Land redistribution

[samr]

Alright, what about my right to steal from the government?

It is ok to steal from the Mafia. And if the government taxes people more because of it, I cannot really be blamed for it, it isn't my responsibility.

In the same line of thought, why shouldn't I live on welfare? If the government taxes people, it is not I who do it.

[john42t]

In the same line of thought, why shouldn't I live on welfare? If the government taxes people, it is not I who do it.

Correct.

It's only immoral in so far you become *dependent* on welfare (don't work on a profession), or in so far as you lose the ability to pride yourself into not having taken any money.

I consider the first reason much more important.

[Mikee]

In the same line of thought, why shouldn't I live on welfare? If the government taxes people, it is not I who do it.

Correct.

It's only immoral in so far you become *dependent* on welfare (don't work on a profession), or in so far as you lose the ability to pride yourself into not having taken any money.

I consider the first reason much more important.

Only if your ego can stand living the life of a tick on a dog rather than as a man.

[john42t]

Only if your ego can stand living the life of a tick on a dog rather than as a man.

Isn't this what I said?

The whole point of the human ego is to prevent you from doing it - to prevent you from becoming dependent.

[Mikee]

Only if your ego can stand living the life of a tick on a dog rather than as a man.

Isn't this what I said?

The whole point of the human ego is to prevent you from doing it - to prevent you from becoming dependent.

If you have read Rand, Man qua Man, is one of the easiest ideas to understand. I don't believe in mincing words. If you had said something like "If you're drowning and someone throws you a rope its not immoral to grab it, but otherwise you're a blood-sucking parasite", I would have liked that answer. I have never believed any differently long before I read Rand. Actions speak louder than words, reading Rand is not an excuse to feel superior because you can twist words and rationalize regardless of your actions. You are are a creative force and earn your own living and self esteem or you're not. Any conscious person can find useful work and support themselves. I have had every kind of job, presently I'm 63 and work full time, if I become obsolete in my present job I will find something else. I will always work even if bagging groceries. When I can't support myself I will die. End of story.

[john42t]

I don't believe in mincing words.

Example: I studied maths in Germany. I did it through the German educational system for free on a state university. There is limited possibility to do otherwise, there is almost no private sector in academia in Germany.

I did feel like a parasite (also before reading Rand), but I thought I'd "pay society back".

But I no longer believe in the concept of society - the value I received was stolen.

I don't believe my action were immoral, at least not for the reason that the value I received was stolen.

Now I suppose I could give the state a pile of cash to make up for it, but why?

To make people like you like me?

[Mikee]

I don't believe in mincing words.

Example: I studied maths in Germany. I did it through the German educational system for free on a state university. There is limited possibility to do otherwise, there is almost no private sector in academia in Germany.

I did feel like a parasite (also before reading Rand), but I thought I'd "pay society back".

But I no longer believe in the concept of society - the value I received was stolen.

I don't believe my action were immoral, at least not for the reason that the value I received was stolen.

Now I suppose I could give the state a pile of cash to make up for it, but why?

To make people like you like me?

"People like me"... heh. I don't give a darn if you like me, I don't expect any different. I'm here for the ideas and discussions.

You might ask me whether I thought you owed the "state" anything. The answer would be "no". A person does whatever he reasons to be the right thing to do, I don't expect anyone to do differently. But you live and learn, you do better as you go along. I'm old, I grew up in a completely different environment, I was raised by an older generation, (uncle born in 1908) with very different values than the "modern" world. My uncle was raised on a farm, his dad died when he was four, quit school in the eighth grade to run the farm. He was the hardest working, most honest man I ever knew. Quiet, worked from dawn to dusk. Owned several of his own businesses. Never took a dime from anyone. He told me "A man who won't work is worth nothing". Took me many years to understand the nuance of what he meant. Man qua Man. He was one of the reasons why, when I read Rand, I already had all of the values Rand spoke about. My uncle would have died before begging or taking a dime of charity. Five foot four inches, 135 pounds soaking wet, could work most men into the dirt even at sixty. The only thing keeping a person from succeeding is their own will. Don't think I don't respect you, I do. Keep at it, I mostly just read the posts, I enjoy yours.

Edit: removed expletive. Excuse: wine with dinner.

[bmacwilliam]

If you have read Rand, Man qua Man, is one of the easiest ideas to understand.

Sure is.

However, if you have an additional neuron available to process this 'idea', it is also one of the easiest ideas to use to expose Objectivism's nonsense.

She obviously does not mean 'simple existence' so there's an implied judgment of what is "proper". What is right or proper or ethical cannot be simply defined as that which promotes one's life "qua man". "qua man" has the "proper" idea already in it. This logic is trivially circular.

Or, the alternative that "right" or "proper" then must at least sometimes mean things that are not life promoting. Now we clearly have a big problem with "life as the standard of value" assertion. Obviously, this "proper" fails that test.

Seems rather obvious that Rand's ethics are quite transparently false.

Bob

[Mikee]

Bob

You seem to go to some trouble to try and expose "objectivism's nonsense". The above attempt is pretty lame however. If this is the best you can do...

