John Adams Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) as orton said, it's a crappy question. it presupposes that the themes are capitalist. drop the labels and describe it as it is. a society built on selfishness alone. not sustainable- simple as that. we are seeing it in action right now. all the wealth flows into a few hands. surprisingly, not likely including the hands of many rand supporters. judging from fanboys here there's no lack of misplaced confidence in believers that some day they'll be in that number (when the saints go marching in). oops, a religious reference- forboden! Wait, what? You think we live in an Ayn Randian-like Utopia? As a reference point, I found the themes in Rand's books striking and agree with many of them, particularly the premise that the government should operate from the premise that it has no right to take what's mine, but having admitted that, I disagree with her extension of the selfishness as portrayed in her books as being the basis for the social contract among everyone. I prefer to think of a Utopian ideal where the government keeps its hands off my **** and I chose how and who to support. Putting that in perspective, most of anything that is ill in the government is government-made and the result of bigger, more intrusive, more powerful government, not the minimalist (and perhaps unrealistic unicorns and rainbows ideal) government that Rand espoused. Edited October 2, 2014 by John Adams Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 This is ignorant and wrong on so many levels. pray tell Wait, what? You think we live in an Ayn Randian-like Utopia? As a reference point, I found the themes in Rand's books striking and agree with many of them, particularly the premise that the government should operate from the premise that it has no right to take what's mine, but having admitted that, I disagree with her extension of the selfishness as portrayed in her books as being the basis for the social contract among everyone. I prefer to think of a Utopian ideal where the government keeps its hands off my **** and I chose how and who to support. Putting that in perspective, most of anything that is ill in the government is government-made and the result of bigger, more intrusive, more powerful government, not the minimalist (and perhaps unrealistic unicorns and rainbows ideal) government that Rand espoused. my point was that selfishness rules, right now. so much so that following the rules is much less important than not getting caught. and the rules and punishments are quite dependent on economic status. it produces similar results to having minimal rules as a basis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) pray tell To piggyback onto John Adams most recent post in this thread, your position presupposes that we live in a a Randian utopia. The reality is that our current economic structure is not capitalist, but is rather neo-mercantilist/corporatist, where those at the top of the economy are given privlidge by government. It more closely resembles the world of Wesley Mouch than one designed by any of Rand's heroes. It's becoming increasingly obvious that you've never read the work you're criticizing. Edited October 2, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 pray tell my point was that selfishness rules, right now. so much so that following the rules is much less important than not getting caught. and the rules and punishments are quite dependent on economic status. it produces similar results to having minimal rules as a basis. You're predisposed to doing that which best perpetuates your genetic line. That's the underlying force that drives you. The satisfaction you derive from pretending your motivations are selfless and altruistic doesn't change that reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 You're predisposed to doing that which best perpetuates your genetic line. That's the underlying force that drives you. The satisfaction you derive from pretending your motivations are selfless and altruistic doesn't change that reality. hence the need for constraints (assuming your premise is correct). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 hence the need for constraints (assuming your premise is correct). What kind of constraints? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 my point was that selfishness rules, right now. so much so that following the rules is much less important than not getting caught. and the rules and punishments are quite dependent on economic status. it produces similar results to having minimal rules as a basis. It's obvious that you understand little of the book, which is fine. But "selfishness rules" is not where her philosophy ends. Selfishness premised on unlawful taking is theft, which is both immoral and against the law. As screwed up in many ways as Rand was, her philosophy wasn't so flawed as to be easily exposed as hypocritical by someone of your mental acumen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) It's obvious that you understand little of the book, which is fine. But "selfishness rules" is not where her philosophy ends. Selfishness premised on unlawful taking is theft, which is both immoral and against the law. As screwed up in many ways as Rand was, her philosophy wasn't so flawed as to be easily exposed as hypocritical by someone of your mental acumen. perhaps you missed the "produces similar results" part. it doesn't require mental gymnastics to understand the meaning. you stated that the current situation wasn't similar to rands utopia. i countered that the expected results are similar as the would likely follow a common final pathway. Edited October 2, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 perhaps you missed the "produces similar results" part. it doesn't require mental gymnastics to understand the meaning. you stated that the current situation wasn't similar to rands utopia. i countered that the expected results are similar as the would likely follow a common final pathway. So, having a giant inefficient rule enforcing leviathon that takes what's yours at gunpoint produces the same results as a minimilist government? Mmmkay. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 So, having a giant inefficient rule enforcing leviathon that takes what's yours at gunpoint produces the same results as a minimilist government? Mmmkay. I'm curious as to how he comes to this conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) So, having a giant inefficient rule enforcing leviathon that takes what's yours at gunpoint produces the same results as a minimilist government? Mmmkay. yes. because those taking at gunpoint become the selfish corporations. see 2008 financial crisis massive wealth transfer for just one example. see minimum wage jobs supported by foodstamps and medicaid (taxes) for another. see banking laws unfriendly to everyone but the banks. see the feds zero interest and massive bond buying policy over the last 6 years and who wins and loses, see ridiculously high executive earnings....just a few examples. labels like leviathon and minimalist can be deceiving. ther common denominator is greed (selfishness). just what rand praises. Edited October 2, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 yes. because those taking at gunpoint become the selfish corporations. see 2008 financial crisis massive wealth transfer for just one example. see minimum wage jobs supported by foodstamps and medicaid (taxes) for another. see banking laws unfriendly to everyone but the banks. see the feds zero interest and massive bond buying policy over the last 6 years and who wins and loses, see ridiculously high executive earnings....just a few examples. labels like leviathon and minimalist can be deceiving. ther common denominator is greed (selfishness). just what rand praises. Every example you just described is one created by leviathan government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) Every example you just described is one created by leviathan government. of course, you'd prefer minimum wage workers live in tin shacks and rummage through garbage. sweatshops weren't so bad, right? child labor anyone? executive pay has almost nothing to do with gov't unless it was rightfully capped. Edited October 2, 2014 by birdog1960 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rob's House Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 of course, you'd prefer minimum wage workers live in tin shacks and rummage through garbage. sweatshops weren't so bad, right? child labor anyone? executive pay has almost nothing to do with gov't unless it was rightfully capped. Not to derail the discussion, but what's your opinion on $15/hr minimum wage for fast food workers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 of course, you'd prefer minimum wage workers live in tin shacks and rummage through garbage. sweatshops weren't so bad, right? child labor anyone? executive pay has almost nothing to do with gov't unless it was rightfully capped. why do you find it necessary to accuse people of wanting others to suffer just because they don't believe it's good to have a massive central authority? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 of course, you'd prefer minimum wage workers live in tin shacks and rummage through garbage. sweatshops weren't so bad, right? child labor anyone? executive pay has almost nothing to do with gov't unless it was rightfully capped. Executive pay has absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage workers living in shacks and rummaging through garbage, or child labor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 Not to derail the discussion, but what's your opinion on $15/hr minimum wage for fast food workers? he'll probably say that it's a step in the right direction, but that it's still not enough to provide for a family. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 why do you find it necessary to accuse people of wanting others to suffer just because they don't believe it's good to have a massive central authority? what would the natural outcome be (and has historically been) to unfettered free markets for labor? ignorance is not a defense. Executive pay has absolutely nothing to do with minimum wage workers living in shacks and rummaging through garbage, or child labor. they are linked through the hallowed (by rand) concept of selfishness. both are the result of it. both are the natural and necessary consequences. it's really not that complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted October 2, 2014 Share Posted October 2, 2014 why do you find it necessary to accuse people of wanting others to suffer just because they don't believe it's good to have a massive central authority? Because if you don't admit to not taking inaction to not prevent people from not suffering, you're responsible for the lack of sufficient decrease in suffering in the world, which isn't inequivalent to admiting confirming not denying you're part of the problem. Or something. they are linked through the hallowed (by rand) concept of selfishness. both are the result of it. both are the natural and necessary consequences. it's really not that complicated. The poor are the result of selfishness, according to the economic principles of Rand? Really? And the only person I see holding those concepts hallowed is yourself. Have you even read Atlas Shrugged? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdog1960 Posted October 2, 2014 Author Share Posted October 2, 2014 since you obviously haven't watched the clip, her opening quote: "why is it good to want others to be happy? you can make others happy when and if it means something to you selfishly". is this not an accurate distillation of objectivism? if not then offer your take on its theme Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts