About Objectivism 1 of 3

[sicktoaster]

4 example when a company produces too much food instead of donating it to the poor it gets thrown away. Capitalism is inherently wasteful. There is nothing objectively valueable about growth compared to raising the average quality of life.

9. Rome never made any effort 2 "more evenly distribute wealth" or "let workers(who by the way were slaves back then) participate in productive decisions".

[sicktoaster]

7. If it only works in small utopian communities then why not divide it up so the highest sovereign unit is small and larger organizations only exist & can be withdrawn from by those small units?

8. China is "growing" in the sense that it is making more things & the average income has grown. BUT the average income has only grown for the upper crust. Count them out and it has shrank. Furthermore with growth often comes waste...

[sicktoaster]

When you have only 1 person making hiring/pay decisions then that means u only must win the personal like of 1 person. When you got 9 & its majority vote u got2win 5. What magical universe do you live in where 1>5?

6. In my opinion under capitalism productive ppl(workers) are being forced to give up what they earned to ppl who didn't(capitalists).

[sicktoaster]

5. Based on popularity doesnt make sense. So ur saying a workers gonna vote4some1 popular even if they h8 them? Nobody is gonna to pick some1 on popularity but ppl might pick some1 on personal like & if the person is popular they stand a better chance of getting that special majority threshhold of personal like...

[sicktoaster]

3. Of course you need resources but "money" produces nothing only the resources that get processed do.

4. Not many negative side effects? The very existance of money allows for "speculation" which lead to the Great Depression and the current housing crisis.

[sicktoaster]

Besides letting the government just replace things with money flies in the face of capitalisms "subjective theory of value". If its subjective then the victim should get to decide how much the thing was worth to them.

2. I didnt say "left it to the son" I said "hire the son". Hed probably get a well-paid position, doesn't mean hed be making all the decisions. Relatives regularly do this & if hes not competent he'll probly be advised by dad2"let secretaries handle the work" if he inherits.

[sicktoaster]

...other from start(raw materials) to finish(product) concerning remuneration and movement of goods and services would not work.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

and if you left it to an incompetent son, the business would fall apart as soon as trouble hit. and what i mean by money being needed is that you need resources to create a business as well as labor. like i said, money is just a way of simplifying labor. if anyone takes it for anything but a symbol, then that's their problem. overrall, the system just benefits too much from money to abolish it. there really aren't that many negative side effects if you think about it.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

i mean how many inventions and improvements in both culture and productiveness have come out of capitalism. how many strides have men made under the U.S. and Britain compared to every other civilization in history. think about China which has been communist for decades. now that its using capitalist methods its growing faster than we could imagine. meanwhile America is slowing down because of socialistic practices.

[sicktoaster]

...can be traced to acts of theft such as the enclosure of the commons, the seizing of lands from the Native Americans, you name it.

What is true though is that that the resources bought with the money that workers use were produced by other workers who made them again from resources made by other workers and at some point workers extracted raw materials. So it is really labor that makes more labor and hence business possible. I see no reason why a system where laborers negotiate with each...

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

and most workers are unlikely to support someone based on merit as much as they would based on popularity. i mean, can you imagine if the students of a high school could select the principle? it would make us happy, but the school would fall apart.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

the same socialistic increases in government that i think killed the Roman empire. the proof that capitalism works is there, but no one seems to want to start there because it doesn't "feel" right. people who grow up with the Christian bible have a sense of duty towards there fellow man. im not gonna lie, the bible does support socialism, but maybe it might be wrong.

[sicktoaster]

...get done.

This is not to say we should get rid of money, but that it is wrong to assume money is an accurate representation of the work a person has done to deserve that amount of restitution.

[sicktoaster]

"a worker can easily advance in the system with hard work and a productive idea."

Most of the time schmoozing works better. They even have a saying "its who you know not what you know".

If the workers were in charge youd advance w/ hard work & good idea4sure bcause its harder to "schmooze" a large number of people compared to 1 leaving the payment and advancement(subjective based on a worker trying to be recruited by a cooperative they like better) decisions up to hard work & good ideas.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

its not necessarily harder to suck up to a group than a single person. you just have to make a lot of promises. at least with one person you have to at least seem competent, just look at how many idiotic politicians we have

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

Few things:

1. What do u mean u have 2 at least seem competent? I'll admit if I owned a business & my son was incompetent I'd still give him the job as long as it didn't mean losing the business.

