"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[konradv]

Bern80 sez:

They say people should be able to freely associate and engage in transactions based on terms agreed upon by both parties without anyone elses interference.

That only works, if there are only two people. Two people could agree on all sorts of things that effect me. You may say I can't interfere, but the reality is that they'd be interfering with me. It's that kind of simple-minded thinking that's the ultimate downfall of Randism and libertarianism for that matter. Too many details just don't work out when you examine them fully. In my hypothetical case would pollution by two neighbors agreeing to something and fouling the stream that runs through my property be allowed, because my complaints would be interfering? If it's not, who makes the rules and sets the penalties. Sounds like an "interfering" government to me.

 

[Bern80]

Because that isn't what her social contract says. There is one quote in the book that most encapsulates her philosophy when Hank Rearden states: "I do not seek the good of others as a sanction for my right to exist." Otherwise stated, my right to pursue what I want to pursue is not tied to an obligation on my part to take care of you. I fail to see what is sociopathic about such a position.

Refutation of the contract that gave capitalists so much, by the abandoment of the society as the wealth is taken out of the economy is the ideals of sociopathic capitalist.

What this philosophy is really doing (and what we are really doing as a society, too, I note) is ignoring the fact that the capital those people have was the net output of the workers that the workers did not realize in their paychecks..

Now I have NO problem with the social contract that gives capitalist the right to take more than a workers share of the wealth that the workers produce, that is supposed to be SEED CORN for future development.

But when the capitalist take the nation's seed corn and plants it in other nations, and worse nations whose workers are in DIRECT COMPETITON with Amnerican workers>

That economic TREASON I have a problem with.

And that is how FREE TRADE is working out, Bern. And that is exactly how it is DESIGNED tpow work out, too.

The weath that is migrating offshore is wealth that the AMJERICAN workers did not get as pay, and is not MORALLY the property of the capitalist class...un;ess you sign on to the RAndian POV where society is a childish theory and only the PROPERTY RIGHTS of the individal matters

Yeah, ATLAS SHRUGGED is really nothing but a apology for the CLASS WAR that we are currently in.

And unless you personally happen to be one of those extrmely well heeled capitalists (and my guess you are not remotely that) what you believe is justice is anything but justice.

Perhaps you are as yet not bespattered by the economic shitstorm these policies are spewing on most Ameircans.

But you will be soon enough, believe me.

Whenh societies fall apart it tends to be the affluent in society (but NOT the superrich, they're long gone and well protected by that time)that have the MOST to lose.

You may think that your guns or your MREs will be enough resources that you be able to weather a complete breakdown in society, but history indicates that people like you aren't going to like the outcome of that RANDIAN philosphy when it achieves ENDGAME.

When the people go mad, which is what happens when time truly get weird, nobody does well.

Post of the thread!

Well yeah, if post of the thread meant longest post without getting single thing actually right.......

 

[Big Fitz]

That kind of economic TREASON by CAPITAL I have a serious problem with.

Here it is, ladies and gentlemen! The root of the parasite's complaint towards Objectivism! That of the flea's 'right' to the dog. That the have a right to steal from others to support themselves beyond their own efforts. A 'divine' right to be parasites, perchance.

You have no idea how much you are shown clear as day in Atlas Shrugged as nothing more than the looters claiming ownership of the wealthy achievers because you have need.

What next? enslave the rich because they threaten to commit "economic treason"? Hmmm? What punishment do you wish to mete out on the host that wishes to be free of your parasitism?

Thank you for in one sentence exposing your true heart of hearts on the subject. You know you are a parasite and are unrepentantly proud of it.

Game.
Set.
Match.
Career.

 

[Bern80]

Bern80 sez:

They say people should be able to freely associate and engage in transactions based on terms agreed upon by both parties without anyone elses interference.

That only works, if there are only two people. Two people could agree on all sorts of things that effect me. You may say I can't interfere, but the reality is that they'd be interfering with me. It's that kind of simple-minded thinking that's the ultimate downfall of Randism and libertarianism for that matter. Too many details just don't work out when you examine them fully. In my hypothetical case would pollution by two neighbors agreeing to something and fouling the stream that runs through my property be allowed, because my complaints would be interfering? If it's not, who makes the rules and sets the penalties. Sounds like an "interfering" government to me.

