Socialism/Capitalism?

Members Area Member Polls
41

Well… here goes my meager 8 rep points straight down the tube.

Capitalism and Socialism both have one basic flaw. They rely on logical absolutes. The socialist view: “The rights of society are the most important rule” applies in a number of situations, such as on a small-scale camping trip, or in large scale operations such as national defense (or in very limited cases such as WWII offensive movements). In order for socialism to work the group must always agree on everything lest the minority revolts and then the majority must obliterate/silence the minority etc. etc. and you get into this whole slew of rights-violation and counter rights violations; however, the biggest probelm occurs when attempting to enforce a socialist manifesto upon a docile country- A country without “big” motivation or drive. The population may not be uprising against the Bourgiouse (spelling?) or campaigning for civil rights or demanding more beer in the government lunch line, etc etc. and this means that it’s hard to get everyone onto the socialist bandwagon. That’s the crux of socialism is that it is only ever not an “evil” system as long as everyone is in grave peril (be it from the great depression or from, Nazi Germany, etc. ) It is okay, in my opinion ,to say “no you shutup, sit down, and learn to use that gun and then go fight and maybe die because if you don’t, we’re all going to die”

Inversely to socialism is the capitalist theory (not necessarily “capitalist” but I mean the theory espoused on importanceofphilosophy.blah-blah) that “The rights of the individual are omnipotent” This philosphy is weak in exactly the place wear the other philosphy is strong, during times of national crisis, etc. If the rights of the individual are so incredibly important that a government may not require from its people enough money to simply operate itself, then how in the great oogily-moogily is that government going to put together a military force strong enough to fight in a world war? The other problem with a super-small government with a pure “laizze-fairre” (I just know there are some ZZ’s some RR’s and an E at the end of Faire in those two words :stuck_out_tongue: ) is that there is little way to protect the consumer’s rights. No way to protect the people from improperly and potentially dangerous foods, no way to prevent the complete monopolization of entire towns, no way to keep even the smallest of commodities from becoming under the control of one ultimate force. There is no way to say, woah! it is definately not your right McDonalds to sell 1200 calorie burgers and say they’re healthy or part of a balanced died. That’s lying. (See Scarface’s post, it provides more proof to my point. I was going to point out 1900, but Scarface does a better job)

Here is my take, which is also the thesis statement of my essay: “Through the protection of individual rights, society can be protected, because society is a collection of individuals.” It’s a mix, leaning capitalist. In “my” govn’t people are protected by the government, free speech, “well regulated” laizze-faire capitalism, etc, etc. Unlike a socialist lean, where the protection individual rights is only a means to the end of protecting society, A capitalist leaning mix ensures that neither society or the individual is an end in and of itself. It is, in my opinion, the role of government to mediate between when an individual (or group of individuals) is being consciously or unconsciously malicious towards society, or when society or the majority is being malicious towards the individual. The government is forced to gasp WORK! following their own moral guidelines, and using the powerful computers inside their heads called brains, in order to find a balance.

The individual is NOT ALWAYS more important than society, and societ is NOT ALWAYS more important than the individual, and therefore it is a logical fallacy to claim that through the absolute protection of individual rights or the absolute protection of society’s rights is there a way to ever absolutely protect either society’s rights or the individual’s rights. A flexible government is the ONLY option.

42

Davan, I can see this discussion exacerbate into throwing shit at each other, lets not do that. I apologise if my attitude has been (or is) hostile. I also think you have done well in keeping your cool.

I know I’m being lazy by posting links to some critical texts. I’m sorry for that, but otherwise my text would be endless. Anyway, these are all good reads, also for a hardcore objectivist. Also, by using the Internet, everyone can make their own judgement of their validity.

Nicholas Dykes: “Mrs Logic and the Law: A Crtitique of Ayn Rand’s View of Government” At: http://www.capital.demon.co.uk/LA/philosophical/randlaw.txt)

  • ONE: LOGICAL PROBLEMS
  • TWO: HISTORICAL PROBLEMS
  • THREE: CONSISTENCY PROBLEMS

Mark Skousen: “The Troubled Economics of Ayn Rand”
At: http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/0101aynrand.html

John Bergstrom: Cartoon, but funny!
At: http://world.std.com/~mhuben/lman.html

Here is a list of many different critics (the above included): http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

I have not read Rand, just excerpts and shorter essays about her philosophy. However, I’m somewhat more acquainted with the objectivist notion, since philosophy of science is part of what I do, and must elaborate on, when conducting research. I leave the specifics to the aforementioned links – I’ll just go for the general idea, that I see flawed. However, Nicholas Dykes has a rather specific dissection at hands.

