Haven't we covered the fact that you haven't even
read Rand in recent memory, Robert, and that you have never read any nonfiction produced by Objectivists?
No, Phil, she teaches us how to behave and how to become strong, successful adults.
I don't hear anything that makes me think of a strong, successful adult from you. I hear
envy, which is a weak, unsuccessful, childish emotion.
All right Phil, I'm not going to participate in your brand of nastiness
Don't confuse disdain for "nastiness." There's a difference.
...but that gives you no right to be disrespectful.
You haven't earned my respect. I generally ridicule the ridiculous and hold in contempt the contemptible.
Your name may be Sharp Phil, but in this forum, isn't the rule "respectful discussion?"
I believe I've treated you in equal measure for your own tone.
You remind me a lot of my uncle-in-law. When we start discussing our personally philosophies it ends in a good old wrestling match out in the snow until we are both laughing.
Great. Cry "uncle" and this is over.
Our wealth is dynamic. It changes hands rapidly because the quantities are small. We can become rich or poor in an instant based on the decisions we make. Most americans live this way. They don't save, they charge way too much, and they barely have any left over to pay the bills. Personally, I don't have any credit cards, I save everything I can, and I live a spartan existance to keep my bills low. That is me and I am not most people. I take pride in taking care of myself and I take pride in the fact that I am providing my daughter with a better life then I had when I grew up.
You understand that wealth is dynamic and you understand that we are directly responsible for it. That's a very good start.
On the other hand, inherited wealth is not nearly as dynamic. It is not the norm. Most of my peers will leave very little for thier children. I may not be able to leave much when I'm gone. If I can provide my child with enough to cover her needs as she grows into an adult (this include education and a firm home base that she can trust) that may have to be good enough. This is not the case for someone who is born into their wealth. Have they worked in any way to earn it? No, their parents may have, but again, the norm here is that the parents too, inherited the wealth. By this process, the majority of wealth (if we define this term as that which is over and above what is needed to do that which I described above for my family) in this country changes hands.
Here you run aground. The
economy is dynamic; money is not a static pie, all of whose slices come at the expense of others' pieces. The accumulated wealth passed from family to family has no relevance to you or your life; it does not make you poorer in any way and it does not come at your expense. It is none of your concern. To be so concerned over it is a manifestation of jealousy. It is also not the case that "most wealth is inherited," as you originally asserted without support.
My uncle for instance. He is an engineer and he invented a whole new class of medical equipment. In his lifetime, he has made millions of dollars. This quantity will now be passed on into his line when he is gone, inherited, altered and, hopefully, multiplied. The greatest thing about this country is that people like my uncle can come from a working class family that worked and saved and provided the chance for him to take the fortunes of his intellect and turn it into millions of dollars.
Wonderful! You understand the upwards mobility of capitalism, at least at a rudimentary level.
Your assertion that this is just a metaphysical element of the universe is true.
Our circumstances and our abilities are the metaphysically granted, yes. Our
choices are not. The choice to make the most of what we can within the scope of our abilities and in accordance with our circumstances is what makes the difference.
It's predestination and whether or not you believe in God or Gods, there is nothing anyone can do to change it.
Incorrect. This would only be "predestination" if the
outcome were the metaphysically granted, which is not the case. On the circumstances and the abilities with which we are born are metaphysically granted. Our wills are our own; our choices make the difference. We can choose to be rational, or we can choose to be irrational; we can choose to work hard, or we can choose not to work hard.
That is what we can do "change it." That is an
internal locus of control. Those operating under the crushing weight of a philosophy whose locus of control is
external are doomed to bemoan their fates and look with envy on the gains of others.
Yet, this in an opportunity that exist in very few places in this world. If you have traveled to a variety of places on this planet, you may have noticed this fact.
Thus we see that capitalism -- a
free society -- is superior to the Marxist schools of thought that dominate, in whole or in part, many of the world's other societies.
Despite what you may have heard, it was not always this way in our country. Pre-industrial society was constructed of a small middle class, a mass of peasentry, and a small group of elite. When industrialism entered into the picture, this model was very slow to change.
Actually, when industrialism entered the picture, this model changed very quickly, because suddenly we had the ability to sustain a population much larger in size within the same given geographic area than we were able to sustain in a predominantly rural economy.
It was people like my grandfather and great grandfather and his father who took the bullets and forced a change to provide more people with a chance to do the things that we are able to do at this moment. In fact, if you talk to my grandfather, who stormed the beaches of Normandy without so much as a scratch to tell and who was shot by government troops during a workers strike, where he truly fought for our rights, he will tell you hands down, the strike. From this strife emerged a new and truly American way of thinking (as opposed to the aristocratic European pre-industrial way of thinking). In America, a person works to make themselves who they are, yet we believe that the provision of some basic needs for all is a fair price to pay for those who have been provided with the opportunity to accumulate wealth through inheritance or hard work.
