What is this objectivism and Ayn rand person?

I also think that there should be robust debate and a democratic system. You haven't explained your position in Rousseau's social contract yet. Do you agree with him that the general will of the majority is infallible?

I feel stupid, but I haven't yet actually read any Rousseau, but I'd like to before I go to off to college next fall.
But no, the majority can clearly be wrong. Look at the opinion the majority of white Americans used to have on slavery and segregation, it was clearly disgusting and quite popular. People are wrong, that's why I believe in Deliberative Democracy.
 
What's the deal with you and communism/socialism? It looks like you're creating a fictional enemy. In nearly every post in this thread, you attack communism and socialism. Who else is even talking about those?

This is the whole "black/white", "good/evil", "objectivist/collectivist" non-sense that we have been getting at. Randroids have lost the ability to think outside of this "I am right, and everyone who disagrees is a communist" mindset.
 
Nah. Others condemn the philosophy because it's a crap pop philosophy, not because of its politics.
Well, I said "most," not "all." ;)
Understatement of the day! Objectivism is transparently bunk to anybody who's gotten above a c- in a freshman philosophy survey, I'd say (or at least I'd hope!)
Yeah, it was probably an understatement, although I think you're making an overstatement. :)

Rand was the first philosopher I was ever exposed to, and although I never subscribed to her philosophy, it got me interested in the field in general, since her ideas are certainly provacative. I have to give her credit for that.
 
This is the whole "black/white", "good/evil", "objectivist/collectivist" non-sense that we have been getting at. Randroids have lost the ability to think outside of this "I am right, and everyone who disagrees is a communist" mindset.

Actually they are expressing a point of view they believe to be true, just as you are doing now.
 
Actually they are expressing a point of view they believe to be true, just as you are doing now.

Well, if my belief is that objectivists are too sure of the perfection of their beliefs, then ya. My beliefs are not that there are not absolutes, but that one should be wary of a system of beliefs that says it has "solved" the absolutes and correctly completed the circle. Most objectivists take the point of view that it is self-evident that it is impossible for them to be wrong - how could they be, they are objectivists. It is the antithesis to the scientific approach.
 
Yeah, it was probably an understatement, although I think you're making an overstatement. :)

Hah maybe a bit of an overstatement but not much!

The fact that nobody in academic philosophy cares about Rand speaks volumes. And don't tell me (not speaking to you but to Randians) that it was because of personal traits or because she wrote a certain way or because she was so different. There are many philosophers who were personally friggen bizarre (e.g. Heidegger, Wittgenstein) but who's ideas are still taken very seriously. There are also philosophers who had a very unorthodox styles of doing philosophy (e.g. Nietzsche, many of the continentals, Kripke) but who are still studied intensely. And it also wasn't because her views were so "radical" compared to mainstream philosophy. Many philosophers that are studied hold virtually completely opposite views on many important matters (a good modern example would be Dworkin vs Posner or Searle vs Dennett, historical example would be something like Ryle vs Decartes). The fact is that Rand is bunk because its simply terrible philosophy. She wouldn't be the only "philosopher" who is enjoyed by a general or nonacademic audience but no philosopher takes seriously at all (Derrida would be another good example, as well as some scientists' attempts at phil. of religion).

Rand was the first philosopher I was ever exposed to, and although I never subscribed to her philosophy, it got me interested in the field in general, since her ideas are certainly provacative. I have to give her credit for that.

Hmm well that's a good thing!
 
Hah maybe a bit of an overstatement but not much!

The fact that nobody in academic philosophy cares about Rand speaks volumes. And don't tell me (not speaking to you but to Randians) that it was because of personal traits or because she wrote a certain way or because she was so different. There are many philosophers who were personally friggen bizarre (e.g. Heidegger, Wittgenstein) but who's ideas are still taken very seriously. There are also philosophers who had a very unorthodox styles of doing philosophy (e.g. Nietzsche, many of the continentals, Kripke) but who are still studied intensely. And it also wasn't because her views were so "radical" compared to mainstream philosophy. Many philosophers that are studied hold virtually completely opposite views on many important matters (a good modern example would be Dworkin vs Posner or Searle vs Dennett, historical example would be something like Ryle vs Decartes). The fact is that Rand is bunk because its simply terrible philosophy. She wouldn't be the only "philosopher" who is enjoyed by a general or nonacademic audience but no philosopher takes seriously at all (Derrida would be another good example, as well as some scientists' attempts at phil. of religion).
Well, Robert Nozick cares about Rand (he took the time to evaluate her arguments in his Socratic Puzzles, and maybe elsewhere too). He might be the only one, though.
 
