"atlas shrugged" will change the face of american politics

[Big Fitz]

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.

Well, at least you have no interest in knowing what you're talking about.

 

[Truthmatters]

They day these people act like Jesus taught then I will respect them.


They day they dont I will excoriate them.

That day arrived long ago and its why I go after them.

 

[Big Fitz]

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

You know nothing of what I am. This proves it.

 

[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.

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?

They are growing the pie. When Bill Gates created Microsoft, he grew the pie by not only increasing his wealth but creating jobs that created wealth for others. Most any business owner that is doing a good job such that their service or product increases in demand is going to grow the pie as they need more people to help fill the demand.

 

[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.

Well, at least you have no interest in knowing what you're talking about.

Rand was a second class writer who wrote and preached of a philosophy the American people dont agree with.


She was a champion of the wealthy.

It will fail just like it did in print.


Yes her book sold alot of copies but never was able to turn that into a real movement.

Lots of people have read her stuff over the years and found it very lacking

 

[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.

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... just wow.

Enemies of the state... economic treason... slavery... mind crimes... all screaming for validation.

What more is there to say other than Seig heil, Comrade. I'm not even going to bother to respond to such colossal stupidity. Just hope you end up in the rulership class, because otherwise... you're utterly fucked.

 

[Truthmatters]

Rand philosophy will make no ground with this second rate film of a second rate book.

 

[Big Fitz]

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.

Well, at least you have no interest in knowing what you're talking about.

Rand was a second class writer who wrote and preached of a philosophy the American people dont agree with.


She was a champion of the wealthy.

It will fail just like it did in print.


Yes her book sold alot of copies but never was able to turn that into a real movement.

Lots of people have read her stuff over the years and found it very lacking

ROFL... first published in 1957... never been out of print since. Yeah, that's a steaming pile of fail indeed. I can see you've never read it, or understand what it is. Someone else told you to hate it, and like a good useful idiot, you do.

I only hope I can write a novel that's such a failure.

Rand was the champion of the right for the individual to exist. For them to keep the fruits and profits of their achievement. The fact that success, right to property, and wealth go hand in hand is lost upon you. The poor never improve. The rich never decline the middle class vanish into poverty till nothing is left in your fantasy world.

 

[Bern80]

Rand philosophy will make no ground with this second rate film of a second rate book.

Probably not. Because the parasites of society like yourself who think they are entitled to something for nothing have outweighed those with any actual integrity.

 

[konradv]

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?

They are growing the pie. When Bill Gates created Microsoft, he grew the pie by not only increasing his wealth but creating jobs that created wealth for others. Most any business owner that is doing a good job such that their service or product increases in demand is going to grow the pie as they need more people to help fill the demand.

That doesn't address why wages are stagnant despite higher productivity and longer working hours. We're using the Gates products every day, but not seeing the reward for increased productivity.

 

[Truthmatters]

Rand philosophy will make no ground with this second rate film of a second rate book.

Probably not. Because the parasites of society like yourself who think they are entitled to something for nothing have outweighed those with any actual integrity.

making up lies about what others believe is all you have?

 

[Truthmatters]

Well, at least you have no interest in knowing what you're talking about.

Rand was a second class writer who wrote and preached of a philosophy the American people dont agree with.


She was a champion of the wealthy.

It will fail just like it did in print.


Yes her book sold alot of copies but never was able to turn that into a real movement.

Lots of people have read her stuff over the years and found it very lacking

ROFL... first published in 1957... never been out of print since. Yeah, that's a steaming pile of fail indeed. I can see you've never read it, or understand what it is. Someone else told you to hate it, and like a good useful idiot, you do.

I only hope I can write a novel that's such a failure.

Rand was the champion of the right for the individual to exist. For them to keep the fruits and profits of their achievement. The fact that success, right to property, and wealth go hand in hand is lost upon you. The poor never improve. The rich never decline the middle class vanish into poverty till nothing is left in your fantasy world.

I think you dont even know what Rand championed.

 

[Bern80]

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.

What a steaming pile of self-righteous bullshit.

Social contract? Bullshit you believe in social contracts. If you do it's one I've never heard of. Is it the one that says I am obligated to provide you with your standard of living? The whole social contract thing is greed personified. A concept created as an excuse for people to hold other's responsible for their outcomes.

