Look, you guys win. I admit I like Rand.

[Atlas]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=2VzdkXm5Ies#t=18s

Seeing this encounter, I can't help but see the similar value system especially in the regards of discussion and debate.

In this video, Rand mentions she was there to answer questions and to share information -- not to be judged.

[herzmeister]

Rand was wrong, plain and simple. She turns a blind eye on history (as many US-American conservatives).

See the Anarchism in Spain (Documentary).

[Atlas]

Rand was wrong, plain and simple. She turns a blind eye on history (as many US-American conservatives).

See the Anarchism in Spain. (Documentary)

Wrong in what respect?

[herzmeister]

That the poor deserve to starve in the streets, and selfish and successful business men deserve our worship.

See the cooperative Mondragon Corporation that spawned from the time of the Spanish Anarchism and is still active and successful today.

[Atlas]

That the poor deserve to starve in the streets, and selfish and successful business man deserve our worship.

See the cooperative Mondragon Corporation that spawned from the time of the Spanish Anarchism and is still active and successful today.

Rand never endorsed hero worship.

[herzmeister]

Rand never endorsed hero worship.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man-worship.html

[Atlas]

Rand never endorsed hero worship.

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/man-worship.html

Man worship does not equal hero worship.

The man-worshipers, in my sense of the term, are those who see man’s highest potential and strive to actualize it. . . . [Man-worshipers are] those dedicated to the exaltation of man’s self-esteem and the sacredness of his happiness on earth.

You didn't even read that page.

[herzmeister]

I didn't bring up "hero" anyway, you did. 

I read that page. There's two sides to every story. 

[myrkul]

Rand was a pretty smart cookie, and she accurately diagnosed the problem. She suggests the right solution, as well, but far too many people (perhaps yourself included, Atlas, and possibly even Rand herself) misunderstand the implications of that suggestion.

Most people read Atlas Shrugged, and come away with "and therefore, be an asshole."

 "I swear by my life and my love of it that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine." does not mean that you should necessarily let the poor starve, or any of the other accusations - some entirely true - associated with Randian philosophy.

It means, quite simply: Be neither master, nor slave. Nothing more, nothing less.

[Atlas]

She suggests the right solution, as well, but far too many people (perhaps yourself included, Atlas, and possibly even Rand herself) misunderstand the implications of that suggestion.

Color me curious. Feel free to elaborate.

[myrkul]

She suggests the right solution, as well, but far too many people (perhaps yourself included, Atlas, and possibly even Rand herself) misunderstand the implications of that suggestion.

Color me curious. Feel free to elaborate.

I already did. It's in the part of the post you didn't quote.

Just because you shouldn't expect or respect involuntary obligations doesn't mean you shouldn't accept and respect voluntary ones.

[Atlas]

She suggests the right solution, as well, but far too many people (perhaps yourself included, Atlas, and possibly even Rand herself) misunderstand the implications of that suggestion.

Color me curious. Feel free to elaborate.

I already did. It's in the part of the post you didn't quote.

Just because you shouldn't expect or respect involuntary obligations doesn't mean you shouldn't accept and respect voluntary ones.

Ah. Yes, I haven't been able to put my finger on the only dispute I have had with Rand's outlook and that would be it: The disgust with helping human beings as a primary cause. For whatever reason she views this as laborious and sacrificial.

[herzmeister]

fine that we find some common ground at last.

she's also wrong about social issues. A society with too much inequality obviously cannot reach its full potential. There'd be many underpriviledged that would just need a little helping hand in order to contribute great value to society later.

[myrkul]

Ah. Yes, I haven't been able to put my finger on the only dispute I have had with Rand's outlook and that would be it: The disgust with helping human beings as a primary cause. For whatever reason she views this as laborious and sacrificial.

She seems to have struck rather indiscriminately with her condemnation, marking as evil the concept that you should help people because it has been too often associated with the idea that you must.

That said, handouts aren't help. The old saying "If you would feed a man for a day, give him a fish, If you would feed him for a lifetime, teach him how to fish." holds a deeper truth than the obvious "A skill is a better gift than a meal." That deeper truth is that a handout keeps you dependent, while being able to work for your living makes you free.

[Atlas]

Ah. Yes, I haven't been able to put my finger on the only dispute I have had with Rand's outlook and that would be it: The disgust with helping human beings as a primary cause. For whatever reason she views this as laborious and sacrificial.

She seems to have struck rather indiscriminately with her condemnation, marking as evil the concept that you should help people because it has been too often associated with the idea that you must.

That said, handouts aren't help. The old saying "If you would feed a man for a day, give him a fish, If you would feed him for a lifetime, teach him how to fish." holds a deeper truth than the obvious "A skill is a better gift than a meal." That deeper truth is that a handout keeps you dependent, while being able to work for your living makes you free.

Yes, yes. I am hoping she is just disparaging ineffective welfare. Since her first language is Russian, she may just have trouble conveying her true thoughts. Who knows. Miscommunication is a common trait with this woman.

[Vandroiy]

That the poor deserve to starve in the streets, and selfish and successful business men deserve our worship.

See the cooperative Mondragon Corporation that spawned from the time of the Spanish Anarchism and is still active and successful today.

There are some things that people just never say aloud. IMO, this is at the heart of the issue. Here's one of them.

Evolution will ensure that humans have (or reacquire) a tendency to multiply in numbers. The current slow-down is temporary at best. This leaves us with two main solutions for selection who gets to live and who doesn't:

• Some organization(s) exert birth control
• The poorest die

Claiming that current societies (with the exception of China) promote anything but the latter is wishful thinking. Prepare for mass deaths on the lower end if the upcoming debt crisis causes disruptions in food prices.



BTW, good to see you posting on this account, Atlas. The conspiracy theories and alt accusations were kinda getting out of hand.

I never cared about Ayn Rand much. Seeing the interview though, it seems she was smart, and good at what she did. However, one of the statements was wrong, and I don't understand why people who otherwise have great analyses keep making that mistake. Monopolies can form without government. Simple example: the largest railway provider gives better terms the more you use their network, e.g. by day-passes. A better, smaller competitor will have unreasonably massive difficulty in establishing itself.

I wonder, is there a name for this type of libertarianism I believe in: very weak state with a massive exception to prevent natural monopolies (local optima)?

[Atlas]

There are some things that people just never say aloud. IMO, this is at the heart of the issue. Here's one of them.

Evolution will ensure that humans have (or reacquire) a tendency to multiply in numbers. The current slow-down is temporary at best. This leaves us with two main solutions for selection who gets to live and who doesn't:

• Some large organization exerts birth control
• The poorest die

Claiming that current societies (with the exception of China) promote anything but the latter is wishful thinking. Prepare for mass deaths on the lower end if the upcoming debt crisis causes disruptions in food prices.



BTW, good to see you posting on this account, Atlas. The conspiracy theories and alt accusations were kinda getting out of hand.

I never cared about Ayn Rand much. Seeing the interview though, she was smart, and good at what she did. However, one of the statements was wrong, and I don't understand why people who otherwise have great analyses keep making that mistake. Monopolies can form without government. Simple example: the largest railway provider gives better terms the more you use their network, e.g. by day-passes. A better, smaller competitor will have unreasonably massive difficulty in establishing itself.

I wonder, is there a name for this type of libertarianism I believe in: very weak state with a massive exception to prevent natural monopolies (local optima)?

Humans are already naturally choosing not to reproduce. We are seeing behavior in humans that is very similar to overcrowded rat populations. I don't think a total fallout will occur unless some very forceful manipulation is done to reproduction, whether it be for reducing it or growing it. I'll link you to that experiment, if you're interested. I have to dig around for it.

Here's my argument about monopolies: If a choice of various rail companies is truly desirable and the public is willing to pay for it, large investment will eventually occur to allow small and newer companies to compete.

To me the matter relies on the desires of the people and their will to achieve it. If it's something worth having, it will be done. If nobody is willing to work for it or invest in the cause, why bother? Do people not know what's best for themselves? If you think the answer is no, then a parental government is usually the go-to answer.

[Vandroiy]

Humans are already naturally choosing not to reproduce. We are seeing behavior in humans that is very similar to overcrowded rat populations. I don't think a total fallout will occur unless some very forceful manipulation is done to reproduction, whether it be for reducing it or growing it. I'll link you to that experiment, if you're interested. I have to dig around for it.

Here's my argument about monopolies: If a choice of various rail companies is truly desirable and the public is willing to pay for it, large investment will eventually occur to allow small and newer companies to compete.

To me the matter relies on the desires of the people and their will to achieve it. If it's something worth having, it will be done. If nobody willing to work for it or invest in a cause, why bother? Do people not know what's best for themselves? If you think the answer is no, then a parental government is usually the go-to answer.

The rat comparison only works on short time-scales. If you feed them enough, eventually they adapt and start reproducing again. The same goes for any living creature. The argument is very simple: if there exists any path for genes or memes to forge a group that reproduces endlessly, the first such group will exponentially take over the population until something stops it. Evolution has created proper fingernails and an abstractly re-configuring brain. It is certainly able to make people reproduce, and thus, this will happen until something stops it.



On the monopolies, your argument is correct. However, it works only qualitatively, namely if you assume a financial market of arbitrary size. Reality is not so nice. If a monopoly is so large that the biggest time-scale financial markets can cover is less than the expected amortization time, the investment never happens.

The good news is: your argument means there's no need for state intervention on small scales. The bad: if someone monopolizes something like operating systems or transportation on an entire continent, stepping in should be preferred to waiting for a miracle that might take ages to happen.

[Severian]

I haven't been able to put my finger on the only dispute I have had with Rand's outlook and that would be it: The disgust with helping human beings as a primary cause. For whatever reason she views this as laborious and sacrificial.

Because she was a selfish, nasty bitch that only lived for herself. And she fucked Alan Greenspan, exhibiting the extremely poor taste and desperation that both of them were composed of and inflicted on the world.

I always liked this one:

I Used to Fuck the Shit Outta Ayn Rand by Alan Greenspan

For all your talk about Israel, I'm not really sure why you admire an UberZionist such as Rand.

[Atlas]

Humans are already naturally choosing not to reproduce. We are seeing behavior in humans that is very similar to overcrowded rat populations. I don't think a total fallout will occur unless some very forceful manipulation is done to reproduction, whether it be for reducing it or growing it. I'll link you to that experiment, if you're interested. I have to dig around for it.

Here's my argument about monopolies: If a choice of various rail companies is truly desirable and the public is willing to pay for it, large investment will eventually occur to allow small and newer companies to compete.

To me the matter relies on the desires of the people and their will to achieve it. If it's something worth having, it will be done. If nobody willing to work for it or invest in a cause, why bother? Do people not know what's best for themselves? If you think the answer is no, then a parental government is usually the go-to answer.

The rat comparison only works on short time-scales. If you feed them enough, eventually they adapt and start reproducing again. The same goes for any living creature. The argument is very simple: if there exists any path for genes or memes to forge a group that reproduces endlessly, the first such group will exponentially take over the population until something stops it. Evolution has created proper fingernails and an abstractly re-configuring brain. It is certainly able to make people reproduce, and thus, this will happen until something stops it.



On the monopolies, your argument is correct. However, it works only qualitatively, namely if you assume a financial market of arbitrary size. Reality is not so nice. If a monopoly is so large that the biggest time-scale financial markets can cover is less than the expected amortization time, the investment never happens.

The good news is: your argument means there's no need for state intervention on small scales. The bad: if someone monopolizes something like operating systems or transportation on an entire continent, stepping in should be preferred to waiting for a miracle that might take ages to happen.

Very well. I haven't really considered the size difference like this before. I like how you look between the Black and White for the shades of Gray here.

When it comes to "government intervention" at such a scale, it seems to be more of a tool than anything else. Military force and justice can be seen as a service like any other. There is indeed a season for all things.