there were a lot of people that were in concentration camps, some even managed to escape. since people did escape, does that mean everyone who didn't deserved their fate?
poverty, like a concentration camp, is escapable. poverty, like a concentration camp, is something you want to escape from. yet, you will sympathize with victim's of concentration camps, but not with victims of poverty.
> Axiom 1: Life is good.
> Parasites harm life. (Well, I guess the technical definition of a parasite is one that sustains life off another being with giving nothing in return... that's not so bad, but if they harm the individual they are leeching off of (like that little Alien baby in the movie Alien that popped out of that guy's stomach), then that is bad.)
Parasites harm life... Parasites harm A life, while the parasites stay alive. Without having to do any complicated math, I know that parasites lead to more life. Parasites extend life.
> Therefore, parasites shorten/detriment life. Parasites == bad.
To use your logic here...
Life is good.
Things that extend life are good.
Parasites extend life. Parasites == good!
Jumping off a lifeboat to save the lives of the other people shortens/detriments my life. Jumping off the boat == bad.
> A hard worker is one who enjoys life, who puts a lot of energy into living life, doing a good job, putting pride into his occupation.
Redefining words is the tool of propaganda.
Were all the hard workers under Hitler good people?
> > Are we to say that violence is a virtue since violence sometimes leads to good
> How does initiating violence lead to good?
Although I was tempted to say initiating violence, I chose not to. Violence sometimes leads to good, like when responding to violence. There is no doubt, in my mind, that it has led to good. The conclusion of your "proof" said, basically, sometimes hard work leads to good, therefore it is good. Sometimes violence leads to good, therefore violence is good.
> As far as owning the land above/below, beats me. Should you be able to refuse the gov't the ability to acquire your land? Hell yes. Right now the gov't could decide it wants to build a highway through your backyard and you must sell or have it taken.
The reason no true democracy has, or will exist (for any period of time) is because it is too inefficient. Educating everyone so they know enough to vote on every little problem is unreasonable. Similarly, the prospect of requiring the government to convince everyone in a roads path to move out is unreasonable. For the sake of efficiency, we give up rights. I wish there was a country you could live in that didn't have all these rules, but I don't see it happening. There are good, valid reasons why it has not happened.
> Of course if the gov't can't do this, then things like buying a ring around a city and making it uber-expensive to enter/leave could occur.
If the people don't agree to give me a lot of money, I'll increase the tariff on importing food, or other necessities. Without initiating violence, I can kill millions of people!
> Of course such actions are going to make your ring around the city worthless quickly. Who wants to live in a town that has a high-prices entery/exit fee? Who wants to build new industry in a town that is virtually held hostage by one?
If I set the price high enough so that some people can't leave, I can turn those people into slave labor. Don't industries want to have low production costs? It doesn't get much cheaper than slave labor.
> Second, forcing people to pay taxes isn't right in my system. I've thought about it, and am repalled by forcing anyone to do anything.
It is ok to force children to finish their dinner, right? Children don't have the necessary tools to make a rational decision for themselves, so it is ok to force them to do something. So you are not repelled or appalled by forcing anyone to do something. I think I might refer back to this later in my response.
> > welfare extends life, and you don't believe it is good
> By sucking life from others. Life is good - parasites are bad. Animals like fleas have no choice in the matter, humans do.
You are still avoiding the fact that you cannot make that leap of logic. Regardless, where do you get off saying parasites are bad? Is this one of those beliefs that hinges upon the fact that hard work is good and virtuous? If so, I feel obliged to remind you we are in the process of trying to prove that hard work is good and virtuous. Circular logic is the tool of irrational people.
Life is good.
All things that extend life are good.
You are also avoiding the fact that hard work is only good some of the time. Are we to say that violence is a virtue since violence sometimes leads to good?
Without spending too much time, I was able to find two flaws in your proof that hard work was a virtue. I am not that smart or attentive of a guy, imagine what a really smart person like Ayn Rand could have found wrong in your proof! Either you spent even less time constructing it, or your abilities at arriving at logical conclusions is flawed. If you didn't spend much time constructing the proof, I take that as an insult.
> I agree with you, if there are the lives of others who you are risking, then such laws are in order - again, it can be argued that having such laws is in my self-interest. If these are widely accepted laws, then my chances of not being in an auto accident increase.
What exactly does widely accepted entail? 10% of the population is in favor? 30%? 51%? 99%? or 100%? Unless you don't have 100% support, you are FORCING people to follow these rules. Previously, you said you did not believe in forcing anyone to do anything. Good luck getting 100% of any sufficiently large group of people to agree on anything.
> Second, the roads are owned by the gov't (which they shouldn't be, but whatcha gonnna do?). So, they have a right to make their own laws on those roads - if you don't want to obey them, don't drive on the roads.
Good point. Very good point. Very good way of attacking my previous point.
If I own a block of land, do I have a right to decide what happens below or above it. That is to say, do I get to make the rules for airplanes that fly over my land? Can someone dig a tunnel underneath my property without my permission? Can I buy all the land surrounding a city and then make it expensive to leave/enter the city? Can I make it impossible for certain people to enter/leave the city?
> Axiom: it is wrong to initiate violence.
> Axiom: make decisions that are benefitial to yourself.
Ok, I didn't realize the no initiation of violence was part of her ethics, my bad.
> A contradiction, so obviously one axiom must take presedense over the other, no? I tend to think the former supercedes the latter, but I guess that is a decision for each of us to make.
Personally, I see this as a bad position to be in (having multiple rules that can be in conflict). Objectivism sets up a system where reason rules over everything, and then you are forced to make a decision based on your preferences. I believe the only way egoism could ever work is to make sure that initiating violence is wrong. (I think more restrictions would be better. Either replace the axiom with something that is more restrictive, or add a new axiom. More axioms makes the system more complicated though...)
> Life is good, an axiom in my personal system.
Which means your beliefs are different than Objectivism, meaning you can reach different conclusions than Objectivism. If you don't agree with their beliefs, you can't blindly share their conclusions. Maybe forcing people to pay taxes IS right in your system.
"Life is good" and "Don't initiate violence" seem to cover a lot of the same ground, is there any way you can combine the two into a single assumption?
> Hence, continutation of life is good. Hence, traits that increase the chances of continuation of life (and make it more enjoyable) are good traits.
Is this what you had in mind?
Life is good.
All things that extend life are good. (There is no reason to believe this. )
Sometimes hard work extends life. (We have examples that show this.)
Sometimes hard work is good. (Follows the form of one of Aristotle's syllogisms.)
[welfare extends life, and you don't believe it is good.]
I believe that is all you can "conclude" as far as hard work being good, based on life being good. There are cases where hard work does not extend life, like when people with heart conditions work too hard, or when people work hard trying to kill you. (hmmm... if other people are working hard, that makes it more difficult for you to make a profit. isn't it in your best interest for other people not to work hard?)
If you can extend life without work just as effectively as you can extend life with work, isn't life without work more attractive? (I'm not saying I believe that is the case, but under those conditions, hard work does not bring about good, so it is not good.)
> Has it not worked in the real world, though? I assume it would not, but have no concrete proof that it wouldn't. (Of course we have plenty of hard, concrete proof to show that communism doesn't work.)
We do not have hard, concrete proof that communism does not work. No one thinks that the communists states ever achieved a state of pure communism. For all we know, there is a threshold, after which things start to work. You believe the emerald will be green, they believe the emerald will be grue.
I'm not sure if this next argument works completely, but at least it will bring us closer to the original discussion.
Are laws against drunk driving wrong?
Are speed limits wrong?
Are stop signs wrong?
Pure Objectivists, I believe, would say yes to all three questions. If I rationally decide to do something, I should not be punished unless something bad happens. As long as there are no accidents, don't force me to follow a law I didn't okay. (When you go to a new city, you did not have a say as to what the speed limit was, or where the stop signs are.)
I hope you agree with me, that all three things are a necessary evil to make driving a safer venture. When drunk, you cannot reason as well, you should not be trusted to make a rational decision. (I can argue this further, but I hope it is not needed.) I'm not sure how you could go about figuring out speed limits or where to put stop signs in a purely Objectivist society, but even if speed limits and stop signs were left as suggestions, the number of accidents would still increase. if you don't know if the person coming up to the intersection is going to stop or not, you cannot cross into the street. Yes, you have to give up your rights, but, at least in this case, it makes sense to.
Is obeying the rules of the road that different from paying your taxes?
> Because you've continually misquoted her (or taken her words out of context).
How have I misquoted her by using her ethics system? I have brought up a few examples where it is in your best interest to initiate violence, or something similar, but, you say, it is wrong because Rand says initiating violence is wrong. If I am misusing her ethics system, please point out the wrong assumption I've made, or the wrong step I took. Don't tell me my conclusion is wrong because Ayn Rand is for/against something. We won't make any progress that way.
> One encourages man to do his best; the other encourages man to do his worst. Objectivism rewards intelligence, hard work, and effort; Communism punishes those same virtues.
Besides assuming them, how do you know intelligence, hard work, and effort are good. Its very possible you have been brought up from birth to believe in those lies. Communism encourages sharing! If I understand your argument correctly, Objectivism is better than communism, because Objectivism says Objectivism is better.
If it doesn't work in the real world, why use it? If reality is the final arbiter, and reality says it doesn't work, don't use it!
> I have never claimed to be a philosophy person, an expert on the subject. However, who knows my life, my morals, my ethics, better than me? Aristotle? Hume? Calvin? Hobbes? Calvin & Hobbes? Rand? No. None of them know me as well as I do.
You have formed opinions without gathering all of the evidence.
> > People have been thinking about these problems for thousands of years, to disregard their work is irrational
> Ah! You're putting words into my mouth again. I never said I disregarded the works of others. I've read more Rand than other people, granted, but that does not mean I disregard all other thoughts. To stop thinking, to stop questioning, that's what I'm against.
You put a lot of stock in the conclusions Rand has reached. I assume you base decisions off of her conclusions. Limiting yourself to, basically, two view points is commiting yourself to ignorance. You can learn a lot from those dead people, and that knowledge can affect the way you make decisions.
We agree that when answering a question, you should try to acquire as much information as reasonably possible before making a commitment. It is bad to answer a question without doing enough research into the question, but isn't it just as bad to answer a question using tools that you haven't done much research into? The assumptions you base your answer on are just as important as the knowledge you have about the problem. If you use those assumptions in EVERY decision you make, shouldn't you invest a lot of time into determining their validity?
Yes, ultimately it all comes down to you, and how you choose to use the tools... but, actively avoiding information about those tools and new tools, is irrational. As a rational person, it is your responsibility to make sure that what you believe in is sound. Is reading a few books by the same person and reasoning enough? I wish it was. Unfortunately, it is too easy to be deceived. The only thing infinite, is our ability for self-deception.
By me reading Atlas Shrugged, I will better understand my beliefs, regardless of what they were before, or what they will become. To avoid acquiring that knowledge is stupid, right? After I finish reading, I should have, and will, have more confidence in the decisions I make. I will have a firmer grasp of why I believe what I believe, and therefore better reasons for why I choose what I choose.
A lot of people thought they were right, when they were wrong. Were they being irrational, they didn't think so. Only after having other people look at the problem, or by looking at the problem from a different perspective were they able to see the error. To assign complete faith in your ability to always be rational, is irrational.
You know those sliding puzzles... They are missing a piece, enabling you to slide rows/columns of pieces horizontally/vertically. I once saw a friend working on one, I looked at it for a bit, then concluded that it was unsolvable. Its an easy enough proof, you look at how much disorder, if it is odd, you can't solve it. My friend, stubborn as he was, plodded on, confident that the puzzle solvable, and sure enough, it was. My reasoning was correct, but I failed to notice that two pieces were identical. I couldn't imagine a case where my proof wouldn't work. Was I rational or irrational?
Is reason the holy grail of decision making? No, it isn't perfect! We still have progress to make.
> > There isn't much I can dispute with that, besides the fact that egoism doesn't coincide with those beliefs
> How so? Explain yourself.
According to egoism, you would let that bum die, since it does not serve your self-interest. He must not have a right to life.
> As I said last post, those views that I perceive are the most rational. What is more rational, to think that I can fly or not? Observation has taught me that I cannot fly, hence it is more rational to know that I cannot fly than assume that I might be able to. You must go with your perception and observations, or you will be able to justify hate and violence. "Well, I shot him in the head, but that is just one way to perceive reality, he is still alive, I have done nothing wrong."
You believe the next emerald will be green, I believe the next emerald will be grue. Which one of us is being more rational, and why.
Someone else believes that the action of the world is consistent with a supreme being, why is your belief more rational?
All available information says this system is consistent, is it rational to conclude no new information will surface and show otherwise?
Ultimately, it is a matter of opinion, and not a matter of truth. If both conclusions are valid, whichever one you choose is a matter of taste, not of correct/incorrect.
> Hardly. If one were to follow your assumption to the T, following Rand's word blindly, they would soon read Rand's words on rationality, that each Man must think for himself, and must make his own rational decisions rooted in his own self-interest. Hence, ironically, one who followed Rand's words blindly would follow no one's thoughts but his own.
So why constantly bring up the fact that Rand was against initiating violence? Are you just going to trust the fact that Rand was being rational when she decided that it was wrong?
> A quote from Rand: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." I find that "philosophy" to be a wise one, one that I've found fitting.
Are you going to live your life according to what Rand did, wrote, or believed in? While all three are related, they are very different. I doubt you want to find out EVERYTHING she did, or read EVERYTHING she wrote. The rational thing to do, is to look at what she believed in. In which case, what she did and what she wrote are irrelevent to your decision making process. When her beliefs don't work, you can't fall back on what she did or what she wrote. She could have been a terrible person that hid in church towers killing passers by, but that wouldn't affect the validity/invalidity of her beliefs.
> If your idea of a utopia is to have man's progress frozen in time, then go for communism. What achievements would a communist state produce?
Just because communism hasn't worked well in reality, doesn't mean it can't work well in theory. I doubt it would work in theory, like I doubt Objectivism would work in theory. The promise that something works in an ideal case, isn't enough to warrant using that theory in reality. On what grounds do you say believing Objectivism is a better belief than communism, when both of them don't work in reality?
> How many men did he command to fight? How many rounds did he fire at the Spanish? While he may have gotten America psyched for war via his yellow journalism, is he then to blame for our gov'ts decision to fight?
Depending on how you define 'cause', Hearst caused the war. This doesn't matter.
> In any case, my philosophy is fairly simple (like I said, I'm no philosophy stud):
Can you be rational if you are ignorant? I sure hope so, but don't put too muc h stock in your conclusion if you know your knowledge is lacking in that field. People have been thinking about these problems for thousands of years, to disregard their work is irrational.
> * Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property
> * Man, if he chooses, can make rational decisions rooted in reason
> * Each man should be able to make his own decisions and should not wish to make decisions for other men.
> * No man should violate another's basic rights (see first point)
There isn't much I can dispute with that, besides the fact that egoism doesn't coincide with those beliefs.
If every belief reduces to faith, how can you decide which beliefs are more rational?
> It may be in my self-interest to shoot my neighbor and take his belongings, but if you'll recall, Rand decries initiating physical violence. Clearly, our gov't is to blame for a lot of the suffering over there. The Objectivist thing to do would be to trade in an open market with those who have oil.
If Rand was for the breaking of the fingers of children, would that make it ok? An Objectivist cannot fall back on Ayn Rand's actions/beliefs when Objectivism leads him/her to a bad conclusion. If Ayn Rand ever did anything wrong, according to the precepts of Objectivism, Objectivists could rightly repeat that action since Rand did it.
> It comes down to the simple fact that Objectivism is an ideal philosophy that would only work in a utopia.