[I use wikipedia to draw the outlines of objectivist notions (everyone can check it out)].The objectivist notion of ‘objective truth’ is problematic, its kind of like positivism forced into humanoria; it will be antagonistic at the end. The notion of objectivism will proclaim that existence exists separate from any conscious recognition of it. Well, yes, the earth exists, despite us being here, but our realization of it, and interpretation of it, is not just there. We are collective beings; we construct reality together in interaction (see Berger & Luckman “Social Construction of Reality”). Knowledge, and especially values, cannot be objective; they are always subjugated to interpretation, interpretation that is socialized through learning, and learning is a social, collective, process. Knowledge and values are created; they do not exist as an objective entity. Obectivists, do not claim values to be intrinsic, but they are objective in the sense of meeting specific needs of humans. So needs exist, it’s just up to the people to discover their needs. But aren’t we constantly creating needs? Are we not also, collectively, creating the notion of need (not just biological hunger)? Objectivists go even further, the claim that: The Law of Identity states that anything that exists is qualitatively determinate, that is, has a fixed, finite nature. So, the colour red is “reddish” by nature, and consequently, values (good, bad, egoism, altruism etc.) have a fixed nature, regardless of the mind, just waiting to be discovered. Hmm, again, are we not creating values, are we not changing values, are we not giving different meanings to values?

Again, Hitler and Stalin as altruists? Firstly, altruism is a mainly used in the adjective sense (altruistic), it denotes the quality of the thing. However, when you refer to humans in general, one quality is not enough to describe their quality. Calling them altruists is silly, misleading at best. Furthermore, I think ‘unselfishness’ (altruism) should be considered a good thing, that’s how it’s generally perceived (as compared [antonym] to ‘selfishness’). Why call Hitler and Stalin altruists, when they most probably were the opposite: selfish (anti-altruists if you like) and immoral sociopaths? In fact, Hitler said something in the line of: If Germans cannot fulfil my objective; they have failed as a people! Secondly, why would you even think of measuring the moral and ethical quality of altruism by standards of capitalistic logic? – it is as antonym as it gets! And of course, by doing this, you will reach the opposite result, obviously. Since when have ethical and moral values been measured according to ‘surplus value’ or how well it fits into an economic ideal?

I can see that you have seen “the light” in liberal market economy as a saviour and a solution to many things. In a sense, you might be right. But to force the same thinking into deliberation of all values, moral and ethics – and define them by economic rationale – is just silly. Plain and simple! I also think market economy is a good thing, but not in the radical sense, HELL NO, and especially not as an ethical principle!

Palmtag, good stuff!

43

Yeah, I’m not justifying Osama, but neither should anybody be justifying kicking somebody out of a country for an opinion, ala Anthony Mundine…I’m glad ur objective though, man, good arguments…:wink:

44

They kicked him out of the country? I didn’t hear or read about that. He wasn’t able to box in the country. How is that being kicked out? Are you that thick? Comparing a person who supports the murder of thousands and the extermination of a group of people v.s. the fact some guy wasn’t able to box in a foreign country?

I’ll respond to the rest aka Lorien later, but I have to go right now.

45

Jumper, I’m somewhat perplexed. Why is democracy a joke, and why is democracy’s qualities measured by how well it works in U.S.A.? Are you sceptic about just representative democracy or democracy at large?

