Social Darwinism
Christopher Benson-Manica
Objectivist argue that society should and does weed out the unfit?
Would an Objectivist define fitness in terms of ability to produce?
--
Christopher Benson-Manica, anti-stupidity activist
ataru(at)cyberspace.org
Robert J. Kolker
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
> Do social Darwinism and Objectivism have anything in common? Would an
> Objectivist argue that society should and does weed out the unfit?
> Would an Objectivist define fitness in terms of ability to produce?
That would be one figure of merit. In a just society the unfit will weed
themselve out. The productive and the competent will rise, the less so
will decline to the level at which they can function. We don't need
eugenics or euthanasia to bring this about.
Bob Kolker
>
Scott Stephens
> Do social Darwinism and Objectivism have anything in common?
Life as a value
Would an
> Objectivist argue that society should and does weed out the unfit?
Depends on the nature of the inefficiency
> Would an Objectivist define fitness in terms of ability to produce?
Produce in the context of furthering life. Producing propaganda that
rallies a mob to plunder the most competent, the best and brightest, as
Rand illustrates in AS, is not producing a value.
I'm not a greedy fascist neocon, or a communist gangster, or probably
qualify as an Objectivist for that matter, even though I value life qua
rational life.
--
Scott
**********************************
DIY Piezo-Gyro, PCB Drill Bot & More Soon!
http://home.comcast.net/~scottxs/
**********************************
Fred Weiss
ws:<ca2or2$162$2...@news-int2.gatech.edu>...
> Do social Darwinism and Objectivism have anything in common? Would an
> Objectivist argue that society should and does weed out the unfit?
Not in any sense of "eugenics" or racial superiority or any such
similar nonsense.
However I would endorse a kind of "Darwinian" approach to economics
where I think it does apply, i.e. that the "fittest" companies
survive. Capitalism is a highly competitive system where the best
companies succeed, continually weeding out those unable or unwilling
to adapt to new ideas or technology.
> Would an Objectivist define fitness in terms of ability to produce?
Fitness for what? I wouldn't think of it those terms. Productivity is
certainly a virtue and those who are the most productive should be
rewarded for it. But keep in mind that they in turn make it possible
for the less productive to survive and prosper. The average worker
couldn't have thought up the steam engine or the electric light or
built the great industrial empires which made those products widely
available and affordable. But they have greatly benefited from those
efforts.
Fred Weiss
Tom S.
"Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:3672fde9.04060...@posting.google.com...
>
> However I would endorse a kind of "Darwinian" approach to economics
> where I think it does apply, i.e. that the "fittest" companies
> survive. Capitalism is a highly competitive system where the best
> companies succeed, continually weeding out those unable or unwilling
> to adapt to new ideas or technology.
Or to be able to play politics with the "Big Boys". That more than anything
else is why Microsoft (a crappy company none-the-less) wound up in front of
Federal prosecutors.
Tom
--
"It's said that criminals behave as they do
because of their lack of economic opportunities.
It's more that they have no economic
opportunities BECAUSE they are criminals."
Fred Weiss
.uswest.net>...
> "Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
> news:3672fde9.04060...@posting.google.com...
> >
> > However I would endorse a kind of "Darwinian" approach to economics
> > where I think it does apply, i.e. that the "fittest" companies
> > survive. Capitalism is a highly competitive system where the best
> > companies succeed, continually weeding out those unable or unwilling
> > to adapt to new ideas or technology.
>
> Or to be able to play politics with the "Big Boys". That more than anything
> else is why Microsoft (a crappy company none-the-less) wound up in front of
> Federal prosecutors.
But "playing politics" is not what would happen under laissez-faire
(if it did, it wouldn't be laissez-faire). And I don't agree that
Microsoft was or is a crappy company. It's an extraordinary and
entirely positive American business success story comparable to the
building of Standard Oil or the Ford Motor Co. (in its early years) -
and with the same incalculable benefits to the economy. It was wealth
well-earned.
But I do agree with you that Microsoft was targeted because it didn't
play ball with the politicians. Its whiney competitors had bought off
various politicians - Orrin Hatch the most notable - to go after them
(and throw in that great vaunted "conservative", Robert Bork, who in
addition to not seeing any "right to privacy" in the Constitution,
also apparently didn't see any problems with the anti-trust laws).
Fred Weiss
Christopher Benson-Manica
> Not in any sense of "eugenics" or racial superiority or any such
> similar nonsense.
Sorry - I had forgotten that aspect of Social Darwinism. I hope it's
obvious that I regard such ideas as criminally stupid...
> Fitness for what? I wouldn't think of it those terms. Productivity is
> certainly a virtue and those who are the most productive should be
> rewarded for it. But keep in mind that they in turn make it possible
> for the less productive to survive and prosper. The average worker
> couldn't have thought up the steam engine or the electric light or
> built the great industrial empires which made those products widely
> available and affordable. But they have greatly benefited from those
> efforts.
But would you agree that a certain level of productivity should be
required of people? That the terminally lazy should be weeded out? I
think also that the Darwinian model can justify "let the ability of a
man determine his reward".
--
Christopher Benson-Manica | I *should* know what I'm talking about - if I
ataru(at)cyberspace.org | don't, I need to know. Flames welcome.
Fred Weiss
> But would you agree that a certain level of productivity should be
> required of people?
Required by whom? In a free market and a free society no one has to
require it. The nature of the system itself, reality if you will,
requires it.
> That the terminally lazy should be weeded out?
Weeded out by whom? Again, in a free market and a free society,
reality takes care of such people. They simply end up impoverished,
unless someone chooses to support them (but no one would be required
to).
