NationStates Jolt Archive

Okay, no more misposts this time.

This poll is an experiment inspired by a debate I'm having with Neu Leonstein in another thread. Please answer truthfully.

The situation is as follows: Suppose Neu Leonstein has fallen into terrible poverty and cannot make ends meet. He is definitely going hungry, and has a risk of starving. You are free to imagine anything you want about the way he got there - maybe he lost everything in a market crash after the libertarians took over, or maybe he got there through his own bad choices and heavy drinking.

Now, this is a society with no welfare, but there is a charity system set up where you can donate money to people in complete secrecy. Only you and the recipient of your charity will ever know about it (assume there is a law preventing you telling other people or something like that). So there is no peer pressure. No one will ever know if you helped Neu Leonstein or not.

So the question is, would you give charity to Neu Leonstein?

I'd give him my two cents.

As I said in the other thread: I don't really have much money to spare, but I'd invite him out to dinner once.

Sure why not?

I empty my pockets of change for the people down on the Ave, why wouldn't I donate a bit to someone I sort of vaguely know as well? Definately enough for some food at the very least.

I don't have a lot to give, but I would. Were he closer to me, I'd probably be able to help him out more.

Sorry for the confusion with the other thread, by the way. By the time I figured out how to add a poll after the fact, it seemed the title was stuck to "whoops." Won't happen again.

Yeah, I'd probably give him charity. IMO, it's the duty of the well-off (or at least the better-off-than-they) to provide for those in dire circumstances.

Okay, no more misposts this time.

This poll is an experiment inspired by a debate I'm having with Neu Leonstein in another thread. Please answer truthfully.

The situation is as follows: Suppose Neu Leonstein has fallen into terrible poverty and cannot make ends meet. He is definitely going hungry, and has a risk of starving. You are free to imagine anything you want about the way he got there - maybe he lost everything in a market crash after the libertarians took over, or maybe he got there through his own bad choices and heavy drinking.

Now, this is a society with no welfare, but there is a charity system set up where you can donate money to people in complete secrecy. Only you and the recipient of your charity will ever know about it (assume there is a law preventing you telling other people or something like that). So there is no peer pressure. No one will ever know if you helped Neu Leonstein or not.

So the question is, would you give charity to Neu Leonstein?

Well i would help Neu Leonstein if i knew him, but if he was on the other side of the world i don't think i would as there's loads of other people on the other side of the world i don't help, but then there's loads nearby who need help.

So yes and no.

Well i would help Neu Leonstein if i knew him, but if he was on the other side of the world i don't think i would as there's loads of other people on the other side of the world i don't help, but then there's loads nearby who need help.

So yes and no.
Well, this is all assuming that he is close enough to receive money from you personally, but you don't know him any better than you already do right now.

I don't know, I don't have much to spare, being a student, I'm considering to save a little bit to be able to give more to charities because I want to become less of a hypocrite though.
Anyway, maybe if I recognized him (assuming I knew him) I would invite him for a meal or give him some spare change.

Probably yeah. Can I ask where you're going with this though, I mean I can kind of guess, but better to be safe then sorry.

Probably yeah. Can I ask where you're going with this though, I mean I can kind of guess, but better to be safe then sorry.
Well it started with me saying that most people are essentially arseholes who wouldn't give to charity - or would give only with strings attached - if they had a choice, and him saying that he didn't think anyone in NSG was like that.

Obviously NSG is not representative of the general population, and there is some peer pressure, and most of us do know NL better than we'd know a random man in the street, but still, I was curious enough to start a poll. How charitable is NSG, really?

I'd give him a job. The way I figure it, an economist and an accountant should be able to start a pretty successful company.

Yeah sure. I'm on a tight budget but I still donate 6.50 to te British Red Cross. Its important to help others if you can.

Okay, no more misposts this time.

This poll is an experiment inspired by a debate I'm having with Neu Leonstein in another thread. Please answer truthfully.

The situation is as follows: Suppose Neu Leonstein has fallen into terrible poverty and cannot make ends meet. He is definitely going hungry, and has a risk of starving. You are free to imagine anything you want about the way he got there - maybe he lost everything in a market crash after the libertarians took over, or maybe he got there through his own bad choices and heavy drinking.

Now, this is a society with no welfare, but there is a charity system set up where you can donate money to people in complete secrecy. Only you and the recipient of your charity will ever know about it (assume there is a law preventing you telling other people or something like that). So there is no peer pressure. No one will ever know if you helped Neu Leonstein or not.

So the question is, would you give charity to Neu Leonstein?

:p

Anyways, if I saw him on the street I'd probably get him something to eat, and if I happened to be wealthy, I'd definitely donate to charity.

I'd loan him money on high interest...u know...capitalism :p

For the record, I voted nothing, because it goes against my moral principles to give money to libertarians.

I would, however, gladly allow myself to be taxed to provide for welfare that he can enjoy.

No one should starve. The exact level of aid would depend on the available resources, but I'd be willing to commit a lot of money and effort to helping him, even over the long-term. And certainly I wouldn't tie it to any ideological or philosophical position.

No, I don't give money directly to poor people and still wouldn't even if I lived somewhere without a proper welfare system since it feels hopeless, spare change won't solve their problems. I do give a little money to charities that for example help victims of disasters rebuild their lives or help addicts break the addiction and regain a normal life and in this scenario I would increase my donations to these from tiny to small amounts.

Okay, no more misposts this time.

This poll is an experiment inspired by a debate I'm having with Neu Leonstein in another thread. Please answer truthfully.

The situation is as follows: Suppose Neu Leonstein has fallen into terrible poverty and cannot make ends meet. He is definitely going hungry, and has a risk of starving. You are free to imagine anything you want about the way he got there - maybe he lost everything in a market crash after the libertarians took over, or maybe he got there through his own bad choices and heavy drinking.

Now, this is a society with no welfare, but there is a charity system set up where you can donate money to people in complete secrecy. Only you and the recipient of your charity will ever know about it (assume there is a law preventing you telling other people or something like that). So there is no peer pressure. No one will ever know if you helped Neu Leonstein or not.

So the question is, would you give charity to Neu Leonstein?

Only if he'd do unspeakable acts for me in return.

He wouldn't be worth the bullet.

I would, however, gladly allow myself to be taxed to provide for welfare that he can enjoy.

If there were a way to ensure that welfare would never go to libertarians, would you vote for it?

I've bought dinner for people I'd say I know less well than NL, and I can afford it, so I'd give him at least dinner.

Willful sharing is a moral obligation.

I've bought dinner for people I'd say I know less well than NL, and I can afford it, so I'd give him at least dinner.

Willful sharing is a moral obligation.

fooood, i'm so hungry, can you buy me some food if i ever see you? fooooooddddddd

The exact level of aid would depend on the available resources, but I'd be willing to commit a lot of money and effort to helping him, even over the long-term. And certainly I wouldn't tie it to any ideological or philosophical position.
Aw, you Western lefties are just too damn nice. :p Where's the righteous retribution?

If there were a way to ensure that welfare would never go to libertarians, would you vote for it?
No. The potential for abuse and a slippery slope is too great. Once we start excluding people, when does it stop?

The things that I would do as an individual and the things that I want to be enshrined into state law do not always coincide, because the law is subject to social forces and I am not, the law is permanent and my actions are one-time.

For example, if I were alone in a room with Ayn Rand and a gun in my hand, I would not hesitate in shooting the bitch. Repeatedly. In several non-vital areas before a shot to the head. But this action should still be illegal and I should still go to jail for it.

Why?

Because it goes against their political principles.

If there were a way to ensure that welfare would never go to libertarians, would you vote for it?
Yes, but a a consequence that would also mean that those who have registered themselves as libertarians would also not need to pay taxes in order to support the welfare system.

For the record, I voted nothing, because it goes against my moral principles to give money to libertarians.


Why?

fooood, i'm so hungry, can you buy me some food if i ever see you? fooooooddddddd

If you have need, sure I'll buy or possibly even cook you dinner - don't expect much, don't be greedy, and I may ask you to help out, but you'll be fed at least once if you really need it.

I voted that I would buy him a meal for a few days because I quite like Neu Leonstein and I like to donate to domestic charities. Bear in mind, if it was someone like Fass, I wouldn't donate at all.

Yes, but a a consequence that would also mean that those who have registered themselves as libertarians would also not need to pay taxes in order to support the welfare system.
That would generate a massive free rider problem, with every rich person registering as libertarian to avoid paying taxes.

I cannot give him money because his name is Neu Leonstein!

What kind of a name is that?

In all honesty, I would give him food. If you give him money, he can go spend it on alcohol or whatnot, but if you give him food you at least aren't contributing to that cycle, if that was the case.

Why?
Because libertarianism is the most evil political philosophy theoretically possible; libertarians are either evil themselves or unwitting supporters of evil, and therefore the world would be a better place without them.

Still, taking active measures to remove them would probably cause too much unnecessary suffering, various unwanted side effects, social instability, the potential of a slippery slope leading to a police state and so on. It is therefore a bad idea. But at least I can certainly take passive measures such as not giving them any money.

I'd lend him £5 maybe sort his life out because I sort-of know him, however he won't be getting any large cash sums because he is Australian (iirc) and such money will only activate his crime genes

Yes, but a a consequence that would also mean that those who have registered themselves as libertarians would also not need to pay taxes in order to support the welfare system.

thats like 4 people in Kent, big deal :p

Aw, you Western lefties are just too damn nice. :p Where's the righteous retribution?

