[Veloce]

Just a warning, this is going to be a long post, and also all over the place. Humor me. My brain is all over the place tonight.

TL;DR version: Thedude went and got a burrito, some shit happened, had an epiphany. Red-Pill= dudes improving their lives. Objectivism= dudes improving their lives. Same thing.

Long version: I've read several threads on the forums over the last year or two where Ayn Rand and her philosophy of Objectivism were attacked or trivialized, and I never really understood why. Aside from the fact that it's incomplete as far as philosophies go and stands at odds with most classical and established philosophies, it's still very much in line with many of the red-pill beliefs and tenets that I'd say most of us hold close to our hearts.

I remember reading The Fountainhead in high school and loving it. I'd re-read the book throughout the years and it actually helped me keep my focus and dedication to my career. I related to Roark and his steely, stoic nature and the way he stands up against the conventional pillars of society to follow his heart and stay true to himself.

Then, all of a sudden, in my 20s it became un-cool to like The Fountainhead or Ayn Rand. She was seen as a crackpot, idealist, hopelessly delusional, immoral. If it somehow came up in conversation, and I showed my affinity for the book, it was usually met with eye-rolling and some sort of comment, "Oh, you're one of THOSE people..."

Some incidents tonight got me thinking about the forum, about seeing life through a red-pill lens, and about Objectivism.

I was getting a burrito 10 minutes south of my apartment. While certainly not a terrible neighborhood, let's just say it's very ethnically diverse and robbery/assault incidents aren't uncommon. I'm the only white dude in the place.

I order my food to go and there's this hood rat walking in, blabbering loud as can be on her cell phone. By her conversation, she's talking to some dude she doesn't remember and he doesn't remember her, but she got his number somewhere and wants to hang out. I hear the Mexicans start talking shit about her in Spanish, I keep hearing "La pinche negra fea". She orders some food, it arrives, and she starts making a scene about how she ordered CHEESE flautas, not CHICKEN flautas. Now, I heard her order the chicken flautas. Now she wants them to make her CHEESE flautas. So the waiter takes them back and she starts protesting, "Now wait a minute! If you just gonna throw them away I'll eat them too while you make me the CHEESE ones! Don't you go throw those away n waste em! I'll EAT them!". Oldest scam in the book, and everyone knew it. The waiter looks at her like he's about to murder her and says, "No we gonna make you what you want." and takes her food away. The girl stands up and starts addressing the room, a room full of latinos glaring at her, and me; "Now thats just crazy, they gonna throw em away! Sheeit I TOLD the guy I'd eat em while they make me my order CORRECT." The room is dead silent.

Then a few minutes later, I'm spacing out the window and this big motherfucker crosses the street, he's about 10 feet outside the window and points at me and starts making a "Come here" hand gesture. I look at him like he's crazy and shake my head. His face is fully tatted, he's got full sleeves, he's wearing a huge jersey and shorts sagging down to his shins. He's a caricature of a gang member.

He walks into the restaurant and I put my phone in my pocket and pull my chair out so I'm facing the room, ready to get out of my seat. My body's tensed up like a rubber band, I figure I can go for his throat in a quick motion if I have to and get the hell out, or die trying anyway. He walks by me, high on some shit and says, "SORRY MAN". I look him in the eye and say, "Hey, it's cool." He sits down and now the poor latinos have to deal with him, and he's blabbering his bullshit. I get my food and leave.

As I walked out, my thoughts were different than they would have been before I got into this whole red pill/PUA nonsense. Before I would have felt some animosity to the hood rat and the gangster, but I didn't tonight. Part of me even felt sympathetic. Why?

I broke down my emotions as follows:

Game/red-pill wisdom teaches you to
Maximize your enabling factors
and
Minimize your limiting factors

That hood rat? I guarantee you everywhere she goes, every goddamn thing is a struggle. She gets through this world trying to hustle everyone, whether she's getting a burrito, riding the bus, getting new clothes, or trying to land a man. Pretty shitty existence. It's a stark contrast against the fucking awesome life I and most of the guys on the forum lead.

That gangster? I guarantee you everywhere he goes, every goddamn thing is a struggle. Think he'll ever get a job with a fully tatted face? Ever have a decent relationship? Think he'll ever be able to quit that lifestyle if one day he's had enough? It's a stark contrast against the fucking awesome life I and most of the guys on the forum lead.

