Some loopholes I see with Objectivism

[D'kian]

What I did ask was this. How is the concept of inheriting wealth different from the European Fuedal System?

It's a matter of rights.

A person's wealth is his own to do with as he pleases. He has the right to leave it to his heirs, or to a shelter for homeless cats. If the governemtn gets involved, it would violate that person's property rights.

In a feudal system titles, lands and such were granted by royalty on whatever pretext royalty wanted. On a whim, out of affection, as payment for services, etc.

If you fail to see a difference, why is that?

[DougW]

In a capitalistic system, having wealth does not give you political power or military power, so it is not like the feudal system that Europe had. Bill Gates having billions of personal savings doesn't give him any political power -- he still only has one vote. He doesn't have the ability to buy senators unless they are corrupt, and under capitalism they wouldn't have any power over him so there would be no need to buy a senator for special privileges anyhow.

And helping others out is optional, according to your own value hierarchy. Not only is there no moral obligation to help them out under a rational morality, it is actually immoral to give out money indiscriminately. Somalia and other countries like that are in such poor shape because they don't have capitalism. Under capitalism, the United States was carved out of a wilderness, we didn't become wealthy because it was given to us, it was created.

Objectivism rejects altruism in all of its forms, and has no proposition to help out others as a moral requirement. A man who earns great wealth is moral to use it for his and only his purpose. Rational selfishness is good; throwing away one's money is not good.

I think you need to read or re-read Atlas Shrugged to get a better grasp of what Objectivism is all about and why altruism is evil.

OK...you still haven't actually said it, but at least you seem to be indicating that it's better that many die than that you bend your concept of rationality. That's OK, part of the issue I have been having in the forum is that people seem to want to have their cake and eat it too (and what would Ayn have to say about that ? ;-) ). They all seem to want to want to say that 1) man has no moral obligation to help others, and 2) a rational man would want to do the things that make a better world for himself to live in and 3) No way am I giving anything to anyone and 4) I'm perfectly rational. The logic just doesn't flow well...I would have a lot more faith in Objectivism if it was filled with people who said things like: "Of course no man is obligated to give anything but as a rational being I understand that the world will continue to flounder as long as there are oppressed uneducated starving masses who can only survive by taking a gun from whatever despot offers them a crumb of bread...." instead of "well I'm certainly not going to stop YOU from helping others...." (more or less a direct quote from Virtue of Selfishness, including the emphasis...)

So, I said this waaaaay earlier in the thread....the position of Objectivism appears to be that while the widespread practice of Objectivism would lead to increased suffering and death among the impoverished, even those impoverished through no fault of their own (I guess those 2-year-old Somalis shouldnt'a voted for totalitarianism!), that in the long run the world will be better off... so it's a better system.

The ends, in other words, justify the means....

Or put it another way, as I already also said before...."We've substitued the words 'rational' and 'moral' when what we really mean is successful, because we find that the dogma sells so much better that way...."

Also, I want to address some of the specific points made in your reply.

1) In a capitalist system, wealth absolutely gives you poilitcal and military power. In the fantasy system sometimes laid out as the goal of Objectivism, where men can not be influenced by greed, or propaganda, and where absolute power doesn't corrupt... in THAT system wealth won't give you political or military power...much like in the fantasy Communist society where all men 'want' to work hard for the good of the state...hmmmm.....see, it only takes one or two bad assuptions for the whole theory to be bad....

2)You didn't have to tell me that helping out is optional, I agreed with that about 300 times already..I literally begged that people not use that in their argument because I am not disagreeing with that! I am questioning whether it is rational to build a world where ultimately there are going to be a lot of really angry, hungry poor people with pitchforks and torches knocking on your door asking if you were one of the people who has been holding onto 90% of the world's resources while they were starving.... or perhaps more rational to help educate and enlighten others so that perhaps we can live in a society where no one is making decisions based on their immediate hunger/survival.... from your response, I get the impression that your logic goes: "once those people are all dead, we we'll be left with a world filled with only men who....", which, again, is fine, as long as you don't try to dress it up as something else.

3) It is immoral to give out money indiscriminately....hmmmm..I'm re-reading all my posts, and I can't seem to find my advice that we should give money indiscriminately. I guess that's because I would not advocate that. I don't advocate doing anything indiscriminately, ever. Including not believing everything you are told, or read.. heck I don't even think we should indiscriminately believe everything we believe! We need to be constantly checking and re-checking our thought process, if for no other reason than that we are all prey to becoming 'comfortable' with ideas that help our position, or that tell us how 'special' we are...