A free market cannot prevent monopolies. If a company is working extremely well in comparision to its competitors, it will gain customers. Technically, Objectivists don't consider market giants that don't forcibly prevent competition, to be monopolies. Under laissez faire, a business doesn't have political means to prohibit another's market actions, and free markets don't (and shouldn't) prevent market dominators who aren't legally restricting others from competing. On the upside, the bigger the company, the slower and less efficient it becomes, which alows upstarts to gain market share, to one day become giants themselves. The simplicity of self-regulation.
How do you prevent a business from having the means to prevent another's market action, for example by dumping?
What constitutes legal and illegal restriction?

Now, I'll use "monopoly" here about an effective monopoly with a 90% market share, as a 100% market share is impossible in practice. Benchmark:
Wikipedia article on Standard Oil said:
By 1890, Standard Oil controlled 88% of the refined oil flows in the United States. In 1904 when the lawsuit began it controlled 91% of production and 85% of final sales.
<snip>
...unfair methods of competition, such as local price cutting at the points where necessary to suppress competition...
Would an Objectivist seek to prevent a company from raising and lowering prices on its goods as it wishes? In other words, what is the Objectivist position on government regulation requiring companies to not run at a loss?
 
After reading this thread I think that I haven't changed my views on Randism ( from the excessive quoting and idolising of her it can be fair to assume she has a personality cult).

If a company has a monopoly on a market then the point of free market is killed off, they have no incentive to improve their product or anything else, it goes aginst the point of the free market.

IMO you have to help the unforutante, perhaps you're view may change if you get paralysed or something later in life, and need government help. Less taxes wouldn't mean more money, the ammount of money would stay the same would it not? If you have $100, I take $40 of them and redistribute them, or you just give $40 yourself, its the same ammount. But under your view that humans are only motivated for personal gain ( because it seems persoanal wealth and happiness are directly related in randism) then you would not give the money out would you? But a government would, and should a better job of it to.

Something I don't get is that how are humans only motiated by seeking heir own happiness? Then how do you explain families and marrige? Personal gain is sacrificed all the time in them for other people, and they are far more natural insitutions then an ideaoogy.

@ lord rahl, I am a social democrat btw, yes I don't really know enough to be sure that's the best thing, but from my current knowledge it seems to be the best option( perhaps I should rephrase that to the least bad option) Also I fail to see what you gain by not taking anything good from other view points, rather then just crouching on percieved perfection.

@ansheem, I might get the at;las shrugged book, as it seems to be the most important one, but there are other books higher on my list ( you gave mne some author names :lol:) and this ideaology seems very extreme. Hm then again more knowledge is always a good thing :king:
 
How do we define a "good" philosopher from a "bad" philosopher?
 
How do we define a "good" philosopher from a "bad" philosopher?

rigor of argument, methodological awareness, fidelity to any cited texts or arguments, understanding of the relevant problems, etc. etc.
 
Let's go by your definition of stealing. Then it is clear that collecting taxes is not theft.

I took the permission to bold two words in your quote: "without permission".

You may not have realised this, but by living in a society where it is the law that you pay taxes, you have freely given your permission that said taxes be collected.

If you wish to withdraw that permission, you are free to resign your swedish citizenship and emigrate.

(Yes, you are free to leave Sweden at any time. ;) )

Imagine you are living in a block where the mafia practically controlls everything and you have to pay protection money to run a business etc. When you complain they say that you are free to leave so there's nothing wrong with what the mafia is doing.
 
Very interesting thread indeed...
What is Rand's thought about national security? and more specifically, about spending taxpayer's money on so many weapons and having such a large army that has to be paid for its services. Is it OK to collect money to build an army but not OK to collect money to have a healthcare system? What if, as amaterasu said, you get paralyzed, say when you are 26 and a baby to take care of. Why do you have to rely on charity?

