The Perfect Crime, Morality, and Honesty - Ayn Rand Center for Individual Rights

[StudentOfObjectivism]

I like that kid's comment at the end 'alright... back to the broiler'

lol

[ItsAllAboutGuitar]

Ayn Rand suggested that you are not obligated to act in the interest of another man, thus acting in your own self interest. She never advocated acting immorally. Income taxation is the immoral act.

If you want a real world example of robbing a bank, look at the Federal Reserve. They have been robbing banks for nearly 100 years, and they are running out of other people's money. That is why it is important for a society to act morally in order to prosper.

[richardcadbury]

Something tells me that if Schwartz hadn't given a convincing answer, that kid would have gone and robbed somewhere.

[FrettingCajarot]

i would have responded that that's why I'm robbing 40 million dollars, to escape from reality. With 40 million dollars, I could make my own reality, and along the way that paranoia could definitely be settled.

[TheEvilGreebo]

@FrettingCajarot Then you would have demonstrated that you weren't listening to what was said. What reality to you imagine that you can make that would cause the true owners of the money, and the police, and the district attorney, and the rest of society overlook the fact that you have no recognized claim to the money in the first place?

[FrettingCajarot]

@TheEvilGreebo Foreign country, idiot. Uncharted islands. You obviously don't pay attention to the real world. Bank money is from everyone. Police aren't hired to go after people like that. District attorneys can't do anything outside their district. What the hell will society do to me if I get a face operation, or if I'm not even in society? You have a very limited perception.

[Torgo1969]

Great answer from Schwartz. Living with integrity and calmness is priceless, and he was right to put it in terms of one's own selfish desire for happiness.

Contrast this with the religious theocrats' command that one's life belongs to God, or the guilt-ridden leftists' command that one's life belongs to Society.

Atheist conservatives like Rand, Schwartz, and others are the epitome of guilt-free enlightened self-interest who show others the way to a good life on this good earth.

[1400deadwood]

Selfishness - a good way to describe Rand who said people should never take money from the government but was secretly taking money using her ex husband's name in order to disguise what she was doing. What a welfare queen she was!!

Such hypocrisy!

[TheGodofAtheists]

In the words of Harry Browne, “The money is a means to other ends, and it has to be obtained in a way that won’t interfere with those ends.” ie, you want to keep the money longer than just until your arrested, and spend it on stuff other than hiding from the FBI, on stuff you enjoy, none of which is possible in jail.

[efghijkl8]

On balance, one might prefer the potentially small effort of telling porkies as a price for enormous wealth. Schwartz's conjectures about the human mind, including the inability to rationalise self interest, the inability to deliberately say one thing and do another, and the ultimately tragic consequence of attempting to do so are precisely that, conjectures. Trying to pass them off as immutable, certain and factual is just a bit lame and does not understand the rigour of proof, nor conjecture.

[paolo27th]

That was a piss poor answer.

[SpazzzDog]

Here's a great way to steal $100M without reality getting in the way. Become a banker, lobby the government to the point that it works for you. Then build up a lucrative Mortgage Backed Security racket, destroy the economy and get a $100M compensation package when you leave Lehman Brothers and move in to one of your mansion.

[faithm]

This better be common sense

[MPArmstrong84]

This guy should explain this point to Wall St.

[Danielnoctis]

The fact people have never heard of a perfect crime makes it more so. that's the whole logic behind it, it's not perfect if the truth comes out.

Now we could discuss how nothing ever created by man is perfect, but think for a moment, every year in the US alone dozens of bodies get found, bearing no clue whatsoever about the culprit, or the culprit gets away clean and someone else gets the blame. What do you call that?

[willzyx1980]

@Danielnoctis

An unsolved murder isn't a perfect crime. For every minute of his life after he commits the murder, the killer has to fake reality. He has to live in a society built and sustained by the principle of voluntary trade and mutual advantage, knowing that he has spurned the very principle on which his life depends.

[Danielnoctis]

@willzyx1980 "has to fake reality, voluntary trade, mutual advantage"

You're taking a lot of things for granted here, even at the core of the words you used there's inconsistency, etymologically speaking.

fake - reality. For one to fake reality, it has to transcend it. Reality is what takes place in space and time.

