Would you go to live in Rapture if given the invitation?

[Harperfan7]

If you didn't know what was going to happen (though you may have suspected it)?

Even though I know what happens, I think I would have went just because living in an underwater city where freedom is #1 with a bunch of other exceptional freedom loving people sounds better than living in modern america despite the obvious dangers.

Yeah, there's going to be psychopaths and other miscellaneous crazies, there's going to be greed and corruption, but if nothing else, it'll be exciting and challenging (that is, living there, not surviving the apocalypse).

Would you go?

(Also, I don't think people were originally forced to stay, I think that happened during the **** hitting the fan, but its not explicitly stated either way)

[Winterwind]

On the first glace, evading danger and death may sound appealing - it puts one in the role of a hero akin to those we know from books, comics and movies, and appeals to our sense of adventure. But when you think about it more closely, living with the menace of death - a truly genuine menace of death - is in no way exciting, it's terrifying. The ongoing duress of one's life being endangered alone can break the human psyche; it's torture, nothing less. I think most people, if they even wish for combat and danger, do so only as long as that wish is unlikely to come true.

Or in other words, no, hell no, no way, not ever.

[Harperfan7]

The question was "would you go if you didn't know what was going to happen (even though you may have suspected it)?"

And I was referring to living in Rapture, not surviving the fall.

[Comet]

Rapture as it was marketed to the citizens- heck yes.
Rapture as it actually turned out- heck no.

edit: actually, scratch that first one too. I just realised that living underwater in a closed environment would freak me out no matter how much pretty art deco and telekinetic powers you throw in to sweeten the pot.

[Winterwind]

The question was "would you go if you didn't know what was going to happen (even though you may have suspected it)?"Well, you wrote "even knowing what happened", and indicated the "if you didn't know what was going to happen" part in no way. :smallwink:

Not knowing what would happen? Depends on whether one was allowed to leave. I'd gladly live there, but I wouldn't want to be permanently trapped there. After all, there's still family, friends, and a whole wonderful world out here.

[Lord of Rapture]

As much as I love Bioshock... nonononononononononono. No. Noooooo. I like life too much to risk it. Even if I get a magical hand that shoots bees.

[Drascin]

...spending my life surrounded by objectivists? In a city underwater, with the constant paranoia that a crack might mean us all drowning (I'm a bit phobic about these things)? Ruled by a man who even in his own promotional videos (which are supposed to be the good publicity) sounds completely off his rocker and like a bad televangelist? And, again, whole life surrounded by nothing but people who think objectivism is a good philosophy and Rand was right?

Yeah, no. No way in hell. Not even if you paid me millions to do it :smalleek:.

[Harperfan7]

Well, you wrote "even knowing what happened", and indicated the "if you didn't know what was going to happen" part in no way. :smallwink:

Not knowing what would happen? Depends on whether one was allowed to leave. I'd gladly live there, but I wouldn't want to be permanently trapped there. After all, there's still family, friends, and a whole wonderful world out here.

You got me. I'm editing it.

[Winterwind]

...spending my life surrounded by objectivists? Good point, didn't take that into account.
I'd like to change my vote to "no, under no circumstances", too, then.

[SurlySeraph]

Randtopia + unbalanced dictator + unattractive steampunk aesthetic + surrounded by lunatics with magic hands that shoot bees = hell no.

[Harperfan7]

Well it doesn't take a genius to see where this is going.

**** me.

[Lost Demiurge]

Oh lord, no. It's a corporate town that you can't leave without use of vehicles that are controlled by the dictator/CEO, and it's in a hostile environment where a serious screw-up means death. Not to mention the cult-like overtones, and suppression of religion.

No, even if it was presented in the most positive light, I'd recognize the warning signs. Rattlesnakes got rattles, poison frogs got bright colors, Andrew Ryan's got Rapture.

[Optimystik]

As others have said, Randtopia is not very appealing to me.

And there's a theme among the scientists down there - mainly, that they were all too amoral/immoral/bat**** insane for their research to be allowed by the rational people on the surface.

Yeah, you get pneumonia, would you go to Dr. Suchong or Dr. Tannenbaum? (Hint: the answer is neither.)

[Lord of Rapture]

As others have said, Randtopia is not very appealing to me.

And there's a theme among the scientists down there - mainly, that they were all too amoral/immoral/bat**** insane for their research to be allowed by the rational people on the surface.

Yeah, you get pneumonia, would you go to Dr. Suchong or Dr. Tannenbaum? (Hint: the answer is neither.)

Actually, neither of them would be likely to mess you up. Dr. Suchong only screws you over if it gets him more money, and since you're the customer, I doubt he'd want to do that. Tenebaum is just a little cold from the death camps, but she's more concerned about the little sisters than turning you into a mutant.

[Terraoblivion]

I have to agree with Drascin. Being surrounded by preachings of a philosophy i find both apalling and frankly kind of dumb and inconsistent sounds horrible. The cult-like atmosphere, risk of the whole thing collapsing on you and so on is just the icing. Mostly it is just the objectivists that would do it for me.

[chiasaur11]

No.

Now, Black Mesa?

That might sound more appealing initially.

[Surrealistik]

Objectivism is a malign cancer that must be excised; but that being said, you'd need to find someone else to do the purging, because there's no way I'd personally step into that homicidal den of crazy.

[Dervag]

If you didn't know what was going to happen (though you may have suspected it)?

Even though I know what happens, I think I would have went just because living in an underwater city where freedom is #1 with a bunch of other exceptional freedom loving people.I would probably not, because I would worry about the lack of oversight. Also the realization that someone is still going to have to clean the toilets, and it might very well end up being me.


(Also, I don't think people were originally forced to stay, I think that happened during teh **** hitting the fan)Would they have been able to keep the city's existence a secret if the residents were allowed to leave?


...spending my life surrounded by objectivists? In a city underwater, with the constant paranoia that a crack might mean us all drowning (I'm a bit phobic about these things)? Ruled by a man who even in his own promotional videos (which are supposed to be the good publicity) sounds completely off his rocker and like a bad televangelist? And, again, whole life surrounded by nothing but people who think objectivism is a good philosophy and Rand was right?

Yeah, no. No way in hell. Not even if you paid me millions to do it :smalleek:.Also, this.


No.
Now, Black Mesa?
That might sound more appealing initially.I would so work at Black Mesa.

[Icewalker]

Definitely. I'd love that environment, and I think it's possible to do it right. I may end up doing something similar later in life anyways, in fact...depends on whether or not the economics, politics, and ecosystem of the world collapse...

[doliest]

...Living in Rapture is like working at Apeture Science, only at least Apeture Science actually offers something that doesn't sound b***s to the wall INSANE. Not to mention they seemed like decent, people with a good idea of what fun was, rather than the crazy scientists of Rapture. Apeture science=MAD SCIENCE!, Rapture=SCIENCE!

[Strawberries]

Hmm.... no.
On second thought? Hell, no.

Andrew Ryan sounded deranged and dangerous from his very first appearance. And I find his phylosophy appalling. I would smile politely and walk backwards to the nearest exit, surreptitiously looking for a way to call the men in white coats...


No.
Now, Black Mesa?
That might sound more appealing initially.

I would love to work at Black Mesa, too.

[chiasaur11]

...Living in Rapture is like working at Apeture Science, only at least Apeture Science actually offers something that doesn't sound b***s to the wall INSANE. Not to mention they seemed like decent, people with a good idea of what fun was, rather than the crazy scientists of Rapture. Apeture science=MAD SCIENCE!, Rapture=SCIENCE!

Doesn't sound insane?

We talking the same Aperture Science here? The one with the Take a Wish foundation?

The counter Heimlich?

That Aperture Science?

[SurlySeraph]

...the one that urges you to donate one or more of your vital organs to their Self-Esteem Fund For Girls? The one that developed a hand-held interdimensional portal projector for "potential shower curtain applications"? The one that created a self-aware artificial intelligence to de-ice fuel lines?

[thubby]

the system of government is terrible, so no.

[Optimystik]

No.

Now, Black Mesa?

That might sound more appealing initially.

Or better yet, City 17 (http://www.hlcomic.com/index.php?date=2005-05-03) :smalltongue:

[Seraph]

It's a city run by objectivists. Even if I didn't know that it would end in a gene-eating catastrophe, the mere fact that some idiot expected objectivists to be able to coexist in a sub-aquatic closed system is enough of an indication of imminent societal implosion.

[Gamerlord]

I cannot swim.
I hate the water.
DO NOT WANT!

Sure the whole "limitless capitalist freedom!" would seem sweet, but I hate the water.

[Megaduck]

Somewhere between no, and oh HELL no. Being a perfect individual sounds nice until you realize it also means being perfectly alone.

New Hong Kong (http://www.airshipentertainment.com/buckcomic.php?date=20070217) now. That I could go for.

[golentan]

Short answer: No.

Long answer: Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo.

Now, if it had different goals. I've always wanted to push the bounds, and the deep water does that well. Then there's all the cool biotech. But honestly, it's the sort of system that I've spent my whole life believing must be fought.

Marketing anything as a place where I don't have to help buoy those without my gifts? What the hell do you think my gifts are for? While we're at it, let's invite the Spartans to take part in Woodstock, or the Marquis de Sade to help Queen Victoria with her morality legislation.

[warty goblin]

I
Sure the whole "limitless capitalist freedom!" would seem sweet, but I hate the water.
Only if you come out on top.

The whole underwater city honestly sounds pretty cool to me, but the residents...not so much. Drascin had it right, I'd rather shave my crotch with a weedwacker than live around objectivists for the rest of my life. The former option might be excruciatingly painful and humiliating, but at least it won't last for the rest of my life.

(Although gathering all the unhinged mad capitalist objectivists together in one place does have it's advantages. I'm thinking of compressing all the Terry Goodkind books in the world into large blocks, and then dropping them on Rapture from very high altitude. Kills two birds with one stone.)

[Mr. Scaly]

I say no too.

First of all I'm not thrilled by the idea of objectivism. I barely even understand it but everyone who says it'sa good thing seems to be either a violent lunatic or a very poor write.

Second, I'm attached to being alive, thank you very much. And any place that tries so hard to make you think it's a good place to be is obviously compensating for something. Like those commercials showing Stephen Harper as just a good guy.

But really, I'm way too lazy to move from my comfortable home to an underwater city that probably doesn't even have internet access for me to read these kinds of questions.

[Temotei]

It would be a sweet vacationing location, but leaving is mandatory. :smallamused:

[GolemsVoice]

If I've lived in the USA of the fifties, I would probably have found the idea totally neat, and moved down there right away, expecting the future to be great and exciting. If I got the invitation today, and knew what Ryan's mindset was, no, never. But I WOULD be tempted, somehow.

[kpenguin]

Gee, Rapture sounds like a neat place, with cutting edge technology... for the fifties. Sure, you get neat psychic powers, but hell naw I wouldn't want to live in a 50's zeerust utopia. For one thing, no internet connection.

[Temotei]

Gee, Rapture sounds like a neat place, with cutting edge technology... for the fifties. Sure, you get neat psychic powers, but hell naw I wouldn't want to live in a 50's zeerust utopia. For one thing, no internet connection.

:smalleek:
http://i43.photobucket.com/albums/e399/Iron_Onion/Funny%20Stuff/NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.jpg?t=1265199534

[Terraoblivion]

Think about it this way, Surrealistik. Gathering all the objectivists in an enclosed bubble beneath the Atlantic already remove them from the world the rest of us live in. No need to go down there and remove them.

[Avilan the Grey]

Heck no. Basically the philosophy that drives that city is horrible IMHO.
Of course if I could take over the city...

[Drascin]

Think about it this way, Surrealistik. Gathering all the objectivists in an enclosed bubble beneath the Atlantic already remove them from the world the rest of us live in. No need to go down there and remove them.

Yes there is. Otherwise, they might come back!

:smallbiggrin:

[Avilan the Grey]

Yes there is. Otherwise, they might come back!

:smallbiggrin:

Good point.
...What a great place for a nuclear testing ground!

[Terraoblivion]

That is what depth charges are for.

[Optimystik]

Gee, Rapture sounds like a neat place, with cutting edge technology... for the fifties. Sure, you get neat psychic powers, but hell naw I wouldn't want to live in a 50's zeerust utopia. For one thing, no internet connection.

There is internet in Rapture, it is just steam powered.

...Wait, what?

To quote Yahtzee, "I wasn't aware boiling water could form allegiances."


Yes there is. Otherwise, they might come back!

:smallbiggrin:

As a matter of fact, (Bioshock spoilers)
In the "Evil" ending, they do just that - your character leads an army of splicers to the surface, and seize a stockpile of nuclear weapons.

[Indon]

...spending my life surrounded by objectivists?
...
Yeah, no. No way in hell. Not even if you paid me millions to do it :smalleek:.

This sums it up.

Objectivists are like humanity's "A" spaceship (if I recall correctly my Douglas Adams). I'd let the objectivists leave and then I'd live a better life in the rest of the world which now lacks one city population's worth of objectivists.

And when we inevitably lost contact with a city full of people who exalt the D&D definition of Neutral Evil as their highest virtue (which I suspect is a big reason behind this forum's reaction - we can't just read the writing on the wall, we've RPed it), well, I wouldn't be surprised.


Yes there is. Otherwise, they might come back!

:smallbiggrin:

They're objectivists trying to build a society.

It's as safe to assume they'll fail catastrophically as it is safe to assume that the amish can't barn-raise a spaceship.

[Avilan the Grey]

They're objectivists trying to build a society.

It's as safe to assume they'll fail catastrophically as it is safe to assume that the amish can't barn-raise a spaceship.

Well since we have the actual data (they did fail, epically. Objectivism is incompatible with stable societies after all, as is Anarchism) we need not assume :smallbiggrin:.

[Harperfan7]

Is the world objectivist ever mentioned in the game?

[Indon]

Is the world objectivist ever mentioned in the game?

Is it mentioned in Ayn Rand's novels?

[Incompleat]

That is what depth charges are for.

No way. Give them an enemy, and they might unite for long enough to mess you up.

Just leave them well alone, and watch the pretty explosions.

BTW, I have not played the game, but why the hell should a bunch of extreme individualists accept to move into a privately-owned semi-dictatorship?

After all, if one dude owns everything then he is the government, and objectivism tends to be strongly suspicious of even relatively benign forms of government...

[Megaduck]

Well since we have the actual data (they did fail, epically. Objectivism is incompatible with stable societies after all, as is Anarchism) we need not assume :smallbiggrin:.

Epic Objectavist Society Failure? Have not heard of that. Link please.


And when we inevitably lost contact with a city full of people who exalt the D&D definition of Neutral Evil as their highest virtue (which I suspect is a big reason behind this forum's reaction - we can't just read the writing on the wall, we've RPed it), well, I wouldn't be surprised.

Quoted for GREAT truth.

[Callos_DeTerran]

I would move there in a heartbeat, but then again it's a general consensus that I am in fact a horrible person (or something personlike) who shouldn't be around other people.


...I'd fit in perfectly!


Another question on the premise though, we can go down there without knowing what it'll end up as...can we kill Fontaine pre-badthingsallhappening?

[Dervag]

This sums it up.

Objectivists are like humanity's "A" spaceship (if I recall correctly my Douglas Adams). I'd let the objectivists leave and then I'd live a better life in the rest of the world which now lacks one city population's worth of objectivists.No, no, that was the "B" ark. The idea was that the "A" ark would contain all the geniuses, the "C" ark all the laborers, and the "B" ark all the... intermediate people- middle management, marketing, telephone sanitizer makers, that kind of thing.

Then they launched the "B" ark into space, and stayed behind to kick back and relax without having the dread Pointy-Haired Boss watching over them.


BTW, I have not played the game, but why the hell should a bunch of extreme individualists accept to move into a privately-owned semi-dictatorship?

After all, if one dude owns everything then he is the government, and objectivism tends to be strongly suspicious of even relatively benign forms of government...The one guy promised he'd respect property rights and such, and at first he kept his word. Over time he started getting bitter and megalomaniacal, and since he still controlled a lot of the infrastructure, that caused problems.

[doliest]

Doesn't sound insane?

We talking the same Aperture Science here? The one with the Take a Wish foundation?

The counter Heimlich?

That Aperture Science?

Those are ALL still more sane than a city of Objectivists.

[Drakyn]

I'd move there just to make sure that the inefficient waste of space that is my person would doom the city slightly more quickly than its philosophy would.

Why? If Rapture doesn't sink fast enough, its population may have enough time to develop gills. Do we really want AMPHIBIOUS Objectivists Galtavanting about the seas, telling the plankton that "A IS A" and delivering hours-long monologues to innocent whales without any room for interruption? Whalesong is already obscured by ship engines, let's not add seven thousand separate instances of "This is John Galt speaking" to the undersea noise pollution.

[warty goblin]

Why? If Rapture doesn't sink fast enough, its population may have enough time to develop gills. Do we really want AMPHIBIOUS Objectivists Galtavanting about the seas, telling the plankton that "A IS A" and delivering hours-long monologues to innocent whales without any room for interruption? Whalesong is already obscured by ship engines, let's not add seven thousand separate instances of "This is John Galt speaking" to the undersea noise pollution.

I think this would require all right-thinking humans to reach out to the shark and killer whale communities in their hour of need, and provide them with the technological assistance they require.

That's right, sharks with laser beams for truth and justice!

[GenPol]

Or in other words, no, hell no, no way, not ever.

This would pretty much be my initial reaction...:smallbiggrin:

[kpenguin]

I think this would require all right-thinking humans to reach out to the shark and killer whale communities in their hour of need, and provide them with the technological assistance they require.

