The Rabid Rabbit - Entry #268 : Capitalism.
So, last week I finished this book (have yet to write the paper) for an essay. The book was called "Atlas Shrugged," by Ayn Rand.
Now, the first 500 pages of the book were expose. I hated that. I really, really hated. Yes, the author tied in everything very well in the end, I will admit, but even so, I don't care how long your book is, it shouldn't take 500 pages to set up the scene. If that much stuff happened that needs to be known, start the book earlier, so that the reader is present when these things happen. You shouldnt have half the book being "oh, btw, you also need to know this."
Now, getting on to what I really wanted to discuss: the philosophy presented in the book. I agree with this book's philosophy in it's entirety, only I had never really seen it put into words as concrete as this. This book basically states what is wrong with the majority of peoples morals, and how this effects everything. And I mean everything in its basic, most literal sense. Everything is affected by it.
Before you start attacking me about "what do you mean I'm immoral," here me out.
Charity is something that people have held on to as a solemn virtue for ages, and charity is what destroys the world. Now, first off charity and giving are two different things. Charity means without expectation of something in return. It is akin to sacrifice. Giving is simply giving to another.
What charity does is put "need" and "want" over "earned." This is the reason socialism and communism will never work in the real world. Socialism and communism work in a world that is infinite, with unlimited rescoures and where "how" is not an issue. However, the world is finite. Everything has a limit. What's more, everyone has "needs" and everyone has "wants." In a world where everyone needs something that there is only X amount of, how do you distinguish who gets what? It cannot be based on need, because everyone needs it. Thus, one must earn his possessions.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The book did a wonderful job of summarizing into a sentence what the majority of the world holds as a moral truth. But this is robbery. The book illustrates this best: a company puts this plan into motion. All their workers would be "like one big family" with each being his brother's keeper. This seems like it would create utopia, but it doesnt. It destroys it. What happens is a man who works his heart out recives no more than the man who is unable to work at all. This mutates rewarding the earned to rewarding the unearned. Men begin to realize that no matter how hard they work, they are equal to the man who does not work at all, and his efforts are wasted. A man who excells sees the fruits of his labor seized for the benefit of the "public." By the defining actions of what has just happened, the man who excells is not part of the public. He is not recieving benefits of "the public." What happens is the people who make things possible, the people who have the ingenuity to produce (whatever it is they produce) are not part of the "public." This man begins to see the only way he can be part of the community labled "public" is to surrender to mediocracy. So he does so. He stops producing to be part of the public. Then those on the step below him on the ladder of life become the producers. But the same happens to them. Then the next abled body and the next abled body, until the public is no one at all.
This is charity.
Now, you may say "but the man cannot support himself, he must not be left to die." You are correct, he must not be left to die, but you cannot expect another man to die for him. That man's death will not save him, but merely delay the inevitable. After an able man dies for an unable man, does the unable man become able? No, thus he must sacrifice another able man to his inability. Inability then becomes murder. This is the same mental sentiment of the cannibals who believe they gain their enemy's strength and intelligence by ingesting his flesh. It is the same as a homonoculi murdering human in an attempt to gain a soul.
There are many positions in this world; some men will excell and make a fortune for what they do, others will be simple laborers and such. But that is the way it must work. If you keep taking from the rich, there will be no more rich. You cannot aspire to be great when you punish greatness. It doesn't work. You become a living hypocracy.
"People cannot gain anything without giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. This is the principle of equivalent trade." FMA also deals with this morality, as you may have noticed by my mention of a homonoculi. You cannot take without giving, and you should not give with the expectation getting nothing in return.
Do not confuse this with materialism. If you give a homeless man a dollar and have gotten nothing, you have sinned. If you give a homeless man a dollar and walked away gaining the knowledge that you may have fed his children who might one day be great producers themselves, you have gained something, you have done a moral thing. You have traded a value for a value.
This applies to all aspects of life. And I believe this is one of the reasons religion is hard for me.
I cannot accept the concept of Original Sin. The book also touched on this, and it was like clearing a haze from which I had been looking through. I realized this is why I had been agnostic my whole life. I cannot believe in a religion that says the fact that I am human is a sin. What separates humans from animals? Yes- we are physiologically the same, but I what makes *us* human and *them* animals? Our capacity of knowledge. No other animal on earth can do what we do. If we found civilized life on another planet, would we not consider them people? Would they not be human, even though they are not homo sapiens?
It is our capacity of knowledge that makes us "human." It is human capability to produce that keeps us from becoming animals who roam the earth eating each other, living by blind instinct. It is production, which comes from our knowledge, that makes us human. I cannot accept morality that states the act of knowledge, and thus human existance, is sin. That would mean the only way to be innocent is to not exist. I will not accept a morality that holds death as an ideal.
