Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

liberal's Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)



  1. For the record, it wasn't a "concession post". I was asked by the moderater not to continue the debate.
  2. CapitalistSwine, and most importantly, the moderator have called attention to the forum rules and as such I am not allowed to respond to the responses to my arguments. Further debate appears to have been disallowed because I have apparently not displayed the required deference to Objectivism by having "honest questions about Objectivism". Whatever that means. Apparently, I am not challenging Objectivism according to the moderator but merely spreading propaganda. Therefore, this concludes my participation in further discussion in this debate and my participation in this website. I concede nothing.
  3. I'm sorry, I didn't see your PM. Just read it now and responded. I admit I did not read the forum rules but must I convert to Objectivism in order to continue this fascinating discussion? Is the debate section only for Objectivist students?
  4. What is the cost to the other if they are sharing extra resources they don't require for their average level of comfort? How is dignity self made when all our resources come from the Earth and other living things?
  5. You'll be surprised here because I regard scenario 3 as perfectly acceptable but equally acceptable with the socialist scenario. As I said previously, I regard both capitalism and socialism (scenario 2) as important to our survival as a species. Both are imperfect but I believe they should exist side by side and be employed as solutions when and where the other fails such as in the case A having nothing of value to other B. Anything to avoid scenario 1. So yes, capitalism has survival benefits.
  6. Okay to answer. Now I'm going to try to explain an interesting point about cooperative sharing and competition. Cooperative sharing is not a form of dependence on others. Competition is the actual form of dependence. This is easily observable in the example of two members of different species competing over the entirety of a kill that one has made. Because the two animals cannot negotiate an equal division of the resources, the loss of the resource by the one is felt as a "dependence" by the other. Cooperative sharing is compatible with independence because no one is actually being depended on in cooperative sharing. Cooperative sharing of resources is only the sharing of extra resources among a group by a member who does not require those resources to maintain an average degree of comfort. So, as long as the procurer of a resource keeps enough to sustain their average degree of comfort, no loss or dependence is felt. The dependence is on the Earth.
  7. Doesn't matter. You're talking about conditions and time spans. That is irrelevant to my point. I'm talking the measure of independence from others acquired from time + effort. OMG you people don't get it.
  8. What do you mean, "Well done"? He's done nothing.
  9. Wrong. It's either way. One is preferable to the other but, when someone is refusing to cooperate, the force solution is totally justifiable.
  10. I provide countless examples and facts through this thread. It is up to you if you want to ignore them. Scenario 1: Fact: All living beings need resources to survive A is a living being and needs resource X to survive but has been unsuccessful in acquiring X itself B has acquired the resource X and refuses to divide X equally Result: A kills B and obtains resource X Scenario 2: Fact: All living beings need resources to survive A is a living being and needs resource X to survive but has been unsuccessful in acquiring X itself B has acquired the resource X and shares X with A Result: Both A and B survive
  11. Are you waiting for further clarification of my points? My question to you regarding the "earned" and "unearned" was serious and I was waiting for your answer so we could proceed. But to address your main point, an inherent conflict of interest in the free market does indeed exist and is on active display all around us. I do not need to point out to you that millions of people work full time jobs with salaries that amount to nowhere near a living wage in the current industrialized environment. A living wage being an amount of compensation enough for an individual to provide for themselves the basic necessities for functional survival in the current industrialized modern environment without the need for outside assistance or combining salaries. Millions of people work 8 hours a day 5 days a week and still cannot support themselves alone. Is THIS the "exchange" you claim to be in their self interest? But the employers have no shame in accepting such an exchange because it is in their self interest to pay their employees as little as they possibly can. Just enough that they can come into work every day and be robbed of their time and effort without the dignity of a roof of their own over their head, day in day out. It seems to me it would be in an employees' self interest and expected of them to be able to fully support themselves, without assistance, after 8 hours of work a day 5 days a week. With these kind of "exchanges" we are better off in the wild. Imagine if you hunted 8 hours a day 5 days a week in the wild. Do you think you'd be able to support your own existence? The Native Americans worked far less hours than the typical American and they at least had the dignity of their work fully supporting their existence even if at a lower level technology. This "voluntary interaction" of the modern industrialized free market system is nothing short of a crime against humanity.
  12. "The reality, again, being we are here to survive as a species and group, not just as individuals. We are a family." Let me rephrase that because you are partially right here. A more accurate sentence would be: Our self interests and survival are best ensured through cooperative sharing of resources.
  13. You're first part doesn't really challenge the facts I've presented. I'm glad you agree cooperative sharing is a good thing because that is very important to understanding, not only why it is in a life forms self interest, but why withholding extra resources when they are needed by others is a detriment to an individual's survival. The exception you cite wouldn't really be cooperative sharing, but competition. As for the "earned" and "unearned", my position is you cannot fully earn a resource taken from the Earth. None of us have earned the Earth. None of us have earned the animals we've killed or plants we've harvested anymore than you earn a person when you kill them. When the Earth does not freely give these up to us through natural causes, we engage in competition to acquire these things for our survival. Competition is the unregulated taxation of Nature. Taxation is regulated competition. Because you are not on this planet alone, your effort does not give you a claim upon the whole of your acquired resources if they exceed an amount greater than required for your comfortable survival. If you recognize this and engage in cooperative sharing your survival chances will be increased. If you maintain your acquired extra resources are yours and yours alone, you run the risk of having to defend them in competition. Our axiom being: Competition, in any form, is a danger to the survival of the competitors.
  14. You are assuming I postulated that animals were conscious that cooperative behavior served the interests of others. I never said that. The fact remains, cooperative behavior benefits both the survival of the individual and the group. I maintain it serves a beings' self interest to be cooperative and share their resources whether they know it or not. To not share resources leads to competition and is a detriment to the self interest and survival of the individual. Also my request to 2046 to define the "earned" and "unearned" was not a question for myself but for 2046. I know the answer. It has been over an hour since 2046 first responded to me. It seems "it" is taking longer than he expected. I am not going to exhibit much more patience in regards to refuting anymore very basic and clearly incomplete and misapplied refutations of my positions. If this debate is going to continue you are going to have to get someone in here who knows how to respond properly to my assertions. I am not going to go on refuting and deconstructing every misapplied challenge based on what is assumed I am saying or where my assertions are assumed to be taken. It's best not to assume anything with me. Just answer the assertion directly. And don't try to teach. Just answer.
  • Create New...