BF2S Forums Rand Illusion

Turquoise wrote:

You said it above.  Given the context of what I said initially, you implied that any measures taken by society to alleviate crime via the "property of others" are theft.  I gave an example that clearly contradicted this.

No, I didn't. You are talking about common crime, I am talking about common thieves. I meant thieves in the most basic sense of the word.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Taxing others for the sake of viable social programs isn't theft anymore than taxing others for roads and the military is.

Do not exist.

If there is a need, a market will provide for it with the sole exception of a standing national defense.

Oh really?  Why is it then that the entirety of the First World has them, and as a result, they have produced the highest qualities of life?  The last half of a century would contradict you here, even in the U.S.

Who said our current system was the best? How do you know that other systems can't be better?

What country in the world is closest to Rand's ideal?

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You said it above.  Given the context of what I said initially, you implied that any measures taken by society to alleviate crime via the "property of others" are theft.  I gave an example that clearly contradicted this.

No, I didn't. You are talking about common crime, I am talking about common thieves. I meant thieves in the most basic sense of the word.

Well then, why did you use that term given the context of what I said?  I wasn't talking about justifying theft.

Turquoise wrote:

Rational self-interest generally means that the well-being of others is just as important as your own if you hope to keep crime at a tolerable level.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Oh really?  Why is it then that the entirety of the First World has them, and as a result, they have produced the highest qualities of life?  The last half of a century would contradict you here, even in the U.S.

Who said our current system was the best? How do you know that other systems can't be better?

What country in the world is closest to Rand's ideal?

Singapore is actually the closest to Rand's ideal.  They're not particularly big on social freedom, but they do have plenty of economic freedom.

lol, yeah, because she is purely an economic theorist. Fuck free speech.

You know the answer as well as I do.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

You said it above.  Given the context of what I said initially, you implied that any measures taken by society to alleviate crime via the "property of others" are theft.  I gave an example that clearly contradicted this.

No, I didn't. You are talking about common crime, I am talking about common thieves. I meant thieves in the most basic sense of the word.

Well then, why did you use that term given the context of what I said?  I wasn't talking about justifying theft.

Turquoise wrote:

Rational self-interest generally means that the well-being of others is just as important as your own if you hope to keep crime at a tolerable level.

Again, where did theft come into play with my first statement?

Crime is the most immediate violation of the social contract, violations that you stated were going to become prevalent in an objectivist society. Theft is the most common and blatant form of crime, or at least the one that I imagine as such.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Singapore is actually the closest to Rand's ideal.  They're not particularly big on social freedom, but they do have plenty of economic freedom.

lol, yeah, because she is purely an economic theorist. Fuck free speech.

You know the answer as well as I do.

If you're suggesting that America is closest to her ideal, then why would you suggest that social programs aren't viable?  Furthermore, if that is part of Rand's ideology, then again, Singapore would be closer to her ideal.

If social freedoms are important enough to Rand for America to be closest to her ideal, then clearly, social programs haven't been that detrimental to her cause, have they?

It's a package deal. Why you are getting all choosy over parts I am truly failing to understand. By her own admission America is the country closest to her ideal, a country founded on the philosophical principle of the individual and not arbitrary border wars (broad paraphrase).

Just because things are going okay now doesn't mean they couldn't be better. I also don't understand why this is so difficult to accept.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Crime is the most immediate violation of the social contract, violations that you stated were going to become prevalent in an objectivist society. Theft is the most common and blatant form of crime, or at least the one that I imagine as such.

Your last statement is interesting.  I think if you asked most people, what they would consider the most blatant crime would be something like murder or rape.

In the case of a breakdown of the social contract by far the most prevalent and in many ways heinous crime would be theft. There are natural instincts that do a good job of keeping us away from what most would consider the more immoral crimes, but irrational greed would be rampant and by far the biggest problem.

Turquoise wrote:

Nevertheless, my statement was intended to mean that objectivism's opposition to government intervention in economic affairs altogether would lead to greater wealth disparity, which leads to more crime.

Not just crime, theft, and that is exactly the sentiment I answered ten or so posts up.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

It is not rational to disrespect another person's right to property, because that means they will not respect your right to property. Rational self-interest leads to a social contract bound by reason, not force.

A thief is the antithesis of an objectivist.

-----------

Turquoise wrote:

but ending social programs wouldn't be an improvement.

Qualify, because her entire philosophy is a qualification of the opposite.

Turquoise wrote:

You mentioned the irrational greed that results from the breakdown of the social contract.  That greed is a direct result of desperation in many cases.  This desperation would result from less social programs.

So again, how would a lack of social programs deal with said desperation?

That greed is a result of either the warped morals of the competent or the acknowledgment of their impotence by the incompetent.

Why you would place any of the resources of society to prop up either of those groups I don't understand. They should be broken, not taped together.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That greed is a result of either the warped morals of the competent or the acknowledgment of their impotence by the incompetent.

Why you would place any of the resources of society to prop up either of those groups I don't understand. They should be broken, not taped together.

If you let people get desperate, they come to your doorstep.  They tried your logic before in France.  It didn't work out so well for the rulers of that country.

Anyone that is mildly competent and has a will to would be able to find work. The fate of anyone else at the hands of the law has no meaning to me.

French society does not resemble and has not ever resembled an objectivist society.

I don't see why your reason for not trying to achieve is that what you earn will be taken away by criminals. The solution is not to stop trying to achieve in that situation.

The existence of the social programs that "protect" you hinge on your tax dollars, your sweat, your personal success.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The existence of the social programs that "protect" you hinge on your tax dollars, your sweat, your personal success.

