Objectivism fails the "Prisoner's Dilemma", the "Volunteers Dilemma", & many logic patterns. Objectivists only accept negative rights, but choose to totally reject positive rights. Thankfully they exist, & always will in a just rational society. She believed "Altruism is evil". She also believed all government programs were evil/wrong, yet collected Social Security in the later days of her life. Show me someone who claims "I did it all ON MY OWN", & I'll show you a bald faced liar
I never had a problem with the philosophy except where it is applied to economics. He makes a good point about her areas of expertise, but I see little reason to see her as a wise sage in matters which she had no hands on experience with or educational focus in. Too much regulation & no regulation at all are both hardcore stances to take that can have equally disastrous consequences. Even Greenspan recanted his Rand inspired stance in the wake of the toxic 100% unregulated OTC derivatives.
I've never read The Vampire Diaries but I know its crap. I've never read Miley Cyrus' book but I know its crap. I've never read any of Rand's works but I know they're crap. Thank you inductive reasoning.
The second critique of Atlas Shrugged, is not a criticism of Rand, or the philosophy... but instead is a critique of her followers, who tend to be "republicans", or "conservatives. Nixon gave us "free trade" with China, as if such a thing were possible with hideous looters. Reagan let all the great industries collapse to viscious public takeovers. Rand herself even failed to reallize that republicans were the Orren Boyle's and Bertram Scudders. Carter, JFK, and Clinton were all more rational.
I think the greatest critique of Rational Self Interest, is that it seems to ignore the possibillity of Rational Collective Interest... A large group of intelligent free people that choose to be taxed for things that may not be important in the short term, but will pay dividends in the long term. Rational Collective Investment through government, even at the point of the gun as she puts it, has produced great things. If we didn't tax. We wouldn't have outspent the soviets on things like NASA
Maybe if Rand wrote a philosophical treatise she would be taken more seriously by the philosophical community , but since her self-centered egotistical garbage is wrapped up in fiction, it turns out that objectivism is just that....garbage.
What moron would ever claim the existence exists?
@ProximaMinor famous philosophers dedicated entire treatise to trying to prove existence through argumentation. None of them were so bold to claim merely, existence exists. It's like defining a word with the word itself, it really makes no sense
@ProximaMinor "Existence exists. This is generally what people mean when they use the definitions of "tautology" that are listed first in almost every dictionary, which are: "needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word," and "redundant" and "superfluous.""
"But because tautologies are axioms, they describe everything that has
ever been known, is known, or will be known about a thing, in this case
You first must except that existence exists before you can make any thought.
The definition of existence is that which exists; or that which is real; that which your senses can read (note that this doesn't mean that something exists because you sensed it, but because it exists, you can sense it).
Any article on trying to prove existence is meaningless. The moment you claim that anything is TRUE (i.e. an idea/argument) you accept existence exists.
@ProximaMinor Furthermore, theoretically, the empty space between the quarks inside a proton account for the 98% mass that is missing. This mass-energy is in a constant state of flux. To simply put it, emptiness is popping in and out of existence as mass-energy. This is a very simple way of putting it. So you can see how one can think that Rand is a fool for claiming existence to be a self-evident truth.
@djkhaless Like I have already stated countless times that you don't seem to want to address, when you make any statement: the sky is blue, that tree is tall, quarks exist inside protons, you are implicitly saying that existence exists. There is NO WAY to prove that it exists. It first and foremost must be accepted as self-evident before you can make ANY claim; try to make a claim otherwise. So no, I can't see how one could think of Rand as a fool for claiming existence as a self-evident truth.
@djkhaless When you say that someone is a "moron" you are claiming that there exists a reality in which knowledge exists and moreover, that knowledge can be measured (and measurement also implies the acceptence of reality; that existence exists).
@ProximaMinor no, I'm not claiming that at all, I'm merely arbitrarily calling them a moron, because they arbitrarily claimed that existence exists. Your arguments are circular...want to prove existence, maybe you should read "Being in Time"....
Then there is the whole question of quantum mechanics..are you sensing the world, or is the world sensing you? The world behaves differently under your observation.
I meant you are claiming it implicitly (which is where the core of this whole argument lies).
Objectivism merely follows that everything one claims to be true must be proven in reality; that all arguments are based upon the axiom: existence exists.
It's not aritrary to claim existence exists, it is paramount and the base for every statement.
There is no need to try and prove existence. When you say that their are atoms you are already assuming that existence exists.
Can you give me any example of someone willingly and knowingly acting irrational. That means: Someone recognizing: "Doing this action would be stupid." And then doing it anyway.
Someone acting irrationally: a manager at a fast food restaurant is walking to the drive-thru window with an order meant for the front counter. Another employee tells him, "That's the wrong order." The man continues toward the window. his arm is apprehended by the other employee, who repeats, "That order doesn't go to the drive-thru."
The man pulls his arm away and continues toward the window, gives the customer the wrong bag, and the customer drives away.
A teen steals a car, hotrodding through the streets until the cops see him, then he tries to get away. If he gets away, he repeats it all in a few days or a week.
Example 3:
A man robs a bank, spends most of the money on drugs, gives the rest away to friends, and gives away much of the drugs as well.
Example 3: A sociology professor doing his job.
These are examples from myself, my friends and acquaintances, not just dreamt up hypotheticals.
Whoever acts irrationaly either lacks knowledge, does a false valuation or is addicted or emtionally unable to behave rationally.
