wouldnt work for the same reason pure socialism wont work: we arent 100% self sustained and rational all the time, and we arent a beehive either.
Even with the existentialism she tries throwing in there for justification, she kind of assumes all of the scientific evidence needed to support that does actually lead to her conclusion, not that we would ever get that amount of information needed ANYTIME soon.
I do agree with you about the villans. I want to punch James in the face everytime he talks.
On February 12 2011 09:23 ShadowDrgn wrote: This looks horrible. Set in modern day, railroads and the steel industry are hardly compelling topics of capitalism and monopolies, and the trailer made the movie seem like a suspense thriller.
Part 2: 3 hours of speech broadcast? Most painful book I ever finished.
If you told me this was for a basic cable channel and showed me that trailer I'd have 100% believed it. Especially that train cgi. Jeez if your shit looks that bad keep it out of the trailer.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
The movie should never exist, like, you cant make a dramatic life/story of a philosopher/philosophy into a movie and have it be true to the subject. Itd be like making a movie about Newton, or Nietzsche.
cue dramatic music: Nietzsche: "Your church is weak, we dont need it! We are the immoralists!!" Priest: "Look, you pinheads are just getting desperate" next scene: Nietzsche is duct-taped to a pew with priests repeating "The sun comes up, the sun goes down. Tide goes in, tide goes down, never a mis-communication" end
How does that work? You cant explain it!
But seriously, trying to make an existential subject into some sort of drama takes a very very clear plan to turn into a movie, and it just cant be done Atlas Shrugged. There are too many things that you just need to sit and think about for a day or 2 to grasp in order to really appreciate the entire book. And im not even going to get started on the dialogue.
Actually, the story of Socrates' life would make an amazing movie now that I think of it.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
Rand is a lot like Reagan or Palin in that their supporters are more like adoring fans who selectively pay attention to the histories of these people instead of looking at the history as a whole.
On February 12 2011 09:47 mucker wrote: Part 2: 3 hours of speech broadcast? Most painful book I ever finished.
If you told me this was for a basic cable channel and showed me that trailer I'd have 100% believed it. Especially that train cgi. Jeez if your shit looks that bad keep it out of the trailer.
I love the book, but getting through that speech was one of the hardest things I've ever read. Why must you suddenly get a 80 page speech repeating almost verbatim the things that have been obvious from the beginning of the novel? Really? John Galt believes what??! No way!
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
Rand is a lot like Reagan or Palin in that their supporters are more like adoring fans who selectively pay attention to the histories of these people instead of looking at the history as a whole.
My interest in the personal history of a philosopher is secondary to my interest in their philosophy. That's the main difference between me and the average supporter of Palin.
On February 12 2011 09:31 _Darwin_ wrote: I tried to take an objective glance at the trailer, but I just can't give it good marks.
Ha.
This book, rand and everything she's spawned are total travesties. With the exception of Bioshock and that one Rush album (I forgive them, they make great music). This is the type of thing our society really doesn't need right now, especially if it puts a positive light on this devilwomans work.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
Rand is a lot like Reagan or Palin in that their supporters are more like adoring fans who selectively pay attention to the histories of these people instead of looking at the history as a whole.
My interest in the personal history of a philosopher is secondary to my interest in their philosophy. That's the main difference between me and the average supporter of Palin.
So you understand why Atlas Shrugged is a joke of a book?
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
Rand is a lot like Reagan or Palin in that their supporters are more like adoring fans who selectively pay attention to the histories of these people instead of looking at the history as a whole.
My interest in the personal history of a philosopher is secondary to my interest in their philosophy. That's the main difference between me and the average supporter of Palin.
So you understand why Atlas Shrugged is a joke of a book?
I understand that the entire school of thought of objectivism portrayed in a novel can be hard to swallow, and I encourage people to believe whatever they want, but you don't need to agree with a philosophy to appreciate it.
One problem is that many people may be critical of the book without ever having read it. I don't agree one bit with the Communist Manifesto but I wouldn't dissuade anyone from reading it. I found it intriguing.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
Rand is a lot like Reagan or Palin in that their supporters are more like adoring fans who selectively pay attention to the histories of these people instead of looking at the history as a whole.
My interest in the personal history of a philosopher is secondary to my interest in their philosophy. That's the main difference between me and the average supporter of Palin.
So you understand why Atlas Shrugged is a joke of a book?
You're showing a hell of a lot of what you understand making such irrelavent, aimless attempts at communication. Do you have a logical argument against the book or is this the kind of flakey derogative you used to convince yourself you didn't have to keep reading?
edit: I'm not going to defend the allegation that "the book" is "a joke". If you even care to hear another side of things then you can be a bit more specific so that i don't have to start things off by listing what's not wrong in all those 1400 pages.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
It's not worth debating the principles of such philosophy with someone who's already too far down the rabbit whole...
I can tell you that in a true free market/libertarian world, you wouldn't be the Randian captain of industry in control of your own destiny. You'd likely be working in a sweatshop, for barely a livable wage.
It's silly, but that's exactly why this dribble appeals to young people. They fashion themselves as completely in control of their own lives, running their own businesses, and putting down others instead of the other way around.
Hello everyone, I am a pompous pseudo-intellectual and I am going to enjoy mocking anyone in this thread who is foolish enough to suggest their agreement with the works of a pro-capitalist. I will start by attacking Ayn Rand herself, then her supporters as a cult of loons. I will finish by calling the book boring drivel that has no literary merits. Don't make me grab the kitchen sink.
On February 12 2011 12:17 jdseemoreglass wrote: Hello everyone, I am a pompous pseudo-intellectual and I am going to enjoy mocking anyone in this thread who is foolish enough to suggest their agreement with the works of a pro-capitalist. I will start by attacking Ayn Rand herself, then her supporters as a cult of loons. I will finish by calling the book boring drivel that has no literary merits. Don't make me grab the kitchen sink.
Please tell me how well laissez fair capitalism worked out for the US circa 1930.
On February 12 2011 12:17 jdseemoreglass wrote: Hello everyone, I am a pompous pseudo-intellectual and I am going to enjoy mocking anyone in this thread who is foolish enough to suggest their agreement with the works of a pro-capitalist. I will start by attacking Ayn Rand herself, then her supporters as a cult of loons. I will finish by calling the book boring drivel that has no literary merits. Don't make me grab the kitchen sink.
Please tell me how well laissez fair capitalism worked out for the US circa 1930.
We had laissez faire capitalism in the US circa 1930?
On February 12 2011 12:17 jdseemoreglass wrote: Hello everyone, I am a pompous pseudo-intellectual and I am going to enjoy mocking anyone in this thread who is foolish enough to suggest their agreement with the works of a pro-capitalist. I will start by attacking Ayn Rand herself, then her supporters as a cult of loons. I will finish by calling the book boring drivel that has no literary merits. Don't make me grab the kitchen sink.
Please tell me how well laissez fair capitalism worked out for the US circa 1930.
Are you trying for the most non sequitur posts in a single thread?
gave it a fair shot to read the book, bored me so bad i couldnt get more than halfway through it. can't imagine why anyone would want to make a movie version
On February 12 2011 12:34 MerciLess wrote: gave it a fair shot to read the book, bored me so bad i couldnt get more than halfway through it. can't imagine why anyone would want to make a movie version
I gave Harry Potter a shot, and I was incredibly bored by it. And yet I can still understand that other people could enjoy it and look forward to the movie.
On February 12 2011 12:17 jdseemoreglass wrote: Hello everyone, I am a pompous pseudo-intellectual and I am going to enjoy mocking anyone in this thread who is foolish enough to suggest their agreement with the works of a pro-capitalist. I will start by attacking Ayn Rand herself, then her supporters as a cult of loons. I will finish by calling the book boring drivel that has no literary merits. Don't make me grab the kitchen sink.
Please tell me how well laissez fair capitalism worked out for the US circa 1930.
We had laissez faire capitalism in the US circa 1930?
Wow, okay, um, never mind. You've drank the kool-aid.
On February 12 2011 12:36 jdseemoreglass wrote: I gave Harry Potter a shot, and I was incredibly bored by it. And yet I can still understand that other people could enjoy it and look forward to the movie.
They made a movie out of it because hundreds of millions enjoyed the book, even if you didn't. Plus it was written well and has a cohesive universe and story.
Atlas Shrugged...people like her books for the philosophy, not the story*, and even then they don't number in the hundreds of millions ><. I'm not exactly sure how a profitable movie can be made out of a book like this one.
Well, someone's trying it. Will wait for the results before final judgment. My initial impressions are...not good, though.
On February 12 2011 12:36 jdseemoreglass wrote: I gave Harry Potter a shot, and I was incredibly bored by it. And yet I can still understand that other people could enjoy it and look forward to the movie.
They made a movie out of it because hundreds of millions enjoyed the book, even if you didn't. Plus it was written well and has a cohesive universe and story.
Atlas Shrugged...people like her books for the philosophy, not the story*, and even then they don't number in the hundreds of millions ><. I'm not exactly sure how a profitable movie can be made out of a book like this one.
Well, someone's trying it. Will wait for the results before final judgment. My initial impressions are...not good, though.
*Seriously, Rand makes Meyer look like Hemingway.
You should probably reread his post more carefully. Also, there are many people who enjoy Atlas Shrugged as a novel, and don't care as much about her philosophy. It's an enjoyable work of fiction in and of itself.
Hm, never read Atlas Shrugged, but a modern Fountainhead seems like it could make a good movie.
I'm not exactly sure what the target audience is for the trailer. It didn't reveal any actual premise and if I was completely unaware of Ayn Rand, I'd think it was just about some drama over railroads.
On February 12 2011 12:56 elmizzt wrote: You should probably reread his post more carefully. Also, there are many people who enjoy Atlas Shrugged as a novel, and don't care as much about her philosophy. It's an enjoyable work of fiction in and of itself.
I'm fairly certain that your definition of "many" is different from my definition of "many". Ditto with your implied definition of "literary merit". But I'll wait for the movie.
That said, Harry Potter isn't objectively "better" than Atlas Shrugged, one is a fantasy story, the other is a philosophical treatise.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
Rand is a lot like Reagan or Palin in that their supporters are more like adoring fans who selectively pay attention to the histories of these people instead of looking at the history as a whole.
My interest in the personal history of a philosopher is secondary to my interest in their philosophy. That's the main difference between me and the average supporter of Palin.
So you understand why Atlas Shrugged is a joke of a book?
It's an interesting (albeit laborious) book, but it strikes me that the nature of reading a book allows you to take breaks, mull things over and come to your own conclusions (even though the author tries to steer you in one direction.) None of those things are possible in modern films and it's a shame, yet somewhat fitting, that they've commercialized it and removed the intellectual exercise.
Hmm, I don't know how well this will work, especially as someone said earlier, railroads and the steel industries aren't really as relevant as they were in the 1950's They should change it up by having them own an internet company or something lol(which I wonder what Rand would think of Internet companies, since they don't really move anything in the world).
I read a third of the book but got bored of it because I thought Rand was just pounding the same point over and over again and the characters were rather one-dimensional. I do agree with parts of her philosophy but I don't understand how anyone could completely agree with it.
On February 12 2011 12:11 SirKibbleX wrote: There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
(Not my quote).
I'll one up you and go less subtle;
"I used to think Ayn Rand was the bomb but I outgrew it. You know, when I turned 12."
"-there is no middle ground here, no way for us to meet halfway in intellectual compromise; If you are an Objectivist, you are retarded. This is a judgement call, and I just made it. Grow up or fuck off. Those are your two options.'
That's from some blog called Gin and Tacos that I know nothing about. I'm fairly certain the writer is a college professor, talking there about the rise of Rand fandom in college students.
"It's exactly the kind of anti-intellectual, preachy, self-aggrandizing shit that plays well with immature people who think the world revolves around them - in other words, college kids."
The tone seems harsh...but I can't help but agree with the sentiment.
To all the people bashing Atlas Shrugged based on the overt political overtones - what did you think of Starship Troopers (the novel!!)?
It is another book that is very heavy handed in it's portrayal and encouragement of a particular political system, but not many readers take it as propaganda. It is merely the end result of the question "What would happen if fascism and militarism worked?"
I look at Atlas Shrugged the same way. I didn't analyze it on the merits of the ultra capitalism, but just a story with "ultra capitalism = good" as one of the fundamental tenets to it's construction, and wrapped that up with the rest of my suspension of disbelief.
That blog certainly lives up to its name, it's Opiate of the Asses alright.
Conventional wisdom is wrong. It's not "Liberal at 20 or no heart, conservative at 30 or no brain." Only the young can indulge (on mom and dad's tuition dollar, by the way) this kind of solipsistic ME ME ME horseshit.
Life is a battle between:
people who scream: me me me and people who scream: stop serving yourself... (and start serving me).
pick the lesser of the 2 evils.
But I'd have to say that Ayn Rand was pretty naive, truly selfish people should just start their own communist parties, rally a bunch of delusional followers, overthrow their current government, become the dictator, and then exploit the said followers for being stupid enough to follow them.
or a safer route: start your own cult (under a banner of altruism, love, equality, and friendship and all that jazz), and then suck all the money/life out of your naive followers.
[QUOTE]On February 13 2011 09:48 The KY wrote: [QUOTE]On February 12 2011 12:11 SirKibbleX wrote:
"It's exactly the kind of anti-intellectual, preachy, self-aggrandizing shit that plays well with immature people who think the world revolves around them - in other words, college kids."
The tone seems harsh...but I can't help but agree with the sentiment.[/QUOTE]
I think it's rather amusing to think of it as anti-intellectual. It's almost as if he doesn't get the point :o
At any rate, the movie is going to suck. I can count on none of my hands the number of book to movie transitions that have not sucked.
Coupled with the fact that the guy making it was just like "LOL AHM RUNNIN OUT OF TIME", doesn't say much for it. Additionally, if it's being made and backed by American conservatives who like to quote it and not actually understand that they're part of the problem Rand was screaming about.. well.