> I think also that the Darwinian model can justify "let the ability of a
> man determine his reward".
In an economic context, I think that's the ideal - and in a completely
free market that will in fact be the case in the vast majority of
cases. That's the link between capitalism and a proper view of "social
justice". That of course is the inverse of the current view which
regards the *less able* as deserving of the maximum rewards.
All of this as I'm sure you are starting to see is the underlying
theme of AS.
Fred Weiss
Tom S.
"Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
news:3672fde9.04060...@posting.google.com...
> "Tom S." <tms...@qwest.net> wrote in message
news:<PFexc.365$DC1.83305@news
> .uswest.net>...
> > "Fred Weiss" <fred...@papertig.com> wrote in message
> > news:3672fde9.04060...@posting.google.com...
> > >
> > > However I would endorse a kind of "Darwinian" approach to economics
> > > where I think it does apply, i.e. that the "fittest" companies
> > > survive. Capitalism is a highly competitive system where the best
> > > companies succeed, continually weeding out those unable or unwilling
> > > to adapt to new ideas or technology.
> >
> > Or to be able to play politics with the "Big Boys". That more than
anything
> > else is why Microsoft (a crappy company none-the-less) wound up in front
of
> > Federal prosecutors.
>
> But "playing politics" is not what would happen under laissez-faire
> (if it did, it wouldn't be laissez-faire).
Yes...but your original context was historical, not futuristic.
>And I don't agree that
> Microsoft was or is a crappy company.
It wasn't in the past so much, but it is becomming so.
> It's an extraordinary and
> entirely positive American business success story comparable to the
> building of Standard Oil or the Ford Motor Co.
That's what I mean by "the past", but even those faltered -- Standard under
odious government dictats, and Ford under arrogance. MS is following the
path of Ford. In many ways it's making the same mistakes that killed Apple
(proprietary systems...they still don't intertact with non-windows systems
very smoothly) and trying so hard to control the entire market it can't make
stable systems (I have Win2000 and there are several applications and
network functions that still are not debugged after four years.)
> (in its early years) -
> and with the same incalculable benefits to the economy. It was wealth
> well-earned.
>
> But I do agree with you that Microsoft was targeted because it didn't
> play ball with the politicians. Its whiney competitors had bought off
> various politicians - Orrin Hatch the most notable - to go after them
> (and throw in that great vaunted "conservative", Robert Bork, who in
> addition to not seeing any "right to privacy" in the Constitution,
> also apparently didn't see any problems with the anti-trust laws).
I'll be eternally grateful that Bork didn't get on the Supreme Court.
Christopher Benson-Manica
> Required by whom? In a free market and a free society no one has to
> require it. The nature of the system itself, reality if you will,
> requires it.
That's kind of what I meant, actually. I guess the real question was,
"Should that bother us?" I guess not.`
> Weeded out by whom? Again, in a free market and a free society,
> reality takes care of such people. They simply end up impoverished,
> unless someone chooses to support them (but no one would be required
> to).
I wish we lived in such a society - I hate welfare, especially
coporate welfare.
> In an economic context, I think that's the ideal - and in a completely
> free market that will in fact be the case in the vast majority of
> cases. That's the link between capitalism and a proper view of "social
> justice". That of course is the inverse of the current view which
> regards the *less able* as deserving of the maximum rewards.
> All of this as I'm sure you are starting to see is the underlying
> theme of AS.
That's starting to make a lot more sense now. I'm making progress -
before AS, I couldn't regard Communism as being wholly vile and
despicable, which I see clearly now :)
Scott Stephens
> Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> spoke thus:
>
>>Not in any sense of "eugenics" or racial superiority or any such
>>similar nonsense.
>
>
> Sorry - I had forgotten that aspect of Social Darwinism. I hope it's
> obvious that I regard such ideas as criminally stupid...
Think about your premise! Who decides on the criteria to 'weed out' the
under-menchen? If the primary evil in the human condition is forcing
others exist to serve you, the primary evil belief is belief in the
superiority of your self/gang and inferiority and fitness for servility
of others.
In free capitalism, men vote with their dollars on what is of value and
what isn't, according to what they desires, as they exchange value for
value, not blows for blows.
You sound like another victim of liberal political correctness, if you
think racism is criminal stupidity, but any other form of compulsion isn't.
> But would you agree that a certain level of productivity should be
> required of people?
There are some forms of media and art I don't appreciate and think is
dangerous, worse than trash. Others are willing to pay for it.
> That the terminally lazy should be weeded out?
Are you suggesting we slaughter retarded and sick people like Nazis?
> I
> think also that the Darwinian model can justify "let the ability of a
> man determine his reward".
Are you a believer in Eugenics? What if genetics have little to do with
certain aptitudes, dispositions, enthusiasm, resolve to accomplish? What
if some people are lazy because the people around them have insulted and
beat them down their whole lives?
Your question suggests the premise that "society" is sacrosanct in its
wisdom to recognize and act on value. As we see the Democrats and their
media catering to the least common denominator, it is obviouse a mob is
a dangerous thing to be at the mercy of.
If you see fascists or communists, or anyone saying who is fit to live
and die, fear greatly. Your turn will come.
Christopher Benson-Manica
> others exist to serve you, the primary evil belief is belief in the
> superiority of your self/gang and inferiority and fitness for servility
> of others.
I believe in the superiority of the intelligent over the stupid and
the diligent over the lazy, in that the intelligent and the diligent
will prosper and the stupid and lazy will not...
