Rush, Ayn Rand, and Philosophy In Your Life

[Xanadoood]

I'm guessing the band wishes they never mentioned her in the first place. It created a shit storm if contempt from the critics . I was always into the music. I could give two shits about Rand. It's annoying, cause there are still hardcore Liberals who associate Rush with her, and you have to explain that you don't give a shit... How bout that drum break in natural science!!! Oh wait... Inspired by ayn rand most likely.. Sorry Edited April 2, 2015 by Xanadoood

[JARG]

No, but I don't understand your point and I didn't make the claim I think you're attributing to me.

 

So here's my point, Tony said, "Sometimes ad homs are legitimate. If someone advocates one thing then does another it rather suggests that not only have they not got the courage of their convictions but also that the thing they are advocating is not practical or doesn't pass the litmus test of real world experience." Either as a stand-alone comment or as a clarification of his earlier comments, I think there's enough to that statement to warrant consideration, especially considering that he's not saying that someone advocating something, but doing the opposite means the person doing the advocating lacks the courage of their convictions and that the thing being advocated isn't practical (or moral -- my take), but rather that there is the suggestion of a connection between the two. I mean, on the face of that, how could you really disagree?

 

But you did apparently disagree since you seem very much to have been responding to that text (given that you quoted it) with your response. Your response would have been a fine rebuttal if Tony had said the one condition meant the other, but he didn't, and so I'm coming up short on how you think you response addresses what he actually wrote.

 

Because I'm reading his responses in their totality, and not in isolation.

 

As am I.

[Aikenrooster]

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

 

I think a better criticism of Rand would be the lack of children characters in her books, because when children are introduced it complicates things a lot; they're not so black and white any more. Also, Rand, and the rest of modern philosophy, has missed a chance to promote peaceful parenting and not beating kids, especially since she, and so many others, have been abused.

[JARG]

Here are the parts of Rand that work for me: her metaphysics and epistemology.

 

Reality exists independent of our consciousness of it. It's objective.

Reason is the best tool we have for making sense of reality.

 

But she drops the ball when she claims that those two foundations lead to an objective morality, and thus the main crux of her philosophy -- its morality -- fails miserably.

[JARG]

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

Indeed. It's one thing when a self-proclaimed adherent of an idea fails to live up to that idea -- there are many self-proclaimed Christians out there that don't seem to actually walk the walk -- but when an idea's chief proponent does that, then I think it's reasonable to wonder if the idea is as good as the proponent says it is.

 

I can't imagine Christianity would have ever gotten off the ground if Jesus had been a judgmental, hate-filled, violent asshole.

[Tony R]

For me, this is the defining video of Randroidism. The crowd cheering "LET HIM DIE!" at a political debate:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7kgO7lFA4

 

We must have been watching different videos. I heard about 4 people say "yeah" and more people laugh at that response while Paul answered the question in the negative.

 

Why does personal freedom and personal responsibility scare you so much that you would make up such a lie?

 

Lol, yes I've perpertrated a vast lie.

 

Blitzer: "should we just let him die?" Crowd: "YES!"

 

Or are you arguing that the crowd was actually watching a hockey game on their iphones, and a goal was just scored? That's why they cheered in unison?

 

The problem with Objectivism is it falls apart as soon as you think out thought experiments.

 

Personal freedom, personal responsibility... what happens if you were born crippled? Was that your responsibility? Or should you just die?

 

These guys (Led and LABT) consider me to be a Socialist but you know, in the circumstances as described in th video, I would let him die. Why not? He took the deliberate decision to not pay medical insurance not that he couldn't afford it.

 

[Tony R]

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

Indeed. It's one thing when a self-proclaimed adherent of an idea fails to live up to that idea -- there are many self-proclaimed Christians out there that don't seem to actually walk the walk -- but when an idea's chief proponent does that, then I think it's reasonable to wonder if the idea is as good as the proponent says it is.

 

I can't imagine Christianity would have ever gotten off the ground if Jesus had been a judgmental, hate-filled, violent asshole.

