How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon

[foxpaws]

I see no reason to continue with you here since you are simply going to ignore and dismiss what I say. If you can't get past the rhetoric then you are wasting my time.

And since you can't get beyond the philosophical and actually discuss practical realities, I don't get anything from discussing this with you. Problem solving within the real world is where my interests lie. I really am not interested in this fantasy world where obviously the human condition is secondary to some sort of sanctimonious ideal that isn't achievable. I know the philosophical - however I also know that you have to move beyond it at some point shag, if you want to create real change in the world around you.

I adore Science Fiction - but I know what it is - fiction - just like your world viewpoint shag.

 

[shagdrum]

I really am not interested in this fantasy world where obviously the human condition is secondary to some sort of sanctimonious ideal that isn't achievable.

Same here.

However, the "human condition" is only "secondary to some sanctimonious ideal that isn't achievable" in ideologies that do not view human nature as static but as something that is malleable and able to change (a notion you agreed with in post #99 of this thread). That unconstrained view of human nature is the hallmark of ideologies that promote collectivism over individualism. Those ideologies do not view human nature as a constraint, but as something to be molded to fit their agenda. What is interesting is that is the ideology that you subscribe to!

If you were truly familiar with "the philosophical" as you claim, you would know that. Instead, you simply stuck your foot in your mouth.

Basically, what you are saying is that you are, "not interested in this fantasy world where obviously the human condition is secondary to some sort of sanctimonious ideal that isn't achievable", but you subscribe to that "fantasy world" and promote that "sanctimonious ideal"!

:bowrofl: :bowrofl:

 

[shagdrum]

Fox, you are also missing the point I made in post #100 of this thread; that the "ideals" and philosophy I espouse were generally achieved in the founding of this nation; America serves as an example of those ideals and they have stood for 233 years. Yet you characterize them as "fiction" and "unachievable".

Again, If you were truly familiar with "the philosophical" as you claim, you would know that. Instead, you simply stuck your foot in your mouth. Again.

 

[foxpaws]

The "human condition" is only "secondary to some sanctimonious ideal that isn't achievable" in ideologies that do not view human nature as static but as something that is malleable and able to change (something you agreed with in post #99 of this thread). That unconstrained view of human nature is the hallmark of ideologies that promote collectivism over individualism. Those ideologies do not view human nature as a constraint, but as something to be molded to fit their agenda. What is interesting is that is the ideology that you subscribe to!

If you were truly familiar with "the philosophical" as you claim, you would know that. Instead, you simply stuck your foot in your mouth.

Basically, what you are saying is that you are, "not interested in this fantasy world where obviously the human condition is secondary to some sort of sanctimonious ideal that isn't achievable", but you subscribe to that "fantasy world" and promote that "sanctimonious ideal"!

:bowrofl: :bowrofl:

And shag, you know what ideology I subscribe to because... you read it in a text book?

I don't subscribe to collectivism, why would you even think that - to label me once again? Human nature malleable? That describes you shag, not me. You must believe that somehow we will evolve into some non-avaricious being, molded by the virtues of capitalism, and quickly, if only we would be given the opportunity. I accept human nature for what it is, and realize that it could be many, many generations, (a very, very long time) before we could somehow rise above greed and selfishness. You seem to think that if only capitalism would be allowed to run amuck it would equal out those flaws, and only good would triumph.

I subscribe to reality, instead of an eidolon as you do, a world view that isn't based in reality, but an image of an ideal that you have concocted from texts and tomes and perhaps a comic book full of capitalistic superheros thrown in as well. Your 'ideal' world is the real fantasy shag...

 

[shagdrum]

I don't subscribe to collectivism, why would you even think that - to label me once again?

So, despite you habitual defense of policies rooted in the ideal of social justice (which necessitates collectivism) you are against collectivism?:bowrofl:

More likely, you don't realize that what you promote is rooted in collectivism.

Human nature malleable? That describes you shag, not me. You must believe that somehow we will evolve into some non-avaricious being, molded by the virtues of capitalism, and quickly, if only we would be given the opportunity.

I know human nature can be changed over time

If you understood the philosophical perspective I espouse, you would know that it does not view human nature as something that can change, period. Time is irrelevant.