and 4) I don't think I need to re-read AS, I've read it twice now, once when I was 17 and a friend gave it to me, and again a year and a half ago, because I had been reading how Objectivism had been catching on with younger intellectuals, and I wanted to see if maybe I had missed something the first time through. I don't think I did. Rand's ideas are extremely seductive, particularly to those who were born with some wealth and power and are frightened that it they may lose it, or those who feel disaffected because the world doesn't recognize how 'special' they are. She says many, many, many things that are true, that are right, that are rational. But in my opinion (and I know just how little that means in the grand scheme of things...), she uses the facts she states to then prove completely unproved points. She postulates a society where things will happen the way she wants, and then claims that is proof that it will happen! I mean, hell, she quotes HERSELF as other people all through Virtue of Selfishess (as in quoting speeches by Galt, Roark, etc...) as though these are real people lending weight to her arguments! And she creates 'evil' characters whose sole purpose in life is the complete destruction of all rational thought on the entire planet...Muhahahahahaha, and expects that we should believe this proves that anyone who questions her ideas is evil by nature!. In this reality, where we all live, there are very, very, very few Galts, Roarks and Reardens... Nowehere near enough to put together a deal like AS.... the people running the corporations that are successful aren't the smartest people in the room, just the most ruthless. And if the ones who thought something like AS would ever work ever did all abdicate their positions, there would always, always be hundreds ready and willing to take their spots, and possibly even do a better job. So at best AS is a thought experiment, but even then one built with flawed logic in my opinion....but a thought experiment that is being sold as an acceptable version of reality!

[RationalBiker]

I just want to hear you say that you have looked at the facts, have weighed the values involved, and have rationally decided that moving from 49th to 48th on the Forbes list is more rational than using the wealth to help others have a chance at a rational life....

Okay, if you want to hear it; I've looked at the facts and it can be rational to to decide to move from 49th to 48th on the Forbes list as opposed to passing on your wealth to the "needy". However, despite the false dichotomy you set up, the "needy" still do have a chance at a rational life.

However, you probably don't want to hear what the problem is because it doesn't involve putting the burden or the responsibility on the shoulders of the wealthy.

[SapereAude]

Again you are conveniently ignoring a fact which was stated:

"Bill Gates having billions of personal savings doesn't give him any political power -- he still only has one vote. He doesn't have the ability to buy senators unless they are corrupt, and under capitalism they wouldn't have any power over him so there would be no need to buy a senator for special privileges anyhow."

Yes, under the current system money can buy political power but only because we aren't a free market society. As was stated, in a truly free-market society government would be in its correct place and no one would bother buying politicians because politicians would have nothing of value to offer. Politicians would have nothing to give.

I'm awaiting your point by point response to my points, which I think were valid but in the meantime I have to respond to your (seemingly baseless) assertion that most fans of Ayn Rand and Objectivists were born into great wealth. Those I personally know are quite the opposite- those who've done for themselves and are insulted by the notion that it should be any other way. The very few wealthy friends I have are self made men.

I personally had a wretched childhood and young adulthood. I dropped out of school after eighth grade and went to work, having begun work well before the legal age. I own a small.. I mean SMALL business at which I work every single day. at least 5 of those days I put in 15+ hours per day. For this, due to new taxes and regulations imposed this year I bring home less money for myself than I pay out to my lowest paid employee. Good business would dictate that I raise prices but in this economy I would lose business if I did so... so I do what all free people have the choice to do.. work harder, work smarter and bide my time until I find the solution to my problem. Meanwhile due to the altruism of others with my money my employees take home more money than before for less work.

You seem like an intelligent and thoughtful person, DougW, it would be good for you to reflect how much anger and bitterness is in your thought process.

You have so many "shoulds" for others.

The only "shoulds" we have a right to are the ones we impose on ourselves.

I'm not hearing anything about what you should do for others. This is a problem. Those who believe they know what should be done with other people's possessions generally think that their own are untouchable.

You say people shouldn't die because of reason A.

Well, what should they die of then? And who gets to decide? Is it you and people who agree with your stand? Why? What gave you that authority?

Because the fact is they, you, me and everyone is going to die of something.

Old age? Every single human should die of old age?

Guess we need to get rid of everything that could cause premature death then.

Like busses, cars, airplanes, fried chicken (pesky chokey bones) cigarettes, movies and games (passivity and obesity), many sports, mountain climbing...

...oh yeah.. and we have to stop making new life saving DRUGS because often in the early human testing phase there are fatal reactions.

Sorry for the reductio ad absurdum there. I couldn't resist, but there is a point hidden in there.

Again... the main impressions I get from you are an intellect stifled by bitterness and envy.

You need to get past those basest of irrational emotions before you can solve the problems before you.

Are there greedy, nasty businessmen.. sure. There are.

There are also lazy, shiftless, dishonest do nothing poor men.

Concern yourself with yourself and you will find a way to what you desire out of life.. and maybe that will include you making billions of dollars and deciding if you'd like to give it all away.

As would be your choice.

Let others have theirs.

[DougW]

It seems from reading your post about your family being laborers for a very rich man and the incident with the son not being allowed to date your sister that you have a great deal of envy and jealousy to work out before you can come to rational conclusions regarding private property DougW. I mean that with no scorn or malice.