I'm betting anything that Michael Bay could make a better movie from it, and that's saying something
Bioshock is the most brilliant piece of literary criticism I've ever come across, and it is a way better response to Atlas Shrugged than anything I could hope to put in writing.
And the most genius part is how it does it with artistry and extreme quality in its story-telling, highlighting in that way the glaring lack of that in Rand's world.
Conventional wisdom is wrong. It's not "Liberal at 20 or no heart, conservative at 30 or no brain." Only the young can indulge (on mom and dad's tuition dollar, by the way) this kind of solipsistic ME ME ME horseshit.
Life is a battle between:
people who scream: me me me and people who scream: stop serving yourself... (and start serving me).
pick the lesser of the 2 evils.
But I'd have to say that Ayn Rand was pretty naive, truly selfish people should just start their own communist parties, rally a bunch of delusional followers, overthrow their current government, become the dictator, and then exploit the said followers for being stupid enough to follow them.
or a safer route: start your own cult (under a banner of altruism, love, equality, and friendship and all that jazz), and then suck all the money/life out of your naive followers.
You know you have used 2 non-existent things in your post? There is no such thing as lesser evil and there is no such thing as altruism.
I worked at The Ayn Rand Institute. I know many Objectivists. Among Objectivists who are professional intellectuals, the reaction to the trailer has been that it is bad. Among Objectivists who are not, the reaction has been mixed. Personally, the trailer excited me and I'm hoping that the movie is great (while it wouldn't surprise me if it is bad).
If you read AS and you liked it you should check out the link above.
The trailer looked too cliche. I'm afraid there's just going to be a bunch of one liners with terrible acting. It's not exactly the most positive portrayal of objectivism.
Wow, that article is terrible. I didn't know levels of terribleness existed on the internet in anything but 4chan.
To summarize the article
I don't think capitalism works in the real world and the philosophy is unethical because i think so and ayn rand was a bad person, therefore objectivism is bad, oh and down with the man [CEO's]
On February 12 2011 12:13 Offhand wrote: It's not worth debating the principles of such philosophy with someone who's already too far down the rabbit whole...
I can tell you that in a true free market/libertarian world, you wouldn't be the Randian captain of industry in control of your own destiny. You'd likely be working in a sweatshop, for barely a livable wage.
It's silly, but that's exactly why this dribble appeals to young people. They fashion themselves as completely in control of their own lives, running their own businesses, and putting down others instead of the other way around.
It's not part of the doctrine of objectivism that in a perfect society everyone would get to be a captain of industry and that includes me. You have to be both willing and able and that accounts for a very small minority indeed. I don't however ascribe to the notion that i'm entitled to be just as well off, and that the able being a small minority and at the same time getting something out of it is inherently immoral or unfair. Nor do i foolishly refuse to recognize that in a society of optimized individual freedom, if my work is truly any good, i can expect it to be valued by others, and how much they value my work defines how much they'd be willing to trade me for it in their own best interest. Beyond that, one has to know what one's work is worth and be sure to demand exactly what they are willing to trade for it. At what point would i not be in control? + Show Spoiler +
I've just had this sitting in a .txt file on my desktop for the last week and basically reread it to confirm it's actually what i want to say.
On February 19 2011 17:21 Shiragaku wrote: I have not read the book but is the novel about the rich going on strike and the poor cannot do anything without leeching off of them?
a man who invents a new engine and then goes into hiding because he is screwed over by socialism and new age gurus. He gets all the rich innovate people to go on strike and all the socialist take over and everything goes to shit. Lots of sex, philosophy and some sci-fi stuff at the end
On February 19 2011 17:21 Shiragaku wrote: I have not read the book but is the novel about the rich going on strike and the poor cannot do anything without leeching off of them?
a man who invents a new engine and then goes into hiding because he is screwed over by socialism and new age gurus. He gets all the rich innovate people to go on strike and all the socialist take over and everything goes to shit
Sounds like a book that is the libertarian/conservative Bible.
On February 19 2011 17:21 Shiragaku wrote: I have not read the book but is the novel about the rich going on strike and the poor cannot do anything without leeching off of them?
a man who invents a new engine and then goes into hiding because he is screwed over by socialism and new age gurus. He gets all the rich innovate people to go on strike and all the socialist take over and everything goes to shit
Sounds like a book that is the libertarian/conservative Bible.
Except it promotes Atheism the best ism in the world.
On February 19 2011 17:21 Shiragaku wrote: I have not read the book but is the novel about the rich going on strike and the poor cannot do anything without leeching off of them?
a man who invents a new engine and then goes into hiding because he is screwed over by socialism and new age gurus. He gets all the rich innovate people to go on strike and all the socialist take over and everything goes to shit
Sounds like a book that is the libertarian/conservative Bible.
Except it promotes Atheism the best ism in the world.
Haha, I know that Ayn is incredibly critical of religion but many Bible thumping conservatives seem to like her. Off topic + Show Spoiler +
EDIT: But gah...the reason I hate libertarians so much is because they seem to believe that they would be supermans if it was not for the fucking government. And just get rid of government. It is that fucking simple. I wonder why no one has tried it yet. This is a generalization but many young libertarians that are not into politics enough seem to have that train of thought. And they overuse the word open minded.
Um...what? That wasn't very good, unless this is fake, in which case good try, but I don't think it would be a good movie. Oh wait, it is real! This will definitely not be a good movie.
I don't care about the philosophy, I've also never read the book (don't have the energy to read a 1k+page book), but just looking at the trailer it seems boring and quite a stretch.
Really!? They are going to have Lexuses and luxury cars and everything else, and the biggest issue is trains? What the hell? Who cares about trains when I can fly my private jet, or drive a car with satellite radio and an HDTV? Maybe if they had made it in the 50s, or sometime earlier, where trains were still relevant, then it would make sense, but from the looks of the trailer they set it in the modern day and to that i say: Who cares about trains?!
On February 19 2011 18:07 elkram wrote: Um...what? That wasn't very good, unless this is fake, in which case good try, but I don't think it would be a good movie. Oh wait, it is real! This will definitely not be a good movie.
I don't care about the philosophy, I've also never read the book (don't have the energy to read a 1k+page book), but just looking at the trailer it seems boring and quite a stretch.
Really!? They are going to have Lexuses and luxury cars and everything else, and the biggest issue is trains? What the hell? Who cares about trains when I can fly my private jet, or drive a car with satellite radio and an HDTV? Maybe if they had made it in the 50s, or sometime earlier, where trains were still relevant, then it would make sense, but from the looks of the trailer they set it in the modern day and to that i say: Who cares about trains?!
Trains move a hell of a lot more than just people.
On February 19 2011 17:21 Shiragaku wrote: I have not read the book but is the novel about the rich going on strike and the poor cannot do anything without leeching off of them?
a man who invents a new engine and then goes into hiding because he is screwed over by socialism and new age gurus. He gets all the rich innovate people to go on strike and all the socialist take over and everything goes to shit
Sounds like a book that is the libertarian/conservative Bible.
Except it promotes Atheism the best ism in the world.
Off topic But gah...the reason I hate libertarians so much is because they seem to believe that they would be supermans if it was not for the fucking government. And just get rid of government. It is that fucking simple. I wonder why no one has tried it yet. This is a generalization but many young libertarians that are not into politics enough seem to have that train of thought. And they overuse the word open minded.
I don't think it necessarily has anything to do with a sense of superiority but more of a desire for individual freedom. Govt naturally gets in the way of this. Libertarians seem more inline with classic liberalism in this regard.
Rand hated libertarians also, so already you have something in common - though maybe for different reasons. That 'Atlas Shrugged' continues to remain relevant to the present is interesting, despite the critics who continue to dismiss it.
I will not support this movie in anyway, i have done too much harm already by reading this book and thereby giving it credence as something worth spending precious life on. There is a valid argument that it is just a story and can be enjoyed despite philosophical differences.... But not by me.
On February 19 2011 18:07 elkram wrote: Um...what? That wasn't very good, unless this is fake, in which case good try, but I don't think it would be a good movie. Oh wait, it is real! This will definitely not be a good movie.
I don't care about the philosophy, I've also never read the book (don't have the energy to read a 1k+page book), but just looking at the trailer it seems boring and quite a stretch.
Really!? They are going to have Lexuses and luxury cars and everything else, and the biggest issue is trains? What the hell? Who cares about trains when I can fly my private jet, or drive a car with satellite radio and an HDTV? Maybe if they had made it in the 50s, or sometime earlier, where trains were still relevant, then it would make sense, but from the looks of the trailer they set it in the modern day and to that i say: Who cares about trains?!
Trains are extremely relevant to countries like Japan and I think maybe Europe and heavily urban areas. I am pretty sure the US still uses them for shipping goods quite heavily.
UPDATE: The movie was screened to a private audience on February 25th to create some buzz. The reviews by Rand supporters were generally glowing. Here is one:
The skeptics are wrong. The completed film was shown today for the first time in a private screening. It is simply beautiful. With a screenplay faithful to the narrative and message of the novel, the adaptation is lushly produced. The acting, cinematography, and score create a powerful experience of the story.
Obviously if you are a detractor of Ayn Rand you probably won't enjoy a faithful adaptation. Sorry. But I think a wider scope of people will agree with Kelly that "This film is going to turbocharge the debate over Rand’s vision of capitalism as a moral ideal." Considering the film comes out on tax day while collective bargainers conduct a circus in several states it seems like something of a perfect storm for an objectivist debate.
Finally, check out this scene. If you have read the book, does it capture the moment well? For me it really does. I love the music, the acting, the production - It really gets me hyped.
I just had a big, sloppy, wet capitalismgasm... I thought the movie was derailed at one point, but learning that it was filmed and will be out soon, I am ecstatic!
I will watch these movies. I will take my friends and family to watch these movies. I will put 5 stars on them when they hit my Netflix queue...
"Hey, man. Violence is terrible! That damn, threatening state! Oh, did I say it was OK to massacre the native populations of the world because they are inferior? Hmm, hope nobody sees me for what I really am!"
- Ayn Rand, in summary.
Her egoism was thinly veiled worship of the top of the pyramid; I can't see it for anything else.
I'll probably pirate the movie and maybe, maybe watch it.
social libertarian, but unrestricted free market economics are a mistake we have made in history too many times. ayn rand's philosophy works in theory, but in practice it is a catastrophe.
On February 14 2011 04:32 TheBlueMeaner wrote: Bioshock was supposed to have been inspired by this novel, but it really does not resemble anything at all...
Bioshock was inspired by Atlas Shrugged in that the entirety of the game was a scathing criticism of what was proposed by Ayn Rand in her book.
On February 14 2011 04:32 TheBlueMeaner wrote: Bioshock was supposed to have been inspired by this novel, but it really does not resemble anything at all...
Bioshock was inspired by Atlas Shrugged in that the entirety of the game was a scathing criticism of what was proposed by Ayn Rand in her book.
I dont think it was a "scathing criticism" of the book.
If you piece everything together (especially listening to Andrew Ryan's audio logs towards the end) I think the developers were trying to show what would happen if you implemented that kind of society into the real world, given how we really act. Andrew had the best of intentions for the city, but the general population misinterpreted his ideals, and took his elitism too seriously, so the city fell into chaos. They took self-absorption too far.
I would give better examples, but its been like 2 years since ive played through it, but I think the devs like the concept of Atlas Shrugged, but wanted to show the big holes in it. The amount of effort they put into the game gives me that impression.
The perfection required to make that society possible is far beyond our ability right now, which Atlas Shrugged takes for granted that the tip top of producers and business men have that perfection. I mean, yeah you could run a perfect society if its filled with nothing but demi-gods who are (basically) omniscient. I do agree with Thoreau when he says that a society needs to have a common direction with its people in order to function, but good luck finding a handful of people with tons of resources who want to work together to make a great society and not backstab the other ones for "irrational" reasons. Overall, humanity is too young to play nice on a large scale.
On March 01 2011 03:14 gogogadgetflow wrote: UPDATE: The movie was screened to a private audience on February 25th to create some buzz. The reviews by Rand supporters were generally glowing. Here is one:
The skeptics are wrong. The completed film was shown today for the first time in a private screening. It is simply beautiful. With a screenplay faithful to the narrative and message of the novel, the adaptation is lushly produced. The acting, cinematography, and score create a powerful experience of the story.
Obviously if you are a detractor of Ayn Rand you probably won't enjoy a faithful adaptation. Sorry. But I think a wider scope of people will agree with Kelly that "This film is going to turbocharge the debate over Rand’s vision of capitalism as a moral ideal." Considering the film comes out on tax day while collective bargainers conduct a circus in several states it seems like something of a perfect storm for an objectivist debate.
Finally, check out this scene. If you have read the book, does it capture the moment well? For me it really does. I love the music, the acting, the production - It really gets me hyped.
Sorry for double posting, but I didnt want one ginormous post.
Ive read the book twice, and I really really dont like this clip. They got the dialogue right, but the emotion (especially on Hank's part) is just way waaay off. He was not THAT confident in front of his family that early in the book, he felt a lot of guilt and shame and he was more reclusive, he had more pauses where he didnt quite know what to say or how to react. I didnt see any of that, instead Hank was just going (psh lol wutever noobs *goes to work*)
Another little thing that got me is when Philip asked for money.. that whole sequence was like half accurate, but the little thing that gets me is that (im pretty sure) Hank didnt know anything about that organization Philip was with in the book because he didnt keep with with the newer social movements, he was just focused on business.
The production is really good looking, but I think its gonna be pretty misrepresented overall.
On February 14 2011 04:32 TheBlueMeaner wrote: Bioshock was supposed to have been inspired by this novel, but it really does not resemble anything at all...
Bioshock was inspired by Atlas Shrugged in that the entirety of the game was a scathing criticism of what was proposed by Ayn Rand in her book.
I dont think it was a "scathing criticism" of the book.
