Based on Atlas Shrugged, it would be perfectly fine for Santa to be altruistic....if only he doesn't force the Elfs to sacrifice themselves for it, so he can be the Nice guy eating the cookies.
WOW. Look at all the debates and flames over this book. Atlas Shrugged must be one powerful capitalistic book...
...-but by the way, doesn't Santa meet that quote's "earned" thing? Santa rewards children on merit and punishes the "naughties" with coal.
He perfoms charity out of the selflessness and Christian goodness of his heart. Even the most brutal of capitalists excercised philantropy (e.g. Rockefeller Foundation). I've never read the book, but isn't there a place for charity? Like Santa?
@TurtleShroom You are absolutely right there is a place for charity in Objectivism (Ayn Rand's Philosophy). The key is that is given by your free will. Today the government forces you to give to the poor. They attempt to do a great good by committing an even greater evil - The enslavement of the people. Go read her books.
@gulbirk If you believe that its not in your self-interest to care about people, then tell your significant other that its not in your self-interest to care about her. Tell her that you're a non-profit charity giving her alms and that you have no value to derive from your relationship. I don't think you really believe that. I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where both parties did not see it as profitable. Mutually beneficial relationships are the hallmark of the trader principle.
@clemonsx90 THat totally depends on what I want from my life. If people did have other people in their self interest, you wouldnt have factories with children working in them.
Second: I'm not an objectivist, so I'm not an expert on what Ayn Rand believes. I just know for a fact, from reading this book, that she despises altruism.
NASA, as I remember, is a taxpayer funded government program. It wasn't GM but the US government that put a man on the moon, put the first man in space, send the first orbiter. If it weren't for the government you there would be no millionaires or billionaires. It is clever ruse to base freedom in "no limiting structures to those who manage capital" when the wealthy depend on the willing acquiescence of America's vassal dictators to suppress labor unions in the third world through brute force.
@perdondaris You didn't check anything, least of all your premises. Bailouts have nothing to do with capitalism, neither do government subsidies for the real estate market, inflationary central banks, welfare programs, coercive regulatory structures nor all the other initiations of force in which the governments of the Western world's mixed economies have been indulging for the last 100 or so years.
Collecting social security doesn't make you a hypocrite just as a socialist using money isn't a hypocrite. Ayn Rand's ideas were bad because they were incoherent and narrow minded. She tries to funnel Nietzsche's perspectivism (individualism) into economic individualism (capitalism). Nietzsche's perspectivism, however, is broader than economics. An individualist can become a political tyrant (e.g. a Mao) just as well as he can become an economic tyrant (e.g. a Rockefeller).
@perdondaris 'She tries to funnel Nietzsche's perspectivism...' I'd be very interested to see the first hand quotes from Ayn Rand's writing on which you based that assertion...
(Given that I've almost everything she published and have seen, consistently, that her metaphysics and epistemology are as far from Nietzsche as it is possible to be, I recommend that rather than doubling down on your arbitrary assertion you simply acknowledge that you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about.)
@perdondaris 'An individualist can become a political tyrant (e.g. a Mao) just as well as he can become an economic tyrant (e.g. a Rockefeller)'
How do you justify your claim that Mao was an individualist?
Further, how do you justify your claim that Rockefeller (who drove down the price of kerosene so that the even poorest in America could afford to light their homes at night, for the first time in history) was a tyrant?
Ayn Rand collected social security. Hypocrite from jump. Also, how can anyone who claims to follow a Christian philosophy, buy into this individualist, atheist dogma produced by Rand ?
@rlidrazzah lol... Christianity is a 'philosophy' but Objectivism is a 'dogma'?
Can I just check, which of those schools of thought holds 'faith' in an unproven and un-provable entity? And, in contrast, which of them holds that knowledge can only be acquired by a process of logic that integrates direct sensory perception?
I hope you will reply, Christian mental gymnastics is always very entertaining.
@rlidrazzah No. You misread me, and I didn't explain very well on first post. I find it hypocritical for Rand Paul and Paul Ryan to promote Ayn Rand's mumbo jumbo, while claiming to be Christians. I'm a Deist. I believe intelligent observation is enough for me to know there is something intelligent that is greater than me. I just don't wrap it in a organized religion. The golden rule is the only major take away I have from Christianity. Jesus was a wise man. Gandhi as well. Siddhartha too.
Umm, FYI, Ayn Rand said that she liked christmas. It is a time where you can cherish and dote upon those whom you value. A day solely dedicated to appreciating life. Besides she never said anything bad about "gift giving"...
I don't believe these business owners earn their profit, they may be good at organizing and good with people. Yet their workers do all the hard work. And they reap the benefits. Doesn't make sense. Also if Ayn Rand knew anything about the Brain she would know that the world is totally objective.
@ThebirdmanTrainer You didn't really think it through before posting, did you?
Is organizing things and organizing people so that they are able to achieve a profit not a form of work? In fact is it not the case that the owner who initiates that process has done the most important work of all - the work that makes everyone else's work possible? Note that he also takes the greatest risk since it is his money that's on the line.
Also, Rand's philosophy is called Objectivism for a reason.
@StudentOfObjectivism "Is organizing things and organizing people ... not a form of work?" It's not a form of work that has to be condensed into a job that only one person is allowed to do by virtue of the fact that he was in a privileged position and his workers were in a desperate position.
@dsmelsergmailcom I was going to reply... maybe explain some basic economic principles to you so that you might be able to go through life without being so utterly ignorant and retarded. Then I read your second comment and decided that I don't want to waste my time arguing with a foul-mouthed retard.
You don't understand the difference between money and a whip, but I think you'll find out some day.
If you are able to organize people and take a risk as you say. Why should you do less overall labor and make 75% more money than your workers? If Ayn Rand says that people work because they want to achieve an Objective. Then where does this hierarchy of money come into play? If their achieving their objective (owning a bank)! Then they've done it. But money is their real objective, and to exploit others for their own gain.
@ThebirdmanTrainer It's not about how many hours or how much physical motion one does, it's about how productive one's work is (ie how much value one's work creates). The manager who organizes action so that i) the people that do the physical motions are able to make money and ii) the customers are happy to pay for the service; has created value for everyone with his organizational skills and his foresight. He's benefiting everyone around him and deserves his profit.
'But money is their real objective, and to exploit others for their own gain.'
That is the goal of the Peter Keatings of this world. The heroes of Ayn Rand's novels are not just 'money grabbers'... they become rich, but that is not the sole aim. If you want to understand the full motivations of an Objectivist you will need to read The Fountainhead at the very least. When you do so you may wish to revise your assumptions of who it is that wants to 'exploit others', also.
I wonder what Old Lady Rand would think of today's capitalism that relies almost completely on a communist country to provide the US with cheap labor and goods spesifically because of its oppressive nature.
.
Back when she was alive (and on social security when diagnosed with cancer), the US manufactured everything in its own borders, now American capitalism rests on a communist foundation thanks to china.
This video was made out of total ignorance of what Rand stood for...and meant.
In reality...we give gifts out of love...this is not in any way inconsistent with Rand's objectivism. Please understand...that to eat, to breath, to work for a paycheck, to give a loved one a gift...they are all "selfish" acts.
No, the state creates property rights and defends them. Before Europeans landed in foreign places where there was no capitalism they imposed it and the government maintained it. That is what is meant by imperialism. The Massachusetts indians lived without property. They traded possessions but their was no religious sense of ownership which the European state provided. Capitalist institutions, like nations, exist only on paper. The threat of violence is the only means by which they exist.
The Bolshevik Revolution occurred when the enlisted men of the Russian Army refused to fight for the Russian government. They went on strike. This gave the Bolsheviks access to power. The rise of fascism was led by military men (the Freikorps and the S.A.) who felt stabbed in the back by the Weimar regime. There is more to worry about in the military and the police going on strike than Michelle Malkin and the "capitalist supermen" going on strike. The military can crush Wall Street if it wants.
Ayn Rand's philosophy failed. It was called the 19th century. By the way it wasn't the free market that came up with the internet, jet planes, radios, computers, radar, or rockets. It was the government. Every major technological advance in the 20th century was funded by the government and created by government technicians. I know that is a hard pill for you Objectivists to swallow but its true. The first nation to put a satellite and man in space was the Soviet Union, not capitalist America.
