• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Atlas Shrugged movie

Will you go see the Atlas Shrugged movie?

  • Total voters
    37
Cephus said:
I don't think libertarianism is great, specifically because it fails to account for the human equation. It assumes that, given freedom, people are going to be responsible in the use of said freedom and I think that's an absurd idea. Most people, given half a chance, will take advantage of any system which allows them to do so. Even those with the greatest claimed morality are going to do things that will better their own situation, even to the detriment of others. That's the biggest downfall of the system, that it doesn't impose controls on those who would play the system and ultimately harm others for their own benefit.

I'm all for personal responsibility, but I think that, for many, it needs to be imposed from above, rather than assumed from a level playing field.
Click to expand...

In the bold, that isn't true.
 
megaprogman said:
I fail to follow your reasoning. But yes I am self interested in the sense that I do want to live my life and be fairly successful at it, but as far as I can tell, this has nothing to do with our conversation.
Click to expand...

It does, if you are self interested, you should have no problem with Objectivism.

megaprogman said:
Starting yet another charity to do the same thing other charities are doing, yet be less efficient compared to just giving to another charity due to a separate bill for administrative costs, plus time taken away to take care of the office stuff rather than doing something positive seems impractical and inefficient as compared to helping habitat for humanity with direct labor (not that I do that particular charity, but to make a point).
Click to expand...

A lot of charities specialize, that's what makes them more efficient, even with the administration costs.

I know you don't believe that charity will serve the needs of all the needy and I won't make the contention that it will.
You have to realize though, the government programs do not serve all the needy (that's why charities still exist) and the government programs typically serve those that are not needy.
 
SE102 said:
Please explain, Harry. I feel that is a legitimate assumption from what I gather.
Click to expand...

Personally, I have no pretense what so ever of most people using their freedom responsibly.

Society needs irresponsible people, not only as examples but people need to fail.
The great motivators for improvement in life are unhappiness and dissatisfaction.

Failure and irresponsibility can give birth to new ideas on how a person can proceed with their life, in a more correct manner, but by no means perfect.
Although I don't expect everyone to succeed.

In total, it's a gradual evolution to better.
That is it's most fatal flaw.
Humans are impatient, they demand change now, even when it will hurt them in the long run.
 
Hicup said:
Ah, ok, thanks. I've never met two conservatives alike. Seriously, I mean that. There are common ideologies from both sides of the spectrum; liberals, conservatives, all seem to be fluid to some degree depending on the static issue. Let's take a glaring example of an issue people generally think has one ideological tag assigned to it. Legalizing weed. As a conservative, one might think that conservatives are diametrically opposed to legalizing pot, however, I'm a conservative and I am not against it. Conversely, almost all, if not all liberals I know are not against it either. Does it make me liberal? The answer is no. It makes me a conservative who is for legalizing marijuana.

If I could nail down a single phrase that describes liberals, and conservatives, IMO, I would say something like this. Conservatives tend to think in absolutes, meaning, something is either good, or it's bad, whereas Liberals tend to think in potentialities; something could be good, or it could be bad. Now, when you look at this, and really take a close look, they're not that far off are they? Conservatives tend to throw out exceptions when reasoning, and liberals actively look for the exception to influence their reasoning. Example, the death penalty. Conservatives, place no rational value to the exception that some innocent people will be executed, and favor the death penalty. Liberals, place rational value to the exception of innocent life lost, and reason to themselves that because innocent life can be lost, that the death penalty should be abolished.

What I'm trying to illustrate is that because of the above, I am coming to realize that political ideologies, and socio-ideologies are more flexible than most people think. Further, an ideology can be diagnosed without any indication of political, or sociological philosophy from the subject. It is my contention that ideology is a combination of one's genes and their environment, and is more about how we reason, and react to everything, than simply how we view a political, or sociological issue.

For instance, I think a test can be devised that proves my point, if one assumes that the above notion that conservatives think in black and white, and liberals in grey. Without any questions on any specific political, or sociological issues, one could tell by how the participants respond whether they are liberal, or conservative, simply by how they reason what is good, or what is bad. I think that with a great deal of accuracy, a double blind study could show that simply by their answers to non political, or sociological questions we could predict a subjects political ideology.

Before the test, the interviewers would determine the subjects ideology, and record the data. Now the testing begins, and the test scorers would not know the results of the prior interviews, and would score the tests based on multiple choice questions to various questions that relate to a black and white answering style to one that allows for grey. My guess is that conservatives will mostly choose black and white answers, and liberals will mostly choose grey. The tricky part is devising testing questions that can have multiple choice answers that are correct but appear as though only one is correct to the test taker.. :)


Tim-
Click to expand...

