| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Ave Volta
Black Frog Logistics
Red-Frog
   |
Posted - 2011.02.08 00:19:00 -
[61]
 Originally by: Liberty Eternal
Originally by: Ave Volta
Can you name me anyone who was not a monarch or dictator who lead without compromise?
Isaac Newton
Copernicus
Gottlob Frege
Alexander Fleming
Albert Einstein
Euclid
Is this enough, or do you want the entire list of minds who possessed an uncompromising dedication to the truth?
Originally by: Ave Volta
So are you telling me you can turn off and on your emotions at will depending on the type of decision you are making? If you say 'no' then the above statement can't be true. If you say 'yes' then call the presses.
I'll give you an example: a maths teacher writes the sum 2+2=4 on his classroom board.
Does the answer change depending on his emotional state? Do his feelings influence the truth of the matter?
When an engineer builds a bridge out of steel rather than plastic, or when a surgeon makes a cut that is precisely 10mm in length, did their emotional state influence the truth of the matter, or the decision needed?
The facts of our objective reality do not depend on emotional states, and people acquire and apply knowledge all the time without their emotions being involved.
Originally by: Ave Volta
The point is that they thought they were being logical and rational even though they were just nut jobs.
That's hardly an argument against objectivism. If a madman thinks he's a Doctor, that is not an argument against medical science. So why should a madman who thinks he's rational be an argument against rationality?
Ok one more post...
I was talking about leaders of nations dumbsh!t
And emotions as they relate to making decisions about mathematics and logic itself is hardly what we are talking about here. Another fantastic job and not responding to actual core arguments. The kinds of decisions rand wanted us to make without emotion were:
-Should I fire the cancer patient to make my company more profitable?
-Should I forcibly buyout my neighbors land to increase my crop yield?
-Should I take government handouts for healthcare even though I spent my life rallying against them, and even though I will appear like hypocritical dumbfck? 
--------------------------------
RED FROG ALLIANCE: Here, There, and Everywhere. |
Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 00:29:00 -
[62]
Granted I haven't read all of Ayn Rand's works, but I seem to recall all of her heroes working -against- the law of the land.
Can you please advise how she believes in rule of law, and what books she suggests that in, so I can read those as well?
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 00:41:00 -
[63]
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 08/02/2011 00:47:39
Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane
Granted I haven't read all of Ayn Rand's works, but I seem to recall all of her heroes working -against- the law of the land.
Can you please advise how she believes in rule of law, and what books she suggests that in, so I can read those as well?
Objectivist law would primarily defend liberty, individual rights, property rights and contract rights.
Rand is explicit throughout Atlas Shrugs that these kind of objective principles must be upheld through law and that laws cannot violate individual rights but
only have legitimacy when supporting individual rights and freedoms.
A good book for the more explicit application of these principles into politics is "the Virtue of Selfishness: a new concept of Egoism" which is a collection of essays published in the 1960s [it's still on sale today though].
Originally by: Ayn Rand
That which cannot be formulated into an objective law, cannot be made the subject of legislationùnot in a free country, not if we are to have ôa government of laws and not of men.ö An undefineable law is not a law, but merely a license for some men to rule others.
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/law--objective_and_non-objective.html
Those characters who were breaking the law were doing so because the law was beginning to violate their liberty and individual rights. So the rule of law to Objectivists means the rule of law based on certain well-defined principles.
@Ave - I appreciate that we don't agree but there's no need to be rude. You were quite clearly rejecting rationality in general - if you wish to discuss the limits of rationality then that's another matter altogether. However, Objectivist philosophy is not as weak as you seem to think it is.
|
Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 01:03:00 -
[64]
Liberty - what's your take on rapacious profits from businesses such as healthcare organizations, where cost of startup is high and therefore a (relative) monopoly is easily formed? Should there be any protections made so that ordinary citizens can receive reasonably priced healthcare?
I don't ask merely out of curiosity. I personally am in a position where the health care options I have available (as far as insurance) are either A) so worthless that paying the $150/month to purchase them is unlikely to save me ANY money, and would not even protect me from catastrophic health care prices (as they only cover up to 5000 dollars and that only after I've paid out 10000), or B) so expensive that I couldn't afford them (I'm below the poverty line from any perspective other than the US federal government's as far as US poverty goes).