They say the same thing about communism. Why should we abandon communism and not Objectivism?
> Even when the US was its most Objectivist (early ninteenth century, I'd wager, when gov't was much smaller and the US was much closer to laissez-faire capitalism), our gov't still went out and initiated force: Spanish-American War, for example.
(I think you mean late nineteenth century, Spanish-American war took place around 1898, no?)
Just as aside... Most people agree, the Spanish-American War was the work of William Randolph Hearst, the industrialist that Orson Welles/Herman J. Mankiewicz based Charles Foster Kane on. He may not have been an Objectivist, but I do think he epitomized most of Rand's ideals.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Goedel only prove a finite set of axioms could be proven inconsistent? Hehe, so simply create a philosophy with an infinite number of axioms...:-)
Hmm, I'm not sure. I think it may only be in the case of an infinite set of axioms. I know ZFC has infinitely many axioms, (Axiom schema, anything of such and such form is true.) and Goedel's conclusions apply there. I haven't looked at the Peano Axioms in a while, but I believe there is a finite number of them, and we can't prove that they are consistent. (I hear most of the work looking into P=NP these days is looking at the axiomitization of algebra...)
> How do you figure? Does nature depend on faith? Does the likelihood of the gravitational constant remaining constant hinge on faith? Does the speed of light have something to do with faith? Since we are beings that are, quite literally, part of nature, how could our observation of nature require any dependence on faith?
The gravitational constant could change tomorrow, we just assume it won't. This is Hume's territory. Just because every time we have heated a metal bar it has expanded, doesn't mean that it will expand the next time we heat it. Correlation does not imply causation. It could very well just be a coincidence that every time you heated the metal bar, some other event also happened, which caused the bar to expand. You have successfully predicted the outcome of N experiments, why do you assume it will work on the N + 1th trial? You assume nature is and will be consistent, but you don't have a rational justification for this belief.
Hume constructed a paradox, that is quite ingenius. I don't think I will be able to do it any dignity. Define grue to be a new color, it is equivalent to to green, for any date before 2001, and blue thereafter. (Perfectly legal definition.) Now, every emerald discovered so far has been green, and it has been grue. Why is it that we expect emeralds to be green on Jan 1, 2001, and not grue? Based on all the evidence you have acquired so far, it makes sense to conclude that on that date, it will be both green and grue.
(I used to be really annoyed by Hume. Axiomitize reality, I said. Occam's Razor, Occam's Razor, Occam's Razor! But as I kept coming back to his conclusions, I couldn't help but be amazed. In the time since he "destroyed" causality, the philosophy world has been reeling. Why, I thought, there is such an obvious conclusion? Why hasn't anyone else come up with it? All axiomitizing accomplishes, is changes the blame. Why do you hold this truth to be self-evident?)
Did you know that energy isn't always conserved? (or at least, our understanding of energy. It happens for short periods of time in quantum conditions. Momentum, on the other hand, is still pure.)
Did you know force of gravitation is not an inverse square relation? (according to experimental evidence, its 1/r^J where J is some number slightly less than 2. Unfortunately, the electric force suffers the same fate. Gauss's law doesn't work!)
The fact that you call the gravitational constant a constant, says something about your faith in the consistency of nature.
> Rand's ethics are quite simple: make rational decisions based on reality.
Simple does not mean correct. You know that. Simple is rarely correct.
Anyways, Rand's ethics must not be all that simple, since a few days ago when you were thinking rationally, you thought an action that did not serve your self-interest was right.
Similar example, but blown up to the macro case.
It is important for the day to day lives of Americans to have a steady flow of oil coming from the middle-east. In the early 90's, with the cold-war over, economics in the middle-east changed and America was losing its grip. Luckily for the U.S., Saddam Hussein made a move where we could declare war on Iraq and make everyone happy, Americans and the rest of the middle-east. Even though America has the ability to remove Hussein from power, it does not. As long as Hussein is in power, America's presence in the middle east is needed, and therefore Saudi Arabia, and the rest of OPEC, must give America its precious oil. (I'm probably glossing over a lot of the details, either due to my ignorance, or my haste.)
Makes sense, but... by keeping Hussein in power, America is endorsing dictatorship, and (for various reasons, trade embargos...) causing the death of hundreds of thousands of iraqi citizens. Luckily enough for all you egoists, this is OK! Iraq is a poor country, very small amounts of that precious oil, Iraq is filled with god-believing sub-humans, and for the most part, the public outcry has been relatively muted.
Do you see this as being right?
> Did the main character sacrifice himself for the sake of others due to being forced by threat of jail or violence? If so, then, you're right, it would violate my moral stance.
Not quite, but almost. You'd have to judge that for yourself. Being forced to take a low-paying deadend job could be considered being jailed.
> You'll see quotes just like that (and similar ones like: "BillG shouldn't complain, he can afford any settlement the gov't throws at him") here on/.
I guess browsing at +3 has its benefits.
> Actually, it is still a little out of context. If you read the paragraph after that quote, it will make even more sense what she is saying. The quote was from Atlas Shrugged, John Galt Speech (pg. 980 in the copy I have).
I'd rather not skip ahead, but hopefully i'll have enough time this weekend to finish the book.
I wanted to make a brief comment about something I read in Atlas Shrugged... At some point, Francisco was consoling Dagny, she was so upset that the world was filled with contradictions. He said, something along the lines of, "Don't worry, there are no contradictions. When you find one, check your assumptions, one of them is wrong." I know, and you should know, that this is not true. Within any sufficiently complicated logical system, you cannot prove that that logical system is consistent (me paraphrasing Goedel, I won't bore you with the proof). That is to say, even if all of your assumptions are correct, you may still be able to reach a contradiction. We cannot prove that logic works.
No matter how hard you try, you will always depend on faith.
(there are a few other points I would like to have touched on, but I think its best I stop here for now.)
> I think it does in a way. Most members of society agree to the tenet, "Hey, if I see you, I'll save your life." Why? So that others will save MY life if I am the one dying. Hence, me agreeing to than tenet increases the chances that someone will attempt to save my life, hence it is in my self-interest.
So you agree to the tenet because it is good for you, it serves your self-interest. But, you aren't going to blindly apply a rule. Thou shall not kill? There are exceptions, and conflicts of interests. Surely, you don't mean to say that you will follow this rule even when a murderer comes into your house, meaning to kill you and your family, but falls into a well, where he will surely die. To decide what is right and what is wrong in either case, you have to go back to your basic assumptions, and from them rationally construct an argument for your action. It is in your best interest, only to save the people that will/can benefit you after they are saved. For this action, it best serves you not to save this persons life.
> So... that "gut feeling" of guilt, does that mean masturbation is "evil?" Hardly. It was an irrational thought, and shows the mental stress such irrational thinking can have on a person.
The "gut feeling" that letting this person die doesn't mean that it is wrong. What I meant was, you have two possible conclusions, either your "gut feeling" is wrong, or Rand's ethics are wrong. I doubt you really want to give up either. If that feeling is wrong, how many other feelings are wrong? By disavowing this "belief", you could very well throw your entire belief system upside down. Its not an easy thing to go through, while I enjoy it, its not for everyones taste. Whichever idea prevails, you'll have to go through it.
> "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."
Having read the entire quote now, I think have a better grasp of what she meant, but I still think she would be against CEO's earning more than the inventors. The inventor is at the top of the pyramid, and the CEO is down below him. Yet, the CEO gets most of the money, and the enjoyment of the new idea. Rereading the quote, replacing janitor with CEO, and some other appropriate changes, it makes just as much sense. Its bad enough the inventor doesn't get new ideas, like the CEO, but he doesn't get paid as much as the CEO either. I guess we need some philosopher-kings, I mean CEO-inventors. (I think it was philosopher-kings that Plato discussed in The Republic, I could be mistaken. Regardless to say, it made a lot of sense, in theory. No one was able to put his ideas to work.)
> The one thing that I do strongly dislike that MS did was strongarm Intel to give up some of their technological advances.
Stealing Stacker (or whatever the disk compression software it was) didn't anger you? Sure, he paid the people enough to quiet down, after the fact, but what he did was blatantly wrong. Microsoft has a dirty record, that looks clean thanks to out of court settlements. The same type of out of court settlements that kept all those Firestone tires on the streets. I don't know how to fix it, but there is something wrong with that system. In order for the case to go through courts, you really have expect people to be martyrs. Like Jeffrey Wigand in reality and the Insider. (If you missed the Insider, it was a real gem. It could have very easily descended into an anti-smoking rant, but it stuck to its convictions. Of course, I think your beliefs don't really coincide with that of the movie. It just might be torture for you.)
> What I don't like is the view people have of Microsoft that they are a bunch of rich whining babies who deserve to get sued because they are so rich. If I had a nickel for everytime I've read, "Why should BillG not be sued, he's got so much money as it is..."
Either I have not heard anyone say that, or people have said it and I have subconciously filtered that out. That doesn't make sense. It _can't_ make sense.
> Because I value my life and assume he values his. Because if I were to be choking one day and that bum was to be crossing my path, I'd want him to assist me as I would assist him.
Firstly, you won't ever encounter this person again, so there is no chance that he will have an opportunity to return the favor. Secondly, your action will in no way shape the way other people will treat you, you saving his life won't make it any more likely that someone else will save you. Your action does not benefit you. If you believe it does, I think you are deluding yourself.
> It is quite irrational to just "know" something is one thing or the other. Mystics claim this power, I do not.... My rational knowledge is based upon the sum of my observations. Of course, years of living in a "we" society have instilled certain irrational beliefs in me, ones that I am trying to shake or replace with rational reasons.
Are you willing to disregard this thing you "know"? You have a gut feeling as to what is right, which is what I meant by "know", are you going to accept that initial feeling, or are you going to accept what Rand's logic tells you? I hope you choose the answer that makes the most sense to you, whether that means going against what you currently believe, or going against what you want to believe.
Well, the 'right thing' is a lot like pornography, you know it when you see it, but its difficult to define. I can give you a lot of reasons as to why helping the bum is the correct thing to do, even though it doesn't serve my self-interest. If you, after carefully considering the results of helping the bum, conclude that not helping the bum is the right thing to do, I don't think I would be able to continue this discussion with you. You would be trying to tell me 1=0, the square root of two is rational, there is a highest prime, the set of all sets is a set, sorting can be done in constant time, DFS is always better than BFS...
> I was forced to go to church every Sunday for a loooong time.
Yes, it can be done, but its very difficult. Just because it is possible doesn't mean thats the way it should happen. I once escaped from a concentration camp, so all the people that died there didn't deserve to live.
> Exactly, but what if I think clean floors are worth $400 a month and I find a good cleaner who agrees and will do the work for $400 a month? I have to pay this person as a contractor or under the table, otherwise I am violating minimum wage laws.
Compared to the inequities between the CEO and the inventor, this problem is harmless. Rand said, basically, she believed that people should be payed based on how much mental energy they expend, so no matter how much the janitor is paid, he still is earning too much. Her argument is lousy, and reality agrees.
> Wrong by whose standards? By the law of the land? Yes, perhaps, but is that law just? Microsoft knew of the laws, though, and made a rational decision to break them and take the consequences that might come along with them... but still, are the laws right?
By my standards and, apparantly, other peoples' standards too. I don't care what the law says. If Microsoft is preventing products from reaching the market, Microsoft is in the wrong. Microsoft's better product should be winning on its onw terms, not the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly and they can strong arm the paths to market.
When I invent a better mouse trap, I better be able to at least have an opportunity to make money with it.
> I don't know if I'd volunteer if those conditions existed. In any case, it should be my decision if I wished to put up with those inconveniences to volunteer. It is my decision to donate 3 hours a week, no more no less.
You are missing my point. For each action, as a rational person, you have REASONS for doing what you are doing. You, and Rand, believe that self-interest should be the ultimate reason for your actions. The choice you make should depend on which action best serves your self-interests.
You said you derived pleasure from helping the people, I merely wanted to get a picture of how much pleasure you received. While it is a pleasurable experience, there are minor inconveniences that would prevent you from doing it. Thats ok. But when we work our way to the choking homeless gentleman, those same inconveniences mount up against doing the "right" thing.
You should have the option to choose. If you don't like America, there SHOULD be another country that you can go to that agrees with your beliefs. Unfortunately, you don't have that choice, just like many children don't get to choose where they go to school.
> It is for a rational man to decide if it is worth his effort. Would I save the person's life? Yes.
Why? Why would you save his life. Rational people have to have reasons for their actions. As far as I can tell, you are going to save the bums life because you "know" its right. Why do you know its right, because society says so. Not because you can derive its correctness from the precepts of Ayn Rand. Her ethics system is flawed, and everything that derives from it cannot be trusted.
If you can provide me with a good reason as to why you would save the bums life, we can move on from this. There either is a reason to save his life (based on self-interest), or Rand's ethics is broken.
> Because they choose to be irrational. Humans are born with perception, the ability to perceive reality in rational terms. It is a choice they make to ignore reality, to follow their feelings as opposed to their perceptions.
Like me, you did not choose your parents. Like all those people living in Egypt and India, you did not choose your parents. If you are forced to go to church, or whatever, since day 1, you are not going to be able to CHOOSE what to believe in. You ever wonder why religous people tend to beget more religous people? The ability to choose what you believe in has all but been removed at birth. Is it possible for them to get out of this rut? Yes, but it takes a lot of courage. Children tend to believe in the same things their parents believe in. Why? Because the children respect their parents and to disagree with them would be to disrespect them. By the time children are old enough to reason, they would have to go through an existential crisis, which is no easy feat to expect of everyone.
I don't think anyone knows enough to choose what they are until around the age of 18, but by that point, who they are is all but defined. You can't choose your genetic traits, and you can't choose how you are going to be raised. Nature or nurture, either way, you don't have a choice.
There is some action that you cannot control that will lead you to believe some fact. Since you did not have a say whether or not that event occured, you did not have a choice as to whether or not you would believe that fact.
> Uh, it's called minimum wage. The government forces businesses to pay a minimal amount. That's not capitalism. The CEO is using many more brain cells than the janitor.
Ever hear of opportunity cost? If clean floors aren't worth the amount of money to clean them, don't clean them. If people think janitors are too expensive, they won't pay for them. Simple as that. Minimum wage very well be wrong, (I've been stradling the issue for a few months now.) but if you don't think clean floors are worth 800$ a month, deal with dirty floors. Hire someone who can work more efficiently in the same time. The argument against minimum wage isn't that it hurts the companies as much as it hurts the employees, although it does hurt the company.
And anyways, the CEO doesn't spend as much mental energy as the inventor, and the CEO earns a hell of a lot more than the inventor. Minimum wage or no minimum wage, capitalism has decided mental energy is not the metric!
> Compare it to today... should Microsoft's fate be controlled by the gov't? What if Microsoft ends up going down five years down the road from the government fucking with them?
Yes, I do believe the government has a say in Microsofts fate. For the good of the people, the government needs to step in and protect capitalism. If the government did not step in, companies like Netscape (except capable of producing worthy products) can make it to market. Since Microsoft has a monopoly on the operating system, OEM's, ISP's, and many webpages are forced to only offer a Microsoft solution. If they don't comply, Microsoft won't give them the good rate on Windows, they won't advertise the ISP on the desktop, they won't include links to the webpage in the favorites. Microsoft DID do these things, and they are wrong. If the government did not step in, it would take many, many more years before the market would correct itself, assuming it could. I think it is reasonable to give up some rights so that we don't have to put up with those years of stagnation. Does the government have to split Microsoft up? I don't think so. The trial was enough to make Microsoft clean up its act enough that
the market is open to newcomers.
Eventually all of life's karma is going to even out, and bad actions are going to come back to haunt those bad companies. I can't wait that long.