Isn't voluntary if one get's/is driven by capital to make it happen.

The root of the word advantage leaves no room for mutual.

[willzyx1980]

@Danielnoctis

I'm guessing English isn't your first language, because it seems that you are having trouble with basic definitions.

"Fake reality" is common shorthand for "ignore the evidence of one's senses and replace it with one's imagination."

Voluntary means "in the absence of the threat or use of physical force."

"Superiority relative to others" is only one of the senses of the term "advantage." A more common sense of the term is "benefit." Really. Look it up in the dictionary.

[Danielnoctis]

@willzyx1980 Yes English isn't my mother tongue.

What you're describing is a part of cognitive dissonance. A definition should not be figurative.

Absence of threat or use of physical force are quite a broad definition which could easily include paid jobs, yet voluntary jobs are of a different kind. If you take the root of "voluntary" I can convince you that an action is still voluntary even when threatened.

Advantage and benefit have comparative roots, mutual goes against their nature.

[willzyx1980]

@Danielnoctis

None of these definitions are figurative, so I don't know what you're talking about there.

As for "voluntary," you're incorrect. The word used to describe a job that isn't paid is "volunteer" not "voluntary."

And of course there is nothing inconsistent or contradictory about the concept of a mutual benefit. If you and I engage in a transaction from which we both benefit, that's a mutual benefit, plain and simple.

[Danielnoctis]

@willzyx1980 Voluntary ~ lat. volunt = willingness. Hence it can be your willingness to avoid a threat by conforming.

Volunteer is the noun form of the adjective voluntary.

to fake reality is figurative. Plus you either have reality or fake, not both.

Mutual benefit is a construction. nothing ever conceived by men has ever achieved symbiosis. Look it up.

[willzyx1980]

@Danielnoctis

Just because two words share the same root doesn't mean they refer to the same concept. I don't know whether you honestly don't understand how language works or if you're just trolling, but either way there's no point in arguing with someone who only plays word games.

When I buy a steak from a butcher, I value the steak more than the $10 I spend, and the butcher values the $10 more than the steak. That's a mutual benefit. I honestly don't know what your problem is.

[Danielnoctis]

@willzyx1980 The debate moves from the object to the subject when no more arguments are viable. -> Formal Logic

[willzyx1980]

@Danielnoctis

The debate didn't move from the object to the subject; the debate ended. You resorted to word games, so I stopped debating with you. If you want to pretend otherwise (or as we say in English, if you want to fake reality) you are free to do so. To be figurative: whatever gets you through the night.

[Danielnoctis]

@willzyx1980 Ok let's have a go to the steak example. A butcher would love to sell the steak for a grand or way more, but the market won't let him do that and be successful. You on the other hand would like to get the steak for free.

The case here is that both you and the seller agree on a sum (indirectly of course). This agreement is not a mutual benefit ('cos you both gave something), is the only option. So don't make it sound noble and just.

[StudentOfObjectivism]

@Danielnoctis Dude, you're an idiot. You're idea that both lose because neither gets everything they want is so obtuse that you must be a troll. Try thinking on this: both the butcher and the customer consider what they want in the full context of what is possible. If both men are rational then there is no reason at all why they can't both benefit from a trade - or, indeed, why they would trade at all if it weren't to mutual benefit.

[lesotl]

Arkantum , beautifully put !!!

Now please respond to your own rephrased question..

In the way I see it, this philosophy encourage competition/success/wars no matter what..

It looks like it was written for autistic persons.. no compassion!

[rpaslux]

" autistic persons.. no compassion! "

That is where you are wrong. Autistic people may not SHOW compassion or empathy but it is NOT because they do not feel it but because they do not know how to show it. They simply don't know how to react. Not even subconciously.

It is too complex for me to explain right now. And unless you don't open up for that idea then you will never understand what I am typing. Be less parcial and subjective about your ideas and you'll understand things better.

[lesotl]

US gov is already using this selfishness philosophy..

do U feel good?

[aviomaster]

-- WHY would I buy a Jacht ,,

that is just stupid ,,,, You can get super nice car for 5-6 Thousand , and a fishing boat for 900$ ...

