Just finished Atlas Shrugged

[SWO-tarious]

Just started it this week. I've wanted to tackle this one and Ulysses by James Joyce for some time now. The latter will have to wait. Atlas Shrugged will be the bulk of my deployment reading.

[alexey]

I agree that for the most part these different schools of thought are all done with the right intentions, but man is a complex, diverse beast and it is very difficult to create a system that caters to our positives while reigning in our negatives.

I think much like communism, pure Laissez Faire capitalism (supported by Objectivists) relies on everyone following the same philosophy, which just doesn't happen. There will always be greedy people looking to exploit others and the system (although technically I think it does claim the need for a government to get involved to prevent physical force). I personally think that the Capitalist approach is the best starting point and then finding the proper regulations to create a true free market without the exploitation and class warfare and the like. Unfortunately, that sweet spot in the grey area is not easy to find regardless of your starting point.

Makes sense.

Indeed the only thing we can count on, is that humans will be humans - the complex diverse beasts, as you put it. Therefore we should not expect humans to conform to a philosophy, but rather make our philosophy reflect and work with the human nature.

A big problem with your position is figuring out what terms like "exploitation" and "class warfare" actually mean. Obviously child labor is "exploitation" and stuff like dekulakization is "class warfare". Both bad stuff, do not want... very simple in extreme cases. What about everything else?

The starting point you are talking about, well that was the actual starting point at the onset of the industrial revolution. A lot of interesting stuff happened since then. You do not have to go with vague "do not want class warfare or exploitation" concepts from there - you can actually look at history to see what happened. Great economic development, great advancement of humanity, many problems with exploitation, environmental degradation, short term profiteering, crashes, etc. Those led to various government actions, political developments, swings in public opinion, on and on and on. We can talk about what is exploitation and how to prevent it. We can talk about what policies ought to be implemented. We can look at track records. We do not have to do things that seem to dominate our political dialog nowadays - state vague undefined concepts, pretend like those are meaningful points.

And when we come around full circle to Ayn Rand, we see that Objectivism does not provide us with any meaning, any solutions, or for that matter any frameworks that can be used to look for solutions. Objectivism merely makes very general, shallow, and essentially useless proclamations.

[Tulane Skins Fan]

If you are only in a relationship for what the other person brings to you then that is using them, that objectifies them.

I'm not defending her definition of love or even relationships, but you are taking her one step further than she actually seems to be going to me. I still think she's got it wrong, but she doesn't believe in using, objectifying or even only loving someone for what they give to you. In the book, the characters loved each for who they were, but they valued their skills as part of that.

[PokerPacker]

Makes sense.

Indeed the only thing we can count on, is that humans will be humans - the complex diverse beasts, as you put it. Therefore we should not expect humans to conform to a philosophy, but rather make our philosophy reflect and work with the human nature.

A big problem with your position is figuring out what terms like "exploitation" and "class warfare" actually mean. Obviously child labor is "exploitation" and stuff like dekulakization is "class warfare". Both bad stuff, do not want... very simple in extreme cases. What about everything else?

such is the inherent problem of creating an economic system, and why the world has yet to find that 'perfect' system.

The starting point you are talking about, well that was the actual starting point at the onset of the industrial revolution. A lot of interesting stuff happened since then. You do not have to go with vague "do not want class warfare or exploitation" concepts from there - you can actually look at history to see what happened. Great economic development, great advancement of humanity, many problems with exploitation, environmental degradation, short term profiteering, crashes, etc. Those led to various government actions, political developments, swings in public opinion, on and on and on. We can talk about what is exploitation and how to prevent it. We can talk about what policies ought to be implemented. We can look at track records. We do not have to do things that seem to dominate our political dialog nowadays - state vague undefined concepts, pretend like those are meaningful points.

Indeed that was the starting point. But where you start does not dictate where you wind up. You've gotta have the right starting point, and then the right bearing. If we could go back to that starting point (not exactly gonna happen), we could use what we learned about where we went this time to figure out which direction we should take next time.

And when we come around full circle to Ayn Rand, we see that Objectivism does not provide us with any meaning, any solutions, or for that matter any frameworks that can be used to look for solutions. Objectivism merely makes very general, shallow, and essentially useless proclamations.

Objectivism is just another philosophy of many. Some people will look at it and see it as the way to live their lives, and others will reject it in favor of another philosophy. To each his own. Personally, I don't think I could be an Objectivist. I don't think I'm assertive enough for my own interests for that.

[Jumbo]

Personally, I don't think I could be an Objectivist. I don't think I'm assertive enough for my own interests enough for that.

I think the soon-coming DSM V will have an Axis II category for Passive-Objectivist (with or without depression), if that helps. :pfft:

[PokerPacker]

I think the soon-coming DSM V will have an Axis II category for Passive-Objectivist (with or without depression), if that helps. :pfft:

I had to look up pretty much everything in this post. Good thing Wikipedia's back today . It seems to be in odd company being diagnosed as a disorder, but I guess I'd have to see what the actual definition entails.

