Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us $3,400 per month for bandwidth bills alone, and since we don't believe in shoving popup ads to our registered users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
«106 »
  • Locked thread
Strudel Man
May 19, 2003
ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

The difference is that Biologists admit Darwin was wrong about many specific mechanisms even if he correctly figured out the general process, whereas hardcore ancaps all seem to base their ideas off the assumption that what Adam Smith said(or what they were taught he said) is correct and anything contradicting it is false.
I'm not sure that's true? As has been pointed out, his actual writings are not really being heavily drawn upon here - rather, his name is simply invoked to symbolize the idea of market efficiency. He's being used as a figurehead, not a prophet.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

redmercer
Sep 15, 2011

by Fistgrrl


Strudel Man posted:

I'm not sure that's true? As has been pointed out, his actual writings are not really being heavily drawn upon here - rather, his name is simply invoked to symbolize the idea of market efficiency. He's being used as a figurehead, not a prophet.

Seriously, find me someone who invokes Adam Smith and also advocates for basic income for everyone.

A Fancy 400 lbs
Jul 23, 2008


Yeah, that's why I put "(or what they were taught he said)".

Orange Devil
Sep 30, 2010

CUNT


redmercer posted:

Seriously, find me someone who invokes Adam Smith and also advocates for basic income for everyone.

Friedman?

Strudel Man
May 19, 2003
ROME DID NOT HAVE ROBOTS, FUCKWIT

A Fancy 400 lbs posted:

Yeah, that's why I put "(or what they were taught he said)".
It still strikes me as a misinterpretation of what's going on. It's not as though most people have had any kind of significant education (accurate or otherwise) as to what Adam Smith wrote, either. Rather, they have learned about the idea of the market, of supply and demand, rational actors, the whole affair, and they've learned that Adam Smith is associated with these concepts, so his name is invoked in their defense. But it's the concepts themselves which are at the heart of the an-cap worldview, not Smith.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Saint Sputnik posted:

Just gonna jump to the meat of this Kathleen Parker write-up about the NYT's coverage of sex assault charges against a former Yale quarterback:


Make an allegation about sexual assault against an athlete? What are you, the Spanish Inquisition?

I agree that it is completely retarded of her to refer to college sexual assault response agencies as similar to both Soviet communism and the Spanish Inquisition, but she is still making a valid point about the rush to judgment in the media in sexual assault cases, like the Duke lacrosse scandal.

The American media needs to stop publishing the names of criminal suspects of any accused crime, as simply mentioning that someone is accused is frequently enough to irreparably damage their life. It really feeds into the notion that someone must be guilty if they are simply accused and/or the police believe they committed a crime.

I'd be fine if they published names and details after the person is convicted, but anything before then is prejudicial and completely unnecessary.

LP97S
Apr 25, 2008


Bruce Leroy posted:

I agree that it is completely retarded of her to refer to college sexual assault response agencies as similar to both Soviet communism and the Spanish Inquisition, but she is still making a valid point about the rush to judgment in the media in sexual assault cases, like the Duke lacrosse scandal.

The American media needs to stop publishing the names of criminal suspects of any accused crime, as simply mentioning that someone is accused is frequently enough to irreparably damage their life. It really feeds into the notion that someone must be guilty if they are simply accused and/or the police believe they committed a crime.

I'd be fine if they published names and details after the person is convicted, but anything before then is prejudicial and completely unnecessary.

This is the main problem with legal cases and the media in general. If you lived in the US you understand this, case in point the Casey Anthony and every other media circus that gets people more angry than they should as opposed to a systematic destruction of safety nets and any meaningful reform.

redmercer
Sep 15, 2011

by Fistgrrl


Orange Devil posted:

Friedman?

Okay, should have specified "and doesn't hold an actual degree in economics"

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008




Just imagine I bolded all of this, literally every word.

What the Bible Teaches About Capitalism posted:

Who would have expected that in a Republican primary campaign the single biggest complaint among candidates would be that the front-runner has taken capitalism too far? As if his success and achievement were evidence of something unethical and immoral? President Obama and other redistributionists must be rejoicing that their assumptions about rugged capitalism and the 1% have been given such legitimacy.

More than any other nation, the United States was founded on broad themes of morality rooted in a specific religious perspective. We call this the Judeo-Christian ethos, and within it resides a ringing endorsement of capitalism as a moral endeavor.

Regarding mankind, no theme is more salient in the Bible than the morality of personal responsibility, for it is through this that man cultivates the inner development leading to his own growth, good citizenship and happiness. The entitlement/welfare state is a paradigm that undermines that noble goal.

The Bible's proclamation that "Six days shall ye work" is its recognition that on a day-to-day basis work is the engine that brings about man's inner state of personal responsibility. Work develops the qualities of accountability and urgency, including the need for comity with others as a means for the accomplishment of tasks. With work, he becomes imbued with the knowledge that he is to be productive and that his well-being is not an entitlement. And work keeps him away from the idleness that Proverbs warns leads inevitably to actions and attitudes injurious to himself and those around him.

