Also, Saveski? Your last statement to Molnes is inaccurate. Those that I love have a right to my life and property; I am prepared to lay down my life to defend them, and to spend my personal wealth for their sake. That does not by any means imply that any others in general have any right to my life or property. To insist on a black or white picture is to engage in fanatical intolerance.
[quote]saveski wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
My post, like yours, and in fact most posts, was “lazy” and short. I’m not lazy and I read a lot of books. I don’t care what Auguste Comte really wanted. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness and it’s a common virtue in most cultures, what the guy who coined the word really wanted is irrelevant. I know what ethical duties and supererogatory acts are. I have never said that altruism needs to be the US governments guiding principle. I don’t like Ayn Rand because she (among other things) inspires people to act more selfishly and for her retarded criticism of selfless acts.
Standfords online library is good, yes.[/quote]
I would suggest, like Saveski has, to actually watch the videos posted.
Your posts seem to indicate that you have not even scratched the surface of Rand’s philosophy. If you had, you would understand what Ms. Rand means by “selfishness”.[/quote]
I watched all the videos before posting. I DO understand, I DON’T agree.[/quote]
Molnes - is your philosophy then, that you are required to sacrifice yourself and properrty for others? Basically, if you disagree with Objectivism, you are claiming that ANY others have the right to your life and property.
[/quote]
Not required, no. I just think it’s a horrible consept to frown upon altruistic actions.
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]saveski wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
My post, like yours, and in fact most posts, was “lazy” and short. I’m not lazy and I read a lot of books. I don’t care what Auguste Comte really wanted. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness and it’s a common virtue in most cultures, what the guy who coined the word really wanted is irrelevant. I know what ethical duties and supererogatory acts are. I have never said that altruism needs to be the US governments guiding principle. I don’t like Ayn Rand because she (among other things) inspires people to act more selfishly and for her retarded criticism of selfless acts.
Standfords online library is good, yes.[/quote]
I would suggest, like Saveski has, to actually watch the videos posted.
Your posts seem to indicate that you have not even scratched the surface of Rand’s philosophy. If you had, you would understand what Ms. Rand means by “selfishness”.[/quote]
I watched all the videos before posting. I DO understand, I DON’T agree.[/quote]
Molnes - is your philosophy then, that you are required to sacrifice yourself and properrty for others? Basically, if you disagree with Objectivism, you are claiming that ANY others have the right to your life and property.
[/quote]
Not required, no. I just think it’s a horrible consept to frown upon altruistic actions. [/quote]
Really?
Altruism was the idea that “humanity” meant everything and the individual meant nothing and should be taught to sacrifice himself to serve the collective.
To achieve that government should have indoctrinated children from earliest childhood on with the religion of “humanity” in order to great goo little worker ants for the collective.
I see nothing wrong with “frowning upon” such collectivist drivel and you may have noticed that very similar things happened in the 20th century, so maybe, just maybe Rand knew what she was talking about and you dont?
…she does make good points, but she’s also proposing a system that has never existed. Why are you talking about her philosophy as if it’s a viable instrument for a nation, when in reality the only applicable method is in your personal life?
[quote]molnes wrote:
Not required, no. I just think it’s a horrible consept to frown upon altruistic actions. [/quote]
You don’t understand what altruism is.
[quote]iflyboats wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
Not required, no. I just think it’s a horrible consept to frown upon altruistic actions. [/quote]
You don’t understand what altruism is.[/quote]
Some people just do NOT get it and never will. The truth, reality, is all there for them to uncover in that interview but it’s just a lot easier to keep the blinders on and just believe whatever suits them.
It’s like all the fatsos out there, 99% of the population, that are perfectly comfortable with being out of shape and having guts like walruses. Kinda like the dude in my avatar. Why isn’t he in shape? Because it takes EFFORT.
FAITH means - I don’t want to think, just tell me what to believe and we can all hold hands and sing songs and meet each other in the afterlife. It’s a cop-out, intellectual laziness.