That's right, sharks with laser beams for truth and justice!

This makes me want to make an Aquaman vs. Rapture thread.

[Drakyn]

This makes me want to make an Aquaman vs. Rapture thread.

Why would you want to handicap the sharks like that? :smallconfused:

[chiasaur11]

Why would you want to handicap the sharks like that? :smallconfused:

Handicapped?

Have you not seen Brave and the Bold?

It'd be "The Adventure of the Submerged city full of people in odd diving outfits!"

[kpenguin]

Outrageous!

[Dienekes]

It'd be "The Adventure of the Submerged city full of people in odd diving outfits!"

Hell I'd watch that.

[LurkerInPlayground]

It depends on how strongly Andrew Ryan gives off the crazy.

If he gives off the really strong Objectionist vibes with pseudo-scientific talk, I'd suspect he was just some nutjob or a scam artist.

If I'm already there, I'd probably up-and-leave Rapture at the first opportunity the crazy starts leaking out of Andrew. Assuming that I have few roots tying me down, this wouldn't be difficult.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Yes there is. Otherwise, they might come back!

:smallbiggrin:
They only do that in the evil ending.

Good ending is canonical.

Mostly, they all kill each other off. So it works out.

[Drakyn]

Handicapped?

Have you not seen Brave and the Bold?

It'd be "The Adventure of the Submerged city full of people in odd diving outfits!"

Have you any idea how stupendously elegant sharks are? You'd put their svelte, calm blue-and-whites-and-greys-and-blacks side by side with this....thing?!?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2kjisMm3M9Y/STmx59K6CVI/AAAAAAAAHMk/vRYs48VH-Dc/s400/wallpaper+batman+the+brave+and+the+bold+Aquaman.jp g
It'd be like sending a soldier to war, then forcing him to lead a brigade of berserker clowns. Yes, they might make the job a tad easier, but you'd rather kill yourself than let it be known you ever fought side-by-side with them.

[Dienekes]

Whatever works friend.

Mixing fashion and aesthetic and war is what made the French wear red pants in battle and get unceremoniously killed.

Well that and Aquaman is awesome.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Whatever works friend.

Mixing fashion and aesthetic and war is what made the French wear red pants in battle and get unceremoniously killed.

Well that and Aquaman is awesome.
Yes, let's not forget that it's the British that did this too. Because bashing France's military never gets old.

And the whole point of the fashion is that you want your troops to be easily identifiable on the relatively open battlefields. It tells you that it's your guy.

The notion of camouflage and doing away with neat formations didn't really matter until you got into wooded frontier areas.

[Drakyn]

Whatever works friend.

Mixing fashion and aesthetic and war is what made the French wear red pants in battle and get unceremoniously killed.

Well that and Aquaman is awesome.

So you're saying that wearing garish colours into battle in the wilderness has proven unsuccessful. On this, we are in agreement. War demands the sober, vaguely morose touch that only a shark can give it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Tibur%C3%B3n.jpg
Look at that face. How can you say "we need Aquaman" to that sharky, sharky little face?

[Avilan the Grey]

Epic Objectavist Society Failure? Have not heard of that. Link please.
.

Um... I meant the game. The OP asked if we didn't know what would happen, would we move there. We know what happened, aka we have the data.

[Lamech]

Bad idea 173: Trusting all your essential services to someone who claims to be selfish and only out for himself. There is no possible way that can end well.

[Avilan the Grey]

Bad idea 173: Trusting all your essential services to someone who claims to be selfish and only out for himself. There is no possible way that can end well.

...Come to think of it, everyone that moved to Rapture knowing this were Too Dumb To Live, for this reason alone.

[Dienekes]

Yes, let's not forget that it's the British that did this too. Because bashing France's military never gets old.

And the whole point of the fashion is that you want your troops to be easily identifiable on the relatively open battlefields. It tells you that it's your guy.

The notion of camouflage and doing away with neat formations didn't really matter until you got into wooded frontier areas.

I know, however the French had the most obvious example so I took it. The same could be said of the Russian use of charges because they looked good at the start of WWI.


So you're saying that wearing garish colours into battle in the wilderness has proven unsuccessful. On this, we are in agreement. War demands the sober, vaguely morose touch that only a shark can give it.
Look at that face. How can you say "we need Aquaman" to that sharky, sharky little face?

Nope, I'm saying use what works and discard what doesn't. And Aquaman has proven to be incredibly effective, and can actually direct these animals you seem to admire so much so as to be effective.

I think that in itself is worth the cartoonishly awesome outfit.

[CarpeGuitarrem]

Bad idea 173: Trusting all your essential services to someone who claims to be selfish and only out for himself. There is no possible way that can end well.
QFT. This should be a no-brainer.

[Drakyn]

Nope, I'm saying use what works and discard what doesn't. And Aquaman has proven to be incredibly effective, and can actually direct these animals you seem to admire so much so as to be effective.

I think that in itself is worth the cartoonishly awesome outfit.

Fine, we'll compromise. We'll paint a blue whale orange and green and have it lead the charge. If you'd like, we can even superglue a little blond beard onto it.


Bad idea 173: Trusting all your essential services to someone who claims to be selfish and only out for himself. There is no possible way that can end well.
What's the supposedly safety net for this anyways? "My selfish sense is tingling...it tells me that I need you all around to provide services for me"? Even then, it seems like that'd just lead to holding the whole city ransom until everyone in it agrees to be your eternal vassal. Or you'd just quietly hoard everything you'd ever want and then kill everyone.

[chiasaur11]

Fine, we'll compromise. We'll paint a blue whale orange and green and have it lead the charge. If you'd like, we can even superglue a little blond beard onto it.

Would it be voiced by John "Bender" Di Maggio?

Would it say "OUTRAGEOUS!" at every opportunity?

Would it punch dudes?

No?

We need the King of the Seas, not some stupid whale with a beard poorly super glued on.

[Drakyn]

Would it be voiced by John "Bender" Di Maggio?

Would it say "OUTRAGEOUS!" at every opportunity?

Would it punch dudes?

No?

We need the King of the Seas, not some stupid whale with a beard poorly super glued on.

And I say that you haven't heard voice acting until you've heard a fully-grown blue whale say!sing "OUTRAGEOUS." You will feel every syllable as it displaces your marrow from your body and forces it to form a separate entity and flee for the surface. My point here is that since Aquaman is supposed to be some sort of super-adapted sea hominoid, logically speaking the best move would be to just make something already adapted for the sea Aquaman. It eliminates unnecessary steps.
Plus, we can outfit it with really big boxing gloves on its flippers. There's nature's whalepunch.

EDIT: For the record, I have nothing against Aquaman and actually prefer him to both Batman AND Superman. I just don't see why he should get automatic billing over everything else in the ocean. Chrissakes, if we're going for rarity value blue whales are probably MORE unique nowadays.

[Myatar_Panwar]

If I got an invite to check out and be a part of a secret society far far FAR more advanced than anything I'd be finding on the surface?

Having ideals shouted at me, and such aside, that would be reason enough for me to go.

Unless I knew there was zero chance of me ever being able to return to the surface, in which case I may decline.

And this is all under the consideration that I am actually living in the time period when proposed. I'd be less inclined if asked now.

[chiasaur11]

And I say that you haven't heard voice acting until you've heard a fully-grown blue whale say!sing "OUTRAGEOUS." You will feel every syllable as it displaces your marrow from your body and forces it to form a separate entity and flee for the surface. My point here is that since Aquaman is supposed to be some sort of super-adapted sea hominoid, logically speaking the best move would be to just make something already adapted for the sea Aquaman. It eliminates unnecessary steps.
Plus, we can outfit it with really big boxing gloves on its flippers. There's nature's whalepunch.

EDIT: For the record, I have nothing against Aquaman and actually prefer him to both Batman AND Superman. I just don't see why he should get automatic billing over everything else in the ocean. Chrissakes, if we're going for rarity value blue whales are probably MORE unique nowadays.

You make a good point, and I'd almost agree with you.

The I asked myself, "What would Aquaman do?" So now I'm obliged to slap you very hard on the back, call you "Old Chum" and ignore any suggestions you make, no matter how reasonable they are.

[Drakyn]

You make a good point, and I'd almost agree with you.

The I asked myself, "What would Aquaman do?" So now I'm obliged to slap you very hard on the back, call you "Old Chum" and ignore any suggestions you make, no matter how reasonable they are.

Foiled by the genial idiocy of the silver age GODDAMNIT! :smallfurious: :smallannoyed: :smallsmile: :smallbiggrin:

On a slightly more on topic but no more sane note, why exactly did Ryan not drag Ayn Rand's leathery carcass down there himself? She only died in 1982, and you'd think given the lengths to which the philosophy enshrines her, he'd be incredibly proud of being able to say that their demigod was a denizen of Rapture.

[Dienekes]

And I say that you haven't heard voice acting until you've heard a fully-grown blue whale say!sing "OUTRAGEOUS." You will feel every syllable as it displaces your marrow from your body and forces it to form a separate entity and flee for the surface. My point here is that since Aquaman is supposed to be some sort of super-adapted sea hominoid, logically speaking the best move would be to just make something already adapted for the sea Aquaman. It eliminates unnecessary steps.
Plus, we can outfit it with really big boxing gloves on its flippers. There's nature's whalepunch.

EDIT: For the record, I have nothing against Aquaman and actually prefer him to both Batman AND Superman. I just don't see why he should get automatic billing over everything else in the ocean. Chrissakes, if we're going for rarity value blue whales are probably MORE unique nowadays.

Several reasons, Batman: The Brave and the Bold Aquaman is cooler than all the denizens of the sea, combined. Two, do to the animals in questions nature it is unlikely that they would be able to form a successful cohesive attack on Rapture. And I take my wanton destruction of sea based objectivists seriously, deadly seriously.

[Sholos]

Have you any idea how stupendously elegant sharks are? You'd put their svelte, calm blue-and-whites-and-greys-and-blacks side by side with this....thing?!?
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_2kjisMm3M9Y/STmx59K6CVI/AAAAAAAAHMk/vRYs48VH-Dc/s400/wallpaper+batman+the+brave+and+the+bold+Aquaman.jp g
It'd be like sending a soldier to war, then forcing him to lead a brigade of berserker clowns. Yes, they might make the job a tad easier, but you'd rather kill yourself than let it be known you ever fought side-by-side with them.

Maybe not that one, but this one:
http://media.monstersandcritics.com/articles/1150063/article_images/justiceleagueaquaman.jpg
would certainly be cool.

[Drakyn]

^Nice. I think we've all made our positions clear on our respective thoughts of Aquaman (of varying kinds), marine wildlife, and his chances of taking out Rapture itself. This must lead to the next derail: Aquaman's hook-hand vs Big Daddy drill-hand. Discuss.

[Coidzor]

Unfortunately something tells me that the hook hand may have trouble penetrating the big daddy's armored carcasses. Unless it's some kind of cut through most anything material, then it'd just cut through the drill and dance around the big daddy.

Or just leave the big daddy to sink after breaking the tube it was in.

What I'm curious about is what Aquaman would do with the little sisters? Exterminate them to liberate the enslaved seaslugs inside of them?

Maybe someone should just go ahead and make the thread...

After ruminating and trying to put myself back in the 50's, I realized that I just can't put myself back in the 50's. So basically, I'd have to decline, especially if I knew the guy just torched what he had and still lost it. Not the sort who'd play nice if it even seemed like he wouldn't be the sole power at play.

I'm both intrigued and horrified by the whole underwater city aspect.

[Indon]

Foiled by the genial idiocy of the silver age GODDAMNIT! :smallfurious: :smallannoyed: :smallsmile: :smallbiggrin:

On a slightly more on topic but no more sane note, why exactly did Ryan not drag Ayn Rand's leathery carcass down there himself? She only died in 1982, and you'd think given the lengths to which the philosophy enshrines her, he'd be incredibly proud of being able to say that their demigod was a denizen of Rapture.

Steampunk Zombie Ayn Rand could well be the best video game enemy ever.

[Drakyn]

Steampunk Zombie Ayn Rand could well be the best video game enemy ever.

That's going to be the surprise endboss of the second game now, isn't it. She'll be sitting atop a gigantic throne and screaming at you through a genetically-amplified megaphonebiothing that causes massive hurricane-scale winds. Your only hope is to fling paperback copies of Atlas Shrugged at her to plug her maw temporarily, stemming the gale long enough to get in and whack her.

[LurkerInPlayground]

That's going to be the surprise endboss of the second game now, isn't it. She'll be sitting atop a gigantic throne and screaming at you through a genetically-amplified megaphonebiothing that causes massive hurricane-scale winds. Your only hope is to fling paperback copies of Atlas Shrugged at her to plug her maw temporarily, stemming the gale long enough to get in and whack her.
Naturally, it'll be the Golden Throne of Objectivism. And I mean the Golden Throne as in the Golden Throne of the Emperor from WH40k. But powered by snaking tubes of ADAM.

She'll sit there, all withered and corpse-like. A symbol of ancient dogma who refuses to stay quietly in the grave.

[icastflare!]

I would. The fact that the artist wont be censored its one the the main things i believe in. and i love water,so being around it would definatly be good

[Tavar]

I would. The fact that the artist wont be censored its one the the main things i believe in. and i love water,so being around it would definatly be good

You seem to be missing major points. Such as being under the control of a madman.

[faceroll]

I have objectivist leanings, but I'm not sure I'd want to leave my friends to go live under the sea.

Andrew Ryan is almost an anagram of Ayn Rand.


On the first glace, evading danger and death may sound appealing - it puts one in the role of a hero akin to those we know from books, comics and movies, and appeals to our sense of adventure. But when you think about it more closely, living with the menace of death - a truly genuine menace of death - is in no way exciting, it's terrifying. The ongoing duress of one's life being endangered alone can break the human psyche; it's torture, nothing less. I think most people, if they even wish for combat and danger, do so only as long as that wish is unlikely to come true.

Or in other words, no, hell no, no way, not ever.

I'm sort of an adrenaline junky, so I disagree completely.

[LurkerInPlayground]

I have objectivist leanings, but I'm not sure I'd want to leave my friends to go live under the sea.

Andrew Ryan is almost an anagram of Ayn Rand.



I'm sort of an adrenaline junky, so I disagree completely.
Well, you see, that's your problem right there.

It's one thing to agree with some of the things that Ayn Rand has to say. But it's quite another to say that say that she's being original enough to tag her insights with her special label.

I mean, empiricism is a valid method for obtaining knowledge. Really? Give the woman a cookie. She doesn't like communism? Guess what? Neither did Orwell.

Even saying that you're so exceptional that you're above the trauma that somebody else is sane enough to avoid, smacks of the Randian exceptionalism.

Consider that most of the people in that game aren't even heroes of their own narrative but a bunch of psychotic junkies locked in a brutal struggle to survive that ultimately culminates in an icy death under the sea. And the people who control those junkies are deliberately there to exploit them as guinea pigs and slaves just because they have entitlement issues.

Yeah, real exciting.

[faceroll]

Well, you see, that's your problem right there.

Sounds like it's more of a problem for you than it is me, actually.


It's one thing to agree with some of the things that Ayn Rand has to say. But it's quite another to say that say that she's being original enough to tag her insights with her special label.

I mean, empiricism is a valid method for obtaining knowledge. Really? Give the woman a cookie. She doesn't like communism? Guess what? Neither did Orwell.

Maybe you could go to a different forum where you can get huffy about philosophy? I don't really appreciate your tone. It's uncalled for.


Even saying that you're so exceptional that you're above the trauma that somebody else is sane enough to avoid, smacks of the Randian exceptionalism.

Winterwind made a blanket statement that evading death and danger sounds fun, but in reality, it isn't. As someone who regularly evades death and danger, I can tell you, it's actually pretty fun.

[Lamech]

I have objectivist leanings, but I'm not sure I'd want to leave my friends to go live under the sea.

Andrew Ryan is almost an anagram of Ayn Rand.
Living in an objectivist utopia would not be as bad as living in a place where someone selectivly upholds things like "total free market" and "selfishness" in the standard normal usage of the word. Ayn Rand seemed to really like to not use the standard english defenition of things, which makes her philosophy seem a lot worse than it actually is. For example, one of the characters in her utopia went, "When I make oil more efficently I lower my prices because it takes less work from me so its worth less to me..."; which of course has nothing what so ever to do with the normal meaning of "selfish" or what people think of when they hear "free market".

Of course, I still wouldn't trust my essential services to someone who supports the Ayn Rand utopia because he might do something stuipid like... sell them to someone who doesn't.



I mean, empiricism is a valid method for obtaining knowledge. Really? Give the woman a cookie. That did not come out in Atlas shrugged at all. (A good book when the characters weren't in preacher mode BTW.) The characters repeatedly mentioned reason, and logic, and objective, but she seemed to dislike the current physics people, and she seem to claim things could be shown by logic when they should be tested. I don't recall being empirical and running experiments to be a big thing on her part.

[golentan]

Winterwind made a blanket statement that evading death and danger sounds fun, but in reality, it isn't. As someone who regularly evades death and danger, I can tell you, it's actually pretty fun.

Seriously? What's the most dangerous thing you've done? Bungie Jumping? Free Climbing? Doing 90 on a level surface which is regularly paved and explosion free?

