Greenspan: Student of Ayn Rand

[quote]zed962 wrote:
I took it at Michigan State. It was PLS 180: Intro to Political Philosophy. I must’ve had about 15-20 books for that class. We read Plato, Aristotle, The Federalist Papers, Nietzsche, and Marx just to name a few.[/quote]

Cool, but that’s WAY too much reading in too short of a time period to really get anything out of it. If you have time and inclination, I strongly recommend that you enroll in a more intensive course that reads no more than three books in a semester, but covers them with care and dilligence.

A lot of professors disagree with this, btw… one of mine is famous for doing 500-600 page books every week. That’s enough to get a very general idea about things, and to be able to follow a lecture later, but certainly not enough time to really think through the arguments, map the structure of the book, determine if the work is internally consistent (and if not, if that’s intentional), and examine the author’s words closely enough to try to dig out their deeper meanings.

Of course, since it’s an intro course, I imagine the point was just to expose students to general ideas and then give the professor’s interpretations of those ideas.

[quote]vroom wrote:
We’ve covered this before. See Ms. Rand’s article on government financing in a free society. Happy Googling!

BTW: I know you won’t read it but I feel every human being should have an opportunity to see for themselves.

Dude, that’s generally not the way it works. If you have a point, why don’t you take the time to support it.

Damn, this is really funny, you read a book and now have this radical philosophy. Oh well, I suppose you could have read a worse book.[/quote]

He fucking HATES green eggs and ham.

I don’t mind Rand, especially Atlas Shrugged.

What I do take from it is more motivation than philosphy. I find the story interesting and hardly boring. That monster novel is a page-turner and for someone who learned English as a second language, it’s well crafted! Gsus…give the woman a break man…it’s well put together.

It’s a personal motivation for me as I take that she loves the power of the mind and it’s ability to solve problems/its power. I think that many people don’t use the capacity of their brains properly…they’d rather just have someone else take care of it…let’s look to one or two individual producers to save the rest of the lazy bums. I think we’re all capable…i have made myself who I am today and can relate to making yourself. I take pride in my ability to look for alternatives to life problems and work problems and it’s very gratifying to solve the problem when faced with adversity. I get alot of inspiration with these characters.

Overall I enjoyed the book!

[quote]zed962 wrote:
The Prof’s name was William Allen, probably one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. He also wrote, among other things, an analysis of The Federalist Papers called The Federalist Papers: A Commentary, which we also read in class. As a side note, our final exam was one question: What is the best regime? Two hours and fifteen minutes later I was told I had to leave.

Zac

[/quote]

Ha! That sounds like a fun course.

I think my answer to the essay question would have been a dictatorship by Garry Kaparov (followed by a bunch of supportive arguments and stuff).

[quote]doogie wrote:
vroom wrote:
We’ve covered this before. See Ms. Rand’s article on government financing in a free society. Happy Googling!

BTW: I know you won’t read it but I feel every human being should have an opportunity to see for themselves.

Dude, that’s generally not the way it works. If you have a point, why don’t you take the time to support it.

Damn, this is really funny, you read a book and now have this radical philosophy. Oh well, I suppose you could have read a worse book.

He fucking HATES green eggs and ham.
[/quote]

You bet, Sam-I-Am!!

[quote]vroom wrote:
We’ve covered this before. See Ms. Rand’s article on government financing in a free society. Happy Googling!

BTW: I know you won’t read it but I feel every human being should have an opportunity to see for themselves.

Dude, that’s generally not the way it works. If you have a point, why don’t you take the time to support it.

Damn, this is really funny, you read a book and now have this radical philosophy. Oh well, I suppose you could have read a worse book.[/quote]

Knew you wouldn’t read it.

Hmmm…radical philosophy…that each man is the owner of his mind, his work, his life…that all relationships between humans should be voluntary on all sides…Man, that IS a radical philosophy that we MUST disparage!!

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
zed962 wrote:
The Prof’s name was William Allen, probably one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. He also wrote, among other things, an analysis of The Federalist Papers called The Federalist Papers: A Commentary, which we also read in class. As a side note, our final exam was one question: What is the best regime? Two hours and fifteen minutes later I was told I had to leave.

Zac

Ha! That sounds like a fun course.

