Atlas Shrugged Movie
- Thread starter KEEF
- Start date
OK, first of all, Ayn Rand is not a libertarian and vehemently despised libertarianism (for good reason). Second, Atlas Shrugged was written in the romanticist literary style, so the characters reciting long philosophical speeches is to be expected. The film, though I'm sure it is awful, probably was faithful to the novel in that regard.
In any event, it should be made known that Objectivism and libertarianism are not compatible. Objectivism is a wholly integrated philosophical system which libertarianism contradicts in many meaningful ways.
Kludge
Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2007
- Messages
- 21,719
I'd be interested in hearing more of why the two aren't compatible, assuming libertarianism is not synonymous with anarchism, but is instead a broad umbrella-term for those who favor minimal, no, or non-compulsory government.
It's the basis for the two viewpoints that make them incompatible with one another. Libertarianism assumes a political ideology lacking in a philosophical (meaning: ethical) basis. They see politics as being removed from ethics, which is why religious people, atheists, and KKK members can all be considered - legitimately - libertarians.
Objectivism, on the other hand, presupposes many things that are a necessary precursor to the establishment of the capitalist philosophy. It is strictly in favor of free market capitalism, meaning that the government is separated from the economy like it is with the church. Rand proposes a government of only the police, the courts, and the military, with only voluntary funding.
To get there, one has to have the epistemological understanding of Rand's concept formation theories. That is also hinged on the metaphysical understanding of objective reality (which results in the necessity that one does not believe in a god or is religious in any way, shape, or form), and then, of course, the ethical notion that man should be a self-interested, rational human being. Only then can we arrive at the conclusions that Rand does.
So, in order to have the political theories of Rand, you also need to accept the other philosophical ideas. What would be particularly in question within this community is the belief in god. Objectivists are atheists and pro-choice, and it is impossible to justify Rand's capitalism without accepting these ideas first.
Last edited:
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
Patently false. There are different views of ethics and morality among various libertarians, but they (morality and ethics) are important to libertarianism. Rothbard's "Ethics Of Liberty", for example, would be of interest to you.
Last edited:
Xenophage
Member
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2008
- Messages
- 3,098
You just confirmed his point, "there are different views of ethics and morality among various libertarians." Libertarianism isn't a moral philosophy, it's just a political one, BECAUSE you can be a "libertarian" for all kinds of ethical reasons. You can be a consequentialist, a Christian, a Rothbardian, an OBJECTIVIST!, whatever. Some of these things don't actually do a very good job at logically concluding libertarianism from an ethical standpoint, and some of them I would argue hurt libertarianism, but there you have it.
Right. That's one ethical take on a system that, by definition, needs no overarching ethical backbone for the adherence to its principles. Please don't call something that I say 'patently' false unless it is, indeed, entirely false in an obvious way.
You actually proved my point by positing that there are different views of ethics and morality among various libertarians. I think that this is true, and this is precisely where Objectivism differs. It has one set of values that must be accepted before politics are even a question. Rand was correct to say that the country suffers from a principally philosophical problem, and not a political one - a change towards an Objectivist morality would, by definition, mean a change toward an Objectivist society (i.e. capitalism).
heavenlyboy34
Member
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2008
- Messages
- 59,093
He said " They see politics as being removed from ethics," My point was he was incorrect in that. Sorry, I should have been clearer. I just woke up, and am still somewhat foggy.
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
You just contradicted his point. The point: Libertarianism and Objectivism are not compatible. The contradiction: A libertarian can be an Objectivist.
Your contradiction is true. His original point was false. There are libertarians who are Objectivists. There are Objectivists who are libertarians. The philosophies of these objectivist-libertarians is not incoherent or inherently self-contradictory. Thus, Objectivism is compatible with libertarianism. Libertarianism does not contradict Objectivism. Objectivism covers more philosophical area, but the political part of it is libertarian. No contradiction.
This.
I am a leaning objectivist and a libertarian.
JohnGalt1225
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2011
- Messages
- 726
Loved the book, the movie was pretty good. My wife really loved it.
For AC, look up Galileo Ferraris, Lucien Gaulard, and John Dixon Gibbs.
For the cathode ray tube television, look up Vladimir Zworykin, Kalman Tihanyi and Alan Archibald Campbell-Sinton.
Ford only made it affordable, something any other capitalist would have clearly been attempting.
