http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4870933885859313904

http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

“PLAYBOY: The heroine of Atlas Shrugged was, in your words, “completely incapable of experiencing a feeling of fundamental guilt.” Is any system of morality possible without guilt?

RAND: The important word in the statement you quoted is “fundamental.” Fundamental guilt does not mean the ability to judge one’s own actions and regret a wrong action, if one commits it. Fundamental guilt means that man is evil and guilty by nature.

PLAYBOY: You mean original sin?

RAND: Exactly. It is the concept of original sin that my heroine, or I, or any Objectivist, is incapable of accepting or of ever experiencing emotionally. It is the concept of original sin that negates morality. If man is guilty by nature, he has no choice about it. If he has no choice, the issue does not belong in the field of morality. Morality pertains only to the sphere of man’s free will — only to those actions which are open to his choice. To consider man guilty by nature is a contradiction in terms. My heroine would be capable of experiencing guilt about a specific action. Only, being a woman of high moral stature and self-esteem, she would see to it that she never earned any guilt by her actions. She would act in a totally moral manner and, therefore, would not accept an unearned guilt.”

Parallels to religion abound in all of her interviews. Is it me, or does her philosophy begin to resemble the “anti-Christ” after a while? By that I don’t mean to conjure up images of a devil springing from a fiery pit, sent to destroy us, but instead an argument against religion intending to install a new ideology in it’s place. After all, one could argue that religion itself is but an ideology. Randism was created to discredit and replace all religions and the morals commonly associated with them. Does that not represent the very essence of an “anti-christ”?

With Randism growing in popularity, partly due to it being pushed within academia and through scholarship essay contests, could it be responsible for the next massive, collective paradigm shift, from religion to individualist ideology? Hmmm… interesting stuff to ponder.

If only time travel were possible…I’m so curious what the world will be like in a mere 100 years.

Here’s another tidbit from the Playboy interview:

“PLAYBOY: In Atlas Shrugged you wrote, “There are two sides to every issue. One side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil.” Isn’t this a rather black-and-white set of values?

RAND: It most certainly is. I most emphatically advocate a black-and-white view of the world. Let us define this. What is meant by the expression “black and white”? It means good and evil. Before you can identify anything as gray, as middle of the road, you have to know what is black and what is white, because gray is merely a mixture of the two. And when you have established that one alternative is good and the other is evil, there is no justification for the choice of a mixture. There is no justification ever for choosing any part of what you know to be evil.”

Gotta love extremists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=16N_76mlsMk

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I’m getting tired of listening to all of this self-righteous divisiveness. Plenty of it is decent and true, but then Ayn Rand goes off-roading when she claims 100% purity and virtue is attainable by a select group of intellectuals. I do believe we all ought to strive to better ourselves, but this “you are your own highest value” stuff and the idea that an individual can achieve absolute excellence and perfection is nothing more than fodder for fictional stories like “Atlas Shrugged.” Again, what she advocates is not reality and will not be carried out in practice how she envisioned it.

We understand that humans are fallible and experience periods of weakness, whether temporary or prolonged. Various popular religions have provided us with similar tales of purity and virtue; the real major difference here seems to be that religion idolizes an unknown, immortal entity/god/deity characterized as being superior to humankind, while Randism idolizes man and assigns god-like characteristics to a select few among us. One is based on faith in a higher power and the other on supreme faith in ourselves, going so far as to essentially encourage the worship of the self and select others based on productivity AND selfishness. Hmmm… Religion at least encourages people to share, cooperate and love one another, where as Randism does not unless it’s in our own “rational self-interest.”

If only there were a way to take the most brilliant and socially-responsible pieces and parts of Randism and various religions and philosophies and fuse them together to create a new set of non-ideological guidelines to help govern life on this planet in a manner more fair for virtually all under the sun. This set would need to be flexible enough to be applicable in a variety of contexts and when faced with new challenges, while simultaneously retaining respect for its original intent and purpose. Plus, it would be necessary for this set of guidelines to appeal to the majority of humans across the globe so that we may collectively voluntarily enforce its basic tenets and create stability to protect vulnerable groups from excessive and damaging exploitation.

How’s that for idealistic?

