Rands contradiction
Posted by james5820 8 years, 4 months ago to Philosophy
I am re-reading Atlas for the 2nd time. enjoying it once again, but since my first reading of Shrugged, I have learned a lot and have trouble with Rands glaring contradiction. I was somewhat conservative during the 1st reading but since have become a anarco-capitalist simply because its absence of contradiction. In the book, Rand is always attacking the idea of doing anything for the collective (as she should). She opposes the idea of theft in every other sentence (as she should). but far as I know, she does not oppose a state (as she should). In order to not have a contradiction, everything MUST be voluntary. Whether it be building railroads or Reardon metal for the good of society or National defense for the good of society, economically speaking they are both still services and if forced on someone, are a violation of rights. Nothing can begin with theft in order to be consistent. It seems that Rand makes exceptions for "the good of society", even though she spends a whole novel railing against the idea.
I have no idea how much of her non-fiction you have read, but she believed in a very limited government and explained why. I refer you to the Lexicon and its entries on Anarchism. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/ana...
Respectfully,
O.A.
Im aware she believed in a very limited government. I merely point out the fact this is still a glaring contradiction in her philosophy. She also believes there are NO contradictions (as do I), but to have any state, even the most limited one, one still must accept theft. Unless you can tell me there is a society where all members want to pay taxes, then it is still theft to have limited government. We either base our ideas on principles or we don't. I base my personal philosophy on the absolute that theft is immoral. Saying - it just very very very little theft, does not make it something other than theft.
I am for voluntary taxes, lotteries, etc. and a pay as you go for services system. I think that would satisfy Rand and if my recollection is correct, in one of her books she suggested something of that nature..
Does that work for you?
Respectfully,
O.A.
An old open letter to Rand here
http://www.libertarianism.org/publica...
I wonder though if Rand, who thought our founding the best yet instituted, would admit to what I have proffered. She might even vehemently disagree with the assertion that she observed pragmatism even in such a minimal way. My two cents...
Voluntary is always preferable to force. :)
Respectfully,
O.A.
An exception to this is an escrow system where both parties put the property into the hands of a third party who insures the deal.
Even then, if the seller goes home and locks the door, the buyer has to rely on the force of the government to get possession of the property he has purchased. Usually, of course, it doesn't come to this but that is because the threat is viable. Without that, how do you enforce your property rights.
your locked into the current paradigm and seem to think because today the state has a monopoly on force, that no matter what, its the only way force can be used is by the state. You don't see free market dispute resolution services using force and instead relying on the states force because the state has a monopoly on legitimate force (its not really legitimate but people like yourself view it as such so that's what we'll write here). You mistake a true capitalist society being absent of force. Force would indeed be needed and force would indeed be used when needed. You have a brainwashing that you need to remove (this is not a personal attack, we all have it to different extents), that is the idea the state has some higher altruistic means of doing anything. That the states force would be more legitimate than the markets force because there is some hidden altruism and mechanisms of justice built into it (there are not)
It is in reality the opposite.
It is the hardest thing in the world to get people to see the state as it really is. A gang, A mafia. The uniforms, elections and history removes the correct image in our minds and replaces it with something else with a brand of legitimacy.
It makes you say "absorb" instead of "steal" even though in objective reality, you can see it is theft. Your brain does not process it as such. Try some thought excercises to help brake free of the brainwashing. Take for example the police man and the speeding ticket.
Today you currently see things subjectively not objectively.
You see the actions of a speeding ticket and think - The person was driving too fast, the police are just keeping the roads safe. We cant have everyone driving 100mph.
Pretend you are an alien from another planet and hover above a police car and watch his activity. You know nothing of the subjective and only understand objectively what is happening.
A man with blue costume on and carrying a loaded gun. puts on flashing lights as a signal to another person. the other person pulls over, he must know these lights mean something. The man with the gun walks up to the other mans car, he gives him a piece of paper. that paper says you must pay the gun mans boss money. If you do not, many more men with blue costumes and guns will come for him.
If the man refuses to pull over for the gunman, he will call others in his organization and many men all armed will hunt him down. He either submits to the theft, or be run down or gun down.
obviously objectively this is gang theft. Everything I just said is 100% objective, they are just facts.
You will counter with subjective arguments.
Such as:
These men are justified, they are not criminals, they are keeping us safe. people should not drive over 55mph (or 65 or 75 or whatever arbitrary and subjective number you choose). We must have someone keeping us safe from speeders. we cant just have everyone driving whatever speed they wish. Everyone would just drive so fast they would kill each other.
Any argument you make is a subjective one.
I gave up living in subjective reality
I only go by the objective.
A man with a blue costume on that signifies he is part of a larger organization and carrying a loaded gun pulls me over by threat of force and violence. He then STEALS my money by threat of force and violence, and then drives away.
You and I view the same exact events completely differently.
You with subjective values, and I will objective reality
If you don't give a single organization the monopoly on the use of force, you wind up with warlords with competing gangs and whoever has the biggest gang can have your property -- and your life.
Now, I don't intend to support the vast overreaching bureaucracy that we have, only the concept that there is a single group that we all hire to use force when necessary. Presumably then we can have private arbitration because the loser knows the winner can enforce the decision if necessary. You were, after all, talking about the support for any state being a flaw in Rand's philosophy.
It is up to us to keep our 'gang' under close control. .
I want to offer this last statement of yours to show you that your not seeing things objectively. Your still not seeing reality and do not understand the state and what it is and what is happening right now. Language is very important and it is important it is used correctly. What you actually mean is you don't accept the role of the state to regulate and make all kinds of laws (which we agree on) but you do think the state is needed for the service of national defense and also police (and likely fire etc..) but you call this " a single group we all hire".
this is no such thing. It is impossible for us all to get together and hire something. there is no such thing as a collective. there are only individuals. the collective does not exist. The word "hire" implies we voluntarily pay someone to do a job. You full well know this is not how the state works. Yet you still use this language. It is incorrect language. I don't concur that we "hire" this group. So there is never any such thing as "we all" (meaning a collective). What you need to say to have your language be correct and say what you actually mean, is that you think there needs to be a group of people to provide police and national security and they can take our money involuntarily . . . ie --theft.
Its ok that you think that, more people probably agree with you than me.
but your language should reflect actual reality and what it actually means.
The fact it still doesn't reflects how you actually view reality. You view it the way your words describe.
Which is not the actual reality of the matter.
not until your words and reality are one and the same can you see things as they actually are.
Not until then is the brainwashing removed (again, this is not an insult, I had it and so does everyone)
Below, Dean mentions a very good read by Larkin. I also recommend the same read as it is very good.
An even better one is Man Economy and State by Murray Rothbard (for economics)
Or "For a New Liberty" by same author
https://mises.org/library/new-liberty...
You keep assuming that either you have no government or an all-controlling "nanny state". Many more limited government structures are possible, so stop telling me that our current state is predatory, we agree.
What we are talking about is the need for at least a minimalist state. Which is what, as near as I can tell, is what Rand was talking about. This all started with you saying Rand was flawed because she allowed a state -- and then attributed to it all the aspects of the one we have -- which Rand would undoubtedly have disagreed with.
I use the current U.S. as an example because this current system is the result of the limited government experiment.
the problem is that states grow. Once power is granted to individuals, they will seek more of it. No constitution or any words on a piece of paper will put a stop to this simple fact.
Like many, I have reverence and respect for our founders and their attempt at limited government. Some of them like Jefferson were brilliant men. The words they organized into a constitution was a nobel attempt at the limited state. I don't think I could do a better job.
I doubt you could have done a better job. There is no arrangement of words they could have written that would have stopped what happened (a rapid growth in the state to almost collapse in just over 200 years). They put in checks and balances. Division of powers into 3 branches. A bill of rights to never be violated.
Yet, some of those very same men like Adams defied those rights almost immediately (Im thinking of the Alien and Sedition acts here).
So what words on the constitution would have worked?
What would have kept this state from growing? What elections could have gone differently that would stop men from abusing their power?
This Nobel experiment is a failed one. Repeating it would have the exact same results. Limited government is not possible because of the nature of power once men are given it. They will always seek to remove such restrictions in any way possible.
