The Greatest Speech Ever Made

[cdc482]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WibmcsEGLKo#!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WibmcsEGLKo#!
Charlie Chaplin knows whats up

[Carehn]

This is a horrible speech. Greed is not the problem, irrational self interest is. A lack of self esteem is the problem. this speech would suggest otherwise. 'we think to much and feel to little???? My ass. We feel to much and think to little. And machinery has nothing to do with economic problems. Machinery increases production raising the level of all. Production not jobs is the goal, the ration, moral goal of any economy.

The problem is he accuses ration self interest and the individual as being the cause of the loss of liberty. the philosophy of liberty focusing on the individual and his rational self interest as the primary mover and his own happiness and the ends of any means. It is a contradictory speech, he says that mans greed, or his own happiness is at fault for the loss of happiness in the individual. That if only man was able to give up his self he could somehow achieve it, but to strive for himself is somehow ripping everyone else off. this is the fundamental flaw in thinking today be it left or right, and though he says many fine things that little bit of rat poison will still kill you.

This is a stupid video demonstrating the very problem we face in the voting public today.

It is not immoral to strive for your own values. If we cant get that through peoples empty skulls then we will never win.

[FordGTGuy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3J9hmCLmvg

[Jtorsella]

This is a horrible speech. Greed is not the problem, irrational self interest is. A lack of self esteem is the problem. this speech would suggest otherwise. 'we think to much and feel to little???? My ass. We feel to much and think to little. And machinery has nothing to do with economic problems. Machinery increases production raising the level of all. Production not jobs is the goal, the ration, moral goal of any economy.

The problem is he accuses ration self interest and the individual as being the cause of the loss of liberty. the philosophy of liberty focusing on the individual and his rational self interest as the primary mover and his own happiness and the ends of any means. It is a contradictory speech, he says that mans greed, or his own happiness is at fault for the loss of happiness in the individual. That if only man was able to give up his self he could somehow achieve it, but to strive for himself is somehow ripping everyone else off. this is the fundamental flaw in thinking today be it left or right, and though he says many fine things that little bit of rat poison will still kill you.

This is a stupid video demonstrating the very problem we face in the voting public today.

It is not immoral to strive for your own values. If we cant get that through peoples empty skulls then we will never win.
+rep. Rational, log term self interest is good.

[hazek]

As soon as I saw the thread title I knew exactly which awful video I was going to see, luckily Carehn already took care of it.

[InTradePro]

This is a horrible speech. Greed is not the problem, irrational self interest is. A lack of self esteem is the problem.

Greed is fear of not having enough, which is lack of self worth, which is lack of self esteem.

[FordGTGuy]

Greed is fear of not having enough, which is lack of self worth, which is lack of self esteem.

Greed is a want for more, not the fear of lack. Greed in a way is just gluttony for money...

[Jtorsella]

Greed is fear of not having enough, which is lack of self worth, which is lack of self esteem.
Rational self interest is the pursuit of a better life over the long term. This can include the popular definition of 'greed'. Complacency is not high self esteem. Correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of your opinion, as that can happen often on these forums.

[InTradePro]

+rep. Rational, log term self interest is good.
I agree that self interest is good, but that is not "Greed", greed contains fear which is not in self interest.

[Jtorsella]

I agree that self interest is good, but that is not "Greed", greed contains fear which is not in self interest.
Yeah you're right, but its really hard to debate this because these terms have incredibly loose definitions.

[FordGTGuy]

Rational self interest is the pursuit of a better life over the long term. This can include the popular definition of 'greed'. Complacency is not high self esteem. Correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of your opinion, as that can happen often on these forums.

What I'm saying is that if the rich were greedy because they feared the lack of money they had they would not spend the money they already have, it's quite apparent that the rich are willing to spend their money. (Chris Tucker and Wesley Snipes for instance.)

It's the need for more or a need for excess or in other words a gluttony for money and/or possessions of value to them.

[Carehn]

Greed is irrational need. But that is not what is meant by this video or most people who use this word. Most of the time the word 'greed' is used as an attack on someones self esteem.

How dare you strive to be better when I fill so lowly of myself. You should cut yourself down to my level of self hatred or I will call you greedy!!!


Such a destructive and pitiful Idea that is ruling over all of us today.

If it wasn't for the 'greedy' we would still be living in caves.

[Jtorsella]

What I'm saying is that if the rich were greedy because they feared the lack of money they had they would not spend the money they already have, it's quite apparent that the rich are willing to spend their money. (Chris Tucker and Wesley Snipes for instance.)

It's the need for more or a need for excess or in other words a gluttony for money.
'Gluttony' for money drives people to produce. If I'm interpreting you correctly, a big if on these forums, you are saying that the rich are being greedy by keeping their money. That is a REALLY false idea. They have earned their money, I honestly don't care if they set it on fire. Long term self interest, not selflessness, would dictate that they invest or produce with it, however.

[FordGTGuy]

'Gluttony' for money drives people to produce. If I'm interpreting you correctly, a big if on these forums, you are saying that the rich are being greedy by keeping their money. That is a REALLY false idea. They have earned their money, I honestly don't care if they set it on fire. Long term self interest, not selflessness, would dictate that they invest or produce with it, however.

I'm not saying the rich are greedy by keeping their money, I'm saying some rich don't allow their current worth to control their greed. Like my example Chris Tucker who due to over spending of his worth has him now at -11.5 million dollars.

For that matter not everyone rich is greedy, some have made good decisions in life, some are lucky.

[Jtorsella]

Greed is irrational need. But that is not what is meant by this video or most people who use this word. Most of the time the word 'greed' is used as an attack on someones self esteem.

