[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Does anyone really believe that freedom and liberty are not good ideas?[/quote]
depends on what your goal is… if you’re a nihilist and your goal is destruction and death, freedom and liberty aren’t good ideas
I really can’t see how anyone could take the concept of “self regulation” seriously…
Specially when promoted by a Methhead…
It appears that many find that so appealing…
First hole in this argument is that much of the population is below or above realistic working age… Many of working age are infirm and incapable of work… And we imprison the largest percentage of the population, much of this for non-violent offenses (but not many white collar)… Oh and a large percentage is un or underemployed…
Lastly, it is an American tradition to not count all the ancillary taxes, in such arguments… Just try and get around sales tax, property taxes (which are a component of rent) and etc. It you total up all the taxes, then divide by incomes… You’ll find our tax structure is highly regressive(Hits middle and lower incomes harder as percentage of income). You’ll find we pay more then many countries that provide retirement, vacation, education, and health care… But you’ll find we have the highest rate of corporate welfare…
An educated population is the hardest to rule…
JKeaton: Read the post and am glad you had ‘a little time’ to return to the topic. 
My world-view is similar, though not as well thought out, as you expressed; and my articulation skills are nowhere near yours, but I heartily agree.
Ms. Rand had a purpose in doing what she did. Her goal was to bring people up closer to what you describe as a world view (her description was of climbing a mountain…you may not reach the top like a John Galt or Henry Reardon but you DID climb.) And THAT is, IMO, her greatest singular accomplishment. She brought philosophy out of dusty academic libraries and into the general population. She made people ask ‘Why?’.
For that, she is very relevant. And as we enter a new ‘Dark Ages’, where freedom and independent thought become more and more historical anachronisms, her ideas will lurk in the background, waiting for the inevitable outright collapse – no irrational system of anti-thinking can last.
Let’s hope her ideas then become the new dominant philosophy of humanity, rather than the Judeo-Christian irrationality of altruism.
Thank you for the kind remarks. I must remind you, however, that I a more of a plagiarist than an original thinker. But I do make for a pretty good sponge if something resonates with me.
One point I realize that I should have clarified above is that just because a person has ascended to or achieved a certain level of thought or worldview does not men they never regress. Stressers of all types, both internal and external, can cause one to regress to a previous worldview.
The is especially true if the highest worldview has not been completely integrated. Remember, it is transcend and include.
One way to make this point is to evoke the phrase, “There are no atheist in a foxhole.” That is one of the reasons I called Ayn’s vision unobtainable. Remember in the closing chapters of Alas Shrugged where Dr. Ferris has John Galt hooked up to the Ferris Persuader? Ferris puts Galt through agonizing hell, past all limits of human endurance.
He actually pushes the machine to the point it malfunctions. In the grip of panic at his own realization of the true level of his debauchery Ferris is trying to fix the machine. In a weak but steady voice, Galt turns to Ferris and calmly tells him the source of the problem. In that moment Ferris is so overcome by the realization of how far removed he is to this example of man at his true potential that he has a total break with reality and goes completly insane.
It makes for a wonderful and inspiring scene, but it could never happen in real life. Even Christ himself had one brief moment of doubt (“Father, why have You forsaken me?”) In that moment of mental, physical and spiritual stress, even Galt would have regressed to a lower worldview.
(However, even as I write this I am reminded of the monks who doused themselves with gasoline and set themselves on fire in protest of the Vietnam war.)
Anyway, I hope you get my point.
Relevant.
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
The broad was rather insufferable and her philosophy suffered from deep epistemological flaws. Namely the fact that objectivity doesn’t exist, has never existed, cannot exist, due to the separation of minds.
[/quote]
You really didn’t catch this? A little self referentially incoherent, don’t ya think?
[quote]JEATON wrote:
[quote]Nominal Prospect wrote:
The broad was rather insufferable and her philosophy suffered from deep epistemological flaws. Namely the fact that objectivity doesn’t exist, has never existed, cannot exist, due to the separation of minds.[/quote]
I don’t know if said flaws are related to presuppositions or foundational issues, but to say that objectivity doesn’t exist opens a huge can of worms. Nihilism and all that. You go back to the whole 2 + 2 = 4 argument. Separate minds all you want and the answer remains the same. Objectivity exists or there could be no shared knowledge.
[/quote]
So what did I let him get away with?
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
And as we enter a new ‘Dark Ages’, where freedom and independent thought become more and more historical anachronisms, her ideas will lurk in the background, waiting for the inevitable outright collapse – no irrational system of anti-thinking can last.
Let’s hope her ideas then become the new dominant philosophy of humanity, rather than the Judeo-Christian irrationality of altruism.[/quote]
A new Dark Age? Where’s that come from?