Is it beneficial for everyone if I am infected with a communicable disease (the next swine flu, perhaps) and I neglect healthcare?
I don't disagree with Rand's overall concept, but I feel it's somewhat.. lacking. What's best for the goose is not always best for the gander, and I feel that (due to humans not being emotionless and the rich generally also being the powerful) the government is the one who has to balance the needs of those who have against the needs of those who have not.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 01:20:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 08/02/2011 01:21:55
Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane
Liberty - what's your take on rapacious profits from businesses such as healthcare organizations, where cost of startup is high and therefore a (relative) monopoly is easily formed? Should there be any protections made so that ordinary citizens can receive reasonably priced healthcare?
I do think it's unfair, and I think citizens need protecting, but not from the healthcare companies. You probably earn more than enough money to pay for decent healthcare - but it is taken from you through tax, and given to people whom the government deems more worthy. A liberal professor who wants a subsidy, an ethnic minority that wants affirmative action, a bank that wants a bailout.
The government decides to take your money and values from you, and to re-assign them to the people and values that it decides are more worthwhile, leaving you to pay the cost with your life and health.
It's only natural that people who are having their options taken from them by government will then have no choice but to run to the same government and ask for support and a health care bill. It ends up weakening everybody and keeping the government in the driving seat. If anyone complains, the left/liberal academics just say "blame capitalism" and suggest that the solution is more government control.
You're right that Rand's idea is an overall philosophical concept. In the backstabbing and in-fighting for resources that occurs in a society with a mixed economy, such a concept is of no day-day validity, but it is however the best solution for getting out of the whole mess.
|
Cheque Please
Hot Like Mexico
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 01:24:00 -
[66]
What's your policy on tipping waitresses / bartenders?
---
RL Meeting w/ Chribba
|
Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 01:26:00 -
[67]
Liberty - I don't have practically any money taken from me by the government, and what little taxes I do pay I get back at the end of the year. Were I completely tax-free, I still would not have enough to pay housing, food, utilities, transportation, and health care (I live in Missouri - many of our expenses are lower here, but so too are our wages; I personally make $1400/month on average, but you can sc**** by (and money do) on about $1000).
Again, I do think Ayn Rand has some good points, so don't think I'm dismissing objective thought out of hand; I simply also believe that socialism has good points. I believe both things, taken to their logical extremes, are each as bad as the other. A social safety net is beneficial to society as a whole, but we also need a society where it's beneficial to strive to be better than the minimum that the social safety net would provide. Make it so you're not as good as dead if you take a risk and lose everything, but don't make it so nice to live in the "safety net" that people never try to move up in the world.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 01:40:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Cheque Please
What's your policy on tipping waitresses / bartenders?
I always tip.
Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane
Liberty - I don't have practically any money taken from me by the government, and what little taxes I do pay I get back at the end of the year.
Again, I do think Ayn Rand has some good points, so don't think I'm dismissing objective thought out of hand; I simply also believe that socialism has good points. I believe both things, taken to their logical extremes, are each as bad as the other. A social safety net is beneficial to society as a whole, but we also need a society where it's beneficial to strive to be better than the minimum that the social safety net would provide. Make it so you're not as good as dead if you take a risk and lose everything, but don't make it so nice to live in the "safety net" that people never try to move up in the world.
The question is, who gets forced to pay for this minimum social safety net? And who loses their liberty in order to pay for another person's health or food?
A free society can only guarantee individual liberty and the right to pursue happiness. It stops being a free society when one group of people lose their fundamental freedoms in order to provide a second group of people with unearned rights.
This second group always vote the government the right to use force against the first group. And once you have a government that uses force against one set of citizens to please another set, then you've ended liberty and imposed a dictatorship of the majority.
While the idea of a minimal welfare net sounds good in theory, I think it has to be rejected because it is backed up by force.
