Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Karl Marx Shrugged?

Options
135678

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    Is it unreasonable to assume that in the absence of taxes, subsidies, price supports, and so on, that our capacity to generate private wealth will increase exponentially?

    Liberia has a very low tax rate. Consider your theory falsified.


  • Options
    #63
    _Nuno_
    Registered Users Posts: 188 ✭✭_Nuno_


    turgon wrote: »
    But do you think the state should provide free education to giver everyone an equal enough starting block?

    There's no such thing as free education, or anything else. It's all paid for with the wealth produce by your labour, which is taken from the workers by the government, and applied in whatever way the government decides to. Usually it's applied in the most wasteful manner. It has been since there are public services, and it always will.


  • Options
    #64
    earwicker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 163 ✭✭earwicker


    But why? Is it unreasonable to assume that in the absence of taxes, subsidies, price supports, and so on, that our capacity to generate private wealth will increase exponentially?

    Surely begging the question?


  • Options
    #65
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    See this is where me and Rand part, I'm a positivist, if you want to claim that proffer some proof of human nature that makes it reasonable or whatever. Rand is happy to argue from purely a priori positions, personally I think that's a terrible way to form your politics.


  • Options
    #66
    silverharp
    Registered Users Posts: 18,403 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    nesf wrote: »
    To echo a previous poster, that sounds positively utopian..

    you could argue that the socialist system required to meet the need of every percieved disadvantaged person is also utopian. The system would never meet the objectives stated & would be inefficient

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    cavedave
    Registered Users Posts: 2,164 ✭✭✭cavedave


    I tried to read atlas shrugged and it is a terrible piece of fiction. I'm with Officer Barbrady from south park on this one
    At first I was happy to be learning how to read. It seemed exciting and magical, but then I read this: Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand. I read every last word of this garbage, and because of this piece of crap, I am never reading again!

    On the other hand it is probably better then Marx the musical

    Not liking atlas shrugged is an opinion on a piece of fiction. I am not placed to judge Ayn Rand as a human being. Or Objectivism as a philosophical/political system.

    What good fictional accounts of political systems? Heinlen, Orwell who else?


  • Options
    #68
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    silverharp wrote: »
    you could argue that the socialist system required to meet the need of every percieved disadvantaged person is also utopian. The system would never meet the objectives stated & would be inefficient

    I would indeed argue that many forms of socialism are of the utopian variety and I would seriously question their realism for it.


  • Options
    #69
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    earwicker wrote: »
    Surely begging the question?

    He didn't utter a syllogism. :mad:


  • Options
    #70
    earwicker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 163 ✭✭earwicker


    nesf wrote: »
    He didn't utter a syllogism. :mad:

    He didn't need to. It's a circular argument.


  • Options
    #71
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    I'm a post-positivist darling. Nothing is certain, it's all conjecture that have different levels of verisimilitude to borrow a phrase from Popper. I'm familiar with her favourite argument against logical positivists.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Rand's issue with a standard philosophical term like a priori would be one of the many reasons for mainstream philosophy ignoring her. I have little interest in Objectivism so I haven't bothered to read her work on its Epistemology.


  • Options
    #73
    earwicker
    Closed Accounts Posts: 163 ✭✭earwicker


    But a priori knowledge is not reducible to Kant's philosophy. It was around a long time before him. There's been a lot of invocation of it in this thread.


  • Options
    #74
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #75
    asdasd
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,185 ✭✭✭asdasd


    Honestly, I don't think you know very much about Liberia if you think it falsifies my theory!

    I thnk it has very low taxes.


  • Options
    #76
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    oscarBravo wrote: »
    Meh. So long as I never have to read John Galt's soliloquy ever again.

    ;)

    Despite being an ardent fan of Atlas Shrugged, that soliloquy was painfully long.


  • Options
    #77
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #78
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Pretty much. It doesn't really occupy me outside of scientific work/musings and dismissal of utopian systems based purely on a priori assumptions.
    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    Exactly, except in philosophy its meaning is far broader than just Kantian views of morality.


  • Options
    #79
    L.R. Weizel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭L.R. Weizel


    donegalfella wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.

    This is what I don't get about right wingers - you splurt this stuff about "Individualism" without knowing what it means. Ayn Rand preached individualism? You are aware she was a major homophobe? You can bitch all you want about it being a different era, but she was particularly vocal. If she was such a visionary, she wouldn't have been such an ungodly little wretch about it.

    Being richer or poorer than someone else is not "individualism".


  • Options
    #80
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    L.R. Weizel wrote: »
    Ayn Rand preached individualism? You are aware she was a major homophobe?

    What the hell would that have to about her beliefs on individualism?


  • Options
    #81
    L.R. Weizel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭L.R. Weizel


    nesf wrote: »
    What the hell would that have to about her beliefs on individualism?

    Um, this?
    Individualists promote the exercise of one's goals and desires, while opposing most external interference upon one's choices, whether by society, or any other group or institution.

    Pay attention to the last part especially. Allowing bigoted societial values to control your life decisions is about as anti-individualist as you can get.

    Of course there are several different brands of individualism either way... I think the general point is that Ayn Rand was an unpleasant bitch and donegalfella is naive for looking up to her.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    I don't subscribe to an objectivist, laisses- faire system that would solve all of the worlds problems, or even most of them, as that is being far too optimistic or utopian as some people have put it.

    For me, the strength of Ayn Rand's philosophy was not in crafting the model of an ideal world, but in illuminating for us the dangerous consequences of a socialist ideology, and that, I think, is a great achievement.

    Ultimately, the state is needed to build wheel-chair ramps, fund special needs schools and so on. I for one, despite what Ayn Rand suggests, would like to hold on to a shred of my humanity.


