Atlas Shrugged

The Mad Hatter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That doesn't actually answer the question, though.

Valmont

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

For money? - money isn't an issue when everyone has all they need...
Everyone would have what they wanted out of life

Step 1: End capitalism.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Everyone has everything they need and what they want out of life.

I'll join the cause when you have step two figured out.

robindch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

In all fairness, I have waded through the first 150 or so pages of Atlas Shrugged, essays, listened to two or three interviews, five or ten reviews, listened to a few friends ramble on interminably about their woolly understanding, and most recently, what's been said in this thread in support of her.

None of this suggests that she has a coherent creed. In fact, as I said above, it seems quite the opposite: something which is superficially coherent -- and something which contains the odd nugget of good thinking too, lest you think that I'm rubbishing her entirely

But, as with religions like christianity, for example, once one begins the necessary task of trying to figure out exactly what the creed is and what it means and what it implies, how it can be applied in practice to develop the rules and institutions necessary to support the meaning that one decides upon, it proves virtually impossible to pin down.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree -- have a read of my last post again

pH

Does anyone think that fiction is a good medium to get across political or philosophical ideologies? In that it seems to me that Atlas Shrugged is the ultimate straw man argument, with a nonsensical solution.

It's easy in a fictional world to make proponents of your political views the heroes, fighting against an oppressive regime, but has there ever existed a country (or society) as described in Atlas where the "solution" Rand proposes would work?

As an aside, don't we already have many (Where is?) John Galts?, for example I was at dinner recently and a business journalist explained to me how we can never try to tax the rich (and indeed large corporations) fairly as they just up sticks and move, we see this also in things like "artists tax exemptions" - we should basically put up with it and be grateful for the crumbs off their tables - after all they pay poor people to wash their Bentleys and mow their lawns doncha know.

Valmont

robindch wrote: »

Rand's theory isn't wrong just because it's ethically revolting, it's wrong because she ignores the findings of the mathematics of altruism.

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on this point.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

pH

Valmont wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on this point.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mathematics+altruism

robindch

Valmont wrote: »

I'm still waiting for you to elaborate on this point.

The easiest introduction to the mathematics of altruism that I've read is the one in Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, in the chapter called "Nice Guys Finish First". The maths behind most of this is quite straightforward.

Any chance that you could elaborate on how BP's concern for its reputation is helping it to clean up the mess in the Gulf of Mexico?

strobe

Valmont wrote: »

Step 1: End capitalism.
Step 2: ?
Step 3: Everyone has everything they need and what they want out of life.

I'll join the cause when you have step two figured out.

I'm sure sponsoredwalk will be back to address that himself but I'll give it a shot in his absence. (Not that I'm an expert on the topic or anything)

Step 2: There are more than enough resources available to go around everyone. People don't starve or forgo an education or die of easily treatable diseases because there is simply not enough food or books or medicine (or money) to spare for some of the people. These things occur because some people hoard an unnescesary amount of the resources, in a capitalist system these resources having a monetary value and being hoarded in a monetary state.

sponsoredwalk

strobe wrote: »

I'm sure sponsoredwalk will be back to address that himself but I'll give it a shot in his absence. (Not that I'm an expert on the topic or anything)

Step 2: There are more than enough resources available to go around everyone. People don't starve or forgo an education or die of easily treatable diseases because there is simply not enough food or books or medicine (or money) to spare for some of the people. These things occur because some people hoard an unnescesary amount of the resources, in a capitalist system these resources having a monetary value and being hoarded in a monetary state.

Cheers It's always nice to have someone argue on your side :P

If you look at a lot of contemporary anarchists (or sympathizers) such as Zinn (r.i.p), Chomsky, Parenti, Albert etc... it's all about getting people together and public speakings and meetings about modern society. It's about slowly getting our current system better, i.e. reforming it, in ways that aid the lower classes through economic reforms, education, etc... all basically normal things because the idea is to get society to go in whatever way people choose to bring it. It's not about forcing anything on anyone, it's about enabling people to take control of society - i.e. away from the patriarchical power that is being advocated here in the form of corporations (i.e. the lauded leaders of industry) and getting governments to do their actual job i.e. working for the people, not against..