Not that there is anything wrong with providing healthcare to everyone in society - that should be the aim of every civilised society. But it shouldn't be done by using force and at the expense of fundamental liberties.
|
Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 01:46:00 -
[69]
I'm intrigued at your response. Which of these scenarios is better, in your mind:
A) There are no rules on, e.g., minimum wage, healthcare, etc. Societal realities mean that poverty-level workers are given no healthcare, die at young ages, and quality of life for the masses degrades until armed revolution occurs and is quelled by the government's army (which by virtue of greed is being funded and controlled by those in power, aka those to whose benefit the current situation exists).
B) There are rules on same as above. Societal realities mean that poverty, although existant, is somewhat reduced. As a cost, middle and upper-class citizens pay for some of the needs of the lower class through taxes, while maintaining a lifestyle above that of those at the poverty level and still exploiting them to the extent the law allows. Armed rebellion is averted as the poverty-level citizens feel their desires are being expressed, while the reality is that those at the highest echelons still control the government and simply give up a little of their wealth to keep the peace.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 01:55:00 -
[70]
Clearly B is better if A is the only alternative. However I do think that's a false dichotomy, because there are other options and outcomes available.
It's also interesting that for the last few centuries [at least before 1945], both Britain and America remained committed to what you would describe as an "A" scenario - and preserved unbroken democratic traditions combined with rapid development in industry and science. An examination of history shows that countries have done well to the extent that they copied Britain and America, and done badly when they broke with liberty in favour of collective concepts of well-being.
|
Dethmourne Silvermane
Gallente
Northstar Cabal
R.A.G.E
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 02:27:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Dethmourne Silvermane on 08/02/2011 02:28:41
I find it interesting that you point at America and Britain's historical abuse of workers as being a good thing. Yes, progress, but I personally dislike the cost (quality of life for the majority).
I'm interested in hearing what scenarios you would present where objectivism works; I think the two scenarios I presented represent past realities (A) and current reality, at least in the US (B).
EDIT: Forgot to note that I don't believe in communism as a practical matter, though ideally the concept of everyone pitching in and everyone getting everything they need sounds nice. The nasty reality is that I'm convinced that not only do we all want ours, we want to make sure it's at the expense of others - which is why I believe in a government system that provides a social safety net.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 11:05:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 08/02/2011 11:08:58
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 08/02/2011 11:05:25
Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane
I find it interesting that you point at America and Britain's historical abuse of workers as being a good thing.
The consequences of the 19th Century are good, but I don't consider the abuse of workers to be a good thing.
And just because you identify the problem of worker exploitation and condemn it, doesn't automatically mean that your solution is the best one. I would propose alternative solutions to the same problem - solutions that you would probably not agree with, but the solutions I prefer do not in any way stem from a desire to see more workers being abused.
Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane
Yes, progress, but I personally dislike the cost (quality of life for the majority).
The question is whether the real World really permits us the luxury of waving away all the costs of progress.
I would argue that one way or another, those costs must be paid for, and that it is not a wise long-term solution to place excessive burdens on the shoulders of those who happen to be strong or wealthy, as this is a short-sighted policy that, through comparative historical analysis of different types of political economies, can be shown to cause a great deal more harm than it cures.
Originally by: Dethmourne Silvermane
I'm interested in hearing what scenarios you would present where objectivism works; I think the two scenarios I presented represent past realities (A) and current reality, at least in the US (B).
I think that strengthening the contract and property rights of all members of society is the best form of protection they can have. As you pointed out in your scenario, the rich can use the State to oppress working people and to control policy for vested interests.
Eliminating the capacity of the State to interfere in this way would guarantee the liberty of workers to respond to conditions as they change and develop. That would place a limit on the possibilities of A happening, and thus reduce the need to socially engineer B.
Edit: As a more direct answer to your question, good examples of situations similar to an objectivist society have existed in Hong Kong and in Britain and America during their most productive epochs.
|
Vaerah Vahrokha
Minmatar
Vahrokh Consulting
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 11:51:00 -
[73]
Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha on 08/02/2011 11:51:53
Quote:
The question is whether the real World really permits us the luxury of waving away all the costs of progress.
I would argue that one way or another, those costs must be paid for, and that it is not a wise long-term solution to place excessive burdens on the shoulders of those who happen to be strong or wealthy...
1) Why has the cost to be paid by the weak? Pragmatic answer: because they are... well... weak! Too bad it's an answer I don't really like...
