Opinions Regarding Ayn Rand [Archive]

anomaly

22nd March 2006, 02:30

I have treaded through her disaster known as Atlas Shrugged in my brief time on earth, and I felt like ripping it to shreds by the time I was done.

Clownpenisanarchy is spot-on:

The only people who take her seriously are angsty "individualist" teenagers and libertarians. And nobody takes them seriously.

Obviously, and sadly, correct (especially about the teenagers...).

Ayn Rand's 'ideal' society is one in which the owners of capital rule with absolute power over the 'proles'. Her 'virtues' of selfishness frankly don't make any sense, nor does the entirety of her intellectual torture device called 'objectivism'. What Ms. Rand couldn't quite figure out is that her petty 'philosophy' was a result of objective material conditions.

In any case, if you like democracy, throw a public book burning of her works. Don't bother with the shit. Because that's all it is.

Licens Credo

22nd March 2006, 02:34

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:21 AM
She is a pseudo-philosopher, as far as I am concerned.

I suppose a pseudo-philosopher is a good way of describing of her. Anyone who has read some of her non-fiction works can easily pick up on contradictions and the fact that a lot of her ideas are of no new precedence.

--

In regards to your “angst” comment, I in all honesty saw the inverse of that during high school. I found most of the angst crowd to be staunch ‘socialist’ or ‘communist’ and you think reading 10 pages of Rand is bad, you should have seen the articles in the school paper - I cringe thinking of them. Though from what I gather, you have never bothered reading one of her novels, correct?

bezdomni

22nd March 2006, 02:40

In regards to your “angst” comment, I in all honesty saw the inverse of that during high school.
Strange.

Though from what I gather, you have never bothered reading one of her novels, correct?
Unfortunately, no. I've had to read Anthem for school, and I read about half of The Fountainhead because a friend kept bugging me about it.

I've also read some of her lesser essays. Objectivism is a fairly simple philosophy, one not requiring intensive study. I don't feel like I would arrive at any further understand if I were to "finish" The Fountainhead (I know how it ends) or any of her other "works.

red team

22nd March 2006, 02:41

There's different kinds of individualism.

Nobody should care or interfere with individual life-style choices. That's all a part of individual liberty which all progressive people assume to be a worthwhile property of society.

Individualism in material or intellectual production is a myth. All that's needed to expose this as such is to point out all the societal support in both material and intellectual areas that goes into supporting any given direct producer of material or intellectual wealth.

And sure you can quantify an individual contribution to the total material output of a society so that a worker gets rewarded equivalent to the amount of output the worker produced, but can you do this within the current monetary and economic system? Think about this for a moment. A worker expending the same amount of effort will get paid differently and have differing amounts of purchasing power depending on where he or she works! And this doesn't even take into account the different productive power of machinery that each worker uses when performing work.

bezdomni

22nd March 2006, 02:48

Originally posted by red [email protected] 22 2006, 02:44 AM

Nobody should care or interfere with individual life-style choices. That's all a part of individual liberty which all progressive people assume to be a worthwhile property of society.

Ayn Rand disagrees.

Homosexuality is immoral and disgusting
-Ford Hall Appearance, 1971

Amusing Scrotum

22nd March 2006, 02:52

There are a couple of pieces that mention her on redstar's site....

The "Mind" of the Capitalist December 26, 2003 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083424463&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

And....

Right-Wing "Libertarianism" and the Restoration of Slavery January 9, 2004 by RedStar2000 (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083547923&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

They deal more with Randian -- Libertarian Capitalist -- philosophy than Rand herself, who....

Originally posted by Hari
....was born into a family of wealthy Russian merchants during the moody dawn of the twentieth century, and she spent her teenage years watching their riches and their dignity being stripped away by the Bolshevik Revolution....

http://www.johannhari.com/archive/article.php?id=756

Poor woman. :lol:

Basically, she spent her life pissed because her families wealth had been taken away meaning she had to get a real job -- well, sort of real any way! -- as an ideologue for the bourgeois!

However, her ideas were shit and the American ruling class, mostly, dismisses them as impractical.

Though the Neo-Conservative cabal has incorporated some of her ramblings -- likely because they have a strong fascist odour about them which fits in perfectly with the worldview within the cabal of the Strauss-Shachtman descendants.

Licens Credo

22nd March 2006, 02:57

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:51 AM

Homosexuality is immoral and disgusting
-Ford Hall Appearance, 1971
I'm assuming Ayn Rand said that on "Objective/Rational" (Her definitions of rational/objective, heh) thinking, which really doesn't hold that much credit but when you quote Rand, one need keep in mind the mentality she's coming from, I would probably say the same thing if I was a Randian. But that reminds, there was an article published regarding the cult like structure of Randian groups... I'll try to find it.

redstar2000

22nd March 2006, 03:14

In my late teens, I read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Literary taste is very individual, granted, but I found them to be exceptionally bad novels. And this was long before I was anything even remotely resembling a Marxist.

I can see their appeal to some kinds of disaffected teens; the books invite the reader to consider himself/herself to be "someone really special" who will "move far ahead" of their contemporaries. That's an attractive fantasy and shows up in lots of books popular among adolescents. Young intellectuals are often especially attracted to Nietzsche for the same reason.

In terms of serious philosophical thought, she's a non-starter. I think only one academic philosopher ever bothered to write a critique of her ideas...and he just completely trashed them. :lol:

She did have considerable appeal to a lot of conservative kids who later became celebrities in the Reagen years...but they never tried to implement her wacko economic policies even though they probably borrowed some of her rhetoric now and then. The recently retired chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, was in the Rand cult back in the 60s...he even wrote a couple of articles for her little newsletter. One of them concerned the necessity of returning currency to the "gold standard". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Licens Credo

22nd March 2006, 03:41

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:17 AM
I can see their appeal to some kinds of disaffected teens; the books invite the reader to consider himself/herself to be "someone really special" who will "move far ahead" of their contemporaries. That's an attractive fantasy and shows up in lots of books popular among adolescents. Young intellectuals are often especially attracted to Nietzsche for the same reason.

Heh, I can say I fell in to the appealing concept of being something greater/reaching for the top, etc. Although while reading your response I get a hint of you trying to suggest that this is a bad thing. I personally see nothing wrong with people considering the notion of becoming the best of ones abilities. When I was in high school, reading Nietzsche in many ways excluded me from being apathetic like the rest of my classmates, which in the end made me a top student academically. It’s a lot different now in university though. Though in closing, it is generally true that the youth would be attracted to Ayn Rand, I even admit to that, but it’s no different with a youth being captured in the idealism of communism, etc.

anomaly

22nd March 2006, 04:13

AS:

However, her ideas were shit and the American ruling class, mostly, dismisses them as impractical.
Well, perhaps. Redstar mentioned Alan Greenspan, and he is a self-labeled 'disciple' (this should raise some eyebrows) of Ayn Rand. I think Newt Gingrich is as well, though I'm not 100% on that. However, Newt's ideas certainly are 'Rand-like'.

Licens Credo said:

reading Nietzsche
Do you also bring whips when going to 'thy woman'? :lol:

encephalon

22nd March 2006, 11:14

she's a god damned terrible writer.

She also had a philosophy akin to fascism.. a select few are "fit" to control the world and all of its resources, while the rest should love them for that.

Her novels were also blatant propaganda, with the express purpose of being propaganda, unlike that of some other writers who write propaganda without always realizing it.

Three strikes in my book. Did I mention she's a terrible writer?

Publius

22nd March 2006, 13:07

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:17 AM

In my late teens, I read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.

Literary taste is very individual, granted, but I found them to be exceptionally bad novels. And this was long before I was anything even remotely resembling a Marxist.

I felt the same way, reading Atlas Shrugged and Anthem.

She was stupid hack who preffered detective novels to literature, read almost no philosophy (She criticized Kant without ever actually reading Kant. Oops.), and couldn't piece together a decent novel to save your life.

John Galt's 70 FUCKING PAGE SPEACH in Atlas Shrugged my be the worst passage put to page in the English language.

I can see their appeal to some kinds of disaffected teens; the books invite the reader to consider himself/herself to be "someone really special" who will "move far ahead" of their contemporaries. That's an attractive fantasy and shows up in lots of books popular among adolescents. Young intellectuals are often especially attracted to Nietzsche for the same reason.

I would note how the philosophy is Raskolnikovian, but said reference would be too high-brow for an Ayn Rand discussion.

In terms of serious philosophical thought, she's a non-starter. I think only one academic philosopher ever bothered to write a critique of her ideas...and he just completely trashed them. :lol:

I'm trying to think of a philosopher she's like, but I can't.

She's in a league of her own.

She did have considerable appeal to a lot of conservative kids who later became celebrities in the Reagen years...but they never tried to implement her wacko economic policies even though they probably borrowed some of her rhetoric now and then. The recently retired chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, Alan Greenspan, was in the Rand cult back in the 60s...he even wrote a couple of articles for her little newsletter. One of them concerned the necessity of returning currency to the "gold standard". :lol:

We'll forgive Greeney for that one.

redstar2000

22nd March 2006, 14:43

Originally posted by Licens Credo
Heh, I can say I fell in to the appealing concept of being something greater/reaching for the top, etc. Although while reading your response I get a hint of you trying to suggest that this is a bad thing.

Well, it's a thorny dilemma.

A fairly high percentage of scientists working for NASA got their start reading science fiction novels as teenagers...and who (aside from a few primitivist nutballs) would criticize that?

The problem with someone like Rand is that she invites her adolescent reader to think of himself/herself as part of a "natural elite" who is "fit to rule" his/her inferiors.

Indeed, the whole point of Atlas Shrugged is that the "natural elite" is "Atlas" and when it "refuses" to "hold up the world", the world "catastrophically collapses". The "supertrain" grinds to a halt and will not move again.

