tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post4035836720018806111..comments2024-03-28T15:48:48.514-07:00Comments on CONTRARY BRIN: Atlas Shrugged: The Hidden Context of the Book and FilmDavid Brinhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comBlogger313125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-52715018756232079852016-08-16T00:27:48.757-07:002016-08-16T00:27:48.757-07:00In a lot of ways, Ayn Rand strikes me as having ne...In a lot of ways, Ayn Rand strikes me as having never got over the shock of having escaped Soviet Russia, only to find that all the fashionable intellectuals of the country where she'd taken refuge were gurgling over "the future that worked."<br /><br />And, IMO, <i>Atlas Shrugged</i> does have excellent parts. Had I been around to advise her, I'd have told her to just do the "Twentieth Century Motor Company" story. If she wanted to show what would happen if the best minds all said "To hell with you!" and went out on strike, a <i>series</i> of novels would have been better...and she wouldn't have burned herself out so badly.Technomadhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10438978139389104455noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55705396941686813532016-08-10T18:50:17.608-07:002016-08-10T18:50:17.608-07:00I always thought "We the Living" was her...I always thought "We the Living" was her best work, and that as a philosopher, she was far too much "freedom from" than "freedom to". <br /><br />Both align with the idea that she never got to the stage of maturity that could speak to having children.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16930520917352746721noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3970821142522590072014-03-13T20:56:27.488-07:002014-03-13T20:56:27.488-07:00David, Ayn Rand was not a Marxist; she was a belie...David, Ayn Rand was not a Marxist; she was a believer in Austrian free-market economics of the Ludwig von Mises brand. But gaining a bachelor's degree from the University of Leningrad she did know her Marx and Lenin -- and the original title of Atlas Shrugged was "The Strike." It's Marxism turned on its head. That's usually called satire. How could you miss that? Oh, maybe it's because you can't make a clear distinction between the oligarchical corporate fascism that is called capitalism by leftists and the only sparingly tried utopian vision of laissez-faire capitalism that Ayn Rand advocated in both fiction and nonfiction. Rand called herself a radical for capitalism and was entirely a creature of the Enlightenment, with liberal social ideas utterly opposed to conservatism and attacked mercilessly by conservatives because of her pro-abortion, anti-religious positions.<br /><br />J. Neil Schulmanhttp://jneilschulman.rationalreview.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-3888800092450586922014-01-20T17:03:30.358-08:002014-01-20T17:03:30.358-08:00Great article and great critique of Atlas Shurgged...Great article and great critique of Atlas Shurgged and the Randian pseudo-philosophy. I never gave much thought <br /><br />I know of one old review of Atlas Shurgged that delved a little into the fact that Ayn Rand's heroes never reproduced. Whittaker Chambers didn't delve into the spoiled nature of any descendents of Ayn Rand's heroes; he was far more interested in examining the influences of Nietzsche on Randian pseudo-philosophy. <br /><br />You may have read Whittaker Chambers' devastating critique of Atlas Shurgged here: <br />http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/222482/big-sister-watching-you/flashback<br /><br />One idea I have about why Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged heroes never reproduced was that her idea of how to make things different is that they don't reproduce to leave possibly inferior heirs. Her idea might well be that they find kids with a considerable potential, and groom them to be technocraticly competent heirs, much like The Party in Orwell's 1984 find kids in both the inner Party and the outer Party who are capable to function as Big Brother. <br /><br /> Christian Schmemannnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-25823943207019393792014-01-19T19:25:05.334-08:002014-01-19T19:25:05.334-08:00A huge part of the problem with Atlas Shrugged, IM...A huge part of the problem with <i>Atlas Shrugged</i>, IMO, is that Rand tried to do much too much in one book. If she'd made it a series of novels, like splitting off the "Twentieth Century Motor Company" story into its own novel, forex, she'd not only have had a lot better stories, she wouldn't have burnt herself out so dreadfully.<br /><br />I'd say that to understand Rand, you have to keep in mind that she fled from the USSR just as things were getting really bad there...only to find that all the fashionable intellectual types in the US were oohing and aahing over "the future that worked." I could use a particular analogy here, but prefer not to invoke Godwin's Law; instead, think of how an anti-Mussolini Italian would have felt if he'd fled to the US and found out (as was actually the case) that the <i>Fascisti</i> were powerfully present, and powerful, in the Italian-American community. (The Italian Fascists were much more successful in this, pre-WWII, than the Bund ever was; after the Ethiopian invasion, they kept their heads down outside of the community, but they were by no means gone.)