Reconsidering Rand's Ethics


starrynightlife

Recommended Posts

Homo philosophicus in dialogue:

A couple years later, being made fun of for that (ridiculed constantly for being a 'schoolmarm', etc.), my response to the assholes is:

1. Simply to call them assholes.

2. And tell them where to stick it.

(You can lie to yourself about it if you want, George, Michael, Brant, ND, Adam, etc., but that's exactly the sequence.)

> ...In your case there is the question of whether you have any vital organs above the ankles worth going for. [GHS]

Up yours, asshole.

Perhaps if you took ideas more seriously then I wouldn't mop the floor with you in debate, and then you wouldn't have to resort to ad hominem nearly as much as you do.

And perhaps if you didn't suffer from penis envy, perhaps the world would be a better place....

[To Ghs]: Finally! The Viagra kicking in is it? I thought you'd be at it all night. ("That's what she said...")

"A**hole"- "penis envy" - "Viagra kicking in" - fascinating how fast a discusssion about morality has taken a turn one would not necessarily expect in an ethics discussion - but such is life. ;)

Could it be that "Man" just cannot not fulfill the strict Objectivist demand of having to be 100 % rational all the time? :D

As for creating a special place here - frankly, guys, I'm not sure whether Gentlemen's corner would be the apt title. Maybe something like "The Saloon" would fit better.

Actually what happened is that we finally had a polite debate going, and then George lapses into an intrinsicist fit.

An "intrinsicist" fit?

Working with kids, I'm quite an expert on tantrums, but that type I have never met so far. :D

[To Bob_Mac]:

I wonder if somehow you equate "capitalism" with "social Darwinism" -- which Rand opposed -- and have never grasped her actual conception of "capitalism" as mutual trade to mutual advantage, both parties benefit.

Imo Capitalism is seen exclusively from an 'entrepreneurial' standpoint here.

But the concept also implies having others work for the capitalist employer who can make huge profit from their work.

I would neither want have others to work for me not would I want to work for any private business. I suppose it was my "selfishness" which led me to choose a public employer instead.

The Anglerfish is an organism with objective needs for life and Objectivist ethics says that if it had a choice it should pursue only values conducive to that end. Yet its sense organs and impulses seem entirely bent on living only to mate; this mating ritual consists of a slow death while melting into the female. A spectrum of less extreme examples appear allover the world of life.

That's correct. Imo "life" cannot be regarded as an organism's "ultimate goal or end" (for the "natural end" of an organism is the exact opposite of life).

Objectivism argues life needs an ultimate end, because a mess of ends is a metaphysical, epistemological impossibility.

Do you believe there is an "ultimate end" for life? If yes, how is one to imagine it?

Edited by Xray
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 270
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Pardon my skepticism, but you are usually so full of shit that I have my doubts as to whether you even know what Rothbard's basic argument for copyright is. It can easily be summarized in two or three sentences. Care to give it a try?

You can read Kinsella on your own. If you don't believe that he refuted Rothbard do a google search.

I didn't ask about about Kinsella. I asked you to summarize Rothbard's basic argument for copyright. Do you know what it is? If you read an article by Kinsella, you should. So what is Rothbard's argument? Or are you full of shit?

Ghs

So first you utterly fail at telling me where in Rand's "theory" of rights she contradicts her IP article, and now you ask me to summarize a very particular and easy to find argument of Rothbard's? That's pretty deranged George.

Shayne

I never said that Rand contradicts her theory of rights in her IP article. This is a figment of your substandard reading skills.

I figured you were faking it when you claimed to know something about Rothbard's theory of copyright. You are not a good liar, so I would suggest not trying it again.

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anything like a moderated 'Corner' possible, Michael, or are there objections in your mind?

In fact, here's an idea. We pay for the OL blogging feature and very few people use it. If I am not mistaken, an OL blogger can moderate comments to it. How's that for a moderated space for anyone interested?

Great idea. Thanks for the reminder -- I will revisit my blog and try to start a discussion on my issue of interest. I can lay out the standing OL rules and then invite comment . . . and see where it goes.

Next . . . I can take up a collection to pay to turn on the OL Chat feature. Maybe the bitchout snarkathons would be better played out there.

Or, better yet, I can open up a daily Chat on my own server.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anything like a moderated 'Corner' possible, Michael, or are there objections in your mind?

In fact, here's an idea. We pay for the OL blogging feature and very few people use it. If I am not mistaken, an OL blogger can moderate comments to it. How's that for a moderated space for anyone interested?

