I believe this is because you aren't actually convinced that capitalism is "[T]he only system geared to the life of a rational being.”

Ayn Rands Statment is an assertion and You know it. It's also a false dichotomy bifurcation. Its also an argument from ignorance and a suppressed corollary. All human interaction carries behind it the weight of an emotional need. I believe the first is the need to integrate concepts into higher abstraction. I think you are carrying a some weight of doubt. Why else would you argue with me?

I am here to determine a theory I have, which you are all supporting beautifully. Yep A is A, existence exists. I am a philosopher working on a new paradigm in an effort to achieve the Greek ideal of the self-actualized "good life". I wish to save humanity and the world. I apologize if that is so offensive.

Lostinaforest my errors and response.

Hey there!

Thanks for your kind response and correction of my errors. I really appreciate your civility. This is an inflammatory subject. We have to face the reality that it will require a philosophical change to either re-embrace capitalism or adjust ourselves to a new paradigm:

Like it or not, over 80% of individuals in the west are now employed in the service sector do to advancements in robotics and machine intelligence. Consider:

A robot hand that outperforms human capability for accuracy speed and repeatability:

http://youtu.be/-KxjVlaLBmk

Consider that machines can print:


Meat: http://news.cnet.com/8301-11386_3-574933...

Organs: http://www.ted.com/talks/anthony_atala_p...

Materials: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aghzpO_U...

Now consider the implication that a machine CAN build a machine… It can replicate.

We need a MAJOR paradigm shift as soon as possible!

You’re right. I made a mistake. I accept that agriculture started approximately 10,000 years ago rather than 50,000 years. Therefore that left man operating without official governmental fiat currency to trade for almost 7000 years. I stand corrected. He did trade shells, food, shiny bobbles, things he made that others couldn’t etc.

”Also, you appear to be committing several logical fallacies yourself. For example, you claim that "creativity reduces scarcity" and in support of that assertion, you argue that "fuel economy is increased by microprocessors, that were developed by a creative mind ... that have expanded the oil supply".

Perhaps I am not understanding you. Producing a microprocessor empirically involves a human mind –only in this moment. A creative mind that can integrate the nature of silicon, gold and other elements and materials to build a microprocessor.

Did microprocessors NOT increase fuel economy? What do you think the computer is for in your vehicle? Or is my entire premise rendered inconsequential because I didn’t reference that particular premise:

http://papers.sae.org/800056/


No, it does not actually change the volume of the fuel on earth it increases and extends its useful energy potential buying us more time to invent new energy or discover a new resource.

However, we are irrationally squandering it rather than using its available energy to find a more efficient means, because its use is immediately profitable to produce more junk, and unnecessarily complex blow-molded plastics so my drinking water will appeal more psychologically attractive, and so the USB stick I want is packaged in giant blow molded capsule that probably wasted about 4 gallons of oil.

Is this a necessary “evil” of capitalism?

“Further, you also commit the fallacy of faulty generalisations here, because even if this were one instance where creativity *did* reduce scarcity, it would not prove that creativity *always* reduces scarcity.”

Is it a prerequisite that creativity ‘always’ reduce scarcity to be worthy of application? Perhaps it is a generalization but my application of the generalization is not to apply it as a direct disintegration of capitalism but rather demonstrate that scarcity is ultimately an illusion because of man’s mind and his creative capabilities. I maintain that man, due to his creative nature is a heroic being. I maintain it is against his nature to have an arbitrary government controlling him.

It seems to me as I have begun fielding these questions that there is a bit of an elephant in the living room: Man is a sinner and requires government control. If you want fiat currency you need a government to enforce it.

If man is inherently good, heroic he can out think his need to squander resources and his socially instilled compulsion of acquisition. Only his philosophy and emotions stop him.

Or is man simply a competitive hunter gatherer that trades to the highest bidder with no regard to his environment?

No capitalism simply is less of an impediment to creativity than other politico-economic systems. To say it “Fosters it’ is also an empirical claim. Just how does a broad abstraction that represents a particular practice of exchanging goods foster creativity?