I think my answer to the essay question would have been a dictatorship by Garry Kaparov (followed by a bunch of supportive arguments and stuff).[/quote]

Isn’t Kaparov a chess player? Update me on who this is…would like to know to whom you’d like to enslave us all.

Headhunter, have you read any other books?

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:

I find it stunning that anyone thinks that threats of force (jail time, confiscation of property) is an efficient way to run a country. What happens when the productive people get tired of being robbed, held hostage by their own virtues?

They complain about it on the internet.

Productive people generally don’t have the time or inclination to upset the apple cart.[/quote]

Unless if they kept filling the cart and lazy, shiftless bums kept emptying it…

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
zed962 wrote:
The Prof’s name was William Allen, probably one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. He also wrote, among other things, an analysis of The Federalist Papers called The Federalist Papers: A Commentary, which we also read in class. As a side note, our final exam was one question: What is the best regime? Two hours and fifteen minutes later I was told I had to leave.

Zac

Ha! That sounds like a fun course.

I think my answer to the essay question would have been a dictatorship by Garry Kaparov (followed by a bunch of supportive arguments and stuff).

Isn’t Kaparov a chess player? Update me on who this is…would like to know to whom you’d like to enslave us all.

[/quote]

Oops, I meant Kasparov. Yes, he is a chess player, and may eventually be the president of Russia.

But don’t worry, the dictatorship wouldn’t be Garry all by his lonesome. He’d also have an advisory board that would include Anatoly Karpov, Viswanathan Anand and Vassily Ivanchuck. Maybe we should bring John Rawls and Robert Nozick back to life too just for some academic support, what do you think?

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
zed962 wrote:
The Prof’s name was William Allen, probably one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. He also wrote, among other things, an analysis of The Federalist Papers called The Federalist Papers: A Commentary, which we also read in class. As a side note, our final exam was one question: What is the best regime? Two hours and fifteen minutes later I was told I had to leave.

Zac

Ha! That sounds like a fun course.

I think my answer to the essay question would have been a dictatorship by Garry Kaparov (followed by a bunch of supportive arguments and stuff).

Isn’t Kaparov a chess player? Update me on who this is…would like to know to whom you’d like to enslave us all.

Oops, I meant Kasparov. Yes, he is a chess player, and may eventually be the president of Russia.

But don’t worry, the dictatorship wouldn’t be Garry all by his lonesome. He’d also have an advisory board that would include Anatoly Karpov, Viswanathan Anand and Vassily Ivanchuck. Maybe we should bring John Rawls and Robert Nozick back to life too just for some academic support, what do you think?[/quote]

He’ll get a few percent of the vote if he’s allowed to run at all.

I feel like ayn rand, and the social sciences, fall short assuming man is rational on all levels (long vs short term, individual vs differnet group sizes, etc). It makes the math look scientific and can be a useful guide, but doesnt always hold. Granted, I majored in econ, the worst offender in this arena, but it lets you see how naive it is to believe rhetoric that has a simple answer for everything, and everyone likes to have a one liner that makes them sound right over looking at the complexities of reality that might not fit the regression line.

Its frustrating when business students preach laisse faire (sp?) capitalism without considering market failures and their origin along with value systems that, while “inefficient” when put into the neoliberal box of thinking, are morally valid and suggest that a system that condemns the masses to indentured servitude to corporate interest may not be the best for humanity or the human spirit. its not my take, but the critique is valid.

And i seem to remember her plea for some kind of technocratic elite to rule the earth as a little short sighted. Smart people in power are still people, subject to all the evils of any governing body/person.

anyways im home sick from work with nothing to do but ramble on here. hope that was somewhat comprrehensible/relevant.

[quote]Knew you wouldn’t read it.

Hmmm…radical philosophy…that each man is the owner of his mind, his work, his life…that all relationships between humans should be voluntary on all sides…Man, that IS a radical philosophy that we MUST disparage!!
[/quote]

I read a lot of shit a long time ago. If you want to propose this theory as something great, you should provide links or references, not just tell people to go find stuff.

However, it is fairly radical if part of it is to eliminate taxation and many sectors of government. The time for that has really passed.

You can certainly put in different programs, but nobody is going to roll over for an elimnation of all social programs just because you’ve bought all the right wing talking points about everyone needing assistance taking advantage of everyone.

Life is not a fixed sum game.

