Sacrifice - Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

[logtype47]

Ayn Rand. What a complete scoundrel.

[logtype47]

Ayn Rand was a moron who thought she could survive on her own genius but when cancer threatened to wipe out the little bit of wealth she managed to put away for her old age she changed her name and applied for welfare benefits. The queen of the Libertarians, a stupid bitch preaching to the ignorant. She had a modicum of success on her own but like other so called self made successes, when she failed and she turned to the state to keep her ass off the street.

[coastal52]

@logtype47 Nonsense. Rand always advocated reclaiming moneys taken by government.

Rand in '66.

"It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

[logtype47]

@coastal52 Are you even aware that she collected more in benefits than she paid in actual taxes?

[coastal52]

@logtype47 Heh... You have access to her tax returns and how much she collected in SS?? By the way... you're also wrong about her "changing her name" to collect SS. She collected under her legal name... Ayn O'Conner. She was married to Frank O'Conner at the time... and she didn't die broke.

Rand was full of crap in a lot of ways... but not nearly so much as you. Try reading something besides alternet, kid.

[plugfonesfan]

I agree with everything but the definition of sacrifice which is-

An act of giving up something valued for the sake of something else regarded as more important or worthy

Giving up the movies (a high value) for the kids (a higher value) is the definition of sacrifice.

What he is railing against isn't sacrifice, it is better defined as self sub subservience . When we are influenced to give up our own higher value for the perceived "common" good, which we don't value, its subservience.

[theotormon]

The example regarding his children rings hollow. He loves his children more than the movies. Good. But if this weren't the case, would it be OK to deny care for his children because it was a "sacrifice"? No.

Society obliges him to take care of his children because it is beneficial for society at large. Fortunately, individuals (including parents who would rather not take care of their children) benefit from living in a society that mandates this.

[Ataensic]

Consensual trade vs. duty-based sacrifice = Capitalism vs. Collectivism (Socialism, Fascism, Communism)

[Attritive]

@ignoranttwat I'm not even sure what you're talking about when you say "I can't change your mind, nor you mine." What am I trying to change your mind about? I'm trying to explain to you the meaning of a word. You seem to be coming to this conversation with a wall of preconceived notions. That's the only impediment to persuasion here.

[Attritive]

@ignoranttwat Your volatility is completely uncalled for. You think the dictionary gives you all the meaning of a word, when it often fails to offer the least bit of guidance (especially in cases of philosophy or art). I try to indicate what the dictionary definition implies despite its ineptitude, and you start slinging around insults. Face-to-face, if you were to start rambling about the meaning of words in a conversation with me, I would clarify where you're wrong.

[Attritive]

@ignoranttwat Yet another useless statement. In Texas, a majority of people are Christian; they believe strongly in the principle of sacrifice. Since I'm defining sacrifice, and haven't once brought up the term Objectivism--what are you talking about exactly? People from Texas rigorously define words? I can tell you this isn't a rule, at all. Regarding the term 'sacrifice' being a vague term not used properly--that's exactly the case. People think it means anything given up for anything.

[Twiggy269]

The Objectivist word that has the same meaning as "Sacrifice" (as used in todays language) is "Rational Long Term Self Interest"

Please explain to me how it is a "Sacrifice" to forgo a lesser value for a higher value? (If you believe the modern definition of the word sacrifice)

Objectivist definition of sacrifice is the proper description of the concrete concept. "the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue."

[ignoranttwat]

@Twiggy269

What I am saying is that it is the most common usage of that word, and therefore the correct one.

[swu880]

@ignoranttwat

uh right... Somehow in ur mind then a = not a

and up means down merely cuz everyone says its down; or left means right merely cuz everyone else says its right. This is irrational, dangerous & very self destructive

The only way to achieve anything rational is if u abide by objective absolutes rather than some subjective whim

[swu880]

@swu880

So Sacrifice is sacrifice & is very evil. Trade is trade & is ultimately good. Not because you or i say its good & its not cuz god says its good. Its good & bad based on principle alone

[ignoranttwat]

@swu880

You don't seem to understand how language works.

