Writing Feedback / "tip the waiter" essay - what have you learnt from a mistake? [9]

Yes, it is important to talk about how your failure with the first child saddened you but the essay should, as Sean stated, be dominated by your positive growth experience.

Now tell me... what exactly do these things mean? (...) You gotta fix those. Just type in the word you want to write. Unless you are trying to say that you couldn't think of the right words?

Tell us what this is for. Are you applying for a job somewhere?
(what are b-skuls?)

Undergraduate / Georgetown School of Foreign Service Transfer Essay [11]

If you do number one you will need to do more research on 2008-09. I would suggest doing number two, though, if you think you can pull it off. The protests in Iran are a huge piece of news right now and you can easily talk about the historical signifigance this has for Iran and how technology is revolutionizing the way people are able to resist oppressive regimes. That seems more interesting.

However, if this essay must be done today and you don't really have much time to research I guess you would have to do number one. You will, of course, have to do more research for that anyway. If you have the time I would do number two. Whip up an outline or rough draft and post it asap!

PS. What is the letter for the admissions committee supposed to be about?

Undergraduate / "How will this program help me accomplish my academic goals? [6]

What program are you applying for? (I am always shocked by the amount of people who come on this site without giving us the neccessary information that is needed to view their essays in the right context. How do you expect us to help you if we don't even know what you are using this essay for? Throw me a friggin' bone here!)

Your thesis should be the answer to this question:
"How will this program help me accomplish my academic goals?"

You need to demonstrate at least some understanding of what the program is and why it can be specifically benificial to you rather than to other people. Tell us what your goals are and how this program will help you get there.

If you have bad transcripts, don't apologize. This makes the essay sound pathetic as it reads as if you are pleading with the admissions people. What else have you done with your life? Perhaps you have hobbies? Or maybe you volunteer somewhere? Or maybe you have some unique job experience that makes you stand out? Focus on things like that and how they relate to this program you are applying for. Don't just list off random things you like to do; only talk about activities that relate back to the subject matter dealt with in this "anonymous program" and how such activities have prepared you to change your habits and excell.

I agree with Sean. This essay needs to be completely scraped and rebooted with a thesis that actually answers the prompt!

Undergraduate / Capital Punishment (the death penalty) Essay. Should be allowed or not? [11]

What do you think is worse: Life in prison or execution? I think people who get the death penalty are being done a favor because I would rather be dead than spend my life in prison. You could argue that capital punishment is a more cost effective and more humane way to deal with criminals. Those who are getting life in prison dont have a chance to be released and reform themselves anyway. Most of them have also committed grotesque crimes. So why not execute them? Its better for society and better for the criminals too.

If you really aim solely to punish people then life in prison is the way to go. I would argue that this is a much more cruel punishment for criminals than execution. When an animal is suffering and has no chance of recovery do you just leave it and let it slowly and painfully die? That would be cruel and inhumane. Life imprisonment sentences cost the government more money and make criminals suffer more as well. But why the hell should my tax dollars go towards punishing criminals? I dont care if they are punished or not I just dont want them to commit another crime. (sure I guess I would like to see them punished but not with my tax dollars. Vengeance is petty and immature and should not be indulged in at the expense of other more essential things.) If you kill them then you dont have to deal with any chance of recurrence or wasted money.

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]

Oceania is not a communist society so you need to revise that point before you proceed or your whole essay will be based on a falsehood. If Big Brother has control of society then by definition the society is not communist. A communist society has no class system. The inner party, outer party, and the proles are a form of social classes. This is a sort of facist/totalitarian socialist state.

Also, your thesis is really just describing "how" big brother controls Oceania not "why." Dig deeper. Anyone who reads the book can see how Big Brother controls the proles. (propaganda, censorship, etc.) This becomes evident from reading the book jacket. Ask a real "Why" question about this book. Make sure it isnt a "how" question disguised as a why question.

Undergraduate / Stuck on UC prompt, there is nothing really exciting in my life.. [15]

What is a typical day like for you? What kinds of people do you see in your neighborhood? If your life is uninteresting then why are you interested in going to college?

You must be excited about something in your life. What is your major? Does that excite you? Just talk about what life is like for you and how you mentally and emotionally respond to it. Give your essay your own unique style and commentary. Perhaps if you simply listed the things you do every day the essay would be boring. But if we can really view these events through your eyes the essay could be full of humor and/or emotionality through your commentary. The essay readers want to get to know you. They aren't so much interested in your "world" as they are in how you have responded to it. Boring things may have happened to you but your commentary may be very interesting. Give it a shot!

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]

Who can you say from history has really given communism an honest effort? Not Russia. Definitely not china or Cuba. I don't argue for communism but I will say that I think it has been misrepresented throughout history. Communism has been a tool for totalitarians to manipulate and decieve populations. If truly noble leaders tried to make a communist society we may see a different results. Communism has failed because the people who held the power to make changes were not communist themselves. So what do you expect? Of course it will fail if every major "communist" leader is corrupt.

And by the way, you can be a Marxist without being in favor of communism. Also, when did Marxism ever become policy?

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]

I think communism also just assumes that human nature is to good. It would only work if people really had a collectivist mindset and were happy to give to others all the time. Some people are like this but for the most part this is against human nature and the natural order of all things.

I recall Hobbes saying that in a state of nature life is brutish and short. Therefore he proposed that we do away with the state of nature in favor of the leviathon. Most of humanity's efforts to improve life through civilization and laws goes against the natural order of living things. It is tricky to strike that balance between maintaining our natural desires of selfishness and competition and evening the playing field for more less able people. Communism goes to the extreme of trying to create an even playing field at the sacrifice of our most basic human traits such as competition and selfishness. It also tries to do this without a class system or central authority. That means that any potential rules about "sharing" would never be enforced because if they were enforced the system would cease to be communism and would be instead socialism. Socialism forces people to provide for each other. Communism does not. Thats why communism would fail. Because there is no fail safe if someone didnt want to play by the rules. Hence it is so easy for communism to become totalitarianism.

I do agree with most of Marxisms criticisms towards capitalism but not with its proposed solutions.

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]


That is a very shocking statement. You really dont think that helping others is good? Then what is good? What is your definition? I'm pretty sure that most people on the planet would agree that helping others is a good thing. It's common knowledge.

