Since you are one who enjoys serving the self-interests of others as opposed to your own, perhaps the fact that others have consistently rated Atlas Shrugged as one of the most influential book of all time (second only to the Bible) will encourage you to read it? (The survey results come from the Book of the Month Club in conjunction with the Library of Congress.)
That being said, will you read Atlas Shrugged? It may not be as long as the Bible, but you'll definitely get more out of it and it will cause you to question more than the Bible causes you to... Now... go read Atlas Shrugged!:-)
Since you are one who enjoys serving the self-interests of others as opposed to your own, perhaps the fact that others have consistently rated Atlas Shrugged as one of the most influential book of all time (second only to the Bible) will encourage you to read it? (The survey results come from the Book of the Month Club in conjunction with the Library of Congress.)
That being said, will you read Atlas Shrugged? It may not be as long as the Bible, but you'll definitely get more out of it and it will cause you to question more than the Bible causes you to... Now... go read Atlas Shrugged!:-)
I think this discussion is really pointless until you read Atlas Shrugged. At least get it and read the speech by John Galt (book three, the chapter titled, "This is John Galt Speaking").
When you make a decision, you are more important than other people, you shouldn't be worrying about them, thats their concern
Ugh. If I am nice to my neighbor, he will likely be nice to me. Hence it is in my self-interest to be nice to my neighbor. Read John Galt's speech, read John Galt's speech, read it, read it, read it.
No where in Rand's ethics is it specified that one should sacrifice oneself for the good of the many
Correct, but working together on the life boat would greatly increase the chances of everyone's survival. Since you would be in the set of everyone, your chances of survival would increase. Hence, it would be in your self-interest to encourage people to work together. It would not be in your self0interest to kill everyone and eat their food - you would violate the physical violence factor and "those who live by the gun, die by the gun."
Theft is not acceptible in Rand's theory. Rand believes strongly in free men freely trading. Theft is not trading. Wantless destruction is not trading. Rand is so against senseless violence, against stealing, etc. Why do you think I have been bitching about taxes? I DON'T LIKE THIEVES! The government is stealing my money, I have no option but to give it to them (or go to jail).
You're faced with a madman who is going to kill 100 people, unless you kill one of them. What do you do?
Perhaps you should reread the Objectivist URLs I provided: "The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders." Physical force is acceptible in retaliation or self-defense. If an invader attacks your nation, you can defend yourself and retaliate. If everyone followed the simple rule, "Do not initiate violence," there would be zero violence. READ JOHN GALT'S SPEACH. It discusses this issue in detail. No rational man wants violence, but if he is dealing with those whose moral code is to use violence, a rational man will realize he must respond with said violence.
Aren't our representatives leading happy lives sacrificing for us?
This made me laugh out loud. I would agree with you if they were paid nothing for their job, but they get paid well, have special interest money to pamper them, etc. I really can't believe you said this, that is too funny. Our representatives, OKing the billions of dollars to fight drugs? OKing $27 million dollars for their own parties once a year (the conventions)? That is serving us sacrifically? Tee hee! Tell you what, why don't you give me 33% of your income to let me throw a party, that's the kind of self-sacrifice I'd like to partake in!
Objectivism should make sense to everyone. If reality really is objective, and Objectivism is sound, how can people reject it?
Because there are so many irrational people! Do you believe in God? If you use mystical explanations for your arguments, then you are arguing irrationally. There are so few rational people, at least as Rand defines "rational." The basic tenet, that A is A, is ignored by many. To quote Rand:
"To exist is to possess identity. What identity are [mystics] able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say -- and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge -- God is non-man, heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not acts of defining, but of wiping out."
Let me quote Rand once more, I really do find her arguments quite convincing when given serious thought: "If conditions of existence are destructive to genius, they are destructive to every man, each in proportion to his intelligence. If genius is penalized, so is the faculty of intelligence in every other man." From Atlas Shrugged:
"In proportion to the mental energy he spent, the man who creates a new invention receives but a small percentage of his value in terms of material payment, no matter what fortune he makes, no matter what millions he earns. But the man who works as a janitor in the factory producing that invention, receives an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him. And the same is true of all men between, on all levels of ambition and ability. The man at the top of the intellectual pyramid contributes the most to all those below him, but gets nothing except his material payment, receiving no intellectual bonus from others to add to the value of his time. The man at the bottom who, left to himself, would starve in his hopeless ineptitude, contributes nothing to those above him, but receives the bonus of all of their brains. Such is the nature of the 'competition' between the strong and the weak of the intellect. Such is the pattern of 'exploitation' for which you have damned the strong."
To conclude, please, please, please read John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged.
The most susceptible trap to fall into is to not think rationally. It is to easy to think irrationally, and, if man makes a conscious effort to think rationally, self interest is good.
If I'm on a lifeboat with 6 other people, we won't get picked up for 20 days, we only have enough food to keep us alive for 10. People using Randian ethics won't sacrifice themselves, because they are too busy worrying about the consequences for them
An irrational thinker who has his self interest as his main concern, will do exactly as you say. A rational thinker will realize that everyone needs to work together. Remember, Rand is vehemenently against initiating physical violence. So the rational Randian wouldn't kill others, or steal their rations. He would try to keep everyone calm, worry about finding help, or coming up with viable solutions for the problem at hand.
You are the mayor of some city... the only option is for you to publicly execute someone for the crime, even if that person is innocent
Again, Rand is completely opposed to initiating physical violence. From the mouth of Rand: "... no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others." - http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/io.ht ml.
Self-interest is key. Read Atlas Shrugged, there is a ~65 page speech from the main character where Rand spells out in great detail her philosophy. (It was the hardest part of the book to get through. While it summed up her theory well, it's hard to read sixty some pages of a character's speech in a novel.) You cannot live a happy life sacrificing for others, you cannot lead a productive life sacrificing for others. The US gov't realized the nature of this and set up patents, allowing people to protect their inventions as an incentive to create. Do you think we'd have all of our modern marvels today if creators, entrepenuers, and scientists knew that whatever they created they had to share its secrets with all of their competitors? It's hard enough as it is, being in business for myself, knowing that I have to give (or be jailed, a use of physical force) 39% of my income to a government who gives part of that to people who don't feel like working.
If you have some time, I think you should try to find and read webpages that are against Objectivism, if you haven't already. You'll probably be surprised how many rational people don't agree with it
I have, and it's quite obvious not everyone agrees with it, else we would have a laissez-faire capitalist economy and a minimalist government. If everyone agreed with it we'd have no welfare, no public schools, no people who expected to be given a free handout.
I've also read most of The Voice of Reason, a collection of Rand's essays. There is a particular essay, "Altruism as Appeasement," that really struck home with me. It talks about how society and schools encourage people to stop thinking rationally and to feel guilt for having passionate self-interests. I wish I could find a version on the Web for you, but I've had no luck. It's a short essay, pick up the book from your library, it's worth it.
Come on guys, they have a hard enough time actually making money, they have to try whatever it may take to hopefully eventually reach a break-even point. If you feel sorry for them, put up with their slight price fluctuations or send donations to Bezos. If you don't feel sorry for them, then just don't shop with them and let nature take its course, they'll be gone in a year or so if enough people refuse to shop there...
It's nice to see a little sanity here, in your post. Most people act as if Amazon.com was forcing them to make purchases for insane amounts of money more than what others were paying. Folks, that's what capitalism is, an exchange of a good or service for money. The amount of the exchange is based upon two factors:
What the seller is willing to sell it for
What the buyer is willing to pay
You have a very conscious effort in deciding if you will pay what Amazon.com asks! If you are not willing to buy it, don't, it's that simple. (See #6 above, Just Say No.)
