quote: StarLisa said: I have no problem at all with someone polluting their own stretch of land. The moment a single molecule goes onto someone else's property, they should be shut down until they can stop it from happening.
Wow. And who, pray tell, would be doing this "shutting down". Oh, yes, the government. Thank you for proving everyone else's point. One of the major weaknesses of laizes-faire capitalism is negative externalities such as pollution. History has shown (and don't patronize us by asking for examples) that corporations are less than proactive about reducing their own pollutants; hence, the government must step in and provide regulations. Of course, like you said, it wouldn't matter if the company was polluting its own land. The problem is that things like airborn molecules, radiation, sewage, etc. have a tendency to to dissapate into surrounding areas; thus, government regulations are necessary to check these forces.
quote: StarLisa said: That's actually a lot stricter a position on the environment than the EPA has, but it's an obviously moral one.
Automobiles are another case in point. The idea that even the emissions that are currently permitted should be permitted is appalling.
Once again you're using the language of the opposing side in your arguement. Permitted? Permitted by whom? It's the government that regulates things like automobile emissions.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would you like me to bring up MS and the deals it made with computer manufacturers instead ?
And there have been times when three soft drink companies have controlled the market; I merely provided an example of what they could have done absent anti-trust laws. Note that last qualifier.
As for better product, you've created a degenerate, circular definition of better, where better is always the one that has succeeded so the one that succeeded is better. VHS/betamax is a bad example for other reasons, but you might take a look at my skilled craftsman making chairs vs mass produced similar wood chairs example for a good one.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You asked for monopolies in a country that doesn't have government meddling in the economy. You know that there are no such countries. So you're really just engaging in lame debating tricks.
It's not a lame trick. I'm pointing out -- effectively, I hope -- that you're speaking in as broad and unapplied a hypothetical voice as you accuse your critics of using. Your theoretical "ideal" monopoly has never existed -- there have never even been conditions on this planet in which it could have existed -- and so by making sweeping generalizations about its performance, you're ultimately making claims as baseless as, say, "Yeah, Soviet Russia failed, but real communism is bound to work."
quote: I guess that's hard to understand if you think that there's no objective right and wrong, and that all standards of right and wrong are determined by whoever has the biggest mob.
If you substitute the word "strongest" for "biggest," I think you've just defined Objectivism.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: It's not a lame trick. I'm pointing out -- effectively, I hope -- that you're speaking in as broad and unapplied a hypothetical voice as you accuse your critics of using. Your theoretical "ideal" monopoly has never existed -- there have never even been conditions on this planet in which it could have existed -- and so by making sweeping generalizations about its performance, you're ultimately making claims as baseless as, say, "Yeah, Soviet Russia failed, but real communism is bound to work."
Thank you Tom. I've been trying to determine how to word this exact point (complete with your example of a baseless claim) but you beat me to the punch. Nicely put.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: StarLisa said: I have no problem at all with someone polluting their own stretch of land. The moment a single molecule goes onto someone else's property, they should be shut down until they can stop it from happening.
Wow. And who, pray tell, would be doing this "shutting down". Oh, yes, the government. Thank you for proving everyone else's point.
Um... and how long have you been suffering from this reading comprehension problem?
I am not an anarchist. Of course the government must prevent one person (or group or company) from harming others. As I posted before, my right to swing my fist ends where your nose starts. And the government must enforce that.
What does that have to do with regulating businesses? That's police work, plain and simple. If you want to limit "regulatory" bodies to those that ensure that companies don't violate the rights of individuals, fine. I'm all for that. No one has the right to violate the rights of anyone else. That's not what we're talking about, here.
And let me make this really clear: helping and not harming are not the same thing.
You are entitled to insist -- with the government backing you up -- that I not punch you in the nose, steal your car, enslave your children, or break a contract we made together. You are not entitled to insist that I pay for your health care, employ you, do business with you, rent to you, play cards with you or shake hands with you.
Get it?
quote:Originally posted by His Savageness: One of the major weaknesses of laizes-faire capitalism is negative externalities such as pollution.
That's wacked. There's nothing about a free market that has anything to do with pollution. Do you think that factories in the old Soviet Union didn't pollute?
If there's a problem of people littering, you stop them from littering. If there's a problem with people leaking hexa-whatever into the groundwater, shut them down until they take care of it. What does either of those have to do with a free market?
quote:Originally posted by His Savageness: History has shown (and don't patronize us by asking for examples)
It's hardly patronizing. When claims have been made here that I think are false, and that cannot be substantiated, I have asked for examples to the contrary. What exactly is patronizing about that? Or do you have a unique definition for that word, as well?
quote:Originally posted by His Savageness: that corporations are less than proactive about reducing their own pollutants; hence, the government must step in and provide regulations.
No. Used to be that people would toss candy wrappers out their car windows on the highway. The answer wasn't regulating how people open things in their cars. It was fining the hell out of them for doing it.
Do a bad thing, get punished. Even my five year old daughter can grasp that one.
You're talking about punishing people in advance. You're talking about guilty until proven innocent. You're talking about saying, "Well, we know that capitalists are a bunch of polluting jerks, so we're going to tell you how to do everything in your factory, even though you've never polluted at all."
quote:Originally posted by His Savageness: Of course, like you said, it wouldn't matter if the company was polluting its own land. The problem is that things like airborn molecules, radiation, sewage, etc. have a tendency to to dissapate into surrounding areas; thus, government regulations are necessary to check these forces.
Like police, patrolling a neighborhood. That's fine. I have no problem with that. But that's not regulating. That's patrolling and, where necessary, punishing. That's plain old law enforcement. Regulation is determining what tools may be used and what prices may be charged.
