Rating: 
Summary: Should Morals and Philosophy Guide Our Society and Economy?
Review: Being a collection of essays written in the 1960s by Objectivist, novelist and non-academic philosopher Ayn Rand and certain of her like-minded associates (including Alan Greenspan, prior to his arrival at the Fed), this book reads in part as a reasoned exposition of the moral and philosophical foundations of an ideal capitalist society based on individual rights and freedom, and in part as an emotionally charged, pejorative criticism of modern society for being misguided, amoral and a-philosophical.Ever wonder what's behind the truly remarkable economic success of the U.S. over the past two centuries? Ms. Rand explains that the U.S. began as the "first moral society in history," uniquely founded on a Constitution that explicitly places limitations on government while guaranteeing the rights of private individuals. According to her thinking, inherent in man's nature (metaphysics) is his faculty of reasoning (epistemology). Only through having the freedom (politics) to reason, judge, choose and act can man exercise his individual rights (ethics), including his economic rights to acquire property and trade it freely with others. The purpose of government (police, armed services and court system) in laissez faire capitalism is reduced to that of protector of individual rights. As the authors' analysis goes, it is no surprise that the individual rights and freedom on which capitalism is based vaulted the U.S. economy ahead of all others in the world during the 19th and 20th centuries. However, as advocates of pure laissez faire capitalism instead of today's mixed economy (i.e., laissez faire capitalism mixed with government controls), the authors find themselves at odds with virtually everyone else--liberals, conservatives, altruists, collectivists, academic philosophers, pragmatists, logical positivists, the press, Berkeley activists, the Federal Reserve (note the irony of Greenspan as longstanding Fed Chairman), and the Pope. The authors even chide the business community for compromising capitalism by supporting antitrust legislation, the Sherman Act, in 1890. The authors' ideal society is an as-yet-unrealized world with no antitrust laws, no government intervention in the capital markets, neither tariffs nor subsidies, no compulsory education for children, no minimum wage laws, no inheritance tax, privatization of communication airwaves, no building codes, no FDA, no SEC, etc. Could such a world with moral law placed above society ("No society is better than its philosophical foundation") reasonably lead, as the authors insist, to a higher standard of living, more prosperity and more fulfilling lives for all of us? If so, they've got quite a tantalizing proposition, at least in theory. . . .
Rating: 
Summary: Awesome
Review: Call me a free market maniac but this book is simply awesome.
Rating:
Summary: Good Philosophy for a better society
Review: Ayn Rand has a refreshingly frank, "tell it like it is" style of writing. I can understand that it may seem a little "preachy" to some, but you cannot deny the logic and intelligence of her ideas. All it requires is for people to think long and hard about it. An example of the logic: If you leave people to do whatever they want to do, whether it is working to make a profit or helping others, or both, they will do it better through personal choice than through coercion. You can see it in microcosm with the way individuals intereact with each other - whether it be trade or any other type of interaction. If it ever appears otherwise, that means there are other factors involved. Economics and politics have been popularly portrayed as much more complex than they really are, to confuse people and to keep people ignorant. I recommend this book to anyone, for expressing the simplicity of these areas of knowledge.
Rating: 
Summary: Ayn Rand the Subjective Collectivist
Review: Rand claims the only reason to have a government is to protect "individual rights," but nowhere in her writings does she show these rights exist in any form other than her own thoughts and rants. In Objectivist epistemology, things exist in reality (the physical world) or in the mind: as abstractions, emotions, precepts, etc. So then, these rights must be thoughts or they must be matter. These rights aren't matter, they are not made of tissue, of cells or DNA. Ask any doctor or biologist where the "rights" are located in humans. Ask them if they know of any "rights gland" that exists. They will laugh in your face. We can easily see that these rights are not part of our physical nature, they are not made of cells or atoms, so then, they must be thoughts. If they are thoughts, and if man is born with a "blank slate" as Rand says, then how could a newborn have rights, if he has no "rights concept" or no thoughts about "rights" at birth? That's easy: The newborn's rights come from Rand's thoughts, and these rights are subjective. Rand thinks about the newborn's "rights," and then the baby has them. Notice that this is not only subjective, but also collectivist in nature: In Rand's world the baby's nature is created by the thoughts of another human. Rand believes the baby has "rights," and then "poof," the rights are created. How much do these rights weight? Where are they located? What color are they? Rand has absolutely no evidence that these rights exist, they are fantasy. Imagine a newborn baby in a world where all other humans have perished in some accident. Suppose a super genius space alien from another plantet gives the baby a medical exam with a super machine and super tecnology, etc. Will he find rights in there? Of course not. Why? because they are not there. The fact is these "rights" make no sense when thinking about the solitary baby, because Rand's view of rights demands another person (an objectivist) "thinking" about them for the warm emotioal feeling to develop, for the rights to be created. Based on these facts, Rand's arguments for capitalism are absurd. Get you ideas for freedom from Ludwig von Mises or Thomas Jefferson. Rand's idea of rights is subjective and collectivist in nature. Sorry boys, but you need to clean out your pants and then reread this a few times.
Rating:
Summary: Must Read
Review: This book provided an energetic introduction to a philosophy our society tends (wrongly) to view to evil. This is a must read for the well rounded philosopher and student of ethics.
Rating: 
Summary: An early, rational and authentic capitalist's manifesto...
