Myth of the Tyranny of the Majority

[Frediano]

Sorry, but Bacall smolders too much.

 

--Brant

Ingrid strikes me as best

 

Bette Davis' metamorphosis in 40's weepy "Now, Voyager."    Never has a 40's dame done so much with so little. She was not classically beautiful but she 'defied men not to find her attractive.'    I never understood Davis' star appeal until I saw that movie. She was incredible. I always associated Davis with her older scary dame roles.    The scene where Paul Henreid lights both their cigarettes and gives her one(cigarette)was improvised by Henreid and Davis(some controversy over that, close enough).    Became a classic 40's move.     He also starred with Ingrid in Casablanca. 

 

Mangled the last line of the movie in my head:  here it is, Bette Davis eyes and all:

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

I think Rand's view of Davis viz the role of Dominique was she'd do anything she damn well wanted--uncontrollable.

The same problem would obtain for the role of Dagny.

I haven't seen the two AS movies and have no plans to, but there are no roles there from the novel for Hollywood stars. No one not familiar with the novel would understand they weren't looking at ______ __________ instead of a character called John Galt. An exception could be Frisco.

The mediocre temptation in filming AS is to turn it into a herd of talking heads instead of dynamically enbracing the visuals. Because the construction of the John Galt Line leads inself naturally enough to those visuals, it's not so much a problem until the JGL is ruined by the government and Wyatt's Torch gets going. Then the dynamics would ironically compensate as for what goes on inside the story bogs down and keep the audience in their seats.

More generally, that's why I think AS qua movie might be better told backwards. It's interesting that the movie "Gone With the Wind" gets bogged down too in its second half.

--Brant

[Frediano]

From "Ayn Rand and Song of Russia: Communism and Anti-Communism in 1940's Hollywood"

"Rand was approached about writing a play based on We The Living. Bette Davis was interested in playing Kira Argounova, the heroine; unfortunately--and as an ominous sign of the times -- Davis backed out, on the advice of her agent, who told her that appearing in an anti-Soviet play would kill her career."

[SoAMadDeathWish]

That little bit of turn yourself inside out self-contradiction didn't take long. Just one post? Is it impolite for me to notice? Is Mr. Amazing No Short Term Memory-Itis really protected these days under the ADA?

Below are the choices that -you- originally provided. I was responding to the emperor like obviously between the choices that you asserted.

So, for example, let's say that A and B are two owners of two companies in a country with a high tax burden. Suppose that A has good lobbyists and friends in the government, and derives many benefits from the state, whereas B does not and must mainly rely on his own productivity. Additionally, B has the opportunity to move his business to one of two countries. One with a lower tax rate, where he can't influence the government, and another with the same lower tax rate but where he can influence the government. B will obviously choose the latter, and, therefore, that country, rather than attracting a "producer", just gets another "parasite". So we see that, just because B was productive under one set of circumstances, does not mean that he will remain that way under another set.

You claimed that, ceteris paribus w.r.t. low taxes, that B would 'obviously' choose the country with the government for sale, as if he believed he'd be the only person who would be able to influence the gang rape. WHat kind of producer is B? An idiot producer?

And now the Emperor wannabe genes are kicking in, and you are declaring closed season on fettered government.

Well no wonder.

And the premise of this thread is still that there are no such things as gang rapes in the world; they are a myth. And meanwhile, the tribal jungle is clawing back it's own over in the Ukraine.

Take heart; you never know; maybe the God That Failed was just taking a nap. Farming with oxen is tiring..

Uhh... no. Both countries that he can move to have people who are influencing the government there. B can choose to have some or zero influence. Even if he chooses the country where he has zero influence, there will still be people who have it and might use it against him. Obviously, he would choose more influence rather than less.

[anthony]

"Obviously". Speak for yourself. The above is what anyone lacking principle or conviction, would argue i.e. "logically".

But it takes conceptualizing - aka, Reason - volition and independence, to form and preserve one's principles.

Your logic does not crack it, Naomi.

It doesn't strike you that some men would refuse to take the purportedly easy route of influencing government for themselves - on uncompromising principle? Have you really read one word of Rand's? Do you not understand the difference between a utilitarian, go with the flow egotism -and rational egoism?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony,

People from an economic orientation use a model of human being called an "econ."

