The winners of the Atlas Shrugged Video Contest are announced. In this contest run by the Ayn Rand Institute, the participants were expected to create a short web video within the time limit of three minutes, on how Ayn Rand’s best selling novel relates to their own lives or the society in which they live in.
The winners are:
First place: Lessons from Atlas Shrugged SD by Reg Schickel
Second Place: Lemonaid by Charlotte Jarrett
Third Place: The American Nightmare by Mike Schnell
Friday, January 14, 2011
Thursday, January 13, 2011
India's Commonwealth Games: A National Disgrace
The Commonwealth Games held in New Delhi in October happened to be a national disgrace, instead of accomplishing the collectivist goal of generating "national prestige". The Indian Economy stagnated under socialistic policies for more than four decades. In 1991, amidst the massive economic crisis, the Government began a process of deregulation. The country was economically liberalized and in the last two decades, we have witnessed immense progress. However, the quest for national prestige proves that the collectivist mindset still remains. The commonwealth Games should be opposed primarily for moral reasons, and pragmatic reasons should take the second place, writes Chak Kakani in the winter issue of The Objective Standard.
[This article was originally published in The Objective Standard and is reprinted here by special permission. © 2011 The Objective Standard]
Over the past few years, the Indian government spent $8.5 billion to host the Commonwealth Games (CWG), a multisport event akin to the Olympics, which were held in New Delhi from October 3 through 14, 2010.1 The official purpose of the CWG was to generate “national prestige” for India.2 But the Games did no such thing. In fact, the CWG were a national disgrace. The games showcased a contradiction embraced by Indians that threatens to destroy the economic and political progress they have achieved over the past two decades.
For more than four decades after India gained independence from England in 1947, India’s economy languished under the weight of the socialist policies stemming from the collectivist mind-set of the Indian people. As the economy faltered, India borrowed heavily from other countries and, especially, from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In 1991, due to decades of low productivity and mounting debt, India faced a massive economic crisis: The Indian currency was destabilizing and the government could not pay its debts.
To receive extensions on the debt payments due, the Indian government reluctantly agreed to certain “deregulations” of its economy. In one such allowance, the government loosened restrictions on foreign investments, enabling foreigners to purchase up to 51 percent ownership in certain state-owned enterprises.3 This and similar pragmatic steps resulted in an influx of capital, stabilized the currency, satisfied lenders’ concerns about India’s ability to eventually pay its debts, and led the IMF to temporarily defer India’s loan payments.4 This process of “deregulation” came to be known as “the economic liberalization of India.”
Over the next two decades,
[This article was originally published in The Objective Standard and is reprinted here by special permission. © 2011 The Objective Standard]
Over the past few years, the Indian government spent $8.5 billion to host the Commonwealth Games (CWG), a multisport event akin to the Olympics, which were held in New Delhi from October 3 through 14, 2010.1 The official purpose of the CWG was to generate “national prestige” for India.2 But the Games did no such thing. In fact, the CWG were a national disgrace. The games showcased a contradiction embraced by Indians that threatens to destroy the economic and political progress they have achieved over the past two decades.
For more than four decades after India gained independence from England in 1947, India’s economy languished under the weight of the socialist policies stemming from the collectivist mind-set of the Indian people. As the economy faltered, India borrowed heavily from other countries and, especially, from the International Monetary Fund (IMF). In 1991, due to decades of low productivity and mounting debt, India faced a massive economic crisis: The Indian currency was destabilizing and the government could not pay its debts.
To receive extensions on the debt payments due, the Indian government reluctantly agreed to certain “deregulations” of its economy. In one such allowance, the government loosened restrictions on foreign investments, enabling foreigners to purchase up to 51 percent ownership in certain state-owned enterprises.3 This and similar pragmatic steps resulted in an influx of capital, stabilized the currency, satisfied lenders’ concerns about India’s ability to eventually pay its debts, and led the IMF to temporarily defer India’s loan payments.4 This process of “deregulation” came to be known as “the economic liberalization of India.”
