If you are commenting and you haven't read it, go read it, and then comment.
I just finished the book. It was fantastic. The book isn't about the people in it, it is about what we are using our government for. If you don't understand that, you REALLY haven't read it.
I have not read the damn book, but I know very well that society Ayn Rand wanted. If the book promotes something even close to that I will say its the most egosentric and evil system even. Actually I think I would preffer the third reich over that, because there at least the germans had healthcare.
The only Penn point I disagree with is the soap operatic acting. I thought the actors did well injecting humanity into Rand's wooden dialogue. Not that the dialogue as originally written is bad, but Atlas Shrugged the book reminds me (in structure) of the average fantasy novel, in that it left few things unsaid and few details undescribed.
I agree with Penn almost completely. I read several negative reviews before seeing the movie, and once I did watch I didn't think those writers gave the flick a fair shake. When I read the book for the first time in '07-'08, the first third was incredibly difficult because I had to deconstruct a narrative--built by consuming pop culture my entire life--of 'evil industrialists.'
When I say force – I mean the willful violation of someone’s rights through violent, theft, coercion. I’m perfectly able to survive at no one else’s expense. Before you cite such strawmen as public roads or services, keep in mind that these are not only am I forced to pay for them regardless of use, a private alternative is often prohibited by law. Tell me, how many people have to stolen from, or beaten, in the past few months? How are you surviving otherwise, by your logic?
@TheMrSeagull Baloney, you're able to survive at no one else's expense. Everything you extract from the earth is not justifiably yours (different story if you improve it). How many people have I stolen from, according to the ridiculous Objectivist definition, in the past few months? Millions, whatever the tax base of the US is. That's being conservative, and not accounting for the billions around the world who have been screwed in backroom deals to steal their country's basic resources.
@TheMrSeagull Even if I don't directly get services, I still get to live in a place that doesn't resemble a war zone as much as it could. The times I didn't get robbed by marauding hopeless kids are also a benefit that I have enjoyed at the expense of others. Right now I'm drinking water that isn't too poisonous to drink. That took someone else's work, something that, as a 25-year-old, I could never begin to pay for. Yet I would die in 3 days without water. Survival without theft is impossible.
@amazinggoatgirl You are wrong, period. Everything I "extract from the earth" by my own productivity, without force or coercion towards others, is rightfully mine. You've gone from disputing the definition into ridiculous arguments of faulty logic, collectivist mentality, and fallacious arguments. You think that water you're drinking is stolen? You think the service is only provided to you? That must be news to the people who work at and own the water treatment facility.
@TheMrSeagull "You are wrong, period." Excellent argument. Did you actually think that was going to work? If so, this is what people mean when they say that Objectivists display a lack of empathy severe enough to impair their functionality in life. I won't apologize for not blindly accepting your definitions of ideas - who died and made you king? I think that the potable quality of drinking water is not sustainable without State intervention. You probably couldn't begin to pay for the years...
@TheMrSeagull ...of research and monitoring it takes to make that happen. The water treatment plant is, fittingly enough, a spit in the ocean of costs associated with keeping water potable. If it was not subsidized (which comes from taxation, which according to Objectivism is violent theft), as a 25-year-old in this economy, there's no way I would be able to afford it. That's only one example, but I stand by it. It doesn't help you to be so vitriolic, by the way.
@amazinggoatgirl No, the facilities that provide you with water were designed to produce and deliver water in mass quantities with considerably less effort it would take for one person to provide themselves with clean water to drink, cook, and bathe with. The company provides this service because people will pay for it, because THEY receive VALUE for their effort, and their customers receive VALUE from their purchase. This is a mutual relationship.
@TheMrSeagull The water is provided by the city I live in. Without it, it would be expensive enough to make it cost prohibitive for me, and frankly, since you write like you're young and you're arguing on YouTube, probably you too unless you're a trust fund baby. City water is collectivist, but it is also a mutual relationship. I stopped bitching about contributing (what I can now, anxious to be successful enough to do more in the future) because I want to live somewhere that doesn't suck.
@amazinggoatgirl The truth is, you've convinced yourself that a parasitic lifestyle is not only mandatory, but justified. Survival based on theft is destructive and short-lived. you don't live in a war zone because people generally know that survival is difficult, and comfort impossible, in such a situation. You're free of being "robbed by marauding kids" not because the expense of others, but because of individuals enforcing the law - A valid function of the government.
@TheMrSeagull I wouldn't say "parasitic," but I have admitted that I am not the master of the universe I once thought I was. I would go with "reasonably humble." Research shows that the only reliable deterrent to crime is an alternative to crime. Punishment is irrelevant because criminals never imagine they'll be caught...
@TheMrSeagull I'm free of being robbed by marauding hopeless kids because they can reliably go to a decent school. Key word: "reliably," which can only be provided by the State, since it is dramatically more dependable than chaotic markets. World can't wait. Survival based on collective effort, which you would call theft, is the way humanity has survived for thousands of years. Not short-lived. Like cops - they facilitate your survival based on theft. Have you seriously never considered that?
@amazinggoatgirl You cannot simple slice a single sentence off my posts and claim it as my sole argument. You’re attempting to highlight your opinion by demonizing mine through straw men attacks. Now you’ve degraded into ad hom attacks. For one, I’m older than you, 29, and I’ve never had anything handed to me, grew up in a low-mid class home, and I’m proudly living on my own expense, no one else’s. I pay for every service and product I consume.
@TheMrSeagull Disagreeing is not demonizing. You were a child once, and if you don't realize that at least some things were handed to you in your life when you really couldn't provide them for yourself, frankly, your head is up your ass. Show some appreciation for the people who made your survival possible. I stand by the assertion that you still reap benefits from others' forced contributions even if you willfully shield yourself from that information.
Let’s continue to focus on your example of water services. You seem to continue to ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands of people participate in this service and pay for it. The capitol used to create the facilities was venture capital, regardless of where it came from. Once the service was functional, the capital used to create it would be covered by the fees charged by the use of the service. With this income, the service can be expanded and refined.
@TheMrSeagull I know that, but I'm saying that water is a basic building block of life and making sure that it won't be too expensive for everyone in our society to access is a good thing. The costs from the initial venture capital (to pay for years of research) would make it too high for the average or low-income person to afford if it was split evenly per unit of water. Marginal utility of money indicates that taxing rich people more facilitates everyone's survival.
@amazinggoatgirl It started simple, lacking the technology to purify water, and only able to provide it to limited areas. However, as profits came in from the use, the provider could afford to expand and refine the service, to provide a better, cheaper product to more people. The government didn’t just decide to create water service, and it magically came into being.
@TheMrSeagull The government funds/ed research on the ways to treat water. The initial capital required to do that would never have come around as fast if it ever came at all (the wealthy would just have drank bottled water from faraway mountain streams and left us plebes to our dysentery) and more people would have died. I know you may not care about innocent people dying, but I do, so...
@amazinggoatgirl You’re also wrong on the issue of schools – Our current government controlled schooling is failing, and private schooling has always been superior in all regards. There is a tremendous amount of corruption and waste in the public school system. When it comes to policing, I’ve always maintained that it’s a proper function of government, one which I would happily voluntarily pay for.
@TheMrSeagull Private schools can refuse to teach people who are hard to teach. Don't forget that. The police would never be efficacious without a reliable stream of funding (do you have any idea how much even one cop car costs because it has to be super-fast and able to withstand attacks and crashes?), which requires compulsory taxation.
@amazinggoatgirl Considering that there is a fundamental divide in our premises, the moral (of lack of) of the use of force, that I particularly have no interest in trying to change your choice in philosophy, and that replying in Youtube comments is convoluted at best, I'm walking away from this discussion.
If you feel the need to continue this - You're free to do so on the Objectivist Online forum, otherwise I'm done with this.
@TheMrSeagull You seem to be very interested in controlling the conversation, by which I mean not "allowing" different understandings of definitions, freaking out when I quoted you, and controlling when it ends. How strange for someone who defines himself as pro-freedom. Just sayin'. Peace.
As a far left liberal, I hate Obama as much as anyone but he did NOT do the bank bailout. Bush did. Remember McCain "suspending" his campaign to work on passing the bailout in the Senate?
@TheBoxingCannabyte Get a copy of the book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", preferably the Walter Kaufmann translation. Whether Rand read Nietzsche or not, I see a lot of Nietzsche reflected in her works.
I read a bit into Atlas Shrugged but I just didn't jive with it. The characters weren't realistic to me at all. The objectivist characters seemed cold and purely profit driven and had no desire for family, friends, or hobbies. And the non-objectivist characters that they were contrasted with were just so liberal in a stupid way and naive way.
I'm part of the Ayn Rand haters. I never read Atlas Shrugged, but I read the Fountainhead and anthem. I think the ideas of finding your own happiness is great. The problem is, from what I've seen of Ayn Rand, she takes her philosophy too direct. I really think she thinks that it is a sin to help others. Maybe she just presented it poorly in the fountainhead, and Atlas shrugged is a better representation. Also, her books are just rediculous.
@ShrugMeSilly245 Would you rather have your parents taken care of in an old home run by government or family? Where is the compassion there? She advocated freedom of choice in taking care of your own, you advocate taking money away from us to pay for the care of others. A hater is someone who forces you into poverty by taking away your freedom, Rand was absolutely the opposite. Your assumptions need checking, socialism is the antithesis of love, they use people as human fodder.