[quote]Archone wrote:
In other words, altruism is the more logical and rational path because only altruism can offer genuine happiness. [/quote]
You’re saying that if you give all your shit away (altruism) you’ve achieved happiness?
I’m sure most of the posters here who disagree with Objectivism haven’t even watched the interviews with Ayn Rand.
I don’t discuss motorcycles because I don’t know shit about motorcycles.
That’s why this country is in a shambles, because people do not have a philosophy CONSISTENT WITH REALITY to guide them.
It’s a lost fucking cause.
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…she does make good points, but she’s also proposing a system that has never existed. Why are you talking about her philosophy as if it’s a viable instrument for a nation, when in reality the only applicable method is in your personal life?[/quote]
I would suggest, again, that anyone that doesn’t understand objectivism, to simply go LISTEN to the interviews with her. It’s not easy to follow and takes effort.
Objectivism does not apply to just personal decision making, she espoues laissez faire capitalism for governments, which you’re right, we’ve never seen. The US was a close model for that until SOCIALISM, ie, ALTRUISM, destroyed that ideal.
ALTRUISM = Khmer Rouge, Communism, Socialism
Again, the fatsos are watching a video of some guy exercising and just not getting it. “Why should I work out when I can eat welfare cheese all day?”
Very cool to see Mike Wallace from 50 years ago.
He is 91 !!!
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]saveski wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
[quote]Dustin wrote:
[quote]molnes wrote:
My post, like yours, and in fact most posts, was “lazy” and short. I’m not lazy and I read a lot of books. I don’t care what Auguste Comte really wanted. Altruism is the opposite of selfishness and it’s a common virtue in most cultures, what the guy who coined the word really wanted is irrelevant.
I know what ethical duties and supererogatory acts are. I have never said that altruism needs to be the US governments guiding principle. I don’t like Ayn Rand because she (among other things) inspires people to act more selfishly and for her retarded criticism of selfless acts.
Standfords online library is good, yes.[/quote]
I would suggest, like Saveski has, to actually watch the videos posted.
Your posts seem to indicate that you have not even scratched the surface of Rand’s philosophy. If you had, you would understand what Ms. Rand means by “selfishness”.[/quote]
I watched all the videos before posting. I DO understand, I DON’T agree.[/quote]
Molnes - is your philosophy then, that you are required to sacrifice yourself and properrty for others? Basically, if you disagree with Objectivism, you are claiming that ANY others have the right to your life and property.
[/quote]
Not required, no. I just think it’s a horrible consept to frown upon altruistic actions. [/quote]
Really?
Altruism was the idea that “humanity” meant everything and the individual meant nothing and should be taught to sacrifice himself to serve the collective.
To achieve that government should have indoctrinated children from earliest childhood on with the religion of “humanity” in order to great goo little worker ants for the collective.
I see nothing wrong with “frowning upon” such collectivist drivel and you may have noticed that very similar things happened in the 20th century, so maybe, just maybe Rand knew what she was talking about and you dont?
[/quote]
Everything is wrong if taken to extreme lengths. I have never said that there should only be altruism, and that individuality is wrong. Just maybe Rand didn’t know what she was talking about, just maybe you should realize, like Greenspan, that she didn’t have a clue.
[quote]Some people just do NOT get it and never will. The truth, reality, is all there for them to uncover in that interview but it’s just a lot easier to keep the blinders on and just believe whatever suits them.
It’s like all the fatsos out there, 99% of the population, that are perfectly comfortable with being out of shape and having guts like walruses. Kinda like the dude in my avatar. Why isn’t he in shape? Because it takes EFFORT.
FAITH means - I don’t want to think, just tell me what to believe and we can all hold hands and sing songs and meet each other in the afterlife. It’s a cop-out, intellectual laziness.
[/quote]
Huge fucking strawman. I’m not religious, I don’t believe in supernatural made up shit. You obviously don’t get it. Faith is intellectual laziness, like the use of strawman arguments.
Markets needs to be regulated. Laissez faire politics is what created the financial crisis. Which is a big thing in the United States for instance, or Iceland. Countries with better regulation wasn’t that badly affected by the crisis, such as Norway.