Over the next two decades,
Monday, January 10, 2011
The Regulated Patient
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration started withdrawing its approval of Avastin, a drug used for slowing down the spread of breast cancer in the month of December. It had approved its use for various forms of cancer in the recent past. The drug itself will not be removed initially, but the breast cancer indication from the label will be taken off as the first phase. The excuse is that the potential benefits to the patients do not outweigh the risk incurred. The collectivist notion which runs through such policies is that voluntary preferences of individuals do not matter and our regulatory authorities are entitled to decide taking in “the highest science” in to account. This highest science, of course, should come from the all-knowing state, the agency of brutality and torture. Never mind the fact that we are trying to reconcile so incompatible two elements as that of force and mind! Or that individual desires give us a different picture!
Tom Bowden rightfully asks in Pajamas Media: “Can risks and benefits really be weighed at the level of society as a whole? A society is only a collection of individuals. A society doesn’t enjoy life, or suffer—only individuals do. Metaphors aside, a society doesn’t get sick and die—only individuals do. To appreciate the difference, consider how a rational patient with breast cancer decides whether to undergo drug treatment.”
Here science is being used against its right beneficiaries by the FDA irrespective of their wishes and the context of their lives. Needless to mention, it makes no sense to argue that the state knows better than the individual comprising it-Or that it has right to take decisions which have life and death control over them through coercive means. The unscrupulous sales of poor quality drugs will ensure that a drug manufacturing company will fall by the wayside in no time. What purpose is served by substituting the preferences of the authorities with that of individuals and weakening that process of healthy market correction?
As Alex Epstein informs us: "To prevent patients from choosing their own risks is to prevent the rational, contextual judgments that their lives require--which often means to condemn them to suffering and death. The history of the FDA is filled with bans or delays of drugs like Interleukin-2, TPa, and various beta-blockers that many would have benefited from had they been free to take them. The death toll from such bans is, according to conservative estimates, in the hundreds of thousands."
Tom Bowden rightfully asks in Pajamas Media: “Can risks and benefits really be weighed at the level of society as a whole? A society is only a collection of individuals. A society doesn’t enjoy life, or suffer—only individuals do. Metaphors aside, a society doesn’t get sick and die—only individuals do. To appreciate the difference, consider how a rational patient with breast cancer decides whether to undergo drug treatment.”
Here science is being used against its right beneficiaries by the FDA irrespective of their wishes and the context of their lives. Needless to mention, it makes no sense to argue that the state knows better than the individual comprising it-Or that it has right to take decisions which have life and death control over them through coercive means. The unscrupulous sales of poor quality drugs will ensure that a drug manufacturing company will fall by the wayside in no time. What purpose is served by substituting the preferences of the authorities with that of individuals and weakening that process of healthy market correction?
As Alex Epstein informs us: "To prevent patients from choosing their own risks is to prevent the rational, contextual judgments that their lives require--which often means to condemn them to suffering and death. The history of the FDA is filled with bans or delays of drugs like Interleukin-2, TPa, and various beta-blockers that many would have benefited from had they been free to take them. The death toll from such bans is, according to conservative estimates, in the hundreds of thousands."
Monday, January 3, 2011
A statistical video on human progress over the past 200 years
Watch this amazing video that plots the wealth and health of 200 countries over the past 200 years!
http://www.flixxy.com/200-countries-200-years-4-minutes.htm
http://www.flixxy.com/200-countries-200-years-4-minutes.htm
Saturday, January 1, 2011
Two Champions Of Liberty
Frederic Bastiat, the most brilliant Economic journalist of all times passed away last week 160 years back.
I personally feel grateful to have come across Bastiat’s petition of the candle makers early in my life. He was the first proper Economist I had read. He held views strikingly similar to that of my favorite novelist-philosopher, Ayn Rand. Both made no theoretical original contribution to their respective fields, but arguably have advanced the cause of liberty more than almost everyone else. They spoke obvious truths which were habitually ignored. Few were as good at reductio ad absurdum as Rand and Bastiat. Both are looked down upon by the academia for lacking theoretical depth, writing intelligently, and characteristics which amounted to “lack of scholarly virtues” and “incompetence” in the eyes of the establishment. Despite the truckloads of avoidable mistakes both have made, they have shown us how much is possible without compromising intellectual rigor or pandering to men’s innate predispositions which are so inimical to the spirit of liberty. It is hard not to see the exceptional talent which roars through their works.
