A question for the Right
- Thread starter JBeukema
- Start date
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,116
- 2,180
As opposed to
?
So that's what you think of starving children?
Why must you flaunt your bigotry?
Hey asswipe. which city in America does this child reside? huh? Must you flaunt your stupidity?
American lives are more valuable than any other lives.
And yet we still treat them poorly. Highest child poverty rate of any industrialized nation. Child poverty statistically related directly to educational failure, by the way. Much more strongly than which teacher you have.
And yet we still treat them poorly. Highest child poverty rate of any industrialized nation. Child poverty statistically related directly to educational failure, by the way. Much more strongly than which teacher you have.
Last edited:
JBeukema
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #24
Jesus only cared about starving children if they lived on the right side of an imaginary line in the sand?
One child is ten feet from you. Another is 2000 miles away. You spit on the first and cite the second as a sign of how great things are?
Nationalism...
' government figures show that almost 700,000 children went hungry in the United States at some point in 2007'
When I give the poor food, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist
One child is ten feet from you. Another is 2000 miles away. You spit on the first and cite the second as a sign of how great things are?
Nationalism...
' government figures show that almost 700,000 children went hungry in the United States at some point in 2007'
When I give the poor food, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist
Ayn Rand is a twit. A smart woman, that's about all I can give her. She has reasoned away all of her empathy. She has declared compassion immoral. She claims that societies in which people help each other do worse than those in which people only look out for themselves. So in the end she reasons away truth.
But I don't think it's fair to tar the entire right with her brush. The right is a coalition. Some are Christian. And I'm guessing that those who care about their religious beliefs don't think much of her.
It is still an interesting question. Although it's not right to pose the question as if the right were a single entity. How do Evangelical Christians maintain such a stable coalition with a group whose ideology is so un-Christ-like.
But I don't think it's fair to tar the entire right with her brush. The right is a coalition. Some are Christian. And I'm guessing that those who care about their religious beliefs don't think much of her.
It is still an interesting question. Although it's not right to pose the question as if the right were a single entity. How do Evangelical Christians maintain such a stable coalition with a group whose ideology is so un-Christ-like.
WillowTree
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2008
- 84,532
- 16,116
- 2,180
How much do you send to the poor each year?
Charles_Main
AR15 Owner
Wait what?
Well said. I'm tormented over Rand because I think her message is compelling.
It might be useful to contextualize Rand.
She was a young teenager during the the Bolshevik Revolution. The Communist victory lead to the confiscation of her father's pharmacy. . . followed by severe poverty.
Then, having immigrated to the states, she matured during the heyday of American Liberalism, when the American government gained increasing control over the economy.
Her warnings about central planning made sense. [In fact, by the 70's, Labor and government had too much power relative to capital. After 40 years of growing the regulatory state, Rand was, justifiably, an inspiration in America]
But a major transformation happened with the rise of Reagan and Thatcher. We entered the 90s not with a corporation-swallowing uber-government, but with massive transnationals who had the power to buy multiple governments. Capital, mostly through trade liberalization, was granted the mobility to swarm the globe for cheaper labor. This contributed to their immense power and size. Indeed, private corporations had power unimaginable in the Saint Petersburg of Ayn Rand's childhood.
During the Age of Reagan, laws which prevented too-big-to-fail monopolies were abandoned. We saw an exponential growth in mega-mergers -- mergers which had the financial power to apply unprecedented lobbying pressure, and, essentially, use the power of government to crush competition and fix markets. We entered 2000 with corporations like AIG whose size was larger than the Edinburgh of Adam Smith's youth. We had global corporations so large that they could centrally (through massive financial pressure) influence elections in multiple countries; this allowed them to shape laws and escape market discipline across the globe. In short, this was no longer the "small business capitalism" of Adam Smith, whose anti-globalization sentiments stressed the importance of capital being grounded by and responsive to local markets. This was a phase of turbo-charged, big business capitalism which Rand never lived to see.
Adam Smith would not support corporations so big that their failure could bring down entire financial markets. He didn't want corporations to avoid the magic of competition by buying each other (merging) in order to gain more leverage over pricing. He supported consumers. He would have been disgusted by the world Reagan and Thatcher created because they made capital powerful enough to escape being disciplined by their local markets.
Which brings me to the point. In a world where the communists can steal your father's pharmacy, Ayn Rand's message is crucial. However, in a world where the pharmaceuticals own government, Ayn Rand's message is potentially dangerous. By not contextualizing Rand, we turn her into exactly the kind of deity she herself would reject. Her message contains timeless parables about the value of enlightened self interest, but it has gross limitations for curbing the concentrated power of corporations -- corporations which have grown larger and stronger than anything Rand ever imagined.
Last edited:
JBeukema
Rookie
- Thread starter
- Banned
- #29
Where, exactly?
You mean the colonial era?
Is that why the standard of living was so much better?
Only 20 years before, was the 50s. I thought the conservatives loved the 50s because it was so prosperous? Was wrong all along- was it really just because it was the last decade before all that 'civil rights' talk?
You refer to rising income inequality, decreasing real income, and the long death of the middle class?
Two Thumbs
Platinum Member
Who?
I'm not a christian either.
These broad brush conservatives are evil non-sense is wearing thin.
Find something new to make up.
Anton Levay. The Satanist. Ayn Rand's philosophy is very similar to Satanism. Both worship the ego and believe that ego fulfillment is the highest goal a person can have.
