Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Randian Philosophy: Atlas can suck my wang

245

Posts

  • ThetherooThetheroo Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    OK, I apologize in advance for the wall of text this will probably turn into. I will try to address several views I have seen in this thread so far. This is spoiled for freaking long.
    Spoiler:
    Damn, this took a while. I'll address some more later. But, one final thing....
    DodgeBlan wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    Organichu wrote: »
    Maybe I'm missing the impetus of this thread but considering the huge rush against Libertarianism (which is, in large measure, waaay softer than Objectivist political philosophy) on PA, I doubt you'll find many (if any) staunch Objectivists on this forum. If you do it'll be like...

    Like a stampede. D:

    Here's one! I don't have time to go into my arguments right now because I have class in like 10 minutes, but I'll post a response this afternoon.

    *eats his own cock*

    because only a parasite would rely on others to eat their cock.

    No, the parasite would force me to eat my own cock by using my own moral code against me.

    Edit- various grammar issues and spoilered for wall of text

  • SeptusSeptus Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Septus wrote: »
    I'd just like to say to Thorne, that you're focusing on Randian ethics. Her philosphy spanned all philosophical topics like metaphysics and epistemology, and from the brief introduction I had to her epistemology, it wasn't goddamned crazy.

    Really? Because the intro that I read on the Ayn Rand institute site was pretty crazy and shitty.

    Doing a quick skim, I see nothing approaching the sort., and certainly not in comparison to so many other philosophical theories, like Spinoza's long exposition on how we and the world are all modes or attributes of God and the proof of God's existence that follows.

    Just because something/someone is more crazy doesn't make her any less crazy.



    And the first part of my sentence stated that in and of itself, I didn't find it to be crazy.

    rodq.jpg
  • ApostateApostate Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Goumindong wrote: »

    Its not. But we arent talking about people who are twice as good. The world is not made up of people who are O.K. and people who are twice as good, the world is made up of people who are about as good as everyone else at the majority of tasks. They get specialized via various means and training which has very little to do with their aptitudes for said specializations. And then you have the stuff that needs to get done that doesnt require specialization. Farms need farm hands, you cant grow food without them. But anyone can be a farm hand. Because anyone can be a farm hand, the actual cost of the service, especially in comparison to the work put in, is very low.
    Again Rand was stating that the harder or more productive worker should be able to get compensation according to his performance without others demanding a share of his earnings.

    Again, this might be what she was saying in la-la-land, but in "reality land" she was saying that the privledged are better than those not. That ownership is the most valued quality of a person. And by ownership i mean, "how much stuff they own"

    I don't know what bizarro world you live in but people are radically different not just in capabilities, but desires as well. Not only do I not have a desire to be pro baseball player, I couldn't even if I wanted too. Being a pro baseball player takes an enormous amount of natural skill and intense training. That's why so few can do it. They aren't twice as good as me, they are many orders of magnitude better than me. Why shouldn't they be compensated accordingly?

    Now let's say I magically get pro baseball skills. I still have little desire to play (other than perhaps money) so I would still be of less value than some one who lived and breathed it.

    You seem to be completely ignoring choice. If the janitor's abilities are the same as the store owner then why doesn't the janitor go start his own business? If he wants the same pay as the owner then he can do the same work. If he doesn't want, or can't do, the work (or risk) of the store owner then that's on him.

  • ThetherooThetheroo Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Okay, so to put my viewpoint out there, Randian philosophy doesn't work because the "thinkers" rely on the "moochers" for fundamental existance. Yes, things like the internet and computers are great for society and the world would be a poorer place without great minds like Socrates, Einstein, or Edison. However, even great minds have fundamental desires such as eating and shelter. These fundamental desires are taken care of by the moochers, those in the so-called lower class who build our houses, harvest our food, and take care of most things so that great thinkers can, well, think.

    There are problems with Rand's philosophy. This is not one of them. Rand would never have called someone who built houses, harvested food, or cleaned airport bathrooms a "moocher." If you build houses for a living, do the best job you possibly can, and expect nothing except what you earn, you're a hero in Rand's eyes.

    The fact that the all the protagonists in Rand's fiction are geniuses or industrial giants makes those stories more interesting, but that's a red herring when it comes to her philosophy.

    No, she exactly would have, because she fails to understand the basic concepts of value. Its no coincidence that the protagonists are the great magnates being held back by others incompetences, thefts, and regulations and the villians are the shiftless people trying to make ends meet.

    The phrase as you say "expect nothing except what you earn" is the key. Because earning depends on value, and value has pretty much nothing to do with the quality of character or work that a person does. Baseball players do not make the big bucks because of their contributions to society. In fact, most of the people at the top produce very little but services. And farther up, even the heroes, the industiral giants do not produce based on ingenuity, but produce based on capital. I.E. they provide no service and produce no good, they make money because they own stuff.

    A carpenter who demanded higher wages? Looter. He is only entitled to the sweat of his brow and that stops at the wage he is given.

    Unions? Moochers[but companies of course, not moochers]

    That quote is what I don't like about Bioshock in respect to Randian ideology. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, yes. But, he can use that sweat to get what he wants. Rand, or at least my interpretation of her philosophy, has no problem with Unions. If a man wants higher pay and he has the ability to demand it and back it up, he should get higher pay. If he doesn't, he should use his skill to get a higher paying job somewhere else. A man is perfectly entitled to demand more, if he has the ability to back it up.

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    By and large my main complaint of objectivists I have met is that one of the main ideas of the philosophy is that handouts are bad, and you have to earn everything you get. By and large however, Objectivsts have been the receivers of gigantic amounts of aid. They go to public schools and public universities, get helped by their parents, and in general receive more aid then anyone could ever ask for. This also ignores the gigantic debt we owe to previous generations, the very fact that you can use technology based on thousands of years of development allows you to live your life at such ridiculously high standards. You are not a self made man, you are not succeeding despite horrible government intervention and being held down by the moochers. You are moochers, you may also contribute but you will never contribute more then you receive. To then decry the fact that someone who has received less then you in life has the gall to ask for the basic necessities of life is the height of hypocrisy.
    Edit: Also Rands whole thing about how some forms of music are inherently superior to others is just retarded.