Bastiat, like Rand clearly saw the error of anti-capitalists who abhorred doctrines, systems and principles and ridiculed their “practice without theory and without principle.” They were united against the absurd claim that theory and practice stood opposed to each other. Both rejected pragmatism and understood where irrational skepticism and moral relativism will lead us to. Everything is “a point of view”, they knew, is a notion in which only fools and liars believe in, as it is a rationalization of the unjustifiable attitude that anything goes as long as one can get away with it! Men, both held, can’t survive by adopting a strategy of living on the range of the moment. Bastiat knew that economic science in itself can’t pronounce value judgments, but didn’t hesitate in seeing robbery for what it is, unlike later economists like Mises who were tied down by their rejection of moral absolutism. They found agreement in the conclusion that if morality was pitted against the self interest of a person, he will be forced to give up his moral sense. Bastiat went beyond to say that man will lose his moral sense or respect for law if one stood against the other. Rightful interests of men, they knew, won’t ever clash. The absurdity in imposing morality through force was something Rand and Bastiat stated in strikingly similar words. Rand, like Bastiat, scorned Government officials as exacting parasites. “Naked greed and misconceived philanthropy”, it is true, is the root of all social evils. When Bastiat asked “If mankind is not competent to judge for itself, why do they talk so much about universal suffrage?”, Rand thundered, according to the tribal notion, “You’re incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others”. They had the same answer to the welfare state: “At whose expense?”
Their views on self interest were ridden with inconsistencies, but what they got right is far less appreciated by free market thinkers even today. Bastiat, unlike Rand held the largely indefensible position that one can work in social sciences without any reference to self interest. There is much merit in his position, though, in the sense that one would be compelled to support Capitalism even if one believed in the moral code of altruism, a point which Rand didn’t concede. However Bastiat missed the larger truth that people vote altruistically (as recent studies on voter behavior tells us), and as long as they remain in the state of colossal economic ignorance they are bound to support policies which harm the very larger good they have in mind. If voters rejected the morality of altruism, at least the ones who get a raw deal in the end will oppose a disastrous policy. If they considered altruism a virtue or common good a worthy end to pursue, the ones who oppose such a policy would be statistically insignificant.
I personally feel grateful to have come across Bastiat’s petition of the candle makers early in my life. He was the first proper Economist I had read. He held views strikingly similar to that of my favorite novelist-philosopher, Ayn Rand. Both made no theoretical original contribution to their respective fields, but arguably have advanced the cause of liberty more than almost everyone else. They spoke obvious truths which were habitually ignored. Few were as good at reductio ad absurdum as Rand and Bastiat. Both are looked down upon by the academia for lacking theoretical depth, writing intelligently, and characteristics which amounted to “lack of scholarly virtues” and “incompetence” in the eyes of the establishment. Despite the truckloads of avoidable mistakes both have made, they have shown us how much is possible without compromising intellectual rigor or pandering to men’s innate predispositions which are so inimical to the spirit of liberty. It is hard not to see the exceptional talent which roars through their works.
Bastiat, like Rand clearly saw the error of anti-capitalists who abhorred doctrines, systems and principles and ridiculed their “practice without theory and without principle.” They were united against the absurd claim that theory and practice stood opposed to each other. Both rejected pragmatism and understood where irrational skepticism and moral relativism will lead us to. Everything is “a point of view”, they knew, is a notion in which only fools and liars believe in, as it is a rationalization of the unjustifiable attitude that anything goes as long as one can get away with it! Men, both held, can’t survive by adopting a strategy of living on the range of the moment. Bastiat knew that economic science in itself can’t pronounce value judgments, but didn’t hesitate in seeing robbery for what it is, unlike later economists like Mises who were tied down by their rejection of moral absolutism. They found agreement in the conclusion that if morality was pitted against the self interest of a person, he will be forced to give up his moral sense. Bastiat went beyond to say that man will lose his moral sense or respect for law if one stood against the other. Rightful interests of men, they knew, won’t ever clash. The absurdity in imposing morality through force was something Rand and Bastiat stated in strikingly similar words. Rand, like Bastiat, scorned Government officials as exacting parasites. “Naked greed and misconceived philanthropy”, it is true, is the root of all social evils. When Bastiat asked “If mankind is not competent to judge for itself, why do they talk so much about universal suffrage?”, Rand thundered, according to the tribal notion, “You’re incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others”. They had the same answer to the welfare state: “At whose expense?”
