He's got a point...

[ebonlock]

Brad R. sums up Randians:

Y’know how some people can have completely fucked up political beliefs and still be good people on a personal level? Has anyone else noticed that that is never the case for Randians, who on a political and personal level are the biggest fucking douchebags in the entire godless world?

Comments

The Wiki is Wise...

[moonlightnrain.livejournal.com]

"Atlas Shrugged is often seen as Rand's most extensive statement of Objectivism in any of her works of fiction. In its appendix, she offered this summary:

'My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.'"

Re: The Wiki is Wise...

[scoreboard.livejournal.com]

And over 20 words to spare. Bravo.

Big question: is this how it works out in the implementation or where do the holes pop up? (I could figure this out myself, probably, with a browser and time, but I gotta argue out this HURT-ting office move...)

Re: The Wiki is Wise...

[moonlightnrain.livejournal.com]

Well, I suppose, if I understand your question correctly, that it depends on whom you ask. If you ask me, there seems to be a huge leap in logic from pursuing your own happiness and producing things to laissez-faire capitalism. And if you study Rand, you quickly begin to see large gaps in her arguments and blatant contradictions. Even a self-described Randian might concede that point, as the Objectivist movement has all sorts of factions, many of whom denounce this part of her beliefs or that part. In that way, I feel little shame for the fact that I carried The Fountainhead around in my backpack all through high school and revered it like most would the Holy Bible. But really, any time you try to base a political movement on one person's [published] beliefs, it just flat out isn't going to work.

right...

[scoreboard.livejournal.com]

...I now have a one-inch crack in my skull from trying to parse all this at work.

On the one hand, it seems like a refreshing antidote to all the postmodernist stuff that somehow leapt from liberal-arts English departments to neoconservatism in under ten years. The notion that the real exists, independent of perception, is nice and concrete.

However, I can totally see this as an enabling philosophy for the Hayek and Mieses acolytes who are convinced that they are The Ones and that they shouldn't be encumbered by the vultures and barnacles of society. Especially since I spent my void-formerly-known-as-college with most of those folks. Shit, where's my pinata when I need it?

I will work on this some more tonight. Sigh. Political theory homework after all these years...

Got it.

[scoreboard.livejournal.com]

Pinata? At the ready. ;]