World's Greatest Draft (2 Viewers)

[Thorn]

Another case for Washington as Rebel -Without the success of the American Revolution, you wouldn't have had the French Revolution. Without Washington, it's very very possible the American Revolution would have been a failure, both because of his military genius and his political acumen. So you could argue that Washington was a key factor in defeating the mightiest empire in the world, AND toppling the French monarchy.The early XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX was a great man. Read his writings - they're very "American" in their cries for liberal and equality. He only became a paranoid tyrant after he got power; early on he was very "American." The problem with XXXXXXXXXXXXX is he wasn't Washington. Once he had power, he refused to work with it constructively and then let it go. It could be argued this gives more credit to Washington as a leader, but I like it bolstering his creds as a Rebel. After all, how many Rebels win, then give up their power to ensure the success of their revolution? This is the constant downfall of revolutionaries ---- EXCEPT Washington. Julius Caesar, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Mao, the list goes on and on. They all go nuts when they get power and become tyrants. It's all gray waters with Washington. I like him as a Rebel though. He was the most personally successful rebel in history, if you consider what he did after winning the military phase of his rebellion.

SPOTLIGHT FOUL!

 

[flysack]

SPOTLIGHT FOUL!

I just realized it as you were posting this. See my edit. Please delete your quote.Ack. I'm sorry guys. I really didn't even think of it. Maybe because I'm not drafting and just into the commentary. Again, massive apologies.

 

[flysack]

A mod may want to fix Thorn's post. He called spotlight, but QUOTED the spotlight, then left for a ski trip.

 

[timschochet]

Thorn, you're not on autoskip until Monday morning, when the clock starts. I doubt it will get back to you before then, but if it does, we wait.

Karl Marx belongs equally in intellectual or philosopher or villain; however, I think while he's a worthy choice in all three, he is not top tier in any of them. I would have to consider him a top tier wildcard though, so DC might want to keep this in mind.

On a personal note, I believe that Marx's contributions to the world have been wholly bad. I do not think that the changes he has wrought within our capitalist world, which someone brought up as positive, have been so. Collectivism is an evil idea. I also do not believe that XXXXXX, Stalin and Mao misapplied his ideas. It is my firm belief that Marx's ideas, if applied to their full extent, will ALWAYS result in misery and suffering on the sort of scale that Russia and China witnessed. The belief that man should live for his brothers is the root of almost everything bad that happens in the world.

Washington is a great choice at either leader or rebel. Perhaps the greatest American ever.

 

[Thorn]

A mod may want to fix Thorn's post. He called spotlight, but QUOTED the spotlight, then left for a ski trip.

 

[timschochet]

With Chairman Mao and Karl Marx selected, DC Thunder's group can now be nicknamed the "Pinko Draft".

 

[Orange Crush]

Marx's writings are most important as a critique of capitalism. When he turned to communism he didn't really give a "how to", so it was left to others to try to figure out how. Now we know that, as seductive as the dream may be, it just can't be done. But Marx should still be studied today to recognize the weaknesses within our capitalist economy.

From what I understand of the philosopher/intellectual split, it seems like Marx should be placed in the intellectual category.

 

[flysack]

With Chairman Mao and Karl Marx selected, DC Thunder's group can now be nicknamed the "Pinko Draft".

 

[DCThunder]

With Chairman Mao and Karl Marx selected, DC Thunder's group can now be nicknamed the "Pinko Draft".

I'm going after the NCCommish/Shining Path/LHUCKS vote.

 

[Orange Crush]

With Chairman Mao and Karl Marx selected, DC Thunder's group can now be nicknamed the "Pinko Draft".

I hope he keeps it up. I'd love for a couple of teams to have a 'theme.'

 

[flysack]

Tim, I have to say I'm impressed with how I agree and disagree with everything you say. I'm not going to point stuff out here;, I just think you have very specific ideas that don't conform to easy cookie-cutter camps. Props.

 

[Mario Kart]

With Chairman Mao and Karl Marx selected, DC Thunder's group can now be nicknamed the "Pinko Draft".

I hope he keeps it up. I'd love for a couple of teams to have a 'theme.'

Nice idea.

 

[timschochet]

Tim, I have to say I'm impressed with how I agree and disagree with everything you say. I'm not going to point stuff out here;, I just think you have very specific ideas that don't conform to easy cookie-cutter camps. Props.

I'm no different than most people here. One reason I really enjoy the FFA is that we have an awful lot of deep thinkers here. Sure there are those who you can pretty much predict everything they're going to say, but most people here aren't like that. This is one reason I'm always defending CrossEyed and asking for his take despite the fact that I pretty much disagree with everything he says. Within the specific parameters of his viewpoint (which is a literal interpretation of the Bible) he is a very thoughtful guy.

 

[John Maddens Lunchbox]

Sorry, didn't get a chance to log in yesterday.

3.08--Karl Marx-Philosopher/Intellectual

Marx was going to be my next pick. I would have put him in the villain category. This is what I was referring to when I said that the pen is mightier than the sword. His ideas have caused more misery and suffering for more people than have come from any other source in world history. He is my #1 villain.I'm glad to see Washington taken too. I would have put him in the leader category.

I've got to ask you about the Penis Mightier?

 

[timschochet]

Kind of making a snap pick ... no write-up until late Monday at best:

3.09 - George Washington, Rebel

In many ways, the American Revolution was the most successful revolution ever. There were many in that Revolution who had clearer ideas and were better at articulating them. But if not for Washington, it would not have held together. And his willingness to give up power, when he could have been reelected, mark him as one of the greatest of all time. That willingness, is probably only rivaled by that of XXXXXXX.

I really don't think this gets enough play terms of world history. It is such a unique action, probably the greatest single decision by an American president in our history. The main complaint by world leaders throughout the last 200+ years about America is the 4 year election rule prevents them from doing long range planning in regards to our country. This has always been our greatest strength.Interestingly enough, one of the few changes the Confederacy made to their Constitution was to weaken the Presidency even further by giving it a single, 6 year term. Yet, they also chose to strengthen it by giving the President line item veto power. Both of these ideas have always been fascinating to me, and I've often wondered if the Confederates weren't right on both counts...

 

[larry_boy_44]

A couple of interesting picks... Not sure what to think about Marx, his influence is obviously hugely significant in the 20th century as was noted; however, as also was noted his ideas have widely been discredited in practice.

I wouldn't say this is entirely true. Marxist ideas have been very successful and humanitarian when applied within capitalist systems. This is why he's still so studied in universities around the globe, but especially in America and France. Communism was attributed more to Lenin and Mao than Marx, who was more of an intellectual inspiration than a founding father type. Basically, Marx gets a lot of bad credit because of Lenin, Stalin and Mao - three guys who misapplied his principles and ideas to make totalitarian states. Marx himself would have been their largest critic. Contrary to popular opinion, Marx believed capitalism was very necessary. You needed its power to develop a state of exuberant capital wealth, which then could could be distributed in egalitarian ways by crediting labor as much as finance and management. Some scholars (though not in the majority) believe one of the reasons the Soviets failed is because they didn't go through a necessary state of capitalism first - they tried to imitate its wealth generating power by using direct state control of the economy. Even Marx predicted this would fail. In terms of worker's rights and fair pay for labor and the criticism of the inherit need for capitalism to exploit workers, Marx was a saint. It's a shame he's been vilified in the West by associations he himself never engaged. In terms of the global influence of his ideas, I had him as my #1 Intellectual. EDIT: there's only other person person I can think of who's been as influential.

There is nothing quite like the girl you lusted after in high school.

Or the seduction of oversimplification.

If you're not a Marxist before age 25, there is something wrong with your heart. If you are a Marxist after 25, there is something wrong with your head.

I like the thought of what Marxist wanted to happen....but I realize its impossible...what does that make me? lol

 

[larry_boy_44]

Sorry, didn't get a chance to log in yesterday.

3.08--Karl Marx-Philosopher/Intellectual

Marx was going to be my next pick. I would have put him in the villain category. This is what I was referring to when I said that the pen is mightier than the sword. His ideas have caused more misery and suffering for more people than have come from any other source in world history. He is my #1 villain.I'm glad to see Washington taken too. I would have put him in the leader category.

I"m not sure its really fair to blame the problems of Russia and China on Marx...

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, didn't get a chance to log in yesterday.

3.08--Karl Marx-Philosopher/Intellectual

Marx was going to be my next pick. I would have put him in the villain category. This is what I was referring to when I said that the pen is mightier than the sword. His ideas have caused more misery and suffering for more people than have come from any other source in world history. He is my #1 villain.I'm glad to see Washington taken too. I would have put him in the leader category.

I"m not sure its really fair to blame the problems of Russia and China on Marx...

It absolutely is. You break it, you buy it. Those two governments adapted his moral code as their means of governing: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. All of their suffering stems from this idea.

 

[Mario Kart]

Same here, I wake up to find myself double sniped.Back to the drawing board, I'll have a pick in soon.No PM...

~2.5 hours later.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Sorry, didn't get a chance to log in yesterday.

3.08--Karl Marx-Philosopher/Intellectual

Marx was going to be my next pick. I would have put him in the villain category. This is what I was referring to when I said that the pen is mightier than the sword. His ideas have caused more misery and suffering for more people than have come from any other source in world history. He is my #1 villain.I'm glad to see Washington taken too. I would have put him in the leader category.

I"m not sure its really fair to blame the problems of Russia and China on Marx...

It absolutely is. You break it, you buy it. Those two governments adapted his moral code as their means of governing: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. All of their suffering stems from this idea.

No they didn't... They pretended to...They used Marx's ideals to pacify the masses by promising them that all would be taken care of when, really, all they did was keep everything for themselves... (at least in Russia's case, who knows what Is really happening in China, although they don't seem to much different)

 

[mad sweeney]

I'm going to toss a name in the ring for one of the top spots in the inventor class.

3.10 James Watt Inventor

The brilliant Scot who transformed the steam engine into an efficient device that was instrumental in ushering in the Industrial Revolution. He did not invent the steam engine, rather he took an inefficient design and made it drastically more practical. The steam engine as it was when he began his work on it used boiling water and a stream of cold water to produce steam. This process cooled the boiling water which then had to be re-heated, wasting as much as 80% of the heat used in the process. He developed two gigantic advancements that revolutionized the world. His most important patent was the external condenser which allowed the source water to stay at it's heated temperature in a separate chamber. He then continued to improve the engine by adding valves to create a two way stroke, doubling the already multiply expanding power of the engine. He later started manufacturing and selling them with a financial partner in a "manufactory" which became the "factory".

Numerous other patents followed, some of which like Edison were most likely from his employees, that eventually led to the steam locomotive. Regardless of their origin, those controversial (but undisputed) patents were based on the newly efficient design of the steam engine. He coined the term "horsepower" and the "watt" as a unit of power was named after him.

Over the next six years, he made a number of other improvements and modifications to the steam engine. A double acting engine, in which the steam acted alternately on the two sides of the piston was one. A throttle valve to control the power of the engine, and a centrifugal governor to keep it from "running away" were very important. He described methods for working the steam expansively. A compound engine, which connected two or more engines was described. Two more patents were granted for these in 1781 and 1782. Numerous other improvements that made for easier manufacture and installation were continually implemented. One of these included the use of the steam indicator which produced an informative plot of the pressure in the cylinder against its volume, which he kept as a trade secret. Another important invention, one of which Watt was most proud of, was the Parallel motion / three-bar linkage which was especially important in double-acting engines as it produced the straight line motion required for the cylinder rod and pump, from the connected rocking beam, whose end moves in a circular arc. This was patented in 1784. These improvements taken together produced an engine which was up to five times as efficient in its use of fuel as the Newcomen engine.