Or the problem is liberals trying to make things more complicated than they are in an effort rationalize their position. Two parties is just an example. there is nothing about objectivism or libertarian thought that says a third party is not entitled to a say if a transaction between two others would effect them.

 

[midcan5]

I see this debate continues. People see the world as they are, as they are programmed to see it, not as it is. If the idea fits their bias great if not.... but out there in the world is a reality and the pudding is the outcome of ideas. Rand's ideas are a justification for inequality and they appeal to many as a excuse, it is always someone's fault, and if only they believed what I believe... no wonder Washington and especially our representatives in congress are considered a joke today. Our best years came about because of the great depression, odd how turmoil wakes some up. Today we slide back to stupid.

"The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate effort to reframe what is important about American politics.

First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role." Henry J. Farrell (from Amazon Review) [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Winner-Take-All-Politics-Washington-Richer---Turned/dp/1416588698/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (9781416588696): Paul Pierson, Jacob S. Hacker: Books[/ame]

 

[rightwinger]

A better movie about the threats of unchecked capitalism is Metropolis

Wealthy industrialists keep a slave workforce underground until they decide to kill all the workers and replace them with Robots!

It has a greater chance of happening than Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged

 

[Intense]

Bern80 sez:

They say people should be able to freely associate and engage in transactions based on terms agreed upon by both parties without anyone elses interference.

That only works, if there are only two people. Two people could agree on all sorts of things that effect me. You may say I can't interfere, but the reality is that they'd be interfering with me. It's that kind of simple-minded thinking that's the ultimate downfall of Randism and libertarianism for that matter. Too many details just don't work out when you examine them fully. In my hypothetical case would pollution by two neighbors agreeing to something and fouling the stream that runs through my property be allowed, because my complaints would be interfering? If it's not, who makes the rules and sets the penalties. Sounds like an "interfering" government to me.

Governments Primary responsibility is to Protect us from all enemies, Foreign and Domestic, including Harmful Business Interests, and Government's own Selfish interests. To Establish Justice Impartially and fairly. Manipulation and misinformation is the culprit here, not the fact that Private Property exists. We Need the Right to Private Property to be Free. Still, what we do does effect others. Be Fruitful, Multiply, and Replenish the Earth. the Earth is a Temple, just as the Body is a Temple. The Consent of the Governed, through reflection and Reason, is what we All should be looking towards.

 

[Bern80]

I see this debate continues. People see the world as they are, as they are programmed to see it, not as it is. If the idea fits their bias great if not.... but out there in the world is a reality and the pudding is the outcome of ideas. Rand's ideas are a justification for inequality and they appeal to many as a excuse, it is always someone's fault, and if only they believed what I believe... no wonder Washington and especially our representatives in congress are considered a joke today. Our best years came about because of the great depression, odd how turmoil wakes some up. Today we slide back to stupid.

"The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate effort to reframe what is important about American politics.

First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role." Henry J. Farrell (from Amazon Review) Amazon.com: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (9781416588696): Paul Pierson, Jacob S. Hacker: Books

The reason the can not explain it is because they refuse to consider internal variables that separate haves and have nots and focus only on external variables to explain the disparity. For simply arguments sake we''ll call 5% of the population the haves and the rest the have nots. That isn't too far off the precentage of super wealthy and all other income in this country. Of course there are all kinds of explanations as to how that 5% to 95% split came into being. Of course the possibility exists that there governmental policies in place that make it possible for some to achieve and the rest to fail. However, another, ironically the one libs refuse to acknowledge is that just maybe the percentage of people in this country who have the motivation take the actions necessary to attain wealth is signifantly smaller than those whoe are not motivated to take those actions.

As you can imagine I tend to believe the later is at the very least A factor (if not the overriding factor) contributing to wealth disparity in this country. And it is why you idiot libs can't solve problems. Liberal mentality says the individual is never, ever, ever, ever, EVER to blame fo the situation they are in thus there is no behavior or action on the individuals part to address that may improve their ability to increase their wealth.

 

[Bern80]

A better movie about the threats of unchecked capitalism is Metropolis

Wealthy industrialists keep a slave workforce underground until they decide to kill all the workers and replace them with Robots!

It has a greater chance of happening than Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged

Yes because of course Ayn Rand preaches slavery. Still waiting for that semi-coherrent argument from you righty.