@TheCrookedTimber "I didn't say I was a fan of Rothbard. But I have read and am familiar with his work and ideas."
let me refresh your memory of what you said: "There are plenty of right-wing libertarian thinkers WHOSE WORK I RESPECT: Murray Rothbard, for instance." (emphasis mine)
bit of a difference from just familiarity, don't you think?
Yeah, I am aware that the 2 big establishment factions (right/left) are against her. So what? These fools have led countries to all kinds of disaster.
@TheCrookedTimber Excuse me, I've addressed every point you tried to make to me and supplied evidence. I called you on your appeals to authority and even provided the definition. I then went after you for at least 1 false statement regarding Rothbard, as well as contradictory claims you made about yourself.
Really, you are making whiny personal attacks at this point because facts are just not on your side.
"And again, its richly ironic for an Objectivist to criticize someone for making an appeal to authority." Why is that?
"I was simply pointing out the fact that academic philosophers and the literary world rejected Rand. And it isn't only leftists who reject her: Buckley, Rothbard, Friedman, etc"
...aaaand your'e doing it again... :rolls eyes:
I get the impression you haven't read anything she wrote. Oh, wrong about Rothbard. His critiques of her were minor.
@TheCrookedTimber "I didn't run to the intellectual establishment or make any appeal to authority." Actually you did with this quote: "but the larger academic and literary world has definitively spoken on Rand and her work"
According to Wikipedia:
"Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative."
@TheCrookedTimber Well I don't think there is only one reasonable way to live ones life, but I think we can agree that there are certain things that a reasonable person does not do. For example, a rational and reasonable person relies on actual evidence to back up arguments, rather than running to the intellectual establishment for help. Which is just an appeal to authority.
The same intellectual class which is often known for supporting communism through the years.
Liking that fool Ayn Rand is one thing, but not appreciating Raging Bull? Whoa, man. And you know, when Penn says this is the "only science fiction story" he likes, that he knows nothing of SF.
@TheCrookedTimber You are completely and totally wrong. If a person doesn't come to an objectivist point of view without critical thinking, then they don't belong. It's about the individual, not herd mentality.
This is an illogical argument anyhow, you're attacking Objectism by what you see as it's mentality to others, not on its principles.
What it all comes down to is this: I will live my life as I see fit, niether sacrificing others for me, nor myself for others.
@TheMrSeagull I know this is like, months later, but I just ran across this and couldn't pass this one up. You said: "If a person doesn't come to an objectivist point of view without critical thinking, then they don't belong. It's about the individual, not herd mentality." Really? REALLY?
If you can unilaterally decide that someone 'doesn't belong' based on one principle devoid of context, it is a herd mentality. Continued..
@TheMrSeagull Part 2: Not that that's all bad; collectivism is responsible for things like farming, etc., but when a group claims to be self-righteously individualistic while actually being extremely and brutally collectivist (without even making it worth it!), I have to speak up. Hell naw.
@amazinggoatgirl You seem to have mistaken my point, and wildly mischaracterized it. Objectivism is not a club or political party, it's a clearly defined philosophy. If you don't know or understand the concepts of a philosophy, you can't rightly identify yourself as a follower of it.
To quote Rand directly...
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. (cont.)
@TheMrSeagull Ok, I respectfully disagree, both on Objectivism not being a club and on it being a "clearly defined philosophy." What I get from that quote is basically, 'If you don't have a perfect understanding of what a philosophy is, any discussion will be stupid and useless." However, even very knowledgeable people sometimes have stupid discussions, and philosophical discussions can be productive if everyone doesn't know everything from the beginning. Hell, it's called education!
But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence."
On farming - people farmed first to survive. These were subsistence farmers. When farming became more refined, they could produce more than they needed, so they could then trade it for other goods or services.
@TheMrSeagull I used to consider myself an Objectivist, for years, actually, but then I thought about what the purpose of an economy is. Is it to facilitate human quality of life, or to exalt/punish people based on an arbitrary, emotionally-based moralistic system? Furthermore, should we exalt/punish people based on where they are born into said arbitrary moralistic system? Sounds like the damn Catholic Church!
@TheMrSeagull I don't think we really disagree about farming, though you do understand that it was almost never "one man, one farm," right? The logistics of making that happen are counterproductive.
@amazinggoatgirl Your opinion is irrelevant on whether or not Objectivism is a philosophy, just because you disagree with, or don’t understand, a philosophy, doesn’t revoke its categorization.
I’m stating that to define yourself as anything you need to understand it before-hand, and that you can’t identify yourself as a follower of a philosophy without a firm understanding, of the primary branches. In Objectivism, that would be Objective Reality, Reason, self-interest, and Capitalism.
@TheMrSeagull LOL, ok, we can both say that each other's opinions are irrelevant if we want, though it is snotty and unproductive. We're both just people. Anyway, my main disagreement was with Objectivism being a CLEARLY DEFINED philosophy. And you sure can define yourself as a supporter of something without completely understanding it. Are you for or against particle physics? Gene therapy?
I’m not sure where you’re coming from on your evaluation of economies and Objectivism. In the simplest definition of the political branch, it’s individuals freely exchanging good and services voluntarily without any use of force – Capitalism. Where you are born has nothing to do with your value, nor does warrant exaltation or punishment. What matters is that you live for your own rational self-interest, deal with others as traders, and the prohibition of force.
@TheMrSeagull Refraining from the use of all force is impossible if you want to stay alive. I suppose I have come to this conclusion because I don't believe that anyone deserves any particular birthrights more than anyone else does; therefore keeping and using them is the arbitrary application of force on everyone else. This creates situations in which free will is gray if you think about the real-world consequences of exchanges rather than simply ignoring them as 'irrelevant.' Continued..
@TheMrSeagull Putting a gun to someone's head and demanding $10,000 has the same implications and results as charging someone $10,000 for lifesaving medicine. I used to be able to ignore that, but a time may come for you too when you can't anymore. You also can't prohibit force without using it. Where you are born may have nothing to do with your basic value, but if you are born into a shitty, ignorant situation, nothing will save you unless someone else intervenes or you are very, very lucky. C
Let's come to this quesiton then - Because someone is ill, does that he has a right to enslave a doctor? Or maybe someone who produces the medicine or equimpment to survive? If you said yes, this means that you beleive that some people deserve rights, while others don't.
@amazinggoatgirl I never advocated anarchy in the least, only Laissez-faire capitalism. In a free market, individuals cannot amass wealth without productivity unless they do so by force, which is the primary role of government to prohibit. Crony capitalism won’t exist if the government doesn’t have the power to effect trade. Look at Microsoft. Before it was hit by anti-trust litigation, it didn’t contribute a dime to politicians. Now it throws its money around, and the FTC leaves them alone.
What you omit is the fact that the $10,000 for the lifesaving medicine pays for the years of Research and Development required to bring it to market. It isn't unusual for a company to spend 1 billion on such a venture with no guarantee of success (and success also means having to pay for failures). Thus, this miracle medicine would never have existed in your world because an initial price of $50 (for example) would have made it economically unfeasible.
@SuperCLabs I know that; please don't patronize me. What you just said is the reason we "can't" save a life without ruining it. Thing is, we actually can do better, just as the rest of the developed world does. Insurance companies are simply too large a drain on the economy, which shrinks the pool of paying customers further and further, causing the price of health care to spiral higher and higher. They also have to be big enough to influence the government, creating inevitable crony capitalism.
@amazinggoatgirl Public safety differs as it deals with one person causing harm to another through coercion. You are responsible for your own health, blaming bad choices that you exercise through your own free will on others is a fallacy. Protecting people from their own folly only destroys them incrementally. Eventually you end up with total helplessness and a life of complete oversight by the state.
@TheMrSeagull Continued: How would you ever have an inkling that, for example, improving your own situation was possible if all you had ever seen was other people trying and failing at it? Under Objectivism, are you supposed to eschew learning from your own observations of the world you live in?
@amazinggoatgirl I’m also not sure what you mean about farming – Are you stating that a farm is impossible with one individual?
Of course, if we all had to farm our own food, we would lose significant productivity, but the farmer has no obligation to provide his product to me, ethically or legally. If I don’t want to spend my time farming or hunting my own food, I need to provide something of value to the farmer in trade for that which I value from him.
@TheMrSeagull I wouldn't say impossible, but damn near so. The first agrarian societies were compulsory collectives - if you were physically able to work, you worked or you were cast into the wilderness to your very probable death. All I was trying to say before is that there is a reasonable amount of collectivism that is necessary for survival.
Throughout all your replies you twisted my words – I never said your opinion is irrelevant, I said opinions do not change the –fact- that Objectivism is a philosophy.
I’m not sure how clearly I can phrase “Objective reality, Reason, Self-interest, and Capitalism.”
You don’t have to fully understand something to SUPPORT it, but to DEFINE yourself as an Objectivist, you have to have a strong grasps on the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.
@TheMrSeagull One final point that I'm having trouble making myself leave without making is that the more wealth you already have, the easier it is to get more. If you can refute this, I'd love to hear it. Wealth is also functionally the same as power. Given enough time, the logical eventuality of this is crony capitalism. Abolish the State and super-wealthy megalomaniacs will just make a new one and the poor can't do anything about it. We see it over and over. Use your reason, dude. Peace.
If there is one thing this path I’ve chosen has taught me that a majority opinion does not mean it’s a correct opinion, or a fact. Even if I was surrounded by depravity, violence, and anarchy, I choose to not succumb. That’s the point of having a philosophy, so I know how live my life, and I’d rather die fighting to survive by my own means than at someone else’s expense.
