Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Extreme poverty contradicts premise of Objectivism

Rate this topic


Simulacra

Recommended Posts

I think he's trying to say that America's system is perfect already, because it gives us basic necessities like education. His country's system is flawed because it is too social. But he believes Ayn Rand's ideal is also flawed because of a complete lack of socialism. He seems to believe that education should be required to be given to us in order to empower us to do everything else we've been able to do in our capitalist society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

OK I have to go. But I don't want to turn this into that scene in the fountainhead where Howard tries to debate against the board of that bank and cannot. I liked the ideas of Zip and QuoVadis for instance, so I would appreciate it if only you two or 2046 (if he feels I evade him) to debate.

Read the last posts I wrote and follow my objections to Objectivism: there should be taxes and if you are starving or in extreme poverty 99% of people won't get out of that.

I'll continue tomorrow with anyone who's willing cause I'm guessing Quo Vadis thinks I'm irrational. Take into mind what happened between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. Branden disagreed with some of Rand's ideas and especially her constant use of a pseudo argument, thinking and calling everything she doesn't agree with "irrational". Yes, she would justify many, but not all. Why? Yes, because a debate is never completely rational, it would take a lifetime. So, I would like to listen to your ideas to see if they tell me I'm wrong, but patience.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My needs, which aren't mine, but there's (poor people), should be fulfilled in a basic form like they're done in the US. There should be taxes but not extraordinary, just enough to give people basic needs (which means not welfare but institutions like schools and universities, hospitals, roads) that they can choose to use if they need it.

Please don't evade my question: do you agree that you wouldn't have earned your money if you had been born in the Favela of Brazil? YOU, NOT Fictional Howard Roark or Gail Wynand, etc.

Yes, I would have earned my money, unless I do what you condone: which is putting a gun to someone's head and taking it from them by force.

So you clearly believe that your "needs" are a mandate for slave labour from other people.

I'm sorry, but if I can't rob Peter to pay Paul nor can government.

If it is wrong for one person to kill another except in self-defense, it is wrong for one person to murder another even if one calls himself a "Soldier" or "Police Officer," except in self-defense. If it is wrong for one person to enslave another, it is wrong for one person to enslave another even if one person calls himself "Your Representative in Government." If it is wrong for one person to steal from another, it is wrong for one person to steal from another even if one person call himself an "IRS Agent."

If not, all I need to do to kill you, enslave you, and steal your property is declare myself a "Soldier," "Representative," or "IRS agent" depending on which I'm doing, and suddenly it all becomes okay. Or do you disagree?

The mark of an honest man, as distinguished from a Collectivist, is that he means what he says and knows what he means.

When we say that we hold individual rights to be inalienable, we must mean just that. Inalienable means that which we may not take away, suspend, infringe, restrict or violate -- not ever, not at any time, not for any purpose whatsoever.

You cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in cold weather and on every second Tuesday," just as you cannot say that "man has inalienable rights except in an emergency," or "man's rights cannot be violated except for a good purpose."

Either man's rights are inalienable, or they are not. You cannot say a thing such as "semi-inalienable" and consider yourself either honest or sane. When you begin making conditions, reservations and exceptions, you admit that there is something or someone above man's rights who may violate them at his discretion. Who? Why, society -- that is, the Collective. For what reason? For the good of the Collective. Who decides when rights should be violated? The Collective. If this is what you believe, move over to the side where you belong and admit that you are a Collectivist. Then take all the consequences which Collectivism implies. There is no middle ground here. You cannot have your cake and eat it, too. You are not fooling anyone but yourself.

(Ayn Rand Textbook of Americanism. 1946)

I suggest you read that essay, and Man's Rights, Collectivized Rights, and The Nature of Government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's trying to say that America's system is perfect already, because it gives us basic necessities like education. His country's system is flawed because it is too social. But he believes Ayn Rand's ideal is also flawed because of a complete lack of socialism. He seems to believe that education should be required to be given to us in order to empower us to do everything else we've been able to do in our capitalist society.

Yes, Thank you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Thank you.

(20:36:13) outlaw: Socialized education is the thing that is destroying us more than anything else.

(20:36:26) outlaw: America's greatest threat is our government education system.

(20:36:50) NickS: Pretty much.

(20:37:24) outlaw: If you read AS carefully, you will see that the *blame* is put specifically on *teachers*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simulacra, if the others (I don't feel like searching for who said it) are right, your country is a big socialist state. I think they're trying to tell you that the reason you are in such terrible poverty is because you are in such a big socialism.

