What Happened to Ayn Rand's Model Government?

I've included a three part interview of Ayn Rand that I watched from another site. I was really intrigued with the question Mike Wallace posed, "One of the principle achievements of this Country is the gradual growth of social, protective legislation based on the principle that we are our brother's keepers. How do you feel about the political trends of the United States?"

Ayn Rand answered Mike with a doomsday message if America continued down the path of socialistic services with taxation. We certainly see that she was right on target. In her words, "We live in a system where everybody is enslaved to everybody."

Ayn Rand surmised that a free market would always equalize itself perfectly. Honestly, I'm not sure she considered that in a free market, corporations wouldn't collude together for their own selfish benefit. That in effect is Socialism, or at least what has happened to America. Regulations that benefit these corporations are law, and law has always been relative with or without governance.

I'm not really sure why many say the American governmental policies, which are policies of the elite class, follow after her philosophies. On the contrary, it seems more that TPTB used Rand's philosophies to play the antagonist. Anyone an expert on her writings?

reply to post by CodeRed3D


I'm not an expert on her writings, but from what I've learned from friends more familiar with her works, Objectivism really appeals to idealistic high school and college students, but quickly falls apart when one enters the real world.

I'd say its similar to Lyndon LaRouche running for office for the last 40 years, always having a grassroots support of college campaign volunteers, but has yet to actually win any elections.

Man, that is one sad woman. It's easy to see why a lot of guys embrace her "philosophy", but what they and she don't understand is that mutual assured survival is central to the fundamental security structure of humanity. People are naturally communal, and she can't change that primal aspect of the human psyche with a logical argument. Human intellect is anything but logical. Sure, it's the net result of a logical progression of hyper-logical sub-structures and processes, but as a net result, human intellect is freed of that logic to be a true dynamic expression. She can wish all she wants for it to be confined to the tenets of structural efficiency, but intellect is boundless in its novelty, and there's nothing that she or anyone like her can ever do about that.

Concerning the primordial nature of self-interest, some human beings can convince themselves that if they have enough money and weaponry, that they can feel secure, but the truth is that if free to fully express this view of reality, these people never cease to stockpile both in an endless drive for the kind of security that only the common concern of true shared community has given the human race. No amount of wealth is ever enough, and no amount of relative insulation is ever enough. They squirrel away billions that they'll never be able to spend and they layer levels of security that grossly exaggerate the threat that exists in their lives. Their lives become an endless OCD struggle to protect themselves from what it means to be a human being on this planet. Like a bird that pulls its own feathers out as it become more and more desperate in its loss of existential center.

In these clips, you can see the fear in her eyes, as they dart back and forth. She's terrified within her own skin, and no amount of wealth, fame or power can ever make that kind of fear subside. I feel sorry for the kind of people who've found their truth within her tortured assertions. She looks like a bitter person who can't comprehend that anyone could ever deserve what she's probably never received, and has decided that if she can't have it or feel it, then no one should be allowed to have it or feel it either. Even more tragically, she's not original in her views. We all start out self-centered as children. Most of us outgrow it.

Corporations can collude together in the free market however they do not have government protection to make them a monopoly. If Target-Walmart-Kmart-McDonalds- all formed together, big deal, so what? If you don't like their products don't shop there. As opposed to say the Fluoride companies that put fluoride into the water, or military contract companies that will always have their business in the ongoing wars, or Goldman Sachs that has a monopoly on the US treasury, or the Federal Reserve which has the only monopoly on printing endless amounts of currency.

So take your pick, all these are monopolies because of the government, not the free market.

Ayn Rand's "model government" is not a government but individuality, the two are opposites. A society of free individuals makes the society great, just as it did with America since there was a lot of land and limited government.

I always found it telling that Alan Greenspan studied at her knee.

Her beautiful prose, yet misguided message are being used once again. The trailer for the movie, Atlas Shrugged, is airing now. Sadly, that movie/book should also offer an alternate ending - what happens when fascists rule. The entrepreneur has not a chance against the mega multi-national corporate conglomerates that dwarf most governments today. The balance tips both ways.

