Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

eficazpensador

Regulars
  • Posts

    109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by eficazpensador

  1. I recently came across this pro-anarchy argument:

    "Man's right to liberty implies that individuals should be able to set up their own system of rights protection. A government initiates force when it disallows individuals from protecting their own rights. Therefore, the existence of a government inherently contradicts individual rights."

    What is the Objectivist response to this?

  2. First, throw away the notion that markets are rational. That is totally unfounded and completely wrong. The finance theories that they teach in universities are garbage. Factually speaking, the opposite is true: financial markets are highly irrational.

    Sure, there are times when an individual company's stock price becomes irrationally depressed, but to call financial markets "highly irrational" is a little dramatic.

  3. During the late 19th century, monopolies dominated the American economy. (I'm not saying this was a bad thing, I know the objectivist stance on monopolies and I support it.) Standard Oil and US Steel helped move the country forward with miraculous innovations that increased production and efficiency greatly. But I want to know why this period was a "price depression," and what was the cause of this?

    What do you mean "price depression"? The monopolies learned how to make stuff better and sell it for cheaper. Prices went down. Is that a "price depression"?

  4. How are safety regulations, health regulations, wage regulations, etc... bad things? Many countries don't have these, and they aren't in some prosperous Ayn Rand-esque Utopia... but rather people die of easily preventable illnesses, children forgo school to work for pennies a day just to survive, etc... You can argue against environmental protection all you want, but the fact remains that people die when the land and water are contaminated by some industry not having to abide by rules.

    So what happens when you outlaw child labor? I'll tell you. The children, now unable to produce for themselves, starve to death. Sounds like a wonderful regulation. And remember when debating with this guy not to concede the point that child labor is brought about under a free market. The free market inherited child labor. Children worked (and died) on every family's farm before the industrial revolution. It was the free market that allowed parents to become productive enough to provide for their children. Also, the pollution he is referring to comes about from a lack of properly defined property rights.

    This does not fit the above definitions, at least not more than ANY tax does.

    I don't know what your definition of socialism is, but all taxes violate individual rights.

    Any tax is a redistribution of wealth. How do you think the military is funded? Police? Etc... Money is taken from the populace and put into services that benefit all.

    First of all, the services don't benefit all (I don't receive welfare checks). Even if they did, it still requires stealing money (taxation). Second of all, since the "populace" is made up of individuals, his statement should read: 'Money is taken from certain individuals and put into services that benefit other individuals'.

    A graduated tax (which is already the case to a degree under Bush, btw) won't make the rich poor and the poor rich, nor will it put them on par. The rich will still be rich and the poor will still be poor.

    I'm not really sure what the purpose of that statement is, but if the rich are taxed 99.9% and the money given to the poor, his statement is wrong.

    The poor just doesn't have to worry about starving or dying from some easily treatable illness. And that's the goal of social services... "protecting man's rights".

    He's corrupted the concept of rights. Rights are guarantees to freedom of action. The right to life is the right to seek nourishment, not be given it. The right to property is the right to create and thus own what you create, not to have someone give you property. The right to the pursuit of happiness is not a right to be happy, but a guarantee that no one can stop you from trying to achieve it. He's trying to create the right to health care, by which he does not mean the right to acquire health care but rather the right to be given health care. This violates the right to property and thus is invalid.

    Also, make sure you show him where the right to property comes from. Man has the right to his life. In order for the right to life to exist, freedom is necessary. Only under a system of freedom can a man take the actions necessary to sustain his life. Thus you have liberty. Since the items necessary for human survival are not laying around waiting to be picked up, the only way for man to survive is by producing. What he produces must be his property. If man does not have control over his property, he doesn't have control over the product of his labor, and thus does not have control over his life.

    Ehh, thats a shitty description of where rights come from, but I'm sure you can state it more eloquently :). Just make sure he knows that by violating property rights, he's violating the right to life. Also, challenge him to tell you the difference between a mob of people stealing your wallet, and taxation.

  5. I was speaking with the husband tonight and he said he would love to see the The Worchowski (sp) Brothers write it. They did they screen play for the 300 as well I believe.

    I also think they could do Atlas Shrugged justice in a very exciting way that would draw numerous teens and young adults to it, possibly more so than it would as a straight live action film.

    Aren't they whylin liberals?

  6. since behavior without rational thought would be simply instinctual and simply instinctual behavior is probably a better means toward survival then interjecting rational thought before acting.

    Behavior without rational thought cannot automatically be classified as "instinct." Instinct is defined as: "an unerring and automatic form of knowledge." Man does not have instincts.