On your last point, your example works against you. What you define as collectivism is incorrect, as a situation where an able individual produces nothing of value, and makes no effort to correct this, will perish can occur in both a collectivist and individualist society. The former enforces this by power of law and force (which can often change the definition of “unproductive”), the latter by the natural repercussions of a self-destructive lifestyle.
@TheCrookedTimber Sorry, but your premesis is well beyond reason. Your argument is is seemingly based off of the opinions of others and a casual glance. Head over to the objectivismonline forums and take a look at the discussions there, then formulate your opinion on the "cult"
I can't thank Penn enough for turning me on to Ayn Rand during his radio show. I have since read Atlas several times as well as most of Rand's other works. I was ecstatic at the thought of the an AS movie, and despite the movie moving through the story at break neck speed. I liked it! If nothing else it may spark new interest in Randian principles to people who otherwise may never have been exposed to real rational thinking.
@TheCrookedTimber It's hard for me to approach any of your points rationally because they are formed in a rickety foundation of irrationality.
I'm not sure what textbook you're getting your definition of "Brainwashing," but no follower of Rand (who's truly following her philosophy) will ever force anyone to conform to their thinking. If someone cannot come to the same conclusion as us through sound reasoning, then so be it.
There are so many points in this, that I've been trying to make for ages. This guy understands the whole thing the way it should be understood on multiple levels. I'm impressed.
I haven't seen the movie yet, as I live in Canada, surrounded by socialists, so there really isn't a theatre willing to take the loss by showing it.
I do have one VERY important point... You forgot "faggot". "Cunt" is pretty good, but "faggot" is pretty close to the top of words that get reactions. You were spot on with "n-word." In fact, you pussied out so much you didn't even say "nigger" in its entirety, so I just did it for you. It's cool though. I'm allowed... I'm Canadian.
Atlas Shrugged Penn, apparently the book is better than the movie, randian disciples, hard core objectivists have said this film don't do the book justice. But if you like it, fair enough i liked sucker punch, not many other people do. Also Grant Bowler was in it, always enjoy a bit of Grant in things. Ayn Rand did have a legitimaye philosophy, it's whether people can use it to live a prosperous life that will be the barometer for it's success.
Fellow atheists who laugh at followers of the Bible (ficiton) have told me Atlas Shrugged (fiction) will make me a believer. Atheist Objectives use arguments from creationism: book sells well and influential, figurehead of unquestionable integrity, alternately claiming majority believers while whining they are abused minority, thinking anyone who doesn't agree must have the most extreme opposing view, dismissing examples where the economic model catastrophically failed when applied.
@netmystique Holy misguided conflation batman. You're probably being sarcastic and I must be too thick to realize it. I hope you realize these guys are a very vocal minority of the youtube atheist community. A community which barely agrees about any subject other than to profess their lack of a god belief. That lack of believe is the only glue. So for you to imply that we (I assume you too) follow a one-book ideological mindset, seems very wrong. Even if intended as a swipe against libertarians
@SheBlindedMeWScience These were not people on YouTube, these were other atheists I have met in person. Several times I have encountered atheists who follow the pattern: (1) most atheists are Libertarians! (2) They aren't? Well, we're the rational minority! I have encountered several self-proclaimed Objectivists who are of a one-book ideological mindset. I am not saying all atheists are like this, I am stating my experience with the Libertarian and Objectivists I have met.
Everyone knows the Zionists are behind all of the FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS done in the U.S. The ruthless criminal Gang known as The Bush Family helped of course, especially Dubbya and his Zionist Government Thugs such as Wolfowitz, Chertof, etc. The truth is we have no government, except corrupt little idiots at the local levels, only mouthpieces for the Zionists. Obama is our first "actor" president. The U. S. has no real president - only a guy who follows a teleprompter.
I can understand the issues have with being forced to be charitable. A lot of people want to give, and a lot of people don't. The problem is, the isn't enough aid from the willing to reach everyone who needs help. So you have to decide between two tough choices: let people suffer or force charity.
"Charity: The voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need."
Therefore, using thugs or the force of big governments can never be charitable, by definition. Societies that support this method will get what they deserve.
@mustang607 You're attacking my point on an entirely semantic level. Just because something doesn't meet the definition of charity, doesn't mean it isn't important. Call it aid then
Ok, you can call it aid then. Aiding one group by hurting another while also supporting a growing "thug" mentality. A negative sum gain. I think people should choose the rational route of voluntarily trading. A positive sum gain. Most people are charitable by nature. But how can we tell anymore when a wanting society takes the lazy and dangerous route of using terror and theft, for some "greater good," which is replacing true charity?
@mustang607 It's not a negative sum gain. It is helping another person by hurting another, but the benefits are greater. Helping a person get a place to live or food and thus helping them live has a greater benefit then then giving someone the ability to buy a third house. I agree with you that we should have voluntary trade and should have charitability in this culture. However, I don't think it's right that other people need to suffer and die so that someone else can choose to be greedy.
Forced redistribution of wealth is ALWAYS a negative sum gain, where as voluntary trade is ALWAYS a positive sum gain, according to math. Taking what others have earned by force has huge long term consequences. Now it is possible that someone who creates wealth will buy a another car, but it is also possible that their mind will find a cure to cancer, or create a new way to extract water, or create a more efficiency energy source. But without freedom these things may never happen.
@mustang607 there are any number of people who could cure cancer if they had the education and the resources. There's nothing special about the upper class other than the fact that they have those advantages, but we could very easily give those advantages to the lower class by improving the education system or making public institutions more affordable. Here's something for your math. Which system is going to produce a cure for cancer first, one with 3 capable individuals or one with 30?
I see you believe that aiding one person requires hurting another. Do you understand that things are bad and getting worse because you and others think that "good" intentions require bad means? This is negative sum gain thinking. We in America are simply seeing the results of this kind of thinking placed into action.
@004forever Can you explain what you mean by giving some one the ability to buy a third house. Who is giving them the ability? "However, I don't think it's right that other people need to suffer and die so that someone else can choose to be greedy." So are you saying that you can only be successful and have extra if some one else is without? So in your world, everyone would have equal amounts of economic power, but what would that economic power be?
Belive me I have tried to understand free marked capitalism, but I cant. I can not understand how people do not instantly see how it fails as a model for our society.
All unregulated competition will sooner or later end with one victorious and one defeated. So its only a matter of time before we are all customers(slaves) to one master corporation. And guess what, we can't vote that shit out of office like we can with government.
There is a reason EU does not have the same problem as the US.
@TheSaltyAdmiral You know if some business is making the best quality product I need for the best price and with the best service then that will be the business I'll want to buy from. If another business makes a better quality product at a better price with even better service then I'll buy it from them. So long as a business is doing the best why shouldn't people buy from them? I just don't understand your master business concept unless you also have big government or no government.
It would be easier to understand if you knew how much goverment have to do today just to keep my scenario from happening.
Do you know what illegal price-fixing means, business LOVE to do it, because they both win. Problem is, we the customers loose big time. Thats why government(we)made it illegal, to protect us.
CD players and hairspray is one thing, but it gets real nasty when its about products we MUST have, like healthcare, food ect.
@TheSaltyAdmiral I know what big government does and I know the resulting debt it creates. Nick nack price fixing is rather ineffective in a system of where competition is not hampered or made illegal. The only price fixing I'm worried about comes from big government. That hurts society as a whole. Sky rocketing health care prices are an economic problem and are are caused by big government trying to make it more affordable.
About the health care industry you are simply wrong. You are the only western nation with a private system, and no one have to pay as much as you. Look to Canada, Europe, Japan ect, they all have some sort "sosialized healthcare", and it works!
I know accepting that fact goes against what you belive in, but its the truth.
No country is as privatized as the US, and no country has as big as debt as you, how to you turn that around to be a government problem?
@TheSaltyAdmiral There's a real fundamental difference in how people who want more state regulation and those who want less view the world. The ones who want more are usually quite cynical and do not trust their fellow man. Maybe they're right not to, but I'm going to take my chances trusting them first. It's a tit for tat kind of outlook on life where you're positive and trusting first. In game theory, as demonstrated by Dawkins, this is the most beneficial outlook to have.
@slaughtz Have mixed feelings, but from personal experience without regulation, the corporations kill, cripple and poison people with impunity. The companies I have worked for are totally repressive, uncaring, lower than a number to them, disposable. On the other hand I believe in creativity and self expression and the right to make ones life better.
@DangerousDan77777 Well, how good is self-expression if you can't paint it, write it or speak it? How about, how good is it if I'm forced to support the exact opposite of what I think? How about if every time I was angry I had to act as if I was happy? What kind of life do you think I'd be living? Would it be ethical, good or necessary to make me do this? I don't accept the false dichotomy between two evils. I support no evils voluntarily.
@DangerousDan77777 This is what happens with taxation. You don't feel like supporting something (war, theft, etc.) and you are coerced into expressing support (payment) of it.
@GPunktmod Giving up-and-coming private enterprise the opportunity to market their wares in exchange for money is an ideological choice of Penn's, I think, having little to do with how badly he needs the cash himself. He believes in market forces and entrepreneurship. What you see as annoying commercial advertising may be libertarian-motivated public service announcements in his world view, helping hard-working people out.
