i've had a couple screenshots hanging around my desktop for the longest time, and now seems as good a time as any to use 'em.
first, there's this one:
and i particularly like this one:
as any long-time reader of this blog knows, i am an unabashed pigeonholer of people, and one of my favorite ways to pigeonhole people is by their reaction when i bring up the subject of ayn rand.
i remember the day the fountainhead first fell into my young, impressionable hands--i devoured that motherfucker from cover to cover, electrified equally by the story of architect howard roark and the philosophy underpinning the story. i then went on to read atlas shrugged, and by the time i finished it, i was convinced--ayn rand was god.
i then grew up, learned a few things, experienced more of life, and realized it wasn't as always as simple as she made out to be--i.e., when left unregulated and to their own devices, her vaunted captains of industry have proven themselves over the course of my adult life to behave just as badly as the rest of grubby humanity when nobody's watching 'em.
but aside from that and a few other things, much of everything else this shrewd survivor of the bolshevik revolution wrote about, she got right--witness the above quotes if you disagree with me. coming from where she did, she understood far better than the soft, privileged audience to whom she preached what their forefathers had bought for them with their blood, and what was so quickly slipping from their grasp.
bottom line: to the degree you get ayn rand, mkf will figure you can handle hard truth. to the degree you think she's just awful, mkf will tend to dismiss you as a lightweight.
[note to adam: if you can't get her to read the whole post, at least make sure you rub laura's nose in both the above quotes]
13 comments:
The second quote is great. I'd give you a dollar for it, but that would insult your intelligence since you know its value is based on a shared delusion. ;)
I could never get through Atlas Shrugged. It was just too boring.
Ayn Rand had interesting ideas, but she is a gawd-awful novelist. She just should have written essays about how terrible government is.
The basic problem with pure libertarianism is that it does not work. The economic collapse of 2008 was proof that unregulated markets are dangerous. Indeed, the Chicago School has been in retreat in serious economics discussions for these past three years.
But Ayn Rand's followers were not empiricists, they had religion. They believed in her and in her philosophy and damn the actual reality of it all.
Indeed, Ayn Rand's personal life was rather messy...not quite as neat as her ideological purity would have you believe.
Which is what makes her two quotations you cited all the more interesting. The quotations are couched as empirical observations...but I do not know what examples she is specifically citing....Communist Russia? The Ottoman Empire? The Roman Empire? The Vatican?
I mean, if you are going to say this is what tyrannical governments do, it would help to know what specific examples you can point to....
While it has been discredited as an economic philosophy to base any real policy upon, libertarianism continues to draw adoring fans. It is elegant and simplistic and wrong.
Color me flattered, Mike! Next time I'm sitting in front of the computer instead of on my phone, I'll comment in detail on my thoughts on Ayn Rand, the futility of trying to rub Laura's nose in those quotes, and the connection between that last problem and Noblesavage's misunderstanding of capitalism, libertarianism and objectivism.
Okay, that took far too long. Reading this is likely to as well.
So... I promised three things: my thoughts on Ayn Rand, the futility of trying to rub Laura's nose in those quotes, and the connection between that last problem and Noblesavage's misunderstanding of capitalism, libertarianism and objectivism. Since I'm going to be on a long roll anyway, I have to add your own misunderstanding of the term "unregulated" to that mix, MKF.
So let's start there, 'cuz it's probably the quickest part. "i then grew up, learned a few things, experienced more of life, and realized it wasn't as always as simple as she made out to be--i.e., when left unregulated and to their own devices, her vaunted captains of industry have proven themselves over the course of my adult life to behave just as badly as the rest of grubby humanity when nobody's watching 'em."
Really, Mike? When in your lifetime have you seen her vaunted captains of industry left unregulated and to their own devices? To bring that question around to Rand, she noted some time after Atlas Shrugged was published that she ran a draft of it by someone in the railroad industry, and that he noted that all of the regulations she had "created" in that book already existed. The same applies to most industries. Ya think Enron wasn't regulated?
Okay, on to Noblesavage's comment (I seem to be working in reverse).
Rob, you're welcome to your opinion of Rand's novels. But really, "She just should have written essays about how terrible government is"? I'll preface this next comment by noting that since meeting MKF a few weeks ago, I've read through his entire blog from the present to its beginnings, and that includes all of your comments. With that background in mind, I have to say I have a hard time believing that you agree with much of her non-fiction either. Or did you just think she wrote non-fiction that was more readable, regardless of whether you agree with it or not?
