Are We Living It?

Are we living it? DUH!

"It’s just a journey to talk people into continuing to break their backs at making profits in order to support men who are superior by reason of not making any. "

Read the news:
May 14, 2010
EDIT (Politician X) said this week that thanks to the new reform law, musicians and other creative types could quit their jobs and focus on developing their talents because taxpayers would support them.
“We see it as an entrepreneurial bill, a bill that says to someone, if you want to be creative and be a musician or whatever, you can leave your work, focus on your talent, your skill, your passion, your aspirations.”
(Politician Z) said it's patriotic for producers to pay taxes to support non producers.

Atlas Shrugged:
“Fact is,” said Mr. Weatherby primly, in a statistical tone of voice, “that in the twelve month period ending on the first of this year, the rate of business failures has doubled as compared with the preceding twelve month period. Since the first of this year, it has trebled.”

“But it is their own fault,” said Eugene Lawson, turning aggressively to Dr. Ferris. “It’s their lack of social spirit. They refuse to recognize that production is not a private choice, but a public duty. They have no right to fail, no matter what conditions happen to come up. They’ve got to go on producing. It’s a social imperative… There’s no such thing as a personal matter - or a personal life. That’s what we’ve got to force them to learn.”

“Well, if you want to talk practice,” said Fred Kinnan, “then let me tell you that we can’t worry about businessmen at a time like this. What we’ve got to think about is jobs… If you want my advice-ohm, I know you won’t go for it, but it’s just a thought-issue a directive making it compulsory to add, say, one-third more men to every payroll in the country.”

Last week I almost quit. It was over Chick’s Special. Mr. Chick Morrison of Washington, whoever the hell he is, has gone on a speaking tour of the whole country-to speak about the directive to build up peoples’ morale… He demanded a special train for himself and party-a sleeper, a parlor car and a diner with barroom and lounge. The Unification Board gave him permission to travel at a hundred miles an hour-by reason, the ruling said, of this being a non-profit journey. Well so it is. It’s just a journey to talk people into continuing to break their backs at making profits in order to support men who are superior by reason of not making any.

Yeah, we're living it..and leaving it.
I'm withdrawing to make artwork that no one is willing to buy.
But the government will force them to pay for it.


It's dozens of feet long, weighs over 35,000 pounds, lights up at night and cost Austin, Texas, about $4,300 in city funds. But the question remains: Is it art, or a sprawling waste of taxpayer money?
The city's cultural arts division is helping sponsor a public installation made up of 50 traffic barriers — an orange-and-white Stonehenge that the project's mastermind is calling the "Barton Barriers."

That's $4,300 out of some producer's pocket. Maybe a mother with children to support.

Edited by Rogerdodger, 24 July 2010 - 11:48 PM.

It's dozens of feet long, weighs over 35,000 pounds, lights up at night and cost Austin, Texas, about $4,300 in city funds.


You would not buy that "artwork" for $4,300 with your own money would you?
So you form an armed gang and call it government.
Then, under the threat of imprisonment and at the point of a gun if need be (although you righteously proclaim your personal distaste of guns and violence) you forcibly take $4,300 from one person and give it to another and think you are morally superior?

Really it's all about feeling good about yourself, isn't it?
How selfish is that?

Edited by Rogerdodger, 25 July 2010 - 12:08 PM.

Why is it when one points out to Randies that their 'philosophy' basically breaks down to "me, me, me, - and the world will all just work out" that we are told it's because we simply just don't understand?

Kind of like teenagers, no?

I think Ayn would be more upset with her Randies that take this cop-out than she would be with the 'socialists' who point it out. Well, maybe not as upset as she would be that there is no place on the earth where here philosophy has worked - unless you like vacationing in Somalia.

As referred to in the wiki piece, Phil Dick nails it when his Charles Freck, attempting suicide, decides to go out with a copy of Fountainhead because he hopes when it's found accompanying his body that "would prove he had been a misunderstood superman rejected by the masses and so, in a sense, murdered by their scorn."

Sniff, sniff.

Again, there's that creepy sense of adolescence, no?
At least Lord of the Rings made for some entertaining orc movies.

Yes, you don't know what you are talking about.

Leaving aside your woeful lack of economic understanding, it would appear that you view adults as children, Objectivists (and I) respect rational adults and expect them to behave well generally, which they do. Rational adults understand that they do not live in a vacuum and that in order to survive we must, by and large, trade value for value with our fellow man. Our fellow man is very much in our thoughts. Objectivism is not irrational narcissism.

Objectivists hold that RATIONAL selfishness is a virtue. They, and I, hold that anything less is either horrifically self destructive or deceptive and/or immoral.

When I do a favor for my neighbor, indeed I am selfishly serving my OWN values--I want a neighborhood where we are all looking out for each other and we all view each other as potential trading (both pecuniary and non-pecuniary) partners and behave accordingly--over and above the minimum ethical standards of honesty and respecting each others rights. My obligation is to myself to promote an environment that supports my own rationally values.

