[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 42 KB, 450x600, objectivism..jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3222218 No.3222218 [Reply] [Original]

What's with all the hate against libertarianism, Ayn Rand, and objectivism? It seems to personify what the United States was designed to be, it keeps out corrupt governments, it allows the best funding and most freedom for science, and it isn't necessarily unethical. After all, the majority of helpful charities are private non-profit organizations (Red Cross)

Objectivism seems to be one of the only philosophies that applies rationality over overstressed religious bullshit morals. The only good arguments against it are either ad hominem against Rand, or everyone objectivist will become an egoistic maniac.

Pic related

>> No.3222229

I see you're 19 and have just read Atlas Shrugged.

>> No.3222245

>What's with all the hate against libertarianism

Fear.

>Ayn Rand

She's a terrible author who wouldn't know a hard days work if it bit her on the arse. She quite simply personifies /sci/.

>objectivism

It's a load of crap. Really. Once you have objectivism you go full circle and end up with Feudalism.

>or everyone objectivist will become an egoistic maniac.

Everyone who believes in her theories and practices needs examining. The principle is right - people shouldn't have the government spying on their lives or ruining things for the sake of "fairness". But if you put it into practice it would do more harm than benefit anyone, because the bottom 98 percent of society would no longer have a government to keep them in check. They'd go apeshit.

When the principles of Rand (not like they were original, but anyway) are applied to business they work perfectly. When applied to government and society you might as well put apes in charge.

>> No.3222250

>or everyone objectivist will become an egoistic maniac.
>implying that is not a real concern

>> No.3222270

>>3222245
>implying the bottom 98% of society are the reason we need a government

>> No.3222272

People fear that which they don't understand. Simple as that.

>> No.3222282

>>3222272
That must be the worst defence for anything, full stop.

>> No.3222289

>>3222270

They are.

I'm not all "hurr durr people so STOOOPID" like the rest of this board, but sheer population numbers requires some sort of hand holding.

>>3222282

In a sense he's correct, but it's not as if it's worth understanding anyway. It's a fantasy - a load of rubbish that will never be realised because it would royally shaft pretty much everyone on the globe.

>> No.3222298

>>3222245
I think you're confusing these ideas with anarchy. Anarchy does eventually lead to a feudalistic society. However, Rand/objectivism/libertarianism calls for limited government. This could abd would be used for self defense, justice, monopoly regulations, etc.

But what I think you are basing your argument off of is the not-rich will rage. Well, take into consideration early American historical events such as Shay's rebellion and the whiskey rebellion. Or even today, the internet. People don't want the government on their backs. But they rage if they don't get free money. It's a better choice to just keep liberty. Beatniks will learn to work, and the people in genuine need of help will find it in nonrofit organizations.

Also, ad hominem against rand called it!

>> No.3222300

>>3222218
>>it keeps out corrupt governments

and let in corrupt everything else
not necessarily worse, but not a definite improvement

>>or everyone objectivist will become an egoistic maniac

the philosophy seens to pretty much encourage this anyway

>> No.3222301

the vast majority of libertarians do not give a shit about civil rights or liberty or the military being huge, and literally ONLY want a tax break.

>> No.3222309

Libertarianism is good, Ayn Rand is a cunt though

>> No.3222353

durp durp ima dermacrat, I like science and karl marx because karl marx is all about being science and ayn rand is ugly and doesnt know shit and doesnt have a beard and she will only cause fuedalism and her objectism will just make people all dum and not liek sience cuz her filosfies r all about bein dum and selfish and we need scientist like al gore to invent real things like civil rights and etc becuz that wood actually meen funding for science and speace stattions. damn rebublicans and libertyans jus wanding tax cuts and that is all thay all want cuz they dont no work or science. just theories (cojectures). /thread

>> No.3222377

>>3222218

Living in a world that needs charity should be a reason enough to hate economic liberalism.

>> No.3222616

>>3222377
social conservative and anti-science is worse.

>> No.3222635

Selfishness is not a virtue, solidarity is.

Besides that, objectivism particularly worships sociopathy.

http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

>> No.3222651
File: 224 KB, 1101x615, wealth distribution.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3222651

>>3222377

This.

>> No.3223057

>>3222301

The vast majority of fiscal liberals don't give a shit about civil rights, racial rights, poverty or people. They just want to work for things.

Touché, eh idiot?

>> No.3223065

>>3223057

But what things would they work for, if not civil rights, racial rights, poverty or people?

>> No.3223089
File: 64 KB, 800x580, 800px-LaniusDusk.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3223089

Typically the people who flat reject it either don't understand it or feel uncomfortable with rejecting their Kantian programming. Rand stood for what simply can only be describe as counter intuitive to almost every countries social policy.

>> No.3223098

Not ultimately favorable for life systems.

