Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Questions

Rate this topic


JohnS
 Share

Recommended Posts

Well I would say the employer is depriving said person of the quality of life dependent on the employment.

To deprive someone is to rob them or make them give up something by way of force. How does the scenario of laying off an employee fit with this word?

Furthermore, do you believe it is wrong for one person to deprive another person of something?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 159
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Zip: I think it is a false dillema. Governments have been around as long as there has been recorded history. The entire time has not been a Soviet experiment. There are more than two choices of Soviet dystopia or pure freedom. Also I trust groups of people that are elected by those they represent as they tend to check each other. I don't like huge amounts of power in the hands of single individuals and those goes for both government and private life. You can say this is impossible but...we did it. Worker safety laws, for example, did NOTHING to harm production. The problem with evolution as a rule of economics is it can only adapt short term. If there was short term money to be made by having maimed workers, so be it. If the government, however, moves everybody at the same time with a universal law of no unsafe practices, then everyone balances back out and production is maintained. There is a middle ground here on Earth; maybe not in principle land but it EXISTS on earth.

Kanjmai: An employee needs his employer more than the employer needs him in the vast majority of cases. This power imbalance has been abused before and requires government to step in. At least with the government I have a voice. I do not have such a voice at my company. I didn't elect the boss nor do I have to personally support him. I want someone with at least a speck of my interests involved in this relationship with some real power.

EC: If someone broke into my house you're bringing much extra into the equation. First is this person going to kill me? rape my girlfriend? These things matter. If someone robbed me, at gunpoint even, and I found out later they did so because if they didn't they would die from not being able to afford some medicine, I would feel better about it. If I was in a situation where I needed $30,000 or someone would kill my child...I will do whatever it takes...period. Whatever...it takes. Just how I am. How did you feel on my point about jefferson?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

NOTE: I have found a free ebook of atlas shrugged. Score.

Interesting. Where did you find a legal free ebook of Atlas Shrugged? I believe it is still under copyright and no electronic version has been released by the copyright holders save the out-of-"print" Objectivism Research CD.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worker safety laws, for example, did NOTHING to harm production.

I didn't plan on being involved in this discussion beyond it's reading, but I couldn't let this slide. I've spent the better part of 15 years working in the construction industry and want to make it clear that following osha regulations to the letter costs no less then 3 out of 8 hours. Further, (I work primarily on roofs) every time, bar none, that I have been injured, it has been caused directly by using a safety device I did not need or want. On not one single occasion have they saved me, nor anyone else I have seen or heard of from harm. Osha itself will even admit that since their inception in 1973 they have had a slight increase in both work related deaths and injuries by percentage in each field.

Trying to ram square regulations in round risk-possessing jobs succeeds only in putting good companies out of business with $80,000 fines and increasing unemployment. It first creates regulations which put the worker in harms way, providing an understandable impetus for ignoring them. Then, it punishes employers for their employees failure to act against their own safety with huge fines which most cannot reasonably afford.

The effects of this system is played out in another way which demonstrates nicely why your humanitarian approach, disregarding principles, is precisely the cause and not the antidote of the "burning" you do see in the world. Large companies are not often fined because they can afford to litigate. Small shady companies are not targeted because they'll just go out of business. This leaves mid range companies which might be able to afford the fines but not the lawyers necessary to compete with the Federal government. So the end result is that less real competition is allowed to exist with large over priced companies and small unstable and/or disreputable subcontractors dominating the field.

So in your particular example, you ignore principles for the benefit of the common man. Well let me tell ya man, I'm him. In supporting this idea, you put me in greater physical danger, cost me 40% of my life in decreased productivity, make it more difficult to get a job and even more difficult to be paid well for it, insure that if I start and grow a company to a certain size, I'll lose my shirt at the stroke of some bureaucrats pen, and cause otherwise beneficial relationships between employer and employee to be strained. You'll have to forgive me if I lack gratitude in this regard, but I can take care of my own goddamn health.

Your emotionally based beliefs lack context and connection to reality. Everyone of them. You think that by shackling atlas and monitoring his nearness to death, that you can escape the consequences of that leash. You can't. You take half his life and you lose every bit of it. Every dollar you steal costs you four in real increased values in the world and thats conservative.

