Log in

View Full Version : Here, something for you to dissect



John Galt
10th May 2004, 02:35
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d'Anconia. "Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can't exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force. Money is made possible only by the men who produce. Is this what you consider evil?

"When you accept money in payment for your effort, you do so only on the conviction that you will exchange it for the product of the effort of others. It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money. Not an ocean of tears not all the guns in the world can transform those pieces of paper in your wallet into the bread you will need to survive tomorrow. Those pieces of paper, which should have been gold, are a token of honor—your claim upon the energy of the men who produce. Your wallet is your statement of hope that somewhere in the world around you there are men who will not default on that moral principle which is the root of money, Is this what you consider evil?

"Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth.

"But you say that money is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Then is money made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? Money is made—before it can be looted or mooched—made by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can't consume more than he has produced.'

"To trade by means of money is the code of the men of good will. Money rests on the axiom that every man is the owner of his mind and his effort. Money allows no power to prescribe the value of your effort except the voluntary choice of the man who is willing to trade you his effort in return. Money permits you to obtain for your goods and your labor that which they are worth to the men who buy them, but no more. Money permits no deals except those to mutual benefit by the unforced judgment of the traders. Money demands of you the recognition that men must work for their own benefit, not for their own injury, for their gain, not their loss—the recognition that they are not beasts of burden, born to carry the weight of your misery—that you must offer them values, not wounds—that the common bond among men is not the exchange of suffering, but the exchange of goods. Money demands that you sell, not your weakness to men's stupidity, but your talent to their reason; it demands that you buy, not the shoddiest they offer, but the best that your money can find. And when men live by trade—with reason, not force, as their final arbiter—it is the best product that wins, the best performance, the man of best judgment and highest ability—and the degree of a man's productiveness is the degree of his reward. This is the code of existence whose tool and symbol is money. Is this what you consider evil?

"But money is only a tool. It will take you wherever you wish, but it will not replace you as the driver. It will give you the means for the satisfaction of your desires, but it will not provide you with desires. Money is the scourge of the men who attempt to reverse the law of causality—the men who seek to replace the mind by seizing the products of the mind.

"Money will not purchase happiness for the man who has no concept of what he wants: money will not give him a code of values, if he's evaded the knowledge of what to value, and it will not provide him with a purpose, if he's evaded the choice of what to seek. Money will not buy intelligence for the fool, or admiration for the coward, or respect for the incompetent. The man who attempts to purchase the brains of his superiors to serve him, with his money replacing his judgment, ends up by becoming the victim of his inferiors. The men of intelligence desert him, but the cheats and the frauds come flocking to him, drawn by a law which he has not discovered: that no man may be smaller than his money. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Only the man who does not need it, is fit to inherit wealth—the man who would make his own fortune no matter where he started. If an heir is equal to his money, it serves him; if not, it destroys him. But you look on and you cry that money corrupted him. Did it? Or did he corrupt his money? Do not envy a worthless heir; his wealth is not yours and you would have done no better with it. Do not think that it should have been distributed among you; loading the world with fifty parasites instead of one, would not bring back the dead virtue which was the fortune. Money is a living power that dies without its root. Money will not serve the mind that cannot match it. Is this the reason why you call it evil?

"Money is your means of survival. The verdict you pronounce upon the source of your livelihood is the verdict you pronounce upon your life. If the source is corrupt, you have damned your own existence. Did you get your money by fraud? By pandering to men's vices or men's stupidity? By catering to fools, in the hope of getting more than your ability deserves? By lowering your standards? By doing work you despise for purchasers you scorn? If so, then your money will not give you a moment's or a penny's worth of joy. Then all the things you buy will become, not a tribute to you, but a reproach; not an achievement, but a reminder of shame. Then you'll scream that money is evil. Evil, because it would not pinch-hit for your self-respect? Evil, because it would not let you enjoy your depravity? Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Money will always remain an effect and refuse to replace you as the cause. Money is the product of virtue, but it will not give you virtue and it will not redeem your vices. Money will not give you the unearned, neither in matter nor in spirit. Is this the root of your hatred of money?

"Or did you say it's the love of money that's the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It's the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money—and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.

"Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.

"Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun.

"But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich—will not remain rich for long. They are the natural bait for the swarms of looters that stay under rocks for centuries, but come crawling out at the first smell of a man who begs to be forgiven for the guilt of owning wealth. They will hasten to relieve him of the guilt—and of his life, as he deserves.

