Well - someone certainly doesn't like corporate types. :P While I agree about the lawful, why is someone in insurance evil? Assuming it isn't one of those fly-by-night insurance companies - most consistently hold to the policies, paying out when warranted etc. - a LN action. (don't believe how it was portrayed in The Incredibles - that guy was LE :P) Giving more than what the person needs would be stealing, as it isn't their money that they're giving out, but the company owners'. (A decent chunk of which are virtually always the policy holders.)
Corporations by law exist to benefit the stockholders (and the top executives) rather than the policyholders (who are mostly not stockholders). The Incredibles portrayal is not so far off. Insurance companies (especially health insurance) have people whose job description is expressly (if not explicitly) to deny claim coverage using any excuse whatsoever, no matter how unjust, as long as it is legal. At least one of these (former) people has even testified to this effect. The purpose of an insurance company from the point of view of the customers is to spread risk, but the purpose of an insurance company from the corporate point of view is to benefit the stockholders (and top executives) as much as possible while doing the minimal amount needed for the majority of the customers not to withdraw from the business altogether (as opposed to switching to a competitor that is almost certain to be almost as evil); to keep customers from withdrawing, a rigid adherence to written rules is required, although the rules can be as fine print and as convoluted as manageable; a breakdown of law and order (even for short-term profit) is an existential threat to such a corporation. (This is true of corporations in general, but insurance companies make some of the finest examples of this form of legalized exploitation, along with their friends in various governments.) That is why corporations are so terrible at providing affordable health care.
Neutral Evil works for corporations that can continue to profit regardless of social order or disruption (at least up to a point): Customers of energy companies and the military-industrial complex CAN'T withdraw from the business completely, so they can maintain some level of function even in severely dysfunctional (if not completely failed) states. They often have rules, but these rules are all negotiable for the prospect of enough profit, because any of them (if not all simultaneously) can be dispensed with while not destroying the corporation (or other institution -- Neutral Evil is also common among governments).
Full-fledged Chaotic Evil is so wanton that it doesn't mesh well with a corporate structure. Certainly, it can support organizations of a certain type, but these are bound by some combination of personal loyalty and fear (combined of course with greed and often including completely unreasoning tradition), but not by any true rule of law, even though in some cases they may (for public relations purposes) go to the minor trouble of setting down arbitrarily harsh and restrictive laws in their books. Don't let their harsh rules (if applicable) fool you -- fully Chaotic Evil organizations (which do exist but are not corporations) don't need any of their rules for any non-dispensable purpose, and those who make the rules can dispense with as many of them as they want even for just the whim of the moment, as long as they please their bosses and keep their underlings underneath. Examples of Chaotic Evil organizations range from certain street gangs and pirates up to certain governments (think of those of Muammar Gaddafi and Idi Amin, or of various warlords).
Corporation exist to make money. They are neutral. They can benefit society or bring great harm, it depends on what makes money. The decisions and actions of a corporation do not consider morality.
I wouldn't even call most corporations lawful. The ones focused on long term stability could be considered lawful, but for many companies long-term planning is next Tuesday.
|
Corporations by law exist to benefit the stockholders (and the top executives) rather than the policyholders (who are mostly not stockholders). The Incredibles portrayal is not so far off. Insurance companies (especially health insurance) have people whose job description is expressly (if not explicitly) to deny claim coverage using any excuse whatsoever, no matter how unjust, as long as it is legal.
A couple of points -
1 - Most insurance companies are set up so that the policy holders are inherently stockholders. A couple of them even brag about being 100% owned by policy holders. Therefore the two (policy/stockholders) are one and the same.
2 - I can't weigh in on health insurance - but my father worked in auto/homeowners insurance claims for 40+ years. It simply doesn't happen the way you're describing. What you're descriping are the exception - the 'fly-by-night' insurance companies I mentioned. That's like saying that because you read about a waiter somewhere spitting in the food that all waiters are horrible people.
Go to TVTropes.com.
