[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> To: [email protected] X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1085)
Hi Ham, Craig, Ant and the rest of you, even Bo, because I know you're out there somewhere. Rand was an intelligent writer and a rhetoric expert but no economic genius. She thought that only individual human values could be transformed into economic value by the egoistic objectivism. But, economic value rely on agreements between seller AND buyer at the social level. The seller trades goods and duties for a profit and the buyer trades his money for something that is more worth, has greater value for him, than the price, the money he pays for it. A fair deal is what we call 50/50 right? Both with even gain. No deal is made if not BOTH parties see their own value in making an agreement of trade or buy. Your gold has no economic value at all of nobody wants to trade something for it. Communism and a lot of other isms doesn't understand this so they just make 5-year plans for production, astro-economic forecasts and print a lot of fiat-money and hope that it will work. I suspect that these are isms founded by people who are afraid of losing control. What do you think about a system where you are not free to make business, agree with people and sell/buy things? The wealth of a society rely on a common social agreement that is manifested by its actual business, national commercial law and the monetary system. No deal, no fun. Jan Anders > Ant, > [I don’t have anything to say about Dr Greg Alvord, since despite his > 100 academic papers on cancer, you did not present any of his arguments > against Ayn Rand.] > > [Victoria Bekeiempis] >> Rand's illogical claims that altruism doesn't exist > > On the contrary, Rand claims that altruism, not only exists, but is the > source of much of what is wrong with the world. > > [VB] >> [Rand’s] ideas are clearly being used to justify inequality, giving >> credence to institutionalized wealth-based elitism. > > I don’t think inequality is something that needs to be justified. It is a > fact that some things are better than others. > I love the phrase “institutionalized wealth-based elitism”. Let us parse it. > “Elitism” is just the preference for things/processes/people that we judge > better over those we judge worse. It is a fundamental tenet of the MoQ. > “Wealth-based”, involves being willing to pay more for a high-quality > motorcycle or mechanic and only less for a low one. > “Institutionalized” means there is a systematic structure to the above. > This structure could be a caste system or it could be a dynamic system, where > there is possibility of improvement, but also failure caused by carelessness. > So “institutionalized wealth-based elitism” parses as “dynamic, > quality-based, preferences” in the MoQ. > > [VB] >> Rand conflates descriptive psychological egoism (people act in their > >> self-interest) with normative ethical egoism (acting in self-interest > is >> the right thing to do). > > Rand was the foremost expert on egoism. You can be assured she made no such > elementary mistake that VB attributes to her. > > [Sandra LaFave] >> The basic claim of egoists is that people 'always and invariably act in >> their self-interest' > > Again, this is not Rand’s view. Rand urges that people adopt rational > values, then act in accordance with those values [very MoQ-like]. > > [SLF] >> most moral codes call for altruism > > Rand has a specific meaning for ‘altruism’, namely, it is the sacrificing of > one’s own values for the values of others. Most moral codes do not call for > such sacrifice. > > [SLF] >> To date, neither Rand nor anyone else has been able to prove >> definitively that the proverbial soldier who dives on a grenade acts > >> selfishly, not altruistically." > > If someone “dives on a grenade” because of their values (for example, they > are protecting their loved ones or furthering an ideal they value), they are > not acting altruistically. > In short, the views against Ayn Rand indicate no understanding of her. You > should not rely on them. > > [Ant] >> Rand a hippy; that is to say essentially "a freedom loving >> irresponsible drag on society"! > > "Freedom loving”, yes. We differ on her contribution to society. > Craig > Moq_Discuss mailing list > Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. > http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org > Archives: > http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ > http://moq.org/md/archives.html Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
