Objectivism scholars; Is the Bush** Govt. a Randian Looter Govt.?

[benburch]

In her Magnum Opus, "Atlas Shrugged" Ayn Rand presented a type of malignant and incompetent bureaucratic government (modelled after the Soviet Union under Lenin) that she dubbed a "Looter Government".

Do those of you who have studied Objectivism think that the Bush** Government qualifies under Ayn Rand's definition?

I'm *NOT* asking if it qualifies under any other definition, and if you have not at least read "Atlas Shrugged", please refrain from commenting on this thread. Thanks!

[Turbineguy]

1. Hmmmm.....

I think the Randian Looters were those taking property from rich industrialists or artists and taking it for the "greater good" of the (undeserving) masses. The consequence was that those who created the wealth (and other creative efforts), withheld their labor.

Bush's government seems to do just the opposite.

In Atlas Shrugged it was quite clear that idiots and cronies were not entitled to what ever they felt they could take.

The Randian economy was in the hands of those who had the ability to create wealth. They surrounded themselves with employees who shared in the bounty. There was a moral imperative of fairness.

She did not glorify robber barons. She did not promote the idea of an armed society living in fear.

As I recall, she did not even rag on collective bargaining.

The Bush government was elected (yes, I know) on a pack of lies by people who voted against their self-interest as some are beginning to discover.

[paparush]

2. Sinclair Lewis "It Can't Happen Here"

Read that lil puppy and draw some parallels.

[harlinchi]

3. Of course they qualify!

I posted this a while back regarding the similarity of our situation to that which was described in either "Atlas Shrugged" or in "The Fountainhead":



Does anyone remember “The Fountainhead” or “Atlas Shrugged” by Ayn Rand? In each, she described similar societies, ones in which “looters” using “the politics of pull” received contracts for their companies which were so beneficial, so competition-destroying that able and otherwise profitable and viable businesses went under while the inept looters remained. The situation quickly became untenable; collapse was imminent. Only lies came from their communications media, whose believability and relevance diminished daily.

While I believe there are many flaws with objectivist reasoning, the analogy is accurate: She could’ve been describing our current times. Why is it OK? Is our mainstream media so beholden to this administration as to preclude accurate reporting? Now we have a public that is uninformed and proud of it.

The following is an excerpt from an article “Why don’t we care about the WMD” written, as indicated, by Michelle Goldberg and posted on a Zogby.com page:
“…The question, then, is whether American democracy can survive a citizenry that either doesn't know or doesn't care if its leaders tell the truth. At the very least, observe some experts, public ignorance, apathy or denial could change the kind of democracy under which Americans live.”
(6/19/2003)
- By Michelle Goldberg, Salon

I submit the answer is no, our society cannot survive such a citizenry. Whether the topic is the environment, WMD’s, a fictional connection between Iraq and Al Qaida or corporate involvement in government policy, facts must be known, used and respected. I further submit that those who maintain such an appalling and abysmal disconnect from reality pose a clear danger to our republic. I also believe that such ignorance might be exploited in that once identified, a person who attempts to maintain support for Shrub and his destructive and divisive policies in the face of facts which, ah, shall we say, make it difficult to do so will probably feel angry and then foolish - angry for having their views successfully challenged and foolish for having ignored the actual facts. Of course this assumes one is discussing a well-meaning American and not a looter!

[harlinchi]

4. By the way, I'm far from a scholar of any type! I just had to chime in...

...'cause I've read a book or two by Ms. Rand.