> You sound like another victim of liberal political correctness, if you
> think racism is criminal stupidity, but any other form of compulsion isn't.
I'm not sure what other form of compulsion you're talking about.
> Are you suggesting we slaughter retarded and sick people like Nazis?
I'm not suggesting we slaughter anyone, although Lord knows I feel like
doing it to certain individuals. Retarded and sick people can work
or create value in other ways; your average bum can't or won't.
And as I replied to Fred, I didn't mean to suggest that anyone should
actively do the weeding out - just that those who don't shouldn't feel
too guilty about those that do.
> Are you a believer in Eugenics? What if genetics have little to do with
> certain aptitudes, dispositions, enthusiasm, resolve to accomplish? What
> if some people are lazy because the people around them have insulted and
> beat them down their whole lives?
Well, I'm sure some people are lazy because they had terrible parents.
A suitable "real world" can fix that problem easily :)
In principle, I don't see anything terribly wrong with eugenics. We
breed all sorts of animals - why not breed ourselves? I don't suppose
it would happen though, because I see no reason anyone should be
willing to pay for it.
> Your question suggests the premise that "society" is sacrosanct in its
> wisdom to recognize and act on value. As we see the Democrats and their
> media catering to the least common denominator, it is obviouse a mob is
> a dangerous thing to be at the mercy of.
If I may wax political here, the mob I'm most afraid of is the mob of
fundamentalist Christians that make up the Republican party. I only
wish they were as stupid as some of the clowns on the Left...
Tom S.
> Scott Stephens <sco...@comcast.net> spoke thus:
>
> > others exist to serve you, the primary evil belief is belief in the
> > superiority of your self/gang and inferiority and fitness for servility
> > of others.
>
> I believe in the superiority of the intelligent over the stupid and
> the diligent over the lazy, in that the intelligent and the diligent
> will prosper and the stupid and lazy will not...
That's a good assessment as an end measurement. Consider, too, that these
are not inborn traits. These are traits that must be acquired. And their
acquisition is not _easy_.
This is where Rand differed from the free market types of the past and
present -- she understood what it took to achieve things in the economic and
philosophic realm. I suspect this is what motivated her to write Atlas.
Tom
--
"Don't bother to examine a folly
ask yourself only what it accomplishes. . . .
It stands to reason that where there's sacrifice,
there's someone collecting sacrificial offerings
.. . . . The man who speaks to you of sacrifice,
speaks of slaves and masters. And intends to
be the master."
Ken Gardner
> In many ways it's making the same mistakes that killed Apple
> (proprietary systems...they still don't intertact with non-windows systems
> very smoothly) and trying so hard to control the entire market it can't make
> stable systems (I have Win2000 and there are several applications and
> network functions that still are not debugged after four years.)
Maybe the problem is somewhere else. I used Windows 2000 for several
years, and now use Windows XP, and various components of Microsoft Office,
and I can't make the damn thing crash if I wanted to. Do you regularly
check your disk drives for errors, or clean up junk files, or defrag your
machine, or download the recommended updates, or do all the other things
that you are supposed to do in order to have a stable, high-performing
machine? Have you converted to NTFS? Etc.
Ken
Ken Gardner
> I'll be eternally grateful that Bork didn't get on the Supreme Court.
Me too. Bork was one of Reagan's biggest mistakes, but fortunately it
didn't cost us.
Ken
Charles Novins
news:1jtjuzkz49qok$.1ocbkeou5oaw0.dlg@40tude.net...
> Maybe the problem is somewhere else. I used Windows 2000 for several
> years, and now use Windows XP, and various components of Microsoft Office,
> and I can't make the damn thing crash if I wanted to. Do you regularly
> check your disk drives for errors, or clean up junk files, or defrag your
> machine, or download the recommended updates, or do all the other things
> that you are supposed to do in order to have a stable, high-performing
> machine? Have you converted to NTFS? Etc.
CHARLES NOVINS:
Translation: Are you willing to maintain a small second career to keep your
Microsoft product from falling apart almost from the moment you get it?
It's just my "humble" opinion, but I think any dedicated computer
professionals anywhere who had 50 billion in the bank could do better and
still keep 40 of the billions.
David Schwartz
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:1jtjuzkz49qok$.1ocbkeou5oaw0.dlg@40tude.net...
> Maybe the problem is somewhere else. I used Windows 2000 for several
> years, and now use Windows XP, and various components of Microsoft Office,
> and I can't make the damn thing crash if I wanted to. Do you regularly
> check your disk drives for errors, or clean up junk files, or defrag your
> machine, or download the recommended updates, or do all the other things
> that you are supposed to do in order to have a stable, high-performing
> machine? Have you converted to NTFS? Etc.
Other issues include unstable memory, poor temperature control, graphics
cards locking up the bus, low quality drivers, and so on. The operating
system tends to get a lot of blame for things that are outside its control.
Another big problem with most Microsoft OSes is that they have no
security/protection model. So you have to run every game written by a 13
year old and offered for free over the 'net with full permissions to do
whatever it wants to your hardware.
DS
David Schwartz
"Charles Novins" <taxs...@free-market.net> wrote in message
news:_qadnQMcz7f...@comcast.com...
> It's just my "humble" opinion, but I think any dedicated computer
> professionals anywhere who had 50 billion in the bank could do better and
> still keep 40 of the billions.
Anyone can do a better job after someone else has done a job. Hindsight
is the only exact science. Windows was not designed or planned, it evolved.