2. Sucking up biting in the end? Not always esp if u have frends/relatives in high places.

3. Saying the gov took it illegitimately but the settlers took it legitimately is like saying if the mafia stole a piece of art&sold it overseas that the buyer would have legitimate title to it.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

i think if you buy something from a thief you have a legitimate right to it. if the thief is caught, then they should have to give the money to the original owner or to the buyer. the buyer did not do anything wrong. especially if the original owner is dead. and the system would be much more complex without money, which is just a way of organizing productiveness. if anything, the existence of money saves effort.

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

1. Currently the law doesn't agree with you. If you buy something from a thief and it is found out that something gets returned to its original owner. And it makes sense. NOT everything can be reimbursed with cash. How would you feel if someone stole some priceless item from you and then they found where it was but still wouldnt let you have it back?

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

but socialism has been tried in almost every form. nation's have tried it, hundreds of small "Utopian" communities have tried it, even modern nations are trying a form of it. every experiment has either turned into tyranny, or fallen apart altogether. its just too counterproductive and has too many holes. but no one wants to try improving capitalism without government interference.

[sicktoaster]

"just because land was once held by immoral people, doesn't make it immoral to own the land now."

Thats not the point. If someone steals something and you buy it or they give it to you it doesn't legitimately belong to you.

"one also has t buy resources an often invest their hard work, so it is more than just dealing with land."

Resources made on or taken from land somewhere, and taken from there by workers.

[sicktoaster]

...traced back to slavery, kicking Natives off their land OR

In Britain the government took "common lands" and basically gave them to wealthy nobels and merchants. This was ostensibly to solve an "overgrazing" problem and they justified the peculiar distribution of the property rights(neither equal between the former grazers nor based on auction) based on old feudal ideas of "better people". So in a nutshell, capitalism is the buying and selling of old feudal nobility rights.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

yes, but the lands rarely remain in the hands of nobles, and besides, the land that belonged to the natives was taken by the government which sold them to settlers, so the owners of the land did obtain them legitimately. just because land was once held by immoral people, doesn't make it immoral to own the land now. besides, capitalism is based solely on land, one also has t buy resources an often invest their hard work, so it is more than just dealing with land.

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

"taken by the government which sold them to settlers, so the owners of the land did obtain them legitimately."

*facepalm* Seriously? The government took it so its legitimate? I suppose if the government took all your property and gave it to someone else you'd also call that legitimate.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

no, the government took it illigitimately, but the settlers who bought it from the government obtained t legitimately, therefore they have a right to it. you completely misunderstood what i was trying to say

[sicktoaster]

...their labor they wouldn't "own" all of it outright.

But thats not even typical businesses today. Most business ventures are started by wealthy individuals who only need to sign a check. The details of running it are handled by managers hired by them for that purpose. In fact many owners today just own a large amount of "stock", and collect on it. These people created nothing, so why reward them?

Another pt, Even if you consider inheritance legitimate property rights can often be...

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

and the wealthy do add something to the business because they pay for it. the business comes from the money and thought of the person paying for it. if they did not risk their money on ideas they believed in, no businesses or jobs would ever be created, so i think they are entitled to the most reward. it takes more than just labor to create a business.

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

"it takes more than just labor to create a business."

Thought is just another form of labor. The brain is a physical entity just like our muscles & expends nutrients and energies the same way. Production i.e. goods and services require only labor, because labor emcompasses the entirety of human action undertaken to provide goods and services.

"Money" is an inessential element of this equation. Even w/o the money if every1 did everything the same way the same thing would...

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

no, but money is an accurate jude of production which is what counts. and yeah i guess sucking up does work better short term, but if you get ahead based on the merits of others, then sooner or later you'll run into a problem that takes actual ability, which should put you in your place

[sicktoaster]

...giving equal authority to those participating on a given project or in running a society. The human nature argument is often advanced against socialism, but it is exactly because people tend to look out for their own interests first that we need socialism. With socialism, democratic socialism people can maximize their self-interests(everyone works, less waste of resources=less work per individual) within a structure that also maximizes the greater good.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

yes, but in order to produce, someone needs to start a business, and i dont think they'd be happy to give it up to workers who they hire. honestly, i dont think they should have to give up something they created. the government works the way it does, because a small group of people cannot be trusted with the military strength of a nation. it is only because of the need for physcal force that we have a government, and it can barely do its job as it is.

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

1. A lot of things make people unhappy. We deal with them.

2. They didn't "create" the business. The workers who produced the lumber, the shelves, etc., the workers who transported the things, they created the business. Now if youre talking small business owners that actually take the time to organize and plan then note that "organizing" and "planning" is work and so anyone who did that in this particular model of socialism would get rewarded for that work(but since its not just..