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Deleted for DP

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • ThetherooThetheroo Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Neaden wrote: »
    By and large my main complaint of objectivists I have met is that one of the main ideas of the philosophy is that handouts are bad, and you have to earn everything you get. By and large however, Objectivsts have been the receivers of gigantic amounts of aid. They go to public schools and public universities, get helped by their parents, and in general receive more aid then anyone could ever ask for. This also ignores the gigantic debt we owe to previous generations, the very fact that you can use technology based on thousands of years of development allows you to live your life at such ridiculously high standards. You are not a self made man, you are not succeeding despite horrible government intervention and being held down by the moochers. You are moochers, you may also contribute but you will never contribute more then you receive. To then decry the fact that someone who has received less then you in life has the gall to ask for the basic necessities of life is the height of hypocrisy.
    Edit: Also Rands whole thing about how some forms of music are inherently superior to others is just retarded.

    To your edit, yes that is pretty retarded.

    But, I object to your argument on handouts. Yes, I think handouts are bad and I try to be a self-made man, but the public school argument is weak. The only reason I use/used public schools is that I had no choice, by law I must go to a school and I can/could not afford a private school. Do I think that the school system would be better if privatized? Yes, yes, a thousand time yes.

    To your argument about the debt owed to previous generations, I don't really define that as taking a handout. I define that as taking advantage of the situation put in front of me and using all the tools available to me to improve my life.

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    That quote is what I don't like about Bioshock in respect to Randian ideology. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, yes. But, he can use that sweat to get what he wants. Rand, or at least my interpretation of her philosophy, has no problem with Unions. If a man wants higher pay and he has the ability to demand it and back it up, he should get higher pay. If he doesn't, he should use his skill to get a higher paying job somewhere else. A man is perfectly entitled to demand more, if he has the ability to back it up.

    Depends. If he backs it up with an AK-47 he's out of the club. In the real world, disputes tend to be resolved by who has more (fire)power.

    Thought experiment: One man is born realizing he is fast and strong and cool under fire. He spends his time training at arms, studying tactics, taking from those weaker than him. Another man is born realizing he is clever and spends his time building neat things that other people are willing to trade for. First man kills and takes second mans things. Right or wrong?

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    By and large my main complaint of objectivists I have met is that one of the main ideas of the philosophy is that handouts are bad, and you have to earn everything you get. By and large however, Objectivsts have been the receivers of gigantic amounts of aid. They go to public schools and public universities, get helped by their parents, and in general receive more aid then anyone could ever ask for. This also ignores the gigantic debt we owe to previous generations, the very fact that you can use technology based on thousands of years of development allows you to live your life at such ridiculously high standards. You are not a self made man, you are not succeeding despite horrible government intervention and being held down by the moochers. You are moochers, you may also contribute but you will never contribute more then you receive. To then decry the fact that someone who has received less then you in life has the gall to ask for the basic necessities of life is the height of hypocrisy.
    Edit: Also Rands whole thing about how some forms of music are inherently superior to others is just retarded.

    To your edit, yes that is pretty retarded.

    But, I object to your argument on handouts. Yes, I think handouts are bad and I try to be a self-made man, but the public school argument is weak. The only reason I use/used public schools is that I had no choice, by law I must go to a school and I can/could not afford a private school. Do I think that the school system would be better if privatized? Yes, yes, a thousand time yes.

    To your argument about the debt owed to previous generations, I don't really define that as taking a handout. I define that as taking advantage of the situation put in front of me and using all the tools available to me to improve my life.

    But you are not a selfmade man. Even ignoring public school because you had no choice, did you go to a public university? If you went to a private university, did you accept any scholarships funded by donations and endowments? When you go to other cities, do you use their roads and sidewalks that you have not paid taxes for? Have your parents ever helped you out since you turned 18? Will you inherit any property? All of these things are handouts, whether you like them or not. If you truly want to be a free and self made man, go live in the woods and catch your food with your hands.

  • ThetherooThetheroo Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    That quote is what I don't like about Bioshock in respect to Randian ideology. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, yes. But, he can use that sweat to get what he wants. Rand, or at least my interpretation of her philosophy, has no problem with Unions. If a man wants higher pay and he has the ability to demand it and back it up, he should get higher pay. If he doesn't, he should use his skill to get a higher paying job somewhere else. A man is perfectly entitled to demand more, if he has the ability to back it up.

    Depends. If he backs it up with an AK-47 he's out of the club. In the real world, disputes tend to be resolved by who has more (fire)power.

    Thought experiment: One man is born realizing he is fast and strong and cool under fire. He spends his time training at arms, studying tactics, taking from those weaker than him. Another man is born realizing he is clever and spends his time building neat things that other people are willing to trade for. First man kills and takes second mans things. Right or wrong?

    Damn, that is a fun exercise. I would say wrong, because no one has the right to take anything away from someone else at the barrel of a gun. This conclusion can be reached using the quote, "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." The important part hear is the, "nor ask another man to live for mine." This man is not living but dying, true, but the principles are still the same.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Okay, so to put my viewpoint out there, Randian philosophy doesn't work because the "thinkers" rely on the "moochers" for fundamental existance. Yes, things like the internet and computers are great for society and the world would be a poorer place without great minds like Socrates, Einstein, or Edison. However, even great minds have fundamental desires such as eating and shelter. These fundamental desires are taken care of by the moochers, those in the so-called lower class who build our houses, harvest our food, and take care of most things so that great thinkers can, well, think.

