
The world is socialist - moonlighter
https://medium.com/i-m-h-o/c8f0a6dfffab
======
glesica
_If you want to go back to the point where we decided to be socialist and try
to undo it, you 're going to have to kill most of the people on the planet who
depend on the current system for sustenance. And like it or not, that probably
includes you. It certainly includes most of the idiots running around
preaching Ayn Rand these days._

This is my favorite part. So many people who claim, or seem to have taken
inspiration from Rand would, in fact, be "bad guys" in Atlas Shrugged. A nice
example is Paul Ryan, who has spent his entire life in politics instead of
actually creating anything useful. There are also a number of nice examples of
people who would almost certainly be "good guys", but who are Democrats in
real life (not that a Democrat can't be selfish, but the GOP seems to have
claimed Rand lately). Bill Gates is the most obvious example, right down to
getting blind-sided by government regulators in the 90s (whether the
regulators were right or wrong, legally speaking, is immaterial here BTW).

~~~
gnosis
_" So many people who claim, or seem to have taken inspiration from Rand
would, in fact, be "bad guys" in Atlas Shrugged."_

Case in point: Rand hated Libertarians.[1]

Some typical examples from the article:

\- She called Libertarianism _" a mockery of philosophy and ideology"_

\- She accused Libertarians of _" slinging slogans and trying to ride on two
bandwagons"_

Later, she accuses them of entertaining _" amateur political notions"_ and _"
rushing into politics in order to get publicity"_.

She says that Libertarians

\- are based on _" half-baked ideas, and in part on borrowed ideas"_.

\- _" spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas"_.

\- _" are perhaps the worst political group today, because they can do the
most harm to capitalism, by making it disreputable."_

\- would _" like to have an amoral political program"_

[1] -
[http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=113321](http://iowntheworld.com/blog/?p=113321)

~~~
KaiserPro
Rand hated everyone apart from tall, arrogant & selfish men.

~~~
coldtea
And those only if she could convince to have sex with her or obey her
otherwise. Else, she hated them too.

Basically, she hated everyone apart from herself.

~~~
foobarbazqux
> Basically, she hated everyone apart from herself.

No evidence, but my gut says that self-hate was at the root of it all.
Arrogance usually masks feelings of inferiority.

------
pron
Ayn Rand was a strange and interesting woman who, among other things, sexually
abused her most devoted fans and manipulated them in horrible ways. She was
never considered an important, serious, or good writer, and her works were
ridiculed pretty much as soon as people first first laid eyes on them. But,
her novels are, to this day, bestsellers, especially popular, as you write
yourself, with teenagers. They are meant to spark a feeling of grandeur, which
they effectively do as the task is not hard by any means in people of that
age.

Refuting her claims and observations may be a bit redundant as they've never
been taken seriously outside a very specific circle, but since her ideas have
been influential inside that circle, and because said circle is not small in
the US, where, quite amazingly, Rand's works are liked even by some _adults_
(it's hard to believe but it's true), you can always shoot some more arrows
into that corpse, for whatever good that would do. She does make an easy, and
fun, target, and there are all those teenagers you can upset, which is always
fun to watch. As to those American adults still fond of her works well into
their mid-twenties and even beyond, well, it's best to keep a safe distance
from them. Once you do, you might want to go back for a more sober look at Ayn
Rand because she was a fascinating person, and her ideas have influenced some
of the more colorful branches of American politics. Here's a famous interview
she gave Mike Wallace in 1959: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouBZ-
YqOnsU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouBZ-YqOnsU)

~~~
valtron
> sexually abused her most devoted fans

Source?

~~~
pron
Sources aplenty. There are probably other authors who could claim the same,
but I doubt there are any women among them :) An interesting character,
indeed.

------
johnnyg
1\. Can we agree that both full socialism and full rand style capitalism end
in tears?

2\. Token rebuttals.

a. Someone lives irresponsibly, I live responsibly. The sick that comes for us
all devastates them early and I'm told "since we all get sick, they got sick
much earlier due to all the crack and booze, they can't pay because they were
grasshoppering it up while you worked, so now you pay". This is an extreme
example, but I work in healthcare and I think I'm no stable ground saying that
you can substitute cheeseburger for crack and get a majority. Is this how we
want to set things up and call it just?

b. Snow comes. I get out my shovel and go help my neighbor. I don't think
doing this flies in the face of Rand. I do it because it is right to do in my
gut because I know I'm fit to do it and they aren't. I don't think Rand says
not to shovel, I think she says it is MY CHOICE to shovel or not and I own
that moral choice after I make it. There's still a right and a wrong choice.

~~~
dreamfactory
When somebody gets TB, regardless of their lifestyle, is it in your best
interests that they get a full course of treatment in an isolation ward in
hospital, or that they wander the streets coughing blood all over the place
and incubate a new drug-resistant strain? Is it in your best interests that
tap water is maintained by competing for-profit companies (see Victorian
Britain and cholera), and is it better for you to pay 'insurance' to competing
for-profit fire services?