The morale is quite simple: selfishness is good. -
That's your opinion, most European will disagree with you
Selfishness is good, you must agree with it, otherwise you would have died long ago. Whose concern are you thinking about when you eat? Anyone but yours? No. Man needs to worry about satisfying his own needs before he can worry about satisfying the needs of society. Furthermore, man will accomplish more working for himself than working for others. A proven psychological fact: the harder you have to work for something the more you enjoy it. Imagine working to buy a car as opposed to just being given that car. You would appreciate the car much more having worked for it yourself. Selfishness and self-esteem go hand in hand. How can anyone who lives off the handouts of others have any shred of self respect? The food you work for to buy tastes better than the food you steal from a hard worker.
Facists ideas and parties are nowadays still a big problem in France, and since it makes no sense helping them propagating their nazi propaganda
Restricting rights is not the way to "handle" this problem. What if the "people" of France decide that Jewish leaders are also something that aren't that good, and so they "vote" to not allow Synagouges in the country, or they "vote" to not allow people of Jewish faith to hold office, or Jewish merchandise to be sold. If you do not stand up to protect the rights of the minority, do not be surprised when your rights are taken from you. Have you read that poem from a Pastor about the hollocaust? I don't know it ver batim, but it goes like: "When they came for the homosexuals, I didn't say anything, because I was not gay / When they came for the Jews, I looked the other way, because I was a Catholic / When they came for the poor and homeless, I said nothing, since I had food and shelter / When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything."
Don't buy that. From Rand: "Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are -- and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." (http://www.aynrand.org/objectivi sm/essentials.html)
I am no philosophy student and I've never claimed to be one. However, while reading Atlas Shrugged something just clicked inside me, I finally stopped accepting what I had always been told and started questioning my axiom base. While Objectivism may be "Fisher Price's My First Philosophy," it makes sense to me. My background in philosophy (or lack thereof) leads me to be best working with a simple philosophy. It is one that makes sense, in my opinion, since it is based upon reason. Why spend years debating on if we exist? To the Objectivist, one axiom is "existence exists." Pure and simple. Reality exists, things are what they are, A is A. You should take a breif moment out of your day (away from the potential time to read Shakespeare) and read "Introducing Objectivism," by Ayn Rand - http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/io.ht ml. Seriously, it will take you like 30 seconds, it's a quick skim over the philosophy.
If you haven't seen _Roger & Me_ or _Citizen Kane_ yet, you should
I've seen Citizen Kane, but not Roger and Me. I'd go rent it tonight, but I don't own a TV (that probably ruins any credibility you had in me, a guy in this day and age without a TV!?!?!!) B'wa ha ha!
I use to share a lot of your views. I thought, "We need to give money to those to help them make better lives for themselves." I thought that public schools and public libraries were important. I thought that the government should take an active role in insuring psychologically and physically handicapped individuals, incapable of working, were able to survive.
After reading Atlas Shrugged and The Voice of Reason (a collection of Rand's essays), I believe quite the opposite. One thing Objectivism strongly encourages (of which Rand is the founder) is reason. "The only evil thought is to not think at all." Start reading Atlas Shrugged (it's a long book, ~1,200 pages). When I started I found myself unable to fall asleep at night, questioning the many socialist thoughts I had. When thinking rationally about these thoughts, in simple terms, I came to the realization that I have shared with you in my past posts. What I believe I believe is correct, since I've spent countless hours reasoning through it. As John Galt says in Atlas Shrugged: "When I disagree with a ratnional man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." Now go and read Atlas Shrugged and The Voice of Reason and visit Objectivist Web sites (ask questions on alt.philosophy.objectivism, which I did quite a bit of), spend some serious time thinking about it rationally and reasonably, and I think you will come to agree with me...
People aren't poor because they aren't working hard
First of all, not everyone has to be the same. There will always be various classes, which is good. I spend my highschool years in a poor, rural town where there was a lot of poverty. I've seen both determined kids my age, who worked a job after school and saved up enough money to go to college; there were kids who didn't go to college and decided to stick around and work at pretty crappy jobs, but they still supported themselves; and, finally, there were kids who decided to get pregnant or subsist on welfare after school. The choice was their's, and I don't think I should have to pay for their ineptitude or laziness or baby-making ability. While they may not have had the money or aptitude to go to college, they could have easily gotten work and remained self-sufficient, saving up, taking classes at the community college at night, etc. THEY CHOSE NOT TO. It wasn't some clamaity forced upon them, they weren't damned by the fates, they simply made a rational decision to live off of the hand outs of others. It's that simple.
I've subscribed to the social contract theory as well, but I've only given up a small set of rights, ones that protect my life, libery, and persuit of happiness/property.
I do believe that the money I am parting with is going to the right place too
Ah, like the hundreds of millions of dollars Clinton has used this term to travel? Like the $27 million dollars that went to pay for the Republican/Democratic conventions? Like the tax cuts that Congressmen have passed for those who purchase a yacht exceeding 50 feet? Yes, your money is going into the right places, right into the pockets of those who took the money from you in the first place!
I have "Atlas Shrugged" in English, but the display of selfishness at the beginning, make it hard to swallow (a bit like communist propaganda). Can you sum up the morale ? "If you try hard, you'll success ?" ignoring that half of the people try hard and still fail?
The morale is quite simple: selfishness is good. Man, himself, is a means to an end. The morale is that people have rights to life, libery, and pursuit of happiness/property. The morale is that people who take from you, who force you to give what is rightfully yours, are thieves and are evil.
It doesn't surprise me that there's no French translation of Atlas Shrugged. The French have formed an interesting culture, one in which they've given up many of their rights. Correct me if I am wrong, but it's illegal to purchase Nazi items in France.
"As French expatriate businesswoman Martine Kempf tells Stossel: 'I designed and built a voice-recognition system to help disabled people control electric functions in cars,' but French red tape made distribution of the product impossible. A move to Silicon Valley changed all that, and within in a year Kempf was distributing her voice-activated cars in nine countries.
Her hometown back in France is so proud, 'they named a street after me, Rue Martine Kempf,' she says. 'But I still don't want to go back.'
France's loss is America's gain, a pattern repeated every time people flee a stifling environment for a more open one."
You'd think when you are competing against a product that is FREE your product would have to be considerably better
I don't have the numbers, so this is assumption, but do you think this statement is false? "The average test scores for SATs, ACTs, and other standardized tests are higher at private schools than at public schools." Also, I'd assume this to be true: "The number of shootings per capita has been significantly lower at private schools than at public schools." I call that beating the competition hands down.
Those that cannot afford an education no longer have their rights to liberty or happiness
So for the years where public education wasn't available in this nation, people were being denied their Constitutional rights? Those that cannot afford an education work for it. Why are you against the notion of actually working hard for something you want, as opposed to expecting a handout?
Expecting people to have enough foresight to know how to get out of their rut, is expecting quite a bit
I believe every person has the ability to reason and form rational decisions. If one wishes to exercise this, they will find a way "out of the rut." If they wish to lounge around, looking forlorne, and asking for what others have, I say let them stay in their rut.
As far as reading Atlas Shrugged, I think you need to stop with this silly rhetoric and read it. Don't be afraid to think new thoughts, to challenge your existing beliefs, and to - most importantly - learn something new.
Rand argues that one reason man feels the need to help the moochers is due to:
- man is chastised as a child for his intelligence (made fun of for doing well in school or whatnot)
- man questions why he is being insulted for a virtue - to appease his tormenters, man seeks their acceptance - man then rationalizes that these tormenters are of a lower mental stock and that there are many others like them - when deciding to encourage socialism/communism, man does so because he subconsciously fears this "mental lower class" and wants to appease them
I don't think that such a "mental lower class" exists, rather it's all misperception on the part of the individual. Before I end this post, let me leave you with a thought: ask yourself this question rationally: "Does anyone have the right to forcibly take your hard earned income and do with it what they please?" You surely would be upset if a thief robbed you and used your money to feed his family. You'd wonder why can't that robber work himself, why must he resort to theft as an ends to a means? However you don't feel the same way when the government takes (robs) your money and does the same thing with it?