As someone who has regularly faced really lethal situations, it's not so fun. Here we're not talking "Dude, I bet you can't make that jump" fear. We're talking "Okay, we can't remove the gasket without being slowly suffocated, and the gasket will give out on the order of 50 years from now." Which actually means it could go out tomorrow, but you'd be surprised if it happened before five years. We're talking "If lethal scenarios happen, a 98% casualty rate is acceptable losses, survival alloted at random by proximity to evacuation facilities within 30 seconds of disaster" type fear. We're talking "living in a trailer park when you catch a last minute tornado warning" type fear.

And then, when everything hits the fan, we're talking "Blithely walk towards the machine gun nest operated by cannibals" type fear. "I'm being hunted by someone at least as smart and well armed as I am, and don't know when or where they'll strike" fear. We're talking "I have no friends, no allies, and I am alone in the basement of a serial killer" kind of fear.

And then to feel both these types, simultaneously, every second of every day for years?

I mean, holy crud. I get my kicks free climbing, but the nervous adrenaline rush is nothing compared to the sick, crushing knowledge that I could die before I'm aware of the fact at the hands of another when in a firefight situation, or the fear felt hoping that the gas mask will work while watching helplessly as a slow and painful death manifests itself as a yellowish cloud creeping across the ground towards you. That's the sort of thing you do because it'll spare someone else, and somebody has to do it. Not a "For Kicks" feeling.

[Lord Seth]

You know, as long as we're discussing Ayn Rand/Objectivism, I have to quote something I found amusing about it that someone said on another forum:

Writ brief, as far as I can make out, objectivism states that alturism just holds you back and that selfishness is the only way the human race can get ahead. Also, the only people who matter are the creative sort who come up with new ideas. Everyone else is just a loser who only knows how to copy and be all mean to the poor wickle clever types. According to Rand, if you’re smart and come up with great new ideas then you should only care about said ideas. That, and your own sweet self. As for the people who aren’t that creative, they can all go bathe in nuclear waste. In the meantime, their incredible dunce-hood and loserishness can make all the ubermenschen look cool by comparison. Even cooler, I mean.

That’s objectivism, in a nutshell. There’s a catch, unfortunately: in this idealised world were the really amazing artistic people are the only ones worthy of being alive, Ms Ayn Rand would only have one place, and that would be neck-high in green glowing sludge with everybody else.

I know I sound a bit too nasty there, but it strikes me as frankly hilarious that Rand, who obviously considered herself to be up there with the super-special artists, was quite frankly a terrible author who couldn’t tell a good story to save her miserable life.

[Oslecamo]

You know, as long as we're discussing Ayn Rand/Objectivism, I have to quote something I found amusing about it that someone said on another forum:

Objectivism forgets one major point: Quantity has a quality of it's own.

Sure, the world is filled with stupid easily manipulable people.

But it's those stupid easily manipulable people who are doing all the hard and dirty work that is needed to fuel the brighter minds!

Somebody has to farm the fields. Somebody has to clean and take out the garbage. Somebody has to sacrifice their health mining. Somebody has to breack their backs to build your giant palace where you tinker. Somebody has to pick the weapons you develop and go out there risking his life to get you raw resources from your rivals. Somebody has to keep watch while you sleep.

Great ideas aren't enough. You also need lots of hard work to apply them in practise. And lots of idiot easily manipulable people are by far the best way of geting lots of hard work done.

[Lord of Rapture]

Objectivism forgets one major point: Quantity has a quality of it's own.

Sure, the world is filled with stupid easily manipulable people.

But it's those stupid easily manipulable people who are doing all the hard and dirty work that is needed to fuel the brighter minds!

Somebody has to farm the fields. Somebody has to clean and take out the garbage. Somebody has to sacrifice their health mining. Somebody has to breack their backs to build your giant palace where you tinker. Somebody has to pick the weapons you develop and go out there risking his life to get you raw resources from your rivals. Somebody has to keep watch while you sleep.

Great ideas aren't enough. You also need lots of hard work to apply them in practise. And lots of idiot easily manipulable people are by far the best way of geting lots of hard work done.

Indeed. It's this very truism that led to Rapture's downfall in the first place.

Generally, steer clear of any philosophy that proclaims itself to be the answer to everything. It's these kinds of philosophies that led to the epic cluster**** that was the 20th century.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Winterwind made a blanket statement that evading death and danger sounds fun, but in reality, it isn't. As someone who regularly evades death and danger, I can tell you, it's actually pretty fun.
Yes, probably under controlled conditions of your choosing.

Sorry, this is not the same as being a psychotic junkie trying to fight off other psychotic junkies for the delicious super drug.

Then risking your life trying to harass a Little Sister for more drugs even though it's a foregone conclusion that you will lose to the Steampunk Frankenstein monster.

Prior to all that was a situation where a crime lord has literally armed the masses to kill people over politics.

So basically, you're either a corpse or a psychotic hobo.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Objectivism forgets one major point: Quantity has a quality of it's own.

Sure, the world is filled with stupid easily manipulable people.

But it's those stupid easily manipulable people who are doing all the hard and dirty work that is needed to fuel the brighter minds!

Somebody has to farm the fields. Somebody has to clean and take out the garbage. Somebody has to sacrifice their health mining. Somebody has to breack their backs to build your giant palace where you tinker. Somebody has to pick the weapons you develop and go out there risking his life to get you raw resources from your rivals. Somebody has to keep watch while you sleep.

Great ideas aren't enough. You also need lots of hard work to apply them in practise. And lots of idiot easily manipulable people are by far the best way of geting lots of hard work done.
That's the thing too. "Genius" isn't entirely intrinsic to the person who holds that honored title.

A genius is just an ordinary person who had the luck and the luxury to actually make something of their talents.

[Kiren]

I think the question should be, are you afraid of needles and power tools?

[Hida Reju]

I think a lot of people are missing the cultural implications of the times.

It's after WW2, people are tired of War, tired of poverty, tired of freedom being revoked in the name of progress.

Many have lost everything to the "State" in Germany and the war.

Russia had its Red revolution and is on a killing spree of its own people.

Britain is in ruins and rebuilding.

Japan is occupied and under martial law.

The USA has 1000's of soldiers returning from hell.

What does Andrew Ryan offer? Pure freedom, now I admit it's not what most people would think is good if they had it together. But now look at it from the other side.

Would you do it knowing in Russia that you were about to flee or be purged?

Would you do it knowing that you are going to live in poverty the rest of your life to make someone else rich?

Would you do it to have freedom again?

[LurkerInPlayground]

I think a lot of people are missing the cultural implications of the times.

It's after WW2, people are tired of War, tired of poverty, tired of freedom being revoked in the name of progress.

Many have lost everything to the "State" in Germany and the war.

Russia had its Red revolution and is on a killing spree of its own people.

Britain is in ruins and rebuilding.

Japan is occupied and under martial law.

The USA has 1000's of soldiers returning from hell.

What does Andrew Ryan offer? Pure freedom, now I admit it's not what most people would think is good if they had it together. But now look at it from the other side.

Would you do it knowing in Russia that you were about to flee or be purged?

Would you do it knowing that you are going to live in poverty the rest of your life to make someone else rich?

Would you do it to have freedom again?
I'd consider the possibility that I wouldn't be different person in a different historical context except that really isn't the spirit of the question.

Given a preference, I'd probably be the guy who's skeptical of a nutjob with a messiah complex. By my nature, I'm a guy who gets suspicious of things that sound too good to be true. Somehow, I don't think that was all that rare a personality trait in any period of history.

And Americans did enter a new age of world prominence, owing to WW2. So it's not entirely unlikely that I'd have enough means to ignore Ryan's offer in the first place.

[kpenguin]

I think a lot of people are missing the cultural implications of the times.

It's after WW2, people are tired of War, tired of poverty, tired of freedom being revoked in the name of progress.

Many have lost everything to the "State" in Germany and the war.

Russia had its Red revolution and is on a killing spree of its own people.

Britain is in ruins and rebuilding.

Japan is occupied and under martial law.

The USA has 1000's of soldiers returning from hell.

What does Andrew Ryan offer? Pure freedom, now I admit it's not what most people would think is good if they had it together. But now look at it from the other side.

Would you do it knowing in Russia that you were about to flee or be purged?

Would you do it knowing that you are going to live in poverty the rest of your life to make someone else rich?

Would you do it to have freedom again?

The OP does not ask "if you were a person living in a post-WWII era world" it asks "you".

And, personally, me, the modern, 21st century me, finds Rapture fairly unappealing. No internet, after all.

[Hida Reju]

The OP does not ask "if you were a person living in a post-WWII era world" it asks "you".

And, personally, me, the modern, 21st century me, finds Rapture fairly unappealing. No internet, after all.

But to answer the question without the cultural context is leaving the whole of the reasons behind Rapture's creation and why anyone would have anything to do with it out of the picture.

The year and the setting make up a huge part of the story of Rapture.

[Otogi]

Not for all the Would You Kindly's in the ****ing world.

"Oh hey, welcome to Rapture! Please enjoy your stay as your surrounded by the people who have become outsiders in society for mostly legitimate reasons as we give them a lot more power with a lot less restrictions, including basic moral ones that would normally be considered insane by everyone except our ego-manical leader who despises anyone who is a zealot for a philosophy of life! Which one, you say? Does it matter, he's going insane! Oh, and that power we were talking about? That's not only figurative, but quite literal, too. Yes, shooting fire from their hands, super-strength, invisibility and teleportation all available to everyone who has their hands on an addictive, maddening and disfiguring chemical. Did we also mention that unless you bring your loved ones into this hidden city beneath the sea, you can never make contact with them again. And you have to pay for everything, including air. And everyone you come in contact with is pretty much your rival in terms of economics. Oh, and if you have a daughter, we may need to take her away to make the chemical that gives people powers; don't worry, though, you'll be able to see in the mandated orphanages or walking around with a genetically-modified, armored hulk trained to kill anyone who gets near her, even you! But hey, it's better than The War, eh?

Oooh, speaking of which, there's a civil war between you and all these mentally-unbalanced, backstabbing super-mutants as well as anyone with guns that shoot super-scienced bullets and such. But don't worry, after all that and everyone becomes a methadone-addicted Supermen, we'll switch into a sort of scavenger society, where all you have to do is keep a gun/ whatever super-powers you have close and lock the door to the pantry and you'll be fine. Until a strange man comes in and starts shooting at you with more advance weaponry and powers, forcing you away. But he's gone and now the insane mutant-addicts have been almost halved...leaving the most insane, must addicted and most powerful mutants left who have now formed hunting parties to little girls. But hey, you found your daughter, the same age as 20 years ago, with only glowing eyes, a graveling voice and with everyone wanted to bash her skull and rupture her stomach open...but you have her, even if you barely recognize her! Until another one of those hulking bodyguards comes and tries to get her back and-wait, what?! Okay, yeah, now he has super-powers, too. Yep, he's just tearing those groups to pieces while your hiding. And your daughter has a deep fascination with this machine-man, and calls it Daddy more than you/your husband. And it's a basically part-tank, part-God, so you give her up, knowing she'll be safe while you wave your atrophied, wrinkled hand away as she skips away like you were nobody. And the glass is starting to leak. Alot.

Enjoy your stay!"



Even though I know what happens, I think I would have went just because living in an underwater city where freedom is #1 with a bunch of other exceptional freedom loving people sounds better than living in modern america despite the obvious dangers.

I think you need to appreciate your country a little more if you think that paying for air and having mandatory surgery mandated by an insane dictator, performed by off-their-rocker surgeon. Yeah, I'll stick with the drug-dealers putting coke next to my mailbox any day.

[LurkerInPlayground]

But to answer the question without the cultural context is leaving the whole of the reasons behind Rapture's creation and why anyone would have anything to do with it out of the picture.

The year and the setting make up a huge part of the story of Rapture.
He's being flippant.

The answer on my part would still be no. I'd be a skeptic. Andrew Ryan is off-putting the moment that you meet him. The guy has entitlement issues and a messiah complex. I particularly don't like the very emotional appeals that he makes to me.

[kpenguin]

But to answer the question without the cultural context is leaving the whole of the reasons behind Rapture's creation and why anyone would have anything to do with it out of the picture.

The year and the setting make up a huge part of the story of Rapture.

Because, we are, inevitably, created by our upbringing, which might well be fundamentally different had we been born in a different era.

Take me, for instance. I'm a first, or is it second, generation child of Vietnamese immigrants in America. If I had been born before the time I had been, I'd have been born in Vietnam, or was it French Indochina back then, and would likely have had a quite different upbringing than I did.

I know myself, but myself is created by my experiences. Changing those experiences fundamentally changes myself and I'm not as knowledgeable about this other self as I am of myself. I can guess, of course, but not well enough that I can say with any certainty my choice if I was given the invitation to go to Rapture.

[Faulty]

Too Randian for my tastes, sorry.

[hanzo66]

Depends...


Between Ryan, Fontaine and Lamb, which is worse?

Would using Hypno on Delta be an option?

[Dervag]

Objectivism forgets one major point: Quantity has a quality of it's own.

Sure, the world is filled with stupid easily manipulable people.

But it's those stupid easily manipulable people who are doing all the hard and dirty work that is needed to fuel the brighter minds!

Somebody has to farm the fields. Somebody has to clean and take out the garbage. Somebody has to sacrifice their health mining. Somebody has to breack their backs to build your giant palace where you tinker. Somebody has to pick the weapons you develop and go out there risking his life to get you raw resources from your rivals. Somebody has to keep watch while you sleep.

Great ideas aren't enough. You also need lots of hard work to apply them in practise. And lots of idiot easily manipulable people are by far the best way of geting lots of hard work done.The hell of it is, the "idiots" aren't even all that idiotic, really. It's easy to sneer at them because they didn't pick a career path with lots of differential equations, but when you look at the facts on the ground it's nonsense.

Most of the time, what they're doing does make sense, and expecting to know how they should live their lives better than they do because you're "smarter" than they are is foolish.

[LurkerInPlayground]

Depends...


Between Ryan, Fontaine and Lamb, which is worse?

Would using Hypno on Delta be an option?
I don't know Lamb, but Fontaine seems definitely worse than Ryan.

Ryan pretends to be principled and initially reacts in horror to the Little Sisters. And he might even be disappointed that the assassin sent to kill him couldn't break free of his conditioning of his own volition.

Fontaine has some qualms about messing up his gene pool indiscriminately, but that falls away pretty quick.

In all though, Fontaine is the Randian Superman that Ryan never lives up to. They'll both screw you over, it's just that Fontaine will be first one to kidnap your daughter or get you addicted to Adam. And he'll be the first to incite a bloody riot.

[Lord of Rapture]

I think a lot of people are missing the cultural implications of the times.

It's after WW2, people are tired of War, tired of poverty, tired of freedom being revoked in the name of progress.

Many have lost everything to the "State" in Germany and the war.

Russia had its Red revolution and is on a killing spree of its own people.

Britain is in ruins and rebuilding.

Japan is occupied and under martial law.

The USA has 1000's of soldiers returning from hell.

What does Andrew Ryan offer? Pure freedom, now I admit it's not what most people would think is good if they had it together. But now look at it from the other side.

Would you do it knowing in Russia that you were about to flee or be purged?

Would you do it knowing that you are going to live in poverty the rest of your life to make someone else rich?

Would you do it to have freedom again?

Though this is a very legitimate point to consider for the backstory of the game, considering the lifestyle we have today, Rapture's not exactly appealing.

[Indon]

Andrew Ryan is almost an anagram of Ayn Rand.

And is an anagram of "Ayn Randrew"


Winterwind made a blanket statement that evading death and danger sounds fun, but in reality, it isn't. As someone who regularly evades death and danger, I can tell you, it's actually pretty fun.

Except for the PTSD.


Living in an objectivist utopia would not be as bad as living in a place where someone selectivly upholds things like "total free market" and "selfishness" in the standard normal usage of the word. Ayn Rand seemed to really like to not use the standard english defenition of things, which makes her philosophy seem a lot worse than it actually is. For example, one of the characters in her utopia went, "When I make oil more efficently I lower my prices because it takes less work from me so its worth less to me..."; which of course has nothing what so ever to do with the normal meaning of "selfish" or what people think of when they hear "free market".
Lying continuously about things people might object to sounds like fairly Enlightened Self-Interest.

Ideally, the objectivist claims they will lower prices, but then never does, if it's reasonable for them to think they can get away with it.

[c0ruptiv3]

Personally. Id Wish to live there.
The Point of Rapture was to be able to Freely Express yourself. To Do as you Pleased and Live as you Please. To Earn Every Dollar you deserved for work you do and not a penny less.
For Science to Be Free of Restraints as in. You Could have the freedom and liberty to research anything you pleased without having to Find someone to finance your experiments. (Namingly the Government, who only finances experiments that benefit the state.)
To Express Art anyway you seem fit. Without any form of Censorship from the Government.
To Live in a Society where The Church Did not Influence your decisions and what you did with your life (Not that there isnt a God or an Afterlife) more like. Donating Money to the church, or Not doing certain things because it goes against the church. Or Having to Choose Between a religion.

Rapture was not Built Just for the Intellectuals But for Any Man or Women who wished to start a New life. Not Being Stuck to the Cast systems Given to them but the rest of society.

People went to rapture as Upper class, middle class, and lower class But could become anything after arriving if they had the will the initiative to become something more.
Without the Government Making you Pay taxes, or making you have permits. or Telling you how you could or could not run your business or live your life.

You Were not on your own and you were not scared of death everyday. You could have a family, friends, anything you would on the surface. You were encouraged to meet others. (For Example the New Years Masquerade Ball or any other social events of Rapture) It was not Entirely everyman for himself.

I Think it would be an Amazing Place to Live, in that respect. Underwater or not.

