No, it does. But at it's core people are inherently self-interested. There are certainly other factors, such as preservation of the species, empathy, etc. Being selfish doesn't necessarily mean solely interested in acquiring material possessions, but people will by nature, I believe, prioritize based on what is most important to them. Feeding themselves, their child, their tribal group, etc. before feeding a stranger if presented with that choice as an example.

Don't confuse selfishness or self interest with materialism, they are not necessarily the same.

11/4/2009 11:36:14 PM

I have not confused the terms. You are the one who has suggested that the satisfaction of one's empathetic impulses is somehow contrary to or distinct from the pursuit of one's self interest.

[Edited on November 4, 2009 at 11:42 PM. Reason : ]

11/4/2009 11:40:52 PM

I don't think I have actually, but if you read it as such I didn't not intend to. Fulfillment of one's own desires, empathetic or otherwise, is of course selfish.

I'm going to bed, I have to get up and slave for my bourgeoisie masters in the morning.

11/4/2009 11:45:36 PM

The fulfillment of MY desires involves reading a 50 page soliloquy about the perils of collectivism.

11/4/2009 11:59:07 PM

I use to defend Ayn Rand every now and then

not anymore...

11/5/2009 12:17:56 AM

The Slate writer left out this entry Rand also wrote in her personal journal:

Quote :

"[My hero is] very far from him, of course. The outside of Hickman, but not the inside. Much deeper and much more. A Hickman with a purpose. And without the degeneracy. It is more exact to say that the model is not Hickman, but what Hickman suggested to me."

I think she was looking at the Hickman case not so much as forgiving his crimes, but more as analyzing the mob mentality. Keep in mind, her personal journals were not written or organized for publication..but for her own purposes.

Would any of you want all of your intimate personal writing exposed to the masses by people out to get you?

11/5/2009 11:22:04 AM

So at best, it's "I like this rapist and murderer because of his 'fuck everyone but me' attitude."

11/5/2009 12:27:44 PM

I LOVED The Fountainhead, as a literary endeavor. I certainly don't buy all of Rand's philosophies, but that book was great, IMO.

I couldn't get past about 150 pages of Atlas Shrugged.

11/5/2009 6:49:17 PM

that's too bad

all the sucking and fucking doesn't start up until page 160

11/6/2009 8:15:52 PM

Having read some of her work, this doesn't particularly surprise me.

11/8/2009 1:56:00 PM

Quote :

"her books. I hear they're stupendously boring, and they seem to transform people into giant douches. "

pretty much, yeah. but there are some qualifiers.

most people who become infatuated with Ayn Rand are 18-22 year olds. which is not surprising since it's physiologically well understood that at that age the brain's logic facilities and higher judgment hasn't finished forming.

so, I too read "The Fountainhead" and some other Objectivism books around the age of 19, and I too thought it was pretty important stuff.

but by the time i was 25 I understood that it her attempt at formulating a comprehensive system, "a philosophy of everything" was a joke. no reputable scholars of philosophy or economics took her seriously (even if they were pro-capitalism), and even as literature it's pretty substandard and poorly written crap. unless you think winning an award for writing the most drawn out, torturously long-winded book is somehow important..

teenagers i can understand their fixation. but any "grownup" who can subject themselves to that sort of punishment and come away from it thinking they've discovered a major writer and go around self-importantly inflicting what they believe is the Grand Unification Theory Of Everything, on everyone they meet... yeah that's a douche.






[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 12:42 PM. Reason : ]

11/9/2009 12:41:05 PM

Quote :

"Have you ever read the communist manifesto?"

Quote :

"The fact that it fails when applied to large groups makes it a pretty poor choice for an economic model"

Nearly half of Marx's ten conditions for transition to communism require the abolition of property.

How could it work as an economic model without property?

11/9/2009 2:50:39 PM

There's a difference in abolition of private property and abolition of bourgeois property.

11/9/2009 2:57:50 PM

11/9/2009 3:10:29 PM

There you go being an idiot again

11/9/2009 3:17:47 PM

^ Do you have the ability to post without an ad hom attack, Captain Logic? Please explain how middle-class property is not private property.

11/9/2009 3:20:14 PM

"subset of" =/= "co-extensive with"

Also "middle class property" is a misleading term here since "bourgeois property" refers to a factory and not my bike.

11/9/2009 3:29:34 PM

^ Wrong. And once again you've proved nothing, yet you call everyone else idiots.

I don't accept your definition of "bourgeois property," but let's say it's a factory. How is it not private property? Is it a government factory? Would the government abolish its own factory?

WTF?

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 3:39 PM. Reason : FYI: Don't forget the hyphen in "middle-class."]

11/9/2009 3:38:34 PM

roflmao holy shit

Even if I took the time nothing would sink in.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 4:11 PM. Reason : You act like I'm the one to coin the term.]

