Ayn Rand

[Gordonium]

I am a huge fan.

[herzmeister]

Which brings me to my other complaint with her.... She supported intellectual property. Probably why she couldn't quite accept getting rid of government entirely.

I think Tom Woods describes a concept of Intellectual Property without a state somewhere.

btw, from my pov there's not much difference between intellectual property and property property. 

[myrkul]

btw, from my pov there's not much difference between intellectual property and property property. 

The difference is scarcity. If I share my house with you, the space available for me to live in is diminished. If I share my song with you, I still have the song, and can gain the same enjoyment from it.

[herzmeister]

yeah but there's also plenty of space in space.

but it takes more effort to move to a different house (or planet, for that matter), just as it takes more effort to write and record a new song rather than just copy yours.

[myrkul]

yeah but there's also plenty of space in space.

but it takes more effort to move to a different house (or planet, for that matter), just as it takes more effort to write and record a new song rather than just copy yours.

Well, sure there's plenty of space in space. Not much you can actually live in, though. Which is my point. Property is scarce, data is not.

[iCEBREAKER]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzj2QYTcgO0

Which brings me to my other complaint with her.... She supported intellectual property. Probably why she couldn't quite accept getting rid of government entirely.

Scratch an Anarchist and a Fascist Bleeds...

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

[myrkul]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzj2QYTcgO0

Which brings me to my other complaint with her.... She supported intellectual property. Probably why she couldn't quite accept getting rid of government entirely.

Scratch an Anarchist and a Fascist Bleeds...

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government.

A government is the worst possible "arbiter for honest disagreements among men."

[nwbitcoin]

The problem in a Rand world is that it doesn't account for irrational behaviour.

While its easy enough to be rational when you have very little to gain or lose, as soon as that formula changes, and your ego gets involved, then people will do the daftest things to maintain their lifestyles.

That is what socialism is all about!

[Mike Christ]

The problem in a Rand world is that it doesn't account for irrational behaviour.

While its easy enough to be rational when you have very little to gain or lose, as soon as that formula changes, and your ego gets involved, then people will do the daftest things to maintain their lifestyles.

That is what socialism is all about!

Is socialism like Facebook and MySpace?

(Just kidding )

[myrkul]

The problem in a Rand world is that it doesn't account for irrational behaviour.

While its easy enough to be rational when you have very little to gain or lose, as soon as that formula changes, and your ego gets involved, then people will do the daftest things to maintain their lifestyles.

That is what socialism is all about!

I see... reduce everyone to a state where they have nothing to gain, and nothing to lose. Sounds boring.

[iCEBREAKER]

A coercive, centralized, non-minimal government or an arbitrary, subjective mob is the worst possible "arbiter for honest disagreements among men."

^^Fixed it for you.^^

[myrkul]

A coercive, centralized, non-minimal government or an arbitrary, subjective mob is the worst possible "arbiter for honest disagreements among men."

^^Fixed it for you.^^

Yeah, not really. Since "coercive government" is redundant, and "arbitrary, subjective mob" is pretty much the textbook definition of democracy, you've not really changed my statement much.

And if you want a non-coercive, decentralized, minimal government, then what you're looking for is AnCap.

[Spendulus]

Rand was jewish. people shouldn't touch her stuff with a 10 foot pole.

Nope.

Rand was an athiest.

More precisely, she viewed God or a belief in God as unnecessary.

[myrkul]

Rand was jewish. people shouldn't touch her stuff with a 10 foot pole.

Nope.

Rand was an athiest.

More precisely, she viewed God or a belief in God as unnecessary.

This is a person who decides, that because you disagree with him about hating Jews, you must be a Jew yourself. Nothing you say will affect his calcified little brain.

[myrkul]

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/anarchism.html

Thanks for this link, by the way. It shows that she had heard of Anarcho-capitalism, at least somewhat, though I don't think anyone ever sat down and explained it to her. Her Russian upbringing seems to have colored her views as to the "service" which Government provides, and I'm sure that didn't help, either.

A recent variant of anarchistic theory, which is befuddling some of the younger advocates of freedom, is a weird absurdity called “competing governments.” Accepting the basic premise of the modern statists—who see no difference between the functions of government and the functions of industry, between force and production, and who advocate government ownership of business—the proponents of “competing governments” take the other side of the same coin and declare that since competition is so beneficial to business, it should also be applied to government. Instead of a single, monopolistic government, they declare, there should be a number of different governments in the same geographical area, competing for the allegiance of individual citizens, with every citizen free to “shop” and to patronize whatever government he chooses.

Remember that forcible restraint of men is the only service a government has to offer. Ask yourself what a competition in forcible restraint would have to mean.

One cannot call this theory a contradiction in terms, since it is obviously devoid of any understanding of the terms “competition” and “government.” Nor can one call it a floating abstraction, since it is devoid of any contact with or reference to reality and cannot be concretized at all, not even roughly or approximately. One illustration will be sufficient: suppose Mr. Smith, a customer of Government A, suspects that his next-door neighbor, Mr. Jones, a customer of Government B, has robbed him; a squad of Police A proceeds to Mr. Jones’ house and is met at the door by a squad of Police B, who declare that they do not accept the validity of Mr. Smith’s complaint and do not recognize the authority of Government A. What happens then? You take it from there.

To which David Friedman responds:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=jTYkdEU_B4o#t=282s

[jothan]

From a web comic I follow. There is an epic Ayn Rand reference at the end.

https://www.spinnyverse.com/2011/04/20/04202011/

[myrkul]

Heh.

[crypTrade]

I am a huge fan.

He's not kidding. I pulled this picture from his Facebook page: http://ptreport.thrillnetwork.net/images/wof/fan1.jpg

[John Self]

Ayn Rand was a pretty terrible writer, in terms of her ability to use the English language or tell a story. She was extremely dogmatic, so people who like the dogma tend to like her book too- in the same way that Christians like dumb and boring passages of the Old Testament (disclaimer: I was one of them a few years back). This isn't a comment on her philosophy, just her storytelling ability.

Show me a fan of this book who identified with the union workers if you can find one, I haven't been able to: this tells you all you need to know about the book's literary merits. When people read this book, they imagine themselves to be the John Galt type, and enjoy reading about a dogma that puts them first in the food chain, atop the hierarchy of human life. One reason Ayn Rand isn't as good a storyteller as Dickens, is that even though you hate Scrooge or Miss Havisham you'll still identify and empathise with them and perhaps see some of yourself in them- because we're all human, and a good storyteller puts humanity on display; a good preacher dehumanises, which is why Rand fans no more identify with the Atlas Shrugged union bosses than Christians do with the antichrist.

[iCEBREAKER]

A coercive, centralized, non-minimal government or an arbitrary, subjective mob is the worst possible "arbiter for honest disagreements among men."

^^Fixed it for you.^^

Yeah, not really. Since "coercive government" is redundant, and "arbitrary, subjective mob" is pretty much the textbook definition of democracy, you've not really changed my statement much.

And if you want a non-coercive, decentralized, minimal government, then what you're looking for is AnCap.

"Coercive government" is not necessarily redundant.  Coercion only occurs when a government initiates force.

Retaliatory use of force, in response to a criminal initiation of violence, is not coercion.

There is no government at all in AnCap.  What you are describing ("non-coercive, decentralized, minimal government") is the ideal libertarian state.

Read Professor Nozick's classic treatise on the subject, and all will become clear.   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy,_State,_and_Utopia

http://socioline.ru/files/5/315/nozick_robert_-_anarchy_state_and_utopia.pdf

http://www.amazon.com/Anarchy-State-Utopia-Robert-Nozick/dp/0465097200