Showing posts with label atlas shrugged. Show all posts
Showing posts with label atlas shrugged. Show all posts
Saturday, July 4, 2009
Where is Dagny Taggart?
Robb at the Robbservations draws some interesting parallels between the reported computer glitch which grounded United Airlines planes and the scene near the end of Atlas Shrugged involving Dagny Taggart.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the World Today
“Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged and the World Today”: An Interview with Yaron Brook
"Yaron Brook: In Atlas Shrugged we see a world crumbling under the weight of government interventions and regulations. The economy has ground to a halt. Roads and bridges are breaking down, buildings are falling apart, new inventions are few and far between, and each day more and more businesses are shutting their doors. The government blames greed and the free market, frantically imposes further controls, but the crisis only deepens.
The similarities to today are striking. Since the start of our current crisis, we’ve been told that the free market and “greedy” businessmen are to blame, and that the only solution is to hand progressively more power over to the government. We’re hearing the same charges, and seeing the same policies, with the same destructive consequences that Rand wrote about more than half a century ago.
In Atlas, we even read about a “banker with a heart of gold” who went out of business after lending to borrowers on the basis of their “need” rather than their ability to repay. Anyone who understands how the government’s “affordable housing” crusade led to an orgy of subprime lending can appreciate Rand’s foresight [see Richard M. Salsman, “Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis”]. "
Read the complete article.
"Yaron Brook: In Atlas Shrugged we see a world crumbling under the weight of government interventions and regulations. The economy has ground to a halt. Roads and bridges are breaking down, buildings are falling apart, new inventions are few and far between, and each day more and more businesses are shutting their doors. The government blames greed and the free market, frantically imposes further controls, but the crisis only deepens.
The similarities to today are striking. Since the start of our current crisis, we’ve been told that the free market and “greedy” businessmen are to blame, and that the only solution is to hand progressively more power over to the government. We’re hearing the same charges, and seeing the same policies, with the same destructive consequences that Rand wrote about more than half a century ago.
In Atlas, we even read about a “banker with a heart of gold” who went out of business after lending to borrowers on the basis of their “need” rather than their ability to repay. Anyone who understands how the government’s “affordable housing” crusade led to an orgy of subprime lending can appreciate Rand’s foresight [see Richard M. Salsman, “Altruism: The Moral Root of the Financial Crisis”]. "
Read the complete article.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Is rationality a virtue worth emulating?
I recently read an article "Mr. Jekyll and Dr. House: The Reason-Emotion Split as Manifested in House, M.D." on the TOS about TV series House, M.D. (first two seasons), a part of which I had read some time back but read the whole thing only now (subscription-based). The article analyses the portrayal of the lead character Dr. House.
I have been a big fan of the TV series House, M.D. and have been intrigued and at times puzzled by the portrayal of the Dr. House (brilliantly played by Hugh Laurie). The series focuses on both his professional and personal life. There are no ambiguities where his medical abilities are concerned; he coolly analyses his cases ignoring emotions of the patients and gets to the root of the problem. He decides on a course of treatment-with inputs from his team- with supreme confidence and expects it to be executed without any ifs or buts.
Just like the author, I have always thought that a good doctor has to be like a good detective. He has to study the case, look for clues in not so obvious places and be knowledgeable in interpreting those clues and solving the case. This reminds me of a Sherlock Holmes case where he says that "I am puzzled by the dogs". When Dr. Watson says that the dogs didn't do anything, he says it's exactly what puzzled him-why didn't they bark if there were intruders around? This comparison is even more apt for the extreme case handled by Dr. House but also holds true for slightly more complex cases routinely handled by most doctors. Dr. House is a master medical investigator and finds clues of mysterious illnesses in unlikeliest of places with ease. The creator has blessed his character with rationality but the problem is that he doesn't seem to think that is is worth emulating.
In spite of all the irritating contradictions of the series, I like to focus on the positives and I like what Hugh Laurie writes, in praise of his own character: “This is a guy in search of truth. Incidentally, that truth one day could save your life or the life of someone you love. That’s a heroic thing.” Millions of people love the witty and heroic Dr.House which according to the author is a positive symptom and that it suggests that people’s admiration for the virtue of reason is still alive and kicking. The thought makes me feel good.
Read the full article here.
I have been a big fan of the TV series House, M.D. and have been intrigued and at times puzzled by the portrayal of the Dr. House (brilliantly played by Hugh Laurie). The series focuses on both his professional and personal life. There are no ambiguities where his medical abilities are concerned; he coolly analyses his cases ignoring emotions of the patients and gets to the root of the problem. He decides on a course of treatment-with inputs from his team- with supreme confidence and expects it to be executed without any ifs or buts.
