What's So Funny Bout Communism?

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Scayde
My position has been that I do not owe them anything by virtue of their want. My position is, and has always been that the people in developing countries must take as much responsibility for themselves as possible. You mentioned Somalia, that the US should have never been there in the first place. That it was a civil war, and the people there were not interested in having the war lord in power removed. IMHO, The fact that this war lord was stealing millions of dollars in aid from his own people and selling it to them on the black market yet they did not want him removed from power tells me that it is not a problem of the Western world depriving them of opportunity, but they are impeding their own opportunity. There are many people who believe that these people deserve assistance regardless of the part they play in their own impoverishment. I feel the desire to help those who help themselves. I do not feel an obligation to try to pull someone kicking and screaming against their will into a better way of life.

In the case of Somalia, my opinion is that the Somalians had every reason to resist the “help” they got from the US and UN, since the “help” included killing hundreds of civilians, use of human shields and other war-crimes. Of course Aidee was a horrible dictator, but helping the Somalians get rid of him should not be done by starting to shoot unarmed people en masse on the street and taking civilians as hostage. I am sure you don’t support warcrimes and terrorist methods either, Scayde.

Sometimes the kicking and screaming people are those in most need of help. Ever met acute schizophrenic patients? Should the medical staff not help them because they resist?

You posted previously the well known “give a man a fish and that will feed him for a day, teach him how to fish...etc”. This I do agree with, but regarding Somalia, killing a lot of civilians and then flee when your own men are killed too, is not an efficient way to teach a man how to fish.

There is a difference in "opportunity" and "right"
First you must secure the opportunity. You can easily do this through a free market economy. If you look at the world as a study, the most prosperity, the highest standard of living, the best health care, sanitation, food supply, technology, etc. occurs in a free market economy. THe governments of developing nations which have embraced this platform have rocketted out of poverty, while their nieghbors lanquish in sub standard existance. The Pacific rim is virtually exploding with opportunities that did not exist in 1950. The USA is a mere 227 years old. Western Eaurope, most exemplified in the dual standard of living in Berlin prior to its reunification, The UK, all free market economies, all prosperous. It works. Not because we have "plundered" our way to success, but because inovation adn growth are fostered in this kind of environment. Once the "oppertunity" exists, then yiou may say the people have "rights' to excercise that opportunity. The declaration of "rights' in absence of opportunity is IMO a mute point. And the way I see it, the most effective way to provide that opportunity, is through a free and open trade economy with the local governments protecting the rights and interests of its citizens.

This, I totally disagree with. Contrary to Rand, I view the right to survive as a basic human right. You need to attend to this right first, otherwise there are no opportunities to secure. And I do not at all see how a totally free market secures equal rights to survive and equal rights to take those opportunities. On the contrary, I see in the statistics that the gap between the rich and the poor are increasing, simultaneously as we outconsume our planet’s resources. The world is not an example of free market economies working. None of the Western Europe countries have free market economies. On the contrary, they are all examples of “mixed economies” (I don’t know the proper term for this in English) to different degrees. The UK are, or were, closer to the US system but Scandinavia, Holland and Germany among those farther away. Germany, France and Scandinavia are strongly social democrate societies. Taxes are high, education, infrastructure, defense, health care, pensions, child care, etc are all part of the tax-financed social network.

In the dawn of the Industrial revolution there were no governmental regulations of the economy, and except for material weath it also brough many undesired things such as child labour, slave trade and exploitation under colonisalism. So I don’t think we can take abscence of regualations secures even basic human rights.
You could say US is an example of free market economy working. I could say West Europe is an example of mixed economies working. So the world is certainly not giving us any clue as to which grants the highest living standard. I would of course say the living standard is higher for more people in Europe, and that wealth is more concentrated to fewer people in the US.
Scandinavia is the region where the socialist politics in it’s theoretical form (as opposed to the “communism” in China or former Soviet Union, which was not at all consistent with socialist theory but instead a dictatorship, totalitarian states).And we have surely not suffered from low living standard here. The fact that the Western world has become rich and Africa poor, has no connenction to free market versus socialism. And I disagree totally with you that Europe and the US has not plundered our way to this richness. And as you saw in my previous post, we keep the doing it by maintaining a political and economical system that only conserve the situation.

[Dottie]

Originally posted by Chanak
I realize the answer isn't simple, but the solution really is. The people of those countries need to change it. If they do nothing, then who will? When our country atempts to assist people wanting change, it is imperialist. When the former Soviet Union and Cuba aided the Sandinistas, it was "just"...their atrocities are well documented, yet you don't see them making headlines. I make no excuses, nor have any regrets, for our country's active opposition to Communism. The records of those kinds of regimes speak for themselves...any student of history will see the pattern.

Ehm, I hope you're not claiming US wanted to assist the poor nicaraguan people when supporting the Contras? The USSR have done a great deal of things that is horrible, but providing support for the sandinistas was not one of them.

When the sandinistas took power in Nicaragua in 1979 the pople had endured a more than 40 year long period of abuse from the US installed National Guard under the Somoza clan. For this National Gurad acts as rape, torture, robbery and murder of the opposition or just innocent peasants was quite common.

Also It was the Sandinistas that took the initiative to sign the Contadora group treaty wich meant the first free election in nicaragua.

The well documented atrocities that they commited are actually not that well documented... a very large part of them was propaganda from Washington. For example the claim that the Sandinistas had durg connections was droped when people demanded proof... another example is that the Photography of blazing corpses Alexander Haig referred to as proof of Sandinistas atrocities later was found to be from Somozas regime.


I also find it improtant to point out that much of the US foreign policy have not been amied at opposing USSR imperialism but rather opposing nations with no real ties to the USSR that tried to do what you claim they should: Do something about their own povertry. The most notable examples are Chile and Iran.

[Littiz]

Hey, thanx for your comments, @frogus, @CE!
Simply trying to mask my deep ignorance in the fields of economics and politics,
with some abstract speculations

Nothing really new, I've always had troubles in defining "luck"... maybe also 'cause
I've been defined "lucky" many times, or in the wrong moments, by people who obviously
didn't get the whole picture. Someone may be unlucky only in an inner and ununderstandable
level, but still the results may be sadness, despair.
As CE remembered, suicidal rates are higher in the rich world...
Then, when we talk about opportunities, we can't forget that even the abilities to
use them are given by luck... intelligence, strenght, intuition... who gives to a genius the
right to be more intelligent than average, or the right to use his superior intelligence?