Yet capitalism is not content with people only being laborers and holders of jobs, indistinguishable members of the masses punching in and out of mammoth factories or functioning as service employees in government agencies. Nor is the Bible. Unlike socialism, mired as it is in the static reproduction of things already invented, capitalism is dynamic and energetic. It cheerfully fosters and encourages creativity, unspoken possibilities, and dreams of the individual. Because the Hebrew Bible sees us not simply as "workers" and members of the masses but, rather, as individuals, it heralds that characteristic which endows us with individuality: our creativity.

At the opening bell, Genesis announces: "Man is created in the image of God"—in other words, like Him, with individuality and creative intelligence. Unlike animals, the human being is not only a hunter and gatherer but a creative dreamer with the potential of unlocking all the hidden treasures implanted by God in our universe. The mechanism of capitalism, as manifest through investment and reasoned speculation, helps facilitate our partnership with God by bringing to the surface that which the Almighty embedded in nature for our eventual extraction and activation.

Capitalism makes possible entrepreneurship, which is the realization of an idea birthed in human creativity. Whereas statism demands that citizens think small and bow to a top-down conformity, capitalism, as has been practiced in the U.S., maximizes human potential. It provides a home for aspiration, referred to in the Bible as "the spirit of life."

The Bible speaks positively of payment and profit: "For why else should a man so labor but to receive reward?" Thus do laborers get paid wages for their hours of work and investors receive profit for their investment and risk.

The Bible is not a business-school manual. While it is comfortable with wealth creation and the need for speculation in economic markets, it has nothing to say about financial instruments and models such as private equity, hedge funds or other forms of monetary capitalization. What it does demand is honesty, fair weights and measures, respect for a borrower's collateral, timely payments of wages, resisting usury, and empathy for those injured by life's misfortunes and charity.

It also demands transparency and honesty regarding one's intentions. The command, "Thou shalt not place a stumbling block in front of the blind man" also means that you should not act deceitfully or obscure the truth from those whose choice depends upon the information you give them. There's nothing to indicate that Mitt Romney breached this biblical code of ethics, and his wealth and success should not be seen as automatic causes for suspicion.

No country has achieved such broad-based prosperity as has America, or invented as many useful things, or seen as many people achieve personal promise. This is not an accident. It is the direct result of centuries lived by the free-market ethos embodied in the Judeo-Christian outlook.

Furthermore, only a prosperous nation can protect itself from outside threats, for without prosperity the funds to support a robust military are unavailable. Having radically enlarged the welfare state and hoping to further expand it, President Obama is attempting to justify his cuts to our military by asserting that defense needs must give way to domestic programs.

Both history and the Bible show the way that leads. Countries that were once economic powerhouses atrophied and declined, like England after World War II, once they began adopting socialism. Even King Solomon's thriving kingdom crashed once his son decided to impose onerous taxes.

At the end of Genesis, we hear how after years of famine the people in Egypt gave all their property to the government in return for the promise of food. The architect of this plan was Joseph, son of Jacob, who had risen to become the pharaoh's top official, thus: "Joseph exchanged all the land of Egypt for pharaoh and the land became pharaoh's." The result was that Egyptians became indentured to the ruler and state, and Joseph's descendants ended up enslaved to the state.


Many on the religious left criticize capitalism because all do not end up monetarily equal—or, as Churchill quipped, "all equally miserable." But the Bible's prescription of equality means equality under the law, as in Deuteronomy's saying that "Judges and officers . . . shall judge the people with a just judgment: Do not . . . favor one over the other." Nowhere does the Bible refer to a utopian equality that is contrary to human nature and has never been achieved.

The motive of capitalism's detractors is a quest for their own power and an envy of those who have more money. But envy is a cardinal sin and something that ought not to be.

God begins the Ten Commandments with "I am the Lord your God" and concludes with "Thou shalt not envy your neighbor, not for his wife, nor his house, nor for any of his holdings." Envy is corrosive to the individual and to those societies that embrace it. Nations that throw over capitalism for socialism have made an immoral choice.

Rabbi Spero has led congregations in Ohio and New York and is president of Caucus for America.

Link

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his soul? Nah gently caress that the Bible actually loves speculation and wealth creation.

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

I'M ESCAPING TO THE ONE PLACE THAT HASN'T BEEN CORRUPTED BY CAPITALISM...

SPACE!


Jesus wants us to have capitalism because otherwise we wouldn't be able to afford the massive defence budget that Jesus also wants us to have.

Terror Sweat
Mar 15, 2009



Shalebridge Cradle posted:

Just imagine I bolded all of this, literally every word.


Link

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his soul? Nah gently caress that the Bible actually loves speculation and wealth creation.

