Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

CapitalistFred

Regulars
  • Posts

    45
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Posts posted by CapitalistFred

  1. Capitalism has not failed.

    Democracy is wholly unsuitable to the governance of anything larger than a smallish city-state. We in the USA live in a (supposedly) constitional republic, not a democracy.... democracy is just another nake for mob rule, and minorities of all sorts tend to fare poorly in any democracy.

    This idea of an all powerful state enforced meritocracy is immoral as well as being impractical, the state simply has no valid right to confiscate my money after death, I have the right so sell, give away, or bequeath my property at any time, and if I should choose to leave my fortune to my family, then after my passing my family should recieve my goods.

  2. Oh, I don't require a damn thing in the way of approval either way. I'm simply stating that if a person negatively judges others based on morally neutral characteristics like race, gender, or sexual orientation, they can and should be judged negatively by the rest of us as a result.

    "Not neccesarily approving" is not equivalent to negatively judging. You have to read her comment in the context of the times and of the entire statement - had the newspapers put her statement on the front page in that era, the headline would NOT have been "Rand Doesnt Neccesarily Approve of Homosexuality", it would have been "Laws against Homosexuality are Immoral, says noted Author".

    Rand supported gay rights in an era when that was NOT politically a popular stance. Trying to repackage that into Rand being homophobic is simply wrongheaded. In an era when it was generally accepted that sex was for procreation, Rand boldly stated that sex is about joy, pleasure, and values. This was a daring and unpopular stance at the time.

    I know several Objectivists, and I've not met any who are homophobiIc, so my anecdotal experience with objectivists has been rather different than yours. My suspicion is that if one were to do a poll of objectivists worldwide, one would find that they are rather less prone to being judgemental about personal sexual choices than is common in society as a whole.

  3. However, those who treat sexual preference as a moral issue should be opposed, and homophobic is often an apt description of such people. To treat morally neutral characteristics like gender preferences as immoral distorts morality and incorrectly impugnes the moral character of groups of people.

    Rand said that she does not "neccesarily approve of (homosexual) practices" but that all laws against homosexuality should be repealed. How could one be so intolerant as to require anyone to neccesarily approve" of homosexuality? Any individual is free to approve (or not) of any particular behavior, to oppose someone for not "approving" of your choices is ridiculous.

    Rand bluntly stated that all laws regarding homosexuality should be repealed, which I agree with. You shouldnt be so intolerant as to require my approval for your private behavior, anymore than I will demand your approval for my sexual choices with consenting adults.

  4. Obviously we share an affection for Rand's moral argument for capitalism, but was it merely that you encountered Rand before the more traditional American titans of industry, or perhaps that Rand led you to them (or to appreciate them), or that fiction can be easer to present than history, or is there something more to her moral argument that you think made the difference in your life and the choices that you made?

    An artist is able to burn away all irrelvancies and present a picture that focuses only on what truly matters to the artist. In learning about Reardon, Roark, Dagny Taggart. D'Anconia - these Idealized capitalists are presented as pure examples -it is easy to see the pertinent traits. Reading biographies of the real giants capitalism, one is presented a complex picture of an individual... the important aspects of the person are often buried under many layers of useless personal information. There is value in reading and studying the triumphant caputalists, but one must dig for the timeless truths amid the trivia.

    Rand's Idealized heroes present none of those challenges. It's like the difference between discovering gems in the jewelry store or in a gem mine - in both instances there are valuable things to be found, but in the former location one must merely recognize them, while in the latter one must dig through quite a bit of worthless material to discover each gem.

    On the objectivist morality of the trader, once internalized this gave me a framework with which to easily and effectively refute collectivists, socialists, and the merely envious who attempt to push guilt onto achievers. More importantly, it gave me the moral certainty of the righteousness of reaping the rewards of the wealth that I earn as a producer. This moral certainty is priceless, and makes me far more efficacious than I otherwise could be if I were racked with doubts of my own worthiness to produce wealth and keep what I have earned.

  5. And four years ago I would have agreed.

    Before debunking what I perceive as inaccuracies, let me give a long disclaimer that the conflict between Phoenicia and Greece, or of Carthage and Rome, gives a new dimension to the old saying "history is written by the winners".

