- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
The problem with the computer industry under capitalism - Free Software the answer?
|
|
|
Comments (101)
how amusing
51 earlier comments in the full thread.
Yes, I agree I violated TOS, and I'm sorry. But state-approved violence makes me angry, and it's sure something different from one muslim murdering a film maker or terrorists bombings which are not approved by 'our' governments, which Dino tries to soud like the same (or do you think Brittish government ordered those metro-bombings?). But enough for me now, I guess I can better stop reacting in this thread.
> But state-approved violence makes me angry
Here's an idea - if you really have a problem with that, you should take some time off to scream at cops, the world's top perpetrators of state-approved violence.
For that matter, maybe you can find a surviving member of the Eindhoven Resistance to give a good tongue-lashing.
Oh, come on guys!!! That was a whole lot more civil than my earlier posts...and similar (ok, maybe a tad exaggerated) to Hans's last post.
Here's an idea - if you really have a problem with that, you should take some time off to scream at cops, the world's top perpetrators of state-approved violence.
For that matter, maybe you can find a surviving member of the Eindhoven Resistance to give a good tongue-lashing.
Oh, come on guys!!! That was a whole lot more civil than my earlier posts...and similar (ok, maybe a tad exaggerated) to Hans's last post.
> Exactly.
Wow. Ok, but several million people heard and saw it said, it's been quoted in newspapers, magazines and television, and reposted to things like YouTube many times. Those exact phrases.
Wow. Ok, but several million people heard and saw it said, it's been quoted in newspapers, magazines and television, and reposted to things like YouTube many times. Those exact phrases.
Quoting:Wow. Ok, but several million people heard and saw it said, it's been quoted in newspapers, magazines and television, and reposted to things like YouTube many times. Those exact phrases.OK, off we go into TOS-violation land.
And which of those are you saying establishes as fact that Iraq had no WMDs and anyone who said otherwise was lying? (By the way, that would have been about 95% of the governments in the world, not to mention the entire US Senate and House; Democrat, Republican, and other.) Which of those establishes as fact that they don't hate us for our freedom when in fact they openly admit to hating democracy?
Blindly echoing what has "been quoted in newspapers, magazines and television, and reposted to things like YouTube many times" does not establish anything except that if you repeat it often enough...
> and anyone who said otherwise was lying?
NoDough, the fact that someone says something in an effort to spread fear does not necessarily mean they are lying when they do so. :)
> Which of those establishes as fact that they don't hate us for our freedom when in fact they openly admit to hating democracy?
Freedom != Democracy, so that does not follow.
Warning: Rampant opinion follows.
And to be precise, the radical Islam folks hate us because we're infidels. Even worse, we're infidels who refuse to recognize the supremacy of Islam. Infidels who know their place are only looked down upon, not hated.
End rampant opinion.
NoDough, the fact that someone says something in an effort to spread fear does not necessarily mean they are lying when they do so. :)
> Which of those establishes as fact that they don't hate us for our freedom when in fact they openly admit to hating democracy?
Freedom != Democracy, so that does not follow.
Warning: Rampant opinion follows.
And to be precise, the radical Islam folks hate us because we're infidels. Even worse, we're infidels who refuse to recognize the supremacy of Islam. Infidels who know their place are only looked down upon, not hated.
End rampant opinion.
Quoting:OK, off we go into TOS-violation land.
Which means that you should end it right there and then. I'm not picking on you specifically here, but you just happened to provide a nice bit to quote for me.
Please keep the TOS in mind people. There is some occasional leeway here and there but those are exceptions. Perhaps one of you should start an lxer-users-politics mailinglist somewhere :-)
Quoting:NoDough, the fact that someone says something in an effort to spread fear does not necessarily mean they are lying when they do so. :)When you speak the truth, you are not creating FUD. (Which is, I believe, the type of fear being discussed here.)
If I tell you there is a stranger with a gun waiting for you in your house, and it's a lie, then I am just creating fear. OTOH, if it's true I'm doing you a service and my motives have nothing to do with creating fear (although, that may be a healthy side effect.)
