Your first paragraph is an affirmation/ restatement/ summary of her philosophy. I dont know how to respond.
As to the claim that her followers recieve a lot of 'help from society, and how little they [give] back'... I would like to hear one or two examples of that and then I could address it.
Well, you clearly havent actually read anything she wrote. If you want to insist that you have in fact read her works, I am sorry, but I will have to question your mental capacity. You have simply setup a straw man in your post of pure FUD.
One clarification that I think you should hear, is that Rand was never against what might be called "benevolence." What she took issue with was *coerced* benevolence. You want to give of your time to some other cause unrelated to yourself? Fine, go for it. Thats your perogative as an independant being. Rand's moral system also allows for that. But what you *cannot* do is make a law requiring everyone else to do the same.
Lastly, interestingly enough, despite your initial rant against "selfishness", the reasons you gave for acting so-called altruisticly were selfish reasons. I quote: "I feel like I am building a world where people help each other, a world where, if the situation were reversed I would be helped. I also feel good about not having desperate miserable people around me."
The idea that "a minority ruling class" could dominate "impoverished masses" only exists because you advocate a government that can grant favors to groups of people. True capitalism would not allow government to favor *any* groups of people. Not the poor, not the rich, not AIDS victims, not business or people run over by a truck. It would simply enforce against the initiation of force or fraud against others. Nothing else. If you accept the principle that gov't can favor certain groups, then those with the most influence (read: money) will be the recipient of all the "favors". If after almost 200 years of this mentality this isnt apparent, then I dont know what is.
The system you seem to advocate (Im extrapoling from your comments) is the very one that creates the problems you seem to not want.
Just remember: the "rich" prosper in *every* economic system. Every single one. The "poor" or as you put it, the "impoverished masses" have the most to gain from a capitalistic system.
I hear you bitch and complain about this crap in almost every post you make. Wish you would respond to the people that reply to you. But we all know the reason that you dont... its because your ideas hold ZERO water.
Only on slashdot would this kind of crap get modded up.
Read Danivus's earlier comment about how it was the Americans and British who are at fault for the Oil for Food Program scandal. It will clue you in to how "informed" he is.
Only on Slashdot...
In early America, hundred year investments were very common. Why? Because it was not *yet* common practice for the government to tax to oblivion people's property/ investments. Now, one would be foolish to make such a long term investment, because its only a matter of time before the government finds that they can make lots of promises to other people in order to procure their votes. Subsequently, those promises are funded with tax money from wherever there is money... in this case investments.
So dont blame investors please. They are simply a symptom of a much bigger and much more burdensome system. One in which I suspect the parent poster fully endorses.
Did you interrupt your reading of The Communist Manifesto to make the post?
I was tempted to counterpoint each of your misinformed assumptions, but I think Im going to use my time more wisely. Maybe Ill call my mother that lives halfway around the world. Thank you Nokia CORP. Or maybe Ill take my grandmother to the pharmacy to get her meds that have extended her quality of life and quantity of life. Thank you Merck CORP. Or perhaps Ill fly down to Mexico City to go sight seeing for the weekend. Thank you Airbus CORP. Or maybe, Ill change my mind and just continue to surf the internet and read slashdot. Thank you Dell CORP.
The fact is, capitalism / globalization lets normal Joes experience and have things that the past kings couldnt have even dreamed of. But most importantly its the only moral solution. I wont continue to waste my breath.
I seriously feel sorry for you if you dont see the vast, almost mind-boggling improvement 1st world have experienced. If you can honestly still say you dont, then I suggest you go live in the 3rd world where there isnt capitalism. (like where I came from, Peru) Hopefully globalization will continue and they will adopt capitalism eventually. And hopefully in a purer form than even the US. I can always dream =)
I agree. And I would add:
The smallest 'minority' that exists is the individual. Its fitting that the Bill of Rights is a set of rights for... the individual. Conversely, today we see people that are trying to advance the rights of certain groups (i.e. affirmative action, subsidies for sugar farmers, etc). IMO, its gradually lead to a total perversion of the most ethical system concieved... one that is based on rights for the individual.
No, the loss would not be his alone... assuming it was a good symphony in the first place. Youre correct is that noone else would know about it, but you forget that everyone else concurrently 'misses out' on the ability to enjoy his achievement.
