$10 minimum wage costing Mass. jobs

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Do individuals and institutions have any other responsibilities than those of their own self interests? Within a society, I think the answer is obvious.

When individuals and institutions no longer recognize their social responsibilities, IMO they are corrupt. When those individuals and institutions are at the top of society, all of society will likely become corrupt.

I agree.

I do not believe that the challenge to Christianity comes from LBGT rights or same sex marriage. I believe it comes from the furthering of the idea that self interests are the only thing we should consider. I believe that leads us to displacing Christ as God in favor of money and power as our god.

I think both have the same root - that the individual/self is supreme and therefore anything that would hinder the pursuit of what the self wants or thinks it deserves is anathema.

I believe the idea that we have no duties, no obligations to anyone/anything other than the pursuit of our own self interests is detrimental to Christianity, society, who we are as a country.

Again, I agree.

Do you believe there is an attempt to promote the idea that we should only be guided by self interests, that the selfish pursuit of self interest is ultimately most efficient?

[AUDub 11,131]

Do you believe there is an attempt to promote the idea that we should only be guided by self interests, that the selfish pursuit of self interest is ultimately most efficient?

Speaking for myself, that is most definitely a yes.

[TitanTiger 20,469]

Do individuals and institutions have any other responsibilities than those of their own self interests? Within a society, I think the answer is obvious.

When individuals and institutions no longer recognize their social responsibilities, IMO they are corrupt. When those individuals and institutions are at the top of society, all of society will likely become corrupt.

I agree.

I do not believe that the challenge to Christianity comes from LBGT rights or same sex marriage. I believe it comes from the furthering of the idea that self interests are the only thing we should consider. I believe that leads us to displacing Christ as God in favor of money and power as our god.

I think both have the same root - that the individual/self is supreme and therefore anything that would hinder the pursuit of what the self wants or thinks it deserves is anathema.

I believe the idea that we have no duties, no obligations to anyone/anything other than the pursuit of our own self interests is detrimental to Christianity, society, who we are as a country.

Again, I agree.

Do you believe there is an attempt to promote the idea that we should only be guided by self interests, that the selfish pursuit of self interest is ultimately most efficient?

I'd say so. Even if we strictly keep it to economic/business matters, the influence of Rand and her disciples has permeated all discussion in that realm.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Do you believe there is an attempt to promote the idea that we should only be guided by self interests, that the selfish pursuit of self interest is ultimately most efficient?

Speaking for myself, that is most definitely a yes.

I agree. Now, here is where it becomes cloudy. By whom and why?

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Do individuals and institutions have any other responsibilities than those of their own self interests? Within a society, I think the answer is obvious.

When individuals and institutions no longer recognize their social responsibilities, IMO they are corrupt. When those individuals and institutions are at the top of society, all of society will likely become corrupt.

I agree.

I do not believe that the challenge to Christianity comes from LBGT rights or same sex marriage. I believe it comes from the furthering of the idea that self interests are the only thing we should consider. I believe that leads us to displacing Christ as God in favor of money and power as our god.

I think both have the same root - that the individual/self is supreme and therefore anything that would hinder the pursuit of what the self wants or thinks it deserves is anathema.

I believe the idea that we have no duties, no obligations to anyone/anything other than the pursuit of our own self interests is detrimental to Christianity, society, who we are as a country.

Again, I agree.

Do you believe there is an attempt to promote the idea that we should only be guided by self interests, that the selfish pursuit of self interest is ultimately most efficient?

I'd say so. Even if we strictly keep it to economic/business matters, the influence of Rand and her disciples has permeated all discussion in that realm.

Also agree but, is that truly her message or, is it an oversimplification/perversion of that message?

I would love to hear the thoughts of UTMike, Strychnine, and Max.

[AUDub 11,131]

Also agree but, is that truly her message or, is it an oversimplification/perversion of that message?

