A. Havnes
05-07-2009, 04:15 PM
I was just in the cities for an emergency (I'll talk about that in a later post), and I looked through "Minnesota Daily" while I was there, and came across a certain article of interest (http://www.mndaily.com/2009/05/05/rand%E2%80%99s-atlas-myth-america). I took the newspaper with me in case I would have to transcribe it on these forums, but I found a link. Minnesota Daily is comprised of University of Minnesota students, who are probably indoctrinated into socialism.
You know what to do!
Rand’s Atlas: a myth for America
Subhead: Many are returning to Ayn Rand’s seminal fiction novel amid recession. But they should not forget the lessons reality teaches.
BY Christopher Benson
PUBLISHED: 05/05/2009
When the tumult of day-to-day existence throws reality into disarray, people tend to go back to basics, asking questions like, “Who am I?” and “Where am I going?” With political and social movements, this generally translates to a little bit of electoral soul-searching and revisiting the philosophical foundation of your ideology. Considering the recent collapse of public confidence in conservative politicians and multibillionaire CEOs, laissez-faire economics is being revisited to bolster the confidence of the business class, and nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than the resurgent popularity of Ayn Rand’s capitalist encyclical, “Atlas Shrugged.” Since President Barack Obama’s inauguration, sales of the book have been “going through the roof” according to Yaron Brook, the president of the Ayn Rand Institute. Brook claims that the book has sold more copies in the first four months of 2009 than it did all last year.
And why not? The book is an unrepentant defense of the capitalist, a defiant call that selfishness and profiteering are to be emulated, not scorned. Considering the impression much of conservative America has of Obama and a popular sentiment that regards Wall Street businessmen as slightly more palatable than Osama bin Laden, a book that offers a laudatory pat on the back while condemning “socialism” is a welcome change of pace.
Although currently en vogue, “Atlas” has been an ideological refuge for quite some time. A 1991 survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club noted that it was the second most influential book in America, behind the Bible.
But there’s a problem. Rand's vision of businessmen in “Atlas” was like Walt Disney's version of the animal kingdom in “Bambi”: the dirty and impolite aspects that actually animate their lives were handily ignored. Unlike Disney, Rand’s choice to exclude reality was not done to enable the narrative, but to make it possible to drive home a philosophical point.
Like Plato’s “Philosopher-King” (or its 18th century variant, the “Enlightened Despot”), Rand used her narrative to create a philosophical ideal in the form of the businessman. This ideal, like all ideals, embodied all “good” things, and no “bad.” Due to the pervasive effect of Rand’s book on American culture, it’s also been important in shaping a cultural perspective on businessmen as an exponent of American prosperity and a conceptual justification for complete, unbridled economic liberty, or in Rand’s words, “the separation of State and Economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of Church and State.”
However, the benefits of this ideal have been dubious because the deified philosophical ideal is fictional and the product of wholly wishful thinking. It is the result of a thought experiment that characterizes efforts to regulate business as “punishment” and manufactures a conflict that compels the public to see business as an eternal adversary.
As such, Rand’s is a conceit that we ought to banish, not because, as socialists believe, businessmen are inherently evil, but because they are not, as she believes, inherently good.
Capitalism, like any economic system, is merely a tool, and the use of that tool determines whether it is a “good” or “bad” thing. This makes it a results-oriented arrangement whose sole motivation is profit. Enamored of the notion that selfishness is the highest ideal, Rand and her ilk are unwilling to see the occasionally pathological consequences of the profit motive. Instead, they set their sights on removing any impediment to any profit. In a piece from the Ayn Rand Institute titled “Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures” the aforementioned Yaron Brook emphasizes that the goal should be “no regulatory bullying, no controls, no government interference in the economy.” The government’s only job is “to protect individual rights from violation by force or fraud.”
One of the consequences of leaving business to itself is that the demand for a product and its subsequent profitability are the only important aspects worth consideration, but this kind of change would produce undesirable businesses.
For instance, in Thailand, sex tourism capital of the world, there exists a market for child prostitutes. The principal thing that keeps it from being legal is a government stipulation that all sex workers are older than 18, but in a system without laws governing business — the so-called “regulatory bullying” and “government interference” — the individual pimping a consenting 10-year-old is as legitimately a businessman as the local manufacturer of antibiotics and pediatric vaccines. The same holds true for other forms of child labor; if children are ready to go work for their share of the family take and a business were prepared to employ them, there would be nothing to stop a boom in bobbin-changing jobs.
Other businesses would spring up that are decidedly anti-growth; short sellers and “empty creditors” (lenders and creditors who make their profits by betting on business failures), bolstered by the leverage to sink as many companies as possible, would effectively become economic incinerators.
These kinds of entrepreneurs don’t come to the fore in “Atlas” because its ruins the dream; instead, the focus is on railroad executives, mining magnates and the boss of the steel foundry. Nevertheless, they would arise in a system where market-driven demand determines a business’ merit. Philosophically, the Rand set believes that government needs to practice a “hands-off” approach, but this is a solution that is no better than over-regulation and equally catastrophic. In reality, we need a light governmental touch to steer the motor of industry. To believe otherwise is fiction.