Say we live in a completely capitalistic society. I am a musician (yes a completely uses flake that produces no traditional values or goodies like any other artist) and aside from my editorializing, if I wish to learn to play the violin for instance, I must go out and trade my physical or creative efforts in an area that at best might be somewhat related to the field, for employment or self-employment (as I am now) use my irreplaceable time to acquire my “gold”, then trade it for lessons rinse and repeat. My time is thus being used inefficiently in laborious energy against the time required to achieve mastery quickly and efficiently. This is irrational and immoral.

Now suppose my particular style is technically and compositionally innovative and I have reached mastery. If all goes well, and people like my music I sell tickets to my performance. What do I use the money for: Establishing Maslows Heirarchy of needs.

All of which can be attained without money. And we don’t have to revert to savagery to accomplish it.

For those that say its “Capitalism or Slavery”: A false Dichotomy Bifurcation. Must understand that the underscoring dialectic is that man is a sinner. A contradiction in objectivism’s derivation of ethics based on mans relationship to reality as a goal-seeking being.

If a man is shipwrecked on a deserted Island or is flying to a distant Galaxy on a spacecraft, he does not need money for anything. He does need energy though.

Consider Galts motor. Now consider there is 100-600 watts of solar energy per square meter striking the earth hourly. That is 2.4 – 14.4 Kilowatts a day. It takes approximately 1300 milliwatts to operate a smart phone, which has more computational ability than all of NASA during the Apollo missions, and graphics processor capabilities rivaling the latest super computers.

You have access to the entire edifice of human knowledge and creativity in the palm of your hand! If you wished, and had in interest in curing a particular disease, you can write a shared computing app and Joila! Now your folding proteins as you text dinner plans.

To do this you need cooperation. Funny how people realize that there is a selfish vested interest in sharing their computer if it means a cure for cancer. A capitalist will insist that unused computing power in his pocket must be paid for no rational reason, other than it is a resource he can exploit to his own egoic ends.

I'm sorry you chose to concede your position. I am sorry that emotions are a higher value for you. But for others that may continue to wish to discuss this, Here is my reply.

First, You have violated the rules of civil discourse by essentially wrapping a number of logical fallacies into a veiled ad hominem attack. If you read my first post under lostinaforests first post (who beat me to it) you will see that I am exploring this issue and I intend to argue against to the best of my cognitive ability. I am willing to accept my errors. I may we wrong. I do not believe I am after very careful consideration. I will concede if necessary.

For the edification of others here are your logical fallacies:

1. “I'm not even going to finish reading this ode to your Thesaurus.”

Logical Fallacies: Appeal to ridicule and appeal to ignorance.

You’re simply attempting to distract the recipient (others reading this) by suggesting by means of ridicule and mockery that I am merely an ignoramus consulting a thesaurus.

2. “If you cannot explain something in clear, simple terms, then you don't understand it.”

Logical Fallacy: Poisoning the Well by introducing a thought-terminating cliché.

3. “This reminds me of all the gibberish artist's resumes I've seen that attempt to disguise a lack of substance with flowery, and obfuscating prose.”

Logical Fallacy Poisoning the well by positing the word “Gibberish”.



My Apologies for not being glued to my monitor awaiting your response then immediately replying. There are other people here too that I am responding to. I try to use my time efficiently. And respond as precisely as I can without rashly engaging my own emotions and jumping in before I understood the specifics.

I have worked very hard to economize my language as I do not wish to spend the time explaining the meaning of ‘epistemology’ for instance. Which level should I write to?

Yes these ARE pretty sharp people. I am assuming they’re at or near my level. I am assuming they have read most of Ayn Rands work numerous times like I have. I am assuming that they also went backwards and at least read some good encapsulations of western philosophy. I am also assuming there are a lot of Objectivist detractors here that irrationally post their random bromides, as well as many theists who are critical to Objectivism’s apparent lack of compassion (as am I).

I am also factoring the considerations of, Philosophy, Human Behavioral Evolution, Brain Development, Psychology and Social behavior. Man does not live in a vacuum of philosophy. He is also tremendously influenced by the evolutionary stages of his brain development, as well as the influences of nurture.

I believe my premises are objective and axiomatic to mans nature capitalism is not.