The great thing about this body of knowledge is that you are required to question all of it, to take it apart - it's kind of like the scientific method in that it's supposed to be transparently free to all, questionable, improvable etc... I'm reminded of Oscar Wilde's work "The Soul of Man Under Socialism" which I think would be a good explanation of some of these things, if also questionable at times :P

There is no simple way this will happen, it's about people making things better for everyone right now & continuing to do so. My own view is that when there are people using lies to try to convince people that we must take money away from those on welfare, to get people to pay college fees when it's just a waste, to criticize people's main method of joining together when work is involved (unions) and to ignore all the money certain people have made when things were good is wrong this should be honestly criticized for what it is.

Now, I've been well able to answer all criticisms and questions thrown at me, and will continue if need be. I've given, at this stage, about a page full of criticisms of the idea's being advocated here & nobody is able to defend themselves, how can anyody even bother with a theory when it's main proponents (on this thread) cannot even defend it from simple questions, we don't even know if it stems from Randian philosophy or not as there has been so much stony silence on one side of this discussion, even when this side demands answers to questions easily googlable :pac:

If you really want to read what robindch is talking about before dipping into the Selfish gene, here is a broad overview, you have a mighty weight to overcome here seeing as Rand is classified as a social darwinist :pac: This is not an easy thing to read but has to be read fully and carefully or you'll miss the point, it condenses a lot of work that, when taken on it's own, is really interesting and each is worth being investigated further.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

strobe

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

People grow, print and synthesise them............

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

sponsoredwalk

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

You'd have to ask the people themselves or ask this guy (watch from 03:20 to like 06:00)

Is this a game? You're just avoiding all of the questions put to you and asking trivial and easily answerable ones of someone else.

strobe

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Just to be clear I'm not advocating anti-capatilist anarchy or arguing specifically against state capitalism. Also as I said I don't claim to be an expert on the subject. But the idea from a non wage system anarchist viewpoint (bearing in mind that anarchism is a huge umbrella term for various differing ideologies, some of which strongly favour capitilism) goes something like this {in the most simplistic terms}.

I like cars, I decide I am going to be a car mechanic. I train up and then go into that business. People bring their cars to me and I fix them up. If I get sick and need to be seen by a doctor, I go to the local doctor, who wanted to be a doctor so trained in that field and he treats me. No money changes hands in either case. The motivation for doing the job in both our cases was our love of the jobs and/or our desire to contribute to our community/society.

In a society like this the people growing food, writing books and developing new medicines do so out of the desire to do those things from a fondness for doing those things and a desire to provide those services to the other people in the society who provide services like repairing their televisions, minding their children while they are at work and designing their computer software. I think it is known as some flavour of anarcho-communism.

At least that's how I presume it is proposed to work.

Then an alternative to that would be anarcho-collectivism or anarcho-syndicalism which doesn't hold to the need to do away with a monetary system altogether but mearly to remove the power of the state and also remove the private ownership of the means of production.

Valmont

robindch wrote: »

The easiest introduction to the mathematics of altruism that I've read is the one in Dawkins' The Selfish Gene, in the chapter called "Nice Guys Finish First". The maths behind most of this is quite straightforward.

I've studied the psychology of Altruism in great detail and have written a literature review on the subject. Please explain how the mathematics of altruism renders Rand's theory of morality incorrect. As I said previously, I think the two are asking different questions about altruism and in different contexts.

robindch wrote: »

Any chance that you could elaborate on how BP's concern for its reputation is helping it to clean up the mess in the Gulf of Mexico?

It's in their interest to clean it up if they don't want to go completely bust. Their share prices have already taken a hit and so being seen to clean up the mess as best they can is in everyone's interest. I don't see how the executive director going sailing changes this.

