There's an Atlas Shrugged movie coming out today

[Robert D. Robot]

The shallowness and naïveté of the so-called reasoning here is frightening.

Ad hominem...

Just a quick point: you don't seem to understand what "ad hominem" means. Either that, or you're intentionally using those words wrongly, and lying about CorporalCaptain's post....

I, for one, appreciate your comments, Goliath! You had some good input on the discussion in another recent thread and I enjoyed the clarity you brought to that discussion.

If discussions such as these (and political debates especially) were scrutinized using rules of logic, maybe we could get all the bull**** and fog blown out of the air in the room. I would enjoy the fresh air. Feelings and unsubstantiated (or weakly supported) views are just fine to have, as long as they are understood to be what they are, and not be confused with the actual facts themselves.

 

[Goliath]

I am aware of the meaning of "ad hominem"--"to the person". Rather than adressing the argument, resorting to name-calling.

No--you are wrong about that.

See my previous post. Or the Wikipedia article on ad hominem abuse. Or any credible source on the subject.

Just saying something doesn't make it so--you must provide a rational argument saying why it is so.

No--you're wrong about that, too.

If I say, "I am frustrated with what I see as your obstinate refusal to admit that you're wrong"; and I am, in fact, frustrated with what I see as your obstinate refusal to admit that you're wrong; then it is so.

No argument is needed. It's just the case.

 

[Rush Limborg]

On what basis are you making the assertion that religious and private charities would have more resources in a world without the social safety net? You're assuming a change in human behavior that isn't warranted.

As an example, just because someone who lives paycheck to paycheck has more take-home pay because FICA taxes has been abolished, it doesn't automatically follow that they're going to tithe more or give more to charity. They're already living paycheck to paycheck, after all, and that money they're no longer paying to fund the social safety net is going to make their short-term life easier.

I'm not going to respond to all of it, because, one, it's a hopelessly naive philosophy (ad hominem attack +1) but the libertarian world will NEVER come about, as it's not practical nor desirable, and since I'm a practical person, I'm not going to continue debating tiny little details....

But, I will address this point: you say it's the family and the churches "duty"... but why? What "enlightened self interest" is there in taking care of a family member? One who couldn't clearly take care of themselves? Wouldn't that just be a waste of resources? And why should a Church do the same? For Rand, isn't the only duty to one's self?

(Though, I do have to say, it's HILARIOUS: there would be more charities if the government didn't "corner the market".... because charity is such a profitable business.... Even the FREE MARKET RULES CHARITY....

Isn't that like the exact OPPOSITE of charity... )

Look at the Reagan era.

Charitable donations went up as taxes went down--as the more money in people's pockets, the more likely it becomes that they have money to give--and when you compare all the waste inherent in government bureaucracy--all the money spent going back-and-forth--and when you observe that charity money goes directly to programs helping those worse off...the evidence speaks. Efficiency is everything.

You didn't actually address the question. Why is it anyone's duty to take care of anyone else?

It depends on their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise. For Christians, it's a biblical duty. For family, it's family. It's "duty" in the sense of "out of the goodness of one's heart", not "duty" in the sense of "your money is theirs by right".

Frankly...your question is more appropriately asked of advocates of the dole--who say it's our duty to give against our will, regardless of what one's beliefs advocate.

 

[Rush Limborg]

I am aware of the meaning of "ad hominem"--"to the person". Rather than adressing the argument, resorting to name-calling.

No--you are wrong about that.

See my previous post. Or the Wikipedia article on ad hominem abuse. Or any credible source on the subject.

Just saying something doesn't make it so--you must provide a rational argument saying why it is so.

No--you're wrong about that, too.

If I say, "I am frustrated with what I see as your obstinate refusal to admit that you're wrong"; and I am, in fact, frustrated with what I see as your obstinate refusal to admit that you're wrong; then it is so.

No argument is needed. It's just the case.

That is far different than saying the argument is "naive" and leaving it at that. I could just as easily proclaim frustration at your own "obstinance". However, I intend to be civil here--I do not appreciate arguments dissolving into name-calling and rage. But were we to engage in such, it would not be a matter of logic, but emotion--not reason, but pure subjectivity.

 

[CaptainCanada]

And the FDA sure helped a lot, didn't it?