> You must first understand and realize that "self-interest" doesn't mean a "fuck everyone else" attitude.
Why would you go out of your way to help someone when it will not benefit you in the slightest? You have not answered this. Just because you know what the right action is, doesn't mean that Rand's ethics agree with you.
That bum on the street that is choking to death, somehow you know that later in the day, he is going to rob you. He is going to go into your house and steal all of your belongings. After which point, he is going to sell it and leave the country, never to be heard from again. He's dirty, he's smelly, if you help him you'll get dirty and smelly too. He won't even have the capacity to thank you, because he never learned to speak english. Why would save his life? The only benefit you can get, is knowing you helped someone, but you shouldn't feel good about that, since it does not serve your self-interest to feel that way. No, or a very small benefit, in exchange for a lot of pain and inconvenience.
> I get pleasure out of spending time with my friends, and enjoy their company. Hence it is in my self-interest to listen to them, be nice to them, etc.
This does not apply, since this homeless guy will never be your friend, and nor would you ever want to be in his company.
> I enjoy working with computers and helping people and volunteer every Thursday for three hours to build low-grade computers with Internet access that are given (for free) to home-bound, low-income disabled people. It is in my self-interest to do this because I enjoy helping others and I enjoy mucking around with computer hardware.
I applaud your contribution to society. Would you still volunteer if it entailed a 2 hour drive? If the ceiling dripped on you where you volunteered? What if parking cost 20$? What I'm trying to get at is, how much satisfaction do you really get out of volunteering, and why you do it but once a week and for only 3 hours?
Outline why it is in your self-interest to save this homeless guy, and maybe I will believe egoism is a sound ethical system.
> Because she views irrational people as subhuman.
That is ridiculous.
Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, except for those that I deem irrational. Oh, thats not what she means. I'm sure Nietzsche didn't think his words were going to be used to feed hate machines either.
Now, are these people subhuman because they chose to be irrational, or because they are irrational. I don't think... I know they did not choose to be irrational. I guess when people can choose their parents, we might get an increase in adequate people, but until then, we'll have to put up with the lousy output we're getting.
Who does care about the middle-east anyways? A bunch of idiots believing in all sorts of silly moon gods. I don't see why those sub-humans should have the rigth to decide the supply of oil America receives.
> Capitalism is great, it is a system where seller and buyer can freely negotiate a price amicable to both. There is nothing wrong with this, since the company agreed to pay the CEO $X and the CEO accepted $X.
My point exactly. If you look at the Rand quote you provided, you'll notice she is angry that people that don't get paid in relationship to the amount of mental energy they expend. The government has nothing to do with this. It is the free market that has created this "inequity." Either she really believes in capitalism, or she doesn't believe mental energy is the metric for deciding wages, she can't have both. Her philosophy is inconsistant. QED.
> "Man should be able to make his own decisions."
No one is going to argue that point, but obviously man has chosen to forego his right to choose in favor of "better" society. People have different value systems, and that doesn't make them wrong.
> Please read Atlas Shrugged and you will see how this works.
I have started, and am about a hundred pages in so far. Since it is a hybrid, that of fiction and non-fiction, it suffers the same fate all other hybrids share, mediocrity. I'm finding it difficult to enjoy it as either a philosophical text, or as story. The characters, thus far, have all been painted with one of two colors, good or bad. Subtlety must have been a foreign concept to Rand, or she must have been trying to appease the Morlocks.
If she wants people to act in accordance to their best interests, why should a big railroad company vote against securing a solid revenue stream? Yeah, we know they shouldn't, but nowhere is a reason given as to why it serves my best interest to have a competitor?
I really hope Rearden steal isn't as good as it sounds. The only thing infinite is our capacity for self-deception.
If I wanted to read a story with super heroes in it, I would have picked up a comic book. Screw Francisco.
> I think this discussion is really pointless until you read Atlas Shrugged.
Perhaps! I'll start it asap.
> If I am nice to my neighbor, he will likely be nice to me.
Ok, lets say you are out of town, running down the street hurrying to get to an important meeting, and now there is a homeless guy choking on some food. If he did live, he wouldn't really be able to help you, and he quite obviously doesn't have any money. Why would you save his life?
> 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.
Rand could believe in anything, but it doesn't matter. The fact is, if you can follow her ethics principles to the T, and do something that is obviously wrong, her ethics principles are not sound. Egoism is not sound. If we have to consult Rand's works to figure out whether Rand would endorse something, we're in the same position those relegions are. I thought Rand was giving people a framework to, by way of reason, arrive at "correct" conclusions. Not showing us a few examples of what is right.
> 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.
The idea is, the madman won't do anything to you. After he's done with these 100 people he is going to call it quits, and kill himself or convert to objectivism and get a job at McDonald's. The people won't know you saved them, so you won't get any benefits from them, but to save them, you have to initiate violence. You aren't in any danger. You can't attack the guy, you can't stop him... To make things more interesting, we'll say in order to kill the person, you have to spend 24hours in this guys basement, or something, so in order to save the people its really a burden on you. A rational person, using self-interest as his ultimate goal, will choose not kill the person, thus letting 100 people die. We can change the parameters all we want, but there is a case where it best serves your interest not to save those 99 lives, yet its still the right thing to do.
(If you can come up with a reason why you would kill the person, see if you can remove that option from the initial conditions without changing the correct outcome. If you might profit from the survivors, change the problem so that the people don't have money, or they are prisoners, or whatever. I don't think there is a reason, with self-interest as your goal, that will require you to save those people, which is why I feel this system is hopeless.)
If you can reach a false conclusion, you can't trust any of the other conclusions you have reached. An ethical system is useful if and only if it only produces things that are true. Using her ethics, we arrive at something that is not true. Therefore, her ethical system is not useful.
> There are so few rational people, at least as Rand defines "rational."
OH BOY! It sure is a good thing we're here to save the "mental lower class"! I thought you said you didn't believe in it? And I do think irrational people do qualify as being in the "mental lower class." (There is a good chance that I am misusing the term, but I'm really upset by the erudite aura Rand is exuding. If she is really fighting for the rights of people, why must she be so condescending towards them?) If there are so few rational people, how is it that society works? With only a handful of rational people, its a wonder we haven't just blown up. I'm glad the enlightened few are preventing me from walking off cliffs, or whatever it is irrational people do.
But... You can go to anyone of the webpages that does not agree with objectivism, and point out where the individual's reason goes sour? I always enjoy nit-picking the arguments creationists use, it not only helps me better understand evolution, but it makes me a better reader too. Sometimes I wonder, if I did come across something that I didn't have an explanation for, would I concede?
> "... 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."
God is non-man, good point. Expecting people to understand something that is completely different than what they have experienced is absurd. Heaven is non-earth, good point too. "So heaven is this place, sorta like earth, but everyone is happy, and there are no disputes? This doesn't sound like earth at all." After this though, the links get pretty weak. Soul is non-body, this sort of works, but a soul is similar to an imagination, and we don't have any problems with that. Virtue is non-profit though... People have profited while being virtuous. You don't really mean that, it just sounds good. A is non-A? What does this have to do with anything? Perception is non-sensory, I haven't heard people say this, but there is a distinction between the two. Transport layer is non-network layer?!?! Oh wait, that helps me better understand the two. Knowledge is non-reason? What does this have to do with the rest of the list? Looks to me like she got caught in a rant, and she had to somehow tie in
reason.
(Since I'm pretty sure you will misunderstand what I meant by that perception/transport layer comment, I'll explain myself. I was drawing a parallel between the way a network packet is processed, and a stimulus is processed. Like packets, some processing must occur before we can understand stimuli. Its not OSI's seven layer model, but its similar. Knowing that, in theory at least, the layers are seperate, makes it easier to understand each layer individually, and the process as a whole.)
> "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...."
Of course he's being paid an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him, you don't require ANY mental effort of him. You are paying him for his physical effort.
What about CEO's who don't invent anything, but make millions of dollars a year?
What about venture capitalists who don't invent anything?
What about all that money I earn just by putting my money in the bank?
If it wasn't for these other people, the inventor never would have been able to see his invention reach market, or maybe even invent it. Mental energy is not the metric we use to determine how much money people should earn for a job. The amount of mental energy a doctor may use for a given job is insignificant compared to the mental energy a journalist uses, and yet the doctor always earns more than the journalist. The "free" market decided how much the doctor and the journalist earned. There is no conspiracy that made it so.
> "... 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."
Oh please! If the smart people didn't want the dumb people below them, why are they there? If you want a smart janitor, hire a smart janitor. I don't see what taxes or anything have to do with this. The free-market has decided that a janitor is necessary. Janitors don't have to think much. You have to pay a janitor something, or else he/she won't work.
(I hope this makes more sense in the context of the story. So Rand is against all forms of infrastructure?)
This quote is really absurd. I don't see how it fits into our discussion, nor do I buy into the "tension" that exists between intelligent people and unintelligent people.
Making movies is expensive, and it takes the work of a lot of people. Depending on who you talk to, the most important person in making a good movie, is the director. The director usually contributes the most 'mental energy' to the project, and is responsible for a lot of the decisions. Yet, the director isn't the guy who makes the majority of the money, why is that? If it wasn't for investors, there wouldn't be money to fund the movie. If it wasn't for boom mike operatiors, there would be no sound, or the sound would be really bad. If there weren't any actors, the movie probably wouldn't sell. The director is not being screwed.
Later in his life, Orson Welles spent most of his time acting in other movies to raise money to make his own movies. Normally, people invest money in a movie, then expect a share of the profits, or whatever. You'd think people would be jumping at the opportunity to invest in an Orson Welles movie, but they didn't. You see, as great as his work was, not one of his 13 (maybe 12) movies ever made a profit. No one who believes in capitalism should fault investors for passing this opportunity up. They would have been throwing their money away. No conspiracy involved, no stupid people holding back a genius, just rational people making the "right" decision. I believe I have personally received more enjoyment from his movies than he ever earned for making them. I'd be excited to hear any idea that could combat this inequity.
> 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.
Doesn't thinking rationally take into account all the self-interest that is necessary? The reason you are supposed to have self-interest is because you can't expect anyone else to have any self-interest in you, right? So... When you make a decision, you are more important than other people, you shouldn't be worrying about them, thats their concern. What is to stop you from not reflecting that disrepect you obviously hold for them? If it makes you feel better to call someone an idiot, why shouldn't you?
> A rational thinker will realize that everyone needs to work together.
Why? Why will they realize that everyone needs to work together. No where in Rand's ethics is it specified that one should sacrifice oneself for the good of the many. One should act in self-interest!
> Self-interest is key.
I just don't understand why self-interest should be so important to the way one decides whether something is right or wrong. How can you use this to form laws? "Judge, it served me to take the car. It was there, I liked it, and I didn't have to initiate any violence. I don't think I did anything wrong."
I sure enjoy scraping my keys along the side of cars. Its how I express myself. Its a nice non-violent hobby of mine. I like to think people appreciate my work.
> Remember, Rand is vehemenently against initiating physical violence.
I'd have to see more information on her ethics, but just because she is against violence doesn't mean violence can't exist in her ethical system. You're faced with a madman who is going to kill 100 people, unless you kill one of them. What do you do?
Ok, you're in a hurry to go to work, running by a restaurant, you notice someone is choking. Applying the heimlich maneuver will save his life, but then you'll be late for work. If you are late for work you'll get in trouble, so its in your best interest to be on time. You aren't initiating physical violence, but self-interest prevents you from doing the right thing. BRAVO!
> You cannot live a happy life sacrificing for others, you cannot lead a productive life sacrificing for others.
Sure you can. People have done it, and people will continue to do it. Aren't our representatives leading happy lives sacrificing for us?
> The US gov't realized the nature of this and set up patents, allowing people to protect their inventions as an incentive to create.
Not exactly. Before patents, people were able to invent and profit from their inventions. Unfortunately, after the inventor died, its possible that the secret of the invention might have died with them. To encourage the release of these secrets, the government instituted patents, which expire after some period of time. Yes, patents do protect the inventor and allow them to profit, but that is not the sole reason for the institution.
> 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.
I see Objectivism as selling a one-size fits all solution, and yet there are rational people who reject it. Objectivism should make sense to everyone. If reality really is objective, and Objectivism is sound, how can people reject it? Either reality isn't objective, Objectivism isn't sound, or all the people who reject it aren't rational. Is there any other option?
I haven't looked at any of those pages, but for some reason, I don't think they are all making mistakes, misinterpreting, or just being irrational.
> "Reality, the external world, exists independent of mans consciousness, independent of any observers 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 mans consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it."
Reality is the external world, but all we know about it is through our senses, and all of our senses are subjective. Locke, Berkeley, and Hume spent a considerable amount of time discussing this. There is no such thing as in impartial observer of reality. We cannot consult an authority to decide how things really are. Depending on whether or not you just came out of a smelly room affects your ability to recognize scents. Colors look differently depending on whether you use sunlight, candlelight, incadescent bulbs, etc. Whether you have your hand in a bucket of warm or cold water impairs your ability to judge hot and cold. There is one reality, but I doubt you can find two people who perceive reality as the same, which means, for all intents and purposes, reality is subjective.
> Why spend years debating on if we exist? To the Objectivist, one axiom is "existence exists." Pure and simple.
I think you're bunching all of philosophy together and saying that its inefficient because they spent time trying to figure out how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the epicureans, the stoics, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Bentham, Mill, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche didn't trouble themselves with metaphysical problems, for the most part.
From the link...
"The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
No. Greed is not good. Even if it leads people to do good things. When faced with an ethical dilemna, the logic to the correct answer can't be based on "what does it do for me?". 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.
You are the mayor of some city, the city is troubled with some new, violent crime for which you cannot catch the offenders. You bring in all sorts of specialists, and they say the only option is for you to publicly execute someone for the crime, even if that person is innocent. The threat of execution will be enough to drive down the crime rate. Assuming these specialists are right, what do you do? Of course, if you were able to bring down the crime rate you'd get a pay raise, people would elect you Lord King Almighty... The net benefit of the action is good, but the action is wrong.
I can think of a whole bunch of ethical dilemnas where acting with ones self-interest in mind is the wrong thing to do. If self-interest doesn't really play that big of a role in Rand's ethics, why is it mentioned so much in a thirty second summary?
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.
> "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."
If you believe in relativism, this is not so. With god dead in this post-modern world, most people agree with relativism. There are as many realities as there are people. Just because you do not believe in the same thing "natives" do, doesn't mean they are not rational. According to their beliefs, human sacrifice, or whatever, is a natural extension of their beliefs. Reality won't be a good way to decide who is right.
Now, this is no reason for me not to read any of Rand's work, but I have always been under the impression that, similar to Descartes, Rand receives an awful lot of publicity for saying nothing new. I've heard Objectivism described as Fisher Price's My First Philosophy quite a few times. I should read it for myself, and form my own opinion, and I probably will, but its a considerable investment. In that same time I could read Shakespeare's great works, and almost be guaranteed to profit from it. I don't have similar assurances for Atlas Shrugged. Like reading Descartes while not sharing his belief of god, not sharing Rand's faith in capitalism will make reading Atlas Shrugged difficult.
If I'm going to fulfill my wish of knowing everything, I'll have to read it.
If you haven't seen _Roger & Me_ or _Citizen Kane_ yet, you should.
I don't want people to be the same. I am in favor of more equal opportunities. A person born into a poor family will never have the same opportunities as the same person born into a wealthy family. What I want, and I think society should want, is to narrow the difference between the two. That being said, there is a large difference between equal opportunity, and equal outcomes. Just because people have the same opportunities does not mean they will all be successful. There will still be differences in income, and reasons to try to earn more. It is very important for capitalism to have an incentive to improve your position in society.
