GREENSPAN SAYS A.R.M. LOANS reason for economy issues

[yodajazz]

Ok, let's try this again.

The more I look at Ayn Rand, the more fascist she appears. But it's more than that. It's not just corporate control of government, but an elitist monopoly control of upper society with a caste system for everyone who isn't able to force their way to the top. She was a feudalist. The egoist philosophy is a disdain for the general population, with "property rights" taking precedence over human rights.

Democracy is rampant collectivism & therefore anathema to egoism. I see no reason to think it would be far fetched for a Randian egoist like Greenspan to seek the position of the most powerful banker in the world. To have the power to bring down the whole world's financial structure with just a few words. Wealth is power, & vice versa. Overreaching? Not for an egoist.

First of all there is a distinction to be made between a self-destructive egoist and a rational one. No rational person wants a rule of law (or lack thereof) that allows one person to violate the rights of another.

Further, at no point in our history have we had an actual Democracy, nor should any rational person advocate for one. In an actual democracy the simply will of the majority is seen as the absolute rule. There can be no constitutional safeguards such as we have, as the sovereignty of the simple majority would not allow for it.

If anything, a rational egoist (or objectivist) would want as little government as possible, leaving you free to live your life to your own potential. They simply do not want to be encumbered by the desires of the mindless herd. She actually hates anarchy, and advocates police, courts, etc to protect the rights of people. What she doesn't believe in is forced taxation.

Her philosophy is not about wealth or power, rather it is about the potential of the individual, which happens to be anathema to collectivist desires.

As for "property rights", everything including your life and liberty is viewed as property rights, and have been since way back when. It is the idea that your life is your property to do with as you will, so long as you do not tread upon the rights of another. We have not quite followed that logic to its end point, but we can always hope for evolution to take hold.

After reading your statement on democracy and "property rights", I would say that the United States was founded maybe more on the concept of individual rights as it was on democracy. I'm not sure if the 'purer' form of democracy ever existed or not, but then that is not that important.

...
PS- Your argument about pragmatic government is flawed. Dictatorships work quite efficiently at times, especially heavy handed ones. That doesn't mean we should adopt one.

Your argument about dictatorships working effeciently is debatable, in light of the fact that they violate many people's individual rights. Certainly, no one could argue against hurting another person as anyone's rights. The real debate is on what is a 'right'.

But here in the US there has long been a philosophy that persons can unfairly accumulate too much wealth to the detriment of others. Or another way to say it, is that a business practice could be considered 'unfair competition'. This in the basis of 'anti trust laws'. This concept has been downplayed in recent years. I would credit the downplay of the concept to the rise of corporate influence in government.
The fact that anti trust concept has not been used as much does not mean that it is not a useful concept. I see the 'smaller government' idea as one that is afraid (or whatever word you wish to use) to address the issue of unfair business practices.

So this ties in with something that Trish said about their being government, i.e. someone making the rules whether or not it is the actual government making the rules. So your 'smaller government' is essentially a place where money interests can make thier own rules.

[NYBURBS]

The monopolies that you refer to come about because the government helps to create them in the first place. Then of course it must come in later to undo what it has done, invoking anti-trust laws in the process.

Look for instance at the most unregulated entity in the world, the Internet. Thus far we have managed to evade much if any government interference here and it has flourished. Countless small businesses have opened up and regular every day people, along with big business, have found ways to make money from it.

As for the dictatorship argument, as I said I would never advocate one. Yet I pointed it out to refute Trish's assertion that pragmatism should be the way to go. It is often more effective to ignore the rights of one person in order to further the interest of others. Such is often the idea behind collectivist ideas also.

Finally "big government" is more likely to be used to the detriment of individuals than small government. You are taking the force of law and using it to apply the will of some upon others. There is a difference between laws that enforce "natural law" i.e., don't murder, rob, destroy property, etc, and other laws that seek to take one person's property and forcefully redistribute it to another.

[trish]

Don't look now, but there is no natural law against murder nor a natural law that even recognizes property let alone dictates against stealing. What is this metaphysical relationship between a person and an object that is called property? Is there a test for it? Can it be measured? The notion of property is by its very nature a social construction. You only own what you own because your community has agreed its yours. There's no amount of metaphysical mumbo jumbo that makes it intrinsically yours.

In all societies the less powerful labor to feed the appetites of the more powerful. Where there is a gradient of power, money flows across the gradient from the less powerful to the more powerful. The flow constitutes a perpetual redistribution of the products of labor. In modern representational republics, some of that power is distributed to the producers and laborers reducing the magnitude of the gradient and hence reducing the rate of monetary flow and thereby allowing the a middle class to grow within the flux. The power that the lower and middle classes have is through their representatives in government. Without government, they have no leverage and they're back to being serfs. Whether it's small government or big, effective government must reduce the gradient of power between people, reduce the rate of flow of the products of labor that always goes from the less to the more powerful and raise the standard of living for those whose power is only through their representatives.

