| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| Is Rand Relevant? |
| 2009-03-14 |
| By YARON BROOK Ayn Rand died more than a quarter of a century ago, yet her name appears regularly in discussions of our current economic turmoil. Pundits including Rush Limbaugh and Rick Santelli urge listeners to read her books, and her magnum opus, "Atlas Shrugged," is selling at a faster rate today than at any time during its 51-year history. There's a reason. In "Atlas," Rand tells the story of the U.S. economy crumbling under the weight of crushing government interventions and regulations. Meanwhile, blaming greed and the free market, Washington responds with more controls that only deepen the crisis. Sound familiar? The novel's eerily prophetic nature is no coincidence. "If you understand the dominant philosophy of a society," Rand wrote elsewhere in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal," "you can predict its course." Economic crises and runaway government power grabs don't just happen by themselves; they are the product of the philosophical ideas prevalent in a society -- particularly its dominant moral ideas. Why do we accept the budget-busting costs of a welfare state? Because it implements the moral ideal of self-sacrifice to the needy. Why do so few protest the endless regulatory burdens placed on businessmen? Because businessmen are pursuing their self-interest, which we have been taught is dangerous and immoral. Why did the government go on a crusade to promote "affordable housing," which meant forcing banks to make loans to unqualified home buyers? Because we believe people need to be homeowners, whether or not they can afford to pay for houses. The message is always the same: "Selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good." But Rand said this message is wrong -- selfishness, rather than being evil, is a virtue. By this she did not mean exploiting others à la Bernie Madoff. Selfishness -- that is, concern with one's genuine, long-range interest -- she wrote, required a man to think, to produce, and to prosper by trading with others voluntarily to mutual benefit. Rand also noted that only an ethic of rational selfishness can justify the pursuit of profit that is the basis of capitalism -- and that so long as self-interest is tainted by moral suspicion, the profit motive will continue to take the rap for every imaginable (or imagined) social ill and economic disaster. Just look how our present crisis has been attributed to the free market instead of government intervention -- and how proposed solutions inevitably involve yet more government intervention to rein in the pursuit of self-interest. Rand offered us a way out -- to fight for a morality of rational self-interest, and for capitalism, the system which is its expression. And that is the source of her relevance today. Dr. Brook is president and executive director of the Ayn Rand Institute. So much for those tired worn out old theories which don't work. |
| Posted by:Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 |
| #8 Rand and her followers or Who's On First? I supplied the answers, you supply the question. |
| Posted by: Shipman 2009-03-14 21:23 |
| #7 Everything I'm reading says that those who make up the middle class are acting as if they realize the taxes are going to hit them, sooner rather than later, no matter what they believe at the conscious level. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2009-03-14 14:52 |
| #6 no mo uro. True but as you point out it is a good starting point. In these times of cliff note based learning anything which can touch a chord and cause people to respond with an idea that resonates is valuable. Much of what is being experienced now in the US is a repeat of the UK experience from the time of the Speeham Land Act up until the Poor Law Reform of 1832. But few if anyone today would have a clue about it much less an understanding of the debates that occurred at that time. The Benthamite arguement won the day at that time and it will win in the US again in time but in the age worn but undiminished adage "those who ignore history are bound to repeat it". Essentially over that period the UK introduced the Corn Laws which guaranteed a basic income. It didn't take long for the obvious to occur. If you didn't work at all you got everything. So as time progressed the growing tax burden fell on the middle class which ultimately revolted. It took 30 years but it did usher in the Reform Act and the Poor Law Reform which remade the political landscape of the UK. Essentially the lesson learned is that it is the middle class which is the most relevant in bringing about change because they are the biggest group of producers, they have the most to lose and they respond most adversely to confiscatory taxation. Obama is instigating the Allinsky mode of deception to con the middle class that only the wealthy are going to pay the taxes. It is unmitigated crap. Because the middle class is the only real source of revenue. It will fail. The question is how much do people want to suffer before it is evident? You would be aware of the frog analogy. The good thing about the current rush to change is that it is noticeable and therefore is getting a reaction unlike the creeping changes which have sneaked up on the UK and Europe, emasculating them. Personally, I disagree with the libertarian view on the role of the Military, but the last thing that anyone should do is try and fit their own thinking within the narrow confining walls of the predetermined philosphy. |
| Posted by: Omoter Speaking for Boskone7794 2009-03-14 10:40 |
| #5 The evil of the world is made possible by nothing but the sanction you give it. Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-03-14 07:44 |
| #4 Rand is not, perhaps, an end point for a mature, rational, and intelligent adult, but definitely a necessary way-marker. She understood the basics and communicated them well. Others have picked up the ball and run further with it. But her ideas get you most of the way to the goal line. |
| Posted by: no mo uro 2009-03-14 06:41 |
| #3 "Selfishness & dealing "with others voluntarily to mutual benefit" are mutually exclusive. Too much cognitive dissonance for me, but YMMV." It's not mutually exclusive. TO mutual benefit is different than FOR mutual benefit. |
| Posted by: Chuck 2009-03-14 06:10 |
| #2 Selfishness & dealing "with others voluntarily to mutual benefit" are mutually exclusive. Too much cognitive dissonance for me, but YMMV. |
| Posted by: Anguper Hupomosing9418 2009-03-14 04:54 |
| #1 So long as the looters persist she will remain relevant. |
| Posted by: Ragnar Danneskjöld 2009-03-14 04:23 |