Comrade Kane
Ex-Bluelighter
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2010
- Messages
- 270
Scenario is thus.
Three men Peter, Paul and Alan Greenspan are trapped within a closed system.
System has breathable air and some form of material ground but nothing else (utterly empty). System will reopen in exactly twelve months. System has no food or water.
Peter owns enough food and water to last (comfortably) three men for a whole year.
Paul and Alan Greenspan have nothing and they will die of thirst in a few days or of starvation after a few weeks or months.
Peter has to sleep sometime. If Alan and Paul sleep in shifts, one of them will always be awake, and thus they can overpower Peter in his sleep.
Ayn Rand relies on a few basic principles for her moral claims.
1. The non-initiation of force or in other words it is wrong to initiate force against another but not wrong to defend one against such.
2. Private property rights are paramount and only the legitimate owner of the property has the right to decide how to use share or otherwise dispose of said property. It would be wrong of others to steal defraud or initiate force against the owner in order to obtain the property.
In this scenario, under Randian ‘ethics’ Peter can choose to do whatever he wants with his food and water including sharing the supplies in any quantity, destroying them, keeping them all for himself – as explained above.
In this scenario, under Randian ‘ethics’ neither Paul nor Alan have any right to steal defraud or obtain by force Peters food even if Peter refuses to share (charity) even though this means Alan and Paul will both suffer and/or die because of Peter’s choice to be selfish or simply unconcerned (selfishness is a Randian virtue).
Morally, Alan and Paul should INITIATE FORCE against Peter, TAX his property, and REDISTRIBUTE his property evenly among them such that all three men survive.
Morally, even though the supplies are Peter’s private property, Alan and Paul have a claim on a fair share of Peter’s private property.
Since what is obviously, commonsensically, moral, utterly contradicts what Ayn Rand claims is moral, thus Ayn Rand is WRONG. Randian free market capitalism is based on immorality. Poor people have a legitimate moral claim on the property money and goods of those with excess (the rich). Socialism is inherently realistic and moral. Capitalism is not. Ayn Rand is not.
Imagine now if Alan Greenspan decided instead to team up with Peter instead. A two-way split is more food for the both of them than a three-way split. So now Peter and Alan Greenspan sleep in shifts (at least until Paul starves to death). This is analogous to capitalism whereby the rich buy protection to be protected from the poor who are thus cut out of the loop and the economy and left to rot and die.
PS If you rob Peter to pay Paul you will have a sore Peter; but a sore Peter and a living Paul is worth more than an indulged Peter and a dead Paul.
Three men Peter, Paul and Alan Greenspan are trapped within a closed system.
System has breathable air and some form of material ground but nothing else (utterly empty). System will reopen in exactly twelve months. System has no food or water.
Peter owns enough food and water to last (comfortably) three men for a whole year.
Paul and Alan Greenspan have nothing and they will die of thirst in a few days or of starvation after a few weeks or months.
Peter has to sleep sometime. If Alan and Paul sleep in shifts, one of them will always be awake, and thus they can overpower Peter in his sleep.
Ayn Rand relies on a few basic principles for her moral claims.
1. The non-initiation of force or in other words it is wrong to initiate force against another but not wrong to defend one against such.
2. Private property rights are paramount and only the legitimate owner of the property has the right to decide how to use share or otherwise dispose of said property. It would be wrong of others to steal defraud or initiate force against the owner in order to obtain the property.
In this scenario, under Randian ‘ethics’ Peter can choose to do whatever he wants with his food and water including sharing the supplies in any quantity, destroying them, keeping them all for himself – as explained above.
In this scenario, under Randian ‘ethics’ neither Paul nor Alan have any right to steal defraud or obtain by force Peters food even if Peter refuses to share (charity) even though this means Alan and Paul will both suffer and/or die because of Peter’s choice to be selfish or simply unconcerned (selfishness is a Randian virtue).
Morally, Alan and Paul should INITIATE FORCE against Peter, TAX his property, and REDISTRIBUTE his property evenly among them such that all three men survive.
Morally, even though the supplies are Peter’s private property, Alan and Paul have a claim on a fair share of Peter’s private property.
Since what is obviously, commonsensically, moral, utterly contradicts what Ayn Rand claims is moral, thus Ayn Rand is WRONG. Randian free market capitalism is based on immorality. Poor people have a legitimate moral claim on the property money and goods of those with excess (the rich). Socialism is inherently realistic and moral. Capitalism is not. Ayn Rand is not.
Imagine now if Alan Greenspan decided instead to team up with Peter instead. A two-way split is more food for the both of them than a three-way split. So now Peter and Alan Greenspan sleep in shifts (at least until Paul starves to death). This is analogous to capitalism whereby the rich buy protection to be protected from the poor who are thus cut out of the loop and the economy and left to rot and die.
PS If you rob Peter to pay Paul you will have a sore Peter; but a sore Peter and a living Paul is worth more than an indulged Peter and a dead Paul.