Excellent post, Tim. Very thoughtful. I think you are definitely onto something. I've always thought of it as 'degrees of dualism'. There are those who see the world as being divided between the forces of good and those of evil. There are others who think in terms of everyone being driven by or drawn to a variety of those forces; that we are all a blend of yin and yang. Are these opposing forces, or complementary ones?

I would suggest that this distinction that you are drawing between the different mindsets of conservatives and liberals is about just that philosophical conundrum. Conservatives tend to see the dualism at work in the world as a battle between opposing forces of good and evil, one in which good must triumph. Liberals tend to think of the world as being made up of a balance of the different forces at work, sometimes where the balance is deemed positive, for the benefit of people, sometimes that balance seems absent. At such times intervention may be needed to restore balance.

Of course the problem with these theories, and the easy division of the world into conservative and liberal, is that the world isn't composed of conservatives and liberals. I suspect that any meaningful definition of someone as one of the two could apply to barely half of the world's population. Radicals, religious zealots of all kinds, anarchists and authoritarians; none of these fall easily into a dualist world made up of conservative and liberal. How do we understand the motivation behind their behaviours and thought processes?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
It does, if you are self interested, you should have no problem with Objectivism.
Click to expand...

Like any human I am a mixture of selfishness, selflessness, neutral, and ignorant. I am self interested in some aspects of my life and not so much in others.

Harry Guerrilla said:
A lot of charities specialize, that's what makes them more efficient, even with the administration costs.

I know you don't believe that charity will serve the needs of all the needy and I won't make the contention that it will.
You have to realize though, the government programs do not serve all the needy (that's why charities still exist) and the government programs typically serve those that are not needy.
Click to expand...

I agree that government programs do not serve all of the needy, which is why I support a continual refocus of efforts as economic conditions change (and they are always changing). However, I think its our best shot, over and above charities. Lastly, I am not the entrepeneurial type, I hate personal risk and so I am not the new charity starting type anyway. Ultimately though, it does not mean that my giving is somehow less valuable like you seemed to want to contend if I read you correctly.
 
Last edited:
Harry Guerrilla said:
Selfish is such an emotionally laden term, it's not worth using.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. You make the distinction yourself when you say, "Self interest is selfishness without the wanton disregard for others." Selfishness implies a self interested disregard for others. Contrariwise, the "self interested" behavior of a saint can hardly be considered selfish, nor would it meet with Rand's approval.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Objectivism, like any form of libertarianism (including libertarian socialist) is not easy for most people to understand.
Click to expand...

Including yourself, it would seem. Objectivism and libertarianism are not synonymous. Rand herself was not overly fond of libertarians.

Harry Guerrilla said:
A self interested person values other people, not for the monetary or material benefits they get from them, but for what makes the person.
Click to expand...

A self interested person can also be selfless, as I discussed above. A Randian is both self interested and selfish, in the morally pejorative sense. A Randian does not place value on others in their own right.

If one finds oneself needing to rewrite Rand to make her ideas palatable, perhaps one should reconsider whether or not one truly is a Randian, shouldn't one?
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yes, it is. You make the distinction yourself when you say, "Self interest is selfishness without the wanton disregard for others." Selfishness implies a self interested disregard for others. Contrariwise, the "self interested" behavior of a saint can hardly be considered selfish, nor would it meet with Rand's approval.



Including yourself, it would seem. Objectivism and libertarianism are not synonymous. Rand herself was not overly fond of libertarians.



A self interested person can also be selfless, as I discussed above. A Randian is both self interested and selfish, in the morally pejorative sense. A Randian does not place value on others in their own right.

If one finds oneself needing to rewrite Rand to make her ideas palatable, perhaps one should reconsider whether or not one truly is a Randian, shouldn't one?
Click to expand...

Note: No such thing as a Randian and she despised the suggestion of that term as well. "Objectivist" works, use that.
 
Lachean said:
Note: No such thing as a Randian and she despised the suggestion of that term as well. "Objectivist" works, use that.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know exactly what I mean when I say "Randian." The term "Objectivism" is a misnomer. As I discussed earlier there is nothing objective about so-called Objectivism. It would be more accurate to call it Subjectivism, really, since it is only concerned with subjective experience of the individual in determining morality, and takes no account of the world outside one's own self.

Regardless, the term "Randian" adequately describes those who follow the dogma of Ayn Rand.
 
