|
SedanChair posted:I thought the people in the train suffocated because statism had taken away their ability to reason or protect themselves. Can one of the people on here who used to be Libertarian/Objectivist explain what they thought was coherent about this, please. I'm not attacking you, I sincerely want to know. She criticizes people who accept humans are social animals and should support each other in some way. She criticizes a mother who disregards everyone except her family (a lot of right-wing people would advocate supporting their family, if not the rest of society, even some hardcore libertarians). She criticizes businessmen who exploit others (in the form of subsidies and government corruption) for their own gain. Which I suppose is her setting the stage for the Libertarian argument that "big business is only corrupt when it uses the state to help it survive". But then she criticizes a lawyer whose philosophy is literally "gently caress you, got mine" and adapts to any situation without the help of others, focusing on his own self-interest. Would the lawyer be acceptable if he was also politically engaged and advocated Objectivism? Is his flaw the fact that he doesn't want to change the world to enable more people, who aren't as good at navigating a "broken" system as him, to acquire the wealth they deserve? If so, how is this not a form of "supporting the incompetent"- why are people who could succeed in Rand's ideal world, but not the current world, defined as "competent"? Does Rand accept the idea of "helping" others, only through indoctrinating them with her weird ideas rather than emotional or material support? Ultimately, after I read that passage, all I could think was "of loving course everyone on the train had one of those perspectives on life, since you went through a million diverse political viewpoints including some that are near-identical to your own!" I suppose this leads back to the Koch brothers and their ideology. Having accepted that they genuinely believe they are helping the world through their ideology (helping bring about idealized "freedom"), like Rand, what is the difference? Aside from the rhetoric and tone being much different. Is it that they believe "freedom" would be beneficial for all classes, while Rand realizes the poor (undeserving in her opinion) will suffer? Is it that they are prepared to spend their money on scholarships and grants for disadvantaged kids? Do they believe it would actually help to "raise up" the disadvantaged, but strictly want to do it through private charity? Or is all that stuff just purely strategic, a PR move that also secures the person/institution that was given the money as a stronghold of Koch support? Ed: thinking about the possible dichotomy here between support in the sense of "learning, being told the objective truth and taught to fend for yourself" vs. "material support" it's possible they just have different views on the whole "give a man a fish, teach a man to fish" adage. You need food every day, so you can't actually teach a starving man to fish without also giving him food in the process. Koch brothers perhaps realize this and are willing to support young people financially for that reason. They just have a much higher standard of who is the "deserving poor" than normal people, repudiate the state's involvement in any way, and would not advocate support for anyone who screwed up again later in life and returned to poverty. I don't remember Rand's view on this, as I've read very little of her works first-hand. Weldon Pemberton fucked around with this message at 22:52 on Jan 15, 2014 |
#
¿
Jan 15, 2014 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 19, 2024 12:09 |
|
|
Caros posted:I'll give this one a go. Thanks for the explanation. What confused me about the lawyer is that is doesn't describe him actively doing anything Rand would disapprove of, merely his inaction regarding the political situation. I had this idea that not doing anything in the face of "evil" was considered morally neutral by Objectivists (but I may be getting confused with garden-variety Libertarians and their definition of "force"). What it seems like she's saying is that either a) he rejects her notion of objective reality, or b) he accepts it- but since he does nothing to promote it, he is effectively helping to obscure the reality. quote:Objectivism just denies that those 'selfless' impulses are anything of the kind. If you do something to take care of family, friends, or a loved one, you do it because it brings you personal satisfaction or otherwise contributes to your own well being. For someone who hates Kant so much it's quite funny that she basically buys into his idea about any act of altruism that benefits the actor being false altruism. Weldon Pemberton fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jan 17, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2014 00:29
|
|
|
MothraAttack posted:So this is a new libertarian public awareness campaign (from the creators of the Keynes vs. Hayek rap, I think) that might or might not have Koch funding, and I'm fairly certain it's somewhat informed by members of the GMU Austrian clique. They've even created a backstory supporting it. On the surface there appear to be internal inconsistencies. While they chide mega multinationals for having their hands in several industries worldwide, including lucrative government contracts, they also make fun of the American skilled laborer for being xenophobic against foreign labor, and, uh, for getting hurt on the job. Yeah this is bizarre. It seems more "purist Libertarian" than the more dominant type you tend to see in American society, which wouldn't be attacking the military or bankers (or the corn industry). Apart from "Parts and Labour" and the insistence that "Entrepreneurs" are heroes (since they're the villains to the Kronies), this could be the cheesy propaganda of a much broader political base than just Libertarians, in fact. The idea that removing legislative barriers and biases wouldn't fix inequality overnight isn't something that libertarians/objectivists like to acknowledge, anyway. It's the same with their attitude on social issues. They are strangely ignorant of social and cultural causes of poverty and bigotry. Weldon Pemberton fucked around with this message at 17:57 on Jan 26, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Jan 26, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
rscott posted:Accelerationism is basically desiring the suffering of millions of people for the chance that they might wake up one day and do what you want. It's lazy awful garbage, a justification to resolve whatever moral qualms you might have about enjoying your middle class 1st world lifestyle without actually raising a finger to do anything, nothing more. It also doesn't make much historical sense. Most mass insurrections of the past (French revolution, Irish land war, etc.) that were based on living conditions happened just after the worst period of degradation, when the situation started to improve. I suppose an accelerationist would just say "well yeah, but you still need things to get worse first". Maybe, but current first world problems (not being dismissive of them, I can't think of a better label) are not the same as those of the past. I doubt that the economic situation would ever get bad enough to force that kind of rising, and even if it did, we live in an age of inescapable mass media that affects perceptions. Weldon Pemberton fucked around with this message at 22:00 on Mar 28, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Mar 28, 2014 21:56
|
|