e-mail from my conservative brother

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
Reality is subjective, and your reality is flawed, like a lump of coal being paraded around as a diamond.
How so? Explain. Are you at one time not reliant upon others and do you not reciprocate this kindness? Is it not cyclical?

I'm interested in your take. I've honestly never met anyone who's ever espoused an egoist ethic besides some Nietzschean scholar a while ago. Will to power, he was always saying. Will to power.

What's your take?
 

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
If the concept of self is not relevant in this interconnected world, where a womans womb, and her child, are collective property, what is the point, of arguing the point. Rand is as much a part of you, as I am a part of you. Don't fight it, just relish the experience, me, being in you, always.

P.S. If you have a bank account, in whose name does the account appear? Why?
You just fell down the slippery slope. Did it hurt?

Just because I believe in a transcendental ethic does NOT mean that I have no concept of self (and the bank account quip made NO sense). I have a concept of self and I have a concept of others. I just realize that we all participate in the same condition. It makes no sense to disregard my fellow man as irrelevant when reality says that he is a part of what I experience.

Don't ever straw man my beliefs by taking what I say to the extreme. You have just committed two logical fallacy's so come back and debate with me when you're at least a little educated. Pathetic.
 

ViRedd

New Member
BTW - I've read everything by Rand and consider myself a scholar in this regard and let me say, NONE of you text pasters have shown any understanding of her. Read Atlas Shrugged and the Virtue of Selfishness and then get back to me.
Oh, I've read most of Rand's works, including her five novels, her essays and most of her Objectivist Newsletters. You are one up on me though 72582;2519927, as I don't arrogantly consider myself a Randian "scholar."

I don't agree with everything Rand had to say. For example, she was a pro-abortionist. She thought abortion brought freedom to the individule. I, on the other hand, believe abortion violates the basic right to life endowed by our Creator.

In a previous post, you ridiculed me for saying that "we are living Atlas Shrugged." Quite bluntly, if you can't see it, you are stone-blind to what is going on around you.

As we speak, most state governments, and for sure, the federal government, are punishing wealth creation, usurping individual initiative and regulating the free market (liberty) out of existence.

Like the movers & shakers in Atlas Shrugged, our modern-day executives and wealth creators are fleeing high-tax, high-regulation states in droves. Our businesses along with the production and jobs they represent are moving out of the country for greener and freer pastures. This will accelerate if Obama gets his way with capping salaries and other compensation for a job well done.

Our American corporations are laboring under the second highest corporate tax rate on the planet, second only to Japan.

Our income tax rate, especially with what Obama has proposed is crushing. Regulations are stifling ... and now Obama is DICTATING new CAFE standards for our automobile producers that will cost BILLIONS ... the cost of which will be passed along to the consumers.

New "Cap & Trade" regulations will tax TRILLIONS away from the private economy to feed insatiable government bureaucrats and feed the already over-bloated federal government.

Our government is printing money at an unprecedented rate, the cost of which, we and future generations will pay for through the hidden tax of inflation.

The appetite of the federal monster is insatiable. The innate human spirt's desire for freedom and liberty is irreversible. There WILL be a backlash ... either in a massive tax revolt, an exodus to other states ... or to other countries.

Honestly, it really concerns me, 72582;2519927, that someone like you, who are insulated from economic reality in your professor's job, speaks out against the yearning of Man's mind to be free, and tries to teach your altruism, collectivism bullshit from your ivory tower position in academia.

I have a great idea to balance California's budget ... abolish the UC system in it's entirety.

John Galt ... beam me up~ :hump:

Vi
 

Parker

Well-Known Member
This is where I'll be spending some leisure time this summer. Owning a house with a pool is such a pain in the ass, especially since my pool guy and gardeners went back to mexico. I don't mind the pool so much but the gardening is a big PITA, I'm looking for a new one right now.
Why did they go back to Mexico? Were they illegals?
 

jrh72582

Well-Known Member
Oh, I've read most of Rand's works, including her five novels, her essays and most of her Objectivist Newsletters. You are one up on me though 72582;2519927, as I don't arrogantly consider myself a Randian "scholar."