@perdondaris Oh god that's stupid. For a start the freest countries in the world exhibited the greatest growth in the 19th century. This is in spite of the expense of colonialism which cost them enormous amounts and gave back little in return. The idea that because something was invented by government (supposedly) it had to be is assinine. Yes the first satelite was Soviet and what did it do? It went "beep". The advantages of the satelite were only achievable by the wealth of the market.
@newperve The freest countries in the world provide a balance to private power such as religion or business. The first Soviet satellite, the first man in space were government programs. Nasa also put the first man on the moon--not Panam. The defense of America during the Cold War--agree or disagree with the aims---was done by the government, not the market. Government regulations save lives. Yes they are annoying but they are crucial. Otherwise you will have perpetual social conflict.
@perdondaris Wow, what a useless bunch of moronic assertions. The defence of America during the Cold War would have been a lot easier if the US government didn't keep giving them aid. Your claim that government regulations save lives is just that, a claim. You have not even tried to estimate the lives they cost let alone compared it to the lives saved to establish a net number. We have perpetual social conflict now and we always will while there is a State.
@newperve We have perpetual social conflict when the state exists only to protect the rights of certain people--like property owners. If those without property have no say in how society is run they will work against that society through sabotage and violence. That is the story of John Galt isn't it? Management goes on strike and destroys society. If the army feels like it is getting screwed by society then why can't it go on strike? That is what led to Bolshevism after all.
@perdondaris Perpetual social conflict has nothing to do with protecting the rights of anybody. People don't get into conflict because their rights are being violated but because by conflict they can wrest control of resources through the state they couldn't otherwise get. Ostrom won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science for proving that communities do quite well making rules without governments so how are government regulations "crucial"?
@newperve Perpetual social conflict has to do with greed. What do you think government is? It is men enforcing laws (not the laws themselves which are always up for conjecture). If there is no enforcement of laws then there is no government. If there is no government to enforce property laws property does not exist. They are only abstractions. Possession exists but possession must be defended either by violence or an accepted construct which all men are willing to consent to.
@perdondaris Except I already pointed out that someone won a Nobel Memorial Prize proving that without government property rights are developed, respected and useful. The state (which I take it is what you mean when you say "government") is the primary threat to property rights, not the primary defender of them.
When people bought houses for $100K back in 2000 and decided to sell them in 2005 for $700K, I didn't hear any of those "feel good human interest" stories about some "bleeding heart" liberal who decided to sell his $100K house to some poor family for a modest $150K despite the fact that someone else with a lot of money was ALREADY willing to pay him $700K.
Only goes to show that EVERYONE is greedy and EVERYONE loves capitalism when it's in their favor, but LIBERALS hate it when it's not!
"So if you can't make it impossible, do you just give up? Or do you try to MINIMIZE it as much as possible?"
That's MY argument. Your argument is not to try by hoping that charity will work despite the abysmal track record.
"Too bad you couldn't figure that out!"
I understood your unsourced anecdote. The principle it's supposed to show doesn't hold up to ANY kind of rational examination of statistics. Most people working for tips are dirt fucking poor. It's a retarded thing for you to say.
@dsmelsergmailcom "The principle it's supposed to show doesn't hold up to ANY kind of rational examination of statistics. Most people working for tips are dirt fucking poor. It's a retarded thing for you to say."
It wasn't to show that working for tips is a lucrative career. It was to show that people do give voluntarily when they aren't forced. People DO NOT want to give to someone who is feeding off the system (welfare).
I'm still waiting for you tell us what system works and why.
This is just a propaganda video to bash Ayn Rand as the message implied is quite clear. The truth is Ayn Rand wasn't against people giving gifts as long as they were people you cared about. She was against the belief that people are obligated to giving gifts or that giving gifts is a virtue.
The book santa was reading should be called "Atlas Shrugged: The Marxist Propaganda Version".
Objectivism is totally retarded. Their infantile notion of freedom doesn't hold up to two seconds of exposure to real desperation and the realization of the kind of coercion it makes possible. It's easy to complain about the government stick when you've had plenty of carrots your whole life, you fucking morons.
@dsmelsergmailcom ".....doesn't hold up to two seconds of exposure to real desperation ."
Her father's business was taken from him in Russia by commies and she came here with practically nothing. She wasn't handed any carrots and wasn't against charity. Anyone who's down on their luck would be at the mercy of the generous nature of man. If you believe that men are naturally cold hearted and require a government to forcefully take from them to give to these people, what's that say about you?
@jjenson2006 Well how nice for her that she happened to become a successful author. Is that your prescription for people to escape the desperation of capitalism? Get very lucky? I believe that as long as the government is mandating exploitation by maintaining capital "rights" in spite of that exploitation, it ought to at least ameliorate some of the worst effects of it. Charity is nice, but it isn't effective and efficacy is a perfectly reasonable precondition for voluntary participation.
@dsmelsergmailcom "Is that your prescription for people to escape the desperation of capitalism?"
What we have isn't Capitalism. If we had free market capitalism, there wouldn't be many poor people. Peoples lives are detroyed by government, not the market. A free market provides for everyone. To say that charity isn't effective is BS. There are people who work in bars that don't get paid anything but tips and make a six figure income. Noone wants to give to someone already collecting welfare.
@jjenson2006 "If we had free market capitalism, there wouldn't be many poor people." Bullshit.
"To say that charity isn't effective is BS." Has charity gotten rid of poverty at any point in history ever? EVER? Well then it's not fucking effective.
"There are people who work in bars..." Worst standard ever. You people really are fucking retarded. The proper aim is to make poverty *impossible*. Not to generate a couple of anecdotes about a "lucky" minority of people that work for tips.
@jjenson2006 "BULLSHIT? No examples, no argument? I guess that makes you right. LOL" I responded to your naked assertions with all the effort they merited. History says the exact fucking opposite. It's no wonder you're an objectivist. You're completely ignorant.
"During periods when we had the closest thing to capitalism, we had the least poverty. " Totally fucking wrong. Exactly backwards. Those were the periods where poverty was the most severe.
That depends, if your name is history, then it is true. Otherwise, lets see your proof. The industrial age raised the standard of living for everyone. If you want proof, just ask and I'll supply some links.
"Those were the periods where poverty was the most severe."
Ok, so what is the proper aim? So if you can't make it impossible, do you just give up? Or do you try to MINIMIZE it as much as possible?
"Not to generate a couple of anecdotes about a "lucky" minority of people that work for tips."
The example of tips is to show that people are generous and will voluntarily give their own money to someone in need when they aren't FORCED to do it. Too bad you couldn't figure that out!
@dsmelsergmailcom Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money as defined on WIKI. This suggests that poverty defines someone as having less than others.
So in a sense I do agree with you that if there was never capitalism, there would be no poverty BECAUSE everyone would be eating grass and living in huts. As far as living good, I don't think this is what is good for everyone. Just look at pigme tribes, you can see what lack of capitalism will do.
@dsmelsergmailcom ...and charity is not supposed to raise the poors standard of living. It's supposed to give them only enough to reasonably sustain life. It is important not to give them too much or it will make them depend on charity and give them little incentive to better themselves. This is why welfare is bad, it makes people lazy to the point that they feel their life is better when someone supports them rather than working and improving their living conditions.
@dsmelsergmailcom "If you think that poor people are poor because they're lazy (or stupid) or whatever you really are fucking retarded."
Where'd I say that people are poor BECAUSE they're lazy or stupid? I never said that, so I guess according to you, I'm not fucking retarded. At the same time, it means that you're delusional and cannot possibly sustain an intelligent discussion. Why do you put words into my mouth and then demonize me for it? Why do you hate people so much that you'd do that?
@jjenson2006 "Where'd I say that people are poor BECAUSE they're lazy or stupid? I never said that, so I guess according to you"
That is a necessary premise of your argument that welfare is why people are on welfare. You said it yourself: "it makes people lazy to the point that they feel their life is better when someone supports them rather than working and improving their living conditions." That's fucking retarded. The reality is that capitalism (yours and existing) is shit.
@dsmelsergmailcom "That is a necessary premise of your argument that welfare is why people are on welfare."