~~~
true_religion
> is it in your best interests that they get a full course of treatment in an
> isolation ward in hospital, or that they wander the streets coughing blood
> all over the place and incubate a new drug-resistant strain?

That's a false dichotomy. An example of a 3rd option is to put them in an
isolation ward, and allow them to simply die if they can't pay for treatment.

When it comes to medical care, the question of how to allocate resources on
quality of life improvements is never so simply and black and white.

~~~
dreamfactory
> That's a false dichotomy.

No it's not, it already happened in New York in the 90's.

------
ef4
When you attack capitalism by attacking Ayn Rand, you are attacking a terrible
straw man.

You'll notice that people rarely start by attacking the works of von Mises or
Hayek or Rothbard, because those guys were actual serious academics who knew
what they were talking about.

Much easier to poke holes in the eccentric philosophy of one novelist.

~~~
guard-of-terra
I doubt the point was attacking capitalism.

Capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive in a society.

~~~
kungfooguru
They are. Socialism is an economy where production is owned and run by the
workers for the benefit of the working class, which would be the ruling class
at that time.

Simply having a welfare state or some nationalized industries is not
socialism. The source of power and ownership of production is still in the
hands of the bourgeoisie.

Mises as serious? Hah. But yes, he and the others are attacked less but only
because they are less famous. Their ideas are as worthless.

~~~
guard-of-terra
"Socialism is an economy where production is owned and run by the workers for
the benefit of the working class"

Isn't that communism?

~~~
falk
No. There's a reason why they are two different words. Socialism is after
capitalism but before communism in terms of Marxist theory. From my
understanding the big difference is there is still competition in socialism
and things are privately owned by the workers, where as everything is publicly
owned in communism. Remember that during Marx's time it was unusual to have
the boss down on the production line working with his employees. Now a days
people have become what Seth Godin like to call linchpins. It's not rare to
have your boss coding or designing with you if you work at a start-up.

------
jessriedel
> All these people who are so great aren't really that much greater than the
> average schmuck on the subway. There really isn't that much range in the
> smartness or fitness of human beings.

Whelp, you've lost me. The difference in productivity and smartness---as
measured by the _consistent_ ability to impact the world---of people is
enormous (the additional importance of luck notwithstanding). I'm not sure why
you thought you were going to make progress on these deep philosophical issues
with a 400 word blog post, but you're even more sunk if you throw in empirical
claims that contradict both intuition and the data.

~~~
GuiA
I've taught programming to kids from very poor classes of society who grokked
it and excelled at it. But, guess what– a lot of them will be stuck working at
McDonald's because they can't go to college, or because even if they could go
to public universities their family didn't understand why they should spend 4+
years not bringing in any money when they could work at McDonald's right away.

I've also taught/privately tutored CS students from some of the US's best
universities. The range in intellectual capacity between the two groups is
shockingly consistent. I've had students who attended Stanford who would have
been put to shame by some of my "first of the family to finish high school but
can't go to college" students.

If Bill Gates hadn't been born to lawyers and bankers, data says he would
likely be part of the "average schmucks on the subway".

Successful people consistently underestimate how lucky they are.

~~~
dollar
> Successful people consistently underestimate how lucky they are.

Meanwhile mediocre people consistently attribute other people's success to
luck. As luck would have it, they are both right and wrong. I am a high school
dropout who never went to college, yet I sold 2 companies in the last 2 years.
Is my success just a matter of luck, or am I that much better than the average
population. Maybe the answer is that neither are that important. What I can
say for sure that I work harder than the average population, much, much
harder. And that's my general problem with those who champion socialism, they
never seem to want to work as hard as I do. Among ditch diggers, there are
always a few men leaning on their hoe handles.

~~~
GuiA
Well the solution seems to be pretty simple then- if everyone worked as hard
as you did, we wouldn't have to worry about poverty, unemployment, and so on!
:)

------
pearkes
Ayn Rand's philosophy is widely criticized for being contradictory. This seems
pretty accurate to me.

But I don't think modern readers of _Atlas Shrugged_ , _The Fountainhead_ ,
_Anthem_ , et al., are listening to her as a preacher, to apply her ideas to
the entirety of their lives, but rather as inspiration for their own
philosophy. That is, after all, one reason to read literature that challenges
your opinions.

That's why I read and appreciate Rand. It's not because the American
Libertarian movement made her a mascot.

Take her introduction to _The Fountainhead_ that she wrote in 1968, years
after it was published and became successful:

> It is not in the nature of man--nor of any living entity--to start out by
> giving up, by spitting in one's own face and damning existence; that
> requires a process of corruption whose rapidity differs from man to man.
> Some give up at the first touch of pressure; some sell out; some run down by
> imperceptible degrees and lose their fire, never knowing when or how they
> lost it. Then all of these vanish in the vast swamp of their elders who tell
> them persistently that maturity consists of abandoning one's mind; security,
> of abandoning one's values; practicality, of losing self-esteem. Yet a few
> hold on and move on, knowing that that fire is not to be betrayed, learning
> how to give it shape, purpose and reality. But whatever their future, at the
> dawn of their lives, men seek a noble vision of man's nature and of life's
> potential. There are very few guideposts to find. The Fountainhead is one of
> them. This is one of the cardinal reasons of The Fountainhead's lasting
> appeal: it is a confirmation of the spirit of youth, proclaiming man's
> glory, showing how much is possible.

By posting this I hope to defend Rand in the sense of helping people realize
she does more then what the modern political landscape has created for her. I
was certainly inspired by her approach to self, as I imagine countless others
have been.

~~~
pron
I love that quote. So pure; so childish. Ayn Rand was, at heart, a little girl
(and who of us isn't at heart a small child?). Of course Rand is inspiring,
just like "Jack and the Beanstalk". Inspiring children is easy. I just hope
that as her readers mature, they come to realize that Dr Seuss's work, has
more sophistication and truth to it than Rand's writing, while being no less
inspiring.

------
aetherson
We all get hungry, but we buy food from farmers on the market. We all need
shelter, but we're buy our rent our homes. We all need clothing, but we
clothing manufacturers are for profit.

There are a variety of good arguments for socialized health care, but "we all
get sick" is not among them.

This article is banal in the extreme, and I'm not sure why it's on the front
page.

~~~
drewblaisdell
> There are a variety of good arguments for socialized health care, but "we
> all get sick" is not among them.

I disagree. The more specific "we all can get _very_ sick, and being _very_
sick is _very_ expensive" is a _very_ good argument for pooling our resources
to make sure that we all get help when we need it.

~~~
icebraining
Playing Devil's advocate, there are other ways of pooling resources, such as
insurance or mutual-aid societies, the latter of which were mostly crowded out
by state provided healthcare. There was a recent Econtalk podcast which
touched on these issues:
[http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/07/michael_lind_on.htm...](http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2013/07/michael_lind_on.html)

------
yummyfajitas
This essay is attacking a straw man, not Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand was not an
anarchist and did not oppose government entirely:

[http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand...](http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=arc_ayn_rand_the_nature_of_government)

I'm a having a little trouble believing the author actually read Atlas
Shrugged - in it, one of the productive characters (Ragnar, if I remember
right) explicitly lists many legitimate functions of government. One of them
is maintaining public roads.

The author also deliberately fails to acknowledge the difference between
public goods (blizzard cleanup) and private goods (medicine and financial
services).

~~~
czr80
Medical care is not unequivocally a private good.

~~~
yummyfajitas
True, but epidemic prevention is an extremely small problem (and a very cheap
one to address), at least in the US. Virtually no one across the political
spectrum (including most libertarians) opposes it.

Near as I can tell, the OP wasn't talking about it either.

~~~
mpyne
But the same morals and 'ethical guideposts' apply throughout, do they not?

By way logic does a libertarian say that e.g. government coercing people to
obey quarantines is acceptable, but that the government coercing people to pay
for cheap public preventive care (before expensive specialist treatments
become necessary) is not?

~~~
yummyfajitas
Quarantine prevents others from getting sick, while preventative care only
prevents you from getting sick.

For comparison, compare laws against punching other people to laws against
punching yourself.

~~~
mpyne
And if you prevent someone from getting sick via preventable care you prevent
them from spreading that sickness to others. Additionally even non-
communicable diseases often have large impacts on those related to the person
with the disease, so I don't see how you can truly separate the logic.