I was thinking that it turns into a Lord Of The Flies situation. I found this article.
The sequel to Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged is Lord of the Flies

The entire article is well worth the read. This was only one interesting part

As an employee for instance taking Ayn Rand at her word, it is in my self interest to pursue making the most money I can get paid. It is in the Capitalists self interest to make the largest profit possible. To accomplish my self interest it is in my individual self interest to unionize to aggregate my money and power to off set that of the Capitalists money otherwise I might as well just be a serf. From my self interested stand point joining a Union is not being a Communist or collectivist it is just being smart. By myself I have no power in this system thus no way to attain my self interest.

Individuality is over ones mind and ones body. When it comes to economic fairness, Utopian ideas have always fallen way short in actual practice. This is why Greed is one of the Seven deadly sins of the Bible. In addition Rand didn't comprehend Machiavelli's observation about how power corrupts.

If people actually read Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged as opposed to saying some quote about capitalism or Alan Greenspan, they would get more out of it.

Here is a list of characters, if you are going to insult Ayn Rand you might as well have at least some of the character names as part of your repertoire.

John Galt - the founder of "objectivism" or individualism. John Galt was an employee of a company that decided to go socialist and give all the profits to those in need rather than those who are skilled. The result was the skilled workers worked so the needy could get all the profits. The "needy" were usually the management types or the people who weren't embarrassed to beg and plead. John Galt left the company and devised his plan to collapse society by making Atlas "shrug." He achieved this by personally talking to every business owner and man with a mind and convincing him that he should not feed the leeches and instead go to their own commune and start a life there where the currency is based on gold and even minor services like playing a concert for friends requires a small and nominal fee (0.25 cents or that equivalent in gold). John Galt is the "destroyer" as Dagny describes him

Francisco D'Arconia - an aristocrat, in his childhood he was capable of anything, but later in life was a "playboy" much to Dagny's dismay. However, it was all an act so the corrupt politicians would bet on his company and then it would go under. He is one of the love interests of Dagny but she was reviled by Francisco's "act" of being a playboy.

Ragnar Danneskjöld - a pirate, but yet holds the same views as John Galt, except in how to pull it off. John Galt believes in a quiet and peaceful, almost secretive removal of all the heads of industry. Francisco believes in a charade and illusion to fool the fools, but Ragnar believes in force, he states that the government's only leverage is the monopolized use of force, thus, Ragnar is going to play on their own field and be a pirate. He steals Francisco's copper as part of the plan to wreck the D'arconia copper industry. These three characters all had the same professor.

Dagny Taggart - the main character of the novel, he is the head of the railroad although she gives the title of president to her more political brother Jim. Jim is greedy, deceptive, and scheming. Dagny has no interest in politics and simply loves her railroad. Even though she is a wealthy woman, she does not flaunt it, but rather her true passion is railroads. Like a man trapped in a woman's body, Dagny is more mechanical than she is feminine, although she has a feminine side that molds with the corporate side. Dagny goes against the usual notion of a "greedy capitalist" that actually falls on her brother who is a bad guy in the novel. This character alone disproves most of the myths about Ayn Rand.

Hank Reardon - creator of Reardon steel, he is rich, powerful, disgruntled, and above all hates publicity and the media. He is the subject of numerous conspiracies to shut down Reardon steel, including the government forcing him to accept a money payment for the steel. He refuses and gets busted making a copper trade on the side. His defense in court is to refuse to acknowledge the legitimacy of the court's existence or jurisdiction over his life. Much the same way that there are modern day "sovereign individuals" Hank Reardon used his sovereignty to refuse to acknowledge guilt or innocence in their court of law.

Now, for the "evil" guys

Jim Taggart - enjoys being the "head" of the railroad even though his sister does everything. He marries a poor girl because she adores him and does not believe he is a scum bag. He has an affair with Hank's wife in order to destroy Hank's character. When his attempts of torturing John Galt fails, and when John Galt fixes the torture machine when it breaks for his own torture, Jim Taggart suffers a mental breakdown.

