I like this debate! I still fell like I am somewhere in the middle. I wish I fealt toatally like wine does, but sometimes I dont... I see really good points from bith sides. *bravo* =D>
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
Your previous claim was not that a cornerstone of Objectivism was wrong, but that it was unfounded. It is not intellectual sloth to disagree with a philosophy, however it is to say the whole philosophy is Unfounded. I believe I provided two perfectly valid examples of her philosophy in practical use, which I felt proves her philosophy is not unfounded. Now you can argue that the two societies I mentioned did not benefit from this philosophy, however if you want to take that position then I expect an alternative theory for the success of those societies.
It's difficult for any moral altruist to understand objectivism as you describe it, because that understanding seems to require at least a small yielding that it is rational, which it is not.
ahhhh... the heart of the issue. And this very reason you provided is probably the exact same reason why someone who is so grounded in the philosophy of Objectivism refuses to yeild to a moral alturist. a alturist is a belief, that is not rational nor grounded in anything substantial. It can't be proved.
I do not know the context of your claims that Rand said acts of altruism are ones attempts to buy my purpose, and that they are not out of kindness. And at this moment I am no longer speaking for Rand but speaking of my own personal beliefs on this topic. It's not that acts of altruism are your way of buying your purpose, but that it is impossible to distinguish acts of true altruism verses acts of selfishness disguised as altruistic acts. The only real person who might have an idea of the intent of the act, is the person committing the act. And it is quite possible that even they don't know the full extent of their motivations. I state for fact that the reward of people thinking fondly of you is more then enough motivation to do the perceived act of altruism. It is not that doing good for others is bad, but that it is impossible to distinguish the true motives of that act. Some might say that the deed is greater then the motivation, when judging someones character... but I say BULLSHIT. Altruism is no method for establishing your own self worth because, your motivations are unfounded.
Let's pick on the catholic priest because they are such a lovely target. I think most would agree that their acts of altruism are great. They give a lot to the community and if altruism was a measure of their character then few would compete. But we all know what a significant number do to alter boys behind closed cutins.... They are a LIE. Their acts of altruism were LIES. A mere facade put up to disguise what wretched people they are.
Now I agree that is a extreme case, but I chose it to prove the point. When one judges ones character on acts of altruism, the perceived results are no measure of a persons character. If you want a real measure of a person's character, look at their accomplishments. Look at their selfishness. that is a true measure of one's worth.
PS - wine. How old are you? what's your background.
drinkwine732Posts: 20,418destroyer of motherfuckers
Boy, that is quite the post to rebut on a cell phone. I will not hesitate to sue you if I develop arthritis.
I've thought about your examples of Rand's philosophy being applied, and although I cannot comment on the quality of 90's Hong Kong, I think that the "success" of Industrial America is a little bit suspect. I don't think either of us would make the claim that it was a utopia, so any success would beat be observed in the quality of the middle class. The middle class' success was due to the rise of unions, something I'm sure Rand was no fan of. I'd now like to point to the dissolution of the housing market as an example where Rand's philosophy failed in application.
My reference was to The Virtue of Selfishness, which in addition to Atlas Shrugged is the only work of Rand's that I'm very familiar with. It also is the only one that I really examined as a philosophical text.
You're referencing here one of my main problems with Buddhism, in which it is essential to be selfless in order to pierce the illusion of reality. I agree with you that some act "altruistically" in their own interest, but I would argue that that is immoral. I don't think anyone can claim to have reached the ideal of moral altruism, but that is what is "ought to be done."
Your priest example is an interesting one, for sure. I would say that the priest's misconduct is independent of his altruism, and that it in no way makes his actions a "lie.". I think it's unwise to make a general statement based on one's morality based upon one action. I get what you mean though, the priest is no longer an altruist.
I am 18, and I'm just a student. My knowledge of philosophy is entirely based on primary source, and is really raw. I haven't been exposed to too much philosophical analysis. I see flaws in my own philosophy all the time, so it's something I like to try to get out and perfect. That's easier said than done, obviously.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
edited April 2011
lol. You wont sue me for cell phone arthritis, that wouldnt be altruistic of you :-)) Seriously though, I've enjoyed the conversation. Your knowledge of philosophy is very advanced for your age. I didn't get into this stuff until after college....