Just like the author, I have always thought that a good doctor has to be like a good detective. He has to study the case, look for clues in not so obvious places and be knowledgeable in interpreting those clues and solving the case. This reminds me of a Sherlock Holmes case where he says that "I am puzzled by the dogs". When Dr. Watson says that the dogs didn't do anything, he says it's exactly what puzzled him-why didn't they bark if there were intruders around? This comparison is even more apt for the extreme case handled by Dr. House but also holds true for slightly more complex cases routinely handled by most doctors. Dr. House is a master medical investigator and finds clues of mysterious illnesses in unlikeliest of places with ease. The creator has blessed his character with rationality but the problem is that he doesn't seem to think that is is worth emulating.
Creator David Shore describes his brilliant, cynically sarcastic medical Sherlock as “a character who firmly believes in rationality over emotion at all times,” with all that presumably implies. And what, in Shore’s conception, does it imply? That House is “nasty and he’s cold and he’s heartless, and everything he does is to make the patient better.” This indicates Shore’s conception of rationality, or at least the brand of rationality he ascribes to House.The creator goes on to show the personal life of Dr.House which is sad, confusing, lonely, and attributes this to his rationality and draws the unwarranted conclusions. Is it so hard to believe that a rational person can be happy? It is this belief which deprives us of a perfect hero.
Shore seems split on his own evaluation of House’s character, warning apologetically, “I created this character, and I love him, and you might think I’m saying, yeah, we should all be like that. No! We actually shouldn't be like that.” But, one is tempted to ask, if his rationality saves countless patients’ lives, isn't it in fact a virtue worth emulating? Or is it indeed a lovable sin, deserving of sympathetic scorn, since it dooms him to a life of lonely success?
Gena Gorlin goes on to explain the importance of the emotional mechanism of man’s consciousness.Episode after episode puts us through the torment of seeing a gloomy, tortured House return to his dark, lonely apartment and pump himself full of Vicodin to numb his own pain, after sending his patients home happy and smiling, holding the hands of loved ones who rejoice with them at a seemingly miraculous recovery...
So it is no wonder that House is unhappy, since happiness is an emotion—and House tries to steer clear of emotions at all cost..
So if, like House, you choose to regard the rational quest for truth as your sacred calling, you (allegedly) must abandon all hopes of emotional fulfillment. But rationality—real rationality—does not lead to any such plight; indeed, it leads to the stark opposite. If House were as rational about emotions as he is about medicine, he would not be miserably successful; he would be successfully happy.
Emotions are not impervious to reason; they are responses to what we regard as true (given our prior knowledge and reasoning, or lack thereof). If we change our minds, our hearts eventually follow..The character of John Galt said in Ayn Rand's epic novel "The Atlas Shrugged" that "happiness is the successful state of life, pain is an agent of death. Happiness is possible only to a rational man, the man who desires nothing but rational goals, seeks nothing but rational values and finds his joy in nothing but rational actions".
If one grasps the nature of the relationship between rationality and emotion, House’s split personality becomes easy to diagnose: He is rational in his dealings with human illness, but irrational in his dealings with human emotion. If David Shore has set out to portray a man who truly “believes in rationality over emotion at all times,” he has failed—by failing to understand the actual nature of both rationality and emotion...
Such critics once again fail to realize the proper role of emotion in relation to rationality. If House were to allow baseless pangs of doubt, or the emotional appeals of patients and fellow doctors, to interfere with his rational conclusions, he would not be the good doctor that he is...
Just as emotions are consequences of one’s conclusions, so rationality is the means of achieving emotionally gratifying values.
In spite of all the irritating contradictions of the series, I like to focus on the positives and I like what Hugh Laurie writes, in praise of his own character: “This is a guy in search of truth. Incidentally, that truth one day could save your life or the life of someone you love. That’s a heroic thing.” Millions of people love the witty and heroic Dr.House which according to the author is a positive symptom and that it suggests that people’s admiration for the virtue of reason is still alive and kicking. The thought makes me feel good.
Read the full article here.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Capitalism: The Only Moral System
Today's Denver Post published a nasty attack on capitalism. This is Ari Armstong's online comment. Here is the letter:
http://tinyurl.com/qw2z4u
And here is his reply:
I’ll untangle Brickley’s many confusions. Capitalism protects people’s right to live their own lives and interact voluntarily with others, by their own judgment, free from political controls. Capitalism means a system in which individuals rights to property and contract are consistently protected. In capitalism, the job of the government is to protect people from force and fraud.
