Objectivism

[Mal12345]

I have no idea how that kind of thing happens. What does mean being out there? Why do you have to get your hands dirty?

I am afraid there is some kind of misunderstanding here. J never counted his money, he never made connections. I do not think it would have occured to him ever to think about money. He did not make the connections his family already had.

It is all about family and connections, you see. It is the family that has the connections. You cannot connect on your own. You do not phone your father and say, hey father, connect Mr X, I need a job.
You do not need a job, or money. The family has the connections that do provide all and everything before you need it.

Hitler asked Mussolini why he doesn't have Ciano shot. Mussolini said: La famiglia..
And Hitler did not get it. He did not have a decent family of his own.

"Get his hands dirty" is a slang expression that apparently doesn't exist where you live. It means he's out there working, he's not just standing around supervising. How does that happen? He wants it that way. He's the owner and he can do the actual work if he wants to because his business belongs to him, not to the government. As the owner, nobody is going to tell him what to do. Just before I left there, my boss, the big important millionaire, was doing truck driving work.

In the US it's not all about family and connections. It can be. But that's not generally how it works, and it doesn't have the force of culture behind it.

 

[wildcat]

Because charity is, and historically has been, the single most effective way a community provides for itself. It understands the needs of the people in the community and isn't hindered by a federal prescription. Capitalism is an economic concept, not necessarily a social one. Just because we're cutthroat in business doesn't mean we can't be charitable in the way we spend our fortunes.

People also forget the freedom and importance of persuasion in a capitalist society. It's not WRONG to be want to give your money to a Holocaust memorial after seeing Schindler's List, for example, or wanting to send money to the Peace Corps for people in Afghanistan. She doesn't say it's wrong to give to others, in fact she supported her husband with the income from her novels. Ayn Rand was very clear that if it makes you happy, it's perfectly natural to give to others. If a loved one needs a kidney transplant and you can be a donor, it's absolutely natural to want to do it. In her example, if your husband needs a kidney transplant and your neighbor's husband needs a kidney transplant, it's "altruistic" to give to your neighbor's husband because giving to your own husband would be selfish in the sense that it makes you happy while your neighbor suffers the loss of her husband. In that scenario, selfishness is providing for the person who makes you happy over someone you honestly don't care about it. It's not being TRULY selfish and keeping your kidneys to go out and spend the transplant money on a night of drinking and partying at a strip club. So it's not that you have to be completely, 100% selfish and not care about anyone at all ever. Just like she goes out to redefine selfishness as the natural self-interest we have in our own condition and survival, selfish love is love that makes us truly happy. So she just argues against altruism, against the social pressures that you HAVE to do those things. If you're persuaded by something to do it, then it's completely okay to do it.

In fact, there's greater freedom for those sorts of things because there isn't red tape to fight through in order to make charitable donations. But there will always be people who are parents of or friends of or relatives of mentally handicapped people, so there will always be a capable fraction of the population to fight on behalf of their interests. And, by persuading others, they can receive donations to help care for more people. It's viral that way. It doesn't need to be written into a tax code, right?

It's partially because I AM such a firm believer in the power of persuasion that I have faith in the general public. Or even companies. There are a number of companies who gain business because they can advertise their own donations. Dawn for example, and their commercials about helping to save animals during oil spills. And don't even try to tell me Sarah McLachlan hasn't raked in donations from her commercials for the ASPCA lol

Just because capitalism creates a more active marketplace doesn't mean we can't be persuaded to share some of what we have with others. We're far more likely to spread our own wealth around when we don't feel pressured by the government to pay taxes that are already allocated for other people.

But even if it isn't completely effective, neither are other methods. Taking mentally handicapped people who don't have caregivers and throwing them into public mental health facilities is practically inhumane. The conditions there are as bad as prisons

I am afraid it is a way worse than prisons. They could take perfectly normal children who actually have a caregiver, and throw them into church/state mental health institutions. That is because of the moralism. The mothers have erred: they have sinned. The children are judged and they are deprived all human rights.
Thou sinner! State/Church is beyond critisism. What happened or happens behind closed walls? In Scandinavia, Ireland. Maybe in your country.
The mentally handicapped and their families are devoid of human rights. Many die, out of neglect and abuse. It is a moral attitude. It is not about money.

