Via Balloon Juice I saw this 1950s National Review review of an Ayn Rand book. As the reviews point out, the strident dogmatism makes her books popular with partially developed intellectual abilities like college freshman. It is also popular today with high tech CEOs (check their book shelves) since it validates their selfishness. Take a look at how Santa Clara county (Silicon Vally) does on charitable giving. Rand thinks that only the super bright successful are worth a damn and everyone else is just a leech. Obviously society is more complex, it is of course in the best interest of all that the most capable are able to maximize their abilities. And it is only fair to them that they can. This doesn't make them superior people nor does it mean that the less capable should be tossed aside like so much dross. Be sure to read the Balloon Juice piece as well. Rand still has plenty of spiritual followers today on the right and left.
Friday, March 03, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
20 comments:
"Rand thinks that only the super bright successful are worth a damn and everyone else is just a leech."
That's not true at all. Ayn Rand believed that those who lived life true to themselves and according to the best of their ability were deserving of respect. She knew that not everyone is endowed with equal ability, and stated so in interviews and in her books.
OK, that is reasonable, but she believed that only objectivists truly lived to their abilities by freeing themselves from the shackles of religion, group thought and other variations of her great bugbear, collectivism. My beef with her is her extremity, by cutting all ties with some idea of a group and building a totally atomised society, she creates a nasty dystopia. She is also as unrealistic as the communists who believe humans can somehow eliminate their individuality and submit to the collective.
The real world lies somewhere in between where individuals live their fullest but bear a responsibility to the nation or state which creates the conditions that allow them to live to the fullest.
To me, Atlas Shrugged describes a Malthusian dieoff caused by an energy crisis, despite all the rhetoric about the withdrawal of "the men of the mind" as the proximate cause. In the real world, capable people permanently disappear all the time through retirement, disability and of course death, but society still continues to function. If the world's supplies of oil and other fossil fuels got raptured, by contrast, within weeks the populations in all nations would crash to hunter-gatherer levels, no matter how much economic freedom they enjoyed and how many "productive" entrepreneurs, financiers and inventors they had at their disposal.
An excellent point Mark. I think people tend to overemphasize the importance of leaders. In large organizations, public and private, the leaders are critical to direction setting, but any effective organization has to be able to withstand change in leadership and operate and the same standards.
A
"The real world lies somewhere in between where individuals live their fullest but bear a responsibility to the nation or state which creates the conditions that allow them to live to the fullest."
Firstly, everything the government does you have already paid for, in taxes. You have no other responsibility to the government.
Secondly, the government didn't create conditions to allow you to live to your fullest. In fact, any government regulation that does not protect you from force inhibits your freedom. You do not need the government to succeed in your life.
And Mrs. Rand never believed that people should cut all ties with "groups", but rather that people live without sacrifice, which means simply getting what you think your efforts deserve.
I think there is a lot of misconception about what Ayn Rand taught, and I believe that most people agree with and live by at least 80% of her philosophy, whether they know it or not.
A. Quod Erat Demonstratum
B. Please Pass the Kool-Aid
C. Objectivists Get What They Deserve
D. A and B but not C
E. All of the above
P.S. Any of these would make a nifty bumper sticker.
It's not just the government but society that allows us to live to the fullest. Without government we would not be able to trust medicine, any business transaction, or any other transaction for that matter. As has been argued, trust is necessary for success as a culture. Some of that is merely cultural, other means come through statute and policy.
Pure freedom can be found in places like the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan or certain regions of Afgahnistan, no gov there and no way to prevent the strongest from doing what they would choose.
"Without government we would not be able to trust medicine, any business transaction, or any other transaction for that matter."
That is a view most Americans hold because they believe it to be self-evident. But is it? What about before medicine was regulated? There were not any more safety concerns about medicine than there are now. In fact, it was not consumers who lobbied for the control of such substances, but rather the medical community itself. Competition, in almost every case, is enough to ensure safe and working products are delivered to the general public. The government does more to hamper medicine being released to the public than it does to protect the government from wrongful practices. Medicine that is proven to work often takes years to release publicly, time that could have been spent curing diseases.
It's the same with other business transactions. Competition ensures quality. Government intervention is, for the most part, unneeded.
"Pure freedom can be found in places like the Northwest Frontier of Pakistan or certain regions of Afgahnistan, no gov there and no way to prevent the strongest from doing what they would choose."
That's not pure freedom, is it? Real freedom means freedom from force and coercion, which is where a government comes in.
Medicine was slipshod before regulation as were most consumer goods. Competition is fine and should be fostered, but it alone is not enough to create high standards. Competition can lead to market share dominance and once attained, it is hard to unseat dominant players thanks to the heavy entry costs (marketing, captial, etc.) Once this happens quality can fly out the window as customers have no recourse. There are few large industries that are not dominated by a few large companies. It's worse of course in more socialistic countries, as the government sponsors one or two, but even in more purely capitalistic societies, the most effective organizations will achieve market dominance.
If you had a means of preventing the agglomeration of power in a few big companies you could maintain a pure competitive state, but how can you do that without regulation or some mass mind of consumer that would not buy from the most profitable companies.
"Medicine was slipshod before regulation as were most consumer goods."
That most definitely is not true. Most government regulation came, not because of poor product quality or business dishonesty, but because of the Great Depression in which most people blamed capitalism for the economy's failure and instituted governmental reforms. Most of our welfare and licensing programs can be linked back to the early 30s.