Labor unions are fine, as long as they are voluntary -- and the implementation of unions was simply the
other side of the economic equation. When workers realized that employment is, ultimately, a
voluntary and mutual contract, they realized they had
leverage they could use to gain more by bargaining with what they had to
offer -- their effort.
Without this belief and without the blood of people like my grandfather we would still be a peasant working in a sweatshop with no oppotunity to make a better life for ourselves.
This contradicts, at least philosophically (though you may not be aware of it) your original assertion that the government brought the peasants out of the fields (which it didn't). Labor unions likewise did not "bring the peasants out of the fields," though you're getting closer to an understanding of basic economic theory. It was a recognition of the fact that labor is half of the economic equation that enabled workers to better their lives,
within the context of a capitalist system.
Where government
did play a role in the industrial revolution was in cracking down on those things that
hinder a capitalist system -- namely manifestations of fraud, theft, and force. The government's role in a free society is that of guardian of
individual rights -- which means it is that of
policeman. The government protected individual consumers by passing laws relevant to, and cracking down on, widespread fraud in certain consumer industries -- such as the meat packing industry. It did not, however, liberate the oppressed worker; the workers themselves managed that by recognizing their role and the leverage it offered them.
Logical problems with your arguments. The source for this information is "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. The book chapter is "The Fine Art of Baloney Detection" which is quite appropriate in this instance.
Quoting a book does not constitute supporting your argument. I'm more familiar than are you with the laws of logic and with logical fallacies, I am sure; you seem to believe that your own arguments were laden with substance, which was not the case. When you offer substantive arguments you will receive substantive replies. The fact remains, however, that anyone who starts going on about liberating the oppressed worker and the evils of inherited wealth is indeed spouting
Marxist ideals, the identification of which is relevant in the course of the argument because Marxism is
unsound and discredited economic theory.
I do indeed believe in sprinkling my prose with appropriate amounts of venom, however, specifically because I lack both patience and tolerance. It's a character failing; foolishness makes me mean. The fact is that
you chose to apply a certain attitude to your posts, and I simply gave it back to you in equal measure. Don't complain that you got worse than you gave.
Special Pleading - often used to rescue a proposition in deep rhetorical trouble. Example...how can a merciful God condemn future generations to torment because, against orders, one woman induced one man to eat an apple? Special plead - you don't understand the doctrine of "free will." This fallacy is used to deflect an argument rather then deal with its substance.
When you offer a
substantive argument, you will receive a substantive reply. For your misapplication of the "special pleading" to apply, you would have to have been offering logical discourse yourself.
I could go on, but this is enough. The ONLY reason I did this is to hopefully show you that your personal attacks, your slick deflections, and your caricturization are not a very good method for presenting your philosophy.
You failed in the attempt, then, though I give you credit for trying. I'm not primarily attempting to present my philosophy; I am simply enjoying poking holes in yours. There's a difference.
There is nothing wrong with having strong beliefs. I am very curious about those beliefs and I think that others are too. In a discussion like this, in my opinion, you need to show us why, instead of relying on fallacious logic.
I offer logic where logic is offered. When presented with empty rhetoric, I supply superior (and sharper) rhetoric. This is recreation for me. If you want to start a philosophical thread in which you ask substantive answers in order to receive substantive replies, that's fine; you're certainly free to do so. This thread has not offered much in that regard and I feel no obligation to supply it in its absence.
This is not a personal attack, it's just an observation and hopefully, being an "objectivist" you can appreciate it. If you disagree, fine, but I am not going to respond to any more personal attacks.
I think you labor under the misconception that I
want you to respond; I'm indifferent to the idea.
Nothing I've written has been intended as disrespectful, but I cannot pretend to have respect for ideas or attitudes I find silly or hostile. I always respond in equal measure, though I admit I tend to escalate.
Your argument is jumped up fuedelism. Let them eat cake eh? You don't understand that we are "them"
If anything could be said about that guy its that his terminology is quite - dense. As far as Psuedoscience goes...that is a symbol in itself and your usage of excellent. Also, I noticed that all of the symbols I "placed" in my rhetoric were regurgitated back. I've obviously strummed the learned scholar archtype with the "I see your attempt at tying this concept to these tragically flawed conspiracy theories as nothing more then denial" quote. Predictably, your miffed. Archtypes can't be used to control people when used contextually? Who says?
