Earth is the wrong planet because of the Nazis and the Commu

Post Reply New Topic

I haven't followed much of this thread but I am a bit disturbed by this "Homo-aspergus: the next evolution" theory. This goes on the premis that there is a "right" and a "wrong" evolution. many of the behaviors exhibited by ASD's are exaggerations of "normal" traits. Humanity's greatest strength is in it's diversity and adaptability. This takes many kinds of thinking to arrive at the best solution to any problem. (How many aspergians are going to be able to talk a psycho out of blowing up a building?)

The most extreme examples of adaptation in the world today are the inuit of the north, with their specialized noses, foreshortened limbs and thick bodies. They are likely the closest humans to Neandertals..

The other would be the pygmies of Africa.

And even these two groups, isolated genetically for a long time, are not separate species of humanity.

I am not sure I would agree, I would tend to think that Randians would see the pursuit of self-interest to be the best way to get this union as collective action would require the submission of some, while market action is the fullest expression of all. Really though, Austrian economic theories, which are also more aristotelian are also incredibly free-market.

Well, why the latter though? We will definitely be forced to own up for how our actions affect the group as a whole if the group is one of individuals all doing the same things, but responsibility doesn't necessarily follow. To claim that there is a responsibility outside of acceptance demands a framework that is already rejected.

Well, that merely reflects your views that empathy and compassion are important. The whole in a Randian society will be made up of Randian capitalists, all of whom are incredibly willing to work to your good if you work to theirs and thus they will only shut you down if you are just dangerous to the wishes of all, which, you as a rational Randian capitalist will not want to be as that will destroy your ends. Now, the notion that the group is the greatest good is rejected by Randians, they can accept that market actions bring good, but that good can only be valued by individuals, but Randians consider capitalism the greatest system EV4R so therefore they will contribute to their society by making profits. I think you made some valid points, I will admit that I am not an Objectivist so I might have gotten some of their philosophy wrong, however, I do have some sympathy for minority philosophical views if only because I consider the most common views to be thoughtless and obnoxious.

I can see their idealism in the philosophy, but in my experience the pursuit of self-interest alone (economically, emotionally...whatever) only makes for the submission of most and the domination of the few. (Yes, I know this is just my opinion, but it is based on personal experience and a historical overview.) Capitalism requires competition for resources at its most exquisite expression for it to survive. It is dependent on that competition which would only degrade into base dog-eat-dog if an entire social structure were built upon that as one of its cornerstones.




As far as the latter question, I'm afraid I answered myself in the next sentence. I don't understand what you mean when you said "To claim that there is a responsibility outside of acceptance demands a framework that is already rejected." Outside of acceptance of what? and rejected by whom? I do disagree though, I think that for a society to stay functional through adversity there must be a responsibility to a social order, to the group as a whole. A large part of individual consciousness of that responsibility stems from compassion and empathy for our fellows. But those same emotional and social imperatives can cloud judgement in terms of what is good for the individual and even what is best for the group. I believe that to achieve a clearer balance of our individual role within the group and maintain the compassion and empathy for others that is intrinsic to its survival introspection is essential. Otherwise you will only be left with individuals trying their best to eliminate the competition. People are people. In a few years these Randians would have forgotten the greater good and be justifying self-serving indulgences and instincts that hurt others (and the group as a whole) because the rhetoric would say "it's for the greater good... this is the only answer for a stable society." A mantra for the eutopian world and the betterment of mankind that has been taken up from imperial Rome, to Communist Russia, to hippies in communes. Also the motivation pushing "Randian" and "Objectivist" ideals aren't any different from every other ideology that has come down the pike to justify indulging a completely self centered existence.
On an even more personal note; part of why I find these ideas so abhorrent is because frankly I don't see alot of room for artistic, compassionate, monetarily clueless, soft touch me. I would be eaten alive in a system like this, and I know alot of very smart kind people who would be as well.

Well, I do take that mostly as your experience, experiences can be simply cast into the pile we note as "ideology" and thus discounted unless evidence is given as Ayn Rand, her followers, and assorted libertarian intellectuals have proclaimed the historical glory of capitalism, and that can include the Industrial Revolution and robber barrons. I might disagree somewhat with your assessment as well because there is no evidence for totalitarian dominance, the major form of submission I can see is "wage-slavery" which does not count so much. There may be variations in power, but those exist within all societal structures. Your term "dog-eat-dog" is also not very well defined, I cannot fit that into a logical framework as you could merely mean that the economically calculating man envisioned would be disturbing if taken to the furthest level, or that competition if taken too highly leads to disastrous consequences, and the former is an opinion whereas the latter is something that can be critiqued or accepted on its logic.


The notion of unchosen responsibility is rejected by individualistic philosophies. You invoked a notion of responsibility, and it was already not accepted as morally so.
However, the notion of society isn't strongly upheld by these philosophies, nor is the notion of a social order. They tend to uphold the notion of individuals and individual interests as being the highest regard of all men. Individual consciousness is something that can be abstracted from compassion and empathy, consciousness is merely a function of reason which has always been enshrined.