Indeed. Incredibly, those qualities appear mandatory for modern day Christians.

Libertarians will go to great lengths to say how Communism, Socialism etc can't work yet aren't so incisive in their appraisal of Rand who basically sunk the boat of the practicality of Randism by her own inability to make it work.

Most of the fluff of her philosophy was padding to the basic idea that artists and thinkers are special and should be left to get on with their magical lives without the attention and restriction of ordinary, less gifted folk. A philosophy based on snobbery, just what we needed.

 

 

 

 

[Digital Man]

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

Indeed. It's one thing when a self-proclaimed adherent of an idea fails to live up to that idea -- there are many self-proclaimed Christians out there that don't seem to actually walk the walk -- but when an idea's chief proponent does that, then I think it's reasonable to wonder if the idea is as good as the proponent says it is.

 

I can't imagine Christianity would have ever gotten off the ground if Jesus had been a judgmental, hate-filled, violent asshole.

Indeed. Incredibly, those qualities appear mandatory for modern day Christians.

Libertarians will go to great lengths to say how Communism, Socialism etc can't work yet aren't so incisive in their appraisal of Rand who basically sunk the boat of the practicality of Randism by her own inability to make it work.

Most of the fluff of her philosophy was padding to the basic idea that artists and thinkers are special and should be left to get on with their magical lives without the attention and restriction of ordinary, less gifted folk. A philosophy based on snobbery, just what we needed.

 

That explains our difference of opinion. The above is what took from her writings, this is what I took:

 

sticking to your convictions, always giving 100%, not giving in to those who would drag you down to their level, trying to get others around to work harder instead freeload off of the system, living with integrity and honesty, striving to do your best all the time, not being beholden to anyone nor expecting anyone to be beholden to you

[antiquark]

For me, this is the defining video of Randroidism. The crowd cheering "LET HIM DIE!" at a political debate:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7kgO7lFA4

 

We must have been watching different videos. I heard about 4 people say "yeah" and more people laugh at that response while Paul answered the question in the negative.

 

Why does personal freedom and personal responsibility scare you so much that you would make up such a lie?

 

Lol, yes I've perpertrated a vast lie.

 

Blitzer: "should we just let him die?" Crowd: "YES!"

 

Or are you arguing that the crowd was actually watching a hockey game on their iphones, and a goal was just scored? That's why they cheered in unison?

 

The problem with Objectivism is it falls apart as soon as you think out thought experiments.

 

Personal freedom, personal responsibility... what happens if you were born crippled? Was that your responsibility? Or should you just die?

 

These guys (Led and LABT) consider me to be a Socialist but you know, in the circumstances as described in th video, I would let him die. Why not? He took the deliberate decision to not pay medical insurance not that he couldn't afford it.

 

What if someone wants to commit suicide, should you just let them do it? (Might sound like an unrelated question... but it's related!)

[Aikenrooster]

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

Indeed. It's one thing when a self-proclaimed adherent of an idea fails to live up to that idea -- there are many self-proclaimed Christians out there that don't seem to actually walk the walk -- but when an idea's chief proponent does that, then I think it's reasonable to wonder if the idea is as good as the proponent says it is.

 

I can't imagine Christianity would have ever gotten off the ground if Jesus had been a judgmental, hate-filled, violent asshole.

Indeed. Incredibly, those qualities appear mandatory for modern day Christians.

Libertarians will go to great lengths to say how Communism, Socialism etc can't work yet aren't so incisive in their appraisal of Rand who basically sunk the boat of the practicality of Randism by her own inability to make it work.

Most of the fluff of her philosophy was padding to the basic idea that artists and thinkers are special and should be left to get on with their magical lives without the attention and restriction of ordinary, less gifted folk. A philosophy based on snobbery, just what we needed.

 

That explains our difference of opinion. The above is what took from her writings, this is what I took:

 

sticking to your convictions, always giving 100%, not giving in to those who would drag you down to their level, trying to get others around to work harder instead freeload off of the system, living with integrity and honesty, striving to do your best all the time, not being beholden to anyone nor expecting anyone to be beholden to you

All Ayn Rand said was to do your absolute best. She didn't look down the janitor, if the janitor was doing the best job he could possibly do and was honest, etc.