------
tokenadult
Since almost all the comments in this thread are about Ayn Rand rather than
about other details of the submitted article, I may as well share here from
Kung Fu Monkey "Ephemera 2009 (7)"

[http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html](http://kfmonkey.blogspot.com/2009/03/ephemera-2009-7.html)

a quotation I may have learned about first here on HN:

"There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: _The
Lord of the Rings_ and _Atlas Shrugged._ One is a childish fantasy that often
engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an
emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real
world. The other, of course, involves orcs."

------
bdcravens
These discussions on HN are a bit ironic to me. HN seems to cut across several
areas of discussion, and a large one is the startup world (principally the SF
one). In general, the culture seems to be very liberal and sympathetic to
socialism. Socialism isn't necessary mutually exclusive with capitalism, but
it tends to be opposed. At the very least, it aims to level out the bell curve
a bit, eliminating capitalistic excess.

Today's startup scene: Talk about capitalistic excess. Everyone's running
around with MacBook Airs and Pros, iPhones, and iPads. The true "rebels"
running Android: they're cheerleading for a phone that's backed by a mega-corp
with a $300B market cap, so from an excess perspective, not much different.

The culture wants home runs. 9 or 10 figure exits. Built a photo sharing app
or game moving blocks around on the your phone? Is $1B for your company really
the best way for society to allocate its resources? VC's throw money away
everyday on dumb companies that they know will fail; they're just keeping skin
in the game knowing that if they do, they'll inevitably hit some home runs.

tl;dr Went all meta on the idea that startup culture that drives HN is
capitalistic excess, opposite of socialism

 _edit "opposite of capitalism" should have been "opposite of socialism"; some
grammar_

------
thelastuser
I admit, I'm not sure what the argument is exactly. Nature is chaotic,
therefore socialism?

I cannot speak for Randians or Objectivists, but an advocate of a private
property society does not have a problem with insurance. Insurance is a
perfectly legitimate good that can be provided in markets. It's the whole pay-
us-or-go-to-prison monopoly thing that doesn't sit well.

Further, many rich business people are rich precisely because of government
privilege, including protections of so-called intellectual property. You'd be
hard pressed to name a successful person in modern times who hasn't made or at
least maintained his riches because of some special privilege.

------
ls6
As I have spent (too) many years living in such a system, let me explain what
I've observed in practice.

First of all there would be, in principle, differences per culture but it will
level down when troubles strike -- then it is universally everyone for
himself. The only difference being how big the trouble must be for this to
trigger.

Generic problems observed in practice:

\- ownership by everyone means in practice ownership by no one as proven every
single day by comparing the same business run by a state or a city or
privately -- it is always worse and more expensive

\- maybe it is strictly separate subject but in socialism somehow people are
expected to be equal; since this is obviously a wrong assumption people will
be forced to be equal which is never pleasant for the "better" onces (whatever
that means); economically it will include taking from richer and giving to
poorer (again, regardless whether these differences would be labeled fair or
not and whether the reacher earned it by working hard or the poorer was just
lazy)

So, unless your culture isn't aready "trained" in putting the good of the
group above individual and, believe me, US population is not, socialsim will
not work for you on a long run.

P.S. I wouldn't write this if this article wasn't so painfully stupid -- I'm
not calling the author stupid, only this idealistic view. Socialism is NOT
about dishing the same stuff to everyone like a storm or a disease. It is a
much more complex system that is incompatible with human beings. Maybe
permanently, maybe just not right now. It is not wrong, it is not bad on its
own. It just doesn't work today for most of us. In addition any stystem that
attaches an adjective to the word "justice" \-- as in "social justice" \--
needs a very, very careful investigation. At least.

------
nmi32
I don't think I've ever read such a patronising dismissal of objectivism.

>It's a beautiful story for a person caught between childhood and adulthood

I could say the same thing about every religion, I doubt it would get a warm
response.

~~~
gnaritas
But it'd be just as true.

------
marris
"Disease is socialist" but most cures come out of commercial drug companies
cure them. Weird. I think the reader has a healthy aversion to Rand, but there
is _certainly_ a difference between great acts and mediocre ones.