Dr. Robert Stadler- the mentor of John Galt, Francisco and Ragnar. However he sells out to the state science institute, a "contradiction of terms" state science, for the money and security, and helps the military devise project X which is a super sonic sound bomb. If anything, this character describes the greedy capitalist the way Ayn Rand's books are usually illustrated, however the whole point is he is a bad guy.

Lillian Reardon - Hank's wife, someone completely obsessed with social status and socialism in general. Believes a person should be loved for their inferiority and hated for their superiority. Is wife to Hank mostly to keep him miserable, until he realizes her game and he divorces her.

So there you have it, at least be informed next time you talk about Ayn Rand

reply to post by filosophia


I've read it about seven times, as well as biographies and other books she has written - for many reasons. I've also given that book to many people - with words of caution - that while she is one of the great writers - and her story - especially Atlas Shrugged is a cautionary tale of what can happen when we stifle creativity and the individual entrepreneurial spirit - What Rand failed to consider because of her Communist experience is - what happens when a government shifts to far the other direction.

In response to the OP's question - What happened to Ayn Rand's Model Government? I'd say it was enacted and America today is it's living, breathing incarnation. America is also a prime example of what happens when the scales tip too far in Rand's proposed direction and corporations become the power ruling all. There is danger in fascism and corporate emperialism as much as there were dangers Rand experienced first-hand in Communist Russia.

She was a brilliant writer, but failed to recognize the balance that lies in the center of power shared - rather than just transferring corrupt power to another set of entities.

I would also appreciate, next time, if you would attempt conversation without insulting me or other members with unfounded assumptions. We are here to share views and thoughts. Underestimating your fellow members and the abilities of the individuals here that you do not know is a mis-step Ayn Rand would have condemned herself - especially given that she believed so deeply in the rights and promise of each individual to create, invent and realize their own purpose.

Reading and understanding Atlas Shrugged does not mean that you don't see where her ideal could lead. I think she would recognize that worshiping corporations leads to the risk of fascism and that somewhere between lies the true rights, hopes and promise for the inventor residing in all of us.

So, who is John Galt? I am John Galt. You are John Galt. We are all John Galt - but we have grown to recognize that absolute power by anyone or anything, corrupts absolutely.

I wish you well and that all you dream - you do.

Originally posted by DancedWithWolves
reply to post by filosophia

 

I've read it about seven times, as well as biographies and other books she has written - for many reasons. I've also given that book to many people - with words of caution - that while she is one of the great writers - and her story - especially Atlas Shrugged is a cautionary tale of what can happen when we stifle creativity and the individual entrepreneurial spirit - What Rand failed to consider because of her Communist experience is - what happens when a government shifts to far the other direction.

In response to the OP's question - What happened to Ayn Rand's Model Government? I'd say it was enacted and America today is it's living, breathing incarnation. America is also a prime example of what happens when the scales tip too far in Rand's proposed direction and corporations become the power ruling all. There is danger in fascism and corporate emperialism as much as there were dangers Rand experienced first-hand in Communist Russia.

She was a brilliant writer, but failed to recognize the balance that lies in the center of power shared - rather than just transferring corrupt power to another set of entities.

I would also appreciate, next time, if you would attempt conversation without insulting me or other members with unfounded assumptions. We are here to share views and thoughts. Underestimating your fellow members and the abilities of the individuals here that you do not know is a mis-step Ayn Rand would have condemned herself - especially given that she believed so deeply in the rights and promise of each individual to create, invent and realize their own purpose.

Reading and understanding Atlas Shrugged does not mean that you don't see where her ideal could lead. I think she would recognize that worshiping corporations leads to the risk of fascism and that somewhere between lies the true rights, hopes and promise for the inventor residing in all of us.

So, who is John Galt? I am John Galt. You are John Galt. We are all John Galt - but we have grown to recognize that absolute power by anyone or anything, corrupts absolutely.

I wish you well and that all you dream - you do.

How can you possibly say that the American government is the embodiment of "Galts Gulch" in Atlas Shrugged? That is insane. So Insane that I don't even know where to begin.

The comparisons between society in the novel and society today are near parallel.