How dare you strive to be better when I fill so lowly of myself. You should cut yourself down to my level of self hatred or I will call you greedy!!!


Such a destructive and pitiful Idea that is ruling over all of us today.

If it wasn't for the 'greedy' we would still be living in caves.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Carehn again.
Nice Post

[Jtorsella]

I'm not saying the rich are greedy by keeping their money, I'm saying some rich don't allow their current worth to control their greed. Like my example Chris Tucker who due to over spending of his worth has him now at -11.5 million dollars.

For that matter not everyone rich is greedy, some have my good decisions in life, some are lucky.
Please elaborate. I'm not really understanding what you are saying.

[InTradePro]

Greed is a want for more, not the fear of lack. Greed in a way is just gluttony for money...
An excessive "want for more" comes from the fear of lacking it, or lack of lossing it etc. Greed is the gluttony as you say, although it may be more then money, greed is when fear is present.
When you have something just for the pleasure of it, for the joy, to expand your possibilities without any fear that's abundance.

[InTradePro]

Greed is irrational need. But that is not what is meant by this video or most people who use this word. Most of the time the word 'greed' is used as an attack on someones self esteem.

How dare you strive to be better when I fill so lowly of myself. You should cut yourself down to my level of self hatred or I will call you greedy!!!


Such a destructive and pitiful Idea that is ruling over all of us today.

If it wasn't for the 'greedy' we would still be living in caves.
Either we have a different definition of greed or you use the word losely.

[FordGTGuy]

'Gluttony' for money drives people to produce. If I'm interpreting you correctly, a big if on these forums, you are saying that the rich are being greedy by keeping their money. That is a REALLY false idea. They have earned their money, I honestly don't care if they set it on fire. Long term self interest, not selflessness, would dictate that they invest or produce with it, however.

I'm not saying the rich are greedy by keeping their money, I'm saying some rich don't allow their current worth to control their greed. Like my example Chris Tucker who due to over spending of his worth has him now at -11.5 million dollars.

[kusok]

I think Chaplin is wonderful, but as others pointed out thou passionate there are some issues with the speech.

To me this is the best speech ever:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjuUWr9vaXo

[Carehn]

Either we have a different definition of greed or you use the word losely.

Maybe. I didn't look up the definition but when with my own understand of the use of the word.

[Jtorsella]

I'm not saying the rich are greedy by keeping their money, I'm saying some rich don't allow their current worth to control their greed. Like my example Chris Tucker who due to over spending of his worth has him now at -11.5 million dollars.
So he's more moral the more he sacrifices his finances to others?

[PierzStyx]

Screw all that. THIS:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDCbJ4vnMNg is the greatest speech ever.

[FordGTGuy]

So he's more moral the more he sacrifices his finances to others?

In my opinion morality is up to the person in question, whether or not he/she feels moral in their financial decisions are up to them. If they are moral to the general way of thinking depends on how they've used their money.

[cdc482]

I think you guys arre reacting to buzz words.

I think Chaplin's speech is 100% truth. To believe what you are saying about self-interest, do you view the goal of life as material things?
There have been many selfless men, who did not need material things to be happy. In fact, helping others made them most happy.

[FordGTGuy]

Greatest speech:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3rFNbSKpEE

[Carehn]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1-_k6mKSxk

[cdc482]

After some thought, I'm willing to discuss this further if you are.

I also believe that greed is at the root of all evil. I am saddened when I see someone driving a Lamborghini, because I know that they though the best use for their money was a fancy car, opposed to feeding their brothers and sisters. I hope for a world where we have outgrown the idea of ownership. Where people work together to meet their needs of food and shelter. Where people realize that they can be happy with their basic needs met. Where people don't require more than others to be happy. If someone finds an apple, but are not hungry, they gift it to another person.

I don't normally like to talk about these things, but you are all Ron Paul supporters, and I know you make intelligent comments, so I will keep posting if you do.

[Carehn]

I think you guys arre reacting to buzz words.

I think Chaplin's speech is 100% truth. To believe what you are saying about self-interest, do you view the goal of life as material things?
There have been many selfless men, who did not need material things to be happy. In fact, helping others made them most happy.
Happiness must be chosen by the individual. Every person must choose his own values. So it could be money or some odd religious thing. but provided its truly in ones rational interest and does not infringe upon anyone elses rights it is just as moral. The man looking for millions and the man looking to help the poor are both equally moral provided they both never sold out on what it is they truly wanted for themselves.

[cdc482]

Carehn,

"Greed is not the problem, irrational self interest is."
The United States produces enough food to feed the entire world, but people are hungry. Greed is a problem.
People seek out jobs that don't add value to others, but rather fool people into giving their money for junk. Greed is a problem.
Manufacturers dump their waste on other people's land to cut cost. Greed is a problem.
Companies kill others for profit. Greed is a problem

"Production not jobs is the goal, the ration, moral goal of any economy."
What if a society comes to knick-knacks far above what they are actually worth, producing millions of knick-knacks for the rich, while others starve. Is that the goal of a moral economy?

"to strive for himself is somehow ripping everyone else off."
Not necessarily. Overall, I would agree with you that if everyone should be free to pursue their own happiness, so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. However, I think Chaplin is working on the social level here, not the political one. Asking people to value love and to help others instead of buying a lamborghini...

[cdc482]

Happiness must be chosen by the individual. Every person must choose his own values. So it could be money or some odd religious thing. but provided its truly in ones rational interest and does not infringe upon anyone elses rights it is just as moral. The man looking for millions and the man looking to help the poor are both equally moral provided they both never sold out on what it is they truly wanted for themselves.

I agree. Though I think the man looking for millions is sad.

