What's so wrong with Rand's Objectivism?

[Saigon]

It's not that trickle down economics doesn't work, it's that you OWS parasites prefer trickle up misery.

Which examples can you present of trickle down economics working?

By working I mean reducing international debt, lowering unemployment and improving GDP.

 

[supplementfacts]

Here are two contradictions in Objectivism:

* Their ethics is all about individual self-interest, but their politics is all about individual rights. In other words, in their ethics they say to put your self-interest above all else (even if this means violating the rights of others). And in their politics they say says to put everyone's rights above all else (even if this goes against your self-interest). But this is a flagrant contradiction, and Objectivists have no tenable way of reconciling it.

* Their politics is based on non-aggression: force is to be used only against behavior that violates the rights of others (e.g., murder, theft). But they want a minimal state: a government that uses force to outlaw private enforcement agencies that might compete with it in the way market-anarchists favor. But this is also a flagrant contradiction, since privately enforcing rights doesn't violate anyone's rights and therefore there can be no non-aggressive justification for outlawing it.

Also, they claim to be against basic human decency (feeling concern for others and going out of your way to help them), but they have no argument against it.

 

[G.T.]

Here are two contradictions in Objectivism:

* Their ethics is all about individual self-interest, but their politics is all about individual rights. In other words, in their ethics they say to put your self-interest above all else (even if this means violating the rights of others). And in their politics they say says to put everyone's rights above all else (even if this goes against your self-interest). But this is a flagrant contradiction, and Objectivists have no tenable way of reconciling it.

* Their politics is based on non-aggression: force is to be used only against behavior that violates the rights of others (e.g., murder, theft). But they want a minimal state: a government that uses force to outlaw private enforcement agencies that might compete with it in the way market-anarchists favor. But this is also a flagrant contradiction, since privately enforcing rights doesn't violate anyone's rights and therefore there can be no non-aggressive justification for outlawing it.

Also, they claim to be against basic human decency (feeling concern for others and going out of your way to help them), but they have no argument against it.

The first bullet point is not a contradiction. It's in your self interest to allow everyone their individual rights, because you're not the strongest animal in the kingdom, so it's a way around that.

 

[supplementfacts]

The first bullet point is not a contradiction. It's in your self interest to allow everyone their individual rights, because you're not the strongest animal in the kingdom, so it's a way around that.

Maybe it's in your self-interest to respect rights most of the time. But there are exceptions to this rule, and they're not far-fetched or few in number. Real life presents countless cases where crime pays: i.e., where you can violate someone's rights, get away with it, and walk away smiling over your ill-gotten rewards.

 

[Saigon]

It's in your self interest to allow everyone their individual rights, because you're not the strongest animal in the kingdom, so it's a way around that.

Absolutely not.

It is the interests of business to pollute, to form cartels, to fix prices, to exploit staff and to evade taxes because doing so will boost dividends and capital return to investors.

 

[G.T.]

The first bullet point is not a contradiction. It's in your self interest to allow everyone their individual rights, because you're not the strongest animal in the kingdom, so it's a way around that.

Maybe it's in your self-interest to respect rights most of the time. But there are exceptions to this rule, and they're not far-fetched or few in number. Real life presents countless cases where crime pays: i.e., where you can violate someone's rights, get away with it, and walk away smiling over your ill-gotten rewards.

If you can get away with it fine, but there's always risk versus reward management when you're breaking the Law, even without any morals involved.

 

[G.T.]

It's in your self interest to allow everyone their individual rights, because you're not the strongest animal in the kingdom, so it's a way around that.

Absolutely not.

It is the interests of business to pollute, to form cartels, to fix prices, to exploit staff and to evade taxes because doing so will boost dividends and capital return to investors.

I don't think that applies.

Several reasons:

Pollution can be solved like, 3-bit: move away and not be immediately affected (short term solution), it's the information age and buyers can be responsible (pie in the sky theory, I know, but it's everyone's own fault), and three: if everyone was so concerned about pollution, companies would then necessarily market the fuck out of being clean.

Just like if there were no current crash standards on cars - I'd still look for the safest ones out there, and therefore, there would be a market for safe cars without said regulations.

Evasion of taxes is criminal, the Randian Objectivism believes in having Government to SOME extent, not a complete non-Government - but with the Government so small (to the degree she speaks about), evading taxes isn't even worth the risk that would come with it anymore.

 

[supplementfacts]

If you can get away with it fine, but there's always risk versus reward management when you're breaking the Law, even without any morals involved.

Sure, but then the original point stands: their ethics contradicts their politics.

 

[Saigon]

If you can get away with it fine, but there's always risk versus reward management when you're breaking the Law, even without any morals involved.

Why would a state with an Obectivist government retain laws which restrict the right of businesses to operate freely?

I simply can not accept that cartels, tax evasion, environmental protection or utilizing slave labour practices would exist as concepts in an Objectivist state.