That's a really bad idea...partly because it simply isn't true but mostly because it encourages delusions of irreplaceability.

The idea that "nobody could do it as well as me" may be functionally useful for a corporate CEO --an illusion that "allows him to function" -- but what it actually encourages is the kind of dumbass behavior that ends up with an Enron or a junk-bond scandal.

Or a Lenin, Stalin, Trotsky, Mao, etc. :(

Yeah, we should try to be "as good at something" as we possibly can. But growing "the big head" is not something to be encouraged.

Wanting to be "a great man" almost always ends in disaster!

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Tungsten

22nd March 2006, 15:23

Licens Credo
Asking "what's your opinion on Ayn Rand" to this group is a bit stupid, given that they consider anyone who isn't a communist to be evil. You'd get the same response for asking about Hayek or von Mises- no serious critique of their works or rational descourse, just ad hominem and moral outrage.

The only people who take her seriously are angsty "individualist" teenagers and libertarians.
Before addressing this point, let's wish happy birthday to these people:

neworld70 (21)
Bastardo (85)
__ca va? (18)
upstart79 (27)
VermontLeft (17)
communist_(turk) (21)

Well, that's two teenagers, two near-enoughs, one adult and a "yeah, sure". Moving on:

And nobody takes them seriously.
Should I therefore not bother to take a teenage socialist seriously? Take a look at the birthday list: statistically, you've just alienated an awful lot of people.
anomaly

Ayn Rand's 'ideal' society is one in which the owners of capital rule with absolute power over the 'proles'. Her 'virtues' of selfishness frankly don't make any sense, nor does the entirety of her intellectual torture device called 'objectivism'. What Ms. Rand couldn't quite figure out is that her petty 'philosophy' was a result of objective material conditions.
I wouldn't call myself an objectivist, but I have the material in question. Unfortunately, it's quite obvious that you haven't. If you think Rand stuff is torture, try one of those other people I mentioned, particulary von Mises- I guarantee your sacred cows will be screaming in agony by the time you're finished with his books, assuming they're not already dead from shock.
redstar2000

In my late teens, I read both Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead.
When was that, last week?
clownpenisanarchy

Originally posted by red [email protected] 22 2006, 02:44 AM

Nobody should care or interfere with individual life-style choices. That's all a part of individual liberty which all progressive people assume to be a worthwhile property of society.

Ayn Rand disagrees.

Homosexuality is immoral and disgusting
-Ford Hall Appearance, 1971
Do learn the difference between not liking something and making it illegal- they're not the same thing.
encephalon

She also had a philosophy akin to fascism.. a select few are "fit" to control the world and all of its resources, while the rest should love them for that.
If my memory served me correctly, wasn't the hero of Atlas Shrugged offered the position of dictator? Didn't he turn it down? That doesn't sound like a very fascist thing to do.
Publius

(She criticized Kant without ever actually reading Kant. Oops.
I find that unlikely, considering that she quotes him all the time in "Philosophy : Who needs it". Don't sink to the level of the commie.

From what I understand, Rand was an exceptionally unpleasant character, but like Chomsky's works, there are a few gems in there if you look around hard enough. The first I heard of Rand was when she was mentioned by the Spiderman artist, Steve Ditko, so I thought I'd check it out. She's not that good a story teller, but the only problem I've found is with the interpretation; like some of Heinlein's stuff, the number of interpretations is roughly equal to the number of readers.

red team

22nd March 2006, 16:10

The first I heard of Rand was when she was mentioned by the Spiderman artist, Steve Ditko

:lol: :lol: :lol:

JazzRemington

22nd March 2006, 16:18

I'm almost tempted to read it for the sake of seeing how bad it it truly is. I remember reading someone's post on another form where if had not have known any better, he would have sworn taht one of her books was written by two different people. I also remember that one South Park episode where Officer Barbrady spends the entire episode learning to read, then reads Atlas Shrugged, only to comemn the ability to read ans wear to never read again.

Publius

22nd March 2006, 16:36

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:26 PM

I find that unlikely, considering that she quotes him all the time in "Philosophy : Who needs it". Don't sink to the level of the commie.

Then I find it doubtful she understood Kant, because I've read some of her criticism of him, and I knew what he believed, and they aren't compatible.

As a side-note, I find it strange that people adulate Rand when Hayek was a much better moral philosopher.

Tungsten

22nd March 2006, 16:38

red team
What are you laughing at smart ass? There's nothing wrong with Spiderman.

JazzRemington

I also remember that one South Park episode where Officer Barbrady spends the entire episode learning to read, then reads Atlas Shrugged, only to comemn the ability to read ans wear to never read again.
Seeing as the creator of South Park is a libertarian, I suggest you seek allies elsewhere.

Publius

As a side-note, I find it strange that people adulate Rand when Hayek was a much better moral philosopher.
They're both good, but I don't know why Rand hated Kant so much; Hume and Descartes were far worse.

Amusing Scrotum

22nd March 2006, 16:56

Originally posted by Publius+--> (Publius)She's in a league of her own.[/b]

And so are her followers! :lol:

Speaking of which....

Originally posted by [email protected]
....given that they consider anyone who isn't a communist to be evil.

Your ignorance is showing again Tungsten. As has likely been explained to you before -- communists don't "do" morality.

Therefore, Rand is not "evil", indeed the consensus seems to be that she is just, well....boring.

Tungsten
When was that, last week?

If I'm not mistaken, redstar2000 is 63! :o

However, I'm sure you've made him feel great by thinking of him as a teenager.

Rosa Lichtenstein

22nd March 2006, 17:37

CPA is right; her 'philosophy' consists of unsupported dogma, padded out with more than enough (right wing) hot air.

Why anyone bothers with it is a mystery.

I rate her even lower than Hegel; that's how poor she is.

Can't comment on her 'novels', but then I can't comment on cyanide either.

emp

22nd March 2006, 19:53

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22 2006, 05:40 PM
CPA is right; her 'philosophy' consists of unsupported dogma, padded out with more than enough (right wing) hot air.

Why anyone bothers with it is a mystery.

I rate her even lower than Hegel; that's how poor she is.

Can't comment on her 'novels', but then I can't comment on cyanide either.
People love it because it's panglossian. If someone can convince themselves that reality is perfect as is, they certainly will be happier. It's really the ultimate elitist philosophy though, which is somewhat ironic I guess although it's more the religious right who throws around the word "elitist" than the libertarian right.

I've read Anthem, We The Living, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, Ayn Rand The Early Years and a bunch of her nonfiction also. I became quite the happy little Pangloss in my early 20's thanks to Mrs. Rand. I slowly came back to my senses over the course of a 5 or so years. Unfortunately I tricked myself into working my ass off getting a degree in a field I didn't even actually like at all while under the influence of Rand.

bezdomni

22nd March 2006, 23:05

Before addressing this point, let's wish happy birthday to these people:

neworld70 (21)
Bastardo (85)
__ca va? (18)
upstart79 (27)
VermontLeft (17)
communist_(turk) (21)

Well, that's two teenagers, two near-enoughs, one adult and a "yeah, sure". Moving on:
You argue about as well as Ayn Rand writes.

OH MY GOD, GROUNDBREAKING! TEENAGERS POST AT THIS FORUM! That certainly discredits me. You know what? You're right. This evidence is impeccable and 100% proves me wrong!

Actually it doesn't, because there are teeangers everywhere. My contention with Ayn Rand is that her philosophy is not rooted in observations, but pathetic dogmas and personal issues. All you need to do is look at her silly little "pyramid" to figure that out.

As RedStar stated, VERY few philosophy scholars have taken her seriously, even fewer subscribe to it. If you want a philosophy to back up your selfishness and right-wing idiocy, look up a real philosopher. Might I recommend Nietzsche?

To defend Marxist teenagers, at least Marxism is taken seriously. I'll agree that there are angsty teenagers who just use Marxism as a means of rebellion and eventually grow out of it...but communists are taken seriously by most people.

Ayn Rand was a 14 year old that never grew up, and her philosophy (as well as audience) is reflective of this.

When was that, last week?
RedStar is a....well-established member of the communist movement.

He's probably older than you and certainly acts like it.

Do learn the difference between not liking something and making it illegal- they're not the same thing.

I forgot I was an idiot and unable to differentiate between not liking something and thinking something should be illegal.

Oh wait, that's not true!

I never said she wanted to make it illegal, nor did I allude to it. I don't have any idea what the legality of homosexuality has to do with anything....

The POINT was that somebody who absolutely reeks of individualism and libetarian philosophy should have NO PROBLEM with homosexuality, as it is their choice.

She writes books about noncomformists and people who rebel, but when they deviate from sexual normalcy, then they are villans!

Licens Credo

22nd March 2006, 23:19

If you want a philosophy to back up your selfishness and right-wing idiocy, look up a real philosopher. Might I recommend Nietzsche?

If you’re suggesting Nietzsche was a right wing philosopher you’re drastically incorrect. Nietzsche in fact dismisses capitalism as something that will result in man being a mediocre “last men.” Moreover, he doesn’t promote selfishness, he in fact says that the “Ubermensch” is obligated to help those weaker.

bezdomni

22nd March 2006, 23:44

Indeed he does, but right-wingers insist upon his "will to power" is the premise of their backwards, social-darwinist beliefs.

I figure, if he is going to be wrong, he might as well be wrong with a less crappy philosophy.

In my opinion, Nietzsche has fans (and interpretions) from both the far right and the far left. Nihilism and Existentialism can be widely applied. Sarte was a leftist, as I recall.

...the “Ubermensch” is obligated to help those weaker.
Right, but he is the "ubermensch" because he is intrinsically better than the others.

It's Platonian in some aspects. Smells like "philosopher king".

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

23rd March 2006, 00:00

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 03:32 PM
Before addressing this point, let's wish happy birthday to these people:

neworld70 (21)
Bastardo (85)
__ca va? (18)
upstart79 (27)
VermontLeft (17)
communist_(turk) (21)
You forgot me, you bastard.