The Only True Law of Rapture Was you could not Leave.
Which is Understandable as well. You would not want the governments or happenings of the outside world influencing the happenings of rapture.
Also. if you could leave and Come as you please. it would be more like a retreat than a new way of life or new start. Also If raptures location was well known from the coming and going. it could easily be taken over by any government wishing to with an army.


Im Getting the Feeling from reading alot of the posts before mine, that many of you Do not know everything about Andrew Ryan or Rapture, that is before The Rapture Civil war, Or how rapture worked Post Civil war. (Pre Bioshock 1)
From What i can tell everyone is basing their opinions off what they saw in the game, Not the back story.

The Plasmids you see in Bioshock are primarily a result of the Civil war. Yes. Plasmids existed before the war but they were not as dangerous as post war.
They were for Making life easier, and the ability to make plasmids and adam were not discovered untill late in rapture history. Not from the Get go. In the 10 or so Years after raptures creation leading up to 1958 It Was Very Prosperous.

Andrew Ryan. was not crazy. He is just like every other human.
He has Flaws. That help lead to his downfall.
Even if his ideals had only the greatest of intentions behind them.
And if you Understood Ryan you would know they were.
His Ideal was What you Earn is yours, and no one else should be able to influence what you do with what you earn or be able to take it from you.

For 10 years it worked just fine. But as history shows it only takes One man to bring it all down. That Man was Fontaine.
He took advantage of the freedom of Rapture in a negative way. Causing its Demise.
As Fontaine Tried to Take Control of Rapture for Himself.
Ryan Believed he had to do everything in his power to Protect his Ideal.
Even if that meant Going against it. <-- One of the Great flaws of Human kind

He Added more and more laws. Cracking down on Rapture. To Attempt to Save it. By the Time of the Civil war. Ryan Had become Overwhelmed by the Rapidly Unraveling Structure of Rapture. Breaking him.

Which brings you to his Current state in Bioshock 1. He was never evil.
He Is still trying to Save His Dream.
Your working with Atlas. And he sees you as trying to Further Destabilize or Finally Destroy Rapture.

So Yes. He may seem like a Mad Man who believes hes Larger than life. But He does what any human would do under the impossible Weight he was under.

Its Understandable.
Ya Digg? :)

[The Glyphstone]

I'm a Bit Baffled by the Use of random Capital letters In Your sentences, Personally.:smallcool:

[skywalker]

I'm a Bit Baffled by the Use of random Capital letters In Your sentences, Personally.:smallcool:

I think it's the creative expression :smallwink:.




Personally. Id Wish to live there.
The Point of Rapture was to be able to Freely Express yourself. To Do as you Pleased and Live as you Please. To Earn Every Dollar you deserved for work you do and not a penny less.
For Science to Be Free of Restraints as in. You Could have the freedom and liberty to research anything you pleased without having to Find someone to finance your experiments. (Namingly the Government, who only finances experiments that benefit the state.)
To Express Art anyway you seem fit. Without any form of Censorship from the Government.
To Live in a Society where The Church Did not Influence your decisions and what you did with your life (Not that there isnt a God or an Afterlife) more like. Donating Money to the church, or Not doing certain things because it goes against the church. Or Having to Choose Between a religion.

Rapture was not Built Just for the Intellectuals But for Any Man or Women who wished to start a New life. Not Being Stuck to the Cast systems Given to them but the rest of society.

People went to rapture as Upper class, middle class, and lower class But could become anything after arriving if they had the will the initiative to become something more.
Without the Government Making you Pay taxes, or making you have permits. or Telling you how you could or could not run your business or live your life.

You Were not on your own and you were not scared of death everyday. You could have a family, friends, anything you would on the surface. You were encouraged to meet others. (For Example the New Years Masquerade Ball or any other social events of Rapture) It was not Entirely everyman for himself.

I Think it would be an Amazing Place to Live, in that respect. Underwater or not.

The Only True Law of Rapture Was you could not Leave.
Which is Understandable as well. You would not want the governments or happenings of the outside world influencing the happenings of rapture.
Also. if you could leave and Come as you please. it would be more like a retreat than a new way of life or new start. Also If raptures location was well known from the coming and going. it could easily be taken over by any government wishing to with an army.


Im Getting the Feeling from reading alot of the posts before mine, that many of you Do not know everything about Andrew Ryan or Rapture, that is before The Rapture Civil war, Or how rapture worked Post Civil war. (Pre Bioshock 1)
From What i can tell everyone is basing their opinions off what they saw in the game, Not the back story.

The Plasmids you see in Bioshock are primarily a result of the Civil war. Yes. Plasmids existed before the war but they were not as dangerous as post war.
They were for Making life easier, and the ability to make plasmids and adam were not discovered untill late in rapture history. Not from the Get go. In the 10 or so Years after raptures creation leading up to 1958 It Was Very Prosperous.

Andrew Ryan. was not crazy. He is just like every other human.
He has Flaws. That help lead to his downfall.
Even if his ideals had only the greatest of intentions behind them.
And if you Understood Ryan you would know they were.
His Ideal was What you Earn is yours, and no one else should be able to influence what you do with what you earn or be able to take it from you.

For 10 years it worked just fine. But as history shows it only takes One man to bring it all down. That Man was Fontaine.
He took advantage of the freedom of Rapture in a negative way. Causing its Demise.
As Fontaine Tried to Take Control of Rapture for Himself.
Ryan Believed he had to do everything in his power to Protect his Ideal.
Even if that meant Going against it. <-- One of the Great flaws of Human kind

He Added more and more laws. Cracking down on Rapture. To Attempt to Save it. By the Time of the Civil war. Ryan Had become Overwhelmed by the Rapidly Unraveling Structure of Rapture. Breaking him.

Which brings you to his Current state in Bioshock 1. He was never evil.
He Is still trying to Save His Dream.
Your working with Atlas. And he sees you as trying to Further Destabilize or Finally Destroy Rapture.

So Yes. He may seem like a Mad Man who believes hes Larger than life. But He does what any human would do under the impossible Weight he was under.

Its Understandable.
Ya Digg? :)

Hi! Welcome to the playground! Please read the rules (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/announcement.php?a=1)! I think you'll find them helpful.

Generally: No, I wouldn't. Rand was an idiot. Galt's Gulch was a terrible idea, and this is coming from a person who, ostensibly, should love a place like Rapture.

[golentan]

So Yes. He may seem like a Mad Man who believes hes Larger than life. But He does what any human would do under the impossible Weight he was under.

Its Understandable.
Ya Digg? :)

This. This is the single, greatest argument against ever moving to rapture, ever.

Without at least some restrictions and law, the only way to protect that which is yours or to expand to full potential is violence. It's only a matter of time until a Fontaine comes along.

The splicers were a weapon of Fontaine, and the civil war, yes. And they spun completely out of control, yes. But they were a manifestation of a much deeper sickness within the system, the dissatisfaction with the system that so many felt. That's how Fontaine began, that's how he grew. As a smuggler, and a friend to the disenfranchised. The ADAM was a serendipity that increased the potential of his ability to seize that which he wanted.

And to oppose Fontaine? What are the options? Ryan did what he could, and he went beyond what he should. Unless you're claiming that that hall of wall mounts, or the little sisters, or the murder of people for violation of contracts was justified.

There was no distribution of power, nobody to pull him up short, as evidenced by so many of his board members being impaled on that Warning Wall. In the end, he was a dictator, and to keep it that way he had to show his true colors. His attempts at benevolence were just a mask, and not a very good one.

[Strawberries]

Personally. Id Wish to live there.

[....]

Its Understandable.
Ya Digg? :)

Nah, not really. You pretty much just described hell for me. The system is flawed from the beginning, not just as a result of Fontaine. Rapture forgets the basic principle that you should be free to do whatever you like, as soon as you don't cause harm to others. Basically, that your freedom should end where another person's freedom begins.

And I stand by my point that Rand was a dangerous psychopath even before everything went straight down to hell. I mean, I knew it was a game, but that video of him in the bathysphere sent shivers down my spine, and not in aa good way.

[warty goblin]

Nah, not really. You pretty much just described hell for me. The system is flawed from the beginning, not just as a result of Fontaine. Rapture forgets the basic principle that you should be free to do whatever you like, as soon as you don't cause harm to others. Basically, that your freedom should end where another person's freedom begins.

And I stand by my point that Rand was a dangerous psychopath even before everything went straight down to hell. I mean, I knew it was a game, but that video of him in the bathysphere sent shivers down my spine, and not in aa good way.

And not just flawed, because every system is flawed, but dynamically unstable and prone to self-destructive positive feedback loops at minimal provication. Any system, pushed hard enough, will break, but that's no reason to build one out of tissue paper.

[c0ruptiv3]

I'm a Bit Baffled by the Use of random Capital letters In Your sentences, Personally.:smallcool:

I Put random capital letters in all of my paragraphs for some reason :) Bad Habit Sorry. That shift key is just so enticing to hit over and over again. Ya know?

I can see where some of you come from.
Because Its not for everyone. Thats why you got an invitation, because not everyone would wish to go. No one is the same and we all have different views on what we want from our government and what we don't.

But the Violence thing still kind of bugs me.
There was laws against violence and smuggling in Rapture. There was a police force, and a Prison under Sinclair. You couldn't commit violent acts or steal and just think you'd get to walk away.
If you committed a crime you were still gonna go to jail.

The idea of Rapture was to have no laws against Self Expression, and no laws that Favored any Social class.

That would be the part of Rapture id Enjoy. Because you truly have freedom. No strings attached. Besides the murdering of innocents, but thats kind of a given.

Fontaine was a Criminal who smuggled in outside goods, When Ryan sent in his security forces to shut down Fontaine, he inadvertently caused the creation of Atlas.

Atlas instead of being a smuggler became the only political opponent Ryan ever had to deal with for the Leadership of Rapture.

Ryan was prone to favoritism, so he had the right idea for Rapture and it worked in a way, the way he had it envisioned, but then others became more powerful. You see this in the game with people like Sander Cohen, who had sectors of rapture completely under their control.

So in a way, Certain people could be ahead of everyone else. This caused many citizens to despise Ryan, and favor Atlas who played the "Im for the People" role.

Ryan went a Little nuts placing in laws restricting more and more. and yes he becomes a dictator. But in the hopes of restoring Rapture, not absolute power.


You have to feel bad for him. Because he never does figure out that Atlas and Frank Fontaine are the same person. Which probably caused him great stress. You Defeat your one major opponent (Fontaine) just to have a Stronger one take his place (Atlas) it would feel as if everyone was turning against you.

Id freak out too if my so perfectly crafted world under the sea was about to implode in my face. :) <-- I say perfectly crafted because in his mind it was.


Its not perfect, but nothing ever is. Its a human nature kind of thing.

So Yeah I would like to go. Others not so much its whatever you please :)
Just for the basic principles, not all the other stuff that gets thrown in, in the end. Haa

Plus you wouldn't know about it till after you got there. You would only know that basic idea.

So Yeah after i got there. I may be like "Awee Pooo" cause its not perfect. But on my way there id be pretty excited :D Hoping it was.

[Dervag]

Yeah. The problem with Rapture is not simply that by 1960 the place was a war-torn hellhole full of deranged cannibal mutants. That's just a side issue.

The real problem is that it was predictable that this would happen, just from knowing how its creators planned it to work. Or rather, didn't plan it to work, because they expected the Great Chain of Industry to solve all the problems for them.

The details would have been different if ADAM had not been discovered, if Fontaine hadn't recognized its potential and used it to build an army of splicers, that sort of thing. But the essential pattern would be the same: ambitious people would start trying to control parts of the system for their own benefit, in ways that make it harder for Rapture to function as a whole. Maybe the trouble starts when Ryan starts effectively taxing the population for their use of "his" oxygen. Or when Sander Cohen goes crazy and takes over the entertainment district (exactly as he did in real life, only without the splicers running around). Or... who knows?


I Put random capital letters in all of my paragraphs for some reason :) Bad Habit Sorry. That shift key is just so enticing to hit over and over again. Ya know?Do try to keep it under control. It's to your advantage to do so, because proper capitalization increases the writer's apparent IQ by about ten points. At least.


I can see where some of you come from.
Because Its not for everyone. Thats why you got an invitation, because not everyone would wish to go. No one is the same and we all have different views on what we want from our government and what we don't.Thing is, it's not just that I don't want to go, it's that I wouldn't let my friends go. I wouldn't let anyone I know go there unless I hated them and wanted them to die, because that's exactly what I'd expect. You'd be walking into a dieselpunk version of Lord of the Flies.


The idea of Rapture was to have no laws against Self Expression, and no laws that Favored any Social class.That's the ideal, not the practical outcome. Think about it: someone still has to clean the toilets. Someone is paying those overcharged rates from the vending machines. Someone

You can say "there are no laws favoring the rich over the poor." But if the poor still wind up getting the shaft, does it really matter whether the law is doing it or not? Remember that in Rapture the odds are vastly greater that you'll be poor than rich, because that's how it always works: there are more poor people than rich people. That's true anywhere, but in Rapture there's really nothing to stop the people who control important capital assets (like the oxygen-producing trees in Arcadia, or the Medical Pavilion) from doing as they please to the poor people, even if it hurts not just individuals but the entire city.

Remember that tape from McDonough you find embedded in a block of ice in the Medical Pavilion?

"Steinman, I know Medical Pavilion is your manor, but you might want to cogitate on this: ocean water is colder than a witch's tit. You don't heat the pipes, the pipes freeze; pipes freeze, pipes burst. Then Rapture leaks.

Now, I realize you're a posh sort of geezer and, frankly, I don't give a toss if you piss or go fishing. But once Rapture starts leaking, the old girl's never gonna stop, and then I'll be sure to tell Ryan he's got you to thank."Now, who makes Steinman heat the pipes? Clearly, someone fell down on the job, because Rapture leaks like a sieve.

Of course, you've got to look at the upside, right? Steinman was more free to "practice his art" than anyone else in the city, with the possible exception of Sander Cohen. Of course, his "art" involved carving up random women off the street in a grotesque parody of plastic surgery, but he was certainly free.

Right. That's why friends don't let friends go to Rapture.


Ryan went a Little nuts placing in laws restricting more and more. and yes he becomes a dictator. But in the hopes of restoring Rapture, not absolute power.Given how he uses it, does it really matter whether he wanted absolute power for its own sake, or not?

I mean, I view Bill McDonough as the sanest, most honorable man in the game... and we know what happened to him. If that's the way Ryan plays, then I don't want to be anywhere he has power.


Its not perfect, but nothing ever is. Its a human nature kind of thing.As warty says: it's not perfect, but it's a damn sight less perfect than it ought to be, and a lot less perfect than it would be if he'd picked a saner political ideology to build it on. Just knowing how it was supposed to work, most people would see that coming.

[Strawberries]

I was going to post a reply,but Dervag said what I wanted to so much better than I could. So I'm just going to say I agree with him 100%



That would be the part of Rapture id Enjoy. Because you truly have freedom. No strings attached.

But there would be string attached. And you wouldn't be free, not really. At the very least, you're going to be under Ryan's rule.

[golentan]

But there would be string attached. And you wouldn't be free, not really. At the very least, you're going to be under Ryan's rule.

Forever and Ever.

Remember: Not allowed to go back to the surface unless you're Ryan (or a blood relative). That's pretty restrictive.

[c0ruptiv3]

Yeah.

Its just the idea i find appealing.
Not how it was put into effect and manipulated in rapture.

Sander Cohen was given control of his sector of Rapture by Andrew Ryan.
like Sinclair got the prison system, and Lamb got Dionysus.

Its a Perfectly good idea, and on the invitation thats all you would know about the place its motto if you will.

So any person down on their luck would wish to go, plus the people of today could easily believe it was going to be a place where they could become rich.

Seeing the world at the time of Rapture in the 1950's or right now with the War in Iraq, and with the economy the way it is. Many people would think it was a good idea.

Its just after these easily manipulated people got to Rapture would they learn the motto was only vaguely in use or in name alone. By then there are all trapped in the city.

[Moff Chumley]

...Living in Rapture is like working at Apeture Science, only at least Apeture Science actually offers something that doesn't sound b***s to the wall INSANE. Not to mention they seemed like decent, people with a good idea of what fun was, rather than the crazy scientists of Rapture. Apeture science=MAD SCIENCE!, Rapture=SCIENCE!

Dude, I'd work at Apeture Science! As long as I get to be the one running the experiments... >.>

EDIT: Also, what exactly is objectivism? :smallconfused:

[Otogi]

EDIT: Also, what exactly is objectivism? :smallconfused:

It's a philosophy that basically says that everyone should go after their own ambitions and everything will turn out well if they do. There's some other stuff, but in order to avoid any flaming, go check out site about it or wikipedia.

[Drascin]

Yeah.

Its just the idea i find appealing.
Not how it was put into effect and manipulated in rapture.


But really - can anyone say they didn't see it coming just by seeing Ryan's videos? He was shown very obviously as a lunatic with a Messiah complex and a complete lack of understanding of what makes the world go round, right there in his own self-promotion videos. To go there after hearing that, you'd have to be either very desperate, very naive, or utterly convinced of your ability to come out on top of the inevitable revolts and general disaster.

[Lord of Rapture]

But really - can anyone say they didn't see it coming just by seeing Ryan's videos? He was shown very obviously as a lunatic with a Messiah complex and a complete lack of understanding of what makes the world go round, right there in his own self-promotion videos. To go there after hearing that, you'd have to be either very desperate, very naive, or utterly convinced of your ability to come out on top of the inevitable revolts and general disaster.