I would also guess that Rand would be against unions; I know I am. Although I think that is an excellent rebuttal on your part, I do disagree that the unions were the cause of the higher wages. I assert that it was actually the technology and outputs of their manufacturing that resulted in higher wages then non-industrialized societies. I assert that people like Rockefeller realized the importance of paying his employees a decent wage. Rockefeller is well recognized for "paying his employees a higher than market wages, citing that it would end up slashing costs in the long run. He was a fair employer, and commonly rewarded his employees with large bonuses and lengthy vacations". Without visionaries and leaders, the unions would have no industry for their workers to work. Anyways... I'd really like to shelve any discussion about Unions. I feel it is distracting to what we are really discussing. I will give you that a union is a good rebuttal and you will find many supporters of that line of discussion, but I am not one of them.
But lets stay with Rockefeller... He is well known for "paying his employees a higher than market wages". Why? Because he is altruistic? Maybe. You could make that claim, and have a really good leg to stand on. Or you could recognize it for what it really is... Selfishness. "it would end up slashing costs in the long run". So how do you in fact judge ones character? By altruistic deeds? No. You don't know their motivations. You judge their character by their outputs. That is Rand's points... Rockefeller did more good with his selfishness then any perceived altruistic person did in the American Industrial Revolution. Don't you find this statement interesting?
The Virtue of Selfishness - I need to read that. I've only read Atlas and Fountainhead. The Fountainhead was alright but not nearly the masterpiece Atlas is. I read Atlas first, then the Fountainhead, and then I just got burnt out on Rand. Perhaps, Ill read that one next.
And I agree with you that doing altruistic acts in your own self interest is immoral. No debate there. But what I am claiming is that one will never achieve ideal moral altruism because it is impossible for others to know a persons true motives. And often time their true motivations might even be hidden from themselves. Those that want to be altruistic, should embrace the simple fact that selfishness is not as evil as they believe. It is okay to do good deeds for the sake of feeling good about yourself. There is no reason to refute this sort of selfishness. There is no reason to be hypocritical. Especially considering that true altruistic deeds are unfounded.
I find it interesting that you are so willing to separate the priests perceived acts of altruism from his crimes against humanity. Yes it is true that we do not know the priests true motivations. It is quite possible that he did have true altruistic deeds, and that he did not do those deeds to put himself in a position of respect so he could abuse children. It's possible. You or I will never know.... But I do think it is still a valid example of why altruistic deeds should never be used to establish the value of ones character. Why do people want to be altruistic? To establish a basis or worth for their character? Well that is my (and Rand's point)... No amount of money is going to establish your worth, it is just a failed attempt. No amount of "selfless good deeds" (if there is such a thing) should have anything to do with judging ones character. Ones worth should be determined only by the outputs of their labor.
And selfish people sometimes do more good for society then altruistic people. Not always, but it is common.
I'm glad to see this conversations is back on topic, if you can say that. It sure has evolved from simple ideas of optimism and pessimism. I kind of hate to interrupt you two; there's a nice dialogue here. And I'm glad to see WakeOfAshes has weighed in on it.
I'll try to limit my comments, but first of all I'd like to remark on Wine's mention of Buddhism, because it's interesting juxtaposed with Rand's Objectivism. Objectivism, among other things, proposes that reality is a result of what we perceive through our senses, that is, sense perception constitutes the reality we perceive (which I believe to be true; i.e: perception is reality). Buddhist philosophy proposes perceived reality is an illusion, not because it’s unreal, but because our perceptions mislead us to believe we are separate from the elements we’re made of. A better argument against it would be, simply, that our senses don't give us a true view of reality because regardless of how small a particle is we can see, there exists one we cannot see, thus limiting how far we can see. I'm much more of a perspectivist than an objectivist, but I see the merits of each philosophy.
Moving on, ethical egoism is a horror from my point of view in the sense that it can account for the oppression caused by governments. I don't want to be a hypocrite here (I'm treading on a thin line), because a person acting in self-interest as a pursuit for happiness is something I'm, selfishly, tolerant of. In fact I've said it before that one's ultimate quest in life should be the desire for the pursuit of happiness, and that ultimately it's all that matters (it's a simple concept: we only have one chance at a life, at least according to anyone that's not a Buddhist, so we might as well make the most of it). I guess I could say, to justify myself, a person acting out of their own perceived self-interest is justifiable as a quest for the pursuit of happiness as long as their quest doesn't bring harm to others.