[cdc482]

Rational self interest is the pursuit of a better life over the long term. This can include the popular definition of 'greed'. Complacency is not high self esteem. Correct me if I am wrong in my interpretation of your opinion, as that can happen often on these forums.

I'm going to try to imitate Chaplin here. I think he is trying to tell people that a better life is not a lot of material things for yourself, but that after your basic needs are met, instead of adding to unnecessary things (further future protection, "higher quality" food), that we should help each other. That love is a more valuable pursuit than all of these material things. That to truly experience life, we can't be afraid, or greedy, or cut off. That all of earth should be a brotherhood.

[cdc482]

Greed is irrational need. But that is not what is meant by this video or most people who use this word. Most of the time the word 'greed' is used as an attack on someones self esteem.

How dare you strive to be better when I fill so lowly of myself. You should cut yourself down to my level of self hatred or I will call you greedy!!!


Such a destructive and pitiful Idea that is ruling over all of us today.

If it wasn't for the 'greedy' we would still be living in caves.

I've never once heard greed used in that way. I've only heard it used towards those who place a higher value on excessive material comforts over others' basic needs.

[cdc482]

'Gluttony' for money drives people to produce. If I'm interpreting you correctly, a big if on these forums, you are saying that the rich are being greedy by keeping their money. That is a REALLY false idea. They have earned their money, I honestly don't care if they set it on fire. Long term self interest, not selflessness, would dictate that they invest or produce with it, however.

Is there such a concept of enough to you? That there may be more a more valuable pursuit than the accumulation of material goods.

[Carehn]

Carehn,

"Greed is not the problem, irrational self interest is."
The United States produces enough food to feed the entire world, but people are hungry. Greed is a problem.
People seek out jobs that don't add value to others, but rather fool people into giving their money for junk. Greed is a problem.
Manufacturers dump their waste on other people's land to cut cost. Greed is a problem.
Companies kill others for profit. Greed is a problem

"Production not jobs is the goal, the ration, moral goal of any economy."
What if a society comes to knick-knacks far above what they are actually worth, producing millions of knick-knacks for the rich, while others starve. Is that the goal of a moral economy?

"to strive for himself is somehow ripping everyone else off."
Not necessarily. Overall, I would agree with you that if everyone should be free to pursue their own happiness, so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. However, I think Chaplin is working on the social level here, not the political one. Asking people to value love and to help others instead of buying a lamborghini...

1st tell me what the goal of your life is then we will have our discussion. What is the moral goal of your life? What is the goal of your life? And are these the same or different for everybody? Should they be the same?

So just tell me this. What is moral? What is the goal of your life? What should be the goal of my life, your life, bobs life? And then we can talk.
http://mises.org/books/defending.pdf

[Carehn]

I agree. Though I think the man looking for millions is sad.
He may think you are sad

[cdc482]

I'd really like to hear your replies.

I am really unsure about a lot of this, and I promise to be open-minded and take time to gather my thoughts coherently, if you're willing to discuss. It's a tough topic to think about, but you started it.

[Carehn]

I've never once heard greed used in that way. I've only heard it used towards those who place a higher value on excessive material comforts over others' basic needs.

So do others take precedence over my own life and values? and who is to be the judge of just when this is happening?

[Carehn]

ok kids. I'm going to the bar. Will have to edumacate you all in the morning. Just post your collectivists ideas and i will correct them all tomorrow.

[cdc482]

1st tell me what the goal of your life is then we will have our discussion. What is the moral goal of your life? What is the goal of your life? And are these the same or different for everybody? Should they be the same?

So just tell me this. What is moral? What is the goal of your life? What should be the goal of my life, your life, bobs life? And then we can talk.

The goal of my life is to leave the world a better place then when I got here. I try to improve myself everyday, which is a kind of hard in normal living (school, work, etc. doesn't leave a lot of time to think). At the least, I want to do no harm, which is more difficult than you might think. (Simply buying certain products can harm many people). I try to grow by thinking and learning about how to be a good person, and trying live as one in my regular life. (It's tough, because I go to a very stressful school.) I want to have a positive impact on other people, that as a result changes them in a positive way.

For example, I saw a blind guy struggling to cross the street and everyone was just staring at him. At first, I fell into the staring, but then I realized, "Be the change you want to see in the world," and I helped him across to show others there was nothing to be afraid of. Obviously, it's very difficult to be a genuinely selfless person 24/7 in today's world for 2 main reasons. 1- It's hard to be yourself around other people, and 2- People would think your a nut. There's a lot of social norms that are not selfless. In American society, you don't offer someone a ride, even if they're walking in the rain, because rape is the first thing that jumps in their mind. The concept of a good deed for goodness sake (pun intended) should be spread around IMO.

The goals are different for everyone, and I think that's fine. However, like I said, I do hope to positively impact people, so that little by little people become kinder to each other and their environment.

[cdc482]

So do others take precedence over my own life and values? and who is to be the judge of just when this is happening?

Interesting question. I've had this one before as well.

I think the judges should be very objective. Anything that doesn't directly (emotional attachment doesn't count) hurt anyone else should be allowed.
Remember the philosophy 101 train example. I don't think you have the right to push anyone onto the track, but you absolutely do have the right to throw yourself in front of the train and push the other people out of the way.

But personally, I think it's good to strive for a point when others do take precedence over yourself.

[cdc482]

ok kids. I'm going to the bar. Will have to edumacate you all in the morning. Just post your collectivists ideas and i will correct them all tomorrow.

I'm looking forward to it. But I hope you at least consider my points to reply accurately. There is a line being drawn that I think you might have missed. I think Chaplin was focusing on the purpose of PEOPLE not the purpose of GOVERNMENT. When it comes to government, I'd probably agree with you 100%. I don't think you should force your values on other people, practically and philosophically.