DS
Robert J. Kolker
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
>
> That's starting to make a lot more sense now. I'm making progress -
> before AS, I couldn't regard Communism as being wholly vile and
> despicable, which I see clearly now :)
Actually one can reach the same conclusion without -Atlas Shrugged-.
Count the dead bodies of the victims.
Bob Kolker
>
Robert J. Kolker
Scott Stephens wrote:
>
> Are you suggesting we slaughter retarded and sick people like Nazis?
How about not feeding or caring for them with tax revenue? But make the
cost of euthanasia tax deductable.
>
>> I
>> think also that the Darwinian model can justify "let the ability of a
>> man determine his reward".
>
>
> Are you a believer in Eugenics? What if genetics have little to do with
> certain aptitudes, dispositions, enthusiasm, resolve to accomplish? What
> if some people are lazy because the people around them have insulted and
> beat them down their whole lives?
Many of our basic characteristics are conditioned by genetic
inheritance. That is one of the black beasts that the liberals hate so
much. Do you recall how the liberals reacted to the book -The Bell
Curve- by Charles Murray and Richard Herrnstein? The book was about an
internal brain drain in our society that had profound social effects.
One or two chapters dwelt upon the inheritability of what is called
intelligence. It turns out there is evidence that brightness is in part
heritable. The implications of this fact for the matter of race are
clear. Project Head Start is essentially pissing up a rope at tax-payer
expense. The liberals went into a paroxysim on this point.
Individual decisions are not determined by genes but overall ability is.
That is why your pet donkey will never learn differential equations no
matter how hard he tries.
>
> Your question suggests the premise that "society" is sacrosanct in its
> wisdom to recognize and act on value. As we see the Democrats and their
> media catering to the least common denominator, it is obviouse a mob is
> a dangerous thing to be at the mercy of.
Democracy is Mob Rule. That is what happened when we gave non-property
owners the vote (blame that on the stone killer, Andrew Jackson). We
ought to have a constitutional amendment that says anyone receiving a
government benefit other than salary should be disqualified for voting
any office or proposition connected with the level of government
granting the benefit. The alternative is to hand the keys to the
treasury over to non-producers.
Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding on what is (or who is) for
dinner.
>
> If you see fascists or communists, or anyone saying who is fit to live
> and die, fear greatly. Your turn will come.
Apparently the free loaders are fit to live. They have arranged things
so that live quite well for their overall ability. They have learned the
Essential Trick --- get the key to the treasury. Their other
shortcomings do not matter. Once they have the money, the entrepreneurs
will be happy to sell to them. Maybe the rest of us should learn the
Other Essential Trick --- don't let the bastards get away with it.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
> Scott Stephens <sco...@comcast.net> spoke thus:
>
>
>>others exist to serve you, the primary evil belief is belief in the
>>superiority of your self/gang and inferiority and fitness for servility
>>of others.
>
>
> I believe in the superiority of the intelligent over the stupid and
> the diligent over the lazy, in that the intelligent and the diligent
> will prosper and the stupid and lazy will not...
In the long run. In the short run visit an office admistering Project
Head Start funds.
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Tom S. wrote:
> That's a good assessment as an end measurement. Consider, too, that these
> are not inborn traits. These are traits that must be acquired. And their
> acquisition is not _easy_.
Tell me, sport. Do you think your very bright pet dog can learn calculus
if he tries hard enough?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Ken Gardner wrote:
He was Borked. Bork completely turned the ninth ammendment on its head.
Bork was the bright-witted Statist From Hell. We were lucky he was not
admitted to the Supreme Court.
Bob Kolker
Scott Stephens
> Scott Stephens <sco...@comcast.net> spoke thus:
>
>
>>others exist to serve you, the primary evil belief is belief in the
>>superiority of your self/gang and inferiority and fitness for servility
>>of others.
>
>
> I believe in the superiority of the intelligent over the stupid and
> the diligent over the lazy, in that the intelligent and the diligent
> will prosper and the stupid and lazy will not...
You believe in Social Darwinism, in other words:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oi=defmore&q=define:Social+
Darwinism
"
An extension of the idea of biological evolution to human culture. An
extreme laissez-faire notion that the poor are poor because they lack
certain genetic characteristics that would fit them for economic
survival. As the argument goes, society has no obligation to its poor
since to help them would be to allow inferior types to survive, and thus
interfere with evolution and weaken society. The theory is based on
ignorance of the great variety and relativity of social and economic
systems, ignorance of the possibility that certain people who seem
inferior in one sort of society might be heroically successful in
another sort of society, e.g., Indians with great hunting skills found
it hard to survive in an agrarian culture.
alpha.fdu.edu/~jbecker/nature/natureglossary.html"
" The doctrine that holds that charity interferes with the natural
evolutionary process in which society sheds its less fit to make way for
the better adapted.
highered.mcgraw-hill.com/sites/0072488344/student_view0/chapter5/chapter_gl
ossary.html
"
>>You sound like another victim of liberal political correctness, if you
>>think racism is criminal stupidity, but any other form of compulsion isn't.
>
>
> I'm not sure what other form of compulsion you're talking about.
You said "...that society should and does weed out the unfit". That
implied you advocate some form of compulsory weeding-out that isn't
based on race, but on laziness.
Your questions seemed to imply that the values and virtues of
Objectivism should result in social Darwinism, the weeding out of those
not productive.
After you get past the primary value of living, why live? To toil and be
productive? We live to be happy, even if the pursuit of happiness makes
us miserable. But its our plight in life to learn the balance. Lazy
people are not balanced, in living to eat, rather than eating to live.
Such is a consequence of bad habits and ignorance, whether of nature or
nurture. Should people be allowed to overcome their vices and handicaps?
