She did write about it. I read it. She was wrong. Her mistakes came from misconceptions (hence my claim of her having no concept). And her arguments were against it. The character who longs for love in Atlas Shrugged is James Taggart. She clearly paints his longing as an attempt to gain something undeserved. As if it were another act of destruction. But love need not be purchased with the "currency" of achievement. It can also be just a gift (which need not be purchased). This type of gift love is what most people dream about when they dream of romantic love... and what they promise with "for rich or for poor". Ayn Rand looked down on it. Without getting into an argument whether she was right or wrong, ethical or unethical, uncaring or meritorious, I am going to go ahead and say that I am simply trying to clarify what I meant by what I said.
I have just as much a right to build, together with like-minded people, a society that I actually want to live in
As soon as you set the rules of that society to be the rules of the land (ie, laws), you do force them on everyone else. So while libertarians won't object to you living in a community of willing community-oriented participants, you, by requirement communist (small caps intentional) rule of society, do force your way of society on libertarians. This is what makes libertarians the people who seek freedom and you a person who seeks tyranny.
This way of life already is constantly under pressure by corporatist interests and their unwitting stooges, the libertarians.
Corporations do not establish (at least not towards the general public) any sort of power structure. In other words, they don't run your police department. Your interaction with corporations is entirely at your leisure. You have the option of not having the conveniences that they provide if you can make them yourself -- you don't have that option with the government. So arguing that corporations are too powerful is only honest when discussing their influence on politics (ie, matters of state). The fact that they are powerful in the marketplace only means that they are useful. Again, since you have the option of not using their services.
Having said this, I'll say what I've had to argue on slashdot all too much. Ayn Rand is a poor icon for libertarianism. So poor, in fact, that she is not one. She didn't find the movement. She was just one of its vocal groupies.
And even more so, I don't actually think that government that does not take care of education, monopoly regulation or environmental protection can be effective in safeguarding the people (which is government's primary mandate).
On a personal note, however, I don't believe you when you say
I don't (figuratively) oppose people of free will with a gun in had.
Literally of figuratively, you are trying to impose your will on others. Such an interaction cannot be free. It has to be done by force. So, yeah, you are about an inch away from supporting a gun-enforced tyranny.
That's because it frequently has nothing to do with well-considered politics, and everything to do with shouting "You can't tell me what to do! You're not the boss of me!!" Which part of the Declaration Of Independence says otherwise? What I am saying, of course, is that is the founding principle of this country. The government derives its power from the people. The people do not need the governments permission to live their lives. I don't know how I get drawn into these arguments with people who want to paint their opposition in the colors of idiocy by oversimplifying their positions. Seriously, people. Russia was the largest food producer in the world in 1913. By 1990's it was starving. Whenever you we-must-take-care-of-everyone people come to power, you bring bankruptcy and misery. Why this country? Why can't you celebrate your still successful enterprises like North Korea? Oh, starving, too? Sigh. Ok, China then. Oh wait, decided to embrace free markets to avoid bankruptcy? Sigh. Well, I am sure you can come up with a very good theoretical model for why it. It will be moral, it will be compassionate, it will regulate markets out of their aggressiveness to make life tolerable for the losers and it will have fighting for scraps sooner or later. Guess what? There is no way to keep your jobs tied to a country anymore. Free flow of information has changed all that. Entrepreneurs simply will not stay. They'll go where the money is and that won't be here.
Libertarians have not. But the people that created that modern civilization have. It kind of funny that you would be the one to bring up Atlas Shrugged. Especially since you were the first to show the true hand of those who'd oppose the people of free will -- it's holding a gun.
Umm.. Greenspan was not a political figure though. His job was to be distanced from politics and to just crunch the numbers. Well, that was the job of the establishment that he headed. It was always a fear that putting monetary controls in the hands of the government might yield to political pressures. Of course, with anyone appointed by the current administration no chance at being corrupt has been passed, so... they do just that... yield to political pressure http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&si d=ac5M2fUfn77U&refer=germany.
Again, off the point
The point being, of course, that economically Ayn Rand and Friedman were in sync. So it didn't particularly matter what Greenspan figured as his philosophy of life -- only how he calculated the most effective FED rate.
