public responsibilty of goverment

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by acropolis
it's easy to justify, 'it makes capitalism turn to poo'. hard to enforce. that much is true.

But then you've got Nodrog types who think that property rights are inviolate. If I own something, who says that you can take it away from me?

As for my point about avoidance of inheritance taxes, I think perhaps you are underestimating the scope. People can (a) hide money for their children, (b) buy them nice houses, etc. Sure, a house isn't the means of production (in the traditional sense) but if you have a five million dollar house which you leave in your will, little junior can easily swap that for a factory. If you are putting a limit on what people can inherit (reasonable assets say) or no inheritance whatsoever, then this leads to other problems. I'm not saying they are insurmountable problems, just annoying ones.

Also, I think perhaps I haven't been clear why I morally oppose inheritance. I don't oppose it because I think rich idiots will end up controlling the planet. This is a possibility, but has nothing to do with the actual moral point. At the moment, due to inheritance (and inequality) if two people are born one rich and one poor - which are equally "intelligent" (whatever that means) it is likely that the poor one will do less well. This is fine on it's own of course (who cares, etc) but it deflates the whole point of a meritocracy.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by G_frog
Actually it's a case of 'abide by this contract or we are not obliged NOT to initiate force against you' - though i already said i don't intend the contract to supercede morality.
no one gives the government the right to create a contract, it is allowed to offer any contract it pleases and you take it or leave it. it's not advisable to leave it as the world is now.

You are not given the option of "leaving it". A person is not currently free to live on his own property (or on property owned by others who have given him permission to be on it) interacting with people as and when he chooses to do so, without the state initiating force against him. Even if you oppose land ownership, the same applies - if an individual cannot own land then neither can a group.

[W]

If you're not against it (in the sense of not benefitting from it, but working against it in every way possible), you're with it. If you're not in a revolutionary party, you are saying "I think that a government elected democratically that goes to war is better than an undemocratic that don't", and as such you ARE responsible for the war.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by G_frog
I can't think of any consistent basis on which a government can derive legitimacy to govern other than a contract.

The problem with the contract theory is it stems from a false scenario to find false conclusion.

An individual does not really "agree" to the contract. I know it's sort of tacit acceptance, but when does this take place? Obviously you can't apply it to children,so you are left with some sort of grey area as to how people accept it. I've heard it said that if you accept state facilities (say welfare) then you are accepting the contract. If I tried to claim this type of standard in a private contract (e.g. if you come into my shop, you agree to buy a thousand quids worth of stuff!) I'd be laughed out of the courts.

Instead of thinking of some imaginary agreement that has ocurred in the past, let's look at a slightly more realistic scenario. You live in a country with X political system. This country is then invaded by a foriegn power which systematically destroys laws, structure of power, etc - putting their own in place.

Obviously this new regime is unlegitimate. There has been no social contract, and therefore anything goes. However, clearly this wouldn't mean you go round committing murders and so forth - the "natural" law (to use Hobbes/Locke's term) would still apply. As time goes on, the regime gets a bit fairer, allows elections and so forth (although within a strict limitation) and also allows some economic benefits to be passed onto the population. Does accepting any of these benefits constitute tacit acceptance of their rule? The threat of violence is never really removed and so the principal of duress would still seem to apply.

In short, I don't think you can retrospectively say that everyone agreed to these rules, and no-one can (practically) leave now. It's an interesting solution to the problem of governmental legitimacy but not a satisfactory one.

[Judge]

Originally posted by W
"I think that a government elected democratically that goes to war is better than an undemocratic that don't"

I would venture to suggest that "I think that a government elected democratically that goes to war is worse than a democratic one(s) that don't"

[W]

Originally posted by Judge
I would venture to suggest that "I think that a government elected democratically that goes to war is worse than a democratic one(s) that don't"

That too, but that's not really significant, since a vote is doing less than you can (and should, if you're honest about your convictions)

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by W
If you're not against it (in the sense of not benefitting from it, but working against it in every way possible), you're with it. If you're not in a revolutionary party, you are saying "I think that a government elected democratically that goes to war is better than an undemocratic that don't", and as such you ARE responsible for the war.

