There are so many points in this, that I've been trying to make for ages. This guy understands the whole thing the way it should be understood on multiple levels. I'm impressed.
I literally borrowed Atlas Shrugged from the library yesterday! I have been reading a lot of books Penn has suggested recently but I didn't even know he liked this one!
When I went to watch "The Social Network" with my father, it was also one of the last days available (this happens a lot to us). Also, we were the only ones in the theater.
Thank you for the, "Shoot hot hate jism right into your face." I'm not much on objectivism...or giving much a crap about anything when people have a structured philosophy of that nature, but those lines are why I'll still keep watching PennPoint.
@amazinggoatgirl But to hold them with total consistency-to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them-requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot-nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence." On farming - people farmed first to survive. These were subsistence farmers. When farming became more refined, they could produce more than they needed, so they could then trade it for other goods or services.
I can understand the issues have with being forced to be charitable. A lot of people want to give, and a lot of people don't. The problem is, the isn't enough aid from the willing to reach everyone who needs help. So you have to decide between two tough choices: let people suffer or force charity.
Should we help people because it's fun or should we help people because they need help? Forcing you to help other people might take the the fun out of helping, but it will ensure that people get the help they need (if done in a good way) and that to me is more important.
@TheMrSeagull Even if I don't directly get services, I still get to live in a place that doesn't resemble a war zone as much as it could. The times I didn't get robbed by marauding hopeless kids are also a benefit that I have enjoyed at the expense of others. Right now I'm drinking water that isn't too poisonous to drink. That took someone else's work, something that, as a 25-year-old, I could never begin to pay for. Yet I would die in 3 days without water. Survival without theft is impossible.
@tecben 10/01/2008 the senate voted on tarp and Obama (D-IL), voted Yea. In January 09 he voted against a bill that would've blocked TARP funds. As President he defended that position and continued Bush's policy. Alan Greenspan is not a "Rand" and said so in his autobiography. He just used to hang out with them.
"Any customers she did lose would inevitably find someone else to go to". Are you going to argue that monopolies are impossible? If someone starts a competing business she buys them out. If they don't want to she can lower her prices way back until their business starts failing, then buy them out. Since she's also buying property (that includes land, which everyone has to pay for needing at least a home) she can make the price of starting a business artificialy high for anyone using her property
That's because corporations are just words on a piece of paper enabled by government. If it we're real individual's businesses there would be a level of personal liability to keep their morality in check.
@fab006 Wow, that's an interesting interpretation of what I said. Force does not necessarily mean blood and misery, but can be justified to prevent blood and misery. If done in a good way.
@TheMrSeagull I know that, but I'm saying that water is a basic building block of life and making sure that it won't be too expensive for everyone in our society to access is a good thing. The costs from the initial venture capital (to pay for years of research) would make it too high for the average or low-income person to afford if it was split evenly per unit of water. Marginal utility of money indicates that taxing rich people more facilitates everyone's survival.
@fab006 In her book “The Virtue of Selfishness”, Rand wrote that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.” She called recipients of government help "parasites" and "moochers". Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Rand couldn't afford to, due to medical bills. Can't blame her, but it is hypocrisy.
It's sad that the only thing I knew about Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand for a long time was that episode of South Park where Officer Barbrady read the book and hated, vowing to never read again.
I dunno if you read these comments, Penn. But I'm an Objectivist and I loved this video you did. Even though you say "Maybe they are" cultish. It seemed like you were basically saying "Who knows? I don't know for sure, so who cares." You're a great guy. If you want to help your fellow man because you value them, then that's fine. You -should- be able to help people voluntarily if you so choose, and should not be forced to. So many people are incapable of understanding such an easy concept.
The question I have for any Objectivst is: If a child is a victim of a hit and run are you willing to let them die in the street if they can't pay for the ambulance or the hospital? Under your principles you can't force the hospital to pay, you can't force the public to pay- nobody has to pay, nobody has to lift a finger. So, if you want emergency services or any public services, somebody has to pay for it and it's us. The real argument is were to draw the line.