Nobody does it freely and knowingly. And I am not saying people can not change. However, if they do change then it is because they gained knowledge, changed their valuation or managed to overcome their addiction. In this case they will act rationally anyway regardless of whether I make rational behaviour a rule or not.
Smoking is an addiction. People start smoking when they are kids and think that being cool is rationally worth the risk which they largely underestimate. Then once they are addicted they can't stop it.
When they start it they are falsely evaluating what is rational - They are not knowingly acting irrationally.
Then once they are addicted they can't act rationally - They are not willingly acting rationally. They would act rationally if they could.
Not ALL smokers start smoking for those reasons. In fact I would say it is very few and far in between that you would actually find kids who smoked because it is cool. A lot of the times it's compulsion and an exception; meaning, "Just this once I'll try it. I know it's wrong, and I know its bad, but just this once, I will never do it again" That's how addiction starts.
But in this case isn't it obvious that they are underestimating the danger and overestimating the benefit (of knowing what smoking is like) ? In other words: They falsely think that their action is rational.
And people say "I shouldn't be doing this" all the time. Like when they do bungee jumping. They do not literally mean this. Someone who does bungee jumping actually thinks the fun is worth the risk. The statement "I shouldn't be doing this" is not meant seriously.
@FatGermanBastard Rationalizing an action doesn't conflict with willfully acting irrationaly. Rationalization doesn't contradict what is and isn't irational and one's ability to determin between the two.
Using your same example; if someone rationalizes that acting irratoinally is more fun than acting rationally, they are willfully acting irrational. When people say "I shouldn't be doing this"; they are explicitly stating that they are choosing to be stupid on the grounds that is more fun or whatever it is they rationalized
No when someone rationalizes that acting in a certain way is more fun or in other words that the fun is worth the expense he is acting rationally or at least thinks he is. Someone who does bungee jumping thinks that the fun is worth the risk and therefore is thinking he/she is acting rationally.
Rationalizing means to balance (subjective) values against each other and an attempt to maximize value. Fun is a value.
@FatGermanBastard The rationalization of a value DOES NOT make that value a ratoinal value. Just because you ratoinalize that the value "fun" is worth any bodily harm does not mean you are acting rational; it means you are willfully acting iratoinal under the rationalization that fun is worth any harm done to you.
It means you have looked at both values: health and fun; and chose that fun is more important. Knowing full well that health and saftey are far more ratoinal values.
Don't you agree that to a certain extent we all risk or sacrifice a little bit of our health in order to increase our quality of life. Like the second you are reading this comment you could as well be outside doing sports, right ? But you sacrifice this little bit of your health because you enjoy talking about philosophical topics. And don't you ever drink a beer or eat at McDonalds or ___ (fill in blank) ?
Are you saying that the excessive rise in home value, (the bubble) was a free market phenomenon?
Note:
(Remember, a free market means no government 'tweaking', or interfearence, nor any incentives created with taxpayer money, which is of course extracted at the point of a gun)
I've worked a fair number of jobs, and from experience I can say that it is in the workplace that racism tends to exist the least. When people work, they instinctually begin to value human beings for their competence and ability. It is in the minds of complacent people, such as politicians, religious zealots, etc, that racism spreads
The racist businessman? You should read economist Thomas Sowell, he explains why racism in a free economy is a myth, and that the government perpetuates racisim. He's been around a long time, and is a black guy himself, he went to Harvard long before afirmative action, and he knows what the effect of government regulations against racism do in reality
As for the cancer patient. I don't know the specifics of that case so I am only speculating based on the information you provided here:
You cannot claim that she has a right to the service simply because she needs it
Here's a quote by Marilyn Savant world's highest IQ record holder
How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled to anything that we can't get without the labor of others? Remember if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes slaves of those others
Her books are poorly written and anyone who is widely read will generally agree regardless of philosophy. Her books are bad, IMO, because they never address alternate arguments.
You asked philosophy, ok: It doesn't take into account reality. It's pure arm-chair. People are, to some degree, communitarian. I saw the news today about a stage 4 cancer patient whose power (and, by extension, her life) was going to be shut off because of $188. Objectivism says: too bad. Out of room, send me a mail.
I couldn't disagree more strongly. In both of her major novels, there is a significant cast of characters who represent the philosophies which she opposed, and they have a voice. Example: In The Fountainhead, Peter Keating tells Roark many times that Roark is a fool, and that Keating's aproach to life and business is more practical etc. He almost makes the reader believe that Roark is indeed foolish.
Where is a racist businessman? There aren't any. Every businessman is honest and forthright. Not one engages in nepotism, or anything distasteful, though these exist and fuel popular outrage. Also, the government fails at EVERYTHING it does. This is all too easy, too convenient.
Nowhere, also, is me. I'm a moderate liberal. I understand if you tax / regulate too far, you kill capitalism (which is very bad). Nowhere is a liberal in the middle because that is what we have and it works damn well.
Umm, the government fails at everything it does in the real world.
I think you missed the point of Rands books being written in the romantic style. It's meant as a projection of what could happen, vs what should happen.
It's the conceptual school of writing. It has it's disadvantages, but can also be a very powerful tool for inspiring people to become better. The heroes aren't meant as some wishful fantasy, but rather a goal for us all to aspire to.
Well romantic allegory / metaphors aren't good for solving practical problems. The entire book is a slippery slope argument which is by nature fallacious. It's like arguing we shouldn't have a speed limit because ultimately we would make the limit 0 and no cars would move.