[PierzStyx]

There is no such thing as enlightened self-interest. If there was we wouldn't be living in the nation we are today since what best helps one's life be emotionally and materially wealthy is liberty. Yet we see less and less liberty not more and more.

Also greed becomes an issue not because you are fulfilling your wants but because greed knows no bounds. It knows not the limitations of liberty and freedom. Greed over rides rights and proclaims that everyone else owes you their things and justifies you in doing what ever it takes in gaining those things, including suppressing others liberties to fulfill your wants. Greed creates corporatism and collectivism, not fights against it.

[Danke]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1-_k6mKSxk

Wow. Thanks.

[rajibo]

Greatest speech ever?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWH1jEgiO0w

[cdc482]

The Trail of Hank Rearden is very interesting and of course I agree with all of it and believe Hank to be absolutely right, but I have 2 issues with it.
1- I agree with Chaplin. We need to think less, and feel more. Thinking is a fun exerciser, but it won't fix the SOCIAL problems that we have. If you're clever enough you can reason almost anything to those less clever.
2- Some misuse this, libertarianism, and free markets as propaganda to enable corporatism.

While I agree with Hank, I would encourage him to realize that there may be things far more important than money and profit.

Also, I hope you know that modern corporations do not work like Hank.

Also, while it is legal from a government perspective, you a major dick if you use your intelligence to fool those less intelligence into giving you their well being.
-buying a shitty product that you convince them to be valuable
-fooling people into believing that you compensate them fairly when you don't

The list of ethically questionable management practices that are consistent with a free society goes on and on. While I agree with you politically, it is important to realize this. We need people like Ron Paul to call out tricksters with fool us into accepting killing and theft (the military industrial), but we also need people among society to call out the dicks (McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, Televangelists...)

Also, you must realize that while we are all for free markets, there are cases when it is most efficient and most valuable to all parties to have a power above society run the industry. While I don't propose the government should step in, we need people to realize this, so that we can achieve social justice in a way consistent with freedom.

Before you reply, I think it's important to note that no one does anything to born intelligent. Also, that I believe in the premise that there are things greater than myself (the universe). More feeling. Less thinking.

I think Ayn Rand didn't consider the idea that your happiness is dependent on everyone and everything else. I do believe that there are things above and superior to reason. Maybe I have too many or too few chemicals in my body, but I think that reason will only get you so far.
Imagine a world where everyone has the same agenda as Hank. Or a world where everyone shares my agenda. Which would you strive for? p/m me, cause this thread doesn't belong in rp grassroots central.

Can't wait for your reply.

[affa]

Charlie Chaplin's speech is one of my all time favorites. You haters can hate all you want, but it's an important speech.

[Jtorsella]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G1-_k6mKSxk
Thought you were a Rand fan. I am myself. I would strongly suggest that cdc482 read The Fountainhead.

[osan]

Greed is fear of not having enough

No. Greed is simple desire. To wit, "greedy" from the John Uoft dictionary of 1785:


GRE'EDY. adj. [graadig, Dan. gretig, Dutch.]




1. Ravenous; voracious; hungry.




2. Eager; vehemently desirous.



To be greedy is to have hunger, desire, or enthusiasm. You are confusing the basic concept with the degree-variant wherein desire has gone to some morbid extreme. Too much of even good things can produce very poor results.

I would also advise caution in the precise manner of expression. Blaming "greed" has the subtle psychological effect of transference where the actual cause is masked. A prime example of this is the oft mis-quoted statement of Lord Acton's letter wherein he is attributed as having written "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." While very clever in its quasi-poetic construction, the assertion is readily demonstrated as wholly false for the author blames "power" for the choices of corrupt men. The problem lies with men and not power. The assertion is closely analogous to one blaming a hammer for the demise of the murder victim rather than the conscious choice of the man committing the act. A common exposure of this sort of fallacy can be found in the quote, "Guns don't kill people. People kill people."

It may seem that I am lecturing you on some insignificantly arcane point, but I assure that it is not so. Meaning - that is to say, PRECISE meaning is an elusive thing. People communicate daily in the most casual ways and in most cases the loose understanding of the messages transacted between individuals is sufficient to get the jobs done without catastrophe ensuing. "Get me some milk", asked in the context of the household will most often see someone going to the refrigerator and retrieving a container of milk. But if the precise meaning is lost and little Jimmy runs to the corner bodega to buy a quart for mom, the world likely comes to no ill end.

But when the consequences of mis-communicating begin taking on a serious character such that the welfare of people, sometimes even their very lives, depends on proper interpretation of communications, one must adopt a decidedly non-casual attitude toward the manner and mode of expressing oneself. MIlitary operations during wartime is a prime example of this. Mis-steps in communication today could result in countless millions of people killed in this age of nuclear weapons and intercontinental delivery systems.





which is lack of self worth, which is lack of self esteem.

Again you are mistaken. Such issues turn largely on context. If, for example, someone found themselves living in Dresden in 1945, fear of not having enough of those things needed to stay alive would have been the sign of a rational mind realizing the seriousness of one's circumstances. No lack of self worth evident there, all else equal.

What you write MAY be true in a give circumstance, but is not necessarily so in all cases.

I will also pick a small bone with the use of "self esteem". The concept as commonly taken today, while not completely devoid of value, is the product of Marxist schools of thought and has served to divert people from a better understanding of human freedom and the individual's place in this world, which is one of balanced interests of self in the context of others. Do what thou wilt, as Allistair Crowley wrote, but trespass upon the equal territory of others. That last bit Crowley conveniently left out as do the Marxists whose goal it is, well intended or otherwise, to entice children to become prisoners of their own self-absorption and to carry that state of imprisonment throughout their adult lives. Thus hobbled within a cloud of self-imposed ignorance, the men-children become eminently controllable, which is a primary goal of the Marxist.