The very idea of punishing me if I'm honestly successful and punishing me more if I'm more successful while rewarding me if I fail and rewarding me more if I really fail, IS NUTS!
@fab006 Oh, and before I forget it, another problem with public infrastructure: the land it's built on (especially roads) was all too often taken from its rightful (private) owner by force.
I loved the movie Atlas Shrugged part 1. It was not as good as the book, but no movie version would ever be. The purpose was to popularize the book. The movie does that well enough. I'm looking forward to parts 2 and 3, which are planned to come out on 4/15/12 and 4/15/13!
@janc71 good point, I see what you're saying. I think there is a dichotomy though between the actual philosophy of objective free markets, and the true homage to greed that is in the idea of all society's "productive" members telling the world to suck it, which can actually be interpreted in the actions of Greenspan and AIG who probably see themselves as the movers and shakers of the world, and in a sense, are going on strike.
When I began reading Atlas Shrugged, I was a Christian panentheist. When I finished it, I was agnostic, and have remained so ever since. I thought the book was too predictable, but I adored the dialogues. The only thing I disliked about the book is toward the end, when Dagny commits a very unlibertarian action with a gun. Well, that and the verbose descriptive writing. But, again, great dialogues and great speeches. Sincerely, Alex Peak
@RoffeDH It's not like there are vast areas of the world for voluntarists to move to. At a certain point, an finite country exerts force on everyone if it spans an entire continent.
@silver6kraid well, its not the reverse, that is pretty indisputable. But, people are people, some are good, some are bad, most are in between regardless of where they were born.
@TheMrSeagull I wouldn't say "parasitic," but I have admitted that I am not the master of the universe I once thought I was. I would go with "reasonably humble." Research shows that the only reliable deterrent to crime is an alternative to crime. Punishment is irrelevant because criminals never imagine they'll be caught...
@Laseranders You know, sometimes when you read Ayn Rand you think to yourself "Oh, come on, now, the things she's arguing against isn't anything anyone would ever argue for in the first place. Now she's just straw-manning." And then you go about your day, and what do you know - there really are people who think that people's "need" entitles them to buy their happiness with the blood and misery of innocent others. Despicable, I say.
RobotRob011: A lot of confusion here. Rand would never trade "charity" for "deserving love"; she didn't believe in charity at ALL. She called altruism "evil". Rand would maintain that NO ONE "deserves to be loved at face value". For love she would trade only love (not money or goods), and she would only love those her shared her "values", which amounted to those who fully accepted her doctrine and were admitted into the inner circle of her cult.
Oh, do you have a treat in store. Be ready with a week you don't need to do anything, because it's 1100 pages. When you are done with that, there are some other Rand books. The Fountainhead, We the Living, and Anthem, are fiction and available in most large bookstores. And she's got several collections of essays.
@TheMrSeagull I wouldn't say impossible, but damn near so. The first agrarian societies were compulsory collectives - if you were physically able to work, you worked or you were cast into the wilderness to your very probable death. All I was trying to say before is that there is a reasonable amount of collectivism that is necessary for survival.
With government, you always have oppression too.* Taxation is always oppressive, it is forced payment. Force is a form of oppression. If that oppressive behaviors results in them doing certain things which may or may not benefit me makes no difference to the nature of the action done. It's a justification for that action. Justifications are made to excuse behavior. Whether or not I have money is of little consequence. Have you ever heard of bartering? Life could exist contentedly before money.
@amazinggoatgirl It started simple, lacking the technology to purify water, and only able to provide it to limited areas. However, as profits came in from the use, the provider could afford to expand and refine the service, to provide a better, cheaper product to more people. The government didn’t just decide to create water service, and it magically came into being.
Fuck! When did this movie come out? I haven't seen any trailers and never saw it in listings in the four movies theaters near where I live. I would've gone to see that.
@TheMrSeagull I don't think we really disagree about farming, though you do understand that it was almost never "one man, one farm," right? The logistics of making that happen are counterproductive.
