- Hot
- New
- Categories...
- Producer's Lounge
- Producer's Vault
- The Gulch: Live! (New)
- Ask the Gulch!
- Going Galt
- Books
- Business
- Classifieds
- Culture
- Economics
- Education
- Entertainment
- Government
- History
- Humor
- Legislation
- Movies
- News
- Philosophy
- Pics
- Politics
- Science
- Technology
- Video
- The Gulch: Best of
- The Gulch: Bugs
- The Gulch: Feature Requests
- The Gulch: Featured Producers
- The Gulch: General
- The Gulch: Introductions
- The Gulch: Local
- The Gulch: Promotions
- Marketplace
- Members
- Store
- More...
I think its even more basic. Animals are hunter-gatherers- they live by taking whats there for the taking. They dont produce, at least most of them dont go farther than making nests out of what they find lying around.
When we come into the world, we are the same. We take from mommy and daddy. But we dont produce anything.
Humans have the ability to grow past that and actually produce what they need, as we have slowly done over the ages. Capitalism makes best use of this ability.
But I think that the appeal of collectivism is that it allows people to never get past the "taking whats there" stage. In this society, this has been expanded to taking not only whats lying around, but forcing others to make the stuff that can be taken.
I think its the animal instincts in humans that forms the basis of the seemingly incessant movement towards collectivism. Producing involves more risk than simply taking whats there. Your crop might fail. The food thats already there for the taking is a sure thing.
Maybe a bit of game theory will help explain. Everyone would be better off by producing, but an individual person is better off by taking whats already there (whether its part of the earth or made by other people). Objectivism teaches the former; collectivism teaches the latter.
Each liberal is correct that he or she can get the most goodies for the least effort by taking them from others. They HAVE INDEED THOUGHT ABOUT IT and determined this to be true.
What they didnt think about is the other people who adopt the same methods. Pretty soon there are no more producers and that means less goodies available to take.
In the meantime, they have also thought about Hillary's slogan- STRONGER TOGETHER- and determined that she was right in that the bigger gang gets more goodies.
It IS a war out there, and we need to take sides, as Francisco said in AS. The liberals ARE thinking how they can get stuff from the producers.
Alone on a desert island, I am an objectivist I would say. Reality is all there is. I act in my own self interest. There are certain things I can just take for my own survival, but I can improve my lot by growing things, making a hut, etc.
But when there are more than one person on that island, the beauty and simplicity of objectivism comes into play. If we all agree to the principles inherent in it, we can each peacefully pursue our own self interest and ALL improve our lot in life.
I think we are both agreeing on the same thing, but its a matter of distilling down the words into the simplest form.
My main point, made by Eric Hoffer:
".......on the other hand, a mass movement (collective) particularly in its active, revivalist phase, appeals not to those intent on bolstering and advancing a cherished self, but to those who crave to be rid of an unwanted self. A mass movement attracts and holds a following not because it can satisfy the desire for self-advancement, but because it can satisfy the passion for self-renunciation."
Collectivists are cowards because they are fearful of being individuals and have it pointed out that they failed (or succeeded) on their own.
The collectivist humans dont give anything back at all. They are just thieves.
1. The capacity to think (brain, neurons, functioning mind)
2. Know how to think - how to present an argument, know how to validate a claim, how to present an axiom, how to construct an assertion built on axioms, etc.
3. Choose to think.
The brain is like any tool ... a hammer for instance. Like the brain, you have to have a hammer, know how to use it (some methods are better than others) and choose to use it.
Consider the liberals (my neighbors) that are fond of saying "everybody pays taxes." That statement carries the same weight as "everybody likes cookies."
Both statements are falsifiable. Example - we need find only one individual that does not pay taxes in order to prove the assertion false. Same holds for the cookies -- just find one counterexample.
Do liberals even know what a falsifiable statement is?
Even more importantly, both statements have very little weight or import.
If is is pointed out that the incarcerated do not pay taxes, the liberal will retort that they will when they get out of jail -- or they pay indirectly through sales tax on their presumed purchases.
When it is pointed out that the net Cost of keeping the person incarcerated is far greater than what the jailed person pays in taxes, the liberal will shrug.
The statement "everybody pays taxes" is the liberal's answer to reality when a graph is shown that illustrates Who is paying the taxes -- what percentage is paid (confiscated) by the top 1%, 5%, 10% of income earners ... and what percent (<3%) is paid by the bottom 50% of earners.
Essentially, it can be easily illustrated that saying "everybody pays taxes" is just plain dumb. It is the repeating of a party-line statement like a parrot. However, the parrot holds no belief that what it is saying has any value.
