|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:28 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| Khenan wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
And what's with these pretentious political philosophies with names like "objectivist" or "realist?" Give me a break. |
It's quite appropriate. Rand was an advocate of objectivist metaphysics (the standard 'common sense', science position), epistemology and ethics.
|
Her philosophies are only helpful for rich people, so from my perspective it's more "subjectivist." |
By that, I assume, you reckon that Cuba/North Korea are full of empowered rich people and South Korea or the US full of exploited poor. ?
Never vote or breed please. |
Wow.. a little hostile? No - actually, I'm pretty sure he was saying that her philosophies are irrelavent to poor people. He's not saying that Cuba/North Korea are full of empowered rich people - he's saying that these ideas are meaninginless there.
I would extend your final request to yourself as well. |
Yeah, jeez.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Rand's philosophy just an extreme version of free market capitalism where all checks and taxes on the rich are removed? Not even sure how Cuba and North Korea would come into that discussion. |
Rand was primarily concerned with centrally planned economies. She spoke little of taxes. When she was writing, there was a large debate in the world about the invisible hand/iron fist. She participated in this conversation. It has been a long time since I read one of her books.
The breed/vote thing was a snarky little jab at a person on the other side of the political spectrum. I'm quite sure you can take it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| Khenan wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| Justin Hale wrote: |
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
And what's with these pretentious political philosophies with names like "objectivist" or "realist?" Give me a break. |
It's quite appropriate. Rand was an advocate of objectivist metaphysics (the standard 'common sense', science position), epistemology and ethics.
|
Her philosophies are only helpful for rich people, so from my perspective it's more "subjectivist." |
By that, I assume, you reckon that Cuba/North Korea are full of empowered rich people and South Korea or the US full of exploited poor. ?
Never vote or breed please. |
Wow.. a little hostile? No - actually, I'm pretty sure he was saying that her philosophies are irrelavent to poor people. He's not saying that Cuba/North Korea are full of empowered rich people - he's saying that these ideas are meaninginless there.
I would extend your final request to yourself as well. |
Yeah, jeez.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Rand's philosophy just an extreme version of free market capitalism where all checks and taxes on the rich are removed? Not even sure how Cuba and North Korea would come into that discussion. |
Rand was primarily concerned with centrally planned economies. She spoke little of taxes. When she was writing, there was a large debate in the world about the invisible hand/iron fist. She participated in this conversation. It has been a long time since I read one of her books.
The breed/vote thing was a snarky little jab at a person on the other side of the political spectrum. I'm quite sure you can take it. |
I can take it, but this discussion and the book are both flimsy enough to fall apart.
The invisible hand was a giant joke that I hope nobody believes, no matter where you lay on whatever political spectrum you adhere to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Why? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Khenan
Joined: 25 Dec 2007
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 11:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
The breed/vote thing was a snarky little jab at a person on the other side of the political spectrum. I'm quite sure you can take it. |
Well... since we're all friends here, your rediculous interpretation of what he said belies your lack of education. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Because ridiculous comments (and posts by truckers from Louisiana) lower the IQ of the conversation and turn it into a shouting match unsuitable even for American cable news channels. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The "why" was about the invisible hand comment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
| thepeel wrote: |
| The "why" was about the invisible hand comment. |
Because God does not participate in the market. The invisible hand is a poor metaphor that was misinterpreted to mean that things will always turn out for the best, which is too naive to believe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
| thepeel wrote: |
| The "why" was about the invisible hand comment. |
Because God does not participate in the market. The invisible hand is a poor metaphor that was misinterpreted to mean that things will always turn out for the best, which is too naive to believe. |
God? Who is that?
The invisible hand does not mean "things turn out for the best" but that assets will get allocated to where they are needed via the "market" (the wide dissemination and distribution of information in a system). I have never come across somebody that said anything would ever "always turn out for the best" that wasn't a self-described communist, religious nut or similar. What those of us who agree with Smith's description argue is that it is largely going to be a more efficient and appropriate set of outcomes when compared to central planning. Point me towards some people who make this "misinterpretation", please.
The Wealth of Nations and Theory of Moral Sentiments are very difficult reads but if you want to understand the topic your going on about, you're going to have to read them. Or, PJ's new book as well. It is quite good and much more accessible. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Simply put, I don't know how one person could believe in the invisible hand and the Great Depression.
