I am not asking about what Ryan's ideas were(I already know that.)I am also not asking whether or not bioshock is the same as atlas shrugged. I am simply asking how would there ideas work in real life?Flamingpenguin said:
Could Andrew Ryan have the right idea?
- Thread starter me and my dog
- Start date
Recommended Videos
The problem is all the examples and arguments you're using are bigger than rapture.meganmeave said:
There'd be no market for nuclear weapons in rapture, as even a small one would take out the entire city. Thus, no reason to make nuclear weapons. There'd be a market for nuclear research, which may end up inadvertently destroying rapture, or safes with nuclear payloads set to detonate upon any attempt at forced entry. etc etc.
Two companies with an identical core product (heroin/plasmids) would regulate each other through competition. One attempts to make their product more addictive, the other makes their product less addictive, but more satisfying. In a situation like rapture there'd be no law firms, thus, no slander. Company A puts out an addictive product. Company B can point this out, and offer their product. But then both companies eventually start saying the exact same thing, and bam, advertising becomes US politics. Except the end user would still be able to say, "A's heroin is a lot more addictive than B's. Fuck Company A."
Also, I get the allegorical links between narcotics and plasmids. Its just they don't function beyond allegory. If heroin made you shoot lightning out your ass, the link would function better. But it doesn't. Every bit of harm as a result of heroin is a side effect that could theoretically be corrected. Whereas... plasmids were weapons. Period. Their only real similarity were their entry vehicles.
Alright, you've intrigued me with your thoughts. So I'll ask you a question.Cynical skeptic said:
Why not make a nuclear weapon? Governments already do this with the idea that the nuclear weapon is "Ultimate Deterrent" meaning, if I go, you go. They have every intention of completely obliterating the planet in retaliation.
So why would an individual have any less of a problem making something that could destroy Rapture? After all, Ryan does have a self destruct, an ultimate device. Not because he's the government, but because he's the wealthiest man and has the money and power to declare, "If I can't have it, nobody can."
Personally, I believe there is just too huge a gulf between what people do, and what they should do. I'm not just talking Ryan and this mythological Rapture world, I'm talking the real world.
Finally, if you are addicted to something, you don't just say, "fuck it, I'm kicking this heroin shit." It's not so easy as all that, and you are talking about a super uber drug. Again, I will point to tobacco. There were many tobacco companies. Your scenario is simply not how they operated. In fact, most of them tried to find the best way to out addict their competitors. There were a few brands that claimed they had less nicotine, or tar, or whatever the current trend was, yet these "better for you" products did not drive the "bad" product off the market. It was the companies that said, "This here is a manly cigarette. We don't take nothing out. In fact, we put more in!" that were the most successful. Keep in mind, this is an industry already regulated that is engaging in this practice. Who knows what they would do if left to their own devices.
Cigarettes aren't the only companies that do this. Food companies spend a lot of time and research finding ways to make their food more addictive, not less. You don't hear food companies out their saying, "Our stuff tastes like crap. You won't want more. Buy us!"
And although diet brands do exist, bad for you food still outsells good for you food, even though people know it's not the best choice. You assume people will make the best choice for themselves. The best choice for someone would be to never become addicted to heroin. But they do it anyway. I should get up off my ass and exercise more, but instead I'm here escaping. People constant choose pleasure over health. I don't see how it would be any different in a Ryan/Rand world.
You may be making the mistaken assumption that I believe in strong regulation of drugs based on my statements. I don't. I think people should be allowed to fuck up their lives if they want to. But I still want some regulation to make sure things don't get out of hand. Take the FDA for instance. I would like to believe that the medications I take are safe, and have no deadly side effects, or at the very least, the side effects they have are disclosed to me. And perhaps most importantly, to make sure I am not lied to, at least not anymore than they can get away with now.
Rand/Ryan's world view assumes people won't fuck up the model society. In real life, you almost have to guarantee that people will fuck up the model society. People generally work to exploit the situation to their own benefit. These people far outweigh the saintly few who actually choose to do what's best for society as a whole.
Truthfully, for all the referances I do not think that Ayn Rand's philsophy is all that similar to that of Ryan's when you get down to the bottom line.