Remember, Rapture was built right after WWII.

Most people going down were probably all of the above.

[Drascin]

Remember, Rapture was built right after WWII.

Most people going down were probably all of the above.

I know. That's why I made those exceptions, instead of straight out saying the first thing that came to mind, which was pretty much "you'd have to be completely out of your mind to even think of accepting" :smallbiggrin:.

[Thatguyoverther]

I think I'd go. Lighting powers and bee hands are just to awesome to pass up.

Things would get even better once everything started collapsing. Bee hand + Randites= Target rich environment.


(I say Randites because Objectivism is to cool a term to let that half baked excuse of a philosophical construct take)

[skywalker]

You can say "there are no laws favoring the rich over the poor." But if the poor still wind up getting the shaft, does it really matter whether the law is doing it or not?

Yes. It does matter. Force is everything. No-one is forcing anyone to be poor, in the ideal system.


Remember that in Rapture the odds are vastly greater that you'll be poor than rich, because that's how it always works: there are more poor people than rich people. That's true anywhere, but in Rapture there's really nothing to stop the people who control important capital assets (like the oxygen-producing trees in Arcadia, or the Medical Pavilion) from doing as they please to the poor people, even if it hurts not just individuals but the entire city.

Not true anywhere. This is not a precept of life.

The problem in Rapture is not a problem with Objectivism, or even (necessarily) the theory of creating this type of "Utopia." The first problem, twofold, is having a madman in charge. Having a madman in charge anywhere will cause you trouble. Second, having anyone in charge at all is kinda counter to the theory.

The second problem is that it was attempted underwater. The bloody military can't really get things right for small-scale underwater habitation. Space-stations have been fraught with problems over their short history. Having anyone in control of all the oxygen in a place cannot create a "free" environment.

So, this is not an example of how Objectivism fails. This is an example of how idiocy fails. Whether or not Objectivism fails as a political philosophy (or is one) is not proven by the example of Rapture.


It's a philosophy that basically says that everyone should go after their own ambitions and everything will turn out well if they do. There's some other stuff, but in order to avoid any flaming, go check out site about it or wikipedia.

Please explain to me how giving a half-hearted, wrong, incomplete, and antagonistic definition of something avoids flaming?

[Dienekes]

Ehh, as far as half-hearted explanations go it's not the worst.

The idea, as far as I can understand it is that everything should be viewed through rationality, and the pursuit of your happiness through rationality should replace earlier forms of morality. As the world, and thus morality itself is inherently objective (objective, objectivism, ya get it). The theory itself then goes to explain that through such ideology total laissez-faire capitalism is one of the pure expressions of this philosophy.

Wiki the rest, as I think explaining a philosophy is ok, for discussion might be against the no-politics policy. Though as you may expect many of the folk on the board do not agree with it.

[Drakyn]

The problem in Rapture is not a problem with Objectivism, or even (necessarily) the theory of creating this type of "Utopia." The first problem, twofold, is having a madman in charge. Having a madman in charge anywhere will cause you trouble. Second, having anyone in charge at all is kinda counter to the theory.
The problem I can see with this is that Ryan came up with the idea and built the baseline for the entire place. So, he thought of it, he built it, he brought the people to it, technically he owns the city and is in charge de facto. By Objectivist standards he was probably being generous anytime he let someone else in and attempt to earn a place in it. Add in that he was starting with a pretty massive resource base and he'll have a hefty amount of say in whatever happens no matter what. Someone's going to end up on top in such a place, and they will have the most pull in the city, making them effectively "in charge."

The second problem is that it was attempted underwater. The bloody military can't really get things right for small-scale underwater habitation. Space-stations have been fraught with problems over their short history. Having anyone in control of all the oxygen in a place cannot create a "free" environment.
The first point sort of diverges from the second. Rapture's existance handwaves almost all the issues of underwater habituation, so we can presume they weren't really issues except insofar as they created a closed environment, which would've been the point of Rapture wherever they put it, land or sea. The second part, just replace oxygen with any other essential service, and by that I don't just mean something where if you go without for five minutes you're dead. Water. Electricity. Public communication networks. Transit. Someone, somewhere, would be in charge of those no matter where you lived, and removing any of them would not be pretty.

So, this is not an example of how Objectivism fails. This is an example of how idiocy fails. Whether or not Objectivism fails as a political philosophy (or is one) is not proven by the example of Rapture.

EDIT: Removed, was useless and likely to make someone angry

What I'm trying to say here (poorly, awkwardly) is that yes, the people in Rapture's failure can partially be attributed to their not being True Objectivists and their city imperfect. On the other hand, being a True Objectivist is impossibly difficult and it doesn't help that all Rand's fictional role models and examples of such were idealized to such an insane degree that it's quite accurate to call them Mary Sues. It's like saying that the reason a country that was run entirely by rabbits collapsed into anarchy was that the rabbits weren't superrabbits that could outsmart Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking all at once, and as such, weren't proper rabbits. In the end, no matter how smart your idealized superrabbits are, they can't change the fact that running a government staffed entirely with actual rabbits isn't going to work well. Objectivism would be fine if people were perfect Objectivists, but then again, you could say that about almost anything. Eating nothing but eucalyptus leaves would be fine if people were perfect at being koalas. Taco Bells would be fine if people's digestive systems were perfect for Taco Bell. Living underwater without elaborate undersea pressurized habitats would be fine if people were born with gills, cartilige skeletons, and hydrodynamic bodies with flippers.

[GoC]

...spending my life surrounded by objectivists?
This is the deal breaker right here. I like hunting objectivists* but living with them? Hell no.

* like killing them. for sport. and because they make me angry.

EDIT: Is noone going to call me out on this?:smallconfused:

[Otogi]

Please explain to me how giving a half-hearted, wrong, incomplete, and antagonistic definition of something avoids flaming?

I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be antagonistic or to be wrong, but the half-heartedness and incompleteness was intended so this thread doesn't become about objectivism and to avoid flaming, since going back on this thread, it isn't exactly objectivist-friendly. So, I hoped that the poster would go search out on their own. But that didn't turn out to be the case, so I'm sorry I offended you.

[Dervag]

On an unrelated note, from the intro video Ryan has playing in the bathysphere on the way down into Rapture... the image of a guy being chased by a giant flying hammer and sickle is hilarious.


I was going to post a reply,but Dervag said what I wanted to so much better than I could. So I'm just going to say I agree with him 100%Thank you. I'm honored.
_________


Yeah.

Its just the idea i find appealing.
Not how it was put into effect and manipulated in rapture.The problem is that what went wrong in Rapture wasn't just a random thing that happened because people were unlucky. I'm arguing that the flaw is in the idea itself. It's a bad idea.

Yes, people might go for it; I'm arguing that they were making a huge mistake, and that their friends could predict that they were making a huge mistake even without knowing anything about Rapture.

Of course, no one would predict exactly how horrible it would become, but that it would become horrible was practically a given.


Sander Cohen was given control of his sector of Rapture by Andrew Ryan.And this speaks well of Ryan how? The point remains that as Cohen got increasingly crazy he started creating demented serial-killer types of entertainment. Some of that may have been because he was a splicer, but that doesn't mean that's all there was to it.


Seeing the world at the time of Rapture in the 1950's or right now with the War in Iraq, and with the economy the way it is. Many people would think it was a good idea.Actually, the '50s were a period of good economic times, at least in the US (most of the people in Rapture seem to be Americans). In some other places not so much, of course.


Its just after these easily manipulated people got to Rapture would they learn the motto was only vaguely in use or in name alone. By then there are all trapped in the city.Yes. On the other hand, they could (and should) have seen this coming, in my opinion.
_________


I think I'd go. Lighting powers and bee hands are just to awesome to pass up.

Things would get even better once everything started collapsing. Bee hand + Randites= Target rich environment.Ooh. Unanticipated positive side effect, I guess.
_________


Yes. It does matter. Force is everything. No-one is forcing anyone to be poor, in the ideal system.Skywalker, all human experience suggests that you don't have to force people to be poor in order to get poor people. Poverty is the default condition of the human race. It's making people rich that is difficult.

If people are still poor, and if they are still at the mercy of other people with greater resources, and if they cannot change this state of affairs without suddenly sprouting superhuman levels of intellect, willpower, and/or ability to launch clouds of bees at their enemies... how does it matter what the specific nature of the system that put them in this position is? Why am I better off as a dockworker in Neptune's Bounty than I am as a dockworker in New York? Or, for that matter, a dockworker in Leningrad? It's not like I can reasonably expect to be the next brilliant technologist; Ryan's got nothing to worry about from me.


Not true anywhere. This is not a precept of life.What, that poor people outnumber rich people? Nonsense; that's inevitable. The only way to make that not true is to enforce uniform distribution of wealth... which would never, ever happen in Rapture.


The problem in Rapture is not a problem with Objectivism, or even (necessarily) the theory of creating this type of "Utopia." The first problem, twofold, is having a madman in charge. Having a madman in charge anywhere will cause you trouble. Second, having anyone in charge at all is kinda counter to the theory.The utopia has to be built by someone. If they built it, then unless I'm badly misunderstanding the theory, they own it. If they own it, they get to control it, which makes them in charge.

So as far as I can tell, any Randist utopia (including Rapture) would HAVE to have someone in charge: namely, whoever built the place, or whoever managed to wrest ownership of it from them later on.

Rapture is not, in and of itself, a proof that you can't build Objectivist Utopia. It is, however, an illustration of several problems that many people have been describing with the idea of Objectivist Utopia, since long before the game Bioshock came out. As such, I don't think it can just be shrugged off.


So, this is not an example of how Objectivism fails. This is an example of how idiocy fails. Whether or not Objectivism fails as a political philosophy (or is one) is not proven by the example of Rapture.No, but if there are other reasons to think that Objectivism fails as a political philosophy, and Rapture is a good example of what those failure modes might look like, then it cannot simply be dismissed as "idiocy fails."

[Indon]

Please explain to me how giving a half-hearted, wrong, incomplete, and antagonistic definition of something avoids flaming?

Well, I'll try my hand.

Objectivism holds that sufficiently intelligent individuals can construct a perfectly functioning society completely free of altruism (through 'enlightened self-interest'), and that such altruism is and perpetuates individual moral and intellectual failings which cause us to fall short of this ideal.

I think that just about covers the social aspect which has relevance to Rapture. There's also philosophical statements like "There exists a universe" in the philosophy, but they don't really have anything to do with why you get to shoot at Big Daddies.

[Drakyn]

Well, I'll try my hand.

Objectivism holds that sufficiently intelligent individuals can construct a perfectly functioning society completely free of altruism (through 'enlightened self-interest'), and that such altruism is and perpetuates individual moral and intellectual failings which cause us to fall short of this ideal.

I think that just about covers the social aspect which has relevance to Rapture. There's also philosophical statements like "There exists a universe" in the philosophy, but they don't really have anything to do with why you get to shoot at Big Daddies.

If there was no universe, you'd have nowhere to shoot Big Daddies in? That sounds relevant to me.

[GoC]

Objectivism holds that sufficiently intelligent individuals can construct a perfectly functioning society completely free of altruism (through 'enlightened self-interest'), and that such altruism is and perpetuates individual moral and intellectual failings which cause us to fall short of this ideal.
Doesn't objectivism also hold that you'd be better off in this new society than in the original?

Also, I'm a bit disappointed that no one called me out on my previous post in this thread.:smallyuk:

[Drakyn]

Doesn't objectivism also hold that you'd be better off in this new society than in the original?

Also, I'm a bit disappointed that no one called me out on my previous post in this thread.:smallyuk:

I think words of at least equal harshosity have been spoken earlier on. There was talk of depth charges and an endless array of targets for BEEEEEEE HAAAAAANNDDS.

V See, what warty was suggesting was indescribable evil. Compared to that, what you suggested was merciful.

[warty goblin]

Doesn't objectivism also hold that you'd be better off in this new society than in the original?

Also, I'm a bit disappointed that no one called me out on my previous post in this thread.:smallyuk:

Hey I'm the one who suggested bombing the entire city with the collected works of Terry Goodkind. Chronologically difficult, but that's no reason to put the kebash on an idea that good.

[skywalker]

The problem I can see with this is that Ryan came up with the idea and built the baseline for the entire place. So, he thought of it, he built it, he brought the people to it, technically he owns the city and is in charge de facto. By Objectivist standards he was probably being generous anytime he let someone else in and attempt to earn a place in it. Add in that he was starting with a pretty massive resource base and he'll have a hefty amount of say in whatever happens no matter what. Someone's going to end up on top in such a place, and they will have the most pull in the city, making them effectively "in charge."

You are correct. That would be the theory, the "he was being generous" part. But what he created inside is not the Utopia. To create the Utopia, the creator must waive certain rights he would normally have.


The first point sort of diverges from the second. Rapture's existance handwaves almost all the issues of underwater habituation, so we can presume they weren't really issues except insofar as they created a closed environment, which would've been the point of Rapture wherever they put it, land or sea. The second part, just replace oxygen with any other essential service, and by that I don't just mean something where if you go without for five minutes you're dead. Water. Electricity. Public communication networks. Transit. Someone, somewhere, would be in charge of those no matter where you lived, and removing any of them would not be pretty.

The closed environment part also fails "Objectivism 101." The words "closed" and "freedom" don't particularly interact too well. Most of the time, the idea behind closing off a Randian proto-community is that it will prevent exploitation by outsiders. But these communities are generally remote, not virtually inaccessible. An Objectivist community in the Western deserts of Texas is much more true to the ideal: It's sufficiently remote that most outsiders wouldn't want to be inconvenienced, and you can easily drive off the ones who aren't. But you can still take your personal vehicle (or your feet, if you really must) and leave.

You assume a lot of things to be essential services, when in fact they are not. Oxygen is essential. If you deny someone oxygen, you deny them life. How does denying someone transit deny them life? You cannot equate control of oxygen to control of electricity, communication, or transit. Possibly of water, but again, this is a failing of the environment they chose and the enclosed system, not of the ideal itself.


What I'm trying to say here (poorly, awkwardly) is that yes, the people in Rapture's failure can partially be attributed to their not being True Objectivists and their city imperfect. On the other hand, being a True Objectivist is impossibly difficult and it doesn't help that all Rand's fictional role models and examples of such were idealized to such an insane degree that it's quite accurate to call them Mary Sues. It's like saying that the reason a country that was run entirely by rabbits collapsed into anarchy was that the rabbits weren't superrabbits that could outsmart Carl Sagan, Albert Einstein, and Stephen Hawking all at once, and as such, weren't proper rabbits. In the end, no matter how smart your idealized superrabbits are, they can't change the fact that running a government staffed entirely with actual rabbits isn't going to work well. Objectivism would be fine if people were perfect Objectivists, but then again, you could say that about almost anything. Eating nothing but eucalyptus leaves would be fine if people were perfect at being koalas. Taco Bells would be fine if people's digestive systems were perfect for Taco Bell. Living underwater without elaborate undersea pressurized habitats would be fine if people were born with gills, cartilige skeletons, and hydrodynamic bodies with flippers.

And my point is that Rapture wasn't even close. Also, it isn't even that you need to be a superhuman (Rand really messed this one up big time). What you need is to be committed to the ideals of freedom, non-agression, self-worth and -ownership, etc. You are completely right to say that Rand's role models are quite terrible.


I'm sorry, I didn't mean to be antagonistic or to be wrong, but the half-heartedness and incompleteness was intended so this thread doesn't become about objectivism and to avoid flaming, since going back on this thread, it isn't exactly objectivist-friendly. So, I hoped that the poster would go search out on their own. But that didn't turn out to be the case, so I'm sorry I offended you.

Thanks. It bothers me when people try to encapsulate Objectivism into just the ethical philosophy like this:


Well, I'll try my hand.

Objectivism holds that sufficiently intelligent individuals can construct a perfectly functioning society completely free of altruism (through 'enlightened self-interest'), and that such altruism is and perpetuates individual moral and intellectual failings which cause us to fall short of this ideal.

I think that just about covers the social aspect which has relevance to Rapture. There's also philosophical statements like "There exists a universe" in the philosophy, but they don't really have anything to do with why you get to shoot at Big Daddies.

Because while this (and yours, Otogi) is a pretty fair definition of the ethical aspect, it doesn't address what exactly "enlightened self-interest" (living with your betterment as the ultimate goal) and "altruism" (living for others) are defined as within the Objectivist framework.

It also leaves out the epistemological basis for the ethical aspect, and in my opinion someone who is new to the philosophy is a lot more likely to be open to the ethical aspect if it is grounded in the epistemological.

Just saying "you should do what is best for you/what you want and everything will work out fine" is going to put people off. Even I hear that and say "Of course that's stupid!" Societal conditioning is a very powerful thing. Presenting something in a more thought out and intelligent manner makes someone much more likely to at least be open minded to the idea.


Skywalker, all human experience suggests that you don't have to force people to be poor in order to get poor people. Poverty is the default condition of the human race. It's making people rich that is difficult.

I agree that you don't have to force people to be poor. I contend that if someone is poor, but no one forced them to be that way, they must have chosen it. Ergo, what's the problem?


If people are still poor, and if they are still at the mercy of other people with greater resources, and if they cannot change this state of affairs without suddenly sprouting superhuman levels of intellect, willpower, and/or ability to launch clouds of bees at their enemies... how does it matter what the specific nature of the system that put them in this position is? Why am I better off as a dockworker in Neptune's Bounty than I am as a dockworker in New York? Or, for that matter, a dockworker in Leningrad? It's not like I can reasonably expect to be the next brilliant technologist; Ryan's got nothing to worry about from me.