I am no economics major, but my understanding is that free markets are, relatively speaking, a very new thing, borne around the time of the industrial revolution. Without capitalism there has been slavery (serfdom, communism, etc.). I guess capitalism is older than socialism/communism, though.
If you are so deadset against welfare, are you willing to take the next logical step and be against public schools
Yes, schools should be privatized. People would get a more affordable education; teachers would get paid more than peanuts; those students that were interested would actually learn stuff as opposed to endure hours of "study hall" and "homeroom."
the burden for paying for school shold not rest squarely on the parents
Why not? Public schools were not always around in this country, people seemed to live and do well enough when they were privatized.
Capitalism does not offer _anyone_ the chance to become something great
First off, I think you mean everyone instead of anyone, because - as is - I can refute your argument by simply pointing to a single case of the self-made man, of which there are millions. Second, I never said capitalism was there to make everyone great. Does socialism? Communism? How great is the man who must subsist on handouts from others? Capitalism takes advantage of man's innate selfishness, his desire to see himself do well. If I were to ask you, "Would you rather work for your income (whatever it is now), or would you rather have someone steal the money from another and give it to you?" Hopefully you would say you would rather earn it. People who answer this way benefit from capitalism; those who would rather have their income stolen from others, those who would rather live off of handouts, those beggars and looters, enjoy socialism and communism.
To say that all you need is drive and desire means you believe that everyone has the same opportunities, which is not true, not here or anywhere
Not everyone can be multibillion dollar tycoons. Everyone can work hard, put in 110% and make something of themselves. There are millions of immigrants who've come to this country, worked shit jobs, but worked them hard, providing for their family, educating their youth, and making a better future for their posterity. They could not to this in a communist economy; rather, to better their family they would need to produce more babies, become chronically ill, or find someother way to leech off of others.
America wasn't always the greatest place in the world to live. I know it wasn't before 1850, and I doubt it was before 1900
What brings you to this conclusion? I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd assume that America had more immigrants in the ninteenth century than any other country. Were people flocking over here because America wasn't great?
America, the greatest country in the world, wasn't America until after World War II. After FDR was done breaking capitalism and ruining our beautiful country
America was such a superpower then because all of the other superpowers were devestated by war. It had nothing to do with FDR's social policies, it had to do with the death and destruction caused by the Axis powers. Before WWII, Britain had the world's largest colonial presence, was the world's greatest superpower. Why are they no longer? Was it because FDR enacted social security and Churchill did not? Hell no, it was because Hitler launched thousands of V2 rockets at Britain, Japan claimed Britain's colonies in Asia, Hitler took many of Britain's colonies in Northern Africa, the Jews were given Isreal after the war, etc. We were a "great" nation after the war because all of the other "great" nations had been devestated.
Is it fair that the government can take your money by force? It must be, since "everyone" in the civilized world is ok with it
Dear God, I wish this argument was valid! "But Miss Teenybopper, everyone's having sex, so you should too..." Clearly not everyone endoreses this view, surely I am an element of the set of everyone, and I do not endorse it.
If it wasn't fair, surely a group of similar thinking people would work to make their own country where the government doesn't demand money of its people
It would have happened, I am certain, if other nations weren't so belligerent. It's hard to have a sizable armed force when taking only voluntary contributions in lieu of taxes. Prior to WWII, another nation would have taken it forcibly. The closest nation to what I describe is America, and people have been flocking here for generations. Also, the argument that, "No one else has done it, hence it must not be right," is hogwash and you know it.
continuing to live in a country that forcibly taxes its people, you are endorsing those laws
And what nation am I to go where they do not collect taxes?
Regarding Atlas Shrugged, I'll have to check the publisher and my list of boycotts before I can read it. It really is hard spending money correctly.
Go to the public library and pick up a copy for free. Something that was paid for with money that was forcibly taken from you, so enjoy the end product of the government's theft (the library).
I don't believe that collective decisions should ever be made. I would never want to make a decision that would effect scores of others (when they can make their own decision on the matter) and don't expect people to be making decisions for me. TimeWarner/AOL... why shouldn't they merge, if we were living in a free market there wouldn't be any discussion on this. It would have happened by now. Those who were opposed would stop funnelling their dollars to the company, and, if enough people did that, they'd either break-up or make changes.
the company was later sued ; this was difficult because they carefully chose people ; in a pure libertarian setting, it won't get sued, and could just get away with this
Why couldn't the company get sued in a libertarian setting? The courts would not be abolished by any stretch of the imagination. People's attitude today is, "If a company commits fraud, send the government after them," when it should be, "If a company commits fraud, start the civil suits." (Well, I guess a lot of civil suits are happening as it is.) Since companies care about money as the bottom line, getting sued by thousands or millions of consumers is not their idea of a good time.
The problem is that you have to duplicate all the government organisations.
Why would all these government bodies need to be formed? Who needs to EPA? Who needs the FBI? Who needs the IRS? Who needs the FCC? Who needs the FDA? Who needs the CIA?
And then, because they are not democratic, you are guaranted to have people trying to influence them
Ha! What do you think we have happening today? Special interest groups send lobbiers to Congress to waive fat checks in their face so they'll vote for whatever bills these special interests want them to! If that's not "people trying to influence" these government organizations, I don't know what is!
Governement just enforces the rules the society want
In a purely democratic government, perhaps, but in a republic, not so. Once we elect our representatives, they are free to make whatever choices they want on bills. So, while our opinions may sway them to vote one way or another, it is not a direct cause and effect between society's wills and the laws of the land.
If the society decides that 1/3 of the income must go to state and get used for free services and redistributed, then let it be
I don't think anyone consciously has decided this. Rather, it comes from long line of moochers, of looters, asking, "Where's my handout?" As more and more people demand their handouts, the more money is needed to be taken from hard working individuals.
We want a middle class. We want people at all sorts of economic levels
Capitalism give you this - no other economic policy does. How do you think a middle class formed, from hand outs from the government (socialism/communism)? Hardly. Capitalism does not create the gulf between the rich and the poor, communism does that. Communism and socialism are forms of slavery - the hard working, ambitious individuals are forced to toil and give up their earned income to pay for those who don't feel like working. Capitalism offers anyone the opportunity to become something great; all it takes is drive and desire.
Conceding one's right to decide where his/her money goes for the betterment of society is reasonable and rational, to an extent. (of course, this is a slippery slope. I have no idea where to draw the line. As long as there is competition, and reason to improve ones financial position, we should be ok)
This is a very slippery slope. As more and more people become dependent on the hard work of others, more will be stolen, forcibly taken, from those who work hard. Read Atlas Shrugged - while it suffers from black and white and strawman fallacies every now and then, it is an entertaining read and gets across several important points.
But if you can improve capitalism by mixing in some socialism, everyone wins.
No, the only people who win are those who wish to steal from those who are ambitious. Those people, like myself, who work hard are forced (forced!) to give our hard earned money (our money, not anyone elses) to a mass of people who don't deserve it.
You can't count on someone being generous, giving his/her money to the poor
A lot of people will say this, that we need things like welfare because people won't contribute to charity if they're not forced to. Our country opperated just fine without a welfare program for the majority of its history. Why all of the sudden do we need a welfare program now? Assume that the government decided that everyone needed to own a pair of shoes, so they made a program that would take money from those that had it to buy shoes for everyone (a program enacted in Soviet Russia at one time). After this program was in action for a while, if the government tried to stop it people would decry, "But we need our shoes, if the government doesn't give us our shoes, how are we going to be able to have shoes?" Look at America, where shoes aren't given: there are tons of shoe companies, tens of thousands of jobs created because of it, healthy competition, and everyone has shoes. It's like the chicken and the egg delimma...