~~~
intopieces
And many cures come from publicly funded research universities. And even those
commercial drug companies benefit greatly from government subsidies, patents
issued by the government, roads built by the government, and a population
educated in public universities. It's disingenuous to pretend those
"commercial" drug companies forged their own universe and created these
products benevolently.

~~~
thelastuser
I suppose that would be disingenuous... if anyone were to suggest it.

You have no idea, of those government provisions you listed, what the actual
costs are. You won't be able to get the most efficient allocation of
resources, because it's not a market allocation (people freely paying), but a
political allocation.

Oh, and I don't care if a drug company is benevolent. Just that they are free
to offer me the goods at a price that isn't rigged (as by regulation of
competitors, for example).

------
pandaman
I wonder why some people cannot stop saying how wrong Ayn Rand had been in
general and how wrong is Atlas Shrugged in particular.

If it's a book of lies then why do you care so much? Don't you think for the
book to have any effect on you it has to be true, at least in your own
opinion.

~~~
briancaw2
People care about books not only for their truths but also for the lies that
influence others. The former should be lauded while the latter needs to be
combatted.

~~~
pandaman
I don't see every other liberal blogger going on and on against the whole host
of lying books (e.g. astrology, esoteric etc). And please don't tell me they
are not influential. Much more people know their astrological sign and how bad
is to hurt one's Karma than people who know who is John Galt.

~~~
briancaw2
When you say liberal you are referring to a political leaning. Rand's growing
influence is on politics. If people started electing astrological evangelist
preachers to government positions and it resulted in policies that they
disagreed with, then people would spend a lot more time combatting the phony
astrology that the movement is based on. That focus wouldn't make astrology
any truer.

~~~
pandaman
Thanks, this is the point I am trying to make. If you are opposing an ideology
then have balls to attack the ideology straight on. I don't see people often
attacking Marxism on the basis that Karl Marx was hiding from child support
obligations and that Lenin had syphilis. Yet it's par for the course to
dismiss whatever ideology Rand is representing just by attacking her
character.

~~~
6d0debc071
Syphilis and child support payments aren't communicable by economic ideology
in the same sort of way that lifestyles are by moral dictates.

Without taking a side either way of the AR thing - taking advice on how to
live your life from people whose character you detest seems like it might be a
bad call. Living your life in the manner they approve of, at least if they did
so themselves, stands a good chance of making you more like them.

~~~
pandaman
I don't think I understood. In the first paragraph you are saying that Marx's
and Lenin's lifestyle choices are not going to affect their followers but in
the second paragraph you are saying that following an ideology is going to
make you like the ideology's leaders.

I don't think both of these can be true simultaneously so I guess I did not
get what are you saying right.

~~~
6d0debc071
You've dropped several conditionals that I placed in there.

The general theme is that things like macro economic theories place fewer
constraints on individual action than moral ideologies - and that, provided
that the person expounding the moral ideology claims to follow it themselves,
your perception of their character counts as evidence for whether it's a good
idea for you to accept it or not.

~~~
pandaman
Ah, you believe that Marxism is a macro economic theory? Understood.

------
taylodl
John Galt never made it past adolescence. He ultimately used his talents to
make the world suffer, all along possessing the wherewithal to make the world
a better place. But HE didn't think THEY deserved it. I shudder to think
people wanted a John Galt admirer for U.S. Vice President (and were supporting
him for that very reason).

~~~
solistice
I'm assuming your points are: 1\. John Galt used his talents to make the world
suffer. 2\. John Galt is obligated to use those talents for the common good.

1\. In the sense of actively destroying things, nowhere in the book. Maybe he
goes kicking around puppies somewhere off the pages, but he does nothing of
the sort anywhere in the book. Ragnar Danneskjöd does, but that situation is
hard to judge given the details in the book.

Galt did know that he had (assuming you mean the motor), the wherewithal to
make the world a better place. But, a. He believed that doing so would only
improve conditions in the short term, since the system in place was naturally
errosive. Changing the system and then bringing forth his idea would provide
longer term benefits. b. That assumes he was out for the common good. He
wasn't. Doing what you proposed, namely comercializing his invention and
"making the world a better place" would have led him through the same agony
that Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart went through, trying to keep things
together when they were clearly falling apart.

2\. I disagree with you that anybody is obligated to do that.

------
trimbo
I think I must be the only person ever who read Atlas Shrugged and thought it
was a very entertaining book, but didn't either love it or hate it because of
the politics.

Is there anyone else out there who just loves the book like I do without
applying the politics in real life?

~~~
rdouble
As the book is so poorly written, those who enjoy it as literature are indeed
in a small club.

