>> ^blankfist:

>> ^NetRunner:
I wonder which political philosophy they'll use as the great evil this time.

Bioshock 1: Objectivism.
Bioshock 2: Collectivism.
Bioshock 3: Imperialism.
I'm guessing.


Based on what I've read of this new Bioshock game, I agree. Based on how many American flags they've got, I suspect we'll get some American Exceptionalism and nationalism too.

Plus a few whacks at the way America likes to force countries to engage in "free" trade.

>> ^NetRunner:

I wonder which political philosophy they'll use as the great evil this time.


Bioshock 1: Objectivism.
Bioshock 2: Collectivism.
Bioshock 3: Imperialism.

I'm guessing.

I didn't mind playing through it to be honest, the philosophical warblings on objectivism versus collectivism were interesting enough to keep me going.

Not to mention the gameplay mechanics mix of FPS and RPG was great in the original and somewhat improved in the second with minor but meaningful touches such as the hacking system and being able to dual wield weapons and plasmids.

But he's right that it didn't bring enough originality to the table. I wouldn't write it off with the likes of other bad sequels though, I think it's still a step up from that.

The real problem with Objectivism is that it's completely and utterly unrealistic...just like Communism. Likely this is due to the fact that Objectivism wasn't created as a philosophy on its own merits, it was created solely in an attempt to ensure that Communism would [not]* affect anyone else. Rand was profoundly twisted by her family's interactions with a Communist government, but that hardly excuses turning a blind eye to every possible good that government might accomplish.

If nothing else, plain history shows that private enterprise does -not- solve every problem...every single case of "the commons" is not going to be solved without some collective action (read that as government). Pollution...in the absence of regulations forcing the external costs to be paid by the producer, it's always cheaper to dump toxic wastes than to be clean. It's always cheaper for a for-profit insurance company to refuse to pay than it is to provide health care for the seriously ill. Private enterprise does well when people have many choices of fungible products...it fails utterly when they don't.

Rand was a loon, and those who swallow this koolaid are either willfully blind, or delusional.

* Edited to add the missing "not" in that statement the first time through.

I wonder if the author of that column supports Obama?

I'm not sure what his version of rightists believe in or don't believe in, but as for Libertarians, which is what I am, most do believe in Objectivism. It's a good sounding principle, but Rand believed in war and violence from what I know of her, so I cannot say I believe in her positions, to be honest.

Libertarians, however, certainly do not hate immigrants or Hollywood. I believe in open borders and I live in Los Angeles. Kind of a sweeping generalization on the columnists part, and I'm sure I'd probably not fit tidily into his narrow-minded right-wing paradigm.

It's an interesting albeit shallow article. But remember, he writes opinion columns!

In reply to this comment by dag:
Thought you might enjoy this article:
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/143205/right-wingers_believe_ayn_rand%27s_every_word,_but_they_forget_she_wrote_fiction

Didn't the late William F. Buckley dismantle Rand's Objectivism in an article which explained why charity was actually one of the cornerstones of Conservatism?

Anyway I recently worked with a guy in his early 20's who was extremely intelligent and accomplished (attending San Fran Conservatory of Music) who was a rabid Ron Paul / von Mises / Ayn Rand disciple.

He could spout volumes of theory, philosophy and history to back up his arguments, but when it came to everyday common sense stuff he was ignorant, like he didn't know if a job paying $26,000/yr was considered a lot of money or not, or that the name of the tool you use to "turn things" was called a crescent wrench.

Turns out he was the son of a self-made millionaire, he would take jobs doing manual labor for a few months as kind of a lark, believing that he was experiencing 'real life' when in fact he was insulated from working class reality by daddy's millions.

Interesting guy, fascinating discussions, but ultimately he was living in fantasy land.

>> ^gtjwkq:
>> ^KnivesOut:
I don't think ponce was disparaging Objectivism or Rand, I think he was musing at the idea that QM would defend it, when he's clearly (from his posting history) not even remotely in that ideological camp.
I didn't think that either. He was insinuating that QM was an objectivist, I was pointing out that it clearly isn't possible given that QM is a christian (AFAIK). The ridicule I mentioned is from the video.


