Ms. Rand

[Pure]

Comments on Rope and Roxanne

Roxanne: //And yet, the comforts and conveniences we enjoy by living in a modern civilization are the result of allowing individuals to be unshackled, and to perform to their maximum potential. We may not like it, but no other system ever tried has come close to producing the same results in terms of improving the material well being of millions of people.//

Rope: Indeed, it is likely that the advancement of the steel-making process was set back because Carnegie was able to plow under smaller competitors who had superior technology. And this is no anomally -- Microsoft is famous for using market position to undermine technologically superior rivals.

Rand maybe believed that scientists and inventors would be the ones who would most directly benefit from "unchaining superior individuals," and that they would use their improved positions to benefit all. But this has very rarely been what has happened: rather, the scientists and inventors generally turn over their innovations to entrepreneurs -- whose only defining interest is making a buck -- and then go back to the lab or the workshop. And the entrepreneurs, yes, will disseminate innovations, but only in ways and in circumstance that will benefit themselves most;

These are excellent points, Rope. "Improving the well being of millions" a la Roxanne is not exactly the effect of much entrepreneurship. Take Ray Kroc, founder of McDonalds; he has perhaps helped create a public health epidemic. Take Ken Lay, of Enron. Many thousands lost life savings; what exactly did he accomplish in the distribution of energy?

A couple other points. Randists like amicus notwithstanding, Bill Gates is hardly shackled in the present system. He makes more that 2 Billion a year, and likely pays no more than 10 percent of earning/income as taxes. As one website pointed out, had he taken say, a billion less each year, and hired quality control persons and more gifted programmers at $100,000 per year, there would be a better product and lots more jobs (10,000!).

There are, of course, brilliant entrepreneurs, like Morita, a founder of Sony. His products are genuinely excellent.

The key point in all this: one who exalts 'the individual', Like Ms. Rand, is prevented from appealing to the 'improved well being of millions' as a morally relevant fact, reason or justification. Essentially that's utilitarianism (greatest total (net) benefit for the greatest number). Indeed one might call it a 'collective good'.! Were Rand to argue this way, it would put her in the camp of Adam Smith, whom, iirc, she rejects (for not understanding capitalism as well as she). Smith held that the 'invisible hand' of the market moved all, moved society to the common good, through individual 'selfish' efforts at profitable trades, etc. Individual selfish behavior, then, is an instrumental, not an inherent good.

So to be true to her entrepreneurial individualism, and oneself as intended beneficiary (egoism) she has to say something more consistent with the facts, the non-benefits (harms) you mention. (Though she waffles.)

She has to say, "Hey it's great for Gates, that Gates is out for Gates; incidentally crumbs do fall from the table, but that's not the justification for the rich banquet he so rightly deserves, as a superior individual." At most she can allow a kind of inspiration and vicarious satisfaction in the 'plebs', the 90%. Kroc's empire is its own justification, as monument to the human spirit; teens' access to 'fast food' as a benefit, or their clogged arteries as harms do not count one way or the other.

Though she will extol the virtue of 'productivity,'--and Bill Gates surely produced, as did Mr. Kroc-- it cannot be in terms of benefit to the masses. For such would be a 'collective' orientation.

 

[3113]

I don't think your statement of the situation is quite accurate, 3113. I think the main reason most newspapers here are not running the cartoons is because they ARE offensive

You are right that I can't speak for why any American newspapers might not have chosen to show any of the cartoons...I only know of one newspaper that DID admit that it wasn't going to show any of the cartoons NOT because they were hateful, but because the editors were afraid of violent retaliation against its editors.

But what I believe in regards to whether they ought to be shown, or what the editors believe is not the point...and it would be thread-jacking to get into it. Here's the point:

If I read S.Max's correctly, he seemed to be implying that socialism in Europe was losing or going to lose it's freedom of speech and the cartoons were an example of that. My point was that if NOT showing offensive cartoons is an example of censorship, or a loss of freedom of speech/the press, then, clearly, we're not doing much better than socialist Europe because almost no newspaper in the U.S. is showing the cartoons either.