Great idea. Thanks for the reminder -- I will revisit my blog and try to start a discussion on my issue of interest. I can lay out the standing OL rules and then invite comment . . . and see where it goes.

Next . . . I can take up a collection to pay to turn on the OL Chat feature. Maybe the bitchout snarkathons would be better played out there.

Or, better yet, I can open up a daily Chat on my own server.

I plan to start charging fees for those who read my comments in various threads. I plan to charge more for keen insights, and roughly average prices for run of the mill efforts. This will obviously be based on an honor system, although I will likely hector free-loaders and others with a "looter mentality."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is anything like a moderated 'Corner' possible, Michael, or are there objections in your mind?

In fact, here's an idea. We pay for the OL blogging feature and very few people use it. If I am not mistaken, an OL blogger can moderate comments to it. How's that for a moderated space for anyone interested?

Great idea. Thanks for the reminder -- I will revisit my blog and try to start a discussion on my issue of interest. I can lay out the standing OL rules and then invite comment . . . and see where it goes.

Next . . . I can take up a collection to pay to turn on the OL Chat feature. Maybe the bitchout snarkathons would be better played out there.

Or, better yet, I can open up a daily Chat on my own server.

I plan to start charging fees for those who read my comments in various threads. I plan to charge more for keen insights, and roughly average prices for run of the mill efforts. This will obviously be based on an honor system, although I will likely hector free-loaders and others with a "looter mentality."

So much for moochers and looters. What about louche mooters?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm a pretty outspoken guy. On everything: Including people's mistakes as I see them.

I saw this earlier and I started wondering how long it would take for Phil to respond when someone else points out his mistakes as they see them, in a "pretty outspoken" way, of course.

Hmmmmm... let's see...

> ...In your case there is the question of whether you have any vital organs above the ankles worth going for. [GHS]

Up yours, asshole.

Woah!

:)

I wonder what the rationale of that is.

... my original response a couple years back was to ask for civility, to patiently explain why that's the right way to deal with people. To give a long, careful, detailed list of reasoning.

A couple years later, being made fun of for that (ridiculed constantly for being a 'schoolmarm', etc.), my response to the assholes is:

1. Simply to call them assholes.

2. And tell them where to stick it.

(You can lie to yourself about it if you want, George, Michael, Brant, ND, Adam, etc., but that's exactly the sequence.)

Somehow this seems like "getting even." Where did I hear that before?

Oh yeah. From here, on this very thread--in that very post above:

Oists don't take any criticism very well. What I've noticed happen is that if I criticized something you or ND or Brant or Adam did or said, it will lodge itself with you as a small kernel of resentment. And the person will look for any flaw to find in anything I say "to get theirs back".

Getting even is something we learn early.

. . .

And the 'grudges' stretch across post after post. No one bears a grudge longer than an outraged Objectivist.... :lol: )

Isn't that weird?

Geroge Smith made his very first post on this thread, Post No. 120 on this thread to be exact. It was a good-natured quip, smiley and all, practically begging for a quip right back. And let's see once again how Phil immediately responded to him, apparently carrying an outraged grudge from elsewhere...

I'm a pretty outspoken guy. On everything: Including people's mistakes as I see them. That's the real reason I am resented and have a handful of 'ankle-biters' waiting to pounce.

I have yet to encounter anyone, in whatever setting, who calls people's mistakes as he does not see them. Who is an ankle-biter and who is not is a matter of perspective. Moreover, in your case there is the question of whether you have any vital organs above the ankles worth going for. :rolleyes:

Up yours, asshole.

I guess the following statement explains it, added to everybody is out to get Phil, of course:

When I criticize something in a post it's because I honestly believe it is wrong or mistaken. And think it's an objectively important thing to mention.

:)

(I should stop. This is just too easy when the double standards are so in-your-face... :) )

I just can't enjoy ya'

Through my objective paranoia.

(All right, all right... that was lame. :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or, better yet, I can open up a daily Chat on my own server.

I plan to start charging fees for those who read my comments in various threads. I plan to charge more for keen insights, and roughly average prices for run of the mill efforts. This will obviously be based on an honor system, although I will likely hector free-loaders and others with a "looter mentality."

Do what Diana Hsieh does, and invite pledges (via Paypal). Seems to work for her. Now she gets no comments on her blog at all. Be that as it may, I would like to send you some money via Paypal so I can get pre-clearance to read your comments. I don't mind being hectored at all, at least not online. In real life, hectoring leads down that slippery slope to jeremiads, philippics and worse . . .

