Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Socialism never worked because it is stupid and wrong. Objectivism never worked because wicked collectivists sabotaged it out of sheer spite. S'obvious, innit?
What did I just read? Ayn Rand's Philosophy.
- Thread starter Eukaryote
- Start date
cegman
Scott Walker Supporter
I was unaware Objectivism was ever tried? Where was that?
Murky
Deity
Kowloon city (now demolished) and Mogadishu, Somalia are similar to Objectivism. That is is there is little or no government involvement in the daily lives of the people.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The last thirty years haven't been what you'd call counter-Randian, exactly.
Isn't considering Reaganomics or neoliberalism or whatever you're alluding to an example for the implementation of Randian philosophy a little unfair, especially considering your usual reaction when people attempt to do the same with Communism and Stalin?
I couldn't come up with plans for a Randian utopia that worked, mainly because I don't think there have been tries. Presumably because it's a fringe ideology that's basically irrelevant outside of the Anglosphere.
I couldn't come up with plans for a Randian utopia that worked, mainly because I don't think there have been tries. Presumably because it's a fringe ideology that's basically irrelevant outside of the Anglosphere.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
It would be, if that wasn't exactly what I was making fun of.
Even the Brits have some dignity.
For that matter, nothing has ever been tried in its pure form. What Objectivists accomplish, however, is to utterly ignore objective reality and substitute a fictional worldview and try to get governments to create policies based on their imaginations.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Fair point. I interpreted "relevance", in your original post, as meaning "of political consequence", but that may have been too narrow a reading.
(Ayn Rand is actually a pretty good illustration the problem of formulating a coherent Objectivism within the terms of British right-wing politics- on the one hand, he espouses a Randian ethics and economics, but when it actually comes to matters of society and the state, he's a pretty bog-standard Loyalist. This isn't the sort of thing that many Yankee objectivists would post, if you follow me.)
Who are you and what did you do with Leoreth? Hmm... must be having a lucid interval, but nice of you to be fair.
Existing is easy enough, but can't we pay someone poor to do the sweeping?
They haven't been counter-socialist either. We've both had it our own way, and we're both ungrateful.
Neither of which were minarchist States - more like anarchy with armed gangs serving security needs.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
No, they've been exactly counter-socialist. I'm honestly baffled that you could think otherwise.
I'm not sure that I understand the distinction.
To a purist like you the welfare state is probably just a patronising sop thrown to the exploited worker. But nonetheless it is a form of socialism that reformers aim at and which makes capital pay its keep to the politically strong working class.
Distinction is between minarchism and anarchism. Minarchism has a clear idea of rule of law, army, courts, property rights, individual liberty guaranteed by the State and so on.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
I decline to recognise your ideological fictions.
So what's this argument supposed to mean - we give a redistribution deal in society or anarchy is the inevitable result? I suppose you're saying that minarchy is inherently unachievable in principle and practise and would be a short path to social breakdown.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
Not at all- I'm saying that the distinction between an armed gang and a state stripped of its mediatory and amelioratory functions is in practice non-existent. It's only the ideological fiction of "political legitimacy" that distinguishes one body of armed men from the other.
Here you are being simplistic about armed men and the many different motives and behaviours that they have. A triad gang in Kowloon is not the same as an Islamic militia in Somalia in either their goals or their behaviours, nor in the social behaviours they police - they tolerate or outlaw different types of behaviour. All groups must have an identity, goals and norms of some sort to remain viable as a group, therefore there are important distinctions between armed gangs even in a state of anarchy, meaning the distinction is not restricted to political legitimacy.
But that is the more trivial point. Your more important point is that minarchy is an armed gang, which means you are claiming that minarchy is naked force without the ability to solve problems in society. Yet none of the voluntary powers of co-operation and negotiation need to be lost in a minarchy, you are really advocating in favour of policies such as wealth redistribution and regulation etc which you know ultimately can only be maintained with force.
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
The fact that there exists distinctions between different authorities does not mean that the distinctions you like to imagine are actually among them. There are indeed differences between a triad gang and an Islamic militia, but what I claim is that there is nothing which they have in common with with each other that they do not also have in common with the minarchist state
I am not convinced that voluntarism has a particularly successful record in resolving the antagonisms of capitalist society. Feel free to give examples to the contrary, should any exist.
I don't think you know very much my politics.
A long way of reiterating your point that minarchy is an armed gang.
Well, your politics consist of rejecting armed gangs while claiming that voluntarism is not useful. So apparently I'm falling between the two chairs while you somehow are sitting on both of them, or what?
