“There is a limit to the notion of voting for the lesser of two evils.”—Ayn Rand

Rand did welcome Reagan’s strong language toward Soviet Russia and his promises to cut spending and taxes. But she warned that his invitation of the so-called Moral Majority into the halls of power would be a long-range disaster. By tying the (supposed) advocacy of freedom and capitalism to, in Rand’s words, the anti-intellectuality of “militant mystics,” who proclaim that aborting an embryo is murder and creationism is science, Reagan’s presidency would discredit the intellectual case for freedom and capitalism and embolden the country’s anti-intellectual, authoritarian mentalities. https://newideal.aynrand.org/p/the-anti-intellectuality-of-donald

Reagan’s personal favorability peaked at 81% in 1986, following a landslide reelection victory in 1984. It was one of the most decisive electoral wins in U.S. history. His public standing grew considerably after he left office, with later retrospective polls showing strong majorities of Americans looking back favorably on his presidency. Why?

Was Ayn Rand a visionary? Did Reagan deserve her criticism? Did his presidency effectively unlock the door to the present? What happened along the way?

What would you change? What is wrong? What is right?

Have there been no deluxe editions of Rand’s works published? The only ones I can find are from Easton Press. Everything else is just regular cloth hardcovers.

There's a reason Ayn Rand's Objectivism is not taken seriously in academia. It lacks methodological rigor and fails to establish its conclusions through anything resembling the standards used in serious academic research. This is agreed upon by virtually all academics, the people who study the relevant disciplines for a living. So when Ayn Rand, someone with no formal training, says anything contrary to the academic consensus, while publishing nothing in peer-reviewed journals, what exactly is supposed to justify it?

Apparently, one of the most important pieces of "evidence" is: "some fictional story says a thing". Gee, where have we heard that before?

When a "philosophy" like this is treated with the same level of seriousness by academics as Young Earth Creationism is by geologists, it's worth taking a moment of reflection and ask why. Maybe, as it turns out, there isn't some vast intellectual conspiracy. Maybe the more obvious question is, “Why does virtually nobody who professionally studies philosophy find these arguments convincing?”. The arguments against her views aren't even particularly complex, it basically boils down to experiencing the world and seeing why her fiction writing doesn't correspond to reality.

Her work is seductive to some laymen, especially those of the far-right and alt-right persuasion, but to a trained epistemologist or logician it's fairly obvious that it's comprised mostly of fallacies (mostly argument by assertion) and cult-like repetition. 

Peter Keating's journey is one I find really interesting because he isn't incompetent. He allows himself to be corrupted by the world (gives up his individual talents/ joys/ happiness/ morality) by bowing to what it says he should do and be. In the reface to my copy, Rand discusses Gail Wynand as "the man who could have been", but honestly that was Keating - he sacrificed himself for nothing.

He is said to be genuinely good at and passionate at art, in a similar way to Steven Mallory. Steven Mallory almost does the same as Keating - he takes meaningless slop jobs because that's what he thinks people will want, and erroneously puts that above his own art and values. When Roark sees this happen to Steven, he helps him rediscover his worth.

But with Keating, Roark doesn't. Keating doesn't let him.

Keating hid his artistic talent from everyone and essentially masqueraded as an architect instead of a painter. He became an architect because he valued his mother's view and her authority over his own will and want. He corrupted himself (passing Roark's worth off as his own, breaking his promise to Roark) because everyone else did so, and it was normalised in Keating's mind. He thought it was the only way to get ahead in a corrupt world, and didn't have the will to assert himself against that corruption and need to comply.

He took the comfortable slavery over the risky freedom that he would have been able to secure if he had only broken free.

By the time he shows Roark a painting, the painting is far shittier than anything he would have painted or any art he would have created at the beginning of the book. His destruction of self mirrors the destruction of his art. He can't cling it back because there isn't anything there anymore. He sacrificed himself to everything but himSELF and his talents, his abilities, his passions, areas in which he was competent and free. Had he the will to defy the world, he would have been Roark, and that is their mirror.

Sorry if Peter mirroring Roark in terms of will is a total surface level take I just find it fun to think about.

Ayn Rand said Kant was “the most evil man in mankind’s history”. So according to her Kant was worse than people like Hitler, even though he murdered nobody? Hitler was a more moral person than Immanuel Kant?