"Self-esteem", a nominally reasonable concept when viewed and taken raionally, has been turned into a wholly morbid system of self-defeating thought wherein the fish not only takes the bait, but guts, cooks, and pleasingly plates itself for the ones who would feed on it.


We each hold the right to live as we see fit but hold no right to trespass against our fellows. When we so trespass we gamble with our liberty, our safety, and even our very lives. The masturbatory fantasy of contemporary "self-esteem" is indeed a very dangerous game that people unwittingly play and the day may come when it will have to come to an end.

On the other side of the self-esteem coin lies that of being a good fellow to one's neighbors, another concept that has been wholly perverted and twisted into something false and harmful to the health and knowledge of the individual. Not only should one respect himself, but his fellows as well. That high-level concept is still alive, but the details of what defines it have changed almost completely and in diametric opposition to the true meaning where good citizenship means "self sacrifice" and the sublimation, indeed the elimination of the individual in suicidal sacrifice to "others" in the name of the "greater good" and "social responsibility".


As we can see, tyranny in the 21st century is largely about the redefinition of terms. Language is perhaps the deadliest weapon of them all for it is the vehicle of thought itself. He who controls thought controls the world.

[Carehn]

The Trail of Hank Rearden is very interesting and of course I agree with all of it and believe Hank to be absolutely right, but I have 2 issues with it.
1- I agree with Chaplin. We need to think less, and feel more. Thinking is a fun exerciser, but it won't fix the SOCIAL problems that we have. If you're clever enough you can reason almost anything to those less clever.
2- Some misuse this, libertarianism, and free markets as propaganda to enable corporatism.

While I agree with Hank, I would encourage him to realize that there may be things far more important than money and profit.
Your feelings will not grow a single tomato or put a ruff over your head. Yes you can sacrifice yourself in the form of charity to those who 'think' less then you but the very products or services you 'thoughtlessly' gave away where all created by thought. No amount of mindless labor will ever produce anything and no amount of feeling will ever fix anything. Its cause and effect. You can act irrationally based on feelings but that is not how this country was built. Some how I'm getting the impression you 'FEEL' that thinking is somehow destructive to others while feeling is not. Wile this is not the case, even if it was the good of others is not the moral. That is a very dangerous idea that was at the root cause of the dark ages, the world wars, healthcare, interventionism, and every other atrocity in the history of man. Now your probably going to come back with something like ' It wasn't the Idea that was bad only the implementation or the people in charge.' This is wrong. It is the idea that is bad because it places the collective as somekind of god like figure over the individual when no collective exists at all. It seeks to make man live in the type of world fit for bees and aints and other communist insects. Yes the good of the hive is moral for the bee but men are not bees they are men. No amount of feeling any other way will ever change the rock hard, Ice cold brutish reality's of REALITY.

Also, I hope you know that modern corporations do not work like Hank.
How do you know? Some of them don't and that is due to this corporatist/fascist system set up. Giving some with political connections the right to rob, just to keep it simple, and I think you would agree. But theft is not rational self interests. These people are not thinkers or producers. They are those who FEEL more then they THINK. They are acting short range as to satisfy there FEELINGS. But they fail to see how there actions are destroying the world around them. To fix this problem we need to think not feel. For instance, if the average voter was capable of thought then perhaps they would start casting votes based on a rational thought prosses and not some spur of the moment feeling. People like Hank do exist. They are the people the tribe burns at the stake for thinking and letting others live off of them. The tribe very much dislikes people like hank because he shows them glimpses of what its like to be a human-bean. They ran from that years ago.

Also, while it is legal from a government perspective, you a major dick if you use your intelligence to fool those less intelligence into giving you their well being.
-buying a shitty product that you convince them to be valuable
-fooling people into believing that you compensate them fairly when you don't
Yep thats called fraud. Its like theft. But if you mean making shitty widgets that you and I would not buy and voluntarily selling them to stupid people. No crime in that. The one guy wanted the money more then the widget and visaversa. You see, money is not the goal of life, happiness is and if that stupid person is more happy with the widget then it was moral. maybe in the long run they wont be but that choice is theirs alone to make and only THINKING will help them with the best choice not FEELING.

The list of ethically questionable management practices that are consistent with a free society goes on and on. While I agree with you politically, it is important to realize this. We need people like Ron Paul to call out tricksters with fool us into accepting killing and theft (the military industrial), but we also need people among society to call out the dicks (McDonald's, Wal-Mart, Bank of America, Televangelists...)
If you want to go about calling out those you fill are dick and save the consumer from there own stupid choice go right ahead. Just don't use government to do it and I don't think you will have much impact because that is a symptom not a cause. An effect not a cause. You should try to get them to think and not ride on your judgment because you think you are right. This is going to get into the faith / reason thing isn't it?

Also, you must realize that while we are all for free markets, there are cases when it is most efficient and most valuable to all parties to have a power above society run the industry. While I don't propose the government should step in, we need people to realize this, so that we can achieve social justice in a way consistent with freedom.
Social Justice is incompatible with freedom. Freedom is an individual thing. It is never the case that efficiency has been found in force or this power above reason... I mean voluntary agreement. Your starting to scare me dude. Your letting your inner tyrant show. Who the hell do you think you are anyway? By 'we' you mean 'YOU' and buy 'social justice' you mean what you want without having to work for it. Sounds like you may be on the wrong forums lol. But Im going to let this slid because in 4 years as your edumication has grown and progress i bet you would come back and say ' GOD DAMN I was a dumb ass' But your not you just are mixed up for some reason. You need to have a little more self esteem.