Probably I would leave USA ... that is the best option ,  and live in E.Europe . Buy a house , normal car for local population , than I would buy sheep , pigs , chicken , and start a little FARM ... and put my money in Swiss Bank there or some of the local banks , SINCE they do not question where you got money.

[aviomaster]

--- In Chicago armed robber robbed 17 banks and never got cought ,,, it is possible ... very possible ...

[sillyshitt]

so honesty wil make you happy and crime will make You rich ?

[caveboy0000]

stupid answer ! it has so many holes in it like a Swiss piece of cheese!

[Wejer3]

The individual is the smallest minority. And without individual rights, there can be no minority. Especially when it comes to CEOs of big business.

[Wejer3]

Mr Madoff "got in so deep over his head" exactly because he wasn't a rational. If he was, he wouldn't have been caught. Why? Because he wouldn't have been stupid enough to attempt to 1) Wage War on Reality, thus destroying his mind, and 2) Wage War on Men, legitimizing them to putting his body in jail.

There can be no "grassroots economics" until one recognises free enterprise - which can only be justified by individual rights equally protected by rule of law.

[seanotube85]

I guess this guy is basically saying that the CEO's of wallstreet and the world bank are not as happy as the guy who works at McDonalds. HAH!

[runningfrog43]

actually he's saying that stealing money is wrong, but whatev.

[seanotube85]

If he's saying that stealing is wrong then he should just say it. He's saying that stealing is only wrong based on SELF INTEREST, which is NOT always the case. For example, in the case of the bailouts, bankers/major CEO's of Wallstreet GOT AWAY WITH stealing BILLIONS of dollars from taxpayers and they didn't seem to have any problems with doing this. But that is because they deny others of their humanity, which makes them dangerous to others and themselves without knowing it yet. People r dumb.

[Wejer3]

I believe that was the 'government' doing the stealing, not the businessmen.

However, regardless if one is doing the actual stealing or accepting stolen goods, one will force oneself into, as Mr Scwartz put it, into the War against Reality, constantly having to resort to lying and deceit in order to get around in the world.

Look no further than Mr Madoff to see the effects on man's mind when man starts to act against reality - that man was not self-interested and thus is today unhappy.

[seanotube85]

The problem with objectivism is that people think too short term with their self-interests. Greed is addictive, and once you get a taste of the goods, it becomes very easy to gamble it all away. That's what the CEO's of the world bank (who basically OWN our government) did with the bailouts. It's also the reason Bernie Madoff got in so deep over his head. Grassroots economics and the greater use of the internet could change all, but only if we're educated how to use these tools to our advantage.

[Wejer3]

Objectivism is short-term? You got it all wrong: you should learn more about objectivism. We reject irrationalism, fraud and 'gambling' in favour of cool daring and sound investment and honest profit.

I don't know what you mean with 'World Bank' but if there is a 'bank' that has the fate of the US in its hand it gotta be the Federal Reserve - who put the country in the financial crisis in the first place.

[Wejer3]

No, the term was "bankrobber", not businessman. The first is a looter, the latter a producer.

I am pretty sure that a McDonalds employee is more happy than a bank robber.

[seanotube85]

How would you know? Have you ever robbed a bank and gotten away with it with no chance of getting caught? And would you feel terribly sorry if you had?

[Wejer3]

How I would know? See video above. And I wouldn't be in a situation when I 'felt sorry' for looting other peoples hard earned cash - since I don't rob banks.

Do YOU?

[seanotube85]

Well obviously you don't can't appreciate the meaning of a hypothetical question, so let's say someone ELSE robbed a bank who did NOT care about anyone but himself, because he learned all the wrong lessons about the meaning of self-interest... See where I'm going with this?... Am I breaking ice here?

[Wejer3]

One cannot be truly self-interested if one isn't a rational. It's the difference between the drunk, gambler or slut and the businessman, intellectual or self-made man.

If one learns "all the wrong lessons", then I suggest that person to learn all the 'right' lessons, unless he wants to become an unhappy man that leads himself (and possibly others) into misery.

A good way to start is: honesty. Once one has confirmed reality, one can start working to change it for the better.