Unfortunately, the war on drugs makes for good press, and it will be a long time before someone who is pro-drugs gets elected.
I hope we don't ever elect a "pro-drug" leader... rather a "pro-choice" leader, one who values the minds and intellects of his/her constituents and realizes that on their own they can make rational decisions and they don't need the government telling them what they can and cannot do (a slight step away from the government telling us what we can and cannot think).
No expert decided that you have to work 35 hours. It is just a society choice
So society decides that 35 hours is the max... an individual in France wants to work more, to better provide for his family, but must bend to the whims of others or risk breaking the law? I would never, ever live in a country that tells me in flat terms the number of hours I can legally work. That is my decision and mine alone.
you are displaying a amazing level of shortsightness for someone who claims to belong to the "elite"
I don't claim to be in the "elite." I don't believe there is an elite. I believe every person (lest they've had traumatic brain damage or psychological illness) has the ability to reason and form rational decisions.
If what you said were true, then you wouldn't go and see the doctor when you are ill
When did I say this? I said I have the right to make my own decisions. I'd decide to go see a doctor. What I don't want is a government law saying I can't, or that I have to go see a doctor. It is my choice whether or not I want to go see a doctor, no one else's.
First you will notice that you are not the center of the world, so you definitly can't tell what is the "general good"
You have put a lot of words into my mouth. I never said I could tell what is good for the general good. I can, however, tell what's best for me.
I am not saying that I am an expert who knows everything, I am anything but that. I am an expert on one thing, though: myself. I am a reasonable person who can make rational decisions. What right do you have to make my decisions for me? You are obviously a socialist, one who believes that the rights of the many supercede the right of the individual. I am on the exact opposite pole. This does not mean I think only about myself - I volunteer time and money to worthwhile organizations. What it does mean, though, is that I can make my own decisions and relish the opportunity to do such! I don't want others making those decisions for me.
Except that governement is held accountable, so if it wants to get re-elected (usually one of his top goals), rest assured the democratically elected people will choose competent people
Ah, like crack-smokin' Bush and Internet-creating Gore? The government panders to people's votes; corporations pander to people's dollars. Each has a measure of checks and ballances: if the gov't screws up, they don't get re-elected; if a corp. screws up, it looses consumers.
Ever heard of AT&T and Microsoft. It is difficult to control you openly, but sure enough, the companies are trying to control you in subtle ways
Microsoft is trying to control me? How? By coming to my house and requiring me to pay them money or face a prison sentence? By requiring me, at times, to join an army and risk death in a war I might be against? Oh wait, that is the government, my bad.
Pure libertarian. It doesn't work though ; of course you won't believe me
I disagree with you indeed. I agree that it hasn't worked yet, but I think in certain circumstances it could work.
Since you are in a democratic country, you have to bend by the rules of the society
Regardless of what kind of government you are living under, you have to bend to the rules of society, unless you wished to be labelled an outcast. Society and government are two different things.
So your government would expect people to give what they can and take what they need
This is, bar none, the absolute opposite of what I'm saying. What you describe is statism or collectivism, where people work for the good of the people. Those who can produce more, give more and where everyone takes what they need. This is so far from what I'm encouraging. I am for capitalism, not for communism. No one "takes." Everyone has a vested interest to give, although it is their call if they do and how much they donate. The government would no longer be responsible for giving hand-outs. It is a crime, in my eyes, for the government to forcibly take my money (taxes) and give it to someone else (welfare). Fuck that, if I want to give money to the less fortunate, I will, but what right does anyone else have to literally force me to give them money and then hand out that money to others?
John Stossel recently did a report on Why America is Number 1. Read his interview and his article . Note his argument, that America "is a great success story: It has the most wealth, the most Nobel Prizes, the most immigrants per year of any country and an infectious pop culture that has spread around the world." His argument can best be summed up with his statement: "One factor that really does make a difference, according to experts at think tanks such as Freedom House, the Heritage Foundation and Canada's Fraser Institute, is economic freedom -- the absence of government regulations. Hong Kong and the United States, they point out, are among the freest nations in the world; countries like India, Syria and North Korea are among the most highly regulated."
I will gladly give up some of my rights if it means saving time. Ideally, we wouldn't have representatives, right? But, it sure is easier not having to vote on every bill that effects us
No, it would remain representative. The impact of the government would be less. They wouldn't impose numerous laws that make my choices for me. The bottom line: I should be able to make my own choices solongas my decisions doesn't harm others. If I want to smoke pot, that should be my call, not the government's. There shouldn't be a DEA. (A side note: I don't do drugs myself; I have considered it and weighed the consequences and have decided not to use them. I think everyone should be given the chance to make this rational decision as opposed to having it decided for them by the gov't.)
Hardly. How much money can you make out of someone who has been fucked? A one time fucking fee, perhaps, but if you don't fuck them you can continually receive their money over time. I've yet to have a company tell me that I have to give them money or I'll go to jail, yet the government tells me this every April 15th.
I don't understand why you are so trusting of self-appointed bureuacrats rather than elected officials
You don't think that the government is choked full of appointed (non-elected) beaurocrats!?!?! Did you vote for every employee in every government job? Of course not, there is no voting for who runs the FCC, who runs the FDA, who runs the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, etc. You've had as much say for who leads the EPA as you had for who runs Coca-Cola (assuming you own no stock in Coca-Cola).
Don't you think democracy is a good idea
Yes, I think it is the most wonderful form of government. I just want a government that doesn't get as involved in my daily life.
I'd rather not have my life controlled by corporations thank you
I don't see how this could ever happen. I don't want this to happen either, I also don't want my life totally controlled by the government either. I want to control my life, and I have the best ability to do that in a free market with a government that understands its role is quite minimal: specifically, only to protect its citizens from physical force from belligeretns at home or abroad.
I hope you were being sarcastic with this post, I really do, but I will respond as if you weren't.
The most visible example here in France was someone called "the best economist in France", who was prime minister. And many top level people are working back and forth governement and finance/companies
And France's economy is good? Don't they have terrible unemployment? Didn't they recently mandate that the working week is 35 hours and that, BY LAW, people can't work over that time limit? Yeah, I want that expert telling me when and how long I can work.
The governement has experts to analyze the risks of each product, to ask for some inquiries, to make laws when companies are detrimental to the general good.
But not one of those experts is me. I am me. I know what's best for me. No one else does. Ask yourself who knows you better than you? Not a single person, not your parents, not your siblings, not your spouse. You know you and if anyone should be making decisions affecting you, it should be you!
This is typical male adolescent attitude. "I'm the center of the world, I'm one million more time clever than anyone on any subject, I don't want to accept any authority".
I've never claimed to know more than anyone else or that I'm an expert on all subjects, you're putting words into my mouth. WHat I profess to be an expert on is deciding what is best for me. I want to be given the choice to make my own decisions; I don't want some committee in Washington to do that for me.
I don't understand why you don't get it, governement is here mostly to serve you
Ah yes, to serve me by forcible taking my money (taxes)? If a government was there to truly serve those who wanted its service, it would run off of donations and volunteer contributions; in essense, it would run like a business. No business can force me to give them 33% of my income - rather, I exchange, on terms amicable to both the business and myself, what I will pay for what specific goods/services I will receive. The government should operate this way as well.
Take an hour or two to read the Communist Manifesto. It is interesting, Marx and Engels argue that the bourgeois are (or were) constantly trying to improve technology to increase the efficiency of their production and reduce the effort and input needed by man in the production queue. Such a movement, the Manifesto argues, pushes those lower middle class individuals into the proletariat. In any case, it's interesting, because it seems the opposite of what the big corporations are doing today. Rather than embracing the new technologies like the bourgeois described by Marx and Engels, the bourgeois of today are trying to keep the status quo. Interesting....
Tell me, you say it is your right to dislike someone, right
Yes, just as it is your right "to think that you really need to wake up and smell the coffee brewing."