The murderer is responsible for the killing, not the person who didnt sacrifice his life to prevent it.

[W]

Originally posted by Nodrog
The murderer is responsible for the killing, not the person who didnt sacrifice his life to prevent it.

By who's decree?
I hold them both responsible.

To specify: The murderer is responsible for killing the victim, the bystander is responsible for not sacrificing his life to save the victim.

[Judge]

Originally posted by W
By who's decree?
I hold them both responsible.

Would you also suggest that the whole of society is responsible for the acts of a Murderer?

[W]

Originally posted by Judge
Would you also suggest that the whole of society is responsible for the acts of a Murderer?

I considered simply ignoring this post on the basis of it's stupidity, then I thought better off it, and concluded I had to expose you once again.


NO YOU ****ING MORON, WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU GET THAT FROM? STOP BLOODY TROLLING BY INTENTIONALLY MISSUNDERSTANDING WHAT PEOPLE WRITE!

at the moment, the public is not even responsible for itself, see 'suing people over hot cups of coffee and cracks in pavements' for proof of that.

Why we should be to blame because we voted for a government is beyond me. I dont think that Labour mentioned in their pre-election speaches 'and then we will nuke saddam, and then we will nuke korea, and then we will nuke germany and then and then and then and then and then'

[Judge]

Originally posted by W
I considered simply ignoring this post on the basis of it's stupidity, then I thought better off it, and concluded I had to expose you once again.


NO YOU ****ING MORON, WHERE ON EARTH DID YOU GET THAT FROM? STOP BLOODY TROLLING BY INTENTIONALLY MISSUNDERSTANDING WHAT PEOPLE WRITE!

Sheesh take a pill and chill ffs.

It was a reasonable question given that, you consider that a Murderer and a person who could possibly be in a position to stop the act perpertrated by the Murderer should be held equally responsble?

Or is that a missrepresentation of your comment?


My extrapolation of your position is that if Society makes conditions such that a person is compelled or feels compelled to commit murder (or any crime) would it not also be the case that society would or could be considered party to the act?

It was not a troll, as you quaintly put it.

[Kåre Willoch]

Originally posted by W
If you're not against it (in the sense of not benefitting from it, but working against it in every way possible), you're with it. If you're not in a revolutionary party, you are saying "I think that a government elected democratically that goes to war is better than an undemocratic that don't", and as such you ARE responsible for the war.

------------------------

This is what's called being an extremist, are you an extremist W ?
Extremism is usually seen as bad, look at Taliban for instance, they tried taking Islam to the extreme, much good it did them.

The simple clear cut choice of becoming a revolutionary, is a rather stupid quasi-academic choice if you ask me. But then, being educated at Uni myself, I'm sort of a quasi too..

Working through legal ways "inside the system" is not a romantics main choice, but I bet it does a lot more good than planning the next bombing to show your anti-government stance.

Moral responsibility becomes a useless term if a person clearly opposed to the policies of his own government, is held responsible for them.

Moral responsibility is clearly overrated in the west btw....

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Nodrog
You are not given the option of "leaving it". A person is not currently free to live on his own property (or on property owned by others who have given him permission to be on it) interacting with people as and when he chooses to do so, without the state initiating force against him. Even if you oppose land ownership, the same applies - if an individual cannot own land then neither can a group.

correct and wrong at the same time.

in order to interact with another human being, you must enter a social contract at some level.

if we have two humans in a room, and one is not willing to agree to not kill the other, then the other can and must do what he has to (even the use of force) to protect his own life.

when a society encounters an individual who is unwilling to do the same, that society can and must do what it has to (even using force).

as to land ownership, you cannot exist in a society that has it without agreeing to allow it. it doesn't mean you approve, and you may act to change that rule.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

Does accepting any of these benefits constitute tacit acceptance of their rule?

that's more of an master/slave relationship. i don't think anybody has ever argued that "if you are a slave and don't approve, you shouldn't eat the food your master gives you, elsewise you are agreeing to his right to own you"

I would consider there to be two causes of rule.

One is might makes right.

The second is a social contract.

The second is legitimate, the first is not. In all countries that exist today we have shades of both; even in the most disgusting dictatorship there is some level of basic social contract that the individuals agree to (that they don't kill each other etc.) and even in the most democratic government there are some unfair rules imposed on minority groups by those in power.

The fact that there is always some 'might makes right' politics going on does not invalidate the concept of a social contract, it simply makes it more important for us to see which laws are created via social contract and which are enforced on a reluctant public.

[W]

Originally posted by Idi
at the moment, the public is not even responsible for itself, see 'suing people over hot cups of coffee and cracks in pavements' for proof of that.

Why we should be to blame because we voted for a government is beyond me. I dont think that Labour mentioned in their pre-election speaches 'and then we will nuke saddam, and then we will nuke korea, and then we will nuke germany and then and then and then and then and then'

If the law does not hold you responsible, does that mean you aren't responsible?

Originally posted by Judge
Or is that a missrepresentation of your comment?

It is, and you know it.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
But then you've got Nodrog types who think that property rights are inviolate. If I own something, who says that you can take it away from me?

Even the most freakish conservative types agree to the fact that ownership of property exists because people agree that it is beneficial (again, a social contract). So your right to 'ownership' comes from that agreement.

If people made the same agreement with the stipulation that there would be some redistribution, that would be fine too.

So it wouldn't be me taking it away from you, it would be you agreeing to give it up in exchange for the right to own property.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
At the moment, due to inheritance (and inequality) if two people are born one rich and one poor - which are equally "intelligent" (whatever that means) it is likely that the poor one will do less well. This is fine on it's own of course (who cares, etc) but it deflates the whole point of a meritocracy.

This is one of the non-social contract agreements I would argue that was originally created by 'might makes right' types. Therefore falling into the category of things that we should work to abolish.

Originally posted by W
If the law does not hold you responsible, does that mean you aren't responsible?

Apparently it does.

[Sub]

I don't really see what that story has to do with anything, but I haven't read every post thoroughly.

[Sub]

Hmm.

[W]

Originally posted by Kåre Willoch
------------------------

This is what's called being an extremist, are you an extremist W ?
Extremism is usually seen as bad, look at Taliban for instance, they tried taking Islam to the extreme, much good it did them.

The simple clear cut choice of becoming a revolutionary, is a rather stupid quasi-academic choice if you ask me. But then, being educated at Uni myself, I'm sort of a quasi too..

Working through legal ways "inside the system" is not a romantics main choice, but I bet it does a lot more good than planning the next bombing to show your anti-government stance.

Moral responsibility becomes a useless term if a person clearly opposed to the policies of his own government, is held responsible for them.

Moral responsibility is clearly overrated in the west btw....

Look. I wasn't talking about moral responsibility at all. I do not think there is any objective morals, or any morals that aren't at hearth aestetical judgements.

I did not say that if you were against war, you should start a revolution to avoid it. I said that if you didn't want to start a revolution, you had to accept that you would rather have war than try to start a revolution. So you're responsible, since you could do more, but choose not to. This works for "working from within the system" as well. You might have done all you wanted to do to avoid war, but you haven't done all you COULD, and there's no denying it.

Originally posted by Idi
Apparently it does.

Doesn't appear that way to me...

[Judge]

Originally posted by W
By who's decree?
I hold them both responsible.

To specify: The murderer is responsible for killing the victim, the bystander is responsible for not sacrificing his life to save the victim.

On second thoughts.

if the bystander did in fact give his life to save the intended victim, would it not be the case that the "Intended Victim" would then be held responsible (in the same context as the bystander) for failing to protect the bystander?

This could go on ad infinitum.

Sarcasm/ But i wait for your response with baited breath /Sarcasm

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Judge
On second thoughts.

if the bystander did in fact give his life to save the intended victim, would it not be the case that the "Intended Victim" would then be held responsible (in the same context as the bystander) for failing to protect the bystander?

This could go on ad infinitum.

Sarcasm/ But i wait for your response with baited breath /Sarcasm

i think all he's saying is that every one is responsible for the choices they make.

i.e., the bystander is not responsible for the killing, only for the choice he made not to stop it.

which seems to me to be pretty obvious:/

so then question is either whether he should have chosen to stop it, or something like that.

[W]

Originally posted by Judge
On second thoughts.
if the bystander did in fact give his life to save the intended victim, would it not be the case that the "Intended Victim" would then be held responsible (in the same context as the bystander) for failing to protect the bystander?
This could go on ad infinitum.
Sarcasm/ But i wait for your response with baited breath /Sarcasm

The truth is that you have no idea what kind of responsibility I'm talking about. You're still hung up in moral responsibility, "should"s and punishments/guilt.

No, if the victim didn't have the ability to die at will or othervise enforce the situation in favour of the bystander, he is not responsible for not doing that.

[W]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Secondly, the odd notion of the rich producing anything has been invented. Redistribution only makes sense if you are talking about taking something from one person and giving it to another. The rich (in our economy at least) don't directly produce any physical goods. Sure, some intellectual production is undertaken by them - the worth of which is sometimes questionable.

This is only true if you take away private property, and then compare the rich output with the poor output without giving either the time to adjust to the system without private property. The fact of the matter is, that in a system with private property, rich people create much more values than the poor, simply by owning what it is that is creating the values all on their own. Mind you I am not saying "physical goods", I am saying "values" since values are anything which people are willing to trade physical goods or work creating physical goods for. In fact, the larger a collection of capital that is invested in one venture, the more value is generated per unit capital invested!

So while the factory owner might not slave with some tool every day, and don't do any manual labour himself, the factory that he owns, that he made possible due to his capital, is increasing the output of the workers manyfold. Thus he's creating value. It might be oppressive to the workers, and they might be a whole lot happier if they created the value "with their own two hands" without the advanced tools of the factory, but it IS creating value

[Cyp]

Without commenting on the content of the thread, I ask whether people on this thread define responsibility such that if a person unwittingly presses a button that was mislabelled "create world peace", but actually unintentionally starts a world war instead, that person is responsible?

[W]

Originally posted by Cyp
Without commenting on the content of the thread, I ask whether people on this thread define responsibility such that if a person unwittingly presses a button that was mislabelled "create world peace", but actually unintentionally starts a world war instead, that person is responsible?

Some do, some don't, I guess. I do.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Cyp
Without commenting on the content of the thread, I ask whether people on this thread define responsibility such that if a person unwittingly presses a button that was mislabelled "create world peace", but actually unintentionally starts a world war instead, that person is responsible?

Depends what you mean by 'responsible'. They arent "morally responsible" in my opinion, as you cannot be morally responsible for events which occur outwith your sphere of potential knowledge. If you mean responsible as in "being a cause/contributing factor", then yeah, they would obviously be responsible since it occurred as a direct result of their actions.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by W
The fact of the matter is, that in a system with private property, rich people create much more values than the poor, simply by owning what it is that is creating the values all on their own.

This is a valid enough economic analysis but is invalid in moral terms.

Part of the Rand-style argument is that the rich are morally better than the poor. There is quote (I think it originally comes from Prodhoun) that's used by Rand (once again, I think) about what would happen if you removed the 100 greatest scientists, engineers, architechts, etc from society. This is directly equating economic production with some kind of moral value. Of course, someone with a billion pounds invested in the equity markets is "producing" more than someone who digs sixteen tonnes of number nine coal - in economic terms. But we're talking about moral evaluation of the individual here, not economic categories.

