Seattle May Day

[LeftyStrat]

I guess I really don't understand her. I believe strongly in individual rights, but also believe in civic duty. I believe altruism (concern for the welfare of others) is all that separates us from psychopaths.

[NickC]

I guess I really don't understand her. I believe strongly in individual rights, but also believe in civic duty. I believe altruism (concern for the welfare of others) is all that separates us from psychopaths.

Folks often (sometimes deliberately to obfuscate) confuse "altruism" with "benevolence".

"Altruism" is the concept that keeps the individual a slave to the collective. It is, in practical application, a supplication to the Marxist principle: To each in accordance with their need; from each in accordance with their ability." Naturally, it is the ruling class within the Marxist construct (i.e. thugs, bullies, elite) that defines "need" and "ability". Cronyism runs rampant. Personal responsibility, morality, and ethics are all warped to fit the agenda of the ruling class. In the words of George Orwell (Animal Farm): All animals are created equal, but some are more equal than others."

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Central to Ayn Rand's philosophy was the essential requirement of personal responsibility, morality and ethics. She was not opposed to benevolence, indeed, she advocated it. But not to the extent of sacrificing oneself to the whims of the corrupt collective and the Looters and Thugs that control it.

Detractors of Ayn Rand NEED to twist her philosophy, and to spin it out of context. The reason they do so, is because her philosophy offers compelling, rational, and irrefutable logic and historical context to debunk Marxism, socialism, communism, et al. Thus, they seek to dispel the Truth she presents (despite her novels being fiction), because they otherwise can not win the argument. They come from a bankrupt "ism" where logic is irrelevant (indeed, a problem .... so they eliminate the intelligentsia at every opportunity .... Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler, etc). They dominate the masses through bribes, cronyism, extortion, bullying, imprisonment, marginalization, and murder if the threat is great enough.

Altruism Theory

What is the moral code of altruism? The basic principle of altruism is that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.

Do not confuse altruism with kindness, good will or respect for the rights of others. These are not primaries, but consequences, which, in fact, altruism makes impossible. The irreducible primary of altruism, the basic absolute, is self-sacrifice—which means; self-immolation, self-abnegation, self-denial, self-destruction—which means: the self as a standard of evil, the selfless as a standard of the good.

Do not hide behind such superficialities as whether you should or should not give a dime to a beggar. That is not the issue. The issue is whether you do or do not have the right to exist without giving him that dime. The issue is whether you must keep buying your life, dime by dime, from any beggar who might choose to approach you. The issue is whether the need of others is the first mortgage on your life and the moral purpose of your existence. The issue is whether man is to be regarded as a sacrificial animal. Any man of self-esteem will answer: “No.” Altruism says: “Yes.”

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html


Reading Atlas Shrugged (even if only once) can only improve one's mind.

[johnnyreece]

What an interesting turn things take. I'm more of a middle ground kinda guy, but I will say, I don't think any particular economic system or system of government has a monopoly on "bribes, cronyism, extortion, bullying, imprisonment, marginalization, and murder". Nor have I seen an economic system or system of government that has been able to prevent abuses of the system. For every person with good intentions, there's someone looking for the easy way. And if they're smart enough, they will find it. And it will be on the backs of someone else's hard work, no matter what system you're using.

[NickC]

What an interesting turn things take. I'm more of a middle ground kinda guy, but I will say, I don't think any particular economic system or system of government has a monopoly on "bribes, cronyism, extortion, bullying, imprisonment, marginalization, and murder". Nor have I seen an economic system or system of government that has been able to prevent abuses of the system. For every person with good intentions, there's someone looking for the easy way. And if they're smart enough, they will find it. And it will be on the backs of someone else's hard work, no matter what system you're using.

Bingo!

That's why it's best to have more personal liberty and less governance. That way the power is much more diffused, much more localized and vested in individuals, and less likely to be abused by large groups exerting power to subjugate individuals.

[LeftyStrat]

What an interesting turn things take. I'm more of a middle ground kinda guy, but I will say, I don't think any particular economic system or system of government has a monopoly on "bribes, cronyism, extortion, bullying, imprisonment, marginalization, and murder". Nor have I seen an economic system or system of government that has been able to prevent abuses of the system. For every person with good intentions, there's someone looking for the easy way. And if they're smart enough, they will find it. And it will be on the backs of someone else's hard work, no matter what system you're using.

Bingo!

That's why it's best to have more personal liberty and less governance. That way the power is much more diffused, much more localized and vested in individuals, and less likely to be abused by large groups exerting power to subjugate individuals.

I agree in principle, but unfortunately, this is touted by people like the Koch brothers, who view any attempt to stop them from screwing the environment as taking away their personal liberty.

[johnnyreece]

Yep, too much freedom can be bad, too. I like to think of this quote when trying to come up with balance, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I know it's been misquoted all over, and I believe this is a misquote, as well, but the premise is sound.

If we're going to talk about books, check out "The Jungle" for the other side of the coin. I suppose that's the exact opposite of Rand's socialist future; our capitalist past. I hope we never have to choose between either of those, because, frankly, they both suck.