My father is a doctor. He's an ear, nose and throat doc, and a surgeon. People love him. He does everything he can to make his practice great.
About 15 years ago, or so, a device came on the market. See, I grew up having strep throat a lot, so I know how long it used to take to get the results of a throat culture. My Dad used to bring a culturette home, swab the back of my throat, and bring it into the hospital the next morning. Sometimes, he'd even have an answer by the end of that day. Sometimes he'd have to wait until the next day.
Well, this device that was being sold would give you results in 15 minutes. It was expensive. Something like $6,000, if I recall correctly. But my Dad figured that a 15 minute throat culture result was worth it.
So he bought it.
And then the government came by. They told him that he'd have to pay a hefty tax penalty if he kept the machine. Why? Because it wasn't fair to doctors and clinics that couldn't afford the machine.
Well, he'd been stretching just to get the machine. There was no way he was going to be able to pay the tax penalty as well. So he had to get rid of the machine.
That's regulation.
quote:Originally posted by His Savageness:
quote: StarLisa said: That's actually a lot stricter a position on the environment than the EPA has, but it's an obviously moral one.
Automobiles are another case in point. The idea that even the emissions that are currently permitted should be permitted is appalling.
Once again you're using the language of the opposing side in your arguement.
You only think that because you persist in misunderstanding my position. I am not against the government protecting rights. Police, army and courts, dude. That's it.
quote:Originally posted by His Savageness: Permitted? Permitted by whom? It's the government that regulates things like automobile emissions.
Hey, just let me know if any of this has managed to penetrate. Should I use smaller words?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Would you like me to bring up MS and the deals it made with computer manufacturers instead ?
Were they voluntary?
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: And there have been times when three soft drink companies have controlled the market; I merely provided an example of what they could have done absent anti-trust laws. Note that last qualifier.
No, there have not been times when three soft drink companies have controlled the market.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: As for better product, you've created a degenerate, circular definition of better, where better is always the one that has succeeded so the one that succeeded is better.
Not at all. I'm merely saying that VHS media succeeded over Beta because VHS machines were a better product. You're all focused on picture quality, but if I have to use a crappy machine to get that quality, it's not worth as much to me.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: VHS/betamax is a bad example for other reasons, but you might take a look at my skilled craftsman making chairs vs mass produced similar wood chairs example for a good one.
What about chairs? What point are you trying to make?
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You asked for monopolies in a country that doesn't have government meddling in the economy. You know that there are no such countries. So you're really just engaging in lame debating tricks.
It's not a lame trick. I'm pointing out -- effectively, I hope -- that you're speaking in as broad and unapplied a hypothetical voice as you accuse your critics of using. Your theoretical "ideal" monopoly has never existed -- there have never even been conditions on this planet in which it could have existed -- and so by making sweeping generalizations about its performance, you're ultimately making claims as baseless as, say, "Yeah, Soviet Russia failed, but real communism is bound to work."
I've never said anything about an "ideal monopoly". In fact, I claim that (with very few exceptions) there is no such thing as a monopoly that is not held in place by government power. And those very few exceptions, if they actually exist, are both good deals for the consumer and invariably ephemeral.
Give me an example of a monopoly that came into being without government sponsorship/patronage and that is bad for anyone. That's the big boogeyman you keep waving around. Surely you should be able to point to one.
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:I guess that's hard to understand if you think that there's no objective right and wrong, and that all standards of right and wrong are determined by whoever has the biggest mob.
If you substitute the word "strongest" for "biggest," I think you've just defined Objectivism.
Not at all. You, on the other hand, certainly have just defined your knowledge of Objectivism.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Give me an example of a monopoly that came into being without government sponsorship/patronage and that is bad for anyone. That's the big boogeyman you keep waving around.
Leaving aside the issue of whether or not I have been waving around this boogeyman, I feel the need to point out that monopolies which arise without government sponsorship and monopolies which prolong their existence through government sponsorship obtained following their monopoly status are two different things.
quote:You, on the other hand, certainly have just defined your knowledge of Objectivism.
Nope. I'm pretty familiar with Objectivism, actually. And I submit that in a truly Objectivist society, there is absolutely no practical difference between these two scenarios; the idea that Force is some absolute sin that somehow won't get applied by "moral" people who just happen to form a majority is no more likely to have any basis in reality than communism's famous call for the dictatorship to surrender power to the people early in its development. The ethical distinction that is drawn in Objectivism between relying on the "Force" of a government or armed mob and between literally inflicting economic ruin on rivals -- one of these is "empirically bad," and the other one is "not empirically bad" -- is a distinction I believe to be a bit too fine for actual use; creating, for example, a software platform good enough to become the dominant player in the market is fine, but why then is it ethical for you to decide to not permit a competitor's calculator widget to run on your platform? And why is that more ethical than working hard to become bigger and stronger than everybody else, and then beating the crap out of people who don't do what you say? Rand's answers to these questions are, IMO, remarkably disingenuous.
Seriously, you seem to be attempting to incorporate some concept of absolute morality into a concept of subjective wealth, and the two go together like peanut butter and fish.
posted
I'm going to avoid trying to comment on everything you say, as much of it has been handily addressed, your protestations to the contrary.
quote:Actually, you're making the far more common mistake of separating them. Acts are moral or immoral. The idea that there's some domain called economics that's detached from this is bizarre. It is immoral for me to force the guy in the cubicle next to me to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to do business with me. If someone has entered into a contract with me, it is not immoral for me to force them to adhere to their contractual obligations. No contractual obligations can ever exist except by the free choice of those entering into them.
