[objectivism]

Survival? Not being over run by a facist regime?

Why do we want to survive? To live. Why? To fuflil our desries thus to be greedy.

How did you become such an expert on what everyone wants in life? That is amazing, as your obviously a psychic can you tell me if I'm getting the winning numbers on Saturday?

Your one to talk, how do you know money isnt want everyone even subconsciously desries? Just because people say its not does not mean they are telling you the truth or for that metter know the truth. What I advocate is the freedom to pursue what you want, thus maximum liberty possible (though with limits i.e my liberty ends where your face begins), however you advocate obligations to one another and thus a welfare state. I say if people want to give, let them, it may very well feed their ego's and make them feel good. Thus everyone gets what they want. Those who dont want to give dont, those who do want to give do. Whats wrong with that? All get what they want and deserve in life.

Furthermore the fact that you use the example of betting to gain money supports my point. Did you realise what example you were using or did you do it subconsciously?

I like programs about meerkats, does it mean I know everything about them?

No, but it means you can have a view on them I never said watching programs makes you know everything about the subject, merely it informs you and thus allows you to make a judgement, something you attacked by suggesting watching programs does not give you enough information to judge.When is there enogh infomration? Your using arbitary critiera.

But you said it was in these companies interests. Surely something that is that good shouldn't need incentive?

It would be in these companies interests if the state didnt fund education as they would require human capital.

Well I wish my council was digging up roads for the sake of it,

You obviously dont live in central London or the centre of any city for that matter.

because all the roads round here need resurfacing.

They can both be self-interested and incompetent. Irrational greed as already discussed.

you also get demoralisation, worse wages than in the private sector oh and lets not forget blamed for the fact kids don't do well.

As well as a monopoly. What does blame matter if you are primarily self-interested, why would you be demoralised if you know that your still going to get paid, still keep your job and people like you will still praise them. These people dont care because they are concered with their own interests. In a monoply this brings disaster, in the free market it brings prosperty and great results.

And your comments are contradictory, because you said business in schools, well, Westminister school is surely a charity, and I'm all for importing good ideas into the state sector, but thats not a business, it is a school with charitable status,

True but it functions like a business, thats my point. It receives invesment, if it does well, more people appy and attend, if it does badly people leave and its fails. Thus in practice it is a business, if not in theory. And it is the practice which matters because thats what actually affects peoples live.

I already acknowledge more commercial awareness esp, in senior management was a good thing.

Good

And if thinking like you is the alternative, I think I'll stay narrow minded and carrying on reading drivel.

What an ignorant comment to make.

I thought I'd leave this one till last for the pure absurdity of it. How can wanting to help others be an evil doctrine? And surely believing only in yourself shows less respect for human life than wanting everyone to experience the good you have.

This is a massive issue and deserves a separate thread never mind a separate post. I direct you to http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer

I may read your books, although I very much doubt my beliefs will change, have you challenged your belief in overriding individuality lately. How about John 15 v 12

'My command is this: Love each other as I have loved you'. To do so would to accept not just Christ but the idea of relgion, faith and irrationalism. Thus i reject your fundamental premise, furthermore the bible is riddled with contradictions. I studied Chrsitian theology at A Level and rejected it. Why dont you study objectivism and see if you reject it?

[rachaelmarie]

As well as a monopoly. What does blame matter if you are primarily self-interested, why would you be demoralised if you know that your still going to get paid, still keep your job and people like you will still praise them. These people dont care because they are concered with their own interests. In a monoply this brings disaster, in the free market it brings prosperty and great results.

Now I know you will have seen TV programs about this, but do you know anyone that works in the public sector. I'll run away now before the attacks start.

[DaftPunk]

Objectivism, grow up.

[objectivism]

(Original post by rachaelmarie)
Now I know you will have seen TV programs about this, but do you know anyone that works in the public sector. I'll run away now before the attacks start.

Yes i do know people who work in the public sector. And many of them come across as nice, but what they are doing is immoral. A person can be friendly to you but still be egotisitical. Also i think you put to much importance in knowing people in order to cast judgments on what they are doing. We can see the effects of public sector monopolies and than make judgements. Public secotor monopolies encourage corruption, waste, higer wages than the market level, too much union power, and unproductivity as there is no competition or profit motive.

[objectivism]

(Original post by DaftPunk)
Objectivism, grow up.

Well thats a productive comment.

[rachaelmarie]

Yes i do know people who work in the public sector. And many of them come across as nice, but what they are doing is immoral.

Immoral in the sense that they are deliberatly doing something that is wrong or immoral in the sense that you don't agree with the public sector so against your moral code?

Also i think you put to much importance in knowing people in order to cast judgments on what they are doing.

I was just asking, I agree there is a lot of room for reform, I just don't think that wholesale destruction is the way to go.

see the effects of public sector monopolies and than make judgements. Public secotor monopolies encourage corruption, waste, higer wages than the market level, too much union power, and unproductivity as there is no competition or profit motive.

Its quite scary how much of that I agree with.
Some of the time yes, although at base level in council offices I'm not sure about corruption although it probably happens. And public sector unions obviously aren't as powerful in the past and I agree with unproductivity (esp after I spent an hour in a hospital waiting room for a test that took 30 seconds) but I don't think getting rid of the public sector cures the problem, it would just shift the problem so its reforms not destruction.

[DaftPunk]

No really, you need to grow up. Even if you are entirely motivated by selfishness and feel the need to justify it with insane capitalist pseudo-philosophy, doesn't mean everyone else is. If you see your family, your friends, the people you love as nothing more than means to making you happy, well, I find that rather sad. And thats not wishy-washy sentimentality, thats a real and undeniable feature of human experience. Humans are capable of remarkable feats of selflessness and sacrifice, and your philosophy simply cannot make sense of that.

[rachaelmarie]

Nicely put.

Why can't I be that eloquent?

[JonnyB]

Of course it is, I'm number one.

[objectivism]

No really, you need to grow up.

You need to grow intellectully.

Even if you are entirely motivated by selfishness and feel the need to justify it with insane capitalist pseudo-philosophy, doesn't mean everyone else is.

If so they are wrong. I reject subjectivity and relativism. I believe greed is good and all are naturally greedy and a good thing too.

If you see your family, your friends, the people you love as nothing more than means to making you happy, well, I find that rather sad. And thats not wishy-washy sentimentality, thats a real and undeniable feature of human experience. Humans are capable of remarkable feats of selflessness and sacrifice, and your philosophy simply cannot make sense of that.

What you see as selflessness is really just egoism. Why does a soldier sacrfice his life in battle? For honour, he wants to feed his ego. All are greedy, just some are more aware of it than others.

[DaftPunk]

You need to grow intellectully.

Yes, probably I do. You, however, need to grow emotionally. Given that you did not contend it in my last post, clearly you do regard your friends and family as means towards your own happiness. Not only is this rather saddening, it also is indicative of emotional immaturity on your part.

If so they are wrong. I reject subjectivity and relativism. I believe greed is good and all are naturally greedy and a good thing too.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that the final sentence in this quote doesn't actually make sense, let us consider what you are actually saying. You believe that naturally everyone is greedy and that greed is therefore good. Why? Simply beacuse people are greedy does not imply that people ought to be greedy. Is your argument a utilitarian one; that we ought to be greedy because it maximises wealth? Well, this is wrong, beacuse a maximisation of wealth does not imply a maximisation of utility. Utility would be more efficiently maximised by a degree of redistribution.

What you see as selflessness is really just egoism. Why does a soldier sacrfice his life in battle? For honour, he wants to feed his ego. All are greedy, just some are more aware of it than others.

I think the absurdity of this point speaks for itself. Soldiers throwing themselves on grenades and killing themselves to 'feed their egos' may just be the silliest thing I've ever heard.

[objectivism]

Yes, probably I do.

Theres no 'probably' about it.

Putting aside for a moment the fact that the final sentence in this quote doesn't actually make sense, let us consider what you are actually saying.

It makes perfect sense:
1. People are greedy
2. This is good

Im not saying its good because people are greedy, because that would be circular. Rather its effects are good.

Is your argument a utilitarian one; that we ought to be greedy because it maximises wealth? Well, this is wrong, beacuse a maximisation of wealth does not imply a maximisation of utility. Utility would be more efficiently maximised by a degree of redistribution.

Utilty judges an action right in propotion to the amount of happiness it produces, wrong in the amount of unhappiness it produces. The problem with utilty is that it is out of touch with reality - one man's happiness is another mans sadness. It fails to take into account individual differences. Thus what maximise happiness is choice and what creates choice is wealth and it is greed which creates wealth. We ought to be greedy because it produces wealth which produces freedom and freedom brings happiness. Utilty does not bring happiness not only because it diminishes liberty but because it leads to scapegoats being made. For example utilty holds that if a murderer is loose, it is acceptable for the state to arrest an innocent person and put them away in order to make the people happy. But if the people should find out, it leads to greater unhappiness as they fear for their own safety from the state. This is partailly why Mill despite claiming to be a utilatrain of the Bentham type believed in great liberty for people, so they ould be free to pursue their ends. Furthermore if people have great freedom i.e. 40% of their wealth is not being redistributed, they rely on themslves more thus use their individuality whihc leads to more conflict in society and as Mill argues it is this which leads to progress. I beleive progress is good unlike say Rousseau, who beleived it was bad because greed produced it. But what does this matter as long as more people have freedom, food, shelters etc.

I think the absurdity of this point speaks for itself. Soldiers throwing themselves on grenades and killing themselves to 'feed their egos' may just be the silliest thing I've ever heard.

This is in fact Hobbes' point. I suggest you read Leviathan. It is possible to both be egotistical and have desires which are in conflict with ones self preservation. Man is naturally selfish and egotisitcal and we all know this even if it is only subconsciously, if not why do we lock our doors? Because we dont trust others as we know they are like us - egotistical. Of course it claimed humans are selfless, those that are void of altruism (like me) are 'bad apples' created by government as Roussea claims. If this is the case, why did the state emerge in the first place if there were no 'bad apples'?

[bikerx23]

(Original post by OldakQuill)
Become materialistic! Human beings always have been - greed and selfishness is a Darwinian necessity to survival.

What??? how did you come up with that? There is no darwinian necessity to greed or selfishness - if you look at a pride of lions...when one lion goes off and kills an animal of some description - what do they do? your suggestion would suggest that following a kill, that lion would scoff the whole lot themselves - which is simply not the case.
You may be confusing this with the "alpha male" syndrome...but you know how much a guy is gonna give for a shag, and blokes will be blokes....
but returning to a serious point there - alpha male is a reproductive characteristic which is only produced in order to maintain your family line - that is life instinct, not greed or selfish or materialistic.
Trust me...i'm a geologist.

p.s. personally - i think its great!

[objectivism]

[QUOTE=rachaelmarie]Immoral in the sense that they are deliberatly doing something that is wrong or immoral in the sense that you don't agree with the public sector so against your moral code?

By joining the public sector they do wrong and commit immoralty. I do not beleive in this trendy notion of its right for them but wrong for me due to my moral code as i reject relatavism and recognise their actions affect me e.g they waste my money.

Some of the time yes, although at base level in council offices I'm not sure about corruption although it probably happens. And public sector unions obviously aren't as powerful in the past

True thanks to Thatcher but they stil have too much power.

and I agree with unproductivity (esp after I spent an hour in a hospital waiting room for a test that took 30 seconds)

Its good to see you agree with so much.

but I don't think getting rid of the public sector cures the problem, it would just shift the problem so its reforms not destruction.

Shift the problem? The problems are caused by the nature of the public sector namely a monoply. In a true free market this does not occur due to competition. If people realise they will lose their jobs if they do not perform they will become more productive, at present there is no alternative for most thus they will always have a 'market'. I dont see why you think it would just shift the problem, it would diminish it greatly.

[rachaelmarie]

By joining the public sector they do wrong and commit immoralty.

You have got to be joking, I'm assuming you would apply all this to all public sector workers, bin men, hospital cleaners, teachers, prison guards? How are these people committing an immorality?

Shift the problem?

Ok lets for a minute imagine, we lived in your world, so I'm assuming the theory is we all keep our own money and if it is in our mutal interest to collect rubbish to keep our streets clean, we do. However I live next to you and I think educating my children is more important than keeping our street clean. So I leave my rubbish to pile up in the garden. You suffer the smell, dirt, disease and other consequences of that.

That is why we have a public sector. There are certain things that we need compelling to do.

What you see as selflessness is really just egoism. Why does a soldier sacrfice his life in battle? For honour, he wants to feed his ego. All are greedy, just some are more aware of it than others.

Now I've never been to war and I'm assuming you haven't either, so while you may throw yourself on a grenade to feed your ego, I'd be doing it (I hope, if I had the courage) to save someone else.

Don't think just because your egotestical and selfish we all are.

[Tomorrow2Day]

Here is perhaps the fundamental problem with the "greed is good" philosophy. Imagine that you inhabit a small house in a small town. Another man wants the house. If he kills you there are no negative consequences for him and he gets the house. Killing you and taking that house is the most rational and effective way in which his greedy desire for your house can be fulfilled. You are powerless to stop him killing you - you do not have any means by which to fulfil your greedy desire to remain alive and in possession of your house. In short, he has the power and you do not - so his greed results in an end to yours.

If greed is good, this situation is impossible. But what is impossible about it? We know people who own nothing and cannot defend themselves and we know people who legitimately or illegitimately exercise coercive power. When it is in the interests of the powerful man to crush the weak, the weak are crushed. Were you the weak, you would not espouse such a philosophy. As such you cannot apply it universally.

[objectivism]

You have got to be joking, I'm assuming you would apply all this to all public sector workers, bin men, hospital cleaners, teachers, prison guards? How are these people committing an immorality?

Because they are being funded through the proceeds of compulsory taxation and thus stolen money. If a you were mugged but you knew the money was going to cancer research, does that make it ok?

Ok lets for a minute imagine, we lived in your world, so I'm assuming the theory is we all keep our own money and if it is in our mutal interest to collect rubbish to keep our streets clean, we do. However I live next to you and I think educating my children is more important than keeping our street clean. So I leave my rubbish to pile up in the garden. You suffer the smell, dirt, disease and other consequences of that.

I never said there would be no laws. Just like today people who cause such annoyance are punished by the law. If they refused they would go to prison. But what if people cant afford it? This is unlikely given that the government would not be takeing such a massive amount of wealth. Furthermore chairty would increase as i explain in my past posts on the 'taxation is theft' thread. Also communities could hire private companies to maintain their streets, though they would be under no compulsion thus such a scheme would be just. It may be the case that some would just refuse to participate but they still get the advantages. But dosent that happen now? My family have piad thosands in taxes yet we have never used state schools or hospitals. My proposals minimise these injustices signigicantly. Lastly would you allow your morals to be changed on the basis of collecting rubbish? If so i think you need to get things into perspective.

Now I've never been to war and I'm assuming you haven't either, so while you may throw yourself on a grenade to feed your ego, I'd be doing it (I hope, if I had the courage) to save someone else.

How do you know that? After all your someone who puts so much importance into experiencing things in order to offer a judgement.

Don't think just because your egotestical and selfish we all are.

Please read Leviathan than come back to me.

[rachaelmarie]

How do you know that? After all your someone who puts so much importance into experiencing things in order to offer a judgement.

Well did I not put hopefully? Maybe you should have gone to state school.

[objectivism]

(Original post by rachaelmarie)
Well did I not put hopefully? Maybe you should have gone to state school.

My point is that how would you in that situation hope to sacrifice yourself as all are egotistical, something you have failed to disprove, this is why i make that comment and go onto suggest you read Levithan which shows how wrong you are.

State school? No thanks im glad i got a good education, it give me the chance to go to one of the top uni's in Europe (i wouldnt say world as im modest, though id be correct to say so) which is alot better than most. Furthermore school is not just about education its about your attitude. Generally comps put their pupils down, while public schools rightly encourage their pupils.

I also notice you ignore my actual arguments in favour of making a personal jibe, i think this shows the hollowness of your claims.

[objectivism]

[QUOTE=Tomorrow2Day]Here is perhaps the fundamental problem with the "greed is good" philosophy. Imagine that you inhabit a small house in a small town. Another man wants the house. If he kills you there are no negative consequences for him and he gets the house. Killing you and taking that house is the most rational and effective way in which his greedy desire for your house can be fulfilled. You are powerless to stop him killing you - you do not have any means by which to fulfil your greedy desire to remain alive and in possession of your house. In short, he has the power and you do not - so his greed results in an end to yours. QUOTE]

And here is the fundamental problem with your argument. It would not be in a persons interest to kill someone. Firstly they would face prison (i have never advocated anarchy) thus their freedom to purse their greedy desires. Secondly if they can go and kill someone for their property, someone can come and kill them for their property. Thus all rationally greedy (this term has been discussed in my past posts) accept certain social norms. If the man does not want to remain alive than fine but just because he dosent want to live dose not give the green light for 'a war of all against all' and this does not emege. If i kill myself there will not be a sudden break out of people killing one another.

We know people who own nothing and cannot defend themselves and we know people who legitimately or illegitimately exercise coercive power

.

You seem to think that the idea of greed is good does away with the state and law and order. This is wrong as greed cant be achived in a state of nature as people would be so busy protecting themselves, they would not have the time to gain wealth. Thus the state is conductive to the 'greed is good' philosophy, it allows it to develop.

When it is in the interests of the powerful man to crush the weak, the weak are crushed. Were you the weak, you would not espouse such a philosophy. As such you cannot apply it universally.

Your view of the weak versus the strong is wrong. We are roughly equal in ability and it is always possible for the weak to unite to beat the strong and the strong are not always strong for example when they sleep.

Who said its in the interests of the strong to crush the weak? Its in the interests of the 'strong' to have the weak powerful, for example, if they are weak they can't buy or make the products the 'strong' produce, thus it is conductive to their greed not to crush them. Also if the weak are crushed it leads to revolution as history shows thus in order to maintain the regime which is most conductive to their interests i.e. allow them to fulfil their greed, they have no reason to crush the weak, in fact the opposite is the case. And the best regime for all is a pure capitalist system, but that perhaps belongs in the 'taxation is theft' thread.