Fascists seek out excuses, whether social/religious non-conformity,
laziness, tattoos, pot-smoking, cigarette smoking or skin color to
condemn their witches as immoral and worthy of "weeding-out", and
establish their own fitness for social dominance.
>>Are you suggesting we slaughter retarded and sick people like Nazis?
>
>
> I'm not suggesting we slaughter anyone, although Lord knows I feel like
> doing it to certain individuals. Retarded and sick people can work
> or create value in other ways; your average bum can't or won't.
I have a certain existential humility regarding life that comes from
religious indoctrination, that I find lacking outside religion.
I didn't create myself (or I certainly would have chosen better
circumstance). I didn't create humanity, or we'd have bigger brains, be
nuclear-powered and eternal. I didn't choose whether I wouldn't have
diabetes or have crooked teeth. I constantly learn the limits of my
intelligence and skill, as I program computers and build stuff.
I hardly chose fair or fowl circumstances to experience in life, but
make the best of what I slog through. So when I see the stupid, the
ignorant and people afflicted by vices, the winners of the "Darwin
Award", I can only say, "there go I but for the grace of (fate)", and
treat others as I would be, provided they don't presume my tolerance is
a weakness to be exploited.
There is one thing behind the slaughter bench of history, and it isn't
fascist, communist, religious or nationalist ideology, its arrogance and
hubris of politicians and priests that believe they are fit to chose who
should live and who should die, who should be taxes and who subsidized,
which man should work for which other. The constant is the cut of the
plunder the politician takes.
> In principle, I don't see anything terribly wrong with eugenics. We
> breed all sorts of animals - why not breed ourselves? I don't suppose
> it would happen though, because I see no reason anyone should be
> willing to pay for it.
That is going to happen soon enough with genetic engineering, legal or
not. The greatest sources of human misery, war and inefficiency is due
to bad management, pride, greed and sick thinking by politicians.
>>Your question suggests the premise that "society" is sacrosanct in its
>>wisdom to recognize and act on value. As we see the Democrats and their
>>media catering to the least common denominator, it is obviouse a mob is
>>a dangerous thing to be at the mercy of.
>
>
> If I may wax political here, the mob I'm most afraid of is the mob of
> fundamentalist Christians that make up the Republican party. I only
> wish they were as stupid as some of the clowns on the Left...
See the hubris behind the religion. Ashcroft is no more evil than Janet
Reno, because he thinks his prayers to the Holy Spirit sanction his
insults to liberty, where Reno thinks her benevolence sanctions her insults.
Scott Stephens
> CHARLES NOVINS:
> Translation: Are you willing to maintain a small second career to keep your
> Microsoft product from falling apart almost from the moment you get it?
That's my experience.
> It's just my "humble" opinion, but I think any dedicated computer
> professionals anywhere who had 50 billion in the bank could do better and
> still keep 40 of the billions.
I think Microsoft needs to keep changing things, like a fashion, so they
can keep their victims hooked on their product support industry. A
technician only has so much time, and a complex product is an exclusive,
full-time addiction.
In this regard, Microsoft is abusing and robbing their customers. They
poison the food they sell, they spike their Cola with Cocaine.
Scott Stephens
> Scott Stephens wrote:
>> Are you a believer in Eugenics? What if genetics have little to do
>> with certain aptitudes, dispositions, enthusiasm, resolve to
>> accomplish? What if some people are lazy because the people around
>> them have insulted and beat them down their whole lives?
>
>
> Many of our basic characteristics are conditioned by genetic
> inheritance. That is one of the black beasts that the liberals hate so
> much.
....
> One or two chapters dwelt upon the inheritability of what is called
> intelligence.
....
> Individual decisions are not determined by genes but overall ability is.
> That is why your pet donkey will never learn differential equations no
> matter how hard he tries.
But there are clever blacks, and perhaps even stupid Asians. Nurture has
a much greater impact than nature on human productivity and quality of life.
So advocating subsidized euthanasia when human misery is a far greater
consequence of political systemic dysfunction is compounding the
insanity by enabling an insane system to violently, rather than
miserably self-destruct.
> Democracy is Mob Rule. That is what happened when we gave non-property
> owners the vote (blame that on the stone killer, Andrew Jackson). We
> ought to have a constitutional amendment that says anyone receiving a
> government benefit other than salary should be disqualified for voting
> any office or proposition connected with the level of government
> granting the benefit. The alternative is to hand the keys to the
> treasury over to non-producers.
A good first step would be to have an additional box on the ballot "none
of the above".
Onar Ĺm
> Fred Weiss <fred...@papertig.com> spoke thus:
>
> > Not in any sense of "eugenics" or racial superiority or any such
> > similar nonsense.
>
> Sorry - I had forgotten that aspect of Social Darwinism. I hope it's
> obvious that I regard such ideas as criminally stupid...
Why? Eugenics is a much more humane means of weeding out the poorly adapted
than social darwinism.
Onar.
Christopher Benson-Manica
> An extension of the idea of biological evolution to human culture. An
> extreme laissez-faire notion that the poor are poor because they lack
> certain genetic characteristics that would fit them for economic
> survival.
I didn't mention genetics - it was clearly an egregious mistake on my
part to mention Social Darwinism at all.
> As the argument goes, society has no obligation to its poor
> since to help them would be to allow inferior types to survive, and thus
> interfere with evolution and weaken society.
Well, John Galt for one was surely not interested in helping the poor
for altruism's sake...