>> No.3223115

One of the issues i see with her philosophy is the complete disregard of environmental issues. She wholeheartedly defended that man had tamed nature, and New York was the crowning achievement of mans dominance. This thinking is demonstrably not true. Man has the ability to destroy an ecosystem under specific conditions.

>> No.3223134
File: 435 KB, 1512x2092, 1299133413033.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3223134

>>3222651
That image would be better if it was to scale... like this

>bar should continue for 62 more feet

>> No.3223357

>>3222222

>> No.3223471

>>3222651
But these are propaganda images. It is next to impossible to find images with real data for USA.

I.e when poor people's entitlements are counted in for their income. Or their intellectual property is calculated the same way as for people, whose wealth is in shares.

You have this patent. It will probably make you $10 million over next 5 years. We value this patent at $5M

You have an education as an auto-mechanic. It will probably increase your earnings by $x for next 5 years and we value it at $y.

>> No.3223642

>>3223471
This

>> No.3224118

>>3222245

You have no idea what you're talking about, really. I'm astounded. She didn't advocate for no government, but limited, rational government. Government that only did what it is intended to do: 1) protect the property of individuals 2) The life of individuals 3) the liberty of individuals.

>> No.3224127

>>3222635

ahhh, the old hichman ad hominem.

Seriously, some of you simply care to not understand her position.

Clearly, for anyone who has read the referenced material, Ayn Rand was able to abstract away from the concretes of the Hickman case the fictional premise: What if someone did something that was against the mores of society, but was actually morally *just.* Would the reaction of society be any different? Or would it be exactly like in the Hickman case (which OBVIOUSLY Ayn Rand viewed as unjust). You see this theme in the Fountainhead. And in a lot of her works

The philosophical premise she is challenging is the idea that actions are moral or immoral *because of the values of society.* Perhaps that premise is best expressed in literature in Tolstoy’s Anna Karinina. In that story the protagonist dies a lonely and miserable death because she seeks romantic love outside of her miserable marriage and is thereby shunned by society and thus is doomed. Ayn Rand was opposed to that approach to morality, because she thought morality should be determined by the rational self interest of the individual and not by society.
Clearly Hickman was not following his rational self interest. Ayn Rand never implied that he was. She was merely posing a hypothetical– what if someone defined his own morality by his own standards, which (unlike Hickman) were rational? How would society react if his morality opposed their own collectively defined morality, and how would he handle it in turn? That is a common theme in her literature, and any serious reader will understand.

>> No.3224136

Well, writing a fictional account of an idealized world doesn't really prove a philosophy's legitimacy. Yes, it would be ideal if the government didn't have to monitor its citizens, and that citizens were independent, hard-working cooperative people. It would also be ideal if we didn't have to breathe or eat, or if we shat chocolate and sang merry tunes in the sunrise.

>> No.3224139

>>3222218
The US was designed to have a fair government that worked for the people, instead of the people working for the government. Libertarian/objectivist ideology is about reducing the government to a simple protective force for it's people, possibly getting rid of the government entirely.

Also, almost all US parties claim that their system was "what the United States was designed for."

>> No.3224141

>>3223115

> complete disregard of environmental issues.

justwentfullretard.jpg

she was a strong proponent of property rights. What makes you think that damaging someone's land is ok?

>> No.3224142

>>3224141
Private property rights has almost zilch to do with environmentalism. How you guys even managed to connect the two so strongly astonishes me.

>> No.3224143
File: 103 KB, 995x793, rh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3224143

>>3223471
Apart from 80s recessions, the average worker's total compensation (wages + benefits) increases at an annual rate between 0% and 2%.

>> No.3224145

>>3222635

Ayn Rand called Hickman a degenerate, and openly recognized in her journals that she was idealizing aspects of his personality and rejecting what he did (essentially calling him a waste, and purposeless).

There is a virtue in selfishness. Don't be a jackass.

>> No.3224149

>>3224142

Property damage = environmental damage.

i.e you pollute my part of the river. You fucking compensate me for fucking it up.

Cut the trees on my lawn down without my permission, you've damaged my property.

Get where this is going?

>> No.3224151

>>3224142

*sigh* I understand what you're getting at, that you take offense at Rand's glorification of "taming nature", but please stop making my point of view look stupid.

>> No.3224155

>>3224149
That still does not fucking mean that private property rights has anything, if at all, to do with environmentalism. You don't even seem to know what environmentalism is to begin with.

>> No.3224159

>>3224145
>There is a virtue in selfishness.

Sure. In murder, rape, and robbery too.

Why, look at the noble traitor who sells the military secrets of our fair republic to our enemies for personal gain. How honorable.

>> No.3224160
File: 65 KB, 717x453, vegeta1n.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3224160

>>3224159

>> No.3224165

>>3224160
>he jelly because he scummy.

>> No.3224175
File: 73 KB, 380x264, 060206muslims1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3224175

>>3224165

No, you just don't understand what you're talking about. If you murder, rape, or steal, you're committing a contradictory action. If you assume that you're entitled to your happiness, then you cannot forcefully take away someone elses happiness. Because if you do so, you're invalidating your own right for happiness. Its self contradictory.

