L.H. wrote.."So yeah, you're halfway there, Farrar. What many Egoists don't realize is that businesses which restrict competition are equally as dangerous as governments that do so. By means of a strong public education, it's not difficult to imagine that this could be curbed without complete reliance on the Government to break up oppressive monopolies."
L.H. let me reiterate something, what you are railing against "businesses which restrict competition" is not laissez-faire capitalism. You are arguing against our current system. Which is far from laissez-faire capitalism. Show me where businesses as you say restrict competition in a laissez-faire system, granted that laissez-faire has never truly survived in any country. Prove that to me and I will then be able to deem your argument valid. L.H., the present reason that companies and businesses restrict others from entering is because of the government regulation. The hassle of opening up a business or company today is unbelievable. The number of agencies you have to deal with: Department of Human Services, EPA, Interstate Commerce Commission, FTC, etc etc, is overwhelming for anyone who wants to open up a business. It is these agencies that are restricting businesses from innovating and from opening up. The businesses are not at fault. The businesses play no role in deciding who enters and leaves the market, its the government present day that is deciding this.
L.H. wrote...If this is in fact what you meant to say, is that recognition of inherent rights a rule which must not be broken? So they have agreed to leading their life according to a common rule? Just like the definition for community I just gave?
I wouldn't call it a rule, I would call it an understanding. But under that definition they would then live under that common understanding, that individuals hold inherent rights. That is correct. With that being said, they don't have an obligation as a whole to educate any other person than themselves, or the ones that they love.
L.H. instead of actual agencies regulating laissez-faire capitalism, you seem fit to jump right into well let's regulate their minds. Let's get them to think of things in business a certain way. More of less, lets get them to only go to specialty shops to "preserve capitalism". Why you don't want individuals having a choice on where they shop is ludicrous? Let the people who are working and providing for their family make their own decisions based upon their rational self interest on where they shop, based upon their needs. If they CHOOSE to go to Walmart because they can get better prices on things, let them go to Walmart. If they CHOOSE to go the a little market to get maybe a high quality product let them go to that little market. It's all about choice. It's not about the product its about the choice of that product or service. Why are you unable to let unfettered minds choose what is in there best interest? Why do you insist on controlling where they shop and what they buy? Why not let the individual choose what is best for themselves?
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
House Cleaning
Sorry for the long delay my fellow readers. I will be responding back to L.H. soon. Do not worry. While you wait, why not watch some good videos...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYxOWPzZXBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYxOWPzZXBM
Sunday, September 27, 2009
L.H. [Part 8]
"An Egoist recognizes that people have an inherent right to their life, that they have certain rights that shall not be infringed upon."
Thus, the Egoist in question is sacrificing any gain that may come from exploitation of others for the sake of a community which does not do unjustly to one another. It's by no fathomable means a tightly-woven community, but that agreement carries with it the basest definition of a community: "a group of men or women leading a common life according to a rule".
And listen, this hypothetical high-school drop out SHOULD be an anomoly. Why was it so easy for him to drop-out? The community didn't care. The government didn't care. And this is supposedly one of the great things that is supposed to happen in a laissez-faire Capitalist community: wealthy bleeding-hearts are expected to descend from the heavens and help out these poor down-trodden souls. I've heard both you and Mr. Sierra rail on about it before - "We should leave all this damn charity business to the private sector! Plenty of people would give their hard-earned dollars to such causes, so government interference is superflous!" and lo and behold, on the common occassion that a person drops out of school, and the government does not interfere with this affair, no one helps him. And therefore he must shop at the store which restricts his ability to create his own business and generate his own money. -L.H.
Unjustly to the community? I mean L.H., come on you should know what the fundamental flaw in that statement is. Unjustly. What is unjust? That someone who succeeds should give up their property and life for someone who sits around and fails. In a capitalist society, there are true consequences for failure. If only we had true capitalist society, with real consequences, resulting in less failures. Yes Egoist live in communities, but they are not a community. They are egoist. They are rationally selfish. They don't sacrifice themselves for someone else in their community, forcefully that is. There are egoist that give lots of money to charity because they can, and they were successful. But damning anyone who doesn't give back to their community, for the so called purpose of "betterment of the community", is ridiculous.
Again about the drop out, you are railing against what you call our current system, capitalism. We have never truly had capitalism, there has always been arbitrary government in the way. If we did in fact have true capitalism, the high school drop out might manage to get a job or even more, actually become educated through his own free-will and dedication.
I think you have completely brought your presuppositions, into Egoism. I suggest you look at Egoism from anew.
Thus, the Egoist in question is sacrificing any gain that may come from exploitation of others for the sake of a community which does not do unjustly to one another. It's by no fathomable means a tightly-woven community, but that agreement carries with it the basest definition of a community: "a group of men or women leading a common life according to a rule".
