I'm an Objectivist. Debate me.

Discussion in 'Religion & Philosophy' started by Appleo, Sep 3, 2018.

  1. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    A society can function perfectly well because there will be skilled laborers that can do the jobs that are required.
     
    Starjet likes this.
  2. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,043
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So rather than working in a job utilizing their skills, skilled workers will work the unskilled labor jobs? Do you think their employer is going to pay them extra to work unskilled jobs? Are they going to work fulltime at their skilled labor jobs and then also fulltime at an unskilled job?
     
  3. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,741
    Likes Received:
    6,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can see its use in some context but find the base ideals unappealing.
     
  4. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, from what I know about economics, the more in demand a job is, skilled the job is, or unfilled positions for that job, the more people are willing to pay for that job.

    What's your premise?
     
    Starjet likes this.
  5. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Well which ideals do you find unappealing? Or what do you disagree with, and why? And what would you propose instead of Objectivism?
     
  6. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,043
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except in normal economics, you have things like market failure (externalities, public goods, etc) that the market can't handle and that are the purview of the government. In an Objectivist society, none of that is allowed to exist.
     
  7. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    The government's only job is to protect individual rights. It is immoral to force a man who produces wealth to tell him where his wealth should go.
     
    Starjet likes this.
  8. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,043
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And objectivist's fail basic economics on that point.

    Their worship of an absolute free market fails to take into account that a free market cannot function in every single aspect of society. Something has to take care of areas where the market fails to function.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2018
  9. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    All exchanges of value among men must be voluntary. I do not believe that market failures justify the use of force and wealth confiscation.
     
    Starjet likes this.
  10. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,043
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, cool. And in emergency scenarios?

    Here’s a specific example: how does an Objectivist society run a missile defense system?
     
  11. tecoyah

    tecoyah Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 15, 2008
    Messages:
    25,741
    Likes Received:
    6,993
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Personally I find nihilism and ego based personalities to be unacceptable and often destructive, thus have I learned to recognize and avoid these traits and the situations they often create. I see the self centered philosophy to be almost the opposite of the way I live my life and therefore could never embrace it. As I have indicated I do not believe I can or should recommend someone elses societal philosophy so I will not.
     
  12. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Through voluntary consent.
     
  13. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,043
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ok, but how does that work? Once people realize they can get all the benefits of paying without paying, they will stop doing so.
     
  14. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    So you place people above yourself? You would rather sacrifice yourself to anybody, regardless if you even like them, value them, or care about them? Why is someone else's life, more important than your own life? The people that willingly let you sacrifice yourself to them are leeches and/or psychic vampires, who have no sense of self or purpose of their own. It is essentially philosophic cannibalism. To me, that is dangerous and destructive.
     
  15. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    If it's in someone's rational self-interest to pay for a missile defense system then they will voluntarily. If people don't want to pay, then they don't have to pay. Whoever or however they the system is paid for, it doesn't matter. As long as no force is used.
     
  16. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,043
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Except if it not paid for, it leaves the society open to attack. Then a Society that doesn’t give a flying **** about using force attacks and subjugates them.
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2018
  17. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Then it leaves the society to open attack.

    I would consider a society that uses government force instead of voluntary agreement more unfortunate than a society that open to an attack because no one voluntarily agreed.

    "Give me liberty or give me death."

    If a society is not free to begin with, it does not really matter if it can defend itself from attacks because it is already dead.
     
  18. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,043
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And that is why there is not and will never be any objectivist society.
     
  19. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,043
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It’s easier to say “Give me liberty or give me death” than say “I’m cool with my children dying from another nation’s attack than I am with paying taxes to defend them”. I see why you went with the former.
     
  20. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    So, I'm guessing that you believe in force and confiscation of wealth without voluntary consent. Why is this moral to you?
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2018
  21. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,043
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I believe that if you want to live in a functional society, you have to account for public goods, and that means taxes.

    You could go out and seastead if you want, completely free and only secure when you are awake and gripping a weapon, but I’d prefer to not live in the same conditions as 16th century pirates.
     
    Sallyally likes this.
  22. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    There are no public good. There are just goods.

    So are you a socialist?
     
  23. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,043
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are claiming there is no such thing as a public good, then you are failing basic economics. National defense, the law, the commons, all public goods.
     
  24. Appleo

    Appleo Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2017
    Messages:
    311
    Likes Received:
    87
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    Why can't people pay for public goods voluntarily?
     
    Last edited: Sep 3, 2018
  25. Questerr

    Questerr Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2007
    Messages:
    63,043
    Likes Received:
    4,937
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because they won’t. Rational actors in an economy aren’t going to pay for a good they can legally receive the benefits of for free. Do you know what “non-rival” and “non-exclusive” means?

    Things like the law need to remain public goods or otherwise justice becomes something only the rich can afford.
     

Share This Page