>> No.3224177

>>3224155

major at one point was environmental science. lol
Decided physics was more interesting. Umad?

How could you NOT see the connection between environmentalism (preserving ecosystems) with property rights? Not trying to be a dick here but maybe this will help:

"Environmentalism and Economic Freedom: The Case for Private Property Rights" by Walter Block. Published by the Journal of Business Ethics in 1998. http://mises.org/etexts/environfreedom.pdf

>> No.3224185

>>3224159

justwentfulldurp.jpg

>> No.3224194

>>3224175
>If you assume that you're entitled to your happiness, then you cannot forcefully take away someone elses happiness.

Yes you can, usually by bribing the right politicians, and what if your happiness that you feel you are entitled to is directly based on the misery and suffering of others?

Sorry, not mutually exclusive at all.

>> No.3224197

>>3224177
>major at one point was environmental science.
That does not elicit any credentials or experience.

>How could you NOT see the connection between environmentalism (preserving ecosystems) with property rights?
Because one is about protection of the environment, the other is about the rights to own private sectors land to an individual. It's a simple apples-and-orange analogy, where the two individuals being compared only have few characteristics they share with each other. It's almost like saying paper and fire and two objects that are completely same to each other when their own only similarities is their reactions to each other. To look that much into two parties that have own a little to do with each other are just massive cases of anchoring and primacy effects; and even poor reading comprehension if you want to get extensive about this issue.

>> No.3224199

>>3224194

You just contradicted yourself.

>> No.3224201

>>3224175

This.

>> No.3224209

>>3224199
No, you are.

TAA DAA! I countered your argument as effectively as you countered mine.

>> No.3224210

>>3224197

Not willing to get into ad hominems but you keep throwing them out which is tempting me to psychoanalyze you but meh...I'll leave that to someone else.

Back to the topic at hand, your second paragraph shows you grasp the concept somewhat. Just read the article if you want to understand the connection I'm trying to present. I am, frankly, too old for this.

>> No.3224211
File: 610 KB, 586x487, 1307125936837.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3224211

>>3224209

>> No.3224216

>>3224211
Hey, how about a counter argument that consists of more than "NO, YOU!"

>> No.3224224

>>3224216

I'm not going to argue against a contradictory statement. Whats the point?

>> No.3224231

>>3224224
What contradictory statement?

>> No.3224233

Pursuing your selfishness will lead to you limiting others. Period. This is unavoidable, we all drain our shared pool of resources that is earth. If you restrain yourself while maximizing your utility, so that you don't impair chances of others for doing so (too much), it's fine. But it's not demanded by your philosophy, is it?

As for those shared resources. Do you know what public goods are? When you damage environment, you damage it for all. If you applied your principle of private property, you would have to 'compensate' every single person on the planet. Can you even imagine this happening?

>> No.3224235

>>3224210
I read the article, it's nothing more than a civil matter that encroaches on two loosely-related issues because some fucks over abused one of them. But that still doesn't mean they are the same notions or of any ample relations to each other to annex them together. One's an apple, the other is orange. And no, no ad hominems was thrown at anybody, just broadly as blanket terms to cover a governing general. Do not take them specifically or personally, otherwise it's going back to the "anchoring and primacy effects" mentioned earlier.

>> No.3224237

>>3224231
Sadists don't exist, so people can't enjoy watching other people suffer.

>> No.3224242

>>3224231

>and what if your happiness that you feel you are entitled to is directly based on the misery and suffering of others

Because if you assert that you're entitled to YOUR happiness, and in turn use that freedom to forcefully take away another happiness, you're attacking the very basis of your assertion. One cannot support the notion that only they are entitled to their own happiness, and in the same moment seek to take another's away.

>> No.3224243

Because libertarianism is dependent on businesses being completely honest with their customers.

That is why it's retarded.

>> No.3224250
File: 35 KB, 335x371, hipster-endoresment-1-lobster-coachella.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3224250

>>3224243
I own a business that's completely honest and fair with my customers. Screwing them over or taking advantage of their ignorance is just too mainstream these days.

>> No.3224257

>>3224242
The mentality of self-entitlement IS INHERENTLY contradictory and mutually exclusive.

You need other people to recognize your entitlement for the entitlement to be legitimate.

Self-entitlement is like cold fire, or military intelligence.

>> No.3224260

>>3224250
>illegal drug dealer detected

>> No.3224262

>>3224260
Who said anything about it being "illegal?"

>> No.3224264
File: 108 KB, 310x310, 1303112827482.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3224264

>>3224257

You need other people to validate your existence? Have some self esteem

>> No.3224265

>>3224262
Pretty much every nation and state on earth considerers LSD illegal.