And listen, this hypothetical high-school drop out SHOULD be an anomoly. Why was it so easy for him to drop-out? The community didn't care. The government didn't care. And this is supposedly one of the great things that is supposed to happen in a laissez-faire Capitalist community: wealthy bleeding-hearts are expected to descend from the heavens and help out these poor down-trodden souls. I've heard both you and Mr. Sierra rail on about it before - "We should leave all this damn charity business to the private sector! Plenty of people would give their hard-earned dollars to such causes, so government interference is superflous!" and lo and behold, on the common occassion that a person drops out of school, and the government does not interfere with this affair, no one helps him. And therefore he must shop at the store which restricts his ability to create his own business and generate his own money. -L.H.
Unjustly to the community? I mean L.H., come on you should know what the fundamental flaw in that statement is. Unjustly. What is unjust? That someone who succeeds should give up their property and life for someone who sits around and fails. In a capitalist society, there are true consequences for failure. If only we had true capitalist society, with real consequences, resulting in less failures. Yes Egoist live in communities, but they are not a community. They are egoist. They are rationally selfish. They don't sacrifice themselves for someone else in their community, forcefully that is. There are egoist that give lots of money to charity because they can, and they were successful. But damning anyone who doesn't give back to their community, for the so called purpose of "betterment of the community", is ridiculous.
Again about the drop out, you are railing against what you call our current system, capitalism. We have never truly had capitalism, there has always been arbitrary government in the way. If we did in fact have true capitalism, the high school drop out might manage to get a job or even more, actually become educated through his own free-will and dedication.
I think you have completely brought your presuppositions, into Egoism. I suggest you look at Egoism from anew.
L.H. [Part 7]
Okay, your definition of "True Egoism" is actually "Responsible Egoism"; "True Egoism" implies nothing more than being obligated to oneself. In your own words:
"Let me first say, you have no obligation to anyone but yourself. Not to a community, not to a friend, not to anyone."
If I have no obligation to anyone but myself; "not to a community, not to a friend, not to anyone" where in this is an obligation to respect the well-being of my COMMUNITY, which you JUST minimalized the importance of? If a true Egoist is not obligated to care about his community, then why do you say a "True Egoist" is obligated to do so? - L.H.
I don't ever recall, saying an Egoist has an obligation to a community? I mean please point me to anywhere that I have stated that? "... where in this is an obligation to respect the well-being of my COMMUNITY..." are you suggesting that one must have an obligation to the "well being" of his community? I mean how altruist does that sound my friend? Your suggesting that anyone who lives in a community has an obligation to respect the well being on his community. So the person that is successful must sacrifice himself and his property for the "well being of his community"? That is ludicrous!
You say your just for educating the people about Capitalism so that it will flourish and people will be aware of the system. But the warrant of that claim is that your doing it so that it will actually "regulate" these business. People will regulate the market, regardless of their education. If the high school drop out who makes low wage wants to go to Walmart because its cheaper, you say damn that drop out for wasting his money and not truly valuing his dollar!
"Let me first say, you have no obligation to anyone but yourself. Not to a community, not to a friend, not to anyone."
If I have no obligation to anyone but myself; "not to a community, not to a friend, not to anyone" where in this is an obligation to respect the well-being of my COMMUNITY, which you JUST minimalized the importance of? If a true Egoist is not obligated to care about his community, then why do you say a "True Egoist" is obligated to do so? - L.H.
I don't ever recall, saying an Egoist has an obligation to a community? I mean please point me to anywhere that I have stated that? "... where in this is an obligation to respect the well-being of my COMMUNITY..." are you suggesting that one must have an obligation to the "well being" of his community? I mean how altruist does that sound my friend? Your suggesting that anyone who lives in a community has an obligation to respect the well being on his community. So the person that is successful must sacrifice himself and his property for the "well being of his community"? That is ludicrous!
You say your just for educating the people about Capitalism so that it will flourish and people will be aware of the system. But the warrant of that claim is that your doing it so that it will actually "regulate" these business. People will regulate the market, regardless of their education. If the high school drop out who makes low wage wants to go to Walmart because its cheaper, you say damn that drop out for wasting his money and not truly valuing his dollar!
Friday, September 25, 2009
L.H. [Pt. 6]
"Then why not argue for Anarchy, Chris Farrar? If an individual has no obligation to any but himself, why respect the laws of a nation? I fail to understand how one can support the billions of dollars required to maintain a police state like the one we are alotted in the United States in order to keep the masses in some general line of conduct in order to keep the nation in an orderly, functioning state, yet cannot support education in order to maintain an orderly, functioning state." - L.H.