WHY they're not showing them hardly matters. They're allowed to print them, they're not, so clearly living in a capitalist society doesn't prevent censorship or guarantee freedom of speech IF you're going to use the cartoons as evidence that certain countries are losing freedom of speech. Communism does NOT equal censorship any more than Captialism equals freedom of speech/the press. If that were true than people like Lenny Bruce would have ever gone to jail. U.S. history is rife with censorship of speech and the press.

Socialism does not automatically erase freedom of speech/the press any more than capitalism automatically guarantees it.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Responding to Pure and Rope:

OK, let me see if I have this right. There are actually two separate races of human. One is the capitalist/entrepreneur race, who only care about power, and don't hesitate to use any trick they can think of to get it, including force and fraud if necessary. The other group includes scientists, creators, genuine innovators, and everyone else, who are the real source of all advances in material culture, and whose ideas and innovations are taken by the capitalist/entrepreneurs, who only care about power. Actually there's a third group, the wise lawmakers, who with complete disinterest pass laws that restrain the depredations of the first group.

Obviously I am being (obnoxiously) sarcastic - here is my point: With no systematic, empirical evidence to back it up you guys have posited simplistic categories of people with simplistic motivations. On the basis of these simple categories you propose to impose Byzantine legal and economic systems intended to restrain the rapacious bogeymen, the "capitalists," who only care about power, only want to exploit, and are totally unscrupulous.

I'll stop being obnoxious now, and just suggest that human nature and motivations are vastly more complex than any simplistic analysis can capture. "The scientists and inventors generally turn over their innovations to entrepreneurs -- whose only defining interest is making a buck." Really? Isn't it much more likely that the motivations of everyone involved are infinitely more complex, involving intricate and inseparable admixtures of desire for recognition, profit, knowledge, power, a good parking place, and 100 other things that we can't even imagine?

Rope cited Hayek at one point. Hayek coined the phrase "the fatal conceit" for those central planners who thought they could assemble enough knowledge to plan economic systems. The last 60 years proved Hayek right in a hundred ways, from the collapse of the Soviet Union to the disasters of "urban renewal" in American cities. Yet the task those planners attempted was child's play compared to the task of distilling and separating out human motivations and building a legal and economic system that seeks to shackle the motivations you find objectionable, while giving free reign to the ones you approve of; of shacking the desire for power and relative economic advantage, while encouraging the desire to create and innovate.

What if all those motivations are all tangled up and inseparable, and it is impossible to have creativity and innovation unless you are willing to give reign to the desire for economic power and greater wealth? Given the complex, contrary nature of humans surely you must acknowledge that this is a very plausible hypothesis. If so, are you willing to accept no innovation and no creativity in return for no inequality in wealth and power? Beware - for reasons cited in my previous post, you probably can't freeze the status quo. It's more likely that human material well being either advances, or declines. Are you willing to accept the latter in return for your preferred social outcome? (Even assuming you could achieve that outcome, which is unlikely.)

You believe that if the choice is either robber barons who create permanent monopolies and build dynasties based on exploitation, or a system of reasonable laws and regulations to restrain the barons. You are wrong about both.

In the first case, the only permanent monopoly is one protected by government, that is, by a monopoly on the legal use of violence. Absent that, Carnegie or Edison or Gates or whoever your robber baron du jour is can only enjoy a temporary monopoly. Some hungry newcomer will soon knock him off if he tries to exploit his advantage – and he knows it. The beneficiary of that tension is us – the consumers.

In the second case, if you give government sufficient power to accomplish the goal you seek the state won't use that power to accomplish your goal, but just the opposite. You will empower rapacious politicians and rent seeking special interests who will create exactly the thing you fear. What would that look like? Um – how about Washington D.C., circa 2006?

All this is counter-intuitive. The fist step is to acknowledge the contrariness and complexity of human nature, and accept that it is the same for all humans. I don't pretend to understand it all myself. I acknowledge my limitations in this regard. I think that you are smart enough to do the same.