And please stop talking about Evil corporations forcing the Governments hand. Corporations are created, literally, by state sanction. In a pure free market, with no government regulatory statutes, there would be no such thing as a corporation. It can't exist without the state. Corporations today have unfair advantages because the government gives them the unfair advantage.

Why can't people get that? They look at corporations as the epitome of free market capitalism, without even realizing that it requires Federal involvement to exist. Why is that? Have people forgotten how to read or something?

I was watching a vid yesterday here, and now I can't find it, might have gotten "404d" for advocating violent activism. Well, it was showing the violent brutal vicous rape of this earth's natural resources by certain large greedy industries, and was noting the psychopathy of that corporation, all the persons behind it. They showed a sarcastic parody of George Lucas' Star Wars, where everyone was boycotting Galactic Empire coffee, holding up signs, and having rebel lawyers speaking with Darth's lawyers, in a kinder gentler Green Peace attempt to strongly hint-appeal to the sociopath mind. It showed a picture of Ted Bundy, and asks you if you could reason and guilt him to reconsider massacering innocent lone women.


I have been recently open to considering the more Libertarian view of each State governing how it's own people want. But I wonder if there is a way for the US to run originally Constitutionally, while keeping a powerfull greedy 'LandLord' OUT, who seeks to make everyone serfs, through his briberies.


Those with a lot of wealth, who have no care for others, including the very dirt which sustains all. It's like an insane mental illness.

This: LINK

Originally posted by aravoth
[
And please stop talking about Evil corporations forcing the Governments hand. Corporations are created, literally, by state sanction. In a pure free market, with no government regulatory statutes, there would be no such thing as a corporation. It can't exist without the state. Corporations today have unfair advantages because the government gives them the unfair advantage.

Why can't people get that? They look at corporations as the epitome of free market capitalism, without even realizing that it requires Federal involvement to exist. Why is that? Have people forgotten how to read or something?

I only saw your quote after I made my post. You seem to somewhat answer what I was asking.

reply to post by aravoth


Corporations and government are blood brothers. There is a revolving door between the two linked in any number of ways through direct cash awards via RFP preferential treatment to a tax code that benefits corporations completely over the individual and written by government electeds and aids turned lobbyists/corporate government affairs liaisons and back again. To suggest government has not become a near wholly owned subsidiary of .com is not realistic. Government has lost their autonomy from the corporation.

Corporations have been lifted atop a pedestal and had the opportunity - in the early 70s, 80s and 90s - to do with that windfall of worship what they would. The results are in. Greed overtook their own R & D departments and now we have the results. You cannot so simply separate the corporation of today from where the Gulch crowd would have ended up after a few hostile takeovers and leveraged buyouts. The Gulch would only have been for a moment in time when equilibrium would have existed - before the scales tipped in the other direction - which they did at CEO urging - making profits not purpose the ultimate goal.

I am merely suggesting that there is - on neither end of the philosophical spectrum - balance that is lasting. Rand leaned one direction because of her experience in her younger years under communism. Her error was in placing the hope of all in the ideal of the corporation under the leadership of "pick one." Last I heard, it was, we the people, that have had to bail them out of the messes their monopolies created. And, they have commenced again down the same path. Trusting a business leader who is corrupt is no different than trusting a political leader or system that is corrupt. Rand was seeking a savior from communism and thought she saw it in the American corporation. Both extremes can end poorly. It is the ethics of the individual man or woman that must be judged in each situation - not the ism in which they function alone.

And I do wish folks on here could have discussions without senseless insults that others "don't or can't read." It really does become a bore. It is possible to read and disagree and even still to find common ground through conversation if it is done with respect. That seems not the case here. While I have for years found Rand's abilities and philosophy very worthy of study because as wrong as she was - she was also very right on many levels, I will mosey on down the road back to larger problems of the day and leave you to insult the next poster with inhuman and rather unRandly attacks. Carry on. She and her body of work are well worth considering. I will leave you to your own then.

Peace
DWW

First off, this has been an amazing read. I have no choice but to go down the line because there were so many thought provoking points.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
I'm not an expert on her writings, but from what I've learned from friends more familiar with her works, Objectivism really appeals to idealistic high school and college students, but quickly falls apart when one enters the real world.