Another statement of economic illiteracy and morale reprehensibility has recently been making the airwaves . . ."we cannot afford the tax cuts" or "how can we pay for these tax cuts?" These mental midgets know nothing of basic accounting (a tax cut is not an expense). Further, to insist that a tax-cut cannot be afforded is to insist that the State already owns the money that it is yet to confiscate on future production.
I will go a step further -- I think that liberals often choose not to think for the simple reason that they would have to look in the mirror and see that their failures are the result of their own actions. Liberals maintain and grow the State as a form of intellectual insulation from themselves.
Absolutely !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
It is true that there exist some politicians who are what we call in criminology "planfully competent." They do want to loot the producers. But such barbarians are a small number. Why they are accepted is a diferent question. And it speaks to what I believe is your premise.
In other words, just as examples, we honor generals and presidents, but not inventors. Oh, we nod to the creators, but we take off our hats and bow our heads for patriotic holidays without actually getting to the essential virtues of what made and makes America great.
It is pretty easy here in the Gulch to get people to recommend books about Robert E. Lee. Eli Whitney we do not hear much about. That fact points to your identification of support for the looter agenda.
“Takers” are indeed stronger together and they support the gang leader who appears to be the strongest. Like Hillary Clinton with her successful crookedness, or hitler, or Stalin, or saddam, etc
Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter by Scott Adams is a tribute to the success of Donald Trump.
I simply cannot convince my liberal friends that the purpose of employing people is so that the employees produce something that can be sold at a profit. They do not acknowledge the connection between work and production and the need for the production to generate the compensation for the employee. In their mind, employment benefits are entirely disconnected from productivity.
Surviving. Increasing populations meant scarcity of free ranging items to forage.and hunt. Now , survival must be based on somehow getting what others produce. Through trade or by reverting to theft. Flat out war was popular but dangerous. The biggest gang prevailed until a bigger one appeared with more powerful weapons. Now we have liberals with their “stronger together” mantra essentially using politics and emotional manipulation as more effective weapons to pillage from other groups rather than trade with them
I suppose the bottom line is that humans seem to revert to “taking” what they need like animals, whether from nature or other people.
Maybe that’s why “producers” tend to be hated by “takers”, since they are the independent beings and the “takers” are dependent and therefore subservient to them
And that subservience creates the evil of hating (and eventually destroying) the good upon which they are dependent.
As for why "everyone" does not explicitly endorse the philosophy, the explanation may have as many facets as there are people. In Win Bigly: Persuasion in a World Where Facts Don't Matter Scott Adams explains the success of Donald Trump by drawing on cognitive dissonance and confirmation bias. And broad as that is, it is not all-encompassing, nor can it be. We might as well ask why Sir Isaac Newton was not an atheist.
So, I say acceptance of objectivist principles makes for an easier life. Certainly easier than accepting socialist principles as in Venezuela.
It certainly does..............and far more than just the material aspects.
I mean if you look at the sales of books by and about Ayn Rand, we have over 50 individual titles, tallying about 50 million copies. (Far more The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged - about 8 million each - than Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology - about 100,000.).
We the Living, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged were made into movies. Anthem has been recrafted into at least two different graphic novels. Anthem is often assigned in middle schools, along with Call of the Wild, and The Pearl, and other classics that kids can and will actually read.
We do a lot of grousing here about the end of the world, but the influence of Ayn Rand's ideas is known deeply and broadly by all manner of engineers, especially those working in information technologies. The fact is that unlike railroads, computers are still largely unregulated. There's a reason for that. And the reason is Ayn Rand.
It is just that very many more people say that they were "influenced" by Rand's ideas than have consciously adopted all of the tenets of her philosopohy of Objectivism. House Speaker Paul Ryan is a great example. He was happy to embrace Rand's ideas on the way up, but once he was nominated to run for VP, he distanced himself from her "atheist" philosophy.
Allow me to offer just one point: Gold is legal. I mean it was never really illegal, but, broadly, here in the USA, you had to have special knowledge and interest to own gold. Then, it was legalized again. Now eveyrone can have it. The US government even strikes gold coins and has been for 30 years. That is quite an improvement over the world of 1937, 1947, and 1957.
(B) Not everyone has to be. Maybe one-third of the people in the Colonies supported the American Revolution. There's a good line from the British comedy, "The Black Adder." The hero is dressing down an idiot nobleman who cannot count on his own fingers, "So, the Renaissance was just something that happened to other people." Not "everyone" participated in the Renaissance, the Age of Reason, or the Industrial Revolution. They all still happened.
