bernie14
Filter Manipulator
yes, yes, the great men like Hitler, Mao, Castro and Stalin were all well known for their objectivist mind sets.....
What is your view of Libertarianism and Ayn Rand?
- Thread starter JonBonham
- Start date
- Status
yes, yes, the great men like Hitler, Mao, Castro and Stalin were all well known for their objectivist mind sets.....
The point isn't that the objectivists will necessarily seize power, but that it's extremely easy to end up with power being concentrated in a relatively few number of people when the state is very weak. While you might of course say that a state already is a few number of people having a great amount of power, the idea is that they are accountable to the population they claim to represent (at least in theory).
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Well that and the characters in Rands books do seem dangerously close to Chairman Mao.
Ziggy Stardust
Absolutely Sane
We're in bad shape when "no you" is considered witty.
And when I say "we" ....
And when I say "we" ....
Traitorfish
The Tighnahulish Kid
X who did Y was not Z, therefore nobody who ever does Y could be Z? Bad, bad logic you're peddling, there.
ParkCungHee
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2006
- Messages
- 12,921
Even then I doubt it's actually true. The belief that society will collapse without yourself, and people such as yourself, and a willingness to watch it happen so that society will be forced to reconfigure itself to your will is a pretty damn good description of the mindset of Mao, Stalin and Hitler.
What a disappointing non-answerRationality is the primary virtue so the first thing you will do is have a think about it, and then you will discuss the problem with your friends - you are an Objectivist so you will have Objectivist friends, who are the most intelligent and loving people on Earth
That ought to sort you out, but if it doesn't work then there is some kind of contradiction or inconsistency in your idea system somewhere that you will need to resolve. The problem will either be with you, or with Objectivist theory. Once you have found the contradiction/inconsistency, the next step is to resolve it in some way. How you do this will depend on what it is - it could be purely intellectual, or emotional, or some physical problem.
You will then either realise that your self-interest is served by Objectivism, or you will realise that you no longer believe in Objectivism and are no longer an Objectivist. If the latter, then you will be in opposition to Objectivism and, if the problem is sufficiently serious, you will have to bring it to the attention of others and try to do something about it. But like all problems, you can look forward to some hard work and heroic struggle as you struggle manfully to solve it
/out of the thread
Perfection
The Great Head.
That strikes me as ignorant and arrogant...
le sigh - the Hitler card and name-calling have begun. It was a good thread while it lasted though, thanks to all those who made it an interesting and challenging discussion.
@Leoreth - re-read my answer, maybe with a sense of humour
@Leoreth - re-read my answer, maybe with a sense of humour
Perfection
The Great Head.
Well if you'd like something substantive you could answer what Jolly Roger was getting at. The question of why bankruptcy protection for businesses doesn't constitute unacceptable government intervention but subsidized services does.
I don't know why he keeps bringing it up as he never really explains himself, but as far as I can see, the "bankruptcy protection" is simply a legal limit to how much you can be sued for if your business fails - the State doesn't actually pay your bills or bail you out, so it's not a subsidy. It's simply a legal tradition in a trading/business environment which sets basic ground rules. When businesses extend trade credit to each other, they do so in the knowledge that they are dealing with a limited company. It's up to businesses to make decisions about who they lend to and how much credit they extend - they would still have to make those decisions even if limited liability didn't exist.
The point is that the government imposes bankruptcy protection. With it the person/business can try again. Without it they lose everything and end up in debtors prisons.
I see - to be honest it makes no difference to me either way. It's just a business convention but if it limits economic freedom in some way then it would probably be removed at some point, I don't see why anyone would care too much about it one way or the other.
People care because mild bankruptcy laws make people much more willing to try to create new businesses and take chances with existing businesses. The result is a much more vibrant economy. Everyone wins, because the total wealth available to society will be greater in the long run.
So you see, that there's an example of a government intrusion in the "free market" where there are no losers. One of many.
I used the search function, but didn't get any hits.
What's the libertarian view of patents and copyright? Now, the reason for having patents and copyright makes sense to us, because it's supposed to spur innovation. We all know it doesn't work perfectly, but we get the intent.
But it seems like patents and copyright are just not available in the libertarian system. Patents prevent me from manufacturing treatments for malaria in my basement, using supplies I purchased myself. Copyright prevents me from recording an event that I'm allowed to 'record' with my eyes, and is restricting me from using my own property the way I want.
Are libertarians 'for' copyright? Or against it? And do self-identifying libertarians have illegally downloaded materials that they've used?
What's the libertarian view of patents and copyright? Now, the reason for having patents and copyright makes sense to us, because it's supposed to spur innovation. We all know it doesn't work perfectly, but we get the intent.
But it seems like patents and copyright are just not available in the libertarian system. Patents prevent me from manufacturing treatments for malaria in my basement, using supplies I purchased myself. Copyright prevents me from recording an event that I'm allowed to 'record' with my eyes, and is restricting me from using my own property the way I want.
Are libertarians 'for' copyright? Or against it? And do self-identifying libertarians have illegally downloaded materials that they've used?
If you say so, although I think it is at best a tedious and misdirected point - no-one is forced by government to form a limited company or to trade with one. It's just an offer on the table, unlike taxes or regulations which people can't walk away from. [Example: if the govt didn't force me to pay taxes, I wouldn't have a problem with taxes].
@El Mac - I don't know about liberatarians, but Objectivists are strongly in favour of intellectual property protection of all kinds.
HannibalBarka
We are Free
OK, in a wonderful world that may work. Now if the rich elite don't give enough charity to the "people that can't take care of themselves and so do need charity", what is to be done?
Second: to give everyone a chance to get to this Elite, to make it a meritocracy basically, shouldn't at least basic education, health, etc be provided to the kids of the poor? I mean I just can't believe in a "freedom" based system where poor have no choice but transfer their poverty to their kids, and where the Elite got stuck in a "hereditery" system like the Ancient Regime in France
MagisterCultuum
Great Sage
Libertarians tend to be more against patents and copyrights than for them, but this is not at all universal or without nuance. If you recall that video I posted a while back showing a (utilitarian rather than doctrinaire) libertarian position on intellectual property, it argued that trademark protections are important for fighting fraud and limited patents are useful for advancing at least some technologies, but copyrights are almost universally counterproductive and ought to be eliminated.
Ayn Rand was very much in favor of the state enforcing intellectual property rights. She was emphatic that artists like herself were just as important to society as industrialists and deserved to profit from their creations. She seemed to overlook how in the real world intellectual property tends to benefit corporate masters rather than those who actually made the advances.
Ayn Rand was very much in favor of the state enforcing intellectual property rights. She was emphatic that artists like herself were just as important to society as industrialists and deserved to profit from their creations. She seemed to overlook how in the real world intellectual property tends to benefit corporate masters rather than those who actually made the advances.
- Status
Similar threads