Before you reply, I think it's important to note that no one does anything to born intelligent. Also, that I believe in the premise that there are things greater than myself (the universe). More feeling. Less thinking.
Nothing is greater then you unless you think that you would rather die then live without said value be it your kid or something. Nothing could be of any more value to you then your own life. Without it then you loose all the rest anyway. I strongly suggest you reconsider this feeling about having greater values then yourself. Its going to lead to horrible psychological problems for you. Unhappiness will be your reward and more self sacrifice will be all you know to do because you wont know thats why your so unhappy. Like spending and the bad economy if you will.

I think Ayn Rand didn't consider the idea that your happiness is dependent on everyone and everything else. I do believe that there are things above and superior to reason. Maybe I have too many or too few chemicals in my body, but I think that reason will only get you so far.
Imagine a world where everyone has the same agenda as Hank. Or a world where everyone shares my agenda. Which would you strive for? p/m me, cause this thread doesn't belong in rp grassroots central.
Your happiness is not dependent upon anyone. What a load of crap! What does a world where everyone shares the same agenda have to do with this. Happiness is different for everyone. You may be the most selfless ron paul supporter ever. Should not we sacrifice our happiness and just vote for Romney because thats what the collective wants and who our we to go against the great benevolent majority?

"Greed is not the problem, irrational self interest is."
The United States produces enough food to feed the entire world, but people are hungry. Greed is a problem.
People seek out jobs that don't add value to others, but rather fool people into giving their money for junk. Greed is a problem.
Manufacturers dump their waste on other people's land to cut cost. Greed is a problem.
Companies kill others for profit. Greed is a problem
Lack of food is not because i have to much
Read that book defending the undefendable
Waste is dumped because of lack of property rights hens lack of greed
Companies don't kill other companies. Companies kill themselfs for sucking the most out of all of them. The consumer kills stupid wasteful companies


"Production not jobs is the goal, the ration, moral goal of any economy."
What if a society comes to knick-knacks far above what they are actually worth, producing millions of knick-knacks for the rich, while others starve. Is that the goal of a moral economy?
If producing knick knacks is a step in acheaving the producers happiness then it is moral for the producer. I suppose your goal can be feeding the hungry and that is moral as well. You cant tell people to live there lifes they way you want them to because you know better thats evil. That is EVIL at its very core. You must be the change YOU want to see in the world, Not make others buy force do it for you. Get off your ass and feed them yourself.

"to strive for himself is somehow ripping everyone else off."
Not necessarily. Overall, I would agree with you that if everyone should be free to pursue their own happiness, so long as they don't interfere with the rights of others. However, I think Chaplin is working on the social level here, not the political one. Asking people to value love and to help others instead of buying a lamborghini...
No such social level exists. It is a fake reality designed buy bad philosophers in order to make their stupid ideas work at least in there own little mind. But if you think feeling more and thinking less will make things better for you or me then feel free to go right ahead and do it. Just know I would expect an irrational unhappy future for both of us if to many people start doing it.

Interesting question. I've had this one before as well.

I think the judges should be very objective. Anything that doesn't directly (emotional attachment doesn't count) hurt anyone else should be allowed.
Remember the philosophy 101 train example. I don't think you have the right to push anyone onto the track, but you absolutely do have the right to throw yourself in front of the train and push the other people out of the way.
You have no right to push them out of the way if they want to be their. Unless its your train i guess. But sacrificing yourself for a suicidal sap is kinda a stupid idea.

But personally, I think it's good to strive for a point when others do take precedence over yourself.
Your wrong.

The goal of my life is to leave the world a better place then when I got here. I try to improve myself everyday, which is a kind of hard in normal living (school, work, etc. doesn't leave a lot of time to think). At the least, I want to do no harm, which is more difficult than you might think. (Simply buying certain products can harm many people). I try to grow by thinking and learning about how to be a good person, and trying live as one in my regular life. (It's tough, because I go to a very stressful school.) I want to have a positive impact on other people, that as a result changes them in a positive way.
How warm and fuzzy. If thats what you want then go for it. I suggest you look at what you wrote. """"I try to grow by thinking..."""" DING DING DING. Just keep thinking and you may turn out alright.

For example, I saw a blind guy struggling to cross the street and everyone was just staring at him. At first, I fell into the staring, but then I realized, "Be the change you want to see in the world," and I helped him across to show others there was nothing to be afraid of. Obviously, it's very difficult to be a genuinely selfless person 24/7 in today's world for 2 main reasons. 1- It's hard to be yourself around other people, and 2- People would think your a nut. There's a lot of social norms that are not selfless. In American society, you don't offer someone a ride, even if they're walking in the rain, because rape is the first thing that jumps in their mind. The concept of a good deed for goodness sake (pun intended) should be spread around IMO.
You did that good deed for yourself because you wanted to be the change. You wanted to make the world they way it should be. So in fact you did not do that for the blind guy but for yourself you selfish bastard!!! See my point?

The goals are different for everyone, and I think that's fine. However, like I said, I do hope to positively impact people, so that little by little people become kinder to each other and their environment.
That is a noble and rational goal to witch I bet you find happiness.

[cdc482]

Ooops

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

[QUOTE=Carehn;3869419]This is a horrible speech. Greed is not the problem,

Greed is the problem. You can not worship God and mammon.

irrational self interest is.

Greed is irrational, from any point of view - and as mentioned by others in this thread.

A lack of self esteem is the problem.