[quote]NewYorkTimes wrote:
With a quirky contrariness as deeply etched in the national character as the fjords carved into its rugged landscape, Norway has thrived by going its own way. When others splurged, it saved. When others sought to limit the role of government, Norway strengthened its cradle-to-grave welfare state.
And in the midst of the worst global downturn since the Depression, Norwayâ??s economy grew last year by just under 3 percent. The government enjoys a budget surplus of 11 percent.
By comparison, the United States is expected to chalk up a fiscal deficit this year equal to 12.9 percent of its gross domestic product and push its total debt to $11 trillion, or 65 percent of the size of its economy.
[/quote]
Thats weird. Norway is a lot more socialist country than USA and most of the world. Yet the crisis didn’t hit us that hard, and our economy is thriving. Maybe because laissez faire is bullshit.
[quote]saveski wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…she does make good points, but she’s also proposing a system that has never existed. Why are you talking about her philosophy as if it’s a viable instrument for a nation, when in reality the only applicable method is in your personal life?[/quote]
I would suggest, again, that anyone that doesn’t understand objectivism, to simply go LISTEN to the interviews with her. It’s not easy to follow and takes effort.
Objectivism does not apply to just personal decision making, she espoues laissez faire capitalism for governments, which you’re right, we’ve never seen. The US was a close model for that until SOCIALISM, ie, ALTRUISM, destroyed that ideal.
ALTRUISM = Khmer Rouge, Communism, Socialism
Again, the fatsos are watching a video of some guy exercising and just not getting it. “Why should I work out when I can eat welfare cheese all day?”[/quote]
…i have listened to her, and altough she’s easy to like if you prefer a black and white view of the world, when you look further you’d realise that her take on things simply won’t work…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]saveski wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…she does make good points, but she’s also proposing a system that has never existed. Why are you talking about her philosophy as if it’s a viable instrument for a nation, when in reality the only applicable method is in your personal life?[/quote]
I would suggest, again, that anyone that doesn’t understand objectivism, to simply go LISTEN to the interviews with her. It’s not easy to follow and takes effort.
Objectivism does not apply to just personal decision making, she espoues laissez faire capitalism for governments, which you’re right, we’ve never seen. The US was a close model for that until SOCIALISM, ie, ALTRUISM, destroyed that ideal.
ALTRUISM = Khmer Rouge, Communism, Socialism
Again, the fatsos are watching a video of some guy exercising and just not getting it. “Why should I work out when I can eat welfare cheese all day?”[/quote]
…i have listened to her, and altough she’s easy to like if you prefer a black and white view of the world, when you look further you’d realise that her take on things simply won’t work…
[/quote]
Says you, but in her system you are perfectly free to experiment until you find something that will work, just not at gunpoint.
You see, people like her do NOT have all the answers which is why the want to implement the most powerful problem solving system known to mankind, the free market.
However, there seem to be people who long for the simple and convenient answers political religions do provide. “I do not know” will not do for them, because of their emotional need for simple, clear answers and to be a “good do…, um, boy”.
I like her better.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]saveski wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…she does make good points, but she’s also proposing a system that has never existed. Why are you talking about her philosophy as if it’s a viable instrument for a nation, when in reality the only applicable method is in your personal life?[/quote]
I would suggest, again, that anyone that doesn’t understand objectivism, to simply go LISTEN to the interviews with her. It’s not easy to follow and takes effort.
Objectivism does not apply to just personal decision making, she espoues laissez faire capitalism for governments, which you’re right, we’ve never seen. The US was a close model for that until SOCIALISM, ie, ALTRUISM, destroyed that ideal.
ALTRUISM = Khmer Rouge, Communism, Socialism
Again, the fatsos are watching a video of some guy exercising and just not getting it. “Why should I work out when I can eat welfare cheese all day?”[/quote]
…i have listened to her, and altough she’s easy to like if you prefer a black and white view of the world, when you look further you’d realise that her take on things simply won’t work…
[/quote]
Says you, but in her system you are perfectly free to experiment until you find something that will work, just not at gunpoint.