The discretionary part of a mans income, life, and energy is where greatness happens. You think that by leaving him enough to feed himself and stay out of the weather, you skirt the costs. But ask your self this; the average guy makes 30K a year in the us and keeps 19 if he's lucky. So, enough to pay rent and buy his crust of bread, right? How many would be atlases are sabotaged from the start in this way? How many businesses are never started? How many inventions are never considered? How many dreams are lost? How many who are successful in spite of the odds you stack against them would do even more? People here are being polite with you and your politeness would warrant it, to most. But not to me. I hold you and everyone who espouses your beliefs responsible not only for Auschwitz and Stalin's pogroms, but for everything that might have been. For all the almosts, that but for your shackles would have impacted everyone's lives, yours and mine included, had they just been let the fuck alone. So do me and every other "average guy" a favor and every time you feel like doing something you feel will be good for us, think of what the actual consequences will be. Think of the true cost as it trickles down into every tiny nuance of affected reality. Assume that my explanation above would occur as easily every time you raise a government gun to our collective foreheads for every possible altruistic scheme you imagine will warrant you a pat on the back.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may choose to work for a boss but you cannot quit so easily and you don't always know what you're getting in to. I want someone with power in the relationship after it is formed who has my interests at heart. The employer / employee relationship is quite heavily stacked towards the employer. I don't want to equalize it completely as bosses need authority. I do want it tempered by outside influences in which the employee has an input.

The free copy of atlas shrugged was easily found with a google search. I bought the book years ago but it became damaged from neglect as Objectivism was about a 6 month fad for me and I never got around to the massive tome that is Atlas Shrugged. This means that technically I didn't break the law, only the person who had it for free download did. I'm going to assume the Objectivists rarely crack a smile towards piracy :dough:

Lastly I set up a hypothetical situation to display how I would be willing, in certain circumstances, to treat morality as expendable. This is relevant to the discussion. I do not like theft, but if I must sanction theft to avoid a massive income polarization, I will. I only have so much sympathy and I don't see myself envisioning with sympathy for a billionaire crying "I'm in bondage" because tax money was allocated to rescue someone from a house fire.

Edit for aequalsa: You chose 1973...what about since early industrial revolution. You provide anecdotal evidence and statistics you...well...pulled out of nowhere. You provided no real data or useable evidence. Link me a study, a governmental report, hell a CATO institute evaluation. Secondly the largest economic expansion in US history was during Bill Clinton's presidency. To me it sounds like you're saying "In theory X can't happen despite the fact that X has and is going on". You are arguing with reality. A is A, right? Innovators still innovate, and they do so happilly. I hear NO large outcry from those that produce and innovate that they have no incentive worthy of their genius. Atlas is happier than he's ever been! Go tell Warren Buffet, an Obama and bailout supporter, that he just doesn't get free markets. Secondly you say think of all the bad things...think of all the people who got education on the government's dime and used that to become Atlases themselves, etc etc for social programs. How many people have been helped along the way to greatness by initial government help. I'm all for people pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, but some people don't have boots (yes yes, old line I know). If you want to blame me for the Holocaust, well tell me how the US and Russia stop Germany if they are Objectivist? It took serious collectivization to win that war from every major member of the allies. Isn't it something of a cliche to say "you're just like Hitler" on the internet. I wish people would learn more history if only to have a wider selection of historical analogies to reach to.

Edited by JohnS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would call the cops if that were the case but that is just how I am.

Yeah, I'll second this response. JohnS, it's funny that you are all for government, except when it comes down to having it do it's proper purpose--protect your individual rights via the police, courts, or military.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You may choose to work for a boss but you cannot quit so easily and you don't always know what you're getting in to. I want someone with power in the relationship after it is formed who has my interests at heart. The employer / employee relationship is quite heavily stacked towards the employer. I don't want to equalize it completely as bosses need authority. I do want it tempered by outside influences in which the employee has an input.

You can say all you want on how bad a person would have it if they left the job, but they still have the CHOICE on whether to quit or not.

And if you are suggesting that it would be worse if they quit, you are also saying that they are better off if they have that job. So why are they complaining? Because someone won't cater to their needs defined by their whims?

The free copy of atlas shrugged was easily found with a google search. I bought the book years ago but it became damaged from neglect as Objectivism was about a 6 month fad for me and I never got around to the massive tome that is Atlas Shrugged. This means that technically I didn't break the law, only the person who had it for free download did. I'm going to assume the Objectivists rarely crack a smile towards piracy :dough:

Wrong. If someone steals $1000 and gives it to you, who--and you know that he stole it--take it, then you are merely an extension of theft. Not only is your situation immoral, but also illegal. We have multiple lawyers on the forum, including at least one that specializes in Intellectual Properties.