No it's not. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Either that or your stupid. People become poor for many different reasons. It is WELFARE that makes people lazy and CAUSES people to STAY poor. This is not an opinion, it is a well studied fact by people a lot smarter than both of us!
It wasn't random good fortune that gave rise to Ayn Rand coming out of poverty. Ayn didn't "get very lucky." She worked for her wealth. Sorry to burst your bubble but, there is no Santa Claus.
@dsmelsergmailcom 'Is that your prescription for people to escape the desperation of capitalism? Get very lucky?'
As long as you think that writing great novels a la Ayn Rand, designing great products a la Steve Jobs, or making great investments a la Peter Schiff is a matter of 'luck' you don't have a chance of understanding economics, philosophy... or anything at all. You're an ignoramus.
@StudentOfObjectivism 1. Ayn Rand's novels are terrible. It's one thing if you're into the idiotic ideas it puts forward in its interminable, anvilicious monologlues, but the writing is fucking terrible. If you want well written combined with a not-retarded political ideology, put down Rand and pick up Tolstoy.
2. Steve Jobs didn't design great products. He took existing products and put a glossy white finish on them.
3. Peter Schiff ABSOLUTELY got to where he is by luck. Are you serious?
@jjenson2006 ' If you believe that men are naturally cold hearted and require a government to forcefully take from them to give to these people, what's that say about you?' You nailed it, man. Great comment.
@StudentOfObjectivism "' If you believe that men are naturally cold hearted and require a government to forcefully take from them to give to these people, what's that say about you?' You nailed it, man. Great comment."
That's absurd. People are more willing to sacrifice when they know their sacrifice is going toward an attempt to deal with the problem _effectively. What requires a cold heart is wanting the removal of the only systems that put a DENT in the problems caused by capitalism.
@dsmelsergmailcom Calling something retarded with no actual evidence is pretty retarded. Where is there real nastiness? Where there is most coercion, most government, most subjective crap.
I'd like to remind everyone (myself included) that youtube is no place for intelligent debate because even the people who claim to listen and be respectful act bad. Hell they're the worst. Hell everybody here knows who is really right...
People who demand of others that they earn their love are incapable of loving. The other never for long satisfies the standard, which constantly shifts or is arbitrarily forgotten.
@FrogmortonHotchkiss So love requires no standards... interesting. Does that mean that you love everybody, including dictators, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, etc? If you don't love everyone then it must mean that:
@StudentOfObjectivism I can't find or recall my original comment, it was so long ago. I would say however that love is not the same as 'like very much'. There are many meanings to the word, some quite divergent.
@FrogmortonHotchkiss 'People who demand of others that they earn their love are incapable of loving. The other never for long satisfies the standard, which constantly shifts or is arbitrarily forgotten.' - you.
I think that statement is indefensible... also, it is exactly the position held by James Taggart in Atlas Shrugged.
There's no problem in giving and receiving, the problem (and to some spritual teachings, the sin) comes in EXPECTING to receive for nothing, or giving something EXPECTING to receive something in return...
@umichobjectivist Why should anyone receive a gift for doing nothing? Isn't that the very definition of gift? It's gratuitous, not payment for services or favors rendered. You prefer to receive a wage as a laborer, that's fine, there is honor in that. But what's wrong with giving or receiving a gift, given and received in love? The secular "celebration" of Christmas is moving further and further away from this idea of gift-giving love. Paying for a gift? Then it's not a gift. It's a purchase.
@Jacobth23 Anyone who thinks he or she is "entitled" to a "gift" doesn't understand what a gift is. A gift is given freely by the person who gives it. Can't earn it or demand it, or it would cease to be a gift. It would then be a reward or a concession but not a gift. One can think one is entitled to something, but that something by definition cannot be a gift. A gift is given voluntarily without compensation & not in payment for anything. Because of friendship and/or love.
@DiscipleOfChrist96 Do you give gifts to people who don't deserve it? If a person hasn't done anything to please you would you still buy them a gift? A gift is not given without friendship or love (or social obligation). And one doesn't not get friends or lovers by doing nothing, but by being worthy of the friendship and love of others. My point is, unless people have earned your love or friendship in some way, you generally don't give them gifts, so to say a gift is for "nothing" is ludicrous.
@Jacobth23 Yes. I give gifts to people who don't deserve them. You can't deserve a gift. You can deserve a reward, an honor. You simply cannot earn a gift. That would be illogical, defying the very definition of a gift. A gift is given gratis. I was given the gift of life. I certainly did nothing and could have done nothing to earn that gift. Yet I was given that gift anyway. That is what a gift is. Freely given. Love is also a gift, not earned. Who earns love?
@DiscipleOfChrist96 Ok to prove you wrong I will send you my address, and If I don't get a gift from you then you are a liar. We have no connection, and it must be something that I would appreciate (since you put thought into gifts). Also Loving someone who hasn't earned love is stupid. I do not love people who murder, or rape children, and they have not earned it. Anyway. Looking forward to my gift please message me when you want my address.
You're what's wrong with "Objective"-ism. You think a baby has to earn love from it's mother or vise versa? Following that idea of love, civilization would crumble. I agree that people who murder or rape children don't deserve love, but good grief, love isn't just a thing to withhold based on class or achievement.
Also, I'm not sure if you expected that "gift" thing to work, but if you did, that's low. If not, it's just a dumb strawman.
@ArtemisDaFowl I don't think a baby should have to earn love. If a person chose to have a baby then they SHOULD love it. Since it was their choice to bring it into this world. In that relationship the burden falls on the PARENT to earn the love of the child. Unfortunately not all people do (people abuse their children every day). I have no idea what your class, or your achievement's are, and I do not love you. I have no basis for loving you because you haven't shown me a reason to love you.
@jerkbeast81 Why should you care if another baby is loved? It is not in your own interest, unless you happen to be the baby in question. How do you justify child services to children of abusive families? It's a free handout, isn't it?
Mkay, I didn't ask if you loved me. I suppose I don't love you either, but I would say that you are a fellow. If I knew that you were poor, I would gladly donate food and such. Because you evidently have a computer, however, you aren't, so I won't.
@ArtemisDaFowl I don't personally care if the babies are loved on individual basis. I just think in a society of rational people that they would/should be loved by their parents. (which we don't have at the moment)
I don't justify the government taking my money by threat of force, and giving it to abuse victims. There are plenty of non profit organizations for that sort of thing.
I have no problem with donations being given since it's your choice. I just think it's stupid.
@ArtemisDaFowl I use examples....you tell me to go read. That's what Christians tell me too. If their philosophy's are so well thought out you should be able to explain the flaws in what I say instead of just telling me to go read them. I also didn't get from what you said that you were a Jesusnut, but thanks!
I have already told you what I think of your concept of love. You still haven't consolidated baby-loving with "concern for one's own interests." Here's another example of something you can't justify: You see that the tail light for someone's parked bike is on, wasting the battery. You don't want the person to get hit if they ride at night, so you turn it off. How does that benefit you?
@ArtemisDaFowl As far as the baby love....it is in your rational self interest to love your child, and to get it to love you. If you have a child that you don't love living in your home, and you feel that the child is a burden then you will be miserable. As far as the bike light thing goes I wouldn't even notice that it was on or think to switch it off. So it isn't a good example since I just wouldn't care.
How is it rational or in your own self interest? Surely if a child makes you miserable, you can dump it on someone else, seeing as it's holding you back from living your full potential. It's mammalian instinct that keeps one protecting that child against one's interest, without which humans couldn't've become a successful species.
Whatever; clearer example: A classmate you don't know leaves their notes behind. Do you bother to run it over to him/her before they leave the building?
This video actually reinforces Rand's point - it is only in a fantasy world that wealth can be created magically out of thin air and handed out for free. In the real world, people who produce things of value do so through the investment of their time, hard work and innovation. The expectation that they should just give away the fruits of their labor is magical "Santa Claus" thinking.
@gergenheimer As a filthy hippie liberal, I'm intrigued by your point. And I'm not being smarmy or anything. It would good to hear an honest debate involving your point here, the contrast between Objectivism and Christianity, and the value of doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds.
@gergenheimer You're right if by "people who produce things of value" you mean the productive workers whose labor power is exploited for the sake of profit.