You see, people like her do NOT have all the answers which is why the want to implement the most powerful problem solving system known to mankind, the free market.
However, there seem to be people who long for the simple and convenient answers political religions do provide. “I do not know” will not do for them, because of their emotional need for simple, clear answers and to be a “good do…, um, boy”.
I like her better.
[/quote]
…i think it’s foolishness to have an unregulated free market. I don’t trust corporations to act ethical, and i don’t think we can “vote with our wallets” when cartels and monopolies dictate the media. The rabid allergic respons to “socialism” as shown on this board by you and others is unbalanced and unreasonable…
…you look at this philosophy as if it’s an answer [in part] to our problems? It’s not. It’s not implementable, a pipedream. Just another stick to bash “socialism” with without being a real solution…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]saveski wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…she does make good points, but she’s also proposing a system that has never existed. Why are you talking about her philosophy as if it’s a viable instrument for a nation, when in reality the only applicable method is in your personal life?[/quote]
I would suggest, again, that anyone that doesn’t understand objectivism, to simply go LISTEN to the interviews with her. It’s not easy to follow and takes effort.
Objectivism does not apply to just personal decision making, she espoues laissez faire capitalism for governments, which you’re right, we’ve never seen. The US was a close model for that until SOCIALISM, ie, ALTRUISM, destroyed that ideal.
ALTRUISM = Khmer Rouge, Communism, Socialism
Again, the fatsos are watching a video of some guy exercising and just not getting it. “Why should I work out when I can eat welfare cheese all day?”[/quote]
…i have listened to her, and altough she’s easy to like if you prefer a black and white view of the world, when you look further you’d realise that her take on things simply won’t work…
[/quote]
Says you, but in her system you are perfectly free to experiment until you find something that will work, just not at gunpoint.
You see, people like her do NOT have all the answers which is why the want to implement the most powerful problem solving system known to mankind, the free market.
However, there seem to be people who long for the simple and convenient answers political religions do provide. “I do not know” will not do for them, because of their emotional need for simple, clear answers and to be a “good do…, um, boy”.
I like her better.
[/quote]
…i think it’s foolishness to have an unregulated free market. I don’t trust corporations to act ethical, and i don’t think we can “vote with our wallets” when cartels and monopolies dictate the media. The rabid allergic respons to “socialism” as shown on this board by you and others is unbalanced and unreasonable…
…you look at this philosophy as if it’s an answer [in part] to our problems? It’s not. It’s not implementable, a pipedream. Just another stick to bash “socialism” with without being a real solution…
[/quote]
It is not meant to be a solution.
It is meant to clear the path so that people who can find solutions actually do find solutions.
Also, boohoo, those evil companies “manipulate” the media and public opinion.
Do you know why?
Because they cannot force you at gunpoint.
And your solutin is what?
Do turn to an entity that will force you at gunpoint?
Makes no sense to me.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i think it’s foolishness to have an unregulated free market. I don’t trust corporations to act ethical, and i don’t think we can “vote with our wallets” when cartels and monopolies dictate the media. The rabid allergic respons to “socialism” as shown on this board by you and others is unbalanced and unreasonable…
…you look at this philosophy as if it’s an answer [in part] to our problems? It’s not. It’s not implementable, a pipedream. Just another stick to bash “socialism” with without being a real solution…
[/quote]
It is not meant to be a solution.
It is meant to clear the path so that people who can find solutions actually do find solutions.
Also, boohoo, those evil companies “manipulate” the media and public opinion.
Do you know why?
Because they cannot force you at gunpoint.
And your solutin is what?
Do turn to an entity that will force you at gunpoint?
Makes no sense to me.
[/quote]
…what’s stopping people from finding solutions now? What reasons do you have to assume that in a free market corporations will not manipulate and influence the consumers through media as they do now?