Search Chaotic Evil.
You're welcome.
A couple of points -1 - Most insurance companies are set up so that the policy holders are inherently stockholders. A couple of them even brag about being 100% owned by policy holders. Therefore the two (policy/stockholders) are one and the same.
Must be second class stockholders, then, at least in the case of health insurance companies. Also, if this is true, they must be trying to keep it awfully well hidden (as one might expect they would do for second class stockholders) -- I try to read ALL agreements as carefully as I would an Infernal Contract, and have never noticed the feature you described.
2 - I can't weigh in on health insurance - but my father worked in auto/homeowners insurance claims for 40+ years. It simply doesn't happen the way you're describing. What you're descriping are the exception - the 'fly-by-night' insurance companies I mentioned. That's like saying that because you read about a waiter somewhere spitting in the food that all waiters are horrible people.
Not fly-by-night (with the possible exception of whatever that health insurance company was that University of Chicago stuck me with when I was there) -- the major health insurance companies do a lot of what I described above -- hence the push (so far not truly successful) for health insurance reform in the United States. You might be closer to correct for auto insurance -- I have gotten consistently better service from these than from health insurance companies.
|
|
Not fly-by-night (with the possible exception of whatever that health insurance company was that University of Chicago stuck me with when I was there) -- the major health insurance companies do a lot of what I described above -- hence the push (so far not truly successful) for health insurance reform in the United States. You might be closer to correct for auto insurance -- I have gotten consistently better service from these than from health insurance companies.
Yeah - health insurance is an entirely different ball of wax. (And of note - the Incredibles scene was for auto. :P)
I blame FDR. :P Much of that's due to patients not being the customers to health insurance companies, but the businesses that they work for. That's because FDR froze wages, so companies began giving benefits to get around the rule, setting the precident for today.
Anywho - while not current politics - that's as much of that as I'm willing to touch on a Pathfinder message board.
I never claimed to be a psychologist, I was just pointing out an interesting / relevant stat, and that particular clarifying point was made in the article I read. (I do understand my stats.)Though of course, being a sociopath (totally different from a psychopath)Please don't pretend to psychological knowledge you don't have.
That particular "clarifying point" is wrong. The distinction between "psychopath" and "sociopath" is of historical era only. "Sociopath" was the preferred term for a very badly defined diagnosis from about 1930 to 1950, displacing the earlier "psychopath," which had been used since the 19th century. With the development of actual diagnostic standards (e.g., the DSM, first published in 1952) neither term is used. DSM-IV uses the term "antisocial personality disorder."
Both "psychopath" and "sociopath" are terms thrown around only by quacks.
You are right. The proper term now is anti social personality disorder. Which is a proper DSM IV Diagnosis. Why use one word when you can use three?
You are right. The proper term now is anti social personality disorder. Which is a proper DSM IV Diagnosis. Why use one word when you can use three?I never claimed to be a psychologist, I was just pointing out an interesting / relevant stat, and that particular clarifying point was made in the article I read. (I do understand my stats.)Though of course, being a sociopath (totally different from a psychopath)Please don't pretend to psychological knowledge you don't have.
That particular "clarifying point" is wrong. The distinction between "psychopath" and "sociopath" is of historical era only. "Sociopath" was the preferred term for a very badly defined diagnosis from about 1930 to 1950, displacing the earlier "psychopath," which had been used since the 19th century. With the development of actual diagnostic standards (e.g., the DSM, first published in 1952) neither term is used. DSM-IV uses the term "antisocial personality disorder."
Both "psychopath" and "sociopath" are terms thrown around only by quacks.
because psychopath and sociopath have negative connotations, while antisocial personality disorder, is neutral. or at least more neutral.
Recently saw the first season of Falling Skies and this one guy comes to mind
John Pope
This character in the aftermath of an alien invasion, gets himself a gang of thugs and pretty much spends his days doing whatever the hell he wants, particularly killing as many aliens as he can.