You should look for yourself. Ever read any of her work? I had to read Atlas Shrugged in school. Thought it was great at the time. Luckily grew out of it. Thank God I got out of there alive. A poignant excerpt:

"There is one word that is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give.'"

Ayn Rand held the position that it is immoral to give or to receive aid to another of any kind that is not in one's own self-interest. She explained this in an interview in 1959, where she specifically says that man must not live for others and that altruism is immoral.

[AUDub 11,131]

Do you believe there is an attempt to promote the idea that we should only be guided by self interests, that the selfish pursuit of self interest is ultimately most efficient?

Speaking for myself, that is most definitely a yes.

I agree. Now, here is where it becomes cloudy. By whom and why?

[AUDub 11,131]

Another one of note, ICHY, that wielded tremendous power would be Alan Greenspan.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Also agree but, is that truly her message or, is it an oversimplification/perversion of that message?

You should look for yourself. Ever read any of her work? I had to read Atlas Shrugged in school. Thought it was great at the time. Luckily grew out of it. Thank God I got out of there alive. A poignant excerpt:

"There is one word that is forbidden in this valley: the word 'give.'"

Ayn Rand held the position that it is immoral to give or to receive aid to another of any kind that is not in one's own self-interest. She explained this in an interview in 1959, where she specifically says that man must not live for others and that altruism is immoral.

Yes, I am aware. However, I have heard others say that her statements are misinterpreted.

I tend to agree with you. Her statements stand. The attempt to redefine them is part of a deception.

I also read/studied/liked Rand and several economist friends/associates of hers, back in my college days. Today, I see them as ideological idiots who came to believe in the "perfection" of their ideology. It appears they fell in love with their own voices and BS. Even those economists who did not fully embrace the concepts, compromised their intellectual pursuits, IMO.

[icanthearyou 4,462]

Another one of note, ICHY, that wielded tremendous power would be Alan Greenspan.

And, I would add Milton Friedman.

Greenspan's testimony before congress after the financial crisis was very telling, IMO.

[aujeff11 6,243]

The rhetoric in here isn't my thing but since y'all want to know why America is so self interested, I'd suggest y'all compare the two between the American Dream and the European dream. Everybody knows about the American Dream... family, nice house, white picket fence, etc. This self interested ideology has consumed the American way ever since our founding. The constitution of the EU doesn't even mention the word property but for two times throughout the document. Americas's.. not so much. Americans don't give a damn if there are kids that are being exploited in other countries to make a product, they just want the product. The darwinistic, fill your basket up first teachings of Ayn Rand's isn't the way to promote security in a multicultural world.

Networks and relationships should be the new dream.

[Strychnine 1,802]

Yes, I am aware. However, I have heard others say that her statements are misinterpreted.

I tend to agree with you. Her statements stand. The attempt to redefine them is part of a deception.

I also read/studied/liked Rand and several economist friends/associates of hers, back in my college days. Today, I see them as ideological idiots who came to believe in the "perfection" of their ideology. It appears they fell in love with their own voices and BS. Even those economists who did not fully embrace the concepts, compromised their intellectual pursuits, IMO.

That is the inevitable result of surrounding yourself almost exclusively with like-minded people; it becomes the "echo chamber", as you often put it. With no one around to regularly challenge your logic and reason, it would be easy to convince yourself of its superiority, especially when those around you are praising it and agreeing with you.

I was never convinced that Rand was completely correct, or completely wrong. We talk about special interests, and the government having been effectively bought by those interests, all the time. Isn't that what she was talking about in Atlas Shrugged with the Equalization of Opportunity Bill and the Anti-dog-eat-dog Rule?