If you like Ayn Rand, you have no self esteem. The title of the book Atlas Shrugged mis-uses the myth of Atlas, which was holding a celestial globe not the world on his shoulders, as quoted by Francisco in the book. Aristolian logic, used in the titles of the sections of the book, is by its nature not objective - which was one of the main points of Francis Bacon's Novum Organum - the founding book of the objective scientific method, and the first line of Atlas Shrugged as well as a lot of other things is plagerized from The Driver, by Garret - a well known writer of free market books in the 1920s on up, and if you read it, you'll see the "driver" that is missing from Atlas Shrugged.

And that's only up to the first line of the book. The entire book is filled with that. It is meant as a farce, and if you don't get that, you have either no knowledge or no pride to admit you were wrong - an example of mis-placed self esteem. Ayn Rand was a pig. She was a racist neocon, who only allowed Jewish people inside her inner circle, was ranting against the Palenstines on TV - see youtube clips, was a neocon, and spent half the book making fun of Christianity - which is a little self serving considering the background. One of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan, who caused the banking collapse, and was recently on the news making fun of lazy Americans - as if he wasn't an american and as if he didnt have any thing to do with bubbling up the fiat currency collapse.

Most of the people that read her works don't get any of the above. It's a farce, but it's a nasty one.

Can you imagine life where you never look anything up? You inverse Greek legends, call non-scientific reasoning objective, and plagerize from works, etc. Where the one DRIVER needed for good government is missing from the book, designed to cause it all to collapse. It's a murder mystery all right. Nasty.

Learn stuff. Read original pivitol works in human history. Don't read a fictional farce - designed to make fun of, well, the readers who don't get it.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

Ayn Rand - another neocon - see farce above. Alan Greenspan's currency collapse is funny to - who wrote articles on supporting the "gold standard" for Ayn Rand. Harhar, great farce.

Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

Alan Greenspan - we can always just print up more money!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6vi528gseA

[VoluntaryAmerican]

As stated abundantly above - I don't think this speech is terrific, because its main premise "Greed is evil" is incorrect and is an anti-capitalistic mentality and also a anti-technological mentality.

Take out that and he's half right.

But what do you expect from Chaplin, a communist?

[cdc482]

Ayn Rand - another neocon - see farce above. Alan Greenspan's currency collapse is funny to - who wrote articles on supporting the "gold standard" for Ayn Rand. Harhar, great farce.

Ayn Rand on Israel and the Middle East
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU

Alan Greenspan - we can always just print up more money!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6vi528gseA

That was disgusting! I can't believe the founder of libertarianism would say one way of living is superior to another. Just goes to show that no one knows everything.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

That was disgusting! I can't believe the founder of libertarianism would say one way of living is superior to another. Just goes to show that no one knows everything.

She didn't found libertarianism, but something she called Objectivism - which if you look at the development of the actual scientific method and natural law - is the EXACT opposite. She was also against the actual Libertarian party.

Oh yes, she was against natural law too. The Prime Mover theory, which she makes fun of in one of the chapters in Atlas Shrugged, was often used by diests (including Christian, but it came before that) as part of the development of natural law - morality just like the universe's physical laws. You're not suppose to notice that either.

You can look for that stuff every chapter. It is how the book is written. It's a nasty joke.

Ayn Rand's background is actually interesting too as far as I can discover. She went to college under the communist system when only communists could attend, her mother was a communist party member, she was researching hollywood for the soviet union when the communists where trying to infiltrate it, much later gave testimony "against" the communists, etc etc (I could go on quite a bit).

Read her book like its written by an enemy who is lying to you every step of the way. It's a lot more fun. Be "objective". Don't assume the author is a friend. What is her purpose? Well, somewhere in the book it talks about things like destroying the self esteem of a generation to come, and how a bad philosophy can cause a lot of damage, etc. That's her.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

http://www.usagold.com/gildedopinion/greenspan.html
One of several essays by Alan Greenspan in Ayn Rand's Capitalism, the Unknown Ideal.

Compare to this:

Alan Greenspan - we can always just print up more money!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6vi528gseA

These people are completely phony. They use lies to get ahead.

The Driver -
'who is Henry Galt?'
http://books.google.com/books/reader?id=SoqU_RBwhNIC&printsec=frontcover&output=reader

Allegorical - the book is named for how Henry Galt SUCCEEDES in the board room (the driver). This book is a much nicer read. Instead of everyone dying, people succeed. A better driver as it were - and NOT plagerized. The Biblical quotation by the grandmother, how his enemies treat him at the end, and the marriage is also sweet.

----
(Or compare to Alan Greenspan blaming the economic crises to lazy Americans recently), ie
http://rt.com/usa/news/american-youth-adds-old/

More self-esteem pychological attacks. Create the problem, than blame it on Americans being lazy, not the money being completely funny.

And I thought Greenspan WAS an American. Wait for it - ALWAYS CHECK YOUR PREMISES.

[SpiritOf1776_J4]

...

[goldwater's ghost]

i go between these two depending on my mood


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7vtWB4owdE

[nasaal]

I don't have any real problem with the speech. For one thing a speech is mostly about delivery. Even Hitler(a horrible human being) gave amazing speeches. Ideologically "greed" is too broad a word to attack or truly defend strongly. Greed in the context of this film is the love of money over any rational idea. Loving money more than loving people. In a Ron Paul type society, we would take care of each other because of our good nature. The type of greed talked about in the speech is a greed that overrides any desire to help others. Gain at the expense of anything around you. Let's not pick everything apart, and just enjoy it. If you don't like it for it's delivery or whatever then cool let's hear it. Let us however not get obsessed in the semantics of what does "greed" mean.