    There are problems with Rand's philosophy. This is not one of them. Rand would never have called someone who built houses, harvested food, or cleaned airport bathrooms a "moocher." If you build houses for a living, do the best job you possibly can, and expect nothing except what you earn, you're a hero in Rand's eyes.

    The fact that the all the protagonists in Rand's fiction are geniuses or industrial giants makes those stories more interesting, but that's a red herring when it comes to her philosophy.

    No, she exactly would have, because she fails to understand the basic concepts of value. Its no coincidence that the protagonists are the great magnates being held back by others incompetences, thefts, and regulations and the villians are the shiftless people trying to make ends meet.

    The phrase as you say "expect nothing except what you earn" is the key. Because earning depends on value, and value has pretty much nothing to do with the quality of character or work that a person does. Baseball players do not make the big bucks because of their contributions to society. In fact, most of the people at the top produce very little but services. And farther up, even the heroes, the industiral giants do not produce based on ingenuity, but produce based on capital. I.E. they provide no service and produce no good, they make money because they own stuff.

    A carpenter who demanded higher wages? Looter. He is only entitled to the sweat of his brow and that stops at the wage he is given.

    Unions? Moochers[but companies of course, not moochers]

    That quote is what I don't like about Bioshock in respect to Randian ideology. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, yes. But, he can use that sweat to get what he wants. Rand, or at least my interpretation of her philosophy, has no problem with Unions. If a man wants higher pay and he has the ability to demand it and back it up, he should get higher pay. If he doesn't, he should use his skill to get a higher paying job somewhere else. A man is perfectly entitled to demand more, if he has the ability to back it up.
    You're forgetting that Rand also believed that the strong are strongest alone.

    It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it
  • ThetherooThetheroo Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Neaden wrote: »
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    By and large my main complaint of objectivists I have met is that one of the main ideas of the philosophy is that handouts are bad, and you have to earn everything you get. By and large however, Objectivsts have been the receivers of gigantic amounts of aid. They go to public schools and public universities, get helped by their parents, and in general receive more aid then anyone could ever ask for. This also ignores the gigantic debt we owe to previous generations, the very fact that you can use technology based on thousands of years of development allows you to live your life at such ridiculously high standards. You are not a self made man, you are not succeeding despite horrible government intervention and being held down by the moochers. You are moochers, you may also contribute but you will never contribute more then you receive. To then decry the fact that someone who has received less then you in life has the gall to ask for the basic necessities of life is the height of hypocrisy.
    Edit: Also Rands whole thing about how some forms of music are inherently superior to others is just retarded.

    To your edit, yes that is pretty retarded.

    But, I object to your argument on handouts. Yes, I think handouts are bad and I try to be a self-made man, but the public school argument is weak. The only reason I use/used public schools is that I had no choice, by law I must go to a school and I can/could not afford a private school. Do I think that the school system would be better if privatized? Yes, yes, a thousand time yes.

    To your argument about the debt owed to previous generations, I don't really define that as taking a handout. I define that as taking advantage of the situation put in front of me and using all the tools available to me to improve my life.

    But you are not a selfmade man. Even ignoring public school because you had no choice, did you go to a public university? If you went to a private university, did you accept any scholarships funded by donations and endowments? When you go to other cities, do you use their roads and sidewalks that you have not paid taxes for? Have your parents ever helped you out since you turned 18? Will you inherit any property? All of these things are handouts, whether you like them or not. If you truly want to be a free and self made man, go live in the woods and catch your food with your hands.

    Yes, I am not a self made man. The key part I said was that I try. And if I went to a public university or got a scholarship funded by donations, I would have earned those scholarships by using my knowledge.

  • Mai-KeroMai-Kero Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Neaden wrote: »
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    Neaden wrote: »
    By and large my main complaint of objectivists I have met is that one of the main ideas of the philosophy is that handouts are bad, and you have to earn everything you get. By and large however, Objectivsts have been the receivers of gigantic amounts of aid. They go to public schools and public universities, get helped by their parents, and in general receive more aid then anyone could ever ask for. This also ignores the gigantic debt we owe to previous generations, the very fact that you can use technology based on thousands of years of development allows you to live your life at such ridiculously high standards. You are not a self made man, you are not succeeding despite horrible government intervention and being held down by the moochers. You are moochers, you may also contribute but you will never contribute more then you receive. To then decry the fact that someone who has received less then you in life has the gall to ask for the basic necessities of life is the height of hypocrisy.
    Edit: Also Rands whole thing about how some forms of music are inherently superior to others is just retarded.

    To your edit, yes that is pretty retarded.

    But, I object to your argument on handouts. Yes, I think handouts are bad and I try to be a self-made man, but the public school argument is weak. The only reason I use/used public schools is that I had no choice, by law I must go to a school and I can/could not afford a private school. Do I think that the school system would be better if privatized? Yes, yes, a thousand time yes.

    To your argument about the debt owed to previous generations, I don't really define that as taking a handout. I define that as taking advantage of the situation put in front of me and using all the tools available to me to improve my life.

    But you are not a selfmade man. Even ignoring public school because you had no choice, did you go to a public university? If you went to a private university, did you accept any scholarships funded by donations and endowments? When you go to other cities, do you use their roads and sidewalks that you have not paid taxes for? Have your parents ever helped you out since you turned 18? Will you inherit any property? All of these things are handouts, whether you like them or not. If you truly want to be a free and self made man, go live in the woods and catch your food with your hands.

    Truth.org.

    There are virtually no self-made people, since that is a dumb goddamn concept and we are all the sum of the parts instilled in us by those around us. No matter who you are and what circumstances you come from, you are a direct result of the people and concepts you've encountered.

    nigh.jpg
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Apostate wrote: »

    I don't know what bizarro world you live in but people are radically different not just in capabilities, but desires as well. Not only do I not have a desire to be pro baseball player, I couldn't even if I wanted too. Being a pro baseball player takes an enormous amount of natural skill and intense training. That's why so few can do it. They aren't twice as good as me, they are many orders of magnitude better than me. Why shouldn't they be compensated accordingly?

