Is Capitalism Moral?


Recommended Posts

Other than the fact that David Kelly is a horrendous moderator, this is an excellent panel...

 

http://www.c-span.org/video/?294548-2/ayn-rand-discussion

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 136
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My pleasure, I found it quite valuable.

A...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

First time seeing this...thanks Adam. I liked the way Barbara engaged Mackey and the expressions she showed. She was in to it.

Too bad Nathaniel chose not to answer that last question (the morality of capitalism).

-Joe

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Selene said:

Other than the fact that David Kelly is a horrendous moderator, this is an excellent panel...

http://www.c-span.org/video/?294548-2/ayn-rand-discussion

I saw the video soon after it was made available and watched part of it again. I thought that Mackey made a good point about Ayn Rand's polarizing, but that he didn't express his different view well. To contrast selfishness his keywords were service and love. I think better keywords are trade and cooperative production to express the social aspect of capitalism.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, merjet said:

I saw the video soon after it was made available and watched part of it again. I thought that Mackey made a good point about Ayn Rand's polarizing, but that he didn't express his different view well. To contrast selfishness his keywords were service and love. I think better keywords are trade and cooperative production to express the social aspect of capitalism.  

Agreed.

His use of synthesis worked better for me.  He showed a fascinating mind to me. 

Moreover, he is 100% correct about branding.  Humans are team players.  Most folks do well in team settings.

And then there are the individuals who benefit from working alone.  It is a wise leader who arranges his organization around both types.

A...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
On ‎9‎/‎27‎/‎2015 at 5:21 PM, Selene said:

Capitalism is...

Over TRUMPING the Great OZ...and I know the Great OZ and he's a good God...a nice God...

We worked on another creation together and it is the best creation ever made!!

Ask any of the Gods, we play interstellar golf on my Black Hole Course, which is better even than Bethpage Black on that Earth pleasure planet. We had a few pieces of that and I made a lot on that deal.

t5.gif

Not Capitalism.

 

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, moralist said:

Interesting video. This is the very first time I've ever seen and heard the Brandons.

Did Nathaniel have Parkinsons?

Greg

I believe he did. (sp. Branden) I remember talking to Nathaniel on the phone in 2008 on consecutive days. The first day he didn't sound too good; the next day he sounded like his old self. When I visited in September 2012 he was constantly attended to. I imagine his last two years were really rough on him and Laurie.

As far as I know those who sell medical nostrums don't pretend to tackle Parkinsons. I don't know of any pretend (or real) remedies or preventions. They concentrate on Alzheimer's. That's enough to sell their stuff; maybe some of it works. Genetically I'll probably get a pass on both. Only my maternal grandmother suffered from classic Alzheimer's (in her 80s). My mother had vascular dementia. A huge difference, at least for her. That might be avoidable with anti-inflamatories. (I have virtually no risk of heart attack and little more than that for stroke, but serious risk for (non-aggressive) prostate cancer. My brain will likely start turning to mush in my early 90s. While I might make 95, I have little prospect for 100 and even less for immortality. (This is why I've decided on immorality--doing a reverse St. Augustine for some fun. I'm hoping for a trial run soon*. The idea is a little scary. I might jump in and "Just Do IT!" [Thanks, Nike!])

--Brant

*all I need is a little courage to overcome a little cowardice (NB [1976]: "What did you learn from this?" BG: "I learned how being a--I learned how a little cowardice can go a long way in screwing you up." NB: eyes closed, nodding his head.)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I asked because a very close friend of mine died from Parkinson's, and Nathaniel had the same look. Since everyone of us will die from something, it's not unfair. It is what it is. His wife who was with him at the moment of his death offered an interesting description. She said he "left through a door inside of himself".

 

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moralist said:

I asked because a very close friend of mine died from Parkinson's, and Nathaniel had the same look. Since everyone of us will die from something, it's not unfair. It is what it is. His wife who was with him at the moment of his death offered an interesting description. She said he "left through a door inside of himself".