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

no, the workers just follow instruction, it is thought that creates a business. the owner makes a deal with the workers for their labor, and the workers are free to quit if they don't like the deal. and a worker can easily advance in the system with hard work and a productive idea. the owner buys the labor of his workers, which they willingly sell value for vale, therefore the owner does own the labor.

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

"no, the workers just follow instruction, it is thought that creates a business."

Never hear of mental labor? Most of the time the owners leave operation up to workers while still owning it.

"and the workers are free to quit if they don't like the deal."

& then alienate their labor to someone else. The way the system is set up makes it next to impossible 4 workers to labor and retain all its value.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

i guess i never really thought of thought as labor. but even so, it takes more than labor, physical or mental, to create a business. just as important are resources which workers could not obtain even if they controlled the business. one person pays for the business, therefore, it is their business. and many people are not rich when they start a business that will become successful

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

If all mental and physical labor happened anyways without money the exact same physical transactions sans the moving of green pieces of paper and flat round pieces of metal would still occur.

Of course ppl do need an incentive(at least at the beginning of the "socialist" stage) but the "businessman" does not have a moral right to that money anymore than you wouuld have a moral right to something you bought from a thief. Go back in history & almost all capitalist property...

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

i know the system has its flaws and i'm not saying to ignore them, but i just think that socialists are looking the wrong way to a solution. i know socialism has a very attractive premise, everyone should get a piece of the nation's profit, but its just not practical and i don't think it would be morally right to force productive people to give up what they earn to those who don't deserve, but need. i realize i'm generalizing and that you probably don't want such radical changes

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

wow...

how'd i get to ranting about the bible? i really went off on a tangent. guess i got carried away.

sorry about that

[sicktoaster]

...charge or even someone who does work but is also the owner/manager he can and will shift the rewards for any work done in his favor more than his employees. That's human nature. Only with a "democratic structure" where any kind of management position is instantly recallable(and likely bound by a number of rules such as not being able to make any more than the average or even lowest workers wage) can this bias by mitigated. The self-interest of one individual can only be held in check by...

[sicktoaster]

...it becomes harder to get ahead by just "kissing up". Its not made impossible, but for the system I am proposing to be worth it it doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be better and in this respect it is. More people vote on it, and its all the people working in proximity to each other (some bosses in the current system are very distant, so don't know what workers r doing) so they know how each other r doing & can > fairly dtermine wages. Also, when some1 who isnt a worker is in...

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

Right now azkissing of superiors means>than productivity. There r many times bosses and managers care more about promoting and giving raises to their family and friends than about "productivity".

Sure the same thing could happen with the "majority" BUT its less likely. In the current system you only have 1 person 2 schmooze over & avoid having 2 work as hard or alternatively upset & get penalized/fired in spite of good performance. With a larger no. of ppl in charge...

[sicktoaster]

...take a very long time, maybe hundreds of years but at some point the entirety of production and distribution will become casual. No more need for formal records, accounting, or any kind of "bureaucracy". That's what Marx called the "withering away of the state". It didn't work in the USSR because it lacked the industrial capacity plus Lenin and Stalin were so paranoid they took the power of the state in the opposite direction.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

and the system is backed by productiveness. the thing with inheritance is that someone produces something, acquires wealth, and leaves it to his descendants. people should be free to do that. the wealth was acquired through productiveness, it's not like it has to prove itself again to keep its value. it already did. the inheritor might not have earned it, but the person who did wanted to give it away and their wishes for what they owned should be honored. wow, my grammar is horible

[sicktoaster]

I agree total equal distribution, distribution that doesn't take into consideration the amount of time and effort put into work is unrealistic at the beginning of socialism, but overtime the formalism of the capitalist structure that preceded socialism will break down. Because the decisions are being made by people working together everyday people's social activities and work activities will become increasingly similar. A more casual, social environment will emerge in the economy. It will...

[sicktoaster]

...according to the actual labor the individual worker puts in and also fairly factor in the individual's needs and make adjustments for things that are no fault of their own such as illness or disability.

That contrasts to capitalism where people have special rights to do nothing if they want just because they have a "deed" to pieces of property.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

thanks for clarifying. and your plan does seem kinda reasonable, but i dont think it would work. if you have the workers decide who gets what, that opens a power vacuum that will be filled with the first worker to outsmart the others by making false promises. there would be no point in reconstructing a system that would just revert back to what we have now. at least now people have to back up their claim to wealth with some productiveness.

