They only vaguely seem to be opinions as there doesn't seem to be much in the way of fact going on.
Yes, I am listening to the "Our Opinions Are Correct" podcast by Charlie Jane Anders and Annalee Newitz. Episode 133 features a discussion of Ayn Rand and her influence on Silicon Valley. There are quite a few misrepresentations and misunderstandings in just the first 18 minutes.
One should be familiar with the relevant facts surrounding an issue before issuing opinions. Their facts are sorely lacking.
As an initial observation, they routinely conflate Randian ideals with how Silicon Valley moguls behave. No utopian vision is ever fully realized. The personal flaws of Silicon Valley executives are not indictments of Ayn Rand's utopian ideals. All utopian systems eventually fail to meet the challenges of reality.
Early on, Ms. Anders suggests, and Ms. Newitz agrees, that Randian philosophy is centered on greed. They assert that, under Randian economics/philosophy, people should take all that they can get. That is a misrepresentation of Randian ideals.
The Randian ideal is that a person should be compensated based on the value that the deliver to the rest of society. In a Randian world, the person who discovers a proven preventative for dementia (better still a cure) should receive a large amount of compensation because they will have provided a valuable benefit to everyone else. By comparison, a person who flips burgers for a living should receive less compensation because the value they deliver is less. For the record, I once flipped burgers for a living. The Randian ideal is that the value of compensation should be driven by the just value the person has delivered. That is not greed. That is exchanging value for like value.
Later they refer to Rand's perception of governmental regulations are a funhouse mirror version of regulations. They are implying that all government regulations are sensibly crafted and sensibly enforced. That ends up being coupled with criticism of a "who is going to stop me" approach in favor of a "who gives me permission" perspective.
Ladies, welcome to America. We are an exceptional nation. The definition of "exceptional" being used here is [that we are] different from others; not better and not worse. Where people of other nations must look to the government for guidance and permission before creating new and useful enterprises, Americans routinely express an absolute right to enter into such enterprises despite what the government (or other private competitors) may say about the matter.
We are glad you are here. Please adjust your Overton window accordingly.
They discuss a plot point (I think in one of Rand's books) where the tax code is designed to keep the most successful companies constrained by limiting profitability. Essentially, a successful company will pay more taxes so that less successful companies can compete. They do acknowledge that "progressives" might want to nationalize some industries but suggest that no one is supporting a tax code with rates established based on how successful a company is.
Clearly, they do not understand how the US income tax code works. It is a progressive code where the percentage of tax collected increases based on the amount of money that a person or a company makes. There is a reason why so many companies and wealthy individuals spend so much effort to take advantage of the tax deductions to lower the amount of income that is considered taxable by the IRS. Reducing the amount of taxable income not only lowers the amount of tax that is collected, it can shift the applicable tax bracket to one with a lower rate.
If that isn't a good example of tax regulations limiting the income of successful companies so that less successful companies can "compete", then I don't know what is a good example.
There is a one-off comment about "crony capitalism". Which, again, is a reference to the individual flaws of the barons of Silicon Valley rather than an integral component of the Randian utopia. Most fans of Ms. Rand's books will point out that they include examples of crony capitalism being used to undermine individual freedom.
At one point, Ms. Newitz uses the phrase "individual authoritarianism". The two halves of that term are mutually exclusive. An authoritarian state immediately subsumes and supersedes the interests of the individual while a state that prioritizes the individual ultimately protects them from the authoritarian tendencies of the collective. Ms. Newitz might well have uttered the phrases "dry water" or "military intelligence" or "healthy corpse".
They focused on William Hickman and his supposed influence on an unpublished story by Ayn Rand. Hickman abducted, murdered, amputated, and disemboweled a young girl. They suggested that Ms. Rand found Hickman to be worthy of admiration. That is a misrepresentation of Ms. Rand's interest in Hickman.
I pause here to give our duo credit for knowing how Ayn Rand's work has influenced other creators through the years. While they were obviously a bit more supportive of authors that wanted to engage in criticism of Rand's books, they were also aware of creators, such as the prog-rock band "Rush", that positively engaged with Randian ideas.