@obscenegrace2003 You need to fast-forward past the 19th century - Marx's Labor Theory of Value has been debunked 100 times over - it's logically inconsistent, self-contradictory drivel. It wouldn't even be worth commenting on if these ridiculous ideas weren't still hanging around like so many cockroaches.
@gergenheimer What specific arguments have "debunked" the Labor Theory of Value? I know you're limited by the 500 character limit, but I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific. The biggest argument against the LtV that I know of is the transformation problem, but that was resolved by the introduction of the temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI). Then there's hilariously fallacious arguments, like the mudpie argument.
@warmongerpro Specifically, Menger shredded the foundations of LTV in "Principles of Economics" - Marginal utility and subjective value are concepts that are logically-conistent and which hold up to scrutiny, unlike LTV. Value is is the mind of the beholder - a product which is produced but is not desired by anyone has a value of near-zero, no matter how much labor went into it's creation. It puzzles me that this obvious fact can be ignored in favor of pseudo-science.
@warmongerpro imagine a village where a virus suddenly renders the entire populace allergic to dairy products. According to LTV, the cheese on the shelves at the cheesemaker's shop has not changed in value because the amount of labor and resources that went into making it hasn't changed. It is clear, however, that the cheese has become near worthless because the value scales of all of the individuals in the town have changed.
@obscenegrace2003 I never claimed to be a hard-core follower of Rand, so I feel no obligation to defend her ideas as a serious philosophical system - to elaborate on what I said, the debunking of Marx was done by Menger, Hayek, Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, (and many others) who blasted the logical inconsistencies and internal contradictions of Marxism. I suggest the YT videos "Calculation and Socialism", and "the Marginalist Revolution" by Joe Salerno.
So you're saying we should shut down the financial market? Okey, then! Lets get to it! Oh, yeah: do not forget the banks, we need to get them closed too so we can start to produce some real value.
Aside from the fact that Santa doesn't exist, there is nothing in Rand's philosophy that is opposed to gift giving. The important point is that you give a gift because you selfishly take pleasure in doing so (i.e., you value the happiness of the person you are giving a gift). You don't give gifts because you believe it to be an obligation.
As somebody who likes Ayn for being an individual and loves her ability to write, I enjoyed this video. You could take it positive or negative. I've seen the South Park episode clip and that was not as funny as this.
Based on Atlas Shrugged, it would be perfectly fine for Santa to be altruistic....if only he doesn't force the Elfs to sacrifice themselves for it, so he can be the Nice guy eating the cookies.
MrDanielBowman74 1 week ago
LMFAO! Santa should have called them second-handers! But he didn't read the Fountainhead.
KyleClarkUSA 3 weeks ago
Too bad santa is a fictional character
iAwoke777 3 weeks ago
WOW. Look at all the debates and flames over this book. Atlas Shrugged must be one powerful capitalistic book...
...-but by the way, doesn't Santa meet that quote's "earned" thing? Santa rewards children on merit and punishes the "naughties" with coal.
He perfoms charity out of the selflessness and Christian goodness of his heart. Even the most brutal of capitalists excercised philantropy (e.g. Rockefeller Foundation). I've never read the book, but isn't there a place for charity? Like Santa?
TurtleShroom 1 month ago
@TurtleShroom You are absolutely right there is a place for charity in Objectivism (Ayn Rand's Philosophy). The key is that is given by your free will. Today the government forces you to give to the poor. They attempt to do a great good by committing an even greater evil - The enslavement of the people. Go read her books.
derek2010x 1 month ago
AT LEAST NOW THE ELVES CAN GET PAID!!
Andersll11 2 months ago
I found the quote voiced by Rand to be so hilariously placed.
HalloFusilli 2 months ago
*LOL* From the sociopath twit who survived on Social Security and Medicare while smoking like a chimney...
timparcival 2 months ago 2
@timparcival I smoke like a chimney
ClovenHoovedWorld 2 months ago
@timparcival HAHAHAha, you know nothing, troll harder.
NobleMaN79 1 week ago
"is this a bill?" i laughed so hard. my god, ayn rand has changed my perception of everything everywhere.
brathurx 2 months ago
so much wrong on so many level.
have you ever read the book?
If you did and you think this is what it is about I feel sorry for you.
Isnt there a "dont show stupid socialistic videos" filter on youtube? Would remove 99 % of the bulls**t on this site. :)
MrThinPin 2 months ago
I thought he made a list, checked it twice, and gave gifts not to the naughty, but to the nice--isn't that a way of earning them?
Seasass 3 months ago 2
Yeah I totally agree. Fuck caring about people. Santa Claus should turn his factories into profitable factories.
gulbirk 3 months ago
@gulbirk If you believe that its not in your self-interest to care about people, then tell your significant other that its not in your self-interest to care about her. Tell her that you're a non-profit charity giving her alms and that you have no value to derive from your relationship. I don't think you really believe that. I wouldn't want to be in a relationship where both parties did not see it as profitable. Mutually beneficial relationships are the hallmark of the trader principle.
clemonsx90 2 months ago
@clemonsx90 THat totally depends on what I want from my life. If people did have other people in their self interest, you wouldnt have factories with children working in them.
gulbirk 2 months ago
Why can't you still give gifts?
drshlotzkin 3 months ago
@drshlotzkin because they're unearned and given entirely by altruistic intention, and in objectivism, pure altruism is immoral.
scottski02 3 months ago
@scottski02
what would Ms. Rand's theory be on reciprical alturism
zacharymullin 3 months ago
@zacharymullin first, what exactly is that?
Second: I'm not an objectivist, so I'm not an expert on what Ayn Rand believes. I just know for a fact, from reading this book, that she despises altruism.
scottski02 3 months ago
0:03 I think ''Atlas shrugged'' book is way bigger :)
enojehaubicausumarku 3 months ago
NASA, as I remember, is a taxpayer funded government program. It wasn't GM but the US government that put a man on the moon, put the first man in space, send the first orbiter. If it weren't for the government you there would be no millionaires or billionaires. It is clever ruse to base freedom in "no limiting structures to those who manage capital" when the wealthy depend on the willing acquiescence of America's vassal dictators to suppress labor unions in the third world through brute force.
perdondaris 3 months ago
Last time I checked the capitalist system collapsed and had to be recapitalized by the government using collateral from a Communist nation.
perdondaris 3 months ago
@perdondaris You didn't check anything, least of all your premises. Bailouts have nothing to do with capitalism, neither do government subsidies for the real estate market, inflationary central banks, welfare programs, coercive regulatory structures nor all the other initiations of force in which the governments of the Western world's mixed economies have been indulging for the last 100 or so years.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
Collecting social security doesn't make you a hypocrite just as a socialist using money isn't a hypocrite. Ayn Rand's ideas were bad because they were incoherent and narrow minded. She tries to funnel Nietzsche's perspectivism (individualism) into economic individualism (capitalism). Nietzsche's perspectivism, however, is broader than economics. An individualist can become a political tyrant (e.g. a Mao) just as well as he can become an economic tyrant (e.g. a Rockefeller).
perdondaris 3 months ago
@perdondaris 'She tries to funnel Nietzsche's perspectivism...' I'd be very interested to see the first hand quotes from Ayn Rand's writing on which you based that assertion...
(Given that I've almost everything she published and have seen, consistently, that her metaphysics and epistemology are as far from Nietzsche as it is possible to be, I recommend that rather than doubling down on your arbitrary assertion you simply acknowledge that you don't know what the f*ck you are talking about.)
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@perdondaris 'An individualist can become a political tyrant (e.g. a Mao) just as well as he can become an economic tyrant (e.g. a Rockefeller)'
How do you justify your claim that Mao was an individualist?
Further, how do you justify your claim that Rockefeller (who drove down the price of kerosene so that the even poorest in America could afford to light their homes at night, for the first time in history) was a tyrant?
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
Ayn Rand collected social security. Hypocrite from jump. Also, how can anyone who claims to follow a Christian philosophy, buy into this individualist, atheist dogma produced by Rand ?
rlidrazzah 3 months ago
@rlidrazzah lol... Christianity is a 'philosophy' but Objectivism is a 'dogma'?