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

1. In the current system an appointed manager can make false promises and the workers can't do anything. In the system I propose that lying worker can be recalled anytime if they're in any position of power. If they did something really bad even expelled from the group they're in.

2. Why do you keep repeating that we have a system where people have to back up their claim to wealth with some productiveness? We don't. There's nothing productive about stock speculation or inheritance.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

if the manager does something to hurt the company he can be fired or demoted. if the worker is being treated poorly he can either quit in favor of a better deal, or he can ask to be transfered to a manager who might be more responsible. in your system, popularity would matter more than productiveness, one's ability to manipulate his peers would be more important than being able to run a business. we would have an economy run by politicians.

[sicktoaster]

Sorry about the jumbled post. Its hard to fit things in with the character limit.

What I'm saying is I prefer a decentralized socialist distribution system where the workers make their decisions at the workplace itself instead of taking orders from government bureaucrats. There would need to be some "coordination" for certain things especially police work, but it should be minimal.

If the workers control the means of production at the workplace they will decide to distribute wealth...

[sicktoaster]

...Most of these people whether they worked at first or not own it in the forms of large amounts of stocks or as the result of enormous salaries as CEOs which involves a lot of authority to "delegate" tasks while still making the same amount of money.

Our entire system is backwards. On average the more money you make the less labor you put in and vice versa. Many stockholders inherited and never put an hour of work in in their lives.

Why not a system that matches labor with earnings?

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

because in order to do that you would need to forcibly take what people have, regardless of whether they continue to earn it, and redistribute it to whoever you think deserves it more which puts you in charge of other people's money. and whether or not they continue to work, the rich have to have done something to earn what they own. normally that means they needed to take a calculated risk that eventually adds something to the world.

[sicktoaster]

Touching on the "no better way to get rich" angle.

Being rich will not make you happy. Being materially satiated will make you happy. After you have enough money to affoard your daily needs and desires and then some to look after your future any more money-making(that you keep for yourself anyways) is about vanity. Our society encourages people to be vain, telling them that if they keep up with the Jones' or look like a celebrity they'll be happy. But it doesnt work that way.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

You dont understand objectivism at all do you? the point is that the act of making money brings happiness if you give value for value because it gives you a challenge, something to work towards and a way to contribute to the world in a way that feels natural and also give you material rewards. the system works towards productiveness and equal opportunity then any other and it puts competent, productive people in power. its government that is flawed and leads to corruption.

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

Many people making money aren't contributing anything. How will you fix that?

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

if they are not contributing anything, then either they are tricking people into making bad deals, or just shuffling money around. in the first case, its the government's job to find evidence against them and put them away, if they cant do that, then its the government, not the economy, thats flawed. in the second case, if people are just shuffling money around, we would have no new products and the system would collapse that hasn't happened, so obviously not that many people are.

[pleeppleep]

@pleeppleep

well maybe that last part wasn't true, but there are people who dont just shuffle money around and actually earn their money, and i'm sure these are some of the richest people, and if they continue to earn money, then i'm sure they are very happy. overall the system works better than any other, and the basic idea of the philosophy works too. but still Ayn Rand was a bitch. just a bitch with the right idea.

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

You seem to follow some very black and white thinking. Even if the majority of wealth comes from people just moving money around that just means the people producing aren't getting their fair share not that no new products are being made.

The "producing" class, the working class not just poor blue collar workers but also professionals even some ppl who think themselves "rich" r being exploited by the "owning" class. 2% of the nation owns 90% of the wealth. Most of these ppl...

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

its not like there's a condition to keeping what you have. you have to earn it in the first place. and besides, if someone doesn't no how to handle their money and has no ambition, then they will run out of money sooner or later. and to take money that their ancestors earned for them is an insult to their memory. and i agree that CEOs are really overpaid, but what can you do? at least this way, the people in charge proved their competence which is better than most past societies.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

honestly the only other choice for a society is to take what people have and redistribute it, which puts someone in charge of everyone else's money which takes away the incentive to earn and slows productivity. not to mention it opens a power vacuum which can only be filled by someone using physical force. this person will almost always let power go to his head and become a worse tyrant and user than any CEO. plus people would have to live in fear of the threat of a tyrant's guns.