    In this case the competing "teams" belonged to two very different groups. Unlike Athens vs Sparta, or even, even Greece vs Persia, the peoples involved in the Punic Wars belong to linguistically and genetically different groups that would naturally compete to the other's extermination or absolute absorption. Roman victory temporarily incorporated both cultures and peoples under one political entity but after its destruction the languages and peoples retained their different identities - to this day.

    Sparta and Athens were both Greeks. Greeks and Persians, as different as they thought they were, they were still both Indo-Aryan or Indo-European peoples who shared some referential point of origin in the Sanskrit language and the mounted warriors coming from the (North) East. Alexander's quest, and the resulting Hellenic Civilization only further proves the possibility of Persia and Greece belonging to the same human group. Linguistics proves it a lot more easily, take the word Father, Sanskrit Pitar, Greek Pateras, Latin Pater, (Grimm's Law P->V), German Vater, English Father.

    Phoenicians and Carthaginians (or Punic) share a different origin, one that did not originate in Northern India, but most likely in the Horn of Africa and Yemen. Camito-Semitic (Hammitic-Shemitic) or Afro-Asiatic languages such as old Aramaic, Phoenician, Hebrew, and modern Arab, Hebrew, Tuareg, Chadian, Hausa (once a sahel empire, now a prominent North Nigerian tribe), Tigray, Somali.

    Let's explore the word and the use of the word "Lord" or "Ba'al"

    Ba'al was the traditional Semitic name given to the Gods. Baal Hammon in Carthage for instance required the ritual sacrifice of children to quench its thirst of blood and bring about peace much like in William Golding's story "Lord of the Flies" (Baal Buzeh, Beelbuzeh). This was practiced in Carthage well after it was banned in Phoenicia. The Romans exacerbated the rumors and information about this practice for propaganda purposes. Who knows, maybe that's the origin of Gentiles' delusions of Jewish Blood Ritual.

    When Judaism began, when one people, one god, was declared for the Israelites, the word Baal became a reference to idols, or other tribe's (gentiles') gods, and therefore acquired a very negative, sinful connotation - while the "true" name of G'd was elevated into something humanly imperceptible. Other words were found for the use of Lord, such as Adonai. The Muslims obviously took after Jewish tradition and Baal of the(insert something) is always a daemon in Islam.

    During the Roman Empire, after the defeat and incorporation of Carthage, the Cult of Ba'al was popular among the military as he was the Lord of War. Secretive rites seem to have surrounded the Cult of Baal which still probably required human sacrifice outside the battlefield.

    Modern day Christian accusers of Freemansonry, as batshit as they may be, often correctly point out that Freemasons are required to accept the belief in an all-powerful and all-seeing one Lord. The Christian fundies might go too far by claiming that the Lord the Freemasons refer to is Baal, the Roman Lord of War.

    Basically my disclaimer is that Carthage and Rome, or Greece and Phoenicia, were two very different linguistic and probably even genetic groups, and so the level of competition was and is too high to pretend to learn about the defeated by the accounts of the winners.

    During my disclaimer I pointed out that the Carthaginians were very warlike and practiced ritual blood sacrifice not unlike the Aztecs. The Romans had their Vestal Virgins to sacrifice in turn, but it would seem that the numbers and proportions were dismally different in moral favor to the Romans. As for free traders, I was wrong when I assumed that 3-4 years ago. I know now that, by all surviving accounts, the Carthaginians raised a navy to exert a forceful monopoly over the waters they traded. Naturally and in any age a merchant fleet needs military escorts (take as an example America's first intervention war and the current situation in the straits of Hormuz). However while the Carthaginians protected the fleets that traveled the coasts,, the Romans conquered, developed and protected the coasts. It was precisely that "hyper-organization" which allowed them to triumph over Carthage, but sink by their own weigh centuries later.

    Far from Capitalistic the Carthaginians practiced Mercantilism. It was only in a big enough city like Rome and well-coded republic, then empire, that small unregulated entrepreneurial activities more akin to modern Capitalism were able to appear and in some cases flourish. That hyper-organization and expansion, but only accompanied by the wisest legal system of the time, was what allowed space for unintended activities such as Capitalism to flourish. Greece would not allow that space and individual freedom began and ended in the mind, as a mental hobby that needed the entire Demos' approval to realize -physically. Not in the Roman Republic.