I can't wait to see Atlas Shrugged. I live in Puerto Rico and it isn't here in any theaters. The book is amazing and I have noticed that it is cited as inspirational by lots of very successful people. Not a scientific study, but I think Rand's philosophy leads to success in life.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
@l337pwnage People hate Atlas Shrugged because building a railroad in the country of cars and trucks and airplanes is socialism, pure and simple. What's next, someone inventing a source of clean, abundant energy that would put hard-working, capitalist refinery-owners like the Kochs out of business? How much more un-American can you get than Ayn Rand...?
Love your stuff, Penn. Long time fan and sad to see Pennfans.net go down since I was going to re-listen to the ol' FreeFM show. I'm a swedish Atheist who disagree with you on many points (but hey, you're a self-admitted nut ;) ). Didn't like the book/movie, but that's a matter of taste. The problem with Rand is that she's a bad philosopher and is anti-Intellectual. She actually said "I no longer look for intelligent disagreement, I look for intelligent agreement". [Long Rant]YT limit[/Long Rant]
Sorry. had to paraphrase since I ran out of characters. YT posts have such a tiny limit. You shouldn't Google exact quotes since then a misspelling can rule out stuff:
"I am not looking for intelligent disagreement any longer. What I am looking for is intelligent agreement."
1. The vast majority of human beings want the right to possess public goods such as police, pre-school to high school education, public parks, community colleges, public health clinics, public hospitals, roads, and an army
2. This is why people vote for those things overwhelmingly in every democracy in the world including here where even most tea-partyiers support socialist medicare
3. Anarcho Capitalism is un-democratic and would require violence to impose
I dunno if you read these comments, Penn. But I'm an Objectivist and I loved this video you did. Even though you say "Maybe they are" cultish. It seemed like you were basically saying "Who knows? I don't know for sure, so who cares." You're a great guy.
If you want to help your fellow man because you value them, then that's fine. You -should- be able to help people voluntarily if you so choose, and should not be forced to. So many people are incapable of understanding such an easy concept.
Should we help people because it's fun or should we help people because they need help? Forcing you to help other people might take the the fun out of helping, but it will ensure that people get the help they need (if done in a good way) and that to me is more important.
@Laseranders "Forcing you to help other people..." "(done in a good way)". You sir have just contradicted yourself. You can't initiate force against people in a good way.
Right, but we live in civil society. Humans have lived in society for thousands of years. It's assumed that you recognize that you have to make some minimal sacrifices (such as paying some taxes) to live in civil society with fellow human beings.
If what you are saying is "I want the right to let my fellow citizens die screaming for aid in the street and live in civil society" you are a child.
Plus, can't you 'force' people not to steal or murder in a "good way." Yeah.
@blahblahblah11129 Right, because the government demanding peoples' hard-earned money from them with the threat of forcefully putting them in jail backing it is civil.
You're a child and a moron if you think that a free society entails anyone dying screaming in the street for aid. A truly free society would be a hell of a lot more prosperous than this one. And implicit in your statement is the idea that you have the right to violate my rights. What the hell gives you that right?
@blahblahblah11129 Also, I don't know if you're really that ignorant or are being intellectually dishonest. But there's a huge difference between a government using retaliatory force to defend its citizens' rights, and initiating force to violate them.
@Laseranders You know, sometimes when you read Ayn Rand you think to yourself "Oh, come on, now, the things she's arguing against isn't anything anyone would ever argue for in the first place. Now she's just straw-manning."
And then you go about your day, and what do you know - there really are people who think that people's "need" entitles them to buy their happiness with the blood and misery of innocent others.
@fab006 Wow, that's an interesting interpretation of what I said. Force does not necessarily mean blood and misery, but can be justified to prevent blood and misery. If done in a good way.
@Laseranders If you force some to help others, then you are undoubtedly buying their happiness with those others' blood and misery.
What if they want to help anyway? Well, then there's no need to force them, is there. What if they don't want to help? Ahh, that's where "forcing" enters the picture; either you help or you will be put in prison, or shot, or whatever. So can you not see how forcing implies blood and misery? And that you think is "justified"?
@fab006 Yes, absolutely. It's funny how you seem to think no one would ever argue for this, yet this is what it looks like in every civilized, democratic country in the world. If you have more than you need and others are starving, not helping gives the same end result as using extreme force, so using just a little bit of force to prevent blood and misery is perfectly fine. It's interesting how you don't seem to have a problem with 'blood and misery', only force, regardless of it's form…
@Laseranders What I have a problem with is using force against innocent people and thinking you have the moral high ground.
"If you have more than you need and others are starving" - then what? Oh, then "using just a little bit of force to prevent blood and misery is perfectly fine."
That's not the question. The question is: what if I don't WANT to help? Do you then have the right to cause me blood and misery? If you think so, don't ever talk about any coherent morality ever again.
@fab006 Then please explain to me why that is wrong and why you think you have the moral high ground when you think it's perfectly fine that people suffer and die just because some people don't feel like helping and no one has the moral right to force them. If you refuse to help someone who will otherwise die or suffer greatly, despite being able to do so without much sacrifice, how can you be considered innocent?
@Laseranders Well, first of all, if so many people are doing so bad, then the rest can't be all that wealthy (unless they took something by force, which is obviously not the situation we're talking about). But that's economics, not ethics.
More to the point, please you explain to me why you think you have the right to kill or kidnap people. By your reasoning, as long as there is anyone in the world who is suffering, no one else has any right to live for their own sake. That's perverse.
@fab006 I believe in the prevention of suffering and death. Please explain to me why you think living for your own sake is more important than preventing other people from suffering and dying. Now, that's perverse. Why is force the ultimate and only evil act, objectively speaking?
Ayn Rand was the exact opposite of Jesus Christ and His teachings in every way imaginable.
Watching that turd "Atlas Shrugged" is like watching a snuff film. I'll tell you who John Galt is. Satan.
MrMaldoror666 4 weeks ago
@MrMaldoror666 ROFL. Because Jesus Christ is someone to admire? Please.
Silvertaker 2 weeks ago
If you are commenting and you haven't read it, go read it, and then comment.
I just finished the book. It was fantastic. The book isn't about the people in it, it is about what we are using our government for. If you don't understand that, you REALLY haven't read it.
axelasdf 1 month ago
You are all dumb...read the damn book instead of watching a movie!!!
Hel1332 1 month ago
@Hel1332
I have not read the damn book, but I know very well that society Ayn Rand wanted. If the book promotes something even close to that I will say its the most egosentric and evil system even. Actually I think I would preffer the third reich over that, because there at least the germans had healthcare.
TheSaltyAdmiral 4 weeks ago
@SuperCLabs What are you talking about? I'm a big fan of Rand, when did I say anything pro-socialism?
ShrugMeSilly245 1 month ago
bitch? nah oh maybe to a women talking about a women
ThePhil909 1 month ago in playlist Season 2
The only Penn point I disagree with is the soap operatic acting. I thought the actors did well injecting humanity into Rand's wooden dialogue. Not that the dialogue as originally written is bad, but Atlas Shrugged the book reminds me (in structure) of the average fantasy novel, in that it left few things unsaid and few details undescribed.
JacobinOfHearts 1 month ago
I agree with Penn almost completely. I read several negative reviews before seeing the movie, and once I did watch I didn't think those writers gave the flick a fair shake. When I read the book for the first time in '07-'08, the first third was incredibly difficult because I had to deconstruct a narrative--built by consuming pop culture my entire life--of 'evil industrialists.'
JacobinOfHearts 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl
When I say force – I mean the willful violation of someone’s rights through violent, theft, coercion. I’m perfectly able to survive at no one else’s expense. Before you cite such strawmen as public roads or services, keep in mind that these are not only am I forced to pay for them regardless of use, a private alternative is often prohibited by law. Tell me, how many people have to stolen from, or beaten, in the past few months? How are you surviving otherwise, by your logic?
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull Baloney, you're able to survive at no one else's expense. Everything you extract from the earth is not justifiably yours (different story if you improve it). How many people have I stolen from, according to the ridiculous Objectivist definition, in the past few months? Millions, whatever the tax base of the US is. That's being conservative, and not accounting for the billions around the world who have been screwed in backroom deals to steal their country's basic resources.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull Even if I don't directly get services, I still get to live in a place that doesn't resemble a war zone as much as it could. The times I didn't get robbed by marauding hopeless kids are also a benefit that I have enjoyed at the expense of others. Right now I'm drinking water that isn't too poisonous to drink. That took someone else's work, something that, as a 25-year-old, I could never begin to pay for. Yet I would die in 3 days without water. Survival without theft is impossible.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl You are wrong, period. Everything I "extract from the earth" by my own productivity, without force or coercion towards others, is rightfully mine. You've gone from disputing the definition into ridiculous arguments of faulty logic, collectivist mentality, and fallacious arguments. You think that water you're drinking is stolen? You think the service is only provided to you? That must be news to the people who work at and own the water treatment facility.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull "You are wrong, period." Excellent argument. Did you actually think that was going to work? If so, this is what people mean when they say that Objectivists display a lack of empathy severe enough to impair their functionality in life. I won't apologize for not blindly accepting your definitions of ideas - who died and made you king? I think that the potable quality of drinking water is not sustainable without State intervention. You probably couldn't begin to pay for the years...