[seanotube85]

OK, but you're still not getting what I'm saying, which is that just because YOU are a decent human being doesn't mean that EVERY businessman/intellectual/self-­made man will automatically end up being a decent human being. In fact, quite often to the contrary. So if you go around preaching self-interest to EVERYONE, you're going to end up with some problems because people WON'T fully grasp what you MEAN by self-interest. Do you get that?? Greed is an ADDICTION which affects MANY powerful people.

[Wejer3]

I will naturally take it one step at a time. Since self-interest only can be justified by rationality the only way to explain it is to use objective definitions. This is especially true since altruists have long been making the false dichotomy between 'servitude' (sacrificing yourself to others) and 'predation' (sacrificing others to yourself) - while they are in fact two sides of the same coin.

To be truly self-interested includes being rational, which means rejecting sacrifice as such.

[seanotube85]

"I will naturally take it one step at a time."

Many people will not take it one step at a time. Many people will get ahead of themselves because of issues stemming from greed, not self-interest. People aren't as rational as we would like to believe they are (i.e. the majority). And no one is 100% rational or we wouldn't be human. So you've got to throw this into the equation and find the best possible answer that works for all of us, because nobody's as perfect as Ayn Rand would like to believe.

[Wejer3]

What I meant with "taking it one step at a time" is to explain in rational wording what it means to be truly self-interested.

If one refuses to hear my words, time and time again, there is no way for me to teach them. He has to first learn to be a rational, before he can learn to be truly self-interested.

[Wejer3]

When we are on the topic already: there is really no need for everyone to be an objectivist in order to create a truly free society - only enough of them to become the "dominant cultural trend" (as Ayn Rand put it). Those who are not individualists... they can go on with their selfless lives as long as they don't violate the individual rights of the rest of us (such as, by initiating physical force or fraud)

[seanotube85]

Okay, but now you're talking about anarchy... I like that.

[Wejer3]

I am unsure how you came to the conclusion about me preaching anarchism. That was not my motive, since I am not an anarchist.

I would say that the state is an essential component in enforcing individual rights, and thus keep thugs, looters and invaders from intiating physical force on everybody else.

Morever: even the most rational people sometimes have honest disagreements, which have to be solved objectively in a common court of law.

[seanotube85]

"I would say that the state is an essential component in enforcing individual rights, and thus keep thugs, looters and invaders from intiating physical force on everybody else."

The state also does a lot of looting and invading of its own. It often uses force for the interests of men in power who abuse their power. It is not a rational entity as it stands today. It is manipulated and run by greed and corruption, but very rarely rationality. The legal system is geared in the favor of the rich.

[Wejer3]

What you say is mostly correct. However, that is not the point.

The option is not choosing between living in a totalitarian regime (such as North Korea) versus living in a regime without a state apparatus at all (such as Somalia).

Instead of these both evils, merely opposite sides of the same coin, there is the option to have a country ruled not by men, but by law. Particularly: just and objective laws, whose purpose is solely to serve its citizens, by protecting their individual rights.

[seanotube85]

"Instead of these both evils, merely opposite sides of the same coin, there is the option to have a country ruled not by men, but by law."

Who decides the law? That's the first question to be asked. And how do we decide that their reasoning is objective? Once again, the first problem to be solved is the problem of education and where one receives their knowledge, because if people are pointed in the wrong direction to begin with, they will make the wrong choices for the future of this planet.

[Wejer3]

You wonder how we can know a reasoning is objective. I say: knowledge. But knowledge is not there by itself - it has to be learned. And to learn, your mind needs to be free.

If you think that a free mind can be justified, it stands to reason that so does the body need to be free. Thus, laws, based on the concept of individual rights, are nothing more or less than freeing your body, granting you independence, and thus giving you control over your own destiny.

[seanotube85]

Actually, many (if not most) laws are in place to hold us in prison. We will not be truly free until we have done away with the oppressive aspects of the institutions of society that we live under today. Until we learn to think creatively and question and put to test all aspects of our reality, we will not truly be free. And furthermore we will not be able to reach our maximum potential as well.

