In capitalism, there is private property. Private property allows people to be entitled the product of their labor. The more you produce, the more you can have. The less you produce, the less you have.

Capitalism is the only economic system that is consistent with individual rights and personal autonomy. People are free to produce, buy, and sell whatever it is that they want regardless of what the collective thinks. So if you want to be free and want others to be free then you want capitalism.

Capitalism is the only moral and justified system. Any other system is immoral because it takes away people's freedom.

Capitalism is also practical and more effective economically. Businesses compete against one another to produce the highest quality product, at the lowest possible cost, at the largest scale possible.

If your product is too expensive compared to another businesses product, then you won't be able to make money, so you have to figure out a way to produce your product more efficiently so that you can sell it at a lower price and still make a profit.

If your product is low quality compared to another businesses product, then you have to figure out a way to make your product unique or better compared to other businesses so that you can still make a profit.

If your product isn't scalable and only available to a few people, then you can't sell enough to make a profit, therefore you need to find a way to mass produce your product so that everyone can have access to it.

And because there are multiple businesses, the public has multiple choices in what they want to buy. If you don't like a certain brand of food, you can buy a different brand. You can select whatever product that suits your needs the best.

Capitalism also attracts and benefits intelligent and ambitious people who want to live their life to the fullest. Why? Because they are free to make a profit and are not subjected the whims of the public good. They can create businesses that create these amazing products for the public. Some examples are Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Jeff Bezos. Notice how all of them are incredibly rich. In capitalism, the more value you produce to the public, the more money you make. Jeff Bezos is the richest man in the world because he created Amazon, which has increased the quality of people's lives astronomically.

Socialism and communism is immoral and unjustified because there are no property rights. People are not entitled to the product of their labor. Anything you make can be confiscated by the government or the mob, making you unfree to pursue whatever material values you have. In fact, the more you produce, the harder you work, the more intelligent you are, the better your business and products, the more socialism punishes you because you pay higher taxes compared to everyone else. People also blame you for why they are poor or unhappy. They blame you because you're ultra rich or simply well to-do, or hard-working, despite the fact that you worked hard for what you have or created a business that sells products that makes everyone's lives so much better.

Socialism and communism are also incredibly economically inefficient.

My evidence is modern day Venezuela. Real socialism is taking place in Venezuela. Many leftists and those in Hollywood supported this socialism that took place and talked about how great it was. Some still talk about how great it is.

People there are starving! People are so poor and the government hasn't been able to provide the free healthcare and food that it promised, despite the fact that Venezuela has plenty of oil and other resources that would make the country rich. The state has collectivized the farms and many other industries which has destroyed the economy.

Why does socialism fail? Because when the state acquires a part of the market, it is essentially monopolizing it. Which means there is no competition, and where there's no competition, there is just the government creating a low quality product, at a high price, and struggles to scale it to everybody.

Because in socialism you are not entitled to your labor, there is no incentive to make a profit to make more for yourself. There is no incentive to work hard or to produce anything of value to sell to people. There is no incentive to build a business and make a living for yourself. The only incentive to get the money and other handouts provided by the government which of course the government has confiscated from the people who have built their wealth.

Because the productive people have lost the incentive to produce in a socialist country, and because they don't want to rely on the government to take care of them because the government does an incredibly poor job at providing food, housing, and healthcare, they flee the country to a more free country that actually has a more free economy. Because the people who actually produce anything of value flee communism and socialism, the communist/socialist country will eventually self-destruct because no one works to produce anything of value. OR, a black market occurs because people want to produce and be entitled to their labor anyway despite the fact that it's against the law to own your own business and work for just yourself without having to pay taxes..

Those who decry capitalism are afraid of being independent and underestimate the ability of others to be independent. Socialists are dependent and want to live mystical and irrational lifestyles. Living irrationally and mystically prohibits you from creating value in the market place, which means you cannot make money to earn a living. So the only way to live irrationally and to still make a living is through the use of socialism. In other words, you take money from people who do live rationally and produce value, and give that money to yourself through the use of force and coercion by the government.

Why can no one on here see where I'm coming from or see the value of Ayn Rand's ideas?

Why would we, why should we, employ government power to assist you in any way? We would use government power to assist you in your recovery because you are part of our community -- however much you may disapprove of your membership. You will be a more productive member of the community if you can move around freely than if you can not. — Bitter Crank

Because you can't get what you want through voluntary consent and hold the whole of the group more important than the individual.

Life doesn't exist in a vacuum. You cannot treat life as some science experiment, whereby you reject some experiences in favour of others. Life without regard for the emotions or intuitions is inauthentic life. It is a life that is missing something. You, whether you like it or not, are an emotional being. You are driven by your emotions, desires, fears. Most of which is unconscious. These things are not something you can simply choose to switch off in the name of objectivism. Ask yourself why you are so inclined towards this position.

Life includes the irrational, the absurd the mysterious..

You cannot have only one side of a coin. Objectivism is an exercise in ignorance. — emancipate

What you're saying isn't making any sense. What you're saying is that because we have emotions we must obey our emotions. I think that's nonsense. Just because we feel something doesn't make it right. And just because we can't just "switch off" our emotions doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get them under control. We must use reason and evidence to determine the best course of action for our lives. Objectivism isn't ignorant. It's providing guidance for your life if you value it at all.

And here in a nutshell is the poverty of Objectivism. — Banno

Disagree. Also, you didn't explain how this is the "poverty" of objectivism.

I don't disagree. I guess I'm thinking in terms of valuation. I think independent types tend to think in terms that valorize the worldview which accommodates the type of life they're living. It's hard to separate the valorization from the ideology itself. — csalisbury

I agree that I value, or likely value, Ayn Rand because she speaks to my independence. And others value Karl Marx because they see themselves as victims when they have to work. And others value Immanuel Kant because they want to be able to still believe in religion, or whatever mystical nonsense, and still live in accordance to the facts. And others value Nietzsche because they think or act like Hitler.

Arguing is fun. But when you talk about seeing how wrong others are - how could that be anything but antagonistic? — csalisbury

I mean yes, I'm antagonistic in the sense that I disagree or oppose the people I'm arguing with. There's hardly anything that I agree with when it comes to the people in this discussion.

Why? To both assertions. — Tzeentch

Because it's evident. Or maybe it's just opinion, I guess. Every man can decide for himself what the best of action is for happiness. He just needs to have logical reasons for it.

So how does listening to one's emotions fit into this? — Tzeentch

It just means that you shouldn't place them above reality. For example, just because you love someone doesn't mean you should be blinded by love, and just because you hate someone doesn't mean you should see them in a negative light. You want to see people for who they actually are regardless of your emotions. Which is a hard thing to do. No one said being rational was easy.

Even though I don't agree with the general sentiment of this statement, it should be noted that it was not unrestricted capitalism that created a moral system. It was in fact the balance between economic freedom and individual rights. In practice these are often juxtaposed, which is why Rand's assertion that total economic freedom is 'the' system of individual rights is quite simply wrong. — Tzeentch

I mean sure, I agree.

That's no life. That's an attempt to reduce from life the elements and qualities you dislike. — emancipate

What? Can you give a better explanation?

I don't know if you're lonely. I'm saying I liked her when I was. If you're not lonely, mine is a case to pass over quickly, noting how its particulars are inapplicable to your case. — csalisbury

I mean maybe I'm a bit lonely from time to time, but loneliness is independent when it comes to the validity of a philosophy or ideology.

I like the philosophers in my bio - Sloterdjik, Lyotard, Sellars, and Hegel. — csalisbury

Oh I see...

It seems that way, but I may be wrong. What were you looking for in posting? — csalisbury

Well I don't know. I like to argue with people and see how wrong they are when they make their arguments. I also like discovering a greater truth from discussions. It's fun. And if I can convince someone of my beliefs then I think I'm making the world a better place.

Considering Rand's philosophy is called 'objectivism', and it is explicitly stated that emotions make for poor guides in life, I think you are not staying true to her point by saying emotional choices can be rational. — Tzeentch

Well the link I posted was supposed to give you a brief overview. Ayn Rand said that you should pursue your happiness because that's the ultimate goal, but the process to attain that goal is with reason. You can have sex with hookers and snort cocaine, but that's an irrational aim for happiness. A rational person values productive achievement and has a purpose, which is better for happiness.

What does such a rational life look like? — Tzeentch

A rational life is a person who makes the conscious decision to think, reason, and use logic as much as he can.

If we cannot agree that de facto enslavement of the working class is a bad thing, I doubt we will be able to agree on anything. — Tzeentch

Then fine we don't have to agree on anything. If you observe history, capitalism has lead to economic prosperity and is the most moral system because people are treated equally under the law.

I liked Ayn Rand back in the day. As I got older, it became clear to me that what I found appealing in her was her valorization of a life of excellence lived alone. And it became to clear to me that I found that appealing precisely because I was alone. The less alone I was, the more her appeal wore off. — csalisbury

So you're low-key saying that I'm a lonely person? Who do you like now since Ayn Rand no longer appeals to you?

don't know where you're at in your life, and how alone, or non-alone, you feel. But I do know the thing of setting something up, in order to draw out antagonists, in order to defend it. — csalisbury

What do you mean? You think I'm drawing out antagonists?

We mock what we don't understand.

I will take it as a victory.

Your reasons thus far have boiled down to their terrible "Climate change is a leftist religion and we can't mitigate it", claims that groups don't exist — MindForged

Well I just don't understand why you're so upset about the world changing climate. So what the world rises a few degrees.

I heard a funny comment from another objectivist, "Canada will become more inhabitable because it won't be so cold in the north."

I guess you could throw in Russia or Antarctica, I don't know...

You provide no real solutions for dealing with climate change, but to wain off fossil fuels. That's well and fine, I'm just saying that people should have the freedom to choose to wain off fossil fuels. Otherwise you're coming off as some kind of authoritarian and anybody else who disagrees is an idiot. And it's like no, there's still plenty of room for debate in this subject.