Well, Randians reject the notion of a group above individuals. The individual is the good. Introspection is merely a form of rationality, it does not posit anything beyond that, I have taken many ideologies, some kind and some cruel but I was introspective throughout all of them. I also doubt that your claim there has a significant amount of truth, war is typically very costly.

They don't believe much in the greater good though. They believe in the individual good, they also believe that individual goods will promote the good of most people, but that is secondary as their philosophy can be called a form of ethical egoism. Their philosophy also isn't utopian, they don't claim we will be suddenly happier, they merely claim that their ethical system is the truth. Objectivist philosophy IS one that believes in a self-centered existence. Here, I will show you an interesting article on an Objectivist view of love to help you get some perspective. Love

Well, the Objectivist ideal is basically that of a strong individual. Artisticness is not an issue, compassion is only an issue if one is stupid, monetary cluelessness and soft touches probably do clash with the idea of a man who lives for himself on reason. The Randian world is basically that everyone pulls their own weight and looks after their own, people who have problems doing that won't like this society, but, it does not mean that this rugged individualism is completely problematic.

Note: a relatively good overview of Objectivist thought is found here.

Okay, I've got to give you that one. I don't have a finger tip list of historical evidence that I wouldn't have to go perusing through my library to reference to prove my point. So to the discarded pile of ideology it goes. However isn't that what this entire thread is about? An ideology? And proclaiming the "historical glory of capitalism" based in part on the the industrial revolution as a supporting argument is a little one sided. The industrial revolution created circumstances that led to the abuse of children (for example) to help supplement the labor force. If you think there wasn't some fat-cat at the top of those scenarios looking out for his monetary happiness first to the horrific detriment of those under them you are ignoring part of the picture. That is an example of the result of a "dog eat dog" mentality. I would call that "totalitarian dominance" on an individual level. Part of my argument is that given the justification of "The best answer is to look out for number one..." in any scenario will lead to the "furthest level" of competition. The worst case scenario. In essence, I agree with part of what the "Love" article was about. There is no true altruism and we have to recognize a give and take inter-personally and to the social whole. Because of those tendencies there are always those that will take such justifications for selflessness to their most ruthless extremes. If it is part of the social premise with no[b][i] social checks and balances (i.e. that the group recognizes compassion and empathy as beneficial to the whole) then you will be left with totalitarianism or out and out anarchy.



"...reason has always been enshrined." I like that. Okay, but here is where there is a fundamental difference (I think) between how these Randians and I view the world. I mentioned before the Greek reference because Rand seems so enamored with the Greek concept of Logos, but I think she was overlooking Muthos. I firmly believe there is more to "consciousness" then just what we perceive directly or viscerally if you will from the world. Observation and analysis is all well and good, but we are a collective whole that is greater than a set of instincts in a meat bag, and that is why "compassion" is more than a simple evolutionary drive to secure a mate, look after the well being of ones reproductive efforts, and make sure there is the appropriate amount of reciprocity in your immediate group to secure survival.

Well, it is about a philosophy. I was too cold in saying that, but, I cannot say that another theory counters a theory. Logical defects and facts can undermine a theory though.

Well, that really depends upon the facts that we use to support our claims. I actually tend more so to agree with the pro-market historians because child labor was in existence before the industrial revolution, and it was something that made sense at the time because of the nature of the labor market at the time, I see the notion of children working at the time to be better than them not working and I see a larger reform as actually unbeneficial for long-run economic welfare. There were rich men who owned factories, however, these rich men also invested in these factories and many other causes and their management did push for greater efficiency in their industries. For example, the dreaded John Rockefeller, the oil tycoon, was particularly noted for driving down oil prices(in 1884) to 1/7th of what they were in 1865. The rest of the system in the industrial revolution was also effective in creating large amounts of necessary economic growth. It may look bad from our modern standpoint, but, it isn't as if we could have magically made a system significantly less wealthy than ours to be at our level of wealth.
I wouldn't. I would call that an economic circumstance born of poverty and improved by growth. People still did have more choice than in a truly totalitarian system, which can be noted by the fact that peoples of Europe did come to the US for opportunity, a shift that would not be allowed in a less free system.
But, the issue with the industrial revolution WASN'T competition, it was poverty and a lack of opportunity. If it were a lot of competition then workers would be better off because everyone would be competing for their labor and pushing up their wages. More competition really means a better situation because market power is no longer used to extract gain beyond the actual cost of the provider.
But why is that wrong. The notion that competition is responsible for reduced welfare is ridiculous, the actual issue is a lack of paternalism and frankly, I don't think that such is really a problem because in a system of paternalism there is usually also deference and the dual forces of paternalism and deference are the greatest threats to individual freedom.

But all you posit is enlightened egoism and frankly, that doesn't take compassion and empathy. All it takes is a group of people who recognize that civil wars cost a lot of freakin' money and blood and egoists would accept that. Also, what do you mean by out and out, there are Objectivist anarcho-capitalists so some Objectivists actually promote anarchist ideas.