Review: This book, amongst other things, deals rationnally, and often very intelligently, with classical issues such as: - The emancipation from medieval serfdom finally ending up in the enslavement of individuals to carloads of utopical and irrational societal ideals, which have more or less all been proven historically dammageable to societies at large. The road to hell can indeed be paved with what seems at first sight to be very laudable intentions. - The importance of property rights, including intellectual property rights, for the long term progress and advancement of all elements of an industrious society. - How important, in the process of the generation of wealth (value added contributions to society at large, if you prefer), is the return to the originators of that newly generated wealth, as well as the importance of their right to dispose thereof, i.e. to allow them to generate more wealth. To put it otherwise, if a fool and his money are soon parted, the end result cannot be a bad one for society at large. At the same time, if a fool and his money cannot be parted, although they are lucky to even have met in the first place, the end result can only be a bad one for society at large. - The limitation of antitrust laws, that is the protection of weak elements through the recurrent dismantling of the most productive elements in favor of more inefficient contributors of industrial society, again, in the name of an utopic, but alas irrational, so-called social justice. - The necessity of leading a disciplined monetary policy. At that time, the contributors, amongst them Alan Greenspan, saw a strict adherence to the gold standard as the best way to restrain the government's natural propensity for inflationary taxation on national wealth, i.e. the recurrent use of the dollar printing press, which dates back as early as the North's need to finance the secession war. - The vanity of state interventionism and the primary goal of government (with its monopoly of the use of legal force), i.e. protection against coercion from outside elements (military protection) as well protection against the coercion from inside elements (police, as well as the administration, or mediation, of justice). I particularly enjoyed young Alan Greenspan's 1963 remark that "at the bottom of the endless pile of paper work which characterizes all regulation lies a gun." Actually, Greenspan's three essays are a real pleasure to read, but he does, of course, not yet dwell on his latter, post tech-bubble, schumpeterian's "destructive creation of wealth" rhetorics. In fine, this book contains various essays, most of them by Ayn Rand, but also three early refreshing writings by young Alan Greenspan (one on business ethics, i.e. goodwill, as a patiently acquired "intangible" asset, serving as the better customer protection, i.e. vested consumers are often less naive then what government administrations assume them to be), two by Nathaniel Branden (one dealing with the rational refutation of commonplace paranoiac fallacies about capitalism), and one by Robert Essen. These three contributors bring a lot of value-added interest to the book, and more of such would have made me definitely rate it a five star. Ayn Rand has often been criticized of being a bully, but actually it was her straightforward way that allowed her to gain a long lasting influence on a larger audience while bringing her ideas to the general public, first in the form of novels, then through the more elaborate exposition of her philosophy, objectivism. A good read.
Rating:
Summary: Beating the people with the people's stick
Review: Are you people insane? The first person who wins a footrace to an oasis in the desert does not have the "moral right" to keep it for himself. What any rational people would do is divide the water equally, with extra shares to anyone who is dangerously dehydrated. It is not "force" or "coercion" or any such hoo-ha to say "Hell with you. I'm taking my share of the water whether you like it or not."
Rating:
Summary: Comprehensive view on the idea of capitalism
Review: Have you ever felt that there is something wrong with the world, but haven't been able to put your finger on exactly what it is? This book will do it for you. Ayn Rand, along with some interesting additions by Nathaniel Branden and Alan Greenspan, shows you how deep the rabbit hole really goes. This book is a collection of articles addressing the application of capitalism as a political system, or rather the lack of it, and consequently the inevitable demise of humanity due to the implementation of collectivist, anti-capitalist policies. By exploring different parts of society and the application of collectivist policies that govern us, Ayn Rand basically explains why collectivism (i.e. socialism) is the root to all evil. If you are looking for a book about Ayn Rand's ideas and philosophy of life, and are reluctant to engage in her lengthy, fictional novels like Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead this is definitely the book for you.
Rating:
Summary: Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal
Review: An excellent collection for anyone interested in the moral underpinnings of free-market capitalism. As a quick side note to the editoral, you said it yourself "...the antitrust laws forced railroad barons to use illegal payoffs to forge ahead with expansion..." and therefore, we see the AT laws are indeed to blame... Something about Force and Mind; Morality ending and the Gun beginning... I found this to be one of the more easily available non-fiction works from Rand, and the contributing writers are well known indeed. I find the topic of Mr. Greenspan's piece curious considering his current position and policy, but I suppose we are all allowed to change with age.
Why only Four Stars? While providing some very distinct insights into objectivist philosophy, Rand's more notable works (Fountainhead, Atlas, Anthem, etc.) paint the incredible picture of Objectivism in Action. In 'Capitalism' we find the true possiblities of an unadulterated free-market economy spelled out in none too technical text. Given an un-addled mind, and an active imagination, one can think these ideas through to fruition. But, through the fictional works, we can see the 'final product' of an objectivist outlook, and what it means to the future of mankind.
Too often do we find examples of moral philosophy rotting between two covers, never to see the 'real' world. It is my fear that this is what has happened in this work. Too many have picked it up, read it, and said "To what end?" without proper answer. Some might say that most who read it would be lacking in the ability to see the application of these ideas. Perhaps it is that in today's world of fad morality, the impact can better be had through the use of the readers imagination and mind; Allowing them to convince themselves of the grand possibilities of the human spirit, by seeing it enacted within a fictional work.
Rating:
Summary: A great book, except for one thing....
Review: This is truly a terrific book if you want to learn more about what capitalism really is. I truly believe that capitalism is the most perfect form of government, and Ayn Rand does a great job of explaining and comparing capitalism to other forms of governments. However, I do believe in God, and how I wish that Ayn Rand would have included the virtues of God within her views on capitalism.
|