And what if I don't want my money to be spent in weapons? Can I have a tax break? If I am a pacifist and I don't want my government to buy weapons, Is the government stealing me too? Should national security be a charitable or privately run? If national security is essential for a country, so is healthcare, IMHO.
 
amaterasu if you'd prefer a shorter version of Ayn Rand then watch the movie "Fountainhead" (with Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal). She wrote the book and screenplay, as well.

Urederra here's an interview with Playboy she did in 1964.
PLAYBOY: What, in your view, is the proper function of a government?

RAND: Basically, there is really only one proper function: the protection of individual rights. Since rights can be violated only by physical force, and by certain derivatives of physical force, the proper function of government is to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force: from those who are criminals. Force, in a free society, may be used only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use. This is the proper task of government: to serve as a policeman who protects men from the use of force. PLAYBOY: If force may be used only in retaliation against force, does the government have the right to use force to collect taxes, for example, or to draft soldiers?

RAND: In principle, I believe that taxation should be voluntary, like everything else. But how one would implement this is a very complex question. I can only suggest certain methods, but I would not attempt to insist on them as a definitive answer. A government lottery, for instance, used in many countries in Europe, is one good method of voluntary taxation. There are others. Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should be willing to pay for -- as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is a problem for a distant future, for the time when men will establish a fully free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to advocate. As to the draft, it is improper and unconstitutional. It is a violation of fundamental rights, of a man's right to his own life. No man has the right to send another man to fight and die for his, the sender's, cause. A country has no right to force men into involuntary servitude. Armies should be strictly voluntary; and, as military authorities will tell you, volunteer armies are the best armies.

PLAYBOY: What about other public needs? Do you consider the post office, for example, a legitimate function of government?

RAND: Now let's get this straight. My position is fully consistent. Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. I advocate the separation of state and economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run.
http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html


Honestly, I feel Alvin Toffler (Future Shock) and John Naisbitt (Megatrends series) had a much better and realistic view of society as we know it.
 
Imagine you are living in a block where the mafia practically controlls everything and you have to pay protection money to run a business etc. When you complain they say that you are free to leave so there's nothing wrong with what the mafia is doing.

On the other hand, does the mafia provide you with a service?
 
RAND: Now let's get this straight. My position is fully consistent. Not only the post office, but streets, roads, and above all, schools, should all be privately owned and privately run. I advocate the separation of state and economics. The government should be concerned only with those issues which involve the use of force. This means: the police, the armed services, and the law courts to settle disputes among men. Nothing else. Everything else should be privately run and would be much better run.
That's insane!
 
Since rights can be violated only by physical force, and by certain derivatives of physical force, the proper function of government is to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force
So rights can be only violated by physical force?

Basically then children don't have right to learn to read...

so those children will always be free to do whatever they want. Maybe someone pities them enough and educates them, or chooses that their children are better off if some children don't learn to read...
Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should be willing to pay for -- as they pay for insurance.
Could someone explain what is the incentive to pay voluntarily taxes?

Especially if you know that your neighbour doesn't pay them?

The whole idea of democracy and social contract is to maintain "tolerable amout" of pay towards taxes, of course there will be always whiners just like people whine about everything else.
 
On the other hand, does the mafia provide you with a service?

Whether they do or not isn't really relevant as it is a service I never asked for. But one does call it protection money they do give me some protection but it is a service I am forced to buy.
 
Whether they do or not isn't really relevant as it is a service I never asked for. But one does call it protection money they do give me some protection but it is a service I am forced to buy.
Nobody asked from you either of course whether you should be delivered, feed and educated etc.

The mob (society) asks then from you: should we have given you to the wolves?

But of course, let just look whole situation from the inviduals point of view when he's grown up and starts to call the society a mafia since taxes bugger him. :crazyeye:

Question is: Who's robbing who?

Answer is: We all are robbing each other since the other option is killing. Feel free to choose otherwise.

I choose robbing any day over killing.
 
Could someone explain what is the incentive to pay voluntarily taxes?

Especially if you know that your neighbour doesn't pay them?

The whole idea of democracy and social contract is to maintain "tolerable amout" of pay towards taxes, of course there will be always whiners just like people whine about everything else.

There's a part of game theory here. The people who cooperate can do well, but the person who doesn't cooperate with others, as an individual, does better than those who cooperate.

In other words, a person who doesn't pay taxes can benefit from the programs paid for by the tax paying people.
 
Back
Top Bottom