Yes, it did. Food is infinitely safer now than it was prior to the FDA (and similar agencies, in other countries) regulating it, and if food regulations were to be rescinded, food quality would crater.

Then there are those want to get rid of the EPA (and similar agencies), apparently envious of China's air quality.

 

[Allyn Gibson]

You didn't actually address the question. Why is it anyone's duty to take care of anyone else?

It depends on their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise. For Christians, it's a biblical duty. For family, it's family.

Yet Christianity and Objectivism are fundamentally incompatible philosophies, and you're assuming that Christian charity will still exist and thrive in an Objectivist environment.

This quote from Andrew Sullivan highlights the problem of Christian/Objectivist co-existence:

[It] is impossible even in one's personal life to be a Christian and to be a Randian. The whole point of the Gospels is that Rand's value system leads to profound misery and spiritual loss. And the whole point of Rand is that Nietzsche was onto something.

 

[Rush Limborg]

And the FDA sure helped a lot, didn't it?

Yes, it did. Food is infinitely safer now than it was prior to the FDA (and similar agencies, in other countries) regulating it, and if food regulations were to be rescinded, food quality would crater.

Then there are those want to get rid of the EPA (and similar agencies), apparently envious of China's air quality.

If that were the case, would it not be more reasonable (now I'm transitioning from "defender of Ayn Rand" to "Constitutional Conservative") to, instead of having a federal bureaucracy, turn this authority to the states?

With it closer to the people, red tape is more easily weeded out--and efficiency is increased.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Look at the Reagan era.

Charitable donations went up as taxes went down--as the more money in people's pockets, the more likely it becomes that they have money to give--and when you compare all the waste inherent in government bureaucracy--all the money spent going back-and-forth--and when you observe that charity money goes directly to programs helping those worse off...the evidence speaks. Efficiency is everything.

You didn't actually address the question. Why is it anyone's duty to take care of anyone else?

It depends on their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise. For Christians, it's a biblical duty. For family, it's family. It's "duty" in the sense of "out of the goodness of one's heart", not "duty" in the sense of "your money is theirs by right".

Frankly...your question is more appropriately asked of advocates of the dole--who say it's our duty to give against our will, regardless of what one's beliefs advocate.

No, the question is more appropriately asked of you, as you suggested it. When the Free Market won't provide, you said, the Church and family have a duty. I'm following up on YOUR logic, on YOUR reasoning.

So, again, why have you, as a Randian, suggested there is some duty to help someone in your family? Where is the "enlightened self interest" in doing something out "the goodness of one's heart"?

 

[Rush Limborg]

And the FDA sure helped a lot, didn't it?

Yes, it did. Food is infinitely safer now than it was prior to the FDA (and similar agencies, in other countries) regulating it, and if food regulations were to be rescinded, food quality would crater.

Then there are those want to get rid of the EPA (and similar agencies), apparently envious of China's air quality.

You didn't actually address the question. Why is it anyone's duty to take care of anyone else?

It depends on their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise. For Christians, it's a biblical duty. For family, it's family.

Yet Christianity and Objectivism are fundamentally incompatible philosophies, and you're assuming that Christian charity will still exist and thrive in an Objectivist environment.

This quote from Andrew Sullivan highlights the problem of Christian/Objectivist co-existence:

[It] is impossible even in one's personal life to be a Christian and to be a Randian. The whole point of the Gospels is that Rand's value system leads to profound misery and spiritual loss. And the whole point of Rand is that Nietzsche was onto something.

"The whole point of the Gospels is that Rand's value system..."?

Rand wasn't even alive when the Gospels first came out.



And with all due respect to Mr. Sullivan, Rand, contrary to apparently popular belief, considered Neitzsche "a mystic and an irrationallist". She only liked his poetry concering the potential of mankind--and even that admiration was limited.


Now--so that there will not be any misunderstanding--I am not an Objectivist, per se. I firmly disagree with her atheism, and the elements of her ethics which result from that. Nontheless, her defense of Capitalism on moral gounds is such that her failings, frankly, pale by comparison.

I am a Randian on political issues, not personal, per se. And yes, you can make such a distinction.

 

[Rush Limborg]

You didn't actually address the question. Why is it anyone's duty to take care of anyone else?

