How Ayn Rand Became an American Icon

[04SCTLS]

In order to prove that capitalism "oppresses", you have to show that capitalism somehow unjustly burdens people in a way that cannot be avoided through their individual choices and actions.

This was the only specific realistic easily understood example I could think of.
You talk in very broad strokes.
Capitalism as a whole is Good, Some capitalists though are clever exploiters of human weaknesses and scheme to make money off poor people, using their capital to squeeze more interest and charges out of those who can least afford it.
It's not Capitalism per se that is oppressive.
However some Capitalists use their capital in an oppressive almost criminal matter.
As an example look at US Fidelis, the extended aftermarket warranty company founded by ex con Darain Atkinson.
They take your money and don't honor their promises leaving many people feeling robbed.
http://www.ripoffreport.com/Auto-Warranty/US-Fidelis/us-fidelis-misleads-the-client-b4cx5.htm

They're enticing people with 12 year old high mileage cars to buy warranties.
It defies common sense.
Banks recently also won't allow you to set up a checking account without overdraft protection.
This is so that instead of turning down debit card transactions they charge a 40.00 overdraft fee plus interest for each overdrawn transaction.
This can add up pretty quickly to the not well heeled.
The banks are counting on this dunning of the ignorant for huge revenues.
These examples are not an inditement of capitalism just a beware of dog sign

 

[foxpaws]

how can you "achieve" natural rights? Specifically, how can you "achieve" economic freedom?

You have been referring to this statement of mine...

But, is an economy based on capitalism truly freedom? Where is the liberty? Aren't you just a slave to a different master? How many people truly achieve economic freedom through capitalism?​

You assumed I was referring to people earning enough money - but, I was asking the question how many people have economic freedom with absolute capitalism? Perhaps I wasn't as clear as I could be, and you read it a different way. I will try to be more clear (and I agree, I didn't state this like I wanted - you were right to call me on this - natural rights aren't 'achieved' they just 'are') -

So, lets try again... Does capitalism afford economic freedom to everyone - equally? The fact that people make different amounts of money under the system is fine - it is how capitalism works. But, is that natural right - the pursuit of happiness - achievable to all under unfettered capitalism? Not that they will actually achieve it - but do they have the opportunity to achieve it under a system where capitalism is allowed to proceed unchecked? Are all allowed to pursue it equally?

Is that more clear?

how does capitalism "oppress millions"? What specific burdens are placed on people that overwhelm and crush them?

With capitalism you have to go with the idea that wealth is infinite and generated - correct shag? Wealth may be infinite, but resources aren't. In this respect - because of the nature of the 'limit' involved in resources, capitalism encourages economic inequality - we can't all be Bill Gates. Capitalism doesn't work unless this inequality is fostered. Oppression then occurs within this caste system if it is allowed to proceed unchecked. It is to the upper caste's advantage to make sure that the lower castes remain somewhat poor - there just aren't enough resources to go around. The poor are needed to sustain a low-end labor force, as well as a basic consumer base - but, the system doesn't work if we are all millionaires, there aren't enough resources. So, if capitalism is allowed to proceed unchecked, you end up with the very rich, the very poor, and very little in between. Similar to what was happening under the robber barons - the middle class was being squeezed out during the middle of the 19th century. The disparity between rich and poor was very extreme. The robber barons, unchecked, were creating large, interconnected companies that were eliminating all competition from smaller companies, and were actively working to keep the poor 'in their place'. Unfettered capitalism was oppressing any opportunity from lower classes by creating a caste system based entirely on wealth, instead of blood lines, as with an aristocracy system. It was as oppressive as an aristocracy - just with a different barometer on who were the 'haves' and who were the 'have nots'.

Doesn't unfettered capitalism feed off the limitations of the masses - to sustain an illusion of freedom of the some and create absolute power for the few?

 

[shagdrum]

Does capitalism afford economic freedom to everyone - equally? The fact that people make different amounts of money under the system is fine - it is how capitalism works. But, is that natural right - the pursuit of happiness - achievable to all under unfettered capitalism? Not that they will actually achieve it - but do they have the opportunity to achieve it under a system where capitalism is allowed to proceed unchecked? Are all allowed to pursue it equally?

You are still characterizing economic freedom as something to be "achieved". Now, you are also attaching a qualifier that people must be allowed to pursue it "equally". You need to justify those things. What do concerns about equality have to do with freedom (beyond equal recognition under the law)? Why should certain inequalities not simply be accepted as natural and unchangeable?

As to capitalism "oppressing" anyone, you have yet to give some specific burden that capitalism unjustly imposes on people that ends up oppressing them.

I can't tell what the burden causing the oppression you speak of actually is. Some vague and general notion of income inequality? Despite that disparity of income, the standard of living has increased across the board under capitalism (as has actual income) due to the creation of wealth inherent in capitalism; a rising tide lifts all boats. In fact, it is because of capitalism that we actually have class mobility and an affluent middle class (as opposed to a very small group of aristocrats who control all the wealth and the rest of the population living in abject poverty). So income inequality alone cannot be a "burden" because it is not in any substantive way oppressing people. It may serve as an indicator of what the burden is, but it cannot be a burden in and of itself.

 

[fossten]

NewsMax - are you kidding - I might as well use Daily Kos as 'debunkation'. That right wing rag is in no way creditable to use a critique of the study that I posted from Harvard. Any source that buys up thousands of copies of Palin's book - to rifle up the pre pub numbers, and then is touting... Newsmax proudly announces it has never so aggressively marketed a book as Sarah Palin’s memoir isn't really on the 'honest' side of the fence is it?

Tsk tsk, fox...ad hominem? Argumentum ad Palin? Hmm. Lots of hate there. Wonder why? Red herring, too?

I guess when you know you've lost the argument, you resort to flawed retorts.

Clearly you not only didn't read MY article, but you didn't read YOUR OWN article.

Lazy, lazy.

You can't discredit my source. The Census Bureau is THEIR source. Made it big so you can see it.

Face it, your study is bogus, Harvard or not. But keep bleating about it, it's amusing.

You're becoming a parody of yourself.

And once again - I have never claimed that capitalism has killed or imprisoned millions of people worldwide, I have claimed 'oppressed'.

Yes you did. Now you're just lying to yourself. Keep stomping your feet, though, it's amusing.

Killing is a form of oppression... Capitalism has oppressed millions - the fact that access to good medical care for all is oppressed in capitalism, and that oppression leads to death, is just one example.

And now you're making the claim again. Can't decide whether to claim it or not, eh? Who should I believe, you or my lying eyes? :bowrofl:

You can make all the petulant little semantic arguments you want, but the bottom line is that you tried to claim capitalism has killed or imprisoned millions of people - never mind that you haven't been able to substantiate this claim.

You lose.

What do you exactly think I haven't read foss... Do you want a quick synopsis of Fountainhead - or maybe Road to Serfdom - but that might not do you any good - since I know you haven't read Fountainhead, and I wonder if you have read Hayek's piece.

Go back and re-read my post. Really, fox. Skimming before answering?

Lazy, lazy.

And no, I'm not interested in another of your rambling, angry, twisted little lectures. I'll read it for myself. I don't need you to tell me what anything means.