This is not a real human being and it only acts like human beings do sometimes in certain situations (usually ones where self-interest in presented as economic gain), but the economists make their fantasies based on their beloved "econ," then, if they are lucky enough to see their plans implemented, scratch their heads in wonder when people don't act the way they said.

Then they point fingers blaming this or that and put together more plans based on the "econ."

The problem laid out in the opening post "obviously" deals with three econs, not three human beings that are found in reality.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn-images.9cloud.us%2F93%2Fhedy_lamarr_904647905.jpg&imgrefurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpicc.it%2Fc%2Fartistic%2Fpictures%2Falbum%2Fclassic-screen-beauties_36755%2Fid%2F1298471%2F%40hedy_lamarr&h=523&w=454&tbnid=feRMsi4NXMRCnM%3A&zoom=1&docid=rQM8jmG07N4d5M&ei=zftTU5fLHpCZyATmgoG4Ag&tbm=isch&ved=0CF0QMygJMAk&iact=rc&uact=3&dur=229&page=1&start=0&ndsp=23

complete with cigarette.

If Dagny were Jewish, then Hedi Lamarre would have been the choice. Besides, Hedi was an electronics genius.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[SoAMadDeathWish]

"Obviously". Speak for yourself. The above is what anyone lacking principle or conviction, would argue i.e. "logically".

But it takes conceptualizing - aka, Reason - volition and independence, to form and preserve one's principles.

Your logic does not crack it, Naomi.

It doesn't strike you that some men would refuse to take the purportedly easy route of influencing government for themselves - on uncompromising principle? Have you really read one word of Rand's? Do you not understand the difference between a utilitarian, go with the flow egotism -and rational egoism?

Some? Sure. But even they will eventually learn to bend their principles the hard way or be ruined (unless they're extremely lucky). In my experience, people do the things they want to do, and then figure out the principles to justify their behavior afterward. (Rand herself was guilty of this on a number of occasions, i.e., smoking, accepting social security, and some other things) Heroes don't exist in reality.

Have you really read one word of Rand's? Do you not understand the difference between a utilitarian, go with the flow egotism -and rational egoism?

Yes. These are all normative theories. They only say how people should act, but are mostly silent on how they actually will act.

[Selene]

In my experience,

ms. naomi:

Finally, a measuring standard ... your experience versus mine...

Precisely, to the day, how many years of experience have you experienced?

A...

[SoAMadDeathWish]

In my experience,

ms. naomi:

Finally, a measuring standard ... your experience versus mine...

Precisely, to the day, how many years of experience have you experienced?

A...

22.

[Frediano]

That little bit of turn yourself inside out self-contradiction didn't take long. Just one post? Is it impolite for me to notice? Is Mr. Amazing No Short Term Memory-Itis really protected these days under the ADA?

Below are the choices that -you- originally provided. I was responding to the emperor like obviously between the choices that you asserted.

So, for example, let's say that A and B are two owners of two companies in a country with a high tax burden. Suppose that A has good lobbyists and friends in the government, and derives many benefits from the state, whereas B does not and must mainly rely on his own productivity. Additionally, B has the opportunity to move his business to one of two countries. One with a lower tax rate, where he can't influence the government, and another with the same lower tax rate but where he can influence the government. B will obviously choose the latter, and, therefore, that country, rather than attracting a "producer", just gets another "parasite". So we see that, just because B was productive under one set of circumstances, does not mean that he will remain that way under another set.

You claimed that, ceteris paribus w.r.t. low taxes, that B would 'obviously' choose the country with the government for sale, as if he believed he'd be the only person who would be able to influence the gang rape. WHat kind of producer is B? An idiot producer?

And now the Emperor wannabe genes are kicking in, and you are declaring closed season on fettered government.

Well no wonder.

And the premise of this thread is still that there are no such things as gang rapes in the world; they are a myth. And meanwhile, the tribal jungle is clawing back it's own over in the Ukraine.

Take heart; you never know; maybe the God That Failed was just taking a nap. Farming with oxen is tiring..