It depends on their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise. For Christians, it's a biblical duty. For family, it's family. It's "duty" in the sense of "out of the goodness of one's heart", not "duty" in the sense of "your money is theirs by right".

Frankly...your question is more appropriately asked of advocates of the dole--who say it's our duty to give against our will, regardless of what one's beliefs advocate.

No, the question is more appropriately asked of you, as you suggested it. When the Free Market won't provide, you said, the Church and family have a duty. I'm following up on YOUR logic, on YOUR reasoning.

So, again, why have you, as a Randian, suggested there is some duty to help someone in your family? Where is the "enlightened self interest" in doing something out "the goodness of one's heart"?

Ever seen It's A Wonderful Life--specifically, the final scene? When you help others out of the goodness of your heart, you encourage those around you to do as much for you.

It actually is a "marketplace", of sorts--goodwill from you to them, for goodwill from them to you.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

I firmly disagree with her atheism, and the elements of her ethics which result from that.

Her system of ethics is based in atheism. They are not separable, no matter how comfortable that notion might make selfish people who are unwilling to do without the irrational but reassuring promises of religion.

Have you actually read her work, or simply read about it?

 

[IndyJones]

(Though, I do have to say, it's HILARIOUS: there would be more charities if the government didn't "corner the market".... because charity is such a profitable business.... Even the FREE MARKET RULES CHARITY....

And to add to that: Since the social safety net was developed to provide a basic minimum level of support to our citizens, a level of support that wasn't being met before implementation, why are we to believe that private charities would now be able to as extensively cover us as the government programs?

 

[Rush Limborg]

I firmly disagree with her atheism, and the elements of her ethics which result from that.

Her system of ethics is based in atheism. They are not separable, no matter how comfortable that notion might make selfish people who are unwilling to do without the irrational but reassuring promises of religion.

Indeed?

Have you actually read her work, or simply read about it?

I have read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, Anthem, We The Living, and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal.

 

[Rush Limborg]

(Though, I do have to say, it's HILARIOUS: there would be more charities if the government didn't "corner the market".... because charity is such a profitable business.... Even the FREE MARKET RULES CHARITY....

And to add to that: Since the social safety net was developed to provide a basic minimum level of support to our citizens, a level of support that wasn't being met before implementation, why are we to believe that private charities would now be able to as extensively cover us as the government programs?

It wasn't being met because of the Depression. Prior to that, the unemployment rate was 1.8%

 

[Allyn Gibson]

Yet Christianity and Objectivism are fundamentally incompatible philosophies, and you're assuming that Christian charity will still exist and thrive in an Objectivist environment.

This quote from Andrew Sullivan highlights the problem of Christian/Objectivist co-existence:

[It] is impossible even in one's personal life to be a Christian and to be a Randian. The whole point of the Gospels is that Rand's value system leads to profound misery and spiritual loss. And the whole point of Rand is that Nietzsche was onto something.

"The whole point of the Gospels is that Rand's value system..."?

Rand wasn't even alive when the Gospels first came out.

You need to click the link, Rush. I only posted Sullivan's conclusion. You need to read the argument that leads up to his conclusion.

Now--so that there will not be any misunderstanding--I am not an Objectivist, per se. I firmly disagree with her atheism, and the elements of her ethics which result from that. Nontheless, her defense of Capitalism on moral grounds is such that her failings, frankly, pale by comparison.

Which is why you need to read Sullivan. Rand's capitalism is incompatible with Christian morality. If you're a Christian, you can't hold Randian beliefs. If you're a Randian, you're not a Christian.

 

[Professor Zoom]

It depends on their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise. For Christians, it's a biblical duty. For family, it's family. It's "duty" in the sense of "out of the goodness of one's heart", not "duty" in the sense of "your money is theirs by right".

Frankly...your question is more appropriately asked of advocates of the dole--who say it's our duty to give against our will, regardless of what one's beliefs advocate.

No, the question is more appropriately asked of you, as you suggested it. When the Free Market won't provide, you said, the Church and family have a duty. I'm following up on YOUR logic, on YOUR reasoning.

So, again, why have you, as a Randian, suggested there is some duty to help someone in your family? Where is the "enlightened self interest" in doing something out "the goodness of one's heart"?