~~~
scarmig
As a writer, Rand gets better as she gets shorter. I'd say she never gets to
the point where she could be called a good writer, but she does sometimes
reach for and achieve passable.

------
WalterBright
Socialism is forced cooperation, as opposed to voluntary cooperation.

~~~
briancaw2
There's no such thing as voluntary cooperation when all of the land is already
owned.

~~~
thelastuser
Why not?

~~~
thomasz
1\. Because the majority does not possess the means of survival by subsistence
and are forced to cooperate with proprietors.

2\. "Property" cannot exist without en _force_ ment. If you own land and I
don't, chances are that I can find another poor bastard who will help me to
take it from you.

~~~
thelastuser
I just want to note first that it is not clear that all land is currently
owned. Natural owners (homesteaders) have been displaced many times by state
violence and the threat of state violence keeps people from homesteading
available space. I had sidestepped this earlier because, even if all land has
legitimate private owners, that does not preclude voluntary cooperation.

1\. Your body is your property, and you have the right to contract (i.e. agree
with another person to use your property in a particular way, for instance as
a condition of transfer of property). So the filthy rich person who owns a
country--which by the way I don't think is possible, since he probably just
planted a flag and yelled that he owns it, which does not make a homestead...
but for the sake of argument let's say he does own the country--this guy
excludes thousands of people who only have the standing room on which they
were born. Do tell me how this guy will eat. I will bet that, through the
magic of self interest, the landowner will be happy to contract with the
impoverished majority, say, for farming. Now if you're thinking ahead, you
already see that the poor folk, _if their private property rights are
respected_ , can save their income and trade and sell among themselves, maybe
even buy some of that land from the country owner. The historic problem is not
that ownership of land existed, but that it was never treated as a private
property, or that the individual right to self-ownership and contract were not
universally respected.

2\. So people can be crooks? I don't disagree.

------
mindslight
Why do people get so intensely attracted to Ayn Rand's philosophy, even if for
just a short time? Because it resonates with their attempting to understanding
of the world.

The necessary social systems that interlink us all have become overly complex
and maladapted in their treatment of individual people, and by stepping back
from "must" and asking "why" one begins to see this everywhere. But the only
blessed means of change is democracy, and nuanced intellect doesn't win mob
consensus - vague feel-something arguments do.

So the idea of taking one's ball and going home becomes very attractive - even
if it's just a single croquet ball - because it's the final option available
to avoid supporting the broken game. And morally, systems _should_ be setup to
make this base case as easy as possible, even if it initially increases costs
for the remaining players, for if the system is truly beneficial then it is
still in most people's interest to participate.

But the mob has no concern for individuals, so our social systems lack this
capability. Going against the grain is tiresome and unproductive, so most
people eventually conform to what is demanded of them. And once you've given
in, you're likely to stop dwelling on the faults of the systems you support
and instead view them in a positive light for what they do accomplish.

------
dmfdmf
I have it on good word that Rand was pro health insurance.

~~~
lkrubner
"Her books provided wide-ranging parables of "parasites," "looters" and
"moochers" using the levers of government to steal the fruits of her heroes'
labor. In the real world, however, Rand herself received Social Security
payments and Medicare benefits under the name of Ann O'Connor (her husband was
Frank O'Connor)."

[http://www.alternet.org/story/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against...](http://www.alternet.org/story/149721/ayn_rand_railed_against_government_benefits,_but_grabbed_social_security_and_medicare_when_she_needed_them)

~~~
dmfdmf
This is a common smear spread by Rand's haters. She explained the principle in
this article which the haters conveniently ignore;

[http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scho...](http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/government_grants_and_scholarships.html#order_3)

~~~
scarmig
So, her principle is basically "it's always bad to accept government handouts,
unless you're an Objectivist, in which case it's fine so long as you complain
very loudly while receiving them."

I wish I were kidding.