That's sad to me, even if these limiting factors are self-inflicted.

Enabling factors are things like being tall, having money, being confident, having a loud, deep voice, dressing well, being in shape, etc etc etc. These are things that get you jobs, get you paid more, get you laid, open doors, build friendships. As many of you, I spend most of every day either working on these things or at least THINKING about them.

Limiting factors would be things like being short, having bad posture, being weak, being afraid of women, being needy, etc. We spend a lot of time identifying these traits and devising methods of MINIMIZING their impact, or changing them outright. Can you imagine adding more limiting factors to your life intentionally? Going out and tatting up your face? Wearing ridiculously baggy clothing?

Red pill culture, as best I can summarize, is a culture based on each man maximizing his enabling factors and minimizing his limiting factors to create the richest, happiest, and most fulfilling life he can. It's a philosophy of selfishness, not materialistic selfishness but TRUE selfishness; a focus on the self and becoming a more realized man. To me, that sounds a whole hell of a lot like Objectivism.

Per wikipedia:

Quote:

Objectivism's central tenets are that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform humans' metaphysical ideas by selective reproduction of reality into a physical form—a work of art—that one can comprehend and to which one can respond emotionally.[citation needed]

Sounds pretty familiar to me. I think people like to tear down Objectivism for two reasons:
1) it's idealistic beyond realistic expectation
2) it promotes the concept of heroes

People hate heroes. They love to tear them down, but they need them. Myself, I love heroic themes. I've always had a fascination with Greek and Norse mythology and been a fan of Beethoven and Liszt, who both wrote incredibly heroic themes.

People hate heroes because they rise above the mediocrity, the self-doubt, and the insecurity that the vast majority of the populace exhibit and live by on a regular basis. Look at how people tear down bodybuilders, weightlifters, womanizers, and other high profile alpha males. It only makes sense that if people tear down and publicly trash men that achieve greatness, that they would also tear down and publicly trash a philosophy that PROMOTES achieving that greatness.

Both Red-pill and Objectivism prescribe the Greater Life, the Genuine Life, the Life Realized. To me they are one and the same.

[Cincinnatus]

Great men face many of the same issues every man does - the value of his relationships, his station in life, what mark will he leave when he passes away, etc. Paparazzi, the press, and gossip mags love to tear great men down because it helps them sell their product. The everyday person buys shit tearing down great men because it makes them feel better about their own mediocre lives.

Those who rise above the mediocrity have to know, in a way, that they are begging to be slandered and hated upon because they are better than the everyday schmuck who points the finger at everyone but themselves. To be a real man is to work hard at becoming the kind of man that can look in the mirror and crack a smug grin. Sitting back and bitching accomplishes nothing and is easy. Standing up, doing what's right, and striving to become a better person is fucking manly. Taking responsibility for your own life is fucking manly. But be ready for criticism - as the saying goes, "haters gonna hate."

[Blaster]

Quote:

Sounds pretty familiar to me. I think people like to tear down Objectivism for two reasons:
1) it's idealistic beyond realistic expectation
2) it promotes the concept of heroes

I'm not very familiar with Rand or Objectivism but based on the definition you quoted, I don't have a problem with either of those I have a problem with this:

Quote:

the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism

How does beliefs about the nature of perception and knowledge accumulation lead to pure individualism and laissez faire? Sometimes, best for the individual and best for the group align very well. Sometimes what's best for the individual conflicts with what's best for the group. Perhaps most importantly, some things that can be accomplished by a group cannot be accomplished individually.

Suppose you have 9 people living in an apartment in a snowy city. They have to clear snow from their driveway and surrounding sidewalks. It would be easy to do with a snowblower. Without a snowblower, it's luck of the draw-- whoever needs to clear the driveway first gets to shovel it out (and likely do a half-assed job, only good enough to get their car out). In this case, nobody, including the landlord, is wealthy or under enough pressure to be willing to spend $500 on a snowblower. Yet, if everyone pitched in $55, you could buy a community snowblower. If necessary, people moving out could get a refund, people moving in could be required to buy-in. If and when the blower is ever sold, everyone with buy-in could get a cut of the proceeds. This is a communal strategy.