"Then you will see the rise of the men of the double standard—the men who live by force, yet count on those who live by trade to create the value of their looted money—the men who are the hitchhikers of virtue. In a moral society, these are the criminals, and the statutes are written to protect you against them. But when a society establishes criminals-by-right and looters-by-law—men who use force to seize the wealth of disarmed victims—then money becomes its creators' avenger. Such looters believe it safe to rob defenseless men, once they've passed a law to disarm them. But their loot becomes the magnet for other looters, who get it from them as they got it. Then the race goes, not to the ablest at production, but to those most ruthless at brutality. When force is the standard, the murderer wins over the pickpocket. And then that society vanishes, in a spread of ruins and slaughter.

"Do you wish to know whether that day is coming? Watch money. Money is the barometer of a society's virtue. When you see that trading is done, not by consent, but by compulsion—when you see that in order to produce, you need to obtain permission from men who produce nothing—when you see that money is flowing to those who deal, not in goods, but in favors—when you see that men get richer by graft and by pull than by work, and your laws don't protect you against them, but protect them against you—when you see corruption being rewarded and honesty becoming a self-sacrifice—you may know that your society is doomed. Money is so noble a medium that is does not compete with guns and it does not make terms with brutality. It will not permit a country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

"Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men's protection and the base of a moral existence. Destroyers seize gold and leave to its owners a counterfeit pile of paper. This kills all objective standards and delivers men into the arbitrary power of an arbitrary setter of values. Gold was an objective value, an equivalent of wealth produced. Paper is a mortgage on wealth that does not exist, backed by a gun aimed at those who are expected to produce it. Paper is a check drawn by legal looters upon an account which is not theirs: upon the virtue of the victims. Watch for the day when it bounces, marked, 'Account overdrawn.'

"When you have made evil the means of survival, do not expect men to remain good. Do not expect them to stay moral and lose their lives for the purpose of becoming the fodder of the immoral. Do not expect them to produce, when production is punished and looting rewarded. Do not ask, 'Who is destroying the world? You are.

"You stand in the midst of the greatest achievements of the greatest productive civilization and you wonder why it's crumbling around you, while you're damning its life-blood—money. You look upon money as the savages did before you, and you wonder why the jungle is creeping back to the edge of your cities. Throughout men's history, money was always seized by looters of one brand or another, whose names changed, but whose method remained the same: to seize wealth by force and to keep the producers bound, demeaned, defamed, deprived of honor. That phrase about the evil of money, which you mouth with such righteous recklessness, comes from a time when wealth was produced by the labor of slaves—slaves who repeated the motions once discovered by somebody's mind and left unimproved for centuries. So long as production was ruled by force, and wealth was obtained by conquest, there was little to conquer, Yet through all the centuries of stagnation and starvation, men exalted the looters, as aristocrats of the sword, as aristocrats of birth, as aristocrats of the bureau, and despised the producers, as slaves, as traders, as shopkeepers—as industrialists.

"To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the American industrialist.

"If you ask me to name the proudest distinction of Americans, I would choose—because it contains all the others—the fact that they were the people who created the phrase 'to make money.' No other language or nation had ever used these words before; men had always thought of wealth as a static quantity—to be seized, begged, inherited, shared, looted of obtained as a favor. Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality.

"Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents. Now the looters' credo has brought you to regard your proudest achievements as a hallmark of shame, your prosperity as guilt, your greatest men, the industrialists, as blackguards, and your magnificent factories as the product and property of muscular labor, the labor of whip-driven slaves, like the pyramids of Egypt. The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide— as, I think, he will.

"Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out."



Exerpted from Atlas Shrugged

Professor Moneybags
10th May 2004, 07:29
This lot ? Refute that ? Fat chance.

(But couldn't you have just posted a link ?)

Guest1
10th May 2004, 07:46
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 10 2004, 02:29 AM
This lot ? Refute that ? Fat chance.
Well, it is Ayn Rand. I don't see why any self-respecting human being would even bother refuting that spiritual materialism, subjective objectivism bullshit.

She's a materialist who can't give up spirituality, so she makes a religion out of materialism.

No one takes her seriously and there never was, never is and there never will be a reason to address the drivel that comes from her school of thought.

