What countries in the world are closest to the objectivist political philosophy? I am unwilling to accept my governments wealth distribution any more. I can earn my living from any country. Where do i go?
What I don't seem to understand is the inherent contradiction within objectivism and its arguably less radical cousin, right libertarianism, and the suppression of individual liberty. As I have heard objectivists say that the goal is to gain the maximum amount of rights for a human being without impeding radically on the rights of others. Wouldn't objectivism though lead to the suppression of individual rights? When I imagine an objectivists world it is one where people are slaves to the few
@TheButlerism suppression? is that even possible in a Laissez-faire system? If you look at history all suppression has occurred due to government intervene.
@platinum014 Is that an answer? I cant see how suppression is limited purely to government forces. Sure it is coercive instrument but what prevents an individual from usurping that power? Especially when economic wealth is a factor.
I think it's quite naive to think that government is totally the problem. Yes government is problematic but isn't the removal of private property a more steadfast way of securing individual rights?
It amazes me how these mindless free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite secretly applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatments.
Ayn Rand's philosophy comes from God...she just doesnt realize or acknowledge it...but much of her views would be more willingly accepted if she was able to recognize that and had known 'better' words or the 'correct' words to use to rationally explain her views. Because she used negative senses of a two-sided word...to express her ideals....
@ElCangri137 I agree, and I kind of thought that too. I'm a Christian and a huge fan of Ayn Rand, and do think that morally and politcally, Objectivism is the way to go. Sure, there are a few motives I disagree with, but the fact that its a system that allows me to disagree, to choose to follow God with no 'legal' barriers is why I support it so much.
When this lecturer says “In her books Ayn Rand exposes the false and pernicious ideas destroying America and the West, a set of ideas she often labels ‘the axis of collectivism, altruism, and mysticism the true axis of evil, the axis of evil responsible for all the other evils in the world.’ he is talking about her HATRED of Christ's love of God and love of neighbors.
Conservative Republicans and "Christians" love Rand because they don't know or follow Jesus. Rev, R,D,
When Onkar says “In her books Ayn Rand exposes the false and pernicious ideas destroying America and the West, a set of ideas she often labels ‘the axis of collectivism, altruism, and mysticism the true axis of evil, the axis of evil responsible for all the other evils in the world.’ he is talking about her HATRED of the Bible's love of God and love of neighbors.
Conservative Republicans and "Christians" love Rand because they don't know God or follow Christ. Rev, R,D,
@Rayosun4 Her definition of Altruism is different from mine. When you help someone, the reward is doing what they and God wants without hurting another.
She might not have followed God, but she was still a smart woman.
The same way atheists might adore Dr Martin Luther King, or Gandhi, or Malcolm X even.
this speech always reminds me so much of the original idea of the U.S. it's kinda sad to see how out of whack capitalism is now. goodbye individualist rights, hello government control.
If an Objectivist drives on a public road (built and maintained with taxpayers' money) on their way to deliver a speech on Objectivism, have they commited an Objectivist sin? What about if the electricity that powers their mic comes from a public utility, any concerns there? What about a disciple of Ayn Rand getting treatment from a physician who trained at a publicly funded university, any conflict of interest? Just wondering....
@pilate10 holy shit, you don't actually think that the above comment amounts to a serious criticism of Objectivism do you?
You know Objectivism opposes fiat currency as well but that doesn't mean that we throw all our money away! It means that we live as much as we can, within the existent irrational legal framework, according to Objectivist ethics without sacrificing ourselves and advocate for the recognition of individual rights in the legal code.
@pilate10 Basically, if you don't have any choice about what service to use - as with roads - then you use the publicly funded service. It doesn't make you immoral when you don't have any choice in the matter.
If these people really believed the crap[ they promote, they would all go to places like Somalia, but they just want the comforts of the civilized world which we LIBERALS have produced without having to pay their dues.
One gaping whole in the philosophy of Rand is that she completely negates that capitolism at heart is deleterious to the people working within that society who are not rising. She talks about physical force, but she omits any sense of mandatory subjugation of the workers that is inherently present when pushing the idea of capitol gains from a tiered system of labor. The ability to push margins higher is inherently subjugating the production labor to greater poverty.
Shit, they have groups and talks dedicated to someone like Ayn Rand...this looks like a Church and all the followers. Who would take time to sit there? ... Weird
Wow! If there were no God, this would be a really orderly philosophy. But if there is no God, isn't "morality" a ridiculous word; a deracinated concept?
If by "deracinated", you mean it as not anymore imposed by ancient superstition, mysticism, or an arbitrary code book, yes you are right.
Something isn't moral because some priest, shaman, or intangible God you have never interacted with told you so.
Man is moral is because, out of Reason, he or she deducts that behaviors which impede his liberty or others' liberty and pursuit of happiness are immoral.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
Why is the covert communist and deceiver Ayn Rand getting such praise and recognition!. When it should be great men like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and William Ellery Channing who as true patriotic americans should, they were some of the first proponents of the liberal and individual spirit of reason.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
So who are the 'parasites' in our country today? Well that's easy. I know many of you would say those on medicaid and welfare (because I know you love to play the blame game as many self-righteous, and Ayn Rand was beyond self-righteous, people do), but the ultimate moochers are those bankers that run the fed and all those who practice usury (that is lending out money you don't have to have it be repaid at interest). Yes, the pinnacle of capitalism ultimately funds world socialism. Ironic.
To take Rand's theories to their logical conclusion, the legality of corporations would be abolished. Corporations are a collectivist ideal in capitalism. In that sense, as well as her devout atheism, I would agree with Ayn Rand. Other than that, objectivism has shown itself to be a disastrous concept for a workable community.
Corporations aren't collectivist at all, they are groups of people voluntarily working together for their own private benefit. Collectivism requires the use of force, and that one party suffers while the other benefits. How you can brush aside a whole philosophy when you don't understand the meaning of the words you use, is beyond me.
With the risk of debating someone who renders themselves defenseless. From the dictionary: Collective - forming a whole; combined: the collective assets of a corporation and its subsidiaries. No apologies necessary. You have it backwards, in that capitalism requires force, and that one party benefits while the others suffer. In collectivism. the idea is to serve the needs of the collective's members equally.
Not only do you not understand the words you're talking about, but you then give me the definition of a different word. Please go and look up the definition of 'collectivISM' and then think up a reply.
The theory of collectivism (in all its variants) holds that man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. Collectivism, unlike individualism, holds the group as the primary, and the standard of moral value.
in a truly free society, we would not see the hardships or competitiveness that we do now. the hoarding of resources would be impossible without government (force)
help. most people would live in abundance and be able to to what they wanted with their lives, with the absence of large controlling powers, resources would increase drastically because the goods would not be controlled, or suppressed. anyone who wanted to be successful could actually do so of their own free will.
Excellent place to start from. As a politician I find it dificult to live out my libertarian ideals in all cases, but my ideals definately shapes my policy and weigh against the objectivist almost every time.
All her ideas ripped off from a Mr A Crowley.. do what THOU wilt is the whole of the law. But as an individual can I accept the reasoning behind reciprocal altruism? (a la the Prisoners Dilemma?)
If you want a good fantasy novel sure, if you want something with more relevance on economic matters and the proper structure for a society you'd be better off with Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter
I agree completely that this woman was too idealistic. While it's all well and good to defend the rights of an individual, a world where it's every man for himself would result in a collapse and reversal of everything we've built up over the years.
... I'm not saying what we have now is the perfect solution, but the way forward IS FORWARD, not backwards - and I meet too many philosophers (who mostly just uphold the views of other philosophers like this) who don't seem to understand this.
Your argument is that rational egoism fails because man is ultimately evil. So that makes you favor big government?
If man is ultimately evil, then that only supports the argument that preserving individual liberty is the only purpose government can serve without being corrosive to its own objective.
The alternative is that people are good, and government is only as efficient as it can operate on a premise of perfect knowledge.
Big government can only be evil or inefficient. Take your pick.
Not that man is ultimately evil; just that given a choice, no one is going to clean toilets for a living.
Competitive society is cruel, but perhaps the most productive. This idea that every man will decide for himself that such-and-such must be done for the good of the race is just idealist - and while a dose of idealism is nice, I find it better to operate on realism.
I have debates with idealists all the time. "In a free future, robots will do most of the labour." As an engineer, I have to ask... who's going to bring me the materials to build these robots? I'm expected to waste 40 years of my life developing and testing machines and complex enough artificial intelligence to control it so that everyone else can live a lazy-- sorry, "free" life?
Herein lies the idealist pitfall. "In a free world, everyone else will happily shoulder the hard work."
Right on! The truth, as can be demonstrated historically is that man's need to be productive and rational will never and must never cease unless man desires to cease existing. Only a parasitical mind would regard the invention of a complex machine as a "waste" because it required 40 years of effort. Incidentally it would be the same man who would demand that such machine "belong" any non thinker simply because it is needed or desired without recognizing or rewarding its creator.
Also your attitude.."i'm expected to waste 40 years of my life developing and testing..so that everyone else can live a lazy life" is not the attitude of an engineering pioneer, or 'fountainhead' as Rand would call them. Karl Benz ''wasted'' about 40years developing the automobile. I doubt this would have occured if he took your attitude and thought sod it, people can just walk, like their Neanderthal ancestors did.