Ayn Rand's ideal of complete capitalism is good because all education will be private. Different schools will compete with each other for students, so the competition will make prices affordable. And everyone will still be able to get an education.

I think this could work in third world countries too. If everyone is too poor, private schools will lower their prices so poor people will be able to afford them. There's no point in running a private school if you have no students, is there?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simulacra, te lo dire de una manera tremendamente simple: Nada que hayas observado en Latinoamerica se aproxima siquiera en un mínimo porciento al capitalismo. Los fracasos de latinoamerica son muchos, demasiados para enumerar, pero entre ellos se encuentra el hecho que jamás se practico el capitalismo sinó que siempre ha sido un híbrido de mercado y gobierno.

En cuanto a la educación, te olvidas que hay escuelas privadas como San Francisco Javier, de los Jesuitas, que están al alcance de incluso la esfera más pobre y que sin embargo tienen una educación superior a muchos otros colegios. Privado no quiere siempre decir inalcanzable. Dichas escuelas también tienen programas de asistencia médica.

No puedes medir al capitalismo usando a America Latina como medida. Hablando como Ecuatoriano, puedo decir que todo lo que tenemos, nos lo hemos merecido por nuestros propios vicios y falta de integridad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK I have to go. But I don't want to turn this into that scene in the fountainhead where Howard tries to debate against the board of that bank and cannot. I liked the ideas of Zip and QuoVadis for instance, so I would appreciate it if only you two or 2046 (if he feels I evade him) to debate.

Read the last posts I wrote and follow my objections to Objectivism: there should be taxes and if you are starving or in extreme poverty 99% of people won't get out of that.

I'll continue tomorrow with anyone who's willing cause I'm guessing Quo Vadis thinks I'm irrational. Take into mind what happened between Ayn Rand and Nathaniel Branden. Branden disagreed with some of Rand's ideas and especially her constant use of a pseudo argument, thinking and calling everything she doesn't agree with "irrational". Yes, she would justify many, but not all. Why? Yes, because a debate is never completely rational, it would take a lifetime. So, I would like to listen to your ideas to see if they tell me I'm wrong, but patience.

You believe you would be where you are financially if you would have been born in a Favela? This is the premise of Objectivism that I began with and wanted to discuss. You wouldn't have ever read Ayn Rand much less have any incentive to be an "individual hero."

You all need to travel and really live in different parts of the world, see poverty first hand, live in or by it. I still have a long way to go. Five thousand years of History and Culture will teach us something that we haven't already learned in are small existence, lets not think that the US is the whole world. That "since it's the pinnacle of evolution of the mind and of reason, why be anywhere else?" like i think most americans view as the truth when they go on vacation or think about the rest of the world. This is not the case.

Proposed absolute truths (those who supposedly have all the answers) like marxism, religions or Objectivism are the same as science paradigms (Kuhn's "the Structure of Scientific revolutions"). You're constructing on false premises which are not put into to practice in the real world. Remember, the USA is not the whole world. I lived there. Every thing else is "exotic" or not "evolutionized". I realized how false this was after living a year outside the country (it's been 10 years now).

I think the smartest one can be is to be open and question one's most profound ideas. That's what I did when I came to this forum. But you're arguments ended in the nonsense of saying that you are superior human being, that you are capable of molding your life independently of your circumstance.

So, you can say: "Yeah, he's irrational" and anything you want to please yourself. About your quote of Ayn Rand, It is not all black or white, you should give part of your money so the hundreds of children who are dying as we speak can be offered to have the education (and the health to fulfill it) to see whether he will take advantage of what his education gave him like you, or turn out having a petty existence. And it's not even that simple. There are infinite factors that make a person who he or she is. Yes, we should have the will power to overcome anything, but tell that to the kid who just died of hunger. You think he didn't try? He did, until he died. It's his fathers fault for having him? There is NO education when you're that poor. So, as we speak, in the Asian, African and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty"; one out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night. every year 15 million children die of hunger; for the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years. So, please don't come, like Ayn Rand, and reduce the world's poverty to "it's the parents fault for having them" and let them all die on a good conscious with total negligence.

If any of you ever come down to Argentina, I'll receive you in open arms and show you what I mean.

We only live once, lets not fool ourselves. Truth doesn't solely lie in books or debates, reality persuades a little better.

