Ayn Rand

[Yerda]

OK, I'll have to start slowly. You have feelings about the economy and you wish reality to reflect those feelings and I have to show you how it does not.

I'm waiting.

 

[Darkdale]

I'm waiting.

:biglaugh: No thoughts? No Rebuttal? No examples? No thoughts? ok.

Have you studied MicroEconomics? Which books?

Can you prove that Capitalism caused all the things you accuse it of causing, or are you just taking Michael Moore's word for it?

What theory of economics do you subscribe to, and at what point in history was it best demonstrated? Who best articulated the position?

I ask these questions to help you avoid the mistake of supposing that dull wit is intellectually equivalent to an argument.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

:biglaugh: No, no, no... you have it all wrong. You are judging people's values. Economcs takes "value" as a given. You are saying that people that don't want to lose control over their land to government control because a woodpecker might perfer their tree are a bunch of selfish ********. Those are your values... you want to control them... dominate them... force them to live as you want them to. Because of your desire to own them... they cut down trees to keep your kind off their property. You can't stop them, so all you can do is hate them..... to sit simmering with rage. lol... meanwhile the Woodpecker is thinking, "Yo! What about me?". (Socialists don't care about you Woody, they care about showing that they care).

I have no wish to control or dominate anyone, and I am not sitting here hating anyone or simmering with rage. You have no idea who or what I am, you are just assuming that because I find it wasted energy to cut down a tree you never had a problem with before, to stop a bird you never had a problem with before nesting there, just because it's now officially an endangered species, I am of a particular 'kind' that people want to keep off their property. By all means, if the tree is sick, cut it down. If it's blocking the view or you want to build something on the spot on which it stands, cut it down. Have a real reason to cut it down though, don't just decide to cut it down because you're a dick with a sudden and overwhelming urge to contribute personally to the loss of a species.
These people were obviously in no danger of losing their rights to their property, otherwise they would have been stopped from cutting the trees down in the first place. Oddly enough they weren't...it was a knee jerk reaction to a perceived possible outcome. It would be like me going out and cutting down the bird attracting trees in my own back yard because they declare the local parrot endangered, because someone might want to come and tag some of them one day if they nest in my yard.
So which particular affiliation of mine are we finding objectionable to all good, freedom seeking tree loppers? Small business owner, landscaper...artisan perhaps? Former girl guide? It can't be that I'm a socialist of any ilk, because I'm not. Don't make the mistake of lumping people in a particular group because they don't agree with you...they may just not agree with you.
Likewise, I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming Jaiket doesn't know what he's talking about because he's not bowing to your superior intellect and economic education. Perhaps it's not that he doesn't understand your arguments...maybe he just finds them less than compelling.

 

[Darkdale]

I have no wish to control or dominate anyone, and I am not sitting here hating anyone or simmering with rage. You have no idea who or what I am, you are just assuming that because I find it wasted energy to cut down a tree you never had a problem with before, to stop a bird you never had a problem with before nesting there, just because it's now officially an endangered species

So what is your problem, then, with people maintaining their property?

By all means, if the tree is sick, cut it down. If it's blocking the view or you want to build something on the spot on which it stands, cut it down. Have a real reason to cut it down though, don't just decide to cut it down because you're a dick with a sudden and overwhelming urge to contribute personally to the loss of a species.

You are not understanding the problem. The problem is that if you don't cut those trees down, you lose control of your own property.

These people were obviously in no danger of losing their rights to their property, otherwise they would have been stopped from cutting the trees down in the first place.

Wrong. It is amusing that it doesn't work that way, but if it did, things would be worse.

Oddly enough they weren't...it was a knee jerk reaction to a perceived possible outcome. It would be like me going out and cutting down the bird attracting trees in my own back yard because they declare the local parrot endangered, because someone might want to come and tag some of them one day if they nest in my yard.

No. You don't understand. It would be like the government saying, "If you have an abortion, you are subject to more taxes".

So which particular affiliation of mine are we finding objectionable to all good, freedom seeking tree loppers? Small business owner, landscaper...artisan perhaps? Former girl guide? It can't be that I'm a socialist of any ilk, because I'm not. Don't make the mistake of lumping people in a particular group because they don't agree with you...they may just not agree with you.

The best lands are private lands. Public lands are the worst.

Likewise, I wouldn't make the mistake of assuming Jaiket doesn't know what he's talking about because he's not bowing to your superior intellect and economic education. Perhaps it's not that he doesn't understand your arguments...maybe he just finds them less than compelling.

I'm just asking for an educated response. What is wrong with that?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

So what is your problem, then, with people maintaining their property?