Can I just check, which of those schools of thought holds 'faith' in an unproven and un-provable entity? And, in contrast, which of them holds that knowledge can only be acquired by a process of logic that integrates direct sensory perception?
I hope you will reply, Christian mental gymnastics is always very entertaining.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@rlidrazzah No. You misread me, and I didn't explain very well on first post. I find it hypocritical for Rand Paul and Paul Ryan to promote Ayn Rand's mumbo jumbo, while claiming to be Christians. I'm a Deist. I believe intelligent observation is enough for me to know there is something intelligent that is greater than me. I just don't wrap it in a organized religion. The golden rule is the only major take away I have from Christianity. Jesus was a wise man. Gandhi as well. Siddhartha too.
rlidrazzah 3 months ago
Clever. Funny. Well done.
TheForwardGaze 3 months ago
LOL
JESTER588 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Umm, FYI, Ayn Rand said that she liked christmas. It is a time where you can cherish and dote upon those whom you value. A day solely dedicated to appreciating life. Besides she never said anything bad about "gift giving"...
CptnChan 4 months ago
I don't believe these business owners earn their profit, they may be good at organizing and good with people. Yet their workers do all the hard work. And they reap the benefits. Doesn't make sense. Also if Ayn Rand knew anything about the Brain she would know that the world is totally objective.
ThebirdmanTrainer 4 months ago
@ThebirdmanTrainer UGH!
JESTER588 4 months ago
@ThebirdmanTrainer You didn't really think it through before posting, did you?
Is organizing things and organizing people so that they are able to achieve a profit not a form of work? In fact is it not the case that the owner who initiates that process has done the most important work of all - the work that makes everyone else's work possible? Note that he also takes the greatest risk since it is his money that's on the line.
Also, Rand's philosophy is called Objectivism for a reason.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism "Is organizing things and organizing people ... not a form of work?" It's not a form of work that has to be condensed into a job that only one person is allowed to do by virtue of the fact that he was in a privileged position and his workers were in a desperate position.
dsmelsergmailcom 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism "Note that he also takes the greatest risk since it is his money that's on the line."
Note that you're taking massive inequality as a given. It is not given.
"Also, Rand's philosophy is called Objectivism for a reason."
Ayn Rand was an obnoxious cunt that didn't understand what the word "objective" means?
dsmelsergmailcom 3 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom I was going to reply... maybe explain some basic economic principles to you so that you might be able to go through life without being so utterly ignorant and retarded. Then I read your second comment and decided that I don't want to waste my time arguing with a foul-mouthed retard.
You don't understand the difference between money and a whip, but I think you'll find out some day.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism You were going to feed me some more of your retarded propaganda and I was going to slap your dick in the dirt...again.
dsmelsergmailcom 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism Oh I Did.
If you are able to organize people and take a risk as you say. Why should you do less overall labor and make 75% more money than your workers? If Ayn Rand says that people work because they want to achieve an Objective. Then where does this hierarchy of money come into play? If their achieving their objective (owning a bank)! Then they've done it. But money is their real objective, and to exploit others for their own gain.
ThebirdmanTrainer 3 months ago
@ThebirdmanTrainer It's not about how many hours or how much physical motion one does, it's about how productive one's work is (ie how much value one's work creates). The manager who organizes action so that i) the people that do the physical motions are able to make money and ii) the customers are happy to pay for the service; has created value for everyone with his organizational skills and his foresight. He's benefiting everyone around him and deserves his profit.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
...
'But money is their real objective, and to exploit others for their own gain.'
That is the goal of the Peter Keatings of this world. The heroes of Ayn Rand's novels are not just 'money grabbers'... they become rich, but that is not the sole aim. If you want to understand the full motivations of an Objectivist you will need to read The Fountainhead at the very least. When you do so you may wish to revise your assumptions of who it is that wants to 'exploit others', also.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
I wonder what Old Lady Rand would think of today's capitalism that relies almost completely on a communist country to provide the US with cheap labor and goods spesifically because of its oppressive nature.
.
Back when she was alive (and on social security when diagnosed with cancer), the US manufactured everything in its own borders, now American capitalism rests on a communist foundation thanks to china.
nurb101 5 months ago
Rand sucks.
NathanRomml 5 months ago
This video was made out of total ignorance of what Rand stood for...and meant.
In reality...we give gifts out of love...this is not in any way inconsistent with Rand's objectivism. Please understand...that to eat, to breath, to work for a paycheck, to give a loved one a gift...they are all "selfish" acts.
chubsteriffic 5 months ago
@chubsteriffic
To enslave, to exploit, to war, they are all "selfish" acts. Being selfish in itself is not bad, but to advocate systematic selfishness IS bad.
pulsatingremedy 4 months ago
@chubsteriffic I know but it's still hilarious
calm161 4 months ago
No, the state creates property rights and defends them. Before Europeans landed in foreign places where there was no capitalism they imposed it and the government maintained it. That is what is meant by imperialism. The Massachusetts indians lived without property. They traded possessions but their was no religious sense of ownership which the European state provided. Capitalist institutions, like nations, exist only on paper. The threat of violence is the only means by which they exist.
perdondaris 6 months ago
The Bolshevik Revolution occurred when the enlisted men of the Russian Army refused to fight for the Russian government. They went on strike. This gave the Bolsheviks access to power. The rise of fascism was led by military men (the Freikorps and the S.A.) who felt stabbed in the back by the Weimar regime. There is more to worry about in the military and the police going on strike than Michelle Malkin and the "capitalist supermen" going on strike. The military can crush Wall Street if it wants.
perdondaris 6 months ago
Ayn Rand's philosophy failed. It was called the 19th century. By the way it wasn't the free market that came up with the internet, jet planes, radios, computers, radar, or rockets. It was the government. Every major technological advance in the 20th century was funded by the government and created by government technicians. I know that is a hard pill for you Objectivists to swallow but its true. The first nation to put a satellite and man in space was the Soviet Union, not capitalist America.
perdondaris 7 months ago 2
@perdondaris Oh god that's stupid. For a start the freest countries in the world exhibited the greatest growth in the 19th century. This is in spite of the expense of colonialism which cost them enormous amounts and gave back little in return. The idea that because something was invented by government (supposedly) it had to be is assinine. Yes the first satelite was Soviet and what did it do? It went "beep". The advantages of the satelite were only achievable by the wealth of the market.
newperve 6 months ago
@newperve The freest countries in the world provide a balance to private power such as religion or business. The first Soviet satellite, the first man in space were government programs. Nasa also put the first man on the moon--not Panam. The defense of America during the Cold War--agree or disagree with the aims---was done by the government, not the market. Government regulations save lives. Yes they are annoying but they are crucial. Otherwise you will have perpetual social conflict.
perdondaris 6 months ago
@perdondaris Wow, what a useless bunch of moronic assertions. The defence of America during the Cold War would have been a lot easier if the US government didn't keep giving them aid. Your claim that government regulations save lives is just that, a claim. You have not even tried to estimate the lives they cost let alone compared it to the lives saved to establish a net number. We have perpetual social conflict now and we always will while there is a State.
newperve 6 months ago
@newperve We have perpetual social conflict when the state exists only to protect the rights of certain people--like property owners. If those without property have no say in how society is run they will work against that society through sabotage and violence. That is the story of John Galt isn't it? Management goes on strike and destroys society. If the army feels like it is getting screwed by society then why can't it go on strike? That is what led to Bolshevism after all.
perdondaris 6 months ago
@perdondaris Perpetual social conflict has nothing to do with protecting the rights of anybody. People don't get into conflict because their rights are being violated but because by conflict they can wrest control of resources through the state they couldn't otherwise get. Ostrom won the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Science for proving that communities do quite well making rules without governments so how are government regulations "crucial"?
newperve 6 months ago
@newperve Perpetual social conflict has to do with greed. What do you think government is? It is men enforcing laws (not the laws themselves which are always up for conjecture). If there is no enforcement of laws then there is no government. If there is no government to enforce property laws property does not exist. They are only abstractions. Possession exists but possession must be defended either by violence or an accepted construct which all men are willing to consent to.
perdondaris 6 months ago
@perdondaris Except I already pointed out that someone won a Nobel Memorial Prize proving that without government property rights are developed, respected and useful. The state (which I take it is what you mean when you say "government") is the primary threat to property rights, not the primary defender of them.
newperve 6 months ago
Last time I checked the Soviet Union Collapsed
simontimon2 3 months ago
@perdondaris And the first one to land on the Moon... America?
