Ayn Rand

[ruckman101]

How is that $250k income generated, from your labor, or someone else's? If someone else's, are they being fairly compensated? By fair, I mean fair, not what a market dictates, not the least you can get away with, etc.


neal

[steve74baywin]

I went to school with a person that argued against welfare by stating "the poor are poor because they want to be" I don't know if she was a Rand follower, in fact at the time I'd never heard of Ayn Rand, but instinctively I knew she was wrong.

The problem with a statement like that is probably this.
Not all things are black and white and absolute.
Not all people are poor for the same reason.
For a certain argument sake, some people are poor because they want to be.
I've heard the arguments for that, and for proving a point or motivating one to get ahead it is in interesting statement, or actually serves the purpose of showing someone how they can change their life, no matter where they are now, they can change their life by doing things a Certain Way.
But, there are no absolutes.

Wow, we could probably talk about the statement alone in its' own thread.
""the poor are poor because they want to be""

[ruckman101]

Steve wrote: "4)Almost nobody sacrifices their life for others anyway, and if they did, lurking is probably a selfish motive."

Uhmmm, soldiers, wars, poverty....plenty of people give their lives for corporate greed, it's just packaged and marketed as if we were "spreading freedom and democracy".

Those guns and the ones pointing at your head if you don't pay your taxes are protecting the elite's interests. The government is a mere representative for them. Mixed up in it all, is a bit of law that attempted to address this disparity, and those laws seem to be the ones that the loudest cries to repeal are focused on. Smoke and mirrors indeed. So this just, to me, points to the Koch brothers, ALEC, and so on. That ol' corporate funded astroturf "Tea Party Express" is rolling again.


neal

[RussellK]

Chris I don't know what you mean its not about a group of people. My schoolmate would have been perfectly happy to have a US equivalent of the streets of Calcutta to act as the survival filter. I couldn't share her vision particularly when like India we also have barriers separating the haves from the have nots.

Is it immoral to be selfish? Is it immoral to have an income over 250k? If you're asking if I think acquiring wealth is inherently immoral, my answer is unequivocally no. But I also think we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of our society. That might mean taxes, that might mean being less selfish if that is in the best interest of our society.

[steve74baywin]

Steve wrote: "4)Almost nobody sacrifices their life for others anyway, and if they did, lurking is probably a selfish motive."

Uhmmm, soldiers, wars, poverty....plenty of people give their lives for corporate greed, it's just packaged and marketed as if we were "spreading freedom and democracy".

Those guns and the ones pointing at your head if you don't pay your taxes are protecting the elite's interests. The government is a mere representative for them. Mixed up in it all, is a bit of law that attempted to address this disparity, and those laws seem to be the ones that the loudest cries to repeal are focused on. Smoke and mirrors indeed. So this just, to me, points to the Koch brothers, ALEC, and so on. That ol' corporate funded astroturf "Tea Party Express" is rolling again.


neal

People don't choose to give up their life for someone else that often anyway.
I think you missed the later part of the "and if they did, lurking is probably a selfish motive".
Soldiers, selfish motive could be, wants to do what he thinks is right for himself to be a good boy and go to heaven, or to protect HIS country and family, or like many of us I joined the military for schooling and pay while in school, yes for sure, I joined for selfish motives, I wanted to get educated in get paid for it.
It is more like you pointed out the selfish needs of the big old group of collectivist living in USA. We need all these things you know for the greater good, so for our greater good and safety we will go to war to either get rid of bad men that could hurt us, or to make we selfish people have oil.
People sacrifice others peoples lives, bug rarely their own.

[ruckman101]

"and if they did, lurking is probably a selfish motive"

It's true, I'm clueless as to what you're trying to communicate with that sentence.



neal

[RussellK]

maybe I know why Ayn had a hard time too.

Her philosophy wasn't embraced because it was flawed. It had nothing to do with communication skills.

I disagree.
Tons of people embraced her philosophy, not everyone will.
Those who didn't I think don't understand it. IMHO
Chee, whenever I speak of it someone chimes in with something that clearly shows me a lack of understanding it. What else I am to think?

You confuse not understanding with not agreeing. For the record I understand your point fully. It's so painfully lacking in depth it would be difficult not to. That said. I don't agree with it for the same reason given. Apparently you can't present an argument or discussion without attempting to disparage the intellect of other board participants. Its tiresome and counterproductive.

Upon re reading I see that apparently I can't either. Have fun. I shouldn't take this so seriously.

[steve74baywin]

"and if they did, lurking is probably a selfish motive"

It's true, I'm clueless as to what you're trying to communicate with that sentence.



neal

Ah, okay.

