Tweak

InsaneJournal

Tweak says, "You're a new Faerie aren't you"

Username: 
Password:    
Remember Me
  • Create Account
  • IJ Login
  • OpenID Login
Search by : 
  • View
    • Create Account
    • IJ Login
    • OpenID Login
  • Journal
    • Post
    • Edit Entries
    • Customize Journal
    • Comment Settings
    • Recent Comments
    • Manage Tags
  • Account
    • Manage Account
    • Viewing Options
    • Manage Profile
    • Manage Notifications
    • Manage Pictures
    • Manage Schools
    • Account Status
  • Friends
    • Edit Friends
    • Edit Custom Groups
    • Friends Filter
    • Nudge Friends
    • Invite
    • Create RSS Feed
  • Asylums
    • Post
    • Asylum Invitations
    • Manage Asylums
    • Create Asylum
  • Site
    • Support
    • Upgrade Account
    • FAQs
    • Search By Location
    • Search By Interest
    • Search Randomly

box_in_the_box ([info]box_in_the_box) wrote in [info]scans_daily,
@ 2009-08-28 14:38:00

Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:creator: steve ditko, theme: objectivism

"If only that Ditko fellow was less subtle and more overt regarding his personal politics ..."
For as much fail as it churns out, Big Hollywood occasionally offers some genuine gems.

I can't stand Objectivism, but I find Steve Ditko's treatment of it irresistibly compelling, perhaps because the comic book medium is a far more appropriate venue for such a Manichean philosophy than the thousand-page rape-justifying tomes that Ayn Rand routinely shat out (it certainly helps that none of Ditko's characters ever barfed up a 70-page screed like John Galt, not to mention the fact that Ditko actually managed to create characters who were more believable as human beings than any of Rand's strawmen or Mary Sues, even when his characters were radioactivity-powered superheroes).

The following four pages constitute "In Principle: The Unchecked Premise," a short story originally published in the 160-page graphic novel Steve Ditko's Static in 1988:






As crudely simplistic as it is, it's still better than either reading or watching the "fireplace scene" between Howard Roark and Dominique Francon in The Fountainhead, but then again, so is getting punched in the crotch until you hemorrhage internally and die.


(Read comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]taggerung301
2009-08-28 10:05 pm UTC (link)
This was truly inspiring.
I'm never going to give money to charity, donate blood, or volunteer at a soup kitchen again. I need to completely focus on helping myself from now on, and I'm only going to help others if it is to my benefit. Why, I might go kick a few homeless people while I'm at it too.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mcspakypants
2009-08-28 10:10 pm UTC (link)
To be fair, I think Ditko's point was he doesn't like the concept of redistribution of wealth.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]box_in_the_box
2009-08-28 10:16 pm UTC (link)
True, but as I think you yourself conceded, he kind of takes it to an extreme here.

Moreover, it is actually an acknowledged point of Objectivist philosophy that Objectivists really do regard any form of charity as "evil" - as in, Rand and other Objectivists have flatly stated their opinion that "charity is evil" - so the previous poster's snarking is still valid.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]fredneil.livejournal.com
2009-08-28 10:26 pm UTC (link)
I wonder what her opinion would be about someone who altruistically uses his abilities to save the world.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]box_in_the_box
2009-08-28 10:30 pm UTC (link)
Peter Parker, or Walter Kovacs? ;)

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]skjam
2009-08-29 12:55 am UTC (link)
It would be okay to "altruistically" save your own world, as you live there, thus your actions directly benefit yourself. Other peoples' worlds, not so much. Them, you should charge what the market will bear.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]xandertarbert
2009-08-29 01:01 am UTC (link)
Now, what if you did it for your own enjoyment? You want to save the world, because you like doing it?

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]skjam, 2009-08-29 01:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 01:14 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]skjam, 2009-08-29 11:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 12:35 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 01:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 01:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 01:44 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 01:53 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 02:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 02:13 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 02:26 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 02:40 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]kingrockwell, 2009-08-29 03:24 am UTC

[info]mcspakypants
2009-08-28 10:26 pm UTC (link)
The whole "charity is evil" concept is completely stupid, but you can never accuse Ditko of being a hypocrite as he refuses to take any kind of royalties from his work. That's probably why Sony was OK with putting Ditko's name in the credits of Spider-man since he wouldn't be making a cent from it.

