xorbie

Oh yeah, that's some good company right there

If by sensibile, you mean "without any grounding in reality" than sure, I totally agree. Objectivism requires that man, the "rational animal" act rationally in his own self interest. So of course free market capitalism is the best, right? Only free market capitalism inherently leads to flagrant corruption, degredation of workers and unfair pratices. You know, because man is also a "greedy animal." Moreover, Adam Smith's idea that competition leads to the most overall good has already been disproven by John Nash (A Beautiful Mind, if you saw it). So how is Randian Capitalism rational, logical and sensical, when it appears to actually be none of the three?

JGL53

xorbie, I tend to be a pragmatist, i.e., whatever works in a particular area, rather than being an idealistic capitalist, socialist, anarchist, or whatever.

So, before a Randian jumps in here to denounce you as a filthy low life socialist, let me run something by you.

I see capitalism producing the horrors you relate at the corporation level way too often than is exceptable. But 'small' capitalism - e.g., businesses like mom and pop stores, wherein they borrow the initial capital, or small chains of only a half dozen stores or less, where there is far less chance of monopoly - aren't these examples, for the most part, of a 'good' type of capitalism, maybe even a necessary one? Just asking.

JERDOG

It realy all boils down to this. If you hate Rand you most likely are a bible humper or a socialist.

Lysippus

There can be many things wrong with holding a gun to a competitors head. Microsoft did more then point a gun, and if you have noticed Microsoft's products are inferior. I do own a XP machine, OS X, Linux, and I even have an old Unix machine. While learning to use all of these. I found that OS X, Unix, and Linux are all much better to use. There are no crashes, and you don't have to worry about something blowing away into the information highway, never to be seen again. Microsoft bought their competitors, or stole it, used some backward engineering and forced it on people. What I am mean by forced is that you can't do it but their way. I would agree with you if they actually had something that worked.

xorbie

My point was not that capitalism is not necessary, or even pragrmatic. My point was that even in the cases where it is good and effective, it has nothing to do with Rand's rational (no pun intended). Hate to belabor the point, but if man were totally controlled by reason and logic, and if man acted only by reason and logic, capitalism in its purest form would not be the best system.

pmurray

I wasn't aware that the Library of Congress was in the business of rating books. You sound just like those christians who repeat whatever sound-bites the preacher gives them.

Once again, christians say the same thing about the bible. What they mean is that they personally have managed to ignore objections to thier religious texts.

Why does objectivism have all the earmarks of a cult of personality?

Adrian Selby

Can we name these leading 'academicians'?

Can we name anyone working in the field of philosophy that has taken her seriously enough to mount a refutation of her works that are easily found and coherent anyway?

pariah

Just in my defense! :P

being good at writing literature has little to do with being a good philosophy...while i am undecided on the second, after reading atlas shrugged and the fountainhead, i can safely say, she IS a terrible writer.

youre right, the reason i said that she was a terrible writer is b/c the library of congreses statement...WTF?!? i said it b/c i have read the books and its true. she is dry and repetitive. its mind numbingly boring to read.

you dont have to qualify your statements....wtf? why wont you back them up?

JGL53

For the sake of argument, let's say your statement is true.

This brings up the question "So what?".

Most critics of Rand don't "hate" her - for example, me. And most of her critics aren't bible humpers or socialists - for example, me.

xorbie

Just a minor quickble here, but the phrase is "bible thumper" not "bible humper"