Support NeoGAF

[KingGondo]

So for example, you have a right for the pursuit of healthcare (note the 'pursuit', which is an action) but not a right for healthcare because it implies that no matter what the context is, you have a right for someone's else service for which that someone else can't object too, i.e, you have a right to force someone else to do something for you, which is a violation of that someone else's right to life (and was also called slavery not too long ago).

Requiring doctors to provide healthcare and requiring insurers to provide coverage at an affordable price seems to be... I dunno. Not quite slavery.

If you're going to put it that way, then I actually do think that those in our society have the right to doctors' services, since we wouldn't even have doctors if we didn't have a well-functioning society.

We're all interdependent.

 

[DirtRiver]

Child rights are one of the areas where objectivist thought struggles. Children cannot act for themselves and their development and future potential are completely dependent on the services they receive.

They are as dependent on the services they receive as you are. Both a child and yourself is dependent on the services of the food industry but you have no individual right to food.

The issue here is that they don't have the means for it and an adult has so the question that bears is what sort of duties does the parents have to their children and what liberties does the child have until what age.

For example, does a child have the right to buy alcohol for himself? If not, why? There are certainly age limits for it, and I agree with them, but under what basis are these age limits established? On the basis that a child does not have the capacity yet to make a fully conscious decision about a product that is, without doubt, harmful. But then what if the parents send their child to a catholic school and he is fully aware that God doesn't exist and that he wants to go to a proper scientific school but, is parents being hardcore Catholic, won't let him?

What is the proper course for the law on that instance? Does the child go through the Catholic school against his, in my opinion, better judgment because of his parents? But then why can't he drink alcohol if he wants to?

At what point to we consider children to be developed enough to be able to make their own choices? It's an interesting conundrum and I don't have a fully answer thought about about it. If you do please share.

Also, Zaptruder shut the fuck up if you're just going to say meaningless bullshit. And people say Objectivists are assholes...

Requiring doctors to provide healthcare and requiring insurers to provide coverage at an affordable price seems to be... I dunno. Not quite slavery.

If you're going to put it that way, then I actually do think that those in our society have the right to doctors' services, since we wouldn't even have doctors if we didn't have a well-functioning society.

We're all interdependent.

You do realize that that by that logic I have a right to your life? If we are all interdependent (which we are, but not quite in the way you seem to imply) and if therefore I have a right anybody's services because they wouldn't even exist without society, then in a way we would be all slaves of one another.

 

[KingGondo]

Also, Zaptruder shut the fuck up if you're just going to say meaningless bullshit. And people say Objectivists are assholes...

Unnecessary. Zaptruder didn't post anything antagonistic or nonsensical.

 

[Puddles]

Objectivists already have no problem demanding services of soldiers. Any Objectivist who ever advocates military action for any reason, and who doesn't serve in the military, is making an unfathomable demand: that another person sacrifice his life for the Objectivist's interest, or more precisely, for the collective's interest.

Perhaps the Objectivist favors a military policy of non-interventionism. Very well, but what about asking police to rescue hostages in a situation where the hostage-takers are heavily-armed, and there is a significant possibility that a police officer could be injured or killed? Is this not a demand on another person?

The Objectivist may say that there is a difference, that soldiers and police officers are public servants. But why can medical professionals not also be considered public servants? Just as soldiers and police officers protect us from armed threats against our livelihoods, medical professionals protect us from the internal threats of microbes, viruses or cancerous cells, or those little quirks of fate that leave people with severe bodily injuries.

 

[Clevinger]

Also, Zaptruder shut the fuck up if you're just going to say meaningless bullshit. And people say Objectivists are assholes...

Way to prove them right.

 

[DirtRiver]

Objectivists already have no problem demanding services of soldiers. Any Objectivist who ever advocates military action for any reason, and who doesn't serve in the military, is making an unfathomable demand: that another person sacrifice his life for the Objectivist's interest, or more precisely, for the collective's interest.

You're forgetting that a soldier doesn't join the military because he is forced to (in a free society at least). He knows what the Military is for (protecting the country against foreign attackers) so in the event of an attack an Objectivist, and anybody really, would expect his country's military to do its job. But an Objectivist does not demand a soldier's sacrifice because an Objectivist didn't demand that he joined in the first place.