To the degree that politicians interfere in the market, that is not capitalism, but its opposite. If “bribed governments” grant to some businesses political advantages to seize wealth by force or forcibly harm competitors, that is not “unregulated capitalism;” it is a market controlled to some degree by politicians.
Capitalism is regulated (made regular) first by a government that protects against force and fraud, and second by the independent judgment of individuals. If you don’t like a company’s products or services, don’t buy them! If you think you can do better, you are free to try. But this is not the sort of “regulation” that the enemies of capitalism have in mind. Instead, they call on politicians to control the economy and violate people’s rights.
Brickley is right about one thing: capitalism is incompatible with pure democracy. Capitalism protects individual rights. Pure democracy is mob rule, it is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, it is 51 percent of the population enslaving the other 49 percent.
Brickley calls capitalism, the only system compatible with the reasoning mind of man, a “religion,” and equates it with Soviet communism. This is pure projection. For the full justification of capitalism, see Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
Capitalism is marked by men of drive and genius developing the goods and services — the health care, the technology, the food, the housing, the cars — we need to thrive. Their motive is to produce life- enhancing products and exchange them voluntarily with others for their personal gain. No motive could be more noble.
As for nastiness, we need look no further than Brickley’s smear campaign against capitalism and capitalists.
http://tinyurl.com/qw2z4u
And here is his reply:
I’ll untangle Brickley’s many confusions. Capitalism protects people’s right to live their own lives and interact voluntarily with others, by their own judgment, free from political controls. Capitalism means a system in which individuals rights to property and contract are consistently protected. In capitalism, the job of the government is to protect people from force and fraud.
To the degree that politicians interfere in the market, that is not capitalism, but its opposite. If “bribed governments” grant to some businesses political advantages to seize wealth by force or forcibly harm competitors, that is not “unregulated capitalism;” it is a market controlled to some degree by politicians.
Capitalism is regulated (made regular) first by a government that protects against force and fraud, and second by the independent judgment of individuals. If you don’t like a company’s products or services, don’t buy them! If you think you can do better, you are free to try. But this is not the sort of “regulation” that the enemies of capitalism have in mind. Instead, they call on politicians to control the economy and violate people’s rights.
Brickley is right about one thing: capitalism is incompatible with pure democracy. Capitalism protects individual rights. Pure democracy is mob rule, it is two wolves and a sheep voting on what’s for dinner, it is 51 percent of the population enslaving the other 49 percent.
Brickley calls capitalism, the only system compatible with the reasoning mind of man, a “religion,” and equates it with Soviet communism. This is pure projection. For the full justification of capitalism, see Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.
Capitalism is marked by men of drive and genius developing the goods and services — the health care, the technology, the food, the housing, the cars — we need to thrive. Their motive is to produce life- enhancing products and exchange them voluntarily with others for their personal gain. No motive could be more noble.
As for nastiness, we need look no further than Brickley’s smear campaign against capitalism and capitalists.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Union of Keynes and Kant
Updated
In his article "The Nuttiness of Negative Interest Rates" Robert P. Murphy on Mises Institute web-site wrote that
"In his April 18 New York Times op-ed, Harvard professor (and Bush adviser) Greg Mankiw calls on the Federal Reserve to promise future inflation, in order to fix the economy. Mankiw's article beautifully illustrates what is wrong with today's economics profession: it consists of very sharp guys (and gals) who can develop interesting models that spit out policy recommendations that would destroy the economy. It is no coincidence that Mankiw's worldview leads him to literally propose destroying the currency in order to fix the economy."
It is not surprising that the proposal of literally destroying currency comes from an American professor of one of the leading universities. An economics professor is the ultimate union of Kant and Keynes. Kant laid the foundation for the destruction of human mind and Keynes followed closely with his own recipe for the destruction of the capitalism.
The collectivist view that the economies resources are somehow their responsibility, to be managed and disposed off as they like is the dominant theme of the article. So what if the problems were caused during this management as pointed out by the author which Mankiw conveniently refuses to address. Though I am no great authority on economics, even with my basic knowledge, I can recognise the ugly mishmash of non-reason and anti-capitalism coming together in this call to destroy what Rand said was "the ultimate barometer of a society's virtue"- the money.
Read a part of the speech made by Francisco d'Anconia, Galt's friend on the meaning of money:
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence...
To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortune-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being-the self-made man-the American industrialist.
If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose-because it contains all the others-the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money.""