For political views? I get angry with people over them--NL and I have had our passionate arguments--but not the point of letting them starve, or even to the point of believing that their freedom and happiness should be impacted at all.

Now, if NL (say) hired Colombian death squads to shoot trade unionists, it might be a different story... but I don't think he'd do that.

Edit: Don't get me wrong. If you've read me as a bleeding heart... yeah, I am. :)

The things that I would do as an individual and the things that I want to be enshrined into state law do not always coincide, because the law is subject to social forces and I am not, the law is permanent and my actions are one-time.

That makes sense.

I'd lend him £5 maybe sort his life out because I sort-of know him, however he won't be getting any large cash sums because he is Australian (iirc) and such money will only activate his crime genes


Wasn't he a German in Australia? I think I remember him being proud of his 'heritage' or something. I could be wrong of course.

Because libertarianism is the most evil political philosophy theoretically possible; libertarians are either evil themselves or unwitting supporters of evil, and therefore the world would be a better place without them.


What absolute nonsense. I'm guessing that you've been buying into this bullshit propaganda about libertarians hating poor people right? Libertarianism is an economic policy, that is all, there are different types of libertarianism. Not all are zero tax objectivists. Many argue that libertarianism, or at least libertarian principles benefit the poor and the economy much more the big government policies.

Wasn't he a German in Australia? I think I remember him being proud of his 'heritage' or something. I could be wrong of course.

oh well then why give him anything if hes just going to piss it all away at the bakery :D

edit: I meant he would spend it all on cakes and other treats because of the stereotype...not that stereotype though!

it must be hard being German :(

Because libertarianism is the most evil political philosophy theoretically possible

Nazism?

Normally I don't give charity, but I like Neu Leonstein, so I would give him what I could afford.

He earned that charity by being likeable.

Nazism?

Is easier to say, therefore less troublesome, therefore not as evil.

He seems like a smart guy. I would probably offer him a job rather then give money directly.

What absolute nonsense. I'm guessing that you've been buying into this bullshit propaganda about libertarians hating poor people right? Libertarianism is an economic policy, that is all, there are different types of libertarianism. Not all are zero tax objectivists. Many argue that libertarianism, or at least libertarian principles benefit the poor and the economy much more the big government policies.
No, I assure you that I know libertarianism and its various different strands very well. It is not evil because libertarians "hate the poor" or anything like that. It is evil because libertarian principles are built on self-interest and individualism. It is evil because libertarianism is the purest political manifestation of egoism, and as far as I'm concerned, egoism - the belief that your actions should be guided solely by your own material gain with no concern for the welfare of others - is the definition of evil.

As for those libertarians who actually believe that their principles could benefit the poor or the common man, they are a bit like people who would tell you that taking deadly poison is good for you.

Wow a nice happy normal distribution...sort of...

Nazism?
No, because Nazism in incoherent and amounts to little more than "ZOMG TEH EVIL J00Z!!!!" It's not so much evil as it is stupid. Nazis are idiots. Libertarians are willfully malevolent.

No, because Nazism in incoherent and amounts to little more than "ZOMG TEH EVIL J00Z!!!!" It's not so much evil as it is stupid.

An ideology basically centered round genocide seems more evil to me than one centered round reducing the power of the state.

For example, if I were alone in a room with Ayn Rand and a gun in my hand, I would not hesitate in shooting the bitch. Repeatedly. In several non-vital areas before a shot to the head. But this action should still be illegal and I should still go to jail for it.
And she'd die with a smile on her face, because you'd be proving everything she stood for.

Wasn't he a German in Australia? I think I remember him being proud of his 'heritage' or something. I could be wrong of course.
I was born in Hamburg (in 1985) and came here in 2001. My passport says I'm German, and I suppose if there is such a thing as a German ethnicity, I'm that too.

But I'm not particularly proud of my heritage, because I didn't do anything to earn it. I just happened to be born there.

But to get to the question of the thread: Yes. Yes, I would. If I can afford it, that is.

I get satisfaction out of buying stuff for myself, and I get satisfaction out of knowing that I helped someone I considered worthwhile. If the latter is greater than the former, I'll give.

And if I can hazard a guess, I think I'd consider myself worthwhile, so I'd be a good recipient. :D

No, I assure you that I know libertarianism and its various different strands very well. It is not evil because libertarians "hate the poor" or anything like that. It is evil because libertarian principles are built on self-interest and individualism. It is evil because libertarianism is the purest political manifestation of egoism, and as far as I'm concerned, egoism - the belief that your actions should be guided solely by your own material gain with no concern for the welfare of others - is the definition of evil.
I would descirbe evil as endeavouring to harm people while providing no greater benefit to yourself or others than you would have without having harmed them.

And that's what socialism does.
As for those libertarians who actually believe that their principles could benefit the poor or the common man, they are a bit like people who would tell you that taking deadly poison is good for you.
If it matters, measure it.

Why not examine whether smaller government and more secure property rights and freer voluntary exchange actually benefit people?

Wasn't he a German in Australia? I think I remember him being proud of his 'heritage' or something. I could be wrong of course.
You got the first part right but in terms of the second part you're VERY MUCH confusing him with Kievan-Prussia/The Potato Factory/Whatever other names that guy had.

But I'm not particularly proud of my heritage, because I didn't do anything to earn it. I just happened to be born there.
Good for you. It's irrational to be proud of anything for which you weren't responsible, and you had no control over your heritage or place of birth.

Most people don't seem to get that.

And she'd die with a smile on her face, because you'd be proving everything she stood for.
I doubt a person who loved her own self as much as she did could ever die with a smile on her face. "I swear by my life and my love of it" and all that crap, remember?

Besides, I wouldn't be proving anything.

You got the first part right but in terms of the second part you're VERY MUCH confusing him with Kievan-Prussia/The Potato Factory/Whatever other names that guy had.

Could be, I remember a German living in Australia with an irrational pride in his so called heritage.

Perhaps Constantinopolis and Ayn Rand agree on some things (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians)....

I would descirbe evil as endeavouring to harm people while providing no greater benefit to yourself or others than you would have without having harmed them.

And that's what socialism does.
Look, that's just flat out wrong. You could argue that socialism harms more people than it benefits, but I really don't see any possible way to even imagine that it would benefit no one.

If it matters, measure it.

Why not examine whether smaller government and more secure property rights and freer voluntary exchange actually benefit people?
Sure thing. I have done so, and concluded that they do not. Of course, that's a very long debate - in fact, that is the entire socialism vs. capitalism debate.

No, I assure you that I know libertarianism and its various different strands very well. It is not evil because libertarians "hate the poor" or anything like that. It is evil because libertarian principles are built on self-interest and individualism. It is evil because libertarianism is the purest political manifestation of egoism, and as far as I'm concerned, egoism - the belief that your actions should be guided solely by your own material gain with no concern for the welfare of others - is the definition of evil.


This is only one form of libertarianism. You can support libertarianism from a number of different approaches, and is incredibly naive to think that all libertarians are egoists. Libertarianism is essentially about individual liberty i.e. anti authoritarianism. Although I know you're mainly referring to the economic elements of libertarianism (basically small government), rather then the social elements. But these are just extending personal liberty to the economic realm as well as the social realm, i.e. having more economic freedom, rather then economic authoritarianism. It is statist governments, not libertarian ones that have killed over 100 million people in the last century you know. For this reason it is inherently concerned with the welfare of others, since anything that limits the freedom and happiness of others is against libertarianism. I really don't see what is so bad.


As for those libertarians who actually believe that their principles could benefit the poor or the common man, they are a bit like people who would tell you that taking deadly poison is good for you.

Why is it then, that basically every single rich country in the west ever has owed all their wealth to libertarian principles? (free market etc...) I assure you that probably at least 90% of economists prefer libertarian principles to socialist principles, even if they do water it down.

I doubt a person who loved her own self as much as she did could ever die with a smile on her face. "I swear by my life and my love of it" and all that crap, remember?
There are lots of characters in her book which chose death rather than compromise principles. Objectivism says that life is the implementation of one's values by use of one's reason, and it is entirely conceivable that this necessitates choosing death over being made a tool of things that are contrary to one's values.

Besides, I wouldn't be proving anything.
Sure you would. She was pretty clear that those who argue along lines of "need" deny the individuality of man and deny reason, which is the affirmation and proof of that individuality. Every time you compel someone to do something against their will (which is what any physical violence does) you're denying their capacity to choose and deny their existence as a rational individual.

That you would, rather than engage in argument, shoot her is just an affirmation that you, the socialist, don't consider reason worthwhile and are therefore denying your own tool of life. And to Any Rand, that means you're denying the worthiness of life itself which makes your ideology one of anti-life.

It's very similar to situations in her books, so if you can stomach it, I would suggest you read them.

This is only one form of libertarianism. You can support libertarianism from a number of different approaches, and is incredibly naive to think that all libertarians are egoists.
Perhaps your definition of "libertarianism" is broader than mine. Let's read on...

Libertarianism is essentially about individual liberty i.e. anti authoritarianism.
No, libertarianism is about private property. Which they call liberating, but which has been historically bound with authority.

