|
Post by ltfred on Mar 25, 2009 21:31:30 GMT -5
Fred, hon, do you understand, first of all, that belief in tyrannical corporate gov't is not in her book? It's the inevitable and obvious conseqeunce of the policies she supports in her book. Ergo, she can be said to support it. As far as immorality of altruism goes, what she didn't like was people who gave things to other people for no real reason other than it was "expected"--think church tithing and such. Which meant that she didn't like taxation, either. Her philosophy has a lot of points that you might actually agree with... Some things she says makes a lot of sense. She's repeatedly gramatically correct, which I respect her greatly for. I'm in awe of any bi-lingal person, but to write in a second language... yeah. In that sense she 'makes sense' for nearly all of her book. I don't think any other form of correct can be applied to her writing, without a strong negative before it. Except perhaps what was already common or accepted knowlege or a plaititude. And Peikoff is a tool bag. It seems to me that Peikoff is just her, but modern. I don't think that they have any major ideological difference of opinion.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 26, 2009 6:52:01 GMT -5
Alright. Let's have another go at it. What policies do you claim her book supports? Please explain why there should be no discernable difference between charitable giving and government taxation. Explain which parts of her philosophy are incorrect. Show me how Piekoff and her are the same.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Mar 27, 2009 3:57:00 GMT -5
What policies do you claim her book supports? A non-interventionalist government at most. And by non, she means non: no tarrifs, no social programs, no labour laws or trust laws, no State Owned Enterprises, just the 'supremely moral' free market, run by the 'atlas' CEOs of ridiculously big buisness. It's fairly obvious what is wrong with this picture. Apart from the various enormous moral problems, and the fairly severe human rights abuses that would occur (there's no such thing as freedom of movement when someone else owns the roads), economically speaking this society would be actually much less productive, not to mention stable. Please explain why there should be no discernable difference between charitable giving and government taxation. The government forces you to give them a certain amount, usually only marginally effected by your choice in an election or what have you, which they expend on 'making people better', which Rand considers immoral. She also doesn't like the 'initiation of force' by governments (she's got no problem with private individuals or corporations doing essentially the same thing). Explain which parts of her philosophy are incorrect. For a start, she has a pretty nuts idea of human nature: humans are not atoms. Not all relations can be purely 'rational', especially in her crazy definition of rational. This is fairly obviously proven by the actions of Madame Rand herself, along with her cultish 'collective'. Will write more on return. And then they get into things like defending Dickensian villains. Seriously. www.mises.org/article.aspx?Id=110&month=3&title=Scrooge+Defended&Id=3 Show me how Piekoff and her are the same. Show me how they are different.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Mar 27, 2009 12:41:07 GMT -5
And on what are you basing this reading? How do her books support these claims? We can just stick to Atlas Shrugged, if you like. What I’m asking for is proof from the book that demonstrates that this is the way she feels. You don’t have to write a dissertation, but give me some idea of the plot points that cause you to draw those conclusions, so that we’re all on the same page. Rand considers forced taxation immoral, yes. But I would suggest to you that you also think it’s immoral—when it doesn’t go to the social programs you support but rather goes to the military/defense budget or goes into the pockets of people like AIG. Let’s at least have a moment of honesty on that issue. She believed that people shouldn’t be forced by the government to give up their money, and we can criticize her for that, but only insofar as we are willing to own up to the fact that we do the same thing when it suits us. She was against it all of the time. Most of us are against it only some of the time. The government doesn’t always—in fact in the US, I would go so far as to say rarely, given the size of our defense budget—use the money for “making people better.” I would love to see more social programs. As an anarchist, I would rather control of those programs be in the hands of the local people who are affected by them, rather than through a State apparatus. I believe that local people who have a vested interest in seeing how their money is used do a better job than the State, which has a vested interest in maintaining power. But that’s just me. Ayn Rand really isn’t too far away from that position, she’s just consistently against gov’t taxation. I’m not consistently against it. As to the latter part of your claim about corporations and such, please show me what you’re talking about based on her book, again, so we’re on the same page. First, we probably need to define what you are describing about her view of human nature. Be sure too that you’re not confusing personal behavior with philosophical principles. Plenty of philosophers and thinkers were rat bastards. That doesn’t mean that there is no merit to their application of thought. She never said that humans were atoms. She knows that all relations are not purely rational. What are you using as her definition of rational, so we’re on the same page? And I look forward to it; but maybe we should stick to this right now, because it could get way out of control otherwise. Who is “they”? Objectivists? If you’re referring to the guy who wrote the article, he’s from the Mises Institute, which most Objectivists don’t really identify with. Levin (the writer of the article) is a self identified Libertarian, which Rand took great pains to distance herself from (although there are a lot of similarities). Even if Levin identifies as an Objectivist, I would say stick with Rand when you’re pointing out what the philosophy is about. Objectivists split hard only a few years after they organized—stick with the founder. I didn’t make the claim, you did. It’s not my job to do your work for you. How are they the same?
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 3, 2009 14:27:38 GMT -5
OK, Lt. Fred. Are you reading the novel now? Or have you decided to not answer/reverse your position based on lack of evidence? :-p
|
|
|
Post by Old Viking on Apr 3, 2009 16:02:37 GMT -5
Conservatives are like herpes: sporadically controllable but (sadly) perpetual in duration.
|
|
|
Post by ltfred on Apr 3, 2009 19:23:47 GMT -5
OK, Lt. Fred. Are you reading the novel now? Or have you decided to not answer/reverse your position based on lack of evidence? :-p Working on uni stuff actually. And terrified of the research that's going to have to go into this. That's my excuse anyway.
|
|
|
Post by dantesvirgil on Apr 3, 2009 23:38:16 GMT -5
OK, Lt. Fred. Are you reading the novel now? Or have you decided to not answer/reverse your position based on lack of evidence? :-p Working on uni stuff actually. And terrified of the research that's going to have to go into this. That's my excuse anyway. OK, I'll make a compromise with you then. If you'll stop using terms like "Randroid" and attributing things to her books, I'll quit calling you on it and asking you to prove it. We can delay the intellectual battle to another day. If you want.
|
|