> The theory is based on
> ignorance of the great variety and relativity of social and economic
> systems, ignorance of the possibility that certain people who seem
> inferior in one sort of society might be heroically successful in
> another sort of society, e.g., Indians with great hunting skills found
> it hard to survive in an agrarian culture.
And the terminally lazy would be "heroically successful" under a
society practicing "from each according to his ability, to each
according to his need", but would fail in a society where ability and
productivity were most rewarded. Is there anything wrong with that?
> " The doctrine that holds that charity interferes with the natural
> evolutionary process in which society sheds its less fit to make way for
> the better adapted.
Charity encourages people to live off it rather than their own work.
> You said "...that society should and does weed out the unfit". That
> implied you advocate some form of compulsory weeding-out that isn't
> based on race, but on laziness.
And I admit that that statement was a mistake. Sorry.
> Your questions seemed to imply that the values and virtues of
> Objectivism should result in social Darwinism, the weeding out of those
> not productive.
Well, won't it?
> After you get past the primary value of living, why live? To toil and be
> productive?
It seemed to work for Hank Rearden :)
> Such is a consequence of bad habits and ignorance, whether of nature or
> nurture. Should people be allowed to overcome their vices and handicaps?
Not at my expense, unless I feel like paying for it.
> I hardly chose fair or fowl circumstances to experience in life, but
> make the best of what I slog through. So when I see the stupid, the
> ignorant and people afflicted by vices, the winners of the "Darwin
> Award", I can only say, "there go I but for the grace of (fate)", and
> treat others as I would be, provided they don't presume my tolerance is
> a weakness to be exploited.
How about "There go I but for the grace of my intelligence and hard
work"?
Fred Weiss
.4018$jw.2876@attbi_s04>...
Oh? When did the liberals ever count the bodies of the victims of
communism? They could cite all the numbers of those killed by the
Naziis, but they were noticeably silent in the face of the atrocities
of the communists. And if they did acknowledge it, it was merely
dismissed as "one must break eggs to make an omelet" or made fodder
for the argument of "moral equivalence" in the face of our own
supposed transgessions.
So, it's not enough to merely "count bodies". One must grasp the
fundamental evil of communism which I believe only Ayn Rand fully
grasped, in its correct secular sense, and in that way for the first
time provided backbone to its opponents, even to those - possibly even
including Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and others - who may not
have embraced her entire philosophy, but who acknowledged her
influence on their thinking.
And so it is when Ayn Rand called Friedman and Stigler "reds" in
connection with their alleged defense of capitalism in "Roofs and
Ceilings" 50 years ago, she knew what she was talking about - and it
was only some decades later that anyone else did as well, by way of
finally grasping the appeasing nature of the former opposition to
communism and the apologizing manner in which capitalism was being
defended.
Fred Weiss
geral sosbee
world, now demand the surrender of all peoples and all governments of
the world unto the care, custody, control and management of the United
States (as reflected in its culture, norms, laws, and public policy)
NOW AND FOR ALL TIMES; this immodest seizure of the future of all of
mankind and this presumed manipulation of the destiny of the human
species is enforced by the fbi and the cia (and other homicidal and
terrorist groups inside the United States government) by the use of
tactics described in www.sosbeevfbi.com and other sites; any efforts
to resist the dictates of the United States is viewed as futile and
any human being who voices criticism of the United States' attack on
the world is deemed criminally unbalanced and will be dealt with as
such.
Geral Sosbee
Scott Stephens
> Scott Stephens <sco...@comcast.net> spoke thus:
(quoting web-dictionary)"
>>As the argument goes, society has no obligation to its poor
>>since to help them would be to allow inferior types to survive, and thus
>>interfere with evolution and weaken society. "
> Well, John Galt for one was surely not interested in helping the poor
> for altruism's sake...
Objectivism redefines associations terms like greed, selfishness and
altruism popularly have. Consequent to a shift in values from a notion
of collective and individual depravity to self.
> And the terminally lazy would be "heroically successful" under a
> society practicing "from each according to his ability, to each
> according to his need", but would fail in a society where ability and
> productivity were most rewarded. Is there anything wrong with that?
Yes, if fascists turn a profit by crippling a class of people, selling
them a crutch, and using the excuse to pay a reduced wage to them.
>>" The doctrine that holds that charity interferes with the natural
>>evolutionary process in which society sheds its less fit to make way for
>>the better adapted.
>
>
> Charity encourages people to live off it rather than their own work.
Some people are crippled because their ass's were kicked by society
(some Vietnam vets, and government employees, for instance). Where does
one get redress from grievances against the US government? It has
poisoned people, lied about it, then hired lawyers to cheat them out of
restitution. Some people deserve charity. Others (the lazy) need their
ass kicked into gear.
>>Your questions seemed to imply that the values and virtues of
>>Objectivism should result in social Darwinism, the weeding out of those
>>not productive.
>
>
> Well, won't it?
It depends on the method of weeding out. The best way to weed out the
unproductive is to 1. stop crippling the productive by firing the
"Aristocrats of Pull" and the "Mystics of Mind and Muscle"; 2. create
circumstances that enable productivity; 3. Assist the unproductive to
become productive; 4. Use charity to keep useless eaters alive, because
occasionally something good comes out of the mess.
Besides, shooting people and letting plague kill them in concentration
camps or ghettos is very bad form. If the Earth is ever visited by an
intelligent alien species, they might decide to judge us as we judged,
and mete the justice to us that we have meted out to our "unproductive"
neighbors, then recognizing us as criminally insane, sterilize the planet.
Onar Ĺm
Onar.