Their views on self interest were ridden with inconsistencies, but what they got right is far less appreciated by free market thinkers even today. Bastiat, unlike Rand held the largely indefensible position that one can work in social sciences without any reference to self interest. There is much merit in his position, though, in the sense that one would be compelled to support Capitalism even if one believed in the moral code of altruism, a point which Rand didn’t concede. However Bastiat missed the larger truth that people vote altruistically (as recent studies on voter behavior tells us), and as long as they remain in the state of colossal economic ignorance they are bound to support policies which harm the very larger good they have in mind. If voters rejected the morality of altruism, at least the ones who get a raw deal in the end will oppose a disastrous policy. If they considered altruism a virtue or common good a worthy end to pursue, the ones who oppose such a policy would be statistically insignificant.
Saturday, December 25, 2010
Ayn Rand while commuting
I suppose we have all seen this while commuting- at least those who travel with the hoi polloi -someone reading a Rand book, often the Fountainhead:
On a couple of occasions I have seen dullish looking housewife types in traditional sarees poring over the Fountainhead and wondered if they were 'getting it'. I'm glad if they 'got' even one percent. Who knows what personal awakening that bit might produce.
Cross posted at What the Heck is Art?
 |
| Reading Ayn Rand |
On a couple of occasions I have seen dullish looking housewife types in traditional sarees poring over the Fountainhead and wondered if they were 'getting it'. I'm glad if they 'got' even one percent. Who knows what personal awakening that bit might produce.
Cross posted at What the Heck is Art?
Sunday, December 12, 2010
The Sixth Sense
This is the video that we created as our submission to the Ayn Rand Institute's Atlas Shrugged Video Contest.
Our movie was filmed and edited by Abhay Kumar -- a talented filmmaker.
The concept for the script was written and developed by Gazal Dhaliwal--a close friend, gifted script writer, and intellectual friend of Objectivism.
I provided the philosophical consultation, advise, and approach to creating a video that conveyed the right messages.
So here is our finished product. I am pleased with the outcome. If you enjoy the video as well, then please show us your support by VOTING for the video at the contest website. You can vote once per day from each computer. And you can vote all the way till the end of the contest on December 22.
Our movie was filmed and edited by Abhay Kumar -- a talented filmmaker.
The concept for the script was written and developed by Gazal Dhaliwal--a close friend, gifted script writer, and intellectual friend of Objectivism.
I provided the philosophical consultation, advise, and approach to creating a video that conveyed the right messages.
So here is our finished product. I am pleased with the outcome. If you enjoy the video as well, then please show us your support by VOTING for the video at the contest website. You can vote once per day from each computer. And you can vote all the way till the end of the contest on December 22.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Enter The Atlas Shrugged Video Contest!
The “Atlas Shrugged” Video Contest will end in a few weeks, so be sure to submit your entries and vote on your favorite videos!
The “Atlas Shrugged” Video Contest is a challenge to anyone with a video recorder who has read “Atlas Shrugged” and wants to change the world.
Create a short web video, three minutes max, on how Ayn Rand’s epic story relates to current issues in society or in your own life. Videos will be judged on their intellectual strength, creativity and persuasiveness.
Grand prize: $5,000
2nd prize: $1,000
Viewer’s Choice award: Apple iPad pre-loaded with works of Ayn Rand
Contest ends: December 8, 2010, at 11:59 pm (PST)
For more information, please refer to the Official Rules page. Or contact this mail address:
Ayn Rand Institute
2121 Alton Parkway, Suite 250
Irvine, CA 92606
Telephone: 949-222-6550
E-mail address: contest@AtlasShrugged.com
Website: http://atlasshrugged.com/
Monday, November 8, 2010
The "Giving Pledge"
The “giving pledge” of Warren Buffett and Bill Gates was signed by 40 of the wealthiest Americans. Gates and Buffett have asked the wealthiest to give up half of their wealth for philanthropic causes. Strangely, many complied and many more are like to, in coming days. Don Watkins and Yaron Brook of the Ayn Rand Institute has called it the “guilt pledge’ in Forbes. “Charity is not a primary virtue”, said Ayn Rand.
We are usually reminded that we could wipe out poverty if only we would be willing to sacrifice a little more. “What good would it do, for a corporate CEO to have one more private jet?” they ask. An overwhelming majority of world’s population lives in near starvation. Any sane, intelligent person can look upon this fact and pass his judgment that charity, definitely, isn’t a solution to this problem. How are we supposed to deal with a problem of this scale through sacrifices? When they say sacrifices are to be made out of profits, they ignore the basic economic fact that every penny given to charity is taken out of what would have been employed in capital investment or personal luxury.