With that said, I'm extremely skeptical of any notion of altruism just because I believe the human to be, at heart, a greedy organism that acts, regardless of formalities and social niceties, out of self-interest. But I think WakeOfAshes summed it up best so I'll just quote him.
But what I am claiming is that one will never achieve ideal moral altruism because it is impossible for others to know a persons true motives. And often time their true motivations might even be hidden from themselves. Those that want to be altruistic, should embrace the simple fact that selfishness is not as evil as they believe. It is okay to do good deeds for the sake of feeling good about yourself. There is no reason to refute this sort of selfishness. There is no reason to be hypocritical.
In any case, I think Rand's philosophical application, as channeled through a society, hardly entails with anything we could remotely describe as just. "Flourishing" is an overstatement as well in my opinion, unless you're describing the economic system itself and not the individuals it's composed of. We've yet to see a just society exist. America's certainly not a just society. It's less oppressive than many societies, but it's not just. If we're going to talk about just societies I think the Ideas of Chomsky, Marx (without the violent overthrow of the proletariat), Bakunin, Pannekoek, etc would be of much more use to us. Rand seems out of place here.
As a perspectivist, I encourage you to remember, just because something is "regarded" as fact and believed to be a certain way doesn't mean it's not perceived.
---- P.S. I wrote this up during class, trying to concentrate my thoughts between what's being discussed here and the Iranian Revolution, and I'm just now getting to post it. In an effort to concentrate this discussion, I'm not going to get into collective bargaining and Rockefeller.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
Good stuff. I don't have time to respond tonight, but it's nice to see I am not the only person responding in novels. :-)) bookmarked, I'll chime in tomorrow morning.
Wine is the optimistic person, the one who gets the most out of life because he sees life as a gift that shouldn't be squandered in negativity - the type of person I envy.
that describes me perfectly.
The bolded text describes you Perfectly? Because that sure fits perfectly with Rand's Objectivism... a part of the philosophy I didn't touch on.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
Wine is the optimistic person, the one who gets the most out of life because he sees life as a gift that shouldn't be squandered in negativity - the type of person I envy.
that describes me perfectly.
The bolded text describes you Perfectly? Because that sure fits perfectly with Rand's Objectivism... a part of the philosophy I didn't touch on.
Yes. I am very much in agreement with Objectivism. I vote libertarian.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
Wine is the optimistic person, the one who gets the most out of life because he sees life as a gift that shouldn't be squandered in negativity - the type of person I envy.
that describes me perfectly.
The bolded text describes you Perfectly? Because that sure fits perfectly with Rand's Objectivism... a part of the philosophy I didn't touch on.
Yes. I am very much in agreement with Objectivism. I vote libertarian.
Not that libertarianism is 100% in line with Rand's philosophy; However I feel confident in saying that it is probably the biggest national party that is closest to her philosophy.
Additionally, I do not vote party lines, but vote for the individual based on their stances on issues and their history. I have noticed that a lot of my votes do end up going for libertarians, but it is not 100%.
Last presidential election for example was the first time in three previous elections that I did not vote for a libertarian or other third party. My vote was a write in for Ron Paul.
WakeOfAshesPosts: 21,665destroyer of motherfuckers
Objectivism, among other things, proposes that reality is a result of what we perceive through our senses, that is, sense perception constitutes the reality we perceive
Correct. And I believe this to be fact. How else can one have any basis on reality if it was not through inductive and deductive logic through the sense perception. I make logical choices based on the evidence available, and do not alter that choice for illogical feelings or ghost stories.
Buddhist philosophy proposes perceived reality is an illusion, not because it’s unreal, but because our perceptions mislead us to believe we are separate from the elements we’re made of.
Stupid. The mind does not create reality, but rather, it is a means of discovering reality. It is elementary deduction that we are separate from the elements we are made of. The line might be blurred a little if your name is aqua-man, but for you or I, it is pretty easy to deduce the separation.
A better argument against it would be, simply, that our senses don't give us a true view of reality because regardless of how small a particle is we can see, there exists one we cannot see, thus limiting how far we can see.
Really. You consider that a better argument? Because science hasn't technically mapped out all partials yet, lets put our faith into something that in non tangible and magic? Pa-lease. In the next decade The LHC will map out all particles in existence, and science is always expending and revising our definition of reality based on tangential facts and data. There is no reason to have any metaphysical guess work anymore. You make a conclusion based on the evidence presented, and revise that definition as the science gets better. simple.
