Objectivist Essays
Does anyone know if there is still publications like the objectives essays that were captured in books like Capitalism the unknown ideal?
I would love (and pay well) for some research about why Worldcom and Enron failed and why the laws that were put in place to "stop" it from happening again wont work. Or what ahppened with the suit against boing to keep them from moving. Or what Core education guidlines are likely to miss educate our kids on... point is there is a lot out there and little scientific and well researched data to combat it with. Such essays would be very useful knowledge to have at hand when talking with a person who is not yet brain dead, but headed that way in favor of larger government. It would provide very useful talking points backed with good data. Such articles are in dire need of being researched and written. I know of no such publication but would love to buy it if one exists.
I would love (and pay well) for some research about why Worldcom and Enron failed and why the laws that were put in place to "stop" it from happening again wont work. Or what ahppened with the suit against boing to keep them from moving. Or what Core education guidlines are likely to miss educate our kids on... point is there is a lot out there and little scientific and well researched data to combat it with. Such essays would be very useful knowledge to have at hand when talking with a person who is not yet brain dead, but headed that way in favor of larger government. It would provide very useful talking points backed with good data. Such articles are in dire need of being researched and written. I know of no such publication but would love to buy it if one exists.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 3.
I don't see how anyone can be "fine" with unjust progressive taxes that punish productivity.
I'm glad you're fine with giving money to the poor; I'll take all you have, thanks.
Tween 2004 and 2008 I was a dispatcher for a delivery service. They were out of Tulsa, and had just opened a branch in OKC. We weren't supposed to make a profit for 3 years; we made a profit the 1st year.
Our primary service was delivering delayed luggage (never "lost"!). As the six airlines we serviced were our customers, we of course could never badmouth them.
Once we had processed a piece of luggage, the dispatcher had to call the airline customer to confirm the address and arrange a delivery time, plus get directions if necessary.
Did I mention that we had to call the airline *customer* who had delayed luggage? These are not happy people.
Even though I'm not comfortable dealing with people, I took great pride in how I handled our customers' customers. Passengers would be angry when the conversation began, and, if I did my job right, content or even happy by the time I hung up. Most of them didn't need their luggage right away; they just needed reassurance that someone knew where it was and was taking responsibility for its safe return to them.
My favorite case was a passenger whose luggage, through a miscommunication with the airline, was delayed longer than necessary. Oh he was *pist*. He wanted to know where our office was; our policy is that passengers don't come to our office, with rare exceptions. No matter what I said, I couldn't calm him down. So, I told him our address, told him I'd be there by the door with his luggage, and if he wanted to pop me in the nose I'd be available.
He came in under a thundercloud, his wife behind him more nervous than upset. I had his luggage right there, I explained to him the cause of the snafu, took responsibility for it... and before he left he shook my hand, thanked me, and apologized for his rudeness. That turnaround I'm proud of.
I tried teaching it to the other dispatchers, but they couldn't seem to understand. Like in "Roadhouse", when a customer is raging at you, it's not *personal*. They're tired, frustrated, aggravated, distracted. Emotions need an outlet. If you can get their info and get off the phone, I would tell the dispatchers I was training, you win. If you can turn it around and make them happy, you win big. The only way you lose is if you take it personal and rage back at them.
I find it amusing, even though I'm half a step above untouchables, that customers most often turn or come to me for help or answers, at Walmart. At first I thought it was my age, skin color, or hat. Now, I think it's because I'm one of the few employees who follows the 10 foot rule; making eye contact and speaking with anyone who gets within 10 feet of me. Again, they're looking for reassurance as much as anything.
The word is... "Context".
If unions keep willing sellers and buyers apart, by the market definition those selling labor are being "overpaid".
I agree with the goal spreading the wealth around. Maybe labor unions could play role. Hank Rearden's factory was a union shop, BTW.
My point is labor unions and progressive policies alone won't solve the problems. I'm fine with progressive taxes and giving money to the poor. We can help people become more productive. The only thing that will make a big difference, though, is when they actually produce something other people value, something people are willing to trade for. The progressive taxes alone hardly put a dent in the problem.
By the way the complaints of Teddy Roosevelt about the trusts were clearly a cry for crony socialism. Every major commodity that TDR complained about dropped by 90% in cost over the decade leading up to the anti-trust legislation. This was not about protecting the consumer, but pure cronyism, not surprising as TDR was a committed socialist.
Well, we do not share a love of Nietzsche. Rand may have read his works, as have many of us, they are interesting, if depressing. However, Rand wrote "Anthem" with a setting of a world without any "I" in it. Nietzsche would have seen that as good, as only will exists.
Marilyn Manson is a fan of Nietzsche, but I am not. One of our daughter's three degrees is in criminology, where she also has a Masters. She said they classify Foucault under the ethical category, but not as as research in the field. Perhaps his desire to not posit theories is the reason.
As to Dewey, he is the beginning of the end of any chance academic education in this country. Humanism and manipulation are what we have seen. Yes, I have his books which I have read. Just as I have read Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" and Mao's Little Red Book, but do not embrace the ideas of any of them. I can admire some things in each, but must dismiss them all as wrong for the world where freedom and responsibility come from the person. Dewey promoted children who would end up socialists, altruists, and without an inner compass.
I object to the term "normal" in describing the outcome of the schools, not too crazy about "obedient" either. That would suggest living for the interest of another, and not being self directed. It would suggest being labeled by others as normal or not normal, which is exactly what the communists do in controlling people. They are considered sane if they walk in lockstep, but worthy of institutionalizing if not.
Laissez faire wasn't Rand's idea:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-fai...
Do you know of a better economic system?
As for Foucault he did not pose theories. He did not claim anything. Statistics have nothing to do with his work. That is all the Dominating Discourse which you have been trained to write, think and speak in.
If you don't pose a theories then they cannot be proven. Foucault, as he has said, leaves a tool chest, a different way of thinking. And he got this from Nietzsche, NIetzsche's genealogy in which in his Genealogy of Morals takes apart the religious belief in God. Nietzsche does not say God is dead, "he challenges God to appear" which is something quite different. And he does say that God's ghost will be around for a long long time.
As I hope you know, Rand was an avid student, disciple of Nietzsche from age 16, through the writing of Fountainhead, until she learned to be quiet about him as Hitler praised him and we were at war.She read him on the sly from school mandated studies.Her cousin had told her Nietzsche beat you to your ideas and she found that he had. She bought her first English book in the US Beyond Good and Evil and told Barbara she had underlined all her favorite passages. So that is how we know she learned English. Through Nietzsche. This is the way William Burroughs suggests anyone learn a foreign language, your favorite book in yours and the language you want to learn.
Nietzsche's advice to writers: "Words written in blood are not to be read but learnt by heart." And much more. Rand took him very very seriously and her style reflects her seriousness with Nietzsche. He is embedded in her style. Read him then read Rand and it becomes obvious. As to education I recommend Hesse's Beneath the Wheel. Still relevant. Public education is to produce - PRODUCE - normal, disciplined, obedient members of the society it is an institution of.
As a philosopher, Rand is very great. Her philosophy is not Objectivism however, as she thought. It is all in her fiction, as in Bataille's, and its bedrock is Nietzsche.Great minds have floundered there as Heidegger attests. Hers did not. She is completely post modern in her thinking. You need to read Zizek on Rand in Journal of Ayn Rand Studies.
Load more comments...