Again, I am not against what she has to say in spirit. Her heart is in the right place -- the world is bettered by those who try to better their own lives by being shrewd as long as they don't set out to do it at the expense of stealing from others... It's easy to argue with this image, of course, because these people are selfish and yet compassionate scoundrels. The ideal is full of controversy and these people are full of internal struggles and conflicts, but... it is the fact that they are human and they still manage to be disciplined enough to enrich themselves by creating rather than by fighting over what already exists that makes them better. Her romantic hero is worthy of admiration even though she makes him too flat. She just doesn't always make a compelling argument. I take an issue with her being given as the Libertarian icon. She is just not good enough -- that's all.
Not if they calm down, get a chance not go on defensive all the time and think it through. But when they constantly find themselves defending their right to sneeze without looking for a government permission, they do overreach in demanding how little the government intervenes.
Ok, seriously, when did Ayn Rand become the spokesman for Libertarianism? I'll take Milton Friedman over Ayn Rand any day. She makes statements that are provably logically inconsistent. This is all fun and good when trying to inspire a religion, but not when trying to establish a basis for a philosophy. My favorite phrase from Atlas Shrugged: "...and the two corollary axioms are..."
C'mon, you can't view her writing as anything more than self-help books. I won't even mention that her system of the world does not realize that looking from "outside" creates nihilism in those who are are not immediate actors in the whatever current form of progress happens to be. If you add in the fact that she has no concept of (and explicitly argues against) romantic love and scientific curiosity, you'll realize that rather than creating a model for society she creates a way to effectively structure one's life to being productive.
That being said, her argument against Robin Hood is absolutely beautiful. But that is soooooo far off the point that I am willing to welcome all the "troll" and "off-topic" tomatoes flying my way.
Again, freedom of contract is not without limits. You cannot enter into contracts to be denied inalienable (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) rights. Ownership of your body is widely recognized as an inalienable right.
Well, no. Roman citizens could enter into a contract making them gladiators. So no, freedom of contract is not without limits. You cannot enter into contracts to be denied inalienable (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) rights. Ownership of your body is widely recognized as an inalienable right.
The "system" is conveniently designed to not be disturbed by this type of massive civil disobedience. Courts have limited throughput capacity. If you overwhelm them, they'll stop functioning. And the powers-that-be will have more free hand to abuse.
This is not exactly a philosophical issue. If you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma, then you'll know that acting in a corrupt way when everyone else isn't benefits your more than acting in society's interest when everyone else is as well. On the other hand, again by the prisoner's dilemma, if everyone acts in a corrupt way, then everyone benefits less than they would if everyone acted in society's best interest.
I think my point and the point of anyone who believes in individual freedoms is that they are much more so than the US is. They are not perfectly socialist -- private enterprise has a great deal of freedom there. But the more left they lean the more one has to ask the government for a permission to sneeze.
Because nerds view technocracy as being the closest to meritocracy and technocracy is very close to libertarianism. But it's not quite the same. For example, most nerds would disagree with libertarianists on education. Here we go:
http://dasuperwiz.blogspot.com/2007/05/progress-an d-nihilism.html
Well, the idea that I personally would vote out of self-interest is actually insulting. Voting is an act of governing. And to vote out of self-interest rather than out of an attempt to create a better society is, by definition, to allow corruption in this act of governing.
People outside of America have no idea who Ayn Rand is I had no idea who Ayn Rand was until a foreign exchange student in college gave me a copy of Atlas Shrugged. Apparently her followers have well-organized clubs in some of the more left-leaning nations.
Civil debate presumes that the general public can comprehend rational. They were possible when every person studied geometry during his schooling and was capable of understanding a simple chain of logic. This is not longer the case.
They are arguing that it is the intent here that matters. DMCA makes a lot of (otherwise legal) activities illegal if they are done with intent to violate copyright. IANAL
I guess the crust of my argument is that not all people will act like frogs. And those who do, and who don't realized that at a certain point the water is no longer warm but is hot, will get pushed into losing their freedom soon enough and deservedly so.