James Watt's improvements to the steam engine transformed the Newcomen engine, which had hardly changed for fifty years, and initiated a series of improvements in generating and applying power, which transformed the world of work, and was a key innovation of the Industrial Revolution. The importance of the invention can hardly be overstated--it gave us the modern world. A key feature of it was that it brought the engine out of the remote coal fields into factories where many mechanics, engineers, and even tinkerers were exposed to its virtues and limitations. It was a platform for generations of inventors to improve. It was clear to many that higher pressures produced in improved boilers would produce engines having even higher efficiency, and would lead to the revolution in transportation that was soon embodied in the locomotive and steamboat. It made possible the construction of new factories that, since they were not dependent on water power, could work the year round, and could be placed almost anywhere. Work was moved out of the cottages, resulting in economies of scale. Capital could work more efficiently, and manufacturing productivity greatly improved. It made possible the cascade of new sorts of machine tools that could be used to produce better machines, including that most remarkable of all of them, the Watt steam engine.

His inventions weren't limited to the steam engine either:

Watt continued to invent other things before and during his semi-retirement. He invented a new method of measuring distances by telescope, a device for copying letters, improvements in the oil lamp, a steam mangle and a machine for copying sculptures.

I couldn't find a complete list of the patents held by him and/or his firm, but I was holding up the draft long enough while looking. I'll try to find more later.

 

[timschochet]

Sorry, didn't get a chance to log in yesterday.

3.08--Karl Marx-Philosopher/Intellectual

Marx was going to be my next pick. I would have put him in the villain category. This is what I was referring to when I said that the pen is mightier than the sword. His ideas have caused more misery and suffering for more people than have come from any other source in world history. He is my #1 villain.I'm glad to see Washington taken too. I would have put him in the leader category.

I"m not sure its really fair to blame the problems of Russia and China on Marx...

It absolutely is. You break it, you buy it. Those two governments adapted his moral code as their means of governing: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. All of their suffering stems from this idea.

No they didn't... They pretended to...They used Marx's ideals to pacify the masses by promising them that all would be taken care of when, really, all they did was keep everything for themselves... (at least in Russia's case, who knows what Is really happening in China, although they don't seem to much different)

My point is, what you just described is the inevitable result. One of them. And in the case of Russia, collectivism certainly was tried. Stalin forced it upon the Ukraine. See how that worked out.

 

[Abrantes]

I'm going to toss a name in the ring for one of the top spots in the inventor class.

3.10 James Watt Inventor

Great pick. Thanks for making my next decision easier.

 

[larry_boy_44]

Marx was going to be my next pick. I would have put him in the villain category. This is what I was referring to when I said that the pen is mightier than the sword. His ideas have caused more misery and suffering for more people than have come from any other source in world history. He is my #1 villain.

I'm glad to see Washington taken too. I would have put him in the leader category.

I"m not sure its really fair to blame the problems of Russia and China on Marx...

It absolutely is. You break it, you buy it. Those two governments adapted his moral code as their means of governing: from each according to his ability, to each according to his need. All of their suffering stems from this idea.

No they didn't... They pretended to...They used Marx's ideals to pacify the masses by promising them that all would be taken care of when, really, all they did was keep everything for themselves... (at least in Russia's case, who knows what Is really happening in China, although they don't seem to much different)

My point is, what you just described is the inevitable result. One of them. And in the case of Russia, collectivism certainly was tried. Stalin forced it upon the Ukraine. See how that worked out.

like I said, you are blaming the evils of Stalin on the ideals of Marx and that makes no sense...What Marx suggested is a nice ideal... but its not a functional system, because men are evil and will take advantage for themselves...

But that doesn't mean Marx's ideals are evil...

 

[the moops]

I like the thought of what Marxist wanted to happen....but I realize its impossible...what does that make me? lol

Someone who gives up too easily?Nothing is worse than a man who tosses aside his ideals because they seem too difficult to achieve.

 

[thatguy]

I agree with Larry here.

 

[timschochet]

like I said, you are blaming the evils of Stalin on the ideals of Marx and that makes no sense...

What Marx suggested is a nice ideal... but its not a functional system, because men are evil and will take advantage for themselves...

But that doesn't mean Marx's ideals are evil...

My whole point is that they are, Larry. They are evil, and in fact they represent the root of all evil in mankind, IMO- collectivism. If you do not believe this, then we disagree, what more can I say?Watt is an excellent pick.

