Re: Stephen Colbert vs Ayn Rand?

[yaifibar]

regardless of political philosophy, Atlas Shrugged is a very good book

[MadPutz]

However, MTV Cribs wouldn't be as awesome with moderated GDP growth

[joannant]

No, it is not alright to say that I've made enough, and therefore, anymore I make should be alms. If that's the case I do not wish to make more, just exactly what's needed. Money does not equal power. Money equals what it can be traded across a cashier counter for. Native Indians in the era you refer to lived in huts, and hunted with bow and arrow. When were the last time to slaughter an animal?

[joannant]

You state when man is free to act selfishly (WITH OUT FORCE) according to man's RATIONAL thinking, man will seek power, destroy obstructions, leading to destruction. You can't forcibly make me join you, unless you appeal to my rational benefit. After careful considerations, we (you having convinced me) came to a wrong conclusion (the irrational), then we will exterminate ourselves, no other. We'll be our own victims when others refuse to produce to support us.

[joannant]

I'm going to start with why do you find that objectivist is laughable, when that means that reality is being perceived rationally? It is the fundametal idea to the seeking of truth, and truth/reality is concrete and steadfast no matter of anyone's subjective. Is this not what we all aspire to find? Objective reality that will not, cannot be sway. Objectivism also points out that reality will not allow for the irrational. Woud you prefer a world where irrationals are truths?

[nesteph]

Ok for the umteenth time i was using a play on words i personally have nothing against real objectivists. the people mentioned in the colbert report clip were those who jump on band wagons i.e. collectivists who are merely latching on to the name to sound cool, kind of like how every girl back in high school who was supposedly goth was also "bi". they remind me of james taggert in atlas shrugged latching on to smarter poeple while holding onto a irrational belief system.

[nesteph]

some one like glenn beck and bill o'riely are not objectivists in any way shape or form they are the exact people ayn incessantly warm us about. people should read her works and listen to her interviews she warns about these very people i have a problem with. some people don't understand my turn of phrase or my explaination of why this corrupt objectivism is bad but those are the collectivists we were told about as well the irrational faith before facts crowd.

[Raykak]

People who objectively view things apparently have an opinion? All opinions are entirely subjective.

[TheHowardr]

Objectivity means that you view our existence as independent of the mind. Meaning your mind does not determine what reality is. You can not change reality using your mind. That does not mean that you cannot come to demonstrative facts about our reality, using your senses, and then using reason to assess the sensual data. When objectivists assert something, it is not based off a whim, or an opinion, it is based off of the process I have shown above. It is based off of our reality.

[proudfootz]

Randism and Libertarianism are both anarchy for the rich. The problem with anarchism is that people do not respect others. The same problem with the US today, or communism, or whatever.

There must always be regulation of human behavior.

Almost any 'system' will work if human nature were different than it is. Even Randism.

[TheHowardr]

Nesteph, what is with this whole thing about, objectivists only using self-interest to live their lives? Have you ever heard our ethics? "Do not ask others to live for you". Their is a moral code to objectivism. Understand her ideas before commenting on them.

[nesteph]

I am not talking about actual objectivists i am using a play on words. stick with and listen to what is said not what you want to hear.

[SBRslacker00]

I love your points, especially "Government would work if done right.". I totally agree.

The whole Capiltalism versus Communism debate is useless if it's implemented under Totalitarianism. That's the point that I feel too many people are missing. Freedom is the opposite of Totalitarianism, that's where our goal should start, not with this academic dispute between Communism & Capitalism. There's a way that we can get the best parts of both, if done correctly. Don't let either get too big.

[Guncriminal]

""Government would work if done right.". I totally agree."

That takes us down the road to utopian "...if only the right people were in charge."

The problem is with the system, not the people in charge of it, although they too are a problem.

[LastTrueLiberal]

"Since there are no rules, and since we are really only out for ourselves, the only thing we can do is destroy ourselves..."

Actually in the absence of rules we can do whatever the hell we want to. This means that those who wish to engage in inherently destructive behavior, i.e., drug use, altruistic behavior, reckless spending, etc. are free to do exactly that, and those who wish to live with consideration for the future are free to do so.

[SBRslacker00]

I think people are getting confused with how he is using his words, "we" and "we". In the first "we" he is talking about the "cult of selfish people", in the second "we" he is talking about "society in total". I made the mental correction in my own mind as I watched, but others seemed to get hung up on the mistake of context as far as I can tell.

In any case, in society, we are affected by others destroying themselves. Sure, one or two crackpots might not upset the apple cart.

[SBRslacker00]

Actually, I might be mistaken. On second thought, I think he's using his own value judgements to interpret Objectivism as a failed philosophy. As others have noted, it would be interesting and useful to get a fuller elaboration on exactly why Objectivism fails, in his mind. 

Nevertheless, this whole exchange is simply a symptom of two differing viewpoints/ideologies not able to meet in the middle. This is fairly common when Objectivism is one of the viewpoints/ideologies being discussed.

[Ekon32]

"If we are out for ourselves, the only thing we can do is try to destroy ourselves." Did you really just say that, or was I dreaming?

And please don't talk about Objectivism unless you at least understand what it is and can define it.

[stuntwill]

What is this "destroy ourselves" thing you keep referring to? Well, I know what it is: It's a non-answer. If you have to resort to a non-descriptive generality to describe the consequence of Objectivism, then maybe you need to think a little harder about what you disagree with. (Or if you do know, you should probably go into a little more detail.)

[nesteph]

bullshit, if you were paying attention you would have noticed my usage of the word objectivism was a play on words that only a moron would not have noticed.

[stuntwill]

"objectivism" was only a play on words? Well, I tried to be fair so I listened to it again. Almost immediately you begin your speech by mentioning objectivists and the philosophy of objectivism. So no, your usage of the word "objectivism" was not limited to a "play on words." You were specifically talking about Objectivism the philosophy, and if you don't think you were, watch it again. If you still don't think so, you're probably insane.

[nesteph]

no you are incorrect again i tried giving you a chance to pay attention, say what you want to say but i was merely talking about this new group of folks

[stuntwill]

So the subject is Ayn Rand, who's philosophy is Objectivism. Yet when you say "objectivism" or "objectivists", you're not referring to that philosophy, you're referring to a "new group of people?" Well, I gotta say that's kinda confusing. I'm also not interested anymore. I'll just say one last thing as an Objectivist: The world is no less beautiful when you see it for what it is and take out all the crap that people made up themselves.

[thetrivialityofbeing]

I am an anarchist, and in noway would i say anarchy comes close to Objectivism. Most Anarchist don't believe in property. Objectivism is just extreme capiltism

[overmind25]

Anarchism does not = no rules or laws.

Also it depends what you mean by property.

[nesteph]

bullshit, overmind25 that is exactly what anarchy is

[overmind25]

You are just ignorant. Anarchism is against the monopoly of law making and the legal privilege that the state monopoly provides.

[nesteph]

an⋅ar⋅chism

noun

1. a doctrine urging the abolition of government or governmental restraint as the indispensable condition for full social and political liberty.

2. the methods or practices of anarchists, as the use of violence to undermine government.

3. anarchy.

what bullshit you gonna spout out now, what philosophy you use is up to you but there is your definition. don't lie and deny it.

[overmind25]

Laws are fine as long as those besides aggression are agreed to voluntarily. You pointing to a common dictionary to define a political theory is silly behind words. Violence is part of coercion which government is. The destruction of equal law is with the state with an internal anarchy (who will watch the supposed watchers) and its exercise of legal privilege.

[nesteph]

what you are talking about is not anarchy

[overmind25]

Look you are just willfully ignorant. You know nothing about anarchism and its history and you are going to tell anarchists what anarchism is.

[nesteph]

you are a liar

[doceigen]

When one is selfish, one self preserves... NOT destroys themselves.

[nesteph]

bullshit, name one society that was selfish without being selfdestructive, if you can i was post an apology and delete my videos and will be sure to mention how wrong i was.