I love it when people give their own analysis of Rand's philosophy and then someone else cries fowl because that wasn't something Rand herself would have agreed with. The appropriate answer should be 'no ****, I am not using Rand's perspective because I disagree with that perspective"
 
Guy Incognito said:
Oh, I know exactly what I mean when I say "Randian." The term "Objectivism" is a misnomer. As I discussed earlier there is nothing objective about so-called Objectivism. It would be more accurate to call it Subjectivism, really, since it is only concerned with subjective experience of the individual in determining morality, and takes no account of the world outside one's own self.

Regardless, the term "Randian" adequately describes those who follow the dogma of Ayn Rand.
Click to expand...

You obviously don't if you consider it a dogma or subjective. You're one of those people who label's people rather than accepting the term one has accepted aren't you? How contemptible.

"Pro-abortionist" "Darwinist" "Evolutionist" "Randian" "Tea-Bagger" etc...
 
Lachean said:
You obviously don't if you consider it a dogma or subjective. You're one of those people who label's people rather than accepting the term one has accepted aren't you? How contemptible.

"Pro-abortionist" "Darwinist" "Evolutionist" "Randian" "Tea-Bagger" etc...
Click to expand...

I tend to label people based on the most accurate descriptor. "Objectivism" is hardly objective, but it is based on the teaching of Rand, hence an accurate label for its adherents is "Randian." It is, in fact, subjective in nature because of its emphasis on the self as the basis for morality. Moreover, the Randian school of thought is dogmatic in nature, as there is an orthodox viewpoint that must be adhered to without variation.

As for other terms, I will admit I've labeled people who oppose abortion "anti-choice," and I've discussed elsewhere that I prefer the term "undocumented immigrant" to "illegal." Words have power, and I use them as such. I refuse to dignify Randians with an appellation that implies that they are in any way "objective," since nothing could be further from the truth. If that hurts your feelings, perhaps you should take a cue from John Galt and withhold your brilliance in protest.
 
Last edited:
megaprogman said:
I love it when people give their own analysis of Rand's philosophy and then someone else cries fowl
Click to expand...

In many cases, being a "libertarian" works on the level of true believer every bit as much a part of identity as the most fervent religionist.

I find it amusing how so many who pose as championers of individual rights lack any sense of individuality when it comes to their idealoguery.
 
Gardener said:
In many cases, being a "libertarian" works on the level of true believer every bit as much a part of identity as the most fervent religionist.

I find it amusing how so many who pose as championers of individual rights lack any sense of individuality when it comes to their idealoguery.
Click to expand...

Kind of like goth people? I am so individual, I am like everyone else?

Nah, I don't think thats fair. The goal isn't, as far as I can tell, to be different and special, but its just people who see things a certain way.
 
Guy Incognito said:
I tend to label people based on the most accurate descriptor. "Objectivism" is hardly objective, but it is based on the teaching of Rand, hence an accurate label for its adherents is "Randian." It is, in fact, subjective in nature because of its emphasis on the self as the basis for morality.
Click to expand...

That doesn't in any way make the objectivist morality subjective.

Guy Incognito said:
Moreover, the Randian school of thought is dogmatic in nature, as there is an orthodox viewpoint that must be adhered to without variation.
Click to expand...

What are you talking about? Even if you were right (which you're blatantly not), that would not constitute a dogma. You fail to understand the word, among others.

Guy Incognito said:
As for other terms, I will admit I've labeled people who oppose abortion "anti-choice," and I've discussed elsewhere that I prefer the term "undocumented immigrant" to "illegal." Words have power, and I use them as such.
Click to expand...

Yeah okay Frank Luntz, words have meanings. Words misused have power over only fools.

Guy Incognito said:
I refuse to dignify Randians with an appellation that implies that they are in any way "objective," since nothing could be further from the truth. If that hurts your feelings, perhaps you should take a cue from John Galt and withhold your brilliance in protest.
Click to expand...

My feelings cannot be hurt by fools beating on straw men, address one of my positions accurately and you have a shot at that. For I have tons of experience with people who either failed to understand or misrepresent Ayn Rand.
 
Last edited:
TheGirlNextDoor said:
No. I read the book years ago, and truthfully... I was not impressed. I think Ayn Rand is highly overrated.
Click to expand...

I agree, I tried reading one of her books and found it to be boring, and it was difficult to determine her philosophy.
 
earthworm said:
I agree, I tried reading one of her books and found it to be boring, and it was difficult to determine her philosophy.
Click to expand...