[swu880]

@ignoranttwat

Sacrifice aint a trade. Trading means a willful free exchange where both parties may benefit. Sacrifice is not the same as trade- it is the loss of value; it is throwing away something of high value for somethin of low or no value at all. NOT EQUAL NOT EQUIVALENT. Only the stupid, altruistic & uneducated would make such a fatal error as to confuse these two utterly distinct concepts. They are as distinct as day & night, black & white, life & death

[swu880]

@swu880

aint no semantic games about it. There is no room for subjective notions- A is A. period. A dog is not a cat; a cat is not a dog. day is not night & night is not day. If u call night as day & day as night, u urself do not live in reality but in seclusion & fantasy

[swu880]

@swu880

reality = facts = reason

Reason is used to deduce facts which is reality. To partake any subjective whimsical notion- to deny the epistemology of existence is ultimately a meaningless & self destructive task. Thus u can not & must not ever confuse such distinct concepts as sacrifice & trade

They are total opposites of one another- literally as different as freedom vs slavery

[ignoranttwat]

@swu880 "Sacrifice: Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim."

"Sacrifice: the surrender or destruction of something prized or desirable for the sake of something considered as having a higher or more pressing claim."

[Attritive]

@ignoranttwat Forfeiture of something highly valued TO WHOM? For the sake of one considered to have a greater claim BY WHOM, BY WHAT STANDARD? High valued to the giver. A greater claim by ANYONE OTHER THAN YOURSELF. Any standard other than your own. For instance, when a deity demands sacrifice in religions, why is a hair on your head not good enough? The idea is that you sacrifice something important to you, for the sake of something which doesn't even exist--a deity. You'd call that a trade?

[ignoranttwat]

@Attritive

"The idea is that you sacrifice something important to you, for the sake of something which doesn't even exist--a deity. You'd call that a trade?"

What has that got to do with this? A sacrifice is by no means religious by necessity.

[Attritive]

@ignoranttwat I know you. You're afraid to have an actual discussion. What does it matter if we talk over the internet, the phone, or face-to-face? Asserting I'm an idiot, when clearly I'm not, really has no impact. Try something more communicative.

[ignoranttwat]

@Attritive

Look: I am not afraid to have arguments/discussions. I prefer having said arguments/discussions face to face. I think that if we met in person we would find each other agreeable and never have the tragic topic of Objectivism come up in conversation. I'm afraid objectivism seems highly idiotic to me, or perhaps "ignorant" and "arrogant" are better words. I am not going to change your opinion and nor are you mine, so let's leave it at that.

[ignoranttwat]

@Attritive

Oh. You're from Texas. I wont bother you any more.

[Kikarok]

@ignoranttwat

Your name suits you.

[Attritive]

@ignoranttwat I said: "For instance..." It can be a deity--or the 'greater good'--or the proletariat--or the categorical imperative--anything you consider to be of a higher standing than your own self-interest. A sacrifice is giving something up which is important to you, for nothing in return; you only give it up in order to satisfy something "considered to have a higher claim." This is the nature of sacrifice. Look up the word Altruism, if you're still confused.

[ignoranttwat]

@Attritive

This being the internet I don't have to bother with idiots like yourself. At least I don't know you in the real world.

I did post another comment here, but it doesn't seem to have made it. Who cares.

[Attritive]

@ignoranttwat What does this being the internet have to do with anything? You'd be just as clueless here as you would be anywhere else. Sacrifice means giving something important to you away for less or nothing in return. The 'definition used by everyone' is a vague, meaningless mess. Most people think 'trade' is the same as 'sacrifice'. I clarified the definition for you, and you refuse to think about it. You would refuse to think about it face-to-face, so don't say 'the internet means nothing'

[ignoranttwat]

@Attritive

"Sacrifice means giving something important to you away for less or nothing in return." This is Rand's definition, and so one that only objectivists use (and I suppose you already know this, but for Rand English was not her first language). I certainly don't want to get into a linguistics argument here, but if the common definition was "a vague, meaningless mess" I would be rather useless, and therefore unused, would it not?

[ignoranttwat]

@Attritive

"I clarified the..."

We disagree, and I haven't really gone about the best way to convince you of my position because, in short, I don't care much about your opinion. You are a Rand supporter and therefore a selfish and teenager-like individual who has found a pseudo-intellectual book to back up their arrogant beliefs. No one thinks a trade is a sacrifice. A trade is (usually) to give something of lesser value (to you) for something of greater value (to you). Whereas a sacrafice is-

[ignoranttwat]

@Attritive

- giving somethingblahblahblah, you already know what I think.