Buddy, you compared the disabled being given easier access to entering a business location to the Nazi regime, — MindForged

Well you have obviously failed to notice why I made that comparison... and it demonstrates just how much people really do not listen to me at all. And you don't like what I'm saying, so of course you're going to make me out to be some kind of ridiculous libertarian who doesn't know what he's talking about.

And if that's the case, why even bother discussing or talking in this discussion at all. Clearly, you've already made your mind and you have nothing more to learn from me.

you had such brilliant insights as "Can't try to save the world by weaning off fossil fuels because it might 'hurt' the economy" (I don't think you understand the multiple absurdities of this claim of yours) — MindForged

The economy is what makes people's lives better. Regulating it and controlling doesn't help anybody. As clearly demonstrated in history. And climate change isn't an excuse to start regulating it. You can explain to people why they shouldn't use fossil fuels, but I'm also trying to explain that climate change is fear mongering. Climate change and environmental issues have been around since like the 80's.... and I always hear how bad things are, but nothing bad actually happens.

and have betrayed a lack of understanding of how capitalism works and when it works best. — MindForged

HAH

It's because I understand capitalism, you have no clue what I'm talking about. Your knowledge of capitalism is basic like everyone else's.

You thought it was OK for monopolies or near monopolies to exist because "It only happened through free exchange, which makes it good". — MindForged

In free market capitalism, there has never been a monopoly in history. The only monopolies that have been created were through government interference. The government nationalizes a company, and bars other companies from competing against that nationalized company.

If a monopoly is created in the free market, it is because there are no other competitors in the same field. You could even argue, that all businessmen are monopolists, because every businessman has a monopoly on their own unique product and no one else will create a product exactly like theirs.

Regardless if there are monopolies in a free market, that does not mean other competitors cannot compete if they want to compete. They have every right and freedom to, so any monopoly would not last long. And if a monopoly does last long, then we should praise and congratulate the monopolist for creating a product that no other competitor can compete against.

To say otherwise, and to help competitors compete against a monopolist who has a superior product, is not only unfair because the competitor without the help could not stand on his own because of his inferior product to the monopolist. But it doesn't make sense because you want the best products to stay in the market, and the inferior products to go away even if it leaves a monopoly.

I mean it's not like capitalism's main selling points and fertile ground is when there are high levels of competition which is the antithesis of monopolies (which, not coincidentally, use their power to control the government through means I mentioned earlier). — MindForged

In free market capitalism a monopoly cannot control the government. It's the government that creates monopolies.

Do you know why?

Maybe it's just me but I think it's clear this is just someone puking out bog-standard conservative and libertarian talking points. The poor are bad because the social safety net (I wonder why Rand used SS then???), affirmative action is bad because who knows why those uppity blacks couldn't get into university (what is racism???), and the gubment is bad because not free. — MindForged

Well do you know why I'm saying what I'm saying? I have good and valid reasons for my points.

This feels like someone who hasn't engaged in any broader political discourse, has no knowledge of any non-trivial aspects of sociopolitical history (race relations, ideological developments and shifts) and is not at all familiar with the underlying philosophy and consequences of their own views. — MindForged

Pffft...

Rather, it's a matter of moral intuition first and then may be a matter of opinion or rationalization. For example, it would be a typical human intuition that selling organic vegetables is more morally 'good' than selling cigarets. Provided that we know about the unhealthy effects of smoking, we should have an intuitive sense that selling them generally does harm to some degree. We might reason that in this case personal liberty or the liberty to buy and sell cigarets is more important than the harmful effects, but the intuition is still experienced regardless of whatever moral reasoning is employed. — praxis

Liberty trumps "moral intuition."

If witnessing people who buy and sell cigarettes triggers your "moral intuition" you can talk about the dangers of cigarettes and encourage people to quit smoking. But you have no right to force people to buy and sell what you think they should buy or sell.

So you agree that disabled people organising together to push the introduction of disabled access ramps is fine? And that it secures their individual rights? If not, why? And why does it go against individual rights? — fdrake

It goes against individual rights because the government is forcing shop owners, people who have hurt no one or forced anyone, to abide to these disability entitlements. Just because someone is disabled does not mean that they are entitled to a wheelchair system. If a disabled person wishes to have a wheelchair system built for them, they must acquire it through trade, charity, or voluntary consent. But they cannot use government force.

And you agree that slave revolts and humanitarians back home organising to push the abolishing slaving was good? And that it secures individual rights? If not, why does the abolition of slavery go in the face of individual rights? — fdrake

Abolishing slavery is necessary if a country is to have individual rights and freedom for all.

Do you think disabled people wanting disabled access groups are 'trying to win at the expense' of non disabled people? Slaves revolting and humanitarians back home also definitely were 'trying to win at the expense of other people' - they wanted the fucking slave owners not to remain in possession of some of their assets. This is completely incoherent, and I believe you know this because you're always presenting more trivial reasons people might organised to solve their collective problems.

In this is the incredible equivocation that the abolition of slavery was the same as forcing a baker to make a gay couple a wedding cake. — fdrake

Having individual rights means that one is free from human force. Which means that in order for slaves to have their rights, they must revolt against their slave owners. Disabled people are already free from human force. They already have individual rights.

You see disabled people not having access to the same places as people who can walk as not a problem. Of course you don't, you don't have to care about the problem[/u]. You're a bloke who doesn't need a wheelchair. People who need wheelchair access see it as a problem because it is a problem for them. — fdrake

I'm an egoist. Why would I care about other people's problems? And why should anyone else care?

Also, why should what you see as a problem matter? Lack of disabled access really is a problem for people who need wheelchairs! You would deny them access to spaces because you believe them raising their voices together to gain access is disabled people 'winning' over the non-disabled. The reason they would want to do this is because non-disabled people already win over disabled people due to the established norms and expectations of society. — fdrake

Right, and gay people who can't get a baker to bake a cake for them is a problem.
And women who don't major enough in engineering is a problem.
And poor people who don't have a enough money is a problem.
Fat people, who have too much weight is a problem.
Introverted people, who are surrounded by extraverts, is a problem.
Depressed people, who are sad about everything, is a problem.

When I refer to "winning" what I'm saying is that the winners have the government on their side. The government shouldn't be on anyone's side.

Someone may quit a well-paying and stable job because they feel unhappy there. — Tzeentch

That can be considered a rational reason for quitting. Ayn Rand isn’t saying it ignore your emotions, they just shouldn’t be placed above your interpretation of reality. Making a choice be happier is just choosing to be happy. You’re not denying reality so it’s okay.

Who defines what reasonable is, then? — Tzeentch

The individual does. Everyone decides for themselves. Those that live the most rationally will the most happy and prosperous.

People in those factories didn't work sixteen hours a day because they wanted to. They did so because they had to in order to feed themselves. I'm getting an impression you don't quite realize how appalling the conditions were during these 'best and most free times'. Children had to work in order to keep families fed. For someone who holds reason as one of the highest ideals that sure is a strange definition of a utopia. — Tzeentch

If they didn’t want to, why did they work for 16 hours a day? No one forced them to do it. They chose to do it given their circumstances.

I don’t see why working 16 hours a day to feed yourself and your family is a bad thing. I think it’s great that people had opportunity to work for long periods of time and make enough money to feed themselves.

Consider the opposite of people prohibited you from working 16 hours a day, and prohibited you to work altogether just because you’re a child. You wouldn’t have the opportunity to work, which means you couldn’t make your life better.

One of the most succinct rebuttals to Objectivism as a socio-political philosophy that I've heard is it has no place for children, as it distills all relationships down to subjective value: at best as an abstract affective, and at worst as a commoditized value, rendering it, at least in theory, infecund. In the fantasy worlds that Ayn Rand constructed, the protagonists have no children, they do not discuss having children. They are simply excluded. A socio-political philosophy without children is a philosophy without a future. — Maw

I agree that Ayn Rand should've spoken more on children. Mostly on what would happen to a child when their parents died? A child can't pursue their rational self-interest because they haven't developed, so they must rely on some kind of authority figure to take care of them. The question is who if the parents are gone?

But she did say that to procreate as a responsibility or moral obligation is evil. Your purpose in life isn't to reproduce. It's selfish to not have children, and for good reason because children are incredibly time consuming and expensive. Some people might enjoy having children though, and that's totally fine. But choosing not to have children is also fine.

That is an extreme statement; one could flip it and say there is no such thing as individuals: everything belongs to a group of some kind. It seems to me we are both individuals and members of groups. This is so biologically, socially, economically, politically, existentially--any way one thinks of it.

We simply can not be only individuals. We don't arrive as fully formed individual adult economic operators. We start out with two parents and are born into a culture composed of complex configurations of groups. And individuals, of course. And as we progress through life we get more complicated and at once more group-invested and individuated. — Bitter Crank

Yeah, but it's my belief that individuals are way more important than any group.

You might continue following objectivism and Ayn Rand as your guiding light till the end of a long life, but it is quite possible that you will abandon it and her somewhere along the line--maybe this year, even. This may happen several times -- different philosophies will seem like the brightest light on the horizon, until they don't anymore. If you, a 20 year old, did abandon a love affair with Rand, or Sartre, or Aristotle, or whoever, that would be 100% normal. I fully understand that seems impossible right now and you are not going to entertain the notion that next year you might not be interested in Rand. — Bitter Crank

I'm not going ever abandon Rand. Her entire philosophy is an antithesis to a totalitarian dictatorship. If I ever disagree with her, it will be on very minor details. I agree with her fundamentally though and that will never change.

I'm speaking as a 72 year old who has gone through a whole bunch of enthusiasms, and watched a whole bunch of other people doing the same thing. Today it's Buddha, tomorrow it's somebody else.