This is when you make the argument that limited government is possible if the population was more diligent. Under our own constitution, what exactly does that mean? How would we have been more dillignet? what process is available to us other than revolution?
Voting.
The state picks Hillary or trump to trot out before us and this is how we can remain diligent?
there is no means!
Voting does not give the population control over the state.
The state trots out two people and says now pick Either Wesley Mouch or Mr Tompson.
You do not have a correct view of the objective/subjective distinction. Along with empirical facts, rights are objective, even though the latter cannot be seen by hovering aliens.
subjective : We cant have people driving too fast
Someone needs to make sure the roads are safe.
Objective :I can drive at whatever speed I wish so long as I don't harm anyone, if someone in a blue costume and has a loaded gun pulls me over takes my money, that is just theft
1) You can crash into me
2) You can drive so unpredictably and dangerously that I veer out of your way and crash
3) You can drive so unpredictably and dangerously that I have a heart attack
4) You can drive so unpredictably and dangerously that I am put at risk without my consent.
Why can't the men in blue costumes be as objectively good a judge of these harms as anyone else?
A man in a blue costume can judge subjective things as good as anyone. He can certainly attempt to judge the danger of peoples actions.
My point is that we don't need blue men in costumes judging anything. My point is that it is immoral to have this.
If one uses the objective principles of natural law as a moral compass, then having men in blue costumes steal from us is immoral.
You can argue that someone was driving dangerous and therefore the police have a right to pull him over and steal from him.
My point is that objectively speaking, no crime was committed. There is no victim.
There was no aggression committed.
So if no aggression was committed and then someone with a gun steals from you, then that is the aggression.
So objectively speaking, the man in the blue costume is the criminal.
The only way you can argue he is not the criminal is if you accept subjective arguments.
The driver was driving too fast
He was driving dangerously
He could hurt someone else.
These are subjective statements.
They are just judgments
You cant say they are fact.
When it comes to whether or not something is a crime, I believe only objective should be used.
If you see the world this way, you begin to see almost everything a cop does, is a crime.
Once you accept the idea that subjective things can be crimes, you are open to anything is a crime, which is exactly what we have today and getting worse all the time.
.
As to whether anarchy is better than state would depend on how one wants force to be used in a social context. One context that force is necessary in is in the realm of property rights. Property is that which one acts to gain and keep. The problem is how that which one person gained and is keeping is actually kept without the promise of force being needed. I like that stuff you have so I will try to gain it for myself. Anarchy says go at it and I might try to protect what I consider to be mine or I might have someone that I hired protect it for me. Whatever, if there is no mutual settlement, force will be initialized. Now if a state is involved, force is explicitly implied if no agreement can be gotten to. With a state one can have some idea of what is threatened ahead of time in a geographical area. In an anarchy things are fluid and cannot be depended upon as to what the rules might be whenever one needs to settle a dispute. Either way, one might need to make payment for the service of using force to protect what you claim to be your property. Anarchy would be more involved than a state due to all the time necessary to get protection through some agencies for arbitration and/or force necessary to settle the property dispute.
The state can be financed in many ways but in contemporary times taxation is needed until the world can be civilized. There is no other way to protect your stuff well other than some kind of altruistic anarchistic society where one places everyone's lives as a goal for protection in some fluidly changing boundary of land and water.
Rand was objective enough to recognize that anarchy, even capitalistic, is a contradiction dealing with the use of force in a social context. There is no way to have a society without force being initiated within it and the necessity of paying for the use of force preferably attenuated by the force of law.
If the majority of people purchase insurance and that insurance company uses force when needed to retain or return property, Likely most people in a 100% free market society would purchase this. So force would be implied for any actions of theft.
Its actually the opposite with a state. because of the current system, it is very easy for people to steal and have no force used on them. even if caught. The amount of crime we have is evidence of this. Theft is common place because there is a monopoly on force that is removed from the owners of property. Property owners have an extreme liability if they use force themselves to protect their property.
Imagine for a moment that government was voted out of existence and assume that there was a laisez faire economy at the time. How long do you believe that would remain after the demise of government? The problem is the same as would happen in an actual Galt's Gulch situation. Only if everyone agrees on a set of rules can that happen. Possibly, as with some religious groups, that might be possible, but not with a general population, you might say that anarchy would result. Just by believing that anarcho-capitalism would be a desirable form of anarchy does not keep it from having the attributes of anarchy. If large numbers of individuals (everyone completely different in mental activity from all the others) want to live in the same geographical area, government of some kind is a necessity and protection and insurance agencies are just a way of concealing government. The result might be the same but competition will not give long term rules which can be depended upon, paying fees for service where there is no way to enforce getting the service paid for is stupid.
Just how does a home owner have extreme liability if using force to protect his home and why would the protection by a security company not have the same liability from some other company, ad infinity, with no common law to stop the carnage.
Statements like this-. "Laws come when there are enough factions where fully acceptable rules are not possible"
Why would fully acceptable rules not be possible? Isnt that kinda what fully accepted means?
I don't really understand your distinction between rules and laws. You say that insurance would not just be a function of the demands of the market, that some large body of law is required for insurance companies to exist. You don't really qualify this statement. Natural Law exists as a form of our logic. It does not require centuries of discussion and usage. It only requires a rational mind. That doesn't mean everyone will follow it. and it is not an enforcement mechanism. just merely something all rational men know. I think your idea of where law comes from is a bit off. Mans law (the laws written by various states riddled with agenda) is the result of centuries of statism) natural law is the actual law. There are no contradictions and it starts with the non aggression axiom and property rights. its all that is needed. Actual rules and how natural law is translated into rules for a society can certainly be what is commonly used by people and can be codified. This happens all the time in societies. It happened in our own bit of Anarchy in the U.S. during the western frontier expansion.
See
https://mises.org/library/not-so-wild...
There is no reason an insurance market to fill the demands of society does not arise and it has without some state to provide law (which states do not provide, they actually provide law breaking if one uses natural law as an objective measure, they are merely a mafia engaged in widespread theft on a continuous basis, this is not law, but lawlessness, and not a pre-requisite for insurance industry)
What becomes of those who do not agree up front to a non-aggression axiom which is not part of natural law? Just why would everyone become rational if only government were to disappear? All humans are individuals and do not agree on most matters including non-aggression axiom or property rights. The quantity of property laws are just that there is very little agreement without the need for some forcible agent to adjudicate disagreements about property.
Government is like a governor on a machinge, It keeps the machine from flying apart by applying a force to slow the machines action. In a society government does the same thing by applying a force when things get out of hand.
Todays courts are filled with agenda ridden judges and corruption. The state has the monopoly on force so cases are rarely tried in front of jury due to threats made by the state.
2/3 of all citizens locked up in our jails commited no crime. there is no victim. The supposedly free states of America lock up more of its own citizens per capita than any other nation on Earth. and most of those people are 100% innocent. They sold, bought or used drugs. something they have every right to do once you can remove the brain washing
She never advocated theft and clearly you do not know the definition of theft. Self defense is not voluntary it is being forced upon you by the aggressor Property rights are not subject to the voluntary whim of other people. Anarcho-capitalism is not capitalism and is completely irrational
Anachy is not a floating abstraction. Its what you personally believe with everyone you deal with, except for the group of people called the state. You would never let your friends or family or anyone else steal your money, but for some reason you have some magic rules that your mind provides for the members calling themselves the state. You have concocted a whole different set of rules for these men and gave them rights you don't grant yourself or anyone else you know. that is a floating abstraction. Anarchy is just applying the same rules to all people. No special set of magic rights for the state to steal money from you. No magic set of rights for magic people. Its stating all men have the exact same rights and no one has a right to steal from you. its life absent floating abstractions as you have. absent the contradictions you have.
"You have a number of contradictions"
Okay, what are they?
"Anarcho-capitalism is irrational"
If you just say something like this with no argument as to why, then it is meaningless. Don't bother to post if you have no argument.
"Anarcho -capitalism is not capitalism"
There you go again, a statement that Im just supposed to accept because why? You said so?
Then define capitalism.
I define it as free markets absent force. All men/woman/parties etc.. are free to produce and exchange absent any force or threat of physical violence. (this does not mean there can be no force and force cannot be used as a means to protect property and person, it does mean that only defensive force is justified so in a true capitalist society, force is not a means of appropriation, only a means of protection).