So you are telling me that you would like to have most of the talented individuals in the industry out of work?
Hell, I don't care if convicted hackers are employed or not, I do not work at a security firm, I am not an HR person at such a place. Personally I could care less if they are hired or not. I was just arguing that it is the employer's choice. Would the person have a better chance to be employed had they not been convicted of committing a crime? Yes, I'd wager. That was also what I said, if employability is important to you, don't break the law. Doing so will not prevent you from getting a job but it will likely make it tougher.
And no, I am not telling you what to do; I'm simply requesting that you think about the situation a little more
Your earlier statements sure made it seem like you were telling me what to think. The beauty with the situation as is, is that I don't have to think about it extensively since it doesn't effect me. Should a security firm hire someone who's been convicted of a crime. I DON'T CARE. If they want to, sure, OK, cool; if not, fine, that's their call. What I am saying is that: first, just because someone serves their time, my view is a bit slanted on them still (past behavior is the strongest indicator of future behavior); and if you are concerned about your employability, try your best to refrain from committing crimes.
and most of them have no time to spent to analyze with excruating details how good/bad the actions, products, investements, policy of each product they are buying are good for environment, society, their health etc
I can't believe what you are saying. You are arguing that the government should be given the power to decide what products are good/bad for the environment/society/health/me. Fuck that, I don't appreciate people making decisions that I can make for myself. I will decide a given product is unsafe for me, I don't want some group of government officials to TELL ME what is and isn't safe for me.
Are you completly deconnected from the reality of the power fight of countries, corporations, and people?
What are you arguing? That corporations are out to fuck people? That government is out to fuck people? That government is out to fuck corporations? What are you saying? All of the above statements are quite preposterous. What do you recommend, government controlled businesses? No better way to increase productivity than to have all forms of commerce operated by the beaurocrats.
Slashdot Mirror
That being said, will you read Atlas Shrugged? It may not be as long as the Bible, but you'll definitely get more out of it and it will cause you to question more than the Bible causes you to... Now... go read Atlas Shrugged! :-)
That being said, will you read Atlas Shrugged? It may not be as long as the Bible, but you'll definitely get more out of it and it will cause you to question more than the Bible causes you to... Now... go read Atlas Shrugged! :-)
When you make a decision, you are more important than other people, you shouldn't be worrying about them, thats their concern
Ugh. If I am nice to my neighbor, he will likely be nice to me. Hence it is in my self-interest to be nice to my neighbor. Read John Galt's speech, read John Galt's speech, read it, read it, read it.
No where in Rand's ethics is it specified that one should sacrifice oneself for the good of the many
Correct, but working together on the life boat would greatly increase the chances of everyone's survival. Since you would be in the set of everyone, your chances of survival would increase. Hence, it would be in your self-interest to encourage people to work together. It would not be in your self0interest to kill everyone and eat their food - you would violate the physical violence factor and "those who live by the gun, die by the gun."
Theft is not acceptible in Rand's theory. Rand believes strongly in free men freely trading. Theft is not trading. Wantless destruction is not trading. Rand is so against senseless violence, against stealing, etc. Why do you think I have been bitching about taxes? I DON'T LIKE THIEVES! The government is stealing my money, I have no option but to give it to them (or go to jail).
You're faced with a madman who is going to kill 100 people, unless you kill one of them. What do you do?
Perhaps you should reread the Objectivist URLs I provided: "The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders." Physical force is acceptible in retaliation or self-defense. If an invader attacks your nation, you can defend yourself and retaliate. If everyone followed the simple rule, "Do not initiate violence," there would be zero violence. READ JOHN GALT'S SPEACH. It discusses this issue in detail. No rational man wants violence, but if he is dealing with those whose moral code is to use violence, a rational man will realize he must respond with said violence.
Aren't our representatives leading happy lives sacrificing for us?
This made me laugh out loud. I would agree with you if they were paid nothing for their job, but they get paid well, have special interest money to pamper them, etc. I really can't believe you said this, that is too funny. Our representatives, OKing the billions of dollars to fight drugs? OKing $27 million dollars for their own parties once a year (the conventions)? That is serving us sacrifically? Tee hee! Tell you what, why don't you give me 33% of your income to let me throw a party, that's the kind of self-sacrifice I'd like to partake in!
Objectivism should make sense to everyone. If reality really is objective, and Objectivism is sound, how can people reject it?
Because there are so many irrational people! Do you believe in God? If you use mystical explanations for your arguments, then you are arguing irrationally. There are so few rational people, at least as Rand defines "rational." The basic tenet, that A is A, is ignored by many. To quote Rand:
Let me quote Rand once more, I really do find her arguments quite convincing when given serious thought: "If conditions of existence are destructive to genius, they are destructive to every man, each in proportion to his intelligence. If genius is penalized, so is the faculty of intelligence in every other man." From Atlas Shrugged:
To conclude, please, please, please read John Galt's speech in Atlas Shrugged.
If I'm on a lifeboat with 6 other people, we won't get picked up for 20 days, we only have enough food to keep us alive for 10. People using Randian ethics won't sacrifice themselves, because they are too busy worrying about the consequences for them
An irrational thinker who has his self interest as his main concern, will do exactly as you say. A rational thinker will realize that everyone needs to work together. Remember, Rand is vehemenently against initiating physical violence. So the rational Randian wouldn't kill others, or steal their rations. He would try to keep everyone calm, worry about finding help, or coming up with viable solutions for the problem at hand.
You are the mayor of some city... the only option is for you to publicly execute someone for the crime, even if that person is innocent
Again, Rand is completely opposed to initiating physical violence. From the mouth of Rand: "... no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others." - http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/io.ht ml.
Self-interest is key. Read Atlas Shrugged, there is a ~65 page speech from the main character where Rand spells out in great detail her philosophy. (It was the hardest part of the book to get through. While it summed up her theory well, it's hard to read sixty some pages of a character's speech in a novel.) You cannot live a happy life sacrificing for others, you cannot lead a productive life sacrificing for others. The US gov't realized the nature of this and set up patents, allowing people to protect their inventions as an incentive to create. Do you think we'd have all of our modern marvels today if creators, entrepenuers, and scientists knew that whatever they created they had to share its secrets with all of their competitors? It's hard enough as it is, being in business for myself, knowing that I have to give (or be jailed, a use of physical force) 39% of my income to a government who gives part of that to people who don't feel like working.
If you have some time, I think you should try to find and read webpages that are against Objectivism, if you haven't already. You'll probably be surprised how many rational people don't agree with it
I have, and it's quite obvious not everyone agrees with it, else we would have a laissez-faire capitalist economy and a minimalist government. If everyone agreed with it we'd have no welfare, no public schools, no people who expected to be given a free handout.
I've also read most of The Voice of Reason, a collection of Rand's essays. There is a particular essay, "Altruism as Appeasement," that really struck home with me. It talks about how society and schools encourage people to stop thinking rationally and to feel guilt for having passionate self-interests. I wish I could find a version on the Web for you, but I've had no luck. It's a short essay, pick up the book from your library, it's worth it.
Come on guys, they have a hard enough time actually making money, they have to try whatever it may take to hopefully eventually reach a break-even point. If you feel sorry for them, put up with their slight price fluctuations or send donations to Bezos. If you don't feel sorry for them, then just don't shop with them and let nature take its course, they'll be gone in a year or so if enough people refuse to shop there...
You have a very conscious effort in deciding if you will pay what Amazon.com asks! If you are not willing to buy it, don't, it's that simple. (See #6 above, Just Say No.)
Selfishness is good, you must agree with it, otherwise you would have died long ago. Whose concern are you thinking about when you eat? Anyone but yours? No. Man needs to worry about satisfying his own needs before he can worry about satisfying the needs of society. Furthermore, man will accomplish more working for himself than working for others. A proven psychological fact: the harder you have to work for something the more you enjoy it. Imagine working to buy a car as opposed to just being given that car. You would appreciate the car much more having worked for it yourself. Selfishness and self-esteem go hand in hand. How can anyone who lives off the handouts of others have any shred of self respect? The food you work for to buy tastes better than the food you steal from a hard worker.