It's the principle behind it that annoys me. "We're creating this free world, but so we can sit around all day doing whatever we want, we need a load of other people to support us."
If it was a different story and there was a good reason, I'd happily give my time. I just refuse in this case to contribute to/enable a lazy society of self-servers.
this is what Ayn Rand says too. In the Fountainhead they are not called a lazy society of self servers, they are called parasites, since her definition of what it means to be selfish is different to the popular assumptions. So i think you and her would be in agreement. She also says no one has the right to leach off another persons hard work and output, without making a slave out of the creator. Rand was in full support of the pioneers and condemned those who would make them slaves to society.
I agree. James Taggart's actions at the end of Atlas Shrugged are demonstrably "selfless" in the sense that they are clearly self-destructive. He is willing to destroy himself if in so doing he also destroys the good (embodied by Galt) that he so strongly fears to recognize.
Rand was a philosopher, everything is not wrapped up in a box marked completed. The ideals of liberty and individual rights have been contemplated throughout all time. What is important is that the closer you get to it the better off ALL of society is as a whole.
As for those who believe that someone commited a "selfless" act they are fooling themselves.
If you go build a house for a poor person it is not selfless. You do it to feel better about yourself, if you did not you would not do it
You are right. But what is selfish? What exactly is making one feel better, in oneself, as you say, by building homes for the poor? Is it simply to appear altruistic in the eyes of others? If so they are acheiving self respect second hand. If the motivation is purely from the self, that building homes for the poor is an end in itself, then the self respect will come from within and this is one element of how a rational person should function, according to the book The Fountainhead.
It is difficult to understand Rand's "self fulfillment" or "me above all" when you are or know of someone who traveled to a far away place to defend people that they never even met. As did the people of our GREATEST GENERATION who sacrificed life and limb in WWII. It is human nature to care for humankind before one's self. This is how a physically weak species such as humans, survived all natural and manufactured dangers throughout history. Not difficult for me to understand this.
But her philosophy is too idealistic. Societies are a complex organism. What of the individuals who cannot "produce" because of mental or physical deficiencies? And how do we place a value on specific "production". What is of more value? Someone who invents various derived vehicles in the stock market that will produce wealth for "high rollers" compared to someone who flushes the sewer pipes when they are clogged and backed up with our waste. Why does one have more value?
@nanabijou62: Exactly, who does Dr. Ghate call when his toilet is overflowing with his own excrement? He calls a plumber, not one of his Objectivist messiahs, to restore civility to his life. He really should just fix it himself. Dr. Ghate and his ilk lean on others everyday of their lives. Why they go to such greath lengths to deny it or it or deny its benefits is bizarre.
But starting and maintaining a civilization are one and the same. You can still be an individual within a society. Jesus of Nazareth taught that we are our brother's keeper. We either ALL get through this, or none of us will.
Teamwork is different from me giving my entire life to help another man set himself up, never mind that the other guy might be trying to take advantage of me.
Ayn Rand demonstrates most classic attributes of a sociopath. If she had studied human behavior throughout history (rather than her own narcissistic philosophy) she would have realized that humans are by nature social creatures. We band together in groups, each protecting and caring for one another for the good of the whole. She can only behave the way she does because society is already established and protections are in place. In the past she would have been first to be eaten by a predator.
You misunderstand Ayn Rand if you believe her to be antisocial. Your definition of "protecting and caring for one another for the good of the whole" is that those who choose to be productive in a society prop up and carry through life those that choose not to. It was this prevalent social ideal that Rand objected to. Those that choose not to help themselves are undeserving of help and have no right to demand it of those who produce.
And what if that book happens to be wrong? Or do we just uncritically accept everything in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as true?
Also, Objectivism doesn't for a second argue that value comes from labour. The standard by which values are measured is life, not the amount of labour that goes into making them. Labour is necessary to create things of value but the value is measured by how useful the item is and the price is decided by the price system operating in a free market.
The Stanford of Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is currently a free online encyclopedia; it is not a book. More importantly, as an encyclopedia, SEP does not put forward any philosophical argument as its own, but rather summarizes philosophers' arguments and categorizes them according to topics. Therefore, to say that SEP happens to be wrong on the question of "Who am I?" is to say that nearly all feminist critiques happen to be wrong on that question.
this doesn't answer the issue at all. My comment was simply to show that you were making a claim of knowledge by reference to an authority rather than on the back of some point of logic that you were making. appeals to authority are always weak.
(2) Qwerty citing the general surgeon warning about alcohol's effects on pregnancy is an appeal to authority.
(3) Therefore, Qwerty citing the general surgeon warning about alcohol's effects on pregnancy is weak.
The above argument is deductively valid, but its conclusion is rather absurd. Obviously, some apeals to authority are appropriate, and some are inappropriate (and all points inbetween).
The strength of the argument is derived not from the 'authority' of the source who makes it but from the consistency of the logic that that person applied in constructing the argument. Most of the time people with 'authority' have that authority because they have established that their arguments are logical, but it is not something that should be taken for granted as you appeared to be doing in your original comment.
(1) Things are valueable to a person only insofar as they contribute to his or her life.
(2) Some things are valueable to a person and equally anti-valuable to another person at the same time.
By itself, (1) cannot resolve the conflict of values presented in (2). Instead, to resolve (2), some but not all objectivists appeal to a Labor Theory of Value (i.e. the 1st place winner of Ayn Rand Institute's 2008 college essay contest. That essay explicitly appealed to a LTV.)
Not meaning to be dense (not that anyone ever does mean to be dense, I suppose) but the premise you outlined in '2' does not make sense to me. I can't answer your problem because I don't think you expressed it with sufficient clarity. In particular, what do you mean by 'anti-valuable'?
Parallel with (1), things are anti-valuable to a person only insofar as they are detrimental (contribute negatively) to a his or her life. Possible examples include but are not limited to: pollution, disease, starvation etc.
None of those examples fits your original claim that 'Some things are valuable to a person and equally anti-valuable to another person at the same time' No-one places a positive value on disease, starvation or pollution.
If you wanted to eradicate a group of people, starving them or infecting them with disease could be quite a viable way of going about it. In that moment in time, for that person, disease and starvation are positive in that they are a means of getting rid of the people they don't like. As for starvation for oneself, a person with a deathwish could suddenly view starvation as not so bad a thing.
oh come on, that's just a childish argument. A very simple response from objectivism is that all of the motives you've placed up there are irrational and self-destructive. I dare say i could give a longer and better answer but i can't be bothered. Stick to building dirt piles termite.
Sorry for giving only examples of positive evils, while lacking the accompanying positive goods. Here:
Suppose a factory produces both toys and air pollution. Toys are positive goods (values) to some persons, and air pollution is a positive evil (an "anti-value," to play on objectivist terminology) to some other persons.
Further abstraction avoids quibbling over examples, and returns us to the claim that Some but not all objectivists appeal to LTV to resolve conflict of values such as (2).
There is a very simple way to resolve this conflict: work out the price of the 'anti-value' and make the manufacturers of the toys have to pay it. The price would be passed on by them to their customers in the form of a higher priced product. The only time you run into difficulties is when the 'anti-value' is so diffuse that it's price cannot be ascertained. In such cases I contend that the 'anti-value' is probably non-existent, as in your air-pollution example (I don't swallow global warming).
At no point does an individual have the right to take away the individual rights of another by force (or disease, starvation or pollution). Therefore, if these truly are values of a (sick) individual, that individual is in direct contradiction to individualist beliefs.
There are those who benefit from such atrocities. What happens all the time today is the World Bank or IMF will give loans to impoverished 3rd world countries to help rebuild, with strings attached. Usually they have to cut spending and sell their resources to pay back the loan. The corporations who buy those resources at a low cost (in order to sell cheaper products to 1st world countries) benefit immensely. The banks benefit when they go in and take ownership of property as repayment.
Look, my comments on here were to defend the philosophy of objectivism from a weak and poorly constructed argument by Whaaism, that person has gone. I don't feel obliged to continue defending Objectivism from every half-baked criticism.
Suffice to say that the WTO and the IMF are not institutions that are asserted as necessary in Objectivist thinking - indeed I think they are generally obstacles to free trade and thus run counter to it.
Who decides what rules need to be followed regarding private property? Who decides what's fair? Rational thinking can't solve this problem, it's about who is most powerful. It's all about power...
Okay, that's something to think about. But I still do not have a answer to my question: "Who decides what rules need to be followed regarding private property?". It is still not clear to me.
Great theory, but does not work in practice. You end up with a pyramid where only a few have all the excess and the others are left with scraps or nothing at all, not because the bottom dwellers were lazy and did nothing, but because the top of the pyramid hoarded and prevented everyone else from obtaining a piece of the pie. Think oligarchs and slaves.
In a free society no one would be able to monopolize something that is needed for life's existence, like food, water or natural resources. Its always with governments help that companies are able to monopolize these things. You mentioned oligarchs and slaves, two things that are the opposite of a free society where the power lies with the individuals. Nothing prevents people from getting a piece of the pie except themselves. You can either sit and complain or stand up and take action.
