iauiugu

iauiugu:

the-capitalist:

One can disagree with Objectivism, and that’s certainly okay. She did not believe “Fuck the poor people, let them die” either. Nothing, not even in her novels, is there remotely anything resembling such a belief, never mind as she goes on to discuss charity at some length. The belief is that charity was not a great virtue, but a minor virtue, and that it should be based, not on mindless duty, but a conscious act consistent with one’s values. What Rad said was, “My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

The premise in Objectivist ethics is that man should not live for the sake of another person, and primarily, that they should not accept as fact that their dutyis to live for other people. That is almost the entire focus of Objectivist ethics. It’s not that you can’t or shouldn’t help people. It’s that you shouldn’t throw yourself into the furnace as a matter of duty to whatever random standard of value that is given. 

I have read a passage of hers in which she describes a low-level worker as someone essentially mooching off of the brilliance and inventions of the creative-entrepreneurial class, which i find hard to see as anything but ‘fuck the poor,’ so i understand why so many people are convinced this is what she is suggesting —- plus reagan was fond of her writing and regardless of her negative feelings towards him, his policies, undoubtedly influenced by someone he was fond of, were pretty ‘fuck the poor’

Everything she wrote about work, any type of work, as long as you productive and use the capacity you have to achieve the highest level it takes you, then it it doesn’t matter what job it is. It’s the virtue of choosing productive work, in whatever field in whatever level, that’s the focus here. If you can find the passage, then I would like to see the context as well (it has been a long while since I’ve read through my Rand collection). I would imagine the context has to deal with an argument of the value between low-level workers and entrepreneurial because I am almost sure someone made an argument to her that the entrepreneurs owe it all to the low-level worker.

What she actually writes about careers is this:

“Productive work” does not mean the blind performance of the motions of some job. It means the conscious, rational pursuit of a productive career. In popular usage, the term “career” is applied only to the more ambitious types of work; but, in fact, it applies to all work: it denotes a man’s attitude toward his work.

The difference between a career-man and a job-holder is as follows: a career-man regards his work as constant progress, as a constant upward motion from one achievement to another, higher one, driven by the constant expansion of his mind, his knowledge, his ability, his creative ingenuity, never stopping to stagnate on any level. A job-holder regards his work as a punishment imposed on him by the incomprehensible malevolence of reality or of society, which, somehow, does not let him exist without effort; so his policy is to go through the least amount of motions demanded of him by somebody and to stay put in any job or drift off to another, wherever chance, circumstances or relatives might happen to push him.

In this sense, a man of limited ability who rises by his own purposeful effort from unskilled laborer to shop-foreman, is a career-man in the proper, ethical meaning of the word—while an intelligent man who stagnates in the role of a company president, using one-tenth of his potential ability, is a mere job-holder. And so is a parasite posturing in a job too big for his ability. It is not the degree of a man’s ability that is ethically relevant in this issue, but the full, purposeful use of his ability.

I didn’t know Rand had a complex reasoning for why accepting government money was acceptable, and it’s interesting to read about. I must admit though that I don’t understand how she could equate charity-as-a-primary-virtue with living for others, other than in the context of soviet propaganda convincing her they were inseparable. otherwise, the only people i can conceive as not get something out of helping others, as thoroughly denouncing charity as a virtue, as genuinely feeling like they’re completely living for others when acting with charity, are likely to be diagnosed with at least one anti-social disorder, if not disorder-level resentment and ignorance. had the majority of us humans been designed to be so callous, we would have gone extinct long ago.

I don’t know if she equated charity-as-primary-virtue with living with others. That could be a poor misinterpretation either on mine or yours. The point, I think, is that charity should not be a duty, just living for others is not a duty, i.e. that you must live your life living for others. I don’t think she equated as the primary virtue of altruism. I think she equated obedience to duty as the primary “virtue” of altruism.

with this belief, I don’t think there are as many anti-social people as there are ardent rand supporters, and that in most cases, disagreements on charity’s definition and place in society is more agreeable than most conceive. 

it does seem though that rand ultimately justified behavior that is equivalent to destroying a storefront in symbolic protest; the only difference is what the brick-thrower calls symbolic, Rand seems to have found ‘paradoxically’ virtuous. it seems she confused paradox and contradiction; after all, how could a business (or the government) know it’s taking too much power (or money) if you only show it a willingness to play up to its assumptions? an eye for an eye justifies, never solves.

The thing here is defining a paradox and a contradiction. In her philosophy, her statement is a paradox. It seems, as first, a contradiction to her philosophy, but it isn’t. Especially when one considers that your existence is in a country that, through contradictions, created a system where there are government benefits that run off of coerced taxation. She isn’t advocating “Go, TAKE IT!”. She’s advocating, “If it requires you to play by their rules, then you should recoup what has been taken from you, as long as you’re being intellectually honest about being against such government programs.” She doesn’t believe a person should be a victim twice, as I said. The paradox lies in that people think it is a contradiction against her political viewpoints, but when in context of her philosophy and of the philosophical climate, it is wholly consistent with the values of Objectivism. 

I always consider the fact that a person in poverty has often been forced to live on lower amounts of profit made from their productivity. Not just because of low-level work, but the amount of government interference that hurts their income, not only through taxes, but through minimum wages and inflation caused by bureaucracy that, otherwise, may not exist. Then, depending on his political views, he’s either going to be a parasite who wholeheartedly believes he is owed government assistance; or he’s an honest man who does not believe in such assistance, but is forced to do so to survive so he won’t become both the victim of coercion, and of forced starvation or whatever it may be. That judgement depends on a case-by-case basis. What’s inconsistent of Rand’s opponents is that they are okay with a parasite getting government assistance, but if someone who opposes them needs them, they will latch on and attack as if they were some villain, such as they do to Rand. 

goronsshopatdarmaniexchange

goronsshopatdarmaniexchange:

What’s also amazing are the lengths that objectivists and libertarians are willing to go to in order to defend Ayn Rand collecting government money.