Although I know you're mainly referring to the economic elements of libertarianism (basically small government), rather then the social elements. But these are just extending personal liberty to the economic realm as well as the social realm, i.e. having more economic freedom, rather then economic authoritarianism.
No, again, libertarianism is about private property, and the power to do whatever you want with it. That is what they call "liberty," and any negation of it they call "authority."

It is theoretically possible to draw parallels between private property and social freedom, but it is even easier to draw parallels between private property and unchecked government power (hint: a private property owner who owns a patch of land and has absolute rights to that land is indistinguishable in practice from a dictator with absolute government power over the same land).

It is statist governments, not libertarian ones that have killed over 100 million people in the last century you know.
And how many people were killed by dismal living conditions and preventable diseases that were allowed to run rampant by libertarian governments in the past two hundred years? How many lived miserable lives crowded in slums? How many still do?

For this reason it is inherently concerned with the welfare of others, since anything that limits the freedom and happiness of others is against libertarianism. I really don't see what is so bad.
Nonsense. Anything that limits one's absolute power over one's own property is against libertarianism. "Freedom" in the libertarian sense is only meaningful to property owners, and your freedom is proportional to your wealth. Happiness is not part of the libertarian equation - or at least not the happiness of others.

Why is it then, that basically every single rich country in the west ever has owed all their wealth to libertarian principles? (free market etc...)
First of all, most rich countries owe most of their wealth to exploiting poor countries. Second of all, no country has adopted anything close to libertarian principles since the 1930s. Third, most people within rich countries owe their prosperity to the social democratic state that was mostly established and built by quasi-socialists after World War 2.

I assure you that probably at least 90% of economists prefer libertarian principles to socialist principles, even if they do water it down.
What you call "watered down libertarian principles" are not libertarian principles, they are neoclassical economics, which rests on different foundations from the political philosophy of libertarianism - though there are also a few common points, most notably methodological individualism.

Not that I have a particularly good opinion of those in my profession, mind you... [I am an economist, or studying to become one, to be more exact]

An ideology basically centered round genocide seems more evil to me than one centered round reducing the power of the state.
Philosophically, libertarianism is centered on self-interest and Nazism is centered on, well, nothing.

Perhaps Constantinopolis and Ayn Rand agree on some things (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians)....

She has an institute?!? I'll have to check that one day, if nothing else it should be a good B-grade porn resource.

I thought you fapped to pictures of Stalin and Mao, Eureka Australis.

Philosophically, libertarianism is centered on self-interest and Nazism is centered on, well, nothing.
You're being a bit unfair. Nazism has its on philosophical foundations, which have to do with the philosophy of history rather than the philosophy of ethics or morality. Incidentally, you'd be looking at people like Hegel and Herder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Gottfried_Herder), which had their share of influence on Marxism too.

Which is not to say that Nazism doesn't peddle a certain morality too, it most certainly does - and I'd be surprised if there aren't philosophers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Heidegger#Heidegger_and_Nazism) who sought to explain and justify it.

Perhaps your definition of "libertarianism" is broader than mine. Let's read on...


I think so.


No, libertarianism is about private property. Which they call liberating, but which has been historically bound with authority.


Libertarianism by definition is the opposite of authoritarianism. Right libs consider property a freedom, so obviously they would support private property, but that is not all they support.


No, again, libertarianism is about private property, and the power to do whatever you want with it. That is what they call "liberty," and any negation of it they call "authority."


Thats part of right libertarianism yes, sort of.


And how many people were killed by dismal living conditions and preventable diseases that were allowed to run rampant by libertarian governments in the past two hundred years? How many lived miserable lives crowded in slums? How many still do?


None of which has anything to do with libertarianism and more to do with corrupt governments and mercantilism.


Nonsense. Anything that limits one's absolute power over one's own property is against libertarianism. "Freedom" in the libertarian sense is only meaningful to property owners, and your freedom is proportional to your wealth. Happiness is not part of the libertarian equation - or at least not the happiness of others.


You are aware that property extends to your own body right?


First of all, most rich countries owe most of their wealth to exploiting poor countries. Second of all, no country has adopted anything close to libertarian principles since the 1930s. Third, most people within rich countries owe their prosperity to the social democratic state that was mostly established and built by quasi-socialists after World War 2.


Free market, anti protectionism, private property etc... All economic libertarian/small government principles, all implemented by the west.


What you call "watered down libertarian principles" are not libertarian principles, they are neoclassical economics, which rests on different foundations from the political philosophy of libertarianism - though there are also a few common points, most notably methodological individualism.


Neoclassical economics tends to lead to very libertarian conclusions about the market, again as I stated objectivism or egoism is not the only reason to approach libertarian economics.

i might give a paperclip and tell him to play his lovely market with it. afterall, anyone can be rich from nothing with a bit of effort, imagine what he could do with a paperclip...

Libertarianism by definition is the opposite of authoritarianism.

I guess capitalist "libertarianism" isn't real libertarianism, then. Because they have no problem with authoritarian institutions, as long as they're privately-owned.

Of course, that's what anarchists like me have been saying forever. ;)

There are lots of characters in her book which chose death rather than compromise principles.
I doubt she would do the same, but regardless, in my scenario I wasn't giving her the choice.

Objectivism says that life is the implementation of one's values by use of one's reason, and it is entirely conceivable that this necessitates choosing death over being made a tool of things that are contrary to one's values.
Good! So Objectivists would choose death over paying taxes, right?

Sure you would. She was pretty clear that those who argue along lines of "need" deny the individuality of man and deny reason, which is the affirmation and proof of that individuality. Every time you compel someone to do something against their will (which is what any physical violence does) you're denying their capacity to choose and deny their existence as a rational individual.
Meaningless drivel. All that says is that people subject to force do not have a choice to do what they want - which is self-evident - and then comes up with all sorts of lofty language to make that freedom of choice sound higher or nobler or more important than what it actually is.

Yes, force denies choice. And evil men should have their choices denied. The destruction of evil is a worthy goal.

That you would, rather than engage in argument, shoot her is just an affirmation that you, the socialist, don't consider reason worthwhile and are therefore denying your own tool of life.
A fundamental clash of premises can only be resolved by force. I consider reason very much worthwhile, but reason can only be used to reach an agreement with those who share my basic a priori premises. If they do not share my premises, we will argue until we each get to our fundamental values, at which point we must either agree to disagree or fight. In most cases I would agree to disagree. But there is some evil so great that its mere existence is intolerable. Such is the evil of people like Ayn Rand or Adolf Hitler.

I am not concerned so much with the means of my own existence as with the means of Mankind's existence.

And to Any Rand, that means you're denying the worthiness of life itself which makes your ideology one of anti-life.
I deny the worthiness of her life, yes. But what she fails to understand is that her life is not all life - that, on the contrary, upholding the worthiness of Life Itself may require the destruction of a few lives in order to save many more. In fact, it makes more sense to talk of Lives in the plural than of Life in the singular.

My life is but one among many, and all must be given equal consideration. That is where I fundamentally disagree with Ayn Rand.

Me being poor also, prolly we can share a cup of instant noodles. :D

He wouldn't be worth the bullet.

How wonderfully socialist of you.

II would give him charity if he accepted that he would give charity to others once he gets his life back together. So I'd give it with strings attached (as I know he is so self righteous). At least, unlike the highly probable result to his, I haven't asked him to do unspeakable acts. But then, charity for him might be unspeakable?

II would give him charity if he accepted that he would give charity to others once he gets his life back together.

Neu Leonstein does not only not oppose charity, but has explicitly stated that once he becomes obscenely rich, he intends to spend much of his wealth on charitable purposes.

It is the obligation to charity (and the compulsion of welfare) to which he objects.

Sure I'd help him out. Deep down he's not a bad guy, even if he's on the path to becoming Lex Luthor.

*snip*
I'd give him food and shelter as long as necessary, on the condition he joined OA (Objectivists Anonymous).

How wonderfully socialist of you.

Considering that socialism is class warfare, yes.

Neu Leonstein does not only not oppose charity, but has explicitly stated that once he becomes obscenely rich, he intends to spend much of his wealth on charitable purposes.

It is the obligation to charity (and the compulsion of welfare) to which he objects.

But I know, if he ever got to the point and found how dehumanising begging is (I haven't done it myself, but I can actually try to have empathy) I know his views on the world would change drastically.

i might give a paperclip and tell him to play his lovely market with it. afterall, anyone can be rich from nothing with a bit of effort, imagine what he could do with a paperclip...
http://oneredpaperclip.blogspot.com/ :p

I guess capitalist "libertarianism" isn't real libertarianism, then. Because they have no problem with authoritarian institutions, as long as they're privately-owned.
Or rather, voluntarily agreed to. If I voluntarily submit to the judgement of someone else, I don't think that's really authoritarian as such. The authority of the other person only goes as far as I want it to.

Good! So Objectivists would choose death over paying taxes, right?
That would depend on whether or not the taxes are so high that they leave the objectivist unable to live a proper life. There are plenty of people who have chosen death over all sorts of government oppression, and Rand herself chose exile over it.

Meaningless drivel. All that says is that people subject to force do not have a choice to do what they want - which is self-evident - and then comes up with all sorts of lofty language to make that freedom of choice sound higher or nobler or more important than what it actually is.
It's not lofty language. Humans exist by virtue of their ability to use reason to solve problems. Problems occur when the world and your values (ie how you would want the world to be) clash.