    And militarily speaking it could not have turned either way . The Carthaginians, far from having an individualistic stance, punished defeated Generals with death, while Romans used more positive reinforcement (even when their homeland was being ransacked). That might be a reason why so many foreign and barbarian peoples allied with Rome rather than with Carthage. One offered several advantages, the other required tributes paid in children to sacrifice.

    So it's difficult to compare these two "Civilizations" in a good part because they were not related and so they both naturally wanted the extermination of the other, but if I rephrase the question into which "people" or even political entity achieved a higher level of Civilization - even as defined by Ayn Rand as the liberation of man from men - it is Rome.

    By the way, in the same way that Athens was superior in that respect to Jerusalem (or Tyre!)

    While you are clearly well read and educated, I couldn't disagree more with your conclusions. You state that the Phoenicians engaged in mercantilism and that Rome was more capitalistic, gratuitous assertions that seems to me to be without merit. Phoenicians were capitalistic traders and producers, engaged in import/export production, and private individuals were able to enter into trade and production - THAT is capitalism. Was it perfect lassez faire? Probably not, through the mists of time its really hard to get an accurate picture.

    I can provide a few dozen links and sources for my conclusion that Phoenicians were capitalistic. I have never before encountered any claims that Rome was capitalistic empire.

    You list some of the (reported) abuses of Carthaginian religion, while leaving out well documented and undisputed Roman atrocities - possibly the fact that Roman atrocities were often committed for entertainment value rather that superstition holds some sway with you, but I find torture, murder, and abuse to be reprehensible whether for religion or entertainment.

    Militarily it clearly could have gone either way. Hannibal won every battle he ever fought in Rome. His greatest battle was the battle of Cannae, where according to Polybius about 76,000 Romans were killed and another 10,000 were captured by a Carthiginian army of fewer than 50,000. Rome was in dissaray and despair - to their credit, Rome "manned up" and recovered (thanks in large part to Scipio, who learned how to fight from watching Hannibal's tactics.

    "Never before, while the City itself was still safe, had there been such excitement and panic within its walls. I shall not attempt to describe it, nor will I weaken the reality by going into details... it was not wound upon wound but multiplied disaster that was now announced. For according to the reports two consular armies and two consuls were lost; there was no longer any Roman camp, any general, any single soldier in existence; Apulia, Samnium, almost the whole of Italy lay at Hannibal's feet. Certainly there is no other nation that would not have succumbed beneath such a weight of calamity." -Livy on the Roman defeat at Cannea

    After the Battle of Cannae, Hanibal collected hundreds of gold rings from the bodies of fallen Roman nobles, and sent them to the Punic Sanate, where they were dumped onto the floor as proof of Hannibal's victory against the largest Roman Army ever seen. Had the Senate sent reinforcements, Rome would have fallen.. This was a close thing.

    Characters as different as Karl Marx, Janet Abu-Lughod, and Moore and Lewis in their book, The Origins of Globalization all seem to agree with me that Phoenicia had a fundamentally capitalistic economy, so I feel its not out of line to ask for a source for your assertion that the Romans were the more capitalistic society.

    It is great fun to be debating this with someone who has obviously studied the issue and has a differing view. I am enjoying myself immensely - looking forward to your response and I am learning from this exchange.

  6. But of course, though Galt was also a man of action in his own way and I suspect you would be something of a philosopher-actor.

    So may I ask, what is it about Rand that uniquely motivated you and for which you give her credit? After all, there are many rags to riches moral stories in the American tradition that might have inspired you. (I, myself, found Rand's moral defense of capitalism uniquely refreshing, particularly knowing the history of her times.)

    Rand's moral defense of capitalism has indeed been key for me. After reading Atlas Shrugged and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal as a teen, I was immune to anti- business jabs and the unearned guilt that collectivists try to heap upon "greedy businessmen". Unearned guilt and self doubt have sabotaged many a promising career, and secure in the moral rightness of my cause, I have been immune to these things.

    Even more beneficial to me though, was the heroic exanple set by (fictional) people like Hank Rearden, Francisco D'anconia, Dagny Taggart, Howard Roark, John Galt, etc. Long before I knew anything about Andrew Carnegie, Henry Ford, John D Rockefeller, Al Davis, or John Paul Getty, Rand's heroes were real to me and exemplified the traits that I would need to nurture in order to be the man I wished to be.

