Question for Objectivists

Post Reply New Topic

Once again, those replying have a selective reading problem. I didn't say get rid of the industry at all. I said that it could be decreased. I am more concerned with the volume of yachts purchased by rich people for no other reason than conspicuous consumption, another thing that Ayn Rand supports, from what I have heard. And I have no doubt that your friend is a good person. My problem is really with people buying more than they need, just for showing off.



Oh, I would dearly love to find a way to prevent alcohol abuse, especially in indigenous areas. But how can you solve the problem? It's hard enough prohibiting other drugs. Alcohol prohibition would not go down well. The problem is psychological and cultural. Don't ask me how I can solve the problem, I don't know enough about it, and I would probably make things worse if I personally tried. I have all the tact and subtlety of a boot to the head.

I detest conspicuous consumption. It is consumption for the sake of showing off. I cannot see how conspicuous consumption is compatible with the so-called rationality of Objectivism. Why consume in such a ridiculous manner? Why show off more than you should? Why choose grotesque style over solid substance?

Not all rich are conspicuous consumers. But the ones who do, they disgust me.

No, no selective reading problem. I don't believe the government should restrict that particular market. The market obviously employs people and I just don't see your reasoning as a sufficient cause to restrict it.



Alcohol prohibition in these areas is pretty much the only alternative. Considering the remoteness of the communities, restricting access is significantly easier. As to conspicuous consumption, I cannot really see the harm in it, if those who have that much wealth cannot be relied on to develop industry; then getting them to spend it en mass is the most effective redistribution method I know of.

91 said . . .
[quote 91]As to conspicuous consumption, I cannot really see the harm in it, if those who have that much wealth cannot be relied on to develop industry[/quote]

To play devils advocate perhaps in a world of dwindling resources and co2 build up
Industry cannot been seen as an unequivocal good.

in a world of scaricity, consumption especially the conspicuous sort is not good
and the Randian heros become villians.

--Just an example of how people with diferent value systems can talk past each other--
-Jake

^^^

To devil's advocate your own devil's advocate. The large scale purchases entailed in something like the overspending discussed above do not really account for much of global warming or resource scarcity. The danger of some people attempting to shift blame into an us an them mentality based on class and spending habits seems much worse than to let it continue. Also, global warming is not simply a big business phenomenon, it is also driven by middle class spending.

Of course the poor spend a higher portion of their income each month.

100 people making $1000 a month each spend $100,000 (or if they are americans $150,000)
one person making $100,000 a month spends considerably less
his house is paid for. (out should be if hehas a brain)
his clothing is higher quality and he has more of it so it does not wear out as quickly.

the rich man has to spend $3333.33 a day
so the Poor are the Engine of a consumption growth based economy.
the the rich a green one.

I see this as an argument to end poverty.

-Jake

The Consequences are horrible; therefore it is not true. Not a great argument against her Philosophy.

Frankly, Ayn Rand has no right to assert any meaning as objective and unerring. Perhaps a mans only will in life is to make himself as miserable as possible. Or to eat KFC ever night until he vomits. Or to rotate 270 degrees every 50 second. It depends. People live to do different things, certainly not always in their "rational self interest".

She is right that there is no objective reason why we should be kind to others. But for biological reasons, we are.

From what I read above, I get the impression that she isn't stating an "Objective" or "Existential" (as she wished to dub here corpulent philosophy) principle of working towards "rational self interest", and backstabbing and fighting our way to the top. She's advocating it.

Her Philosophy's title actually deludes some idiots into thinking this really is Objective; that somewhere out in space floats a granite block inscribed with her Ethical Principles. Silly s**t, Silly s**t

She has every right to so assert. But she might be mistaken in doing so.

there is no law against being wrong and no duty to be right.

ruveyn

lol yeah that's another thing that's ridiculous about Objectivism. Calling someone that's subjective objective is plain arrogant. She thought highly of a child murderer and altruism is synonymous with destroying your own self esteem. It's basically narcissism rationalized since self esteem is put on the same level as safety on Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

I like her subtle (well, not so subtle) use of Unspeak; by insinuating that it is "objective", she insulates it is Truth. If she called it "Existentialism", we would have to take it as a consequence of our very existence Oh Ayn Rand, you crazy b***h...

Any group that actively opposes Philanthropy will never have my support.

Eh, LaVey was a drama queen. It is interesting at parts but at other parts, it's just too angsty and whiney. But I guess angst is the order of the day for conservatives so I guess it would resonate.

Ugghhh the world "objective" is abused as much as "logical"...

Funny thing is, there was a study (I'll source it once I remember who conducted em or find it on google by some chance) on liberals and conservatives discussing various issues. They've had MRI's and it appears that when both sides claimed they were being rational and swore they were, the emotional sides of their brain were active rather than the front portion. They weren't being disingenuous either, they genuinely thought they were being rational.

It's as I said elsewhere; People start with the axiom that they are right, and take any argument that would convince someone of that fact to be proof.

human are rationalizing animals not rational ones.
-Jak

I like it, although I prefer, in my misanthropy, this quote from Inherit the Wind: Darwin was wrong. Man is still an ape.

Um. Ayn Rand lived her life in the active PROMOTION of philanthropy. Buy a dictionary, then read it. The definition of philanthropy is endowment, charity is almsgiving, altruism is arbitrary sacrifice. I think she was right to abhor altruism. Why would I live MY life for YOUR sake? Makes no sense, does it?

She was objective about everything. Including herself. She was not existential. Even in its original, un-Kantian perverted form, espoused by Kierkegaard. She was objective, inasmuch as she valued herself and her ability to best exemplify herself above all other things. I see no problem with this. Neither should anyone else.

I think I've said it somewhere before, but the HONOURABLE poor will never accept handouts. It is the middle class that are envious of the rich and advocate wealth redistribution. Why? Because they don't see any consequence to it.

Here's the thing and I said it to, sorry for misspelling it before, Quatermass, you can't have poor without rich, yes. But without rich you have worse than poor, Deprivation.

Ayn Rand grew up in communist Russia. I think that if any one of us here thinks he or she knows what that was like, we can't. No matter what the GREENER-THAN-THOU extremist movement will do our Western living standards. She did. If she said that America and intellectual property and freedom were the ultimate good, and that Russia and the inhibition of all those things, on top of wealth redistribution was the anathema of life, I would tend to agree with her, beyond my natural philosophical sympathies with the statement that my life is my own and everything done to it is up to me, for the simple fact that she lived both experiences. In America she was one of the greatest novellists and philosophers of all time. In Russia, she would have been Alyssa Rosenbaum, state-dictated life-long history teacher.

Says it all, really. Wake up and listen to yourselves. Either that, or move to the communist utopias that still exist in the world. Two weeks and you'd be back never to raise your voices against capitalism ever again.

And why don't you move to your Randroid Social Darwinist Utopia that only exists in hell. There you can get your massive hard-on inflicting misery.