If you piece everything together (especially listening to Andrew Ryan's audio logs towards the end) I think the developers were trying to show what would happen if you implemented that kind of society into the real world, given how we really act. Andrew had the best of intentions for the city, but the general population misinterpreted his ideals, and took his elitism too seriously, so the city fell into chaos. They took self-absorption too far.
I would give better examples, but its been like 2 years since ive played through it, but I think the devs like the concept of Atlas Shrugged, but wanted to show the big holes in it. The amount of effort they put into the game gives me that impression.
The perfection required to make that society possible is far beyond our ability right now, which Atlas Shrugged takes for granted that the tip top of producers and business men have that perfection. I mean, yeah you could run a perfect society if its filled with nothing but demi-gods who are (basically) omniscient. I do agree with Thoreau when he says that a society needs to have a common direction with its people in order to function, but good luck finding a handful of people with tons of resources who want to work together to make a great society and not backstab the other ones for "irrational" reasons. Overall, humanity is too young to play nice on a large scale.
The Idealist in me looks to China and hopes that it can foster a second wave of human industriousness for the sake of industriousness.
On February 14 2011 04:32 TheBlueMeaner wrote: Bioshock was supposed to have been inspired by this novel, but it really does not resemble anything at all...
Bioshock was inspired by Atlas Shrugged in that the entirety of the game was a scathing criticism of what was proposed by Ayn Rand in her book.
I dont think it was a "scathing criticism" of the book.
If you piece everything together (especially listening to Andrew Ryan's audio logs towards the end) I think the developers were trying to show what would happen if you implemented that kind of society into the real world, given how we really act. Andrew had the best of intentions for the city, but the general population misinterpreted his ideals, and took his elitism too seriously, so the city fell into chaos. They took self-absorption too far.
I would give better examples, but its been like 2 years since ive played through it, but I think the devs like the concept of Atlas Shrugged, but wanted to show the big holes in it. The amount of effort they put into the game gives me that impression.
The perfection required to make that society possible is far beyond our ability right now, which Atlas Shrugged takes for granted that the tip top of producers and business men have that perfection. I mean, yeah you could run a perfect society if its filled with nothing but demi-gods who are (basically) omniscient. I do agree with Thoreau when he says that a society needs to have a common direction with its people in order to function, but good luck finding a handful of people with tons of resources who want to work together to make a great society and not backstab the other ones for "irrational" reasons. Overall, humanity is too young to play nice on a large scale.
The Idealist in me looks to China and hopes that it can foster a second wave of human industriousness for the sake of industriousness.
Yeah I see some issues with the enormous heavy-handed authoritarian government there.
It is just so disappointing that an objectivist society would be so hard to realize in practice. Right now we are stuck at some mean between socialism and capitalism/objectivism when either extreme would probably be a better society.
I guess the advantage to being an objectivist in today's society as opposed to a socialist is that an objectivist is robbed while a socialist must loot or starve.
The book was terrible, why would they make a movie out of it? Even if you agree with the "philosophy" behind it, the writing was still goddamn awful. The plot went nowhere for like 500 pages, then concluded with a 30-page long speech. The characters were all flat and one-dimensional. I can't see a good movie coming from this at all..
Watch a movie about a bunch of Mary Sue Demigods who somehow can think rationally without any emotion or irrationality subverting their though process, sign me up. I love realism. I just want to know if the movie goes through and justifies why everyone who dies in the train crash deserved to die like in the book. I mean how much of a monster can you be to justify someones death because they don't share your philosophy?
Here is a good review of the book:
"Ayn Rand's characters are almost completely defined by the extent to which they embrace her beliefs. A good guy by definition is someone who agrees with her; a bad guy someone who dares to have a different point of view. For all the lip-service Rand pays to individualism, she brooks no dissent from her heroes; none of her so-called individualists ever expresses a point of view significantly different from hers.
To illustrate the gulf between Rand's characters and human reality, consider this behavior. When Dagny Taggart meets Hank Rearden, she dutifully becomes his property, for no other reason than that he's the most Randian male around. When John Galt arrives, ownership of the prize female transfers from Rearden to Galt, because Galt is the more Randian of the two. Does it ever occur to Hank to be resentful or jealous? Does Taggart experience loyalty or regret? Might Taggart love Rearden despite his lesser Randness? No, those are all things that human beings might feel.
(In a related departure from reality, sex in Randland is more or less indistinguishable from rape. Foreplay? Romance? Capitalists don't have time for that commie nonsense.)
The real focus of Atlas Shrugged is to extoll Rand's philosophy. (Not to debate it, since no one in Randland with any any intelligence or competence could have a different point of view.) About Rand's philosophy I'll just make two points (which I'm not going to bother providing evidence for at the moment).
The first is that, like most social Darwinists, Rand fell short in her understanding of natural selection. Her philosophy was largely based on the false belief that nature invariably favors individual selfishness. In reality, evolution has made homo sapiens a social animal; cooperation and compassion are very human traits. More importantly, even if cold selfishness were man's nature in the wild, it would not necessarily follow that that would be the best way for us to behave in our semi-civilized modern condition.
The second point is that, contrary to Rand's belief, pure laissez-faire capitalism never works; it invariably leads to exploitation of the poor and middle class and to environmental catastrophe. The best economic system that has ever been devised -- so far -- is a mixture of capitalism and socialism. (less)"
On April 13 2011 10:23 Jswizzy wrote: Watch a movie about a bunch of Mary Sue Demigods who somehow can think rationally without any emotion or irrationality subverting their though process, sign me up. I love realism. I just want to know if the movie goes through and justifies why everyone who dies in the train crash deserved to die like in the book. I mean how much of a monster can you be to justify someones death because they don't share your philosophy?
Once again someone gets things wrong to justify their ideology.
It's not that they deserved to die because of their philosophy... The point was, the REASON they died was because of their philosophy. You can't run trains without an economy or a company that can maintain them. When the economy fails, society fails, and deaths will follow. That's the point.
Capitalism, with all it's flaws, has created an increase in the wealth of mankind. This doesn't just mean shallow materialism, it means modern medicine with it's cures for diseases, and better hygiene, and longer life expectancy, etc. It means less work and suffering, greater safety, in a word, progress.
On April 13 2011 10:23 Jswizzy wrote: Watch a movie about a bunch of Mary Sue Demigods who somehow can think rationally without any emotion or irrationality subverting their though process, sign me up. I love realism. I just want to know if the movie goes through and justifies why everyone who dies in the train crash deserved to die like in the book. I mean how much of a monster can you be to justify someones death because they don't share your philosophy?
Once again someone gets things wrong to justify their ideology.
It's not that they deserved to die because of their philosophy... The point was, the REASON they died was because of their philosophy. You can't run trains without an economy or a company that can maintain them. When the economy fails, society fails, and deaths will follow. That's the point.
Capitalism, with all it's flaws, has created an increase in the wealth of mankind. This doesn't just mean shallow materialism, it means modern medicine with it's cures for diseases, and better hygiene, and longer life expectancy, etc. It means less work and suffering, greater safety, in a word, progress.
Nope she killed off anyone who disagreed with her philosophy. Just face it Rand was the equivalent of Stalin when it came to anyone who challenged her philosophy in her books.
Jswizzy, if you aren't interested in the movie I won't even make you go.
However it's pretty clear you don't really understand Objectivism/Laissez-faire. It is *not* the same as Social Darwinism.
Social Darwinist perspectives fail to realize that man has the ability to produce what he needs to survive. Instead of fighting with each other for scarce resources, men can create abundant goods to satisfy their needs. That is why you will not be able to find a historical example of pure laissez-faire capitalism as detrimental to of any class in society.
You also may not understand that there is plenty of room in laissez-faire capitalism for benevolence and generosity - except that it is voluntary at all times. You are right that people are social animals, and you may need to read again to see that Ayn Rand's heroes were commited to production and spread values, not sacrifice and death.
In short, Social Darwinism is an argument against socialism, but not for laissez-faire capitalism.
On April 13 2011 10:22 iamho wrote: The book was terrible, why would they make a movie out of it? Even if you agree with the "philosophy" behind it, the writing was still goddamn awful. The plot went nowhere for like 500 pages, then concluded with a 30-page long speech. The characters were all flat and one-dimensional. I can't see a good movie coming from this at all..
To be fair, one-dimensional simplicities suit the political leanings of the book quite well. If anything, it's written perfectly, considering.
On April 13 2011 11:04 Lochat wrote: As someone with a degree in philosophy, please never call Ayn Rand a philosopher. Thank you.
A philosopher is "a person who offers views or theories on profound questions in ethics, metaphysics, logic, and other related fields"
Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views.
On April 13 2011 11:19 gogogadgetflow wrote: Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views.
That's fine but then your group of philosophers also contains Bill Hicks and Sam Kinison. So maybe the club isn't so elite all the time.
On April 13 2011 11:19 gogogadgetflow wrote: Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views.
That's fine but then your group of philosophers also contains Bill Hicks and Sam Kinison. So maybe the club isn't so elite all the time.
Aren't you the guy who was in this thread 2 months ago just trolling?
I loved reading the Fountainhead and I thought the movie was pretty good too (the movie of Fountainhead), considering what it had to try and follow up.
For some reason I've tried starting Atlas Shrugged twice and didn't stay with it. I have to get into it though because I feel it's be worth the read, and of course watch the movie afterwards.
On April 13 2011 11:19 gogogadgetflow wrote: Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views.
That's fine but then your group of philosophers also contains Bill Hicks and Sam Kinison. So maybe the club isn't so elite all the time.
Aren't you the guy who was in this thread 2 months ago just trolling?
And regardless of whether he did (I have no idea), that makes his point less valid how?
Actually don't worry I don't know what i'm doing trying to have any sort of reasonable debate with an objectivist it's like talking to a brick wall of unrealistic rhetoric where all the answers to any criticism revolve around this bizarre idea that somehow the free market will choose the one group of people who aren't subject to misusing power like all the other authoritarian and aristocratic governments over the years. I mean if the political philosophy based off making all men equal and helping each other out at the cost of oneself ended up as a huge clusterfuck of corruption, purging and collapse, why on earth do people think one based off selfishness and greed is going to result in anything better?
To this question I shall receive the same tired response taking offence to the implication of similarity and then casually avoiding the question while focusing on some side issue I never mentioned.
Looks like a movie for conservatives to circle jerk to. The sheer amount of elitism in the story is just hilarious. Anyone who thinks they're irreplaceable is basically a delusional idiot. The only people who come close are brilliant scientists, but even then they can be replaced as well and there will be smarter people in the future, and have been smarter people in the past.
On April 13 2011 21:04 Ocedic wrote: Looks like a movie for conservatives to circle jerk to. The sheer amount of elitism in the story is just hilarious. Anyone who thinks they're irreplaceable is basically a delusional idiot. The only people who come close are brilliant scientists, but even then they can be replaced as well and there will be smarter people in the future, and have been smarter people in the past.
Yes! And even scientists are screwed since in Randland they would need money to be heavily backed/supported and be "moochers" since they do not "produce" in the black-and-white stupid Rand way of pure money generation.
Embracing Randian "philosophy" is the path of the glorified use car salesman of the 20th+ century who didn't leave their ego behind in 11th grade. They need to believe pushing mortgages and bundles of shares is "producing" and important or they would just self-end.
Capitalism, with all it's flaws, has created an increase in the wealth of mankind. This doesn't just mean shallow materialism, it means modern medicine with it's cures for diseases, and better hygiene, and longer life expectancy, etc. It means less work and suffering, greater safety, in a word, progress.
No, no, no, no. SCIENCE was responsible for these things. Capitalism being at the ready to exploit science to the maximum *might* lead to more technological advances and faster innovations, but so could lots of other systems possibly. Also raw capitalism leads to greater safety and less suffering? In the work place too? I can think of about 2 million sweatshop workers who disagree.
Rand was an armchair sociologist who came up with objectivism out of despair after she realized being a communist (which she started out as) was so stupid. Her whole speech in Atlas Shrugged reeks of an immature all-or-nothing tantrum after finding out Santa isn't real. Read it again right now, I just did, it is just pathetic and *that* is supposed to be the grand outline of her "philosophy"? Yikes.
On April 13 2011 21:04 Ocedic wrote: Looks like a movie for conservatives to circle jerk to. The sheer amount of elitism in the story is just hilarious. Anyone who thinks they're irreplaceable is basically a delusional idiot. The only people who come close are brilliant scientists, but even then they can be replaced as well and there will be smarter people in the future, and have been smarter people in the past.
Yes! And even scientists are screwed since in Randland they would need money to be heavily backed/supported and be "moochers" since they do not "produce" in the black-and-white stupid Rand way of pure money generation.
Embracing Randian "philosophy" is the path of the glorified use car salesman of the 20th+ century who didn't leave their ego behind in 11th grade. They need to believe pushing mortgages and bundles of shares is "producing" and important or they would just self-end.
Did you just say that scientists never produce anything? And do you think that the majority of scientists are funded by tax dollars?
Also, I am always really, really confused when a bunch of people post in a thread simply to attack the whole topic of the thread to begin with. You don't like Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged? Fine. But why do we have six pages of people coming in here just to repeat that? Why post in the thread at all? I just assume people want to feel smart by going after an easy target like this.
Libertarian here and not a fan of Ayn Rand. After all, she hated libertarians, especially the Rothbardians, which I am one of. If you want to read good libertarian fiction I'd recommend Robert Heinlein (Moon is a Harsh Mistress), J. Neil Schulman (Alongside Night is amazing), and L. Neil Smith (Probability Broach).
I find it sort of hilarious how many libertarians like Rand considering she hated us...we have a rich intellectual history and if you want to read heavyweight libertarian women I'd recommend Isabel Paterson or Rose Wilder Lane.
On February 12 2011 08:41 Jswizzy wrote: Atlas Shrugged is a straw man argument for Laissez-faire capitalism. It's a great book but Rand supported communism before capitalism and the book is just the result of here disillusionment with that system after it failed to live up to her pure idealism. I would recommend looking into the book although it is pretty boring up until about 1/2 of the way into it.
edit: the reason I liked the book is because I truly hated the villains, you want to yell at them for being so absurdly stupid. Laissez-faire capitalism on the other hand just ends up with society being taken advantage of by tycoons and monopolies after they have control of a market.