Here is reason. The earth does not exist because any individual made it. Things made by individual effort are property, i.e. properly owned. How does property extend absolutely as is appropriate in the case of individually made things to land and natural resources ? It is not logical, not reasonable, to do so. It is especially not reasonable to claim property rights over the value of land that comes into existence only when community, i.e lots of individuals in proximity to each other, exists.
I agree but the human consensus is that they can be owned and that it is appropriate for those claims to be enforced by law etc. Centuries of this practice have gotten people used to the idea. But there is no need to disrupt legal titles; all that is necessary to assert common ownership of the earth is to require earth "owners" to pay rent for it into a common fund used to pay for public services with elimination as much as possible of all other taxes that now fall on earned incomes from labor.
Pay rent? To whom? You think that a person who actually works his land, develops the technology to get what he needs from the land in order to survive- owes some kind of tax to someone? How could you say that? Property rights are superior to what ever prestige you place on the 'earth.' Common ownership of the earth, as you say, means common ownership of that man's effort, as if he works to please others and not himself, or at best keep a tiny bit for himself.
advancethinking; perhaps you do not know that no one has absolute ownership of land. Only the sovereign does, in the US it is the states. Each state has retained the right to tax land among at least three other things that belie what sounds like your claim to some kind of absolute ownership. Taxes on land value are for the purpose of paying for public services that make land more valuable like roads, sewers, schools, police and fire protection and on and on. Are you expecting to get a free ride?
advancethinking; perhaps you do not know that no one has absolute ownership of land. Only the sovereign does, in the US it is the states. Each state has retained the right to tax land among at least three other things that belie what sounds like your claim to some kind of absolute ownership. Taxes on land value are for the purpose of paying for public services that make land more valuable like roads, sewers, schools, police and fire protection and on and on. Are you expecting to get a free ride?
denise81: it turns out the sovereign state holds superior title, called allodial, to all other owners who only have "fee simple" title which only confers right to use. The state retains the right to tax land any way it sees fit and usually it does so by assessing the market value of land and taxing land value. The purpose is to pay for public services. How else and who else should pay for services that serve land and make the market value of land higher. Are your expecting a free lunch?
Well, if you feel that way, that's fine. You don't have to own any, but you also can't prevent the rest of us from trying - I at least, with great succes.
I hope you're not siggesting the community should be allowed to own my land: you just said it cannot be owned.
denise81: to continue: it is appropriate for you to have fee simple title for the purpose of exclusive use of land and for protection of improvements you make on the land. No argument with that at all. What is not yours is the value of your land because the community creates that 100%. The state can tax land value but it chooses not to do so more than a little bit. Mostly states tax labor and capital to pay for services that make the land more valuable. That makes us landowners parasites.
"The community" is just a stolen concept meant to justify tyranny. It is not an independent entity, with rights, abilities and needs. Forcing an individual to be part of this fake concept, thus taking away his property and freedom, is tyranny.
Community in its real meaning is a relationship between a group of consenting individuals. If the community starts using force, it becomes a gang (or a tribe).
I believe you are confusing the two concepts: civilization made tribes obsolete.
denise81:OK have it your way again. As a member of the group of consenting individuals and because access to land is a necessity of life for every individual, if we cannot share the earth on some sort of agreed upon basis, your version of absolute ownership of land is a death sentence to many of us. That is what I call tyranny. Millions have died because of your version of property rights in land. Do you consent to death/poverty should the shoe be on the other foot?
deinse81:thinkest thou not? Property in human beings called slavery is one good example. Somehow it was decided that this was not a good idea and this "sacred" right that people were willing to defend by killing others (and of course dying for)was changed at least officially. Just goes to show that what we think is unquestionable is not always so. I merely question how you as landowner come to own the value of land you do not create and why most of us think it OK to tax wages which we do create.
Value is not a physical, concrete concept. As a result we do not own value. The things we own (physical things, such as cars and land) happen to have a subjective value to us.
That's what makes trade possible: object A is worth more to me than to you, as a result you are willing to trade it, and I am willing to buy it for set amount.
As far as slavery: it's wrong because you are using force to take away someone's inalienable right to liberty. It has nothing to do with property rights.
Of course it is reasonable to do so. Most things have value because people live close together and trade with each other: if I made a thousand hats, they would only have value because of the people willing to buy them. Does that mean I can't own them?
Did a person make the atoms in that hat? No, he just put them to use.
The same is true with land: the person who owns it is the person who could first claim it and put it to use: now it's his, just like the atoms in the hat.
In fact if you look at the history of America, that's how land (and natural resources, i.e. gold) became soemone's property: the land one person found unclaimed, that he could, objectively, put to good use, became his land (that amount was objectively pre-determined, by law)
denise81:first there was no such thing as unclaimed land. All of it was claimed by the previous inhabitants from who it was taken. No shame, all land is subject to being conquered if it can't be defended. But mere conquering does not give you absolute right to ownership of land unless you are the sovereign and you alone are not the sovereign. All of us including you are the sovereign and as such we have a right to tax land we let you use and base that tax on land value that we all create.
1. I did not suggest ownership is claim. I said ownership is claim of something not in use, and the ability to put it to use. (and I listed the way that was practiced by early settlers)
The indians did not own land: I doubt they even claimed it(other than to try and keep europeans out), and they didn't use it, certainly not the whole cont.
2. I am sovereign on my land: don't test me on that, because I'm also armed. You have no right to my land.
denise81: OK have it your way. But if you do not help us pay for the roads, sewer systems, street lights, police and fire protection, schools, courts, etc. all of which make the market value of your land higher then please do not use them. If community does not exist then we, the community, the people, do not recognize your existence and we hereby suggest that you not show your face. Nonetheless we do have the right to come on to your land. I do get your point but threatening me/us is silly.
I'm fine with not using public property if it means I wouldn't be forced to pay taxes. However, I certainly have a right to life, liberty and property, and we have to have a voluntarily funded government to protect those rights.
As far as "the community" goes, let me repeat: that's a stolen concept, used trying to evade the fact that you are talking about a gang which relies on force to achieve its goals.
"When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty."--Confucius
deinse81:Confucius was all about reciprocity. Publicly provided infrastructure that serves your land making it more useful and more economically valuable (a value you do not create) calls for the appropriate reciprocal response on your part which is to help the rest of us pay for these services. What better way to pay for these things than by an assessment against the value these services give to your land? Should I pay for the services to your land out of a tax on my earned income from working?
deinse81: a strong government to protect property rights is the better solution. We have never had one. All governments now take what truly belongs to me, my earned wages from labor and profit from real capital investment which I won't do if I can't keep the reward. On the other hand all governments allow landowners to keep the value of land, a value they do not create. How is your right to keep what you do not create greater than my right to keep what I do create?
gryphon: i agree that the american gov't hasn't been acting in the appropriate manner, however, many countries throughout the world are managing much better and their banking industry is more and better regulated.
I was going to say how in fact it was government regulation that got America into this mess, but it seems that someone got there before me in the below exchange. I would listen to them and understand that to expect that the government to fix the economy is much like expecting a murder to administer CPR on his victim. Yes when the police arrive the murder looks like a hero that tried to save the victim, but one only has to look at the evidence, please look at the evidence.
gab;canadian banks are more regulated and they are in the best shape. the lack of regulation in america and in europe has proven disastrous in this market.
Canadian banks happened to be better regulated than American ones durind mr. Moron's presidency. Though I doubt they were less regulated: tha American ones were practically run by regulators.
P.S. You shouldn't think your luck will last. Your politicians will screw up just as badly, trust me. They know nothing about banking and finance, they just want to be popular.
denise: i guess the best way to put it is that as far as the free market economy is concerned, private business while always want to be left alone to conduct business without any constraints - but when trouble arises, all the corporate CEOs are in washington - cap in hand.
Trust me, it's not "cap in hand": they bought enough political clout for ten bailouts with campaign contributions before the elections(just remember the billion Obama raised): now they are collecting.
It's disgusting, and it would never happen if political leaders were not allowed to tax or get involved in any way in the economy.
Why aren't you blaming elected officials, who are stealing taxpayer money, and using it to pay off favors? Isn't that even worse than some executive playing the game?
denise: i agree that political contributions of any kind by big business should be outlawed - and could be if there were the public will. the greedy politicians should definately be brought to task by the electorate and in a quicker fashion than what is now available. most offensive is ceo pay. an american exec in 2001 made 350 times the average workers pay. compare that to canada 29 to 1 or japan 14 to 1. today american execs earn 3500 to 1.
Why is CEO pay offensive to you? Is a CEO stealing that money from you? Why can't I pay the CEO of a company I own anything I want to? What business is that of yours?
And while we're on the subject, why can't I support my favorite politician-if I'm not asking for personal favors-, the same way a union or an environmentalist group can support them?
By the way, those numbers are made up. They are a blatant lie.(not that it matters for the argument, but it puts your honesty into question)
denise: i am surprised that you are not offended by AMERICAN ceo pay. the execs are stealing from everyone. the shareholders, the consumers that buy the product, the employees that work hard to make the product. let's put it this way, if politicians raised their wages like ceos have in the past couple of decades you would be outraged. i never said YOU (as an individual)couldn't support any politician you wished. the numbers i quoted are the accurate. FUCK YOU for questioning my honesty.