"A proper government is restricted to the protection of individual rights against violation by force or the threat of force. A proper government functions according to objective, philosophically validated procedures, as embodied in its entire legal framework, from its constitution down to its narrowest rules and ordinances. Once such a government, or anything approaching it, has been established, there is no such thing as a "right" to "compete" with the government—i.e., to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Nor does one gain such a "right" by joining with others to go into the "business" of wielding force.
"A proper government is restricted to the protection of individual rights against violation by force or the threat of force. A proper government functions according to objective, philosophically validated procedures, as embodied in its entire legal framework, from its constitution down to its narrowest rules and ordinances. Once such a government, or anything approaching it, has been established, there is no such thing as a "right" to "compete" with the government—i.e., to act as judge, jury, and executioner. Nor does one gain such a "right" by joining with others to go into the "business" of wielding force.
To carry out its function of protecting individual rights, the government must forcibly bar others from using force in ways that threaten the citizens' rights. Private force is force not authorized by the government, not validated by its procedural safeguards, and not subject to its supervision.
The government has to regard such private force as a threat—i.e., as a potential violation of individual rights. In barring such private force, the government is retaliating against that threat." - Harry Binswanger
I cannot put in any clearer. You have some radical idea that, true Egoist are only it for themselves and fail to recognize other individuals human rights? I question if you know what true Egoism is? An Egoist recognizes that people have an inherent right to their life, that they have certain rights that shall not be infringed upon. THEY RECOGNIZE THIS. That is why you don't see the true Egoist running around killing anyone that they want. It doesn't have to be killing but any infringement on a individuals rights. Egoist recognize your right to your life. They don't make sacrifices for you, and they don't ask you to sacrifice your individual rights. They are not anarchist.
"Anarchy, as a political concept, is a naive floating abstraction: . . . a society without an organized government would be at the mercy of the first criminal who came along and who would precipitate it into the chaos of gang warfare. But the possibility of human immorality is not the only objection to anarchy: even a society whose every member were fully rational and faultlessly moral, could not function in a state of anarchy; it is the need of objective laws and of an arbiter for honest disagreements among men that necessitates the establishment of a government." - Ayn Rand
L.H. [Pt. 5]
"As far as Mr. Sierra's comment about education not being a right but a responsibility, with all due respect, comments such as this make me question the desire to make Objectivism work within the setting of a "nation" at all. Is it not entirely contradictory for an Objectivist to exist within a realm which is defined by its collective state? Perhaps education is not a right, but it is an obligation in a community. Obligations are an abstract concept in Objectivist ethos, yet they are fundamental in a nation. I honestly don't see the point in trying to argue what is best for a nation if your fundamental beliefs contradict the concept of community solely for the sake of community; that's what a nation is."
Let me first say, you have no obligation to anyone but yourself. Not to a community, not to a friend, not to anyone. Especially when it comes to education. Put about ethos, and argue with logos. A community has no obligation to educate each other. You have an obligation to educate yourself, I have an obligation to educate myself, Donn has an obligation to educate himself. Education is a sole-responisbility. Why do you think colleges are not required? Public school shouldn't be either. If a person does not want to educate themselves, then so be it. Communities do not have an obligation to educate everyone.
Let me first say, you have no obligation to anyone but yourself. Not to a community, not to a friend, not to anyone. Especially when it comes to education. Put about ethos, and argue with logos. A community has no obligation to educate each other. You have an obligation to educate yourself, I have an obligation to educate myself, Donn has an obligation to educate himself. Education is a sole-responisbility. Why do you think colleges are not required? Public school shouldn't be either. If a person does not want to educate themselves, then so be it. Communities do not have an obligation to educate everyone.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
L.H. [Part 4]
Yes, but Chris Farrar, you understand Capitalism. I at no point ever argued that I desire to "[force] the students to only go to shops with specific specialty items"; there is no limiting whatsoever to the people's rights to choose where they shop. There is, however, the desire to truly teach students about the meaning of a dollar spent. Because I promise you, the majority of people go to massive, destructive entities such as Wal*Mart (see "The High Cost of Low Prices") and McDonald's (read "The Omnivore's Delimna" or "Fast Food Nation") do so more out of tradition than actual reason. - L.H.
L.H., if the citizens knew the value of the dollar, and knew why they were going to Walmart, would you object to that still? What makes a difference if they know what they are doing or not. They would still be keeping the big business in business, even if they all knew what they were doing? What's the difference?
L.H., if the citizens knew the value of the dollar, and knew why they were going to Walmart, would you object to that still? What makes a difference if they know what they are doing or not. They would still be keeping the big business in business, even if they all knew what they were doing? What's the difference?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