<br /><br />I tend to think of "orthodox" Objectivism as a sort of "black mass" Communism---it has the same relationship to Soviet Communism that the Black Mass and classical Satanism has to Catholicism. A lot of Communist posters I've seen could be "detourned" into Objectivist art very easily---just change some symbols and change the captions.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-70070790300943019742013-07-08T20:25:25.923-07:002013-07-08T20:25:25.923-07:00Ever read Michael Shermer's essay about Rand c...Ever read Michael Shermer's essay about Rand called "The Unlikeliest Cult" if I recall correctly.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12246186646853690559noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-68225385206633669202012-10-01T03:54:06.512-07:002012-10-01T03:54:06.512-07:00LTV is complete crap when it comes to all labor ho...<i>LTV is complete crap when it comes to all labor hours being equally valuable. That's baloney and one of Marx's most glaring mistakes.</i><br /><br />Marx doesn't say this. He talks about <i>abstract</i> labor hours. His point is not to measure individual labor productivity, but to try to treat formally Smith and Ricardo's assertion that labor is the source of exchange value. I discuss the issue in a little more depth in <a href="http://barefootbum.blogspot.com/2012/01/labor-theory-of-value.html" rel="nofollow">The Labor Theory of Value</a>.Larry Hamelinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08788697573946266404noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-54199969607939619952012-05-12T15:19:27.401-07:002012-05-12T15:19:27.401-07:00Hi there. Interesting analysis. But you got the no...Hi there. Interesting analysis. But you got the no-children part wrong.<br /><br />Rand's heroes do not have children for the simple reason that having and raising children is a LOT of work. Anyone who does that work cannot also invent a new metal stronger than steel and then build bridges out of it, run a transcontinental railroad, or run a multinational copper mining company. <br /><br />Rand herself knew this -- she never had children. Her life's work was her writing, and children would have gotten in the way of that work.<br /><br />Rand deals with the issue of inherited wealth, openly. Dagny and James Taggart and Francisco D'Anconia are all the children of very wealthy families. Only James uses his wealth to squash the ingenuity and efforts of the upstarts. Dagny and Francisco, because they share the ethos and ingenuity of their productive forbears, both embark on careers that don't depend on their family's wealth at first. They then take over their family companies having earned the right to run them via their own hard work.Kristennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-50224471887155351242011-12-03T12:54:55.989-08:002011-12-03T12:54:55.989-08:00MOVING ONWARDS!
These discussions are great... on...MOVING ONWARDS!<br /><br />These discussions are great... one of the best blog-communities on the planet! Certainly one of the oldest.<br /><br />But it is time to move on. CONTINUE DISCUSSIONS UNDER COMMENTS UNDER THE LATEST POSTING!<br /><br />Thanks all....David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-42360733282908172442011-12-03T12:53:29.430-08:002011-12-03T12:53:29.430-08:00@David Friedman: I am afraid I must call bullshit ...@David Friedman: I am afraid I must call bullshit on you, good sir. You stated the following:<br /><br />"Leftists would be less inclined to view global warming as bad if it were natural. Part of that would be an inclination to attribute to it the death of millions if it were the work of man, and be more skeptical of the same claim for the same global warming if it were natural."<br /><br />While I am a moderate conservative in my beliefs and leanings, I have to state you are quite false in this due to existing evidence to the contrary. Disease is a natural process. And yet "lefties" are a driving force for government funding of research into cures for disease. In fact, they encourage funding of diseases where a cure would not be economical, and thus industry is unlikely to work on.<br /><br />Cancer is another quite natural process of life and exists in a number of organisms. And while there is a big business around it, there are some smaller cancers that through economies of scale are not worth the time to find a cure or treatment. Once again, Lefties are the driving force for government funding for these conditions... despite the fact maybe only five people a year die from a specific type of cancer.<br /><br />Lefties are <i>concerned for people</i>. If the current global warning was a fully natural situation due to, say, increased solar output (which it is not), then the Lefties would STILL be urging reduced carbon emissions, increased carbon capture to cool the planet, and probably solar shades. <br /><br />I understand the enjoyment that comes from flinging bullshit around, sir. I used to do this when it came to Bill Clinton (who I still don't like as a person). But you have to be careful that you don't allow personal dislikes to color your perceptions until you are putting forward falsehoods.