Regarding your last sentence, the fact that someone's "heart is in it" is a total non-issue for me. I mean, I could care less if someone with a workable idea for a cancer cure was in it solely for the money. If that is the incentive that drives them to be productive and achieve that is their perrogative. In fact, I wish more people in the health care industry were there just to get filthy, stickin rich! The way for one to accomplish that would be to innovate and make something that completely changes people's lives for the better. My hope is for more of that, not less.
Im not sure if this was your intention, but your statement is an implicit agreement with mine. If "those in power" have the power to grant power, then yes it hard to control, and historically its always been impossible! That was the point of my post. The solution as I see it, again, is that they simply have no ability to favor any group. They simply have a monopoly on the use of force to uphold the protection of, in general, life, liberty, property.
Russia doesnt operate under a capitalist system. Capitalism implicitly protects private property and has a strong rule of law. This is *not* the case in Russia. Something that economists will rarely admit, is that when communism fell, what Russia needed was *not* economists, but lawyers. The lack of a rule of law is the cause of much of Russia's economic woes.
The brand of Capitalism (the purest form Ive ever come across) that he was referring to (read the last line of his post containing "Ayn Rand") would not allow the gov't to sieze property thru tax evasion simply because the gov't would not be allowed to have the power to levy taxes. Its considered immoral in Ayn Rand's philosophy.
http://www.aynrand.org/ - for more info
I think I would generally agree with your sentiments Ross. To me, the answer is to have the government *not* have the power to favor *any* group at all. Not business, not the rich, not the poor, not the handicapped... noone. Government should not have the power to "favor" any group. They should simply protect individual rights and freedoms, which by extension would be a protection against the initiation of force and fraud. (which is what the US originally embodied, but has fallen far away from that ideal) This requires a gov't that is very very strong at those things, but very restricted in its scope, and rightly so imo.
I hear all the time people advocating further controls to solve problems with certain groups having too much influence on government (mainly buessiness on this site). Which, as history clearly shows, simply necessitate further controls on the previous controls, and more controls after that. The logical end of this all is totalitarism. Seems to me the above solution is best.
Slashdot Mirror
Your first paragraph is an affirmation/ restatement/ summary of her philosophy. I dont know how to respond.
As to the claim that her followers recieve a lot of 'help from society, and how little they [give] back' ... I would like to hear one or two examples of that and then I could address it.
Well, you clearly havent actually read anything she wrote. If you want to insist that you have in fact read her works, I am sorry, but I will have to question your mental capacity. You have simply setup a straw man in your post of pure FUD.
One clarification that I think you should hear, is that Rand was never against what might be called "benevolence." What she took issue with was *coerced* benevolence. You want to give of your time to some other cause unrelated to yourself? Fine, go for it. Thats your perogative as an independant being. Rand's moral system also allows for that. But what you *cannot* do is make a law requiring everyone else to do the same.
Lastly, interestingly enough, despite your initial rant against "selfishness", the reasons you gave for acting so-called altruisticly were selfish reasons. I quote: "I feel like I am building a world where people help each other, a world where, if the situation were reversed I would be helped. I also feel good about not having desperate miserable people around me."Hope that makes things at least a bit more clear.
I chair several commitees on the city council. Care to make anymore unfounded assumptions?
The idea that "a minority ruling class" could dominate "impoverished masses" only exists because you advocate a government that can grant favors to groups of people. True capitalism would not allow government to favor *any* groups of people. Not the poor, not the rich, not AIDS victims, not business or people run over by a truck. It would simply enforce against the initiation of force or fraud against others. Nothing else. If you accept the principle that gov't can favor certain groups, then those with the most influence (read: money) will be the recipient of all the "favors". If after almost 200 years of this mentality this isnt apparent, then I dont know what is. The system you seem to advocate (Im extrapoling from your comments) is the very one that creates the problems you seem to not want. Just remember: the "rich" prosper in *every* economic system. Every single one. The "poor" or as you put it, the "impoverished masses" have the most to gain from a capitalistic system.
I hear you bitch and complain about this crap in almost every post you make. Wish you would respond to the people that reply to you. But we all know the reason that you dont ... its because your ideas hold ZERO water.
Only on slashdot would this kind of crap get modded up.
Read Danivus's earlier comment about how it was the Americans and British who are at fault for the Oil for Food Program scandal. It will clue you in to how "informed" he is. Only on Slashdot ...
