Comic Strips is a community for those who love comic stories.
The rules are simple:
Web of links
Ayn Rand didn't stop smoking after she'd been warned about the risks.
Because her books weren't selling, she ended up on social security, a program she'd mocked when healthy.
To her admirers she is a model of the power of intellect and the glory of self reliance and independence
"The only moral use of [thing I disapprove of] is my use of [thing I disapprove of]."
A quote that may have originally been about abortion, but applies to most things that serial disapprovers disapprove of.
See also: "Do as I say, not as I do." or as it usually is these days: "Do as I say. I am also doing as I say and if think you see me doing otherwise, no you didn't."
I will never get tired of linking to this: The Only Moral Abortion Is My Abortion
Can I be tired of how relevant it still is?
I genuinely hate to disagree but taking social security when you need it is acting in your natural self interest. It's not hypocritical. Ironic yes but not "do as I say not as I do". Also doesn't make it a good philosophy to govern by
The issue here isn't her being on social security, it's her arguing against its existence because 'Nobody should need it'.
Please reread the comment I'm responded to
We did. If she was consistent, she should have just chosen to die since it’s wrong for others to help her.
That would not be acting in her "rational self interest" read the comic. Ayn Rand was a monster but that's just not the definition of hypocrite and it is not in line with saying "do as I say not as I do". She said be selfish take what you can and did. I do not agree with this but I'm not pretending it's hypocritical. It is consistent with her fucked up beliefs
The rational self interest bit isn't what makes her a hypocrite here. RSI is a position that states you take whatever you can whenever you can, so it fits perfectly. The reason we're calling her a hypocrite is because she spent years calling social security "immoral" only to hop right on it immediately when it became beneficial to her.
Ayn Rand: "Social security is an immoral redistribution of wealth and should be abolished. One is entitled to what they've earned themselves."
Also Ayn Rand:
because she spent years calling social security “immoral” only to hop right on it immediately when it became beneficial to her.
Right. When it benefited her. You can still participate in a system you believe is immoral without being a hypocrite. This is like calling a socialist a hypocrite because they exist in a capitalist society. That's just not true. Within the realm of her own control she acted consistently. It is ironic and emblematic as the antithesis of her own philosophy (which is hilarious and enraging), but it is not hypocritical. Calling it so just weakens the real criticism.
I think you're taking too broad strokes with participation. . A socialist MUST participate in a capitalist system as that's the world around them. That does not make a socialist a hypocrite. However the socialist CAN participate in the capitalist system in a way that socialism ideologically considers exploitative (as a capital owner who exploits others). That makes a socialist a hypocrite.
As for Ayn Rand, she MUST participate in social security to the extent where she has to give a part of her wealth to social security programs. However she CAN, but doesn't have to, use social security for get benefit. She ideologically opposed social security, but when the time came she chose to use the very thing she opposed. It's textbook hypocrisy. If she wanted to be consistent with her ideology she shouldn't have relied on social security.
However she CAN, but doesn’t have to, use social security for get benefit.
If she did not take it when it benefited her, that would have been hypocritical. She was acting selfishly and taking the money she could. In fact she HAS TO in order to be acting in her own self interest. Are you arguing that taking social security when you can is not in your self interest? If she had been saying not to take social security until that point that also would have been hypocritical (afaik that was not what she was saying but I can't find anything definitive, her arguments were generally just anti tax and now I've ruined my search history). Saying that social security shouldn't exist and that it is immoral to force people to pay into it and all that other bs rhetoric is not against the people taking social security, it's for the government taking taxes for these programs in an effort to end the program.
as that’s the world around them
Exactly. But just like the socialist that is operating in the society they're in with the beliefs they have, Ayn Rand was operating in RSI when she took social security because it was available. This is irony. This is disgusting. This shows how her beliefs are bad and wrong. It shows how the right wingers can act against their own interests. But this is not hypocrisy. I can still believe gambling at a casino is a good money making venture even when I go broke gambling, I'm not a hypocrite, I'm just dumb. Ayn Rand can still believe social security is immoral even as she takes money from it, she's just dumb.
You actually were referring to the comic, not the post you were responding to. The post you responded to did not say that at all.
The fact that she eventually needed the social security checks shows that it was in her natural self interest for the system to exist and for her to pay into it. A safety net, whether or not you will ever personally use it, is something that is good for society overall and serves everyone's self-interest by being there to catch one when they fall.
If you're walking a high-wire, it is in your rational self interest to use a harness. Even if it costs money to ensure everyone gets a harness, and suppose you even have a high enough "skill" that you never actually get to use yours; a world that you never have to see anyone fall to their bloody death or worry about your own death is certainly better than the brutal alternative for the amount you pay into the harness.