Two Thumbs
Platinum Member
Is that that bald headed dood with the goatee?
Played satan in "somebodies baby is possesed movie"
That guy was about getting laid. Not much more there.
This.
(It's ironic that the Right is nostalgic for an era which represents the apex of New Deal capitalism -- when economic growth was at its zenith, taxes were high, employment was high, and financial markets were heavily regulated and enjoyed unprecedented stability)
You are urged to read (social) conservative Christopher Lasch - who rose to fame in the 80s with his "Culture of Narcissism". He praised the old Conservative America of the 50's. While he is predictably critical of the 60s social revolutions, he credits the high wages secured by Labor with enabling middle class mothers to stay home with the children. He saw the taxation of concentrated wealth as worthy only when it was re-distributed into middle class stability -- which stability allowed families to spend more time together. For him the family was sacrosanct, and it needed protection from oil transnationals and corrupt derivative traders.
Enter Reagan, who crushed Labor, lowered wages, removed cost-of-living assistance for middle class families, shifted subsidies from public education to offshore transnationals, and made it impossible for families to survive on the father's wage. This forced mothers into the work place and fathers to take second jobs. It also lead to latchkey kids raised by the vagaries of MTV - hence the dissolution of the family.
[Watch what happens when the GOP gets rid of Medicare and Social Security. Middle class families will need even more jobs to take care of grandma. They will have less time for the family. Irony of ironies: the GOP has destroyed the middle class family of the 50s, which relied so heavily on very specific government policies]
Prior to Movement Conservatism, it was possible for Conservative commentators to criticize free market capitalism on behalf of average families - specifically capital's tendency to reduce labor to subsistence wages in order to bestow dynastic wealth on share holders. After Reagan, the party of Teddy Roosevelt died. Any policy which did not narrowly concentrate wealth in the hands of corporations & the wealthy was and is considered socialism. This is not allowed to be questioned.
(The party used to have room for disagreement. It used to have depth)
Last edited:
Two Thumbs
Platinum Member
Thanks
You accidentaly stated that the left worships the ego.
proof?
The 60's
"If it feels good, do it."
Free love
Sex, drugs and rock-n-roll
need I continue?
So Gunny and Article15 are women?
Slaves? Indentured servants? She idolize the richest men on earth. You really mean to tell me they 'shrug' off the chains of slavery?
Liberty does not mean 'freedom' from morality
Like ignoring the hungry and hiding away in your own gulf?
Like turning a blind eye to those who need help because empathy and compassion are evil?
Hedonism hardly qualifies as purpose
You mean greed and '**** the poor'?
Didn't it turn out the emperor had no suit? You're just posting random buzzwords.
That's not what she said. She was no Reformist. She said putting anything above self-pleasure was evil.
You're tying to paint her as a biblical revisionist? Really? She embraced biblical liberal socialism and self-sacrifice and condemned the greed and hypocrisy of the Church?
You can't be serious.
How, exactly? By advocating the same ideology that gave rise to fascism and saying the highest morality is the strong taking from the weak?
Not according to Rand. The weak don't matter. The only people who rightfully have a voice are those with the strength to impose their will.
You are projecting. Connecting only the dots that suit you. We can argue semantics all day long, in the end, I hope that you do not judge yourself as brutally as you judge Rand. I don't expect you are going to find Gunny or Art in a Bikini any time too soon, again you missed my point there. The strong taking from the weak is not Rands objective. Agreement and standing up to agreement on your end hits a little closer to the mark. "Show Me Your Faith By Your Works". Producing, Earning, is not taking from others. Think, what is the value of teaching skill as opposed to accepting and rewarding mediocrity? Multiply the effect of Society producing unskilled, En-titlists, draining from the limited infrastructure, in exchange for votes and support. Who is not better off developing skill and ability?
You are making the mistake of judging what you have not even read, based on the input of the very ones Rand put on the hot seat, without even knowing why. The problem here is that Rand defends her own perceptions better than anyone else can, until, you digest that, and examine directly, in context, you are arguing other peoples words. I thought you better than that, JB. Read her works, use your own words to describe what you find. Until you have foundation, in the works themselves, your argument fuels nothing but persecution.
There is nothing more important to the Tyrant, than to squash Individual Conscience, for fear of what that Individual Conscience may both Witness and Testify against that Tyrant. Government is not God, nor should Government Play God, or Impose It's Will Over that of God's. Unalienable Right, Recognized for a time, made Us different than Every Known Civilization before us. By denying the Individual, by Sacrificing the Individual for the Profit of the Elite, by corrupting Justice, counterfeiting it, using It's name, while violating the Trust and Authority you are given, is an Abomination. Tell me more of the Ego now and why you feel you have the power to decree for others, even that which offends their own Conscience??? Why are you different than that which you condemn for not bowing down or submitting to your perception??? Why cannot you make peace with your own Conscience, rather than denying it, and leading others astray??? Would you teach that to Sacrifice Principle, Value, Ideal, for false conception, because it makes Society feel better, is Noble? That is not Virtue. Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah, did not serve Society, or fit in well with it at all, they served God. Society punished them for it more often than not. Why is that???
Similar threads
New Topics
-
You open a store in the ghetto - you take your chances- Started by CrazyTrader55
- Replies: 0
-
-
Mason Morfit’s Latest Moves: Is ValueAct Pivoting Away from Big Entertainment?- Started by BellaJones
- Replies: 1
-
-