By the way, commie, ever noticed how while all this was going on the people of America lived in prosperity and the people of the USSR starved?
DrStrangebomb1993 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 Maybe those liberals who hate capitalism, because it's not in their favor, are just ... greedy?j
kanudotis 7 months ago
@kanudotis Is that your only argument Koch Dealers? I know you are but what am I? Pathetic.
perdondaris 6 months ago
When people bought houses for $100K back in 2000 and decided to sell them in 2005 for $700K, I didn't hear any of those "feel good human interest" stories about some "bleeding heart" liberal who decided to sell his $100K house to some poor family for a modest $150K despite the fact that someone else with a lot of money was ALREADY willing to pay him $700K.
Only goes to show that EVERYONE is greedy and EVERYONE loves capitalism when it's in their favor, but LIBERALS hate it when it's not!
jjenson2006 7 months ago
"So if you can't make it impossible, do you just give up? Or do you try to MINIMIZE it as much as possible?"
That's MY argument. Your argument is not to try by hoping that charity will work despite the abysmal track record.
"Too bad you couldn't figure that out!"
I understood your unsourced anecdote. The principle it's supposed to show doesn't hold up to ANY kind of rational examination of statistics. Most people working for tips are dirt fucking poor. It's a retarded thing for you to say.
dsmelsergmailcom 7 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom "The principle it's supposed to show doesn't hold up to ANY kind of rational examination of statistics. Most people working for tips are dirt fucking poor. It's a retarded thing for you to say."
It wasn't to show that working for tips is a lucrative career. It was to show that people do give voluntarily when they aren't forced. People DO NOT want to give to someone who is feeding off the system (welfare).
I'm still waiting for you tell us what system works and why.
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom "That's MY argument. Your argument is not to try by hoping that charity will work despite the abysmal track record."
What abysmal track record?
watch?v=vQruuwuJnKE
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@jjenson2006 "What abysmal track record?"
The one where it's never even come a little bit close to succeeding in the goal of eliminating poverty permanently.
dsmelsergmailcom 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dsmelsergmailcom "The one where it's never even come a little bit close to succeeding in the goal of eliminating poverty permanently."
Oh, you mean the one you made up?
jjenson2006 7 months ago
This is just a propaganda video to bash Ayn Rand as the message implied is quite clear. The truth is Ayn Rand wasn't against people giving gifts as long as they were people you cared about. She was against the belief that people are obligated to giving gifts or that giving gifts is a virtue.
The book santa was reading should be called "Atlas Shrugged: The Marxist Propaganda Version".
jjenson2006 7 months ago
In your attempts to sound smart and snarky, you've proven that you're 'retarded', 'infantile', 'desperate' and a 'fucking moron.'
merkabaradio 7 months ago
Objectivism is totally retarded. Their infantile notion of freedom doesn't hold up to two seconds of exposure to real desperation and the realization of the kind of coercion it makes possible. It's easy to complain about the government stick when you've had plenty of carrots your whole life, you fucking morons.
dsmelsergmailcom 7 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom ".....doesn't hold up to two seconds of exposure to real desperation ."
Her father's business was taken from him in Russia by commies and she came here with practically nothing. She wasn't handed any carrots and wasn't against charity. Anyone who's down on their luck would be at the mercy of the generous nature of man. If you believe that men are naturally cold hearted and require a government to forcefully take from them to give to these people, what's that say about you?
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@jjenson2006 Well how nice for her that she happened to become a successful author. Is that your prescription for people to escape the desperation of capitalism? Get very lucky? I believe that as long as the government is mandating exploitation by maintaining capital "rights" in spite of that exploitation, it ought to at least ameliorate some of the worst effects of it. Charity is nice, but it isn't effective and efficacy is a perfectly reasonable precondition for voluntary participation.
dsmelsergmailcom 7 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom "Is that your prescription for people to escape the desperation of capitalism?"
What we have isn't Capitalism. If we had free market capitalism, there wouldn't be many poor people. Peoples lives are detroyed by government, not the market. A free market provides for everyone. To say that charity isn't effective is BS. There are people who work in bars that don't get paid anything but tips and make a six figure income. Noone wants to give to someone already collecting welfare.
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@jjenson2006 "If we had free market capitalism, there wouldn't be many poor people." Bullshit.
"To say that charity isn't effective is BS." Has charity gotten rid of poverty at any point in history ever? EVER? Well then it's not fucking effective.
"There are people who work in bars..." Worst standard ever. You people really are fucking retarded. The proper aim is to make poverty *impossible*. Not to generate a couple of anecdotes about a "lucky" minority of people that work for tips.
dsmelsergmailcom 7 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom BULLSHIT? No examples, no argument? I guess that makes you right. LOL
"Has charity gotten rid of poverty at any point in history ever? EVER?"
During periods when we had the closest thing to capitalism, we had the least poverty. I have yet to see someone who starved to death in the U.S.
"You people really are fucking retarded"
There are several words for people who use ad-hominem attacks to make a point, but I won't stoop to your level.
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@jjenson2006 "BULLSHIT? No examples, no argument? I guess that makes you right. LOL" I responded to your naked assertions with all the effort they merited. History says the exact fucking opposite. It's no wonder you're an objectivist. You're completely ignorant.
"During periods when we had the closest thing to capitalism, we had the least poverty. " Totally fucking wrong. Exactly backwards. Those were the periods where poverty was the most severe.
"I won't stoop to your level" OH SNAP!
dsmelsergmailcom 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dsmelsergmailcom "History says the exact fucking opposite"
That depends, if your name is history, then it is true. Otherwise, lets see your proof. The industrial age raised the standard of living for everyone. If you want proof, just ask and I'll supply some links.
"Those were the periods where poverty was the most severe."
Where's your proof? Here's mine!
watch?v=g-o0kD9f6wo
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom " The proper aim is to make poverty *impossible*.
Ok, so what is the proper aim? So if you can't make it impossible, do you just give up? Or do you try to MINIMIZE it as much as possible?
"Not to generate a couple of anecdotes about a "lucky" minority of people that work for tips."
The example of tips is to show that people are generous and will voluntarily give their own money to someone in need when they aren't FORCED to do it. Too bad you couldn't figure that out!
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom Poverty is the state of one who lacks a certain amount of material possessions or money as defined on WIKI. This suggests that poverty defines someone as having less than others.
So in a sense I do agree with you that if there was never capitalism, there would be no poverty BECAUSE everyone would be eating grass and living in huts. As far as living good, I don't think this is what is good for everyone. Just look at pigme tribes, you can see what lack of capitalism will do.
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom ...and charity is not supposed to raise the poors standard of living. It's supposed to give them only enough to reasonably sustain life. It is important not to give them too much or it will make them depend on charity and give them little incentive to better themselves. This is why welfare is bad, it makes people lazy to the point that they feel their life is better when someone supports them rather than working and improving their living conditions.
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@jjenson2006 If you think that poor people are poor because they're lazy (or stupid) or whatever you really are fucking retarded.
dsmelsergmailcom 7 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom "If you think that poor people are poor because they're lazy (or stupid) or whatever you really are fucking retarded."
Where'd I say that people are poor BECAUSE they're lazy or stupid? I never said that, so I guess according to you, I'm not fucking retarded. At the same time, it means that you're delusional and cannot possibly sustain an intelligent discussion. Why do you put words into my mouth and then demonize me for it? Why do you hate people so much that you'd do that?
jjenson2006 7 months ago
@jjenson2006 "Where'd I say that people are poor BECAUSE they're lazy or stupid? I never said that, so I guess according to you"
That is a necessary premise of your argument that welfare is why people are on welfare. You said it yourself: "it makes people lazy to the point that they feel their life is better when someone supports them rather than working and improving their living conditions." That's fucking retarded. The reality is that capitalism (yours and existing) is shit.
dsmelsergmailcom 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dsmelsergmailcom "That is a necessary premise of your argument that welfare is why people are on welfare."
