A postion Rand did not hold. It would seem that this is playing out as predicted.

Ah, yes, all-knowing one, your predictive powers are mightly impressive.
Rand is wrong. That’s my point. Her propaganda does not apply to reality.

This is phony for two reasons: Firstly, you have no issue with the initiation of force, as is evidenct in this exchange.

WHAT? WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?

Secondly, force universally counterproductive.

Yes, in the long term. But the long term doesn’t affect the people who initiate force, so from a perspective of egoism they’re fine.

Stealing is destructive and isn’t in one’s self interest. That’s why property rights are important.

But our society doesn’t consider it stealing if it’s described the right way – think of the war in Iraq.

Repeating a long-refuted myth won’t make it true. This “immiseration of the working class” thing had been proven false before even Lenin came on the scene.

Umm… why don’t you take a trip to Detroit? Or visit the poorer sections of your own town?

It never has been.

Why?

That’s not sacrfice, providing they did it out of choice, so the point is moot.

Sacrifice is by definition a choice. And the point is not moot at all – it is altruistic behaviour, which Rand opposed.

Except that they’re not and none of them ever have. You’re attacking a straw man. Thank you for confirming my theory.

Confirming your theory? A straw man? Are you completely out of touch with basic reality? So all the business people and CEOs out there are all wonderful angels of morality, and none of them has ever spouted forth another version of egoism-is-good?

So in other words, you want the government in charge of everything in order to prevent dictatorship. Do I need to point out what’s wrong with that?

Are you aware of the concept of democracy?

There are people living off others at all economic levels. It’s sad that you’re only capable of seeing one type of parasite.

That’s just ridiculous. The levels of economic oppression and injustice involved aren’t even remotely comparable.

That isn’t the answer to the question I asked. You haven’t provided evidence that this wealth is universally ill-gotten.

Define ill-gotten. Illegal or immoral? Exploitation can be legal.

Those genuinely suffering are a tiny minority, who, in a free society can be dealt with at minimal expense.

And that’s where you finally confirm you’re insane. Sorry, but you are. A tiny minority? Have you looked at unemployment statistics? The amount of people living below the poverty line? The amount of homeless people?

I can invent something worth millions and live off the proceeds without ever working again. People can save their own money, build factories and shops and end up being so sucessful that they end up in a similar situation. That’s not some monstrous injustice, nor is paying people for their labour in order to get in that situation. My house does not belong to the house builder. My car does no belong to whoever manufactured it. It belongs to the person they sold it to.

And you think that it’s perfectly fair for people not get even a tiny amount of profit for the work they put in? To work for shitty wages while someone else sits around not doing nothing and earns millions off of their work?

Then why did you say it was? Subsituting truth for dramatic effect?

Ignoring the rest of what I said because it’s inconvenient, are we?

Another cheap straw man. Did you know that a corporation was government-created entity, didn’t you?

A cheap straw man? So you truly believe that corporations are powerless? That Bush and his buddies invaded Iraq for the fun of it? That all the wonderful things the big companies pulled in South America was… a misunderstanding? And so on.
And a society in which all the means of productions are controlled by a few tiny groups of people, as are electricity, water, communications, transportation, etc… that is a free society?

A postion Rand did not hold. It would seem that this is playing out as predicted.

“Which sounds wonderful, but is essentially empty idealism. If the driving force of a society is greed, eventually force will come into play,”

This is phony for two reasons: Firstly, you have no issue with the initiation of force, as is evidenct in this exchange. Secondly, force universally counterproductive.

“because it becomes the best way of continuing to acquire things.”

Stealing is destructive and isn’t in one’s self interest. That’s why property rights are important.

“Economic oppression is also an unavoidable result, as it is the rational result of trying to maximize one’s profit.”

Repeating a long-refuted myth won’t make it true. This “immiseration of the working class” thing had been proven false before even Lenin came on the scene.

“And since when is it not necessary?”

It never has been.