And yeah I stepped out of line with Zaptruder whom I thought was someone else who had already make personal attacks against Objectivists. The point still stands, make your case instead of one liners about how Objectivists think children are property.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

I was an Objectivist when I was 17-20 or so, and it made me even more of an obnoxious, elitist jerk-off than I would've been anyway at that age. Here are a few problems with libertarian thought that contributed to me becoming a liberal:

1. Much of success is not due to "the sweat of one's brow" but pure luck. Is it fair for the children of billionaires to have such an incalculably easier life than the rest of us (even those of us lucky enough to be born into the middle class of a first-world country)?
2. Much, maybe even most, of one's success is due to merit and hard work, but merit itself is a type of luck. Did you earn your intelligence? What would that even mean? Some people are just born stupid and without any discernible talent; do they deserve to be miserable?
3. A lot of stuff is either impossible or less effective if it isn't undertaken collectively, health care/insurance being a timely and striking example. I don't even want to think about the dystopian horrors of a truly capitalist health care system.

Ultimately, while Rand's thought can be seductive to a young adult (or, sadly, to some older adults), when you step out of Galt's Gulch and back to reality, you encounter a lot of ugliness in a capitalist system that you can't tolerate unless you're either completely heartless or hard-headed and rigid in your thinking, like a cult member.

P.S. To my great and eternal shame, my Randian brainwashing led me to vote for Dubya while I was an undergrad, as a "lesser of two evils" kind of thing. The horror...the horror!

 

[CHEEZMO™]

P.S. To my great and eternal shame, my Randian brainwashing lead me to vote for Dubya while I was an undergrad, as a "lesser of two evils" kind of thing. The horror...the horror!

First term, I hope.

 

[Azih]

They are as dependent on the services they receive as you are.

Not at all in terms of education. My future potential is kinda shaped already, that's completely not true for kids and the kind of education services they receive.

The issue here is that they don't have the means for it so the question that bears is what sort of duties does the parents have to their children

What duties a parent may or may not have towards their child is kind of moot if the parents are not capable of fulfilling them.

So my original point remains that by refusing to extend the idea of a right to a service that someone is entitled to you are refuting the right of a child to a good education. I don't think you disagree with that.

Also something that just occurred to me. Isn't the idea of a parent's 'duty' towards their child relationship contradictory to the Objectivist principle? I'm just applying the logic as I understand it here to ask why should parents be forced to take care of their children? Why should children have a right to their parent's services?

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

First term, I hope.

Let's just say "Rand is a hell of a drug".

 

[Puddles]

You're forgetting that a soldier doesn't join the military because he is forced to (in a free society at least). He knows what the Military is for (protecting the country against foreign attackers) so in the event of an attack an Objectivist, and anybody really, would expect his country's military to do its job. But an Objectivist does not demand a soldier's sacrifice because an Objectivist didn't demand that he joined in the first place.

That's a fair point. But I don't see how viewing some medical professionals as public servants is incompatible with this. While the medical field pays very highly, many doctors don't pursue the career because of a profit motive, but because of a genuine desire to alleviate bodily suffering.

I agree that there is no "right" to healthcare, but I'd argue that many things that the public can do are not rights, but simply the best policy options for ensuring a stable and prosperous society.

 

[travisbickle]

I was an Objectivist when I was 17-20 or so, and it made me even more of an obnoxious, elitist jerk-off than I would've been anyway at that age. Here are a few problems with libertarian thought that contributed to me becoming a liberal:

P.S. To my great and eternal shame, my Randian brainwashing lead me to vote for Dubya while I was an undergrad, as a "lesser of two evils" kind of thing. The horror...the horror!

Were her books something you were asked to read in class? persuaded by peers?

I'm British, and as other non-Americans have said, I didn't hear of Rand until |I was well in my 20s, and looked her up of my own volition not because of peer persuasion.

I am very interested to hear how some of you guys first heard about her. I've read a few of her books and the idea of letting a young teen read them is shocking to me, they are a horrible view of modern humanity.

 

[Azih]

Let's just say "Rand is a hell of a drug".

What state did you vote in??

 

[travisbickle]

What state did you vote in??

drunken?

 

[KingGondo]

Were her books something you were asked to read in class? persuaded by peers?

I'm British, and as other non-Americans have said, I didn't hear of Rand until |I was well in my 20s, and looked her up of my own volition not because of peer persuasion.