They noted that several Rush songs deal with dystopian worlds that illuminate Ayn Rand's perspectives. One example given was the song "Red Barchetta" which tells the story of a young man who gets to drive his uncle's well-preserved car despite it being clearly against the law.
This song is immediately criticized as being in some way opposed to ecology. That comment is reasonably related to another comment about Silicon Valley magnates retreating to their personal versions of Galt's Gulch as a dystopian world comes crashing down.
What I find curious is that they never seriously interrogate the context of Ms. Rand's philosophy. They do note that she and her family suffered under communism and that Ms. Rand was able to escape to the west. But they never explore why Ms. Rand was so passionate about her beliefs.
Socialism and communism have collectively been responsible for over 100,000,000 government-imposed deaths. On a per capita basis, that far exceeds every other type of government available to modern humanity. Ayn Rand personally tasted the fruits of socialism/communism. Those experiences informed her passion for supporting the principle of valuing the individual and individual liberty above the interests of the collective.
Our hosts never seriously consider the idea that there is an alternate ideology being fostered in our culture. They never engage with the question of which ideology, the Randian utopia or the collectivist utopia, provides the better prospect for improving the human condition.
In my experience, discussions of popular leftist talking points are rarely about specific issues. Instead, they are part of a larger narrative that is opposed to individual autonomy. Discussions about climate change are rarely about climate change alone. Instead, they are about limiting the freedom of movement afforded an individual who owns their own car. The objective of climate alarmists is to make car ownership unaffordable so that people will then either be coupled to a specific location or dependent upon government-managed mass transportation systems.
"Red Barchetta" is about a "better managed time" where the individual need not seek the permission and assistance of the government to move about the country. Again, welcome to America, ladies. Where no individual ever needs to ask permission from the state before exercising their rights.
Likewise, the fantasist visions of a Randian Galt's Gulch exist only within the context of a society that is embracing the predictably destructive ideals of socialism/communism. No one needs to retreat to a fortress if a mob isn't using the permission structure of government action to seize the wealth, livelihoods, and lives of those who have earned their position in the world.
Later, they invited UCSD professor and philosopher Matt Zwolinski and author Matt Ruff to comment. Professor Zwolinski does yeoman's work by correcting their misconceptions of Ayn Rand's philosophy. It appears to me that the ladies did not expect to encounter someone who could accurately present and engage with Randian ideals. Mr. Ruff is certainly a critic of Randian ideals, but he demonstrates an equal commitment to accurately present them before he engages in a critique. Our hosts found both gentlemen's perspectives a bit baffling. They did not seem to perceive any value in accurately representing Ms. Rand's perspective.
Outside of their commentary, I find their use of audio intros/outros/stingers unimpressive Most of that music is pretty cool. But the podcast is mixed so that they have hard starts and stops without any fading. It is very disjointed. Adding just a bit of fading so the music modestly overlaps the commentary would improve the listener experience.
While I did complete listening to this episode, I believe I will skip the next episode that I had previously added to the queue. That episode is from 2021 and is regarding JK Rowling. Given the duo's inability to accurately present Ayn Rand's philosophy, I have no doubt that they will be unable to do any better with Ms. Rowling.
An effective polemicist should be able to accurately present a position before engaging in criticism of that position. As someone who wanders between conservative and libertarian perspectives, I am well acquainted with the arguments that are offered in favor of various leftist initiatives and can generally offer an accurate representation of leftist positions. In my experience, leftists are rarely able to do likewise for conservative or libertarian perspectives.
My experiences are bolstered by surveys suggesting that leftist ideas can be reasonably stated by people of almost every perspective while leftists are rarely able to return the favor.
I will be skipping this podcast for the foreseeable future. Ms. Anders and Ms. Newitz cannot engage with difficult issues in good faith. They can only engage when faced with a person-of-hay of their own fabrication.
Nothing to see here. Move along. Move along.