No it's not. You know exactly what I'm talking about. Either that or your stupid. People become poor for many different reasons. It is WELFARE that makes people lazy and CAUSES people to STAY poor. This is not an opinion, it is a well studied fact by people a lot smarter than both of us!
watch?v=d8L3lb1cq2U
jjenson2006 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dsmelsergmailcom
It wasn't random good fortune that gave rise to Ayn Rand coming out of poverty. Ayn didn't "get very lucky." She worked for her wealth. Sorry to burst your bubble but, there is no Santa Claus.
maskedphrogg 6 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom 'Is that your prescription for people to escape the desperation of capitalism? Get very lucky?'
As long as you think that writing great novels a la Ayn Rand, designing great products a la Steve Jobs, or making great investments a la Peter Schiff is a matter of 'luck' you don't have a chance of understanding economics, philosophy... or anything at all. You're an ignoramus.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism 1. Ayn Rand's novels are terrible. It's one thing if you're into the idiotic ideas it puts forward in its interminable, anvilicious monologlues, but the writing is fucking terrible. If you want well written combined with a not-retarded political ideology, put down Rand and pick up Tolstoy.
2. Steve Jobs didn't design great products. He took existing products and put a glossy white finish on them.
3. Peter Schiff ABSOLUTELY got to where he is by luck. Are you serious?
dsmelsergmailcom 3 months ago
@dsmelsergmailcom Whatever. lol
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@jjenson2006 ' If you believe that men are naturally cold hearted and require a government to forcefully take from them to give to these people, what's that say about you?' You nailed it, man. Great comment.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@StudentOfObjectivism "' If you believe that men are naturally cold hearted and require a government to forcefully take from them to give to these people, what's that say about you?' You nailed it, man. Great comment."
That's absurd. People are more willing to sacrifice when they know their sacrifice is going toward an attempt to deal with the problem _effectively. What requires a cold heart is wanting the removal of the only systems that put a DENT in the problems caused by capitalism.
dsmelsergmailcom 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dsmelsergmailcom Calling something retarded with no actual evidence is pretty retarded. Where is there real nastiness? Where there is most coercion, most government, most subjective crap.
newperve 6 months ago
"Objectivism" is an absurd name for what is essentially one very self centered woman's subjective opinions.
formless777 8 months ago
Nothing amuses me like the misunderstanding (or no concept whatsoever of) of objectivism. LOL fools will be fools.
510shredder 8 months ago
Santa wears a RED suit! SOCIALIST!
RDBeatnik 9 months ago 28
@RDBeatnik stfu troll
aznmaplemaster 4 months ago
@RDBeatnik I suspect he is a Soviet. Bring him more Vodka!
jerebol 4 months ago
I'd like to remind everyone (myself included) that youtube is no place for intelligent debate because even the people who claim to listen and be respectful act bad. Hell they're the worst. Hell everybody here knows who is really right...
DimensionsofChange 9 months ago
@DimensionsofChange Who? Santa?
sinbysin666 9 months ago
@sinbysin666 No he should have made sure everyone agreed to terms of service first. Me!
DimensionsofChange 9 months ago
People who demand of others that they earn their love are incapable of loving. The other never for long satisfies the standard, which constantly shifts or is arbitrarily forgotten.
FrogmortonHotchkiss 9 months ago
@FrogmortonHotchkiss So love requires no standards... interesting. Does that mean that you love everybody, including dictators, pedophiles, rapists, murderers, etc? If you don't love everyone then it must mean that:
i) you don't love anyone; or
ii) you apply a standard
Which is it?
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
@StudentOfObjectivism I can't find or recall my original comment, it was so long ago. I would say however that love is not the same as 'like very much'. There are many meanings to the word, some quite divergent.
FrogmortonHotchkiss 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@FrogmortonHotchkiss 'People who demand of others that they earn their love are incapable of loving. The other never for long satisfies the standard, which constantly shifts or is arbitrarily forgotten.' - you.
I think that statement is indefensible... also, it is exactly the position held by James Taggart in Atlas Shrugged.
StudentOfObjectivism 3 months ago
a critic(?) that is actually funny. ^_^
l337pwnage 9 months ago
HAHA oh my this is to good. muchers hehe, someone send this bit to Neal Boortz he will be laughing to hard next week on the air. CLASIC
MLBrawner 9 months ago
There is a reason that Atlas Shrugged is still #2 best seller of all time!!
KeithMcElwain 10 months ago
Haha Funny :D!
iEnjoyTrance 10 months ago
Love it, Love It, LOVE IT! Keep up the good work.
librarianeric 10 months ago
That's hilarious. I'm an Ayn Rand fan, but this is so funny!
TheCranberry7 11 months ago
There's no problem in giving and receiving, the problem (and to some spritual teachings, the sin) comes in EXPECTING to receive for nothing, or giving something EXPECTING to receive something in return...
GrifterUno 11 months ago
@umichobjectivist Why should anyone receive a gift for doing nothing? Isn't that the very definition of gift? It's gratuitous, not payment for services or favors rendered. You prefer to receive a wage as a laborer, that's fine, there is honor in that. But what's wrong with giving or receiving a gift, given and received in love? The secular "celebration" of Christmas is moving further and further away from this idea of gift-giving love. Paying for a gift? Then it's not a gift. It's a purchase.
DiscipleOfChrist96 11 months ago
@DiscipleOfChrist96 Giving a gift or receiving one isn't wrong, believing that you are entitled to a gift is.
Jacobth23 10 months ago
@Jacobth23 Anyone who thinks he or she is "entitled" to a "gift" doesn't understand what a gift is. A gift is given freely by the person who gives it. Can't earn it or demand it, or it would cease to be a gift. It would then be a reward or a concession but not a gift. One can think one is entitled to something, but that something by definition cannot be a gift. A gift is given voluntarily without compensation & not in payment for anything. Because of friendship and/or love.
DiscipleOfChrist96 10 months ago
@DiscipleOfChrist96 Do you give gifts to people who don't deserve it? If a person hasn't done anything to please you would you still buy them a gift? A gift is not given without friendship or love (or social obligation). And one doesn't not get friends or lovers by doing nothing, but by being worthy of the friendship and love of others. My point is, unless people have earned your love or friendship in some way, you generally don't give them gifts, so to say a gift is for "nothing" is ludicrous.
Jacobth23 10 months ago
@Jacobth23 Yes. I give gifts to people who don't deserve them. You can't deserve a gift. You can deserve a reward, an honor. You simply cannot earn a gift. That would be illogical, defying the very definition of a gift. A gift is given gratis. I was given the gift of life. I certainly did nothing and could have done nothing to earn that gift. Yet I was given that gift anyway. That is what a gift is. Freely given. Love is also a gift, not earned. Who earns love?
DiscipleOfChrist96 10 months ago
@DiscipleOfChrist96 Ok to prove you wrong I will send you my address, and If I don't get a gift from you then you are a liar. We have no connection, and it must be something that I would appreciate (since you put thought into gifts). Also Loving someone who hasn't earned love is stupid. I do not love people who murder, or rape children, and they have not earned it. Anyway. Looking forward to my gift please message me when you want my address.
jerkbeast81 10 months ago
@jerkbeast81
You're what's wrong with "Objective"-ism. You think a baby has to earn love from it's mother or vise versa? Following that idea of love, civilization would crumble. I agree that people who murder or rape children don't deserve love, but good grief, love isn't just a thing to withhold based on class or achievement.
Also, I'm not sure if you expected that "gift" thing to work, but if you did, that's low. If not, it's just a dumb strawman.
ArtemisDaFowl 9 months ago
@ArtemisDaFowl I don't think a baby should have to earn love. If a person chose to have a baby then they SHOULD love it. Since it was their choice to bring it into this world. In that relationship the burden falls on the PARENT to earn the love of the child. Unfortunately not all people do (people abuse their children every day). I have no idea what your class, or your achievement's are, and I do not love you. I have no basis for loving you because you haven't shown me a reason to love you.
jerkbeast81 9 months ago
@jerkbeast81 Why should you care if another baby is loved? It is not in your own interest, unless you happen to be the baby in question. How do you justify child services to children of abusive families? It's a free handout, isn't it?
Mkay, I didn't ask if you loved me. I suppose I don't love you either, but I would say that you are a fellow. If I knew that you were poor, I would gladly donate food and such. Because you evidently have a computer, however, you aren't, so I won't.