"She never advocated theft and you clearly do not know the definition of theft"
Okay? once again, just a statement with no argument. What is your definition of theft? Mine is in these comments several times but here it is again. theft is the taking of ones person or property by aggression or threat of force/violence.
In order to have any state, there must be theft as I have defined it.
So before you just make a bunch of statements without any argument to support them, why don't you check your own premises.
"Self defense is not voluntary it is being forced upon you by the aggressor. Property rights are not subject to the voluntary whim of other people."
These show two huge flaws in anarcho-capitalism, which is not capitalism because capitalism is about a government that protects your natural rights. Anarchy by definition is a free for all where mob rule and violence rule.
The word literally means "without rule" or "without rulers"
It's got nothing to do with free for alls and mob rule. But this is a typical mistake of improper use of language people make with anarchy.
As far as your two contradictions on anarchy, I don't even understand what you mean?
"Self defense is not voluntary, it is being forced upon you by the aggressor"
Ok? What does this have to do with anarchy and your supposed contradiction? Are you trying to say states only use self defense?
I have no idea what your trying to say here.
Then your second so called contradiction
"Property rights are not subject to the whims of other people"
Yeah so?
I would agree with that, property rights are absolute.
It is only when you have a state that property rights become whims of the politician who is allowed to steal. What does this statement have to do with anarchy?
I think your a bit confused.
Or maybe I don't understand what your trying to say, but all I have to go on is what you wrote and it has nothing to do with anarchy or even a contradiction.
Your gonna have to elaborate coherently
I assumed the "initiated" part was implied as part of my definition (I think that's fairly obvious).
The reason I say this is quite obviously implied, a state can't exist without initiated force.
I am very curious about your reply because this is one of the few arguments I haven't heard before.
How does a state exist with only retaliation force?
Without initiated force, there is no such thing as a state.
Did you even think this out before criticizing my definition>?
You answered the question of when is a state justified in using force. That is not the question I have.
I agree only defense force is moral.
My question is how does a state EXIST at all without offensive force?
How do you pay the police, fire, military, politicians?
If no offensive force can be used. How does the state exist at all?
WHere does it get its funding?
Objectivism is a complete philosophy of living. It is not a political guidebook nor a political party.
You statement begs the question. If you think a state somehow subdues the evil in men, that means you think the state consists of men absent this evil. the opposite is true
Is it just which of us is the fastest draw or has the biggest gang? You can say that I'm initiating force and thus am immoral and I can say "that's damned fine corn!".
What are you going to do about it?
I'd signed up after AS2, which was so bad, I thought surely there'd be a rewrite and reshoot but, after a few weeks of these kind of debates, I realized these weren't, for the most part, people whom I could engage in any beneficial way.
Perhaps, outside of her fiction, Rand's mind dwelt in the unreal, ideal world these ideas pose, a world where humans are honest and just and theft and murder are unknown. Great place but, can anyone tell me where it is? Can I buy a condo there?
In the real world, we do just as you suggest, form voluntary alliances, nations, societies and, impose rules on the members. Most of the rules are mandatory to maintain morally equitable treatment of all. However, membership isn't mandatory. If one finds the rules too objectionable, one is free to leave, to find another voluntary alliance to join.
I have no time for people who deny these realities. They are like the Pope denying the heliocentric model - intellectually immature or, emotionally flawed and, in either case - boring.
Does no one learn world history anymore? Does no one learn many past societies and some present ones were built on the idea of looting and pillaging others? Or, is it just simpler to philosophize if one denies reality?
You claim that this site is a "waste of time" and "realize these weren't, for the most part, people whom I could engage in any beneficial way". So you waste your time here misrepresenting and attacking Ayn Rand. Since you have no interest in her ideas and cannot seriously discuss them this is obviously not the place for you.
You are correct. History has shown us that those left to their own devices are ruled by the local tyrant. Eventually all governments seem to devolve to the same state... it is no longer even free to leave. You must pay a fee to become an expat. http://thesovereigninvestor.com/asset...
Otherwise, wherever you go, you are still required to pay taxes to this government...
Respectfully,
O.A.
One is still free to leave, even if leaving is no longer free. We are not serfs or slaves. Those who stay have made a choice - to stay.
Guess what. I own your neighborhood!. You will now pay tribute to me. But hey,.. . . your free to leave.
Everywhere on earth, in the most remote areas you can imagine, in the most remote areas man has been, there is government because, man needs government. All your ranting and raving against government, all your demands there be no authority are so much thoughtless, immature and unrealistic blather.
The most remote villages in the jungles of Borneo and Papua New Guinea have governments. Where there are two dozen people, there is government or there is a dictator who rules by dint of violence.
If Rand advocated no government then, she was guilty of the same blather.
He doesn't know or understand what Ayn Rand advocated and repeatedly misrepresents her. She did not posit that "everyone is honest" and she emphatically opposed anarchism. Her principles and explanations are not "blather" and contrary to Wanderer were not based on "emotional reaction to her times". This is supposed to be an Ayn Rand forum for those attracted to an interest in her ideas, not a place for statist conservatives to misrepresent and attack her without regard to what she wrote or bothering to find out.
You greatly confuse what I think and what my arguments are. I don't believe in a world where everyone is honest. I don't see anarchy as some means of eliminating theft or evil people. I am just a rational person, so the fact that there is a lot of evil in society tells me that you don't let people rule other people, If there is evil among men, then obviously if men can rule other men evil is amplified not reduced.
You've backed yourself into a logical corner, like a Roomba that's trapped by its inability to get past its programming.
Goodbye.
You should try and keep up before critizing
If you are actually an anarchist, thanks for your comments but, I have no further interest in the conversation. I've lived in too many places that did't have effective governments and rule of law. Anarchy kills the weak and everyone who's less ruthless than the most ruthless member of the herd.
Ignoring has its drawbacks but, it saves time otherwise spent conversing with people who inevitably end up losing it and calling me names.
I'm willing to bet the places you lived that you say have ineffective governments have nothing to do with anarchy and are mere proof the state does not keep you safe.
Saying you wish there was even more government in these places is not a solution, I can guarantee that. That just means more theft from the state, not more protection for people.
There has never been a state that actually protects their people. They all war endlessly, murder their own people and/or lock them up in jail.
The U.S. Gets involved in the affairs of all other nations making US soil extremely dangerous were they did nothing at all and stayed out of everything
I've seen deadly riots all over the world, never caused by too much government, always by too little government.
I've seen thousands of people killing each other in African tribal wars, not caused by any government but, too little government.
I've seen thousands of Muslims killing thousands of Christians in Indonesia, not because of too much government but, too little government.
The place we live isn't any more dangerous because of our government. It's less dangerous. Without our government the entire world would be a far more dangerous place, something you'd know if you were old enough. The last 7 years are an indicator of what the world is like when our government goes into hibernation.
About the time you see the first mushroom cloud, I hope you remember this: In the absence of strong government, mankind is reduced to the survival of the fittest and, that's usually the most ruthless, most violent psychopath in the room.
Those are the things 25 years of roaming the third world taught me. Man is a natural born killer. Without restraint, that's what he returns to.
Now, please, I'd rather not converse with you again for a time, a long time. Understand? I find nothing informed in your statements.
Come back after you've spent several decades wandering the world, not as a tourist, actually living and working your way around the world. Then I'll listen to what you have to say.
You grow corn in a field, there is no railroad, in fact no roads at all, You grew enough corn to feed thousands and if you cant transport it, it all goes to waste and 10 years of savings down the drain, what are you going to do about it?
Now, how the state is paid for is a different matter, so I'm not pointing a gun at you to force you to pay for the protection of my corn. How to pay for the state is an interesting problem.
You could argue that there should be no mandatory payment to the state to enforce your rights, but then is the only thing protecting what you own your own force?
Because in the end, force must be met with force to be defeated. Philosophy alone will not defend you against someone who doesn't mind that you consider them immoral.
Many things are essential to develop resources, property rights are not one of them. Resources can be developed by slavery as well as by free men.
The idea of property rights is an apriori one. It doesn't need to be enacted to exist.