11/9/2009 4:10:29 PM

*Sigh" Everybody knows the hackneyed bourgeoisie vs. the proletariat Marxist argument. It's typical class warfare bullshit--and normative statements abound.

Even if you did mean "bourgeois property" as it relates to capital production, which was what I was calling into question, you still haven't explained--because you can't--how a "factory" is not private property. I'm sure you want it to be a means of production owned by the state, but again, that's a normative statement. A positive statement is that non-government factories are private property in our country.

Do you even bother to think before you pop off? Or do you just count on being able to scream something about math and science when you get caught stupid?

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 4:26 PM. Reason : Well?]

11/9/2009 4:25:07 PM

You still don't understand anything I said

lol

11/9/2009 4:27:20 PM

PWNT--again.

[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 4:32 PM. Reason : Can't find anything in Google or Wikipedia to bail you out?]

11/9/2009 4:28:07 PM

"subset of" =/= "co-extensive with"

I refuse to dumb this down any further -- draw some Venn diagrams and figure it out you fucking dunce

11/9/2009 4:38:33 PM

How is a "factory" not private property?



[Edited on November 9, 2009 at 4:40 PM. Reason : How?]

11/9/2009 4:39:32 PM

You still don't understand. How can I make this any clearer to you? If you're asking that question you don't get it.

11/9/2009 4:42:55 PM

I want to take your apples.

v.

I want to take all your fruit.


lololol HOW ARE APPLES NOT FRUIT?!1 PWNT

11/9/2009 4:43:08 PM

Quote :

"There's a difference in abolition of private property and abolition of bourgeois property."

McDanger

Explain the "difference."

11/9/2009 4:48:27 PM

I think the point is that taking private property from a specific group of people is bad, no matter what group it is.

11/9/2009 4:49:02 PM

Quote :

"I want to take your apples. v. I want to take all your fruit. lololol HOW ARE APPLES NOT FRUIT?!1 PWNT"

Haha hey come on don't spoil the surprise for him

11/9/2009 4:49:23 PM

Jesus, you clowns are stupid. Do you honestly think I don't understand that?

That wasn't your fucking point and you know it. You've scrambled for several posts trying to save your stupid ass.

11/9/2009 4:51:20 PM

It's hard to talk to you when you don't even start off on the right foot.

11/9/2009 4:53:03 PM

^ Are you seriously going to pretend that you weren't making a normative statement concerning the abolition of "bourgeois property"? Really?!

11/9/2009 4:58:17 PM

You thought I was making a normative claim? Jesus dude.

o_o

11/9/2009 5:16:55 PM

it's supposed to be

o_O

11/9/2009 5:27:13 PM

Quote :

"I don't accept your definition of "bourgeois property,""

lol

11/9/2009 6:24:51 PM

Let's define Marxist terms however we want, and then get our asses in the air about stuff Marx may or may not have said!!

11/9/2009 7:08:12 PM

"From each according to his ability, to each according to ACORN."

- Das Kapital, Karl Marx

[Edited on November 10, 2009 at 12:13 AM. Reason : mark]

11/10/2009 12:12:43 AM

^^^ I was referring to his definition in context, OopsPoofers. The general definition of "bourgeois property" is clear to all.

McDouche hasn't explained what he actually meant by this:

Quote :

"There's a difference in abolition of private property and abolition of bourgeois property."

Clearly, he meant that--according to his Marxists beliefs--it's perfectly fine for the government to seize private property, in this case means of capital production, for the state. And this is nothing more than nauseatingly typical Che-set agitprop that McDouche can't defend--and he knows it.

But it's simply more fun to. . .

11/10/2009 7:54:10 AM

Still can't put it together even with the instruction manual and all the pieces, huh?

11/10/2009 8:09:36 AM

you know hooksaw couldnt pour piss out of a boot, even if you wrote instructions on the heel.

11/10/2009 10:35:30 AM

Someone one the radio today referred to the shortest book ever as, Our Duties to Others by Ayn Rand.





I chuckled.

11/24/2009 10:54:12 PM

ehe

That reminds me, Diane Rehm said "liberry" like five times yesterday. WTF LIBERAL MEDIA.

11/24/2009 11:49:08 PM

I love Diane Rhem!

Her crazy voice problem is pleasant sounding to me.

11/25/2009 7:11:58 AM

It kills me.

Wel-COME to the di-YAN ri-HEEEM show. I admire her tenacity, though.

11/25/2009 7:24:51 AM

Quote :

"I've never read her books. I hear they're stupendously boring, and they seem to transform people into giant douches."

She should've just stuck to essays or something, her attempts at novels are extremely prosaic.

11/25/2009 3:21:08 PM

"Prosaic" means "suicide-inducingly awful", right?

11/25/2009 8:16:22 PM