Yes, it does matter. Better a free pauper than a opulent slave. I'd work the docks in a free society before I'd run Microsoft in... well, take your pick. The freedom to choose is everything. It's why people have chosen to die rather than submit many times throughout history.


What, that poor people outnumber rich people? Nonsense; that's inevitable. The only way to make that not true is to enforce uniform distribution of wealth... which would never, ever happen in Rapture.

Rich and poor are only subjective measures of wealth, and they are not the only two categories. The best definition of poor is "has less than most people" and the best definition of rich is "has more than most people," so in reality there should probably be about the same number of each, shouldn't there?


The utopia has to be built by someone. If they built it, then unless I'm badly misunderstanding the theory, they own it. If they own it, they get to control it, which makes them in charge.

So as far as I can tell, any Randist utopia (including Rapture) would HAVE to have someone in charge: namely, whoever built the place, or whoever managed to wrest ownership of it from them later on.

Again (and I'm not accusing you of not paying attention, I'm saying again because I'm repeating myself), in my opinion the creator must waive certain rights they would ordinarily have for the sake of creating the ideal situation.


Rapture is not, in and of itself, a proof that you can't build Objectivist Utopia. It is, however, an illustration of several problems that many people have been describing with the idea of Objectivist Utopia, since long before the game Bioshock came out. As such, I don't think it can just be shrugged off.

No, but if there are other reasons to think that Objectivism fails as a political philosophy, and Rapture is a good example of what those failure modes might look like, then it cannot simply be dismissed as "idiocy fails."

As I said in my original post, I wouldn't want to go there. Rand wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed, and frankly, she was in many ways a "bad Objectivist."

Your problem is in that you assume that an Objectivist commune (for lack of a better word) must turn out poorly, because people being selfish will inevitably lead to "horribleness." I don't see a problem with the idea itself. I see a problem when the idea is carried out imperfectly. But so far you haven't backed up your assertion that they should have known "from the beginning," before even traveling to Rapture that it would turn out horribly.

[Drakyn]

You are correct. That would be the theory, the "he was being generous" part. But what he created inside is not the Utopia. To create the Utopia, the creator must waive certain rights he would normally have.
Yes, but no matter how many rights are waived by whoever makes the place, some people in there will naturally have more skills, initial resources, buddies, or whatever than others, and they will end up being above the others (or maybe someone beneath them will surprise them and get up and past their level), and you'll have one of the top contenders above everyone. Maybe not by miles, but by a notable distance. And he'll be "in charge." Maybe he won't have a title, but he'll have inflence - more of it than anyone else.


The closed environment part also fails "Objectivism 101." The words "closed" and "freedom" don't particularly interact too well. Most of the time, the idea behind closing off a Randian proto-community is that it will prevent exploitation by outsiders. But these communities are generally remote, not virtually inaccessible. An Objectivist community in the Western deserts of Texas is much more true to the ideal: It's sufficiently remote that most outsiders wouldn't want to be inconvenienced, and you can easily drive off the ones who aren't. But you can still take your personal vehicle (or your feet, if you really must) and leave.
An Objectivist community in Western Texas, or indeed, pretty much anywhere on the land surface of the earth, would technically fall under the dominion of a country's government. Somewhere, anywhere. If you want real isolation and no government, you're probably stuck with either Antarctica (I think bits of it are still unclaimed, right?) or the oceans. And both would create pretty closed environments no matter what.


You assume a lot of things to be essential services, when in fact they are not. Oxygen is essential. If you deny someone oxygen, you deny them life. How does denying someone transit deny them life? You cannot equate control of oxygen to control of electricity, communication, or transit. Possibly of water, but again, this is a failing of the environment they chose and the enclosed system, not of the ideal itself.
Of course, transportation or electricity won't kill you if you remove them - no argument there. But, if you live in an isolated, dense environment (which as said above, is pretty much de facto if you want an apolitical zone - you're going to have to huddle up), you're really going to want those things. Especially if you're trying to keep yourself technologically savvy. I agree that transit is the worst example, but being able to shut down someone's water or electricity is pretty nasty and gives a high degree of control and influence over others. Especially in an out-of-the-way spot.

And my point is that Rapture wasn't even close. Also, it isn't even that you need to be a superhuman (Rand really messed this one up big time). What you need is to be committed to the ideals of freedom, non-agression, self-worth and -ownership, etc. You are completely right to say that Rand's role models are quite terrible.
If you don't need to be a superhuman to create a working Rapture-equivilant, we need some better examples than Rand's (which we agree suck) or Rapture itself (which we agree failed in general on many separate levels that collapsed into a quantum singularity of FAIL). Being commited to an ideal doesn't necessarily mean that the ideal will work - I swear that paper must be magical, because so many things look perfect when you put them on it.
I agree with all you said about Ayn Rand, which is actually to a large degree where a big part of my feelings on Objectivism come from. I look at her, and I look at Objectivism, and I pull out Occam's Razor and think: "Which is more likely: that this is a subtle and brilliant philosophy with a deeply flawed creator or that it's a crude hodge-podge of her own personal beliefs and favorite arguing pieces that she used to bludgeon people with?" More to the point, if the creator of a philosophy makes it seem useless, and her examples and ideals are shoddy, and she manages to create the absolute antithesis of its message (effectively a very small demi-cult dedicated to her) without a peep of protest, why should this be something we consider worth examining at all? It isn't like we can claim that Objectivism is misinterpreted by other people - most of the looniest bits of the philosophy came straight from Rand and the entire deal was pretty much her baby. Rand IS Objectivism.
Also, I'm inherently wary of ideas that require me to add multiple new and markedly different definitions to words that already exist and do completely different jobs.

I am not coherent.

[Lamech]

You cannot equate control of oxygen to control of electricity, communication, or transit. Possibly of water, but again, this is a failing of the environment they chose and the enclosed system, not of the ideal itself.Transportation is equivilant to life if you lack a large supply of land to grow food and wells for water; see siege warfare 101. Communication and information are utterly essential if you want to make choices about say... what food to buy or what medicine to take. Do you buy the bread fortified with lead or the bread fortified with vitiman D? Do you even know which is which?


Thanks. It bothers me when people try to encapsulate Objectivism into just the ethical philosophy like this:
Well, I'll try my hand.

Objectivism holds that sufficiently intelligent individuals can construct a perfectly functioning society completely free of altruism (through 'enlightened self-interest'), and that such altruism is and perpetuates individual moral and intellectual failings which cause us to fall short of this ideal.

I think that just about covers the social aspect which has relevance to Rapture. There's also philosophical statements like "There exists a universe" in the philosophy, but they don't really have anything to do with why you get to shoot at Big Daddies.

Because while this (and yours, Otogi) is a pretty fair definition of the ethical aspect, it doesn't address what exactly "enlightened self-interest" (living with your betterment as the ultimate goal) and "altruism" (living for others) are defined as within the Objectivist framework.

It also leaves out the epistemological basis for the ethical aspect, and in my opinion someone who is new to the philosophy is a lot more likely to be open to the ethical aspect if it is grounded in the epistemological.

Just saying "you should do what is best for you/what you want and everything will work out fine" is going to put people off. Even I hear that and say "Of course that's stupid!" Societal conditioning is a very powerful thing. Presenting something in a more thought out and intelligent manner makes someone much more likely to at least be open minded to the idea.
Question what is the difference between "you should do what is best for you/what you want and everything will work out fine" and "living with your betterment as the ultimate goal"?


I agree that you don't have to force people to be poor. I contend that if someone is poor, but no one forced them to be that way, they must have chosen it. Ergo, what's the problem?...? Err... being demonstrably wrong? And not making much common sense besides? The default condition of every human being born into the world is to start with no material wealth what so ever.


Rich and poor are only subjective measures of wealth, and they are not the only two categories. The best definition of poor is "has less than most people" and the best definition of rich is "has more than most people," so in reality there should probably be about the same number of each, shouldn't there?People like defining themselves as middle class even if they have a lot more money than most. You have to be to the stage of "I don't work and collect 3 million a year from the goverment 'cause bonds" before you call yourself rich. For example dentist making 200k+ a year? Definitly not rich. "Rich" has a smaller fraction than "poor".



Yes, it does matter. Better a free pauper than a opulent slave. I'd work the docks in a free society before I'd run Microsoft in... well, take your pick. The freedom to choose is everything. It's why people have chosen to die rather than submit many times throughout history.If you need your dock job to eat it doesn't matter. You have to do what ever the boss says, just like in "take your pick" you have to do what the dictator says. Sure in Freeland you might be able to find a new job, but in "take your pick" you might be able to overthrow the dictator or use outside pressure to force him to leave you alone. (Cause you run microsoft.)

[Indon]

Also, I'm a bit disappointed that no one called me out on my previous post in this thread.:smallyuk:

As I noted earlier in the thread, we're on a forum where people regularly play games in which they kill people defined as being evil.

Many of these same games explicitly define evil as being, if not identical to objectivist social philosophy, very close to it.

Randian sympathizers we are not.


You are correct. That would be the theory, the "he was being generous" part. But what he created inside is not the Utopia. To create the Utopia, the creator must waive certain rights he would normally have.
Why would an objectivist willfully discard potential personal power? That strikes me very much as not in accord with the philosophy. If to create an objectivist utopia, you need to have people doing things for others for their sake, that seems untenable.


Because while this (and yours, Otogi) is a pretty fair definition of the ethical aspect, it doesn't address what exactly "enlightened self-interest" (living with your betterment as the ultimate goal) and "altruism" (living for others) are defined as within the Objectivist framework.

It also leaves out the epistemological basis for the ethical aspect, and in my opinion someone who is new to the philosophy is a lot more likely to be open to the ethical aspect if it is grounded in the epistemological.

Just saying "you should do what is best for you/what you want and everything will work out fine" is going to put people off. Even I hear that and say "Of course that's stupid!" Societal conditioning is a very powerful thing. Presenting something in a more thought out and intelligent manner makes someone much more likely to at least be open minded to the idea.
Well, certainly, I could've tarted it up and made it sound a lot prettier and more sophisticated, but those aspects of the philosophy aren't really relevant to Rapture.

Well, okay, I guess in a way they are relevant. An objectivist would present their philosophy in a way most likely to make you believe Rapture is an awesome place, in an attempt to make you go there.

But once you get there, the epistemological framework isn't what matters. What matters is how people behave in Rapture. And since objectivism proscribes behavior towards people that basically makes them untrustworthy beyond a certain nominal point, the relevant part is that an objectivist utopia is filled with people who can't create a functioning society.

Thus why a person would be justified in not wanting to live in Rapture solely by knowing it's run on Objectivist ideals.


I agree that you don't have to force people to be poor. I contend that if someone is poor, but no one forced them to be that way, they must have chosen it. Ergo, what's the problem?
You don't have to force people to not have wings. If someone does not have wings, but no one forced them not to have wings, they must have chosen it.


Rich and poor are only subjective measures of wealth, and they are not the only two categories. The best definition of poor is "has less than most people" and the best definition of rich is "has more than most people," so in reality there should probably be about the same number of each, shouldn't there?
Has less/more than average is probably a better measure than the mode. For instance, if most people have very little, then there would be no poor people by your measure, only rich people, even if the population is extremely impovished (there are countries in the world like this right now, so this isn't theoretical).

[deuxhero]

Aren't Bibles banned in the rapture? Nope, I keep an eye on any supposed haven of freedom that doesn't allow freedom of ones own thoughts.

[skywalker]

Would like to preface by saying: please take into account that it is tough to respond to 3 people, so this may take a while and I might fail to catch a couple grammatical errors. Sorry in advance, please don't bust my you-know-whats about it.


Yes, but no matter how many rights are waived by whoever makes the place, some people in there will naturally have more skills, initial resources, buddies, or whatever than others, and they will end up being above the others (or maybe someone beneath them will surprise them and get up and past their level), and you'll have one of the top contenders above everyone. Maybe not by miles, but by a notable distance. And he'll be "in charge." Maybe he won't have a title, but he'll have inflence - more of it than anyone else.

It is hard to argue against this. I don't see influence as being a serious problem, tho, reference my previous arguments. Influence is not power, not directly.


An Objectivist community in Western Texas, or indeed, pretty much anywhere on the land surface of the earth, would technically fall under the dominion of a country's government. Somewhere, anywhere. If you want real isolation and no government, you're probably stuck with either Antarctica (I think bits of it are still unclaimed, right?) or the oceans. And both would create pretty closed environments no matter what.

I made an example of Texas because there truly exist similar communities out in the American Southwest. Of course not as opulent as Rapture, from what I understand, it's usually less than 50 rather rough men and women living in trailers, running generators off of solar power, and huddling around a campfire for pork and beans. Something like that.

The oceans (Seasteading) have been theorized about, and while they are a semi-closed environment, here is the primary difference: In real-world theoretical communities, you arrive at the community via your own boat. Therefore, your boat is there for you to leave, if you choose to do so. What really closes Rapture off is that for the most part, you can only get there via Ryan's bathyspheres, and you can only leave via the same setup.


Of course, transportation or electricity won't kill you if you remove them - no argument there. But, if you live in an isolated, dense environment (which as said above, is pretty much de facto if you want an apolitical zone - you're going to have to huddle up), you're really going to want those things. Especially if you're trying to keep yourself technologically savvy. I agree that transit is the worst example, but being able to shut down someone's water or electricity is pretty nasty and gives a high degree of control and influence over others. Especially in an out-of-the-way spot.

Here it gets a little sticky. Because either a really good one of these communities would have everyone be self-sufficient (IE, everyone has their own well, own satellite linkup, enough solar generators, etc), or there is something of a contract between folks. For instance, if you're living out in the Texas desert, and the generator is controlled via a certain trailer, and only you have the keys to the trailer, you keep everyone's electricity running. Smart people have planned for this, and have some sort of contract with you such that you keep the power running for the agreed upon barter. If you start gouging people on the power, they start gouging you in the eye. Which is essentially what happened in Rapture. The difference is, a lot of people realize up front that this will happen. Again, I say idiocy fails because Ryan thought he could monopolize certain things and people wouldn't get upset about it.


If you don't need to be a superhuman to create a working Rapture-equivilant, we need some better examples than Rand's (which we agree suck) or Rapture itself (which we agree failed in general on many separate levels that collapsed into a quantum singularity of FAIL). Being commited to an ideal doesn't necessarily mean that the ideal will work - I swear that paper must be magical, because so many things look perfect when you put them on it.
I agree with all you said about Ayn Rand, which is actually to a large degree where a big part of my feelings on Objectivism come from. I look at her, and I look at Objectivism, and I pull out Occam's Razor and think: "Which is more likely: that this is a subtle and brilliant philosophy with a deeply flawed creator or that it's a crude hodge-podge of her own personal beliefs and favorite arguing pieces that she used to bludgeon people with?" More to the point, if the creator of a philosophy makes it seem useless, and her examples and ideals are shoddy, and she manages to create the absolute antithesis of its message (effectively a very small demi-cult dedicated to her) without a peep of protest, why should this be something we consider worth examining at all? It isn't like we can claim that Objectivism is misinterpreted by other people - most of the looniest bits of the philosophy came straight from Rand and the entire deal was pretty much her baby. Rand IS Objectivism.
Also, I'm inherently wary of ideas that require me to add multiple new and markedly different definitions to words that already exist and do completely different jobs.

I am not coherent.

Don't sell yourself short on the coherency. I understood perfectly.

Your position is certainly valid. While I'm playing the "pro" in this thread (because of my somewhat similar ideological leanings), I can't stand the woman. The difference is, I know a lot of Objectivists who are kinder, more intelligent, and "better Objectivists" than Rand herself was. While her writing and lifestyle was in all ways completely antithetical to her supposed beliefs, a large number of people who have been exposed to those beliefs have embodied them much better than she ever could. In short, I have friends who are Objectivists, and I hate to see their names dragged through the mud.


Transportation is equivilant to life if you lack a large supply of land to grow food and wells for water; see siege warfare 101. Communication and information are utterly essential if you want to make choices about say... what food to buy or what medicine to take. Do you buy the bread fortified with lead or the bread fortified with vitiman D? Do you even know which is which?

Like I said before, if you haven't made your own provisions for that sort of thing, or you plan on going into a situation where someone else controls these things and you don't have a contract and/or haven't read the fine print, you really have no business joining this type of society in the first place. These are such easy things that real people think about every day. I know a lot of real people don't, but a lot of real people do. The type of person who would be going to a "real Rapture" IMO, would either be the type of person who thinks Objectivism says "do whatever you want," and who doesn't think about these types of consequences (which seems to be the vast majority of people in "Game Rapture," and apparently the population is primarily made up of these types of people, or Rapture wouldn't be populated) OR the type of person who says "Hm, I wonder what the contract is on the water? I wonder how oxygen is handled down there?" (who seem to be virtually nil in the Bioshock world). I contend that most of the real-world people who would be attracted to Rapture would be of the second type. Which means most of us wouldn't go to begin with.


Question what is the difference between "you should do what is best for you/what you want and everything will work out fine" and "living with your betterment as the ultimate goal"?

Big difference. "What is best for you" and "What you want" are not the same thing. Objectivism is not what we call in pop culture "hedonism" (which is really a small part of hedonism, the very broad-ranged philosophy).

Objectivism also pulls in the tiny fiddling point that you're not to harm others (or put them under threat of harm) to make yourself better.


...? Err... being demonstrably wrong? And not making much common sense besides? The default condition of every human being born into the world is to start with no material wealth what so ever.

