Devils_Advocate
-
Posts
241 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Posts posted by Devils_Advocate
-
-
Just use the most blatant, bare, naked arguments that expose the evil of it. For example, if I had to write a paper supporting communism (god forbid), I would use expressions like "It is well known that man is a degenerate creature, who must be forced against his will to serve others. If it requires his death, so be it, the death of an individual - especially an independent, creative one - is in the public good."
However, if you decided to not hand it in and fail the class, I would completely support you on it. I probably would do the same.
-
Besides giving to a friend who might be a few bucks short at lunch, I usually drop a total average of $20-$30 to the salvation army pots during Christmas. Other then that, though, I don't have any official ties to any charity organizations.
-
India is far from a free market. According to the World Heritage report, it's freedom percentage was 54.2, placing it at 115/157. It's not as bad as it could be, but it certainly isn't a true free market. And either way, the argument is about morality, not efficiency (although, we could probably win that argument too, if you're an Economist).
-
It's good debate practice. The guy responded with some rhetoric about the Industrial Revolution, I fired back, and he hasn't responded yet. Which means he probably won't. It's all right though, I did what I wanted to do - be able to explain capitalism, hone my debate skills, and try to convince a man that theft is wrong.
-
So, who, in your opinion, was the greatest industrialist the world has ever seen? I've always admired both John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie (despite the religion of the first and the politics of the second). They both ran excellent companies, from what I know. But neither of them was exactly Hank Rearden. Who would you name the Captain of the Captains of Industry?
-
I am going to see it because I hate Michael Moore so much, but I'm not jumping out of my skin. I'll probably see it on a weekend when I've got nothing better to do.
-
I'd like to take this opportunity to point out that neither Ronald Reagan nor Bill Clinton had forign policy experience before taking office, other than what little was required as Governor.
The "Intelligent" Design thing blows it for Palin to me,
And the abortion issue. She's too strong on it. I can live with a pro life candidate. I'll have to grit my teeth, but I can live with it if they aren't too strong. But when you're that intense about the issue, it's incredibly difficult for me to see past it.
Like what you said about Reagan and Clinton. I considered voting write in candidate Reagan's corpse. He was far from perfect, but he was a hell of a lot better then anyone else since, and better then most before him (Jefferson and some of the other founding fathers/presidents are the exceptions).
Plus, it's a great opportunity for gridlock. A corpse can't sign legislation...
-
Just about every morning at 7:40 I go to my school's library and read the first page of the Wall Street Journal. If there's anything interesting, I'll continue reading it. Then, from about 3:30 - 4:00, I'll alternate between Headline News Channel, CNN (believe it or not), and FOX. At 7:00, if I have time (which I usually don't), I'll watch Glenn Beck. I actually think Glenn Beck is pretty good (at least comparatively). Then again, every couple of weeks he'll say something that makes it so I can't watch him for days on end.
-
My friend is also similiar. In a recent discussion I got all his wacky commie arguments to boil down to one thing - he says compromise is a part of nature. When I asked him where in nature?, he said, "EVERYWHERE!" then he tried to play the game of demanding that I prove where in nature compormise does NOT exist (we all know where that argument goes).
Sounds A LOT like the discussion I had. She kept saying that it's part (note the part) of our nature to come together as a collective. When I asked her "Then what is man's fundamental nature that leads him to that?" she evaded the question.
I sent the Youtube socialist the essay, and this is what he responded:
You're joking. This is a joke. I see that now. I'm not laughing, because it was one of those "scary" jokes ... but I get it. I'm sure I'll laugh about this in a day or two. Good one!I LOVE my response:
You do realize that's not an argument, right? -
Devil's Advocate - this is actually of personal interest to me as well because I have a good friend who is an admitted socialist (although I truly believe he is a capitalist deep down, lost in a sea of altruism) and he too keeps using this "dog eat dog" phrase to refer to the way I debate things should be. So, I found your original response to be a good way of debating back with my friend.
Glad to hear I could help. Most of my friends are similar. I have a friend who has a great Sense of Life - one of the most vibrant people I've ever met - but she has made a lot of epistemological errors. Her epistemology does, luckily, work up into her political views. So If I can just convince her that man is not a collective animal who needs a higher power to worship, I can convince her of individualism. The funny thing is that she may be very well organized and systematic in her views, and may spout them, but she doesn't live them. And like I said earlier, her sense of life is VERY against her epistemological ideas. It's sad, though, to see what the public schools do to people.
-
I don't expect to convert him, by any means whatsoever. He claims that the Bushes are products of capitalism! But I figure, I might as well try. Why not?