Charity is, needless to mention, a virtue on a free, uncontrolled, unregulated economy if exercised in the right manner. Not for a single moment is anyone saying that we shouldn’t help men thrown into poverty by no fault of their own, but we should know what makes and keeps them poor. It would certainly be argued that their problems need immediate attention, and few have anything to say against it. What is to be said against it is that ‘charity’ or welfare state as a policy would only exacerbate their problems. Even if all the richest men on the earth try to cure poverty through charity, they won’t reach anywhere close to it, as the poor are too much for them to take care of.
We now see the richest men on earth running around like Santa Clauses, which forces me to believe that they do really believe what they preach. At least on a conscious level, they do, otherwise they wouldn’t have been willing to spend their hard earned money that way. We get to one more reason why a libertarian education is essential for each and every man on earth. It would relieve the rich of their guilt and the neurotics of their inferiority complex. Alienation and scapegoating has a lot to do with it.
We are usually reminded that we could wipe out poverty if only we would be willing to sacrifice a little more. “What good would it do, for a corporate CEO to have one more private jet?” they ask. An overwhelming majority of world’s population lives in near starvation. Any sane, intelligent person can look upon this fact and pass his judgment that charity, definitely, isn’t a solution to this problem. How are we supposed to deal with a problem of this scale through sacrifices? When they say sacrifices are to be made out of profits, they ignore the basic economic fact that every penny given to charity is taken out of what would have been employed in capital investment or personal luxury.
Charity is, needless to mention, a virtue on a free, uncontrolled, unregulated economy if exercised in the right manner. Not for a single moment is anyone saying that we shouldn’t help men thrown into poverty by no fault of their own, but we should know what makes and keeps them poor. It would certainly be argued that their problems need immediate attention, and few have anything to say against it. What is to be said against it is that ‘charity’ or welfare state as a policy would only exacerbate their problems. Even if all the richest men on the earth try to cure poverty through charity, they won’t reach anywhere close to it, as the poor are too much for them to take care of.
We now see the richest men on earth running around like Santa Clauses, which forces me to believe that they do really believe what they preach. At least on a conscious level, they do, otherwise they wouldn’t have been willing to spend their hard earned money that way. We get to one more reason why a libertarian education is essential for each and every man on earth. It would relieve the rich of their guilt and the neurotics of their inferiority complex. Alienation and scapegoating has a lot to do with it.
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
The Morality Of Abortions
In the 2010 state ballot in Colorado, the 62nd amendment will appear which states that the term ‘person’ shall apply to every human being from the beginning of the biological development of that human being”. It would mean the “sanction” of full legal rights to embryos. It wishes to eliminate abortion and all sorts of contraceptives.
Abortions, it is often argued, would break up the natural order and balance in the ‘society’. No one cares to ask the question- ‘Natural order’ and ‘balance’-For whom? The inanimate matter doesn’t have any rights; nor does a ‘fictitious body. What would it mean to state that it is not the individuals as such that matter, but it is the interacting individuals -‘Society’-that matter? If the individuals doesn’t matter one way or another, & the interacting individuals do matter, it can only imply that it is the interactions that matter. Or else, it could mean that the benefit derived by some of the interacting individuals takes precedence over the rights of others.
Let’s have a look at the implication of those arguments from morality. Let things be as it is. Let the parents suffer. Let the child suffer all her life. Let the ‘society’ suffer as a result.-And let the interactions be preserved-Based on a false theory, a contradiction which has no justification whatsoever. As Ayn Rand observed: “The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”
Morality is not a spoon that hangs on your roof. It’s a set of rules to live consciously and self-responsibly. We shouldn’t forget that the legalization of abortion in the many parts of the United States brought down crimes unbelievably. Steven D Levitt and Stephen J Dubner informs us: “What else might we look for in the data to establish an abortion-crime link? One factor to look for would be a correlation between each state’s abortion rate and its crime rate. Sure enough, the states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s, while states with low abortion rates experienced smaller crime drops. Since 1985, states with high abortion rates have experienced a roughly 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion states.” Even if common good is the standard of morality, the arguments in support of abortion still hold.