There is a lot more that I wanted to talk about, but I think this is enough. I really do wish to discuss this, so all you people who claim to read my journal but never comment, I am challenging you. Any questions you have or loopholes you think you may have found, post it. I dare you. ^_~
~Selena
Now, the first 500 pages of the book were expose. I hated that. I really, really hated. Yes, the author tied in everything very well in the end, I will admit, but even so, I don't care how long your book is, it shouldn't take 500 pages to set up the scene. If that much stuff happened that needs to be known, start the book earlier, so that the reader is present when these things happen. You shouldnt have half the book being "oh, btw, you also need to know this."
Now, getting on to what I really wanted to discuss: the philosophy presented in the book. I agree with this book's philosophy in it's entirety, only I had never really seen it put into words as concrete as this. This book basically states what is wrong with the majority of peoples morals, and how this effects everything. And I mean everything in its basic, most literal sense. Everything is affected by it.
Before you start attacking me about "what do you mean I'm immoral," here me out.
Charity is something that people have held on to as a solemn virtue for ages, and charity is what destroys the world. Now, first off charity and giving are two different things. Charity means without expectation of something in return. It is akin to sacrifice. Giving is simply giving to another.
What charity does is put "need" and "want" over "earned." This is the reason socialism and communism will never work in the real world. Socialism and communism work in a world that is infinite, with unlimited rescoures and where "how" is not an issue. However, the world is finite. Everything has a limit. What's more, everyone has "needs" and everyone has "wants." In a world where everyone needs something that there is only X amount of, how do you distinguish who gets what? It cannot be based on need, because everyone needs it. Thus, one must earn his possessions.
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." The book did a wonderful job of summarizing into a sentence what the majority of the world holds as a moral truth. But this is robbery. The book illustrates this best: a company puts this plan into motion. All their workers would be "like one big family" with each being his brother's keeper. This seems like it would create utopia, but it doesnt. It destroys it. What happens is a man who works his heart out recives no more than the man who is unable to work at all. This mutates rewarding the earned to rewarding the unearned. Men begin to realize that no matter how hard they work, they are equal to the man who does not work at all, and his efforts are wasted. A man who excells sees the fruits of his labor seized for the benefit of the "public." By the defining actions of what has just happened, the man who excells is not part of the public. He is not recieving benefits of "the public." What happens is the people who make things possible, the people who have the ingenuity to produce (whatever it is they produce) are not part of the "public." This man begins to see the only way he can be part of the community labled "public" is to surrender to mediocracy. So he does so. He stops producing to be part of the public. Then those on the step below him on the ladder of life become the producers. But the same happens to them. Then the next abled body and the next abled body, until the public is no one at all.
This is charity.
Now, you may say "but the man cannot support himself, he must not be left to die." You are correct, he must not be left to die, but you cannot expect another man to die for him. That man's death will not save him, but merely delay the inevitable. After an able man dies for an unable man, does the unable man become able? No, thus he must sacrifice another able man to his inability. Inability then becomes murder. This is the same mental sentiment of the cannibals who believe they gain their enemy's strength and intelligence by ingesting his flesh. It is the same as a homonoculi murdering human in an attempt to gain a soul.
There are many positions in this world; some men will excell and make a fortune for what they do, others will be simple laborers and such. But that is the way it must work. If you keep taking from the rich, there will be no more rich. You cannot aspire to be great when you punish greatness. It doesn't work. You become a living hypocracy.
"People cannot gain anything without giving something in return. To obtain, something of equal value must be lost. This is the principle of equivalent trade." FMA also deals with this morality, as you may have noticed by my mention of a homonoculi. You cannot take without giving, and you should not give with the expectation getting nothing in return.
Do not confuse this with materialism. If you give a homeless man a dollar and have gotten nothing, you have sinned. If you give a homeless man a dollar and walked away gaining the knowledge that you may have fed his children who might one day be great producers themselves, you have gained something, you have done a moral thing. You have traded a value for a value.
This applies to all aspects of life. And I believe this is one of the reasons religion is hard for me.
I cannot accept the concept of Original Sin. The book also touched on this, and it was like clearing a haze from which I had been looking through. I realized this is why I had been agnostic my whole life. I cannot believe in a religion that says the fact that I am human is a sin. What separates humans from animals? Yes- we are physiologically the same, but I what makes *us* human and *them* animals? Our capacity of knowledge. No other animal on earth can do what we do. If we found civilized life on another planet, would we not consider them people? Would they not be human, even though they are not homo sapiens?
It is our capacity of knowledge that makes us "human." It is human capability to produce that keeps us from becoming animals who roam the earth eating each other, living by blind instinct. It is production, which comes from our knowledge, that makes us human. I cannot accept morality that states the act of knowledge, and thus human existance, is sin. That would mean the only way to be innocent is to not exist. I will not accept a morality that holds death as an ideal.
There is a lot more that I wanted to talk about, but I think this is enough. I really do wish to discuss this, so all you people who claim to read my journal but never comment, I am challenging you. Any questions you have or loopholes you think you may have found, post it. I dare you. ^_~
~Selena