Moving on, ethical egoism is a horror from my point of view in the sense that it can account for the oppression caused by governments.
Interesting. Because I could also make the true claim that moral altruism can account for the oppression caused by governments. I am not discrediting your statement, but merely pointing out that you only presented one side. This is a fine line you are walking, and I am not certain how many logical deductions you can make from this line of though. Furthermore I would claim that Objectivism at it's core is against the notions in government that would cause oppression of the people. And Objectivism embraces ethical egoism and rejects moral altruism.
because a person acting in self-interest as a pursuit for happiness is something I'm, selfishly, tolerant of. In fact I've said it before that one's ultimate quest in life should be the desire for the pursuit of happiness, and that ultimately it's all that matters. I guess I could say, to justify myself, a person acting out of their own perceived self-interest is justifiable as a quest for the pursuit of happiness as long as their quest doesn't bring harm to others.
I am not only tolerant of, but a strong supporter of this thought process. It is important to accept that you will ultimately act in your best interest, and there is no reason to feel bad about that selfishness. As long as that selfishness doesnt infringe on another persons own liberty.
With that said, I'm extremely skeptical of any notion of altruism just because I believe the human to be, at heart, a greedy organism that acts, regardless of formalities and social niceties, out of self-interest.
I take issue with your use of the word greedy here. I don't believe that necessary all desires result in wanting an excess of what it requires. I believe that the human will ultimately act in their best interests, but I do believe it is unfair to call their self interests greed.
In any case, I think Rand's philosophical application, as channeled through a society, hardly entails with anything we could remotely describe as just. "Flourishing" is an overstatement as well in my opinion, unless you're describing the economic system itself and not the individuals it's composed of. We've yet to see a just society exist. America's certainly not a just society. It's less oppressive than many societies, but it's not just. If we're going to talk about just societies I think the Ideas of Chomsky, Marx (without the violent overthrow of the proletariat), Bakunin, Pannekoek, etc would be of much more use to us. Rand seems out of place here.
ahhh... yes. when i did mention Americas Industrial Revolution, or Hong Kong in the 90's, I would speaking on a clearly economic sense. And yes I agree that is only half the story, however I still believe those two cases represent a clear picture to the society benefits of objectivism from an economic sense. I believe there are pockets of personal freedom examples that can be used to complete the picture. You are right though, there has yet to be a just society. The question though is how does one attempt to implement that just society? I assert that it is not done through moral altruistic means but more though ethical egoism and objectivism.
In an effort to concentrate this discussion, I'm not going to get into collective bargaining and Rockefeller.
I fail to see why this is a distraction? care to elaborate a little? I am okay with dropping this branch, but I am curious why you believe this would derail us. Specifically Rockefeller.
Comments
*waits for illumanatis reply*
I do not know the context of your claims that Rand said acts of altruism are ones attempts to buy my purpose, and that they are not out of kindness. And at this moment I am no longer speaking for Rand but speaking of my own personal beliefs on this topic. It's not that acts of altruism are your way of buying your purpose, but that it is impossible to distinguish acts of true altruism verses acts of selfishness disguised as altruistic acts. The only real person who might have an idea of the intent of the act, is the person committing the act. And it is quite possible that even they don't know the full extent of their motivations. I state for fact that the reward of people thinking fondly of you is more then enough motivation to do the perceived act of altruism. It is not that doing good for others is bad, but that it is impossible to distinguish the true motives of that act. Some might say that the deed is greater then the motivation, when judging someones character... but I say BULLSHIT. Altruism is no method for establishing your own self worth because, your motivations are unfounded.
Let's pick on the catholic priest because they are such a lovely target. I think most would agree that their acts of altruism are great. They give a lot to the community and if altruism was a measure of their character then few would compete. But we all know what a significant number do to alter boys behind closed cutins.... They are a LIE. Their acts of altruism were LIES. A mere facade put up to disguise what wretched people they are.
Now I agree that is a extreme case, but I chose it to prove the point. When one judges ones character on acts of altruism, the perceived results are no measure of a persons character. If you want a real measure of a person's character, look at their accomplishments. Look at their selfishness. that is a true measure of one's worth.
PS - wine. How old are you? what's your background.