 

[Intense]

A better movie about the threats of unchecked capitalism is Metropolis

Wealthy industrialists keep a slave workforce underground until they decide to kill all the workers and replace them with Robots!

It has a greater chance of happening than Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged

Yes because of course Ayn Rand preaches slavery. Still waiting for that semi-coherrent argument from you righty.

The key word here is Unchecked, not Capitalism, not Free Market. No matter the system, Incompetence leads to the fall. When one abandons Principle, Reason, what's left????

 

[MarcATL]

I see this debate continues. People see the world as they are, as they are programmed to see it, not as it is. If the idea fits their bias great if not.... but out there in the world is a reality and the pudding is the outcome of ideas. Rand's ideas are a justification for inequality and they appeal to many as a excuse, it is always someone's fault, and if only they believed what I believe... no wonder Washington and especially our representatives in congress are considered a joke today. Our best years came about because of the great depression, odd how turmoil wakes some up. Today we slide back to stupid.

"The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate effort to reframe what is important about American politics.

First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role." Henry J. Farrell (from Amazon Review) Amazon.com: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (9781416588696): Paul Pierson, Jacob S. Hacker: Books

WoW!!! Just, wow!

 

[Samson]

A better movie about the threats of unchecked capitalism is Metropolis

Wealthy industrialists keep a slave workforce underground until they decide to kill all the workers and replace them with Robots!

It has a greater chance of happening than Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged

Yes because of course Ayn Rand preaches slavery. Still waiting for that semi-coherrent argument from you righty.

The key word here is Unchecked, not Capitalism, not Free Market.

No matter the system, Incompetence leads to the fall. When one abandons Principle, Reason, what's left????

The socialist agenda of liberal dems.

 

[rightwinger]

A better movie about the threats of unchecked capitalism is Metropolis

Wealthy industrialists keep a slave workforce underground until they decide to kill all the workers and replace them with Robots!

It has a greater chance of happening than Ayn Rands Atlas Shrugged

Yes because of course Ayn Rand preaches slavery. Still waiting for that semi-coherrent argument from you righty.

The key word here is Unchecked, not Capitalism, not Free Market. No matter the system, Incompetence leads to the fall. When one abandons Principle, Reason, what's left????

And who keeps capitalism in check?

The Evil Gubment

 

[Truthmatters]

This rand movie is going to be a real piece of trash which will reflect the trash that is in the original work.

It will be a good thing for the political debate.

 

[konradv]

I see this debate continues. People see the world as they are, as they are programmed to see it, not as it is. If the idea fits their bias great if not.... but out there in the world is a reality and the pudding is the outcome of ideas. Rand's ideas are a justification for inequality and they appeal to many as a excuse, it is always someone's fault, and if only they believed what I believe... no wonder Washington and especially our representatives in congress are considered a joke today. Our best years came about because of the great depression, odd how turmoil wakes some up. Today we slide back to stupid.

"The underlying argument is straightforward. The sources of American economic inequality are largely political - the result of deliberate political decisions to shape markets in ways that benefit the already-privileged at the expense of a more-or-less unaware public. The authors weave a historical narrative which Kevin Drum (who says the same things that I am saying about the book's importance) summarizes cogently here. This is not necessarily original - a lot of leftwing and left-of-center writers have been making similar claims for a long time. What is new is both the specific evidence that the authors use, and their conscious and deliberate effort to reframe what is important about American politics.

First - the evidence. Hacker and Pierson draw on work by economists like Picketty and Saez on the substantial growth in US inequality (and on comparisons between the US and other countries), but argue that many of the explanations preferred by economists (the effects of technological change on demand for skills) simply don't explain what is going on. First, they do not explain why inequality is so top-heavy - that is, why so many of the economic benefits go to a tiny, tiny minority of individuals among those with apparently similar skills. Second, they do not explain cross national variation - why the differences in the level of inequality among advanced industrialized countries, all of which have gone through more-or-less similar technological shocks, are so stark. While Hacker and Pierson agree that technological change is part of the story, they suggest that the ways in which this is channeled in different national contexts is crucial. And it is here that politics plays a key role." Henry J. Farrell (from Amazon Review) Amazon.com: Winner-Take-All Politics: How Washington Made the Rich Richer--and Turned Its Back on the Middle Class (9781416588696): Paul Pierson, Jacob S. Hacker: Books