I have no problem with people 'maintaining' their property. I just don't see the knee jerk lopping of a particular tree as 'maintenance'.

You are not understanding the problem. The problem is that if you don't cut those trees down, you lose control of your own property.

What I'm failing to understand is how the hell you lose control of your property by NOT cutting down a tree that you probably didn't spend 2 seconds of your day noticing before but is suddenly something that MUST be removed, in the continuing interests of freedom, no less.

Wrong. It is amusing that it doesn't work that way, but if it did, things would be worse.

Actually, in some municipalities here it in fact does work that way. Oddly enough, we don't have legions of people poisoning their 120 year old gum trees just to get the council permit so they can cut it down because there are a few birds in it. Then again, we don't have a stick up our arse about infringing on our civil liberties here, so we just look at it as more of an inconvenience than anything else.Even then it's only inconvenient if you want to cut it down to extend your house and only then because you have to fill in some forms to get the permit. But then you need to do that for major building works anyway, so it's really not a big deal.

No. You don't understand. It would be like the government saying, "If you have an abortion, you are subject to more taxes".

How so?

The best lands are private lands. Public lands are the worst.

Twaddle.Though I would be interested in knowing what constitutes best and worst.

I'm just asking for an educated response. What is wrong with that?

Personally, if you were directing posts at me treating me like a was a 5 year old of lower than normal mental capability, I don't think I'd bother with replying to you either.
For example:'OK, I'll have to start slowly. You have feelings about the economy and you wish reality to reflect those feelings and I have to show you how it does not. '
Of course, I'm sure you could be more condescending if you tried, but only a little.

 

[Darkdale]

I have no problem with people 'maintaining' their property. I just don't see the knee jerk lopping of a particular tree as 'maintenance'.

What I'm failing to understand is how the hell you lose control of your property by NOT cutting down a tree that you probably didn't spend 2 seconds of your day noticing before but is suddenly something that MUST be removed, in the continuing interests of freedom, no less.

If you don't cut the tree down, the government can take control of your property. Tell you what you can and cannot do.

Actually, in some municipalities here it in fact does work that way. Oddly enough, we don't have legions of people poisoning their 120 year old gum trees just to get the council permit so they can cut it down because there are a few birds in it. Then again, we don't have a stick up our arse about infringing on our civil liberties here, so we just look at it as more of an inconvenience than anything else.Even then it's only inconvenient if you want to cut it down to extend your house and only then because you have to fill in some forms to get the permit. But then you need to do that for major building works anyway, so it's really not a big deal.

Yeah, there is really no problem with just cutting up Private Property. I mean, really, private property is actually public isn't it?

Personally, if you were directing posts at me treating me like a was a 5 year old of lower than normal mental capability, I don't think I'd bother with replying to you either.
For example:'OK, I'll have to start slowly. You have feelings about the economy and you wish reality to reflect those feelings and I have to show you how it does not. '
Of course, I'm sure you could be more condescending if you tried, but only a little.

I just have a respect for the science of economics. Maybe you look at it as a whim?

 

[Quoth The Raven]

If you don't cut the tree down, the government can take control of your property. Tell you what you can and cannot do.

Yes,you keep saying that. You've yet to explain how, but I'm sure it's just an oversight on your part.

Yeah, there is really no problem with just cutting up Private Property. I mean, really, private property is actually public isn't it?

Please, explain to me how this relates to the quote of mine you immediately followed it on from. As far as I can see, it doesn't. By all means though, if you can show me the correlation I'd be more than happy to see it. Of course, you could have just had a thought in your head and run with it without actually making sure it was relevent to what you were quoting of mine.

I just have a respect for the science of economics.Maybe you look at it as a whim?

Not at all. Though your conclusions may not be the conclusions of everyone, and every viewpoint that does not mirror your own is not by default rendered invalid.

 

[Darkdale]

Though your conclusions may not be the conclusions of everyone, and every viewpoint that does not mirror your own is not by default rendered invalid.

If you "feel" that way, that is fine. I have done the best I can to explain to you the most simple, most basic aspects of economics. Not a single one of you has produced a single positive economic position of your own. Assuming, then, that none of you have a positive economic position, and that you are relying on your feelings and "perspective", I will sit and wait patiently. Take your time. Or don't bother putting in an effort. It makes no difference to me.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

If you "feel" that way, that is fine. I have done the best I can to explain to you the most simple, most basic aspects of economics. Not a single one of you has produced a single positive economic position of your own. Assuming, then, that none of you have a positive economic position, and that you are relying on your feelings and "perspective", I will sit and wait patiently. Take your time. Or don't bother putting in an effort. It makes no difference to me.