You haven't really presented an argument for the need of the contradiction of the state. You started out by saying - Either everyone who owns property must enforce them or there must be an independant party (lets call it a state), and then you just assumed there must be the latter.
I don't assume there must be the latter? I see no reason everyone cant enforce their own property rights? If you know free market capitalism, then you understand that where there is a want and need, there will always arise a firm happy to make money fulfilling that need. The main difference between this and the state is that it is voluntary. No theft needed. No forced monopoly. No one pointing a gun at you and saying "Im gonna protect you and your gonna pay me!)
You can hire and fire as you please.
The problem with the contradiction is, once you accept the idea that others have the right to force you to pay for protection, how does that differ from what your trying to be protected from?
The state is exactly what your worried about. those are the thieves your talking about. pretending you need them from some other imaginary criminal doesn't justify it. they are the exact criminal your talking about that we need protection from. the second you accept the contradiction, you may have a separation in your mind between criminals and the state, but objectively, they are identicle
How does one build a railroad if I can collect those nice steel rails you have stretched across the land and use them for my own purpose -- or, on the other hand I have planted that field of corn and you start laying railroad lines through it, trampling it down.
I can say "that's mine, you have to stop doing that" and you can say "nya nya make me." And we can devolve into a grade school battle -- without a teacher to break it up.
I have not dictated how the state gets paid for. If we have a state that a whole bunch of us pay into and you don't does that make you the equivalent of a Germanic Outlaw -- outside the law? Can anyone do anything to you they want and the rest of us say, "well, he should probably have paid for the police?".
Yes, it's immoral for them to do this. So what. Your system must not depend on everyone ascribing to your vision of morality or it falls victim to the first one who doesn't.
You make the same logical fallacy that is always repeated in this debate, you argue with the assumption the state is there, right now, protecting your property, while assume I am speaking from a purely theoretical position of what we would be faced with if this altruistic protector were removed from the picture.
The exact opposite is true. The state steals over half of everything you produce. Your corn is being taken right now. Your railroad ties disappear every week right from your paycheck into the hands of the very thieves your talking about.
But you argue that we must have this, because if we don't, someone will take your corn and your railroad ties will disappear right from your paycheck every week Into the hands of theives.
Because of the brainwashing we all receive from birth on, it is extremely difficult for people to see that what you fear absent a state is exactly what you have right this second. You have a glaring contradiction and are failing to see it.
We can't get rid of the theives from owning us becaus if we do, theives will own us
What I am saying is that some mutually accepted organization is necessary to protect property and allow investment. We can all be stateless if we are hunter-gatherers but once we start building things we have to protect our right to enjoy our investment.
There are organizations that are built around the ideal of a stateless capitalist society where people defend their own property without resorting to the state -- they are called drug gangs. They are highly capitalist and do not rely on the state to protect their property. I doubt we want to emulate their operation for society in general.
Explain how the state is different than the mafia? The drug gangs you speak of point guns and make no disguise of their capacity for violence.
"I cannot argue the state is absorbing far more resources than required to support its valid functions"
Why do you change the words to attempt to change the meanings of things? Absorbing resources? You mean theft! They don't absorb anything, they threaten you by force. If you refuse to pay, men with guns will cometo your come, kidnap you, and lock you in a metal cage. This is not rhetoric, this is literal!
supporting valid functions? So if I want to offer you a valid function such as protection of your resources, then I have the right to use force to make you pay for that function?
This is called a mafia. The fact the they let you vote for either Vinny or Tony to run the mafia, makes it no less so.
Just so we use proper words with proper definitions, please define what a mafia is, and the tell me what makes the state outside this definition.
"Some mutually accepted organization"? I don't accept it! yet you think I should be forced at gun point to accept it. Or you would argue I should have to leave my own home and property and move somewhere on some island somewhere if I don't want to be part of it. As if some group of people have a right to my property and as long as I want to live on my property, I should be forced to pay their racket.
The reality of human beings is that someone will always be willing to use force to get what they want. Either you have an agreed upon "mafia" that everyone accepts to limit the use of force or you have open warfare. Because, in the end, only force controls force.
You say the difference between a state and a mafia is that the citizens of a country "hire" the state.
What is the definition of "Hire"?
I would say it is when you voluntarily pay someone for a service or for their labor.
The key part of this definition is the fact that it is 100% voluntary. You can "hire" a roofer to do your work. You can even "Hire" a security service to protect you and your property.
But what makes it voluntary, is that you don't have to do it!
You always have the option of not hiring the roofer. You can do nothing. You can replace your roof yourself. You can live with holes in your roof if so desired.
That is what hiring means.
Please don't avoid this fact. We both know this is not what the state is. we know we do not "hire" politicians.
Having a say in who the leader is (elections) does not make the state personal 'hired".
You can only call it hiring if I have the option not to do it.
Even if 99.9% of people refused to vote, there would still be a state and people getting elected by the so called majority.
I didn't hire anyone to rule me? yet there are still rulers that do. Am I not a citizen of the country? Am I not an American? Why do you have the right to impose rulers over me?
I doubt you'll accept these facts, but they are there if you ever care to see them.
See:
"'Imposing Freedom'" https://www.amazon.com/Anarchic-Contr...Version=1&entries=0#nav-subnav
"Government and Anarchy" https://www.amazon.com/Government-Ana...Version=1&entries=0#nav-subnav
"Government and Anarchy, Part II" https://www.amazon.com/Government-Ana...Version=1&entries=0#nav-subnav
"Anarchic Contradictions" https://www.amazon.com/Anarchic-Contr...Version=1&entries=0#nav-subnav
I tired to read your posted links but it links to an essay that you need to pay .99 cents for. I am very curious what the so called contradictions are. Why don't you cut and paste one here.
"Anarchic Contradictions":
A 2400 word essay examining the inherent contradictions in the concept of political anarchy.
The main contradiction in libertarian anarchy is that its foundational ideas are based on a circular argument (assuming as a premise what is supposed to be proven as a conclusion). The arguments for this style of anarchy rely on a variant of what Ayn Rand termed “the stolen concept fallacy,” that is, they use “concepts while denying the roots and the existence of the concepts they are using.” (Rand, For the New Intellectual, p. 154)
The irrefutable inner contradiction of anarchy is this: one cannot engage in free-market competition in a non-free society.
Libertarian anarchists (or anarcho-capitalists) should recognize that their vision for establishing a free society is impossible, riddled as it is with contradictions and fallacies. No anarchist can refute the arguments advanced in either this or my earlier essays on this topic because one cannot refute reality.
All one can do is evade reality. At that, anarchists should not try to succeed.
"'Imposing' Freedom":
A 2000 word essay analyzing the claim that those who seek freedom are no different than others trying to establish a particular morality via the force of government. Such a claim, however, is wrong. Liberty merely establishes the conditions required for any viable ethical code to operate. It does not favor any particular morality over another.
"Government and Anarchy":
A 2500 word essay examining some of the basic issues raised between those who support libertarian-style anarchy and those who support a Jeffersonian-style limited government.
There is nothing inherent in the structure of a limited government that inevitably leads to disaster any more than there is anything inherent in guns that inevitably leads to murder. But there needs to be a set of objective political principles anchored in an objective morality that can be applied to everyone, whether all individuals accept those principles or that morality or not. Anarchism fails in that requirement. A properly limited government does not. In either system, there remains room for problems to occur and for people to violate the rights of others. Unfortunately, the underlying rationale for an anarchist society is self-contradictory and must therefore be rejected.
"Government and Anarchy II":
A 1900 word essay that looks at objections to limited government and addresses errors made on the part of anarchists.
Governments should and must be extremely limited. But it is almost as though anarchists expect that a government should automatically continue to operate on the basis of limited, delegated power once it is established without continuous feedback and control placed upon it; that any deviation from its original intent condemns the very idea of “government” itself. But when people — such as today — forget what freedom is; when they condemn objectivity, rationality, and morality; when they forget TANSTAAFL; they create conditions for a government to run amuck. Don’t blame the very concept/idea of a limited government for what results; blame the individuals who seek the easy way out, who don’t engage in the work of maintaining the extremely important value that is freedom.