The enthusiasm of today always seems like the last stop on the railroad. Until it doesn't. — Bitter Crank

Well maybe your enthusiasms are fleeting because you haven't found any real value in anyone. I've found great value in Ayn Rand though, so she'll always hold a place in my heart.

On a different note, are you familiar with Frank Lloyd Wright, the architect? Rand was deeply impressed with Wright. I love Wright's architecture. Wright himself was a difficult prick, to be blunt about it. Asshole of the year, some times. None the less, he designed some gorgeous buildings. I don't have to love FLW to admire his buildings, fortunately. Here's a picture of Falling Water, a house he built in SW Pennsylvania for a department store magnate. A "summer house".[/quote]

No, I don't know who Frank Lloyd Wright is.

I agree with you that, at this point, we can not prevent climate change. Whatever is going to happen is making itself manifest already.

Can we make it worse? Yes.

Are we going to stop using fossil fuels? Not today. But wind/solar power have become competitive with coal-fired electrical generation. Is there enough wind and solar power to go around? Yes; the sun is generous. Where the winds blow regularly, there is enough wind -- but there are places where the prevailing winds are insufficient.

You are quite right about fossil fuels: they are inextricably part of the world technology and economy.

I used to be a climate optimist but I have been pushed to the climate pessimist position: we're screwed. We're screwed because individually we can not see our common interests with sufficient clarity and force to act upon them effectively. Hell, we can't even see our own interests clearly half the time. — Bitter Crank

So you don't think individualism and freedom can solve the world's problems? You think an all powerful government that forces people to act in a way that the government thinks is the best at stopping climate change is good?

I agree that emotions shouldn't shape your conception of reality. I disagree that emotions make a bad guide in life. Objectively proper choices can be completely wrong if a person does not agree with them emotionally, or subjectively. — Tzeentch

Give an example of someone not choosing the objective choice and using their emotions instead...

I can't find the "and everybody else"-part anywhere in the description that is provided in the link you shared, and if that was the intended meaning behind the principle the term 'self-interest' is a poor choice of words. — Tzeentch

Not really..

Coupled with Rand's thoughts on how the economy should work, I think her intended meaning is "As long as people do what they think is best for them, things will work out okay", and I don't think that is the case at all, because a lot of people have not the slightest idea of what is best for them. — Tzeentch

That's why they should use reason to figure it out. Not their emotions.

Politics is about power, and power is about wealth. But what situation are you referring to? Wasn't the beginning of the 19th century the shining example how horrible unregulated capitalism was? The modern world eventually universally agreed (under much pressure) that the capitalists had to be regulated in order to avoid people, including children, working 16 hour days in the factories. — Tzeentch

19th century capitalism and a third of the 20th century was the best and most free economics the world has ever seen.

What's wrong with working 16 hours a day in factories if what you want is money?

I agree entirely. I think the problem stems from what is meant by objectivism. It's not objective truth. Rather, it seems to be about isolating the individual from all moral implication and responsibility — karl stone

What moral implications and responsibilities?

Right. Ok. So you agree that gay people banding together for equal treatment, the Haitians, slaves and so on banding together for their individual rights are fine. I'm curious what you think remains of your original position at this point. All the examples I gave of people banding together were for their individual rights, and seemingly you thought towards the start of the thread that they were banding together for special privilege. They were not, it's mostly for an expansion of individual freedom; a removal of unfair limitations on their conduct. — fdrake

No, you just misinterpret what I say and disagree with me with what counts as an individual right.

Minorities who have affirmative action. The poor who demand welfare benefits. Employees who use government to force businesses to give them "living" wages. Employers who use government to pass unfair regulations against their competitors. Gays who use government to make a christian baker bake a cake he doesn't want to bake. Christians using the state to enforce their religious policies on people who don't believe in Christianity.

These are groups that that try to win at the expense of other groups. And it completely ignores the individual.

There is a default state assumed by a society. This default state consists of norms of conduct and expectations of capacities. If we live in a world where the default state is considered to be a human who can walk, this limits the freedom of people who cannot.

If we live in a world where the default state is considered to be a human who can hear, this limits the freedoms of the deaf. What we can do, in such a world, is to try and accommodate these differences by placing requirements on society that allow these people to function as normally as possible.

Fine, whatever. Give these people equal "states" with the use of government force.
— fdrake

You actually believe that having your legs blown off in a minefield is equivalent to having mild social anxiety.* You actually believe that the poor veteran shouldn't attempt to lobby for the introduction of disabled access ramps - what, should they have just gone up to the owners in the shop they couldn't get inside and asked them to fit something? How would that solve the problem in general? It wouldn't! That's the point. The only way you're going to be able to solve this problem is through collective action, and it's easiest to achieve by influencing the creation of a law which binds the construction of buildings. I think you're starting to realise this though, since you say: — fdrake

You see it as a problem, but I don't.

And we're talking about veterans now, not people in general who can't walk?

I think shop owners should be free to set up their shop however they like. If they make it easier for the disabled to get into the shop fine. If not, that's fine too. The shop owner may lose money for not making his shop incompatible for the disabled.

*I don't mean to say your social anxiety is easy to deal with, that's a low blow. What I'm stressing is that the kind of options available to you to try and fix it just aren't available to the vet with no fucking legs - they need to address things at the level of building regulations, not at the level of themselves, they can't get their legs back. Though, I'm sure if they could get those cybernetic lower leg implants that are possible nowadays they would, but they're probably way too pricy to get esp. if you're out of work due to the disability of having no fucking legs. You can address social anxiety by doing normal people stuff, there are free counsellors online and so on, no amount of personal change will get the vets their legs back. — fdrake

If they're too pricey, save the money to buy them? There's plenty of work you can do that doesn't require your legs.

If you're so concerned about the veterans, start your own charitable group for them.

The dog being in the box would be that we're already in a state of unregulated capitalism. The dog should be in the box would be that we should be in a state of unregulated capitalism. You clearly believe that we are not in a state of unregulated capitalism, but you also believe that we should be in a state of unregulated capitalism. Should — fdrake

Yes, I agree.

Why do you believe that a law which requires disabled access ramps for building access if at all possible is a special privilege? It's actually a special privilege to enter the building without using a wheelchair - it is a capacity which some humans lack. — fdrake

Because the government is giving you something for free and forcing all shop-owners to cater to your needs. How is that not a privilege?

Though, I'm glad that you picked up on that I was trivialising the gun metaphor. It is very silly. — fdrake

It is.

But, there was a good reason for me applying it out of the context. The logic of the gun metaphor is that people are prohibited from doing things due to threat of force, this applied to black people who were caught using white people fighting, gay people who were caught having sex and so on. I would prefer if the metaphor were more generalised, that a person has a gun to their head whenever the norms of the actions of others impinge upon their freedoms - just like when construction norms for buildings did not require disabled access ramps or elevators. These are all limitations on freedom that people deserve. — fdrake

I agree, people are prohibited by the government when they should be allowed to do that. Which means shop-owners shouldn't be forced to create routes for disabled people because it's their shop. I wouldn't consider these problems groups rights issues, but an individual rights issue. Any groups that form around individual rights are fair and just and I have no problem with such groups because they are not asking for special privileges or handouts. Gay people who can't have sex have had their individual rights stolen.

I thought you'd be down with things that improve the freedoms of individuals, but apparently you don't write as many blank cheques in this area as you say you do. — fdrake

I thought you were talking about groups that weren't interested in individual rights, but propelling their own groups at the expense of everybody else.

Your world view has lead you to equate the approval of laws which require the construction of disabled access ramps with Naziism. — fdrake

It's all the same. There is no difference between them except time. When you start giving out privileges, eventually people will want and expect more until the government will have all the power.

I'm a big believer in fixing your own problems first before turning to the government especially if your problems are easily fixable like shopping at a store and being disabled when you can just order off amazon, or find someone you love to do it for you.

Nothing has to be wrong with profits in general. What I'm against is profiting from slavery, because I think slavery is wrong. What unsettles me is that slavery, the slave trade as it was called, is consistent with unregulated capitalism. It's part of what makes me suspicious of unregulated capitalism. — fdrake

In capitalism that Ayn Rand is referring to, is that all transactions are voluntary. There is no slavery. Warp it however you want, but she would never advocate for slavery.

Would you extend this to the slaves? Who had literal guns and other weapons pointed to their heads. And if they disobeyed their masters they would be tortured, sometimes to death.

Were the black towns in the US after abolition victims of the KKK and other hate groups by choice?

Were the Jews victims of the Holocaust by choice?

Are veterans who have their legs blown off due to mines privileged whiners who want their life to be easier than others'? — fdrake

No, these people had their individual rights stolen. And they have every right to fight for those rights.

The Haitian rebels did not want to be slaves. So they banded together so that no person would have to be a slave, fighting their masters. This improved the rights of individual slaves. The motive for banding together was so that no one had to be a slave - improving the lot of the individual. Please explain to me how this is placing the group above the individual, when its goal is literally the freedom of all individuals in the group. — fdrake

It's not. It's placing the individual above the group. Individuals banding together for individual rights is fine because fighting for individual rights is equal and just. It's the groups that are creating by mindless individuals that sacrifice their individuality, for a group interest that demands special privileges from the government.

Actually it doesn't always pan out like this. If you pick the default, you often pick a winner by default. The default position in the time of slavery was more slavery, the default position before disabled access legislation was no disabled access, the default position for treating acute depression in women was confinement to an asylum. You pick a winner by picking the default. What collective action attempts to address is that a winner has already been picked, and it isn't fair. Life already shuns all the loser groups, that's why there are differential advantages and specific problems that groups organise to tackle. — fdrake

What you're saying doesn't make any sense. There are no loser groups. There are only individuals and what matters is that all individuals have human rights.