    Now let's say I magically get pro baseball skills. I still have little desire to play (other than perhaps money) so I would still be of less value than some one who lived and breathed it.

    You seem to be completely ignoring choice. If the janitor's abilities are the same as the store owner then why doesn't the janitor go start his own business? If he wants the same pay as the owner then he can do the same work. If he doesn't want, or can't do, the work (or risk) of the store owner then that's on him.

    The best of the best are many times better than the worst of the worst. But take your average man[or slightly above average man due to the wonders of specialization] and they are not so many times different. Even if they were, the pay increase is astronomical, many many times removed from the amount of income they produce.

    There is good reason for this, but i am sure you cant be bothered with actual economics.[It has to do with marginal returns]
    If the janitor's abilities are the same as the store owner then why doesn't the janitor go start his own business/quote]

    Wow really?! Its that simple? All the poor guy has to do is start his own business? Wow, i would have never have guessed it was that fucking simple!

    Jesus, why didnt i think of this before! Oh right, because the requisite to starting a business isnt your ability to start and run a business, its the education your money payed for and money. So its pretty much money.

    Thetheroo wrote: »

    That quote is what I don't like about Bioshock in respect to Randian ideology. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, yes. But, he can use that sweat to get what he wants. Rand, or at least my interpretation of her philosophy, has no problem with Unions. If a man wants higher pay and he has the ability to demand it and back it up, he should get higher pay. If he doesn't, he should use his skill to get a higher paying job somewhere else. A man is perfectly entitled to demand more, if he has the ability to back it up.

    1. I know where the quote comes from.

    2. Rand would not have thought the Reds were heroes because they demanded and took communism from the productive with the sweat of their brows.

    3. Rand, like all other people of this persuasion, always define violence as the damage that the poor are able to do to the rich. And define value, as the damage that the rich are able to do to the poor.

    But, I object to your argument on handouts. Yes, I think handouts are bad and I try to be a self-made man, but the public school argument is weak. The only reason I use/used public schools is that I had no choice, by law I must go to a school and I can/could not afford a private school. Do I think that the school system would be better if privatized? Yes, yes, a thousand time yes.

    If the school system were privatized you would actually be smarter in one instance than if it were public. You would not think a private system was better than the public system because you would have never gone to school in the first place

  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    That quote is what I don't like about Bioshock in respect to Randian ideology. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, yes. But, he can use that sweat to get what he wants. Rand, or at least my interpretation of her philosophy, has no problem with Unions. If a man wants higher pay and he has the ability to demand it and back it up, he should get higher pay. If he doesn't, he should use his skill to get a higher paying job somewhere else. A man is perfectly entitled to demand more, if he has the ability to back it up.

    Depends. If he backs it up with an AK-47 he's out of the club. In the real world, disputes tend to be resolved by who has more (fire)power.

    Thought experiment: One man is born realizing he is fast and strong and cool under fire. He spends his time training at arms, studying tactics, taking from those weaker than him. Another man is born realizing he is clever and spends his time building neat things that other people are willing to trade for. First man kills and takes second mans things. Right or wrong?

    Damn, that is a fun exercise. I would say wrong, because no one has the right to take anything away from someone else at the barrel of a gun. This conclusion can be reached using the quote, "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." The important part hear is the, "nor ask another man to live for mine." This man is not living but dying, true, but the principles are still the same.

    That is an easy morality for someone lucky enough to be born with brains. How about this situation. The fast strong dude, buying into the moral principle of non-agression doesn't kill and take from the smart guy, instead, the clever guy enters into a contract with the tough guy whereby the tough guy will pay one grain of rice for the first square on a chessboard, and double each subsequent square. The tough guy spends the rest of his life in servitude to the clever guy trying to pay off the debt (because he's principled and not about to break the non-agression thing). Was the smart guy right or wrong?

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Goumindong wrote: »
    If he cleans the floors he doesnt have time to run his business. If someone else cleans his floors, he does. The value then, of the floor cleaner, would be the entirety of the work the guy can get done when not being a janitor.

    But the janitor does not get payed the same amount of money that the store owner makes, because even though the janitors services are valued by the store owner to the extent he can keep running, that there are more people able to be janitors, and only one person owns that store, the janitor gets payed less than he is valued.

    Yeah, you're sort of forgetting something here.

    Let's say I work 50 hrs/week as that business owner, and let's say I net $40/hr. Let's say that the janitorial work amounts to 2 hrs/day of extra work. Now, you're arguing that since I make $40/hr, the value of any time spent that's in any way connected to that job is also worth $40/hr.

    Except you're really, really wrong. Let's pretend I didn't have that janitor. Would my floors suddenly be not clean? No, I'd clean them myself. Would I clean them in lieu of, say, balancing the books or ordering supplies or whatever? No, I would do all that stuff too, unless I was a retard. The time spent mopping the floors isn't coming out of my time spent doing other business-related stuff. it's coming out of my leisure time.

    The question, then, is how much is my leisure time worth? You, presumably, assert that it's worth $40/hr. The logical extension of this is that whenever I pay anyone to do anything, I must pay them $40/hr or else I'm abusing my power differential, because we've established that's how much my time is worth. Except that's dumb. It's not worth $40/hr to have some kid mow my lawn, or to have a waiter serve me dinner, or to have some guy wash my car. If I'm paying a kid $10 to spend an hour mowing my lawn, then it means my free time is worth at least $10/hr to me. It's, of course, impossible to figure out exactly how much my free time is worth from this example. Perhaps I would pay up to $20/hr, but we'll never know, because the market has determined that $10 is more reasonable.

    You keep referring to prices being set by the power differential, but all you've done is taken the conventional notion of supply and demand and relabeled the terms to make people with money sound all evil and scary. The unfortunate bit is that I know you understand economics enough to know better.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Jesus, why didnt i think of this before! Oh right, because the requisite to starting a business isnt your ability to start and run a business, its the education your money payed for and money. So its pretty much money.