"You would refuse to think about it face-to-face, so don't say 'the internet means nothing'" don't tell me that, since you don't know me, and to close this discussion, my general position on yourself and your ideas in its crudest form:

You are stupid; fuck off.

[Attritive]

@ignoranttwat The most common use of a word is not the correct one. Please stop talking.

[Attritive]

@ignoranttwat I explained to you the definition of sacrifice, since you obviously never went to a Church or a College. This doesn't make me an idiot; nor does your inability to make a simple post and subsequent frustration. Try to have some decency in the future.

[ignoranttwat]

@Attritive

I gave you two definitions of sacrifice (though the meanings were the same, as they would be, they were dictionary definitions which happen to be the ones used by...pretty much everyone). I did go to college (all of it) and churches aren't exactly my sort of place, though I have been a couple of times (and ended up laughing a lot and walking out). This is the internet; arguing is completely pointless.

[DrCruel]

Bill Cosby couldn't have phrased it better.

[PersianPaladin]

Economics cannot be divorced from morality. The worst mistake that people ever made was to purely make it utilitarian.

[fomastephanovitch]

@PersianPaladin

Then we'd have feudalism or if we're lucky mercantilism...

[blspro]

"...oil is a subjective value. It has no intrinsic value; no value in itself."

Elkus89 - you do here what most people do - you accept a false alternative. You accept that the choice is only either 'intrinsic' or 'subjective'. You completely disregard the concept 'objective' (in this case, an "objective value").

[Eikus89]

That might be a linguistical problem, since I am from Sweden. I would not mind if you clarified the difference. However, my central point is that I do not think oil has any value if humanity dies, because human beings are the only ones who can analyse what a value is (and therefore, make something valueable). I believe that, objectively, existance is meningless, but subjectively, it is the most important thing in the world.

[Psy500]

A computer can analyse the value of oil, the computer just has to look up how much resources are required for oil extraction compared to the utility of extracting oil. You don't even need A.I for a computer to do this, the computer would just have to be able to measure both value and utility then it could calculate the value of oil.

[blspro]

test

[Psy500]

Yaron ignores LTV here. Use value is for C-M-C (or C-C) meaning you produce a commodity in order to get another commodity of similar value with money as a intermediate stage (unless you trade commodities directly). Capitalism is M-C..C1-M1 meaning capitalism by definition is a system of unequal exchange thus capitalism is based on sacrifice, it is just based on class sacrifice rather then individual sacrifice.

[Psy500]

The current friction between labor unions and capitalists is an example of this class sacrifice in capitalism. The capitalists basically are telling their workers that they have to sacrifice for the good of the capitalist class.

[grumpone]

Your logic is so flawed that I don't know where to begin. It is the employer who gives the pay. He gives how much he wants (in an ideal system), if an employee does not accept that pay, he can negotiate or leave for another better paying job someplace else.

[grumpone]

Did your communist professor tell you this shit? NO-ONE EVER buys anything (if there is sufficient competition in the supply side) that does not bring them bigger return than they paid for it. Otherwise they would not buy it. If the seller lied and hyped up the product then that is fraud which is sanctioned by the courts - which are by the way the only institutions that can legally dissolve contracts.

[Psy500]

No my classical economic professor told me this. Under the theories of Adam Smith people trade not to profit but to get different utility of equal value, for example if you had a surplus of commodity A you'd trade it for commodity B not because B is worth more then A but you have more use for B then A. In the theories of Adam Smith money simply becomes a medium of exchange for exchanged use values of similar value.

[Raykak]

If the person you are trading with accepts the trade, is what he receives a lesser value to him? Of course not, or he would have never traded.

[Psy500]

Labor value is a material value thus is the same regardless of what it is traded for. For example if I give you a product that took 1,000 Kilojoules of effort to produce for something that only took 500 Kilojoules to produce it does not change the material value of either product.

You have to remember in classical economy theory price does not equal value, price only gravitates to value. So you can't gauge the value of a commodity based solely on its price under classical economic theory.

[Raykak]

Effort does not only come from muscle, I hope you understand. Was Fleming's work not as valuable because in the discovery of penicillin he used his mind and not his muscles?

[Psy500]

That is true which is why labor theory of value measures value in labor time, meaning Fleming's work has value because of the mental labor he invested in it.