Invader Zim

23rd March 2006, 01:45

If a description of "boring" was ever needed, then Ayn Rand has certainly done her bit for humanity!

Tungsten

23rd March 2006, 15:10

Armchair Socialism

Your ignorance is showing again Tungsten. As has likely been explained to you before -- communists don't "do" morality.
It's far too late for that Socialism- your previous posts are already riddled with value-judgements. Of course you don't claim to "do" morality, but it's still there regardless- you still have your demons, saints, true believers and heretics.

If I'm not mistaken, redstar2000 is 63!
Sixty three? You mean sixteen don't you?
emp

I became quite the happy little Pangloss in my early 20's thanks to Mrs. Rand. I slowly came back to my senses over the course of a 5 or so years. Unfortunately I tricked myself into working my ass off getting a degree in a field I didn't even actually like at all while under the influence of Rand.
You knew Ayn Rand? Wow. You must have to have been "under her influence". Okay, so after five years, you decided to leave one cult and join another. Who's the fool but you?
clownpenisanarchy

OH MY GOD, GROUNDBREAKING! TEENAGERS POST AT THIS FORUM! That certainly discredits me. You know what? You're right. This evidence is impeccable and 100% proves me wrong!
If the shoe fits, wear it. I pointed out that laughing at teenage objectivists because they're teenagers means that we must also laugh at communists of that age for the same reason.

Actually it doesn't, because there are teeangers everywhere. My contention with Ayn Rand is that her philosophy is not rooted in observations, but pathetic dogmas and personal issues. All you need to do is look at her silly little "pyramid" to figure that out.
Pyramid? Are you referring to the philosophical heirarchy? That's got nothing to do with Rand. It's been around for ages. But let's not beat about the bush- the only bone of contention with most people here is that Rand wasn't a communist. That's reason enough for her to be put in every commie's blacklist.

As RedStar stated, VERY few philosophy scholars have taken her seriously, even fewer subscribe to it.
Isn't that called an "appeal to popularity"? And isn't it a logical fallacy?

If you want a philosophy to back up your selfishness and right-wing idiocy, look up a real philosopher. Might I recommend Nietzsche?
I don't need a "leader", thanks, I have my own ideology and my own ideas. But one good recomendation deserves another and here's one for you- the Bible. Picture Jesus and his disciples kicking the crap out of you, taking your wallet and giving it to the poor. Not too far from home is it?

To defend Marxist teenagers, at least Marxism is taken seriously.
Taken seriously by who? Marxists? Academia tends to be filled with leftists (particularly in the humanities) anyway, so that's a self-fulfilling prophecy isn't it? Again, you're "appealing to popularity". Just because a large number of people believe x doesn't make x true. How many marxists are there in America? Guess what: there are more democrats and even more republicans. Well, I guess that means marxism is just another minority belief system that we don't have to take seriously, either. Let's take Bush seriously, though- after all, the majority of people elected him president and as we all know, the majority are never wrong.

I'll agree that there are angsty teenagers who just use Marxism as a means of rebellion and eventually grow out of it...but communists are taken seriously by most people.
Where do you live? Cuba?

cyu

23rd March 2006, 19:51

Let's take Bush seriously, though- after all, the majority of people elected him president and as we all know, the majority are never wrong.

The reason pro-capitalists are in power in capitalist countries is simply because the mass media in those countries are controlled in a top-down manner by shareholders and upper management. Media control is vital for any ruling class to stay in power, whether it's the U.S. or the USSR. If the media presents two views as the only "rational" choices, both of which are pro-capitalist, then that's what the viewers of the media will choose between. Personally, I'd love to see the mass media run democratically, instead of having to have all major decisions approved by the higer-ups.

As Gerald MacGuire from the Connecticut American Legion famously said when plotting the overthrow of FDR:

"We need a fascist government in this country... to save the nation from the communists who want to tear it down and wreck all that we have built in America... You know the American people will swallow that. We have got the newspapers. We will start a campaign that the President's health is failing. Everyone can tell that by looking at him."

bezdomni

24th March 2006, 02:36

f the shoe fits, wear it. I pointed out that laughing at teenage objectivists because they're teenagers means that we must also laugh at communists of that age for the same reason.
What I was actually doing is pointing out that Objectivism appeals widely to angsty youth. The same cannot be said for socialism - because its proponents span all demographics.

Sixty three? You mean sixteen don't you?
No. He was right.

Pyramid? Are you referring to the philosophical heirarchy? That's got nothing to do with Rand. It's been around for ages. But let's not beat about the bush- the only bone of contention with most people here is that Rand wasn't a communist. That's reason enough for her to be put in every commie's blacklist.
No, I don't care that she wasn't a communist. If you read the rest of that statement, I said that my problem with Ayn Rand is her dogmatic lack of observation.

Isn't that called an "appeal to popularity"? And isn't it a logical fallacy?
The argument was that she isn't taken seriously because she says nothing of importance. The people who have taken her philosophy seriously have ripped it to shreds.

You're creating a straw-man, and that is a logical fallacy.

...But one good recommendation [sic] deserves another and here's one for you- the Bible. Picture Jesus and his disciples kicking the crap out of you, taking your wallet and giving it to the poor. Not too far from home is it?
...

:blink:

Taken seriously by who? Marxists? Academia tends to be filled with leftists (particularly in the humanities) anyway, so that's a self-fulfilling prophecy isn't it? Again, you're "appealing to popularity". Just because a large number of people believe x doesn't make x true. How many marxists are there in America? Guess what: there are more democrats and even more republicans. Well, I guess that means marxism is just another minority belief system that we don't have to take seriously, either. Let's take Bush seriously, though- after all, the majority of people elected him president and as we all know, the majority are never wrong.

You don't have to like something to take it seriously. You obviously took leftism seriously enough to sign up at this forum and argue with us.

People all over the world have conducted communist revolutions. The movement has momentum.

We take democrats and republicans seriously - as in, they are a serious threat to the people. It is unfortunate that they have to be taken seriously, but you have to recognize the current government in order to change it.

I've taken logic classes. I know my fallacies, you don't have to constantly tell me what you think I am doing. I never said Marxism is true because people believe it, I said it should be taken as a serious ideology because it has made ACHIEVEMENTS in society. Objectivism has done little to none. Actually, the only substantial thing I can think of is the Anthem scholarship.

Also, if my memory serves me correctly...Gore won the 2000 election's popular vote. So we should listen to his crazy ass... :P

Licens Credo

24th March 2006, 06:15

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 11:53 PM
Indeed he does, but right-wingers insist upon his "will to power" is the premise of their backwards, social-darwinist beliefs.

I figure, if he is going to be wrong, he might as well be wrong with a less crappy philosophy.

In my opinion, Nietzsche has fans (and interpretions) from both the far right and the far left. Nihilism and Existentialism can be widely applied. Sarte was a leftist, as I recall.

Well I see what you’re trying to say but when we talk in regards to a topic or person ideas we refer to what we know as being the original intention. This meaning that when I speak of Nietzsche, I speak of what his intentions were via his writing and only his writing, not what another group deems (falsifies) to be his intention. And yes, you might say that’s relative to interpretation but Nietzsche through out his texts dismisses many right winged notions and therefore shouldn’t be summarized as a right wing philosopher. It’s like me commenting on communism in regards, purely relative to Soviet history and thus concluding that communism must be a dictatorial ideology when in actuality my conclusions should be based of the original intention of the communist ideology posed by the creator, etc.

I could also say this pertaining to the social-Darwinist comment you make in the sense that by your accord/logic, you would call him (Darwin) a right winger because right wing people use some of his theory. When in fact historians have come to the conclusion that Darwin didn’t have the intention of eugenics or social-Darwinism, he was simply concerned with the science of nature. Though his brother apparently was big on eugenics… thought I would just add that in.

Though, I do agree, all in all, that Nietzsche is a philosopher that can be taken in many different ways due to his ambiguous but poetic form of writing and portrayal of ideas.

Epoche

24th March 2006, 17:31

Here is a piece of creative writing that a friend of mine, "Gamér," the greatest heckler I have ever known and master of the hyperbole, wrote some time ago. I think you all will get a laugh from it in the least.

"I think the way Objectivists prove something exists in the external world is if Ayn Rand says it exists. A typical conversation might go like this":

"Is this rock real?" "Yes," says Ayn. "I believe it is real because it pleases me as an heroic being. To believe otherwise is to be utterly weak and denied of our humanity, which is meant to be heroic. Now quick, hand me my chain-male, it is contoured to fit over my breasts, see? I have crafted it with my own two hands and this blowtorch which I built using Reardon metal I obtained by melting rocks over this fire which I built by rubbing two lincoln logs together, the flat green ones, really fast. Now fuck me, you golden god, you with the long shimmering locks and firm buttocks. Fuck me because it gives us pleasure...if that doesn't convince you of external reality, rapping something with your knuckles should do the trick. "

Dean

25th March 2006, 07:07

Ayn Rand is nothing more than a capitalist whore - she believed in pseudo-captialist libertarianism as a means to an end - that is, to achieve wealth and power over others. She wanted a ruling class so that she could be a part of it.

Her books serve to entrench people in autistic trends - alienation from their fellow man - and this is why people who read her crap end up as "libertarians."

Atlas Swallowed

25th March 2006, 13:15

Whenever I feel it is a good day to bang my head onto concrete and destroy my furniture, I read Rand :angry: Any philosophy that promotes selfishness I am against and despise. Too much selfishness in the world without idiots trying to make it virtuous.

Publius

25th March 2006, 13:58

Don't Change Your Name

25th March 2006, 18:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 12:19 PM

If I'm not mistaken, redstar2000 is 63!
Sixty three? You mean sixteen don't you?
Actually, he's at least 64.