Metaphysics: Objective Reality

Epistemology: Reason

Ethics: Self-interest

Politics: Capitalism

Regarding "simple existence", committing oneself to objective reality simplifies ones life wonderfully. When you start making shit up that's when things get complicated. Similar to "the tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive". Believing in objective reality and committment to reason is to live a simple life. Objective reality is the unchanging reference point, reason is the method of understanding reality and achieving values. Self esteem (self interest) is a necessary prerequisite for having values and the engine for achieving them. Capitalism simply describes the trading principle writ large, the engine of unlimited wealth and the solutions for men thriving. Capitialism is the only system that requires individual freedom and liberty to gain the efficiency and creative energy of unlimited active, motivated minds. It is an extraordinarily simple system. It is not hard to demonstrate its efficacy, the last one hundred and fifty years is nothing but example after example of liberty, reason and markets working, bureaucracy and command and control failing miserably. The only difficulty is explaining to those who will not see, the willfully ignorant.

Who are the critics of capitalism? And what does this have to do with "Man Qua Man"? Anyone can be a capitalist. You only need to save part of your earnings. Almost any vehicle for saving is an investment in the future and the saver is a capitalist. Future oriented, thinking, self reliant persons are living human lives. The hand to mouth, living paycheck to paycheck, spending every dime, borrowing against the future instead of saving for the future, this is no different than the hand to mouth existence of a monkey. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to be an objectivist, just use your head. I am not John Galt, you are not John Galt. John Galt was a romantic figure, a device to express a philosophy of life in a novel. Get a grip.

[bmacwilliam]

My problems are not with the concepts of self-interest, or capitilism, or rationality etc. My problems are with Rand's derivations through her ethics. I just don't think any of it holds up to the slightest scrutiny.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

My problems are not with the concepts of self-interest, or capitilism, or rationality etc. My problems are with Rand's derivations through her ethics. I just don't think any of it holds up to the slightest scrutiny.

Bob

Okay, pull out the ethics. What are you going to put back in?

--Brant

[Mikee]

The ethic of self interest is simply the recognition that men should be free. Free men are free to act in their own interest. The moral decision is free men or slaves. This is the keystone, you can't accept the other tenets of objectivism without the ethic of self interest and personal freedom. I personally believe an individual can be as altruistic as they want personally, if that's their personal religion. But I believe in separation of religion and state, you cannot mandate anyone to act against their self interest nor violate their right to property. To take the fruits of someones labor without their consent is immoral.

[bmacwilliam]

The ethic of self interest is simply the recognition that men should be free. Free men are free to act in their own interest. The moral decision is free men or slaves. This is the keystone, you can't accept the other tenets of objectivism without the ethic of self interest and personal freedom. I personally believe an individual can be as altruistic as they want personally, if that's their personal religion. But I believe in separation of religion and state, you cannot mandate anyone to act against their self interest nor violate their right to property. To take the fruits of someones labor without their consent is immoral.

Although I don't share completely this outlook, my biggest objection to this is simply that Rand's ethics are inconsistent. Is your life (even qua man as problematic as that is) your standard of value - or not? What about when it violates another's property rights?

I understand the objection - that stealing for example doesn't pass the 'qua man' test, but that is a very weak argument.

Bob

[bmacwilliam]

My problems are not with the concepts of self-interest, or capitilism, or rationality etc. My problems are with Rand's derivations through her ethics. I just don't think any of it holds up to the slightest scrutiny.

Bob

Okay, pull out the ethics. What are you going to put back in?

--Brant

Well, if I knew that, I'd be a philosopher (and broke and living in my parent's basement).

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

My problems are not with the concepts of self-interest, or capitilism, or rationality etc. My problems are with Rand's derivations through her ethics. I just don't think any of it holds up to the slightest scrutiny.

Bob

Okay, pull out the ethics. What are you going to put back in?

--Brant

Well, if I knew that, I'd be a philosopher (and broke and living in my parent's basement).

Bob

Man qua cat?

--Brant

[bmacwilliam]

My problems are not with the concepts of self-interest, or capitilism, or rationality etc. My problems are with Rand's derivations through her ethics. I just don't think any of it holds up to the slightest scrutiny.

Bob

Okay, pull out the ethics. What are you going to put back in?

--Brant

Well, if I knew that, I'd be a philosopher (and broke and living in my parent's basement).

Bob

Man qua cat?

--Brant

Well, the question is what is the proof, or even the standard of proof to determine which 'man qua man' is best?

That's the problem. IMHO, Rand does not offer any convincing argument for her version.

Bob

[Brant Gaede]

My problems are not with the concepts of self-interest, or capitilism, or rationality etc. My problems are with Rand's derivations through her ethics. I just don't think any of it holds up to the slightest scrutiny.

Bob

Okay, pull out the ethics. What are you going to put back in?

--Brant

Well, if I knew that, I'd be a philosopher (and broke and living in my parent's basement).

Bob

Man qua cat?

--Brant

Well, the question is what is the proof, or even the standard of proof to determine which 'man qua man' is best?

That's the problem. IMHO, Rand does not offer any convincing argument for her version.

Bob

There is no "proof." Which is best is an individual matter not a matter for you to me or me to you or Rand to anyone save through the use of knowledge, introspection and what rationality one can bring to bear. The "proof" is in the politics informing the ethics to some extent and in the epistemology doing the same and it all gets together in the center--which is also the center of Objectivism--where we have the great hullabaloo of human moral existence. Rand really did give us "a philosophy for living on earth" reference its basic principles and their integration one to the next. Then she larded it up--to some extent with her ideas on aesthetics and way too much with the morality--ethics being, I think, a narrower subset--and, ergo, Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand becomes a cultural artifact and no one else's philosophy save for jejune imitators. But scrape away all that cultural content and you find the true intellectual bones. Then it's up to you to flesh them out according to your best understandings of human and your nature and values keeping in mind that thou shall not initiate physical force (violate rights).

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

--