    Or, you know, the ability to go to a bank and procure a loan. For which you don't need that much money.

    I mean, it's still not easy, but you're making it sound like the only way to start a business is to already be rich.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • ThetherooThetheroo Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    That quote is what I don't like about Bioshock in respect to Randian ideology. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, yes. But, he can use that sweat to get what he wants. Rand, or at least my interpretation of her philosophy, has no problem with Unions. If a man wants higher pay and he has the ability to demand it and back it up, he should get higher pay. If he doesn't, he should use his skill to get a higher paying job somewhere else. A man is perfectly entitled to demand more, if he has the ability to back it up.

    Depends. If he backs it up with an AK-47 he's out of the club. In the real world, disputes tend to be resolved by who has more (fire)power.

    Thought experiment: One man is born realizing he is fast and strong and cool under fire. He spends his time training at arms, studying tactics, taking from those weaker than him. Another man is born realizing he is clever and spends his time building neat things that other people are willing to trade for. First man kills and takes second mans things. Right or wrong?

    Damn, that is a fun exercise. I would say wrong, because no one has the right to take anything away from someone else at the barrel of a gun. This conclusion can be reached using the quote, "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." The important part hear is the, "nor ask another man to live for mine." This man is not living but dying, true, but the principles are still the same.

    That is an easy morality for someone lucky enough to be born with brains. How about this situation. The fast strong dude, buying into the moral principle of non-agression doesn't kill and take from the smart guy, instead, the clever guy enters into a contract with the tough guy whereby the tough guy will pay one grain of rice for the first square on a chessboard, and double each subsequent square. The tough guy spends the rest of his life in servitude to the clever guy trying to pay off the debt (because he's principled and not about to break the non-agression thing). Was the smart guy right or wrong?

    Hmm, that's pretty tough. I would probably say right in some aspects and wrong in others. The smart man is right for using his brain to gain an advantage over another man and using his talents to give himself a profit. However, both the strong man and the smart man are wrong because one is living his life for another man and the other is allowing him to do so. No matter what contract there is, no man should live for another.

    I realize I'm opening myself up here for a killer rebuttal.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    The question, then, is how much is my leisure time worth? You, presumably, assert that it's worth $40/hr. The logical extension of this is that whenever I pay anyone to do anything, I must pay them $40/hr or else I'm abusing my power differential, because we've established that's how much my time is worth. Except that's dumb. It's not worth $40/hr to have some kid mow my lawn, or to have a waiter serve me dinner, or to have some guy wash my car. If I'm paying a kid $10 to spend an hour mowing my lawn, then it means my free time is worth at least $10/hr to me. It's, of course, impossible to figure out exactly how much my free time is worth from this example. Perhaps I would pay up to $20/hr, but we'll never know, because the market has determined that $10 is more reasonable.

    Actually, if you were making money based on the time you worked[which you arent, you are making money by getting everything done], then the time to mow the lawn and hire the janitor, etc, etc, must necessarily be worth more than 40 dollars/hour to you. Otherwise you would be working instead of doing those things and making 40 dollars. You would do this because those other things arent worth 40 dollars to you.

    But you are not working at a rate, and how hard you work just determines how quickly you get done to do other things. So that time might be worth less because working more has a small marginal return.

    So the amount payed is between the value of your time to the value of his time. But the market does not always come to a reasonable result[because of various things].

    The reason i brought up the value arguement is to clearly show that people are not payed what their value is, not to argue that they ought to be[as Rand argues that they both are and ought to be]. Because paying people by their "value" doesnt work[as defined as creating the greatest general welfare]
    You keep referring to prices being set by the power differential, but all you've done is taken the conventional notion of supply and demand and relabeled the terms to make people with money sound all evil and scary. The unfortunate bit is that I know you understand economics enough to know better.

    Lets just say this. There are very few externalities that occur because of wealthy people getting payed to little for their work.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thetheroo wrote: »

    Hmm, that's pretty tough. I would probably say right in some aspects and wrong in others. The smart man is right for using his brain to gain an advantage over another man and using his talents to give himself a profit. However, both the strong man and the smart man are wrong because one is living his life for another man and the other is allowing him to do so. No matter what contract there is, no man should live for another.

    I realize I'm opening myself up here for a killer rebuttal.

    So you outlaw debt and contracts? Because the entire basis of a contract is that each side is obligated to act for the other side.

    Wow, now that janitor really has no chance to start a business.

  • horatio77horatio77 Registered User
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Jesus, why didnt i think of this before! Oh right, because the requisite to starting a business isnt your ability to start and run a business, its the education your money payed for and money. So its pretty much money.

    Or, you know, the ability to go to a bank and procure a loan. For which you don't need that much money.

    I mean, it's still not easy, but you're making it sound like the only way to start a business is to already be rich.

    Actually, this is one of my biggest issues with Rand. She ignores that power begets power. She ignores that in a lazie faire economy, in many cases its easier to make money with money than with talent, and the best don't always rise to the top, or get the right resources to start a successful business. She seems to think raw capitalism will lead to a Utopian aristocracy with the best and brightest its rightful leaders, instead of the powerful just becoming more powerful (on average).

    Full disclosure, my middle name is Rand. No really.

    To thine own self be true;
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    That quote is what I don't like about Bioshock in respect to Randian ideology. A man is entitled to the sweat of his brow, yes. But, he can use that sweat to get what he wants. Rand, or at least my interpretation of her philosophy, has no problem with Unions. If a man wants higher pay and he has the ability to demand it and back it up, he should get higher pay. If he doesn't, he should use his skill to get a higher paying job somewhere else. A man is perfectly entitled to demand more, if he has the ability to back it up.

    Depends. If he backs it up with an AK-47 he's out of the club. In the real world, disputes tend to be resolved by who has more (fire)power.