 

[G.T.]

If you can get away with it fine, but there's always risk versus reward management when you're breaking the Law, even without any morals involved.

Sure, but then the original point stands: their ethics contradicts their politics.

Because there are exceptions where breaking the Law can go unnoticed? No, I don't think so.

 

[supplementfacts]

Because there are exceptions where breaking the Law can go unnoticed? No, I don't think so.

Um, in those all-too-common cases the ethics and the politics give contradictory direction: one says to go with self-interest, and the other says to respect the rights of others. I mean, if I give you two supposedly absolute rules "Always obey your mother" and "Never lie", I had better have an answer for the question "What if someone's mother tells them to lie?" or else my alleged system of absolute rules is flat-out contradictory.

 

[G.T.]

Because there are exceptions where breaking the Law can go unnoticed? No, I don't think so.

Um, in those all-too-common cases the ethics and the politics give contradictory direction: one says to go with self-interest, and the other says to respect the rights of others. I mean, if I give you two supposedly absolute rules "Always obey your mother" and "Never lie", I had better have an answer for the question "What if someone's mother tells them to lie?" or else my alleged system of absolute rules is flat-out contradictory.

You're pretending here.

If it's your principle that individual rights should be protected by Law, because you want YOUR individual rights protected, because you only care about YOURself,

that doesn't mean that you drop said principles when noone is looking.

 

[amrchaos]

Lay out your case. Let's discuss. Please be cordial.

Thanks!

Nothing, in my opinion. Atlas Shrugged was prophetic, as was Ayn Rand. Of course it is too late to work in present society, for we have elected officials whose political ambitions for America, have been counterproductive. We are seeing the result of collectivism.

From Wikipedia:

The book [ Atlas Shrugged ] explores a dystopian United States where many of society's most productive citizens refuse to be exploited by increasing taxation and government regulations and go on strike.

The refusal evokes the imagery of what would happen if the mythological Atlas refused to continue to hold up the world. They are led by John Galt. Galt describes the strike as "stopping the motor of the world" by withdrawing the minds that drive society's growth and productivity.

In their efforts, these people "of the mind" hope to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where every person is a slave to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society.

SNIP:

Total sales of the novel in 2009 exceeded 500,000 copies.[68] The book sold 445,000 copies in 2011, the second-strongest sales year in the novel's history. At the time of publication the novel was on the New York Times best-seller list and was selling at roughly a third the volume of 2011.[

Atlas Shrugged - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you object to her view on Heroism?

If being a hero - say in the Military - doesn't in some way serve one's self, she believes that to be altruism and evil. Do you agree?

Whose definition of altruism?

Hey--is this a spinofff from that thread where some one was arguing that all atheists are secular humanists?

 

[G.T.]

Nothing, in my opinion. Atlas Shrugged was prophetic, as was Ayn Rand. Of course it is too late to work in present society, for we have elected officials whose political ambitions for America, have been counterproductive. We are seeing the result of collectivism.

From Wikipedia:

The book [ Atlas Shrugged ] explores a dystopian United States where many of society's most productive citizens refuse to be exploited by increasing taxation and government regulations and go on strike.

The refusal evokes the imagery of what would happen if the mythological Atlas refused to continue to hold up the world. They are led by John Galt. Galt describes the strike as "stopping the motor of the world" by withdrawing the minds that drive society's growth and productivity.

In their efforts, these people "of the mind" hope to demonstrate that a world in which the individual is not free to create is doomed, that civilization cannot exist where every person is a slave to society and government, and that the destruction of the profit motive leads to the collapse of society.

SNIP:

Total sales of the novel in 2009 exceeded 500,000 copies.[68] The book sold 445,000 copies in 2011, the second-strongest sales year in the novel's history. At the time of publication the novel was on the New York Times best-seller list and was selling at roughly a third the volume of 2011.[

Atlas Shrugged - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do you object to her view on Heroism?

If being a hero - say in the Military - doesn't in some way serve one's self, she believes that to be altruism and evil. Do you agree?

Whose definition of altruism?

Hey--is this a spinofff from that thread where some one was arguing that all atheists are secular humanists?

I've not seen that thread, so I don't think so.

 

[amrchaos]

I just thought of something

Most of the posters on this thread have not a single clue what objectivism is.

A quick and dirty introduction to objectivism is as follows:

1)Man is a creature of reason and choice making. i.e a creature of volitional reasoning

2) Man is a creator through the use of his reason and decision making.

3)Man is virtuous if he is rational and live by rational choices and reasoning. And,if he is rational with other human beings. That is if man chooses to live according to his reason and his choices and not the whims of others.

Man is self-destructive if he lives according to an irrational dictate he has accepted. ( This is where Objectivism runs up against Christianity and Communism/Socialism). The surrendering of reason to an irrational concept such as an "invisible god" or "societal dictates" is considered to be an affront to man's survival.
Each man lives according to his reason and knowledge(which is obtained through his reason) and to push the responsibility of one man off unto another is considered an injustice.