[Wejer3]

Note that even if some laws are evil (there are many of those in today's society), that doesn't necessarily mean that all laws are evil. In the same sense: just because some men are evil, doesn't mean that, automatically, all men become evil.

In order to tell the good laws from the bad laws, a free mind is needed, that can think rationally and without logical contradiction.

[gasellers]

I believe that there is no such thing as a free lunch and that everything you get in life is paid for in one way or another. If you steal, you will pay for that theft with your human life value, which is your character, your relationships with others, etc. If you earn what you want, you are increasing your human life value which is the source of all property value. So it is not in your self-interest to steal because you are losing human life value

[iagopseleme]

Brilliant answer!

[Kurtyoungblood]

Back to the broiler!

[genlantistechsupport]

Why is theft not in a person's self-interest?

The short answer is that, by stealing from others, the

thief is, by implication, telling others that it is

okay to steal from him. Any child could figure this out. In fact,

one of the first lessons parents teach their children is:

act towards others as you want them to act towards you; don't

steal from others, otherwise they would be justified in stealing

from you. Do you want to live in a society of thieves? I don't.

It's not in my self-interest.

[Entropy56]

"otherwise they would be justified in stealing from you."

I disagree. Since there are already thieves in the world now, does that give you moral justification to act likewise? No.

The immorality of others does not justify your immorality. You have a right to bring the thief to justice but not to stoop to his level.

[Entropy56]

Good philosophy does not have to account for how a crazy man or immoral man should live. The role of philosophy is to ask "how should I live?" If others choose not to accept your philosophy it does not invalidate the righteousness of it. Many philosophers contort themselves to try to hem in the outlaw and make them somehow fit into their world view. This is not necessary.

[excellentmike]

P.S. My other handle is genlantistechsupport.

[excellentmike]

"The immorality of others does not justify your immorality.."

Yes, it is true; I was not being exact enough. To be technically correct, I should write that, by stealing from another, a thief implies that stealing is OK. In fact, however, he steps outside the bounds of individual rights, and thus forfeits his own right to be left alone. This is objectively NOT in his self-interest.

[Entropy56]

Yes. The guy in the video gave a rather oblique answer.  He should have been a little more precise and pithy. I give him a B.

[Entropy56]

If you havent watched anything by Paul McKeever you might find this discussion interesting because it addressed the questions discussed here.

YouTube "In Defence of Ayn Rand #5: Is, Ought & Ethics"

[bishopb7]

you either want to..or you dont. theres no collective answer here.

[komodiakarma]

TA DA!! But of course...well, I wouldn't steal anything less than 50 Billion. LOL Great vid.

[majinspy]

Highly lackluster....the only reason not to steal is a.) it sets a philophical principle of force including force against the thief and b.) it would be really hard to get away with and keep it secret. Underwhelming.

[schulwitz]

The fact that he hides reality from himself should be the main emphasis here, not that he is lying to others.

[cochisestronghold]

Plato said that you will get yours in your next life.

[shovelcharge]

Yes. And he was wrong.

[cochisestronghold]

Yep, he sure was, he belived in a false reality.

[GamblerJustice]

I love the ending.

"Alright - back to the broiler."

[rambo26]

Explained brilliantly!

[marneedear]

True! Faking everything is not egoistic. A truly egoistic person will not be afraid to be and show his true self. He would never feel he needs to hide his life or actions from others.

Nicely done here.

[Beethovens7th]

Schwartz really explained this issue well. 5 stars.

[TheRightDecision]

Indeed

[IsabelaMorales]

Very good point that the bank robber would have to live the rest of his life in a world completely of pretense. I originally thought Mr. Schwartz would continue to argue that the robber was ignoring the fact that taking others' money opened up his own to be seized but this points to the robber's own happiness, which is much better.

[GodOfReality]

The problem is that the orator makes the assumption that being such will make the thief unhappy. Too many assumptions are made on behalf of the thief for this rebuttal to be legitimate.

[StayingSain]

@GodOfReality

The point that he was making was that the thief was human and as human he will make mistakes which will ultimately lead to his arrest. His happiness plays a very small factor, and doesn't make much of an impact upon the reality of the situation.

He can be happy in jail as long as he's in jail.