Well fuck you too: you're coming up with data I know for a fact is fake, so you're either naive or lying.
CEO's don't raise their own wages, they are servants of the owners of the corporation: shareholders. They can always be replaced at the shareholders' meetings, or they can have their pay cut, depending on company policy. If a shareholder doesn't like the company's policy, they can sell their shares on the open market.
I don't need to look it up. My business is to know these data, and I know my business. Such a rise in CEO pay is impossible. Your study was doctored. If you look at all Fortune 500 companies, and what they pay their current CEO's, the rise is significantly less than tenfold, compared to 2001.
Also, the size of the american companies considered was much bigger than the size of japanese and canadian companies, that's why the difference is so striking.
denise: well, that is an odd opinion for someone that is suppose to be collecting data (refusing to look at ALL of the data) for business. american execs are like nero - they are fiddling while rome (THE USA) falls.
A politician on the other hand gets payed by taxpayers, and the voters are the one's ultimately deciding his pay and whether he gets to keep his job. If voters wanted to pay someone important more money, I'd be fine with that. The fact is they don't. Shareholders on the other hand obviously do, since they get a bigger return on their investement from a good CEO, than from a cheap one. As owners of a company, it is their right to determine such wages, not yours, or the employees' and customers'.
denise: you know as well as i do - as a shareholder - we are powerless to limit execs wages. the board of directors (who also are like pigs at the trough lately) control the strings.
That's not true, but sell the shares if you feel that way. Start your own business.
This is how a real study on an economic trend
looks like:(It's a PDF file)
Turns out CEO pay for DOW companies didn't even double in your time period, despite huge profits for the shareholders. (note how worker's salaries rose at the same pace-it's all in there):
Sorry, google "CEO pay data DOW", click the fifth link
I'm assuming by this comment that you are a long-time and diligent student of economics and not just some university student with an emotional beef against Capitalism and America ... right?
It's "some guidance" that got the US into this mess. Allow me to elucidate:
1) The Community Reinvestment Act (signed by Clinton) placed pressure on the banking industry to make "equality" loans to more minorities and the disadvantaged.
2) In response to being "encouraged" (read: forced) to make these riskier loans, the industry had to get creative in order to cover their risk. Thus, the interest only, and adjustable rate wacko loans that were invented.
3) In order to keep the upward spiral going, the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) of Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac were told by their handlers in DC to buy everything which bloated the secondary market.
4) The GSEs had pawn all this debt off somewhere so they repackaged the loans, regardless of risk and sold them to Wall Street who had no, and COULD have no, idea of how much risk was involved with these securities.
5) All the while, the Federal Reserve was slashing, slashing, slashing the interest rates and printing, printing, printing more fiat money; so, money was so cheap that everyone could afford to keep buying.
Yes, some firms got irrationally greedy and took on more risk than they could afford. Now they're paying for it ... or at least will/would if our benevolent leaders would only STOP REGULATING! IT'S LIKE A DRUG FOR THEM FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!! ..... sorry.
Some homeowners got irrationally greedy too, or maybe they didnt know what they were doing. Either way, Im sorry but I have no interest in bailing out someone who got in over their head because of a) bad judgment or b) not having the good sense to ask a few pointed questions of a neutral source before borrowing hundreds of thousands dollars.
As for the market being "frozen," I guess Chase was so frozen that they bought Washington Mutual; Bank of America so frozen that they bought Countrywide ... and on and on and on .... In the last 10 years the Dow Jones and quadrupled and everyone is worried now that it takes, relative to that, a dip? Please.
What countries in the world are closest to the objectivist political philosophy? I am unwilling to accept my governments wealth distribution any more. I can earn my living from any country. Where do i go?
badvariance 9 hours ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Michael Prescott: Romancing the Stone-Cold Killer: Ayn Rand and William Hickman
michaelprescottDOTnet/hickmanDOThtm
kropotkinbeard1 1 month ago
What I don't seem to understand is the inherent contradiction within objectivism and its arguably less radical cousin, right libertarianism, and the suppression of individual liberty. As I have heard objectivists say that the goal is to gain the maximum amount of rights for a human being without impeding radically on the rights of others. Wouldn't objectivism though lead to the suppression of individual rights? When I imagine an objectivists world it is one where people are slaves to the few
TheButlerism 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The Truth about Ayn Rand slate.com/articles/arts/books/2009/11/how_ayn_rand_became_an_american_icon.html
kropotkinbeard1 2 months ago
Alan Greenspan learned at Ayn's knee, that about sums it up.
olliearl 7 months ago
Alan Greenspan really looked out for us, oh I forgot he learned at ole Ayns knee...now that explains it
olliearl 7 months ago
omg can u imagine a global laissez faire capitalist system.... one word.. prosperity.
platinum014 7 months ago 2
@platinum014 With just a touch slavery and oppression hahah
TheButlerism 1 month ago
@TheButlerism only when socialism is brought into the game.
platinum014 1 month ago
@platinum014 Is there an explanation in that? Socialism has nothing to do with it were talking about objectivism as a valid system/ ideology.
How does objectivism deal with the suppression of the individual rights of others which seems unfortunately a consequence of it?
TheButlerism 1 month ago
@TheButlerism suppression? is that even possible in a Laissez-faire system? If you look at history all suppression has occurred due to government intervene.
platinum014 1 month ago
@platinum014 Is that an answer? I cant see how suppression is limited purely to government forces. Sure it is coercive instrument but what prevents an individual from usurping that power? Especially when economic wealth is a factor.
I think it's quite naive to think that government is totally the problem. Yes government is problematic but isn't the removal of private property a more steadfast way of securing individual rights?
TheButlerism 1 month ago
Comment removed
platinum014 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheButlerism government has always been totally the problem. as naive as that sounds. it's the truth.
platinum014 1 month ago
Raise your hand if your sick of speaking ignorance. Let's get together : ) yea yea yea.
KeithMcElwain 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
It amazes me how these mindless free market dupes continuously yank from Ayn Rand's dusty utters. This morally bankrupt hypocrite secretly applied for social security and used medicare to pay for her cancer treatments.
logtype47 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Keep up the good video work looking good. When you have time come
visit my channel!
simplechocolatediet 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Keep up the good video work looking good. When you have time come
visit my channel!
truehealthyproducts 9 months ago
Interestingly, Ayn Rand, who always argued against a big state and its redistribution of property, took money from the state when she became sick:
vvvvvv.huffingtonpost.kom/michael-ford/ayn-rand-and-the-vip-dipe_b_792184.html
The institute is jeopardized but I'm sure her followers will argue themselves out of it. Somehow.
Coming up: Ayn Rand fell in love with a child murderer and sent him letters into prison.
Ah4b 11 months ago
Ayn Rand's philosophy comes from God...she just doesnt realize or acknowledge it...but much of her views would be more willingly accepted if she was able to recognize that and had known 'better' words or the 'correct' words to use to rationally explain her views. Because she used negative senses of a two-sided word...to express her ideals....
ElCangri137 1 year ago
@ElCangri137 I agree, and I kind of thought that too. I'm a Christian and a huge fan of Ayn Rand, and do think that morally and politcally, Objectivism is the way to go. Sure, there are a few motives I disagree with, but the fact that its a system that allows me to disagree, to choose to follow God with no 'legal' barriers is why I support it so much.
Iisdabest889 1 year ago
@Iisdabest889,
When this lecturer says “In her books Ayn Rand exposes the false and pernicious ideas destroying America and the West, a set of ideas she often labels ‘the axis of collectivism, altruism, and mysticism the true axis of evil, the axis of evil responsible for all the other evils in the world.’ he is talking about her HATRED of Christ's love of God and love of neighbors.
Conservative Republicans and "Christians" love Rand because they don't know or follow Jesus. Rev, R,D,
Rayosun4 10 months ago
@Iisdabest889,
When Onkar says “In her books Ayn Rand exposes the false and pernicious ideas destroying America and the West, a set of ideas she often labels ‘the axis of collectivism, altruism, and mysticism the true axis of evil, the axis of evil responsible for all the other evils in the world.’ he is talking about her HATRED of the Bible's love of God and love of neighbors.
Conservative Republicans and "Christians" love Rand because they don't know God or follow Christ. Rev, R,D,
Rayosun4 10 months ago
@Rayosun4 Her definition of Altruism is different from mine. When you help someone, the reward is doing what they and God wants without hurting another.
She might not have followed God, but she was still a smart woman.
The same way atheists might adore Dr Martin Luther King, or Gandhi, or Malcolm X even.
Iisdabest889 10 months ago
this speech always reminds me so much of the original idea of the U.S. it's kinda sad to see how out of whack capitalism is now. goodbye individualist rights, hello government control.
platinum014 1 year ago 2
If an Objectivist drives on a public road (built and maintained with taxpayers' money) on their way to deliver a speech on Objectivism, have they commited an Objectivist sin? What about if the electricity that powers their mic comes from a public utility, any concerns there? What about a disciple of Ayn Rand getting treatment from a physician who trained at a publicly funded university, any conflict of interest? Just wondering....
pilate10 1 year ago
@pilate10 holy shit, you don't actually think that the above comment amounts to a serious criticism of Objectivism do you?
