Then there was no reason to waste our time on it. — Garrett Travers
I'll pick this up tomorrow. — Garrett Travers
Function, as in what the purpose reason has been evolved to fulfill. — Garrett Travers
The former (Rand agrees here), constitutes unnecessary ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of self
— Possibility
No, she regards it as evil because it asserts that it is proper for the human to be regard as a fit subject for the practice of sacrifice, either to someone, or someone to your self. Respect for one's own reason is inconsistent with this view. — Garrett Travers
(Rand is less forthcoming here) permits ignorance, isolation and exclusion of the potential of ‘other’
— Possibility
That is your choice. It is against the value of reason to hold others not responsible for their own pursuit of knowledge and a better life. — Garrett Travers
The trick, I think, is to recognise that Rand’s idea of a rational consciousness is limited by the perceived potentiality of individual human survival.
— Possibility
Yes. Individuals are bound to this one precarious life woth only their reason as a means of survival. — Garrett Travers
So, it still permits a level of selfishness, and therefore ignorance, isolation and exclusion - which Rand seems to argue is necessary.
— Possibility
100%, it simply doesn't admit willful ignorance, that's irrational. — Garrett Travers
Yes. It is impossible for me to do any good for those I love within my virtue, without an increasing knowledge base, productive skills, and refinement of virtues. — Garrett Travers
her fictional writing (particularly in relation to characters who intend beyond their rational self-interest) does not.
— Possibility
That's a cool point. Who did you have in mind? — Garrett Travers
It's been two in the morning for 24 hours for you since your first post. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Moreover, that is bidirectional. With both directions, mys original formulation is tantamount to yours. — TonesInDeepFreeze
So I guess your promise to another poster that you wouldn't bother him with your Objectivism if he read ITOE and found it wanting doesn't apply also to me. — TonesInDeepFreeze
What was the textbook? — TonesInDeepFreeze
because we have an immense amount of data over just the past 70 years showing us what markets produce for the world, and how states ruin the world as a result of being in control of those markets. — Garrett Travers
My point did not depend on equality. I explained my point long ago. And I have pointed out that you chronically skip the telling points in my original argument and the further explanations in response to you. — TonesInDeepFreeze
Okay. Still, as I said the Objectivist ethical thesis is not supported by valid argument. — TonesInDeepFreeze
product of a mixed economy. — Xtrix
So once again your assertion, much like with other zealous individuals, amounts to nothing more than “anything positive is attributable to markets over the last 70 years.” Despite your claim that free markets have never existed. — Xtrix
It’s incoherent. And what data are you referring to, exactly? — Xtrix
Despite your claim that free markets have never existed.
— Xtrix
I've said no such thing. — Garrett Travers
technology and services — Garrett Travers
shows the trends in gdp, individual income, corporate income, and the changes in tech, health, literacy, etc. that have accompanied:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.DEFL.KD.ZG?locations=US
https://ourworldindata.org/a-history-of-global-living-conditions-in-5-charts — Garrett Travers
Again, same argument, broader perspective. Your understanding of ‘the value of reason’ is relative to a human conceptualisation of affect. — Possibility
Perhaps, but consciousness isn’t, and neither is rationality. Which suggests that there may be more to rational consciousness than Rand’s philosophy makes out. And certainly more to consciousness than this concept of the ‘individual’. — Possibility
Fair enough. Except how can you tell the difference, when each individual’s reasoning and will are necessarily bound by their own irrational preference for survival? What you judge as wilful ignorance may simply be ignorance on their part, and vice versa. In this sense, we can only make moral judgements on our own behaviour and intentions. But then we have no way of determining the extent of our ignorance. — Possibility
Agreed - and yet we don’t often include these potential gains in rationalising our willingness to do good. It’s also arguable that kindness, generosity and gentleness regularly net gains in awareness, connection and collaboration - increasing our knowledge base, productive skills, refinement of other virtues, etc - in ways that are unpredictable, or at least unquantifiable in potentiality. — Possibility
Irina and Sascha in We The Living who resist the communist regime at the cost of their freedom. — Possibility
Howard Roark in The Fountainhead also loses his one opportunity to work as an architect by choosing integrity. — Possibility
It’s a minor point, granted, but for me it renders the idea of rational self-interest as a possible reductionist methodology, not an obligation. — Possibility
Where have free markets existed? — Xtrix
Free markets have never existed. Thus your claims about what markets have produced is irrelevant. Why? Because “markets” don’t function in a vacuum— there’s state intervention on every level. If these markets have produced things, good or bad, they’ve done so with support of the state. — Xtrix
The first link shows graphs of various metrics. The second talks about progress in various donations (like poverty). What does any of this has to do with free markets? — Xtrix
Notice the first graph — GDP. When was the era of highest growth? Not during the neoliberal era. It was when capitalism was MORE regulated, not less. — Xtrix
Also, extreme poverty decreases have come overwhelmingly from China. Is THAT your example of what “markets” have produced? There’s massive state intervention there— and the state happens to be communist. So I assume, by your theory, that we should attribute the decrease in poverty to markets/capitalism in China. Since, by essentially definition, “communism bad.” — Xtrix
The reality is that state capitalist economies is all that’s ever existed, with various levels of influence from the state (regulations, taxes, etc). Turns out that with more regulation and more state-direction, as in the era of “regimented capitalism” in the 50s and 60s, you had far greater growth, wages, etc— better outcomes. Since the 80s, the neoliberal “Government is the problem” era, we’ve seen poor results (except for those on top). — Xtrix
You've done a good job providing strong arguments against GT's position. — T Clark
What does Rand mean by selfish:
P1. if humans are generated by natural processes with reason (logic, rationality, conceptual faculty) being their means of survival.