Edited to add: You may be tempted to cite examples of rapacious capitalists who seek/sought to exploit. Please. Don't bother. That won't prove a thing. Of course that happens. This issue is what to do about it? Empower government? Who will watch the watchers if you do? A better response is an economic version of Madisonian democracy, in which competing interest groups cancel out each other's efforts to achieve power. Just don't let those rapacious capitalists get their hands on the legal monopoly on violence, and make sure there is open entry into markets for those hungry newcomers whose presense restrains the ability of would-be monopolists to exploit. Seriously - take a look at Madison's Federalist No. 10 and No. 51 (http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm ; http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa51.htm). He's talking about political power and we're discussing economic power, but the principle is the same.

 

[Pure]

lots of smoke. but just answer a simple question

Are you trying to justify the 'unshackling' of the Edisons and Gates's because of the benefits to millions of people? (Philosophically, are you trying to justify egoism by its effect on the general welfare?)

This does not sound like Rand, but like A. Smith; perhaps you can clarify.

---
PS Is Bill G unshackeled enough to suit you, or has the nasty gov't hamstrung his creative enterprise and robbed his rightful income?

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

lots of smoke. but just answer a simple question

Are you trying to justify the 'unshackling' of the Edisons and Gates's because of the benefits to millions of people? (Philosophically, are you trying to justify egosim by its effect on the general welfare?)

This does not sound like Rand, but like A. Smith; perhaps you can clarify.

---
PS Is Bill G unshackeled enough to suit you, or has the nasty gov't hamstrung his creative enterprise and robbed his rightful income?

I have said I am neither a Rand scholar nor a "Randroid." I am happy to mix am match my Rand and Smith - you are absolutely correct that there is as much (or more) Smith in my arguments as Rand. So sue me. I think they both have their strengths. On human nature it's hard to top Smith, and probably that is of more interest to me. But Rand has the benefit of 150 years of history that Smith did not know about, so there are insights in her that he could not have arrived at.

 

[Pure]

so please answer, are you attempting to justify the maxim "Each is to act in his own interest, 'selfishly'" in terms of the effects of such actions (carried out universally) on the general welfare.



The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a clear exposition in its 'egoism' article: the author contrasts the 'rational egoism' of Rand with the 'conditional egoism' (I would call it instrumental egoism) of Smith.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm

 

[amicus]

Absolutely amazing!

Roxanne Appleby once again took off the kid gloves for a moment and delivered a rational 'knock-out' blow to Pure and Rope, but being 'punch-drunk', as they usually are in defense of slavery, they attempt to struggle to their collective feet, hoping against hope that Roxanne will show mercy in her victory.

She should not. She should deliver the death blow.

Pure and Rope 'cherry pick' among the assertions made, usually only from Rand's fictional works, and then strive mightily to muddle the issue.

Perhaps if they dared to quote from her philosophical essays and economic treatises and psychological assertions...ah, but that would be an honest approach and neither appear capable of that.

What one can observe in both, is a thinly disguised 'hatred' of the nature of man. Roxanne apologizes for them and herself by saying that 'nature' is so complex and varied that perhaps 'no one' can fully understand what we critters are all about.

Roxanne made her initial point some weeks ago, that of: 'human life is the basic value and men have an 'instinct' a drive, a survival urge, to continue and improve that life'...

The 'usual suspects' those haters of individual man, attempted (and failed) to refute that assertion by claiming that only 'groups of men', 'society', 'the greater good', the usual collectivist claptrap, could serve as an arbiter of ethics and morality.

Again, lacking any definable or defensible position, Pure and Rope assume the attack and destroy mode to which they have become accustomed.

It is my hope that this discussion may tempt one or two to actually pursue, read, study and comprehend the magnificent work that Ayn Rand offered in her quest to understand the 'true' nature of man, the rational animal.

Against the unwashed hordes of theologians and collectivist philosophers, Ayn Rand, in the 20th century, was the one unwavering defense of individual human rights and liberties.

In my opinion, she missed the mark on the abortion issue and was less than accurate in her understanding of the nature of 'woman', i.e., 'feminists', but then, considering her origins and the times she lived in, one can understand her desire to elevate the female.

There also runs through all the arguments of Pure, and what I have seen of Rope, that 'relativist' subjective viewpoint that: 'nothing is absolute, all is relative', basic assumption that destroys any objectivity and thus any credibility either may have.

The beginnings of knowledge and eventually wisdom, is to first acknowledge that '...reality exists independent of the human mind...'

