Question and opinions

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Freedom for others is rational. They can only work for you if they choose so. If a indivudal does not want to work for you they don`t. Voluntary Choice is reason. You sound like a collectivist

How is it in MY interest to want others to be free. That they can now choose to reason or be individuals not under my control really doesn't help ME at all. If I did everything based on my own self-interest, I would see that having slaves is better FOR ME than having free employees. How is freedom for my slaves in MY rational self-interest? In your system, I should only care about myself and I should be exacting and calculating. The behaviors of one who acts purely in rational self-interest are not those of a Randian capitalist, but those of a sociopath.

Protip: Repeating the same argument again and again doesn't make it any more valid.

Protip 2: Calling me a name does not invalidate my argument.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

A slave has no free will and no alternatives that is not a rational being. A person who wants slaves is not a rational being they are irrational because they depend on the abllity of others and not on thier own. Plus why have all collectivised ideas failed. They were irrational ideas that depended on Altuism

If I care about my own self-interest, then why should I care that the slaves don't have free will and can't act on their own. Also, considering how successful slavery has been throughout history, I would say that having slaves is a pretty rational idea. Sure, it's no good for the slaves, but we're talking about MY self-interest, not theirs.

[History land]

Once agian you do not understand. You should care for your own rational self-interest. But your self-intrests must not impead on the self-intrests of another individual. Besides the only way to provide for your own self-intrests is through work. Your own work not the work of others only your own individual work.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Once agian you do not understand. You should care for your own rational self-interest. But your self-intrests must not impead on the self-intrests of another individual. Besides the only way to provide for your own self-intrests is through work. Your own work not the work of others only your own individual work.

My rational self-interest is to use and exploit others to get as much as I can for me. Why mustn't I impede the self-interests of others? If their interests conflict with mine, and they are in my why, would it not be in my self-interest to get them out of my way? Should I not step upon them to get what I want? The oughts of self-interest and the oughts that you claim are those of self-interest do not coincide.

[Der Teutoniker]

With no regulations the corporations would have to make good products. Otherwise they would go out of bussiness. I mean how can you make a profit by selling a bad profit.

This certainly worked well in the past. I'd recommend you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

I'm not a fan of extensive regulation, but similarly total unregulation has a history of not exactly having worked. If companies are competing with each other, they will lower their prices by any means necessary, including lowering quality below acceptable levels. When all companies need to reduce quality to compete then quality products become impossible to find especially at reasonable prices. Certianly, a total lack of regulation would work in some fantasy world, same with communism as a workable government style. Problematically this world, and especially the people in it, are not perfect.

[Neo Art]

it truly amazes me how ignorant some people can be when they try to make arguments like "but if they make a bad product they'll just go out of business!"

Three words: ford fucking pinto.

[Der Teutoniker]

If I did everything based on my own self-interest, I would see that having slaves is better FOR ME than having free employees.

In college, I wrote a paper, and discussed the economic impacts (pro, and con) of slavery. Thankfully for me, my professor explained that there could never possibly be any economic advantage that could ever have been derived from descrimination.

(She seemed to completely ignore that slavery is quite economically benefitial for the slave owners.)

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

it truly amazes me how ignorant some people can be when they try to make arguments like "but if they make a bad product they'll just go out of business!"

Three words: ford fucking pinto.

But the free market. *collapses*

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

In college, I wrote a paper, and discussed the economic impacts (pro, and con) of slavery. Thankfully for me, my professor explained that there could never possibly be any economic advantage that could ever have been derived from descrimination.

(She seemed to completely ignore that slavery is quite economically benefitial for the slave owners.)

She believed this because she didn't want to face the reality that the market isn't magic and sunshine.

[Der Teutoniker]

Once agian you do not understand. You should care for your own rational self-interest. But your self-intrests must not impead on the self-intrests of another individual. Besides the only way to provide for your own self-intrests is through work. Your own work not the work of others only your own individual work.

What? I can provide for my own self-interests much better if I own slaves. This way, I myself would not have to work, while my slaves earn me money. My self-interest does not, by necessity, include anyone elses self-interest. Indeed, often enough peoples self-interests are often in conflict. Why must my self-interest not impede any one elses? Just because you say so, or is there some divine universal rule on the matter?

[Neo Art]

In college, I wrote a paper, and discussed the economic impacts (pro, and con) of slavery. Thankfully for me, my professor explained that there could never possibly be any economic advantage that could ever have been derived from descrimination.

(She seemed to completely ignore that slavery is quite economically benefitial for the slave owners.)

She believed this because she didn't want to face the reality that the market isn't magic and sunshine.

what are you talking about? If an employee's hand gets mangled in a poorly maintained piece of equipment, it is the employers right to terminate him then and there.

[Marcuslandia]

Once agian you do not understand. You should care for your own rational self-interest. But your self-intrests must not impead on the self-intrests of another individual. Besides the only way to provide for your own self-intrests is through work. Your own work not the work of others only your own individual work.

This is where your model falls apart: It does NOT define _where_ in the model "you" are. You speak of a societal-wide model, which covers the full spectrum of classes and occupations. What is rational for "you" working man is not what is rational for "you" manager which in turn is not rational for "you" owner or "you" the customer. What is rational for "you" worker competing with other workers for too few jobs is distinctly different from "you" business owner that controls who gets which jobs.

As it turns out, what is rational for the business owner is nearly opposite for what is rational for the worker. The rational thing for the workers is to organize into unions in order to negotiate better wages. You would think that the rational thing for the employer to do would be pay a fair wage so the workers don't feel the need to unionize. But as it turns out, what is actually the rational thing for the employer to do is to contribute a fraction of what he would pay in higher wages as a "campaign contribution" to a politician so the politician supports legislation that makes it difficult for workers to unionize (or to block any legislation that supports the growth of unions).

When you get done tracing the spaghetti through the maze of inter-relationships, what is "rational" for one class of people in society is often diametrically opposed to what is "rational" for other groups in that same society.

[Maurepas]

She believed this because she didn't want to face the reality that the market isn't magic and sunshine.

But it did create this:


Cant get much more magic and sunshine than that can ya?

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Why must my self-interest not impede any one elses?

Because A = A.

Just because you say so, or is there some divine universal rule on the matter?

The universal rules are the objective principles of the universe that I am magically privy to.

[Marcuslandia]

It strikes me you would be better off theorizing in the other direction. Like non-Euclidean Geometry, start from the opposing premise then flesh out your theoretical model. That is:
Assume that people do NOT choose to be rational often enough to make it a GIVEN.

By the time you got done fleshing out the model you'd be a helluva lot closer to Reality than where you're going now.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

It strikes me you would be better off theorizing in the other direction. Like non-Euclidean Geometry, start from the opposing premise then flesh out your theoretical model. That is:
Assume that people do NOT choose to be rational often enough to make it a GIVEN.

By the time you got done fleshing out the model you'd be a helluva lot closer to Reality than where you're going now.

It's not about reality, he's made that very clear. It's about him justifying how he's such an individualist and a self-made rational man.

[Der Teutoniker]

The universal rules are the objective principles of the universe that I am magically privy to.

Gotcha, evalutations of history, and human nature had suggested that looking after other's peoples interests first isn't necessarily (or often) in my self-interest, but apparently just iterating that point alone makes you right.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

Gotcha, evalutations of history, and human nature had suggested that looking after other's peoples interests first isn't necessarily (or often) in my self-interest, but apparently just iterating that point alone makes you right.

Now you're thinking like an Objectivist!

[Marcuslandia]

It's not about reality, he's made that very clear. It's about him justifying how he's such an individualist and a self-made rational man.

Oh in that case, we were given the answer in Star Trek: "In an insane society, the sane man MUST be adjudged insane."

There's your answer: the OP is insane.

[History land]

Once agian you do not understand. You should care for your own rational self-interest. But your self-intrests must not impead on the self-intrests of another individual. Besides the only way to provide for your own self-intrests is through work. Your own work not the work of others only your own individual work.

My rational self-interest is to use and exploit others to get as much as I can for me. Why mustn't I impede the self-interests of others? If their interests conflict with mine, and they are in my why, would it not be in my self-interest to get them out of my way? Should I not step upon them to get what I want? The oughts of self-interest and the oughts that you claim are those of self-interest do not coincide.

a Individual`s rational self-intrest must not stomp on the rights of other individuals.

[History land]

With no regulations the corporations would have to make good products. Otherwise they would go out of bussiness. I mean how can you make a profit by selling a bad profit.

This certainly worked well in the past. I'd recommend you read The Jungle by Upton Sinclair.

I'm not a fan of extensive regulation, but similarly total unregulation has a history of not exactly having worked. If companies are competing with each other, they will lower their prices by any means necessary, including lowering quality below acceptable levels. When all companies need to reduce quality to compete then quality products become impossible to find especially at reasonable prices. Certianly, a total lack of regulation would work in some fantasy world, same with communism as a workable government style. Problematically this world, and especially the people in it, are not perfect.

The Jungle is not a book I read. the FDA was a bad idea the consumers should have convince the owner of the company runing the meat plant to make it better.

[UnhealthyTruthseeker]

a Individual`s rational self-intrest must not stomp on the rights of other individuals.

Why?

[History land]

In college, I wrote a paper, and discussed the economic impacts (pro, and con) of slavery. Thankfully for me, my professor explained that there could never possibly be any economic advantage that could ever have been derived from descrimination.

(She seemed to completely ignore that slavery is quite economically benefitial for the slave owners.)

She believed this because she didn't want to face the reality that the market isn't magic and sunshine.

The free market isn`t magic and sunshine

[History land]

Once agian you do not understand. You should care for your own rational self-interest. But your self-intrests must not impead on the self-intrests of another individual. Besides the only way to provide for your own self-intrests is through work. Your own work not the work of others only your own individual work.

What? I can provide for my own self-interests much better if I own slaves. This way, I myself would not have to work, while my slaves earn me money. My self-interest does not, by necessity, include anyone elses self-interest. Indeed, often enough peoples self-interests are often in conflict. Why must my self-interest not impede any one elses? Just because you say so, or is there some divine universal rule on the matter?

wrong your self-intrests must not impeade on the rights of others. Slavery is one of them

[Maurepas]

wrong your self-intrests must not impeade on the rights of others.

why?

Because a regulation told me so?