Kittie Rose

Don't patronise me. No. You can explain it to me. "What the best economic system is" probably isn't an area for this kind of philosophy to decide anyway. Bullshit. This is entirely non sequitor. Because we understand people are selfish, then we must allow them to persue selfish goals to any means? Should we let the violent do the same? But what if his right to do so interferes with the rights of others? What is the Objective reason why someone should be allowed to have millions of dollars due to an economic system while children starve in the streets? What about the lives of others he trampling on to achieve those goals? All your form of "objectivism" is is being incredibly narrowsighted. No it doesn't. Then what is? Then you're vastly uninformed. It certainly has a higher standard of living in the US. There are of course, certain indexes to measure this by. Just about every "country profile" you read for Sweden that's not written by some bitter right winger states this. Example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/co...les/1021823.stm And you wonder why you have such a terrible reputation? You come off as incredibly arrogant and faux-intellectual individual. Why can I not be an objectivist? I believe in objective values and morals. Why do I suddenly have to stop claiming I do because some nutjob says otherwise? Hold on - YOU are the one saying that objectivism can only be achieved with capitalism. That is a vastly bold claim - you are the one who has to defend that too. The government, of course one less corrupt than most we have nowadays, should do this. You seem to be of the illusion that any money that someone recieves is somehow "earned". It is not. If you are concerned with doing the best for everyone, you have to cast aside convential notions to do so. Putting one concept above all others just for the sake of it is ridiculous. What an earth is wrong with that? No it isn't. You're just plain delusional. Just about all the really great things in Sweden right now can be traced back to be it's current "socialist" state. You should know this. You remind me of those neo-con nutjob who believe Europe is a "shithole". It's not just Sweden. Europe(apart from all the eastern states we let in), in general, has a slightly higher standard of living than the US, especially in areas that embrace socialist concepts. For instance, the other Scandavian states have many similiar policies to Sweden. I have had friends who have been over to Sweden, and there is no doubt in their minds that it is a great country. It is NOT "falling apart" by any means. Again, going back to those neo-con nutjobs, there are some that believe the "Sanctity of Marriage" is falling apart in the Netherlands. How exactly does capitalism benefit people as a whole, anyway? All it does it let huge piles of money amass in some people's pants while others starve. I say there is way way to be a true moral objectivist if this is what you believe, since clearly you are putting your own viewpoint before reality.

I would consider myself an objectivist in that I believe very strongly in objective values and morals. However, I do not like that it is "required of me" to be a Capitalist, it seems. This seems rather ludicrous to me. How is the objective economic system one of Laissez Faires Capitalism? I shouldn't have to go off and read an "Economics book". You can at least outline the principles. Of course, there IS no doubt an objective best economic system, but I doubt any of us would quite understand what it is just yet. It strikes me as odd that "Marxists" are "evading" when the whole point of many economic systems that have evolved from Marxism is to find what ultimately works best for as many people as possible. This is very close to Utilitarianism, which is Objectivism. Surely Capitalists are "evading" by refusing to circulate money in a manner that benefits people in a more efficent manner? I find that right wing economics and "right wing" social policies so often go hand in hand *because* they're based on not caring about people in situations different from whatever situation you decide is the "normal" one. I think people are just following what a small handful of notably Objectivists have said about Marxism, most of which is sorely unbacked. The whole point of Objectivism should be to introduce logical thinking in a real useful manner. If the only system that can work to a satisfactory level is Laissez Faires Capitalism, why is one of the best countries in the world in terms of standard of living and general life satisfaction Sweden, which is a socialist hybrid? I am certainly not a "Randist". I don't see how the great moral good is refusing to accept that certain restrictions have to be put on some people's restrictions to ensure others are on a more equal standing.