I really don't want to derail too much, but does anyone have any idea what this person is referring to? Perhaps there's a general assumption that she must've been a communist at some point since she was raised in Soviet Russia, or is this one of those marxist interpretations of one of her works? Btw if the people at large concentrated more on preventing unfair legislative support for the rich as they see it, instead of seeing the freedom to be rich in the first place as unfair legislative support and demanding unfair legislative support for the poor as the only counter to it, capitalism would probably work just fine.
Read the forward in Atlas Shrugged thats were it mentions her support of the October Revolution.
Rand is a lot like Reagan or Palin in that their supporters are more like adoring fans who selectively pay attention to the histories of these people instead of looking at the history as a whole.
I'm stunned that I had to register to point this out. I just dug through the wikipedia page and it seems that she was in support of one character of the february revolution, who wasn't a bolshevik.
Also, she was 12...so it seems a little exaggerated to treat this very seriously.
I was a communist at 12. There's an old saying about people, their beliefs at certain ages, and certain missing organs characterized by those beliefs or the lack thereof.
Capitalism, with all it's flaws, has created an increase in the wealth of mankind. This doesn't just mean shallow materialism, it means modern medicine with it's cures for diseases, and better hygiene, and longer life expectancy, etc. It means less work and suffering, greater safety, in a word, progress.
No, no, no, no. SCIENCE was responsible for these things. Capitalism being at the ready to exploit science to the maximum *might* lead to more technological advances and faster innovations, but so could lots of other systems possibly.
What you are implying here is that socialist or mixed systems can co-opt market forces (simulating private property and market-driven prices) to reap the same economic benefits. What you forget is that mixed/socialist systems are by nature antithetical to the culture of entrepreneurship, management, risk taking, marketing, financial know-how that has led to the explosion of technological advances since the Industrial Revolution.
Also raw capitalism leads to greater safety and less suffering? In the work place too? I can think of about 2 million sweatshop workers who disagree.
Arguing against "sweatshops" in general is evidence that you have been duped. You have been done an injustice by your teachers or whatever. Some facts about "sweatshops" in 3rd world countries: In Honduras, half the working population lives on $2/day, while "sweatshops" pay $13.10/day. The same trend can be seen in cambodia, haiti, and nicaragua. Do you think there are anti-Nike or anti-GM protests in these countries?
Since the dawn of the industrial revolution, capital investment in undeveloped countries has caused an increase in marginal productivity, which by indisputable economic mechanisms, causes wages to rise over time. The only people weakened by foreign capital investment are labor "organizers" and other socialist-leaning factions in developed nations.
Rand was an armchair sociologist who came up with objectivism out of despair after she realized being a communist (which she started out as) was so stupid. Her whole speech in Atlas Shrugged reeks of an immature all-or-nothing tantrum after finding out Santa isn't real. Read it again right now, I just did, it is just pathetic and *that* is supposed to be the grand outline of her "philosophy"? Yikes.
I have no need to respond to ad hominem attacks on Rand in order to defend objectivism, LET ALONE capitalism. Objectivists are not cult members and the philosophy is bigger than its originator.
On February 12 2011 12:17 jdseemoreglass wrote: Hello everyone, I am a pompous pseudo-intellectual and I am going to enjoy mocking anyone in this thread who is foolish enough to suggest their agreement with the works of a pro-capitalist. I will start by attacking Ayn Rand herself, then her supporters as a cult of loons. I will finish by calling the book boring drivel that has no literary merits. Don't make me grab the kitchen sink.
Please tell me how well laissez fair capitalism worked out for the US circa 1930.
We had laissez faire capitalism in the US circa 1930?
Wow, okay, um, never mind. You've drank the kool-aid.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts.
For the record, we did not have Laissez Faire capitalism in the 1930's. We had less government intervention than we do now in some ways. However, a central bank is antithetical to Laissez-Faire capitalism. Whether you disagree with the notion of it or not, you can't have the government control the money supply, then somehow claim that the government has its hands off the economy.
I just looked through this thread, soooo many haters. I don't believe in her philosophy but I would highly recommend the book to anyone with a brain. Everyone is great at flaming against something that is obviously wrong but I thought most people with any brain power realized that even though it's wrong doesn't mean you hate on or bash people for being interested in it.
Do you go up to Christians and bash all of their ideas and ideals? Seven days? HA. Walking on water? HAHAHA. Resurrection? LOL. People are great at picking out the things they disagree with, in order to build their own argument and prove how right they are. They choose to ignore the fact that we can believe what we want to believe, that's the most beautiful thing about this planet. I know a lot of people who really enjoyed this book but they are not attacking others because they have obtained a self righteousness that only they understand. It's food for thought, like most every other philosophical work.
Quit passing judgment upon people, everyone is allowed to feel and believe what they want. By no means am I saying you should believe in a work of fiction.... It's a book, a book containing a persons views (personally I think she has ulterior motives when it came to her writing it, but that doesn't take away from the fine writing she did). It's up to the reader to take it for what it's worth and move on.
I love team liquid but in the past couple weeks I've truly come to realize how snobish everyone is. How right everyone has to be. There doesn't seem to be room for 'theory-craft' when it comes to life, everyone is stuck on how right and intellectual they can be. It's just a ride folks, we all experience it our own way. Whatever beliefs you choose to own, are just that, a beliefs. No human truly knows anything, no matter how much they convince themselves otherwise. Don't hate on others, its all about love.
On April 13 2011 21:04 Ocedic wrote: Looks like a movie for conservatives to circle jerk to. The sheer amount of elitism in the story is just hilarious. Anyone who thinks they're irreplaceable is basically a delusional idiot. The only people who come close are brilliant scientists, but even then they can be replaced as well and there will be smarter people in the future, and have been smarter people in the past.
Yes! And even scientists are screwed since in Randland they would need money to be heavily backed/supported and be "moochers" since they do not "produce" in the black-and-white stupid Rand way of pure money generation.
Embracing Randian "philosophy" is the path of the glorified use car salesman of the 20th+ century who didn't leave their ego behind in 11th grade. They need to believe pushing mortgages and bundles of shares is "producing" and important or they would just self-end.
Did you just say that scientists never produce anything? And do you think that the majority of scientists are funded by tax dollars?
Also, I am always really, really confused when a bunch of people post in a thread simply to attack the whole topic of the thread to begin with. You don't like Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged? Fine. But why do we have six pages of people coming in here just to repeat that? Why post in the thread at all? I just assume people want to feel smart by going after an easy target like this.
No that isn't what I said, I put "produce" in quotes to make sure it was Rand's purely cash-flow black-and-white version of production. Of course scientists produce, but not the way Rand would like, in her universe the scientists serve at the feet of the True Visionaries like Rearden. Because where would we all be without him or Rand? Dead in a train wreck right?
And it isn't about "not liking" the book. It is about otherwise smart (but confused) people who hold up objectivism as legit when it is a totally failed "philosophy" which would be horrible for humanity if it became the norm!! To re-quote a review that was posted earlier in the thread:
"...like most social Darwinists, Rand fell short in her understanding of natural selection. Her philosophy was largely based on the false belief that nature invariably favors individual selfishness. In reality, evolution has made homo sapiens a social animal; cooperation and compassion are very human traits. More importantly, even if cold selfishness were man's nature in the wild, it would not necessarily follow that that would be the best way for us to behave in our semi-civilized modern condition."
[B]Do you go up to Christians and bash all of their ideas and ideals? Seven days? HA. Walking on water? HAHAHA. Resurrection? LOL.
Uhhh, yes? Because these ideas are stupid and neither grounded in reality nor evidence nor anywhere that has pragmatic value to anyone. Same goes for Rand's worldview: pure mental masturbation that people cling to because of wishful thinking that THEY are important producers. (Kind of similar to the Christian version of "everyone is God's special flower and insanely important actually.)
What you are implying here is that socialist or mixed systems can co-opt market forces (simulating private property and market-driven prices) to reap the same economic benefits. What you forget is that mixed/socialist systems are by nature antithetical to the culture of entrepreneurship, management, risk taking, marketing, financial know-how that has led to the explosion of technological advances since the Industrial Revolution.
I am implying nothing of the sort and have zero idea what you are talking about. Only point out that if you want to start labeling things as responsible for advances to modern society the list starts at 1. Science and capitalism is maybe #3?
Some facts about "sweatshops" in 3rd world countries: In Honduras, half the working population lives on $2/day, while "sweatshops" pay $13.10/day. The same trend can be seen in cambodia, haiti, and nicaragua. Do you think there are anti-Nike or anti-GM protests in these countries?
Great, so those other things not called sweatshops are actually the sweatshops? Not sure how this makes any point at all other than greedy people exploit others. I have no idea if there are protests or not, maybe there should be?
I have no need to respond to ad hominem attacks on Rand in order to defend objectivism, LET ALONE capitalism. Objectivists are not cult members and the philosophy is bigger than its originator.
Objectivism has no need to be defended, it was never legitimate to begin with. Like i said, just read her speech. It is the most black/white, good/evil, yes/no, with me/against me nonsense imaginable for what is supposed to be her grand masterpiece. It all shows up way before that in her characters though. Supposed to be realistic and embodying you and I, yet totally idealistic and in no way believable whatsoever.
On April 13 2011 21:04 Ocedic wrote: Looks like a movie for conservatives to circle jerk to. The sheer amount of elitism in the story is just hilarious. Anyone who thinks they're irreplaceable is basically a delusional idiot. The only people who come close are brilliant scientists, but even then they can be replaced as well and there will be smarter people in the future, and have been smarter people in the past.
Yes! And even scientists are screwed since in Randland they would need money to be heavily backed/supported and be "moochers" since they do not "produce" in the black-and-white stupid Rand way of pure money generation.
Embracing Randian "philosophy" is the path of the glorified use car salesman of the 20th+ century who didn't leave their ego behind in 11th grade. They need to believe pushing mortgages and bundles of shares is "producing" and important or they would just self-end.
Did you just say that scientists never produce anything? And do you think that the majority of scientists are funded by tax dollars?
Also, I am always really, really confused when a bunch of people post in a thread simply to attack the whole topic of the thread to begin with. You don't like Ayn Rand or Atlas Shrugged? Fine. But why do we have six pages of people coming in here just to repeat that? Why post in the thread at all? I just assume people want to feel smart by going after an easy target like this.
No that isn't what I said, I put "produce" in quotes to make sure it was Rand's purely cash-flow black-and-white version of production. Of course scientists produce, but not the way Rand would like, in her universe the scientists serve at the feet of the True Visionaries like Rearden. Because where would we all be without him or Rand? Dead in a train wreck right?
And it isn't about "not liking" the book. It is about otherwise smart (but confused) people who hold up objectivism as legit when it is a totally failed "philosophy" which would be horrible for humanity if it became the norm!! To re-quote a review that was posted earlier in the thread:
"...like most social Darwinists, Rand fell short in her understanding of natural selection. Her philosophy was largely based on the false belief that nature invariably favors individual selfishness. In reality, evolution has made homo sapiens a social animal; cooperation and compassion are very human traits. More importantly, even if cold selfishness were man's nature in the wild, it would not necessarily follow that that would be the best way for us to behave in our semi-civilized modern condition."
You do know Rand's philosophy wasn't new. She took a lot from Max Stirner. I think Stirner hit some important points, but I'm more pre-disposed to Thomism. The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist.
There is nothing in Egoism that precludes charity, or mutual aid. Straw-man arguments like those shed your understanding in a poor light. Also, free-marketers of either mutualist or capitalist strides are people who believe in cooperation more than anyone else. The reviewer doesn't seem to know what cooperation means, as cooperation is basis of the market.
[B]Do you go up to Christians and bash all of their ideas and ideals? Seven days? HA. Walking on water? HAHAHA. Resurrection? LOL.
Uhhh, yes? Because these ideas are stupid and neither grounded in reality nor evidence nor anywhere that has pragmatic value to anyone. Same goes for Rand's worldview: pure mental masturbation that people cling to because of wishful thinking that THEY are important producers. (Kind of similar to the Christian version of "everyone is God's special flower and insanely important actually.)
But just because people believe these things doesn't mean that those people are wrong about the things that really matter in everyday life, being good, just, true, loving, moral (at least these are values I hold, and hope you do as well). So what if they think the planet was made in 7 days, as long as they uphold the real things that matter then I'm not going to condemn them for something as frivolous as 'how we got here.' I know people who think aliens came to this planet and changed the dna structure of mammals to create human beings (and I know Christians who find this type of thing very interesting). I don't agree but am I going to judge them based upon this no, who am i to judge another, judgment on topics like this gets no where. When it comes down to it, we are all in the same boat, whether we see it or not. Why nitpick about our tiny differences, it just continues to divide us and allows for people to take advantage of the weaknesses inherent in man.
So whenever you meet a christian you decide to try and rip them a new one because you know about evolution? That won't get you far in the world and it will eventually lead to a bitter, ego driven existence. You have to let the things we can't change go and improve your Self.
On April 14 2011 04:52 Wegandi wrote: The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist.
Humans are not a hive species, but are a social species not an individualist "lone wolf" species. This same social behavior is seen in primates as well. It is natural for the basic layout of our societies to reflect this.
This is possibly a reason why neither communism/socialism nor anarchy/anarchocapitalism have ever produced a lasting civilization. (in fact historically, true communist or anarchocapitalist societies are extremely rare, arguably nonexistent) Even something like the US during the early 1800s was a mixed capitalist economy with some amount of regulation.
On April 14 2011 04:52 Wegandi wrote: The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist.
Humans are not a hive species, but are a social species not an individualist "lone wolf" species. This same social behavior is seen in primates as well. It is natural for the basic layout of our societies to reflect this.