> There will always be various classes, which is good.
Yeah, there probably will always be classes, but if we can eliminate the poverty class, we'll be in good shape. Just like we're in better shape with out a slave class. If we always have a class of untouchables, that is bad.
> 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 make no claims as to being an expert on welfare, but intuitively, I believe these people are exceptions and not the norm. Regardless, just because the way welfare is instituted currently, does not mean that is the way it has to be done. There are ways of discouraging this behaviour without getting rid of welfare as a whole. Welfare qua welfare is not to blame, its the way welfare is currently implemented.
> 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?
In the paper the other day there was an article that said that CEO's are earning more than 60 times as much money as the president. If we expect the best and brightest people to become the most important person in the country, we are going to have to make it economically sound for them, right? Right?
Be this as it may, if Clinton travelling to Nigeria, or any other country can help cement democracy there, I'm for it. Travelling is very much a part of being the president, perhaps there was some waste, so be it.
The 27 million dollars on the otherhand is something that needs to be fixed. Do I feel bad that my money was wasted on a big PR campaign that only furthers our dependence on a 2 party system, somewhat. I still believe it was worth it.
I really wish we weren't spending billions of dollars fighting the drug war. I hope to god we don't spend the 60 billion dollars on the missile defense system. By no means is the U.S. Government perfect. As lousy as it is though, it is still doing pretty darn good. Just because its broke, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it.
The beautiful thing is, individuals can make a difference in a democracy. Its a lot easier to convince someone not to vote for GWBush than to convince them watching CNN is bad. Its a lot easier to write a representative, than to code a message, through buying habits, to a CEO.
If anything, I see big corporations as the biggest enemies to democracy. I plan on reading _Rich Media, Poor Democracy_ by Robert McChesney in the coming weeks.
I see change on the horizon, and I think its going be a change for the better. I hope I'm not blinded by ignorance.
> "The average test scores for SATs, ACTs, and other standardized tests are higher at private schools than at public schools."
Coming from a family that can afford to pay for private schools probably means the child most likely has a solid family. Coming from a family that is willing to pay for private schools probably means the family is actively involved in the learning process.
> 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.
The reasons you expect that to be true is not because private schools are "better" than public schools, but since people have to pay for private schools, it eliminates the "problem" people from the classes.
I can come up with a system where you have all the benefits of private schools, competition, free choice, etc. but everyone still has a right to school. This won't include private schools battling public schools, private school vs. private school. People will go to the best school they choose to go to, and they can vote with their money. Privatize every school, supply each student with a coupon for schooling equal to the amount of the lowest priced school within some distance of the students house. Everyone wins. Yet, you still are not in favor of it. The schools will be better, everyone still gets to learn, but "its thievery!" Please.
> If one wishes to exercise this, they will find a way "out of the rut."
Now, if only everyone shared your optimism/idealism. "There's a way out, just try harder!" People aren't poor because they aren't working hard. People are poor in spite of working hard. There is no disease of laziness that inhabits people who are poor. Laziness very well be a genetic trait, but I don't think thats why poor people tend to have poor children who grow up to be poor people. Taking education away from these children will only make it more difficult to escape poverty. If welfare, or any program can upset the cycle, I am all for it. Hands off has not worked, nor will it work. Just because your parents are unable to earn enough money to pay for school, shouldn't mean you have no opportunity to achieve.
> 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.
I'm not afraid to learn something new. I'm just waiting for you to admit that boycotting companies is a lot more work than it is worth. Knowing that you won't admit this, it will be a while before I will read the book. Its great that capitalism supports artists, but when I can't appreciate art because some company, who I don't respect, is going to profit from my interest, I, as a consumer, lose. Boycotting is not enough.
> I don't think that such a "mental lower class" exists, rather it's all misperception on the part of the individual.
I don't believe in a "mental lower class" either, but there is a lower class that isn't as well educated. Which is functionally the same, but a very different belief. Every person has the ability to be well educated, but there are socio-economic factors that work against them. Rather than reinforce these inequalities by making it impossible for them to even get a basic education, we should be trying to make sure everyone is educated.
> "Does anyone have the right to forcibly take your hard earned income and do with it what they please?"
When I entered into the social contract, I agreed to part with my money in exchange for the good of society. I do believe that the money I am parting with is going to the right place too. If you want to learn more about this social contract theory, read Hobbes, or Locke (if i remember correctly, Jefferson was a big fan of Locke. You do like Jefferson, don't you?), or Rawls. If you don't like social contracts, we can always try Rule Utilitarianism (of course, it reduces to Act Utilitarianism, but thats not important). If the rule brings about more happiness than pain, its a good rule. I believe it does. Don't like utilitarianism? I don't either. It will be difficult, but lets try to use Kant's Categorical Imperitive.
"Act as if the maxim of your action were to secure through your will a universal law of nature." You don't want to pay taxes, so noone should pay taxes.
"Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only." But by not paying taxes, you are treating the poorer people as means to your own end. Ok, Kant doesn't really apply to social theories. As long as you believe that paying taxes is good for society, paying taxes is the right thing, and everyone should do it. I believe it does.
Without free schools, you are encouraging apartheid. You are in favor of having separate groups that have different rights. The 'haves' get to enjoy liberty, happiness, and life, while the 'have nots' get to enjoy life as indentured servants/slaves. Just because you can't see anything besides yourself.
> 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."
There are private schools, and the students still endure hours of "study hall" and "homeroom." Boy, competition is great. You'd think when you are competing against a product that is FREE your product would have to be considerably better. Regardless, I doubt "study hall" and "homeroom" would disappear once competition is introduced, but I haven't been paying attention to the advances in schooling.
> Why not? Public schools were not always around in this country, people seemed to live and do well enough when they were privatized.
People seemed to get along well enough with serfdom too. When you DENY segments of the population education, you are supporting apartheid. Those that cannot afford an education no longer have their rights to liberty or happiness. Being born into a family that can't afford schools should not be akin to being born an untouchable. Knowing that there are families living below the poverty line, how would these families ever be able to pay for school? Take on another job, I bet the parents wish they could find another job. Parents should not have to work hundreds of hours a week to provide their children with a necessity.
Sometimes the local optimal solution, is well below the poverty line. Expecting people to have enough foresight to know how to get out of their rut, is expecting quite a bit. If all the jobs in your area suddenly disappeared, would you know where you would go? Would you be willing to go? Or would you make a living selling your blood? From where I'm sitting, it is hard to imagine those circumstances, or how I would react when faced with them.
Capitalism is great. By no means am I arguing for socialism or communism. No reasonable society could be formed these days not based on capitalism. Everyone should have an opportunity to live up to their potential. Completely free markets lets people be born into complete poverty, with no way of getting out. People who had no opportunity to learn how to read are not living up to their potential, therefore, free everything doesn't work. Capitalism is not perfect, but you can improve upon it with regulations.
I wish open markets was always the answer, but looking at the results of cable deregulation, and the deregulation of electricity in California, I can't sensibly believe that. I wish farmers weren't up against the prisoner's dilemna when deciding whether or not to grow on all of their land. I wish down-sizing wasn't a cheap way for companies to increase their stock price. I wish free trade wasn't synonymous with cheap labor and fewer american jobs. I wish the richest man in the world had too work as hard as the poorest man to make his next thousand dollars. I wish voting for a third party candidate wasn't an indirect vote for one of the big two. I wish _Roger & Me_ wasn't so funny. I wish every problem had a simple solution. Unfortunately, this is not the way the world works.
> 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.
Actually, I meant _anyone_. Where _anyone_ differs from anyone in that _anyone_ is an arbitrary person. Given an arbitrary person from the set of all people with drive and determination, he/she does not necessarily have everything that is needed to become great, so all the people that have drive and determination do not have the ability to become great. Obtuse, but sound.
> 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 couldn't have been the greatest place in the world to live prior to 1850, because slavery was legal here, and illegal elsewhere. I don't care what economic system those other countries were using, it was a better place than America. Just because the immigration rates were higher than every where else, doesn't mean its the place to be. If the country with the highest immigration rate, over some amount of time, is the greatest country over that same period of time, I question the definition of greatest. As long as you weren't going to become a slave, America would have been a great place to immigrate to, wouldn't you think?
> "No one else has done it, hence it must not be right," is hogwash and you know it.
Yes, by itself, its hogwash, but it raises the question... why hasn't anyone done it? Is there a giant conspiracy that is preventing it from happening? Is the idea too simple? Big business doesn't want it? Not enough people have heard of it? Everyone has been brainwashed into believing that without taxes life would be beastly, brutal and short? People are unwilling to listen to logic? All the representatives who share your beliefs decided "my new job is nice, utopia can wait!"? In order to bring about change, one needs an army! How about... Most people don't share your simplistic, idealistic view of capitalism? Most people don't have your faith in humanity to donate their money to the government? Most people accept the fact that the money the government receives does the public good, and is therefore good for them, indirectly?
> Go to the public library and pick up a copy for free.
Well, what if after I checked it out, someone else came by, wanting to read it, noticing it wasn't there, went out and bought it. (Boycotting sure is difficult... you can be give companies money even when you aren't giving them money. Its so hard calculating all these secondary effects. "if I buy this, there will be only one left, which means that even if someone else wants this brand, they may have to choose the evil competitor.") Which I may, or may not want them to do. Still haven't decided.
Free markets have existed for centuries, and yet the middle class (as we know it) has only existed for the past 50 years or so. The middle class may only exist in capitalism, but I don't think completely free markets actively create the middle class. I believe the restrictions the government have placed on the markets has been instrumental in the growth of the middle class.
...
If you are so deadset against welfare, are you willing to take the next logical step and be against public schools? Its another example of the tax dollars of everyone benefitting those that aren't so well off. Granted, public schools could very well be better with some competition, but the burden for paying for school shold not rest squarely on the parents. Everyone should be able to go to school, regardless of whether they can afford it or not. I doubt my parents would have been able to afford paying for school for me or my siblings, with or without the resulting tax-break. Even if you see being forced to pay for public schools as being wrong, you must admit that public schools have to be available to everyone. It really would be a pity if the upper/middle classes shrugged, capitalism itself wouldn't work.
Capitalism does not offer _anyone_ the chance to become something great. It takes more than drive and desire, like talent, money, ability to make it to market, luck. Is it fair that the kind of family you are born into is basically the deciding factor on whether you can or can not be great? 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. Unhindered capitalism is definitely not egalitarian.
It takes money to make money. Without money, you cannot invest wisely, you cannot produce your product, and you cannot get a job (only slight exaggeration). If you get rid of public schools, I really think it would be impossible for the working class to break into the middle class. There are not too many jobs left for people who cannot read. The fact that the government has the power to give people who have no money the ability to make money is a good thing.
...
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. 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.
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. 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. By continuing to live in a country that forcibly taxes its people, you are endorsing those laws. Socrates couldn't leave with Crito because to do so, he would be betraying his agreement with the laws. By living in Athens, Socrates endorsed and therefore agreed with the laws. So he drank the hemlock.
Regarding Atlas Shrugged, I'll have to check the publisher and my list of boycotts before I can read it. (I hear Ayn Rand protested the release of Citizen Kane, I may not be able to support such poor ethical behaviour) It really is hard spending money correctly.
Like communism/socialism, your style of government is flawed since the government itself depends on the generosity of the people who can give.
I am not sure if you are familiar with Rawls's "veil of ignorance"... The basic idea is, you design a social institution, then from behind the veil of ignorance (where you know the rules of life and this society, but you don't know anything about yourself that might give an insight as to where you would work in this society) you can rationally compare this new institution with what is already in place. Obviously, you don't want to live in a society where one person is a lord, and everyone else is a serf, since the likelyhood of you being a serf is so high (even if being the lord is that much better, it's just not worth it).
Using the veil of ignorance, we can compare societies where capitalism runs free, and where it is tempered. While on one hand the prospect of not having to pay taxes is nice, the idea of being born into a family that can barely put food on the table is pretty bad. Depending on how much faith you have in capitalism, makes a big difference as to what your preference is. If we disagree, its not because one of us is wrong, but because we are working from different, most likely valid, assumptions.
You may not agree with this, but I believe that completely free markets build skyscrapers in the plains, when we want rolling hills and mountains. That is to say, we get a few really, really rich people up in the skyscrapers, while everyone else is down at or below sea-level. We want a middle class. We want people at all sorts of economic levels. Most importantly though, we want everyone above sea-level. If completely free markets give us the skyscrapers, and tempered capitalism keeps everyone above sea-level, tempered capitalism wins every time. 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.) (I could go into more depth as to why I believe capitalism is flawed, but this is too long as is.)
Yes, socialism does not work, and no we don't want it. Given the choice between straight capitalism and straight socialism, capitalism wins everytime. But if you can improve capitalism by mixing in some socialism, everyone wins.
You can't count on someone being generous, giving his/her money to the poor, while he/she is busy trying to make as much money as possible. The rules of capitalism say, the one with the most money wins. If being nice doesn't help a corporation win, it won't be nice.
With regard to John Stossel, correlation does not imply causation. I, personally, think it is dubious to say these think tanks have concluded that these countries are great because of free markets, when those think tanks are pro-free market to begin with. Also, as far as I can tell from both provided links, Stossel is not in favor of eliminating mandatory taxes. Even with the findings of the think tanks, one can not reasonably conclude that less regulations will necessarily improve matters. At a time when the U.S. economy is at an all time high, it is easy to say it is because America is the home of the free, but if 5-10 years down the line, when the economy isn't so hot, what if America is still the "free'est" country, but not the greatest?
You should be able to smoke marijuana if you choose. The war on drugs is complete idiocy. I cannot imagine a rational argument that is in favor of spending billions and billions of dollars in an effort to effect a small amount of good. And anyways, marijuana is safer, cleaner, and more pleasant than alcohol. Unfortunately, the war on drugs makes for good press, and it will be a long time before someone who is pro-drugs gets elected.
So your government would expect people to give what they can and take what they need?
Unless there is an incentive to give, the amount of money your government will receive will be minute. Granted, your government probably won't include expensive things like an army or public schools or welfare, I still don't think your government would have enough money.
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. I also enjoy being able to buy things without having to do research to find out who owns the company, where that company produces the product, how that company treats its employees, how that company affects the environment... It's not that I'm lazy, I just have other things I would rather do.
Given that most people don't invest the time to figure out their phone bills, AND they don't spend enough time with their children, how can you expect them to be mindful of all these secondary effects of purchases?
Before I read that list of companies, I thought I _was_ boycotting Time-Warner. It's a good thing people don't read too much into my buying decisions since I don't put much thought into them.
Boy... boycotting Rupert Murdoch, Disney and Time-Warner sure is boring.
The fact that Microsoft is a monopoly is not the problem. It is the fact that they were using their monopoly to prevent competitors from entering the market. (Netscape)
I don't care how good your mousetrap is, if you can't get it to the market, you can't make any money off of it.
Granted, Netscape's mousetrap isn't all that good, but how could a better browser put a dent in IE's market share if... the OEM's are sealed off, they can't advertise on the most accessible pages, and the largest ISP's can't offer your product. Microsoft's monopoly allows them to stack the deck against competitors, preventing innovation and all that nonsense.
A monopoly is not necessarily a bad thing. It is when a company uses its monopoly to monopolize another market that the consumer is harmed, and damage is done.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess all those rumors about hefty smurf being dead were vicious lies.
I guess I shouldn't have been spreading them. Oh well.
It's nice to know there is life after quake, and CMU.
there were a lot of people that were in concentration camps, some even managed to escape. since people did escape, does that mean everyone who didn't deserved their fate?
poverty, like a concentration camp, is escapable. poverty, like a concentration camp, is something you want to escape from. yet, you will sympathize with victim's of concentration camps, but not with victims of poverty.
