Ayn Rand speaks to Mike Wallace, 1959

[Beerina]

Should you have to buy your freedom? Someone's got to pay for it. By that I mean that your freedom has a lot to do with a situation of social stability that allows for the predictable ability to accumulate and maintain property.

So it's in my interest to give bums dimes so they won't rise up?

Or are you suggesting it's proper for power hungry poiliticians to lead bums on cruscades to take money away to give to said bums?

 

[ImaginalDisc]

I'll have to get back to this thread in a few days. This cold's knocking me out and debating philosophy takes way too much brain power.

 

[hgc]

So it's in my interest to give bums dimes so they won't rise up?

Yes.

Or are you suggesting it's proper for power hungry poiliticians to lead bums on cruscades to take money away to give to said bums?

Uh, what? A concrete example might be in order here.

 

[mhaze]

I apologize for calling you a name. That was inappropriate. I just think what you are doing is not necessary and it certainly isn't funny. So you are yanking my chain by being obtuse. That's fine. There is always ignore.

Hey not a problem. I just mean that if I say I don't get it, well I just don't get it.

The difficulty in my answering your question about your internal conflict re (A) or (B) is that it is up to you, the conflictee, to answer that. If the question was phrased to me as the conflictee then, no there is no conflict. HFH gets no money, and I get the car.

 

[EGarrett]

Well, our military's incredibly huge cost is partly due to having a "defense" policy of being able to "project" forces in foreign theaters without any compromise to national defense.

We like to invade places as a matter of national policy. Most European countries don't set that goal, so they spend less.

You still have to feed, clothe, house, train, transport, and arm a large number of men. And that's completely ignoring the costs of developing weaponry and new vehicles and technology, and mass-producing said weaponry and new vehicles and technology. Even in relatively peaceful countries...the cost is huge.

How did Ayn address this issue, if I might ask?

 

[EGarrett]

Suit yourself. You've posted a confused question or series of, changed it, changed it again or clarified it, whichever, suggested that it'd be fun to discuss ad infinitum, and now called me a prick.

I don't even agree with the words set up in the construction to illustrate whatever point you may be getting at. Impulses? Conflict? "Benevolent?"

How about something really simple.

You want the ice cream cone.
The baby has the ice cream cone.
No one is looking.
What do you do?

If you're asking how Rand's philosophy handles this...the ice cream cone is the baby's property. She does not favor theft, and believes that one of the few roles the government should have is enforcing the law.

 

[EGarrett]

I'll get back to the hypothetical in a moment. I can see that it is distracting you. For now, let's focus on the question. You know, the one in red. Just the question.

Ok, Let me see if I can't make this even more clear. The following question is what I would like to know. I've colored the text red so it will be easy to identify. It is the only question that I'm interested in at this moment in time. See if you can focus on it and it alone. Empty your mind of the nasty complex hypothetical and just focus on the question. If you should spot in this post any other questions, please ignore them. They are rhetorical in nature only. I only want you to answer the question that is in red text, got it? Red text. The question immediatly follows.

Would you agree that there is often conflict between self interest impulses and benevolent impulses?

my god how hard can this really be? Wait, I'm being punked, right?

No offense, but if you want to know why you end up in so many flamewars, this is a textbook example. If you want the person to answer only that question...just say "Try it this way" then give ONLY that question. No need for all the condescension and attitude. Really, it adds nothing and drags my thread into the gutter.

 

[Mycroft]

Hey not a problem. I just mean that if I say I don't get it, well I just don't get it.

The difficulty in my answering your question about your internal conflict re (A) or (B) is that it is up to you, the conflictee, to answer that. If the question was phrased to me as the conflictee then, no there is no conflict. HFH gets no money, and I get the car.

The question is if you agree that there can be a conflict between self interest impulses and benevolent impulses, not how you personally would resolve the hypothetical conflict used in the example.

 

[Senex]

I read Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead. I watched the Fountainhead movie. My dog's name is Cooper because I let my dad name him and he named him after his favorite movie actor. Ayn Rand is brilliant, but her writing is stilted.

I watched the Mike Wallace interview that started this thread. I believe Ayn Rand is brilliant but I don't agree with much of what she says. I do believe she would have been the Holy Grail of a naughty woman who needed a spanking. She is exponentially smarter than I am. She would have been indignent while over my knee. Naughty Ayn over my knee. It might have happened

hehehehehehe....

 

[Admiral]

You still have to feed, clothe, house, train, transport, and arm a large number of men. And that's completely ignoring the costs of developing weaponry and new vehicles and technology, and mass-producing said weaponry and new vehicles and technology. Even in relatively peaceful countries...the cost is huge.

How did Ayn address this issue, if I might ask?

From a 1964 Playboy interview with Rand:

RAND: In principle, I believe that taxation should be voluntary, like everything else. But how one would implement this is a very complex question. I can only suggest certain methods, but I would not attempt to insist on them as a definitive answer. A government lottery, for instance, used in many countries in Europe, is one good method of voluntary taxation. There are others. Taxes should be voluntary contributions for the proper governmental services which people do need and therefore would be and should be willing to pay for -- as they pay for insurance. But, of course, this is a problem for a distant future, for the time when men will establish a fully free social system. It would be the last, not the first, reform to advocate.

I have a problem with her answer- part of the reason government lotteries can make money is by making it illegal to hold private lotteries, which Rand certainly wouldn't support. Otherwise, government might as well be imposing a voluntary tax of selling vacuum cleaners- they can't possibly survive against competition if they have the additional cost of running a country.

Still, this is her general point. And like she mentioned, it's the last problem that should be solved.

 

[Admiral]

Another quote from that interview worth mentioning:

PLAYBOY: Do you consider wealthy businessmen like the Fords and the Rockefellers immoral because they use their wealth to support charity?

RAND: No. That is their privilege, if they want to. My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue.

Based on this, to answer ponderingturtle:

And volunteer fire and ambulance would be immoral.

No. Her point would be that they're not necessarily more moral than people who serve as firemen for profit, or people who don't serve as firemen at all.

What she considers most dangerous is when someone claims that an incompetent volunteer fireman is better than a competent for-hire one. Atlas Shrugged is filled with characters who fail miserably at their jobs, but nonetheless trumpet the fact that they don't seek to make a profit as if it morally validates them.

 

[hgc]

What she considers most dangerous is when someone claims that an incompetent volunteer fireman is better than a competent for-hire one. Atlas Shrugged is filled with characters who fail miserably at their jobs, but nonetheless trumpet the fact that they don't seek to make a profit as if it morally validates them.

Is the real world filled with such characters?

 

[Admiral]

I can think of about 535 of them...

 

[ponderingturtle]

Another quote from that interview worth mentioning:



Based on this, to answer ponderingturtle:


No. Her point would be that they're not necessarily more moral than people who serve as firemen for profit, or people who don't serve as firemen at all.

What she considers most dangerous is when someone claims that an incompetent volunteer fireman is better than a competent for-hire one. Atlas Shrugged is filled with characters who fail miserably at their jobs, but nonetheless trumpet the fact that they don't seek to make a profit as if it morally validates them.

But then is there something immoral about depending of a service that you do not support? The best position to be in her society is that of the leach, you do not support the services as it is volentary but you take maximum advantage of them. Screw those dumb enough to pay.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I must say that in Ayn Rands mind the best position to be in must be emergency medicine. Just think how much you can force people to pay you to keep them alive. And such extortion would seem to be moral.

"Hey do you want to keep breathing? $50,000 for the epipen that will permit that" It is just supply and demand at work, your demand for the epipen is high and I have the only available supply. Capitalism at work pure and simple.

 

[Earthborn]

I have a problem with her answer- part of the reason government lotteries can make money is by making it illegal to hold private lotteries, which Rand certainly wouldn't support.

"Many countries in Europe" have both government and private lotteries, though the latter are generally only allowed for charity and not for for-profit companies.

 

[Earthborn]

Animals evolving found out that altruistic behaviors are beneficial to the species as a whole, which has evolutionary advantages.

But, see, this is voluntary behavior, so to speak. And that's what this is all about.

Social animals also evolved behaviours to pressurise others -- who would otherwise not -- to act in altruistic ways that are beneficial to the species as a whole, which has evolutionary advantages. If you behave altruistically because you want to avoid being beaten up by the silverback, than that is not necessarily voluntary behaviour.