It is the lot of all human institutions, even those of the most perfect kind, to have defects as well as excellencies-ill as well as good propensities. This results from the imperfection of the Institutor, Man. -Alexander Hamilton

We cannot change the Nature of things and of men-but must act upon them the best we can. -Edmund Burke​

I accept human nature for what it is, and realize that it could be many, many generations, (a very, very long time) before we could somehow rise above greed and selfishness.

I know human nature can be changed over time

You think we can "rise above greed and selfishness". That is the unconstrained, malleable view of human nature that Marx espoused and is inherent in any and every philosophy based on the Marxist ideal of social justice (including modern liberalism).

You seem to think that if only capitalism would be allowed to run amuck it would equal out those flaws, and only good would triumph.

So, are you intentionally misrepresenting things or do you simply not understand what you are talking about?

I think it is rather clear; you are lying when you claim to understand "the philosophical". You have clearly demonstrated is that you do not understand "the philosophical" and are actively working to dismiss it. In fact, you are also showing that you are not here to understand other points of view, as you have adamantly claimed in the past. In short, you are misrepresenting yourself; being two-faced.

 

[foxpaws]

So, despite you habitual defense of policies rooted in the ideal of social justice (which necessitates collectivism) you are against collectivism?:bowrofl:

More likely, you don't realize that what you promote is rooted in collectivism.

So, what am I promoting in this thread - that we don't follow Rand's flawed philosophy of unfettered capitalism - is that collectivism?

So rather than truncating my quote -

I know human nature can be changed over time

how about using the entire thing

I know human nature can be changed over time – but it takes lifetimes (my very, very long time), not mere years – and I think that within our lifetime, or for many lifetimes beyond ours there certainly won’t be a big shift away from some forms of discrimination as well as with greed and corruption.

If you understood the philosophical perspective I espouse, you would know that it does not view human nature as something that can change, period. Time is irrelevant.

It is the lot of all human institutions, even those of the most perfect kind, to have defects as well as excellencies-ill as well as good propensities. This results from the imperfection of the Institutor, Man. -Alexander Hamilton

We cannot change the Nature of things and of men-but must act upon them the best we can. -Edmund Burke​

We are not perfect, and we will never be perfect - but we do change-are we still the same as early homo sapiens? The viewpoint you espouse believes that we haven't changed, nor will we ever change. Is our nature the same as our ancestors on the Serengeti? It isn't, we have changed not only our appearance, but our demeanor during the many millennium that has shaped us. I know, I am foolish and believe in evolution - not only in the physical state of man, but the 'nature' of man. You believe in evolution, but with the caveat of 'divine intervention' - so God only intervened in the physical being and not in our 'nature'?

You think we can "rise above greed and selfishness". That is the unconstrained, malleable view of human nature that Marx espoused and is inherent in any and every philosophy based on social justice.

Nope, shag - you are the one that thinks we can rise above greed and selfishness, because you seem to embrace the whole flawed idea that unfettered capitalism can work... it can't, because we can't rise above greed and selfishness.

I think it is rather clear; you are lying when you claim to understand "the philosophical". You have clearly demonstrated is that you do not understand "the philosophical" and are actively working to dismiss it. In fact, you are also showing that you are not here to understand other points of view, as you have adamantly claimed in the past. In short, you are misrepresenting yourself; being two-faced.

Shag - I don't think that you don't understand the philosophical, what I do know is that you can't seem to bridge the philosophical and reality. You can continue to try to demean me with your ascertain that I don't understand the philosophy, however, it is painfully apparent to me that you can't get out of your philosophical swamp, and join the real world.

Someday you might be interesting - when you grow out of this school boy stage - until then, you are merely soporific.

 

[shagdrum]

So rather than truncating my quote...how about using the entire thing

Because it is irrelevant. You are simply quantifying the quote with a certain length of time. That doesn't negate the claim that you hold an unconstrained view of human nature. If you view human nature as something that can be changed in a day or in a century is irrelevant.

The viewpoint you espouse believes that we haven't changed, nor will we ever change.

Human nature malleable? That describes you shag, not me. You must believe that somehow we will evolve into some non-avaricious being, molded by the virtues of capitalism, and quickly, if only we would be given the opportunity.

Which is it?