I actually started reading "The Fountainhead" once; I read about 35-40% of it and it was very boring and useless. If that Toohey (sp?) character is the way Rand sees "the left", then I pity her followers.

Zingu

26th March 2006, 06:02

This really reminds of a comic I read a long time ago....

http://angryflower.com/atlass.gif

Dean

27th March 2006, 00:32

Actually, he's at least 64.

well, he acts closed-minded and childish enough to ban me for obviously not being homophobic.

some of my quotes from the thread:

"...their is certainly no moral problem with homsexuality."

"Homosexuals, as long as they work toward the same interest of realizing all man's full capacity, can be active in a productive revolution just as far as anyone can, including the religious."

"Institutional religion, as it tends to be tacked on to a state, is naturally a malignant force, but I have seen that this doesn't make up for the power of the individual idealist, as my best friend's entire family thinks like secular humanists but are very religious."

"I don't like god. I think religion is inherantly destructive of certain faculties, but also that it's definition goes beyond that of spirituality and denial of truth"

"In the vein of your comment, "...the economic laws of the capitalist system compel capitalists to behave the way they do" I submit that the same can relate to discrimination of many types, especially sexuality "

redstar2000

27th March 2006, 00:37

Alas, I am indeed 64. :(

Dean was not "banned", he was restricted for comments that were clearly homophobic in my opinion and in the opinions of others!

He may be "unrestricted" in the future...that remains to be seen.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Dean

27th March 2006, 01:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 12:46 AM
Alas, I am indeed 64. :(

Dean was not "banned", he was restricted for comments that were clearly homophobic in my opinion and in the opinions of others!

He may be "unrestricted" in the future...that remains to be seen.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Hmm, my comments above seem to imply otherwise. Maybe you're just unwilling to compromise your stance that I am homophobic?

a quote from a message i wrote to another mod:

"I'm not homophobic at all. I have homosexual friends, avidly support the gay rights movement, and am bisexual myself! Please 'unban' me. I am not, nor have I ever been a homophobic."

I am aware I'm not banned. the last sentence was a reference to the mccarthy hearings - as the consensus here seems to be to attack, restrict or ban those who disagree with your viewpoints. Even on the LJ Libertarian forum (right wing), freedom of speech is upheld! Why should it not be here, where leftism is held with such high esteem? Is leftist ideaology not heavily supportive of freedom of speech?

bezdomni

27th March 2006, 01:30

^

There is a thread in the CC about your restriction and the popular opinion seems to be heavily in support of unrestricting you.

Your original comment did seem homophobic. It's not our fault that you didn't word your statement properly.

Be more careful in the future. You will likely be unrestricted.

Dean

27th March 2006, 01:39

...furthermore, if I must change my viewpoints, or say things contrary to those, to be unrestricted, I will not do it. I believe in freedom, I believe that your idea that I am homophobic is completely false. MY views may change over time, but only if I am given good evidence against them - not in order to be sanctified for the purity of your forums. It is no different than racism to stifle speech.

Those others may not completely understand my viewpoints, and I hold nothing against them - or even you - if that is the case. though I do think the quotes cited prove beyond a reasonable doubt that I am not a homophobe. I love hearing Chumbawamba talk about how they support the gay rights movement; the fact that I view some homosexuality as not natural but a result of human interaction makes me less a homophobe than those who would see the logic behind the position and still support the idea that all gays are naturally gay. Many 'straight' people have latent homosexuality / bisexuality, and they are unnaturally straight!

That I have a psychological view of human interaction and their ideas does not make me homophobic.

Dean

27th March 2006, 01:51

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 01:39 AM
^

There is a thread in the CC about your restriction and the popular opinion seems to be heavily in support of unrestricting you.

Your original comment did seem homophobic. It's not our fault that you didn't word your statement properly.

Be more careful in the future. You will likely be unrestricted.
I expected as much from leftists, as they are generally interested in freedom.

Though I think it is more the viewer who should be held accountable if they don't understand someone's words. I will be more careful in the future, as I was in later posts, but if I had thought Marx was anti-semetic from his paper "On the Jewish Question," I would not think it would be fair for me to ignore the idea that I might be wrong if others cited the work to prove otherwise.

redstar2000

27th March 2006, 03:53

Originally posted by Dean
The last sentence was a reference to the McCarthy hearings - as the consensus here seems to be to attack, restrict or ban those who disagree with your viewpoints.

"My viewpoints"??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I get blasted on this board all the time! :lol:

People don't get restricted or banned on this board because they "disagree with me". :lol:

But overt racism, sexism, or homophobia will often get you an express ticket to the exit.

We are not much interested here in "free speech for reactionaries".

Is leftist ideology not heavily supportive of freedom of speech?

Some people think so. I'm not one of them. :)

The Cost of "Free Speech" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1118373842&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Once More: No "Free Speech" for Reactionaries! (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1106930843&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

No "Free Speech" for Reactionaries! (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097152138&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

"Free Speech" for Reactionaries? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083860068&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

It's a contentious issue, to put it mildly.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

bezdomni

27th March 2006, 04:14

On a somewhat topical note, I just remembered an episode of Futurama that made me laugh.

Bender: Hey look at all of these 20th century books that got flushed down the toilet!
Fry: Anything good?
Bender: Nah, just a bunch of Ayn Rand books.

Axel1917

27th March 2006, 04:17

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 22 2006, 05:46 PM

Can't comment on her 'novels', but then I can't comment on cyanide either.

:lol: I have heard from anyone that isn't a Randite that her books are a waste of time to read, not to mention a complete waste of ink and paper!

I have encountered some Randite loonies in the past. Ugh! Their intelligence level is on par with that of a religious funadmentalist. Even the official Bourgeois ideologues realize that her ideals are not possible. In reality, Randism is pure, uncut, reactionary subjectivism! Rand the "objectivist" knew very little of political economy, psychology, philosophy, etc., yet she ranted about all kinds of nonsensical things.

I hope that those that actually tried to read her works have not suffered any kind of eye damage!

LoneRed

27th March 2006, 04:18

no wonder the communist/socialist movement is failing 1. all this PC bullshit, and 2. people stigmatizing, and alienating people if they dont agree 100% with them. ive seen many restrictions on this site, since ive been looking at it

redstar2000

27th March 2006, 15:33

Originally posted by [email protected] 26 2006, 11:27 PM
no wonder the communist/socialist movement is failing 1. all this PC bullshit, and 2. people stigmatizing, and alienating people if they dont agree 100% with them. ive seen many restrictions on this site, since ive been looking at it
Noting that you've been a member of this board since March 6th, you may be interested in the following...

Bans & Restrictions since March 6th

Banned *WG* -- Nazi.

Banned bird brain -- troll.

Banned Corpsegrinder -- troll.

Banned The Return Of Socialist Dave -- sockpuppet.

Restricted fightthemachine to Opposing Ideologies -- primitivist.

Restricted Sheep to Opposing Ideologies -- cappie.

Restricted BlueDogLiberal to Opposing Ideologies -- cappie.

Restricted Joseph McCarthy to Opposing Ideologies -- cappie.

Banned Much Commie Love -- sockpuppet.

Banned American_Lenin -- homophobe.

Restricted Rissen to Opposing Ideologies -- sexism and puritanism.

Restricted Raelian1 to Opposing Ideologies -- cultist.

Banned 4mytribe -- White Supremacist.

Restricted HARDCORECAPITALIST to Opposing Ideologies -- cappie.

Banned Luftwaffe -- fascist.

Restricted Dream Brother to Opposing Ideologies -- nutball.

Restricted CaptainCapitalist to Opposing Ideologies -- cappie.

Restricted fernando to Opposing Ideologies, approved by CC 25-7

Restricted ComradeTom to Opposing Ideologies -- cappie.

Banned S G-Bang -- Trolling, abusive posts.

Banned redrover -- sockpuppet

Banned NovelGentry -- approved by the CC 34 - 31.

Restricted Dean to Opposing Ideologies -- homophobia.

Restricted Johnny Volume to Opposing Ideologies --cappie.

Banned Propagandabuster -- troll.

Banned Linux_Rocks -- troll.

Banned julie_us -- advertising spammer.

Banned Ironhammer -- "ex"-Nazi, homophobe, spammer, and troll.

Banned Mac_OS_X_Rocks -- sockpuppet.

Banned FreeBSD_Rocks -- sockpuppet.

Banned OperationSwarmer -- sockpuppet.

Banned TMH of the West -- sockpuppet.

Banned bdsmlover74 -- advertising spammer.

Restricted cormacobear to Opposing Ideologies -- by approval of the CC 22-13.

Banned Revolutionary Dave -- sockpuppet.

Source: the "Administrative Actions" thread in RevLeft Members' Forum.

You know what a "sockpuppet" is, right? That's a banned member who rejoins the board with a new username.

At the moment, it's possible that Dean may be unrestricted; there's no controversy about all the other decisions.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Tungsten

27th March 2006, 18:15

clownpenisanarchy

What I was actually doing is pointing out that Objectivism appeals widely to angsty youth. The same cannot be said for socialism - because its proponents span all demographics.
You've got proof of these demographics in both cases, I take it?

The argument was that she isn't taken seriously because she says nothing of importance. The people who have taken her philosophy seriously have ripped it to shreds.
I'm not entirely learned in the non-politcal aspect of Rand's work (some of which I don't agree with anyway), but I did once read a brief snippet of one critique, "Ayn Rand's Corruption of Rationality" or something like that. One argument went something along the lines of:
Rand believed that "you can't have your cake and eat it". This is false because 'having cake' and 'eating cake' mean the same thing. For example, if I say say "we will be having cake for dinner tonight," and "we will be eating cake for dinner", they mean the same thing by both sentences. Therefore, it is possible to have your cake and eat it too, and therefore Rand is wrong. Needless to say, it went back on the shelf.

