To Maximus: I admitted I should. If you don’t want me here, just say so.
I wasn’t implying that you shouldn’t be here. I would encourage you to stick around; you are attempting to use your noodle, and that is an encouraging sign. :dough:
Hot damn Avgleandt now we are talking. I obviously disagree that the whole system would devolve into repression. I don’t think it would become “everyone for everyone” and if it did then people would have done so with their own permission. I do reject the idea that evil cannot lead to good. You can’t build civilization without breaking a few eggs and by eggs I mean tribals societies that didn’t want to be in Rome and do as the Romans do (or did). I think that the Golden Middle can be maintained and that, pragmatically, immoral actions can have results that are both moral and immorals. You don’t get the USA without Native Americans being killed off. I honestly don’t know how to morally handle these events. Obviously I find the conquering of the New World as bad, but I like that the U.S. exists. Contradictory, no? Contrary to principle, no? Yet I know not what else to do. While pragmatism seems to make “all possible”, I truly feel that principle is just too rigid and a non-starter as the only contributor to political action.
Note on principle: I will look into this. I think that when I was ‘into’ the Objectivist ideas this principle thing is what turned me off without me realing knowing it. It was quite a step for me to consciously accept the pragmatic point of view. I finally decided to hell with principle as I found it too rigid and too easy to contradict. I’d spend so much time trying to find that perfect principle and I just couldn’t make it work. At the end of the day I just don’t like the reprecussions of objectivism :\ If have to to embrace the all-too-dangerous “the ends justify the means” to avoid a gilded age (and liking it) then I will. When I think of this, I don’t neccessarily like it but I truly don’t know how else to react. Objectivism may indeed be the perfect philosophy; a pure diamond of thought. Yet it is far too sharp, I feel, to be a philosophy over the vicissitudes of life. I am not for a total rejection of principle. I just think that it must be dilluted by the pragmatic. Maybe pragmatism can be a principle itself?(hmm…thinking cap time) I guess you could say I pragmatically mix pragmatism and principle as needed. In what proportions do I mix them? Well that’s arbitrary depending on the situation. :dough:
Oh come on that was funny.
While I enjoy the “theoretical” side of this, if someone can tell me why the social programs of Roosevelt that helped salve (if not solve) the Great Depression were bad ideas without relating to principle alone, I would really appreciate it. I can’t eat on principle; I can eat by being employed by the CCC. I tend to go to analogies / examples quite often and if someone wants to move on this terrain, by all means engage.
Edit: We did go to debate didn’t we. It’s ya’lls forum (I’m from Mississippi, I get to use ya’ll) and if I cross any lines, please let me know. I ain’t (Mississippi) gone (Mississippi again) cross any lines on purpose.
John : Do you think that reality is indepedent of you and your observations, or do you believe that if you close your eyes you can “avoid a gilded age” and anything else you don’t like? (Usually people “don’t like” things on principle by the way.)
Moreover, since man must act for his own survival, how do you propose he do so without principle?
Closing my eyes won’t do anything. I’m not sure what this suggestion is. To avoid a gilded age what do I need to do? I think I have to, politically, beat you. I have to convince people to be more liberal than they are Objectivist without putting so much weight on capitalism that the engine breaks under the pressure. The “Golden Middle” as it was called.
Also, I think that man is not that independant. We are a highly-evolved and social species. I believe in an interconnectedness with a biological foundation. I believe that collectivism is a machine that trades liberty for power, and I want an equal balance of both. Both of us would hate an extreme of power and no liberty (Stalin) but where I think we differ is I’m afraid of the over-abundance of liberty. I see the history of the Gilded Age and Soviet Russia and recoil at both.
if someone can tell me why the social programs of Roosevelt that helped salve (if not solve) the Great Depression were bad ideas without relating to principle alone, I would really appreciate it.
Have you studied economics at all? The Austrians and the Chicago School have written extensively on the Great Depression and how FDR’s “pragmatic solutions” actually prolonged it. That’s right. In practice (your dearest friend), FDR’s response to the Great Depression practicably worsened it.
At first this was a radical reinterpretation of Depression-era economics. But it has now been proven and widely accepted among economists (even the most stauch Keynesians) that the federal government’s response to the Great Depression made things worse. The only people that haven’t come around to this yet are the humanities professors, who cry from the rooftops that the Great Depression was a fault of capitalism.
What is it about freedom of the individual that frightens you? Are you afraid it would devolve into anarchy? Unlimited freedom without a moral base may do so, but maximum freedom coupled with an O’ist base of morality and virtue would not.
