Well, technically, "Objectivism" is the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I am not her representative. I am representing my own philosophy which is strongly influenced by it.Originally Posted by johnnylightnin
|
|
|
|
|
Well, technically, "Objectivism" is the name of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I am not her representative. I am representing my own philosophy which is strongly influenced by it.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
That is okay so long as the objectivist recognizes that ethically he is the proper beneficiary of his own actions, and that other men are the proper beneficiary of their actions.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Here is the Intro to Ayn Rand's "Virtue of Selfishness" book:
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Vi...cept_of_Egoism
Here is a relatively short derivation for why man should be selfish and why the government should protect rights:
http://www.russellmadden.com/Intro._to_Objectivism.html
These two pages will give you a better idea the context of how everything works together.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Also, another persons very brief "proof" of Objective Morality.
http://www.rationalmind.net/writing/22morality.html
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Another decent summary of the philosophy of Objectivism.
http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/...e-standard.asp
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
If anyone wants to have a specific discussion on Objectivism and whether it is "practical" etc. it would reduce the complications of discussion if you read the above links first (particularly the last one which provides a fairly detailed summary of metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics). That way we can focus on the specific propositions IN THEIR CONTEXT, without jumping around (and thus losing context) or getting bogged down in semantics.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Marxism is close enough.....
But if YOU were suggesting some other "brand" of socialism with your "ugly" reference......
It should make little difference.
Cheers.
Marxist theory absolutely uses people as a means to an end.
Here are some of Rand's comments on Socialism (in the general sense). My comments on Marxism are forthcoming:
"Socialism is the doctrine that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that his life and his work do not belong to him, but belong to society, that the only justification of his existence is his service to society, and that society may dispose of him in any way it pleases for the sake of whatever it deems to be its own tribal, collective good."
- From The New Intellectual
"The essential characteristic of socialism is the denial of individual property rights; under socialism, the right to property (which is the right of use and disposal) is vested in 'society as a whole,' i.e., in the collective, with production and distribution controlled by the state, i.e., by the government. Socialism may be established by force, as in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics - or by vote, as in Nazi (National Socialist) Germany. The degree of socialization may be total, as in Russia - or partial, as in England. Theoretically, the differences are superficial; practically, they are only a matter of time. The basic principle, in all cases, is the same."
- From "The Monument Builders"
"There is no difference between the principles, policies and practical results of socialism - and those of any historical or prehistorical tyranny. Socialism is merely democratic absolute monarchy - that is, a system of absolutism without a fixed head, open to seizure of power by all comers, by any ruthless climber, opportunist, adventurer, demagogue or thug. When you consider socialism, do not fool yourself about its nature. Remember that there is no such dichotomy as 'human rights' versus 'property rights.' No human rights can exist without property rights. Since material goods are produced by the mind and effort of individual men, and are needed to sustain their lives, if the producer does not own the result of his effort, he does not own his life. To deny property rights means to turn men into property owned by the state. Whoever claims the 'right' to 'redistribute' the wealth produced by others is claiming the 'right' to treat human beings as chattel."
- From "The Monument Builders"
"There is no difference between communism and socialism, except in the means of achieving the same ultimate end: communism proposes to enslave men by force, socialism - by vote. It is merely the difference between murder and suicide."
- From "Foreign Policy Drains U.S. of Main Weapons"
"Both 'socialism' and 'fascism' involve the issue of property rights. The right to property is the right of use and disposal. Observe the difference in those two theories: socialism negates private property rights altogether, and advocates the 'vesting of ownership and control' in the community as a whole, i.e., in the state; fascism leaves ownership in the hands of private individuals, but transfers control of the property to the government. Ownership without control is a contradiction in terms: it means 'property,' without the right to use it or to dispose of it. It means that the citizens retain the responsibility of holding property, without any of its advantages, while the government acquires all the advantages without any of the responsibility. In this respect, socialism is the more honest of the two theories. I say 'more honest,' not better - because, in practice, there is no difference between them: both come from the same collectivist-statist principle, both negate individual rights and subordinate the individual to the collective, both deliver the livelihood and the lives of the citizens into the power of an omnipotent government - and the differences between them are only a matter of time, degree, and superficial detail, such as the choice of slogans by which the rulers delude their enslaved subjects."
- From "The New Fascism: Rule by Consensus"
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Spinoza, you should read Capitalism: the Unknown Ideal by Rand. It provides a very strong moral defense of capitalism and debunks many popular myths relating to capitalism, including many myths perpetrated by Marx.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Here are my biggest gripes with Marx:
1. He considers individuals as proper "instrumentalities" to solve his perceived problems of "class struggles." That is, he advocates stripping people of their liberty and the ability to pursue something bigger and better with their life to solve what he believed was a problem with society (proletariats not being properly compensated for the labour power). Such a frame of thinking subjugates individual's lives to the "greater good."