So speaks the lord of cherrypicking.... From long ago and far away - you have yet to answer...

Tu quoque? zzzzzzzz...I call 'em as I see 'em.

do you agree that "This country, was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism." This is a central concept in Rand's philosophy...​

Until you answer this Foss - I will be putting you on the back burner... You claim to be a know all to end all on how wonderful Rand is, based on reading Atlas Shrugged, how her cookie cutter philosophy of objectivism is something to be glorified and striven for... so go for it - show me what is to be glorified in that central credo of her philosophy, Shrugged falls apart without that at its core.

Awwww...run away, fox. I never made such a claim.

And I actually DID answer your question. You just got fixated on getting me to answer it again.

So sad, so myopic.

I'm sure I'll be waiting until eternity for you to substantiate your claim about capitalism. Ah well, what do you expect from a propagandist.

Any more angry, lazy parting shots for me, or are you done here?

 

[foxpaws]

You are still characterizing economic freedom as something to be "achieved". Now, you are also attaching a qualifier that people must be allowed to pursue it "equally". You need to justify those things. What do concerns about equality have to do with freedom (beyond equal recognition under the law)? Why should certain inequalities not simply be accepted as natural and unchangeable?

As to capitalism "oppressing" anyone, you have yet to give some specific burden that capitalism unjustly imposes on people that ends up oppressing them.

Whoa - this is difficult - since you speak 'college ivory tower' and it has been a while since I have had to get so 'precise'. But, "Once more, into the fray!"

There can and will be inequalities under capitalism - that is fine, some people are better at making money than others. However, what if the inequalities come from different levels of opportunity - the question than comes up - are you allowed to 'achieve' under the system of unfettered capitalism? Segregation, prejudice, discrimination, all come to mind for instances where you aren't allowed to 'achieve' on an equal basis. If the type of education you need to get into a certain category of job is available to only a few - then, that is a form of oppression. One strata of the economic class is preventing another from achieving economic equality. If you don't live in the right neighborhood, if you don't drive the right car - if your business model isn't like some others... there can be many ways you or your business can be denied equal opportunity. If you fail, while having the same opportunity as everyone else - so be it, that is still economic freedom. But, if you fail because of a glass ceiling... that is oppression. If you, as an employee are required to invest your 401K money back into the company you work for, and that company mishandles those funds, causing your retirement opportunities to fail - that is oppression.

In Atlas Shrugged - there is an idea that those things will never happen, that somehow the bad will get weeded out. But, in reality, that doesn't happen, the bad can and do rise to the top, the system will actually reward bad behavior. Perhaps not 'forever', but certainly for long enough that serious, unrepairable, damage can occur.

I can't tell what the burden causing the oppression you speak of actually is. Some vague and general notion of income inequality? Despite that disparity of income, the standard of living has increased across the board under capitalism (as has actual income) due to the creation of wealth inherent in capitalism; a rising tide lifts all boats. In fact, it is because of capitalism that we actually have class mobility and an affluent middle class (as opposed to a very small group of aristocrats who control all the wealth and the rest of the population living in abject poverty). So income inequality alone cannot be a "burden" because it is not in any substantive way oppressing people. It may serve as an indicator of what the burden is, but it cannot be a burden in and of itself.

I believe our system of capitalism - which is somewhat 'fettered' - is certainly the best in the world. But, are there things that capitalism doesn't do very well, yes. Are there government run things we should turn over to the private sector because they could do it better - yes. However, removing large or indeed all of our 'safeguards', which would happen in an 'Atlas Shrugged' scenario, would end up oppressing parts of the populace. We have been discussing how Rand views all of this... and can her view of a future of unfettered capitalism really work?

So, when we go back to the healthcare question - and this is just a question - I am not quite sure how this should be or could be played out - if you aren't allowed access to good healthcare - are you being oppressed? If getting some sort of medicine would allow you to function better in the business world - say an antidepressant - but, you are trapped in a system that won't allow you to get that medicine because you can't afford it, is it a cycle of oppression? You can't get a good job because of a medical condition, but you can't afford the medicine that would allow you to crawl out of your lower income strata, because you can't hold down a good job because you are depressed all of the time.

In Shrugged - the person in this case is just a casualty of the system - too bad, there isn't, nor should there be, a way for the government to help this person.

 

[foxpaws]

Foss -

do you agree that "This country, was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism." This is a central concept in Rand's philosophy...

Until you answer this Foss - I will be putting you on the back burner... You answered the second part Roark's quote "It was based on man's right to the pursuit of happiness. His own happiness. Not anyone else's. A private, personal, selfish motive." - but not the first - you cherrypicked...

 

[fossten]

WAAAAAAH! WAAAAAAH!

Keep whining and dodging, fox. :bowrofl:

Since you're obviously too lazy and 'stuck on stupid' to answer any of my queries to you, I guess you can run along now. Buh-bye, waste.

 

[foxpaws]

Keep whining and dodging, fox. :bowrofl:

Since you're obviously too lazy and 'stuck on stupid' to answer any of my queries to you, I guess you can run along now. Buh-bye, waste.

I will gladly remove myself from the stupid/lazy mode, when you acquire the balls to answer...

do you agree that "This country, was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism." This is a central concept in Rand's philosophy...

 

[shagdrum]

Whoa - this is difficult - since you speak 'college ivory tower' and it has been a while since I have had to get so 'precise'. But, "Once more, into the fray!"

It is vitally important to understand the reasoning behind the various worldviews and critically examine them to truly understand the philosophical basis of any and all policy in politics, inherent in the creation of government and it's various institutions and inherent in the various points of view in modern discourse. If your goal is truly to understand various points of view in the political arena, this is the first and most important step.

However, what if the inequalities come from different levels of opportunity - the question than comes up - are you allowed to 'achieve' under the system of unfettered capitalism?

Achieve what? Rights (specifically economic freedom)?

Segregation, prejudice, discrimination, all come to mind for instances where you aren't allowed to 'achieve' on an equal basis.

Yes, but when the Rule of Law is respected (which it inherently was not under Jim Crow laws and what not), those issues become incidental and not institutional. If one business is discriminatory, you can leave and go to another business.

However, should inequalities developing from nature (like being born into poverty, or with a disability) be viewed as unjust and be corrected? Why? If so, how should those be corrected?

If the type of education you need to get into a certain category of job is available to only a few - then, that is a form of oppression.

How is it oppression? Again, what is the specific unjust burden imposed?

It is easy to point to symptoms and /or indicators of a potential burden, but you have to identify a specific burden to be able to claim oppression.

The most common claim of burden in this area is simply economic. While everyone has certain "economic burdens" (house payment, insurance, food, etc) it hits the affluent a lot less then it does the middle class and the poor. A lot of rhetoric is aimed at characterizing economic concerns as a burden (though it usually doesn't specifically say that). However, there are a lot of problems with this characterization and it's implications.

But, are there things that capitalism doesn't do very well, yes.