And considering the fact that I still make enough to get by after taxes, I'd say it's a fair tradeoff.

Turquoise wrote:

Striving for improvement is something most people want

I guess you're not one of them.

You make taxes sound like protection payments to the mafia.

Turquoise wrote:

Actually, what I'd define as improvement is addressing the root causes of poverty so that I don't have to pay as much toward social programs.

Improvement starts at the personal level. Being content with your current income implies that you are not looking to improve that, or you are more scared of what the poor people will do to you without their monthly transfer payments than thoughtful of what you could do with the money you have earned.

Turquoise wrote:

One thing you and I might agree on is that social programs aren't a solution to poverty.  They're a quick fix, but a necessary one.

Necessary because?

Turquoise wrote:

Taxes, in some ways, are like protection payments, so I can't protest your comparison there.  Still, that's life.  Society will always have a certain amount of collectivism to it, regardless of what Rand has to say about it.

"That's life" isn't an appropriate justification for ignoring problems. If other possibilities can even be conceived, then clearly we are capable of changing the societal norms.

Turquoise wrote:

Improving society initially involves accepting certain inevitabilities, but that's something many Rand followers aren't particularly good at.

Like what? Don't get generic.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Improvement starts at the personal level. Being content with your current income implies that you are not looking to improve that, or you are more scared of what the poor people will do to you without their monthly transfer payments than thoughtful of what you could do with the money you have earned.

Excuse me?  Being content with your level of income isn't a bad thing.  And being concerned about the fate of the poor with respect to how they might react without their needs being met is about more than just fear, it's just common sense.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One thing you and I might agree on is that social programs aren't a solution to poverty.  They're a quick fix, but a necessary one.

Necessary because?

I just explained it like 5 times now.  Desperation equals crime.  One of the more immediate ways to lessen desperation is social programs.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Taxes, in some ways, are like protection payments, so I can't protest your comparison there.  Still, that's life.  Society will always have a certain amount of collectivism to it, regardless of what Rand has to say about it.

"That's life" isn't an appropriate justification for ignoring problems. If other possibilities can even be conceived, then clearly we are capable of changing the societal norms.

You can't change human nature or the fact that there will always be rich and poor.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Improving society initially involves accepting certain inevitabilities, but that's something many Rand followers aren't particularly good at.

Like what? Don't get generic.

Like what I just said above.  There will always be rich and poor, and human nature will always be the same.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Improvement starts at the personal level. Being content with your current income implies that you are not looking to improve that, or you are more scared of what the poor people will do to you without their monthly transfer payments than thoughtful of what you could do with the money you have earned.

Excuse me?  Being content with your level of income isn't a bad thing.  And being concerned about the fate of the poor with respect to how they might react without their needs being met is about more than just fear, it's just common sense.

You can always improve your station in life, and nothing but old age should keep you from striving to do so. That could entail doing something that you prefer but might not make so much money at (OH), but in most cases it means upping your pay grade as well.

The answer to a thief is to buy a shotgun, not give some of what he wants so he won't take the rest. If it gets that bad (which I doubt it will, successful competent people trying to expand = bigger businesses = more jobs) then society needs to buy the equivalent of the shotgun to preserve the sanctity of property.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

One thing you and I might agree on is that social programs aren't a solution to poverty.  They're a quick fix, but a necessary one.

Necessary because?

I just explained it like 5 times now.  Desperation equals crime.  One of the more immediate ways to lessen desperation is social programs.

answered above

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

Taxes, in some ways, are like protection payments, so I can't protest your comparison there.  Still, that's life.  Society will always have a certain amount of collectivism to it, regardless of what Rand has to say about it.

"That's life" isn't an appropriate justification for ignoring problems. If other possibilities can even be conceived, then clearly we are capable of changing the societal norms.

You can't change human nature or the fact that there will always be rich and poor.

Which is exactly why her rational egoism has such a firm grounding in reality. It is in man's nature to be "selfish" as many would call it. Man is corrupted by society to care more about others than himself for the good of the whole. Man's instinct only holds out so far as the need to join a group and to try and fit in, even at the cost of trading his values for the values of society.

A society of individuals bettering the whole by bettering themselves is exploiting the most basic traits of humanity.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

You can always improve your station in life, and nothing but old age should keep you from striving to do so. That could entail doing something that you prefer but might not make so much money at (OH), but in most cases it means upping your pay grade as well.

The answer to a thief is to buy a shotgun, not give some of what he wants so he won't take the rest. If it gets that bad (which I doubt it will, successful competent people trying to expand = bigger businesses = more jobs) then society needs to buy the equivalent of the shotgun to preserve the sanctity of property.

I have 2 guns.  I believe in self-defense just like most other people.  That doesn't change the fact that I'd like the environment I live in to be safe enough that I don't need to use my weapons except in extreme and rare circumstances.

Good. Just don't start bargaining with them in trying to avoid violence in defense of your property.

Turquoise wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Which is exactly why her rational egoism has such a firm grounding in reality. It is in man's nature to be "selfish" as many would call it. Man is corrupted by society to care more about others than himself for the good of the whole. Man's instinct only holds out so far as the need to join a group and to try and fit in, even at the cost of trading his values for the values of society.

A society of individuals bettering the whole by bettering themselves is exploiting the most basic traits of humanity.

Bettering yourself is one thing, but expecting that to be enough to hold a society together is just naive.

That is the only possible thing that will hold society together.

You keep society together with band-aids, I'd rather work with potent epoxy.