I've thought about your examples of Rand's philosophy being applied, and although I cannot comment on the quality of 90's Hong Kong, I think that the "success" of Industrial America is a little bit suspect. I don't think either of us would make the claim that it was a utopia, so any success would beat be observed in the quality of the middle class. The middle class' success was due to the rise of unions, something I'm sure Rand was no fan of. I'd now like to point to the dissolution of the housing market as an example where Rand's philosophy failed in application.
My reference was to The Virtue of Selfishness, which in addition to Atlas Shrugged is the only work of Rand's that I'm very familiar with. It also is the only one that I really examined as a philosophical text.
You're referencing here one of my main problems with Buddhism, in which it is essential to be selfless in order to pierce the illusion of reality. I agree with you that some act "altruistically" in their own interest, but I would argue that that is immoral. I don't think anyone can claim to have reached the ideal of moral altruism, but that is what is "ought to be done."
Your priest example is an interesting one, for sure. I would say that the priest's misconduct is independent of his altruism, and that it in no way makes his actions a "lie.". I think it's unwise to make a general statement based on one's morality based upon one action. I get what you mean though, the priest is no longer an altruist.
I am 18, and I'm just a student. My knowledge of philosophy is entirely based on primary source, and is really raw. I haven't been exposed to too much philosophical analysis. I see flaws in my own philosophy all the time, so it's something I like to try to get out and perfect. That's easier said than done, obviously.
I would also guess that Rand would be against unions; I know I am. Although I think that is an excellent rebuttal on your part, I do disagree that the unions were the cause of the higher wages. I assert that it was actually the technology and outputs of their manufacturing that resulted in higher wages then non-industrialized societies. I assert that people like Rockefeller realized the importance of paying his employees a decent wage. Rockefeller is well recognized for "paying his employees a higher than market wages, citing that it would end up slashing costs in the long run. He was a fair employer, and commonly rewarded his employees with large bonuses and lengthy vacations". Without visionaries and leaders, the unions would have no industry for their workers to work. Anyways... I'd really like to shelve any discussion about Unions. I feel it is distracting to what we are really discussing. I will give you that a union is a good rebuttal and you will find many supporters of that line of discussion, but I am not one of them.
But lets stay with Rockefeller... He is well known for "paying his employees a higher than market wages". Why? Because he is altruistic? Maybe. You could make that claim, and have a really good leg to stand on. Or you could recognize it for what it really is... Selfishness. "it would end up slashing costs in the long run". So how do you in fact judge ones character? By altruistic deeds? No. You don't know their motivations. You judge their character by their outputs. That is Rand's points... Rockefeller did more good with his selfishness then any perceived altruistic person did in the American Industrial Revolution. Don't you find this statement interesting?
The Virtue of Selfishness - I need to read that. I've only read Atlas and Fountainhead. The Fountainhead was alright but not nearly the masterpiece Atlas is. I read Atlas first, then the Fountainhead, and then I just got burnt out on Rand. Perhaps, Ill read that one next.
And I agree with you that doing altruistic acts in your own self interest is immoral. No debate there. But what I am claiming is that one will never achieve ideal moral altruism because it is impossible for others to know a persons true motives. And often time their true motivations might even be hidden from themselves. Those that want to be altruistic, should embrace the simple fact that selfishness is not as evil as they believe. It is okay to do good deeds for the sake of feeling good about yourself. There is no reason to refute this sort of selfishness. There is no reason to be hypocritical. Especially considering that true altruistic deeds are unfounded.
I find it interesting that you are so willing to separate the priests perceived acts of altruism from his crimes against humanity. Yes it is true that we do not know the priests true motivations. It is quite possible that he did have true altruistic deeds, and that he did not do those deeds to put himself in a position of respect so he could abuse children. It's possible. You or I will never know.... But I do think it is still a valid example of why altruistic deeds should never be used to establish the value of ones character. Why do people want to be altruistic? To establish a basis or worth for their character? Well that is my (and Rand's point)... No amount of money is going to establish your worth, it is just a failed attempt. No amount of "selfless good deeds" (if there is such a thing) should have anything to do with judging ones character. Ones worth should be determined only by the outputs of their labor.
And selfish people sometimes do more good for society then altruistic people. Not always, but it is common.
And I'm glad to see WakeOfAshes has weighed in on it.