“I would easily argue that the entirety of human history proves the opposite – that it has often been extremely necessary to sacrifice oneself for others. So many people have fought to give the generations that followed them a better life.”

That’s not sacrfice, providing they did it out of choice, so the point is moot.

“Ask some of the greediest and most immoral people alive, and they are likely to come up with something similar.”

Except that they’re not and none of them ever have. You’re attacking a straw man. Thank you for confirming my theory.

“Why? I’d rather be ruled by a representative government than by a group of corporations. Because that’s exactly what happens: in a system where everything is defined by profit, wealth accumultes in the hands of the few. The few control jobs, they control electricity, they control water, healthcare – everything. And then you have a dictatorship.”

So in other words, you want the government in charge of everything in order to prevent dictatorship. Do I need to point out what’s wrong with that?

“No, it makes all the difference in the world. The large majority of the population does all the work, while a tiny minority lives off of that despite not producing anything. And despite that, workers have to pay for the mistakes of the rich and the failure of the system.”

There are people living off others at all economic levels. It’s sad that you’re only capable of seeing one type of parasite.

“Because a system in which huge parts of the population are suffering due to their lack of wealth while a tiny minority has more than they can ever spend (more than they rationally need) is clearly and utterly broken.”

That isn’t the answer to the question I asked. You haven’t provided evidence that this wealth is universally ill-gotten.
Those genuinely suffering are a tiny minority, who, in a free society can be dealt with at minimal expense.

“And yes, this 1% does own wealth that belongs to others, because they are not actually working.”

I can invent something worth millions and live off the proceeds without ever working again. People can save their own money, build factories and shops and end up being so sucessful that they end up in a similar situation. That’s not some monstrous injustice, nor is paying people for their labour in order to get in that situation. My house does not belong to the house builder. My car does no belong to whoever manufactured it. It belongs to the person they sold it to.

“Is that the majority? No.”

Then why did you say it was? Subsituting truth for dramatic effect?

“Because limited government is just another world for “government by corporation”.”

Another cheap straw man. Did you know that a corporation was government-created entity, didn’t you?

Seeing as you’re declining to answer, I’ll answer for you: Greed and egoism = doing whatever you want, trampling on everyone, oppressing the poor etc. etc. That’s what you think, isn’t it? Yes, I know full well what was implied, seeing as you used these words as negatives.

No, those are the results of greed. Greed is to have the desire for more possessions as the central axis of one’s behaviour.

What is not mentioned anywhere are ideas like the non-initiation of force

Which sounds wonderful, but is essentially empty idealism. If the driving force of a society is greed, eventually force will come into play, because it becomes the best way of continuing to acquire things. Economic oppression is also an unavoidable result, as it is the rational result of trying to maximize one’s profit.

or the idea that sacrificing yourself to others or others to yourself is not necessary.

And since when is it not necessary? I would easily argue that the entirety of human history proves the opposite – that it has often been extremely necessary to sacrifice oneself for others. So many people have fought to give the generations that followed them a better life. These people would have had it a lot easier not doing that, and they gained nothing for themselves by doing so – and yet that is how humanity has gotten where it is.

Can you see how that conflicts with the commonly understood definitions of greed and egoism?

Ask some of the greediest and most immoral people alive, and they are likely to come up with something similar. Sugar-coating the problem with pretty words doesn’t change its essential real-world impact.

All the more reason to separate business and state. What a shame you don’t advocate something similar.

Why? I’d rather be ruled by a representative government than by a group of corporations. Because that’s exactly what happens: in a system where everything is defined by profit, wealth accumultes in the hands of the few. The few control jobs, they control electricity, they control water, healthcare – everything. And then you have a dictatorship.

Look, it doesn’t make any difference.

No, it makes all the difference in the world. The large majority of the population does all the work, while a tiny minority lives off of that despite not producing anything. And despite that, workers have to pay for the mistakes of the rich and the failure of the system.