If you take away a person's ability to use reason, you take away that person's ability to live. All you may leave is mere survival, which we both agree is not the same as life.

Yes, force denies choice. And evil men should have their choices denied. The destruction of evil is a worthy goal.
And you have nothing to decide about evil but what you think. But you don't open yourself to other arguments, which implies that you don't think your moral code is up for rational investigation. So you're not just denying their reason, you're denying your own by failing to use it.

A fundamental clash of premises can only be resolved by force. I consider reason very much worthwhile, but reason can only be used to reach an agreement with those who share my basic a priori premises.
That's just not true. All a priori means is before empirical investigation - a priori ideas can still be challenged with rational arguments, even though it may be difficult. In fact, they can only be challenged through reason.

And because a priori truths can only be established or proven false through reason, your failure to use reason in this case does in fact mean that your a priori truths aren't really truths at all.

But there is some evil so great that its mere existence is intolerable.
And that means that Hitler would be justified to kill you if his goons happen to be stronger than you, does it?

How is that rule utilitarian?

My life is but one among many, and all must be given equal consideration.
For you to give consideration to anything at all you must first be alive. It's logically impossible for you to treat your own life and that of others of completely equal value.

Considering that socialism is class warfare, yes.

"It would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to establish any principle upon which the justice or expediency of capital punishment could be founded, in a society glorying in its civilization."

- Karl Marx

;)

Or rather, voluntarily agreed to.

Their notion of "voluntary agreement" only comes into play after the social relations that underly the authoritarianism have already been established.

I may voluntarily agree to take the job... but did I voluntarily agree to the overall distribution of wealth and property?

http://oneredpaperclip.blogspot.com/ :p



aye, that's what i was thinking of. i just don't believe for a second that everyone, or even anyone, else possesses the silver tongue and canny estimations of relative worth necesary to replicate it. my point is that successful entrepreneurs and anyone else who does well from a capitalist system (libertarian or otherwise) are extraordinary individuals, and in such a system everyone else is condemned to a life of choices limited by their own ordinaryness. hence why i find capitalism so repulsive and why i would not lift a finger to help a capitalist in need, whatever i may otherwise think of their character.

plus, i find charity to be insulting.

That's just not true. All a priori means is before empirical investigation - a priori ideas can still be challenged with rational arguments, even though it may be difficult. In fact, they can only be challenged through reason.

And because a priori truths can only be established or proven false through reason, your failure to use reason in this case does in fact mean that your a priori truths aren't really truths at all.

A priori truths can not be proven true or. They rest on axioms/first principles which are by definition assumed without proof. All reason can do is determine if a rational system is internally consistent. It can not prove the truth or falsehood of mutually contradictory but internally consistent rational systems.

Okay, no more misposts this time.

This poll is an experiment inspired by a debate I'm having with Neu Leonstein in another thread. Please answer truthfully.

The situation is as follows: Suppose Neu Leonstein has fallen into terrible poverty and cannot make ends meet. He is definitely going hungry, and has a risk of starving. You are free to imagine anything you want about the way he got there - maybe he lost everything in a market crash after the libertarians took over, or maybe he got there through his own bad choices and heavy drinking.

Now, this is a society with no welfare, but there is a charity system set up where you can donate money to people in complete secrecy. Only you and the recipient of your charity will ever know about it (assume there is a law preventing you telling other people or something like that). So there is no peer pressure. No one will ever know if you helped Neu Leonstein or not.

So the question is, would you give charity to Neu Leonstein?

I got my own problems.
And i already give to charities as it is, so if the system is in place, it's taken care of.

"It would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to establish any principle upon which the justice or expediency of capital punishment could be founded, in a society glorying in its civilization."

- Karl Marx

;)

Nice taking out a context, the bourgeois love to do that. Marx was talking about communism not socialism, I mean Marx wanted class war.

No one should starve. The exact level of aid would depend on the available resources, but I'd be willing to commit a lot of money and effort to helping him, even over the long-term. And certainly I wouldn't tie it to any ideological or philosophical position.

Indeed.

One of the many Cooperativa Autogestiva that call the Loyal Opposition home would probably greatly benefit from a person skilled in economics and business. Productive employment would probably not be difficult to find.

Regardless of what my Economy statistic says...

Ayn Rand invented freedom.

THAT's an interesting tangent.

Perhaps Constantinopolis and Ayn Rand agree on some things (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians)....

"Moreover, most [libertarians] are my enemies: they spend their time denouncing me, while plagiarizing my ideas"

Ayn Rand invented freedom, don't you know.

"Please don’t tell me they’re pursuing my goals. I have not asked for, nor do I accept, the help of intellectual cranks"

She's got that "crank" thing down pat. Don't need no damn help.

"It would be very difficult, if not altogether impossible, to establish any principle upon which the justice or expediency of capital punishment could be founded, in a society glorying in its civilization."

- Karl Marx

;)

Seriously. The socialism I'm familiar with is concerned with ending the war and finding peace, am I right?

i find charity to be insulting.
Feel free to insult plenty of us in that fashion? :p

Their notion of "voluntary agreement" only comes into play after the social relations that underly the authoritarianism have already been established.

I may voluntarily agree to take the job... but did I voluntarily agree to the overall distribution of wealth and property?

(Right) Libertarians understand the above quite well. They invoke this exact argument when attacking government, most usually when in the form of the state. "I never signed any social contract," etc.

While the argument is certainly valid vis-a-vis the state, they don't seem to be able to see how it applies to economic decision-making as well. Sudden case of philosophical blindness.

THAT's an interesting tangent.

It's what she seemed to think. Complete nonsense of course.

It's what she seemed to think. Complete nonsense of course.From what i've heard of her, i think you're right.

Seriously. The socialism I'm familiar with is concerned with ending the war and finding peace, am I right?

How do you mean that, peace with the bourgeois? I think you're definition of 'socialism' comes from the bourgeois petty-revisionist opportunists. Socialism is defined purely as turning bourgeois dictatorship 'on it's head', Marx defined that the 'dictatorship of the bourgeois' would be overthrown by socialist revolution, and that it would be replaced by the dictatorship of the proletariat, which would build socialism based on practical scientific principle. Because socialism (the dictatorship of the proletariat) is the bourgeois dictatorship 'turned on it's head', instead of the bourgeois repressing the proletariat it's the other way around and the worker's instead have the upper hand (the state) in the class struggle. Marxist theory dictates that after this class struggle under socialism is complete and all reactionary bourgeois elements in society are liquidated, then communism can be built because communism can only work when no one opposes it and would want to destroy it. That is what the socialist period is for, to liquidate these elements from society.

The modern revisionist 'left' have long abandoned revolutionary class warfare, but in reality the socialist period is a bloody repressive of the bourgeois by the proletariat, which as Marx said would result in the victory of one class over another or the shared ruin of the contending classes.

Revisionism is defined as the last desperate attempt of the bourgeois to regain their dictatorship by taking over the worker movement party and heading back the capitalist path, class struggle (socialism) is therefore the process by which the proletarian dictatorship weeds out these criminal elements.

Revisionism is the systematic revision of and deviation from Marxism, the basic revolutionary principles of the proletariat laid down by Marx and Engels and further developed by the series of thinkers and leaders in socialist revolution and construction. The revisionists call themselves Marxists, even claim to make an updated and creative application of it but they do so essentially to sugarcoat the bourgeois antiproletarian and anti-Marxist ideas that they propagate.

The classical revisionists who dominated the Second International in 1912 were in social-democratic parties that acted as tails to bourgeois regimes and supported the war budgets of the capitalist countries in Europe. They denied the revolutionary essence of Marxism and the necessity of proletarian dictatorship, engaged in bourgeois reformism and social pacifism and supported colonialism and modern imperialism. Lenin stood firmly against the classical revisionists, defended Marxism and led the Bolsheviks in establishing the first socialist state in 1917.

How do you mean that, peace with the bourgeois?

A society where the bourgeois people and the proletariat people are the same people.

Okay, no more misposts this time.

This poll is an experiment inspired by a debate I'm having with Neu Leonstein in another thread. Please answer truthfully.

The situation is as follows: Suppose Neu Leonstein has fallen into terrible poverty and cannot make ends meet. He is definitely going hungry, and has a risk of starving. You are free to imagine anything you want about the way he got there - maybe he lost everything in a market crash after the libertarians took over, or maybe he got there through his own bad choices and heavy drinking.

Now, this is a society with no welfare, but there is a charity system set up where you can donate money to people in complete secrecy. Only you and the recipient of your charity will ever know about it (assume there is a law preventing you telling other people or something like that). So there is no peer pressure. No one will ever know if you helped Neu Leonstein or not.

So the question is, would you give charity to Neu Leonstein?

I would set something up that to transfer a fixed amount of money each month to the charity, about as much as I'm paying now through taxes. The charity then can give it to people who need it.

I do have the money to give, but I can't really see myself spending enough time on the streets to find out who needs what when and how much of it, sorry.

I would give him some money to be part of my show. Which shall be....


What happens when NSGers are released into the wild with nothing but a rock and a bar of soap to fight off a horde Vikings.

Okay, no more misposts this time.

This poll is an experiment inspired by a debate I'm having with Neu Leonstein in another thread. Please answer truthfully.