Over the series he does do some fairly decent things, saving other characters, he's a good cook, will lecture you for an hour over the benefits of the right choice of spices and food preparation and he even manages to figure out how to canibalize the enemy's weapons for humanity.
but he will also abandon people at the drop of a hat to carry out his own agenda, has no problem with his buddies commiting rape and murder and no problem screwing over other people so that he can go set some aliens on fire.
ultimately even the times he helps people aren't out of any sense of altruism it's simple because he feels like it. He is a selfish prick who wants to kill aliens. If that gets other people killed, oh well, it's a kill or be killed world.
Maybe his character grows as the series goes on (only seen season 1 so far) but what I've seen of him was devoted only to his needs and wants and the rest of the world can take care of itself.
|
|
You are right. The proper term now is anti social personality disorder. Which is a proper DSM IV Diagnosis. Why use one word when you can use three?because psychopath and sociopath have negative connotations, while antisocial personality disorder, is neutral. or at least more neutral.
So - it's one of those things where they keep coming up with new names, because as a negative thing, whatever name it's given eventually gets negative connotations? :P (Originally 'idiot' and 'moron' were official designations on the IQ scale.)
So - it's one of those things where they keep coming up with new names, because as a negative thing, whatever name it's given eventually gets negative connotations? :P (Originally 'idiot' and 'moron' were official designations on the IQ scale.)You are right. The proper term now is anti social personality disorder. Which is a proper DSM IV Diagnosis. Why use one word when you can use three?because psychopath and sociopath have negative connotations, while antisocial personality disorder, is neutral. or at least more neutral.
Not really. It's more that they're picked up by the lay audience and misused (as in the discussion above), and so it's easier for the few thousand specialists who actually care about precision to agree to a new set of terminology than it is to try to persuade everyone else in the world to stop (ab)using the words.
In this specific case, it also helps to resolve terminological confusion (having two words for the same condition) without having to make a political decision about which group was correct. I've met Englishmen who are still upset about "sulphur" and IUPAC's decision to bless the US spelling.
I'm starting to like the idea of a CE philosopher. He worships the abyss not for personal gain, but because he sees the abyss as what all things should be.
Instead of enforcing his will on others, or creating strife through lies and trickery, he does something far worse. He constructs sound arguments to convince people to do a "good" which overarching consequence is greater ruin to society and all that is sacred.
He wants people in full knowledge and command of what they are doing to choose chaos and evil, since in his mind, this leads to the greatest amount of ruin.
He is the kind of guy who would argue why Arthas did nothing wrong when he killed all those peasants. He would be the one arguing for the moral justification of a perspective war. He is the one that argues for purging a village of monsters "for the good of everyone".
Kind of an inversion to the malconvoker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm starting to like the idea of a CE philosopher. He worships the abyss not for personal gain, but because he sees the abyss as what all things should be.
Instead of enforcing his will on others, or creating strife through lies and trickery, he does something far worse. He constructs sound arguments to convince people to do a "good" which overarching consequence is greater ruin to society and all that is sacred.
He wants people in full knowledge and command of what they are doing to choose chaos and evil, since in his mind, this leads to the greatest amount of ruin.
He is the kind of guy who would argue why Arthas did nothing wrong when he killed all those peasants. He would be the one arguing for the moral justification of a perspective war. He is the one that argues for purging a village of monsters "for the good of everyone".
Kind of an inversion to the malconvoker.
So, Ayn Rand, then. Except for the "sound arguments" part, of course. And arguably the "philosopher" part as well.
So, Ayn Rand, then. Except for the "sound arguments" part, of course. And arguably the "philosopher" part as well.I'm starting to like the idea of a CE philosopher. He worships the abyss not for personal gain, but because he sees the abyss as what all things should be.
Instead of enforcing his will on others, or creating strife through lies and trickery, he does something far worse. He constructs sound arguments to convince people to do a "good" which overarching consequence is greater ruin to society and all that is sacred.
He wants people in full knowledge and command of what they are doing to choose chaos and evil, since in his mind, this leads to the greatest amount of ruin.
He is the kind of guy who would argue why Arthas did nothing wrong when he killed all those peasants. He would be the one arguing for the moral justification of a perspective war. He is the one that argues for purging a village of monsters "for the good of everyone".
Kind of an inversion to the malconvoker.
No she was neutral. This character isn't selfish and rarely argues for selfish behavior.
He is more like the caricature that Ayn Rand warns against except aware of what he is doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No she was neutral. This character isn't selfish and rarely argues for selfish behavior.
So, Ayn Rand, then. Except for the "sound arguments" part, of course. And arguably the "philosopher" part as well.
But "selfishness" is exactly the "good" that (observably, in her fiction) causes ruin to society.
He is more like the caricature that Ayn Rand warns against.
The caricature being John Galt himself? I think "he constructs sound arguments to convince people to do a "good" which overarching consequence is greater ruin to society and all that is sacred" is a very good description of Galt's aims and methods. As can be easily observed by the final chapter of Atlas Shrugged.
I wouldn't even call most corporations lawful. The ones focused on long term stability could be considered lawful, but for many companies long-term planning is next Tuesday.
But "selfishness" is exactly the "good" that (observably, in her fiction) causes ruin to society.So, Ayn Rand, then. Except for the "sound arguments" part, of course. And arguably the "philosopher" part as well.No she was neutral. This character isn't selfish and rarely argues for selfish behavior.He is more like the caricature that Ayn Rand warns against.The caricature being John Galt himself? I think "he constructs sound arguments to convince people to do a "good" which overarching consequence is greater ruin to society and all that is sacred" is a very good description of Galt's aims and methods. As can be easily observed by the final chapter of Atlas Shrugged.
In her construction of selfishness, if universally applied, prevents a society from falling to ruin. She doesn't believe in higher goods than doing no harm, which is why I call her neutral. Her ethical egoism prevents both great evils and great goods if applied universally.
I'm more of a Fountainhead guy myself. In that book she has two kinds of "good" people. There are those that twist good to gain power, but she argues that power is an empty pursuit and thus not a selfish aim. The other kinds of good people are hallow empty shells devoid of agency. They are controlled by whatever notions of good they think they should parrot.
This character represents that latter group in his outward actions (thus appearing good), but he does consciously control his actions for the greater ruin of all.
Rand doesn't believe in "good" people, so to her nothing can be gained from notions outside of selfishness. There is no greater good to her than simply not harming others. She fiercely argues for what we would consider a neutral alignment.
This character I am talking about is as evil and chaotic as they come, but would be free from any of the deadly sins. His conscious resembles the abyss itself.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In her construction of selfishness, if universally applied, prevents a society from falling to ruin.But "selfishness" is exactly the "good" that (observably, in her fiction) causes ruin to society.So, Ayn Rand, then. Except for the "sound arguments" part, of course. And arguably the "philosopher" part as well.No she was neutral. This character isn't selfish and rarely argues for selfish behavior.He is more like the caricature that Ayn Rand warns against.The caricature being John Galt himself? I think "he constructs sound arguments to convince people to do a "good" which overarching consequence is greater ruin to society and all that is sacred" is a very good description of Galt's aims and methods. As can be easily observed by the final chapter of Atlas Shrugged.
Right. That's why SHE HERSELF is evil; she's creating a spurious apparently-sound argument to "convince people to do a "good" which overarching consequence is greater ruin to society," by her own construction in the final chapter of Atlas.
From her own words, society itself is evil and she's not above having her designated "integrated (indivisible) and perfect" character knowingly "consciously control his actions for the greater ruin of all," or at least everyone who's not living in Galt's Gulch at the end of the book. And it's quite deliberate -- Galt explicitly boasts that he will "stop the motor of the world," at a human cost that is truly staggering. People are dying by the millions in the food riots that he deliberately caused.
There is literally no sense in which Galt (and by extension, Rand's philosophy) can be considered anything other than selfish evil.