This, though, is worthy of commentary. There are plenty of acts which are not morally relevant -- what I choose to drink with lunch is almost never a moral choice, for instance, but it is always an economic choice.
Also, an interesting notion, here. There are plenty of people who enter knowingly into absurd contracts under our current legal system. For instance, scientology contracts typically involve incredible sums of money at unheard-of interest rates. The church of scientology doesn't try to enforce them in courts of law because they would be struck down. They are, however, entered into willingly by both parties. Would you uphold such contracts?
Your notion of no particle of pollution being allowed on someone else's land is amusingly absurd due to being impossible, particularly as pollution is, to a certain extent, subjective. Also, I would love to see what your moral justification for ownership of land is.
Your rejection of society by analogy is quaint. "There are no such things as people, there are only atoms which we like to talk about in groups."
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, though I do think many of your criticisms of Mr. Squicky are quite valid (as I noted in my first post on this issue, and as has continued), I just find his position to have less negative affect surrounding its advocacy in public affairs.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: StarLisa said: That's wacked. There's nothing about a free market that has anything to do with pollution. Do you think that factories in the old Soviet Union didn't pollute?
If there's a problem of people littering, you stop them from littering. If there's a problem with people leaking hexa-whatever into the groundwater, shut them down until they take care of it. What does either of those have to do with a free market?
Pollution is considered a negative externality and negative externalities are considered a failure of a free market. Here's a nice little summary of this principle: Linky
Just because pollution also existed in Communist Russia does not prove anything. The two systems are not necessarily mutually exclusive. A weakness of one could be shared by the other.
quote: It's hardly patronizing. When claims have been made here that I think are false, and that cannot be substantiated, I have asked for examples to the contrary. What exactly is patronizing about that? Or do you have a unique definition for that word, as well?
It wasn't my intention to imply that you had been patronizing in the past. However, you have been pretty example hungry, to the point that us would seem you're using your insistence for examples to avoid addressing other peoples' contentions. I felt that you would be patronizing us by asking for an example in this instance.
quote: Like police, patrolling a neighborhood. That's fine. I have no problem with that. But that's not regulating. That's patrolling and, where necessary, punishing. That's plain old law enforcement. Regulation is determining what tools may be used and what prices may be charged.
Regulation is also stipulating and enforcing what amount of emissions of a certain chemical into the air, water, etc. are considered to be safe. You missed my point here. You said that as long as a company pollutes its own land that's fine, but once it pollutes one molecule of another's property, the company should be shut down. I was attempting to illustrate that it is practically impossible for any company to go about its daily activities without polluting someone else's property, be it personal, corporate, or public. By saying that a company should be shut down for polluting one molecule of another's property you were endorsing a form of government interventionism (and you're right, in this case the government would be going well beyond regulation) that is extreme to 95% of the opposing view, and certainly foreign to your own.
Posts: 194 | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Regulation is making it so people can't make other people work in areas filled with asbestos dust absent appropriate protection, even if they can get people to agree to it (which they would be able to, there are plenty of poor people out of tune with risk).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Bokonon: The beta machines had no better or worse quality than VHS. At least, I have never heard of quality issues with the player being a concern.
posted
I'm getting tired of repeating the same things over and over, so I'm going to take off. But I do want to answer a couple of things here. After which, anyone who wants the last word is welcome to it.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13:
quote:Actually, you're making the far more common mistake of separating them. Acts are moral or immoral. The idea that there's some domain called economics that's detached from this is bizarre. It is immoral for me to force the guy in the cubicle next to me to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to invest in my idea. It is immoral for me to force anyone to do business with me. If someone has entered into a contract with me, it is not immoral for me to force them to adhere to their contractual obligations. No contractual obligations can ever exist except by the free choice of those entering into them.
This, though, is worthy of commentary. There are plenty of acts which are not morally relevant -- what I choose to drink with lunch is almost never a moral choice, for instance, but it is always an economic choice.
Actually, it's not always an economic choice. Choosing to drink or not is, but in most cases, once you've decided to get a drink, it's likely to cost around the same whatever you decide to get.
And it's often a moral choice. I'd give you examples, but I'm sure you can think of some yourself.
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Also, an interesting notion, here. There are plenty of people who enter knowingly into absurd contracts under our current legal system. For instance, scientology contracts typically involve incredible sums of money at unheard-of interest rates. The church of scientology doesn't try to enforce them in courts of law because they would be struck down. They are, however, entered into willingly by both parties. Would you uphold such contracts?
If the contract is in violation of law, such as a contract to kill someone for a sum of money, then it was never a legal contract to begin with. But short of actual violations of law, I sure would uphold them.
See, this is the whole problem. The government has stepped in, bit by bit, to take responsibility for things that we should be taking responsibility for ourselves. The infantilization of western culture is a direct result. People can't be trusted not to make a PB&J sandwich with KY Jelly, and they can't be trusted not to put a paper cup full of hot coffee between their thighs while they're driving.
People are idiots. They weren't always. But they've been trained to know that they don't have to look out for themselves anymore.
You can call it civilization, if you want, but I call it decadence. It's no different than the dole was in ancient Rome.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Would you care to cite an instance in history when many people weren't idiots (edit: by your definition of idiot)?
As for your juice remark, of course its an economic choice. Which supplier ends up with the money is very much economics.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I suppose the only question left for me to ask is whether it is better to term Objectivism as being reliant on axiom, or outright dogma.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Treason: Completely off topic, since this has gone way over my head now.
starLisa, I feel like I am the sister in law and you are Dagny. I'm sure you get what I mean.