I don't agree with everything Rand had to say. For example, she was a pro-abortionist. She thought abortion brought freedom to the individule. I, on the other hand, believe abortion violates the basic right to life endowed by our Creator.

In a previous post, you ridiculed me for saying that "we are living Atlas Shrugged." Quite bluntly, if you can't see it, you are stone-blind to what is going on around you.

As we speak, most state governments, and for sure, the federal government, are punishing wealth creation, usurping individual initiative and regulating the free market (liberty) out of existence.

Like the movers & shakers in Atlas Shrugged, our modern-day executives and wealth creators are fleeing high-tax, high-regulation states in droves. Our businesses (and money) are moving out of the country for greener and freer pastures.

Our American corporations are laboring under the second highest corporate tax rate on the planet, second only to Japan.

Our income tax rate, especially with what Obama has proposed is crushing. Regulations are stifling ... and now Obama is DICTATING new CAFE standards for our automobile producers that will cost BILLIONS ... the cost of which will be passed along to the consumers.

New "Cap & Trade" regulations will tax TRILLIONS away from the private economy to feed insatiable government bureaucrats and feed the already over-bloated federal government.

Our government is printing money at an unprecedented rate, the cost of which, we and future generations will pay for through the hidden tax of inflation.

The appetite of the federal monster is insatiable. The innate human spirt's desire for freedom is irreversible. There WILL be a backlash ... either in a massive tax revolt, an exodus to other states ... or to other countries.

Honestly, it really concerns me, 72582;2519927, that someone like you, who are insulated from economic reality in your professor's job, speaks out against the yearning of Man's mind to be free, and tries to teach your altruism, collectivism bullshit from your ivory tower position in academia.

I have a great idea to balance California's budget ... abolish the UC system in it's entirety.

John Galt ... beam me up~ :hump:

Vi
You cannot insult me for the belief that I am a scholar. It does not make me arrogant. My life and career revolve around ideas and reading and publishing and teaching. It's what I do. We are 'scholars' in certain fields and political philosophy (as well as Classical Greek philosophy) is my field. There's no reason to be offended. I've put in the time and I have the passion - that makes me a scholar. Deal with it. If you knew me, you would find that I'm in no way pretentious. However, I do not submit to being politically correct. My honesty often translates as arrogance, but it's not.

Otherwise, nice post. I see the parallels. I see the parallels between our society and many dystopian pictures painted in various novels. I also see the parallels between our society and ancient Rome. However, I do not think the solution is through egoism. I honestly believe that only through the realization of our collective situation can we ever accomplish anything. I DO think that's the reality of the situation.

On another note, have you seen the Rand interviews? I'm curious.

And yes, Rand (in addition to most libertarians) is extremely pro-choice.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
You just fell down the slippery slope. Did it hurt?

Just because I believe in a transcendental ethic does NOT mean that I have no concept of self (and the bank account quip made NO sense). I have a concept of self and I have a concept of others. I just realize that we all participate in the same condition. It makes no sense to disregard my fellow man as irrelevant when reality says that he is a part of what I experience.

Don't ever straw man my beliefs by taking what I say to the extreme. You have just committed two logical fallacy's so come back and debate with me when you're at least a little educated. Pathetic.
What is reality if not your sense of self; how YOU see it is all it is, because only YOU see through the two eyes YOU call YOUR own. So YOU agree with ME after all, by using YOUR own thoughts and ideas, YOUR own hands to convey YOUR ideas, to debate the being which is I. YOU did this. YOU and ME, collaboratively, but on our own terms. Independently. WOW. Thanks friend.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
Oh, I've read most of Rand's works, including her five novels, her essays and most of her Objectivist Newsletters. You are one up on me though 72582;2519927, as I don't arrogantly consider myself a Randian "scholar."

I don't agree with everything Rand had to say. For example, she was a pro-abortionist. She thought abortion brought freedom to the individule. I, on the other hand, believe abortion violates the basic right to life endowed by our Creator.

In a previous post, you ridiculed me for saying that "we are living Atlas Shrugged." Quite bluntly, if you can't see it, you are stone-blind to what is going on around you.

As we speak, most state governments, and for sure, the federal government, are punishing wealth creation, usurping individual initiative and regulating the free market (liberty) out of existence.