"the most effective organizations will achieve market dominance."
Is that not a good thing? Market dominance is achieved by being the company who can provide the consumer with the best and cheapest product. The companies that succeed at doing this should, and do, receive the most business from the populace and grow to provide consumers with even better products at lower prices. If their product quality slipped even a bit their large conglomerate can go upside-down nearly overnight because consumers will go to another provider of the product. Competition ensures we always get the best money can buy in the marketplace.
Market dominance is most assuredly not achieved by those with the best and cheapest product. I doubt the two ideas are even correlated. Market dominance is achieved by better marketing, better cost control, proper M&A activity and intense market research. The classic case of course is VHS vs. Beta, but any one in technology will tell you best does not always win.
Once market dominance is achieved it is hard to lose, or it will just go to one of the main competitors. At that point there is no reason to provide low prices.
In industries dominated by small to medium enterprises or in local markets, competition thrives and I believe you are correct, but in national markets it is not the case.
And the FDA's regulatory powers came about in 1906 thanks to rampant abuse in the private sector. Muckraking journalists like Upton Sinclair helped generate the outcry. The powers were extended during the Depression.
Your point is taken that was assigned, government powers will try to expand beyond all reason, thanks to bureaucratic self preservation. It is in the interest of society to curtail that tendency, but not to eliminate it.
"Market dominance is most assuredly not achieved by those with the best and cheapest product. I doubt the two ideas are even correlated."
I beg to differ. Who's the largest private employer in the world? Wal-Mart. Their dominance still involves competition from chains such as Target, but their success springs from offering an extremely large selection of products at incredibly low prices. And although they are the epitome of big-business, they continue to keep their prices below bargain and actually lose money on certain items.
"The classic case of course is VHS vs. Beta, but any one in technology will tell you best does not always win."
On the contrary, Beta lost out to VHS because, firstly, many manufacturers of the product determined it would be cheaper and easier to mass-produce. Secondly and more importantly, Beta could only record 1-hour at a time (2 max) and, although it was higher quality, consumers at the time didn't place as much importance on the quality as they did the length; specifically, the ability to record a full-length film on one cassette which only VHS did with its LP and SLP cassettes which could record up to 6-hours.
Selling below cost is loss leading which all retailers do to drive traffic, the big box Consumer electronics stores have killed the small movie/music store with these tactics. And they then colluded to increase prices.
But you are correct that Wal-Mart is vicious on pricing, forcing the competition to go up-market to get around them.
It's worth noting that Wal-Mart's success is at least partially based on its effective use of the international trade system. That system is 100% Made in Washington. The hegemonic power decides how the economic system will work and the US set on liberal trade and economics, if only to trounce the backward socialist economy of the Eastern bloc. Without the American state's creation of the international system, global corporations would be far less feasible.
American restrictions on foreign trade via tariffs have hampered this economy from attaining it's full possible force.
Taxing imports and limiting the number of imports not only makes those other countries import less of our goods, but it lessens competition internationally and drives the prices of consumer goods up. Hong Kong is a perfect example of one of the freest markest in the world, with basically a completely duty-free trade market. Despite the fact that it would be very tempting for them to limit and tax these goods (Hong Kong has almost no natural resources and relies almost completely on trade and rendered services to fuel its economy), it does not and their economy is incredible. That is one of the major reasons for it.
Concur.
American Tariff policy is driven by interest group pressure (textile and farmer) and little else. It is the private sector that is holding back the gov in this case. The policy of every administration since Truman has been to reduce tariffs to the greatest degree possible.
While most of the talk that Cold War policy was unified, unlike today, is a bunch of hoo hah, it is true that both parties place a heavy emphasis on liberalizing trade to the greatest degree possible. Since Hong Kong is only quasi democratic it can handily avoid interest group pressure.
Very true.
Ayn Rand was a heartless, crazy and selfish woman. Her whole world view is completely cold and devoid of any compassion.
Right now in our mixed economy of capitalism combined with welfare socialism, most of the wealth produced in the economy winds up in the hands of a very small percentage of the population whilst the other 80% struggle to pay bills ect, but at least those on lower incomes do still have some safety net.
Libertarians like Ayn Rand want to completely do away with that safety net and get rid of the welfare state altogether so that the super rich don't have to pay any taxes or contribute anything to society.
They want a world where the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
They want to do away with regulations that ensure fair pay, safe working conditions, reasonable working hours, ensure you don't get fired for no reason ect.
They say that if only we got rid of all these regulations and the welfare state that the economy would see miracle levels of growth and everyone would live happily ever after.
BULLSHIT.
What would happen is exactly what you expect to happen- millions of unemployed people would be in desperate poverty, access to health and education would only be readily available to those with a large bank balance, employers would fuck workers in the ass and threaten to fire them if they complain and we would go back to living in the dark ages where there would be a handful of extremely rich snobby bastards and everyone else would be work slaves living on the edges of poverty.
This crap is all justified with Libertarian babble about "property rights", "not allowing tyranny" blah blah- but all it really means is to create a system that protects the most greedy, rich, ruthless people in society and attempts to justify them.
It is amazing that despite how much Libertarians talk of utter selfishness as being a commendable quality they then leave us to have "faith" that under their economic system, poverty will be looked after by the charity of those with the wealth.
Post a Comment