"The basic problem with pure libertarianism is that it does not work. The economic collapse of 2008 was proof that unregulated markets are dangerous." See above, regarding Mike's statement about unregulated industry. The economic collapse of 2008 was made possible by government backing of junk, and the financial industry was (and is now even more so) among the most heavily regulated in this nation's history. I don't know where the idea of an unregulated market at any time in our memories came from... wait, yes I do. Refer to the second Ayn Rand quote in Mike's post. The only way to get public support for more regulation is to whitewash the fact that the problems it will supposedly address were caused by regulation in the first place. What isn't called out in that particular quote is that this is not just misguided, it is a strategy geared to increasing the power of those who, in our Dear Leader's words, are "ready to rule." Power not just over things, but over people.
"But Ayn Rand's followers were not empiricists, they had religion. They believed in her and in her philosophy and damn the actual reality of it all."
This is a common complaint by those who disagree with Rand's basic premises -- the problem, apparently, is that those who agree with her actually agree with her. It's an attempt to discredit those you disagree with by painting them as religionists (and therefore, given their actual philosophy, as hypocrites), and while you're free to state that opinion, the only people who agree with it are those who agree with your philosophy anyway.
"Indeed, Ayn Rand's personal life was rather messy...not quite as neat as her ideological purity would have you believe."
This is what we call an ad hominem attack. An irrelevant point in any discussion of her philosophy. As if her personal life (which yes, was messy) has any bearing on the truth or falsity of her statements.
More on Nobelsavage's quote (ran out of space there!):
"but I do not know what examples she is specifically citing"
She was not citing specific examples, but she was writing in the context of the United States in the 40s, 50s and 60s (and later, but I believe both of those quotes were from the 50s/60s). Keep in mind what I said above about her conversation with the railroad expert. Between that, and the essays she's written (which the fact of your comment would lead me to believe you've read, even if it's content would indicate you didn't understand them), you should have a pretty clear understanding of what specific examples she might have called out.
"While it has been discredited as an economic philosophy to base any real policy upon, libertarianism continues to draw adoring fans."
a) Ayn Rand was not a libertarian -- in fact she spoke out openly against libertarianism as lacking an underlying philosophy. The fact that the modern-day Libertarian Party seems little more than a catch-all for disaffected Republicans and Democrats would seem to support that notion.
b) You call out Rand for generalizations, and then come out with "While it has been discredited as an economic philosophy..." with no supporting documentation of your own. Let's imagine for a moment that you are speaking of Ayn Rand's philosophy of objectivism, and not of libertarianism. It has been "discredited" by those who disagree with it. Can you give me an example of some part of her philosophy that has been discredited?
Next: my own thoughts on Rand.
I'm going to keep this brief. Her philosophy is simple, and goes back to very basic premises: man's primary tool of survival is reason, we must think to survive, and therefore it is right that we be free to do so. Every other philosophical, economic and political premise in her writings can be shown to derive from those premises, and I have yet to find a philosophical opponent who was willing or able to discuss their own basic premises. Most people don't have any.
Finally, the futility of trying to rub Laura's nose in those quotes.
You can't rub someone's nose in something that she willfully chooses to dismiss as nonsense. You have to understand that Laura believes in that nebulous concept of the "common good" -- not defined until it suits her (and her political comrades') purposes. You may recall that when we were sitting in Ray's kitchen, she let slip a little piece of her political philosophy -- that bit about knowing best how people should live their lives (I honestly forget exactly what the context was). When I pointed out that that was the basis of leftist thinking, she said she was joking... but I expect you knew better.
You remember before the 2008 election, when someone pointed out to Obama that every historical change in the estate tax rate demonstrated that raising it lowered revenues from it, and lowering it raised them? You remember Obama saying we had to raise it anyway, in the name of "fairness"? That was the moment I knew that I would vote for anyone other than Obama. That didn't stop him from getting elected, and he certainly had Laura's vote (and not grudgingly, either).
You can't rub someone's nose in the futility of her philosophy to achieve good in the world, when the goals of that philosophy (whether or not its practitioners all understand it) are:
1) to appear to care about people, regardless of the misery imposed by your actions; and
2) to ensure that plenty of people stay miserable, because the miserable are your base of political support. Happy, self-confident, well-off people don't vote for politicians who promise to give them the things they know they're capable of earning themselves.
Ever hear anyone refer to the Republicans as the "party of the rich"? Would that it were really so, but they've certainly got a better claim to that title than the Dems. But really, what does that mean? If you're the party of the rich, and you want to keep getting elected, you damn well better support policies that create more rich people. And if you're the party of the poor....
Damn. After all that, I hope you're still reading comments on old posts!
Adam:
You have, indeed, given this a lot of thought.
Ayn Rand did espouse reason. But, I believe, she is remembered most fiercely and most adoringly as a proponent of enlightened self interest.
This translates as an economic model to free market capitalism, with the less regulation the better.