Support your viewpoint or you don’t get to get all holier than though just because you’ve managed to read a philosophy and adopt it.

[quote]nephorm wrote:
Ayn Rand may think altruism is foolish, but altruism is, more often than not, informed by a good bit of self interest.[/quote]

Very, very true! I’ve been saying the same for ages…

[quote]etaco wrote:

He’ll get a few percent of the vote if he’s allowed to run at all.

[/quote]

No way! He’s going to pull out a Schwarzenegger-style victory, just you watch.

[quote]milktruck wrote:
Its frustrating when business students preach laisse faire (sp?) capitalism without considering market failures and their origin along with value systems that, while “inefficient” when put into the neoliberal box of thinking, are morally valid and suggest that a system that condemns the masses to indentured servitude to corporate interest may not be the best for humanity or the human spirit. its not my take, but the critique is valid.[/quote]

Indeed. And my main problem with Rand is precisely Laissez-faire capitalism.

There are many critiques against it. The one you mention is by far my favorite, but there are MANY others. For example, As both lasseiz-faire and free markets are largely idealised concepts, critics use similar arguments against both, focusing largely on the impracticality of any idealized theory of market economy in real world situations (essentially the same criticism of socialism by capitalism). Market failures for example, are difficult to remedy in any meaningful way without a central government taking a proactive role.

Other critics consider laissez faire as only a political veneer above a system of localist protectionism often associated with typically conservative politics, which in turn may only function in the context of economic expansionism (or economic imperialism).

Meaning: the only environment where a form of laissez-faire capitalism could survive is with a totalitarian, far-right government. In fact, one of the very few successful implementations of laissez-faire capitalism was done in Portugal by Salazar, an economist – and a fascist, who ruled the country for almost half a century under a totalitarian government. He succeeded in growing Portugal’s economy at a faster pace than ever, giving the country prosperity in spite of the lack of natural resources and the isolation, but at what cost? Yes, at the cost of liberty and lives.

Contradictory with objectivism? Precisely.

Basically, as Zap mentioned, it is amazing that ANYONE takes objectivism seriously, considering that it is a complete fantasy from any angle you see it.

You are also right when you say business students tend to still defend it; in fact I face that every day. I cannot, for ethical reasons, lash out at it in full force, but fortunately I am in a position where I can at least make them think about it. And while many leave my courses still believing in it, some will in fact stop and think about it, and realize (by themselves) how idiotic it is to believe in it as feasible – much less sustainable.

Most pure social theories break down when they run into the reality of humans in the wild.

I don’t remember all the details from way the hell back when I read this stuff, but I do recall the concept of reality not matching a nice sounding theory.

[quote]vroom wrote:
Most pure social theories break down when they run into the reality of humans in the wild.

I don’t remember all the details from way the hell back when I read this stuff, but I do recall the concept of reality not matching a nice sounding theory.[/quote]

Precisely.

Optimism can be a powerful motivator for oneself – however the moment you start involving other people (who will necessarily have different objectives, concerns, ideas, etc., that will necessarily conflict), optimism quickly becomes denial…

[quote]CaptainLogic wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
CaptainLogic wrote:
zed962 wrote:
The Prof’s name was William Allen, probably one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. He also wrote, among other things, an analysis of The Federalist Papers called The Federalist Papers: A Commentary, which we also read in class. As a side note, our final exam was one question: What is the best regime? Two hours and fifteen minutes later I was told I had to leave.

Zac

Ha! That sounds like a fun course.

I think my answer to the essay question would have been a dictatorship by Garry Kaparov (followed by a bunch of supportive arguments and stuff).

Isn’t Kaparov a chess player? Update me on who this is…would like to know to whom you’d like to enslave us all.

Oops, I meant Kasparov. Yes, he is a chess player, and may eventually be the president of Russia.

But don’t worry, the dictatorship wouldn’t be Garry all by his lonesome. He’d also have an advisory board that would include Anatoly Karpov, Viswanathan Anand and Vassily Ivanchuck. Maybe we should bring John Rawls and Robert Nozick back to life too just for some academic support, what do you think?[/quote]

20th century philosophers like Rawls didn’t know how to change the world, like Rand is. Make your philosophy brilliant yet simple, and put it into adventure novels. The lady is beyond brilliant.

[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter, have you read any other books?[/quote]

No.