Lastly I set up a hypothetical situation to display how I would be willing, in certain circumstances, to treat morality as expendable. This is relevant to the discussion. I do not like theft, but if I must sanction theft to avoid a massive income polarization, I will. I only have so much sympathy and I don't see myself envisioning a billionaire crying "I'm in bondage" because tax money was allocated to rescue someone from a house fire.

It does not matter how the money is used; it is still theft. If someone breaks into your house, knocks you out, and steals your organs, so that they may have a kidney for their wife to use for a transplant surgery, does that make it right? The ends do not justify the means.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let me repeat this: It is NOT ILLEGAL to own a copy of something previously purchased. This is why it is legal to digitally copy CD's that you have purchased. You can't give them away and you can't sell them. You can have one for your car and one for your garage or something. I purchased Atlas Shrugged and am legally entitled to have a digital copy. If I redistribute or sell it, I can be sued. If I use it solely for personal use, I cannot. This isn't an opinion or how I feel. It's United States (and I THINK international) law.

If you disagree, you've got my IP and my real name.

On the fact that the employer has the right to quit: yes they do, my position is that this isn't sufficient. We disagree. That's ok :dough: Also you group needs and whims together. It seems as if you are using language to paint this picture of the mean industry-killing employee consumed with greed.

There is a slight difference between money and kidneys. Its a bit more invasive to break in my house and conduct unauthorized major surgery on me than to simply send me a tax bill. It's a bad analogy because it is hard to contemplate without getting all kinds of other emotions involved (I don't want to be knocked out, I don't want to be surprised and attacked, I don't want to lose 1/2 of my body's ability to do..w/e kidneys do - actually take the things, all they've done is get punched in fights and sent me to the ground like a brick. Thanks, kidney ;) )

Edited by JohnS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I purchased Atlas Shrugged and am legally entitled to have a digital copy. If I redistribute or sell it, I can be sued.

I am not sure about that, so I cannot comment.

There is a slight difference between money and kidneys. Its a bit more invasive to break in my house and conduct unauthorized major surgery on me than to simply send me a tax bill. It's a bad analogy because it is hard to contemplate without getting all kinds of other emotions involved (I don't want to be knocked out, I don't want to be surprised and attacked, I don't want to lose 1/2 of my body's ability to do..w/e kidneys do - actually take the things, all they've done is get punched in fights and sent me to the ground like a brick. Thanks, kidney :dough: )

But that's the thing; it's not that different. What if you don't pay the bill? They can take what you own. What is the difference between that and a man breaking into your house to steal something? What if you say "this is rightfully mine, I will not give it up"?

Also, I do not put whims and needs together. A person NEEDS to drink and eat to live. However, that does not mean that anyone has a duty to give you food or water. I was referring to when people say that they have a right to a job, that they NEED things which they, on a biological level, do not. For an example, read FDR's Economic Bill of Rights.

http://worldpolicy.org/projects/globalrigh...r-econbill.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I only have so much sympathy and I don't see myself envisioning with sympathy for a billionaire crying "I'm in bondage" because tax money was allocated to rescue someone from a house fire.

I'm not a billionaire, but you can be damn sure that if I was that is exactly what you would here from me if someone stole my money to use for any purpose.

Secondly the largest economic expansion in US history was during Bill Clinton's presidency.

Wrong, it was in the 19th Century, when America was closest to being a laissez-faire government.

Innovators still innovate, and they do so happilly. I hear NO large outcry from those that produce and innovate that they have no incentive worthy of their genius.

You are missing the point. How much more innovation would exist if the government kept their grimy hands off"

Atlas is happier than he's ever been! Go tell Warren Buffet, an Obama and bailout supporter, that he just doesn't get free markets.

How about choosing someone who isn't also an altruist like you. Imagine what that man could have did if he hadn't accepted that evil morality and hadn't been shackled by government his whole career.

Secondly you say think of all the bad things...think of all the people who got education on the government's dime and used that to become Atlases themselves, etc etc for social programs. How many people have been helped along the way to greatness by initial government help.

First, government shouldn't be involved in education. All education should be privately funded. Second, all of your social programs have made every single problem that they tried to "solve" worse--far worse. We are four decades into welfare, why hasn't poverty been eradicated, or even made better?