Sometimes when something is done that appears to not be for ones self, or appears to not be selfish, it still actually is.
One example, that Rand used is what Belleplaine mentioned.
Ayn Rand said she would do almost anything or maybe anything to save her husband, but that at the root of that is becuase of her selfish desire to have him for herself.
In a metaphysical type talk someone said this.
When one says they love someone, you will see that behind that is this "what does that person do for me?" If the person we love starts acting a certain way, we find that they drop out of our favor. So much for love. If one looks deep they usually find they are in love with that person because of what they do for them. That could mean many different things, but usually at the root of it is this "They are doing something for you". Whether they make you feel good, or make you feel needed, or sexually do it for you, or gives you pride, or provides for you, the list just goes on and on and on, but it is along the same lines, that if we truly honestly look within ourselves, we see we do almost everything out of a selfish or self serving desire.

[steve74baywin]

maybe I know why Ayn had a hard time too.

Her philosophy wasn't embraced because it was flawed. It had nothing to do with communication skills.

I disagree.
Tons of people embraced her philosophy, not everyone will.
Those who didn't I think don't understand it. IMHO
Chee, whenever I speak of it someone chimes in with something that clearly shows me a lack of understanding it. What else I am to think?

You confuse not understanding with not agreeing. For the record I understand your point fully. It's so painfully lacking in depth it would be difficult not to. That said. I don't agree with it for the same reason given. Apparently you can't present an argument or discussion without attempting to disparage the intellect of other board participants. Its tiresome and counterproductive.

Upon re reading I see that apparently I can't either. Have fun. I shouldn't take this so seriously.

You kinda lost me a bit overall, in the end.
I can see where one might think because I say people don't understand it I'm ditching their intellect. But please do not see it that way. This world is big and no one has figured everything out yet.
It is possible that 1)Someone comes across something first, that later helps something else makes sense. 2) Someone hears something or reads something that taints or paints something a certain way, kinda started it if off on the wrong foot. (this one I blame the rulers for alot). The list goes on and on as to why someone might not have what I think is the big, correct picture of Rand's work. Not intellect. Sure, in some cases it could be intellect.
Like I said, I think I can explain Rands philosophy better than she could, that is another reason it might not be understood. Just listen to one of the interviews with her on youtube shows how people started off misunderstanding, most of the interviews is dedicated to just that, her trying to clarify a misinterpretation of her belief's



Edited to add
Here are some vids of Ayn Rand being interviewed.

Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 1 of 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8

[steve74baywin]

Here are some vids of Ayn Rand being interviewed.

Ayn Rand Mike Wallace Interview 1959 part 1
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ukJiBZ8_4k

Ayn Rand Phil Donahue Interview Part 1 of 5
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FzGFytGBDN8

Pardon me for reposting so quickly, but I am listening to the Mike Wallace interview now.
I think I saw it last year.
But anyway, the first 6 minutes or so is very relevant to some of todays discussion.

[Lanval]

This:

The point I make often, people were deceived into thinking they need the gov to violate someones rights to property for their own good, after they get the people to do this they have the people by the balls, cause the people have just begged the gov to throw away the very thing we fought for, protection of rights. So now the people rights are violated often, things are turned upside down and we now look to a mommy gov to tell us our rights.

and this:

Tell me more about this Potato famine.

Steve, why should I (or anyone) take seriously your discussion of rights and constitutional interpretation when you don't even know/understand basic elements of the history of this country?

Your comments are dismissive of others in a way that's wholly surprising given how often you are the one lacking in understanding or knowledge ~ as above; why do you assume that Russell not agreeing with you is the same as not understanding? A: Because you believe you see The Truth and that anyone else who sees it will by extension will agree with you. No. Many of your basic assumptions about the nature of the US, and it's form of government, are wrong; not opinion wrong, factually wrong. Which in turn forces even people who might otherwise agree with the aims of your beliefs to argue against you.

You would do well to arm yourself with fewer claims of "conspiracy" and more knowledge of the context and history of the things you discuss. Operating in ignorance and expecting the rest of us to treat you like an oracle is not going to achieve your desires ~ if in fact you wish to reveal some hidden "truth" to the greater collective here.

Best,

Michael L

[BellePlaine]

Chris I don't know what you mean its not about a group of people. My schoolmate would have been perfectly happy to have a US equivalent of the streets of Calcutta to act as the survival filter. I couldn't share her vision particularly when like India we also have barriers separating the haves from the have nots.

I don't understand the example, Russ. I just don't know the history.

Is it immoral to be selfish? Is it immoral to have an income over 250k? If you're asking if I think acquiring wealth is inherently immoral, my answer is unequivocally no. But I also think we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of our society. That might mean taxes, that might mean being less selfish if that is in the best interest of our society.

It seems to me like we are asking to have it both ways: it's not immoral to be selfish, however being less selfish is a moral responsibility to society. Of course I understand what you mean, but it's contradicting. How can selfishness be ok and not ok at the same time?