[1337melee]

Values are not intrinsic to the objects they are assigned to. The zero-sum principle of trade is refuted by the fact that the standard of living for all people everywhere has increased.

[Psy500]

"Values are not intrinsic to the objects they are assigned to."

In science they are, while there are subjective values they are usually overshadowed by material values. For example we use oil as a energy source not so much because we like to but because oil gives the most return in use value for the energy required to extract it and fluctuation of oil are primary driven not by changes in demand by changes in effort required to produce oil in a useful form.

[Eikus89]

I value oil but a person without any use for oil does not value it. Therefore oil is a subjective value. It has no intrinsic value; no value in itself.

And you might also want to compare the standard of living on the stone age to the standard of living we have today. If the zero-sum principle is correct, where the heck did all that wealth come from?

[Psy500]

"I value oil but a person without any use for oil does not value it. Therefore oil is a subjective value. It has no intrinsic value; no value in itself."

Oil still has a exchange value even if you don't have a use for it since it still requires energy to produce.

[truthadvocate]

Psy500, If you can use oil as an effective means of exchange, then you do have a use for oil. So the value is still subjective.

Is oil valuable to penguins?

[Psy500]

Oil would have a value to penguins if they had to extract it regardless if they have a use for it. For example an oil spill is a loss of value not really because the oil lost its utility but also because of the loss of effort in the extracting the oil and the effort required to clean up the spill.

[truthadvocate]

Then your measure of value is not very useful is it? In free market economics, we measure value according to desires & needs of people. We choose to develop things that are highly "valued" & thus highly desired by others. Thus we enjoy many useful advances in technology. But if we based "value" on energy spent as you do, then there would be no way of determining how to best spend our time. People would waste their lives creating things nobody wants. & things people want would be unavailable.

[Psy500]

You don't think our time and resource have utility? Also just because you know the amount of value in the form of time and resources you have to spend to produce something doesn't mean you would, one would compare that to utility one would get out. Thus final value becomes a ratio value in to value out.

[truthadvocate]

Then how do you objectively determine the "value out" of a painting for example?

[truthadvocate]

What you refer to as "value" I would refer to as "cost."

[Psy500]

Cost is value input, value that becomes embedded into the commodity. As for value out that is utility.

[truthadvocate]

So demonstrate how your formula works. Let's say it takes 30 hours to complete a painting or 15,000 joules of work. If your decision to make the painting or not depends on final value equal to "value in" divided by "value out," then how do you measure the utility (or value out) of the painting?

[Psy500]

In your example of art you attempt to quantify the artistic vale of the painting, you won't get an precise utility value but you'd be able to make decisions about the value of the art. For example artists that give their art away (meaning their art is priced at zero) doesn't mean their work is worthless (if it was no one would consume it even at zero) this means price does not represent value.

[truthadvocate]

So for paintings your formula does not work. You cannot determine the "final value" of a painting by dividing "value in" by "value out," because you have no way of determining "value out" objectively.

If you do, then answer my question and demonstrate how. If your system could be applied to art, my request should not be difficult.

[Psy500]

You can easily quantify value out for art it just there are many ways you can do it depending on your goal. If you goal is audience then you'd simply quantify it by how many people consume the art, if your goal is appeasing consumers of art you'd have consumer rate the art to figure out its value out.

[truthadvocate]

You continue to dance around my request. You cannot show me an example of your formula in action. (how to convert number of viewers to joules of work) (an objective way of determining the goals on which your formula depends) Why? because value is not objective. Goals & ratings are subjective. If value out depends on these, & final value depends on value out, Then it's all subjective. Your system fails a simple practical test. It's time to consider another perspective called Austrian economics.

[Psy500]

Simple

V = Viewer

J = Joules of Energy required to produce art

Efficiency = V/J

This is basic classic economics.

[truthadvocate]

To compare value in to value out you need a single unit to avoid comparing apples to oranges. Is efficiency an objective constant? No.

Economics progressed since 1870. Classical economics is obsolete. Joules of work has nothing to do with value. If it did, a dog hair pie would have the same if not more value than a rhubarb pie. The labor theory of value has been replaced with the subjective theory of value. Utility & gain cannot be objectively determined for all when each person is unique.

[Psy500]

"To compare value in to value out you need a single unit to avoid comparing apples to oranges"

No you don't fuel efficiency is miles over gallons, in fact most ratios are different units as if there were the same unit you would simply divide them.