Objectivism also talks of how property rights and trade aids man survivals, but the main gist of Objectivism is the above. Objectivism can be called an anti-Humanist phiosophy.

 

[supplementfacts]

You're pretending here.

If it's your principle that individual rights should be protected by Law, because you want YOUR individual rights protected, because you only care about YOURself,

that doesn't mean that you drop said principles when noone is looking.

No, you're missing the point. If your principle is self-interest above all else, then you're committed to dropping any other principles as soon as they cut into your self-interest. That means you violate someone else's rights as soon as it's in your self-interest to do so. Whether that's because nobody's looking or because you have enough power to get away with it, self-interest is supposed to trump all other principles.

 

[supplementfacts]

I just thought of something

Most of the posters on this thread have not a single clue what objectivism is.

A quick and dirty introduction to objectivism is as follows:

1)Man is a creature of reason and choice making. i.e a creature of volitional reasoning

2) Man is a creator through the use of his reason and decision making.

3)Man is virtuous if he is rational and live by rational choices and reasoning. And,if he is rational with other human beings. That is if man chooses to live according to his reason and his choices and not the whims of others.

Man is self-destructive if he lives according to an irrational dictate he has accepted. ( This is where Objectivism runs up against Christianity and Communism/Socialism). The surrendering of reason to an irrational concept such as an "invisible god" or "societal dictates" is considered to be an affront to man's survival.
Each man lives according to his reason and knowledge(which is obtained through his reason) and to push the responsibility of one man off unto another is considered an injustice.

Objectivism also talks of how property rights and trade aids man survivals, but the main gist of Objectivism is the above. Objectivism can be called an anti-Humanist phiosophy.

The question is whether rationality says to pursue self-interest, or whether it says to respect the individual rights of others. Otherwise you've got an inconsistent account of rationality.

 

[amrchaos]

I just thought of something

Most of the posters on this thread have not a single clue what objectivism is.

A quick and dirty introduction to objectivism is as follows:

1)Man is a creature of reason and choice making. i.e a creature of volitional reasoning

2) Man is a creator through the use of his reason and decision making.

3)Man is virtuous if he is rational and live by rational choices and reasoning. And,if he is rational with other human beings. That is if man chooses to live according to his reason and his choices and not the whims of others.

Man is self-destructive if he lives according to an irrational dictate he has accepted. ( This is where Objectivism runs up against Christianity and Communism/Socialism). The surrendering of reason to an irrational concept such as an "invisible god" or "societal dictates" is considered to be an affront to man's survival.
Each man lives according to his reason and knowledge(which is obtained through his reason) and to push the responsibility of one man off unto another is considered an injustice.

Objectivism also talks of how property rights and trade aids man survivals, but the main gist of Objectivism is the above. Objectivism can be called an anti-Humanist phiosophy.

The question is whether rationality says to pursue self-interest, or whether it says to respect the individual rights of others. Otherwise you've got an inconsistent account of rationality.

Inconsistent account of reality based on a decision of rationality? Please elaborate.

Or-give an example.

 

[amrchaos]

Here are two contradictions in Objectivism:

* Their ethics is all about individual self-interest, but their politics is all about individual rights. In other words, in their ethics they say to put your self-interest above all else (even if this means violating the rights of others). And in their politics they say says to put everyone's rights above all else (even if this goes against your self-interest). But this is a flagrant contradiction, and Objectivists have no tenable way of reconciling it.

* Their politics is based on non-aggression: force is to be used only against behavior that violates the rights of others (e.g., murder, theft). But they want a minimal state: a government that uses force to outlaw private enforcement agencies that might compete with it in the way market-anarchists favor. But this is also a flagrant contradiction, since privately enforcing rights doesn't violate anyone's rights and therefore there can be no non-aggressive justification for outlawing it.

Also, they claim to be against basic human decency (feeling concern for others and going out of your way to help them), but they have no argument against it.

Hold it--reason is the basis of ethics inobjectivism.

Self interests is derived from a rational account of your situation. That is, your ability to reason helps determine what is best for you and what is not.

The philosophy that put self interests as an major ethical issue is Hedonism. There is a fundemental difference between the two. For instance Objectivism requires self-discipline such as needed in a strong work ethic while Hedonism does not. Objectivism prefer trade and equal exchanges as just, while a Hedonist will always seek the best offer even if it harms the other party.

Your second point is questionable. Yes, Objectivist tends to want a smaller government--but the government has to be strong enough to enforce laws and maintain justice. This argument that they are willing to outlaw "private enforcement agencies"(private militaries?militias?) does not seem to be apart of their argument for a free market or is even considered a part of their underlining philosophy.

I think you may need to provide literature for the second point as it pertains to objectivist philosophy.