In my fantasy land, being a good steward of society would mean that everyone would be treated neutrally in the eyes Federal Government. I think that it is moral for our government (who are "us") to treat us equally regardless of our bank account, etc.

Russell, I'm sorry for attempting to paint you in a corner. I'm sure that I cannot hold you there but thank you for answering my question.

[Lanval]

Belleplaine,

I can't answer for Russell, but my take is this:

Earning money is good. But no one makes it to the top on their own. Everyone who is wealthy got there by employing others; that doesn't mean they owe something in strictly monetary terms, right? After all, the employees were paid. But.

Isn't there some sense that beyond a given point, the wealth that you derive isn't necessarily about you personally? Would you really argue that the wealth of Jobs, Gates, Buffett or any of the Wall Street financiers is due solely to their superiority to the say, $30,000 p/year elementary school teacher? Not likely, is it. In fact, the teacher may well have a larger effect over time, given her access to young minds.

But a purely self-interested motive would seem to make this claim ~ that everything the rich have comes directly from their own power and work; that simply isn't true. And so we look to the really wealthy and ask: Is giving up 2 million out of 20 million really an imposition? Or is that perhaps a way that they can give back in gratefulness to those who enabled their meteoric (and sometimes unjustified) rise to wealth?

I fall in the category of the latter ~ For me it's not a contradiction. Getting money is good. Rewarding those who helped you is also good. Doing one enables the other. And so much the better if the people you help are assisted in ways that help them achieve too ~ education, instruction and supporting social services that enable them to function in our society: buses, basic medical care, and so on.

I don't see the contradiction in a truly moral and self-interested society.

Best,

Mike

[steve74baywin]

This:

The point I make often, people were deceived into thinking they need the gov to violate someones rights to property for their own good, after they get the people to do this they have the people by the balls, cause the people have just begged the gov to throw away the very thing we fought for, protection of rights. So now the people rights are violated often, things are turned upside down and we now look to a mommy gov to tell us our rights.

and this:

Tell me more about this Potato famine.

Steve, why should I (or anyone) take seriously your discussion of rights and constitutional interpretation when you don't even know/understand basic elements of the history of this country?

Your comments are dismissive of others in a way that's wholly surprising given how often you are the one lacking in understanding or knowledge ~ as above; why do you assume that Russell not agreeing with you is the same as not understanding? A: Because you believe you see The Truth and that anyone else who sees it will by extension will agree with you. No. Many of your basic assumptions about the nature of the US, and it's form of government, are wrong; not opinion wrong, factually wrong. Which in turn forces even people who might otherwise agree with the aims of your beliefs to argue against you.

You would do well to arm yourself with fewer claims of "conspiracy" and more knowledge of the context and history of the things you discuss. Operating in ignorance and expecting the rest of us to treat you like an oracle is not going to achieve your desires ~ if in fact you wish to reveal some hidden "truth" to the greater collective here.

Best,

Michael L

I either disagree with you or I don't understand what you are saying.
Please clarify.

[RussellK]

Chris I don't know what you mean its not about a group of people. My schoolmate would have been perfectly happy to have a US equivalent of the streets of Calcutta to act as the survival filter. I couldn't share her vision particularly when like India we also have barriers separating the haves from the have nots.

I don't understand the example, Russ. I just don't know the history.

Is it immoral to be selfish? Is it immoral to have an income over 250k? If you're asking if I think acquiring wealth is inherently immoral, my answer is unequivocally no. But I also think we have a moral responsibility to be good stewards of our society. That might mean taxes, that might mean being less selfish if that is in the best interest of our society.

It seems to me like we are asking to have it both ways: it's not immoral to be selfish, however being less selfish is a moral responsibility to society. Of course I understand what you mean, but it's contradicting. How can selfishness be ok and not ok at the same time?

In my fantasy land, being a good steward of society would mean that everyone would be treated neutrally in the eyes Federal Government. I think that it is moral for our government (who are "us") to treat us equally regardless of our bank account, etc.

Russell, I'm sorry for attempting to paint you in a corner. I'm sure that I cannot hold you there but thank you for answering my question.

I don't know where to go with the first example either. We may have been talking about two different things. My point is my schoolmate held the poverty stricken of the land responsible for their situation and saw no reason to lend a hand. She couldn't see that she was from an advantaged class (White - Well Nourished - Daughter of IVY League School Grad) and, like the untouchables of India, there were others in their position as a result of circumstance not by choice.

Mike said it first and I agree. I don't see a contradiction at all. Its from a perfectly selfish point of view that we need to be good stewards. Why wouldn't I want solid infrastructure, good schools, sanitation, a healthy population etc? The things that make the people around me better makes the world I live in better too.