Bringing in points about "early homo-sapiens", or evolution only serves to misdirect.

Nope, shag - you are the one that thinks we can rise above greed and selfishness, because you seem to embrace the whole flawed idea that unfettered capitalism can work... it can't, because we can't rise above greed and selfishness.

I accept human nature for what it is, and realize that it could be many, many generations, (a very, very long time) before we could somehow rise above greed and selfishness.

Again, which is it?

Capitalism assumes that humans will be inherently selfish; the idea relies on that fact. Again, you don't know what you are talking about and misrepresenting things...

Shag - I don't think that you don't understand the philosophical, what I do know is that you can't seem to bridge the philosophical and reality.

Actually, the philosophy I espouse is determined by what has been sucessful in the past; by the knowledge of Ages. Hence ideas like the precautionary principle, etc. Basically, my philosophical outlook is determined by what has worked in the real world. Again, if you understood "the philosophical", you would understand that. Specifically, if you understood the intellectual roots of conservatism you would know better.

Unfortunately, you are being two-faced and pretending to understand things that you clearly don't. The more you function under that lie, the more you stick your foot in your mouth.

 

[foxpaws]

Because it is irrelevant. You are simply quantifying the quote with a certain length of time. That doesn't negate the claim that you hold an unconstrained view of human nature. If you view human nature as something that can be changed in a day or in a century is irrelevant.
Bringing in points about "early homo-sapiens", or evolution only serves to misdirect.

Nope - we change - we evolve over time - you believe we never, ever change - correct - not in a day, a century or ever - right? You try to misdirect with cutting my quotes to fit your argument - I qualify timeline - but you apparently think we never, ever change - right - timelines don't matter do they? We will never change, and we have never changed.

Capitalism assumes that humans will be inherently selfish; the idea relies on that fact. Again, you don't know what you are talking about and misrepresenting things...

Capitalism relies on the fact that we will be selfish - and it turns a blind eye thinking that the selfishness won't degrade into lawlessness... it believes that the market will reward good selfishness and punish bad selfishness - it won't. It will equally reward both, at least for a time. And by the time it punishes bad selfishness, usually a huge amount of damage has been done. Sometimes destroying the economic system entirely.

Actually, the philosophy I espouse is determined by what has been sucessful in the past; by the knowledge of Ages. Hence ideas like the precautionary principle, etc. Basically, my philosophical outlook is determined by what has worked in the real world. Again, if you understood "the philosophical", you would understand that. Specifically, if you understood the intellectual roots of conservatism you would know better.

Really - show me where unfettered capitalism has proven successful for a long period of time. It should be easy, since if it was successful it should still be in existence. Let's see that list Shag. Capitalism with no bounds. Capitalism left alone, no intervention.

Unfortunately, you are being two-faced and pretending to understand things that you clearly don't. The more you function under that lie, the more you stick your foot in your mouth.

And the longer you continue this discussion your ivory tower mentality is becoming more and more apparent, and your philosophical arguments are showing themselves for what they are, unrealistic and idealistic.

 

[shagdrum]

You try to misdirect with cutting my quotes to fit your argument

...or you simply don't know what is and is not being referred to when it comes to human nature and how it concerns political philosophy.

Capitalism relies on the fact that we will be selfish - and it turns a blind eye thinking that the selfishness won't degrade into lawlessness

...or certain political theories built around capitalism make that mistake, but the idea of capitalism itself does not. Capitalism is simply concerned with economics, not politics. You are going beyond the scope of capitalism...

Really - show me where unfettered capitalism has proven successful for a long period of time.

Are you misrepresenting my views because you don't understand them or are intentionally set up a straw man?

And the longer you continue this discussion your ivory tower mentality is becoming more and more apparent, and your philosophical arguments are showing themselves for what they are, unrealistic and idealistic.

Suuure. "Unrealistic" yet serving as the basis of the Nation we live in. Got it.

Keep spinning. You simply show yourself to be more and more desperate.

 

[fossten]

You try to misdirect with cutting my quotes to fit your argument

Wow, look who's upset about that! What a freaking hypocrite.

 

[foxpaws]

...or you simply don't know what is and is not being referred to when it comes to human nature and how it concerns political philosophy.

And you simply won't admit to evolution... in any form.