It should be fairly obvious how this logic applies to communities at varying scale. Cities and States can fund services and equipment that benefit everyone, but that no one person individually could afford or profit from owning individually. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Objectivism, but if it requires strictly individualistic/libertarian Laissez-faire capitalism I can easily see why people would have a problem with it.

[WestIndianArchie]

The hoodrat or the gangster would have gone farther in life by conforming to the powers that be. By going to school, following all the rules, not rocking the boat, they'd be better integrated into society.

Instead they choose to live life on their own terms, and as a result life is very hard for them.

Their refusal to abide by social norms is what keeps them marginalized.

In some cases, that refusal is just them following the advice set by their parents, familiy, and friends. In other cases, bad decisions made early in life, a life without a safety net, keeps them trapped in their roles as outsiders.

Your definition of the red pill sounds very much like that of taking the blue pill.

WIA

[Veloce]

(02-19-2013 08:47 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:

Sounds pretty familiar to me. I think people like to tear down Objectivism for two reasons:
1) it's idealistic beyond realistic expectation
2) it promotes the concept of heroes

I'm not very familiar with Rand or Objectivism but based on the definition you quoted, I don't have a problem with either of those I have a problem with this:

Quote:

the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism

How does beliefs about the nature of perception and knowledge accumulation lead to pure individualism and laissez faire? Sometimes, best for the individual and best for the group align very well. Sometimes what's best for the individual conflicts with what's best for the group. Perhaps most importantly, some things that can be accomplished by a group cannot be accomplished individually.

Suppose you have 9 people living in an apartment in a snowy city. They have to clear snow from their driveway and surrounding sidewalks. It would be easy to do with a snowblower. Without a snowblower, it's luck of the draw-- whoever needs to clear the driveway first gets to shovel it out (and likely do a half-assed job, only good enough to get their car out). In this case, nobody, including the landlord, is wealthy or under enough pressure to be willing to spend $500 on a snowblower. Yet, if everyone pitched in $55, you could buy a community snowblower. If necessary, people moving out could get a refund, people moving in could be required to buy-in. If and when the blower is ever sold, everyone with buy-in could get a cut of the proceeds. This is a communal strategy.

It should be fairly obvious how this logic applies to communities at varying scale. Cities and States can fund services and equipment that benefit everyone, but that no one person individually could afford or profit from owning individually. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Objectivism, but if it requires strictly individualistic/libertarian Laissez-faire capitalism I can easily see why people would have a problem with it.

Solid point. Despite the dog-eat-dog nature of true laissez faire capitalism, which has never really truly existed, I think even the most die hard capitalists would agree that any economy requires management and supervision. Let the people trade as they will, as long as some very basic requirements are met. That's a whole other topic.

[Veloce]

(02-19-2013 10:23 AM)WestIndianArchie Wrote:  

The hoodrat or the gangster would have gone farther in life by conforming to the powers that be. By going to school, following all the rules, not rocking the boat, they'd be better integrated into society.

I never said anything about conforming to the powers that be. In fact I made a case for pursuing a heroic life, something that never involves conforming to anything. Conformity occurs on a small scale to the immediate environment. In their case, the anti-conformist thing to do would be go to school, follow *some* of the rules, and build their own life independent of their shitty environment. Being a gang member is the furthest thing from leading an individualistic existence.

Quote:

Instead they choose to live life on their own terms, and as a result life is very hard for them.

Life isn't hard for them simply because they choose to live on their own terms. Plenty of people live by their own terms and lead a lifestyle that involves a lot of hard work, but that work yields exponentially greater rewards.

Quote:

Their refusal to abide by social norms is what keeps them marginalized.

In some cases, that refusal is just them following the advice set by their parents, familiy, and friends.

That right there is the definition of blue pill.

Quote:

In other cases, bad decisions made early in life, a life without a safety net, keeps them trapped in their roles as outsiders.

These two wouldn't fit into my world, just like I wouldn't fit into theirs. We're all outsiders relative to each others' environments. I would argue that their conformity to their immediate environment is what keeps them trapped.

Quote:

Your definition of the red pill sounds very much like that of taking the blue pill.
WIA

Explain

[Frost]

As a general rule, the more our culture shits on a given belief, the more inclined I am to give it the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, Ayn Rand isn't "cool." In fact, she's almost as uncool as being anti-feminist, anti-marriage, anti-PC, anti-9-5/consumerist/debt slavery. I take that as a good reason to look into her ethics and grapple with her ideas.