 

[Fennis]

like I said, you are blaming the evils of Stalin on the ideals of Marx and that makes no sense...

What Marx suggested is a nice ideal... but its not a functional system, because men are evil and will take advantage for themselves...

But that doesn't mean Marx's ideals are evil...

My whole point is that they are, Larry. They are evil, and in fact they represent the root of all evil in mankind, IMO- collectivism. If you do not believe this, then we disagree, what more can I say?Watt is an excellent pick.

Collectivism is the root of all evil? Wow.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I like the thought of what Marxist wanted to happen....but I realize its impossible...what does that make me? lol

Someone who gives up too easily?Nothing is worse than a man who tosses aside his ideals because they seem too difficult to achieve.

actually using Marx's ideals isn't difficult, its literally impossible...

 

[Abrantes]

like I said, you are blaming the evils of Stalin on the ideals of Marx and that makes no sense...

What Marx suggested is a nice ideal... but its not a functional system, because men are evil and will take advantage for themselves...

But that doesn't mean Marx's ideals are evil...

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions ideals.

 

[thatguy]

like I said, you are blaming the evils of Stalin on the ideals of Marx and that makes no sense...

What Marx suggested is a nice ideal... but its not a functional system, because men are evil and will take advantage for themselves...

But that doesn't mean Marx's ideals are evil...

My whole point is that they are, Larry. They are evil, and in fact they represent the root of all evil in mankind, IMO- collectivism. If you do not believe this, then we disagree, what more can I say?Watt is an excellent pick.

Collectivism is the root of all evil? Wow.

You have to consider the source here. He has Atlas Shrugged memorized.

 

[larry_boy_44]

like I said, you are blaming the evils of Stalin on the ideals of Marx and that makes no sense...

What Marx suggested is a nice ideal... but its not a functional system, because men are evil and will take advantage for themselves...

But that doesn't mean Marx's ideals are evil...

My whole point is that they are, Larry. They are evil, and in fact they represent the root of all evil in mankind, IMO- collectivism. If you do not believe this, then we disagree, what more can I say?Watt is an excellent pick.

collectivism is the root of all evil? WTF?GREED is the root of all evil, and the whole reason Marxism doesn't work...

At our BEST, we would be collectivist because we WOULD all live for eachother... The reason that Marx's ideas don't work is because all it takes is one person to decide to be selfish in the society and it all comes crumbling down...

but it doesn't fall because of collectivism and caring for other people... it falls because of GREED...

I mean, seriously, do you really think caring for your fellow man is the ultimate evil in society? Because that's kinda what you're saying...

 

[Fennis]

like I said, you are blaming the evils of Stalin on the ideals of Marx and that makes no sense...

What Marx suggested is a nice ideal... but its not a functional system, because men are evil and will take advantage for themselves...

But that doesn't mean Marx's ideals are evil...

My whole point is that they are, Larry. They are evil, and in fact they represent the root of all evil in mankind, IMO- collectivism. If you do not believe this, then we disagree, what more can I say?Watt is an excellent pick.

Collectivism is the root of all evil? Wow.

You have to consider the source here. He has Atlas Shrugged memorized.

 

[larry_boy_44]

like I said, you are blaming the evils of Stalin on the ideals of Marx and that makes no sense...

What Marx suggested is a nice ideal... but its not a functional system, because men are evil and will take advantage for themselves...

But that doesn't mean Marx's ideals are evil...

My whole point is that they are, Larry. They are evil, and in fact they represent the root of all evil in mankind, IMO- collectivism. If you do not believe this, then we disagree, what more can I say?Watt is an excellent pick.

Collectivism is the root of all evil? Wow.

You have to consider the source here. He has Atlas Shrugged memorized.

I bought that book (don't remember why)...should I be glad I never even attempted to read it once I realized how long it was?

 

[thatguy]

I think the problem is that Tim is looking at this from the standpoint of we already live in an imperfect world whereas Larry and others are talking purely in terms of ideals and applying said ideals to an ideal society in which greed plays no factor.