Descartes got it backwards, "I think, therefore I am..." would be better served by, "I am, therefore I think..."

There is another sinister and hidden aspect of the relativism, 'humanist' program of belief.

Some men are born with greater 'potential' for achievement than others. Some seem naturally to rise to the top in any endeavor they choose.

All are neither born nor 'created' equal in abilities.

Others rise to the top by individual qualities they chose to focus on and hone to an exellence that surpassed others.

One can view the IQ curve and get a general idea of the scarcity of 'true' intellect in any population, anywhere.

It is that one percent or so, that Pure and Rope and the 'usual suspects' in general, truly hate. Those men of excellence and accomplishment without whom we would still be living in the caves.

It is the 'altruism' of the collectivists, who think they do a human service to all mankind, by elevating the 99 percent above the 1 percent, they are quite happy to sacrifice the 'best' for any cause that benefits the 'greater good.'

I am rather pleased to look upon the statues and monuments dedicated to those 'great' men and women among us and realize, truly, how few they really are in the annals of humankind.

Ayn Rand is one of those.

I hope you choke.

amicus....(C'mon, Roxanne baby, disrobe and stand proud before the simpering masses!)


(chuckles)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

so please answer, are you attempting to justify the maxim "Each is to act in his own interest, 'selfishly'" in terms of the effects of such actions (carried out universally) on the general welfare.



The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a clear exposition in its 'egoism' article: the author contrasts the 'rational egoism' of Rand with the 'conditional egoism' (I would call it instrumental egoism) of Smith.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm

What I am saying is that there is no conflict between them. More, that give the complexity of human nature and the tangled spaghetti bowl of human motivation, they are different aspects of the same thing. So I don't have to "justify" egoism. In your terms I certainly could, though.

 

[rgraham666]

I've been told I can't post in this thread because of my amateur attempts at psychology.

So I'll post about something I am expert at. Myself.

In a society ruled by an ideology, whether Randist or Marxist, or anything in between, a person like me has no place.

The ideology will set its standards of 'superiority', 'excellence', even 'normalcy', and I will be unable to meet them. Mentally ill, badly educated, how could I?

So my fate, if I am fortunate, will be to live at the bottom of the heap, between the interstices of society scrabbling for scraps and crumbs that tumble from the tables of 'the superior'. If unfortunate, I'll be 're-educated' or 'given an honest job' or whatever fancy term the ruling ideology attaches to slavery. If very unfortunate, well, we're all aware of the fates of outsiders in many societies.

So, I oppose ideologies in any form. Who can blame me? My fate won't be pretty otherwise. Selfish of me.

I guess I'm a Randist after all.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

I've been told I can't post in this thread because of my amateur attempts at psychology.

actually, I think that referred to me, way back there, Rob...

don't take it *all* on

as for Amicus' hope that people might actually start reading Rand as a result of this thread *snort* it's not likely... people do get stuck in their ways, as your free speech essay eluded to, Rob... now it's like trying to talk around walls...

sometimes I think this country that Ami is so proud of, that Rand saw as a beacon of hope toward becoming something great... has done nothing more in its quest for the "individual" but create a world of narcissists bumping up against each other and trying to get their views reflected back at them somehow to justify their lives...

 

[Pure]

Today's reading: Ethics

First from Ayn R, second from some well-known 'Objectivist' writers

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_essentials

Ethics

"Reason is man's only proper judge of values and his only proper guide to action. The proper standard of ethics is: man's survival qua man—i.e., that which is required by man's nature for his survival as a rational being (not his momentary physical survival as a mindless brute).

"Rationality is man's basic virtue, and his three fundamental values are: reason, purpose, self-esteem. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not a means to the ends of others; he must live for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself; he must work for his rational self-interest, with the achievement of his own happiness as the highest moral purpose of his life."

Thus Objectivism rejects any form of altruism—the claim that morality consists in living for others or for society.
-----
http://www.aynrandsociety.org/#Overview
"Overview of Objectivism and Ayn Rand" (excerpts on ethics)
by Salmieri and Gotthelf


Rand’s ethics is founded on an argument that the concept “value” depends on the concept “life” and so is only meaningful in the context of an organism pursuing its life as its ultimate value. Animals automatically desire what they need to survive, but human desires are based on volitional thinking. So, each person must adopt his life as his ultimate value, and then choose to discover and enact the means necessary to achieve it. Someone who does not pursue life can have no values at all, and is irrelevant to ethics.

