Paul kirby here
Jim Wrote
<I'm just trying to understand Rand and why she
raises peoples' hackles so>
If (as you do Jim) place Rand in her historical context then it is we can
see that her agressively individualistic philosophy was voiced during the
struggle between left and right that endured through the 50s, 60s and 70s.
The struggle that is within nations rather than between them. It was at
least in the UK a period in which growing expenditure on health and
welfare services, subsidies to industry etc was deemed to be the signal of
intellectually respectable interventionist govermment. (how damaged that
idea has subsequently becomef!). The centralised planning that helped win
the second world war was seen as a model for the government of a society
at peace. (we do not need to invoke Marxism because even the right wing
accommodated these principles) In this environment there would have been
little sympathy for a philosophy so easily characterised as ruthlessly
individualsitc. It was not until the earthquake of the Thatcher
adminstration "there is no such thing as society " that the intellectual
climate (fueled by Friedman and shared with Reagan) swung back towards
personal responsibility in an unregulated world. Though more Randian this
political environment perhaps overatated the "Greed is Good" philosophy to
such an extent that in the back lash Randish ideas are is still
unacceptable. It would be interesting to track (if there is one) a chain of
influence between Rand and Thatcher or was it just zeitgeist.
Though tending towards the personal responsibility model I fear that the
"hidden hand" is too well hidden and that individual goods do not
necessarilly aggregate to common good. This relates especially to
Enviro-ethics since "the Environment" is so obviosusly held in common at
the large scale but is bartered away at the small scale by the egoists.
(that is 99.9% of us).
Regards Paul k
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|