This is possibly a reason why neither communism/socialism nor anarchy/anarchocapitalism have ever produced a lasting civilization. (in fact historically, true communist or anarchocapitalist societies are extremely rare, arguably nonexistent) Even something like the US during the early 1800s was a mixed capitalist economy with some amount of regulation.
Please dont pull things out of your ass and present it as fact. Anarchism is the natural form of freedom, equality, democracy, voluntary association and ultimately true human liberation and contrary to your lies there have been anarchist societies throughout history that has shown that a society can be run totally decentralized without any authoritarian rulers, and btw they were economically more efficient than capitalist ones. Sadly those societies where crushed forcefully by imperialists becuase of the fear that when people saw a truly free society they would act to implement that in their own communitys and lives which threatens every social order today including our liberal "democracies" aka representative "democracy".(Please note im talking about Anarchism, also known as libertarian left or libertarian socialism, not so called "anarchocapitalism" which has nothing to with Anarchism)
When you say "true communism", what are you referring to? Communism as is understood by working people (if so you are incorrect since by that definition its very close to Anarchism in regards to values and outlook), or "communism" as the soviet union and the united states propagandized? (basically a totalitarian ideology that is totally contrary to the actual meaning of communism)
sorry for derailing the thread, maybie this is a discussion we could have in another thread but it pisses me of when people spout lies even if they might be based on ignorance.
What you are implying here is that socialist or mixed systems can co-opt market forces (simulating private property and market-driven prices) to reap the same economic benefits. What you forget is that mixed/socialist systems are by nature antithetical to the culture of entrepreneurship, management, risk taking, marketing, financial know-how that has led to the explosion of technological advances since the Industrial Revolution.
I am implying nothing of the sort and have zero idea what you are talking about. Only point out that if you want to start labeling things as responsible for advances to modern society the list starts at 1. Science and capitalism is maybe #3?
I'm not trying to downplay science vs capitalism. They are clearly interconnected and not opposed. I remind you that science is the work of free minds and Self-interest is the underpinning of both productive achievements and achievements of the mind. If science is responsible for societal advancement then self-interest is responsible for that.
Some facts about "sweatshops" in 3rd world countries: In Honduras, half the working population lives on $2/day, while "sweatshops" pay $13.10/day. The same trend can be seen in cambodia, haiti, and nicaragua. Do you think there are anti-Nike or anti-GM protests in these countries?
Great, so those other things not called sweatshops are actually the sweatshops? Not sure how this makes any point at all other than greedy people exploit others. I have no idea if there are protests or not, maybe there should be?
by "those other things" you must mean seasonal agricultural labor. Honduras produces a surplus of food. If the people subsisting on $2/day or less could get something by organizing, they would probably like to get a factory to be employed at. "Greedy" people provide the capital to build such factories and fill them with employees.
On April 14 2011 04:52 Wegandi wrote: The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist.
Humans are not a hive species, but are a social species not an individualist "lone wolf" species. This same social behavior is seen in primates as well. It is natural for the basic layout of our societies to reflect this.
This is possibly a reason why neither communism/socialism nor anarchy/anarchocapitalism have ever produced a lasting civilization. (in fact historically, true communist or anarchocapitalist societies are extremely rare, arguably nonexistent) Even something like the US during the early 1800s was a mixed capitalist economy with some amount of regulation.
Please dont pull things out of your ass and present it as fact. Anarchism is the natural form of freedom, equality, democracy, voluntary association and ultimately true human liberation and contrary to your lies there have been anarchist societies throughout history that has shown that a society can be run totally decentralized without any authoritarian rulers, and btw they were economically more efficient than capitalist ones. Sadly those societies where crushed forcefully by imperialists becuase of the fear that when people saw a truly free society they would act to implement that in their own communitys and lives which threatens every social order today including our liberal "democracies" aka representative "democracy".(Please note im talking about Anarchism, also known as libertarian left or libertarian socialism, not so called "anarchocapitalism" which has nothing to with Anarchism)
When you say "true communism", what are you referring to? Communism as is understood by working people (if so you are incorrect since by that definition its very close to Anarchism in regards to values and outlook), or "communism" as the soviet union and the united states propagandized? (basically a totalitarian ideology that is totally contrary to the actual meaning of communism)
sorry for derailing the thread, maybie this is a discussion we could have in another thread but it pisses me of when people spout lies even if they might be based on ignorance.
You might want to take your own advice. Your response would have been a lot better without all the fresh from the ass accusations about ignorance and lying. More to the point, you're hugely projecting about what you think I'm saying; most of the "lies" you're pointing out are things I neither said nor intended.
Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies which allowed them to be the invader rather than the invaded (in some cases, disease was also on their side -- however due to technology alone there was no way that the Incas were ever going to invade Spain, for example, and furthermore the resistance to disease is a byproduct of having a strong enough economy to be able to support high population densities living in some sort of city). It's no coincidence that the statist Maori all but wiped out the nearly stateless Moriori in the south Pacific. Only a statist society can really afford to have professional warriors to the degree that imperialist civilizations did; in an anarchist society, people must produce something of value to either sustain themselves independently or barter with others. Trying to sell warfare services in a free market would be a tough way to survive, particularly during peacetime.
Note the lack of a moral statement about what the invaders did. I'm not saying that anarchist societies were 'worse' or that they were violent (I know anarchy is supposed to be peaceful). I said that it hadn't produced a lasting civilization. You pointing out that many anarchist societies have existed, only to be wiped out by stronger/more technologically developed civilizations, reinforces my point. Also note that I only said that true communism and anarchocapitalism haven't existed, and left anarchy out of that statement. It was precisely for that reason; I'm not as dumb as you'd like to imagine. I do agree that the line between communism and leftist anarchy can be blurry.
When I said "true communism" I'm talking about the stateless society Marx envisioned which would theoretically follow after a period of state socialism (eg, USSR) in which the concept of private property would be abolished and people would live in a communal environment. Something like the original intent of the Israeli kibbutzim, or what some indiginous tribes have lived by such as the Moriori mentioned above or others in the Americas. Not the USSR (my use of "true" was specifically to make it clear that I'm not talking about the USSR or Maoist China).
If you have disagreements with this and would like to express yourself more constructively, I'm legitimately interested in hearing them.
I just looked through this thread, soooo many haters. I don't believe in her philosophy but I would highly recommend the book to anyone with a brain. Everyone is great at flaming against something that is obviously wrong but I thought most people with any brain power realized that even though it's wrong doesn't mean you hate on or bash people for being interested in it.
Do you go up to Christians and bash all of their ideas and ideals? Seven days? HA. Walking on water? HAHAHA. Resurrection? LOL. People are great at picking out the things they disagree with, in order to build their own argument and prove how right they are. They choose to ignore the fact that we can believe what we want to believe, that's the most beautiful thing about this planet. I know a lot of people who really enjoyed this book but they are not attacking others because they have obtained a self righteousness that only they understand. It's food for thought, like most every other philosophical work.
Quit passing judgment upon people, everyone is allowed to feel and believe what they want. By no means am I saying you should believe in a work of fiction.... It's a book, a book containing a persons views (personally I think she has ulterior motives when it came to her writing it, but that doesn't take away from the fine writing she did). It's up to the reader to take it for what it's worth and move on.
I love team liquid but in the past couple weeks I've truly come to realize how snobish everyone is. How right everyone has to be. There doesn't seem to be room for 'theory-craft' when it comes to life, everyone is stuck on how right and intellectual they can be. It's just a ride folks, we all experience it our own way. Whatever beliefs you choose to own, are just that, a beliefs. No human truly knows anything, no matter how much they convince themselves otherwise. Don't hate on others, its all about love.
Peace
The irony of having objectivism defended by someone who claims that we can't know anything objectively, that you can "believe whatever you want" and no one has any reason to "judge" your beliefs as being wrong, that objectivism is just as legitimate a belief as christianity, is almost perfect.
Though I do appretiate what you're saying about how most of the time we hold the same basic underlying beliefs even if and when we disagree on the details, still those details are also very important as they are how one chooses to expand on those same underlying beliefs and how one justifies them. You can't go very far towards improving yourself without picking and choosing your beliefs in great detail, and by as objective a standard as you can define. Challenging the beliefs of others and thereby inviting challenge to your beliefs, is often a great way to put your ideas to the test. It's not always a way of superficially inflating your own self-perception.
On April 14 2011 03:47 Sajimo wrote: I just looked through this thread, soooo many haters. I don't believe in her philosophy but I would highly recommend the book to anyone with a brain. Everyone is great at flaming against something that is obviously wrong but I thought most people with any brain power realized that even though it's wrong doesn't mean you hate on or bash people for being interested in it.
Do you go up to Christians and bash all of their ideas and ideals? Seven days? HA. Walking on water? HAHAHA. Resurrection? LOL. People are great at picking out the things they disagree with, in order to build their own argument and prove how right they are. They choose to ignore the fact that we can believe what we want to believe, that's the most beautiful thing about this planet. I know a lot of people who really enjoyed this book but they are not attacking others because they have obtained a self righteousness that only they understand. It's food for thought, like most every other philosophical work.
Quit passing judgment upon people, everyone is allowed to feel and believe what they want. By no means am I saying you should believe in a work of fiction.... It's a book, a book containing a persons views (personally I think she has ulterior motives when it came to her writing it, but that doesn't take away from the fine writing she did). It's up to the reader to take it for what it's worth and move on.
I love team liquid but in the past couple weeks I've truly come to realize how snobish everyone is. How right everyone has to be. There doesn't seem to be room for 'theory-craft' when it comes to life, everyone is stuck on how right and intellectual they can be. It's just a ride folks, we all experience it our own way. Whatever beliefs you choose to own, are just that, a beliefs. No human truly knows anything, no matter how much they convince themselves otherwise. Don't hate on others, its all about love.
Peace
The fact that you have a Bill Hicks quote makes we wonder if you even knew what the man was talking about? Bill was not in favor of being a fence sitter. Hell, he told some lady that Hitler didn't go far enough when she tried to heckle him.
On April 14 2011 04:52 Wegandi wrote: The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist.
Humans are not a hive species, but are a social species not an individualist "lone wolf" species. This same social behavior is seen in primates as well. It is natural for the basic layout of our societies to reflect this.
This is possibly a reason why neither communism/socialism nor anarchy/anarchocapitalism have ever produced a lasting civilization. (in fact historically, true communist or anarchocapitalist societies are extremely rare, arguably nonexistent) Even something like the US during the early 1800s was a mixed capitalist economy with some amount of regulation.
Please dont pull things out of your ass and present it as fact. Anarchism is the natural form of freedom, equality, democracy, voluntary association and ultimately true human liberation and contrary to your lies there have been anarchist societies throughout history that has shown that a society can be run totally decentralized without any authoritarian rulers, and btw they were economically more efficient than capitalist ones. Sadly those societies where crushed forcefully by imperialists becuase of the fear that when people saw a truly free society they would act to implement that in their own communitys and lives which threatens every social order today including our liberal "democracies" aka representative "democracy".(Please note im talking about Anarchism, also known as libertarian left or libertarian socialism, not so called "anarchocapitalism" which has nothing to with Anarchism)
When you say "true communism", what are you referring to? Communism as is understood by working people (if so you are incorrect since by that definition its very close to Anarchism in regards to values and outlook), or "communism" as the soviet union and the united states propagandized? (basically a totalitarian ideology that is totally contrary to the actual meaning of communism)
sorry for derailing the thread, maybie this is a discussion we could have in another thread but it pisses me of when people spout lies even if they might be based on ignorance.
You might want to take your own advice. Your response would have been a lot better without all the fresh from the ass accusations about ignorance and lying. More to the point, you're hugely projecting about what you think I'm saying; most of the "lies" you're pointing out are things I neither said nor intended.
Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies which allowed them to be the invader rather than the invaded (in some cases, disease was also on their side -- however due to technology alone there was no way that the Incas were ever going to invade Spain, for example, and furthermore the resistance to disease is a byproduct of having a strong enough economy to be able to support high population densities living in some sort of city). It's no coincidence that the statist Maori all but wiped out the nearly stateless Moriori in the south Pacific. Only a statist society can really afford to have professional warriors to the degree that imperialist civilizations did; in an anarchist society, people must produce something of value to either sustain themselves independently or barter with others. Trying to sell warfare services in a free market would be a tough way to survive, particularly during peacetime.
Note the lack of a moral statement about what the invaders did. I'm not saying that anarchist societies were 'worse' or that they were violent (I know anarchy is supposed to be peaceful). I said that it hadn't produced a lasting civilization. You pointing out that many anarchist societies have existed, only to be wiped out by stronger/more technologically developed civilizations, reinforces my point. Also note that I only said that true communism and anarchocapitalism haven't existed, and left anarchy out of that statement. It was precisely for that reason; I'm not as dumb as you'd like to imagine. I do agree that the line between communism and leftist anarchy can be blurry.
When I said "true communism" I'm talking about the stateless society Marx envisioned which would theoretically follow after a period of state socialism (eg, USSR) in which the concept of private property would be abolished and people would live in a communal environment. Something like the original intent of the Israeli kibbutzim, or what some indiginous tribes have lived by such as the Moriori mentioned above or others in the Americas. Not the USSR (my use of "true" was specifically to make it clear that I'm not talking about the USSR or Maoist China).
If you have disagreements with this and would like to express yourself more constructively, I'm legitimately interested in hearing them.
Most scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough?
There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades.
Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence.
On April 14 2011 07:33 Signet wrote: Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies
Off topic but What allowed the spaniards to conquer the empires was diplomacy, deception and lack of experience from the natives. Economy and technology had very little impact to do with it. Most of the time the conquistadors were underfunded and undermanned for their job and unless youre counting calvary as state of the art technology of the 14th century, technology played very little role in defeating the natives.
On April 14 2011 04:52 Wegandi wrote: The truth of reality is that man is a creature of self-interest. It is one sociological reason socialism and communism do not work. For hive species like insectoids, yes, but humans are a race of individualistic creatures. We care about our own survival, our own well-being, and our own happiness. To the extent that the happiness of others makes ourselves happy, we help others. No one helps another person only to make themselves feel worse, or to be put in a worse position. That is just the nature of our species. I think Rand goes awry when she believes in universal or objective values. I am a subjectivist.
