|
Post by maximus on May 1, 2009 22:45:17 GMT 10
I see. I will counter with this: Greenspan did not adhere to free market principles while Fed Chairman by keeping interest rates artificially low, which kept the natural recession cycle from ocurring to correct the markets. The housing bubble was a combination of the low interest rates, and Barney Frank's failure to exercise his proper oversight over Fanny Mac and Freddie Mae, which were in financial trouble due to earlier government mandate that they lend sub-prime to unqualified buyers in a utopian plan to get more minority people in homes they could not afford. This has nothing whatever to do with Objectivism, which, as you pointed out, is a Philosophy. Free market capitalism did not fail, as it was the interference of government coupled with the Federal Reserve system that brough about the US' financial woes.
No injection of artificially created funds in an effort to stimulate the economy is going to work, it will lead to massive inflation and, down the road, increased taxes, which will be a further damper on the recovery. Obama is making the same mistakes that FDR made that turned a recession into a decade long depression.
You seem to be rejecting the free market in favor of a quasi-socialist model.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on May 2, 2009 8:05:11 GMT 10
Perhaps I expressed myself poorly. In some respects I am a realist, in others an idealist, but I try to steer clear of being an ideologist and I like my philosophies to be matters which can be discussed philosophically. I tend to become wary when a "philosophy" is self-servingly used to justify some laissez-faire policy which, when one clears away the obfuscation, is seen to lack any functional means for achieving its object. In such cases I suspect I am more likely dealing with an ideology. If one wishes to achieve an object, success is more likely if one directly plans for it, rather than relying on blind faith in its accomplishment as a corollary of individuals pursuing their narrow interests (who, one may be sure, plan to achieve their objects). As for the reasons for the 2008 economic melt down, that remains a matter of debate. The prevailing ideology of the markets had been biased against regulation, with the administration seeking out economists, such as Laffer, who told them what they wanted to hear. While you may wish to argue that the main players weren't really "true believers" or that they weren't sufficiently Objectivists: Realistically this was as good as it could have got for the expression of an ideology in a complex economy. Now more mainstream economists are being heard and drastic measures are being implemented, let's hope they are not too late.
|
|
|
Post by magusmasonica on Oct 11, 2009 3:48:08 GMT 10
On a side note it is interesting on just how close Objectivism is to what we now call "LeVeyan" Satanism.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 23, 2012 7:35:07 GMT 10
From the "Gold Standard" thread:I am sorry that you think that private property and personal freedom is inane. Where was that said? Not by me. It is yet another instance of misattribution. My criticism was of the inane Randian slogan of the most significant minority being the individual.
BTW, legislation would indeed be unjust if it was ever targeted at or away from specific individuals (a bit like retrospective legislation). Randian? Really? So the Enlightenment philosophers, from whom the founders of the US derived their concept of individual rights, were "Randian?"
Really, Philip, you can do better than that! It does come down to a point of view. Is the individual the fundamental element of society or just part of a society?
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 23, 2012 7:40:01 GMT 10
It does come down to a point of view. Is the individual the fundamental element of society or just part of a society? True. On the one hand there is the community point of view and, on the other hand, there is the view expressed by Margaret Thatcher: " There is no such thing as society: there are individual men and women, and there are families." I go out and look around and, from my point of view, I see a community.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 23, 2012 8:07:41 GMT 10
My criticism was of the inane Randian slogan of the most significant minority being the individual. Randian? Really? So the Enlightenment philosophers, from whom the founders of the US derived their concept of individual rights, were "Randian?"
Really, Philip, you can do better than that!Your founders never went as far as Rand. From a previous post: The values of the founders were the values of the Enlightenment, which is reflected in Masonry itself - the recognition of the primacy of the individual. Rather than a matter only concerning the US, I would say, rather, that it is a matter concerning the whole of mankind. Or, are you saying that the rest of the world does not recognize or deserve the freedom of the individual? While the US selected some Enlightenment values and took them in one direction, emphasising man as an individual entity, in Europe the entire compass of Enlightenment philosophy led away from feudalism in another direction, emphasising man as both an individual entity AND as a social entity, arguably becoming expressed through progressive Socialist policies, with Marx advancing neo-Enlightenment ideals (flawed by a fixed and overly optimist view of Human Nature). For example, please consider Hobbes (died this day 1679, see today’s quotes), Rousseau and Hegel.
I suggest that Freemasonry, with its emphasis on the Mystic Tie of Brotherhood, the three great pillars on which it said to be founded — Brotherly Love, Relief and Truth — and with one of the first tests applied being that of charity for those less fortunate than one’s self, sits better within the full compass of Enlightenment ideals (hence our philosophy being described as “Humanistic”).
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 23, 2012 8:21:44 GMT 10
My criticism was of the inane Randian slogan of the most significant minority being the individual. The smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights cannot claim to be defenders of minorities
Ayn Rand So, who were Rand's poor "individuals"? The defense of minority rights is acclaimed today, virtually by everyone, as a moral principle of a high order. But this principle, which forbids dis- crimination, is applied by most of the “liberal” intellectuals in a discrim- inatory manner: it is applied only to racial or religious minorities. It is not applied to that small, exploited, denounced, defenseless minority which consists of businessmen. Yet every ugly, brutal aspect of injustice toward racial or religious minorities is being practiced toward businessmen.
Ayn Rand "Ugly," "brutal" "injustice"? I think not? Businessmen are not discriminated against on the basis of birth or conscience (instead, they tend to benefit from tribalism, nepotism and cronyism). Rather, they freely choose to operate within a socio-economic system, within due bounds as defined by society.
|
|
|
Post by Tamrin on Jan 23, 2012 9:25:15 GMT 10
BTW, Rand went further than simply defending America's poor, persecuted businessmen. What she had her sights on was: " Americas Persecuted Minority: Big Business." The quotes above were from Rand's 1961 lecture with this title (she was arguing AGAINST Anti-trust legislation).
|
|
|
Post by lanoo on Jan 23, 2012 11:43:56 GMT 10
"Americas Persecuted Minority: Big Business."
LOL
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Jan 23, 2012 14:44:01 GMT 10
Then there are legions that are hammered by the taxes, the cronyism, unjust wars, and central planning of the economy.
|
|