In theory Andrew Ryan's ideas could work, and if you pay attention to the game closely enough, they actually did. The problem was actually the fact that he had a psychotic master criminal that wanted to take over Rapture, and was working to undermine him. That combined with the simple fact that the setting was unrealistically stupid in deciding that giving people bio-engineered super abillities inside of a reverse aquarium was a good idea. A lot of people can talk about the Plasmids as a metaphor, but they are central enough to the entire concept and how the conflict came about that without them, and ADAM and EVE things never would have progressed the way that they did.
The only fundemental mistake with Ryan's philsophy before he went increasingly batty due to his battles with Fontaine, was, as one of the tapes pointed out, that any kind of capitolistic society is going to wind up with more people on the bottom than at the top. In a closed society of geniuses, that competition simply becomes more fierce since even the dregs are unusually talented. That said I think the social issues could have been resolved, if it wasn't for Fontaine.
There are similarities for sure, and we all know about the anagram name, and other symbolism, but if you know anything about Ayn Rand you'll notice a lot of differances.
I will also say that while a good game, I think Bioshock's storyline is lionized a lot more than it should be by left wingers because it happens to fit with their philsophy. One of the problems with it is that it really had to stretch things to convey it's message, and I think that hurt things. I think the developers were at times (especially in the sequel) trying too hard to make real world analogies, and spending too little time in telling their own story and keeping things realistic and consistant within it's own logic.
In theory Andrew Ryan's ideas could work, and if you pay attention to the game closely enough, they actually did. The problem was actually the fact that he had a psychotic master criminal that wanted to take over Rapture, and was working to undermine him. That combined with the simple fact that the setting was unrealistically stupid in deciding that giving people bio-engineered super abillities inside of a reverse aquarium was a good idea. A lot of people can talk about the Plasmids as a metaphor, but they are central enough to the entire concept and how the conflict came about that without them, and ADAM and EVE things never would have progressed the way that they did.
The only fundemental mistake with Ryan's philsophy before he went increasingly batty due to his battles with Fontaine, was, as one of the tapes pointed out, that any kind of capitolistic society is going to wind up with more people on the bottom than at the top. In a closed society of geniuses, that competition simply becomes more fierce since even the dregs are unusually talented. That said I think the social issues could have been resolved, if it wasn't for Fontaine.
There are similarities for sure, and we all know about the anagram name, and other symbolism, but if you know anything about Ayn Rand you'll notice a lot of differances.
I will also say that while a good game, I think Bioshock's storyline is lionized a lot more than it should be by left wingers because it happens to fit with their philsophy. One of the problems with it is that it really had to stretch things to convey it's message, and I think that hurt things. I think the developers were at times (especially in the sequel) trying too hard to make real world analogies, and spending too little time in telling their own story and keeping things realistic and consistant within it's own logic.
Ah, so pretty much one step away from anarchy then. The thing is, I would love to see it actually work, and succeed. The whole point of Bioshock is that man won't let it! Makes you wonder where Bioshock: Infinite will go with the idea. Bioshock 2 wasn't as powerful since it was trying too deliberately to have a character with an opposite to Ryans ideas, aka Lamb.psrdirector said:
All these people saying "Ayn Rand" seem to be missing the point that "me and my dog" is talking the aspects of Andrew Ryans (and thus Ayn Rands) philosophy other than those Bioshock was insulting him for, such as.
What's left of his philosphy, Individualism, can still be used alongside ideas such as a welfare state, something Ayn Rand was very much against.me and my dog said:
Go read Atlas Shrugged.
In it, you'll find COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC CHARACTERS with COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC MOTIVATIONS, leading COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC LIVES. Notice how she puts forward her arguments for objectivism (her brand of philosophy) primarily through novels instead of philosophical tomes? It's because her ideology only stacks up in her (shoddily) written novels. I mean, seriously, go read Atlas Shrugged. I got to the 10th Chapter (which I realize is not very far into the book) before I gave up in despair. It's hundreds of pages of blatant preaching, revolving around a ludicrous plot. The Fountainhead was only marginally better.
In Atlas Shrugged, every single proper businessman/businesswoman is a perfect, idealistic, wonder of power and ingenuity, completely and utterly self-made, while all those around them are completely evil or useless.
People rag on communism for being unrealistic and impractical (and right well they should), but Ayn Rand's Objectivism is just as unrealistic and impractical, not to mention contrary to human nature, for the following reason:
1) Humans are naturally collective. We form societies. We have social ladders. We elect leaders or are ruled by leaders. In every single society, there has been at least some degree of collectivisation, even in the US. This is also the reason why anarcho-primitivism can never work, because humans naturally form states and societies. Always have, always will. We'll never have a society in which only the individual matters.