If you've actually bothered to read my posts instead of just deciding to pigeon hole me and my economic and political affiliations based on what you 'feel' they are, I think you'll find I've personally espoused NO economic position. You haven't done your best to explain to me anything, because I've expressed neither agreement nor disagreement with anyones economic position. Should you look back, I think you'll find I suggested merely that you were condescending, and if that's your teaching style, I would suggest you don't actually look to teaching as a profession...I doubt you'll do well standing in front of a class saying,'Now,it's quite apparent that you're all quite stupid, so I'll break it down into small words of minimal syllables for you so you can understand. Obviously if I treat you like you've got half a brain then there's going to be issues, because you're all imbeciles. Just try to keep up...there's only so much I can dumb it down for your benefit.'
Now, if you 'feel' that others opinions are rendered invalid through lack of agreement with yours, that's fine. You're only human, so of course you're going to 'feel' that your opinions are better, because you own them.
Now, while you're waiting for someone who has actually expressed an economic opinion to answer your questions on that score, would it be too much to ask for you to answer my questions? I'm starting to get the feeling from your narrowing focus on what I've said, and the apparent need to put words in my mouth in a previous post that it's not an oversight that caused you not to answer the question in the first place, but rather an inability.
I'll remind you of it, shall I, so there's no confusion?
How - if you don't cut down the tree - can the government take control of your property?

 

[Darkdale]

If you've actually bothered to read my posts, I think you'll find I've personally espoused NO economic position.

Yes, that is what I was saying. You seem to have no positive position.

You haven't done your best to explain to me anything, because I've expressed neither agreement nor disagreement with anyones economic position.

That makes no sense. How can my efforts in explaining basic economic principles to you have anything to do with whether or not you have expressed one position or another?

Should you look back, I think you'll find I suggested merely that you were condescending, and if that's your teaching style, I would suggest you don't actually look to teaching as a profession...I doubt you'll do well standing in front of a class saying,'Now,it's quite apparent that you're all quite stupid, so I'll break it down into small words of minimal syllables for you so you can understand.

Are you paying me? Am I getting a Salary? Will you be available for the exam? lol I'm not here to teach you anything. I assume you can teach yourself. If I have been condescending it is because this is fundamentally an economic question and no one is using any economics to refute Capitalism. They are using politics, feelings, and hearsay. No reference to economic science. I don't care how people feel about Capitalism... well, I do, but not for this discussion. What I am looking for are thoughtful and objective arguments. Maybe I am addressing the wrong crowd?

Obviously if I treat you like you've got half a brain then there's going to be issues, because you're all imbeciles. Just try to keep up...there's only so much I can dumb it down for your benefit.'

This has nothing to do with intelligence. Jaiket is intelligent, but he doesn't seem to be knowledgable about economics. I am intelligent, but I am a moron when it comes to auto-mechanics. If I open up mouth to speak on auto-mechanics, any mechanic will see my ignorance as plain as day.

Now, if you 'feel' that others opinions are rendered invalid through lack of agreement with yours, that's fine.

Capitalism isn't an abstract, neither is the field of economics. Both are based on applicable principles that have demonstrable effects. If you don't understand those principles and you don't understand the cause and effect relationship between individuals and price theory, how can you consider your opinions on the matter important? What are they based on?

You're only human, so of course you're going to 'feel' that your opinions are better, because you own them.

These are the kind of comments that baffle me. We aren't talking metaphysics here. We're not talking about the great mysteries of life.

Now, while you're waiting for someone who has actually expressed an economic opinion to answer your questions on that score, would it be too much to ask for you to answer my questions?

Again, I have already put forward a very simple, very basic argument. Now, I am going to assume that everyone will disagree with it, because folk around here lean to socialist economics (not because they understand it, but because they "feel" that it reflects some moral value). So what I am waiting for is not someone who has question after question. We can get more detailed later, after someone has offered up a competing view.

I'm starting to get the feeling from your narrowing focus on what I've said, and the apparent need to put words in my mouth in a previous post that it's not an oversight that caused you not to answer the question in the first place, but rather an inability.

lol Coming from someone that can't even express a single point of view, I'll take your snide remarks as nothing more than silliness.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

lol Coming from someone that can't even express a single point of view, I'll take your snide remarks as nothing more than silliness.