 

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

Again, I think it is better for one to try and live what they preach and Rand can definitely be accused of hypocrisy on many counts.

[laughedatbytime]

I think it's fair criticism for Tony to call Rand out on her hypocrisy. If I wrote a book on how to lose weight would anyone take it seriously?

Indeed. It's one thing when a self-proclaimed adherent of an idea fails to live up to that idea -- there are many self-proclaimed Christians out there that don't seem to actually walk the walk -- but when an idea's chief proponent does that, then I think it's reasonable to wonder if the idea is as good as the proponent says it is.

 

I can't imagine Christianity would have ever gotten off the ground if Jesus had been a judgmental, hate-filled, violent asshole.

Indeed. Incredibly, those qualities appear mandatory for modern day Christians.

 

This is why people don't take you seriously. The above statement is offensive, not borne out by any facts, and only applicable to a very small minority. In fact, I'll go so far as to say you don't actually believe it. If you do, you should be embarrassed.

[laughedatbytime]

For me, this is the defining video of Randroidism. The crowd cheering "LET HIM DIE!" at a political debate:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bg7kgO7lFA4

 

We must have been watching different videos. I heard about 4 people say "yeah" and more people laugh at that response while Paul answered the question in the negative.

 

Why does personal freedom and personal responsibility scare you so much that you would make up such a lie?

 

Lol, yes I've perpertrated a vast lie.

 

Blitzer: "should we just let him die?" Crowd: "YES!"

 

Or are you arguing that the crowd was actually watching a hockey game on their iphones, and a goal was just scored? That's why they cheered in unison?

 

The problem with Objectivism is it falls apart as soon as you think out thought experiments.

 

Personal freedom, personal responsibility... what happens if you were born crippled? Was that your responsibility? Or should you just die?

 

These guys (Led and LABT) consider me to be a Socialist but you know, in the circumstances as described in th video, I would let him die. Why not? He took the deliberate decision to not pay medical insurance not that he couldn't afford it.

 

What if someone wants to commit suicide, should you just let them do it? (Might sound like an unrelated question... but it's related!)

Are you asking from my personal perspective (as someone who takes some positive things from Rand's philosophy but is not an Objectivist) or from Rand's? I can't answer in a way which would be aligned with Rand's perspective, I'll answer from my own.

 

I'll also assume that I would have the ability to stop them without a significant risk of grave harm to myself. If that person's judgement is impaired, I would do whatever I could to talk them out of it (or stall until the intoxicants wore off). If it was a decision that was made by a person of sound mind, I would try to find out the rationale for that person's actions. But in the end, if the person had rational reasons for doing so, it would actually be the selfish decision to try to talk them out of it, you would be doing it to assuage your conscience, not to necessarily benefit that person.

 

Let's take the case of Brittany Maynard (I think that's her name without looking it up). She had a terminal disease and months to live, The quality of her life was deteriorating clearly and quickly. She announced that she was going to do all she could to enjoy life and when the disease had progressed she would take her own life. What compelling state interest is there to keep her alive? And what would an individual gain by doing so...that would be an incredibly selfish act.

[Principled Man]

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert:

 

Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit.

 

Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish).

 

If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others.

 

[antiquark]

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert:

 

Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit.

 

Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish).

 

If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others.

 

 

 

While that philosophy seems to be sound, at the end of the day people interpret it as "there should be no taxation." And without taxes, you end up with a country that's not a nice place to live. Even simple things like roads... in an Objectivist society, who builds the roads? If you follow the philosophy to it's logical conclusion, then all roads should be toll roads, which would be a pretty crappy situation if you think about it. Hell, even sidewalks would be toll-sidewalks.

[laughedatbytime]

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert:

 

Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit.

 

Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish).

 

If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others.