2) Collectivisation is good in some ways. I am not a marxist or a maoist or even a socialist. I support capitalism somewhat. You only have to look at history to realize that communism just doesn't work. But the government, and collective efforts, can do good things. The Internet was first developed by the government. So was laser technology. Government labs were the first to build computers and the atomic bomb project would never have succeeded without direct government control. Many great public infrastructure works were created by the government. Privatization doesn't always make things more efficient - we privatized the power industry here in Queensland, Australia recently (about 5 or 6 years ago) and it has been nothing but constant price hikes and spotty service.
3) No man/woman is an island. In Ayn Rand's novels, all her heroes are COMPLETELY SELF-MADE MEN AND WOMEN, OWING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ANYONE, EVER. Such a figure does not really exist. We are always in someone's debt. Even Issac Newton, widely regarded as one of the smartest men who ever lived, stated that if he saw farther than anyone else, it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. In science, we are made well aware of the contributions of those who came before us and those who work alongside us. Einstein, Newton, Watson and Crick, all those luminaries, however smart they were, did not develop their theories in a void. The collaborated, argued, and learned from those that came before. Science is a collective effort, with each generation of scientists building on what came before. Businesses need law and order and stability, and that is only achieved by a well-funded police and army, which again means government. The only people who can truly claim to be self-made are those living in the middle of the Amazon Rainforest with no technology. As for everyone else - YOU OWE SOCIETY. WE ALL DO.
Plus, in this globalised world, we depend on other countries and we need to co-operate with them.
4) We need government. Ayn Rand hated government, but the fact of the matter is that the US would be sunk without its federal government. America secures itself in the world through its huge industrial-military complex (which republicans are so fond of). Yet such a huge, enormous military (which is about 10x larger than it needs to be by the way), requires MASSIVE government spending and MAAAAAAAASSSSIIIIVVVEEE government oversight. Republicans, strangely, never complain about this at all.
Few here would be against a public education system, yet such a system requires government. Few here would want to cut the CIA or the NSA, yet both of those agencies requires a lot of government employees.
Face it America, you want big government. Successive republican and democratic administrations have failed to cut government. Government spending grew under Carter, Reagan, Bush Snr, Clinton, W.Bush and Obama. Recently, the US government cut funding for the F-22 raptor, which was a fine jet except for the fact that it was expensive and unnecessary, yet both Democrats and Republicans cried bloody murder because it meant the loss of jobs in their states, and mid-terms are coming up.
Objectivists and conservatives are always going on and on about cutting government spending, yet when it comes to cutting things they care about, they suddenly fall silent.
No one wants the government interfering with their lives. I understand that. I certainly don't want the government to get in the way of stem-cell research. But government is necessary, and I think many Americans don't fully appreciate everything the feds do for them.
I mean, Americans want free schools, a big army, a well-trained, expansive intelligence service to protect them, they want government labs to continue to make government research, they want public police, public ambulance, public fire-fighters, yet they don't want government?!
You know what Americans? Taxes in your country are LOW. Yeah. They are. When compared to the rest of the world at least. And your salaries are high when compared to many nations in the rest of the world. You can afford to pay your taxes, provided you save and don't spend like a drunken sailor. With a few modest, easily affordable tax increases, you could have slashed crime and poverty, funded great works of public infrastructure, and developed new technologies that made your lives better and your food cheaper.
Ayn Rand's objectivism seems to be just "Hell No-ism". For someone who apparently praised logic and only logic, Rand wasn't very rational when it came to examining her own belief. If the stories are true, she was notorious for throwing complete hissy-fits if anyone dared to contradict her on even the slightest thing, and that's always the sign of a rational, stable thinker, right?
No, Rand was just as biased and irrational as anyone else that walks on this earth (and that includes me). Her philosophy doesn't work in the real world. A society run purely along her way of thinking would be disastrous, and would almost certainly default to a corporatocracy or capitalistic oligarchy.
Because you see, unlike in Rand's novels, Businessmen are not perfect, idealistic creatures striving to only do good. Most are bloody greedy. And I don't resent them for that. But to believe that businessmen and women don't need government oversight is ludicrous. Businessmen can be just as bad as G-men, and the actions of Shell in Nigeria, or Nestle in Southern-Africa prove this. Private companies have been dumping poisonous waste chemicals in Africa for decades, resulting in the destruction of the local fishing industries in nations such as Somalia. You can't tell me to my face that the corporate world wants what's best for me.