If you accept greed as inevitable, then it is easier to look at Marx and call his ideas evil. However, if you accept greed as the ultimate evil, then you can look at Marx's ideas as idealistic but imperfect in practice.

 

[Abrantes]

like I said, you are blaming the evils of Stalin on the ideals of Marx and that makes no sense...

What Marx suggested is a nice ideal... but its not a functional system, because men are evil and will take advantage for themselves...

But that doesn't mean Marx's ideals are evil...

My whole point is that they are, Larry. They are evil, and in fact they represent the root of all evil in mankind, IMO- collectivism. If you do not believe this, then we disagree, what more can I say?Watt is an excellent pick.

collectivism is the root of all evil? WTF?GREED is the root of all evil, and the whole reason Marxism doesn't work...

At our BEST, we would be collectivist because we WOULD all live for eachother... The reason that Marx's ideas don't work is because all it takes is one person to decide to be selfish in the society and it all comes crumbling down...

but it doesn't fall because of collectivism and caring for other people... it falls because of GREED...

I mean, seriously, do you really think caring for your fellow man is the ultimate evil in society? Because that's kinda what you're saying...

I don't necessarily agree with either side here, but that's a pretty massive logical leap there.For the record, I don't see either collectivism or greed as inherently evil. That's just silly.

 

[timschochet]

collectivism is the root of all evil? WTF?

GREED is the root of all evil, and the whole reason Marxism doesn't work...

At our BEST, we would be collectivist because we WOULD all live for eachother... The reason that Marx's ideas don't work is because all it takes is one person to decide to be selfish in the society and it all comes crumbling down...

but it doesn't fall because of collectivism and caring for other people... it falls because of GREED...

I mean, seriously, do you really think caring for your fellow man is the ultimate evil in society? Because that's kinda what you're saying...

Altruism, from which collectivism springs, is NOT "caring for your fellow man." Altruism is placing the interests of your fellow man above your own. And yes, I believe it is the root of all evil, not greed, and I have always believed this in some fashion or another. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged served to explain to me what I already knew deep inside to be true. Both of those books are greatly flawed, and I agree with much of the criticism made against their author. But this essential element is why I continue to consider them so important: because they are the first books that I have read that suggested that man should not live for God, or for other men, or for the state; man should live for himself.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I think the problem is that Tim is looking at this from the standpoint of we already live in an imperfect world whereas Larry and others are talking purely in terms of ideals and applying said ideals to an ideal society in which greed plays no factor.If you accept greed as inevitable, then it is easier to look at Marx and call his ideas evil. However, if you accept greed as the ultimate evil, then you can look at Marx's ideas as idealistic but imperfect in practice.

no, because I see the world as imperfect, too... Heck, I probably believe it more than Tim does...I just don't see how everyone being taken care of is evil... I honestly don't...is it impossible? Yes... But it wasn't the desire to have everyone taken care of that caused mass genocide to happen... That was greed that caused that to happen...

 

[thatguy]

collectivism is the root of all evil? WTF?

GREED is the root of all evil, and the whole reason Marxism doesn't work...

At our BEST, we would be collectivist because we WOULD all live for eachother... The reason that Marx's ideas don't work is because all it takes is one person to decide to be selfish in the society and it all comes crumbling down...

but it doesn't fall because of collectivism and caring for other people... it falls because of GREED...

I mean, seriously, do you really think caring for your fellow man is the ultimate evil in society? Because that's kinda what you're saying...

Altruism, from which collectivism springs, is NOT "caring for your fellow man." Altruism is placing the interests of your fellow man above your own. And yes, I believe it is the root of all evil, not greed, and I have always believed this in some fashion or another. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged served to explain to me what I already knew deep inside to be true. Both of those books are greatly flawed, and I agree with much of the criticism made against their author. But this essential element is why I continue to consider them so important: because they are the first books that I have read that suggested that man should not live for God, or for other men, or for the state; man should live for himself.

But obviously if you take this to the extreme, there is no care for the elderly, the sick, and the handicapped. Now I know, you can make the argument that we care for them because it serves our own self interest, but you get my point. It is important that a balance be found. Rand is far too extreme.