Cherryl Brooks is the sister-in-law's name. And you flatter me. The point that Rand missed is that there are other traits of value. You're probably a much nicer person than I am, for one thing.
quote:Originally posted by Treason: Also -"Not that I think Macintosh is a better system than Windows (I don't)"
<grin> I've been working in all Microsoft environments for years. "Bill Gates is God; Bill Gates is the Devil". I suspect the Internet would still be being used only in colleges and R&D firms if it hadn't been for his lunatic idea to put a PC on every desk.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
starL, As far as I can tell, your criteria keep changing. Initially, it's that monopolies only come from people having a superior product. I've given both the theoretical reasons why this isn't true and provided a concrete example. So then, it's that monopolies are good things for the economy and for consumers. And then it's that it doesn't matter whether monopolies are good things, because it's people's right to create them.
Also, I don't understand why you thing about half of what you said makes any sense in this conversation. I read stuff like
quote:You act like people who produce are owned by people who consume
and I wonder what you're talking about. I read things
quote:And "exploit" has negative connotations, which is, I'm sure, why you used it.
and it makes me wonder what you actually know about the theory or even teminology of economics. For the record, I chose exploit because it's the proper economics term for what I was describing.
Monopolies did exist in America and in other places and they led to raised prices and lowered quality. Many of them were temporary specifically because anti-monopolistic steps were taken against them, in most cases by the government. The monopolies of the late 19th century didn't last because of the progressive reforms like the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, not because competitors entered the markets.
We don't get them so much today because of these things, but we do get dominating companies (like Miicrosoft) forcing anti-competitive practices such as computer companies agreeing not to include Microsoft competing programs on their machines and we get cartels like the RIAA using widespread collusion to keep prices at an artificially inflated rate. These are again not instances of companies outcompeting by supplying a superior product, but rather of companies using their positional capital to deny competitors access to the markets.
Capitlaism was not intended, by its originators or those who adopted it, to be a moral system. The early theorists like Malthus and Ricardo specifically warned against allowing morality to enter into the system, as the conerns about "fairness" would break it and lead to a great deal more suffering. In order to dress it up like a moral system and make people feel securse in their moral superiority, people have introduced Horatio Algers slogans like "Hard work is the way to get rich." or "People earn what they get paid." which are in direct conflict with both the theory and practice of a market capitalistic system.
quote:Originally posted by Glenn Arnold: Rand's philosophy collapses under its own weight when you realize that it's all based on two false definitions of her own choosing. In order for Rand's philosophy to work, you have to accept her definitions of Altruism and Selfishness.
To her, altruism means having an ulterior motive and doing seemingly nice things for humanity, when in fact you're trying to manipulate humanity for your own ends - to gain power.
Selfishness means ignoring the political forces that ultimately cause all human endeavors to turn out as compromises, and just plain doing it your own way, because that's the way you know it should be done.
Neither of these are the actual definitions of the words, but Rand relies on these definitions to convince her audience that her philosophy works, yet at the same time, her character's works are driven by the opposite of the motivation she claims for them.
Roark builds buildings that serve the people effectively, while Toohey feeds the public meaningless pablum and rides it to power. So which one is actually selfish? And which one is altruistic?
I guess you got those "definitions" from reading her fiction & intuiting.
Her actual definitions are quite different: (available in her non-fiction work)
(roughly:)
altruism: The moral thing is to sacrifice your values to those of others; the needs & desires of others are claims on your life. (This is actually the classical philosophical definition (by Auguste Comte), although today it has been corrupted by the religious into caring about others.)
selfishness: acting on the realization that one's own life is what one needs to attend to (not the lives of others) (Rational selfishness is that plus the realization that trying to achieve values by preying on others not only is immoral, but also won't work.)
OTOH, your ~definition~ of altruism does do a good job of seeing into the souls of characters like Peter Keating -- but then I'd say he's not really an altruist. OT O H, It's not possible to be a thoroughgoing altruist - for long: One would quickly expire.
Having almost finished the Ender Quartet, I'd say that is an amazing, exemplary example of today's meaning of altruist: He's very deeply benevolent. (OTOH, that comes from the archaic, invalid moral code of Christianity. A major win would be to see him do that from the base of the valid philosophy of Objectivism.)
Re your ~definition~ of selfishness: The thing is that one should be true to his understand of what are the right kinds of choices & the way that things ought to be done.. (intimately integrated with figuring out what those are, & continually making sure that one is right about that)
..and relegating the realities of all the roadblocks that may be set up in one's way to a way lower level of importance.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Welcome to Hatrack, you thread necromancer.
Standard greeting,
You're wrong!
Had to look up necromancer, & then think a bit!
I initially felt you were dissing me, but I now take it you were just being cute-friendly.
I wish this system supported replying to a post more inline, with some way of notifying interesteds that a new post has been made. (but I haven't seen one)
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
PMH: I was indeed being cute-friendly. Feel free to introduce yourself and let us know just who we are dealing with. Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess you got those "definitions" from reading her fiction & intuiting.
Well, after having read "The Virtue of Selfishness" (which is still on my shelf. Haven't taken time to burn it yet) and wretching, I did read "The Fountainhead," and yes, the definitions I gave here are more derived from the fictional work, but they're completely compatible with Rand's views as I understood them from TVOS. But, I'm reasonably certain that Rand was explicit about both definitions, no "intuiting" necessary.
quote: * altruism: The moral thing is to sacrifice your values to those of others; the needs & desires of others are claims on your life. [quote] (This is actually the classical philosophical definition (by Auguste Comte), although today it has been corrupted by the religious into caring about others.) * selfishness: acting on the realization that one's own life is what one needs to attend to (not the lives of others) (Rational selfishness is that plus the realization that trying to achieve values by preying on others not only is immoral, but also won't work.)