Ever seen It's A Wonderful Life--specifically, the final scene? When you help others out of the goodness of your heart, you encourage those around you to do as much for you.

It actually is a "marketplace", of sorts--goodwill from you to them, for goodwill from them to you.

Oh, I see. So, it's not a DUTY, it's again the MARKET PLACE.

What if there isn't ANYTHING that person can ever do for you?

And that's not exactly the definition of charity, I'll do good for you, you'll do good for me later. Yeah, that's paying for it.

Have you actually read her work, or simply read about it?

He just ignored the parts that were icky.

 

[Gaith]

.



​

Midas Mulligan.

Who are you??

Someone who knows what it’s like to
work for himself and not let others feed
off the profits of his energy.

​

 

[Goliath]

That is far different than saying the argument is "naive" and leaving it at that. I could just as easily proclaim frustration at your own "obstinance". However, I intend to be civil here--I do not appreciate arguments dissolving into name-calling and rage. But were we to engage in such, it would not be a matter of logic, but emotion--not reason, but pure subjectivity.

There's no name-calling or rage here.

In fact--all that's going on here is your continued refusal to admit that you were wrong. And your attempt to disguise this fact by talking about something else.

If you often display this level of intellectual dishonesty, while at the same time talking piously about "logic" and "reason", then I wouldn't be surprised if you often find yourself the target of name-calling and rage.

But let's get back on topic.

1. You were using the term "ad hominem" wrongly. An ad hominem is more than just name-calling: it's an informal fallacy. If it's not an argument--if it's just a remark--then it's not an ad hominem.

2. In your response, you made a sloppy, sweeping generalization about proof: namely, that people must supply rational arguments to back up what they say. When in fact, quite often, no such arguments are necessary--only empirical observation.

If you want to resolve our disgreement, all you have to do is post something like this:

You're right. I was mistaken about ad hominems, and I should have been more precise in my response. My bad.

It's a trivial thing. Most people would do it without a second thought. You could even take a lot of the sting out of this admission by accusing me of pedantry.

But I'm willing to bet money that you won't do it. I think your self-image depends too heavily on being always right, in your own eyes.

Prove me wrong.

 

[David cgc]

Frankly...your question is more appropriately asked of advocates of the dole--who say it's our duty to give against our will, regardless of what one's beliefs advocate.

It's not against one's will. You consent to paying taxes by living in a place with a social order in which taxes are collected. Moreover, you consent to paying taxes by paying taxes.

If it was against your will, you wouldn't do it, either by emigrating somewhere more to your liking, or refusing to pay taxes and accepting the societally imposed consequences as a protest. It's not out of the question. Einstein left Germany. Rosa Parks went to jail. Nelson Mandella took up arms, then went to jail. Nathan Hale was hanged publicly. What the hell have you done recently? What did Rand ever do?

If it's so abominable, why aren't you doing something about it?

Rand's capitalism is incompatible with Christian morality. If you're a Christian, you can't hold Randian beliefs. If you're a Randian, you're not a Christian.

Ah, but you're using an obsolete definition of Christianity. The giveaway is the phrase "Christian morality." Being a Christian doesn't have anything to do with morality, it has to do with volunteering to take part in the transaction wherein God accepted the life of Jesus, taken by violence, in exchange for not damning everyone who ever lived for our abominable human natures. To butcher Hillel the Elder, "No one shall come to the Father except through belief in Christ Jesus; that is the whole Bible. The rest is commentary."

I think I need to wash my hands after typing that last paragraph. The whole thing makes me sick.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Have you actually read her work, or simply read about it?

He just ignored the parts that were icky.

The parts that are uncomfortable.

I'm not as completely dismissive of Rand's arguments as most people here are. She wasn't wrong in all that she observed about people and the unhappy ways that we bully one another; she was irredeemably guilty of contempt prior to investigation and her overarching "philosophy" is therefore at least half anchored in a quicksand of ignorance about the very sciences that she upheld as ideals and about the alternative beliefs that she considered repressive.

But what the fuck - enough human beings have taken Marx seriously as a thinker that there must be some tiny room in the pantheon of modern follies for Ayn. At least far fewer people, if any, have died in her name.