Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Yeah....Medicare, Medicaid, the Great Society, food stamps, farm and corporate subsidies, wage and price controls, the creation of several cabinet-level bureaucracies, the illegal wars in Korea, Vietnam, et al, the idiotic "war" on (some) drugs, are all soooooooooo far right wing.
You've always been a raving Negative Nancy, but now you've moved on to total nutburger land.
They've been used against political opponents. They just haven't been used on a wide scale.
They've been used against political opponents. They just haven't been used on a wide scale.
Who?
I'm not being snarky, I'm just legitimately curious. Most of the alleged cases haven't gone anywhere (admittedly due to National Security issues that tend to kill such cases), and none of the alleged cases are high profile enough to really rise to the level of political oppression that I've seen.
I don't doubt it could very easily happen, or that it might have happened in isolated cases. I'd just like to hear more details.
Also, I've heard the title of "Socialist" used in relation to Mr Obama a lot lately.
What, specifically, has Mr Obama done, besides helping out one major auto company that was about to collapse, that can be considered "Socialist"?
As far as I know, Socialism is defined as "Governmental control of the means of production".
Since Health Insurance companies don't produce anything, but simply serve as a layer of bureaucracy, Government serving a simliar role is not, by definition, "socialism".
Also, I've heard the title of "Socialist" used in relation to Mr Obama a lot lately.
What, specifically, has Mr Obama done, besides helping out one major auto company that was about to collapse, that can be considered "Socialist"?
As far as I know, Socialism is defined as "Governmental control of the means of production".
Since Health Insurance companies don't produce anything, but simply serve as a layer of bureaucracy, Government serving a simliar role is not, by definition, "socialism".
Health insurance is not a layer of bureaucracy, health insurers provide a service.
You missed the point re: Nixon. If someone was considered to be a mainstream idea on the right forty years ago, but is considered to be radically leftist today, that's strong evidence the political system as a whole as moved to the right.
Most people have not "maxed out" their potential, but of course what "maxing out" your potential even means is questionable as people have a lot of different responsibilities and goals, not all of which are compatible.
Yes people have many goals. What right do you have to complain about the people who pursued goals congruent with wealth attainment? Some goals obviously are not congruent with wealth attainment. But if your goal is to be a teacher, along with that you need to accept that you probably aren't going to be filthy rich.
My point is that the "Atlas" figures of Rand's book aren't heroes. They're selfish jerks that profited from the society they then choose to abandon. That's ultimately the failure of objectivism. It fails to acknowledge that the individual's success is often built upon the scientific, economic, and social advances that came before and the acceptance, in either a scholastic or monetary form, of their work on the part of the world around them.
I would say then that you didn't read the book very well. Because apparently what you missed were the expectations that society put on them. They expected from the likes of Rearden what they would not expect of themselves. The society expected to be simply given what the 'heroes' had to work for and build on their own.
Your 'no man is an island' argument is one made by many and is extremely faulty. If all they did was gain wealth off the work of others, as if that's all it takes, why aren't more people wealthy? You're not so naive or disingenuous as to think more people would be if not for their righteous souls are you? As with any successful business operator the characters found a product or service that was in demand and found they most efficient way to deliver. Would that require hiring man power to meet demand? Of course. By doing so, by building a business they are supplying a demand that would otherwise go unfilled. So why are they not entitled to the profits of building that business?
Saying 'they did it on the back of others' is disingenuous as well. It implies the business owner sits back while his workers slave to make them money. Also not true. When you sign on to work for someone you agree to their terms. If you don't like the pay you don't work for them, simple as that. Either someone else works for them instead, or they are forced to improve compensation until someone will. You of course will say some people just don't have a choice. Again typical lib selling people short and making excuses for them. They're is ALWAYS a choice.
The characters in the book founded their own society because they were tired of whiners like yourself who don't know aspect one of running a business. People that assume business owners sit on couches doing nothing while the money rolls in thinking they are entitled to the same because they don't know jack shit about the choices their boss has to make day in and day out to keep all of the cogs in the wheel spinning smoothly. They left because not only did people feel they were entitled to what they worked for and built. They left because people like you were not only unappreciative of it, you condemn them for it.
I don’t consider her a philosopher. Neither do other philosophers — you won’t find her works taught in most (any?) philosophy departments. You also won’t find her discussed in any standard works on the history of philosophy — either in general or specifically American philosophy.
At least, I haven’t seen her mentioned in any of the works I’ve read and used. She doesn’t appear to be in Grayling’s two volume introduction to philosophy, the Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, or Kuklick’s history of American philosophy — just to name a couple of sources at hand. I suppose there must be some philosophy reference works out there which at least mention Rand and Objectivism, but it doesn’t appear to be common — and for good reason, I think.
Austin Kline
Just because her philosophy isn't taught, or most other philosophers don't consider her among them, doesn't make her any less a philosopher. Just because a philosophy isn't all that attractive to the masses doesn't mean it's not a philosophy.
On Ayn Rand:
Kung Fu Monkey said:'There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: “The Lord of the Rings” and “Atlas Shrugged.” One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.
Dumber words were never spoken. It is a mind boggling, non-sensical statement made be someone more content to hurl insults than evaluate the ideology behind it.
I'm not sure what exactley is childish about believing you have a right to the fruits of your labor and the right to defend them.
Dumber words were never spoken. It is a mind boggling, non-sensical statement made be someone more content to hurl insults than evaluate the ideology behind it.
I'm not sure what exactley is childish about believing you have a right to the fruits of your labor and the right to defend them.
Rand's philosophy works in a fictional novel. In the real world Rand's philosophy fails to account for the fact that no one can accomplish much on their own.
This rationale I found to be one of the fundamental differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals make themselves dependant on others. They sell the individual short and expect very little of them. Why do you insist people are capable of so little when they are demonstrably capable of so much?
The FACT that you are unwilling to accept, is that people don't achieve because they essentially CHOOSE not to. You simply can not make the argument, looking at the people you know, or just knowing human nature in general, that the majority of people have maxed out their potential. That it is simply impossible to achieve anymore.
This person thinks Calculus is fun Bern, I wouldn't pay much attention to their opinions.
This person thinks Calculus is fun Bern, I wouldn't pay much attention to their opinions.
How could anyone not like Calculus?
I missed no point at all....Nixon was considered a sellout by many in his own party, while he was still in office.You missed the point re: Nixon. If someone was considered to be a mainstream idea on the right forty years ago, but is considered to be radically leftist today, that's strong evidence the political system as a whole as moved to the right.
This person thinks Calculus is fun Bern, I wouldn't pay much attention to their opinions.
How could anyone not like Calculus?
Some people just don't like any of that fancy-pants book-learnin'.
More disingenuous semantic parsing by the Obammyboits....How unsurprising.Also, I've heard the title of "Socialist" used in relation to Mr Obama a lot lately.
What, specifically, has Mr Obama done, besides helping out one major auto company that was about to collapse, that can be considered "Socialist"?
As far as I know, Socialism is defined as "Governmental control of the means of production".
Since Health Insurance companies don't produce anything, but simply serve as a layer of bureaucracy, Government serving a simliar role is not, by definition, "socialism".
This person thinks Calculus is fun Bern, I wouldn't pay much attention to their opinions.
How could anyone not like Calculus?
Ayn Rand also likes sociopaths and thinks it's OK for guys to rape their girlfriends as long as they're "special".