 

 

 

While that philosophy seems to be sound, at the end of the day people interpret it as "there should be no taxation." And without taxes, you end up with a country that's not a nice place to live. Even simple things like roads... in an Objectivist society, who builds the roads? If you follow the philosophy to it's logical conclusion, then all roads should be toll roads, which would be a pretty crappy situation if you think about it. Hell, even sidewalks would be toll-sidewalks.

Enlightened self interest and mutually beneficially outcomes will serve to build the roads. Why would all roads necessarily be toll roads? I don't see why Rand's philosophy (granting that I'm no expert on it) would preclude cooperation among people when doing so would benefit both or many parties and serve their self interest as the same time.

[Principled Man]

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert:

 

Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit.

 

Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish).

 

If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others.

 

 

 

While that philosophy seems to be sound, at the end of the day people interpret it as "there should be no taxation." And without taxes, you end up with a country that's not a nice place to live. Even simple things like roads... in an Objectivist society, who builds the roads? If you follow the philosophy to it's logical conclusion, then all roads should be toll roads, which would be a pretty crappy situation if you think about it. Hell, even sidewalks would be toll-sidewalks.

 

Agree 100%. Egoism/Objectivism works, but only to a certain point. As we have over 300 MILLION people in our Society, taxation HAS to happen. Large populations, without government, would fall into anarchy, chaos, and death. 30 people might get along without government; 300 million cannot. There simply has to be some collectivist element to managing such a large population, and that means taxation and laws that everyone has to obey.

 

Of course, people in governments can and do become corrupt. It's always been that way. However, it's far, far better than the alternative. Homo sapiens would have gone extinct long ago if the alternative ruled.

[Principled Man]

Why would all roads necessarily be toll roads? I don't see why Rand's philosophy (granting that I'm no expert on it) would preclude cooperation among people when doing so would benefit both or many parties and serve their self interest as the same time.

 

In the Objectivist's idealistic world, all roads, along with everything else, would be privately owned. Road owners could charge whatever toll they wanted. If you didn't want to pay the toll, you couldn't use the road.

 

It's the same with minimum wage. Objectivists believe that business owners should be free to offer whatever wages they want. In their laissez-faire capitalist world, it would be a free-for-all between owners and workers....and we all know how workers fared when that happened back in the day.

[laughedatbytime]

Why would all roads necessarily be toll roads? I don't see why Rand's philosophy (granting that I'm no expert on it) would preclude cooperation among people when doing so would benefit both or many parties and serve their self interest as the same time.

 

In the Objectivist's idealistic world, all roads, along with everything else, would be privately owned. Road owners could charge whatever toll they wanted. If you didn't want to pay the toll, you couldn't use the road.

Or nothing. And even if they did want to charge tolls, it could end up being better than it is now. It would certainly result in a better allocation of resources than our current system, where taxes on transportation are used to subsidize other forms of transportation (eg., in Mpls gas taxes are used to subsidize public transportation leading to outstate people having their money used to pay for subsidized rides for suburban people of means, because of the distribution of political power. The private road owner would want to maximize his/her income from the road, not charge the maximum amount just to screw people over.

 

 

 

 

It's the same with minimum wage. Objectivists believe that business owners should be free to offer whatever wages they want. In their laissez-faire capitalist world, it would be a free-for-all between owners and workers....and we all know how workers fared when that happened back in the day.

It's not just Objectivists that believe this (as I'm sure you know). There's a bunch of business owners that want this and they're perfectly willing to accept any favors from government they can get. At least the Objectivists have purer motives. And there's nothing that I know in Objectivism that would keep workers with marketable skills from banding together and selling their skills to the highest bidder. If anything, in an Objectivist world there would be more incentive to develop skills and the workers that did so would be better off. In our current system, where those without skills are being paid more than the value of their work due to minimum wage laws that distort the market, that this drags down the purchasing power of those with more marketable skills. And in an Objectivist world, there would be no corporations using a corrupt government to distort the market and get unearned privileges, which also hurts the lifestyles and purchasing power of the skilled worker.