The people who make a difference know the works of Ayn Rand. Every year thousands of young people are introduced to Anthem, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged. It would happen even without the Ayn Rand Institute. It did for me. And our little Ayn Rand clique in high school was not unique. We made the world a better place.
And more to the point....
(C) Objectivism is a philosophy for individuals who seek to make their own lives better. It begins and ends with me. And I am happy to discover that there are millions of others who share that on their own.
(D) To the extent that any person faces reality and understands the world through reason, willing to stand by their own judgment of their own self interest, they have accepted (however implicitly, even accidentally) the philosophy of Objectivism.
Ayn Rand left an antidote to the poison and no matter how vehemently she and her ideas are attacked, her logic and natural truth overcomes the reluctance of those that understand her philosophy to defy socially correct norms that we enslave ourselves with. It takes courage to espouse ideas that brand you as an atheist, selfish, uncaring, greedy capitalist and so far it is impossible to get elected on those grounds.
Even Elizabeth Warren said that she wants an America in which you can make "great piles of money" (I think that's a quote) -- though of course, the next clause was that you have to pay your fair share of taxes. But just admitting the first part was a change from 50 years ago.
Even religion in America has it Joel Osteen who unlike previous generations of rich pastors not only does not apologize for his wealth, but he wants to receive God's abundance also.
We have a long way to go. We still have churches. But, really, we have come a long way in 50 years.
should have one, or want to have one, at this point. An Objectivist in that position could easily
become tainted. Certainly a President would have to promise to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.--Including
the 16th Amendment?!--But how could he?
Of course, a Congressman would not have perhaps the same obligations of a President. And one could argue that one could best preserve the Constitution by excising (repealing)
such a malignant growth as the Income Tax A-
mendment. But the President cannot introduce
bills; he is not supposed to make the law, but carry it out.
But a Congressman?--I don't know how much good he could do before getting involved in too much of that logrolling,etc.
I think we need to change the political climate and ideas of the society first.
But your question was, "If Objectivism is the superior philosophy? Then why hasn't everyone adopted?" There is a false assumption in that that superiority by itself is enough. It does not follow from the fact that an idea or a system of ideas is superior that people will necessarily embrace it. Each individual must choose to focus on it and decide whether or not he thinks it is superior, and then decide whether or not to put it in practice with integrity.
All that requires understanding what Ayn Rand's philosophy is. Most don't understand what it is at all, in part because it is so radically different than prevailing ideas passed down for centuries. Without that understanding they cannot be expected to recognize that it is superior or why, and are still subject -- both emotionally and intellectually -- to influences in other directions even if they are attracted to Ayn Rand's ideas and sense of life.
If you want to understand why and how it so radically different you should dig into Ayn Rand's nonfiction, and in particular go through Leonard Peikoff's lecture course on the History of Philosophy to see the intellectual context and how it evolved. Reading the novels isn't enough. The philosophy is implicit in the novels, especially Atlas Shrugged, and was required before she could write them, and there are many elements of the philosophy stated explicitly. But if you don't understand the philosophic context and contrasts you will not be able to appreciate how much is in the novels and its significance.
Very true.
Why did the Western world stagnate through about 10 centuries of misery under tyranny, superstition, a mainly-monopoly Church, and diseases? Because it takes a long time for rational ideas to gain acceptance.
had turned from him, and, apparently his philosophy was forgotten for a while. Why did that happen? Because man has free will. (I am not maintaining that Aristotle was perfect, or that his politics was necessarily right, but the idea that individual, perceptible things are what exist
can eventually lead to individualism, vs. the Platonic, otherworldly "oneness").
Man has free will. And the right ideas are not guaranteed to be accepted.
--Still, the right ideas, when accepted, are the ones that promote human survival. Look at America's historical record, with its industry, prosperity, etc.
Because man is volitional.
It when groups gather together that the hunter-gatherer instincts bloom into taking whatever is there that others might create also. Collectivism is born. The problem comes in when the resources are depleted and no one is producing (venezuela and soon the USA)
But, it takes real thinking for everyone to realize that if everyone produces and trades that everyone can be better off. Hence Objectivism. For some reason, this is hard for the people in a society to agree on. Maybe it a basic part of human "instinct" that higher thinking can overcome.
Objectivism is a hard way of life. You are dependent upon yourself to survive. No handouts not special favors no "Looting".
Todays society id dedicated to raising Looters and leaches not full blown objectivists.