  7. I also love the Gaetano covers, but I was generally under-whelmed when I searched for more of his work:

    God me too. I couldn't believe it was the same guy at first. Looking at his paintings is like watching that movie, "A Space Odyssey: 2001" again and again. B)

    I'd have to say, his "mercury" illustration is my favorite.

  8. but I have gotten irrational a few times.

    I just want this semester to be over so I can prepare for next semester.

    Amen. :)

    I've got a final Thursday too. I just study till I find that I can't finish problems at my normal speed. Then I get something to eat, play some video games or talk to the girls down the hall. :D Just take your break and get back into it.

  9. I know there have been quite a few Objectivists who've changed their name because it wasn't fitting. I've never really understood that though. If I were you, I'd be delighted to have the name Ben Skipper. It sounds bad ass. But if changing it makes you happier, then of course you should do so.

  10. I accept the Objectivist concept of value. That should answer all your questions. :)

    I don't mean a "concept of value," I mean an economic theory of value. Objectivism's theory of value does not explain prices.

    Well, if the quote from him above is anything to go by, he appears to propose that there should be no ethics. People will always act in the way they think contributes most to removing the uneasiness they feel, and that is the end of the matter--there is no point in any further discussion; there is no point in having ethics. Studying human action, i.e. economics / "praxeology," is studying what people can do to remove their uneasiness.

    But this is simply not the way it is. Ideas of morality are a factor in men's actions; in fact, they are the primary factor. Man, as a conceptual being, cannot escape the need for abstract principles to act on. And the most widely accepted ethical theories are precisely those that worship "uneasiness"--i.e., pain, suffering, self-abnegation, and all the rest. To study human action is to study ethics.

    That's a great point, I've never really thought of that! Though I still don't see where his philosophic errors have lead to economic errors or why his ethics discredit his business cycle theory. Can you expand on that more?

  11. Ayn Rand's book 'Atlas Shrugged' has had more influence on US politics, business and culture in the second half of the 20th century than any other work. By miles. Nothing else comes close.

    The second half of the 20th Century has been Republican. JFK got shot, Carter got kicked out after one term, and Clinton's 2 terms was the only extended period of Democratic leadership in the whole 60 year period since the war.

    The Republican party was heavily influenced by Ayn Rand. The idea of laissez-faire (unregulated and unrestricted) capitalism had always been a core part of America's national identity. After Rand and McCarthy, it was fully realised as a moral imperative.

    Now that is just plain false. First of all, it's quite obvious that altruist ethics are far far far more popular than Objectivist ethics. To paint the U.S. in the 20th century as some sort of Objectivist paradise is intellectually dishonest. And, Capitalism was NEVER "realised as a moral imperative." That's just an idiotic statement.

    You see, the fall is always nastier than the rise. It gives a lot of motivation - a lot of motivation to change.

    Yet as you probably know either from your own life or from the life of people you've met, soaring highs and crushing lows are a recurring pattern that can lock people in for their whole lives.

    This is very much the life I've led. Like Icarus, the winged man of Greek legend, I'd soar high...

    ...then crash out.

    So this big long post is basically an assertion that success is always followed by failure, as demonstrated by your personal life?

  12. Yes, value, and more broadly, ethics. Consider the following quote from Human Action:

    If you don't ascribe to the Austrian theory of value, what do you hold as the the origin of value? It is indisputable that he value of an economic good is different for different people.

    Value is based on individual value judgments. Is this what you disagree with?

    As far as ethics go, Mises certainly made many errors, I remember noting quite a few when I read Human Action, but as adrock said:

    we look to Mises for his contribution to economic thought.

    His proposed ethics really don't have anything to do with his economic theory, just as Newton's ethics weren't involved with his work. I think we both agree that it is far more important to defend capitalism from a moral standpoint than to defend it from a utilitarian stand point. Objectivism explains the moral side of the equation, but we still need to have the utilitarian side.

  13. cool, so you still don't get it.

    i'm not planning on doing nothing, i'm planning on pretending to do nothing.

    catch up please.

    banking money for the next four years off the books, then going "legal" afterwards is not using one's ass when you consider that i won't just be relying on the government cheese and peanut butter for sustinance.

    i'll be working, they just won't know about it.

    McCain wins, i go to work and pay taxes like a good little boy.

    Maobama wins i make money off the books, not paying taxes, and drain as much money from the system as i can.

    either way i'm working, it''s just a difference of appearances and contributions.

    First of all, why do you think McCain is going to be so much better than Obama? Second of all, What makes you think that Obama is going to be gone in four years? Most likely it will be 8 years. And based on our direction, the president after Obama may be a lot worse. Are you going to sacrifice a possible 20 years or more of your life?

×
×
  • Create New...