You are equating having your legs blown off by a landmine with being socially awkward. The veteran can't magic their legs back on, they can try to organise politically to receive equal priority to people who can walk. They're going to be more of a man than you, they've been to war and not let it fuck them up for life, they want to make life better for veterans. — fdrake

What's the difference. Not being able to walk and not being able to socialize are both hard things to deal with. The question is, are you going to turn the government to give you special privileges or are you going to solve your own problems?

Having individual rights means that the government stays out of your way, not fulfilling your needs or wants.

The two claims are inequivalent. "There are only individuals" vs "politics (in some vague sense) should concern only individuals.". This is the same difference as the difference between "the dog is in his box" and "the dog should be in his box" - see? Huge. Biiig difference. That you're not particularly attuned to the distinction between normative and descriptive claims isn't really your fault though, Rand herself notoriously has a deaf ear for it - google Ayn Rand 'is ought problem' and you'll find loads of literature. Some of it supportive of her, of course, so you can maybe learn your way out of this objection for the next time someone highlights it to you. — fdrake

Well I agree with both the dog is in the box and the dog should be in the box. I think Ayn Rand is right, anyway.

You're being dense here. Not being able to get in the shop isn't a right or a privilege for the wheelchair user, what they actually want is equal standing with other people who can enter the shop. They want to enter the shop. They can't. They need to buy shit. What to do? Maybe try to change it so that in the future people who need to use wheelchairs can access shops. Simple. — fdrake

The shop owners can build an alternative route the wheelchair user. If not, then the wheelchair user can find a shop that will build an alternative route.

If you need buy stuff, then order through amazon, why even bother going to the store in the first place if you're disabled. Find businesses to do the moving for you. Don't play victim to the government. That's part of being responsible and independent individual.

The same thing applies to your gay rights example, collectively organising to exert political pressure is how they got their rights. These are rights for individuals, the collective organisation concerned ensuring and then vouchsafing the rights of gay individuals.
— fdrake

The wheelchair users and the gay people already have a giant gun pointed at their heads all the time, — fdrake

AHAHAHA

In a free country people have guns pointed to their heads. Unbelievable.

With your logic, anyone would have a gun pointed to their head for anything. And then of course, everyone would have the ability to get government privileges because everyone's a poor little victim of their own lives. And then of course authoritarianism and feudalism will skyrocket because everyone is so weak and feeble to take responsibility of their own lives, that they give responsibility to the government to fix their problems.

I don't know about you, but I want to live in a free country with productive, hard-working, independent, and responsible people. Not a mindless mob ruled by a Hitler or Stalin.

it's called being a wheelchair user in a world designed for walkers or a gay in a world designed for straights. They're forced to act in ways healthy/straight people don't, and can't act in ways healthy/straight people do. What they want is to be able to go in the shops or have civil partnerships. How should they go about getting it? — fdrake

Fat people are expected to be thin. Better get the government to give fat people special privileges.
Introverts are people expected to be extraverted. Better get the government to give introverts special privileges.
List goes on and on and on...

Everyone's forced to act in a world that's not designed for them because everyone has their own individual problems.

You clearly don't understand Ayn Rand's quote:

"The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

If you want to help people, fairly and properly, the best way to do it is with individual rights.

Not as much as having a free worker, sex slave, and tradeable asset. If all you care about is your profits, you don't give a damn... What world are we talking about again? — fdrake

What's wrong with profits?

We're not talking about a world that resembles Ayn Rand's fantasy claptrap at all. Whether some Russian bint threw a book at the slave owner and the slave has no fucking relevance here. Nothing in this entire fantasy of how things should be is telling us anything about the real world. As soon as you switched to how the world should be, you switched to a realm of your imagination. Now the world is being measured by how it fails to live up to your imagination, and phenomena within it are being predicted with respect to deviations from your imaginary fantasy land. — fdrake

Objectivism is a philosophy on Earth, I didn't say people were going to live by it. And that's why the world is messed up. Rand provided an ideal and a solution. Now it's just getting people to start applying the solution.

You suggest organisation along group lines is bad because it's not individual, but it demonstrably advances individual freedoms and can bring a more just, equitable and free world. You switched the discussion explicitly to a normative one, how things should be, then gave this amateur hour horse shit to justify it as a principle: — fdrake

Placing the group above the individual is good for the individual? Makes perfect sense. Wow, Ayn Rand is so dumb for point out the opposite.

So, right, I take 8 individuals, and they pair themselves in groups of 2 voluntarily, then the pairs pair, giving groups of 4, then the groups of 4 pair and look! We have constructed the number 8 out of 8 copies of the number one! Amazing. Yes. The ability to group a collection of people together into different sub groups which sum to the original number is totally something related to how politics works. — fdrake

*sighs* you're not understanding where I'm coming from

The smallest group is the individual. So if you want to help minority groups, you did it with individual rights. When you support a group that consists of more than one individual, you are picking a winner group and shunning all the loser groups.

And that's not fair. That's wrong.

You're doing this instead of focussing on the easy reality that people organise along group lines to address common problems, that this organisation is done to attempt to give the individuals in the organisations a life without those problems, and that this is how political actions are taken. — fdrake

Women's rights just want their lives to be easier than men's lives. Black lives matter just want their lives to be easier than white people's. Gays just want their lives to easier

All these groups perceive themselves as victims, but they're not they're just being victims by choice.

You're doing this instead of focussing on how people are effected by stuff, like the wheelchair user and the stairs, and forming groups based on the stuff people have to suffer. — fdrake

I'm a victim because I'm a nerd and I struggle with socializing with people. Does that mean I should join a group of nerds and demand special treatment?

Or does that mean I should suck it up and learn how to socialize like a real man.

I think it's the latter, but whatever, I guess I can't convince you.

I chose to learn to how to socialize rather whining and complaining about how no one around me cares to help me.

when you noticed that Rand's system of unregulated capitalism and the ideas about how things work are quickly refuted; descriptive claims about how reality is; you shifted ground to defend her ideas as how reality should work; normative claims about how reality should be. Don't treat what should be as what is, nor shift between these two registers, because this means you're changing the point of the conversation. — fdrake

Pfft... Misinterpreting her idea of laissez-faire capitalism with a meaning that you can have slaves doesn't mean anything. She obviously never advocated for slavery. And when she says unregulated capitalism, she obviously meant that people are free to make the transactions she wants, not force people to be slaves.

Yes and yes. There's something called the collective consciousness that makes it very difficult to be an individual in an absolute sense. The language you use, the concepts from which your arguments are built - and the fact that I can understand what you're saying, are all the consequence of societies, and cultures. Then there's food production, which is - necessarily achieved by the division of labour, and the trade of goods and services. — karl stone

That is not a justification for a collective mind. All of that is from individuals working harmoniously together.

One reason the group is more important than the individual is that the group can protect individual rights, whereas the individual often can't. — karl stone

If a group is placed above the individuals, then people will do whatever is best for the group at the expense of the individuals, which means not caring about individual rights. So I don't understand.

No.

To my mind, objectivism means objective truth. It's a matter of fact that human beings evolved as tribal animals, and later, tribes joined together to form societies and civilizations. Furthermore, natural and sexual selection craft the individual - in relation to the social and natural environment, giving them psychological characteristics, pre-dispositions and aptitudes - including an innate moral sense, built upon by experience. There is no self made man, no Robinson Crusoe, no individual as such. To ignore this is a contradiction of objectivism - if by objectivism you mean objective truth. — karl stone

The best societies and civilizations are individualistic. America is individualistic. We live as individuals and not in tribes.

Saying there is no self-made man is so wrong. Jeff Bezos built Amazon. Steve Jobs built Apple. To say otherwise means you can't take credit for anything you've done. It means you can't take responsibility for the good things you've done, or the bad things you've done. And it also means that you're responsible for the things that other people have done good or bad. How is that good for anybody?

The best examples of societies that place the group above the individual are communist societies and look where that got them. Also, people in the past who lived in tribes were primitive and dumb.

I also think that because humans are tribal animals doesn't mean we should live in tribes.. We have the ability to live beyond our natures because we can think. We evolved to have a prefrontal cortex.

There are two reasons - I would argue. First, is the question, what is my existence, if there's no future? Why should I have children, or build a business, or write a book, if I have no genetic, economic or intellectual legacy? To please myself? A mere masturbation then? I'd go out of way to deny a conception of myself as an empty issue. — karl stone

I don't understand what you meant. What do you mean no future? Are you going to die tomorrow or something?

Second, is the fact that previous generations struggled endlessly to build all this, which I inherit. My body and mind, crafted by evolution, my language and culture, the infrastructure, the house I live in, this computer. I didn't invent, or build any of that. Receiving all these gifts, I think there's a natural moral obligation to use what others struggled to build, and I inherited, to provide as well as possible for subsequent generations. — karl stone

I think what you're saying is contradictory. The house was created by deforestation. The computer that you're using is "polluting" the environment. Your gifts and the people in the past didn't create this stuff because they cared about the environment. Not cutting down trees and fishing less doesn't make it better for future generations.

You claimed, on no basis, that climate changes was a leftist religion. You literally have nothing that even comes close to a fraction of what would be required to overcome the agreement of nearly every climatologist with respect to the facts about climate change. That was my point. — MindForged

Most lefties believe it and they sound like Christians when they talk about it. That's just my opinion, but I'm not saying it's the truth for all of them.

No one said the world would end in 2012 due to climate change, don't be a juvenile right winger. If we do not act within the next couple of years to drastically reduce our CO2 emissions, in about 12 years we will not be able to avoid the 1.5 degree increase in temperature. The effects of that alone are terrible, and worse if we can't even avoid that it's likely we'll hit 2 degrees change in which case that's catastrophic for the climate and life on Earth. As I said, imagine the Middle East but as an uninhabitable zone. That's the kind of ridiculous fallout of your false view of things applied to reality. — MindForged

Like I said, can we stop this from happening? No.