Right, but one cannot logically quantify Muthos or perfectly set up how it should work. Really, on some level, the traditionalist and instinctive elements of mankind actually act against our best interests and without strong logos one cannot distinguish between the 2. Really, you are free to believe in this additional principle, but we cannot logically denigrate logic, and as such the 2 philosophies here differ epistemologically and I have difficulty establishing meta-epistemological principles to deal with this.

This thread is not about reason it is about the codification of INSTINCT, let the instinct wars flame.

Rand was not pure reason, she codified her instincts into a tract, she backwards rationalized her views towards what her animal psyche desired. It is the feral animal psyche of the individual that is a threat to the world @ large. Since competition is an immature and irresponsible way to live in peace, "peaceful competition" is an oxymoron. Since all peaceful competition is allowed by co-operation and agreement submission to rules like standardization of money, laws, etc.

A Truly capitalist society would allow the law of the jungle competition to reign and would allow the killing of people more powerful or less powerful then you via other means of power (physical strength, better weaponry, sneaknesss, etc)... "Let the best man win!"

It's a free for all king of the hill battle, and thats the kind of world rand would get if her philosophy was implemented, she forgets that man is a BEAST OF PREY, and that man is not rational but primarily instinctual, she should have read Oswald Spengler. The way her philosophy would play out in the REAL WORLD, where men are free to accept or reject any knowledge they choose, even to what others percieve (rightly or wrongly) to what is or falsely appears to be their own detriment.

No man can escape instinct, and no premise is one of pure, absolute logic.
Nobody is pure reason, of course she did that. Meh, your comment is ill-defined so I cannot comment as on some level it is acceptable to any fool, but on another level it could be defined so most people on this earth would disagree. Competition seems to have brought societies that have accepted it the highest standards of living so I am not sure it is really such a bad value. Peaceful competition is a part of the world though, there are competitions where violence is limited. Well, technically some cooperation has to exist in most systems where an actual competition of some form takes place, usually some relatively standard rules are accepted, but anarcho-capitalism is still an idea that exists.

Not really, you describe a psychotic anarchistic world. A truly capitalistic society would have private legal structures where people bought a set of laws based upon their values and where courts settled between the varying laws. An anarchistic world would be bad for business and trade and thereby capitalism.

Not really, that is only your perception of her philosophy. She sees capitalism as the best economic system ever implemented and on some level she has a point, I have not heard of many successful non-capitalist systems. She actually claims that man isn't pure evil, not that he doesn't have instincts to fight to win. Also, Rand claims that man should be rational, not that he is purely so. Well, technically, nobody knows what man wants better than that man. The idea that planners know better than we do is mostly rejected, especially given the highly subjective nature of economic value.

[quote="Awesomelyglorious]

[quote]
Okay, okay enlightened egoism it is. Caught. But self aware enlightened egoism. If you do not recognize the intrinsic instinctive push behind any "social philosophy" you cannot catch the pitfalls on an individual level. I only propose that any such system if not coupled with introspection to keep the natural instincts in check will fail.
Anarchy is not conducive to the survival of a social species. It is conducive to the glorification of the ONE or at the very best THE BLESSED FEW. In other words; there is only so much room at the top and the prize tends to go to the biggest prick. I think that is wrong because it hurts too many people. It causes pain. Period. I feel that people who are willing to ignore the pain of others because it isn't "logical" or doesn't fit in with their ideal that glorifies themselves are socio-pathic personalities (or bordering on it) and shouldn't have any say in society.; any society. Our survival as a species is dependent on cooperation. I will say that as a given because it has been proven time and time again. Even the Greek philosophers that Rand relied on so much had that as a core belief. Human beings that are incapable of compassion, or are unwilling to recognize that it is part and parcel to the human experience for most people are too willing, (and sometimes eager) to sacrifice the needs of others for their own personal gain. I think that I will have to agree to disagree with this social philosophy. You have helped me understand much more of it in a rational no nonsense discourse, without (too much ) condescending peppering. I know that my "logical" mind (vs. my "mystical" mind) was probably not up to this discussion, so thank you, but nobody's mind is going to change here (least of all mine), so it's time for me to leave the thread.

Oh, any philosophy I can think of isn't based upon pure logic. I really don't agree with objectivist ideas, I just know that they will be particularly hated.

Technically, most anarchists would disagree with you, if only because the idea of anarchy of any form, including the inegalitarian anarcho-capitalist form does stand against complete tyranny or oligarchy. Really though, I think we would simply have to debate anarchist political theory to come to any definite conclusions on that matter.

So? Why is your idea of morality the highest end? Frankly, there are a lot of people in government who outright disagree with your position, such as realist foreign policy experts, who believe in power in international relations without regard to many other standards.

Well, I wouldn't really disagree with that necessarily. However, cooperation does not mean that cooperation cannot be done without compassion. Well, nobody is really changed after one argument anyway, I wasn't expecting you to change and on some levels I probably agree with you more than objectivists. You definitely had some very good points, I just am very experienced with arguing the ethical egoist position and the libertarian position as well as the skeptical position.

the Vietnam war ended about the time the uprising against it was at it's height. They were not necessarily caused by the other, but it gave hope to those who protested and then got what was wanted. so I am more that, than a youth that hasn't yet ceded Czechoslovakia!

Merle