[doceigen]

If "reality" is the metric, the United States of course, we're completely selfish and yet assessments span from no less successful than any other modern society, all the way to, wildly successful and thus the most powerful nation ever seen on the planet Earth. But I understand from the fantasy point of view, we are not some kind of utopia, whatever the heck that is? hehe Selfish means taking care of number ONE, and that intrinsically means being cognizant, to stay alive, ...can't beat that.

[SBRslacker00]

The U.S. legal system is largely based on Christian morality. Saying that the U.S. is a selfish nation is ignoring quite a bit of U.S. history and legal precedent.

Taking care of ONE hardly accounts for larger social issues, such as world diplomacy, war, widespread social problems.

Rugged American individualism still stands as a moral virtue in the U.S. but it's not the only perspective, especially when considering objectives which don't apply strictly to individuals.

[nesteph]

that's not what i was saying, pay attention to what i said and try not to hear what you want and hear what i say. I said people who could be called "objectivists".

[spaceplayer]

Try again once you've actually read the damn book. FAIL.

[Beethovens7th]

Yeah, communism worked really well with the Native Americans.....what with them dying at the average age of 20. This video is pure gibberish, I have no idea why you think anyone would want to listen to it.

[WarVideo]

Defending capitalism by saying that "communism doesnt work" is a mistake . Thats like saying, "pacifism doesnt work because then people will just walk all over you", well, that IS the goal of pacifism, the goal of pacifism isnt to win the war, youre giving the pacifist too much credit. People assume that the goal of communism is for people to have a happy succesful life, but it isnt. Communism DID work, its goal was to make people equal, but who said that was consistent with human happiness?

[WarVideo]

In essential terms it would be like saying sacrifice doesnt work because it leads to human misery....But dont you get it? thats the point.

[nesteph]

quite right my friend

[WarVideo]

Dont get to excited, Im on Beethovens7th side of this issue, Im just saying that attacks against the evils of communism shuld be more essentialized.

[nesteph]

the natives dying at the age of 20 has nothing to do with weather or not communism worked.

[Beethovens7th]

No? So their anti-property rights system had nothing to do with their widespread poverty and lack of growth?

[nesteph]

no it does not, it is more so the fact they were not used to a society based on money, so when they were herded in their reservations if they had to come outside for something they were broken financially speaking. people who don't get that they were held back and retarded from growth due to cheating and over pricing as well as racist policies.

[Beethovens7th]

Wait a minute, I wasn't talking about after reservations showed up. I was talking about back when they lived in their communist tribes, before white people showed up. They were poor, starving, and unhealthy.

[nesteph]

that's not true they were fairly healthy, i still ask what does any of that have to do with communism

[SBRslacker00]

I think his point is that Communism is supposed to improve the overall "quality of life" across a society. Him arguing that they had a low quality of life argues against the virtues of Communism.

I question the claim of Native people living by Communism. Communism, as I understand it, was a social movement started by Karl Marx after he wrote his book in 1849. Whatever tribal government system the Native people had was before the time of Marx. I'm not sure it can be called true Communism.

[nesteph]

thats marxism you are thinking of.

[reep316]

She even says, people can deal with one another with mutual voluntary consent for mutual benefit, or choose not to deal with each other at all. The government is who steps in when people decide to deal with each other by force or fraud.

[zombiechaddy]

What the hell are you talking about? No rules? We will try to destroy ourselves? Rand was a staunch Constitutionalist (i.e., she believed in certain rules) and her philosophy advocated the exact opposite of destroying ourselves.

Her philosophy isn't perfect; many good points, but not perfect. A point I think everyone can agree on: it's fine to use taxes to invest in society, but just giving to people via taxes is wrong. Giving should be voluntary and charitable - not forced.

[reep316]

Right. Colbert, liberviewer, and this guy obviously have never actually read or understand at all, rand's objectivism.

She never EVER favored anarchy, "no rules," or even the absence of government. She supports a government that protects individual rights with very strict objective laws. That is a government in which people will destroy themselves?

[reep316]

Every other form of government is a "sick" government in which the ultimate goal is for everyone to destroy one another. That is what socialism, communism, fascism, statism, etc all REQUIRE.... That someone be destroyed to benefit someone else.

Its funny that this guy can say rand's ideas are sick and people will destroy each other when that is exactly what the opposite of her philosophy is.