"The Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
In America today, the phrase "to make money" is losing it's shine. The strangled free-market system is under a renewed and a more vigorous assault. The solutions which are proposed by the current administration are going to push the existing mixed-economic system dangerously close to Socialism. It is the system which is depressingly familiar to those Objectivists living in third-world countries. My overwhelming concern is that when I come to America, I hope it doesn't resemble the place I have left behind.
The proposed solution to solve the current crisis, of encouraging households and businesses to borrow and spend with the helpful dose of inflationary currency as proposed by the Harvard economist is not a new one. Ayn Rand wrote in her "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" in October 65 that "there are economist who proclaim that the essence (and the moral justification) of capitalism is "service to others-to the consumers," that the consumers wishes are the absolute edicts ruling the free market, etc. (...what all such theorists fail to mention is the fact that capitalism grants economic recognition to only one kind of consumer: the producer-that only traders, i.e., producers who have something to offer, are recognized on a free market, not "consumers" as such-that, in a capitalist economy, as in reason, in justice, and in reality, production is the pre-condition of consumption.)"
In his article "The Nuttiness of Negative Interest Rates" Robert P. Murphy on Mises Institute web-site wrote that
"In his April 18 New York Times op-ed, Harvard professor (and Bush adviser) Greg Mankiw calls on the Federal Reserve to promise future inflation, in order to fix the economy. Mankiw's article beautifully illustrates what is wrong with today's economics profession: it consists of very sharp guys (and gals) who can develop interesting models that spit out policy recommendations that would destroy the economy. It is no coincidence that Mankiw's worldview leads him to literally propose destroying the currency in order to fix the economy."
It is not surprising that the proposal of literally destroying currency comes from an American professor of one of the leading universities. An economics professor is the ultimate union of Kant and Keynes. Kant laid the foundation for the destruction of human mind and Keynes followed closely with his own recipe for the destruction of the capitalism.
The collectivist view that the economies resources are somehow their responsibility, to be managed and disposed off as they like is the dominant theme of the article. So what if the problems were caused during this management as pointed out by the author which Mankiw conveniently refuses to address. Though I am no great authority on economics, even with my basic knowledge, I can recognise the ugly mishmash of non-reason and anti-capitalism coming together in this call to destroy what Rand said was "the ultimate barometer of a society's virtue"- the money.
Read a part of the speech made by Francisco d'Anconia, Galt's friend on the meaning of money:
"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence...
To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortune-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being-the self-made man-the American industrialist.
If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose-because it contains all the others-the fact that they were the people who created the phrase "to make money.""
"The Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand.
In America today, the phrase "to make money" is losing it's shine. The strangled free-market system is under a renewed and a more vigorous assault. The solutions which are proposed by the current administration are going to push the existing mixed-economic system dangerously close to Socialism. It is the system which is depressingly familiar to those Objectivists living in third-world countries. My overwhelming concern is that when I come to America, I hope it doesn't resemble the place I have left behind.
The proposed solution to solve the current crisis, of encouraging households and businesses to borrow and spend with the helpful dose of inflationary currency as proposed by the Harvard economist is not a new one. Ayn Rand wrote in her "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" in October 65 that "there are economist who proclaim that the essence (and the moral justification) of capitalism is "service to others-to the consumers," that the consumers wishes are the absolute edicts ruling the free market, etc. (...what all such theorists fail to mention is the fact that capitalism grants economic recognition to only one kind of consumer: the producer-that only traders, i.e., producers who have something to offer, are recognized on a free market, not "consumers" as such-that, in a capitalist economy, as in reason, in justice, and in reality, production is the pre-condition of consumption.)"
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
Atlas Shrugged: America’s Second Declaration of Independence
Atlas Shrugged: America’s Second Declaration of Independence:
A video presentation by Onkar Ghate
In 1776 Thomas Jefferson announced to the world America’s plans for independence. For the first time in history, there was to be a nation and a government dedicated to the individual’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....
On this, the book’s 50th anniversary, we will examine the moral revolution launched by Ayn Rand, without which the political revolution of the Founding Fathers had to remain incomplete. We will see what this moral revolution has meant for America so far, and what it promises for the future. We will see why Atlas Shrugged should be considered America’s second Declaration of Independence—a declaration not of political but of moral independence.
A video presentation by Onkar Ghate
In 1776 Thomas Jefferson announced to the world America’s plans for independence. For the first time in history, there was to be a nation and a government dedicated to the individual’s rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.....