Uhh... no. Both countries that he can move to have people who are influencing the government there. B can choose to have some or zero influence. Even if he chooses the country where he has zero influence, there will still be people who have it and might use it against him. Obviously, he would choose more influence rather than less.

Oh, well then. In this increasingly jury rigged two choice world, the Emperor of What Can be has given producer B the choice between choosing a country where only -he- has zero influence, but where others can skin him alive via parasitic government, or a country where he can compete with others for the right to skin him alive. And in this artificial two choice universe is to be found some kind of enlightenment on the myth of the Tyranny of The Majority.

So what you originally meant(I couldn't really see the words in your original version of this enlightenment)is that, given the choice between a country where only he was placed on a rack, or a country where he had a chance to buy his way off the tribal rack, that of course this producer would choose the chance to buy his way off the rack.

You're doing a Hell of a job convincing me about the myth of the Tyranny of the Majority. No, seriously. You are.

This was pretty much what I gathered your predecessor flakes were talking about 30 years ago when I was fresh our of grad school. Turns out, those really aren't the only two choices available, except in some academic Disneyland of couldn't buy a clue if it was stapled to your ass and you were handed a flashlight.

.

[Brant Gaede]

Ayn Rand did write the play for "We the Living" called "The Unconquered." I saw two scripts in a NYC mid-town library years ago, one with a few Rand annotations. It's a library associated with that performing arts center built in the late 60s or very early 70s just off the SW corner of Central Park. I once went there to watch Marie Callas give a Master's class in opera-acting-projection. She corrected more than she explained the corrections.

--Brant

I think there was also a John Wayne film of the same title, different story--and it wasn't a western

[Selene]

In my experience,

ms. naomi:

Finally, a measuring standard ... your experience versus mine...

Precisely, to the day, how many years of experience have you experienced?

A...

22.

Correct.

I am 67.25.

Therefore, following your, am I too forward to assess your assinine assertion of "...your experience...," as a standard that you claim in your statement, to then take my perception of the issue as being

0.6728625 % better than yours?

A...

[Backlighting]

Sorry, but Bacall smolders too much.

--Brant

Ingrid strikes me as best

Brant, don't be sorry. She just doesn't smolder for me.

Rather, it's her slow burn I like.

-Joe

[Brant Gaede]

For a minute you had me.

--Brant

[anthony]

"Obviously". Speak for yourself. The above is what anyone lacking principle or conviction, would argue i.e. "logically".

But it takes conceptualizing - aka, Reason - volition and independence, to form and preserve one's principles.

Your logic does not crack it, Naomi.

It doesn't strike you that some men would refuse to take the purportedly easy route of influencing government for themselves - on uncompromising principle? Have you really read one word of Rand's? Do you not understand the difference between a utilitarian, go with the flow egotism -and rational egoism?

Some? Sure. But even they will eventually learn to bend their principles the hard way or be ruined (unless they're extremely lucky). In my experience, people do the things they want to do, and then figure out the principles to justify their behavior afterward. (Rand herself was guilty of this on a number of occasions, i.e., smoking, accepting social security, and some other things) Heroes don't exist in reality.

Have you really read one word of Rand's? Do you not understand the difference between a utilitarian, go with the flow egotism -and rational egoism?

Yes. These are all normative theories. They only say how people should act, but are mostly silent on how they actually will act.

Not much to say about that. You read, and couldn't grasp Rand.

The superfluities such as smoking are all you can take away.

Your *principles after the act* observance reveals more about yourself than about anyone else. If it were largely so of people, (and you probably wouldn't notice the individual exceptions, anyway) is it that craven cynicism which you'd condemn your own life to be? Sad.

"...They only say how people should act" - "but...silent on how they actually will act":

OK, principles are wasted on you, but maybe one simple (empirical) fact can sink in:

If any system CAN be slanted in your favor, it WILL be slanted against you, by other people - just as easily, and probably irrevocably. "Might is right" has been your constant inference - heh, only for the few minutes you may happen to have it. Just don't squeal when others have power over your life.

[anthony]

Tony,

People from an economic orientation use a model of human being called an "econ."

This is not a real human being and it only acts like human beings do sometimes in certain situations (usually ones where self-interest in presented as economic gain), but the economists make their fantasies based on their beloved "econ," ...

