How old to people tend to be when they grow out of Ayn Rand?

Er...oooooooooookay.

I demonstrate to you a truism which even 90% of Rand's audience can grasp - a key reason why the vast majority of her readers grow out of the 'Rand' phase about the time they leave highschool. It demonstrates that Ran's cult is not only hilariously illogical, but downright counter to human biology, and that Rand herself acknowledges that fact.

And you come back with, effectively, 'I'm sure it ain't so.'

You know, I've encountered plenty of lamers on this website. There was Lei-Talk, who decided the only way to cover up for Rand was to threaten people. JHTabbot, who runs around desperately trying to shout down any criticism, but who never manages to actually, you know, engage the ideas. Bilwick, who relies on vague sneering, but who dare not engage in actual debate.

But you win. Yours is the weakest comeback I've yet encountered. I accept your implicit surrender.

re: "I demonstrate to you a truism which even 90% of Rand's audience can grasp - a key reason why the vast majority of her readers grow out of the 'Rand' phase about the time they leave highschool. It demonstrates that Ran's cult is not only hilariously illogical, but downright counter to human biology, and that Rand herself acknowledges that fact."



Three interesting points:

a) You're your own best [and sole] cheerleader.
b) My prior post does not imply surrender at all.
c) This is typical of your self-aggrandizing blather.

One can desire to have children or not. One can be an Objectivist - with kids one loves, or choose not to have kids. The definition of success or happiness belongs to the individual. If you value children, they are a source of your happiness. But enough of this obvious stuff beyond your grasp. Some of your misrepresentations of Rand strewn throughout this board are countered in chapter 3 of The Virtue of Selfishness.

Rand: "Love and friendship are profoundly personal, selfish values: love is an expression and assertion of self-esteem, a response to one's own values in the person of another. One gains a profoundly personal, selfish joy from the mere existence of the person one loves. It is one's own personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love.

Concern for the welfare of those one loves is a rational part of one's selfish interests. If a man who is passionately in love with his wife spends a fortune to cure her of a dangerous illness, it would be absurd to claim that he does it as a "sacrifice" for her sake, not his own, and that it makes no difference to him, personally and selfishly, whether she lives or dies."

This obliterates much of your tirade regarding my allusion to family ties preventing me from moving to Singapore and your assertions regarding "nonmaterial" emotive rewards not counting in Rand's book. And you say I didn't read it!
__________________________________________________

I'll read your other ubiquitous blogs of this evening, and I may or may not comment. But beyond that, I'll likely abandon the discussion since your arguments boil down to: "I won!," selected uncited quotes without context in a "Where's Waldo?" variation, assertions and misrepresentations and simplification of Rand's work, invitations - with a straight face and dead-pan delivery - to leave the country to prove one's bona fides, and attempts at derision.
_______________________________________________

Re:Yours is the weakest comeback I've yet encountered. I accept your implicit surrender.

Reply: Speed-reading without comprehension is the opposite of an asset.




"You know, men could do that in those days.
They had the power and the freedom."

-- "One can desire to have children or not."

Sorry, but all desires, according to Rand, must be subject to empirically perceptable sensory input. In order to desire children, therefore, one would have to have a biological imperative to sacrifice oneself for dependent others...which, of course, utterly negates Rand's ethic of selfishness.

Notice that even ni the quotes you're desperately bringing forth, Rand never mentions children? That would be why.

-- " I'll read your other ubiquitous blogs of this evening, and I may or may not comment. But beyond that, I'll likely abandon the discussion..."

Yes, I rather suspected you might. You could always try the other two Objectivist tricks from the Randite goodie-bag o' debate: ad-hominem attacks and desperately (and unsuccessfully) trying to shout down any criticism of the cult mistress.

re: ad-hominem attacks and desperately (and unsuccessfully) trying to shout down any criticism of the cult mistress.