> Axiom 1: Life is good.
> Parasites harm life. (Well, I guess the technical definition of a parasite is one that sustains life off another being with giving nothing in return... that's not so bad, but if they harm the individual they are leeching off of (like that little Alien baby in the movie Alien that popped out of that guy's stomach), then that is bad.)
Parasites harm life... Parasites harm A life, while the parasites stay alive. Without having to do any complicated math, I know that parasites lead to more life. Parasites extend life.
> Therefore, parasites shorten/detriment life. Parasites == bad.
To use your logic here...
Life is good.
Things that extend life are good.
Parasites extend life. Parasites == good!
Jumping off a lifeboat to save the lives of the other people shortens/detriments my life. Jumping off the boat == bad.
> A hard worker is one who enjoys life, who puts a lot of energy into living life, doing a good job, putting pride into his occupation.
Redefining words is the tool of propaganda.
Were all the hard workers under Hitler good people?
> > Are we to say that violence is a virtue since violence sometimes leads to good
> How does initiating violence lead to good?
Although I was tempted to say initiating violence, I chose not to. Violence sometimes leads to good, like when responding to violence. There is no doubt, in my mind, that it has led to good. The conclusion of your "proof" said, basically, sometimes hard work leads to good, therefore it is good. Sometimes violence leads to good, therefore violence is good.
> As far as owning the land above/below, beats me. Should you be able to refuse the gov't the ability to acquire your land? Hell yes. Right now the gov't could decide it wants to build a highway through your backyard and you must sell or have it taken.
The reason no true democracy has, or will exist (for any period of time) is because it is too inefficient. Educating everyone so they know enough to vote on every little problem is unreasonable. Similarly, the prospect of requiring the government to convince everyone in a roads path to move out is unreasonable. For the sake of efficiency, we give up rights. I wish there was a country you could live in that didn't have all these rules, but I don't see it happening. There are good, valid reasons why it has not happened.
> Of course if the gov't can't do this, then things like buying a ring around a city and making it uber-expensive to enter/leave could occur.
If the people don't agree to give me a lot of money, I'll increase the tariff on importing food, or other necessities. Without initiating violence, I can kill millions of people!
> Of course such actions are going to make your ring around the city worthless quickly. Who wants to live in a town that has a high-prices entery/exit fee? Who wants to build new industry in a town that is virtually held hostage by one?
If I set the price high enough so that some people can't leave, I can turn those people into slave labor. Don't industries want to have low production costs? It doesn't get much cheaper than slave labor.
> Second, forcing people to pay taxes isn't right in my system. I've thought about it, and am repalled by forcing anyone to do anything.
It is ok to force children to finish their dinner, right? Children don't have the necessary tools to make a rational decision for themselves, so it is ok to force them to do something. So you are not repelled or appalled by forcing anyone to do something. I think I might refer back to this later in my response.
> > welfare extends life, and you don't believe it is good
> By sucking life from others. Life is good - parasites are bad. Animals like fleas have no choice in the matter, humans do.
You are still avoiding the fact that you cannot make that leap of logic. Regardless, where do you get off saying parasites are bad? Is this one of those beliefs that hinges upon the fact that hard work is good and virtuous? If so, I feel obliged to remind you we are in the process of trying to prove that hard work is good and virtuous. Circular logic is the tool of irrational people.
Life is good.
All things that extend life are good.
You are also avoiding the fact that hard work is only good some of the time. Are we to say that violence is a virtue since violence sometimes leads to good?
Without spending too much time, I was able to find two flaws in your proof that hard work was a virtue. I am not that smart or attentive of a guy, imagine what a really smart person like Ayn Rand could have found wrong in your proof! Either you spent even less time constructing it, or your abilities at arriving at logical conclusions is flawed. If you didn't spend much time constructing the proof, I take that as an insult.
> I agree with you, if there are the lives of others who you are risking, then such laws are in order - again, it can be argued that having such laws is in my self-interest. If these are widely accepted laws, then my chances of not being in an auto accident increase.
What exactly does widely accepted entail? 10% of the population is in favor? 30%? 51%? 99%? or 100%? Unless you don't have 100% support, you are FORCING people to follow these rules. Previously, you said you did not believe in forcing anyone to do anything. Good luck getting 100% of any sufficiently large group of people to agree on anything.
> Second, the roads are owned by the gov't (which they shouldn't be, but whatcha gonnna do?). So, they have a right to make their own laws on those roads - if you don't want to obey them, don't drive on the roads.
Good point. Very good point. Very good way of attacking my previous point.
If I own a block of land, do I have a right to decide what happens below or above it. That is to say, do I get to make the rules for airplanes that fly over my land? Can someone dig a tunnel underneath my property without my permission? Can I buy all the land surrounding a city and then make it expensive to leave/enter the city? Can I make it impossible for certain people to enter/leave the city?
> Axiom: it is wrong to initiate violence.
> Axiom: make decisions that are benefitial to yourself.
Ok, I didn't realize the no initiation of violence was part of her ethics, my bad.
> A contradiction, so obviously one axiom must take presedense over the other, no? I tend to think the former supercedes the latter, but I guess that is a decision for each of us to make.
Personally, I see this as a bad position to be in (having multiple rules that can be in conflict). Objectivism sets up a system where reason rules over everything, and then you are forced to make a decision based on your preferences. I believe the only way egoism could ever work is to make sure that initiating violence is wrong. (I think more restrictions would be better. Either replace the axiom with something that is more restrictive, or add a new axiom. More axioms makes the system more complicated though...)
> Life is good, an axiom in my personal system.
Which means your beliefs are different than Objectivism, meaning you can reach different conclusions than Objectivism. If you don't agree with their beliefs, you can't blindly share their conclusions. Maybe forcing people to pay taxes IS right in your system.
"Life is good" and "Don't initiate violence" seem to cover a lot of the same ground, is there any way you can combine the two into a single assumption?
> Hence, continutation of life is good. Hence, traits that increase the chances of continuation of life (and make it more enjoyable) are good traits.
Is this what you had in mind?
Life is good.
All things that extend life are good. (There is no reason to believe this. )
Sometimes hard work extends life. (We have examples that show this.)
Sometimes hard work is good. (Follows the form of one of Aristotle's syllogisms.)
[welfare extends life, and you don't believe it is good.]
I believe that is all you can "conclude" as far as hard work being good, based on life being good. There are cases where hard work does not extend life, like when people with heart conditions work too hard, or when people work hard trying to kill you. (hmmm... if other people are working hard, that makes it more difficult for you to make a profit. isn't it in your best interest for other people not to work hard?)
If you can extend life without work just as effectively as you can extend life with work, isn't life without work more attractive? (I'm not saying I believe that is the case, but under those conditions, hard work does not bring about good, so it is not good.)
> Has it not worked in the real world, though? I assume it would not, but have no concrete proof that it wouldn't. (Of course we have plenty of hard, concrete proof to show that communism doesn't work.)
We do not have hard, concrete proof that communism does not work. No one thinks that the communists states ever achieved a state of pure communism. For all we know, there is a threshold, after which things start to work. You believe the emerald will be green, they believe the emerald will be grue.
I'm not sure if this next argument works completely, but at least it will bring us closer to the original discussion.
Are laws against drunk driving wrong?
Are speed limits wrong?
Are stop signs wrong?
Pure Objectivists, I believe, would say yes to all three questions. If I rationally decide to do something, I should not be punished unless something bad happens. As long as there are no accidents, don't force me to follow a law I didn't okay. (When you go to a new city, you did not have a say as to what the speed limit was, or where the stop signs are.)
I hope you agree with me, that all three things are a necessary evil to make driving a safer venture. When drunk, you cannot reason as well, you should not be trusted to make a rational decision. (I can argue this further, but I hope it is not needed.) I'm not sure how you could go about figuring out speed limits or where to put stop signs in a purely Objectivist society, but even if speed limits and stop signs were left as suggestions, the number of accidents would still increase. if you don't know if the person coming up to the intersection is going to stop or not, you cannot cross into the street. Yes, you have to give up your rights, but, at least in this case, it makes sense to.
Is obeying the rules of the road that different from paying your taxes?
> Because you've continually misquoted her (or taken her words out of context).
How have I misquoted her by using her ethics system? I have brought up a few examples where it is in your best interest to initiate violence, or something similar, but, you say, it is wrong because Rand says initiating violence is wrong. If I am misusing her ethics system, please point out the wrong assumption I've made, or the wrong step I took. Don't tell me my conclusion is wrong because Ayn Rand is for/against something. We won't make any progress that way.
> One encourages man to do his best; the other encourages man to do his worst. Objectivism rewards intelligence, hard work, and effort; Communism punishes those same virtues.
Besides assuming them, how do you know intelligence, hard work, and effort are good. Its very possible you have been brought up from birth to believe in those lies. Communism encourages sharing! If I understand your argument correctly, Objectivism is better than communism, because Objectivism says Objectivism is better.
If it doesn't work in the real world, why use it? If reality is the final arbiter, and reality says it doesn't work, don't use it!
> I have never claimed to be a philosophy person, an expert on the subject. However, who knows my life, my morals, my ethics, better than me? Aristotle? Hume? Calvin? Hobbes? Calvin & Hobbes? Rand? No. None of them know me as well as I do.
You have formed opinions without gathering all of the evidence.
> > People have been thinking about these problems for thousands of years, to disregard their work is irrational
> Ah! You're putting words into my mouth again. I never said I disregarded the works of others. I've read more Rand than other people, granted, but that does not mean I disregard all other thoughts. To stop thinking, to stop questioning, that's what I'm against.
You put a lot of stock in the conclusions Rand has reached. I assume you base decisions off of her conclusions. Limiting yourself to, basically, two view points is commiting yourself to ignorance. You can learn a lot from those dead people, and that knowledge can affect the way you make decisions.
We agree that when answering a question, you should try to acquire as much information as reasonably possible before making a commitment. It is bad to answer a question without doing enough research into the question, but isn't it just as bad to answer a question using tools that you haven't done much research into? The assumptions you base your answer on are just as important as the knowledge you have about the problem. If you use those assumptions in EVERY decision you make, shouldn't you invest a lot of time into determining their validity?
Yes, ultimately it all comes down to you, and how you choose to use the tools... but, actively avoiding information about those tools and new tools, is irrational. As a rational person, it is your responsibility to make sure that what you believe in is sound. Is reading a few books by the same person and reasoning enough? I wish it was. Unfortunately, it is too easy to be deceived. The only thing infinite, is our ability for self-deception.
By me reading Atlas Shrugged, I will better understand my beliefs, regardless of what they were before, or what they will become. To avoid acquiring that knowledge is stupid, right? After I finish reading, I should have, and will, have more confidence in the decisions I make. I will have a firmer grasp of why I believe what I believe, and therefore better reasons for why I choose what I choose.
A lot of people thought they were right, when they were wrong. Were they being irrational, they didn't think so. Only after having other people look at the problem, or by looking at the problem from a different perspective were they able to see the error. To assign complete faith in your ability to always be rational, is irrational.
You know those sliding puzzles... They are missing a piece, enabling you to slide rows/columns of pieces horizontally/vertically. I once saw a friend working on one, I looked at it for a bit, then concluded that it was unsolvable. Its an easy enough proof, you look at how much disorder, if it is odd, you can't solve it. My friend, stubborn as he was, plodded on, confident that the puzzle solvable, and sure enough, it was. My reasoning was correct, but I failed to notice that two pieces were identical. I couldn't imagine a case where my proof wouldn't work. Was I rational or irrational?
Is reason the holy grail of decision making? No, it isn't perfect! We still have progress to make.
> > There isn't much I can dispute with that, besides the fact that egoism doesn't coincide with those beliefs
> How so? Explain yourself.
According to egoism, you would let that bum die, since it does not serve your self-interest. He must not have a right to life.
> As I said last post, those views that I perceive are the most rational. What is more rational, to think that I can fly or not? Observation has taught me that I cannot fly, hence it is more rational to know that I cannot fly than assume that I might be able to. You must go with your perception and observations, or you will be able to justify hate and violence. "Well, I shot him in the head, but that is just one way to perceive reality, he is still alive, I have done nothing wrong."
You believe the next emerald will be green, I believe the next emerald will be grue. Which one of us is being more rational, and why.
Someone else believes that the action of the world is consistent with a supreme being, why is your belief more rational?
All available information says this system is consistent, is it rational to conclude no new information will surface and show otherwise?
Ultimately, it is a matter of opinion, and not a matter of truth. If both conclusions are valid, whichever one you choose is a matter of taste, not of correct/incorrect.
> Hardly. If one were to follow your assumption to the T, following Rand's word blindly, they would soon read Rand's words on rationality, that each Man must think for himself, and must make his own rational decisions rooted in his own self-interest. Hence, ironically, one who followed Rand's words blindly would follow no one's thoughts but his own.
So why constantly bring up the fact that Rand was against initiating violence? Are you just going to trust the fact that Rand was being rational when she decided that it was wrong?
> A quote from Rand: "My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." I find that "philosophy" to be a wise one, one that I've found fitting.
Are you going to live your life according to what Rand did, wrote, or believed in? While all three are related, they are very different. I doubt you want to find out EVERYTHING she did, or read EVERYTHING she wrote. The rational thing to do, is to look at what she believed in. In which case, what she did and what she wrote are irrelevent to your decision making process. When her beliefs don't work, you can't fall back on what she did or what she wrote. She could have been a terrible person that hid in church towers killing passers by, but that wouldn't affect the validity/invalidity of her beliefs.
> If your idea of a utopia is to have man's progress frozen in time, then go for communism. What achievements would a communist state produce?
Just because communism hasn't worked well in reality, doesn't mean it can't work well in theory. I doubt it would work in theory, like I doubt Objectivism would work in theory. The promise that something works in an ideal case, isn't enough to warrant using that theory in reality. On what grounds do you say believing Objectivism is a better belief than communism, when both of them don't work in reality?
> How many men did he command to fight? How many rounds did he fire at the Spanish? While he may have gotten America psyched for war via his yellow journalism, is he then to blame for our gov'ts decision to fight?
Depending on how you define 'cause', Hearst caused the war. This doesn't matter.
> In any case, my philosophy is fairly simple (like I said, I'm no philosophy stud):
Can you be rational if you are ignorant? I sure hope so, but don't put too muc h stock in your conclusion if you know your knowledge is lacking in that field. People have been thinking about these problems for thousands of years, to disregard their work is irrational.
> * Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness/property
> * Man, if he chooses, can make rational decisions rooted in reason
> * Each man should be able to make his own decisions and should not wish to make decisions for other men.
> * No man should violate another's basic rights (see first point)
There isn't much I can dispute with that, besides the fact that egoism doesn't coincide with those beliefs.
If every belief reduces to faith, how can you decide which beliefs are more rational?
> It may be in my self-interest to shoot my neighbor and take his belongings, but if you'll recall, Rand decries initiating physical violence. Clearly, our gov't is to blame for a lot of the suffering over there. The Objectivist thing to do would be to trade in an open market with those who have oil.
:-)
If Rand was for the breaking of the fingers of children, would that make it ok? An Objectivist cannot fall back on Ayn Rand's actions/beliefs when Objectivism leads him/her to a bad conclusion. If Ayn Rand ever did anything wrong, according to the precepts of Objectivism, Objectivists could rightly repeat that action since Rand did it.
> It comes down to the simple fact that Objectivism is an ideal philosophy that would only work in a utopia.
They say the same thing about communism. Why should we abandon communism and not Objectivism?