Keeping and retaining any value — especially one as important as freedom — requires constant and continual work. Compare this to a marriage: a marriage won’t function properly if the couple goes on autopilot once the marriage vows are completed. Same goes for a government. Both will go astray without work. But I would not say “marriage is impossible” or “inherently” evil simply because much evil and suffering can result from individuals who are married. Nor should such untenable a claim be laid at the feet of the concept of limited government.
I'm also wondering how James acquired the rights to own his house without theft. After all, that land originally belonged to the Native Americans and was taken from them by force. That makes James the recipient of stolen goods. Funny man.
1.) Catching and punishing criminals.
2.) Protecting its citizens from other governments.
3.) Protecting the border.
Without these vital functions, you wouldn't have a state, no matter how utopic it is, or how benevolent you believe its citizens are.
These functions are NOT voluntary. It would be nice to have it be a voluntary tax, but to protect the rights of those inside the country, there can be no question about paying for it.
Not looking for a long discussion - just a quick overview.
Thanks.
How do they get converts? By confusing them with overwrought arguments?
Pretty sure there's already a name for this: pre-civilization.
There isn't a short answer for me to give. If you are really interested and want to actually give it thought and consideration.
Read
https://mises.org/library/new-liberty...
In section 2 chapter 12 he deals with these subjects.
Let me say this.
People are always asking me questions like this. What about the roads? What about Rape? Murder? theft?
Does the state prevent murder?
Does the state prevent rape?
The state has mechanisms to deal with these crimes that extremely often do not offer any justice.
We all know this is true and it is true for all states not just ours.
So why then must someone explain how eliminating the state will eliminate murder or rape?
It wont eliminate either of these crimes not does it seek to.
It seeks to get rid of the criminal before you, the state!
You currently under the illusion the state protects you from these things, it doesn't.
So why does someone need to explain how a free market capitalist society will get rid of them before you accept the idea of freedom.
The state steals over half of all production right now and its getting worse and will always get worse, Yet I must explain how peoples property will be safe absent the state and all its theft.
Then people say, oh, I agree its too much, I just want a little state. Just a tiny little state to protect my stuff.
Anarchy is impossible so I want a limited government, they say
don't you see, we are the result of the limited government experiment. It has created the largest state that has existed through all history.
Limited government is the fallacy. All state grow. There has never been a state that shrunk in all of history. They all grow until collapse.. Every state increases in power over time. there is no such thing as a limited government. Right from the start of our own so called limited government, rights were stolen. From John Adams Alien and Sedition Acts raping people of free speech to Lincoln murdering 800,000 of his own citizens with his own army, limited government is a fallacy
You seem to fear the growth of the state and the theft of your money more than you fear brutish men.
Only a man living in safety - in a civilized society - would make such a mistake.
All else aside - and not saying this is the true limit of choices - but I fear Conan the Destroyer much more than the IRS.
It's not just movies, y'know. That was the nature of human existence until the last few thousand years.
But thanks for the exchange, James. I know more now than I did before.
It's not that my fears are incorrect and I make the mistake of not fearing brutish men more than I fear the state. I see the truth that the state is those Brutish men you fear were we absent the state.
It is the glaring contradiction I repeat over and over but I feel like the reply is
"Blank"
Repeating the same claim over and over that the state protects us from something far worse is the fallacy that allows the state the power to grow.
They use this fear in every way, perpetuate it through media and movies, terrorism etc etc etc.
It is always the brutes of society that become the state.
And you expect me to want to leave them in control of everything in fear of something greater than the brutes of society
My ideas come from the realization that all men are equal in the law, so there is no group of people (state) that have magic rights I don't have.
So when they take yours and my money by force, it's is barbaric, not altruism.
Your still not seeing reality yet and don't see that it doesn't matter if nice politicians or Conan steals from you, they are equally immoral. The human action is exactly the same, the fact you see them differently and with different morals says you still don't see A is A
But the statement seems valid.
I'm sorry but only in safety can we deride danger.
The barbarian with a battle axe seems no different from a lying, thieving politician only to a person with no experience with the former.
But it's clear we're both satisfied in our positions and I'm not trying to keep it going.
That we disagree harms me not.
Well met, James5820.
It's not that my fears are incorrect and I make the mistake of not fearing brutish men more than I fear the state. I see the truth that the state is those Brutish men you fear were we absent the state.
It is the glaring contradiction I repeat over and over but I feel like the reply is
"Blank"
Repeating the same claim over and over that the state protects us from something far worse is the fallacy that allows the state the power to grow.
They use this fear in every way, perpetuate it through media and movies, terrorism etc etc etc.
It is always the brutes of society that become the state.
And you expect me to want to leave them in control of everything in fear of something greater than the brutes of society
Then when they grow and grow and steal more and more, lets all wonder what went wrong.
We gave you power over al of us but we expected you to stay limited.
There is evil in society so we need you to protect us, but we want to give you power over us and not be evil.
Why doesn't this work???
Why wont you limit your own power???
I believe that all we can do is (1) design a State that serves this purpose better and lasts longer next time -- if we get the opportunity to be around for next time -- and (2) teach eternal vigilance, because any system Man can design, other men can probably also defeat if they work at it long enough.
Freedom requires govt. to protect our rights; anarchy cannot provide that. She only supports govt. to the extent that it does just that.
You have no rights without such protection, and only govt. can provide it.
Rand never supports govt. action that is for "the good of society."
This in itself is contradictory.
I have a right to my person and property would you agree?
In order to have a state, I must pay for it even if I don't want it correct?
So which is it?
Do I have a right to my person and property and its mine? No matter what? No contradictions?
Or does the state (even the smallest state that is only there for protection) have a right to take my property even if I don't want it?
The problem with your statement is it pre-supposes that without government, I will die or have 100% of my property taken all the time.
This is a prediction, NOT a fact.
Saying -without government, someone will steal 100% of your property all the time is a prediction.
You carry on as if your prediction is a fact.
What if I lived on an island with just my family in the middle of no where?
Is it a fact that I must have a government or my rights are not protected?
What if I lived on an island with my family and one other family? Do we need a government or our rights are not protected?
Or perhaps, is it just possible that we somehow manage to protect our rights without it?
What if I lived on an island with two other families?
I think you can see it is entirely possible that people live and have their rights entact without a state.
At what point does your prediction become fact?
3o people on the island?
40?
100?
You see, your making a prediction about what will happen in the future if the state were abolished and calling it fact and then that is your justification for saying when the state takes your money it is not theft.
They are actually protecting your rights while stealing from you and I am not making a contradiction.
A small amount of government is a necessary evil.
Anarchists are the extremists of the right just as nazi's and communists are the extremists of the left.
Saying something is so doesn't make it so, It identifies those who speak that way as left wing.
Socialism is when the state controls 100% of resources and everything is centrally planned.
All government is central planning.
Government does nothing else but centrally plan. It has no other function. You can say things like "government should protect persons and property", but what this means as actual action is government should centrally plan security services.
So if all government is central planning and socialism is 100% centrally planned economy,
Anarchy is 0% planned economy.
It is 100% free market
This is real anarchist who understands anarchy calls it anarchy-capitalism.
Because anarchy = free markets
Or the complete absense of central planning.
It is the limited government people that are closer to socialism than the anarchist.
The limited government person says we need some central planning. We can't leave everything to unbridled capitalism. A little socialism is ok when it comes to certain things
The anarchist says no socialism, no central planning, no rulers.
We are the opposite of socialism
PS: I am traveling and am super tired, so if my comment was really off-base I apologize! :)
Most will recognize only two titles.
In those 12 years she went from struggling with a new language to full command of complex philosophical ideas.
My notes
(At the same time she began working with screen plays and scripts written from others. Progressing from a near illiteracy in English to the Fountainhead then was a 12 year accomplishment. age 21 to 33. The background was younger formative years under the Tzar, WWI, the Octobrist Revolution and trake over of fame by the Comunist Party in which many of the Russian Jewish Culture among them the top leaders of the Communist movement to the incarceration of many leaving the Soviet Union a virtual slave camp for the freedoms of the United States and assimilating the cultural change in a time where the USA itself was going through it's third revolution - 1176 and Civil War being the first two - and contrasting comparing the two with the promises of the first and second.