The situation is as follows: Suppose Neu Leonstein has fallen into terrible poverty and cannot make ends meet. He is definitely going hungry, and has a risk of starving. You are free to imagine anything you want about the way he got there - maybe he lost everything in a market crash after the libertarians took over, or maybe he got there through his own bad choices and heavy drinking.

Now, this is a society with no welfare, but there is a charity system set up where you can donate money to people in complete secrecy. Only you and the recipient of your charity will ever know about it (assume there is a law preventing you telling other people or something like that). So there is no peer pressure. No one will ever know if you helped Neu Leonstein or not.

So the question is, would you give charity to Neu Leonstein?

Well it's a tough decision, but I don't think I could. Under one hand he's at "risk" of starvation, but if Neu Leonstein really got into such a terrible situation, how can I be so cruel as to take away his dignity and principle as well? Considering that

I'm afraid 'need' is not a word I can gather much emotional sympathy for

It's hard for me to picture that he will want to receive aid from me. Besides I am confident that he should have no problem getting out of poverty by himself. To just give him charity like that will just encourage him to be 'lazy'. I think Neu Leonstein will agree that has he see someone with his qualification begging for money, he will not give to that person himself.

Heh perhaps, but I would have to apply the same scrutiny that I apply to others I see begging in the street.

How old is he? Does it appear that he is a teen or pre-teen scrounging up money for a 'single' fag(one cigarette)? What cloths is he wearing? Do them trainers look new, are his cloths clean?

Or does he generally appear to be down and out? Then I may offer him some food instead.

Fuck no. If government welfare was ended, knowing NL, he probably voted for the politicians who ended it. By his own libertarian logic, if he's poor, he deserves to be so. Besides, I find the irony of a libertarian starving to death on the streets downright hilarious.

Besides I am confident that he should have no problem getting out of poverty by himself.
Thank you. It took long enough for the obvious to be stated. I did like the idea someone brought up about loaning me money. Same result (I don't starve right now) but without any of the moral baggage.

By the way, I am sorta poor at the moment. I absolutely need money to buy a new set of Potenzas for my car, so if some of you feel that my needs are important enough to call you into action, please send me a TG so we can get the transfer set up. ;)

The OP doesn't really work. Too many things wrong with the scenario. Hell, if I had legs or an income, I wouldn't be in such a dystopian society, and had I neither, it's more likely I'd be asking NL for a space on a hot air vent or something.

But if, for whatever reasons, NL needed & asked for my help under the present circumstances, I'd be both willing and able to get him 2 hot meals a day, a bed, and a date with an organisation that helps people find jobs/education & housing. He'd have to ask though. You can't (and shouldn't) fix people, only help them help themselves.

Still, if it's just spare change you're asking about: sure. That's not helping though, just providing relief. Still, I'd no more deny him a handful of change than I'd deny a guy with toothache painkillers.

Thank you. It took long enough for the obvious to be stated. I did like the idea someone brought up about loaning me money. Same result (I don't starve right now) but without any of the moral baggage.

By the way, I am sorta poor at the moment. I absolutely need money to buy a new set of Potenzas for my car, so if some of you feel that my needs are important enough to call you into action, please send me a TG so we can get the transfer set up. ;)

Obvious? Are you sure?
See, the two cases I know that are currently living in relative poverty ended up there due to mental illness. One was diagnosed with a form of schizophrenia a few years back, the other one never recovered from a serious depression after the death of his daughter. Both were very clever and successful people once, and neither of them has been able to hold down a job for more than 3 weeks for quite a while now. They keep trying, mind you.

So if that happened to you, you'd be happy enough to rot on the street and would not accept help in any form?

If you have need, sure I'll buy or possibly even cook you dinner - don't expect much, don't be greedy, and I may ask you to help out, but you'll be fed at least once if you really need it.

It's a deal!

So if that happened to you, you'd be happy enough to rot on the street and would not accept help in any form?
I'd accept help, but I'd insist on paying it back once I can, with interest in some shape or form. That's how I tend to handle things in real life - you scratch my back and I scratch yours. I try to avoid one-sided back scratching if I can help it.

I'd accept help, but I'd insist on paying it back once I can, with interest in some shape or form. That's how I tend to handle things in real life - you scratch my back and I scratch yours. I try to avoid one-sided back scratching if I can help it.

Well, to fall back on the example of my schizophrenic acquaintance, it's more than unlikely that he'll ever again be able to function normally. So he won't ever have a chance of paying anyone back.
On the other hand, through the German tax system he has during his normal years paid in a good bit. Not really enough to cover his needs now, but he paid his share. It might be interesting to point out that before falling ill (well, and actually to the present day), he was a total and utter bastard. Greedy to a fault and most certainly not charitably inclined.
Had the system not forced him to pay in, he would now be leeching of it without ever having done anything to "deserve" the charity.

I wouldn't say I share NL's views, including those on welfare, but I regard it as an obligation to assist the poor. Ideally I'd say this should be done through a state initiative, using taxation (ebil statist commie-taxes!), but since this doesn't exist in this scenario, I'd personally give what I could afford to, not that much, sadly. Some meals and buy him a night in the hostel probably (I don't get take people in, I like to help, ideally from a distance, I don't like getting close)

I might take the opportunity to glorify the idea of state intervention in welfare issues, whilst he has little choice but to listen. I might be charitable at heart, but I still have an evil streak :D

By his own libertarian logic, if he's poor, he deserves to be so.

Erm, thats not Libertarian logic at all. Generally Libertarians accept that there will be poor people, but their economic system provides the best ability for them to become well off. It certainly doesn't entail any "if you're poor, its your own fault." logic, at least not by any of the Libertarians i've talked to.

the question here is "what are my own resources?"

certainly i would WANT to help everyone who needed help whome i possibly could. that is the only point of human society after all.

but what if neu leonstein got in that condition by giving away everything he/or she had, to help others themselves?

in a potlatching society, which the question seems not to be discribing, doing that would be counted as the greatest real wealth, and neo would be the most popular and sought after person in the tribe or village, quite possibly even its head person for doing so.

cameroi supports a kind of modified potlatching that involves giving away everything you make, EXCEPT the tools to make it with, so you can continue to make more.

cameroi see this as making excellent sense.

there are also no restrictions on gathering wild foods or building and living in shelters made from found materials not part of someone else's shelter or already being used in some other way by someone for some reason, sufficiently obviously for anyone of average intelligence to recognize this is the case.

thus the situation is avoided where anyone's survival is dependent on their ability to coerce others, as it indeed is in an economy where everything is artificially forced to begin and end with symbolic value.

if neu needs help, do to some disability or other unforseen factor, in constructing their own shelter on the land which belongs to everybody, several of us, having at the moment nothing better to do, and who enjoy doing so anyway, pitch in to help him erect one.

likewise everyone shares what they have to eat to keep each other from starving.

this is of course somewhat of a drift from the culture origeonally posited but it is the cameroi approach, or one aspect of it.

there is also the mathom house from which he may draw ANY four items to begin giving back again.

and the craftufacturing center where he may use whatever tools he does not personally possess.

there are even public crash spaces that have been built by people who enjoy building just for the enjoyment of building.

i for one, would prefer not to spend my life arround anyone who was emotionally attatched to requiring a lot of personal attention, but in a scenario where land was owned and i owned enough of it that there would not be a problem with noise level i would certainly welcome his sheltering somewhere on it.

whould even gladly, if the law permitted, build a kind of space many people could freely crash in.

considerateness of being nondestructive nor causing gratuitous noise polution are basicly all i would prerequisite of anyone.

=^^=
.../\...

Well, to fall back on the example of my schizophrenic acquaintance, it's more than unlikely that he'll ever again be able to function normally. So he won't ever have a chance of paying anyone back.
In that case I'd feel bad about taking the help, but I'd probably also feel bad about dying. It depends on what makes me feel worse, and considering my shizophrenia, it's not a given either way.

Nonetheless, I'd make it very clear at the moment of taking the cash that there is a chance that I may not be able to pay it back or use it to get back on track. If you still want to help me, I wouldn't prevent you, but I don't think it'd really make me feel any good about myself.

In that case I'd feel bad about taking the help, but I'd probably also feel bad about dying. It depends on what makes me feel worse, and considering my shizophrenia, it's not a given either way.

Nonetheless, I'd make it very clear at the moment of taking the cash that there is a chance that I may not be able to pay it back or use it to get back on track. If you still want to help me, I wouldn't prevent you, but I don't think it'd really make me feel any good about myself.

Taking charity isn't supposed to make you feel good about yourself.
It's supposed to be an if-all-other-things-fail-and-you-have-no-other-option thing.
I know full well that there are people exploiting this option without actually really "needing" it.
However, I'm also aware that taking the option away would make society extremely volatile and unstable. And, thanks to my experience with the two acquaintances I mentioned, I also know that none of us is ever very far away from poverty and homelessness. We like to fool ourselves into a sense of security and believe that this is something that only happens to others, but poverty is an equal opportunities employer in that respect. Sure, there's preventatives (good education, savings, etc.), but even those have failure rates.
At the end of the day, I personally feel better knowing that, although I would hate having to live on welfare for any reason, should the circumstances ever force me to, it's there and I can rely on it.

If Neu L. were to end up impoverished in my neighbourhood, and my neighbourhood happened to be libertarian, and I knew him as well as I do now...

He could sleep on my spare bed and eat my food until he gets a job and an apartment. Knowing him, that should take less than a week.

After the kids go to bed, he and I could argue politics all night.

