RobinReborn

5 hours ago, Marcus said:

 

If is was not clear to you by that America philosophically is actually one of the furthest countries from Objectivism, (and this has been true for some time) it should be now.
 

What country is closer to Objectivism than the USA?

I'm not sure if it's appropriate to ascribe philosophies to countries, individuals have philosophies, countries don't.  Most individuals don't have coherent philosophies.  The existence of the USA as the world's super power and the speed at which its economy has grown is strong support for the validity of Objectivism.

I don't think that hard work and intelligence are the same thing.  Nor does hard work guarantee success or money.

Hard work is part of major human achievements, but it isn't the only part and in some cases it isn't necessary.

I'd define hard work to be persistent, consistent dedication towards a goal.  You do it because you value the goal, not because you value the work.

I know Rand worked hard during the earlier part of her career.  I'd say that's when her work was better.  The problem with success is that it can distort your view of what's good, you can work hard on something that's worse.

Some great achievements are hard work, but some are not.  The relationship between hard work and achievement isn't always direct.  Plenty of people have been very successful without that much hard work and others have worked hard and not succeeded.  

I'm pretty sure I could write a 1000 page novel, it would be a lot of work, I can't focus on it now as I have other priorities in life.  I don't dismiss doing so as not being an achievement, but in practice somebody usually needs to work hard before they can write a book that long.  Rand had enough money to live comfortably for the time it took her to write Atlas.  I don't, neither do most people.  I'm not dismissing anyone's achievements, but I can't be inspired by something that is infeasible for me to do it.  How do you expect to inspire somebody to do something if they don't have the resources to do it?  

I thought that turkeyfoot's story was good.  I have a few personal stories I'm hesitant to share.  There are some historical examples like Andrew Carnegie, or Alexander Hamilton or Steve Jobs.

This is the only Rand reference I'm aware of:

I like the show a lot, Don Draper is a lot like a Randian hero only more realistic.  The show does a good job at showing how intelligent people can work together (or sometimes backstab each other).

Does anybody follow them?  I know there's a lot of reason to be skeptical but they've shot up in value a lot lately.

It might have something to do with computer viruses holding computers hostage until fees in bitcoin are paid.  Or due to people trying to get their money out of oppressive countries.

I'd say that purpose is the function of something within a larger context.

Like the purpose of a steering wheel is to point the car in the direction it should go.  Purpose needs to have a context and as you get more abstract your context because too big and you can't know the context.

I don't deny that making decisions or being productive without hard work are important, but they don't inspire me.  Most people are in a position where they have to spend a large portion of their life working on something they don't like.  Some people manage to move past that, and have freedom.  I want to hear how people have done that.  Trump doesn't inspire me because he was born wealthy, some of what he writes in Art of the Deal is useful for average people but most of it isn't.

About ten years ago I bought some stock using a stock market simulator.  I checked it recently and I had tripled my money.  I wouldn't say I worked hard to pick the stocks.  Yet if I'd managed to save more money and spend less, I wouldn't have had to work during that period and I could have just lived on my investments.

@Michael 

I read Art of the Deal, not sure if I'd count Trump's story as success through hard work.

I think there's a difference between hard work and good decisions.  Trump made some good decisions early on in business but since entering politics has upset a lot of people and has yet to accomplish anything

Ayn Rand's story is better, but most of her hard work came before she wrote the Fountainhead.

Would anybody care to share a story of how hard work paid off in a way that might inspire others?  It can be historical or personal.

By the way Tony, why aren't you defending Mandela?  He's the guy who ended Apartheid.  Why don't you move to Israel?

So jewish people took parts of greek philosophy, rejected part of greek culture (homosexuality, which is by no means universal) and called them tyrants?

Aside from being tolerant of homosexuality, how were the greeks tyrants?  You haven't named anything unusual about how the greeks ruled over the jews.

Mandela was a tribal prince, but he also studied at one of the best Universities in South Africa and was a lawyer (before Apartheid came into existence, it wasn't easy for him to be a lawyer afterwards).  Despite all the fear mongering about him, after he was elected president of South Africa he didn't try to turn it communist or create hyperinflation like Mugabe.  He wasn't perfect as a leader, but he was definitely better than both his Apartheid predecessors and his ANC successors.