The problem laid out in the opening post "obviously" deals with three econs, not three human beings that are found in reality.

Michael

Michael, New on me the "econ", and it makes sense, more generally. Remove the individual's humanity and reason - in favor of a sort of theoretical model of 'people' - and anything is possible, afterwards.

Slightly connected, there's a pervading sense I'm getting of education systems which are churning out these "econ" types.

(I won't even mention our own dysfunctional education here!)

It was highlighted by a British educationer I heard recently saying "Look, our job is not to teach students what to think, but how to think". Right on, brother!

For all the high intellect we see, they are often individuals well-versed in the "what", but having little conceptualization desire or capability - i.e. the "how". WTH is this? The State creating nice little future Statists?

[Brant Gaede]

Naomi: "Heroes don't exist in reality."

I missed that one.

--Brant

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Oh, well then. In this increasingly jury rigged two choice world, the Emperor of What Can be has given producer B the choice between choosing a country where only -he- has zero influence, but where others can skin him alive via parasitic government, or a country where he can compete with others for the right to skin him alive. And in this artificial two choice universe is to be found some kind of enlightenment on the myth of the Tyranny of The Majority.

So what you originally meant(I couldn't really see the words in your original version of this enlightenment)is that, given the choice between a country where only he was placed on a rack, or a country where he had a chance to buy his way off the tribal rack, that of course this producer would choose the chance to buy his way off the rack.

You're doing a Hell of a job convincing me about the myth of the Tyranny of the Majority. No, seriously. You are.

This was pretty much what I gathered your predecessor flakes were talking about 30 years ago when I was fresh our of grad school. Turns out, those really aren't the only two choices available, except in some academic Disneyland of couldn't buy a clue if it was stapled to your ass and you were handed a flashlight.

It's not my fault that reality refuses to bend to your ideas of how it should work.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Correct.

I am 67.25.

Therefore, following your, am I too forward to assess your assinine assertion of "...your experience...," as a standard that you claim in your statement, to then take my perception of the issue as being

0.6728625 % better than yours?

A...

Nope, it just means that I learn three times faster than you do.

[SoAMadDeathWish]

Not much to say about that. You read, and couldn't grasp Rand.

The superfluities such as smoking are all you can take away.

Your *principles after the act* observance reveals more about yourself than about anyone else. If it were largely so of people, (and you probably wouldn't notice the individual exceptions, anyway) is it that craven cynicism which you'd condemn your own life to be? Sad.

"...They only say how people should act" - "but...silent on how they actually will act":

OK, principles are wasted on you, but maybe one simple (empirical) fact can sink in:

If any system CAN be slanted in your favor, it WILL be slanted against you, by other people - just as easily, and probably irrevocably. "Might is right" has been your constant inference - heh, only for the few minutes you may happen to have it. Just don't squeal when others have power over your life.

I read Rand. I grasped Rand. And then I thought for myself and disagreed with Rand.

Furthermore, I gave many many reasons and arguments in this thread justifying my position, so you're free to address them if you think I'm wrong. I'm not at all interested in your opinion of me or my life. Your disapproval means nothing to me.

If any system CAN be slanted in your favor, it WILL be slanted against you, by other people - just as easily, and probably irrevocably. "Might is right" has been your constant inference - heh, only for the few minutes you may happen to have it. Just don't squeal when others have power over your life.

I can accept this reality. Bad news for you, running away from this fact won't make it go away.

[anthony]

A determinist as well. Might is right, and that's "reality". Live with it - has been the refrain.

If you had grasped it all, the difference between 'metaphysically given' reality and the man made(including, self-made) reality; or the contingent and the necessary; or collectivism and individualism; no, if you had - you would have thought twice about bringing up this topic and your narrow argument in the first place.

If you'd read, grasped and disagreed with it all - well then, you could have argued about Objectivism on its own premises, not on the superficial premises of "democracy", "the majority" and a pragmatic 'power sharing'.

That is to say, if you will disagree with Objectivist political-economical theory on a peripheral level, you'll have to be prepared to argue it on the fundamentals of metaphysics and ethics.