The government does NOT fail at everything it does. This is a dumb statement. The interstate system is pretty nice. Public schools are pretty nice (and only beaten by more left wing countries). The truth is moderation works.
Funny you call Atlas Shrugged a slippery slope fallacy, at a time when more and more people in business and the media are beginning to compare real events to what that book described.
I remember reading in one of Rand's articles, that she didn't anticipate how many people actually wrote to her saying that what she described in the book is happening to them in real life.
Therefore I do not think it is a slippery slope. Reality is confirming her ideas
A lot of people "see" stuff in real life that parallels the book. You provide no examples. You are basically saying "a bunch of people think I'm right, therefore this means something."
Sorry, mate, there's no nice way for me to say you didn't make the bare minimums of an argument.
Here watch me do the same thing: A lot of people tend to disagree with Rand and support social programs. A lot of wall street bankers, just 5 years ago, were having coke parties; not exactly Taggart vs. the world.
I see, so expanding beaurocracy doesn't parallel the book?
The causes of the disaster being blamed on free enterprise, and the actual poison being offered up as an antidote doesn't parallel the book either?
What do you know about Austrian economics? You're insinuating that Im ignorant of the facts, but you haven't studied the only economic model which predicted every economic disaster in the last 100 years.
You talk about "racist businessmen", as if government doesn't encourage racism
I know all about Ausrtrian economics and ludwig von mises. I also know its laughed out of damn near every school of economics because it doesn't feel the need to comply with the real world; a lot like objectivism. You accuse me of not studying it, but nice try, I have.
Bureaucracy, while at times frustrating, is neccessary for a civil society. Every advanced civilization and empire had some type of bureaucracy that could handle the sheer amount of data so that it could better organize.
Austrian economics is laughed out of nearly every school of economics because it doesn't reflect reality?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The only economic model to have accurately predicted every economic disaster in the last 100 years is the one that's incompatible with reality?
Your statement might have a shred of validity to it, if our economy wasn't falling apart like a chinese moped, but since it's fucking crumbling, it's to Austrian school's credit that it isn't recognized
We are having a recession, they happen. Progressive economics have been in effect for about 70 years and in that time we've had rises and falls with the rises far outpacing the falls. In fact I would argue that the repeal of certain business regulations (glass-steagall act) caused much of this to happen.
It allowed the same bank to both tank in money and be a "bank" type of bank (with FDIC insurance, etc) and also an securities investment bank. This opened the floodgates of speculation. Any bank that didn't leverage iteself to take advantage of real estate bubbles would be eaten by other banks (this bubble was 20 years long; no bank could run against the tide that long and not get eaten). Therefore, they all followed suit into high leverage, and that is one of many reasons big banks got hit hard
Before that act a bank couldn't be both an investment house and a bank. The repeal of that act allowed the creation of massive banks such as citibank. In fact professor Ed Kane of Boston College said "nobody will be able to discipline citibank" and congressman Dorgan said this would create banks "too big to fail".
When investment houses, insurance firms, and savings banks could all be the same company, it allowed failure to be so big as to make the readjustment of the freemarket quite painful.
Are you aware that the bailouts via the "too big to fail" approach, were started by the government, and that the bailouts were promised to the banks BEFORE they began failing?
This created an incentive for them to be reckless, and for the heads to grab as much money for themselves as they could, regardless of what it would do to the company, since the government would just bail them out with all of our money.
Of course readjustments (recessions) can be painful, but how is creating a false sense of security going to make things better? All they're doing is replacing the last bubble with a new one.
You can't argue that they got big, was because of a bailout, because they were failing. You can't have the effect be the cause. They were failing because they invested in a bubble. Normally investments lead to "readjustment" (banks closing, assets being sold off.)
The problem here is that these banks were HUGE and when they fell, they would fall HARD and they held people's savings. This is VERY VERY bad.
btw, plz reply to my last comment; it messes up the "timeline" if you don't.
You can "believe" w/e you want. If I believed in absolute personal sovereignty we wouldn't be here.
As far as the other things you mentioned, they were drops in a bucket. This recessions didn't happen because of government assistance in housing purchases, you can tell just by looking at the homes that were being foreclosed. Interest rates WERE too low thanks to former objectivist Greenspan.
Home prices were soaring because people thought they would continue to go up. It was self-perpetuating. People then took out loans they would not be able to pay back based on the idea that the home they had bought would rise in value and they could refinance at a later date with a better position as a result of this appreciation in home value.If you want to blame them, fine, but we trust businesses and we can't all expect to be savvy on finance
You are surely aware that banks do not hold assets on hand equal to what is saved in them. This is how they lend out money (banks are required by the government to hold approx. at least 20% of what is deposited in them on hand).
At the time of the bailouts Lehman had failed, Goldman was going down and so was merrill lynch, and citibank. If they didn't get bailed out when they did, the resulting crash would have been catastrophic.
In the long run you can argue that the free market would have adjusted. I concede this but as Keynes says: "In the long run, we all starve." With pure free market approaches you get big expansions and big losses. Overall, an upward trend does emerge, but the instability itself a.) turns off many investors b.) causes severe short term pain. Many people would rather have more stability at the cost of total growth. I am one of these people.
Everything that I've heard about Objectivism strikes me as nonsense, but I admit that I am guilty of not having read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead.
E1. Amazon says that Anne Heller's book *Ayn Rand & the World She Made* will be released in October 2009. How do U know the book makes those criticisms?
I do remember reading a magazine article Heller wrote about Fred Cookinham's "Ayn Rand NY Walking Tours." Heller kept saying that Rand liked skyscrapers cuz they were "phallic symbols." But Heller's article provided no evidence, so it sounded like she was just making assumptions & doing arbitrary psychologizing; that tainted the article for me
C1. Proxima, have you heard of Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute writing the books *Objectivism in One Lesson* and *Ayn Rand for Beginners*? I think his book might be good for beginners.
I think that if I tried to introduce myself to Objectivism by 1st reading *For the New Intellectual*, I would have been confused. Had I read that before I read *Fountainhead*, I would have said, "Huh? Who are Steven Mallory & Henry Cameron? Why does the Anthem guy talk so funny"?
I have heard of him but haven't read his material yet.
With For the New Intellectual, at the beginning of each speech there is explination of what's going on. Like before the Anthem speech (there is only one) it explains that "I" has vanished from the human language and such. It was the 3rd book I read and found it quite helpful.
B1. Would you be interested in critiquing Fred Seddon's claims that Rand misrepresented the arguments of Kant and Hume? I've read Kant and Hume for myself, and Rand's characterizations of their arguments are accurate.
Do you prefer to do vlogs that defend Rand from criticisms? What do you think of doing vlogs that apply Objectivism to contemporary social issues like reproductive human cloning, Net Neutrality, and insider trading?
D1. I'm interested to know what you think about the ethics of parents choosing to go to private in-vitro fertilization clinics to genetically engineer the embryos of their children in order to immunize them from heritable diseases like sickle-cell anemia, cancer, cystic fibrosis, & heart disease. Plus, making the kids stronger, with straighter teeth, etc. Such clinics are already capable right now of choosing whether the baby is male or female. :-)
Your tone sounds more aggressive in the past few videos you've done than in your first few.
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin says that President Obama read the Fountainhead. I wouldn't be surprised if he mistook Peter Keating for its hero. ;-)
It's interesting that Atlas convinced you of pro-capitalist economics before U were finished. Like I said in a previous video's comments section, I had to read more of her books 1st.
It was the money speech. I mean just the first few sentences: "So you think money is the root of all evil?... Have you ever asked what is the root of money?"
I remember reading that and being stopped dead. I had no answer; and I was a guy who could usually answer, or at least BS, all questions.
Objectivism fails the "Prisoner's Dilemma", the "Volunteers Dilemma", & many logic patterns. Objectivists only accept negative rights, but choose to totally reject positive rights. Thankfully they exist, & always will in a just rational society. She believed "Altruism is evil". She also believed all government programs were evil/wrong, yet collected Social Security in the later days of her life. Show me someone who claims "I did it all ON MY OWN", & I'll show you a bald faced liar
Bolgernow 3 months ago
Agree with everything.
notengonickcojones 3 months ago
I never had a problem with the philosophy except where it is applied to economics. He makes a good point about her areas of expertise, but I see little reason to see her as a wise sage in matters which she had no hands on experience with or educational focus in. Too much regulation & no regulation at all are both hardcore stances to take that can have equally disastrous consequences. Even Greenspan recanted his Rand inspired stance in the wake of the toxic 100% unregulated OTC derivatives.
greg0879 7 months ago
I've never read The Vampire Diaries but I know its crap. I've never read Miley Cyrus' book but I know its crap. I've never read any of Rand's works but I know they're crap. Thank you inductive reasoning.
IronicKismet 1 year ago
@IronicKismet I've never met you and I know your an idiot
lukebarnes3585 8 months ago
@lukebarnes3585 Awww....thats sweet.....the though and feeling is mutual.
IronicKismet 8 months ago
Ayn Rand was a sociopath. She and William Hickman are burning in hell together.
IronicKismet 1 year ago
Ayn Rand would pry stop you at "Russian philosopher".... She was pretty adamant about being an American.
This is a great video, though. You're a sharp dude.
hob976 1 year ago
The second critique of Atlas Shrugged, is not a criticism of Rand, or the philosophy... but instead is a critique of her followers, who tend to be "republicans", or "conservatives. Nixon gave us "free trade" with China, as if such a thing were possible with hideous looters. Reagan let all the great industries collapse to viscious public takeovers. Rand herself even failed to reallize that republicans were the Orren Boyle's and Bertram Scudders. Carter, JFK, and Clinton were all more rational.
lifeisbriefWatanabe 1 year ago
I think the greatest critique of Rational Self Interest, is that it seems to ignore the possibillity of Rational Collective Interest... A large group of intelligent free people that choose to be taxed for things that may not be important in the short term, but will pay dividends in the long term. Rational Collective Investment through government, even at the point of the gun as she puts it, has produced great things. If we didn't tax. We wouldn't have outspent the soviets on things like NASA
lifeisbriefWatanabe 1 year ago
Maybe if Rand wrote a philosophical treatise she would be taken more seriously by the philosophical community , but since her self-centered egotistical garbage is wrapped up in fiction, it turns out that objectivism is just that....garbage.
What moron would ever claim the existence exists?
djkhaless 1 year ago
@djkhaless "What moron would ever claim the existence exists?"
I don't know. How would one make a claim that someone is a moron if existence doesn't exist?
ProximaMinor 1 year ago
@ProximaMinor famous philosophers dedicated entire treatise to trying to prove existence through argumentation. None of them were so bold to claim merely, existence exists. It's like defining a word with the word itself, it really makes no sense
djkhaless 1 year ago
@ProximaMinor "Existence exists. This is generally what people mean when they use the definitions of "tautology" that are listed first in almost every dictionary, which are: "needless repetition of an idea, statement, or word," and "redundant" and "superfluous.""
"But because tautologies are axioms, they describe everything that has
ever been known, is known, or will be known about a thing, in this case
"existence.""
This is a problem
djkhaless 1 year ago
@djkhaless
You first must except that existence exists before you can make any thought.
The definition of existence is that which exists; or that which is real; that which your senses can read (note that this doesn't mean that something exists because you sensed it, but because it exists, you can sense it).
Any article on trying to prove existence is meaningless. The moment you claim that anything is TRUE (i.e. an idea/argument) you accept existence exists.
ProximaMinor 1 year ago
@ProximaMinor Furthermore, theoretically, the empty space between the quarks inside a proton account for the 98% mass that is missing. This mass-energy is in a constant state of flux. To simply put it, emptiness is popping in and out of existence as mass-energy. This is a very simple way of putting it. So you can see how one can think that Rand is a fool for claiming existence to be a self-evident truth.
djkhaless 1 year ago
@djkhaless Like I have already stated countless times that you don't seem to want to address, when you make any statement: the sky is blue, that tree is tall, quarks exist inside protons, you are implicitly saying that existence exists. There is NO WAY to prove that it exists. It first and foremost must be accepted as self-evident before you can make ANY claim; try to make a claim otherwise. So no, I can't see how one could think of Rand as a fool for claiming existence as a self-evident truth.
ProximaMinor 1 year ago
@djkhaless When you say that someone is a "moron" you are claiming that there exists a reality in which knowledge exists and moreover, that knowledge can be measured (and measurement also implies the acceptence of reality; that existence exists).
ProximaMinor 1 year ago
@ProximaMinor no, I'm not claiming that at all, I'm merely arbitrarily calling them a moron, because they arbitrarily claimed that existence exists. Your arguments are circular...want to prove existence, maybe you should read "Being in Time"....
Then there is the whole question of quantum mechanics..are you sensing the world, or is the world sensing you? The world behaves differently under your observation.
djkhaless 1 year ago
@djkhaless
I meant you are claiming it implicitly (which is where the core of this whole argument lies).
Objectivism merely follows that everything one claims to be true must be proven in reality; that all arguments are based upon the axiom: existence exists.
It's not aritrary to claim existence exists, it is paramount and the base for every statement.
There is no need to try and prove existence. When you say that their are atoms you are already assuming that existence exists.
ProximaMinor 1 year ago
I agree about the essay thing. Rand's essyas are really good and grea to read while rading the ficiton.
greenghost2008 2 years ago
Nobody knowingly acts irrational. That is why I don't see how Rand's philosophy has any relevance.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
"Nobody knowingly acts irrational."
That's crazy. What the hell is your definition of 'rational'?
MrCropper 2 years ago
Can you give me any example of someone willingly and knowingly acting irrational. That means: Someone recognizing: "Doing this action would be stupid." And then doing it anyway.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
Someone acting irrationally: a manager at a fast food restaurant is walking to the drive-thru window with an order meant for the front counter. Another employee tells him, "That's the wrong order." The man continues toward the window. his arm is apprehended by the other employee, who repeats, "That order doesn't go to the drive-thru."
The man pulls his arm away and continues toward the window, gives the customer the wrong bag, and the customer drives away.
MrCropper 2 years ago
Example 2:
A teen steals a car, hotrodding through the streets until the cops see him, then he tries to get away. If he gets away, he repeats it all in a few days or a week.
Example 3:
A man robs a bank, spends most of the money on drugs, gives the rest away to friends, and gives away much of the drugs as well.
Example 3: A sociology professor doing his job.
These are examples from myself, my friends and acquaintances, not just dreamt up hypotheticals.
MrCropper 2 years ago
Now, can you give me your definition of "rational"?
MrCropper 2 years ago
I will make a video containing my definition and addressing your examples. Probably tomorrow.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
knowing fatty food is bad and eating it anyway to the point of diabetes.
greenghost2008 2 years ago
Whoever acts irrationaly either lacks knowledge, does a false valuation or is addicted or emtionally unable to behave rationally.
Nobody does it freely and knowingly. And I am not saying people can not change. However, if they do change then it is because they gained knowledge, changed their valuation or managed to overcome their addiction. In this case they will act rationally anyway regardless of whether I make rational behaviour a rule or not.
FatGermanBastard 2 years ago
@FatGermanBastard
Sure: smoking.
ProximaMinor 1 year ago
@ProximaMinor
Smoking is an addiction. People start smoking when they are kids and think that being cool is rationally worth the risk which they largely underestimate. Then once they are addicted they can't stop it.
When they start it they are falsely evaluating what is rational - They are not knowingly acting irrationally.
Then once they are addicted they can't act rationally - They are not willingly acting rationally. They would act rationally if they could.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard
Not ALL smokers start smoking for those reasons. In fact I would say it is very few and far in between that you would actually find kids who smoked because it is cool. A lot of the times it's compulsion and an exception; meaning, "Just this once I'll try it. I know it's wrong, and I know its bad, but just this once, I will never do it again" That's how addiction starts.