You know Objectivism opposes fiat currency as well but that doesn't mean that we throw all our money away! It means that we live as much as we can, within the existent irrational legal framework, according to Objectivist ethics without sacrificing ourselves and advocate for the recognition of individual rights in the legal code.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins: Tell me to what degree an Objectivist feels comfortable when it comes to their own use of public services.
pilate10 1 year ago
@pilate10 To the extent that I can literally laugh out loud at the ineptitude of your question.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins: You stick handle better than Wayne Gretzky. Answer my question.
pilate10 1 year ago
@pilate10 Basically, if you don't have any choice about what service to use - as with roads - then you use the publicly funded service. It doesn't make you immoral when you don't have any choice in the matter.
dannidandannikins 1 year ago
@dannidandannikins: Thank you for replying.
pilate10 1 year ago
@pilate10,
If these people really believed the crap[ they promote, they would all go to places like Somalia, but they just want the comforts of the civilized world which we LIBERALS have produced without having to pay their dues.
They want "a tax-free lunch".
Rayosun4 10 months ago
@Rayosun4 100% WRONG. A government is required for private property rights, which Libertarians, Objectivists etc advocate.
To see a good place where their ideas work are Hong Kong, Puerto rico, etc.
Anarchists are almost the opposite of libertarians.
Iisdabest889 10 months ago
It is irrationality that is the axis of evil
swu880 1 year ago
One gaping whole in the philosophy of Rand is that she completely negates that capitolism at heart is deleterious to the people working within that society who are not rising. She talks about physical force, but she omits any sense of mandatory subjugation of the workers that is inherently present when pushing the idea of capitol gains from a tiered system of labor. The ability to push margins higher is inherently subjugating the production labor to greater poverty.
HOLYdpsBATMAN 1 year ago
@HOLYdpsBATMAN
Holy Marxism Batman!
Radeo 1 year ago
what a dud speaker! a dead body fresh out of a grave could speak liverlier than him.
amitnewyork 1 year ago
How to achieve Objectivist results in foreign policy: /watch?v=tHGHT1BQNu4
JohananRaatz 1 year ago
Thank you Dr. Ghate
FakingEnglishVerse 1 year ago
Shit, they have groups and talks dedicated to someone like Ayn Rand...this looks like a Church and all the followers. Who would take time to sit there? ... Weird
aetstw 1 year ago
Wow! If there were no God, this would be a really orderly philosophy. But if there is no God, isn't "morality" a ridiculous word; a deracinated concept?
bammbamm12 2 years ago
@bammbamm12
If by "deracinated", you mean it as not anymore imposed by ancient superstition, mysticism, or an arbitrary code book, yes you are right.
Something isn't moral because some priest, shaman, or intangible God you have never interacted with told you so.
Man is moral is because, out of Reason, he or she deducts that behaviors which impede his liberty or others' liberty and pursuit of happiness are immoral.
Drakken682 1 year ago
That's a pretty neat opinion. Unfortunately, you know nothing.
bammbamm12 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Why is the covert communist and deceiver Ayn Rand getting such praise and recognition!. When it should be great men like Ralph Waldo Emerson, Henry David Thoreau and William Ellery Channing who as true patriotic americans should, they were some of the first proponents of the liberal and individual spirit of reason.
DocHoliday1882 2 years ago
@DocHoliday1882 .......... Thats what I love about America looool .. I wonder why the media messes the truth
MohammedDawud 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
So who are the 'parasites' in our country today? Well that's easy. I know many of you would say those on medicaid and welfare (because I know you love to play the blame game as many self-righteous, and Ayn Rand was beyond self-righteous, people do), but the ultimate moochers are those bankers that run the fed and all those who practice usury (that is lending out money you don't have to have it be repaid at interest). Yes, the pinnacle of capitalism ultimately funds world socialism. Ironic.
kwill8806 2 years ago
agree 100% if the term in Capitalism was changed to Fascism.
Capitalism has not led to where we are today...Capitalism would have prevented this.
helltrackrider 2 years ago 4
Her memory deserves better than this lout
fluff125 2 years ago
Comment removed
edidpro 2 years ago
Are you saying that humans are not animals? If so, I humbly suggest a biology course.
mkamaryn 2 years ago 4
I don't remember the context of my remark.
edidpro 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Go Tell It to the Native Americans ! you bunch of idiots! since when do we listen to a communist from Russia?
1chichimec1 2 years ago
Are you suggesting that Ayn Rand is a communist?
olipop84 2 years ago
lol she is not and never was communist! The Native Americans lost out because they were socialists.
NOMADdaf 2 years ago
YES YES YES:)
perfect;)
To take Rand's theories to their logical conclusion, the legality of corporations would be abolished:)
the fact she's atheism does nOt make her wrOng::::::::)
freedOm is my nature
well said datacomputation-IRn101-hg46
8cent8 2 years ago
To take Rand's theories to their logical conclusion, the legality of corporations would be abolished. Corporations are a collectivist ideal in capitalism. In that sense, as well as her devout atheism, I would agree with Ayn Rand. Other than that, objectivism has shown itself to be a disastrous concept for a workable community.
denmanistan 2 years ago
Corporations aren't collectivist at all, they are groups of people voluntarily working together for their own private benefit. Collectivism requires the use of force, and that one party suffers while the other benefits. How you can brush aside a whole philosophy when you don't understand the meaning of the words you use, is beyond me.
beatmaster8000 2 years ago
With the risk of debating someone who renders themselves defenseless. From the dictionary: Collective - forming a whole; combined: the collective assets of a corporation and its subsidiaries. No apologies necessary. You have it backwards, in that capitalism requires force, and that one party benefits while the others suffer. In collectivism. the idea is to serve the needs of the collective's members equally.
denmanistan 2 years ago
Not only do you not understand the words you're talking about, but you then give me the definition of a different word. Please go and look up the definition of 'collectivISM' and then think up a reply.
beatmaster8000 2 years ago
The theory of collectivism (in all its variants) holds that man is not an end to himself, but is only a tool to serve the ends of others. Collectivism, unlike individualism, holds the group as the primary, and the standard of moral value.
denmanistan 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Wow, this is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have ever seen or heard.
DanMorgan98 2 years ago
in a truly free society, we would not see the hardships or competitiveness that we do now. the hoarding of resources would be impossible without government (force)
help. most people would live in abundance and be able to to what they wanted with their lives, with the absence of large controlling powers, resources would increase drastically because the goods would not be controlled, or suppressed. anyone who wanted to be successful could actually do so of their own free will.
datacomputation 2 years ago
Excellent place to start from. As a politician I find it dificult to live out my libertarian ideals in all cases, but my ideals definately shapes my policy and weigh against the objectivist almost every time.
Sondre7 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Jehova's witnesses > objectivists
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
All her ideas ripped off from a Mr A Crowley.. do what THOU wilt is the whole of the law. But as an individual can I accept the reasoning behind reciprocal altruism? (a la the Prisoners Dilemma?)
lostinthelandoflies 2 years ago
Bull, Rand was an atheist not an occultist. She stood on logic to defend her ideas, not some unfounded proclamation.
mindlessnick 2 years ago 5
Maybe you should actually read Ayn Rand.
shovelcharge 2 years ago 12
@shovelcharge
If you want a good fantasy novel sure, if you want something with more relevance on economic matters and the proper structure for a society you'd be better off with Lord of the Rings or Harry Potter
pilatech 11 months ago
I agree completely that this woman was too idealistic. While it's all well and good to defend the rights of an individual, a world where it's every man for himself would result in a collapse and reversal of everything we've built up over the years.
... I'm not saying what we have now is the perfect solution, but the way forward IS FORWARD, not backwards - and I meet too many philosophers (who mostly just uphold the views of other philosophers like this) who don't seem to understand this.
ingrenyonchera 2 years ago
Your argument is that rational egoism fails because man is ultimately evil. So that makes you favor big government?
If man is ultimately evil, then that only supports the argument that preserving individual liberty is the only purpose government can serve without being corrosive to its own objective.
The alternative is that people are good, and government is only as efficient as it can operate on a premise of perfect knowledge.
Big government can only be evil or inefficient. Take your pick.
thtrgremlin 2 years ago
Not that man is ultimately evil; just that given a choice, no one is going to clean toilets for a living.
Competitive society is cruel, but perhaps the most productive. This idea that every man will decide for himself that such-and-such must be done for the good of the race is just idealist - and while a dose of idealism is nice, I find it better to operate on realism.
ingrenyonchera 2 years ago
I have debates with idealists all the time. "In a free future, robots will do most of the labour." As an engineer, I have to ask... who's going to bring me the materials to build these robots? I'm expected to waste 40 years of my life developing and testing machines and complex enough artificial intelligence to control it so that everyone else can live a lazy-- sorry, "free" life?