And how is this relevant what I actually posted? Does this 1% own *your* wealth? And why does the fact that some people have more than they could ever spend imply that the wealth must presumably be ill-gotten?

Because a system in which huge parts of the population are suffering due to their lack of wealth while a tiny minority has more than they can ever spend (more than they rationally need) is clearly and utterly broken. And yes, this 1% does own wealth that belongs to others, because they are not actually working. The real work is done by the majority, who receive next to nothing for it.

You’re trying to tell me that a “large majority” (which is going to be what, 150,000,000+ people, assuming a 300m population?) in America can’t afford heath insurance, electricity or even housing?

Let’s see:

[According to ACOG] An estimated 47 million people in the US are uninsured, and every 24 minutes, an uninsured American dies because adequate health care is out of reach. With the economy in recession and some of the worst job losses seen in decades, the number of uninsured is projected to skyrocket to more than 54 million by 2019.

Is that the majority? No. But the reality of the health insurance system is that a great many (if not most) people are effectively uninsured, because the amounts they are still required to pay are big enough to ruin their life savings. Hell, look at Peter S. Beagle and how his mother’s illness destroyed him financially after he spent 40+ years writing some of the best novels the world has ever seen.

How would a limited government, lacking the legal ability to redistribute wealth, first seize money of the population and then hand out money to one particular group without compromising its principles in the process and encouraging some sort of public backlash?

Because limited government is just another world for “government by corporation”. And because even in your ideal scenario, if it was useful, corporations would use the government to fulfill their goals. Rand still envisions the government having a military and police force. So… need a new pipeline through a country that’s opposed to that? There you go, the government can take care of you for that, a little bombing will do the trick. Because if profit is the highest value of the land, corruption is the immediate result, and democracy becomes impossible.

Seeing as you’re declining to answer, I’ll answer for you: Greed and egoism = doing whatever you want, trampling on everyone, oppressing the poor etc. etc. That’s what you think, isn’t it? Yes, I know full well what was implied, seeing as you used these words as negatives. What is not mentioned anywhere are ideas like the non-initiation of force or the idea that sacrificing yourself to others or others to yourself is not necessary. Can you see how that conflicts with the commonly understood definitions of greed and egoism?

“Government spending on other issues does not disprove the subservience of the government to financial interests. There is more than enough proof to show what the government’s priorities are.”

All the more reason to separate business and state. What a shame you don’t advocate something similar.

“Every time they say “everyone will have to sacrifice something” they mean “working people will have to sacrifice something”.”

Look, it doesn’t make any difference. Someone has spent beyond their means, the ones who have need to stop and pay off the debt. Of course, this isn’t going to happen because those doing most of the spending are actually spending other peoples money and are completely unaccountable for it.

“What kind of dream world do you live in? Have you ever looked at any statistics concerning the distribution of wealth? 1% of the population have more than they could spend in ten lifetimes”

And how is this relevant what I actually posted? Does this 1% own *your* wealth? And why does the fact that some people have more than they could ever spend imply that the wealth must presumably be ill-gotten?

“while a large majority cannot afford health insurance – or electricity or even housing.”

You’re trying to tell me that a “large majority” (which is going to be what, 150,000,000+ people, assuming a 300m population?) in America can’t afford heath insurance, electricity or even housing?

“But they are, and they will continue getting more support as the logical consequence of the profit system. Ayn Rand’s idea of laissez-faire capitalism would make the problem worse, not better.”

How would a limited government, lacking the legal ability to redistribute wealth, first seize money of the population and then hand out money to one particular group without compromising its principles in the process and encouraging some sort of public backlash?

That’s not the issue. I want to hear your interpretation of greed and egoism and I’ll show you how Rand’s definition differs.

Umm, no. I already wrote what I think. If it’s impossible for you to formulate what Rand actually has to say, I don’t see the point of this discussion.

Is that a yes or a no? Seriously, look the government spending figures.