Humans are not a hive species, but are a social species not an individualist "lone wolf" species. This same social behavior is seen in primates as well. It is natural for the basic layout of our societies to reflect this.
This is possibly a reason why neither communism/socialism nor anarchy/anarchocapitalism have ever produced a lasting civilization. (in fact historically, true communist or anarchocapitalist societies are extremely rare, arguably nonexistent) Even something like the US during the early 1800s was a mixed capitalist economy with some amount of regulation.
Please dont pull things out of your ass and present it as fact. Anarchism is the natural form of freedom, equality, democracy, voluntary association and ultimately true human liberation and contrary to your lies there have been anarchist societies throughout history that has shown that a society can be run totally decentralized without any authoritarian rulers, and btw they were economically more efficient than capitalist ones. Sadly those societies where crushed forcefully by imperialists becuase of the fear that when people saw a truly free society they would act to implement that in their own communitys and lives which threatens every social order today including our liberal "democracies" aka representative "democracy".(Please note im talking about Anarchism, also known as libertarian left or libertarian socialism, not so called "anarchocapitalism" which has nothing to with Anarchism)
When you say "true communism", what are you referring to? Communism as is understood by working people (if so you are incorrect since by that definition its very close to Anarchism in regards to values and outlook), or "communism" as the soviet union and the united states propagandized? (basically a totalitarian ideology that is totally contrary to the actual meaning of communism)
sorry for derailing the thread, maybie this is a discussion we could have in another thread but it pisses me of when people spout lies even if they might be based on ignorance.
You might want to take your own advice. Your response would have been a lot better without all the fresh from the ass accusations about ignorance and lying. More to the point, you're hugely projecting about what you think I'm saying; most of the "lies" you're pointing out are things I neither said nor intended.
Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies which allowed them to be the invader rather than the invaded (in some cases, disease was also on their side -- however due to technology alone there was no way that the Incas were ever going to invade Spain, for example, and furthermore the resistance to disease is a byproduct of having a strong enough economy to be able to support high population densities living in some sort of city). It's no coincidence that the statist Maori all but wiped out the nearly stateless Moriori in the south Pacific. Only a statist society can really afford to have professional warriors to the degree that imperialist civilizations did; in an anarchist society, people must produce something of value to either sustain themselves independently or barter with others. Trying to sell warfare services in a free market would be a tough way to survive, particularly during peacetime.
Note the lack of a moral statement about what the invaders did. I'm not saying that anarchist societies were 'worse' or that they were violent (I know anarchy is supposed to be peaceful). I said that it hadn't produced a lasting civilization. You pointing out that many anarchist societies have existed, only to be wiped out by stronger/more technologically developed civilizations, reinforces my point. Also note that I only said that true communism and anarchocapitalism haven't existed, and left anarchy out of that statement. It was precisely for that reason; I'm not as dumb as you'd like to imagine. I do agree that the line between communism and leftist anarchy can be blurry.
When I said "true communism" I'm talking about the stateless society Marx envisioned which would theoretically follow after a period of state socialism (eg, USSR) in which the concept of private property would be abolished and people would live in a communal environment. Something like the original intent of the Israeli kibbutzim, or what some indiginous tribes have lived by such as the Moriori mentioned above or others in the Americas. Not the USSR (my use of "true" was specifically to make it clear that I'm not talking about the USSR or Maoist China).
If you have disagreements with this and would like to express yourself more constructively, I'm legitimately interested in hearing them.
saying that you were lying was perhaps strong as it presumes malicious intent, however i did clarify that you might just be missinformed and thus expressing factually incorrect statements based on your ignorance on the subject. i think ignorance in this context is fairly straightforward and not used as an insult as you took it. for any part i played in this misscommunication, i apologize.
My point was that anarchist civilizations havent lasted becuase it was crushed by violence, not becuase a free anarchist society cannot work or be a good societal structure.
I dont agree with the argument that statist societies is the only kind that can sustain enough potential for violence to survive, we simply havent had a situation where an anarchist society has been in war with an equally strong statist enemy, in basically all cases it has been a big overwhelming state force crushing a smaller non-state entity. it would be like arguing that a democratic republic is superior to a more egalitarian society becuase the US crushed the sandanistas. In Spain during 1936-1939 when most of Spain was run by anarchistic principles the economical productivity actually increased, and if the only enemy they had was a capitalist statist society of relative equal outlook i have not seen any evidence that it wouldnt survive, instead of what happened in reality where basically every strong power in the world at that time helped to crush the anarchist revolution. self persevation and the lives of your family and loved ones is quite a good motivator for free people to organize and be a part of a militia that i would argue would be more focused and fiercer than soldiers whos motivation for fighting is monetary gain.
i tried to distuingish anarchism from any talk of the free market by saying that anarchocapitalists arent anarchists, an anarchist society does not have to consist of individuals trying to sustain themselves or barter to survive, quite the opposite. its a society that everyone can freely cooperate in through free association. anarchists dont have a detailed strict plan on how a perfect anarchist society looks like with all its structures and organizations (including the economy). to put it simply an anarchist society could theoretically run exactly like a state society with a standing army, the only difference is that there is no leeches sitting at the top making all the decisions, reaping all the profits whilst the normal people suffer, becuase everyone is cooperating on equal terms and the fruits of peoples labour actually goes to the people that created those benefits and the general public.
you say that you are not making a moral statement, so let me ask you, what is the meaning of pointing out that no anarchist societies has persisted? seems to me like you are implying that they were inferior becuase they were crushed by violence. in that case you are making a moral statement which is basically that "might makes right", if so then i think you just found a justification for fascism, seems like a pretty efficient system if maximum potential of violence is the relevant variable. even if it was true (which has not been proven) that anarchist societies would be less capable of violence, what would that say about anarchism? that it doesnt work becuase violence is what is relevant to a society and its therefore inferior? if so then again fascism would not be a bad state system.
true communism has existed, becuase after the supposed transition from state socialism, communism basically is anarchism. the main differences is the road to get there (and anarchists might be a little more varied in how society looks but the core values are the same). A good example of anarchism or final state communism is examples you yourself point out, and for modern examples the paris commune and Spain during the spanish revolution are good ones.
Most scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough?
There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades.
Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence.
Excellent example.
If I had come across that on my own, I'd have thought it was minarchist due to the Althing having many properties of a government and the godar being able to effectively conscript their followers in the case of war, but if scholars consider this anarcho-capitalist then I won't dispute that classification.
300 years, hmm I dunno. That would be like the United States ceasing to exist in 2076 or so. It's long enough to last for many generations' entire lifetimes, but by the standards of nations it's not really that long.
Ultimately, (paraphrasing the wiki article), it fell apart due to a) inability to resolve domestic disputes and b) inability to deal with an aggressive statist power for a sustained amount of time. These are two big issues why I think a society must have some level of government to survive in the modern world. The military history of Iceland article also states that eventually, these chieftains became more powerful and started a civil war. I view this as the natural progression of a stateless society - that, over time, someone will fill in the power vacuum. Maybe that sucks, but it's the way history has played out.
(random aside, "minarchist" seems like such a tautology to me - the minimum state necessary for a civilization to survive and have stability. but if an anarchist state could do both, then it would be minarchist by definition.)
Most scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough?
There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades.
Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence.
Excellent example.
If I had come across that on my own, I'd have thought it was minarchist due to the Althing having many properties of a government and the godar being able to effectively conscript their followers in the case of war, but if scholars consider this anarcho-capitalist then I won't dispute that classification.
300 years, hmm I dunno. That would be like the United States ceasing to exist in 2076 or so. It's long enough to last for many generations' entire lifetimes, but by the standards of nations it's not really that long.
Ultimately, (paraphrasing the wiki article), it fell apart due to a) inability to resolve domestic disputes and b) inability to deal with an aggressive statist power for a sustained amount of time. These are two big issues why I think a society must have some level of government to survive in the modern world. The military history of Iceland article also states that eventually, these chieftains became more powerful and started a civil war. I view this as the natural progression of a stateless society - that, over time, someone will fill in the power vacuum. Maybe that sucks, but it's the way history has played out.
(random aside, "minarchist" seems like such a tautology to me - the minimum state necessary for a civilization to survive and have stability. but if an anarchist state could do both, then it would be minarchist by definition.)
I'm not too rigid as I will settle for Republican City-States as an alternative to my preferential Voluntaryist society. While not ideal, I could tolerate the injustice of a small-uniform flat external taxation (tariff) to fund courts and local constable. The Constable could call on the local militia in times of need. Else wise all functions left to free-peoples.
Most civilizations do not last for 300 years, so I would consider that successful. I would also argue that while the US may exist today, it is functionally different than the form of Government which existed prior to both the 'Civil' War and the 17th Amendment. Just like Rome is divided into epochs where it went from a Republic to an Empire. France has been through what, five or six Republics since 1790.
Medieval Iceland was anarcho-capitalist per se, but it did have many anarcho-capitalist qualities and principles. Somaliland would be the modern day equivalent as the Xeer is highly voluntaryist/an-cap.
Ultimately no society will last forever, that goes for States and anarchies, but I think the goal should be to work towards a completely voluntary society. We've come a long way, and I think we will continue to make large strides in the future. Now, if only the East would crack open some Lao Tzu :p
Most scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough?
There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades.
Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence.
Excellent example.
If I had come across that on my own, I'd have thought it was minarchist due to the Althing having many properties of a government and the godar being able to effectively conscript their followers in the case of war, but if scholars consider this anarcho-capitalist then I won't dispute that classification.
300 years, hmm I dunno. That would be like the United States ceasing to exist in 2076 or so. It's long enough to last for many generations' entire lifetimes, but by the standards of nations it's not really that long.
Ultimately, (paraphrasing the wiki article), it fell apart due to a) inability to resolve domestic disputes and b) inability to deal with an aggressive statist power for a sustained amount of time. These are two big issues why I think a society must have some level of government to survive in the modern world. The military history of Iceland article also states that eventually, these chieftains became more powerful and started a civil war. I view this as the natural progression of a stateless society - that, over time, someone will fill in the power vacuum. Maybe that sucks, but it's the way history has played out.
(random aside, "minarchist" seems like such a tautology to me - the minimum state necessary for a civilization to survive and have stability. but if an anarchist state could do both, then it would be minarchist by definition.)
Not to have a debate about Iceland or anything, but Iceland's "anarcho-capitalist" period was pre-capitalist. Farmers we independent (no wage labor) and had geographically distinguished farmers' councils. There was even summer time communal land for new members to set up shop. The society was also patriarchal\matriarchal in some legal respects as many pre-capitalist systems are.
Byock's Viking Age Iceland is a good source on the period.
The system effectively fell apart after slavery had ended and was replaced by tenant farming and rent. Concentrated wealth in the hands of landowners and the church allowed them to attempt to centralize power. As in everywhere else, they succeeded.
Don't take my word for it, there are plenty of histories of medieval Iceland to choose from and I read Viking Age Iceland quite a while ago. The idea that a pre-capitalist society with communal elements is a good example of anarcho-capitalism is pretty farfetched to me.
Most scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough?
There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades.
Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence.
Excellent example.
If I had come across that on my own, I'd have thought it was minarchist due to the Althing having many properties of a government and the godar being able to effectively conscript their followers in the case of war, but if scholars consider this anarcho-capitalist then I won't dispute that classification.
300 years, hmm I dunno. That would be like the United States ceasing to exist in 2076 or so. It's long enough to last for many generations' entire lifetimes, but by the standards of nations it's not really that long.
Ultimately, (paraphrasing the wiki article), it fell apart due to a) inability to resolve domestic disputes and b) inability to deal with an aggressive statist power for a sustained amount of time. These are two big issues why I think a society must have some level of government to survive in the modern world. The military history of Iceland article also states that eventually, these chieftains became more powerful and started a civil war. I view this as the natural progression of a stateless society - that, over time, someone will fill in the power vacuum. Maybe that sucks, but it's the way history has played out.
(random aside, "minarchist" seems like such a tautology to me - the minimum state necessary for a civilization to survive and have stability. but if an anarchist state could do both, then it would be minarchist by definition.)
Not to have a debate about Iceland or anything, but Iceland's "anarcho-capitalist" period was pre-capitalist. Farmers we independent (no wage labor) and had geographically distinguished farmers' councils. There was even summer time communal land for new members to set up shop. The society was also patriarchal\matriarchal in some legal respects as many pre-capitalist systems are.
Byock's Viking Age Iceland is a good source on the period.
The system effectively fell apart after slavery had ended and was replaced by tenant farming and rent. Concentrated wealth in the hands of landowners and the church allowed them to attempt to centralize power. As in everywhere else, they succeeded.
Don't take my word for it, there are plenty of histories of medieval Iceland to choose from and I read Viking Age Iceland quite a while ago. The idea that a pre-capitalist society with communal elements is a good example of anarcho-capitalism is pretty farfetched to me.
I define capitalist interchangable with the free-market. Seventy-Five percent of the US population prior to the Civil War were proprietors (self-employed). Most farmer's today are likewise self-employed. All capitalism is, is a system of private property via homesteading, and the free exchange of ones just property as John of Paris put it:
[property]..is acquired by individual people through their own skill, labour and diligence, and individuals, as individuals, have right and power over it and valid lordship; each person may order his own and dispose, administer, hold or alienate it as he wishes, so long as he causes no injury to anyone else; since he is lord.
Or, in Aquinas' view:
The initial right of each person is to ownership over his own self, in Aquinas’s view in a ‘proprietary right over himself’. Such individual self-ownership is based on the capacity of man as a rational being. Next, cultivation and use of previously unused land establishes a just property title in the land in one man rather than in others.