...or certain political theories built around capitalism make that mistake, but the idea of capitalism itself does not. Capitalism is simply concerned with economics, not politics. You are going beyond the scope of capitalism...

Because I live in the real world and capitalism doesn't exist in a vacuum without politics. Only in your fantasy world does capitalism blithely carry on without a single outside influence.

Actually, the philosophy I espouse is determined by what has been sucessful in the past; by the knowledge of Ages. Hence ideas like the precautionary principle, etc. Basically, my philosophical outlook is determined by what has worked in the real world. Again, if you understood "the philosophical", you would understand that. Specifically, if you understood the intellectual roots of conservatism you would know better.

Are you misrepresenting my views because you don't understand them or are intentionally set up a straw man?

Show me the money shag - you can't. You were the one that brought up that the philosophy that you blither on about has been successful in the past 'by the knowledge of the Ages' (wow - does it get any more cut and paste out of a textbook then that?) No strawman here - you brought it up - so prove it to me Shag. Show me how this unfettered capitalism that you aspire to has worked in the real world. I understand the philosophical - I want you to show to me that you understand the practical.

Suuure. "Unrealistic" yet serving as the basis of the Nation we live in. Got it.

And do you think Jefferson or Hamilton or Adams would have bowed to the idea that economists should tell them what to do, how to run the country? That our country was founded in any way on Von Mises's 'rule' regarding how economists should tell the government what not to do, and good governments would heed their advice? So I guess we should listen to Krugman - he is an economist... Oh, that is right - only 'approved' economists should be listened to and followed. Krugman would be considered a charlatan.

Keep spinning. You simply show yourself to be more and more desperate

Keep on ignoring and glossing over - you are showing that you really are stuck in academia and haven't a clue on what happens outside their hallowed halls.

 

[fossten]

And do you think Jefferson or Hamilton or Adams would have bowed to the idea that economists should tell them what to do, how to run the country? That our country was founded in any way on Von Mises's 'rule' regarding how economists should tell the government what not to do, and good governments would heed their advice? So I guess we should listen to Krugman - he is an economist... Oh, that is right - only 'approved' economists should be listened to and followed. Krugman would be considered a charlatan.

Straw man.

 

[shagdrum]

And do you think Jefferson or Hamilton or Adams would have bowed to the idea that economists should tell them what to do, how to run the country? That our country was founded in any way on Von Mises's 'rule' regarding how economists should tell the government what not to do, and good governments would heed their advice? So I guess we should listen to Krugman - he is an economist... Oh, that is right - only 'approved' economists should be listened to and followed. Krugman would be considered a charlatan.

Fossten nailed it. That is nothing more then a straw man. I used to think something like that was intentional on your part. Now, I am starting to think you are willfully ignorant and simply lashing out at something you don't understand.

Keep on ignoring and glossing over - you are showing that you really are stuck in academia and haven't a clue on what happens outside their hallowed halls.

Do you not see the irony here?

You keep criticizing me for propagating a worldview based in an "out-of-touch" philosophy. Yet you are propagating a worldview based, not in philosophy, but in rhetoric.

A philosophy is created to try and make sense of a complex reality and prescribe a means to effectively confront the problems that all societies inherently face. Rhetoric is aimed at distorting reality to fit an agenda.

If either of our worldviews is more likely to be "out-of-touch", it is yours. The worldview I advocate has a few qualities that your simplistic worldview does not; a) it is intellectually coherent and consistent, and b) it has been proven by application in the real world for the past 233 years.

FYI: your continued smear attempts to marginalize me as a means of dismissing my points is rather petty.

You stay classy.

 

[foxpaws]

If either of our worldviews is more likely to be "out-of-touch", it is yours. The worldview I advocate has a few qualities that your simplistic worldview does not; a) it is intellectually coherent and consistent, and b) it has been proven by application in the real world for the past 233 years.

Shag - so, since you have yet to define your world view I am going to have to assume that you are using the US as your philosophical ideal?

Capitalism that is heavily regulated by the government, strong socialist programs in place, a republic, not a democracy? Really?

The good ol' USA is your real world example? I didn't realize you were such a socialist shag. Or are you now going to give me lots and lots of 'exceptions'? Except for SS, except for public schools, except for excessive taxation, except for bank regulations, except for the FCC, except for the SEC, except for Medicare, except for the 16th amendment, except for...