Good Night and Good Luck.

email: [email protected]

Edited by Simulacra
Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, everybody: I am South American. Unlike Simulacra, I have not been swindled into the socialist viewpoint, and I can tell you this:

90% of the goings-on in Latin America, from extreme poverty to 'failing markets' are the combination of two things: Government intervention in the private sector and a general lack of understanding of the trader principle. Countries such as Ecuador, from which unfortunately I hail from, deserve everything that has befallen them due to the combined elements above mentioned and a sickening level of infantile people- people who expect the government to take care of them, people who despise work and insult you if you were to offer it to them and would rather beg in the streets for 'easy' money rather than earn it, people who see government positions as opportunities to make quick money through bribes and blackmail and connections and who consider you a fool if you have one such position and do nothing illicit ("Honest" essentially meaning "Slow" to them).

Simulacra is incapable of distinguishing the parasites and instead blames the only thing that could kill them. I am of the idea that either Simulacra is one of these parasites, most likely from a certain Argentinian University, or the pupil of one.

I can tell you that if you go to Argentina and Ecuador, as I have been and lived, you will see reality- and that reality seems almost like it jumped out of the pages of "Atlas Shrugged"- James Taggart and Meigs rule the industries and the government, whilst priests speak of sacrifice, duty and the special dignity you are awarded for being poor.

There is an excellent book by Plinio Mendoza called "Guide to the perfect latin american idiot" that I think Simulacra would benefit from reading. In fact, one of the things he has said in this forum ('Truth doesn't solely lie in books or debates') fits perfectly in the description of the book (from the spanish version, translated by yours truly):

"The Perfect Latin American Idiot thinks we are poor because they are rich and vice versa, that history is a successful conspiration of evil against good in which the evil always win and we always lose (and he is ALWAYS amongst the poor victims and good losers), and when he speaks of culture he says : " What I know, I learned in life, not in books, that's why my culture isn't bookish, it's vital."

Less typing, Simulacra, more reading.

Edited by kainscalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I would have earned my money, unless I do what you condone: which is putting a gun to someone's head and taking it from them by force.

So you clearly believe that your "needs" are a mandate for slave labour from other people.

I'm sorry, but if I can't rob Peter to pay Paul nor can government.

If it is wrong for one person to kill another except in self-defense, it is wrong for one person to murder another even if one calls himself a "Soldier" or "Police Officer," except in self-defense. If it is wrong for one person to enslave another, it is wrong for one person to enslave another even if one person calls himself "Your Representative in Government." If it is wrong for one person to steal from another, it is wrong for one person to steal from another even if one person call himself an "IRS Agent."

If not, all I need to do to kill you, enslave you, and steal your property is declare myself a "Soldier," "Representative," or "IRS agent" depending on which I'm doing, and suddenly it all becomes okay. Or do you disagree?

I suggest you read that essay, and Man's Rights, Collectivized Rights, and The Nature of Government.

You believe you would be where you are financially if you would have been born in a Favela? This is the premise of Objectivism that I began with and wanted to discuss. You wouldn't have ever read Ayn Rand much less have any incentive to be an "individual hero."

You all need to travel and really live in different parts of the world, see poverty first hand, live in or by it. I still have a long way to go. Five thousand years of History and Culture will teach us something that we haven't already learned in are small existence, lets not think that the US is the whole world. That "since it's the pinnacle of evolution of the mind and of reason, why be anywhere else?" like i think most americans view as the truth when they go on vacation or think about the rest of the world. This is not the case.

Proposed absolute truths (those who supposedly have all the answers) like marxism, religions or Objectivism are the same as science paradigms (Kuhn's "the Structure of Scientific revolutions"). You're constructing on false premises which are not put into to practice in the real world. Remember, the USA is not the whole world. I lived there. Every thing else is "exotic" or not "evolutionized". I realized how false this was after living a year outside the country (it's been 10 years now).

I think the smartest one can be is to be open and question one's most profound ideas. That's what I did when I came to this forum. But you're arguments ended in the nonsense of saying that you are superior human being, that you are capable of molding your life independently of your circumstance.

So, you can say: "Yeah, he's irrational" and anything you want to please yourself. About your quote of Ayn Rand, It is not all black or white, you should give part of your money so the hundreds of children who are dying as we speak can be offered to have the education (and the health to fulfill it) to see whether he will take advantage of what his education gave him like you, or turn out having a petty existence. And it's not even that simple. There are infinite factors that make a person who he or she is. Yes, we should have the will power to overcome anything, but tell that to the kid who just died of hunger. You think he didn't try? He did, until he died. It's his fathers fault for having him? There is NO education when you're that poor. So, as we speak, in the Asian, African and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty"; one out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night. every year 15 million children die of hunger; for the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years. So, please don't come, like Ayn Rand, and reduce the world's poverty to "it's the parents fault for having them" and let them all die on a good conscious with total negligence.

If any of you ever come down to Argentina, I'll receive you in open arms and show you what I mean.

We only live once, lets not fool ourselves. Truth doesn't solely lie in books or debates, reality persuades a little better.

Good Night and Good Luck.

email: [email protected]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the record, everybody: I am South American. Unlike Simulacra, I have not been swindled into the socialist viewpoint, and I can tell you this:

90% of the goings-on in Latin America, from extreme poverty to 'failing markets' are the combination of two things: Government intervention in the private sector and a general lack of understanding of the trader principle. Countries such as Ecuador, from which unfortunately I hail from, deserve everything that has befallen them due to the combined elements above mentioned and a sickening level of infantile people- people who expect the government to take care of them, people who despise work and insult you if you were to offer it to them and would rather beg in the streets for 'easy' money rather than earn it, people who see government positions as opportunities to make quick money through bribes and blackmail and connections and who consider you a fool if you have one such position and do nothing illicit ("Honest" essentially meaning "Slow" to them).

Simulacra is incapable of distinguishing the parasites and instead blames the only thing that could kill them. I am of the idea that either Simulacra is one of these parasites, most likely from a certain Argentinian University, or the pupil of one.

I can tell you that if you go to Argentina and Ecuador, as I have been and lived, you will see reality- and that reality seems almost like it jumped out of the pages of "Atlas Shrugged"- James Taggart and Meigs rule the industries and the government, whilst priests speak of sacrifice, duty and the special dignity you are awarded for being poor.

There is an excellent book by Plinio Mendoza called "Guide to the perfect latin american idiot" that I think Simulacra would benefit from reading. In fact, one of the things he has said in this forum ('Truth doesn't solely lie in books or debates') fits perfectly in the description of the book (from the spanish version, translated by yours truly):

"The Perfect Latin American Idiot thinks we are poor because they are rich and vice versa, that history is a successful conspiration of evil against good in which the evil always win and we always lose (and he is ALWAYS amongst the poor victims and good losers), and when he speaks of culture he says : " What I know, I learned in life, not in books, that's why my culture isn't bookish, it's vital."

Less typing, Simulacra, more reading.

I do not believe that "we are poor because they are rich and vice versa, that history is a successful conspiration of evil against good in which the evil always win and we always lose (and he is ALWAYS amongst the poor victims and good losers)" I never said that, never talked about America's imperialism or Europe's colonialism like a marxist would. We can both be rich.

And when I think of culture I don't completely think: "What I know, I learned in life, not in books, that's why my culture isn't bookish, it's vital." All I discussed was about theories and books and finalized in inviting anyone, including yourself, to show you poverty cause it's obvious you haven't felt it. I'm not saying that if you live in a third world country you'll understand that it's not simply numbers, trust me, the rich ladies drinking tea in expensive neighborhood here don't know anything about poverty. You can be very intelligent and be blind as yourself.

No te preocupes, segui asi, no es tu hijo muriendose. Aparte, vos no podes hacer nada para salvarlo... Estoy de acuerdo que es culpa de los gobiernos y de la ignorancia, por eso digo, demosle educacion. Nada mas.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Estoy de acuerdo que es culpa de los gobiernos y de la ignorancia, por eso digo, demosle educacion. Nada mas.

(Translated: "I agree that it's the fault of governments and ignorance. That's why I say, let's give them education. Nothing more")

Que se eduquen ellos mismos. O acaso me vas a decir que no existen autodidactas?

Ya basta con esa mentalidad de víctima donde te tienen que dar la papilla para todo!

("Let them educate themselves. Or are you going to tell me now that there are no self-educated people? Enough already with the victim mentality where they have to spoon-feed you everything!")

Edited by kainscalia
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One doesn't need to have lived in a ghetto or favela to know that the only economic system to help people there is laissez faire capitalism. Private ownership, not nationalized economies, will revitalize a country and help it to prosper.

Continuing to argue for social welfare on this board, with all the information available to you of Objectivism and especially economics is a complete negation of the reality you keep telling us to look at.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you can really argue against capitalism when the poverty-stricken country you live in is a socialism. America is rich because it is a capitalism. But it isn't a true capitalism, it is a mixed economy.

I don't know if you've been keeping up with the news here in america, but our quality of life is falling too. We are becoming poorer, we are losing our jobs, we are in the beginning steps of a journey that led to your country being the way it is. Why? Because we aren't a complete capitalism. The socialist aspects of our society are finally starting to bring us down. If we were a complete capitalism like Ayn Rand wanted, this would not be happening to us. We, the rich giant country of the world, would not be having the troubles we are now if the socialist aspects of our society weren't draining us.