Anarcho-capitalism is as equally unrealistic as communism. If humans are inherently selfish, they are capable of both good and evil both intentionally and unintentionally. Without a minimal government protecting basic rights, the powerful will enslave the weak. Hobbes famously characterized the government-less state of nature as thus:

there is no place for Industry; because the fruit thereof is uncertain; and consequently no Culture of the Earth; no Navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by Sea; no commodious Building; no Instruments of moving, and removing such things as require much force; no Knowledge of the face of the Earth; no account of Time; no Arts; no Letters; no Society; and which is worst of all, continuall feare, and danger of violent death; And the life of man, solitary, poore, nasty, brutish, and short."​

That passage spotlights the flaws in anarcho-capitalism. But it is a long way from that necessary minimal government to where we are now.

 

[fossten]

I will gladly remove myself from the stupid/lazy mode, when you acquire the balls to answer...

do you agree that "This country, was not based on selfless service, sacrifice, renunciation or any precept of altruism." This is a central concept in Rand's philosophy...

I'm on the back burner? Oh noes!

I don't need an answer from you, fox. I already know, and have demonstrated, that your claim is bogus, that you are unable to substantiate it, and that you are being disingenuous. I certainly have enough balls to put you repeatedly in your place.

You, on the other hand, are frustrated that I won't answer your 'gotcha' question because you can't pin me down to one side or the other, so you resort to childish repetition, baiting, and whining, which has no effect on me.

Moreover, you're not a qualified or recognized expert on Rand's philosophy, and you're not the judge as to which or how many books someone has to read to understand her philosophy. Can you say 'Moving the Goalposts?

You failed. Get over it.

 

[foxpaws]

It is vitally important to understand the reasoning behind the various worldviews and critically examine them to truly understand the philosophical basis of any and all policy in politics, inherent in the creation of government and it's various institutions and inherent in the various points of view in modern discourse. If your goal is truly to understand various points of view in the political arena, this is the first and most important step.

Perhaps Shag – you might have noticed – I often skim this part – sort of a ‘been there, done that’ state of mind. I usually now am looking beyond the philosophical, however I do understand the various political viewpoints, I have taken your ‘first step’ long ago. Here, and in other threads, I have to revert back to something I haven’t used in quite a while. We were discussing some point of law a while back, and finally, when I was able to take my real world scenario, and slice and dice it back to textbook terms, you and I were eventually on the same page. I no doubt will continually miss this step. You can call me on it, but really, it isn’t that interesting to me any longer. The theoretical isn’t anywhere near as compelling as the reality, at least for me. So, if you have patience with me – and quit with the whole ‘stay classy’ business, and start to realize that we are starting from different points along the same line – you start at the very beginning, whereas I start usually somewhere in the middle, we can both eventually get to the point where we are discussing the same issue. I do try to be patient – often rewording and working backwards until you can see that indeed I do understand the philosophical, and have just jumped ahead to the practical.

So, you appear to be hung up on the word ‘achieve’ when dealing with natural rights –

I know you don’t achieve natural rights – I have stated that a few times – but if your natural rights are protected and allowed to flourish you then should be able to have the opportunity to achieve… When dealing with the pursuit of happiness, if opportunities are equal – then you should have that opportunity. What you do with it is your business. You may achieve ‘happiness’, you may not – but the opportunity to achieve should be protected.

Yes, but when the Rule of Law is respected (which it inherently was not under Jim Crow laws and what not), those issues become incidental and not institutional. If one business is discriminatory, you can leave and go to another business.

Yes you can, but when all business is discriminatory – such as was the case in the south, and the Jim Crow laws, then the Rule of Law is not being adhered to. You need the government to step in and perhaps spell out the Rule of Law or remove the laws which have become a barrier to allowing someone the opportunity to achieve.

It has happened again and again, depending on groups or entities in power in certain areas of this country, and in certain business segments. As we define ourselves differently – will discrimination or segregation happen again? During the AIDs scare of the 80s, people were discriminated against because they fit a certain profile. After 9-11 once again profiling took place and once again, people/businesses were damaged due to discrimination. Because we aren’t stagnant, but fluid, how we view barriers that are in place that prevent people from having that opportunity to achieve will be constantly changing.

However, should inequalities developing from nature (like being born into poverty, or with a disability) be viewed as unjust and be corrected? Why? If so, how should those be corrected?

I don’t think that the inequality can be corrected – being born black, a woman, disabled, or even into poverty. Those are static. However, how the government allows for all to have the same opportunity to achieve is something that can be done. Why – for the same reason we finally removed slavery in this country – we are all allowed the same rights… what we do with them is a choice. But if you have no choice, no opportunity, have you removed the right?

How is it oppression? Again, what is the specific unjust burden imposed?

This dealt with my education example – if someone is denied access to a certain type of education, their opportunity ceases to exist in that arena. If homosexuals aren’t allowed into schools that teach auto repair – that person is being denied their opportunity to succeed. I could care less if when they get out of school if they do succeed or not, but I do care that they be allowed the opportunity. There is an unjust burden because the person being denied the opportunity to learn auto repair might not be very good at anything else. This might be their one way to get a piece of the American dream. They have been oppressed, because they aren’t allowed get the education they need to succeed.

So, shag if males from Kansas weren’t allowed to go to law school, you might feel oppressed – you will now have a burden placed on you because you could have been an excellent attorney. Without that avenue, you will be only mediocre in another field, and not be able to fully realize your potential. Is the fact that you have less funds a burden? Doesn’t that depend on the level of less funds? There is a minimal requirement, and now that males from Kansas who wanted to be attorneys have to work at Radio Shack, they don’t have the funds to relocate to another state, where they can, or their children can go to law school. They are starting to be caught in a cycle of oppression. There are also more ‘intangibles’ - perhaps less exposure in the community, a more difficult time getting into politics, there could be lots, because you weren’t allowed to achieve.

These are very ‘what if’ scenarios, but under unfettered capitalism, those types of things do happen, and become ingrained, until whole segments of the population are being oppressed.

That passage spotlights the flaws in anarcho-capitalism. But it is a long way from that necessary minimal government to where we are now.

So, at this point we both agree that there has to be government control in place to avoid unfettered capitalism. Even in a Republic-capitalism, if the capitalism is unfettered it will eventually run the government.

I think certainly our levels of government control would be different – I think we have way too many controls in some areas, and far to little in others. Often regulation swings far too wide to over compensate for damages done in the past.

But, if you ever read Shrugged – now that you are a little older, you should be safe , you will find that Rand places far too much value that although humans are inherently selfish – that evil won’t end up enslaving the good. The government is there to protect life and liberty, but not the pursuit of happiness. Somehow by removing all controls dealing with the pursuit of happiness, we will arrive at some happy conclusion where all people will be allowed the opportunity to achieve. Obviously that wouldn’t happen. Her philosophy is flawed.

You are better off with Hayek and Hobbs – And although I really believe Hayek had to have read Anthem, and certainly took points from it – he understood that underlying Rand there is a huge problem, she seems to not understand or take into account basic human nature.

