NY Times: Ayn Rand's Influence Growing

[Unaware]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Like I said earlier, there is no magic answer on how much altruism should be allowed to trump free will. People can and do disagree on that point.

What I’m saying is that it is a balancing act, rather than a case where one value completely and permanently trumps the other. I’m talking about extremists on either side, obviously…altruism should never unilaterally trump free will either.
[/quote]

You don’t get to be that abstract.

Theres proposals for a surcharge on “rich” individuals to pay for the new healthcare plan. Do you support this idea?

Now thisnew tax won’t pay for it all so we can close the gap by imposing the same surcharge on anyone making over the median income, since they are technically on the right side of the curve, and can actually afford it. If not why the discrepancy?

Seems like compassion is the most important thing until you get to your own income bracket.

[koffea]

[quote]forlife wrote:
I agree with Rand’s argument for Reason. What I find reprehensible is her insistence that one particular value (i.e., forcing others to do something they choose not to do) is ALWAYS morally corrupt, regardless of the inconsequential impact to the person being forced, or of the overall good that might be accomplished by doing so. Any extremist positions like that should be taken with a very large grain of salt.[/quote]

so what you are saying is that you believe that under certain situations it is ok to enslave a person. That is at the heart of rands belief. Rand believed that under no circumstance is it ever ok to enslave another human. She witnessed the enslavement of her own people under these circumstances.

along those lines though, she also believed that the selfish act of preserving ones own self worth would generally compell people to do what appears to be altruistic acts. In other words doing an altruistic act increases the individuals perceived self worth, and is therefore not altruistic at all.

wish i could participate more in the conversation but i have to work . . .

[ds1973]

I’ve just finished skimming 7 pages worth of posts and I think Rands position needs some clarification here. There have been some classic “Libertarian” arguments advocating a reduction in government beyond that which Rand advocated. To briefly summarize:

1. Rand defines a “right” as a freedom to action, not a guarantee of an outcome.

2. All rights stem from the fundamental right of a mans right to his own life. That is, his freedom of action to engage in self-sustaining, self generating behavior.

3. Property rights are a direct result of mans right to his life. Man must be able to control the means through which he supports his own life. The right to property is the freedom to earn, keep and dispose of goods and services as he sees fit, using his own rational judgment.

4. Mans mind is his primary tool of survival. Man uses reason to provide for his needs. Man must be free to produce, purchase and obtain the goods and services he needs to sustain his life through voluntary trade.

5. The only legitimate role of government is to protect the individual rights of man. As such, the sole functions of government are military, police and judicial. The government holds a monopoly on the INITIATION of force and must be severely limited. Private, competing military forces lead to anarchy. Separation of economy and state is just as important as separation of church and state.

6. I do not believe Rand advocates one particular method of funding government functions, however various mechanisms from voluntary contribution to “contract taxes” have been proposed. Temporary taxes that expired were used in the early days of our country to fund military.

I suggest reading her essay on Man’s Rights here:

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

Some non-fiction recommendations:

The Virtue of Selfishness (Rand)
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (Rand)
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Leonard Peikoff)

[Zeke]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?[/quote]

In US law you have no obligation to act if you see someone on fire, if you did not cause that person to be on fire in the first place. Morally, you may be required to act. Certainly those that you interact with after the fact will ‘punish’ or ‘reward’ you for your action or inaction. This is generally true, with exceptions.

An example of this is the woman who was raped in full view of two employees of the subway system in New York. They did nothing to intervene, except one called the police. This lack of action is supported in our law.

Ayn Rand would agree with this. You, and you alone, in that instant, weigh all the factors and act or not act, as is your inherent right. The factors could be, are you able to act? Did the person pour gas on themselves? Did a crowd set them on fire? Do you have a family that would suffer if you died in the attempt? Do you care? You can think of many more.

Extended to say, government funded health care, you will find that your basic right to act or not is being encroached upon. You already are being forced to act through forced taxes to pay for other peoples medical costs. You have to ‘put the fire out’ without regard to your personal rights, circumstance, ability or whatever.

An uncaring, unthinking government passed law will almost always enforce some inappropriate solution to questions like this.

I believe people are social, in general. Most people would attempt a rescue if possible.

A government enforced rescue winds up with ‘Katrina’ like results and lessen the ability and capability of individuals to act on their own.

[Sloth]

[quote]Zeke wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

In US law you have no obligation to act if you see someone on fire, if you did not cause that person to be on fire in the first place. Morally, you may be required to act. Certainly those that you interact with after the fact will ‘punish’ or ‘reward’ you for your action or inaction. This is generally true, with exceptions.