    Thought experiment: One man is born realizing he is fast and strong and cool under fire. He spends his time training at arms, studying tactics, taking from those weaker than him. Another man is born realizing he is clever and spends his time building neat things that other people are willing to trade for. First man kills and takes second mans things. Right or wrong?

    Damn, that is a fun exercise. I would say wrong, because no one has the right to take anything away from someone else at the barrel of a gun. This conclusion can be reached using the quote, "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." The important part hear is the, "nor ask another man to live for mine." This man is not living but dying, true, but the principles are still the same.

    That is an easy morality for someone lucky enough to be born with brains. How about this situation. The fast strong dude, buying into the moral principle of non-agression doesn't kill and take from the smart guy, instead, the clever guy enters into a contract with the tough guy whereby the tough guy will pay one grain of rice for the first square on a chessboard, and double each subsequent square. The tough guy spends the rest of his life in servitude to the clever guy trying to pay off the debt (because he's principled and not about to break the non-agression thing). Was the smart guy right or wrong?

    Hmm, that's pretty tough. I would probably say right in some aspects and wrong in others. The smart man is right for using his brain to gain an advantage over another man and using his talents to give himself a profit. However, both the strong man and the smart man are wrong because one is living his life for another man and the other is allowing him to do so. No matter what contract there is, no man should live for another.

    I realize I'm opening myself up here for a killer rebuttal.

    I got nothing. My only point is that it isn't surprising that Rand supports a philosophy advantageous to her nature. If smart weak people can convince dumb strong people not to attack them, more power to them.

    Edit: to clarify--why is it wrong to use your god given talents to take advantage of another using might but not by using guile?

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Goumindong wrote: »
    The reason i brought up the value arguement is to clearly show that people are not payed what their value is, not to argue that they ought to be[as Rand argues that they both are and ought to be]. Because paying people by their "value" doesnt work[as defined as creating the greatest general welfare]

    I think I more or less agree with you, but I also think that the very practice of referring to the value of people is flawed. A person is not worth anything, economically speaking. The work they do is what's worth something. I could, in theory, mop floors for $10/hr, and also to people's tax returns on the side for $40/hr. So am I worth $10/hr or $40/hr? Neither, I'm not worth shit. But the services I can provide are.

    If janitors are making $10/hr, then the value of mopping the floor, according the market, is $10/hr in the sense that this is what one will reasonably expect to pay for it. The actual value to a specific person can be pretty much anything - it could be $1/hr to someone who has plenty of time to burn and doesn't mind mopping floors and only has 100 sq feet of floor to mop. It could be worth $1000/hr to someone who desperately needs a floor mopped right fucking now to impress a client. It's not a static figure even for any given person or venue, and so it's kind of pointless to even talk about it in that way.

    Now, we can say that janitors are undervalued in some sort of grand, karmic sense of justice, but that's not really an economic discussion. If you look at an unskilled job for which everyone on the planet is pretty much qualified, you're not going to be looking at a job that commands a high salary. You can organize unions or enact legislation to artificially inflate the cost of such services, and this may be an economically wise thing to do, but it really has little to do with "value" or "power differentials" or anything else.
    Lets just say this. There are very few externalities that occur because of wealthy people getting payed to little for their work.

    This is very true.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • horatio77horatio77 Registered User
    edited January 2008
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    Thetheroo wrote: »

    Damn, that is a fun exercise. I would say wrong, because no one has the right to take anything away from someone else at the barrel of a gun. This conclusion can be reached using the quote, "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." The important part hear is the, "nor ask another man to live for mine." This man is not living but dying, true, but the principles are still the same.

    That is an easy morality for someone lucky enough to be born with brains. How about this situation. The fast strong dude, buying into the moral principle of non-agression doesn't kill and take from the smart guy, instead, the clever guy enters into a contract with the tough guy whereby the tough guy will pay one grain of rice for the first square on a chessboard, and double each subsequent square. The tough guy spends the rest of his life in servitude to the clever guy trying to pay off the debt (because he's principled and not about to break the non-agression thing). Was the smart guy right or wrong?

    Hmm, that's pretty tough. I would probably say right in some aspects and wrong in others. The smart man is right for using his brain to gain an advantage over another man and using his talents to give himself a profit. However, both the strong man and the smart man are wrong because one is living his life for another man and the other is allowing him to do so. No matter what contract there is, no man should live for another.

    I realize I'm opening myself up here for a killer rebuttal.

    So I've never really understood how "nor ask another man to live for [my sake]" follows from Objectivist 'enlightend self interest'? That's always seemed like a really arbitrary assertion to me, from a system that's supposed to get 'ought' from 'is'. Why not have slaves? It's worked for a lot of people really well.

    To thine own self be true;
  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    If janitors are making $10/hr, then the value of mopping the floor, according the market, is $10/hr in the sense that this is what one will reasonably expect to pay for it. The actual value to a specific person can be pretty much anything - it could be $1/hr to someone who has plenty of time to burn and doesn't mind mopping floors and only has 100 sq feet of floor to mop. It could be worth $1000/hr to someone who desperately needs a floor mopped right fucking now to impress a client. It's not a static figure even for any given person or venue, and so it's kind of pointless to even talk about it in that way.

    Now, we can say that janitors are undervalued in some sort of grand, karmic sense of justice, but that's not really an economic discussion. If you look at an unskilled job for which everyone on the planet is pretty much qualified, you're not going to be looking at a job that commands a high salary. You can organize unions or enact legislation to artificially inflate the cost of such services, and this may be an economically wise thing to do, but it really has little to do with "value" or "power differentials" or anything else.

    You're talking about cost, not value. The cost of the work is $10/hr. You even brought it up— if all the janitors in the entire city decide that they won't mop floors for less than $15/hr, that doesn't change the work they do in any way, it just raises the cost.