Facists ideas and parties are nowadays still a big problem in France, and since it makes no sense helping them propagating their nazi propaganda
Restricting rights is not the way to "handle" this problem. What if the "people" of France decide that Jewish leaders are also something that aren't that good, and so they "vote" to not allow Synagouges in the country, or they "vote" to not allow people of Jewish faith to hold office, or Jewish merchandise to be sold. If you do not stand up to protect the rights of the minority, do not be surprised when your rights are taken from you. Have you read that poem from a Pastor about the hollocaust? I don't know it ver batim, but it goes like: "When they came for the homosexuals, I didn't say anything, because I was not gay / When they came for the Jews, I looked the other way, because I was a Catholic / When they came for the poor and homeless, I said nothing, since I had food and shelter / When they came for me, there was no one left to say anything."
Don't buy that. From Rand: "Reality, the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears. This means that A is A, that facts are facts, that things are what they are -- and that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it." (http://www.aynrand.org/objectivi sm/essentials.html)
I am no philosophy student and I've never claimed to be one. However, while reading Atlas Shrugged something just clicked inside me, I finally stopped accepting what I had always been told and started questioning my axiom base. While Objectivism may be "Fisher Price's My First Philosophy," it makes sense to me. My background in philosophy (or lack thereof) leads me to be best working with a simple philosophy. It is one that makes sense, in my opinion, since it is based upon reason. Why spend years debating on if we exist? To the Objectivist, one axiom is "existence exists." Pure and simple. Reality exists, things are what they are, A is A. You should take a breif moment out of your day (away from the potential time to read Shakespeare) and read "Introducing Objectivism," by Ayn Rand - http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/io.ht ml. Seriously, it will take you like 30 seconds, it's a quick skim over the philosophy.
If you haven't seen _Roger & Me_ or _Citizen Kane_ yet, you should
I've seen Citizen Kane, but not Roger and Me. I'd go rent it tonight, but I don't own a TV (that probably ruins any credibility you had in me, a guy in this day and age without a TV!?!?!!) B'wa ha ha!
After reading Atlas Shrugged and The Voice of Reason (a collection of Rand's essays), I believe quite the opposite. One thing Objectivism strongly encourages (of which Rand is the founder) is reason. "The only evil thought is to not think at all." Start reading Atlas Shrugged (it's a long book, ~1,200 pages). When I started I found myself unable to fall asleep at night, questioning the many socialist thoughts I had. When thinking rationally about these thoughts, in simple terms, I came to the realization that I have shared with you in my past posts. What I believe I believe is correct, since I've spent countless hours reasoning through it. As John Galt says in Atlas Shrugged: "When I disagree with a ratnional man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit." Now go and read Atlas Shrugged and The Voice of Reason and visit Objectivist Web sites (ask questions on alt.philosophy.objectivism, which I did quite a bit of), spend some serious time thinking about it rationally and reasonably, and I think you will come to agree with me...
First of all, not everyone has to be the same. There will always be various classes, which is good. I spend my highschool years in a poor, rural town where there was a lot of poverty. I've seen both determined kids my age, who worked a job after school and saved up enough money to go to college; there were kids who didn't go to college and decided to stick around and work at pretty crappy jobs, but they still supported themselves; and, finally, there were kids who decided to get pregnant or subsist on welfare after school. The choice was their's, and I don't think I should have to pay for their ineptitude or laziness or baby-making ability. While they may not have had the money or aptitude to go to college, they could have easily gotten work and remained self-sufficient, saving up, taking classes at the community college at night, etc. THEY CHOSE NOT TO. It wasn't some clamaity forced upon them, they weren't damned by the fates, they simply made a rational decision to live off of the hand outs of others. It's that simple.
I've subscribed to the social contract theory as well, but I've only given up a small set of rights, ones that protect my life, libery, and persuit of happiness/property.
I do believe that the money I am parting with is going to the right place too
Ah, like the hundreds of millions of dollars Clinton has used this term to travel? Like the $27 million dollars that went to pay for the Republican/Democratic conventions? Like the tax cuts that Congressmen have passed for those who purchase a yacht exceeding 50 feet? Yes, your money is going into the right places, right into the pockets of those who took the money from you in the first place!
The morale is quite simple: selfishness is good. Man, himself, is a means to an end. The morale is that people have rights to life, libery, and pursuit of happiness/property. The morale is that people who take from you, who force you to give what is rightfully yours, are thieves and are evil.
It doesn't surprise me that there's no French translation of Atlas Shrugged. The French have formed an interesting culture, one in which they've given up many of their rights. Correct me if I am wrong, but it's illegal to purchase Nazi items in France.
To quote John Stossel's article:
I don't have the numbers, so this is assumption, but do you think this statement is false? "The average test scores for SATs, ACTs, and other standardized tests are higher at private schools than at public schools." Also, I'd assume this to be true: "The number of shootings per capita has been significantly lower at private schools than at public schools." I call that beating the competition hands down.
Those that cannot afford an education no longer have their rights to liberty or happiness
So for the years where public education wasn't available in this nation, people were being denied their Constitutional rights? Those that cannot afford an education work for it. Why are you against the notion of actually working hard for something you want, as opposed to expecting a handout?
Expecting people to have enough foresight to know how to get out of their rut, is expecting quite a bit
I believe every person has the ability to reason and form rational decisions. If one wishes to exercise this, they will find a way "out of the rut." If they wish to lounge around, looking forlorne, and asking for what others have, I say let them stay in their rut.
As far as reading Atlas Shrugged, I think you need to stop with this silly rhetoric and read it. Don't be afraid to think new thoughts, to challenge your existing beliefs, and to - most importantly - learn something new.
Rand argues that one reason man feels the need to help the moochers is due to:
- man questions why he is being insulted for a virtue
- to appease his tormenters, man seeks their acceptance
- man then rationalizes that these tormenters are of a lower mental stock and that there are many others like them
- when deciding to encourage socialism/communism, man does so because he subconsciously fears this "mental lower class" and wants to appease them
I don't think that such a "mental lower class" exists, rather it's all misperception on the part of the individual. Before I end this post, let me leave you with a thought: ask yourself this question rationally: "Does anyone have the right to forcibly take your hard earned income and do with it what they please?" You surely would be upset if a thief robbed you and used your money to feed his family. You'd wonder why can't that robber work himself, why must he resort to theft as an ends to a means? However you don't feel the same way when the government takes (robs) your money and does the same thing with it?
I am no economics major, but my understanding is that free markets are, relatively speaking, a very new thing, borne around the time of the industrial revolution. Without capitalism there has been slavery (serfdom, communism, etc.). I guess capitalism is older than socialism/communism, though.
If you are so deadset against welfare, are you willing to take the next logical step and be against public schools
Yes, schools should be privatized. People would get a more affordable education; teachers would get paid more than peanuts; those students that were interested would actually learn stuff as opposed to endure hours of "study hall" and "homeroom."
the burden for paying for school shold not rest squarely on the parents
Why not? Public schools were not always around in this country, people seemed to live and do well enough when they were privatized.
Capitalism does not offer _anyone_ the chance to become something great
First off, I think you mean everyone instead of anyone, because - as is - I can refute your argument by simply pointing to a single case of the self-made man, of which there are millions. Second, I never said capitalism was there to make everyone great. Does socialism? Communism? How great is the man who must subsist on handouts from others? Capitalism takes advantage of man's innate selfishness, his desire to see himself do well. If I were to ask you, "Would you rather work for your income (whatever it is now), or would you rather have someone steal the money from another and give it to you?" Hopefully you would say you would rather earn it. People who answer this way benefit from capitalism; those who would rather have their income stolen from others, those who would rather live off of handouts, those beggars and looters, enjoy socialism and communism.