<br /><br />Rob H.Acacia H.https://www.blogger.com/profile/07678539067303911329noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-18274274505493369342011-12-03T12:09:31.496-08:002011-12-03T12:09:31.496-08:00re: The courts being the place to manage property ...re: The courts being the place to manage property rights as opposed to Congress/Parliament.<br /><br />I do not believe this is a good solution. In the first part I think it would overwhelm the courts leading to such long decision times that the decision would likely no longer be useful. In the second part, Congress/Parliament is the tool by which people collectively protect themselves against common, gross predations such as Love Canal type situations. It is much, much more efficient to do so via Congress/Parliament than it is to do so via the courts.Arizsun Aholanoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-32239457736109818982011-12-03T10:28:52.105-08:002011-12-03T10:28:52.105-08:00Brin: Sigh and alack... have you guys noticed that...Brin: <i>Sigh and alack... have you guys noticed that David F absolutely refuses to deal with the matter on the table?</i><br /><br />Heh.<br /><br />As I previously noted, this tactic of Friedman's is de rigueur for denialists and those arguing from a position of ideology. All indications are that Friedman hasn't even tried to think these things through from a rational evidentiary approach. I suspect he may be incapable of such. This is of course in stark contrast to both his father and yourself. Discarding empiricism for ideology was David Friedman's undoing.Neolibertarianhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01621766462465885791noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-12475577174225104372011-12-03T07:35:02.946-08:002011-12-03T07:35:02.946-08:00Oh, and as to 300 comments, I think that's a r...Oh, and as to 300 comments, I think that's a record for all the years I've been following this blog.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-62618641562468602392011-12-03T07:33:47.818-08:002011-12-03T07:33:47.818-08:00David Friedman:
I don't know what a "com...David Friedman:<br /><i><br />I don't know what a "completely unregulated society" is supposed to mean.<br /></i><br /><br />I thought this analogy I posted would have made that clearer?<br /><br /><b><br />What would be your response were I to argue that police forces were inherently wrong and should be abolished? I presume you would remind me that a world without police would leave me vulnerable to the predations of criminals. I doubt you would accept as sufficient a response from me that I never said I liked criminals either--that I prefer the society of freely-honest individuals to that of criminals OR policemen.<br /><br />I also doubt you would accept the notion that it is only your OPINION that criminals would take advantage of a policeless society, and that many others disagreed with you.<br /><br />Does that make my objection more clear?<br /></b><br /><br />If that DOESN'T illustrate the problem I have with you're "I only trust honest traders" thing, can you at least tell me what the difference is?LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-4324252078380159242011-12-03T03:13:47.355-08:002011-12-03T03:13:47.355-08:00299 and counting.
Any wagers on how many the Avat...299 and counting.<br /><br />Any wagers on how many the Avatar essay gets?Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-59499171905107403462011-12-03T02:46:10.162-08:002011-12-03T02:46:10.162-08:00Wow, Dr Brin. It sure didn't take long to go ...Wow, Dr Brin. It sure didn't take long to go from:<br /><i><br />David F sure stirred you guys up! Thanks David! I knew you'd fit right in here!<br /></i><br /><br />thru...<br /><br /><i><br />SIgh and alack... have you guys noticed that David F absolutely refuses to deal with the matter on the table?<br /></i><br /><br />all the way to...<br /><i><br />What an utter #$$@##!<br /><br />Do you even listen to yourself?<br /></i><br /><br />I'm amused because I thought you'd be the one holding ME back.<br /><br />:)LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-43494544535653974982011-12-03T02:39:58.400-08:002011-12-03T02:39:58.400-08:00David Friedman:
I don't know what a "com...David Friedman:<br /><i><br />I don't know what a "completely unregulated society" is supposed to mean. <br /></i><br /><br />I meant "in the absence of government". Of perhaps "Law of the jungle".<br /><br /><i><br />If "completely unregulated" means "laissez-faire capitalism," which probably isn't what you mean, then the answer is that the rich will achieve their ends mainly by producing stuff that other people want, thus benefiting others as well as themselves. <br /></i><br /><br />That IS one thing that would happen and you and I would both consider it a good thing.<br /><br />But...<br /><br /><i><br />There will probably be some opportunities to benefit themselves at the cost of others as well, for instance by fraud, but many fewer than if there is a powerful government for them to use--fraud is a much more limited tool than force.