CAN AYN RAND SAVE US?


Reason Man

Recommended Posts

While I had decided to post a comment on the OP titled "Can Ayn Rand Save US?" on Tea Party Patriots site, I introduced myself on the Tea-Party Nation Forum as a man who adopted American values because of Ayn Rand's novels. After a longish silence I got following as the first reply:

Rand was very popular here about 50 years ago but is not really discussed much anymore. You're the first person I seen mention her in over a year. Much more popular in the US is the Austrian School of economics. Unquote.

Finally, I replied as follows:

Thanks again.

One thing I have experienced on all forums I visit is the irreconcilable enmity that each group has towards other groups; and it is not just one group towards another, but 100 small groups, each of them considering most others to be their big enemies. Opposing view-points is natural in a free society granting freedom of thought and expression – but the level of enmity that I see amongst better men in US is not good for the nation, and I see this as one of the two most important causes for US hurtling towards the abyss. Though I came from Ayn Rand’s side, there too there are 10 groups amongst their miniscule numbers, and you almost have to be a robot to belong to a group, taking enmity with several others – else you are an outsider to all of them. (The first important cause for the US getting destroyed is the solid doles-dependent vote-block that evil men have built by offering freebies, and that acts in unison to get passed every anti-America law. This block, and the communism it has taken into the White House, is in reality the main enemy of better Americans; but the better men foolishly consider each other to be their biggest enemies!)

Also: Though I became Pro-America because of Ayn Rand’s novels, I am not that robot-parasite type of objectivist who considers her to be a goddess. America was built prior to her birth (which means by some other philosophy they oppose / look down upon), had started deteriorating before she was born (she considered the date to be 1890 anti-trust act), and continues hurtling today – so she is obviously not the solution to America’s problems; but I cannot say this on those forums. Apart from several Libertarian and Christian groups, even Tea-partiers are deeply divided with the lines of division running into every state, town and street!

I have some writing which criticizes all these groups of better Americans for these divisions, but several negative points are brought out with Objectivists as the example though they are also applicable to all other groups.

Unless all these divisions act together, I don’t think America can any more be saved. I am working on the way they can join hands (while preserving their differences) and take America back to the days of Founding Fathers, but with new knowledge acquired after 1776. In the coming days I shall present my writing on these forums for peoples’ evaluation – let’s see if it can achieve the task.

Temporarily I am starting a new OP as above, but will complete it asap. Do members have opinion on it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless all these divisions act together, I don’t think America can any more be saved. I am working on the way they can join hands (while preserving their differences) and take America back to the days of Founding Fathers, but with new knowledge acquired after 1776. In the coming days I shall present my writing on these forums for peoples’ evaluation – let’s see if it can achieve the task.

Temporarily I am starting a new OP as above, but will complete it asap. Do members have opinion on it?

Back in The Days of the Founding Fathers over half the American economy depended on the labor of whip driven slaves. Is that what you really want?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Though I came from Ayn Rand’s side, there too there are 10 groups amongst their miniscule numbers, and you almost have to be a robot to belong to a group, taking enmity with several others – else you are an outsider to all of them.

Battles about the 'true doctrine' are fairly frequent among ideological groups.

If I were a Randian, I'd look for some basic 'denominator' which all groups have in common, and take it from there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just don't think in these terms. So I don't know what to say about the ideas here.

I'm not joking, either.

I don't know where my common ground is with this opening poster.

To start with, I don't believe America is doomed. I think the present situation is vastly superior to, say, the Civil War.

America has withstood a lot and it is still standing. I predict it will even survive Obama. :)

On another point, I would never look to Ayn Rand or any other person to "save me." The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. On the surface, it sort of makes sense, but on deeper scrutiny, I have to admit I don't even know what that means.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the living can "save" the living. The dead cannot doing anything for us. Perhaps we living folks can use the example of someone who has died, but it is still the action of a living person that produces benefits for other living persons.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bob,

That's true.

But here's the problem.

Today we humans live on average far, far longer than before. The population of the human species is increasing, not decreasing. I read somewhere that the human species is one of the most successful in nature. There is a glut of manufactured stuff laying around all over the place on a scale unimaginable a century or two ago. Even the wars we fight are not nearly as deadly in the numbers of dead and maimed as before.

Granted, I do believe a severe economic shock is coming, but I also believe it will come with creative solutions. And there are some real concerns about growing lack of privacy, a mega-disease hitting the species, and other possible fear-inducing troubles.

But, looking at ALL the signals and not just selectively omitting what does not fit a prejudice, we humans are doing OK. Pretty damn good, considering...