46

Epote: I will send you an email response when I stop being a lazy ass, but onto your post lol. Money is only a means, not an end in itself, so no $20million v.s. whatever Charlie has does not make either one better or worse in that sense. Which one is happy with themself? Which one has stuck to their values in life and not lived for others? Both maybe, I don’t know either on much of a personal level so I couldn’t say. This would take it away from any traditional social darwinistic ideology. From a monetary standpoint, maybe, but not from who is better. It is who achieved their ends.

as far as i understand it, capitalism is an economic system, that is, it deals with money, demand, suplly, product value, equilibriums etc. In any case, my point was that product value is determined by demand. When what you have to offer has no significant demand (like theoretical physics) you make no money. Money is no end but you do need it to live a decent life plus in pure capitalism you have to expand, to expand you need money to invest.

im perfectly happy doing my workouts, reading up maths and wasting my time on the internet, that makes me succesfull the question is who is willing to pay my succes?:stuck_out_tongue:

therein lies the anomaly (ala matrix) capitalism needs the mob, and the mob is not very smart, marketing and proper manipulation can supercompensate the losses of a poor “product” (im betting those superfast treadmills have double the recognition charlie will ever get)

47

Capitalism, although an economic system, is co-dependent on the political system, just as the political system is co-dependent on the economic system. That is how you have the different levels of mixed economies and political systems coming abot, so we cannot just talk solely about one without addressing the other.

You mention theoretical studies. The point is in capitalism one may choose where they want to spend their money. This includes philantropic (sp) efforts. I would rather give my money towards the advancement of the various sciences than to give it to somebody who doesn’t want to work hard because it means they won’t be getting free money! With low taxes and the ability to do what you want with the money, people will choose where to spend it. Private non-profit organizations have proven to be more than capable in this respect and often are more successful than the government. Also, capitalism breeds development. This would mean, for many businesses, lots of money put into R&D and theoretical sciences.

What you listed makes you happy is cool. Now, how are you going to get to that end? You need a job (a means) generally to get there. Nothing really wrong with that. You don’t have to get a job, you just will not achieve your end.

The mob is more of a product of pure democracy (non representative or anything of the kind) and anarcho capitalism. That is NOT a good thing obviously as the mob is never smart (French Revolution for example). Now, in capitalism Charlie may not get the recognition, but he could. If he had someone backing him to invest millions in advertising and lying about your results, this could be done I am sure. Besides that, it is not really anyone who can force someone to believe something. As you know you could explain to someone the essentials of CFTS and how Charlie has produced great athletes and how treadmills have many faults, but that doesn’t mean they are going to believe it, sadly. Not anyone’s problem except their own and maybe Charlie’s if he is broke. On the topic of a pure democracy and anarcho-capitalism, it takes away the rights of the minority for the majority for the most part. You do not want tyranny of the minority(Salazar in Portugal, Saddam in Iraq, etc.), but neither do you want a tyranny of the majority (Nazi Germany, French Revolution, etc.).

48

sigh I’ve learned something posting over the years on boards. When no one responds it means one three things A) I’m right, B) You don’t know anything about my post, C) I’ve said something that’s been said before. I Guess davan, becaue you’re a smart guy, you obviously know something of what I’m talking about. And I have definately NOT said something that’s been said before that you either think I’m right… or you didn’t read my post :stuck_out_tongue:

49

Thanks.

Nicholas Dykes: “Mrs Logic and the Law: A Crtitique of Ayn Rand’s View of Government” At: http://www.capital.demon.co.uk/LA/philosophical/randlaw.txt)

I have to admit that I do not have the time to read through that entire thing at this second (although I will try to), but I will address a couple of the things which I read:
One point discussions physical coerciveness only to be a retaliatory force and to be used by the government. I would disagree (with Rand) that people should not be allowed to use retaliatory force as it may be the only way to protect one’s inherent rights in the absence of a government official to stop it (i.e. a cop, soldier, whatever). I would disagree with what the author says though about a moral breach by the government because the government should, obviously, be representational and each branch having checks and balances. Although this is not always enough to stop a moral breach by the government, it takes care of virtually everything possible, assuming the population is a logically thinking one that chooses their politicians based on what they feel is moral and needs to be done. The author does bring up a possible senario, but it seems to be an impractical one. Some of the other points to bring up some good questions, but others are simply saying that her particular written argument against something was not the best one available (the ad hominem point on anarchy), yet offers no other options himself.