I am very interested to hear how some of you guys first heard about her. I've read a few of her books and the idea of letting a young teen read them is shocking, they are a horrible view of modern humanity.

I assume that this program hasn't found its way to the UK?

http://essaycontest.aynrandnovels.com/TheFountainhead.aspx?theme=blue

I knew lots of kids in high school who read Anthem, The Fountainhead, or Atlas Shrugged for the purpose of entering these contests.

I don't want to say that they're bribing kids to read this stuff... but they're bribing kids to read this stuff.

 

[empty vessel]

The objectivist belief in natural rights defies empiricism. So they are a religious lot.

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

Were her books something you were asked to read in class? persuaded by peers?

It wasn't assigned in class. If I recall correctly, I started reading libertarian books in high school because I was a fan of Bill Maher and he, for some reason, self-identifies as having libertarian tendencies, or at least did at the time. Funny looking back now to be able to say "Bill Maher indirectly caused me to vote for W." I hadn't ever encountered libertarian thought before. To me, there were the old, traditionalist conservatives and the forward-looking progressives. Being completely irreligious and socially liberal, I naturally aligned myself with the left. When I started reading libertarian thought, I found it really appealed to me and of course once you go down that road, you're inevitably going to end up reading some Ayn Rand.

I am very interested to hear how some of you guys first heard about her. I've read a few of her books and the idea of letting a young teen read them is shocking to me, they are a horrible view of modern humanity.

I agree. It really is astounding that schools would make kids read this stuff, especially since, as I've said, it can be particularly seductive to bright adolescents.

 

[Deleted member 17706]

I was into Rand for like a month in college. Then I stopped to think and realized what bullshit it all was.

 

[CornBurrito]

Also, Zaptruder shut the fuck up if you're just going to say meaningless bullshit. And people say Objectivists are assholes...

How is this:

There are no 'natural rights' to been a human being outside of the ones we carve out for ourselves.

If we can make a case for something to be extended to all members of our society, then it's a right. It's not that complicated.

meaningless? How does it make him an asshole?

It sounds to me like you don't have any legitimate response to his point.

 

[nel e nel]

Lesson: Sometimes people have to be forced to be decent to one another. Sometimes government intervention simply makes the world a better place.

This reminds me of a quote that I heard(read?) somewhere during the last election. Paraphrasing:

"Sometimes government has to be the adult that forces spoiled children to behave civilly."

 

[Salazar]

The objectivist belief in natural rights defies empiricism. So they are a religious lot.

Funny you should say that, empty.

Nature cannot have a value independent of mankind, and this is what the environmental movement has become: a religion. They've ascribed value to nature absent mankind. They've ascribed value to nature, and so what happens is, whatever you do to harm nature, people say, "You've harmed this good thing, that makes mankind bad." They're using that line of philosophy to hate mankind, because mankind is detrimental to nature. They've turned nature into a religion, making into something that is holy without reality. If nature has value, it's for how mankind can use it. It's incumbent upon human beings to respect nature for their own rational self-interests.

For example, poisoning a river is bad not because it hurts nature, because nature has no value in and of itself. It's bad because it [poisoning the river] hurts mankind. You poison the river and other people are going to get poisoned, and then you're infringing on their right to exist. You want clean air because you need clean air to breathe, to leave longer. Respect for the environment should be based on mankind's [needs].

Spoiler

Fuck the other animals, yo.

 

[KingGondo]

I agree. It really is astounding that schools would make kids read this stuff, especially since, as I've said, it can be particularly seductive to bright adolescents.

Someone hit the nail on the head earlier. It's tempting for any young bright person to see themselves as the eventual great thinker, visionary, or titan of industry. Our culture encourages kids to be sure of themselves and to aspire to be great, which is a good thing in general.

What unfortunately gets left behind much of the time is empathy, and an understanding that there's more to success in life than simple aptitude, talent, or hard work.

 

[beelzebozo]

Someone hit the nail on the head earlier. It's tempting for any young bright person to see themselves as the eventual great thinker, visionary, or titan of industry. Our culture encourages kids to be sure of themselves and to aspire to be great, which is a good thing in general.