Now here's something we could need saving from.

Human folly.

But no philosophy or religion can save us from that.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Human folly has been with us since God invented dirt and as long as humans exist as humans folly will remain with us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

People on many forums are talking about migrating from America, not into; are talking about dividing America into Red and Blue states; are talking about the impending civil war, secession and giving up the dollar, etc – the title of the OP is an OP by another poster on Tea Party site that evoked good response. It’s not all my empty talk. Obama is not the problem, democracy is, welfare state now turning into communism, war-mongering etc is, to which there is no solution because it has so far eluded proper identification / description. I am working on formulating the problem properly. Part of the solution consists of “some basic 'denominator' which all groups have in common, and (I will) take it from there.”

To answer about Founding Fathers’ achievement, whip-driven slaves, Wahabists etc –

From “Man’s Rights” by Ayn Rand, what she says about Founding Fathers’ implementation of individual rights – The result was the pattern of a civilized society which – for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years – America came close to achieving. Unquote. That is how the Founding Fathers helped in creating America long after they were dead, and that is how those people on Tea Party are discussing whether Ayn Rand can save the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On another point, I would never look to Ayn Rand or any other person to "save me." The more I think about this, the less sense it makes. On the surface, it sort of makes sense, but on deeper scrutiny, I have to admit I don't even know what that means.

Precisely Michael.

It is absurd for Ayn to be some sort of "savior."

Each of us needs to stand up, as individuals, and, refuse to submit to the state.

It is that simple.

Do not provide the state with the economic blood, and, the moral authority to suppress us.

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To answer about Founding Fathers’ achievement, whip-driven slaves, Wahabists etc –

From “Man’s Rights” by Ayn Rand, what she says about Founding Fathers’ implementation of individual rights – The result was the pattern of a civilized society which – for the brief span of some hundred and fifty years – America came close to achieving. Unquote. That is how the Founding Fathers helped in creating America long after they were dead, and that is how those people on Tea Party are discussing whether Ayn Rand can save the US.

Not even close. Before the Civil War there was slavery and after the civil war there was rapid progress toward a centralized state and a perverse interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. Please recall that President Wilson nationalized the railways in the United States and they were not fully returned to private management until 1922. We all know what FDR has done. The U.S. has strayed far from being a capitalistic place.

Hong Kong under British management was closer to Capitalism than the U.S. ever was.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reason man is not really asking if Ayn Rand can save us, but her ideas and the ideas of the Founding Fathers. For ideas to "save us" we have to use and implement them. If we say they can't "save" us we might ask if there is something wrong or incomplete about the ideas or if other factors have to be considered or both.

--Brant

thanks for the thread, RM.

waiting for salvation, playing solitaire, painting the house, reading, watching TV, posting on the Internet, and a lot of solo passion (.com?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is lifted from a blog (http://paulgoodchild.net/blog/2012/02/no-one-is-coming/ ) by Paul Goodchild. It quotes Nathaniel Branden on a theme ("No one is coming to the rescue") that is particularly relevant to this discussion, "Can Ayn Rand Save Us?". (see especially, Taking Responsibility: Self-reliance and the accountable life (1996, Simon & Schuster):

 

No One Is Coming…

by Paul Goodchild on February 25, 2012

No one is coming to the rescue this time

I’m re-reading a great book at the moment: How To Raise Your Self-Esteem.

It’s a quality read, and even people who believe they have a great self-esteem could benefit from it.

The latest chapter, ‘Living Consciously’, has a simple, but fantastic line in it.

Here’s a quote from the book:

…the most radical transformation occurs after the clients’ realization that no one is coming to the rescue.

and another:

Self-responsibility, rationally conceived, is indispensable to good self-esteem. Avoiding self-responsibility victimizes us with regard to our own lives. It leaves us helpless. We give power to everyone except ourselves. When we are frustrated, we look for someone to blame; others are at fault for our unhappiness. By contrast, the appreciation of self-responsibility can be an exhilarating and empowering experience. It places our lives back in our own hands.

 

{The blog's author, Paul Goodchild, adds the following comments}

 

No one is coming to the rescue…

If you are having problems right now in any context in your life, and they are rooted in a low self-esteem, they are never going to get "fixed" until you take the matter into your own hands.

Sure, you can blame it on your mummy and daddy, or your boyfriend/girlfriend, or whomever else is around to take the flack, but you’re stuck with those negative feelings until you die.

Not a fun way to live out your days.

Admitting responsibility is the hardest part

There’s no doubt in my mind the hardest part to improving your well-being and happiness is admitting to yourself that you must be the one responsible to attain it.

If you find yourself denying what you’ve just read, you need to take a moment and think it over a little more. Don’t dismiss it.

If this concept is new, and it’s not enough to scare the shit out of you, then I don’t know what would be.

Your friends, brother, mother, girlfriend, boyfriend, boss, colleagues can all help you, sure, but they are not the ones at fault for how you feel.

And your situation won’t magically get better when…

you’re older

you have a girl/boyfriend

you get a new job

you save X,000,000 amount of money

you get a bigger home

No. You have to just get stuck into it.

I recognised last year I needed to do something about my deteriorating self-esteem.

I couldn’t continue to battle back and forth with the anger and frustration I was feeling towards several areas of my life.

I had to break the pattern. And I did.

It’s a slow process but there’s progress. This book, along with other resources have helped me to refocus and take stock.

I can’t recommend it highly enough.

I could write much more about this topic, but the message should be clear by now:

Things will only be better when you take on the responsibility make them so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The following is lifted from a blog (http://paulgoodchild.net/blog/2012/02/no-one-is-coming/ ) by Paul Goodchild. It quotes Nathaniel Branden on a theme ("No one is coming to the rescue") that is particularly relevant to this discussion, "Can Ayn Rand Save Us?". (see especially, Taking Responsibility: Self-reliance and the accountable life (1996, Simon & Schuster):

 

No One Is Coming…

by Paul Goodchild on February 25, 2012

No one is coming to the rescue this time

I’m re-reading a great book at the moment: How To Raise Your Self-Esteem.

It’s a quality read, and even people who believe they have a great self-esteem could benefit from it.

The latest chapter, ‘Living Consciously’, has a simple, but fantastic line in it.

Here’s a quote from the book:

…the most radical transformation occurs after the clients’ realization that no one is coming to the rescue.

and another:

Self-responsibility, rationally conceived, is indispensable to good self-esteem. Avoiding self-responsibility victimizes us with regard to our own lives. It leaves us helpless. We give power to everyone except ourselves. When we are frustrated, we look for someone to blame; others are at fault for our unhappiness. By contrast, the appreciation of self-responsibility can be an exhilarating and empowering experience. It places our lives back in our own hands.

 

{The blog's author, Paul Goodchild, adds the following comments}

 

No one is coming to the rescue…

If you are having problems right now in any context in your life, and they are rooted in a low self-esteem, they are never going to get "fixed" until you take the matter into your own hands.

Sure, you can blame it on your mummy and daddy, or your boyfriend/girlfriend, or whomever else is around to take the flack, but you’re stuck with those negative feelings until you die.

Not a fun way to live out your days.

Admitting responsibility is the hardest part

There’s no doubt in my mind the hardest part to improving your well-being and happiness is admitting to yourself that you must be the one responsible to attain it.

If you find yourself denying what you’ve just read, you need to take a moment and think it over a little more. Don’t dismiss it.

If this concept is new, and it’s not enough to scare the shit out of you, then I don’t know what would be.

Your friends, brother, mother, girlfriend, boyfriend, boss, colleagues can all help you, sure, but they are not the ones at fault for how you feel.

And your situation won’t magically get better when…

you’re older

you have a girl/boyfriend

you get a new job

you save X,000,000 amount of money

you get a bigger home

No. You have to just get stuck into it.

I recognised last year I needed to do something about my deteriorating self-esteem.

I couldn’t continue to battle back and forth with the anger and frustration I was feeling towards several areas of my life.

I had to break the pattern. And I did.

It’s a slow process but there’s progress. This book, along with other resources have helped me to refocus and take stock.

I can’t recommend it highly enough.

I could write much more about this topic, but the message should be clear by now:

Things will only be better when you take on the responsibility make them so.

How many people does it take to change a light bulb. answer is 1. But the light bulb must really really want to change and take responsibility for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only if the light bulb has a firm grasp of Objectivist epistemology....

"No one is coming to save you," has been stated many times, by many others. So, it is not exactly a "new discovery" of Branden. However, his formulation can answer the question, "Can Ayn Rand (or the Founding Fathers, or take your pick) save us?"

No. Her ideas may be useful, as applied to society or to individuals, but it is the application by the individual that counts. (Duh)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reason man is not really asking if Ayn Rand can save us, but her ideas and the ideas of the Founding Fathers. For ideas to "save us" we have to use and implement them. If we say they can't "save" us we might ask if there is something wrong or incomplete about the ideas or if other factors have to be considered or both.