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull ...of research and monitoring it takes to make that happen. The water treatment plant is, fittingly enough, a spit in the ocean of costs associated with keeping water potable. If it was not subsidized (which comes from taxation, which according to Objectivism is violent theft), as a 25-year-old in this economy, there's no way I would be able to afford it. That's only one example, but I stand by it. It doesn't help you to be so vitriolic, by the way.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl No, the facilities that provide you with water were designed to produce and deliver water in mass quantities with considerably less effort it would take for one person to provide themselves with clean water to drink, cook, and bathe with. The company provides this service because people will pay for it, because THEY receive VALUE for their effort, and their customers receive VALUE from their purchase. This is a mutual relationship.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull The water is provided by the city I live in. Without it, it would be expensive enough to make it cost prohibitive for me, and frankly, since you write like you're young and you're arguing on YouTube, probably you too unless you're a trust fund baby. City water is collectivist, but it is also a mutual relationship. I stopped bitching about contributing (what I can now, anxious to be successful enough to do more in the future) because I want to live somewhere that doesn't suck.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl The truth is, you've convinced yourself that a parasitic lifestyle is not only mandatory, but justified. Survival based on theft is destructive and short-lived. you don't live in a war zone because people generally know that survival is difficult, and comfort impossible, in such a situation. You're free of being "robbed by marauding kids" not because the expense of others, but because of individuals enforcing the law - A valid function of the government.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull I wouldn't say "parasitic," but I have admitted that I am not the master of the universe I once thought I was. I would go with "reasonably humble." Research shows that the only reliable deterrent to crime is an alternative to crime. Punishment is irrelevant because criminals never imagine they'll be caught...
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull I'm free of being robbed by marauding hopeless kids because they can reliably go to a decent school. Key word: "reliably," which can only be provided by the State, since it is dramatically more dependable than chaotic markets. World can't wait. Survival based on collective effort, which you would call theft, is the way humanity has survived for thousands of years. Not short-lived. Like cops - they facilitate your survival based on theft. Have you seriously never considered that?
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl You cannot simple slice a single sentence off my posts and claim it as my sole argument. You’re attempting to highlight your opinion by demonizing mine through straw men attacks. Now you’ve degraded into ad hom attacks. For one, I’m older than you, 29, and I’ve never had anything handed to me, grew up in a low-mid class home, and I’m proudly living on my own expense, no one else’s. I pay for every service and product I consume.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull Disagreeing is not demonizing. You were a child once, and if you don't realize that at least some things were handed to you in your life when you really couldn't provide them for yourself, frankly, your head is up your ass. Show some appreciation for the people who made your survival possible. I stand by the assertion that you still reap benefits from others' forced contributions even if you willfully shield yourself from that information.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl
Let’s continue to focus on your example of water services. You seem to continue to ignore the fact that hundreds of thousands of people participate in this service and pay for it. The capitol used to create the facilities was venture capital, regardless of where it came from. Once the service was functional, the capital used to create it would be covered by the fees charged by the use of the service. With this income, the service can be expanded and refined.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull I know that, but I'm saying that water is a basic building block of life and making sure that it won't be too expensive for everyone in our society to access is a good thing. The costs from the initial venture capital (to pay for years of research) would make it too high for the average or low-income person to afford if it was split evenly per unit of water. Marginal utility of money indicates that taxing rich people more facilitates everyone's survival.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl It started simple, lacking the technology to purify water, and only able to provide it to limited areas. However, as profits came in from the use, the provider could afford to expand and refine the service, to provide a better, cheaper product to more people. The government didn’t just decide to create water service, and it magically came into being.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull The government funds/ed research on the ways to treat water. The initial capital required to do that would never have come around as fast if it ever came at all (the wealthy would just have drank bottled water from faraway mountain streams and left us plebes to our dysentery) and more people would have died. I know you may not care about innocent people dying, but I do, so...
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl You’re also wrong on the issue of schools – Our current government controlled schooling is failing, and private schooling has always been superior in all regards. There is a tremendous amount of corruption and waste in the public school system. When it comes to policing, I’ve always maintained that it’s a proper function of government, one which I would happily voluntarily pay for.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull Private schools can refuse to teach people who are hard to teach. Don't forget that. The police would never be efficacious without a reliable stream of funding (do you have any idea how much even one cop car costs because it has to be super-fast and able to withstand attacks and crashes?), which requires compulsory taxation.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl Considering that there is a fundamental divide in our premises, the moral (of lack of) of the use of force, that I particularly have no interest in trying to change your choice in philosophy, and that replying in Youtube comments is convoluted at best, I'm walking away from this discussion.
If you feel the need to continue this - You're free to do so on the Objectivist Online forum, otherwise I'm done with this.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull You seem to be very interested in controlling the conversation, by which I mean not "allowing" different understandings of definitions, freaking out when I quoted you, and controlling when it ends. How strange for someone who defines himself as pro-freedom. Just sayin'. Peace.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
Oh, Penn, the strain on your face was both painful and amusing to watch.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@ChaosDynamics Make sure you don't call anyone else illogical when you're talking like that. Check yourself before you wreck yourself.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
Love your act Penn but there *is* something Mormon/Scientologist about Randians to outsiders. I don't make the rules I just report them.
amaxamon 2 months ago
What's with the ad at the end?? LOl.
amaxamon 2 months ago
I'm a libertarian, but I don't like Ayn Rand. Mostly because Objectivism is bullshit.
NefariousBanana 4 months ago in playlist penn
As a far left liberal, I hate Obama as much as anyone but he did NOT do the bank bailout. Bush did. Remember McCain "suspending" his campaign to work on passing the bailout in the Senate?
fatcharlie24 5 months ago
@fatcharlie24
Sorry, pal, Obama did indeed vote 'yea' on TARP.
potosinodelcerro12 3 months ago
@fatcharlie24
Sorry, pal, Obama did indeed vote 'yea' on TARP.
I tried to paste a link in my reply, but was not able. Look it up.
potosinodelcerro12 3 months ago
Ayn Rand; making the greedy and self-obsessed feel like folk heros
zacthewac 5 months ago in playlist More videos from pennpoint
Your view on giving isn't in Rand, but it is in Nietzsche. (most specifically, "The Gift Giving Virtue", in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra")
needstoregister 6 months ago
@needstoregister, I want to hear more.
TheBoxingCannabyte 5 months ago in playlist Season 1
@TheBoxingCannabyte Get a copy of the book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", preferably the Walter Kaufmann translation. Whether Rand read Nietzsche or not, I see a lot of Nietzsche reflected in her works.
needstoregister 5 months ago
Funny, all that market forces decidiing if something is shit eh? Irony.. brilliant. FOAD RAND.
stewie1974 6 months ago
Comment removed
stewie1974 6 months ago
i'm also a big fan of Ayn Rand.
Barry62152 6 months ago
anthem for me is better, I will love to see a move about that book
Coteincdr 6 months ago
I read a bit into Atlas Shrugged but I just didn't jive with it. The characters weren't realistic to me at all. The objectivist characters seemed cold and purely profit driven and had no desire for family, friends, or hobbies. And the non-objectivist characters that they were contrasted with were just so liberal in a stupid way and naive way.
ThaGMan51 7 months ago
penn, its a good thing that you liked the book and the movie because i do too.
Barry62152 7 months ago
The Ledge is going to be the atheistic Passion of the Christ or Brokeback Mountain.
cmfic36 7 months ago
I'm part of the Ayn Rand haters. I never read Atlas Shrugged, but I read the Fountainhead and anthem. I think the ideas of finding your own happiness is great. The problem is, from what I've seen of Ayn Rand, she takes her philosophy too direct. I really think she thinks that it is a sin to help others. Maybe she just presented it poorly in the fountainhead, and Atlas shrugged is a better representation. Also, her books are just rediculous.
farc300 7 months ago
I liked Atlas Shrugged and cant wait for part 2.
vlloyd651 7 months ago
@vlloyd651 I just hope it doesn't turn out like The Golden Compass did.
MortisCityHC 6 months ago
Arguing with someone on the Internet is like running in the Special Olympics. You may win, but it doesn't change the fact that you are a retard!
gtrman2002 7 months ago 4
Penn is so right about this. Rand haters are the biggest bitches in the world. So much for "to each is own".
ShrugMeSilly245 7 months ago 11
@ShrugMeSilly245 Would you rather have your parents taken care of in an old home run by government or family? Where is the compassion there? She advocated freedom of choice in taking care of your own, you advocate taking money away from us to pay for the care of others. A hater is someone who forces you into poverty by taking away your freedom, Rand was absolutely the opposite. Your assumptions need checking, socialism is the antithesis of love, they use people as human fodder.
SuperCLabs 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ayn Rand's philosophy does not work because it leads to utter chaos and degeneration.
deathtotheism 8 months ago
3:11 and he hasnt said a damn thing.
zech823 8 months ago
For me, the question I ask is whether I would go see (or purchase) the movie after the initial encounter. For "Atlas Shrugged", the answer is, yes.
redbottleneck 8 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber "I didn't say I was a fan of Rothbard. But I have read and am familiar with his work and ideas."
let me refresh your memory of what you said: "There are plenty of right-wing libertarian thinkers WHOSE WORK I RESPECT: Murray Rothbard, for instance." (emphasis mine)
bit of a difference from just familiarity, don't you think?
Yeah, I am aware that the 2 big establishment factions (right/left) are against her. So what? These fools have led countries to all kinds of disaster.
nurbSoldier 8 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber Excuse me, I've addressed every point you tried to make to me and supplied evidence. I called you on your appeals to authority and even provided the definition. I then went after you for at least 1 false statement regarding Rothbard, as well as contradictory claims you made about yourself.