Like the movers & shakers in Atlas Shrugged, our modern-day executives and wealth creators are fleeing high-tax, high-regulation states in droves. Our businesses along with the production and jobs they represent are moving out of the country for greener and freer pastures. This will accelerate if Obama gets his way with capping salaries and other compensation for a job well done.

Our American corporations are laboring under the second highest corporate tax rate on the planet, second only to Japan.

Our income tax rate, especially with what Obama has proposed is crushing. Regulations are stifling ... and now Obama is DICTATING new CAFE standards for our automobile producers that will cost BILLIONS ... the cost of which will be passed along to the consumers.

New "Cap & Trade" regulations will tax TRILLIONS away from the private economy to feed insatiable government bureaucrats and feed the already over-bloated federal government.

Our government is printing money at an unprecedented rate, the cost of which, we and future generations will pay for through the hidden tax of inflation.

The appetite of the federal monster is insatiable. The innate human spirt's desire for freedom and liberty is irreversible. There WILL be a backlash ... either in a massive tax revolt, an exodus to other states ... or to other countries.

Honestly, it really concerns me, 72582;2519927, that someone like you, who are insulated from economic reality in your professor's job, speaks out against the yearning of Man's mind to be free, and tries to teach your altruism, collectivism bullshit from your ivory tower position in academia.

I have a great idea to balance California's budget ... abolish the UC system in it's entirety.

John Galt ... beam me up~ :hump:

Vi
And with that, the "collective" goes wild!:clap::clap: :clap: (all three of us:wink:)
 

TheBrutalTruth

Well-Known Member
How so? Explain. Are you at one time not reliant upon others and do you not reciprocate this kindness? Is it not cyclical?

I'm interested in your take. I've honestly never met anyone who's ever espoused an egoist ethic besides some Nietzschean scholar a while ago. Will to power, he was always saying. Will to power.

What's your take?
Will to power?

Not so much, I personally think that society is defined by the voluntary interactions that take place between individuals. It would not do an actor or actress any good to make a movie that doesn't get watched if they expect to get paid, and it doesn't make sense to force people to watch a movie that they don't want to just to give money to actors and actresses.

Government is needed only to keep order and ensure that all transactions are indeed voluntary, whether they be prostitution, purchasing of drugs, or whatever else.

Government collecting taxes to hand out alms for the power is not logical. It leads to the abuse of power, because now people have no control over their wealth. An inventor might be in the middle of using their capital to make some astonishing discovery that makes human life 1,000 times better, when the government takes it and thus the inventor is now reduced to having to seek employ by a corporation to gain access to the resources needed to continue to invent.

Government then makes laws that state that any invention that the inventor invents while at work is the property of their employer.

Taxation slows progress, and destroys charity while slowing the economy and human progress.

Then there's the fact that regulations are always changing. Rule by law means Rule by law, but the United States has turned that around and has made it rule by whim. We can not honestly state that we are a Republic when every 2 - 4 - 6 years a new group of politicians is elected with promises to change society.

That's not Rule by Law, that's Rule by Whim, in a capricious arbitrary fashion that ignores that different people will value different things at different values at different times.

My statement that my world revolves around me doesn't preclude me being charitable to others, it just means that such action should be entirely my choice.

Of course, involuntary charity is not charity, just as involuntary servitude is not the same as voluntary employment (regardless of the wages.) If I force some one to work for me it doesn't matter if I give them an allowance of $1,000/week or $10,000/month , they are still slaves, especially if by law they are prohibited from leaving my employ like serfs, or even worse, I am prohibited from firing them and thus am a slave to them.

The only way society can stand is through voluntary interactions. Anything else is tyrannical, evil, and innoble.
 

ChChoda

Well-Known Member
Will to power?

Not so much, I personally think that society is defined by the voluntary interactions that take place between individuals. It would not do an actor or actress any good to make a movie that doesn't get watched if they expect to get paid, and it doesn't make sense to force people to watch a movie that they don't want to just to give money to actors and actresses.

Government is needed only to keep order and ensure that all transactions are indeed voluntary, whether they be prostitution, purchasing of drugs, or whatever else.