[Danke]

i go between these two depending on my mood


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qXBswFfh6AY


That truly is an incredible speech. Still holds true today and the situation has grown worse. Same shit, different day.

[dusman]

This is just a part of one of my favorite speeches. I highly recommend you watch this part and if you like it, watch the whole lecture.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRcJ3Bu4rz8&feature=related

[S.Shorland]

Not this nonsense again.Wrong forum

[Jtorsella]

and the first line of Atlas Shrugged as well as a lot of other things is plagerized from The Driver, by Garret - a well known writer of free market books in the 1920s on up, and if you read it, you'll see the "driver" that is missing from Atlas Shrugged.
From Wikipedia:

Libertarian writer Justin Raimondo argued that Garrett's novel The Driver, which is about a speculator called Henry M. Galt who takes over a failing railroad, was the source of the name "Galt" and the rhetorical device, "Who is John Galt?" for Ayn Rand in her novel, "Atlas Shrugged", which has a mystery character named John Galt.[1] In contrast, Chris Matthew Sciabarra argued Raimondo's "claims that Rand plagiarized...The Driver" to be "unsupported."[2] Garrett's biographer, Bruce Ramsey, wrote, "Both The Driver and Atlas Shrugged have to do with running railroads during an economic depression, and both suggest pro-capitalist ways in which the country might get out of the depression. But in plot, character, tone, and theme they are very different."[3]
If Garret's own biographer said that the books were substantially different, doesn't tht mmean it's probably true? Rand may have borrowed the last name of one of his character, so what? Writers borrow from each other all the time. There is also a plethora of her brainstorming and writing that shows he did not steal the railroad bit.


And that's only up to the first line of the book. The entire book is filled with that. It is meant as a farce, and if you don't get that, you have either no knowledge or no pride to admit you were wrong - an example of mis-placed self esteem. Ayn Rand was a pig. She was a racist neocon, who only allowed Jewish people inside her inner circle, was ranting against the Palenstines on TV - see youtube clips, was a neocon, and spent half the book making fun of Christianity - which is a little self serving considering the background. One of her inner circle was Alan Greenspan, who caused the banking collapse, and was recently on the news making fun of lazy Americans - as if he wasn't an american and as if he didnt have any thing to do with bubbling up the fiat currency collapse.
Rand wasn't perfect, no matter what her fanatical following may tell you. She was pretty bad on the Middle East crises, and pretty much supported the Iranian overthrow in 1953. That literally says nothing about her broader claims. Alan Greenspan abandoned free markets long ago, after Rand died.

[sonik]

Watch this video by ANONYMOUS

ANONYMOUS for RON PAUL (The Plan) 2012 Today

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2pYPaA6QU7o

[affa]

Understanding the historical context of this speech is important.

1) Charlie Chaplin was an early critic of Hitler and fascism. The West was undecided on these issues when he was making The Great Dictator (finished in 1940)... and so while to today's audience it seems to be 'common sense' to criticize Germany and Italy, it was decidedly not as clear cut then.

2) Chaplin was, and perhaps is, one of the most iconic silent film stars of all time. His 'little tramp' is instantly recognizable the world over. This speech, at the end of The Great Dictator, were his first words. That sort of epic moment - a silent film mega-star speaking - can only happen once in history. And Chaplin chose to speak out to the world with this powerful message, rather than, say, tell a joke.

Great speech. Hater's gonna hate, but it's a beautiful, moving speech.

[Jtorsella]

Understanding the historical context of this speech is important.

1) Charlie Chaplin was an early critic of Hitler and fascism. The West was undecided on these issues when he was making The Great Dictator (finished in 1940)... and so while to today's audience it seems to be 'common sense' to criticize Germany and Italy, it was decidedly not as clear cut then.


Yeah in the context it was understandable as Fascism was thought to be Capitalism's retaliation to Socialism.

[JordanL]

This is a horrible speech. Greed is not the problem, irrational self interest is. A lack of self esteem is the problem. this speech would suggest otherwise. 'we think to much and feel to little???? My ass. We feel to much and think to little. And machinery has nothing to do with economic problems. Machinery increases production raising the level of all. Production not jobs is the goal, the ration, moral goal of any economy.

The problem is he accuses ration self interest and the individual as being the cause of the loss of liberty. the philosophy of liberty focusing on the individual and his rational self interest as the primary mover and his own happiness and the ends of any means. It is a contradictory speech, he says that mans greed, or his own happiness is at fault for the loss of happiness in the individual. That if only man was able to give up his self he could somehow achieve it, but to strive for himself is somehow ripping everyone else off. this is the fundamental flaw in thinking today be it left or right, and though he says many fine things that little bit of rat poison will still kill you.

This is a stupid video demonstrating the very problem we face in the voting public today.

It is not immoral to strive for your own values. If we cant get that through peoples empty skulls then we will never win.

Greed is self-interest to the inherent exclusion and detriment of other people's inalienable rights.

It is not immoral to strive for your own values, as you said. It is, however, inherently immoral to pursue your own self-interest to the exclusion of the pursuit of others.

Greed, as it ACTUALLY is, not the fancy talking points of the Dems, etc., is the monetary equivalent of social engineering: using government and other social structures to enforce your own vision upon people who have no choice in the matter and quite possibly disagree. It is the economic equivalent of the anti-Gay Marriage or anti-Muslim laws that many social conservatives want to see...

And I should be clear, what I am saying is that there is no ceiling for your wealth, but there are acceptable and unacceptable, from a liberty perspective, ways of achieving that wealth, primarily because many exchanges and trades are not actually consensual in today's society. Establishing strong consent of property exchange in our society once again would itself obviate nearly all greed, but the speech is correct in identifying the symptom of our broken property rights in today's society.