Now, now, now. You haven't been guilty of that tack, yourself? Come now!
__________________________

You know, I have friends and relatives who have zero desire for children. We are not all clones. Sex was "invented" to allow for genetic variability. There is also an experiencial component affecting our individual and subjective values. Those who desire [value] children have them and love them and sacrifice for them. Those that do not share that value [having children], tend to not have them. {Rand used "the spouse" in her example, since that, and not children, is what she valued.} She describes - in ch 3 in VOS, again - how saving a loved one is selfish because it is for your enhancement and well-being.

"You know, men could do that in those days.
They had the power and the freedom."

Geeez dude, you want to be a nasty SOB about your ideas on Rand, and knocking others? Read the posts I made to Ironclad Iconoclast. I think I can handle your crap but, I probably should not waste my time. I gave up on him after about 6 hours, but hey, what the heck.

Now maybe we know why she got pretty irate with folks who did not understand her ideas. I’m sure you would have a different take on that, but again, what the heck!

Oh, I first read Atlas Shrugged when I was 26, I am now 58. I and a girlfriend had a pretty good time with it. She was a smart girl and enjoyed history. She was in fact a California history major. If she and I had had kids, I’m sure we would have introduced them to Ayn Rand. Guess I’m just one of those koolaid drinkers huh?

[deleted]

[deleted]

Unfortunately, today's philosophy has become a rather bulls--t home for pseudointellectuals more interested in impressing and deconstructing than in communicating. I'm sure subsequent rebuttal posts will bear this out. It's one of many homes - including social studies - occupied by liberals; a left-wing vestibule for entering academia or government service. Obfuscation is its main export. If your philosopher friends aren't impressed with Rand, that's an endorsement.

Perhaps Rand's "badgering tone" evolved after seeing one of her teachers [a rare non-Communist in the teaching professions, no doubt] pulled from her class to be summarily executed. She, a Russian citizen - unlike western socialists - actually lived the dream.

"A few philosophy professors have told me that Rand would have failed their classes, given her complete disregard for citations and faulty logic. Ideas don't need to be "intelligent" to warrant discussion, they only need enough uneducated and inexperienced people to take them seriously."

You toss in an unproveable, provocative statement, rather than give specifics as to which of Rand's ideas you don't like.

Whether or not your unnamed philosophy professors would have failed Rand is irrelevant. Rand's become a best seller, and her novels have been made into movies. How well have their writings sold? I realize that gross sales are not a measure of quality, but quality is a matter of opinion, and for every unnamed professor who doesn't like Rand, there are many others who do and have voted with their money.

So the real question is, which of Rands ideas do you dissagree with and why?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rand's become a best seller, and her novels have been made into movies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So did Hitler.

What is your point?

"Rand's become a best seller, and her novels have been made into movies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

So did Hitler.

What is your point?"


Hitler? Hitler? Ah yes, Godwin's law. A favorite lefty logic tactic.

Godwin's law applies especially to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. (definition from Wikepedia)


exilednight, my point is, YOU, yes YOU and others like YOU carp about Rand's writing style when in fact her so-called flawed writings have reached millions.
Sales volume alone is no proof that Rand was a good writer, but if a book doesn't sell, no one will know about it so it doesn't matter if it's well written, right?

The quality of Rand's writings are a matter of opinion. Your opinion is no more or less valid than mine, therefore our opinions are irrelevant.

I think it's Rand's ideas that bother you but you're unable or afraid to engage her ideas, so you attack her style instead.

Engage her ideas?

Objectivism requires that, so called, rationally thinking people must collectively agree that it is the correct philosophy; but there lies the problem. Objectivism promotes individualism and states that collectivism is the primary evil in society. If objectivism requires a collective belief, then how can it promote individualism? Clearly this is a conflict that cannot be resolved since both fall at opposite ends of the philosophical spectrum.