You brought up the notion of the choice of rich man to either have his fancy car waxed or give to someone in need.

Lets take that.

Lets look socratically at what having his car waxed entails.

It entails many people being employed. The makers of the wax, the seller of the wax to the shop, the landlord of the property the shop is on, the owner of the shop, the employees of the shop, the papers that the shop advertises in, all the people that are employed due to the purchasing power that these jobs provide.

Or. You can just give one person $100 (a random number I picked out having never owned a fancy car or had any car waxed).

Looking at this logically, rationally, it seems clear that much more good is being done in the first instance.

Only in the first instance is value for value is being traded. Every person involved is a free agent giving value for value.

When you spend money in a value for value manner you create freedom and wealth.

Mindless slaves are created under any other system.

You reference a notion that passed down wealth resmbles feudalism. Not so. Passed down wealth can be easily lost, even vast amounts of it. It needs some form of attention, stewardship and responsibilty. Whereas unearned nobility stays regardless as has nothing to do with assets or productivity. Look up how many impoverished nobilty you have mncing about Europe.

Our society teaches us to envy rather than achieve, never more so than in our current situation.

Your father's boss giving away even a quarter of his fortune would not have changed your life or your family's situation in anyway- unless of course you are willing to admit to yourself that part of you thinks you should have been the recipient of some of this charity. There is no shame in admitting that to yourself, children think that way. But you are an adult now and it is time to put away childish things.

Realise that a change in your father's bosses fortune would still have absolutely nothing to do with you.

Excepting of course a complete loss of his fortune which would have left you not only resentful but the son of an unemployed man.

Are many rich men assholes? Yes. And many poor men are assholes too. And many middle class men.

The point is the monies of the rich, the poor and the middle class are not your affair. Your money is your affair. If you have enough and are inclined to do so you can do all the "good" you want with your resources.

Envy of wealth is like envy of physical beauty. Making a beautiful woman ugly will not make you pretty.

Read also, along with Ayn Rand The Road to Serfdom by Friedrich Hayek.

Quo,

You are dramatically moving my position with your arguments. I have never advocated handing $100 (or any amount) to anyone. That would be crazy! Last year I lived in Evanston, IL while contracting on a job, and in the streets there are several professional 'beggars'. I have never handed any of them even one dime, because I weighed the likely result and came to the same conclusion you probably would have, that the money would go to booze or drugs, or at the very best would encourage them to never get a job, since they can make a living begging. I am a very logocal guy...I am not going to suggest anything crazy. So instead, lets logically compare what you actually proposed to what I actually propposed.

You said the wax was created by a business, yes it was. It was also shipped, put in stores, marketed sold by a cashier. Of course. Anyone can see that. I completely see the value of that. If we really wanted, we could do a spreadsheet and total up the contribution to the economy. And of course to be fair we'd have to put a lot of things on that spreadsheet, because the cost of just one can of wax wouldn't amount to enough to do anything serious on the other side of my equation, so we're talking about the economic sum of what transpires when someone spends tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars. Good.

Now on my side of the ledger, the guy would take the money and vaporize it right? All for morality. Well, no, not exactly. He would use it to do something useful. like build a school. Which wouldn't just appear magically in Somalia, by the way. There would be brick manufacturers, and carpenters, electricians involved, air freight companies to move the supplies, laborers to lay the bricks...in fact, I guess that whether you are putting money into an economy for your personal gain or for someone else's gain there really isn't any difference with regard to the effect of the money entering the economy... so that particular argument for not giving scores a zero in my mind...if my math is wrong, please show me how...

You'd have better logical results if you argues that 'Giving to someone in Somalia is bad because such a large part of the money would be taken up by corruption." That's true....so build the school in the slums of Atlanta instead... or Mississippi...

AND, to rally be rational, we have to think of the other effects of the actions. Your's does nothing to affect the lives of those in need. They will grow up poor, perhaps illiterate, hungry, and I would guess angry. Having lots and lots of these poeple around probably doesn't increase the chances of the world being a raitional place. On the other hand, if we educate people, so that they have an opportunity to live a rational life, and then they in turn do the same, and so on...maybe we can get to a world where there are enough rational people to stop all of the irrational stuff happening everywhere. Maybe. And I know...we have no obligation...I know..I'm just saying my idea seems smarter, more likely to be successful, more rational.

As far as the envy thing goes....I dunno...maybe. I like to think not. I think I have such an inbred 'Christian' dislike of money and power that I would have felt this way even if I never met the guy who wouldn't let his son date my sis...and I wasn't kidding when I said I liked him...the guy is an amazingly charismatic, 'present' personality if you know what I mean...it would be hard to meet him and not like him... (and no, I'm not a Christian now, just raised that way...mysticism = bad, I agree)

I definitely don't 'wish I were rich'. My second child died the day after his birth, while in the hospital, from a Strep-B infection he caught there. I could have sued the hospital/doctors for a lot of money. I never did. My third child is also a special needs child, he spent the first 10 weeks of his life in the hospital, and doctors told us not to get 'too attaached', that he would probably never come home....thank goodness that was 21 years ago, and he is still here with us. So, when stuff like that happens, it changes your perspective so dramatically...anyway, I'm sure being the 'poor but smart' kid in a community of 'rich' kids had a big effect, as did the other incidents....but I am more than anything a creature of logic. All anyone ever has to do to convince me of anything is lay out the logic. But it can't be halfway.... it can't be that you prove 1 or 2 points and then stop calculating, lets all assume the rest is true. That is what I keep seeing in the arguments of Objectivism.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I am not a wealthy individual, and I have recently become unemployed, but I don't think it is up to the wealthy to do anything about that, except to offer me a job if I have the qualifications -- and they aren't morally obligated to do that, unless it serves their own self-interest. However, even with just a little money in the bank and no money coming in and never having been wealthy, I have a lot of material goods that I could not have had in most any other country on the earnings I have made. Those children in Somalia didn't become poor by their own negligence, on that I will agree, but they are also not my children and I have no obligation to help them out. You seem to think that having poor people in the world not only posses an obligation on those with money but also pose a threat to them, but this isn't true. In the united States there are plenty of poor people, but they are civilized enough not to run amuck and go stealing from the economic betters. If they do pose a threat, then that is what the law and the government are there for -- to protect the rights of everyone, including the wealthy.

Capitalism is an ideal that has not yet been reached, though we did come close to achieving it at the beginning of this country. And in this country, if you were born poor, you could go out and earn money -- extreme wealth even -- that couldn't be done anywhere else. Instead of being envious about wealth, go out and make a fortune; though one of the things holding you back is your envy of the rich. So long as they made their money via trade and not political advantages, that wealth was earned. It is his to do with what he wants; and no it is not more rational to help out the disadvantaged versus making even more money. The disenfranchised do not hold a noose around your neck or theirs.

What's going on in Somalia or any other poorest district of the world did not come about due my decisions -- I didn't make them poor -- and it is not my responsibility to help them out. What is rational is for me to be concerned with my own life -- and only my own life and my values (which may include others, such as friends and lovers). It is not rational for me to put extra burdens onto myself that I didn't want to take on. The volunteer work I do -- if it counts for anything -- is writing these essays trying to get people to understand Objectivism on my free time. You can complain all you want about there being poor people in the world, and if you want to help them then you ought to come to understand why they are poor; and they are poor because they don't have capitalism (or in many cases because they don't have reason). If you want to do something for the world, then stop broadcasting bromides about the need to help the poor -- since there is no such moral obligation.

[Eiuol]

"the position of Objectivism appears to be that while the widespread practice of Objectivism would lead to increased suffering and death among the impoverished, even those impoverished through no fault of their own (I guess those 2-year-old Somalis shouldnt'a voted for totalitarianism!), that in the long run the world will be better off... so it's a better system."

They're impoverished through force.

I'm not sure even how it would appear there would be an "increase in suffering."

[SapereAude]

Doug, you seem to want to give others an inferiority complex about your superiority complex.

You, and only you.. and I guess George Clooney and Oprah and.... know what needs to be done and who needs to be helped.

What you appear to be saying in your argument against my statement of value for value trading vs giving the same money to charity is this:

There is a Meritocracy of Need with those who can't or don't do anything for themselves currently as the rulers and the ones who labor as the serfs.

You would rather see the money go to a charity than to a merchant.

And yet, eventually if everyone gives to the charity rather than trading with the merchant the merchant too will become a chairty case.

Here's the problem.

Say it was decreed tomorrow that everyone with a net worth of more than 100 million had to give 10% of their money annually to a charity. To keep the pretense that this is still a free society the wealthy would be allowed to decide to which charity every single penny of that goes.

What happens when not a single one gives to the charity you think most important?

Come on, it could likely happen.

Then you will STILL cry foul.

And then you will decide we need to go a step further in our need to impose "shoulds" on those with wealth.

That is how this has worked since the beginning of time.

Don't you see that as the world has gotten more "charitable" (through government imposition of taxes and levys) that poverty has actually INCREASED?

The people on the left refuse to look at the fact that even as they give the statistics of poverty increase since the ..lets say... 60's.... that increase in poverty happened even as MORE hand outs were given... MORE entitlements, MORE schools, MORE free healthcare, MORE givernment involvement.

[SapereAude]

Haha.. "givernment"

That was a typo but I gotta say its pretty apt.

[DougW]

Doug, you seem to want to give others an inferiority complex about your superiority complex.

You, and only you.. and I guess George Clooney and Oprah and.... know what needs to be done and who needs to be helped.

What you appear to be saying in your argument against my statement of value for value trading vs giving the same money to charity is this:

There is a Meritocracy of Need with those who can't or don't do anything for themselves currently as the rulers and the ones who labor as the serfs.

