Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Hellboy

Regulars
  • Posts

    9
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    DistrictOfColumbia
  • Country
    United States
  • Biography/Intro
    Theologian
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Am an Objectivist/Idealist with a penchant for Participatory Economics.
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Real Name
    Matthew Kennedy
  • Occupation
    Objective Consultant

Hellboy's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Nicky, Social Darwinism says that if you cannot keep up, you die. My point with prisons was that even individualism needs checks - it's a pointed philosophical statement. My address of Objectivism is purely philosophical - if it is an ideal, then mankind cannot presuppose to make those ideals actionable. and lastly - I never said that money was the root of all evil. I could not ever believe such a thing. From Francisco's speech: "Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce." I believe Rand did not go far enough, in that there are not merely moochers and producers, but that what are considered 'moochers' are in fact merely responding to the oppression of the producers - in the form of socioeconomic oppression. I believe that mankind's basic tendency is to excel. When he is corrupted - or a 'moocher' - it is because he sees no way out. He sees himself being held down by an irresistible force. A moocher is a moocher, therefore, not because he is merely inferior to a creator - rather, he is informed by his socioeconomic standing - juxtaposed against a zeitgeist of power worship and insurmountable oppression. Money should be evidence of work. Moochers are created by the greedy.
  2. ... LOL Nicky - Yes! I have read it... And the Fountainhead (I also have the movie) - AND The VIrtue of Selfishness... I also have all of Rand's TV appearances recorded and several of her speeches. I find her to be brilliant - especially with regards to her atheism.
  3. ...and Nicky I do beleive that a misapplication of Objectivism (and this goes for Libertarianism, Capitalism, et. al.) does indeed point straight to Social Darwinism. Objectivism, as an ideal - however, is a necessary element in the application of Capitalism. That is, the moral application of individualism redounds to the general good - necessarily. Social Darwinism says that if you cannot keep up, you die. Socialistic Capitalism (historically, America's brand of Capitalism) says, "we take care of those who cannot take care of themselves". Of course, the Devil is in the details, isn't it? Privatizing prisons seems like a good idea on the surface, however, when there is an incentive for incarceration - and profit is ilnked to morality and value - you have an automatic and immediate contradiction. Unless this prison operated under a moral ideal - that is to say, a perfect moral population, the burden of corruptibility becomes such that the potential abuses for such a system outweigh the value of individualism and an individuals' inherent right to express his individuality by purchasing a prison. In other words - some abuses cannot be allowed to happen - under any circumstances - EVEN in a experiment in objectivist economics. We wouldn't allow - for example, someone to purchase the ingredients for a nuclear missle and the manpower to assemble and launch it. This is a fundamental as to why regulations and therefore government are necessary.
  4. Eiuol, You appear to be someone with the gravitas necessary to make an informed decision about Objectivism. Social Darwinism has always been problematic in socioeconomics. As long as you have a hierarchy - there will always be exaggerations as to who deserves what (Royals v Commoners ~ Brahman v Outcastes, etc.) You know, money corrupts - absolute money corrupts, absolutely! I don't think Objectivism, as a socioeconomic philosophy, should be concerned with the honor of ones' family name - as in Francisco. Instead, that honor should be recognized in ones integrity with regards to respect for individualism. If I inherited a large sum of money "I" - as the relevant individual would have to decide where the honor was in receiving it. If I am an objectivist and inherited billions, in addition to a corporation - I would find it necessary and desirous to put that 'unearned' sum directly into the business. I would retain whatever salary I had before the inheritance and continue on as I HAD BEEN. OR (and this is a big 'or') I would raise the salaries of my workers, as it would be evident under the great evidence of my companys profitability - that the value of my product/service exceeded the payoff of my workers/laborers. The value of labor is a complicated area, as in the case of American corporations - the market has become increasingly monopolistic (which is just a fact) - and as such - the market will "bear" lower and lower wages, as the few heads of corporations are increasingly empowered to fix wages without regard to appeal. In Atlas Shrugged - the protagonists were intensely proud of their product. It was the best - and their moral imperative was to make the best product possible. Compare a sewing machine from the 1900's to one today - there is evidence of a loss of craftsmanship, design, durability and pride. I believe this is so for every imaginable product. Something is lost when the desire for quality is replaced by the desire for profit. Of course you can have both, but can any individual maintain the moral framework that true objectivism demands?
  5. Softwarenerd - I appreciate your analogy, however - it bears little resemblance to the way business is run today. Luck is always subsumed by shrewdness. In addition, the context of my stament about undeservedness was within the context of inheritance. A pure objectivist understands the variables of risk and luck. Concerning your mention of the fortune 500, you apologize for character flaws in the various members, however - if one is an objectivist, he is one in principle, first. He cannot transgress those objectivist principles without damaging the whole. This is the moral imperative of objectivism. If such a member were to use an inheritance to gain the upper-hand in a market - knowing that his competition would be wiped out in the exchange, it should stand as a fundamental transgression of the moral value of objectivism - making it something 'other' than objectivism. If a Fortune 500 member succumbed to one character flaw and used his position only once, to quell favor from a congressmember or two to give him an unjust advantage over his competition - he too would be a failure - as every profit from that point would be based on the illegitimacy of that action. This is why I call myself an Objectivist Idealist. I know that it is an ideal and as such, can only work in a morally ideal environment. I would love to see a living example of pure objectivism.
  6. ps - software nerd... Thank you for your thoughtful response - I was wondering, however - if you could give me one example of one CEO or corporation who could be compared to any of the noble characters in AS.
  7. I have read Atlas Shrugged - twice. Yet, in objectivism - what determines value? An inheritance presupposes inestimable value. Who determines what amount is deserved for what work? If an inheritor inherits a business, after working in that business and retains an appriopriate salary - anything above that earned income would be undeserved. A pure objectivist could not sleep soundly knowing that a billion dollars was overnight - added to their bank account. If objectivism is about justice for the individual - i.e., liberty; it should follow that it is possible that one could overestimate their value or work thus, creating an injustice. I cannot see how an inheritance could ever be deserved, justly - as the inheritor - if he/she is a true objectivist - is already earning exactly what they deserve. In addition, this could translate to charity. It is noble for someone to DESIRE to give to someone who is in need - however, under an objectivist ideal - it is nonetheless DISHONORABLE for anyone to receive it. It seems to me that in an objectivist socioeconomic system, Social Darwinism would be the inevitable outcome.
  8. You'll have to define "greatest" in order for me to attempt an answer.
  9. In 'Atlas Shrugged' - the protagonists were men of nobility and integrity. They would never think of taking something that they had not earned. In light of the nature of Capitalism, where surplus value is necessary, how is this ideal possible? (especially in the wake of lobbying and corporate cheating) How do the CEO's today resemble this? How does an inheritance not present itself as a necessary hypocrisy? Would not a true objectivist find it honorable to reject an inheritance?
×
×
  • Create New...