To say that all you need is drive and desire means you believe that everyone has the same opportunities, which is not true, not here or anywhere
Not everyone can be multibillion dollar tycoons. Everyone can work hard, put in 110% and make something of themselves. There are millions of immigrants who've come to this country, worked shit jobs, but worked them hard, providing for their family, educating their youth, and making a better future for their posterity. They could not to this in a communist economy; rather, to better their family they would need to produce more babies, become chronically ill, or find someother way to leech off of others.
America wasn't always the greatest place in the world to live. I know it wasn't before 1850, and I doubt it was before 1900
What brings you to this conclusion? I don't know what the numbers are, but I'd assume that America had more immigrants in the ninteenth century than any other country. Were people flocking over here because America wasn't great?
America, the greatest country in the world, wasn't America until after World War II. After FDR was done breaking capitalism and ruining our beautiful country
America was such a superpower then because all of the other superpowers were devestated by war. It had nothing to do with FDR's social policies, it had to do with the death and destruction caused by the Axis powers. Before WWII, Britain had the world's largest colonial presence, was the world's greatest superpower. Why are they no longer? Was it because FDR enacted social security and Churchill did not? Hell no, it was because Hitler launched thousands of V2 rockets at Britain, Japan claimed Britain's colonies in Asia, Hitler took many of Britain's colonies in Northern Africa, the Jews were given Isreal after the war, etc. We were a "great" nation after the war because all of the other "great" nations had been devestated.
Is it fair that the government can take your money by force? It must be, since "everyone" in the civilized world is ok with it
Dear God, I wish this argument was valid! "But Miss Teenybopper, everyone's having sex, so you should too..." Clearly not everyone endoreses this view, surely I am an element of the set of everyone, and I do not endorse it.
If it wasn't fair, surely a group of similar thinking people would work to make their own country where the government doesn't demand money of its people
It would have happened, I am certain, if other nations weren't so belligerent. It's hard to have a sizable armed force when taking only voluntary contributions in lieu of taxes. Prior to WWII, another nation would have taken it forcibly. The closest nation to what I describe is America, and people have been flocking here for generations. Also, the argument that, "No one else has done it, hence it must not be right," is hogwash and you know it.
continuing to live in a country that forcibly taxes its people, you are endorsing those laws
And what nation am I to go where they do not collect taxes?
Regarding Atlas Shrugged, I'll have to check the publisher and my list of boycotts before I can read it. It really is hard spending money correctly.
Go to the public library and pick up a copy for free. Something that was paid for with money that was forcibly taken from you, so enjoy the end product of the government's theft (the library).
I don't believe that collective decisions should ever be made. I would never want to make a decision that would effect scores of others (when they can make their own decision on the matter) and don't expect people to be making decisions for me. TimeWarner/AOL... why shouldn't they merge, if we were living in a free market there wouldn't be any discussion on this. It would have happened by now. Those who were opposed would stop funnelling their dollars to the company, and, if enough people did that, they'd either break-up or make changes.
Why couldn't the company get sued in a libertarian setting? The courts would not be abolished by any stretch of the imagination. People's attitude today is, "If a company commits fraud, send the government after them," when it should be, "If a company commits fraud, start the civil suits." (Well, I guess a lot of civil suits are happening as it is.) Since companies care about money as the bottom line, getting sued by thousands or millions of consumers is not their idea of a good time.
The problem is that you have to duplicate all the government organisations.
Why would all these government bodies need to be formed? Who needs to EPA? Who needs the FBI? Who needs the IRS? Who needs the FCC? Who needs the FDA? Who needs the CIA?
And then, because they are not democratic, you are guaranted to have people trying to influence them
Ha! What do you think we have happening today? Special interest groups send lobbiers to Congress to waive fat checks in their face so they'll vote for whatever bills these special interests want them to! If that's not "people trying to influence" these government organizations, I don't know what is!
Governement just enforces the rules the society want
In a purely democratic government, perhaps, but in a republic, not so. Once we elect our representatives, they are free to make whatever choices they want on bills. So, while our opinions may sway them to vote one way or another, it is not a direct cause and effect between society's wills and the laws of the land.
If the society decides that 1/3 of the income must go to state and get used for free services and redistributed, then let it be
I don't think anyone consciously has decided this. Rather, it comes from long line of moochers, of looters, asking, "Where's my handout?" As more and more people demand their handouts, the more money is needed to be taken from hard working individuals.
Capitalism give you this - no other economic policy does. How do you think a middle class formed, from hand outs from the government (socialism/communism)? Hardly. Capitalism does not create the gulf between the rich and the poor, communism does that. Communism and socialism are forms of slavery - the hard working, ambitious individuals are forced to toil and give up their earned income to pay for those who don't feel like working. Capitalism offers anyone the opportunity to become something great; all it takes is drive and desire.
Conceding one's right to decide where his/her money goes for the betterment of society is reasonable and rational, to an extent. (of course, this is a slippery slope. I have no idea where to draw the line. As long as there is competition, and reason to improve ones financial position, we should be ok)
This is a very slippery slope. As more and more people become dependent on the hard work of others, more will be stolen, forcibly taken, from those who work hard. Read Atlas Shrugged - while it suffers from black and white and strawman fallacies every now and then, it is an entertaining read and gets across several important points.
But if you can improve capitalism by mixing in some socialism, everyone wins.
No, the only people who win are those who wish to steal from those who are ambitious. Those people, like myself, who work hard are forced (forced!) to give our hard earned money (our money, not anyone elses) to a mass of people who don't deserve it.
You can't count on someone being generous, giving his/her money to the poor
A lot of people will say this, that we need things like welfare because people won't contribute to charity if they're not forced to. Our country opperated just fine without a welfare program for the majority of its history. Why all of the sudden do we need a welfare program now? Assume that the government decided that everyone needed to own a pair of shoes, so they made a program that would take money from those that had it to buy shoes for everyone (a program enacted in Soviet Russia at one time). After this program was in action for a while, if the government tried to stop it people would decry, "But we need our shoes, if the government doesn't give us our shoes, how are we going to be able to have shoes?" Look at America, where shoes aren't given: there are tons of shoe companies, tens of thousands of jobs created because of it, healthy competition, and everyone has shoes. It's like the chicken and the egg delimma...
Unfortunately, the war on drugs makes for good press, and it will be a long time before someone who is pro-drugs gets elected.
I hope we don't ever elect a "pro-drug" leader... rather a "pro-choice" leader, one who values the minds and intellects of his/her constituents and realizes that on their own they can make rational decisions and they don't need the government telling them what they can and cannot do (a slight step away from the government telling us what we can and cannot think).
So society decides that 35 hours is the max... an individual in France wants to work more, to better provide for his family, but must bend to the whims of others or risk breaking the law? I would never, ever live in a country that tells me in flat terms the number of hours I can legally work. That is my decision and mine alone.
you are displaying a amazing level of shortsightness for someone who claims to belong to the "elite"
I don't claim to be in the "elite." I don't believe there is an elite. I believe every person (lest they've had traumatic brain damage or psychological illness) has the ability to reason and form rational decisions.
If what you said were true, then you wouldn't go and see the doctor when you are ill
When did I say this? I said I have the right to make my own decisions. I'd decide to go see a doctor. What I don't want is a government law saying I can't, or that I have to go see a doctor. It is my choice whether or not I want to go see a doctor, no one else's.
First you will notice that you are not the center of the world, so you definitly can't tell what is the "general good"
You have put a lot of words into my mouth. I never said I could tell what is good for the general good. I can, however, tell what's best for me.