>> No.3224271

>>3224264
Not the same bloke here, and not willing to read the rest of your arguments, but just about anything notion of philosophy (maybe psychology and sociology too) would say a good way to postulate and revere one's existence is through sociability and the inclusion of other people.

And if you're looking for some form of validation, doing it yourself can only get you so far.

>> No.3224274

>>3224265
Who said anything about LSD?

>> No.3224281

>>3224264
>You need other people to validate your existence?
That's what the word "entitlement" is based on. Entitlement is a social reward.

I don't need entitlement or other people to be happy, you needy little, desperate-for-validation child.

>> No.3224287

Too many strawmen.

>> No.3224291

>>3222218
Red cross really doesn't count, considering it's a pseudo governmental agency.

Also, copypasta ahoy:

List of /sci/ approved reasons why laissez faire economics is bullshit: not stable, not morally justifiable, externalities, tragedy of the commons, natural monopolies, people are not (perfectly) rational, people's time horizon's differ, acquiring information is not free, cost barriers to entry are usually not insignificat, very small numbers of buyers and/or sellers in most markets, inheritance is unfair.

>> No.3224292

>>3224287
...not enough straw hats.

>> No.3224308

>>3222218
>>3224291
>Red cross really doesn't count, considering it's a pseudo **government**.
Fixed. Sorry.

>> No.3224315

>>3224291
>not morally justifiable
How so? Theft is usually seen as immoral. Accordingly the free market is at least moral in that regard.
>externalities
Systemic problem of public property, which doesn't exist in a free market.
>tragedy of the commons
Systemic problem of public property, which doesn't exist in a free market.
>people are not (perfectly) rational
Rational doesn't mean what you think it does in economics.
>people's time horizon's differ
This is exactly the cause of credit, investment etc.

>> No.3224319

>>3224315

Inequality and all that it entails, the rich living at the expense of their shit-paid employees, is not morally justifiable.

Mfw people still treat labour as a commodity.

>> No.3224324

>>3224291
>List of /sci/ approved reasons
>not morally justifiable
Teeheehee.

As for this train wreck of a thread, I don't see why libertarianism and objectivism should be lumped in with each other like that. Objectivism is an all encompassing philosophy and a set of contrived metaphysics, whereas libertarianism is purely political and economical.

>> No.3224325

>>3224315
You claim that externalities, tragedy of the commons, etc., are all failure to privatize everything. First, that plan is horribly unmaintainable. You're going to privatize the roads, the internet, and radio broadcast frequencies? Good luck there.

Second, vaccines. Vaccines are a /perfect/ example of externalities where there is nothing that could be privatized.

The argument that laissez faire is not morally justifiable. What is your aim - to prevent "theft", or a materially wealthy society? I forget whose rule it was, but someone once said a good measure of a society is how well off is the worst person in that society. I'd rather that be the measure of society as opposed to whether there are slightly higher taxes. Inviolable private property rights are not an ends. Private property rights are a means to an ends, namely public happiness and material prosperity.

>> No.3224327

>>3224315
>How so? Theft is usually seen as immoral.
I don't get your point.

>> No.3224339

>>3224325

Free enterprise systems have demonstrably been shown to improve the lot of everyone. Take a look at the number of countries with high level of government control, they're not ones i would like to live in. A job helps a person more than a free flu shot

>> No.3224342

>>3224315
> >people's time horizon's differ
>This is exactly the cause of credit, investment etc.
No. It's a cause of some problems, like our refusal to invest in thorium, because everyone's time horizon is like 10 to 20 years, instead of for our children's lifetime. It's incredibly immoral to do that.

> >people are not (perfectly) rational
>Rational doesn't mean what you think it does in economics.
No, you need to start paying attention. The fad of rational agents has gone out like 50 years ago. Humans are boundedly rational. They do not make the choices which are in their own stated self interest. There's a plethora of cognitive biases that make humans deviate from the economic model of rational self interested agents.

>> No.3224345

>>3224339
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
Aka the fallacy of the false dichotomy. Stop strawmanning, and we can talk.

>> No.3224353

>>3224315
>externalities don't exist

>can'ttelliftrollorverystupid.jpg

>> No.3224360

>>3224345

i never said all or nothing. The more free the market, the better the society.

>> No.3224363

>>3224339

I'm sure the victims of influenza were happy to be employed before the end.

>> No.3224369

>>3224319
I don't think that inequality is immoral at all. The existence of people who excel at certain things is a fact of life; we can attribute this fact to the existence of civilisation.

There's no difference between somebody who is born into money and somebody who was born with exceptional talent.

Labour has, is, and always will be a commodity, that is something that can be bought and sold.
>>3224325
They are, but I don't think anything can be done about it.

I support mandatory vaccinations.

>> No.3224375

>>3224360
Yes, you did. You insinuated that I'm not a capitalist. Protip: I am.

You need to go reread the books, like Wealth of Nations. Protip: Adam Smith was for progressive taxation.