Mark Skousen: “The Troubled Economics of Ayn Rand”
At: http://www.mskousen.com/Books/Articles/0101aynrand.html
I checked out this site before you posted and it makes a few errors. While briefly mentioning some economic points, it contradicts itself and says that it is something that probably wouldn’t happen, not that it was impossible. The context was that he would not budge in the way he does projects for the client and he would only have them so that he may work. The author states that this is impractical and wouldn’t happen. While it may not happen often, it does i.e. Frank Lloyd Wright and many other artists. Also, it is a book and the point of the book is to show an extreme example of the “Perfect Man.” The author neglects to mention how Rand did include incidents where Roark bends on different issues, like any human would. He does change his original design many times for one woman while building her home. He also built a temple even though he doesn’t believe in god. Outside of building, Gail Wynand is his best friend even though Gail published a yellow-quality newspaper filled with half-truths and lies and never stood for what he believed in, but rather what the people wanted to hear. Roark even states that Gail was his only exception.
[/quote]

Here is a list of many different critics (the above included): http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

I have not read Rand, just excerpts and shorter essays about her philosophy. However, I’m somewhat more acquainted with the objectivist notion, since philosophy of science is part of what I do, and must elaborate on, when conducting research. I leave the specifics to the aforementioned links – I’ll just go for the general idea, that I see flawed. However, Nicholas Dykes has a rather specific dissection at hands.

Objectivism does have some logical flaws, as I’ve stated to believe and agree with. It is not a perfect system, although there are people who have “branched off” per se from Objectivism and have addressed these unconceived points of Rand. I would suggest reading some of the novels, which deal less with Objectivism, but rather a broader moral/ethical/political aspect. This is why I prefer the books as it does not say something that is concrete and avoids historical inadequacies. The fiction books are quite agreeable with any Libertarian (which I am). I would check them out, although they can be somewhat boring if you don’t like dialogue (sp).

The objectivist notion of ‘objective truth’ is problematic, its kind of like positivism forced into humanoria; it will be antagonistic at the end. The notion of objectivism will proclaim that existence exists separate from any conscious recognition of it. Well, yes, the earth exists, despite us being here, but our realization of it, and interpretation of it, is not just there. We are collective beings; we construct reality together in interaction (see Berger & Luckman “Social Construction of Reality”). Knowledge, and especially values, cannot be objective; they are always subjugated to interpretation, interpretation that is socialized through learning, and learning is a social, collective, process.
Objectivism does not state that what one holds as values is necessarily completely objective. For example, if one Objectivist values family life and the other does not, neither one is necessarily right or wrong. What is considered Objective values are freedom, liberty, egotism, etc.

Knowledge and values are created; they do not exist as an objective entity. Obectivists, do not claim values to be intrinsic, but they are objective in the sense of meeting specific needs of humans. So needs exist, it’s just up to the people to discover their needs. But aren’t we constantly creating needs? Are we not also, collectively, creating the notion of need (not just biological hunger)? Objectivists go even further, the claim that: The Law of Identity states that anything that exists is qualitatively determinate, that is, has a fixed, finite nature. So, the colour red is “reddish” by nature, and consequently, values (good, bad, egoism, altruism etc.) have a fixed nature, regardless of the mind, just waiting to be discovered. Hmm, again, are we not creating values, are we not changing values, are we not giving different meanings to values?
Again, values are fixed to what problems and situations an individual faces. Two can value different things to different degrees, based on their own recognizable needs. Things like egotism, altruism, etc. can be viewed in different ways, but there IS a correct end in that sense. One may think that say altruism is the way (they may want everyone to have healthcare and live happily for example), but that doesn’t mean the way to the end is correct. Forgive any poorly constructed explanations here (this is getting lengthy). I will address this subject more below though:

Again, Hitler and Stalin as altruists? Firstly, altruism is a mainly used in the adjective sense (altruistic), it denotes the quality of the thing. However, when you refer to humans in general, one quality is not enough to describe their quality. Calling them altruists is silly, misleading at best.
Silly how? How did they lead their lives in a sense where they fulfilled their own happiness? Their happiness came from control of others and living for others, the worst type of altruists said Rand. These people did not value their own lives enough and forced their thought and beliefs on others, along with claiming to be for the people in a crusade against another group of people. If you read through the first site you mentioned, you would notice that Objectivism is for egotism and against physical violence of any kind. If you put some of this together, you can conjur that only one who could not fill their own happiness is one who would need physical domination and extermination of others. A more typical example would be the nerd in highschool who spent his adulthood earning as much money as possible so he could one up the kids in highschool. Now is this egotistical or altruistic? Who did this person spend his life living for? His own, self-fulfilled happiness or that of others? In The Fountainhead you find different types of altruists, including 3 of the obvious types (one who wants power, one who wants to earn lots of money and fame to show everyone, and one who wants to “help everyone” and not fulfill their OWN personal goals in life).