@FuturePants I am disabled also but before there was social security and all that bullshit their were private charities and things called Mutual Aid Societies that worked to meet people's needs better than the government ever has. Those things disappeared when the government started giving handouts because people lost the motivation to help their neighbors when the government was handing out money. I love Ayn Rand, the social security system keeps me down more than anything.
@amazinggoatgirl I’m also not sure what you mean about farming - Are you stating that a farm is impossible with one individual? Of course, if we all had to farm our own food, we would lose significant productivity, but the farmer has no obligation to provide his product to me, ethically or legally. If I don’t want to spend my time farming or hunting my own food, I need to provide something of value to the farmer in trade for that which I value from him.
@amazinggoatgirl No, the facilities that provide you with water were designed to produce and deliver water in mass quantities with considerably less effort it would take for one person to provide themselves with clean water to drink, cook, and bathe with. The company provides this service because people will pay for it, because THEY receive VALUE for their effort, and their customers receive VALUE from their purchase. This is a mutual relationship.
@fab006 Yes, absolutely. It's funny how you seem to think no one would ever argue for this, yet this is what it looks like in every civilized, democratic country in the world. If you have more than you need and others are starving, not helping gives the same end result as using extreme force, so using just a little bit of force to prevent blood and misery is perfectly fine. It's interesting how you don't seem to have a problem with 'blood and misery', only force, regardless of it's form…
@coladict You are sooo right, what was Rand smoking? I mean come on! A society where businessmen would try to succeed by using government favors? Outlandish!
@Solverwiz Thats where I have a problem, even if I accrue no financial gain or personal satisfaction from giving money to a charity, it is blatantly obvious that something of value has been accomplished i.e., a sentient being has been alleviated of some suffering.
What you omit is the fact that the $10,000 for the lifesaving medicine pays for the years of Research and Development required to bring it to market. It isn't unusual for a company to spend 1 billion on such a venture with no guarantee of success (and success also means having to pay for failures). Thus, this miracle medicine would never have existed in your world because an initial price of $50 (for example) would have made it economically unfeasible.
I can't thank Penn enough for turning me on to Ayn Rand during his radio show. I have since read Atlas several times as well as most of Rand's other works. I was ecstatic at the thought of the an AS movie, and despite the movie moving through the story at break neck speed. I liked it! If nothing else it may spark new interest in Randian principles to people who otherwise may never have been exposed to real rational thinking.
@TheMrSeagull Continued: How would you ever have an inkling that, for example, improving your own situation was possible if all you had ever seen was other people trying and failing at it? Under Objectivism, are you supposed to eschew learning from your own observations of the world you live in?
@TheMrSeagull Private schools can refuse to teach people who are hard to teach. Don't forget that. The police would never be efficacious without a reliable stream of funding (do you have any idea how much even one cop car costs because it has to be super-fast and able to withstand attacks and crashes?), which requires compulsory taxation.
@mustang607 there are any number of people who could cure cancer if they had the education and the resources. There's nothing special about the upper class other than the fact that they have those advantages, but we could very easily give those advantages to the lower class by improving the education system or making public institutions more affordable. Here's something for your math. Which system is going to produce a cure for cancer first, one with 3 capable individuals or one with 30?
@silver6kraid That is not what the book says. Balph Eubank and James Taggart are both rich, but they are anti-heroes. I think that what Rand would say is not that being rich makes you moral, but instead that being moral in her way will tend to make you rich, if that is what you want. There are poor people in Rand's books who are moral. There are railroad workers who help keep the John Galt line open, or who join the strike in their own ways. Howard Roark gets poor for his pride.
@temsi This is about principles, just not the ones you think. The principle is not "don't take government assistance", or "be against government assistance". (those aren't even principles, in the proper sense of the word - they're just out of context catch phrases). The relevant principle in this context is "morality ends with the barrel of a gun". There is no way to reconcile reason and forced taxation. There is no way to lead a moral life with a gun pointed at the head.
@CalebMTurberville Not pure selfishness... Enlightened self-interest... Very different from narcissism or selfishness as it has come to mean. And helping people you don't know and don't care about is something you love? Sure, if it's someone you love or care about, admire or want to see succeed for whatever reason, then I would argue that's a selfish motive... and what's wrong with that? Nothing.
I agree with Penn almost completely. I read several negative reviews before seeing the movie, and once I did watch I didn't think those writers gave the flick a fair shake. When I read the book for the first time in '07-'08, the first third was incredibly difficult because I had to deconstruct a narrative--built by consuming pop culture my entire life--of 'evil industrialists.'
@amazinggoatgirl Public safety differs as it deals with one person causing harm to another through coercion. You are responsible for your own health, blaming bad choices that you exercise through your own free will on others is a fallacy. Protecting people from their own folly only destroys them incrementally. Eventually you end up with total helplessness and a life of complete oversight by the state.
@004forever Can you explain what you mean by giving some one the ability to buy a third house. Who is giving them the ability? "However, I don't think it's right that other people need to suffer and die so that someone else can choose to be greedy." So are you saying that you can only be successful and have extra if some one else is without? So in your world, everyone would have equal amounts of economic power, but what would that economic power be?
@FuturePants What about Jim's wife and Quentin Daniels in Atlas Shrugged? or the sculptor from the Fountainhead? or the fanboys from her play "Ideal"? Or pretty much anyone in "We the Living"?
The problem is that "help" tends not to help at all. There doesn't really seem to be a movement (a strong movement) to attempt to "teach a man to fish" . I have no problem with and in fact advocate helping people but it should centre on empowerment. There is a shame that comes from being on the recieving end of hand outs that can be crushing Great "indebtedness does not make men grateful, but vengeful"-nietzsche
@bleunt Last point: These things are hard to compare (e.g. Sweden vs USA). That's the problem with history, there are so many variables (big vs small, population, political system, place in the world, curruption-level, etc). I just want to make you see that you jump to your conclusion way to easily.
As an Anarcho Syndicalist I can still appreciate your views and the way you express them. Keep up the good work.
There are so many points in this, that I've been trying to make for ages. This guy understands the whole thing the way it should be understood on multiple levels. I'm impressed.
I literally borrowed Atlas Shrugged from the library yesterday! I have been reading a lot of books Penn has suggested recently but I didn't even know he liked this one!
I like that last bit
This video is better than previous Penn Points. There were waaaaaaaaaaay too many switches from one camera to the other, before.
I liked Atlas Shrugged and cant wait for part 2.
I liked the book too, Penn and I'd like to see the movie after hearing your comments. Thanks, dude!
I read the Atlas Shrugged book and love it . Everybody should read the book.
I like your review of reviews.
i loved that movie
When I went to watch "The Social Network" with my father, it was also one of the last days available (this happens a lot to us). Also, we were the only ones in the theater.
Hey great job
Thank you for the, "Shoot hot hate jism right into your face." I'm not much on objectivism...or giving much a crap about anything when people have a structured philosophy of that nature, but those lines are why I'll still keep watching PennPoint.
The only thing I can say about the film is that the limited release kept me from seeing it and I still want to see it.
Big ups to Town Square!
I love Rand, Ayn and Paul.
Geez, so many experts on here
@amazinggoatgirl
But to hold them with total consistency-to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them-requires volumes of thought. Which is why philosophy cannot be discussed while standing on one foot-nor while standing on two feet on both sides of every fence."
On farming - people farmed first to survive. These were subsistence farmers. When farming became more refined, they could produce more than they needed, so they could then trade it for other goods or services.
I can understand the issues have with being forced to be charitable. A lot of people want to give, and a lot of people don't. The problem is, the isn't enough aid from the willing to reach everyone who needs help. So you have to decide between two tough choices: let people suffer or force charity.
Isnt it funny that when Penn says "and this episode of pennpoint starts NOW'' that thats just when we get a commercial???