Why can no irrational, anti-thinking system last? They last for centuries at a time. And very few people spend much time thinking anyways, even if they live in a relatively “enlightened” place and time.
I also wouldn’t conflate Randian “obectivism/rationalism”, with Rationalism. Rationalism is descriptive, like “I believe in a Rationalist world, because I observe people act rationally.” Where Rand is very prescriptive and judgmental in her version of rationalism/objectivism. They can hardly be conflated. I find Rand very irrational: a philosophy driven by desire and contempt.
Her ideas are fundamentally flawed and unsustainable within the larger civilization. Yeah, the world can produce some Randian “heros”, with can succeed by being objectivist selfish pricks, and every once in awhile one of them will get rich by inadvertently doing something for the greater good, but society cannot survive with everyone thinking they have some super-human grasp of reality that will allow them make the correct decision at every-turn. Altruism serves a very important function at the biological and societal level, even if it manifests itself irrationally. The fact is that I don’t know who I might pass by on the street or interact with, and turn out to be of great personal benefit to me if I just helped them out a little. We just don’t have those magical powers. So altruism at the societal level is a little bit of a safe-guard, or more appropriately, a valued tool, that at a low-cost (but a cost none the less), acts as some sort of safety net so we don’t completely toss aside those you might actually serve our interests later, if given a little help now.
As long at least one person believes in Objectivism, then her views are relevant. Not sure whether that is a good thing or not though.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
And as we enter a new ‘Dark Ages’, where freedom and independent thought become more and more historical anachronisms, her ideas will lurk in the background, waiting for the inevitable outright collapse – no irrational system of anti-thinking can last.
Let’s hope her ideas then become the new dominant philosophy of humanity, rather than the Judeo-Christian irrationality of altruism.[/quote]
A new Dark Age? Where’s that come from?
Why can no irrational, anti-thinking system last? They last for centuries at a time. And very few people spend much time thinking anyways, even if they live in a relatively “enlightened” place and time.
I also wouldn’t conflate Randian “obectivism/rationalism”, with Rationalism. Rationalism is descriptive, like “I believe in a Rationalist world, because I observe people act rationally.” Where Rand is very prescriptive and judgmental in her version of rationalism/objectivism. They can hardly be conflated. I find Rand very irrational: a philosophy driven by desire and contempt.
Her ideas are fundamentally flawed and unsustainable within the larger civilization. Yeah, the world can produce some Randian “heros”, with can succeed by being objectivist selfish pricks, and every once in awhile one of them will get rich by inadvertently doing something for the greater good, but society cannot survive with everyone thinking they have some super-human grasp of reality that will allow them make the correct decision at every-turn. Altruism serves a very important function at the biological and societal level, even if it manifests itself irrationally. The fact is that I don’t know who I might pass by on the street or interact with, and turn out to be of great personal benefit to me if I just helped them out a little. We just don’t have those magical powers. So altruism at the societal level is a little bit of a safe-guard, or more appropriately, a valued tool, that at a low-cost (but a cost none the less), acts as some sort of safety net so we don’t completely toss aside those you might actually serve our interests later, if given a little help now. [/quote]
Without going into whether or not I agree with you (if you have read this thread in its entirety you know where I stand), there is still one major flaw with the above. You, like most who think little of Rand, do not understand the concept of altruism AS RAND used and defined it. Until you can adopt her perspective and meaning, if only for a moment, you can never understand what she is talking about.
Also, Rationalism, is not as much a descriptive as it is a process. It pertains to using ones reason as a sources of knowledge. Also, as commonly used, it is often meant as an alternative to more religious processes of thought.
If your are trying to conflate, or fuse, Randian Objectivism with the more common Rationalism, you are truly missing the point. Reason is the faculty used to arrive at conclusions from the use of premises and assumptions. If this were sufficient in Rand’s mind, she would not have bothered with further refinement.
To Rand, reason was not enough. If your premise or assumption was contaminated with anything other than objective existence, then it was flawed and therefore your thought and action as well.
Objectiveism leaves no room for input based on feelings, or faith, or wishes. It either “is” or “is not.” You can’t have your cake and eat it too. It does not mean you are perfect in thought or action. You can only act on the objective data as you have been able to collect. Without omniscience, errors will be made. But those errors will yield new data and new actions will take one ever closer to the goal.
However, you are correct in that reason and rationality are the exception rather than the rule. Most people simply decide on what they want and then “rationalize” why the thing they want is good for them and those around them or affected by them. Rand’s Objectivism was more of a concept rather than a destination. I have stated in this thread why I think her vision is ultimately unobtainable. This does not away the respect I have for her ability to conceptualize and express her vision.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
If your are trying to conflate, or fuse, Randian Objectivism with the more common Rationalism, you are truly missing the point. Reason is the faculty used to arrive at conclusions from the use of premises and assumptions. If this were sufficient in Rand’s mind, she would not have bothered with further refinement.