Uh, AFAIK QM is neither a christian nor an objectivist. They seem to most consistently be a troll, save for the rare occasions in which they break character.

>> ^dgandhi:
>> ^chilaxe: Statistically speaking
If you are going to speak statistically, show us the numbers. I would honestly like to see them, but I doubt they exist.

Yes, there probably aren't any statistics available, but media coverage generally regards Rand's followers as skewing toward self-reliant, libertarian types who emphasize performance.* It would be surprising if an ideology that glorifies self-reliance wasn't associated with increased self-reliant attitudes.

I think it's generally most rewarding for people to read everything, with the goal of being 'informationally a mile wide,' but those who are disinclined are free to reject the lessons in objectivist themes. IMHO, that just means more advantages available for those who draw from a broader sample of the marketplace of ideas, and that's really how the system is supposed to work. So rail against objectivism to your heart's content


*

Many business leaders say Atlas Shrugged influenced their lives more than anything else they have read. Joe Stafford, the 40-year-old CEO of supply chain management company IC Solutions, said he was a liberal before reading Rand at 23. Chip Joyce, the 31-year-old president of Ulla Bazant, a maker of high-end women's apparel, says the book has been his "frame of reference." http://www.usatoday.com/money/companies/management/2002-09-23-ayn-rand_x.htm

Hugh Hefner and Supreme Court Judge Clarence Thomas found Rand fascinating. Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban and Whole Foods CEO John Mackey both cite Rand’s books as influential, though Mackey has said he doesn’t believe businesses exist solely to make a profit and selfishness is a virtue. In Silicon Valley, Rand’s ideas appeal to generations of entrepreneurs who built the computer industry and the Internet. T.J. Rodgers, CEO of Cypress Semiconductor, is a notorious Rand fan; Patrick W. Grady named his company Rearden Commerce after the steel magnate Hank Rearden from Atlas. http://www.bnet.com/2403-13056_23-272467.html

>> ^KnivesOut:
I don't think ponce was disparaging Objectivism or Rand, I think he was musing at the idea that QM would defend it, when he's clearly (from his posting history) not even remotely in that ideological camp.

I didn't think that either. He was insinuating that QM was an objectivist, I was pointing out that it clearly isn't possible given that QM is a christian (AFAIK). The ridicule I mentioned is from the video.

While there are interesting ideas within Ayn Rand's books, I would highly recommend a small treatise on her, and her "movement" as detailed by Michael Shermer in his book "Why People Believe Weird Things" - Part 2: Pseudoscience and Superstition, Chapter 8: The Unlikeliest Cult: Ayn Rand, Objectivism, and the Cult of Personality.

>> ^gtjwkq:
^ Nice going, I think you just wasted your "argument from intimidation" on a christian
This kind of ridicule speaks more of the impotence of her critics than anything else


I don't think ponce was disparaging Objectivism or Rand, I think he was musing at the idea that QM would defend it, when he's clearly (from his posting history) not even remotely in that ideological camp.

danny

"Perhaps if i was able to have a conversation with someone who knew it back to front, then i would be able to give a better opinion on whether or not it would work."

Go ahead, ask any question you want. I will converse with you. I don't know everything about it, but I have agreed with and advocated it without regrets for 43 years.

But first be clear that you are only dealing in this particular issue with one portion of her philosophy, politics. And that politics is not a stand-alone set of principles. Its validity depends entirely on the more fundamental branches of Objectivism that define the nature of existence (metaphysics), the nature of our means of grasping and retaining our knowledge of existence (epistemology), and given the nature of those and of human beings (in principle), by what standards we should measure our choices of thought and action in our quest to survive and thrive in accordance with our nature as the beings that we are (ethics).

That is just a peek at the monumentality of the subject. But you do not have to be an Olympic swimmer before you can wade into the shallows. Also, it doesn't make any difference where you start. If you have an open, honest mind, it will take you where you need to go.

Since politics is at the top of your present interest list, start here:

Capitalism is not right because it works. Rather, it works because it is right. It is right because it is derived from and dependent on a proper definition of the nature of human beings. To wit: Life or death is the fundamental alternative for all living entities. Humans are the only living beings that cannot pursue either alternative by their automated bodily functions alone. Our unique means of survival is our capacity to know the nature of existence and to choose the actions we take to deal with it - i.e., we are rational, volitional beings.