If my understanding is not accurate, please let me know.
As this applies to economics, the Chicago School of Economics with its faith in free-market capitalism (or the American Enterprise Institute in Washington) has espoused a philosophy that Rand, I believe, would embrace.
The economic collapse of 2008 was caused in large part because of unregulated gambling by Lehman Brothers and others in the residual markets. It brought down AIG costing taxpayers billions.
What happened was very straightforward: A good old fashioned market panic almost pushed us into a depression.
Ben Bernanke pumped hundreds of billions of dollars in liquidity into the market to ensure that the markets did not freeze up. We were a couple of days away from a great depression.
Unregulated markets are prone to market failure. Market failure is not solved by unregulated markets. In previous posts, I have written extensively that only through government intervention can we get markets to internalize social costs (for example, without regulations, companies would pollute freely because it is a social cost unreflected in the costs of producing anything).
These are all complex issues, poorly suited to the word limitations of the comment section of guttermorality.
One final thought: I think that Rand's very messy private life is notable. The ideas she espoused were not in evidence in her own life. I think that is evidence of the unworkable nature of Rand's philosophy. Again, if something cannot be followed empirically, it has no practical value.
Pure micro-economic theory is elegant. But it is unworkable in practice. People and markets do not behave in practice as the theory indicates they should. And neither did Ayn Rand.
todd x: ah, you know me well--i would take nothing less than a pre-1965 silver dollar for that quote.
noblesavage 1: yeah the prose was a little turgid, but the ideas more than made up for it.
adam: in my opinion, the fallacy of your argument about government regulation of business is your failure to distinguish between (1) that regulation which actually serves to protect the public from corporate excess; (2) that which purports to serve the public but which in actuality gives the corporations a pass; and (3) onerous, unnecessary red-tape bullshit.
[and yeah, since those responsible for the writing and passage of said government regulations tend to be dimwitted telegenic narcissists (a) whose only virtue is electability; and (b) who rely on said corporations to ensure (a) above, it's pretty much inevitable that the vast majority of said government regulations tend to fall into the latter two categories--but whatever.]
category (3) regulations are why, as intel's CEO recently observed, it costs twice as much for his company to open a new plant in the US as anywhere else on earth (which is the point i think you were trying to make).
noblesavage is also right (to a point)--category (2) regulations explain, for instance, why our oceans are full of mercury, the gulf is full of oil, our populace is freakishly obese, everyone's on prescription drugs, our food supply is threatened, and diseases like cancer and diabetes which were virtually unknown 100 years ago are commonplace throughout america today.
but fuck all that, adam--it's what happened when a couple key category (1) regulations governing banks and their practices got shitcanned that's mostly caused all the recent grief the world is now experiencing.
[more to come--i guess i'll have to write a post]
noblesavage 2: so, your dream scenario: ayn rand and dr. laura trapped in an elevator for a week--who comes out alive?
Funny you should mention Dr. Laura and your elevator hypothetical is very intriguing. There was a lengthy article recently in the Washington Post about mean girls. I think Dr. Laura is the mean girl that never grew up and grew out of it.
She says it's for your own good, but really now, I think it's because Dr. Laura is so angry and mean inside.
Having never seen Ayn Rand in person, I cannot gauge how she would hold up. I suspect she could more than hold her own.
BTW, my favorite political philosopher, Hannah Arendt, could probably take them both on, intellectually if not physically.
I figured that would kick off some further discussion, and wow, has it every.
Noblesavage:
"Ayn Rand did espouse reason. But, I believe, she is remembered most fiercely and most adoringly as a proponent of enlightened self interest.
"This translates as an economic model to free market capitalism, with the less regulation the better.
"If my understanding is not accurate, please let me know."
I would say that your understanding is close to accurate. Two points here: Rand espoused reason as our only way of understanding reality. It might be more accurate to say that she espoused acceptance of reality above all. That she is remembered most as a proponent of enlightened self-interest is more a statement on the philosophical state of the world than it is an accurate comment on her own beliefs or writings. Enlightened self-interest, in her view, is a natural corollary of the acceptance of reality and the employment of reason to understand it. The general failure to examine the basic philosophical principles underlying her political and economic beliefs is a combination of laziness and intentional obfuscation -- in ratios that vary according to whether one agrees with her, politically and economically, or not.
On the same theme, free market capitalism is not a translation of enlightened self-interest, but a corollary of it.
Lastly to those points, it's not a question of "less regulation" -- capitalism requires no regulation. And "free market capitalism" is redundant.