Followers of Rand have rewritten the definition of multiculturalism to fit their belief system. Dr. David Kelley states that: “Multiculturalists assume that people identify with their racial and sexual classes, take pride in the achievements of others with the same sex or skin color, and have a touchy kind of self-esteem that is wounded by any suggestion that their group is achievement-challenged. Multiculturalists believe that any disparity among groups is the product of unjust discrimination and oppression.”1

I would argue that most people believe that all men are created equal, but there are those in life that believe that some are created more equal. Recent events, such as nooses being hung on the grounds of public schools, have proven that there will always be a small vocal minority that holds minorities to a lesser level of equality.

By arguing that multiculturalism is bad for society, then you must promote a normative unity or cultural homogeneity, otherwise known as monoculturalism, Neither of which promote individualism.

"If objectivism requires a collective belief, then how can it promote individualism?"

Believing for example that we all have basic rights (life, liberty and the persuit of happiness) is not colloctivism so it does not conflict with individualism. These basic rights are neccessary for you to excercise your individualism.

"I would argue that most people believe that all men are created equal,"

In what way are we created equal other than we are all entitled to life liberty and the persuit of happiness? Are we all equally smart? handsome? athletic? hard working? tall?

I don't think anyone, including you, really and truly believes we're all created equal or that we remain equal after birth. Otherwise we wouldn't pay big money to people who are far more talented, intelligent or motivated than the vast majority. I'm not equal to Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey.

"Recent events, such as nooses being hung on the grounds of public schools, have proven that there will always be a small vocal minority that holds minorities to a lesser level of equality."

This is racism, and Rand's opinion of racism:
"Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

"By arguing that multiculturalism is bad for society, then you must promote a normative unity or cultural homogeneity, otherwise known as monoculturalism, Neither of which promote individualism."

Multiculturalism is the other side of the racist coin. You identify yourself with a race, a group or tribe and you attribute to yourself imagined positive traits of that race which you may or may not actually have.

If you are proud of being Irish, then in your mind, I can never be as good as you because I'm not Irish and can never be Irish. There's nothing wrong with being Irish, but it's not an accomplishment.

Multiculturalism promotes meaningless tribal differences which lead to racial hatred or civil war.

"Believing for example that we all have basic rights (life, liberty and the persuit of happiness) is not colloctivism so it does not conflict with individualism. These basic rights are neccessary for you to excercise your individualism."


Every one must agree to that belief, hence a collective thought.


"This is racism, and Rand's opinion of racism:
'Racism is the lowest, most crudely primitive form of collectivism. It is the notion of ascribing moral, social or political significance to a man's genetic lineage—the notion that a man's intellectual and characterological traits are produced and transmitted by his internal body chemistry. Which means, in practice, that a man is to be judged, not by his own character and actions, but by the characters and actions of a collective of ancestors."

You're right, is racism, and that is reality. Yeah it sucks, but it still exists, and Rand never addressed how government, or society, stamps out racism. Libertarians are against equal rights laws by stating that they promote racism, but the truth is there will always be a group of people who think they are superior due to the color of their skin.


"I don't think anyone, including you, really and truly believes we're all created equal or that we remain equal after birth. Otherwise we wouldn't pay big money to people who are far more talented, intelligent or motivated than the vast majority. I'm not equal to Bill Gates or Oprah Winfrey."

So you consider yourself to be lesser of a human than Oprah or Bill? Basically your statement goes against everything that Rand says. If I can't be Bill or Oprah, then why should I follow her philosophy? You want the honest to god truth about intelligence, a Harvard study discovered that the average CEO of a fortune 500 company has a lower IQ than the national average.

Multiculturalism is the other side of the racist coin. You identify yourself with a race, a group or tribe and you attribute to yourself imagined positive traits of that race which you may or may not actually have.

"If you are proud of being Irish, then in your mind, I can never be as good as you because I'm not Irish and can never be Irish. There's nothing wrong with being Irish, but it's not an accomplishment."