Smith wasn't saying that the government should never intervene in the economy. There are many cases when self-interest is bad for the economy. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thepeel
Joined: 08 Aug 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RACETRAITOR wrote: |
Simply put, I don't know how one person could believe in the invisible hand and the Great Depression.
Smith wasn't saying that the government should never intervene in the economy. There are many cases when self-interest is bad for the economy. |
What caused the great depression? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Justin Hale
Joined: 24 Nov 2007
Location: the Straight Talk Express
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 2:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
Well, let's get the silly stuff out of the way first and say that Otus is, I believe, a different poster from Otis, RACETRAITER. If Otus were Otis, he'd be using his account to send me puerile and vulgar gay and pron drivel. I believe you owe him an apology, even though he took the first cheap shot.
Re capitalism, there's the issue of whether or not you agree with capitalism, okay, but there's another issue - is laissez-faire capitalism internally consistent in the Rand system? The answer I say is yes, as we see here:
| Quote: |
| The basic social principle of the Objectivist ethics is that no man has the right to seek values from others by means of physical force�i.e., no man or group has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. Men have the right to use force only in self-defense and only against those who initiate its use. Men must deal with one another as traders, giving value for value, by free, mutual consent to mutual benefit. The only social system that bars physical force from human relationships is laissez-faire capitalism. Capitalism is a system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which the only function of the government is to protect individual rights, i.e., to protect men from those who initiate the use of physical force. |
If a guy wants to earn some money by selling t-shirts outside a concert stadium, he can and should be able to with absolutely no government interference other than taxation on his earnings (which he must truthfully declare). Taxation is justified of course in order to fund a police force and numerous other state machinery that act to protect us and our rights - the sole role of government. If the guy wants to employ someone to help with the workload, the rate of pay should be what ever anybody is prepared to work for.
| Khenan wrote: |
| If you want to develop and explain a philosophy, by far the best way of doing so is by laying out your ideas in concise, logical statements. |
Here is such a paper, though bear in mind it's written by Dr. Edward Younkins Professor of Accountancy and Business Administration at Wheeling Jesuit University in West Virginia. He is the author of Capitalism and Commerce and not a philosopher. Well, it doesn't need to be, because although it deals with classic issues in philosophy like metaphysics and ethics, its axioms make it more like religion (or science) than philosophy, modern philosophy at least. Both science and religion assume certain things to be true without requiring proof. Science assumes direct correspondence between mind/language and an independent reality. Philosophy, some of it, doesn't assume that - it questions the claim. Philosophy attacks absolutely any and all claims.
That guy does a good job of making an abstract science paper from Rand's ideas.
I've never read any of her fiction. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cdninkorea
Joined: 27 Jan 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
The Great Depression was caused by government intervention into the economy. This is a fact discussed by a number of very prominent economists, perhaps most notably Milton Friedman. I can't go into all the details- economists spend pages upon pages proving this, but one fact is that it would have been and in fact was a minor recession before the government tried to fix it.
If you want more details, see Capitalism and Freedom by Friedman.
Ayn Rand did put her ideas in novel form first, but later she did explicitly write it in non-fiction form. See The Virtue of Selfishness and Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Justin Hale wrote: |
Well, let's get the silly stuff out of the way first and say that Otus is, I believe, a different poster from Otis, RACETRAITER. If Otus were Otis, he'd be using his account to send me puerile and vulgar gay and pron drivel. I believe you owe him an apology, even though he took the first cheap shot.
|
In the past, Kevin has had usernames on here for long periods before he "activated" them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 3:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
Alright, if the Great Depression isn't a good enough example, how about the following?
-Ford Pintos; took something like eight years before Ford admitted they intentionally turned their cars into bombs and took them off the market.
-tobacco industry & fast food industry
-Enron
-and that guy selling T-shirts outside the stadium, the band might have some problems with some random stranger making money off their name without any approval.
-horizontally integrated companies that own the media, thus keeping bad publicity about their other businesses out of the press
I think that the more power a person has, the more closely they should be watched, as they are more capable of doing harm to society. Corporate corruption, media manipulation, and defective products are just too common to be left alone. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reactionary
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Location: korreia
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
so, b asically, uh, ayn rand is defending the status quo expounded in high school and college economics courses, mixed in with a bit of nietzschean babble.
my, how SHOCKING and REBELLIOUS the objectivists are. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