<br /></i><br /><br />Really, you're going to stand on that? Because I think that fraud is much easier to get away with than force. Force is blatant, and when it gets bad enough, invites counter-force, if only because "What do I have to LOSE?" becomes the order of the day. Fraud, by its nature, is hidden and insidious. When it works well, the defrauded don't even know they've been wronged--they probably even buy into the fact that they got what they bargained for.<br /><br />I think that, without some level of regulation, the "signal to noise" ratio of honest commerce to fraud would become overwhelming in the direction of fraud.<br /><br /><i><br />Are you somehow imagining that the alternative to a "completely unregulated society" is "a society regulated to keep the rich from imposing their will?" <br /></i><br /><br />Not exactly. I see it as regulated in the sense of rich and poor alike--sort of the opposite of that thing about sleeping under bridges. "The law prevents rich and poor alike from contaminating air and groundwater." The fact that, in practics, this puts more of a burden on the rich than on the poor may seem unfair to some, but I contend it is the province of government. Everybody has the right to breathe. The fact that someone else can put the air in my lungs to more profitable use than I can DOESN'T give him the right to do so.<br /><br />I'm not saying the point of regulation is specifically to constrain the wealthy and powerful. Rather I'm saying that government regulation is the ONLY effective counterweight against the wealthy and powerful violating the rights of others at will.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-85349690005539473552011-12-03T02:22:48.292-08:002011-12-03T02:22:48.292-08:00LH... Galt's people engage in deliberate acts ...LH... Galt's people engage in deliberate acts of sabotage. Some run wild with piracy on the high seas, raiding mercy ships taking food and money to starving Europe.<br /><br />The rationalization that "It was all stolen from us in the first place" seems appallingly contrived to us, especially when indeed they could have chosen some country that'd welcome them and started fresh, without trashing their old nation.<br /><br />But indignation is the drug high that propels believers through a 70 page speech. Randians aren't the only users of that drug! But they are among the most skilled.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-78811875010270604852011-12-03T02:14:06.253-08:002011-12-03T02:14:06.253-08:00David Friedman:
"If your contention is that ...David Friedman:<br /><i><br />"If your contention is that a liberal reporter made the whole thing up...well, I'd prefer to see some reason to believe that."<br /><br />My contention is that you do not know whether a reporter made the whole thing up, or misunderstood something someone actually said, or correctly reported it. But you are confident, without evidence, that the third alternative--which happens to fit your political views--is true, and that suggests that you are not very concerned to be sure that your beliefs are based in reality.<br /></i><br /><br />You do have a point, and Dr Brin is the first one to caution against "confirmation bias".<br /><br />I'll defend my position only to the extent that at the time that "We're an empire now" thing was being reported, I never heard any claims from the other side of the aisle that the quote was made up. Disagreements were limited to whether the (supposed) quote was indicative of good policy or bad policy. Thus I had no cause to think the FACT of the quote itself was in dispute.<br /><br />Ok, that was sloppy journalism on my part, and I admit that and will be more careful in the future. But that's not the same thing as what you accuse me of--picking and choosing which facts to believe at a whim in order to support that which I already believe. I mean, if it occured to you to make a point based on an old quote that you had seen many times--say, the fact that the Chicago Tribune headline after the 1948 election incorrectly proclaimed "Dewey Defeats Truman", would you really bother verifying it again? Maybe you would and maybe you SHOULD, but the laziness of NOT doing so is the extent of what I'll cop to here.<br /><br /><i><br />As for the "Norquist attribution" being in dispute, I have no idea where you got that attribution. The original article simply said an aide to Bush, and the usual conjecture is that it was Carl Rove.<br /></i><br /><br />I don't know where I got Norquist either. Alien abduction, maybe? Because my personal memory is that that quote is where I first HEARD OF Grover Norquist--that I wouldn't know who he is EXCEPT for that quote. If it was never even attributed to him, then for the life of me, I'm not sure how I even knew the man existed prior to the (very recent) publicity surrounding his pledge.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-44659218167484751322011-12-03T01:55:24.385-08:002011-12-03T01:55:24.385-08:00Paul451:"