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i think it’s foolishness to have an unregulated free market. I don’t trust corporations to act ethical, and i don’t think we can “vote with our wallets” when cartels and monopolies dictate the media. The rabid allergic respons to “socialism” as shown on this board by you and others is unbalanced and unreasonable…
…you look at this philosophy as if it’s an answer [in part] to our problems? It’s not. It’s not implementable, a pipedream. Just another stick to bash “socialism” with without being a real solution…
[/quote]
It is not meant to be a solution.
It is meant to clear the path so that people who can find solutions actually do find solutions.
Also, boohoo, those evil companies “manipulate” the media and public opinion.
Do you know why?
Because they cannot force you at gunpoint.
And your solutin is what?
Do turn to an entity that will force you at gunpoint?
Makes no sense to me.
[/quote]
…what’s stopping people from finding solutions now? What reasons do you have to assume that in a free market corporations will not manipulate and influence the consumers through media as they do now? [/quote]
There is no reason to believe that.
I just prefer lies to people who point guns at me.
And people are prevented from finding solution through taxes, regulations and a general climate of turning to government first.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i think it’s foolishness to have an unregulated free market. I don’t trust corporations to act ethical, and i don’t think we can “vote with our wallets” when cartels and monopolies dictate the media. The rabid allergic respons to “socialism” as shown on this board by you and others is unbalanced and unreasonable…
…you look at this philosophy as if it’s an answer [in part] to our problems? It’s not. It’s not implementable, a pipedream. Just another stick to bash “socialism” with without being a real solution…
[/quote]
It is not meant to be a solution.
It is meant to clear the path so that people who can find solutions actually do find solutions.
Also, boohoo, those evil companies “manipulate” the media and public opinion.
Do you know why?
Because they cannot force you at gunpoint.
And your solutin is what?
Do turn to an entity that will force you at gunpoint?
Makes no sense to me.
[/quote]
…what’s stopping people from finding solutions now? What reasons do you have to assume that in a free market corporations will not manipulate and influence the consumers through media as they do now? [/quote]
There is no reason to believe that.
I just prefer lies to people who point guns at me.
And people are prevented from finding solution through taxes, regulations and a general climate of turning to government first.
[/quote]
…sorry, i think you’re naieve to think that global megacorporations will merely lie to you to get what they want. You might change the system, but you will never be able to change human nature. That is why Rand’s ideas won’t work; because she wrongly believes that the masses care about being ‘free’. The only ones who do care about this ‘freedom’ see that freedom as a way to ensure profit for themselves at the cost of detriment to others…
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i think it’s foolishness to have an unregulated free market. I don’t trust corporations to act ethical, and i don’t think we can “vote with our wallets” when cartels and monopolies dictate the media. The rabid allergic respons to “socialism” as shown on this board by you and others is unbalanced and unreasonable…
…you look at this philosophy as if it’s an answer [in part] to our problems? It’s not. It’s not implementable, a pipedream. Just another stick to bash “socialism” with without being a real solution…
[/quote]
It is not meant to be a solution.
It is meant to clear the path so that people who can find solutions actually do find solutions.
Also, boohoo, those evil companies “manipulate” the media and public opinion.
Do you know why?
Because they cannot force you at gunpoint.
And your solutin is what?
Do turn to an entity that will force you at gunpoint?
Makes no sense to me.
[/quote]
…what’s stopping people from finding solutions now? What reasons do you have to assume that in a free market corporations will not manipulate and influence the consumers through media as they do now? [/quote]
There is no reason to believe that.
I just prefer lies to people who point guns at me.
And people are prevented from finding solution through taxes, regulations and a general climate of turning to government first.
[/quote]
…sorry, i think you’re naieve to think that global megacorporations will merely lie to you to get what they want. You might change the system, but you will never be able to change human nature. That is why Rand’s ideas won’t work; because she wrongly believes that the masses care about being ‘free’. The only ones who do care about this ‘freedom’ see that freedom as a way to ensure profit for themselves at the cost of detriment to others…
[/quote]
Now let us look at this a little closer.
What would you “realistically” do if you believed in the things I believe in?