I can't seem to find your definition of altruism, especially with reference to Comte, although looking up Comte I found the definitions: "Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others," and a direct translation: "Living for Others." These is not the same as your definition, but they are basically equivalent to the definition that I use. Your use of the word "values" as it resides in your definition seems almost meaningless, other than to create a sense of spin.
quote: OTOH, your ~definition~ of altruism does do a good job of seeing into the souls of characters like Peter Keating -- but then I'd say he's not really an altruist.
I said specifically that Rand called Ellsworth Toohey an Altruist. Keating definitely doesn't fit either definition of altruist. He's clearly just selfish, although Rand avoided using that term to describe him, because it didn't fit her heroic version of selfishness. And again, Rand claimed (as omniscient narrator) that Toohey was an Altruist, AND that he did altruistic things to gain power for himself, which doesn't fit your definition of altruist either.
Roark, however, does fit your definition of altruist, but Rand claims he is selfish.
quote: OT O H, It's not possible to be a thoroughgoing altruist - for long: One would quickly expire.
Who says you must? But once your physiological and safety needs have been met (see Maslow) , acting altruistically helps fulfill your belongingness and esteem needs, in addition to helping the people you are being altruistic towards. Rand creates a false dichotomy between the two. One does not need to suffer in order to be altruistic.
Rand just loves to blur the distinction between ethical enlightened self interest and plain old spoiled-brat selfishness. The point of my original post is that she intentionally misused the words, so she could justify her own greed. You've done nothing to undermine that argument.
Posts: 3735 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: PMH: I was indeed being cute-friendly. Feel free to introduce yourself and let us know just who we are dealing with.
Thank you, BB.
Looks like I jumped headlong into a wasp's nest! Who'd'a thought that (presumed) admirers of infinitely benevolent OSC would be so ... er, prickly? But of course I asked for it.
I'm a way more ancient than I wish I were person who recently decided he just had to take a leave of absence from his software engineering job of 38 years -- and, after writing a piece on the geologic history of the O&G mines in Ct., my proof of the nonexistence of "god", etc., decided to see if I could find a bunch of sff books that I'd like. I was hoping find some sort of pandora.com thing for sff (ie: where one can list books he's liked & get recommendations).. (You all know good ways?)
..I found only various lists. Since Ender was at the top of most of them, I got it (actually, my wife got me the whole Quartet), and dove in. I really loved Ender! (I like books with a positive sense of life, people striving and succeeding, & imaginative stuff.) (Just finished Children of the Mind; loved the whole series; got the next 2 from the library today.)
I ran across Ayn Rand in 11th grade, I guess, when we had to write a paper, & I had no clue what to write about, & the class nerd said "Why not Ayn Rand; she's weird?". Either I read Anthem or just thumbed through all her books on the bookstore shelf, & then bought them all & read them in the order written. Then I subscribed to The Objectivist Newsletter, got all the back issues, & read them all. I was shocked by some of her opinions, but I had seen how good a thinker (and communicator) she is, & so just made notes of the things that seemed weird, & read on, betting I'd understand better as I did. (a practice I'd recommend to almost all of the commenters on her & her philosophy I've read here in OSC-land) I did. I continued reading everything she wrote -- except for during my 6 years at MIT.. (having escaped to there from Western North Carolina) ..where I was kinda otherwise occupied. (Oh: except I did take a couple of the NBI lecture-series courses)
After I had recovered from that enough to be able to walk straight, I took some more courses on Objectivism & related. I couldn't get enough. I could tell that although I was getting more & more understanding on each "spiral" through the material, I still hadn't gotten to where I felt like I ~had it~ all understood. I guess I never will, actually, judging by how well the professionals like Harry Binswanger understand it -- but I've certainly got enough to ... what? If I say "guide my life well", I'll sound like a religiot -- but then I'll get dissed in any case.
Maybe it'd be better to put it "to have a solid sense that I understand the world I live in & the people in it; I like understanding things more than anything, I guess.
Back in high school I was desperate to find something in ~the humanities~ that was intelligible like math & science were (unlike what I found when I got dragged to church). I was thrilled to discover Ayn Rand - as just exactly that.
I also like growing plants, math (still), geology, mineralogy, astronomy, ...
I loved Macroscope; read almost all of Piers Anthony because of it. loved Heinlein, except for his last stuff Niven & Pournelle Foundation Vernor Vinge & who knows how many I can't recall right now.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
I'm BlackBlade, but when you say rude things to other posters I transform into JanitorBlade and moderate the heck out of people.
Not that you've been doing that.
We like smart people in this community, but you will have to stick around long enough for people to realize you mean business. But for now, I'm glad you're here and look forward to future conversations.
Have you tried any of Mr. Card's other literary contributions? I greatly enjoyed the Ender's Saga, but I also liked Pastwatch quite a bit. There's also his collection of short stories, many which I find quite engaging. I wish the art of the short story didn't feel so lost sometimes.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I guess you got those "definitions" from reading her fiction & intuiting.
Well, after having read "The Virtue of Selfishness" (which is still on my shelf. Haven't taken time to burn it yet) and wretching, I did read "The Fountainhead," and yes, the definitions I gave here are more derived from the fictional work, but they're completely compatible with Rand's views as I understood them from TVOS.
Reading your reply helped remember that I'm not really interested in flaming back & forth re whose is longer (although I imagine that I hadn't at all given that impression ;-)
I just wanted to jump in & counter some of the worst wackiness re AR with what I know.
I'll try to continue that here, but I can't really care about convincing anyone; just telling it like I understand it.