 

[fossten]

Perhaps Shag – you might have noticed – I often skim this part – sort of a ‘been there, done that’ state of mind. I usually now am looking beyond the philosophical, however I do understand the various political viewpoints, I have taken your ‘first step’ long ago. Here, and in other threads, I have to revert back to something I haven’t used in quite a while. We were discussing some point of law a while back, and finally, when I was able to take my real world scenario, and slice and dice it back to textbook terms, you and I were eventually on the same page. I no doubt will continually miss this step. You can call me on it, but really, it isn’t that interesting to me any longer. The theoretical isn’t anywhere near as compelling as the reality, at least for me. So, if you have patience with me – and quit with the whole ‘stay classy’ business, and start to realize that we are starting from different points along the same line – you start at the very beginning, whereas I start usually somewhere in the middle, we can both eventually get to the point where we are discussing the same issue. I do try to be patient – often rewording and working backwards until you can see that indeed I do understand the philosophical, and have just jumped ahead to the practical.

A very wordy way of saying that you're intellectually lazy. But we already knew that, didn't we?

Haven't you ever heard the saying, "Brevity is the soul of wit?"

Clearly you lose interest when somebody can match your propaganda with competent statements of truth. It's just too much effort for you to twist yourself into pretzels when you're weaving your webs of deceit.

I doubt that Shag agrees with you nearly as much as you think he does.

 

[shagdrum]

So, you appear to be hung up on the word ‘achieve’ when dealing with natural rights –

I know you don’t achieve natural rights – I have stated that a few times – but if your natural rights are protected and allowed to flourish you then should be able to have the opportunity to achieve…

In addition to not being "achieved", rights do not "flourish". You either have them or you don't.

When dealing with the pursuit of happiness, if opportunities are equal – then you should have that opportunity.

Again, you are connecting "equal opportunity" as a necessary condition of rights without justifying that assumption.

Yes you can, but when all business is discriminatory – such as was the case in the south, and the Jim Crow laws, then the Rule of Law is not being adhered to.

But that is not business being discriminatory, but the law being discriminatory. Not an example of capitalism oppressing anyone.

Because we aren’t stagnant, but fluid, how we view barriers that are in place that prevent people from having that opportunity to achieve will be constantly changing.

So... we need to change human nature?

Also, what does this have to do with capitalism oppressing anyone?

However, how the government allows for all to have the same opportunity to achieve is something that can be done.

at what cost?

Why – for the same reason we finally removed slavery in this country – we are all allowed the same rights… what we do with them is a choice.

Slavery was uniquely incompatible with the idea of Natural Law that this country was founded on because it was inherently unjust. Inequalities like being born into poverty or with a disability are not incompatible with Natural Law.

Also, slavery was not an inequality that developed from nature but was instituted by man. I was talking about inequalities due to nature. Do you view those as unjust and needing to be rectified?

These are very ‘what if’ scenarios, but under unfettered capitalism, those types of things do happen,

In most all those hypotheticals you cite, it is more government doing any "oppressing" then capitalism. Government restricting people in some way. Again, what is the specific burden that capitalism puts on people that oppresses them? The only explaination I have ever heard offered is that it places an economic burden on people

So, at this point we both agree that there has to be government control in place to avoid unfettered capitalism. Even in a Republic-capitalism, if the capitalism is unfettered it will eventually run the government.

If there is a government at all, then capitalism is not "unfettered". Anarcho-capitalism is only a potential temporary state, at best. Either a tyranny will develop or the people will enter into a social contract of some kind. At that point it becomes a question of what is the best type of government and the best balance between government and the market.

As far as control over the market, that is not really a place for the government. Adam Smith really only saw a place for government when it came to enforcement of contracts and prevention of fraud. Government intervention in the free market was only needed in those specific areas due to the evils inherent in human nature. For every other potential evil arising from human nature, the free market had a more efficient and less costly means of minimizing and punishing it.

 

[foxpaws]

Wow Shag, you have to be one of the most 'literal' people...

In addition to not being "achieved", rights do not "flourish". You either have them or you don't.

Flourish-what won't happen if your rights aren't protected. The right doesn't flourish - but the results of that right can, or can't - depending on the individual.

Again, you are connecting "equal opportunity" as a necessary condition of rights without justifying that assumption.

I don't really see where you are going with this- if one group is afforded opportunity and another group isn't because of say, discrimination, then one group has effectively lost that right. It is as effective as locking someone up. There, you have removed someone's liberty - you have taken away a natural right. If you remove the opportunity for someone to pursue happiness because you have deleted a path to that pursuit because of discrimination, then you have taken away a natural right.

But that is not business being discriminatory, but the law being discriminatory. Not an example of capitalism oppressing anyone.

But shag, the whites asked for the law, they voted in Democrats who thought like they did. They wanted to make sure that blacks wouldn't be allowed to vote. They also wanted to keep whites employed and and white businesses 'white'. The representatives that voted in the Jim Crow laws were beholding to white business owners and white capitalists with lots of campaign money to throw around. The buck (and laws) stopped at the white capitalists who had the power in the south, and didn't want to lose it to blacks. The laws were in response to the capitalist pressure placed on the representatives. Capitalists were oppressing blacks by making sure the elected officials represented their viewpoints, and making sure that blacks didn't have a vote in the system.

Slavery was uniquely incompatible with the idea of Natural Law that this country was founded on because it was inherently unjust. Inequalities like being born into poverty or with a disability are not incompatible with Natural Law.

Also, slavery was not an inequality that developed from nature but was instituted by man. I was talking about inequalities due to nature. Do you view those as unjust and needing to be rectified?

So, being black wasn't due to nature? What is different between being discriminated because you are black or being discriminated because you are disabled?

In most all those hypotheticals you cite, it is more government doing any "oppressing" then capitalism. Government restricting people in some way. Again, what is the specific burden that capitalism puts on people that oppresses them? The only explaination I have ever heard offered is that it places an economic burden on people.

If you aren't allowed to pursue an education path, because the schools that offer that path won't allow you to attend, that is oppression. Example - law schools wouldn't allow blacks or women until fairly recently. Blacks and women were burdened by not being allowed to pursue the career path that best suited them. The colleges (private business) were the ones not allowing those groups to attend, not any law (in the north - the south's segregation laws barred blacks, but not women, however women still weren't allowed to attend, because the colleges' decisions).

If there is a government at all, then capitalism is not "unfettered". Anarcho-capitalism is only a potential temporary state, at best. Either a tyranny will develop or the people will enter into a social contract of some kind. At that point it becomes a question of what is the best type of government and the best balance between government and the market.

As far as control over the market, that is not really a place for the government. Adam Smith really only saw a place for government when it came to enforcement of contracts and prevention of fraud. Government intervention in the free market was only needed in those specific areas due to the evils inherent in human nature. For every other potential evil arising from human nature, the free market had a more efficient and less costly means of minimizing and punishing it.

Once again - if you read Shrugged - Rand believes you can have a government that doesn't interfere with the pursuit of happiness at all. No regulation whatsoever.

Do you think that slavery would have gone away due to market conditions? Do you think discrimination against women would have been solved on the free market? How do you think the market would have punished polluters - for centuries it never did, in fact the market rewarded polluters with larger profits. It took law to stop capitalists from destroying our waterways and our air.

You seem to think that capitalism is always self correcting. It isn't. Once again, it has to do with human nature, something Rand (and maybe you) ignore.

 

[fossten]

Do you think that slavery would have gone away due to market conditions?

Yep.

 

[shagdrum]

Flourish-what won't happen if your rights aren't protected.

so, if rights don't flourish, what specifically is "flourishing? What is being "achieved"?