 

[wildcat]

"Get his hands dirty" is a slang expression that apparently doesn't exist where you live. It means he's out there working, he's not just standing around supervising. How does that happen? He wants it that way. He's the owner and he can do the actual work if he wants to because his business belongs to him, not to the government. As the owner, nobody is going to tell him what to do. Just before I left there, my boss, the big important millionaire, was doing truck driving work.

In the US it's not all about family and connections. It can be. But that's not generally how it works, and it doesn't have the force of culture behind it.

Wasps and Little Italy. Bush and Corleone. Yes, it can be.

 

[wildcat]

I don't think that's the reason why. It's more than the predator thinks survival of the fittest is the universal law... position in life determines belief.

(I tried to haiku this, I have no talent. Verily, I am a cultural leech.)

Thank you.
Position determines belief..
That is why W. Somerset Maugham gave up the religion of his Reverend uncle.
He was discussing religion with other students in Heidelberg, 1889.
It suddenly occured to him that people's belief is conditioned by the time and the place.
Position in life.

How do we know what is the right religion?
We know what the right religion is because we were born where the right religion is preached.
And the practitioners of the other religions were not born where the right religion is preached?

Any belief system is logically inadept.

 

[Mal12345]

I don't think that's the reason why. It's more than the predator thinks survival of the fittest is the universal law... position in life determines belief.

Are you comparing humans to animals (predators)? Animals have no cultural context. It is also possible to question belief instead of being merely determined by culture or position in life or what-have-you.

Europeans have no concept of self-reliance. Their culture doesn't allow for it. The socialist welfare state doesn't allow for it. But that doesn't mean Wildcat can't come to an understanding of the fact that America is different. I have been surrounded by people who believe in individualism and self-reliance. (That doesn't mean they don't love their families and their country.) Self-reliance is easy to grasp in concept, even if he can't ever know what it means on a more personal level. It means "Fuck you, welfare state!" or "Fuck you, culture of egalitarianism and boring sameness!"

 

[Mal12345]

Thank you.
Position determines belief..
That is why W. Somerset Maugham gave up the religion of his Reverend uncle.
He was discussing religion with other students in Heidelberg, 1889.
It suddenly occured to him that people's belief is conditioned by the time and the place.
Position in life.

W. Somerset Maugham was not determined by position in life. He took an entirely different course in life.

Who or what determines the idea that position determines belief?

 

[wildcat]

W. Somerset Maugham was not determined by position in life. He took an entirely different course in life.

Who or what determines the idea that position determines belief?

Yes. This is what I said.
He took an entirely different course in life.
The conversation in Heidelberg opened his eyes.
This is the whole point. And there is the answer to your question.
Who or what determines the idea position determines belief?
Authority. Father figurlines.

Willie escaped the shadow of his uncle.
Nobody and nothing determined the idea to him any more.
On the bank of the Rhine, he became free.

 

[ptgatsby]

Are you comparing humans to animals (predators)?

No. We talked about what I meant earlier;

Lastly, I am not saying that all objectivists are rich, I'm saying that rich objectivists can and do use objectivism as justification for their position in life.

Europeans have no concept of self-reliance. Their culture doesn't allow for it. The socialist welfare state doesn't allow for it.

This is blind ideology and false. In my travels around the world, the only thing that this exemplifies is my experience with Americans.

But that doesn't mean Wildcat can't come to an understanding of the fact that America is different. I have been surrounded by people who believe in individualism and self-reliance.

America is different, and unique, in this regard. I consider it negative after experiencing the alternatives.

Self-reliance is easy to grasp in concept, even if he can't ever know what it means on a more personal level. It means "Fuck you, welfare state!" or "Fuck you, culture of egalitarianism and boring sameness!"

I don't think you can see how others would see these lines because these are core truths to you. You probably will find that the majority of the world would roll their eyes at it, however.

 

[Mal12345]

Yes. This is what I said.
He took an entirely different course in life.
The conversation in Heidelberg opened his eyes.
This is the whole point. And there is the answer to your question.
Who or what determines the idea position determines belief?
Authority. Father figurlines.

Willie escaped the shadow of his uncle.
Nobody and nothing determined the idea to him any more.
On the bank of the Rhine, he became free.

And Ayn Rand escaped the shadow of her upbringing and Russian cultural milieu. She emigrated to a country where family, connections, and political pull didn't have absolute authority over her life.

You're just looking for someone to validate your belief system. But a belief is nothing more than opinion hardened through experience.