For me, the question I ask is whether I would go see (or purchase) the movie after the initial encounter. For "Atlas Shrugged", the answer is, yes.
Should we help people because it's fun or should we help people because they need help? Forcing you to help other people might take the the fun out of helping, but it will ensure that people get the help they need (if done in a good way) and that to me is more important.
@TheMrSeagull Even if I don't directly get services, I still get to live in a place that doesn't resemble a war zone as much as it could. The times I didn't get robbed by marauding hopeless kids are also a benefit that I have enjoyed at the expense of others. Right now I'm drinking water that isn't too poisonous to drink. That took someone else's work, something that, as a 25-year-old, I could never begin to pay for. Yet I would die in 3 days without water. Survival without theft is impossible.
Teller did a cameo in pt. 2 HAHAHA
penn for president!
@tecben 10/01/2008 the senate voted on tarp and Obama (D-IL), voted Yea. In January 09 he voted against a bill that would've blocked TARP funds. As President he defended that position and continued Bush's policy.
Alan Greenspan is not a "Rand" and said so in his autobiography. He just used to hang out with them.
"Any customers she did lose would inevitably find someone else to go to". Are you going to argue that monopolies are impossible? If someone starts a competing business she buys them out. If they don't want to she can lower her prices way back until their business starts failing, then buy them out. Since she's also buying property (that includes land, which everyone has to pay for needing at least a home) she can make the price of starting a business artificialy high for anyone using her property
it took 200 years to make headway against religion, I wonder how long it will take to make headway against statism.
You should play Bioshock(the first one).
I have faith that the people around me wouldn't let that happen.
@Epyksen ooh right i understand :)
That's because corporations are just words on a piece of paper enabled by government. If it we're real individual's businesses there would be a level of personal liability to keep their morality in check.
@rzennrer It's good. Missing the internal dialog and I swear the word contemptuous is in the book over 100 times and not once in the movie. Go enjoy!
@fab006 Wow, that's an interesting interpretation of what I said. Force does not necessarily mean blood and misery, but can be justified to prevent blood and misery. If done in a good way.
@sc0pl355 Have you heard of the quote "The power to tax is the power to destroy"? That was from the old supreme court I think.
"shoot hot hate jizzum right into your face." One of the many reasons why pennpoint is awesome.
@oober349 That's because people have realized that it fosters if it's works together towards the same goals.
@TheMrSeagull I know that, but I'm saying that water is a basic building block of life and making sure that it won't be too expensive for everyone in our society to access is a good thing. The costs from the initial venture capital (to pay for years of research) would make it too high for the average or low-income person to afford if it was split evenly per unit of water. Marginal utility of money indicates that taxing rich people more facilitates everyone's survival.
@fab006
In her book “The Virtue of Selfishness”, Rand wrote that accepting any government controls is “delivering oneself into gradual enslavement.”
She called recipients of government help "parasites" and "moochers".
Rand is one of three women the Cato Institute calls founders of American libertarianism. The other two, Rose Wilder Lane and Isabel Paterson, both rejected Social Security benefits on principle. Rand couldn't afford to, due to medical bills. Can't blame her, but it is hypocrisy.
It's sad that the only thing I knew about Atlas Shrugged and Ayn Rand for a long time was that episode of South Park where Officer Barbrady read the book and hated, vowing to never read again.
@needstoregister, I want to hear more.
I dunno if you read these comments, Penn. But I'm an Objectivist and I loved this video you did. Even though you say "Maybe they are" cultish. It seemed like you were basically saying "Who knows? I don't know for sure, so who cares." You're a great guy.
If you want to help your fellow man because you value them, then that's fine. You -should- be able to help people voluntarily if you so choose, and should not be forced to. So many people are incapable of understanding such an easy concept.
@tenkins Depends. There are different grades of socialism. For example the scandinavian model has been successful for a couple of generations or so.