<a name="chat">**</a>

<IFRAME WIDTH="100%" HEIGHT="200px" SRC="http://www.vdoc.ca/chat/chatIndex.php" TITLE="Chat Test WSS">

<!-- Alternate content for non-supporting browsers -->

<H2>Your browser may not support this function</H2>

<H3>If you do not see a chat window appear, please go to this link:</H3>

<a href="http://www.vdoc.ca/chat/chatIndex.php">http://www.vdoc.ca/chat/chatIndex.php></a></IFRAME>

Edited by william.scherk
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do what Diana Hsieh does, and invite pledges (via Paypal). Seems to work for her. Now she gets no comments on her blog at all. Be that as it may, I would like to send you some money via Paypal so I can get pre-clearance to read your comments.

I don't know what Paypal is but if Phil does not Pay me for that dictionary when he gets it, he will no longer be my Pal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know what Paypal is but if Phil does not Pay me for that dictionary when he gets it, he will no longer be my Pal.

Paypal is a comapny the forwards your credit card payments to whoever you are buying from and who honors Paypal. it is a way of revealing your credit-card number to as few parties as possible. In theory, Paypal would be the only party who knows your credit-card number.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I don't know what Paypal is but if Phil does not Pay me for that dictionary when he gets it, he will no longer be my Pal.

Phil will Positively Pay you, Pal, else he will Posthaste have to Pick a Peck of Pickled Peppers. (Parcel Purveyance Presumably Provided By Post.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I don't know what Paypal is but if Phil does not Pay me for that dictionary when he gets it, he will no longer be my Pal.

Phil will Positively Pay you, Pal, else he will Posthaste have to Pick a Peck of Pickled Peppers. (Parcel Purveyance Presumably Provided By Post.)

Pickled Poutine Pour Philippe Please,Patent Pending.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the rules of politics taught to me by my mentor when I was sixteen in my first paid political campaign:

Rule 1. Cash in advance on the first day of the work week;

Rule 2. See rule one.

Works every time.

Also saves asinine alliteration.

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Follow the rules of politics taught to me by my mentor when I was sixteen in my first paid political campaign:

Rule 1. Cash in advance on the first day of the work week;

Rule 2. See rule one.

Works every time.

Also saves asinine alliteration.

Adam

C'mon Adam, you're just jealous you were off the thread and didn't get in your own asininity first!

Carol

serious from now on. trust me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

LACK OF CANADIAN CONTENT 1st warning

Please confirm that M. Renault ever visited or talked about Canada. A. Rand has known Canadian associations but was a non-communist Russian so she loses 3 points here. You know the rules.

Gerard Officieux

BB/Grandfrere Sector 13

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Pickled Poutine Pour Philippe Please,Patent Pending.

On ne doit pas donner de poutine a Philippe parce que il va "upchuck" si on met de tellement chose vraiment degoutant sur le table.

Merci.

(Does speaking bad French count as 'Canadian content'?)

Edited by Philip Coates
Link to comment
Share on other sites

> Pickled Poutine Pour Philippe Please,Patent Pending.

On ne doit pas donner de poutine a Philippe parce que il va "upchuck" si on met de tellement chose vraiment degoutant sur le table.

Merci.

(Does speaking bad French count as 'Canadian content'?)

Oui vraiment! You have saved us. Your reward will come in the edible linings for your parcel which you requested. All pre-chewed by our fine Ladies' Auxiliary and guaranteed by Papa's whole clientele.

Hint: it starts with a "p" but is not poutine, no, no.

Edited by daunce lynam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the idea was that it would be moderated by principle, not by a person. And I was hoping it could be self-policing for the most part, where if you point out what rule someone broke then they would be honor-bound to apologize and try not to do it again. So "hard" moderation would only be used for particularly egregious cases. Also I think it's important to have competing rules and not just one person's rules.

Moderation "by principle, not by a person" -- whatever the hell that means -- and moderation with "competing rules"? And if someone accuses you of breaking one of these competing rules, you are honor bound to apologize? And egregious cases -- as judged not by anyone in particular but by a principle -- would call for "hard" moderation?

Wonderful idea, Shayne, if you happen to like endless arguments about competing rules and who should apologize to whom. I won't even ask how a principle can "moderate" anything, because I'm afraid you might attempt an explanation.

Where does Shayne come up with this bilge?

Ghs

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the idea was that it would be moderated by principle, not by a person. And I was hoping it could be self-policing for the most part, where if you point out what rule someone broke then they would be honor-bound to apologize and try not to do it again. So "hard" moderation would only be used for particularly egregious cases. Also I think it's important to have competing rules and not just one person's rules.