>> No.3224378

>>3224369
>I support mandatory vaccinations.
So, you support a deviation from laissez-faire markets to a slight form of socialism, eh?

>> No.3224379

>>3224360
Wait, you mean like "economic freedom"?

"Economic freedom" means if you buy corn that is poisoned, you are guilty of murder if your family eats it.

>> No.3224381

>>3224379

Courts are a desirable function.

>> No.3224390

>>3224342
>No. It's a cause of some problems, like our refusal to invest in thorium, because everyone's time horizon is like 10 to 20 years, instead of for our children's lifetime. It's incredibly immoral to do that.
Firstly, can we please drop the notion that libertarianism or any other system is immoral, it's meaningless.

Debtor values $10 today more than $20 next week
Creditor values $20 next week more than $10 today

Hence the debtor gets $10 today and the creditor gets $20 next week. Everybody is better off. This is obviously a discrepancy in time preference. We would all be very poor if credit didn't exist.

If they're not going to be alive for that long why should they concern themselves with it? Pretty stupid if you ask me.

>> No.3224396

>>3224378
Sure, whatever, I don't really care what you call it, but I wouldn't call it socialism, and I'm sure I could worm an argument that makes it congruent with fundamentalist libertarianism.

>> No.3224398

>>3224369

>>this is what libertarians actually believe

Did we ever move on from Dickensian Britain? Did the labour movements not leave an impression?

>There's no difference between somebody who is born into money and somebody who was born with exceptional talent.

So what, you think the guy who sits back and takes his cut off other peoples' work deserves to be paid more than the engineer, programmer, designer or scientist who does an outstanding job at said work?

Because that's how it works in the free market.

Exactly why labour should not be commodified.

Why should anyone give a pair of fetid dingoes' kidneys for a company when they get paid the same no matter what?

>> No.3224404
File: 15 KB, 1140x195, commonsense.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3224404

There will always be a state, you can call it an anarchist egalitarian commune but it's still a state.

>> No.3224406

>>3224396
No. You couldn't.

>>3224390
Instead you'll sit back and let the few rich stay rich while we slowly erode the environment to be less human friendly, while the alternative is cheap energy for everyone in 20 years, as opposed to a potential market dive.

>> No.3224408

>>3224398
>Did we ever move on from Dickensian Britain? Did the labour movements not leave an impression?
It left the impression that revolutionary usurpers are dangerous criminals.

>> No.3224409

>>3224381
If you desire courts, then you want to put rules and regulations on economic freedom.

Fucking liberal socialists are ruining our country.

>> No.3224425

>>3224409


Against fraud, thats about it.

>> No.3224428

>>3224406
>No. You couldn't.
You could say that anybody who infects another with a disease, infection, etc is violating their property rights. It just shows how ridiculous fundamentalist 'moral libertarianism' is.
>Instead you'll sit back and let the few rich stay rich while we slowly erode the environment to be less human friendly, while the alternative is cheap energy for everyone in 20 years, as opposed to a potential market dive.
We don't exactly live in Utopia; I'd probably support a government plan to build thorium or other nuclear reactors .

>> No.3224435

>>3224428
> >No. You couldn't.
>You could say that anybody who infects another with a disease, infection, etc is violating their property rights. It just shows how ridiculous fundamentalist 'moral libertarianism' is.

And the proper reply would be to charge them in court if they do. Fundamental libertarianism is /very/ against restricting someone's rights before the harm is done. It's their "thing".

>> No.3224451

>>3224425
It isn't fraud if you are supposed to know what you are buying at the time you pay for it.

And now you are the criminal.

>> No.3224455

>>3224451

or liable for lawsuit.

>> No.3224473

I'm a libertarian for a simple reason - freedom and prosperity has a strong correlation, strong enough to with other empiricism suggest causation.

Also, egoism isn't necissarily bad and I detest the view that a night watchman state would be any less egoistic than todays society. After all, the vast majority (at least in my country) vote for a party that wants to have a big wellfare state and there is nothing that prohibits them from having the same benefits in a night watchman state, only that they could not force those unwilling to participate.

I have not read Ayn Rand and I get sick of all the Rand herpa derpa when discussing libertarianism. :(

>> No.3224501

>>3224473
>I have not read Ayn Rand

That's because you're a needy socialist liberal that wants everything made easy for him.

>> No.3225771

>>3224435
and then what?
should the court compensate me with some arbitrary pittance set by the government? It certainly won't be set by me, since the harm has already been done and can't be undone. Your system might as well be a license to steal.

If someone deliberately sets out to pollute my property, shouldn't they pay what I want, the compensation that is acceptable to me, since it's my property?

>> No.3225790

Objectivism is the polar opposite of communism, and it's just as wrong.

>> No.3225812

The "everyone is selfish" argument is retarded. It's a failure to distinguish between conscious and unconscious motives. If I genuinely value the happiness of others, that isn't "selfishness", even if it turns out I'm unconsciously motivated by the happiness I get from seeing others happy. So what?

Saying there's no difference between the man who derives happiness from the happiness of others and the man who doesn't care whether you live or die is just stupid. Calling them both "selfish" just means you've obliterated the meaning of the word.

>> No.3225826

>>3225771
>If someone deliberately sets out to pollute my property, shouldn't they pay what I want, the compensation that is acceptable to me, since it's my property?
No. Society has a vested interested in the well-being of its members, and giving the unilateral right for disproportionate punishment is detrimental. It's even worse than "an eye for an eye".

>> No.3225837

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of you have actually read an Ayn Rand book in its entirety?

>> No.3225839

>>3224473
Define "freedom", I ask this because libertarians tend to define it purely in negative terms (i.e. don't touch my stuff). I'm wondering if you do too.

>freedom and prosperity has a strong correlation
Is prosperity here akin to happiness/welfare/quality of life? If so, you're not presenting a very strong argument, because many factors influence this, like health and security. Freedom, like health and security ,is a means to an end (happiness) not an end unto itself. Happiness can only be optimized by finding a certain balance between the different factors that influence it.

>there is nothing that prohibits them from having the same benefits in a night watchman state, only that they could not force those unwilling to participate.
I find it naive to think that everything the state does right will somehow appear in a libertarian utopia just because it can.

>> No.3225850

>>3225837
Probably less than 10%. Her books are awful.

But that doesn't prevent the presentation and refutation of arguments, independent of the books.

>> No.3225854

>>3224501
Who doesn't want life to be a little easier?

>> No.3225858

>>3225854
As long as you're willing to work for that.

>> No.3225860

>>3225812
It seems less to do with "selfishness" and more to do with your lack of acceptance of egoism ruling the majority of your actions.

>If I genuinely value the happiness of others, that isn't "selfishness", even if it turns out I'm unconsciously motivated by the happiness I get from seeing others happy

Prime example: you get gratification from seeing others happy, hence, an egoistic function; that doesn't, however, make it bad. You seem to think selfishness is inherently bad, when it isn't.

>> No.3225863

>After all, the majority of helpful charities are private non-profit organizations (Red Cross)

uh, try all

I suspect your definition of charity necessitates that it be a private organization since you're obviously not counting all the stuff the government does for the benefit of those in need

so the welfare state, and the massive amounts of foreign aid we send around the world doesn't count and your point is proven, congrats

except the truth is by nature most people don't support charity in the numbers that are needed to make them effective. homeless shelters are most well-funded in wealthy liberal areas where they're the least needed. in fact, the very fact that people want government welfare programs dismantled and taxes lowered is proof in and of itself that people aren't really that naturally charitable. At least not when you can't see the consequences in your backyard. Sure, hardline conservatards, objectivists and the like say it's "the principle" and its probably even true for a few of them but for the majority its clear their wealth takes priority over the welfare of the less fortunate.

also ayn rand was explicitly anti charity so its pretty clear you didnt actually read any of her books and you're just agreeing with the wikipedia summary

>> No.3225869

>>3225860
You're redefining selfishness again. If you're going to do that, give me new adjectives to describe the man who finds happiness in the happiness of others, and the man who doesn't care if you live or die.

If you can't do that, then back off, because "selfish" and "unselfish" did the job just fine before Ayn Rand came along. I know we're arguing semantics, but I'm pointing out a fallacious argument that is *based* on an abuse of the word "selfish".

>> No.3225882

>>3225860
You're confusing selfishness and self-interest. Everyone has self-interest - not everyone is selfish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selfishness

>> No.3225893

>>3225837
I've read the Seeker saga by Goodkind, up to the point when it becomes a flat out manifesto.

Do not want.

>> No.3225902

monetary value =/= value as a human being

in a capitalist system, the most wealthy and therefore most powerful people will always be those who did nothing to earn it beside being born

the less regulation we have on economic systems the larger the class gap grows

upward mobility is pretty much a joke already and this only becomes more true as essential services (like education) are denied of the lower classes

an unfettered labor market that denies the rights of workers to collectively negotiate results in sub-living wages

all of history tells us these things and yet the fantasy that you are one of "the winners" likely to ascend to mount olympus if only you were unshackled of those pesky government regulations spurs you on to campaign for a system that actively fucks 99.9999% of people

>> No.3225905

Rand's ideal man, her idea of what objectivism creates, includes serial killers who don't give a shit about anything but themselves. Which is why she praised and modeled one of her novel characters off of a popular and disgusting serial killer from the 1920s, William Edward Hickman. Hickman was a forger, an armed robber, a child kidnapper, and a multiple murderer.
http://www.michaelprescott.net/hickman.htm

rand being a dumb israeli zionist
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B59ILxk1g4o

>> No.3225907

>>3225837 what percentage of you have actually read an Ayn Rand book in its entirety?

I've read Anthem, rather enjoyable. It's kind of like a depressing version of Orwell's 1984.

>> No.3225926

>>3225902
Most people aren't even aware that there's an aristocracy in the united states. when people think of the upper class they think of CEOs, but the truly wealthy are those people whose names you don't see in the papers, the descendants of oil and steel barons who have ungodly wealth and have literally done nothing to earn it.

>> No.3225942

because liberals dont like objectivity, freedom, self responsibility. theyre more in favor of communist ideas.

>> No.3225943

>What's with all the hate against libertarianism,
People only notice the lunatic fringe.

>Ayn Rand, and objectivism?
These are the lunatic fringe.

Read Atlas Shrugged with a more critical eye some time. You'll notice that despite the "good guys'" claim of merely withdrawing their contributions to society, it is obvious that they are actively sabotaging everything.

She tries to equate the actions of her characters (in this and other works) to those of striking workers. However, it is more like a few disgruntled riveters rationalizing that, since they had become unsatisfied with their pay, they are justified to not only stop work, but go around to all of the skyscrapers they worked on and set charges to cut an equal number of girders to the number they riveted, and then set them off in the middle of the day when the buildings are full of people.

Setting aside the feasibility issues of a handful of geniuses destroying the world economy, she is presenting insane serial-killer viciousness as the height of moral philosophy.

This is not an accident. She idolized the serial killer William Hickman and her characters were significantly inspired by his example:
http://exiledonline.com/atlas-shrieked-why-ayn-rands-right-wing-followers-are-scarier-than-the-manso
n-family-and-the-gruesome-story-of-the-serial-killer-who-stole-ayn-rands-heart/

People laugh at the shallowness and unrealism of "evil and proud of it" villains in formulaic fiction, but that is Objectivism in a nutshell.

>> No.3225958

>>3225905
this has already been raised here... apparently she just admired him for the 'outrage he caused in whole society, the poor thing, so despised by whole society, that is soooo evil'

While, at the same time, she herself described him as degenerate, thus contributing to this despicable societal outrage. Internal consistency much?

>> No.3226038

>>3225826
It's not unilateral. The polluter committed a deliberate act of aggression, and my only recourse is to government-set prices.

Society has a much greater interest in creating incentives for people to get permission before they destroy others' property.

>> No.3226062

>>3226038
If you have the unilateral right to determine what constitutes just compensation, then you can bankrupt anyone for minor property damage. That's why victims of crimes do not have the authority to determine the punishment.

However, this is also why we need tort reform - demanding ridiculous compensation for various infractions is rampant.

>> No.3226078

>>3226038
So now you figure if a kid throws an egg at your house, whether you take everything his parents own and have him work all his life as your slave should be a matter of your own conscience which no outsider can question?

There needs to be some disinterested authority that judges what is equitable compensation and proportionate retribution.

>> No.3226081

>>3226062
Ideally, this is why permissible punishment for a certain injustice is determined beforehand by elected representatives, and interpreted in the specific case by another elected representative (a judge).

>> No.3226090

Liberal/atheists only pretend to like science and truth to spite religion, but in reality they are just agenda pushing with their own religious beliefs; hence /sci/.

>> No.3226157

>>3225863
So much derp.
First of all, government charities are manual distributions of its people's wealth. Not necessarily charity, just welfare/global welfare. Welfare funded by the unjustified theft of one's hard work. So not charity, which would imply self interest or generosity.
Let's bring back the Red Cross, millions upon millions donate out of self interest. They aren't forced to donate, they donate because they want to. Wait, did say self interest? Let me touch up on that.

Rand specifically states that self interest can mean the happiness of other people. This is how she justifies marriage and families. You can't deny human emotion. Just like about everyone in this thread has. People feel generosity, people feel greed. People feel love, people feel resent. People feel individuality, people feel extroversion. None are exclusive of each other. If it is in the best self interest of a person to donate, they will and as a result of their instinctual generosity.

Your accusations of me not reading Rand implies a guilty conscious about not reading Rand yourself. Furthermore proving that you felt the instictual need to participate in this thread so you read wikipedia out of your own self interest.

>> No.3226179

>>3226090

What the fuck am I reading?

>> No.3226188

>>3226157
Earlier you said:
>the majority of helpful charities are private non-profit organizations (Red Cross)

Now you're saying:
>government charities are manual distributions of its people's wealth. Not necessarily charity, just welfare/global welfare. Welfare funded by the unjustified theft of one's hard work. So not charity, which would imply self interest or generosity.

Thus proving that you were redefining words in order to rephrase a tautology as statement that sounds meaningful.

Typical Objectivist. What would you expect from people who think "A is A" is some kind of profound logical truth rather than a trivial one?

Also:
>charity, which would imply self interest
Thus proving that you are crazy in the coconut.