[sicktoaster]

...(continued)

If workers werent capable of deciding themselves how to distribute resources and capable of fairly weighing contributions(including mental contributions and decision-making contributions) then there wouldn't be large-scale worker-operated companies already. Look up Mondragon. This large federation of cooperatives in Spain has been muy successful. On average managers(elected y recallable) make a little more.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

well if its a more efficient system, then the promise of profit would encourage more businesses to try it. and the thing with the contracts, if they add something to the company and prove their usefulness, then they're likely to advance in the company. and if they have something that really works, then they stand to gain more from leaving the company and going out on their own. yeah its kinda risky, but there really isn't a better way to get rich, honestly i think the system works.

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

You have a naive view of the system. A few multinats monopolize production & they have the ears of politicians. If any business, (esp a federation of cooperatives because of the political implications) start challenging their power then they must either b coopted in2 power structure / multinationals make sure policies(subsidies, taxes, bans,...) force them out of business.

"better way to get rich" Arent there > important things?

"i think the system works." 4 who & 2 what end?

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

not to mention the fact that, with capitalism, there is a chance for anyone to get ahead based on competence and productivity as opposed to a select ew advancing with the favor of a dictator. I personally would take capitalism over any other system any day.

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

Im not talking abt any kinda centralizd distribution systm.

If u match ownership w/ work(use)&possession then earnings will naturally match not perfectly but nearperfectly2ppl's actual work output&its value2society.

The gov should b a democracy thats identical2the economy run based on a federation of the producers themselves but>decisions should b w/actual producers at smallest lvl.

& the rich do not have to do anything in some cases. What makes Paris Hilton deserve her wealth?

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

paris hilton lives on money accumulated by her family, if she and the rest of the hilton family never do anything to increase that, it will run out. as for the rest i dont really follow what you meant, could you rephrase that?

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

And it came from her family's work, NOT her own. How is that justice that she doesn't have to do a day of work in her life and can still be rich? Yes if she doesn't it will run out, but what does she care. And yes I know she's done certain projects but the thing is she doesn't have to.

......

[sicktoaster]

@iaintnocupcake

...(continued)

Without the capitalist/worker relationship, the workers could manage it every step of the way. Negotiations between different worker groups from the beginning of the process of production(extraction of raw materials) to the end would determine the distribution of the wealth produced from the labor.

[pleeppleep]

@sicktoaster

no because typical workers dont think to produce something new. i think that the person who thinks of and pays for a new product should own it. if the workers had to figure out who gets what, there would be too much conflict. even if there wasn't, the smarter people would have contributed more, and have figured out how to get more out of the product. we would just have the same system we do now. the smarter people would earn more and would then hire the workers to be more organized

[sicktoaster]

@pleeppleep

& why don't they think to produce something new? Bcause theyre under contract that dictates that even if it is their idea they dont get the benefit from it. In fact sometimes workers do think & produce new things to try to get a promotion or a raise or bcause its part of their job description but the big boss at the very top rarely contributes original thought because he doesnt have to. Either way his position is safe.

(continued)...

[sicktoaster]

@iaintnocupcake

Where did that equipment originate from? Someone had to have built the equipment. Someone had to have built the parts and tools that made that equipment. Someone had to have fetched the raw materials to bring together to make the most basic parts and tools at the beginning of the process. Typically the "capitalist" is not any one of those people.

(continued)...

[CrawdaddyJoe]

Most of the propaganda I've been exposed to has been pro-capitalist, so fail on that one. I've thought on this issue quite long, and was once a fierce pro-capitalist. It was the discovery that the reductionist view of property classical liberals hold leads to a theft of production value that lead me to my current views. The fact remains that in capitalism, there exists a class of people who sustain themselves by simple virtue of owning.

[CrawdaddyJoe]

The value added by technology is already factored into the equation I described- it is the marginal cost of capital upkeep, and one of the input factors. Markets (usually) provide the the most efficient way to create goods and services. Capitalism and its property structure are a blight on free markets.

[CrawdaddyJoe]

The value of labor is the value added by labor, the difference between the market cost of non-labor inputs and the value of the finished product. When you earn money simply because you own stock, as opposed to laboring, you are being usurious to those laboring. An opposition to capitalism is an affirmation of the concept of getting the rewards of one's labor. The hoarding of wealth at the top of our society is not proportional to any investment.

[CrawdaddyJoe]

I'm not arguing against free trade. I'm arguing against capitalist wage labor relationships and the reductionist property system that enables exploitation to occur. When those who own the capital get the majority of the profits and those who do the labor get a pittance, there is something wrong. Capitalism has turned humans into a commodity to be bought by those who own capital. It has nothing to do with freedom.

[CrawdaddyJoe]

Mondragon corporation, any collective you'll ever find, and the collectives of Anarchist Catalonia, where efficiency raised dramatically and brought up the whole economy. The inventions have been brought about by markets and knowledge, not by capitalism. Capitalism is not always a market force, and markets are not always capitalist. Capitalism is a property relation in which those who own capital get the product of labor, and those who labor get wages. This is neither efficient, not just.

[CrawdaddyJoe]

Actually, companies run by workers are usually more efficient than ones run by capitalists, and wage labor relationship is still essential exploitative and usurious. Rand never actually addresses the arguments of leftism, instead fighting a straw man. The most ludicrous thing is her romanticized idea that capitalism is held up by this class of super-intelligent professionals (it isn't) when her own education and membership to said class is thanks to Soviet collectivist education.

[CrawdaddyJoe]

Ayn Rand is a twit. The people who run great companies aren't the great thinkers, they don't hold up the world, and success in capitalism isn't about hard work. To claim so is to ignore reality. You know who really holds up the world? The people at the bottom, who do the work that makes those capital-owners so rich in the first place. There are intelligent people there, who have no chance to climb to the top in our system. The truth is, objectivism has nothing to do with freedom.

[XxxNuMbxxX0301]

You try to successfully run a multi-natural corporation and then tell me that it requires no skill. (When your ineptitude results in the loss of jobs for countless people, you will see who depends on whom.)

[CrawdaddyJoe]

I'm talking about the stock owners, not the hired management. Though, the management tend to also be stock owners. At any rate, employee-owned businesses tend to be *more* efficient than capitalist-owned ones.

[Ademis]

If you read Atlas Shrugged James Taggard represents the people you think of as suggested above.

[denis4259]

Im constantly fascinated by how every person that criticizes Rand's philosophy, while skilled at sarcasm offers no logic or argument except: "Serious philosophical circles I.E colleges, schools, don't discuss Ayn Rand as a philosopher"

Has it ever occured to you that maybe they ignore Rand's ideas preciseley because most people will take that as an indication of her worth? This is how most politicians and educators get their power/funding: they count on your lack of independant thought.

[lostsoul3412]

I disagree.

It isn't a matter of restricting powerful knowledge for the purposes of control. It's a failure to recognize the power of Objectivism that leads to it being ignored by academia. Your comment implies that politicians and educators know and understand the value of Objectivism, and it's because of that that they restrict it. I don't think this is the case at all. Rather, Objectivism goes unnoticed by politicians and educators because they fail to understand the value of Rand's ideas.

[sedcontra]

Don't go to novelists for philosophy. Sartre, C. S. Lewis, Derrida, Rand — these names go absolutely unmentioned in serious philosophical circles, and for good reason. Each acquired a cursory knowledge of philosophical problems and, after a minimum of reflection, had the gall to imagine that they had resolved them.

They hadn't.

Ayn Rand failed more spectacularly than any of them. Her fiction is lifeless and her ideas completely insubstantial. She was at home in neither trade.

[veeling]

I wonder if those whose names are discussed in serious philosophical circles suffered similar criticisms within the first few generations after their deaths. "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed; Second, it is violently opposed; and Third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

[eastocean2000]

Regarding sedcontra post: That's some good stuff you're smoking, huh? The person described in your post could not have the influence and record sales she is currently having so many years after publication and her death. Midgets commenting on giants would do better playing in traffic. Run along now.

[ProtoSteward]

Good point. Mostly.

At least C.S. Lewis understood he was a popularizer, not "the greatest philsopher since Aristotle."

[mrbadguysan]

Does anyone else think it's funny that Atlus Shrugged and Das Kapital couldn't be more different, but both are long?

[RetardedPenguin1000]

Are you retarded? It's like you read the books but all u got from it was how long it was.

[mrbadguysan]

Wow, this is hypocritical.

[Aristotle100]

I agree. The Fountainhead > Atlas Shrugged

[cyberspy034]

your videos are awsome, i will donate asap

[Brutus0723]

People say it's easy to hate Ayn Rand, but I don't know what the heck they're talking about. Her writing and philosophies are some of the most poignant, sharp ideas I've read. And I'm 17.

[hypnolinks]

LOL

Or, if you're not joking...

Sad, so, so, sad.

[Brutus0723]

Notice that was 2 months ago? Opinions change. I was deep in reading Ayn Rand then. Now I see alot of holes in her ideas. :-)

[hypnolinks]

Judge it critically, you might find some of it good and some of it bad.