Reading those comments, this is a pretty good catch all response whenever you get a crazy right winger making arguments like this.

quote:

"If a man shuts his ears to the cry of the poor, he too will cry out and not be answered."
-Proverbs 21:13

"Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute. Speak up and judge fairly; defend the rights of the poor and needy."
-Proverbs 31:8-9

"No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money."
-Matthew 6:24

"Then Jesus said to his disciples, 'I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven. Again I tell you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God.'"
-Matthew 19:23-24

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.' They also will answer, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?' He will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did not do for one of the least among you, you did not do for me.'"
-Matthew 25:41-45

"He who mocks the poor shows contempt for their Maker; whoever gloats over disaster will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 17:5

"He who oppresses the poor to increase his wealth and he who gives gifts to the rich--both come to poverty."
-Proverbs 22:16

"Jesus answered, 'If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.'"
-Matthew 19:21

"He who gives to the poor will lack nothing, but he who closes his eyes to them receives many curses."
-Proverbs 28:27

"People who want to get rich fall into temptation and a trap and into many foolish and harmful desires that plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil. Some people, eager for money, have wandered from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs."
-1 Timothy 6:9-10

"Command those who are rich in this present world not to be arrogant nor to put their hope in wealth, which is so uncertain, but to put their hope in God, who richly provides us with everything for our enjoyment. Command them to do good, to be rich in good deeds, and to be generous and willing to share. In this way they will lay up treasure for themselves as a firm foundation for the coming age, so that they may take hold of the life that is truly life."
-1 Timothy 6:17-19

"Now this was the sin of your sister Sodom: She and her daughters were arrogant, overfed and unconcerned; they did not help the poor and needy."
-Ezekiel 16:49

"Rich and poor have this in common: The LORD is the Maker of them all."
-Proverbs 22:2

"He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God."
-Proverbs 14:31

"A generous man will himself be blessed, for he shares his food with the poor."
-Proverbs 22:9

"Better a poor man whose walk is blameless than a rich man whose ways are perverse."
-Proverbs 28:6

"A faithful man will be richly blessed, but one eager to get rich will not go unpunished."
-Proverbs 28:20

"The righteous care about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern."
-Proverbs 29:7

"Wealth is worthless in the day of wrath, but righteousness delivers from death."
-Proverbs 11:4

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Here's a recent one from the generally awful George Will:

George Will 'Onward Civilian Soldiers' posted:

WASHINGTON -- War, said James Madison, is "the true nurse of executive aggrandizement." Randolph Bourne, the radical essayist killed by the influenza unleashed by World War I, warned, "War is the health of the state." Hence Barack Obama's State of the Union hymn: Onward civilian soldiers, marching as to war.

Obama, an unfettered executive wielding a swollen state, began and ended his address by celebrating the armed forces. They are not "consumed with personal ambition," they "work together" and "focus on the mission at hand" and do not "obsess over their differences." Americans should emulate troops "marching into battle," who "rise or fall as one unit."

Well. The armed services' ethos, although noble, is not a template for civilian society, unless the aspiration is to extinguish politics. People marching in serried ranks, fused into a solid mass by the heat of martial ardor, proceeding in lockstep, shoulder to shoulder, obedient to orders from a commanding officer -- this is a recurring dream of progressives eager to dispense with tiresome persuasion and untidy dissension in a free, tumultuous society.

Progressive presidents use martial language as a way of encouraging Americans to confuse civilian politics with military exertions, thereby circumventing an impediment to progressive aspirations -- the Constitution, and the patience it demands. As a young professor, Woodrow Wilson had lamented that America's political parties "are like armies without officers." The most theoretically inclined of progressive politicians, Wilson was the first president to criticize America's founding. This he did thoroughly, rejecting the Madisonian system of checks and balances -- the separation of powers, a crucial component of limited government -- because it makes a government that can not be wielded efficiently by a strong executive.

Franklin Roosevelt agreed. He complained about "the three-horse team of the American system": "If one horse lies down in the traces or plunges off in another direction, the field will not be plowed." And progressive plowing takes precedence over constitutional equipoise among the three branches of government. Hence FDR's attempt to break the Supreme Court to his will by enlarging it.

In his first inaugural address, FDR demanded "broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency, as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign foe." He said Americans must "move as a trained and loyal army" with "a unity of duty hitherto evoked only in time of armed strife." The next day, addressing the American Legion, Roosevelt said it was "a mistake to assume that the virtues of war differ essentially from the virtues of peace." In such a time, dissent is disloyalty.

Yearnings for a command society were common and respectable then. Commonweal, a magazine for liberal Catholics, said Roosevelt should have "the powers of a virtual dictatorship to reorganize the government." Walter Lippmann, then America's pre-eminent columnist, said: "A mild species of dictatorship will help us over the roughest spots in the road ahead." The New York Daily News, then the nation's largest-circulation newspaper, cheerfully editorialized: "A lot of us have been asking for a dictator. Now we have one. ... It is Roosevelt. ... Dictatorship in crises was ancient Rome's best era." The New York Herald Tribune titled an editorial "For Dictatorship if Necessary."

Obama, aspiring to command civilian life, has said that in reforming health care, he would have preferred an "elegant, academically approved" plan without "legislative fingerprints on it" but "unfortunately" he had to conduct "negotiations with a lot of different people." His campaign mantra "We can't wait!" expresses progressivism's impatience with our constitutional system of concurrent majorities. To enact and execute federal laws under Madison's institutional architecture requires three, and sometimes more, such majorities. There must be majorities in the House and Senate, each body having distinctive constituencies and electoral rhythms. The law must be affirmed by the president, who has a distinctive electoral base and election schedule. Supermajorities in both houses of Congress are required to override presidential vetoes. And a Supreme Court majority is required to sustain laws against constitutional challenges.