What unfortunately gets left behind much of the time is empathy, and an understanding that there's more to success in life than simple aptitude, talent, or hard work.

yes, totally. nothing has been more consistently connected to satisfaction and good mental health than caring, intimate relationships with other human beings. human beings need each other. any philosophy that separates one human being from another in emotional connection or understanding is not serving humans in the way a useful philosophy should.

 

[empty vessel]

Funny you should say that, empty.

Spoiler

Fuck the other animals, yo.

I suppose that counts as irony.

 

[Omegasquash]

yes, totally. nothing has been more consistently connected to satisfaction and good mental health than caring, intimate relationships with other human beings. human beings need each other. any philosophy that separates one human being from another in emotional connection or understanding is not serving humans in the way a useful philosophy should.

I preface this statement by saying that I personally agree with you, however it's simply not true of everyone. People can, and sometimes do, define their own needs. There are some people that don't want or need relationships with others. I emphasize some.

 

[beelzebozo]

I preface this statement by saying that I personally agree with you, however it's simply not true of everyone. People can, and sometimes do, define their own needs. There are some people that don't want or need relationships with others. I emphasize some.

i really don't believe this at all. for someone who this IS true of, typically they have a psychological disorder.

 

[Fine Ham Abounds]

There was an interesting article which I cannot find anywhere to offer up in here atm, but it was discussing how folks in (I believe) Norway pay 50% taxes, but they don't have to worry about paying for college or losing their moneymaking power if they become disabled (free training for a new career). When the subject of socialism came up, there was a statement made by one of those being interviewed that along the lines of "what you call socialism, we call having a civilized society." Regardless of your political beliefs, it was food for thought, and I'm sorry I can't find a link anywhere.

Personally, I've always felt the entire concept of a self-made individual was nonsense. I mean, as individuals, the idea of building ourselves according to our desires is powerful and seductive and makes for a good personal narrative. The fact of course is that even our very thoughts are formed in a language we did not ourselves create, passed down to us directly from 10,000 generations of our ancestors. And somewhat along those lines, any of us in a 1st world country probably spend 99% of our lives taking everything within 2' of us for granted, things which would not exist without the ability of us as a species to create, share, and pass down written knowledge.

That might be drifting a bit OT, but I just felt like putting that out there.

 

[JeTmAn81]

I read Atlas Shrugged in college, mostly because it seemed like an interesting book and the fact that it was so long kind of fascinated me. I liked it as a novel, and I found Rand's ideas intriguing. My interpretation of the philosophy espoused in the book was self-interest as a manner of helping all, not just yourself. So that means that if you begin by bettering yourself, you will be better able to help others. And I can find agreement with some of that. Of course, Randian philosophy does not really stop there and unfortunately she was completely infatuated with her worship of humanity and apparent ignorance of the imperfection that we all share. I don't see mankind as worthy of worship in any way.

She was a heck of a writer, though. Regardless of your feelings on her philosophy, she was able to turn out some gripping tales. Because of this thread I'm now listening to The Fountainhead on audiobook and hoping all the characters won't be super obnoxious.

 

[Fugu]

For as long as I've been aware of it (which means around the beginning of high school) I have found the claims and arguments made by objectivism to be entirely ineffective at convincing me of anything. At some point early in the narrative they assume you're on board with the "rational self-interest" argument, and if you're not, there's no scenarios presented that are even worth thinking twice about. An example of this is posted on this page regarding the lack of intrinsic value of nature: Who says that its value is only defined by its usefulness to humans? How about the animals that live here? It's mighty nice of us to speak for them because we can, but that's terrifyingly pig-headed logic when applied to humans. It's also an extremely cold way to look at the universe. I find much "warmth" in empericism because, through the exposition of patterns, complexity and simplicity, it reveals the beauty of the things around us. But assigning everything a number on the rational self-interest scale is an absolutely disgusting way to view things.

I'm an anarchist, too. But not that kind of anarchist (I'm a left anarchist).

 

[Deified Data]

I was an Objectivist when I was 17-20 or so, and it made me even more of an obnoxious, elitist jerk-off than I would've been anyway at that age. Here are a few problems with libertarian thought that contributed to me becoming a liberal:

I feel that it's very important to say...that Libertarianism and Liberalism are not opposed, but are in fact linked. One can be economically conservative and socially liberal, or vice versa. The fact that many vocal Libertarians in modern politics are socially conservative is completely anomolous. It's the GOP "rebranding" and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I have no great respect for Libertarians who involve themselves in politics (I don't believe someone can simultaneously be Libertarian and hold public office), but I felt that needed to be said.