I don't really see where you are going with this- if one group is afforded opportunity and another group isn't because of say, discrimination, then one group has effectively lost that right.

You keep asserting that but you need to justify it. Being locked up is different then having not having the option of a certain opportunity. Discrimination does not infringe on rights because it reduces an opportunity. It only starts to infringes on rights when that discrimination is institutionalized and it removes the vast majority of opportunities.

But shag, the whites asked for the law, they voted in Democrats who thought like they did. They wanted to make sure that blacks wouldn't be allowed to vote. They also wanted to keep whites employed and and white businesses 'white'. The representatives that voted in the Jim Crow laws were beholding to white business owners and white capitalists with lots of campaign money to throw around.

Then, again, it isn't capitalism. Maybe corporatism (which is antithetical to capitalism) played a part and, along with other factors influenced the law, but not capitalism in and of itself. Basically, what you are spelling out is the white population in the south (maybe through the influence of corporatism to some degree) getting local governments to reject the rule of law. But you have to remember that after the Civil War, most "big business" that could influence government (corporatism) was in the North.

So, being black wasn't due to nature? What is different between being discriminated because you are black or being discriminated because you are disabled?

We were talking specifically about slavery. That is much more then simply being discriminated against because of skin color. The institution of slavery was man made and was antithetical to Natural Law, which this nation was founded on. It was the big elephant in the room when this country was founded and came to a head in the mid 1800's with the Civil War.

If you aren't allowed to pursue an education path, because the schools that offer that path won't allow you to attend, that is oppression.

Again, what is the specific, unjust burden? Simply repeating the claim and citing hypothetical scenario's doesn't say what the unjust burden is.

The removal of one opportunity does not result in oppression. That is simply an inconvenience. If you are going to define oppression as such, then every man woman and child has been oppressed in some fashion multiple times in their lives. In fact, regardless of economic system, or government , most people function under various forms of oppression under that standard. Under that overly broad standard, any claim of oppression is meaningless. If everything is oppression, nothing is oppression. That is why you need to cite a specific unjust burden that capitalism imposes to be able to claim that capitalism oppresses people.

Also, do you think that nature can unjustly oppress people?

Going with the black student thing, do you think that Affirmative Action is "justice"? It is aimed at correcting an "unjust inequality".

 

[foxpaws]

so, if rights don't flourish, what specifically is "flourishing? What is being "achieved"?

Can liberty flourish? To be in a vigorous state – that is the meaning of flourish. To be healthy. It is more of a barometer of how things are doing. I certainly think rights can be in an anemic state, they can also be flourishing. How healthy are your rights? You have a body, just as you have rights. But that body can be in various states of health, just as rights can be.

You keep asserting that but you need to justify it. Being locked up is different then having not having the option of a certain opportunity. Discrimination does not infringe on rights because it reduces an opportunity. It only starts to infringes on rights when that discrimination is institutionalized and it removes the vast majority of opportunities.

Being locked up is not different than not being allowed to enter schools because of your gender. They both infringe on rights – liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If you meet all the requirements to enter that school, except gender (race, etc), then your ability to pursue happiness is being infringed on. And a group can inflect that just as easily as a government. Lawyers were white men, they controlled the schools that churned out lawyers, they were able to continue a policy of only allowing white men into the hallowed halls, and created a cycle of oppression that excluded ‘non-desirables’. They removed the vast majority of opportunities. No government involvement at all. In fact, it took government involvement to remove those barriers set up by the private sector. So not the removal of just a certain opportunity (not being allowed to go to Yale) but all opportunity (not being allowed to go to any law school).

Perhaps if I am not answering your 'justify' question you can give me an example of what you expect.

Then, again, it isn't capitalism. Maybe corporatism (which is antithetical to capitalism) played a part and, along with other factors influenced the law, but not capitalism in and of itself. Basically, what you are spelling out is the white population in the south (maybe through the influence of corporatism to some degree) getting local governments to reject the rule of law. But you have to remember that after the Civil War, most "big business" that could influence government (corporatism) was in the North.

The ‘results’ of capitalism certainly did influence law. Those men were capitalists – they certainly weren’t socialists . Their money and businesses were what influenced law. You can’t take capitalism out of the equation – as you said – perhaps not in and of itself, but it was the biggest cog. And certainly big business in the North was influencing federal law – but they had very little, if any, influence on local law in the south – the Jim Crow laws specifically.

And corporatism, a great subject – maybe not for here – but it is a fascinating study-especially as you see the rise of corporatism in response to rises in liberalism and Marxism. Capitalists joining together against a ‘foe’. Certainly in Shrugged, there was a loosely gathered capitalist group that was using the tools of corporatism to bring the government to its knees.

The removal of one opportunity does not result in oppression. That is simply an inconvenience. If you are going to define oppression as such, then every man woman and child has been oppressed in some fashion multiple times in their lives. In fact, regardless of economic system, or government , most people function under various forms of oppression under that standard. Under that overly broad standard, any claim of oppression is meaningless. If everything is oppression, nothing is oppression. That is why you need to cite a specific unjust burden that capitalism imposes to be able to claim that capitalism oppresses people.

You are right shag – the removal of one opportunity does not result in oppression – so if you can’t go to one law school because you are black, you haven't been oppressed. But, if all law schools are closed to blacks – that is oppression.

And that can happen in a society where the government takes a hands off policy to all business (college being a business). Airlines, if allowed, might not allow anyone of Arab descent travel on a plane because of the threat of terrorism. They might even use it as a marketing ‘plus’. That is capitalism oppressing a group. The airline industry could conceivably in this country make more money if they could show the consumer that by not allowing Arabs on the plane, the rest of the passengers would be safer.

Capitalism can and will oppress if profit is involved. It is how it works. With the economic system of capitalism there is the overriding need to make money, and if allowed, oppression/exclusion is a good way to make money.

Also, do you think that nature can unjustly oppress people?

Is there justice or injustice in nature – I don’t think so… Those are ideas created by man, nature doesn’t really care.

Going with the black student thing, is Affirmative Action justice in your view? It is aimed at correcting an "unjust inequality".

That is a hard one – it is difficult to justify affirmative action on face value. It really is going against the natural right of the pursuit of happiness. It attempts to quickly ‘right’ a long standing ‘wrong’. Taking into account the percentage of blacks in the population, one would assume if thing had been allowed to progress ‘naturally’ then the number of black firemen would be a reflection of the percentage of blacks in the associated fire district. Affirmative Action tried to fast track that process. I personally don’t think it was justice – because it was justice for the few, not justice for all. The whites that weren’t allowed to be firemen, even though they might have been better qualified than the blacks who were, certainly were victims of this through no fault of their own. Was it a way for society/government to ‘make up’ for a long standing error? Yes it was. Was it correct in the terms of natural rights – no. However, was a societal need achieved? Perhaps. Affirmative Action was meant as a short term solution to a long standing problem.

The founding fathers felt that slavery had to stand for the strength of our emerging Union. They 'denied' natural rights to blacks to allow our nation to grow and become strong as a 'union of states'. So, with Affirmative Action did the government allow a natural right to be overridden? Yes. But, in the long run did it create a better good for all of society?