Objectivists are not anarchists and rational people understand the need and value of the state. Fully rational people, unlike yourself, however, understand that the rights of the individual supersede the whims of the state or those of the majority.

Those who attempt to ridicule Objectivism, usually, when scratched to reveal their principles, essentially believe that might makes right and that rights are granted by who ever is in power.

So, which are you? Or do you HAVE principles?

I am prepared for the change of subject that will follow.

Yes, on the surface, it appears not to be irrational narcissism... as long as the scale of application doesn't go much beyond the end of one's nose.

Rand's objectivism has an implicit assumption of frictionless successful extrapolation from one's personal inner workings to the external world of chaotic inter-relations of complex, if not contrary, human beings. Objectivism holds us as automatons with a built-in program for optimizing personal gain at every moment in every interaction with others. It rarely works within a family unit (ask any exasperated parent of the ultimate in objectiveness, a teenager) let alone an enormous and complex society such as ours.

When faced with that inherent inefficiency, rather than face it or even inject some empathy that a lot of the friction is due to other human beings' conflicting wants and frailties, the Randy objectivest instead starts to whine about being misunderstood by lesser beings and/or begins to add a lot of conflating and hyperbolic adjectives about not being allowed their perfect way by all us lesser beings - and as such, my gosh, well, the world is just gonna stop turning - and THEN you'll see!

But the objectivest will object - "hey, I can optimize across the spectrum!" But how do you do that with 300 million other people? Representative government? "Oh no, can't have that! That leads to big bad government with whims that supersede super mens' wants. Oh my, can't have that!"

Throughout her childhood, Ayn's mother periodically scooped up all of her toys and gave them to other kids - think of the tantrums, if she was only allowed to express them. Do you think she would evolve a strong sense of empathy? As an adult, Rand became first, and foremost, an irrational narcissistic alarmist - maybe ya can't blame her, but do ya need to join her?

An objectivist will note that you've not offered any sort of rational counter argument. Empathy is simply irrelevant to philosophy. Have it, don't have it, it's all good. But be rational. Philosophy is about "shoulds". That some folks are not, like you, does not make a philosophy flawed.

Your argument is less than intellectual handwaving and more ad hominem. In any case, it's nothing of merit.

300 million people will, by and large, by seeking the best outcomes for themselves, GET the best outcomes for themselves, and by respecting each others rights, get the best outcomes for all in aggregate.

You've provided no argument for NOT respecting the rights of individuals nor for respecting free markets nor against rational self interest.

The nice thing about objectivists is that they'll leave you alone. The same cannot be said of statists.

"The nice thing about objectivists is that they'll leave you alone. The same cannot be said of statists." It really boils down to that. My good friend is a union member government worker. He was in the military for years. He loves the structure. I see it as confining and I've always been independent and self-employed because I love the freedom. I'll never try to make him independent, but the unions try to force dependence on their collectivism, often with gangster tactics and force. Right Mr. Hoffa?

An objectivist will note that you've not offered any sort of rational counter argument. Empathy is simply irrelevant to philosophy. Have it, don't have it, it's all good. But be rational. Philosophy is about "shoulds". That some folks are not, like you, does not make a philosophy flawed.

Your argument is less than intellectual handwaving and more ad hominem. In any case, it's nothing of merit.

300 million people will, by and large, by seeking the best outcomes for themselves, GET the best outcomes for themselves, and by respecting each others rights, get the best outcomes for all in aggregate.

You've provided no argument for NOT respecting the rights of individuals nor for respecting free markets nor against rational self interest.

The nice thing about objectivists is that they'll leave you alone. The same cannot be said of statists.

Ah, the markets are closed; time for a little more fun.

And that's what this is for me. None of this should be seen as any reflection on your market TA skills which I greatly respect and admire.

But enough of the love fest! To arms, to arms!

Again, what makes Randies so tiring is their constant return to the twin refrains of either lesser beings just don't understand or of hyperbolic alarm pulling -.

But of course, I have no rationale nor philosophy - at least not in the presence of a superman. Of course, I am not respecting individual rights, free markets or self interest - and beware, if we lesser, mediocre beings don't just leave you alone, then of course, you'll shrugged and the whole world will just stop turning. Ooooohhhhhh, my!

The graveyards are full of such indispensible super men. To think Galt could have pulled it off undermines the very context of objectivism. The reality is that there's always another super man who wants to earn a buck - even with the obstacles that you found so frustrating (makes him more super, no?)

I have no qualms with whatever personal philosophy you choose. What I raise it how impractical the application of pure Randies’ philosophy as a basis for successful functioning societies in the world at large. Applying William James - it just doesn't work.

I have no problem with Randies being actors within the world at large either. I actually get some enjoyment out of their befuddlements; it's the incessant whining (as noted above) that wears a little thin.

I'm still waiting for a Randie to show me a successful society that's actually based on their philosophy. It's usually either quite entertaining to watch their torturous discounting of the presents of non-Randy elements or informatively revealing of their true desires as they define a "successful society." The former has its root in laziness i.e., it's much easier to blame lessor beings and their govt stoolies than take the time to understand what is really going on. The later? Well, let's just say, Social Darwinism started going out of style in the '30s and really got shut down in the '40s.