If every single person on this planet were to "periodically or consistently" give to others the world would be a much better place. There are alot of resources in this world. If people willingly gave them to those who needed it most (intelligently and efficiently of course) then the average quality of life on earth would increase dramatically. The reason that goods cannot be distributed equally amongst everyone is that it would create malcontent amongst those who are stronger than others. That is selfishness. That is what leads people to hoard wealth. If people had a collectivist mindset, there would be no malcontent. No one needs millions of dollars to live on. That is a waste in my mind. I would even go so far as to say that hoarding wealth unneccesarily is evil.


This doesnt make sense either. A capitalist society does not provide an even playing field at all. Everyone is born with different strengths and weaknesses. That is the way of nature. Animals in nature are not on an even playing field either. If one person is born with a higher IQ than someone else that means that the playing field is no longer equal. Then capitalism allows people with superior traits to crush people with inferior traits. That is not fair at all. Communism attempts to break this cycle. It isnt successful, of course. Namely because it is trying to break the cycle of nature which is impossible. Any such effort would be destined to fail from the start. Capitalism is more a reflection of a state of nature where those with unfair advantages dominate those with unfair disadvantages. That is the way the natural world works.


Carefully examine the central tenet of communism that you yourself quote in the next sentence. If a communist society were to be completely in effect everyone would have to do their part. You wouldn't be able to get away with putting out the least amount of effort possible. If you have the ability to produce x amount, you have to produce x amount. Otherwise you cannot recieve equal benefits. If everyone played by the rules (which I am arguing would be impossible since rules such as these go against our natural impulses) then no one would do the bare minimum as long as they had the ability to do more.


You are talking about socialism. In socialism there is a central authority that requires it's subjects to give to others. In communism there is no such central authority. Therefore no one can be enslaved. Of course this means that people could willingly not play by the rules. Only those who had a collectivist mindset would play by the rules willingly and they would not be slaves. In true communism there is no state. It would be a form of anarchy. This would also lead to disaster but only because human beings, following their natural impulses, would seek to dominate each other. If humans did not have this desire wired into them then we could exist in a society without a government that might closely resemble communism.


Ha ha, remember, a "communist goverenment" is an impossibility. By definition there is no government in a communist society. Again and again you make arguments that would apply to socialism but not communism. There have never been any communist governments in existence, ever. Any government claiming to be communist is lying. It's that simple. North Korea is dark at night because it is a socially and economically closed totalitarian state that is attempting to provide for it's own needs without the help of others. The reason it has become totalitarian is because it is being led by evil people. If these people were not evil this would not have happened.

Remember I am simply arguing about why communism isn't viable not whether it is or not. I know it wouldn't work and hasn't worked in the past. I just argue that it is because of a fundamental problem with human nature that communism is blind to.

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]


I see. So you subscribe to Ayn Rand's philosophy. One thing I do believe is that human beings always act for their own self interest. In fact they are incapable of doing otherwise. It is impossible for humans to act unselfishly and therefore altruism does not exist. They may not act selfishly in a rational way, however. I think that secretly the pursuit of rational self interest is actually everyone's agenda whether they know it or not. If everyone always acts in their own self interest then it is logical that they should strive to do so rationally, when they can. But that is kind of beside the point. In trying to define what truly is the "rational" way to pursue self interest people come up with a million different philosophies and ideologies. So we are still back to square one.


Yeah sorry bout that! I am embarrassed that I tried to use that crap argument.


Of course context is important. When I say "helping others" it has to be context sensitive. Mostly I would use a utilitarian approach when deciding when and where to help but of course it would be a case by case basis. Helping someone hurt others is the same as hurting others to me.


Hmmm... I dont understand what you are trying to say here. Who is exercising what powers? What powers are you talking about?


Think of it in a utilitarian way. If a millionaire gave a thousand dollars to a child living in poverty the millionaire would be only mildly inconvenienced whereas the child would have his life changed for the better.(provided he was smart with the money.) More good has been done than harm. It wouldnt really be better for the rest of us but it wouldn't be as bad for us as it would be good for others. On a large scale it would have a more positive impact than negative in terms of quality of life. It could also be better for us in the long run because it would improve the lives of people living in poverty so that they could return the favor by becoming educated and productive members of society in the world. Also regular middle class people would benefit more from upper class wealth. The only people who would really lose out would be those people who were rich to begin with.

I think that rich people in many cases are extremely vain and wastefull when they use their money because they usually use it in order to benefit themselves. Humans have certain needs in order to be happy and it does not cost millions of dollars to fullfill these needs. The concept of hoarding for self benefit is the sort of strategy suited for a state of nature where organisms attempt to benefit from other's suffering. The system of nature is immoral so it is our job as humans to rise above such brutish and unethical practices and reject the processes of the natural world as much as we can. (we cant reject it entirely since we ourselves are products of nature but we do possess enough intelligence to transcend most other organisms in the pursuit of justice and fairness.) I believe their is a limit to how much wealth is sensible for an individual to have before it becomes wasteful and selfish to the point of being evil and greedy for such an individual to hoard it away. Millionaires dont need millions of dollars to be happy. If they gave money away they would still be fine. Sure they have the choice to hoard their money but that kind of behavior is actively destructive to other people. It would be like if all the monkeys the jungle starved because one gorilla who was stronger than everyone else took all the bananas for himself despite the fact that he would have more than he would ever be able to eat by himself. You can choose to behave this way but such behavior is vain and destructive to others, therefore you are evil. (at least your economic desicions would be evil.)


Another thing I shouldn't have said. A better thing to say would be that in order for the society to remain communist people would have to play by communist rules. Anyone could, of course, decide not to play by the rules and then the society would cease to be communist. This is a major problem with communism. The freedom to oppose it within the system means that there is no slavery issue.

Also, it isn't my distiction between communism and socialism. It is the distiction between communism and socialism. You need to understand the straight definitions for both of them. They are not the same. You seem to want to use the words communism and socialism interchangably. That is a major mistake that goes beyond semantics.


Point well taken. But just remember, I was origionally talking about communism, not socialism. When you talk about slavery you are talking about things irrelevant to the original discussion. (I guess you unknowingly brought socialism into the conversation then I called you on it so now we have to deal with it.)