If one chooses the alternative goal of death, no ethical or political system is needed. But if one chooses to live -- to survive and thrive -- then life itself becomes ipso facto the standard of measure for all of your choices of how to think and act and what values to pursue - your ethics. If you lived outside of any society, your ethic -- your moral rights and wrongs would be your only governor. You would succeed or fail in accordance to how correctly or incorrectly your ethic was defined and implemented in your daily life.

But when humans live together in a society and interact in long term relationships, a problem arises. The volition that enables us to choose, inherently enables us to err. The autonomy one would have over one's own life outside a society can be destroyed in a society by the sole enemy of freedom, physical force. Therefore, in order to extend a proper human ethics in the context of the life of an individual into the context of a society of men, coercion by physical force must be removed from human interactions and all exchanges of values among men must be voluntary.

Now re-read the defining principle of Rand's radical capitalism as I stated it in my comment above. That is a moral principle. If you can undermine the logic of the morality underpinning that principle, we can begin to talk about capitalism not working. But, if you can't, you should begin to look deeper into it than you have. For if autonomy is a moral prerequisite, then our present political system that condones the use of coercion by majorities to take what they want from minorities is the system that does not work. It does not work primarily because it is immoral. And the left and right are equally guilty. Only the kinds of tyranny they favor differ.

Note also, that it is a dangerous leap from being unable to imagine how a system you understand so little would function to the claim that it simply would not work at all. Your intolerance of bastards is a suitable example. What Rand achieves in her system is that bastards may continue to be bastards in spades, because they have in her system no access to power. The government in her system has but one job and no other: rid the nation of coercion. No one can acquire anything from anybody in such a society without enticing them to trade it to them voluntarily.

And keep in mind, that autonomy is the freedom to exercise your own volition, which is a freedom to be fallible yourself that you must grant others as well. To be a good capitalist, you must tolerate the absolute right of others to be as irrational as they want so long as they do not force it on you or anyone else.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'ayn rand, donahue' to 'ayn rand, donahue, Objectivism' - edited by kronosposeidon

>> ^imstellar28

It has been the custom for a long time to only cross post to the main page if the topic is directly related to the website itself, or to only post it in the relevant channel if otherwise. Now, that could of course be spelled out more clearly in the FAQ, but you have been around for so long now that I thought you would have noticed. Don't start acting like your toes have been stepped on if an admin then does justifications to the post that you yourself thought would be done automatically to make the front page more user friendly.

Now, I appreciate you sharing a free piece of literature with us. Heck, I'll even grant you a *quality for it. But don't expect people to take a lot of time out of their busy schedule to read the whole thing before being allowed to discuss the topic. This is called Sift TALK, which means that it is a forum for talking. If people want to talk, that's what they'll do. If that talk goes a little outside of the scope of the book, so be it.

Personally, I think all this labeling of different ideologies serves only to obscure the issues of what works or not. I only notice that I live in a scandinavian society that has been built up since WW2 to become the best place in the world to live by most social markers. Whether you want to label that socialism or social democracy or liberalism or whatnot doesn't really bother me. I understand that you object to our high taxation on moral grounds, but I don't subscribe to objectivism myself. (Pardon me if I misrepresent your views.)

But since you apparently don't want to talk about this despite posting it in Sift Talk, I'll leave off here.

I feel pretty good about the Scandinavian system, which is about as close to socialism as you can get. I can live considerably below the 38k that peggedbea mentions, as a single student I get about $6000 a year (a YEAR) and I do fine. Even if I have an accident, my hospital bill is payed. If I get really sick, I can just wander down to the local doctor and get it checked at no cost to me.

Objectivism says it's immoral to be altruistic, but it's just not thought through - when I'm weak financially I can use all the help I can get, and when I'm strong financially I can sacrifice a bit to make up for what I needed (or will need) when I was weak.

The problem with the American tax, as I see it, is that you get very little for it. We pay much more in tax - I pay about 40 percent, and that's minimum (it's a progressive tax, so those who earn more pay a larger %) and I get quite a lot for it. If all the money the country "earns" from taxes goes to, for instance, foreign occupation and the military, no fucking wonder people want tax cuts.