Also, using the internet and your phone doesn't really help with the CO2 emissions, so you better get off this forum right now. But I forgot all environmentalists/CC's are hypocrites. They still drive their pollutive cars, flush their toilets, buy houses and furniture that was from the amazon rain forest, and ignore clean energy because why buy something at a higher price?

Then I'm done. I don't care if you disagree. No one cares if the random fool on the street thinks engineering is bunk. Buildings, Bridges and homes generally stand upright (when they abide by government regulations anyway!) — MindForged

Right, because government regulations make buildings stand right, not the people who were hired to come up the ideas to build the buildings.

regardless. Climate change is based on decades of empirical research and is based on some well understood physics. That you had the audacity to say "But greenhouses are good for plants" shows the childlike mindset at play. — karl stone

Lol well sorry for being childlike. I just think that if the earth is warming up it's probably a good thing.

You know what else greenhouses do? They warm things up. Writ large in a planetary scale, that distorts ecosystems (hooray, even more rapid extinction of many species), melts the ice caps (hooray, hundreds of millions must flee inland causing until disasters as people pile into each other and kill because of resource shortages), and rapidly distorts weather patterns resulting in an increase of even worse storms at a greater frequency. — karl stone

Well did you expect the Earth to be the exact same forever? Of course the climate is going to change at some point and humans are going to have to deal with it. But thinking that we can stop it is just silly to me.

Will it the climate change dramatically in the near future? Maybe. Or it might not change that much at all and there's nothing to worry about. Whatever happens we can't stop it and we shouldn't try to stop it because capitalism and fossil fuels are good. We just need to find solutions to the problems that arise from climate change.

You are seriously a living parody of how people say conservatives misrepresent and desperately try to deny climate change because they want to perpetually continue their own selfish lifestyles irrespective of what damage it does to other people. — karl stone

Right, because wanting to live my own life and to be happy is such a bad thing...

I also don't see how not caring about climate change damages other people. Wouldn't it damage everyone if climate change is a real problem.

I mean it's bad enough to have the nearly untenable view that groups exist, but to relegate hundred of millions to death because you baldly refuse well attested science on grounds of greed? Props, that takes mountain sizes balls. — karl stone

Greed is what propels people to have the things they want. You think greedy people want to see climate change destroy their life? I doubt it. Greedy people will do what it takes to make the world better for themselves.

You are not arguing here, you are parroting conservative talking points and jumping into hilariously idealized scenarios that don't represent how people actually engage in the world. It's not my choice to participate in an economic transaction that ruins the climate for future generations, and yet that is the inevitable, known result of reliance in fossil fuels. — MindForged

Those evil fossil fuels. Allowing trucks to deliver food across the country to keep people from starving to death. Evil coal powering our electricity to talk on this forum.

Again, idealizations that don't represent reality. — MindForged

So you're just complaining that people use fossil fuels to make their lives better while providing no solutions to climate change. Just use fossil fuels less. Using fossil fuels isn't going to stop climate change, and it's a poor solution.

Yes, I can imagine a world with greatly reduced fossil fuel. Plant based plastics, nuclear energy (fission and fusion based), solar energy, electrical cars, large scale public transportation fueled by the previous methods, etc. That you think capitalism can solve the issue despite having completely failed to have done so *in reality* is telling. It's exactly the mindset like yours that has made it virtually impossible to fight. You deny it exists and then fight tooth and nail to change the things that would actually alleviate it. Yes, dropping fossil fuels would be the number 1 way of combatting CC. — karl stone

Isn't electricity made with coal anyway? So electrical cars are a sham.

Capitalism has increased our quality of life tenfold and is our best shot at handling climate change, but you're too blinded by climate change to see it. There will be a Steve Jobs that will be able to fix these problems, but only if we live in a free country will he be able to fix it.

328
In 'Enemies of an Open Society' (1947) Karl Popper warns that science as truth leads to tyranny. It seems to me that Rand is skirting this problem in a deliberate, but unsuccessful manner. The argument that there are no groups, only individuals - is an absurd notion, but necessary to maintain objectivism construed as "reality, reason, self-interest, and capitalism" - because, the natural implication from objectivist philosophical proscription, is an objectivist state - in which political and personal freedom, individuality, creativity and so forth - would be crushed out of existence by the need to 'make our representations conform' to an unarguable objective truth. — karl stone

Do we have a collective mind? Do we have a collective stomach?
Everyone is an individual with their mind and their own stomach.

It's not an absurd claim at all. And I don't understand how it's objective that groups matter more than individuals.

Rand's conceit - that people can live as individuals, without forming any kind of organisational structures - is necessary to avoid the implication that objective truth is unarguable - and thus, tyrannical. But individualism is contrary to the natural order of human evolution, our psychology and the entire history of society and civilization. That's a massive abdication from reality; and thus a contradiction of objectivism's own supposed values. — karl stone

How is it contrary?

in order to meet challenges such as climate change, deforestation, overfishing, pollution and so on; but I do not ignore vast swathes of reality in order to do so. The larger part of my arguments are concerned with how to integrate scientific truth politically and economically - while avoiding these negative social implications. And I dislike intensely the impression formed from reading this thread - that objective truth should be used as an excuse to shirk all such responsibilities. — karl stone

Why are these anyone's responsibilities? Why should these responsibilities matter? Who cares if we over fish, or deforest, or pollute the earth? Can someone give me a reason why these are problems and why anyone should be responsible for preventing these problems?

I take silly ideas seriously all the time. That's part of why I enjoy philosophy and learning more generally. I would not have attempted to rebut your ideas if I didn't think they were worth rebutting - see the difference in approaches in my response to your different claims: On the one hand I put a bit of effort in explaining why I thought you were wrong during most of the post, but just linked you to a introduction to climate change video course for your climate change denial. I was hoping that since you've enjoyed studying objectivism so much you'd spend some time, maybe in the future, actually looking into climate change analysis from reputable/well cited climatological sources. — fdrake

No, I think climate change is a boring and a fear-mongering subject. And in a free society, climate change won't stand a chance against free-thinking, productive and prosperous people.

Note that in spite of this you are actually conceding the point that political actions are done by and effect groups. Your claim has now morphed into the claim that political actions should not concern groups, something much different from the original descriptive claim of 'there are only individuals'. — fdrake

They shouldn't concern groups. Only individuals. That's why I said there are only individuals because there are only individuals and to act in a way that doesn't is bad.

This is quite strange. You seem to be under the impression, at least for the purposes of your post, that people choose their political subjectivity like they choose what they have for dinner or what bars they go to. A wheelchair bound person does not identify as a wheelchair bound person because they want to park closer to the supermarket, they get to park closer to the supermarket because they need a wheelchair. Now imagine that the supermarket has steep steps, and you have one supermarket within range of access. Now this poor sod has to get someone else to do their shopping for them. The thing about this that induces a group identity is that for some people, they need to enter the shop but can't because of the steps. Then it makes sense to organise along those lines to exert political or economic pressure to get such things changed, for the betterment of your group. This 'betters the group' because they were already aligned by an identity that was ascribed to them usually without their volition.

The same thing applies to what country you're born in, whether you're LGBT, whether you're white or black or hispanic or Asian, male, female, trans, whether you're a steel worker or a telephone salesperson and so on. People do not choose the effects of these things, it just so happens that they have common life problems to organise around. The same thing even applies for big businesses, they want to make lots of money and so organise around issues that either prevent them from losing money or allow them to get more money. It's really simple: alliances of people form from shared problems, not through arbitrary associations. Groups of people form alliances to attempt to solve common problems for the individuals which constitute them. You get all of this out of the effective application of self interest, you don't even have to be a nice person, just pragmatic.

On top of these coalitions of common problems, we also can also add empathy and solidarity; an attempt to aid those who suffer from problems we might not for the betterment of everyone.

So, why shouldn't individuals organise to tackle problems common to them? — fdrake

Being disabled shouldn't grant you extra privileges or handouts. Just like being gay, black, woman or a rich white man doesn't. I don't care who you are, you are treated equally under the law like everybody else. To say otherwise creates a sense of tribalism where everyone wants a piece of the government (the giant gun) to force people to obey to their standards. It is not empathy. It's using empathy to mask victimhood and then to use that victimhood as an excuse to use force against free people. I utterly disapprove.

As what Ayn Rand said, "The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities."

Which basically means, if you take a group of people like LGBT. You can break that group up into two groups. And break those two groups in two 4 groups. And then 8. Until you're left with every gay person standing as an island. If you want to help gay people, you help them according to individual rights. This is fair and just because everybody else from every other group, even groups that have nothing to do with gay people, is an individual, so you'll also be helping them, the gays, and basically everybody as a whole by standing for individual rights.

Please note that I never said Ayn Rand was an anarchist, and also note that in the original post you quoted that I said Ayn Rand reserves a place for government in her political theory; it protects the sanctity of freeform contracts, which is taken to be as equivalent to protecting the trader principle.

The issue isn't whether Ayn Rand would tell the slaves to be slaves; for all her failings she did have some human dignity, the issue is whether unregulated capitalism is consistent with its idealisation. Since we already have that unregulated capitalism is consistent with slavery, surely you must see that it isn't. — fdrake

She means unregulated in the sense that individuals are free to make whatever transactions they want to make. This doesn't mean that people are allowed to force people to be slaves. If that were the case, people wouldn't be free to make the transactions they wanted.

The slave owner doesn't give a damn about the slave, they're an asset. All that matters is maximising the return from them; perfectly calculated, just immoral. If the slave doesn't want to be tortured to death, if they want to survive (remember Rand's ethics has survival as a cornerstone) they will usually benefit most from behaving like a slave. — fdrake

It's irrational to want to have a slave. You want people to be free and prosperous because their freedom benefits you.