I can see that you have seen “the light” in liberal market economy as a saviour and a solution to many things. In a sense, you might be right. But to force the same thinking into deliberation of all values, moral and ethics – and define them by economic rationale – is just silly. Plain and simple! I also think market economy is a good thing, but not in the radical sense, HELL NO, and especially not as an ethical principle!
I haven’t seen the light. Some of my ideas developed? Yes, but I always felt similar fashions to much of this. I’ve always wondered why, since I was a pre-teen why people had to give up their money that they earned. I’ve always wondered why someone is bad because they do what they want. Reason is silly? Right.

“Katie, why do they always teach us that it’s easy and evil to do what we want and that we need discipline to restrain ourselves? It’s the hardest thing in the world – to do what we want. And it takes the greatest kind of courage. I mean, what we really want. As I wanted to marry you. Not as I want to sleep with some woman or get drunk or get my name in the papers. Those things – they’re not even desires – they’re things people do to escape from desires – because it’s such a big responsibility, really to want something.”

50

Dude, takes some time to read something that is literally 30+ pages, think about it, and attempt to make a point and reason about it :wink: . I will get to your post, takes some time.

51

Is laissez-faire capitalism in fact socialist then, by this logic? Laissez-faire capitalism and most libertarian thought does have national defense to protect the rights of the individual. That doesn’t mean that the rights of the society are more than important rule, which doesn’t make much sense because society is made up by individuals who are to be free.

In order for socialism to work the group must always agree on everything lest the minority revolts and then the majority must obliterate/silence the minority etc. etc. and you get into this whole slew of rights-violation and counter rights violations; however, the biggest probelm occurs when attempting to enforce a socialist manifesto upon a docile country- A country without “big” motivation or drive. The population may not be uprising against the Bourgiouse (spelling?) or campaigning for civil rights or demanding more beer in the government lunch line, etc etc. and this means that it’s hard to get everyone onto the socialist bandwagon. That’s the crux of socialism is that it is only ever not an “evil” system as long as everyone is in grave peril (be it from the great depression or from, Nazi Germany, etc. ) It is okay, in my opinion ,to say “no you shutup, sit down, and learn to use that gun and then go fight and maybe die because if you don’t, we’re all going to die”
I would say you have a correct view in general of who is most susceptible (is it ible or able?) to socialistic swings, along with poor countries in general, such as the country I am in now (Portugal). I would disagree in one sense with some conscriptment ideas. This is something I’ve thought about and it is in the general interest of the individual (and therefore the country obviously) to conscript in desperate military times. I would say though that unless it is an invasion of some kind and warefare here (basically an eminent threat literally), there is little to no reason to have a draft and if it did hit here at home, I think a draft would be the least of the worries in that case. It is a harder thing to say without it happening, since it really hasn’t happened to us here in the US yet.

Inversely to socialism is the capitalist theory (not necessarily “capitalist” but I mean the theory espoused on importanceofphilosophy.blah-blah) that “The rights of the individual are omnipotent” This philosphy is weak in exactly the place wear the other philosphy is strong, during times of national crisis, etc. If the rights of the individual are so incredibly important that a government may not require from its people enough money to simply operate itself, then how in the great oogily-moogily is that government going to put together a military force strong enough to fight in a world war?
That is governments first and only real importance is to protect your right. There are taxes taken (many propose a national sales tax for example), but the amount is much lower and not much is required in the first place because there are no extra programs to suck the money out, like social security, welfare, medicare, etc. Places where another philosophy is strong? It is not a problem, assuming individuals do not feel the need to take power over others. Why cannot one believe in Buddhism, one be an atheist, one a christian, and one a muslim in the same area? There is no reason why different people cannot peacefully practice whatever beliefs they have, assuming it does not infringe on the rights of others.
The other problem with a super-small government with a pure “laizze-fairre” (I just know there are some ZZ’s some RR’s and an E at the end of Faire in those two words :stuck_out_tongue: ) is that there is little way to protect the consumer’s rights. No way to protect the people from improperly and potentially dangerous foods, no way to prevent the complete monopolization of entire towns, no way to keep even the smallest of commodities from becoming under the control of one ultimate force.
Again, illegal monopolies and ones that infringe on the right of individuals (including out right lying) is to be taken care of in a small government–it is the only responsibility to take care of their rights. As somewhat of an aside, if the system has intelligent consumers, they ought to be able to make informed decisions by inquiring to the company, making third party tests, etc. Somewhat like much of the “informed” fitness community is like.