If you go to a festival and there are paramedics on standby, just in case; the paramedics have to get paid even if nobody ends up needing them, but they are there because the chances are high enough that somebody could get hurt and the response will be much more efficient with better outcomes if travel time to the venue isn't a factor. Nobody plans to get hurt, but everyone pays into it through the ticket price. It is in everyone's self-interest to have them there. If you follow Randian philosophy, it is only in your interest if you happen to be the one that gets hurt, but this is entirely unpredictable.
She's a hypocrite, because she herself is not able to fairly assess her own natural self-interest but her philosophy expects everyone else to be able to do so.
Too bad people began to worship her instead
source: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/364 (it has mouseover text too...)
The problem is that in a closed economy, an increase in production without increased consumption will result in over production and closed down factories.
It isn't in capitalist's long term interests to increase production and cut wages across an entire economy. Having a very high net savings rate (whatever you don't consume is by definition, savings) is not a good thing as a country.
America's early growth was based on being a high wage and high consumption country.
However, in an open economy, you can export your excess savings (and underconsumption) to other countries. This was an issue during the great depression (called "beggar thy neighbour").
It is a big problem in the global economy right now with China, Taiwan, Korea, Germany, Denmark, etc. all having stagnant or low consumption shares of the economy while exporting their net savings to persistant trade deficit countries like the United States, UK, Australia and Canada (noting Australia and Canada sometimes have surpluses when commodity prices are high).
It relies on the net deficit countries being willing to accept net capital inflows and all the issues with having persistent trade deficits (deindustrialisation, high debts, etc.) forever, which isn't possible.
So in short, increasing profits and cutting wages (and/or the overall workforce) might work for an individual greedy douchebag but it is a terrible thing for the entire economy.
I'm still waiting for a critique of rational self-interest that doesn't fail right out of the gate by stipulating an irrational position or decision.
This one wasn't even vaguely close.
All of Ayn Rand's own examples of rational self interest were irrational and against her interests. It's such an easy philosophy to mock because it's just really stupid. True rational self interest would involve creating cooperative structures that give a safety net if anything goes wrong just like how it's rational to get home insurance even if you don't expect to burn your house down. Anyone drawing Randian conclusions can't have thought of rational self interest.
True rational self interest would involve creating cooperative structures that give a safety net if anything goes wrong just like how it's rational to get home insurance even if you don't expect to burn your house down.
This is the part that drives me nuts. Plenty of today's decision makers only survive later thanks to social nets. But they're so sure that they won't be, they're willing to cut back social benefits to make a quick buck.
All of Ayn Rand's own examples of rational self interest were irrational and against her interests.
Yes, they were. She was a shallow, ego-driven, willfully ignorant reactionary.
But that has nothing really to do with rational self-interest as an idea.
It's such an easy philosophy to mock because it's just really stupid.
Except that it's not.
What's stupid is the plainly irrational choices that are made and ascribed to "rational" self-interest.
True rational self interest would involve creating cooperative structures that give a safety net if anything goes wrong.
Exactly.
So the simple fact of the matter is that when someone argues against those safety nets, they aren't actually arguing from a position of rational self-interest.
The philosophy hasn't failed - they have.
When people use the phrase rational self interest they're overwhelmingly meaning what Ayn Rand called rational self interest. If you take the words literally, they apply to any political philosophy as no one's trying to design a system against their own interests. The disagreements come from people disagreeing what their interests are and how they can feasibly have them fulfilled, not because they don't want their interests fulfilled. No one else bothers using the phrase because it's obviously the goal and stating that would be entirely redundant, but risk making it sound like you were advocating for something Randian.
But that has nothing really to do with rational self-interest as an idea.
But that's the stance that proponents of 'rational self-interest' have settled on. It's not just a mindset, it's an ideology. The mindset you have in mind may make sense, but the ideology it has become does not, and that is what people are making fun of.
But that's the stance that proponents of 'rational self-interest' have settled on.
No - it's the stance that people who want to self-affirmingly publicly proclaim their hatred of Rand have assigned to proponents of rational self-interest.
That's the heart of my criticism - people don't discuss or debate the idea - they just trip over each other in their rush to be the one to most vividly proclaim their hatred of Rand. Hating Rand is like a hip internet leftist membership badge, so every time her name comes up, everybody who wants to solidify their image as a hip internet leftist rushes in to say, "Hey! Look at me! Look at how much I hate her! That means I'm one of you!"
And since the hatred comes first, everything else is shaped to accommodate it. Like, for instance, misrepresenting the idea of rational self-interest so that it becomes something easily condemned so that it can be added to the list of reasons to hate Rand.
I think what you're describing is more wheelhouse of the less often talked about Egoism of Stirner, than the Objectivism of Rand.
Yes, they were. She was a shallow, ego-driven, willfully ignorant egotist.
While I agree that she's had an overall negative effect on society, I wonder if her world view more came from trauma of living in the Soviet Union and (falsely) assuming that the exact opposite had to be good
The problem being that it wasn't the exact opposite. In fact, they had a lot of things in common. The leaders of both being self-interested megalomaniacs who desired control of all things around them.
The leaders of both being self-interested megalomaniacs who desired control of all things around them.
That's easer to point out after the fact. I wouldn't be surprised if the USSR was hitting all of their citizens with propaganda much like the US used to do with the "Land of the Free" saying
They were, yes.
See? Another similarity.
It was definitely a reaction to living under an authoritarian regime. The problem was that the reaction wasn't "I don't want this to ever happen again", it was "I want to be the one in charge".
They were, yes.
See? Another similarity.
How to be an insufferable cunt in 1 easy step!
Lady in red is presenting an extremely common series of steps that companies take for the owner/investor self interest in profit.
How is it critiquing an irrational position?
That series of steps, common or not, is bludgeoningly irrational, and for multiple reasons.
In fact, the introductory part of the comic, showing her rejecting the entirely rational option of working half as long to produce the same amount clearly communicates the point that it's irrational, as does the last frame, illustrating the consequences of her self-evidently irrational choice.
She is, however, acting in her own rational self-interest by keeping all the value of the new machine for herself and not passing it on to her workers. If she were acting in the group's rational self-interest, she would allow them to work half as long. Since she is acting in her own rational self-interest, she threatens to fire her workers if they do not work the same hours as before and pass the value on to her. From her perspective, it makes perfect sense: all she has to do is install the new machine and make no other changes, and she and begins earning twice as much income from the factory she owns, without having to lift a finger. Any purely rational person (as opposed, mind you, to an empathetic one) would take the option to do that.
She is, however, acting in her own rational self-interest by keeping all the value of the new machine for herself and not passing it on to her workers.
No, she rather obviously is not, as vividly illustrated by the fact that she caused so much hostility that she ends up going to the guillotine.
She is very clearly acting in her irrational self- interest.
If she were acting in the group's rational self-interest, she would allow them to work half as long.
And if she were acting in her own rational self-interest, she would do the same, since her well-being (and in fact, as neatly illustrated in the comic, her very life) depends on the well-being of the group.
Since she is acting in her own rational self-interest, she threatens to fire her workers if they do not work the same hours as before and pass the value on to her.
No. Again, she is rather obviously acting in her own irrational self-interest, as vividly illustrated in the last panel.
Any purely rational person (as opposed, mind you, to an empathetic one) would take the option to do that.
What on earth leads you to believe that rationality and empathy are mutually exclusive?
As social animals, empathy is eminently rational, and in fact I would argue that rationality is impossible without it.
And if she were acting in her own rational self-interest, she would do the same, since her well-being (and in fact, as neatly illustrated in the comic, her very life) depends on the well-being of the group.
This assumes perfect foresight. As can be seen from the history of robber barons and the legacy they left, it generally did work out for most of them, so they were correct in their choices focusing on self-interest. Not since the French revolution has any significant number of rich assholes faced significant consequences for their choices in placing their personal welfare above the group.
It is rational self interest, not rational group interest. Hence why she doesn't act in a way that would benefit others, because they can now do twice the output in the same amount of time because of the machine!
'Rational self interest' is just being selfish.
Rational group interest IS rational self-interest.
As social animals living in communities and as part of any number of groups, we must, if we're rational, be mindful of the well-being of groups, because our own well-being depends on it.
'Rational self interest' is just being selfish.
No it in fact is not. Selfishness causes any number of negative consequences - suffering, hostility, crime, conflict, rebellion, war, death... So it's bludgeoningly obviously irrational, and therefore cannot be rational self interest.
Do you believe ayn rand believed in rational self-interest?
If so, why was she against all forms of welfare and socialism? If not, isn't she the inventor of the concept and thus the arbiter of what it should mean? Doesn't that mean you're changing the definition to suit your needs?
Do unto others as you want done unto you. Basically all of game theory. The threat of a guillotine. These are all extremely basic and rational arguments that merely ask you not to be a dickhead.
Or more pointedly, they are all things that illustrate ways in which it's in your rational self-interest to not be a dickhead.
She's not worth spending time on. Any rational person would understand that.