Where you were born does have some influence on what you are able to do. But you can overcome it. Ayn Rand herself was born in Soviet Russia. A communism. She moved to the United States, learned and mastered the english language, became a great writer, and started an entire philosophy that moves people to this day. She was born into terrible circumstances, but she rose above them and did great things with her life.

It doesn't matter where you are born, because with enough ambition, you can still do anything you want with your life. You said you lived in America. Why aren't you still there now if that is where all the opportunities are? (Or did you say you lived in the world outside America, and not America itself?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And incidentally, I don't need to "Feel" poverty. I have a mind- unlike you, I don't need to go around 'feeling' things in order to understand them. I think about them.

You are obviously an example of the Idiota Latinoamericano. The book fits you. You're trying to hide it, but you have a seething resentment towards anyone that has any amount of wealth, such as the 'rich ladies drinking tea'. You may try to hide it through your attitude, but your language betrays you: why do you mention these ladies, if not for the fact that you wish to paint them in ridicule? "Here you have these women, obviously wealthy, drinking tea. How DARE THEY enjoy the commodities their wealth gives them? How DARE they feel guiltless about it when others don't have what they have!" You say you don't believe that one steals the wealth of another, but your example clearly indicates you do: it is clearly the fault of these rich ladies that the others are not as wealthy as they are. Otherwise, why mention them at all?

Your whole claim is the same claim that populists and demagogues make: They NEED this, they NEED that. I'm sorry, but NEED is no claim upon anyone's time or money. So yes, I am sorry, if you father twenty children and you don't have a job, you don't automatically get to claim someone else's money for welfare because you couldn't be bothered to THINK "Gee, I don't have a job. Maybe I shouldn't have any children for now on." If you can't be bothered to think even on that basic level, then you're operating as close to the animalistic level as is possible for a human to do: he screws because he wants to, and consequences be damned.

Yes, it's tragic that his children may starve. If you care about them then you do something about it, as many other individuals will when informed of the situation (in this case the only moral situation would be to confiscate the children from the father and adopt them into different families), but you have no right to force someone to care about them. Do you hear me? You have no right to force other people to prepare a parachute for someone who tried to ignore reality. The consequences he is suffering from are the consequences of attempting to evade reality. Those that want to help him (and who would? I would help the children and forget about the father), good luck. But you can take your moral imperative of need as the only qualifier and do something unpleasant with it, because it is useless in an argument- it holds no water and it is nothing more than a simpering emotional appeal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well there you have it, Americans: let the good be punished for being the good; I hope you all feel guilty as hell. <_<

I am sorry to say: 1. this attitude is prevalent from Africa to Europe, and it seems, to Latin America.

2. The fact that the U.S. citizens have a work ethic, and a sense of personal responsibility,( this I'm assured of via several sources from friends who live there, or done business there) well before the overarching morality of Capitalism even comes to play, is conveniently evaded by the majority of these 'caring,' finger-wagging, socialists.

3. The fact that the U.S. is more vulnerable now than ever (IMO), is going to increase this kind of amoral, double standards from the rest of the world.

4. As a result, I fear that your Nation will be drawn either into appeasement and compromise with the world ('Social Democracy'? Sure, lets try it. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.), or into an arrogant insularity from the world.

I am also sorry as hell to say that the description of Ecuador by kainscalia could be one of my own country, South Africa. To a "T".

The government looked up to for everything, and involving itself in everything. 'Entitlement' is epidemic. 'Redistribution of wealth', the buzz phrase. Public funds are squandered, or just disappear. Rights? Oh yes, we have rights: rights to a job; rights to education; to hospitals; rights to strike; rights to be taxed. Right to property? (Recently considered, nationalisation of SA,s gold mines! )Well, 'we' will allow this.... for the time being.

As Ayn Rand identified, there can be no rights without property rights.

And as it seems to be in S. America, the belief here that schooling alone makes the man or woman. That the poor will be uplifted by the panacea of public education. The fact that millions are born into grinding poverty, are given no inspiration from their parents, no example of responsibility, esteem, and rational thought - these youngsters must take one look around them, and just give up. Schooling alone brings no relief and no reward, in these Socialist States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simulacra, if the others (I don't feel like searching for who said it) are right, your country is a big socialist state. I think they're trying to tell you that the reason you are in such terrible poverty is because you are in such a big socialism.

Ayn Rand's ideal of complete capitalism is good because all education will be private. Different schools will compete with each other for students, so the competition will make prices affordable. And everyone will still be able to get an education.

