But Rand is a nut-case, a propounder of "the virtue of selfishness" (the title of one of her books), a hater of labor and collective action of any kind, a believer in the superiority of the entrepreneur over all. The theme of her book Atlas Shrugged is that when the great capitalist genuises go on astrike, the rest of the worlf falls apart because we are so helpless and dependent on them. She thinks that a welfare state is equivalent to slavery and communism (i.e., the Stalin terror) and that the weaker or less lucky should be left to starve and freeze in the streets. On her view it is immoral--not just pointless, but actually wrong--to help those in need. Rand's philosophy is presented in the most arrogant and dogmatic style imaginable. Real philosophers (I used to be one, that is whatI did for a living before I was a lawyer) mainly do not take her work seriously. Her following is a scary cult. And Greenspan is part of it.
No one is suggesting that his brain should be washed or that Rand's followers should be deprogrammed by force. Even if someone was suggesting that, no one is any positionto do such a thing. But it should raise questions about Greenspan's intelligence and the political orientation he brings to his job that he subscribes to a cult that worships capital and hates labor, no? Do we want that kind of person in that sort of position of power? And what do we think of those who do want that kind iof person in that kind of position, such as Clinton and Gore, not to mention Reagan and Bush?
--jks
In a message dated 5/6/00 2:30:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time, reeza at flex.com writes:
<< One of my pals, a Teamstster posted this on the union "hardhead" list.
Any >comments:
>
>
>The unemployment rate here in the States is the lowest since 1970 and
>Alan Greenspan, the Federal Reserve Board Chairman, has been quoted to
>have said he is worried about higher labor costs and the bargaining
>power of the labor force. What are your thoughts? Is Mr. Greenspan
>against us? I read where he was a good friend of Ayn Rand. Ayn Rand has
>been known to write about the virtues of the individual rather than the
>whole. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>^^^^^
Yeah. Your friend makes that sound like it's a bad thing. It isn't,
necessarily. The needs of the one vs. the many is an old debate, it seems
clear which side that friend is on. Are we going to start condemning
people because of who, or what they know also?
Thought police. Open up. We're taking you for reeducation, you've been
reading Ayn Rand and discussing individualism with others.
At the next doorway, Open up, your neighbor reads Ayn Rand, this whole
block is getting reeducated. Leave everything behind, get on the bus.
Resistance is futile, you will be assimilated into our collective or be
shot as a threat to it.
The dichotomy presented by that one vs. many argument forces between one of
two decisions, when there are invariably other alternatives, if they are
looked for.
What was your take on it Tom?
Reese
>>