But then again, I do support capitalism. I just want the government to watch the businesses like hawks. Should companies have lower taxes? Yes. But should they have looser regulation? NO. Absolutely not.
People say it's stupid to trust the government, and that's true. It's equally, if not more, idiotic to put your faith in Business people and companies like Monsanto. Such companies are necessary and are good for the economy. But the minute you let them, they'll cut out your organs and sell them behind a shed.
In it, you'll find COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC CHARACTERS with COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC MOTIVATIONS, leading COMPLETELY UNREALISTIC LIVES. Notice how she puts forward her arguments for objectivism (her brand of philosophy) primarily through novels instead of philosophical tomes? It's because her ideology only stacks up in her (shoddily) written novels. I mean, seriously, go read Atlas Shrugged. I got to the 10th Chapter (which I realize is not very far into the book) before I gave up in despair. It's hundreds of pages of blatant preaching, revolving around a ludicrous plot. The Fountainhead was only marginally better.
In Atlas Shrugged, every single proper businessman/businesswoman is a perfect, idealistic, wonder of power and ingenuity, completely and utterly self-made, while all those around them are completely evil or useless.
People rag on communism for being unrealistic and impractical (and right well they should), but Ayn Rand's Objectivism is just as unrealistic and impractical, not to mention contrary to human nature, for the following reason:
1) Humans are naturally collective. We form societies. We have social ladders. We elect leaders or are ruled by leaders. In every single society, there has been at least some degree of collectivisation, even in the US. This is also the reason why anarcho-primitivism can never work, because humans naturally form states and societies. Always have, always will. We'll never have a society in which only the individual matters.
2) Collectivisation is good in some ways. I am not a marxist or a maoist or even a socialist. I support capitalism somewhat. You only have to look at history to realize that communism just doesn't work. But the government, and collective efforts, can do good things. The Internet was first developed by the government. So was laser technology. Government labs were the first to build computers and the atomic bomb project would never have succeeded without direct government control. Many great public infrastructure works were created by the government. Privatization doesn't always make things more efficient - we privatized the power industry here in Queensland, Australia recently (about 5 or 6 years ago) and it has been nothing but constant price hikes and spotty service.
3) No man/woman is an island. In Ayn Rand's novels, all her heroes are COMPLETELY SELF-MADE MEN AND WOMEN, OWING ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO ANYONE, EVER. Such a figure does not really exist. We are always in someone's debt. Even Issac Newton, widely regarded as one of the smartest men who ever lived, stated that if he saw farther than anyone else, it was because he stood on the shoulders of giants. In science, we are made well aware of the contributions of those who came before us and those who work alongside us. Einstein, Newton, Watson and Crick, all those luminaries, however smart they were, did not develop their theories in a void. The collaborated, argued, and learned from those that came before. Science is a collective effort, with each generation of scientists building on what came before. Businesses need law and order and stability, and that is only achieved by a well-funded police and army, which again means government. The only people who can truly claim to be self-made are those living in the middle of the Amazon Rainforest with no technology. As for everyone else - YOU OWE SOCIETY. WE ALL DO.
Plus, in this globalised world, we depend on other countries and we need to co-operate with them.
4) We need government. Ayn Rand hated government, but the fact of the matter is that the US would be sunk without its federal government. America secures itself in the world through its huge industrial-military complex (which republicans are so fond of). Yet such a huge, enormous military (which is about 10x larger than it needs to be by the way), requires MASSIVE government spending and MAAAAAAAASSSSIIIIVVVEEE government oversight. Republicans, strangely, never complain about this at all.
Few here would be against a public education system, yet such a system requires government. Few here would want to cut the CIA or the NSA, yet both of those agencies requires a lot of government employees.
Face it America, you want big government. Successive republican and democratic administrations have failed to cut government. Government spending grew under Carter, Reagan, Bush Snr, Clinton, W.Bush and Obama. Recently, the US government cut funding for the F-22 raptor, which was a fine jet except for the fact that it was expensive and unnecessary, yet both Democrats and Republicans cried bloody murder because it meant the loss of jobs in their states, and mid-terms are coming up.
Objectivists and conservatives are always going on and on about cutting government spending, yet when it comes to cutting things they care about, they suddenly fall silent.