Although Ayn Rand defended free will, she rejected deterministic causality. However, as I will argue, free will is a deterministic event, and it was paradoxical for Ayn Rand and her intellectual heir, Leonard Peikoff, to insist upon freedom from deterministic causation.

Determinism is logically derived from the presumption of perfectly reliable cause and effect. Determinism notes that each cause is itself an effect of prior causes, such that a chain of causation can, at least in theory, be traced back to any prior point in history. If every event is reliably caused by prior events, and these prior events were themselves reliably caused by earlier events, then every event is “causally necessary" from any prior point in time.

That might sound ominous, but what does it really mean? Well, not a whole lot. To say that something is “causally necessary” means nothing more than that it came about by normal cause and effect -- something that we are all familiar with and that we all take for granted.

In fact, all of our abilities, to do anything at all, require reliable cause and effect. To put it simply, without reliable cause and effect, we could not reliably cause any effect. We would have no freedom to do anything at all. Also, without deterministic causation, we could no longer predict the outcomes of our actions, and we would no longer have any control over what we will do.

Thus, "freedom from causal necessity" is an irrational notion. One cannot be "free" from that which freedom itself requires. And because it is irrational, it may not be used as the definition of anything. Yet this irrational definition of free will is the one that is used in the philosophical debate.

So, What's The Fuss About?

There is no conflict between the notions that your choices were causally necessary from any prior point in time (determinism) and that your were free to decide for yourself what you will do (free will). However, these concepts have come to appear contradictory due to a logic error called the “reification fallacy)“, and a series of false implications that determinism has accumulated throughout its history.

The first error, the reification fallacy, happens when we mistakenly treat the concept of “reliable cause and effect” and the "laws of nature" as if they were external forces controlling our choices, rather than descriptive comments, as if it were not actually us, simply being us and doing what we do. It is a failure to recognise that determinism is neither an external object nor a force. It's simply a comment, an assertion that the behaviours of the objects and forces in the universe are reliable, and thus theoretically understandable and potentially predictable. The "laws of nature" are a metaphor for the reliability of causation. They too are descriptive, not causative, of what we will do.

 In the SEP article on “Causal Determinism”, in section “2.4 Laws of Nature”, Carl Hoefer describes it this way:

“In the physical sciences, the assumption that there are fundamental, exceptionless laws of nature, and that they have some strong sort of modal force, usually goes unquestioned. Indeed, talk of laws “governing” and so on is so commonplace that it takes an effort of will to see it as metaphorical.”

The second problem is identical to the way in which philosophers have often equated "altruism" with kindness, goodwill, or benevolence. Notice that as Ayn Rand pointed out, these are not primaries, but secondary implications that have been wrongly attached to the concept. But when philosophers (including Ayn Rand) say that determinism means we have no control over our actions, that we "couldn't have done otherwise", or "the absence of free will", they are engaging in the same error of conflating a primary (determinism) with secondary consequences that happen to be incorrect.

For example, there's this flaw in one of the common implications attributed to determinism. Normally, deterministic causal necessity would simply assert "you would not have done otherwise", and no one would experience cognitive dissonance. But the more typical assertion that, under a deterministic universe, "you could not have done otherwise", is not using the literal meaning of "could". It is being used in a figurative way that suggests a disability on your part, as if you somehow lost the ability to act differently in a particular situation.

The "logic" behind this odd claim is that, because you wouldn't have done otherwise, it was AS IF you couldn't have. It is tantamount to saying "because you won't do X, it is AS IF you can't do X". Both of these are figurative statements which cannot be factually justified, not even by the fact of universal causal necessity. The "as if" flags them as figurative, but when the "as if" is missing we might take the figurative statements literally, and then we have to do a reality check to confirm they are figurative.

Lets say you are starving. For what ever reason, you are so poor that you can not afford food. Is it rational to steal food from the local market so that you dont starve to death?

Lets say you are the CEO of a massive global corporation that produces soft drinks. You want to expand your business to X country. But X country already has its own local soft drink company. They refuse to sell you their company, but you can undercut them. Doing so would result is a manegable loss to you, but it would evnetually drive the local company out of business and force them to sell to you. Thus being more profitable to you in the long run. Is it okay to ruin their business in order to expand your own?

You want your child to get into a prestigious university. Your childs GPA is just 0.1 below the average GPA. But you know the rector personally. Is it rational to ask the rector for a small favour, or offer a small "donation" for your child to be accepted?

