>
>
> Haphaestus wrote:
>
> > "chardin" <chardin@uabid.dom.uab.edu> wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > >The philosophy of Ayn Rand and her ilk, if I
> > >understand it correctly, would applaud Hitler for gassing all those
> > >useless mentally retarded children--aren't they just taking up
> > >resources that our brighter kids could use?
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Drawing on what I know of her philosophy (which, like you, I find
> > better expressed in her novels than in her other writings), I think that she
> > would applaud the use of individuals as livestock / resources.
>
> Wrong! Individuals are not resources but "ends in and of themselves" !
>
> > That is the
> > essence of capitalism (ref. Marx, _Capital_).
>
> Wrong again! The essense of capitalism is Free trade and personal property!
>
> > If they had been worked to
> > death, or starved to death because they could not or would not work, it
> > wouldn't have been a problem -- *because* if they had the impetus and
> > intelligence to do so, they would have found a way out of their situation.
>
> She would have asked how are they being worked? At the point of a gun or just
> hungry and wanting to trade work for food. Don't forget the people who provide
> the work are in fact people too and not just another "resource" or "money
> object".
>
> > She would object (and probably did) to the extermination of individuals when
> > that was done as a method of garbage disposal. That would be vandalism, just
> > as slavery would be theft.
>
> No it would be treating individuals as "resources" rather than individuals that
> are ends in and of themselves. ( A side note here: She did believe in the death
> penalty for murders )
>
> > Your point on "taking up resources that our brighter kids could use"
> > is way off, however. That viewpoint is socialistic -- which she emphatically
> > was not.
Well, explain this last one a little bit more. In socialist
countries EVERYONE has a chance, i.e., a friend of mine who is very
anti-socialist because he grew up in a socialist country, nonetheless
had words of praise for the school system. His point was that the
resources were spent on all the children. It did not matter if you
lived in a fairly wealthy neighborhood where the tax base would be
good as in this country--all the children were taught math, science
and (and, of course, anti-religion) and when it came time to take class trips--all the children were
included in sking trips, etc. He is a very independant, capitalistic
ideals man and was a great admirer of Jack London and his
works--until I informed him that Jack started the Socialist Party in
this country--it almost broke his heart. Hardin
> >
> > SGK
>
> Well at least you got that last one right.The Nateman.
>
>
>