The people who have taken her philosophy seriously have ripped it to shreds.
Such as who and by whom? Cite examples- this is a political forum and both objectivists and libertarians share the same political goal- minimal government and a free market. The only difference I see is the method- libertarians cite the practical reasons for free market advocacy whereas objectivists tend to cite the moral reasons, the objectivist's method being somewhat pointless ("casting pearls before swine" springs to mind). I'm not creating any straw men, you're just evading the argument.

You don't have to like something to take it seriously. You obviously took leftism seriously enough to sign up at this forum and argue with us.
Refuting nonsense is an amusing hobby.

People all over the world have conducted communist revolutions. The movement has momentum.
So does the Bush empire.

We take democrats and republicans seriously - as in, they are a serious threat to the people.
What do you think they take you as?

I've taken logic classes. I know my fallacies, you don't have to constantly tell me what you think I am doing. I never said Marxism is true because people believe it, I said it should be taken as a serious ideology because it has made ACHIEVEMENTS in society.
How many of them worked? Start counting- it shouldn't take long.
Epoche
So where's the punchline?
Zingu
That comic reminds me of "The RedBanner" who wants a revolution but doesn't have any post-revolutionary plans because he's "not god" and "wouldn't know where to start". I shouldn't imagine he's the only one, either. Anyway, I thought they strikers already had a utopia set up called galt's gulch? Well whatever...who cares.
redstar2000

We are not much interested here in "free speech for reactionaries".
Or anywhere else for that matter, looking at those links you've posted.
Axel1917

Rand...knew very little of political economy, psychology, philosophy, etc., yet she ranted about all kinds of nonsensical things.
Looking at the majority of posts here, she isn't on her own either. Oh dear.

Dean

27th March 2006, 19:14

Originally posted by redstar2000+Mar 27 2006, 04:02 AM--> (redstar2000 @ Mar 27 2006, 04:02 AM)
Dean
The last sentence was a reference to the McCarthy hearings - as the consensus here seems to be to attack, restrict or ban those who disagree with your viewpoints.

"My viewpoints"??? :lol: :lol: :lol:

I get blasted on this board all the time! :lol:

People don't get restricted or banned on this board because they "disagree with me". :lol:

But overt racism, sexism, or homophobia will often get you an express ticket to the exit.

We are not much interested here in "free speech for reactionaries".

Is leftist ideology not heavily supportive of freedom of speech?

Some people think so. I'm not one of them. :)

The Cost of "Free Speech" (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1118373842&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

Once More: No "Free Speech" for Reactionaries! (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1106930843&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

No "Free Speech" for Reactionaries! (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1097152138&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

"Free Speech" for Reactionaries? (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083860068&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

It's a contentious issue, to put it mildly.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif [/b]
I see reason, due to the nature of messageboards, in banning or restricting those who offer no good arguments, but simply troll (i.e. the guy who was throwing aroung the term "kkkommies"). However, if somebody offers valid or at least not inflammatory remarks that the left tends to disagree with, why should they be restricted? Having them debate in our free forums can serve as a way to make them understand our views, and in time maybe even become more leftist!

"your" referred to the views of the CC and leftist members of this forum, not you specifically. I understand the confusion, as it has more than one meaning.

I am not a reactionary, if that's what you were implying... otherwise, the point is moot.

It does sadden me that you do not support freedom of speech for the opposing ideologies, though I can see why you would find that as a means to show more leftism than right - wing views. I think it just further entrenches those who have been restricted or banned into their right-wing ideologies, however.

I've not read the links yet, though I may if I have time. If you could, would you sugggest one that you think describes best a logical train of reasoning / is closest to your views? thanks.
-dean

Dean

27th March 2006, 19:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 04:23 AM
Bender: Hey look at all of these 20th century books that got flushed down the toilet!
Fry: Anything good?
Bender: Nah, just a bunch of Ayn Rand books.
I loved that part! I explained it to my girlfriend thereafter.

bezdomni

28th March 2006, 02:52

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:24 PM

You've got proof of these demographics in both cases, I take it?
1) The communist movement is exponentially larger than the objectivist cult. Look at Nepal, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba...et cetera. People (of all ages) are actually rallying behind communism! The same cannot be said for objectivism. Period.

2) Your "demographic" made the fallacy that many availability heuristics make. Assuming that the 7 people celebrating their birthday on one day on one internet forum (most of whom have never posted) is representative of the ENTIRE LEFTIST MOVEMENT is absurd.

I'm not entirely learned in the non-politcal aspect of Rand's work (some of which I don't agree with anyway), but I did once read a brief snippet of one critique, "Ayn Rand's Corruption of Rationality" or something like that. One argument went something along the lines of:
Rand believed that "you can't have your cake and eat it". This is false because 'having cake' and 'eating cake' mean the same thing. For example, if I say say "we will be having cake for dinner tonight," and "we will be eating cake for dinner", they mean the same thing by both sentences. Therefore, it is possible to have your cake and eat it too, and therefore Rand is wrong. Needless to say, it went back on the shelf.

Okay. You can play with sematics, great.

What if I defined "having a cake" as having it in my possession. For example, "I have a cake in my locker". Does that mean I am eating cake in my locker, or that a cake is in my possession but just in my locker?

Such as who and by whom? Cite examples- this is a political forum and both objectivists and libertarians share the same political goal- minimal government and a free market. The only difference I see is the method- libertarians cite the practical reasons for free market advocacy whereas objectivists tend to cite the moral reasons, the objectivist's method being somewhat pointless ("casting pearls before swine" springs to mind). I'm not creating any straw men, you're just evading the argument.
Refutations and criticisms of Objectivism (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/) Have fun!

Dean

28th March 2006, 10:06

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:24 PM

People all over the world have conducted communist revolutions. The movement has momentum.
So does the Bush empire.
This is little more than a slew of asinine ad hominems. I suggest you return to studying logical fallacies before you start to claim that others' statements include them - your posts are rife with them, including this statement.

"But it's good, Stem - Cell research has accomplished a lot!"
"So has Bush. are you saying you're a neocon?"

Atlas Swallowed

28th March 2006, 15:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2006, 06:24 PM
Refuting nonsense is an amusing hobby.
Oh, in that case you must be into self mutalation.

Tungsten

28th March 2006, 19:12

clownpenisanarchy

1) The communist movement is exponentially larger than the objectivist cult.
I'm not surprised, given that communism had a 100 year head start.

Look at Nepal, Bolivia, Venezuela, Cuba...et cetera.
Yeah, look them. :lol:

Okay. You can play with sematics, great.

What if I defined "having a cake" as having it in my possession. For example, "I have a cake in my locker". Does that mean I am eating cake in my locker, or that a cake is in my possession but just in my locker?
Okay, you can play with semantics. Great.

Refutations and criticisms of Objectivism (http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/) Have fun!
I'm not an objectivist, therefore I'm not really interested. The only thing I would have been interested in are the refutations of capitalism, but none of them bring anything new to the table. Also, I would have preferred a refutation in your own words rather than a link to a list of them, which does little more than suggest that your knoweldge of the subject matter is minimal i.e. based on hearsay.

(I noticed that your link actually leads to an objectivist-run website. Evidently they don't feel very threatened by their critics if they're nice enough to post links to them.)
Dean

This is little more than a slew of asinine ad hominems. I suggest you return to studying logical fallacies
I suggest you learn to count. Point out these ad hominems.

Publius

28th March 2006, 19:55

Dean

28th March 2006, 21:12

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:21 PM
Dean

This is little more than a slew of asinine ad hominems. I suggest you return to studying logical fallacies
I suggest you learn to count. Point out these ad hominems.
"Sixty three? You mean sixteen don't you?"

"You knew Ayn Rand? Wow. You must have to have been "under her influence". Okay, so after five years, you decided to leave one cult and join another. Who's the fool but you?"

"Where do you live? Cuba? "

"I suggest you learn to count."

bezdomni

28th March 2006, 21:23

I'm not surprised, given that communism had a 100 year head start.
Now you're admitting that communism is a movement.

Okay, you can play with semantics. Great.
A Master of Rhetoric! :lol:

The only thing I would have been interested in are the refutations of capitalism, but none of them bring anything new to the table. Also, I would have preferred a refutation in your own words rather than a link to a list of them, which does little more than suggest that your knoweldge of the subject matter is minimal i.e. based on hearsay.

(I noticed that your link actually leads to an objectivist-run website. Evidently they don't feel very threatened by their critics if they're nice enough to post links to them.)
You said "show me the refutation". I sent you a link with the refutations.

I can find more, if you want.

A lot of the essays were objectivist criticisms of Rand, and a lot of them non-objectivist criticisms of objectivism. A few are from leftists, I recall one from the bottom was.

Anyway, the point still stands that Rand has been ripped to shreds.

I've read Rand - so it's not really hearsay. I had to read Anthem in 8th grade, and I did a report over The Foutainhead in 9th grade. I've read some of her shorter essays also. I admit that I'm not an "objectivist scholar"- but I am familiar with the philosophy firsthand.

I've even had a debate with an objectivist.

Just because I posted a link with scholary essays as opposed to writing my own doesn't mean I'm ignorant on the subject. I did it because you asked for scholary refutations of Rand (as in, people who have degrees in philosophy) and because I didn't feel like writing an essay for you.

Tungsten

29th March 2006, 17:49

Dean

"Sixty three? You mean sixteen don't you?"

"You knew Ayn Rand? Wow. You must have to have been "under her influence". Okay, so after five years, you decided to leave one cult and join another. Who's the fool but you?"

"Where do you live? Cuba? "

"I suggest you learn to count."
I don't think you know what an ad hominem is or when something is supposed to be pointed out as one. Those would only be ad hominems if they were used as a response to an argument. They weren't, they were just passing comments.
clownpenisanarchy

Now you're admitting that communism is a movement.
Objectivism is a movement. Even Scientology is a movement. I don't see either taking over, somehow.