He could sleep on my spare bed and eat my food until he gets a job and an apartment. Knowing him, that should take less than a week.

So basically, due to the priviliged upbringing (sorry, but if he has a degree that makes him privileged in this world) he has, he can use his education and contacts to get out of his situation easily. That's good for him.

I wonder if you and him can learn to get a bit of compassion for those not so well off.

I'd probably give at least enough for a meal. I've been known to buy meals for people I don't know at all. If I had the money to do more, there's a good chance I'd do that as well. I don't think I'd invite someone to live with me unless I knew them pretty well.

Erm, thats not Libertarian logic at all. Generally Libertarians accept that there will be poor people, but their economic system provides the best ability for them to become well off. It certainly doesn't entail any "if you're poor, its your own fault." logic, at least not by any of the Libertarians i've talked to.

Most all the libertarians I've ever seen seem to hold the opinion that the poor are poor because of poor financial decisions on their part and that they could lift themselves up by their own bootstraps if they'd only try.

In any case, no, I would not give charity to Neu Leonstein. I would laugh.

Nice taking out a context,

Do you have any idea what the context was? I thought you were such a Marx expert?

Marx was talking about communism not socialism,

Actually, Marx was talking about neither. He was talking about the death penalty, and crime and punishment in general, in the society in which he lived, namely capitalist nineteenth-century England.

But his point, by the phrasing, is clearly meant generally: the real objective should be changing the social conditions that cause socially destructive behavior, not killing people for it.

To apply the principle to this particular discussion: kill capitalism, not capitalists.

I mean Marx wanted class war.

As you interpret it? I'm not convinced of that at all. But go ahead. Prove it.

So basically, due to the priviliged upbringing (sorry, but if he has a degree that makes him privileged in this world) he has, he can use his education and contacts to get out of his situation easily. That's good for him.

Don't insult NL's intelligence or hard work.

In any case, no, I would not give charity to Neu Leonstein. I would laugh.

Hypocrite.

Don't insult NL's intelligence or hard work.
Don't mistake what NL has done as anything special. Most people in the world, if given then opportunity would "work" real hard in an office pushing paper around earning $200 000 a year, rather than working in a sweat shop for a pittance.

I'm not saying he's lazy. I am saying he is priviliged. Before you attack the man, I'm not saying I'm necessarily not priviliged either.

Don't mistake what NL has done as anything special. Most people in the world, if given then opportunity would "work" real hard in an office pushing paper around earning $200 000 a year, rather than working in a sweat shop for a pittance.

I'm not saying he's lazy. I am saying he is priviliged. Before you attack the man, I'm not saying I'm necessarily not priviliged either.

You are saying that he does not and never will merit his achievements simply because of the situation he was presented with at birth. That is both fatalistic and insulting.

Don't insult NL's intelligence or hard work.

LOL

You are saying that he does not and never will merit his achievements simply because of the situation he was presented with at birth. That is both fatalistic and insulting.
No. You are suggesting he is better than the average due to hard work. I am saying that he is better than the average, due to the much greater opportunity he has been given combined with the average work ethic that most people have.

Take any pampered paper shuffler and put them in to Africa to do some subsistence farming, and then get the pampered westerner to tell you which job is harder work. No paper shuffler can say they are really hard working. It is a conceit of us people working in "intellectual" industries to comment about hard working. Especially considering the renumeration.

Hypocrite.

How so? He probably approves of society's decision to end welfare. He made his bed, now he has to sleep in it, in this scenario. Fuck 'em, he doesn't think we should help poor people collectively through the government, I will use the "freedom" that his version of utopia affords me to laugh at his freedom to beg, as long as he's not on private property. If he wanted help out of his dire straights, well he shouldn't have voted to end welfare. I'm not a hypocrite, but I am a total dick. I've never claimed to be otherwise.

I wouldn't want to spoil the hilarious irony of a libertarian starving to death on the streets.

Depends how rich I am and how much other people need charity, but yes, the fact that he is a selfish egocentric fanatic won't prevent me from helping him if he needs it.

I have no hatred for my political foes, I mostly pity them ;)

Take any pampered paper shuffler and put them in to Africa to do some subsistence farming, and then get the pampered westerner to tell you which job is harder work. No paper shuffler can say they are really hard working. It is a conceit of us people working in "intellectual" industries to comment about hard working. Especially considering the renumeration.
I wish more people noticed this obvious truth.

If you were given a choice between going to college and getting a white-collar job or doing subsistence farming for the same wage, which would you choose? I'd choose the white-collar job without a moment of hesitation. In fact, I'd choose the white-collar job even if it paid less than subsistence farming, because frankly, subsistence farming sucks.

So, really, the idea that you need to pay me extra money to give me an incentive to go to college and get a white-collar job is a big fat lie. I suspect the same holds true for most white-collar workers. Who here would like to give up his job for some manual labour if the manual labour paid equally well?

So, really, the idea that you need to pay me extra money to give me an incentive to go to college and get a white-collar job is a big fat lie. I suspect the same holds true for most white-collar workers. Who here would like to give up his job for some manual labour if the manual labour paid equally well?

Yeah, indeed. Having an interesting, safe, physically easy job is a huge reward in itself, compared to people doing repetitive, dangerous and physical hard jobs.

Some "intellectual" job can be very stressful and create a lot of mental pressure (like for some people working in the medical field, it's very hard and mentally tiring to be confronted on a daily basis to suffering and death), but even those jobs are rewarding (in a intellectual/psychological way) and interesting enough to compensate, in general.

You are saying that he does not and never will merit his achievements simply because of the situation he was presented with at birth. That is both fatalistic and insulting.

This is brilliant, in the quote box you are told exactly what he means, and yet here you go just ignoring it and replacing it with you think he means. Brilliant!:D

I doubt she would do the same, but regardless, in my scenario I wasn't giving her the choice.
Ayn Rand explicitly stated she would throw herself in front of a bullet to save the life of her husband. Furthermore, she described that as a selfish act, as she would rather die than live in a world without him in it.

No. You are suggesting he is better than the average due to hard work. I am saying that he is better than the average, due to the much greater opportunity he has been given combined with the average work ethic that most people have.


But this is pure speculation, since you don't have any idea how much oppurtunity he has been given.


Take any pampered paper shuffler and put them in to Africa to do some subsistence farming, and then get the pampered westerner to tell you which job is harder work. No paper shuffler can say they are really hard working. It is a conceit of us people working in "intellectual" industries to comment about hard working. Especially considering the renumeration.

Yes because calling something paper shuffling, even though it so clearly involves much more then paper shuffling, is actually resembling anyhting near an argument.

So, really, the idea that you need to pay me extra money to give me an incentive to go to college and get a white-collar job is a big fat lie. I suspect the same holds true for most white-collar workers. Who here would like to give up his job for some manual labour if the manual labour paid equally well?

But this has never, ever been an argument in the first place. The argument is that there are thousands of jobs people would rather do then a 'white-collar' job, this doesn't have to include subsistence farming. I would rather be a musician then a white collar worker if it paid the same for instance.

No. You are suggesting he is better than the average due to hard work. I am saying that he is better than the average, due to the much greater opportunity he has been given combined with the average work ethic that most people have.

He is better than average than almost all individuals I have known of a similar upbringing or opportunity.

Take any pampered paper shuffler and put them in to Africa to do some subsistence farming, and then get the pampered westerner to tell you which job is harder work. No paper shuffler can say they are really hard working. It is a conceit of us people working in "intellectual" industries to comment about hard working. Especially considering the renumeration.

Your definition of hard is weighted and subjective. If you define hard work as solely that which causes us to strain physically and perspire, sure NLs chosen field of labor is not as hard.

However, NL could leave the university and sweat just as much and as well as the subsistence farmers within weeks. It would likely take many, many years for the subsistence farmers to perform whatever job NL takes on, and as with most people with even his opportunities they may never be successful.

The fact of the matter is that renumeration is tied to the supply and demand of the labor in question. As it is, NL has specialized his labor, he has acquired expertise that causes him to be able to fill positions that are much more difficult. The supply of individuals who can fill his position ably are much smaller than those who can subsistence farm, because subsistence farming is easy, even if it is sweaty dirty work.

How so? He probably approves of society's decision to end welfare.

But you don't.

You pick and choose who should be helped by how much you agree with their opinions.

You are saying that he does not and never will merit his achievements simply because of the situation he was presented with at birth. That is both fatalistic and insulting.

But if he was born in a village in Sub-Saharan Africa, would his life not be totally different?

This is brilliant, in the quote box you are told exactly what he means, and yet here you go just ignoring it and replacing it with you think he means. Brilliant!:D

No, he has waved away NL's abilities and studies with this argument that he is privileged.

He states that NL is average and ties all of his achievements to privilege, something that NL cannot control himself.

If this is not true, point me to where he stated that NL has done something to merit his favorable position, rather than he has lucked into because he is privileged.

If my interpretations are true, that his achievements are not of NLs doing but a result of privilege, tell me how this is not both fatalistic (in that success is not something one controls) or insulting (that NL is average and only achieves because he was blessed by good fortune).

Otherwise, interject your observations when they are not completely wrong.

But if he was born in a village in Sub-Saharan Africa, would his life not be totally different?

Of course. His values would be different, his culture would be different, his economic climate would be different.

I am not saying that social factors are inconsequential. Obviously they are.

