Paradise Lost **potential mini spoiler if you intend to read Atlas Shrugged**

[xoggoth]

Read Atlas shrugged a long time ago. Generally in favour of a greater link between ability+effort and reward than we have now but the extreme view of Rand was pure bollux.

[SpontaneousOrder]

So let's assume you collect taxes for the state, because the state tells you to. Would you rape someone as part of your business practice if the state told you to?

After all, you have made a comparison between taxation and rape, when denying the right of a democratically elected Parliament to empower state collection of taxation.

Ok... I'll let you 'waste' my time because there may be others reading who need a basic education as you do.

1) The state uses force to apply a levy on any trade I participate in.
2) The conditions of any voluntary trade that I participate in include a surcharge of 20% to cover the costs that HMRC demand. Potential partners in trade are free to choose to trade with me or not.

1 uses force. 2 does not.

Now run along... the lunch bell is about to ring.

[SpontaneousOrder]

pseudo-philosophy

You're poisoning the well, but have you even read any of her work (more than 25% of the way through)? Her Objectivism has to be one of the most complete, if not the most complete, philosophies ever posited. Metaphysically, epistemologically, ethically, politically, etc, etc.
"pseudo-philosophy" is the hackneyed retort of a great many people who don't actually understand Objectivism, or even what makes robust philosophy.

But anyway... we could argue about that all day. I'm just pointing out that stating something as pseudo-whatever isn't an argument.

That the principles she espoused in her fiction and pseudo-philosophy were unworkable not to mention undesirable in the real world, as nicely illustrated by her depending on the very collective provision she despised when the exercise of her 'right' to damage her own health (she thought the concensus on smoking and lung cancer a conspiracy, and also took various types of speed, which may explain why many find her writing turgid) left her in need of treatment beyond her private means and so she turned to state aid, making her a hypocrite and, in her own characterisation, a 'parasite'.

Pj... you've really outdone yourself this time. I hope your AGW beliefs aren't sources using the same google-fu.

Firstly though... I provided you with a quote from 1966 to demonstrate that Rand's acceptance of medicare was in fact entirely consistent with her own moral code of values, as derived from her Objectivist philosophy. So the man-child defence of pretending you didn't hear it and then repeating the same hackneyed argument to claim that she was a hypocrite doesn't fly.
If you had actually ready any of her work you'd know this. In fact in Atlas Shrugged the priate Ragnar Daneskjold intercepts state freight shipments and uses the proceeds to redistribute the wealth back to those who had it taken from them against their will.

So that's that argument shot down.


Then you proceed to give me a list of names & quotes of people that disapproved of the book (which you've never read) - of which the central tenet is the glory of man's individual and rational mind, and is clearly a violent reaction against Rand's soviet background - as if they're some kind of authority to back up your opinion on what a tulipty book it is (that you never read).

Whittaker Chambers (although you miss-attributed it) - A communist spy who turned to Christianity when his faith in communism began to wane.

Dorothy Parker - A quote that isn't verifiable as far as I'm aware, and another communist.

Flannery O Connor - A devout Roman Catholic. According to wikipedia: "Professor of English Carter Martin, an authority on O'Connor's writings, notes simply that her "book reviews are at one with her religious life."

Communists, like all materialists, are neo-mystics: it does not matter whether one rejects the mind in favor of revelations or in favor of conditioned reflexes. The basic premise and the results are the same.

-- Ayn Rand

The alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind.

-- Ayn Rand

Rand immolated these people in her masterpiece Atlas Shrugged, and they retorted with snarky comments. Big whoop.

[pjclarke]

So that's that argument shot down.

In your world. If you really cannot see that Rand's reliance on a system of collective provision that simply would not exist if the world was arranged according to her professed political principles is somewhat, erm problematic, then you're even more of a fanboi than you seem.

The quotes were to support my view about the book's literary merits by quoting two acclaimed writers who had come to similar opinions. Your responses, about the critics' religion for example, were prime examples of the ad hominem fallacy (and yes, it is a fallacy), saying more than you probably intended. What on Earth has the fact that a critic is a Roman Catholic to do with their opinion of the writing?

But we agree, little point debating a book when I've only read the first quarter. Maybe it picks up towards the end. Am I going to finish it?

Nope.

[SpontaneousOrder]

In your world. If you really cannot see that Rand's reliance on a system of collective provision that simply would not exist if the world was arranged according to her professed political principles

Wow - that's a bit of a leap of faith. And still not enough to call her a hypocrite

What on Earth has the fact that a critic is a Roman Catholic to do with their opinion of the writing?