Yeah, "expert" was a poor choice of words to use on my part. Your comment lends me to think about some of the statements Ron Paul made in the last debate. In retrospect, he seems to be the posterchild of Objectivism.

Originally posted by NorEaster
Concerning the primordial nature of self-interest, some human beings can convince themselves that if they have enough money and weaponry, that they can feel secure, but the truth is that if free to fully express this view of reality, these people never cease to stockpile both in an endless drive for the kind of security that only the common concern of true shared community has given the human race.

Originally posted by filosophia
Ayn Rand's "model government" is not a government but individuality, the two are opposites. A society of free individuals makes the society great, just as it did with America since there was a lot of land and limited government.

Well that is the American dream isn't it? I can't help but reflect that America was built as a religion-centered nation where thoughts of charity and God-given freedoms were integrated into the governmental structure early on.

This really is the statement Mike Wallace makes when he opened up this topic, "One of the principle achievements of this Country is the gradual growth of social, protective legislation based on the principle that we are our brother's keepers. How do you feel about the political trends of the United States?"

Now that the land has all been conquered and in control of large corporate interests, where is there room for reform? Obviously what we have now isn't working. The UN charter that these corporations are gravitating towards doesn't hold the answer either. Instead, the "real world" seems to associate with Darwinism, "the survival of the fitist". Freedom seems to be such a realative term when there is a dominant interest to control the future of the masses by a few who use policies based on keeping secrets.

Any way you look at it, the crashing economy, GMO destroying the environment, worldwide wars in the name of religion and materialism, oppression by taxation, etc., etc., are all there because those in power want to play God. On that thought, I think Ayn Rand exposes the complete falicy of trying to govern anybody.

reply to post by CodeRed3D


Your are right, it has been a good read and it is important that we talk about these kinds of social philosophies. There is much to learn from each of them and from each other. Thank you for starting this thread. Many really good points made. Thanks again.

Originally posted by aravoth
And please stop talking about Evil corporations forcing the Governments hand. Corporations are created, literally, by state sanction. In a pure free market, with no government regulatory statutes, there would be no such thing as a corporation. It can't exist without the state. Corporations today have unfair advantages because the government gives them the unfair advantage.

Why can't people get that? They look at corporations as the epitome of free market capitalism, without even realizing that it requires Federal involvement to exist. Why is that? Have people forgotten how to read or something?

I'm not to familiar in this territory, could you elaborate on why this is so, what the advantages are?

It's a question of giving and taking. Taking always requires recompense. Giving, on the other hand, returns what is given over and over again. Objectivism is taking for self rather than giving of self. This is the law of returns.

"Life requires a choice from each of us: Either we steal away the gift of life as a possession through egoism, or we honor God by paying the gift forward for the good of others through altruism. Stealing gives the reward of what is taken. Giving pays back abundantly and endlessly, across many lives and throughout many lifetimes. The choice should be easy to make when viewed according to the truth of where the soul resides. Law is an unnecessary boundary for the altruistic individual.

Egoism—the pursuit of rational selfishness and the pursuit of personal happiness—is the deception of our egocentric society. On the surface, this materialistic, me-centered mindset seems like a plausible philosophy for personal advancement. The immediate rewards of the self-centered mindset are undeniable and hard to pass up. These rewards are immediate and seem to emanate endlessly from the fountainhead of temporary abundance and perceived security. It is easy to shrug off altruism for fear of uncertainty and loss. Egoism is the easy path to follow but ultimately destroys the soul in the process. No legal requirements will be enough to hold back egoism in a materialistic society.

Altruism—the denial of self in loving-kindness to others—represents the only truth that can set the world free. Taking on the title of Christian ultimately requires the sacrifice of being Christ like. This is the narrow path leading to a true life of abundance. This wealth cannot be lost and is the only way to find contentment in life.

