Rands contradiction
Posted by james5820 8 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
I am re-reading Atlas for the 2nd time. enjoying it once again, but since my first reading of Shrugged, I have learned a lot and have trouble with Rands glaring contradiction. I was somewhat conservative during the 1st reading but since have become a anarco-capitalist simply because its absence of contradiction. In the book, Rand is always attacking the idea of doing anything for the collective (as she should). She opposes the idea of theft in every other sentence (as she should). but far as I know, she does not oppose a state (as she should). In order to not have a contradiction, everything MUST be voluntary. Whether it be building railroads or Reardon metal for the good of society or National defense for the good of society, economically speaking they are both still services and if forced on someone, are a violation of rights. Nothing can begin with theft in order to be consistent. It seems that Rand makes exceptions for "the good of society", even though she spends a whole novel railing against the idea.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
I can buy 24 oz, 1.5 lb of cheap bread for $1.40 US and 1.5 lb of expensive bread for $2.80 US. That's 1000 loaves of cheap bread or 500 loaves of expensive bread per ounce of gold. Bread prices have been rising slowly but steadily so, a few years ago, when gold was at $1800 and bread was cheaper, the relationship would have been totally different and, 15 years ago, when I started buying gold at $275 an ounce would have bought no more than 200 loaves.
So, if the rule holds long term, we can see the short term variations from the norm are quite large.
and I tinker on it from time to time.
the Indian sounds wonderful -- like the old Henderson,
smooth and silky when running? -- j
.
1) You can crash into me
2) You can drive so unpredictably and dangerously that I veer out of your way and crash
3) You can drive so unpredictably and dangerously that I have a heart attack
4) You can drive so unpredictably and dangerously that I am put at risk without my consent.
Why can't the men in blue costumes be as objectively good a judge of these harms as anyone else?
"Who what? Michael you are imagining things again."
"Ah well back to realilty. I have much more reading to do but the true answer is all of us have the ability to progress and grow. The thoughts and writings of youth mature and season with age and experience. Were she alive today she probably would remind us that The Second Rule or Law demands constant testing and checking as does the application of the Third Law. She might say "having found this contradiction what have you done to correct it or even determine to what extent it exists? What is it's nature."
Most will recognize only two titles.
In those 12 years she went from struggling with a new language to full command of complex philosophical ideas.
My notes
(At the same time she began working with screen plays and scripts written from others. Progressing from a near illiteracy in English to the Fountainhead then was a 12 year accomplishment. age 21 to 33. The background was younger formative years under the Tzar, WWI, the Octobrist Revolution and trake over of fame by the Comunist Party in which many of the Russian Jewish Culture among them the top leaders of the Communist movement to the incarceration of many leaving the Soviet Union a virtual slave camp for the freedoms of the United States and assimilating the cultural change in a time where the USA itself was going through it's third revolution - 1176 and Civil War being the first two - and contrasting comparing the two with the promises of the first and second.
Perhaps only an outsider could have down that. Most of us grew up in the 1940-s to present and some of us noticed the differences when the idea of the "USA and three revolutions was hardly imagined and certainly not taught. People like Wilson and both Roosevelts were presented in a far different manner than they are depicted today as was the entire world.
It is unlikely that certain, contradictions, as you stated would not occur. How many today still believe in the left right system of political divisions and haven't discovered how false and contrived they are.
Or when i write we have three left wing candiates counting Clinton, Trump, and Johnson automatically reject such a notion but cannot explain something as simple as why Republicans cave to Democrats.
And yet some want to pick on what they call glaring contradictions and turn their back on the explanations offered in a ready source the Lexicon. Why? Because some are still in the dark ages and using the definitions, in this case, of the left. Others want perfection which aint gonna happen but doesn't deny the overall validity and throw the baby out with the bath water. Others have applied a different moral compaqss which allows support of evil ways.
And if complete shining perfect explanation cannot be offered do not ascribe it to their own intellectual failings but attack the dead from the safe context of here and now.. Which to me is the ultimate way of playing stupid.
The obvious answer is readily available. Find another religion. Some will give the gift of not having to think and provide instant perfection. That answer being ' we have people that do understand, just follow them and eventually you will be one with us.' So If iyou don't like being a Baptist or a Libertarian become a Zorastrian or neo Whig.
It is of little moment to me, your quest is served and Nirvana is attained all without effort.