Classical economic is not obsolete since it is the value theory used by scientists outside of mainstream economics (for example LTV is used by scientists developing game theory) due to scientists finding LTV far more logical then other theories.

[Psy500]

The subjective theory has been called into serious question by the scientific community due controlled experiments to test subjective theory failing miserably as the test subjects totally failed to be able to maximize utility along subjects lines while every subject could easily maximize utility/labor that made some scientists theorize most humans value based on LTV since it is the most accurate for lest amount calculations required.

[Psy500]

Also most computer economic modes use LTV simply because it works, the only hard is quantifying utility but once you do computers can easily rank value efficiency (value out for value in).

[truthadvocate]

Computer economic models don't have anything to do with our current economic turmoil, do they? Life is usually more complicated than a computer model.

[truthadvocate]

I'd like to see these studies. Can you refer me to the source?

[Psy500]

Sippel attempted to replicate neoclassical standards. Ten sets of budgets and relative prices were presented. Consumers were to chose from 8 goods at each budget/price ratio, where the computer calculated the budget costs. The consumers were given a period of one hour to optimize' and they failed to show having a axiom of Revealed Preference.

[truthadvocate]

I suppose you can use two units to compare ratios, as long as the units are consistent. A painting of 15,000 / 100 joules per viewer would have a higher "final value" than a sculpture of 20,000 / 100 joules per viewer. You wouldnt be able to compare it to a fruit of 20,000 / 100 joules per calories though. How do you use this "final value" ratio? What's the purpose for determining it?

[Psy500]

That is where labor value departs from energy accounting. To compare fruit to a painting you don't look at utility (you know the utility of both) but compare the labor value then make a priority decision which is how people shop under LTV, they don't have a desire hierarchy but simply prioritize their consumption of utility.

[truthadvocate]

The point is this. People are not identical clones. They have different preferences. A painting that brings relaxation and peace to one person, may have absolutely no effect on another, and may even upset another. Is this not a demonstration that utility is subjective?

And please address my question. I'd really like to see an example of how this would apply to a painting. How each variable is calculated. How you convert different units in order to compare cost to utility.

[Psy500]

"If the zero-sum principle is correct, where the heck did all that wealth come from? "

Zero-sum principle is within production cycles, meaning with each production cycle there is finite utility in the system and finite exchange value. Growth is linked to how much finite utility was invested in the previous production cycle for expansion in more/better means of production.

[Psy500]

"If the zero-sum principle is correct, where the heck did all that wealth come from? "

You obviously don't understand the concept of zero-sum. Zero-sum states that current wealth is labor from the previous production cycle transformed into commodities, meaning if the previous cycle produced $1,000 worth of commodities then there can only be $1,000 of wealth in the current cycle of course how much wealth in the next is dependent on how much resources goes into expanding production.

[Eikus89]

So by that logic, all the wealth suddenly appear at a certain moment (the end of a business cycle). Because if it appears during the business cycle, it is not a zero-sum. And do you seriously mean that, no matter what great products are created, wealth is entirely based on how much you invest?

[Psy500]

New wealth appears at the end of business cycles because incomplete commodities have no utility, for example a half built car is worthless and can become wealth by becoming a full car or being tore down into raw materials.

And quality of products are dependent on resources invested in its development.

[Psy500]

"The zero-sum principle of trade is refuted by the fact that the standard of living for all people everywhere has increased. "

Living standards has not increased for everyone everywhere, 3rd world living standards has actually fallen and workers living standards has fallen since the 1980's due to capitalists exploiting workers more to try and combat the falling rate of profit.

[Psy500]

Also a increase in living standards wouldn't disprove zero-sum (it would call into question the theory of falling rate of profit and over production but not zero-sum) as all zero-sum means is that in each production cycle you have finite wealth thus it is impossible for one person to get more wealth within a production cycle without taking away wealth from another.

[Eikus89]

Most "capitalists" stay away from 3rd world nations, since those nations often have lots of laws that exists to take away money from productive people. Compare Kenya to South Korea (which were equally poor in the 1980's), and you will see that, even though Kenya have recieved lots of foreign aid and Korea have recieved none, South korea is the prosperous one. Koreans have not stolen money from Kenya. Koreans created products of great value to each other, while Kenyans did not.

