Who would you rather grow up to be?

[lsbskins1]

These are your choices:

Albert Camus - http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/acamus.htm

or

Ayn Rand - http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServ...rand_biography

Take a little time to delve into the mindset and works of each, then support your choice on whatever grounds you wish...

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins, I can't help but wonder how this plays into anything other than personal intrests, or a strawman for debate.

Based on that, I will answer.

If I had to choose between the two, and I had to grow up to be either, I would choose Ayn Rand.

My first two sentences of this post support why I chose Ayn Rand, and it is an unfair answer, considering that I have not read either in great detail. I am CURRENTLY reading Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time. This is the first Rand book I have read, and after being only halfway through it, I place it at the pinnacle of being the BEST work of literature I have ever read, based simply on personal impact of its words on myself.

Never the less though, Atlas Shrugged is no small book. 1100 plus pages for a work of fiction, is quite monumental, but I don't regret reading one page yet, after 487 pages.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready Isbskins, I can't help but wonder how this plays into anything other than personal intrests, or a strawman for debate. Based on that, I will answer. If I had to choose between the two, and I had to grow up to be either, I would choose Ayn Rand. My first two sentences of this post support why I chose Ayn Rand, and it is an unfair answer, considering that I have not read either in great detail. I am CURRENTLY reading Ayn Rands "Atlas Shrugged" for the first time. This is the first Rand book I have read, and after being only halfway through it, I place it at the pinnacle of being the BEST work of literature I have ever read, based simply on personal impact of its words on myself. Never the less though, Atlas Shrugged is no small book. 1100 plus pages for a work of fiction, is quite monumental, but I don't regret reading one page yet, after 487 pages.

The differences in perspective and attitude between these two are the gulf that is between you and I. No strawman. This is our ongoing clashes in the form of competing philosophies. Take a little time to find out more about Camus and his life view and you will be finding out more about how I see and process the world around me. If you understand that, you understand what you claim you want to know, ie, how I come to the conclusions I reach.

By the way, Camus' book, The Plague, works for me the way Atlas Shrugged is begining to work for you. I suspect you will also fall in love with The Fountainhead.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins, I understand your point, but I have about 5 books to read ahead of another selection. That will make quite a long wait, to discuss the topic.

I was shocked at Rands book, because it simply reinforces a view that was around long before I knew about it, and it is always a pleasant suprise to see ones own views expressed by others, often time more eloquently than one could describe them ones self.

I do not seek to have others words prove my points, nor do I seek to live vicariously through them.

I can found, ground and base my logic in todays world, or the beginning of mans time on earth, in my own words. I ask you simply to offer me the same, if your intentions and opinions are indeed legitimate.

[lsbskins1]

Osborn-

That is a dodge. You are not any more or less original in thought or process than I am. I have supported my believes more than sufficiently many times. If you do not wish to avail yourself of a grounding in multiple areas of thought, that is you not doing rigiorous study, not me failing to support my contentions. If you do not speak the language, don't blame the one who can. I try to give you sourcing, you complain I don't teach you. Sorry I even tried.

[Osborn F Enready]

LOL, fine, well enough then.

I am offering mutual education, not one sided.

I am relying upon myself for my views, and can clearly define and enunciate every aspect of them. I am simply asking you to do the same, personally, and not through the works of others.

[CoffeeSaint]

Would you two be offended if I said I would rather strangle myself in the womb with my own umbilical cord than be born as either of those two people? Camus and Rand, that is -- I like both of you, from what little I know of you.

[lsbskins1]

I can understand wanting to self-abort if you knew you were going to grow up to be as bitter and self-centered as Rand. But Camus, though maybe a little tortured, was at least a bit of a romantic and heroic figure. I mean, he has a cool resume anyway. Editor of a resistence paper (Combat) in France during the Nazi occupation isn't, in and of itself, worthy of a life in your opinion? I mean, taken with his championing of the rights of the French colonials...? He was a man with ideals AND the courage of his convictions. Wha wrong wit dat?

[Autolykos]

Err... Ayn Rand didn't have ideals or the courage of her convictions?

I'm no fan of Ms. Rand, but give me a break. :rolleyes:

- Rob

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Autolykos Err... Ayn Rand didn't have ideals or the courage of her convictions? I'm no fan of Ms. Rand, but give me a break. :rolleyes: - Rob

Though I could see where you would make the assumption that that was how I saw Rand, I will state plainly that I believe she did have ideals, I just view them as warped ones. And though she had convictions, it does not take much (in my view) to shake your fist at the world and say, "Damnit! I matter! I matter so much I don't even really need to concern myself with you!"

