TTI Forums

From what I've read in your forums and youtube videos, the general mass of TTI is not perticulary wealthy, when being compred to the CEO's of big businesses and such (my apoligies for any offence this might cause). So the question I ask, why go for objectivism ? Surely it would be more in your interest for a more socialist society, so you can be looked after if things get bad for your self (particualy if you all share the self - intrest mindset). Its obvioius why objectivism may be supported by those who are very wealthy and can look after themselves but please help me to understand where the mass majority of you would advocate a pure capitalistic society with no social saftey net, most of you rational people will realise that even though success stories of average income people becoming very wealthy exsit, its very rare and will most likely not happen to you. Please help me to understand.

plx wrote:So the question I ask, why go for Objectivism? Surely it would be more in your interest for a more socialist society, so you can be looked after if things get bad for your self.

It is not all about the money. Yeah wealth is a nice thing. And I do not want to have my wealth siphoned away by anyone who thinks they know how to spend it better than I do.

Fountain Head actually has a nice passage in the beginning of the book, where Roark pulls a branch from a tree. And he illustrates that the creative mind can transform the natural world into a variety of objects that can can be harnessed to achieve our goals. To me Objectivism is about maintaining the capacity to transform the natural world into objects that add to my pleasure and well being.

So my question, with mobs of Communists and civil servants rioting in the streets of Greece because the government has exsanguinated the populous... What makes you think you'll be looked after when the chips are down? To me we are both walking the “high wire” of life, you may think there is a net. Which of us will try harder to stay on the wire?

plx wrote:From what I've read in your forums and youtube videos, the general mass of TTI is not perticulary wealthy, when being compred to the CEO's of big businesses and such (my apoligies for any offence this might cause). So the question I ask, why go for objectivism ? Surely it would be more in your interest for a more socialist society, so you can be looked after if things get bad for your self (particualy if you all share the self - intrest mindset). Its obvioius why objectivism may be supported by those who are very wealthy and can look after themselves but please help me to understand where the mass majority of you would advocate a pure capitalistic society with no social saftey net, most of you rational people will realise that even though success stories of average income people becoming very wealthy exsit, its very rare and will most likely not happen to you. Please help me to understand.

I completely agree with you. I wish to force the wealthy to pay for my safety through tax laws, because I have no qualms about taking money from others forcefully if it's to my own benefit.

Problem over here in the UK is that the safety net of Social Benifit quickly becomes the Trawling net of the lazy & work shy. Its getting to the point that there are households of 3+ generations where nobody has worked, but their all experts at milking the system.

So yes, I object to by Taxes going towards this.

Kaelan wrote:Its getting to the point that there are households of 3+ generations where nobody has worked, but their all experts at milking the system.

Yep you get more of whatever you subsidize, in this case subsidized dependents upon the dole.

I'm disapointed. I thought this thread would be far more entertaining by now.

Feeding trolls is my selfless duty.

This question could have been intended as a troll or a flame, but I considered it as an honest question. Basically it is a variant of Pascal’s Wager

“… a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose.”

In Pascal’s wager the alternative was eternal damnation, so in theory any worldly price of faith should be considered a bargain. Of course all those poor sods that shortened their lives in the name of religion might differ if in fact the promises of their particular brand of religion does/did not come true in the end.

In this instance "Slavery w/ the empty promise of social security" vs. Self Reliance. The distinctions are not as clear cut. With Pascal’s Wager you might expect nearly everyone to register towards the God Option. In the Slavery Wager I’d expect a broad spread across the continuum of possibilities.

Oleksandr wrote:Feeding trolls is my selfless duty.

I lol'd

I just love how what might have been a troll became a reasonable discussion, where someone could reasonably expect to learn something. Hope I get to play along side you guys, you continue to impress me.