The social contracts i believe in are simple. I have the right to be compensated for providing you with a good or service and that compensation doesn't have any strings other than what we both agree prior to engaging in the transaction.

 

[Samson]

I think you dont even know what Rand championed.

I KNOW you haven't the slightest inkling.

 

[Truthmatters]

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


lets discuss it then





My philosophy, in essence, is 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.

—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged[4]

 

[Samson]

Objectivism (Ayn Rand) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


lets discuss it then





My philosophy, in essence, is 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.

—Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged[4]

Well? Go ahead, TM, and tell us what you think is wrong with that.

 

[Bern80]

Rand was a second class writer who wrote and preached of a philosophy the American people dont agree with.


She was a champion of the wealthy.

It will fail just like it did in print.


Yes her book sold alot of copies but never was able to turn that into a real movement.

Lots of people have read her stuff over the years and found it very lacking

ROFL... first published in 1957... never been out of print since. Yeah, that's a steaming pile of fail indeed. I can see you've never read it, or understand what it is. Someone else told you to hate it, and like a good useful idiot, you do.

I only hope I can write a novel that's such a failure.

Rand was the champion of the right for the individual to exist. For them to keep the fruits and profits of their achievement. The fact that success, right to property, and wealth go hand in hand is lost upon you. The poor never improve. The rich never decline the middle class vanish into poverty till nothing is left in your fantasy world.

I think you dont even know what Rand championed.

Okay truth. Tell us (in your opinion) what she championed. (this oughta be good)

 

[Truthmatters]

The thing wrong with that quote is that man is a pack animal.

Selfishness is counter to every human society that is seen as good for mankind.


Rand believed that shelfishness was a vertue.


The funny thing is she hated libertarians who now call her a god.


Libertarianism and Objectivism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Rand's view of libertarians
Ayn Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism.[3] Rand said of libertarians that:

"They are not defenders of capitalism. They're a group of publicity seekers... most of them are my enemies... I've read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given."[3]

In an 1981 interview, Rand described Libertarians as "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people" who "plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose."[3]

 

[Big Fitz]

The thing wrong with that quote is that man is a pack animal.

Wrong. A social animal. Distinct difference.

Selfishness is counter to every human society that is seen as good for mankind.

And yet in nature selfishness is considered a survival trait. The drive to make sure you get your own needs met first and foremost. When there is no concept of sharing and working in partnership, this is an essential trait to have.

Rand did not say objectivism is "I've got mine now fuck you". In practice, its making sure that you get your needs and desires met. Mazlow's hierarchy of needs reflects this too.

Rand believed that shelfishness was a vertue.

In a society that demands self sacrifice above all, it sure as hell is. Never heard of General Pyrrus and a Pyrrhic Victory have you? If you sacrifice too much, you transform from a provider to a victim.

The funny thing is she hated libertarians who now call her a god.

I only see liberals and progressives accusing libertarians of calling her a god. Nobody else though.

Rand's view of libertarians
Ayn Rand condemned libertarianism as being a greater threat to freedom and capitalism than both modern liberalism and conservativism.[3] Rand said of libertarians that:

"They are not defenders of capitalism. They're a group of publicity seekers... most of them are my enemies... I've read nothing by a Libertarian (when I read them, in the early years) that wasn't my ideas badly mishandled—i.e., had the teeth pulled out of them—with no credit given."[3]

In an 1981 interview, Rand described Libertarians as "a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people" who "plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose."[3]

In 1981, she was mostly right. Libertarianism back then was a few steps from anarchy which is worse than worthless. It's dangerous. Since that era, Libertarianism has become a third direction and path away from the two party dichotomy of growing government in different sectors while taking turns. They've become the contrary "smaller, not no, government". That makes it distinctly different. It is now a respecter of government's purpose for existing, but within strict and narrow lines of power.

Again though, what are you complaining about... other than your incorrect understandings?

 

[Samson]

The thing wrong with that quote is that man is a pack animal.

Selfishness is counter to every human society that is seen as good for mankind.


Rand believed that shelfishness was a vertue.

You mean the quote YOU posted was a Lie?

My philosophy, in essence, is 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

I don't read anything about "selfishness as a virtue." Where do you read that?

Whay are you making things up?