Ayn Rand didn't inform me of very much, but she did reveal to me the stark contradiction lying between European and American values, the "ungulfable bridge" between distinct cultural values. Living in a country that values liberty, we don't have to be limited to our family or cultural background. And we don't have much concept of "old money." America hasn't been around long enough to have it. Only my ex-boss, who is second-generation Dutch, believes in such nonsense as strong authoritarian traditional values. "If you ain't Dutch, you ain't much." (Edit - I stated "only" because I have only very rarely met this type of European attitude here in America.)

 

[Mal12345]

No. We talked about what I meant earlier;





This is blind ideology and false. In my travels around the world, the only thing that this exemplifies is my experience with Americans.



America is different, and unique, in this regard. I consider it negative after experiencing the alternatives.



I don't think you can see how others would see these lines because these are core truths to you. You probably will find that the majority of the world would roll their eyes at it, however.

I'm not asking the majority of the world to relinquish their cultural values. My task here is to convince Wildcat that there actually IS an alternative, not that it is the right or wrong alternative. Now you're going down the road of right v. wrong. That's not the point.

And anyway, what happened to cultural relativism? It doesn't apply to America? OIC.

 

[Lark]

Objectivism hates America and makes the baby Jesus cry.

 

[ptgatsby]

I'm not asking the majority of the world to relinquish their cultural values. My task here is to convince Wildcat that there actually IS an alternative, not that it is the right or wrong alternative. Now you're going down the road of right v. wrong. That's not the point.

And anyway, what happened to cultural relativism? It doesn't apply to America? OIC.

- I don't see where I said I was a (cultural) relativist and I'm certainly not the way you are projecting me to be
- I reject your viewpoint on your European "culture", self reliance and so forth as incorrect/biased
- I am not part of your conversation with Wildcat and there is no need to clump me with him; I entered because I disagreed/clarified something Wildcat said.
- I stated nothing about relinquishing cultural values

 

[Mal12345]

- I don't see where I said I was a (cultural) relativist and I'm certainly not the way you are projecting me to be
- I reject your viewpoint on your European "culture", self reliance and so forth as incorrect/biased
- I am not part of your conversation with Wildcat and there is no need to clump me with him; I entered because I disagreed/clarified something Wildcat said.
- I stated nothing about relinquishing cultural values

"America is different, and unique, in this regard. I consider it negative after experiencing the alternatives."

"I consider it" constitutes an opinion. Opinions are irrelevant.
"I reject" is based on an opinion. Opinions are irrelevant.

You made yourself part of our conversation whether you know it or not.

 

[ptgatsby]

"America is different, and unique, in this regard. I consider it negative after experiencing the alternatives."

"I consider it" constitutes an opinion. Opinions are irrelevant.
"I reject" is based on an opinion. Opinions are irrelevant.

You made yourself part of our conversation whether you know it or not.

I'm not sure I'm evening having a conversation with you, TBH. I'm not hiding my opinion. It is neither yours or Wildcat's. If you do believe opinions are irrelevant and given that I am unlikely to go any work for this kind of a thread, I'll just leave you two cats in a bag to your devices.

 

[wildcat]

Objectivism hates America and makes the baby Jesus cry.

Exactly.
The Americans deserve better.

 

[wildcat]

Are you comparing humans to animals (predators)? Animals have no cultural context. It is also possible to question belief instead of being merely determined by culture or position in life or what-have-you.

Europeans have no concept of self-reliance. Their culture doesn't allow for it. The socialist welfare state doesn't allow for it. But that doesn't mean Wildcat can't come to an understanding of the fact that America is different. I have been surrounded by people who believe in individualism and self-reliance. (That doesn't mean they don't love their families and their country.) Self-reliance is easy to grasp in concept, even if he can't ever know what it means on a more personal level. It means "Fuck you, welfare state!" or "Fuck you, culture of egalitarianism and boring sameness!"

When the Culture of Europe became a boring sameness?
The Hapsburgs of Austria created the walfare state long before diversity ended.
Bismarck followed suit.
Austria emancipated the Jews. Bismarck followed suit.
Hitler in Vienna received money from two coffins of the state treasury.
Eighty percent of tax money came from Jewish industrial centers.
Krakow, Lodz, Budapest, Prague, Bratislava.

A true European, was Nick. No concept of self reliance.
He had made a promise to his father.
I shall defend the faith.
The Russian secret police found a nut who pulled the trigger. Nick was so happy.
Serbia is Orthodox land.

