Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ayn Bran!

Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/4/2015 11:01:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 5:37:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.funnyordie.com...

Lol, I love the mischaracterization of Rand. This is one of the best ones that I've seen.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:06:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/4/2015 11:01:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2015 5:37:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.funnyordie.com...

Lol, I love the mischaracterization of Rand. This is one of the best ones that I've seen.

I like how people continue to associate Ayn Rand with the right wing, despite the fact that she was an outspoken pro-choice, anti-interventionist atheist. She made it quite clear that she hated everyone.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:12:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:06:54 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/4/2015 11:01:47 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/4/2015 5:37:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
http://www.funnyordie.com...

Lol, I love the mischaracterization of Rand. This is one of the best ones that I've seen.

I like how people continue to associate Ayn Rand with the right wing, despite the fact that she was an outspoken pro-choice, anti-interventionist atheist. She made it quite clear that she hated everyone.

Lol, and she clearly supported people shooting each other in order to get what they want. Or, that was the most evil thing that anyone could do according to her philosophy.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:45:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:12:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Lol, and she clearly supported people shooting each other in order to get what they want. Or, that was the most evil thing that anyone could do according to her philosophy.

It was self-defense. They used the gun to maintain their property right over the Ayn Bran. Righteous.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:46:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:45:16 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:12:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Lol, and she clearly supported people shooting each other in order to get what they want. Or, that was the most evil thing that anyone could do according to her philosophy.

It was self-defense. They used the gun to maintain their property right over the Ayn Bran. Righteous.

Rand was strongly against vigilante justice. Hence her disdain for anarchists. Also, the girl shot her brother, who had also been given the Ayn Bran by the producer's own free will.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:50:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:46:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:16 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:12:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Lol, and she clearly supported people shooting each other in order to get what they want. Or, that was the most evil thing that anyone could do according to her philosophy.

It was self-defense. They used the gun to maintain their property right over the Ayn Bran. Righteous.

Rand was strongly against vigilante justice. Hence her disdain for anarchists.

Which makes no sense going from her own philosophy. If we prosecute vigilantes that is initiating force.

Also, the girl shot her brother, who had also been given the Ayn Bran by the producer's own free will.

Fair enough lol.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:52:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:50:42 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:46:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:16 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:12:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Lol, and she clearly supported people shooting each other in order to get what they want. Or, that was the most evil thing that anyone could do according to her philosophy.

It was self-defense. They used the gun to maintain their property right over the Ayn Bran. Righteous.

Rand was strongly against vigilante justice. Hence her disdain for anarchists.

Which makes no sense going from her own philosophy. If we prosecute vigilantes that is initiating force.

??? Vigilantes initiated force by killing/punishing someone. By definition, responding to that initial force would not be an initiation, but a response, which is what objectivism sanctions.

Also, the girl shot her brother, who had also been given the Ayn Bran by the producer's own free will.

Fair enough lol.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:55:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:52:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:50:42 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:46:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:16 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:12:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Lol, and she clearly supported people shooting each other in order to get what they want. Or, that was the most evil thing that anyone could do according to her philosophy.

It was self-defense. They used the gun to maintain their property right over the Ayn Bran. Righteous.

Rand was strongly against vigilante justice. Hence her disdain for anarchists.

Which makes no sense going from her own philosophy. If we prosecute vigilantes that is initiating force.

??? Vigilantes initiated force by killing/punishing someone. By definition, responding to that initial force would not be an initiation, but a response, which is what objectivism sanctions.

The vigilante was using retaliatory force against the original aggressor, who was the second-hander attempting to steal the Bran. If the state did that it would be perfectly valid, according to Rand.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 12:57:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:45:16 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:12:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Lol, and she clearly supported people shooting each other in order to get what they want. Or, that was the most evil thing that anyone could do according to her philosophy.

It was self-defense. They used the gun to maintain their property right over the Ayn Bran. Righteous.

I remember reading a Q and A of hers in which she said she was unsure if citizens should even be allowed to own guns.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:00:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:55:29 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:52:28 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:50:42 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:46:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:16 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:12:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Lol, and she clearly supported people shooting each other in order to get what they want. Or, that was the most evil thing that anyone could do according to her philosophy.

It was self-defense. They used the gun to maintain their property right over the Ayn Bran. Righteous.

Rand was strongly against vigilante justice. Hence her disdain for anarchists.

Which makes no sense going from her own philosophy. If we prosecute vigilantes that is initiating force.

??? Vigilantes initiated force by killing/punishing someone. By definition, responding to that initial force would not be an initiation, but a response, which is what objectivism sanctions.

The vigilante was using retaliatory force against the original aggressor, who was the second-hander attempting to steal the Bran. If the state did that it would be perfectly valid, according to Rand.

Yeah, if there's no government it's morally valid if you are genuinely responding to a violation of your rights. But Rand believed that the entire point of government is the delegation of the right to self-defense, so that it can be executed following objective standards in a fair, unbiased way.

"The individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement."

The whole point is that, if anyone can claim to be acting in retaliation, then what ends up happening is that the strongest win instead of the side which is in the right, because there is no mechanism by which to decide who is in the right.

"Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision. The government has to regard such private force as a threat"i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat."
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:19:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:00:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Yeah, if there's no government it's morally valid if you are genuinely responding to a violation of your rights. But Rand believed that the entire point of government is the delegation of the right to self-defense, so that it can be executed following objective standards in a fair, unbiased way.

"The individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement."

The whole point is that, if anyone can claim to be acting in retaliation, then what ends up happening is that the strongest win instead of the side which is in the right, because there is no mechanism by which to decide who is in the right.

"Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision. The government has to regard such private force as a threat"i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat."

So, then I could say that Rand advocated that "the collective" (the state) takes on rights which are denied the individual? If I want to defend myself, I cannot, and the state will use force to stop me? How is that not initiation of force? By what justification does the state take for itself a right which supposedly derives directly from my own individual (emphasis on *individual*, of course, this being Rand..) right to live?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:23:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision. The government has to regard such private force as a threat"i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat."

This quote basically invalidates private property altogether. All property is a power, which could 'potentially' violate someone's rights. By viewing anything that *could* be a threat as an actual threat, Rand effectively grants unlimited power to the state and her whole philosophy would unravel from there.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:25:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 12:57:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:16 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:12:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Lol, and she clearly supported people shooting each other in order to get what they want. Or, that was the most evil thing that anyone could do according to her philosophy.

It was self-defense. They used the gun to maintain their property right over the Ayn Bran. Righteous.

I remember reading a Q and A of hers in which she said she was unsure if citizens should even be allowed to own guns.

Well there goes property rights. So much for "philosophy"; Objectivism is starting to seem more like a jumbled list of Rand's personal opinions.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 1:42:24 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:19:40 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:00:54 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Yeah, if there's no government it's morally valid if you are genuinely responding to a violation of your rights. But Rand believed that the entire point of government is the delegation of the right to self-defense, so that it can be executed following objective standards in a fair, unbiased way.

"The individual does possess the right of self-defense and that is the right which he delegates to the government, for the purpose of an orderly, legally defined enforcement."

The whole point is that, if anyone can claim to be acting in retaliation, then what ends up happening is that the strongest win instead of the side which is in the right, because there is no mechanism by which to decide who is in the right.

"Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision. The government has to regard such private force as a threat"i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat."

So, then I could say that Rand advocated that "the collective" (the state) takes on rights which are denied the individual? If I want to defend myself, I cannot, and the state will use force to stop me? How is that not initiation of force?

The state investigates the issue to decide whether or not you were initiating force or defending yourself. If you were defending yourself, fine. However, if that isn't the case, then you were initiating force and the state retaliates. Clearly the little girl here was initiating force. Rand never advocated shooting someone for taking a bite out of your Almond Joy; property theft was punished via lawsuits, another purpose of the state. If the people had violently threatened the girl, then she would have been justified in shooting them.

By what justification does the state take for itself a right which supposedly derives directly from my own individual (emphasis on *individual*, of course, this being Rand..) right to live?

They don't, it is delegated to the state. You just can't commit vigilante justice and expect to walk away whistling a merry tune without it being investigated to determine whether or not you were, in fact, using your right to self-defense. If you don't want to delegate it to the state, then you leave. I honestly am at a loss as how you can take from Rand's philosophy 'it's okay to run around shooting people if you say its for self-defense afterwards'.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 2:42:20 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:25:53 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:57:55 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:45:16 PM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/5/2015 12:12:30 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
Lol, and she clearly supported people shooting each other in order to get what they want. Or, that was the most evil thing that anyone could do according to her philosophy.

It was self-defense. They used the gun to maintain their property right over the Ayn Bran. Righteous.

I remember reading a Q and A of hers in which she said she was unsure if citizens should even be allowed to own guns.

Well there goes property rights. So much for "philosophy"; Objectivism is starting to seem more like a jumbled list of Rand's personal opinions.

Her justification for banning guns is basically to "maximize property rights overall".
I found her response:

Q: What's your attitude toward gun control?
A: It is a complex, technical issue in the philosophy of law. Handguns are instruments for killing people -- they are not carried for hunting animals -- and you have no right to kill people. You do have the right to self-defense, however. I don't know how the issue is going to be resolved to protect you without giving you the privilege to kill people at whim.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 2:51:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:23:26 PM, sdavio wrote:
"Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision. The government has to regard such private force as a threat"i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat."

This quote basically invalidates private property altogether. All property is a power, which could 'potentially' violate someone's rights. By viewing anything that *could* be a threat as an actual threat, Rand effectively grants unlimited power to the state and her whole philosophy would unravel from there.

That's just a huge equivocation between two completely different understandings of a 'threat to individual rights'.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 6:04:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Apparently Rand predicated that within a year of Atlas Shrugged's publication, the United States government would be overthrown. She was not what could be described as "humble".
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:15:45 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 4:30:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This satire of Rand is sadly accurate: https://www.youtube.com...

Lol, yeah, THAT is a good satire.
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:31:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:15:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:30:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This satire of Rand is sadly accurate: https://www.youtube.com...

Lol, yeah, THAT is a good satire.

My favorite line is when she says "Now now, let us wait before passing final judgement". It's so Rand.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/5/2015 8:33:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 8:31:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/5/2015 8:15:45 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 4:30:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
This satire of Rand is sadly accurate: https://www.youtube.com...

Lol, yeah, THAT is a good satire.

My favorite line is when she says "Now now, let us wait before passing final judgement". It's so Rand.

I love the defense of smoking as a rational action. And 'this is a particularly rational brand.'
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 7:06:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 2:51:00 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
At 4/5/2015 1:23:26 PM, sdavio wrote:
"Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision. The government has to regard such private force as a threat"i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat."

This quote basically invalidates private property altogether. All property is a power, which could 'potentially' violate someone's rights. By viewing anything that *could* be a threat as an actual threat, Rand effectively grants unlimited power to the state and her whole philosophy would unravel from there.

That's just a huge equivocation between two completely different understandings of a 'threat to individual rights'.

Are there two kinds of individual rights? In what sense is a gun a "potential threat to individual rights" in which a knife, a computer, a pencil, etc etc are not?
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 7:20:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/5/2015 1:42:24 PM, Skepsikyma wrote:
The state investigates the issue to decide whether or not you were initiating force or defending yourself. If you were defending yourself, fine. However, if that isn't the case, then you were initiating force and the state retaliates.

This applies equally to the state itself, since Rand says that a state shouldn't initiate force either. So how is this unique to vigilante justice, rather than a universal statement that nobody should initiate force?

Clearly the little girl here was initiating force. Rand never advocated shooting someone for taking a bite out of your Almond Joy; property theft was punished via lawsuits, another purpose of the state. If the people had violently threatened the girl, then she would have been justified in shooting them.

I was talking about the first part where they were going to take the cereal, which is a threat of force in that they're going to take her property.

By what justification does the state take for itself a right which supposedly derives directly from my own individual (emphasis on *individual*, of course, this being Rand..) right to live?

They don't, it is delegated to the state.

How is it delegated? I have never delegated anything to the state, and it still takes my property and does its thing regardless.

You just can't commit vigilante justice and expect to walk away whistling a merry tune without it being investigated to determine whether or not you were, in fact, using your right to self-defense.

Should the state be subject to the same kind of investigation?

If you don't want to delegate it to the state, then you leave.

Firstly, very often people literally cannot leave, whether for financial reasons or otherwise. Secondly, "then you leave"... leave why? Perhaps I would rather rail against the state, and change it, rather than keeping my opinions to myself.

I honestly am at a loss as how you can take from Rand's philosophy 'it's okay to run around shooting people if you say its for self-defense afterwards'.

I take from Rand that the right not to be violated, and the right to self-defense, are universal, and that no group is exempt from that. Of course, if you'd said that rather than your version, it would have seemed like an almost redundant truism rather than absurd satire.

"Whatever may be open to disagreement, there is one act of evil that may not, the act that no man may commit against others and no man may sanction or forgive. So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate - do you hear me? no man may start - the use of physical force against others."

- John Galt
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 7:27:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
If I take an object from someone because it could potentially be used as a violation, then *I* am initiating force by doing so. This violates Ayn Rand's own principles, quite clearly.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:20:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 7:27:19 AM, sdavio wrote:
If I take an object from someone because it could potentially be used as a violation, then *I* am initiating force by doing so. This violates Ayn Rand's own principles, quite clearly.

It's just an attempt to maximize the protection of individual rights. It's prudence, not contradiction. The same sort of balancing act is also seen in her stance on intellectual property rights.
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:35:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:20:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:27:19 AM, sdavio wrote:
If I take an object from someone because it could potentially be used as a violation, then *I* am initiating force by doing so. This violates Ayn Rand's own principles, quite clearly.

It's just an attempt to maximize the protection of individual rights. It's prudence, not contradiction. The same sort of balancing act is also seen in her stance on intellectual property rights.

So to what degree is she willing to bend her principles - to compromise on 'man's rights' - to give way to pragmatism? In fact I think it's this bending itself; the fact that you say, "We will undertake an action, even if it violates property rights, if it will maximize the population's ability to have property overall," which is the contradiction.

"There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender - the recognition of his right to one's property."

http://aynrandlexicon.com...

Even allowing that contradiction; this pragmatic thinking paves the way to a slippery slope. The whole agenda of the modern 'progressive-left' is that, yes capitalism is a 'good thing', but it needs certain regulations and restrictions to make sure it doesn't go off-rails. Ayn Rand's main appeal, in my view, would be that she supposedly puts a concrete wall - a completely sturdy barrier - in the way of such compromises, which is built of the most solid material ('logic') from ground-up ('axioms').
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:40:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:35:03 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:20:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:27:19 AM, sdavio wrote:
If I take an object from someone because it could potentially be used as a violation, then *I* am initiating force by doing so. This violates Ayn Rand's own principles, quite clearly.

It's just an attempt to maximize the protection of individual rights. It's prudence, not contradiction. The same sort of balancing act is also seen in her stance on intellectual property rights.

So to what degree is she willing to bend her principles - to compromise on 'man's rights' - to give way to pragmatism? In fact I think it's this bending itself; the fact that you say, "We will undertake an action, even if it violates property rights, if it will maximize the population's ability to have property overall," which is the contradiction.

I wouldn't say she bends on her principles...her goal with these balancing acts is to achieve a fuller expression of them.


"There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender - the recognition of his right to one's property."

http://aynrandlexicon.com...

Even allowing that contradiction; this pragmatic thinking paves the way to a slippery slope. The whole agenda of the modern 'progressive-left' is that, yes capitalism is a 'good thing', but it needs certain regulations and restrictions to make sure it doesn't go off-rails. Ayn Rand's main appeal, in my view, would be that she supposedly puts a concrete wall - a completely sturdy barrier - in the way of such compromises, which is built of the most solid material ('logic') from ground-up ('axioms').
sdavio
Posts: 1,801
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:52:54 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:40:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:35:03 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:20:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:27:19 AM, sdavio wrote:
If I take an object from someone because it could potentially be used as a violation, then *I* am initiating force by doing so. This violates Ayn Rand's own principles, quite clearly.

It's just an attempt to maximize the protection of individual rights. It's prudence, not contradiction. The same sort of balancing act is also seen in her stance on intellectual property rights.

So to what degree is she willing to bend her principles - to compromise on 'man's rights' - to give way to pragmatism? In fact I think it's this bending itself; the fact that you say, "We will undertake an action, even if it violates property rights, if it will maximize the population's ability to have property overall," which is the contradiction.


I wouldn't say she bends on her principles...her goal with these balancing acts is to achieve a fuller expression of them.

So, by using theft now, a larger amount of people can own property later? If that is the standard, then we could justify almost anything. And I wouldn't care so much if it wasn't the fact that I think we both know, that Rand spends a huge amount of her books talking about, how the term "black and white thinking" as a pejorative is BS, how pragmatism is evil, how we can't compromise moral principles etc etc etc.

I'm always surprised talking to Objectivists, when you use a term like "balancing act" where it seems so clear that, in almost any circumstance, if Rand read that phrase she'd probably recoil or spit on the ground. She probably turns in her grave still every time someone utters a phrase like that.
"Logic is the money of the mind." - Karl Marx
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,255
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/7/2015 10:56:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 4/7/2015 10:52:54 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:40:34 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:35:03 AM, sdavio wrote:
At 4/7/2015 10:20:33 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/7/2015 7:27:19 AM, sdavio wrote:
If I take an object from someone because it could potentially be used as a violation, then *I* am initiating force by doing so. This violates Ayn Rand's own principles, quite clearly.

It's just an attempt to maximize the protection of individual rights. It's prudence, not contradiction. The same sort of balancing act is also seen in her stance on intellectual property rights.

So to what degree is she willing to bend her principles - to compromise on 'man's rights' - to give way to pragmatism? In fact I think it's this bending itself; the fact that you say, "We will undertake an action, even if it violates property rights, if it will maximize the population's ability to have property overall," which is the contradiction.


I wouldn't say she bends on her principles...her goal with these balancing acts is to achieve a fuller expression of them.

So, by using theft now, a larger amount of people can own property later? If that is the standard, then we could justify almost anything.

"Balancing act" is not synonymous with "anything goes".

And I wouldn't care so much if it wasn't the fact that I think we both know, that Rand spends a huge amount of her books talking about, how the term "black and white thinking" as a pejorative is BS, how pragmatism is evil, how we can't compromise moral principles etc etc etc.


It's still black and white thinking. Her reasoning is: X is good (protection of rights), Y is bad (violation of rights). Policy A leads to less X more Y, policy B lead to more X less Y. Thus, policy A is unequivocally better.

I'm always surprised talking to Objectivists, when you use a term like "balancing act" where it seems so clear that, in almost any circumstance, if Rand read that phrase she'd probably recoil or spit on the ground. She probably turns in her grave still every time someone utters a phrase like that.