Ha ha, what presumption. Its not up to you to make the distinction. Its like saying, "I looked up the word apple in the dictionary and then I looked up the word banana in the dictionary and found that they have some major differences. But you know what? I personally just don't make the distinction between apples and bananas. In my book they are the same thing." It isn't up for debate. All you have to do is do research and you will find that their is an obvious and definable distinction between communism and socialism. There is no such thing as a communist state. Saying "communist state" is like saying "populated void". By definition it is an impossible statement.


You are saying this as if you just came to this conclusion yourself. It's exactly what I have been saying all along. It is ulrealistic because it is unsuited to human nature. That's what I said.


I just don't like capitalism because it is basically a reflection of how things are run in the natural world. I don't have a solution for it but I can still be opposed to it. Life in the natural world as I have said is brutish and short. Nature has no morals or ethics. It simply is. Since the natural world is not organized in a way that promotes justice, ethics, or fairness I would be opposed to live under such conditions. Capitalism is not as bad as the literal jungle but it still promotes a state of controlled nature and in doing so allows for plenty of unethical behavior, injustice, and unfairness. So I am apposed to it. I don't have a solution but I still think that capitalism is not a system that promotes ethics and justice.


Point well taken. I think human nature is greatly flawed because we are so often inclined to do harm to one another which lowers everyone's quality of life as a group.


Point well taken. In the state of nature the players are not equal and that is not fair or just. Nor is it moral. I am apposed to such a system but I am still stuck with it anyway. Thats why people always say, "life isn't fair." It's because it isn't! Humans try to create fairness in opposition to nature.

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]


I believe that at all times everyone acts in their own percieved self interest. With every action their is an intent for self benefit. Whether or not what people do will really benefit them in the long run is a different story. I am just talking about their intentions which are at all times selfish.


This was in response to you asking who benefits from a more collectivist attitude and in what way.


For the exact reasons I stated. It is wastefull (in some cases) and vain. From a utilitarian perspective hoarding wealth is extremely inefficient. Someone could buy a new TV for thousands of dollars in order to get a little bit more mild entertainment in their lives or they could be feeding a family of three for 4 or 5 months. This is of course taken from a utilitarian perspective which I take it you do not subscribe to.


I think it is a mixture of both. You can generate your own wealth, yes, but you must do it with limited resources. There are a limited amount of workers in the world, limited amount of real estate, limited amount of raw materials, etc. People have to compete for these limited resources. If one person takes these resources and does not allow others to use them he or she will naturally make more money for themselves and hinder other people's chances at making money.

If everyone in the world was super smart they wouldn't all become millionaires. You cannot just create wealth if you are smart enough. There is a limited amount of wealth to go around. Sure you can produce more wealth but that is only really the conversion of limited useless resources into usefull commodities or services. Even if everyone were smart and skilled in this world there would be some who would be rich and some who would be poor. There simply isn't enough wealth to make everyone wealthy. There is a limit to how much wealth a society can create. Hoarding harms others because it makes it harder for them to generate wealth by withholding the resources required to create that wealth.


I guess everyone can have their own needs in the happiness department but that does not warrant destructive behavior. You talk about production of wealth rather than simply gathering. Ok so lets say that the gorilla got really smart and started planting banana trees. He starts producing his own bananas, but he does not share with the other monkeys. Now, they all live on a relatively small island and there aren't that many trees to begin with. The gorilla uses his power to take half of the island for himself and his banana tree orchard. He hoards all the bananas that are produced and does not share them with the other monkeys. Yes the gorilla produced his own wealth so it shouldnt hurt the other monkeys right? Wrong. The monkeys now only have half of the land they once did which means that food will be more scarce and overcrowding problems will occur. The monkeys can plant trees of their own but the land (which has now been cut in half) will not yield as much as it once did. Half of the areas that the monkeys used to get their food from are now owned by the gorilla. Because the gorilla hoards his bananas and keeps everyone off of his property the rest of the monkeys suffer. Therefore his actions are destructive to everyone else.


Communism has never been put into practice. Thats the fundamental problem with your argument. People have tried to get their but have always failed. Sure people have had it as an ideology but it never came to fruition and yes those efforts led to millions of deaths. Ha ha, you dont need to convince me.


I was just correcting you on the definition of communism. There is nothing arbitrary about it, its just simply the definition. You seem to think that you can just change the definition of these words around any time you want. You cant. Words have set definitions and are not up for debate. Unless you want to petition to amend american dictionaries then you must abide by them during civil conversation. If you began the conversation by talking about "it as the former" then you began the conversation with a falsehood that needed to be corrected.


I don't deny it. You dont need to convince me. (I think I understand this sentence. It isnt complete, though.)


Only in comparison to life in the jungle and only for some people. There are plenty of people in a capitalist society who work long hours for very little money and only a few who truly have easy lives and hoard wealth.


No not really. I believe that wealth is ultimately made. I just argue that it is immoral to use such generated wealth inefficiently from a utilitarian point of view. There is enough to go around so why be a pill and dash other people's chances of living happy lives when it is of little consequence to you?


If god has created a cruel world on purpose I will oppose the system because he is ultimately just a big bully. If God actively made people suffer in his world I would have no problem in bypassing his authority and suplementing my own since he would be doing a very bad job. If some bully is pushing you around should you just say to yourself, "It would be arrogant of me to oppose him and make my own, more just, rules because since he has more power he must be smarter than me."

I dont see how it is arrogant at all. If we were all on a plane and god, as the pilot, went to the bathroom and never came back you better believe that it would be in our own "rational self interest" to jump in the cockpit and take over before we all suffer as a result. (Of course how we choose to steer the weel is up for great debate because we could make things better or make things worse.)

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]


Of course short term pleasure has to do with self interest. Just because short term pleasure is not a good course of action in the long term doesnt mean that it isnt pursued for selfish reasons. Hedonism is selfishness it just isn't a particularly smart form of selfishness. Maximizing one's own personal pleasure is selfish.

I challenge you to give me any possible example of someone doing something and I will tell you where the selfish intent is. It is not possible to do anything without the goal of self benefit. Just because what someone is doing may be destructive in other aspects of there life doesn't mean they don't get something beneficial from it. (I their eyes.)


I'm talking about utilitarianism which is a form of ethical thought, not a view of wealth. You can apply it to wealth.


There's just one problem, that wealth doesn't trickle down very well. This would only work if people actually got the money they worked for. Sure planning does take more skills than average and that should be rewarded by higher than average pay but planners shouldn't be paid thousands of times more than an average worker who probably works even harder at his job. Yes of course wealth does trickle down somewhat but most of the money is pocketed by the people at the top. Consuming mass produced goods does support corporations but in alot of cases the actual bottom level mass work force doesn't see a significant amount of benefit. Rather than improving the conditions of their existing workers with their newly generated wealth, corporations usually just employ more workers in order to maximize profits for those at the top. I'm not talking about middle class jobs. I'm talking about lower class jobs and outsourced labor.


Then a few more gorillas decide to start planting banana trees as well. Soon the whole island is privately owned by only a handful of gorillas and they lay claim to all the bananas that the island produces. Then they say, "what do you have to trade?" Some other gorillas find coconuts and want to start planting coconut trees in order to trade with the gorillas. The problem is that the gorillas own all the real estate of the island so they demand payment for the use of the land to plant coconuts. One gorilla finds out a way to produce coconut trees which is different than the process used to produce banana trees. This gorilla is really smart and he works hard but his development is hindered by those with the banana trees because they demand a cut of the profits that the coconut producer makes. Since the few gorillas from the begining own all the land and all the bananas, no one else can profit from banana production except on a very small scale. There are no labor regulations and resources are limited. Unless you are really smart like the coconut grower you will be forced to work for one of the banana producers. These top gorillas can set any prices they want for their bananas and can pay their workers as little as they want. The other gorillas working for them are hard and honest workers but they just werent born with the natural talent and smarts to become an entreprenuer. So now they have to live in squaler working for a handfull of gorillas who have a monopoly on everything and make it extremely difficult for new smart people to start their own fruit companies.

So you have to ask yourself. Does having the power and talent to dominate and oppress others give you the right to do so? I completely reject that. If you own a company and are living an extremely comfortable life why would you make life miserable for your workers for a larger profit increase? You already have enough money to live comfortably. Why are these people so obsessed with money and power that even though they have more money than they will ever need they still seek to raise up their profit percentages just a hair more at the expense of quality of life for their workers? Because they are evil.


Don't use this as a way to justify using words incorrectly. Words change definitions very slowly over a period of years but at any given time period words have certain definitions. You used the word communism incorrectly so I corrected you. Don't fall victim to the same charade that totalitarian governments play for their citizens. There is no such thing as a communist state. Totalitarian regimes want their subjects to believe that they live in a communist society so that they will feel better about where they live. This is a lie.

The definition of the word "gay" has a few different definitions and they are slowly changing even today. However, right now you can't just make up any definition you want and then justify it by saying, "words are constantly changing."


Ha ha, I don't think you understand that I agree with you here. You don't have to keep selling me on this point. I agree.


What kind of example is this? Only if you were a fool would anyone do something like this. If you want to help beggars you don't do it 5 dollars at a time and you don't bankrupt yourself in the process. Obviously this is a foolish way to help the poor. Come up with a better example where the protagonist has some intelligence.


I am responding to what you said about god. You said that god may simply be MIA or just plain mean. If he was mean then I would constitute him as a bully. I would be totally justified in using that term.


So we just sit around and let those with power dominate others? The whole basis of our civilization especially in democracy is to limit power so that no one person can dominate others. We have two choices: accept natures way (Here we will be guaranteed to live in an unjust world. or try to change our world ourselves. (this could be for better or for worse) So what is better? Guaranteed injustice or a chance at justice?

"The ends do not justify the means."
Exactly, therefore those who gain wealth by any means are not justified in doing so. But if you step in and say "No no there are rules that we live by." You would have to respond, "No No who are you to tell me what to do with what I have earned? You cant make rules that limit my freedom over what I have worked hard for! If I want to dominate others with the power I have gotten I am completely justified in doing just that! Why do I go out of my way to make my workers lives miserable for the chance of making a few more dollars? Because I have earned the right to do so!" Follow the "I can do whatever I want with what I earn" line of thought to it's logical conclusion and you will find that it justifies alot of malicious and cruel acts.

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]


Selfishness:

1. Devoted to or caring only for oneself; concerned primarily with one's own interests, benefits, welfare, etc., regardless of others.

2. Characterized by or manifesting concern or care only for oneself.

These definitions do not say anything about wether or not such concerns would lead to self benefit in the long term or about rationality or anything like that. They simply imply that if one is selfish he puts himself before others. Bank robbers act in their own self interest. They dont act in their own rational self interest. So would you say that bank robbers are not selfish? They willingly trample other's welfare in order to seek self benefit. How is that not selfish? Find me a dictionary definition that describes what you are talking about.


You think people strive to get lower class jobs? I guess if you are unemployed you will take anything... You also think that people strive to be workers in third world countries as a part of an outsourced labor team? Most of these people don't have a choice. Remember I am not talking about middle class people. Poor in America very well may be wealthy by the standards of non-capitalist countries. That doesn't change the fact that capitalism has problems. Capitalism is alot better than many other economic systems. That isnt the issue here. I'm simply arguing about whether or not capitalism has major problems. Democracy has problems and just because living in a democracy is better than living in a totalitarian state doesn't negate that point.


Why don't you present a logical progression in favor of your viewpoint then? I will say this. There are limited resources. There are limited things you can do with such resources. You can use these resources to produce things. Perhaps you can reuse some resources but only limitedly. Once resources are used up, no one else can use them. Sure you can restore some resources but only at the cost of other resources. Perhaps some resources are self replenishing. They still only give out a limited amount over a given time. People with power can use their power to take advantage of limited resources and then claim that they "own" them. Other people can no longer use such resources which makes it harder for them to "produce" things.

Just think about one of the most basic principles in physics. Matter cannot be created or destroyed. You can apply this to production. You can't simply produce things out of thin air it costs limited resources. So tell me how wealth isn't limited by that? Are you saying that there is potential for unlimited wealth and that potential could be fullfilled if every single person on the planet were a genius? (For practical purposes try not to use the idea of infinite resources in space. That may be a very good point but is not applicable in today's time period.)


Ok, point well taken. It is in the dictionary. I shouldn't have talked about dictionary definitions. I think I have indirectly addressed this, however. The part that talks about the state is the lie. Of course people may use it in today's world since it is "in the dictionary" and many states use the term today to describe themselves but it does not represent the original idea of communism. In fact, if you know anything about Marx these definitions (for the parts that they talk about the state) don't really make sense at all. It is the product of people taking communism and corrupting it for their own selfish gains, or as you say it is simply what communism must logically become even though that is not what it is aiming to be.

I think we are so used to the idea of "russian communism", "chinese communism", and "cuban communism" that we have forgotten that these regimes are and were #1 not ruled by real communists, #2 bastardizations of the original ideas of communism, and #3 only called communism in order to lie to the people of their state and to sugar coat what was really happening there.

So as ridiculous as it sounds I reject the dictionary definition, ha ha! But I think I have good reason to since it is the product of decades of lies and corruption and has little to do with the original ideas of communism. (But yes, good job, it is in the dictionary.)


I guess technically you could now use the term "communist state" if you wanted but I know that Marx would puke in his grave everytime you did. In Marx's progression, socialism is the state that controls the means of production, not communism. So I guess I do use "one of many" different definitions for communism but at least the definition I use doesn't come from a bastardization of the origional idea. When I think communism I just ask WWMD? (What would Marx do?)


Ha ha, I would never try to deliberately misinterpret you. That would be pointless and annoying. I was laboring under a misconception that has been corrected but I can't help but point out the irony of the situation. One of the "official" meanings of communism was born from a misinterpretation of the original idea. And so now the misinterpretation is considered to be official definition. It would be a misconception to believe that the misconcieved definition of communism is false! Its like saying, "It would be a lie to say that the lie is a lie." That's so bogus! But hey it's official...


I was looking at it from a Marxist perspective. You talking about the state controlling people and telling them when and how to produce things is classified as "socialism" not "communism" in pure Marxist theory. I just figure that if you want to cut the bull and really understand communism you need to look at it from a Marxist perspective. You are welcome to look at is from a different perspective but it will not be the original line of thought.


I talked about the limited wealth vs production above and look forward to your response. Those who own companies set rules for their employees. That is control. Capitalists use the point of "workers have the freedom to seek work elsewhere if they are being exploited." I say that is an illusion. In most societies you wont be able to go from one company to the next with the same skill sets and expect dramatically different pay or benefits. For each time period the people at the top of their professions set the trend for how workers are treated and the government also sets some ground rules as well. A worker is going to find largely the same conditions where ever he goes so the idea that he can simply walk away from an exploitative situation in search of a more fair situation is an illusion. His search won't yield any new results. Company owners dont have signifigantly differing worker treatment plans because whoever spends the most money on their workers will out competed by other business owners since his business is that much less profitable, efficient and competitive. (sorry if that was too long lol. My posts mostly are I guess. I want to hear what you have to say specifically against the limited wealth line of thought.)


Go back to the 1920s and see what happened. Rockefeller and Carnegie types made conditions terrible for their workers even when they had the resources to provide them with some benefits and respect for supporting their companies. These workers did show the ability and willingness to work hard for their money and they did. Monopolies held them down and those people who were smart enough to try to start their own businesses were largely crushed by big business owners without regulation. These guys at the top had it within their power to allow others a chance to rise up into the market but they did not. They also had the power to help their own workers who worked hard for them everyday and yet they did not. They accrued wealth and power as if they were addicted to it and nothing else mattered. They valued material wealth more than they valued being ethical in their treatment of their fellow businessmen and their own workers. That makes them evil men. It is because of the way that they ran their companies that the quality of life for the average worker in america at that time was so low. And hmmm... what solved helped to solve this problem again? Oh yeah, government regulation.

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]


This is from the dictionary. This isn't my personal definition. All these definitions say is that a person puts himself before others and that his concerns are for his own interest, benefit, or welfare. Therefor it isn't about what the actual outcome will be it is about intent. Bank robbers rob banks because they believe that it will benefit them. According to the dictionary definitions this would be a selfish act.


Well, I guess you've given up before we have even begun this argument. I would say that there is more than enough resources to go around if everyone had access to them. Problem is they dont have access to them because only a select few have ownership over these resources or the power to harvest them.


Where did I argue with you on this? I do agree. Communism failed because it is a flawed theory. We were just debating what the definition of communism is and also what the flaws of capitalism are.


Ok, ha ha, I didn't mean literally "what would Marx do" I just meant what was Marx trying to say. I was saying that if you want to understand communism you need to understand where it comes from. Thus I look at Marxist communism since that was the original idea. I use Marxism as a guide to compare how communism was meant to turn out and what actually happened. When I think communism I think about what Marx predicted. Since his predictions never came true, communism has never existed truly anywhere. This is, of course, because his predictions were wrong and reality would prove to turn out a much different way.


I think we are getting down to a difference of opinion here because how can you really quantify exactly what the value of a specific sort of work is? Sure you can get an idea of how some work compares to others but largely putting an exact price tag on some things requires some arbitrary assignment.

I would argue that workers will tend to end up finding that almost every employer offers them less than the actual value of their work. Think of it this way. Most employers don't care about giving their workers fair pay. All they want to do is give them enough money so that they wont quit. If all employers think this way then of course the average rate of pay is going to be less than the actual value of work because the employers weren't trying to be fair in the first place. Fair would be the actual value for the work but employers aim to pay their workers as little as they can possibly get away with which is less than fair. And what are the workers going to do about it? Go elsewhere? They will find the same thing.


Don't you see you are talking about an illusion. The workers would have gone elsewhere? Like where? To a different company that took better care of its workers? Such companies had been crushed long ago at that time. Industries were taken over by monopolies virtually everywhere. There was no where else to go. You can't simply walk away. If workers were being exploited they couldn't go anywhere where they would be exploited less.