 

[thatguy]

I think the problem is that Tim is looking at this from the standpoint of we already live in an imperfect world whereas Larry and others are talking purely in terms of ideals and applying said ideals to an ideal society in which greed plays no factor.If you accept greed as inevitable, then it is easier to look at Marx and call his ideas evil. However, if you accept greed as the ultimate evil, then you can look at Marx's ideas as idealistic but imperfect in practice.

no, because I see the world as imperfect, too... Heck, I probably believe it more than Tim does...I just don't see how everyone being taken care of is evil... I honestly don't...is it impossible? Yes... But it wasn't the desire to have everyone taken care of that caused mass genocide to happen... That was greed that caused that to happen...

I think you're missing my point, but I won't illuminate it further because it's a difficult point to make in words.

 

[larry_boy_44]

collectivism is the root of all evil? WTF?

GREED is the root of all evil, and the whole reason Marxism doesn't work...

At our BEST, we would be collectivist because we WOULD all live for eachother... The reason that Marx's ideas don't work is because all it takes is one person to decide to be selfish in the society and it all comes crumbling down...

but it doesn't fall because of collectivism and caring for other people... it falls because of GREED...

I mean, seriously, do you really think caring for your fellow man is the ultimate evil in society? Because that's kinda what you're saying...

Altruism, from which collectivism springs, is NOT "caring for your fellow man." Altruism is placing the interests of your fellow man above your own. And yes, I believe it is the root of all evil, not greed, and I have always believed this in some fashion or another. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged served to explain to me what I already knew deep inside to be true. Both of those books are greatly flawed, and I agree with much of the criticism made against their author. But this essential element is why I continue to consider them so important: because they are the first books that I have read that suggested that man should not live for God, or for other men, or for the state; man should live for himself.

so you actually, honestly think that selfishness is ideal and altruism is evil?HTF does that even begin to make sense?

taking everything for yourself AT THE EXPENSE of others is evil... giving yourself to others for the good of everyone (or them or whatever) is good...

I honestly can't even begin to come up with any reasoning that would make selfishness seem like a good thing and altruism, charity, and love a bad thing...

 

[timschochet]

I think the problem is that Tim is looking at this from the standpoint of we already live in an imperfect world whereas Larry and others are talking purely in terms of ideals and applying said ideals to an ideal society in which greed plays no factor.If you accept greed as inevitable, then it is easier to look at Marx and call his ideas evil. However, if you accept greed as the ultimate evil, then you can look at Marx's ideas as idealistic but imperfect in practice.

I do not look at greed as inevitable. But I do look at men acting in their own self-interest as not only inevitable but desirable, and that is why Marx's ideals are, even in a perfect world, evil.

 

[thatguy]

collectivism is the root of all evil? WTF?

GREED is the root of all evil, and the whole reason Marxism doesn't work...

At our BEST, we would be collectivist because we WOULD all live for eachother... The reason that Marx's ideas don't work is because all it takes is one person to decide to be selfish in the society and it all comes crumbling down...

but it doesn't fall because of collectivism and caring for other people... it falls because of GREED...

I mean, seriously, do you really think caring for your fellow man is the ultimate evil in society? Because that's kinda what you're saying...

Altruism, from which collectivism springs, is NOT "caring for your fellow man." Altruism is placing the interests of your fellow man above your own. And yes, I believe it is the root of all evil, not greed, and I have always believed this in some fashion or another. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged served to explain to me what I already knew deep inside to be true. Both of those books are greatly flawed, and I agree with much of the criticism made against their author. But this essential element is why I continue to consider them so important: because they are the first books that I have read that suggested that man should not live for God, or for other men, or for the state; man should live for himself.

so you actually, honestly think that selfishness is ideal and altruism is evil?HTF does that even begin to make sense?

taking everything for yourself AT THE EXPENSE of others is evil... giving yourself to others for the good of everyone (or them or whatever) is good...

I honestly can't even begin to come up with any reasoning that would make selfishness seem like a good thing and altruism, charity, and love a bad thing...