This character I am talking about is as evil and chaotic as they come, but would be free from any of the deadly sins. His conscious resembles the abyss itself.
Sounds like both Ms. Rand and Mr. Galt to me.
For many people, alignment is not good enough for their games and now you are trying to apply it to real people and communities ?
No, you're right. "Respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" are definitely things that should be kept strictly confined to fictional universes. No knowing what harm would come if people regulated their real-world behavior based on such principles.
:rolleyes:
|
Shan Yu from Mulan. He wishes to take things by the force of his arm alone. He slaughters an entire village, and likely more. In deleted scenes he even killed a songbird that one of his men wanted to keep from plunder. Ordered the death of a man because only one is needed to deliver a message. And he is still not stupid, in fact he's brilliant something that makes him a very big threat. Brilliant warrior, no mercy, and no morals. Class wise, he'd likely be a huntmaster cavalier of the order of the Dragon.
Pre-redeemed Discord from MLP may be zany, crazy, wacky and completely off the wall. He appears to be the crazy CE at first. But under this he's very smart. He removes the threat to his freedom in very short order.
In her construction of selfishness, if universally applied, prevents a society from falling to ruin.But "selfishness" is exactly the "good" that (observably, in her fiction) causes ruin to society.So, Ayn Rand, then. Except for the "sound arguments" part, of course. And arguably the "philosopher" part as well.No she was neutral. This character isn't selfish and rarely argues for selfish behavior.He is more like the caricature that Ayn Rand warns against.The caricature being John Galt himself? I think "he constructs sound arguments to convince people to do a "good" which overarching consequence is greater ruin to society and all that is sacred" is a very good description of Galt's aims and methods. As can be easily observed by the final chapter of Atlas Shrugged.Right. That's why SHE HERSELF is evil; she's creating a spurious apparently-sound argument to "convince people to do a "good" which overarching consequence is greater ruin to society," by her own construction in the final chapter of Atlas.
From her own words, society itself is evil and she's not above having her designated "integrated (indivisible) and perfect" character knowingly "consciously control his actions for the greater ruin of all," or at least everyone who's not living in Galt's Gulch at the end of the book. And it's quite deliberate -- Galt explicitly boasts that he will "stop the motor of the world," at a human cost that is truly staggering. People are dying by the millions in the food riots that he deliberately caused.
There is literally no sense in which Galt (and by extension, Rand's philosophy) can be considered anything other than selfish evil.
This character I am talking about is as evil and chaotic as they come, but would be free from any of the deadly sins. His conscious resembles the abyss itself.Sounds like both Ms. Rand and Mr. Galt to me.
I will once again point out, that I have read the fountainhead and am not commenting on atlas shrugged.
Rand's philosophies don't cause ruin to society, but they do call for a restructuring of society. Her values differ from yours, but that does not mean her vision is a ruinous one. "Respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" defines Rand to her core.
Where Rand can be attacked is in how limited she considers mankind's capacity for good. Saying that she herself is evil is almost nonsensical. After looking up a bit of atlas shrugged, I can guess your concern. She explores a corner case of her philosophies while paralleling them with examples of when her philosophies should have been applied and weren't. Concluding that Mr. Galt is directly responsible for the economic downturn grossly ignores the accountability of everyone else in the country. Part her "dignity of sentient beings" is their right to use their minds for only themselves and how you can't obligate someone to use their minds for others. Saying that you can force people to use their minds for others in her mind strips them of their dignity as sentient beings. She displays countless examples of where that ideology harms society next to the one example where it might be able to help society for the "greater good", but she argues against such a cold utilitarian ideal.
Where this CE character I am talking would differ is that he argues from all the angles. He pulls from every set of ethics to justify the most damage as possible. He'll argue for damaging regulations and then argue later that people are not obligated to share economy boosting inventions, but he would do it in such a way as to narrow the applicable scope of the ethic, so that no potential good could be derived from it. His goal is to construct a person's morality so that it only provides harm. (And if you really think that that is how Rand's ethics work, then you don't fully grasp the ethical theory)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
He'll argue for damaging regulations and then argue later that people are not obligated to share economy boosting inventions, but he would do it in such a way as to narrow the applicable scope of the ethic, so that no potential good could be derived from it.