I think this could work in third world countries too. If everyone is too poor, private schools will lower their prices so poor people will be able to afford them. There's no point in running a private school if you have no students, is there?

It already does...

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/c...ticle706239.ece

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what happens in Ecuador, too. St. Francis Xavier, run by the Jesuits, is not only extremely affordable but it also runs its own medical support program for the families of students who can't afford medical care.

I studied at that school myself, and I must say that the Jesuits provide some of the best education out there -- religious class aside (theology, actually, which can come quite useful if you are an atheist), how many highschools teach you philosophy? I've yet to find one person who was taught philosophy while going to a public highschool.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is what happens in Ecuador, too. St. Francis Xavier, run by the Jesuits, is not only extremely affordable but it also runs its own medical support program for the families of students who can't afford medical care.

I studied at that school myself, and I must say that the Jesuits provide some of the best education out there -- religious class aside (theology, actually, which can come quite useful if you are an atheist), how many highschools teach you philosophy? I've yet to find one person who was taught philosophy while going to a public highschool.

Yes, my daughter got her start in Philosophy at a Catholic School. She is pursuing it further as one of her minors in University.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As regards education I don't know of a single country that has a fully private education system. At best private schools coexist with public schools. Given the government charges little or nothing for tuition, in some cases this includes the college and post-graduate levels, naturally private schools can't compete very well and tend to be expensive.

It's the same problem as healthcare: government messes up everything. Compare education and healthcare to other services and you find wide price ranges to accomodate all segments of the market. Consider food preparation services. In Mexico you'll find everything from food stands charging less than US $2 for a meal to five-star restaurants charging hundreds per dish.

Spekaing of healthcare you'd be surprised how many food stands and other "infomral" businesses set up shop outside government-run hospitals. Outside the larger ones thereare semi-permanent bazars right outside, selling everything from clothes, to food, to pirated DVDs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spekaing of healthcare you'd be surprised how many food stands and other "infomral" businesses set up shop outside government-run hospitals. Outside the larger ones thereare semi-permanent bazars right outside, selling everything from clothes, to food, to pirated DVDs.

LOL, in Kosovo and Bosnia the largest black markets were always within walking distance of the largest UN or NATO headquarters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You believe you would be where you are financially if you would have been born in a Favela? This is the premise of Objectivism that I began with and wanted to discuss. You wouldn't have ever read Ayn Rand much less have any incentive to be an "individual hero."

You all need to travel and really live in different parts of the world, see poverty first hand, live in or by it. I still have a long way to go. Five thousand years of History and Culture will teach us something that we haven't already learned in are small existence, lets not think that the US is the whole world. That "since it's the pinnacle of evolution of the mind and of reason, why be anywhere else?" like i think most americans view as the truth when they go on vacation or think about the rest of the world. This is not the case.

Proposed absolute truths (those who supposedly have all the answers) like marxism, religions or Objectivism are the same as science paradigms (Kuhn's "the Structure of Scientific revolutions"). You're constructing on false premises which are not put into to practice in the real world. Remember, the USA is not the whole world. I lived there. Every thing else is "exotic" or not "evolutionized". I realized how false this was after living a year outside the country (it's been 10 years now).

I think the smartest one can be is to be open and question one's most profound ideas. That's what I did when I came to this forum. But you're arguments ended in the nonsense of saying that you are superior human being, that you are capable of molding your life independently of your circumstance.

So, you can say: "Yeah, he's irrational" and anything you want to please yourself. About your quote of Ayn Rand, It is not all black or white, you should give part of your money so the hundreds of children who are dying as we speak can be offered to have the education (and the health to fulfill it) to see whether he will take advantage of what his education gave him like you, or turn out having a petty existence. And it's not even that simple. There are infinite factors that make a person who he or she is. Yes, we should have the will power to overcome anything, but tell that to the kid who just died of hunger. You think he didn't try? He did, until he died. It's his fathers fault for having him? There is NO education when you're that poor. So, as we speak, in the Asian, African and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty"; one out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night. every year 15 million children die of hunger; for the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years. So, please don't come, like Ayn Rand, and reduce the world's poverty to "it's the parents fault for having them" and let them all die on a good conscious with total negligence.

If any of you ever come down to Argentina, I'll receive you in open arms and show you what I mean.

We only live once, lets not fool ourselves. Truth doesn't solely lie in books or debates, reality persuades a little better.

Good Night and Good Luck.

email: [email protected]

Let's see, so in a nutshell:

"If I believe X, I have the right to force you to support my delusion. If I like income taxes, I have the right to make you pay. If I believe in free healthcare (free for me, not for you) I have a right to make you pay for it. If I believe in free education (free for me, not for you) I have a right to make you provide it. If I believe in free pensions (free for me, not for you) I have a right to make you labour for it. If I believe in slavery, I have a right to make you my slave. If I think I am Santa Claus, I have the right to force you to make toys. I don't have to provide any reasons why, I just state it and that settles it. War is Peace, Freedom is Slavery, Ignorance is Strength."

How about this? If you want people to have free X, Y, and Z - fucking pay for it yourself. If you want to elect for yourself a social democracy, go vote for one. Go redistrubute your own wealth and the wealth of anyone who agrees with you. Go elect a totalitarian dictator for yourselves, for all I care. Do you believe you have the right to force it down my throat? Enjoy your delusions in peace and don't force me to suffer through them and we're cool. Try to murder, enslave, and steal from me, then we have a problem.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You believe you would be where you are financially if you would have been born in a Favela? This is the premise of Objectivism that I began with and wanted to discuss. You wouldn't have ever read Ayn Rand much less have any incentive to be an "individual hero.

This is a hoot! I think that most people that are attracted to Objectivism are those who were at heart objectivists before even an inkling of Ayn Rand or her ideas. True, as a philosopher, she did painstakingly lay out objectivist thought as a system of ideas; however, I for one could think for myself before her, and would have done about the same if she had never been born.

I don't know where the hell Favela is, but I do know where I am from. I am from a very, very rural town in south Georgia, where the entire economy of our town subsists on the annual peach season. Ignorance, poverty, crack, heroine, are the daily routine for many, and the rest spend their hours scrounging up money to give to the church on the weekends. So?

The fact that I am a senior level systems engineer, and now a college student studying for a career in law, is not a function of government handouts that were stolen from someone else, but through diligence on my part. The fact that my parents who both grew up in the segregated south, and in total poverty (no running water, no shoes, outdoor toilet, etc.) and have both achieved education to the masters level, and my father a doctorate, has nothing to do with government handouts; but, is the function of hard work and perseverance.

What makes this possible here in America, as opposed to Favela? FREEDOM. Instead of trying to solicit miserable guests at your next pity party, why not read our constitution, and see how superior it is to the constitution of Favela? Why not moan and groan over the gross dictatorships that exist all over the world, and the fact that 90% of the world still lives under tyranny.

Why do people from other countries seem to have a need to get Americans to become miserable with them, instead of trying to live better themselves?

You all need to travel and really live in different parts of the world, see poverty first hand, live in or by it.

When I do travel, it is not to the bowels of whatever banana boat country I go to; I'll tell you that! Why would I spend thousands of dollars of my hard earned money to go and be miserable and experience hell first hand? Are you serious?

If I see--"first hand"--a child in Africa with flies in his eyes, I will not suddenly recognize that the flies are somehow more emphatic than they were when I saw them on the television. Seeing them "first hand" will only serve to solidify my resolve, which is that every child living under any form of tyranny, is a living tragedy. That, his parents should have fought endlessly to overthrow their government, and copy the US constitution as their new one!

I still have a long way to go. Five thousand years of History and Culture will teach us something that we haven't already learned in are small existence, lets not think that the US is the whole world. That "since it's the pinnacle of evolution of the mind and of reason, why be anywhere else?" like i think most americans view as the truth when they go on vacation or think about the rest of the world. This is not the case.

I agree that the five thousand years of history before the US is significant. It clearly demonstrates what a magnificent achievement the United States of America is for all of mankind. It is sad though, that all human beings are seemingly resistant to change, and are taking so long to follow such a bright and glowing example.

Proposed absolute truths (those who supposedly have all the answers) like marxism, religions or Objectivism are the same as science paradigms (Kuhn's "the Structure of Scientific revolutions"). You're constructing on false premises which are not put into to practice in the real world.

Whoa! Big and fancy words, that say nothing. I will demonstrate this by stating Objectivist premises, and leave it up to you to demonstrate how said premises are "false" and/or "constructed."

1).Existence exists. Everything in existence has a specific nature or properties that differentiate it from everything else. (For the purposes of this synopsis, the term "things" will be used hereafter, unless further differentiated)

2).There are two classifications of "things" or that which exists within the universe: living and non-living; giving full recognition that those things living are composed of non-living components. Living things can loose their lives, but their components will continue to exist.

3).Living things within existence have to do various forms of work in order to sustain their lives. The successes of living things' efforts in this regard, further the life of the living thing, and failures in the same regard, serve to shorten its life.

