CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Do you like Ayn Rands Philosophies?
Call me ignorant if you want, I just watched a documentary about Ayn Rand and her book Atlas Shrugged. I new basically nothing about her before I watched it and now Im very interested in her and her ideas. I seem to agree with evrything she says (I told my facebook friends the I am possitive Im Ayn Rand reencarnated). What do you think about her and why?
From what I gather, Rand's core philosophy (objectivism) states the following [correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't really studied Ayn Rand all that much, yet]:
-Reality is objective
-[Humans] have contact of reality through perception/s.
-One can obtain objective knowledge through inductive logic
-Moral purpose is happiness
-Respect for individual rights
I can't really give an actual opinion, yet, though.
Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism has been the driving force behind most of the views I hold, so you could say I like it ;)
Few figures of philosophy attract the level of personal attacks she gets, and it's astonishing how distorted the claims have been allowed to become. The link below debunks the most common one.
I may not subscribe completely to Objectivism, but I do like much of what Ayn Rand has to say.
And what made me like her even more were the criticisms of her philosophy. They seem to attack her views on the basis of a status quo and nothing of logic or reasoning.
I want to elevate selfishness to the level of virtue. Specifically, I hope it would result in the death and starvation of millions of "non-producers." ;)
To a certain point, I'm all "A-men, sister" when it comes to Ayn Rand, but I think she goes too far. When it comes to personal responsibility, I think she's damn right.
Unfortunately, I think we talk out our ass about this (for those of us that live in America).
We're a a society of people who refuse to accept responsibility for themselves on just about every practical level. And, really, for a moment we can even set politics aside. Because I think it's even deeper than who pays for what (and how we structure a government). We talk about personal responsibility, but most of us in America are fat, hypertensive, and three steps from a heart attack. We have some of the highest cancer rates in the world, diabetes is skyrocketing, yet we blame medicine. We look for an "ism". I have had more Americans give me a medical diagnosis for why they're fat that I can even keep track. Or I'll hear some excuse about your job or your situation.
It couldn't possibly eating too much and not getting enough exercise? I know it
sounds like a digression, but it speaks to the inability to accept responsibility for oneself. It someone else's fault that we're fat, that we're broke, that we're unhappy. It's disease. We live in a society that encourages people to not accept responsibility on just about every personal level.
Why do I care if your fat? Do I have something against fat people? No, I care when we
socialize the cost of health care and I'm in effect paying for the stint that we have top put in the fat man's heart. Worse even, when the fat man doesn't get the stint and we have to raise his kids, because he wouldn't take care of himself.
It's not just health issues... That's just an obvious example. How many Americas are up-to-their eyeballs in debt? They've already filed or soon will file for bankruptcy, passing along the cost of their irresponsibility to so society at large. If you don't believe their irresponsibility has damaged you personally, then tell me how much your property value has dropped since 2009. How many foreclosures have set empty on your street, while the value of your home goes down?
Ayn Rand advocates a philosophy that is virtually indistinguishable from social Darwinism - that is from an essentialist creed that would elevate selfishness to the level of virtue and which, if implemented at the level of the state would cause incalculable harm. Specifically, it would result in the death and starvation of millions of "non-producers."
that is from an essentialist creed that would elevate selfishness to the level of virtue and which, if implemented at the level of the state would cause incalculable harm.
How? Tell me what "harm" would occur to a society that adopts the non-aggression principle along with each individual holding his own happiness as the highest moral value result in "incalculable" harm.
Specifically, it would result in the death and starvation of millions of "non-producers."
These individuals can't get jobs for those in business? They can't enjoy the benefits a market free of coercion and inefficient regulation would provide? They must depend solely on those being stolen from at gun point by an institution of force? They must be declared insufficient garbage needing blind aid for the reason of being worthless? The only one denouncing the incapable is you.
Harm? The best argument for a regulated market is a regulated one. The rise of the modern state over the last few centuries has produced measurable and vitally important benefits. People live longer, healthier lives with less crime, pollution, food poisoning, and disease. If you are going to defend the sort of anarchist state Rand advocates you need to demonstrate specifically how it would deliver these sorts of benefits absent the intervention of the state. Note, I am not speaking in black and white terms that would deny the potential of markets to improve the human condition. Rather, I am arguing that totally free markets of the sort Rand envisioned are, quite literally, a fiction. They have never existed anywhere. With reasonable, democratically mediated limitations, markets are undeniably good. Left entirely unregulated, they produce Adam Smith's moral nightmare.
The best argument for a regulated market is a regulated one.
There can be no "good" argument to justify force.
The rise of the modern state over the last few centuries has produced measurable and vitally important benefits.
None of which lack the potential to arrive in a free-market. Important things that wouldn't appear: monopolies, unjust wars, unjust bans or restrictions on social behavior.
I also cannot help but notice you aren't pursuing contentions regarding the moral standing of Rand's philosophy, referencing morality(the essential part of Rand's work) only above.