The problem with the "slippery slope" argument is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a proactive society, people would take time to think where the line should be drawn. In a society that believes in a slippery slope once a direction is taken people become discouraged to even try to argue against building the momentum in that direction. So a rational argument is that requiring documentation and intrusive inspections while boarding a plane is a good thing, but when entering a state park is a bad thing. Just like that. You see -- no slipper slope. But once you accept the slippery slope, you go to the airport watch your freedoms disappear, tell yourself "that's it our freedoms are lost" and don't even care so much anymore when you get asked for "your papers" when you enter a state park.
Are you sure it works as advertised? Maybe playing stupid is just another misdirection by this government. I sure hope so. It seems to be working since no plane has been blown up or hijacked in the US despite the fact that we are fighting a war in the Middle East.
Slashdot Mirror
She did write about it. I read it. She was wrong. Her mistakes came from misconceptions (hence my claim of her having no concept). And her arguments were against it. The character who longs for love in Atlas Shrugged is James Taggart. She clearly paints his longing as an attempt to gain something undeserved. As if it were another act of destruction. But love need not be purchased with the "currency" of achievement. It can also be just a gift (which need not be purchased). This type of gift love is what most people dream about when they dream of romantic love... and what they promise with "for rich or for poor". Ayn Rand looked down on it. Without getting into an argument whether she was right or wrong, ethical or unethical, uncaring or meritorious, I am going to go ahead and say that I am simply trying to clarify what I meant by what I said.
As soon as you set the rules of that society to be the rules of the land (ie, laws), you do force them on everyone else. So while libertarians won't object to you living in a community of willing community-oriented participants, you, by requirement communist (small caps intentional) rule of society, do force your way of society on libertarians. This is what makes libertarians the people who seek freedom and you a person who seeks tyranny.
This way of life already is constantly under pressure by corporatist interests and their unwitting stooges, the libertarians.Corporations do not establish (at least not towards the general public) any sort of power structure. In other words, they don't run your police department. Your interaction with corporations is entirely at your leisure. You have the option of not having the conveniences that they provide if you can make them yourself -- you don't have that option with the government. So arguing that corporations are too powerful is only honest when discussing their influence on politics (ie, matters of state). The fact that they are powerful in the marketplace only means that they are useful. Again, since you have the option of not using their services.
Having said this, I'll say what I've had to argue on slashdot all too much. Ayn Rand is a poor icon for libertarianism. So poor, in fact, that she is not one. She didn't find the movement. She was just one of its vocal groupies.
And even more so, I don't actually think that government that does not take care of education, monopoly regulation or environmental protection can be effective in safeguarding the people (which is government's primary mandate).
On a personal note, however, I don't believe you when you say
I don't (figuratively) oppose people of free will with a gun in had.Literally of figuratively, you are trying to impose your will on others. Such an interaction cannot be free. It has to be done by force. So, yeah, you are about an inch away from supporting a gun-enforced tyranny.
Libertarians have not. But the people that created that modern civilization have. It kind of funny that you would be the one to bring up Atlas Shrugged. Especially since you were the first to show the true hand of those who'd oppose the people of free will -- it's holding a gun.
And when you kills all those who feed you what will you eat?
Umm.. Greenspan was not a political figure though. His job was to be distanced from politics and to just crunch the numbers. Well, that was the job of the establishment that he headed. It was always a fear that putting monetary controls in the hands of the government might yield to political pressures. Of course, with anyone appointed by the current administration no chance at being corrupt has been passed, so... they do just that... yield to political pressure http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601100&si d=ac5M2fUfn77U&refer=germany.
Again, off the point
The point being, of course, that economically Ayn Rand and Friedman were in sync. So it didn't particularly matter what Greenspan figured as his philosophy of life -- only how he calculated the most effective FED rate.
Again, I am not against what she has to say in spirit. Her heart is in the right place -- the world is bettered by those who try to better their own lives by being shrewd as long as they don't set out to do it at the expense of stealing from others... It's easy to argue with this image, of course, because these people are selfish and yet compassionate scoundrels. The ideal is full of controversy and these people are full of internal struggles and conflicts, but... it is the fact that they are human and they still manage to be disciplined enough to enrich themselves by creating rather than by fighting over what already exists that makes them better. Her romantic hero is worthy of admiration even though she makes him too flat. She just doesn't always make a compelling argument. I take an issue with her being given as the Libertarian icon. She is just not good enough -- that's all.