I believe my point of view was that it was utter stupidity to cut down a tree that wasn't previously a problem for a ridiculous reason, and nothing to do with an economic position. My economic position didn't enter into it, and I never said it did. For you it all comes down to economics, for me it comes down to,'Explain to me how not cutting down the tree gives the government control of your property.' At no point have I said people should not have the right to maintain their property, at no point have I declared that private property and public property are the same thing...at no point have a said a lot of things that you seem to think or infer that I've said.
You can sit there saying,'Ooh, I don't have to answer you because you're just being silly, hahaha. Look what I did, that was a put down...I was clever.' if that makes it easier for you to continue avoiding the question now that it's been shoved right in your face. Really though, that's all I wanted an answer for, and I've continued to ask and not be answered in every post I've made. If you don't have an answer, then just be brave enough to admit it, otherwise answer the question.
Surely it shouldn't be that hard for a man of your far reaching abilities?

 

[Darkdale]

I believe my point of view was that it was utter stupidity to cut down a tree that wasn't previously a problem for a ridiculous reason, and nothing to do with an economic position. My economic position didn't enter into it, and I never said it did. For you it all comes down to economics, for me it comes down to,'Explain to me how not cutting down the tree gives the government control of your property.' At no point have I said people should not have the right to maintain their property, at no point have I declared that private property and public property are the same thing...at no point have a said a lot of things that you seem to think or infer that I've said.

The article I read on the Woodpecker example was written by an economist. In the strictly scientific sense, economists don't get into the values of the individuals, they are instead concerned with the actions of individuals. In the case of the Woodpecker, I wasn't passing judgement on the values of the politicians that wanted to protect the Woodpecker, or the individuals who cut down trees in order to protect their total rights to their property. It was simply an objective observation that there are unintended consequences to government action. The point is not whether or not either the environmentalists or the tree-cutting citizen is stupid. The point is what actually happened. It was meant to demonstrate unintended consequences.

Your position seemed to suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that the government isn't responsible for considering what people actually do when passing laws and regulations with regard to private property. Maybe you think these tree-chopping citizens are idiots. Well, how does that change the fact that they still cut those trees down and the Woodpeckers were worse off? How does that change the reality of secondary, unintended consequences?

What did you think about the example of the requirement for childseats on airplanes? Maybe you think you are smarter than other people and that your values are better, but you can't let that enter into your objective approach to economic policy, because you must take into consideration what people do (all values aside).

So what do you think we should do? Just ignore the actual negative consequences of economic restrictions/regulations and simply focus on the good/positive intent? Sounds like Kant to me.

You can sit there saying,'Ooh, I don't have to answer you because you're just being silly, hahaha. Look what I did, that was a put down...I was clever.' if that makes it easier for you to continue avoiding the question now that it's been shoved right in your face. Really though, that's all I wanted an answer for, and I've continued to ask and not be answered in every post I've made. If you don't have an answer, then just be brave enough to admit it, otherwise answer the question.
Surely it shouldn't be that hard for a man of your far reaching abilities?

You are coming at this all wrong. You think that I am obligated to answer your questions, that you have a right to them. You don't. It is what you want. What I want (which I don't have a right to either) if for you to actually think objectively about economics and to provide positive arguments for what you believe. But you won't do that, and I you leave me to imagine why.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

The article I read on the Woodpecker example was written by an economist. In the strictly scientific sense, economists don't get into the values of the individuals, they are instead concerned with the actions of individuals. In the case of the Woodpecker, I wasn't passing judgement on the values of the politicians that wanted to protect the Woodpecker, or the individuals who cut down trees in order to protect their total rights to their property. It was simply an objective observation that there are unintended consequences to government action. The point is not whether or not either the environmentalists or the tree-cutting citizen is stupid. The point is what actually happened. It was meant to demonstrate unintended consequences.

Yes, I get that, I just failed to see how not cutting down the trees denied them the rights to their property in any way but in their heads. What rights did they suddenly lose by having this particular tree? That's all I wanted to know. All you said was that the woodpecker was declared endangered, and that people then went out and cut down their trees in order that they not lose their rights.

Your position seemed to suggest, and correct me if I'm wrong here, that the government isn't responsible for considering what people actually do when passing laws and regulations with regard to private property. Maybe you think these tree-chopping citizens are idiots. Well, how does that change the fact that they still cut those trees down and the Woodpeckers were worse off? How does that change the reality of secondary, unintended consequences?

Whether the government is responsible for considering what people actually do when they pass laws or not probably doesn't make a lot of difference, because I doubt - responsible or not - whether they actually do. My position was that given the information I had, I thought it rather stupid to develop a sudden problem with trees and birds you were perfectly happy to have around beforehand, and being told these people did it to prevent the government from telling them what they could and couldn't do on their own property, I wondered how it actually impacted on them if they left the trees. Were they required to get rid of the family pets? Were they unable to build structures of some description? I was after specifics as to what the problem was.

What did you think about the example of the requirement for childseats on airplanes? Maybe you think you are smarter than other people and that your values are better, but you can't let that enter into your objective approach to economic policy, because you must take into consideration what people do (all values aside).