    If I'm buying a car from a guy who needs cash to leave the country, I can get it for significantly less than what the car is really worth to me. Similarly, if I'm paying a guy to mop my floor who needs to pay his rent, I can pay him significantly less than what the mopping is actually worth. That's what we're talking about.

    tmkm.jpg
  • ThetherooThetheroo Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Thetheroo wrote: »

    Hmm, that's pretty tough. I would probably say right in some aspects and wrong in others. The smart man is right for using his brain to gain an advantage over another man and using his talents to give himself a profit. However, both the strong man and the smart man are wrong because one is living his life for another man and the other is allowing him to do so. No matter what contract there is, no man should live for another.

    I realize I'm opening myself up here for a killer rebuttal.

    So you outlaw debt and contracts? Because the entire basis of a contract is that each side is obligated to act for the other side.

    Wow, now that janitor really has no chance to start a business.

    OK, you have a point there. Contracts should be honored if you make them. Pure Objectivism would say that the smart man is right in all aspects, and the strong man is an idiot for entering into such a stupid contract. However, as stated in my previous post I am a Neo-Objectivist, which means I believe that Objectivism is open for interpretation. I honestly don't know how best to address this question.

    Quote by themightypuck
    I got nothing. My only point is that it isn't surprising that Rand supports a philosophy advantageous to her nature. If smart weak people can convince dumb strong people not to attack them, more power to them.

    Edit: to clarify--why is it wrong to use your god given talents to take advantage of another using might but not by using guile?
    On rethinking my arguments. I would have to say that if both men used their own gifts to get what they want, then they are both right. However, if the strong man killed the smart man, the strong man would be making a mistake. The smart man has the ability to make more of his ideas and inventions and apply them in a way that would better his life. If the strong man kills the smart man for his inventions, he is really getting nothing.

  • ElJeffeElJeffe Super Moderator, Moderator, ClubPA mod
    edited January 2008
    Adrien wrote: »
    You're talking about cost, not value. The cost of the work is $10/hr. You even brought it up— if all the janitors in the entire city decide that they won't mop floors for less than $15/hr, that doesn't change the work they do in any way, it just raises the cost.

    If I'm buying a car from a guy who needs cash to leave the country, I can get it for significantly less than what the car is really worth to me. Similarly, if I'm paying a guy to mop my floor who needs to pay his rent, I can pay him significantly less than what the mopping is actually worth. That's what we're talking about.

    Pardon me, I was sloppy with my terminology. That doesn't alter the fact that talking about the "value" of the work is kind of pointless, because the value has nothing to do with economic forces, and isn't even really predictable on a large scale. Prices shouldn't be set based on value, because value is such a wishy-washy, subjective beast.

    And I still maintain that talking about the value of a person is weapons-grade stupid.

    Maddie: "I named my feet. The left one is flip and the right one is flop. Oh, and also I named my flip-flops."

    I make tweet.
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    On rethinking my arguments. I would have to say that if both men used their own gifts to get what they want, then they are both right. However, if the strong man killed the smart man, the strong man would be making a mistake. The smart man has the ability to make more of his ideas and inventions and apply them in a way that would better his life. If the strong man kills the smart man for his inventions, he is really getting nothing.

    So they make a fair deal and civilization is born. :)

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    On rethinking my arguments. I would have to say that if both men used their own gifts to get what they want, then they are both right. However, if the strong man killed the smart man, the strong man would be making a mistake. The smart man has the ability to make more of his ideas and inventions and apply them in a way that would better his life. If the strong man kills the smart man for his inventions, he is really getting nothing.

    He gets the fear of all the other smart men without having to work them over individually.

    edit:
    Objectivism and all ultra-capitalist views all fall apart then instant its understood that people can willingly make choices that cause them great harm.

  • AdrienAdrien Registered User
    edited January 2008
    horatio77 wrote: »

    So I've never really understood how "nor ask another man to live for [my sake]" follows from Objectivist 'enlightend self interest'? That's always seemed like a really arbitrary assertion to me, from a system that's supposed to get 'ought' from 'is'. Why not have slaves? It's worked for a lot of people really well.

    I've wondered about this as well. The philosophy seems to fundamentally assume that all men are not equal. Where did this golden rule clause come from? It seems out of place.

    tmkm.jpg
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    ElJeffe wrote: »
    Adrien wrote: »
    You're talking about cost, not value. The cost of the work is $10/hr. You even brought it up— if all the janitors in the entire city decide that they won't mop floors for less than $15/hr, that doesn't change the work they do in any way, it just raises the cost.

    If I'm buying a car from a guy who needs cash to leave the country, I can get it for significantly less than what the car is really worth to me. Similarly, if I'm paying a guy to mop my floor who needs to pay his rent, I can pay him significantly less than what the mopping is actually worth. That's what we're talking about.

    Pardon me, I was sloppy with my terminology. That doesn't alter the fact that talking about the "value" of the work is kind of pointless, because the value has nothing to do with economic forces, and isn't even really predictable on a large scale. Prices shouldn't be set based on value, because value is such a wishy-washy, subjective beast.

    And I still maintain that talking about the value of a person is weapons-grade stupid.

    What about in the context of safety. How much do you spend to make your elevator or airplane safe? People have values in this context although it is fairly ugly and dangerous for companies to talk about them--see the whole Ford Pinto fiasco.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • themightypuckthemightypuck MontanaRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Thetheroo wrote: »
    On rethinking my arguments. I would have to say that if both men used their own gifts to get what they want, then they are both right. However, if the strong man killed the smart man, the strong man would be making a mistake. The smart man has the ability to make more of his ideas and inventions and apply them in a way that would better his life. If the strong man kills the smart man for his inventions, he is really getting nothing.

    He gets the fear of all the other smart men without having to work them over individually.

    Oh shit. So on rethinking my arguments. The Mafia is born.