--Brant

thanks for the thread, RM.

waiting for salvation, playing solitaire, painting the house, reading, watching TV, posting on the Internet, and a lot of solo passion (.com?)

Brant has substantially stated what I want to say, thanks.

I understand each has to act for himself, also do his bit -- but few things about it: 1. all men are not equally capable and leaders are needed to lead them; 2. leaders may be highly capable, but need good people from society to back them, to accomplish their vision; 3. each acting on his own in his individual issues is a must, but in social issues if they all really acted on their own they would simply facilitate victory of evil; they have to unite under the most rational leadership / philosopher. Therefore the question can Ayn Rand play that role, or who will?

Anyway, the OP is just an opening piece telling my intent to post the real article on this topic. I am attempting an article to unite all those diverse groups whose face-off with each other is facilitating victory of evil.

Till then I will not talk more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Each of us needs to stand up, as individuals, and, refuse to submit to the state.

It is that simple.

Do not provide the state with the economic blood, and, the moral authority to suppress us.

...and the way to stand up to the state is not to oppose it as if it was the enemy, because it is not the enemy. It is simply to give up our need of it. For it is our own need for the state to make someone else pay our bills which is the only real enemy. Not needing the state is what robs it of our sanction to become its victim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back in The Days of the Founding Fathers over half the American economy depended on the labor of whip driven slaves. Is that what you really want?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Meanwhile... today over half the economy depends on the labor of whip driven slaves to their own credit cards, mortgages, vehicle loans and leases, equity lines of credit, and student loans. Is this what we already have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am working on formulating the problem properly. Part of the solution consists ofsome basic 'denominator' which all groups have in common, and (I will) take it from there.”

I believe that basic denominator which all groups have in common is objective moral values. Without any ideological or cultural markers, it is impossible to tell any difference between the behavior of a decent liberal and a decent conservative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am working on formulating the problem properly. Part of the solution consists ofsome basic 'denominator' which all groups have in common, and (I will) take it from there.”

I believe that basic denominator which all groups have in common is objective moral values. Without any ideological or cultural markers, it is impossible to tell any difference between the behavior of a decent liberal and a decent conservative.

Objective moral values come from knowledge of the human animal and human being. Life is a plus, death a negative, generally speaking. (Ah, complexities vs principles?--not! [just ship in more data].) Now, where was I?--oh, this means the biological, psychological and intellectualized justification of individual rights codified and enforced by (evil) government. Natural to artificial. Need to law. What the good people do is seize the government and force the bad people not to be bad people making them--the goodies--in league with the devil which they then must wrestle with their right (left?) hand while the left (right?) hand does good. The anarchists stand outside looking in animadverting upon it all.

--Brant

blood on my hands, literally and figuratively

(seeking salvation: in Jesus Christ?)

save me, Rand! (I'm so lonely)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am working on formulating the problem properly. Part of the solution consists ofsome basic 'denominator' which all groups have in common, and (I will) take it from there.”

I believe that basic denominator which all groups have in common is objective moral values. Without any ideological or cultural markers, it is impossible to tell any difference between the behavior of a decent liberal and a decent conservative.

Objective moral values come from knowledge of the human animal and human being. Life is a plus, death a negative, generally speaking. (Ah, complexities vs principles?--not! [just ship in more data].) Now, where was I?--oh, this means the biological, psychological and intellectualized justification of individual rights codified and enforced by (evil) government. Natural to artificial. Need to law. What the good people do is seize the government and force the bad people not to be bad people making them--the goodies--in league with the devil which they then must wrestle with their right (left?) hand while the left (right?) hand does good. The anarchists stand outside looking in animadverting upon it all.

--Brant

blood on my hands, literally and figuratively

(seeking salvation: in Jesus Christ?)

save me, Rand! (I'm so lonely)

Suppose you are suffering from a form of cancer (God forbid!) which produce intractable pain beyond the ability of pain killers to dull it. Would you not consider death a positive alternative?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Brant: Objective moral values come from knowledge of the human animal and human being.

Yes. But not just knowledge, for every adult knows right from wrong. It's loving what's right enough to act upon it... which is acting contrary to the human animal.

What the good people do is seize the government and force the bad people not to be bad people making them--the goodies--in league with the devil which they then must wrestle with their right (left?) hand while the left (right?) hand does good. The anarchists stand outside looking in animadverting upon it all.

The government is only what people have created in their own image... and opportunistically treats each individual according to the moral values by which they live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now