If you want to blame me for the Holocaust, well tell me how the US and Russia stop Germany if they are Objectivist? It took serious collectivization to win that war from every major member of the allies.

Wrong again, it took total war by the worlds most prosperous country (because of Capitalism) do destroy the evil menace.

Isn't it something of a cliche to say "you're just like Hitler" on the internet. I wish people would learn more history if only to have a wider selection of historical analogies to reach to.

When an Objectivist uses this "cliche" he usually knows much more what he's talking about than your average man who cavalierly throws this phrase around. After reading Atlas Shrugged, I suggest that you also read Leonard Peikoff's The Ominous Parallels to understand just what I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a slight difference between money and kidneys. Its a bit more invasive to break in my house and conduct unauthorized major surgery on me than to simply send me a tax bill. It's a bad analogy because it is hard to contemplate without getting all kinds of other emotions involved (I don't want to be knocked out, I don't want to be surprised and attacked, I don't want to lose 1/2 of my body's ability to do..w/e kidneys do - actually take the things, all they've done is get punched in fights and sent me to the ground like a brick. Thanks, kidney :dough: )

I disagree. Remember there is no such thing as moral principle, every occasion should be judged by its situation. I happen to know this mans wife and the woman is a saint. She feeds orphans and houses the homeless. She needs this kidney more than you do. Sure stealing the kidney was wrong, but look at the outcome. A good and caring woman lives and so do you. So what’s the harm? After all you do have two of them.

Not only do I think her husband should not be punished but he should be commended; because of the desperation of his emotional state he did something very daring and brave. As for you sir, your greedy attitude is discerning. The problem with you is that you have no heart....No really, because we took that too. The fact that your even able to type is a miracle!

Edited by Rearden_Steel
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I purchased Atlas Shrugged and am legally entitled to have a digital copy.

While you may have had some right to copy (for personal use) from the actual book that you purchased some years ago, that does not translate to the legal entitlement that you claim. Your interesting use of the word 'technically' suggests that you even realize that you don't ACTUALLY have such a legal right.

Check the Fair Use section (Linked as 'What can be copied') in this link where is says that you can copy parts of a book, but not the whole book. I'd be glad to read whatever link you can provide that demonstrates the legal entitlement you claim.

Edited by RationalBiker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

JohnS, I've been thinking about my response to you and I've checked my premises. The answer I gave avoided the main thrust of your point which concerned consequences. So, getting back to that...

You are attempting to place my cart before my horse. The consequences of dealing with random avoidable individual asshole vice the unavoidable governmental ones is a direct and accepted consequence of principal, not a result of pragmatic decision to avoid the clutches of government. The principal in question is the lassiez faire system.

Zip: I think it is a false dillema. Governments have been around as long as there has been recorded history. The entire time has not been a Soviet experiment. There are more than two choices of Soviet dystopia or pure freedom.

:dough: I would argue that modern liberalism is death by a thousand cuts, it has incrementally reduced the freedom of the individual since it's inception. Put it this way, the individual is being taken for a ride, and although there is a liberal at the wheel instead of a socialist, the destination is the same. The liberal is merely taking the scenic route to the gulag.

Also I trust groups of people that are elected by those they represent as they tend to check each other.

Hitler was voted into power. By the time he had seized control there was nothing the pragmatists in that country could do.

There is a middle ground here on Earth; maybe not in principle land but it EXISTS on earth.

No one here is evading the reality that pragmatism exists, we are saying that without it the various destructive contradictions like the contradiction currently found in the USA, UK and other countries between freedom and security would not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Edit for aequalsa: You chose 1973...what about since early industrial revolution. You provide anecdotal evidence and statistics you...well...pulled out of nowhere. You provided no real data or useable evidence. Link me a study, a governmental report, hell a CATO institute evaluation. Secondly the largest economic expansion in US history was during Bill Clinton's presidency. To me it sounds like you're saying "In theory X can't happen despite the fact that X has and is going on". You are arguing with reality. A is A, right? Innovators still innovate, and they do so happilly. I hear NO large outcry from those that produce and innovate that they have no incentive worthy of their genius. Atlas is happier than he's ever been! Go tell Warren Buffet, an Obama and bailout supporter, that he just doesn't get free markets. Secondly you say think of all the bad things...think of all the people who got education on the government's dime and used that to become Atlases themselves, etc etc for social programs. How many people have been helped along the way to greatness by initial government help. I'm all for people pulling themselves up by the bootstraps, but some people don't have boots (yes yes, old line I know). If you want to blame me for the Holocaust, well tell me how the US and Russia stop Germany if they are Objectivist? It took serious collectivization to win that war from every major member of the allies. Isn't it something of a cliche to say "you're just like Hitler" on the internet. I wish people would learn more history if only to have a wider selection of historical analogies to reach to.