ProximaMinor 1 year ago
@ProximaMinor
But in this case isn't it obvious that they are underestimating the danger and overestimating the benefit (of knowing what smoking is like) ? In other words: They falsely think that their action is rational.
And people say "I shouldn't be doing this" all the time. Like when they do bungee jumping. They do not literally mean this. Someone who does bungee jumping actually thinks the fun is worth the risk. The statement "I shouldn't be doing this" is not meant seriously.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard Rationalizing an action doesn't conflict with willfully acting irrationaly. Rationalization doesn't contradict what is and isn't irational and one's ability to determin between the two.
ProximaMinor 1 year ago
Using your same example; if someone rationalizes that acting irratoinally is more fun than acting rationally, they are willfully acting irrational. When people say "I shouldn't be doing this"; they are explicitly stating that they are choosing to be stupid on the grounds that is more fun or whatever it is they rationalized
ProximaMinor 1 year ago
@ProximaMinor
No when someone rationalizes that acting in a certain way is more fun or in other words that the fun is worth the expense he is acting rationally or at least thinks he is. Someone who does bungee jumping thinks that the fun is worth the risk and therefore is thinking he/she is acting rationally.
Rationalizing means to balance (subjective) values against each other and an attempt to maximize value. Fun is a value.
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard Your argument implicitly defines that rationality is subjective, and that which what a man rationalizes as a value, is rational.
This is both A) not true universally, and B) in the realm of one's philosophy, not true for every individual.
ProximaMinor 1 year ago
@FatGermanBastard The rationalization of a value DOES NOT make that value a ratoinal value. Just because you ratoinalize that the value "fun" is worth any bodily harm does not mean you are acting rational; it means you are willfully acting iratoinal under the rationalization that fun is worth any harm done to you.
It means you have looked at both values: health and fun; and chose that fun is more important. Knowing full well that health and saftey are far more ratoinal values.
ProximaMinor 1 year ago
@ProximaMinor
Don't you agree that to a certain extent we all risk or sacrifice a little bit of our health in order to increase our quality of life. Like the second you are reading this comment you could as well be outside doing sports, right ? But you sacrifice this little bit of your health because you enjoy talking about philosophical topics. And don't you ever drink a beer or eat at McDonalds or ___ (fill in blank) ?
FatGermanBastard 1 year ago
Thanks for the vid, keep it up.
Ataensic 2 years ago
Are you saying that the excessive rise in home value, (the bubble) was a free market phenomenon?
Note:
(Remember, a free market means no government 'tweaking', or interfearence, nor any incentives created with taxpayer money, which is of course extracted at the point of a gun)
Sam26100 2 years ago
I think that "The Objectivist Ethics" (in The Virtue of Selfishness) is Rand's best work.
XxxNuMbxxX0301 2 years ago
I've worked a fair number of jobs, and from experience I can say that it is in the workplace that racism tends to exist the least. When people work, they instinctually begin to value human beings for their competence and ability. It is in the minds of complacent people, such as politicians, religious zealots, etc, that racism spreads
Sam26100 2 years ago
The racist businessman? You should read economist Thomas Sowell, he explains why racism in a free economy is a myth, and that the government perpetuates racisim. He's been around a long time, and is a black guy himself, he went to Harvard long before afirmative action, and he knows what the effect of government regulations against racism do in reality
Sam26100 2 years ago
As for the cancer patient. I don't know the specifics of that case so I am only speculating based on the information you provided here:
You cannot claim that she has a right to the service simply because she needs it
Here's a quote by Marilyn Savant world's highest IQ record holder
How can we live in freedom and maintain that we are entitled to anything that we can't get without the labor of others? Remember if we are entitled to the labor of others, that makes slaves of those others
Sam26100 2 years ago
Omg, you were a very strong liberal!?
drew335533 2 years ago
I had some one today tell me that Ayn Rand was for state control over the ppl,And he claimed he use to be a Objevtvist,and read all of her books.
nero8289 2 years ago
I've read We the Living, The Fountainhead, and about 3/4 of Atlas Shrugged.
Her writing is crap.
Her philosophy is also crap.
If you want more details, feel free to message me.
majinspy 2 years ago
Okay, explain why her philosophy is bad
Sam26100 2 years ago
Her books are poorly written and anyone who is widely read will generally agree regardless of philosophy. Her books are bad, IMO, because they never address alternate arguments.
You asked philosophy, ok: It doesn't take into account reality. It's pure arm-chair. People are, to some degree, communitarian. I saw the news today about a stage 4 cancer patient whose power (and, by extension, her life) was going to be shut off because of $188. Objectivism says: too bad. Out of room, send me a mail.
majinspy 2 years ago
"her books... never address alternate arguments"
I couldn't disagree more strongly. In both of her major novels, there is a significant cast of characters who represent the philosophies which she opposed, and they have a voice. Example: In The Fountainhead, Peter Keating tells Roark many times that Roark is a fool, and that Keating's aproach to life and business is more practical etc. He almost makes the reader believe that Roark is indeed foolish.
(continued)
Sam26100 2 years ago
Where is a racist businessman? There aren't any. Every businessman is honest and forthright. Not one engages in nepotism, or anything distasteful, though these exist and fuel popular outrage. Also, the government fails at EVERYTHING it does. This is all too easy, too convenient.
Nowhere, also, is me. I'm a moderate liberal. I understand if you tax / regulate too far, you kill capitalism (which is very bad). Nowhere is a liberal in the middle because that is what we have and it works damn well.
majinspy 2 years ago
Umm, the government fails at everything it does in the real world.
