Many have been told that Ayn Rand's objectivism is a flawed way
to think. I actually disagree with such criticism, in fact, I find those
who make such allegations first, off don't understand her philosophy
very, have been brainwashed by socialist forces in education, and can't
argue their points well enough to be taken seriously. So if you are in
any of those categories, this article is for you.
With regards to Ayn Rand, I don't see too much of a contradiction with her objectivism theories. I mean there are "laws of reciprocity" in primate and animal behavior, and when you help others it raises your status, benefitting you, and whomever you help (win-win) and that's a wise thing to do. Plus, due to built-in empathy, perhaps from Mother and Child Bearing behaviors allowing humans to grow their populations and evolve without becoming extinct (remember little human aren't smart enough yet to survive, their brains need to grow, small at birth to fit through birth canal).
Learned behavior + empathy which appears to be hard-wired, plus nurture allows for Ayn Rand's theories of altruism to exist. Mostly, I like Ayn Rand as warrior for free-enterprise and self, because a chain is only as strong as its weakest length - so each and every individual matters, actually in the end that is all that matters, every individual.
If everyone has to give of and give up self for the betterment of all, then everyone loses out and thus, isn't able to give their best efforts, so you get less productivity for the whole or humanity, as no one is happy, happy people pursuing their own interests, passions, dreams and goals provide more productivity than when an authority comes along and decides for everyone. This is why socialism doesn't work as well as free-markets, and yes, there will be manipulators of any system, but if you stay true to the freedoms required for free-markets, things tend to work out on the side of abundance, meaning more for everyone, all working together while pursuing their own successes.
I've read all of Ayn Rand, and Karl Marx "Das Capital" and Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations", etc.
sometimes I think I may have read too much as it all seems to repeat in my head, same arguments using different examples (talking points) confusing these very simple philosophies and many of the socialist works, well, I just find them far too many apologetics and hypocritical on the socialist and communist side of the equation.
Not that there isn't a third-way, just that free-market theory (since it has never actually been practiced it remains a theory) solves all the problems of people's innate characteristics, needs, wants and desires. I've written so much on this topic, it really isn't that interesting to me anymore, having thought it through in thought experiments of all types for decades. Care to debate? Leave your comments below.
With regards to Ayn Rand, I don't see too much of a contradiction with her objectivism theories. I mean there are "laws of reciprocity" in primate and animal behavior, and when you help others it raises your status, benefitting you, and whomever you help (win-win) and that's a wise thing to do. Plus, due to built-in empathy, perhaps from Mother and Child Bearing behaviors allowing humans to grow their populations and evolve without becoming extinct (remember little human aren't smart enough yet to survive, their brains need to grow, small at birth to fit through birth canal).
Learned behavior + empathy which appears to be hard-wired, plus nurture allows for Ayn Rand's theories of altruism to exist. Mostly, I like Ayn Rand as warrior for free-enterprise and self, because a chain is only as strong as its weakest length - so each and every individual matters, actually in the end that is all that matters, every individual.
If everyone has to give of and give up self for the betterment of all, then everyone loses out and thus, isn't able to give their best efforts, so you get less productivity for the whole or humanity, as no one is happy, happy people pursuing their own interests, passions, dreams and goals provide more productivity than when an authority comes along and decides for everyone. This is why socialism doesn't work as well as free-markets, and yes, there will be manipulators of any system, but if you stay true to the freedoms required for free-markets, things tend to work out on the side of abundance, meaning more for everyone, all working together while pursuing their own successes.
I've read all of Ayn Rand, and Karl Marx "Das Capital" and Adam Smith "Wealth of Nations", etc.
sometimes I think I may have read too much as it all seems to repeat in my head, same arguments using different examples (talking points) confusing these very simple philosophies and many of the socialist works, well, I just find them far too many apologetics and hypocritical on the socialist and communist side of the equation.
Not that there isn't a third-way, just that free-market theory (since it has never actually been practiced it remains a theory) solves all the problems of people's innate characteristics, needs, wants and desires. I've written so much on this topic, it really isn't that interesting to me anymore, having thought it through in thought experiments of all types for decades. Care to debate? Leave your comments below.
Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank and writes eBooks so, check out the choices for your eReader.