Reason versus "Self-Ownership"

Is the concept of "self-ownership" compatible with rational philosophy?

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• aaron0883
• Ayn
• Rand
• Objectivism
• Objectivist
• self-ownership
• mind-body
• dichotomy

[watgaanhieraan]

@franks2732 Thank You too Franks for interacting with me.

[franks2732]

@watgaanhieraan Thank you. I really honestly have nothing further. You have indeed answered all my questions. Thank you, indeed thank you

[watgaanhieraan]

@franks2732 Most corporations are a vehicles to generate profit that is all, most people know that they are amoral as concerns other considerations, the fact that the amoral motive of the corporation has now become the major motive of the supposedly moral state is an indication of the morality of the state as at present. the corporation stays true to its original motive the state is now the hypocrite.

[watgaanhieraan]

@franks2732 Its bought period, its over why would you need the "unfettered ability to continue to buy" a system that is already bought, more regulations administered by who "more bought officials", more regulations how about applying that which is already there, mass misrepresentation on mortgage applications lets actively try and get the mortgage administrators prosecuted did that happen, no, no attempt by the federal government, no trying to push in that direction through influence, nada.

[franks2732]

@watgaanhieraan I agree their power is a result of government but not a direct result of government. They "corporations" went and purchased the system. Allowing them the unfettered ability to continue to buy the system as advocated by your ideology is far worse. Your alternative vision is to increase 'private markets' and to weaken regulation further. I have seen the results of that

[franks2732]

@watgaanhieraan No low blow it is your ideology and those who fund your think tanks and your ideological beliefs most certainly are open to question? Do you think I should ignore your beliefs simply because it upsets you? The reality of what 'corporations' do is an acceptable premise as to base what they would do. And your values would not prevent them from acting accordingly. in fact your values would encourage it. Because without regulation what would stop them? I guess they will feel better

[watgaanhieraan]

@franks2732 Yep, dont like those "middle man" to many of them and their sectors are to big. "mission statement" that is a low blow Franks comparing my attempt at defining "free market" to something a corporation would do, actually wait a moment I like it no actual moral content simply a transactional statement as to how to achieve a goal in this case the most efficient way to trade, okay I am unoffended.

[watgaanhieraan]

@franks2732 Franks I belief that most of their power is as a direct result of government and if government did not help them they would be a spent force, what would they be without the bailout and what would they be without the FED, diminished.

If government did not bail them out they would have lost most of their power that is what happened in 2008 that is obvious to me. I am so glad you have double agents within government but from where I am standing it looks like they have been co-opted.

[franks2732]

@watgaanhieraan Dude I am a socialist and yes i do realize that "people within government" have become the representatives of those "castles". But many within government are fighting against the said castle. I do not consider "government" or its size the problem, I see it as the solution to enable real change.But you must believe those who fund your think tanks will simply give up power when your ideals are realized? The same people who try to control government will simply give power to you lol

[franks2732]

@watgaanhieraan Thats not an answer it is a mission statement and funny enough at the business level "middle men" are the ones who make capital exchange work.