Nick did not want war, though. It all came all out of hand.
He had offered an excuse to Cousin Wilhelm. It was too late.
Cousin Wilhelm was adamant. He had wanted Flanders as much as Nick had wanted Serbia.
The people of Flanders were good Protestants. They defended the true faith.
A family quarrel began.

 

[Mal12345]

Exactly.
The Americans deserve better.

'Better' = Socialism.

Objectivism, strictly interpreted, means a return to the Industrial Era. And that's not happening anyway.

Right now the American system is more of a corporate fascist-welfare state. Americans are rejecting corporate fascism in favor of socialism because they don't know of any better options. The people of Europe don't know better, neither do the voting American immigrants who have come out of socialist states. They don't know better because they haven't been taught better. And there are schools in America where anti-Capitalism is directly taught as a great evil. They aren't given a chance to think freely about the issue, the context given them is a-historical. Propaganda education teaches a black-and-white view. Forcing merely two viewpoints down people's throats, one "good" and the other "evil," isn't giving them much room for debate. It's just the usual simplistic Marxist view of society - rich vs. poor. But in Marx's time and place there was no middle class, no concept that wealth is created, no concept that money has to be earned, not much to go on at all except for his immediate cultural context which was primitive. A return to Marx is a return to the same primitivism he saw all around him.

 

[Lark]

'Better' = Socialism.

Objectivism, strictly interpreted, means a return to the Industrial Era. And that's not happening anyway.

Right now the American system is more of a corporate fascist-welfare state. Americans are rejecting corporate fascism in favor of socialism because they don't know of any better options. The people of Europe don't know better, neither do the voting American immigrants who have come out of socialist states. They don't know better because they haven't been taught better. And there are schools in America where anti-Capitalism is directly taught as a great evil. They aren't given a chance to think freely about the issue, the context given them is a-historical. Propaganda education teaches a black-and-white view. Forcing merely two viewpoints down people's throats, one "good" and the other "evil," isn't giving them much room for debate. It's just the usual simplistic Marxist view of society - rich vs. poor. But in Marx's time and place there was no middle class, no concept that wealth is created, no concept that money has to be earned, not much to go on at all except for his immediate cultural context which was primitive. A return to Marx is a return to the same primitivism he saw all around him.

Its very obvious to me that you've not read any Marx. You should think about, a lot of people on Wall St. are.

 

[Mal12345]

Its very obvious to me that you've not read any Marx. You should think about, a lot of people on Wall St. are.

If you're saying that Marx is not a simple read, you're right. But his dialectical materialism is based on a simple social dichotomy.

 

[Lark]

If you're saying that Marx is not a simple read, you're right. But his dialectical materialism is based on a simple social dichotomy.

He's yet to be proven wrong about that, its part of what makes him popular with Wall St.

I'd also say that your representation of Marx and Marxism was totally mistaken, for one there were concepts about earning wealth and creation of wealth, they had been around for some time and had been tested, Marx's criticism of economics, which is fair and still stands, was that it had ceased to be any kind of scientific investigation and had become an ideology to serve special interests, which it is.

Objectivism is not the alternative to both socialism and corporatism, whatever its theoretical underpinnings may be any objectivist policy or reform or change begins frim the here and now and consequently will only ever serve to strengthen actual existing corporatism and financial power.

I dont believe that American people or emigrees to the states, or anyone at all pretty much in the world today, wants socialism or is voting for it, socialism has become nothing what so ever besides a prejorative term used by conservatives and capitalists.

What people want, I believe, are specific fixes to market failures, such as those associated with the delivery of health services, they also are not pleased by the power of finance or monopolists, that's what's wrong with corporations to most people in welfare-capitalism BTW as most companies or agencies public or private are run and structured the same way (ie managerialism prevails), to make a lie of popular sovereignty or democratic will. That's not socialism, not by a country mile. Its not even necessarily a mixed economy in any sense of that idea, ie either mixed industries and limited financial sector or mixed public and private market share in the economy, and a mixed economy is not socialism either, not by a country mile.

GDH Cole attacked the idea of creeping nationalisation/state ownership of firms in the economy and welfare were anything remotely like socialism a long, long time ago but no one was listening, certainly not free marketeers like Hayek whose ignorance of socialism was so great that he was capable of dedicating the road to serfdom to "socialists of all parties".