Rating: 
Summary: Greatest Work on Political Philosophy Ever Penned
Review: PERIOD! Aristotle, Locke, Mill, Spencer, stand aside...this is it--the ultimate defense of freedom and REAL liberalism.
Rating: 
Summary: Capitalism and Morality
Review: The first thing you should know before buying this book is that it is a book of philosophy, not an economic treatise. In a nutshell, Rand defends Capitalism as the most moral system because it is the only one that fully respects property rights. Without property rights, no other rights are possible, and most of our economic and social problems stem from violations of individual and property rights.Most of the criticisms of this book overlook the fundamental theme. It is very possible you may not care for the way Rand presents her arguments, or dislike certain terms she uses. But if you don't like the salesman's presentation, don't blame the merchandise. Rand's views were highly influenced by the Austrian School of thought in economics, so if it is an economic treatise you're looking for, I suggest you start with the writings of Ludwig Von Mises, F.A. Hayek, or Murray Rothbard.
Rating:
Summary: I was about to buy this book
Review: I was about to buy this book from Amazon.com, until I read the "Editorial Review." Amazon[.com] put this on my 'reccomedations' page, as I'm a huge Ayn Rand fan - "an advocate of reason, egoism, and capitalism". Sadly, on that page was the first few lines of this review! Thank goodness that I *now* know that this book is a "relic of the past," and an "outlandish piece of propaganda." I think that Mark Pumphrey's assertion that the "author's overconfident sense of her own rightness and persistence at pressing her points with little respect for opposing views can quickly become more than a little annoying" applies more to that editorial review than to this book, a splendid collection of essays by Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, Robert Hessen, and (the current U.S. Federal Reserve Board Chairman) Alan Greenspan. This book is more about the moral underpinings of capitalism, the only system in which we are free to choose how to labor, and how to exercise the fruits of that labor; than it is about the economics of capitalism, for which I would reccomend "Free to Choose" by Milton Friedman, or "New Ideas From Dead Economists" by Todd G. Buchholz - both available here.
Rating: 
Summary: Not the ideal book for the study of capitalist economics
Review: It is sometimes difficult in public to be objective about the ideas of Rand, for the reason that the hatred of her detractors and the devotion of her followers borders on the hysterical. It is best to contemplate her philosophy in private, and then communicate to those who perhaps are still open enough to consider sometimes very radical ideas. Rand's thinking on ethics is brilliant, and the best in the history of philosophy, but this book, summarizing her thoughts on the political ramifications of her ethics, is very flawed, and there are some very outlandish claims that are made if one views them from a scientific perspective. Economics is a difficult subject, and some might say not a science. But the financial interactions of humans can be studied scientifically, given the patience and the mathematical tools. Rand, and the other contributors of this book, do not do this anywhere in the articles. They are at best a loose, qualitative description of capitalist economics, and as such are not useful to those who really want to understand the dynamics of the capitalist economy. Rand calls capitalism "an unknown ideal" and laments the state of society (at that time), in that its not fairly represented in education or the popular media. The evidence she gives however is purely anecdotal, and she makes no attempt to cite empirical or historical studies. It is one thing to argue for the ethical foundations of capitalism, which she does so with incredible originality and skill. It is quite another to describe the inner workings of the economy and to prove causal connections between historical economic events. For example, Rand states in the first article 'What is Capitalism" that depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the free market but by government interference into the economy. What evidence of this is there? Rand does not cite any empirical or historical data for this assertion, and even lacking such data, does not attempt even to construct a quantitative model that would lend some plausibility to her argument. In economic studies, mathematical modeling sometimes serves to shed light on a particular phenomenon when empirical data is lacking. Such a model can then be altered as the data is collected. Attempting to find the causes of depressions is a nontrivial affair, and something that economists and mathematicians have wrestled with for decades (if not centuries). Rand is very cavalier in her assertion here, and again, makes no attempt to prove it using a calm, rational, and scientific framework. In another article, written by her former collaborator, Nathaniel Brandon, and entitled 'Common Fallacies about Capitalism", he argues that free markets make monopolies impossible. His arguments utilize a sort of 'principal of arbitrage' (my words here), in that he argues that a monopoly that attempts to set prices will result in a competitor entering the field to take advantage of the high profits, thus closing the artificially high prices set by the monopoly. This is certainly plausible, but the time scales involved for the competitor may be too long to take advantage of the profitability. Getting into a highly technological business, such as chip manufacturing or drug discovery, may be too difficult and time-consuming for a competitor. And, Brandon still needs to justify his assertions with either an economic model or with an empirical study. He does not cite any historical evidence to support his claim. Capitalism as discussed in this book may not currently exist by the standards and definitions held by the authors of this book, and indeed one might believe that it has received an unfair and distorted hearing in academia and other circles. But human ingenuity has exploded in the last two decades, and shows no sign of abatement, despite the actions of the government and the existing tax structure. Perhaps maybe it is time to stop fixating on government inefficiencies and ineptitudes and continue to innovate. A society smart enough to invent and use genetic engineering, to create thinking machines, and to travel in space, will perhaps find dealing with the government mundane and rather trivial in the whole scheme of things, and perhaps not want to waste intellectual energy on tirades against government bureaucracies. One can only speculate what Rand would think of the dizzying pace of technological development in the 21st century, but I think it would be fair to say, judging by the utterances of the characters of her novels, she would forget her moral outrage, and would find life in the 21st century exhilirating...