I assume that this program hasn't found its way to the UK?

http://essaycontest.aynrandnovels.com/TheFountainhead.aspx?theme=blue

I knew lots of kids in high school who read Anthem, The Fountainhead, or Atlas Shrugged for the purpose of entering these contests.

I don't want to say that they're bribing kids to read this stuff... but they're bribing kids to read this stuff.

This is what got me. $10,000 top prize, man, I couldn't resist.

For as long as I've been aware of it (which means around the beginning of high school) I have found the claims and arguments made by objectivism to be entirely ineffective at convincing me of anything. At some point early in the narrative they assume you're on board with the "rational self-interest" argument, and if you're not, there's no scenarios presented that are even worth thinking twice about. An example of this is posted on this page regarding the lack of intrinsic value of nature: Who says that its value is only defined by its usefulness to humans? How about the animals that live here? It's mighty nice of us to speak for them because we can, but that's terrifyingly pig-headed logic when applied to humans. It's also an extremely cold way to look at the universe. I find much "warmth" in empericism because, through the exposition of patterns, complexity and simplicity, it reveals the beauty of the things around us. But assigning everything a number on the rational self-interest scale is an absolutely disgusting way to view things.

I'm an anarchist, too. But not that kind of anarchist (I'm a left anarchist).

I've sort of drifted into a "soft" anarchism, myself. A stateless society capable of governing itself without coersion would be splendid...but until that distant and nebulous goal is reached, I make do with the society I've got. It's convenient, and convenience and practicality means more to me at this point in my life than ideals. It's part of being honest with myself, I suppose, which may be an ideal in and of itself.

 

[The Technomancer]

Another major discrepancy in Rand's life as compared to her philosophy was her attitude towards emotions. She has quotes like these:

"A rational man knows—or makes it a point to discover—the source of his emotions, the basic premises from which they come; if his premises are wrong, he corrects them."

But then in a fit of emotional jealousy she forces an objectivist institue that was promoting her ideas, the Nathaniel Branden institute, to disband.

That might be the only quote of Rand's that I'm likely to agree with without a caveat of some kind

 

[Rich Uncle Skeleton]

I feel that it's very important to say...that Libertarianism and Liberalism are not opposed, but are in fact linked. One can be economically conservative and socially liberal, or vice versa. The fact that many vocal Libertarians in modern politics are socially conservative is completely anomolous. It's the GOP "rebranding" and shouldn't be taken too seriously.

I have no great respect for Libertarians who involve themselves in politics (I don't believe someone can simultaneously be Libertarian and hold public office), but I felt that needed to be said.

Well, yeah, I was using the word "liberal" in the contemporary American sense of "both fiscally and socially left of center." Libertarians of course hate the false dichotomy implicit in this usage because they're socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

 

[KingGondo]

This is what got me. $10,000 top prize, man, I couldn't resist.

I entered the Anthem contest and won a little something, IIRC.

Not a bad book, but I think the intent is clearly to influence young minds before they fully understand the implications of the philosophy.

 

[Reuenthal]

My views: I hate communists, think that anarchocapitalists believe in a crazy ideology and I am not an objectivist but see myself as a centrist leaning center right but still centrist.

I believe that rational self interest is a good thing and a lot of problems can be solved by people following their rational self interest within the limits of a stable society that forbids certain behaviors. Which requires threat of force by a government, laws that can be enforced, police force and so on. Within those limits rational self interest in capitalism can be very often mutually beneficial. If certain destructive behavior is forbidden then rational self interest can bring creativity, more jobs, economic development, increase of life quality.

I am in favor of both private and social healthcare. I believe in a social safety net for some who can't help themselves so society can help them but I am mostly pro small government. So despite being in favor of a safety net for some, I don't like too much welfare. I am sympathetic to some libertarian values and ideas but not one of them because I believe that some social welfare can provide a better society and I am not convinced that pure private attempts can be as effective for say helping the most poor. I do believe that too much welfare can lead to less economic development which also hurts the poor (but also middle and rich class) and causes them to be more poor than not. However education and healthcare early on means less costs later on. Because you will have more educated and healthy people ready to work while if healthcare is neglected their health is going to get much worse and costlier to fix later on. So a balance must be found between welfare providing necessities and things that improve society but not to a decree where there is too much of it or too much taxation and so on. To that extend some laws to limit immigration of poor people who need welfare might be necessary based on the circumstances of the countries. Also wars are fucking costly, you don't have to have extremely powerful military if you can have a very powerful military with lower costs. And you don't need to pursue wars all the time considering how costly they are.