Really, you are making whiny personal attacks at this point because facts are just not on your side.
nurbSoldier 8 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber first your'e a socialist and now yourr'e Murray Rothbard's biggest fan.
riiiiiiiiiight....
nurbSoldier 8 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber argument ad repeatum without providing proofum
nurbSoldier 8 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber
"And again, its richly ironic for an Objectivist to criticize someone for making an appeal to authority." Why is that?
"I was simply pointing out the fact that academic philosophers and the literary world rejected Rand. And it isn't only leftists who reject her: Buckley, Rothbard, Friedman, etc"
...aaaand your'e doing it again... :rolls eyes:
I get the impression you haven't read anything she wrote. Oh, wrong about Rothbard. His critiques of her were minor.
nurbSoldier 8 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber "I didn't run to the intellectual establishment or make any appeal to authority." Actually you did with this quote: "but the larger academic and literary world has definitively spoken on Rand and her work"
According to Wikipedia:
"Argument from authority (also known as appeal to authority) is a fallacy of defective induction, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative."
nurbSoldier 8 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber Well I don't think there is only one reasonable way to live ones life, but I think we can agree that there are certain things that a reasonable person does not do. For example, a rational and reasonable person relies on actual evidence to back up arguments, rather than running to the intellectual establishment for help. Which is just an appeal to authority.
The same intellectual class which is often known for supporting communism through the years.
nurbSoldier 8 months ago
Liking that fool Ayn Rand is one thing, but not appreciating Raging Bull? Whoa, man. And you know, when Penn says this is the "only science fiction story" he likes, that he knows nothing of SF.
onearmkill 8 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber Again, you are wrong. You formulate your "facts" on opnions, nothing more. Find me proof of your claims, reason-base proof.
If my way of life is based on reason, and you cannot refute them on reason, then you -are- being "irrational and dishonest."
TheMrSeagull 8 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber You are completely and totally wrong. If a person doesn't come to an objectivist point of view without critical thinking, then they don't belong. It's about the individual, not herd mentality.
This is an illogical argument anyhow, you're attacking Objectism by what you see as it's mentality to others, not on its principles.
What it all comes down to is this: I will live my life as I see fit, niether sacrificing others for me, nor myself for others.
TheMrSeagull 8 months ago
@TheMrSeagull I know this is like, months later, but I just ran across this and couldn't pass this one up. You said: "If a person doesn't come to an objectivist point of view without critical thinking, then they don't belong. It's about the individual, not herd mentality." Really? REALLY?
If you can unilaterally decide that someone 'doesn't belong' based on one principle devoid of context, it is a herd mentality. Continued..
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull Part 2: Not that that's all bad; collectivism is responsible for things like farming, etc., but when a group claims to be self-righteously individualistic while actually being extremely and brutally collectivist (without even making it worth it!), I have to speak up. Hell naw.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl You seem to have mistaken my point, and wildly mischaracterized it. Objectivism is not a club or political party, it's a clearly defined philosophy. If you don't know or understand the concepts of a philosophy, you can't rightly identify yourself as a follower of it.
To quote Rand directly...
If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. (cont.)
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull Ok, I respectfully disagree, both on Objectivism not being a club and on it being a "clearly defined philosophy." What I get from that quote is basically, 'If you don't have a perfect understanding of what a philosophy is, any discussion will be stupid and useless." However, even very knowledgeable people sometimes have stupid discussions, and philosophical discussions can be productive if everyone doesn't know everything from the beginning. Hell, it's called education!
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl
But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot—nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence."
On farming - people farmed first to survive. These were subsistence farmers. When farming became more refined, they could produce more than they needed, so they could then trade it for other goods or services.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull I used to consider myself an Objectivist, for years, actually, but then I thought about what the purpose of an economy is. Is it to facilitate human quality of life, or to exalt/punish people based on an arbitrary, emotionally-based moralistic system? Furthermore, should we exalt/punish people based on where they are born into said arbitrary moralistic system? Sounds like the damn Catholic Church!
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull I don't think we really disagree about farming, though you do understand that it was almost never "one man, one farm," right? The logistics of making that happen are counterproductive.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl Your opinion is irrelevant on whether or not Objectivism is a philosophy, just because you disagree with, or don’t understand, a philosophy, doesn’t revoke its categorization.
I’m stating that to define yourself as anything you need to understand it before-hand, and that you can’t identify yourself as a follower of a philosophy without a firm understanding, of the primary branches. In Objectivism, that would be Objective Reality, Reason, self-interest, and Capitalism.
(cont.)
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull LOL, ok, we can both say that each other's opinions are irrelevant if we want, though it is snotty and unproductive. We're both just people. Anyway, my main disagreement was with Objectivism being a CLEARLY DEFINED philosophy. And you sure can define yourself as a supporter of something without completely understanding it. Are you for or against particle physics? Gene therapy?
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl
I’m not sure where you’re coming from on your evaluation of economies and Objectivism. In the simplest definition of the political branch, it’s individuals freely exchanging good and services voluntarily without any use of force – Capitalism. Where you are born has nothing to do with your value, nor does warrant exaltation or punishment. What matters is that you live for your own rational self-interest, deal with others as traders, and the prohibition of force.
(cont.)
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull Refraining from the use of all force is impossible if you want to stay alive. I suppose I have come to this conclusion because I don't believe that anyone deserves any particular birthrights more than anyone else does; therefore keeping and using them is the arbitrary application of force on everyone else. This creates situations in which free will is gray if you think about the real-world consequences of exchanges rather than simply ignoring them as 'irrelevant.' Continued..
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull Putting a gun to someone's head and demanding $10,000 has the same implications and results as charging someone $10,000 for lifesaving medicine. I used to be able to ignore that, but a time may come for you too when you can't anymore. You also can't prohibit force without using it. Where you are born may have nothing to do with your basic value, but if you are born into a shitty, ignorant situation, nothing will save you unless someone else intervenes or you are very, very lucky. C
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl
Let's come to this quesiton then - Because someone is ill, does that he has a right to enslave a doctor? Or maybe someone who produces the medicine or equimpment to survive? If you said yes, this means that you beleive that some people deserve rights, while others don't.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl I never advocated anarchy in the least, only Laissez-faire capitalism. In a free market, individuals cannot amass wealth without productivity unless they do so by force, which is the primary role of government to prohibit. Crony capitalism won’t exist if the government doesn’t have the power to effect trade. Look at Microsoft. Before it was hit by anti-trust litigation, it didn’t contribute a dime to politicians. Now it throws its money around, and the FTC leaves them alone.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
What you omit is the fact that the $10,000 for the lifesaving medicine pays for the years of Research and Development required to bring it to market. It isn't unusual for a company to spend 1 billion on such a venture with no guarantee of success (and success also means having to pay for failures). Thus, this miracle medicine would never have existed in your world because an initial price of $50 (for example) would have made it economically unfeasible.
SuperCLabs 1 month ago
@SuperCLabs I know that; please don't patronize me. What you just said is the reason we "can't" save a life without ruining it. Thing is, we actually can do better, just as the rest of the developed world does. Insurance companies are simply too large a drain on the economy, which shrinks the pool of paying customers further and further, causing the price of health care to spiral higher and higher. They also have to be big enough to influence the government, creating inevitable crony capitalism.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@SuperCLabs How is public health different than public safety?
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl Public safety differs as it deals with one person causing harm to another through coercion. You are responsible for your own health, blaming bad choices that you exercise through your own free will on others is a fallacy. Protecting people from their own folly only destroys them incrementally. Eventually you end up with total helplessness and a life of complete oversight by the state.
SuperCLabs 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull Continued: How would you ever have an inkling that, for example, improving your own situation was possible if all you had ever seen was other people trying and failing at it? Under Objectivism, are you supposed to eschew learning from your own observations of the world you live in?
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl I’m also not sure what you mean about farming – Are you stating that a farm is impossible with one individual?
Of course, if we all had to farm our own food, we would lose significant productivity, but the farmer has no obligation to provide his product to me, ethically or legally. If I don’t want to spend my time farming or hunting my own food, I need to provide something of value to the farmer in trade for that which I value from him.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull I wouldn't say impossible, but damn near so. The first agrarian societies were compulsory collectives - if you were physically able to work, you worked or you were cast into the wilderness to your very probable death. All I was trying to say before is that there is a reasonable amount of collectivism that is necessary for survival.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl
Throughout all your replies you twisted my words – I never said your opinion is irrelevant, I said opinions do not change the –fact- that Objectivism is a philosophy.
I’m not sure how clearly I can phrase “Objective reality, Reason, Self-interest, and Capitalism.”
You don’t have to fully understand something to SUPPORT it, but to DEFINE yourself as an Objectivist, you have to have a strong grasps on the metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheMrSeagull One final point that I'm having trouble making myself leave without making is that the more wealth you already have, the easier it is to get more. If you can refute this, I'd love to hear it. Wealth is also functionally the same as power. Given enough time, the logical eventuality of this is crony capitalism. Abolish the State and super-wealthy megalomaniacs will just make a new one and the poor can't do anything about it. We see it over and over. Use your reason, dude. Peace.
amazinggoatgirl 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl
If there is one thing this path I’ve chosen has taught me that a majority opinion does not mean it’s a correct opinion, or a fact. Even if I was surrounded by depravity, violence, and anarchy, I choose to not succumb. That’s the point of having a philosophy, so I know how live my life, and I’d rather die fighting to survive by my own means than at someone else’s expense.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@amazinggoatgirl
On your last point, your example works against you. What you define as collectivism is incorrect, as a situation where an able individual produces nothing of value, and makes no effort to correct this, will perish can occur in both a collectivist and individualist society. The former enforces this by power of law and force (which can often change the definition of “unproductive”), the latter by the natural repercussions of a self-destructive lifestyle.
