I saw Ayn Rand's "The Fountainhead" not so long ago and was keen to engage
with those who have philosophical views on this work. Reading the entity for
The Fountainhead on Wikipedia;

Economist Mark Skousen criticized The Fountainhead on ideological grounds,
arguing that Rand's protagonist contradicts a basic premise of laissez-faire
capitalism (and therefore of Objectivism) - consumer sovereignty: "Howard
Roark's conviction ["An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate
his work to their wishes."] is irrational... For Roark, A is not A. He wants
A to be B - his B, not his customer's A. Thus, Ayn Rand's ideal man
misconceives the very nature and logic of capitalism - to fulfill the needs
of customers and thereby advance the general welfare.

I'm assuming that "Rand's protagonist" is a direct reference to the
character of Roark. According to Rand, the basis of capitalism is neither
"to fulfill the needs of customers" nor to "advance the general welfare."

Is therefore, Mark Skousen misguided in his view? Does Rand contradict a
basic premise of laissez-faire capitalism? If so, how? I personally don't
see how this can be true as the following paragraph from Wikipedia
demonstrates;

James wrote:

"James" ntlworld.com> wrote:

I haven't read the book, but I did read "Atlas Shrugged" and from what I
read of the Cliffsnotes, the same themes are expounded on in both books.

One thing I noticed is Rand's seeming hatred of interpersonal skills.

What sacrifice does a Client make in a Client-Architect relationship??
Surely if the Client
is unhappy with what the Architect produces - the Client can find another
Architect. This
is all assuming that the Architect takes on the Client.

James

"Daniel T." earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:daniel_t-6E505C.09585206112006@news.west.earthlink.net...

"James" ntlworld.com> wrote:

First is his money and/or time, whether happy with the product or not,
he still pays for the output. Second, and just as important, he must
accept that he doesn't know the architect's job. The client, for
example, may want contradictory things and he is forced to give.

That's the main point, in a partnership, any partnership, there is
compromise; neither party can have exactly what he wants. Rand seemed to
think that if one just did what he wants to do, he will succeed. No
compromises and damn everyone else's views. That works maybe for
alligators because they have no social structure, no concept of
community. It doesn't work for humans because we need each-other to
survive.

Daniel T. wrote:

You miss the point. If the deal is made, then neither has made a
'sacrifice' because each one feels that the value of what he gets is
equal to the value of what he gives. If one didn't feel that way, he
would walk away from the deal. See also my earlier response for the
example of taxation.

-tg

James wrote:

That book made me get an A- in my 10th grade Drafting class. Us
drafters were required to read it back then. I cannot decide whether my
liking for logic comes from that book or Mr. Spock on Star Trek.
http://images.google.com/images?q=spock probably both and other things.
I haven't read that book in many years but if googoowikiyouman I
remembered something cool bout my past thanx much indeedy!

"tg" earthlink.net> wrote:

The one thing that Howard Roark doesn't want to do is "deal" with
anybody. I think it fair to say that in the book, Roark wants to succeed
without having to make any deals at all, never agreeing to do what
someone else wants.

I don't think deal making is the point in her books. I think Rand was
actually "anti-deal", a deal by it's nature is an agreement between
parties to limit their own freedoms; something Rand was very much
against.

tg wrote:

Crap, you know nothing of Rand's philosophy.

Utter fucking crap, if you get born under the threat of a gun then how
the fuck are your actions volunteered?

MG

James wrote:

There's a mistake, but anyway not the subject.

To understand The Fountainhead you also need to understand what Rand
means by morality and man living for his own sake, i.e. the ideas which
underpin The Fountainhead.

Selfishness can only remain a moral virtue if and while it does not
contradict the virtue of independence.

Even that needs further explanation but can wait.

Each of Rand's values and her virtues are directly linked and are in
harmony with each other, they have to be because contradictions are
required as the destroyer of all and any things in existence, including
man's ideas.