Christopher Benson-Manica
> Objectivism redefines associations terms like greed, selfishness and
> altruism popularly have. Consequent to a shift in values from a notion
> of collective and individual depravity to self.
I'm not sure how that affects what I said...
> Yes, if fascists turn a profit by crippling a class of people, selling
> them a crutch, and using the excuse to pay a reduced wage to them.
Why would they do that? Surely uncrippled workers make them more
profits in the long run...
> Some people are crippled because their ass's were kicked by society
> (some Vietnam vets, and government employees, for instance). Where does
> one get redress from grievances against the US government? It has
> poisoned people, lied about it, then hired lawyers to cheat them out of
> restitution. Some people deserve charity. Others (the lazy) need their
> ass kicked into gear.
Call me callous, but I don't buy the "crippled veteran" excuse for
being a bum. The U.S. government has harmed a number of people in
innumerable ways, and it owes all of them restitution, but that
doesn't give them the right to expect charity to keep them alive.
> It depends on the method of weeding out. The best way to weed out the
> unproductive is to 1. stop crippling the productive by firing the
> "Aristocrats of Pull" and the "Mystics of Mind and Muscle"; 2. create
> circumstances that enable productivity; 3. Assist the unproductive to
> become productive;
Sure, I suppose. How about just not creating circumstances that
inhibit productivity?
> 4. Use charity to keep useless eaters alive, because
> occasionally something good comes out of the mess.
IMHO the investment in keeping the dregs of society alive isn't worth
the (as a rule) extremely meager dividends.
> Besides, shooting people and letting plague kill them in concentration
> camps or ghettos is very bad form. If the Earth is ever visited by an
> intelligent alien species, they might decide to judge us as we judged,
> and mete the justice to us that we have meted out to our "unproductive"
> neighbors, then recognizing us as criminally insane, sterilize the planet.
If we're visited by an intelligent alien species, any and all bets are
off. I'm not too worried about it.
Arnold
message news:<kLAxc
> .4018$jw.2876@attbi_s04>...
> > Christopher Benson-Manica wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > That's starting to make a lot more sense now. I'm
making progress -
> > > before AS, I couldn't regard Communism as being
wholly vile and
> > > despicable, which I see clearly now :)
> >
> > Actually one can reach the same conclusion
without -Atlas Shrugged-.
> > Count the dead bodies of the victims.
>
> Oh? When did the liberals ever count the bodies of the
victims of
> communism? They could cite all the numbers of those
killed by the
> Naziis, but they were noticeably silent in the face of
the atrocities
> of the communists.
What, didn't you see the streets teaming with student
protestors over the millions slaughtered in Cambodia?
The press, full of editorials critical of the K.R.
revolutionary ideas? You didn't see that either?
For some strange reason I missed it all too, because the
papers were full of reports that the evil S.A. government
should release Mandela. I suppose it's all about degrees of
evil, and we have to get our priorities straight. One man
wronged by a Fascist = Millions wronged by a Socialist.
--
Arnold
Scott Stephens
> Scott Stephens <sco...@comcast.net> spoke thus:
>
>
>>Objectivism redefines associations terms like greed, selfishness and
>>altruism popularly have. Consequent to a shift in values from a notion
>>of collective and individual depravity to self.
>
>
> I'm not sure how that affects what I said...
Re-quoting what you said: "
> Well, John Galt for one was surely not interested in helping the poor
> for altruism's sake...
"
For Objectivists, altruism is letting your child starve while feeding
your neighbors, giving him your cake while you go hungry, because
self-interest is inherently anti-social therefore evil.
Whereas common sense agrees with enlightened self-interest, that helping
your neighbor is a good idea because people, especially rational people,
reciprocate actions, good for good, evil for evil. Unless their minds
have been poisoned by a Kantian doctrine of self-sacrifice.
>>Yes, if fascists turn a profit by crippling a class of people, selling
>>them a crutch, and using the excuse to pay a reduced wage to them.
>
>
> Why would they do that? Surely uncrippled workers make them more
> profits in the long run...
Think about AS;
You want your gang (the Aristocracy of Pull) to stay in power. What if
you were born into a wealthy family, went to expensive prep schools,
paid bribes to politicians to get legislation favorable to the
corporations you own, only to have some freak-of-nature genius drag
himself out of the slum to out-compete you?
What if you are 5th generation Yale Skull-N-Bones, only to have some
self-educated freak point out your flaws and short-comings, so the board
of directors cans you?
It isn't fair! Its not fair that Nature randomly doles out talent! Your
family is rich! You've paid your dues!
Or,
You worked hard preaching the doctrine of altruism to the mob, who have
elected you and your socialist cronies into office, having voted the
fascist plutocrat Republicans out. You busted your ass to get power, now
its your turn to milk the tax-base for your cronies, tax those that
tried keep you down, and give government jobs to your supporters.
You expect a good machine Democrat to give a job to someone just because
they are more qualified than the people that elected you! Politics
doesn't work that way!
So to shut up these freaks of nature, they need to be taught a lesson.
Doses of guilt, or doses of poison. Contrived circumstances to make
examples of those that won't go along and get along with party politics.
Perhaps I'm more sensitive than many are to this kind of discrimination
because I have a crappy trade-school EET degree, which overqualified me
as a technician, under-qualifies me as an engineer, and sets me up to
see how much prejudice and politics matter more than competence. I've
seen how sick systems punish self-esteem, initiative and ambition, and
reward apathy, sycophancy and corruption.