    Still. to this day, Rand's heroes are more real to me in many ways than their historical counterparts. I believe this is, in part, due to the fact that her characters are pure in a way that is difficult for real flesh and blood people to be pure.

    The examples set by her heroic characters, and later by real heroic businessmen, have given me hieghts to strive for, and my internalizing of her moral defense of capitalism have given me immunity to unearned guilt and self doubt about the rightness of my cause.

  7. I read everything that Rand wrote during my high school years and internalized the lessons and philosophy. Coming from an enterpreneurial background, I was already aware that capitalism was the most practical and effictive economic system, what Objectivism gave me was the knowledge that capitalism was the only moral way for men to deal together, and some idealized characters who epitomized capitalist values.

    I opened my first business when I was in my early 20s and made a few dollars. Over the next 15 years I opened several different businesses, all did well for a time, but I made some bad decisions and ended up dead broke at 38. No car, no busines, no home, and living in my parents guest room. At that point, everyone told me to lower my expectations and just get a job.

    I considered it, but as I have always wanted to be heroic, at least in my own eyes, and as creating a successful business (like Hank Reardon) is my favored form of heroism, I opted to make another attempt to open a successful business. I went to work for a company that had a business model that I admired, worked for them for 2 years as a manager, and then moved and opened my own store, using what I had learned from them and adding some of my own twists.

    The busines struggled for months, and then began to prosper, and now, at 47, I own a successful chain of 9 retail stores and employ about 150 people. My family enjoys a comfortable lifestyle, and my investors have all profited from their affiliation with me.

    Without Rand's writings, I dont know that I would have had the courage to go back into business after my earlier failure. I am now doing what I love, and making a handsome living by doing so.

    Thanks Ayn!

  8. It was her retelling of the History, not Philosophy, of the Ancient Mediterranean in "The God of the Machine". You can check this using about any source. Before discovering Paterson I used to love George Duby. Basically the Phoenicians-Carthaginians, founded many trading outposts, Carthage being one, but they never consolidated a decent or just legal system that would appeal to their inland neighbors. Even at the peak of Carthage, its closest neighbors, the Numidians, were just military and trading allies, but never a political entity WITH Carthage. That was Rome's modus operandi, and that, not a few decisive battles, was what sealed its victorious fate.

    The Phoenicians founded Cathage about the same time the Greeks planted colonies in Sicily and Southern Italy, even Massilia (Marseillles). But the Phoenicians-Carthaginians reached further West, planting a colony in the Westernmost stretch of the Med, close to "The Pillars of Hercules", the gate that separates the "Sea" from the "Ocean". That city-port was Gades and is now Cadiz.

    From that moment on the Carthaginians explored and traded along the (Atlantic) Ocean but kept it a secret or a monopoly.

    A lot is known about Greek Pytheas' of Massillia trip to the Atlantic shores of Europe, but very little is known about Hanno's periplus.

    As Isabel Paterson put it "an ocean can't be monopolized" (sic)

    Some would say that history is written by the winners. I sometimes think there's a reason for the winners winning.

    I dont know that the Romans were in any way superior to Carthage, the Romans were a militaristic, hyperorganized society, while the Phoenicans were enterpreneurial and comparitively individualistic. There was really only one family in all of Carthage that was interested in military matters, the Barcas, and Hamilcar Barca conquered Spain in order to have a place tp raise an army with which to destroy the evil Romans - a dream which his som Hannibal nearly achieved.

    It could have turned out either way, Hannibal's Carthaginians ransacked Italy for YEARS and beat EVERY army the Romans sent against them. The Phoenicians were NEARLY as good at military affais as the warlike Romans, and war was not even the Phoenician's area of greatness.

    Phoenicians were in many senses, the first Capitalists.

  9. THAT is exciting. I know that I sound like a cliche, but as a businessman, I am extremely busy and have not made time to read and study as much as I would like to....

    This will be a great way to overcome that with some formal courses on a topic that is both fascinating and useful.

  10. Bah!

    This topic has been up for years.... literally. Folks using a convenient shorthand does NOT make Objectivism into a religion, regardless of who may have said otherwise.