I’m afraid that the rich will control too much. I’m afraid my boss will fire me because of my atheism. I’m afraid my gay friend will be fired because of that. I’m afraid of the Carnegies, the Vanderbilts, the Fords, and the Rockefellers. I’m afraid of tyranny; not only governmental tyranny, but tyranny of one person who controls a huge amount of production. What if in WWII Henry Ford decided to just shut down the US war machine by stopping production. This wasn’t unheard of; FDR was afraid of it and had a plan to take over the factories. Now I don’t want to make this into a WWII referendum, but the power of one industrialist to cold stop a war that was supported by hundreds of millions is simply not acceptable. In a left wing state, yes, the government will screw with you to some extent. At least I have a vote in that.
Note: I read the first part of “The Menace of Pragmatism”. The online article isn’t full so I don’t feel comfortable responding to half an idea :\
To adrock: I’ll look into that. I’ve taken micro and macroeconomics in college; that is my only exposure. I learned about how a monopoly can slightly cheat the laws of supply and demand by controlling a market. :\ In any case, thanks for the info. I’m chagrined to admit I’ve never even heard of the Austrian / Chicagoan schools of thought on economics. I was an education major who took a lot of history classes (those damned humanities).
To adrock: I’ll look into that. I’ve taken micro and macroeconomics in college; that is my only exposure. I learned about how a monopoly can slightly cheat the laws of supply and demand by controlling a market. :\ In any case, thanks for the info. I’m chagrined to admit I’ve never even heard of the Austrian / Chicagoan schools of thought on economics. I was an education major who took a lot of history classes (those damned humanities).
You’ve never heard of Menger, Mises and Hayek from the Austrian School or Frank Knight and Milton Friedman of the Chicago School? You will find that the Chicago School takes a “practical” approach to economics. Nevertheless, Friedman’s work A Monetary History of the United Stateswas the main proponent of the idea that government prolonged the Great Depression, and his arguments eventually won him a Nobel Prize and gained wide acceptance in the economic community.
It’s good that you took a lot of humanities classes. To me, humanities is the most important area of study because it revolves around studying man. The problem results from humanities professors denying the fundamental component of man, his reasoning mind. As an education major, you can see the results of this rejection in practice through the acceptance of Dewey in our public schools and the neglect of Montessori, and you can see it in practice in history through the acceptance of materalist views of history, i.e. Diamond’s Guns, Germs and Steel.
I’m afraid that the rich will control too much.
It is the collusion with Government that has given many of the extremely rich the power they have now.
I’m afraid my boss will fire me because of my atheism.
That’s a concern about those who believe in fairy tales, not Objectivists. What does religion have to do with job performance?
I’m afraid my gay friend will be fired because of that.
Objectivists would wonder, I think, what sexuality has to do with job performance.
I’m afraid of the Carnegies, the Vanderbilts, the Fords, and the Rockefellers. I’m afraid of tyranny; not only governmental tyranny, but tyranny of one person who controls a huge amount of production.
Now ask yourself - how does one person or group get to control a huge amount of production? Name one HUGE company that could be as huge as it is now w/o Government’s being in its pockets at some level?
What if in WWII Henry Ford decided to just shut down the US war machine by stopping production. This wasn’t unheard of; FDR was afraid of it and had a plan to take over the factories. Now I don’t want to make this into a WWII referendum, but the power of one industrialist to cold stop a war that was supported by hundreds of millions is simply not acceptable. In a left wing state, yes, the government will screw with you to some extent. At least I have a vote in that.
There are so many issues with our involvement in WWII that this cannot be easily addressed. You need a much better understanding of objectivist principles first, I think.
I’m afraid my boss will fire me because of my atheism
It’s HIS business and he has the right to fire you for whatever reason he wants (however irrational that reason may be).
I’m afraid my gay friend will be fired because of that.
It’s HIS business and he has the right to fire your friend for whatever reason he wants (however irrational that reason may be).
A private business owner is not obligated to employ people. No person has a right to a job. It must be earned. If you have earned your job, then what reason would your employer have to fire you? If he values your work, why would he want to throw you out? It is YOUR obligation to MAKE yourself valuable to your employer so that he VALUES your employment and wants to keep you - even to the point of paying you MORE than you would receive elsewhere because he wants to keep you and your work for HIS business rather then let his competitor have you.
I noticed you mention the ‘Gilded Age’ and speak negatively of men like Rockerfeller. You might find this article interesting:
http://www.andrewbernstein.net/capitalists/9_inventive.htm
FTA:
Not surprisingly, some of the geniuses depicted started their brilliant careers in the second half of the 19th century. Anti-capitalist historians regularly refer to this era as “the Gilded Age,” and deride its great industrialists as “Robber Barons.” They claim that its extensive industrial development was achieved by means essentially tawdry and unprincipled. They are profoundly mistaken, and have failed to identify the essence of the era. It must be known as: the Inventive Period.