[Chickenwingski]

This argument on sacrifice is a boring semantic one, and it is based on an assertion which seeks to simplify the definition of the actual word to a single usage.

[Chickenwingski]

sac·ri·fice 1. The act of offering something to a deity in propitiation or homage, especially the ritual slaughter of an animal or a person. 2. A victim offered in this way. 3. Forfeiture of something highly valued for the sake of one considered to have a greater value or claim. 4. Something so forfeited. 5. Relinquishment of something at less than its presumed value.  6. Something so relinquished. 7. A loss so sustained.

[mhirtes12]

Dear Randroids,

You & your ideology have been repeatedly rejected by voters, and the author of your most holy tracts has been pwnded repeatedly. Her work has been shown to be far past its mid-20th century sell date.

What now?

To whine about those liberals who are so often correct and who expose you as cold, inconsiderate, and inhumane, turn to page 25.

To carve at your wrist with a razor while bawling about stuff that Obama will be soon be fixing much to your emo chagrin, turn to P. 57.

[hapspir]

mhirtes12, if you're trying to help Obama get reelected, you've got to lighten up. You sound like a sexually frustrated asked-his-sister-to-the-prom loser. Lashing out at objectivists won't help you. Be grateful for what you have (4 more years).

[mhirtes12]

Don't you mean EIGHT years?

I strongly recommend that all the Randroids read Upton Sinclair's "The Jungle" and get a good hard look at what America was like in the age before federal social programs.

[hapspir]

mhirtes12, much better. You're still using the term "Randroids," but you're also politely offering alternative literary viewpoints. Someone might actually read it as a result. And I did mean 4 more years. It remains to be seen if Obama is reelected in 2012. If he is then you'll have 8 more years.

[grumpone]

Ooooh you quote THAT hack. I must say I am Sooo convinced.

[mhirtes12]

Yeah. "That hack". Someone who, unlike Rand, actually bothered to live with the masses and learn what it's like to be treated like a subhuman, simply for the crime of being poor.

But, resume sitting in the corner wearing your John Galt jammies and sucking on your objectivist thumbs. The rest of the nation wants a progressive future, and you clowns are a pack of selfish, bitter dinosaurs that will be left behind. Good riddance to ya!

[Chrisnoscrub047]

lol. As if calling a philosophy progressive could make is so!

[SatanicCod]

Troll.

[toweringQ2FL400]

mhirtes12

Obama will be soon be fixing

Hows the Socialist/Corporatist amalgam working for you so far?

[mhirtes12]

A lot better than the plutocratic nightmare we've been attacked with for the past 8 years.

[toweringQ2FL400]

Other than degree, what do you think has changed?

[mhirtes12]

Go back to playing Bioshock, Randroid.

[toweringQ2FL400]

mhirtes12

Go back to playing Bioshock, Randroid.

Had to look that one up. Sorry, games are not what I do.

Btw, you ought to come up with a better ad hominem.

[Beethovens7th]

Excellently done as usual Dr. Brook.

[stephmchick]

Sacrifice, a very difficult but important concept for people to properly grasp. Thanks, Yaron, for providing it.

[hapspir]

Baseball. Maybe we should rename the term "sacrifice" as it is used in that sport. Any ideas? How about the "advance"?

The batter hits an advance fly to center, allowing the runner to score from third.

[Heraclitean]

Look, on his definition of sacrifice, virtually nobody ever sacrifices. If you give up A for B, obviously you valued B more. To use his example, if you pay 20K for a 10K car from a sense of altruism, then clearly you valued altruistic duty over the extra $10K. To the agent, it's not a "sacrifice". Which is why nobody except Objectivists use this definition. It has little real application. What people mean by sacrificing for your kids is giving up great values for even greater values.

[snakeinthegrass20]

No,no and no. You are forgetting the foundation of Objectivist ethics: Reason.

Altruism is irrational, as it is against your interests, overpaying for a car is irrational. Don't confuse altruism with charity, I give to a animal charity because I love dogs, it's not the act of giving, it's the act of giving to the dogs who I love.

[fortunatus]

When O-ists talk about values they mean objective value.

Objectivism does not say that ''it is good because I want it''.

[Twiggy269]

H, the reason why you believe that altruism has little real application, is because it has no rational application. Most people have the dicotomy between what they think is moral (i.e. sacrifice) and what is practical (i.e. reason(able)). What Yaron is saying is that there is no dicotomy between the two. It only seems this way because of the corrupt ethics of altruism. You saying that virtually noboty sacrifices gives the mystics their ammo to beat you down with original sin you sinner!