The site "Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature" is a good site for a negative evaluation.

[deligthelf]

Good for you, come into the light and away from the insanity.

[Inaissance]

"The one attack...that it is incomplete."

Romanticism, the Aesthetic outcropping ('out'cropper'ing?: ) of Objectivism always implies that "we're not there yet, not good enough, I could do better, always improving and perfecting". Its pervasive (and a requirement) in her fiction, non-fiction and Ideology.(ref. epilogue of AtlasShrugged OR concl of TheNatureOfGovernment/Cap:TUId­eal)

A lot of people misinterpret this as incomplete when its really optimistic projection.

[Zaaz45]

The philosophy of Rand is deeply flawed on an ontological level. It can only be maintained under certain social circumstances. For it to be what it claims,objective truth, to be it would have to work in the desert, in the middle ages, in the Himalaya anything you can think of. Philosophies don't work that way. Hear some of Zizek's lectures here on You Tube to watch some real philosophy. Philosphy is about articulating questions.

[Seeker64]

Considering the basic premise of Ayn Rand's philosophy is that for man to be man he must by nature utilize the one thing thing that sets him truly apart from "lesser" animals, that of thinking logically and in a non contradictory fashion, I can not understand why it could be considered flawed. Are you saying that it would be better to not think or use reason and rationality but rather assume the existence of the supernatural?

[Zaaz45]

Irrational means going against your own interest. If you are always rational, you may get cornered in your reasoning by the government, your parents, lawyers, ('it's in your best interest if you...')Because you become predictable. Rationality is a powerful tool. But not the only tool that sets us apart. What about imagination (great artists are known to be irrational),sensitivity, etc.

[Seeker64]

Yet if one did that one would be following the interests of others and not your own. But no, predictability is not a bad thing.

Why should imagination be the sole fruits of irrationality as you imply. Nothing she has espoused says you can not have an imagination. The only thing is that to be valid or in compliance with reality it must be provable.

[Seeker64]

An example might be that of Marconi one of two individuals that had a hand in the creation of the radio. He was was trying to "send messages through the ether" and this idea he had got him put under mental hospital supervision because it was irrational.

[Seeker64]

But when he he was examined he was found to be quite rational. Yet his idea we see today was in concurrence with reality.

Arbitrary concepts are not without merit of themselves, but to be considered truth it must meet and agree with reality.

[Seeker64]

The one attack I always see with Ayn Rand's philosophy is that it is incomplete. Yet I have never seen anyone define what that was, or give an example of why anything that came before is complete.

[deligthelf]

Thank GOD for someone who has the balls to tell the Truth!

[xxAdimusxx]

I think you are very intellegent and thanks for putting this together, I jut bought some of her books myself, so its good to know a bit more about where to start as well.

Personally I am an objectivist as well. Have you read Terry Goodkind? I think he is the greatest author alive today by far, and his fantasy series is deeply rooted in objectivism.

Cheers

[0neironaut]

i cant help but notice the triumph in your voice when you mention that "actually, she was trained in a Soviet University"... implying, 'amazing how such thoughts can blossom under so much restriction'... perhaps its more truthful to see Rands philosophy as a reaction, and not as self-referential.

[cropperb]

Her philosophy is objective. Its not reactionary or marxist or nietzschean or anything else. Its objective, derived from reality via the axioms of identity and consciousness. irrifuteable.

[0neironaut]

poor guy, seems like you need to get out more. "irrefuteable", lose the "i".

[justme3073]

I really like Atlas Shrugged too and am now reading We the Living. So far Atlas Shrugged pwns it. I don't think The Fountainhead is better than Atlas Shrugged, I think Atlas Shrugged does a better job of explains her philosophy but it might just be that it's longer.

[CerebralJazz85]

I've read both - Rand's Objectivist Epistemology and Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and with the latter, I have to admit that I felt that my subconscious mind was fighting against the absorption and understanding of some the material. This was true for me and I'm not religiously inclined at all. It's like the human defense mechanisms resist attempts at becoming entirely rational. It seems that the mind wants to retain its irrational proclivity.

[cropperb]

That "resistance to rationality" is called laziness... Well, more exactly, it is due to the fact that thinking is hard - it takes effort, focus, etc. So its easier to just relax and go watch tv, like most people do.

[CerebralJazz85]

Obviously by reading those titles I've listed shows that I'm not intellectualy lazy. I'm trying to point out that even for a person that isn't inclined towards religiosity, our human visceral programming seeks to avoid strict adherence to rationality. Have you read the Peikoff book I listed. I heard you discuss it.