Perhaps its the passivity of it that makes it more of a disorder rather than just a personality trait. If you believe in a particular philosophy but are unable to carry it out because of your own inhibitions then you're in a sense fighting with yourself, I suppose.

[Predicto]

Poker Packer makes a better case for Rand than Rand herself ever did, or deserves. Impressive.

[Jumbo]

Poker Packer makes a better case for Rand than Rand herself ever did, or deserves. Impressive.

That's what I'm saying (said). I have empathy for for him,though. I think he knows why.

[PokerPacker]

That's what I'm saying (said). I have empathy for for him,though. I think he knows why.

I can think of a few reasons why. The chief among them is that you are of the belief that the real world will crush my views of reality and truth, and what little optimism I have for the future and I'll become a cynical moderate who neither believes in the ability of the government to govern nor the ability of people to take care of themselves and I'll be resigned to the status quo as just another fact of life.

am I close?

[Jumbo]

I can think of a few reasons why. The chief among them is that you are of the belief that the real world will crush my views of reality and truth, and what little optimism I have for the future and I'll become a cynical moderate who neither believes in the ability of the government to govern nor the ability of people to take care of themselves and I'll be resigned to the status quo as just another fact of life.

am I close?

Nah, the "real world" has already crushed ya pretty good though it's just getting going, true enough, so ya better strap your helmet on.

I was thinking more the fact that as you hit your mid-30's, high-maintenance hottie-crazies around their late teens/early 20's are going to find you all kinds of dumb **** like "darkly compelling" etc and put you into countless internal debates about just how unappealing the music/movie/conversations and headaching you'll be willing to tolerate for some really fun shallow happy happy joy joy. :pfft:

[alexey]

such is the inherent problem of creating an economic system, and why the world has yet to find that 'perfect' system.

I would take it one step further and say that there is no such thing as a "perfect" system. Different systems work for different places in different situations.

Something that works Norway will not work as well for USA. Something that works for a large country with mostly rural population will not work as well for an urbanized, industrialized country. Even in the same country, different systems will work in different ways during different time periods.

This is why Thomas Jefferson thought that every generation should re-write the Constitution

Indeed that was the starting point. But where you start does not dictate where you wind up. You've gotta have the right starting point, and then the right bearing. If we could go back to that starting point (not exactly gonna happen), we could use what we learned about where we went this time to figure out which direction we should take next time.

Are you suggesting that we cannot employ the lessons of history unless we go back in time?

We have learned a great deal. We know what happens when people get a chance to exploit others for private gain. We know what happens when people face a choice of short term profits vs long term stability. We know what happens to the environment without proper protections. We also know how the government can abuse its power, get too big, too wasteful, unresponsive to the people, and so on.

We have enough information to engage in a meaningful discussion about what ought to be done, how it ought to be done, and so on. Philosophies which avoid that discussion are largely useless.

Objectivism is just another philosophy of many. Some people will look at it and see it as the way to live their lives, and others will reject it in favor of another philosophy. To each his own. Personally, I don't think I could be an Objectivist. I don't think I'm assertive enough for my own interests for that.

To each their own, but with consequences. Selecting an intellectually limited philosophy will impose intellectual limits on one's thinking.

[PokerPacker]

I was thinking more the fact that as you hit your mid-30's, high-maintenance hottie-crazies around their late teens/early 20's are going to find you all kinds of dumb **** like "darkly compelling" etc and put you into countless internal debates about just how unappealing the music/movie/conversations and headaching you'll be willing to tolerate for some really fun shallow happy happy joy joy. :pfft:

Wow, I was way off. I'm not sure that situation will arise. I already find girls just a few years younger than me unappealing because of their lack of maturity. I think I'd as soon abstain as I would wade through that bull****. I wouldn't put it past myself to get wrapped up in a relationship of convenience, though. I can see my passive nature and preference to avoid conflict adding time to unhealthy situations.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I'm not defending her definition of love or even relationships, but you are taking her one step further than she actually seems to be going to me. I still think she's got it wrong, but she doesn't believe in using, objectifying or even only loving someone for what they give to you. In the book, the characters loved each for who they were, but they valued their skills as part of that.

Yet that isn't what she says in the interview, she says quite clearly and I quoted it earlier, that the only people who deserve love are those who have earned it through achieving her understanding of virtue, and when Wallace says that using that standard very few people would be worthy of love to which she agreed rather emphatically. As such if the characters in the story were loved then obviously they must have measured up to her standard of merit based love, everyone else is a looter.

[PokerPacker]

I would take it one step further and say that there is no such thing as a "perfect" system. Different systems work for different places in different situations.