Perhaps only an outsider could have down that. Most of us grew up in the 1940-s to present and some of us noticed the differences when the idea of the "USA and three revolutions was hardly imagined and certainly not taught. People like Wilson and both Roosevelts were presented in a far different manner than they are depicted today as was the entire world.
It is unlikely that certain, contradictions, as you stated would not occur. How many today still believe in the left right system of political divisions and haven't discovered how false and contrived they are.
Or when i write we have three left wing candiates counting Clinton, Trump, and Johnson automatically reject such a notion but cannot explain something as simple as why Republicans cave to Democrats.
And yet some want to pick on what they call glaring contradictions and turn their back on the explanations offered in a ready source the Lexicon. Why? Because some are still in the dark ages and using the definitions, in this case, of the left. Others want perfection which aint gonna happen but doesn't deny the overall validity and throw the baby out with the bath water. Others have applied a different moral compaqss which allows support of evil ways.
And if complete shining perfect explanation cannot be offered do not ascribe it to their own intellectual failings but attack the dead from the safe context of here and now.. Which to me is the ultimate way of playing stupid.
The obvious answer is readily available. Find another religion. Some will give the gift of not having to think and provide instant perfection. That answer being ' we have people that do understand, just follow them and eventually you will be one with us.' So If iyou don't like being a Baptist or a Libertarian become a Zorastrian or neo Whig.
It is of little moment to me, your quest is served and Nirvana is attained all without effort.
"Who what? Michael you are imagining things again."
"Ah well back to realilty. I have much more reading to do but the true answer is all of us have the ability to progress and grow. The thoughts and writings of youth mature and season with age and experience. Were she alive today she probably would remind us that The Second Rule or Law demands constant testing and checking as does the application of the Third Law. She might say "having found this contradiction what have you done to correct it or even determine to what extent it exists? What is it's nature."
If I take your idea, I am not actually taking it. I cant exclude you. You still have the idea and can do what you want with it.
Who owns the wheel?
If you really believe in IP, why does it expire in 20 years. If I buy a car, its mine and its mine for good. Should I be forced to make my car public after 20 years so everyone can drive it?
If ideas are really property and can fit the definition of property, why should anyone ever be forced to relieve this property after certain amount of time?
Isn't that a violation of property rights?
The fact is in order to support the idea of IP property rights, you must forfeit regular property rights.
If you invent a new motor and sell it to me, and I want to build the motor in my own shop, the only way you can stop me is by using force on my person or property.
You must prohibit me from doing what I want with my own property. All based on the idea that I am somehow stealing from you.
If you build a new style of chair. Am I not allowed to build one? If you build an old style of chair but paint and brown and run to the patent office, am I now forbidden to paint my chairs brown. What actually constitutes an original idea? Can you define it?
Tell me about an original idea that did not have to use others ideas?
When Eli Whitney built his cotton gin, did he use gears and bolts all invented by him? or did he use others ideas?
Did he go find the inventor of the gear and pay him first.
True Story about Eli. He spent most of his life sueing others in courts and very little of his life making any invention or producing anything.
If you read Stephan Kinsella
https://mises.org/library/against-int...
Kinsella has directly refuted much of Mossoffs work and Rands for that matter. Rand's defense of IP is not very sound. For an objectivist, its a bit absurd to defend as property, something that really cannot be defined with absolute boundaries as to what is an "IDEA"?
Not to mention the convolution involved with then trying to define the undefinable to now fit the definition of property.
Once you try these thought exercises, it becomes absurd, -the idea one can own an idea or information.
Then go to 305 and look under money which also directs you to other sections.
If she made an exception for the good of society it was for the society of Galt's Gulch. had it been confiscated by the government in total for governments prices it would be as useless as deficit spending that is to say a non acceptable form of backing. and on that subject anything used to back the value of money or currency must have an acceptble value based on unused suipply on hand. IOUs are not acceptable.
Her chief objection to regarding the prevention, investigation, and punishment of crime as an exception to the private-only rule is: what happens when the clients of competing private security services have a criminal dispute between them? "Suppose Mr. Smith, a citizen of Government A, suspects Mr. Jones, a citizen of Government B, of stealing his wallet and wrongfully holding said wallet in his house. What happens when Police A arrive at Jones' door to serve a search warrant, and Police B won't let the Police A team in? You take it from there." Or words to that effect.
Rand limited the proper functions of government to the police, the armed service, and the law courts. All, she said, had to do with managing physical force and protecting individual rights.
Without this institution, laws are a dead letter, and criminal disputes threaten constantly and at any moment to escalate into blood feuds.
If it is not, then forgive me.
In the political/economic/social context, the idea of having a free market in the use of violence, seems contradictory in itself to me. Other than the need to employ violence in direct defense against its immediate incoming use on me or another, taking violence out of the marketplace and placing it in the hands of an objective, fully constrained process (as in a constitutionally limited republic) is what allows a truly voluntary playing field for all parties to engage in any sort of non-violent, non-fraudulent activity and interaction.
A glaring logical oversight which, since her editor recommended very few changes to the manuscript, must be a sign of how difficult it was, even for Rand and her cohorts to step outside of the world they inhabited and into the one she was trying to invent.
The world, at the time Rand was writing AS, was so dollar-centric, even she couldn't escape it.
My objection is, by the time she got to the Gulch, the dollar would have been nearly worthless so, why denominate physical gold payments between each other in dollars rather than ounces or grams?
Even now, in a world still bent on using paper money, gold transactions are done in weights, not currency values. You buy an once of gold, not a $1345 worth of gold and, when you sell, you sell an ounce for whatever amount of whatever currency you desire or, whatever amount of whatever commodity you desire.
Gold weight is the fundamental measure, not currency.
I used to try to explain international currency exchange to my American friends, with little luck because, they were used to having the world's reserve currency. They couldn't fathom someone not wanting their money.
Anything is worth what people will give you for it, including bits of pretty paper and chunks of metal. Things are as precious as the situation allows. Ever seen the Twilight Zone episode called "The Rip Van Winkle Caper"? It's about criminals who steal the gold from Fort Knox and put themselves into suspended animation. When they wake up 100 years in the future the joke is on them, they find out gold no longer has any value.
This discussion isn't about fiat money, it's about Rand's mind slips. Even she was trapped in her time.
Money is an nothing more than a measure of the value of someone's tme and the use of that time and used as an instrument of exchange or storage.
Wealth is that money left after current need is satisfied and is stored against future needs such as retirement.
the value oif money and especially that stored as wealthy is a risk value as ALL current retireed learned since 2008. Or should have. Many are continuing to work until 70 as a result of the devaluation of stored money/wealth which results also in less jobs for others.
As it happens gold has been a bench mark over some thousands of years in that one ounce in troy weight equals 350 loaves of bread or in other countries an equivalent bag of tortillas.
That equivalency provides a standard against which the value of one's time or labor in any particular job skill may be measured.
We were discussing Rand's logical slip of giving dollar values to the transactions within the Gulch that were carried out with gold. We weren't debating the value of gold or its historical use as money. She pegged the Gulch economy to the dollar, instead of gold.
Read the book again and you'll find it to be true. I speculate the world was so dollar centric she failed to pull herself out of it and immerse herself fully into her imaginary world, in which, since transactions were done with gold, the Gulch economy would have been independent of outside currencies.
At the time she was writing, gold had a fixed dollar rate even though most Americans couldn't own any substantial amount of it but, in the middle of her fictional societal meltdown, that would no longer have been true and, certainly the characters who lived in the Gulch would have abandoned their dollar-centric views of economics.
It's a mistake. She made mistakes. Everybody makes them. 1000 pages and you're going to miss some stuff.
For those fanboys who can't admit Rand was human, I have no time but, I have an "ignore" button. It works well enough. I still get notices that they've posted something but, nothing they post actually appears on the page. I've suggested to the editors they rewrite their software so once we ignore others, we stop getting notices about anything they post.
Life's too short to argue with people who aren't looking for the truth.
Yes. I strongly agree with the entire comment. What we trade doesn't matter. Helping one another in voluntary exchanges of value is all that matters.
going back to the world." -- j
p.s. I gave you back your point, again.
.