Abortions, it is often argued, would break up the natural order and balance in the ‘society’. No one cares to ask the question- ‘Natural order’ and ‘balance’-For whom? The inanimate matter doesn’t have any rights; nor does a ‘fictitious body. What would it mean to state that it is not the individuals as such that matter, but it is the interacting individuals -‘Society’-that matter? If the individuals doesn’t matter one way or another, & the interacting individuals do matter, it can only imply that it is the interactions that matter. Or else, it could mean that the benefit derived by some of the interacting individuals takes precedence over the rights of others.
Let’s have a look at the implication of those arguments from morality. Let things be as it is. Let the parents suffer. Let the child suffer all her life. Let the ‘society’ suffer as a result.-And let the interactions be preserved-Based on a false theory, a contradiction which has no justification whatsoever. As Ayn Rand observed: “The task of raising a child is a tremendous, lifelong responsibility, which no one should undertake unwittingly or unwillingly. Procreation is not a duty: human beings are not stock-farm animals. For conscientious persons, an unwanted pregnancy is a disaster; to oppose its termination is to advocate sacrifice, not for the sake of anyone’s benefit, but for the sake of misery qua misery, for the sake of forbidding happiness and fulfillment to living human beings.”
Morality is not a spoon that hangs on your roof. It’s a set of rules to live consciously and self-responsibly. We shouldn’t forget that the legalization of abortion in the many parts of the United States brought down crimes unbelievably. Steven D Levitt and Stephen J Dubner informs us: “What else might we look for in the data to establish an abortion-crime link? One factor to look for would be a correlation between each state’s abortion rate and its crime rate. Sure enough, the states with the highest abortion rates in the 1970s experienced the greatest crime drops in the 1990s, while states with low abortion rates experienced smaller crime drops. Since 1985, states with high abortion rates have experienced a roughly 30 percent drop in crime relative to low-abortion states.” Even if common good is the standard of morality, the arguments in support of abortion still hold.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Nietzsche and the Nazi’s
The recently published “Nietzsche and the Nazi’s A Personal View” by Stephen Hicks, an Objectivist is a brilliant analysis of the philosophical roots of Nazism.
Hicks tells us how philosophy plays a dominant role in shaping history. The part I find particularly impressive is the section in which Hicks deals with Anti-individualism and collectivism. He points out that the National Socialists were collectivistic and anti-individualistic in a horrible sense. They rejected the idea that men are ends in themselves. Hicks reaffirms Ayn Rand’s contention that Nietzsche’s individualism is largely overstated. While I don’t find the idea of individuals creating themselves from scratch quite plausible, we are by and large responsible for our own destiny. Nietzsche believed the exact opposite, and such determinism can never be an adequate foundation for Individualism.
The counterfeit individualism of Nietzsche is evident in this passage:
“Nietzsche believes that most individuals have no right to exist and—more brutally—he asserts that if they were sacrificed or slaughtered that would be an improvement. In Nietzsche’s own words: “mankind in the mass sacrificed to the prosperity of a single stronger species of man—that would be an advance.”And again: “One must learn from war: one must learn to sacrifice many and to take one’s cause seriously enough not to spare men.” It is hard to see as an individualist
Hicks tells us how philosophy plays a dominant role in shaping history. The part I find particularly impressive is the section in which Hicks deals with Anti-individualism and collectivism. He points out that the National Socialists were collectivistic and anti-individualistic in a horrible sense. They rejected the idea that men are ends in themselves. Hicks reaffirms Ayn Rand’s contention that Nietzsche’s individualism is largely overstated. While I don’t find the idea of individuals creating themselves from scratch quite plausible, we are by and large responsible for our own destiny. Nietzsche believed the exact opposite, and such determinism can never be an adequate foundation for Individualism.
The counterfeit individualism of Nietzsche is evident in this passage:
“Nietzsche believes that most individuals have no right to exist and—more brutally—he asserts that if they were sacrificed or slaughtered that would be an improvement. In Nietzsche’s own words: “mankind in the mass sacrificed to the prosperity of a single stronger species of man—that would be an advance.”And again: “One must learn from war: one must learn to sacrifice many and to take one’s cause seriously enough not to spare men.” It is hard to see as an individualist
Thursday, October 14, 2010
'Ayn Rand - India' features among "30 Best Blogs for Exploring Objectivism"
A website called "Accredited Online Colleges" has posted an article on the best blogs for exploring Objectivism. Our blog features in the list at number 14.