[Judge]

Originally posted by W
The truth is that you have no idea what kind of responsibility I'm talking about. You're still hung up in moral responsibility, "should"s and punishments/guilt.

No, if the victim didn't have the ability to die at will or othervise enforce the situation in favour of the bystander, he is not responsible for not doing that.

To be quite frank, you have failed to explain what you mean by "responsibility"?

Maybe it is just me, but I doubt it?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Nusselt
Ok in a democratically elected goverment the people of the country can be held responsible for the actions of its goverment since they elected it.

I think this is rubbish, myself.

I voted for Dari Taylor as MP for Stockton South at the last election, on a Labour ticket.

I had looked at Dari, and what she promised to do, her background, etc. and looked at the Labour manifesto, and that was how I casted my vote. Quite apart from the fact that I never voted for Tony Blair or his government directly, of course.

So how on earth am I resonsible for Tony Blair's diplomatic adventures two and a half years later? I didn't vote for this policy. I voted on the basis of affairs as they were in 2001.

I don't see how I'm responisble for the government's policy actions that it takes as events unfold after election time, any more than Neil Hamilton's constituents were responsible for him being a corrupt bastard in the 1992-1997 period when they elected him in 1992.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I voted for Dari Taylor as MP for Stockton South at the last election, on a Labour ticket.

The Labour Party have a history (especially in recent years) of being gutlessly pro-war. Their recent militarism is hardly a shock.

[Cyp]

Originally posted by Judge
To be quite frank, you have failed to explain what you mean by "responsibility"?

Maybe it is just me, but I doubt it?

Causing something due to taking or not taking some action, either directly, or via changing the weather via the butterfly effect, I think.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I think this is rubbish, myself.

I voted for Dari Taylor as MP for Stockton South at the last election, on a Labour ticket.

I had looked at Dari, and what she promised to do, her background, etc. and looked at the Labour manifesto, and that was how I casted my vote. Quite apart from the fact that I never voted for Tony Blair or his government directly, of course.

So how on earth am I resonsible for Tony Blair's diplomatic adventures two and a half years later? I didn't vote for this policy. I voted on the basis of affairs as they were in 2001.

I don't see how I'm responisble for the government's policy actions that it takes as events unfold after election time, any more than Neil Hamilton's constituents were responsible for him being a corrupt bastard in the 1992-1997 period when they elected him in 1992.

that's the problem with representative democracy.

in a decent system, you would vote directly 'yes' 'no' in reference to the war, and you could thereby be held responsible.

so I would put most of the responsibility on those in power who are acting without your consent, and responsibility to you only as far as you this would happen and supported it (virtually nil).

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
The Labour Party have a history (especially in recent years) of being gutlessly pro-war. Their recent militarism is hardly a shock.

How does that make me responsible for the present state of affairs when I was voting in 2001, though?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
How does that make me responsible for the present state of affairs when I was voting in 2001, though?

If the local BNP stood in your ward with a non-racist and reasonable platform (but you knew historically they were a bunch of racist scum), don't you think people voting for them would have a small amount of responsibility if they started being racist a couple of years down the line?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
If the local BNP stood in your ward with a non-racist and reasonable platform (but you knew historically they were a bunch of racist scum), don't you think people voting for them would have a small amount of responsibility if they started being racist a couple of years down the line?

The BNP are a bunch of racist scum. We know this. We know that if elected, they will be naughty.

In the 2001 election, I was unaware that America would soon suffer a terrorist catastrophe that would make George Bush into a gung-ho interventionist, after nearly two years of barely acknowledging that there was a world outside of Maryland, and there would be a subsequent crisis over Iraqi WMD's, and Blair would adopt the line he has.


The point I am trying to make is that Tony Blair and The Labour party, despite your protestations to the contrary, do not have a big book called 'How we will deal with international situations involving The US and The Middle East if anything crops up' that it sends it's supporters at election time. The BNP's entire ethos is based around 'Wogs are scum', though.