(Re your "as I understood them from TVOS": Although one can get enough from one reading of Ayn Rand to rail against her, one cannot understand what she is saying that way; it's just too different from what anyone had heard (understood) before her. And of course that especially holds for one who is reading her poised to see BS.)
quote:But, I'm reasonably certain that Rand was explicit about both definitions, no "intuiting" necessary.
Oh she definitely was! She was very careful to explicitly define every important concept/term she used.. ..my point was that what you presented was not her definitions, but rather what you took from your reading.
W/o searching through my books looking for the verbatim, here's from The Ayn Rand Lexicon (online):
quote: The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.
That's arbitrarily close to what I said.
quote:
quote: * altruism: The moral thing is to sacrifice your values to those of others; the needs & desires of others are claims on your life. (This is actually the classical philosophical definition (by Auguste Comte), although today it has been corrupted by the religious into caring about others.) * selfishness: acting on the realization that one's own life is what one needs to attend to (not the lives of others) (Rational selfishness is that plus the realization that trying to achieve values by preying on others not only is immoral, but also won't work.)
I can't seem to find your definition of altruism, especially with reference to Comte
"Altruism (ethics)" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altruism_(ethics)) (I tried to use the UBB Code, but the system thinks ()s aren't OK therein.)
quote:Altruism ... is an ethical doctrine that holds that individuals have a moral obligation to help, serve, or benefit others, if necessary at the sacrifice of self interest. Auguste Comte's version of altruism calls for living for the sake of others.
quote: , although looking up Comte I found the definitions: "Self-sacrifice for the benefit of others," and a direct translation: "Living for Others." These is not the same as your definition
Are you really asserting that mine was different enough to warrant arguing?
quote:, but they are basically equivalent to the definition that I use.
equivalent to
quote: having an ulterior motive and doing seemingly nice things for humanity, when in fact you're trying to manipulate humanity for your own ends - to gain power
? Are you serious?
quote: Your use of the word "values" as it resides in your definition seems almost meaningless, other than to create a sense of spin.
Not at all; I just forgot that the modern usage of "values" is mushified. I meant simply that which one values. How hard is that? Sacrifice is trading a greater value for a lesser.
quote:
quote: OTOH, your ~definition~ of altruism does do a good job of seeing into the souls of characters like Peter Keating -- but then I'd say he's not really an altruist.
I said specifically that Rand called Ellsworth Toohey an Altruist. Keating definitely doesn't fit either definition of altruist.
You're probably right; I don't have that kind of memory for the characters, because what I care about is the philosophy, not the novels. I was being sloppy.
FWIW ;-), I think Keating was the "second hander".
quote: He's clearly just selfish
At this point, I find myself beyond what to say, except "BS", given your following.
quote:, although Rand avoided using that term to describe him, because it didn't fit her heroic version of selfishness.
Whatever it is you're doing, it's not trying to understand Ayn Rand, so what's the use?
Ayn Rand never avoided anything in her work.. (You may all laugh here.)
..One of her core attributes was a relentless honesty in her pursuit of understanding.
I'm ignoring your two following assertions, since I just don't see the point of spending my time refuting things that you just pulled out of some orifice, when all you want to do is bash AR.
quote: And again, Rand claimed (as omniscient narrator) that Toohey was an Altruist, AND that he did altruistic things to gain power for himself, which doesn't fit your definition of altruist either.
Roark, however, does fit your definition of altruist, but Rand claims he is selfish.
quote: OT O H, It's not possible to be a thoroughgoing altruist - for long: One would quickly expire.
Who says you must?
An ethical code that can't be followed thoroughgoingly is wrong.
quote: But once your physiological and safety needs have been met (see Maslow), acting altruistically helps fulfill your belongingness and esteem needs
If you're satisfied with Maslow, I am surely wasting my time.
quote:, in addition to helping the people you are being altruistic towards.
Rand creates a false dichotomy between the two.
What AR does is to identify the essences of the relevant concepts - before she proceeds to think or communicate further about them. Although that seems to me now only the obvious thing to do, she was exceptional at it -- and you don't seem to have gotten that from your reading of her.
You are using "altruism" in the modern colloquial squishy sense; she was using it in the precise philosophical sense -- because she was trying to understand the issues deeply. You're not going to the way you're going.
quote:One does not need to suffer in order to be altruistic.
One does not need to suffer in order to have a default benevolent attitude towards others, or to help others when one judges that such is warranted; one does need to suffer if he holds that it is his duty to help others regardless of his judgements on the issue. That's the point.
quote:
Rand just loves to blur the distinction between ethical enlightened self interest and plain old spoiled-brat selfishness.
AR never blurred anything in her work; what she did was the opposite. It's people with some motive other than understanding reality who blur things.
quote: The point of my original post is that she intentionally misused the words, so she could justify her own greed.
Yes, I got that the first time.
Your ~perception~ of that from your reading of her was warped by your allowing something (I mustn't hazard what) to dissuade you from actually trying to understand her work.
quote: You've done nothing to undermine that argument.
Win the world possibly could, since understanding and facts obviously aren't enough?
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
Thanks; you're welcome.
quote:
I'm BlackBlade, but when you say rude things to other posters I transform into JanitorBlade and moderate the heck out of people
Not that you've been doing that. .
I fear I just have (in my just previous). It will be interesting to see whether you consider my words as ~lexical~ rudeness, as opposed to what I consider the epistemological rudeness of bashing intellectual giants (AR) w/o bothering to understand them first.
quote:
We like smart people in this community, but you will have to stick around long enough for people to realize you mean business.