You would rather see the money go to a charity than to a merchant.

And yet, eventually if everyone gives to the charity rather than trading with the merchant the merchant too will become a chairty case.

Here's the problem.

Say it was decreed tomorrow that everyone with a net worth of more than 100 million had to give 10% of their money annually to a charity. To keep the pretense that this is still a free society the wealthy would be allowed to decide to which charity every single penny of that goes.

What happens when not a single one gives to the charity you think most important?

Come on, it could likely happen.

Then you will STILL cry foul.

And then you will decide we need to go a step further in our need to impose "shoulds" on those with wealth.

That is how this has worked since the beginning of time.

Don't you see that as the world has gotten more "charitable" (through government imposition of taxes and levys) that poverty has actually INCREASED?

The people on the left refuse to look at the fact that even as they give the statistics of poverty increase since the ..lets say... 60's.... that increase in poverty happened even as MORE hand outs were given... MORE entitlements, MORE schools, MORE free healthcare, MORE givernment involvement.

Quo,

Nope....I would never advocate that anyone 'had to' give anything to anyone. never. BUT if they claim they have done the calculations and that they would rather live in the world that results from keeping more than 100 million than the world where they keep only what they need and then use a lot of the remainder helping others to achieve rationality, I question their calculation.

Entitlements is a completely different thing than charity. Anyoine who thinks they are entitled to anything is clueless, As I said I agree with Rand on many issues. Too much government involvement? That I have mixed feelings about...it's the frying pan or the fire....Corrupt government officials making so many bad decisions they can't be counted; or put ourselves at the mercy of greedy corporations that think of the 'good old days' as back when workers got black lung and mortgaged their lives to the company stores and didn't complain about it... that's a no-win. I just don't want either of those sides putting on wings and pretending to be angels... anyone with significant power, be it military, economic or political, must be constantly scrutinized...

In my opinion, the reason poverty has increased recently (and I say recently because i don't believe that poverty has increased in the long term, is because our society goes through cycles where the powerful gather more and more power, always going to far, getting too greedy and the the masses take back power, often violently, sometimes through political exercose (i.e. voting socialist, etc.) and right now we are in a cycle where the powerful are again going to far. Soon there will be a shift back the other way. However, there is one corollary that seems to work all the time....poverty goes down as education goes up...I think thats pretty much universal. Educating people would almost certainly benefit all economies, but whatever, thats not an argument that we can solve here....

Also, I never said that anyone can't do anything for themselves. What I said was that the likelihood that a poor, starving, uneducated child born in the third world will become a rational member of society without help is low. The likelihood that many of them will in fact, without the help of rational persons, be turned against rationality, and will ultimately becomes soldiers for the iurrational, is very high. I said exactly this: The rationale behind not giving (intelligently) when you already have enough for several thousand lifetimes is flawed logic. You are harming your own cause. I am not saying your cause is unworthy. Who wouldn't want a rational world? I do too! But you will be less likely to get it if you allow the world to produce vast armies of irrational, uneducated people who believe YOU are responsible for their plight. And that's where we've been heading for a while.

Also, you are taking one point where you are right and using it to try to prove a different argument. Your point is: "when the government begins handing out money to people who simply won't work, poverty increases." Yup. Absolutely I agree. Would never argue that. Never advocated that. However. Show me statistics that say...'the better public school education is available, the higher poverty levels are.." I don't think that'll happen...or "increased education among the dispossed members of the third world always produces more poverty". I highly doubt it. So, what I'm hearing (and I know you're not saying it, but I'm hearing it) is "finding the right places to give which would produce a rational result would be hard....why bother. Especially when spending on myself feels so good, and especially when I can justify my hoarding through the statistics available showing what happened when others have given irresponsibly!"

So, here is the one and only thing I advocate. That everyone says what they are really doing. If you don't want to give because you want to keep your stuff...fine...say so... If you think you need 200 million dollars for some reason, say so. But if you are claiming that you keeping the money or spending it on yourself is better for the economy, I think you need to re-examine your math. Money put nto an economy doesn't know whether it is spent for personal gain or not. It generates the same result on the economy either way. Your argument must rest on the psychological impact on the receiver. It must be that you are saying that giving money to people makes them lazy, only struggle will make them work harder and raise themselves out of their current poverty. BUT, if that is so, how can anyone possibly reconcile inheritance with that thinking??? Giving money to a stranger would make them lazy and prevent them from succeeding, but giving unearned money to my children won't have that effect..." I just don't get it. Where's the Socratic logic there?

And yes, it's your choice. It's everyone's own personal choice. I just think it's a bad choice. I think people calculate very badly and choose what magazine covers tell them they should choose, or vapid talk-show hoists, or philosophical books that have an agenda, or sometimes they choose what is in their immediate best interest because they don't thin very far ahead, or because they do think ahead, and have calulated that it will be one or two generations down the road that will pay the price for their decisions, so who cares.

