Originally posted by Forum Ninja
It's actually the other way around.
I began with an objective statement of fact (that I believe Objectivism is more or less "do what you want" relative to the "OBEY" coming from facism). You asserted that I had been mislead when forming it. My statement was wholy factual, yours was an assertion.
I provided you with an opportunity to back up your claim. You did not do so and continue not to do so. If you had made any attempt to back it up I would almost certainly looked foolish and you would seem less like a dick.
Funny, huh?
Originally posted by Forum Ninja
Can you answer my question? Please? I'm interested to see what you'll say.
I answered that question already. In point of fact you began this dialogue by questioning my answer to it. On the other hand you have yet to make any burden of proof toward Objectivism not being "do what you like". Seriously is it that hard? Are you that incapable of finding a single quote, summary or paper that disagrees with me? Your really doing nothing but piling up anecdotal evidence that my impression is correct.
the definition of fascism has expanded to include ubiquitous de facto governing organizations other than the state, hence why corporatism is technically a form of fascism. I compared the two because they both idealize a certain form of man while denigrating another and create a framework for which obedience is given to those individuals. The contradiction between this and the supposed freedom espoused by Objectivists is one of the reasons why few take it seriously.
I think the current situation is ridiculous and Objectivists who want to go Galt should really be put in their place. If you injure or rob someone, under the law the victim must be compensated. These rich bastards spent almost 30 years fleecing Americans and not paying their fair share and now they're protesting reparations? They're lucky because what they're getting isn't a third of what they rightfully deserve.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
the definition of fascism has expanded to include ubiquitous de facto governing organizations other than the state, hence why corporatism is technically a form of fascism. I compared the two because they both idealize a certain form of man while denigrating another and create a framework for which obedience is given to those individuals. The contradiction between this and the supposed freedom espoused by Objectivists is one of the reasons why few take it seriously.
I think the current situation is ridiculous and Objectivists who want to go Galt should really be put in their place. If you injure or rob someone, under the law the victim must be compensated. These rich bastards spent almost 30 years fleecing Americans and not paying their fair share and now they're protesting reparations? They're lucky because what they're getting isn't a third of what they rightfully deserve.
They are similar in that they idealize a type of person, but so do most other philosophies. The type of person that they do idealize is not necessarily the same at all though.
I am not sure if you have read Atlas Shrugged, but Ayn Rand is not pro-corporations at all, in fact many of the antagonists are in charge of large organisations. From what I read of her, I would assume she would be just as disgusted by the way business has been done by many people in these times.
Your silly accusations against "rich people" just seem to stem from a personal political ideology you seem to subscribe to, and reflect poorly on any objectivity you might want to claim.
If you want to ***** about rich people you might want to make a thread with that topic instead of "slyly" attacking objectivism with an unfounded reductio ad hitlerum, so to speak.
Originally posted by Darth Jello
You don't see a direct between correlation between Laissez-Faire, Rand, Supply Side economics, Fascist economics, the current situation, and the ridiculous rich protests and threats that are going on right now?
The current world economy isn't Laissez-Faire and it isn't controlled by Objectivists or Facists (unless your "that" sort of person).
Originally posted by Darth Jello
You don't see a direct between correlation between Laissez-Faire, Rand, Supply Side economics, Fascist economics, the current situation, and the ridiculous rich protests and threats that are going on right now?
No.
In fact I feel many of those things have little or nothing to do with each other.
As far as I can tell fascist economics and laissez faire are almost complete opposites. Rand was a strong opponent of all things fascist, though she did support laissez faire in a way. the current situation in economics as well as the recession atm, are not based on laissez faire ideal nor fascist economics, nor Rands philosophies. The rich who are bitching, not sure who you mean exactly, might have a similar feeling of entitlement that Rand thought people of her value have, but I don't think that they are Galtian figures...though, like you showed, they are very undervalued in society, more envied and despised one might say. Supply side economics I don't think have much to do with anything, the idea is different from both fascist and Randian thought...
Really, it seems like it's just a list of things you randomly put down...was it that?
Originally posted by Darth Jello
You don't see a direct between correlation between Laissez-Faire, Rand, Supply Side economics, Fascist economics, the current situation, and the ridiculous rich protests and threats that are going on right now?
Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I began with an objective statement of fact (that I believe Objectivism is more or less "do what you want" relative to the "OBEY" coming from facism). You asserted that I had been mislead when forming it. My statement was wholy factual, yours was an assertion.I provided you with an opportunity to back up your claim. You did not do so and continue not to do so. If you had made any attempt to back it up I would almost certainly looked foolish and you would seem less like a dick.
Funny, huh?
I answered that question already. In point of fact you began this dialogue by questioning my answer to it. On the other hand you have yet to make any burden of proof toward Objectivism not being "do what you like". Seriously is it that hard? Are you that incapable of finding a single quote, summary or paper that disagrees with me? Your really doing nothing but piling up anecdotal evidence that my impression is correct.
Wow. You're really enjoying over-complicating this with jargon. I'll make it clear once more.
Do you believe that Rand intended Objectivism to mean that people are free to do what they please?
I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I just wish you'd answer my question instead of avoiding it continuously. That's what you've been doing. I want to know if you truly believe that.
That's all. It's such an easy request. You'd save yourself time by either answering it or not. Stop making implications, lying (Because you did not answer it) and simply answer the question.
Your reply should contain either one of the following:
- Yes.
- No.
If it doesn't, I'm finished with this.
Originally posted by Genesis
Wow. You're really enjoying over-complicating this with jargon. I'll make it clear once more.[b]Do you believe that Rand intended Objectivism to mean that people are free to do what they please?
I'm not trying to prove you wrong. I just wish you'd answer my question instead of avoiding it continuously. That's what you've been doing. I want to know if you truly believe that.
That's all. It's such an easy request. You'd save yourself time by either answering it or not. Stop making implications, lying (Because you did not answer it) and simply answer the question.
Your reply should contain either one of the following:
- Yes.
- No.If it doesn't, I'm finished with this. [/B]
are you implying, then, that Rand might take a stance against personal freedom?
the answer is obvious
you said it was a gross misinterpretation
I'd differ with that, as Rand says things nearly identical to "people should be free to do what they wish", normally followed by reference to no interference from the state.
It is a limited interpretation, much like "OBEY" would be of fascism.
not to step on Syms toes or anything....
No, it's fine. I understand where you're coming from here. I just wanted him to answer the question personally. He doesn't seem to understand all that well. He's wasting his time by delving into long splurges instead of just saying "Yes" or "No."
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_intro
That's just a small introduction. If you follow Rand's philosophy, it's clear that she did not intend for people to just do what the hell they wanted. There is heavy morality involved in her ideology. I believe that dismissing Objectivism like that is just flat out ignorant.
Regardless, that is not why I wanted Symmetric Chaos to answer my question. I'm merely curious.
Originally posted by Genesis
Wow. You're really enjoying over-complicating this with jargon. I'll make it clear once more.
It's actually pretty simple, you're just trying to deny context.
Originally posted by Genesis
Your reply should contain either one of the following:- Yes.
- No.If it doesn't, I'm finished with this.
The post you originally responded to in this thread gives my generalized thoughts on objectivism. It's really quite simple. Objectvism is at it's core about personal freedom (to my understanding). Reducing my answer to "yes" or "no" provides an obvious opening for you to twist my words. I'm not an idiot.