That is not to say that capitalism requires no law, but rather that capitalism requires that the government's role be limited to the protection of individual rights -- life, liberty, property. If you have a question about whether something is a true "right" you can nearly always ask a single question: is it a negative right, that imposes no obligations on others, or it is a positive right, which requires someone else to fulfill it? (See, for example, the so-called "right" to health care.) If that point isn't clear, you might also ask whether a person in isolation would be able to exercise the right you are considering.
More:
We can likely argue indefinitely over the root causes of the 2008 collapse. You've clearly chosen to believe one thing, and I another. I'm going to limit the rest of that argument, from my side, to two questions: Do you believe that the mass of worthless loans with which Lehman and others gambled would even have existed without years of encouragement and threats by the government to increase homeownership among those who really couldn't afford it? And, do you believe, regardless of the answer to that question, that Lehman and the others would have gambled so recklessly without the implicit government backing of the GSEs?
On Bernanke: he pumped billions in debt into the market on the premise that it would save us from a depression. Whether it did so, or will simply kick the can down the road remains to be seen. (MKF, with his ongoing exhortations to buy gold, has clearly taken a position on that -- one that I agree with.) Regardless, I'm not moved by a seemingly practical yet wholly immoral action of making the next generation or two pay for the outcome of the actions of this one.
"Unregulated markets are prone to market failure."
In that regulated markets are not prone to market failures, but to regulatory failures, we can agree on that. Why not mention it, though?
"Market failure is not solved by unregulated markets."
No, and regulatory failures are generally not solved by more regulations.
"In previous posts, I have written extensively that only through government intervention can we get markets to internalize social costs (for example, without regulations, companies would pollute freely because it is a social cost unreflected in the costs of producing anything)."
Yes, and I've read those posts. The problem I see is that the internalization of social costs is implicit in a legal climate wholly compatible with capitalism. Specifically, the protection of property rights requires a legal framework for handling pollution claims, since there's not much opportunity for a company to pollute "freely" without polluting someone else's property.
mkf: I'd like to see a post on all that from you. Frankly, I'm surprised we're at odds on this question, but clearly we are.
"in my opinion, the fallacy of your argument about government regulation of business is your failure to distinguish between (1) that regulation which actually serves to protect the public from corporate excess; (2) that which purports to serve the public but which in actuality gives the corporations a pass; and (3) onerous, unnecessary red-tape bullshit."
In my opinion, the fallacy of your statement is the belief that these categories are necessarily distinguishable from each other.
Look, this comes back to that idea of the "common good" or "public interest". You seem to believe that there are "good" regulations -- those that protect the public from "corporate excess". So... who decides how to define corporate excess, and who decides what protections the public needs?
Do you go to a tried-and-true "can't argue with that" example, like a food producer mixing rat turds into their sausage? Unless that producer is announcing the presence of rat feces, they're committing fraud -- which goes right back to the question of property rights in the internalization of social costs.
There's an old idea that the conservative/libertarian/objectivist school of thought believes that people are genuinely well-intentioned, and that we therefore don't need more government, while the liberal/socialist/fascist school of thought holds that people won't do the right thing unless they're forced to.
When it comes to government regulations, especially those that are justified in the name of the "common good" or the "public interest", those two schools of thought should be in agreement. (Their proponents never are, of course.) If people are genuinely good, and in their roles as producers are motivated to provide the best product at the lowest cost, then regulating their activity is unnecessary. If people are genuinely immoral or amoral, and will do whatever they can to steal a buck, then our government representatives are no more worthy of our trust than anyone else, and should be expected to create laws and regulations that increase their own power over the rest of us while lining their own pockets.
Huh. Maybe the liberals are right. Or maybe the people who go into government (particularly those of the "more regulations" school of political thought) are those who desire the kink of power that only government can give them -- the power not to create and produce, but to shackle, loot and destroy.
Adam:
Let's take your money quote:
"If people are genuinely good, and in their roles as producers are motivated to provide the best product at the lowest cost, then regulating their activity is unnecessary. If people are genuinely immoral or amoral, and will do whatever they can to steal a buck, then our government representatives are no more worthy of our trust than anyone else, and should be expected to create laws and regulations that increase their own power over the rest of us while lining their own pockets."
This assumes an either or -- either all people are all good or all people are all bad.
Well, it's not like that empirically. All of us have mixed motives and some people lie at farther end of the deviant scale then others. That's why we have prisons. We don't lock everyone up, just 4 percent or so of the population (over time).
That means that we have societal regulations to try to get those who may be more tempted to stray from actually doing so...and when folks do, we punish them. That is the coercive power of the state.
Are politicians all angelic do-gooders? No. But the concept is the same: A state is necessary to prevent a state of nature that would allow the worst instincts to flourish and punish the most altruistic. That goes back to at least Hobbes if not Plato.
Post a Comment