Catsmokinpot

bnt wrote: »

I'm not going to try to argue with you about Hamilton, but a quick read of Wikipedia reminded me of where I heard his name before: his influence on Richard Dawkins leading up to The Selfish Gene. He talked exclusively about altruism in animals, his formula factored in "genetic relatedness", and I see no attempt by him to extend his ideas to humans (though others tried). I thought that I was making a case that we are not animals, and need not be subject to the predator-prey model, and I could say something similar about Hamilton's Rule: we are not foxes and rabbits, and neither are we genes and squirrels. Are We Not Men? :cool:

Everyone seems to ignore this fact, but we are animals, and we have animal like natures.

We may have art, philosophy, the ability to create, abstract thinking etc. but our reasons for wanting to acquire wealth are the same reasons that a Lion wants to be the head of a pride, or a Zebra wants to be the head his harem, and that is security and control for ones self and others in the immediate family. Altruism towards others of ones own species who aren't related is a second thought over those two things for nearly every animal on the planet.

I'm not saying in every respect that it is completely wrong; but This Pursuit of wealth in my view, gives rise to another need for people to feel that they are better than others, so why should they bother helping out? when in fact people should only have to worry about conflicting interests and personality clashes rather than "well to do" and "well to don't".

In a prosperous society most people (apart from the uneducated and people who have had some sort of misfortune and the disadvantaged) shouldn't have the need to worry about monetary security. So if we want to completely escape our animal nature, then the pursuit of wealth is the opposite of what we should be doing.

In my (Libertarian) view people shouldn't be able to have power over other people; therefore if people have a choice whether they want to do good or not, then they have a certain degree power over the people they are charitable towards. It's like Nietzsche's idea of "will to power", the idea that people do things; destructive, self destructive, altruistic or selfish, to exert their power over others or their own life.

Its clear to me and I might be wrong, but part of the reason for our existence and goal of our evolution is to escape our animal nature, and to evolve a new altruistic nature. to better ones self and everyone around us, to be kind towards every person and every animal in the world around us and not cause unnecessary pain or suffering to anyone.

If altruism is good, then why shouldn't we ensure everyone is doing their fair share? and if we are going to continue with a monetary system, then why shouldn't ensure that disadvantaged people have a chance to contribute to society.

The Mad Hatter

Valmont wrote: »

It's in their interest to clean it up if they don't want to go completely bust. Their share prices have already taken a hit and so being seen to clean up the mess as best they can is in everyone's interest. I don't see how the executive director going sailing changes this.

You mean like Exxon cleaned up after the Exxon Valdez spill in Alaska?

If you honestly think that BP would pay one cent without the US government leaning on them to do so, then you're being incredibly naïve. Ask yourself why the share price is dropping - is it because the shareholders are horrified by what the company is doing and has done (I imagine it is in a few cases), or is it because the shareholders think that the cost of cleaning it up will bankrupt the company?

strobe

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

In my (Libertarian) view people shouldn't be able to have power over other people; therefore if people have a choice whether they want to do good or not, then they have a certain degree power over the people they are charitable towards. It's like Nietzsche's idea of "will to power", the idea that people do things; destructive, self destructive, altruistic or selfish, to exert their power over others or their own life.

If altruism is good, then why shouldn't we ensure everyone is doing their fair share? and if we are going to continue with a monetary system, then why shouldn't ensure that disadvantaged people have a chance to contribute to society.

Fairly big contradiction there do surely. To say "people shouldn't have power over other people" and then "why shouldn't we ensure everyone is doing their fair share?" How can you ensure that everyone is doing their fair share without coercion? You could encourage others to help disadvantaged people while keeping it entirely volunatary but to ensure they do is impossible without coercion, meaning you would have to advocate some form of power over people.

Valmont

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

If you honestly think that BP would pay one cent without the US government leaning on them to do so, then you're being incredibly naïve.

Naïve?

From the article:

"A BP executive said the company would pay more than legally required to cover economic damages.

David Nagel, executive vice president of BP America, told reporters Monday that BP planned to voluntarily exceed the $75 million liability cap and pledged to do “everything we can” to stop the spill and “minimize the environmental and economic damage.”

liamw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

So, I'm not sure if you've answered the question. In Rand's society, what would happen to a person as below? Even if you're super intelligent you're still f*ked right? Unless of course some private aid comes your way.