5 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

Wikipedia: "he co-founded the militant Umkhonto we Sizwe in 1961 and led a sabotage campaign against the government ... Mandela later related that he and his colleagues had 'guided the ANC to a more radical and revolutionary path' ... Mandela concluded that violent action would prove necessary to end apartheid and white minority rule. He advised Sisulu to request weaponry from the People's Republic of China ... Becoming chairman of the militant group, Mandela gained ideas from Marxist literature on guerilla warfare ... Although initially declared officially separate from the ANC so as not to taint the latter's reputation, [Umkhonto we Sizwe, aka 'MK'] was later widely recognised as the party's armed wing ... MK publicly announced its existence with 57 bombings..."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Necklacing

 

"South Africa has never been the vaunted miracle portrayed by the sympathetic global press. To start with, consider some of the most basic measures of human wellbeing. Life expectancy in South Africa was 62 years in 1994. Last year, it was 57 years – a reduction of 7 percent. Meantime, global life expectancy increased from 66 years to 72 years – an increase of 8 percent ... Corruption, of course, has gotten worse over the last two decades and, as I have noted elsewhere, the same can be said of the rule of law, favoritism in decision making by government officials, wastefulness of government spending, diversion of public funds, transparency of government decision making and, inevitably, trust in public officials." [https://capx.co/south-africas-anc-government-corrupt-inept-and-immoral/]

 

Wolf... I've tried editing the wikipedia page on Mandela and had my comments questioning Mandela's commitment to communism rejected.

Mandela's campaign was as you say, against the government, not against the people.  It was violent, but the violence was directed at buildings, not people.  I can't find information, but I'm pretty sure that whites were allowed guns in Apartheid South Africa and Blacks were not.

Mandela had his right to free speech violated before he went to prison and was in prison for most of the anti-apartheid violence in South Africa.  He had nothing to do with Necklacing (his wife did, but he divorced her when he got out of prison).  It is ridiculous to blame a man in prison for violence outside of prison.

I have a level of skepticism towards your statistics though they are the best part of your argument.  I do not think the Apartheid government kept accurate records... I have many reasons to believe that.

Care to reevaluate Mandela?

3 hours ago, anthony said:

"Do you think Israel has the right to exist?"

 

I reject that question as meaningful on principle.  Individuals have rights, states do not.  Individual Israelis are free to leave Israel and exist in other countries, many of them do (the smartest and most virtuous, in general).  Did the Boer Republics have a right to exist?  They were crushed by the British and their citizens were put into concentration camps.  You can moralize that all you want but it doesn't change history.

Based on historical data, Israel will most likely cease existing within a hundred years or so, perhaps even within a few decades.  It is less in the interests of the United States to ally with a country that is doomed than it is in our interest in fighting in the graveyard of empires (Afghanistan).  It was in the interest of South Africa's Apartheid to ally with Israel, but the world rejected the Apartheid government, a large portion of the world rejects Israel, or at least some of Israel's settlements.

Seriously though, you're usually reasonable but you aren't even attempting to refute my points, you're just labeling them as leftist (which is meaningless, it's a term coined based on where people sat during the French Revolution, what does that have to do with Israel?)

And I still question your take on Apartheid, did you do anything to fight it?  Are you doing anything politically in South Africa now?

Have you read The Last Days Of Socrates by Plato?  I have, I don't think that Socrates is that wise, he shouldn't have been put to death but if Plato's description of him was accurate he seemed like he was suffering from dementia at the time.  His ideas remind me of some ideas I've read in the Bhagavad Gita.

Aristotle's teachings were kept in the Library of Alexandria, I imagine that they were spread via word of mouth throughout the Greek Empire. 

Ultimately I do not see why you view the Greeks as tyrannical.  I see them as quite similar to Jewish people.

On 12/22/2016 at 9:15 PM, anthony said:

"...brought lots of violence..." "...one hundred times as many...killed..."