A baby is poor by default, true. I never said "poor" was not the default condition. But because something is the default condition does not mean you can't choose otherwise. My default condition is "sneezing with a head full of mucus." I have a choice: Solve the problem, or don't. Poverty, despite being a much larger and wider reaching problem, is still in many ways a matter of choice, unless the person is forced into poverty, IE the dockworker in Leningrad with the gun to his head.


People like defining themselves as middle class even if they have a lot more money than most. You have to be to the stage of "I don't work and collect 3 million a year from the goverment 'cause bonds" before you call yourself rich. For example dentist making 200k+ a year? Definitly not rich. "Rich" has a smaller fraction than "poor".

Are we arguing anything other than definitions, here?


If you need your dock job to eat it doesn't matter. You have to do what ever the boss says, just like in "take your pick" you have to do what the dictator says. Sure in Freeland you might be able to find a new job, but in "take your pick" you might be able to overthrow the dictator or use outside pressure to force him to leave you alone. (Cause you run microsoft.)

You could get a different job. You could start selling hats, you could..., you could..., you could....

In dictatorland, you must actively act against someone who is forcing you to do something. There is no force in "Freeland."


As I noted earlier in the thread, we're on a forum where people regularly play games in which they kill people defined as being evil.

Many of these same games explicitly define evil as being, if not identical to objectivist social philosophy, very close to it.

Randian sympathizers we are not.

Typically speaking, those games define as "evil" those who intentionally step on others to get what they want. They define neutral as "looking out for number 1."

When you ask a person for something, an evil person says "no," a neutral person says "what's in it for me?" An Objectivist, despite what you may have heard, is far more likely to say the second than the first.


Why would an objectivist willfully discard potential personal power? That strikes me very much as not in accord with the philosophy. If to create an objectivist utopia, you need to have people doing things for others for their sake, that seems untenable.

An Objectivist does not seek or maintain (in the event of actually acquiring it) power over another person's life.


Well, certainly, I could've tarted it up and made it sound a lot prettier and more sophisticated, but those aspects of the philosophy aren't really relevant to Rapture.

Well, okay, I guess in a way they are relevant. An objectivist would present their philosophy in a way most likely to make you believe Rapture is an awesome place, in an attempt to make you go there.

But once you get there, the epistemological framework isn't what matters. What matters is how people behave in Rapture. And since objectivism proscribes behavior towards people that basically makes them untrustworthy beyond a certain nominal point, the relevant part is that an objectivist utopia is filled with people who can't create a functioning society.

Thus why a person would be justified in not wanting to live in Rapture solely by knowing it's run on Objectivist ideals.

So, whether or not it can be defined as Objectivist only relates to whether or not you want to go? Once you get there, it's Objectivist no matter whether or not the principles are actually followed? I'm not following this one. And we weren't originally defining it in relation to Rapture. Someone asked "What is Objectivism?" It certainly matters that you present the entire theory in that case, now doesn't it?


You don't have to force people to not have wings. If someone does not have wings, but no one forced them not to have wings, they must have chosen it.

If I'm poor, I can walk down to the local business and get a job. If I have a job, I can start making better financial decisions. If I'm wingless, I can't walk down to the local business and get wings.


Has less/more than average is probably a better measure than the mode. For instance, if most people have very little, then there would be no poor people by your measure, only rich people, even if the population is extremely impovished (there are countries in the world like this right now, so this isn't theoretical).

I was talking about relative poverty, and I think you are bringing in absolute poverty.

Regardless, again, poverty isn't really the problem we consider it to be if it isn't forced.


Okay, catching up a bit from my last post, but I'm going to answer Corruptiv3 (or whatever numbers are in there). The reason violence is the likeliest outcome to defend yourself is simple.

There are laws (assuming in this case there are only property laws, counting the body and life as property).

Someone must enforce those laws.

There is only the economy, no tax funded government agency.

Therefore, the laws are enforced by private individuals or corporations. This creates an enforcement agency motivated primarily by profit, and paid for by those who wish to benefit from the protection of the laws.

This agency must be able to enforce laws through the ability to arrest or kill those who break them. They must be able to do so consistently, regardless of the criminal.

If the agency wishes to, there is little to nothing preventing them from falsely pursuing opposition, or seizing the assets of others for personal gain. Since they are a service, those who have not paid for them have absolutely 0 protection against such harassment, and the agency does not have a financial incentive not to harass them.

Even if the founder of the agency is not aggressive, the nature of the business is one such that it rewards such behavior (historically). Eventually the founder will need to be replaced, and a fitness maximizer will eventually hit upon the job.

If unsatisfied with the agency, the only option to prevent them from taking such actions is to form an opposing agency.

The new agency fully follows the same logic as the first one.

So, if you weren't following, I just described the formation of a Mafia, and likely the beginning of gang warfare.

My problem with Objectivism (hopefully not to step on your toes here, Skywalker), isn't with the theoretical society described. I like a society built on the platform of non-agression. The problem is, humans are aggressive. Life in general is. And such a society rewards aggression and violence in acquiring property simply by the act of failing to discourage it sufficiently. Eventually someone will come along who can't be pushed out, and they'll seize control, and we're back to a force backed dictatorship or feudal structure. Just like Rapture.

(really hoping I'm not violating board rules, if I am let me know and I'll scrub the post).

Humans are not merely mindless robots of acquisition. Most people place far too much emphasis on the "look out for you first" principle of Objectivism, and far too little on the "everyone has certain rights" principle. Objectivists are far more concerned with their own rights (and acquiring more resources through legal and ethical means) than with taking from others via force. In my opinion, if someone (or even someones) showed up in a place like Rapture that was populated by true Objectivists, the larger numbers of true Objectivists, realizing the danger posed by such a cancer, would cooperate to make life very difficult for the "gangs."

Of course, none of this is going on in Rapture, because Rapture is not a truly Objectivist ideal. It is a closed fiefdom run by a guy who has no understanding of most of the ideas he supposedly subscribes to.

The presentation of Rapture as the ultimate end result of an Objectivist experiment has two primary flaws: One, the original experiment, for the reasons listed, wasn't purely Objectivist. Two, Bioshock presupposes the average Objectivist to be a certain type of person (a "bad person" one, even). In my experience (and I do hang out with the people on a day-to-day basis, go to their gatherings, read their papers, etc), this is incorrect. It is the type of understanding of Objectivists one might get from reading Atlas Shrugged and researching Ayn Rand, and then not contacting any modern Objectivists, or from arguing with them over the internet and without trying to understand the ethics while starting from the beginning.

To sum up, a real Objectivist founder would think it through and decide that selling oxygen probably isn't the best plan. A real Objectivist prospective occupant would think it through and decide "no deal" because of the incredibly crazy contract (or lack thereof). Finally, IMO, there really aren't enough of us to fill out Rapture. :smallbiggrin:

[Dervag]

Of course, my perspective is a little skewed coming from a hive species, and I wouldn't try to force my views on other people. Personally, I wouldn't even choose "freedom," (I mean I would, but I think of something different for that word) or the possession of personal property.Golentan, while you may be the only eusocial animal on the board, you're far from the only social one. A lot of social animals have problems with this concept too.


Because while this (and yours, Otogi) is a pretty fair definition of the ethical aspect, it doesn't address what exactly "enlightened self-interest" (living with your betterment as the ultimate goal) and "altruism" (living for others) are defined as within the Objectivist framework.Please bear in mind that we're trying to summarize a philosophy for the benefit of someone who's never heard of it. If the definition is several paragraphs long, it may be complete, but it is also nigh-impenetrable if you're not already a philosophy student. Brevity is worthwhile in some cases, and this is one of them.


I agree that you don't have to force people to be poor. I contend that if someone is poor, but no one forced them to be that way, they must have chosen it. Ergo, what's the problem?Let us imagine a random guy in the generic, impoverished Third World nation of Destitutionstan. Being random, he is probably poor, as most Destitutionstanis are. Why?

It is almost certainly because he chose to be poor. Very few people actually take that option deliberately unless the choice is imposed on them by outside circumstances, such as the laws of physics. The only sense in which they "choose" to be poor is that they "choose" not to be a highly effective bandit or brilliant businessman (depending on the society)... and I don't "choose" to lack the talent or inclination that makes great bandits or businessmen.

Now, you can plausibly blame his situation on the fact that someone in Destitutionstan is nicking all the food and money, leaving very little for him. That's true, to a point.

The question is then: imagine that I build an undersea utopia. How do I prevent it from ending up like Destitutionstan, with all the money and power in the hands of a few people and everyone else scrambling for the table scraps?

Under Randism, I can't do it by distributing the wealth evenly; that would involve robbing people of things they created using talent and effort. But if I don't do that, it is guaranteed that there will be people with far more money than their peers; wealth tends to follow a Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell–Boltzmann_distribution).


Yes, it does matter. Better a free pauper than a opulent slave. I'd work the docks in a free society before I'd run Microsoft in... well, take your pick. The freedom to choose is everything. It's why people have chosen to die rather than submit many times throughout history.Have you been a pauper? Have you had to worry not only about starving yourself, but about the prospect of your family starving? If not... you might want to base your argument about what is best on the evidence of how people behave; generally they try to trim sails and survive rather than going out in a blaze of glory because there's someone pushing them around.

We remember the "blaze of glory" types as heroes, but that doesn't mean they're common.


Rich and poor are only subjective measures of wealth, and they are not the only two categories. The best definition of poor is "has less than most people" and the best definition of rich is "has more than most people," so in reality there should probably be about the same number of each, shouldn't there?That's not a normal definition, I'm afraid. For example, when we say that Bill Gates is "rich," we imply not only that he is richer than 51% of people, but that he is richer than any typical person. Which he is. When we say that someone is "poor," we imply that not only are they poorer than 51% of people, but that they are poorer than a standard person, that they lack the resources to get things that the average person has.

If you look at the economic statistics for real countries, you will find that the relatively poor outnumber the exceptionally rich by a huge margin. The beggars outnumber the millionaires; the people making minimum wage or its equivalent outnumber the ones with six figure salaries. It's sad, but true.


Your problem is in that you assume that an Objectivist commune (for lack of a better word) must turn out poorly, because people being selfish will inevitably lead to "horribleness." I don't see a problem with the idea itself. I see a problem when the idea is carried out imperfectly. But so far you haven't backed up your assertion that they should have known "from the beginning," before even traveling to Rapture that it would turn out horribly.I think it was predictable that Ryan personally would fail to organize a functional society, that he personally would acquire a swelled sense of his own power, and that I personally do not want to live at the mercy of a man who's prone to make questionable decisions and then blame the victims after the fact because their hands were on the Great Chain of Industry the same as his were.

Moreover, it was predictable that in the absence of a legal system, Rapture would attract malevolent opportunists, who would conceal their intentions and try to take over the system, leading to either a civil war or a vicious crackdown.

While these are not inevitable consequences within the framework of Randian Objectivism, they are highly predictable in other philosophical frameworks... frameworks that I consider to be far more fact-based than Randian Objectivism. Hence my claim that the problems with Rapture were predictable in advance.

============


It is hard to argue against this. I don't see influence as being a serious problem, tho, reference my previous arguments. Influence is not power, not directly.Any truly competent person can turn influence into power in short order, though, unless stopped by equally competent people who already have power.


I made an example of Texas because there truly exist similar communities out in the American Southwest. Of course not as opulent as Rapture, from what I understand, it's usually less than 50 rather rough men and women living in trailers, running generators off of solar power, and huddling around a campfire for pork and beans. Something like that.On that scale, any social structure can work, including no social structure at all. That's the size of a Stone Age hunter-gatherer band, and we evolved to live that way over millions of years. In a community so small that everyone knows anyone else, as long as everyone broadly agrees on the rules it hardly matters what the rules are.

Hippie communes that size can function too, despite using a social model that is almost the exact opposite of Objectivism.


If you start gouging people on the power, they start gouging you in the eye. Which is essentially what happened in Rapture. The difference is, a lot of people realize up front that this will happen. Again, I say idiocy fails because Ryan thought he could monopolize certain things and people wouldn't get upset about it.But under his own political theory, shouldn't he be able to? He is under no obligation to give people free access to his forest, his entertainment center, his bathyspheres. He'll pay you to do honest work, and he'll take the money he paid you to let you use all those things... but why, under Objectivism, should he be expected not to monopolize services in a closed environment that only he could have created?

And yes, that's idiotic, but if there isn't a fundamental reason of theory not to do it, then that's a problem with the theory, not just something that can be waved off as 'idiocy.' A politico-economic theory that claims to know how people should organize themselves should actually work when put into practice by people who desire it to work; Ryan's theories fail that test.


Like I said before, if you haven't made your own provisions for that sort of thing, or you plan on going into a situation where someone else controls these things and you don't have a contract and/or haven't read the fine print, you really have no business joining this type of society in the first place.Thing is, as the wise man said, "A man's got to know his limitations." I don't trust myself to have unlimited genius and legal savvy, to catch every little trap in the fine print and every unanticipated consequence of giving other people power over me. So I don't want to go to a place where I have to catch every trap and consequence in order to live a comfortable life, any more than I want to go to a place that requires me to have six arms. It's not an ability I possess, and it's not an ability I commonly associate with human beings.

If you're a six-armed man, go to Sixarmia and have a great time, fine by me. But I don't think you should be surprised to hear that most people think Sixarmia is a bad place they'd never want to go to.


I contend that most of the real-world people who would be attracted to Rapture would be of the second type. Which means most of us wouldn't go to begin with.Heh. Actually, that probably explains a lot. The ones with logistical sense (aside from people Ryan specifically hired, like McDonough) didn't go; the ones who did go were the suggestible ones who thought that "artistic freedom" trumped "reliable air supply."


Poverty, despite being a much larger and wider reaching problem, is still in many ways a matter of choice, unless the person is forced into poverty, IE the dockworker in Leningrad with the gun to his head.As a general rule, the Leningrad dockworkers did not have guns to their heads, though; they did pretty much the same things under broadly similar conditions to their peers in other countries. They didn't need a gun to their heads- they had the same motive to work as anyone else: access to the necessities and (to some extent) luxuries of life.

Very few societies use forced labor on a top-to-bottom basis. It's far more common to rely on perfectly ordinary labor techniques for most things and conscript workers by force for projects that are deemed to be emergencies.


If I'm poor, I can walk down to the local business and get a job. If I have a job, I can start making better financial decisions. If I'm wingless, I can't walk down to the local business and get wings.Given the real experiences of real people who have little or no money... becoming rich is only slightly more realistic as a goal than sprouting wings, in a lot of places. Socioeconomic factors happen to the best of us, and they can really screw you over.


The presentation of Rapture as the ultimate end result of an Objectivist experiment has two primary flaws: One, the original experiment, for the reasons listed, wasn't purely Objectivist.As an attempt to provide a mathematical proof of flaws in Objectivism, this is a major problem with it. As an attempt to illustrate flaws in Objectivism, not so much.

Bioshock was far from the first work of fiction or nonfiction to argue that there are serious problems with the Objectivist social model, problems that could become crippling if it were applied on a large scale. Just as with the Communist social model, Objectivism may not be applicable in pure form in practice; it will always be "contaminated" by the ideas and goals of the people involved in implementing the system.

That's not avoidable unless you have the whole system created ex nihilo by an act of God.


Two, Bioshock presupposes the average Objectivist to be a certain type of person (a "bad person" one, even).I disagree. The average citizen of Rapture (presumably at least something of an Objectivist) strikes me as a very normal person... who has been driven to madness and despair by a very abnormal environment. The place is a hell-hole, but that's not because the individual citizens were evil by any stretch of the imagination.

Now, some of the leadership were right bastards, but bastards getting into positions of leverage and power is a common problem. Having bastards get into positions of power in your society says nothing about whether the doctrine your society was founded on is good or bad... unless the doctrine makes it impossible for society to get the villains out of power.

[Indon]

I contend that most of the real-world people who would be attracted to Rapture would be of the second type. Which means most of us wouldn't go to begin with.
The splicers in the game could well have been no more than a notable minority of the population of Rapture. While I still think they would be the majority (at least of the objectivists), they wouldn't have to be.

It's just when things went to pot they killed everyone else, because you couldn't tell the objectivist psychopaths apart from the supposed objectivist nice people until the chips were down, and when the chips were down the situation would rapidly degrade into a backstaborama.


Big difference. "What is best for you" and "What you want" are not the same thing. Objectivism is not what we call in pop culture "hedonism" (which is really a small part of hedonism, the very broad-ranged philosophy).
It's good that you note this, because it's important.


Objectivism also pulls in the tiny fiddling point that you're not to harm others (or put them under threat of harm) to make yourself better.
The reason it's important because it contradicts with this.

The trivial case is self-defense. The objectivist is perfectly entitled and expected to harm others in order to protect their safety and security - at least I presume objectivism is not a pacifist philosophy, feel free to correct me. I'm going to be running under this assumption, though.


In dictatorland, you must actively act against someone who is forcing you to do something. There is no force in "Freeland."
Is market leverage and power not to be considered as force, then? This, too, is a significant distinction, but I won't be running under any assumptions regarding it.


When you ask a person for something, an evil person says "no," a neutral person says "what's in it for me?" An Objectivist, despite what you may have heard, is far more likely to say the second than the first.
That's very much the point of contention.


An Objectivist does not seek or maintain (in the event of actually acquiring it) power over another person's life.
Why not?

Here, I'd like to go back to my previous example of the objectivist who harms others in self-defense. It's clearly tenable to cause harm and exert power over others, if not direct for self-betterment, then to facilitate self-betterment.