> Even when the US was its most Objectivist (early ninteenth century, I'd wager, when gov't was much smaller and the US was much closer to laissez-faire capitalism), our gov't still went out and initiated force: Spanish-American War, for example.
(I think you mean late nineteenth century, Spanish-American war took place around 1898, no?)
Just as aside... Most people agree, the Spanish-American War was the work of William Randolph Hearst, the industrialist that Orson Welles/Herman J. Mankiewicz based Charles Foster Kane on. He may not have been an Objectivist, but I do think he epitomized most of Rand's ideals.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Goedel only prove a finite set of axioms could be proven inconsistent? Hehe, so simply create a philosophy with an infinite number of axioms...
Hmm, I'm not sure. I think it may only be in the case of an infinite set of axioms. I know ZFC has infinitely many axioms, (Axiom schema, anything of such and such form is true.) and Goedel's conclusions apply there. I haven't looked at the Peano Axioms in a while, but I believe there is a finite number of them, and we can't prove that they are consistent. (I hear most of the work looking into P=NP these days is looking at the axiomitization of algebra...)
> How do you figure? Does nature depend on faith? Does the likelihood of the gravitational constant remaining constant hinge on faith? Does the speed of light have something to do with faith? Since we are beings that are, quite literally, part of nature, how could our observation of nature require any dependence on faith?
The gravitational constant could change tomorrow, we just assume it won't. This is Hume's territory. Just because every time we have heated a metal bar it has expanded, doesn't mean that it will expand the next time we heat it. Correlation does not imply causation. It could very well just be a coincidence that every time you heated the metal bar, some other event also happened, which caused the bar to expand. You have successfully predicted the outcome of N experiments, why do you assume it will work on the N + 1th trial? You assume nature is and will be consistent, but you don't have a rational justification for this belief.
Hume constructed a paradox, that is quite ingenius. I don't think I will be able to do it any dignity. Define grue to be a new color, it is equivalent to to green, for any date before 2001, and blue thereafter. (Perfectly legal definition.) Now, every emerald discovered so far has been green, and it has been grue. Why is it that we expect emeralds to be green on Jan 1, 2001, and not grue? Based on all the evidence you have acquired so far, it makes sense to conclude that on that date, it will be both green and grue.
(I used to be really annoyed by Hume. Axiomitize reality, I said. Occam's Razor, Occam's Razor, Occam's Razor! But as I kept coming back to his conclusions, I couldn't help but be amazed. In the time since he "destroyed" causality, the philosophy world has been reeling. Why, I thought, there is such an obvious conclusion? Why hasn't anyone else come up with it? All axiomitizing accomplishes, is changes the blame. Why do you hold this truth to be self-evident?)
Did you know that energy isn't always conserved? (or at least, our understanding of energy. It happens for short periods of time in quantum conditions. Momentum, on the other hand, is still pure.)
Did you know force of gravitation is not an inverse square relation? (according to experimental evidence, its 1/r^J where J is some number slightly less than 2. Unfortunately, the electric force suffers the same fate. Gauss's law doesn't work!)
The fact that you call the gravitational constant a constant, says something about your faith in the consistency of nature.
Every belief reduces to faith.
> Then my "gut feeling" is wrong.
/.
So, you are not going to save the person's life?
> Rand's ethics are quite simple: make rational decisions based on reality.
Simple does not mean correct. You know that. Simple is rarely correct.
Anyways, Rand's ethics must not be all that simple, since a few days ago when you were thinking rationally, you thought an action that did not serve your self-interest was right.
Similar example, but blown up to the macro case.
It is important for the day to day lives of Americans to have a steady flow of oil coming from the middle-east. In the early 90's, with the cold-war over, economics in the middle-east changed and America was losing its grip. Luckily for the U.S., Saddam Hussein made a move where we could declare war on Iraq and make everyone happy, Americans and the rest of the middle-east. Even though America has the ability to remove Hussein from power, it does not. As long as Hussein is in power, America's presence in the middle east is needed, and therefore Saudi Arabia, and the rest of OPEC, must give America its precious oil. (I'm probably glossing over a lot of the details, either due to my ignorance, or my haste.)
Makes sense, but... by keeping Hussein in power, America is endorsing dictatorship, and (for various reasons, trade embargos...) causing the death of hundreds of thousands of iraqi citizens. Luckily enough for all you egoists, this is OK! Iraq is a poor country, very small amounts of that precious oil, Iraq is filled with god-believing sub-humans, and for the most part, the public outcry has been relatively muted.
Do you see this as being right?
> Did the main character sacrifice himself for the sake of others due to being forced by threat of jail or violence? If so, then, you're right, it would violate my moral stance.
Not quite, but almost. You'd have to judge that for yourself. Being forced to take a low-paying deadend job could be considered being jailed.
> You'll see quotes just like that (and similar ones like: "BillG shouldn't complain, he can afford any settlement the gov't throws at him") here on
I guess browsing at +3 has its benefits.
> Actually, it is still a little out of context. If you read the paragraph after that quote, it will make even more sense what she is saying. The quote was from Atlas Shrugged, John Galt Speech (pg. 980 in the copy I have).
I'd rather not skip ahead, but hopefully i'll have enough time this weekend to finish the book.
I wanted to make a brief comment about something I read in Atlas Shrugged... At some point, Francisco was consoling Dagny, she was so upset that the world was filled with contradictions. He said, something along the lines of, "Don't worry, there are no contradictions. When you find one, check your assumptions, one of them is wrong." I know, and you should know, that this is not true. Within any sufficiently complicated logical system, you cannot prove that that logical system is consistent (me paraphrasing Goedel, I won't bore you with the proof). That is to say, even if all of your assumptions are correct, you may still be able to reach a contradiction. We cannot prove that logic works.
No matter how hard you try, you will always depend on faith.
(there are a few other points I would like to have touched on, but I think its best I stop here for now.)
> I think it does in a way. Most members of society agree to the tenet, "Hey, if I see you, I'll save your life." Why? So that others will save MY life if I am the one dying. Hence, me agreeing to than tenet increases the chances that someone will attempt to save my life, hence it is in my self-interest.
So you agree to the tenet because it is good for you, it serves your self-interest. But, you aren't going to blindly apply a rule. Thou shall not kill? There are exceptions, and conflicts of interests. Surely, you don't mean to say that you will follow this rule even when a murderer comes into your house, meaning to kill you and your family, but falls into a well, where he will surely die. To decide what is right and what is wrong in either case, you have to go back to your basic assumptions, and from them rationally construct an argument for your action. It is in your best interest, only to save the people that will/can benefit you after they are saved. For this action, it best serves you not to save this persons life.
> So... that "gut feeling" of guilt, does that mean masturbation is "evil?" Hardly. It was an irrational thought, and shows the mental stress such irrational thinking can have on a person.
The "gut feeling" that letting this person die doesn't mean that it is wrong. What I meant was, you have two possible conclusions, either your "gut feeling" is wrong, or Rand's ethics are wrong. I doubt you really want to give up either. If that feeling is wrong, how many other feelings are wrong? By disavowing this "belief", you could very well throw your entire belief system upside down. Its not an easy thing to go through, while I enjoy it, its not for everyones taste. Whichever idea prevails, you'll have to go through it.
> "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."
Having read the entire quote now, I think have a better grasp of what she meant, but I still think she would be against CEO's earning more than the inventors. The inventor is at the top of the pyramid, and the CEO is down below him. Yet, the CEO gets most of the money, and the enjoyment of the new idea. Rereading the quote, replacing janitor with CEO, and some other appropriate changes, it makes just as much sense. Its bad enough the inventor doesn't get new ideas, like the CEO, but he doesn't get paid as much as the CEO either. I guess we need some philosopher-kings, I mean CEO-inventors. (I think it was philosopher-kings that Plato discussed in The Republic, I could be mistaken. Regardless to say, it made a lot of sense, in theory. No one was able to put his ideas to work.)
> The one thing that I do strongly dislike that MS did was strongarm Intel to give up some of their technological advances.
Stealing Stacker (or whatever the disk compression software it was) didn't anger you? Sure, he paid the people enough to quiet down, after the fact, but what he did was blatantly wrong. Microsoft has a dirty record, that looks clean thanks to out of court settlements. The same type of out of court settlements that kept all those Firestone tires on the streets. I don't know how to fix it, but there is something wrong with that system. In order for the case to go through courts, you really have expect people to be martyrs. Like Jeffrey Wigand in reality and the Insider. (If you missed the Insider, it was a real gem. It could have very easily descended into an anti-smoking rant, but it stuck to its convictions. Of course, I think your beliefs don't really coincide with that of the movie. It just might be torture for you.)
> What I don't like is the view people have of Microsoft that they are a bunch of rich whining babies who deserve to get sued because they are so rich. If I had a nickel for everytime I've read, "Why should BillG not be sued, he's got so much money as it is..."
Either I have not heard anyone say that, or people have said it and I have subconciously filtered that out. That doesn't make sense. It _can't_ make sense.
> Because I value my life and assume he values his. Because if I were to be choking one day and that bum was to be crossing my path, I'd want him to assist me as I would assist him.
... My rational knowledge is based upon the sum of my observations. Of course, years of living in a "we" society have instilled certain irrational beliefs in me, ones that I am trying to shake or replace with rational reasons.
Firstly, you won't ever encounter this person again, so there is no chance that he will have an opportunity to return the favor. Secondly, your action will in no way shape the way other people will treat you, you saving his life won't make it any more likely that someone else will save you. Your action does not benefit you. If you believe it does, I think you are deluding yourself.
> It is quite irrational to just "know" something is one thing or the other. Mystics claim this power, I do not.
Are you willing to disregard this thing you "know"? You have a gut feeling as to what is right, which is what I meant by "know", are you going to accept that initial feeling, or are you going to accept what Rand's logic tells you? I hope you choose the answer that makes the most sense to you, whether that means going against what you currently believe, or going against what you want to believe.
Well, the 'right thing' is a lot like pornography, you know it when you see it, but its difficult to define. I can give you a lot of reasons as to why helping the bum is the correct thing to do, even though it doesn't serve my self-interest. If you, after carefully considering the results of helping the bum, conclude that not helping the bum is the right thing to do, I don't think I would be able to continue this discussion with you. You would be trying to tell me 1=0, the square root of two is rational, there is a highest prime, the set of all sets is a set, sorting can be done in constant time, DFS is always better than BFS...
> I was forced to go to church every Sunday for a loooong time.
Yes, it can be done, but its very difficult. Just because it is possible doesn't mean thats the way it should happen. I once escaped from a concentration camp, so all the people that died there didn't deserve to live.
> Exactly, but what if I think clean floors are worth $400 a month and I find a good cleaner who agrees and will do the work for $400 a month? I have to pay this person as a contractor or under the table, otherwise I am violating minimum wage laws.
Compared to the inequities between the CEO and the inventor, this problem is harmless. Rand said, basically, she believed that people should be payed based on how much mental energy they expend, so no matter how much the janitor is paid, he still is earning too much. Her argument is lousy, and reality agrees.
> Wrong by whose standards? By the law of the land? Yes, perhaps, but is that law just? Microsoft knew of the laws, though, and made a rational decision to break them and take the consequences that might come along with them... but still, are the laws right?
By my standards and, apparantly, other peoples' standards too. I don't care what the law says. If Microsoft is preventing products from reaching the market, Microsoft is in the wrong. Microsoft's better product should be winning on its onw terms, not the fact that Microsoft has a monopoly and they can strong arm the paths to market.
When I invent a better mouse trap, I better be able to at least have an opportunity to make money with it.
> I don't know if I'd volunteer if those conditions existed. In any case, it should be my decision if I wished to put up with those inconveniences to volunteer. It is my decision to donate 3 hours a week, no more no less.
You are missing my point. For each action, as a rational person, you have REASONS for doing what you are doing. You, and Rand, believe that self-interest should be the ultimate reason for your actions. The choice you make should depend on which action best serves your self-interests.
You said you derived pleasure from helping the people, I merely wanted to get a picture of how much pleasure you received. While it is a pleasurable experience, there are minor inconveniences that would prevent you from doing it. Thats ok. But when we work our way to the choking homeless gentleman, those same inconveniences mount up against doing the "right" thing.
You should have the option to choose. If you don't like America, there SHOULD be another country that you can go to that agrees with your beliefs. Unfortunately, you don't have that choice, just like many children don't get to choose where they go to school.
> It is for a rational man to decide if it is worth his effort. Would I save the person's life? Yes.
Why? Why would you save his life. Rational people have to have reasons for their actions. As far as I can tell, you are going to save the bums life because you "know" its right. Why do you know its right, because society says so. Not because you can derive its correctness from the precepts of Ayn Rand. Her ethics system is flawed, and everything that derives from it cannot be trusted.
If you can provide me with a good reason as to why you would save the bums life, we can move on from this. There either is a reason to save his life (based on self-interest), or Rand's ethics is broken.
> Because they choose to be irrational. Humans are born with perception, the ability to perceive reality in rational terms. It is a choice they make to ignore reality, to follow their feelings as opposed to their perceptions.
Like me, you did not choose your parents. Like all those people living in Egypt and India, you did not choose your parents. If you are forced to go to church, or whatever, since day 1, you are not going to be able to CHOOSE what to believe in. You ever wonder why religous people tend to beget more religous people? The ability to choose what you believe in has all but been removed at birth. Is it possible for them to get out of this rut? Yes, but it takes a lot of courage. Children tend to believe in the same things their parents believe in. Why? Because the children respect their parents and to disagree with them would be to disrespect them. By the time children are old enough to reason, they would have to go through an existential crisis, which is no easy feat to expect of everyone.
I don't think anyone knows enough to choose what they are until around the age of 18, but by that point, who they are is all but defined. You can't choose your genetic traits, and you can't choose how you are going to be raised. Nature or nurture, either way, you don't have a choice.
There is some action that you cannot control that will lead you to believe some fact. Since you did not have a say whether or not that event occured, you did not have a choice as to whether or not you would believe that fact.
> Uh, it's called minimum wage. The government forces businesses to pay a minimal amount. That's not capitalism. The CEO is using many more brain cells than the janitor.
Ever hear of opportunity cost? If clean floors aren't worth the amount of money to clean them, don't clean them. If people think janitors are too expensive, they won't pay for them. Simple as that. Minimum wage very well be wrong, (I've been stradling the issue for a few months now.) but if you don't think clean floors are worth 800$ a month, deal with dirty floors. Hire someone who can work more efficiently in the same time. The argument against minimum wage isn't that it hurts the companies as much as it hurts the employees, although it does hurt the company.
And anyways, the CEO doesn't spend as much mental energy as the inventor, and the CEO earns a hell of a lot more than the inventor. Minimum wage or no minimum wage, capitalism has decided mental energy is not the metric!
> Compare it to today... should Microsoft's fate be controlled by the gov't? What if Microsoft ends up going down five years down the road from the government fucking with them?
Yes, I do believe the government has a say in Microsofts fate. For the good of the people, the government needs to step in and protect capitalism. If the government did not step in, companies like Netscape (except capable of producing worthy products) can make it to market. Since Microsoft has a monopoly on the operating system, OEM's, ISP's, and many webpages are forced to only offer a Microsoft solution. If they don't comply, Microsoft won't give them the good rate on Windows, they won't advertise the ISP on the desktop, they won't include links to the webpage in the favorites. Microsoft DID do these things, and they are wrong. If the government did not step in, it would take many, many more years before the market would correct itself, assuming it could. I think it is reasonable to give up some rights so that we don't have to put up with those years of stagnation. Does the government have to split Microsoft up? I don't think so. The trial was enough to make Microsoft clean up its act enough that
the market is open to newcomers.
Eventually all of life's karma is going to even out, and bad actions are going to come back to haunt those bad companies. I can't wait that long.