There is, therefore, a qualitative difference between the two.


Can you please now answer my original question, which was how was I directly responsible for the government's actions at this time in 2001?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
Can you please now answer my original question, which was how was I directly responsible for the government's actions at this time in 2001?

Sorry, I thought had done. You voted for a party which has been continuously pro-war for some time now. On almost every issue they have simply adopted a near-Tory view - why would this be any different?

Of course, yes, you didn't know this situation was going to develop. But in a 5 year period, it's fairly likely that there will be some sort of intervention issue raising it's head. Somalia, Iraq, Yugoslavia, etc, etc. The 1997-2001 period provided plenty of evidence either way. You voted for a party which has been militarist (in among other places, Iraq). I don't see how you can say "Bloody hell, bombing Iraq? Didn't see that one coming" when Blair (i.e. the leader of the party of which you voted) has presided over a five year period of constant bombing of Iraq.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Sorry, I thought had done. You voted for a party which has been continuously pro-war for some time now. On almost every issue they have simply adopted a near-Tory view - why would this be any different?

I think you're trying to establish it in some sort of context that doesn't exist. I still can't see how a person having no direct for knowledge of a certain, individual sitution, can be held directly responsible when they endorse a person who does that action years before.

I couldn't, based on my knowledge that Blair was fairly hard on quite a few internvetionist issues, concieve of this in 2001. And that is, in my mind, the only way I could be directly responsible. If I had known about it in 2001.

I mean, is a person directly responsible for all foreign policy actions of a returning government after re-election, then? Where exactly do you draw the line - if not at this, then when?

[Judge]

Originally posted by Cyp
Causing something due to taking or not taking some action, either directly, or via changing the weather via the butterfly effect, I think.

Which is what I said, ie Being responsible for your actions or innactions.

Yet "W" stated that he meant some other context in regard to responsibility.

By citing the example that a bystander through innaction could be considered responsible in the same context as a person who commits murder.

My initial response to this was to extrapolate his position by suggesting that Society either through action or innaction in allowing the Government to pursue a policy (ie: Going to War) could be considered responsible in the same context as the murderer and bystander.

I further put the proposition that in regard to his scenario, if the bystander did act to prevent the murder of the intended victim, and in the course of that action became the victim, could it not also be the case that the "Original Victim" could then be placed in the position of the bystander and therefore held responsible in the same context?

(Obviously that scenario could go on ad-infinitum)

His assertion that he meant some other context other than moral or legal responsibility is quite beyond my comprehension?

I must have been off school they day the covered this fictitious "responsibility"

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Marilyn Manson
I mean, is a person directly responsible for all foreign policy actions of a returning government after re-election, then? Where exactly do you draw the line - if not at this, then when?

I would draw the line with statistical likelyhood. A parole board ordering the release of a prisoner they suspect is likely to commit further offences can be thought of partially responsible if this person (when placed in a certain situation) acts criminally. I wouldn't say "directly responsible" since obviously the individual (Ministers, soldiers, prisoners, etc) have the rational capacity to reject war or crime. But still...

To continue the parole board analogy a little bit further. If you are are the panel who chooses whether convict x - a sex offender should be released. You know this person has molested children in the past five year period, and there's no realistic reason to presume he won't do it again (he's not apologised for his part offences, or had counselling, etc). You vote for him to be released and a few years later he get's close to a family who start to trust him. One day, they leave their 8 year old daughter in his care. Bam, he reoffends. You are questioned - "Well, how was I supposed to know this situation was going to come up?". You obviously didn't, but I suspect most would find you partially responsible.

If you voted for the BNP, they get to power and then do a range of anti-racist policies you aren't really "responsible" for this since it wasn't what could realistically could be expected. Similarly if a ruling Green Party decides to build 50 nuclear power stations (and so on).

The Labour Party could reasonably be expect to act criminally, in a foriegn policy context. Therefore I hold Labour voters responsible for their actions. Obviously you're not directly responsible for the situation (that can be blamed on everyone else ever in total). The Labour Parties record on this subject was a matter of public record as of the past election tho...

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
Part of the Rand-style argument is that the rich are morally better than the poor

no, not in any way, shape or form.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

There is quote (I think it originally comes from Prodhoun) that's used by Rand (once again, I think) about what would happen if you removed the 100 greatest scientists, engineers, architechts, etc from society. This is directly equating economic production with some kind of moral value.

No it isnt, its a statement of who does more for humanity in a purely utilitarian sense, nothing else.

[Dante Hicks]

"egalatarianism [is]...a hatred focused specifically on the fountainhead of all goods, spiritual or material; the men of ability." - Ayn Rand

This goes beyond mere utility. It's a moral principal (ripped off of Nieztsche) trying to invert the whole Christian (slave morality) notion of "good". For Nieztsche it was some kind of bizarre aristocratic aesthetic elite. For Rand it's businessmen and her bloody architechts.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
"egalatarianism [is]...a hatred focused specifically on the fountainhead of all goods, spiritual or material; the men of ability." - Ayn Rand

This goes beyond mere utility. It's a moral principal (ripped off of Nieztsche) trying to invert the whole Christian (slave morality) notion of "good".

No it isnt. You cant just make up some nonsense theory and attribute it to someone you dont like, then expect people to prove that they never suggested anything like it. There is nothing whatsoever in any of Rand's work (including the quote you just gave) that supports anything even close to "The rich are morally superior to the poor". It goes against the very fundamentals of Randian morality.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
There is quote (I think it originally comes from Prodhoun) that's used by Rand (once again, I think) about what would happen if you removed the 100 greatest scientists, engineers, architechts, etc from society...

then that society would barely blink.

take away some class of the poorer strata (say, take out all the farmers) and your society drops into a third world in the blink of an eye.

but i thought rand was right-wingish?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Nodrog
No it isnt. You cant just make up some nonsense theory and attribute it to someone you dont like, then expect people to prove that they never suggested anything like it.

I am certainly no expect on Ayn Rand. However, I don't think you can exclude morality from the scenario she builds up in her various writings.

On the one side you have the leeches, looters, "whining rotters", parasites, etc. On the other you have those creative, industrious and entrepeneurial souls (the John Galt's of this world). How is this crude representation not a moral reflection? Sure, I'm not saying she said (or you, or anyone) poor people are inherently evil but that people became rich became rich not through just being jammy but became rich through either their own genius or through the virtue of selfishness.

Which was my original point. You see the rich as somehow "deserving" their current status even slightly). The obvious counterpoint to that is that the poor somehow deserve theres. In such a scenario, the interference of a social-democratic state (ignoring the efficiency effects) is blatantly unjustified, and quite frankly criminal. I don't see their current status as even slightly justified (indeed "deserving" isn't a category I'd consider in economic terms) so therefore when they get robbed by the state I merely find this funny.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by acropolis
then that society would barely blink.

I think the point is that if you removed 100 of the best inventors (or engineers, etc) then it'd have more of an effect than say, removing the 100 biggest welfare recepients, or even 100 best factory workers. The original former of the quote (as I say, maybe Proudhon) was using it to say "If you removed the 100 greatest scientists then we'd be screwed, if we removed the 100 top nobles, we'd be laughing"

I think both scenario's miss the fact that the individuals in question are (to a large extent) the result of social investment in them. The top 100 scientists I'm sure are gifted (on some biological level or psychological level) but if we went back in time and killed their mothers, society would look pretty much the same since 100 others would have taken their place anyway.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I am certainly no expect on Ayn Rand. However, I don't think you can exclude morality from the scenario she builds up in her various writings.

On the one side you have the leeches, looters, "whining rotters", parasites, etc. On the other you have those creative, industrious and entrepeneurial souls (the John Galt's of this world). How is this crude representation not a moral reflection? Sure, I'm not saying she said (or you, or anyone) poor people are inherently evil but that people became rich became rich not through just being jammy but became rich through either their own genius or through the virtue of selfishness.