However, it is entirely irrelevant whether the work is "hard" by whoever that other poster's standards. There is a quote from Christmas Vacation that is relevant here, after failing to get his lights working, Clark Griswold's daughter says roughly "He worked really hard", to which Griswold's father-in-law replies, "So do dishwashers". Renumeration is tied to both utility, and the supply of individuals who can provide that utility, and as it is NL provides a much higher level of expertise than the subsistence farmers and satisfies a particular need of much more people than the subsistence farmer. He performs a task that the subsistence farmer could not, as well, and therefore finds himself much more in demand.

Also, the argument is that he is a paper pusher who has a degree so we must assume that he is both privileged (albeit he is compared to many) and average, and has not actually earned his current status.

Of course. His values would be different, his culture would be different, his economic climate would be different.

I am not saying that social factors are inconsequential. Obviously they are.

However, it is entirely irrelevant whether the work is "hard" by whoever that other poster's standards. There is a quote from Christmas Vacation that is relevant here, after failing to get his lights working, Clark Griswold's daughter says roughly "He worked really hard", to which Griswold's father-in-law replies, "So do dishwashers". Renumeration is tied to both utility, and the supply of individuals who can provide that utility, and as it is NL provides a much higher level of expertise than the subsistence farmers and satisfies a particular need of much more people than the subsistence farmer. He performs a task that the subsistence farmer could not, as well, and therefore finds himself much more in demand.

Also, the argument is that he is a paper pusher who has a degree so we must assume that he is both privileged (albeit he is compared to many) and average, and has not actually earned his current status.

I would agree that merit/ability is important, yet, there are factors which can make ability entirely irrelevant. So to a certain extent, credit must be given to luck, or fate, or whatever you wish to call it.

Take any pampered paper shuffler and put them in to Africa to do some subsistence farming, and then get the pampered westerner to tell you which job is harder work.
Try it the other way around.

Yes. A sub saharan farmer can't do neurosurgery, nor paper shuffling. Congrats on those brilliant observations.

The fact is simple. Where you are born, as well as who your parents are, is more important to the end result of 99.9% of the population of planet, then that individual person's drive and talent. About 1 in a thousand can rise above their station. Often by the use of sport, music, etc. Sometimes by the use of their individual talent, or often by being brilliant scam artists. Bill Gates comes to mind as the best scam artist of recent times.

If you want an example of privilige being the be all and end all, I suggest George Bush. If he did not have rich parents, he would have gone to jail for drug possession as a youngster. If he avoided that he would have been bankrupt multiple times through Harken energy or Arbusto. He had rich parents and a special name, thus rich people bailed him out, knowing that they would be paid in coin later on, when he use his name to achieve things above his personal ability.

Yes. Paper shuffling may be mentally taxing, and may require special skills. Aquiring and exercising those skills is much more fun than working in a sweat shop.

We westerners are pampered. Any attempt to say we work hard compared to the rest of the world is Crap!

I would agree that merit/ability is important, yet, there are factors which can make ability entirely irrelevant. So to a certain extent, credit must be given to luck, or fate, or whatever you wish to call it.

This is obviously how it is.

There is no universal equation to figure out how much one merits what they have, and on the same note, we cannot just assume that all successful people are merely average but privileged, nor can we assume that all unsuccessful people are merely averaged but unprivileged.

People are not born naturally equal, and people are not born blank slates, and it offends some people to think that one person may have natural traits that are advantageous while others do not.

And that is not an argument that some people are "better people" or "more deserving" than others naturally.

Ayn Rand explicitly stated she would throw herself in front of a bullet to save the life of her husband. Furthermore, she described that as a selfish act, as she would rather die than live in a world without him in it.

One wonders about Ayn's definitions of selfishness, altriuism and sacrifice when she makes statements like these. How does one sacrifice, in the non-Randian sense, their life "altruistically"?

One wonders about Ayn's definitions of selfishness, altriuism and sacrifice when she makes statements like these. How does one sacrifice, in the non-Randian sense, their life "altruistically"?
Well, normally when people talk about altruism, they mean an action that benefits others but not themselves. Otherwise any capitalist transaction for example would be altruistic, and there you can see why I don't think that voluntary altruism is possible.

All she says is that my happiness can be the function of other people's happiness or for example that the other person is alive, which isn't really all that surprising. She's still acting selfishly.

But you don't.

You pick and choose who should be helped by how much you agree with their opinions.

By how funny I think it is. If the government is going to do charity, that's fine, because I don't think of it most times (as I have my own set of things to deal with, time wise) and I am but one man, deciding who should get how much of my money and such is a large task beyond my abilities and needing more time than I have.

If the government isn't going to do charity, in return for the inconvenience of me having to actually think about and organize it myself, I'm going to decide not to give to people who I think are more funny in the irony of their starving on the streets. Yes, I'm cruel, vindictive, a total asshole. I'm not a hypocrite, though.

I'd give him money.

Well, normally when people talk about altruism, they mean an action that benefits others but not themselves. Otherwise any capitalist transaction for example would be altruistic, and there you can see why I don't think that voluntary altruism is possible.

All she says is that my happiness can be the function of other people's happiness or for example that the other person is alive, which isn't really all that surprising. She's still acting selfishly

I would say a woman dying to save her husband's life is an altruistic act. She dies so he may live. Basically when people talk about altruism they don't mean one can't get satisfaction, happiness, or utility out of it. Altruists would think people's happiness should be the function of other people's happiness, within limits. Altruism is when an action is intended to benefit someone other than one's self even if if greatly benefits the self.

In the case of Rand I would still say that her decision was altruistic. She says she would rather die than live in a world without her husband, but if so
she'd have had to committ suicide if her husband died froma heart attack . I doubt she'd have done that. I also believe she would have acted for her husband's benefit.

I wonder how Rand could respect individual rights if one's happiness could be increased by violating others'. It would seem an act of altruism if one could increase one's happiness by violating rights and one doesn't.

Well, normally when people talk about altruism, they mean an action that benefits others but not themselves. Otherwise any capitalist transaction for example would be altruistic, and there you can see why I don't think that voluntary altruism is possible.

All she says is that my happiness can be the function of other people's happiness or for example that the other person is alive, which isn't really all that surprising. She's still acting selfishly.Does this mean all actions are selfish?
How can you act in such a way that doesn't benefit you?

I've seen this before. By this definition, all actions are selfish. Basically you wont bother taking an action unless there is a reason for you to do it. Even if it is to make you feel good.

Giving to charity makes you feel good. Jumping on the bomb and killing yourself makes you feel good, as you saved the lives of your countrymen. Also you couldn't live with the guilt is you saved yourself. Thus selfish, etc.

It's a very weird argument.

Basically when people talk about altruism they don't mean one can't get satisfaction, happiness, or utility out of it.
Well then, is engaging in any trade altruism?

Altruism is when an action is intended to benefit someone other than one's self even if if greatly benefits the self.
But you wouldn't realistically get recognition from other people for doing it. For you to get the goodwill of others, there must usually be some sort of self-denial going on. You need to give something up, suffer in some way, shape or form.

It's this suffering for the benefit of another for no reason you can hope to understand which Rand called altruistic and opposed.

She says she would rather die than live in a world without her husband, but if so she'd have had to committ suicide if her husband died froma heart attack . I doubt she'd have done that.
Well, first of all it's not clear that she wouldn't. Plenty of people do it, and those are selfish acts.

And secondly, there's a second factor involved, which is that whatever goal she has can only be achieved through reason. It's unlikely that she would have come to the rational conclusion that her suicide would have changed anything, while her throwing herself in front of her husband would obviously have had an effect.

I also believe she would have acted for her husband's benefit.
You can believe that, but she'd have disagreed. Her husband's life and wellbeing would have been the immediate goal of her action, but her own happiness would have been the motivation. And if her husband is an objectivist too, he wouldn't want it any other way, because her notion of love is basically the admiration of the best in the other person and their capacity of love for themselves as expressed by their interaction with the world.

I think that's probably the weakest part of it, just because there are very obvious and more mundane biochemical reactions involved which don't seem to be controlled by any rational part of the brain, but to her it was very important. She was a bit of a romantic like that.

I wonder how Rand could respect individual rights if one's happiness could be increased by violating others'. It would seem an act of altruism if one could increase one's happiness by violating rights and one doesn't.
She said that a rational being couldn't consistently increase its happiness, or even secure its survival, against other rational beings. There's a reason the Libertatis Aequilibritas is a ying and a yang bound together by the sign of the dollar.

Does this mean all actions are selfish?
How can you act in such a way that doesn't benefit you?
If you're forced to through the initiation of violence, or if you deny your self.

Rand's characters tend to come to the conclusion that anything the looters do to them is not real, that it's just a passing thing. I think that's because she considered the initation of violence an act of denying reality - if whatever you wanted to get done was a truly, objectively beneficial action you could convince the other person through argument or trade. But the use of violence implies that you couldn't and hence that whatever you're doing isn't an objective response to reality.

It's a very weird argument.
It's not weird, it's the idea of rational self-interest. I think the problem is that you rarely hear anyone explain it properly. Usually when people talk about selfishness they come up with strawmen and you end up thinking how it could possibly make sense to consider selfishness a good thing and indeed necessary for the continued survival of humanity.

People do not understand that what is perceived by most people as pure altruism (Mother Theresa per se) isn't, as Mother Theresa gets a return (personal happiness) through helping people.

