| | Phil,
You'll have to remind of the anarchist in "The Fountainhead" - that doesn't come to mind for me.
------------
Objectivism itself is generally taken to be the real-world application of the principles of "Atlas Shrugged," You have it backwards, Phil. Objectivism is the set of principles that were illustrated by the fictional work: Atlas Shrugged. And Atlas Shrugged showed corporations as structures created by and run by individuals and that individuals' character traits showed in their actions - including the actions taken in the business world, whether as a single propietorship, or as a corporation. That makes your conflation of destructive corporations and symbols of Hank Readon absurd.
------------
FYI: Roark didn't "hang" with construction guys and there was no populuism in the book's theme. I get a strong impression of your reading being done through some darkly colored ideological glasses.
-------------
How did Objectivism get so far off track? It didn't! Some people don't understand it that well. Some people understand the basic principles but don't think that clearly when applying them. Some people think they are Objectivists, but aren't.
-------------
To accept the position that so many "Objectivists" have regarding the anarcho-capitalist position, to wit, that its advocates are morally corrupt and intellectually out to lunch, requires denying the simple fact that many very smart people of apparent rationality and general good will hold this position. You can't be an anarchist of any stripe and be an Objectivist. That is what I've said. That is what my civil and rational discussion has been.
--------------
The essense of real Objectivism is its commitment to reason, to the primacy of existence and the possibility of real knowledge about a real, comprehenceable universe. Lets try to put disagreements over particular issues such as anarchy vs. limited governments into a perspective that doesn't make us look like religious nuts. Give me a break, Phil! You could just have easily said, that we should put aside disagreements over particular issues such as communism vs. limited government. My point has been that you can NOT have free markets without the monopoly of law based upon individual rights. Communism, socialism, facism, anarchy... or individual rights which require minarchy. That position is not some tiny, particular detail.
---------------
Yaron's statement was only paritally correct, and only in a limited sense... but it was also misleading since it didn't address the question directly. It let people think that all the discussions about competing agencies is a useful effort, or that the attempts to abolish intellectual property rights has any justification. It paints two separate goals as if they were very similar and they are not. And it ignores an elephant in the room - the wacko nature of many anarchists and the damage to Libertarianism that comes out of getting into bed with that wacko elephant.
|
|