BTW I think he's a fool for taking that stance but whatever, it's his life.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]box_in_the_box
2009-08-28 10:29 pm UTC (link)
Oh, I'll absolutely agree, in that as much as I disagree with Ditko's philosophy, I genuinely admire his commitment to it. In a way, I enjoy Ditko's Objectivism for the same reason that I love Rorschach's - I think they're both wrong, but I can't help but love the PURITY of their beliefs all the same.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]mcspakypants
2009-08-28 10:34 pm UTC (link)
Just curious, would you consider Michael Moore somewhat of a hypocrite if he keeps any of the profits of his Capitalism documentary coming out this October? Now I don't hate Moore, I think most of his documentaries had good points, Bowling with Columbine especially, but I'm curious as to what he'll do with the money he makes from this.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-28 11:00 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]autolychus2, 2009-08-29 08:30 pm UTC

[info]jarodrussell
2009-08-28 11:26 pm UTC (link)
The whole "charity is evil" concept is completely stupid...

You do realized the entire premise of natural selection is based on "charity is evil" right? I'm not an Objectivist, but you have to admit the universal system that gave rise to human kind can't be complete bunk.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]runespoor7
2009-08-28 11:31 pm UTC (link)
You can't compare nature and human society.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-28 11:34 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-28 11:38 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-28 11:53 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 12:03 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 12:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:36 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 12:42 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 12:59 am UTC

[info]fredneil.livejournal.com
2009-08-28 11:34 pm UTC (link)
"You do realized the entire premise of natural selection is based on "charity is evil" right?"

Not really. Natural selection is based on the survival of the species, not of the individual. Often, charity helps toward that survival, which is why you see altruism in animals as well as in humans.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-28 11:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenmask, 2009-08-29 12:04 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:25 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenmask, 2009-08-29 12:41 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-08-29 01:22 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]greenmask, 2009-08-29 10:23 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 01:32 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-09-01 05:04 pm UTC
Okay, let's get this out of the way. - [info]nefrekeptah, 2009-08-29 02:13 am UTC
Re: Okay, let's get this out of the way. - (Anonymous), 2009-08-29 02:24 am UTC
Re: Okay, let's get this out of the way. - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 02:50 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-08-29 04:05 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlroberson, 2009-08-29 08:35 am UTC

[info]mcspakypants
2009-08-28 11:37 pm UTC (link)
Oh I realize that, but some charity is worth giving money to like children's cancer research and abused women's shelters.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]dimesfornickels.wordpress.com
2009-08-28 11:46 pm UTC (link)
Go get "The Selfish Gene"

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:00 am UTC

[info]iesika
2009-08-29 12:03 am UTC (link)
I've got to take exception to this misreading of Darwin, on biological grounds. What sets the "higher animals," including humans, apart is intra-species cooperation. We expend considerable energy protecting and teaching our young, we share and exchange our resources, and we cooperate to survive, and to protect our own. Social behavior is what makes mammals, and particularly primates, successful. Adult wolves defend pups they aren't related to, and it makes the pack stronger. Apes (including us) share and trade food resources, and it makes troupes stronger. I've seen personally healthy rats feed and bathe sick ones, going so far as to carry the aging and infirm on their backs - and there are an awful lot of rats. Cooperation and altruism are part of group-formation, and over and over it is the social species that succeed.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:27 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlbarnett, 2009-08-29 03:15 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 03:17 am UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-09-01 05:30 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dreams_of_all, 2009-08-30 12:59 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]iesika, 2009-08-31 04:54 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-31 04:58 pm UTC
What?
[info]nefrekeptah
2009-08-29 12:25 am UTC (link)
No. No, it's not.

All humans, and most animals that are more intelligent than a clam, have two very basic instincts; the survival instinct, and the instinct to protect others. If we didn't have that instinct to preserve ourselves over everyone else, mankind wouldn't exist today. And if we didn't have that instinct to put others' safety above our own, mankind wouldn't exist today.