I think you missed the point of Rands books being written in the romantic style. It's meant as a projection of what could happen, vs what should happen.
It's the conceptual school of writing. It has it's disadvantages, but can also be a very powerful tool for inspiring people to become better. The heroes aren't meant as some wishful fantasy, but rather a goal for us all to aspire to.
Sam26100 2 years ago
Well romantic allegory / metaphors aren't good for solving practical problems. The entire book is a slippery slope argument which is by nature fallacious. It's like arguing we shouldn't have a speed limit because ultimately we would make the limit 0 and no cars would move.
The government does NOT fail at everything it does. This is a dumb statement. The interstate system is pretty nice. Public schools are pretty nice (and only beaten by more left wing countries). The truth is moderation works.
majinspy 2 years ago
Funny you call Atlas Shrugged a slippery slope fallacy, at a time when more and more people in business and the media are beginning to compare real events to what that book described.
I remember reading in one of Rand's articles, that she didn't anticipate how many people actually wrote to her saying that what she described in the book is happening to them in real life.
Therefore I do not think it is a slippery slope. Reality is confirming her ideas
Sam26100 2 years ago
A lot of people "see" stuff in real life that parallels the book. You provide no examples. You are basically saying "a bunch of people think I'm right, therefore this means something."
Sorry, mate, there's no nice way for me to say you didn't make the bare minimums of an argument.
Here watch me do the same thing: A lot of people tend to disagree with Rand and support social programs. A lot of wall street bankers, just 5 years ago, were having coke parties; not exactly Taggart vs. the world.
majinspy 2 years ago
I see, so expanding beaurocracy doesn't parallel the book?
The causes of the disaster being blamed on free enterprise, and the actual poison being offered up as an antidote doesn't parallel the book either?
What do you know about Austrian economics? You're insinuating that Im ignorant of the facts, but you haven't studied the only economic model which predicted every economic disaster in the last 100 years.
You talk about "racist businessmen", as if government doesn't encourage racism
Sam26100 2 years ago
I know all about Ausrtrian economics and ludwig von mises. I also know its laughed out of damn near every school of economics because it doesn't feel the need to comply with the real world; a lot like objectivism. You accuse me of not studying it, but nice try, I have.
Bureaucracy, while at times frustrating, is neccessary for a civil society. Every advanced civilization and empire had some type of bureaucracy that could handle the sheer amount of data so that it could better organize.
majinspy 2 years ago
Austrian economics is laughed out of nearly every school of economics because it doesn't reflect reality?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
The only economic model to have accurately predicted every economic disaster in the last 100 years is the one that's incompatible with reality?
Your statement might have a shred of validity to it, if our economy wasn't falling apart like a chinese moped, but since it's fucking crumbling, it's to Austrian school's credit that it isn't recognized
Sam26100 2 years ago
We are having a recession, they happen. Progressive economics have been in effect for about 70 years and in that time we've had rises and falls with the rises far outpacing the falls. In fact I would argue that the repeal of certain business regulations (glass-steagall act) caused much of this to happen.
majinspy 2 years ago
How has the glass-steagall act caused this?
Sam26100 2 years ago
It allowed the same bank to both tank in money and be a "bank" type of bank (with FDIC insurance, etc) and also an securities investment bank. This opened the floodgates of speculation. Any bank that didn't leverage iteself to take advantage of real estate bubbles would be eaten by other banks (this bubble was 20 years long; no bank could run against the tide that long and not get eaten). Therefore, they all followed suit into high leverage, and that is one of many reasons big banks got hit hard
majinspy 2 years ago
What do you mean "tank in money and be a 'bank' type of bank"?
A bit confused over that part
Sam26100 2 years ago
Before that act a bank couldn't be both an investment house and a bank. The repeal of that act allowed the creation of massive banks such as citibank. In fact professor Ed Kane of Boston College said "nobody will be able to discipline citibank" and congressman Dorgan said this would create banks "too big to fail".
When investment houses, insurance firms, and savings banks could all be the same company, it allowed failure to be so big as to make the readjustment of the freemarket quite painful.
majinspy 2 years ago
Are you aware that the bailouts via the "too big to fail" approach, were started by the government, and that the bailouts were promised to the banks BEFORE they began failing?
This created an incentive for them to be reckless, and for the heads to grab as much money for themselves as they could, regardless of what it would do to the company, since the government would just bail them out with all of our money.
So, how is this a fault of a free market?
Sam26100 2 years ago
Of course readjustments (recessions) can be painful, but how is creating a false sense of security going to make things better? All they're doing is replacing the last bubble with a new one.
Sam26100 2 years ago
You can't argue that they got big, was because of a bailout, because they were failing. You can't have the effect be the cause. They were failing because they invested in a bubble. Normally investments lead to "readjustment" (banks closing, assets being sold off.)
The problem here is that these banks were HUGE and when they fell, they would fall HARD and they held people's savings. This is VERY VERY bad.
majinspy 2 years ago
So, you're unaware of the Community
Reinvestment Act, or the low interest rates, the bond buying through Freddie and Fannie, with their government insured credit line,
All of this helped create the bubble, how is that a fault of the free market?
As for the fractional reserve banking, I believe it should be illegal because it is actually fraud. I.E. violation of individual rights.