The question I have for any Objectivst is: If a child is a victim of a hit and run are you willing to let them die in the street if they can't pay for the ambulance or the hospital? Under your principles you can't force the hospital to pay, you can't force the public to pay- nobody has to pay, nobody has to lift a finger. So, if you want emergency services or any public services, somebody has to pay for it and it's us. The real argument is were to draw the line.
The very idea of punishing me if I'm honestly successful and punishing me more if I'm more successful while rewarding me if I fail and rewarding me more if I really fail, IS NUTS!
@fab006 Oh, and before I forget it, another problem with public infrastructure: the land it's built on (especially roads) was all too often taken from its rightful (private) owner by force.
I loved the movie Atlas Shrugged part 1.
It was not as good as the book, but no movie version would ever be.
The purpose was to popularize the book.
The movie does that well enough.
I'm looking forward to parts 2 and 3, which are planned to come out on 4/15/12 and 4/15/13!
@tecben Oh, you're right. He also wrote books with her - books he later blatantly ignored.
@janc71 good point, I see what you're saying. I think there is a dichotomy though between the actual philosophy of objective free markets, and the true homage to greed that is in the idea of all society's "productive" members telling the world to suck it, which can actually be interpreted in the actions of Greenspan and AIG who probably see themselves as the movers and shakers of the world, and in a sense, are going on strike.
When I began reading Atlas Shrugged, I was a Christian panentheist. When I finished it, I was agnostic, and have remained so ever since.
I thought the book was too predictable, but I adored the dialogues. The only thing I disliked about the book is toward the end, when Dagny commits a very unlibertarian action with a gun. Well, that and the verbose descriptive writing. But, again, great dialogues and great speeches.
Sincerely,
Alex Peak
@slaughtz Kind of reminds me of taxation without representation.
@RoffeDH It's not like there are vast areas of the world for voluntarists to move to. At a certain point, an finite country exerts force on everyone if it spans an entire continent.
I want to read Atlas Shrugged before seeing the movie so I can make up my own mind about her as an author.
Quick Penn, see if you can get a role in the next two. Maybe you could try to Cuffy meigs, that would be a funny role to see you play.
@silver6kraid well, its not the reverse, that is pretty indisputable. But, people are people, some are good, some are bad, most are in between regardless of where they were born.
9:30 PM on a Thursday? Who goes to the movies during the week?
@TheMrSeagull I wouldn't say "parasitic," but I have admitted that I am not the master of the universe I once thought I was. I would go with "reasonably humble." Research shows that the only reliable deterrent to crime is an alternative to crime. Punishment is irrelevant because criminals never imagine they'll be caught...
Having spent 6 years in the US Army, I also read Soldier Of Fortune, and The NRA's publication: First Freedom. How's that for balance?
@Laseranders You know, sometimes when you read Ayn Rand you think to yourself "Oh, come on, now, the things she's arguing against isn't anything anyone would ever argue for in the first place. Now she's just straw-manning."
And then you go about your day, and what do you know - there really are people who think that people's "need" entitles them to buy their happiness with the blood and misery of innocent others.
Despicable, I say.
RobotRob011: A lot of confusion here. Rand would never trade "charity" for "deserving love"; she didn't believe in charity at ALL. She called altruism "evil". Rand would maintain that NO ONE "deserves to be loved at face value". For love she would trade only love (not money or goods), and she would only love those her shared her "values", which amounted to those who fully accepted her doctrine and were admitted into the inner circle of her cult.
Oh, do you have a treat in store. Be ready with a week you don't need to do anything, because it's 1100 pages. When you are done with that, there are some other Rand books. The Fountainhead, We the Living, and Anthem, are fiction and available in most large bookstores. And she's got several collections of essays.
@TheMrSeagull I wouldn't say impossible, but damn near so. The first agrarian societies were compulsory collectives - if you were physically able to work, you worked or you were cast into the wilderness to your very probable death. All I was trying to say before is that there is a reasonable amount of collectivism that is necessary for survival.