Moderation "by principle, not by a person" -- whatever the hell that means -- and moderation with "competing rules"? And if someone accuses you of breaking one of these competing rules, you are honor bound to apologize? And egregious cases -- as judged not by anyone in particular but by a principle -- would call for "hard" moderation?

Wonderful idea, Shayne, if you happen to like endless arguments about competing rules and who should apologize to whom. I won't even ask how a principle can "moderate" anything, because I'm afraid you might attempt an explanation.

Where does Shayne come up with this bilge?

Ghs

And to think that the same species as you was able to work together and land on the moon...

You're pathetic George, truly pathetic.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, the idea was that it would be moderated by principle, not by a person. And I was hoping it could be self-policing for the most part, where if you point out what rule someone broke then they would be honor-bound to apologize and try not to do it again. So "hard" moderation would only be used for particularly egregious cases. Also I think it's important to have competing rules and not just one person's rules.

Moderation "by principle, not by a person" -- whatever the hell that means -- and moderation with "competing rules"? And if someone accuses you of breaking one of these competing rules, you are honor bound to apologize? And egregious cases -- as judged not by anyone in particular but by a principle -- would call for "hard" moderation?

Wonderful idea, Shayne, if you happen to like endless arguments about competing rules and who should apologize to whom. I won't even ask how a principle can "moderate" anything, because I'm afraid you might attempt an explanation.

Where does Shayne come up with this bilge?

Ghs

And to think that the same species as you was able to work together and land on the moon...

You're pathetic George, truly pathetic.

Shayne

RE: A NOTE FROM THE MODERATING PRINCIPLE

Dear Shayne:

This is to inform you that a complaint has been filed against you by Mr. George H. Smith. He alleges that you personally insulted him and that you are honor-bound to apologize.

According to the Digest of Competing Rules (chapter 3, sec. 8, para. 2), you are not permitted to use personal insults on OL.

The Complainant alleges that you explicitly violated this rule two times in your last post, to wit:

(1) You called Mr. Smith "pathetic."

(2) You called Mr. Smith "truly pathetic." (According to DCR 5.8.2., "repetitions and slight variations of the same insult shall be regarded as separate and distinct violations of 3.8.2." See, however, the competing rule at DCR 5.9.1: "Repetitions and slight variations of the same insult shall not be regarded as separate and distinct violations of 3.8.2.")

The Complainant further alleges that you violated the rule against "convoluted insults" (DCR 5.112.77) in your remark about the "same species." (See, however, DCR 5.112.79, according to which a convoluted insult must meet the standard of "minimal coherence" before it can be censured. But also see the competing rule at DCR 5.117.34, according to which "a manifest intent to insult shall be regarded as sufficient proof of an insult, even when the insult makes no sense.")

In the interest of fairness, the Moderating Principle wishes to point out that you have a possible basis for appeal, since Mr. Smith did use the derogatory word "bilge" in the post to which you were responding. This contingency, known as the Rule of Justified Retaliation, is stated in DCR 26.11.566.

The Complainant has argued, however, that his use of "bilge" was directed at your ideas, not at your person, so it does not fall within the scope of the above mentioned rule against personal insults at DCR 3.8.2.

In addition, the Complainant cited the "Contra Anarchy Rule" at DCR 4.99.21, according to which parties who feel they have been insulted "are not permitted to engage in vigilante justice," but must instead file a formal complaint with the Moderating Principle for adjudication.

Nevertheless, if you wish to appeal the charges against you, please fill out form #312/76 and post it on OL within 24 hours. The Moderating Principle will consider your appeal and notify you of its final verdict within another 24 hours.

Should you not appeal the charges, or should your appeal be rejected, you will be required, as a matter of personal honor, to apologize to Mr. Smith within 24 hours. According to the "Rule of Proportionality" (DCR 36.13.13), three or more insults in one post require a "profuse apology" (defined in 36.13.14 as "begging for absolution.")

It is imperative that you resolve this matter immediately so that OL can remain exceedingly polite. Should you neglect this matter or fail to resolve it satisfactorily, you will be subject to "hard moderation." According to DCR 26.54.2, this means that you will be executed by a firing squad, and your next of kin will be charged for the cost of the bullets.

Signed,

The Moderating Principle

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now the floor has been swept clean.

Nice job George. Your satire exposes so many of the errors of one person, or group's desires to establish "rules" and force conformity.