I guess it is a matter of opinion what fair market value is. I would say that by no means were these people paid fair market value for their work and the "fail safe" that you proposed about just walking away is an illusion for the reasons I stated above. If you really believe that fair market value was paid then you must think that Rockefeller did tens of thousands of times more work than one of his average workers. Thats just silly. Sure Rockefeller had more skills than average but he wasnt that skilled. Plenty of people could have done his job just as well as he did if not better. This is where you say: If there were plenty of people just as talented as Rockefeller then why didn't they rise up and challenge him and out compete him. Because it was no longer an even playing field. Rockefeller had money, power, talent, and intelligence. Someone who is born with talent and intelligence but without money or power still wouldn't be able to go against Rockefeller because he was in a position to dominate all potential competition. This isn't because no one was as smart or as talented as Rockefeller its because Rockefeller monopolized his industry before anyone else did. He didn't have to go against a monopoly in his fight to the top. It was easier for him. So you see at this point there could be a number of people who were smarter, more talented, and harder working than Rockefeller and yet they had no chance of competing with him because he had a monopoly on money and power.

And to say that employers have no moral obligation to care for their workers is silly to. Does this mean that workers have no moral obligations to their employers either? Now we have a world where workers can steal from their employers, not do their jobs efficiently, and lie to their supervisors. If workers are honest and faithful to their employers, work hard, and support their companies to the best of their abilities that earns them some respect and gratitude from their bosses. You may say, "Oh well as long as they get fair market value for their work they are totally covered." They don't get fair market value. You might as well say that no one has any moral obligation to anyone else and therefor justify crime, murder, etc. What you are indirectly saying is that if big business owners have the power to make their worker's lives miserable then it is their right to do so for self benefit. This view just destroys all ethical obligations to other people. Maybe you don't disagree with that.

I wonder how far you would take this rational self interest theory. Let me ask you this. If you rationalized that it would be in your own rational self interest to murder a mother and child, take the family's money for yourself, start a business with it and become successful, and never get caught would you do it? Just assume you would never get caught and that it would benefit your life in the long run. You would just need to crack a few heads first thats all.

If something really was in your own rational self interest then would you do it no matter what? Can you justify doing any deed as long as it is in your rational self interest? What's your limit?


Assuming that the workers would have nowhere else to go wouldn't it be in the rational self interest of their employers to pay them less than fair market value?

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]


You are talking about what is in one's own best self interest. This is knowledge that can be gained from rationality. The heroin addict who shoots up even though she knows it is bad for her simply doesn't think that the pain and anguish it would take to stop doing drugs is worth what she would get back. So she shoots up the drugs because it is easier in the moment. There is an element of self interest. To her if she doesn't shoot up she will be in pain. If she does shoot up she won't be (at least for a little while). Therefore if her goal is to avoid pain then it is in her self interest to do heroin. This is not in her best self interest for the long term but you cannot deny that she has selfish intent when she does drugs. If she has no selfish intent then what kind of intent does she have? Altruistic intent? She gets a benefit from shooting up drugs: pleasure. Since she shoots up with the intent to gain pleasure, she acts with the intent to gain benefit. Benefiting one's self is selfish. Her course of action isn't rational but it is still self benefiting in the short term.


Ok, how about slavery then. Slave owners were not willing to pay their slaves anything for their work. Does that mean that the fair market value of the work that a slave does is nothing? The slave, if given a chance, would love to make money for his work but he can't because he doesn't have that freedom.


Again this is an illusion. If we go back to the monopolistic society there is no where else to go. This applies to slave labor too. It would be a fantasy to go into another profession. Where are you going to get money to pay for training in another profession? Through working? But you aren't paid well enough to be able to afford the time to take off work and train and pay for training and still provide for your family.


Ok, I'll give you an example which is as clean and yet as abstract as I can think of. You know of a man who you have never met before but he does not know you. He is good man, you have judged, in fact he follows Randian philosophy as well. You are given the opportunity (it doesn't matter how. this is fantasy) to gain something you really want for yourself. (money, a woman, skills, better looks, piece of mind, etc. Whatever you value most.) In order to get this thing that you want you must send this man to hell where he will be eternally tortured forever. God does not exist in this scenario. You could even forget the word hell if it bothers you. Just think of it as some theoretical place of eternal torture. However, no one will notice he is gone let alone that you are responsible for his disappearance. If you go through with this you will gain whatever you wanted most and you will never be caught or found out. In fact it will be as if the man never existed. But you will always know that he is and will always be, even after you die, being tortured forever. Kind of melodramatic, I know but relevant. If you would agree to do it then, well I guess we should stop the conversation right now because there are no logical ways for us to persuade each other about our points. If you do not agree to do it then I want you to point out specifically how it would not rationally be in your own self interest. Remember, keep it rational. ;)

On another note: Ha ha I am pretty much done with our limited wealth conversation. I do agree that we should agree to disagree. I do respect your thoughts on the matter, though.

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]


Lol, is this an argument from tradition? Why shouldn't we talk about the intent of beasts. When she shoots up she intends to gain pleasure. This pleasure is beneficial to her at the moment. Maybe not later on but it still does give some benefit. Just because the bad outweighs the good from a rational perspective doesn't change the fact that there is some good to be had.


I never admitted this. Of course it gives her benefit. She benefits from the pleasure. This is simple. The act of shooting up has negative and positive consequences. She shoots up because she wants to experience the positive consequences. Thus she shoots up for selfish reasons. She either thinks that the positive is worth the negative or is simply not thinking about the negative at the time when she shoots up. It is not in her best self interest overall to shoot up but she still does it because she can still gain some benefit even if that benefit is outweighed by bad consequences. Doesn't change the fact that she is acting with selfish intent. Animals and beasts have intent just like everyone else. Mostly they intend to survive and seek pleasure. That is selfish.


Here again, I never said this either. You use the phrase "best interests." That assumes that there are multiple interests that a person could pursue. If something is of interest they would gain some sort of benefit from it. This means that there are multiple ways to gain benefit. Some can be more beneficial than others. Rationality helps people to find out which way is the best. The heroin addict doesn't feel that it would be in her best self interest to stop doing heroin because she does not feel that the pain that she would have to endure to go through such a process would be worth the benefit. So she shoots up. She takes one of many routes in her search for self benefit. She does not rationalize very well so she doesnt pick the best route but she still does gain some benefit. You cannot deny that she gains benefit from the pleasure. People are not motivated to do things that they think will be completely harmful to themselves and have no chance of getting any benefit from. There would be no motivation for such behavior. I challenge you to give me an example of anyone exhibiting behavior like this.

You are using your own definition of selfishness. You view selfishness as "doing whatever is in your own best self interest." Its ok for you to have that defintion for yourself but I challenge you to find it in a dictionary. Widely accepted definitions of selfishness simply state that it is a state where one focuses on themselves and attempts to gain benefit. Sure that is my definition but it was at least inspired by the dictionary. You find a dictionary definition that talks about what you are saying.

I think you may be misinterpreting what Ayn Rand is trying to say. She makes her case clear. "rational self interest" not "self interest". That tells us that she feels that there is a difference between "self intersest" and "rational self interest." She prefers rational self interest but there are other forms of self interest outside of that.

You also need to understand that there is a difference between "self interest" and "best self interest." Its like if you found a penny and a nickle on the floor. You only have time to pick up one. You can A: pick up the penny. B: pick up the nickle. or C: not pick up either and keep walking. If you decide to pick up the penny you are acting in self interest because it is beneficial for you to pick up the penny. This is not the choice that is in your own "best self interest", however. That choice would be B, to pick up the nickle.


Arguably slaves did exist in a free market society. People simply did not value a slaves work enough to pay them. Who would help the slaves? The government? No no this is a free market remember? If people dont want to pay their slaves for their work then the government cant say otherwise. A free market society is practically contradictory in what it aims to do. Remember in a "free society" people are free to enslave other people. Who will stop them? Just because the government won't enslave you doesn't mean that other people with power won't either. Do you know why there were slaves in america for over 100 years? Because the slave owners were "free" to enslave their workers. Just as big business owners would be able to exploit there workers. What stopped slavery? Government intervention and restriction.


Why not? Because you would "feel bad" about doing something like that? That is an argument from emotion not rationality. Give me a logical reason.


Why not? Would you "feel bad" about having unearned money? That isn't rational either. And of course unearned money has value, lol! Thats a completely ridiculous statement. Criminals spend money all the time and get great value from it.


This is silly too. I didn't say that the woman would be mindless, an automaton, or a slave given to you by a demon. In fact it would be a logical mistake for you to assume that the woman would have any of these characteristics because I said that it would have to be something that you "wanted." Since a woman with such characteristics would not be desirable to you they don't fit into our example and therefore cannot be used in your response.


This is the only response that makes sense but you still have not answered the question. So you wouldn't want looks. Ok fine then what would you want?


This is another logical mistake. This is in direct contradiction to what I said. You get what you want if you condemn the man. Therefor if you condemn him you could potentially populate the world with randian philosophers.


But you could potentially gain the friendship of a number of people who were superior to him in any way. How would that not be of more self interest to you? Having one friend or many who think as you do?

Pretty much every response to this question either misinterprets the question, makes a logical error, or uses an emotional argument. Try again.

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]


This is a semantical argument. We have been using different definitions for the same word. If I were to think if the situation using your definition then it would make perfect sense to me and you would be right. I don't however accept your definition because I simply cannot find it in a dictionary. Also, you pointed out that words are defined by popular usage. Your usage of the word "selfishness" is a different definition than what most english speakers would use. It is tailored to fit into the Randian thought process, which is ok but be careful that you don't create your own jargon by altering commonly used words. This can be a source of much confusion as it was here. Ha ha, maybe I am wrong here as I was about the definition of communism. If I am then prove it by showing me a definition from a verifyable source that represents what you are trying to say.


This leads me to question whether you really know what equivocation is. How is this an equivocation? If you have absolute freedom then you can do whatever you want, including (provided you are powerful enough) enslaving others. In a free market business owners set their wages as low as possible and since the workers have no alternative they are forced to work under terrible conditions. This is a form of slavery to me. This does hinge on a limited view of wealth, however, so you can disregard that if you must, lol.


You just contradicted yourself. You say that unearned money has no value and then you immediately say that criminals can get value from stolen money. It has monetary value. Yes it is based on a lie and an illusion but you can still spend it and as long as people have faith that your money is legitimate it will have value.


Wow, sean I am surprised at you. This is the second time you have deliberately twisted what I said. I never said anything about a demon. Go back to my original post and look for yourself. You created the idea of a demon in order to spin the argument so it sounds like some sort of evil witch craft. Also we are not talking about a real life situation. By the very rules that I set out for this experiment you would not gain anything you did not want, therefore anything that you respond to that includes you potentially gaining something that you do not want is irrelevant because it was never allowed into the example in the first place.


Just listen to this! Why are you inventing all of these ideas of demons and dark magic? This is one of the most obvious straw man arguments I have ever seen! Of course my argument sounds silly if you spin it like that. The woman's mind would not be altered by any magic. You could be potentially sent to another dimension where things were only slightly different. Perhaps in this dimension the woman truly loves you. In this dimension she is not a slave to anything and her mind has not been altered, she loves you of her own accord. But remember finding out ways to dismantle my few suggestions of things you may want is irrelevant because as soon as you dismantle them they become irrelevant to the example, lol.


Don't have anything more to say really but this is just a great example of a straw man. Her mind is fogged by a demon... This is all purely your own invention used to discredit my argument.


Do you believe in sacrifice? You could potentially sacrfice this one man and go against your own philosophy in order to populate the whole world with people who respect each other's rights. Rationally how does it not make sense to sacrifice this one man in order to save the whole world from suffering at the hands of rights abuses? 2 choices: A- you save one man but the world still has widespread injustice. B- you condemn one man and save billions from injustice. So will you save one man or save a billion?

It's like nuclear proliferation. Once everyone else disarms their nukes we will disarm ours. You could do the same. Once everyone else starts respecting each other's rights, you could go back to doing the same. Then you would get what you want, a world full of people (including yourself) who respect each other's rights.


What occured to me is that you could potentially just gain complete happiness forever. Wouldn't you choose that? It wouldn't matter to you if you had earned it or not because that fact wouldn't bother you anymore. You would be completely happy and satisfied at all times forever. You could even potentially be sent to a reality where things would work out exactly how you wanted them too in order for you to gain perfect satisfaction but you could have your memory erased so you would not know that you were in an alternate reality. Try being a little more creative.


This is only true when you twist my words around and invent silly things like demons, dark magic, and mind control and then try to pass them off as things that I said.