Because of the quantity of information involved, we cannot assess the survival impact of actions considered as isolated particulars. We need to proceed conceptually, discovering the broad categories of values man’s survival requires, and what virtues are necessary to achieve them. We need a code of values with “man’s life” as its standard.

Rand identifies three cardinal values: Reason, Purpose, and Self-esteem, with the corresponding virtues of Rationality, Productiveness, and Pride. Reason is our means of survival. Rationality is the acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge and guide to action. Rationality requires a person to do his own thinking (independence) and stay true to it in action (integrity). It requires honesty – the refusal to fake reality – because the unreal does not exist and can be of no value. It requires justice – the moral evaluation of others – because rational, productive people are good for us, while irrational parasites are worthless or dangerous.

Survival requires an all-encompassing purposefulness, with all of one’s other purposes integrated to a central productive purpose. Productiveness is the application of reason to the creation of the products and services necessary for survival. To define and achieve rational purposes, a person must be certain of his competence and worth – he must achieve self-esteem. This requires the virtue of pride – a commitment to living up to the highest rational standards. Thus Rand calls pride “moral ambitiousness.” It is, in effect, productiveness applied to one’s character: “as man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul” (1957, p. 1020).
[end excerpts]
----

Question: What is 'rational self interest'? Is it different from 'self interest'? from 'long range self interest? What is "survival as a rational being" Is it different from 'survival in good health--mind and body'?

 

[Pure]

hey rg,

welcome to the party!

I've been told I can't post in this thread because of my amateur attempts at psychology.

i don't think anyone said that. what i suggested was that biography and motive don't necessarily help with a critique of someone's ideas.

for instance, supppose someone were to say (as they almost have) "Don't bother considering rg's postings because he's unemployed."

--
that's ingenious, a 'selfish' objection to Rand! what would she say? probably that you don't understand yourself, else your vision of 'selfishness' would coincide with hers! isn't that 'selfish' of her!

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

"So, I oppose ideologies in any form."
That sounds like an ideology.

"What is 'rational self interest'? Is it different from 'self interest'? from 'long range self interest?"

To me 'rational self interest' was born on the day that the trader arrived in our village and we decided to not kill him and take his stuff. Yes, doing the latter would mean we get more stuff right now, but we recognized that it would mean less stuff over time, because there would be no trader.

There was a vigorous argument that day, with many people contending that if we took all the trader's stuff today we would have enough, and wouldn't need any more stuff in the future. That debate has never ended.

 

[rgraham666]

Everyone's life is a black box, Pure. We cannot know, really, what actually goes n inside.

Especially since so many people don't know themselves what goes on inside them.

We can only observe outer activity and make conclusions from that.

I'll stick by my judgment of Ms. Rand. Like Robert Carlyle, Spengler and Nietzsche, a badly damaged personality inflicting their neurosis on the rest of the world. All wrapped up in fancy language and 'magnificent' ideas to make it palatable to people desperately seeking something to give them guidance and a place in the world.

I'll stick to Socrates and Saul.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Okay, enough beating up on Ms. Rand! Damn it! You may or may not like her ideas, but there is probably some truth to them! As for Roxanne, well, she has come far closer to finding a rational, empirical basis for morality than any I have known- one tied to Nature, too, which I prefer. It makes a lot of sense on a certain level. To me, the most rational bases for a moral code are Nature and justice (karma). I just can't find an empirical proof of them. That doesn't mean that people who believe that they have, rightly or wrongly, should be shown the door. IF you are as "tolerant" as you claim, you can find room for "objectivism" too.

My view on the matter is that we all must make our own educated guesses (or not so educated in some cases) and hope we guess right. I would rather have NO CERTAINTY than a false certainty that would delude me and control my thinking, but there is a difference between "certainty" and a reasonable level of confidence in a well-hashed theory. Whether complete truth is found or not, SOME truth usually is!

