Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

forbes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 66 posts

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#51

Post by squozzer »

jonhendry18 wrote: post #32
squozzer wrote: post #6

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed some of Atlas Shrugged. >It's not the Henry Fords and Steve Jobs who exploit people. Problem is not all of the 1% is Steve Jobs, Henry Ford or Warren Buffett. It also includes, for example, royal families whose contribution is not intellectual. >When you work in a modern factory, you are paid, not only for your labor, but for all the productive genius which has made that factory possible…

Plenty of CEOs are paid more than the value they provide.

I'll go along with that as an opening for a later discussion. But consider the value of a CEO is probably more than just profits generated - or to use a Moneyball term - "wins above replacement."

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#52

Post by dmfdmf »

specialist wrote: post #50
dmfdmf wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you read Philosophy Who Needs It? , Have you read the Virtue of Selfishness? Have you read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal? Have you read The New Left:The Anti-Industrial Revolution? Have you read The Voice of Reason? Have you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? Pick one and refute it instead of spreading the old and tired "cult" smear. You would be the first.

Do Christians read the bible? Do randians read her works? Do capitalists read Adam Smith? Do Marxists read his Manifesto? No. And neither do their critics. Settle down. I was supporting your point. And yes, I was once in highschool, read my share of Ayn Rand. Then I grew up.

You have plenty of company.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#53

Post by BLKNSLVR »

dmfdmf wrote: post #41

The vast majority of people who have opinions on Ayn Rand or her philosophy of Objectivism haven't read a word of what she wrote and are repeating what they heard or have read it and failed to comprehend her ideas. Whether such failure is due to ability or dishonesty doesn't really matter. Note the ad hom comments in this thread dismissing the content of this article because Binswanger inherited his money. Nobody has…

"dismissing the content of this article because Binswanger inherited his money"

That fact should pretty much exclude Binswanger from having a public opinion on it because, whilst he may have worked hard for what he's got, the very fact of his being an 'heir' means his opinions will always be coloured by the likelihood of a life born into privilege.

Even if the ideas presented make sense in a highly-complex interwoven society, having articles written by someone potentially starting with heavy assistance will not help their cause. Get a genuine gutter-to-penthouse self-made person to write up how the common worker should be more thankful to their upper management and company-owners that they rarely see, much less have any interaction with. I'd read that with interest.

(Disclaimer: I've not read Rand, so I'm knowingly squarely within dmfdmf's crosshairs. I understand the basic concepts, but do need to actually read the source material - and am planning to do so, in order that I can "deconstruct" properly)

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#54

Post by dmfdmf »

BLKNSLVR wrote: post #53
dmfdmf wrote: post #41

The vast majority of people who have opinions on Ayn Rand or her philosophy of Objectivism haven't read a word of what she wrote and are repeating what they heard or have read it and failed to comprehend her ideas. Whether such failure is due to ability or dishonesty doesn't really matter. Note the ad hom comments in this thread dismissing the content of this article because Binswanger inherited his money. Nobody has…

"dismissing the content of this article because Binswanger inherited his money" That fact should pretty much exclude Binswanger from having a public opinion on it because, whilst he may have worked hard for what he's got, the very fact of his being an 'heir' means his opinions will always be coloured by the likelihood of a life born into privilege. Even if the ideas presented make sense in a highly-complex interwoven…

The truth or falsehood of the content is independent of Binswanger's income source and can be verified apart from that fact. This is the meaning of Ad Hominem fallacy, to get people to dismiss an argument not because it is false but because of some supposed flaw or fact about the person making the argument. Moreover, this is the exact method by which the Communists dismissed the objections to communism, accusing anyone who defended property rights as "bourgeois" and biased because they owned property. They established multiple brutal dictatorships last century that led to the death of millions and are still active today.

I truly hope you follow through with your intent, ignore the smears and misrepresentations, and read Rand firsthand and judge for yourself. As the first book I recommend Philosophy Who Needs It followed by The Virtue of Selfishness and leave the politics for later. Rand argued that politics follows from ethics and that is where the debate needs to shift if you want to understand the dire state of the world.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#55

Post by Semirhage »

dmfdmf wrote: post #54
BLKNSLVR wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"dismissing the content of this article because Binswanger inherited his money" That fact should pretty much exclude Binswanger from having a public opinion on it because, whilst he may have worked hard for what he's got, the very fact of his being an 'heir' means his opinions will always be coloured by the likelihood of a life born into privilege. Even if the ideas presented make sense in a highly-complex interwoven…

The truth or falsehood of the content is independent of Binswanger's income source and can be verified apart from that fact. This is the meaning of Ad Hominem fallacy, to get people to dismiss an argument not because it is false but because of some supposed flaw or fact about the person making the argument. Moreover, this is the exact method by which the Communists dismissed the objections to communism, accusing anyo…

You opened with this: The vast majority of people who have opinions on Ayn Rand or her philosophy of Objectivism haven't read a word of what she wrote and are repeating what they heard or have read it and failed to comprehend her ideas.

That is ad hominem against a straw man, so I’m applying grains of salt heavily to your commitment to logical and rhetorical integrity.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#56

Post by Semirhage »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #49
mywittyname wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Any party that uses force to rob the life, liberty or property of others is violating laissez faire principles The term to describe this party is, a "government."

Government does not always do this, and not all parties that do this are governments. A government is an institution which has monopolized the use of force in an area.

And in Somalia, there is no such monopoly, so everyone is free to use force on everyone else in a fully unregulated environment. The strong conquer the weak, and are conquered in turn. You’d love it, I’ll buy the ticket for you.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#57

Post by CryptoPunk »

Semirhage wrote: post #56
CryptoPunk wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Government does not always do this, and not all parties that do this are governments. A government is an institution which has monopolized the use of force in an area.

And in Somalia, there is no such monopoly, so everyone is free to use force on everyone else in a fully unregulated environment. The strong conquer the weak, and are conquered in turn. You’d love it, I’ll buy the ticket for you.

I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that laissez-faire doesn't mean the absence of government.

Being opposed to anti-free-market interventions by the government is not the same thing as being opposed to the existence of government.

I had literally explained this multiple times in this very discussion, before you posted your comment.

There seems to be no exchange of actual information and building of understanding in these discussions.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#58

Post by dmfdmf »

Semirhage wrote: post #55
dmfdmf wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The truth or falsehood of the content is independent of Binswanger's income source and can be verified apart from that fact. This is the meaning of Ad Hominem fallacy, to get people to dismiss an argument not because it is false but because of some supposed flaw or fact about the person making the argument. Moreover, this is the exact method by which the Communists dismissed the objections to communism, accusing anyo…

You opened with this: The vast majority of people who have opinions on Ayn Rand or her philosophy of Objectivism haven't read a word of what she wrote and are repeating what they heard or have read it and failed to comprehend her ideas. That is ad hominem against a straw man, so I’m applying grains of salt heavily to your commitment to logical and rhetorical integrity.

My logical and rhetorical integrity is intact, you don't really know what ad hominem means.

It means to raise some irrelevant fact about the person making the argument as a reason to dismiss what the person is claiming. E.g. don't listen to Binswanger because he is rich.

The vast majority of people who attack or dismiss or smear Ayn Rand have not (or superficially) read what she wrote but this is a fact that IS relevant to whether their opinion on Ayn Rand has any merit so its not ad hom.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#59

Post by Semirhage »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #57
Semirhage wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And in Somalia, there is no such monopoly, so everyone is free to use force on everyone else in a fully unregulated environment. The strong conquer the weak, and are conquered in turn. You’d love it, I’ll buy the ticket for you.

I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand that laissez-faire doesn't mean the absence of government. Being opposed to anti-free-market interventions by the government is not the same thing as being opposed to the existence of government. I had literally explained this multiple times in this very discussion, before you posted your comment. There seems to be no exchange of actual information and building…

I was responding to this gem of your’s: A government is an institution which has monopolized the use of force in an area.

What you’re on about now, I have no idea.

Re: It's Time for the 99% to Give Back to the 1%

#60

Post by Semirhage »

dmfdmf wrote: post #58
Semirhage wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You opened with this: The vast majority of people who have opinions on Ayn Rand or her philosophy of Objectivism haven't read a word of what she wrote and are repeating what they heard or have read it and failed to comprehend her ideas. That is ad hominem against a straw man, so I’m applying grains of salt heavily to your commitment to logical and rhetorical integrity.

My logical and rhetorical integrity is intact, you don't really know what ad hominem means. It means to raise some irrelevant fact about the person making the argument as a reason to dismiss what the person is claiming. E.g. don't listen to Binswanger because he is rich. The vast majority of people who attack or dismiss or smear Ayn Rand have not (or superficially) read what she wrote but this is a fact that IS relev…

Reassertion of your unsupported claim about who has and hasn’t read something still isn’t an argument, it’s stil a straw man. Do you have any substance to offer?
Post reply on HN