Rational Self-Interest

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

‘Rational self interest’ is just being selfish.

*Irrational self interest. Rational self interest would still involve improving the worker’s lives due to the support structure that a community brings

[email protected]

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”.

[email protected]

Please reread the comment I’m responded to

[email protected]

I think what you’re describing is more wheelhouse of the less often talked about Egoism of Stirner, than the Objectivism of Rand.

[email protected]

We did. If she was consistent, she should have just chosen to die since it’s wrong for others to help her.

[email protected]

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

[email protected]

Because her books weren’t selling, she ended up on social security, a program she’d mocked when healthy.

A program that she contributed money to all her life, though. It was a late tax return.

Communist

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?

[email protected]

I always upvote deleted commnets

[email protected]

They were, yes.

See? Another similarity.

How to be an insufferable cunt in 1 easy step!

AnyOldName3

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.

[email protected]

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.

[email protected]

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.

for 99% of people yes. but if you happen to be at the very top of the ladder and if things are broken enough you can be self interested into destroying the world. Fact is the guillotines aren’t being rolled out. The protests that happen are pretty consistently swatted with barely a weeks hindrance to the years between them. We all suffer the consiquences of the olligarchy, the ones making the laws and decisions are largely above those hardships.

WatDabney

I think what I'm describing is fundamental to both of them, that most of the differences between the two philosophies are at the peripheries, and that far and away the most significant difference between the two is that one was proposed by Rand, who's a designated target for people eager to earn hip internet leftist cred through a public display of unequivocal hatred, and the other was proposed by Stirner, who's someone that most are only vaguely aware of, if at all.

skulblaka

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:

[email protected]

To sum up, “rational self interest” is screwing others over for your own benefit as long as you make the calculation that it won’t come back to bite you. It works for you until you make a miscalculation and the likelihood of a miscalculation increases as you screw more people over. A greedy person benefiting from the support structure will not properly factor in that benefit and will assume they can go without, hence the widening gap between the rich and the poor. They’re essentially living in another world and cannot see reality for what it is.

bobalot

The problem is that in a closed economy, a 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 ans high consumption country.

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 ar 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.

[email protected]

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.