Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

people don't like reality

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

All you have to do is walk around a college campus to see the left-wing direction this country is moving. I've figured out why clear-thinking Americans are unable to stop it. It's because liberalism sounds good. Liberals promise that, if they get their way, everyone will be provided for and everyone will be happy. Who wouldn't want that? People hear about the desired end result, and that's enough for them...they don't think about what it takes to get there, and they don't stop to think about whether or not it's really practical.

The only problem with Capitalism is that Capitalists have to admit that there will always be unhappy people. Liberals trick people into believing that, in a liberal paradise, everyone will be happy. What Capitalists need to do is figure out a way to make our system sound good because, let's face it...it doesn't sound good to people who lack the ability or drive to succeed. A family living on welfare in downtown Atlanta isn't currently able to see any benefit from Capitalism. While it may sound good to us, that simply isn't enough...it has to sound good to enough people and it currently doesn't.

I know most of you have probably thought about this before, but I just wanted to express it myself...so there it is. Comments?

Link to post
Share on other sites

What you say is true, Moose, but the underlying cause is the philosophy generally accepted within society.

This is one of the great values of Objectivism, it has the power to change this by changing the basic philosophy that most people accept. This sort of thing will have a profound effect in what people learn and thus how they act.

Philosophy is the prime mover of history.

Link to post
Share on other sites
In order convince people to be for capitalism, they MUST realize the benefits of sustaining their own existence. They must learn the meaning of pride and the meaning of the concept earn.

But the problem is that many people believe Capitalism is against their existence. So, in being against Capitalism, they believe that they are trying to sustain their own existence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
What you say is true, Moose, but the underlying cause is the philosophy generally accepted within society.

This is one of the great values of Objectivism, it has the power to change this by changing the basic philosophy that most people accept.  This sort of thing will have a profound effect in what people learn and thus how they act.

Philosophy is the prime mover of history.

I wish we could see a major philosophical shift in my lifetime, but I don't see it happening.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But the problem is that many people believe Capitalism is against their existence.  So, in being against Capitalism, they believe that they are trying to sustain their own existence.

How many people? To acheive social change you don't have to convince worthless bums to quit mooching . . . you have to convince hardworking individualists to quit supporting the bums. You have to tell them that their success is the result of virtue, that they deserve praise for it, not blame, happiness, not guilt, admiration, not slander . . .

I.e. you need to give them a moral sanction.

Not being buried in the last refuge of the amoral (i.e. Universities, make of that what you will) I have observed a very definite trend among the people I know that actually work, that actually produce something, that actually MATTER, to say "we're fed up with this nonsense!"

But they feel paralyzed, helpless, and disgusted because, "well, someone has to take care of them . . ." It is their own moral rectitude, their refusal to let someone ELSE shoulder this immense burden in the face of their default, and not knowing that the burden doesn't have to be shouldered at all, that defeats them.

Come to where I live and I'll introduce you to a Catholic that believes abortion is moral, to a man that refuses to support his drug-addicted mother, to people that run restaurants and draw blood and say they "won't have anything to do with those people, because they have no scruples." These people have never heard of Ayn Rand. Many of them have never gone to college.

Yet they love their lives more than anything. Tell them that its right that they do so, and you cannot imagine what will be unleashed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I made this post in another thread, but due to it's relevancy here, I felt it would be apropriate.

Place yourself in a historical context. Our fight is Capitalism vs Welfare statism.

Think back to the turn of the 20th century, when the fight was between Capitalism and Communism. Not pinko socialism that is flaunted today, but outright bright red 100% communism as Karl Marx described.

Back then, there had been no failed communist systems, but because Capitalism was still young and developing, there were plenty of examples of how Capitalism (supposedly) was destroying the lives of the lower class (factory workers.) Men like Bastiat and Von Mises were living in rough times when Communism had gained a tremendous foothold in western lives, and Communist thugs like W.E.B Debois were treated as celebrities. Imagine being a capitalist during the 30's, a time when America was an economic wasteland and the Soviet Union was seen as the bright shining star of the future. the early 1930s was the only time in American history when more people emigrated out of the country than immigrated in. As late as the 1940s movies which idolized communism were still being made, as shone in the book "Ayn Rand and the Song of Russia."

and before that fight, it was the fight that Jefferson and Madison fought: the fight between Capitalism and Mercantilist monarchy.

Nowadays, how many Mercantilist Monarchists do you know? as for Marxism, the only Marxists I have ever met are either volatile teenagers or intellegensia who are too disillusioned from reality to actually make any contributions to society.

We have reality, rights, and reason on our side. We will win. But we can not slack in our fight, because should we falter, or cease, America and the world will go the way of the Roman empire. Take it to the welfare statists. Let them dream of France and Sweden, those places will become ineffectual places eventually (as they already are becoming.) Then one day in the future when Capitalism faces it's next opponent, our descendants will look at our lives with mixed awe. They will be Incredulous that we were able to hold on to our values while under assault from the welfare statists, but at the same time envious as we do not know of the new enemies that Capitalism currently faces.

consider the predictions of Ayn Rand vs. The predictions of Ralph Nader. Ayn Rand predicted that wage and price control would wreck havok on the economy. Ralph Nader predicted that corporate greed would never allow for consumer reporting, because it would hurt profits. Meanwhile, 30 years later, Ms. Rands predictions were proven correct in the 70's, which paved the way for the Reagan Revolution (which I believe was a direct result of Ayn Rand and the dissemination of her ideas.) Meanwhile, every single major media corporation has a consumer report program of some kind. Reason will always triumph in the end.

perhaps no one can better describe my way of thinking better than the lovely Ms. Rand herself can:

"The world you desired can be won, it exists, it is real, it is possible, it's yours. But to win it requires total dedication and a total break with the world of your past, with the doctrine that man is sacrificial animal who exists for the pleasure of others. Fight for the value of your person. Fight for the virtue of your pride. Fight for the essence, which is man, for his sovereign rational mind. Fight with the radiant certainty and the absolute rectitude of knowing that yours is the morality of life and yours is the battle for any achievement, any value, any grandeur, any goodness, any joy that has ever existed on this earth." ~ Ayn Rand

(these words brought tears to my eyes the first time I read them)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more liberal than not.

