LyrArc Article Gist
Ayn Rand's philosophy. She writes in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" - "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." Rand says the message in our society is always "selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good." But Rand's message is selfishness rather than being an evil is a virtue." Adam Smith wrote about this but in adifferent way, saying that man looks to people around him and is looking for the respect of his peers, this itself is a needed good, something that men and women need badly, the respect and esteem of their peers. For this reason they temper their selfish actions for the common good, or this motive can be tapped for the common good to emerge from self interested actions. The question and the answer not like Rand's which is categorical, is put by Smith in the context of how a man views his actions, and what is best in his enlightened self interest. The answer depends on the values in a society at a particular time, because if everyone is pursuing this self interest by distorting things so that he can pretend to himself that he is doing something for an enlightened motive when there are the crasses motives behind it, like Mr Mozilo of Countrywide promoting mortgages for the poor and unqualified, and society or his peers don't call him to account, or others of more respectable background like Mr Thain and Mr Rubin and many others do the same in nore fashioable ways, then the whole fabric of society is corroded. When the fabric of society is corroded then it doesn't matter which philosophy is held, Marxist, libertarian, free enterprise, right or left as used up terms, because its moral underpinnings which are the only true support are corroded. This may be the reason Smith wisely talked about this in somewhat moral undertones such as winning the respect of peers in society for what you do, given that society had the moral element built into it its mores, customs and ways. This is the difference between Smith and Rand, and Smith and Marx, and Smith and other philosophies that are categorical and rigid. That Alan Greenspan was a member of the Collective or group that was closely associated with Rand, and with Rand's philosophy, may have put blinkers or concealed things from him, which he might have seen if not biased by such views of categorical and rigid nature about the virtues of laissez fairre capitalism in all situations. Reagan's admiration for Rand also may have created a bias in favor of laissez fairre capitalism, when what was needed was an effort to avoid excesses in the other direction of state involvement, without getting tied down to some rigid philosophy that might seriuously impair one's ability to respond in a very different situation of excess in another direction, of individuals promoting their self interest to the ruin of the economic fabric of American society....
Ayn Rand's philosophy. She writes in "Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal" - "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." Rand says the message in our society is always "selfishness is evil; sacrifice for the needs of others is good." But Rand's message is selfishness rather than being an evil is a virtue." Adam Smith wrote about this but in adifferent way, saying that man looks to people around him and is looking for the respect of his peers, this itself is a needed good, something that men and women need badly, the respect and esteem of their peers. For this reason they temper their selfish actions for the common good, or this motive can be tapped for the common good to emerge from self interested actions. The question and the answer not like Rand's which is categorical, is put by Smith in the context of how a man views his actions, and what is best in his enlightened self interest. The answer depends on the values in a society at a particular time, because if everyone is pursuing this self interest by distorting things so that he can pretend to himself that he is doing something for an enlightened motive when there are the crasses motives behind it, like Mr Mozilo of Countrywide promoting mortgages for the poor and unqualified, and society or his peers don't call him to account, or others of more respectable background like Mr Thain and Mr Rubin and many others do the same in nore fashioable ways, then the whole fabric of society is corroded. When the fabric of society is corroded then it doesn't matter which philosophy is held, Marxist, libertarian, free enterprise, right or left as used up terms, because its moral underpinnings which are the only true support are corroded. This may be the reason Smith wisely talked about this in somewhat moral undertones such as winning the respect of peers in society for what you do, given that society had the moral element built into it its mores, customs and ways. This is the difference between Smith and Rand, and Smith and Marx, and Smith and other philosophies that are categorical and rigid. That Alan Greenspan was a member of the Collective or group that was closely associated with Rand, and with Rand's philosophy, may have put blinkers or concealed things from him, which he might have seen if not biased by such views of categorical and rigid nature about the virtues of laissez fairre capitalism in all situations. Reagan's admiration for Rand also may have created a bias in favor of laissez fairre capitalism, when what was needed was an effort to avoid excesses in the other direction of state involvement, without getting tied down to some rigid philosophy that might seriuously impair one's ability to respond in a very different situation of excess in another direction, of individuals promoting their self interest to the ruin of the economic fabric of American society....