[AstoundedAtheist]

Smart man

[Drillinstructor179]

Very good

[z2b]

As always, a great video!

[amse]

Wow! That was so good!

[cwclemons2007]

Galt/Danneskjold 2012!!!

[Radeo]

Yep, taking in about 0.4% of the vote.

Cultural change must happen first.

[NotThat3]

I don't think Danneskjold is the right man to nominate as president. Galt I'd for vote.

[cwclemons2007]

I respectfully disagree, we all know what Ragnar would have done to those Somali pirates. (Just for clarification, Galt would be President, Ragnar VP, Dagny as First Lady, and Hugh Akston as Sec. of State )

[Eikus89]

Galt would not have wanted to be president. Ragnar might have wanted to. But sincerely, I do not think any of the characters mentioned would strive to become president. My pick would have been Ragnar, because he is a man of action, which is needed for the job.

[Nadow]

Well put Yaron!

[Twiggy269]

its funny how our day to day terminology has been created by our inability to form consistant concepts. Even the term sacrifice is misrepresented by 99% of the population, yaron so beautifully demonstrates this here.

[chopsky]

Not sure why anyone marked you down for that. Spot on.

[WarVideo]

When people use the word sacrifice they mean it short term, i.e. "Ill have to "sacrifice" my time studying for my math test tomorrow."

But when you speak you should try to be exact, think long range, and consider as broad a context as possible. If you do that, there isno way that you can see studying for your math test as a sacrifice of your time, considering your long term goals and values.

[ignoranttwat]

@Twiggy269

I know you said that a year ago, but really, you fail at language.

[Twiggy269]

@ignoranttwat

"you fail at language."

You fail yourself, for not clearly showing what it is that was the failure on my part. You even say, "I know you said that a year ago" and then never mention what it is I said, or why it is that I fail.

I'm left to assume you're talking about my use of the letter "a" when an "e" was the correct one to use.

I bow to your almighty never faltering skill on the keyboard Mr. Perfect. I'm sure you've NEVER made a typing error.

[ignoranttwat]

@Twiggy269

Actually I was referring to your I idea of how language works. You say "the term sacrifice is misrepresented by 99% of the population". Let's use another word as an example. If 97% of the population think that "wicked" means "evil" and 3% think it means "good", "good" is a misusage of the word. If it's the other way around, "evil" is the misusage. Therefore, "sacrifice" is not misrepresented by the whatever you said.

[Twiggy269]

@ignoranttwat

Argument from consensus. You don't get a vote on definitions of a word. This isn't a democracy. Just because 97% of the world misuses a word, doesn't mean they're actually right. If 97% of the world thought that 2 + 2 = 3 would that make them right? Or does reality get the final judgment? You can play games all you want, trying to evade the fact that words have meaning. You can only wipe away truth for so long, before reality wipes out the wiper.

[ignoranttwat]

@Twiggy269

Mathematics is objective, language is highly subjective. (If there were no sentient beings 2 and 2 would be four, but there would be no language).

[Twiggy269]

@ignoranttwat

If language is subjective, how do you know what anyone means when they say/write anything? Since language is subjective, I'm going to say that your use of the the word highly in this sentence "Language is highly subjective" means that it is only subjective when you're on the top of a tall building.

That's not what you meant, you say? Too bad, since language is subjective, I get to decide what words mean, as long as I can trick enough people into believing me. Right?

[ignoranttwat]

@Twiggy269

What I mean is that words are defined by connections we make to them. The "highly" was probably inappropriate, but nonetheless, when I say that something is highly _____, it does not mean that that something is _____ from a high altitude. It means "very" and you know it.

[Twiggy269]

Of course I know, I was just trying to show you the ugly road you go down when you claim language is subjective. The reason why I (and other Oists) believe that the word sacrifice has a contradictory meaning as used in modern language is because it does not actually describe a sacrifice. If you want to use a word that means "to give up (something immediate) in favor of a higher or more imperative object or duty (in the future)." Use the proper word. Sacrifice is NOT the proper word.

[shovelcharge]

lol good Jewish mother. I love Yaron!

[ronpaulspanish]

good!

[GamblerJustice]

Wonderful, as always!