I am not saying that I am an expert who knows everything, I am anything but that. I am an expert on one thing, though: myself. I am a reasonable person who can make rational decisions. What right do you have to make my decisions for me? You are obviously a socialist, one who believes that the rights of the many supercede the right of the individual. I am on the exact opposite pole. This does not mean I think only about myself - I volunteer time and money to worthwhile organizations. What it does mean, though, is that I can make my own decisions and relish the opportunity to do such! I don't want others making those decisions for me.
Ah, like crack-smokin' Bush and Internet-creating Gore? The government panders to people's votes; corporations pander to people's dollars. Each has a measure of checks and ballances: if the gov't screws up, they don't get re-elected; if a corp. screws up, it looses consumers.
Ever heard of AT&T and Microsoft. It is difficult to control you openly, but sure enough, the companies are trying to control you in subtle ways
Microsoft is trying to control me? How? By coming to my house and requiring me to pay them money or face a prison sentence? By requiring me, at times, to join an army and risk death in a war I might be against? Oh wait, that is the government, my bad.
Pure libertarian. It doesn't work though ; of course you won't believe me
I disagree with you indeed. I agree that it hasn't worked yet, but I think in certain circumstances it could work.
Since you are in a democratic country, you have to bend by the rules of the society
Regardless of what kind of government you are living under, you have to bend to the rules of society, unless you wished to be labelled an outcast. Society and government are two different things.
This is, bar none, the absolute opposite of what I'm saying. What you describe is statism or collectivism, where people work for the good of the people. Those who can produce more, give more and where everyone takes what they need. This is so far from what I'm encouraging. I am for capitalism, not for communism. No one "takes." Everyone has a vested interest to give, although it is their call if they do and how much they donate. The government would no longer be responsible for giving hand-outs. It is a crime, in my eyes, for the government to forcibly take my money (taxes) and give it to someone else (welfare). Fuck that, if I want to give money to the less fortunate, I will, but what right does anyone else have to literally force me to give them money and then hand out that money to others?
John Stossel recently did a report on Why America is Number 1. Read his interview and his article . Note his argument, that America "is a great success story: It has the most wealth, the most Nobel Prizes, the most immigrants per year of any country and an infectious pop culture that has spread around the world." His argument can best be summed up with his statement: "One factor that really does make a difference, according to experts at think tanks such as Freedom House, the Heritage Foundation and Canada's Fraser Institute, is economic freedom -- the absence of government regulations. Hong Kong and the United States, they point out, are among the freest nations in the world; countries like India, Syria and North Korea are among the most highly regulated."
I will gladly give up some of my rights if it means saving time. Ideally, we wouldn't have representatives, right? But, it sure is easier not having to vote on every bill that effects us
No, it would remain representative. The impact of the government would be less. They wouldn't impose numerous laws that make my choices for me. The bottom line: I should be able to make my own choices solongas my decisions doesn't harm others. If I want to smoke pot, that should be my call, not the government's. There shouldn't be a DEA. (A side note: I don't do drugs myself; I have considered it and weighed the consequences and have decided not to use them. I think everyone should be given the chance to make this rational decision as opposed to having it decided for them by the gov't.)
Hardly. How much money can you make out of someone who has been fucked? A one time fucking fee, perhaps, but if you don't fuck them you can continually receive their money over time. I've yet to have a company tell me that I have to give them money or I'll go to jail, yet the government tells me this every April 15th.
I don't understand why you are so trusting of self-appointed bureuacrats rather than elected officials
You don't think that the government is choked full of appointed (non-elected) beaurocrats!?!?! Did you vote for every employee in every government job? Of course not, there is no voting for who runs the FCC, who runs the FDA, who runs the FBI, the CIA, the IRS, etc. You've had as much say for who leads the EPA as you had for who runs Coca-Cola (assuming you own no stock in Coca-Cola).
Don't you think democracy is a good idea
Yes, I think it is the most wonderful form of government. I just want a government that doesn't get as involved in my daily life.
I'd rather not have my life controlled by corporations thank you
I don't see how this could ever happen. I don't want this to happen either, I also don't want my life totally controlled by the government either. I want to control my life, and I have the best ability to do that in a free market with a government that understands its role is quite minimal: specifically, only to protect its citizens from physical force from belligeretns at home or abroad.
The most visible example here in France was someone called "the best economist in France", who was prime minister. And many top level people are working back and forth governement and finance/companies
And France's economy is good? Don't they have terrible unemployment? Didn't they recently mandate that the working week is 35 hours and that, BY LAW, people can't work over that time limit? Yeah, I want that expert telling me when and how long I can work.
The governement has experts to analyze the risks of each product, to ask for some inquiries, to make laws when companies are detrimental to the general good.
But not one of those experts is me. I am me. I know what's best for me. No one else does. Ask yourself who knows you better than you? Not a single person, not your parents, not your siblings, not your spouse. You know you and if anyone should be making decisions affecting you, it should be you!
This is typical male adolescent attitude. "I'm the center of the world, I'm one million more time clever than anyone on any subject, I don't want to accept any authority".
I've never claimed to know more than anyone else or that I'm an expert on all subjects, you're putting words into my mouth. WHat I profess to be an expert on is deciding what is best for me. I want to be given the choice to make my own decisions; I don't want some committee in Washington to do that for me.
I don't understand why you don't get it, governement is here mostly to serve you
Ah yes, to serve me by forcible taking my money (taxes)? If a government was there to truly serve those who wanted its service, it would run off of donations and volunteer contributions; in essense, it would run like a business. No business can force me to give them 33% of my income - rather, I exchange, on terms amicable to both the business and myself, what I will pay for what specific goods/services I will receive. The government should operate this way as well.
Take an hour or two to read the Communist Manifesto. It is interesting, Marx and Engels argue that the bourgeois are (or were) constantly trying to improve technology to increase the efficiency of their production and reduce the effort and input needed by man in the production queue. Such a movement, the Manifesto argues, pushes those lower middle class individuals into the proletariat. In any case, it's interesting, because it seems the opposite of what the big corporations are doing today. Rather than embracing the new technologies like the bourgeois described by Marx and Engels, the bourgeois of today are trying to keep the status quo. Interesting....
Yes, just as it is your right "to think that you really need to wake up and smell the coffee brewing."
So you are telling me that you would like to have most of the talented individuals in the industry out of work?
Hell, I don't care if convicted hackers are employed or not, I do not work at a security firm, I am not an HR person at such a place. Personally I could care less if they are hired or not. I was just arguing that it is the employer's choice. Would the person have a better chance to be employed had they not been convicted of committing a crime? Yes, I'd wager. That was also what I said, if employability is important to you, don't break the law. Doing so will not prevent you from getting a job but it will likely make it tougher.
And no, I am not telling you what to do; I'm simply requesting that you think about the situation a little more
Your earlier statements sure made it seem like you were telling me what to think. The beauty with the situation as is, is that I don't have to think about it extensively since it doesn't effect me. Should a security firm hire someone who's been convicted of a crime. I DON'T CARE. If they want to, sure, OK, cool; if not, fine, that's their call. What I am saying is that: first, just because someone serves their time, my view is a bit slanted on them still (past behavior is the strongest indicator of future behavior); and if you are concerned about your employability, try your best to refrain from committing crimes.
And the government is?
and most of them have no time to spent to analyze with excruating details how good/bad the actions, products, investements, policy of each product they are buying are good for environment, society, their health etc
I can't believe what you are saying. You are arguing that the government should be given the power to decide what products are good/bad for the environment/society/health/me. Fuck that, I don't appreciate people making decisions that I can make for myself. I will decide a given product is unsafe for me, I don't want some group of government officials to TELL ME what is and isn't safe for me.
What are you arguing? That corporations are out to fuck people? That government is out to fuck people? That government is out to fuck corporations? What are you saying? All of the above statements are quite preposterous. What do you recommend, government controlled businesses? No better way to increase productivity than to have all forms of commerce operated by the beaurocrats.