> Call me callous, but I don't buy the "crippled veteran" excuse for
> being a bum. The U.S. government has harmed a number of people in
> innumerable ways, and it owes all of them restitution, but that
> doesn't give them the right to expect charity to keep them alive.
Nobody has a right to expect charity, it is a gift, not an entitlement.
I've known a few smart people whose parents put them down and told them
they were dumb. Studies have been done on the effects of "explanatory
style" (see Seligman, or numerous other psyche's.). People who have had
their self-esteem dumbed-down need new excuses, challenge and
encouragement. You would throw them away, while leaving in place the
evil social dynamics that create an underclass and degrade, dominate and
destroy it?
There is another,different kind of evil I've experienced. You probably
don't know what it is like to be the victim of mob violence. It puts you
in a double-bind. How can you do good things for bad people, and still
be good?
If you have been defrauded by predators that hide in a mob, only to hear
"tough luck" by other members of that mob, shall you not also
reciprocate and resort to the path of least-resistance, selling frauds,
snake-oil, lottery tickets, pornography or other (legal) traps, rather
than selling less profitable tools or goods that ennoble rather than
degrade to members of that mob?
But this degrades your self esteem. But how can you trade values with
those that have defrauded you, or those that passively tolerate your
victimization?
Perhaps you have been victimized by an institution or corporate entity.
Once an insurance company refused to refund my premium on a car that I
had junked after it became too expensive to maintain. This insurance
company had agents available to sell me a policy, but when I wanted a
refund, none was available to help. The entity has plenty of people to
handle accounts receivable, and none to handle accounts payable.
How convenient. Fortunately in this case, the Illinois Insurance dept.
persuaded the company to give me a refund.
So it is with mobs. Corporate mobs. Government mobs. Church mobs. School
mobs. Whomever identifies with the mob feels safety-in-numbers to
plunder. Yet no individual in the mob feels accountable for its crimes.
Those victimized by such mobs can only hold all those that identify with
them in contempt, and reciprocally withhold benevolence.
> IMHO the investment in keeping the dregs of society alive isn't worth
> the (as a rule) extremely meager dividends.
Again, enlightened self interest. If too many of those dregs organize
while you say, "let them eat cake", or they vote themselves a
Boleshevic, you may wish you had fed some of the scum. Its better than
the alternative.
Christopher Benson-Manica
> For Objectivists, altruism is letting your child starve while feeding
> your neighbors, giving him your cake while you go hungry, because
> self-interest is inherently anti-social therefore evil.
Common sense tells me that anyone or anything that forces me to feed
my neighbors before my own child is vilely evil.
> Whereas common sense agrees with enlightened self-interest, that helping
> your neighbor is a good idea because people, especially rational people,
> reciprocate actions, good for good, evil for evil. Unless their minds
> have been poisoned by a Kantian doctrine of self-sacrifice.
Self-interest "enlightened" to the point where I must help others
before myself isn't really self-interest, now is it?
> You want your gang (the Aristocracy of Pull) to stay in power. What if
> you were born into a wealthy family, went to expensive prep schools,
> paid bribes to politicians to get legislation favorable to the
> corporations you own, only to have some freak-of-nature genius drag
> himself out of the slum to out-compete you?
Sucks to be you.
> What if you are 5th generation Yale Skull-N-Bones, only to have some
> self-educated freak point out your flaws and short-comings, so the board
> of directors cans you?
Sucks to be you.
> Perhaps I'm more sensitive than many are to this kind of discrimination
> because I have a crappy trade-school EET degree, which overqualified me
> as a technician, under-qualifies me as an engineer, and sets me up to
> see how much prejudice and politics matter more than competence. I've
> seen how sick systems punish self-esteem, initiative and ambition, and
> reward apathy, sycophancy and corruption.
What's preventing you from getting a real degree?
> Nobody has a right to expect charity, it is a gift, not an entitlement.
Isn't that what I alluded to?
> I've known a few smart people whose parents put them down and told them
> they were dumb. Studies have been done on the effects of "explanatory
> style" (see Seligman, or numerous other psyche's.). People who have had
> their self-esteem dumbed-down need new excuses, challenge and
> encouragement. You would throw them away, while leaving in place the
> evil social dynamics that create an underclass and degrade, dominate and
> destroy it?
Well, first I'd like to throw their parents away. Then I'd suggest
reading Ayn Rand :) No, seriously, they need to be de-victimized
before they can reach whatever potential they have.
I regret that I've snipped major portions of your post, but I'm going
to bed...
Ken Gardner
> "Willam Vandersteel
> New York, New York
> May 23, 1966
> "Dear Mr. Vandersteel:
> Thanks very much for pamphlet. Am an admirer of Ayn Rand but hadn't
> seen this study.
> "Sincerely,
> Ronald Reagan"
> _Reagan: A Life In Letters_, New York: Free Press, 2003, ed. Kiron K.
> Skinner, Annelise Anderson, Martin Anderson), pp. 281-82.
Now that is way cool.
Ken
Fred Weiss
67efmj4w4x0$.d...@40tude.net>...
Yeah, it is. Thanks for posting, Kevin. I had heard tell of various
comments like that in Reagan's papers but had never actually seen any.
Fred Weiss
Ken Gardner
> I went through a little burst of curiosity about Reagan 4 years ago,
> and read a bunch of stuff, and still have a number of books on a stack
> not yet read.
[...]
Thanks for the suggestions. My only Reagan book is his Autobiography,
which I must have read at least ten years ago if not longer. I remember
that I enjoyed it, but otherwise I remember nothing about it. I may
re-read it, but my "to read" stack is already high enough to take me into
next year. :)
Ken