Anyway, the point still stands that Rand has been ripped to shreds.
That's largely a matter of opinion. It's not good enough to say that so-and-so has critics- those criticisms must be valid. Few of those were.

Dean

29th March 2006, 20:28

I don't think you know what an ad hominem is or when something is supposed to be pointed out as one. Those would only be ad hominems if they were used as a response to an argument. They weren't, they were just passing comments.

actually, you're using them to attack the person who is arguing with you in general, implying for instance that someone is too young to be reasonable or doesn't know how to count. You both imply and state that peopel are wrong based on arbitrary ad hominem statements.

red team

30th March 2006, 00:57

Here's a shorter variant of the profit contract agreement disproof I've presented before
You're also free to challenge the logical coherence of this one too (Yeah right!).

Statement: A free person does agree to be robbed

A: A free person
B: Own's total freedom
C: (A) seeks to preserve (B)
Not C: (A) seeks to limit (B)

D: the full benefits of own's labour
E: The freedom of receiving (D)
F: (E) is included as a subset of (B)

G: An employer's profit
H: (G) is a subset of (D)
I: (G) limits (D)

C is obviously true
(Not C) is obviously false
(F) is obviously true
(H) is false if you work for somebody else's profit

Because C is true meaning (Not C) is false then (F) being true invalidates any contracts signed which limits (E) because it will also limit (B) because C is true. Because (H) is true only if the employer and you are the same person meaning you are self-employed then (H) is false if you work for an employer that is not yourself.

If you work for an employer that is not yourself then (Not H) and (I) therefore the contract is invalid because (Not C) is false C is true and (I) violates (E).

Conclusion: A free person does agree to be robbed is false which implies A free person does not agree to be robbed.
Sorry: Ayn Rand is BULLSHIT!

Just in case any slippery con-artist want to play around with words:
short-changed = robbed = embezzled = swindled = conned = exploited = profitted from
And many others meaning unequalness in exchange

agree = seek to = desire = concede = intend
And many others meaning expressing will for

Tungsten

30th March 2006, 13:36

red team

Statement: A free person does agree to be robbed

What does "robbed" mean? Having your property taken without prior agreement?

What does your statement actually mean?

A free person does agree to have property taken without his agreement.

Nice going, red team. Your (mis)use of logic (and the english language) is really spectacular. :lol:

Dean

30th March 2006, 17:38

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 01:45 PM
Nice going, red team. Your (mis)use of logic (and the english language) is really spectacular. :lol:
While his post is hard to follow, the basic premise of socialism/communism is that the entire world is the property of all peopel living on it. It's hard to argue otherwise.

red team

30th March 2006, 21:17

I have expected as much from a petty con-artist to use words out of context from the situation in which they are used.

If you're robbed with or without your "argeement" you're short-changed as in not receiving full benefits of your work. That "agreement" is void.

short-changed = robbed = embezzled = swindled = conned = exploited = profitted from
And many others meaning unequalness in exchange

agree = seek to = desire = concede = intend = volunteer
And many others meaning expressing will for

robbed and short-changed means the same thing and has the same economic effects and has the same limiting effects on freedom.

You cannot agree = seek to = desire = concede = intend = volunteer = expressing will for to have yourself short-changed = robbed = embezzled = swindled = conned = exploited = profitted from = unequalness in exchange because you agree = seek to = desire = concede = intend = volunteer = expressing will for preserve your freedom.

You lose cappie! :lol:

redstar2000

31st March 2006, 04:47

NYU Rand Cult vs. NYU Islamic Center

http://nyc.indymedia.org/en/2006/03/67314.html

Battle of the Buffoons! :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Tungsten

31st March 2006, 13:50

Dean

While his post is hard to follow, the basic premise of socialism/communism is that the entire world is the property of all peopel living on it. It's hard to argue otherwise.
The evidence I've seen in favour of it, as well as the results from following the idea of "collective property" through leave much to be desired.
red team

I have expected as much from a petty con-artist to use words out of context from the situation in which they are used.
There's no such thing as "robbery with consent"- it wouldn't be robbery. You're trying to alter the definition of robbery to fit a context it doesn't belong in.

Dean

31st March 2006, 14:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 01:59 PM
The evidence I've seen in favour of it, as well as the results from following the idea of "collective property" through leave much to be desired.
There have been plenty of collective experiments that have been destroyed by external conflict, and many that exist today, some in the form of collective factories in england, others in the form of Israeli communes.

red team

31st March 2006, 22:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 01:59 PM
red team

I have expected as much from a petty con-artist to use words out of context from the situation in which they are used.
There's no such thing as "robbery with consent"- it wouldn't be robbery. You're trying to alter the definition of robbery to fit a context it doesn't belong in.
What do you think RedStar2000?

I've simply demolished this fool's "justifications" for Objectivism.

He's been reduced to babbling logical incoherence. :lol:
Not that his arguments were that good to begin with!

He's questioning my freedom by attempting to pay dead people now! :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you can't justify either 1 or 2 then bosses and investors have no valid claim to their wealth and therefore no valid authority over workers meaning I can do whatever I want from my place of employment because don't respect the validity of their ownership of wealth and hence their power relation over me as bosses and managers.

You have no valid claim to being paid because the money you're being paid came from historical slavery. You have no claim to freedom because you owe everything to everyone who's ever provided you with goods- which also came from slavery. So you've got lot of paying up to do. Don't ask me who gets this payment- they're all dead anyway.

I think it deserves a place in your all-time great refutations of Capitalism Hall of Fame.

Also look in the Racial Equality topic starting from the thread in which I first began debating this fool.

redstar2000

1st April 2006, 00:12

We have a few pro-capitalist members on this board who display occasional ability to utilize rational thought and construct a logical chain of argument.

Tungsten does not "make the list". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

Publius

1st April 2006, 00:35

I think it deserves a place in your all-time great refutations of Capitalism Hall of Fame.

I wasn't impressed.

For example:
You have no valid claim to being paid because the money you're being paid came from historical slavery.

No, I believe it all came from 'contemporary slavery', contemporary to the time the good was produced.

How is the money I'm making 'coming from slavery'? Because way down the line you can point to a single good that was made via slavery? And simply ignore the vast majority, easily over 99.9%, that weren't?

So, at best, a fraction of the wealth, hundreds of steps down the line, may have came from slavery.

Resounding.

You have no claim to freedom because you owe everything to everyone who's ever provided you with goods- which also came from slavery.

Every good ever came from slavery? Or just a portion of some goods? How big is that portion? 99.99%? Negligable?

Can you even know it? If not, do you even have a point anymore?

So you've got lot of paying up to do. Don't ask me who gets this payment- they're all dead anyway.

Which really defeats your entire 'argument', now doesn't it?

"You don't really own that money, dead people who, being dead, can't own anything, do".

That should go in a 'Hall of Fame', but certainly not one for 'good' refutations.

We have a few pro-capitalist members on this board who display occasional ability to utilize rational thought and construct a logical chain of argument.

You sell me short RedStar.

Febod

2nd April 2006, 19:58

Originally posted by red [email protected] 30 2006, 09:26 PM
If you're robbed with or without your "argeement" you're short-changed as in not receiving full benefits of your work. That "agreement" is void.

short-changed = robbed = embezzled = swindled = conned = exploited = profitted from
And many others meaning unequalness in exchange

agree = seek to = desire = concede = intend = volunteer
And many others meaning expressing will for

robbed and short-changed means the same thing and has the same economic effects and has the same limiting effects on freedom.
This argument is full of equivocations; the same word is used for two different meanings, or two different words are given the same meanings.

For example, "robbed" is used in the literal and metaphorical sense. Literal sense being, someone stole money from me by force; and the metaphorical sense being, an unfortunate circumstance.

If you work for an employer, and you get "robbed" because you don't feel like you're getting paid enough, even though your employer didn't violate any contract, that's an unfortunate circumstance, and all the government laws, or anarchy (not sure exactly what you guys believe sometimes) is going to save you.

If you get robbed in the literal sense, that is a mugger points a gun at your head, or a politician imposes taxes upon you, then you can be pissed.

Nicky Scarfo

2nd April 2006, 20:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2006, 02:27 AM
She is a pseudo-philosopher, as far as I am concerned.

The only people who take her seriously are angsty "individualist" teenagers and libertarians. And nobody takes them seriously.

Ayn Rand is a hack and I feel infinite sorrow for the vast amount of trees that go into each copy of "The Fountainhead" per year. I imagine it must be a substantial amount, because that book is unreasonably large.

Frankly, 10 pages of Ayn Rand is 10 pages too much.
Fuckin A, that's right. I used to think Ayn Rand was cool in high school (you know, back when the whole world was mine for the taking). Then I started working for a living and realized her pseudophilosophy Objectivism trash was a luxury for people who never had to work a real job for any significant length of time.

Not to mention her individualism vs. collectivism dichotomy is a load of shit. Spolied little fuckin Russian heiress who was bitter about the Bolsheviks takin her family's wealth. But she still got to lead a fairly comfortable life in the company of other wealthy exiles, and eventually made a good career from her writing. Never worked a real job a day in her life. Fuck her and her followers.

And for the record, not even most bonafide Libertarians (of the capitalist sort) take her shit seriously.

red team

2nd April 2006, 23:19

Mockery is the best and only response for Ayn Rand, Objectivist cultists.

Check out my new comedy routine starring myself and a well known objectivist who use to visit this board: Comedy Act (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48199)

cyu

3rd April 2006, 20:28

red team

3rd April 2006, 21:53

If you work for an employer, and you get "robbed" because you don't feel like you're getting paid enough, even though your employer didn't violate any contract, that's an unfortunate circumstance...

If you get robbed in the literal sense, that is a mugger points a gun at your head, or a politician imposes taxes upon you, then you can be pissed.