With government, you always have oppression too.* Taxation is always oppressive, it is forced payment. Force is a form of oppression. If that oppressive behaviors results in them doing certain things which may or may not benefit me makes no difference to the nature of the action done. It's a justification for that action. Justifications are made to excuse behavior. Whether or not I have money is of little consequence. Have you ever heard of bartering? Life could exist contentedly before money.
@amazinggoatgirl It started simple, lacking the technology to purify water, and only able to provide it to limited areas. However, as profits came in from the use, the provider could afford to expand and refine the service, to provide a better, cheaper product to more people. The government didn’t just decide to create water service, and it magically came into being.
Fuck! When did this movie come out? I haven't seen any trailers and never saw it in listings in the four movies theaters near where I live. I would've gone to see that.
@TheMrSeagull I don't think we really disagree about farming, though you do understand that it was almost never "one man, one farm," right? The logistics of making that happen are counterproductive.
@FuturePants I am disabled also but before there was social security and all that bullshit their were private charities and things called Mutual Aid Societies that worked to meet people's needs better than the government ever has. Those things disappeared when the government started giving handouts because people lost the motivation to help their neighbors when the government was handing out money. I love Ayn Rand, the social security system keeps me down more than anything.
@amazinggoatgirl I’m also not sure what you mean about farming - Are you stating that a farm is impossible with one individual?
Of course, if we all had to farm our own food, we would lose significant productivity, but the farmer has no obligation to provide his product to me, ethically or legally. If I don’t want to spend my time farming or hunting my own food, I need to provide something of value to the farmer in trade for that which I value from him.
@sc0pl355 It's not like every time you add a state, you need six more departments to cover the old states.
I heard that they're not making the 2nd and 3rd anymore.
@amazinggoatgirl No, the facilities that provide you with water were designed to produce and deliver water in mass quantities with considerably less effort it would take for one person to provide themselves with clean water to drink, cook, and bathe with. The company provides this service because people will pay for it, because THEY receive VALUE for their effort, and their customers receive VALUE from their purchase. This is a mutual relationship.
@fab006 Yes, absolutely. It's funny how you seem to think no one would ever argue for this, yet this is what it looks like in every civilized, democratic country in the world. If you have more than you need and others are starving, not helping gives the same end result as using extreme force, so using just a little bit of force to prevent blood and misery is perfectly fine. It's interesting how you don't seem to have a problem with 'blood and misery', only force, regardless of it's form…
@coladict
You are sooo right, what was Rand smoking? I mean come on! A society where businessmen would try to succeed by using government favors? Outlandish!
@Solverwiz Thats where I have a problem, even if I accrue no financial gain or personal satisfaction from giving money to a charity, it is blatantly obvious that something of value has been accomplished i.e., a sentient being has been alleviated of some suffering.
What you omit is the fact that the $10,000 for the lifesaving medicine pays for the years of Research and Development required to bring it to market. It isn't unusual for a company to spend 1 billion on such a venture with no guarantee of success (and success also means having to pay for failures). Thus, this miracle medicine would never have existed in your world because an initial price of $50 (for example) would have made it economically unfeasible.
@Paulsur If paying your taxes bothers you so much, then either vote to change the laws or leave.
I can't thank Penn enough for turning me on to Ayn Rand during his radio show. I have since read Atlas several times as well as most of Rand's other works. I was ecstatic at the thought of the an AS movie, and despite the movie moving through the story at break neck speed. I liked it! If nothing else it may spark new interest in Randian principles to people who otherwise may never have been exposed to real rational thinking.
@TheMrSeagull Continued: How would you ever have an inkling that, for example, improving your own situation was possible if all you had ever seen was other people trying and failing at it? Under Objectivism, are you supposed to eschew learning from your own observations of the world you live in?
@TheMrSeagull Private schools can refuse to teach people who are hard to teach. Don't forget that. The police would never be efficacious without a reliable stream of funding (do you have any idea how much even one cop car costs because it has to be super-fast and able to withstand attacks and crashes?), which requires compulsory taxation.