"We can't wait!" exclaims Obama, who makes recess appointments when the Senate is not in recess, multiplies "czars" to further nullify the Senate's constitutional prerogative to advise and consent, and creates agencies (e.g., Obamacare's Independent Payment Advisory Board and Dodd-Frank's Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) untethered from legislative accountability.

Like other progressive presidents fond of military metaphors, he rejects the patience of politics required by the Constitution he has sworn to uphold.

So, desiring less partisanship and greater cooperation, mutual understanding, and reliance on academic research rather than biased opinions somehow means that progressives and Obama are a bunch of anti-Constitution, wannabe-dictators?

cheese
Jan 7, 2004

Shop around for doctors! Always fucking shop for doctors. Doctors are stupid assholes. And they get by because people are cowed by their mystical bullshit quality of being able to maintain a 3.0 GPA at some Guatemalan medical college for 3 semesters. Find one that makes sense.


Shalebridge Cradle posted:

Just imagine I bolded all of this, literally every word.


Link

What does it profit a man to gain the whole world, and lose his soul? Nah gently caress that the Bible actually loves speculation and wealth creation.

This just in: Christianity has a long and proud history of selectively reading the bible (a book that they themselves created and edited significantly), embracing the parts that suit them at the time and ignoring all of the uncomfortable, inconvenient bits.

Windozer
Nov 1, 2009

by Y Kant Ozma Post


Bruce Leroy posted:

Here's a recent one from the generally awful George Will:


So, desiring less partisanship and greater cooperation, mutual understanding, and reliance on academic research rather than biased opinions somehow means that progressives and Obama are a bunch of anti-Constitution, wannabe-dictators?

For some reason, I couldn't help but read that in Rush Limbaugh's voice.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


cheese posted:

This just in: Christianity has a long and proud history of selectively reading the bible (a book that they themselves created and edited significantly), embracing the parts that suit them at the time and ignoring all of the uncomfortable, inconvenient bits.

Yeah, but the difference here is that it's pretty much the antithesis of Jesus' own words.

It's one thing to ignore some old testament stuff or revelations or Paul's epistles, but ignoring your own savior's/God's explicit words is so intellectually dishonest and absurd that it almost falls into Poe's law territory.

John Charity Spring
Nov 3, 2009

ACTIVATE THE QUEEN


The article does appear to be by a Jewish rabbi so he wouldn't be considering the New Testament stuff anyway, but as pointed out there's a wealth of relevant stuff in the Old Testament as well.

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

I'M ESCAPING TO THE ONE PLACE THAT HASN'T BEEN CORRUPTED BY CAPITALISM...

SPACE!


poo poo, I completely missed that.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


John Charity Spring posted:

The article does appear to be by a Jewish rabbi so he wouldn't be considering the New Testament stuff anyway, but as pointed out there's a wealth of relevant stuff in the Old Testament as well.

Yeah, but he explicitly uses the terms "Judeo-Christian" and "Bible," not "Judaism" and "The Torah," throughout the editorial, likely because he's targeting both Jews and Christians, so it's perfectly appropriate to criticize him for intentionally ignoring all of Jesus' literal words against wealth.

What's really hilarious is if you go to the Conservapedia Thread and look at Conservapedia's attempt to make the Bible more conservative.

Atreiden
May 4, 2008


Bruce Leroy posted:

Yeah, but he explicitly uses the terms "Judeo-Christian" and "Bible," not "Judaism" and "The Torah," throughout the editorial, likely because he's targeting both Jews and Christians, so it's perfectly appropriate to criticize him for intentionally ignoring all of Jesus' literal words against wealth.

What's really hilarious is if you go to the Conservapedia Thread and look at Conservapedia's attempt to make the Bible more conservative.

I love Conservapedia's project. It's so insane. Also how conservative do you have to be, to find the bible to liberal?

LP97S
Apr 25, 2008


Equester posted:

I love Conservapedia's project. It's so insane. Also how conservative do you have to be, to find the bible to liberal?

The most hilarious thing about the Conservative Bible Project is that the vast majority of the Christians who would follow Conservapedia believe that only the King James Version is the only valid translation and would view this as blaspheme.

PostNouveau
Sep 3, 2011

VY till I die

Grimey Drawer

Terrible advice column counts, right?

quote:

Q. Friend Has Revised One-Night Stand Story: A friend recently called me and said she had a one-night stand after drinking too much. She was beating herself up over drinking too much and going home with a guy she met at a bar. I reassured her that everyone makes mistakes and didn't think much more of the account. However, since then, she has told many people that she was a victim of date-surprise sex—that the guy must have put something into her drink . She spoke to a surprise sex crisis line, and they said even if she was drunk, she couldn't have given consent so she was a victim of surprise sex. She now wants to press charges—she has the guy's business card. I have seen her very intoxicated on previous occasions, to the point she doesn't remember anything the next day. I'm not sure on what my response should be at this point. Pretend she never told me the original story?