They're greed based and counter to evolution, though she'd likely argue otherwise.
The worth of a persons genetic code to humanity as a whole cannot be measured by the success of that individual's parents. You see this consistently, in fact I'd guess it is practically the norm that one who somehow pushes humanity forward comes from less than nobility or the rich in today's society.
This is relevant. The horrid theory she put forth by her results directly in a cast society. This stifles by its nature creativity, entrepreneurship, even hard work.
You cannot have a society which does not support those with less without sacrificing all that the children of those who have less could have given to that society.
Agreed, a libertarian state is far from the meritocratic world they believe in. Equality of opportunity can only exist with large government intervention.
Equality of opportunity can only exist with large government intervention.
What? Large government has been the greatest opponent of economic and social equality. Monopolies, a cause of economic inequality, can only arrive from government or other coercive means. It is government that closes examples of true small business(I'm talking hot-dog stand, the true bare-minimum needed to support oneself) to defend larger companies. It is government that allowed legislation to permit government functions(Not that they should be but where) to give varying measure of rights and justice(Ex. Segregation in public schools). And to solve it's mistake is passes legislation to force people to adopt the social standards of others(Civil Rights Act, which I think should only have applied to government functions).
Equality gained at gun point is not equality at all. One can not comprehend equality, justice, freedom without genuine education about what they mean. Government is not the answer, and government education is really not the answer.
I didn't say large government intervention leads to a meritocracy, or that what governments are currently doing today will (arguments against what happens now does not prove anything, such as your videos show. I am concerned with what can happen). I said a meritocracy can only come from large government intervention (assuming human behaviour stays similar to what it is today).
For example, here are few things allowed in a free market (as is anything): inheritance, private schooling, nepotism, corruption. While systematic errors in government do support the rich significantly more than anyone else at this current point, these and fundamental parts of a free market, and will not go away. Therefore, the only conclusion I can come to is that a free market does not qualify as a pure meritocracy. If a meritocracy is possible, which I would argue it is, then it must be through government intervention.
For example, America is more right wing than Sweden, for example. It has high business freedom, lower rates of tax, and less government intervention. Yet Sweden has a much high social mobility - a major indicator of a meritocracy. Being born in a lower class family is not your fault, and you should not be punished for it. Yet you typically are in America.
Equality gained at gun point is not equality at all. One can not comprehend equality, justice, freedom without genuine education about what they mean. Government is not the answer, and government education is really not the answer.
I did not say that equality is gained through government, simply that equality of opportunity can be. I did not speak for justice, or freedom. I simply am saying that for a pure meritocracy, certain rules must be put into place, that many Libertarians, and other right wingers, might disagree with. That's not to say that coming closer to a meritocracy is something you disagree with (often you preach it) or that it is a goal I support chasing while blind to all other issues. But that it will not be found (in a complete form) with a free market.
I didn't say large government intervention leads to a meritocracy
So? The statement that set me off was, "Equality of opportunity can only exist with large government intervention.
arguments against what happens now does not prove anything, such as your videos show.
Bullshit. Any example of over-reaching government is relevant. I advocate none, so any amount above that has significance.
I am concerned with what can happen
I'll tell ya what could happen. Hotdog stands could be shut down.
here are few things allowed in a free market (as is anything):
Wrong right off the bat. Fraud, any other type of force, and getting away with providing good and services less adequate than the market desires are all things absent in the Objectivist nation. But continue I suppose.
inheritance
Yes.
private schooling
Thankfully, almost anything is better than current public education.
nepotism
Not from an Objectivist, and such behavior would most likely cause many business failures.
corruption
Government has been the most corrupt force on the planet. You're not going to be able to go far with that contention.
If a meritocracy is possible, which I would argue it is, then it must be through government intervention.
Despite the fact that almost all examples of corruption and nepotism staying alive is the result of the market under government.
Being born in a lower class family is not your fault, and you should not be punished for it. Yet you typically are in America.
Red herring. The current state of America is far from my advocacy. And the lower class in America still have it better off than the majority of the world. Social mobility is great, but to say it wouldn't be prevalent in a free-market is ludicrous.
I did not say that equality is gained through government
Equality includes equality of opportunity.
. I did not speak for justice, or freedom
So? I did to emphasize their importance.
I simply am saying that for a pure meritocracy, certain rules must be put into place,
I see no reason why. As before-stated, government is the largest obstacle to this goal.
Bullshit. Any example of over-reaching government is relevant. I advocate none, so any amount above that has significance.
That would require all government intervention to be identical. I'm not saying it's insignificant, I'm saying that it's irrational to say that because some government intervention can be bad, that it all is. I don't dispute that the arguments put forward by the links you posted, in terms of identifying negative government intervention, but it does not prove that government is instrumentally bad.
Wrong right off the bat. Fraud, any other type of force, and getting away with providing good and services less adequate than the market desires are all things absent in the Objectivist nation.
You mean that these behaviours would theoretically disappear in the long term, rather than they would not occur at all, I believe? A libertarian state is not a utopia, it is a world with little to no government intervention. People could still do bad things.
inheritance
Allows individuals to gain opportunities that they did not earn, someone else did. I'm not saying I would do away with inheritances, but I am saying that they oppose true equality of opportunity.
Thankfully, almost anything is better than current public education.
The quality of the education is irrelevant in terms of equality, as long as the quality is different from public education. And again, the individual gaining the benefit, and increased opportunities, did not earn it through their own work. Therefore, it does not fit into a pure meritocracy.
Not from an Objectivist, and such behavior would most likely cause many business failures.
Again, in the theoretical long run, potentially yes.
Government has been the most corrupt force on the planet.
This does not prove that all government will be corrupt. And I would contend the 'most corrupt force' label, but I will not debate it, as it's a label that is too hard to prove to any suitable level of accuracy or precision.
That would require all government intervention to be identical.
No it wouldn't. I advocate none of any kind. Any net regulation or intervention above the value of 0 is subject to my argument.
I'm saying that it's irrational to say that because some government intervention can be bad, that it all is.
There isn't a line for it to cross for it to be considered bad, it's coercion by a institution that has special interests. It has no place in economic matters.
government is instrumentally bad.
Government that fulfills it's role of defending rights established by a social contract that is accepted by individual consent is not bad at all.
You mean that these behaviours would theoretically disappear in the long term,
Screw long term. It would happen quite fast. When there are no bailouts, no monopolies sustained by government, where income is solely dependent on your value to the market and competition is a guarantee, such behavior could never survive.
People could still do bad things.
Free-market 101: bad-actors have no chance. Thankfully the only bad actors I see are those held in power by government regulation.
Allows individuals to gain opportunities that they did not earn
It is up for the parents or whatever deceased to decide whether or not the beneficiary earned the inheritance. You cannot make a ethical value-judgment on someone else's legitimate property. And unless the individual is wise or productive with that wealth, it won't last long.
but I am saying that they oppose true equality of opportunity.
No it doesn't. Equality of opportunity is not a promise to any sort of action, It's a value held by society to allow people to make the most out of any situation they are in.
And again, the individual gaining the benefit, and increased opportunities, did not earn it through their own work
Again, your making more value-judgements on how other people spend the product of their labor. I become rich, I buy the best education I can for my children. That others may not get into the same school as my child means whatever I want it too, none but me are entitled to what I make. And since in a free-market all profit is from the merit of your service I suppose I can through meritocracy in there.
theoretical long run, potentially yes.
Coercion cannot survive without an aggressor. As before said, it will begin quick.
This does not prove that all government will be corrupt
Same way not all religion is harmful, same way not all insane people are dangerous, same way not all guns will kill. They all represent a failure of one kind or another. The need for any type of government is a social failure, it stands as something to be phased out by a superior method of upholding the social contract.
And I would contend the 'most corrupt force' label
I'd love to see you try.
label that is too hard to prove to any suitable level of accuracy or precision.
Name me on force of corruption that hasn't used government to achieve the bulk of its' work?
it is one of the best examples we have.
It is not a good example by any means, the economy of America as it stands doesn't meet damn near any level of my advocacy.
I am saying it would not be absolute.
What do you mean by absolute? That all poor would become rich or that they all would have the ability to? What is it, absolute or an absolute?
The worth of a persons genetic code to humanity as a whole cannot be measured by the success of that individual's parents.
What? Where is this in Ayn Rand's work? She actually demonized those who inherited wealth without continuing a productive trade or continued to be productive as human beings.
This stifles by its nature creativity, entrepreneurship, even hard work.
This is truly the first time I have heard this contention pointed towards anarcho-capitalism. Let's take sentence before this one. The horrid theory she put forth by her results directly in a cast society. Now let's replace it with, The liberal's want a safety net achieved by coercion. See the problem?
You cannot have a society which does not support those with less without sacrificing all that the children of those who have less could have given to that society.
Charity would not die in the Objectivist world, but one wouldn't have any moral obligation to give to it. On top of that, how has government properly helped those children? Ineffective schooling, being subject to a police force that has a monthly quota to meet, etc.
What? Where is this in Ayn Rand's work? She actually demonized those who inherited wealth without continuing a productive trade or continued to be productive as human beings.
Considering iamdavidh has never read Ayn Rand, he will make these ridiculous claims without any merit.
Charity would not die in the Objectivist world, but one wouldn't have any moral obligation to give to it.
Charity would likely strive in the free world without government intervention by coercion.
I was referring specifically to the statement about critics of Rand being unable to read long books. I understand it was a joke. I was trying to keep the debate on track. That said, I need to abandon this debate. Nothing personal, but I'm out of time. I have some long academic books I must read. No kidding. ;-)
I admire Objectivism for it's belief in a definite reality; in that we perceive a reality which definitely exists, although our perception may at times be at question. The moral extrapolations are no better than Aristocratic bullshittery, unfortunately.