Do you know anything about Rand? Do you know anything about her writing? Do you know anything about Atlas Shrugged?
She asserts that all of those people are EVIL. She asserts that all of those people are sub-human & a scourge on humanity. She is disgusted by them.

You don't think that that's relevant when considering the impartiality of their book reviews?

And yes - it is argumentum ad hominem. And no - it's not fallacious. Read the sig, use your google-fu, educate yourself.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Am I going to finish it?

Nope.

You wouldn't like 'Anthem' then. it's only about an hour and a half long, but the word 'I' doesn't exist for most of it.

[pjclarke]

Wow - that's a bit of a leap of faith. And still not enough to call her a hypocrite

Hardly a stretch, she was implacably opposed to the King-Anderson Bill and praised doctors who signed a motion saying they would refuse to participate in Medicaire

'I am happy to have this opportunity to express my admiration for Dr. Henriksen and the group of doctors who signed his resolution.

Dr. Henriksen and his group took a heroic stand. The storm of vicious denunciations unleashed against them at the time, showed that they had delivered a dangerous blow to the welfare-statists. More than any other single factor, it was Dr. Henriksen's group that demonstrated to the public the real nature of the issue, prevented the passage of the King-Anderson bill and saved this country from socialized medicine — so far.

The Bill was passed 2 years later, to the benefit of millions. And the Ayn Rand Institute these days opines

To understand what is happening in medicine today, we must go back to the beginning, which in this case is 1965, the year when Medicare and Medicaid were finally pushed through Congress by Lyndon Johnson. Medicare covers most of the medical expenses of those over sixty-five, whatever their income. Medicaid is a supplemental program for the poor of any age.

Those of us who opposed the Johnson plan argued at the time that government intervention in medicine is immoral in principle and would be disastrous in practice. No man, we claimed, has a right to medical care; if he cannot pay for what he needs, then he must depend on voluntary charity.

So a Randroid, or the woman herself, who accepts government medical care must surely be suffering from a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, at best, No?

So, to be clear, everything produced by anyone with religious faith or communist sympathies is worthless? Thanks for clearing that up.

[Old Greg]

Ok... I'll let you 'waste' my time because there may be others reading who need a basic education as you do.

1) The state uses force to apply a levy on any trade I participate in.
2) The conditions of any voluntary trade that I participate in include a surcharge of 20% to cover the costs that HMRC demand. Potential partners in trade are free to choose to trade with me or not.

1 uses force. 2 does not.

Now run along... the lunch bell is about to ring.

Is it so simple? Number 1 is more nuanced than you suggest as there is not a levy on any trade you engage in. VAT is only applicable if you are registered for VAT, and registration is only compulsory if the business turnover is > 81k IIRC.

So you have the principled option of keeping your turnover <81k, but instead you elect to trade at a level where you collect taxes for the state, which is EVIL.

2 is a better point. However, if your client looks at your invoice and declines to pay the VAT element of your invoice, taking the principled view that they are not paying any taxes despite having signed a contract, because the VAT element of the contract is not valid when measured against natural property rights (which trumps voluntary entry into this invalid contract), what do you do? The state will use violence to take the money from you. Do you use the instruments of state force to use violence 5 collect the to from your client? Which is EVIL.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Hardly a stretch

The stretch was to suppose as axiom that no such care would be available without the state's involvement in it's provision.



But from here on you're not making any sense:

if he cannot pay for what he needs, then he must depend on voluntary charity.

That's certainly a fair enough appraisal of Rand's position - one cannot have a right to healthcare as that presupposes that someone (who also has a right to live without coercion) else has an obligation to provide it.

So a Randroid, or the woman herself, who accepts government medical care must surely be suffering from a certain amount of cognitive dissonance, at best, No?

No. Why? As I already posted:

But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

The two positions aren't mutually exclusive. In fact the two re enforce each other.

So, to be clear, everything produced by anyone with religious faith or communist sympathies is worthless? Thanks for clearing that up.

I said no such thing. What I did imply (I'm sure you're being deliberately obtuse, but if not...) was:

Rand writes a book saying "Person A, B and C - you all suck! Big time!"
A: "Your book sucks."
B: "Your book sucks."
C: "Your book sucks."

Anyone could have predicted what they would have said before they said it. In that sense, it's not particularly useful to choose the critiques, to back up your own, from 3 people who are clearly going to be personally insulted by the contents of the book. That's all.

[darmstadt]

If you had actually ready any of her work you'd know this. In fact in Atlas Shrugged the priate Ragnar Daneskjold intercepts state freight shipments and uses the proceeds to redistribute the wealth back to those who had it taken from them against their will.

Robin Hood with lasers, whoop de whoop...