A friend of mine read once Sinatra's biography.
It seems that he lived very badly the years, or days, when death was coming close.
While it seems obvious for everyone, it isn't completely, IMHO.
I do believe that people used to privations and suffering, or simply to average types
of life, to a certain degree are more capable to understand death as a natural event in
the flow of things. Nothing pleasant, but... Now imagine Sinatra, who had "everything"
in his life: money, women, fame, power (he was a VERY powerful man!)...
What an intolerable privation may become death, in the eyes of such a person?
Ever heard Iron Maiden's song, Powerslave?
Pharaoh speaking:
"I don't wanna die, I'm a God, why can't I live on?...
... and in my last hour I'm slave to the power of Death.."
I don't believe that money or power are the real values in life, but indeed we should
see that suffering is able to penetrate the lives of everyone, one way or another.

Morals are subconscious justifications for our own desires.

Don't know if it's a quote and/or a trap D)..well, it's close to my positions, but...
I think I was arguing that people (me included) tend to view the world in a partial way,
they have their own ideoligies/religions/representations of the world, which often reflect
a degree of selfishness and ignorance of the whole.
Ideologies tend to be rather schematic, while our reality is extremely complex...
So it's risky to derive a moral system from any of those, 'cause probably it'll hold
the same flaws.
So, I think the best people can do is.. uh, yes... follow their hearts.
By that quote the goal itself (even if unconscious) in defining morals is selfish,
so I think the "speaker" is even less gentle towards humans than me

[fable]

The USA is a mere 227 years old. Western Eaurope, most exemplified in the dual standard of living in Berlin prior to its reunification, The UK, all free market economies, all prosperous.

@Scayde, I believe this is a bit of an oversimplification of a very complex economic snapshot. There isn't a single free market ideological location where all these countries congregate, but a broad continuum based on many interrelating factors. The UK and Germany, both of which you mention, have much more severe controls on corporate behavior, for example, and much stronger social safety nets than the US. This applies as well to the Netherlands, Belgium, France, and especially to the Scandanavian countries. And their prosperity is due to a host of factors.

I posted about some of the factors involved in making the US a success, a page or two back in this thread. I can repost it, if you'd like, because I think it points out that neither hard work alone nor capitalism alone, but many different things came together to make, at this point in time, a particular nation a "success story." There are nations that worked arguably as hard and utilized capitalism with many more hundreds of years than the US, but were in the final analysis giant failures: Russia right before the revolutionary period is an example. Poland is another. Both nations were locked into aspects of capitalism that were completely negative on a national scale. This isn't speculation; it's fact. Whether you or approve of the form the break with the past took, the sum of all factors involved in making those nations what they were in the 19th century, including capitalism, worked against the benefit of those who lived there. And there was no recourse to turn around a vote an aristocracy that had ruled their respective nations for more than 700 years out of "office," and away from the reins of power.

[Lazarus]

First: @VoodooDali: I am a little confused by your discussion of the Central American nations. You state that: “Their situation is complicated by the fact that they are in fact, still ‘banana republics.’ Any attempts they have made to change systems of government have been immediately and harshly quashed by the USA.” That is very likely the case, but I hope you don’t think that “capitalism” is somehow responsible for the lousy way in which these nations have been treated by the US. Capitalism is about free markets, limited government, and absolute restriction of government involvement in economics. The US using it’s military/political power to effect foreign governments is anything but capitalism, IMO. BTW, CE makes a similar point when she says: “In the dawn of the Industrial revolution there were no governmental regulations of the economy, and except for material weath it also brough many undesired things such as child labour, slave trade and exploitation under colonisalism.” Again, please understand that what I (and I assume Scayde and Chanak) are talking about here is not international anarchy. Slavery is not capitalism. Capitalism requires the rule of law for it to exist and function.

EDIT: I pulled some stuff out that was not really necessary. Makes for a shorter post!

Originally posted by C Elegans
… Contrary to Rand, I view the right to survive as a basic human right. You need to attend to this right first, otherwise there are no opportunities to secure. And I do not at all see how a totally free market secures equal rights to survive and equal rights to take those opportunities. On the contrary, I see in the statistics that the gap between the rich and the poor are increasing, simultaneously as we outconsume our planet’s resources. …

@C Elegans: Wow. This little snip has so many points, I don’t know where to start. At the beginning? Rand. Sigh. I have avoided for a very long time even using that name in my posts. The minute I did (in the “Taxes” thread), fable made some very derogatory remarks about her. She is such a lightning rod in discussions such as these! And while it would be futile for me to deny that she has had great influence on my personal beliefs, I would request that you never assume that I agree with her on every point, nor that what I say represents her views. (I know this post of yours was at Scayde, not me, but I felt I should say it because I am going to comment on your comment on Rand.) Anyway, from what you have written, I cannot help ask if you have read Rand thoroughly. “Contrary to Rand, I view the right to survive as a basic human right.” I would strongly suggest you read “Man’s Rights” by Rand, if you want a full understanding of her view of rights. She believes that everyone should have the right to their own life, but the right “to survive” - ? I’m afraid I do not understand this. How do you guarantee the “right to survive?” What, exactly does that entail? (We discussed human rights before. Perhaps you could provide a link to that thread, for everyone’s benefit? I’m too lazy. Ha! )

Hmm. I have written out a few further comments and counter-comments on this, but I think I will just erase them and leave it at that: please define the “right to survive.” We can go from there.

Oh, one other point that you make towards me: my use of the term “slavery.” You say it is disrespectful of what “real” slaves had to endure. Whatever. If I am told that I have to work 40 hours per week, and I’ll only get paid for 30 (and be thrown in jail if I don’t comply), I guess I look at those 10 hours as slavery. Work without compensation. You and I may have different definitions of slavery. Perhaps your definition requires poor treatment, beatings, bad food – I don’t know what. Look in the dictionary, if you like, and, if you like, you can use the other term I have brought up: expropriation.

Oh! One more thing! (Sorry!) This idea of the guy with a glass of water, while the child dies of dehydration. I said it is really not applicable to the discussion at hand, and both frogus and CE have questioned that. I’ll explain a bit further. I view this scenario as a cheap philosopher’s game, really. (As an aside, note how Tom made the dying person a child – i.e. an innocent human life. That right there should be enough to tip you off to the bias inherent in the proposition.) Anyway, this class of dilemma is what Rand called “lifeboat ethics.” The name derives from essentially the same dilemma, in a different context: you have two people in a lifeboat, and only enough food for one. Do you toss the other guy overboard? Or how about the one where some company is charging an outrageous sum for a vaccine that your wife needs, and you can’t afford? Is it moral to steal it? There are all sorts of different scenarios, but they all boil down to one thing: you can’t act without somehow violating the rights of another. My personal answers: punch the guy, give his water to the kid; throw your buddy overboard, and eat the food; steal the vaccine, and give it to your wife. Are these moral? Maybe, maybe not. The trick is that Tom has set us up here, with no out. He is not trying to present a system of morality, he is trying to show us that morality is useless, because in certain cases it will fail. And I agree … if you view the world as one big catastrophe after another, morality is pretty much superfluous.

So how does this not relate to capitalism/communism? First, the world ain’t one big catastrophe after another, so please don’t put me in a lifeboat just yet. Second, there is no direct correlation between the taking of my money, and the helping of another person (or nation, or whatever). Note that the examples above were very “clean.” All I had to do was punch some guy, and an innocent life would be saved. But will the strangling of the US economy with high taxes really help Africa while it is being overrun with tribalism and dictatorial governments? Third, we are talking a difference of scales here. In these examples, I hurt one person, and a life is saved. To enact egalitarianism around the globe would enslave (there’s that word again) millions or billions of people – would it help so many? Would it help any? Who knows!

Tom’s little “situation” is simply not what we are talking about here.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by Scayde
But if my earnings wages and manpower is expropriated for use by others without my consent, that is the use of my body and mind also, without my consent, as it is by the strength and energy that my mind and body expends that my time is turned into my income.

I see how you reason, but I don’t agree. To me, it is very far fetched to call this slavery. And again, this takes us back to the fundamental question of absolute moral principles.

In a free enterprise system, inferior quality goods, and unfair prices cannot exist, as they are driven out by the competition and replaced by better quality, and more more efficient means of production.

Yes, I understand the theory but:
1. Numerous products introduced on the market have actually been of better quality than other products, but still have not replaced the inferior product. The Dvorak keyboard is a classical example that have previously been discussed on this board. I think it is an oversimplication to believe that the reasons why one product outcompetes another is only that it’s quality is better and it’s more efficiently produced - there are many different reason like marketing skills, timing, power of the corporation that produces it, etc. And without regulations, how is oligopoles between big powerful corporations controlled?
2. More effiecient means of productions does not mean ecologically better, better in terms or salary and social conditions for the workers, or better considering effecient use of resources.

Companies who are not willing to pay their labor fair market wages are driven out of business by the ones who are, because the workers go where they can earn the most money.
<snip>
You would see the companies scrambling to compete with each other for the "priveledge" of opening their factories. The people would benifit, the companies would benifit, the surrounding communities would benitfit." ..This is not more than what these companies are already doing here in the states, but it is not required by law. It is market driven...

This system only works in countries where the labour force have the possibility to choose between different works. If you have to choose between selling your kids to prositution or work 18 hours a day in a Nike factory, the situation is different. IMO this system would work well if the world was already equal in opportunites, but since it isn’t, we need to start with ensuring equality in opportunities. IMO the free enterprise system does not automatically create equality in rights, although it can maintain equal distribution if equality in rights was there to start with.

Now, to Ayn Rand. It is good I know you agree with Ayn Rand’s ideology because then I understand much better where you come from even if you may not agree with everything she thought. Personally I heartily disagree with most of Ayn Rands conclusions, and I especially disagree with those of her views that are relevant for this discussion. Sheesh, even Milton Friedman called Rand an “extremist libertarianist” and some call her ideology “anarcho-capitalism”. I simply do not believe in laissez fair capitalism.

Critisinging her ideology suitable for a whole new thread, but let me tell you this: Before Rand came up in this discussion, I only knew about her as a nutty, self-proclamied “philosopher” that started a cult in the US and preached obvious thing she seemed to believe she was the first to discover. Her attempts at epistemology and her interpretations of some philosophers made me uninterested in her ideas since she appeared more inclined to populism and rhetorics than philosophy. Also, a lot of political ideas seems based simply on wanting to be an antithesis to Lenisism. However, I have now done some reading, and I realize Rand’s ideas have influenced many people in the US. Funny enough, what strikes me is that I see the same flaws in Rand’s system that I see in communism: the naive and idealistic view of man that IMO demonstrates a lack of knowledge of human behaviour and human psychology, as well as lack of empirical data to found their ideas on. Neither Marx nor Rand had access to modern social, psychological and economical research, so no shadow on them, but I really do think modern economics have demonstrated empirical data sufficient to declare both models outdated. Economy is not only a theoretical subject, as I mentioned above there are empirical studies performed on market forces and how humans behave, make decisions, etc. Modern Game Theory has demonstrated that there are models that describe the actual market forces and predict the effects much better than the old capitalism/communism dogmas. And experimental studies have demonstrated that collective efforts are superior to everybody-for-themself models in efficient use of resources. I am certainly no expert on economic science, but I always prefer a conclusion based on scientific methods in controlled experiments. And Modern Game Theory together with Sen’s wellfare models, are the only economic hypothesis I know of that have been empricially tested and found valid in modern society.

Like Lazarus, I have not always held the views I do today. As a teen, I was much more pro an unregulated free market than I am today. However, this changed due to my travelling experiences, my increasing understanding and knowledge of how different societies interact on our planet, and the conclusions about human behaviour my education and my scientific reading helped me formed.

If I understand Rand correctly, she believed in selfishness as an ultimate principle, and seemed to believe that altruism must be founded on selfishness in order to be morally defensible. Whereas the thought is nice and appealing it it’s simplicity, I see many problems with the theoretical as well as empirical foundations for this assumption. It is simply not correct that the ultimate rationality results in selfishness. That’s why I mentioned the Nature study on altruism and the insights in altruism that “behavioural economics” and psychology have offered. The nice thing with the Nature study is that the brilliant design allowed the researcher to control for both altruism founded on expectations of social punishment and altruism as a result of inherent selfishness. In short, the study demonstrates that altruism per se exists in human behaviour. Humans are both selfish and altruistic, which makes sense evolutionary since we are a group living species, not lone predators. I understand why Rand disliked the idea of altruism being viewed as a higher moral than selfishness, but human life is not so simple so if we just turn them around, everything is fine. Human life requires a moral based both on individual and group needs. And InfiniteNature posted one of the most fundamental statements in this thread:

Originally posted by InfiniteNature
Now the capitalistic system presumes there is a infinite amount of resources on this planet and a infinite amount of room to grow, so eventually everyone will be better off, sorry to say there isn't a infinite amount of resources nor even enough for everyone, now if there is not a infinite amount of resources this means capitalism as it is expoused right now is not sustainable, which means what right?, this means in the very near future little things like resource depletion will begin cropping up, wars will crop up as the 'rich' nations use their militaries to fence up steadily more depeleted resources until eventually the whole sodden system collapses for lack of room and resources to expand. Communism has worked perhaps not as expressed by Marx, but it has worked, without communal action without communal sharing of resources, the human race will die.

If the world had infinite resources...but it has not.

Those who are most capable, are inclined to share what they have, without coercion.

Firstly, this doesn't matter for the distrubution of wealth problem if we do not equal capability with wealth. Those who are most inclined to share are not necessarity the richest.
Secondly, I have never seen any studies supporting your assumption. On the contrary, I have seen many studies showing there is no correlation between ability (ie having something to share) and willingness to share.

My neighbor and I have the same standard of living, even though I work much harder, take more risks, and am more intelligent and creative than he is? Communism says we should "share in the fruits of 'my' labor? PSHAW !!! That we receive the same reward? No Thank you !!! Let the cream rise to the top. Let the rabble be left behind to beg for my scraps, or apply to me for work, as they may see fit.
...
Why would anyone want to be supported by another person, unless he is inherantly lazy.

I'm not sure if this reflects you personal views or not, but I think the problem I stated above is examplified here. What if many resourceful people reason like examplified above?

[VoodooDali]

Originally posted by Lazarus
First: @VoodooDali: I am a little confused by your discussion of the Central American nations. You state that: “Their situation is complicated by the fact that they are in fact, still ‘banana republics.’ Any attempts they have made to change systems of government have been immediately and harshly quashed by the USA.” That is very likely the case, but I hope you don’t think that “capitalism” is somehow responsible for the lousy way in which these nations have been treated by the US. Capitalism is about free markets, limited government, and absolute restriction of government involvement in economics. The US using it’s military/political power to effect foreign governments is anything but capitalism, IMO. BTW, CE makes a similar point when she says: “In the dawn of the Industrial revolution there were no governmental regulations of the economy, and except for material weath it also brough many undesired things such as child labour, slave trade and exploitation under colonisalism.” Again, please understand that what I (and I assume Scayde and Chanak) are talking about here is not international anarchy. Slavery is not capitalism. Capitalism requires the rule of law for it to exist and function.

That post was not a critique of capitalism, but rather a response to Chanak's idea that poverty is self-inflicted in developing nations, and that they have the ability to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps. Guatemala is one of many examples I could give of developing nations who have attempted to make changes, only to have richer nations step in and reverse them to further their own economic interests.

[C Elegans]

....cont. @Scayde (VoodooD managed to sneak in a post in between my two posts to you) but anyone who feels inclined can of course comment.

I understand you believe a lassaiz fair capitalism is the best system to achive a fairer world. You believe in Adam Smith's "Invisible hand", ie the power of the market forces to regulate distribution as well as other living conditions in a fair way. The principle of never initiating force seems central for you worldview, and having laws regulating the economic life like for instance taxing, is forcing somebody to do something. People should understand by themselves that it’s in their own interest to give money to education, health care, police and law, defense, elderly care, child care, infrastructure etc...but what if they don't? Empirical data do not support the idea that people do indeed understand this by themselves. And why is that? It is not because of flaws in people's characters. It is because:

1. Time span. Humans have difficulties with long-term thinking. The human life span is far shorter than many vital processes on our planet. Climate changes, geological changes, even social changes happen at a rate that is too slow for the human mind to fathom during his lifetime. Humans tend to see to the imminent, to the near future that is conceivable for them.

2. Globality. Humans have difficultes to grasp things that go beyond their familiar surroundings, and have automathic cognitive biases against things that are new and unfamiliar. The complexity of how our world interacts both regarding ecology, socioculture issues, natural resources, wars, etc is simply more complex than man can understand. We must realise that we lack a lot of knowledge, and that much new knowledge totally invalidates things we previously held for true. The world is full of failed experiements with both economy, industry, agriculture and ecology. What seemed a good idea yesterday is a global or local disaster today.

Rand and Marx were no psychologists, however, I am. And all accumulated knowledge from the behavioural sciences does not support the idea of man as a rational being in the context of modern soceity.

One single person cannot contain all this knowledge and at the same time be constantly change his life course and choices depending on what is best for both himself and everybody else considering all the new knowledge, technology and events that happens. Thus, the "everybody for himself" model where society is based on "to each their own", can never provide each and every single individual with the necessary perspective and knowledge in order to make the best, most rational choices for himself and everybody else.

[VoodooDali]

Originally posted by Chanak
Poverty is a relaitve term, much like anything else. In this case, poverty is defined by a person's standard of living compared to their national average. My experiences have included coming to know a great number of homeless people here in the US...whom many call the "dispossessed" or "victims of society." How did I come to know them? I became involved with them by offering them shelter and aid. I discovered some things while involved in my own personal mission. And that was: 8 out of 10 of these people were homeless because: 1. Drug abuse or alcoholism 2. Violent behavior 3. Laziness 4. A simple desire to be left alone, and be free of paying taxes. When offered a job, they would decline, stating that all they needed was some money to eat...never mind that there were a number of places where they could eat for free. They sought to play upon a person's sympathy and guilt in order to obtain money to: buy drugs or alcohol to fuel their habit (the most common)...or, in some cases I have both seen and heard of, they would stash this money somewhere in a compulsive manner. I know of one older homeless man who is worth at least $30,000 US.

Most are able bodied, and able to work. However, they found life as a homeless person to be easier by far than holding a job, for there is always someone willing to give them money out of a sense of guilt...guilt for having something that they don't...Just as well, a great deal of social services support these people by virtue of taxes collected from US citizens. In short, a homeless person can always have a roof over their head, and food to eat. Those that don't have abused the privileges extended to them by exibiting anti-social behavior, such as urinating on shelter staff or other homeless people, or by using drugs in the shelters. Such people tend to be blacklisted, and shelter staff remember who they are by virtue of their actions.

I worked at the Brooklyn Women's Shelter in East New York, Brooklyn - the most dangerous neighborhood in NYC. And I have some issues with your generalizations about the homeless.
I would have to agree that the majority suffer from drug addiction or alcoholism, but I sense an underlying belief that addiction is not a disease, but rather something a person chooses and has willpower over. Some of the women were there because of extremely abusive men in their lives - and I witnessed that. I often saw men wait for these women when their SS checks came and then beat the money out of them right there on the street. There was little that staff could do, and even less that these women could do. They were easy to find. The women I worked with, and they were a sizeable chunk of that Shelter's population, were all seriously mentally ill - mostly schizophrenic. Another big chunk were mildly retarded. It is well known that since the de-institutionalization movement of the 70's, a great many of the burgeoning homeless population of the 80's were mentally ill who could not work and had nowhere to go. My job was to help prepare them to get into housing. NYC has probably the best housing program in the nation, and a law that states that the mentally ill have a right to housing, but there were still long waiting lists, and a real shortage. As far as the free bed and food were concerned, the shelter was regularly visited by the Coalition for the Homeless and cited for serving bad food (brown lettuce, old meat, expired milk) to the women. I remember that they gave them a slice of bologna on hamburger buns every day for a long time. My women were allotted $7/week in spending money, and they did not choose to spend it on drugs (even though most were crack addicts), but rather on food from the bad chinese restaurant down the street. The Shelter had the WEP program (workfare), and it paid less than $2/hour for sweeping floors, as though that would prepare them for any meaningful kind of job! Even if a real job for them had been available (and they weren't), they were terrified of the immediate drastic cut to their Social Security money - what if they lost the job? Or failed at it? Getting Social Security re-established is a long process - 6 months minimum. What is a person to do in the meantime? For their drug money, they all earned it through prostitution. There was a crack house down the street where they'd get crack, and then right across the street was an empty house with a pimp who would get them customers. (Most of the customers, btw, were white men from wealthier neighborhoods - I know - they would proposition me sometimes - I was offered $10 for a blow job - double the going rate since I was white). Many of the women I worked with had AIDS on top of their other problems, and I suspect most of them are dead now. Getting them into drug rehab programs was nearly impossible - if you didn't show up at 6 AM, and you were not high when you showed up, they would not admit you. Anyway, those rehab programs were a joke anyway, for cocaine addiction they only keep you for 3-7 days - that's like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. The waiting list for a long-term treatment program averaged about 2 years. Unfortunately, despite numerous studies showing that treatment is by far less expensive than homeless shelters, and hotels, and prisons, all the money for drug rehab is still going into building new prisons. Also, as a side note, the police there were totally corrupt, and while I worked there, the precinct in that neighborhood had been cited by the Mullen Commission for doing things like snorting cocaine off the dashboards of their police cars.

Anyway, enough of the rant - I did not come away from there believing that these women preferred the life of the shelter over a better life. All of them would have traded their lives for mine in an instant. I cannot overemphasize the severe damage most of these women had suffered - and I don't think the way back from that is cheap or simple or easy. I'm still recovering psychologically from being stabbed in that neighborhood all those years ago. One of my clients there had been stabbed in a much more severe way (in the neck) and had literally crawled all the way to Coney Island Hospital (which is not anywhere near East New York) for help. I did not view her as a loser, I viewed her as a survivor. I cannot look back to that experience and remember a single homeless woman I worked with that I thought - she's just lazy, doesn't want a job, etc.

[Lazarus]

This makes me mad.

@CE: you know, I always believed that you were a very reasonable, fair-minded debater. While you and I rarely agreed on the issues that we debated, I always found you receptive to discussion, and willing to hear my point of view.

Sadly, your latest goes against this trend.

You say, regarding Rand: “Critisinging her ideology suitable for a whole new thread, but let me tell you this: Before Rand came up in this discussion, I only knew about her as a nutty, self-proclamied “philosopher” that started a cult in the US and preached obvious thing she seemed to believe she was the first to discover.”

There is more in your post on the subject of Rand, which I will not bother to quote.

Let me start by saying that I consider this a flame, as you have just implied that people who adhere to the beliefs of Objectivism are mindless cultists. I find this absolutely beyond the pale, and I would request an apology both to myself and Scayde.

Beyond that, what you have said on the subject of Rand is so far from what her beliefs are, that I can only say: if you wish to discuss her, read her more fully, and come back when you have done so. I can give you an excellent list of non-fiction books to read, if you have any interest.

@VoodooDali: Ah. Thanks for the response. I see now.

[C Elegans]

Re: This makes me mad.

Lazarus, take a deep breath and please re-read my post.

Firstly, I pointed out to Scayde what I knew about Rand prior to this discussion. As you might know, Rand is virtually unknown outside the US, and not usually part of academic economical and/or philosophical reading.

Originally posted by Lazarus
Let me start by saying that I consider this a flame, as you have just implied that people who adhere to the beliefs of Objectivism are mindless cultists. I find this absolutely beyond the pale, and I would request an apology both to myself and Scayde.

Do not put words in my mouth Lazarus. Read my exact words instead of reading in your own interpretation. I said Rand started a cult, yes, it is a documented fact that she did. I have read extracts from the autobiography of her "High priest" where he describes The Inner circle and their rituals etc. Nowhere did I imply that you or Scayde belonged to this cult, or that you were mindless I don't even think the cult exists today, I said I knew Rand started a cult which is a well documented fact. It is also a well documented fact that she herself suffered from personal psychiatric imbalance.

Please explain to me why my opinions of Rand is a flame towards you or Scayde or any followers of Rand, whereas all invectives that has been said in this thread about communism and socialism is not flames towards the followers of those ideologies.

Beyond that, what you have said on the subject of Rand is so far from what her beliefs are, that I can only say: if you wish to discuss her, read her more fully, and come back when you have done so. I can give you an excellent list of non-fiction books to read, if you have any interest.

I have not even glanced at her fictional work, I do not consider novels to properly reflect any thinkers ideas since they are fiction, not analysis.

This is a site I've used to read about Rand's thinking.
http://www.aynrand.org/objectivism/

EDIT: Oh I forgot: If you wish to hear why I am so critical to her attempts at epistemology and metaphysics, please start a new thread. Those are among the main reasons why many people interested in philosophy view Rand's attempts at these areas with scorn. I don't deny her importance for all the people who like her writing, but I do think she was an absolutely lousy philosopher, economist and sociologist.

[Lazarus]

Nope, a few deep breaths didn't work - I'm still mad

all bold quotes from C Elegans
Lazarus, take a deep breath and please re-read my post.

I read your post over several times, CE. It reads no better now than it did last night. And your more recent post is even more outrageous.

Do not put words in my mouth Lazarus. Read my exact words instead of reading in your own interpretation. I said Rand started a cult, yes, it is a documented fact that she did.

You are a scientist, correct? Then I guess you know that you are going to have to do more than simply say this for it to be true.

I have read extracts from the autobiography of her "High priest" where he describes The Inner circle and their rituals etc.

Oh, Lord. I don’t know whether I should laugh or cry. Seriously? You read excerpts from Nathaniel Branden, and you think that he is providing you with an objective, dispassionate view? Good grief! Look, maybe you think you are being very scientific by going to read someone who had first-hand knowledge of her. I can list off at least half a dozen people who spent as much or more time with Rand than Branden, and who all have radically different views than he does. In a scientific experiment, contradictory data means that you need to do some more research – where humans are concerned, I think you are stuck. Ask Leonard Peikoff, and he will tell you one thing, Branden will tell you another – does that get you anywhere? No. So what do you do? You go to the source, CE. I don’t give a mouse’s patoot what either Leonard or Nathaniel have to say about Rand – one is a sycophant, the other hostile – so read what she has written, and move forward from there.

Nowhere did I imply that you or Scayde belonged to this cult, or that you were mindless I don't even think the cult exists today, I said I knew Rand started a cult which is a well documented fact. It is also a well documented fact that she herself suffered from personal psychiatric imbalance.

So, if we are not members of this cult, and it doesn’t exist today, why even bring the word up? Because it is a cheap shot. Because, having done so, anyone reading this will immediately think that anyone who reads Rand is a nutcase. Because you have no idea what you are talking about, and appear to have no interest in substantive debate, but would rather drop derogatory comments. Gods! Can you imagine what fable’s reaction would be if I called Wicca a “cult!” Or your reaction if I said that Darwin was a fruitcake and evolution was just the ramblings of a cultist! And then, to top it off, if I said that I know all this (about Darwin), because I went and asked the Catholic Church about him! That is what you have done here, CE, by using Branden as a source you have made all your statements ring false.

Please explain to me why my opinions of Rand is a flame towards you or Scayde or any followers of Rand, whereas all invectives that has been said in this thread about communism and socialism is not flames towards the followers of those ideologies.

Well, as I am sure a few moderators have looked in on this thread now, and none have taken steps to warn anyone, I guess I’m just, plain wrong. I dunno, CE – just something about being painted as a cultist gets me a bit peeved. No, you never said Scayde or I were a member of a cult. You knew we admired Rand, and you said she started a cult. If you wish to deny that there is an implication there, feel free. I think anyone reading this thread can see it for themselves.

I have not even glanced at her fictional work, I do not consider novels to properly reflect any thinkers ideas since they are fiction, not analysis.

Which is why I said in my post (which you correctly quote in your own) that I would gladly give you a list of her non-fiction. Non-fiction. I’m sure you simply misread what I wrote, but I find it so very telling. You are not reading what Rand has said, you are not reading what I have said, you are simply using hostile secondary sources, and transferring their bias into a new forum. Again, I really cannot understand how a scientist would do such a thing.

You have used the Ayn Rand Institute’s (ARI) website, you say? I’ll tell you what: if you actually read some Ayn Rand, maybe we will have a basis for discussion. ARI is all very well and good, but it is not the source.

EDIT: Oh I forgot: If you wish to hear why I am so critical to her attempts at epistemology and metaphysics, please start a new thread. Those are among the main reasons why many people interested in philosophy view Rand's attempts at these areas with scorn. I don't deny her importance for all the people who like her writing, but I do think she was an absolutely lousy philosopher, economist and sociologist.

At one time, I may have taken you up on your offer to discuss her ideas. Not anymore. I don’t know what you have read of hers, or how anything that you have written even remotely applies to her beliefs, but it seems obvious from your post here that you have no interest in reasonable debate.

As I said earlier: I have gone a long time in GameBanshee without ever using her name. Perhaps now everyone will understand why: because the minute she is mentioned, no one is interested any longer in discussing ideas – they would rather rely on hearsay and make their point with snide, derogatory comments about the woman.

Y’all can go on with your debate. Frankly, I have lost all stomach for it.

[Mr Sleep]

Re: Nope, a few deep breaths didn't work - I'm still mad

Originally posted by Lazarus
Which is why I said in my post (which you correctly quote in your own) that I would gladly give you a list of her non-fiction. Non-fiction. I’m sure you simply misread what I wrote, but I find it so very telling. You are not reading what Rand has said, you are not reading what I have said, you are simply using hostile secondary sources, and transferring their bias into a new forum. Again, I really cannot understand how a scientist would do such a thing.

Lazurus mate, you find a bit of mis reading very telling? Telling what that CE mis read what you wrote, you can't scrap everything she said because of a bit of mis reading. I have no clue who Rand is although this whole Rand conversation smacks of pointless over reaction, your a cultist, I'm a apathist, CE's a scientist and the facts, well the facts don't matter do they, lets just go off on tangents and attack people

It also reminds me of Religious conversations, so perhaps it has got something in common with a cult

[C Elegans]

Re: Nope, a few deep breaths didn't work - I'm still mad

@Lazarus: I stand by my opinions about Ayn Rand. I am sorry you take my critisism of Rand so personal: I think it is very important to make a clear distiction of critisism again Rand's ideas, and critisism of you and Scayde.

Originally posted by Lazarus
You are a scientist, correct? Then I guess you know that you are going to have to do more than simply say this for it to be true.

Of course. Do you want references and links? If so, we should start a new thread about Rand since this topic will take a lot of space. There are several descriptions from former members of Rand's movement around, and the descriptions fit the critera for a cult, for instance prohibition of reading of books that contained ideas that opposed Rand's. Also Rand's own writing contain examples of typcial cult critera, such as use of black and white language, redefinition of established words and concepts or demonizing the opponent by using loaded language such as "evil" or "like Nazi's". There are also book and essays around where admireres and followers of Rand describe the cult characteristics of her movement. But this is a long discussion.

So, if we are not members of this cult, and it doesn’t exist today, why even bring the word up?

Becasue I think Rand was a nutcase and her attempts at philosophy were ignorant, populistic and simplifying. Note that I think Rand was a nut, not you and Scayde.

Or your reaction if I said that Darwin was a fruitcake and evolution was just the ramblings of a cultist! And then, to top it off, if I said that I know all this (about Darwin), because I went and asked the Catholic Church about him! That is what you have done here, CE, by using Branden as a source you have made all your statements ring false.

That is not a parallelll and you know it. First and most importantly, I have not referred to yours or Scaydes opinions and posts as anything close to "ramblings of a cultist". Second, there is not a variety of sources pro- and against Darwin, that describe a movement around him that fulfills the criteria of a cult. And third, I would not take it as a personal insult if you said Darwin was a fruitcake. I would simply ask you to consider the consensus of the scientific community regarding evolution, and perhaps post some well-known experimental data. However, in Rands case there are no experiemental data supporting her economic hypothesis and view of human nature. On the contrary there is data around that opposed her views, as I referred to in my post to Scayde above.

I dunno, CE – just something about being painted as a cultist gets me a bit peeved. No, you never said Scayde or I were a member of a cult. You knew we admired Rand, and you said she started a cult. If you wish to deny that there is an implication there, feel free. I think anyone reading this thread can see it for themselves.

I really think you overreact here Lazarus. My aim has been to say that Rand was a nutcase, and to support my view with examples. Even if you and Scayde sympathise with Rand's thinking, it can not be logically derived that you are nuts because Rand was. But I wanted to motivate clearly why I think low of Rand's ideas about philosophy and economy. Also, you previously requested that I should not think you agreed all of Rand's thinking, so that makes it even more difficult to derivate critisism of Rand to critisism of you.

Which is why I said in my post (which you correctly quote in your own) that I would gladly give you a list of her non-fiction. Non-fiction. I’m sure you simply misread what I wrote

No, you misunderstand me, I didn't misread at all. Since you put an emphasis on non-fiction, I just wanted to point out that I take it for granted that we only discuss her thinking as presented in non-fictional works. I certainly wouldn't want you to believe I had formed my opinion of Rand's ideology by reading "Athlas shrugged". That would be like saying you have an idea of Nietzsche's philisophy from reading "Also sprach Zarathustra".

You have used the Ayn Rand Institute’s (ARI) website, you say? I’ll tell you what: if you actually read some Ayn Rand, maybe we will have a basis for discussion. ARI is all very well and good, but it is not the source.

I know, but ARI has excerpts from her non-fictional writing, whole chapters as well as brief quotes. I have however found other excerpts too, but no whole books execpt one of her novels. Since I refuse to support Rand's ideology by buying any of her books, I will have to wait until I can find something at a library until I can read whole books. However, there are plenty of fairly long excerpts from her non-fiction books around, as well as transcriptions of many lectures that later were incorporated as part of "The virtue of selfishness" and "Capitalism - The unknown ideal".

For further discussion about Rand, I'll start a new thread later.

[frogus]

Please people, you know how I'm a sucker for deleting my own threads...

@CE, why the sudden personal criticisms of this lady Rand?
She may well have been an utterly deplorable person, but I think that you are letting your personal hatred (?) of her get in the way of making relevant points which are useful to the discussion...

@Lazarus, you must try to take debating less personally - really. You cannot just go around taking personal offence at people who's views differ to yours...you might see it differently, but looking through the debate, you are the one making the accusations at everyone else, and taking personal offence at criticisms of capitalism, Rand, and other people's posts...

Anyway, let's start again shall we?

Maybe Rand is best left out of the discussion....

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by frogus
Please people, you know how I'm a sucker for deleting my own threads...

@CE, why the sudden personal criticisms of this lady Rand?
She may well have been an utterly deplorable person, but I think that you are letting your personal hatred (?) of her get in the way of making relevant points which are useful to the discussion...

Maybe Rand is best left out of the discussion....

I am just starting a new thread about Rands ideology, please read there Frogus.

And I will continue to post about political ideologies in this thread later

[T'lainya]

Everyone, I have asked before that this remain civil. This is a debate thread not a mudslinging thread. I suggest everyone get back on topic. It seems to me that many people are taking this debate personally and reacting to that. Try to calm down and not post personal attacks nor take an opposing opinion personally.
T'lainya

[C Elegans]

I have critisised Rand's ideology in my recent posts, since she came up in the discussion and she strongly propose Laissez-faire capitalism as the only just social system. If posters in this thread had referred to the Chicago school or Austrian school on economic theory, I would have directed my posts at their thinking instead. (However, I do view the Chicago school as economists and I find much of their work regarding free market mechanisms etc excellent work although I don't agree with everything.)

Back to topic:

I really hope all of you bother to check out Modern game theory and Wellfare Economics since they provide foundations for how to build economic systems that are apt for modern world.

by Chanak
Free-market economies invariably experience prosperity and booming economic growth, and a higher standard of living for it's citizens.
<snip>
In any case, history again bears witness to something - that free market economies not only work, but produce economic growth and prosperity for those who practice it. Capitalism is one such method of free enterprise, and is a smashing success story.[/b]

My bold. I know this was too Aegis, but I do think I should point out that

1. Welfare, a term I prefer to use when living standard is discussed, does not only consist of material wealth. Free market economies are rich, yes, but the wellfare is not necessarity higher than in other economic system. I think we should consider not only material wealth but also such things as access to healthcare, educational level, justice system, literacy rate, mortality, freedom index, unemployment, criminality etc, etc.

2. As I pointed out in a post to Scayde above, non-capitalistic non-free market and non-free enterprise systems such as Germany or Scandinavia are hardly less prosperous either. Have a look at the GNP per capita and PPP here at the World bank.

So the rich countries in western Europe are not capitalistic free market economies. Still, they are equally rich as the US and the people there have lower rate of food insecure people, better access to health care, lower mortality, higher literacy rates and in some cases lower unemployment and higher education. So I do not agree that capitalism is a "smashing success story" since it is simply one of several methods to obtain welfare.

Originally posted by Littiz
Then, when we talk about opportunities, we can't forget that even the abilities to use them are given by luck... intelligence, strenght, intuition... who gives to a genius the
right to be more intelligent than average, or the right to use his superior intelligence?

Being born in a rich country, being born highly intelligent and allowed to develop that potential, or being born strong and being allowed to develop that potention...it is luck, and should not give anyone rights to use these predispositions to exploit or oppress others.

I think I was arguing that people (me included) tend to view the world in a partial way, they have their own deoligies/religions/representations of the world, which often reflect a degree of selfishness and ignorance of the whole.

Yes, I think it is impossible for any singular individual to consider all factors, unbiased....I do not believe humans always have all necessary knowledge at hand, and always think and act in the most rational manner, not even for themselves.

Ideologies tend to be rather schematic, while our reality is extremely complex...So it's risky to derive a moral system from any of those, 'cause probably it'll hold the same flaws.
So, I think the best people can do is.. uh, yes... follow their hearts.

Yes, and not only are ideologies often schematic, they are also static whereas the world changes a lot...
I think the best people can do is to try to gather a variety of knowledge and understanding, from different cultures and times...and also to try to be true to oneself while examining and analysing this knowledge. Humans have many biases, and by knowing them, we can easier avoid to fall in those traps.

[Scayde]

Originally posted by C Elegans
Yes, I think it is impossible for any singular individual to consider all factors, unbiased....I do not believe humans always have all necessary knowledge at hand, and always think and act in the most rational manner, not even for themselves.

I think this statement sums up why I, (And I think Chan and Laz as well) cannot find the answer to the worlds problems in the philosophy you describe. I do believe a person is the best one to decide how to think and act on their own behalf. I do not think anyone should make my choices for me. I have little or no confidence in their ability to do a better job than I do. Even if it were the case, It would not be their place, unless I solicited their assistance.

A note on Rand.
I will say this here, as I have no intention of entering the debat in the other thread.
She is a respected philosopher in many circles. The fact that someone disagrees with her philosophy is not grounds to lable her as a crack pot, or call into question her mental health. Also stating her to be a "Self proclaimed philosopher" somehow implies that others should not consider her as such, and are therefore wrong to take her seriously.
I have refrained from slandering the names of Marx, Jesus, Engels, Feuerbach or any other. I would not want to insult them or those who espouse their ideals by association, nor would I want to run the risk of infering that a person who holds these tenents as valid is less than capable of deciding for themselves what they belive in.

Having said that, to agree with somthing a person has said, does not make one a follower of that person. It simply means there is an agreement of ideas.

I do not see much reason to continue posting in this thread for several reasons.

@ Lazarus: *HUG*

@ Chanak: I understand what you were saying here. The comments you mad were refering to the healthy individual who chooses to do nothing about his situation, relying on others to take care of his needs, and I agree with you. It is frustrating at best. *HUG*

[fable]

Originally posted by Scayde
The fact that someone disagrees with her philosophy is not grounds to lable her as a crack pot, or call into question her mental health.

Not if CE created the allegation, no. But Ayn Rand's mental health was called into question by several of her associates, including at least one qualified psychiatrist. And her philosophy has been called "crackpot" or the equivalent by various philosophers who are otherwise inclined to take seriously the views of those opposed to their own. One may agree or disagree with these views, but they were not dreamed up by CE, nor are they held by a tiny minority of Rand's readers.

I haven't read Rand in quite a while, but I read her non-fiction thoroughly at one time. I found it amazingly narcisistic, paranoid, and repeatedly flawed in both its major and minor premises. It felt like one vast attempt to justify a supreme selfishness and a monumental ego. I wish I'd taken notes, but this was before personal computers , and I was so appalled that I simply asked the reactions of others.

Many people who have read Rand it appears are either similarly horrified, or buy into everything she says. As Rand *did* institute rituals in which she was worshipped, it seems fair to call what she set up, a cult. Of course, not everybody who supports Rand is a cultist today, nor do I see that implied, above, anywhere in CE's remarks. In and of itself, however, this willingness to be literally worhipped as a goddess in a ritual setting is a revealing aspect about Rand's personality, and not a very pleasant one.

Curiously enough, I never considered Rand a representative of capitalism, simply because her support of it was not based on a study of economic history, but on the way she perceived it to support her philosophy of supreme selfishness. Capitalism works; it may work for you or against you, but how it works has long been established, in great detail, by capitalists themselves, over the centuries. Rand's support for capitalism seems to me a bit like Girodano Bruno's supposed support for Copernicus: not based on a recognition of science, but rather a sense of how the object supposedly reflects one's native greatness in an almost mystical sense. I never truly got the feeling from Rand's writings that she understood any of the complexities of capitalism.

I'll see if I can find any Rand books at a local library (I borrowed all of my reading; those were lean years), and post relevant passages that may refer to selfishness and capitalism. (I'm not implying the two are the same. I have already posted that capitalism is simply an economic system. It's what people make of it that matters.) I think that's still relevant to the current discussion, although passages that are more revealing about Rand herself I'll throw into CE's new Rand thread.