Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Andrew Wiggin on November 3, 2011 at 6:00pm

Is our current economic crisis a refutation of Objectivism?  I think so.

Ayn Rand attracted a number of wealthy and influential followers (and even more who wanted to be so).  Longest lasting and most influential was Alan Greenspan, who set policy based in part on Objectivist ideas.  He has publicly admitted that he was wrong about market forces - they did not magically prevent the 2008 collapse.  His last official act was to implement his longest held beliefs about how things should be, and they failed.  So did Objectivism, and so did Ms. Rand.

Kinda harsh, I know, but there it is.

Permalink Reply by Tonya Wynn on November 3, 2011 at 6:18pm

Andrew, your las comment was SO wrong.  The decline in 2008 was MANY things: 1) cyclable. There's a decline on average, every 12 to 15 years.  2) Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  That law regarding housing tripped the housing/mortgage market, and fogged realisitic home building/buying.

3) Most of our products NOW are made overseas, as in China and India, unlike 20,30, 40+ years ago.  So we have less jobs avialable.

4) The USA has a HUGE illegal immagrant-worker issue.  The Central Americans are taking our jobs.  Our poor/under educated need jobs,too or most go on welfare/unemployment.

I could go on and on. 

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on November 3, 2011 at 7:07pm

4) The USA has a HUGE illegal immagrant-worker issue.  The Central Americans are taking our jobs.  Our poor/under educated need jobs,too or most go on welfare/unemployment.

 

Georgia (or was it South Carolina?) tried that.  They tightened down on illegal immigrants, and the end result was farmers with their produce rotting on the stalks.  We need illegal immigrants.  They do jobs that Americans won't do, in many industries.

 

Give them jobs and collect their taxes.  Then, call it a day.  What we need to do is keep the corporations from shipping the jobs off to other countries.  It's time for a little tariff control and protectionism.

Permalink Reply by Paul Thomas Cahill on November 3, 2011 at 10:35pm

The kind of altruism that Rand attacked was the sort that sacrificed a greater value for a lesser one, which on many levels makes no sense whatsoever. However, that is not the totality of what altruism is. Helping the less fortunate through difficult situations does not necessarily involve the aforementioned sacrificial giving, but rather exhibits the inclination of many humans to be compassionate, considerate and humanistic. As long as that is not done at the demand of a government and at the point of a gun, no one should have a complaint. As for the philosophy of Objectivism and all that, I devoured everything Rand wrote, and subscribed to the Objectivist and the Newsletter, but when I visited the Nathaniel Branden Institute in New York City, my youthful starry-eyed fascination with the "movement" was forever deleted due the almost "religious" fervor of the other participants in the Institute.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on November 3, 2011 at 10:43pm

But private altruism never got the job done.  Before Social Security and Welfare, we had a poverty level amongst the elderly which was just disgraceful.  Yes, there are people who cheat the system, and we could use some reform ... but you can't dismantle the social safety-net entirely.  The only entity with a track record for sufficiently taking care of people is the government.

Permalink Reply by Paul Thomas Cahill on November 4, 2011 at 12:50am

I do not disagree, Joseph. The social net established by that great Altruist, the very rich Franklin Delano Roosevelt, was long over due, and the Philosophy of Objectivism would have no room for such governmental interference in the affairs of the poor, downtrodden and aged, hence the inherent flaw in it. Two people, exercising Reason, can reasonably disagree on methods and objectives. There never is just One Rational Answer, unless you happen to be in possession of total and complete knowledge...which to the best of my recollection, there has not yet been One, and of course I include the mythical Jesus of Nazareth in that bunch.

Permalink Reply by Jason Edwin DeLeo on November 4, 2011 at 1:43am

You know I wish everyone on this site would read more history . Before the government stepped in there was charity available as there still is today . Ayn Rand never had a problem with charity . So according to the only dictionary I have altruism is defined as the unselfish concern for the welfare of others . I posit that this is impossible . All concern must first be for one self and only then can you turn to assist others . The way Ayn Rand defined it it was Sacrificing your best to the worst in others . Penalizing ability for being ability and sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice . Also if the government hadn't been draining our wealth for decades by over printing money and sucking our wages out in taxes each individual could have saved and invested that money in his/her own future . Do any of you truly believe it is your personal responsibility to care for and provide for the food , health care , housing and clothing of everyone else on the planet?

From each according to his ability to each according to his needs? This has proven over and over again to fail miserably and tens of millions of people have died because of this particular piece of vicious nonsense. Show me one example where it hasn't ended in bankruptcy and destruction if you can .

Permalink Reply by Andrew Wiggin on November 4, 2011 at 5:21am

> Do any of you truly believe it is your personal responsibility to care for and provide for the food , health care , housing and clothing of everyone else on the planet?

Obviously not, but the original safety net was just for old people, just in this country.  At a time when most people died before age 70 and there were 10 workers to fund each retiree, it made more sense.

> if the government hadn't been draining our wealth for decades by over printing money and sucking our wages out in taxes each individual could have saved and invested that money in his/her own future .

I am skeptical about that.  Again, at the time SS was enacted (acronym pun intentional), there were people who dug ditches and washed floors for a living.  Those people never had a hope of saving enough for a dignified retirement.  The norm was for them to work until they dropped.  SS provided a dignified year or two at the end for everyone - a little more of a boost for those who never prospered, and a little less of a boost for those who did well.

Now, though, programs have been added and expanded, and our country is top-heavy with old people about to retire.  Immigration laws force younger workers into undocumented, noncontributing roles.  If the system survives the next 20 years, it will be a credit to the resilience of America.  In my opinion, of course.

As far as Ayn Rand is concerned, I think she did not worry about such issues.  This kind of thing is outside the scope of Objectivism, which is another reason why that philosophy is too limited to guide a large and complicated population, IMO.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on November 4, 2011 at 7:33am

Before the government stepped in there was charity available as there still is today.

But never enough.  Private charity never got the job done.

I flatly stated in my previous post that there were private charities.  They were just insufficient for the task.

 

You should vote for Herman Cain in this next election.  He thinks that we should do away with Social Security and Medicare and let old people beg for charity at churches.

 

So according to the only dictionary I have altruism is defined as the unselfish concern for the welfare of others.  I posit that this is impossible.

And according to many dictionaries, we atheists are, by definition, immoral.  And according to many dictionaries, a theory is an untested idea or opinion, synonymous with a hypothesis (although I've discovered some better, more thorough ones, recently).

Step outside of the rigid dictionary definitions of absolutes, and use the word how it's actually used.  Your definitions of 'altruism' and 'unselfish' are also far too narrow.  I found, with a simple dictionary.com search, that altruism can mean 'the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others'.  Not so impossible, is that?

 

The way Ayn Rand defined it it was Sacrificing your best to the worst in others.

Which I consider to be a grotesque distortion of altruism.

 

Penalizing ability for being ability and sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice.

And who the fuck do you hear proposing sacrifice for the sake of sacrifice?  Major strawman you have going there.

We sacrifice for the sake of goals and societal health, not sacrifice itself.  Where do you learn this crap?

 

Also if the government hadn't been draining our wealth for decades by over printing money and sucking our wages out in taxes each individual could have saved and invested that money in his/her own future.

Just like people did before the government set up social welfare programs?  Which fantasy world are you living in?

 

From each according to his ability to each according to his needs?

Which is Communism, not Socialism.  Communism is a fairytale system as well, just on the opposite side of the spectrum from Libertarianism.  I already said so, elsewhere in this thread.  You're strawmanning, again.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on November 4, 2011 at 7:39am

Two people, exercising Reason, can reasonably disagree on methods and objectives.  There never is just One Rational Answer ...

Yet, you can study historical trends.  Even in the present day, more socialist countries have a much better standard of societal health.  There are ways to study results and expose some opinions as dogma, claiming outcomes that are impossible.

 

There are often multiple ways of solving a problem.  That doesn't exclude the possibility of solutions that are just wrong and counterproductive.

Permalink Reply by Jason Edwin DeLeo on November 4, 2011 at 12:04pm

Joseph what is societal health ? Define it for me . And if you all continue to take things out of context and engage in ad hominen attacks this conversation will end at least from my side as I will cease to bother.

Permalink Reply by Joseph P on November 4, 2011 at 12:24pm

Societal health is less a simply defined word and more a list of things: average education, physical health, happiness, crime rates, income disparity, along with many others.

 

So, one joke about Herman Cain, and you refuse to respond to anything in my post?  Christ.

I couldn't care less if you continue the conversation.  I notice you avoided responding to a single point I made.  I'm beginning to think it's a waste of my time.  Funny how often I get that feeling, when I talk to Libertarians.

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• …
• 11
• Next ›
• Page