Also, in answer to SK, sometimes it's narcissism, but not always. Often, individualism is mistaken for narcissism. It's a fine line at times. Ultimately, I think that Roxanne has a solid point for most cases: assumption of good will. I say MOST because of certain religious cults whose leaders CANNOT be presumed to have good will.

Most of the time, I am more worried about preserving the rights of individual than some collective ethos favored by people who have an obsession with tyranny of the majority and not letting anyone be offended- EVER! Which brings me to my answer to 3113: I take the view that socialist countries tend to value people's feelings over their rights, and that is a VERY dangerous policy for a free people to adopt. Certainly, Big Brother is more overt in DC, but that's just because of the arrogance of a leader whose attempts at concealing his motives are rather clumsy.

 

[Rope64]

OK, let me see if I have this right. There are actually two separate races of human. One is the capitalist/entrepreneur race, who only care about power, and don't hesitate to use any trick they can think of to get it, including force and fraud if necessary. The other group includes scientists, creators, genuine innovators, and everyone else, who are the real source of all advances in material culture, and whose ideas and innovations are taken by the capitalist/entrepreneurs, who only care about power. Actually there's a third group, the wise lawmakers, who with complete disinterest pass laws that restrain the depredations of the first group.

Obviously I am being (obnoxiously) sarcastic - here is my point: With no systematic, empirical evidence to back it up you guys have posited simplistic categories of people with simplistic motivations. On the basis of these simple categories you propose to impose Byzantine legal and economic systems intended to restrain the rapacious bogeymen, the "capitalists," who only care about power, only want to exploit, and are totally unscrupulous.

I have to object here, obviously. The only reason I 'posited simplistic categories of people with simplistic motivations' was for the sake of making the point understandable. That you have chosen to address the manner by which I simplified the point rather than the point is not a mistake on my part.

Also, I have proposed no "Byzantine legal and economic system" -- review the record, if you like. Your argument is with a strawman at that point.

What is true is that Rand proposed a legal and economic system; characterize it however you like. Probably she believed that her system was more 'natural,' but the fact of the matter is that something else already existed without too much direct thought having been given to what it should be, and Rand was proposing to replace it -- which system is more 'natural' in this situation?

In order to differentiate between Rand's prefered system, the status quo system (without getting too much into whether that means the status quo of today or of fifty-odd years ago when Rand was writing ...), and my prefered system (which I have not stated yet, please be very clear), it might be useful to ask of each system how it answers the question, "Who should be the monarchs and the aristocracy in society?"

Rand's answer (though probably she would not have use the terms I have used) would have been, I think, something like, "The people of worth should be the monarchs and the aristocracy." The status quo system, being mostly arrived at without conscience planning, doesn't really give an answer.

My answer is that no one should be monarch or aristocracy; as I wrote earlier, property rights are necessarily negative rights -- the right to tell people that they cannot do various things. I frankly don't want anyone telling me what I can and cannot do, not 'people of worth,' not whoever stumbled in to the position of being able to do so, not through autocratic rule, and not through property rights. If you want to know what I want, I want none of it.

Obviously, my prefered system wouldn't work if pushed to far; compromises have to be made. But I still want the ability to tell people to go and fuck themselves, if that's what they need to be told, and not to find that they are in a position to screw me for having mouthed off to them so. Rand's system does not promise that, and so I don't give a fuck that I might have cheaper bread or a faster, safer car under her system: there's no amount of compensation I'd be willing to accept in order to give up the right to tell people to go and fuck themselves. Really, I think it is an essential quality of an ongoing, successful society that people feel free to tell each other to go and fuck themselves. And I, even without "systematic, empirical evidence to back it up," am not confident that the Howard Rourkes and the John Galts of Rand's prefered world would put up with me telling them to go and fuck themselves when they can see to it that no railroad will buy the steel I manufacture or that 95% of the personal computers in the world won't run the software I write. And I don't think it is necessary that they be "rapacious bogeymen, the 'capitalists,' who only care about power, only want to exploit, and are totally unscrupulous" for this to be the case.

So now you have my standard for a legal and economic system: "The Go and Fuck Yourself Society" might be a good name for it.