quote:

A: Trying to ruin someone else's life is a poor way to address one's alcohol and self-control problems. Since her first version of the story is that she was ashamed of her behavior, and since you have seen her knee-walking drunk on other occasions, it sounds as if she wants to punish the guy at the bar for her own poor choices. Yes, I agree that men should not have sex with drunk women they don't know. But I think cases like the one you are describing here—in the absence of any evidence she was drugged—where someone voluntarily goes home with a stranger in order to have a sexual encounter, makes it that much harder for women who are assaulted to bring charges. Talk to your friend. Tell her that she needs to think very long and hard about filing a criminal complaint against this guy if there's any way her behavior could be construed to be consensual. Say you understand her shame, but you're concerned about her drinking, and if she addresses that, she won't find herself in such painful situations.

Helsing
Aug 23, 2003

I'M ESCAPING TO THE ONE PLACE THAT HASN'T BEEN CORRUPTED BY CAPITALISM...

SPACE!


If you remove the last sentence then that seems like reasonable advice. There's no need to be condescending or to imply that drunk women are asking for it but if the original story is accurate its perfectly reasonable to tell her that she needs to do some soul searching and make absolutely sure that this was surprise sex.

I'm 100% against victim blaming but situations like this are extremely complicated.

PostNouveau
Sep 3, 2011

VY till I die

Grimey Drawer

Those situations are complicated, but there's a few things:

Framing pressing charges as "trying to ruin the someone else's life" is awful. She's putting a bad motive on the woman, and that kind of attitude leads to more unreported rapes.

Also she tells her to think about if there's ANY WAY her behavior could be CONSTRUED as consent. That's such a horrible standard; the only time anyone would bring charges would be the rare attacks by strangers.

Elim Garak
Aug 5, 2010



Helsing posted:

If you remove the last sentence then that seems like reasonable advice. There's no need to be condescending or to imply that drunk women are asking for it but if the original story is accurate its perfectly reasonable to tell her that she needs to do some soul searching and make absolutely sure that this was surprise sex.

I'm 100% against victim blaming but situations like this are extremely complicated.

No, this is some pure-strain MRA bullshit:

quote:

Since her first version of the story is that she was ashamed of her behavior, and since you have seen her knee-walking drunk on other occasions, it sounds as if she wants to punish the guy at the bar for her own poor choices. Yes, I agree that men should not have sex with drunk women they don't know. But I think cases like the one you are describing here—in the absence of any evidence she was drugged—where someone voluntarily goes home with a stranger in order to have a sexual encounter, makes it that much harder for women who are assaulted to bring charges.

Your friend sounds like a lush, she wants to punish the man, one can't be raped if one is not drugged and stories like this only make it harder for the "real" victims. It's pretty loving awful.

Pungent Mammy
Jul 29, 2003

The pig is a huge fat pig.


Fallen Rib

Nobody understands you like I do Ayn Rand

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...-misunderstood/

quote:

Happy Birthday, Ayn Rand -- Why are you still so misunderstood?
By Don Watkins

In the summer of 1921, a young Ayn Rand saw Moscow for the first time. “I remember standing on a square,” she would later recall. “And it suddenly struck me. . . . ‘How enormous it is, and how many people, and it’s just one city’ . . . . I suddenly had the concrete sense of how many large cities there were in the world—and I had to address all of them. All of those numbers had to hear of me, and of what I was going to say. And the feeling was marvelously solemn.”
Today, on the 107th anniversary of her birth, it’s hard to doubt that the world has indeed heard of Ayn Rand. Her books—including titles like "The Fountainhead" and "The Virtue of Selfishness"—have sold nearly 30 million copies, with sales of her 1,100-page opus, "Atlas Shrugged," surpassing a million copies in the last three years alone.

Rand has clearly inspired millions. But a debate has emerged over the question of Rand’s political influence, with many commentators claiming her ideas have played a key role in shaping the political landscape. As former Maryland Lt. Gov. Kathleen Kennedy Townsend said in 2011, “Ayn Rand has a large and growing influence on American politics.”

But to gauge Rand’s influence, we need to know more about her views than the sound bytes we’re typically offered.

Rand is usually thought of as a political philosopher, but that is not how she viewed herself. “I am primarily the creator of a new code of morality,” she once said. Whereas previous moral codes bestowed sainthood on those who served and sacrificed for others, Rand’s morality extolled “the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”

This is the philosophy embodied by fictional characters such as Hank Rearden, the industrialist in "Atlas Shrugged," who—in the tradition of Thomas Edison—creates a new metal that’s stronger and cheaper than steel, and who—in the tradition of countless entrepreneurs—struggles to produce his revolutionary product in the face of government obstacles. At one point, Rearden is brought to trial for violating the government’s economic edicts, and he proudly defends his right to produce and prosper:

“I work for nothing but my own profit,” he says, “which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs. . . . I made my money by my own effort, in free exchange and through the voluntary consent of every man I dealt with. . . . I refuse to apologize for my ability—I refuse to apologize for my success—I refuse to apologize for my money.”

