john42t

Are you under the impression that my statement about "sex slaves" is transferable to this woman? It is not.

No, I wasn't thinking of the "sex slave" thing at all.

I'm more thinking about that Penn State thread were you showed contempt towards a person who gave in to primitive range-of-the-moment urges for sexual gratification.

Is this different because she's a woman, or because her evil produced the children rather than subjecting them to it?

I don't really know where you stand but I sense that in the end you'll side with the "victim", ie. the woman, the child, the dumb, the poor, etc.

The Supreme Court upheld the right of the State to sterilize Carrie Buck.

In the red decade, but that wouldn't stand today.

Now, that is a solution. Rather inexpensive also. It would also be gender neutral.

I object to this, but it surely is less evil than welfare, public schooling or whatever else the state does to make this world a worse place.

Interesting - two German citizens, and two opposite opinions...

Frankly, I'd like to share your positivity, [...]

I should be noted that I and Xray are opimistic in our vision of totally different visions of the future.

So one of us will be disappointed. :-)

I can't see much evidence of any general ideology growing in Germany.

But you do see a drastic change in the Zeitgeist, don't you? Compare what you have today to 1990 or even 1970. It's amazing how fast things go these days.

I think one can say that Germans today are far more concerned about their economic future than in the past decades of the 'Wirtschaftswunder', where there was no widespread awareness about resources being limited.

Environmentalists didn't exist either, nor did any 'earth as a global village' consciousness. The same goes for animal welfare - what is now widely accepted as a moral standard to be striven for (like providing domestic animals with living conditions conducive to their welfare) was not a topic of interest back then.

Imo this is a considerable progress in the moral development of mankind.

Einvironmentalists, animal welfare, resources being limited were all ideas present in 1990 and 1970, in a sense more than today (they are more mainstream today, but they mean less to the individual people). Also, I consider all of those things to be leftist corruption. If you go back in time even more, those ideas are replaced with Nazism.

Now, in 2011, I can tell people that 1. "I don't give a crap about the environment" and 2. "Don't think limited resources mean anything" and 3. "Care about Germany a lot more than Greece." and people will shrug it off, they won't care - everybody somehow believes different, but nobody cares any more. In 1990, they would have jumped in my face.

But of course the chasm betwen the rich and the poor causes tensions.

I think this is a principle deeply rooted in our biology. Just imagine an immensely hungry individual having to watch others eat to their delight.

No doubt this individual will feel tension. Now make this a whole group of hungy men having to watch another group having all the food they want. Again, the tension will be there.

It is also an objective fact that social tensions between parts of the population can make people more prone to extremism, like clinging to fundamentalist religions, or joining extremist political groups.

I depends on whether the poor believes they are justly or unjustly poor. If the left keeps telling every random rotter that he's been exploited, then *this* causes tensions.

That's why there's so little tension in China, where there are few leftists but much of a chasm.

Quite the contrary, incredible wealth in the hands of moral individuals is a blessing.

Do you connote "moral" also with having a social consciousness?

Hell no, I equate it with rational.

Frankly, I'd like to share your positivity, but I would be amazed if your country is bucking the world-wide trend to forced egalitarianism (sorry, a 'social conscience'.) And here I am taking into account the traditionally greater sense of self-responsibilty, and the work-ethic, of Germans.

It seems to me that this trend is bucked by Germany (and to some extent its neighbours), eastern Europe and especially the Far East (whose sortie to egalitarianism was short anyway).

Those who are still spiralling downwards are the US, the UK and all the Commonwealth countries, but in the US there are interesting intellectual trends that might make a difference soon.

I agree with the rest of your comment.

Somebody needs to pay for all my children. [...] Somebody needs to be held accountable.

In her mind, that doesn't appear to be her. The typical arrogance of a parasite, I don't know it any different.

What that bitch needs is immaterial and her children surely need foster parents.

Of course we all have choices. I just know that some folk's minds are burnt out, drugged out or were never allowed to grow and choices appear to never appear.

I'm sure you wouldn't say that about an old male who uses children for sexual gratification.

But as long as the person is female and the sexual gratification leads to the production of countless children the rules are different, aren't they?

Then they can breed like rabbits and shove their sense of entitlement into the faces of the taxpayer on TV, and still you would sympathize.

That woman would vote your freedom away without a second thought. As long as she's a citizen with voting rights she's your enemy a thousand times more than any dictator in the middle east.

What I found additionally insane, was the phalanx of attorneys, social workers, shrinks, guardian ad litems [law guardians for each of the children], the idiot female Judge, the court officers and clerical personel who all get paid by the taxpayers and are accomplishing absolutely nothing.

They accomplish the production of more and more of such cases. Which is what (democratic) governments do.

No one argued that prostitution is not a legitimate business. No one argued that all prostitutes have pimps. Moreover, there is a difference between a prostitute and a sex slave, my friend.

Then I misunderstood you, sorry about that.

Precisely. Whenever I read that kind of apparently superficial statement about a "sex slave," or, prostitute, it rings falsely. The real world gives slim to no opportunities for escape.

Not all prostitutes have a pimp and male immigrants having their passport taken away to create a dependency isn't unheard of either.

Prostitution as a trade is a perfectly legitimate business.

There's a reason Objectivism isn't taken seriously by academics Tony.

Yes, they usually depend on government funding because they can't offer anything others would buy voluntarily.

Very natural that they should wish Rand to be incorrect.

I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved.

But isn't history full of counter examples?

I don't want what they gained. And they wouldn't have wanted it had they known what it means.

I can't see much evidence of any general ideology growing in Germany.

But you do see a drastic change in the Zeitgeist, don't you? Compare what you have today to 1990 or even 1970. It's amazing how fast things go these days.

What I do see is the chasm between the rich and the many poor steadily growing, with the middle class thinning out. This social tension carries in it the potential of a new protest movement which the Left may use to their advantage.

This is a leftist premise itself, and it's been around for centuries. In no way is a chasm between the rich and the poor the cause of any tensions or otherwise in and by itself a bad thing. Quite the contrary, incredible wealth in the hands of moral individuals is a blessing.

The chasm within Germany will be growing, ie. the moral will no longer be held hostage by the immoral.

Also, the 2008 bank collapse was a cold shower that has left people very disillusioned about big business transactions. Now we have the Euro disaster. Since big business companies like Allianz and Münchner Rück had bought Greek government bonds (wanting to profit from the higher interest rates this risky business partner had to pay), and now face whopping losses, labeling everything on 'statism' only would be way too simple.

All this can contribute to a deep distrust in both politics and economy.

Which is a good thing. It means less and less do-gooders in politics.

But here's the thing: It happens because Objectivism is the one, true philosophy.

Is it? The burden of proof is on the person who claims something to be a fact. Therefore, unless supporting evidence is provided and proof conducted, it qualifies as mere personal opinion.

If Rand couldn't convince you, I won't even try.

But here's the thing: It happens because Objectivism is the one, true philosophy.

By stating that "Objectivism is the one, true philosophy", do you mean that there can exist only one, true, philosophy?

This is itself an Objectivist premise.

In the same sense as there can only be one, true physics or one, true Maths. There can be different subdisciplines, but mutually contradictory premises within philosophy can not be true at the same time to accommodate different tastes.

Rand didn't invent "a" philosophy, she figured things out *in* philosophy.

Yes. The internet is inexpensive, searchable, available everywhere. It's tricky to use effectively, though and by now there's lots of competion vying for 'eyeballs'.

Don't underestimate comment sections.

The mainstream media can put up a website and joining the choir by supporting transfer of wealth to Greece, but if just below that article 90% of the comments are negative and hostile, their bias will be exposed. They can censor, of course, but that won't remain undetected if done systematically and will eventually create even more distrust.

When I put hope in the internet it's much more comment sections of the mainstream media I put hope in rather than actual alternative media.

It is not a cause the leftist ‘Occupy Wall Street’ crowd would ever espouse, since its life-or-death issues would shame theirs and show where true evil and oppression resides.

"Free Tibet" is a traditional part of the leftist stew.

Largely ignored by the Western media, nine Tibetan Buddhist monks and one nun have attempted suicide by self-immolation since last March in China’s eastern Sichuan province, a hotbed of unrest against perceived Chinese government oppression. Eastern Sichuan is largely inhabited by ethnic Tibetans and was once historically part of Tibet.

I can't see why you side with these people. Who's an ethnic Tibetan and which group historically inhabited what land should be irrelevant.

The only good reason to be on their side is if you believe they have a better protection of individual rights than the Chinese. My impression is rather the opposite.

John, I just reread your post more carefully - it seems you think Germany is moving toward Objectivism without exposure to Rand. Is that correct?

Yes, that's what I believe is happening.

Can you explain how that could be, what would be some examples, and what you think the causes are - and any reasons why the trends might be permanent -- rather than a 'temporary spike' of the kind I just described?

Here are some examples:

* Thilo Sarrazin has enourmous support in the population with a lot of statements than reflect a pro-virtue and independence stance (eg "Those who can't afford heating should take the shower cold, those that take it warm don't get anywhere in life anyway", quoted liberally from memory). Two decades ago he would have been an outcast for saying something like that. He's still very statist, this example only reflects one aspect.

* A Movie like 300 is, though despised by certain classes, popular among the young, including its message to some extent.

* Altruism is dead as a Zeitgeist. Although I rarely mention Rand or Objectivism, I sometimes talk about the selfishness vs altruism issue in isolation. People generally agree with Rand on that one, they wouldn't have two decades ago. Also, "In the end, everybody has to pay his own bills in this world." is something that most Germans will agree with, but this is a new development.

* The "feminization" of men is beginning to be recognized and the trend is reversing.

* Welfare is being reduced and elements of individual responsibility are introduced on a number of levels. Two decades ago, you could have yourself fired and live on the same sallary without working indefinitely. This is no longer possible, now you fall back on general welfare, which is much less and much more degrading to be on.

Now to why I believe this is the case. I think there are two major factors.

First, Germans are ambitious. Not sure why this is, but it appears to be the case. The premise of "getting things done" as the primary goal in life seems to be constant for centuries.

From there, people figure things out by themselves, premise by premise. For example, people stop supporting welfare after they've seen the self-righteousness of those who pride themselves in their victim-status. Or they will stop being so feminist after they get forced to subsidise their cheating ex-wifes and being denied access to their children.

Or the issue of Greece; here we see a strong parallel to welfare recipients: There are strong anti-German sentiments in the Greek population that don't go unnoticed by those who are made to pay their bills. Two decades ago, Germans were strongly pro-EU - Greece is probably the most important turning point.

The other major factor is the internet: The mainstream media and the humanities professors are still leftist/collectivist, but the internet is a game changer in that it breaks their monopoly. People can now share their experience and realize that they are not alone.

I believe this will be permanent because I believe it to be ultimately an effect of media: I think the whole of the horrors of the 20th century could not have happened if media technology had not been of a kind where a few speak for many - which is how it was from the invention of the printing press up until the invention of the internet.

But philosophically? Ain't gonna happen, Phil. Permanent minority status, unless a big group of Objectivists are having a conclave in some far-off corner of the globe when humanity finally destroys itself with WMD's.

I believe it's going to happen, rather quickly even.

But here's the thing: It happens because Objectivism is the one, true philosophy.

Here in Germany, the ideology slowly moves towards Objectivism on a number of levels, even though the label "Obejctivism" itself or Ayn Rand and her works are unknown.

Eventually the masses will be Objectivist, but it might not be *called* Objectivism. And it would happen even without Ayn Rand and her works.

Precisely, you wouldn't, because you understand rational morality.

I think half the problem in this sort of debate is not distinguishing clearly between

the rational and the pragmatically logical.

Often, the first is invoked when it is range-of-the-moment logic that is implied.

A gain of any sort - logically arrived at, or not - that conflicts with one's convictions

of reality and one's self-worth, is immoral and irrational. (Redundantly.)

That sounds very right to me, word for word.

But then I often think that my opinion here still differs quite a bit from most O'ists here on OL.

For example, Mikee jumped in my face for saying it's moral to take welfare unless you become dependent.

To me, immorality means harming *yourself*, not *others*. Taking welfare isn't necessarily immoral in my book, as long as you remain independent and draw your self-worth out of your profession. In practice there's little reason to do it, but it's important to point it out as there are many who condemn taking welfare as it puts a strain on society (and they identify with society, so that's a bad thing). I think it's the dependecy bit that makes the difference because that's when you stop being free and will be forced to take your self-worth out of thin air. "I'm a human being! I have rights!" :-)

And there's been plenty of such examples in my time of posting here.

I sense that a lot of O'ists still take "immoral" to mean something like "being good to society" or "play by the rules" which I don't take it to mean at all.

Part of the reason why I'm putting things harshly and controversial is to analyse to what extent people people are really in line with what I believe.

I was not thinking of animals lacking the capacit for rationality we humans have; I was thinking of fellow human beings who do have the capacity for rational action but still act irrationally.

It's very difficult to judge the capacity for rational action/thought in people, including intimate friends or even oneself, but especially strangers.

Example: a savvy salesperson cleverly persuading a customer to buy stuff he doesn't need at all.

From the salesperson's perspective, what he is doing is rational. But he uses the customer's irrationality to achieve his goal 'selling'. With a rational customer, the sale would not have taken place.

Imo the rationality issue must be subjected to thorough testing, since the Objectivist philosophy so closely connects the rational with the moral and irrational with the immoral.

It's indeed a difficult question, but I don't equate fooling others with immorality. There are many cases where it is moral to trick people (the obvious being outwitting criminals).

On a global scale, people appear extremely irrational: They group themselves in identifiable ideologies that often coincide with geographical regions and periods of time (the Zeitgeist). That can only be explained with a high degree of irrationality.

