Inspector Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 It sounds like you're saying, in essence, "This is what happens to people with such a philosophy." As if Atlas Shrugged proves a point. How would that work? How could a point be proved by a fictional character (unless the point was about the book or its ideas)? In other words, why would you think I was saying that if it clearly made no sense? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aleph_0 Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 Because you were using it as if it proved a point. What other purpose could it serve? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted November 13, 2006 Report Share Posted November 13, 2006 Because you were using it as if it proved a point. What other purpose could it serve? What I said before. And no, I wasn't. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bold Standard Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 It sounds like you're saying, in essence, "This is what happens to people with such a philosophy." As if Atlas Shrugged proves a point. But Atlas Shrugged does prove points. To the extent that a story identifies true principles, it demonstrates valid points. If someone said to a person who was being wasteful with his finances and not saving any money for potential emergencies, "Aesop's grasshopper thought he could be extravagant all summer and not put anything away like the ants, and look where it got him," would you give him the same criticism? Sure, it's just an analogy. But do examples of moral principles have to abide in real life situations? Are fables and fiction invalid means of presenting principles, in general, or are you suggesting that Atlas Shrugged is specifically deficient in this respect? Sorry if that's off topic. Welcome to the forum, deviahah. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted November 15, 2006 Report Share Posted November 15, 2006 But Atlas Shrugged does prove points. Yes, thank you Bold Standard. In that sense, it does demonstrate a point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviadah Posted December 3, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 But that's the whole point: the form of government we advocate (capitalism) abolishes all government "power," in the sense of power over men. Anarchy, on the other hand, puts man at the mercy of any random thug to come along. The entire purpose of capitalism is to establish individual rights; to set man free from his fellow man. I will answer the above with the quote below (sorry I can't give source, found it flying around on the internet - but it is derived at least from Emma Goldman's ideas): The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation. Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do away with, crime. Well as I think I have said before, and if I haven't I'll say it again: The Capitalism described in AS is not the Capitalism of modern day USA - or if it is I have certainly failed to see that. If capitalism's purpose is to establish individual right then I am all for it, but it does not. It just bonds us even further because it is - like communism - not used in the way it was intended. I understand many here think I disagree with Ayn Rand - and yes I do on many points - but I agree on a great deal others. I don't follow One Person's ideas blindly: why should I. She is not a God (and I don't follow a God either). I understand it might be confusing to some when a person respects and is inspired by Rand, Goldman, Nietzche and Chomsky (for example) at the same time. Regardless I find all discussions here thought provoking which I hope a forum is for: and not jerking over the agreements - that would be dull. Question what you love: you will find you love it correctly in the end or you will change your mind! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 The most absurd apology for authority and law is that they serve to diminish crime. Aside from the fact that the State is itself the greatest criminal, breaking every written and natural law, stealing in the form of taxes, killing in the form of war and capital punishment, it has come to an absolute standstill in coping with crime. It has failed utterly to destroy or even minimize the horrible scourge of its own creation. Crime is naught but misdirected energy. So long as every institution of today, economic, political, social, and moral, conspires to misdirect human energy into wrong channels; so long as most people are out of place doing the things they hate to do, living a life they loathe to live, crime will be inevitable, and all the laws on the statutes can only increase, but never do away with, crime.Almost every line of that contains huge errors. It sounds as though the person is simply making up stuff without looking at actual governments across the world and across history. In particular, the person is ignoring the extent to which various governments have been effective or ineffective in preventing crime, and the extent to which they violate rights themselves. It is true: any government -- past or present -- that one points to will be imperfect and therefore will offer examples where it did not control some crime or the other and also examples of where it violated rights. The solution is to compare the ones that are particularly bad and the ones that are relatively good and try to figure out the differences. However there's something even more important in the analysis: one should also look at various real-life examples -- past and present -- where the rule of law broke down and anarchy ruled. One should try to understand why the bulk of those situations turned out far worse than some of the really bad governments. Also consider, for instance, why some people in Iraq who hate Sadaam, nevertheless say that they'd prefer to be back under his tyrannical rule rather than under their current situation of competing groups of thugs. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RationalBiker Posted December 3, 2006 Report Share Posted December 3, 2006 Well as I think I have said before, and if I haven't I'll say it again: The Capitalism described in AS is not the Capitalism of modern day USA - or if it is I have certainly failed to see that. I don't think that it has been forwarded by anyone on this forum that the economic practices that exist in the US today are Capitalism. If they have, I missed it. On the other hand, it has been repeatedly discussed that the US has a mixed economy. That said, the form of economy practiced in the US today would appear to be better than most other countries in the world. If capitalism's purpose is to establish individual right then I am all for it, but it does not. Capitalism's purpose is to provide an unfettered means of exchange between willing participants. That does support individual rights so you should be all for it. Don't confuse what Capitalism IS with the form of economy practiced in the US. They are not the same though there are some aspects of Capitalism being practiced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviadah Posted December 4, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 (edited) Also consider, for instance, why some people in Iraq who hate Sadaam, nevertheless say that they'd prefer to be back under his tyrannical rule rather than under their current situation of competing groups of thugs. Iraq is not anarchy! Also many of the thugs are Freedomfighting Americans... That said, the form of economy practiced in the US today would appear to be better than most other countries in the world. Capitalism's purpose is to provide an unfettered means of exchange between willing participants. That does support individual rights so you should be all for it. Don't confuse what Capitalism IS with the form of economy practiced in the US. They are not the same though there are some aspects of Capitalism being practiced. When you say better than most what are you basing that on? Which countries has got a better economy than the USA accroding to your standards? Which are close? What about paying tax? What captialist state does not have a tax system? Edited December 4, 2006 by deviadah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inspector Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 What about paying tax? What captialist state does not have a tax system? The one we advocate, for one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 4, 2006 Report Share Posted December 4, 2006 (edited) Iraq is not anarchy!No? Does the governmentr seem to be in control of what is going on there? Having a constitution that says a country is a monarchy, democracy, republic, capitalist, communist, or whatever does not make it so. Nor does having a government that wants to be whatever the constitution says but whose writ does not extend outside the walls of the little fort green zone in which it lives.Also many of the thugs are Freedomfighting Americans...If someone is genuinely a "freedom fighting" person, then they can't be a thug. Using force is not the essence of a thug; the essence is the initiation of force with the intent to deprive people of their rights. Which countries has got a better economy than the USA accroding to your standards? Which are close?You seem to be agreeing with RationalBiker, that one would be hard-pressed to name a country with an economy as strong and as free as the U.S., right? Edited December 4, 2006 by softwareNerd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deviadah Posted December 29, 2006 Author Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 (edited) No, USA is not the most free or has got the best economy! As for the Freedom Fighters statement I meant that the freedom they say they fight for is on false grounds... Edited December 29, 2006 by deviadah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted December 29, 2006 Report Share Posted December 29, 2006 No, USA is not the most free or has got the best economy!You should reveal to us what country is the most free or has the best economy, and of course give your justification for that conclusion. Either that, or you could just admit your error and repudiate the claim.As for the Freedom Fighters statement I meant that the freedom they say they fight for is on false grounds...I don't understand what it means to be a "freedom on false grounds": that doesn't mean anything. What did you intend to say? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.