My information is based on data from a discussion with an OSHA agent. Generally, I'd be happy too bother looking things up, but not in this case. You have said outright and apologetically that you wish for me and everyone who produces to be your slave. I have no interest in providing value to someone who takes pride in being a parasite off of the efforts of others. So if you are interested in those numbers; in knowing the true results of government intervention then, here's an idea...do the work yourself.

Since the industrial revolution there have, in fact, been improvements in worker safety, also productivity, also innovation, also higher income, also shorter work weeks. I suppose government legislated all of that into existence as well? You know better. Government only transfers that which exists and steals 91%(yeah, I know, look it up yourself) in costs along the way.

It's immaterial as to whether or how the US, Britain and the USSR would have or did eliminated Hitler without statism. That question ignores the fact that a statist move to nationalize the banks and collect income tax before world war I allowed world war I and the Wiemar republic to even happen in the first place. Without the allied governments choice to Tax Germany in an imperialistic way through war reparations, Hitler would have had a very under ripe environment to get into power at all, let alone do what he did.

Regarding Mr. Buffet, I have no idea whether or not he understands free markets. I do know that he understands mixed economies quite well, evidenced by his previous financial success and his choice to purchase $5billion worth of Goldman preferred stock in the middle of our so called banking crisis.

To clarify your implication regarding my lack of historical context and lucidity, I didn't say that you were like Hitler. I said that your philosophy, namely, that some men have the right to enslave others, is what is responsible for national socialism. I could just as easily have said that you shared the philosophy of Mao Zedong, Genghis khan, or Mussolini. Don't pretend that you don't see the similarities between various flavors of slavery. Your smarter then that. You know the principles are the same and that the degree agony is the only alteration.

To everyone else, I remember a previous discussion in which some here disagreed that there were people actually like Toohey who consciously desired the enslavement of mankind. Well, here he is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Also, I don't know where you got that we had economic expansion during the Clinton era. You provided no evidence, no study, no proof. There is however proof that the Clinton presidency pressured the mortgage industry into giving out sub-prime loans which actually -caused- the most alarming economic collapse since the depression. Sub-prime loans could not exist in a lassiez-faire capitalistic system. In a mixed economic regulatory system, however, any disgusting amalgamation of half thought out band aids to social problems can occur. Normal business people would not and could not make money by giving loans to people who simply cannot afford them. The government, however, is highly interested in doing so. For after this, they can blame the business people, get more taxes going, and spend billions of dollars on anything they like, for the bailout bill stipulates no accountability.

I argued with a socialist once, who was self admittedly from a rich family, had not had to worry about much his whole life, and planned to be a public school teacher so that he could (also self admittedly) convince more people to be socialists. He assumed by my arguments pro capitalism that I must also have come from a rich family and not had to worry about much. My situation was in fact the opposite. My parents were divorced when I was 10, they didn't have much money before that, and afterwards my dad was unable to pay any child support for several years. All of this was during Clinton's presidency. Now, according to your pragmatic 'balanced' ideal, we should have received enough money through welfare that I would never have to worry about food or a place to live, my education would be sealed, including college. I could then graduate and get some sort of mid level office job in the corporate world, become completely 'disillusioned' with adulthood, and choose to vote and be a liberal.

It was through my mother's determination to survive after being -rejected- for welfare that got me a place to sleep and food to eat, it was through the public school system that I received a sub-par education which was unable to teach most of my peers the fundamentals such as reading, writing, and multiplication. And now, I get next to nothing from the government in order to attend a public college which forces me to review all which I learned (on my own) while I was younger, because the other people going to college don't know the difference between there, they're and their.