 

Not that I'm an Objectivist. I don't have any idea how Objectivists would handle handicapped individuals. My guess is, not very well. And that would be a huge, if not insurmountable problem. But Rand's ideas do have merit, and quite a bit of it, and IMO more than that of a strong government that distorts the market with its corruption, and in different ways, with its idealism...and certainly in picking winners and losers.

[Principled Man]

At least the Objectivists have purer motives.

 

Well, they are idealists. They don't want to recognize the real world. Idealists tend to claim that they have all the answers, that they can actually create Utopia for everyone.

 

Objectivism will never work anytime soon, for the simple fact that people are still no damned good. We're still selfish, self-centered, and always ready to exploit each other over money and power. For every ambitious entrepenuer, there is at least one good-for-nothing lazy ass who wants a free ride.

 

And our society is still based on the acquisition of money and material wealth. Given a laissez-faire socio-economic system, corruption thrives, and a lot of people die because of it. Just my opinion, but we would just repeat the late 19th/early 20th century wars between owners and workers.

[laughedatbytime]

At least the Objectivists have purer motives.

 

Well, they are idealists. They don't want to recognize the real world. Idealists tend to claim that they have all the answers, that they can actually create Utopia for everyone.

 

Objectivism will never work anytime soon, for the simple fact that people are still no damned good. We're still selfish, self-centered, and always ready to exploit each other over money and power. For every ambitious entrepenuer, there is at least one good-for-nothing lazy ass who wants a free ride.

 

And our society is still based on the acquisition of money and material wealth. Given a laissez-faire socio-economic system, corruption thrives, and a lot of people die because of it. Just my opinion, but we would just repeat the late 19th/early 20th century wars between owners and workers.

Utopia will never exist, for the simple fact that people are no damned good...I don't think a society based on Objectivist ideals can exist because of human nature. But I see government as, on balance, a force that does more harm than good, and therefore one that should be limited to the extent possible and it should not be involved in distorting the market with things such as minimum wage laws, which is just another form of redistribution, to those who in some sense, want a free ride.

[antiquark]

Objectivism will never work anytime soon, for the simple fact that people are still no damned good. We're still selfish, self-centered, and always ready to exploit each other over money and power. For every ambitious entrepenuer, there is at least one good-for-nothing lazy ass who wants a free ride.

 

Totally agree. In relation to the toll road idea, everyone assumes that the road owners will be fine upstanding citizens. That falls apart as soon as some greedy a-hole buys the only bridge off the island... be prepared for crappy service combined with exorbitant prices.

 

At least if an elected government tries to screw the customer, there's an easy way to fire them... at the voting booth.

[laughedatbytime]

Objectivism will never work anytime soon, for the simple fact that people are still no damned good. We're still selfish, self-centered, and always ready to exploit each other over money and power. For every ambitious entrepenuer, there is at least one good-for-nothing lazy ass who wants a free ride.

 

Totally agree. In relation to the toll road idea, everyone assumes that the road owners will be fine upstanding citizens. That falls apart as soon as some greedy a-hole buys the only bridge off the island... be prepared for crappy service combined with exorbitant prices.

 

At least if an elected government tries to screw the customer, there's an easy way to fire them... at the voting booth.

There's a maximum price for everything. And it's not the highest price, since revenue is dependent on the number of units sold.

 

And have you seen the re-election rates for incumbents?

 

Besides, an elected government can get elected and often does, by robbing Peter to pay Paul, thereby obtaining Paul's support. In fact, as my signature states, democracy is only a temporary form of government.

[Aikenrooster]

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert:

 

Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit.

 

Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish).

 

If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others.

 

 

 

While that philosophy seems to be sound, at the end of the day people interpret it as "there should be no taxation." And without taxes, you end up with a country that's not a nice place to live. Even simple things like roads... in an Objectivist society, who builds the roads? If you follow the philosophy to it's logical conclusion, then all roads should be toll roads, which would be a pretty crappy situation if you think about it. Hell, even sidewalks would be toll-sidewalks.

All roads SHOULD BE toll roads. In every state and province in Canada, Mexico, and the United States, the toll roads are of better quality than the "free" roads, the toll roads are better maintained, the toll roads have less traffic jams, and the toll roads get more salt in the winter, and, OH YEAH, they get paid for.