But I think in many ways private attempts to deal with a problem can be more effective than government ones for various reasons I won't go deep into right now. But that is not universal there are things that a government can do better or the government is necessary, but mostly I favor that both government and private institutions exist in health care or education.

Ultimately for me people need to be somewhat more pragmatical, more practical and less ideologically motivated to see anything as perfect. Government has flaws, private institutions have flaws, the world is a complex place requiring complex solutions and there is not one simple way to handle all problems.

As for the question of rights, to me it is a question of what kind of society we want. Do we want poor people to not be able to get healthcare or not? I don't want them to suffer so I see society helping them as a positive. I believe that a capitalist society can be both wealthy, has economic development, allow the great thinkers and creative people become rich and both have sufficient money to help those most in need.

So we can have both the positives of a society were great thinkers or people who are exceptional are rewarded, with a society where the poorest get some help. Of course you need a powerful economy for that. Don't see any practical benefits to someone be ideologically opposed to a safety net, regardless of circumstance.

 

[Mortrialus]

Sounds like somebody's never read The Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind!

I thought about bring it up, but I decided against it.

This thread about the series is pretty amusing. It was also my introduction to it:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=428839

 

[JB1981]

That's a fair point. But I don't see how viewing some medical professionals as public servants is incompatible with this. While the medical field pays very highly, many doctors don't pursue the career because of a profit motive, but because of a genuine desire to alleviate bodily suffering.
I agree that there is no "right" to healthcare, but I'd argue that many things that the public can do are not rights, but simply the best policy options for ensuring a stable and prosperous society.

The kind of money they charge for their services certainly doesn't fall in line with that thinking.

 

[twobear]

Another Brit who never had exposure to Rand until the internet. I suspect it has a particular resonance with Americans because of its comparative closeness to the concept of 'the American Dream'.

 

[Stinkles]

That might be the only quote of Rand's that I'm likely to agree with without a caveat of some kind

I would caveat the crap out of that statement. Some emotions stem from chemical response to which there is no correction. Circumstances and scenarios are not necessarily the drivers of emotion. And emotions aren't necessarily detectable or intense. Long, slow, mild emotions have just as much real world impact as sudden passionate ones.

It's a perfect example of Rand's idealization at the expense of (ironically) rational, clinical analysis. She is the personification of perfect being the enemy of good.

 

[Divvy]

The kind of money they charge for their services certainly doesn't fall in line with that thinking.

Well uhh, in America maybe.

 

[Fugu]

Snip

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

EDIT: Also "I hate communists"? Yes, let's bring McCarthyism right back!

 

[JeTmAn81]

I thought about bring it up, but I decided against it.

This thread about the series is pretty amusing. It was also my introduction to it:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=428839

I have to admit it; I haven't actually read the book either. I quit after the first 100 pages. I think that might be the only book in the last ten years or so I actually just quit reading after I'd started.

 

[Deified Data]

I entered the Anthem contest and won a little something, IIRC.

Not a bad book, but I think the intent is clearly to influence young minds before they fully understand the implications of the philosophy.

They...sent me a free copy of Atlas Shrugged. A book I already owned.

Thanks, Ayn Rand Institute.

Well, yeah, I was using the word "liberal" in the contemporary American sense of "both fiscally and socially left of center." Libertarians of course hate the false dichotomy implicit in this usage because they're socially liberal but fiscally conservative.

Fair enough.

 

[Reuenthal]

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/middle-ground.html

EDIT: Also "I hate communists"? Yes, let's bring McCarthyism right back!

Nice strawman but I hate McCarthyism too. I am not sure why you were under the impression that disliking communism or communists equates with liking McCarthyism or wanting it to come back but it isn't a smart conclusion at all.