2) Define progress. Both socialisms and capitalism have fallen to materialism. My subjective belief is that I don't consider spreading, promoting and basically enforcing materialism as progress.
It's a form of vested slavery not a progress. It's also a nice excuse to self entitle to treat the next guy like a piece of trash. He's part of the matter after all.
Inside, we are steadily and collectively decaying since centuries, not progressing.
Outside, well, yeah, Orwell teaches. Fat and happy pigs we have become. And 1984 is also as modern as ever.
The weak are brainwashed to believe all the sh!tstorm is talked them since birth, it's why they "willingly" pay.
Of course, the day they'll wake up and think they would just repeat the old errors and rebel and become themselves the new strong, like it usually happened in story.
Why? Why not learning from the past mistakes? Because we did not progress where it counts. That's why.
-
Auditing & consulting
When looking for investors, please read
http://tinyurl.com/n5ys4h + http://tinyurl.com/lrg4oz
|
Caldariftw123
|
Posted - 2011.02.08 13:12:00 -
[74]
An amusing debate .. I find it mostly amusing in a sad kind of way when someone thinks that the ills of their current world, the poverty, etc., that people suffer is somehow there because the Government are interfering? That if the Government suddenly stopped taking taxes and allowed ultimate individual freedom that the overall situation would improve? You honestly think that if individuals were allowed more freedom and the Government stepped aside .. do you honestly think that the people to fill that void wouldn't be those that already have money and power? That they would not drive down minimum wages, they would not force workers to live **** miserable lives as virtual/actual even slave labour? Or do you think some higher moral value would overcome them and suddenly the same corporations and rich people that exist today and want to squeeze every last bit of profit out of it, without Government interference would suddenly go "LETS SPREAD THE WEALTH!" .. you are so incredibly naive "liberty eternal"
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.03 02:37:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Liberty Eternal on 03/03/2011 02:40:06
Bond Completed:
I have decided to complete this bond several days early. Investors have all received full repayment of principal and an additional 50% interest bonus for the final month.
Thanks to all my investors for making this such a successful bond. I will put up my final figures later, and releasing all my trade data on this thread over the next day or two.
Repayments:
Nin Kimrov - 1 bil principal plus 500 mil interest
Saidin Thor - 1 bil principal plus 500 mil interest
Strrog - 2 bil principal plus 1 bil interest
|
Candy Oshea
Amarr
Techfree Investment Group
|
Posted - 2011.03.03 02:51:00 -
[76]
Congratulations on your successful bond. :)
|
Saidin Thor
|
Posted - 2011.03.03 03:41:00 -
[77]
Confirming receipt of principal + interest of stated amount.
Also confirming that this was a very easy investment, my thanks LE 
|
Nin Kimrov
Minmatar
Kenzi Arms and Munitions
|
Posted - 2011.03.03 03:48:00 -
[78]
I confirm same as the above. Thank you LE.
|
Strrog
Caldari
Zero Excavations
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 01:59:00 -
[79]
Oh what a very pleasant surpise.
I am here to confirm that i profited 1.6 bill netto from investement with Liberty Eternal.
You cheered me up a bit ty sir :)
I am gona e-mail you in game in regards to the new bond that you set up already XD.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 02:01:00 -
[80]
Thanks for confirming guys. Reserving this space for my monthly accounts.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 02:02:00 -
[81]
Reserved for final 3-month accounts.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 02:04:00 -
[82]
Reserved for final report and observations.
Full trade data for all markets will then be released in this thread.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 03:36:00 -
[83]
That's my accounts updated in the unlikely event that anyone is interested.
Please post up comments/criticism if you have any as I will be releasing all of my trade data on this thread soon [I don't think it's worth starting another thread for it].
Thank-you!
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 20:55:00 -
[84]
Reserved for trade data. Please do not post.
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 20:56:00 -
[85]
Reserved for trade data, please do not post
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 20:56:00 -
[86]
Reserved for trade data, please do not post
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 20:57:00 -
[87]
Reserved for trade data, please do not post
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 20:58:00 -
[88]
Same again
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 20:58:00 -
[89]
And again
|
Liberty Eternal
|
Posted - 2011.03.04 20:59:00 -
[90]
Nearly there
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |