7 ms·

Sounds like your left-wing bias assumes that libertarians and Ayn Rand supporters are inherently fraudulent and looking for any opportunity to steal money. Gev

Sounds like your left-wing bias assumes that libertarians and Ayn Rand supporters are inherently fraudulent and looking for any opportunity to steal money. Gevers is fake libertarian, he is con-man who just made fake organizations to make visibility of high reputation. There is absolutely nothing from libertarianism or Ayn Rand philosophy in his actions. In fact, Ayn Rand is Atlas Shrugged specifically mention about fraudulent people. I see your sarcasm about: > Tezos is a new decentralized blockchain that governs itself by establishing a true digital commonwealth. They didn't launch project yet. Once they launch project, it will be exactly like that and it doesn't matter what's happen with foundation. But for now, the foundation cut off any funding of the project in critical development stage. Yes, contributors are responsible to do their due diligence. About asking government to intervene in order to remove Gevers. In some sense, it's government (more precisely the swiss law) who protect Gevers position.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 9y ago
>Sounds like your left-wing bias assumes that libertarians and Ayn Rand supporters are inherently fraudulent and looking for any opportunity to steal money. No, parent only assumes that libertarians/Ayn Rand supporters shouldn't go to the government to cry. >Gevers is fake libertarian, he is con-man who just made fake organizations to make visibility of high reputation. There is absolutely nothing from libertarianism or Ayn Rand philosophy in his actions. Seems to me like a good case of a self-made man who saw an opportunity and took it, lesser mortals and common good be damned. What's more Ayn Randish?
- roenxi 9y ago
  Ayn Rand was very much about following through with commitments. If Gevers has a long track record of failed ventures because he aimed higher than he was capable of achieving then he is indeed a self-made man who saw an opportunity and took it in the fine Randian style. If he is a con-man who said he is going to do something then took the money and ran without putting in a serious effort, he isn't an example of her philosophy. Rand accepted people being selfish because in practice selfishness has been proven no barrier to creating prosperity for everyone. She didn't accept dishonesty.
  - 36bydesign 9y ago
    Reminds me of my mormon days: if things turn out well, it was because of God/righteousnsss. When things turned out bad, it was because of the devil. 100% postdictive. 0% predictive.
    - toyg 9y ago
      Also known as a True Scotsman.
  - EGreg 9y ago
    I never understood this argument from objectivists. If you use cold hard logic and take Ayn Rand at her word, then someone can totally screw others over as long as they were sure wouldn't personally get in trouble for it. After all, the "as befits a rational being" is the only qualifier and that's so vague as to be a "no true scotsman" argument making her whole praise of selfishness moot. If selfishness is an amazing thing except when she doesn't like it, then her whole philosophy isn't objectivism at all, but back to the "subjective whims" and pronouncements of "mystics" she so derides. You can't have it both ways. If altruism is criticized and selfishness is praised, then it can be perfectly rational for a person to screw others over as long as they know they won't personally get in trouble. I never got a good response from Objectivists about this.
    - roenxi 9y ago
      If it helps; I agree with your assessment that someone could totally screw others over as long as they were sure wouldn't personally get in trouble for it. That is pretty much at the core of the argument. I recall a case in Australia where someone mailed seniors saying 'you own shares valued at $X. I will buy them off you for half that. Please respond' and made a substantial profit from the scheme. Objectivism accepts that as a moral situation. I can't see any elements of the No True Scotsman fallacy here however hard I look - the philosophy is that when someone is truthful and follows through with what they say they will do then they are being moral. There isn't even an objection to people being altruistic; the only objection is forced altruism. It isn't a friendly philosophy but it is quite clear as far as moralities go. Nothing escapes from shades of grey.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 9y ago

>Sounds like your left-wing bias assumes that libertarians and Ayn Rand supporters are inherently fraudulent and looking for any opportunity to steal money. No, parent only assumes that libertarians/Ayn Rand supporters shouldn't go to the government to cry. >Gevers is fake libertarian, he is con-man who just made fake organizations to make visibility of high reputation. There is absolutely nothing from libertarianism or Ayn Rand philosophy in his actions. Seems to me like a good case of a self-made man who saw an opportunity and took it, lesser mortals and common good be damned. What's more Ayn Randish?

roenxi 9y ago
Ayn Rand was very much about following through with commitments. If Gevers has a long track record of failed ventures because he aimed higher than he was capable of achieving then he is indeed a self-made man who saw an opportunity and took it in the fine Randian style. If he is a con-man who said he is going to do something then took the money and ran without putting in a serious effort, he isn't an example of her philosophy. Rand accepted people being selfish because in practice selfishness has been proven no barrier to creating prosperity for everyone. She didn't accept dishonesty.
- 36bydesign 9y ago
  Reminds me of my mormon days: if things turn out well, it was because of God/righteousnsss. When things turned out bad, it was because of the devil. 100% postdictive. 0% predictive.
  - toyg 9y ago
    Also known as a True Scotsman.
- EGreg 9y ago
  I never understood this argument from objectivists. If you use cold hard logic and take Ayn Rand at her word, then someone can totally screw others over as long as they were sure wouldn't personally get in trouble for it. After all, the "as befits a rational being" is the only qualifier and that's so vague as to be a "no true scotsman" argument making her whole praise of selfishness moot. If selfishness is an amazing thing except when she doesn't like it, then her whole philosophy isn't objectivism at all, but back to the "subjective whims" and pronouncements of "mystics" she so derides. You can't have it both ways. If altruism is criticized and selfishness is praised, then it can be perfectly rational for a person to screw others over as long as they know they won't personally get in trouble. I never got a good response from Objectivists about this.
  - roenxi 9y ago
    If it helps; I agree with your assessment that someone could totally screw others over as long as they were sure wouldn't personally get in trouble for it. That is pretty much at the core of the argument. I recall a case in Australia where someone mailed seniors saying 'you own shares valued at $X. I will buy them off you for half that. Please respond' and made a substantial profit from the scheme. Objectivism accepts that as a moral situation. I can't see any elements of the No True Scotsman fallacy here however hard I look - the philosophy is that when someone is truthful and follows through with what they say they will do then they are being moral. There isn't even an objection to people being altruistic; the only objection is forced altruism. It isn't a friendly philosophy but it is quite clear as far as moralities go. Nothing escapes from shades of grey.