More like a cult if you ask me.

RedAnarchist
10th May 2004, 08:12
Anyone who is neither physically or mentally strong enough to reject materialism is a very poor person indeed, regardless of material wealth.

Ayn Rand is one of these people.

Guest1
10th May 2004, 08:49
By materialism, I of course meant the ironic materialism. Not greed-related materialism.

As in, the opposite of spirituality, a world-view based entirely on "reason" and "rationality".

Marxists are almost exclusively materialist, in that we reject the spiritual world, because it is unverifiable, and therefore not grounded in rationality.

I believe, however, that Ayn Rand takes materialism to the level of irrational rationality. She is so full of contradictions that make her impossible to take seriously. Her form of materialism is entirely religious.

She rejects the notion of a "controlling force" in life so completely that she comes out the other side. She ends up believing that everything is within the hands of the individual "if they work hard enough".

Bullshit.

NYC4Ever
10th May 2004, 18:59
Oh and you want me to believe that everything you guys read from Chomsky to Zinn and back again to Marx is not collectivist thinking? The idea that other people are not reading the "right" books is the only argument you people have when refuting claims that come your way. IF someone presents something to you, you ask who wrote that and accuse the person of being a fascist, and or a materialistic wench. Your whole case revolves around mob mentality, moral relativism, and unbias news sources. There is hardly a note of objectionism in any rants that come from leftists eager to make the United States look like the Empire you people make it out to be.

Osman Ghazi
10th May 2004, 19:26
NYC4EVER, you don't make any sense. How could we possibly be unbiased, yet unobjective also? It doesn't make any sense. Maybe we'll debate your points further when you can form a coherant sentence.

John Galt
10th May 2004, 19:40
4 posts by communists, 0 comments on the actual exerpt.

Intead, only ad hominem attacks to the author.

Guest1
10th May 2004, 20:05
Yep. I don't care what she has to say. She wrote fiction, and now for some reason some cultists are taking her as a political guru.

There's a difference between writing a good story about a magical fairy land of fair Capitalism and having any fucking clue about how the real world works.

Besides, the whole thing is full of ad hominem attacks on us.


Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it.
I guess that gives us a clue just how "rational" she was.

DaCuBaN
10th May 2004, 21:09
Let me give you a tip on a clue to men's characters: the man who damns money has obtained it dishonorably; the man who respects it has earned it

I could see it being this:

'The man who obtains money dishonorably damns it; the man who has earned money respects it'

But the inverse is CERTAINLY not true, and even that way round it's massively flawed.


It is not the moochers or the looters who give value to money

I don't know why so many capitalists take this line - personally I hate thieves and leeches, and I doubt I'm alone on this flank.


Have you ever looked for the root of production? Take a look at an electric generator and dare tell yourself that it was created by the muscular effort of unthinking brutes. Try to grow a seed of wheat without the knowledge left to you by men who had to discover it for the first time. Try to obtain your food by means of nothing but physical motions—and you'll learn that man's mind is the root of all the goods produced and of all the wealth that has ever existed on earth

'Wealth' and 'money' are two different things, and agreed that invention requires intellectual development before it can bear fruits - this is not unique to a monetary-based society, so how could anyone reasonably make this claim?


Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think.

I agree, I just wish she knew what she was saying :lol:


Is money made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy?

Is money made by the corrupt at the expense of the just? by the privileged at the expense of the few? by the zealous at the expense of the meek? This is just bullshit!


Run for your life from any man who tells you that money is evil. That sentence is the leper's bell of an approaching looter. So long as men live together on earth and need means to deal with one another—their only substitute, if they abandon money, is the muzzle of a gun

Nice broad mind I see. What a reputable source this is indeed. Might I ask who the hell this woman actually is/was?


To the glory of mankind, there was, for the first and only time in history, a country of money—and I have no higher, more reverent tribute to pay to America, for this means: a country of reason, justice, freedom, production, achievement. For the first time, man's mind and money were set free, and there were no fortunes-by-conquest, but only fortunes-by-work, and instead of swordsmen and slaves, there appeared the real maker of wealth, the greatest worker, the highest type of human being—the self-made man—the American industrialist

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Of course there was no fortune-by-conquest. That's not why you spent the last 200 years at war with various peoples, abused the indigeonous peoples of the continent, lied, cheated, stole. This is The American Dream after all.

I don't dispute there are 'good' capitalists out there, but this woman is making the US out to be utopia - I think not.


Americans were the first to understand that wealth has to be created. The words 'to make money' hold the essence of human morality

wealth is created: money is accrued. Essence of morality? somewhat subjective I believe, and in all honesty if you must use productivity as this 'to make' simply works better


Yet these were the words for which Americans were denounced by the rotted cultures of the looters' continents

ooooh bitter. <_<


The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide— as, I think, he will

Pain now or pain later: the whip or the dollar, there is no difference


Blood, whips and guns—or dollars. Take your choice—there is no other—and your time is running out

And she decides to close her argument with the thought that violence or extortion and exploitation are the only way. Ain&#39;t she a cheery soul.

Nas
10th May 2004, 21:16
"So you think that money is the root of all evil?" said Francisco d&#39;Anconia.

No, you got it wrong, love of money is the root of evil

money does not equal evil
and don&#39;t make people think "money" equals "evil" , ok?

enough said. :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer: :hammer:

DaCuBaN
10th May 2004, 21:19
Or did you say it&#39;s the love of money that&#39;s the root of all evil? To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It&#39;s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money—and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it. They know they are able to deserve it.


the love of money, rather than the joy in creation is the root. This woman tries to bundle the two into one: in other words she can&#39;t think outside her reality - a monetary-based society.

Professor Moneybags
10th May 2004, 21:31
Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 10 2004, 08:49 AM
By materialism, I of course meant the ironic materialism. Not greed-related materialism.
"Spiritualism" vs "Materialism" is a false dichotomy.

Sorry, boys, you&#39;ve been suckered.


And she decides to close her argument with the thought that violence or extortion and exploitation are the only way. Ain&#39;t she a cheery soul.

We let&#39;s put it this way : Communism doesn&#39;t exactly have a good track record of non-violence and respect for individual rights, does it ? It hated capitalism and lived by the gun (violence) and the whip (gulags).

(And don&#39;t start the "wasn&#39;t real communism" bunk again; these consequences were consistent with the directions given in the mannifesto.)

Guest1
10th May 2004, 21:46
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 10 2004, 04:31 PM
"Spiritualism" vs "Materialism" is a false dichotomy.
An how is that exactly?

Materialism is the belief in the scientific, rather than the superstitious. She combines both, as she can&#39;t make up her mind about which she wants to believe in.

It is that kind of attitude that leads to bullshit like "Scientology", as well as her specific brand of bullshit, "Objectivism".

Professor Moneybags
10th May 2004, 21:52
Originally posted by Che y [email protected] 10 2004, 09:46 PM
It is that kind of attitude that leads to bullshit like "Scientology", as well as her specific brand of bullshit, "Objectivism".
Please read up on it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivist_philosophy) before you start making asses of yourselves.

DaCuBaN
10th May 2004, 21:54
We let&#39;s put it this way : Communism doesn&#39;t exactly have a good track record of non-violence and respect for individual rights, does it ? It hated capitalism and lived by the gun (violence) and the whip (gulags).

(And don&#39;t start the "wasn&#39;t real communism" bunk again; these consequences were consistent with the directions given in the mannifesto.)

OK, we&#39;ve agreed it was not real communism but the results of failed communism, so let&#39;s advance from there. So these &#39;failed attempts&#39; have always resulted in oppressive and violent regimes? A debatable point in itself but even if we take it as given, the track record of monetary-based society is just as brutal, especially throughout the still-running imperial era

Examples Roman Empire, Ottoman Empire, Persian Empire, British Empire, UISoA - they have all been just as brutal.

I can post links if you like, though a jaunt through the History forum should suffice most for links. Just ask :)

Guest1
10th May 2004, 22:02
I have read up on it. My point was already made clear earlier:


Marxists are almost exclusively materialist, in that we reject the spiritual world, because it is unverifiable, and therefore not grounded in rationality.

I believe, however, that Ayn Rand takes materialism to the level of irrational rationality. She is so full of contradictions that make her impossible to take seriously. Her form of materialism is entirely religious.

She rejects the notion of a "controlling force" in life so completely that she comes out the other side. She ends up believing that everything is within the hands of the individual "if they work hard enough".

Bullshit.