[Osborn F Enready]

And once again, another thread dwindled down to total subjectivity.

Pick which opinion you like better, and we can call it "right".

LOL

[lsbskins1]

Damn-

Any political view you settle on is subjective. It depends on what you view as important, what factors you give more weight to, etc. Are you really bitchin' that people have different views of what is important in the world? We can discuss and debate this shit all day long, and some people will be swayed, some will be more firmly convinced they were right in the first place, and others will remain uncommitted.That is what you should expect. It would be unproductive and naive to expect that we will ever settle any issue to the satisfaction of all parties. If it were possible, don't you think we would all be Communists or Progressives or Libertarians or SOMETHING by now?

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: Are you really bitchin' that people have different views of what is important in the world?

I say:
No, simply the priority list.

We all have different views, and that is a great thing. That should be the MOST important thing. Without INDIVIDUALISM, we couldn't have different views.

It isn't so much about politics as its about what politics has tricked us out of, which is true quality of life in being an individual, living as you see fit. I mean in all governments too, not just ours.

[lsbskins1]

Quote by: Osborn F Enready I say: No, simply the priority list. We all have different views, and that is a great thing. That should be the MOST important thing. Without INDIVIDUALISM, we couldn't have different views. It isn't so much about politics as its about what politics has tricked us out of, which is true quality of life in being an individual, living as you see fit. I mean in all governments too, not just ours.

I wish I could remember who said this, but it is one of my favorites:

"You are gonna have to cripple that and walk it past me slow."

I don't get how you seeing different views as a great thing translates into you complaining about a thread being reduced to "total subjectivity" ? Can you 'splain that?

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: I don't get how you seeing different views as a great thing translates into you complaining about a thread being reduced to "total subjectivity" ? Can you 'splain that?

I say:
Sure, but, bear with me a bit? Also, to be fair, it isn't reduced to TOTAL subjectivity, just mostly.

You and I, are opposites you claim. You say it is because I cling to objectivism, or individualism, and place so much focus on the individual.

Look at the way you framed this threads question......

Who would you rather be?

First of all, that pre-supposes a choice of an individual. How does this fit in your ideology?

Secondly, you posted this:

Though I could see where you would make the assumption that that was how I saw Rand, I will state plainly that I believe she did have ideals, I just view them as warped ones. And though she had convictions, it does not take much (in my view) to shake your fist at the world and say, "Damnit! I matter! I matter so much I don't even really need to concern myself with you!"

It is almost blatant marginalization. "warped", assuming some lack of human compassion, yet never really defining why?

Yes, I don't understand how you were overly subjective at all....or how this was a thread to prop up the other debate about the use of force......


Our differences all revolve around force vs the individual.


I can show any person, including you, how important your views are to you, yet you still don't seem to recognize the wrongness of using force to make others give up their own views to follow another, or pay to fund another with the reward for their labor.

You seem to think force is "extinguishable" from mankind, without it coming of free will.

That is where the problem resides, hence my harping on the subjectivity of your views.




I am more than willing to compare differences, but you have to admit the shortcomings of yours as readily as I do mine.

I readily admit the shortcomings of my individualist and/or objectivist theory. They are manageable and can be addressed without removing the rights of the individual.

I can't even get you to address the shortcomings of your theory, so how can we reasonably debate them?

[lsbskins1]

The real short-coming of my view is that it requires people to want to be kind for it to really work.It requires that people respect and value others just as much as they value themselves. Not more, not less.Yyou want me to say that I value the group more and I will not, because it is not true. The golden mean, baby. The middle path. Equal opportunity employment. And people tend to the selfish. They lean that way because they falsely believe that it is more advantagous. It is hard to get people to be giving and caring. Hard, because selfish people run around telling them that the only way to be happy is to fight everyone else for the goodies.

You keep saying I do not respect the rights of the individual. I would completely disagree with that. What I do not do is elevate the rights of the individual to the point that they negate the ability of society to function in a manner that does not give advantage to a select few. That is the problem I have with objectivism. I believe strongly in individual rights. You are barking up the wrong tree.

[lsbskins1]

As to the issues of force and taking the labor of one to reward another: I believe your view is short-sighted.

