(10-12-2009 06:12 PM)Artifice Wrote:  I didn't make the argument that the welfare state is the answer, nor would I. As usual, in this forum, if you are critical of one extreme, it means you must automatically fully embrace the other. The point of the game was that extremism is ineffectual, anti-intellectual, and... in today's parlance... stupid.

If you want more in depth criticism of rand, then by all means, do it yourself as she would advocate.

And FWIW, I actually mostly agree with GGNiner for perhaps the first time ever:

Quote:the irony is that Socialist and Libertarian philosophies both make the same Humanist error(that man is 'basically good'), from which they both reason(to different points). Libertarian economist are great at diagnosing the problem and how to fix it, on paper. Doing it in the real world, where man is basically not 'good', is a different thing.

People do irrational things all the time, man is very capable of doing bad things to themselves/others, knowing even that its wrong/bad/evil, yet doing them anyway.

Where I disagree is that it is a humanist error, and I absolutely disagree with his religious devotion to absolutism, which is also absurd and debunked in a single photo.

You can't rely on single individuals to police themselves. Economic systems as political structures (or the lack thereof) are ineffective because they are amoral, and bound to be exploited by those that have the leverage or opportunity to do so. Instead you need a pragmatic solution, and its one that has to be flexible to adjust for changing circumstances.

It's ... a... GAME. It's nothing more than a very thin storyline which provides substance to progress through the game. That's it. It has no more serious intellectual merit than the plot of Doom III.

I have read criticisms of Atlas Shrugged, and have yet to come across anything of merit that is convincing or sound.

I disagree with the assessment of libertarianism, as described by one of the LEAST libertarian people on this board, GGNiner. Libertarianism is simply about maximizing the liberty of each individual. That goes HAND IN HAND with mitigating rogue individuals who restrain other people's liberty. There's a very VERY large difference between libertarianism, and utopia. A cornerstone of libertarianism is respect for the rule law and enforcement thereof. The libertarian wants to free as much as possible everyone, and punish those who abuse other's liberties. Every other philosophy, to varying degrees, restrains everybody in the name of preventing unethical behavior by the few ... and it doesn't even stop said behavior.

It's not "just a game":

Just ask the game designer (Levine):

Quote:Levine wondered what sorts of people might live in an underwater city, what would drive someone from the rest of the world.

"I started thinking about utopian civilizations," he said. "You have these traditional utopian notions. I've always been a fan of utopian and dystopian literature.

"The more I started thinking about making a compelling place and compelling villain, someone who had a real concrete set of beliefs made sense."

Enter Objectivism. Levine said he had been reading Ayn Rand's books over the past few years and was fascinated with her "intensity and purity of belief."

"The surety she has in her beliefs was fascinating," he said. "She almost spoke like a super villain, like Dr Doom."
And her characters, Levine believed, projected that same intensity.

"I started to wonder, what happens when you stop questioning yourself? It becomes a set of accepted truths, instead of something you're constantly using in the lab of reality."

FLAWS IN LOGIC AND CHARACTER
Where Rand had Fountainhead's Howard Roark and Atlas Shrugged's John Galt, Levine had Andrew Ryan, Rapture's founder.

Levine said he views the game's chief protagonist as a cross between Howard Hughes and "one of Rand's characters if he were put in the real world with all of the real problems people have."

"Rand's characters are super heroes," he said. "Great people without flaws. "

....

"It's a cautionary tale about wholesale, unquestioning belief in something."

Libertarianism has been co-opted by so called free marketers that are advocates first and foremost for multinational corps. Your description of the libertarian movement is far from the actuality.

And as far as not finding any legitimate criticisms of Rand... I linked pages of them.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

http://www.amazon.com/Criticisms-of-Obje...C2I5J9JFE9

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html

etc..

But once again, proving the point of BR's thread, there is no such thing as an open mind or real discourse here. "I summarily dismiss all criticism of my position" is the mantra of every spin room poster.

(10-13-2009 12:18 AM)Artifice Wrote:  It's not "just a game":

Just ask the game designer (Levine):

Quote:Levine wondered what sorts of people might live in an underwater city, what would drive someone from the rest of the world.

"I started thinking about utopian civilizations," he said. "You have these traditional utopian notions. I've always been a fan of utopian and dystopian literature.

"The more I started thinking about making a compelling place and compelling villain, someone who had a real concrete set of beliefs made sense."

Enter Objectivism. Levine said he had been reading Ayn Rand's books over the past few years and was fascinated with her "intensity and purity of belief."

"The surety she has in her beliefs was fascinating," he said. "She almost spoke like a super villain, like Dr Doom."
And her characters, Levine believed, projected that same intensity.

"I started to wonder, what happens when you stop questioning yourself? It becomes a set of accepted truths, instead of something you're constantly using in the lab of reality."

FLAWS IN LOGIC AND CHARACTER
Where Rand had Fountainhead's Howard Roark and Atlas Shrugged's John Galt, Levine had Andrew Ryan, Rapture's founder.

Levine said he views the game's chief protagonist as a cross between Howard Hughes and "one of Rand's characters if he were put in the real world with all of the real problems people have."

"Rand's characters are super heroes," he said. "Great people without flaws. "

....

"It's a cautionary tale about wholesale, unquestioning belief in something."

Libertarianism has been co-opted by so called free marketers that are advocates first and foremost for multinational corps. Your description of the libertarian movement is far from the actuality.

And as far as not finding any legitimate criticisms of Rand... I linked pages of them.

http://world.std.com/~mhuben/critobj.html

http://www.amazon.com/Criticisms-of-Obje...C2I5J9JFE9

http://www.noblesoul.com/orc/critics/index.html

etc..

But once again, proving the point of BR's thread, there is no such thing as an open mind or real discourse here. "I summarily dismiss all criticism of my position" is the mantra of every spin room poster.

Nothing Levine said countered my final paragraph describing libertarianism. Other people from anarchists to big government capitalists, masquerading under the label, does nothing to change the true meaning. That is a red herring.

MOREOVER, there is nothing wrong with absolute belief backed by science, in the absence of superior alternative explanation. I'll leave it at that, because you cannot get into that discussion without bringing in religion ... and awl **** here we go again on that tangent.

I read the first two and find nothing in them of merit that is convincing. I'm not going to go all Henry Rearden and do all your work for you, Phillip. Post your best stuff.

And it is ... just a game. Oooo Doom III shows the risks of science run amok without ethics and a lack of rule of law in space and ..... no. Even if it was made into a movie ..... no. It's a game ... plot elements are there to matriculate the game storyline down the field. You cannot seriously engage in such discussions in a game, at least not any game that will make large scale overwhelming success, or do a good job of the former.

I'm not swayed by your argument that it's "just a game". A movie or a book is just entertainment too, unless it illustrates a deeper point, and that is the ultimate conclusion of Randian philosophy. I wouldnt call that game the end all be all of the discussion, not by a longshot, but rather illustrative of just how obvious the real endgame of objectivism is (so obvious that it can be used as the backdrop for a video game dystopia).

As for the current state of the libertarian movement - my comment about multinational corp interests taking over the party was right out of Ron paul's own words. He's said the same thing several times now.

(10-13-2009 09:04 AM)Artifice Wrote:  As for the current state of the libertarian movement - my comment about multinational corp interests taking over the party was right out of Ron paul's own words. He's said the same thing several times now.

Not even the Libertarian Party expresses pure libertarianism. Another red herring.

Even being generous and assuming the game is of intellectual merit (lulz), all of your arguments still fail to take into account what I said here:

Libertarianism is simply about maximizing the liberty of each individual. That goes HAND IN HAND with mitigating rogue individuals who restrain other people's liberty. There's a very VERY large difference between libertarianism, and utopia. A cornerstone of libertarianism is respect for the rule law and enforcement thereof. The libertarian wants to free as much as possible everyone, and punish those who abuse other's liberties. Every other philosophy, to varying degrees, restrains everybody in the name of preventing unethical behavior by the few ... and it doesn't even stop said behavior.