What is Objectivism Part 1: Capitalism, Role of Government, Morality and Values

[elixerfreak123]

we do already have this, except the majority felt that it was in their self interest to have public schools, firemen and the like. one doesn't have to pay for the police/military if they don't want their services. one can always go to another country whose services they prefer or to some uninhabited island or most third world countries if they want no protection at all.

[elixerfreak123]

the thing is that since the military already 'protects' most of the people on this parcel of land, they decided that everyone on that parcel of land should just pay for protection or leave/pay consequences since when the time comes there is no time/its very dificult to be checking everyone for "military insurance cards" and denying protection to those that dont have them

[elixerfreak123]

the scenario you stated also only accounts for crime against the person. however, if a man with no family or friends that can persecute the crime, either because they cant afford all the fees or because the person has no family or friends, then the murder goes unpunished. this is why homocides are also crimes against society. if people can get away with murder, then chaos ensues because then anyone can just murder all the poor people they want to.

[elixerfreak123]

if you start arguing in favour of killing poor people, I wouldn't have any exhaustive argument against it, so i would end up half agreeing with you and id think you're a really cool guy. but guess what? that means "you're cool with poor people dying, you sick fuck"....meh...

[paulk314]

Not bad, but I found it a little odd that you discussed politics before ethics when the former genetically depends on the latter.

[ProximaMinor]

Yeah, there's two reasons for that: one is that this video semi-assumes that the viewer is already some-what familiar with Objectivist ethics, or they have already watched my video on selfishness (I guess the title is pretty confusing. I should have named the selfish video part 1 and this part 2, but when I made the selfishness video I wasn't planning on making a series on objectivism).

[jeremybrons56693]

nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn d.o.g meet me at the park dogggggggggggg lol lol lol ftb

[blackacidlizzard]

Who would hold government officials suspected of wrongdoing responsible?

This is one government?

If so, they then hold a monopoly on provision of government services by use of force, correct?

Is this not interference in the economy by government?

[ProximaMinor]

The people would hold government officials responsible. If someone was suspected of wrongdoing they could be taken to court as well.

Government is defined as: an institution that holds the exclusive power to enforce certain rules of social conduct in a given geographical area.

So yes, it would be the US government. And yes they would hold a "monopoly" on services like the military.

This is not interference because the government couldn't step in and say, 'you can/can't buy this'.

[ProximaMinor]

At any given point the citizens could decide to stop paying for the military and instead give some other agency money in order to up hold the law. And that agency would then resume title of US government. So It's not really a monopoly. It's just not very likely that there would be more than one military.

[blackacidlizzard]

How can this other agence provide anything when it was illegal until the citizens stopped paying taxes?

Rand is way anti-collective, so why does she make this sudden 180 when it comes tohe police, courts, and military? All of a sudden the lone dissenting individual who wants to pay a different service provider is not a noble Man, but a usurper, a traitor.

[ProximaMinor]

Im not exactly sure I understand what your first question is.

However, here are the basics: For electing officials into offices (for the military, court, etc.) Democracy would still exist. These people would still be voted into office. If there is a problem with the military, it will most likely only be with one person, who could be replaced. If absolute worst came to worse, they could then stop paying the current members of the military, elect new officials and pay them.

[ProximaMinor]

I dont see wanting your property and life protected being a collectivist idea Seems pretty selfish to me.

[blackacidlizzard]

What I'm saying is that democracy (the will of the majority) trumps all. That seems pretty anti-individualistic. Seems to fly in the face of all that Rand expounded upon, in fact.

[ProximaMinor]

That's not exactly true. You could have a great product but, if no one wants it then you will have to find either a new strategy to sell it or create a new product. Its not the will of the majority that Rand was against (necessarily. In fact the only way to ever live in a Capitalist society is if it is what the majority wants), it was Altruism; the idea that there is a greater good and that an individuals life was worth less than that.

[ProximaMinor]

Having a means to protect individual life is not collectivist, and in a capitalist society it is not achieved at cost of sacrificing of others. If a man does not deem the elected officials to be worth his money, he is not forced to pay for them (in a capitalist society).

[blackacidlizzard]

The degraded tastes and morals of the majority were also a heavy theme in Rand's work

"the only way to ever live in a Capitalist society is if it is what the majority wants"

What do you mean when you use the word Capitalism? Simply: Lazziez-faire ecenomics? Or the use of capital investment? Or the combination of these two facets?

[blackacidlizzard]

"You could have a great product but, if no one wants it then you will have to find either a new strategy to sell it or create a new product."

Is this supposed to be a metaphor for democracy? It doesn't really work, if so. As long as someone is willing to give enough resources to you in return for a product that you find the production and trade valuable, you need no more than one solitary customer, even in a crowd of millions.

[ProximaMinor]

No. It was an example that the will of the majority will dictate most things in the market place, meaning that the will of the majority isn't always a bad thing. In the book Atlas Shrugged, John Galt lead the majority of the productive individual's to go on strike. It was the Men of Reason VS. the Men of the Anti-life. It wasn't the fact that the Men of the Anti-life were the majority that made them evil, it was the fact that they were anti-life that made them evil.

[blackacidlizzard]

Government here is saying:

You can not buy protection or judicial services from anyone but us.

As well as:

You can not provide protection or judicial services (at least not without our approval, so that we may lay down certain things you may not judge or protect against)