~~~
foobarbazqux
I don't agree with her on the specific point, but I actually agree with her
more broadly. If your everyday life doesn't match up with your ideals, you
don't have to martyr yourself to be a good person. Hypocrisy is a normal state
of affairs. For example, it's okay for me to complain about sweatshops but
still buy running shoes that are made in them. It's okay for me to send my
kids to a private school because the public schools in my area are terrible,
even though I believe in raising taxes to support a high quality public
education for everyone and making private schools obsolete.

~~~
whatsmypass
>For example, it's okay for me to complain about sweatshops but still buy
running shoes that are made in them.

I don't think that's actually true, even though I do the same.

I think it cheapens my character. I believe even if I'm vocal about my
feelings about sweatshop labor, that doesn't really matter when I still
support it financially.

It really just means that I'm not as good of a person as I'd like to be.

------
Vektorweg
found this quote in the german wikipedia:

“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: 'The
Lord of the Rings' and 'Atlas Shrugged'. One is a childish fantasy that often
engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an
emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real
world. The other, of course, involves orcs.” – John Rogers

------
dollar
All of the typicsl straw man arguments about roads and healthcare are
nonsense. Rand believed that any way society chose to organize itself to
benefit its members was perfectly acceptable, as long as that organization was
rooted in individual freedom of choice, and not extracted from individuals
with violence - the tyranny of the majority.

------
jeffdavis
The article conflates social institutions with government (and possibly
conflates the various levels of government) which is a common theme among many
political ideas.

On the "Right", people often conclude that, because their religion is good, it
should be enforced by the federal government. In reality, people can
(generally) practice their religion freely through their church so long as the
government policies aren't too overbearing.

On the "Left", people often conclude that, because charitable giving and
safety nets and community projects are good, those things should be enforced
and run by the federal government. In reality, there are many social
institutions and mechanisms by which those things might happen (families and
communities do many of these things already, and local governments can do many
more), and the federal government is only one option and may only be suitable
in specific circumstances.

------
kamaal
Rand is always popular among people, who get cheated. Kind of people among
whom resentment(Bitter indignation at having been treated unfairly) is high.
If you look at it closely these are generally the kind of people who do
everything right, and then only find some not even 1/10th the worth take away
fruits of their work.

These are generally the kind of hard working working people who get cheated
due to office politics, or an unfair boss, or the people who score less marks
because the teacher wanted to reward her otherwise favorite pupil.

One of the top reasons why people want to have their own business is because
'working for others' ultimately leads to a situation where you do all the
work, while not getting nearly the atom worth the due rewards you deserve. Its
not selfish or arrogant or even wrong that such people ultimately take things
into their own hands and refuse to put up with being treated unfairly.

When I first read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead. The philosophy of it
looked straight obvious and something that I myself have gone through.

Rand's philosophy is not the case, but rather a effect of a deep rooted
malaise where some people find it perfectly fine to cheat. And expect the
person to be fine being cheated.

On a side note, I attended a Start up conference a years back here Bangalore.
At the end there was open panel discussion as to what makes a better career
option 'Start up or a Job at a Megacorp' a middle manager from representing a
mega corp called start up founders are impatient, greedy and selfish. This is
how bad the situation gets when you put up with unfair treatment, the person
cheating thinks it's perfectly ok to treat you unfairly. And more, it is
unfair to him that you refuse to get cheated.

Want to prevent the Rand philosophy from spreading, do something that triggers
its flow and adoption at the first place. But we all already know that's not
going to happen.

------
demachina
Pretty flawed writing on Dave Winer's, like this part right here:

"Ayn Rand's philosophy might have worked in an agrarian society when people
lived far apart, and couldn't pool their resources."

Agricultural coops were some of the earliest, most intense and long lived
Socialism in the U.S. in fact some of them are still going. Building grain
elevators, pooling expensive machinery, getting fertilizer and seed in bulk
and at a reasonable price, shipping crops to market and trying to avoid
getting screwed by middlemen, are things were Socialism had its place.

Atlas Shugged was written for and about railroad barons, industrialist and to
a lesser extent Wall Streeters.

Classic Dave, say something that has no basis in fact, and hope no one calls
him on the B.S. because he's Dave Winer.

------
rogerthis
Everyday I wonder if people still read Alexis de Tocqueville's Democracy in
America.

------
aero142
Sometimes I feel like there are two different versions of Atlas Shrugged out
in the world and different people read different ones. I just don't understand
how someone can read the book I read and think that "snowplow drivers" is a
complete rebuttal. The book has a lot of themes and I don't agree with all of
them but lets hit a few that I took away.

Rand is best viewed as a reaction to the abuses of Russian Communism. Atlas
Shrugged is extreme in the opposite direction but offers some good critiques
of collectivism as she saw it practiced. Communism was always at the point of
a gun, so one of her primary complaints was the the use of force by the
incapable to demand things from the capable was immoral. So, it's immoral to
force those who have snow plows to plow your road just because you have a gun.

Using a snowstorm is a funny example because I think that is exactly one of
her main points. Nature doesn't care about your feelings or what you think you
deserve. You will either use you mind to find solutions to problems or you
will die. If you choose not to think for yourself, you don't have a right to
take from those who do just because you have a gun. So, to answer the
article's question, "Who is supposed plow the streets during the
snowpocalypse?" Whoever the hell has a snowplow and has the ability to drive
it. Probably in exchange for money. That's some crazy talk right there. Did I
just blow your mind? It's not "a detail she never seemed to have gotten to",
it's just a stupid question. You don't plow streets with Rearden metal. You
plow it with a snow plow. Rand's point was that streets didn't get plowed by
moochers and people who claimed they "deserved it". It got plowed by every
great person that designed a combustable engine and metal and manufacturing
processes and ultimately applied their mind to the challenges of nature(snow
storms) and created an f'ing snow plow. The point is that it is the human mind
is what makes the world work, not whining about your "rights".

As for "great individuals", yes, I think she over sold it a bit. However, very
focused productive people applying their minds to problems have more influence
and leverage today than ever before. She also spends a lot of time talking
about "teaching men to think". So she talked a lot about everyone using their
talents to create things, not just the John Galts. There are lots of
characters who play bit parts in Atlas Shrugged that are respected in the
book. Same for the fountain head. Lets talk about the exceptional though. No
Bill Gates may not be francisco d'anconia, but he did have a big influence on
the world. Now he is using his money to have an even bigger influence. Just
for fun, and in the spirit of Rand, think about the difference between how
Gates is spending his money, vs the way the Government has spent it. Compare
the way a person that earned his money is spending it vs "looters" that took
it from others. Plus, Gates seems less John Galt than someone like Von Neumann
or Newton.

I just get really sick and tired of people knocking down Rand strawmen. No,
she didn't offer the solution all the hard problems of balancing individual
liberty and collective action, but if you read it with some context and think
about it for yourself, you may find that she did offer some good ideas about
the perils of collectivism and the potential of human ability. If you are
curious about Rand, go read Fransico' Money Speech,
[http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-
speec...](http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/) and
skip this stupid, pointless blog post.

------
wissler
The heart of the matter is this question: should the community violate the
consent of the individual or not?

Coming at it from the utilitarian point of view (for sake of argument -- I am
not a utilitarian[1]), does it really need to be argued that every humane
person should naturally wish to respect individual consent to the fullest
extent possible? The only remaining question should be to determine to what
extent this is possible. Is there a way to get the road clearing paid for
without violating the consent of those who don't care if it's cleared or not?

It turns out that we can form systems whereby this is possible. For example,
take a home owners association (HOA). It violates no consent to have contracts
that stipulate that you must pay a yearly fee (or "tax") to join the HOA. So
there you go, the snowplowing problem is solved, all without any violation of
consent.

If you're creative, it turns out that you can solve all of these dilemmas,
without resorting to government fiat, which of course can only be implemented
by being willing to point a gun at your neighbor's head. No humane person
would prefer this, ergo actually humane people would seek more creative
solutions.

[1]
[https://leanpub.com/reasonandliberty](https://leanpub.com/reasonandliberty)