That is why evolution involves cultural adaptation as well as natural adaptation.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

Re: What? - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:29 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 12:34 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 12:45 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 12:54 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]greenmask, 2009-08-29 01:14 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 01:18 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]btravage.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 01:15 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 01:23 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]btravage.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 01:37 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 01:44 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]btravage.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 02:00 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 02:06 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]btravage.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 02:55 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 02:57 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]btravage.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 03:12 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 03:34 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]btravage.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 03:50 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 12:48 pm UTC
An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 01:43 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 01:48 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 01:59 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]btravage.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 02:05 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 02:16 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 02:23 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 02:09 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 02:12 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 02:36 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 02:10 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 02:35 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 02:40 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 02:58 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 02:58 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 03:02 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 03:12 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 03:29 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]jlbarnett, 2009-08-29 11:30 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-30 01:09 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]jlbarnett, 2009-08-30 02:22 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 03:30 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]kingrockwell, 2009-08-29 03:44 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]jlroberson, 2009-08-29 08:40 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 08:59 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]icon_uk, 2009-08-29 09:53 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]jlroberson, 2009-08-29 08:00 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 10:17 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 02:51 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]btravage.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 02:58 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 03:00 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]btravage.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 03:51 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 04:00 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]jlroberson, 2009-08-29 08:43 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]icon_uk, 2009-08-29 10:06 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 03:09 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 03:45 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 07:21 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 07:27 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 07:34 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 08:56 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 09:34 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 12:58 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 01:05 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 01:15 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 01:36 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 11:48 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]icon_uk, 2009-08-30 08:43 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 11:45 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 11:53 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-30 12:18 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]kingrockwell, 2009-08-29 03:39 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 11:50 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]kingrockwell, 2009-08-30 02:12 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 11:43 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]felinephoenix, 2009-08-29 11:48 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 11:53 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]felinephoenix, 2009-08-30 05:30 am UTC
i miss being able to edit comments - [info]felinephoenix, 2009-08-30 05:32 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-30 12:42 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]felinephoenix, 2009-08-30 05:42 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]kagome654, 2009-08-30 03:57 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]fredneil.livejournal.com, 2009-08-29 07:26 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-30 12:17 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]icon_uk, 2009-08-29 10:13 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 12:55 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 11:41 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-30 12:03 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-30 12:23 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]dreams_of_all, 2009-08-30 12:57 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]jlroberson, 2009-08-29 08:37 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 10:53 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]janegray, 2009-08-29 09:50 pm UTC
No, you're entirely right. - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 10:01 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 01:50 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 02:07 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 02:18 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 01:03 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 01:08 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 01:21 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 01:42 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - (Anonymous), 2009-08-29 04:43 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]jlbarnett, 2009-08-29 11:11 am UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]kagome654, 2009-08-29 12:54 pm UTC
Re: An even darker view: - [info]box_in_the_box, 2009-08-29 11:39 pm UTC
Re: What? - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 01:27 am UTC
Re: What? - [info]greenmask, 2009-08-29 01:15 am UTC
Why care about the difference? - [info]nefrekeptah, 2009-08-29 01:26 am UTC

[info]xandertarbert
2009-08-29 12:47 am UTC (link)
I'm going to correct some notions of survival of the fittest without it being a metaphor for a political view.

Survival of the fittest is a very basic and flawed view of Darwinism, like how an atom looks like a few dots spinning around larger dots. It gets the point across, but is a lie. Darwin proposed that animals evolve with each other to continue the system.

Example, cats and birds. When a baby bird falls out of the nest and a cat eats it, most will see it as a battle of survival between cat and bird, which the bird will always lose. So why do we have birds? Because if the cats eat all the birds, they'll exhaust their food supply and die. And without cats, birds will overbreed, exhaust their food supply, and die as well. So the two species have worked out a system where the cat will get fed (starlings, for example, lay 16 eggs a year) while the birds have enough survivors to continue the species.