    “Reject your sense of injury and the injury itself disappears.”
    ― Marcus Aurelius
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Adrien wrote: »
    horatio77 wrote: »

    So I've never really understood how "nor ask another man to live for [my sake]" follows from Objectivist 'enlightend self interest'? That's always seemed like a really arbitrary assertion to me, from a system that's supposed to get 'ought' from 'is'. Why not have slaves? It's worked for a lot of people really well.

    I've wondered about this as well. The philosophy seems to fundamentally assume that all men are not equal. Where did this golden rule clause come from? It seems out of place.

    Its "enlightened self interest" because you cant say slavery is fine.

    The golden rule is "treat others as you wish to be treated"[and its many iterations].

    Do you mean that part in the declaration[and iirc many democratic documents] that "All men are created equal"

    Well, its all men are created equal, not are men are equal.

  • hesthefastesthesthefastest Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    So, my perusing of the thread tells me that Randian philosophy is like walking past a bum on the street and assuming he's there because he has no value, applied on a universal scale. Correct?

  • NeadenNeaden Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    So, my perusing of the thread tells me that Randian philosophy is like walking past a bum on the street and assuming he's there because he has no value, applied on a universal scale. Correct?
    And that it is immoral to help him. Objectivists are pretty much the greedy cattle barren who dams the river in half the western movies out there.

  • ThetherooThetheroo Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Neaden wrote: »
    So, my perusing of the thread tells me that Randian philosophy is like walking past a bum on the street and assuming he's there because he has no value, applied on a universal scale. Correct?
    And that it is immoral to help him. Objectivists are pretty much the greedy cattle barren who dams the river in half the western movies out there.

    I disagree with that, but I find the analogy to be pretty hilarious.

  • OrganichuOrganichu Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Does nobody remember the central plot device of Atlas Shrugged? You know, where all of these incredible ubermensch (who Rand philosophically blows, deep, throughout the book) are working menial, low-level jobs and are completely happy and moral in doing so? I think an oft' missed point is that AR (damnit, Ron Paul got me into the habit of using initials everywhere) intentionally used caricatures- she knows that there are a limited number of people in Hank Rearden/Dagny Taggart's positions. What she's exalting is the unique skillset necessary to get there and maintain it well.

    Anyway, reading The Romantic Manifesto is what finally turned me off Ayn Rand. I got into her after reading Terry Goodkind when I was thirteen.

    XMSODhjrer45.gif
  • ThetherooThetheroo Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Organichu wrote: »
    Does nobody remember the central plot device of Atlas Shrugged? You know, where all of these incredible ubermensch (who Rand philosophically blows, deep, throughout the book) are working menial, low-level jobs and are completely happy and moral in doing so? I think an oft' missed point is that AR (damnit, Ron Paul got me into the habit of using initials everywhere) intentionally used caricatures- she knows that there are a limited number of people in Hank Rearden/Dagny Taggart's positions. What she's exalting is the unique skillset necessary to get there and maintain it well.

    Anyway, reading The Romantic Manifesto is what finally turned me off Ayn Rand. I got into her after reading Terry Goodkind when I was thirteen.

    Exactly, people do not have to be in the upper class of society to apply Objectivist views to their everyday life. And I haven't read The Romantic Manifesto yet, but I pretty much disagree with most of her views on Sex and Love already, so it probably won't be to much of a shocker.

  • setrajonassetrajonas Registered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Oh god, Terry Goodkind. He's like the Tim Buckley of fantasy. Though that might be an insult to Tim Buckley.

  • MrMisterMrMister Valuing scholarship above all elseRegistered User regular
    edited January 2008
    Septus wrote: »
    MrMister wrote: »
    Septus wrote: »
    I'd just like to say to Thorne, that you're focusing on Randian ethics. Her philosphy spanned all philosophical topics like metaphysics and epistemology, and from the brief introduction I had to her epistemology, it wasn't goddamned crazy.

    Really? Because the intro that I read on the Ayn Rand institute site was pretty crazy and shitty.

    Doing a quick skim, I see nothing approaching the sort., and certainly not in comparison to so many other philosophical theories, like Spinoza's long exposition on how we and the world are all modes or attributes of God and the proof of God's existence that follows.

    Ask me what I think of Spinoza. (Hint hint: it's unfavorable).

    Okay, now let's take a couple exerpts from the Rand page.
    Spoiler:

    This is a wildly inaccurate representation of epistemology--both in terms of it's references to Platonics and Kantians as if they were the only schools of thought, and in the vague handwaving reference to "all of their variants in the history of philosophy." There are plenty of non-skeptics and realists outside of objectivism, and in fact, those are likely the dominant positions among modern philosophers. Furthermore, describing the problem of universals as the key problem of philosophy is just silly, and if you're going to accuse "recent philosophers" of having "given up philosophy as such," then I would expect a much more thorough argument.

    This is just florid, surface-level talk, which declares victory without substantially engaging much of anything. It's third-rate philosophy at best.

    Let's try another, shorter quote:
    Spoiler:

    This really exemplifies the silliness of that page. Who's to say that man cannot think unless knowledge is his goal? What if he views knowledge as only instrumental to securing other, more basic goals--like survival or comfort? Who's to say that logic is the only method of thought--clearly, people are not always logical, and yet in those instances they certainly still manage to think (however incorrectly). Finally, even were thinking to be a delicate, difficult process, one which required logic and a commitment to knowledge, it still wouldn't follow that it required selfishness. For instance, one could be committed to the pursuit of knowledge precisely because knowledge serves a public good.

    The Rand Institute isn't presenting an argument, it's presenting a loose string of statements, which spectacularly fail to meet the criteria of a strong deductive argument. The premises are by no means self-evident (who says thinking is a delicate process, anyway?), the terms aren't precisely defined, and the premises fail to entail the conclusion. This is, again, the shittiest of third-string philosophy.

    This isn't even getting into the train-wreck that is objectivist ethics.

Sign In or Register to comment.