ARI announces first ever 'Atlas Shrugged' Video Contest
|
Wednesday, September 22, 2010
Anti-Business Mentality
In the Indian society, businessman are not regarded highly enough as of various cultural reasons and prejudices. Much of it had to do with the caste system, but it can’t be solely attributed to it. The situation is universal, though there are variations in the degree of the bias from country to country. The reasons behind it as obvious, as it would become evident in these words of Ayn Rand: “Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honour. Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers--as industrialists.”
People instinctively grasp that some men rightly deserve their wealth, and for many, nothing can be more unbearable than this. People hate Capitalism for the same reason, that it rewards people based on their socially objective value. Moser put it eloquently, though sympathizing with people plagued by such notions : “Life in a society in which success would exclusively depend on personal merit would simply be unbearable. “
All this is not to say that businessmen never acquire their wealth through devious means. No advocate of Capitalism, as far as I know, had said that businessmen are angels, and would always act in their rational self-interest. Omkar Ghate reminds us in his column in Forbes that being pro business is not the same as “assuaging the desires of the business lobby.” One of the most common arguments (It is not exactly an argument) I hear against her works is that it worships businessmen and corporations. Now, this is not true at all. What is intended is just that businessmen perform a very important, and often underestimated function. Many of her villains, her critics forget, are the worst kind of statists .
In the words of Ghate , “The true producer Rand shows, makes just one demand of
Saturday, September 18, 2010
Atlas Meet in Delhi - Watch the additional disc in the boxed set of Ayn Rand's "We The Living" on DVD
The next monthly Atlas Meet in Delhi will take place on Saturday, 18 September, 2010. The last couple of meetings have focused on the screening of the movie version of Ayn Rand's debut novel "We The Living" on DVD (courtesy Rajendra Lakhotia). Staying with that theme, we propose to view the additional disc in the boxed set that contains the scenes deleted from the original and many interviews of people associated with the movie.
This movie has a checkered history - it was made in Italy during World War II, without Ayn Rand's knowledge or permission and was based on an unauthorized Italian translation of the novel. It has some stellar performances by Alida Valli and Rossano Brazzi and was a cult hit in Italy at the time of its release.
Decades later, Duncan Scott helped restore the film and re-edit it for release under Ayn Rand's guidance. The additional disc captures many moments that were deleted from the original Italian version and tells the story behind the re-discovery of the film and its painstaking restoration.
[Last month, Mr.Scott had offered DVD sets of the movie to us for $25 (Rs.1250) each and many of us have ordered our own copy. Just a handful of DVDs are still left, so those still interested may send a mail to vbajaj@aynrand.in to order their copy.]
Date
18 September 2010
Time
5.30 pm - 7.45 pm
The Agenda
Session I (Savor and Study)
5.30 pm - 6.30 pm: Watch the additional disc of the DVD set of "We The Living"
6.30 pm - 7.00 pm: Tea and snacks break.
Session II (Spread and Sustain)
7.00 pm - 7.45 pm: Discussions on the movie and a broad range of topics, including ways to spread Ayn Rand's ideas
The Venue
inlingua International School of Languages,
N-12, first floor,
South Extension - Part I
It is an open meeting - anyone interested in Ayn Rand's ideas is welcome. You may call Vikram on 9810028900 for directions. If you're planning to attend, it would be helpful if you let us know by leaving a comment below or by sending an email to vbajaj@aynrand.in .
Time
5.30 pm - 7.45 pm
The Agenda
Session I (Savor and Study)
5.30 pm - 6.30 pm: Watch the additional disc of the DVD set of "We The Living"
6.30 pm - 7.00 pm: Tea and snacks break.
Session II (Spread and Sustain)
7.00 pm - 7.45 pm: Discussions on the movie and a broad range of topics, including ways to spread Ayn Rand's ideas
The Venue
inlingua International School of Languages,
N-12, first floor,
South Extension - Part I
It is an open meeting - anyone interested in Ayn Rand's ideas is welcome. You may call Vikram on 9810028900 for directions. If you're planning to attend, it would be helpful if you let us know by leaving a comment below or by sending an email to vbajaj@aynrand.in .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