>> No.3226215

>>3226157

Taxation. Is. Not. Theft.
All people who make money benefit not only from services provided by the government and public goods, but also from the social order it maintains.
Therefore they should return portion of their wealth back to this society, unconditionally, and the easiest way to do so is by paying taxes. As you can see, in the real world, many value their image in the eyes of society - or perhaps are just so altruistic - that they go beyond what they are obliged to pay by law, in spite of certain scholars' (Friedman) opinion on the matter.

Still you can see all sort of agencies exploit the freedom the law provides for them, for instance by leveraging their negotiating power in negotiations.

Now tell me, do you really, honestly think, that in absence of the state, even with all its flaws and shortcomings, or in limiting its power considerably, the world would be a better place?

>> No.3226235

Statists everywhere.

>>3226062
>victims of crimes do not have the authority to determine the punishment.
so pollution should be a crime, like theft? If the majority votes to redefine the law and set punishments that you don't agree with, is that morally ok?

>> No.3226246

>>3226215
It depends on what the taxes are used for. If they're used to support the framework that benefits society then it's not theft. Tax money that's used to repay political favors or acts against the interest of the society is theft.

>> No.3226272

>>3226235
Didn't read, did you now?
>>3226188
I'm not advocating anarchy. Or that taxation is theft. Basicslly this:>>3226246
In a sense that the taxpayer's interest is to ensure justice, defense, etc. Not welfare for those who don't earn it.

>> No.3226284

>>3226272
While I also agree that welfare as it is should be ended, decompress and return to work programs for unemployed might actually save tax payers a considerable amount in prison expenses.

>> No.3226301

>>3222222

>> No.3226306

>>3226246
That I can agree with wholeheartedly.

>> No.3226336

>>3226215
>thinks sage is going to work on this thread

new to the conversation here
taxation in and of itself is not theft, and is not unduly burdensome.
the state exists to provide certain things, common defense, system of measures, a postal service, courts, and the regularly debated "general welfare"
I think "general welfare" refers to a general: applies to all people equally, benefit: good. This is supported by documentation developed around the same time that the Constitution was written.

Ergo, my understanding of the role of government is that it should be only as large (and accordingly, as expensive) as it needs to be to provide certain services that are set in stone, as well as future services that are of equal benefit to all of it's citizens.

>> No.3226581

>>3226336
Well, the constitution was also phrased to protect slave holding, but the needs of the public definately have.changed. We really don't need a public postal service too much, USPS does a shitty job.

>> No.3226602

>>3226581
Slave holding was not explicitly enshrined. The fact that the US constitution has been useful through all the social changes since its origin is a great evidence of how very basic and timeless the document's foundational principles are.

>> No.3227676

>>3226306
>Entire thread about government power and fund usage
Sigh...

>> No.3227717

Mfw libertarians consider taxation (or taxation to fund hospitals, schools, let's be fair) theft, while they ignore the fact that their economy is run not democratically but as a set of fiefdoms.

A bunch of people do some hard work, one of them takes the profits and gives them to his shareholder friends. Everyone else gets a fixed amount based on how much it would cost to go over their bitching and find a replacement.

This is the state of affairs in a democracy.

>> No.3227788

>>3227717
Libertarians are aware we live in a constitutional republic, not a democracy

>> No.3227805

>>3227788

Because them commoners can't be trusted amirite?

>> No.3227829

>>3222616

>Implying that economic liberalism isn't very tied with social conservatism.
>Implying that corporations are pro-science.

>> No.3227924

Yup objectivism was a great addition to our lexicon made by Ms. Rand but it's not everything or the name of God. Subjectivity is an objective fact of life and a paradox which ends another philosophic line of reasoning for the ration.. the irrational will continue on due to their hatred for paradoxes and conquest for determinism. We need to learn how to exchange subjective views with objective reason and in order to do so also assign logical descriptions per the individual per the moment to which those views are endorsed.

There is no greatness to any of the ISMs. They are all just tools and modes of analysis which better craft a person's perspective; the more tools you have the more effectively and efficiently you can craft your vantage. Not even science is all that great: Francis Bacon said "Scientia potentia est" which we know as 'knowledge is power' but Socrates said "ἓν οἶδα ὅτι οὐδὲν οἶδα hèn oîda hóti oudèn oîda" which we as 'I know that I know nothing [with absolute certainty]'. We could derive contradictions from these statements about power vs. humility only when we fail to apply a scale to balance both these equally valuable pieces of rhetoric.

Sage for not science.

>> No.3227941

Only really tangentially related, but I think that charity works best when it's carried out in a privatized manner. I'd much rather give $100 to a private charity and have $70-90 of it go to the cause itself than give $100 to taxes and have half of it go to "administration" fees and a quarter of it to some asinine study on the effects of magnets on menstruating armadillos with only the last quarter going to the cause itself.

>> No.3228536

>>3227941
>give $100 to a private charity
>have $70-90 of it go to the cause itself
LOL