Chris Benson is the senior editorial board member. Please send comments to letters@mndaily.com.
Have fun educating this guy!
You know what to do!
Rand’s Atlas: a myth for America
Subhead: Many are returning to Ayn Rand’s seminal fiction novel amid recession. But they should not forget the lessons reality teaches.
BY Christopher Benson
PUBLISHED: 05/05/2009
When the tumult of day-to-day existence throws reality into disarray, people tend to go back to basics, asking questions like, “Who am I?” and “Where am I going?” With political and social movements, this generally translates to a little bit of electoral soul-searching and revisiting the philosophical foundation of your ideology. Considering the recent collapse of public confidence in conservative politicians and multibillionaire CEOs, laissez-faire economics is being revisited to bolster the confidence of the business class, and nowhere is this more clearly demonstrated than the resurgent popularity of Ayn Rand’s capitalist encyclical, “Atlas Shrugged.” Since President Barack Obama’s inauguration, sales of the book have been “going through the roof” according to Yaron Brook, the president of the Ayn Rand Institute. Brook claims that the book has sold more copies in the first four months of 2009 than it did all last year.
And why not? The book is an unrepentant defense of the capitalist, a defiant call that selfishness and profiteering are to be emulated, not scorned. Considering the impression much of conservative America has of Obama and a popular sentiment that regards Wall Street businessmen as slightly more palatable than Osama bin Laden, a book that offers a laudatory pat on the back while condemning “socialism” is a welcome change of pace.
Although currently en vogue, “Atlas” has been an ideological refuge for quite some time. A 1991 survey conducted by the Library of Congress and the Book of the Month Club noted that it was the second most influential book in America, behind the Bible.
But there’s a problem. Rand's vision of businessmen in “Atlas” was like Walt Disney's version of the animal kingdom in “Bambi”: the dirty and impolite aspects that actually animate their lives were handily ignored. Unlike Disney, Rand’s choice to exclude reality was not done to enable the narrative, but to make it possible to drive home a philosophical point.
Like Plato’s “Philosopher-King” (or its 18th century variant, the “Enlightened Despot”), Rand used her narrative to create a philosophical ideal in the form of the businessman. This ideal, like all ideals, embodied all “good” things, and no “bad.” Due to the pervasive effect of Rand’s book on American culture, it’s also been important in shaping a cultural perspective on businessmen as an exponent of American prosperity and a conceptual justification for complete, unbridled economic liberty, or in Rand’s words, “the separation of State and Economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of Church and State.”
However, the benefits of this ideal have been dubious because the deified philosophical ideal is fictional and the product of wholly wishful thinking. It is the result of a thought experiment that characterizes efforts to regulate business as “punishment” and manufactures a conflict that compels the public to see business as an eternal adversary.
As such, Rand’s is a conceit that we ought to banish, not because, as socialists believe, businessmen are inherently evil, but because they are not, as she believes, inherently good.
Capitalism, like any economic system, is merely a tool, and the use of that tool determines whether it is a “good” or “bad” thing. This makes it a results-oriented arrangement whose sole motivation is profit. Enamored of the notion that selfishness is the highest ideal, Rand and her ilk are unwilling to see the occasionally pathological consequences of the profit motive. Instead, they set their sights on removing any impediment to any profit. In a piece from the Ayn Rand Institute titled “Stop Blaming Capitalism for Government Failures” the aforementioned Yaron Brook emphasizes that the goal should be “no regulatory bullying, no controls, no government interference in the economy.” The government’s only job is “to protect individual rights from violation by force or fraud.”
One of the consequences of leaving business to itself is that the demand for a product and its subsequent profitability are the only important aspects worth consideration, but this kind of change would produce undesirable businesses.
For instance, in Thailand, sex tourism capital of the world, there exists a market for child prostitutes. The principal thing that keeps it from being legal is a government stipulation that all sex workers are older than 18, but in a system without laws governing business — the so-called “regulatory bullying” and “government interference” — the individual pimping a consenting 10-year-old is as legitimately a businessman as the local manufacturer of antibiotics and pediatric vaccines. The same holds true for other forms of child labor; if children are ready to go work for their share of the family take and a business were prepared to employ them, there would be nothing to stop a boom in bobbin-changing jobs.
Other businesses would spring up that are decidedly anti-growth; short sellers and “empty creditors” (lenders and creditors who make their profits by betting on business failures), bolstered by the leverage to sink as many companies as possible, would effectively become economic incinerators.
These kinds of entrepreneurs don’t come to the fore in “Atlas” because its ruins the dream; instead, the focus is on railroad executives, mining magnates and the boss of the steel foundry. Nevertheless, they would arise in a system where market-driven demand determines a business’ merit. Philosophically, the Rand set believes that government needs to practice a “hands-off” approach, but this is a solution that is no better than over-regulation and equally catastrophic. In reality, we need a light governmental touch to steer the motor of industry. To believe otherwise is fiction.
Chris Benson is the senior editorial board member. Please send comments to letters@mndaily.com.
Have fun educating this guy!