 

[shagdrum]

Can liberty flourish? To be in a vigorous state – that is the meaning of flourish. To be healthy.

Liberty, freedoms, etc. are all derived from Natural Rights. None of those things can "flourish" or in any other manner "grow". You are born with those rights and they can only be taken away.

You agreed with this sentiment when you said the following in post #77 of this thread

...I agree, I didn't state this like I wanted - you were right to call me on this - natural rights aren't 'achieved' they just 'are'

Now you seem to be contradicting yourself and trying to attribute qualities to Rights that it does not possess. If you are going to claim that Rights (or their dirivatives) contain that quality, you need to make the case. Simply showing how other things can grow and then claiming that Rights are like that does not make the case.

Rights (and their derivatives) allow other things to grow (creativity, ingenuity, wealth, etc), but Rights do not, in any way, grow, in and of themselves.

Perhaps if I am not answering your 'justify' question you can give me an example of what you expect.

You seem to be equating mere inconvenience with a fundamental infringement of rights and they are not the same thing. you need to show why it is one and not the other. You also seem to be relying on a mere assertion that it is an infringement to prove that it is an infringement of rights.

Your rights stop at other peoples rights. These private schools have a right to conduct their business as they see fit (within certain limits) because the business is their property. So you are implying that a potential student's right to the pursuit of happiness a) is defined however he or she sees fit, and b) trumps the rights of the owners of the business.

Why do the potential student's rights trump the business owners? Why is the student allowed to redefine his rights as he sees fit even when they would infringe on others rights?

Basically, the issue seems to be where the boundaries of those rights are (or if there are any in your view) and why that is.

The ‘results’ of capitalism certainly did influence law. Those men were capitalists – they certainly weren’t socialists . Their money and businesses were what influenced law. You can’t take capitalism out of the equation – as you said – perhaps not in and of itself, but it was the biggest cog.

Again, what you are describing is corporatism which is antithetical to capitalism.

You are right shag – the removal of one opportunity does not result in oppression – so if you can’t go to one law school because you are black, you haven't been oppressed. But, if all law schools are closed to blacks – that is oppression.

If all current law schools are closed to blacks, it would seem to me that there would be a great business opportunity in creating a law school catering to black students...

Is there justice or injustice in nature – I don’t think so… Those are ideas created by man, nature doesn’t really care.

Then how can capitalism be oppressive? It is simply market without artificial intervention; a consequent of nature. No unjust burden can be placed on someone then.

That is a hard one – it is difficult to justify affirmative action on face value. It really is going against the natural right of the pursuit of happiness. It attempts to quickly ‘right’ a long standing ‘wrong’.

So, do you think government has any business correcting a historical "wrong"?

Affirmative Action tried to fast track that process. I personally don’t think it was justice – because it was justice for the few, not justice for all.

Is justice determined on an individual basis or on a societal basis?

So, with Affirmative Action did the government allow a natural right to be overridden? Yes. But, in the long run did it create a better good for all of society?

IMO, no, it did not "create a better good."

Can you "create a better good for all of society" by infringing on natural rights?

 

[foxpaws]

Liberty, freedoms, etc. are all derived from Natural Rights. None of those things can "flourish" or in any other manner "grow". You are born with those rights and they can only be taken away.

You agreed with this sentiment when you said the following in post #77 of this thread

Now you seem to be contradicting yourself and trying to attribute qualities to Rights that it does not possess. If you are going to claim that Rights (or their dirivatives) contain that quality, you need to make the case. Simply showing how other things can grow and then claiming that Rights are like that does not make the case.

Rights (and their derivatives) allow other things to grow (creativity, ingenuity, wealth, etc), but Rights do not, in any way, grow, in and of themselves.

But they can be healthy or sick. Liberty for all is one thing - liberty for a chosen few is another. Rights don't grow, there is a point where they all should be 'at' - but rights can certainly shrink. You can have your freedom curtailed, you can have property rights removed (only being allowed to buy a house in a certain neighborhood for instance). You still have the right of property-but it has been curtailed. It is sick.

You seem to be equating mere inconvenience with a fundamental infringement of rights and they are not the same thing. you need to show why it is one and not the other. You also seem to be relying on a mere assertion that it is an infringement to prove that it is an infringement of rights.

Shag - being discriminated against because of something you have no control over - skin color, gender, etc. isn't a 'mere inconvenience'. What sort of proof are you asking for? Do you want to relive the civil rights movement, the suffragette movement?

Your rights stop at other peoples rights. These private schools have a right to conduct their business as they see fit (within certain limits) because the business is their property. So you are implying that a potential student's right to the pursuit of happiness a) is defined however he or she sees fit, and b) trumps the rights of the owners of the business.

Why do the potential student's rights trump the business owners? Why is the student allowed to redefine his rights as he sees fit even when they would infringe on others rights?

So, laws regarding discrimination are incorrect, are wrong? They force businesses to do something the business owners might not want to do. For instance - serve blacks. If the business owner is just using the color of someone's skin - or their gender - as a means to refuse services or goods is that the correct thing to do? It is within their rights according to your idea above. It certainly would be within the business owner's natural rights to add to their help wanted ad 'no women need apply'. But, does that infringe on my rights? Where is that line?

Basically, the issue seems to be where the boundaries of those rights are (or if there are any in your view) and why that is.

So, what do you think Shag - are there boundaries for rights other than the rather generic - your rights stop where mine begin. In the past 'my' rights might have included 'I don't want hispanics living in my neighborhood'. In that case weren't 'my' rights of having a neighborhood of people with whom I felt comfortable with important? Or were the rights of hispanics being trampled because they couldn't live in the school district that gave their kids a better chance at a good education and a way out of the barrio?

Again, what you are describing is corporatism which is antithetical to capitalism.

When capitalists deal in politics it isn't a blanket 'corporatism'. Especially when you look at the south and Jim Crow laws. There wasn't any corporate lead... it was mostly small business and individuals that were giving money to politicians to create those laws. It was capitalist fear that their business would be hurt, or their jobs would be lost to blacks....

If all current law schools are closed to blacks, it would seem to me that there would be a great business opportunity in creating a law school catering to black students...

Unless all the current lawyers were white males and they wanted to keep it that way - the country club mentality. You would have no teachers - no one who had experience in law that would be able to get a school off the ground. It sounds good, and if you don't have to take human nature into account it would be a capitalist slam dunk. However, when you put the peer pressure part of the equation into effect - in a capitalistic society with no restrictions, there is a good likelihood that there would remain no black law school.

Then how can capitalism be oppressive? It is simply market without artificial intervention; a consequent of nature. No unjust burden can be placed on someone then.

But capitalism is dependent on man, not nature. it isn't an invention of nature, it is an invention of man. In an ideal form there would be no unjust burden placed on anyone in any economic system. But, human nature changes all of that. Greed happens, prejudice happens, fear happens, and that has to be taken into account when dealing with things like economic and government structure.

So, do you think government has any business correcting a historical "wrong"?

You obviously don't. Do I? I think they need to stop perpetuating it.

Is justice determined on an individual basis or on a societal basis?

Don't you think that it is a combination of both?

IMO, no, it did not "create a better good."

Can you "create a better good for all of society" by infringing on natural rights?

Affirmative action may not have created a better good - however that was its intent. Flawed idea or flawed execution...