I'm not sure I do, honestly - in the sense of judging it worth my time to stick around for long regardless of the above.
It might seem that I just need to let some things go -- but I take Objectivism way too seriously to do that when it's being bashed.
I would actually prefer to discuss things like OSC's amazing talent and benevolence, why such an obviously intelligent person would accept / be satisfied with religion, what errors arise from that (eg: that the survival of the human race is of value, when the sole locus of valuation is in the individual), what kind of book he could write if he understood Objectivism - as well as things one step removed from OSC (which I would have thought was about the limit of focused threads in OSC land), such as other good books & authors in his general vicinity.
quote: But for now, I'm glad you're here and look forward to future conversations.
Thank you; I hope that persists. ;-)
quote:
Have you tried any of Mr. Card's other literary contributions? I greatly enjoyed the Ender's Saga, but I also liked Pastwatch quite a bit. There's also his collection of short stories, many which I find quite engaging. I wish the art of the short story didn't feel so lost sometimes.
No, not yet - but I will; tnx for the recommendation.
Posts: 41 | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged |
Howdy! Welcome to Hatrack. Now I mean this nicely, but you'll probably face some skepticism that you're someone looking to actually participate community-wise `round here, since your toe-dipping in the water so to speak was to go resurrection on some really nakedly political stuff in some big ways. That's fine, but I'm just offering some friendly advice: be prepared for that perception, and it might be wise not to get too upset if you encounter it (and I'm not suggesting you have). BlackBlade has touched on this, so I guess I'm just echoing. Anyway.
quote:Looks like I jumped headlong into a wasp's nest! Who'd'a thought that (presumed) admirers of infinitely benevolent OSC would be so ... er, prickly? But of course I asked for it.
Well, it's hard to tell online with anyone, especially someone I haven't communicated with before, but nobody is infinitely benevolent-and Card is, well, decisively less benevolent now than he was, say, a decade ago. *shrug* A great deal has happened then-I'm just pointing out that 'infinite benevolence' seems pretty excessive.
quote:Ayn Rand never avoided anything in her work..
Are we talking about her novels here, or her other work? Because it's my understanding that in her novels, her non-selfish and therefore non-heroic people are almost uniformly straw men. I'd say that's avoiding something, wouldn't you? When your opposition is composed uniformly of incompetents or mustache-twirling villains you've created, well, your moral math is a bit off.
Furthermore whatever your admiration for Rand may be, just consider what you're saying. She's a human being, and you're saying she never avoided anything. That when it came to being self-aware and not flinching from the truth, she was infallible. Can you get your arms around just how hard a claim that is to take seriously?
quote:I'm ignoring your two following assertions, since I just don't see the point of spending my time refuting things that you just pulled out of some orifice, when all you want to do is bash AR.
See, this is the kind of thing that's gettin' a bit nasty here, PMH, FYI-and pretty inappropriate given you've basically dragged up a half-decade old conversation now apparently to start fightin'. Bad form, man.
quote:An ethical code that can't be followed thoroughgoingly is wrong.
An idea that is stated but not proven hasn't actually been proven at all.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Howdy, PMH! It's a pleasure having you on the board.
I'm not going to get into the nitty-gritties of the Ayn Rand discussion because, while I have my problems* with Ayn Rand, other folks on the forum seem willing to challenge her world view. This isn't on my behalf, of course, but I take what I can get.
Instead, I'd like to comment on your introduction as well as your argumentative style in other posts. (Rather than substance)
On your introduction, I just thought I'd give a shout-out and say that I first read Ayn Rand in my junior year of high school as well. I also started with Anthem, and I'd be lying if I said I didn't enjoy the book. (I dig dystopic fiction.) My issue with Ayn Rand came when I tried her other stuff and I realized that all her fiction was a tool to espouse a world-view I disagree with fundamentally.
As far as your argumentative style, it reminds me of the debates I've had with other objectivists that I find frustrating. It boils down to three things, presumption of the premises, and the use of strawman and hyperbole.
On the first point, maybe I can describe my issue in a way that you can relate. I may be reading your posts incorrectly, but it seems that you're an evangelical atheist. I'm also guessing that you've been in a religious debate or two. When someone uses doctrine to prove the existence of God, I'm sure you reject it off hand because in order for the proof to work, you need to first believe in the divinity of the doctrine. Unfortunately, you're using the same form of proselytization in your defense of Ayn Rand. You defend her definitions as best because of their "precision." Her observations on the human condition best reflect the "truth" and "reality." But in order for us to ascribe to objectivism or even just to the merit of Ayn Rand's work, we have to first agree with you that her interpretation of altruism and selfishness are correct, and we need to also believe that her observations reflect reality. If we don't believe those things--as I don't--we're stuck at step one. I can continue to reject objectivism without a second thought because you have done nothing to convince me that the premises are correct.
Instead, what you've done is imply that a failure to agree with Ayn Rand makes us narrow minded or that we have no care for reality. This allows you to create a strawman out of folks who disagree with you. "Ayn Rand talks about reality. You don't agree with Ayn Rand. .'. You don't care about reality." This isn't true, and it's frustrating to be made into a strawman.
Finally you are using some hefty hyperbole, as Rakeesh points out. You say that OSC is infinitely benevolent and that Ayn Rand never avoided anything in her work. Considering your defense of Ayn Rand and objectivism on the whole rests upon the assumption that it is precise and is a direct reflection of reality, I hope you can understand why I find your argument unconvincing. It's what we (in the competitive speech and debate community) call a performative contradiction. If we're supposed to believe that objectivism is rooted in reality, then wouldn't it make sense that the arguments defending it be firmly rooted in reality as well?