I don't have an issue with childseats on airplanes one way or the other...I'm not sure if they're required on planes here, but it gets quite ugly if the police catch you driving about with your child in the car and they're not in an approved child restraint. But I don't see that as an economic consideration either, I see it as a safety issue. Of course, that could merely be because I live in a country where legally it's not an option, and they literally wont let you take your baby home from the hospital unless there's a properly fitted, approved child restraint in the car. Perhaps I don't consider it a question of economics because when you have children here, it's not a discretionary expense.
That doesn't stop people driving around without them, but that's just what the law is.

My question on that was did the road toll figures rise because people chose not to put their children in a child seat in the car either?

So what do you think we should do? Just ignore the actual negative consequences of economic restrictions/regulations and simply focus on the good/positive intent? Sounds like Kant to me.

There's positive and negative consequences - intended or not - in everything, and the best you can do is try and work out what they're going to be beforehand. Personally though, I was just interested in a specific example of the loss of rights in the case of the woodpeckers.

You are coming at this all wrong. You think that I am obligated to answer your questions, that you have a right to them. You don't. It is what you want. What I want (which I don't have a right to either) if for you to actually think objectively about economics and to provide positive arguments for what you believe. But you won't do that, and I you leave me to imagine why.

Nah, you're coming at me all wrong. What I assumed you might be interested in doing, was supporting your position that the people cut down their trees to hold onto their rights with specific examples. That's all I was interested in. If the article didn't provide specific examples, you could have told me that pages ago and I would have said,'OK' and gone on my merry way.
None of the rest of it I particularly gave a toss about (though you will notice I respond less aggresively when you stop talking down?).Sorry if you think that's inadequate of me, but my economic views didn't even come into consideration, because all I cared about was what happened with the woodpeckers.

 

[Darkdale]

*yawns* Again. A whole post ignoring economics. If you want to talk about economics and capitalism, let me know. If you want to talk about how you think people are stupid for this or stupid for that, go to the politics section and you'll find tons of threads like that. Go read a book on economics, on capitalism, or socialism... go learn something about economics and then we'll talk.

 

[Quoth The Raven]

*yawns* Again. A whole post ignoring economics. If you want to talk about economics and capitalism, let me know. If you want to talk about how you think people are stupid for this or stupid for that, go to the politics section and you'll find tons of threads like that. Go read a book on economics, on capitalism, or socialism... go learn something about economics and then we'll talk.

OK. So you can't prove to me that people would have lost their rights if they hadn't cut down the trees the woodpeckers nested in? That's all you had to say in the first place, and I accept your apology for dragging this on needlessly with grace.

 

[Darkdale]

OK. So you can't prove to me that people would have lost their rights if they hadn't cut down the trees the woodpeckers nested in? That's all you had to say in the first place, and I accept your apology for dragging this on needlessly with grace.

lol Go pay someone one to teach you economics. You can't afford me, and I won't do this for free, good capitalist that I am.

 

[Maxist]

Although I have never read any of her books I have done extensive studies on both her, and her objectivism. I do not agree with objectivism, in the sense that it uses Laissez-Faire Capitalism, which is most certainly not the only "workable" society." And Rational Egoism is also somthing I beleive we can do without.

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute." This statement led me to sumize that she is, also, post modern. I despise post-modernism and cannot go along with objectivism unless Rand does not attempt to make a "super-man."

 

[Buttons*]

I despise post-modernism and cannot go along with objectivism unless Rand does not attempt to make a "super-man."

well, most philosphers attempt to make a "utopia" which would require people to be, well, better than were are. If you dont like Ayn Rand, you probably dont like Karl Marx, Thomas More, or Plato.....*shrugs*

Not defending anyone since I havent read the books and cant make an intellegnt decision on either. But most idealistic societies require people to be good on their own, being our own super humans... that cant possibly work, there is no perfect form of government because some people choose to be ignorant.

 

[cmnaga]

I don't see Ayn Rand as an especially great or profound philosopher. In my book, she's more of a social commentator who popularized certain notions that might not otherwise have gotten as wide of an audience as they did. But I don't think she fits very well into the mold of a serious philosopher. I think of her as making more of a contribution to popular culture, than to philosophy.

What what fit your arbitrary criteria of what constitutes a "serious" philosopher?

 

[lilithu]

It's egocentrism reaching cult proportions.

:clap

Anything that promotes self-interest above all else is wrong imo. Her "philosophy" is just a rationalization for egotism. For certain people who have trouble maintaining their self-identity, there may be some use for that, but in general we have way too much of it already.