[NYBURBS]

There are two main types of criminal law, that which is wrong because it naturally is, and that which is wrong because we say it is. This is a widely accepted breakdown of penal code laws. Murder, robbery, assault, arson, damage to property, etc are deemed to be within the first of those categories. Therefore I and many others would argue that it does indeed exist. What would fit into the second, for example, would be laws against gambling, prostitution, and consensual sodomy.

I am aware of the liberal/statist argument that there are no absolute rights or laws and that anything is open to the interpretation of the collective masses. I am most certainly opposed to this view, as I believe there are natural and inalienable rights and even laws.

As for this "back to being serfs" argument, it is the notion of altruism and obedience to the collective good that brought about that institution. It is the notion of inalienable individual rights that brought about its downfall. That some still push to revert back to this collective allegiance does not change the past.

Any grant of power came from your precious collective allowing it. Nobles and lords of the land became so because of a grant of power through the force of law. It was a forced taking of property from one to give to another. Such is the principal of socialism, communism, fascism, etc.

If something is a good idea then rational people can agree to contribute toward it without having it forced upon them through law. Certainly people contribute all the time toward private institutions that further what they perceive to be worthy goals.

[hippifried]

Ayn Rand was just another philosophical crackpot. No different from the rest of the philosophical crackpots that have plagued mankind since the time of oral tradition. I put the cutoff there because prior to that, the children hadn't invented enough language for bullshitters to pretend to be logical.

There's 2 prime hardwired instincts that control the actions of every critter on the planet, including hairless apes. Sometimes they conflict, but they're part of us all.

Egoism is based in the survival instinct. It really doesn't take anything else into consideration. To deny altruism as part of our nature, is to deny our instinctual drive to propagate & survive as a species, & therefore deny our nature. We don't have fangs or claws. We're slow. We're not natural predators. We're natural omnivorous scavengers & prey to the real predators. In order to survive & to protect our progeny, we gather in social collectives. Nobody can find any evidence that we've ever lived any other way.

This is where I believe a 3rd instinct comes in. There's a "universal code of human interaction" (the code) that allows us to live in close proximity to each other, & nearly all of us follow it most of the time without even thinking about it. It's simplicity in itself, & recognized by every society in the world, regardless of development. In the English speaking world, we call it the "GOLDEN RULE". The code is more than empathy. It's the basis for morality, ethics, virtues, & all the philosophical or logical discussions of "right" & "wrong". Although I don't think there's ever been any academic study of the code & its effects on the social psyche, I believe that the code is hardwired in the brain. I could be wrong, but I haven't come across a convincing argument that the code is nurtured, & it's definitely universal.

Since I developed my hypothesis, I've had many discussions on the code as the basis of morality with various cultists, objectivist, religious, political, economic, scientific, mathematical, & academic philosophical. Most of them tell me I'm full of shit. But when I pose the question "If not the code, what?", all I get back is either mute or some version of "...well so & so said...". As far as I'm concerned; If you can't relate it to the code, it's not a moral issue, & everything else is just arbitrary rules. They may not pay much attention when they're following it, but everybody knows when they've violated the code.

The code is the basis of altruism. It has nothing whatsoever to do with self-sacrifice. It's just a recognition of the fact that it's easier to live if you don't make enemies by being an asshole. Also that people willo tend to return a favor. You're projecting your own self-interest on others as you interact with them. Your personal analytical philosophy is irrelevant, because the code still works whether you look at it from a totally selfish point of view, a totally empathic altruistic point of view (with all the self-sacrifice that Ayn Rand whines about), or anything in between.

All the philosophies, or at least most of them, are flawed because they're incomplete, & they attempt to complicate what is inherently simple. Ayn Rand promoted a "fuck you" attitude that does nothing but piss off those around you & make life more difficult. Self-interest is fine, but there's other interests & other things that are interesting. Without the collective, mankind never made it to the cave let alone out of it. The collective IS our self-interest. We're social critters, & we all rely on the collective. We learn everything we know from the collective. Writing books & developing philosophies is merely an attempt to impress or influence the collective. A true egoist wouldn't bother. Anybody who tries to live outside the collective (hermits) is considered crazy, even by "objectivists". I don't see what's rational about this philosophy at all, & I'm a philosophical anarchist.

Gotta run again. I'll try to catch up later.


Today's the day. "Democracy in action, to keep our "republic" working.