*To put it mildly.
Posts: 1831 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:AR never blurred anything in her work; what she did was the opposite. It's people with some motive other than understanding reality who blur things.
Um.
It's like what Ron Lambert would say to conceptualize people who informedly disagree, except in favor of Objectivism.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
And that's not even the worst statement when we're talking hyperbolic praise of someone, either: 'Rand never avoided anything in her work' is actually quite a lot worse, because it suggests that not only did she never become too chicken, intellectually dishonest, outright dishonest, etc. and thus avoid anything in her work, she was never just accidentally but honestly mistaken in her work either and thus avoided things that way. A hero of the ages.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also want to mention this, tangentially to how it was mentioned in the other thread.
quote:You are using "altruism" in the modern colloquial squishy sense; she was using it in the precise philosophical sense -- because she was trying to understand the issues deeply.
"precise philosophical sense," .... according to Rand, yes. I'm sure she would have/did describe it the exact same way, but she is doing so by inventing, arbitrarily and for herself, the definition of what consists of a 'precise philosophical sense,' much in the same way that she invents new definitions of concepts like 'rationality' and expect any nominal assumption of the term in others to have to hinge on her own, or be wrong. Outside of this, she does not have a precise philosophical sense of anything. Objectivism is seen as worthless by serious philosophy, and most serious academic philosophers can tell you exactly why.
Rand is not a philosopher and her work shouldn't be regarded as philosophy in any kind of formal sense. She refused to engage in any actual scholarly or academic discussion and refused to debate or publish her philosophy in any scholarly way. She attempted some kind of 'refutation' of the categorical imperative once and wrote a few desultory 'philosophical' pieces (not academic pieces, just not fictional stories) and cribbed heavily and haphazardly from existing philosophers she fancied (even if she didn't quite really understand them). Whenever the objectivist ethics become a topic of philosophical review, they get demolished, because the premises and implicit premises contain at least eight fatal flaws, and she bases her ethics on the agent-relative position, but she offers no argument for it, only a bald assertion.
It was also noted, at length, that rand claimed a proof for her brand of ethical egoism, and her proof drew necessarily upon a premise which was basically ethical egoism. Essentially, begging the question in a pretty observable way.
I suppose in the end an Objectivist who is insistent enough on claiming the awesomeness of Objectivism as a philosophy, and hold to the measure of Rand as a user of terms and ideas in 'precise philosophical senses' will, of course, decide that if if serious, academic philosophy finds Objectivism flawed and invalid, then serious academic philosophy and the culture of serious academic philosophers are wrong and irrational. The best catchall description of hardcore objectivists I've ever heard was "(S)he imagines her/himself to be part of some small, privileged group that has the wisdom and penetration to see past some absurd lie(s) that the rest of the doe-eyed, unaware plebs consume without thinking."
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:"(S)he imagines her/himself to be part of some small, privileged group that has the wisdom and penetration to see past some absurd lie(s) that the rest of the doe-eyed, unaware plebs consume without thinking."
quote:I would actually prefer to discuss things like OSC's amazing talent and benevolence, why such an obviously intelligent person would accept / be satisfied with religion,
posted
You didn't know PBH? Christians get free Krispy-Kreme donuts every Wednesday morning. That's why I stay a Christian.
I hear Jews have a world-wide system that disburses sufganiyot every Friday, but my friend Avi won't confirm. Says he doesn't want to proselyte, or something like that.
Not sure what the Muslim or Buddhists offer their followers.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:OT O H, It's not possible to be a thoroughgoing altruist - for long: One would quickly expire.
I think it reveals a certain bias common among self named "Objectivists**" that they fail to recognize the possibility of "rational altruism". If your goal is to lead a life in service of others, that rationally implies that you must do the things necessary to lead a life. It also logically justifies developing the skills and acquiring the resources that enable you to effectively serve others. The idea that pure Altruism would rationally lead to a quick death presumes that the an Altruists continued life would be a net detriment to others.
**As I have stated before, I think the name "Objectivist" is an inaccurate descriptor of the philosophical system promulgated by Ayn Rand. This philosophy is simply not objective as evidenced by the frequent circular reasoning and numerous logical fallacies. There is no law preventing any one from naming their philosophy or religion what ever they want but if they call it "Absolute Truth", I'm not going to use it without a disclaimer.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Scott R: You didn't know PBH? Christians get free Krispy-Kreme donuts every Wednesday morning. That's why I stay a Christian.
That would be Tuesdays for us Catholics.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I would actually prefer to discuss things like OSC's amazing talent and benevolence, why such an obviously intelligent person would accept / be satisfied with religion,
quote:I think it reveals a certain bias common among self named "Objectivists**" that they fail to recognize the possibility of "rational altruism". If your goal is to lead a life in service of others, that rationally implies that you must do the things necessary to lead a life. It also logically justifies developing the skills and acquiring the resources that enable you to effectively serve others. The idea that pure Altruism would rationally lead to a quick death presumes that the an Altruists continued life would be a net detriment to others.
It also reveals a certain simple inability to recognize plain reality, because there are let's just call them tens of thousands in this country alone out of hundreds of millions who by any fair standard dedicate themselves to lives of altruism and live lengthy lives doing so.
The only way your Randian gets past this little reality roadblock is by building up half a dozen philosophical and rhetorical reasons why they're not really altruists at all, starting with changing the definition of altruism in the first place.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Scott: You forgot the Kool-Aid they serve with said donuts.
We get actual wine. So do the Episcopalians.
Ayn Rand did manage to ignore the fact that nobody is going to listen to a four hour speech on the radio. Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
?![[Cry]](graemlins/cry.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