You seemed to indicate in the past that you agreed with the founding fathers that infringing on black slaves' natural rights created a 'better good'. Most likely there wouldn't be a good ol' USA if the south wasn't part of the Union from the beginning. The United States divided into two would probably have meant no country whatsoever. England would have defeated either side in 1812 and the French would have picked up the leftovers.

 

[shagdrum]

But they can be healthy or sick. Liberty for all is one thing - liberty for a chosen few is another. Rights don't grow, there is a point where they all should be 'at' - but rights can certainly shrink. You can have your freedom curtailed, you can have property rights removed (only being allowed to buy a house in a certain neighborhood for instance). You still have the right of property-but it has been curtailed. It is sick.

Rights are not "healthy" or "sick". They do not "grow", they are not "achieved" nor do they "flourish". Rights, as you have said, simply are. You are born with rights and they are only taken away, in whole are in part, if not protected.

Rights are universal. If it is claimed that certain rights are for a "chosen few" then what is being claimed is not a right.

Those questions I asked in my previous post concerning the potential student being rejected for a school should not be overlook.

Do you agree with the basic principle of Natural Law that rights do not overlap?

Shag - being discriminated against because of something you have no control over - skin color, gender, etc. isn't a 'mere inconvenience'.

Incidental discrimination is far different then institutional discrimination. Incidental discrimination is an inconvenience while institutional discrimination is systemic, unjust oppression.

Do you think discrimination is something that can be abolished or merely minimized? If you think it can be abolished, are there any trade-offs you see with doing so?

So, what do you think Shag - are there boundaries for rights other than the rather generic - your rights stop where mine begin.

The axiom that rights don't overlap covers it rather well. Legal disputes arise concerning where that boundary is, exactly, but there is really no dispute that is a boundary and a sufficient one.

In the past 'my' rights might have included 'I don't want hispanics living in my neighborhood'.

Just because something is asserted as a right does not make it a right.

When capitalists deal in politics it isn't a blanket 'corporatism'.

Where is the line between capitalists (or capitalism) dealing in politics and simply individual citizens banding together to petition their government for the redress of grievances?

But capitalism is dependent on man, not nature.

A natural, unencumbered economy (capitalism) is a natural occurrence of man (who is a part of nature) engaging in economic activity due to the scarcity of resource (which is due to nature).

Don't you think that it is a combination of both?

I think that justice is (ideally) an unbiased process that treats everyone equally (rule of law) and secures for people what they deserve (given their actions and the context of those actions) on an individual and incidental basis. Would you agree with that view?

 

[fossten]

But they can be healthy or sick. Liberty for all is one thing - liberty for a chosen few is another. Rights don't grow, there is a point where they all should be 'at' - but rights can certainly shrink. You can have your freedom curtailed, you can have property rights removed (only being allowed to buy a house in a certain neighborhood for instance). You still have the right of property-but it has been curtailed. It is sick.

Wow. Where the hell did you come up with this insane concept?

 

[foxpaws]

Rights are not "healthy" or "sick". They do not "grow", they are not "achieved" nor do they "flourish". Rights, as you have said, simply are. You are born with rights and they are only taken away, in whole are in part, if not protected.

Shag - I know we just 'have' rights - just because we are human... but - they can be healthy or sick - depending on the atmosphere that they are 'living'. Your property rights could be fairly healthy in a totally capitalistic society - but, if that capitalistic society thrives under a dictatorship - your liberty might not be quite so healthy.

It is a metaphor...

Those questions I asked in my previous post concerning the potential student being rejected for a school should not be overlook.

I thought I answered them... what didn't I answer...

Do you agree with the basic principle of Natural Law that rights do not overlap?

I certainly believe that civil rights and natural law overlap - I can't believe that you would believe that natural law and natural rights aren't intertwined. Do you think that they are are independent of each other?

Incidental discrimination is far different then institutional discrimination. Incidental discrimination is an inconvenience while institutional discrimination is systemic, unjust oppression.

Do you think discrimination is something that can be abolished or merely minimized? If you think it can be abolished, are there any trade-offs you see with doing so?

So - do you agree being discriminated against because of someything you have no control over isn't a mere inconvenience?

Because of human nature it may a very, very long time before discrimination is abolished.

I can't think of trade offs if discrimination is abolished - what do you see as a trade off Shag - do you see any?

The axiom that rights don't overlap covers it rather well. Legal disputes arise concerning where that boundary is, exactly, but there is really no dispute that is a boundary and a sufficient one.

Really - rights don't overlap? State vs Non-state law might be a good way to look at this... religion, family law, cultural groups... there is a lot of overlapping of rights.

Where is the line between capitalists (or capitalism) dealing in politics and simply individual citizens banding together to petition their government for the redress of grievances?

Where is that line? Is it energy corporations trying to hold onto their monopolies?

A natural, unencumbered economy (capitalism) is a natural occurrence of man (who is a part of nature) engaging in economic activity due to the scarcity of resource (which is due to nature).

Shag - temper von Miles and Block... perhaps start with looking at modern capitalism sans the rose color glasses, and not some 'ideal' of capitalism. Capitalism gave us the situation where Wall Street no longer cares about Main Street, power corrupts absolutely whether you are talking economics or politics...

I think that justice is (ideally) an unbiased process that treats everyone equally (rule of law) and secures for people what they deserve (given their actions and the context of those actions) on an individual and incidental basis. Would you agree with that view?

Yes - but, unless you live in a world created by Roddenberry that doesn't exist. In the US capitalism colors justice (among others).

 

[shagdrum]

It is a metaphor...

The "metaphor" misrepresents rights as being malleable when they are not. They simply are (again, as you have said); they can only be taken away in whole or in incremental parts. They don't in any way "grow".

I certainly believe that civil rights and natural law overlap - I can't believe that you would believe that natural law and natural rights aren't intertwined.

Legitimate civil rights are derived from Natural Law just like Natural Rights. However, there are a lot of things that are incorrectly called "rights" (often under the label of "civil rights"). If something being asserted as a "right" does in fact overlaps a legitimate right, then what is being asserted is not a right.

It is rather simple; substantive rights cannot exist if they can overlap. One of the key features of the Judicial branch is to clarify where the boundaries between rights are when there is a perceived overlap; the Judicial branch of government is based on the principle that rights do not overlap.

So - do you agree being discriminated against because of something you have no control over isn't a mere inconvenience?

That is too broad a generalization to make.

Because of human nature it may a very, very long time before discrimination is abolished.

So you think that human nature is something that can be changed over time? If you think that, then your criticism of Rand's work as being inconsistent with human nature holds no water because human nature can, theoretically, change to accommodate her theory.

Where is that line? Is it energy corporations trying to hold onto their monopolies?

Are you simply missing my point or avoiding it?

If you are going to go back to simply avoiding points, dismissing them, distorting them and the like then there no reason for this thread to continue...

perhaps start with looking at modern capitalism sans the rose color glasses, and not some 'ideal' of capitalism.

If my characterization of capitalism is somehow unrealistic, then you can show how that is (instead of simply dismissing it as a false ideal). The example of "Wall Street no longer car[ing] about Main Street" in no way confronts (let alone counters) my explanation of capitalism as a natural occurrence.