 

Apparently, you want your grandchildren and their grandchildren to pay for a road that you are driving on now. You are for slavery.

 

And there should be no taxation either. All of the good things in life, like cars, phones, music, washers, dryers, ovens, heaters, a/cs, tools, refrigerators, medical care, and entertainment, are things that we voluntarily pay for, and there are many companies out there ready to provide those goods and services for us. Building roads, providing police, military, first responders, and education, would be done better, cheaper, and faster if they were done privately.

[Aikenrooster]

Another mistake people make about Rand is to say that she was against giving or taking care of others. She most certainly was not. She was against altruism, which is when one makes the sole purpose of his or her life to serve others. There is a difference and she made that difference clear.

 

“I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.” (John Galt) :ebert:

 

Rand was especially opposed to coerced altruism, where people are required by the State to live for helping others. It leads to tyranny and totalitarianism. The worst tyrants operate in the name of altruism. They speak of acting for the "public good", but in reality, they're only out for their own power and profit.

 

Rand's philosophy of egoism is simply the foundation of a good, moral life. It is not the end point. We are all responsible for our own success and happiness. No one else can do it for us. Once we have established our own lives and happiness, then we do as we please, and that includes helping others (if we wish).

 

If I wish to give to charities, or help out people at the homeless shelter, I do so because it pleases ME to do it, not because I owe anything to the homeless people. That is the egoist's philosophy on helping others.

 

 

 

While that philosophy seems to be sound, at the end of the day people interpret it as "there should be no taxation." And without taxes, you end up with a country that's not a nice place to live. Even simple things like roads... in an Objectivist society, who builds the roads? If you follow the philosophy to it's logical conclusion, then all roads should be toll roads, which would be a pretty crappy situation if you think about it. Hell, even sidewalks would be toll-sidewalks.

 

Agree 100%. Egoism/Objectivism works, but only to a certain point. As we have over 300 MILLION people in our Society, taxation HAS to happen. Large populations, without government, would fall into anarchy, chaos, and death. 30 people might get along without government; 300 million cannot. There simply has to be some collectivist element to managing such a large population, and that means taxation and laws that everyone has to obey.

 

Of course, people in governments can and do become corrupt. It's always been that way. However, it's far, far better than the alternative. Homo sapiens would have gone extinct long ago if the alternative ruled.

I know you love science, like I do, so I had to laugh out loud when I read that statement. Now you and I both know damned well that what separates our species from all others AND what has kept us from going instinct is our rational mind, not a herd mentality. Physically speaking, we are the weakest of the primates, yet, not only do we survive, but we've been able to live and thrive in the northern, frigid, climates, due to our rational minds. Voluntary trade kept us from going instinct.

[Aikenrooster]

Objectivism will never work anytime soon, for the simple fact that people are still no damned good. We're still selfish, self-centered, and always ready to exploit each other over money and power. For every ambitious entrepenuer, there is at least one good-for-nothing lazy ass who wants a free ride.

 

Totally agree. In relation to the toll road idea, everyone assumes that the road owners will be fine upstanding citizens. That falls apart as soon as some greedy a-hole buys the only bridge off the island... be prepared for crappy service combined with exorbitant prices.

 

At least if an elected government tries to screw the customer, there's an easy way to fire them... at the voting booth.

There's a maximum price for everything. And it's not the highest price, since revenue is dependent on the number of units sold.

 

And have you seen the re-election rates for incumbents?

 

Besides, an elected government can get elected and often does, by robbing Peter to pay Paul, thereby obtaining Paul's support. In fact, as my signature states, democracy is only a temporary form of government.

LABT, as you and I both know, there is a difference between "SELECTING" representatives and participation in a sham "election" where there are limited choices and sometimes only one choice. You and I both know that the sole purpose of an election is to have a mechanism for the rulers to make us conform, by pointing out that "we had a choice" when any rational individual knows there was never a choice ...

 

 

 

 

 

 

...and, of course, you never have the choice to opt-out.