Rating:
Summary: Fine work
Review: I really enjoyed this book by Ayn Rand, a genius of our time.
Rating: 
Summary: Interesting Defense of Capitalism
Review: Ayn Rand was unique among Capitalism's defenders. Instead of defending Capitalism on economic grounds (its ability to increase the standard of living of the masses, for example) she defended it on moral grounds. Man is a rational animal who is rightly concerned with his self-interest. Capitalism is the system of government necessitated by the nature of man. CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL is a collection of essays mostly by Rand (but with some by Alan Greenspan, Nathaniel Branden & Robert Hessen) which were originally published in the 1960's. Rand's essays share the virtues and shortcomings of most of her work. The writing is clear and exciting, but some of the argumentation is overblown. Her standard approach is to take a doctrine that she doesn't believe in (religion, for example), caricature it, and then draw all sorts of inferences about what a person must believe to hold such a doctrine. So her recreation of what Christianity or Conservatism is has little to with what most of its advocates believe. Although Rand's philosophy and her defense of Capitalism is problematic, there is a good deal of interesting social commentary in this book. I particularly like "Extremism, or the Art of Smearing."Another excellent is essay is "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus." There is also a lot of dubious reasoning, which stems from the fact that Rand wasn't particularly well read in the areas she felt obliged to pontificate on. For example, she says that the era of peace from 1815 to 1914 was the result of Capitalism. A.J.P. Taylor (a socialist and not a religious believer from what I can tell), stated that it was the fruit of Christianity. She says that the founding fathers of the US wanted to create a totally new system of government, but the Declaration of Independence indicate that they sought conserve the existing system from English encroachments. Or, she states that businessman are the "persecuted minority" when in fact they benefit more than anyone from subsidies and various protectionist legislation. For defenses of Capitalism based on different approaches, the interested reader should consult the works of Murray Rothbard and Ludwig von Mises.
Rating:
Summary: not everything to every one
Review: Read this book. My whole life i had questions i couldn't answer. Why did god create me and give me a free will for the sole purpose of forcing me to subjugate my will to his? How can they draft some one into a war and still pretend to uphold 'the right to life'? How come my parents should pay taxes to pay for a highschool drop out's unemployment? Why should education be paid for by everyone when my parents had 5 kids but there are some people who didn't have any? If there are people who are good at earning money with money, and there are people who can only waste it, then why tax the people who are good at making it and give it to the ones who will waste it? Why can't money stay with the person who made it in the first place? As i grew up... these questions still bothered me. I started reading philosophy... I started with Nietzche and Satre and even opened Kant a few times. They all said that truth was unknowable and that reason has no place in reality. Nietzche wasn't a very happy fellow. He told me to do what i want and that it was the right thing to do just because i wanted to. None of this particularly appealed to me or seemed right. Nietzche was fun to read.. but only because I would imagine playing drinking games with him.. Then i read my first book by Ayn rand. She never expected you to accept anything on faith or on her good name. Every premise that she introduces starts at its base axiom then extends into the upper foliage of her brilliant philosophy. Nothing is added as a legacy to older thought or on faith or as some cloudy vague notion of spirituality or 'humanity'. Pointed in the right direction, i saw the answers to my questions. I understand that there are those who refuse to function on a logical level. (I wonder how these people hope to contribute anything but trivia to our culture. Feelings never built a bridge or even churned butter.) This book is not for them. If you fancy yourself a rational mind, this book is for you. This is one of her more eloquent and poingant works. This a good place to begin reading Rand. If you have the time, go pick up a copy of Atlas Shrugged and then the Fountainhead.
Rating:
Summary: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Review: After communist regime after communist regime has collapsed around the world, while the capitalistic countries have prospered and been there to assist the victims of communism time and time again, how many people really understand WHY? That understanding is a matter of life and death, and this book explains it and why.