Greg

I haven't watched this video yet. There's another from 2010 too, available through Joel Wade. I loved Nathaniel terribly for the good he did for me, but we were not really friends, only friendly. I was a friend of Barbara Branden. You can't make these things happen; they just happen. The best friend of my life, whom I met in college--it just revealed itself almost immediately--there was no work involved, except acknowledgement. Nathaniel once said if you had only one or two close friends you were lucky. One of his in the 1970s was the late Joe Lewis, the heavyweight karate champion and sometime actor. (The two movies he starred in I know of are worth watching.) While I am completely sensitive to the stages of life Nathaniel went through and the women in his life, I have to state categorically that I never have gotten my head around who Nathaniel Branden was. I simply do not know what made him tick. It may have to do with while I am sensitive to psychology and some psychological issues my interest in ever being a psychologist is zilch. The best I can imagine doing is work on Joel Wade's level which is a whole step up from Nathaniel's as off a foundation Nathaniel could provide. But it's Nathaniel working with people in group and in his intensives from which I best know and appreciate him--not what led him to it. At one time he claimed to Barbara he was "amoral"--something I don't understand at all. I mean there's no such thing for a normally functioning human brain for all choices contain  aspects and reflections of the chooser's morality. Barbara agreed with him. I don't. I think that's a lie or a coverup or off the top of his head fluff. I wasn't there however. I observed Nathaniel in action--morally so, so something's missing here. I know he wasn't "amoral" as a proper general prescriptive. There may be a Jew-Christian shift involved. Jews tend to be more life oriented and fun seeking than Christians. I think Nathaniel was more Jewish that way than either Ayn or even Barbara. Maybe I'm wrong, but don't those of a Christian orientation tend to use morality as a controlling and directing force than the Jewish? Rand used it like a club.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, moralist said:

I asked because a very close friend of mine died from Parkinson's, and Nathaniel had the same look. Since everyone of us will die from something, it's not unfair. It is what it is. His wife who was with him at the moment of his death offered an interesting description. She said he "left through a door inside of himself".

Greg

That's grace.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎3‎/‎10‎/‎2016 at 7:00 AM, Brant Gaede said:

As far as I know those who sell medical nostrums don't pretend to tackle Parkinsons. I don't know of any pretend (or real) remedies or preventions.

Here's an enlightening video addressing causes of and treatments for Parkinsons.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EifpHZ-wPqs

 

Greg

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...

Capitalism the only moral system which can exist.  There are probably other angles, but let's look at it from the standpoint that art is of value:
An artist chooses his subject himself, to force an artist to choose a subject is a form of torture.  To force an artist to give away something he loves to someone he loathes is unethical.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

I can't figure out how to edit my above post either on my phone or computer.  Also, capitalism is the moral system in an industrialized/industrializing world.  There is a hierarchy of dangerous jobs.  At the top of the list is the scientist.  A scientist, during every experiment, is risking their body.  They could end up with cancer, parkinson's, or dead.  How any person could demand that a person risk their soul for FREE is immoral.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, atlashead said:

I can't figure out how to edit my above post either on my phone or computer.  Also, capitalism is the moral system in an industrialized/industrializing world.  There is a hierarchy of dangerous jobs.  At the top of the list is the scientist.  A scientist, during every experiment, is risking their body.  They could end up with cancer, parkinson's, or dead.  How any person could demand that a person risk their soul for FREE is immoral.

their "soul".  What is that? We are entirely physical.  If there are gods, they are nothing like us.  The only things in the physical domain that I can think of that are not material,  are energy and entropy  both of which are describable by physical laws and are manifest in fields.  Is our "soul" energy?  Energy is contained in both space and matter and in two forms:  actualized energy, which is the energy of motion and potential energy of which there are several physical manifestations.  Is our soul something like the Higgs field  that interacts  with other fields and matter? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2016 at 8:33 AM, atlashead said:

I can't figure out how to edit my above post either on my phone or computer.

AH,

You can only alter a post for a day or two after you make it.

This happened because we had one poster who liked to start a discussion on a controversial issue and say some of the most outrageous things, then after a few months, go back and revise all of her previous posts on that thread. She posted a lot, too. This made the posters who objected to her look like total idiots to a newbie.

:)

If you need to retract something or add to it, merely quote yourself and comment on it in a new post.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2016 at 8:54 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

their "soul".  What is that? We are entirely physical.

Bob,

This is a conceit, not an objective fact.

Scott Adams says it beautifully. He says humans did not evolve to be aware of the entire scope of reality. Humans evolved to be aware of the part that was necessary for them to survive and reproduce as a species. This is how evolution and knowledge works for all species, so there's no reason to presume this is different for humans unless it's a conceit.

His view is a perspective, I suppose, but it's just as valid as the one you entertain. In fact, I find it more logical since causality is build into it.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Bob,

This is a conceit, not an objective fact.

Scott Adams says it beautifully. He says humans did not evolve to be aware of the entire scope of reality. Humans evolved to be aware of the part that was necessary for them to survive and reproduce as a species. This is how evolution and knowledge works for all species, so there's no reason to presume this is different for humans unless it's a conceit.

His view is a perspective, I suppose, but it's just as valid as the one you entertain. In fact, I find it more logical since causality is build into it.

Michael

Read David Hume on causality.  Causality  is a Jedi Mind Trick.   It goes like this. A happens  then B happens therefore A caused B. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

David Hume? Now there's one conceited dude. He thinks his opinion is a reality-slayer.

:)

Michael

 

 

Hume  killed metaphysics.  Unfortunately that drove  Kant  to do worse. 

“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.”

Link to post
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