Even in the 1800s there were many communal accords within the united States. They were voluntary associations. There were a few famous ones which I use to demonstrate the failure of such arrangements, but I respect a free persons right to choose to live in such a way as he wishes as long as he does not infringe on the liberties of another.
However, communal arrangements mostly forbid the use of money or mediums of exchange, and certainly do not sell goods. This [market or capitalist system] was most common in Medieval Iceland, especially in their legal system which was remunerative.
On April 14 2011 07:33 Signet wrote: Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies
Off topic but What allowed the spaniards to conquer the empires was diplomacy, deception and lack of experience from the natives. Economy and technology had very little impact to do with it. Most of the time the conquistadors were underfunded and undermanned for their job and unless youre counting calvary as state of the art technology of the 14th century, technology played very little role in defeating the natives.
This is so OT but I find it really interesting So...
I agree with this for the most part. However, I'm looking at technology and its role in colonialism/imperialism from a very broad perspective. I'll elaborate using the Spanish and Incas as an example, because they're one of the main case studies in Guns, Germs, and Steel which I've recently read and therefore am a little fresher on. (noting that other civilizations such as the Aztecs, for example, did not have all of the same disadvantages -- however, they also were more difficult to conquer I believe)
Of the Spanish and the Inca, only the Spanish knew how to make ships capable of sailing an army across the Atlantic to their rival's lands to attempt invasion. That itself is a big technological difference and ensures that only one civilization of the two was capable of conquering the other.
But even if the Incas knew how to make a ship that could sail the Atlantic, the next question is how they could have afforded to? Spain was in the business of conquering large portions of entire continents. Doing this over the course of decades cost a fortune - not just in terms of gold, but in terms of producing an armada of ships and sending/supplying large armies across an ocean - but the Spanish government could afford it. I'm doubtful that the Incas or Aztecs could have afforded to do the same. Small-scale fighting along one's borders or the occasional full-scale invasion of a bordering neighbor requires nowhere near the dedication of resources and production that invading a distant power on another continent does. (even with today's technology, it still costs an incredible amount for the US to sustain an army fighting a war in Afghanistan, and we've "only" been at this for 10 years)
Lack of experience is interesting. In some of the first battles, this could be expected. But why did the Incas never adapt - learn the tactics, prepare countermeasures? For one, they had no written language. (technology) A Spanish commander could record the events of a battle and accurately communicate with other military figures back home, who could use this to prepare. An Inca who witnessed their army get killed would find it difficult to widely disseminate the specifics of how that happened. As a result, the Spanish armies effectively grew more prepared to deal with the Incas over time, while the Inca warriors did not evolve their tactics at the same rate.
So yes, some of the battles may have been luck. Also the Spanish may have used trickery to fool their enemies into thinking they would be at peace, then attacked by surprise. (although, a more developed political and military system that includes deceptive tactics is itself a kind of "technology" in the sense that it is applied knowledge) However, this only made things easier for them. In the end, they had such a significant technological advantage and such a stronger economy back home that the final outcome was inevitable - if the King of Spain wanted South America's gold badly enough, he was going to get it. If nothing else, they could have waited 100 years and then come back with an even larger technological gap, as they were not only more advanced but were developing at a faster rate.
On April 14 2011 09:03 pluvos wrote: saying that you were lying was perhaps strong as it presumes malicious intent, however i did clarify that you might just be missinformed and thus expressing factually incorrect statements based on your ignorance on the subject. i think ignorance in this context is fairly straightforward and not used as an insult as you took it. for any part i played in this misscommunication, i apologize.
OK, thank you for clarifying your intent
My point was that anarchist civilizations havent lasted becuase it was crushed by violence, not becuase a free anarchist society cannot work or be a good societal structure.
Yes, I'm in agreement with the gist of this statement. I'm taking into account that the ability to defend oneself from violent, external forces in a characteristic that a state does - or at least has done - a better job of providing.
I dont agree with the argument that statist societies is the only kind that can sustain enough potential for violence to survive, we simply havent had a situation where an anarchist society has been in war with an equally strong statist enemy, in basically all cases it has been a big overwhelming state force crushing a smaller non-state entity. it would be like arguing that a democratic republic is superior to a more egalitarian society becuase the US crushed the sandanistas. In Spain during 1936-1939 when most of Spain was run by anarchistic principles the economical productivity actually increased, and if the only enemy they had was a capitalist statist society of relative equal outlook i have not seen any evidence that it wouldnt survive, instead of what happened in reality where basically every strong power in the world at that time helped to crush the anarchist revolution. self persevation and the lives of your family and loved ones is quite a good motivator for free people to organize and be a part of a militia that i would argue would be more focused and fiercer than soldiers whos motivation for fighting is monetary gain.
This could be true. However,
you say that you are not making a moral statement, so let me ask you, what is the meaning of pointing out that no anarchist societies has persisted? seems to me like you are implying that they were inferior becuase they were crushed by violence. in that case you are making a moral statement which is basically that "might makes right", if so then i think you just found a justification for fascism, seems like a pretty efficient system if maximum potential of violence is the relevant variable. even if it was true (which has not been proven) that anarchist societies would be less capable of violence, what would that say about anarchism? that it doesnt work becuase violence is what is relevant to a society and its therefore inferior? if so then again fascism would not be a bad state system.
I don't mean that might makes right. I mean that might allows one to defend themselves from the aggression of others. Human history - even, the history of life on earth - is full of violence. The evolution of both organisms and of civilizations has been cruel and ruthless. To survive, an organism or a civilization must be able to protect itself against this... practicality is a virtue. If a peaceful commune is geographically bordering a fascist imperial state, its members will be dead or subject to the oppression of the fascists if they are unable to defend themselves. They're no better off in the long run than the citizens of the fascist state.
Fascism is a bad state system for many reasons. I suppose you could say that one of the few good things about the system is that members of a fascist society would be better-protected from external force than members of a peaceful commune. But the extreme oppression of its own citizens is intolerable. I don't need to accept the countless terrible things about fascism in order to get the same level of protection. I get that level of protection right now. And while our system is far from perfect (and I'm definitely not making an argument for the status-quo), it's also far from Nazi Germany. I'll take representative democracy and push for libertine social policies rather than authoritarian ones.
Regarding efficiency of soldiers, this is going to be conjecture either way. However, I'd say that the ability of a state to raise a large army is a practical virtue. A slightly more efficient army that is outnumbered 100:1 is still going to lose.
Some of that of course comes down to the size of the state/entity. But that's another potential issue - anarchy may work for farming communes or largely independent bands of Medieval Icelanders. How far does it scale upwards? What would prevent massive domestic disputes if an area the size of NYC is composed of, say, 80,000 chiefdoms (which people may join or leave freely) of roughly 100 people each all interacting in a 470 sq mile area? I suspect that there's an upper bound on how large an anarchy can become before there's a need for bureaucracy to develop - for justice reasons if nothing else.
true communism has existed, becuase after the supposed transition from state socialism, communism basically is anarchism. the main differences is the road to get there (and anarchists might be a little more varied in how society looks but the core values are the same). A good example of anarchism or final state communism is examples you yourself point out, and for modern examples the paris commune and Spain during the spanish revolution are good ones.
Most scholars agree that it was largely anarcho-capitalist in nature. It lasted over 300 years. Is that lasting enough?
There doesn't need to be a monetary incentive to provide for defense of ones property and community. Preservation of ones culture and wealth is sufficient. Militia's are both the rightful defense of a Republic and of an Anarchy. There are significant pros and cons, but needless to say the history of militia's are largely successful, compared to large standing armies. I mean anarchic Ireland survived for a thousand years and fought off the English for many decades.
Selling warfare (defense) services (do arms count?) isn't that difficult. Surely, there is demand? I do however agree with many of your points made, but you make significant lapses in historical evidence.
Excellent example.
If I had come across that on my own, I'd have thought it was minarchist due to the Althing having many properties of a government and the godar being able to effectively conscript their followers in the case of war, but if scholars consider this anarcho-capitalist then I won't dispute that classification.
300 years, hmm I dunno. That would be like the United States ceasing to exist in 2076 or so. It's long enough to last for many generations' entire lifetimes, but by the standards of nations it's not really that long.
Ultimately, (paraphrasing the wiki article), it fell apart due to a) inability to resolve domestic disputes and b) inability to deal with an aggressive statist power for a sustained amount of time. These are two big issues why I think a society must have some level of government to survive in the modern world. The military history of Iceland article also states that eventually, these chieftains became more powerful and started a civil war. I view this as the natural progression of a stateless society - that, over time, someone will fill in the power vacuum. Maybe that sucks, but it's the way history has played out.
(random aside, "minarchist" seems like such a tautology to me - the minimum state necessary for a civilization to survive and have stability. but if an anarchist state could do both, then it would be minarchist by definition.)
Not to have a debate about Iceland or anything, but Iceland's "anarcho-capitalist" period was pre-capitalist. Farmers we independent (no wage labor) and had geographically distinguished farmers' councils. There was even summer time communal land for new members to set up shop. The society was also patriarchal\matriarchal in some legal respects as many pre-capitalist systems are.
Byock's Viking Age Iceland is a good source on the period.
The system effectively fell apart after slavery had ended and was replaced by tenant farming and rent. Concentrated wealth in the hands of landowners and the church allowed them to attempt to centralize power. As in everywhere else, they succeeded.
Don't take my word for it, there are plenty of histories of medieval Iceland to choose from and I read Viking Age Iceland quite a while ago. The idea that a pre-capitalist society with communal elements is a good example of anarcho-capitalism is pretty farfetched to me.
I define capitalist interchangable with the free-market. Seventy-Five percent of the US population prior to the Civil War were proprietors (self-employed). Most farmer's today are likewise self-employed. All capitalism is, is a system of private property via homesteading, and the free exchange of ones just property as John of Paris put it:
[property]..is acquired by individual people through their own skill, labour and diligence, and individuals, as individuals, have right and power over it and valid lordship; each person may order his own and dispose, administer, hold or alienate it as he wishes, so long as he causes no injury to anyone else; since he is lord.
The initial right of each person is to ownership over his own self, in Aquinas’s view in a ‘proprietary right over himself’. Such individual self-ownership is based on the capacity of man as a rational being. Next, cultivation and use of previously unused land establishes a just property title in the land in one man rather than in others.
Even in the 1800s there were many communal accords within the united States. They were voluntary associations. There were a few famous ones which I use to demonstrate the failure of such arrangements, but I respect a free persons right to choose to live in such a way as he wishes as long as he does not infringe on the liberties of another.
However, communal arrangements mostly forbid the use of money or mediums of exchange, and certainly do not sell goods. This [market or capitalist system] was most common in Medieval Iceland, especially in their legal system which was remunerative.
The problem with the highly decentralized free market is that it tends to centralize... pre Civil War the US was only beginning to Industrialize.
Because of the large concentrations of capital, factory workers couldn't really be self-employed. And efficiency of larger groups works well with a smaller number of decision makers... if the decision makers are suitably connected to the welfare effects of their decisions.
So power tends to centralize as technology allows and requires it.
On April 14 2011 07:33 Signet wrote: Imperialist nations didn't successfully invade indigenous people by chance. They had superior technology and stronger economies
Off topic but What allowed the spaniards to conquer the empires was diplomacy, deception and lack of experience from the natives. Economy and technology had very little impact to do with it. Most of the time the conquistadors were underfunded and undermanned for their job and unless youre counting calvary as state of the art technology of the 14th century, technology played very little role in defeating the natives.
This is so OT but I find it really interesting So...
I agree with this for the most part. However, I'm looking at technology and its role in colonialism/imperialism from a very broad perspective. I'll elaborate using the Spanish and Incas as an example, because they're one of the main case studies in Guns, Germs, and Steel which I've recently read and therefore am a little fresher on. (noting that other civilizations such as the Aztecs, for example, did not have all of the same disadvantages -- however, they also were more difficult to conquer I believe)
Of the Spanish and the Inca, only the Spanish knew how to make ships capable of sailing an army across the Atlantic to their rival's lands to attempt invasion. That itself is a big technological difference and ensures that only one civilization of the two was capable of conquering the other.
But even if the Incas knew how to make a ship that could sail the Atlantic, the next question is how they could have afforded to? Spain was in the business of conquering large portions of entire continents. Doing this over the course of decades cost a fortune - not just in terms of gold, but in terms of producing an armada of ships and sending/supplying large armies across an ocean - but the Spanish government could afford it. I'm doubtful that the Incas or Aztecs could have afforded to do the same. Small-scale fighting along one's borders or the occasional full-scale invasion of a bordering neighbor requires nowhere near the dedication of resources and production that invading a distant power on another continent does. (even with today's technology, it still costs an incredible amount for the US to sustain an army fighting a war in Afghanistan, and we've "only" been at this for 10 years)
Lack of experience is interesting. In some of the first battles, this could be expected. But why did the Incas never adapt - learn the tactics, prepare countermeasures? For one, they had no written language. (technology) A Spanish commander could record the events of a battle and accurately communicate with other military figures back home, who could use this to prepare. An Inca who witnessed their army get killed would find it difficult to widely disseminate the specifics of how that happened. As a result, the Spanish armies effectively grew more prepared to deal with the Incas over time, while the Inca warriors did not evolve their tactics at the same rate.
So yes, some of the battles may have been luck. Also the Spanish may have used trickery to fool their enemies into thinking they would be at peace, then attacked by surprise. (although, a more developed political and military system that includes deceptive tactics is itself a kind of "technology" in the sense that it is applied knowledge) However, this only made things easier for them. In the end, they had such a significant technological advantage and such a stronger economy back home that the final outcome was inevitable - if the King of Spain wanted South America's gold badly enough, he was going to get it. If nothing else, they could have waited 100 years and then come back with an even larger technological gap, as they were not only more advanced but were developing at a faster rate.
Huh? what? there was no battles to be adapted. In both aztec and incan cases, these empire fell in pretty much one single decisive battle. And you keep mentioning how spain couldve been powerful enough to invade but that didn't happen. thousands of men (in pizzaro's case hundreds) are what I would hardly call an invasion force, no less the "power of spain". You need to review alot of history. I dont want to post a wall of text of off topic stuff just to get thru it. pm or make new thread if you're interested.