Rating:
Summary: A semi-intellectual "defence" of capitalism
Review: This book contains essays in defence of capitalism from a variety of writers, not only from Ayn Rand herself. This book was one of the first books I read in the field of philosophy, and especially in the field of political philosophy. I do admit that the arguments in the book may sound extremely convincing at a first glance, and they made me a confessing objectivist for approximately one year. That is, however, the most dangerous aspect of a book like this one. After I gained an interest in philosophy, much thanks to Ayn Rand, I started reading books by other philosophers and the more I read the more I realized the total emptiness and nonsense-character of Ayn Rand's philosophy. Her ethics, for example, say absolutely nothing except that you ought to behave in any manner you like, as long as you do not harm (by physical force) anyone's right to life and property. In other words, two completely contradicting actions in a given situation (for example saving the life of a drowning child contra not saving his/hers life) may both be argued for and defended with help of Ayn Rand's ethics. I do not intend to go into more depth in my critique here (I know the above argument regarding saving a child may be subject to a discussion since it is not waterproof in the form as it is presented above). The worst aspect of Ayn Rands philosophy is not her ethics however, but the most harmful aspect is the DOGMATISM it represents, and it's irrational faith in absolute truth. For readers interested in political philosophy, this book is definitely worth reading, but not because its greatness, but rather as a warning against fanaticism and dogmatism which are aspects intrinsically interwoven in Rand's philosophy. For those of you who believe in liberalism and the freedom of man I would recommend the books by Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek, two philosophers who differs significantly from Rands semi-intellectual dogmatism and who provides a much better defence of the free and open society.
Rating:
Summary: Makes sense to me.
Review: Many of us have been brought up on the idea that capitalism is a system which promotes the domination and exploitation of others by those in pursuit of personal gain. This is not capitalism, it is gangsterism. Capitalism is a philosophy which promotes the right of the free individual to trade with other free individuals without hindrance from the state. To criticise this book in a negative way is difficult, since neither I nor anybody else has lived in a society based on capitalism. But I have lived in a capitalistic society within the bounds of the United Kingdom. My observation is that the parts of the United Kingdom that tend more towards capitalism are more successful and prosperous than those parts that are not: the southeast of England being the greatest exemplar. Taking a step further, the United States of America with its greater capitalistic tendencies, is demonstrably more successful and prosperous than the United Kingdom. The clarity of the book is helped by the many examples provided by Ayn Rand and her contributors. Some of these are a bit historical for today's readers, and the piece on what a patent applies to has been superseded by the recent allowing of patents for discoveries relating to human and animal gene sequences. A few examples from recent and ongoing state activity would be as follows: Cuba is regarded by the IMF as the best example of a third world country doing comparatively well by first world standards. But Cuba doesn't have to be a third world country. Cuba has the human resources to compete perfectly well with the first world if the state were not in total control, as the enterprising Cubans who moved elsewhere have demonstrated. Zimbabwe has been reduced to a state of hopelessness and starvation because of gangsterism promoted by the state. Even more developed countries like India and Pakistan are borderline cases because their states choose to fritter away in excess of a hundred million dollars a year fighting each over Kashmir, instead of promoting a way for their people to take part in capitalism, and so improve their circumstances. The Palestinian situation is another example where the lack of a capitalist philosophy is creating so much trouble, its leadership preferring to loot and mooch, and gallivant in luxury around the world instead of staying at home and sorting things out. Where I come from, the economy is totally dependant on handouts from the British Government. This mean that anyone with sense and enterprise has to leave the province because the sources of start-up capital are too busy mooching from the gravy-train of government handouts and other sources of handouts from Europe and the United States ( the international fund for Ireland and the peace process dividend to name two ). And the so called Celtic-Tiger isn't too far behind. In England the travelling public and commerce are benefiting from the fiasco that was the piece-meal privatisation of the rail system. This mess has come home to roost with a vengeance, and all because the private operators were being relentlessly interfered with and have ended up as the whipping boy for the state, which should have kept its hands off and let the competitive process do its work. The only good thing, so far, is that Steven Byers, the current transport secretary, got his butt kicked by the City. Not content with that the education system is to be partially privatised and interfered with. So again, the private part will take the fall for the state. And the Millennium Dome, what a mess that was. All they would have to have done was leave it be and run the thing as a leisure attraction under its in-place management for a couple more years. After all, the whole site has lain empty for that long, at a cost of a million pounds a month. But then the sate can afford to waste that kind of money, since its not theirs. Capitalism, as defined in this book, would seem to offer a better way forward than what is currently draining the life blood from the more civilised parts of the world.
| 