Or, I guess take it back to 1776? That is your world ideal? Slavery, discrimination, government helping out certain industries, giving people free land to stabilize the economy, using gender, along with property or taxation requirements to be able to vote, no secret ballots, (you probably wouldn't be allowed a vote in the 18th and part of the 19th century Shag, I know I wouldn't - although most here would think that was a good thing in my case ). Where exactly is that country today - it is our history - not our present day. The United States is a poor example of unfettered capitalism shag in it's current form. So you have about 25 years of your ideal? The years after slavery was abolished, but before the turn against laissez-faire capitialism. Didn't last too long did it?

 

[fossten]

Shag - so, since you have yet to define your world view I am going to have to assume that you are using the US as your philosophical ideal?

Capitalism that is heavily regulated by the government, strong socialist programs in place, a republic, not a democracy? Really?

The good ol' USA is your real world example? I didn't realize you were such a socialist shag. Or are you now going to give me lots and lots of 'exceptions'? Except for SS, except for public schools, except for excessive taxation, except for bank regulations, except for the FCC, except for the SEC, except for Medicare, except for the 16th amendment, except for...

Or, I guess take it back to 1776? That is your world ideal? Slavery, discrimination, government helping out certain industries, giving people free land to stabilize the economy, using gender, along with property or taxation requirements to be able to vote, no secret ballots, (you probably wouldn't be allowed a vote in the 18th and part of the 19th century Shag, I know I wouldn't - although most here would think that was a good thing in my case ). Where exactly is that country today - it is our history - not our present day. The United States is a poor example of unfettered capitalism shag in it's current form. So you have about 25 years of your ideal? The years after slavery was abolished, but before the turn against laissez-faire capitialism. Didn't last too long did it?

Tsk tsk, fox. The United States under the Constitution is MOST CERTAINLY NOT laissez-faire capitalism. It's borderline fascism, thanks to people like you running the government and writing the laws. Nice try, but you FAIL in blaming 'unfettered capitalism' on our current problems. Your talking points are void of substance and facts.

Unfettered capitalism, really? Do you know how many laws and regulations on business there are in this country?

You're a parody of yourself, fox. Go back to DU or Kos where you came from.

 

[foxpaws]

Tsk tsk, fox. The United States under the Constitution is MOST CERTAINLY NOT laissez-faire capitalism. It's borderline fascism, thanks to people like you running the government and writing the laws. Nice try, but you FAIL in blaming 'unfettered capitalism' on our current problems. Your talking points are void of substance and facts.

Unfettered capitalism, really? Do you know how many laws and regulations on business there are in this country?

You're a parody of yourself, fox. Go back to DU or Kos where you came from.

Ah, Foss - I know we aren't even close to laissez-faire capitalism (we only came close for about 25 years after the end of the civil war, as I stated) - I was wondering why Shag is using the US as his example of his philosophy in action... I don't think it is what he has in mind as an ideal. It is regulated, socialistic, etc. I know that - I stated that in the 3rd paragraph- perhaps you should read more closely before you shoot of a response..

 

[fossten]

Ah, Foss - I know we aren't even close to laissez-faire capitalism (we only came close for about 25 years after the end of the civil war, as I stated) - I was wondering why Shag is using the US as his example of his philosophy in action... I don't think it is what he has in mind as an ideal. It is regulated, socialistic, etc. I know that - I stated that in the 3rd paragraph- perhaps you should read more closely before you shoot of a response..

So what happened to your statement that 'capitalism had a good run?'

You can't have it both ways.

It's your people who have made this country the way it is. That's the more salient point.

 

[shagdrum]

:blah: :blah: :blah:

You are pulling out the tired slavery straw man? You really are desperate.

Also, considering the comments about it I made in this thread, it is clear that it is not in line with what I am talking about. Also, my world view has been spelled out in this forum ad nauseum. Yet, your entire last post was nothing but a giant straw man argument. If you don't understand it, it is because you are unwilling to consider it.

But that is obviously the case, isn't it. You only engage anyone on this forum not to understand their point of view (as you have claimed) but to confuse the issue to allow for your point of view. Your actions in this thread (combined with your pattern on this forum) destroy any pretense that you are interested in understanding and considering opposing points of view on this forum.