Not if they calm down, get a chance not go on defensive all the time and think it through. But when they constantly find themselves defending their right to sneeze without looking for a government permission, they do overreach in demanding how little the government intervenes.
Ok, seriously, when did Ayn Rand become the spokesman for Libertarianism? I'll take Milton Friedman over Ayn Rand any day. She makes statements that are provably logically inconsistent. This is all fun and good when trying to inspire a religion, but not when trying to establish a basis for a philosophy. My favorite phrase from Atlas Shrugged: "...and the two corollary axioms are..."
C'mon, you can't view her writing as anything more than self-help books. I won't even mention that her system of the world does not realize that looking from "outside" creates nihilism in those who are are not immediate actors in the whatever current form of progress happens to be. If you add in the fact that she has no concept of (and explicitly argues against) romantic love and scientific curiosity, you'll realize that rather than creating a model for society she creates a way to effectively structure one's life to being productive.
That being said, her argument against Robin Hood is absolutely beautiful. But that is soooooo far off the point that I am willing to welcome all the "troll" and "off-topic" tomatoes flying my way.
Again, freedom of contract is not without limits. You cannot enter into contracts to be denied inalienable (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) rights. Ownership of your body is widely recognized as an inalienable right.
Well, no. Roman citizens could enter into a contract making them gladiators. So no, freedom of contract is not without limits. You cannot enter into contracts to be denied inalienable (incapable of being alienated, surrendered, or transferred) rights. Ownership of your body is widely recognized as an inalienable right.
The "system" is conveniently designed to not be disturbed by this type of massive civil disobedience. Courts have limited throughput capacity. If you overwhelm them, they'll stop functioning. And the powers-that-be will have more free hand to abuse.
This is not exactly a philosophical issue. If you ever heard of the prisoner's dilemma, then you'll know that acting in a corrupt way when everyone else isn't benefits your more than acting in society's interest when everyone else is as well. On the other hand, again by the prisoner's dilemma, if everyone acts in a corrupt way, then everyone benefits less than they would if everyone acted in society's best interest.
I think my point and the point of anyone who believes in individual freedoms is that they are much more so than the US is. They are not perfectly socialist -- private enterprise has a great deal of freedom there. But the more left they lean the more one has to ask the government for a permission to sneeze.
Because nerds view technocracy as being the closest to meritocracy and technocracy is very close to libertarianism. But it's not quite the same. For example, most nerds would disagree with libertarianists on education. Here we go: http://dasuperwiz.blogspot.com/2007/05/progress-an d-nihilism.html
Well, the idea that I personally would vote out of self-interest is actually insulting. Voting is an act of governing. And to vote out of self-interest rather than out of an attempt to create a better society is, by definition, to allow corruption in this act of governing.
Two public companies reach an agreement and the terms are not released to shareholders? What is this? Science fiction?
Don't tell me the odds!
Civil debate presumes that the general public can comprehend rational. They were possible when every person studied geometry during his schooling and was capable of understanding a simple chain of logic. This is not longer the case.
here here
They are arguing that it is the intent here that matters. DMCA makes a lot of (otherwise legal) activities illegal if they are done with intent to violate copyright. IANAL
I guess the crust of my argument is that not all people will act like frogs. And those who do, and who don't realized that at a certain point the water is no longer warm but is hot, will get pushed into losing their freedom soon enough and deservedly so.
The problem with the "slippery slope" argument is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. In a proactive society, people would take time to think where the line should be drawn. In a society that believes in a slippery slope once a direction is taken people become discouraged to even try to argue against building the momentum in that direction. So a rational argument is that requiring documentation and intrusive inspections while boarding a plane is a good thing, but when entering a state park is a bad thing. Just like that. You see -- no slipper slope. But once you accept the slippery slope, you go to the airport watch your freedoms disappear, tell yourself "that's it our freedoms are lost" and don't even care so much anymore when you get asked for "your papers" when you enter a state park.
Are you sure it works as advertised? Maybe playing stupid is just another misdirection by this government. I sure hope so. It seems to be working since no plane has been blown up or hijacked in the US despite the fact that we are fighting a war in the Middle East.