P2. and if it is only through this conceptual faculty of reason that humans are capable of living a life according to the values he/she develops with said faculty
C. then the only moral system of society is one in which each human is free to pursue their own values to live and achieve their own goals
Let's start there, what's your issue with this proposition? Is it valid, is is sound? If not, then why for each. — Garrett Travers
For starters, unless one is a Candidean optimist who desires everything he has and who has everything he desires, a Randian egoist is oddly similar to everyone else and not exactly an egoist at all (and certainly not special). — baker
Given that even a Randian egoist still has to make a living, either by selling products or services, or by theft or robbery, this means that his values and goals need to be aligned with the values and goals of other people. — baker
So not much individuality here. — baker
In short, all this Randian talk of the freedom to pursue one's own values and to achieve one's own goals doesn't contain much freedom nor individuality. At best, it's a hotheaded glorification of the ordinary. — baker
You think Putin has gained anything by violating Ukraine's rights of self-determination for his own irrational purposes? — Garrett Travers
Again, the rational selfishness standard of ethics is the only one that produces interpersonal harmony, or individual flourishing. You've just got it mixed up a bit is all. — Garrett Travers
What do you gain by bad faith and misrepresenting others? — baker
You think Putin has gained anything by violating Ukraine's rights of self-determination for his own irrational purposes? — Garrett Travers
Americans love drama and they love to overstate the obvious and try to present it as something special. — baker
One party's right to self-determination includes their right to make themselves an enemy to another, but that other must simply stand by? — baker
If animals had no reason at all, dogs would be knocking over trash cans non-stop. — theRiddler
The question isn't that states do something, it's how states do something. The effectiveness of markets have been demonstrated. That's all I'm saying. — Garrett Travers
It doesn't, it has to do with (markets). — Garrett Travers
Notice the first graph — GDP. When was the era of highest growth? Not during the neoliberal era. It was when capitalism was MORE regulated, not less.
— Xtrix
Post war, yes. When the soldiers came home, flooded the market labor force, and the science from the war brought services, services, services. Markets. Regulations or not have no bearing on what I'm highlighting. — Garrett Travers
Also, extreme poverty decreases have come overwhelmingly from China. Is THAT your example of what “markets” have produced? There’s massive state intervention there— and the state happens to be communist. So I assume, by your theory, that we should attribute the decrease in poverty to markets/capitalism in China. Since, by essentially definition, “communism bad.”
— Xtrix
You and I are in agreement here. It's just you aren't differentiating laissez-faire and markets in your head, or in mine. — Garrett Travers
There's no such thing as state capitalist economies, only dirigist ones. — Garrett Travers
State capitalism has also come to be used (sometimes interchangeably with state monopoly capitalism) to describe a system where the state intervenes in the economy to protect and advance the interests of large-scale businesses. Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism' to the economy of the United States, where large enterprises that are deemed "too big to fail" receive publicly funded government bailouts that mitigate the firms' assumption of risk and undermine market laws, and where private production is largely funded by the state at public expense, but private owners reap the profits.[21][22][23] This practice is held in contrast with the ideals of both socialism and laissez-faire capitalism.[24]
As far as post 60's economy, that's primarily due to the effects of the Fed and federal taxation setting in, in tandem with the instantiation of the corporate structure we know today that initiated the decline in median income, all mixed in with new tech and innovations that sprang up out of post-war science. So, lot's of variables. — Garrett Travers
The "effectiveness of markets"? Demonstrated how, exactly? — Xtrix
So not free markets, just markets. Meaning markets with state intervention, which is all that exists. So whether we're talking about successes or failures, we're talking about state capitalist systems -- i.e., mixed economies. — Xtrix
You're really not highlighting anything. Soldiers coming home from war is an example of..."markets"? — Xtrix
Markets have existed for millennia. In our modern age, since the rise of the nation-state and in the industrial age, they also exist. They aren't free. There is no laissez-faire. So you pointing to the miracles of "markets" means exactly nothing, as in the case of China. — Xtrix
But so what? Does the state intervention/planning not deserve credit as well? — Xtrix
Because, as has been said now many times, markets don't exist in a vacuum. — Xtrix
hey're not some free-floating force of nature, some "invisible hand." — Xtrix
They exist, and they exist with massive intervention. So praising markets is essentially praising governments, which runs counter to everything you've claimed so far. — Xtrix
Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism'
What is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed"? What does "federal taxation setting in" mean? — Xtrix
The economy of the last 40 years has involved the Federal Reserve, yes. They've played an important role in bailing out corporate America. But that's monetary policy. I was referring to both the executive actions of the neoliberal era, beginning with Reagan, as well as fiscal policies. It was an era of deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, union busting, "free trade," and globalization. These are the policies that have defined this era, in contrast with the, say, "Keynesian" era of the the 40s-70s. — Xtrix
"instantiation of the corporate structure" is likewise meaningless. If you want to explain it, please do, but don't assume anyone knows what you're talking about when you're being this vague. "Corporate structure" has remained largely the same. Corporate governance, on the other hand, has changed a great deal. That's worth talking about. But let's at least be clear about what we're addressing. — Xtrix
The question isn't that states do something, it's how states do something. The effectiveness of markets have been demonstrated. That's all I'm saying.
