Books No Woman Should Read(lithub.com)
lithub.com
Books No Woman Should Read
https://lithub.com/80-books-no-woman-should-read/
3 comments
Who is Paul Ryan? What did he do to be singled out like that?
He is the leader of the lower chamber of the U.S. Congress.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan
My guess is he's being singled out because many (esp. on the left) view him as intellectually disingenuous. He came to prominence as a 'thought leader,' leaning heavily on Ayn Rand's objectivism to inform his 'small government' politics.
ETA: actually, it's more likely the author thinks Ryan's preferred policies are cruel, not that he's disingenuous.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Ryan
My guess is he's being singled out because many (esp. on the left) view him as intellectually disingenuous. He came to prominence as a 'thought leader,' leaning heavily on Ayn Rand's objectivism to inform his 'small government' politics.
ETA: actually, it's more likely the author thinks Ryan's preferred policies are cruel, not that he's disingenuous.
What's dangerous about Objectivism is that you can seemingly be both sincere in desiring better welfare for all while excusing an utterly selfish and debased ethical system, not to mention destructive social policies.
It appeals to people by (1) showing how good but naive intentions can lead to immense suffering (i.e. communism) and then showing how (2) free market policies seemingly predicated on selfishness counter-intuitively can lead to greater welfare for all. It's wrong because both the original narrative and inverse narrative are obviously hyperbolic rhetorical retellings (both in the book and in the more popular narratives) that in many respects fail to reflect the most substantive aspects of the political and cultural history. But counter-intuitive narratives are so very, very appealing to certain generations, partly because they seemingly expose others has hopelessly naive fools while creating a special class of people who can see the truth.
It appeals to people by (1) showing how good but naive intentions can lead to immense suffering (i.e. communism) and then showing how (2) free market policies seemingly predicated on selfishness counter-intuitively can lead to greater welfare for all. It's wrong because both the original narrative and inverse narrative are obviously hyperbolic rhetorical retellings (both in the book and in the more popular narratives) that in many respects fail to reflect the most substantive aspects of the political and cultural history. But counter-intuitive narratives are so very, very appealing to certain generations, partly because they seemingly expose others has hopelessly naive fools while creating a special class of people who can see the truth.