I would add, by the way, to what Kevin said, that an employer has the right to fire you for whatever irrational reason he wants - but what he does not have is the right to avoid the consequences of an irrational hiring policy. He could hire chimps instead of humans, since, chimps have no rights and therefore deserve no pay; but then he has to face the consequences of this decision.
He could hire chimps instead of humans
You mean they don’t? Ever tried calling a customer support number? :dough:
I agree with Tenure. An employer accepts the consequences. If he fires you and you were a valuable employee, he now has to find someone of equal or greater value than you were or else his business will suffer. Therefore, it is always in an employer’s own best interest to employ the best employees regardless of age, sex, or creed. (and just to be pro-active in this argument - the common scenario of “What if you had two people of equal skills but one was black and one was white…” That’s hypothetical nonsense. I can attest from personal experience having interviewed many candidates for positions that NOBODY is “equal”. There is always something one person has that others don’t.)
If one dosen’t make an issue of one’s sexuality, or one’s religious afilliation(s) (or lack thereof), I don’t see how these would be an issue. Job performance, and how one fits, or not, into the culture of the workplace should be what matters. That said, I shoud have the right, as an employer, to fire someone for whatever reason I so choose, without the government’s permission.
Hot damn Avgleandt now we are talking. I obviously disagree that the whole system would devolve into repression. I don’t think it would become “everyone for everyone” and if it did then people would have done so with their own permission. I do reject the idea that evil cannot lead to good. You can’t build civilization without breaking a few eggs and by eggs I mean tribals societies that didn’t want to be in Rome and do as the Romans do (or did). I think that the Golden Middle can be maintained and that, pragmatically, immoral actions can have results that are both moral and immorals. You don’t get the USA without Native Americans being killed off. I honestly don’t know how to morally handle these events. Obviously I find the conquering of the New World as bad, but I like that the U.S. exists. Contradictory, no? Contrary to principle, no? Yet I know not what else to do. While pragmatism seems to make “all possible”, I truly feel that principle is just too rigid and a non-starter as the only contributor to political action.
Percisely. You do not know how to handdle these events morally because do not have a moral code, you do not have an ethics. And since ethics hierchaly comes before politics, all you political ideas can be judged just as worthless. US vs Native americans is not a contradiction, nor is it contrary to principle, at least principles identified by objectivists. If you find it that the pricinple you hold contradicts, then it is wrong, check your premises and try again.
Note on principle: I will look into this. I think that when I was ‘into’ the Objectivist ideas this principle thing is what turned me off without me realing knowing it. It was quite a step for me to consciously accept the pragmatic point of view. I finally decided to hell with principle as I found it too rigid and too easy to contradict. I’d spend so much time trying to find that perfect principle and I just couldn’t make it work. At the end of the day I just don’t like the reprecussions of objectivism :\ If have to to embrace the all-too-dangerous “the ends justify the means” to avoid a gilded age (and liking it) then I will. When I think of this, I don’t neccessarily like it but I truly don’t know how else to react. Objectivism may indeed be the perfect philosophy; a pure diamond of thought. Yet it is far too sharp, I feel, to be a philosophy over the vicissitudes of life. I am not for a total rejection of principle. I just think that it must be dilluted by the pragmatic. Maybe pragmatism can be a principle itself?(hmm…thinking cap time) I guess you could say I pragmatically mix pragmatism and principle as needed. In what proportions do I mix them? Well that’s arbitrary depending on the situation.
I recommend you read Objectivism Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Pikoff. I don’t think you know enough about objectivism, priciples, or contradictions. That book is the best material I know for understanding objectivism from begining to end, from metaphysics to aesthetics. Once you have read that book, and you still believe that objectivism contradicts its self, or don’t understand something, or disagree with something. Then you can come back here, or any other resource of your choising and ask specific questions. Right now I see this discusion going on to many tangents, we might as well as start with this. Do you agree exsistence exsists?
In regards to the “inventive age”: We could argue that forever…I don’t think it would be an edifying experience for either of us. The likelyhood of you convincing me that labor safety laws (as opposed to letting the free market decide) were / are a bad idea isn’t worth the time it would take to explore this avenue; mine or yours.