You’re just taking it to an irrational extreme, pretending that this proves your argument. Government spending on other issues does not disprove the subservience of the government to financial interests. There is more than enough proof to show what the government’s priorities are.

Which part of “every department” did you not understand?

Which part of me questioning what you said didn’t you understand? Every time they say “everyone will have to sacrifice something” they mean “working people will have to sacrifice something”.

1% don’t have all the wealth. Do they have *your* wealth and can they spend it as they like? Of course not. There’s no static quantity of wealth anyway.

What kind of dream world do you live in? Have you ever looked at any statistics concerning the distribution of wealth? 1% of the population have more than they could spend in ten lifetimes while a large majority cannot afford health insurance – or electricity or even housing.

They shouldn’t get any support.

But they are, and they will continue getting more support as the logical consequence of the profit system. Ayn Rand’s idea of laissez-faire capitalism would make the problem worse, not better.

That’s not the issue. I want to hear your interpretation of greed and egoism and I’ll show you how Rand’s definition differs.

“Oh, come on. Give me a bloody break. That’s ridiculous.”

Is that a yes or a no? Seriously, look the government spending figures.

“Really? Why? And why only in the departments that affect the quality of life of everyday people?”

Which part of “every department” did you not understand?

“What about that 1% that has all the wealth?”

1% don’t have all the wealth. Do they have *your* wealth and can they spend it as they like? Of course not. There’s no static quantity of wealth anyway.

“Why should they get more support?”

They shouldn’t get any support.

I don’t. You’ve perhaps flicked through a book or read some second-hand summary from some socialist website. You could have got a more accurate definition by just looking at wikipedia.

I have actually looked at the Wikipedia entry, as well as read actual texts by Rand. The Wikipedia summary reads:

Rand’s political views, reflected in both her fiction and her theoretical work, emphasize individual rights (including property rights) and laissez-faire capitalism, enforced by constitutionally limited government. She was a fierce opponent of all forms of collectivism and statism, including fascism, communism, and the welfare state. She was also an atheist and promoted ethical egoism (which she termed “rational self-interest”) while condemning altruism.

And again, please enlighten me as to what I said was wrong. What *does* Ayn Rand stand for, if not greed and egoism as the highest of human values?

So if I was to look at a pie chart of government spending, I would see money spent on anything else besides these? Someone isn’t being truthful.

Oh, come on. Give me a bloody break. That’s ridiculous.

And the US is 11.5 trillion dollars in debt, with almost 58 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilites (including social security). Cutbacks in every department are going to be inevitable.

Really? Why? And why only in the departments that affect the quality of life of everyday people? What about that 1% that has all the wealth? Why should they get more support?

I don’t. You’ve perhaps flicked through a book or read some second-hand summary from some socialist website. You could have got a more accurate definition by just looking at wikipedia.

“Antisocial in the sense of a rejection of the concept of society”

I don’t reject the concept of society. However, I reject the idea that it’s something morally superior to the sum of its parts.

“Iraq. Afghanistan. Pakistan. Serbia. Bailout. Tax cuts. The dismantling of social security. And so on.”

So if I was to look at a pie chart of government spending, I would see money spent on anything else besides these? Someone isn’t being truthful.

And the US is 11.5 trillion dollars in debt, with almost 58 trillion dollars of unfunded liabilites (including social security). Cutbacks in every department are going to be inevitable.

I don’t think you understand those concepts as Rand described them. I doubt you’d have bought this up if you had.

Oh, really? Well, I’ve read enough Ayn Rand to think I’m pretty right about this. So enlighten me as to how her values are actually different.

There is no mention of anti-social behaviour.

Antisocial in the sense of a rejection of the concept of society and the glorification of individualism. That’s one of the central things in that essay.

What is the difference, in principle?

I just said what the difference is. Both the cause and the effect are entirely different.

Are you seriously trying to tell me that is the only function the US government performs?

Iraq. Afghanistan. Pakistan. Serbia. Bailout. Tax cuts. The dismantling of social security. And so on.
So, yes.