Also, objectivism applies to everyone. Everyone is rationally self-interest. Maybe a slave does make your life better rationally speaking, but it's irrational and selfless for the slave.

Unless of course they banded together to break their chains, but we wouldn't want any identity politics coming in here would we. — fdrake

That's not identity politics. Fighting for your freedom is something that all individuals agree on.

Good thing we ask the community of climatologists and not you then. You are an expert on nothing relevant here, while those who are your betters and mine on the matter say in near uniformity that all current models project a very near future deadline (technically 12 years, but since this escalates the later they're addressed, it's likely more like 5 or 6 years if we don't act now) within which to actto avoid catastrophic climate damage in the coming decades (if you think the Middle East is a shitshow now, just wait until it's uninhabitable). — MindForged

No one here is an expert on anything. But that doesn't mean we can't argue about it and determine what is actually true about the subject.

A deadline of what? The world will end like it should've in 2012?

It's this kind of nonsensical, even idiotic, response to the dangers of climate change that makes so many people even consider socialism in the first place. — MindForged

Well yeah, people resort to socialism and government control over the economy when they want other people's money and don't want people to be free. And they'll use things like climate change as an excuse to force people to participate in economic transactions that they do not agree to.

There will be an obvious problem presented (e.g. climate change) which is in large part caused or made worse by the behavior and operations certain sectors of the economy. People like you will show up, complain about faults being pointed out about the economic system worsening the issue because the negative effects not a market force, and then either do what you're just short of doing (denying climate science as a lefty religion... Great argument) or will just say a variation of "Nothing we can do in practice cause we need fossil fuels". And so these people conclude that, well, if that's capitalism and it requires such mental gymnastics to avoid admitting any fault or failure with it, then I'm against that. You are you're own worst enemy. — MindForged

Can you imagine a world without running on fossil fuels? If we even quit using fossil fuels would that stop climate change?

Our best hope of stopping climate change is with capitalism. Capitalism encourages growth and rewards people who come up with ideas that solves our problems. The engineers that can create clean energy sources less expensive than fossil fuels, or create something to protect cities from rising sea levels, or engineer floating cities, or basically create anything to solve whatever problem climate change throws at us. People are motivated when they can make a profit and can take pride in their own achievements. Not by an over powering government that collects everyone's money and spends that money on an idea that they hope works that the people would have never paid for in the first place. Capitalism is our best shot of handling climate change.

That is if it's an actual problem...

Because of the very well established problem between capitalism and market externalities that can't be easily (if at all) be made monetizable, we know there is more keeping civilization going than this ridiculous idea that "Well herp de derp, since we require fossil fuels right now we can't even bother weaning ourselves off them". It's exactly this unthinking response that got us stuck in this rut. We've known for certain that climate change had a huge man made component to it for decades. Large areas of business knew it existed even longer and some even buried their research regarding it in the 50s and 60s (again, if it's not profitable capitalism will deny it or fight it even if it's self destructive). — MindForged

We have no viable alternatives to climate change. And as I've said, I disagree that fossil fuels have been responsible for it. I think the earth goes through shifts.

And I've always found it strange because... if fossil fuels create green house gasses, isn't that good because it creates a greenhouse. Which is good for plants.

The suggestion that we can combat these issues individually because you have a nakedly unjustified view that groups don't exist is laughable. I mean yeah, sure my dude, show me the obvious and feasible solution to global sea level rising. You can't put up a seawall around the entire world landmasses, it's friggin huge. We can't even put a border wall on the southern border of the U.S. because it's both incredibly impractical, stupidly expensive and it doesn't solve the problem. And you know what that means? People will inevitably flee inland and boy doesn't that bring with ita host of other enormous problems to solve? It's almost like some problems are a result of others — MindForged

Individuals in a free society will solve it (capitalism). Not mindless groups of people who use government force (socialism).

It would be many orders of magnitude larger to try and "individually" target sea level rising caused by CC in any case. You know what would slow down sea level rise? Attempting to end climate change. — MindForged

How do you end and reverse climate change? Especially if there is the possibility that humans didn't create climate change, and especially if climate change isn't even a real problem.

It's like the textbook example of many giant problems having a narrow range of causes that we can attempt to alleviate. But the peddlers of economic magic that you are part of (note I am not a socialist) have made this impossible because underneath every out they give themselves is just one fundamental view. — MindForged

Capitalism is economic magic. Everything we could ever want and need was with the help of capitalism, businessmen and our fellow traders.

What's good for me won't hurt anyone else. The individual is supreme.

But, hey, I'm sure you just have the inside knowledge on why leftists are just trumpeting up climate change despite it being the case that massive captains of industry are directly funding campaigns and politicians to fight any non trivial attempt at diminishing the impact of CC because it would mean they couldn't make all the money in the world. This is your brain on Objectivism. — MindForged

Blah blah blah...

You think people like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos just want the world to burn while they get rich. Give me a break. And I don't know why wanting to get rich means opposing climate change.

Making money in all the world is a good thing. People get wealthy because the things they sell are making the world a better place. I want rich people to be rich as they possibly can. As long as they care about a profit, they will always be making products to make the world a better place. If you take that away, say goodbye to all the future Steve Jobs's that could've actually changed the world for the better.

Not sure that I get the difference here between a salesperson who sells products that harm buyers and a salesperson who cheats buyers. In both cases the buyer is being taken advantage of and harmed in some way, though in the case of cheating the buyer is only taking a financial hit.

The moral model appears to be libertarian, valuing personal liberty above all other moral dimensions (including harm/care). I assume Rand was libertarian? — praxis

It is a matter of personal opinion whether or not a product is harming the buyer. The buyer is buying it because he values it more than the money that it costs to buy it. The buyer determines the values in his life. Nobody else does and nobody should. To say otherwise would mean that a the man isn’t free to make his own choices. That he must answer to another man to make his own choices. This is immoral because the man is not free to live life as he wants. She considers traders to be the most moral because they recognize and respect one another as responsible, independent individuals with their own personal values. Since traders understand this concept, they trade values with one another and thus increase the quality of everybody’s life as a whole. Consider the opposite, where people don’t deal with one another as traders, but as masters and slaves. That is a world I do not want to live in and that is why I try very hard to defend my position because that is where the world is going. It would be a world of brute force and control, destruction, and no freedom.

As an Objectivist, I would say that one must hold rationality as his absolute while pursuing his self-interest. You should not buy things on your whims or desires, only if it’s rational. But we cannot force people to be rational. They have to decide to be rational on their own. Those that are most rational in their choices will be the most prosperous.

Libertarians contain a very large range of people, so labeling Ayn Rand as libertarian hardly gives clarity to her position. Ayn Rand is a libertarian, but she only agrees with libertarians on one thing and that is liberty should trump authority. She disagrees with all libertarians who aren't objectivists. There are plenty of libertarian conservatives, liberals, environmentalists, socialists, capitalists, etc… She fundamentally disagrees with all of them though because they are not objectivists. A libertarian could be a christian and a socialist, and of course Ayn Rand would not approve of such a person.

The salesman is nothing but a particular member in the general set of traders. Galt, and therefore Rand, defines trader as this moral symbol of respect, implying that he who is of this kind is the epitome of some moral disposition of her announcement. Practical experience, on the other hand, shows some traders are of some other, diametrically opposed, moral disposition. Therefore, either the Randian characterization of trader, or the moral symbol which describes him, is catastrophically false. — Mww

Either you live in a world of traders, or a world of masters and slaves?

Which world do you want to live in?

Or, to be fair, possibly the instances of practical experience are false, insofar as a customer knows he’s getting taken to the cleaners in the name of “buyer beware”, and doesn’t bargain or walk away, which makes him morally deficient in objectivist theory. Even so, such theory makes no allowance for the altogether feasible circumstance, wherein the customer has no alternative, and the trader recognizes it and takes advantage, rather than abstaining from the capitalist mantra of “seller’s market”. — Mww

what?

Be that as it may, I think taking a logical law and making a theory out of it, is very far less philosophically satisfying than having a theory and using a logical law to justify it. — Mww

I don't even know what to say to this...

Now I grasp the subtlety here....a cake sits in front of you as an A, as soon as you take a bite out of it, it is no longer the A it once was. I’d like to know, if reason is the power of knowledge, how is it the identity of “cake” wouldn’t remain even with a bite out of it? Even if it is true A is no longer A in the absolute strictest sense, it does not follow from that, that reason is prohibited from a practical position in favor of maintaining a pure one, such that cake and cake - bite is not a contradiction of either reason or knowledge. And if that wasn’t enough, while it is true a leaf cannot be a stone, would a leaf be any less a leaf to a caterpillar munching on it? I think not, kemo-sabe.

A further subtlety: if A is a cake is a cake, then a cake with a bite out of it is just B. In this state modified from A, B is B, law of identity obtained. Big deal; the cake is still both had and eaten. — Mww

I don't understand.

Which makes the entire Objectivist philosophy nothing short of a 1000-word lament over the failure of a More-ish Utopia.....the world sucks because it’s inhabitants are unworthy of it, being of improper moral or even natural disposition (never mind the intrinsic nature of them), which makes any form Shanghai-La, DaTong, e.g., mere fantasies.

Finally, it is hardly my opinion. Research will show that Rand’s moral philosophy, personified in Galt’s speech, is a direct condemnation of continental Enlightenment metaphysics in general and you-know-who in particular. — Mww

I guess you proved her philosophy wrong I guess...

Reality: "Facts are facts". Okay, but what does man really know about facts or reality? Great thinkers have tried and got no further than "I think, therefore I am" and "I know that I know nothing". But the underlying idea seems to be to accept the laws of nature that one is confronted with, which is reasonable. — Tzeentch

Ayn Rand would say something like, "I am, therefore I think." Not, I think therefore I am.

But yes, reality is reality.