[/quote]
I wasn’t, but the thread read to me like Headhunter had already done that. Like I said, I think they are of different types, where Rationalism gives us an explanation (to paraphrase Aristotle: we act for the good), objectivism tells us how we ought to act if we want to be successful, but makes also makes a bunch of assumptions based on a sort of rationalist framework, and then goes further to suggest we are actually capable of experiencing an objective reality, and making decisions based off of that. I like your definition of reason, but objectivism assumes no assumptions, but that just objective premises that you (or I) are either aware or unaware of.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
Objectiveism leaves no room for input based on feelings, or faith, or wishes. It either “is” or “is not.” You can’t have your cake and eat it too. It does not mean you are perfect in thought or action. You can only act on the objective data as you have been able to collect. Without omniscience, errors will be made. But those errors will yield new data and new actions will take one ever closer to the goal. [/quote]
Or so Objectivism claims, but as soon as you step outside its framework, or challenge its principles, you end up seeing that Randian style “objectivist” actions just look like selfishness, and is in fact a bunch of self-delusional folks who believe they have some sort of true vision of the world, doing what they FEEL is in their Objective self-interest.
[quote]JEATON wrote:
This does not away the respect I have for her ability to conceptualize and express her vision. [/quote]
And I always thought she was such a terrible writer.
I’m still curious about the up and coming dark-age though.
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
And as we enter a new ‘Dark Ages’, where freedom and independent thought become more and more historical anachronisms, her ideas will lurk in the background, waiting for the inevitable outright collapse – no irrational system of anti-thinking can last.
Let’s hope her ideas then become the new dominant philosophy of humanity, rather than the Judeo-Christian irrationality of altruism.[/quote]
A new Dark Age? Where’s that come from?
Why can no irrational, anti-thinking system last? They last for centuries at a time. And very few people spend much time thinking anyways, even if they live in a relatively “enlightened” place and time.
I also wouldn’t conflate Randian “obectivism/rationalism”, with Rationalism. Rationalism is descriptive, like “I believe in a Rationalist world, because I observe people act rationally.” Where Rand is very prescriptive and judgmental in her version of rationalism/objectivism. They can hardly be conflated. I find Rand very irrational: a philosophy driven by desire and contempt.
Her ideas are fundamentally flawed and unsustainable within the larger civilization. Yeah, the world can produce some Randian “heros”, with can succeed by being objectivist selfish pricks, and every once in awhile one of them will get rich by inadvertently doing something for the greater good, but society cannot survive with everyone thinking they have some super-human grasp of reality that will allow them make the correct decision at every-turn. Altruism serves a very important function at the biological and societal level, even if it manifests itself irrationally. The fact is that I don’t know who I might pass by on the street or interact with, and turn out to be of great personal benefit to me if I just helped them out a little. We just don’t have those magical powers. So altruism at the societal level is a little bit of a safe-guard, or more appropriately, a valued tool, that at a low-cost (but a cost none the less), acts as some sort of safety net so we don’t completely toss aside those you might actually serve our interests later, if given a little help now. [/quote]
Let’s face it: we are all guilty. We let powerful demagogues use altruism to rob our betters, in hopes of taking part in the spoils. They said, “We are all equal! It is not fair that old people, the sick, the young, the poor, don’t get to participate in the bonanza that is America! Give me the power and I’ll bring about social justice!”
Most of us sat back and let this robbery take place. We got to participate in the looting too – Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, AFDIC, on and on. We said that it was moral and right that producers be plundered because ‘its for the good of the community!!’.
Now we are ALL getting poor. It is impossible to have a rational society based upon violence. Unconsciously or consciously, the producers are stopping. Industries are dying and vultures (also known as banks) circle the rotting corpses (Obama calls this ‘stimulus’).
So, Ms. Rand is VERY relevant: you can’t have a rational society when the ultimate argument is the barrel of a gun. Force negates consciousness. It is anti-mind. The man holding the gun wants you to follow orders, like a robot.
And THAT’S why you (and I) are doomed. We are doomed to live in a new Dark Ages.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So, Ms. Rand is VERY relevant: you can’t have a rational society when the ultimate argument is the barrel of a gun. Force negates consciousness. It is anti-mind. The man holding the gun wants you to follow orders, like a robot.
And THAT’S why you (and I) are doomed. We are doomed to live in a new Dark Ages.
[/quote]
I follow you 'till you get to the man holding the gun. Who is the man holding the gun? You’re saying the man holding the gun a combination or “liberal” (socialized) polices and politicians as well as organized religion telling us that we have to be altruistic? And this comes at the expense of realizing our potential? Am I following?