I think (hope) I made that point without a TOS-violation.
Quoting:Which means that you should end it right there and then.Thank you.
> And which of those are you saying establishes as fact that Iraq had no WMDs and anyone who said otherwise was lying?
None. I never said anything on that distinction. The phrases were, however said in order to instill a sense of dread, fear, in order to motivate a certain reaction.
Just like marching someone away in cuffs for copying software. The individual is almost certainly non violent, and the accused crime is non violent, but the pictures are used to instill a sense of dread. Fear, that if caught, the same thing is going to happen to me.
Extremes of enforcement are no less abuse of copyright/patent than are extremes of duration or extremes of application.
None. I never said anything on that distinction. The phrases were, however said in order to instill a sense of dread, fear, in order to motivate a certain reaction.
Just like marching someone away in cuffs for copying software. The individual is almost certainly non violent, and the accused crime is non violent, but the pictures are used to instill a sense of dread. Fear, that if caught, the same thing is going to happen to me.
Extremes of enforcement are no less abuse of copyright/patent than are extremes of duration or extremes of application.
> OTOH, if it's true I'm doing you a service and my motives have nothing to do with creating fear
That does not follow, NoDough. While it's true that in general someone who warns you that there is an armed stranger in your house has no ulterior motive, you are presuming from the general case to a specific case, and it's not safe to do that. In any specific case, you could have any number of reasons for warning me, and not all of them are necessarily for my benefit.
That does not follow, NoDough. While it's true that in general someone who warns you that there is an armed stranger in your house has no ulterior motive, you are presuming from the general case to a specific case, and it's not safe to do that. In any specific case, you could have any number of reasons for warning me, and not all of them are necessarily for my benefit.
Bob and JD,
This is one of those situations where you are sure that you knew the motives of someone else (otherwise, you wouldn't use it as an example,) and I'm sure you didn't. Therefore, we'll never agree. I think we should take Sander's advice.
> This is one of those situations where you are sure that you knew the motives of someone else...
I'm not sure of anything of the kind. I'm only chiming in because your arguments so far haven't been valid.
A simple, "I don't think that the administration or its supporters were trying to spread fear with their statements, but rather to inform the public of the true state of affairs", may be what you were aiming for, though I'm not certain.
I'm not sure of anything of the kind. I'm only chiming in because your arguments so far haven't been valid.
A simple, "I don't think that the administration or its supporters were trying to spread fear with their statements, but rather to inform the public of the true state of affairs", may be what you were aiming for, though I'm not certain.
(Before we start tonight's show, please note that the part of Ayn Rand will be played by NoDough, and the part of Karl Marx will be played by jdixon.)
> ...and the part of Karl Marx will be played by jdixon.
Ouch, that hurts. That's hitting below the belt, gus3. :)
Ouch, that hurts. That's hitting below the belt, gus3. :)
Quoting:> But state-approved violence makes me angry
Here's an idea - if you really have a problem with that, you should take some time off to scream at cops, the world's top perpetrators of state-approved violence.
Well, I would like to correct that, I meant state-approved violence against innocent people. Cops are not meant to harm innocent people if I recall correctly(?)
Anyway, back to the topic of Marxism and Libertians sometimes going hand in hand; I know of some kind of 'think tank' that first was Marxist, but than eventually turned Libertarian. Can you imagine? I can't remember the name, but it had to do with those people saying the Greenhouse-effect is nonsense. To be honest, I don't trust a group of people that turns from Marxist to Libertarian, but I might be wrong; are there much similarities between the two?
> This is one of those situations where you are sure that you knew the motives of someone else
No.
> (Before we start tonight's show, please note that the part of Ayn Rand will be played by NoDough, and the part of Karl Marx will be played by jdixon.)
Awww, can I be "bomb-throwing anarchist, third from the left, in scene 4"?
No.