Not much left to say after that. This is the common narrative of the Left's double standards and post-colonial guilt. Do you even know the difference between violence and self-defensive force? Do you recognize that Israel has, at one time, controlled and administered (won) the entire region - Gaza, Sinai, West Bank - as result of ~defensive~ wars, and has given it nearly all back? ("Land for Peace"--look it up).

"...haven't adequately condemned Apartheid..." - LOL! 

Show your credentials at the door...

 

The left has nothing to do with this, do not pigeon hole my arguments into other people's arguments.

Of course I know the difference between violence and self-defensive force, but in a primitive, collectivist and tribal area like the middle east the distinction isn't always easy to draw, perhaps you've heard the phrase it started with Isaac and Ishmael.  There's been violence in the middle east for longer than there's been recorded history in the middle east.  Joshua committed six genocides in Israel and he is celebrated for it.  Just because there is a record of jewish history doesn't mean the record is accurate, history is written by the victor and the first casualty of war is truth.  For Israel to be declared a 'Jewish State' is a tactless move. They were violent towards the British, there was no self defense then.  They were attacked by neighboring 'nations' (who did not initiate violence against the British and French who colonized them)... this is an endless conflict because the parties involved are collectivist.  Taking sides is pointless.

As for defensive wars, that's a narrative that people disagree with.  The British gave all of Israel away because of Jewish terrorism, it was a rational move.  There has always been conflict in Israel and the nations that exist there don't exist there for long.

As for my credentials, I'm not sure what your credentials are in condemning Apartheid, were you a member of the ARM?

BTW Wolf... Mandela is not a bad person but there's still a smear campaign against him.  He's an imperfect hero.

The Greeks were tyrants?  But they brought Aristotle to the world!

On 12/13/2016 at 5:26 PM, anthony said:

I not only dispute your facts, I dispute the evaluation you place in the facts. Coexistence between Arab and the expelled Jews from Spain (in particular) was dependent upon one thing: Jew knowing his place and remaining second class - dhimmi status - in Arab/Ottoman countries. Sometimes repressed, always just tolerated, forced to pay dues and ghetto-ized -  this was real 'apartheid', de facto and de jure - to a degree SA didn't have. (It was this way my mother's family managed to survive in Egypt, way back for many generations, in the Jewish community in Alexandria).

At the point of Jews (early 1900's) seeking self-determination and beginning to leave Arab countries for 'Palestine', was when they were turned upon violently and many murdered (historical facts you can Google for yourself). To many an Arab/Muslim, the despised Jew should remain subservient. Much of the ensuing hatred for Jews/Israeli is linked by scholars to Israel being the victors in several wars. The worm turns, as they say. If one knows the psychology of Arabian blood-pride at being defeated by inferiors, it gets easier to understand.

Yes, some militant Jews (Irgun, Stern gang, etc.) resisted the tight British control of refugee European Jews' access to then Palestine and launched attacks and bombed military targets. (My father was one of those Brits).

To this day there are loads of applications from West bank Palestinians for Israeli citizenship. The country already has a significant proportion of Muslim Israelis who enjoy full benefits and rights - without the penalty of having to serve the IDF. They are excused on moral grounds. (Although some Muslims choose to enlist anyway). And why not want to become Israeli despite the stigma? Apart from the only democracy in the Middle East, one of the best (state-subsidized) education systems, it has Rule of Law and a representative Parliament many other nations can envy. A "poor job" at promoting western values?? Considering -too - where the country is situated, in between sharia-practising and some terror-sponsoring, countries? I don't believe you know what you're talking about, and your understanding of South Africa is cursory as well.

I've often expressed that it's past time that Israel cuts the financial aid from the USA. The funds come with strings attached (a percentage must be spent on US armaments), and actually the country can get along without the aid. I argue that only then, with financial independence from America, can the traditional alliance -and friendship - be properly established ( and some like yourself will have nothing to moan about).

I don't quite know what you mean by making the West "look bad". Please explain.

 

I'm not quite convinced of your narrative and you haven't adequately condemned Apartheid for me to believe that you and I see the same flaws in it.  It seems like you support the bad parts of Israel, which makes me question whether you're really opposed to Apartheid or just certain parts of it.