  • Options
    #83
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    L.R. Weizel wrote: »
    Um, this?



    Pay attention to the last part especially. Allowing bigoted societial values to control your life decisions is about as anti-individualist as you can get.

    Of course there are several different brands of individualism either way... I think the general point is that Ayn Rand was an unpleasant bitch and donegalfella is naive for looking up to her.

    Meh, you can be homophobic and an individualist. I've friends who are homophobic but who would violently oppose any external interference of gay people's lives. A bit like Voltaire's: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

    "Your sex life sickens me but I will defend to the death the right for you to take it from behind from larger men" or some such.


  • Options
    #84
    L.R. Weizel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭L.R. Weizel


    but in illuminating for us the dangerous consequences of a socialist ideology, and that, I think, is a great achievement.

    Yeah, because nobody else was badmouthing leftist ideology at the time.

    Interesting most of the "dangerous consequences" of leftist ideology have had nothing to do with the actual ideology but the men running the systems that claimed to uphold it. The same however can't be said of the right wing of things...


  • Options
    #85
    L.R. Weizel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭L.R. Weizel


    nesf wrote: »
    Meh, you can be homophobic and an individualist. I've friends who are homophobic but would violently oppose any external interference of gay people's lives. A bit like Voltaire's: "I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"

    "Your sex life sickens me but I will defend to the death the right for you to take it from behind for larger men" or some such.

    I always thought that kind of thinking was for the lower intellect. Actively opposing thing is not so incredibly seperate from being outspoken against it - when you are in a position to speak about such things, you can help create an atmosphere where it is not accepted. It's just ignoring any and every knock on effect from harsh ideals being aired.

    If you're "homophobic", you dislike what they do and think it's "wrong", then in your ideal world it would not happen, or would happen a lot less. At the end of the day, you're standing against it. Preaching hate may not be as bad as physically beating people up, but it's still bad. That's why I don't buy the "I disagree with what you say etc." one bit.


  • Options
    #86
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    L.R. Weizel wrote: »
    I always thought that kind of thinking was for the lower intellect. Actively opposing thing is not so incredibly seperate from being outspoken against it - when you are in a position to speak about such things, you can help create an atmosphere where it is not accepted. It's just ignoring any and every knock on effect from harsh ideals being aired.

    If you're "homophobic", you dislike what they do and think it's "wrong", then in your ideal world it would not happen, or would happen a lot less. At the end of the day, you're standing against it. Preaching hate may not be as bad as physically beating people up, but it's still bad. That's why I don't buy the "I disagree with what you say etc." one bit.

    To hold a belief that something is wrong (or distasteful) is a long way from preaching hate.


  • Options
    #87
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    L.R. Weizel wrote: »
    nothing to do with the actual ideology but the men running the systems that claimed to uphold it. The same however can't be said of the right wing of things...

    Ah, the classical retort to most criticisms of Marxism. I think I've heard that maybe 5 million times before and it still hasn't convinced me. These men claimed to be upholding Marxist ideals and look what happened. Don't use your perceived panacea of "oh but that wasn't real Marxism", it doesn't stand up by itself.


  • Options
    #88
    L.R. Weizel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭L.R. Weizel


    Valmont wrote: »
    Ah, the classical retort to most criticisms of Marxism. I think I've heard that maybe 5 million times before and it still hasn't convinced me. These men claimed to be upholding Marxist ideals and look what happened. Don't use your perceived panacea of "oh but that wasn't real Marxism", it doesn't stand up by itself.

    But this is exactly the classical retort to any defense of anything vaguely left wing.

    "Oh but they WERE Marxist".

    Every goddamn thread has some clever dick quoting "oh but that wasn't real Marxism".

    Tell you what, come around my house, and I'll make you a cup of coffee. It'll actually be instant gravy with milk and sugar, but you can't bitch about it, since I set out to make something a bit like coffee and it'd be just too convenient if you not liking my coffee was because it was actually gravy.


  • Options
    #89
    Dar
    Registered Users Posts: 763 ✭✭✭Dar


    thebman wrote: »
    So you'd rather watch them die? I struggle to find words to express what I feel after reading that :(

    Wrong. I've done my fair share of charity work. The difference is I CHOSE to do it. It's very easy to be 'charitable' when you're giving away other people's money.


  • Options
    #90
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    L.R. Weizel wrote: »
    Tell you what, come around my house, and I'll make you a cup of coffee. It'll actually be instant gravy with milk and sugar, but you can't bitch about it, since I set out to make something a bit like coffee and it'd be just too convenient if you not liking my coffee was because it was actually gravy.

    Ok, you make a good point. I understand what you mean.

    My main issue with that argument is that it is commonly used to place Marxism in some untouchable, unfalsifiable position. As a result, I find, Marxism has become increasingly difficult to define regarding its practical implications. The elusive nature of the aforementioned argument merely obfuscates the facts. Which I'm not even sure of as every time I hear a seemingly valid criticism, someone is on shouting "AHA! That isn't Marxism to begin with!" What is? Tell me!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    L.R. Weizel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 147 ✭✭L.R. Weizel


    nesf wrote: »
    To hold a belief that something is wrong (or distasteful) is a long way from preaching hate.

    To hold and express a belief that a particular behaviour is poor based on the same kind of bat**** reasoning homophobia is usually based on is not very far from preaching hate or rather it is easy to muddy the line between the two. If someone gets up saying "Homosexuality is morally incorrect and digusting", and that person carries respect, then some people will always be ever so slightly closer to holding that viewpoint. Rand got up on her little podium and called homosexuality hideous, and attacked the gay rights movement. She obviously didn't like them having their say. Rand DID preach hate.


Advertisement