TheMrSeagull 1 month ago
@TheCrookedTimber Sorry, but your premesis is well beyond reason. Your argument is is seemingly based off of the opinions of others and a casual glance. Head over to the objectivismonline forums and take a look at the discussions there, then formulate your opinion on the "cult"
TheMrSeagull 8 months ago
I can't thank Penn enough for turning me on to Ayn Rand during his radio show. I have since read Atlas several times as well as most of Rand's other works. I was ecstatic at the thought of the an AS movie, and despite the movie moving through the story at break neck speed. I liked it! If nothing else it may spark new interest in Randian principles to people who otherwise may never have been exposed to real rational thinking.
cbrown7318 8 months ago
@TheCrookedTimber It's hard for me to approach any of your points rationally because they are formed in a rickety foundation of irrationality.
I'm not sure what textbook you're getting your definition of "Brainwashing," but no follower of Rand (who's truly following her philosophy) will ever force anyone to conform to their thinking. If someone cannot come to the same conclusion as us through sound reasoning, then so be it.
TheMrSeagull 8 months ago
Quick Penn, see if you can get a role in the next two. Maybe you could try to Cuffy meigs, that would be a funny role to see you play.
TheMrSeagull 8 months ago
Please go to the bathroom and stop wobbling back and forth between two cameras. It's distracting, dizzying, and annoying. Thank you
MagiMysteryTour 8 months ago
There are so many points in this, that I've been trying to make for ages. This guy understands the whole thing the way it should be understood on multiple levels. I'm impressed.
Travailer7 9 months ago
I haven't seen the movie yet, as I live in Canada, surrounded by socialists, so there really isn't a theatre willing to take the loss by showing it.
I do have one VERY important point... You forgot "faggot". "Cunt" is pretty good, but "faggot" is pretty close to the top of words that get reactions. You were spot on with "n-word." In fact, you pussied out so much you didn't even say "nigger" in its entirety, so I just did it for you. It's cool though. I'm allowed... I'm Canadian.
PRWelke 9 months ago
Atlas Shrugged Penn, apparently the book is better than the movie, randian disciples, hard core objectivists have said this film don't do the book justice. But if you like it, fair enough i liked sucker punch, not many other people do. Also Grant Bowler was in it, always enjoy a bit of Grant in things. Ayn Rand did have a legitimaye philosophy, it's whether people can use it to live a prosperous life that will be the barometer for it's success.
Remus0387 9 months ago
Fellow atheists who laugh at followers of the Bible (ficiton) have told me Atlas Shrugged (fiction) will make me a believer. Atheist Objectives use arguments from creationism: book sells well and influential, figurehead of unquestionable integrity, alternately claiming majority believers while whining they are abused minority, thinking anyone who doesn't agree must have the most extreme opposing view, dismissing examples where the economic model catastrophically failed when applied.
netmystique 9 months ago
@netmystique So... Liberals?
darkicyrose 9 months ago
@netmystique Holy misguided conflation batman. You're probably being sarcastic and I must be too thick to realize it. I hope you realize these guys are a very vocal minority of the youtube atheist community. A community which barely agrees about any subject other than to profess their lack of a god belief. That lack of believe is the only glue. So for you to imply that we (I assume you too) follow a one-book ideological mindset, seems very wrong. Even if intended as a swipe against libertarians
SheBlindedMeWScience 9 months ago
@SheBlindedMeWScience These were not people on YouTube, these were other atheists I have met in person. Several times I have encountered atheists who follow the pattern: (1) most atheists are Libertarians! (2) They aren't? Well, we're the rational minority! I have encountered several self-proclaimed Objectivists who are of a one-book ideological mindset. I am not saying all atheists are like this, I am stating my experience with the Libertarian and Objectivists I have met.
netmystique 9 months ago
Everyone knows the Zionists are behind all of the FALSE FLAG OPERATIONS done in the U.S. The ruthless criminal Gang known as The Bush Family helped of course, especially Dubbya and his Zionist Government Thugs such as Wolfowitz, Chertof, etc. The truth is we have no government, except corrupt little idiots at the local levels, only mouthpieces for the Zionists. Obama is our first "actor" president. The U. S. has no real president - only a guy who follows a teleprompter.
biggoyim 9 months ago
@biggoyim Huh?
netmystique 9 months ago
I can understand the issues have with being forced to be charitable. A lot of people want to give, and a lot of people don't. The problem is, the isn't enough aid from the willing to reach everyone who needs help. So you have to decide between two tough choices: let people suffer or force charity.
004forever 9 months ago
@004forever
"Charity: The voluntary giving of help, typically money, to those in need."
Therefore, using thugs or the force of big governments can never be charitable, by definition. Societies that support this method will get what they deserve.
mustang607 9 months ago
@mustang607 You're attacking my point on an entirely semantic level. Just because something doesn't meet the definition of charity, doesn't mean it isn't important. Call it aid then
004forever 9 months ago
@004forever
Ok, you can call it aid then. Aiding one group by hurting another while also supporting a growing "thug" mentality. A negative sum gain. I think people should choose the rational route of voluntarily trading. A positive sum gain. Most people are charitable by nature. But how can we tell anymore when a wanting society takes the lazy and dangerous route of using terror and theft, for some "greater good," which is replacing true charity?
mustang607 9 months ago
@mustang607 It's not a negative sum gain. It is helping another person by hurting another, but the benefits are greater. Helping a person get a place to live or food and thus helping them live has a greater benefit then then giving someone the ability to buy a third house. I agree with you that we should have voluntary trade and should have charitability in this culture. However, I don't think it's right that other people need to suffer and die so that someone else can choose to be greedy.
004forever 9 months ago
@004forever
Forced redistribution of wealth is ALWAYS a negative sum gain, where as voluntary trade is ALWAYS a positive sum gain, according to math. Taking what others have earned by force has huge long term consequences. Now it is possible that someone who creates wealth will buy a another car, but it is also possible that their mind will find a cure to cancer, or create a new way to extract water, or create a more efficiency energy source. But without freedom these things may never happen.
mustang607 9 months ago
@mustang607 there are any number of people who could cure cancer if they had the education and the resources. There's nothing special about the upper class other than the fact that they have those advantages, but we could very easily give those advantages to the lower class by improving the education system or making public institutions more affordable. Here's something for your math. Which system is going to produce a cure for cancer first, one with 3 capable individuals or one with 30?
004forever 9 months ago
@004forever
I see you believe that aiding one person requires hurting another. Do you understand that things are bad and getting worse because you and others think that "good" intentions require bad means? This is negative sum gain thinking. We in America are simply seeing the results of this kind of thinking placed into action.
mustang607 9 months ago
@mustang607 And putting things in all caps ALWAYS means it must be true, no evidence required, and no counter arguments considered relevant..
netmystique 9 months ago
@004forever Can you explain what you mean by giving some one the ability to buy a third house. Who is giving them the ability? "However, I don't think it's right that other people need to suffer and die so that someone else can choose to be greedy." So are you saying that you can only be successful and have extra if some one else is without? So in your world, everyone would have equal amounts of economic power, but what would that economic power be?
unklejman 9 months ago
Belive me I have tried to understand free marked capitalism, but I cant. I can not understand how people do not instantly see how it fails as a model for our society.
All unregulated competition will sooner or later end with one victorious and one defeated. So its only a matter of time before we are all customers(slaves) to one master corporation. And guess what, we can't vote that shit out of office like we can with government.
There is a reason EU does not have the same problem as the US.
TheSaltyAdmiral 9 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral You know if some business is making the best quality product I need for the best price and with the best service then that will be the business I'll want to buy from. If another business makes a better quality product at a better price with even better service then I'll buy it from them. So long as a business is doing the best why shouldn't people buy from them? I just don't understand your master business concept unless you also have big government or no government.
Solverwiz 9 months ago
@Solverwiz
It would be easier to understand if you knew how much goverment have to do today just to keep my scenario from happening.
Do you know what illegal price-fixing means, business LOVE to do it, because they both win. Problem is, we the customers loose big time. Thats why government(we)made it illegal, to protect us.
CD players and hairspray is one thing, but it gets real nasty when its about products we MUST have, like healthcare, food ect.
TheSaltyAdmiral 9 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral I know what big government does and I know the resulting debt it creates. Nick nack price fixing is rather ineffective in a system of where competition is not hampered or made illegal. The only price fixing I'm worried about comes from big government. That hurts society as a whole. Sky rocketing health care prices are an economic problem and are are caused by big government trying to make it more affordable.
Solverwiz 9 months ago
@Solverwiz
About the health care industry you are simply wrong. You are the only western nation with a private system, and no one have to pay as much as you. Look to Canada, Europe, Japan ect, they all have some sort "sosialized healthcare", and it works!
I know accepting that fact goes against what you belive in, but its the truth.
No country is as privatized as the US, and no country has as big as debt as you, how to you turn that around to be a government problem?