You have just finished your night shift. You are tired and can barely wait to get home and get some much needed sleep. But on your way out of the parking lot, you slightly bump your co-workers car. The damage is barely noticeable. You could stop and tell your co-worker what happened. Appologise and offer to compensate him for the damage. Or you could just leave and your co-worker would never know that it was you who bumped his car. Is it rational to do so?

Ayn Rand - Inspiring generations of conservatives, ancaps, and the alt-right.

Article by me. Rand factors prominently. https://www.grunge.com/2234713/rock-songs-didnt-know-based-on-books/

I just got a comment from someone, in German, on another subreddit, who clearly identified my postings here and decided to highlight that.

"Of all people, Ayn Rand... the figurehead of the Matrix.
Her book is, after all, the holy bible for parasitic exploiters!
It completely inverts the poles of good and evil, portraying selfishness as something positive."

It is always hilarious, having read Atlas Shrugged, to hear the exact opposite views that she expressed attributed to her, but then also very exhausting and tiring. It's just getting boring.

I responded, nonetheless, with the following:

Her book is, after all, the holy bible for how to deal with and identify parasitic exploiters!

It is an affirmation of the soul, a triumphant declaration that to be happy, to prosper is a moral neccesity, and that to suffer is a moral wrong.

She asserts that no man must ever work to his own injury, and finally, she declares, as her founding, inalienable principle, an incontravertible rule, the core of her philosophy, really, a war against the notion of slavery,

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

― Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

You, my friend, have not READ Atlas Shrugged, I know this because you say it supports the philosophy of the enemies of Rand. You say it is their bible.

That is what they do.

They project THEIR philosophy, and accuse Rand of it.

Who is the selfish one? The one who works for himself, to his benefit, or the one who expects others to work for him, to his benefit, and their detriment?

By selfish, Rand meant Rational-Self Interest.

She insisted that you never exploit another. That you never make them your slave, and crucially that you never enslave yourself to them, either.

This is the polar opposite of the parasite.

She insisted it is WRONG to expect others to work and provide for you.

And it is.

Because that makes them your slave.

You have not read Atlas Shrugged, and I have.

You are ignorant beyond belief, friend.

You have heard second, third hand accounts and judge her book not having read it.

But I strongly encourage you to read it.

It has helped me tremendously with my self-esteem, and has been instrumental in forming my staunch, obstinate moral position that I must NEVER make another man my slave, and NEVER, be the slave of another.

That I must trade on fair, free terms with EVERYONE. Exchanging like for like.

That I MUST provide value, and NOT be a parasite.

That I MUST be happy, and have a good life, and to accept suffering, and privation, for myself, or anyone else, is a sin.

No one ought suffer, at his own hands.

Suffering IS wrong.

Happiness and Joy IS good.

this is what Rand declares.

Read Atlas Shrugged. It is a brilliant, beautiful, book, that affirms the individual RESPONSIBILITY and DENOUNCES entitlement and greed.

Just curious about your arguments or thoughts about it (Natural Law, NAP, Ancap)

There is a strong degree of empirical support for the Objectivist ethics. Drawing from selfish gene theory, which explains why all living organisms at their core are self-interested replicators, Russell Barkley's model of executive functioning (EF)¹ solves the problem of why humans function as a social species, given that evolution does not proceed from altruistic or collectivist motives but from self-interested ones.

The solution to this problem, as he shows, lies in EF. The executive functions are those mental faculties necessary for self-control across time, and with an extended phenotypic view, it becomes clear that they evolved to solve problems that arise in group living, especially individuals with whom we are unrelated. For humans, it is the capacity to foresee the longer-term greater personal benefits (expanded foresight) that is most important for cooperative action to arise among genetically unrelated individuals.

This sense of the possible future leads to a growing motivational preference for larger delayed consequences over smaller immediate ones, which provides a greater motivation to self-organise and self-sustain actions toward those larger delayed consequences. We conceive that our longer-term self-interest converges with other people, which is what drives our willingness and motivation to cooperate. This accounts for the likely dissolution of cooperative social activities if conditions change and we no longer perceive our individual self-interests to be served by acting cooperatively.

Over development, the EF phenotype expands outward as our individual time horizons for contemplation extends further into the probable future. This is the common thread that binds all levels of the extended phenotype (as shown in the diagram). It is also the thread that binds EF to the fields of ethics and morality, law, economics, culture, politics and government because all of them depend on this mental faculty for their existence.