Again, Tim is looking at this in terms of what is best for society. You're looking at this in terms of what you believe to be inherently good.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I mean, really, Tim...

you realize that according to your theory that Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha are evil and Stalin and Hitler are good, right?

Stalin and Hitler were selfish and power-hungry...

Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha were altruistic and supported charity and love and peace...

purely by what you say, the evil men are good and the good men are evil...

 

[thatguy]

I mean, really, Tim...you realize that according to your theory that Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha are evil and Stalin and Hitler are good, right?Stalin and Hitler were selfish and power-hungry...Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha were altruistic and supported charity and love and peace...purely by what you say, the evil men are good and the good men are evil...

This isn't what he's saying, though. He's not okaying crime against others. That is the one caveat to Rand's theory of acting in our own self interest. It's like the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm.

 

[timschochet]

collectivism is the root of all evil? WTF?

GREED is the root of all evil, and the whole reason Marxism doesn't work...

At our BEST, we would be collectivist because we WOULD all live for eachother... The reason that Marx's ideas don't work is because all it takes is one person to decide to be selfish in the society and it all comes crumbling down...

but it doesn't fall because of collectivism and caring for other people... it falls because of GREED...

I mean, seriously, do you really think caring for your fellow man is the ultimate evil in society? Because that's kinda what you're saying...

Altruism, from which collectivism springs, is NOT "caring for your fellow man." Altruism is placing the interests of your fellow man above your own. And yes, I believe it is the root of all evil, not greed, and I have always believed this in some fashion or another. The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged served to explain to me what I already knew deep inside to be true. Both of those books are greatly flawed, and I agree with much of the criticism made against their author. But this essential element is why I continue to consider them so important: because they are the first books that I have read that suggested that man should not live for God, or for other men, or for the state; man should live for himself.

But obviously if you take this to the extreme, there is no care for the elderly, the sick, and the handicapped. Now I know, you can make the argument that we care for them because it serves our own self interest, but you get my point. It is important that a balance be found. Rand is far too extreme.

I agree with you, thatguy, which is why I suggested she is flawed. I don't want to live in a world where the elderly, sick, handicapped, etc, are not cared for. She is too extreme. HOWEVER, her main point that at the base of our moral ideas should be man's rational self-interest instead of the interest of the collective; this is the idea that I have always found compelling.

 

[larry_boy_44]

I mean, really, Tim...you realize that according to your theory that Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha are evil and Stalin and Hitler are good, right?Stalin and Hitler were selfish and power-hungry...Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha were altruistic and supported charity and love and peace...purely by what you say, the evil men are good and the good men are evil...

This isn't what he's saying, though. He's not okaying crime against others. That is the one caveat to Rand's theory of acting in our own self interest. It's like the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm.

the problem is that, by definition, is un-selfish and the opposite of what he is holding as his ideal...

 

[Mario Kart]

3/22/09

8. DC Thunder - Karl Marx

9. Doug B - George Washington

10. Mad Sweeney - James Watt

11. Big Rocks - TURN TO PICK

12. higgins - ON DECK

13. John Madden's Lunchbox - IN THE HOLE

14. Usual21

15. thatguy

16. Andy Dufresne

 

[thatguy]

I mean, really, Tim...you realize that according to your theory that Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha are evil and Stalin and Hitler are good, right?Stalin and Hitler were selfish and power-hungry...Jesus, Ghandi, and Buddha were altruistic and supported charity and love and peace...purely by what you say, the evil men are good and the good men are evil...

This isn't what he's saying, though. He's not okaying crime against others. That is the one caveat to Rand's theory of acting in our own self interest. It's like the Hippocratic Oath: first, do no harm.

the problem is that, by definition, is un-selfish and the opposite of what he is holding as his ideal...

Well, in theory, the two can be separated. In truth, not so much, which is another reason Rand's philosophy is not without flaws.

 

[Fennis]

The entire premise is incorrect. Neither individualism nor collectivism is the root of all evil. I am reading this argument the same as if someone said the blue sky is the root of evil.