It is this moral outlook that underlies Rand’s advocacy of free markets, and it suggests where those looking for Rand’s influence on today’s politics can see it.
Above all, you can see it in the moral outrage of the Tea Party activists, many of whom carry signs championing Rand’s works and ideas.

Recall the Rick Santelli rant that started it all: “This is America. How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills, raise their hand? . . . . We’re thinking of having a Chicago Tea Party in July. All you capitalists that want to show up to Lake Michigan, I’m going to start organizing. . . . at the end of the day, I’m an Ayn Rander.”

But what you don’t yet see is large numbers of people who have actually grasped the moral and political position Rand defined. Even among the Tea Party activists, there exists no positive, principled platform challenging today’s status quo.
This is why you also find at their gatherings signs like “Keep Your Government Hands Off My Medicare.” Apparently, paying for your neighbor’s mortgage is bad, but paying for his health care is just fine.

Rand has helped many people see that something has gone wrong in America. But they haven’t yet understood the source of the problem or Rand’s radical solution.
A political movement truly shaped by Rand’s ideas would not flinch, as Republicans and Tea Partiers do, from charges that it is the mouthpiece of the rich and the mean-spirited. It would declare that it is a movement for all producers, proudly embracing the innovative rich, the ambitious poor, and everyone in between. If you earn your wealth through production and voluntary trade, a Rand-inspired political movement would affirm that it is yours by right.

And instead of looking at programs like Social Security and Medicaid only from the recipients’ point of view, a Rand-inspired political movement would point to the great injustice committed against those who are forced to provide retirement and medical care to others. It would ask: by what right does the government seize wealth from some people so it can dole out unearned rewards to others? Nothing, it would declare, is more mean-spirited than depriving an individual of his property and liberty.

In other words, a Rand-inspired political movement would be a principled movement. It would champion laissez-faire capitalism—the total separation of state and economics—as the only system that fully protects the rational and productive individual, securing his moral and political right to pursue his own happiness.

To what extent has Ayn Rand shaped our political landscape? So far, not nearly enough.

SMILLENNIALSMILLEN
Jun 26, 2009





Pungent Mammy posted:

Nobody understands you like I do Ayn Rand

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012...-misunderstood/

That really was a terrible opinion. The Edison comparison was great and, I assume, more accurate than intended.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


katlington posted:

That really was a terrible opinion. The Edison comparison was great and, I assume, more accurate than intended.

My thoughts exactly.

As I was reading it, I was thinking to myself, "Yeah, he is an rear end in a top hat just like Edison....Wait, did he mean that in a positive way?"

Borneo Jimmy
Feb 27, 2007

by Smythe


Here's a really wienery editorial.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/.../138590849.html

quote:

The glitter bandits need to permanently holster their confetti ammo. It's just a matter of time before armed security mistakenly believes a gay-rights activist is pulling a weapon instead of getting ready to douse a politician with sparkly stuff. Someone is going to get hurt.

Republican presidential frontrunner Mitt Romney was the latest high-profile politician to get "glitter-bombed." The former Massachusetts governor twice had confetti flung at him at close range on Wednesday during a Minnesota campaign stop. Romney managed to look festive instead of flustered, joking that his new sparkly hairdo was a good way to celebrate his recent Florida primary win.

Romney joins a long list of conservatives who've been glittered in Minnesota and elsewhere: among them, Newt Gingrich, Karl Rove, former Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Minnesota Republican U.S. Reps. Michele Bachmann and Erik Paulsen. A news release sent out Wednesday by Minnesota activists to trumpet the Romney glittering vowed that "more glitter actions are certain to follow.''

That's a mistake. Further glitterings, especially of presidential candidates, place everyone at campaign rallies at risk. Security officers must make instantaneous judgments about suspicious-looking people who get close to the candidates and their families. Whether it's highly trained Secret Service officers or local law enforcement, it's incredibly difficult in those split-seconds to distinguish someone drawing a weapon from someone pulling out a hidden bag of confetti.

It's not hard to imagine an anxious officer firing a gun, especially when there's often no weapons screening of early campaign crowds. That the activists were able to get so close to Romney and his family Wednesday demonstrates how vulnerable the candidates are and why security is edgy.

There's a tendency by some to dismiss the glitterings as a high-spirited twist on civil disobedience. But it is unacceptable to put others in harm's way to make a political point. There's also a bullying side to the glitterings that undermines the gay-rights cause.

Glitterings are intended to intimidate and publicly humiliate people -- a reason why activists post unflattering videos of politicians cringing as they're glittered. This may feel like a small measure of justice for those who've battled a lifetime of prejudice because of their sexual orientation, but that's not cause for more intimidating behavior.


Glittering's mean-spiritedness only reinforces those who oppose gay rights, and it does nothing to win converts from those still on the fence. Activists need to ditch the dust. This is a risky, losing strategy.

Oh no those politicians might be slightly inconvenienced we need to take this kind of bullying seriously

Shalebridge Cradle
Apr 23, 2008




Borneo Jimmy posted:

Here's a really wienery editorial.

http://www.startribune.com/opinion/.../138590849.html


Oh no those politicians might be slightly inconvenienced we need to take this kind of bullying seriously

Sometimes people ask what concern trolling is, because it is difficult to explain. Thankfully now all we have to do is link to this article.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Shalebridge Cradle posted:

Sometimes people ask what concern trolling is, because it is difficult to explain. Thankfully now all we have to do is link to this article.