2. He substantially undervalues the contributions of the capitalists (bourgiose). Capitalists have the ability to leverage labor power in a way that substantially boosts output (by making processes more efficient, by directing and managing resources to new technologies, etc.). A bunch of proletariats working together without management is not very effective at all.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Half U.S. abortions are repeats for women
Most were over 30 and were using contraception at the time, study finds
WASHINGTON - About half of all U.S. women who had abortions in 2002 had undergone at least one previous abortion, according to a study released Tuesday.
Women who had repeat abortions tended to be over age 30 and to have more children, and most were using contraception at the time, the report from the nonprofit Alan Guttmacher Institute found.
The Institute used several different surveys by both the government and private groups to come up with its estimate. For instance, in one 2001-2002 government survey, 48 percent of women having abortions said they had undergone a previous abortion.
“This suggests that we need to do a better job helping all women better prevent unwanted pregnancies, so they can avoid having to decide whether to seek abortions or raise children they are not prepared for,” said Rachel Jones, a senior research associate who helped lead the study.Most of the women seeking abortions were poor or low-income, and 60 percent had at least one child already.
The study also found that one in three U.S. women have given birth to a baby they had not planned for, and one in 10 have had more than one unintended birth.
The Institute, named for the founder of the Planned Parenthood Foundation of America, said women getting abortions should be counseled on how to use contraception effectively, but this opportunity is being missed.
'Wall of separation'
“The 'wall of separation’ that the federal government has erected between family planning and abortion services is, paradoxically, leading to more abortions,” said Sharon Camp, the Institute’s president and chief executive officer.
“These policies interfere with the ability of abortion providers to ensure continuity of care for their patients by guaranteeing that, following an abortion, every woman has an appropriate contraceptive method and is able to use it consistently,” Camp added in a statement.
For example, the Institute said, Colorado, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania will not give any clinic state family planning funding if it has any relationship with an abortion provider.
And federal Title X-funded family planning programs must maintain a “wall of separation” between their programs and abortion providers.
Half of pregnancies are unintended
According to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about half of the approximately 5.4 million pregnancies in the United States each year are unintended. More than 4.1 million babies are born in the United States each year.
The CDC has also found that 98 percent of women of reproductive age have used one or more contraceptive methods and 73 percent of women aged 15 to 44 years visited a doctor or clinic for family planning services in 2002.
The CDC said 854,122 legal induced abortions were reported to it in 2002, a number that has been fairly stable after falling steadily from 1996 to 2001.
Globally, 46 million women have abortions each year, with the highest rates in Romania, Cuba and Vietnam and the lowest rates in Belgium, the Netherlands, Germany and Switzerland.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15841448/
IS THAT IT......?
Given your prior contributions on this board...... I honestly expected somewhat more!
My prior reply to your post #1148 was casual at best...... Nothing more than a flippant comment on what I presumed to be relatively idle objectivist chatter.
But if you would like to pursue "UGLY" to its naked socialist/capitalist bone...... It would be my little grey cell pleasure to accomodate you.
BUT NOT NOW!
For this subject......
I would like to begin with fewer than a dozen empty bottles of Polish beer at my side.......
And I would also like to give you the opportunity to consider (and add to if needed) your above missive.
OR IS THAT TRULY IT?
Who loves ya baby? :icon_wink:
Look who's green.
Time is your friend. Impulse is your enemy. -John Bogle
(1) It is predicated on piss-poor ethics.
(2) It is predicated on the ignorance of the TRUE value of the "bourgeois" (the movers and shakers that bring new products and services to market at lower prices)?
Are those two issues NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH? Those problems go right to the core of all Marxist and Socialist ideaologies.
How about these:
(3) Centrally planned economies don't work in theory or practice.
(4) It removes the incentive from individuals to do more than what is "expected."
(5) It results in improper valuation of goods/services.
(6) Competition is good for innovation/quality/lower costs/higher GDP.
(7) Capitalism is good/Socialism is bad for conservation of resources ("tragedy of the commons").
(8) Private property rights are critical to all other political freedoms (press, religion, private education, elections,). Socialism generally devolves to government control over everything.
(9) All BAD monopolies (read: entities that have monopoly power + do not sustainably offer lower prices) are the result of acts of government.
(10) Profit is good, it evidences that something you have done is worth more to someone else than to you.
(11) Socialism results in shortages and surpluses, but very rarely the amount of goods that are needed.
(12) Socialism encourages people to accept the doctrine of entitlement not obligation.
Do you need more? I think the first point is significant enough in and of itself.
Jordan Mills on choosing Tech:
“It’s a great experience seeing them play. It was a good atmosphere. The fans stood up the whole game and never sat down. They have a great fan base.”
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