Thinking for yourself is great - getting something critically wrong, coming to impose it on everybody, despite the better knowledge anyone responds with - isn't great, it is pseudo-independence I think.

Your concept of reality is skewed.

[Brant Gaede]

Pretty good comeback, Tony--in fact excellent. However, Naomi is no more interested in your views than she ever was with Rand's--or anyone else's respecting her own once formed. What happens is she states her view(s) and all replies merely cause her to restate them or refer to some she hasn't yet stated. As long as she's engaged she will not stop until she suddenly realizes she's bored. She's like Greg that way, but Greg's more tolerable because he avoids most philosophical areas of discusion. As a world class in-her-mind expert she's completely invested in her self as the embodiment of truth. Unlike Xray, she'll never have the grace to get off her high horse or just leave it in the barn. When it comes to physics she seems--to me she seems--deserving of her views, but compared to the Liberal Arts physics is incredibly simple for all the brains it requires.

This has to do, of course, with others' estimations of her, which she doesn't care about or consider. But her blatant anti-humanism means that's all there is to think about unless she's talking about physics. Maybe she's as aspie. On non-scientific subjects your views are completely wrapped up in you the person or they don't make sense. You've noticed how little sense she's been making. She didn't and couldn't consider Rand's views. She hit them and bounced off. That she even did that we have to take her word for there's no other evidence I recall.

Now respecting physics: any smart person can learn physics on the level discused here--physics without math. There is no way to evaluate what is said here except for these superficial manifestations without math. OL is not much of a place to discuss physics in any depth. Both Naomi and Dennis can be completely incompetent in physics for all we know, nor can they really evaluate each other, assuming any real competence, until someone puts up the math. And didn't even Einstein have to take his stuff to a mathematician better than he was for that?

Ironically, Naomi tried to introduce some math on other subjects--math of sorts--where math is totally irrelevant and useless. There are only two places in the Liberal Arts for math: applied, not theorectical, economics and to some extent in science as addressed by the Liberal Arts. There is no such thing as a good Liberal Arts education that doesn't include a big dollop of science, especially the scientific methodology. Math is the language of science. I understand that math is also good for critical thinking skills, but that it's optional for that.

--Brant

[Frediano]

Oh, well then. In this increasingly jury rigged two choice world, the Emperor of What Can be has given producer B the choice between choosing a country where only -he- has zero influence, but where others can skin him alive via parasitic government, or a country where he can compete with others for the right to skin him alive. And in this artificial two choice universe is to be found some kind of enlightenment on the myth of the Tyranny of The Majority.

So what you originally meant(I couldn't really see the words in your original version of this enlightenment)is that, given the choice between a country where only he was placed on a rack, or a country where he had a chance to buy his way off the tribal rack, that of course this producer would choose the chance to buy his way off the rack.

You're doing a Hell of a job convincing me about the myth of the Tyranny of the Majority. No, seriously. You are.

This was pretty much what I gathered your predecessor flakes were talking about 30 years ago when I was fresh our of grad school. Turns out, those really aren't the only two choices available, except in some academic Disneyland of couldn't buy a clue if it was stapled to your ass and you were handed a flashlight.

It's not my fault that reality refuses to bend to your ideas of how it should work.

Guaranteed, that is not your fault. (Like a broken clock, you've got to be right once in a while.)

So to be clear, here is how the voices inside your head tell you that reality really works:

1] You are the Emperor of What Can Be.

2] What can be is a world with only two choices for producers: a] to put themselves on a rack in a nation where only they have no influence over a government for sale. b] to compete with others in a nation where influence over a government for sale goes to the last naked sweaty ape bidder. (Not even the highest, mind you, just the last.)

3] And if he's fool enough to pass up the lone ride on the rack, then some cupcake like you gets to pass judgement on him for not jumping through your academic paternalistic megalomania hoops.

You are doing a great job. I'm almost convinced by all that there really is no such thing as the Tyranny of the Majority. But it's OK, we're grading on a curve, and they are getting rid of the essay requirement on the SATs again.

[Frediano]

You know, you get the world you beg for. You think you are the first cupcake to sail out of DIsneyland begging for this world? That is precious beyond belief.

Why do folks keep referring to this cupcake as a 'her?' Is there reason to believe that???