No, that is attempting to redefine what multiculturalism is. Multiculturalism is the blending of cultures. If you don't have multiculturalism you are left with monoculturalism. Monoculturalism means everything is the same in culture, hence no individualism. In a monocultural society you are left without choice. Without choice you are now part of a collective.



Objectivism is like anything else, it works great in a vacuum, but never works as intended in the real world.

"Believing for example that we all have basic rights (life, liberty and the persuit of happiness) is not colloctivism so it does not conflict with individualism. These basic rights are neccessary for you to excercise your individualism."


Every one must agree to that belief, hence a collective thought."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You've argued yourself into silliness. Your argument is like saying we all believe we need oxygen to breathe, therefore we are expressing collectivist thought. It is not collectivist thought because it's not an opinion with an equally valid contrary point of view. 2+2=4. That's a self evident truth, not another point of view. Anyone who does not believe we have the basic right to life for example, is not an individualist. He is a killer.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"So you consider yourself to be lesser of a human than Oprah or Bill?"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No, I just don't have their intelligence, drive, talent, etc. so therefore my income is not, should not be equal to theirs.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In a monocultural society you are left without choice.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not so.
In Japan, which by your definition is a monoculture, they have taken what they perceive as the best ideas of Western cultures such as baseball, W. Edwards Deming (american expert on industrial production) etc. and applied it to their society.

"You've argued yourself into silliness. Your argument is like saying we all believe we need oxygen to breathe, therefore we are expressing collectivist thought. It is not collectivist thought because it's not an opinion with an equally valid contrary point of view. 2+2=4. That's a self evident truth, not another point of view. Anyone who does not believe we have the basic right to life for example, is not an individualist. He is a killer."

The need for oxygen, and mathematical equations are scientific truths. Philosophy is an opinion. Yes, 2+2 will always equal 4, but so does 5-1, or 2x2, or 16/4. They all equal four, but take different approaches in getting their.



"No, I just don't have their intelligence, drive, talent, etc. so therefore my income is not, should not be equal to theirs."

The reason I am not as rich as Bill Gates is that I'm not that greedy. Microsoft will do what ever it takes to eliminate competition. The result is survival of the fittest, which basically puts back on par with parts of the animal kingdom.

"Not so.
In Japan, which by your definition is a monoculture, they have taken what they perceive as the best ideas of Western cultures such as baseball, W. Edwards Deming (american expert on industrial production) etc. and applied it to their society."

First off, Japan doesn't fit into my definition of monoculture, but let's say for arguments sake that they are. They are the only post modern industrialized country that comes close.

Second, have you ever been to Japan? If Japan is your model than it fails miserably. Women are treated as second class citizens, and anyone who is not Japanese is treated as third class citizens.

"The need for oxygen, and mathematical equations are scientific truths. Philosophy is an opinion."
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That we all have certain rights like life, liberty and the persuit of happiness comes as close to being a scientific truth as philosophy can get. How can you argue with it?



Regarding multiculturalism; We're better off with one national language than two or more. Hopefully, one language will eventually predominate throughout the world and that language will be English. Rather than pretend that all cultures are equally valid and worthy of study, you study the ones most relevant to your own, and cherry pick what you like from other cultures. It was European culture, primarily from England that gives us our political and legal system. Nothing from the Asian or African continent.

However, the arabic numerical system that the whole world now uses is unarguably better than Roman numerals.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We're better off with one national language than two or more.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No we're not, and it will never happen.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rather than pretend that all cultures are equally valid and worthy of study, you study the ones most relevant to your own, and cherry pick what you like from other cultures.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

All cultures are equally valid, again if you take away multiculturalism you take away individualism. I don't want Africa to be like America, nor Europe or Asia or even all of North America for that matter. By fighting against multiculturalism you are basically fighting against the foundation of the philosophy of individualism. It's a complete contradiction.

exilednight;

You're being politically correct with no regard to practicality. If I emigrate to Brazil, I will learn Portuguese. Otherwise, I'll be limited to interacting only with people who speak English. If I plan to vote there I will not demand that my ballot be printed in English. Otherwise, why go there?

The USA cannot afford to accomodate all the different languages of all who immigrate here. Our public schools are already overburdened with crap like ESL. We're not doing immigrants any favors by not insisting that they learn English.

If you come to this country and expect to succeed, you'd better learn English.
I happen to be well acquainted with the Latino community. I was born in a Hispanic country and Spanish was my first language. Latinos who become fluent in English stand a far better chance of success in the USA than those who only watch Spanish language TV and are limited to conducting business with Spanish speaking people.

Where I was born, there was an American colony for those Americans who couldn't be bothered to assimilate. Then there were those Americans who went native; learned Spanish like a local, socialized with locals, even married a local. If you're an engineer, an attorney, a banker, a real estate agent, a restauranteur, etc. you're going to be far more successful if you speak the local language well and adopt their customs. Guess what, Thanksgiving and July 4th are not real big in Mexico. Cinco de Mayo is. Live in Mexico, adopt their culture.

[deleted]

There is no such thing as MIDIculturalism. As soon as you have more than one culture, it then becomes plural, you automatically default to multiculturalism. According to Rand's philosophy, multiculturalism is one of the ills of the world.

I am not suggesting that multiculturalism stamps out individualism. Some people identify strongly with their culture and that is what makes them unique individuals.

Monoculturalism does take away individualism. It eliminates choice. Pure Communism is a monoculture. Culture is not at the center of the problem, as Rand suggests. It's racial tensions. Race and culture are two totally different things. Germans, Poles, English, Swiss, and Swedes are all white but not every white person is a German, Polish, English, Swiss, or Swedish.

Although Rand never actually addresses it directly, Objectivism does allow for religion and the free choice thereof, but many peoples religion is based on their culture. This is why Objectivist usually get the label of being atheist.

Second, Bill Gates isn't that business smart. He had a good partner and surrounded himself with smart business people. He will also be the first to tell you he got lucky. He happened to be at the right place at the right time, and due to pure happenstance he managed to land a huge deal with IBM.

[deleted]

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Your earlier description or conclusions about monoculturalism smacked of a 100% successful "Big Brother" campaign. Neither conclusion is true.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not "big brother" the end result is fascism. It's elimination of choice and diversity. I like having Borders, B&N and my local book store, but in a monoculture those choices are eliminated. Only one (mono) can exist. We all end up reading the same thing, eating the same food and wearing the same clothes. That is exactly what a monoculture is by definition. How can you be an individual when you have no choice?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aside from the clear illogical leap you make here, Objectivism, by its own theories is atheistic. It essentially states the philosophical truths can be logically determined, and therefore true moral values, in turn, can be logically deduced. It clearly defines its conclusions what those values are. The fact is that religions do ascribe to most of those same values is more testament to the logic of those values than any supernatural explanation used by religion to exert pressure on their faithful. The downside of religion is that by giving these values religious significance, rather than recognizing and acknowledging the true underlying logic of these values, they open the door to representing ANY dogma they wish as being a valid moral value. When you reject logic, when you don't require a standard of reason to how you evaluate moral values, you lose all control. Unfortunately, you see it everywhere today.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I did not make an illogical leap. Rand actually said "Qua religion, no—in the sense of blind belief, belief unsupported by, or contrary to, the facts of reality and the conclusions of reason." She did not totally dismiss religion as being wrong. Basically she is saying that it needs to be approached with skepticism and not followed by "blind belieif". That's a statement I can somewhat agree with. Where I find her hypocrisy is in the fact that she wants people to follow her belief with blind devotion and without skepticism.




-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm guessing you are no longer equating Gates success only with his greed coefficient. Good back-peddling. FYG - on Gates and IBM, he talked a recalcitrant IBM into agreeing to license his operating system instead purchasing it, which is what they wanted when they approached him. His sticktoitiveness (you have to give him credit for smarts here) tailored the deal his way, and the rest is history.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I still equte his success to his greed, but what he did was not genius. I'm not giving him credit for being smart, the first thing you learn in business school, when learning about patenting and selling IP, is to retain as much control of your IP as possible. I do not sell any of my work without maintaining control. I might give him points for being persistent, but not for "smarts". Maintaining the rights to his IP might be one of the cornerstone of his companies success, but all buildings are built four corners.

[deleted]

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Was it lost on you that in Orwell's 1984 that it was essentially a fascist dictatorship. In any case, I don't believe the term 'monocultural' is that well defined. It need not be as extreme as you portray it - a simple but isolated culture that is not a dictatorship but can be described by its like-thinking people can also be reasonably described as a monoculture.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Monoculture is that well defined. How you end up becoming a monoculturist society can take on many forms. Communism, fascism, and even democracies can end up becoming monocultures if the wrong person is put in place. Hitler came to power through the form of free and fair elections.




----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to read a little more. Rand certainly believed in not infringing upon anyone's rights, including their right to observe their religion. However, her core philosophy does thoroughly dismiss religion as being valid. In fact, she essentially considered religions as being potentially very harmful. And quite contrary to asking people to follow her belief with "blind devotion", Rand presents a careful and detailed epistemology explaining how she arrives at a set of moral values. These are values she did consider valid and inviolate. That is not hypocrisy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Many religious texts give detailed explanation of how they arrive at their set of moral values. Rand just chose to do it in a more direct way and expected people to accept it as is without criticizing it.



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, you might do a little more reading on the subject. At the time Gates was starting out, there was no real market. Programmers in this nascent market were mostly hobbyist sharing what code they'd hatched with anyone who'd pay attention. Gates was perhaps not the only voice, but one of very few, telling everyone to hang onto their code and license it. The classes you attended may have benefitted from the example Gates provided then. When the big boys, such as IBM, finally realized that there may be a market for small computers, Gates was the first to really capitalize on the concept of licensing the software. Take a look at Apple, reasonably successful right now, and wonder what percentage of the market they might now hold if they'd licensed their (far superior even then) operating system instead of concentrating on building their own computers. The knowledge you suggest everybody knows - everybody didn't know it back then. There's a lot of interesting stories behind the development of the PC market.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


You might want to do a little reading on the subject yourself. The fight over who holds the rights to IP has been an ongoing struggle for nearly a century. The marketing of a home computer is not what Gates had in mind when he held onto his IP. He believed the money to be in licensing it to large corporations who needed ways to easily access data and the ability to store it in small spaces. Steve Jobs actually concepted the idea of marketing a home computer, Gates was actually a late comer to the party for the home market. He also stole the computer mouse from Apple, but that's a whole different story.

[deleted]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Honestly, checking a few dictionaries, I could not find that description. Finally, even tried Wikipedia, which indirectly suggests at least the term has been adopted to differentiate things from multiculturalism (a reasonable cause for adoption). In any event, while I question how hard-wired your explanation is, I won't continue arguing this. There's no point in either of us arguing the definitions.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try a sociology professor.


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the other hand, religions don't so much as explain moral values, as offer allegorical stories demonstrating the rewards or punishments associated with handed down values. More often than not, they will support logical values (e.g. "thou shall not kill"). However, they rely on dogma - instead of logic - for enforcement.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


For this to hold true you would have to assume that every one sees the bible as a religious text, which not every one does. I personally view the bible as nothing more than a set of stories with a moral and philosophical undertone, like Atlas Shrugged. I would agree that a good portion of the world population views the bible in that light, but it's not a universal belief.

I believe god, as put forth in the bible, was intended to be an ambiguous figure. The design was intentional, just as Rand designed her characters in different form. Each was meant to represent a different type of persona.

Here's my view of logic. It's basically like common sense. Common sense is every thing but common. Logic is subjective and not scientific. Again I will go back to the basics, 2+2 will always equal four, that scientific and can be proven. Philosophical belief is subjective and not universal, nor will it ever be.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The marketing of code presented a whole new horizon in the question of intellectual property, and Gates was a leader in advocating programmers to license, not sell (or give away) their code. The advantages are obvious, however, the free dissemination of code is pretty well documented from back in that period. Gates, of course, made the most of it.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gate's wasn't the first to license code. You can go back further than Gates. Activision was licensing code to Atari, Coleco, and Intelivision way before Gates come along. It's funny how times have changed - now Activision is purchasing licenses in order to produce their games.

On a side note I do remember Trash 80's. My first computer was a TI-94/A.

[deleted]

[deleted]

[deleted]

Another assertion presented as reasoned debate. [And you say I didn't read the book!]
"You know, men could do that in those days.
They had the power and the freedom."

-- "Another assertion presented as reasoned debate."

Yes. When you assert lunacy like "monopolies encourage competition" or "Alan Greenspan supported deregulation," you will be treated as a lunatic. That is why "Objectivists" are discounted.

re: When you assert lunacy like "monopolies encourage competition"

Now watch your quotation marks, pal. It's OK to paraphrase or interpret what I said, but a
quote should be verbatim. I, of course, was citing Greenspan, who stated monopolies in infant industries are a necessary {yet transient} step in the evolution of new technologies. He later condemned government-sponsored monopolies, though I doubt you, as a socialist, would acknowledge their existence.

Re: "Alan Greenspan supported deregulation,"

Well he did, and I - unlike you - cited the source. "Supported" and "did" are past tense. If you want to argue he no longer holds those positions, then by all means present the case; but don't say he didn't hold them.

Re: That is why "Objectivists" are discounted.

I always love how you try to sweepingly universalize your positions.



"You know, men could do that in those days.
They had the power and the freedom."

-- " I, of course, was citing Greenspan, who stated monopolies in infant industries are a necessary {yet transient} step in the evolution of new technologies."

But we weren't talking about infant industries. We were talking about US Steel, the Rail barons and Bell tech! So even if you accurately represented Greenspan here, it's completely irrelevant. The fact stands: monopolies don't naturally fold to competition. They prevent it. And in a deregulated economy, that's what you get, as history shows.

-- "If you want to argue he no longer holds those positions, then by all means present the case"

I have. Greenspan became the moderator for the Fed, the agency through which the government regulates the economy, including calls on congress to increase funcding for social security and other sinecures of our socialist economy. He was publicly excommunicated from the Ayn Rand cult by Leo Piekoff for his apostacy.

-- "I always love how you try to sweepingly universalize your positions."

In this case, the burden of proof is on you to present even a SINGLE example of a functional or productive "objectivist." So far, you've proven unable.

Specious arguments posed as questions. Par for the course. Greenspan did compromise - in order to have a career. He should have been excommunicated; but I can sympathize with his motives. He is saying if you must have Social Security, then fund it! It's not an endorsement. That's where your mind tends to run off on tangents.

Also Nathaniel Brandon, ch 5, Capitalism... and Greenspan illustrate the fallacy of your assertion on the railroads and trusts - except when protected by your friend, big government. Keep ignoring them. Or do you want me to copy and paste the book?

And, of course, there is no such thing as a functional or productive socialist; their the antithesis of those traits - antiproductivists.

"You know, men could do that in those days.
They had the power and the freedom."

-- "Greenspan did compromise - in order to have a career. He should have been excommunicated; but I can sympathize with his motives. He is saying if you must have Social Security, then fund it! It's not an endorsement."

It most certainly is, according to Rand, who labels all such compromises implicit endorsements of the existing system.

-- "Nathaniel Brandon, ch 5, Capitalism... and Greenspan illustrate the fallacy of your assertion on the railroads and trusts"

Feel free to provide even a single example or cogent argument.

-- "And, of course, there is no such thing as a functional or productive socialist; their the antithesis of those traits - antiproductivists. "

Let's see. We have a socialist economy. We produce things. Those economies closer to the LF capitalist model already mentioned: Malaysia, et. al...
you think they're doing better, do you?

Tee hee.

Re: Feel free to provide even a single example or cogent argument.

Chapters 4 and 5. Pretend I copied and pasted it.

"You know, men could do that in those days.
They had the power and the freedom."

-- "Re: Feel free to provide even a single example or cogent argument.
Chapters 4 and 5. Pretend I copied and pasted it."

You know, I should really thank you. Every time you are challenged to provide an example and back off into spluttering, hand-raising desperation like that, it makes my case for me. Thank you for providing another example of just how incapable self-styled "Obectivists" are of finding even a SINGLE example of their philosophy in operation.

[deleted]

re: provide even a single example or cogent argument



I thought you meant an example of a coercive trust. I cited the relevant chapters. But you apparently meant an example of a living, breathing Objectivist. The term "argument threw me, somehow. This is one of those dumb-assed "arguments" you like - like moving to Singapore, yada yada yada.

Socialists have fixed it so you can't be a pure Objectivist without breaking the law - the most common way: black market trading. Naturally, they don't advertise themselves as such. It's like you're saying, "Find me one example of a living breathing Jew"...in Nazi Germany. Naturally, those who survived would be living underground and incognito.

Where do you invest in these crazy "scenarios" that are absurd, yet coupled to "gotcha" suffixes, as if you've pulled in the big one?


Our capitalist system - what's left of it - and capitalists [the hosts] finance socialists and socialism [the parasites]. Objectivists are running amuck anonymously within that system.



"You know, men could do that in those days.
They had the power and the freedom."

-- "I thought you meant an example of a coercive trust."

Since that's not what your initial claim mentioned, I didn't ask for that. You claimed "Monopolies always yield to competition in free markets once an infant industry becomes profitable." I have provided several historical examples which prove they don't. Feel free to provide one in which they did.

-- "But you apparently meant an example of a living, breathing Objectivist."

Yes, it would be nice if you could cite even ONE of those.

-- "Socialists have fixed it so you can't be a pure Objectivist without breaking the law"

As already mentioned, that is untrue. Nothing declares that you must live 'on the grid,' using our monetary system. By all means, let's see somebody who lives solo, by their wits alone, against the environment, without all that nasty cooperative effort and entanglement which society demands.

-- "Naturally, those who survived would be living underground and incognito."

Sooooo...you can;t think of even one? and you're going to use their absence as, what, evidence that they just must exist, but are too secret to discover?
Hee hee hee. You sound more like a member of the tinfouil-hat brigade by the post.

-- "Our capitalist system - what's left of it - and capitalists [the hosts] finance socialists and socialism [the parasites]."

Except, as you pointed out, our system is getting MORE socialist over time, and becoming MORE productive as it does. There goes that theory.

re: ...our system is getting MORE socialist over time, and becoming MORE productive as it does.

This whole tack of yours is incorrect. Socialistic parasites cannot overwhelm capitalism, or there'd be no host to bleed. We can't get more and more socialistic short a major takeover, which would, of course, be devastating to our economy, a la France. To me a gram of socialism is a pound of trouble, so the term, "more," has to be judged contextually and comparitively.
______________________________

re: ...our system is getting MORE socialist over time, and becoming MORE productive as it does.

Actually, the Bush tax cuts have enhanced our economy and reflect a step back for socialism. Also our great work ethic raises us economically despite socialism, not because of it.
_____________________________

re:Sooooo...you can;t think of even one?

Actually, there are millions, or you'd have no one to tax. It's OK to compromise at the point of a gun, as I've pointed out before. This is another one of your awkward "challenges" that signifies nothing, just like your "find a new country" riff.
___________________________________

re: without all that nasty cooperative effort and entanglement which society demands.

Leave it to you, comrade, to not understand you're describing free trade and free markets.



"You know, men could do that in those days.
They had the power and the freedom."