Thus, saying selfishness is critical to the human race, is misunderstood by the majority you talk to. Most people can't accept Mother Theresa, or similar people and actions are selfish. Talking is all about communication. You can be all happy on your soap box being correct, but not many people will think you are right. :p

Thus the Ayn Rand position you are spouting has big flaws.

Lol Fishutopia, have you ever read Ayn Rand? The logical gaps are little mini black holes.

Well then, is engaging in any trade altruism?
I define altruism as an action that grants a material benefit to another person or group with no material benefit to yourself. Feelings have no part in this definition.

So, for instance, spending time with someone to improve their feelings is not altruistic, because no material benefit is involved. Trade is also not altruistic, because both parties receive a material benefit. But giving someone a gift is altruistic, because the other person receives a material benefit and you receive nothing but good feelings.

You can believe that, but she'd have disagreed. Her husband's life and wellbeing would have been the immediate goal of her action, but her own happiness would have been the motivation. And if her husband is an objectivist too, he wouldn't want it any other way, because her notion of love is basically the admiration of the best in the other person and their capacity of love for themselves as expressed by their interaction with the world.
So, basically, her notion of love is admiration for the other person's ability to be an insensitive selfish asshole.

She said that a rational being couldn't consistently increase its happiness, or even secure its survival, against other rational beings. There's a reason the Libertatis Aequilibritas is a ying and a yang bound together by the sign of the dollar.
That's utter nonsense. Of course people can increase their happiness and secure their survival at the expense of others. Great numbers do it all the time.

And you may say that they're not "rational beings" for doing it, but only if you use a very contorted definition of "reason" that basically amounts to saying that anyone who does not share your philosophy is not rational.

Besides, I'm sure that if you tried to persuade the people in question that their pleasure isn't really pleasure because it's not obtained the right way, they'd just shrug and say "whatever; it sure feels good to me!"

It's not weird, it's the idea of rational self-interest.
It's stupid and ridiculous, because it's based on the notion that everything I freely choose to do is always in my self-interest. Anyone who ever made a mistake and regretted it later could tell you why you're wrong.

* * * * *

Going back to the original subject a little: NL, have the comments in this thread or the poll results affected your impression of people's willingness to be charitable?

If you're forced to through the initiation of violence, or if you deny your self. Well, at least it prevents her definition of 'selfish' from being a tautology, though it could be argued that complying with violence is selfish; I won't press the issue, though.
What of the person threatening violence? Are they acting selfishly, or is this an example of "denying your self"?

Rand's characters tend to come to the conclusion that anything the looters do to them is not real, that it's just a passing thing. I think that's because she considered the initation of violence an act of denying reality - if whatever you wanted to get done was a truly, objectively beneficial action you could convince the other person through argument or trade. But the use of violence implies that you couldn't and hence that whatever you're doing isn't an objective response to reality.I suppose from her point of view it makes sense; I don't particularly agree or disagree so I won't press the issue.

I define altruism as an action that grants a material benefit to another person or group with no material benefit to yourself. Feelings have no part in this definition.
That's silly. Where's the difference between a material benefit and a non-material one? I mean, material benefits only are benefits because of something non-material (happiness) that we get from it.

So, basically, her notion of love is admiration for the other person's ability to be an insensitive selfish asshole.
I don't know where you got the "insensitive" or indeed the "asshole" from, but yes, the idea is that you love someone for what is best about them, not their flaws.

That's utter nonsense. Of course people can increase their happiness and secure their survival at the expense of others. Great numbers do it all the time.
And then they run out of victims. Or the victims strike back.

A parasite needs a host, and building a society on the notion that there'll always be a host around somewhere is doomed to failure. That's why it's not rational.

It's stupid and ridiculous, because it's based on the notion that everything I freely choose to do is always in my self-interest. Anyone who ever made a mistake and regretted it later could tell you why you're wrong.
But they didn't make the mistake on purpose, did they. They believed they were acting in their best interest, but the information they had didn't allow them to be 100% sure.

As a result, they learned something and know better next time.

Going back to the original subject a little: NL, have the comments in this thread or the poll results affected your impression of people's willingness to be charitable?
Not really. I know that I'd probably survive, which is nice. But pretty much everyone who responded "no" didn't do it because they're against giving as a rule, but because they didn't think that I was a deserving recipient. Someone else presumably would be.

That's not particularly surprising because that was what my idea about flexibility was all about: people wanting to give, being committed to giving and scoping out someone they felt was deserving. That's precisely what happened here, and I'm the last person to ask for money the other person didn't feel I deserved.

The real question you should ask is whether people think that there is no one on the planet who'd they give charity to, because that's what's needed to break my idea.

Well, at least it prevents her definition of 'selfish' from being a tautology, though it could be argued that complying with violence is selfish; I won't press the issue, though.
That's fair enough, but I think that if you complied with the violence, you can realistically expect that next time exactly the same thing will happen. You've basically made yourself subject to ever more and ever more grievous instances of being forced to do stuff until there'll be either a stage at which you choose death, or a stage at which you've basically given up your individuality and humanity. If you can predict that with reasonable certainty, compliance may not be a smart option, if you can be reasonably sure that it's a once-off event it may be better to comply for now.

Well then, is engaging in any trade altruism?

No, though certain acts of trade may be altruistic.

But you wouldn't realistically get recognition from other people for doing it. For you to get the goodwill of others, there must usually be some sort of self-denial going on. You need to give something up, suffer in some way, shape or form.

It's this suffering for the benefit of another for no reason you can hope to understand which Rand called altruistic and opposed.

There is definately a reason behind altruistic acts, generally that helping others is a good thing to do.

Well, first of all it's not clear that she wouldn't. Plenty of people do it, and those are selfish acts.

And secondly, there's a second factor involved, which is that whatever goal she has can only be achieved through reason. It's unlikely that she would have come to the rational conclusion that her suicide would have changed anything, while her throwing herself in front of her husband would obviously have had an effect.

First of all few people whose spouses die committ suicide. To test this we'd have to ask married people would they die to save their spouse and would they committ suicide if their spouse dies. I doubt that Ayn would have done herself in, but I will admit it is possible.

Secondly, the other factor was intended to benefit her husband thus making it an altruistic act.

You can believe that, but she'd have disagreed. Her husband's life and wellbeing would have been the immediate goal of her action, but her own happiness would have been the motivation. And if her husband is an objectivist too, he wouldn't want it any other way, because her notion of love is basically the admiration of the best in the other person and their capacity of love for themselves as expressed by their interaction with the world.

I think that's probably the weakest part of it, just because there are very obvious and more mundane biochemical reactions involved which don't seem to be controlled by any rational part of the brain, but to her it was very important. She was a bit of a romantic like that.

Meh, I don't have much respect for Ayn's views

She said that a rational being couldn't consistently increase its happiness, or even secure its survival, against other rational beings. There's a reason the Libertatis Aequilibritas is a ying and a yang bound together by the sign of the dollar.

I didn't say it was consistent violation or rights. More like killing Grandpa in a way that avoids suspicion to gain his millions. Also, the state suppossedly steps on Ayn's libertarian rights often and the individuals that are a part of it survive and can gain happiness when doing so.

It's not weird, it's the idea of rational self-interest. I think the problem is that you rarely hear anyone explain it properly. Usually when people talk about selfishness they come up with strawmen and you end up thinking how it could possibly make sense to consider selfishness a good thing and indeed necessary for the continued survival of humanity.

Selfishness is excessive concern of the self. No doctrine I know of thinks that one shouldn't be concerned of one's own interests.

If you want an example of privilige being the be all and end all, I suggest George Bush. If he did not have rich parents, he would have gone to jail for drug possession as a youngster. If he avoided that he would have been bankrupt multiple times through Harken energy or Arbusto. He had rich parents and a special name, thus rich people bailed him out, knowing that they would be paid in coin later on, when he use his name to achieve things above his personal ability.

There we go. How about some more anecdotal evidence.

Rich people have it easy = Red Herring

We westerners are pampered. Any attempt to say we work hard compared to the rest of the world is Crap!

All of your attempts to create some universal qualification for "hard" is Crap!

Does this mean all actions are selfish?
How can you act in such a way that doesn't benefit you?

Altruistic action must be free action.

Free action must be internally motivated within the person.

No one can be internally motivated against his own will.

One's will is driven by one's ends and values.

Altruistic action thereby is driven by the actors ends and values.

Every person is an egoist.

Okay, no more misposts this time.

This poll is an experiment inspired by a debate I'm having with Neu Leonstein in another thread. Please answer truthfully.

The situation is as follows: Suppose Neu Leonstein has fallen into terrible poverty and cannot make ends meet. He is definitely going hungry, and has a risk of starving. You are free to imagine anything you want about the way he got there - maybe he lost everything in a market crash after the libertarians took over, or maybe he got there through his own bad choices and heavy drinking.

Now, this is a society with no welfare, but there is a charity system set up where you can donate money to people in complete secrecy. Only you and the recipient of your charity will ever know about it (assume there is a law preventing you telling other people or something like that). So there is no peer pressure. No one will ever know if you helped Neu Leonstein or not.

So the question is, would you give charity to Neu Leonstein?

You can't get blood from a stone. I have a hard enough time making my own bills, let alone have enough discretionary funds to give away to someone else.