Instead, fearing Jolie (who was a Rand fan herself) would allow the concepts to be sacrificed to make the film more popular, they made the film without traditional Hollywood.
The 3 part film ended up being what it was and, this site is the tail following the comet.
So, if you value this site above a successful movie, you got it. If not, think about it, when I was more familiar with the book, I could (and did) point out dozens of places where Rand made logical and dramatic errors in the book. Remaining strictly faithful doomed the movie to failure.
One only moves ahead when one is willing to admit past failures. Ayn Rand was human, she made mistakes, there were things about which she knew very little. Almost everyone has some insight about something about which the rest of us know nothing. If Rand were to write a story about whatever you do in life, you'd pick out all the things she got wrong. Why is it so hard for people on this site to admit her efforts weren't perfect?
It's totally irrational and dooms everyone to live in an imperfect past, even if it's a fictional past.
in 2.5 hours! . I don't see Rand as irrational, but as an
inspiring leader who blazed a new trail through reality
which should be trodden by millions -- and AS as a
book which deserves adoration in multiple forms.
I love the movies and would energetically support
a tv series. . doing it with or without a specific actress
is just coincidental, IMHO. -- j
.
I joined this site just after AS2 came out, trying to contact the producers, to prevent AS3 from becoming the disaster I foresaw. They failed to respond to any attempts to contact them.
I hung out for a few weeks but, couldn't handle the discussions. This place is like Comicon for dolled up capitalist wannabes, like people playing dungeons and dragons but, insisting it's real life.
I went away for about 3 years but, heard rumors of a remake so, I came back. I'm still trying to contact the producers but, they're still not talking.
I offered to rewrite the screenplays free of charge, just give me the FDX files and, got nothing from them.
I now wonder whether their problem is really fear someone else can do what they couldn't, put AS on film and make it work.
If I don't get anything from them soon, I'll disappear again because, this site is just too painful to endure.
The whole concept of determining the value of ideas by allowing the masses to vote them up or down is absurd and would have drawn Rand's wrath. Do you suppose Ayn Rand would have got any upvotes in 1955? No. She'd have been voted out of the country by those around her unable or unwilling to think.
That's what I find here, people devoted to something they don't understand, unwilling or unable to look at it in the broad light of day, willing only to kneel down at the totem of someone who'd be repelled by the things they say.
Rand was not a fangirl, she was a thinker. There are far too few thinkers and far too many fanboys on this site.
your work, to support a screenwriting role? -- j
.
That's how ridiculous this is. I offered to write free of charge. Where's the risk? They lose nothing by sending the files and seeing what I would do with them.
Rewriting screenplays from FDX files is so much easier than transcribing them from watching films or manually digitizing them from PDFs. All I can guess is, they don't want to know what someone else would do with their story.
preceded me. . I maxed out at 12 of 'em and still got
calls asking me to take on more. . and if I were the
curator of Rand's heritage, I would be exceedingly
fastidious with my business actions. -- j
.
Aglialoro isn't the curator of Rand's heritage. He wisely obtained the film rights to the novel but, after decades of trying, Hollywood found they couldn't do business with him so, the film was never made and, his option was running out. Because he wouldn't work with them, he ended up having to do it himself. We know the result.
I'm not talking business transaction. I'm talking give me the screenplays, let me play with them then, give them back and you can use them or throw them away. No obligations, no money, no risk.
As an example of how bad the screenplays are, remember the train crossing the Reardon bridge for the first time scene? Compare it to the cliff jump scene from Butch Cassidy.
These guys put their heroes inside an enclosed box (the locomotive). They had no external sensory input, nothing to which they could react and, very little, poorly written dialogue. As they safely crossed the bridge, their heroes couldn't even share a private moment because - they had a third person in the scene, the engineer! What is this, a menage e trois?
It's the equivalent of having Butch and the Kid and a third cowboy, a complete stranger crawl into a cave and pull the rocks in behind them, then watching them hide in the dark while saying nothing for 5 minutes.
The cliff-jump scene works so well because it's our bromance heroes and no one else and not just because their dialogue is snarky, because they're active, not passive.
The scene from AS broke all the rules of thumb of screenwriting: no scenery, no action, no snappy dialogue, no love scene - nothing to make us wish we were there or wish the scene would go on. It was a serious anticlimax at one of the most dramatic parts of the story.
I understand why, from the book, the engineer is there; Rand was showing us the older workers were loyal to her. Too bad. It worked, though not well in the book, but it doesn't work on the screen. In a novel one may spend time ruminating on the thoughts of one's characters. On film, one may not spend time watching people think. It is cinematic death.
No matter what, Dagny had to end up taking control of the locomotive and, no matter what, Hank Reardon had to end up on the outside of the locomotive, if not on top of the train as it passed out onto the bridge.
Do we ever watch Tom Cruise take a quiet ride on a train? If ever we do, his career will go into serious decline.
Film is about spectacle, external conflict, not ruminations and internal conflict. If you're going to make a successful film of Atlas Shrugged you're going to toss out all of Dagny's thoughts and conversations with herself and pedantic conversations with others. You're going to find ways to dramatize them. You're not going to be able to hammer your audience repeatedly with the same concept the way Rand hammered her readers repeatedly with her dogma. Readers waded through it, cinema goers didn't and, won't.
I firmly believe this can be done. It won't be easy but, it's possible; it just isn't possible for the same people who've already tried and failed.
book and write the movie. . I could do it, but I am 67
and want to ride my harley every now and then before
I can't, anymore. . go to it! -- j
.
Atlas Shrugged is a good story that, for 20 years Hollywood wanted and tried to make but, these guys wouldn't sell the rights or make a deal.
Until they change their minds, the world is stuck with what they've made. No one can sell another screenplay or make another movie.
them. . you have a copy of the book, right? -- j
.
Just put new tags on my bikes. Don't ride them much anymore but, until I can't get on, I'm going to keep them.
old honda 305 is still being fixed. -- j
p.s. I had to look up FDX to understand.
.
I like old bikes. Simple enough to understand and work on Iv'e got a '39 Indian Four with a Princess sidecar I've been working on for 32 years, almost finished.
and I tinker on it from time to time.
the Indian sounds wonderful -- like the old Henderson,
smooth and silky when running? -- j
.
I do understand where you're coming from, I do the disappearing act too from time to time. I think this post will get the anonymous down vote... though it could just be the ONE person I ignore here.
"producer" here in the online gulch can be so
acerbic. -- j
.
"sarcasm" in my comment. . I meant that there is a
difference when one is invested in an endeavor with
one's wallet. . acerbic is defined in http://dictionary.com as
"sour or astringent in taste:Lemon juice is acerbic. /
harsh or severe, as of temper or expression" and I think
that it fits well.
it was an observation instead of a denunciation. -- j
.
Stating and explaining in plain English and essentials what anyone can read for himself to verify is not "sour or astringent".
There is no cognitive difference caused by a "wallet investment". Economics causing ideas is a Marxist notion. I have produced far more on this forum in intellectual content than the anti-Ayn Rand misrepresentation and hostility by those who don't understand ideas clashing with their conventional emotional biases.
A lot of effort, investment, and professional expertise has gone into creating this forum. It is supposed to be for those interested in and serious about Ayn Rand's ideas. It is a shame to see it disintegrating, which is routinely accepted by those willing to compromise their own supposed values.
p.s. if you think that my 52 years of praising
Ayn Rand amounts to "anti-Rand," well.......
.
that way, whether towards Rand or towards anyone
here. . I love life and people and diligent thoughtful
earnest searching for the truth, just like you. -- j
.
I'm developing a multi-player on-line open world game where survival is literally in the hands of each player. While is remnants of society, each person must scavenge and create items of need for themselves. My medium of exchange? Metals. Why? Because metals can be crafted into any number of things. Another means of exchange is barter Item(s) for item(s).
These types of economics work with the philosophy because there is actual value unique to each individuals need. I considered Rand using gold as a medium, particularly valued in dollar terms, as a statement that she had no intention of her society having a complete and total divorce form the outside world - goods would be needed and, with paper money being worthless, bits of gold would still be of value.
I could totally be wrong...but thats how I viewed the gold issue (the only way I could reconcile her gold valuation as relevant to her plot). Personally I would have went a different direction, but its the authors choice and I enjoyed the book.