I'll try to limit my comments, but first of all I'd like to remark on Wine's mention of Buddhism, because it's interesting juxtaposed with Rand's Objectivism. Objectivism, among other things, proposes that reality is a result of what we perceive through our senses, that is, sense perception constitutes the reality we perceive (which I believe to be true; i.e: perception is reality). Buddhist philosophy proposes perceived reality is an illusion, not because it’s unreal, but because our perceptions mislead us to believe we are separate from the elements we’re made of. A better argument against it would be, simply, that our senses don't give us a true view of reality because regardless of how small a particle is we can see, there exists one we cannot see, thus limiting how far we can see. I'm much more of a perspectivist than an objectivist, but I see the merits of each philosophy.
Moving on, ethical egoism is a horror from my point of view in the sense that it can account for the oppression caused by governments. I don't want to be a hypocrite here (I'm treading on a thin line), because a person acting in self-interest as a pursuit for happiness is something I'm, selfishly, tolerant of. In fact I've said it before that one's ultimate quest in life should be the desire for the pursuit of happiness, and that ultimately it's all that matters (it's a simple concept: we only have one chance at a life, at least according to anyone that's not a Buddhist, so we might as well make the most of it). I guess I could say, to justify myself, a person acting out of their own perceived self-interest is justifiable as a quest for the pursuit of happiness as long as their quest doesn't bring harm to others.
With that said, I'm extremely skeptical of any notion of altruism just because I believe the human to be, at heart, a greedy organism that acts, regardless of formalities and social niceties, out of self-interest. But I think WakeOfAshes summed it up best so I'll just quote him.
In any case, I think Rand's philosophical application, as channeled through a society, hardly entails with anything we could remotely describe as just. "Flourishing" is an overstatement as well in my opinion, unless you're describing the economic system itself and not the individuals it's composed of. We've yet to see a just society exist. America's certainly not a just society. It's less oppressive than many societies, but it's not just. If we're going to talk about just societies I think the Ideas of Chomsky, Marx (without the violent overthrow of the proletariat), Bakunin, Pannekoek, etc would be of much more use to us. Rand seems out of place here.
As a perspectivist, I encourage you to remember, just because something is "regarded" as fact and believed to be a certain way doesn't mean it's not perceived.
----
P.S. I wrote this up during class, trying to concentrate my thoughts between what's being discussed here and the Iranian Revolution, and I'm just now getting to post it. In an effort to concentrate this discussion, I'm not going to get into collective bargaining and Rockefeller.
Additionally, I do not vote party lines, but vote for the individual based on their stances on issues and their history. I have noticed that a lot of my votes do end up going for libertarians, but it is not 100%.
Last presidential election for example was the first time in three previous elections that I did not vote for a libertarian or other third party. My vote was a write in for Ron Paul.
Really. You consider that a better argument? Because science hasn't technically mapped out all partials yet, lets put our faith into something that in non tangible and magic? Pa-lease. In the next decade The LHC will map out all particles in existence, and science is always expending and revising our definition of reality based on tangential facts and data. There is no reason to have any metaphysical guess work anymore. You make a conclusion based on the evidence presented, and revise that definition as the science gets better. simple. Interesting. Because I could also make the true claim that moral altruism can account for the oppression caused by governments. I am not discrediting your statement, but merely pointing out that you only presented one side. This is a fine line you are walking, and I am not certain how many logical deductions you can make from this line of though. Furthermore I would claim that Objectivism at it's core is against the notions in government that would cause oppression of the people. And Objectivism embraces ethical egoism and rejects moral altruism. I am not only tolerant of, but a strong supporter of this thought process. It is important to accept that you will ultimately act in your best interest, and there is no reason to feel bad about that selfishness. As long as that selfishness doesnt infringe on another persons own liberty. I take issue with your use of the word greedy here. I don't believe that necessary all desires result in wanting an excess of what it requires. I believe that the human will ultimately act in their best interests, but I do believe it is unfair to call their self interests greed. ahhh... yes. when i did mention Americas Industrial Revolution, or Hong Kong in the 90's, I would speaking on a clearly economic sense. And yes I agree that is only half the story, however I still believe those two cases represent a clear picture to the society benefits of objectivism from an economic sense. I believe there are pockets of personal freedom examples that can be used to complete the picture. You are right though, there has yet to be a just society. The question though is how does one attempt to implement that just society? I assert that it is not done through moral altruistic means but more though ethical egoism and objectivism. I fail to see why this is a distraction? care to elaborate a little? I am okay with dropping this branch, but I am curious why you believe this would derail us. Specifically Rockefeller.