Summed up from The Science Of Discworld by Terry Pratchett, which is mostly my bible. Buy it.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 01:01 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 01:11 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]volksjager, 2009-08-29 01:59 am UTC

[info]khamelea
2009-08-29 02:18 am UTC (link)
"You do realized the entire premise of natural selection is based on 'charity is evil' right?"

It's really not.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 02:31 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-08-29 02:33 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 02:47 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]khamelea, 2009-08-29 02:54 am UTC

[info]ex_menagerie993
2009-08-29 06:30 pm UTC (link)
That's not necessarily true at all. To begin with, there are winners and losers on each end of natural selection. While charity may not help an individual it has every possibility of helping the wider species.

Natural selection also only really matters in that you get the chance to breed. Whatever you do before or after that is irrelevant if you get that opportunity. Charity also doesn't mean you bankrupt yourself or diminish your own resources to the point you can't survive. (Some take it to extremes however of course). It often has little or nothing to do with your chance at breeding and survival unless you do take it to extremes.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(no subject) - [info]ex_menagerie993, 2009-08-29 06:41 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jarodrussell, 2009-08-29 10:06 pm UTC

[info]bluefall
2009-08-28 10:33 pm UTC (link)
Rand and other Objectivists have flatly stated their opinion that "charity is evil"

I do love the lack of internal consistency about that, though. I always think of that scene toward the end of Atlas Shrugged, where Dagny's on the train and meets some out-of-work dude and tells him "here have a job at my company." Which is all, yay, right, she's not giving him money or food, he'll have to be productive to survive, Objectivism ho! Dagny's supposed to have seen the light by that point, so I'm pretty sure we're supposed to read that as a Right Act.

Except for the part where that *is* charity, because the guy's done nothing to earn the job or demonstrate that he'd be competent at it, she's just giving it to him because she has it and he needs it.

Like, I'd love to think you knew what you were talking about, Rand, but your argument is going to have to be a little tighter and less self-contradictory first.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)


[info]box_in_the_box
2009-08-28 11:03 pm UTC (link)
It's an ironic paradox that, the more absolutist you are, the more self-contradictory you're forced to be.

But yeah, this was the same woman who was all RACISM AND RELIGION ARE EVIL BECAUSE THEY DISTRACT FROM A PURE CONSIDERATION OF EACH PERSON'S UNFETTERED MERITS AS A CAPITALIST, until she followed it up with UNLESS THEY'RE GAY, BECAUSE THAT SHIT GROSSES ME OUT.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]bluefall, 2009-08-28 11:10 pm UTC
(no subject) - (Anonymous), 2009-08-28 11:38 pm UTC

[info]jarodrussell
2009-08-28 11:33 pm UTC (link)
I'd argue that giving a complete stranger a job qualifies as charity. It personally costs her nothing, she's free to fire him if he's unqualified, and he's as much as potential liability as someone who lies in an interview. It's more an investment with all the risks that come with it. Charity would be if she created a redundant position merely so he could have a job.

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]runespoor7, 2009-08-29 12:38 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]jlbarnett, 2009-08-29 11:48 am UTC

[info]colonel_green
2009-08-28 11:56 pm UTC (link)
The most basic contradiction of Objectivism is that according to her:

A) Nothing has objective value, only subjective values that can only be assigned by individuals, with an eye to what is in each individual's own best interests.
B) It's wrong to kill or harm others for your own benefit.

The latter is an objective rule, one that doesn't necessarily hold true. Rand and her followers have never come up with a good answer to the "perfect crime" scenario, or come up with a consistent standard on exactly what a human life is worth (though if you've read Dr. Peikoff's discussions related to the Iraq War, the modern answer would seem to "very little").

(Reply to this) (Parent) (Thread)

(no subject) - [info]xandertarbert, 2009-08-29 12:52 am UTC
(no subject) - [info]colonel_green, 2009-08-29 02:25 am UTC

[info]khamelea
2009-08-29 02:15 am UTC (link)
"True, but as I think you yourself conceded, he kind of takes it to an extreme here."

Kind of?

Wealth has been switched for blood, and redistributing has been switched for drain.

(Reply to this) (Parent)


(Read comments) -


Home | Site Map | Manage Account | TOS | Privacy | Support | FAQs