Making decisions guided by your own emotional whims is not logical at all. It may be logical to avoid emotional pain but the pain it self is not logical or rational. It is completely irrational. But see that's my point. You are now admitting that you do not make decisions based purely on rationality. You do follow your own whims at times which are irrational. In fact, the goal of seeking self benefit itself is an arbitrary goal. Try to rationalize why you seek to benefit yourself. Be careful not to use a circular argument. If you say that self benefit has intrinsic value then I challenge you to rationalize that.

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]


You see this only works if you assume that "self interest" actually means "best self interest." There are more ways than one to pursue self interest but you insist that there is only one way and that doing anything else besides this one course of action would not be in your self interest. That is a definition that is not in the dictionary and is not commonly used in the english language. It is "your" definition which I will again say is fine to have but it must be used with care because not many others will truly understand the specifics of what you mean when you say self interest. (Unless they are familiar with Randian philosophy I guess.)


I understand what you are saying. I meant more that the more free a society gets the more freedom people have to take other's freedom's away. I would argue that in pure capitalism with no government intervention we would have something that would come about as close to slavery as you could get without actually touching it. I view the road to slavery as more of a progression rather than a distingiushable line that can be crossed. Workers in the 1920s who worked their asses off but never got to see any promotions and barely got food on the table were pretty close to enslavement in my eyes. Yeah they could leave the company but the consequences would be great just as if a slave had left his plantation. This would only work with a limited view of wealth, I know. I just wanted to clarify.


If people have faith that your money has value and you are able to spend it then it has value. Just because it is based on a lie doesn't mean that it doesn't have value. If it had no value you wouldn't be able to spend it. Money has whatever value the people determine it to have. If people determine it to have value then it will have value. It is irrelevant whether or not it was stolen or who did what legitamately or illegitimately. If people have faith that it has value then it has value. If it didn't you couldn't spend it. Simple.


Remember right after I said "hell" I stated that you could disregard that label. I used the term hell just to help you visualize that it was a place of suffering. I corrected myself in the same post by saying that it was a place of eternal torture. I even said that my example had nothing to do with god. You created religious meanings and inserted them into my example. You later accuse me of saying that I have to be more and more fantastic in order to keep the example alive in the face of your criticism but you yourself are guilty of the same thing in your attempts to discredit it.

The whole point of this example was to see if you would actively injure or suppress other's if you truly believed it to be in your own rational self interest. You have convinced me that you would not because you cannot imagine an example where it would be in your own RSI to harm others unjustly. I just had a problem with you misinterpreting my example and inventing silly images of demons in order to discredit it rather than just trying to simply answer the question.


Emotions are irrational and arbitrary. Happiness is not rational either. What gives you happiness is arbitrary and cannot be rationalized without circular argumentation. If your goal is happiness then you have an irrational goal. So you are saying that you must pursue an irrational goal with rational methods? Thats ok, I can understand that but it just means that "self interest" at it's core cannot be rational. We can pursue it through rational methods but it itself is arbitrary and based on emotional fullfillment.


The answer isn't so obvious if you can't come up with it. Don't you see that what you have said is a circular argument? Its like saying "why do you like the color green? Because it is green." That isn't an answer at all. You are simply restating the conditions that the question was based on. It's ok because I did not expect you to have an answer. I don't think anyone can answer that question because no one knows the answer. "because it is good for me." is not a possible answer because it doesn't offer any reason "why."


I never said this.


I never said this.


I never said this or the parenthetical statement attached to it.


Seeing as how the preceding statements to this example are false I don't really see the point but ok. No, I would not sacrifice myself. Remember how I said that "everyone's" agenda is secretely to follow their own self interest? I follow mine. I would like to see the world as a better place and I am willing to make personal sacrifices for that to happen because I know that the sacrifice that I make is outweighed by the emotional satisfaction that I would gain. If I condemn myself then I cannot gain anything and that wouldn't be as you would say a rational thing to do. I would give money to help those in need and it would limitedly hurt me financially but the emotional gains would be worth it.

Remember, I never said that such sacrifices were appealing so to state that they would not be appealing if I were the one being sacrificed proves nothing. I was asking you if you would sacrifice someone else for your own self benefit. I would not approve of such behavior but I wanted to see if you would.

Book Reports / Argumentative essay on 1984 - Outline [48]

sorry I've been away so long.


It does serve as a symbol but it can easily be manipulated and for those who don't know that this manipulation has occured it still has value. The government prints money all the time and spends it. The value goes down, yes, but only slowly. If I had a printing press I could print a billion dollars and spend it because that money has value in the people's eyes. Eventually the markets would adjust to compensate for this new billion dollars that appeared out of thin air and the value of money would go down but since I spent the billion I got value out of it therefor the unearned money I created had value for me.


This is simply a non sequitur. Behavior can be irrational and arbitrary and still be predictable. Also you can read people's emotions just by looking at them regardless of their situation.

Emotion's are arbitrary in the sense that they have been arbitrarily assigned for each situation. For instance the average person might get angry everytime he is punched. His response is predictable: he gets punched - he gets angry. It is arbitrary, though, that we would feel anger when we get punched. Why would we be angry about that? Because something bad happened to us? Well why would that anger us? Why does injustice and negativity make us angry? It's arbitrary that anger is assigned to those situations. It is still understandable and thus you can feel empathy.

Same goes for irrationality. You can feel empathy for other people's emotions even though they are irrational. You know what their emotions feel like because you have experienced them yourself. You know what emotion the person is going through because of various verbal and non verbal communication. Empathy is possible.


The pursuit of happiness is irrational. You can't rationalize the reason why you pursue happiness.


Tautology is simply unwarranted or excessive repetition. I asked a question.


That is a misinterpretation. My question is "why seek the desirable?" I already know why you desire things. I know what makes things desirable. I want to know why you act on those desires. It's a different question entirely. And by the way asking a foolish question doesn't warrant a foolish answer it just shows that both parties are fools.


Why is it in your self interest to have empathy? How does that help you at all?
Wouldn't it be better to be able to percieve other people's emotions in an unemotional way?


Show me the quote.


What's your point?


You are avoiding answering the question and you are going off topic. Why are you still talking about communism? I thought we were done with that. What more are you trying to prove on that subject? This is irrelevant to the current conversation.