Why Objectivism is relevant today

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by gallantwarrior, Aug 13, 2012.

  1. gallantwarrior
    Offline

    gallantwarrior Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    18,742
    Thanks Received:
    3,586
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    So far in the boonies, I'm not on google street vi
    Ratings:
    +6,058
    Ayn Rand wrote her books as representations of her own philosophical construct popularly known as Objectivism.

    The exodus of American industry and innovation to China reflects her premise that when government, and the men who control government, make business...and yes, profits, impossible, then those responsible for driving the engine of commerce will find more fertile ground for their endeavors.
     
  2. amrchaos
    Offline

    amrchaos Pentheus torn apart

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    9,501
    Thanks Received:
    926
    Trophy Points:
    215
    Location:
    Miami
    Ratings:
    +2,573
    So you are suggsting that Communist China is more economically fertile than our Free Capitalistic Republic?

    Does that not sound strange to you, gallantwarrior?
     
  3. gallantwarrior
    Offline

    gallantwarrior Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    18,742
    Thanks Received:
    3,586
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    So far in the boonies, I'm not on google street vi
    Ratings:
    +6,058
    Are you suggesting that government over-regulation and cronyism in a once robust free economy is economically feasible?
     
  4. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    136,706
    Thanks Received:
    12,299
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,220
    GallantWarrior on his second post reveals that he does not understand Rand.

    And to the side, anytime GW answers a question with a question, it means that he does not understand.
     
  5. gallantwarrior
    Offline

    gallantwarrior Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Messages:
    18,742
    Thanks Received:
    3,586
    Trophy Points:
    260
    Location:
    So far in the boonies, I'm not on google street vi
    Ratings:
    +6,058
    I feel so happy to be so well understood. :lol:
     
  6. JakeStarkey
    Offline

    JakeStarkey Diamond Member Supporting Member

    Top Poster Of Month

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2009
    Messages:
    136,706
    Thanks Received:
    12,299
    Trophy Points:
    2,165
    Ratings:
    +32,220
    John Galt if a real person would simply laugh at you and defect to Ghana.
     
  7. there4eyeM
    Offline

    there4eyeM unlicensed metaphysician

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    Messages:
    8,031
    Thanks Received:
    820
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +2,286
    As if 'laissez faire' capitalism did not lead directly to dominance and control!

    If the human spirit were pure, it would work, but, then, so would communism.

    Just as with the argument that government should not be involved in 'welfare'. It shouldn't, and if the prosperous fulfilled their humanity and helped accordingly, government never would have been involved.

    Example: remember that in the good old days before limitations were placed on the power of money over people, there was a tax in England on your child who did not work after six years old. Why? To maximize the market for cheap labor. Logical!
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. onecut39
    Offline

    onecut39 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2008
    Messages:
    1,523
    Thanks Received:
    140
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +150
    Leissez-faire capitalism has never been tried in any modern economy mainly because it is abundantly clear that it could never work. Pure socialism has never been tried for the same reason. There has never been a pure Libertarian government on the face of the earth. Ayn Rand and her theories have never been taken seriously just as fairy tales have not.

    Throughout history governments have been mixed economies and the only argument being just what that mix will be.

    Grow up.
     
  9. Friends
    Offline

    Friends Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,484
    Thanks Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +357
    Since the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980 the trend in the United States has been toward lower taxes for the rich, less regulation of businesses, and more outsourcing.
     
  10. Friends
    Offline

    Friends Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2012
    Messages:
    1,484
    Thanks Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +357
    Objectivism, holds that:

    *Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

    *Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

    *Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

    *The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

    --------

    This reminds me of the fake polls I sometimes get from political organizations. They claim to want my opinion on various topics. After asking a number of leading questions, the poll asks for a donation.

    The first statement is a truism.

    The second statement is probably true, although it does not define "reason."

    The third statement sounds good, but it is not clear what it means in practice.

    The forth statement has been rejected by every electorate of every country with a democratic government during the twentieth century.
     

Share This Page