@SuperCLabs How is public health different than public safety?
@mustang607 there are any number of people who could cure cancer if they had the education and the resources. There's nothing special about the upper class other than the fact that they have those advantages, but we could very easily give those advantages to the lower class by improving the education system or making public institutions more affordable. Here's something for your math. Which system is going to produce a cure for cancer first, one with 3 capable individuals or one with 30?
@BenjaminFranklin2u this is true. Blind acceptance of anything is bad.
@deinse81 Yes, I agree. Totalitarian ideologies always collapses, you need to mix them up a bit, to make them work.
@silver6kraid That is not what the book says. Balph Eubank and James Taggart are both rich, but they are anti-heroes. I think that what Rand would say is not that being rich makes you moral, but instead that being moral in her way will tend to make you rich, if that is what you want. There are poor people in Rand's books who are moral. There are railroad workers who help keep the John Galt line open, or who join the strike in their own ways. Howard Roark gets poor for his pride.
@temsi This is about principles, just not the ones you think. The principle is not "don't take government assistance", or "be against government assistance". (those aren't even principles, in the proper sense of the word - they're just out of context catch phrases).
The relevant principle in this context is "morality ends with the barrel of a gun". There is no way to reconcile reason and forced taxation. There is no way to lead a moral life with a gun pointed at the head.
@CalebMTurberville Not pure selfishness... Enlightened self-interest... Very different from narcissism or selfishness as it has come to mean. And helping people you don't know and don't care about is something you love? Sure, if it's someone you love or care about, admire or want to see succeed for whatever reason, then I would argue that's a selfish motive... and what's wrong with that? Nothing.
I agree with Penn almost completely. I read several negative reviews before seeing the movie, and once I did watch I didn't think those writers gave the flick a fair shake. When I read the book for the first time in '07-'08, the first third was incredibly difficult because I had to deconstruct a narrative--built by consuming pop culture my entire life--of 'evil industrialists.'
@amazinggoatgirl Public safety differs as it deals with one person causing harm to another through coercion. You are responsible for your own health, blaming bad choices that you exercise through your own free will on others is a fallacy. Protecting people from their own folly only destroys them incrementally. Eventually you end up with total helplessness and a life of complete oversight by the state.
@004forever Can you explain what you mean by giving some one the ability to buy a third house. Who is giving them the ability? "However, I don't think it's right that other people need to suffer and die so that someone else can choose to be greedy." So are you saying that you can only be successful and have extra if some one else is without? So in your world, everyone would have equal amounts of economic power, but what would that economic power be?
I wanna see it now...tried looking for a torrent, can't find one...maybe in a few weeks
how about Bioshock: The Movie?
@therrydicule "Well Tommy did it, so why can't I!?!?!?"
@sc0pl355 It is possible to be selfish and cooperative at the same time. It's called symbiosis. It occurs in nature, and it works just fine there.
I have to say, I enjoyed Atlas Shrugged.
@fab006 Mmmmm, YES, I think that works even better. Thanks! :-)
@FuturePants What about Jim's wife and Quentin Daniels in Atlas Shrugged? or the sculptor from the Fountainhead? or the fanboys from her play "Ideal"? Or pretty much anyone in "We the Living"?
The problem is that "help" tends not to help at all. There doesn't really seem to be a movement (a strong movement) to attempt to "teach a man to fish" . I have no problem with and in fact advocate helping people but it should centre on empowerment. There is a shame that comes from being on the recieving end of hand outs that can be crushing Great "indebtedness does not make men grateful, but vengeful"-nietzsche
After watching this, I got Atlas Shrugged to make up my mind on whether it's a great story or not.
@Hayleyfire929 That may be. But it is their choice to do that and be selfless.
@bleunt Last point: These things are hard to compare (e.g. Sweden vs USA). That's the problem with history, there are so many variables (big vs small, population, political system, place in the world, curruption-level, etc). I just want to make you see that you jump to your conclusion way to easily.