Here is my take, which is also the thesis statement of my essay: “Through the protection of individual rights, society can be protected, because society is a collection of individuals.” It’s a mix, leaning capitalist. In “my” govn’t people are protected by the government, free speech, “well regulated” laizze-faire capitalism
Don’t confuse laissez-faire capitalism with anarcho-capitalism. A laissez-faire capitalism does not mean that there is no involvement. It means that the government’s ONLY responsibility is to protect the individual rights of the citizen to ensure they are not infringed upon. This would include foreign countries attempting to harm citizens, it would include criminals who rob, steal, murder, rape, etc (this includes businesses which may do the same), and more. It does mean though that the government is not going to give you free money because you don’t feel the need to work or give you free healthcare because you cannot get a full time job.
Unlike a socialist lean, where the protection individual rights is only a means to the end of protecting society, A capitalist leaning mix ensures that neither society or the individual is an end in and of itself. It is, in my opinion, the role of government to mediate between when an individual (or group of individuals) is being consciously or unconsciously malicious towards society, or when society or the majority is being malicious towards the individual. The government is forced to gasp WORK! following their own moral guidelines, and using the powerful computers inside their heads called brains, in order to find a balance.
Who is to define malice? Again, if it is taking away your liberty and property rights, then I am all for it. If it is not, then well, it is something that one must be very careful with.

The individual is NOT ALWAYS more important than society
The individual makes up society. You can have an individual without society, but not a society without an individual. Again, assuming everyone’s rights are protected, differing opinions, thoughts, ideas, interests, and more are great. Most of the problems happen when someone infringes on another’s right or one feels entitled to something that isn’t their right (free money, healthcare, etc.).

52

In a laissez-faire capitalism, does the government provide support for infrastructure building, disease control and prevention, and support for the elderly and handicapped? Or is that considered free money items?

True. But in order for a society to thrive and flourish there must be some cooperation and compromise. Each individual in a society cannot expect to get things 100% their way…

Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT for lazy bastards sitting on their asses getting free stuff when they can otherwise earn it. I consider that a fraudulent misuse of the system. However, I see part of the government responsibility to make sure it citizens are safe, protected, and healthy. It makes for a prosperous society…

53

Why is that the government’s responsibility? With lower taxes, people have more money to give to non-profit causes which are not only better managed, but get things done much quicker than any government organization. Disease control and prevention? Shit, the government has banned medicines from coming into this country, what kind of system is that? Support for the elderly and handicapped is something left to society, not the government.

True. But in order for a society to thrive and flourish there must be some cooperation and compromise. Each individual in a society cannot expect to get things 100% their way…
People have a choice to do what they want. If they want to compromise, they may. In no way should it be forced. The movers of society were rarely compromisers. Look at the great inventions and corporations that helped develop the US and see how many compromised in the long run. Very few.

Don’t get me wrong, I am NOT for lazy bastards sitting on their asses getting free stuff when they can otherwise earn it. I consider that a fraudulent misuse of the system. However, I see part of the government responsibility to make sure it citizens are safe, protected, and healthy. It makes for a prosperous society…

You realize that people on welfare are more likely to be obese and overweight than those not on it? These people are not lacking enough money for the basic necessities. It is a point of the willingness to work. For every one person who is on welfare for 6 months and gets back on their feet you have another 4 that are not doing so. Welfare gives one the incentive NOT to work. Again, these programs do little to significantly hurt the upper class, but do everything to hurt the middle class. Not allowed to live in cheap housing, forced to pay money they can’t spare, punished for working just a little harder than those on welfare, and most not getting to see a dime of it in the end because of the horrible system they call social security.