If your CE philosopher pursues such uncompelling lines of argument, he'll fail to achieve your goal, which was a CE philosopher whose presentation of his (CE) philosophy seemed convincingly Good.
He'll argue for damaging regulations and then argue later that people are not obligated to share economy boosting inventions, but he would do it in such a way as to narrow the applicable scope of the ethic, so that no potential good could be derived from it.If your CE philosopher pursues such uncompelling lines of argument, he'll fail to achieve your goal, which was a CE philosopher whose presentation of his (CE) philosophy seemed convincingly Good.
Obviously you don't start your argument with, "lets make millions starve!"
Speaking of philosophy, there's some different views on what makes a person Chaotic Evil: 1)what he does vs. 2)what he is. In the first one, it's the person's actions that serve the causes chaos and evil in the external world that makes her Chaotic Evil. In the second one, Chaos and Evil within the person's internal makeup govern who he is and how he does things.
In View #1, a person can serve the interests of Chaos and Evil (not necessarily in name but causes that serve this cosmic moral forces) without being that particularly disorganized or unfocused because it's not who the CE person is but how his actions and intentions promote chaos and evil within the world.
In View #2, a person gets the CE tag because these forces govern her being. A CE evil fellow follows a chaotic, disorganized, vile, and self-serving agenda (often without consciously recognizing it) because that's who the person is. Although such a person may have no ideological attachment to evil, a person in the #2 conception of CE is ironically likelier to behave more sloppily and erratically than a person who consciously serves Chaos/Evil in #1 because for #2 that's his state of mind.
To put it into more concrete terms, let's choose the glabrezu demon. Is the demon CE because he tempts people to act desperately and do what they shouldn't to have their wishes granted (promoting chaos/evil as in #1) or it is because the demon itself does the same (#2)? Is the succubus herself lustful (#2) or does she just use it as a weapon to promote chaos and evil (#1)?
I would suggest that because Chaos and Evil are both measures of individual behavior/morality as well as cosmic forces in and of themselves in D&D, there is room for both in the CE tent. The nabasu seems to be in and of itself to embody gluttony (#2) but not cause it to ripple out into the world. Nalfeeshnees on the other hand, seem oddly selfless in the sense that they promote the demon race as a whole despite being demons of greed. Of course, many CE characters will blend both "types" of CE.
{. . .}
No, you're right. "Respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" are definitely things that should be kept strictly confined to fictional universes. No knowing what harm would come if people regulated their real-world behavior based on such principles.
:rolleyes:
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . Don't tell that to the Ayn Rand cultists. They might take that seriously . . . .
And I would place Ayn Rand as hard-core Neutral Evil: Caring for law to the extent that it protects her "social order" (including that within her cult inner circle), but working to enable exploitation as much as possible, so that Greed consumes all (with those most capable of exercising Greed being at the top of the food chain, of course).
Problem is, her ideas actually DID make it into the real world, with horrific consequences for most of us in recent history, creating a blighted legacy that is already ruinious, but has yet to fully unfold.
{. . .}
No, you're right. "Respect for life and a concern for the dignity of sentient beings" are definitely things that should be kept strictly confined to fictional universes. No knowing what harm would come if people regulated their real-world behavior based on such principles.
:rolleyes:
Shhhhhhhhhhhhh . . . Don't tell that to the Ayn Rand cultists. They might take that seriously . . . .
And I would place Ayn Rand as hard-core Neutral Evil: Caring for law to the extent that it protects her "social order" (including that within her cult inner circle), but working to enable exploitation as much as possible, so that Greed consumes all (with those most capable of exercising Greed being at the top of the food chain, of course).