On April 14 2011 09:03 pluvos wrote: saying that you were lying was perhaps strong as it presumes malicious intent, however i did clarify that you might just be missinformed and thus expressing factually incorrect statements based on your ignorance on the subject. i think ignorance in this context is fairly straightforward and not used as an insult as you took it. for any part i played in this misscommunication, i apologize.
My point was that anarchist civilizations havent lasted becuase it was crushed by violence, not becuase a free anarchist society cannot work or be a good societal structure.
Yes, I'm in agreement with the gist of this statement. I'm taking into account that the ability to defend oneself from violent, external forces in a characteristic that a state does - or at least has done - a better job of providing.
I dont agree with the argument that statist societies is the only kind that can sustain enough potential for violence to survive, we simply havent had a situation where an anarchist society has been in war with an equally strong statist enemy, in basically all cases it has been a big overwhelming state force crushing a smaller non-state entity. it would be like arguing that a democratic republic is superior to a more egalitarian society becuase the US crushed the sandanistas. In Spain during 1936-1939 when most of Spain was run by anarchistic principles the economical productivity actually increased, and if the only enemy they had was a capitalist statist society of relative equal outlook i have not seen any evidence that it wouldnt survive, instead of what happened in reality where basically every strong power in the world at that time helped to crush the anarchist revolution. self persevation and the lives of your family and loved ones is quite a good motivator for free people to organize and be a part of a militia that i would argue would be more focused and fiercer than soldiers whos motivation for fighting is monetary gain.
you say that you are not making a moral statement, so let me ask you, what is the meaning of pointing out that no anarchist societies has persisted? seems to me like you are implying that they were inferior becuase they were crushed by violence. in that case you are making a moral statement which is basically that "might makes right", if so then i think you just found a justification for fascism, seems like a pretty efficient system if maximum potential of violence is the relevant variable. even if it was true (which has not been proven) that anarchist societies would be less capable of violence, what would that say about anarchism? that it doesnt work becuase violence is what is relevant to a society and its therefore inferior? if so then again fascism would not be a bad state system.
I don't mean that might makes right. I mean that might allows one to defend themselves from the aggression of others. Human history - even, the history of life on earth - is full of violence. The evolution of both organisms and of civilizations has been cruel and ruthless. To survive, an organism or a civilization must be able to protect itself against this... practicality is a virtue. If a peaceful commune is geographically bordering a fascist imperial state, its members will be dead or subject to the oppression of the fascists if they are unable to defend themselves. They're no better off in the long run than the citizens of the fascist state.
Fascism is a bad state system for many reasons. I suppose you could say that one of the few good things about the system is that members of a fascist society would be better-protected from external force than members of a peaceful commune. But the extreme oppression of its own citizens is intolerable. I don't need to accept the countless terrible things about fascism in order to get the same level of protection. I get that level of protection right now. And while our system is far from perfect (and I'm definitely not making an argument for the status-quo), it's also far from Nazi Germany. I'll take representative democracy and push for libertine social policies rather than authoritarian ones.
Regarding efficiency of soldiers, this is going to be conjecture either way. However, I'd say that the ability of a state to raise a large army is a practical virtue. A slightly more efficient army that is outnumbered 100:1 is still going to lose.
Some of that of course comes down to the size of the state/entity. But that's another potential issue - anarchy may work for farming communes or largely independent bands of Medieval Icelanders. How far does it scale upwards? What would prevent massive domestic disputes if an area the size of NYC is composed of, say, 80,000 chiefdoms (which people may join or leave freely) of roughly 100 people each all interacting in a 470 sq mile area? I suspect that there's an upper bound on how large an anarchy can become before there's a need for bureaucracy to develop - for justice reasons if nothing else.
true communism has existed, becuase after the supposed transition from state socialism, communism basically is anarchism. the main differences is the road to get there (and anarchists might be a little more varied in how society looks but the core values are the same). A good example of anarchism or final state communism is examples you yourself point out, and for modern examples the paris commune and Spain during the spanish revolution are good ones.
This is fair, I agree it's the same in the end.
As far as anarchy and its geographic size is concerned, yes, anarchy is predisposed to smaller areas, just as Republics are. Brutus and Centinel rightfully argued that a Republic cannot function in entities larger than a few hundred thousand persons, and of geographic size not encompassing more than the smaller colonial nations (The Articles of Confederation was essentially the American Union (the first 'EU' so to speak)...it was supposed to have little to no power and the member states were sovereign free-nations. The point was for libertarian benefits -- free-trade, free-travel, etc.).
As for NYC is concerned, you might be intrigued by Kowloon Walled City:
On April 14 2011 12:12 Warhawkq wrote: laissez-faire capitalism?
Read the jungle that will give you a good idea how that worked out.
You realize that The Jungle was a novel, not a historical account, correct? I'm not here to defend the 1906 meat-packing industry, but he was just a journalist going for shock value.
Of Upon Sin Clair, Theodore Roosevelt said, "I have an utter contempt for him. He is hysterical, unbalanced, and untruthful. Three-fourths of the things he said were absolute falsehoods. For some of the remainder there was only a basis of truth."
On April 14 2011 11:15 NIJ wrote: Huh? what? there was no battles to be adapted. In both aztec and incan cases, these empire fell in pretty much one single decisive battle. And you keep mentioning how spain couldve been powerful enough to invade but that didn't happen. thousands of men (in pizzaro's case hundreds) are what I would hardly call an invasion force, no less the "power of spain". You need to review alot of history. I dont want to post a wall of text of off topic stuff just to get thru it. pm or make new thread if you're interested.
Aahhh you're right, I'm thinking of the Mayans being more difficult not the Aztecs. (it took well over a century until the last Mayan stronghold fell) I'm mixing stuff up... completely my mistake. I'm also counting the rebellions that followed after the fallout of Cajamarca as part of the conquest when I'm talking about the Inca (~40 years).
re: military strength, that's kinda my point. Thousands of Spanish were able to win these decisive victories and put down rebellions. While Cajamarca was a surprise attack, it was nonetheless ~170 vs 7000. But the Spanish had steel armor and swords. (and cannons; guns were useless in this close range battle) I know the Inca entered unarmed; I had thought that once the battle started they armed themselves but I don't know that for sure. They had leather armor which was useless against steel swords. When the Inca tried to retake Cuzco, they ran into the same problem where their weapons were only somewhat effective, but Spanish swords and cannons were completely effective against them. Defeat was an inevitable consequence of this imbalance and the germ imbalance.
re: the power of Spain - could thousands of indigenous Americans have conquered Spain or large parts of Europe? No.
I will review though, I am clearly mixing things up. My bad.
On April 13 2011 11:19 gogogadgetflow wrote: Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views.
That's fine but then your group of philosophers also contains Bill Hicks and Sam Kinison. So maybe the club isn't so elite all the time.
Aren't you the guy who was in this thread 2 months ago just trolling?
So why am I wrong? Rand is a philosopher in that she claims to have a philosophy. That puts her on the same level as comedians, tv pundits, and crazies. You actually have to prove your theory has some merit (go ahead, I haven't seen any examples of objectivist societies succeeding) before anyone takes you seriously.
Keep in mind the most powerful economy in the world is a Neo-Liberal state (the US) and the next most powerful economy in the world will be a communist state (China). So your theory of government noninterference being better needs to have some solid evidence for it, and some solid evidence against reality.
On April 13 2011 11:19 gogogadgetflow wrote: Like all philosophers worth their salt, Rand developed a specific understanding (Objectivism) of Metaphysics, Epistemology, Ethics, Politics, and Aesthetics. You can't exclude someone from the philosophy club simply because you don't agree with his/her views.
That's fine but then your group of philosophers also contains Bill Hicks and Sam Kinison. So maybe the club isn't so elite all the time.
Aren't you the guy who was in this thread 2 months ago just trolling?
So why am I wrong? Rand is a philosopher in that she claims to have a philosophy. That puts her on the same level as comedians, tv pundits, and crazies. You actually have to prove your theory has some merit (go ahead, I haven't seen any examples of objectivist societies succeeding) before anyone takes you seriously.
Keep in mind the most powerful economy in the world is a Neo-Liberal state (the US) and the next most powerful economy in the world will be a communist state (China). So your theory of government noninterference being better needs to have some solid evidence for it, and some solid evidence against reality.
Actually, China is not Communist. They are quite Capitalist. Of course, they are also massively socially authoritarian like Singapore, but nevertheless still much more Capitalist than Communist. They are much more closer to Corporatism, than Laissez-Faire though.
Looking forward to how they did adapting the book to a movie.
Scanning the posts here always interesting to see who the discussions go when Rand is brought up. One thing to rember is Rand was born in russian and spent the first 20 years of her life there leaving in 1926. So she was exposed to the extream poles of economics first hand.
One of the key points is the Rand was not blindly "pro big business" the biggest villain in the book was a one of the business fat cats. Instead it is a glorification of the individual (talent and drive).
It is such an interesting topic on balance the rights of the individual vs those of the society and how to maximize value creation through the optimal balance of oversight/freedom.
Back to the OP with the movie coming out the WSJ had a couple articles on Rand's views. Interesting reads.
Apparently, it did pretty well for an independent film. Yes it has an 8% score on RT, but it is not the critic who counts. According to RT 85% of the audience liked it. Thats the feeling I got from my friends who have actually gotten to see it.
Edit:
I'm guessing its because anyone who went to see this movie supported its message and would have liked it regardless of how entertaining it actually was.
well of course ^_^ . So we can conclude it communicated the message fairly well without being totally off-putting I suppose.
On April 19 2011 09:41 gogogadgetflow wrote: Unfortunately I'll be unable to see the movie in my current situation :[ ... but here is a wall street journal blog on it's opening weekend:
Apparently, it did pretty well for an independent film. Yes it has an 8% score on RT, but it is not the critic who counts. According to RT 85% of the audience liked it. Thats the feeling I got from my friends who have actually gotten to see it.
I'm guessing its because anyone who went to see this movie supported its message and would have liked it regardless of how entertaining it actually was.
The movie was pretty good, had its flaws and some things that were good. It was a bit disconnected, and the acting was a bit sketchy in the first scene but it picked up after that. The choice to use the director as Galt was in my opinion a mistake. Basically his voice bugged me and he sounded slightly like batman. You could tell he wasn't an actor, and overall his voice sounded like an old buy war bonds ad (in the bluntness, not the message).
The movie picked up fairly well by the end, the CGI was what you would expect from the budget, but it was a great adaptation of the book. It had all of the important scenes that you'd expect if you'd read the book and most of the scenes were done fairly well. Some of the dialogue felt a bit preachy, but you have to expect that from the content of the book.
The casting was pretty good, other than the rough acting at the beginning. I personally liked the choice for Rearden and Bob Beckel's brother played Wyatt amazingly. Overall it was a good movie, but I would suggest reading the book first, or reading a good spark notes so that you can follow the story.
For a movie adaptation it was done pretty well, but of course that's just my opinion, the rest of you can make your own conclusions.
After hours of psychology+philosophy research.... i ran into some article recommending the original book of this movie. Im planning on watching the movies and read the book after. Without spoiler, anyone know if I should watch the 2nd movie?
On January 06 2014 13:35 NB wrote: After hours of psychology+philosophy research.... i ran into some article recommending the original book of this movie. Im planning on watching the movies and read the book after. Without spoiler, anyone know if I should watch the 2nd movie?
Ooh, watching the movies first will hurt your read through the book so much. I'd even recommend skipping all the 2-page+ soliloquies/sermons to make a read-through more palatable just to get an idea of the expansiveness of the plot. If you have the inclination towards the rather dry sciences of philosophy, the book's for you. If you'd rather the movie ... ugh I wouldn't have wanted to finish the book if I had seen the movie first.
If you can watch both released parts of the movie, then consume the 1,000 page book in its entirety and enjoy the read, you've got an iron stomach.
yeah I actually finished both the movies and trying to finish the last part of the book. I came over this title after trying to learn more about Ayn Rand from a psychology point of view. I came to an understanding that her works arent suitable for everyone given how unique she is in real life. Very interesting back ground result a very interesting work and point of view toward the world.
Overall, I enjoyed the plots of the novel. Once you strip down all the extra decorative elements of the book, you can balantly realize that its a purely philosophical work which was a direct result of Ayn Rand INTJ psychology attributes. The character building are strong and heavily reflected an anti communism movement during the written period of the novel. Individualism is raised to the extreme together with righteous selfishness being pushed over the value of sacrificing one self for the greater goods.
I find the first movie to be a strong adaptation of the novel. The core elements are shown via a ruthless Dagny and an indestructible Rearden. I really like the cast in general.
The 2nd movie was poor. Clearly after the first, the head companies realized that they have dug into a landmine instead of a goldmine. The movie needs to be continue but keeping the budget at what it is is business suicidal. The new acting line up was a disaster in my opinion and the cheaper CG of the air plane scene is just rubbing salt in wound. However the script was fine and the plot is still being delivered, though by a poorly manner. But to hell with the plot, it is supposed to be a freaking philosophy work, not a love sob story. Dagny in the 2nd movie was weak and vulnerable unlike what supposed to be inhuman and logical being. The sex appeal in some of the scene was unnecessary if driven the movie further away from its root.
Ima finish the last few chapters of the book. Even though a lot of my philosophy points conflicted with the author's, I enjoy a new perspective. Plus nowaday works like this is hard to come by.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/TCAIa.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/3HPmt.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/tfvtk.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/1sEfz.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/FVBXp.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/RqpSC.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/Jwhn0.jpg)
I hope I am wrong...
Also, there are many people who enjoy Atlas Shrugged as a novel, and don't care as much about her philosophy. It's an enjoyable work of fiction in and of itself.
![[image loading]](http://www.htloz.net/forums/images/smilies/awesome/headbang.gif)