They try to say that Ayn Rand’s philosophy allows for one to collect from “charity” (and evidently, social security from the government is included…

Look, the issue here is understanding, not only what Ayn Rand made clear, but also context. The context is this: If the majority of society has decided to allow for government programs to collect tax dollars in order to pay for the lives of the other, the view is that this is not only just immoral philosophically, but legalized theft because taxation requires coercion, i.e. the use of force. This, then, means that to turn down the money which was, by force, taken from you without consent would be making yourself the victim twice: Once by the immorality of the programs and theft. Twice by allowing the contradiction of the society’s philosophy to take away your profit from your productivity.

The reason why, within Objectivism, it is okay to accept social security (even though there has been ample enough evidence to prove: A) Ayn Rand certainly did not seek social security, as it was done by her lawyer and B) Ayn Rand certainly did not need social security), is that the contradictions of society should not be a cause for your suffering. In Ayn Rand’s view, it’s the people most adamantly against such programs that have a right to recoup what was taken from them. 

As Ayn Rand herself wrote: 

Many students of Objectivism are troubled by a certain kind of moral dilemma confronting them in today’s society. We are frequently asked the questions: “Is it morally proper to accept scholarships, private or public?” and: “Is it morally proper for an advocate of capitalism to accept a government research grant or a government job?”

I shall hasten to answer: “Yes”—then proceed to explain and qualify it. There are many confusions on these issues, created by the influence and implications of the altruist morality.

There is nothing wrong in accepting private scholarships. The fact that a man has no claim on others (i.e., that it is not their moral duty to help him and that he cannot demand their help as his right) does not preclude or prohibit good will among men and does not make it immoral to offer or to accept voluntary, non-sacrificial assistance.

A different principle and different considerations are involved in the case of public (i.e., governmental) scholarships. The right to accept them rests on the right of the victims to the property (or some part of it) which was taken from them by force.

The recipient of a public scholarship is morally justified only so long as he regards it as restitution and opposes all forms of welfare statism. Those who advocate public scholarships, have no right to them; those who oppose them, have. If this sounds like a paradox, the fault lies in the moral contradictions of welfare statism, not in its victims.

Since there is no such thing as the right of some men to vote away the rights of others, and no such thing as the right of the government to seize the property of some men for the unearned benefit of others—the advocates and supporters of the welfare state are morally guilty of robbing their opponents, and the fact that the robbery is legalized makes it morally worse, not better. The victims do not have to add self-inflicted martyrdom to the injury done to them by others; they do not have to let the looters profit doubly, by letting them distribute the money exclusively to the parasites who clamored for it. Whenever the welfare-state laws offer them some small restitution, the victims should take it . . . .

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of accepting social security, unemployment insurance or other payments of that kind. It is obvious, in such cases, that a man receives his own money which was taken from him by force, directly and specifically, without his consent, against his own choice. Those who advocated such laws are morally guilty, since they assumed the “right” to force employers and unwilling co-workers. But the victims, who opposed such laws, have a clear right to any refund of their own money—and they would not advance the cause of freedom if they left their money, unclaimed, for the benefit of the welfare-state administration.

The same moral principles and considerations apply to the issue of government research grants.

The growth of the welfare state is approaching the stage where virtually the only money available for scientific research will be government money. (The disastrous effects of this situation and the disgraceful state of government-sponsored science are apparent already, but that is a different subject. We are concerned here only with the moral dilemma of scientists.) Taxation is destroying private resources, while government money is flooding and taking over the field of research.

In these conditions, a scientist is morally justified in accepting government grants—so long as he opposes all forms of welfare statism. As in the case of scholarship-recipients, a scientist does not have to add self-martyrdom to the injustices he suffers.

One can disagree with Objectivism, and that’s certainly okay. She did not believe “Fuck the poor people, let them die” either. Nothing, not even in her novels, is there remotely anything resembling such a belief, never mind as she goes on to discuss charity at some length. The belief is that charity was not a great virtue, but a minor virtue, and that it should be based, not on mindless duty, but a conscious act consistent with one’s values. What Rad said was, “My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

The premise in Objectivist ethics is that man should not live for the sake of another person, and primarily, that they should not accept as fact that their dutyis to live for other people. That is almost the entire focus of Objectivist ethics. It’s not that you can’t or shouldn’t help people. It’s that you shouldn’t throw yourself into the furnace as a matter of duty to whatever random standard of value that is given. 

lillabet

lillabet:

the-capitalist:

moralanarchism:

lillabet:

the-capitalist:

moralanarchism:

the-capitalist said: It’s called Netflix.

Talking about new ones you anarchist wannabe fuck

Oh, this explains why you said you loved me. You backstabbing capitalist wannabe bastard. I WILL FUCK YOUR SHIT UP MOTHERFUCKER.

I’ll ship it.

Can we have a 3some?

I don’t share. She is mine. And I am heading to Louisiana to prove it. 

Tyler is pretty cute though

:D 

moralanarchism

moralanarchism:

the-capitalist:

moralanarchism:

lillabet:

the-capitalist:

moralanarchism:

the-capitalist said: It’s called Netflix.

Talking about new ones you anarchist wannabe fuck

Oh, this explains why you said you loved me. You backstabbing capitalist wannabe bastard. I WILL FUCK YOUR SHIT UP MOTHERFUCKER.

I’ll ship it.

Can we have a 3some?

I don’t share. She is mine. And I am heading to Louisiana to prove it. 

I didn’t want to share you…never mind her. 

I feel that she would not backstab me with angry speech and putting down my Netflix ideals.