I am in some middle ground when it comes to socialism and capitalism. I feel that some governmental regulations are needed to help ensure the protection of the working class. Minimum wage laws and such are important. However, people do need freedom in the business world. A fully capitalist state is just as dangerous as a fully socialist state. I feel we need some kind of balance of the two in order to better ensure everyone's rights are kept in order. Perhaps a balance that leans more on the capitalist side.

I do not feel that if everyone will be in some sort of pain free paradise if the world were indulging in liberal ideals.

That's a rather concise statement of my views. Perhaps I will elaborate a bit at a later time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm more liberal than not.

I am in some middle ground when it comes to socialism and capitalism. I feel that some governmental regulations are needed to help ensure the protection of the working class. Minimum wage laws and such are important. However, people do need freedom in the business world. A fully capitalist state is just as dangerous as a fully socialist state. I feel we need some kind of balance of the two in order to better ensure everyone's rights are kept in order. Perhaps a balance that leans more on the capitalist side.

I do not feel that if everyone will be in some sort of pain free paradise if the world were indulging in liberal ideals.

That's a rather concise statement of my views. Perhaps I will elaborate a bit at a later time.

Perhaps you should read CAPITALISM: THE UNKNOWN IDEAL by Rand, or ECONOMICS IN ONE LESSON by Hazlett. Capitalism is the only moral system, and many of the supposed fallacies of Capitalism are in fact false. Milton Friedman, for example, demonstrated the harmfulness of the minimum wage laws to racial minorities. He even went as far as to call them the most Racist laws ever enacted.

With a little bit of study I think you will understand where we are coming from.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The only problem with Capitalism is that Capitalists have to admit that there will always be unhappy people.

?

Anyone who's foolish enough to believe that people will always be happy under system X (insert ANY system here), is naive and not worth your time. If we lived in a society that followed and understood Objectivist principles, not one of us could legitimately admit that everyone is happy; but rather, we would admit that each individual had the right to pursue his own happiness.

Happiness is not societally granted; it's earned.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm more liberal than not.

I am in some middle ground when it comes to socialism and capitalism. I feel that some governmental regulations are needed to help ensure the protection of the working class. Minimum wage laws and such are important. However, people do need freedom in the business world. A fully capitalist state is just as dangerous as a fully socialist state. I feel we need some kind of balance of the two in order to better ensure everyone's rights are kept in order. Perhaps a balance that leans more on the capitalist side.

I do not feel that if everyone will be in some sort of pain free paradise if the world were indulging in liberal ideals.

That's a rather concise statement of my views. Perhaps I will elaborate a bit at a later time.

How would you define a fully capitalist state? And what are everyone's rights?
Link to post
Share on other sites
I feel that some governmental regulations are needed to help ensure the protection of the working class.

Who is this working class? I work, does that mean I'm part of the working class? I wonder what government regulations protect me, who they protect me from, and what my life would be like if they weren't there?

Minimum wage laws and such are important.
Important for who?

A fully capitalist state is just as dangerous as a fully socialist state. I feel we need some kind of balance of the two in order to better ensure everyone's rights are kept in order. Perhaps a balance that leans more on the capitalist side.

To paraphrase Ayn Rand, is there really a balance between food and poison?

Link to post
Share on other sites
A fully capitalist state is just as dangerous as a fully socialist state. I feel we need some kind of balance of the two in order to better ensure everyone's rights are kept in order.

Dangerous to whom? I think you will find that Socialism spreads its danger around to everyone whereas Capitalism only represents danger to those who do not prepare themselves; make themselves, their ideas and/or abilities useful or marketable. Capitalism is only dangerous to those who choose not to do for themselves.

How do you "feel" government intervention = balance?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm more liberal than not.

I am in some middle ground when it comes to socialism and capitalism. I feel that some governmental regulations are needed to help ensure the protection of the working class. Minimum wage laws and such are important. However, people do need freedom in the business world. A fully capitalist state is just as dangerous as a fully socialist state. I feel we need some kind of balance of the two in order to better ensure everyone's rights are kept in order. Perhaps a balance that leans more on the capitalist side.

I do not feel that if everyone will be in some sort of pain free paradise if the world were indulging in liberal ideals.

That's a rather concise statement of my views. Perhaps I will elaborate a bit at a later time.

Let us look at the issue of wage regulation from the standpoint of individuals. You have two people who are concerned with their own well-being and able to think for themselves. One man has a need for the other man's labor, lets say, to clean up his yard so he can hone his skills as a brain surgeon. Now, the brain surgeon offers the man $3.50 an hour to the laborer to clean his yard. The laborer says, actually I'd like $4.50 and hour. They will reach a compromise and the laborer will be paid $4 an hour. Both come away happy. A beneficial mutual exchage has taken place between two men who are rational and capable of providing for their own survival. (If either one is not happy with what the other one offers, there will be no exchange.) There is a third person off to the side who says, "That's not fair." Why isnt is fair? Both parties have agreed to a mutually beneficial exchange. What is not fair about it? And what right would the third person have to get involved in the transaction?

Link to post
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...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...