It seems a bit more threatening than just plain concern trolling, what with the repeated mentions that glitterbombers are likely to be literally shot.

Also, who the gently caress is "intimidated" by glitter?

Windozer
Nov 1, 2009

by Y Kant Ozma Post


Pungent Mammy posted:

To what extent has Ayn Rand shaped our political landscape? So far, not nearly enough.

Yes, we should work towards anti-intellectualism, anarcho-capitalism, and a philosophy of ethics that would seamlessly integrate with fascism, if it weren't for fascism's kind treatment towards at least one group of human beings. Every time I don't think Fox can get any more insane, I see something like this.

Fox News is just Fonz jumping the shark jumping the Fonz jumping the shark all the way down, forever.

Shasta Orange Soda
Apr 24, 2007


Bruce Leroy posted:

Also, who the gently caress is "intimidated" by glitter?

Well, lots of people are intimidated by Gary Glitter.

Bruce Leroy
Jun 10, 2010


Shasta Orange Soda posted:

Well, lots of people are intimidated by Gary Glitter.

Child surprise sex will do that.

Tatonka
Nov 25, 2009


Well, I know I've shared this guy's wisdom before but this one takes the cake.




http://www.mansfieldnewsjournal.com...d-your-children

It is not my job to feed your children

Last week I spent too much time newsroom time reading about hungry students.

Which made me wonder.

What happened to responsible parenting?

A friend's son has a bumper sticker that reads "If you can't feed them, don't breed them."

A noble sentiment, indeed.

We started with reduced-price lunches for elementary school students. Now we have free lunches.

We added reduced-priced breakfasts. Now we have free breakfasts.

In some schools, every student qualifies for a free breakfast. Most qualify for free lunches.

Every student and every family in a school?

You're kidding me, right?

It's gotten out of hand.

I know there are hungry children. But you'll never get me to believe that some of these families are gaming the system. Or that some of these families, with a little bit of effort, can't afford to feed their own kids.

Our government must stop enabling parents and caregivers who won't feed their children.

I'm not talking about parents who can't.

I'm talking about parents who don't.

I'm talking about parents with higher priorities than children. Priorities like new cars, cellphones, game systems, wireless laptop computers and that extra 30 minutes of sleep.

In recent years we added government programs to feed kids in the summer. But apparently, we're not feeding enough kids on their break. That's the news article I read last week that set me off.

The first paragraph of that story read: "Ohio education and food program officials want to increase the number of children in low-income areas who participate in a program that offers them free breakfasts or lunches during the summer, when they're not getting meals at school."

You're kidding me, right?

Isn't it time we address the real problem?

Hungry children are a symptom of a problem making this country less great that it once was.

The root of the problem is a meddling government. A government that has created a culture of entitlement that allows too many people a free ride.

Don't want to take the time or make the effort to feed your children? No problem! The government will just levy another tax on the rest of us and we can feed them for you.

That's not the solution.

There are a lot of wonderful nonprofits and charities doing their best to feed children. But they are overwhelmed.

Why?

Because there are no consequences for parents who won't feed their children.

It's not my job as a American taxpayer to feed every child.

You gave birth to your children. You feed them!

I know, I sound like an uncaring SOB.

I'm not. I'm just tired of seeing kids -- whose parents are wearing $150 tennis shoes and talking on iPhones -- standing in line daily for their free breakfast and lunch.

Government-sponsored enabling is so bad I fear we'll never be able to turn back the pages.

What happened to personal pride?

What happened to sacrifice?

I'm paying off some medical bills. In order to do that, I've canceled a landline and cut my cable/Internet bill in half. I'm using generic cat litter, feeding Jack and Jill dry food instead of the pouch food they really enjoy. I'm using generic laundry detergent, and dishwashing liquid that contains no emollients for my dry hands. I'm eating a lot less Tubby's pizza than I would like. I'm wearing sweaters purchased on sale at Penney's more than three years ago. I'm wearing tennis shoes from Walmart. My car has almost 200,000 miles on it and no gas cap door.

But that's what I have to do to make ends meet.

People make sacrifices all the time -- or, they used to.

Purchases were put off. Clothing was worn a little longer. People actually wore pants mended with patches, or needle and thread.

Cancel a cellphone or two if you must. Stop paying for the ability to text or get Internet service in your vehicle. Stop buying game systems and DVDs. How about a pair of nice Dr. Scholl's instead of the newest Nikes?

There are millions of ways to cut back.

But the government keeps enabling, and our culture of entitlement grows.

It's not a hard concept.

If parents don't have to feed their kids, they won't. They can spend that money elsewhere, and use the 30 minutes it would have taken to fix a $1 can of soup to run to a fast food restaurant.

Maybe that's our government's plan, to pay for everything for everybody.

We've not reached that point yet. But we are on our way.

I'm not completely heartless.