Reason: A repetition of the first. To follow reason and to accept reality are one and the same. There is a curious line, though: "To choose to follow reason, Rand argues, is to reject emotions, faith or any form of authoritarianism as guides in life." Rejecting emotions is a terrible idea for any human being. Perhaps "controlling" was the intended meaning here, but to deny one's feelings is a road to guaranteed unhappiness. Emotions are a great guide in life if one seeks happiness (one might even argue they are the guide to happiness), just not a great guide for one's immediate course of action. — Tzeentch

She says to reject emotions as guides to life. She's not saying to deny your feelings. She's saying that you shouldn't place your emotions above reality or what you know to be true. You need to look at things objectively so that you make proper choices. Emotions are poor guides to life. What you feel doesn't tell what reality actually is. Reason tells you what reality actually is. It's not just emotions either. Faith is accepting something as truth without evidence. What people say in authority positions should not be accepted as truths either. Being in a position of authority doesn't mean what you say dictates reality or the truth.

Self-interest: Do whatever you want, there are no rules? That's a choice, but to pretend that this is a road to happiness, let alone a functioning society, is a dubious claim at best. — Tzeentch

Does self-interest mean do whatever you want? No. It means to be in your own self-interest. And don't forget that Rand advocated for reason, so that means being rationally self-interest. Just because you feel like doing something doesn't mean you should. Being rationally self-interested is good for you and everybody else.

Capitalism: Laissez-faire capitalism? That has only one outcome, oligarchy. The idea that state and economics can be split is naive, because politics are greatly dependent on economics. — Tzeentch

How is politics greatly dependent on economics? In the 19th century, the government did perfectly well being separated.

Large economical powers will always gain political power, and uncontrolled capitalism will eventually lead to several (or even a single) huge firms controlling everything, which will inevitably come to control politics. Hasn't the industrial revolution already warned us enough of the dangers of uncontrolled capitalism? — Tzeentch

What's wrong is a bunch of large firms controlling everything? If they bought all the other small businesses, they did it out of free trade. They didn't steal anything.

And one company isn't going to control everything anyway.

If you separate state and economics, money cannot buy political power.

The industrial revolution was perfectly fine just the way it was. The government is what's ruining our economy today.

I'll just mention a single thing. Traders were responsible for the financial crisis of 2007–2008. — S

No, it was government interference. But of course, you won't explain why it was traders because having to explain to anyone who disagrees is just someone asking to be "spoon fed", not because they want to counter your argument or anything...

Oh dear. That's another big red flag right there. The prognosis doesn't look good for you if you continue down this path. — S

What you're saying is equivalent to a christian to an atheist that denies God.

I don't think I'm going to debate you anymore. You've clearly made up your mind and don't care to learn anything new from me because an unwillingness to propel the discussion, but closing it down with your minimized, condescending comments.

Well I'm glad you're not that deluded, and being determined to succeed is usually a good thing, so grats. This idea that there are only individuals is rather silly though. — fdrake

I’m not deluded at all. And assuming that I’m already deluded makes me think that whatever I have to say will fall flat to you. Why listen to a deluded person? And the idea of there only being individuals is not silly at all. It’s an idea that should be taken seriously.

If we take the statement that there are only individuals literally, this would mean that no aggregates of individuals exist - which is quickly undermined by group nouns like people, sheep and so on. So we definitely have the capacity to refer to groups, and it's useful to be able to do so.


If you strengthen the idea to a more metaphysical principle, that there are no groups except for the individuals which constitute them, this is true in a literal extensional sense; the posters on this philosophy forum now, say, applies to each and every poster, and without each poster the collective would be different. What this highlights though is that aggregates don't have to markedly change their properties with the addition or subtraction of members.


Take another example of a group, a football team, what would the claim that there are no groups except for the individuals which constitute them say about the team? Well, it could only say that the football team is equivalent to its constitutive members. This misses a lot though, because changing members can change team dynamics. What this highlights is that aggregates can markedly change with the addition or subtraction of members, and moreover that the playstyle of the team is a property of the aggregate, the group of players, and not a property of the individuals. IE, there are groups, and they can have distinct properties or even types of properties from their members.


A more mathematical example, certain concepts like median wage, GDP, and so on; statistical properties; apply first and foremost to aggregates/populations.


So, what remains of the concept that there are no groups except for the individuals that constitute them? What about these things that look like groups of people, say innovative capitalists, captains of industry, the poor, charity workers and so on. In what sense are they not groups? Why of course because the group doesn't exist, only the individuals do!


Except this misses a lot, a lot of our social reality is founded on inter group relations and laws which concern groups. EG, treaties between countries, affirmative action in hiring. Current legal systems adjoined to capitalism actually treat things on the level of the aggregate - we can have interventions to bring needle exchanges into heroin addled areas, increase literacy in poor areas, confine immigrant children to cages and so on. This is to say nothing of corporate personhood, in which a corporation itself has certain rights and responsibilities similar to but distinct from its constituent members. Even the idea of regulatory capture which Randians are so against still requires two groups - corrupt capitalists and corrupt government workers - to get going. — fdrake

Well I understand that there are groups of people and that we have words for these groups of people, and that laws and treaties depend on acknowledging people in groups rather than as individuals. What I don’t like about it is that these groups have taken on identities of their own when they shouldn’t have. There is no collective stomach. There is no collective mind. The groups that form together form based on individuals and their values. But even if you have a group of like-minded individuals in a group, all those individual minds are still very very different with their own goals and are their own person.

And the people that over identify with their groups are essentially sacrificing their own individuality and livelihood for a group or cause that will only fulfill the one interest they have that even made them join or be apart of the group in the first place. A black person’s blackness is one small and very pointless detail to everything about them. A poor person’s bank account is a small and pointless detail compared to everything else that makes them an individual.

Caring about these groups It creates identity politics. It’s not about your responsibility, your work ethic, or who you are as a person. It’s about what group you belong to and who’s group beats the others. Your group defines your identity, not you. If you are in a group that is perceived to be good, you are a good person regardless if you are actually good. If you are in a group that is perceived as bad, you are a bad person regardless if you are actually bad. And the worst part about it is when the government sees these groups as actual entities with rights of their own – that groups of people can have rights that trump individual rights… You will get an unfair and unjustly system. The government can pick winners and losers among individuals depending on which individuals are in which groups. The government is a giant gun. And every group wants control over it. Republicans, democrats, liberals, conservatives, blacks, whites, gays, straights, christians, atheists, environmentalists, women, men, the rich, the poor, employer, employee.. it goes on and on…. All these groups are minorities in a sense.

Ayn Rand said, the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.

This means that if you want to care for the common good, if you actually care for anybody at all, If you want to be good and decent, you must unite everybody under one common interest – their individuality. And you must defends everyone’s individuality as everybody defends yours.

There is no gay rights. There is no women’s rights. There is no corporations rights. There are only individual rights.

It’s one of the reasons why I don’t like blanket statistics. It lumps individuals together based on one characteristic or interest, and completely ignores everything else about the individuals that belong to that group. When feminists shout, “females only make 75 cents for every dollar a man makes!,” they are ignoring all other interests and characteristics of the individual women that are in the women population. They boil everyone’s individuality down into a zombie-like mob that mindlessly and pathetically fights for one interest. It strips people of their individuality, their humanity, their personality, their own interests and desires. If you are a woman who makes 100,000 dollars a year, which is a very high salary, somehow, men still make more than you and that you are victimized. If you are a woman who wants to be a stay-at-home mom, you’re doing yourself a disservice because you’re not going into the science fields because "more men are in engineering than women and that’s wrong.”

So that’s what I mean when there is no society and only individuals. I think it’s evident that people who understand this concept are people who value freedom. People who don’t understand or disagree are authoritarian and want to enslave and be enslaved. They want to be a part of a mindless mob, or control a mindless mob.

Oh dear oh dear. Please watch this series through. — fdrake

Climate change is fear mongering and left-wing religion if you ask me. And I’ve heard enough in the public schools on the worries of climate change.

There are important questions to ask when it comes to climate change.

First of all, is it actually happening?

Most likely, I would agree that we are experiencing climate change.

What does climate change mean for us?

Whatever problems that arises from it, we should take steps to fix it. If rising sea levels are a problem, for example, then we need to figure out ways to counter the sea levels. I don’t that will really be a problem.

Did we cause climate change?

Maybe. If we didn’t, then who cares, let’s just start working on countering the problems with climate change. If we did create climate change with fossil fuel usage, does that mean we should stop using fossil fuels? Well no, because our economy and livelihood depends on fossil fuels. So it wouldn’t make any sense to stop using fossil fuels. Abandoning fossil fuels for other energy alternatives isn’t cost effective or productive.

Can we prevent climate change?

No, I don’t think we can, so whatever is going to happen is going to happen. Let’s not worry about it and prepare for it.j

Anyway, let's take an example of people who actually did have their rights stolen - slaves in the Atlantic slave trade. The trade of slaves wasn't regulated by a government, it was rich colonialists with guns stealing people and rich collaborators corralling candidate slaves, the slaves were traded for profit and were extremely efficient in producing returns for their owners. Laws allowed slavery at the time of course, and when the laws changed through the work of rebels in the colonies and the work of humanitarians at home, history rejoiced. This is a good example of a government changing their tune for justice, and is strikingly opposed to the unfettered capitalism of the slave trade. — fdrake

Blaming capitalism or finding faults in capitalism for people having slaves is ridiculous.

In socialism, the antithesis to capitalism, everybody is a slave to everybody.

You will probably say; a true Randian doesn't believe in the slave trade! Yes, maybe so, but a true Randian wouldn't believe in legislation to end it either - a wrong government cannot legislate rightly, so to speak. Will you join me, against Rand, and say that sometimes governments can do right? And sometimes unfettered capitalism can be systemically wrong? — fdrake

First of all, objectivists do not advocate for anarchy, they advocate for a limited government that protects individual rights. Second, Rand's philosophy preaches rational self-interest. A slave owner isn’t rationally self-interested, and neither is a slave. Why would Ayn Rand tell slaves to continue being slaves? Her entire message was to fight for your life and happiness and to treat others as desiring their own life and happiness as well.

