I found this post on the glorious internet from CBS news attacking Ayn Rand. I thought I'd respond. to each of their top 10 for fun.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/top-10-reasons-ayn-rand-was-dead-wrong/
First of all, I really have no respect for journalists. They are simply opinionated activists who want you to love them and to love what they love, and vote for what they vote for. The truth and facts are picked through like candy at Halloween. Unbiased reporting has never even really been a thing for most of them.
Anyway here it goes;
Laissez-Faire capitalism doesn't work. Laissez-Faire capitalism is a utopian fantasy. And like all utopias, it cannot actually exist. Therefore, as a philosophy, it needs to be judged on how it gets implemented in the real world, with all the real world's inherent inconsistencies. Just like Marxism, in the real world, produced the Soviet system in Russia, the real world implementation of laissez-faire capitalism, led by Rand-disciple Greenspan, produced the great recession.
How can you have a real world implementation of something that doesn't exist? And that real world example, is Alan Greenspan at the Federal Reserve? A Central Bank? A central Bank is the most blatant example of the exact opposite of "Hands-off" capitalism. How can one person contradict themselves this many times in a paragraph?
Everyone who has every used a crypto currency to buy and sell something used "Laissez-Faire capitalism" to the extreme. Have you ever paid a teenager to cut your grass? How much was the government involved in that? None. So Yes Virginia, Laissez Fair does exist.
Reason has real-world limitations. While I'm all for valuing reason over superstition, the notion that one can use reason without emotion is science fiction. Maybe that works on the planet Vulcan, but human beings swim in a vast ocean of emotion. Emotion governs the "why" behind every exercise of reason, determining our choices of interest and intention. In the real world, people use reason as a way to buttress what their emotions desire.
Emotion governs reason? Rand thought reason is how you interpret reality. Not really that complicated. Her characters had emotions, they simply were not ruled by them. We have cars, planes, and tech because of man's ability to reason.How good are the decisions of people who are governed by fear? By Hate? Even by love itself? "But I love him mom! You don't understand!"
Ayn Rand was a emotional nut case. Regardless of what you think of her philosophy and writing, Rand's personal life was a complete shambles. She became involved in an adulterous affair with a disciple (a "reasonable" decision on her part, of course), and then went all "old bat of out hell" when he made the "reasonable" decision to start boinking some younger woman. The resulting emotional pyrotechnics were a perfect example of the impotence of Objectivism as a life creed.
Ayn Rands philosophy is wrong because she had some relationship problems? Ridiculous. Attacking the personal life of someone is always the last ditch attempt to avoid an actual discussion of the issues or in this case philosophy.
Her philosophy is devoid of gratitude.
So a philosophy is wrong because it doesn't thank you enough?
Reality is NOT an objective absolute.
One of the first definitions of reality:
"1. the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them."
Reality is as close to an absolute you can get. I think she means the above definition, as opposed to the quantum physics definition.
People devoid of morals and integrity like to discuss things in "grey/gray" areas. They say there are no absolutes, without realizing they just stated an absolute contradicting themselves.
Howard Roark was a lousy architect.
Whoa! I don't even know this guy, and I can tell you he has never seen a single building of mine.
- Facts do NOT trump feelings, wishes, hopes, and fears. As any sales professional knows, when dealing with human beings, facts ALWAYS run a distant fifth. That's particularly true when dealing with people who are operating under the fantasy that their decisions are based upon "fact." Emotion trumps reason every time, and nobody is easier to influence emotionally than those who are so unaware of that their emotions that they think they're making "reasonable" decisions.
Here the author is admitting that emotions are used to manipulate people. Which is why his entire article is emotion based.
“We can ignore reality, but we cannot ignore the consequences of ignoring reality.” After the salesman takes your money, the facts remain as they did before. Your emotions will fade and change. Facts and reality will always trump your "hopes".
Every man does NOT exist for his own sake.
Yes you do. You are involved with others based on your own needs and values. If you decide to join a group, it is for your own sake.
Reading Rand creates instant jackasses.
This was my favorite. He is admitting 1 of 2 things.
1. He is a jackass, because he has read Ayn Rand's writings.
2. He didn't read her novels. So he is commenting on things he doesn't even know about or understand.
Based on his emotional hysteria that percolates throughout the article, i think it's number 2. He read some cliff notes, and since his journalist activists friends hate Rand, he jumped on board. I've found this situation to be pretty common.
Rand is the CEOs' favorite philosopher.
He offers no real evidence of this. Did he do a survey? No. He just used emotion again. People don't like rich CEOs. Associate this dislike with Rand's philosophy.
My philosophy and Ayn Rand's philosophy appeal to your reason. Journalists, politicians, and tyrants will always appeal to your emotions. They want you to feel guilty, feel jealousy, feel sorry, and most importantly feel fear. People ruled by emotions are easily ruled. For instance, say you wanted to shutdown the entire world.