And no, I have no idea how to fix all the problems in the world (Oprah??? Please....). The world is a chaos system. The math on fixing it is beyond what we can calculate. That is one of the reasons why I worry about Objectivism. It claims to have done the final calculation, which I don't even think is possible. And then it shows some minor calculations as proof, and I think their logic is flawed, even on the minor calculations! One place where I do agree, though, is that it is every citizens duty to call into question the proclamations of any system they believe will result in the destruction of reason.

[SapereAude]

That everyone says what they are really doing. If you don't want to give because you want to keep your stuff...fine...say so... If you think you need 200 million dollars for some reason, say so. But if you are claiming that you keeping the money or spending it on yourself is better for the economy, I think you need to re-examine your math.

You keep starting off with faulty premises.

In this case your faulty premise is that anyone needs to explain or justify what they do with their own money.

To whom do they owe this explanation? To you? To me?

Who decides whether their explantion once given is honest or not?

And if you don't advocate coercive practices to redistribute this wealth then what is the point of making people justify keeping it?

[RationalBiker]

You keep starting off with faulty premises.

In this case your faulty premise is that anyone needs to explain or justify what they do with their own money.

Can I have an amen brother!? That's exactly what I pointed out earlier, too much worrying about what the other guy has.

[bluey]

Nope....I would never advocate that anyone 'had to' give anything to anyone. never. BUT if they claim they have done the calculations and that they would rather live in the world that results from keeping more than 100 million than the world where they keep only what they need and then use a lot of the remainder helping others to achieve rationality, I question their calculation.

You can't help others achieve rationality. The fact is, a top-notch grade 12 education is not going to help a destitute Somalian if his government is a corrupt gang who takes everything he produces, kidnaps his children when they need more soldiers, and prevents him from leaving the country to make a better life. Education doesn't eliminate poverty - freedom does. As long as governments exist to use force against citizens rather than to protect them from force, a hundred billion dollars wouldn't help the poorest country.

When people are free to help themselves, and know that they are free to use their own minds and keep the products of their efforts, they do choose to educate themselves and their children to whatever extent they can. They find a way to do it. As it stands, I personally already am forced to "give" a good 30% of my income to educate kids who can't afford it and a bunch of other stuff ... but apparently it isn't helping much, so why would I give more?

I think you need to examine this premise that if people only kept what they "need" and give the rest to some cause, the world would be a better place. It wouldn't. The world gets better the more people are left to decide for themselves what to do with their money and their minds.

[DougW]

Can I have an amen brother!? That's exactly what I pointed out earlier, too much worrying about what the other guy has.

What???? Where the heck is that philosophy in Rand's work? Was Galt 'not worrying too much about what others were thinking' when he decided to shut down the world??? Throughout her works Rand consistently claims it is the responsibility of the rational to question the system and try to change it to be more rational. I hope her ideas haven't been hijacked by people who now interpret it as "please question or try to change things that don't have any negative impact on me or my life". She talks all the time about being constantly 'conscious'. The interpretation that 'these questions have already been answered, so stop questioning and just believe it...' is the EXACT type of philosophical dead end that Rand hated! Her words:

"But man's responsibility goes still further: a process of thought that is not automatic nor "instinctive" nor involuntary - nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. He has to discover how to tell what is true or false an how to correct his own errors; he has to discover how to validate his concepts, his conclusions, his knowledge; he has to discover the rules of thought, the laws of logic, to direct his thinking."

She didn't say: "Luckily for you, I have already done this, and here is the final answer, so no need to ever think hard again!!"

Throughout this thread I have tried to present logical arguments about where objectivist philosophy breaks down, where it seems contradictory. Yet in the responses, no one ever really addresses the logic or the specifics of the argument. Instead they bring up another point that doesn't even correlate as some kind of proof, or they re-state my position, substituting the completely irrational position of the very farthest fringes, and then disproving THAT position...which I never even put forward!

Yeesh. It's pretty sad when a philosophy that is supposed to be based upon rational thinking, that specifically rejects the kind of arguments that attack the other side without presenting a single iota of logical argument, are defended by using exactly that kind of argument. But I guess I'm just worrying to much about the other guys.......

To those people who participated in the thread who did argue logically and did not distort my position, thanks, it was informative.

[SapereAude]

What???? Where the heck is that philosophy in Rand's work? Was Galt 'not worrying too much about what others were thinking' when he decided to shut down the world??? Throughout her works Rand consistently claims it is the responsibility of the rational to question the system and try to change it to be more rational.

Galt was not worried about what others were thinking when he went on strike.

He was "worried" about what others were doing to him. Granted I wouldn't even call it worried, he simply said no.

Look, several pages back you stated that you weren't even familiar with who Midas Mulligan was or what he specifically did so I am having a great deal of trouble taking your assertions seriously. He happened to be one of the most important characters despite not getting much face time.