Does altruism require us to give a beggar a dime, and then pay for our lives dime by dime? Do we give our way forward in life as payment for the choices made by others? Are we the beneficiaries of our own lives or debtors to God? The true individual is the one who dares to live for the needs of others, fully considering himself to be equally in need. The true individual recognizes that God ultimately carries our burdens and gives us all that we possess in this short life." LINK

Originally posted by JoshNorton
reply to post by CodeRed3D

 

I'm not an expert on her writings, but from what I've learned from friends more familiar with her works, Objectivism really appeals to idealistic high school and college students, but quickly falls apart when one enters the real world.

I'd say its similar to Lyndon LaRouche running for office for the last 40 years, always having a grassroots support of college campaign volunteers, but has yet to actually win any elections.

Originally posted by JoshNorton
reply to post by CodeRed3D

 

I'm not an expert on her writings, but from what I've learned from friends more familiar with her works, Objectivism really appeals to idealistic high school and college students, but quickly falls apart when one enters the real world.

I'd say its similar to Lyndon LaRouche running for office for the last 40 years, always having a grassroots support of college campaign volunteers, but has yet to actually win any elections.

I would agree and that is why we, as adults in the "real world", should seek to limit the amount of distorted/polluted influence we have over the younger generations. In other words, lets try not to conform the next generations to the same conformity we have been subjected to by the previous generations.

We see the problem yet out of our own egoic need we find sanctity in that problem instead of moving forward towards the solution.

All I really know is that if people finally realize that there's no possible way to halt the economic devastation in their own lives or the lives of their children, and that the reason is because of a relative handful of other people that have rigged things against them, those people who feel that they've been victimized will eliminate the people that they see as having caused that victimization. And no amount of debate, or media marketing, or political slight-of-hand, or polling that claims that no one is really being victimized, and no amount of cops, National Guard troops, or Blackwater thugs will save those privileged few from the rage of the 90+ percent who've finally had enough of their sh*t.

Ayn Rand fans can say whatever the hell they want to, but if this nation continues on its way toward corporate feudalism, I give it 5 years (at the most) before American corporate executives have to live in armed compounds, and another year or so after that before they have been eliminated completely from the face of the planet. The 21st century version of the French Revolution won't be confined to any borders, and with the Internet, social media, and GPS, and so many guns in the hands of the people who've been losing and losing big over the last 10 years or so, it's amazing to watch Wall Street and the GOP persist with what's already put cross-hairs on their heads, as if there's nothing that can happen that hasn't ever happened. Like the farmer said after his mule dropped dead - "Well now, I ain't never seen him do that before."

I don't believe that Ayn Rand would be pushing for the extreme version of corporate capitalism that is practiced today. Mainly because it causes the mainstream to realize that its options may have to include wholesale elimination of the corporate elite as a means of achieving its own security and chance at happiness. Free competition means that the power can and will shift, and that if the strong have been irresponsible with their fleeting advantage, the power shift will likely result in a threat to their survival. Especially in a violent and self-entitled society like the USA. In America, it's a God-given right to completely slaughter the enemy. Everyone knows that. Once the corporate elite have been fingered as the reason for this nation's unending troubles (which, by the way, has already begun to happen) then the migration from blaming China and jihadists and Obama and Mexicans, to blaming them and their GOP government operatives, will begin to spread across the various demographic sectors in earnest. From there...well, the evidence is overwhelming if one finally looks in that direction, as is the obviousness of the solution to the problem.

Regardless of what philosophy students and think-tank wonks think about Objectiveism, I don't believe that Dubai is located far enough away to save the corporate winners of this society if they don't start walking all of their destructive behavior back pretty soon. Hell, it may already be too late anyway.

I was wondering what you all think of a realization which occurred to me. In Rand's 'day', there was no talk of 'psychopathy'. I don't think scientific/medical research had determined yet? that there is a sub species of human being which in their -brains- are different with the amygdala hypocampus region. Causing them to prey upon their fellows and their life sustaining earth. With no remorse. They cannot be reasoned with, thusly. To right their wrong ways. Here is a good ATS thread about all that. It's super meaty.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
Well, so my realization is, that Rand thought Capitalists would work things out and humming along, if left to their own devices? Without knowing that when some humanoids get their hands on a tremendous amount of wealth and power, they (physically neurologically) -cannot- be reasoned with to do the right thing. NO -- matter what.