Problem is, her ideas actually DID make it into the real world, with horrific consequences for most of us in recent history, creating a blighted legacy that is already ruinious, but has yet to fully unfold.
You do see lots of cherry-picking co-opting of her ideals.
As far as political parties go, both heavily conflict with her viewpoints. She is against charity and religion as a whole.
Her stories also heavily focus on the opulent. She possessed little empathy of the poor because in her view of the world any poor Joe could just go work construction inbetween "real jobs". The idea that any poor person could just go get a job comes from her. Which seems to be an idea some people try to latch onto while claiming that God smiles on their political campaign.
Actually politicians as a whole come pretty close to CE philosophers. They do benefit from perverted moralities via votes, but most politicians are a mass of hypocritical notions that appeal to many different ethical theories. Between the two parties I get to pick from they seem to be dead set on causing as much damage as possible all in the name of "good".
"We need to address this culture of dependency!"
"Giving weapons to Syrian rebels is our moral obligation!"
"We need to blow up of those vile rebels, I mean ISIS!"
"SOPA is good for you."
"Let me be clear. We are focused on transparency except for what we don't want you to see."
"Healthcare is BAD!"
"You should be forced to buy private insurance that we'll subsidize to lose money even faster!"
"These companies are too big to fail! So instead of buying them out, we'll just pay off their debt with your tax dollars!"
"This country paying on it's loans is fiscally irresponsible."
"We have a moral obligation not to reduce the deficit."
"A nation's budget is like a households!"
"Education is very important so we are going slash the budget of struggling schools so those lazy overpaid teachers have incentives to do their jobs."
"Disarming responsible gun owners is the only way to protect the public!"
"Everybody having guns is the ONLY way to be safe."
One of the fundamental issues with Rand's philosophies is that it is incompatible with any profession that would champion it. To her, being a politician is a worthless profession. A philosopher is also pretty useless. Artist and book writers like herself can with great effort amount to something, but are still near the bottom in her hierarchy. At top would be scientist, and engineers.
{. . .}
Actually politicians as a whole come pretty close to CE philosophers. They do benefit from perverted moralities via votes, but most politicians are a mass of hypocritical notions that appeal to many different ethical theories. Between the two parties I get to pick from they seem to be dead set on causing as much damage as possible all in the name of "good".
{. . .}
I would put them down more as spanning the spectrum from Lawful Evil to Neutral Evil. To varying extents, they rely on a systematic approach to deception and exploitation, whether in the name of "good" or "freedom" -- they are lying in both cases.
I'd say she was Chaotic because of how strongly she was anti-government. {. . .}
But then she hated anarchists because she wanted to keep the government around to preserve order. So again, this puts her more at Neutral Evil. Just because Libertarians claim to be Chaotic, it doesn't mean they actually are (the more anarchist ones ones might truly qualify, but not Ayn Rand).
Rand was pragmatic to an extreme. I would place her as true neutral.
I think the closest thing to a Rand-esc government would be China.
Rand was pragmatic to an extreme. I would place her as true neutral.
I think the closest thing to a Rand-esc government would be China.
China's gov is WAAAAAY too controlling for Rand's taste.
Maybe Hong Kong.
Perhaps. The leader of it did recently come out and say “If it’s entirely a numbers game—numeric representation—then obviously you’d be talking to half the people in Hong Kong [that] earn less than US$1,800 a month. You would end up with that kind of politics and policies.”
Which basically means he does not think poor people should have that great of an influence on policies. Which to Rand, being poor is basically a moral failing if done habitually. She has no concept of poverty being inescapable. To her the condition of poverty is imposed on a population so that "good" people can feel better about themselves when performing charity.
|
|
Perhaps. The leader of it did recently come out and say “If it’s entirely a numbers game—numeric representation—then obviously you’d be talking to half the people in Hong Kong [that] earn less than US$1,800 a month. You would end up with that kind of politics and policies.”
Of note though - that $ amount is somewhat misleading since the Chinese government has been artificially lowering the value of their currency on the international market for years.