As for misinterpretation, it is quite clear that Rand associated the words "give" and "altruism" with coercion and sacrifice, and she considered both to be immoral. The semantics, of course, are debatable. However, understanding that is crucial to correctly interpreting her philosophy. She did not consider electing to forego buying something you want, then choosing to instead provide for your children to be a sacrifice, it was instead an expression of value. The same would be true if you were feeding the homeless, or offering shelter to your neighbors after their house was destroyed by a tornado. As long as it is of your own free will, it is not giving, altruism, or sacrifice. In her opinion, real altruism is only possible when coerced, and I tend to agree with her. An uncoerced selfless act is indeed impossible, as the potentially selfless act first required a choice; a choice based in value. Someone that runs into a burning building to rescue others is not behaving selflessly. They made the choice that the rescue of other lives was more valuable than their own safety.

I'm no Rand apologist, and I'm ultimately not here to explain her philosophy. That said, it is safe to conclude that words as Rand uses them do not necessarily mean to her or her philosophy what they mean to everyone else, are accepted to mean, or even what they mean in the dictionary. That's how a Paul Ryan can proclaim himself to be a Rand acolyte. Rand would likely classify Ryan as a looter if she were alive to do so, as he is a representative of one of the United States' two parties that do their fair share of looting.

Ultimately, Rand's philosophy requires a world of absolutes in order to work, and that is where I think it fails. Black and white must always be true, and grey cannot exist. The world was also a very different place when she was writing. Global communication was not nearly instant. China and other nations were not exploiting their populations and flooding the world with cheap goods, nor was there even a global shipping infrastructure to make that possible if they were so inclined. United States companies were not outsourcing production and support to other counties. When Atlas Shrugged was published, no man had even been in space. If the United States operated by her philosophy exclusively, would a man have ever been put in space purely for exploration purposes? Would a man have landed on the Moon? Space Shuttle? Hubble? On the flipside of that, the United States would probably not have gotten involved in Korea, Vietnam, or Iraq. The United States would probably not have been a member of NATO, and certainly not its primary source of funding.

[AFTiger 282]

Francisco d’Anconia Money Speech

“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force.

…To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money — and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it.

…But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich — will not remain rich for long.

…Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence.”

- See more at: http://www.patheos.c...h.mHvxDRcK.dpuf

[TitanTiger 20,469]

Francisco d’Anconia Money Speech

“So you think that money is the root of all evil?” said Francisco d’Anconia. “Have you ever asked what is the root of money? Money is a tool of exchange, which can’t exist unless there are goods produced and men able to produce them. Money is the material shape of the principle that men who wish to deal with one another must deal by trade and give value for value. Money is not the tool of the moochers, who claim your product by tears, or of the looters, who take it from you by force.

…To love a thing is to know and love its nature. To love money is to know and love the fact that money is the creation of the best power within you, and your passkey to trade your effort for the effort of the best among men. It’s the person who would sell his soul for a nickel, who is loudest in proclaiming his hatred of money — and he has good reason to hate it. The lovers of money are willing to work for it.

…But money demands of you the highest virtues, if you wish to make it or to keep it. Men who have no courage, pride or self-esteem, men who have no moral sense of their right to their money and are not willing to defend it as they defend their life, men who apologize for being rich — will not remain rich for long.

…Whenever destroyers appear among men, they start by destroying money, for money is men’s protection and the base of a moral existence.”

- See more at: http://www.patheos.c...h.mHvxDRcK.dpuf

Who has said that money is the root of all evil? He gets off on the wrong foot right away, IMO, when he misstates his opponent's argument.

It appears he is playing off of the Biblical directive about money, but gets it mangled. The Bible doesn't say that money is the root of all evil. Money is just a thing - a tool, a means to an end. Scripture says that it's the love of money that is the root of all evil. Stated more broadly, the love of money is indicative what causes most of our problems: We treat people like things and things like people.

[AFTiger 282]

The "love of money" quote is very often mangled. The part of Francisco's speech that I liked was that only under capitalism, money is created. Under the communist countries, there is no creation of money and therefore no trade. Poverty for all.

Self interest is the natural state of man and is what has driven progress. Charity must be taught to the individual.

I also thought freedom was the basic desire for man until we encountered the Middle East.