She was nuts, but had some good, clear and defined ideas regarding politics an economics.
I don't agree with everything she thought or said, but I do agree with some of her principles.
One thing I am at odds with is the whole self-interest thing.
I think many people don't like how frankly she points this out. Most people people don't like to admit that almost everything we do has some level of self-interest at play, it's just naturally part of being human. There are exceptions obviously and ironically, I think serving in the military for example would be one case of going against that natural self-interest, to be selfless and self-sacrificing. It's even more ironic as the (U.S.) military is basically almost a pure socialist society put into practice.
![[-]](https://gayspeak.com/images/duende_v3_local/collapse.png)
•
meninlove Wrote:The definition of altruism, not Ayn's skewed definition:
1: unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others
2: behavior by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species' -Meriam Webster
Any's definition: 'Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.'
I got a lesson on "definitions" from a bookaholic last year. He brought out 6 huge Oxford Collegiates spanning over 120 years and we looked up definitions of words to see how much and how often they changed. The definitions of Republican and Democrat have flip flopped 3 times. Liberal used to mean "less government." It was a fun night believe it or not.
I like that your definition of altruism from Websters doesn't read, " allowing the government to forcibly extract wealth from you and others in order to inefficiently distribute to others as it see fit in order to increase it's own popularity with the recipients."
That's really not an untrue definition of altruism as it's practiced, is it?
•
Posts: 2,664
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2014
Reputation:
0
Mood: None
ETOTE Wrote:She was nuts, but had some good, clear and defined ideas regarding politics an economics.
I don't agree with everything she thought or said, but I do agree with some of her principles.
One thing I am at odds with is the whole self-interest thing.
I think many people don't like how frankly she points this out. Most people people don't like to admit that almost everything we do has some level of self-interest at play, it's just naturally part of being human. There are exceptions obviously and ironically, I think serving in the military for example would be one case of going against that natural self-interest, to be selfless and self-sacrificing. It's even more ironic as the (U.S.) military is basically almost a pure socialist society put into practice.
Do you think that perhaps these people are still self interest, but on a higher stakes level than most people are willing to wager on? It's like gambling... you stand to win, and win big, BUT... you risk a LOT trying for that big win and could potentially stand to lose (most) everything. I think most people who sign up for the military are wagering on us NOT going to war and possibly dying, and just hoping for the $$$, education, experience, and retirement.
I dunno... just a thought.
•
Quote:Marked things in bold...
#1. You do realize that currently the US government is a silent partner with companies to "milk their customers/employees for all their worth," don't you? They write, re-write and make exemptions to rules on businesses that favor the big ones and make it impossible for small ones to compete in a fair market system. There are more bureaucratic (government) controls on the US production of fingernail clippers than there are on importing unregulated ones from China. Try to find nail clippers made in the USA. Good luck. And that's just one simple example. I had to buy a plain spiral bound notebook the other day. Out of over a dozen types there wasn't one that made in the USA...
#2. EPA? Really? Do you know how they test water quality in the upper Mississippi River basin? They have a paid "in house seminar" in big cities along the river, party and hire local people to bring back water samples from the river ---- every 15 years that they take over a year to analyze. No one there getting their feet wet or hands dirty.
#3 FDA. Working with the big drug companies they're in the process of farming out to 3rd world nations (who pay pennies per hour to employees) for everything from chemotherapy drugs to artificial knees. No quality control there for sure. And talk to someone in drug research about how impossible it would be to start a new US pharmaceutical company. Refer back to #1.
#4. I agree. But i have learned that with the right amounts of vodka or rum no one notices the rotten fruit taste. So have politicians in their own way.
All true but the US system is pretty much broken and clogged full of bad apples so it's hardly a good example of a well run mixed economy, but that can be said for every country to some degree. There's also too much unregulated money in politics... why bother doing your job when you can just get back handed money to pretend you're doing it.
Meh screw it, I vote either Geniocracy or Anarchy!  
•
Posts: 2,234
Threads: 36
Joined: Aug 2012
Reputation:
1
I'm a : Gay Man in an Open Gay Relationship
Starsign:  Aquarius
Mood:
 Life's too short to miss an opportunity to show your love and affection!
•
Posts: 2,698
Threads: 34
Joined: May 2014
Reputation:
0
Starsign:  Capricorn
Mood: None
06-28-2014, 12:28 AM
(Edited 06-28-2014, 12:41 AM by MikeW.)
If you are of the opinion that reality is an objective set of mechanical behaviors that can be studied and therefore known logically by an individual; If you're of the opinion that individuals exist (that is, are entities independent of their environment) and that the self-interest of the individual is morally paramount, having precedence over other individuals or groups--then Rand's philosophy is for you.
I'm of the opinion that reality is a complex multi-dimensional event with levels that are unknown and unknowable; and I'm of the opinion that the individual does not exist except as a narrative point of view and, therefore, has no preeminence or moral prerogative. Thus, Rand's philosophy, to me, is rather narrow, shallow and of little interest.
•
•
•
MikeW Wrote:If you are of the opinion that reality is an objective set of mechanical behaviors that can be studied and therefore known logically by an individual; If you're of the opinion that individuals exist (that is, are entities independent of their environment) and that the self-interest of the individual is morally paramount, having precedence over other individuals or groups--then Rand's philosophy is for you.
I'm of the opinion that reality is a complex multi-dimensional event with levels that are unknown and unknowable; and I'm of the opinion that the individual does not exist except as a narrative point of view and, therefore, has nor preeminence or moral prerogative. Thus, Rand's philosophy, to me, is rather narrow, shallow and of little interest.
Well said.
•
•
|