One of the messy aspects of folk's perception of anarchy, and/or mini-anarchy is the fear of what an individual with freedom might do.

This fear is justified to a serious degree as Michael and others, including yourself, have referenced numerous times.

As you have noted, most of us would be more that happy to live in a limited Constitutional structure with no progressive tax structure.

At any rate, thanks for the early morning laugh,

Adam

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Adam, it would be good satire if it were actually relevant to what I'd advocated.

But I did not advocate uniform rules across OL, I advocated an experiment, where somebody could start a thread and specify that it's subject to certain rules. All this energy George is putting in to derail an idea that has little chance of being tried anyway is convincing me that it's probably quite a lot better an idea than I'd originally thought.

George tries to paint this like it'd be impossible to follow certain rules, but really, how hard would it be to avoid ad hominem? Or to refrain from changing the subject to something irrelevant (of course, banning ad hominem would eliminate most of this, because most of the time the subject is changed to some new attack on someone). Nobody advocated a litany of legal codes.

That's why I mention that it's amazing that human beings both got to the moon and produce someone as thick-headed as George. It's just not that complicated to do what I'm suggesting. If George were on the original NASA team, he would have demoralized them in two weeks listing all the ways that it was impossible to do anything because, he would imagine, that no one could ever work together to the same purpose.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of demoralizing, if you wanted to derail an intellectual movement for liberty, it seems to me that putting people like George in leadership positions is a really great idea. Just think of all the youthful energy he could divert and squash. Any new idea would be treated with mockery and sarcasm, and if he couldn't demoralize the young fellow he'd do whatever he could to demoralize anyone else who might be wanting to consider what new ideas the person has in mind.

And anarchy. No one ever invented a better way to divert the youth into a politically futile activity. In fact, if I were some old guy in a position of political power, and I wanted these young upstarts to just stay the hell out of my way, I'd make sure that anarchy in some form was well advertised and funded. There's no better way to get someone to politically cut off their nose to spite their face than anarchy.

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of demoralizing, if you wanted to derail an intellectual movement for liberty, it seems to me that putting people like George in leadership positions is a really great idea. Just think of all the youthful energy he could divert and squash. Any new idea would be treated with mockery and sarcasm, and if he couldn't demoralize the young fellow he'd do whatever he could to demoralize anyone else who might be wanting to consider what new ideas the person has in mind.

And anarchy. No one ever invented a better way to divert the youth into a politically futile activity. In fact, if I were some old guy in a position of political power, and I wanted these young upstarts to just stay the hell out of my way, I'd make sure that anarchy in some form was well advertised and funded. There's no better way to get someone to politically cut off their nose to spite their face than anarchy.

Shayne

George simply cares not a whit for any kind of moderation, but he's quite willing to think up as many ways as he can to so express himself. It's just his way to keep his engine turning over. All this falderol for no more basic reason. You don't put the Georges of this world into leadership positions and they never submit to domestication or wearing collars: two sides of the same coin. Ad hominem for him is only water off the duck's back and he could care less if it's different for you; he's not giving up his watergun; it's too much fun. There's some kind of pseudo-intellectual sadomasochistic relationship going on here, but it's gotten old for the audience.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Speaking of demoralizing, if you wanted to derail an intellectual movement for liberty, it seems to me that putting people like George in leadership positions is a really great idea. Just think of all the youthful energy he could divert and squash. Any new idea would be treated with mockery and sarcasm, and if he couldn't demoralize the young fellow he'd do whatever he could to demoralize anyone else who might be wanting to consider what new ideas the person has in mind.

And anarchy. No one ever invented a better way to divert the youth into a politically futile activity. In fact, if I were some old guy in a position of political power, and I wanted these young upstarts to just stay the hell out of my way, I'd make sure that anarchy in some form was well advertised and funded. There's no better way to get someone to politically cut off their nose to spite their face than anarchy.

Shayne

George simply cares not a whit for any kind of moderation, but he's quite willing to think up as many ways as he can to so express himself. It's just his way to keep his engine turning over. All this falderol for no more basic reason. You don't put the Georges of this world into leadership positions and they never submit to domestication or wearing collars: two sides of the same coin. Ad hominem for him is only water off the duck's back and he could care less if it's different for you; he's not giving up his watergun; it's too much fun. There's some kind of pseudo-intellectual sadomasochistic relationship going on here, but it's gotten old for the audience.

--Brant

Point taken. But I would say that that's not a great way to keep the engine turning over.

"I criticize by creation - not by finding fault." --Marcus Tullius Cicero

Shayne

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now