Edited by salsabob, 26 July 2010 - 05:14 PM.

Why do you feel compelled to assert what objectivists think without a lick of evidence to support such assertions? I LIVE every day as an objectivist. I'm happy, fulfilled, productive. Most of the things that objectivists advocate and that are salient aspects of our US culture and constitution are the things that have made us the wealthiest and most envied country on earth. It sure as hell wasn't collectivism.

GEEZE! Can't anyone read the news?

We are near the destruction of the world's economies based primarily on the same mistakes detailed in the book Atlas Shrugged.
Government programs, supposedly were designed to help balance "fairness and equality" but in actuality were designed to line the pockets of those promoting them.

I can almost hear the Community Redevelopment Act being promoted by Wesley Moocher:

"The truth is that most of the blame rests on political meddling in the credit decisions of these mortgage lenders.

Twenty years ago the buzz-word in the media was "redlining." Newspapers across the country were filled with hard-hitting investigative reports about evil and racist mortgage lenders refusing to make real estate loans to various minorities and to applicants who lived in lower-income neighborhoods.
The evil mortgage lenders were systematically denying loans to minorities based on credit histories, job stability, loan-to-value ratios and income levels. (All free market basics.)
There was no evident racial discrimination.

But political correctness as depicted in Atlas Shrugged won the day. Washington made it clear to banks and other lending institutions that if they did not do something .. and fast .. to bring more minorities and low-income Americans into the world of home ownership there would be a heavy price to pay. Congress set up processes (Research the Community Redevelopment Act) whereby community activist groups and organizers could effectively stop a bank's efforts to grow if that bank didn't make loans to unqualified borrowers. Enter, stage left, the "subprime" mortgage. These lenders knew that a very high percentage of these loans would turn to garbage - but it was a price that had to be paid if the bank was to expand and grow.

These garbage loans to unqualified borrowers were then bundled up and sold. The expectation was that the loans would be eventually paid off when rising home values led some borrowers to access their equity through re-financing and others to sell and move on up the ladder. Oops.

Right now this crisis is being sold to the American public by the left as evidence the failure of the free market and capitalism. Not so. What we're seeing is the inevitable result of political interference in free market economics. Acme bank didn't want to loan money to Joe Homebuyer because Joe had a spotty job history, owed too much money on his credit cards, and wasn't all that good at making payments on time.
The politicians told Acme Bank to figure out a way to make that loan, because, after all, Joe is a bona-fide minority-American, or forget about opening that new branch office on the Southside. The loan was made under politicial pressure; the loan, with millions like it, failed - and now we are left to enjoy today's headlines."

Now if you are honest you can research "friends of Angelo" and beneficiaries of Freddie and Fannie, all political appointees and all players in the world's lights going out.

Mouch did not just make rules to control businesses. He also colluded with businessmen, like Associated Steel owner Orren Boyle.
Who is today’s Orren Boyle? Is it Angelo or Jeffrey Immelt or...?

Edited by Rogerdodger, 27 July 2010 - 02:21 PM.

DW-TV from Germany tonight featured a piece on the 20 year commemeration of the reunification of Germany since the days of the communist collective. One of the features discussed an East Germany collective farm. A state produced propaganda film from 1989 showed what a wonderful success this was and praised the 500 workers. What they failed to mention was that the collective farm suffered from low productivity and constantly broken government-provided equipment. After Germany's reunification the bankrupt farm was sold to a private owner. The privately owned for-profit farm now requires only employes 40 workers, with much more food production. Reminiscent of victims of the Stockholm Syndrome, the remaining 460 "workers" found freedom difficult to adjust to. Without government control, they now have to think and plan for themselves. However after some adjustment one couple opened a place near a lake which caters to tourists. They said it's much better than working in the fields. And there are no longer any lines for bread. But what do they know?

The nice thing about objectivists is that they'll leave you alone. The same cannot be said of statists.

Maybe these guys with machine guns were just there to help those 500 field workers to not get lost.


Date 15 August 1984
East German border guards man a guard tower at the border between East and West Germany.
They made sure nobody left the "workers paradise" alive.
Statists don't really mind slavery do they?
After all, "It's for the greater good."

Edited by Rogerdodger, 28 July 2010 - 06:48 PM.

The world is at a dangerous inflection point

We are about to enter a depression. Politicians are not going to back away from socialism willingly. They and large numbers of other beneficiaries will do whatever they can to retain the status quo. Despite the unequivocal failure of the modern welfare state, it is unlikely to disappear quietly. The status quo is always difficult to change. It becomes especially so in desperate economic times and for people who believe they are entitled to be taken care of by others.

Regardless of which side of the issue you are on, the battle will be bitter and likely last a decade or more. Economically, everyone will be hurt, including many of the "well-off." Whether our moral and ethical code is strong enough to get through this together is moot.


http://www.americant...ment_is_he.html