TheSaltyAdmiral 9 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral You vote with your dollars. There can be no monopolies without force. The government is force.
ryratt 9 months ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral There's a real fundamental difference in how people who want more state regulation and those who want less view the world. The ones who want more are usually quite cynical and do not trust their fellow man. Maybe they're right not to, but I'm going to take my chances trusting them first. It's a tit for tat kind of outlook on life where you're positive and trusting first. In game theory, as demonstrated by Dawkins, this is the most beneficial outlook to have.
slaughtz 4 weeks ago
@slaughtz Have mixed feelings, but from personal experience without regulation, the corporations kill, cripple and poison people with impunity. The companies I have worked for are totally repressive, uncaring, lower than a number to them, disposable. On the other hand I believe in creativity and self expression and the right to make ones life better.
DangerousDan77777 3 weeks ago
@DangerousDan77777 Well, how good is self-expression if you can't paint it, write it or speak it? How about, how good is it if I'm forced to support the exact opposite of what I think? How about if every time I was angry I had to act as if I was happy? What kind of life do you think I'd be living? Would it be ethical, good or necessary to make me do this? I don't accept the false dichotomy between two evils. I support no evils voluntarily.
slaughtz 3 weeks ago
@slaughtz There is nothing good about being repressed, been there, done that.
DangerousDan77777 3 weeks ago
@DangerousDan77777 This is what happens with taxation. You don't feel like supporting something (war, theft, etc.) and you are coerced into expressing support (payment) of it.
slaughtz 3 weeks ago
@slaughtz Kind of reminds me of taxation without representation.
DangerousDan77777 3 weeks ago
seriously penn, you got so much money and the advertisement on youtube earns you nickel and dimes, pls do us the favour and skip it
GPunktmod 9 months ago
@GPunktmod Giving up-and-coming private enterprise the opportunity to market their wares in exchange for money is an ideological choice of Penn's, I think, having little to do with how badly he needs the cash himself. He believes in market forces and entrepreneurship. What you see as annoying commercial advertising may be libertarian-motivated public service announcements in his world view, helping hard-working people out.
OolTube02 9 months ago
Hey great job
jsugarcia 9 months ago
I can't wait to see Atlas Shrugged. I live in Puerto Rico and it isn't here in any theaters. The book is amazing and I have noticed that it is cited as inspirational by lots of very successful people. Not a scientific study, but I think Rand's philosophy leads to success in life.
KyleVarner 9 months ago
One could only hope that Atlas Shrugged could pull the numbers of Passion.
I think people hate Atlas Shrugged so much because it hurts their egos. Deep down they know the truth of its implications.
l337pwnage 9 months ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
@l337pwnage People hate Atlas Shrugged because building a railroad in the country of cars and trucks and airplanes is socialism, pure and simple. What's next, someone inventing a source of clean, abundant energy that would put hard-working, capitalist refinery-owners like the Kochs out of business? How much more un-American can you get than Ayn Rand...?
OolTube02 9 months ago
@l337pwnage Spoken like a true fundamentalist christian.
netmystique 9 months ago
@l337pwnage: Spoken like a true fundamentalist christian.
netmystique 9 months ago
Interesting what New Zealand television has to say about Atlas Shrugged and the movie, as well as Obama for that matter.
Search youtube for "Perigo Atlas Shrugged"
mustang607 9 months ago 11
"Crony capitalism" -- you mean like Nevada?
Oops, no, woops, sorry -- didn't mean to touch yer bread 'n butter. My bad.
is3it7lonar 9 months ago
As a musician, I kind of prefer the scale that goes "do re mi fa so la ti do."
I pretty much don't like "me me me me me me me me."
I dunno -- call me kooky.
is3it7lonar 9 months ago
@is3it7lonar Its funny that you bring up musicians. How do you feel about piracy? I'm gonna go rip some CD's in your honor, lol.
l337pwnage 9 months ago
Love your stuff, Penn. Long time fan and sad to see Pennfans.net go down since I was going to re-listen to the ol' FreeFM show. I'm a swedish Atheist who disagree with you on many points (but hey, you're a self-admitted nut ;) ). Didn't like the book/movie, but that's a matter of taste. The problem with Rand is that she's a bad philosopher and is anti-Intellectual. She actually said "I no longer look for intelligent disagreement, I look for intelligent agreement". [Long Rant]YT limit[/Long Rant]
Nasite 9 months ago
@Nasite I Googled your exact Rand quote,
No results found.
Hmmmm?
Solverwiz 9 months ago
@Solverwiz
Sorry. had to paraphrase since I ran out of characters. YT posts have such a tiny limit. You shouldn't Google exact quotes since then a misspelling can rule out stuff:
"I am not looking for intelligent disagreement any longer. What I am looking for is intelligent agreement."
Nasite 9 months ago
1. The vast majority of human beings want the right to possess public goods such as police, pre-school to high school education, public parks, community colleges, public health clinics, public hospitals, roads, and an army
2. This is why people vote for those things overwhelmingly in every democracy in the world including here where even most tea-partyiers support socialist medicare
3. Anarcho Capitalism is un-democratic and would require violence to impose
blahblahblah11129 9 months ago
I dunno if you read these comments, Penn. But I'm an Objectivist and I loved this video you did. Even though you say "Maybe they are" cultish. It seemed like you were basically saying "Who knows? I don't know for sure, so who cares." You're a great guy.
If you want to help your fellow man because you value them, then that's fine. You -should- be able to help people voluntarily if you so choose, and should not be forced to. So many people are incapable of understanding such an easy concept.
Amaroq64 9 months ago
Should we help people because it's fun or should we help people because they need help? Forcing you to help other people might take the the fun out of helping, but it will ensure that people get the help they need (if done in a good way) and that to me is more important.
Laseranders 9 months ago
@Laseranders "Forcing you to help other people..." "(done in a good way)". You sir have just contradicted yourself. You can't initiate force against people in a good way.
Amaroq64 9 months ago 2
@Amaroq64 Well, sir, that's your subjective opinion.
Laseranders 9 months ago
@Amaroq64
Right, but we live in civil society. Humans have lived in society for thousands of years. It's assumed that you recognize that you have to make some minimal sacrifices (such as paying some taxes) to live in civil society with fellow human beings.
If what you are saying is "I want the right to let my fellow citizens die screaming for aid in the street and live in civil society" you are a child.
Plus, can't you 'force' people not to steal or murder in a "good way." Yeah.
blahblahblah11129 9 months ago
@blahblahblah11129 Right, because the government demanding peoples' hard-earned money from them with the threat of forcefully putting them in jail backing it is civil.
You're a child and a moron if you think that a free society entails anyone dying screaming in the street for aid. A truly free society would be a hell of a lot more prosperous than this one. And implicit in your statement is the idea that you have the right to violate my rights. What the hell gives you that right?
Amaroq64 9 months ago
@blahblahblah11129 Also, I don't know if you're really that ignorant or are being intellectually dishonest. But there's a huge difference between a government using retaliatory force to defend its citizens' rights, and initiating force to violate them.
Amaroq64 9 months ago
@Laseranders You know, sometimes when you read Ayn Rand you think to yourself "Oh, come on, now, the things she's arguing against isn't anything anyone would ever argue for in the first place. Now she's just straw-manning."
And then you go about your day, and what do you know - there really are people who think that people's "need" entitles them to buy their happiness with the blood and misery of innocent others.
Despicable, I say.
fab006 9 months ago
@fab006 Wow, that's an interesting interpretation of what I said. Force does not necessarily mean blood and misery, but can be justified to prevent blood and misery. If done in a good way.
Laseranders 9 months ago
@Laseranders If you force some to help others, then you are undoubtedly buying their happiness with those others' blood and misery.
What if they want to help anyway? Well, then there's no need to force them, is there. What if they don't want to help? Ahh, that's where "forcing" enters the picture; either you help or you will be put in prison, or shot, or whatever. So can you not see how forcing implies blood and misery? And that you think is "justified"?
fab006 9 months ago
@fab006 Yes, absolutely. It's funny how you seem to think no one would ever argue for this, yet this is what it looks like in every civilized, democratic country in the world. If you have more than you need and others are starving, not helping gives the same end result as using extreme force, so using just a little bit of force to prevent blood and misery is perfectly fine. It's interesting how you don't seem to have a problem with 'blood and misery', only force, regardless of it's form…
Laseranders 9 months ago
@Laseranders What I have a problem with is using force against innocent people and thinking you have the moral high ground.
"If you have more than you need and others are starving" - then what? Oh, then "using just a little bit of force to prevent blood and misery is perfectly fine."
That's not the question. The question is: what if I don't WANT to help? Do you then have the right to cause me blood and misery? If you think so, don't ever talk about any coherent morality ever again.
fab006 9 months ago
@fab006 Then please explain to me why that is wrong and why you think you have the moral high ground when you think it's perfectly fine that people suffer and die just because some people don't feel like helping and no one has the moral right to force them. If you refuse to help someone who will otherwise die or suffer greatly, despite being able to do so without much sacrifice, how can you be considered innocent?
Laseranders 9 months ago
@Laseranders Well, first of all, if so many people are doing so bad, then the rest can't be all that wealthy (unless they took something by force, which is obviously not the situation we're talking about). But that's economics, not ethics.
More to the point, please you explain to me why you think you have the right to kill or kidnap people. By your reasoning, as long as there is anyone in the world who is suffering, no one else has any right to live for their own sake. That's perverse.
fab006 9 months ago
@fab006 I believe in the prevention of suffering and death. Please explain to me why you think living for your own sake is more important than preventing other people from suffering and dying. Now, that's perverse. Why is force the ultimate and only evil act, objectively speaking?
Laseranders 9 months ago