Take "greenwashing" for example: A company does some PR stunts to appear "nice" to the climate activists. Those companies behave moral in that regard if and only if they are hypocritical. Not to do it altogether might still be more moral, depending on further circumstances.

You don't have to be 'absolutely sure' at all, of anything, to make perfectly rational decisions.

Never claimed this.

"I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved."

I do not believe that you believe this - seriously. We both know that welfare is largely or entirely undeserved. To say people don't gain from it though is a bold-faced denial of reality if I've ever seen it. Ludicrous.

How many people living on welfare do you know? I know a couple, none of them gain from it in any meaningful sense of the word. In fact it's destroying their lives.

I can't see what *I* could gain by the undeserved.

Well, how do I decide what I believe is moral or immoral? I don't... I just feel the way I feel.

How doctor knows which treatment to chose? He doesn't. He just feels the way he feels.

Sounds insane? It used to be state-of-the-art at some point.

The moral development of most people is still stuck at that stage.

That's why the world's medicine is so much better than its ethics.

I can make an argument for the immoral, but not for the irrational. How on earth is this proposition fundamentally irrational?

Maybe you should try it out, Bob.

Just try and find situations in which you are absolutely sure that you can't get caught and take money that isn't yours.

In the meantime, I'll work on being a better professional.

In 3 decades we talk again and see how this worked out for us and whose choices were deemed more rational by reality.

I can't see what you can gain from the undeserved.

If you disagree here, you really should consider a criminal career. I will not insult you by telling you not to become a criminal for any reason other than selfishness.

There's lots of people here on OL who disagree with me on that point and believe you should play nice for the sake of others.

I don't think your level of morality changes...

What does this refer to?

Is it irrational to take advantage of someone who's principles you disagree with?

Say the bank is, believed so by you, to be in bed with a corrupt government. Is it irrational to take the unattended money if you know for sure there's no way you'll be caught and you know of many moral ways to spend it?

The logic is correct, yes. But I don't believe I could ever be convinced of the premises.

Maybe you have no morality...

I've been an immoralist before I read Rand. Now I view suicide or letting oneself become addicted to a drug as immoral.

What changed in this regard is only that I found a good definition for morality that is conceptually pure.

That, and that I now think most people disagree with the definition for a reason: The degree of vitriol in their disagreement appears to be proportional to their immorality.

Look at who screams at Rand the most. They are the worst.

in which case, why is what other people deem moral important to you?

Hmm, not sure if it is, really. Apart from the practical implications.

Why would she want to accomplish something if she would not be around to benefit from it?

She expected the Zeitgeist to change during her lifetime. How's she not around to benefit?

But then we get to Hume's point: every choice we make is primarily emotional; rationality is more about how effectively we choose in order to attain what we want.

I guess I just assumed everyone agreed with that, but maybe it doesn't align with Objectivist beliefs?

No, the Objectivist jargon is different, but it is essentially the same (the way you phrased it anyway).

If you agree with Hume, then anything we do could be looked at as rational. If happiness doesn't follow, though, then we obviously misjudged what we wanted.

So people who commit suicide misjudge what they wanted?

Drug addicts misjudge what they want?

It could have been rational for Rand to spread her philosophy for the same reason it could be rational for a singer to go on a global tour.

I'm almost certain of it.

So, in order to be rational in our pursuit of happiness, we must try to understand what, exactly, makes us happy.

Yes! Exactly! And *this* is the reason why "rational selfishness" is thrown around by Objectivists so much. Figure what makes you happy, and then get happy for a lifetime.

Well, I don't think selfishness carries forward to the afterlife, especially for someone who I'm sure didn't believe in one.

What has the afterlife to do with this? She believed to accomplish this in her lifetime.

If rights are man made, who should protect our rights? And for what in exchange?

Most of what I have I owe to people who had rights and because they had rights. The rest I owe to myself.

There is nothing to be gained from rightless people, that's why.

And about this "rational selfishness" being thrown around... What does that even mean? Selfishness is just as emotional as altruism. Why do you want to live? You just feel like it...

The difference is in time preference.

Rational selfishness means long-term selfishness. Make yourself happy over the course of a lifetime, not in the range of the moment.

And come on... Ayn believed that her philosophy was going to change how the US government was run, so much and so quickly that she would personally benefit from the changes in her lifetime? As if she couldn't be more selfish any other way?

I think much more she believed the Zeitgeist to change back to her beloved 19th century and herself to be the one who achieved it. She wanted to be (and ultimately was) a hero.

She didn't want to profit in saved taxes, that would indeed be absurd.