I like old bikes. Simple enough to understand and work on Iv'e got a '39 Indian Four with a Princess sidecar I've been working on for 32 years, almost finished.
I've seen deadly riots all over the world, never caused by too much government, always by too little government.
I've seen thousands of people killing each other in African tribal wars, not caused by any government but, too little government.
I've seen thousands of Muslims killing thousands of Christians in Indonesia, not because of too much government but, too little government.
The place we live isn't any more dangerous because of our government. It's less dangerous. Without our government the entire world would be a far more dangerous place, something you'd know if you were old enough. The last 7 years are an indicator of what the world is like when our government goes into hibernation.
About the time you see the first mushroom cloud, I hope you remember this: In the absence of strong government, mankind is reduced to the survival of the fittest and, that's usually the most ruthless, most violent psychopath in the room.
Those are the things 25 years of roaming the third world taught me. Man is a natural born killer. Without restraint, that's what he returns to.
Now, please, I'd rather not converse with you again for a time, a long time. Understand? I find nothing informed in your statements.
Come back after you've spent several decades wandering the world, not as a tourist, actually living and working your way around the world. Then I'll listen to what you have to say.
old honda 305 is still being fixed. -- j
p.s. I had to look up FDX to understand.
.
Socialism is when the state controls 100% of resources and everything is centrally planned.
All government is central planning.
Government does nothing else but centrally plan. It has no other function. You can say things like "government should protect persons and property", but what this means as actual action is government should centrally plan security services.
So if all government is central planning and socialism is 100% centrally planned economy,
Anarchy is 0% planned economy.
It is 100% free market
This is real anarchist who understands anarchy calls it anarchy-capitalism.
Because anarchy = free markets
Or the complete absense of central planning.
It is the limited government people that are closer to socialism than the anarchist.
The limited government person says we need some central planning. We can't leave everything to unbridled capitalism. A little socialism is ok when it comes to certain things
The anarchist says no socialism, no central planning, no rulers.
We are the opposite of socialism
I'm willing to bet the places you lived that you say have ineffective governments have nothing to do with anarchy and are mere proof the state does not keep you safe.
Saying you wish there was even more government in these places is not a solution, I can guarantee that. That just means more theft from the state, not more protection for people.
There has never been a state that actually protects their people. They all war endlessly, murder their own people and/or lock them up in jail.
The U.S. Gets involved in the affairs of all other nations making US soil extremely dangerous were they did nothing at all and stayed out of everything
The word literally means "without rule" or "without rulers"
It's got nothing to do with free for alls and mob rule. But this is a typical mistake of improper use of language people make with anarchy.
As far as your two contradictions on anarchy, I don't even understand what you mean?
"Self defense is not voluntary, it is being forced upon you by the aggressor"
Ok? What does this have to do with anarchy and your supposed contradiction? Are you trying to say states only use self defense?
I have no idea what your trying to say here.
Then your second so called contradiction
"Property rights are not subject to the whims of other people"
Yeah so?
I would agree with that, property rights are absolute.
It is only when you have a state that property rights become whims of the politician who is allowed to steal. What does this statement have to do with anarchy?
I think your a bit confused.
Or maybe I don't understand what your trying to say, but all I have to go on is what you wrote and it has nothing to do with anarchy or even a contradiction.
Your gonna have to elaborate coherently
My ideas come from the realization that all men are equal in the law, so there is no group of people (state) that have magic rights I don't have.
So when they take yours and my money by force, it's is barbaric, not altruism.
Your still not seeing reality yet and don't see that it doesn't matter if nice politicians or Conan steals from you, they are equally immoral. The human action is exactly the same, the fact you see them differently and with different morals says you still don't see A is A
It's not that my fears are incorrect and I make the mistake of not fearing brutish men more than I fear the state. I see the truth that the state is those Brutish men you fear were we absent the state.
It is the glaring contradiction I repeat over and over but I feel like the reply is
"Blank"
Repeating the same claim over and over that the state protects us from something far worse is the fallacy that allows the state the power to grow.
They use this fear in every way, perpetuate it through media and movies, terrorism etc etc etc.
It is always the brutes of society that become the state.
And you expect me to want to leave them in control of everything in fear of something greater than the brutes of society
Anarchists are the extremists of the right just as nazi's and communists are the extremists of the left.
Saying something is so doesn't make it so, It identifies those who speak that way as left wing.
Just put new tags on my bikes. Don't ride them much anymore but, until I can't get on, I'm going to keep them.
Load more comments...