You can&#39;t deny that her devotion to the idea of "the virtue of selfishness" is almost religious. It&#39;s not grounded in rationality at all. Here belief that economic conditions are a myth created by the lazy homeless conspiracy to take the honest, hardworking rich people&#39;s money is just rediculous. Her assertions that anyone, if they weren&#39;t lazy, could be rich are idiotic.

You must admit, not anyone can be rich, it&#39;s a lottery and in most cases has nothing to do with hard work.

DaCuBaN
10th May 2004, 22:09
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




On the Objectivist view, sensory perception is axiomatically "valid", on the grounds that it is allegedly self-contradictory to deny the efficacy of the senses as sources of genuine knowledge

By this logic, the trick that allows you to see a hole in your hand is actually making a hole in your hand. What a thinker&#33;


Far from regarding capitalism as a dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest, devil-take-the-hindmost pattern of social organization, Objectivism regards it as a beneficent system in which the innovations of the most creative benefit everyone else in the society at no loss to anyone. Indeed, Objectivism accords a high level of respect to creative achievement itself and regards capitalism as the only kind of society in which it can flourish

The ONLY kind of society in which it can flourish? Prove it - there is no evidence available to say that other forms of government or self-government can or cannot flourish. At a loss to no-one? now THAT is idealistic. How can a system that openly admits it&#39;s every man for himself, and turn around and say that no-one will lose out?

Oh I forgot - she tried to justify that:


according to Objectivism, objective reality is noncontradictory; no two facts of reality can contradict each other

:rolleyes: :lol:

New Tolerance
11th May 2004, 00:21
The individuals of the working class are pursuing their own wishes, and in doing so they head the society toward socialism. So if you set up a purely captialist society and allow everyone to pursue their wishes, it wouldn&#39;t be long before this "captialism" turns itself back to a mixed economy.

NYC4Ever
11th May 2004, 04:12
Oh and you want me to believe that everything you guys read from Chomsky to Zinn and back again to Marx is not collectivist thinking? The idea that other people are not reading the "right" books is the only argument you people have when refuting claims that come your way. IF someone presents something to you, you ask who wrote that and accuse the person of being a fascist, and or a materialistic wench. Your whole case revolves around mob mentality, moral relativism, and unbias news sources. There is hardly a note of objectionism in any rants that come from leftists eager to make the United States look like the Empire you people make it out to be.

Whoops. I meant bias newsources. My bad. That looked totally bad. I appologize.

Professor Moneybags
11th May 2004, 06:40
You can&#39;t deny that her devotion to the idea of "the virtue of selfishness" is almost religious. It&#39;s not grounded in rationality at all.

You mean it&#39;s not grounded in populism therefore cannot be right ? Please explain why it&#39;s almost religious.


By this logic, the trick that allows you to see a hole in your hand is actually making a hole in your hand. What a thinker&#33;

Unless you happen to think there is some grand matrix-style conspiracy going on to "trick" your senses in a similar manner, the evidence of the senses do remain a genuine source of knowledge.


At a loss to no-one? now THAT is idealistic. How can a system that openly admits it&#39;s every man for himself, and turn around and say that no-one will lose out?

Because you are using Neiztchen definition of selfishness.


according to Objectivism, objective reality is noncontradictory; no two facts of reality can contradict each other


Point out one single example of where the facts of reality contradict themselves.


The individuals of the working class are pursuing their own wishes, and in doing so they head the society toward socialism.

Unfortunately, their wishes involve violating each other&#39;s rights.


So if you set up a purely captialist society and allow everyone to pursue their wishes,

We&#39;re talking about capitalism, not anarchy. You&#39;re not free to pursue any act that violates the rights of another.

Shredder
11th May 2004, 06:47
Money is made possible only by the men who produce.

Indeed, labor is the only way to create new value. I&#39;m glad Ms. Rand likes the LTV.

But as usual, Rand starts off with a sentence vague enough to be accepted, before plummetting us into the darkest depths of her insanity.

What she fails to account for--nay,what she scrambles to throw a fig leaf over--is the fact that the rich do not produce. They simply own. He who profits from the motor did not invent it. He bought the patent off the shelf, as Bill Gates bought DOS for &#036;500.

I don&#39;t know exactly what you&#39;re expecting. We couldn&#39;t attack the validity of that essay any more than we could attack the validity of Harry Potter. If you really wanted me to annihilate Rand... On one hand I could invent stunning disprovals of her objectivism book, but on the other hand, it&#39;s much more challenging to invent stunning aspersions.

On the subject of Rand, one poster remarked: "She wrote fiction."

But to this, he should have added, "And nothing else."

Guest1
11th May 2004, 06:57
Shredder, you da man&#33; You&#39;re right though, I should have said and nothing else.

I still can&#39;t believe anybody reads that shite and takes it as anything more than it really is, an interesting story.

Then again, that&#39;s what I said about the bible.

Osman Ghazi
11th May 2004, 10:47
Unfortunately, their wishes involve violating each other&#39;s rights.


And the owners would like to do what? Give more rights to the workers? Protect them from exploitation? No. In fact, capitalism involves an even more disgusting violation of rights. Under capitalism, the worker will never have the right to be free from exploitation. He will never be free.

ÑóẊîöʼn
11th May 2004, 11:02
Unless you happen to think there is some grand matrix-style conspiracy going on to "trick" your senses in a similar manner, the evidence of the senses do remain a genuine source of knowledge.

So according to my senses, the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around it? It doesn&#39;t, therefore invalidating the human senses as the ONLY source of knowledge.

Our senses are simply too ineffecient to find out about some things, that why we invent instruments for measuring them.

Professor Moneybags
11th May 2004, 21:20
Originally posted by [email protected] 11 2004, 11:02 AM
Our senses are simply too ineffecient to find out about some things, that why we invent instruments for measuring them.
What it means is there are no magical or mystical ways of gaining knowlege, don&#39;t take it out of context.

Oh, and as for the rest of you, it&#39;s great to see my point about the facts of reality being addressed (not). No arguments, just the usual jeering and ad hominem from the peanut gallery. What a waste of time.

New Tolerance
11th May 2004, 21:31
Unfortunately, their wishes involve violating each other&#39;s rights.

It&#39;s not a perfect world. That&#39;s why it&#39;s so interesting.


We&#39;re talking about capitalism, not anarchy. You&#39;re not free to pursue any act that violates the rights of another.

If it is an ulimate rule that you can&#39;t mess with other people&#39;s rights, then the more rights people have, the less freedom they actually have, because now you always have to worry about how not to getting in the way of other people&#39;s rights (which limits what you can do) instead of worrying about how to use your own rights. (This has nothing to do with captialism though, it&#39;s just a thought)


not anarchy

But I thought that there will be no taxes, if not then how are you going to maintain the state? and if there is no state then how is it not anarchy?

DaCuBaN
11th May 2004, 21:35
On the Objectivist view, sensory perception is axiomatically "valid", on the grounds that it is allegedly self-contradictory to deny the efficacy of the senses as sources of genuine knowledge

hmmm what was that about taking things out of context: hypocrite i cry&#33;
By the logic of the quoted statement if I can see a hole in my hand it exists.


What it means is there are no magical or mystical ways of gaining knowlege

This is not what it means - this is your perception of the author&#39;s *ahem* "work". I merely pointed out the huge flaw in her analogy to demonstrate what a fool this woman was/is


Point out one single example of where the facts of reality contradict themselves.

Going on the logic that information from the sense is infallable as the author has already suggested I return to the trick to make you see a hole in your hand where one does not exist.I covered both these points in one in my inital post, my apologies if I did not make it idiot-proof.


it is allegedly self-contradictory to deny the efficacy of the senses

There&#39;s a contradiction on the facts for you... The sense can be fooled and as such are not infallable. This is reality to the objectivist. It&#39;s almost ironic :D ;)

Subversive Pessimist
11th May 2004, 21:46
Comrades, even though you might not like the message, I think we should at least answer with serious critisism, rather then just "(s)he is an idiot."

Guest1
11th May 2004, 21:46
Originally posted by New [email protected] 11 2004, 04:31 PM

not anarchy

But I thought that there will be no taxes, if not then how are you going to maintain the state? and if there is no state then how is it not anarchy?
Careful friend, that&#39;s an offensive conclusion.

There is no such thing as "Anarcho-Capitalism".

Professor Moneybags
12th May 2004, 07:39
If it is an ulimate rule that you can&#39;t mess with other people&#39;s rights, then the more rights people have, the less freedom they actually have, because now you always have to worry about how not to getting in the way of other people&#39;s rights (which limits what you can do) instead of worrying about how to use your own rights. (This has nothing to do with captialism though, it&#39;s just a thought)

Don&#39;t kill or steal from anyone. Is that really a difficult task to follow ?