However, you apparently will misrepresent your intentions and your background in order to deceptively gain credibility.

 

[foxpaws]

You are pulling out the tired slavery straw man? You really are desperate.

Also, considering the comments about it I made in this thread, it is clear that it is not in line with what I am talking about. Also, my world view has been spelled out in this forum ad nauseum. Yet, your entire last post was nothing but a giant straw man argument. If you don't understand it, it is because you are unwilling to consider it.

But that is obviously the case, isn't it. You only engage anyone on this forum not to understand their point of view (as you have claimed) but to confuse the issue to allow for your point of view. Your actions in this thread (combined with your pattern on this forum) destroy any pretense that you are interested in understanding and considering opposing points of view on this forum.

However, you apparently will misrepresent your intentions and your background in order to deceptively gain credibility.

Once again shag, I went back and looked and looked and looked for where you spelled out your 'worldview' or your actual philosophy - it isn't to be found - you refer to it, you imply it - but you never, ever state it... Is it Hobbs, is it Hayek, is it Reagan is it Madison, is it some compilation of all of them?

Just like in the Ted Kennedy 'justice' thread - where I asked and asked where you had stated why you thought 'justice had been served' and yet you continued to ignore my questions, because you never did state your reasons. Here we are left guessing once again.

Do you really think that slavery isn't antithesis to unfettered capitalism, do you think that giving only an elite few the ability to vote, sans secret ballot is 'pro' democracy... That is what we had for almost the first 100 years in this country - And for the last 110 years we have had capitalism that has become more and more encumbered with regulation and law. Hardly 'unfettered'. Slavery isn't a straw man - it is a fact that you have to deal with if you want to put the US on some sort of pedestal. Sorry Shag - I know that you somehow explain it away as a 'necessity' but, it doesn't change the fact that the US allowed it for almost 100 years, and it colors not only our moral history but our social and economic history as well.

So, is the United States your beacon of light, your 'proof' that your philosophy works just great? You can't even come out and lay claim to that. Why -

So, Foss since you don't read my posts - just comment on them arbitrarily, finding little 'catch' words that you can fixate on.. Should I ruminate on your words 'your people'?

 

[fossten]

Once again shag, I went back and looked and looked and looked for where you spelled out your 'worldview' or your actual philosophy - it isn't to be found - you refer to it, you imply it - but you never, ever state it... Is it Hobbs, is it Hayek, is it Reagan is it Madison, is it some compilation of all of them?

Ah, the false choice argument. FAIL.

 

[fossten]

So, Foss since you don't read my posts - just comment on them arbitrarily, finding little 'catch' words that you can fixate on.. Should I ruminate on your words 'your people'?

Tsk, tsk...You set the standard for cherry picking, fox.

So, do you believe the United States of America is a force for good in the world, or for evil?

 

[foxpaws]

Tsk, tsk...You set the standard for cherry picking, fox.

So, do you believe the United States of America is a force for good in the world, or for evil?

Miranda Foss?

 

[shagdrum]

:blah: :blah: :blah:

Are you physically incapable of a civil, honest discussions when it comes to politics?

It is rude, insulting and dishonest to misrepresent someone. IIRC you have agreed with that in the past. Yet, you are doing nothing but misrepresenting now.

 

[foxpaws]

Are you physically incapable of a civil, honest discussions when it comes to politics?

It is rude, insulting and dishonest to misrepresent someone. You have agreed with that in the past. Yet, you are doing nothing but misrepresenting now.

You can't even claim that the United States is your example of your philosophy in action, or can you? You are the one that is unable to actually be honest. Take a stand - state your mysterious philosophy that you advocate so ardently, that you say is so consistent and coherent - compare it to your shining example of it in action - all 233 years of 'proof' - go ahead shag - you were the one that made this statement -

The worldview I advocate has a few qualities that your simplistic worldview does not; a) it is intellectually coherent and consistent, and b) it has been proven by application in the real world for the past 233 years.​

My worldview might be simplistic.. but yours is nonexistent

 

[fossten]

Miranda Foss?

Off topic, fox. Tsk, tsk...Getting tired or lazy?