What is "artificial" about a capitalist system? Pure capitalism is simply the natural occurrence of man engaging in economic activity necessitated by the scarcity of resource in nature.

 

[foxpaws]

The "metaphor" misrepresents rights as being malleable when they are not. They simply are (again, as you have said); they can only be taken away in whole or in incremental parts. They don't in any way "grow".

The rights themselves are not changeable, once again – I understand this – but as you finally seem to understand – they are healthy or not – depending on how much the governing body allows us to have. If we don’t have all (or our ‘whole’) rights, and just have some of our rights (‘incremental’) then, our rights aren’t as healthy as they could be – we aren’t 'whole'… it is a metaphor on how complete our rights are – do we get to enjoy our rights fully – without intervention from anyone – then they are ‘healthy’. Does the political or economic system infringe on those rights – then they aren’t so healthy any more.

I certainly believe that civil rights and natural law overlap - I can't believe that you would believe that natural law and natural rights aren't intertwined.

Legitimate civil rights are derived from Natural Law just like Natural Rights. However, there are a lot of things that are incorrectly called "rights" (often under the label of "civil rights"). If something being asserted as a "right" does in fact overlaps a legitimate right, then what is being asserted is not a right.

So, shag –once again you retreat to your ivory tower – in some ideal world civil rights do mirror natural law – but in a real world – they don’t. They never have and probably won’t for eons to come. Your philosophical view is fine – in that absolutely wonderful land of Oz – but, down here – on planet earth- you need to temper it with reality and human nature. Once again – human nature pushes laws in different directions at different times. For a variety of reasons, and it might go against natural rights (such as our slavery laws when this country was founded). Time and evolution can change that, but for now we have to live in a world that needs to deal with inequality and oppression the best we can. It took almost 100 years of slavery to find the right time to remove it from American life - and it was very obviously wrong.

So - do you agree being discriminated against because of something you have no control over isn't a mere inconvenience?

That is too broad a generalization to make.

Why?

Because of human nature it may a very, very long time before discrimination is abolished.

So you think that human nature is something that can be changed over time? If you think that, then your criticism of Rand's work as being inconsistent with human nature holds no water because human nature can, theoretically, change to accommodate her theory.

I know human nature can be changed over time – but it takes lifetimes (my very, very long time), not mere years – and I think that within our lifetime, or for many lifetimes beyond ours there certainly won’t be a big shift away from some forms of discrimination as well as with greed and corruption. Look how long it took for blacks to have rights in the western world - they had been slaves for millenniums. Rand could work great 1,000 years from now, just like perhaps Roddenberry could. Who knows which way we humans will travel? I don’t. I do know that neither philosophy would work now, or in the foreseeable future.

Rand’s books place her ideal world in the here and now, at least Roddenberry had the sense to know it would be centuries before we would see marked change in human nature.

Where is that line? Is it energy corporations trying to hold onto their monopolies?

Are you simply missing my point or avoiding it?

If you are going to go back to simply avoiding points, dismissing them, distorting them and the like then there no reason for this thread to continue...

So, what point am I avoiding? Where is the line – I gave an example of where I think there needs to be a line drawn. I went practical, everyday - sorry - it is what I do. I would rather find solutions to today's problems and discuss how they can be solved, within a framework of philosophical ideals, then just discuss some technicolor world that isn't going to be achieved in my lifetime, or my great grandchildren's lifetime.

perhaps start with looking at modern capitalism sans the rose color glasses, and not some 'ideal' of capitalism.

If my characterization of capitalism is somehow unrealistic, then you can show how that is (instead of simply dismissing it as a false ideal). The example of "Wall Street no longer car[ing] about Main Street" in no way confronts (let alone counters) my explanation of capitalism as a natural occurrence.

What is "artificial" about a capitalist system? Pure capitalism is simply the natural occurrence of man engaging in economic activity necessitated by the scarcity of resource in nature..

Your characterization of capitalism is theoretical – not practical shag. Capitalism could be and probably is a natural occurrence – just like I believe discrimination is. But does that make either something to be striven for or achieved? You might argue that discrimination is actually good, because it is a natural occurrence. Certainly I believe our natural tendency to discriminate is a reason for humans to look within and compensate for natural occurrence. Could unfettered capitalism be the same, a natural occurrence that needs to be ‘bound’ to work?

So, in theory, such as Rand’s, unbound capitalism is a way to achieve ‘pursuit of happiness.’ However, it is just a theory, and flawed, because it doesn’t take into account human nature. Natural occurrence or not -

 

[shagdrum]

Fox, you are clearly sticking to form and avoiding anything that inconveniently confronts your worldview.

The problem is, what you are dismissing as removed-from-reality, "ivory tower" type postulations have in fact been proven and vindicated through history and experience. Capitalism is simply the name given to the natural economy that arises due to the scarcity of resources and Rights, Justice and human nature as I have characterized them, are inherent in the the Constitution, the Declaration of Independance and every governmental institution since the founding of this nation. Those founding documents and the government and society they establish are the real world application of those ideas and they have stood for 233 years. To dismiss those ideas is to presumptuously dismiss that history, experience and inherent wisdom of Ages in order to protect the emotionally appealing rhetoric that seems to substitute any coherent philosophical outlook as the basis of your worldview.

But rhetoric is a very poor substitute for a genuine understanding of the philosophical roots of ideology, politics and policy. Unlike philosophy, rhetoric only holds water when taken at face value; it cannot stand up to critical analysis. However, rhetoric is a useful means of covering up inconvenient truths of the philosophy and distorting reality to fit the ideology. In this instance that inconvenient reality is that equality is the enemy of freedom.

To use more accurate terminology; Social Justice is incompatible with Natural Law. Since this country is founded on Natural Law, any ideology (like modern liberalism) promoting Social Justice in that system necessarily needs to avoid that truth; hence the need for rhetoric. From that rhetoric (and it's rationalization by elitists) you get the idea of "positive and negative rights" as Obama has discussed (in radio interview, and in his books) and the illusion of "economic rights" as being a freedom from economic decisions as FDR proposed and Obama's Czar Cass Sunstein promoted in his book, The Second Bill of Rights: FDR's Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need It More than Ever. This is why you need to misrepresent rights as something malleable and able to "grow".

All this deceptive rhetoric serves to surreptitiously redefine rights so that they are not inherently a restriction on the government and are not equally applicable to all citizens; to ultimately gut rights of any substance and make them confiscatory. This means a rejection of the rule of law, of traditional justice, of Natural Rights...of Natural Law altogether. This necessarily leads to Positivism, in which there are no liberties and their are no freedoms. Of course Positivism is necessary for collectivism and collectivism is necessary to realize the ideal of Social Justice.

Other aspects, like your rejection of traditional justice and flawed understanding of human nature all stem from that disconnect between rhetoric and reality. When you don't truly understand and dismiss the philosophical underpinnings of the various worldviews in favor of emotionally appealing rhetoric, you end up with the rationalizations you made in this thread; inconsistent, and, when confronted with critical analysis, increasingly desperate and dismissive.

I see no reason to continue with you here since you are simply going to ignore and dismiss what I say. If you can't get past the rhetoric then you are wasting my time.