Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Kuciwalker]

Actually, in that case I would agree. While it would be a VERY NICE THING TO DO, I don't see abstaining from it as being WRONG. I personally would stay away from such a person and criticize him, but hey, it's his choice. I fail to see a qualitative distinction between it and, say, giving money to a poor person, which you would probably agree is not IMMORAL to abstain from.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Boshko

Didn't she make a table that sought to prove that "inaction", as a semantic negative, could therefore have no moral value?

So standing around whistling while someone drowns because you didn't give them a hand isn't immoral? Gotta love Rand.

This is a repelling thought for sure, but I make it a point of always considering something from a rational viewpoint before dismissing it.

[Zylka]

Ayn Rand!!! Well, I'm sure it will be as soon as I finish The Fountainhead

Oh, and JESUS.. how could you guys forget Jesus?

[Bosh]

While it would be a VERY NICE THING TO DO, I don't see abstaining from it as being WRONG.

It definately would, especially if helping didn't inconvenience him at all. Can you honestly say, the someone who saw a kid trapped in a well (or something) and walked away without giving the police a call with his cellphone isn't immoral scum? Every one of our actions (including just standing there) has moral implications.

[Berzerker]

UBoris -

About Bastiat: it seems to me the only way we could really apply his theory would be to take the entire world's money and then share it equally to make a "new" start.

You basically said that already and I responded. Past crimes don't justify future crimes. If these past crimes can be identified and the criminals are still alive they can be punished. If my grandfather stole from your grandfather and I was a recipient of the stolen loot, that is an injustice requiring redress and nothing Bastiat said dis-allows such redress, quite the contrary.

Then again, those born from rich parents in a few years from now would be unduly advantaged, and we would see again a new path towards oligarchy.

Is your goal to prevent "undue" advantages or prevent future plunder by an oligarchy? And are genetic advantages "undue" as well?

And no, I am not an advocate of plundering- neither in its socialist or anarcho-capitalist form.

I believe you said welfare states were an appropriate response to the sins of the past...that's socialistic plunder...

It's just that I think it's necessary for everyone to create their own democratically ran "state oligarchs" to counter-balance the private ones that would arise from free market. I don't think it is possible for a State to stay un-corrupt and truly defend rights (however minimal they may be) if it doesn't have much more power than the private rich.

When have private interests ever had more power than states? When there was no state? You really think states become less prone to corruption as they gain more power? Could you give a couple examples of these oligarchic powers arising from the free market to overpower the state?

Think of it a second: if the whole State of America had a budget of 4 billions that would be exclusively spent on elections, courts, and police, wouldn't you be affraid that it could be taken over by a large corporation in a matter of years?

Nope. How would this corporation take over without the support of the state and the voters? When has a corporation ever taken control of a state? How many times have we seen states take over corporations?

[Kuciwalker]

Can you honestly say, the someone who saw a kid trapped in a well (or something) and walked away without giving the police a call with his cellphone isn't immoral scum?

I'd say he's scum, yes, and I'd say he's amore, but I wouldn't call him immoral. The reason isn't because I wouldn't detest someone who did that, but rather I fail to see a qualitative difference between that and, for example, not giving money to charity.

[Berzerker]

So standing around whistling while someone drowns because you didn't give them a hand isn't immoral? Gotta love Rand.

Gotta love them strawmen

[Bosh]

Well if inaction is never immoral then it isn't a strawman.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Zylka
Ayn Rand!!! Well, I'm sure it will be as soon as I finish The Fountainhead

Oh, and JESUS.. how could you guys forget Jesus?

Good luck, it's a long book. and yes, don't forget the big man. He did spawn a religion and (if you're a believer) save us from our sins and open up the pearly gates...

[monkspider]

strawman,strawman, strawman, STRAWMAN. Oh yeah, and slippery slope.
There, i win.

[Berzerker]

Well if inaction is never immoral then it isn't a strawman.