I would love you to point out a specific speech of Ms. Rands where this was said:

"Throughout her works Rand consistently claims it is the responsibility of the rational to question the system and try to change it to be more rational."

Ms Rand claims it is the responsibilty of the rational individual to question themselves and make themselves more rational. Ayn Rand has never, to my knowledge (I've read all her published works that I am aware of) stated that anyone has any responsibilty to anyone or anything but themselves. She most certainly didn't state that one owed anything to something that doesn't even truly exist in absolute form such as "the system" or "society". Her one possible exception to this was that having chosen to produce children she did see an obligation of parents to provide for their own children through their dependant years.

I don't think anyone is willingly trying to distort what you are saying DougW. I know I am not, and those who are trying to answer you i have not witnessed intellectual dishonesty in the past so I don't think they are guilty of it now. Also, I doubt anyone is willfully ignoring any of your questions that have gone unanswered. People tend to focus on an issue and then others pile on and questions can get lost.

May I suggest the following if you are having trouble with understanding this argument?

1) You seem to not have a sense of what the rights of the individual means as an Objectivist would understand it.

You are arguing on an Objectivist forum of man's obligations to other men. This will not do. As an Objectivist understands it a man's only obligation to his fellow man is not to violate his rights.

2) You seem to not have a sense of private property as an Objectivist would understand it. You keep referencing the possessions of others and what they should do with what is theirs. Private is the key part of private property. Private means it is none of your business whatsoever.

3) If you do not have a firm grasp on one of these first points you cannot have a grasp of the other. Many fiscal liberals have this issue.

a) Since private property isn't truly private, since what someone else has is my business, it follows that I may believe man has an obligation to his fellow man. Hence it follows that by refusing to give of his own property to someone in need the property owner is in fact violating the rights of the other man.

b ) Now, many people do actually think this way and it seems that even though you deny it that this is in part the premise you are coming from.

4) I support my statement in 3b with the following: a ways back you mentioned having a disagreement with you business partner when it came time to sell the business over giving parting bonuses for the employees, with you being in favor of the giving. For ease of argument lets just say you and partner split 50/50. What is the argument here? Where is the problem? You could, without your partner's say so choose to give as much of your share as you desired to the staff. He/she could not prevent you from doing so. Your problem arose because you thought you had a say in what your partner did with his share. This shows a lack of understanding on your part of both points 1 and 2.

5) because of the convoluted nature these threads can take on, with answers, rebuttals, comments and comments on comments I would like to state again that I don't believe anyone here is being intentionally evasive. It is not in our rational self interest to behave in that manner. I would suggest, that maybe for clarity and so points that are important to you don't get lost in the shuffle that you ask one point at a time. One specific point per question. When it is answered to your satisfaction move on to one more specific question. Again, I am not telling you what to do but if you feel slighted I think this method may be of use.

[D'kian]

What???? Where the heck is that philosophy in Rand's work? Was Galt 'not worrying too much about what others were thinking' when he decided to shut down the world???

Galt was worried about what peole were doing, namely to him. He wasn't worried about their opinions.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Yeesh. It's pretty sad when a philosophy that is supposed to be based upon rational thinking, that specifically rejects the kind of arguments that attack the other side without presenting a single iota of logical argument, are defended by using exactly that kind of argument. But I guess I'm just worrying to much about the other guys.......

Your thesis is that if someone has more than enough for himself that it would be rational for him to give to others who are less fortunate, and Objectivism rejects that premise, which is what we have been saying. An individual man has no (unchosen) obligations to others whatsoever -- and it would not be rational for him to give away part of his fortune to others unless it serves his own personal purpose. You are basically stating that altruism -- living for others -- is rational, and Objectivism disagrees with that idea. Living for oneself is rational, no matter how much more one has than another. Stop being so focused on that comparison. If you have a few thousand saved then you are much richer than that guy in Somalia, and if you think you ought to help the downtrodden, then why are you keeping those thousands instead of giving it away to some pest hole in the world? Your premise seems to be that it won't hurt the super rich to give away some of their fortune, but that fortune is privately owned and the owner has the right to decide what to do with that fortune and no one else has a claim on it. It is this premise that you refuse to check and it is this premise that is getting you into logical difficulties. It is not logical or rational to live one's life as if someone poorer than oneself has a claim on one's own wealth. There is no such claim in a rational morality.

[Eiuol]

"And no, I have no idea how to fix all the problems in the world (Oprah??? Please....). The world is a chaos system. The math on fixing it is beyond what we can calculate."

But there is no "calculating", there is no way to develop a system that will *make* people rational without initiating force! Capitalism is advocated by Objectivism because it is the *only* system that allows people to live free and rationally. If something is in your self-interest and it is of value to you, you should do it! If that includes providing education to kids, then start a school. If you agree with that, that's good. And if you agree that what someone else has shouldn't matter to an individual, including money, then I'm not really sure what about Objectivism doesn't make sense to you in regards to this thread.