Herein lies the idealist pitfall. "In a free world, everyone else will happily shoulder the hard work."
ingrenyonchera 2 years ago
"In a free world, everyone else will happily shoulder the hard work." i think that is the utopian dream of a lazy bastard, not an objectivist.
hg46 2 years ago
Right on! The truth, as can be demonstrated historically is that man's need to be productive and rational will never and must never cease unless man desires to cease existing. Only a parasitical mind would regard the invention of a complex machine as a "waste" because it required 40 years of effort. Incidentally it would be the same man who would demand that such machine "belong" any non thinker simply because it is needed or desired without recognizing or rewarding its creator.
olipop84 2 years ago 13
Also your attitude.."i'm expected to waste 40 years of my life developing and testing..so that everyone else can live a lazy life" is not the attitude of an engineering pioneer, or 'fountainhead' as Rand would call them. Karl Benz ''wasted'' about 40years developing the automobile. I doubt this would have occured if he took your attitude and thought sod it, people can just walk, like their Neanderthal ancestors did.
hg46 2 years ago
It's the principle behind it that annoys me. "We're creating this free world, but so we can sit around all day doing whatever we want, we need a load of other people to support us."
If it was a different story and there was a good reason, I'd happily give my time. I just refuse in this case to contribute to/enable a lazy society of self-servers.
ingrenyonchera 2 years ago
this is what Ayn Rand says too. In the Fountainhead they are not called a lazy society of self servers, they are called parasites, since her definition of what it means to be selfish is different to the popular assumptions. So i think you and her would be in agreement. She also says no one has the right to leach off another persons hard work and output, without making a slave out of the creator. Rand was in full support of the pioneers and condemned those who would make them slaves to society.
hg46 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Secular jehova's witnesses......
Bigmartinno1 2 years ago
People of WW2 did not make a self sacrifice. They were defending themselves in THEIR view, from the Japs and Hitler, it was NOT selfless.
The American people wanted NOTHING to do with WW1 or WW2 without an attack on what they considered their "own" people.
Selfless acts are impossible. It always comes back to how you feel about yourself, or how others will view you.
ok1jwc 2 years ago
Ayn Rand said that there are indeed selfless acts. Read "Isn't Everyone Selfish?" in the Virtue of Selfishness.
shovelcharge 2 years ago
I agree. James Taggart's actions at the end of Atlas Shrugged are demonstrably "selfless" in the sense that they are clearly self-destructive. He is willing to destroy himself if in so doing he also destroys the good (embodied by Galt) that he so strongly fears to recognize.
cjwynes 2 years ago
Rand was a philosopher, everything is not wrapped up in a box marked completed. The ideals of liberty and individual rights have been contemplated throughout all time. What is important is that the closer you get to it the better off ALL of society is as a whole.
As for those who believe that someone commited a "selfless" act they are fooling themselves.
If you go build a house for a poor person it is not selfless. You do it to feel better about yourself, if you did not you would not do it
ok1jwc 2 years ago
You are right. But what is selfish? What exactly is making one feel better, in oneself, as you say, by building homes for the poor? Is it simply to appear altruistic in the eyes of others? If so they are acheiving self respect second hand. If the motivation is purely from the self, that building homes for the poor is an end in itself, then the self respect will come from within and this is one element of how a rational person should function, according to the book The Fountainhead.
hg46 2 years ago
It is difficult to understand Rand's "self fulfillment" or "me above all" when you are or know of someone who traveled to a far away place to defend people that they never even met. As did the people of our GREATEST GENERATION who sacrificed life and limb in WWII. It is human nature to care for humankind before one's self. This is how a physically weak species such as humans, survived all natural and manufactured dangers throughout history. Not difficult for me to understand this.
nanabijou62 2 years ago
But her philosophy is too idealistic. Societies are a complex organism. What of the individuals who cannot "produce" because of mental or physical deficiencies? And how do we place a value on specific "production". What is of more value? Someone who invents various derived vehicles in the stock market that will produce wealth for "high rollers" compared to someone who flushes the sewer pipes when they are clogged and backed up with our waste. Why does one have more value?
nanabijou62 2 years ago
@nanabijou62: Exactly, who does Dr. Ghate call when his toilet is overflowing with his own excrement? He calls a plumber, not one of his Objectivist messiahs, to restore civility to his life. He really should just fix it himself. Dr. Ghate and his ilk lean on others everyday of their lives. Why they go to such greath lengths to deny it or it or deny its benefits is bizarre.
pilate10 1 year ago
But starting and maintaining a civilization are one and the same. You can still be an individual within a society. Jesus of Nazareth taught that we are our brother's keeper. We either ALL get through this, or none of us will.
nanabijou62 2 years ago
Civilization must be recreated every day within each of us,
DonMeaker 2 years ago
Teamwork is different from me giving my entire life to help another man set himself up, never mind that the other guy might be trying to take advantage of me.
Bane389 2 years ago
Ayn Rand demonstrates most classic attributes of a sociopath. If she had studied human behavior throughout history (rather than her own narcissistic philosophy) she would have realized that humans are by nature social creatures. We band together in groups, each protecting and caring for one another for the good of the whole. She can only behave the way she does because society is already established and protections are in place. In the past she would have been first to be eaten by a predator.
nanabijou62 2 years ago
Her philosophy wasn't for starting a civilization, it was for how to live in a civilization.
Raykak 2 years ago 4
You misunderstand Ayn Rand if you believe her to be antisocial. Your definition of "protecting and caring for one another for the good of the whole" is that those who choose to be productive in a society prop up and carry through life those that choose not to. It was this prevalent social ideal that Rand objected to. Those that choose not to help themselves are undeserving of help and have no right to demand it of those who produce.
stevenchelsa 2 years ago 2
The homo economicus is inherently a morally deficient animal, and the Labor Theory of Value is an outdated theory of value.
(You may verify the two above claims through, for instance, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.)
whaaism 3 years ago
And what if that book happens to be wrong? Or do we just uncritically accept everything in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy as true?
Also, Objectivism doesn't for a second argue that value comes from labour. The standard by which values are measured is life, not the amount of labour that goes into making them. Labour is necessary to create things of value but the value is measured by how useful the item is and the price is decided by the price system operating in a free market.
dannidandannikins 3 years ago
The Stanford of Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP) is currently a free online encyclopedia; it is not a book. More importantly, as an encyclopedia, SEP does not put forward any philosophical argument as its own, but rather summarizes philosophers' arguments and categorizes them according to topics. Therefore, to say that SEP happens to be wrong on the question of "Who am I?" is to say that nearly all feminist critiques happen to be wrong on that question.
This may be the case, but unlikely so.
whaaism 3 years ago
this doesn't answer the issue at all. My comment was simply to show that you were making a claim of knowledge by reference to an authority rather than on the back of some point of logic that you were making. appeals to authority are always weak.
dannidandannikins 3 years ago
(1) "Apeals to authority are always weak."
(2) Qwerty citing the general surgeon warning about alcohol's effects on pregnancy is an appeal to authority.
(3) Therefore, Qwerty citing the general surgeon warning about alcohol's effects on pregnancy is weak.
The above argument is deductively valid, but its conclusion is rather absurd. Obviously, some apeals to authority are appropriate, and some are inappropriate (and all points inbetween).
whaaism 3 years ago
The strength of the argument is derived not from the 'authority' of the source who makes it but from the consistency of the logic that that person applied in constructing the argument. Most of the time people with 'authority' have that authority because they have established that their arguments are logical, but it is not something that should be taken for granted as you appeared to be doing in your original comment.
dannidandannikins 3 years ago
Consider:
(1) Things are valueable to a person only insofar as they contribute to his or her life.
(2) Some things are valueable to a person and equally anti-valuable to another person at the same time.
By itself, (1) cannot resolve the conflict of values presented in (2). Instead, to resolve (2), some but not all objectivists appeal to a Labor Theory of Value (i.e. the 1st place winner of Ayn Rand Institute's 2008 college essay contest. That essay explicitly appealed to a LTV.)
whaaism 3 years ago
Not meaning to be dense (not that anyone ever does mean to be dense, I suppose) but the premise you outlined in '2' does not make sense to me. I can't answer your problem because I don't think you expressed it with sufficient clarity. In particular, what do you mean by 'anti-valuable'?
dannidandannikins 3 years ago
Parallel with (1), things are anti-valuable to a person only insofar as they are detrimental (contribute negatively) to a his or her life. Possible examples include but are not limited to: pollution, disease, starvation etc.
whaaism 3 years ago
None of those examples fits your original claim that 'Some things are valuable to a person and equally anti-valuable to another person at the same time' No-one places a positive value on disease, starvation or pollution.
dannidandannikins 3 years ago
If you wanted to eradicate a group of people, starving them or infecting them with disease could be quite a viable way of going about it. In that moment in time, for that person, disease and starvation are positive in that they are a means of getting rid of the people they don't like. As for starvation for oneself, a person with a deathwish could suddenly view starvation as not so bad a thing.
Termite551 3 years ago
oh come on, that's just a childish argument. A very simple response from objectivism is that all of the motives you've placed up there are irrational and self-destructive. I dare say i could give a longer and better answer but i can't be bothered. Stick to building dirt piles termite.
dannidandannikins 3 years ago
Sorry for giving only examples of positive evils, while lacking the accompanying positive goods. Here:
Suppose a factory produces both toys and air pollution. Toys are positive goods (values) to some persons, and air pollution is a positive evil (an "anti-value," to play on objectivist terminology) to some other persons.
Further abstraction avoids quibbling over examples, and returns us to the claim that Some but not all objectivists appeal to LTV to resolve conflict of values such as (2).
whaaism 2 years ago
There is a very simple way to resolve this conflict: work out the price of the 'anti-value' and make the manufacturers of the toys have to pay it. The price would be passed on by them to their customers in the form of a higher priced product. The only time you run into difficulties is when the 'anti-value' is so diffuse that it's price cannot be ascertained. In such cases I contend that the 'anti-value' is probably non-existent, as in your air-pollution example (I don't swallow global warming).
dannidandannikins 2 years ago
At no point does an individual have the right to take away the individual rights of another by force (or disease, starvation or pollution). Therefore, if these truly are values of a (sick) individual, that individual is in direct contradiction to individualist beliefs.
billyjones5555 2 years ago
There are those who benefit from such atrocities. What happens all the time today is the World Bank or IMF will give loans to impoverished 3rd world countries to help rebuild, with strings attached. Usually they have to cut spending and sell their resources to pay back the loan. The corporations who buy those resources at a low cost (in order to sell cheaper products to 1st world countries) benefit immensely. The banks benefit when they go in and take ownership of property as repayment.
garett69 3 years ago
Look, my comments on here were to defend the philosophy of objectivism from a weak and poorly constructed argument by Whaaism, that person has gone. I don't feel obliged to continue defending Objectivism from every half-baked criticism.
Suffice to say that the WTO and the IMF are not institutions that are asserted as necessary in Objectivist thinking - indeed I think they are generally obstacles to free trade and thus run counter to it.
dannidandannikins 3 years ago
Who decides what rules need to be followed regarding private property? Who decides what's fair? Rational thinking can't solve this problem, it's about who is most powerful. It's all about power...
Diosade 3 years ago
Using reason to show that reason doesn't work. What power you have!
shovelcharge 3 years ago
Okay, that's something to think about. But I still do not have a answer to my question: "Who decides what rules need to be followed regarding private property?". It is still not clear to me.
Diosade 3 years ago
Great post.
kailabreece 3 years ago 3
I'd love to run into the room with a bongo drum under my arm and start ranting about satyagraha...
fomastephanovitch 3 years ago
Who's John Galt ?
rubberduckeyou812 3 years ago
I've been asking myself that for waaay over 12 years.
Carn55 3 years ago
Great theory, but does not work in practice. You end up with a pyramid where only a few have all the excess and the others are left with scraps or nothing at all, not because the bottom dwellers were lazy and did nothing, but because the top of the pyramid hoarded and prevented everyone else from obtaining a piece of the pie. Think oligarchs and slaves.
felicity5150 3 years ago
In a free society no one would be able to monopolize something that is needed for life's existence, like food, water or natural resources. Its always with governments help that companies are able to monopolize these things. You mentioned oligarchs and slaves, two things that are the opposite of a free society where the power lies with the individuals. Nothing prevents people from getting a piece of the pie except themselves. You can either sit and complain or stand up and take action.
lifegiver36 3 years ago
Here is reason. The earth does not exist because any individual made it. Things made by individual effort are property, i.e. properly owned. How does property extend absolutely as is appropriate in the case of individually made things to land and natural resources ? It is not logical, not reasonable, to do so. It is especially not reasonable to claim property rights over the value of land that comes into existence only when community, i.e lots of individuals in proximity to each other, exists.
ourearthhome 3 years ago
you can't own natural resources or land.
reclaimthepower 3 years ago
I agree but the human consensus is that they can be owned and that it is appropriate for those claims to be enforced by law etc. Centuries of this practice have gotten people used to the idea. But there is no need to disrupt legal titles; all that is necessary to assert common ownership of the earth is to require earth "owners" to pay rent for it into a common fund used to pay for public services with elimination as much as possible of all other taxes that now fall on earned incomes from labor.
ourearthhome 3 years ago
Pay rent? To whom? You think that a person who actually works his land, develops the technology to get what he needs from the land in order to survive- owes some kind of tax to someone? How could you say that? Property rights are superior to what ever prestige you place on the 'earth.' Common ownership of the earth, as you say, means common ownership of that man's effort, as if he works to please others and not himself, or at best keep a tiny bit for himself.
advancethinking 3 years ago
Thank You. Who's John Galt ?
rubberduckeyou812 3 years ago
advancethinking; perhaps you do not know that no one has absolute ownership of land. Only the sovereign does, in the US it is the states. Each state has retained the right to tax land among at least three other things that belie what sounds like your claim to some kind of absolute ownership. Taxes on land value are for the purpose of paying for public services that make land more valuable like roads, sewers, schools, police and fire protection and on and on. Are you expecting to get a free ride?
ourearthhome 3 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
advancethinking; perhaps you do not know that no one has absolute ownership of land. Only the sovereign does, in the US it is the states. Each state has retained the right to tax land among at least three other things that belie what sounds like your claim to some kind of absolute ownership. Taxes on land value are for the purpose of paying for public services that make land more valuable like roads, sewers, schools, police and fire protection and on and on. Are you expecting to get a free ride?
ourearthhome 3 years ago
Pay rent to whom, dickhead? I bet you'd have a great role in organizing this common fund in your dream, wouldn't you?
If you cannot own land, how come "the public" is entitled to rent-money off of something it doesn't own.
deinse81 3 years ago
denise81: it turns out the sovereign state holds superior title, called allodial, to all other owners who only have "fee simple" title which only confers right to use. The state retains the right to tax land any way it sees fit and usually it does so by assessing the market value of land and taxing land value. The purpose is to pay for public services. How else and who else should pay for services that serve land and make the market value of land higher. Are your expecting a free lunch?
ourearthhome 3 years ago
Well, if you feel that way, that's fine. You don't have to own any, but you also can't prevent the rest of us from trying - I at least, with great succes.
I hope you're not siggesting the community should be allowed to own my land: you just said it cannot be owned.
deinse81 3 years ago
denise81: to continue: it is appropriate for you to have fee simple title for the purpose of exclusive use of land and for protection of improvements you make on the land. No argument with that at all. What is not yours is the value of your land because the community creates that 100%. The state can tax land value but it chooses not to do so more than a little bit. Mostly states tax labor and capital to pay for services that make the land more valuable. That makes us landowners parasites.
ourearthhome 3 years ago
"The community" is just a stolen concept meant to justify tyranny. It is not an independent entity, with rights, abilities and needs. Forcing an individual to be part of this fake concept, thus taking away his property and freedom, is tyranny.
Community in its real meaning is a relationship between a group of consenting individuals. If the community starts using force, it becomes a gang (or a tribe).
I believe you are confusing the two concepts: civilization made tribes obsolete.
deinse81 3 years ago
denise81:OK have it your way again. As a member of the group of consenting individuals and because access to land is a necessity of life for every individual, if we cannot share the earth on some sort of agreed upon basis, your version of absolute ownership of land is a death sentence to many of us. That is what I call tyranny. Millions have died because of your version of property rights in land. Do you consent to death/poverty should the shoe be on the other foot?
ourearthhome 3 years ago
Millions died because of property rights? You're getting really irrational buddy, so bye.
deinse81 3 years ago
deinse81:thinkest thou not? Property in human beings called slavery is one good example. Somehow it was decided that this was not a good idea and this "sacred" right that people were willing to defend by killing others (and of course dying for)was changed at least officially. Just goes to show that what we think is unquestionable is not always so. I merely question how you as landowner come to own the value of land you do not create and why most of us think it OK to tax wages which we do create.
ourearthhome 3 years ago
Value is not a physical, concrete concept. As a result we do not own value. The things we own (physical things, such as cars and land) happen to have a subjective value to us.
That's what makes trade possible: object A is worth more to me than to you, as a result you are willing to trade it, and I am willing to buy it for set amount.
As far as slavery: it's wrong because you are using force to take away someone's inalienable right to liberty. It has nothing to do with property rights.
deinse81 3 years ago
Of course it is reasonable to do so. Most things have value because people live close together and trade with each other: if I made a thousand hats, they would only have value because of the people willing to buy them. Does that mean I can't own them?
Did a person make the atoms in that hat? No, he just put them to use.
The same is true with land: the person who owns it is the person who could first claim it and put it to use: now it's his, just like the atoms in the hat.
deinse81 3 years ago
In fact if you look at the history of America, that's how land (and natural resources, i.e. gold) became soemone's property: the land one person found unclaimed, that he could, objectively, put to good use, became his land (that amount was objectively pre-determined, by law)
deinse81 3 years ago
denise81:first there was no such thing as unclaimed land. All of it was claimed by the previous inhabitants from who it was taken. No shame, all land is subject to being conquered if it can't be defended. But mere conquering does not give you absolute right to ownership of land unless you are the sovereign and you alone are not the sovereign. All of us including you are the sovereign and as such we have a right to tax land we let you use and base that tax on land value that we all create.
ourearthhome 3 years ago
Two separate points: ownership and sovereignty.
1. I did not suggest ownership is claim. I said ownership is claim of something not in use, and the ability to put it to use. (and I listed the way that was practiced by early settlers)
The indians did not own land: I doubt they even claimed it(other than to try and keep europeans out), and they didn't use it, certainly not the whole cont.
2. I am sovereign on my land: don't test me on that, because I'm also armed. You have no right to my land.
deinse81 3 years ago
denise81: OK have it your way. But if you do not help us pay for the roads, sewer systems, street lights, police and fire protection, schools, courts, etc. all of which make the market value of your land higher then please do not use them. If community does not exist then we, the community, the people, do not recognize your existence and we hereby suggest that you not show your face. Nonetheless we do have the right to come on to your land. I do get your point but threatening me/us is silly.
ourearthhome 3 years ago
I'm fine with not using public property if it means I wouldn't be forced to pay taxes. However, I certainly have a right to life, liberty and property, and we have to have a voluntarily funded government to protect those rights.
As far as "the community" goes, let me repeat: that's a stolen concept, used trying to evade the fact that you are talking about a gang which relies on force to achieve its goals.
"When words lose their meaning, people lose their liberty."--Confucius
deinse81 3 years ago
deinse81:Confucius was all about reciprocity. Publicly provided infrastructure that serves your land making it more useful and more economically valuable (a value you do not create) calls for the appropriate reciprocal response on your part which is to help the rest of us pay for these services. What better way to pay for these things than by an assessment against the value these services give to your land? Should I pay for the services to your land out of a tax on my earned income from working?
ourearthhome 3 years ago
So your big idea of deciding who should use land is by force? Which gang("community") can kill the others faster?
You really don't think a strong government to protect property rights is a better solution?
As far as the Indians claiming land, they certainly did not: they had no notion of individual liberty, let alone property rights.
However, now they can own land, just like the rest of us, so it all worked out.(except for some atrocities that were committed, which are regrettable)
deinse81 3 years ago
deinse81: a strong government to protect property rights is the better solution. We have never had one. All governments now take what truly belongs to me, my earned wages from labor and profit from real capital investment which I won't do if I can't keep the reward. On the other hand all governments allow landowners to keep the value of land, a value they do not create. How is your right to keep what you do not create greater than my right to keep what I do create?
ourearthhome 3 years ago
gryphon: i agree that the american gov't hasn't been acting in the appropriate manner, however, many countries throughout the world are managing much better and their banking industry is more and better regulated.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
I was going to say how in fact it was government regulation that got America into this mess, but it seems that someone got there before me in the below exchange. I would listen to them and understand that to expect that the government to fix the economy is much like expecting a murder to administer CPR on his victim. Yes when the police arrive the murder looks like a hero that tried to save the victim, but one only has to look at the evidence, please look at the evidence.
GabrielStefan 3 years ago 5
gab;canadian banks are more regulated and they are in the best shape. the lack of regulation in america and in europe has proven disastrous in this market.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
Canadian banks happened to be better regulated than American ones durind mr. Moron's presidency. Though I doubt they were less regulated: tha American ones were practically run by regulators.
P.S. You shouldn't think your luck will last. Your politicians will screw up just as badly, trust me. They know nothing about banking and finance, they just want to be popular.
deinse81 3 years ago
denise: i guess the best way to put it is that as far as the free market economy is concerned, private business while always want to be left alone to conduct business without any constraints - but when trouble arises, all the corporate CEOs are in washington - cap in hand.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
Trust me, it's not "cap in hand": they bought enough political clout for ten bailouts with campaign contributions before the elections(just remember the billion Obama raised): now they are collecting.
It's disgusting, and it would never happen if political leaders were not allowed to tax or get involved in any way in the economy.
Why aren't you blaming elected officials, who are stealing taxpayer money, and using it to pay off favors? Isn't that even worse than some executive playing the game?
deinse81 3 years ago
denise: i agree that political contributions of any kind by big business should be outlawed - and could be if there were the public will. the greedy politicians should definately be brought to task by the electorate and in a quicker fashion than what is now available. most offensive is ceo pay. an american exec in 2001 made 350 times the average workers pay. compare that to canada 29 to 1 or japan 14 to 1. today american execs earn 3500 to 1.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
Why is CEO pay offensive to you? Is a CEO stealing that money from you? Why can't I pay the CEO of a company I own anything I want to? What business is that of yours?
And while we're on the subject, why can't I support my favorite politician-if I'm not asking for personal favors-, the same way a union or an environmentalist group can support them?
By the way, those numbers are made up. They are a blatant lie.(not that it matters for the argument, but it puts your honesty into question)
deinse81 3 years ago
denise: i am surprised that you are not offended by AMERICAN ceo pay. the execs are stealing from everyone. the shareholders, the consumers that buy the product, the employees that work hard to make the product. let's put it this way, if politicians raised their wages like ceos have in the past couple of decades you would be outraged. i never said YOU (as an individual)couldn't support any politician you wished. the numbers i quoted are the accurate. FUCK YOU for questioning my honesty.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
Well fuck you too: you're coming up with data I know for a fact is fake, so you're either naive or lying.
CEO's don't raise their own wages, they are servants of the owners of the corporation: shareholders. They can always be replaced at the shareholders' meetings, or they can have their pay cut, depending on company policy. If a shareholder doesn't like the company's policy, they can sell their shares on the open market.
You calling it theft does not change that FACT.
IT'S VOLUNTARY TRADE.
deinse81 3 years ago
denise: listen assface, i never called you a liar. look it up for your self then you can come back and apologize.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
I don't need to look it up. My business is to know these data, and I know my business. Such a rise in CEO pay is impossible. Your study was doctored. If you look at all Fortune 500 companies, and what they pay their current CEO's, the rise is significantly less than tenfold, compared to 2001.
Also, the size of the american companies considered was much bigger than the size of japanese and canadian companies, that's why the difference is so striking.
Compare 200 random, equal size companies.
deinse81 3 years ago
denise: well, that is an odd opinion for someone that is suppose to be collecting data (refusing to look at ALL of the data) for business. american execs are like nero - they are fiddling while rome (THE USA) falls.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
A politician on the other hand gets payed by taxpayers, and the voters are the one's ultimately deciding his pay and whether he gets to keep his job. If voters wanted to pay someone important more money, I'd be fine with that. The fact is they don't. Shareholders on the other hand obviously do, since they get a bigger return on their investement from a good CEO, than from a cheap one. As owners of a company, it is their right to determine such wages, not yours, or the employees' and customers'.
deinse81 3 years ago
denise: you know as well as i do - as a shareholder - we are powerless to limit execs wages. the board of directors (who also are like pigs at the trough lately) control the strings.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
That's not true, but sell the shares if you feel that way. Start your own business.
This is how a real study on an economic trend
looks like:(It's a PDF file)
Turns out CEO pay for DOW companies didn't even double in your time period, despite huge profits for the shareholders. (note how worker's salaries rose at the same pace-it's all in there):
Sorry, google "CEO pay data DOW", click the fifth link
I can't seem to be able to post a link here.
deinse81 3 years ago
denise: i sold my entire portfolio months ago. before the crash. google [ceo worker pay widens].
jnycnuk 3 years ago
banking regulation kept canada from getting into the state that america is in.
the free market will always need some guidence in order to prevent runaway greed.
there is no place for unregulated industry unless you want to risk collapse of the entire economy.
jnycnuk 3 years ago
I'm assuming by this comment that you are a long-time and diligent student of economics and not just some university student with an emotional beef against Capitalism and America ... right?
It's "some guidance" that got the US into this mess. Allow me to elucidate:
1) The Community Reinvestment Act (signed by Clinton) placed pressure on the banking industry to make "equality" loans to more minorities and the disadvantaged.
gryphon333 3 years ago 2
2) In response to being "encouraged" (read: forced) to make these riskier loans, the industry had to get creative in order to cover their risk. Thus, the interest only, and adjustable rate wacko loans that were invented.
3) In order to keep the upward spiral going, the government sponsored enterprises (GSEs) of Fannie-Mae and Freddie-Mac were told by their handlers in DC to buy everything which bloated the secondary market.
gryphon333 3 years ago 3
4) The GSEs had pawn all this debt off somewhere so they repackaged the loans, regardless of risk and sold them to Wall Street who had no, and COULD have no, idea of how much risk was involved with these securities.
5) All the while, the Federal Reserve was slashing, slashing, slashing the interest rates and printing, printing, printing more fiat money; so, money was so cheap that everyone could afford to keep buying.
gryphon333 3 years ago 3
Yes, some firms got irrationally greedy and took on more risk than they could afford. Now they're paying for it ... or at least will/would if our benevolent leaders would only STOP REGULATING! IT'S LIKE A DRUG FOR THEM FOR CHRIST'S SAKE!! ..... sorry.
gryphon333 3 years ago 6
Some homeowners got irrationally greedy too, or maybe they didnt know what they were doing. Either way, Im sorry but I have no interest in bailing out someone who got in over their head because of a) bad judgment or b) not having the good sense to ask a few pointed questions of a neutral source before borrowing hundreds of thousands dollars.
gryphon333 3 years ago 4
As for the market being "frozen," I guess Chase was so frozen that they bought Washington Mutual; Bank of America so frozen that they bought Countrywide ... and on and on and on .... In the last 10 years the Dow Jones and quadrupled and everyone is worried now that it takes, relative to that, a dip? Please.
gryphon333 3 years ago 3
sorry, "has quadrupled"
gryphon333 3 years ago 3