4).Man is one of the living things. Man, possesses a certain consciousness that enables him to not only perceive the facts of reality, but also, enables him to understand and use the facts of reality (the nature of things in existence) in order to sustain and further his life. Man's consciousness is not automatic, but is a function of his desire and ability to use it.

5).Man's consciousness--if used--requires that he gain knowledge in order to plan and use the facts of reality gained by his powers of perception. Objectivism holds that the only means at Man's disposal towards this end is reason. Objectivism rejects the notion of knowledge being granted to man through divine revelation; knowledge gained through osmosis; knowledge gained through inward reflection(unless the knowledge is about ones self); cosmic intuition, etc.

All sages, shamen, prophets, etc., are con men!

6).The alternative of life and death, dictate the corralary to life: good and evil. Simplified: The good sustains--and/or promotes--life; and, the evil destroys or ends life.

7).The lives of men are not interchangeable digits, or subordinate to the lives of other life forms. Man is not a sacrificial offering.

8).Man--the individual--is the owner of his own individual life.

These are the premises of objectivism in short form.

The following are some objectivist conclusions:

A).Given man's nature of a volitional consciousness, and that man's only means of gaining knowledge is reason, the conclusion as relates to morality is that man has to discover what is good and evil.

B).Man should be free to choose his own course in life, so long as his choices don't violate the lives of other men. Specifically, so long as no one uses force or fraud upon the lives of other men.

C).Man, as a consequence of B, 8, 6, 5, 3, should be the benefactor of his efforts, and also bear the responsibility of his failures. Alone.

Given all that I have stated so far, the only political system that encapsulates these premises and conclusions is Capitalism. I challenge you to refute any premise I have stated, and thereby discredit any conclusion. If you can't, be big enough to concede.

But you're arguments ended in the nonsense of saying that you are superior human being, that you are capable of molding your life independently of your circumstance.

No one said the Americans are superior human beings; and, I will stress to you that we are simply lucky enough to have been born in a country with a superior political system. Given our political system, we ARE capable of molding our lives. Not independent of the facts of reality, but GIVEN the facts of reality. "Circumstances" are merely a reflection or conceptualization of what facts of reality affect our lives. As Americans, we--compared to anywhere else in the world--have the ability to gather information about our "circumstances;" and, without interference of the government, or other men, choose a method for changing these "circumstances" into other "circumstances" that will hopefully make our lot in life better.

About your quote of Ayn Rand, It is not all black or white, you should give part of your money so the hundreds of children who are dying as we speak can be offered to have the education (and the health to fulfill it) to see whether he will take advantage of what his education gave him like you, or turn out having a petty existence.

First of all, whether or not someone who is given education and health care will turnout better is not the appropriate criteria for evaluation. I refer you to points 3, 4, 8, B & C. Condensed, what valid claim does the impoverished person have on the life and work of other people? What makes the life of the impoverished more important than the lives of the more fortunate? Why shouldn't I focus on educating and healing my own children, but, instead heal and educate other children? What is so detestable about my children? Why are poor children morally superior to my own? These are the relevant points, but there are other aspects to consider such as:

Children born under tyrannical social/political systems have parents that are handcuffed by their society and/or government!

This is not the fault of Americans. Our political ancestors saw this travesty and rebelled against the superpower of their day to change things for themselves at great cost to themselves.

And it's not even that simple... So, as we speak, in the Asian, African and Latin American countries, well over 500 million people are living in what the World Bank has called "absolute poverty"; one out of every eight children under the age of twelve in the U.S. goes to bed hungry every night. every year 15 million children die of hunger; for the price of one missile, a school full of hungry children could eat lunch every day for 5 years.

I believe these alleged facts. I refer you to the philosophic points, and questions I already have stated and asked. Further, I submit to you an additional statistic in regard to these unfortunate people: All of them live under socialist, communist, democratic, theocratic, monarchies and dictatorships. I suggest that instead of trying to take bread from my children, that instead, you fight to give these unfortunate people what my children have: Freedom. That way, nothing is taken from anyone, but everyone can potentially benefit!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correct me if I'm mistaken, but isn’t it true that Objectivism believes that in a capitalist society anyone can get out of their economic condition if they have will power or are smart (without help from the goverment, etc)? It looks like Ayn Rand uses Gail Wynand in The Fountainhead to show this.

She doesn't need to. Ayn Rand was born in Russia, and lived under Communist rule for years. Later, she came to the US without any money, and went hungry while looking for a job that would launch her writing career.

She was extremely poor, and recognized the reason for her poverty: socialism. So, she escaped to a Capitalist country, and worked hard to become rich, by creating something people wanted to pay for: art.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...