I'm an Objectivist. Debate me.

I'm not going to continue to debate you if you refuse to address the points I make.

All you're doing to diverting the argument.

 

The poster doesnt seem to get it or they dont care hence the non replies.

 

Objectivism, like virtually every other philosophy, has some good points. But when taken to it's extreme, as the OP does, it becomes unworkable and invalid. Ayn Rand was a terrible writer, so I don't know much about her perspective on objectivism, but another of my favorite authors is an objectivist, and his work reflects the philosophy. Terry Goodkind.

 

Why do you think employer's offer jobs? They don't do it out of selflessness. They do it to make more money or because they want a service to benefit their life. So the employer offers a job and an individual has the choice to either take the job or not. If you don't like the job, then don't take it.

 

Goodkinds fantasy sucks. The chicken as the ultimate embodiment of evil?

Go read Steven erikson.

 

And then be free to become homeless and starve to death along with one’s family. Great “freedom” Objectivists offer there.

Should I also be “free” to force my children to work in whatever conditions an employer is willing to offer if my pittance of an income that my boss deigns to give me isn’t enough to keep a shack over our heads and gruel in our stomachs?

 

Well you bring up like 4 points in one post. As I've said earlier, I would prefer we stay on one point until we resolve it.

We can go back the evolution tribalism thing. And I said that we don't follow it anymore because we live in a relatively free country. In a free country, people choose to pursue their selfish-interest, regardless if it is in our evolutionary nature to be tribal.

 

No one has right to money that they have not earned. If you are starving and want money, then you must earn it through voluntary interaction.

 

And if it’s not enough, just starve along with your family, right?

Should I be able to force my children to work if employers will not pay me enough to survive? Should it be legal for employers to have unsafe or inhumane working conditions and should they be “free” to offer jobs to starving children to “freely” accept?

And of course, no charities can exist because that “altruism” and therefore evil and immoral.

 

Things that are extreme are invalid?

 

Do you know why Ayn Rand believes charities are immoral? How does a man have self-esteem if he is dependent on others? How can you feel good about yourself living off the product of other people's labor? How do you build a better society, if people cannot provide for themselves? Not only is it immoral that you cannot make money for yourself, but you demand through force/violence, that people give you money (which isn't even selfish, but parasitical), regardless of whether or not the producer of the wealth values you enough to give you his money.

 

How can you have self-esteem when you are dead?

How can you feel good about yourself when your children starve and you see rich Objectivists drive by in fabulous wealth (especially if they “earned” that money by having he right parent)?

If you cannot earn enough because employers pay the absolute bare minimum, possibly even forcing potential employees to bid against each other to see who will do the job for the least amount, you should just starve? That is your solution?

 

I notice you are still avoiding everything I posted about child labor and unsafe/inhumane work conditions.

 

Well your solution is robbery. I don't think that because someone is starving they should be allowed be granted the right to steal or use violence to demand higher wages.

A self-esteemed individual wouldn't starve to death. He would develop his skills so that he can take a job that pays him the money that he desires.

And when this self-esteemed individual pays for things that he wants, he is essentially employing other people, and he expects those people that he employs to only get money that they have agreed on voluntarily.

A prosperous society is a society that doesn't make any excuse to use force or coercion.

 

Developing skills is free and instantaneous? You realize you starve death in less than a month and become so weak you cannot stand in much less than that, right?

What skills exactly can you develop in that timeframe?

Except your Objectivist society already makes an excuse for coercion to be used against the poor via the threat of homelessness and starvation.

 

This isn't even excluded to what Objectivists believe. I think libertarians would also support this system.

Children are really complicated. Objectivist believe that every individual can be rationally self-interested. Children on the other hand, are not capable of this. I don't really know what Objectivists or what Ayn Rand says about children.

I would say that parents are responsible over children until age 18. We could debate what the actual age should be, like 16 or 25, but I don't think it really matters.

Once an individual reaches 18, they are treated the same way as everybody else. So they have to pay taxes, or fees in order to receive the benefits of that society.

Oh okay. Thank you for clarifying.

 

I've made myself very clear. Only voluntary interactions can take place among individuals.

 

If your choice is “or death, for you and your family” then it isn’t really voluntary.

Anymore than a government stormtrooper putting a gun to your head and giving you an “or death” choice would be.

 

Well, life in itself is unfree. In order to live we have to eat, sleep, etc. When I use voluntary, what I mean is that an individual is free from force and violence of other individuals.

 

What makes coercion from other individuals worse than coercion from any other source?

You are basing your entire philosophy on “voluntary relationships free from coercion” but you acknowledge for the poor, those relationships are not free from coercion and in fact poor people are entering them under duress, not voluntarily.

Poor people live under constant threat of homelessness and starvation and when in such desperate straits are willing to do anything to survive even for just one day. And the bad part is, you don’t even for a second see how that leads to massive exploitation in a laissez faire market with zero regulations.

I notice you still haven’t addressed my points about child labor or unsafe/inhumane work conditions. Here’s another to throw a wrench into Objectivism: what happens to people who are disabled by injury or illness and can’t work? Do they just starve?

 

Nobody has to starve if they don't want to. You can get a job or create your own business.

I'm just saying that in Objectivism, the moral thing to is to pursue your own happiness, not serve people at the expense of yourself even if they are starving. That's why people like living free countries. Nobody wants to work hard for their wealth, only to have it stolen by people.

As for child labor, I'm fine with it as long as everything is voluntary.

 

Because every job pays enough that you and your family won’t starve? Creating a business requires zero investment of money on the part of the business owner?

How voluntary is the labor of a child who’s choice is work in a sweatshop in slave-level conditions or starve to death on the street?

 

Objectivism only "works" for people who are already skilled and/or (most likely just "and") already well off. For everyone else, it's a race to the bottom as employers force workers to compete to see who is willing to do the job for the least amount of money until you finally have a neo-feudalist society of rich objectivist families who have enough money that they never have to do any real work and can pay off (or simply own) private law enforcement so they never see a day in court for any crime they commit ruling over a mass of poor people whose choices are sell themselves and their children into indentured servitude in exchange for a shack to live in and some scraps to eat or else die on the street.