54

As long as there are enough people giving to non-profits that help provide support for infrastructure building, disease control and prevention, and support for the elderly and handicapped then that would work! However there are no guarantees that would happen automatically.

I wouldn’t use the government banning certain medicines from coming to the country, as an excuse to say the government cannot provide Disease control and prevention services… Plus before the government intervened in the early 20th century, society was doing a piss poor job of providing those type of services…

I think that’s a matter of perspective. After all the U.S. Constitution, to name one, was formed with cooperation and compromise.

Well like I said previously. I am against abuse of the system. Also, I believe welfare reform and welfare to work were in acted to alleviate this type of abuse. However to pretend that no one is in need of help and that all welfare recipients are abusers of the system is inaccurate…

Here is where the difficulty arises. The question is how much tax can the middle class pay without it being a burden. Possibly little to none… However, without SS and welfare taxes still have to be paid… Furthermore, the lack of SS money is mainly because SS funds being used to fund other government programs…

Government needs to become more fiscally responsible when it comes to balancing the budget. Why not fix the system before changing it to something that might not work?

55

Davan, my argument against Rand’s definition of altruism is rather similar as John Ku’s (http://www-personal.umich.edu/~jsku/ooSacrifice.html), if you noticed my chair-metaphor in an earlier reply.

In a nutshell, it stems from Rand’s misfortunate dichotomisations that really distort any realistic conception of life. She seems to refer to ‘good or bad’, ‘left or right’, ‘moral or immoral’. There seems to be only room for extremes – kind of like trying to build a tiny wooden statue with a big axe. Her fondness for laissez-fair, in this context, is kind of obvious.

… Or, to use Ku’s own words: “This is altruism, she says. This is wrong. Therefore, egoism must be right”. Moreover, he concludes: “Rand seems to have conjured up the weakest, most naive, completely self-defeating form of altruism; then, having successfully argued against it, she rests content that she has proven all forms of altruism to be similarly false”

Sure, when you manage to find the worst imaginable quality in something, you might as well call that quality evil. But why would you therefore scorn altruism at large? No moral philosopher has defined altruism in the sense Ayn Rand has, and if they had, sure, altruism would be considered bad. But her definition (her point of departure) is so misfortunate that it almost unrecognizable in everyday epistemology. Furthermore, when you attribute Rand’s unfortunate definition of altruism to people like Hitler and Stalin, hardly anyone will understand your point. In the common sense, you are basically saying that Hitler and Stalin were unselfish people; therefore they were evil.

56

They kicked him out of the country? I didn’t hear or read about that. He wasn’t able to box in the country. How is that being kicked out? Are you that thick? Comparing a person who supports the murder of thousands and the extermination of a group of people v.s. the fact some guy wasn’t able to box in a foreign country?

Don’t be so hostile dude. Its about free-speech, a cornerstone ideal to democracy, and the US is a funny democracy from this example because they didn’t let the guy fight in the country as a result of something he said – like you know, free speech, everyone’s entitiled to their opinion, (well apparantly anyway). And what he said was so mild, he was never supporting anything about the attacks, he just said they were expected and deserved. What they did, in the US, was an over-reaction, and a violation of those ideals y’all hold so damn close to heart, and preach about (free speech, if u missed it). How is that fair, if u ban a man from doing his job, for an opinion? “Say what you like, as long as it’s the same as what we’d say”…

57

His statement is so incredibly offensive to call it mild is a serious understatement. Sure we have free speech. There are also consequences of that speech, he experienced the consequences. Just because someone has the right to run thier mouth off dosen’t mean everyone has to listen to it.

58

I don’t see how people not wanting to pay him for his entertainment because it wasn’t wanted somehow undermines the democracy. I stated it once and chris p has stated it, very clearly I might add, again. I was hostile? You first of all outright lied in saying that he was kicked out of the country, you attempted to justify a mass murderer, and apparently cannot differentiate between the right to say something and the ability for people to accept and agree with it. I think saying “Are you that thick?” is about as mild as one could get in a situation like this.