    Quoting others and using the argument from authority, however DOES attempt to make Objectivism into a religion.

  11. Negative:

    • Mohammed
    • St Paul
    • Jesus
    • Marx
    • Plato
    • Stalin
    • Kant
    • Isaac Newton
    • Buddha
    • Constantine

    Positive:

    • Aristotle
    • Thomas Jefferson
    • Darwin
    • Ben Franklin
    • Adam Smith
    • Locke
    • Churchill
    • Voltaire
    • Gutenberg
    • Columbus

    Just off the top of my head and as a jumping off point for dioscussion. I must note that Abraham Linmcoln nearly made it onto my list as a NEGATIVE influence - the man suspended habeas corpus, inprisoned protestors, instituted a draft, and was the closest thing the US has ever had to a dictator, but in the end I couldnt really defend his placement in the top 10, he would be in the top 20 I think.

  12. Pythagoras was born in Samos, but was born to a Phoenician mechant who had moved to Samos.

    Pythagoras's father, Mnesarchus was a merchant who came from Tyre, and there is a story that he brought corn to Samos at a time of famine and was granted citizenship of Samos as a mark of gratitude. As a child Pythagoras spent his early years in Samos but travelled widely with his father. There are accounts of Mnesarchus returning to Tyre with Pythagoras and that he was taught there by the Chaldaeans and the learned men of Phoenicia and was initiated into the 'Ancient Mysteries' of the Phoenicians c. 548 B.C. and studied for about 3 years in the temples of Tyre, Sidon, and Byblos.

    As to doubts about Moschus, records are scarce, but according to Strabo, Moshus of Sidon was the originator of ancient atomism. As no earlier claims exist, the only argument against Moschus having originated atomism is that records of that era are scarce. Seems to me that there exists a strong case for Moschus.

    As for the argument that Greeks of antiquity had a "philosophy like ours" I would disagree. Greeks were collectivists. Aristotle was an exception, but the rule was collectivism and a warlike tribalism based on the city-state. The individual was NOTHING in ancient Greek society, only the collective had importance.

    The Phoenicians, on the other hand were an enterpreneurial nation that valued achievement, profit, mathematics, and exploration - and they turned all of that into generation of capitalistic profits.

    Ancient Phoenicians undeniably exemplified a philosophy closer to objectivism and capitalism than did any of the other listed ancient societies.

  13. There is no such thing as Objectivist music.

    See here: http://www.peikoff.c...ectivist-music/

    Splitting of hairs. Music or lyrics that espouse an objectivist philosophical pov or an objectivist friendly sense of life could be described as "music that espouses an objectivist point of view", or one could just shorten it to "objectivist music". The latter is less unweildly and only slightly less accurate.

    Quibbling over minor semantics issues is a waste of time and energy.

  14. Five Finger Death Punch is my current favorite - they are unabashedly pro-achievement and pro-capitalist, and their music just kicks ASS! Their latest album, American Capitalist, is their best yet. The music is fast and hard, and the lyrics are inspirational. They are the most objectivist band since Oingo Boingo.

    Four tracks in particular, The Pride, American Capitalist,Menace, and Under and Over it really get my blood pumping.

  15. The intergenerational discord and blame, "The kids of today dont know anything about hard work or respect - etc etc" is as old as Humankind. The kids of today are no better or worse than my generation, as far as I can tell.

    The OW gang does NOT represent any 99%, their approval ratings are somewhere around 21% and no one much likes them except a few marxist commentators.

    This is a "movement" made up of a few leftist-collectivist agitators and a LOT of useful idiots who are easily led, including mush headed college kids, drug addicts, and urban outdoorsmen (the so called "homeless).

    They are anti-achievement, anti-capitalist zeros. Who exemplify the vice of covetousness and envy - they want what others have earned, without having any of the virtues required to create the wealth that they covet.

  16. Good turkish coffee is my favorite, but it's hard to find.

    For home brewing, I am a HUGE fan of the single cup machines, especially the Tassimo. My kids are too young to drink coffee, and my wife abstains, so 1 cup at a time works.

    If I am in need of a pick me up, I will do 6 shots of espresso over ice at my local Starbucks.

×
×
  • Create New...