I actually find the Fountainhead VERY boring. But her philosophy interested me enough to give Atlas Shrugged a shot. Try reading some of her essays if you want to "determine her philosophy."

I highly recommend "Philosophy, Who needs it?"
 
Guy Incognito said:
Yes, it is. You make the distinction yourself when you say, "Self interest is selfishness without the wanton disregard for others." Selfishness implies a self interested disregard for others. Contrariwise, the "self interested" behavior of a saint can hardly be considered selfish, nor would it meet with Rand's approval.
Click to expand...

True but it's dependent on what you value and if it makes any logical sense to sacrifice for a stranger.


Guy Incognito said:
Including yourself, it would seem. Objectivism and libertarianism are not synonymous. Rand herself was not overly fond of libertarians.
Click to expand...

They are in the same group, under the umbrella term of libertarianism.
Something I disagree with Rand about.

Guy Incognito said:
A self interested person can also be selfless, as I discussed above. A Randian is both self interested and selfish, in the morally pejorative sense. A Randian does not place value on others in their own right.
Click to expand...

I still disagree.
Why should one person sacrifice them self for a stranger?
If we suspend thinking, it seems like a good act but when we analyze the potential results of such behavior it can be just as selfish or dumb to do so.

Guy Incognito said:
If one finds oneself needing to rewrite Rand to make her ideas palatable, perhaps one should reconsider whether or not one truly is a Randian, shouldn't one?
Click to expand...

I don't agree with Rand in total but I do tend to think the reckless selflessness is just as bad an reckless self interest.
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
True but it's dependent on what you value and if it makes any logical sense to sacrifice for a stranger.
Click to expand...

Right. Valuing yourself at the expense of others is called "selfishness," so if one has such a value system we call them "selfish." People who value others more than themselves are being logical when they sacrifice for others, and this is morally laudable.


Harry Guerrilla said:
They are in the same group, under the umbrella term of libertarianism.
Something I disagree with Rand about.
Click to expand...

That's fair. I agree there is some overlap.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I still disagree.
Why should one person sacrifice them self for a stranger?
If we suspend thinking, it seems like a good act but when we analyze the potential results of such behavior it can be just as selfish or dumb to do so.
Click to expand...

Please cease conflating the terms "selfish" and "self interested." We both agree that they describe different things, so it gets confusing. You might think it is dumb to sacrifice oneself for a stranger, and it is "self interested" in a strict sense, but we can both agree that self sacrifice is the very definition of unselfish.

Why is it good to value others over ones own self? There are a variety of rationales to explain this. I'm not trying to convert anybody. You either find this proposition persuasive or you do not. If you do not then you are selfish.

Harry Guerrilla said:
I don't agree with Rand in total but I do tend to think the reckless selflessness is just as bad an reckless self interest.
Click to expand...

I don't think anybody is advocating reckless. I'm talking about reasoned selflessness. Reason is what separates humanity from animals. The animal nature compels one to act in their own selfish interest, with no concern for others. But true reason dictates that we aspire to a higher good, and that every action we perform is part of a universal whole.

What Randians fail to account for is the fact that the self really is an arbitrary point of view. Just because your subjective experience is what you personally feel, what makes it more valuable than the subjective experience of another? Rationally, all subjective experiences (all people) should be given equal moral weight, whether they be one's self or another one's self.
 
Lachean said:
Yeah okay Frank Luntz, words have meanings. Words misused have power over only fools
Click to expand...

Hey now...

Mentioning Frank Lunz, while dismissing his contributions to the science of propaganda, makes me instantly suspiscious.

Would you please elaborate on your apparent position in this regard?

Because I think its far more relevant to our current political situation than you apparently do.

Do you have some evidence that cognitive linquistics is imaginary or otherwise invalid/irrelevant to how we form the beliefs we hold?

I'm genuinely curious about your take on this, because your comment seems to indicate that you are aware of some peoples' concerns about his practices, but consider them invalid.

I would LOVE to discuss this. :2wave:
 
Guy Incognito said:
Right. Valuing yourself at the expense of others is called "selfishness," so if one has such a value system we call them "selfish." People who value others more than themselves are being logical when they sacrifice for others, and this is morally laudable.
Click to expand...

Why is it logical?
What if your family suffers from your sacrifice more than the family of the person you saved?


Guy Incognito said:
Please cease conflating the terms "selfish" and "self interested." We both agree that they describe different things, so it gets confusing. You might think it is dumb to sacrifice oneself for a stranger, and it is "self interested" in a strict sense, but we can both agree that self sacrifice is the very definition of unselfish.

