If the quality of the prose reflected the intellect of the author, the majority of the posts on Webdip are made by certifiable morons.

"If the quality of the prose reflected the intellect of the author, the majority of the posts on Webdip are made by certifiable morons."

I'm not yet convinced that's not the case.

lol Me too. And I won't exclude myself from that criticism given some of my history here over the years...

That's funny. I had almost included in my post, "myself included".

@krellin: Rand is simply less rigorous than Nozick. The OP is well-acquainted with Nozick's arguments, and Rand says nothing about justice not covered in Nozick. In fact, Nozick goes quite a bit further. This is not a criticism of libertarian thinking at large, nor it is necessarily a slight at the quality of Rand's work. Nozick is one of the greatest thinkers of the last several decades.

And, of course, Rand is not "different" from the usual suspects... you can barely wade into any discussion about the morality of modern markets without running into a thicket of Rand acolytes. I daresay there's nothing less unoriginal in this debate than identifying Rand as suggested reading.

You do, however, accurately identify what makes Rand so attractive to so many. Her writings are unequivocal in their conclusions, to say the least. I personally also find them uninteresting, but that is a valid observation. I would argue that, for a reader interesting in exploring questions of justice, you receive a more complete treatment of the issues in a text that considers what happens when their assumptions break down. Rand, to a fault, believed her views were axiomatic.

And hecks, yeah, sure, smart people can be poor writers. And technically incompetent prose can be very appealing to a great many, while very annoying to others. Technically incompetent prose can also convey interesting ideas. All of those things are true. I personally find Ayn Rand's prose and diction particularly bad, to the point where I generally cannot get through a passage of her works without laughing uncontrollably.

The right to private property is one of many rights that must endure uneasy coexistence. That's as honest as I can be with you about it.

"Rand says nothing about justice..." ON the contrary,her prose is *rife* with her ideas of what economic justice is. So...again...I wonder if your criticism comes from experience with her writings, or just passing on what you heard.

Yes, her writings are not written in the form of dull, dry intellectual arguments (gagggg.....), but instead are couched within her fantasies of a world in which her philosophies, or other philosophies, are played out. But seriously, if you don't know what justice is to Ayn rand, you have never read her.

@StackelbergFollower: dito.
@krellin: I can't find what I wrote in your reply. I think it is indeed a waste of time to read the same (or less) in a different (in my opinion uninteresting) wording. If you were a true thinker, than it wouldn't matter to you WHERE someone has his/her ideas from but WHAT they are. On the rest I won't repeat myself neither SF with what I already said/wrote.

Here, let me give you an example of justice for you in simplistic terms that doesn't take some long-winded intellectual blathering of whomever you referenced:

"A man that won't work doesn't eat"

THAT is justice. It doesn't take a 150 page thesis to figure that one out.

@X3n0n -- yes, reading the tired intellectual arguments of "great thinkers" is somuch more entertaining than reading a book. You haven't read all her writings, you therefore don't know the whole of her thoughts and ideology. What is so difficult to grasp about that.

That's like me reading a sentence from you and assuming the rest.

But to the original point - she isn't just a person spewing intellectual claptrap, she actually APPLIES her philosophy in her writing, and creates a vision of the world (perhaps extreme) to demonstrate HOW her philosophy plays itself out...as opposed to the "great writings" or "thinkers" who write in long-winded terms about their philosophies and then....GASP...give examples of how it would look played out in society...

Same thing...

As noted above, I've not yet read any Rand, but I anticipate that she'll suggest that free exchange promotes prosperity on the sole basis of merit, and that this is the fairest, most just outcome. Thus I anticipate that she'll have quite a bit to say defining what she believes justice to look like. Anyone who doesn't share that expectation might be confusing her with someone else.

@krellin: 1) I guess u have no idea about what i am writing my thesis :)
hint: "thesis" ≠ 150 pages on justice, "thesis" is a general expression for any type of or combination of academic papers that serve as a partial fulfillment of some degree, mostly involving a research project, such as figuring out some effects of chemicals in the atmosphere, life cycles of bacteria, effects of political systems on free trade, esthetics of young womanhood (this one is for Draugnar) in the early 19th century or analysis of the implementation of some process in a production setting. This list is NOT exhaustive.
2) your simple statement doesn't say anything about justice, but contains a statement about the reality of a man. Indeed, there are many men who have worked and eat, while not working anymore (Reagan is dead, isn't he? But sure, he was not working for a long time, while still eating). Where in your phrase is a definition of justice?

Hi, my name is krellin. I read atlas shrugged once and now I think I understand and am equipped to comment on the greater philosophy of Ayn Rand. That is all.

Don't wast your breath, you guys, he thinks you're critiquing Rands fictional works.

He's basically an imbecile.

Don't waste your time with Ayn Rand. Her thinking is completely childish and immature. It entirely ignores the fact that we as humans are bound to one another from womb to tomb. But for a legitimately good book examining the underlying philosophical principles of free exchange, justice, anarchy, and libertarianism check out Robert Nozick's "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." This book is known as the foundational text for modern libertarian thought in political philosophers' circles.

@hecks: no one has denied anything about ayn rand's notion of justice. just that what she is writing might not be worth reading it, IF one does not want to read novel/description of something that might or not be cool, but rather is looking for arguments in favour of free exchange (@krellin: I recommend you to read Bastiats piece on the candlemakers, it is a SHORT story and it is on free exchange and it has inspired Ayn Rand BUT it is not written by an soviet anarchist - gotcha!). Nothing else.

X3n0n,
-You're right, I failed to read Stackelberg's full quote. The portion Krellin quoted as, "Rand says nothing about justice" actually continues with "... not covered by Nozick". Shame on me for taking only the selected quote and not looking to the original for context.

Sorry I see now you are looking for something beyond Nozick

@krellin: I wouldn't recommend truncating one of my posts on a public forum to change the meaning of what I said. It is blatantly dishonestly and brings yourself discredit. You write:

'"Rand says nothing about justice..." ON the contrary,her prose is *rife* with her ideas of what economic justice is. So...again...I wonder if your criticism comes from experience with her writings, or just passing on what you heard.'

Of course, I actually wrote: " Rand says nothing about justice not covered in Nozick." That's a very different statement than the one you quote.

If you want to argue with a straw man, I'm sure there's a field somewhere far away from your computer. If you want to tell me what Rand covers that Nozick doesn't, I'm all ears.

At first I was surprised at the amount of political 'discussion' on this site. But then I realized, of course Diplomacy is going to attract a lot of wannabe politicians...

what is unjust about letting people do what they want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else?

What if it hurts the environment?

I'm not in favour of 100% free markets. I think there needs to be some environmental regulation, but for the most part I think the freer the market the freer the people.

What about monopolies that arise in the free market?

don't worry stack, this is the moment when krellin quits the discussion - he can't handle being called out.

monopolies are ok in a genuine free market because if they become too inefficient a competitor will start.

Removing as many barriers to entry as possible is the best thing possible.

Not that I started this thread to argue, but even Smith and numerous other proponents of varying forms of capitalism argue against monopolies

Is my name Smith?

Joseph Schumpeter argued in favour of Monopolies and I agree with him on this issue.