ArtemisDaFowl 9 months ago
@ArtemisDaFowl I don't personally care if the babies are loved on individual basis. I just think in a society of rational people that they would/should be loved by their parents. (which we don't have at the moment)
I don't justify the government taking my money by threat of force, and giving it to abuse victims. There are plenty of non profit organizations for that sort of thing.
I have no problem with donations being given since it's your choice. I just think it's stupid.
jerkbeast81 9 months ago
@ArtemisDaFowl As far as the gift example it was just to show how idiotic his statement was in reality.
jerkbeast81 9 months ago
@jerkbeast81 Oh, amazing, you outsmarted a jesusnut. That takes such brainpower. Objetivism must be the true religion!
Read Plato, Locke, Voltaire, and Marx and get a clue.
ArtemisDaFowl 9 months ago
@ArtemisDaFowl I use examples....you tell me to go read. That's what Christians tell me too. If their philosophy's are so well thought out you should be able to explain the flaws in what I say instead of just telling me to go read them. I also didn't get from what you said that you were a Jesusnut, but thanks!
jerkbeast81 9 months ago
@jerkbeast81
I have already told you what I think of your concept of love. You still haven't consolidated baby-loving with "concern for one's own interests." Here's another example of something you can't justify: You see that the tail light for someone's parked bike is on, wasting the battery. You don't want the person to get hit if they ride at night, so you turn it off. How does that benefit you?
ArtemisDaFowl 9 months ago
@ArtemisDaFowl As far as the baby love....it is in your rational self interest to love your child, and to get it to love you. If you have a child that you don't love living in your home, and you feel that the child is a burden then you will be miserable. As far as the bike light thing goes I wouldn't even notice that it was on or think to switch it off. So it isn't a good example since I just wouldn't care.
jerkbeast81 9 months ago
@jerkbeast81
How is it rational or in your own self interest? Surely if a child makes you miserable, you can dump it on someone else, seeing as it's holding you back from living your full potential. It's mammalian instinct that keeps one protecting that child against one's interest, without which humans couldn't've become a successful species.
Whatever; clearer example: A classmate you don't know leaves their notes behind. Do you bother to run it over to him/her before they leave the building?
ArtemisDaFowl 9 months ago
atlas swallowed
92451721921892113 1 year ago
Atlas Shrugged movie trailer on youtube
yousmokecrackers 1 year ago
Wonderful :)
kingofqwerty 1 year ago
No wonder Santa is fictional :)
Nadirion1 1 year ago
This video actually reinforces Rand's point - it is only in a fantasy world that wealth can be created magically out of thin air and handed out for free. In the real world, people who produce things of value do so through the investment of their time, hard work and innovation. The expectation that they should just give away the fruits of their labor is magical "Santa Claus" thinking.
gergenheimer 1 year ago 22
@gergenheimer
Yes you cannot expect anyone to give something to you for free.
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@gergenheimer As a filthy hippie liberal, I'm intrigued by your point. And I'm not being smarmy or anything. It would good to hear an honest debate involving your point here, the contrast between Objectivism and Christianity, and the value of doing good deeds for the sake of doing good deeds.
Gunman610 7 months ago
@gergenheimer Or as is the entire novel of Atlus Shrugged, It can be considered sci fi and based on pure fiction.
cylixdemas 6 months ago
@gergenheimer You're right if by "people who produce things of value" you mean the productive workers whose labor power is exploited for the sake of profit.
obscenegrace2003 5 months ago
@obscenegrace2003 You need to fast-forward past the 19th century - Marx's Labor Theory of Value has been debunked 100 times over - it's logically inconsistent, self-contradictory drivel. It wouldn't even be worth commenting on if these ridiculous ideas weren't still hanging around like so many cockroaches.
gergenheimer 5 months ago
@gergenheimer What specific arguments have "debunked" the Labor Theory of Value? I know you're limited by the 500 character limit, but I'd appreciate it if you could be more specific. The biggest argument against the LtV that I know of is the transformation problem, but that was resolved by the introduction of the temporal single-system interpretation (TSSI). Then there's hilariously fallacious arguments, like the mudpie argument.
warmongerpro 5 months ago
@warmongerpro Specifically, Menger shredded the foundations of LTV in "Principles of Economics" - Marginal utility and subjective value are concepts that are logically-conistent and which hold up to scrutiny, unlike LTV. Value is is the mind of the beholder - a product which is produced but is not desired by anyone has a value of near-zero, no matter how much labor went into it's creation. It puzzles me that this obvious fact can be ignored in favor of pseudo-science.
gergenheimer 5 months ago
@warmongerpro imagine a village where a virus suddenly renders the entire populace allergic to dairy products. According to LTV, the cheese on the shelves at the cheesemaker's shop has not changed in value because the amount of labor and resources that went into making it hasn't changed. It is clear, however, that the cheese has become near worthless because the value scales of all of the individuals in the town have changed.
gergenheimer 5 months ago
@gergenheimer Do you mean to suggest the pseudo-philosophy of a third rate novelist hasn't also been thoroughly "debunked"?
obscenegrace2003 5 months ago
@obscenegrace2003 I never claimed to be a hard-core follower of Rand, so I feel no obligation to defend her ideas as a serious philosophical system - to elaborate on what I said, the debunking of Marx was done by Menger, Hayek, Mises, Bohm-Bawerk, (and many others) who blasted the logical inconsistencies and internal contradictions of Marxism. I suggest the YT videos "Calculation and Socialism", and "the Marginalist Revolution" by Joe Salerno.
gergenheimer 5 months ago
@gergenheimer Funny how when people don't get her they really don't get her.
johncgaiser 5 months ago
So you're saying we should shut down the financial market? Okey, then! Lets get to it! Oh, yeah: do not forget the banks, we need to get them closed too so we can start to produce some real value.
Teadon86 4 months ago
Ayn Rand was a independent, intelligent woman, who had much to say; though very foolish. Robert Heinlein would have thought the same.
CosmoShidan 1 year ago
FUCK AYN RAND, a woman who admired serial killers and whose view of humanity is utterly horrific
sandrahn 1 year ago
@sandrahn
What serial killers`?
unfad1ng 1 year ago
@sandrahn O RLY?
These serial killers being admired are who? And how is being pessimistic about humanity horrific?
MerlinsJester 1 year ago
very clver !!! ;-)
Ragnaer 1 year ago
LOL good joke xD
Even more because giving gifts is not against objectivism xD
AkaiTsukiShimitsu 1 year ago
RANDROIDS. AHHAHAHAA. I natural was thinking the same thing since many act so robotic and make good tin soldiers
pneumatictrousers 1 year ago
rand a genius?!? ROTFLMAO that comment and this video cracked me up. Thanks
pneumatictrousers 1 year ago
Aside from the fact that Santa doesn't exist, there is nothing in Rand's philosophy that is opposed to gift giving. The important point is that you give a gift because you selfishly take pleasure in doing so (i.e., you value the happiness of the person you are giving a gift). You don't give gifts because you believe it to be an obligation.
obmax1212 1 year ago 4
As somebody who likes Ayn for being an individual and loves her ability to write, I enjoyed this video. You could take it positive or negative. I've seen the South Park episode clip and that was not as funny as this.
yousmokecrackers 1 year ago
Way to go Randroids, you ruined Christmas.
magmos 1 year ago
I'd have returned that shit. Santa can eat a dick
elon054 1 year ago
Santa doesn't exist :-(.
bdghkptwj 1 year ago
IM TIRED OF ALL THE LOOTERS AND POLLUTERS!!
RaptorGears 1 year ago
Rand was a fraud.
hagbard72 1 year ago
@hagbard72 No Frauds put too much work into their scams to be associated with Rand. Rand was just another idiot in a long line of idiots.
Sadly, she was also an idiot that thought she was a genius, and created a "philosophy" that appeals to most teenagers.
magmos 1 year ago
@magmos It sounds like you're just a butthurt looter. Are you? :D
BigDaddyBongos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@magmos It sounds like you're just a butthurt looter. Are you? :D
BigDaddyBongos 1 year ago
@magmos how so
Tpathpslm557 1 year ago