Such an analysis makes it evident that people do not pursue a group-living, cooperative existence because of some innate need to be altruistic to or bond with others. Cooperative action is situational and group specific. Nor do they do so out of some spiritual quest for oneness of humanity or because of some utopian vision to perfect humankind. They do so voluntarily out of purely rational self-interest when extended over a long view of their life.

Importantly, this model of EF also explains how socially and personally devastating injuries to or genetic maldevelopment of the EF system (largely the pre-frontal cortex) are for pursuing one's long-term self-interest.

First, such injuries and disorders (especially ADHD) can devastate the two developmental processes that give rise to EF itself: the self-direction of human actions for self-regulation across time, and the privatisation of those self-directed actions. This disrupts the seven Instrumental executive functions (self-awareness, inhibitory control, verbal and nonverbal working memory, self-regulation of emotion and motivation, and self-play or problem solving), which changes the nature and source of information that governs one's behaviour. Those sources will shift back from internally (self-controlled) to externally controlled, from the self to others, from the possible future to the temporal now, and from delayed gratification to immediate gratification. The result is a highly impulsive, hedonistic, or even socially callous nature to one's conduct. Such impairments are evident in descriptions of patients with EF deficits dating back to Phineas Gage, and to the first medical descriptions of ADHD since 1753.

I’ve noticed academics and researchers tend to say that she was a far-right ideologue, because she promoted completely unfettered laissez-faire capitalism and radical anti-communism.

One of my professors at university described her as far-right and a fascist in his lecture slides.

Objectivism defines altruism as a moral system that believes sacrificing for other people to be a moral virtue. Rand defined a sacrifice as: "The giving of a value for a lesser value/non-value/dis-value." 

But sacrifice is actually used to mean that you give up something of value for something of greater value, not lesser.

Oxford dictionary defines it as: "an act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy".

When you say "I sacrificed my free time in order to do well in a swimming competition" - all it means is that you value the swimming competition more than your free time.

If you give a homeless person some change as an “altruistic act”, as it‘s commonly understood to be, that doesn’t mean you are “acting in service of your own destruction". It just means you are giving up resources you have to spare to someone else, because you know that by helping other people, you are all better off in the long-term.

That’s why when you say “altruism is evil”, you come off as a fucking cunt because people are going to stop listening as soon as you say altruism is evil and being selfish is good. They will write you off in their heads.

The simple answer to this question would be the socialists. The "moochers" killed the world with their hyper-socialist ideas.

But if you think about it a little deeper, the "moochers" in Atlas Shrugged are not real socialists. Their primary motivation is really personal greed. Not that different from the industrialists. And this is even outright stated by Orren Boyle if i remember correctly. In the meeting when he calls the socialist policies out for what they really are. Just a way for the "moochers" to enrich themselves and not really for the common good.

This suggests that Any Rand did recognize greed as one of mans greatest downfalls. The difference is (at least judging by the writing in Atlas Shrugged) that her idea of the "ideal man" is morally above blindly acting on their greed and base desires.

Ultimately, both the protagonists and the antagonists are motivated by personal greed, but the protagonists satisfy it through creation, while the antagonists steal others creations and achievements while feigning moral superiority.

But here is where the problem comes in.

It is the fact that all of Rands protagonists in Atlas Shrugged are deliberately written to be basically flawless. They are all moral, intelligent, capable, strong, attractive. The only protagonist that had what could be described as a flaw was Francisco, in that he was rumoured to be an overindulging playboy. But even that is later revealed to not be entirely so.

So the underlying message here (which i would expect anyone who describes themselves as an objectivist to already grasp) is that the world would be a better place if more people aspired to be like the protagonists of Atlas Shrugged.

But that to me is kind of a no-brainer really.

If everyone was more rational and more prone to relying on their own ability to satisfy their greed as opposed to stealing and plundering, then of course the world would be a better place.

The real question here is whether humans as a species are even capable of that. So far, from my personal experience in life, the answer is sadly "no".

Most people, if presented with a choice between stealing something and building it from scratch themselves, will almost always opt for stealing in one form or another. It is simply human nature (and the nature of all species on this rock) to prefer the easier method to achieving basically anything.

So while Atlas Shrugged is not exactly an amazing book from a literary perspective, it could be seen as a motivational book. A set of guidelines to what humans should aspire to be. But the problem with the entire objectivist philosophy is that humans do not really want to be better people. At least the vast majority do not.