[SapereAude]

Regarding the Oprah comment, which I didn't catch before.. it was a small joke, Doug.

Because you kept referencing the schools that could be built with other people's "extra" money.

That she chose to do that with some of her "disposable" income is lovely. It seems to make her happy to do it.

I guess what I thought you might address about my joke was what are we to do with those who don't find their pleasure that way?

edited a typo

Edited October 5, 2009 by QuoVadis

[brian0918]

Where the heck is that philosophy in Rand's work? Was Galt 'not worrying too much about what others were thinking' when he decided to shut down the world??? Throughout her works Rand consistently claims it is the responsibility of the rational [to whom?] to question the system and try to change it to be more rational.[source?] I hope her ideas haven't been hijacked by people who now interpret it as "please question or try to change things that don't have any negative impact on me or my life". She talks all the time about being constantly 'conscious'.[source? context?] The interpretation that 'these questions [which questions?] have already been answered, so stop questioning and just believe it...[source?]' is the EXACT type of philosophical dead end that Rand hated!

Rambling. For those reading this, notice how each sentence is disconnected from every other sentence, but they are strung together to appear to have an argument. He splices together bits of comments with other bits, without explanation, e.g. the conclusion that we are asserting, "[please question or try to change things] [that don't have any negative impact on me or my life]".

Her words:

"But man's responsibility goes still further: a process of thought that is not automatic nor "instinctive" nor involuntary - nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. He has to discover how to tell what is true or false an how to correct his own errors; he has to discover how to validate his concepts, his conclusions, his knowledge; he has to discover the rules of thought, the laws of logic, to direct his thinking."

She didn't say: "Luckily for you, I have already done this, and here is the final answer, so no need to ever think hard again!!"

You've dropped the context of the quote. You're equivocating on the use of "man" and "responsibility". She is referencing "man" in the abstract - the nature of man - and what responsibility man has to himself if he is to survive (as contrasted with what animals/plants have to do to survive). You are referencing specific men (each and every one of us), and what responsibility (if any) they have to eachother.

Edited October 5, 2009 by brian0918

[RationalBiker]

What???? Where the heck is that philosophy in Rand's work?

There is a world of difference between what I said and your response. Galt did not worry about what other people had other than to the extent in which they took it away from him against his rights. Worrying about what the other guy HAS is not at all the same as worrying about that the other guy is doing TO YOU.

Edited October 6, 2009 by RationalBiker

[Plasmatic]

Honestly, I see people come away from Rands fiction with all sorts of confusion like this.[edit:I dont see this as her fault or stemming from her writing so mach as others assumptions though!] Im glad I read the non-fiction first. I can honestly say AS added nothing to my understanding of Oism having read basically all of her non-fiction books.

Edited October 5, 2009 by Plasmatic

[RationalBiker]

Throughout this thread I have tried to present logical arguments about where objectivist philosophy breaks down, where it seems contradictory.

Throughout this thread you've made assertions that you think people with lots of wealth would benefit by spending their money the way you think they should be spending it. You haven't ACTUALLY demonstrated why, as a rule, spending it the way you would have them spend it NECESSARILY is the most rationally self-interested action. Assertions /=/ arguments.

[DougW]

Throughout this thread you've made assertions that you think people with lots of wealth would benefit by spending their money the way you think they should be spending it. You haven't ACTUALLY demonstrated why, as a rule, spending it the way you would have them spend it NECESSARILY is the most rationally self-interested action. Assertions /=/ arguments.

Dude, grow up! So you don't agree with me...guess what, I don't agree with you either. As I said, I presented logical arguments...again, you misstate my words as you did in EVERY ONE of your posts! I never said I ACTUALLY demonstrated anything, because, duh, It would be kinda hard to build a model of the world that has been populated by millions of people for the several thousand years we've had civilization....and guess what, Rand ALSO didn't ACTUALLY demonstrate anything...unless you are so far gone you think AS was a true story. When debating philosophy like this, all one can do is use logic and conjecture...of course, you've never debated philosophy, just spouted your beliefs, misstated what others have said and contibuted nothing.... unless I'm missing some logical statement in your most recent post....lemme re-read it.... nope!

[SapereAude]

Doug, I am having trouble finding a post in which someone personally insulted you and can't begin to understand why you would come onto this board to personally insult its longstanding members as you have RationalBiker.

One could come to the conclusion from your need to swing away from debate into ad hominem that you have no legitimate arguments to support your points and are now thumping your pudgy little fists on the floor in a sea of graham cracker crumbs whilst wetting yourself.

We wouldn't want that now would we?

So, if you have any interest in being anything other than a troll perhaps you can answer this question for me and then we can continue a mature debate on rational self interest.

*) If you want to assert that the wealthy doing A and B with their money would make the world a better place you must first prove that you have a rational right to concern yourself with other people's property. You must also prove that you, not having their fortune would better understand how to steward such a fortune.