No, she claimed that people who create value deserve to keep that value, not have it taken away from them in the interests of egalitarianism. Whether that value is material,, or spiritual (having nothing to do with money whatsoever) is irrelevant. At no point was a moral judgement passed on anyone based on their value - how could it be? Her entire moral philosophy is based around volition, and being accountable (both positively and negatively) only for actions which they consciously chose. Since noone chooses to have more natural ability than anyone else, saying that the 'able' are morally superior to the 'less able' goes against her fundamental point.

She devoted an entire book to explaining why money is exceptionally overrated within todays society (and why most people who choose to pursue obtaining money above all else are likely to end up incredibly unhappy, no matter how successful they were), which is what makes your original claim even more ludicrious.

Originally posted by Dante Hicks

Which was my original point. You see the rich as somehow "deserving" their current status even slightly). The obvious counterpoint to that is that the poor somehow deserve theres. In such a scenario, the interference of a social-democratic state (ignoring the efficiency effects) is blatantly unjustified, and quite frankly criminal. I don't see their current status as even slightly justified (indeed "deserving" isn't a category I'd consider in economic terms) so therefore when they get robbed by the state I merely find this funny.

Well yes, you dont see why someone who is responsible for creating a product that advances humanity forwards significantly deserves to live in a better house than a binman (and you'd actually want him to have less money, unless he invented the product while doing work that was inferior to changing bins). Its an irresolvable difference of opinion. She believed that people who create value should be allowed to keep the value which they have createe (and which wouldnt exist without them and their work), while you would rather have it distributed amongst society more or less equally.

[acropolis]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
"If you removed the 100 greatest scientists then we'd be screwed, if we removed the 100 top nobles, we'd be laughing"

i agree about the nobles, hell just the other day i was saying i disapproved about all hereditary type things.

but i think 'screwed' is going way too far though.

it might be a bit of a set back in the long run, but in the short run it owuldn't change anything.

moreover, imagine this: all scientists, all doctors, all lawyers, all engineers, and all professionals in general snubbed out in an instant.

certainly wouldn't be good, but society would still get by, and all that together wouldn't have the slightest fraction of the damage that the removal of the farmers, or the police, or the soldiers, or the truckers, etc. would have.

we pay doctors etc. so much more not because what they produce is more valuable or more necessary, but simply because their skills are less common. supply and demand, and they are rich.

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by Dante Hicks
I think both scenario's miss the fact that the individuals in question are (to a large extent) the result of social investment in them. The top 100 scientists I'm sure are gifted (on some biological level or psychological level) but if we went back in time and killed their mothers, society would look pretty much the same since 100 others would have taken their place anyway.

You cant prove this, nor can you support it in any way. There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back that statement up, and nor could there ever be (unless a clever scientist invents a time machine, which would be ironic).

On a sidenote, are you sure that it is 'society' as a whole that is responsible for these peoples success, rather than the talented individuals who came before them?

[Nodrog]

Originally posted by acropolis
i agree about the nobles, hell just the other day i was saying i disapproved about all hereditary type things.

but i think 'screwed' is going way too far though.

it might be a bit of a set back in the long run, but in the short run it owuldn't change anything.

moreover, imagine this: all scientists, all doctors, all lawyers, all engineers, and all professionals in general snubbed out in an instant.

certainly wouldn't be good, but society would still get by, and all that together wouldn't have the slightest fraction of the damage that the removal of the farmers, or the police, or the soldiers, or the truckers, etc. would have.

we pay doctors etc. so much more not because what they produce is more valuable or more necessary, but simply because their skills are less common. supply and demand, and they are rich.

Assume it happened 200 years ago - that was the point. Would you currently be sitting in a nice comfy house with a computer talking to people over the internet, or would you be working in a factory packing boxes? The comforts of modern society exist because of the hard work of talented individuals, and it would look very different without them.