It is that power of an employer to keep a person in fear and rule them. If an employer can fire me because of any irrational reason, do I REALLY have freedom of speech? Threat of losing a job is no small matter. I simply cannot tolerate a society that would allow someone the power to tell me “If you put an Obama sticker on your car, I will fire you; you will lose your house, car, insurance, and quality of life”. I don’t want an employer to be able to do that. You may say too bad to me…I say too bad for them. If I have to choose between principle and allowing the elite minds of the world to bully the average then so much the worse for principle. My main concern is not to have an unassailable philosophy of rationality. That is a secondary concern to having a balanced world that most can live with; maximum contentedness without destruction of progress. I desire the unassailable philosophy, sure, and will come as close as I can without abandoning my main goal. I would assume that is what makes me a pragmatist? At the very least I know the importance of that aspect of my philosophy and its cons. I knew this would be educational and challenging 
To fire someone because they had an Obama sticker on thier car would be an irrational act. In a world ruled by reason, as in an O’ist world, such is not likely to happen. Not to mention Obama would not be a Presidential candidate.
Did you read what I just said John? Assuming you are a valuable employee, why would your employer fire you for something he disagrees with? Yes, he has the freedom to do so, but the point is, that if he does, it’s not in his interest at all. Not only is hiring a new person risky and expensive - i.e. something you don’t want to do without a good idea - it is riskier and even more expensive if you pay no attention to quality and instead say, ‘Well, is he a Mets or a Yankee fan?’
As to the Inventive Age, the point is not about safety laws, but instead that the money that the ‘Robber Barons’ made was made completely square. In fact, the people who made shadey money were the ones who made it on the back of government sanction and regulation. If you want to talk about ‘safety laws’, well, I’m sure there was no danger of falling into a huge piece of machinery in the 1600s, but then there wasn’t any danger of being employed then either.
Also, may I add that freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from the consequences of your actions. You’re free to say what you like, but you can’t act like you live in a bubble, where your actions have no effect on anyone else. ‘Freedom’ isn’t freedom from reality.
Also, may I ask if you’ve ever worked in an office? It’s just that, I can attest that frankly, one does not get fired for this sort of stuff. Bosses just… aren’t like I always hear in this fantastical scenarios of 'What if’s.
It is that power of an employer to keep a person in fear and rule them. If an employer can fire me because of any irrational reason, do I REALLY have freedom of speech? Threat of losing a job is no small matter. I simply cannot tolerate a society that would allow someone the power to tell me “If you put an Obama sticker on your car, I will fire you; you will lose your house, car, insurance, and quality of life”. I don’t want an employer to be able to do that.
They won’t be able to do that if you are an employee who provides value to their organization. If they fired all their employees for putting Obama stickers on their cars, but it happens that those with the Obama stickers were the best employees, then the employer will quickly go out of business because the firm next door will hire all the layed off workers.
That is a secondary concern to having a balanced world that most can live with; maximum contentedness without destruction of progress. I desire the unassailable philosophy, sure, and will come as close as I can without abandoning my main goal. I would assume that is what makes me a pragmatist?
Or a Utilitarian…
I give credit to those industrialists for a lot; I think they could have done what they did while being regulated. I appreciate and fear the Vanderbilts and Rockefellers.
I also did read what you said. I think others picked up on what I feared specifically, arbitrary firing on silly notions. I would respond by saying I’m not comfortable with my only safety being the fact that it hurts the boss to fire me. It hurts me more. He may have 10000 employees, I have one employer. Obviously the amount we have invested in each other is slightly off balance. He can get by with 9999 employees most likely. Secondly, I don’t want to be fired and replaced by someone who is just as able simply because of my atheism or any other non-related reason. Also, things aren’t so irrational.
Think back to the south in the 1960’s. Who would hire a black man in a “real” job. Even if a black man were able to be, say, a manager, noone would hire him to manage white people. This would not only offend the southernor, but would also offend OTHER southernors who would make this betrayer-of-custom pay in either reduced business or open hostility. To me, it is very simple. For w/e reason in the South, blacks were getting screwed. What fixed this? The Federales.
I really can’t help but feel you really care and fawn over the Atlases of the world and think that the average should be lucky to have said Atlases and be glad to get what progress they do get from them. Even the idea: The elites as Atlas, the god who holds the world up; as if all are dependant on the elites. I honestly get the impression that you feel about the proletariat the same way the Marxist feels about J.D. Rockefeller. Please tell me I’m wrong or missing something :\
EDIT: I might be a utilitarian. Sounds very…utility like. Part of the reason I decided to come here was the sheer level of knowledge demonstrated (a lot of you seem to know a good amount on economics as well). I’m all for personal edification I hope you benefit from this as I do.
EDIT 2: Utilitarianism seems interesting. It might go a bit too far away from the individual. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess you guys hate the ever living heck out of utilitarianism.
Regarding the Great Depression and how Roosevelt exacerbated things, check out this book or you can do a search here where it has been exhaustively discussed.