Now, if I can preempt your argument correctly, logically I should support more social programs so that people in my situation can get what they need from the government. The problem is there isn't enough to go around. It is -impossible- for a social program to cover -everybody-. You could tax the bill gates' into poverty, and you would still have poverty. You do not understand the reason behind the poverty. It is the same reason communist systems fail. If I can not work and get money so that I can live, what possible motivation do I have to work? None. Poverty will always rise when you feed it free money, progress will always fall when you take the reward for it away. This is a -law- of reality, it is part of nature, it is inescapably true for every living creature living on Earth. That is the substance of Objectivism, a name for the philosophy for living on -Earth-.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First the Clinton thing: I made a mistake. It was the largest PEACETIME expansion. http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/WH/Work/040299.html

Copyright: that article that you linked is for work that you are quoting. For example, I can legally quote a paragraph from a book to prove a point. I cannot "copy" the whole damn book (obvious closing of a possible loophole). These rules apply to ALL work from all perspectives. They do not apply to work that is purchased and used privately. Let me just save you some time: I used to be an amateur software pirate, I know basic copyright law.

It has come to my attention that the responses here have become quite strained with emotion. It's time for me to go. I thank you for your time and I lament that this slid into the icy situation it is. I was afraid this would happen but I also suspected I would learn a lot. I was right both ways. One thing before I go, I don't "want" to enslave mankind. I just didn't want to get bogged down in my own liberal arguments. When I argue with a hardcore Christian, I like to argue with them from INSIDE the bible. The idea that it is all false, right off the bat, is simply a non-starter. Likewise if I'd come in here and said everything you think is wrong, then everything would've gone to pot. I limited all of my arguments (ok most of them; I tried) to fit within your own framework.

I also hope everyone realizes I came and stayed here in good faith. Part of that process requires me to leave in good faith and not touch this increasingly charged situation. I'm going to save every page of this conversation to my hard drive as I felt it was so chock full-O'-goodness. I'll read replies, but I will not post anymore.

EDIT: If anyone knows a really efficient way to copy entire webpages, I'd really appreciate getting that in PM. (I feel like I tripped over the curtain as I exited stage right..*sigh*)

Peace,

JohnS

Edited by JohnS
Link to comment
Share on other sites

John, it's not that I want the last word. But, the emotions that have been shown by us have been rather mild considering the level of evil of some of your posts. I never really believed that there were really men who saw the nature of the good and understood it and still wanted to reject it like a Toohey from The Fountainhead in real life. I thought most people were just confused and didn't understand the nature of the evil they were mouthing. I was wrong. You seem to completely understand what you are spouting and still want to make slaves of your fellow men. You, and people like you, are our enemy that we are in an actual intellectual war with at present. I can only hope the good eventually achieves victory in my lifetime because I never intend to, nor will I ever be, another man's slave.

Feel free to keep posting, we don't choose to put others in bondage until and unless they initiate force against us, or break our rules, then and only then we respond with overwhelming force. Or in the case of this forum--banning.

Edited by EC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You, and people like you, are our enemy that we are in an actual intellectual war with at present. I can only hope the good eventually achieves victory in my lifetime because I never intend to, nor will I ever be, another man's slave.

Well, that'll keep him around. I think you're proving his point actually.

I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. I think he certainly makes people who would be our enemy, possible. I'm not convinced he knows what he's saying to the fullest extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that'll keep him around. I think you're proving his point actually.

I'm not sure I'd agree with you there. I think he certainly makes people who would be our enemy, possible. I'm not convinced he knows what he's saying to the fullest extent.

He understands to the degree that he say's he is all for "chaining the Atlas's of the world", i.e., essentially making the productive members of the world slaves to the unproductive. That is enough of an understanding of the essential issues on his part for me to make the judgment that I have. I would be glad though if you are right Kendall and I am overreacting to his statements, because that would mean my original assessment is correct--which I would prefer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think he's not as bad as Toohey, because he doesn't want to enslave them on principle, and he doesn't want to enslave them entirely. I actually think he's better than a garden-variety liberal (to whom and for what? to us for the purpose of arguing with him) in that he's honest about his wording--he doesn't hide behind euphemisms and vagueness.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It amazes me that JohnS' comment about how by enslaving us just "enough" to get what he (the liberal) wants is sufficient to ensure that we (the atlas's/wannabe's) will never shrug has been largely ignored.

Rand herself said that in any compromise between poison and food only death could result, but then she seemed to accept the pragmatic ideal of Atlas being chained but not strangled in claiming that we weren't there, at the point of shrugging yet.

Could someone please explain this seeming compromise to me? I just don't see it as being in our rational self interest to wait until a Directive 10-289 is initiated, and I honestly don't think that they (the JohnS's of the world ) will ever get the point until it is forcibly made clear to them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...