Government collecting taxes to hand out alms for the power is not logical. It leads to the abuse of power, because now people have no control over their wealth. An inventor might be in the middle of using their capital to make some astonishing discovery that makes human life 1,000 times better, when the government takes it and thus the inventor is now reduced to having to seek employ by a corporation to gain access to the resources needed to continue to invent.

Government then makes laws that state that any invention that the inventor invents while at work is the property of their employer.

Taxation slows progress, and destroys charity while slowing the economy and human progress.

Then there's the fact that regulations are always changing. Rule by law means Rule by law, but the United States has turned that around and has made it rule by whim. We can not honestly state that we are a Republic when every 2 - 4 - 6 years a new group of politicians is elected with promises to change society.

That's not Rule by Law, that's Rule by Whim, in a capricious arbitrary fashion that ignores that different people will value different things at different values at different times.

My statement that my world revolves around me doesn't preclude me being charitable to others, it just means that such action should be entirely my choice.

Of course, involuntary charity is not charity, just as involuntary servitude is not the same as voluntary employment (regardless of the wages.) If I force some one to work for me it doesn't matter if I give them an allowance of $1,000/week or $10,000/month , they are still slaves, especially if by law they are prohibited from leaving my employ like serfs, or even worse, I am prohibited from firing them and thus am a slave to them.

The only way society can stand is through voluntary interactions. Anything else is tyrannical, evil, and innoble.
Hey, that's good stuff. Can I tell people that I wrote it?
 

ViRedd

New Member
You cannot insult me for the belief that I am a scholar. It does not make me arrogant. My life and career revolve around ideas and reading and publishing and teaching. It's what I do. We are 'scholars' in certain fields and political philosophy (as well as Classical Greek philosophy) is my field. There's no reason to be offended. I've put in the time and I have the passion - that makes me a scholar. Deal with it. If you knew me, you would find that I'm in no way pretentious. However, I do not submit to being politically correct. My honesty often translates as arrogance, but it's not.

Otherwise, nice post. I see the parallels. I see the parallels between our society and many dystopian pictures painted in various novels. I also see the parallels between our society and ancient Rome. However, I do not think the solution is through egoism. I honestly believe that only through the realization of our collective situation can we ever accomplish anything. I DO think that's the reality of the situation.

On another note, have you seen the Rand interviews? I'm curious.

And yes, Rand (in addition to most libertarians) is extremely pro-choice.
Well, my intention wasn't to insult you ... but only to get your attention. :lol:

I'm just a guy who has worked his ass off his entire life. I'm one who resents being placed in an altruistic, collectivist army of citizens by government edict. I much prefer private charity as I believe that coersion is not charity, but force.

As a scholar, you must know that what is happening in this country now, has been tried many times before, with disastrous results.

You've stated this:

"However, I do not think the solution is through egoism. I honestly believe that only through the realization of our collective situation can we ever accomplish anything. I DO think that's the reality of the situation."

With all due respect, jrh, I believe this is the mindset of a person who is insulated from reality. Academia has a way of doing that to a person.

America is, and has been, the greatest wealth creating engine in the history of the planet. This wealth has created, through individual initiative, kindness, charity, generosity, temperance, courage, forgiveness, and humility, all of which are the basis of Any Rand's ethics, the best overall living standards on earth. Countries that base their systems on collectivism have lower living standards, a less free populous, a lower rate in inventiveness ... and some have even "progressed" into slave states.

I'm wondering, have you ever read Ominous Parallels by Leonard Piekoff? Piekoff was in Ayn Rand's inner circle, as was Alan Greenspan. Here's the book if you haven't read it:

http://www.amazon.com/Ominous-Parallels-Brilliant-parallels-pre-Hitler/dp/0452011175

And as to Rand's interviews, I think I saw the one where she was testifying in front of the Senate regarding the communist infiltration in Hollywood back in the '50s. Not sure though ... maybe I read it.

Also, I haven't read her play titled NIGHT OF JANUARY 16th (1934). I'm not much for following the dialogs of plays in written form.

Anyway, thanks for the friendly response to my last post. :)


Ayn Rand:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

Atlas Shrugged, author's note

Vi
 
Top