I find it quite annoying how much people twist her words and ideas into something that she clearly and consistently disagreed with fundamentally.

Lastly, your example of 19th century America as a time of prosperity and opportunity for all is incredibly misguided and historically inaccurate. Most factory workers did not make enough to live on, worked impossibly long hours, children worked in the factories, and the working conditions lead to long term sickness and death - with no sick pay or medical insurance of course. It was only under pressure from disgruntled factory workers that eventually child labour laws were put in place, with similar humanitarian developments on workplace safety and an attempt to provide a living wage following from later efforts of unified workers. — fdrake

No, it’s the most historically accurate.

Have you forgotten the time period? This was a time when people had to create wealth from the bottom up and they did create the wealth from the bottom up because there were no “living wages” or welfare benefits. It’s welfare that keeps poor and immobile. And it was the 19th century when actual real people, not just elites, were able to pursue leisure for the first time.

Why do you think people worked those factory jobs? There was no better alternative for them. And thank god for the business owner who had the idea to create a product for people to work those jobs and to make money. And because he created a product, and because he hired people, he was able to mass produce his product, which made his product cheap and sellable to everybody in the public, which increased the standard of living for everybody.

The 19th century also had the 2nd industrial revolution. Which had inventions like electricity and heating, skyscrapers, and the washing machine. These were big inventions that changed the quality of life for people significantly, but most people today look back on that time period and don’t see the freedom, economic production and the beauty of capitalism.

Also, when child labor laws were in place, the majority of children weren’t working anyway because everyone in the economy became wealthy enough that children no longer had to work, but had the opportunity to go to school. And thank god the child labor laws didn’t come before because children needed to be able to work to have money for their families.

Lastly, those who fight for a “living wage” or money benefits for the poor and other things along that nature…. You are basically advocating for feudalism. You are asking a wealthy man to be held responsible for those below him. He must have power and authority over them. You believe that those below him cannot take care or be responsible for themselves without this authority. The wealthy businessman cannot live on his own terms, and is shackled and enslaved by the burden of taking care of the people he has power over. Do you realize how evil this is? That you are advocating for feudalism and authoritarianism. Not freedom.

Responding to what you said earlier today...

Yeah, some of it really isn't your fault. If you go back through the forum over the years, we get about a few Randians per year. They usually come, having solved all the problems of philosophy, preaching the virtues of freedom and the market (is there really any difference?) and of non-aggression (people should relate to each other as individuals and form contracts thereby, rather than having them interposed by a government which has monopoly over force). They also usually come with the attitude that everyone's an idiot. — fdrake

I don't blame them for having that attitude...

I do feel genuinely surprised that people identify with Galt more than the dregs of society though, considering that seeing yourself as a hero like Galt or the captains of industry and innovation should require feeling like you have a lot of power and influence and that you're a self made person. It's frustrating to me to see people who have the freedom and opportunity to study, typically students at universities, biting the hand that feeds them; as if they were not benefitting from what society (at least attempts to treat) as a common good. — fdrake

Alright, well first of all I don't see myself like Galt at all. I am not a hero versus the world. I am not gifted, nor rich, nor an engineer. I'm studying software engineering, so kind of similar actually... But I do plan on being self-made and independent and being confident for it. No one benefits from society as a common good. There is no society or common good. There are only individuals. And your life is determined by your own efforts and choices (if you live in a free country of course).

Of course the usual Randian rejoinder is that all the ills of the university system, like our current debt peonage, is as a result of government intervention ensuring education monopolies or power concentration, so they start charging through the roof for a premium good. This follows the general pattern of economic power concentration being equated to 'crony capitalism' - which is where capitalists are allowed regulatory capture by governments. In the ideal Randian world, such regulatory capture would not be possible as it requires a state to represent the interests of powerful capitalists rather than the interests of general people (which, apparently, is always aggressive and thus immoral). — fdrake

Well yes, government intervention always leads to socialism and crony capitalism. That's not what we want. But in the "Randian" world, the state doesn't represent the powerful capitalists. That couldn't be further from the truth... The state represents everyone's individual rights. Rand was an individualist. Everyone matters individually, not what group they belong to. In Atlas Shrugged, the rich were not being treated as individuals with their own rights. They had their rights stolen by everybody else and that is why they fled.

However, Rand does not draw much of a distinction between the interests of powerful capitalists and the interests of general people. Her ethics focuses on heroic individuals associating freely with each other, and a state is ethical just when it enforces individual contracts between them - if the state oversteps those bounds it is forcing people to do things, which goes against a non-aggression principle that's central to Randian ethics. What this misses is that political negotiation doesn't actually occur in a sphere of individuals freely associating with each other, there are power differentials everywhere, and what's needed to get a good deal in the presence of a big power differential is collective bargaining strategies; an inverse of regulatory capture where the government is forced to serve the interest of its people. — fdrake

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here... I'll answer the beginning of the paragraph. She doesn't draw a distinction between capitalists and everybody else because everyone's interests is their individual self-interest. There are no interests for groups.

The weakest point of Randian political theory in my view is precisely that it explains political and economic phenomena with reference to deficiencies from an ideal state, an unregulated free market system, which would emerge save the interventions of corrupt government officials. — fdrake

I have no idea what you are trying to say in this paragraph.

A not-so minor point here is that the capitalists are not being corrupt by attempting regulatory capture, propagandising and so on, they're actually acting in their own best interests. They are acting in their own best interests when say an oil company propagandises against the existence of climate change while lobbying government for construction of levees to protect low altitude oil fields, or when a spice manufacturer does something more minor by replacing content of spices at supermarkets with cheaply available salt, or when leveraging a rent gap and making long term denizens homeless. They were acting in their own best interests when opposing the creation of the NHS in Britain.[/quote]

It's debatable if what they're doing is actually in their self-interest and whether or not they're doing a good things. If the spice manufacturer replaces the content of his spices to cheap salt, he's being a liar. If his customers find out, he'll probably go out of business. Or maybe it simply doesn't matter and the customers won't care.

Lobbying to a government is not a thing in the Randian world. The government would have no power. And this example doesn't work anyway because climate change is a bunch of nonsense to take down capitalism.

The beauty of capitalism and business is that people choose what they want to buy. If a business does something selfish in a negative sense, in other words, not doing a good job at running their company, they'll lose customers.

Really what this shows is a big misalignment between the short term profit motive that makes good business and the long term welfare motive that makes good politics. There's no special emphasis in Randian theory on protecting the commons from powerful corporate interests or the requirements of collective bargaining strategies for those subject to power differentials to get a fair deal; it's a theory tailored to the short-term interest of capitalists and shareholders rather than the long-term interest of humanity and stakeholders. The world it speaks about doesn't exist, and the closest historical analogues we have to capitalism without regulation took a huge toll on the people and, eventually, the planet. — fdrake

Protecting the commons?

The only way to protect the people is to limit the government.

What makes you think that by giving the government more power it's going to benefit the people? It just gives corporations the green light to use the government to their advantage. That's one thing I've never understood about socialists. They think that a large government would serve their interests, but it never does. A larger government just destroys the middle class, stagnates the poor and inflates the rich.

Capitalism without regulation is what we need. Capitalism without regulation is capitalism that is for the individual. For everrybody. As soon as you add government you start picking winners and losers; it becomes an unfair game. When state and church was the same, one religion controlled everything and made the state unfair and unjustified in its actions. When church and state were separated you had a free coexistence of religions. The same applies in economics. Want people to be free and prosperous economically? You get the government out.

Want an example of capitalism with minimal to no regulation? 19th century America. Largest increase in quality of life that ever happened. True economic freedom. There were no wars, the government wasn't in the way, people were free to buy and sell what they wanted. That is what America needs to return to. Because the government respected the individual. It didn't pick winners and losers like it does today in our economy.

Some people want things that are clearly not good for them, such as cigarettes, junk foods, drugs, etc. What moral reasoning would Rand use to praise or condemn those who sell such products? — praxis

She would say that it is perfectly moral and good for creating a product and selling it. The creator of the product is rewarded for his efforts, and the buyers are happy because they payed for something that they wanted.

Continuing the discussion here...

And you are so bold as to say I haven’t read and don’t understand Rand, when you don't know I haven’t and I don’t? Because we disagree means I’m wrong? Wouldn’t it be better if you showed me how I was wrong, instead of claiming it despite the demonstration of a particular passage appearing to lack as much consensual philosophical merit as the entire message? — Mww

I did tell you how you were wrong. I explained how you missed the point.

It has been long established that Rand both follows Kant is some regards, and demonizes him in others. But either way, the chances of her even being remembered as anything but a half-way decent fiction author, is directly related to her attacks on Kant, but hardly for a successful refutation of him. — Mww

This paragraph is just your opinion, so nothing to debate.

The fact you don’t understand my use of the trades I chose, shows a distinct lack of understanding of the denial of a categorical assertion, which should have no exceptions, with a mere viable possibility. I summarily reject any philosophy that tells me what, who, and even why......but make no effort to tell me how, either from itself or from its proponents. — Mww

Okay, I'll be more specific.

Let's take the salesman.

Ayn Rand and an Objectivst wouldn't consider a scummy car salesman as moral, and yet you talked as if she did. When she clearly does not. That's why I accused you of not reading her work because anyone who understands her work would know this. No good philosophy supports people who lie, cheat, or steal. That's pretty obvious. A salesman that rips people off isn't really a trader. Certainly not the trader that Ayn Rand held as moral. Salesman in general are good people though. They are selling people stuff that they want. That is a good thing.