-
There is a youtube user who is pretty much the Chairman of the Youtube Communist Party, with whom I am trying to explain what Capitalism really is. I PMed him, asking him if he understood what it is. Here's his response:
Alright, go ahead, tell me your definition of capitalism. I'll start off by telling you what I think capitalism is, ok?Capitalism is dog-eat-dog greed. There are no rules, there is no mercy. There is only war. Figurative war, as is found in corporate competition on Wall St and literal war as is seen in the Gulf Wars. If you don't have the stomach/guts/ambition to push, kick, or kill everyone else around you, then you will either be killed or left behind to rot. Doesn't matter if you are a man, woman, or child. Doesn't matter if you are young, old, black, or white. If you are in 'MY" way, or if you have the nerve to challenge me, I will kill you and everyone else around you in an orgy of collateral damage. Capitalism is the African Savannah on a cocktail of speed, meth, crack, and vicodin.
I choose not ....
Scary, how people perceive the system of Liberty.
I wanted to awnser with this, but also didn't want to screw up. Can you critique my reply before I send it off?
If this were capitalism, I assure you, civilization would not still be standing.First - I'll define capitalism, and then analyze your definition.
Capitalism is a system of government and society, whereby the government exists to protect individuals from the initiation of force, and where all relationships are voluntary and dictated according to the rational judgment of the minds of the individuals in question. It is based on the premise of human rights - the right to live, the right to be free from the dictates of others, the right to create and keep your creation (you made it, why shouldn't it be yours?), and the right to choose for yourself, with your own rational mind, what is in your best self interest.
You claimed that capitalism is a dog-eat-dog greed system. There are two main problems with this: first, dog-eat-dog greed is a contradiction in terms. In order for a dog to eat another dog, he must ask that other dog to sacrifice himself. Sacrifice is anti-greed. This leads to the second problem - a dog eat dog situation could never arise in a capitalist system. This can only happen in a society of cannibals, where the interests of one are at the expense of another. In a Capitalist society where the majority of individuals followed reason and logic, one's interest could never be at the expense of another. In a Capitalist society where this was not the case, the individual whose interests were at the expense of another would not be allowed to force his will or cooperation on the other individual. If the other individual follows reason, he will see the conflict and avoid the man. If he does not, it is through his own error. No one else should take his fall.
Actually, that seems to have been the whole of your post. I'll just explain further then, that no one who did not want to get involved in wall street would suffer. They may not succeed as much, but they would not suffer. If they don't want to compete in the free market, they need not. It is their choice. If you do, no one has the right to push your or kick you and especially not to kill you. If you run your business well and profit, how is that at the expense of other men? It isn't. You succeeded with your own ingenuity, ability, organization and management skills, and you CREATED that money. If you fail, it is because you made errors in your judgment. In that case, it is sad, but you cannot expect to keep your industry running if you run it badly. It will fail because no one will want your products or services. Therefore, you aren't making a profit. Therefore, you can't run your business. The key is to make your business better.
I hope this has given you some clarification as to what Capitalism means. For further understanding, I recommend the works of Ayn Rand, especially this youtube audio recording of an essay by her. It's called "What is Capitalism?" (this is part one)
-
but is it just me or does it look like the storm clouds are gathering?
I've been saying it for months. Storm clouds are here, they've gone past just 'gathering'. They're here, they're just waiting to send the rain crashing down and flooding us. I'm waiting, every day, for the world to collapse. It's at such a perilous state, it would only take a small thing to send it over the edge. I've actually explored (in my novel) how a small collectivist state in the Balkans could lead to world statism and stagnation.
-
I think the principle here is that one must not expect to acquire information or education from others, or promote such an expectation (which is one thing that public libraries do). I don't think it is correct to say on principle that information should not be free. One of the functions of the Ayn Rand Institute, for example, is to provide free information about Objectivism. In general, the valid reason for providing free information is to promote rationality in other people, in order to further one's own life in the long run. Conversely, providing free information is immoral when it violates individual rights, or when it is done out of the conviction that all information should be free as a matter of principle (which it certainly shouldn't).
Very good points. As long as it isn't at a loss to the individual or isn't "done out of the conviction that all information should be free as a matter of principle", I can support free information. Thanks for that.
-
A quote from representative Thaddeus McCotter from earlier today:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/09/29/...in4485790.shtml
He makes me have pride in the name "Thadius" (even it it's spelled differently). Brilliant. I wonder what Ms. Rand would have said to that, considering she lived through that revolution.
The whole situation faintly reminds me of a reverse "Equalization of opportunity bill". Remember in AS, when a bill to help out newer businesses at the expense of older, more productive ones was reluctantly passed with a grim sense of duty? It seems like this was voted down reluctantly with a grim sense of duty.
-
i smell revolution!
Gives "Capitalist War Machine" a whole new meaning.
-
I am not sure how familiar you are with Objectivist political philosophy, but you will find very few voices here speaking out against the notion of a voluntary tax/donation system to fund government. I myself have been racking my brain on and off, writing stuff down and trying to formulate new ideas on how a government would extract money voluntarily from the population.
I came up with an idea for this, and just couldn't resist putting it down.