Why is it good to value others over ones own self? There are a variety of rationales to explain this. I'm not trying to convert anybody. You either find this proposition persuasive or you do not. If you do not then you are selfish.
Click to expand...

If you sacrifice yourself solely for the benefit of yourself it could be considered selfish.
Whether it be for religious reasons or something else.
Like the thought that, self sacrifice gets you an automatic ticket to heaven.

Guy Incognito said:
I don't think anybody is advocating reckless. I'm talking about reasoned selflessness. Reason is what separates humanity from animals. The animal nature compels one to act in their own selfish interest, with no concern for others. But true reason dictates that we aspire to a higher good, and that every action we perform is part of a universal whole.

What Randians fail to account for is the fact that the self really is an arbitrary point of view. Just because your subjective experience is what you personally feel, what makes it more valuable than the subjective experience of another? Rationally, all subjective experiences (all people) should be given equal moral weight, whether they be one's self or another one's self.
Click to expand...

Is it selfless to save a stranger over your wife, why?
If someone chooses not to, is it selfish why?
 
Harry Guerrilla said:
Why is it logical?
What if your family suffers from your sacrifice more than the family of the person you saved?
Click to expand...

This is straying pretty far from a discussion of Randianism. A Randian values other people, including family only insofar as they are pleasing or beneficial to one's self. The Randian position of self-primacy is only logical if setting the self as the focal point can be justified. It cannot. Why is another person less valuable than one's own self? This is arbitrary.


Harry Guerrilla said:
If you sacrifice yourself solely for the benefit of yourself it could be considered selfish.
Click to expand...

You are equivocating as to the word "benefit." You cannot "benefit" yourself (in the sense you use it here) by an act of self-sacrifice. The nature of self sacrifice is forgoing a benefit to the self in favor of benefit for another.

Harry Guerrilla said:
Whether it be for religious reasons or something else.
Like the thought that, self sacrifice gets you an automatic ticket to heaven.
Click to expand...

Well, that's a pretty logical reason, isn't it?
 
What if...? said:
Hey now...

Mentioning Frank Lunz, while dismissing his contributions to the science of propaganda, makes me instantly suspiscious.

Would you please elaborate on your apparent position in this regard?

Because I think its far more relevant to our current political situation than you apparently do.

Do you have some evidence that cognitive linquistics is imaginary or otherwise invalid/irrelevant to how we form the beliefs we hold?

I'm genuinely curious about your take on this, because your comment seems to indicate that you are aware of some peoples' concerns about his practices, but consider them invalid.

I would LOVE to discuss this. :2wave:
Click to expand...

And also, are you aware that the correct person to have used in your comment is George Lakoff?

Lunz does Republican "messaging"

Lakoff is known for the concept of "framing" issues, and his insistence that Dems learn how the right does this in order for them to compete.

Just askin'. :2wave:
 
Guy Incognito said:
This is straying pretty far from a discussion of Randianism. A Randian values other people, including family only insofar as they are pleasing or beneficial to one's self. The Randian position of self-primacy is only logical if setting the self as the focal point can be justified. It cannot.
Click to expand...

Not straying at all.
It's a valid question, if you sacrificing for another, causes those closest to you, to be in a greater state harm than the person you sacrificed for, then it is not truly a moral or logical position.

You have caused more harm by sacrificing yourself.

Guy Incognito said:
Why is another person less valuable than one's own self? This is arbitrary.
Click to expand...

Precisely because it is arbitrary.
It is my life and if I chose to dispose of it, it should be my decision in total, without moral pressure to do so.

Sorry but I do not believe in egalitarianism.
Not only is my biological directive, it is my personal view.

To add though, if we go the egalitarian route, what is gained by a person sacrificing his/her life for another.
All is equal and it wouldn't matter.

Guy Incognito said:
You are equivocating as to the word "benefit." You cannot "benefit" yourself (in the sense you use it here) by an act of self-sacrifice. The nature of self sacrifice is forgoing a benefit to the self in favor of benefit for another.
Click to expand...

You can benefit yourself in an act of self sacrifice, the emotional feeling before death or the believe you will be rewarded is the benefit.

Guy Incognito said:
Well, that's a pretty logical reason, isn't it?
Click to expand...

Only if you believe it to be true, but I think that contradicts the teachings of most religions, so it would backfire.
In other words, it's suicide.
 
Last edited:
I'd rather see a good shoot 'em up than fall asleep. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom