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

Fasco-Objectivism

FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 5:55:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Collectivism and charity are outlawed.

Everyone has what they are worth, no more, no less.

Discuss.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 6:01:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Social darwinism. Nothing more, nothing less.

And considering that the other Objectivists - well, Ragnar and Cody - are generally libertarian in their outlook, the chances of them agreeing will be slim.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 6:16:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Everything you use would have to be owned by an individual and if that individual isn't you than you have to pay for using it. Imagine paying another toll each time you got on a new road.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 6:18:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 5:55:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Collectivism and charity are outlawed.

Everyone has what they are worth, no more, no less.

Discuss.

There is nothing Objectivist within that.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 6:28:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lol. Fascism and Objectivism combined? God, it's like my past self and present self united!

Thankfully, contradictions don't exist in reality, FREEDO. Especially what you're proposing. According to Objectivist principles, for example, charity isn't a primary virtue; however, one has a right to be charitable. The lack of altruism in Objectivist Ethics in no way denotes a hostile stance toward legitimate human goodwill.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 6:30:07 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 5:55:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Collectivism and charity are outlawed.

Everyone has what they are worth, no more, no less.

Also, this political "formulation" of yours in no way determines what a person is "worth". Worth what? To whom? By what standard? There's no room for loose interpretation when it comes to anything concerning Objectivism. If you can't state it in simple, accurate, to-the-point terms, it probably isn't something worth stating.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 6:37:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 6:30:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/16/2010 5:55:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Collectivism and charity are outlawed.

Everyone has what they are worth, no more, no less.

Also, this political "formulation" of yours in no way determines what a person is "worth". Worth what? To whom? By what standard? There's no room for loose interpretation when it comes to anything concerning Objectivism. If you can't state it in simple, accurate, to-the-point terms, it probably isn't something worth stating.

Money at a guess - so basically no inheritance. :P Dead peoples money is ... dead?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 6:43:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 6:37:38 PM, Puck wrote:
At 5/16/2010 6:30:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/16/2010 5:55:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Collectivism and charity are outlawed.

Everyone has what they are worth, no more, no less.

Also, this political "formulation" of yours in no way determines what a person is "worth". Worth what? To whom? By what standard? There's no room for loose interpretation when it comes to anything concerning Objectivism. If you can't state it in simple, accurate, to-the-point terms, it probably isn't something worth stating.

Money at a guess - so basically no inheritance. :P Dead peoples money is ... dead?

Well, who exactly determines what a person's "worth" is? After all, I'm sure a baby isn't "worth" much in monetary terms. Babies tend to produce little more than vomit, feces, and tears.
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 7:06:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 6:43:22 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/16/2010 6:37:38 PM, Puck wrote:
At 5/16/2010 6:30:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/16/2010 5:55:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Collectivism and charity are outlawed.

Everyone has what they are worth, no more, no less.

Also, this political "formulation" of yours in no way determines what a person is "worth". Worth what? To whom? By what standard? There's no room for loose interpretation when it comes to anything concerning Objectivism. If you can't state it in simple, accurate, to-the-point terms, it probably isn't something worth stating.

Money at a guess - so basically no inheritance. :P Dead peoples money is ... dead?

Well, who exactly determines what a person's "worth" is? After all, I'm sure a baby isn't "worth" much in monetary terms. Babies tend to produce little more than vomit, feces, and tears.

Since he adds a ban on charity, I'm guessing his point was people have (money/goods) what they earn/buy.

Why he would, I don't know. :P
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 7:55:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The system described by OP isn't very individualistic because it intervenes with one's ability to govern themselves and their property.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,926
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 7:58:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Freedo, you have the admirable ability to make me facepalm the most out of almost anyone on this site.

Well done, sir. (^_^)
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 8:00:59 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 6:30:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/16/2010 5:55:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Collectivism and charity are outlawed.

Everyone has what they are worth, no more, no less.

Also, this political "formulation" of yours in no way determines what a person is "worth". Worth what? To whom? By what standard? There's no room for loose interpretation when it comes to anything concerning Objectivism. If you can't state it in simple, accurate, to-the-point terms, it probably isn't something worth stating.

I believe he is assuming an objective theory of value.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 9:28:08 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Lemme guess, tomorrow this'll be Freedo's ideology.
For four minutes.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 9:38:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 9:28:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lemme guess, tomorrow this'll be Freedo's ideology.
For four minutes.

If I remember right, Freedo said he's never become an authoritarian. However, I think I remember him saying he'd never become a socialist.

I'll start taking bets on when and how long his transition to "fasco-objectivism" takes. I put down for tomorrow, at 3:00, for about two hours - any takers?
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 9:40:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 9:38:45 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/16/2010 9:28:08 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Lemme guess, tomorrow this'll be Freedo's ideology.
For four minutes.

If I remember right, Freedo said he's never become an authoritarian. However, I think I remember him saying he'd never become a socialist.

I'll start taking bets on when and how long his transition to "fasco-objectivism" takes. I put down for tomorrow, at 3:00, for about two hours - any takers?

I dunno. I would almost bet that we'd scare him away from it before he gets there.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 9:47:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 9:42:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Maybe he'll be swayed to statism/authoritarian by me? ;)

Read the thread, he's already on that road.

But he'll go to Allah through you. Then he'll go Qutbist-- Al Qaeda interpretation. Then he'll go Qutbist-- Anarchist interpretation. Then he'll go Ba'haii, and when he runs off for a year of service he'll feel really retarded five minutes off the plane.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 9:48:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 9:47:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/16/2010 9:42:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Maybe he'll be swayed to statism/authoritarian by me? ;)

Read the thread, he's already on that road.

But he'll go to Allah through you. Then he'll go Qutbist-- Al Qaeda interpretation. Then he'll go Qutbist-- Anarchist interpretation. Then he'll go Ba'haii, and when he runs off for a year of service he'll feel really retarded five minutes off the plane.

Of course. Everybody must accept Allah. R_R, have you accepted Allah into your life? ;)
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 9:49:14 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 9:47:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
he'll feel really retarded five minutes off the plane.

I think he's already skipped to that step.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 9:50:49 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 9:48:38 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 5/16/2010 9:47:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 5/16/2010 9:42:34 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
Maybe he'll be swayed to statism/authoritarian by me? ;)

Read the thread, he's already on that road.

But he'll go to Allah through you. Then he'll go Qutbist-- Al Qaeda interpretation. Then he'll go Qutbist-- Anarchist interpretation. Then he'll go Ba'haii, and when he runs off for a year of service he'll feel really retarded five minutes off the plane.

Of course. Everybody must accept Allah. R_R, have you accepted Allah into your life? ;)
I don't swing that way. Now Allat, Uzza, and Manat, if they ask nicely enough I'll be WOOHOO.

Is that okay? they're in the Quran, sorta.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 9:51:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 9:49:14 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 5/16/2010 9:47:19 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
he'll feel really retarded five minutes off the plane.

I think he's already skipped to that step.

I said feel not be.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Rezzealaux
Posts: 2,251
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 10:09:32 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
asd
: If you weren't new here, you'd know not to feed me such attention. This is like an orgasm in my brain right now. *hehe, my name is in a title, hehe* (http://www.debate.org...)

Just in case I get into some BS with FREEDO again about how he's NOT a narcissist.

"The law is there to destroy evil under the constitutional government."
So... what's there to destroy evil inside of and above the constitutional government?
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 11:01:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 5/16/2010 8:00:59 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 5/16/2010 6:30:07 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:
At 5/16/2010 5:55:07 PM, FREEDO wrote:
Collectivism and charity are outlawed.

Everyone has what they are worth, no more, no less.

Also, this political "formulation" of yours in no way determines what a person is "worth". Worth what? To whom? By what standard? There's no room for loose interpretation when it comes to anything concerning Objectivism. If you can't state it in simple, accurate, to-the-point terms, it probably isn't something worth stating.

I believe he is assuming an objective theory of value.

You are correct sir.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2010 11:18:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Which one is that? The slavery of the able to ensure that the disabled don't get any values?

The point of capitalism isn't to stop people who haven't earned things from having them. It's for those who have to keep them. Pursuing values, not denying them. Objecivists don't hate the incompetent, we just don't care about them.

It would require caring about them to make laws against helping them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.