No one wants the government interfering with their lives. I understand that. I certainly don't want the government to get in the way of stem-cell research. But government is necessary, and I think many Americans don't fully appreciate everything the feds do for them.
I mean, Americans want free schools, a big army, a well-trained, expansive intelligence service to protect them, they want government labs to continue to make government research, they want public police, public ambulance, public fire-fighters, yet they don't want government?!
You know what Americans? Taxes in your country are LOW. Yeah. They are. When compared to the rest of the world at least. And your salaries are high when compared to many nations in the rest of the world. You can afford to pay your taxes, provided you save and don't spend like a drunken sailor. With a few modest, easily affordable tax increases, you could have slashed crime and poverty, funded great works of public infrastructure, and developed new technologies that made your lives better and your food cheaper.
Ayn Rand's objectivism seems to be just "Hell No-ism". For someone who apparently praised logic and only logic, Rand wasn't very rational when it came to examining her own belief. If the stories are true, she was notorious for throwing complete hissy-fits if anyone dared to contradict her on even the slightest thing, and that's always the sign of a rational, stable thinker, right?
No, Rand was just as biased and irrational as anyone else that walks on this earth (and that includes me). Her philosophy doesn't work in the real world. A society run purely along her way of thinking would be disastrous, and would almost certainly default to a corporatocracy or capitalistic oligarchy.
Because you see, unlike in Rand's novels, Businessmen are not perfect, idealistic creatures striving to only do good. Most are bloody greedy. And I don't resent them for that. But to believe that businessmen and women don't need government oversight is ludicrous. Businessmen can be just as bad as G-men, and the actions of Shell in Nigeria, or Nestle in Southern-Africa prove this. Private companies have been dumping poisonous waste chemicals in Africa for decades, resulting in the destruction of the local fishing industries in nations such as Somalia. You can't tell me to my face that the corporate world wants what's best for me.
But then again, I do support capitalism. I just want the government to watch the businesses like hawks. Should companies have lower taxes? Yes. But should they have looser regulation? NO. Absolutely not.
People say it's stupid to trust the government, and that's true. It's equally, if not more, idiotic to put your faith in Business people and companies like Monsanto. Such companies are necessary and are good for the economy. But the minute you let them, they'll cut out your organs and sell them behind a shed.
I realize that was a long post so here's a shorter summary:
Ayn Rand was a romantic. People claim that communists have a bad grasp of humanity's nature, and that's true, but I'll contend that Rand's grasp on human nature was just as silly. Her heroes are unrealistic Uber-men who confidently and boldly steer their mighty companies, who never make mistakes, who have no human weaknesses or failings, who have no need for anyone else, ever, who don't depend on government and who will always do the right thing on their own-some.
And people call her books "insightful"? "Realistic"? Please. Atlas Shrugged is as looney-tunes and one-sided as any Soviet-era propaganda poster.
I will admit that Rand was idealistic, and that some of her ideas had merit. The idea that religion should not constrain science is one I support. I also appreciated her ardent atheism and anti-racism. She was consistent in her belief that only the individual should control their own destiny and that all government should be kept to a minimum.
But like all idealists, practical concerns and impossibilities with her philosophy were dismissed without a moment's notice, any real/appropriate criticism savagely rebuked, any compromise swiftly scorned ("never compromise", anyone?). And like Poor Old Rorschach, her ideology doesn't survive in this world in its pure form. Like any ideology, you have to take a moderate path, incorporating the best ideas of multiple ideologies and compromising with others to live and work alongside them.
Rand was a romantic. Not a rational idealist, and it comes across in her works.
Ayn Rand was a romantic. People claim that communists have a bad grasp of humanity's nature, and that's true, but I'll contend that Rand's grasp on human nature was just as silly. Her heroes are unrealistic Uber-men who confidently and boldly steer their mighty companies, who never make mistakes, who have no human weaknesses or failings, who have no need for anyone else, ever, who don't depend on government and who will always do the right thing on their own-some.
And people call her books "insightful"? "Realistic"? Please. Atlas Shrugged is as looney-tunes and one-sided as any Soviet-era propaganda poster.
I will admit that Rand was idealistic, and that some of her ideas had merit. The idea that religion should not constrain science is one I support. I also appreciated her ardent atheism and anti-racism. She was consistent in her belief that only the individual should control their own destiny and that all government should be kept to a minimum.
