I once read a post from Shane saying that he agreed with The Atheist Experience's evaluation of Objectivism/Objectivists, despite being about as Libertarian as you can get.
I've tried getting through that episode at least twice, but can never seen to last as little as 30 minutes through it.
So can you give me the short version of what they said that you agreed with, despite being a Libertarian?
Objectivism, LOL?
I'd have to listen to it again; it's been a long time.
As it happens I've been rewatching the archive again!
And guess which episode?!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8584428047418862218#
YOU'RE WELCOME! *falls over, foaming from the mouth*
Quote from: Gumba Masta on May 19, 2010, 03:40:42 PM
As it happens I've been rewatching the archive again!
And guess which episode?!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8584428047418862218#
YOU'RE WELCOME! *falls over foaming from the mouth*
[yt]qJQwHwP0ojI&feature=related[/yt]
Just on the first half hour so far, it seems that there are really only two points to discuss. Their response to Point #3 is valid in that there's an inherent contradiction: the principle that I think Rand was trying to bring forward was that people shouldn't be obligated to sacrifice themselves for others, but as the hosts said, she took it to far and ended up HERSELF telling people that they must behave in a certain way. Compare that to Harry Browne's book, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World.
Their response to Point #4 was also valid: capitalism is ideal for whom? Apparently not Barack Obama or George W. Bush; not for the MPAA or RIAA or OPEC or any of these other cartels that wouldn't exist without government inhibiting the free market. The idea that everyone will just gravitate towards capitalism just through their own rational self-interest is wishful thinking at best.
More later.
Thanks for the feedback.
Well, I do agree on your first point. However, I haven't read that book by Harry Browne, so I can't say for that.
(I will someday though).
Actually for your second point, free market capitalism IS better for everyone (remembering that individual people make up these institutions), as Mary J. Ruwart explained, in so much as people, even those who would prefer to pillage, would end up with far more wealth in the long run (you can't use money to buy wealth that hasn't been created, or inventions that haven't been invented).
However, I DO agree that just because it is better for them, doesn't mean they (people like Obama and them) will follow this "rational self interest" (as is plainly evident today), and this is a huge problem for those of us who are robbed...
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on May 19, 2010, 05:11:55 PM
Actually for your second point, free market capitalism IS better for everyone (remembering that individual people make up these institutions), as Mary J. Ruwart explained, in so much as people, even those who would prefer to pillage, would end up with far more wealth in the long run (you can't use money to buy wealth that hasn't been created, or inventions that haven't been invented).
However, I DO agree that just because it is better for them, doesn't mean they (people like Obama and them) will follow this "rational self interest" (as is plainly evident today), and this is a huge problem for those of us who are robbed...
It also may have something to do with the more tangible short-run as opposed to the less tangible long-run. It's alot harder to see the long run, much easier to see the short run. I can taste the delicious cake right now, but I can't easily see/feel the benefits of not eating that cake in order to lose weight.
@Virgil0211: That may very well be.
@Shane: Another comment you once made was that Objectivists take things too far and make it into a moral/ethnics code.
If you remember what you meant by that, elaborating on that would be great. :)
Also, something that FlowCell has pointed out is that Objectivists seem to think that people shouldn't donate to charity, whether voluntary or not and that people who didn't earn the money (well, assuming by earn, she means, "worked for"), shouldn't get it.
This was also evident in a quiz about Objectivism I took on OKCupid.
That would be something I take issue with.
That is nothing wrong with charity so long as it is voluntary for all involved parties.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on May 19, 2010, 05:23:18 PM
Also, something that FlowCell has pointed out is that Objectivists seem to think that people shouldn't donate to charity, whether voluntary or not and that people who didn't earn the money (well, assuming by earn, she means, "worked for"), shouldn't get it.
This was also evident in a quiz about Objectivism I took on OKCupid.
That would be something I take issue with.
That is nothing wrong with charity so long as it is voluntary for all involved parties.
It's also a bit hypocritical. Rand's husband (if I remember correctly) was a starving artist who basically lived off of a stipend she gave him. She justified it by saying that she had a selfish desire to see him succeed and to make him happy, but how's that different from voluntary charity? Is she saying that one should just come to terms with their own personal motivations for performing charitable acts rather than justifying it via altruistic ethics?
Well, they're right on the score that Atlas Shrugged is a horribly written book.
Quote from: AHPMB on May 19, 2010, 05:47:25 PM
Well, they're right on the score that Atlas Shrugged is a horribly written book.
Objectivist philosophy/ethics/economics/axioms, not Objectivist literature.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on May 19, 2010, 05:11:55 PMActually for your second point, free market capitalism IS better for everyone (remembering that individual people make up these institutions)
Not for the goons that make up those organizations. They miss out on getting a LOT of your money.
Quote from: MrBogosity on May 19, 2010, 07:22:16 PM
Not for the goons that make up those organizations. They miss out on getting a LOT of your money.
Not in the long run.
See Mary J. Ruwart's book.
The one YOU told me to read.
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on May 19, 2010, 05:23:18 PMAnother comment you once made was that Objectivists take things too far and make it into a moral/ethnics code.
If you remember what you meant by that, elaborating on that would be great.