> (Before we start tonight's show, please note that the part of Ayn Rand will be played by NoDough, and the part of Karl Marx will be played by jdixon.)
Awww, can I be "bomb-throwing anarchist, third from the left, in scene 4"?
Quoting:> This is one of those situations where you are sure that you knew the motives of someone elseI'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you forgot what you said.
No
Quoting:Fear is tried, such as "weapons of mass destruction" and "they hate us for our freedom", etc.Now, you can spin as much as want. But that sentence is accusing someone of fear mongering.
Quoting:(Before we start tonight's show, please note that the part of Ayn Rand will be played by NoDough, and the part of Karl Marx will be played by jdixon.)Dang! Stuck playing the girl.
Quoting:A simple, "I don't think that the administration or its supporters were trying to spread fear with their statements, but rather to inform the public of the true state of affairs", may be what you were aiming for, though I'm not certain.I never said that. What I am saying is that Bob directly accused them of fear mongering when he has no idea what their true motives were and nothing factual to back up his opinion.
I get tired of the drive-by TOS violations.
"Oh, look! I sniped a TOS violation. I'll never have to provide any evidence of what I am saying and no one can argue with me because that would be a TOS violation."
How about just keeping it to yourself in the first place.
> Now, you can spin as much as want. But that sentence is accusing someone of fear mongering.
No question it was fear mongering. I just don't know their motivations in doing so.
You may not like what you think my position is on the "facts" presented, but your dislike or not is irrelevant. The "facts" presented are irrelevant. They were presented in a manner and method specifically to induce fear.
No question it was fear mongering. I just don't know their motivations in doing so.
You may not like what you think my position is on the "facts" presented, but your dislike or not is irrelevant. The "facts" presented are irrelevant. They were presented in a manner and method specifically to induce fear.
Quoting:No question it was fear mongering. I just don't know their motivations in doing so.And this is where I realize that I am not speaking to a rational human being. So, I just drop it.
Capitalism != Merchantilism
10 earlier comments in the full thread.
Quoting:> Ms. Rand also had no idea how having small children to feed and clothe and protect completely inverts one's sense of priorities.Yes, I do think so. She had no place for those who are totally dependent on another, be they small children, or the infirmed, or shut-ins. She had no children, and had no serious illness until late in her life. Without that, she didn't understand that there is indeed a place for true charity in society.
Do you really think so?
http://gus3.typepad.com/i_am_therefore_i_think/2002/10/a_cri...
> Our whole educational system suffers from this evil.
As JD points out, there is nothing capitalistic about the educational "system". From bottom to top it is government regulated, government controlled, or as with everything for the first 13 "grades", completely government _run_ with coerced attendance. It is for all intents and purposes, 13 years of forced labor in a prison.
Einstein also fell into the trap of Merchantilism.
> Ms. Rand is a bit grim and rather strident for me.
No argument there! _Atlas Shrugged_ sat unread on my shelf as well, right next to _Shogun_, regardless of my interests in the subjects. They were just too... too... Too!
As AZ suggests, Bastiat said everything Rand did, 100 years earlier, and with easier style.
"Who Was Bastiat?" http://www.mises.org/story/2684
CP, I do have a question. Just what do you think is being done when coercion is used to do a "good" thing?
You posted a quote concerning "the internet" being non-capitalistic. But the fact is that if you go back to 1992 and what happened before and after the National Science Foundation _released_control_ of the routing tables, you will see that the one and only reason you are able to access this site is Capitalism. The one and only reason LXer.com exists is Capitalism. Someone wanted to create it, they had the means, they chose to do it. No one told them to do it, no one prevented them from doing so.
Maybe something a little bit more direct than Rand's fiction would suit you? Try this:
A First Analysis of the Category of Action By Ludwig von Mises http://www.mises.org/story/2711
As JD points out, there is nothing capitalistic about the educational "system". From bottom to top it is government regulated, government controlled, or as with everything for the first 13 "grades", completely government _run_ with coerced attendance. It is for all intents and purposes, 13 years of forced labor in a prison.
Einstein also fell into the trap of Merchantilism.
> Ms. Rand is a bit grim and rather strident for me.
No argument there! _Atlas Shrugged_ sat unread on my shelf as well, right next to _Shogun_, regardless of my interests in the subjects. They were just too... too... Too!
As AZ suggests, Bastiat said everything Rand did, 100 years earlier, and with easier style.
"Who Was Bastiat?" http://www.mises.org/story/2684
CP, I do have a question. Just what do you think is being done when coercion is used to do a "good" thing?
You posted a quote concerning "the internet" being non-capitalistic. But the fact is that if you go back to 1992 and what happened before and after the National Science Foundation _released_control_ of the routing tables, you will see that the one and only reason you are able to access this site is Capitalism. The one and only reason LXer.com exists is Capitalism. Someone wanted to create it, they had the means, they chose to do it. No one told them to do it, no one prevented them from doing so.
Maybe something a little bit more direct than Rand's fiction would suit you? Try this:
A First Analysis of the Category of Action By Ludwig von Mises http://www.mises.org/story/2711
>Without that, she didn't understand that there is indeed a place for true charity in society.
The same could be said of many people -- including Mother Theresa.
Your presumption that people are unable to empathize with the dilemmas of others may say more about you than it does about Ms. Rand.
That said, I do not agree with her position on charity, but have trouble seeing how her position is fundamentally different from that of many liberals, which boils down to, I believe, "Let the government take care of the poor so I won't have to be bothered by them."
The same could be said of many people -- including Mother Theresa.
Your presumption that people are unable to empathize with the dilemmas of others may say more about you than it does about Ms. Rand.
That said, I do not agree with her position on charity, but have trouble seeing how her position is fundamentally different from that of many liberals, which boils down to, I believe, "Let the government take care of the poor so I won't have to be bothered by them."
For those unfamiliar with Bastiat's writing, a not so short essay, but a very good read.
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
http://www.econlib.org/library/Bastiat/basEss1.html
> She had no children, and had no serious illness until late in her life.
She herself was a child at one time. Are you presuming that she simply forgot what it's like? I don't have any children either. Does that remove my right to vote on national issues?
> Without that, she didn't understand that there is indeed a place for true charity in society.
Suffice it to say that your understanding of Rand is incomplete.
She herself was a child at one time. Are you presuming that she simply forgot what it's like? I don't have any children either. Does that remove my right to vote on national issues?
> Without that, she didn't understand that there is indeed a place for true charity in society.
Suffice it to say that your understanding of Rand is incomplete.
> Without that, she didn't understand that there is indeed a place for true charity in society.
Which begs the question, what is meant by "true"?
By "true", I would mean the charity which an individual chooses to perform of their own free will, giving of themselves gladly because their actions not only benefit others, but by being voluntary the individual giving is benefitting themselves. Good will, the promotion of a cause they believe in, or maybe just the good feeling of helping others. I don't know, but I do know that the more private wealth a country has, the greater the private, voluntary, charity that is donated.
Your dislike of voluntary interaction leads me to think you have another judgement as to what is "true", and that you wish to enforce your view of "true" on others by force, for their own good of course. What a nice, kind, well meaning tyranny.
Which begs the question, what is meant by "true"?
By "true", I would mean the charity which an individual chooses to perform of their own free will, giving of themselves gladly because their actions not only benefit others, but by being voluntary the individual giving is benefitting themselves. Good will, the promotion of a cause they believe in, or maybe just the good feeling of helping others. I don't know, but I do know that the more private wealth a country has, the greater the private, voluntary, charity that is donated.
Your dislike of voluntary interaction leads me to think you have another judgement as to what is "true", and that you wish to enforce your view of "true" on others by force, for their own good of course. What a nice, kind, well meaning tyranny.
> Without that, she didn't understand that there is indeed a place for true charity in society.
On coming back to this thread, I realize that the statement itself is just plain wrong. Rand had no problem with the idea of charity. What she didn't believe in was an obligation, either legal or moral, to perform charity. That's a very different thing. That would be more in keeping with Bob's discussion of "true" charity - ie, done out of goodness rather than obligation.
BR, I agree w/ your definition of "true" in this context: unforced, uncoerced, voluntary. When it's forced by law, it isn't charity, because there is no choice. Well, there is: do it or go to jail.
I'm not sure where you get that I "dislike... voluntary interaction." I highly value unforced personal interaction. It's the stuff on which human relationships are built.
dino, you and I get two totally opposite views on Rand's view of the poor. What I got from Atlas Shrugged was, "You have no right to enjoy the fruits of my labor without compensation." Or, more succinctly, "Get a job, ya bum!"
jdixon, I was referring to how having dependents alters one's priorities. I found no evidence in AS that she understood it. When you have a small child, or a wife with cancer, you don't simply walk away from a job because you think, "I'm not being paid what I'm worth." You swallow your pride and do it (while you look for a better job), because there are others depending on you for food and medicine, not from any fault of their own, but just the way life goes sometimes. There was plenty of voluntary dependence in AS, of those who figured they could leech off others' hard work, and Rand was right (I believe, anyway) to cast that in a bad light. But involuntary dependence got no serious examination, and her own life gives clues why.
I'm not sure where you get that I "dislike... voluntary interaction." I highly value unforced personal interaction. It's the stuff on which human relationships are built.
dino, you and I get two totally opposite views on Rand's view of the poor. What I got from Atlas Shrugged was, "You have no right to enjoy the fruits of my labor without compensation." Or, more succinctly, "Get a job, ya bum!"
jdixon, I was referring to how having dependents alters one's priorities. I found no evidence in AS that she understood it. When you have a small child, or a wife with cancer, you don't simply walk away from a job because you think, "I'm not being paid what I'm worth." You swallow your pride and do it (while you look for a better job), because there are others depending on you for food and medicine, not from any fault of their own, but just the way life goes sometimes. There was plenty of voluntary dependence in AS, of those who figured they could leech off others' hard work, and Rand was right (I believe, anyway) to cast that in a bad light. But involuntary dependence got no serious examination, and her own life gives clues why.
gus3 -
Atlas Shrugged was fiction.
Better to simply ask her what her views were, which Playboy did:
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." [From "Playboy's 1964 interview with Ayn Rand"]
So, while she didn't much believe in it, she didn't have any real problem with it either.
Better to simply ask her what her views were, which Playboy did:
"My views on charity are very simple. I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a moral duty. There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them. I regard charity as a marginal issue. What I am fighting is the idea that charity is a moral duty and a primary virtue." [From "Playboy's 1964 interview with Ayn Rand"]
So, while she didn't much believe in it, she didn't have any real problem with it either.
dino, I agree that AS was fiction, but it came with a lot of ham-fisted moralizing.
FWIW, I love the quote you provide, especially the phrase "if and when they are worthy of the help..." That loaded phrase would mean so many different things to so many different people.
And I'll get reprimanded for violating the TOS if I continue.
FWIW, I love the quote you provide, especially the phrase "if and when they are worthy of the help..." That loaded phrase would mean so many different things to so many different people.
And I'll get reprimanded for violating the TOS if I continue.
Ayn Rand was a nutcase. Disregard her every word.
Ayn Rand saw first-hand what the removal of the profit motive did to people: it turned them into scheming, lying thieves. The world is a slightly better place for her having gotten out of the USSR alive.
> I love the quote you provide, especially the phrase "if and when they are worthy of the help..." That loaded phrase would mean so many different things to so many different people.
I have never heard a more perfect reasoning for private, vs. public, charity.
I have never heard a more perfect reasoning for private, vs. public, charity.
> CP, I do have a question. Just what do you think is being done when coercion
is used to do a "good" thing?
Bob_Robertson, Not sure what you mean Bob, give me an example please. I don't like that word coercion.
If you don't think the education system isn't money driven just take a look at the text-book industry. And in more recent news, the flap over scholarly journals.
Please reread the quote about the internet, It was supposed to be wry humor at best and a comment on how little the Old-School understands the present.
I like people, really really like people. The human race as a whole is just a never ending source of joy to me. The Flying Spaghetti Monster did not bless me with much thinking ability. But did I ever luck out in the heart dept.
Bob_Robertson, Not sure what you mean Bob, give me an example please. I don't like that word coercion.
If you don't think the education system isn't money driven just take a look at the text-book industry. And in more recent news, the flap over scholarly journals.
Please reread the quote about the internet, It was supposed to be wry humor at best and a comment on how little the Old-School understands the present.
I like people, really really like people. The human race as a whole is just a never ending source of joy to me. The Flying Spaghetti Monster did not bless me with much thinking ability. But did I ever luck out in the heart dept.
> give me an example please. I don't like that word coercion.
Hahahaha, neither do I.
The quotes you provided talked about "capitalism" as if it were bad. Well, since "Capitalism" is what results when people are not coerced, it must mean that you see room for coercion to create a "good".
If this is not correct, please forgive me. I have been well trained by a seemingly endless line of socialist Pavlovs to defend instantly.
> If you don't think the education system isn't money driven...
Ah! "money driven" has no bearing on whether or not Capitalism is involved. Merchaitilism is very much money driven, and the textbook industry is as perfect an example of merchantilist government favor seeking as I've ever seen.
The NEA, like the AMA, is so powerful it might as well be a branch of government. John Stossel's "Stupid In America" is available through YouTube or Google Video, and goes into the power of the NEA to some extent.
The "currency of renown" that fuels F/OSS development is no less capitalistic just because that currency _isn't_ money.
> It was supposed to be wry humor at best...
Sadly, humor often does not come through. My apologies for any misunderstanding.
Hahahaha, neither do I.
The quotes you provided talked about "capitalism" as if it were bad. Well, since "Capitalism" is what results when people are not coerced, it must mean that you see room for coercion to create a "good".
If this is not correct, please forgive me. I have been well trained by a seemingly endless line of socialist Pavlovs to defend instantly.
> If you don't think the education system isn't money driven...
Ah! "money driven" has no bearing on whether or not Capitalism is involved. Merchaitilism is very much money driven, and the textbook industry is as perfect an example of merchantilist government favor seeking as I've ever seen.
The NEA, like the AMA, is so powerful it might as well be a branch of government. John Stossel's "Stupid In America" is available through YouTube or Google Video, and goes into the power of the NEA to some extent.
The "currency of renown" that fuels F/OSS development is no less capitalistic just because that currency _isn't_ money.
> It was supposed to be wry humor at best...
Sadly, humor often does not come through. My apologies for any misunderstanding.
>I have never heard a more perfect reasoning for private, vs. public, charity.
The nice thing is that it allows for as many reasons for private charity as there are people to provide it.
For example, a Christian should have no problem with "worthy of the help", because, to a Christian, all God's children are worthy of the help.
At the same time, somebody else could adapt a more economics-oriented view that wasting resources on somebody who won't take advantage of the help means there won't be aid available for somebody else who will.
So long as there is a diversity of givers, needs will be met and nobody's freedom offended.
The nice thing is that it allows for as many reasons for private charity as there are people to provide it.
For example, a Christian should have no problem with "worthy of the help", because, to a Christian, all God's children are worthy of the help.
At the same time, somebody else could adapt a more economics-oriented view that wasting resources on somebody who won't take advantage of the help means there won't be aid available for somebody else who will.
So long as there is a diversity of givers, needs will be met and nobody's freedom offended.
gus3:
> When you have a small child, or a wife with cancer, you don't simply walk away from a job because you think, "I'm not being paid what I'm worth." You swallow your pride and do it (while you look for a better job), because there are others depending on you for food and medicine
Well, having a wife with medical problems which prevent her from working, I can hardly disagree. However, I find it strange that you consider that an involuntary dependence. The phrase "for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health" comes to mind.
Dino has already made the point that Rand had absolutely nothing against voluntary charity.
And I must note that I personally disagree with Rand's position that charity is not a primary virtue. However, it order to be a virtue, it most be chosen. Forced charity cannot be virtuous.
> For example, a Christian should have no problem with "worthy of the help", because, to a Christian, all God's children are worthy of the help.
True, Dino. But the best help for some of them may not be charity. :)
> When you have a small child, or a wife with cancer, you don't simply walk away from a job because you think, "I'm not being paid what I'm worth." You swallow your pride and do it (while you look for a better job), because there are others depending on you for food and medicine
Well, having a wife with medical problems which prevent her from working, I can hardly disagree. However, I find it strange that you consider that an involuntary dependence. The phrase "for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health" comes to mind.
Dino has already made the point that Rand had absolutely nothing against voluntary charity.
And I must note that I personally disagree with Rand's position that charity is not a primary virtue. However, it order to be a virtue, it most be chosen. Forced charity cannot be virtuous.
> For example, a Christian should have no problem with "worthy of the help", because, to a Christian, all God's children are worthy of the help.
True, Dino. But the best help for some of them may not be charity. :)
jdixon,
>Well, having a wife with medical problems which prevent her from working, I can hardly disagree. However, I find it strange that you consider that an involuntary dependence. The phrase "for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health" comes to mind.
Please pardon the bluntness, but her illness, and your association with each other, are simultaneous, but unrelated. Her illness is not chosen, nor the resulting dependence upon another. That you are the one on whom she depends is voluntary on both your parts. OTOH, if she had never met you N years ago, her dependence on another might still be there all the same.
>Rand had absolutely nothing against voluntary charity.
AS didn't have much for it, either. Anyone who got anything for free, was a rotter at best, criminal at worst.
>Well, having a wife with medical problems which prevent her from working, I can hardly disagree. However, I find it strange that you consider that an involuntary dependence. The phrase "for richer, for poorer, in sickness or in health" comes to mind.
Please pardon the bluntness, but her illness, and your association with each other, are simultaneous, but unrelated. Her illness is not chosen, nor the resulting dependence upon another. That you are the one on whom she depends is voluntary on both your parts. OTOH, if she had never met you N years ago, her dependence on another might still be there all the same.
>Rand had absolutely nothing against voluntary charity.
AS didn't have much for it, either. Anyone who got anything for free, was a rotter at best, criminal at worst.
> Anyone who got anything for free, was a rotter at best, criminal at worst.
Like...your posting to this web site?
The fact that _she_ had charitable motivations different from yours merely demonstrates the benefits of leaving the whole realm of charity to private choice.
Like...your posting to this web site?
The fact that _she_ had charitable motivations different from yours merely demonstrates the benefits of leaving the whole realm of charity to private choice.
> AS didn't have much for it, either.
Well, first, it's unwise to generalize an author's position from a work of fiction, though that's less true of Atlas Shrugged than most. You're always going to get an incomplete view and often an incorrect one. Second, most of the charity described in Atlas Shrugged was not voluntary.
> That you are the one on whom she depends is voluntary on both your parts.
Which was my point. That dependence is strictly accounted for in the marriage vows. Anyone who isn't willing to assume it shouldn't plan on getting married.
> OTOH, if she had never met you N years ago, her dependence on another might still be there all the same.
Might, might not. That's something we can't know.
Well, first, it's unwise to generalize an author's position from a work of fiction, though that's less true of Atlas Shrugged than most. You're always going to get an incomplete view and often an incorrect one. Second, most of the charity described in Atlas Shrugged was not voluntary.
> That you are the one on whom she depends is voluntary on both your parts.
Which was my point. That dependence is strictly accounted for in the marriage vows. Anyone who isn't willing to assume it shouldn't plan on getting married.
> OTOH, if she had never met you N years ago, her dependence on another might still be there all the same.
Might, might not. That's something we can't know.
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post