An example of this is the woman who was raped in full view of two employees of the subway system in New York. They did nothing to intervene, except one called the police. This lack of action is supported in our law.

Ayn Rand would agree with this. You, and you alone, in that instant, weigh all the factors and act or not act, as is your inherent right. The factors could be, are you able to act? Did the person pour gas on themselves? Did a crowd set them on fire? Do you have a family that would suffer if you died in the attempt? Do you care? You can think of many more.

Extended to say, government funded health care, you will find that your basic right to act or not is being encroached upon. You already are being forced to act through forced taxes to pay for other peoples medical costs. You have to ‘put the fire out’ without regard to your personal rights, circumstance, ability or whatever.

An uncaring, unthinking government passed law will almost always enforce some inappropriate solution to questions like this.

I believe people are social, in general. Most people would attempt a rescue if possible.

A government enforced rescue winds up with ‘Katrina’ like results and lessen the ability and capability of individuals to act on their own.
[/quote]

You see though, I’m not even attacking this from a legal prespective. I’m championing the voluntary moral obligations of charity, heroism, and love for fellow man. Rand and her followers come off as so damn paranoid about government measures, they challenge those things that elevate us from mere creatures that simply produce, consume, shit, and pass on DNA. Don’t make an enemy out of the good.

[Zeke]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Vegita wrote:
I fail to understand how you keep harping that free will is a value. It is a basic human right, it canot be taken away as I have shown numerous times.

If I hold a loaded revolver to your head and pull the trigger, I have taken away your free will with a simple twitch of my finger. Still want to argue that you can’t take away someone’s free will?

Furthermore, it’s possible to constrict a person’s free will without taking it away entirely (e.g., through incarceration).

So please stop arguing that you can’t take away a person’s free will. Obviously, you can.[/quote]

You mistake the idea of thwarting a persons free will with taking it away. The person has it inherently, and it cannot be removed without killing the person, or making that person less than a full human. Your example is one of thwarting free will. It is much easier to enslave a person or society than free one. You happen to be lucky enough to live in a society founded on individual rights and limited government, and yet given the chance, would reduce us all under a totalitarian circumstance.

Vegita is right about free will; ‘It is a basic human right, it canot be taken away as I have shown numerous times.’

[Zeke]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Zeke wrote:
Sloth wrote:
So, walking past a man on fire is as moral as stopping to help him put the flames out? The selfishness of “I don’t have time, I gotta catch that new GI Joe Movie” is as “moral” as going out of one’s way to help?

In US law you have no obligation to act if you see someone on fire, if you did not cause that person to be on fire in the first place. Morally, you may be required to act. Certainly those that you interact with after the fact will ‘punish’ or ‘reward’ you for your action or inaction. This is generally true, with exceptions.

An example of this is the woman who was raped in full view of two employees of the subway system in New York. They did nothing to intervene, except one called the police. This lack of action is supported in our law.

Ayn Rand would agree with this. You, and you alone, in that instant, weigh all the factors and act or not act, as is your inherent right. The factors could be, are you able to act? Did the person pour gas on themselves? Did a crowd set them on fire? Do you have a family that would suffer if you died in the attempt? Do you care? You can think of many more.

Extended to say, government funded health care, you will find that your basic right to act or not is being encroached upon. You already are being forced to act through forced taxes to pay for other peoples medical costs. You have to ‘put the fire out’ without regard to your personal rights, circumstance, ability or whatever.

An uncaring, unthinking government passed law will almost always enforce some inappropriate solution to questions like this.

I believe people are social, in general. Most people would attempt a rescue if possible.

A government enforced rescue winds up with ‘Katrina’ like results and lessen the ability and capability of individuals to act on their own.

You see though, I’m not even attacking this from a legal prespective. I’m championing the voluntary moral obligations of charity, heroism, and love for fellow man. Rand and her followers come off as so damn paranoid about government measures, they challenge those things that elevate us from mere creatures that simply produce, consume, shit, and pass on DNA. Don’t make an enemy out of the good.[/quote]

Nothing wrong with that. Just don’t use something as blunt and unyielding as the force of law. Appeal to individuals to do the right thing, just don’t appoint someone else to decide for them. To do so elevates that person or entity (i.e. government)above humans, an unnatural arrangement, because all governments draw their strength from individuals who are naturally a governments senior, being the source of their strength.

[Zeke]

Any government that will violate someones natural rights, such as ‘Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness,’ will eventually violate yours. And this will continue, until totalitarianism of some sort is realized. The next step is anarchy as natural law reasserts the individuals right to chose. The process will begin again.

Between anarchy and totalitarianism is our Government as it was founded; a Republic. It is slowly sliding from it’s delicate balance between anarchy and totalitarianism towards totalitarianism. If you are an American I urge you to reconsider the position that it might be ok to violate a persons natural rights in law for the ‘greater good.’ Freedom has been won. With it come responsibilities, but they cannot be enforced by law, for this is a violation of the Freedom itself. They can only be carried out by a free and responsible citizenry. If the citizenry on the whole cease to be responsible on their own, all is lost.

Forcing them to be responsible by law only quickens the descent into irresponsibility.

Sloth, you are right to advocate ‘I’m championing the voluntary moral obligations of charity, heroism, and love for fellow man.’ Good job continue to do that. We need more of it.

ds1973, excellent post. “2) All rights stem from the fundamental right of a mans right to his own life. That is, his freedom of action to engage in self-sustaining, self generating behavior.”

We need as individual to frame these debates in terms of anarchy and totalitarianism, and if we are willing to exchange our freedoms for furthering our movement toward totalitarianism. I think most people can understand this, and thus is an outcome where everyone wins.

[THE_CLAMP_DOWN]

[quote]Zeke wrote:

You mistake the idea of thwarting a persons free will with taking it away. The person has it inherently, and it cannot be removed without killing the person, or making that person less than a full human.

Vegita is right about free will; ‘It is a basic human right, it canot be taken away as I have shown numerous times.’

[/quote]

Forced or secret ingestion of drugs? that will limit “free will”.

Reprogramming and brainwashing? changing beliefs will change actions. How is it so many stood behind Hitler and Nazi Germany? Yup… Bye “free will”.

Medical procedures consisting of changing the physical brain and hormonal/neurotransmitter systems? this will change YOU. Phineas Gage concurs.

[Zeke]

[quote]THE_CLAMP_DOWN wrote:
Zeke wrote:

You mistake the idea of thwarting a persons free will with taking it away. The person has it inherently, and it cannot be removed without killing the person, or making that person less than a full human.

Vegita is right about free will; ‘It is a basic human right, it canot be taken away as I have shown numerous times.’

Forced or secret ingestion of drugs? that will limit “free will”.

Reprogramming and brainwashing? changing beliefs will change actions. How is it so many stood behind Hitler and Nazi Germany? Yup… Bye “free will”.

Medical procedures consisting of changing the physical brain and hormonal/neurotransmitter systems? this will change YOU. Phineas Gage concurs.

[/quote]

I am not sure were you are going with this. But you make my point; You mistake the idea of thwarting a persons free will with taking it away. The person has it inherently, and it cannot be removed without killing the person, or making that person less than a full human.

All of the procedures you have listed will indeed impact free will, and you have given examples of how it is easier to enslave a person than to free a person thereby making a person more capable and beneficial to himself and others.

Freedom and responsibility by definition walk hand in hand.

Free; not subject to censorship or control by a ruler, government, or other authority, and enjoying civil liberties

Responsible; able to be counted on owing to qualities of conscientiousness and trustworthiness

[THE_CLAMP_DOWN]

I admit, I havnt even been reading this thread too clearly for the last 3-4 pages,but I jumped at the chance to discuss free will.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Sloth wrote:

You see though, I’m not even attacking this from a legal prespective. I’m championing the voluntary moral obligations of charity, heroism, and love for fellow man. Rand and her followers come off as so damn paranoid about government measures, they challenge those things that elevate us from mere creatures that simply produce, consume, shit, and pass on DNA. Don’t make an enemy out of the good.[/quote]

Exactly. Rand and her followers are nothing more than the Marxists of the Right. They see the world in purely Marxist terms - man as homo economicus, and little else. They just differ on which they go, but the endgame is a society of “pure voluntary arrangments between humans”, no different than Marx’s ultimate workers’ paradise that needs no government at all due to the functioning co-operative - and there is still an opportunity at deliverance from the “oppressors” holding them back from their rightful Utopia.

Marx, as we know, was dead wrong about Man - and so are the Randian objectivists and radical libertarians…for all the same reasons.

[Gambit_Lost]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

You see though, I’m not even attacking this from a legal prespective. I’m championing the voluntary moral obligations of charity, heroism, and love for fellow man. Rand and her followers come off as so damn paranoid about government measures, they challenge those things that elevate us from mere creatures that simply produce, consume, shit, and pass on DNA. Don’t make an enemy out of the good.

Exactly. Rand and her followers are nothing more than the Marxists of the Right. They see the world in purely Marxist terms - man as homo economicus, and little else. They just differ on which they go, but the endgame is a society of “pure voluntary arrangments between humans”, no different than Marx’s ultimate workers’ paradise that needs no government at all due to the functioning co-operative - and there is still an opportunity at deliverance from the “oppressors” holding them back from their rightful Utopia.

Marx, as we know, was dead wrong about Man - and so are the Randian objectivists and radical libertarians…for all the same reasons.

[/quote]

uh-oh, I once again find myself nodding with Sloth and TB…

[Zeke]

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Sloth wrote:

You see though, I’m not even attacking this from a legal prespective. I’m championing the voluntary moral obligations of charity, heroism, and love for fellow man. Rand and her followers come off as so damn paranoid about government measures, they challenge those things that elevate us from mere creatures that simply produce, consume, shit, and pass on DNA. Don’t make an enemy out of the good.

Exactly. Rand and her followers are nothing more than the Marxists of the Right. They see the world in purely Marxist terms - man as homo economicus, and little else. They just differ on which they go, but the endgame is a society of “pure voluntary arrangments between humans”, no different than Marx’s ultimate workers’ paradise that needs no government at all due to the functioning co-operative - and there is still an opportunity at deliverance from the “oppressors” holding them back from their rightful Utopia.

Marx, as we know, was dead wrong about Man - and so are the Randian objectivists and radical libertarians…for all the same reasons.

uh-oh, I once again find myself nodding with Sloth and TB…[/quote]

Marx was dead wrong.

Marxixm:the political and economic theories of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in which class struggle is a central element in the analysis of social change in Western societies.

To call Rand the “Marxists of the Right” is just wrong. She did not see class warfare as a proper way to judge a society. That each individual is able to make their own way if given a fair chance was the ideal. That is the proper role of government, to ensure fairness of play, not to enforce equal outcomes for all which lower the group to the lowest common denominator.

Objectivism; the emphasizing of external realities rather than beliefs or feelings in literature or art, or: a philosophical belief that moral truths or external objects exist independently of the individual mind or perception.

Gambit_Lost, America has a tradition of personal rights. With out question the United States of America has advanced the human race farther than all the rest of the forms of government in the history of history. It has allowed people of widely varying background and circumstance to live in relative peace because each person is able to exercise their own ideas towards their own end, working with their fellows as they can. Look at other governments as experiments. Then look at the results of that government. I will take ours over any example you can name. I think you would to.

A simple and effective way to look at governments is a scale from anarchy to totalitarianism. All governments fall somewhere on the scale. America has been as far towards anarchy as would allow an effective government, allowing as much freedom for the individual as possible, while resisting the slide towards totalitarianism. America is slowly sliding towards totalitarianism. I urge you to not side with those that would encourage this.

I think Ayn Rand would agree with this.

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Zeke wrote:

To call Rand the “Marxists of the Right” is just wrong. She did not see class warfare as a proper way to judge a society. [/quote]

She - and her legions of followers - see the same Marxist narrative in play: an “oppressor” class uses immoral power to deny the “oppressed” their rightful Utopia. For Marx, the people with the immoral power were the Capitalists - for Randians, public power.

Regardless, humans are reduced down to pure economic automatons that need to have their naked economic interests liberated from someone unfairly standing in their way. Randians reduce Men down to rank materialists - same as Marx.

America has been as far towards anarchy as would allow an effective government, allowing as much freedom for the individual as possible, while resisting the slide towards totalitarianism.

Completely false.

America is slowly sliding towards totalitarianism. I urge you to not side with those that would encourage this.

Your false choice aside, not all of those that reject the radical liberarianism of Ayn Rand’s coffeehouse abstractions and the like have any interest in statist totalitarianism. In fact, they believe the opposite - that the juvenile infatuation with an inhuman cult of “liberty” is just as quick a catalyst to the dreaded totalitarianism as the most committed socialist platform. I believe that - nothing makes the case for Socialism better than the foolish bromides of the anarchist, the radicla libertarian, and the Randian.

Ayn Rand took a good idea - that totalitarianism, even the “nice” kind, will always find opposition in the people it purports to control and thus spells its own doom - took it to radical degrees, marketed it as philosophy, and (intentionally or not) created a cult following that insists that we can foist a system of ethics/politics that completely ignores Man’s true nature into the real world.

[Headhunter]

[quote]forlife wrote:
orion wrote:
Why not let everyone decide for themselves if and how much money they want to give to charity.

Because, as I just pointed out, doing so would elevate personal choice above compassion in all cases and without regard for circumstances. Sometimes reducing a person’s ability to choose is justified in the name of compassion, and sometimes not serving others is justified in the name of honoring a person’s ability to choose. It’s not either/or, and you can’t blindly give one value preeminence over all other values.[/quote]

In other words: The person who produces deserves no compassion. The person who produces nothing, does.

The lazy deserve to rule the ambitious. The ignorant deserve to rule the intelligent.

[Headhunter]

[quote]ds1973 wrote:
I’ve just finished skimming 7 pages worth of posts and I think Rands position needs some clarification here. There have been some classic “Libertarian” arguments advocating a reduction in government beyond that which Rand advocated. To briefly summarize:

1. Rand defines a “right” as a freedom to action, not a guarantee of an outcome.

2. All rights stem from the fundamental right of a mans right to his own life. That is, his freedom of action to engage in self-sustaining, self generating behavior.

3. Property rights are a direct result of mans right to his life. Man must be able to control the means through which he supports his own life. The right to property is the freedom to earn, keep and dispose of goods and services as he sees fit, using his own rational judgment.

4. Mans mind is his primary tool of survival. Man uses reason to provide for his needs. Man must be free to produce, purchase and obtain the goods and services he needs to sustain his life through voluntary trade.

5. The only legitimate role of government is to protect the individual rights of man. As such, the sole functions of government are military, police and judicial. The government holds a monopoly on the INITIATION of force and must be severely limited. Private, competing military forces lead to anarchy. Separation of economy and state is just as important as separation of church and state.

6. I do not believe Rand advocates one particular method of funding government functions, however various mechanisms from voluntary contribution to “contract taxes” have been proposed. Temporary taxes that expired were used in the early days of our country to fund military.

I suggest reading her essay on Man’s Rights here:

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

Some non-fiction recommendations:

The Virtue of Selfishness (Rand)
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (Rand)
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Leonard Peikoff)

[/quote]

Perfectly stated. The trouble is that parasites of the body or soul would starve and where would that leave them? They HAVE to use altruism as a means of enslavement or they would starve.

What kind of morality uses man’s own virtue, his mind and his desire to live, as a weapon to enslave him?

[orion]

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
ds1973 wrote:
I’ve just finished skimming 7 pages worth of posts and I think Rands position needs some clarification here. There have been some classic “Libertarian” arguments advocating a reduction in government beyond that which Rand advocated. To briefly summarize:

1. Rand defines a “right” as a freedom to action, not a guarantee of an outcome.

2. All rights stem from the fundamental right of a mans right to his own life. That is, his freedom of action to engage in self-sustaining, self generating behavior.

3. Property rights are a direct result of mans right to his life. Man must be able to control the means through which he supports his own life. The right to property is the freedom to earn, keep and dispose of goods and services as he sees fit, using his own rational judgment.

4. Mans mind is his primary tool of survival. Man uses reason to provide for his needs. Man must be free to produce, purchase and obtain the goods and services he needs to sustain his life through voluntary trade.

5. The only legitimate role of government is to protect the individual rights of man. As such, the sole functions of government are military, police and judicial. The government holds a monopoly on the INITIATION of force and must be severely limited. Private, competing military forces lead to anarchy. Separation of economy and state is just as important as separation of church and state.

6. I do not believe Rand advocates one particular method of funding government functions, however various mechanisms from voluntary contribution to “contract taxes” have been proposed. Temporary taxes that expired were used in the early days of our country to fund military.

I suggest reading her essay on Man’s Rights here:

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

Some non-fiction recommendations:

The Virtue of Selfishness (Rand)
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (Rand)
Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (Leonard Peikoff)

Perfectly stated. The trouble is that parasites of the body or soul would starve and where would that leave them? They HAVE to use altruism as a means of enslavement or they would starve.

What kind of morality uses man’s own virtue, his mind and his desire to live, as a weapon to enslave him?

[/quote]

Successful ones?

[Zeke]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Zeke wrote:
America has been as far towards anarchy as would allow an effective government, allowing as much freedom for the individual as possible, while resisting the slide towards totalitarianism.

Completely false.[/quote]

How is this completely false?

[thunderbolt23]

[quote]Zeke wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:

America has been as far towards anarchy as would allow an effective government, allowing as much freedom for the individual as possible, while resisting the slide towards totalitarianism.

…

How is this completely false?[/quote]

America has never been “as close to anarchy” as would be earthly possible. States have had public morality laws since before the Republic was born - just one example.

That isn’t to say America has not and does not have a high commitment to individual liberty. But the country has never “brushed up” against “anarchy” - and we are better for it.