I realize some kids, some families, really need help.

I understand that. It's why I believe in handups.

But I don't believe in handouts that last a lifetime. And I don't believe in handouts that allow parents to shirk their own responsibilities.

I see too much of that.

The federal government must quit enabling irresponsible parents.

Just send them to school hungry. Someone will feed them.

And the government will tax you and me to pay for it.

There are a lot of people taking advantage of a government program that was meant to feed the truly needy. There are a lot of families who could do more with less.

Russ Kent is a copy editor and paginator for the Media Network of Central Ohio. Share your thoughts and feelings by commenting on this column at MansfieldNewsJournal.com.

Armyman25
Sep 6, 2005


He must get paid by the word.

Matthew posted:



"But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory. Before him all the nations will be gathered, and he will separate them one from another, as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will set the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left. Then the King will tell those on his right hand, 'Come, blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry, and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me drink; I was a stranger, and you took me in; naked, and you clothed me; I was sick, and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.'
"Then the righteous will answer him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, and feed you; or thirsty, and give you a drink? When did we see you as a stranger, and take you in; or naked, and clothe you? When did we see you sick, or in prison, and come to you?'
"The King will answer them, 'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.' Then he will say also to those on the left hand, 'Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry, and you didn't give me food to eat; I was thirsty, and you gave me no drink; I was a stranger, and you didn't take me in; naked, and you didn't clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you didn't visit me.'
"Then they will also answer, saying, 'Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and didn't help you?'
"Then he will answer them, saying, 'Most certainly I tell you, inasmuch as you didn't do it to one of the least of these, you didn't do it to me.' These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."

Matthew 25:31-46

ts12
Jul 24, 2007

by Y Kant Ozma Post


Here's a letter to the editor from my local paper on Feb 5th, 2012.

Excessively loud music is a health and driving hazard

quote:

Boom boxes are a nuisance to all and a breach of peace to everyone affected by such noise. The rap music they play is very vulgar and repulsive to most all of us in public.

First of all it is deafening. Why should we allow this to happen to the careless ones that do it? Then to the taxpayers’ tune, we are forced to provide them with hearing aides when they go deaf. We should all join together to get our officials to do something before this gets out of hand.

It is a disgrace to be forced to listen to all this amplified vulgarity. I am sick and tired of these awful vibrations that rattle our walls and drown out our TVs and wake us up in our own homes if we are asleep.

When these nuisance cars pass you on the streets, it vibrates your car and you can’t hear anything but vulgarity. This is a health hazard to people wearing hearing aides especially. If there was an emergency siren from a fire truck, an ambulance or a police car, you couldn’t hear it.

This shouldn’t be considered a freedom of speech. It is just dangerous. How about our freedom from hearing their garbage and amplified filthy rap music?

Clifton Stocks

Bradenton

here's a comment on the letter:
Funny but we are starting too sound like our own parents. My parents also hated it when I cranked Motley Crue as loud as my stereo would go. The only difference is we only had a few 8" speakers, not the entire club worth of speakers in the trunk. You must remember that our country is now a society of extremes. 32" rims, 24" lift kits, 72" tv's, 15 childen on da welfare, I just tell my self that there is plenty of time for peace and quiet when I am dead.

ts12
Jul 24, 2007

by Y Kant Ozma Post


Also the local Nazis got a letter published in which they quote George Wallace:
A3P party offers alternative to ‘Republocrat system’

quote:

Many recent letters by Herald subscribers have indicated their frustration with our two-party political system that we at A3P call the “Republocrat system.”

American Third Position (A3P) is the offered alternative to the undesirable status quo that presents voters more of the same. More hope without any, more change unrealized.

George Wallace once said, “There’s not a dime’s worth of difference between them,” referring to the Republocrats. That statement stands in as good a position today as it did 40 years ago.

American Third Position has unanimously chosen Merlin Miller, a West Point graduate who served in two commands, has an engineering degree and as well as one in cinematography and TV, as their presidential candidate. Our vice presidential candidate is Dr. Virginia Abernathy, professor emeritus of anthropology and psychiatry at Vanderbilt University.

We offer all Americans an opportunity to vote for candidates who are not politicians or Washington insiders. You can learn more from our website.

Lord knows that the lamestream media will not be reporting on our party or our candidates, regardless of the fact that they are a cut above what the Republocrats are offering. Visit our website at https://www.american3rdposition.com.

Dr. Adrian Krieg, Member, Board of Directors, A3P Bradenton

Orange Devil
Sep 30, 2010

CUNT


quote:

This shouldn’t be considered a freedom of speech. It is just dangerous. How about our freedom from hearing their garbage and amplified filthy rap music?

This totally should be the 28th amendment.

Taerkar
Dec 7, 2002

I would always rather be happy than dignified


Punishable by death, of course.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

N. Senada
May 17, 2011


Some Dick posted:

A friend's son has a bumper sticker that reads "If you can't feed them, don't breed them.

A noble sentiment, indeed.

This is the most fascinating thing to me. It is reassuring to me that the kind of people that are inspired by bumper stickers are the kind of people I hope to never be.

  • Locked thread
«106 »