The reason the can not explain it is because they refuse to consider internal variables that separate haves and have nots and focus only on external variables to explain the disparity. For simply arguments sake we''ll call 5% of the population the haves and the rest the have nots. That isn't too far off the precentage of super wealthy and all other income in this country. Of course there are all kinds of explanations as to how that 5% to 95% split came into being. Of course the possibility exists that there governmental policies in place that make it possible for some to achieve and the rest to fail. However, another, ironically the one libs refuse to acknowledge is that just maybe the percentage of people in this country who have the motivation take the actions necessary to attain wealth is signifantly smaller than those whoe are not motivated to take those actions.

As you can imagine I tend to believe the later is at the very least A factor (if not the overriding factor) contributing to wealth disparity in this country. And it is why you idiot libs can't solve problems. Liberal mentality says the individual is never, ever, ever, ever, EVER to blame fo the situation they are in thus there is no behavior or action on the individuals part to address that may improve their ability to increase their wealth.

You haven't convinced us that government policies are inhibiting people from achieving what they desire. The exact opposite seems to be true, as the the gap between the wealthy and the others has widened over the last few decades. The people who "create wealth" should be growing the pie, not just taking a bigger slice, according to libertarian philosophy, right? Isn't the REAL irony, considering the Reagan Revolution and the Bush Tax Cuts, that that isn't happening?

 

[editec]

That kind of economic TREASON by CAPITAL I have a serious problem with.

Here it is, ladies and gentlemen! The root of the parasite's complaint towards Objectivism! That of the flea's 'right' to the dog. That the have a right to steal from others to support themselves beyond their own efforts. A 'divine' right to be parasites, perchance.

You have no idea how much you are shown clear as day in Atlas Shrugged as nothing more than the looters claiming ownership of the wealthy achievers because you have need.

What next? enslave the rich because they threaten to commit "economic treason"? Hmmm? What punishment do you wish to mete out on the host that wishes to be free of your parasitism?

Thank you for in one sentence exposing your true heart of hearts on the subject. You know you are a parasite and are unrepentantly proud of it.

Game.
Set.
Match.
Career.

I definitely do understand your position, Fritz.

You are an objectivist libertarian that does not believe in the social contract.

Given that supposition, your position, and your objection to mine is logical.

Really this de3bate DOES hinge on that single issue.

Is there (or rather now, was there ever, because clearly there is none now as far as you believe) an IMPLICIT social contract.

I posit that there is, and that when Atlas Shrugs, he does so in violation of that contract.

You do not since you do not believe in that social contract.

I mean we can beat each other up, we can call each other names, but why bother?

Really that single issue (the social contract) is the issue upon which the entire schizm in this society is based.

So what you see as merely invididuals taking their property to another land, I see as the betrayal of the social contract.

What you characterize as benign market forces, I characterize as malignant market treason

The money that they take to another land and use against the well being of this nation and its economy is, AFAIC, not theirs to do THAT with.

The social contract of capitalism implies that the profits collected by the wealthy IS their property, but it ought NOT be property that is then employed to bite the hands that FED it to begin with.

Is thinking that manner makes me a communist?

Then guess what lad...so were the FOUNDING FATHERS.

They ALSO understood that with great wealth comes great social responsibility.

And part of that responsiblity is to support YOUR NATION, the nation which made it possible for YOU to make so much money in the first place.

All you and I can do here, is agree to disagree about this single issue.

But it is that single issue which is at the heart of pretty much every debate that the left and right really has.

That is why this debate never get resolved....it is an impasse.

It is truly a thesis and antithesis colliding in the public square.

But hey I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you.

Your team is winning, right?

Their capital comes and goes across national borders and owes NO ALLIGIANCE to the nations which made it possible for capitalists to amass their vast capital.

But ehere's what you cannot do, if you take that position.

You cannot tell me that you love this nation.

The people you support do not love this nation more than they love their CAPITAL.

Hey, that's okay, just so long as they don't wrap themselves in a flag of sunshine patriotism while they're busy fucking the nation that made them (or more likely their daddies or grandfathers) so rich in the first place.

 

[Truthmatters]

They imbue certain moral superiority on the wealthy.