~~~
briancaw2
What happens when that HOA needs to make a new rule? From what you described
it sounds like any person on the losing end of an argument is being violated,
and an HOA that has to deal with anything but some basic set of agreed upon
rules will not satisfy the non-violation requirements.

~~~
thelastuser
I cannot speak for the parent, but disagreements can be resolved by
independent, third-party arbitration (which may have also been agreed upon by
the HOA). This is not to be confused with a territorial monopoly on final
arbitration, viz. a government court.

~~~
briancaw2
[http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m43fenS4rJ1rqfhi2o1_250.gi...](http://31.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m43fenS4rJ1rqfhi2o1_250.gif)

------
Allower
And this is where we see the clowns who don't understand economics. Snow
removal is handled by the folks who have a greater vested financial interest
in having roads clear. And if you seriously can't imagine a nation with
private roads, than you simply haven't tried very hard.

~~~
thelastuser
It is strange how well conditioned people are to regard roads as this Great
Social Problem even as they go about buying cheaper and cheaper stuff that
does more and more everyday thanks to capitalism.

~~~
pessimizer
Not everything is made of transistors.

------
mumbi
I like the part about how nobody is great.

~~~
bdcravens
It's popular to read Bill Gates mentioned in the "nobody is great" bit, but if
the author had instead said Steve Jobs ..

------
INTPenis
Valar Morghulis.