... what are her thoughts on the homeless and intelligent people who may have potential to be positively influential to humanity but just will never get the opportunity? I mean, what if Einstein was born on the streets and never got an opportunity to shine. What does Rand make of that? Tough?

sponsoredwalk

Catsmokinpot wrote: »

Its clear to me and I might be wrong, but part of the reason for our existence and goal of our evolution is to escape our animal nature, and to evolve a new altruistic nature. to better ones self and everyone around us, to be kind towards every person and every animal in the world around us and not cause unnecessary pain or suffering to anyone.

We already have this in our brains, there have been many studies, here is a study Franz De Waal talks about in his book. Kropotkin spoke about this kind of thing in humanity as being natural - something everybody just knows themselves anyway... Basically the story is that you don't have to escape your animal nature - you should embrace it intelligently
It's not all as pessimistic as Freud and others unfortunately made it out to be :pac:

They can even alter your morality with magnets!

Also, if some company ruins the natural landscape and chooses not to clean up anyway seeing as it's too costly & nobody likes this, how would it affect sales if they were the cheapest in town? They could get away with it even if people don't like it as they want cheap oil to soothe their rational self interested pockets, in fact this sounds kind of like the present in a lot of ways :rolleyes:

Remember, under this form of governance you're advocating, there will be no laws that the government can impose on companies like in the current situation, and if nobodies lives are directly ruined then they get away with it scot free.

I know barely anyone is looking at my links at this stage but there is a film about this exact question free online called "The Corporation", it's 3 hours of well documented material that just shows how stupid the suggestion that BP are cleaning up out of everyone's interest is...

If some in Congress have their way, spending more on economic damages won’t be voluntary: Lawmakers in both chambers have written legislation that would raise to $10 billion the liability cap on companies responsible for offshore spills, with some suggesting even that ceiling may not be high enough.

Lawmakers want to apply the law retroactively so that BP and other responsible parties would have to pay vastly more to cover losses incurred by fishermen, hotel and business owners and other interests harmed. There is no cap on cleanup costs, which the responsible party also must pay.

You don't think them planning to throw out a measely $75 million to prevent a future law raising the price to $10 Billion has anything to do with it After all, we know they'd just like their lives back and stop all the boycotts and bills after lying about, and to mismanaging things initially.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Mad Hatter

Valmont wrote: »

Naïve?

Yup.

From the article:

"A BP executive said the company would pay more than legally required to cover economic damages.

David Nagel, executive vice president of BP America, told reporters Monday that BP planned to voluntarily exceed the $75 million liability cap and pledged to do “everything we can” to stop the spill and “minimize the environmental and economic damage.”

Well, it's nice of them to say that. Exxon said they'd pay $2.5 billion dollars to the Alaskan residents affected by their spill. Then they spent twenty years getting it reduced, eventually in 2008 to a paltry $500 million (plus $400 million in legal fees). They haven't paid this yet.

Besides, so what if they exceed the absurdly low cap? That wouldn't come close to fixing the damage they've caused. The area of the oil spill is now greater than the area of Ireland, and still growing.

Nick Dolan

Sorry to come crashing in here without reading the other 20 odd pages, but ive gone back to college and ive been told numerous times "tough" regards fees and grants, because long time ago i was daft and stupid and dropped out (much like the hypothetical homeless person was daft and stupid and got into drugs/gambling/whatever) . Ive got great results, but cant afford to do another year. So i get annoyed when people harp out about helping the underprivileged, but i cant claim its an unbiased opinion

liamw

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I agree, I got the same impression but that's not my point. I'm saying that in the type of society she advocates, that person won't have as much of a chance to contribute their genius to society.

I guess my ultimate point here is that if your born into a wealthy environment you get a huge immediate advantage. Do you think that's OK? I get the impression that Rand keeps pushing the idea that the intelligent will prosper but this isn't necessarily true, depnding on your circumstances.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

The Mad Hatter

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And to demonstrate this point she used the medium of fiction, unsurprisingly.