Does it matter what your actual intent was in performing the action to the real world consequences that results from the action?

What you're saying:
"I didn't intend to rob you, I just gave you less than what the product is sold for".

What difference does it make what your intentions are!

What is the real world consequences for me as a worker in you performing that action of profitting?

You can play around with dictionary definitions against what is the utility meaning of the word in the given context all you want, but it doesn't make a damn difference to me in the real world.

Febod

4th April 2006, 19:10

What is the real world consequences for me as a worker in you performing that action of profitting?

You can play around with dictionary definitions against what is the utility meaning of the word in the given context all you want, but it doesn't make a damn difference to me in the real world.

Um, this does matter in the real world. It's the difference between free action vs. compulsory and action. It's the difference between living your life the way you want and being thrown in jail.

What you're saying:
"I didn't intend to rob you, I just gave you less than what the product is sold for".

What difference does it make what your intentions are!

Intention has nothing to do with it, it's the means of an action performed. An employer who makes a voluntary contract with an employee is not using force. A mugger or policeman who points a gun at your head and demands your money or your life is using force.

red team

4th April 2006, 19:55

Is a cow or a bird an independent creature?

This analogy may not seem relevant to the question at hand, but it is.

And it will lead up to my explanation as to why "agreement" for profiteering is impossible for the one being profitted off of.

cyu

4th April 2006, 20:17

An employer who makes a voluntary contract with an employee is not using force.

Employees only make contracts with employers because they don't have access to capital. If they did attempt to use capital that didn't belong to them, then it is the employer who is using force to jail them. The choice most wage slaves have is just among the least of many evils - that doesn't make the choice free. The choice would be free if they had the option of assuming control over productive capital without first having to agree to fork over a portion of what they earn to the employer.

Now I know Randroids believe that would be a violation of the property rights of the employer, but you have to understand that rights are only granted if people believe the rights are beneficial to the welfare of the general public. The right to collect a cut out of everything someone else earns, just because you own the means of production, is not a right that benefits the general public.

Febod

4th April 2006, 22:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2006, 07:26 PM

An employer who makes a voluntary contract with an employee is not using force.

Employees only make contracts with employers because they don't have access to capital. If they did attempt to use capital that didn't belong to them, then it is the employer who is using force to jail them. The choice most wage slaves have is just among the least of many evils - that doesn't make the choice free. The choice would be free if they had the option of assuming control over productive capital without first having to agree to fork over a portion of what they earn to the employer.

Now I know Randroids believe that would be a violation of the property rights of the employer, but you have to understand that rights are only granted if people believe the rights are beneficial to the welfare of the general public. The right to collect a cut out of everything someone else earns, just because you own the means of production, is not a right that benefits the general public.
You are guilty of the same logical fallacy, namely equivocation, that red team was a victim of. See my previous posts for an explanation.

red team

4th April 2006, 23:58

We live in a material world, not an abstract one.

Abstract concepts such as freedom, liberty, consensus and such is only valid to any given person to the degree that it serves the purpose of gaining material sufficiency for that person. Because if you're starving, sick or homeless none of those abstractions matters.

Because "Objectivism" doesn't take any of that into consideration, it can be more accurately describe as an "out of this world" religion or in other words: Subjectivist.

Again I'll rephrase my questions to demonstrate why "Objectivism" is inadequate to describe the real world and therefore irrelevant to real world economics.

What makes an animal such as a cow or bird self-sufficient?

What makes human beings self-sufficient?

Answer from a materialist perspective as in reference to usable material items in either case.
No abstractions.

If you can't answer those questions then we really have nothing to debate.

Nicky Scarfo

5th April 2006, 00:08

An employer who makes a voluntary contract with an employee is not using force.

True, if we were living in the realm of pure reason. But unforunately, real-world conditions complicate the matter a bit. In the modern era, most people must work for someone else to maintain subsistence, so that makes people's "free choice" dependent on objective conditions beyond their control, which, in turn, affects how we must subjectively view "force".

For example, let's say you live in a "company town"-- basically there's no other employment for miles. You don't own any land or capital. You have little education or marketable skills. You have a family you support and moving elsewhere for work would be difficult to impossible (but in any case a severe material hardship). You work at the widget factory for very little money and can't save any as a result. You are a die-hard Red Sox fan, as was your father and his father before him.

One night you are in the local bar and you run into your total asshole foreman who is a die-hard Yankees fan. He's drunk and yells at you to take off your BoSox hat or he's gonna fire you when you come in for work Monday. You don't want to lose your job because it would cause extreme hardship on you and your family, so you take off the hat. Did the foreman "initiate force"? Was this truly a "free decision" on your part? Isn't it more reasonable to assume you were coerced into taking off your hat? Is it really so different than if the foreman had threatened to sock you if you didn't take it off? In some ways, isn't it worse? (you losing your job compared to a black eye)

Don't pick apart the example too much. It's just one example (that caters to my hatred of the Yankees) of how control over someone's employment is a big material factor in life and can lead to coercion, and how external economic factors beyond an individual's control can effect practical decisions and "free choice". This is why I think Objectivism is a crock of shit.

RedRevolution

5th April 2006, 17:31

Even if you accept the flawed comparison of an employer to a master, I'd still rather have the choice of many masters than one (the state).

5th April 2006, 18:05

Even if you accept the flawed comparison of an employer to a master, I'd still rather have the choice of many masters than one (the state).

The comparison isn't flawed, and nobody here is arguing for the replacement of the employers with the state.

cyu

5th April 2006, 18:48

Even if you accept the flawed comparison of an employer to a master, I'd still rather have the choice of many masters than one (the state).

If I had the choice between many masters that treated me as a slave or a state that was truly democratically ruled, I'd choose the state. But as an anarcho-syndicalist, of course, I believe there's a better option than the state. Each company would simply be democratically run by their employees - thus no masters or state involvement.

Tungsten

7th April 2006, 14:57

red team

What do you think RedStar2000?
If you can't fight your own battles, don't bother to reply.

I've simply demolished this fool's "justifications" for Objectivism.
1- I'm not trying to "justify" it. I'm not an objectivist, I'm a libertarian minarchist. Objectivism is just one form of it.
2- You haven't demolished anything- you've just written a series of contradictions and then declared yourself the victor.

He's been reduced to babbling logical incoherence. :lol:
Not that his arguments were that good to begin with! He's questioning my freedom by attempting to pay dead people now! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Speaking of "babbling logical incoherence", what are you talking about?

I think it deserves a place in your all-time great refutations of Capitalism Hall of Fame.
Except that there's no refutation here, red. It's just a series of smilies and I'm afraid they won't do your arguing for you. If "redstar2000" (or whatever he calls himself) is stupid enough to agree with you, then far be it for me to stop him.

You can play around with dictionary definitions against what is the utility meaning of the word in the given context all you want, but it doesn't make a damn difference to me in the real world.
In other words, words mean whatever you want them to mean. Didn't George Orwell write a book about people who did that?
redstar2000

We have a few pro-capitalist members on this board who display occasional ability to utilize rational thought and construct a logical chain of argument.

Tungsten does not "make the list".
Well...fuck.

You really have upset me now...

red team

7th April 2006, 21:30

What do you think RedStar2000?
If you can't fight your own battles, don't bother to reply.

Well that's the thing with us Communists. We don't believe in fighting our own battles. There's a slogan that goes "an injury to one is an injury to all". We're not egotistical individualists like you.

Nevermind that the "debate" at that point was essentially over.

You couldn't respond to my arguments sensibly so it's pointless to go on.
Here's a few choice selections of your lunacy:

Originally posted by "Tungsten"

Who pays the workers their wage? Investors (including upper management of a given company) or Workers

The people who consume their goods pay the wages of both, whose value they arrive at subjectively and whose goods they either buy or don't buy. Is revenge being planned against the consumer too?

My response to your lunacy:
My boss lowered my wage and made me worked overtime. My friend's boss also did the same thing to him because there was no business in either of our stores. So one time when my friend got off his shift and came to my store, he looked around and said he couldn't buy anything because his boss didn't pay him enough, so I smacked him!

This is basically your scenario not mine. Now, what response should there be other than mocking laughter at this statement and the person who utter such nonsense.

And no, profits are not wages. They're a percentage of wages which is arbitrarily taken off by those who have the power to set the terms of the contract which you again refuse to acknowledge.

A few more choice selections to demonstrate your lunacy: Dim Bulb's Lunacy (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48199)

I've simply demolished this fool's "justifications" for Objectivism.
1- I'm not trying to "justify" it. I'm not an objectivist, I'm a libertarian minarchist. Objectivism is just one form of it.
2- You haven't demolished anything- you've just written a series of contradictions and then declared yourself the victor.

Subjectivist you mean?

"you've just written a series of contradictions" -- this coming from somebody who doesn't know logic or how to set up a logical argument from semi-retarded subjective ranting. That's a real laugh. I've yet to see you come up with a logical justification for profit taking.

He's been reduced to babbling logical incoherence. :lol:
Not that his arguments were that good to begin with! He's questioning my freedom by attempting to pay dead people now! :lol: :lol: :lol:
Speaking of "babbling logical incoherence", what are you talking about?

I think it deserves a place in your all-time great refutations of Capitalism Hall of Fame.
Except that there's no refutation here, red. It's just a series of smilies and I'm afraid they won't do your arguing for you. If "redstar2000" (or whatever he calls himself) is stupid enough to agree with you, then far be it for me to stop him.

Justify an unequal exchange for a worker's labour that preserves his freedom to realize the full benefits of his work. You can't and you never will. Just by looking at this, you realize that this can never be done because an unequal exchange for labour will never meet full benefits of labour.

What you're saying is: A free person can agree to not be paid in full for his work.

You can't have that because no free person agrees to those conditions given the choice.

Who takes away that choice by owning all of life's necessities?