But like all idealists, practical concerns and impossibilities with her philosophy were dismissed without a moment's notice, any real/appropriate criticism savagely rebuked, any compromise swiftly scorned ("never compromise", anyone?). And like Poor Old Rorschach, her ideology doesn't survive in this world in its pure form. Like any ideology, you have to take a moderate path, incorporating the best ideas of multiple ideologies and compromising with others to live and work alongside them.
Rand was a romantic. Not a rational idealist, and it comes across in her works.
If you're going to start reading Ayn Rand you also need to read Prometheus Rising by Robert Anton Wilson. It's a good counterbalance.
Personally. I don't think it would work. It wouldn't turn out the same way but it wouldn't be pleasant either. As much as the rich think they should be looked up to, it's not always what they need.
Personally. I don't think it would work. It wouldn't turn out the same way but it wouldn't be pleasant either. As much as the rich think they should be looked up to, it's not always what they need.
Well, for starters, the nuclear arms race was fueled primarily by the idea that after a certain point, one side could have enough nuclear weapons and delivery methods to wipe out the other side before they could retaliate in a real fashion. Things like MIRVs, designed to "sneak in" fifteen or so nuclear payloads with a single launch. Then StarWars, designed to waste money and throw up a lot of smoke about our anti-missile capabilities. But It wasn't until the last couple decades of the cold war that both sides had four to nine hundred times the nuclear weapons required to turn the entire surface of the earth (including the oceans) to glass. To say, it the arms race wasn't always about mutually assured destruction. Just neither side originally thought both sides would hit that point at the same time. Because, like you said, they were only looking five years ahead at a time. It could be argued that "mutually assured destruction" was the beginning of the end of the cold war. It was the point where "winning" simply wasn't possible, and the citizens of the USSR simply had nothing else to work towards.meganmeave said:
Now, there are nine or ten cigarette companies, all making a completely identical product... because they have to. In order for one company to start making a more satisfying, less addictive cigarette, they would first have to admit cigarettes are addictive (something even nicotine patches and inhaler/e-cig producers can't outright do), are narcotic, are designed to be addictive and narcotic, and their addictive properties are not intrinsic to the plant. By doing this, they would come under fire from so many libel and slander suits, they'd simply cease to exist overnight. Thus, the only thing every single company can do is quietly make cigarettes more addictive.
Now, the reason even nicotine patches and other "quit smoking" programs don't work is because they aren't intended to. They aren't designed to give the same chemical effects of smoking a cigarette, they're designed to manage the withdraw. Which gives some people the brilliant idea of smoking while wearing patches, to offset the non-respiratory related negative aspects. They can't just make a "quit smoking" brand of cigarette that claims no addictive properties because of the previous paragraph.
Removing that legal layer (and pretty much all FDA regulations) would enable cigarette companies to make vastly different types of cigarette. They likely wouldn't, as chemically slanting your product to make people need more cigarettes more often would make the most amount of money in the shortest amount of time. But some upstart might actually get it into their head to make a "better" cigarette. Poison the well of smokers for other companies with a product that is less addictive, more fulfilling, and doesn't shrink your penis or cause wrinkles (last bit equaling "no pig anus"), with the goal of siphoning customers away from every other company. If successful it would change the entire landscape of that product. "Super cigarettes" that you only need to smoke once a day for a quarter the price of the competitor's entire pack. You're not selling as many, but they're going out of fucking business.
Also, I don't know if you've ever tried slimfast, but it does not taste good. Doesn't taste bad, but its primary gimmick is it expands in your stomach, making eating more physically painful. A food that doesn't require you to eat as much of it isn't marketable mostly because theres no way to market it. Its also back to my first paragraph, you'd have to say other foods are designed to make you want more food.
But, yea, the problem with objectivism is most "self-interest" is shallow and short-sighted.
its called KAPITALISM althoug Andrew refined it by taking it to the extreme just like the soviet union took Communism to the extreme
absolutely not...
He Said that when each of us strive for our own good it all gets great In "The great Chain"...
Thats not the case...
For in rapture The fact is that once you get to a certain point, its not making yourself better anymore... its about getting the others worse..
Its like in the Mob.
you deal with the others untill they or you get too greedy, and it ends in war...
He Said that when each of us strive for our own good it all gets great In "The great Chain"...
Thats not the case...
For in rapture The fact is that once you get to a certain point, its not making yourself better anymore... its about getting the others worse..
Its like in the Mob.
you deal with the others untill they or you get too greedy, and it ends in war...