Dhimmis weren't exactly second class citizens, they were treated differently than most Muslims (though obvious Sunni and Shia' Muslims have had many conflicts).  By many metrics, jews were treated better in the Ottoman Empire than in various other parts of Europe.

Any large immigration will be met with resistance, look at people's reactions to Mexican immigrants.  The US is relatively civilized so there's not widespread violence against Mexicans.  But the middle east is not so there's violence against migrants.  You haven't convinced me that the violence against jews from 'Arab Countries' (that's a horrible term you seem to be equivocating Arabs with Muslims which is a sophomoric mistake, there was an empire controlled by Turks, who are ethnically and linguistically distinct from Turks) was any worse than the violence against 'Palestinians' by Jews.  If you look at the numbers of any modern conflict in Israel, there are about one hundred times as many Palestinians/Arabs killed as there are Jews killed.

As for making the west look bad... I acknolwedge that Israel has brought some western values to the Middle East, but they've also brought lots of violence (the Ottoman Empire brought relative peace to the middle east, though they did start many conflicts in Eastern Europe).  If you know somebody who was killed by an Israeli armed by US weapons, you're probably going to have negative feelings towards the West.

Interesting... nobody has commented on the USS Panay incident, perhaps you aren't familiar with it:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Panay_incident

Given that, it seems pretty incompetent for the US to not be prepared for Japanese aggression in Hawaii.

On 12/11/2016 at 0:46 PM, anthony said:

Israel (a basic truth): "Those Arabs who did not select to be citizens of this new State as many other Arabs have, don't want Jews around at all and some come to kill us, so we must protect ourselves with walls and checkpoints".

I dispute your facts.  First, palestinians are not all Arabs.  Second, they coexisted with jews for hundreds of years during the Ottoman Empire.  Third, it was the jews who were terrorists before 1948 (look up King David Hotel).    Fifth, Israel is fairly explicitly a jewish state (which practices conscription), why would somebody who isn't jewish want to be a citizen of it?

The similarities between Apartheid South Africa and Israel that I see is that they are both supported by the US and allegedly promote 'western' values (though they do a poor job in it and have systemic problems).  They make the west look bad to the victims of their violence and thus do more harm than good.  I would hope that there exists a peaceful solution to the problems in Israel similar to how Mandela led a (relatively) peaceful solution to Apartheid but I'm not sure it's possible.  That part of the world has existed in perpetual violence.

Anthony... I'm not sure of the implications of the reference to the meme...

but while we're on a related subject, can you comment on the Israel-Apartheid comparison?

Can we discuss FDR's knowledge of Japanese aggression and the USS Panay?

15 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Some Jews escaped Germany early enough.  Some could have but chose to stay.  They could not believe what the Nazis had in store for them.  They were the victims or their own decency and rationality.   They found out too late how wrong they were.

They were victims of altruism, dictatorship and mysticism.  If We The Living accurately describes Rand's life, she tried to go to Germany to escape Russia...

They were also the victims of naivete of some jewish bankers in the US :

http://www.businessinsider.com/goldman-sachs-henry-goldman-on-hitlers-germany-in-1933-2016-7?utm_source=feedly&utm_medium=referral

Quote

But he also slips in a detail about how Henry Goldman, son of Goldman Sachs' German-Jewish immigrant founder, Marcus Goldman, changed his opinion of the Nazi regime after visiting Berlin in 1933.

Nagorski writes that James G. McDonald, head of the Foreign Policy Association who later became the League of Nations' high commissioner for refugees, met with Goldman briefly before their trips to Germany.

At the time, McDonald asked Goldman whether the German government's extreme anti-Semitism was a sign that something might be wrong, to which Goldman reportedly replied, "No, there is no more anti-Semitism in Germany than in the United States."

McDonald described Goldman as a bit of an "apologist for Germany." And, in fact, Goldman initially supported Germany in World War I.

But after visiting the country in 1933, the banker reversed his position.

 

 

 

What are the limits of Chutzpuh?  Where do you draw the line between Chutzpuh and unethical behavior?