EDIT: Saying the attacks were deserved is not justifying them?

59

So basically because people don’t want to give to something to help other people, they should be forced to through taxes? That is, essentially, what you are saying. No, the people don’t know where their money should go, but the government does. Right. Sounds perfect.

I wouldn’t use the government banning certain medicines from coming to the country, as an excuse to say the government cannot provide Disease control and prevention services… Plus before the government intervened in the early 20th century, society was doing a piss poor job of providing those type of services…

What about banning potentially life saving research, including certain areas of stem cell research? The government did such a great job, intervening did they? Can you explain what exactly they did that was so great?

I think that’s a matter of perspective. After all the U.S. Constitution, to name one, was formed with cooperation and compromise.

Was it compromise or was it agreeing that everybody has different ideas and thoughts? This is not necessarily compromise. The biggest compromise you could consider made in the Constitution was allowing everyone personal freedom. I would hardly consider that a “compromise” as it infringes on nobody’s rights.

Well like I said previously. I am against abuse of the system. Also, I believe welfare reform and welfare to work were in acted to alleviate this type of abuse. However to pretend that no one is in need of help and that all welfare recipients are abusers of the system is inaccurate…
If those people truely need help, there are non-profit organizations for them to go to. Without having to pay as high of taxes, people would have the ability to give to the causes they saw fit. If they still did not do so, then that reflects on the society. The government, one of the least efficient organizations around, is at no stance to be allowed to force views on people.

Here is where the difficulty arises. The question is how much tax can the middle class pay without it being a burden. Possibly little to none… However, without SS and welfare taxes still have to be paid…
And not nearly as high. SS and Welfare are just two of the socialistic programs the US implements. Many more could be taken out as well, reducing this even further. Eliminating some of the “criminals” for victimless crimes (i.e. smoking pot, etc.) would help drastically as well.

Furthermore, the lack of SS money is mainly because SS funds being used to fund other government programs…
Oh yeah? It isn’t because people are taking out more than they put in and a smaller population has to pay out to a larger one?

Government needs to become more fiscally responsible when it comes to balancing the budget. Why not fix the system before changing it to something that might not work?

Part of that would include getting rid of social security, welfare, and the like, which are all fiscally irresponsible.

60

If you would have actually read some of her material in depth, where she makes examples of “common” altruists, you would see she does not only do extremes. From Rand “…his [the altruist’s] own pain borne for the sake of other or pain inflicted on others for the sake of self.” “Rulers of men are not egotists. They create nothing. They exist entirely through the persons of others.” “He degrades the dignity of man and the essence of love.” “No creator [or egotist] was prompted by the desire to serve his brothers, for his brothers rejected the gift he offered [other references are made the Galileo, Pasteur (sp), and others]”

The 3 main altruists in the Fountainhead are in fact Catherine Halsey, who works for various charities and never went to college so that she may do so. Peter Keating, who gave up his main desire of painting so that he may please his mother in going to Stanton and being a great architect. He marries the most beautiful woman in town, even though he can never be honest with her. He exaggerates continuously and extremely, lies, and tells people what they want to hear (correction–what he thinks they want to hear) so that he may make advancements in his work and the way other people see him. The last is Ellsworth Toohey, perhaps the most vicious of them all. He is an architect critic, but have never designed nor built any structure. As a young boy he was picked on at times because he was weak. He would continually try to show intellectual superiority over his peers. He strived to make people like him. He degrades himself with jokes, which people say makes him humble. He desires power over people through the mind, rather than through force (Rand argues through Howard Roark which one is worse).

This discussion was not centered on Rand nor Objectivism, so I think delving into this so deep is rather pointless for the topic. I referenced her as an ideology that many people, who support laissez-faire capitalism, support and many of her ideas have great backing, but some, after her death, have brought up new and different points. Funny enough, the ones who bring up the strongest points are generally those who are Libertarians or leaders of movements similar to Objectivism in itself.

Oh yes, one more point about the one article you referenced. It had that part about physical force. I do not understand how one could draw the conclusion that she does not believe in men being able to have force of some kind when he Objectivist hero, Howard Roark, dynamites and destroys a skyscraper.