You look through out history, and you find that Calculus was being independently developed by two people in different countries at the exact same time. It's entirely possible that Gunnar Nordstrom could have followed the same path Einstein did once the evidence showed his theory of gravitation wrong. Over and over again, you see inventions happening at the same time, and one person just barely beats the other out by doing it first, and then nobody remembers the guys who didn't quite get there in time. They were just first. Individuals only change things just barely before they were about to be changed by someone else. Idea's evolve and build on each other, and each invention has to come about at the right time.
The only person I can think of who might be considered as mattering is Aristotle, and that's only because there were so few people on the earth at that time, and even fewer who had time enough to even think about that kind of thing. And now with officially 7 Billion people on this planet, it's getting harder and harder to be first.
You are not unique. But don't let that stop you. I want to go down in history books too.
Last edited:
low preference guy
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2009
- Messages
- 16,097
what you can do is wait until the second and third part are done and then watch one after the other
you are assuming that they will be made
helmuth_hubener
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2007
- Messages
- 9,484
Hmm, I didn't know about any of these people. Well, I'm still not sure that in every case they were doing the same work and having the same ideas and that everything would have turned out just the same in the absence of the men I mentioned. In Ford's case, another capitalist may have made something else affordable. Maybe an electric car initially instead of gas.
Let's take some more examples, and see if you can shoot these down, too.
What if Steve Jobs had gone into aviation instead of computing? We might have flying cars instead of iPhones today.
What if Murray Rothbard had gone into physics instead of economics, politics, and history? We might have little backyard nuclear reactors instead of Man, Economy, and State. If he hadn't written that, who would have? And if they would have, why didn't they -- just because he already had?
What if Thomas Edison hadn't ever lived? I can't tell you that the major stuff wouldn't have come about in one form or another, because they probably would have: audio recording and playback, and electric light. But it wouldn't have necessarily come about in the same form. Electric lights might have been more expensive and longer-lasting (as they were before Edison made his contribution), audio recording may have used a somewhat different method. And a lot of the more minor stuff might never have been invented at all.
I do want to go down in history books, I do think that I have a unique contribution to make, and so I kind of almost have to think that there have been many people in the past who have made unique contributions. If both Newton and Liebniz had died of childhood diseases, I think it may have been another 50 years before someone came along to accomplish what they did. I guess I just have a very old-fashioned outlook in this regard, a heroic view of history.
Last edited:
Sorry, I don't have the time to shoot down each one. But let me see if I can explain how it works.
It's a bit like evolution. Markets have niche's. And trying to find and fill those niche's is exactly what capitalists are driven to do, it's how they make profits. The Bigger the unfilled niche, the more likely it is that it will be filled, because many different people are trying to make the largest amount of profit by filling those large niches. Saying that an invention wouldn't exist if it weren't for an individual is a bit like saying that puddle wouldn't exist if the first drop from the cloud didn't fall there. Another drop would have fallen there first, and not much later.
The market wouldn't be the wonderful engine it is if this was not the case. We wouldn't have things like Moore's Law if this were not the case. Idea's building on idea's is the only way to prosperity. Ask yourself "why was it somebody in the western world that created the light bulb? Why wasn't it someone in Africa?" These things are created not because we have special people, but because we have a better system which allows people to do so. They aren't super heroes.
As for economics, Murry Rothbard admits himself that in his ideal world, his own work wouldn't exist, as it's a waste of time since there would be no need for economists.
It's a bit like evolution. Markets have niche's. And trying to find and fill those niche's is exactly what capitalists are driven to do, it's how they make profits. The Bigger the unfilled niche, the more likely it is that it will be filled, because many different people are trying to make the largest amount of profit by filling those large niches. Saying that an invention wouldn't exist if it weren't for an individual is a bit like saying that puddle wouldn't exist if the first drop from the cloud didn't fall there. Another drop would have fallen there first, and not much later.
The market wouldn't be the wonderful engine it is if this was not the case. We wouldn't have things like Moore's Law if this were not the case. Idea's building on idea's is the only way to prosperity. Ask yourself "why was it somebody in the western world that created the light bulb? Why wasn't it someone in Africa?" These things are created not because we have special people, but because we have a better system which allows people to do so. They aren't super heroes.
As for economics, Murry Rothbard admits himself that in his ideal world, his own work wouldn't exist, as it's a waste of time since there would be no need for economists.
Last edited:
Similar threads