The urban advocate Jane Jacobs pointed out that poverty needs no explanation. Poverty is the natural state. It is abundance that needs explanation. So, too, here, I said above that altruism is the natural state. It is not just "our society" that has some special flaw.
And what do you mean by "our"? Talk to the parents here. We raised our children to be self-centered and productive. At least, I did. And that goes back several generations. The Fountainhead came out in 1943 and was made into a movie in 1947. Five years later, Fortune magazine was clamoring for another Ayn Rand novel -- and rumors were already out that it was going to be "about business."
I work at a federal agency -- in a proper role of government. Today's Federal Times online newspaper included an article about stupid regulations that need to go. You would not have gotten that in 1957.
Failure has been turned from a motivation-enhancing moment to a catastrophic end-all point, so why would anyone try to risk anything?
With just these two things you can capture a vast amount of people who will then decide that trying, working and struggling are too dangerous for them or just have no benefit. So they desire legislation that "protects" them.
Their motivations are changed and they will no longer want to be objective about them.
Everything we do is directed by what motivates us, and none of us is constantly directed by just one motivating force.
Capitalism allows us to have huge blocks of leisure in our days and in our lives.
Taking in $30,000 year by asking strangers for spare change is not psychologically efficacious. But the personal immorality of sloth carries no mandate that other people must punish you for it. If you do not want to give money to a beggar, that is your choice. Other people make other choices. I grant that it is because of the philosophy of altruism, really because of religion, that people split their cloaks for beggars. But it doesn't take anything away from me.
And I give money to beggars myself. I begin with the assumption that everyone who wants to work can. But there's lots of exceptions: criminal record and failed drug test are just two. I see people who claim to be disabled. I figure they can go to a welfare agency. They don't need to beg. Then, I think about going to a welfare agency and begging seems like the honorable alternative. At least the people who give you money voluntarily don't treat you like dirt for interrupting their coffee breaks.
The US Constitution gave the federal government power to legislate bankruptcy. Many of the Founders were merchants. In the Middle Ages, bankruptcy could be punished by death. That was one of many reasons that they remained poor: they did not understand risk. You seemed to touch on that at first but did not follow through on the premise.
Bottom line: it is better for you to be productive. But that is fundamentally a psychological choice to live as Rand termed it "man qua man." That is a selfish choice for you to make.
"Every Every Every Generation Has Been the Me Me Me Generation (Atlantic, May 9, 2013)
Millennials are the "ME ME ME GENERATION," writes Joel Stein for Time magazine's new cover story out today — which makes him only the latest culture writer in the last century or so to declare the youth self-obsessed little monsters." --
https://www.theatlantic.com/national/...
Plato complained about the youth of his day. In the comedy The Clouds the hapless father has been run into debt because his son gambles on horse races. And Plato had the cure for that: barracks communism like Sparta, but ruled by a "philosopher king." (See my comments here: it was in communist Russia that everyone was legally required to work.) Aristoitle was not an individualist, either.
We are qualitatively different from previous generations. Identifying the pursuit of happiness as a natural right is what made capitalism possible. Read Max Weber's The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard" would have been anathema to the Calvinists of the 1600s. The Calvinists of th 1600s got rich. But they were still mandated to do social good for the glory of God. Franklin expressed a totally different Protestant Ethic in his essay The Way to Wealth.
The writer for The Atlantic might have intended hyperbole when she wrote "in the last century or so" but the idea of Benjamin Franklin's "Poor Richard" informed the youth of a capitalist America which easily can be said to have blossomed 100 years ago (about 100 years after Franklin). It takes time for ideas to spread, to take seed... Read a boy's story from 100 years ago. We all know Tom Sawyer, but that was tame. Read a Horatio Alger story. Do you know the Disney movie "Toby Tyler"? "Toby Tyler is a film produced by Walt Disney Productions and distributed by Buena Vista Distribution Company on January 21, 1960. It is based on the 1880 children's book Toby Tyler, or Ten Weeks with a Circus by James Otis Kaler." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toby_Ty....
Realize that in a previous era the runaway boy Tyl Eulenspiegel is at the end of a hope, hanged for his merry pranks. He is not productive and he comes to a bad end. There are many such folk tales about the stupid apprentice who leaves his master and comes to grief. The Sorcerer's Apprentice is just a comic form of that. In a boy's book from 1910, the runaway Dan Dashaway, learns to fly an airplane. It is shift in cutlure.
Ayn Rand continued that, ampllfying it with a foundation in philosophy that empowered self interest.