Dim Bulb's Lunacy (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=48199)

You can play around with dictionary definitions against what is the utility meaning of the word in the given context all you want, but it doesn't make a damn difference to me in the real world.
In other words, words mean whatever you want them to mean. Didn't George Orwell write a book about people who did that?

Fine, I'll make up a word meaning unequally exchanged for.

uef: since it's pronounced oo - f, I'll just make the word oof

definition:
oof: unequally exchanged for.

Conclusion: A free person does agree to be robbed is false which implies A free person does not agree to be robbed.
Sorry: Ayn Rand is BULLSHIT!

substitute ooffed for robbed

Conclusion: A free person does agree to be ooffed is false which implies A free person does not agree to be ooffed.
Sorry: Ayn Rand is BULLSHIT!

Different words, same meaning, same conclusion.

red team

8th April 2006, 04:03

Knowing the truism that a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll simply illustrate what unfettered Capitalism is all about graphically:

http://www.dwd.state.wi.us/dwd/DWDHistory/images/child_labor_big.jpg

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/s55.4a.jpg

Only egotistical sociopaths can justify something like this...

Tungsten

8th April 2006, 13:13

red team

Well that's the thing with us Communists. We don't believe in fighting our own battles.
You don't have anything to work with, so you're hoping that someone else does.

There's a slogan that goes "an injury to one is an injury to all". We're not egotistical individualists like you.
I'm not an egotistical anything and slogans are for people who don't think. There's something about this whole collectivist "herd" mentality that smacks of anti-intellectualism.

My boss lowered my wage and made me worked overtime. My friend's boss also did the same thing to him because there was no business in either of our stores. So one time when my friend got off his shift and came to my store, he looked around and said he couldn't buy anything because his boss didn't pay him enough, so I smacked him!
That's right. Unless goods are sold, you cannot be paid. So if you cannot be paid, it must be because someone is oppressing you. It's not your boss, because he isn't selling anything either, so it must be the consumer's fault. They've got to be forced to buy your stuff whether they want it or not (and you're forgetting that the government does this everyday.) By not buying your stuff, they're threatening your "right to a job".

Forcing people to buy stuff they don't want is wrong? Of course it is. But hey, the worker's livelihoods at stake, right? So anything goes.

And no, profits are not wages. They're a percentage of wages which is arbitrarily taken off by those who have the power to set the terms of the contract which you again refuse to acknowledge.
I don't acknowledge it as relevent (which it isn't) due to the fact that this is still a voluntary transaction, which you intend to replace with an involuntary one backed up by force.

Dim Bulb's Lunacy
And out comes the ad hominem. If I drove to to post all of that, then I guess I must have won. "Libertarian Barbarism"? I'll give you one point for creativity. If banning the use of force is barbarism, I'd love to see your definition of "civilisation".

"you've just written a series of contradictions" -- this coming from somebody who doesn't know logic or how to set up a logical argument from semi-retarded subjective ranting. That's a real laugh. I've yet to see you come up with a logical justification for profit taking.
My justification is perfectly logical, but it's clear by this point that you're not looking for logical arguments, which would go some way to explain why you're so ready to resort to violence to get what you want. It's a case of "I'm wrong, but I don't want to be wrong, so you must be."

Justify an unequal exchange for a worker's labour that preserves his freedom to realize the full benefits of his work.
You haven't learned a thing. You take every marxist premise as a primary unquestionable truth, as if it was religious gospel. What's an "equal exchange", when value is subjective? What both parties agree to? Yes.

But you don't want that.

Fine, I'll make up a word meaning unequally exchanged for.

uef: since it's pronounced oo - f, I'll just make the word oof

definition:
oof: unequally exchanged for.
That doesn't mean this work has any legitimate usage. How doubleplusungood.

Conclusion: A free person does agree to be robbed is false which implies A free person does not agree to be robbed.
Sorry: Ayn Rand is BULLSHIT!

substitute ooffed for robbed

Conclusion: A free person does agree to be ooffed is false which implies A free person does not agree to be ooffed.
Sorry: Ayn Rand is BULLSHIT! Different words, same meaning, same conclusion.
Same error. Same fallacy.

Knowing the truism that a picture is worth a thousand words, I'll simply illustrate what unfettered Capitalism is all about graphically
Child labour dissapeared thanks to capitalism- child labour was abolished because no was longer necessary, not because someone decided that banning it would be nice thing to do. In places without a western economy, child labour still happens and they'd be in serious trouble if they tried to abolish it. When they adopt a western economy, they too will be have the means to abolish it.

Never mind, I'm sure you'll do better next time. Try the one with the starving African kid, that's always a favourite.

Nicky Scarfo

8th April 2006, 20:06

Child labour dissapeared thanks to capitalism- child labour was abolished because no was longer necessary, not because someone decided that banning it would be nice thing to do.

It was abolished because people campaigned against it for decades, led marches on Washington, and guilted the rich Liberals into ending it. Before it was abolished on the national level, it was made effectively illegal in several states due to labor union activism and gains by the Socialist Party (despite a pro-capitalist US Supreme Court determined to strike down every labor law through an expansive interpretation of the 14th Amendment's "due process" clause which they applied to "corporate personhood").

Tungsten

9th April 2006, 08:59

Nicky Scarfo

It was abolished because people campaigned against it for decades, led marches on Washington, and guilted the rich Liberals into ending it.

Oh sure. Before any legislation is carried out, the legislation must first be economically viable. It was capitalism that made that abolition economically viable. It's the reason no one bothered about "child labour" in previous centuries- children were put to work from the moment they could work out of economic necessity.

Why don't you campaign for a $1000-an-hour minimum wage? Answer: It's not economically viable. The same was true of child labour in previous centuries. It's still true in Africa and other places today.

Invader Zim

9th April 2006, 11:17

Child labour dissapeared thanks to capitalism

Hmm, well actually it was the progressives like Owen, a socialist, and the Chartists who brought an end to Child labour in Britain.

Tungsten

9th April 2006, 13:39

Enigma

Hmm, well actually it was the progressives like Owen, a socialist, and the Chartists who brought an end to Child labour in Britain.
Thank the people who made it's abolition economically viable, not the johnny-come-lately legislators.

red team

9th April 2006, 20:25

And after a hard day's work slaving away to make your rich boss even richer you can look forward to relaxing in your comfy homes...

http://borgenproject.org/sitebuilder/images/slums-640x422.png

What a wonderful life this Capitalist paradise provides for the hard working and dedicated worker. :lol:

theraven

9th April 2006, 20:40

yes because we know how wonderful and luxious communist countires are LOL.

comparing the life of the poor in the SU with the poor in the USA is no comparion at all.

red team

9th April 2006, 23:40

You mean the U.S.S.R. Incorporated.

The Country-Wide corporate entity known previously as the U.S.S.R. was not Communist.

It never was. It was never the common working person that made the decisions.

Invader Zim

10th April 2006, 00:03

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2006, 01:48 PM
Enigma

Hmm, well actually it was the progressives like Owen, a socialist, and the Chartists who brought an end to Child labour in Britain.
Thank the people who made it's abolition economically viable, not the johnny-come-lately legislators.
Do please try and use the intellect you were born with, tired rhetoric does not float my boat.

The conditions making child labour necessary never existed. Children were exploited to maximise profits, not because of the threat of going bust.

I would also suggest you pick up a history book, Owen was no legislator and only a very limited minority of the Chartists were in government or any position of power. The Chartists were a powerful pressure group who lobbied the government.

Go read a book.

Tungsten

10th April 2006, 18:59

Enigma

The conditions making child labour necessary never existed.
Great- another utopian. Things must look very different from the top of that ivory tower of yours, but let's take a look at reality instead of ideology.

Why do you think chld labour is so widely used in Africa and in poorer nations? To work on farms (which they do from the moment they can walk)- just so their family can eat. That's why, apart from the high infant mortality rate, they have so many children per family- more hands to work, or they all starve. It's not because we're "nice" and Africans are "nasty", it's because they'd all be dead otherwise.

Children were exploited to maximise profits, not because of the threat of going bust.
Do please try and use the intellect you were born with, tired rhetoric does not float my boat.

I would also suggest you pick up a history book, Owen was no legislator and only a very limited minority of the Chartists were in government or any position of power. The Chartists were a powerful pressure group who lobbied the government.
You can't lobby economic viability into existence.

cyu

11th April 2006, 00:25

Why do you think chld labour is so widely used in Africa and in poorer nations? To work on farms (which they do from the moment they can walk)- just so their family can eat.

First you have to look at what people do for a living before you can judge whether child labor is necessary. For example, if there's a significant percentage of the population building palaces, acting as servants, or in other ways engaged in serving the ruling class, then you can't say for sure that child labor is necessary, because if these people were instead engaged in producing goods and services for the average person, then child labor may not be necessary. The greater the gap between rich and poor, the lower the portion of resources that are allocated to serving the poor. Less affordable goods available means more labor necessary for poor families trying to survive.

theraven

11th April 2006, 02:16

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2006, 11:34 PM

Why do you think chld labour is so widely used in Africa and in poorer nations? To work on farms (which they do from the moment they can walk)- just so their family can eat.

First you have to look at what people do for a living before you can judge whether child labor is necessary. For example, if there's a significant percentage of the population building palaces, acting as servants, or in other ways engaged in serving the ruling class, then you can't say for sure that child labor is necessary, because if these people were instead engaged in producing goods and services for the average person, then child labor may not be necessary. The greater the gap between rich and poor, the lower the portion of resources that are allocated to serving the poor. Less affordable goods available means more labor necessary for poor families trying to survive.
usuaully even if there is a large population of peopel workign for the rich they are urban poor and would nto be engaged in farming either way. most children who work on farms work on family farms where hiring workers would not be an option. it is normal in all societies for children to work on family farms. (ours too)