Also the middle ground is not better just because it is the middle ground, as it was already explained in the post you quoted but did not understand, non extremist approaches are better in this issue because neither the government nor the free market are perfect and both of them to some extend have rather necessary roles in a society. It is an argument in favor of what it is practical and pragmatic. So a middle ground approach that is not purely ideologically motivated but more so tries to accommodate what both do well, is better than extremist approaches that rely more on blind faith on the market and inability to understand the role of government to the economy or the role of government in other things (say providing healthcare to the poor and how that is both good in how you are helping people in need and also benefits society, as I explained in the above post healthcare investment helps society), or hatred of market,capitalism, profit and too much faith on the government. And historically the most successful countries are neither the communist ones nor have we seen many countries go to the extreme of what some might call pure capitalism or anarchocapitalism very successfully. The only fallacy here is you deciding to call something a fallacy without thinking what the post you quote is actually saying.

 

[Karakand]

You will probably find Ellsworth Toohey obnoxious, and his final monologue is trite and cartoonish, but the rest of the book is very enjoyable and much more relatable than the rest of Rand's work.

You mean We the Living.

Especially if we are talking about Rand's target demographic: children.

Related note: I read a Soviet comedy a while back whose ending was suspiciously like We the Living's (but of course inverted in accordance with ideological bias). I wonder if one of them borrowed from the other, or the failing to flee the USSR at the border ending is some kind of Russian trope...

 

[Zaptruder]

Also, Zaptruder shut the fuck up if you're just going to say meaningless bullshit. And people say Objectivists are assholes...

Trolololol.

Seriously though, when you place the rights of the parents above that of the children... then yeah, you're kinda treating children as the property of their parents.

I'm not saying you shouldn't respect the rights of the parents as people. But the rights of the children as people supersede the rights of the parents as parents.

We have made the case for universal education, because ultimately it greatly benefits society as a whole.

We cannot extend that as a right to people, if we don't respect that the right of children as people, supersede the desires that their parents might have towards not providing them with education.

Spoiler

Also, I'd be wary of unnecessary outbursts if I were you. You get banned for them (and you don't really want to be banned as a junior). I just recently recovered from my own 1 month ban for calling some dude a fuck wit (or some such). If you manage to survive this one, then you'll know for the future.

 

[Deified Data]

Trolololol.

Seriously though, when you place the rights of the parents above that of the children... then yeah, you're kinda treating children as the property of their parents.

I'm not saying you shouldn't respect the rights of the parents as people. But the rights of the children as people supersede the rights of the parents as parents.

We have made the case for universal education, because ultimately it greatly benefits society as a whole.

We cannot extend that as a right to people, if we don't respect that the right of children as people, supersede the desires that their parents might have towards not providing them with education.

Spoiler

Also, I'd be wary of unnecessary outbursts if I were you. You get banned for them (and you don't really want to be banned as a junior). I just recently recovered from my own 1 month ban for calling some dude a fuck wit (or some such). If you manage to survive this one, then you'll know for the future.

Generally the less debate over Objectivism as a philosophy, the better. This thread is already operating under the assumption of its logical fallacy, for the most part.

You're right, though. A "good Objectivist", so to speak, probably shouldn't let a "collectivist dog" get to him so easily. Not calling you a collectivist dog of course, Zap.

 

[Kai Dracon]

I only just realized this thread got started because of my post.

It was phrased more rudely than I typically present something, but if it works...! It's just a bit weird for me as I've never had a thread started specifically for some of the shit I post before, ah-ha.

 

[Alfarif]

Sounds like somebody's never read The Sword of Truth by Terry Goodkind!

Rand spawned Goodkind. So, realistically, Atlas Shrugged is worse than The Sword of Truth. For the record, I didn't hate the series until Pillars of Creation and I kind of wished I never bothered finishing it. I'm also ashamed to say that I read the first six books 11 times each.

 

[Grakl]

Rand spawned Goodkind. So, realistically, Atlas Shrugged is worse than The Sword of Truth. For the record, I didn't hate the series until Pillars of Creation and I kind of wished I never bothered finishing it. I'm also ashamed to say that I read the first six books 11 times each.

whaaaaaat

I've met my first GAFfer who I can tell, for sure, is suicidal.

 

[beelzebozo]

The kind of money they charge for their services certainly doesn't fall in line with that thinking.

some people play in the NBA because they love basketball.
some famous authors write books because they love to write, or feel they have something important to release.

being highly paid for a skill doesn't mean you necessarily don't have a reason supra for doing it.