[cropperb]

Yes I've read all of Peikoff's (2) books. I didn't mean to imply you are lazy, I'm just speaking from personal introspection. My own personal "resistance to rationality" takes the form of laziness; 'I know its right, but its so much easier to just forget about it....' or whatever.

[CerebralJazz85]

what state are you in? i would love to attend some objectivist or secular humanist meeting in my area (long island) but, i guess, well, i guess i'm too lazy. It's great to read about these subjects, but at some point you want to bounce the ideas off of others.

[sicktoaster]

@cropperb

But if you spend all your thinking you never do anything else, never get to indulge pleasures(other than thinking) so by trying to be too rational you're actually going against your rational self-interest.

[squaretriangle]

"I have to admit that I felt that my subconscious mind was fighting against the absorption and understanding of some the material."

Wondering if either one of these is true (I'm just speculating, so tell me if I'm wrong).

1. When reading the material you have in mind "What would another person reading this think?"

2. You hold a belief that rationality has no place in certain areas of life (like humour, social life, sex) and therefore disown thinking when you try to enter those areas.

[CerebralJazz85]

I was trying to convey that human defense mechanisms act to preclude a 'complete and total' adherence to rational thought. We are all 'delusional' to some extent and these 'delusions' are useful in protecting us from harsh realities. When I read the Peikoff book on Objectivism (which I call the Bible of Reality), there were instances when its ideas broke through my defenses and forced me to 'SEE' truths. And this is a little scary at first.

[CerebralJazz85]

"If we argue against the false beliefs of a person suffering from delusional insanity, we shall find our arguments unable to shake his beliefs because they are not directed against the real cause of thse beliefs. The more succesful of our arguements will, however, have a result dangerous to ourselves, for they may produce an explosion of violent anger." (1of3)

[CerebralJazz85]

"The deep-seated system of emotions protected so carefully by the set of false beliefs will also be protected by anger and physical violence if the protective system of beliefs is in any way threatened....The same is true to a lesser degree of the opinions of a sane person grounded on emotional or practical needs." (2of3)

[CerebralJazz85]

"He will not willingly allow those beliefs, so necessary to his mental comfort to be overthrown, and if our arguments begin to threaten him, he will grow angry or at least peevish." Robert H. Thouless - 'How to Think Straight'. This is the psychological concept known as COGNITIVE DISSONANCE. But any dissonance that accrues is well worth the jump in consciousness that is facilitated by the grasp of these concepts. (3of3)

[CerebralJazz85]

THIS should really be posted on your 2nd, 3rd or Epistemology post but I'll put it here because it's the video others are most likely to see first.

Although I haven't read any of her fiction yet, I am a huge fan of Ayn Rand's philosophy. But it is a kind of misnomer to call it AR's philosophy because it is truly the ideology and perspective of the universe itself. To say I'm a big fan of her philosophy, is to say I'm a big fan of reality.

[CerebralJazz85]

One small problem with what you said in part two of the series is when you described an axiom as an 'irrefutable statement', it's that also, but best described as a 'irreducible' fact. Proof is the derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowledge and nothing is antecedent to axioms. They're the starting points, on which all proofs depend.

[sultrynymph]

I agree with you that the Fountainhead is better than Altas, though only by a small margin. Thank you for the information on the deleted excerpt from the Fountainhead. I very much look forward to reading that.

[Taipan705]

I disagre with you that the fountainhead is better, but i do believe that we can only find the happiness we desire by finding it for ourselves, no person or god is going to give it to us. Life is meant to be difficult, and any shortcut you find may lead to disaster, where the only refuge is a hidden garden of man made eden.

[frozen78996587]

Excellent.

[Aristotle100]

hey man first time commentor here but ive watched basically all of your stuff, i love it! very good its nice to see a fellow supporter of egoism and capitalism. There are a few things on morals and metaphysics that i disagree with but other than that i really like objectivism. The Fountianhead changed my life and i do agree with objectivists that the ONLY moral goverment is Laissez-Faire Capitalism

[cropperb]

I would be interested in hearing where you disagree on morals or metphysics...

[ProprietorOfSelf]

the nonaggression principle is inapplicable in a statist society. are you a market anarchist or a proponent of the original philosophy of rand's objectivism?

[sanasanarana]

OK, I decided to post a comment, because you had none. That was nice, to see you do a synopsis of the books.