On this, the book’s 50th anniversary, we will examine the moral revolution launched by Ayn Rand, without which the political revolution of the Founding Fathers had to remain incomplete. We will see what this moral revolution has meant for America so far, and what it promises for the future. We will see why Atlas Shrugged should be considered America’s second Declaration of Independence—a declaration not of political but of moral independence.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Living under Socialism
It was the summer of 89 and I was in my second year of college doing my B.Com. I was working for my father in New Delhi. He had a factory where we made cast iron machine parts. A few years ago the government had set quota's for the pig iron used for casting. The criteria for quota was whatever quantity had been bought during the previous months. It was the start of the shortages, black market and bureaucratic interference in the business which was already very difficult to conduct. There were dozens of inspectors from various departments and they had be paid-off or you could forget about doing any business. There were so many ridiculous laws that it was impossible to comply with them even if you wanted to.
One of my jobs was to check with the local govt. office if our quota of pig iron had come. I had to go to the office which was on the outskirts of the city on my puny scooter between rashly driven trucks since nobody would tell you anything on the phone even if you somehow got through. One time I went their consecutively for three days , stood outside the office (no place to sit and during summer it can reach 44 deg. C/111 F.) and still had no news of our iron. Since there were no mobile phones at that time and no payphones around I had to beg some official to let me use his phone to make a call.
The staff was indifferent at best of times and outright hostile at other times. All the offices were dull, dusty, drab, dreary and every time you entered one your heart sank a little at the prospect of dealing with people who didn't even bother to look at you and were deliberately dismissive. If you persisted they would snap at you like a rabid dog and it was almost physically painful when you had be very polite and use deferential tone even when you wanted scream at them and ask them if they were human before grinding there faces in the pile of dusty files in front of him.
Sometimes I wish I could have made a virtual tour of the whole experience for the benefit of those people who want more regulation, more interference and remind them of those days. As such we are hardly out of the license and inspector raj and some people want to drag us back to those evil times.
I wish I could tell people in America that I had lived through the worst case scenarios portrayed in "Atlas shrugged" by Ayn Rand. A society which mocks and denigrates the achievements of it's producers is not a pleasant place to live in. I dreaded the days when some new teacher would ask kids about their fathers profession and I kid you not when I say that after saying my father was a businessman I would see contempt and in one particular case downright hostility. This one teacher got on my case and constantly taunted me by saying why did I have study since my father was a big businessman I didn't have to worry about making a living anyway.
I wonder about America's capacity for more abuse. Is Obama going to be the last straw? Is he going to turn people away from socialist idea's by proving their futility and failure. With Santelli's rant on CNBC getting widespread support and a lot of resistance to the bailout I would say Americans are not ready to throw in the towel and surrender meekly. With core of objectivist activists leading the way their is still hope for the greatest country in the world. And don't forget people like me who are American at heart (born in the wrong place) who will do there best to keep it that way.
One of my jobs was to check with the local govt. office if our quota of pig iron had come. I had to go to the office which was on the outskirts of the city on my puny scooter between rashly driven trucks since nobody would tell you anything on the phone even if you somehow got through. One time I went their consecutively for three days , stood outside the office (no place to sit and during summer it can reach 44 deg. C/111 F.) and still had no news of our iron. Since there were no mobile phones at that time and no payphones around I had to beg some official to let me use his phone to make a call.
The staff was indifferent at best of times and outright hostile at other times. All the offices were dull, dusty, drab, dreary and every time you entered one your heart sank a little at the prospect of dealing with people who didn't even bother to look at you and were deliberately dismissive. If you persisted they would snap at you like a rabid dog and it was almost physically painful when you had be very polite and use deferential tone even when you wanted scream at them and ask them if they were human before grinding there faces in the pile of dusty files in front of him.
Sometimes I wish I could have made a virtual tour of the whole experience for the benefit of those people who want more regulation, more interference and remind them of those days. As such we are hardly out of the license and inspector raj and some people want to drag us back to those evil times.
I wish I could tell people in America that I had lived through the worst case scenarios portrayed in "Atlas shrugged" by Ayn Rand. A society which mocks and denigrates the achievements of it's producers is not a pleasant place to live in. I dreaded the days when some new teacher would ask kids about their fathers profession and I kid you not when I say that after saying my father was a businessman I would see contempt and in one particular case downright hostility. This one teacher got on my case and constantly taunted me by saying why did I have study since my father was a big businessman I didn't have to worry about making a living anyway.
I wonder about America's capacity for more abuse. Is Obama going to be the last straw? Is he going to turn people away from socialist idea's by proving their futility and failure. With Santelli's rant on CNBC getting widespread support and a lot of resistance to the bailout I would say Americans are not ready to throw in the towel and surrender meekly. With core of objectivist activists leading the way their is still hope for the greatest country in the world. And don't forget people like me who are American at heart (born in the wrong place) who will do there best to keep it that way.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