They are dead wrong on that.

the wealthy are just people and some are good and some are bad people.


The ones who can excell to the highest levels are the ones willing to do ANYTHING for profit.

 

[Bern80]

Yes because of course Ayn Rand preaches slavery. Still waiting for that semi-coherrent argument from you righty.

The key word here is Unchecked, not Capitalism, not Free Market. No matter the system, Incompetence leads to the fall. When one abandons Principle, Reason, what's left????

And who keeps capitalism in check?

The Evil Gubment

Actually no. YOU, the consumer, keep capitalism in check. YOU simply refused to hold up your end of the deal.

 

[MarcATL]

That kind of economic TREASON by CAPITAL I have a serious problem with.

Here it is, ladies and gentlemen! The root of the parasite's complaint towards Objectivism! That of the flea's 'right' to the dog. That the have a right to steal from others to support themselves beyond their own efforts. A 'divine' right to be parasites, perchance.

You have no idea how much you are shown clear as day in Atlas Shrugged as nothing more than the looters claiming ownership of the wealthy achievers because you have need.

What next? enslave the rich because they threaten to commit "economic treason"? Hmmm? What punishment do you wish to mete out on the host that wishes to be free of your parasitism?

Thank you for in one sentence exposing your true heart of hearts on the subject. You know you are a parasite and are unrepentantly proud of it.

Game.
Set.
Match.
Career.

I definitely do understand your position, Fritz.

You are an objectivist libertarian that does not believe in the social contract.

Given that supposition, your position, and your objection to mine is logical.

Really this de3bate DOES hinge on that single issue.

Is there (or rather now, was there ever, because clearly there is none now as far as you believe) an IMPLICIT social contract.

I posit that there is, and that when Atlas Shrugs, he does so in violation of that contract.

You do not since you do not believe in that social contract.

I mean we can beat each other up, we can call each other names, but why bother?

Really that single issue (the social contract) is the issue upon which the entire schizm in this society is based.

So what you see as merely invididuals taking their property to another land, I see as the betrayal of the social contract.

What you characterize as benign market forces, I characterize as malignant market treason

The money that they take to another land and use against the well being of this nation and its economy is, AFAIC, not theirs to do THAT with.

The social contract of capitalism implies that the profits collected by the wealthy IS their property, but it ought NOT be property that is then employed to bite the hands that FED it to begin with.

Is thinking that manner makes me a communist?

Then guess what lad...so were the FOUNDING FATHERS.

They ALSO understood that with great wealth comes great social responsibility.

And part of that responsiblity is to support YOUR NATION, the nation which made it possible for YOU to make so much money in the first place.

All you and I can do here, is agree to disagree about this single issue.

But it is that single issue which is at the heart of pretty much every debate that the left and right really has.

That is why this debate never get resolved....it is an impasse.

It is truly a thesis and antithesis colliding in the public square.

But hey I wouldn't worry about it too much if I were you.

Your team is winning, right?

Their capital comes and goes across national borders and owes NO ALLIGIANCE to the nations which made it possible for capitalists to amass their vast capital.

But ehere's what you cannot do, if you take that position.

You cannot tell me that you love this nation.

The people you support do not love this nation more than they love their CAPITAL.

Hey, that's okay, just so long as they don't wrap themselves in a flag of sunshine patriotism while they're busy fucking the nation that made them (or more likely their daddies or grandfathers) so rich in the first place.

WoW!!

 

[editec]

They imbue certain moral superiority on the wealthy.

Yeah its an old religion with a new title.

In the olden days they'd have been Puritans who ALSO believed that GOD make the rich rich, and only they were morally saved. The wealthy puritans called themselves "THE elect"

Now it is the Randians who have taken up that apology for selfishness mantra

They are dead wrong on that.

You're being kinder than I am about what that really makes them.

the wealthy are just people and some are good and some are bad people.

VERY true.

Most of the very wealthy people I have met were actually extrmely decent people...at least as it regarded interpersonal issues. In the business arena I don't doubt for a moment some of them are selfish pricks.

The ones who can excell to the highest levels are the ones willing to do ANYTHING for profit.

Well certainly in a land that subscribes to the theory that SELFISHNESS IS A VIRTUE, the sociopathic personality has a serious leg up in the game of economics.

And that describes this nation for the last 50 years or so rather well.