Power over others represents an otherwise unreachable level of safety and security which would better facilitate, well, just about any concievable form of self-actualization. You can't be a philosopher king in Rapture unless you are safe, and it's better to guarantee your safety than to not do so.

This also touches upon your other claim that in the free-market "freeland", people can't exert power on each other. If market power is not power, then nothing about Objectivism seems to prevent Ryan from continuing to own Rapture - after all, Rapture's people know what they're getting into, so anyone in Rapture has obviously chosen their lot and Ryan isn't responsible for that.

And if market power were power, then it seems Ryan would still want to keep power, as an objectivist, for the reasons I explained above - to better ensure the safety and security needed for self-actualization.

As such, we get to the key point - that Objectivism, by its' nature, advocates individuals take actions which render them untrustworthy (provided you know they're an Objectivist). That is the cusp of the reason that a non-Objectivist would want to avoid Rapture like a disintegrating city-state afflicted by the plague, and it's something you're going to have to clearly establish.


If I'm poor, I can walk down to the local business and get a job.
If only getting a job made you not poor anymore.


If I'm wingless, I can't walk down to the local business and get wings.
You can buy a private jet or something. That's a choice.

Why haven't you bought a private jet yet?

(Admittedly, I'm being a bit facetious - this is because I think the argument your making here is, frankly, silly)


I was talking about relative poverty, and I think you are bringing in absolute poverty.
No, I'm talking about relative poverty - and how by changing the metric, you can make it less obviously contradictory with absolute poverty.


Regardless, again, poverty isn't really the problem we consider it to be if it isn't forced.
Poverty isn't the problem you consider it to be if it isn't forced by your definition of what force is.


Most people place far too much emphasis on the "look out for you first" principle of Objectivism, and far too little on the "everyone has certain rights" principle.
Because the first overrides the second. Looking out for you first means that if someone else's rights get in the way, well, you look out for you first. Looking out for yourself above everything else would include looking out for yourself above everything else.

Maybe if Objectivism's philosophy was, "Yeah, look out for yourself, except for this list of things you shouldn't stomp all over," then its' followers might be trustworthy. But then, well, it wouldn't be objectivism, as in order to follow such a philosophy you would have to exercise altruism - living for the philosophy above yourself.

[Lamech]

Here it gets a little sticky. Because either a really good one of these communities would have everyone be self-sufficient (IE, everyone has their own well, own satellite linkup, enough solar generators, etc), or there is something of a contract between folks. For instance, if you're living out in the Texas desert, and the generator is controlled via a certain trailer, and only you have the keys to the trailer, you keep everyone's electricity running. Smart people have planned for this, and have some sort of contract with you such that you keep the power running for the agreed upon barter. If you start gouging people on the power, they start gouging you in the eye. Which is essentially what happened in Rapture. The difference is, a lot of people realize up front that this will happen. Again, I say idiocy fails because Ryan thought he could monopolize certain things and people wouldn't get upset about it.
The problem with a pre-decided contract is one has to know the future of the economy to set a good price. Which is impossible for pretty much everyone. Or we could base the contract on future price, but as soon as we start getting variablity for price of commodities things start to rapidly go beyond what a normal person is capable of understanding in the contract.



Like I said before, if you haven't made your own provisions for that sort of thing, or you plan on going into a situation where someone else controls these things and you don't have a contract and/or haven't read the fine print, you really have no business joining this type of society in the first place. These are such easy things that real people think about every day. I know a lot of real people don't, but a lot of real people do. The type of person who would be going to a "real Rapture" IMO, would either be the type of person who thinks Objectivism says "do whatever you want," and who doesn't think about these types of consequences (which seems to be the vast majority of people in "Game Rapture," and apparently the population is primarily made up of these types of people, or Rapture wouldn't be populated) OR the type of person who says "Hm, I wonder what the contract is on the water? I wonder how oxygen is handled down there?" (who seem to be virtually nil in the Bioshock world). I contend that most of the real-world people who would be attracted to Rapture would be of the second type. Which means most of us wouldn't go to begin with.A second problem with contractual agreements: People born into the society don't start with them in place. People will join the society with out contracts for the essentials in place, or the society will go the way of the shakers. (Shakers IIRC opposed procreation, they are now extremely small in number.)



Big difference. "What is best for you" and "What you want" are not the same thing. Objectivism is not what we call in pop culture "hedonism" (which is really a small part of hedonism, the very broad-ranged philosophy).

Objectivism also pulls in the tiny fiddling point that you're not to harm others (or put them under threat of harm) to make yourself better.
So hedonism vs ...? The long term view? Doing what you want right now vs. taking a long term view? I dob't really see the difference; one is just less short sighted. If one wants to find someone to love and marry said person, get a job teaching math, and be happy taking large quanties of alcohol might not be conductive to that; I see the not drinking far too much as simply ordering one's wants and being realistic. Is that the difference?

And of course the whole not taking stuff/hurting others exists in objectivism.

I also note if ones objective is happiness neither the anti-religious tenents of objectivism, nor the aquire wealth tenent of objectivism seem to have much grounding in science or statistics.


A baby is poor by default, true. I never said "poor" was not the default condition. But because something is the default condition does not mean you can't choose otherwise. My default condition is "sneezing with a head full of mucus." I have a choice: Solve the problem, or don't. Poverty, despite being a much larger and wider reaching problem, is still in many ways a matter of choice, unless the person is forced into poverty, IE the dockworker in Leningrad with the gun to his head.I fail to see how not having something is any more or less a problem because of the manner in which one has come to lack that something. It of course could get harder to solve, but hungry is hungry, cold is cold.

I do note that somethings such as freedom of speech can really only be taken away by death or the threat of death.

How can one simply choose to get out of poverty? They need to be able to work, which requires them to be smart and educated or not crippled. (Which of course requires being handed food and education as a child for free.) They need to find a job; not always a guarrentee. Its like choosing to not have a cold.



Are we arguing anything other than definitions, here?You had a question, I responded. I tend to do that. Sorry if it was retorical.




You could get a different job. You could start selling hats, you could..., you could..., you could....

In dictatorland, you must actively act against someone who is forcing you to do something. There is no force in "Freeland." Would anyone buy your hats? Could you make hats better or quicker than someone being paid minimum wage in a factory? Could you find someone to hire you? What does your contract say about quitting and finding a new job? There is no guarrentee that they can do that.



If I'm poor, I can walk down to the local business and get a job. If I have a job, I can start making better financial decisions. If I'm wingless, I can't walk down to the local business and get wings.Unless they don't hire you. Better financial descions can only go so far, if you lack enough to pay for essentials, you lack enough to pay for essentials.


I was talking about relative poverty, and I think you are bringing in absolute poverty.

Regardless, again, poverty isn't really the problem we consider it to be if it isn't forced.Whats the problem with relative proverty? Barring extremely radical changes to the economy there will always be rich and poor. Not having the essentials is where the problem lies?

And why does something become not as bad if it isn't forced? Something is just as bad if a person causes it or if nature causes it.




In my opinion, if someone (or even someones) showed up in a place like Rapture that was populated by true Objectivists, the larger numbers of true Objectivists, realizing the danger posed by such a cancer, would cooperate to make life very difficult for the "gangs." Why? What possible reason would I have to fight someone if someone else is going to do it for me? I put my life in danger, someone who has taken steps to aquire weapons and the ablity to use them and is not bound by morality will likely win in any power struggle. I put my life in danger for little gain. If other people stand with my my contribution still carries risk, though less, but I'm less likely to make a difference; helping still fails the risk gain analysis in most cases. The "rational" thing to do that is best for me by a cost benifit analysis will be to let the others handle it.

Extreme situations or contrivd situations could change this: The "gang" killing everyone and preventing them from escaping for example. Or my help taking odds of victory from 10% to 50% with only a small risk, or perhaps leave.

I also note a gang could attempt a number of nasty actions via market force.

[golentan]

As interesting as this discussion is, it seems to be straying a bit close to real world stuff. I'm going to remove my posts, Many Many Apologies (pronounced Apple-Loeggies).

[Avilan the Grey]

But to answer the question without the cultural context is leaving the whole of the reasons behind Rapture's creation and why anyone would have anything to do with it out of the picture.

The year and the setting make up a huge part of the story of Rapture.

The reason behind Rapture's creation is a bunch of Objectivists trying to build a society. As someone pointed out upthread*, this in itself is almost an oxymoron, and quite definitely a disaster waiting to happen.

Or as Morbo woulds say:
"Puny Humans Does Not Work That Way!"

Basically, the main reason for it's creation is an urge to create Utopia, which always ends badly.

*Edit: was it upthread? or was it in an earlier discussion about this?

[GoC]

I agree that you don't have to force people to be poor. I contend that if someone is poor, but no one forced them to be that way, they must have chosen it. Ergo, what's the problem?
From this it is clear that you are actually posting from a parallel universe to the one I live in. What's it like over there?


If I'm poor, I can walk down to the local business and get a job.
*looks at the list of about 30 places he's applied for*
I want to live in your universe.:smallfrown:

Also, trying to argue with Dervag is a stupid idea. He's waaaaay smarter than you.:smallwink:

[Weezer]

If I'm poor, I can walk down to the local business and get a job.
Having a job won't necessarily make you not poor. The idea that the majority of poor people are lazy and just don't try to pull themselves out of poverty is a rather insulting fallacy. It is entirely possible for a household (for the sake of argument lets say 2 parents and 2 kids) to have both parents working full time, minimum wage jobs and still be unable to make ends meet. There is such thing as the working poor and they make up the majority of the poor in developed countries.
I know that this isn't related directly to the rapture/objectivism but its just untrue to assume that having a job makes you automatically not poor.

And as GoC said, willingness to take a job doesn't always correlate to getting a job. In the U.S. there is so much unemployed and educated labor that it is very hard for those who lack job skill or experience to get a job.

[GoC]

Having a job won't necessarily make you not poor. The idea that the majority of poor people are lazy and just don't try to pull themselves out of poverty is a rather insulting fallacy.
Please do not use that word if you don't know what it means.:smallannoyed:
A pet peeve of mine...

[Dervag]

*looks at the list of about 30 places he's applied for*
I want to live in your universe.:smallfrown:

Also, trying to argue with Dervag is a stupid idea. He's waaaaay smarter than you.:smallwink:For which vote of confidence I thank you, though it really isn't as likely to be true as you think.


Please do not use that word if you don't know what it means.:smallannoyed:
A pet peeve of mine...I'm... I'm sorry to do this, but:


Main Entry: fal·la·cy
...
1 a: obsolete : guile, trickery b : deceptive appearance : deception
2 a: a false or mistaken idea <popular fallacies> b : erroneous character : erroneousness
3 : an often plausible argument using false or invalid inference

[GoC]

I'm... I'm sorry to do this, but:
LOL!
I got served.:smallredface:

Though I can still say that it would be wise not to dilute this word (restricting it's meaning to #3) and use others (such as "mistaken") instead.
We don't need 10 words for every concept. We don't need words that have multiple meanings even in context as that causes confusion.

[Dervag]

Eh. I figure that "claim which is widely believed but is not true" and "logical error that is superficially appealing" are close enough that using the same word for both is no big deal.

I mean, it's not like anyone's going to get confused and think that the No True Scotsman Fallacy is a mistaken belief held by all Scotsmen, instead of being a logical error.

[Weezer]

Please do not use that word if you don't know what it means.:smallannoyed:
A pet peeve of mine...

While I agree it probably would have been more clear if I'd used a different word, its not really unreasonable to use fallacy to mean common mistake.

And yes I do know what a logical fallacy is, I don't make a habit of using words that I don't know the meaning of.

[Dervag]

While I agree it probably would have been more clear if I'd used a different word, its not really unreasonable to use fallacy to mean common mistake.The dictionary agrees with you.

[Hida Reju]

The reason behind Rapture's creation is a bunch of Objectivists trying to build a society. As someone pointed out upthread*, this in itself is almost an oxymoron, and quite definitely a disaster waiting to happen.

Or as Morbo woulds say:
"Puny Humans Does Not Work That Way!"

Basically, the main reason for it's creation is an urge to create Utopia, which always ends badly.

*Edit: was it upthread? or was it in an earlier discussion about this?

My point was simple answering the question on "Would you live in Rapture" without taking the time period and social issues going on during post WW2 is leaving out a major source of why it is a good/bad idea. This is independent of Objectivists ideas being involved at all.

[GoC]

Eh. I figure that "claim which is widely believed but is not true" and "logical error that is superficially appealing" are close enough that using the same word for both is no big deal.
No. The first is subjective (likely to be disagreed about and generally used as a disparaging remark), the second is objective. That is a pretty big difference. And since they can both be used in the same context this results in confusion (and perfectly civil conversations becoming heated).


The dictionary agrees with you.
Though you have to bear in mind that all a dictionary does is record common usage. If a word is misused enough it's meaning changes and the English language becomes poorer as a result.

[LurkerInPlayground]

No. The first is subjective (likely to be disagreed about and generally used as a disparaging remark), the second is objective. That is a pretty big difference. And since they can both be used in the same context this results in confusion (and perfectly civil conversations becoming heated).
Unless, by "superficially appealing" we mean "widely believed" and therefore "subjective."


Though you have to bear in mind that all a dictionary does is record common usage. If a word is misused enough it's meaning changes and the English language becomes poorer as a result.
Meh.
As long as we are sharing the same definition, it's good enough. We know what was meant by the word "fallacy" in this case.

[faceroll]

I wonder if population size has any effect on the efficacy of objectivist or marxist policy.

[GoC]

Unless, by "superficially appealing" we mean "widely believed" and therefore "subjective."
One claims that something is purely a logical error and the other that it is a factual one. Claims about facts are often subjective in the context of a debate. Claims about logic are much much less so (if someone is disagreeing about logic then it's likely it isn't a decent debate).


Meh.
As long as we are sharing the same definition, it's good enough. We know what was meant by the word "fallacy" in this case.
Having a word thats means a particular set of logical errors is very useful. Saves having to type it out every time and it allows quick mental access.

There are several terms who's abuse has been saddening. Things like "lowest common denominator" (when applied to media). We already have words/phrases that mean "low brow" so why do we need a second one that used to have a useful (and unique) meaning?

[Avilan the Grey]

There are several terms who's abuse has been saddening. Things like "lowest common denominator" (when applied to media). We already have words/phrases that mean "low brow" so why do we need a second one that used to have a useful (and unique) meaning?

...Because it gives more, not less, richness to the language?
I am not a native English-speaker, but I have learned one thing from all the debates about my own language:
Languages will evolve or die. The people that are horrified about new ways to use words, or the amount of borrowed words from other languages, tend to only see half the picture. (I find it funny that the people screaming about the amount of borrowed English in contemporary Swedish does so using about 40% medieval German, quite a lot of French, and an assortment of words borrowed from other languages over the years. Right now English is the fashionable language. 300 years ago everyone that was someone spoke French, or tried to put as many French or "Frenchified" words in every Swedish sentence. Before that it was German).

Anyway, as I said: Language evolve. Using "lowest common denominator" in this context is very fitting, and something most people understand since it is something everyone is taught in Math class.

Sorry, I had to whip my personal dead horse.

[Drakyn]

I wonder if population size has any effect on the efficacy of objectivist or marxist policy.

I think in general, almost any social organization works better when you have like five-twenty people involved in it. That way there's lower odds that someone will disagree very firmly and start a civil war. Then again, that's "lower" not "absent."

[Indon]

Please do not use that word if you don't know what it means.:smallannoyed:
A pet peeve of mine...

They did describe a fallacy. Specifically a non sequitur.

Given:
1.)People are poor.
2.)Some people have remained poor while others have not.
3.)Some of the people who are no longer poor but who were worked to do so.

4.)Therefore, those who remain poor are those who have not worked to stop being poor.

Doesn't really follow - the argument lacks the vital point that it needs to be established that anyone can stop being poor just by 'putting in the effort' or whatever.

[Dervag]

I wonder if population size has any effect on the efficacy of objectivist or marxist policy.Most policies work in a small enough group that supports them; few policies work in a large group with diverse opinions. So probably.


No. The first is subjective (likely to be disagreed about and generally used as a disparaging remark), the second is objective. That is a pretty big difference. And since they can both be used in the same context this results in confusion (and perfectly civil conversations becoming heated).Since many fallacies are at least somewhat subjective (the Strawman fallacy comes to mind, as the difference between an ad hominem and a legitimate questioning of someone's credentials)... I'm not sure I agree.


Though you have to bear in mind that all a dictionary does is record common usage. If a word is misused enough it's meaning changes and the English language becomes poorer as a result.Is this a one-way process?

[GoC]

...Because it gives more, not less, richness to the language?
How does the loss of a meaning make a language richer?


Anyway, as I said: Language evolve. Using "lowest common denominator" in this context is very fitting, and something most people understand since it is something everyone is taught in Math class.
I wasn't clear on what old meaning I was referring to. "Appealing to the lowest common denominator" means "appealing to as wide a demographic as possible". This is much more specific than low brow.


Since many fallacies are at least somewhat subjective (the Strawman fallacy comes to mind, as the difference between an ad hominem and a legitimate questioning of someone's credentials)... I'm not sure I agree.
Significantly less subjective though, due to the reduced emotional impact.


Is this a one-way process?
Not sure what you mean here...
Are you saying that sometimes dictionaries set common usage or that if a word is well used enough it's meaning changes and the English language becomes richer as a result?

[LurkerInPlayground]

Oh whatever. English is a whorehouse of a language. There's nothing "pure" about it.

Languages evolve and are living and untidy entities. Big whoop. Get over it.