PS I gave you back your point..
In our electronic world, digital credits might take the place of gold. If the electronic world remains reliable, a digital clearing mechanism independent of precious metals may be our next resort. It will still need some kind of unit.
This is where Rand's use of the dollar made no sense; dollars would have become nearly worthless or, totally worthless at approximately the end of AS. Would a bunch of people as smart as the occupants of the Gulch not have foreseen that?
I don't recall their use of the dollar, but here's my guess. I recall it saying people there didn't use USD. Maybe they had their own currency, linked to gold, not related to the USD. Many countries call their currency dollars or pesos without being related to the USD or Mexican Peso.
This makes me think of how it said you couldn't use USDs. I bet someone there, not mentioned in the story, would have exchanged mainstream currencies for gold / Gulch currency. They could take the USDs and buy materials for the Gulch.
This, they would not have done. They'd have measure their gold exchange not in currency but, by weight, as people do now.
It's a logical lapse but, a distracting one.
I'm not sure Wonder still exists. I haven't seen it lately. For cheap bread, most grocers have gone to house brands.
But the standard of 350 goes back to Egyptian days and earlier. Where I live it's 40% of the cost of the US bread and when I computed a Latino loaf which is a bag of tortillas and asked the bank for the price of gold which they sell in coin form over the counter bingo. In the ball park. The bank however would not take bread it was tortillas or nothing.
However, retail food is an extremely competitive business in the US. Maybe not so much where you live.
So the question to me now is research why the several thousands of year old 350 to one ounce standard is out of whack?
Off I go....
Todays average loaf if one pound plus or half a kilo. See my comment above on new standard versus Gigante. In the time of Nebuchanezzer when the 350 loaves to an ounce of gold saying started. they were double the size or close to a full kilo.
Also factor in bread is not statistic priced by the loaf but by the pound so a half kilo or 1.1 pound loaf would be times ten would come out at 11 pounds of bread. That's to arrive at the cost of production figures.
So what the economist's apparently do is take the production costs of so many pounds of different kinds of bread and loaf sizes. Kind of like when clinton balanced the budget with a surplus. He had three different budgets to choose from depending on the audience.
Divide your current number in half for exactly 350.
https://www.coins-auctioned.com/learn...
I can buy 24 oz, 1.5 lb of cheap bread for $1.40 US and 1.5 lb of expensive bread for $2.80 US. That's 1000 loaves of cheap bread or 500 loaves of expensive bread per ounce of gold. Bread prices have been rising slowly but steadily so, a few years ago, when gold was at $1800 and bread was cheaper, the relationship would have been totally different and, 15 years ago, when I started buying gold at $275 an ounce would have bought no more than 200 loaves.
So, if the rule holds long term, we can see the short term variations from the norm are quite large.
In my world of nanochemistry, Au has much intrinsic value, but remarkably for the very opposite of the reason that it maintains value in the non-nano realm. Nanogold has some reactivity, is not conductive (because of its ligands, although I am working to change that), and fluoresces like crazy. Non-nano gold's value is because of its superior conductivity and its resistance to corrosion.
I actually do have questions to ask about possible applications of nano technology for well stimulation but, don't know enough about nano to ask smart questions yet.
At first this rang true, but when I thought further it occurs to me that mismanagement was causing there to be fewer goods and services in the world. But the amount of gold in the world remained constant. So I say gold would have actually bought less goods and services at the end of AS than as the beginning.
It is all speculation, but fun to ponder.
A Gulch IMO would use practical value as currency - services, food, malleable metals, etc. It would stand to reason that gold, out side of technological use, would be more for external trade.
In your case, you need to reread AS. The members of the Gulch community exchanged pieces of gold for each other's products and services. Dagny made a big deal of it. However, Rand made the logical error of each time telling us how many dollars worth of gold they exchanged.
It wouldn't have happened. Rand's error.
She named dollar amounts for transactions between individuals in the Gulch that were carried out in gold. Buying and selling food and clothing. It had nothing to do with the outside world, nothing to do with supplies for the Gulch, just internal transactions. Complete logical bull.
Rand wasn't god. She made mistakes. She wasn't a great novelist and Atlas Shrugged isn't a great novel, it's just a big novel about important ideas.
Oh, oh, sacrilege. I'll have to "ignore" everyone now.
Her use of known monetary value was simply a vehicle to show worth that people can understand. I still contend that metals would have made more sense...but as the author its her creative liberty to choose any method as an example. I do think she had her focus on presenting other things.
Ideas are right or wrong, true or false in and of themselves, Their rectitude has nothing to do with their origins.
And, authors are indeed, free to do with their creations whatever they want. The world is packed with millions of would be authors right now, doing with their creations what they want and, most of what they do will be wrong.
Rand's mistake pulled me out of the narrative. Whom else did it pull out? How many other times did people lay the book down and groan at her pedantic style?
No one is beyond criticism. No one is beyond being less than perfect, less than good, sometimes utterly terrible. Much of what she wrote was utterly terrible prose. Had her ideas no value the book, which has no literary value, would have sunk of its own weight.
Utterly terrible prose" That is your opinion
and you have a right to it. I thought that her writing
Was outstanding. Particularly impressive because she wrote in a second or third language.
I agree about her writing style and some of her choices; it was a laborious read. Her presentation of gold's value by comparing it to money did nothing to weaken her message or take me out of the narrative.
Besides of Ayn was perfect she would be still allive. A condition no one reaches except for that and those they leave behind.
If you didn't know this then, there's no point in discussing it further. I'm tired of people who didn't even know it was there tell me it a) wasn't, b) was only transactions with the outside world, c) made sense because after all, the readers wouldn't have understood anything else, d) etc.
It's a clear logical slip. In transactions strictly between members of the Gulch gold was used as a currency and Dagny and the others involved denominated it in dollars.
Why do you all feel you must defend every little thing about Rand's work? No one is perfect.
the very word "dangerous" is within the subjective realm. Measurements like speed. momentum, friction, are all objective measurements.
But once you make a statement such as - "driving 75mph is dangerous" you have made a subjective statement.
The only way you could turn this into an objective statement is if you used only facts in the statement.
Such as
"If a person drives at 75mph for X amount of time, he has a 32% chance of getting into an accident"
This is based on the such and such data.
Saying "something is dangerous if its likely to lead to harm and the measure of its likelihood is objective" is a bogus statement.
If you had and objective measurement than you would not even use the word "likely".
Even if you said driving at 10000mph is likely to end in an accident, this is still subjective statement. Not until some link to actual accident data wile driving at 10000 mph is made does it become objective. And once that link is made, words like "likely" or "dangerous" are not needed or used. As they are subjective terms
I think you need a return to philosophy 101.
Suppose you have an urn with 99 black balls & 1 white one. One can say "if a single ball is drawn, there is a 99% chance it will be black". Or ""if a single ball is drawn, it is likely it will be black". The former is more precise, but both statements are equally objective (& equally true.)
Your notion of the objective/subjective distinction is likely to lead you astray.
If you just said the latter without the former, it would be subjective. I think were just arguing meaningless stuff here that stemmed from your misunderstanding of my original post.
Meaningless? On the contrary, the objective/subjective distinction is fundamental to Objectivism (the name should have given you a clue.)
Don't get me wrong here...it's an interesting question you ask.
Just as if you asked me - What will communication technology be 10 years from now, I could make guess's but would likely be incorrect. it is impossible to know how the market will form any particular service in the future. This is depended on inventions and resources and many factors. Saying I know how the market will provide a particular service that is currently a monopoly by force would make me as ignorant as any central planner.
But I can certainly make guess's and give possible scenarios to help others see that it is certainly not only possible the market could and would provide this service. Because every state since the dawn of time has filled this role with a monopoly by force, it is difficult to imagine. but economically speaking, security is just a service like any other. the one thing that makes it somewhat unique is that it has an effect that if one person were to purchase it, then it would have an effect that would cover other persons that are not paying for it. This is a common argument as to why we need to al be forced at the barrel of a gun to pay for it. If you really want to examine the subject there is some good info on it. I would start with Robert Murphy
https://www.libertariannews.org/2011/...
Hes a good speaker if you prefer You Tube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0_Jd...