> You must first understand and realize that "self-interest" doesn't mean a "fuck everyone else" attitude.
Why would you go out of your way to help someone when it will not benefit you in the slightest? You have not answered this. Just because you know what the right action is, doesn't mean that Rand's ethics agree with you.
That bum on the street that is choking to death, somehow you know that later in the day, he is going to rob you. He is going to go into your house and steal all of your belongings. After which point, he is going to sell it and leave the country, never to be heard from again. He's dirty, he's smelly, if you help him you'll get dirty and smelly too. He won't even have the capacity to thank you, because he never learned to speak english. Why would save his life? The only benefit you can get, is knowing you helped someone, but you shouldn't feel good about that, since it does not serve your self-interest to feel that way. No, or a very small benefit, in exchange for a lot of pain and inconvenience.
> I get pleasure out of spending time with my friends, and enjoy their company. Hence it is in my self-interest to listen to them, be nice to them, etc.
This does not apply, since this homeless guy will never be your friend, and nor would you ever want to be in his company.
> I enjoy working with computers and helping people and volunteer every Thursday for three hours to build low-grade computers with Internet access that are given (for free) to home-bound, low-income disabled people. It is in my self-interest to do this because I enjoy helping others and I enjoy mucking around with computer hardware.
I applaud your contribution to society. Would you still volunteer if it entailed a 2 hour drive? If the ceiling dripped on you where you volunteered? What if parking cost 20$? What I'm trying to get at is, how much satisfaction do you really get out of volunteering, and why you do it but once a week and for only 3 hours?
Outline why it is in your self-interest to save this homeless guy, and maybe I will believe egoism is a sound ethical system.
> Because she views irrational people as subhuman.
That is ridiculous.
Everyone has a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, except for those that I deem irrational. Oh, thats not what she means. I'm sure Nietzsche didn't think his words were going to be used to feed hate machines either.
Now, are these people subhuman because they chose to be irrational, or because they are irrational. I don't think... I know they did not choose to be irrational. I guess when people can choose their parents, we might get an increase in adequate people, but until then, we'll have to put up with the lousy output we're getting.
Who does care about the middle-east anyways? A bunch of idiots believing in all sorts of silly moon gods. I don't see why those sub-humans should have the rigth to decide the supply of oil America receives.
> Capitalism is great, it is a system where seller and buyer can freely negotiate a price amicable to both. There is nothing wrong with this, since the company agreed to pay the CEO $X and the CEO accepted $X.
My point exactly. If you look at the Rand quote you provided, you'll notice she is angry that people that don't get paid in relationship to the amount of mental energy they expend. The government has nothing to do with this. It is the free market that has created this "inequity." Either she really believes in capitalism, or she doesn't believe mental energy is the metric for deciding wages, she can't have both. Her philosophy is inconsistant. QED.
> "Man should be able to make his own decisions."
No one is going to argue that point, but obviously man has chosen to forego his right to choose in favor of "better" society. People have different value systems, and that doesn't make them wrong.
> Please read Atlas Shrugged and you will see how this works.
I have started, and am about a hundred pages in so far. Since it is a hybrid, that of fiction and non-fiction, it suffers the same fate all other hybrids share, mediocrity. I'm finding it difficult to enjoy it as either a philosophical text, or as story. The characters, thus far, have all been painted with one of two colors, good or bad. Subtlety must have been a foreign concept to Rand, or she must have been trying to appease the Morlocks.
If she wants people to act in accordance to their best interests, why should a big railroad company vote against securing a solid revenue stream? Yeah, we know they shouldn't, but nowhere is a reason given as to why it serves my best interest to have a competitor?
I really hope Rearden steal isn't as good as it sounds. The only thing infinite is our capacity for self-deception.
If I wanted to read a story with super heroes in it, I would have picked up a comic book. Screw Francisco.
> I think this discussion is really pointless until you read Atlas Shrugged.
..."
... 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."
Perhaps! I'll start it asap.
> If I am nice to my neighbor, he will likely be nice to me.
Ok, lets say you are out of town, running down the street hurrying to get to an important meeting, and now there is a homeless guy choking on some food. If he did live, he wouldn't really be able to help you, and he quite obviously doesn't have any money. Why would you save his life?
> 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.
Rand could believe in anything, but it doesn't matter. The fact is, if you can follow her ethics principles to the T, and do something that is obviously wrong, her ethics principles are not sound. Egoism is not sound. If we have to consult Rand's works to figure out whether Rand would endorse something, we're in the same position those relegions are. I thought Rand was giving people a framework to, by way of reason, arrive at "correct" conclusions. Not showing us a few examples of what is right.
> 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.
The idea is, the madman won't do anything to you. After he's done with these 100 people he is going to call it quits, and kill himself or convert to objectivism and get a job at McDonald's. The people won't know you saved them, so you won't get any benefits from them, but to save them, you have to initiate violence. You aren't in any danger. You can't attack the guy, you can't stop him... To make things more interesting, we'll say in order to kill the person, you have to spend 24hours in this guys basement, or something, so in order to save the people its really a burden on you. A rational person, using self-interest as his ultimate goal, will choose not kill the person, thus letting 100 people die. We can change the parameters all we want, but there is a case where it best serves your interest not to save those 99 lives, yet its still the right thing to do.
(If you can come up with a reason why you would kill the person, see if you can remove that option from the initial conditions without changing the correct outcome. If you might profit from the survivors, change the problem so that the people don't have money, or they are prisoners, or whatever. I don't think there is a reason, with self-interest as your goal, that will require you to save those people, which is why I feel this system is hopeless.)
If you can reach a false conclusion, you can't trust any of the other conclusions you have reached. An ethical system is useful if and only if it only produces things that are true. Using her ethics, we arrive at something that is not true. Therefore, her ethical system is not useful.
> There are so few rational people, at least as Rand defines "rational."
OH BOY! It sure is a good thing we're here to save the "mental lower class"! I thought you said you didn't believe in it? And I do think irrational people do qualify as being in the "mental lower class." (There is a good chance that I am misusing the term, but I'm really upset by the erudite aura Rand is exuding. If she is really fighting for the rights of people, why must she be so condescending towards them?) If there are so few rational people, how is it that society works? With only a handful of rational people, its a wonder we haven't just blown up. I'm glad the enlightened few are preventing me from walking off cliffs, or whatever it is irrational people do.
But... You can go to anyone of the webpages that does not agree with objectivism, and point out where the individual's reason goes sour? I always enjoy nit-picking the arguments creationists use, it not only helps me better understand evolution, but it makes me a better reader too. Sometimes I wonder, if I did come across something that I didn't have an explanation for, would I concede?
> "... 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."
God is non-man, good point. Expecting people to understand something that is completely different than what they have experienced is absurd. Heaven is non-earth, good point too. "So heaven is this place, sorta like earth, but everyone is happy, and there are no disputes? This doesn't sound like earth at all." After this though, the links get pretty weak. Soul is non-body, this sort of works, but a soul is similar to an imagination, and we don't have any problems with that. Virtue is non-profit though... People have profited while being virtuous. You don't really mean that, it just sounds good. A is non-A? What does this have to do with anything? Perception is non-sensory, I haven't heard people say this, but there is a distinction between the two. Transport layer is non-network layer?!?! Oh wait, that helps me better understand the two. Knowledge is non-reason? What does this have to do with the rest of the list? Looks to me like she got caught in a rant, and she had to somehow tie in
reason.
(Since I'm pretty sure you will misunderstand what I meant by that perception/transport layer comment, I'll explain myself. I was drawing a parallel between the way a network packet is processed, and a stimulus is processed. Like packets, some processing must occur before we can understand stimuli. Its not OSI's seven layer model, but its similar. Knowing that, in theory at least, the layers are seperate, makes it easier to understand each layer individually, and the process as a whole.)
> "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.
Of course he's being paid an enormous payment in proportion to the mental effort that his job requires of him, you don't require ANY mental effort of him. You are paying him for his physical effort.
What about CEO's who don't invent anything, but make millions of dollars a year?
What about venture capitalists who don't invent anything?
What about all that money I earn just by putting my money in the bank?
If it wasn't for these other people, the inventor never would have been able to see his invention reach market, or maybe even invent it. Mental energy is not the metric we use to determine how much money people should earn for a job. The amount of mental energy a doctor may use for a given job is insignificant compared to the mental energy a journalist uses, and yet the doctor always earns more than the journalist. The "free" market decided how much the doctor and the journalist earned. There is no conspiracy that made it so.
> "
Oh please! If the smart people didn't want the dumb people below them, why are they there? If you want a smart janitor, hire a smart janitor. I don't see what taxes or anything have to do with this. The free-market has decided that a janitor is necessary. Janitors don't have to think much. You have to pay a janitor something, or else he/she won't work.
(I hope this makes more sense in the context of the story. So Rand is against all forms of infrastructure?)
This quote is really absurd. I don't see how it fits into our discussion, nor do I buy into the "tension" that exists between intelligent people and unintelligent people.
Making movies is expensive, and it takes the work of a lot of people. Depending on who you talk to, the most important person in making a good movie, is the director. The director usually contributes the most 'mental energy' to the project, and is responsible for a lot of the decisions. Yet, the director isn't the guy who makes the majority of the money, why is that? If it wasn't for investors, there wouldn't be money to fund the movie. If it wasn't for boom mike operatiors, there would be no sound, or the sound would be really bad. If there weren't any actors, the movie probably wouldn't sell. The director is not being screwed.
Later in his life, Orson Welles spent most of his time acting in other movies to raise money to make his own movies. Normally, people invest money in a movie, then expect a share of the profits, or whatever. You'd think people would be jumping at the opportunity to invest in an Orson Welles movie, but they didn't. You see, as great as his work was, not one of his 13 (maybe 12) movies ever made a profit. No one who believes in capitalism should fault investors for passing this opportunity up. They would have been throwing their money away. No conspiracy involved, no stupid people holding back a genius, just rational people making the "right" decision. I believe I have personally received more enjoyment from his movies than he ever earned for making them. I'd be excited to hear any idea that could combat this inequity.
> 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.
Doesn't thinking rationally take into account all the self-interest that is necessary? The reason you are supposed to have self-interest is because you can't expect anyone else to have any self-interest in you, right? So... When you make a decision, you are more important than other people, you shouldn't be worrying about them, thats their concern. What is to stop you from not reflecting that disrepect you obviously hold for them? If it makes you feel better to call someone an idiot, why shouldn't you?
> A rational thinker will realize that everyone needs to work together.
Why? Why will they realize that everyone needs to work together. No where in Rand's ethics is it specified that one should sacrifice oneself for the good of the many. One should act in self-interest!
> Self-interest is key.
I just don't understand why self-interest should be so important to the way one decides whether something is right or wrong. How can you use this to form laws? "Judge, it served me to take the car. It was there, I liked it, and I didn't have to initiate any violence. I don't think I did anything wrong."
I sure enjoy scraping my keys along the side of cars. Its how I express myself. Its a nice non-violent hobby of mine. I like to think people appreciate my work.
> Remember, Rand is vehemenently against initiating physical violence.
I'd have to see more information on her ethics, but just because she is against violence doesn't mean violence can't exist in her ethical system. You're faced with a madman who is going to kill 100 people, unless you kill one of them. What do you do?
Ok, you're in a hurry to go to work, running by a restaurant, you notice someone is choking. Applying the heimlich maneuver will save his life, but then you'll be late for work. If you are late for work you'll get in trouble, so its in your best interest to be on time. You aren't initiating physical violence, but self-interest prevents you from doing the right thing. BRAVO!
> You cannot live a happy life sacrificing for others, you cannot lead a productive life sacrificing for others.
Sure you can. People have done it, and people will continue to do it. Aren't our representatives leading happy lives sacrificing for us?
> The US gov't realized the nature of this and set up patents, allowing people to protect their inventions as an incentive to create.
Not exactly. Before patents, people were able to invent and profit from their inventions. Unfortunately, after the inventor died, its possible that the secret of the invention might have died with them. To encourage the release of these secrets, the government instituted patents, which expire after some period of time. Yes, patents do protect the inventor and allow them to profit, but that is not the sole reason for the institution.
> 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.
I see Objectivism as selling a one-size fits all solution, and yet there are rational people who reject it. Objectivism should make sense to everyone. If reality really is objective, and Objectivism is sound, how can people reject it? Either reality isn't objective, Objectivism isn't sound, or all the people who reject it aren't rational. Is there any other option?
I haven't looked at any of those pages, but for some reason, I don't think they are all making mistakes, misinterpreting, or just being irrational.
> "Reality, the external world, exists independent of mans consciousness, independent of any observers 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 mans consciousness is to perceive reality, not to create or invent it."
Reality is the external world, but all we know about it is through our senses, and all of our senses are subjective. Locke, Berkeley, and Hume spent a considerable amount of time discussing this. There is no such thing as in impartial observer of reality. We cannot consult an authority to decide how things really are. Depending on whether or not you just came out of a smelly room affects your ability to recognize scents. Colors look differently depending on whether you use sunlight, candlelight, incadescent bulbs, etc. Whether you have your hand in a bucket of warm or cold water impairs your ability to judge hot and cold. There is one reality, but I doubt you can find two people who perceive reality as the same, which means, for all intents and purposes, reality is subjective.
> Why spend years debating on if we exist? To the Objectivist, one axiom is "existence exists." Pure and simple.
I think you're bunching all of philosophy together and saying that its inefficient because they spent time trying to figure out how many angels could fit on the head of a pin. Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, the epicureans, the stoics, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Hobbes, Bentham, Mill, Kierkegaard, and Nietzsche didn't trouble themselves with metaphysical problems, for the most part.
From the link...
"The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life."
No. Greed is not good. Even if it leads people to do good things. When faced with an ethical dilemna, the logic to the correct answer can't be based on "what does it do for me?". 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.
You are the mayor of some city, the city is troubled with some new, violent crime for which you cannot catch the offenders. You bring in all sorts of specialists, and they say the only option is for you to publicly execute someone for the crime, even if that person is innocent. The threat of execution will be enough to drive down the crime rate. Assuming these specialists are right, what do you do? Of course, if you were able to bring down the crime rate you'd get a pay raise, people would elect you Lord King Almighty... The net benefit of the action is good, but the action is wrong.
I can think of a whole bunch of ethical dilemnas where acting with ones self-interest in mind is the wrong thing to do. If self-interest doesn't really play that big of a role in Rand's ethics, why is it mentioned so much in a thirty second summary?
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.
> "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."
If you believe in relativism, this is not so. With god dead in this post-modern world, most people agree with relativism. There are as many realities as there are people. Just because you do not believe in the same thing "natives" do, doesn't mean they are not rational. According to their beliefs, human sacrifice, or whatever, is a natural extension of their beliefs. Reality won't be a good way to decide who is right.
Now, this is no reason for me not to read any of Rand's work, but I have always been under the impression that, similar to Descartes, Rand receives an awful lot of publicity for saying nothing new. I've heard Objectivism described as Fisher Price's My First Philosophy quite a few times. I should read it for myself, and form my own opinion, and I probably will, but its a considerable investment. In that same time I could read Shakespeare's great works, and almost be guaranteed to profit from it. I don't have similar assurances for Atlas Shrugged. Like reading Descartes while not sharing his belief of god, not sharing Rand's faith in capitalism will make reading Atlas Shrugged difficult.
If I'm going to fulfill my wish of knowing everything, I'll have to read it.
If you haven't seen _Roger & Me_ or _Citizen Kane_ yet, you should.
> First of all, not everyone has to be the same.