[NickC]

Yep, too much freedom can be bad, too. I like to think of this quote when trying to come up with balance, "The right to swing my fist ends where the other man's nose begins." I know it's been misquoted all over, and I believe this is a misquote, as well, but the premise is sound.

If we're going to talk about books, check out "The Jungle" for the other side of the coin. I suppose that's the exact opposite of Rand's socialist future; our capitalist past. I hope we never have to choose between either of those, because, frankly, they both suck.

I've read the Upton Sinclair. The Jungle epitomizes abuse of power, and lack of personal responsibility, immoral and unethical behavior.

Ayn Rand was not a socialist. Far from it. The opposite, in fact.

Some indict Capitalism because of the misapprehension that freedom begets abuse of power. But abuse of power is a human failing, and evident in any system of governance. No system is immune. So which system is best to preserve liberty, personal responsibility, self-reliance and creativity and industry? It is capitalism. Not perfect, just best.

I disagree that too much freedom is bad. Too much irresponsibility, coupled with immorality and lack of ethics is bad. Freedom is inherently good. Were it not for peoples compunction to behave badly, any system could be made to work. But then, in that fantasy, power DOESN'T corrupt. Sadly, we have to deal with the reality of how bad some people can be. Therefore we're best off being free from their dominion over us.

[johnnyreece]

Ayn Rand was not a socialist. Far from it. The opposite, in fact.

Sorry, her version of the future was socialist, not her personal viewpoint, just as Sinclair was not a capitalist (actually, I believe The Jungle was originally published in a socialist newsletter). I apologize for being unclear.

[NickC]

Ayn Rand was not a socialist. Far from it. The opposite, in fact.

Sorry, her version of the future was socialist, not her personal viewpoint, just as Sinclair was not a capitalist (actually, I believe The Jungle was originally published in a socialist newsletter). I apologize for being unclear.

I understand now. Rand's dystopian future was indeed a socialist, fascist system; much akin to the reality we face today.

You are correct, Sinclair was opposed to what he understood to be capitalism. Although his understanding was flawed. Too many see the ugly side of human irresponsibility as being part-and-parcel to capitalism. But they are two different things.

Capitalism is ownership and control of the means of production by individuals. Socialism is private ownership of the means of production, but under control of a central governmental authority. Communism is shared ownership of the means of production by the people (it has never been accomplished by any mass society, the closest example would be some small tribal communities prior to the early American frontier).

The United States Constitution was written by the framers so as to preserve liberty, by limiting government to only a few core essential responsibilities. As government has expanded, it has far exceeded those Constitutional limitations. Thus, the protections to personal liberty guaranteed by the Constitution have been severely compromised. Voting can restore order and balance, if people elect representatives that will reset the system to the original parameters, and dispense with the hundreds-of-thousands of petty regulations lobbied (i.e. bought) by political action committees for their corporate (and sometimes hostile, foreign multi-national, quasi governmental) masters. If too many of the people can't shake off the corruption they've embraced until now, we will all be doomed. Those that don't learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

[vibratoking]

...Voting can restore order and balance, if people elect representatives that will reset the system to the original parameters, and dispense with the hundreds-of-thousands of petty regulations lobbied (i.e. bought) by political action committees for their corporate (and sometimes hostile, foreign multi-national, quasi governmental) masters....

Yup. That ain't happening anytime soon, I'm afraid.

Dollarocracy: How the Money and Media Election Complex is Destroying America
http://www.amazon.com/Dollarocracy-Elec ... 1568587074

[LeftyStrat]

I don't think something can be fascist and socialist. At least Hitler's brand of fascism was very business friendly. Now I know the fascists called themselves socialist, but this was to dupe the socialist leaning workers of the time.

We need to think in terms of two dimensions when talking politics. Think of the x axis as dealing with economics, i.e. left-right, and the y axis as dealing with personal liberty, i.e. authoritarianism vs libertarianism. Both Hitler and Stalin were authoritarian, while representing opposite sides of the spectrum when it came to economics.

On the libertarian end, there is Libertarian Socialism to the left, and Anarcho-capitalism on the right.

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

There's a quiz you can take to see where you fall on the two axis.

[johnnyreece]

Yeah, I think, the point I'm wanting to make is, no system is perfect. It only takes a little corruption to spoil the whole thing. So many are good in theory. In practice, we're human. For better, or worse.

[Teleguy61]

Lotta soapboxes in here today.

[Reeltarded]

Glad this place has become political. It makes it much less stressful.

I am an objectivist. It's my fault if I suck or not. Save yourselves.

Goodbye.

[johnnyreece]

Glad this place has become political. It makes it much less stressful.

I am an objectivist. It's my fault if I suck or not. Save yourselves.

Goodbye.

I blame election day. I think it's over until November now, right?

Even though it may be frowned upon to discuss it, I'm glad that the chat happened without incident. It shows the kind of class people here have. Cheers.