Skip wrote:There has never been a society that didn't put the collective interest above individual self-interest. Had there been one, it wouldn't have lasted two generations. In every society, there is a large measure of willing participation, voluntary curbing of short-term gain for long-term security and mutual defence, but there has also been a degree of dissent and resistance on the part of some individuals, which must be overcome by force on behalf of the group. This force is usually called police.
Should the collective have no powers at all to protect the weak against the strong?
The state doesn't enforce compassion; it enforces a standard of conditions acceptable to its citizens. Sweat shops were outlawed when the majority of citizens objected to child labour; tenements are not yet outlawed, because the majority do not object.
Dalek Prime wrote:You can't convince idiots like this, Ned. There are too many who can't see past their noses.
Actually, he is not an idiot, but terribly ignorant of history, political science, sociology and psychology. He is a scientist who never looked outside his particular specialty and is very naive about everything else. He had recently arrived to the West from almost total cultural isolation in his native country and just started looking around him, trying to understand the suddenly enlarged world he found himself in. Being a scientist, he is strongly drawn to theories that are built up from fundamental principles. So, when he encountered Ayn Rand, he thought that her philosophy would help him understand the strange new world.
(It took him decades of hard work: studying, learning, thinking, debating, analyzing to realize how wrong he was in his ignorance)
Just in case you are wondering: I was that idiot 40 years ago.
Actually, I think he would have found Skip's post convincing, even back then (that is why I quoted it again).