In early America, hundred year investments were very common. Why? Because it was not *yet* common practice for the government to tax to oblivion people's property/ investments. Now, one would be foolish to make such a long term investment, because its only a matter of time before the government finds that they can make lots of promises to other people in order to procure their votes. Subsequently, those promises are funded with tax money from wherever there is money ... in this case investments.
So dont blame investors please. They are simply a symptom of a much bigger and much more burdensome system. One in which I suspect the parent poster fully endorses.
Did you interrupt your reading of The Communist Manifesto to make the post?
I was tempted to counterpoint each of your misinformed assumptions, but I think Im going to use my time more wisely. Maybe Ill call my mother that lives halfway around the world. Thank you Nokia CORP. Or maybe Ill take my grandmother to the pharmacy to get her meds that have extended her quality of life and quantity of life. Thank you Merck CORP. Or perhaps Ill fly down to Mexico City to go sight seeing for the weekend. Thank you Airbus CORP. Or maybe, Ill change my mind and just continue to surf the internet and read slashdot. Thank you Dell CORP.
The fact is, capitalism / globalization lets normal Joes experience and have things that the past kings couldnt have even dreamed of. But most importantly its the only moral solution. I wont continue to waste my breath.
I seriously feel sorry for you if you dont see the vast, almost mind-boggling improvement 1st world have experienced. If you can honestly still say you dont, then I suggest you go live in the 3rd world where there isnt capitalism. (like where I came from, Peru) Hopefully globalization will continue and they will adopt capitalism eventually. And hopefully in a purer form than even the US. I can always dream =)
Good luck.
I agree. And I would add: The smallest 'minority' that exists is the individual. Its fitting that the Bill of Rights is a set of rights for ... the individual. Conversely, today we see people that are trying to advance the rights of certain groups (i.e. affirmative action, subsidies for sugar farmers, etc). IMO, its gradually lead to a total perversion of the most ethical system concieved ... one that is based on rights for the individual.
do you even think before you post? go live in china if its that bad. good riddance
No, the loss would not be his alone ... assuming it was a good symphony in the first place. Youre correct is that noone else would know about it, but you forget that everyone else concurrently 'misses out' on the ability to enjoy his achievement.
Regarding your last sentence, the fact that someone's "heart is in it" is a total non-issue for me. I mean, I could care less if someone with a workable idea for a cancer cure was in it solely for the money. If that is the incentive that drives them to be productive and achieve that is their perrogative. In fact, I wish more people in the health care industry were there just to get filthy, stickin rich! The way for one to accomplish that would be to innovate and make something that completely changes people's lives for the better. My hope is for more of that, not less.
Im not sure if this was your intention, but your statement is an implicit agreement with mine. If "those in power" have the power to grant power, then yes it hard to control, and historically its always been impossible! That was the point of my post. The solution as I see it, again, is that they simply have no ability to favor any group. They simply have a monopoly on the use of force to uphold the protection of, in general, life, liberty, property.
Russia doesnt operate under a capitalist system. Capitalism implicitly protects private property and has a strong rule of law. This is *not* the case in Russia. Something that economists will rarely admit, is that when communism fell, what Russia needed was *not* economists, but lawyers. The lack of a rule of law is the cause of much of Russia's economic woes.
Id mod you up just for that link if I had the points. Unfortunately, few around these boards with views like yours and mine ever receive them =)
The brand of Capitalism (the purest form Ive ever come across) that he was referring to (read the last line of his post containing "Ayn Rand") would not allow the gov't to sieze property thru tax evasion simply because the gov't would not be allowed to have the power to levy taxes. Its considered immoral in Ayn Rand's philosophy. http://www.aynrand.org/ - for more info
I think I would generally agree with your sentiments Ross. To me, the answer is to have the government *not* have the power to favor *any* group at all. Not business, not the rich, not the poor, not the handicapped ... noone. Government should not have the power to "favor" any group. They should simply protect individual rights and freedoms, which by extension would be a protection against the initiation of force and fraud. (which is what the US originally embodied, but has fallen far away from that ideal) This requires a gov't that is very very strong at those things, but very restricted in its scope, and rightly so imo.
I hear all the time people advocating further controls to solve problems with certain groups having too much influence on government (mainly buessiness on this site). Which, as history clearly shows, simply necessitate further controls on the previous controls, and more controls after that. The logical end of this all is totalitarism. Seems to me the above solution is best.