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So, Ms. Rand is VERY relevant: you can’t have a rational society when the ultimate argument is the barrel of a gun. Force negates consciousness. It is anti-mind. The man holding the gun wants you to follow orders, like a robot.
And THAT’S why you (and I) are doomed. We are doomed to live in a new Dark Ages.
[/quote]
I follow you 'till you get to the man holding the gun. Who is the man holding the gun? You’re saying the man holding the gun a combination or “liberal” (socialized) polices and politicians as well as organized religion telling us that we have to be altruistic? And this comes at the expense of realizing our potential? Am I following?[/quote]
Somewhat. We refused to recognize that ‘A is A’. We said that ‘the pursuit of happiness’ is good, but then expected that the results of that pursuit (wealth) be shared. “You have the right to get wealthy but then we have the right to take wealth from you at gunpoint.”
We created a society that prospers from egoism, the pursuit of one’s goals. But then we promote unselfishness as moral. To give millions to Haitian paupers is good, but to use the money to try and get even richer is not moral.
Men are by nature selfish. This is good provided they are honest and trade value for value. The only way to counter their selfishness is with a gun or club, forcing them to act against their own self-interest. That’s what’s being created in Washington today – the rule of the murderers and pickpockets. Here we go, down into hell.
We deserve it.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So, Ms. Rand is VERY relevant: you can’t have a rational society when the ultimate argument is the barrel of a gun. Force negates consciousness. It is anti-mind. The man holding the gun wants you to follow orders, like a robot.
And THAT’S why you (and I) are doomed. We are doomed to live in a new Dark Ages.
[/quote]
I follow you 'till you get to the man holding the gun. Who is the man holding the gun? You’re saying the man holding the gun a combination or “liberal” (socialized) polices and politicians as well as organized religion telling us that we have to be altruistic? And this comes at the expense of realizing our potential? Am I following?[/quote]
Somewhat. We refused to recognize that ‘A is A’. We said that ‘the pursuit of happiness’ is good, but then expected that the results of that pursuit (wealth) be shared. “You have the right to get wealthy but then we have the right to take wealth from you at gunpoint.”
We created a society that prospers from egoism, the pursuit of one’s goals. But then we promote unselfishness as moral. To give millions to Haitian paupers is good, but to use the money to try and get even richer is not moral.
Men are by nature selfish. This is good provided they are honest and trade value for value. The only way to counter their selfishness is with a gun or club, forcing them to act against their own self-interest. That’s what’s being created in Washington today – the rule of the murderers and pickpockets. Here we go, down into hell.
We deserve it.
[/quote]
What do you mean “we?”
[quote]belligerent wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
[quote]Spartiates wrote:
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
So, Ms. Rand is VERY relevant: you can’t have a rational society when the ultimate argument is the barrel of a gun. Force negates consciousness. It is anti-mind. The man holding the gun wants you to follow orders, like a robot.
And THAT’S why you (and I) are doomed. We are doomed to live in a new Dark Ages.
[/quote]
I follow you 'till you get to the man holding the gun. Who is the man holding the gun? You’re saying the man holding the gun a combination or “liberal” (socialized) polices and politicians as well as organized religion telling us that we have to be altruistic? And this comes at the expense of realizing our potential? Am I following?[/quote]
Somewhat. We refused to recognize that ‘A is A’. We said that ‘the pursuit of happiness’ is good, but then expected that the results of that pursuit (wealth) be shared. “You have the right to get wealthy but then we have the right to take wealth from you at gunpoint.”
We created a society that prospers from egoism, the pursuit of one’s goals. But then we promote unselfishness as moral. To give millions to Haitian paupers is good, but to use the money to try and get even richer is not moral.
Men are by nature selfish. This is good provided they are honest and trade value for value. The only way to counter their selfishness is with a gun or club, forcing them to act against their own self-interest. That’s what’s being created in Washington today – the rule of the murderers and pickpockets. Here we go, down into hell.
We deserve it.
[/quote]
What do you mean “we?”[/quote]
Those of us who knew better, but kept supporting the system. We paid our taxes, obeyed their rules. “Ours is the guilt beyond forgiveness.” (paraphrasing Rand)
What was the alternative? Getting raped up the ass in prison?
[quote]belligerent wrote:
What was the alternative? Getting raped up the ass in prison?[/quote]
No. The alternative is to drop out of the system as much as possible.
Don’t try to get rich when a robber chieftain and his gang get half of the loot. Work just enough to survive but leave nothing over for the criminals.
Use their money as little as possible. Convert savings into gold, silver, or mining stocks. Don’t invest in productive enterprises.