It is a strawman unless she (Rand) defined inaction the way you have.

[Fake Boris]

Berzerker:

Don't you think that the term oligarchy in itself supposes crimes long commited by ancestors which are in no way redeemable? Think of the aristocracy or the centuries-inherited family wealth.
Also consider that when I said past crimes, I also meant situations much more complex than "my grandfather nicked your grandmother's bicycle". Think of it, as a metaphor only, in the ways of nazism. After the occupation of Germany, the US realized that up to 80% of the population had had something to do with the Nazi Party. After which, they used this situation as a pretext to arrest about anyone they thought was being detrimental to their interests. (There are also many documented cases of strong Nazi proponents having their asses saved because they were needed for the reconstruction).

So, where does this lead? Well, that I got a free education from State-plundered funds make me a criminal of a sort- and that about anyone has benefitted in some way from welfare money, slavery accumulated family riches, or anything similar all make us some sort of criminals. Just think of a museum that would have acquired a painting with money derived from Zyklon manufacturing; what do we do with it? What about this 2$ you saved on your last purchase, because the good was produced by a worker who is forbidden by his government to form an union? Isn't that a form of plundering that needs reparations?

And about the privately-operated states: I suggest you take a look in some history books. The history of industrialization, is, quite frankly, the story of workers brutalized by the police on behalf of the "robber barons". When a state says it's criminal for someone to go on strike, to protest against 80-hours weeks and near-starvation salaries, when a state uses the army to conquer mineral resources rich countries in Africa for its corporations to exploit it, then I call it privately ran by the financial oligarchy (*cough* England *cough* France). And what about today? It still works like this, in a way. Kissinger organized the Sallende deposal on behalf of mining corporations, who even had given 1 million$ to help the CIA (which in fact is not much when you pit it against the money directly "invested" by the US). Quite the same pattern was repeated in Panama or Nicaragua.

The fact is, our world is an intricate pattern of plunders and replunders about which we can do about nothing- except, IMHO, making the "plunders" more tolerable to the poor by creating welfare states. Personally, I agree with Marx conception, in which a rich man exploiting the poor's only wealth- his labor-, and imposing his own conditions because he owns the means of production, is just another form of plunder by which you "alienate" one's soul.
Can you deny that this situation is absolutely unavoidable, when someone, through honest (or not, as long as he doesn't get caught) work, rises above the others and get a hold of the manufacturing process? The said person, perpetuating the familial traditions of human beings, would then pass the benefits to his sons and daughters (EDIT: who not worked for it).

This is why I see the democratically ran welfare states as a counter-measure to this unavoidable, natural oligarchic system which has defined human history since the beginning. The "plunder" they impose is not only a reparation to past ones, it is also an insurance policy against future ones, in that it strives to give everyone equality in chances by providing for education and healthcare.

[monkspider]

Originally posted by Berzerker


It is a strawman unless she (Rand) defined inaction the way you have.

I define inaction as inaction. What does she (Rand) define it as?

[Kuciwalker]

Don't you think that the term oligarchy in itself supposes crimes long commited by ancestors which are in no way redeemable?

No. Oligarchy means rule by a small group of people. It doesn't suppose anything at all.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by skywalker

Don't you think that the term oligarchy in itself supposes crimes long commited by ancestors which are in no way redeemable?

No. Oligarchy means rule by a small group of people. It doesn't suppose anything at all.

Oh yes it does. What about the 100 families who ran Rome from the beginning to the end? Isn't there any form of trans-generational continuity in this? Sonny profitting from daddy's political intrigue and corruption?

What about the sons-of-a-rich going to Harvard with daddy's money? Truly, the elite is not usually much permeable to the working class. Since it is one's environment that (mostly) determines his future, then an oligarchy who sprang up from plunder will inevitably benefit its patrician sons before the plebs. Things are changing, but I believe this to be a consequence of the Welfare states.