But I thought that there will be no taxes, if not then how are you going to maintain the state? and if there is no state then how is it not anarchy?

It should be finded through non-coercive means.


By the logic of the quoted statement if I can see a hole in my hand it exists.

Only if you take it out of context.


This is not what it means - this is your perception of the author&#39;s *ahem* "work".

No, that is what it means. It&#39;s a safe bet I&#39;ve read a damn sight more about the subject than you.


I merely pointed out the huge flaw in her analogy to demonstrate what a fool this woman was/is

Going on the logic that information from the sense is infallable as the author has already suggested I return to the trick to make you see a hole in your hand where one does not exist.I covered both these points in one in my inital post, my apologies if I did not make it idiot-proof.


No, you took it out of context tried to claim that the whole world might just as easily be an optical illusion, just like the hand trick. Tell me how exactly is it possible to know anything without use of the senses (falliable or not) ?


There&#39;s a contradiction on the facts for you... The sense can be fooled and as such are not infallable. This is reality to the objectivist. It&#39;s almost ironic

It&#39;s self contradictory to read this post and comment on it, as it might be an illusion just like the hand trick. Senses can be fooled, but to say they&#39;re permenently fooled or that there are extra-sensory means of gaining knowledge is fallacious.

Guest1
12th May 2004, 07:49
Originally posted by Professor [email protected] 12 2004, 02:39 AM
Don&#39;t kill or steal from anyone. Is that really a difficult task to follow ?
When did you turn into a Communist?

Professor Moneybags
12th May 2004, 08:58
Originally posted by Che y Marijuana+May 12 2004, 07:49 AM--> (Che y Marijuana @ May 12 2004, 07:49 AM)
Professor [email protected] 12 2004, 02:39 AM
Don&#39;t kill or steal from anyone. Is that really a difficult task to follow ?
When did you turn into a Communist? [/b]
Communism - in theory and practice- consists entirely of killing and stealing.

ÑóẊîöʼn
12th May 2004, 11:17
At least we&#39;re killing and stealing from those who deserve it.

Osman Ghazi
12th May 2004, 12:32
Well, by this logic, if a schizophrenic (sp?) hears voices in his head, then the voices actually exist in the real world. No?

And I wouldn&#39;t say that it consists entirely of killing and stealing, though &#39;killing and stealing&#39; is an important part. If you think that it is the whole thing though, you are simply denying the facts.

DaCuBaN
12th May 2004, 18:58
This is not what it means - this is your perception

I can understand you dismissing this statement as erroneous, but it is by no means false. Are you telling me this woman could not have been wrong?


Communism - in theory and practice- consists entirely of killing and stealing

It only appears this way if you choose to hoard and accrue wealth.


What it means is there are no magical or mystical ways of gaining knowlege

Thought is not a sense per say, yet opinions and beliefs can be formulated without outside influence (from the senses). These thoughts are to be instantly dismissed, regardless of their content?

Professor Moneybags
12th May 2004, 19:16
Originally posted by Osman [email protected] 12 2004, 12:32 PM
Well, by this logic, if a schizophrenic (sp?) hears voices in his head, then the voices actually exist in the real world. No?
A schizophrenic is by definition, not mentally sound. The "voices" do not exist, otherwise everyone else would hear them too wouldn&#39;t they ?


I can understand you dismissing this statement as erroneous, but it is by no means false. Are you telling me this woman could not have been wrong?

It wouldn&#39;t make sense to say so. See below.


Thought is not a sense per say, yet opinions and beliefs can be formulated without outside influence (from the senses). These thoughts are to be instantly dismissed, regardless of their content?

I meant that there are no extra-sensory means of gaining knowledge about reality. Your thoughts are only an intergration and product of those sensory percepts and the subsequent concepts (or anti-concepts) you have formulated with them. Hence some of your thoughts will be wrong, others right. The ones that are wrong are the ones that have no basis in reality.

Osman Ghazi
12th May 2004, 21:01
A schizophrenic is by definition, not mentally sound. The "voices" do not exist, otherwise everyone else would hear them too wouldn&#39;t they ?


But he hears them, does he not?

By your logic, if the senses tell you that something is true, it is.