I'd have to remember the context of that conversation. Personally, I think Lao Tzu did a MUCH better job of making a code of ethics out of that concept.
Quote from: AHPMB on May 19, 2010, 05:47:25 PM
Well, they're right on the score that Atlas Shrugged is a horribly written book.
Man, is it horrible! I'm trying to make it through it; I'm on Chapter 7, but that insipid, rambling, disjointed narrative is just too painful!
Quote from: surhotchaperchlorome on May 19, 2010, 07:24:06 PM
Not in the long run.
See Mary J. Ruwart's book.
The one YOU told me to read.
Only due to hidden effects they aren't aware of and probably wouldn't believe if you told them.
"Figure 4.2 The Wealth Pie
In the absence of aggression, everyone creates goods and services, so that the Wealth Pie and our Piece of it (shading) is as large as it can be for our current level of knowledge.
As licensing laws and minimum wage laws forbid the disadvantaged from creating wealth, the Pie shrinks accordingly. Our Piece (the goods and services our money can buy) is proportionately diminished.
Because those who lobby for and enforce these laws create no new wealth themselves, the Pie shrinks once again, making our Piece smaller as well.
As skilled workers, we may see our Piece of the Pie increase relative to everyone else's with these changes, but the absolute size of our Piece is smaller than it otherwise would have been. We cannot buy wealth that does not exist, no matter how much money we have relative to everyone else. Even with the extra dollars, we have much less purchasing power than we would have had in the absence of aggression.
The enforcement agents who keep the disadvantaged from producing wealth produce none of their own. Consequently, they must take some of ours in the form of taxes. Our diminished Piece shrinks further.
To survive, those who are not legally permitted to create wealth demand that the law enforcement agents take some of ours- at gunpoint, if necessary- as taxes to provide welfare. Our Piece of the Pie shrinks accordingly.
Both the employed and the unemployed battle to control the force of law to gain an advantage. Each group attempts to have the guns of the law enforcement agents pointed at the other, taking turns being victims and aggressors. This is not brotherly love; this is war! The only difference between this war and conventional ones is that both sides take turns "capturing" the only weapon - the government. Because each side occasionally "wins," both have the illusion of gain. The cost of the weaponry of aggression (lobbying, limiting the creation of wealth, supporting those who create no wealth) is so high that both sides lose in the long run.
Hostility is created and wealth is not; other fallout occurs as well. Against the background of chronic unemployment, a belief emerges among the advantaged that some people are simply not competent enough to ensure their own survival. The disadvantaged, trapped by aggression and told that only more aggression-through-government can save them, begin to believe in their own impotence. While one segment of society justifies its aggressive actions on the basis of its own alleged superiority, another segment cringes with loss of self-esteem." Source: http://www.ruwart.com/Healing/chap4.html
Similar reasoning can be applied to the people at the top; and by the fact that you yourself have noted that the poor of today are better off than the super rich of 100 years ago.
Can you imagine if this country was a 100% free market during that period?
If we were, then instead of 100 years ago, we'd probably be saying 30 years ago instead.
So at least in the long run, maybe not the short run (and even then I'm still skeptical), everyone is worse off.
...also, I just noted your verbal response above me. lol
My bad for not seeing it.
Yeah, that's true.
Just look at the socialist woos commenting in your videos even to this very day.
I'll still leave the other stuff up, however.
Saying that everyone as a whole is worse off doesn't mean that there aren't those few who are sitting in mansions they wouldn't have if they hadn't been able to use force to take wealth from people.
True.
But even then, they'd still be without cures for diseases that would have been found, had they NOT used such overwhelming force, etc.
Just look at how some countries' leaders still have to go abroad to the U.S. and to India for medical care.
But I do get your point and can easily see where you are coming from.
That obviously, if a single person steals a large amount, say $20 million, then the effect on the entire economy would be much smaller, and for most (if not all) practical purposes, he would gain. So we agree there.
I am mainly talking about force that robs the nation of trillions annually, however; where the effect is far more pronounced.
As well as prevents the creation of wealth.
I want to make something clear. I am NOT in any way defending what Ayn Rand said. I agree that hoping the rational self interest I describe would be enough to get people to use first-strike-force is just silly.
I am merely arguing that they are hurt by it in the long run, as opposed to helped (e.g. politicians having to go to other countries where the isn't as much force initiated in the health care sector).
I would also like to point out that "The idea that everyone will just gravitate towards capitalism just through their own rational self-interest..." (to use your wording) is even contradictory to what she has said on other occasions.
She bashes the fuck out of anarchists for not wanting a coercive monopoly on police, courts and defense, saying that it would lead to armed gangs ruling over innocent people (if I remember correctly from what I read in an article at Mises.org quoting here on this), but if those people would be persuaded by their rational self interest alone, then why would we even NEED police, courts and defense in the first place?
BTW: Were there any more points that The Atheist Experience hosts made that you agreed with despite being a Libertarian?
I'll post more when I listen to more of it again. Like I said, this was years ago, but I don't recall any serious disagreement with anything they said. Of course, there might have been minor details here and there that didn't stick with me.
OK.
Well, even regardless of what their thoughts on Objectivism were, what are your own objections to it, besides what has already been said here?