What is very interested about John Galt’s monologue is that it sounds eerily familiar. While it stands contrary to religion and all that goes with it, the language is similar and it too professes to be THE Truth. It could be said to represent the “anti-christ” even, not merely because it seeks to debunk all major religions and people’s reliance on faith, but because it offers a complete alternative ideology to stand in its place. While its principles are intended to apply to both individuals and the corporate giants, this philosophy, much like modern religions, is ripe for exploitation by those serving their own selfish interest at the expense of others.

Under Christianity, an individual either has to brainwash him/herself or outright deceive others into believing that s/he is truly upholding and embracing Christian values so that s/he may exploit the masses. Under Randism (I can’t call it objectivism because that label is misleading), all that is required is for the individual to remain ignorant to or in denial of the opposition’s arguments, allowing their subjective individual perspective to remain narrow enough so that they may exploit people without having to acknowledge their violation of the rights and pursuit of happiness of said people. The individual’s conscience determines morality, making ignorance truly blissful.

OR you could rationalize that you don’t have to modify your behavior to compromise with the opposition’s concerns at all because to do so would require a sacrifice for something you don’t value.

For example, if you don’t value or accept the idea that humans possess certain inalienable rights, you are not required to make concessions in favor of them. It is not in your best interest to protect the rights of people and you have no moral qualms with exploiting people for the sake of increasing your own wealth. The only way the people could fight your corporation would be to essentially go to war with it if other jobs weren’t available to replace it and they were unable to successfully compete against it. Otherwise the people’s means to care for themselves would be lost, and unless welfare were made available or they found others willing to provide for their care, they would likely wind up homeless if circumstances persisted. (This is a very real problem in communities abandoned by corporations who fled elsewhere in search of greater profits.) In such a case, the corporate executives would say the entity has no moral obligation to the community or the workers and consumers unless a situation arises that directly affects them in a way that creates incentives to encourage change to take place.

Any changes that take place are done so in the “rational best interest” of the corporation, which DOES have the (asinine) responsibility to its shareholders to always strive for greater and greater profit margins, thereby boosting the stock price and creating incredible wealth for investors. Key investors are other wealthy people from both within and outside of the corporation itself. Money funnels upward and growing profit margins are attained by cutting costs via layoffs, reductions in staffing by increasing the number of hours worked while adding to and further diversifying employee workloads, transferring the burden onto consumers in the form of higher prices, and/or gaining access to cheaper labor markets and less expensive materials.

This is the reality – and yes, I think it sucks primarily because businesses are not policing themselves and claim exemption from societal and ethical concerns in the name of capitalism and “free trade”, while they simultaneously hypocritically pander to governments for support, welfare, and bailouts. They spend tremendous amounts of money on campaign financing for politicians who favor individualist ideology and/or are willing to be bought off. They then lean on lawmakers to secure special treatment and have favorable laws passed. Favorable to Big Business but not always to the rest of us, the vast majority of human beings on planet earth. Rand sympathizes primarily with the Big Business sector yet overlooks the glaring hypocrisy from their end. (Perhaps the problem wasn’t so obvious and rampant during the years of her prime, but it’s become tough to ignore these days.)

Anyway, the point is that this ideology, as brilliant as it may be in parts and places, is so biased and self-serving for the wealthy, powerful and ingenious (and egomaniacal) that it will likely attract mostly those who are already wealthy or middle-class and aspiring to be, an audience virtually guaranteed to be disproportionately white and supportive of imperialism and neo-colonialization. Why? Because that’s the goal springing from the merger of Big Business and Ever-Expanding (U.S.) Government. The U.S. is not solely responsible, but we’re definitely leading the trend at the moment. Many of those in the upper echelon are white and plenty are of the Anglo-Saxon variety, which may be considered typical since it’s been the case throughout much of history. Acting in their own self-interest, Rand’s philosophy serves as a convenient alternative to outdated religion as a means of controlling the masses.

She probably didn’t intend it as such, but that’s arguably what it is or at least how it will be manipulated and used to justify the immoral actions of the most selfish and greedy amongst us by redefining morality itself. Just as with religion, the core morals will be ignored or twisted by too literal interpretations, with the emphasis instead focused on snippets of text and quotes that best serve the interests of those aiming to exploit others. The philosophy will be sold as modern, trendy and enlightened, an ideology ultimately designed for intellectuals confined to academia and businesspeople.