First warning: You committed an Ad hominem attack. An insult, albeit veiled. That is not the tradition of rational discourse. Be aware that if you do it again you will have lost your position to emotionalism. Sure the whole group may agree with you, but it will still remain as an unintellectually defended position. Furthermore, after the second offence (which I think is rather generous assuming that my opponents here are reasonably rational) it becomes irrational for me to waste my time: my most precious, irreplaceable commodity to continue to engage emotionalism.

Here you go simple terms in the Socratic tradition:

Have you played Monopoly? How do you win? What happens to the “losers”?
You won “the game” now what will you do? Are you getting bored and wish to bring others back into the game? Do you redistribute your “wealth” and start over? Do you PRINT MORE MONEY!? What if the loser happens to be a country with nuclear weapons? Do you think it is possible to win a nuclear war?

The thing is, you ARE playing monopoly at the point of a gun accept it or not. If you don’t wish to live on the street and eventually die you must submit to threats of cops and cages and the sickening array of regulations that have been installed. Do you have any loans? Are you using credit? You ARE already a Slave! Even if somehow you miraculously managed to pay for all your goodies in their entirety, you still don’t actually own it! And you’re not taking it with you. So what is it that you really need?

Sure you can argue for capitalism but its gone and it is not going to come back unless it is at the point of a gun. We’ve already lost most of the country to Misintegrators and Disintegrators of all stripes.

I presume you wish to be free? So does every other intelligent living creature.

Capitalism fakes reality by arbitrarily assigning scarcity to a culturally accepted particular concrete: Gold.

Capitalism coupled with human creativity is self-negating because people wish to reduce the burden of labor. This is proper to man to achieve the good-life. He should not be relieved of his creativity. As he relieves the burden of labor he also relieves the scarcity associated with capitalistic practices.

Presently, over 80% of the west is employed in the service sector, as they are being displaced out of repetitive laboring jobs, that robots can do faster, more efficiently and reliably. Humanity is now in an information age and exploding with creativity.

Thanks to irrational profit incentives, machines will eventually displace the service sector. Many countries already have automated cafes.

As we see, players are falling off the board, and they are sore losers!

There is no metaphysical reason that gold or any other arbitrary material must be the means of trade.

Have you examined what it is behind trade and what guides man’s presumed necessity of it? He desires something more than an item he has a surplus of. Rationally, this would be to make his life better.

Not all men think rationally. For instance, If I insulted you, you will probably insult me back (judging from your post). This is a phenomenon that presents itself from bacteria all the way through the entire animal kingdom. It is called “Tit for Tat.” I am sure you and everyone here has experienced or committed it as I just did. It is an evolutionary behavior that all animals engage in within their species: “Reciprocal Altruism” But it is not self-sacrificing it is a complete system and the species continues to evolve.

What are the terms required to make one’s life better? Shall it simply be the irrational tantrum of a child who wants it arbitrarily? For instance, if you wish to argue that a Ferrari makes your life better. What value is it, that you actually get from the Ferrari?

If you argue that man’s nature is to acquire shiny things, he is a loaded dice. I know I am not. I don’t need a Rolex or a Ferrari. All it gives you is an egoic buzz when someone says, “Nice Watch!” or “Nice Car”. The complement would mean something to me if I built the car. But my definition of a nice whatzit is one that serves me reliably and efficiently. So far this is NOT what the majority of industries are producing. They are intentionally holding back on their best model, knowing that profit can be made on the inferior one. That is irrational and immoral because it squanders resources and increases waste.

You say, “Money seeks the best men have to offer”? Perhaps, but this requires a rational man. How do you propose to make men rational? Its not going to happen in the progressive western schools where they “Teach Johnny, rather than history.”

I believe considering the level of technology and the availability of the internet we can self-govern without a centralized institution of unintegrated human beings elected by mob rule. (Might makes right)

You are chained to the cave wall, by tradition and indoctrination. Check your premises. There is no metaphysical reason to accept her assertion, based on an argument from ignorance and tradition that capitalism is “[T]he only system geared to life of a rational being.”

I believe that creative expression is required to find a cure for cancer or build a super collider. Man simply cannot express his creativity to perfect his natural environment for optimal life support, and maintenance for himself and others if he is wasting his precious time and calories chasing the last piece of cheese: Capitalism.