— Garrett Travers
The "effectiveness of markets"? Demonstrated how, exactly? — Xtrix
I already gave the statistics that you mischaracterized to evade this point, I'm not going over it again. — Garrett Travers
So not free markets, just markets. Meaning markets with state intervention, which is all that exists. So whether we're talking about successes or failures, we're talking about state capitalist systems -- i.e., mixed economies.
— Xtrix
Yes, I was simply talking about markets, even within that context. — Garrett Travers
You're really not highlighting anything. Soldiers coming home from war is an example of..."markets"?
— Xtrix
Yes. — Garrett Travers
Markets have existed for millennia. In our modern age, since the rise of the nation-state and in the industrial age, they also exist. They aren't free. There is no laissez-faire. So you pointing to the miracles of "markets" means exactly nothing, as in the case of China.
— Xtrix
No, it means plenty. It's just, you've been trained not to listen to any of it, or actually analyze data. — Garrett Travers
Markets have not been around for millennia. — Garrett Travers
But so what? Does the state intervention/planning not deserve credit as well?
— Xtrix
Depends on what they've done and how they did it. — Garrett Travers
Because, as has been said now many times, markets don't exist in a vacuum.
— Xtrix
No, they most certainly would exist without governments. Nothing else would exist but markets in the absence of governments. — Garrett Travers
They exist, and they exist with massive intervention. So praising markets is essentially praising governments, which runs counter to everything you've claimed so far.
— Xtrix
No, ahistorical. Mass intervention deems it valuable, and so assumes control. Nothing more. — Garrett Travers
Noam Chomsky, a libertarian socialist, applies the term 'state capitalism'
What he's actually refering to is :
state control of economic and social matters. He just wants you to keep using that term while turning your gaze from his preferred dirigisme. — Garrett Travers
What is "primarily due to the effects of the Fed"? What does "federal taxation setting in" mean?
— Xtrix
The "neoliberal" phase of a heavily regulated economy that hasn't stopped in a long time. — Garrett Travers
And I actually gave you a report on this a while back and you simply didn't even respond to it. Regulation has not been diminishing over the past 70 years, but growing. Another thing you just don't get: https://regulatorystudies.columbian.gwu.edu/reg-stats — Garrett Travers
The economy of the last 40 years has involved the Federal Reserve, yes. They've played an important role in bailing out corporate America. But that's monetary policy. I was referring to both the executive actions of the neoliberal era, beginning with Reagan, as well as fiscal policies. It was an era of deregulation, tax cuts, privatization, union busting, "free trade," and globalization. These are the policies that have defined this era, in contrast with the, say, "Keynesian" era of the the 40s-70s.
— Xtrix
The complete bullshit in this statement will be dispelled by the above source. I'm not responding to this nonsense. — Garrett Travers
"instantiation of the corporate structure" is likewise meaningless. If you want to explain it, please do, but don't assume anyone knows what you're talking about when you're being this vague. "Corporate structure" has remained largely the same. Corporate governance, on the other hand, has changed a great deal. That's worth talking about. But let's at least be clear about what we're addressing.
— Xtrix
In 1971, Nixon abolished the gold standard and the process of corporatizing America was complete. Afterwards which, the data will demonstrate that everything you hate about modern markets is in fact the fault of the government: https://wtfhappenedin1971.com/ — Garrett Travers
Honest, pragmatic men must suffer for the greed of cheap, tasteless men. — theRiddler
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.