Remember the idea of the free rider? If the many vote and elect to have the government remove taxes from their paychecks to build a road, all benefit from the road. If the government can not compell payment of the tax, those who refuse to pay get the public benefit, but bear none of the cost. Hence they are "free riders". This is not evidencing "respect for another", it is taking advantage of others for selfish gain, and is the reason government can compel tax payments. You are the one who is not "respecting others" in your policy. Again, no system can ever gain 100% agreement on any one given issue, much less on most. You have to relinquish rights to the many in some cases to gain the advantages of society. How is it that you do not see that? It is also true that you get advantage from social programs. In synopsis - The English Poor Law of 1601 is the first comprehensive example of government mandated social welfare and was the basis of English Law on the matter for about 250 years after it's passage. As the US based it's governance on English Common Law, this would have been controlling law for the ideas behind social policy at the time of our founding. This is not new shit. It is not an unknown concept to our system AS founded. When you claim that it is, you are simply and completely wrong. The Poor Law basically establishes government responsibility for caring for the poor, the orphaned and the indigent. And this is law that was developed specifically because private giving did not meet the need. And this in a time when charity came from tithing to your church and tithing was MANDATORY for all. (Bet the church compelled in pretty interesting ways....) But, that aside, government became involved because there is a cost in NOT taking care of others, even when it is others who possibly could work or be productive themselves. Some beg and/or steal and that costs you. You lose the property and the money you pay the police officers and the money you have to pay the doctor when they bonk you over the head to steal. It all costs. In the end, we have determined that it costs less to you and them and everyone if we all just pony up and divide the costs. You become a free rider when you refuse to bear your percentage of that cost as well.

[Osborn F Enready]

Isbskins said: If the many vote and elect to have the government remove taxes from their paychecks to build a road, all benefit from the road.

I say:
Only those who use the road, benefit. Only those who buy from the businesses that use the road, benefit. How am I BENEFITTING FROM MY TAX DOLLARS BEING SPENT ON THE BIG DIG IN BOSTON? I am not.

Isbskins said: If the government can not compell payment of the tax, those who refuse to pay get the public benefit, but bear none of the cost. Hence they are "free riders".

I say:
So isn't it more HONEST to have toll roads, since that would eliminate FREE RIDERS as well as eliminiate the tax burden on those who won't use or benefit from the road?

Why must one suffer for many? Why must many suffer for one? They don't have to.

Isbskins said: This is not evidencing "respect for another", it is taking advantage of others for selfish gain, and is the reason government can compel tax payments.

I say:
Once again, you draw conclusion without all options being reviewed, or even considered. Once again, subjectivity of your own views comes above the "others" liberty.

Isbskins said: You are the one who is not "respecting others" in your policy.

I say:
I respect all to have their own choices, and to not have to pay for something they ideologically don't support.

Isbskins said: You have to relinquish rights to the many in some cases to gain the advantages of society. How is it that you do not see that?

I say:
I don't have to do anything. I choose to do everything. You, nor government can force unless I ALLOW IT, I SANCTION IT. How can YOU not see THAT?

Isbskins said: It is also true that you get advantage from social programs

.

I say:
I don't. You may, as may others, I don't. That's why I don't pay it anymore than government FORCES ME TOO.

Isbskins said: In the end, we have determined that it costs less to you and them and everyone if we all just pony up and divide the costs.

I say:
Really, we did? Can you show me when and where we voted on that? Can you show me how government got the authority to take liberty that was not theirs to take?

Come on, be real.

[lsbskins1]

Your objections are based on the assumption that you do not gain from social programs. They are based on the assumption that the only real benefit is a direct line, no middle ground, benefit. Both of these assumptions are incorrect.

Lets take the Big Dig. You figure, you don't live in Boston, you don't work in Boston, you don't travel on Boston's roads, so they are not of any benefit to you. I say that is short sighted. You are a window washer, no? Maybe a trucking company is headquartered in the town in Ohio you live and work in. Maybe this trucking company will save x-thousand dollars a year in shipping fees once the Big Dig is completed. Maybe now, they wash their windows twice a month rather than once a month because of that savings. That, my friend, benefits you. Interstate commerce. Your federal dollars at work. If the Big Dig is funded solely by tolls, you are now a free rider.

There will be times some benefit comes to you you never pay for and times that you pay for something that never benefits you. There is no perfection in any system. Don't expect it. But, in balance, you benefit from our system. You can deny it, but it does not make it true. You are the one claiming harm. It should be your burden to show the harm.

[Aeris]

Ayn Rand, hands down.

I like her writing, I like the way she thinks. And anybody that independent in a world this complicated is someone who commands my respect.

And I've never much liked Camus' work.