Ultimately I find Rand's Objectivism to be incomplete. But for the typical plugged-in 21st century man, embracing Randian ideals is a huge step in the direction of truth.

[Veloce]

(02-19-2013 11:50 AM)Frost Wrote:  

As a general rule, the more our culture shits on a given belief, the more inclined I am to give it the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, Ayn Rand isn't "cool." In fact, she's almost as uncool as being anti-feminist, anti-marriage, anti-PC, anti-9-5/consumerist/debt slavery. I take that as a good reason to look into her ethics and grapple with her ideas.

Ultimately I find Rand's Objectivism to be incomplete. But for the typical plugged-in 21st century man, embracing Randian ideals is a huge step in the direction of truth.

It's incomplete-ness is what further ties it to Red-Pill for me. There's no Socrates or Plato among us; we're not going to our deathbed with a list of philosophical quandaries that must be solved. It's a relatively short-sighted philosophy that focuses on maximizing results and enjoying life as much as possible. Rand would probably roll in her grave to read that but so be it.

[DVY]

Things I've learned- TheDude is probably v. smart. TheDude probably smoked a fat doobie before going on this munchie expedition!

Kidding aside, the red-pill is realizing that people are for the most part sheeple. Red-pill is that things can be dressed up, but we are ultimately people. And people, by in large, do not change.

I smoked weed first time in middle-school before it was cool. A bunch of my "friends" and classmates gave me shit. 2 years later, 80% of them were smoking weed.

I drank my first vodka drink when I was 15 at home w/my parents and their friends. I was in AP classes, honors, etc. People were shocked that I was drinking underage. 2-3 years later, everybody is binge-drinking and tons of people got DUIs.

Furthermore, the red-pill allowed me to see past the words and the hype. I am a hopeless optimist, and that optimisim is crushing. The child-like naiveness that allows to persist in my goals is also what causes me anguish in my personal relationships.

I went from middle school to HS thinking things would change and people would become "better/more understanding" It was the same shit. I got fooled by the hype.

I went from HS to college and got fooled again by the hype that it would "be different". Nope, same old shit just adding binge drinking and drugs.

College to Graduate school fooled me again. Different shade of grey. Now everybody had social, political and economic agendas tempered by real-life experience of extensive bullshitting. In fact, the mercenary behavior of the potential of making fat cash makes everybody extra selfish and willing to step on anybody's head or neck to get their "god-given share". Man, the mormons at my school were the worst.

Graduate school and living in SF-environment was my red-pill. It was also my maturation into adulthood.

[40plus]

(02-19-2013 08:47 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

I'm not very familiar with Rand or Objectivism but based on the definition you quoted, I don't have a problem with either of those I have a problem with this:

Quote:

the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism

How does beliefs about the nature of perception and knowledge accumulation lead to pure individualism and laissez faire? Sometimes, best for the individual and best for the group align very well. Sometimes what's best for the individual conflicts with what's best for the group. Perhaps most importantly, some things that can be accomplished by a group cannot be accomplished individually.

Suppose you have 9 people living in an apartment in a snowy city. They have to clear snow from their driveway and surrounding sidewalks. It would be easy to do with a snowblower. Without a snowblower, it's luck of the draw-- whoever needs to clear the driveway first gets to shovel it out (and likely do a half-assed job, only good enough to get their car out). In this case, nobody, including the landlord, is wealthy or under enough pressure to be willing to spend $500 on a snowblower. Yet, if everyone pitched in $55, you could buy a community snowblower. If necessary, people moving out could get a refund, people moving in could be required to buy-in. If and when the blower is ever sold, everyone with buy-in could get a cut of the proceeds. This is a communal strategy.

Under laissez-faire capitalism there's no reason 9 people living in an apartment in a snowy city can't pool thier resources and buy a snow blower, but you're not really talking about people "piching in" for the greater good, you're talking about forcing people to pay for your idea of the greater good.

The same way I evaluate dating or lifestyle strategies based on whether they are effective/ineffective and not good/bad, I choose political ideas on the basis of whether it makes me more free/less free. In my mind that is red pill.

[TheKantian]

The reason why people don't like Rand is that philosophically she didn't contribute anything new and she didn't even present good novel arguments for any of the positions. The joke about Objectivism is that it's a pre-adolescent philosophy that naturally appeals to the adolescent mind of, "Fuck you, it's about me!"

[speakeasy]

I thought red pill means tossing aside ideological blinders and seeing the world for what it really is, even if it means accepting uncomfortable truths when conventional wisdom is more reassuring.

What you spoke of to me sounds like general self-improvement philosophy. I don't think that's necessarily the same thing as red pill.

Your story was cool though and it explains why I avoid ghettos and their inhabitants. I can't stand being around people who have no concept of civility. Or feeling on edge all the time like I might get into a fight at any minute.

[Asaxon]

(02-19-2013 03:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I thought red pill means tossing aside ideological blinders and seeing the world for what it really is, even if it means accepting uncomfortable truths when conventional wisdom is more reassuring.

What you spoke of to me sounds like general self-improvement philosophy. I don't think that's necessarily the same thing as red pill.

Your story was cool though and it explains why I avoid ghettos and their inhabitants. I can't stand being around people who have no concept of civility. Or feeling on edge all the time like I might get into a fight at any minute.

And even that choice (ghetto) can be constructed to be racist, non-inclusionary nowadays. How dare you avoid dangerous areas and not give its people a chance to interact with you? You are an oppressor!

[Teedub]

(02-19-2013 04:02 PM)Asaxon Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 03:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I thought red pill means tossing aside ideological blinders and seeing the world for what it really is, even if it means accepting uncomfortable truths when conventional wisdom is more reassuring.

What you spoke of to me sounds like general self-improvement philosophy. I don't think that's necessarily the same thing as red pill.

Your story was cool though and it explains why I avoid ghettos and their inhabitants. I can't stand being around people who have no concept of civility. Or feeling on edge all the time like I might get into a fight at any minute.

And even that choice (ghetto) can be constructed to be racist, non-inclusionary nowadays. How dare you avoid dangerous areas and not give its people a chance to interact with you? You are an oppressor!

Haha true, and hugely hypocritical as those doing the preaching do so from their leafy suburbs. I think the phrase is 'Limousine Liberal' in the States, and 'Champagne Socialist' over here.

[Giovonny]

(02-18-2013 11:18 PM)thedude3737 Wrote:  

TL;DR version: Thedude went and got a burrito, some shit happened, had an epiphany. Red-Pill= dudes improving their lives. Objectivism= dudes improving their lives. Same thing.

+1

Thanks for the short version.

I'm not sure what the "red pill" is or what "objectivism" means, but, I will say this...

We are all here to improve ourselves. If I am not trying to improve myself in some way, I am likely wasting my time.

I didn't read the whole post but I will later tonight. Looks cool.

(02-19-2013 12:41 PM)DVY Wrote:  

Things I've learned- TheDude is probably v. smart. TheDude probably smoked a fat doobie before going on this munchie expedition!

Haha

[Veloce]

(02-19-2013 04:02 PM)Asaxon Wrote:  

(02-19-2013 03:54 PM)speakeasy Wrote:  

I thought red pill means tossing aside ideological blinders and seeing the world for what it really is, even if it means accepting uncomfortable truths when conventional wisdom is more reassuring.

What you spoke of to me sounds like general self-improvement philosophy. I don't think that's necessarily the same thing as red pill.

Your story was cool though and it explains why I avoid ghettos and their inhabitants. I can't stand being around people who have no concept of civility. Or feeling on edge all the time like I might get into a fight at any minute.

And even that choice (ghetto) can be constructed to be racist, non-inclusionary nowadays. How dare you avoid dangerous areas and not give its people a chance to interact with you? You are an oppressor!

That's funny...you know, I'm always one for giving the benefit of the doubt. I'm about as SWPL as they come now but when I was growing up it was a different story. I grew up with a bunch of homies and scraps were common. I speaking semi-fluent spanish and feel pretty at home anywhere except the very pits of Ladera Heights. Even then I've gone down to Inglewood to attend blues/jazz festivals and be the only white dude in sight.

But yeah when a 250lb dude with full face tattoos and a giant jersey is motioning for you to come outside...you tend to tense up a little.

[presidentcarter]

(02-19-2013 08:47 AM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:

Sounds pretty familiar to me. I think people like to tear down Objectivism for two reasons:
1) it's idealistic beyond realistic expectation
2) it promotes the concept of heroes

I'm not very familiar with Rand or Objectivism but based on the definition you quoted, I don't have a problem with either of those I have a problem with this:

Quote:

the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness (or rational self-interest), that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights embodied in laissez-faire capitalism

How does beliefs about the nature of perception and knowledge accumulation lead to pure individualism and laissez faire? Sometimes, best for the individual and best for the group align very well. Sometimes what's best for the individual conflicts with what's best for the group. Perhaps most importantly, some things that can be accomplished by a group cannot be accomplished individually.

Suppose you have 9 people living in an apartment in a snowy city. They have to clear snow from their driveway and surrounding sidewalks. It would be easy to do with a snowblower. Without a snowblower, it's luck of the draw-- whoever needs to clear the driveway first gets to shovel it out (and likely do a half-assed job, only good enough to get their car out). In this case, nobody, including the landlord, is wealthy or under enough pressure to be willing to spend $500 on a snowblower. Yet, if everyone pitched in $55, you could buy a community snowblower. If necessary, people moving out could get a refund, people moving in could be required to buy-in. If and when the blower is ever sold, everyone with buy-in could get a cut of the proceeds. This is a communal strategy.

It should be fairly obvious how this logic applies to communities at varying scale. Cities and States can fund services and equipment that benefit everyone, but that no one person individually could afford or profit from owning individually. Perhaps I'm misunderstanding Objectivism, but if it requires strictly individualistic/libertarian Laissez-faire capitalism I can easily see why people would have a problem with it.

Yeah, in this example all the people are still acting in their own self-interest by pitching in for the snow blower, thus following laissez faire/objectivism principles.

And don't forget that even seemingly altruistic individuals (ie Bill Gates donating all of his $) would still be acting out of selfishness or self interest because he gains personal fulfillment and happiness out of giving the money away and the benefits it creates for others. Otherwise he wouldn't do it.

[Blaster]

The 9 people example is a simplification to illustrate a point about the value of collective behavior. I assumed the extrapolation to government would be obvious but apparently it's not.

So, in the 9 people example, everyone has to buy-in for it to work. If 2 people opt out, the other 7 might buy the blower anyway but the 2 holdouts will be ostracized and considered asshole douchebags and probably denied other communal benefits on a regular basis. (Alternately, 2 people might be dirt poor and instead of chipping in to purchase the snowblower they'll offer to do the actual plowing)

For a city, substitute snowblower with heavy-duty snowplows and guys paid to drive them.

For a region(eg US state), substitute heavy-duty snowplows with full-fledged highway departments capable of keeping hundreds of miles of state highway clear even in the worst conditions.

For the country, look at an advanced research and reporting organization like the NOAA, which help predict and describe storms and allow interstate organizations, states, cities, and small communities to plan and prepare travel and avoid costly mistakes. The NOAA of course also does other things, like monitor hurricanes.

Pure-libertarians would want all that stuff to be entirely private or else funded by some sort of opt-in use fee like tolls for highways or subscriptions to the National Weather Service. But those are horribly inefficient ways of trying to fund these things that benefit almost everyone. What annoys libertarians is that someone else decided that this would be a good thing for them. What if they don't care about knowing when a fucking hurricane is going to flatten their entire city? They shouldn't be required to pay for it.

[presidentcarter]

(02-19-2013 05:25 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

The 9 people example is a simplification to illustrate a point about the value of collective behavior. I assumed the extrapolation to government would be obvious but apparently it's not.

So, in the 9 people example, everyone has to buy-in for it to work. If 2 people opt out, the other 7 might buy the blower anyway but the 2 holdouts will be ostracized and considered asshole douchebags and probably denied other communal benefits on a regular basis. (Alternately, 2 people might be dirt poor and instead of chipping in to purchase the snowblower they'll offer to do the actual plowing)

For a city, substitute snowblower with heavy-duty snowplows and guys paid to drive them.

For a region(eg US state), substitute heavy-duty snowplows with full-fledged highway departments capable of keeping hundreds of miles of state highway clear even in the worst conditions.

For the country, look at an advanced research and reporting organization like the NOAA, which help predict storms and allow interstate organizations, states, cities, and small communities to plan and prepare travel and avoid costly mistakes.

How does any of that involve people not acting in their own self interest? I'd rather us collectively all pay taxes and have the gov't build our roads so that I personally don't have to go out and blaze a new trail whenever I need to go somewhere. In a perfect system, only those that benefit would contribute, but to make things simple and practical, we technically all fund the roads even if we don't use them. These examples all involve people collectively contributing to something that they couldn't accomplish on their own but that are all valuable to them, thus creating a "profit" for each party.

[Blaster]

Quote:

These examples all involve people collectively contributing to something that they couldn't accomplish on their own but that are all valuable to them, thus creating a "profit" for each party.

Let's take a trickier example then: cancer research.

What if you don't have cancer in your family history and none of your family or friends have high risk of developing the disease. But-- you have heart disease and a high risk of heart disease. It (appears to be) in your individual interest for all public funding and attention be devoted to heart disease instead of cancer. But the interest of the collective (for various reasons) is that your taxes fund research on both diseases.

Either way: the result is not ideological Laissez-faire economics. Again I have not read Rand so I don't know how pure the ideology is.

[presidentcarter]

(02-19-2013 05:39 PM)Blaster Wrote:  

Quote:

These examples all involve people collectively contributing to something that they couldn't accomplish on their own but that are all valuable to them, thus creating a "profit" for each party.

Let's take a trickier example then: cancer research.

What if you don't have cancer in your family history and none of your family or friends have high risk of developing the disease. But-- you have heart disease and a high risk of heart disease. It (appears to be) in your individual interest for all public funding and attention be devoted to heart disease instead of cancer. But the interest of the collective (for various reasons) is that your taxes fund research on both diseases.

Yeah I mean I see your point and that's why absolute laissez-faire isn't possible in a society. If you're forced to contribute to something that provides you of no value or less value than you contribute, it's not a perfect system, but in reality it's the only practical way given the complexity of our society. However imo we SHOULD work to get it as close as we can...like in your example if X disease runs in my family, they could allocate my contribution to disease research to X disease. You would hope that a lot of this is being done now statistically by means of research - they do research, see which is killing the most, allocate the most to that, then go down the list. Lobbyist, special interest groups, and the complexity of it all prevent it from being perfect-able by any stretch.

I've read Atlas Shrugged and it's really an idea, not a perfect model that we should use. Rand basically just stands for the principles that 1) when given the option to choose for themselves, everyone acts in their own self interest and 2) only those that add value to society earn the right to profit from society.

[Sombro]

Good points, but self-inflicted hardships get no sympathy from me.

Sympathy is for the person who makes the constructive effort to get out of their third-world shithole situation.

[Ensam]

The red pill is dealing with reality on reality's terms. Even when it contradicts your favorite philosophy. The welfare state exists to prevent revolutions. It keeps the power elites heads off of chopping blocks. If you aspire to obtain real power you should be all for anything that keeps poor people fat and happy.

[Goldin Boy]

Quote:

The hoodrat or the gangster would have gone farther in life by conforming to the powers that be. By going to school, following all the rules, not rocking the boat, they'd be better integrated into society.

Instead they choose to live life on their own terms, and as a result life is very hard for them.

I disagree with your interpretation of the anecdote. Imo, conforming to group norms(blue pill life) depends on where you are.

For their environment, (the hood) getting tatted up and repping a set isn't bucking the trend; most in their age group do it. The kids who go to school to learn, take part time jobs, don't smoke weed get beat up called Oreo, etc.

To me red pill= realizing that group norms and rules are set-up to benefit the group at your expense and working accordingly to subvert to achieve you ends. Ergo, the hoodrat and gangster are very blue pill, they fit neatly into their environment.

[Veloce]

(02-19-2013 06:37 PM)Ensam Wrote:  

The red pill is dealing with reality on reality's terms. Even when it contradicts your favorite philosophy. The welfare state exists to prevent revolutions. It keeps the power elites heads off of chopping blocks. If you aspire to obtain real power you should be all for anything that keeps poor people fat and happy.

You bring up a good point. It sort of begs the question, "Just how fucking evil are you willing to be?"

I'm still figuring it out. It's been a recent realization that being a selfish prick is pretty effective in getting what you want. It makes you wonder about morality. It also feels like a slippery slope...