Are you willing to accept the latter in return for your preferred social outcome?

Hell yes! Bear in mind that my "preferred social outcome" is the ability to tell people to go and fuck themselves when I think they need to be told such without having it cost me dearly. Really, since I'm willing to tell people to go and fuck themselves even if it does cost me dearly, my concern is more that other people be able to tell people to go and fuck themselves without having it cost them dearly. When people don't get told to go and fuck themselves when they need to be told just that, that is when civilization starts to descend into the gutter.

You believe that if the choice is either robber barons who create permanent monopolies and build dynasties based on exploitation, or a system of reasonable laws and regulations to restrain the barons. You are wrong about both.

No, that's not what I believe.

In the first case, the only permanent monopoly is one protected by government, that is, by a monopoly on the legal use of violence.

Governments, too, fall.

Absent that, Carnegie or Edison or Gates or whoever your robber baron du jour is can only enjoy a temporary monopoly.

Well, being that I can only enjoy a temporary life, those temporary monopolies you talk about seem plenty worth avoiding. You wouldn't be imploring me to forget my individual concerns and worry instead about the good of society, would you?

Some hungry newcomer will soon knock him off if he tries to exploit his advantage – and he knows it. The beneficiary of that tension is us – the consumers.

That's just silly, Roxanne. Stupid, even. "That tension" is not necessarily, as you assume, a pressure to improve products. "That tension" is also an incentive to destroy and impede hungry newcomers -- how does that benefit us, the consumers?

In the second case, if you give government sufficient power to accomplish the goal you seek the state won't use that power to accomplish your goal, but just the opposite. You will empower rapacious politicians and rent seeking special interests who will create exactly the thing you fear. What would that look like? Um – how about Washington D.C., circa 2006?

You believe that the choice is either rapacious politicians and rent seeking special interests who create permanent monopolies and build dynasties based on exploitation, or a government of minimal authority, blind to the situations upon which it imposes its laws. You are wrong about both.

Well, now I've taken my turn to be obnoxious, Roxanne. Please don't take any of it personally.

 

[Rope64]

Hey, amicus: Go and fuck yourself!

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Okay, enough beating up on Ms. Rand! Damn it! You may or may not like her ideas, but there is probably some truth to them!

oh but it's so much fun, Sev!

There is probably a little bit of truth in everything... and almost anything can *seem* true, given enough spin <shrug>

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

oh but it's so much fun, Sev!

There is probably a little bit of truth in everything... and almost anything can *seem* true, given enough spin <shrug>

I just think that it's getting old, this Rand-bashing.

 

[rgraham666]

Ah. Went to one of my favourite books for some hope. It worked too.

IDEOLOGY Tendentious arguments which advance a world view as absolute truth in order to win and hold political power.

A god who intervenes in human affairs through spokesmen who usually call themselves priests; a king who implements instructions received from God; a predestined class war which requires the representatives of a particular class to take power; a corporatist structure of experts who implement truth through fact-based conclusions; a racial unit which because of blood-ties has a destiny as revealed by nationalist leaders; a world market which, whether anyone likes it or not, wil determine the shape of every human life, as interpreted by corporate executives - all these and many more are ideologies.

Followers are caught up in the naive obsessions of these movements. This combination ensures failure and is prone to violence. That is why the decent intentions of the Communist Manifesto end up in gulags and murder. Or the market-place's promise of prosperity in the exploitation of cheap, often child, labor.

There are big ideologies and little ones. They come in international, national and local shapes. Some require skyscrapers, some circumcision. Like fiction they are dependent on the willing suspension of disbelief, because God only appears in private and before his official spokespeople, class leaders themselves decide the content and pecking order of classes, experts choose their facts judiciously, blood-ties aren't pure and the passive acceptance of a determinist market means denying 2,500 years of Western civilization from Athens and Rome through the Renaissance to the creation of middle-class democracies.

Which is ideology? Which not? You shall know them by their assertion of truth, their contempt for considered reflection and their fear of debate.

The Doubter's Companion - John Ralston Saul

I feel much better.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Rope, you have established useful standard and benchmark, the "Go and Fuck Yourself Society." That is a laudable model.