I dunno, limit the federal government to a few, well defined areas, make sure that anyone who wanted them had access to guns and to establish provisions to makes sure tha ttaxation had to be fair and equal?
Because that is what the US were all about.
That is not a perfect system, but it is a system that is far from being naive, it really does expect the worst from people in power and tried to make sure that nobody aquires enough power to get, um, carried away.
Unfortunately, the idea that government is responsible for education, healthcare and pensions is irreconcilable with the ideas described above.
I think your “realism” reeks of a certain “naivete”.
I on the other hand believe that humanity consists of a bunch of criminally insane clowns and not one of these asshats should hold any kind of power over me.
I am perfectly able to fuck up my life without some bureaucrates help, thank you.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i think it’s foolishness to have an unregulated free market. I don’t trust corporations to act ethical, and i don’t think we can “vote with our wallets” when cartels and monopolies dictate the media. The rabid allergic respons to “socialism” as shown on this board by you and others is unbalanced and unreasonable…
…you look at this philosophy as if it’s an answer [in part] to our problems? It’s not. It’s not implementable, a pipedream. Just another stick to bash “socialism” with without being a real solution…
[/quote]
It is not meant to be a solution.
It is meant to clear the path so that people who can find solutions actually do find solutions.
Also, boohoo, those evil companies “manipulate” the media and public opinion.
Do you know why?
Because they cannot force you at gunpoint.
And your solutin is what?
Do turn to an entity that will force you at gunpoint?
Makes no sense to me.
[/quote]
…what’s stopping people from finding solutions now? What reasons do you have to assume that in a free market corporations will not manipulate and influence the consumers through media as they do now? [/quote]
There is no reason to believe that.
I just prefer lies to people who point guns at me.
And people are prevented from finding solution through taxes, regulations and a general climate of turning to government first.
[/quote]
…sorry, i think you’re naieve to think that global megacorporations will merely lie to you to get what they want. You might change the system, but you will never be able to change human nature. That is why Rand’s ideas won’t work; because she wrongly believes that the masses care about being ‘free’. The only ones who do care about this ‘freedom’ see that freedom as a way to ensure profit for themselves at the cost of detriment to others…
[/quote]
Now let us look at this a little closer.
What would you “realistically” do if you believed in the things I believe in?
I dunno, limit the federal government to a few, well defined areas, make sure that anyone who wanted them had access to guns and to establish provisions to makes sure tha ttaxation had to be fair and equal?
Because that is what the US were all about.
That is not a perfect system, but it is a system that is far from being naive, it really does expect the worst from people in power and tried to make sure that nobody aquires enough power to get, um, carried away.
Unfortunately, the idea that government is responsible for education, healthcare and pensions is irreconcilable with the ideas described above.
I think your “realism” reeks of a certain “naivete”.
I on the other hand believe that humanity consists of a bunch of criminally insane clowns and not one of these asshats should hold any kind of power over me.
I am perfectly able to fuck up my life without some bureaucrates help, thank you.
[/quote]
…the one society that bares any resemblance to Rand’s utopia was destroyed by european settlers arriving at the north-american shores, some 400 years ago. The native tribes were free in the true sense, and maybe those earliest settlers were free aswell, but as soon as money was to be made, greed brought hell on earth for many…
…so, dream on about your socalled freedoms. Rebel in your own way against your oppressors and fantasize about an utopia that is as far removed from reality as a fundy believer’s dreams are, because that’s what it’ll be and stay until a global collapse and a reset of society as a whole. If you’re lucky that’ll happen in your lifetime!
[quote]ephrem wrote:
…i think it’s foolishness to have an unregulated free market. I don’t trust corporations to act ethical…
[/quote]
So you trust politicians, bureaucrats, and the unwashed masses instead…?
No thanks. I’ll trust my luck with the most unethical CEO over the most ethically correct politician any day.
It makes no sense that one would trust elected officials especially since these people come from the same pool of unethical citizens who vote for them.
It would be far better to just give the keys to kingdom directly to the douche bags with money since that will the end result anyway. That is what democracy inevitably leads to.