For a further analysis, watch this video:
watch?v=OWnhX2koVEc
Sam26100 2 years ago
btw, plz reply to my last comment; it messes up the "timeline" if you don't.
You can "believe" w/e you want. If I believed in absolute personal sovereignty we wouldn't be here.
As far as the other things you mentioned, they were drops in a bucket. This recessions didn't happen because of government assistance in housing purchases, you can tell just by looking at the homes that were being foreclosed. Interest rates WERE too low thanks to former objectivist Greenspan.
majinspy 2 years ago
part 2 of reply about community reinvestment act.
Home prices were soaring because people thought they would continue to go up. It was self-perpetuating. People then took out loans they would not be able to pay back based on the idea that the home they had bought would rise in value and they could refinance at a later date with a better position as a result of this appreciation in home value.If you want to blame them, fine, but we trust businesses and we can't all expect to be savvy on finance
majinspy 2 years ago
Oh common, I meant the word "believe" in the sense that it's what I think, based on the knowledge I've aquired thus far
Another thing I was thinking today, you said that Austrian Economics are "laughed out of damn near every school of economics"
How about Thomas Sowell? His analysis of this crisis corresponds with the Austrian's
As for "former objectivist Greenspan" Excuse me, but I know quite a bit about objectivism and his history with it.
He is well known to have rejected it
Sam26100 2 years ago
Pt 2 of reply:
You are surely aware that banks do not hold assets on hand equal to what is saved in them. This is how they lend out money (banks are required by the government to hold approx. at least 20% of what is deposited in them on hand).
At the time of the bailouts Lehman had failed, Goldman was going down and so was merrill lynch, and citibank. If they didn't get bailed out when they did, the resulting crash would have been catastrophic.
majinspy 2 years ago
Partt 3: (I know, but this is complex)
In the long run you can argue that the free market would have adjusted. I concede this but as Keynes says: "In the long run, we all starve." With pure free market approaches you get big expansions and big losses. Overall, an upward trend does emerge, but the instability itself a.) turns off many investors b.) causes severe short term pain. Many people would rather have more stability at the cost of total growth. I am one of these people.
majinspy 2 years ago
Everything that I've heard about Objectivism strikes me as nonsense, but I admit that I am guilty of not having read Atlas Shrugged or the Fountainhead.
I did read Anthem, though, and it was drivel.
georges3601 2 years ago
E1. Amazon says that Anne Heller's book *Ayn Rand & the World She Made* will be released in October 2009. How do U know the book makes those criticisms?
I do remember reading a magazine article Heller wrote about Fred Cookinham's "Ayn Rand NY Walking Tours." Heller kept saying that Rand liked skyscrapers cuz they were "phallic symbols." But Heller's article provided no evidence, so it sounded like she was just making assumptions & doing arbitrary psychologizing; that tainted the article for me
legendre007 2 years ago
C1. Proxima, have you heard of Andrew Bernstein of the Ayn Rand Institute writing the books *Objectivism in One Lesson* and *Ayn Rand for Beginners*? I think his book might be good for beginners.
I think that if I tried to introduce myself to Objectivism by 1st reading *For the New Intellectual*, I would have been confused. Had I read that before I read *Fountainhead*, I would have said, "Huh? Who are Steven Mallory & Henry Cameron? Why does the Anthem guy talk so funny"?
legendre007 2 years ago
I have heard of him but haven't read his material yet.
With For the New Intellectual, at the beginning of each speech there is explination of what's going on. Like before the Anthem speech (there is only one) it explains that "I" has vanished from the human language and such. It was the 3rd book I read and found it quite helpful.
ProximaMinor 2 years ago
B1. Would you be interested in critiquing Fred Seddon's claims that Rand misrepresented the arguments of Kant and Hume? I've read Kant and Hume for myself, and Rand's characterizations of their arguments are accurate.
Do you prefer to do vlogs that defend Rand from criticisms? What do you think of doing vlogs that apply Objectivism to contemporary social issues like reproductive human cloning, Net Neutrality, and insider trading?
legendre007 2 years ago
Yeah I would be interested in doing it.
I like doing Vlogs because I like talking haha.
I would be interested in doing any of the things you mentioned.
ProximaMinor 2 years ago
D1. I'm interested to know what you think about the ethics of parents choosing to go to private in-vitro fertilization clinics to genetically engineer the embryos of their children in order to immunize them from heritable diseases like sickle-cell anemia, cancer, cystic fibrosis, & heart disease. Plus, making the kids stronger, with straighter teeth, etc. Such clinics are already capable right now of choosing whether the baby is male or female. :-)
legendre007 2 years ago
A1. You're on a roll! :-D
This video was quieter than the previous two.
Your tone sounds more aggressive in the past few videos you've done than in your first few.
The Honolulu Star-Bulletin says that President Obama read the Fountainhead. I wouldn't be surprised if he mistook Peter Keating for its hero. ;-)
It's interesting that Atlas convinced you of pro-capitalist economics before U were finished. Like I said in a previous video's comments section, I had to read more of her books 1st.
legendre007 2 years ago
It was the money speech. I mean just the first few sentences: "So you think money is the root of all evil?... Have you ever asked what is the root of money?"
I remember reading that and being stopped dead. I had no answer; and I was a guy who could usually answer, or at least BS, all questions.
Francisco's money speech is just so awesome...
ProximaMinor 2 years ago
you have a kindred spirit here
Arma0945 2 years ago
I agree I loved that speech. It realy opend my eyes.
nero8289 2 years ago