I don't want people to be the same. I am in favor of more equal opportunities. A person born into a poor family will never have the same opportunities as the same person born into a wealthy family. What I want, and I think society should want, is to narrow the difference between the two. That being said, there is a large difference between equal opportunity, and equal outcomes. Just because people have the same opportunities does not mean they will all be successful. There will still be differences in income, and reasons to try to earn more. It is very important for capitalism to have an incentive to improve your position in society.
> There will always be various classes, which is good.
Yeah, there probably will always be classes, but if we can eliminate the poverty class, we'll be in good shape. Just like we're in better shape with out a slave class. If we always have a class of untouchables, that is bad.
> 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 make no claims as to being an expert on welfare, but intuitively, I believe these people are exceptions and not the norm. Regardless, just because the way welfare is instituted currently, does not mean that is the way it has to be done. There are ways of discouraging this behaviour without getting rid of welfare as a whole. Welfare qua welfare is not to blame, its the way welfare is currently implemented.
> 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?
In the paper the other day there was an article that said that CEO's are earning more than 60 times as much money as the president. If we expect the best and brightest people to become the most important person in the country, we are going to have to make it economically sound for them, right? Right?
Be this as it may, if Clinton travelling to Nigeria, or any other country can help cement democracy there, I'm for it. Travelling is very much a part of being the president, perhaps there was some waste, so be it.
The 27 million dollars on the otherhand is something that needs to be fixed. Do I feel bad that my money was wasted on a big PR campaign that only furthers our dependence on a 2 party system, somewhat. I still believe it was worth it.
I really wish we weren't spending billions of dollars fighting the drug war. I hope to god we don't spend the 60 billion dollars on the missile defense system. By no means is the U.S. Government perfect. As lousy as it is though, it is still doing pretty darn good. Just because its broke, doesn't mean we shouldn't try to fix it.
The beautiful thing is, individuals can make a difference in a democracy. Its a lot easier to convince someone not to vote for GWBush than to convince them watching CNN is bad. Its a lot easier to write a representative, than to code a message, through buying habits, to a CEO.
If anything, I see big corporations as the biggest enemies to democracy. I plan on reading _Rich Media, Poor Democracy_ by Robert McChesney in the coming weeks.
I see change on the horizon, and I think its going be a change for the better. I hope I'm not blinded by ignorance.
> "The average test scores for SATs, ACTs, and other standardized tests are higher at private schools than at public schools."
Coming from a family that can afford to pay for private schools probably means the child most likely has a solid family. Coming from a family that is willing to pay for private schools probably means the family is actively involved in the learning process.
> 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.
The reasons you expect that to be true is not because private schools are "better" than public schools, but since people have to pay for private schools, it eliminates the "problem" people from the classes.
I can come up with a system where you have all the benefits of private schools, competition, free choice, etc. but everyone still has a right to school. This won't include private schools battling public schools, private school vs. private school. People will go to the best school they choose to go to, and they can vote with their money. Privatize every school, supply each student with a coupon for schooling equal to the amount of the lowest priced school within some distance of the students house. Everyone wins. Yet, you still are not in favor of it. The schools will be better, everyone still gets to learn, but "its thievery!" Please.
> If one wishes to exercise this, they will find a way "out of the rut."
Now, if only everyone shared your optimism/idealism. "There's a way out, just try harder!" People aren't poor because they aren't working hard. People are poor in spite of working hard. There is no disease of laziness that inhabits people who are poor. Laziness very well be a genetic trait, but I don't think thats why poor people tend to have poor children who grow up to be poor people. Taking education away from these children will only make it more difficult to escape poverty. If welfare, or any program can upset the cycle, I am all for it. Hands off has not worked, nor will it work. Just because your parents are unable to earn enough money to pay for school, shouldn't mean you have no opportunity to achieve.
> 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.
I'm not afraid to learn something new. I'm just waiting for you to admit that boycotting companies is a lot more work than it is worth. Knowing that you won't admit this, it will be a while before I will read the book. Its great that capitalism supports artists, but when I can't appreciate art because some company, who I don't respect, is going to profit from my interest, I, as a consumer, lose. Boycotting is not enough.
> I don't think that such a "mental lower class" exists, rather it's all misperception on the part of the individual.
I don't believe in a "mental lower class" either, but there is a lower class that isn't as well educated. Which is functionally the same, but a very different belief. Every person has the ability to be well educated, but there are socio-economic factors that work against them. Rather than reinforce these inequalities by making it impossible for them to even get a basic education, we should be trying to make sure everyone is educated.
> "Does anyone have the right to forcibly take your hard earned income and do with it what they please?"
When I entered into the social contract, I agreed to part with my money in exchange for the good of society. I do believe that the money I am parting with is going to the right place too. If you want to learn more about this social contract theory, read Hobbes, or Locke (if i remember correctly, Jefferson was a big fan of Locke. You do like Jefferson, don't you?), or Rawls. If you don't like social contracts, we can always try Rule Utilitarianism (of course, it reduces to Act Utilitarianism, but thats not important). If the rule brings about more happiness than pain, its a good rule. I believe it does. Don't like utilitarianism? I don't either. It will be difficult, but lets try to use Kant's Categorical Imperitive.
"Act as if the maxim of your action were to secure through your will a universal law of nature." You don't want to pay taxes, so noone should pay taxes.
"Act so that you treat humanity, whether in your own person or that of another, always as an end and never as a means only." But by not paying taxes, you are treating the poorer people as means to your own end. Ok, Kant doesn't really apply to social theories. As long as you believe that paying taxes is good for society, paying taxes is the right thing, and everyone should do it. I believe it does.
Without free schools, you are encouraging apartheid. You are in favor of having separate groups that have different rights. The 'haves' get to enjoy liberty, happiness, and life, while the 'have nots' get to enjoy life as indentured servants/slaves. Just because you can't see anything besides yourself.
> 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."
There are private schools, and the students still endure hours of "study hall" and "homeroom." Boy, competition is great. You'd think when you are competing against a product that is FREE your product would have to be considerably better. Regardless, I doubt "study hall" and "homeroom" would disappear once competition is introduced, but I haven't been paying attention to the advances in schooling.
> Why not? Public schools were not always around in this country, people seemed to live and do well enough when they were privatized.
People seemed to get along well enough with serfdom too. When you DENY segments of the population education, you are supporting apartheid. Those that cannot afford an education no longer have their rights to liberty or happiness. Being born into a family that can't afford schools should not be akin to being born an untouchable. Knowing that there are families living below the poverty line, how would these families ever be able to pay for school? Take on another job, I bet the parents wish they could find another job. Parents should not have to work hundreds of hours a week to provide their children with a necessity.
Sometimes the local optimal solution, is well below the poverty line. Expecting people to have enough foresight to know how to get out of their rut, is expecting quite a bit. If all the jobs in your area suddenly disappeared, would you know where you would go? Would you be willing to go? Or would you make a living selling your blood? From where I'm sitting, it is hard to imagine those circumstances, or how I would react when faced with them.
Capitalism is great. By no means am I arguing for socialism or communism. No reasonable society could be formed these days not based on capitalism. Everyone should have an opportunity to live up to their potential. Completely free markets lets people be born into complete poverty, with no way of getting out. People who had no opportunity to learn how to read are not living up to their potential, therefore, free everything doesn't work. Capitalism is not perfect, but you can improve upon it with regulations.
I wish open markets was always the answer, but looking at the results of cable deregulation, and the deregulation of electricity in California, I can't sensibly believe that. I wish farmers weren't up against the prisoner's dilemna when deciding whether or not to grow on all of their land. I wish down-sizing wasn't a cheap way for companies to increase their stock price. I wish free trade wasn't synonymous with cheap labor and fewer american jobs. I wish the richest man in the world had too work as hard as the poorest man to make his next thousand dollars. I wish voting for a third party candidate wasn't an indirect vote for one of the big two. I wish _Roger & Me_ wasn't so funny. I wish every problem had a simple solution. Unfortunately, this is not the way the world works.
> 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.
Actually, I meant _anyone_. Where _anyone_ differs from anyone in that _anyone_ is an arbitrary person. Given an arbitrary person from the set of all people with drive and determination, he/she does not necessarily have everything that is needed to become great, so all the people that have drive and determination do not have the ability to become great. Obtuse, but sound.
> 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 couldn't have been the greatest place in the world to live prior to 1850, because slavery was legal here, and illegal elsewhere. I don't care what economic system those other countries were using, it was a better place than America. Just because the immigration rates were higher than every where else, doesn't mean its the place to be. If the country with the highest immigration rate, over some amount of time, is the greatest country over that same period of time, I question the definition of greatest. As long as you weren't going to become a slave, America would have been a great place to immigrate to, wouldn't you think?
> "No one else has done it, hence it must not be right," is hogwash and you know it.
Yes, by itself, its hogwash, but it raises the question... why hasn't anyone done it? Is there a giant conspiracy that is preventing it from happening? Is the idea too simple? Big business doesn't want it? Not enough people have heard of it? Everyone has been brainwashed into believing that without taxes life would be beastly, brutal and short? People are unwilling to listen to logic? All the representatives who share your beliefs decided "my new job is nice, utopia can wait!"? In order to bring about change, one needs an army! How about... Most people don't share your simplistic, idealistic view of capitalism? Most people don't have your faith in humanity to donate their money to the government? Most people accept the fact that the money the government receives does the public good, and is therefore good for them, indirectly?
> Go to the public library and pick up a copy for free.
Well, what if after I checked it out, someone else came by, wanting to read it, noticing it wasn't there, went out and bought it. (Boycotting sure is difficult... you can be give companies money even when you aren't giving them money. Its so hard calculating all these secondary effects. "if I buy this, there will be only one left, which means that even if someone else wants this brand, they may have to choose the evil competitor.") Which I may, or may not want them to do. Still haven't decided.
Free markets have existed for centuries, and yet the middle class (as we know it) has only existed for the past 50 years or so. The middle class may only exist in capitalism, but I don't think completely free markets actively create the middle class. I believe the restrictions the government have placed on the markets has been instrumental in the growth of the middle class.
...
If you are so deadset against welfare, are you willing to take the next logical step and be against public schools? Its another example of the tax dollars of everyone benefitting those that aren't so well off. Granted, public schools could very well be better with some competition, but the burden for paying for school shold not rest squarely on the parents. Everyone should be able to go to school, regardless of whether they can afford it or not. I doubt my parents would have been able to afford paying for school for me or my siblings, with or without the resulting tax-break. Even if you see being forced to pay for public schools as being wrong, you must admit that public schools have to be available to everyone. It really would be a pity if the upper/middle classes shrugged, capitalism itself wouldn't work.
Capitalism does not offer _anyone_ the chance to become something great. It takes more than drive and desire, like talent, money, ability to make it to market, luck. Is it fair that the kind of family you are born into is basically the deciding factor on whether you can or can not be great? 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. Unhindered capitalism is definitely not egalitarian.
It takes money to make money. Without money, you cannot invest wisely, you cannot produce your product, and you cannot get a job (only slight exaggeration). If you get rid of public schools, I really think it would be impossible for the working class to break into the middle class. There are not too many jobs left for people who cannot read. The fact that the government has the power to give people who have no money the ability to make money is a good thing.
...
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. 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.
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. 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. By continuing to live in a country that forcibly taxes its people, you are endorsing those laws. Socrates couldn't leave with Crito because to do so, he would be betraying his agreement with the laws. By living in Athens, Socrates endorsed and therefore agreed with the laws. So he drank the hemlock.
Regarding Atlas Shrugged, I'll have to check the publisher and my list of boycotts before I can read it. (I hear Ayn Rand protested the release of Citizen Kane, I may not be able to support such poor ethical behaviour) It really is hard spending money correctly.
Like communism/socialism, your style of government is flawed since the government itself depends on the generosity of the people who can give.
... The basic idea is, you design a social institution, then from behind the veil of ignorance (where you know the rules of life and this society, but you don't know anything about yourself that might give an insight as to where you would work in this society) you can rationally compare this new institution with what is already in place. Obviously, you don't want to live in a society where one person is a lord, and everyone else is a serf, since the likelyhood of you being a serf is so high (even if being the lord is that much better, it's just not worth it).
I am not sure if you are familiar with Rawls's "veil of ignorance"
Using the veil of ignorance, we can compare societies where capitalism runs free, and where it is tempered. While on one hand the prospect of not having to pay taxes is nice, the idea of being born into a family that can barely put food on the table is pretty bad. Depending on how much faith you have in capitalism, makes a big difference as to what your preference is. If we disagree, its not because one of us is wrong, but because we are working from different, most likely valid, assumptions.
You may not agree with this, but I believe that completely free markets build skyscrapers in the plains, when we want rolling hills and mountains. That is to say, we get a few really, really rich people up in the skyscrapers, while everyone else is down at or below sea-level. We want a middle class. We want people at all sorts of economic levels. Most importantly though, we want everyone above sea-level. If completely free markets give us the skyscrapers, and tempered capitalism keeps everyone above sea-level, tempered capitalism wins every time. 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.) (I could go into more depth as to why I believe capitalism is flawed, but this is too long as is.)
Yes, socialism does not work, and no we don't want it. Given the choice between straight capitalism and straight socialism, capitalism wins everytime. But if you can improve capitalism by mixing in some socialism, everyone wins.
You can't count on someone being generous, giving his/her money to the poor, while he/she is busy trying to make as much money as possible. The rules of capitalism say, the one with the most money wins. If being nice doesn't help a corporation win, it won't be nice.
With regard to John Stossel, correlation does not imply causation. I, personally, think it is dubious to say these think tanks have concluded that these countries are great because of free markets, when those think tanks are pro-free market to begin with. Also, as far as I can tell from both provided links, Stossel is not in favor of eliminating mandatory taxes. Even with the findings of the think tanks, one can not reasonably conclude that less regulations will necessarily improve matters. At a time when the U.S. economy is at an all time high, it is easy to say it is because America is the home of the free, but if 5-10 years down the line, when the economy isn't so hot, what if America is still the "free'est" country, but not the greatest?
You should be able to smoke marijuana if you choose. The war on drugs is complete idiocy. I cannot imagine a rational argument that is in favor of spending billions and billions of dollars in an effort to effect a small amount of good. And anyways, marijuana is safer, cleaner, and more pleasant than alcohol. Unfortunately, the war on drugs makes for good press, and it will be a long time before someone who is pro-drugs gets elected.
So your government would expect people to give what they can and take what they need?
Unless there is an incentive to give, the amount of money your government will receive will be minute. Granted, your government probably won't include expensive things like an army or public schools or welfare, I still don't think your government would have enough money.
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. I also enjoy being able to buy things without having to do research to find out who owns the company, where that company produces the product, how that company treats its employees, how that company affects the environment... It's not that I'm lazy, I just have other things I would rather do.
Given that most people don't invest the time to figure out their phone bills, AND they don't spend enough time with their children, how can you expect them to be mindful of all these secondary effects of purchases?
Before I read that list of companies, I thought I _was_ boycotting Time-Warner. It's a good thing people don't read too much into my buying decisions since I don't put much thought into them.
Boy... boycotting Rupert Murdoch, Disney and Time-Warner sure is boring.
The fact that Microsoft is a monopoly is not the problem. It is the fact that they were using their monopoly to prevent competitors from entering the market. (Netscape)
I don't care how good your mousetrap is, if you can't get it to the market, you can't make any money off of it.
Granted, Netscape's mousetrap isn't all that good, but how could a better browser put a dent in IE's market share if... the OEM's are sealed off, they can't advertise on the most accessible pages, and the largest ISP's can't offer your product. Microsoft's monopoly allows them to stack the deck against competitors, preventing innovation and all that nonsense.
A monopoly is not necessarily a bad thing. It is when a company uses its monopoly to monopolize another market that the consumer is harmed, and damage is done.