You're confused. The ability of individuals acting in their own interests does not deny the ability of a collection of those same individuals from working towards mutual benefits. Nor does it deny others who are not acting in those same interest from benefiting from their work. What objectivists object to is being bent over to whim or "needs" of others. You can't reward need. You can reward work. To take this to the other list that you're on (psychohistory), go and find yourself this book: Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities, and Software by Steven Johnson. Amazon should have it. It shows (as an example) that individual ants don't act on a central command. There is no ant government, no ant leadership. Rather ants work by a very simple set of rules that are individual rules, but their actions form a huge collective effort. Unlike socialism or communism (in practice not in theory) there is no need for central authority. The same is true according to this book of slime mold cells, who work as individuals, however at certain points, they merge to become one single being. While I'm not comparing humans to ants, nor to slime mold cells -- don't even attempt to make that connection, the lesson here for you to learn is that individual action performed in the self interest of the individual, when integrated over a large population shows emergent behavior, and is beneficial to most members of the group. You don't need socialism, communism, fascism or religion in order to help others out. The drives to survival and self preservation allow us humans to act together in common interests. As is does ants, most types of bees (termite bees for example aren't social.), etc. For example, mailing lists that are nothing more than a forum for the exchange of ideas allow for positive communal results. I would point to something like bugtraq for example. In terms of security, there's nothing out there that has done more to help users of buggy software by simply reporting that in fact Company M's product W, contains bug X. Another example: The NTLK (Newton Talk Mailing LisT) provides a very good forum for users of the killed off platform. In fact, it has provided excellent support to the point of the creation of new software that did not exist when Apple did support it such as BackTalk (which allows Newts to beam to Palms and vice versa), and ATA card drives allowing Newton owners access to cheaper PCMCIA cards. In each of these mailing lists, each actor runs their own algorithm and is interested in self gain, yet, by having common goals, even without a central authority, they are able to achieve goals that as individuals they would not be to. When someone makes up their mind to take care of themselves and their interests, they are not preventing another from doing the same. When someone puts a gun to your head and tells you to "hand over your valuables, then bend over and grease up", that's "Freedom for me, none for you." When someone is minding their own business, working in the pursuit of liberty and prosperity, they are saying "Freedom for me, and freedom for you." When someone says "You have to do as I say" others will say "fuck off" When that someone pulls out a gun, it's no longer freedom for you and freedom for me. It's "I own you as long as I put a gun to your head and you can't do shit about it if you can't fight back." When someone says "Help me, I'm starving" that's not an order. You are free to chose to ignore or help that person. If you chose to help them, you did not deny them their freedoms. If you chose to ignore them, you also did not deny them their freedoms. Back to the subject of ants. I suppose you've never heard the parable of the ant and the grasshopper, yes? If you had, this would be far clearer to you why the communism or socialism that you suggest doesn't work. To paraphrase it: All spring and summer long, the ants worked hard and harvested food. Meanwhile the grasshopper played his fiddle and enjoyed himself, but did nothing to secure his own future. Then winter came. The ants had food and warmth because they worked all spring and summer long. The grasshopper however was starving and froze to death. Should the grasshopper have been allowed to share in the ant's hard work after doing nothing all spring and summer long? If so, then why should the ants have worked so hard just to allow the grasshopper to be a burden on them? If so, why should all the ants have to work? Maybe they can take the grasshopper's example, and they can be lazy and find some other creature to mooch off of... What happens when there is no one left to do the work? Or should the grasshopper have done as the ants? Assuming the ants said "Fuck off" Who is responsible for the grasshopper's death? The ants who didn't share their food? Or is the grasshoper responsible for his own failures. Did the ants decide the grashopper's fate? Or did the grasshopper decide his own? Did the ants force the grasshopper to not set up a nest for himself away from the cold, or prevent him from collecting food? Or did he act on his own? In terms of morals, why are in your view the ants evil and the lazy grasshopper good? Since the ants did not actively interefere with the grasshopper's day to day modus operandi one way or another, why would you claim the ants are morally responsible for the grasshopper's death? Who decided that the grasshopper should not provide shelter and food supplies for himself, but rather play all summer long? Did anyone other than the grasshopper prevent him from harvesting and planning for winter? Now then, what's this about "freedom for me but not for three?" ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :Surveillance cameras|Passwords are like underwear. You don't /|\ \|/ :aren't security. A |share them, you don't hang them on your/\|/\ <--*-->:camera won't stop a |monitor, or under your keyboard, you \/|\/ /|\ :masked killer, but |don't email them, or put them on a web \|/ + v + :will violate privacy|site, and you must change them very often. --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Mon, 26 Nov 2001, Jim Choate wrote:
On Tue, 20 Nov 2001, David Honig wrote:
At 09:19 PM 11/19/01 -0600, Jim Choate wrote:
C-A-C-L's would let people die from thirst before interfering in a 'free market'. Others would say screw the market and give that man a drink.
No, a libertarian would say "screw anyone who'd initiate force against me to make me to do this" and then make his own decision.
Hypocrite. In 'making your own decision' you in effect remove any moral or ehtical framework from your decision. In fact you are acting upon 'freedom for me, but not for thee'. Why? Because you have set yourself up as the decider of another fate. Your feelings about letting others make those sorts of decisions for you are clear.
Or do you hold that 'self-defence' applies only to libertarians?
No, the only solution in Faustines 'survival situation' is to create a neutral 3rd party that is responsible to all participants. It is not ethical, or workable, to allow each and all to go their own way.
-- ____________________________________________________________________
Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.
Bumper Sticker
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage@ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------