The government hires a contractor who, every... April 15th, let's say, sends out a form to the citizens of the country. Adorned in black, gold, and white (the colors of capitalism), the sheet will say "Do you value your property? Do you value your life? Do you value your Safety, and liberty? Please consider sending a donation from your income of $X.YZ to congress to help finance their protection of our great society!" or something like that. Included would be a little form which you can fill out that will let you send some money to the government.
Every rich Hank Rearden and Dagny Taggart who wants their skyscraper protected from the Mob would undoubtedly send at least a few dollars. I would: I'd hire a pretty young secretary to find out how many policemen it would take to protect my skyscraper from a small mob of, say, 500-1000 people. Then have her calculate how much they would all be paid. Then add in a couple hundred extra for the army, and ship it off in the mail. Then we'd go out to dinner.
-
Hello everyone,
Something I've been wondering about is how Objectivists perceive public libraries. They provide great places for research and learning. Isn't that desirable? However, in the US at least, they are publically funded. Isn't that undesirable? Wouldn't a "private library" (where patrons might pay some subscription fee to view the collection) be an improvement in both the size and quality of the collection? Is such a thing viable and/or does such a thing exist?
The Objectivist view on public libraries is that they are wrong. The government forces money from people and uses it to pay for it, yes, which is VERY wrong. But there's more to it then just that - information and knowledge and art are not free, yet anyone can just come in and get it. Knowledge and Education are not free, and should not be made so. They must be earned. It is desirable to have such places for research and learning, but such vast quantities of information shouldn't just be shelled out for free.
Yes, private libraries such as the hypothetical one you described can and do exist, as far as I'm aware. If we ever do achieve a laissez faire state, when the government is auctioning off the public libraries, I'm going to buy myself one and work it just like that. It's very viable.
-
You can also go to RushLimbaugh.com and scroll to almost the bottom of the page and click on the tab "The Truth About Taxes" and get some quick data of that nature. (I used to be a ditto head, sorry!)
I still listen to a lot of conservative radio and watch some conservative TV programs (Glenn Beck and the like). I agree with a lot of what they say about free markets (even if they don't actually completely understand it), and it's more pro-objectivist then most other news sources. Of course, as with every famous person in the world that isn't objectivist, there are plenty of times I just can't stomach it and stop watching/listening for weeks on end.
I have a very complicated relationship with conservative media.
-
First - I'm not very well versed in economics, and I was wondering if anyone who was willing could explain to me exactly how currency would work in a complete laissez faire state. I know that private banks or mints would issue money, and that they would issue gold backed currency, because people aren't just going to accept any banks piece of paper. But how would private currencies work in other countries? And exactly how does a gold standard work - I know that each dollar equals an amount of gold, but in terms of trade and currency exchange, how does gold currency follow the law of supply and demand and how would that law change when applied to private currency. And I've read that gold standard meant lower incomes and higher unemployment back when it was used. Why is that? And what if lots of people begin to accept paper money from some bank - how does it work out then? If anyone could explain how a laissez faire currency would work, or recommend any resources on the subject, that would be great.
Second - just a quick question - are the WTO and the G8 capitalist organizations? I don't think they are, because they're politicians meeting and negotiating with other peoples rights, but I don't pretend to have enough understanding of their dynamics to be sure. Any opinions on it's political label?
-
I worked at McDonald's in H.S. I was told at the time that 60% of Mickey D's business was from fries. I'm not sure if that's net or gross revenue, but I'd guess net, assuming potatoes are cheap.
Another interesting fact about McD's fries: Proper salt application is considered the most important step in preparing fries for sale. You can screw up the grease temperature, get the frying time wrong, and let the fries get old/cold in the hot bin, as long as you throw enough salt on... people will like them.
It's true.
-
Damn, there goes my major!!
I can see it now:
"Well, you have all the requirements, you seem perfect for the job. But - we can't take you."
"What?!? Why?"
"You majored in Marxist Economics, and we don't trust your kind 'round here."
"I'm not a Marxist, though!"
"Well, I'm looking at the transcript, and - frankly, I think your a Marxist."
"I am not!"
"Then why was your major Marxist Economics?"
"Know thy enemy."
"Well, there's a difference between knowing them and sleeping with them."
*****
"I'd like to apply for a visa."
"I'm sorry, but your transcript shows you majored in Marxism."
"So...I can't go to America?"
"No, they don't trust your kind 'round there."
"But Obama just got elected!"
"Chairman Obama is not a Marxist. He's a Trotskyist. There is a difference. When you want to go to America, get a major in Trotskyism."
-
That has got to be one of the most brilliant replies I've ever read.
-
Without priori knowledge I was born. Senses infallible, but mind up for scorn. No Dichotomy Between brains and brawn!
:lol: I can definitely see this going somewhere...
Is it OK to steal/kill to save the life of your child?
in Ethics
Posted
No. Need is not a standard of value. When need becomes the standard of value, you give permission for the needy to rape the successful, and turn need into the most important part of life. When the successful and those who achieve are turned into those who need, and when need makes right, the race dies off from starvation.