That's what makes Rand's f...Paul451:"<br /><i><br />That's what makes Rand's fantasy so vile. Given Galt's technology, they could have founded a secret new society elsewhere, made up of the best'n'brightest. (And indeed, that's pretty much what they did.) There was no need to destroy civilisation, except spite.<br /></i><br /><br />In fairness to Rand, I believe she would contend (and her fictional heroes would believe) that they did not "destroy" civilization except BY leaving it. Civilization only worked because of them, and when they left, it fell apart. In fact, it was a magnanamous act to come back and rebuild the country again once this fact was made clear.<br /><br />Not agreeingwith their sentiment--just attempting to explain.LarryHartnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-55049420008361815682011-12-03T01:33:56.820-08:002011-12-03T01:33:56.820-08:00An additional point about Adam Smith and the socie...An additional point about Adam Smith and the society he lived in<br /><br />He was a Scot!<br />Even a rich Scot would not have got away with as much as an Englishman<br /><br />Especially just a few years after the 45!<br /><br />During this period the wearing of the kilt was a deportation offenseduncan cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-5455170466204373942011-12-03T01:20:13.636-08:002011-12-03T01:20:13.636-08:00Tim H.,
"This seems to dovetail well with a p...Tim H.,<br /><i>"This seems to dovetail well with a previous topic, seasteading. Let them develop a libertarian society outside the United States, to spare non-participants the grief."</i><br /><br />That's what makes Rand's fantasy so vile. Given Galt's technology, they could have founded a secret new society elsewhere, made up of the best'n'brightest. (And indeed, that's pretty much what they did.) There was no need to destroy civilisation, except spite.<br /><br />duncan cairncross,<br /><i>"An independently wealthy individual can publish ideas that would lose an employed or poorer person their livelihood"</i><br /><br />This is why a lot of social advances (and, I'm sure, evils) came from the idle rich seeing the injustices committed by their own class.Paul451https://www.blogger.com/profile/12119086761190994938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-19954734566162642362011-12-03T00:57:28.913-08:002011-12-03T00:57:28.913-08:00To David Friedman's comments about Adam Smith
...To David Friedman's comments about Adam Smith<br /><br />What you are willing to publish depends on the society AND on your own position and courage<br />An independently wealthy individual can publish ideas that would lose an employed or poorer person their livelihood<br /><br />It also takes a great deal of courage to push back against the powerful - even when you are right you may not have the courage or you may have too many "hostages to fortune" (family, friends) <br /><br />John Wilkes - was a very rich man - he had an estate in Buckinghamshire<br /><br />To "the degree to which power was consolidated in Smith's day."<br /><br />Anyone who has been around any of the "Stately Homes" of England can see that for themselves<br /><br />Think what a house like that would cost nowadays - none of the multimillion dollar houses built by the rich come anywhere close<br />And then compare it to the available resources <br /><br />By modern standards these guys were Trillionairesduncan cairncrossnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-1366142837680043832011-12-03T00:05:12.301-08:002011-12-03T00:05:12.301-08:00BTW, the Civil Aeronatics Board (CAB) and the Inte...BTW, the Civil Aeronatics Board (CAB) and the Interstate Commerce Commission were classic examples of industry "capturing" regulatory agencies. When it came time to dissolve them?<br /><br />Democrats did it. The Republicans (except a few heroes) fought tooth and nail to keep them alive.David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8587336.post-91766021838209830142011-12-03T00:03:29.044-08:002011-12-03T00:03:29.044-08:00What an utter #$$@##!
Do you even listen to yours...What an utter #$$@##!<br /><br />Do you even listen to yourself?<br /><br />Adam Smith wrote against those who had the power to influence policy in a non-democratic state causing that state to grant monopolies and other competition-destroying measures. I contend that that clade included the lords who owned 1/3 of the land and productive capacity in Britain and 1/3 of all the land in the American colonies.<br /><br />You demand that I spend hours leafing to find words decisively identifying the lords and the king BY NAME, even though that would have exposed Smith to severe risk at the time.<br /><br />What is amazing is that you have fixated on this as an excuse to go "neener! neeener Brin! neeeeeener!" over and over while deriding me ad hominem...<br /><br />...when you are the one who evades the macro issue at-hand, over and over again. I have tried to satisfy you re Smith, rephrasing and rephrasing again and again. You on the other hand, have not once, ever, ever remotely, actually tried to grapple with the subject at-hand.<br /><br />Are you demanding that I concede that Smith spoke only of "merchants and manufacturers"... (even though the lords OWNED most of that stuff)?<br /><br />WIll you, in return actually turn your head to look at those 6000 years? Or your absurdly immature use of minutia neeenering to evade the real issue that has implications for the whole underpinning of libertarianism?David Brinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14465315130418506525noreply@blogger.com