That brings us down to a discussion of how best to bring it about and preserve it. I will just refer to my earlier posts regarding human nature, and my knowledge of the laws of economics, to make the case that the Go and Fuck Yourself Society is better served by a limited government than by one with broad scope and power. I don't believe that the monopolies you fear are sustainable even for brief periods unless they are able to enlist the state's monopoly on legal violence to serve them. We do need a limited government to restrain them from using fraud or force to take what they want. With that in place, I believe that if Gates tried to use his monopoly to squeeze the public there would be a consumer revolt, and we would accept the inconvenience of using Linux or some other system. Gates knows that, so he is careful to not squeeze too hard. Even so, there are clever geeks working in basements right now who will someday introduce innovations that will make Gates obsolete. As long as he can't use (real) force or fraud to squeeze consumers and stop those innovators, we will be OK.

You and I can disagree about that, and that's OK. As I said in my first post here, having discovered a point of fact upon which we disagree we can both accumulate evidence and logic to buttress our position, and in time one or the other of our positions will be found to better describe reality.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Personally, I never understood how economic theories came to qualify as "philosophy". I guess it was the industrial revolution that suddenly made materialism so important?

Things are in the saddle and ride mankind.--Emerson

Past a certain basic level, the acquisition of goods and services doesn't seem to have much to do with living a happy, meaningful, and fulfilling life, at least not to me.

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.--Wilde.

My problem with most utopian writing is that they seem to be primarily economic. They assume that a better distribution of goods and services is enough to bring about heaven on earth. I just find that a terribly naive and silly point of view.

 

[amicus]

[QUOTE=dr_mabeuse]Personally, I never understood how economic theories came to qualify as "philosophy". I guess it was the industrial revolution that suddenly made materialism so important?

Things are in the saddle and ride mankind.--Emerson

Past a certain basic level, the acquisition of goods and services doesn't seem to have much to do with living a happy, meaningful, and fulfilling life, at least not to me.

A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.--Wilde.

My problem with most utopian writing is that they seem to be primarily economic. They assume that a better distribution of goods and services is enough to bring about heaven on earth. I just find that a terribly naive and silly point of view.[/QUOTE]

~~~~~~~~~~

Perhaps because 'economics' is merely the description of how humans acquire the means to sustain life.

In the quest for food, clothing and shelter at a basic level, questions of ethical behavior come into play in terms of who owns the food you gather or grow and who is entitled to partake.

On a larger level, the disposition of excess commodities comes into question, on a 'share with all' basis, or a private ownership one.

Economics is inextricably a part of philosophy and should be.

amicus...

 

[Selena_Kitt]

My problem with most utopian writing is that they seem to be primarily economic. They assume that a better distribution of goods and services is enough to bring about heaven on earth. I just find that a terribly naive and silly point of view.

"I don't care too much for money, money can't buy me love."
--The Beatles

 

[3113]

My problem with most utopian writing is that they seem to be primarily economic. They assume that a better distribution of goods and services is enough to bring about heaven on earth. I just find that a terribly naive and silly point of view.

Well, it's a little less naive and silly if the people you love, your little children, your wife, is starving and there's jobs, no bread, no heat or warm clothes and the people in charge are living high-on-the-hog. At this point, it's kinda hard to sing a rendition of "The best things in life are free!"

And let's remember that "spiritual" over physical can be it's own propaganda: "The poor shall get into heaven, so feel lucky you're poor and don't even THINK about trying to be anything else or having more!"

Now I grant you that in a lot of cases, people currently taking up economic utopias as bible really have little to complain about. They usually have a job (maybe one they don't like, but they do have one), food, a roof over their heads, etc. And that in materialist America, more does not equal happiness. Alas for us, however, the fairy tales were written in the days when people had almost nothing. And so dreams of happiness are always in becoming prince or princess and living in the palace...and never again having to labor every day, 18 hours a day, just to stay alive.

In other words, our technology and economics have taken such a leap forward in the last 200 years that we've outrun both our mythology and our evolution. Both are still stuck in primitive times where warmth, food, and rest were very valuable to happiness. Not in the present where...um...well, we can waste our time at rest, in warmth, with food on hand, arguing economic utopias over the internet