 

[Cain]

Social animals also evolved behaviours to pressurise others -- who would otherwise not -- to act in altruistic ways that are beneficial to the species as a whole, which has evolutionary advantages. If you behave altruistically because you want to avoid being beaten up by the silverback, than that is not necessarily voluntary behaviour.

In a thread on the Infidels board awhile back, I offered the following thought experiment (slightly edited):

Consider the following diabolical example, unfortunately not my own:

Suppose you live in a closed community of sorts, and one of the resident scientists develops an altruism pill. The pill only becomes active under very particular circumstances, and it produces the following behavior: A person will sacrifice her own life in order to save two or more lives. The reason why it's in the self-interest of everyone in the community to take the pill is that it's more likely you will be one of the two (or more) people in danger of losing their life than the sacrificial hero. Make sense?

Now here's the catch: A person who is truly self-interested -- that is, places his own self-advantage above others -- will *pretend* to take his pills, in effect benefiting from the robotic self-sacrifice of others while never putting his own life in danger. This then goes to what someone earlier mentioned about problems of free-ridership; if everyone acts in their self-interest, then nobody will take the pill.

---
As for Rand on emergency situations, consider the fact that some 50,000 people will die today from malnourishment and poverty related diseases. Can we justifiably impose a tax on people in rich countries to stave off death (that is, until those countries get enough laissez-faire capitalism ). This seems to constitute an emergency.

 

[Admiral]

But then is there something immoral about depending of a service that you do not support?

That's EXACTLY her point, actually- that's why she doesn't think that charity is a moral duty. In a society, though, where your need automatically becomes a claim on other people, not only is it considered good to rely on other people, but government will actively insist that those with ability provide services to those with need.

The best position to be in her society is that of the leach, you do not support the services as it is volentary but you take maximum advantage of them. Screw those dumb enough to pay.

Actually, no, that's the best position to be in a socialist society. As long as you claim a great need, you can take all you want from the able in society. Screw those dumb enough to produce- just seize all you can from the producers!

Say, for example, that after many years of difficult research I come across a cure for cancer, free of side effects. I then charge a few thousand dollars for each dose. You would probably claim I was an evil, greedy capitalist, and you want to nationalize the drug, providing it for free for everyone that couldn't afford it.

Here's my question, though. I produced that drug for profit, I put that work into it- what right do you have to seize it? You're effectively saying that all the work and money I had put into it was rightfully yours. Now, in a society that can do this, only the suckers would produce anything. By far, the best thing to be is a leech. Like I said, screw those dumb enough to produce.

 

[Admiral]

In a thread on the Infidels board awhile back, I offered the following thought experiment (slightly edited):

Consider the following diabolical example, unfortunately not my own:

Suppose you live in a closed community of sorts, and one of the resident scientists develops an altruism pill. The pill only becomes active under very particular circumstances, and it produces the following behavior: A person will sacrifice her own life in order to save two or more lives. The reason why it's in the self-interest of everyone in the community to take the pill is that it's more likely you will be one of the two (or more) people in danger of losing their life than the sacrificial hero. Make sense?

Now here's the catch: A person who is truly self-interested -- that is, places his own self-advantage above others -- will *pretend* to take his pills, in effect benefiting from the robotic self-sacrifice of others while never putting his own life in danger. This then goes to what someone earlier mentioned about problems of free-ridership; if everyone acts in their self-interest, then nobody will take the pill.

Actually, what you're offering is similar to a complaint Rand mentions in Atlas Shrugged: to paraphrase, that an altruistic society rewards those who disobey it, and punishes those who obey it.

---
As for Rand on emergency situations, consider the fact that some 50,000 people will die today from malnourishment and poverty related diseases. Can we justifiably impose a tax on people in rich countries to stave off death (that is, until those countries get enough laissez-faire capitalism ). This seems to constitute an emergency.

Rand would say no.

While I'm not adamantly opposed to it, I would be skeptical of such a tax, for a variety of reasons. One is that foreign aid is inevitably seized by corrupt governments (or, for that matter, by corrupt members of our own government- look at where Hurricane Katrina and 9/11 relief money went). Another reason is that governments always like to declare a state of emergency, or (their favorite) a state of war, in order to infringe on people's rights. The War on Terror is one example, but so is the War on Drugs.

In this case, I have a serious question- how long exactly is this emergency supposed to last? Is there an "exit strategy"?