Something that works Norway will not work as well for USA. Something that works for a large country with mostly rural population will not work as well for an urbanized, industrialized country. Even in the same country, different systems will work in different ways during different time periods.

I had considered adding in something to that effect, but I suppose I must've decided against adding it.

This is why Thomas Jefferson thought that every generation should re-write the Constitution

I believe he also thought there should be a bloody revolution here and there to keep the spirit of liberty alive. He was probably right.

Are you suggesting that we cannot employ the lessons of history unless we go back in time?

I wouldn't say that, but with how large the system stands today, we may be able to add things in the future based on the past, but it is near impossible to remove things that have wound up being failures. It is easier, I believe, to start from scratch and keep what worked, than it is to remove what didn't (especially with how hard it is to determine what doesn't work). We can take differing paths with the things that didn't work for a particular problem or that sprouted problems of their own and see if the new path works. When the system grows so bloated and wrong, we do it again, but now we have another dataset to work with and through trial and error we can work our way towards a better system. Of course, something like that happens over the course of Centuries and Millenia as civilisations rise and fall.

But anyways, the idea of going back to scratch in order to correct the mistakes of the past, well you could go right back to Thomas Jefferson's comments on rewriting the Constitution every generation. The point of rewriting it isn't to keep it the same, but rather to keep it up with modern times and to correct the mistakes of the past; at least that's what I'd interpret the purpose to be.

We have learned a great deal. We know what happens when people get a chance to exploit others for private gain. We know what happens when people face a choice of short term profits vs long term stability. We know what happens to the environment without proper protections. We also know how the government can abuse its power, get too big, too wasteful, unresponsive to the people, and so on.

yes we do, but that doesn't mean we know how to prevent it, and I believe the more bloated the system is, the harder it is to isolate the variables necessary to make a proper change.

We have enough information to engage in a meaningful discussion about what ought to be done, how it ought to be done, and so on. Philosophies which avoid that discussion are largely useless.

Well this is more in the realm of economics and politics than philosophy. Getting into the acute details like this requires you to deviate from philosophy and into logic, reason, and the human condition. As far as economic policy goes, Laissez Faire capitalism, as promoted by Rand, does not work. Keynesian economics also does not work. I believe the best system to be the Free Market Capitalism, which is about employing the right regulations to prevent any side from having too much power. Of course, as previously discussed, finding the right regulations is the hard part.

To each their own, but with consequences. Selecting an intellectually limited philosophy will impose intellectual limits on one's thinking.

Every philosophy comes with its own limitations. If they didn't, it wouldn't be a philosophy. In the end, though, people are going to be who they are.

[alexey]

I believe he also thought there should be a bloody revolution here and there to keep the spirit of liberty alive. He was probably right.

He was explaining why people shouldn't all freak out about Shays' rebellion.

I wouldn't say that, but with how large the system stands today, we may be able to add things in the future based on the past, but it is near impossible to remove things that have wound up being failures. It is easier, I believe, to start from scratch and keep what worked, than it is to remove what didn't (especially with how hard it is to determine what doesn't work). We can take differing paths with the things that didn't work for a particular problem or that sprouted problems of their own and see if the new path works. When the system grows so bloated and wrong, we do it again, but now we have another dataset to work with and through trial and error we can work our way towards a better system. Of course, something like that happens over the course of Centuries and Millenia as civilisations rise and fall.

But anyways, the idea of going back to scratch in order to correct the mistakes of the past, well you could go right back to Thomas Jefferson's comments on rewriting the Constitution every generation. The point of rewriting it isn't to keep it the same, but rather to keep it up with modern times and to correct the mistakes of the past; at least that's what I'd interpret the purpose to be.

There is no going back to scratch, there is only moving forward. Allowing each generation to move forward unconstrained - that is my interpretation of Jefferson's intent.

New things can only arise through gradual evolution (the actual transformation could go quickly when triggered, though).

yes we do, but that doesn't mean we know how to prevent it, and I believe the more bloated the system is, the harder it is to isolate the variables necessary to make a proper change.

There is no simple answer. It is never possible to isolate the variables. This is true regardless of the system bloat.

Well this is more in the realm of economics and politics than philosophy. Getting into the acute details like this requires you to deviate from philosophy and into logic, reason, and the human condition. As far as economic policy goes, Laissez Faire capitalism, as promoted by Rand, does not work. Keynesian economics also does not work. I believe the best system to be the Free Market Capitalism, which is about employing the right regulations to prevent any side from having too much power. Of course, as previously discussed, finding the right regulations is the hard part.

Keynesian economics is actually all about employing the right regulations to prevent any side from having too much power.

Every philosophy comes with its own limitations. If they didn't, it wouldn't be a philosophy. In the end, though, people are going to be who they are.

Let us not pretend that all limitations are equal.

In my view, for example, philosophies that try to ignore their limitations are in a different class from philosophies which seek to discover and address their limitations.