How Is Ayn Rand Still A Thing?

[konradv]

Brilliant! Take a good look at your role model, Libertarians and misguided conservatives. Pro-choice, anti-Reagan, anti-religion, anti-native Americans, pro-selfishness...you all picked a winner to emulate.

What a dangerously nazi-style crock of left wing, un-American, democrat socialist propaganda. And it isn't even clever. Just chopped up, out of context propaganda. You lefties must be feeling mighty threatened by the all American concept of individualism and intellectual property as opposed to your sheeple collective socialistic herd think.
Creepy idiocy of the left. Only the mindless vote democrat these days.

Look up False Dilemma.

List of fallacies - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Saying Rand is a screw ball doesn't automatically mean anyone is threatened by individualism. Nice try but, as you can see, Democrats aren't as mindless as you think. You're the one touting an "ism", usually the signature feature of the mindless.

The entire piece is framed for the purpose of disparaging anyone who references Rand. It's less about her and more about disparaging those whom the left fear. You know, freedom and individual liberty fans.

You seem to be the one disparaging anyone referencing Rand. I'm simply disparaging Rand. The fact that you would tout "individualism" as a be all and end all, just shows that she has polluted the minds of a couple of generations now, the same way Marx did.

 

[rightwinger]

[
By looking at the actual RESULTS of that "help" objectively. For instance, since we began spending other people's money on the so called 'great society', whose idea was to end poverty, the rate of poverty has actually increased. In the decades before spending began, the rate of poverty was dropping precipitously. You caused it to go in the opposite direction! But hey, what's tens of trillions of dollars among friends, right? And who cares if you meddlers made the situation worse, it's the intention that counts, right?

And sorry, you don't get to determine what is and what is not "civilized".

So, I ask again, what exactly is it that you find creepy about the notion of personal responsibility and the promise to not accept charity that is forced from strangers? Be specific now...

The problem with your argument is that spending to help poor people increased poverty.

Nope.

What increased poverty was that the wealthy, the 1%ers dismantled the unions that allowed people to get out of poverty with jobs that paid fair wages. They sent the good paying jobs overseas, they replaced people with machines. and all those fucking poor people who couldn't get jobs as good as their parents just fucking refused to dutifully starve to death.

You guys complain about the layabouts who wait for their government checks to arrive, but the fact is, 40% of households that get SNAP benefits have at least one person with a job.

And then you wonder why people vote for democrats.

 

[bripat9643]

"How Is Ayn Rand Still A Thing?"

Because libertarians and most on the right are frightened reactionaries, they seek to return to an idealized American past that never actually existed to begin with – for them the neo-Social Darwinism that Rand advocated is incorrectly perceived to be the means by which to realize that inane and ridiculous goal.

Libturds always sound like colossal morons whenever they start theorizing about the motives of people who object to being slaves for the benefit of parasites.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Like many famous figures, Rand isn't a complete waste of time to read:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand

Yet it is Any Rand libertarians who support private prisons. Private entities lobbying for more prisoners for profit. Their HATE of government of We, the People is coupled with their worship of invisible hands and 'magic' laissez-faire.

Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons
For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.

So you're just going to completely ignore my responses to you on this subject, pointing out that libertarians do not support so-called "private" prisons on the basis that they're not actually private at all, and obstinately going to continue to claim that they do?

The term privatization is used today as a confusion with the contracting out of government services. Governments do not fully privatize services such as prisons, as Tabarrok’s definition explains. They purchase contracts from private firms to provide the services which have grown too costly for them to produce them-selves. This model retains the government’s authority in regulation and authority over the industry.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdf

Contracting out the services, while maintaining absolute authority over the actual running, of the prison system is not privatization. You can quote Gary Johnson if you like, but keep in mind his libertarianism is not quite up to par.

Gary Johnson Libertarian Candidate is Out of His Element US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The libertarian case against Gary Johnson US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Just How Libertarian is Gary Johnson US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I've been saying for years that Gary Johnson has no real understanding of libertarianism.

 

[bripat9643]

Like many famous figures, Rand isn't a complete waste of time to read:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand

Yet it is Any Rand libertarians who support private prisons. Private entities lobbying for more prisoners for profit. Their HATE of government of We, the People is coupled with their worship of invisible hands and 'magic' laissez-faire.

Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons
For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.

So you're just going to completely ignore my responses to you on this subject, pointing out that libertarians do not support so-called "private" prisons on the basis that they're not actually private at all, and obstinately going to continue to claim that they do?

The term privatization is used today as a confusion with the contracting out of government services. Governments do not fully privatize services such as prisons, as Tabarrok’s definition explains. They purchase contracts from private firms to provide the services which have grown too costly for them to produce them-selves. This model retains the government’s authority in regulation and authority over the industry.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdf

Contracting out the services, while maintaining absolute authority over the actual running, of the prison system is not privatization. You can quote Gary Johnson if you like, but keep in mind his libertarianism is not quite up to par.

Gary Johnson Libertarian Candidate is Out of His Element US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The libertarian case against Gary Johnson US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Just How Libertarian is Gary Johnson US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I've been saying for years that Gary Johnson has no real understanding of libertarianism.

The liberal turds keep showering fire and brimstone on private prisons, but I have yet to see any kind of succinct justification for their hatred. What's so terrible about private prisons? How are they any worse than the government run prisons?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Like many famous figures, Rand isn't a complete waste of time to read:

The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.
Ayn Rand

Yet it is Any Rand libertarians who support private prisons. Private entities lobbying for more prisoners for profit. Their HATE of government of We, the People is coupled with their worship of invisible hands and 'magic' laissez-faire.

Presidential candidate Gary Johnson talks guns, for-profit prisons
For-profit prison companies like Correction Corporation of America and GEO Group have been in the news for an array of negative issues, including running dangerous facilities and being accused of lobbying lawmakers to create legislation that would put more people behind bars, including having an influence on Arizona's controversial immigration law, which would put more immigrants in detention facilities.

As governor of New Mexico, Johnson was an avid supporter of private prisons. And although he acknowledges that they have problems, he also believes that the positives outweigh the negatives.

So you're just going to completely ignore my responses to you on this subject, pointing out that libertarians do not support so-called "private" prisons on the basis that they're not actually private at all, and obstinately going to continue to claim that they do?

The term privatization is used today as a confusion with the contracting out of government services. Governments do not fully privatize services such as prisons, as Tabarrok’s definition explains. They purchase contracts from private firms to provide the services which have grown too costly for them to produce them-selves. This model retains the government’s authority in regulation and authority over the industry.

https://mises.org/journals/jls/21_2/21_2_6.pdf

Contracting out the services, while maintaining absolute authority over the actual running, of the prison system is not privatization. You can quote Gary Johnson if you like, but keep in mind his libertarianism is not quite up to par.

Gary Johnson Libertarian Candidate is Out of His Element US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
The libertarian case against Gary Johnson US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Just How Libertarian is Gary Johnson US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

I've been saying for years that Gary Johnson has no real understanding of libertarianism.

The liberal turds keep showering fire and brimstone on private prisons, but I have yet to see any kind of succinct justification for their hatred. What's so terrible about private prisons? How are they any worse than the government run prisons?

The terrible thing about "private" prisons is that they are government prisons.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

However, even Clinton admitted his mistake there:

“On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency,” Clinton told me.

​

“And the flaw in that argument,” Clinton added, “was that first of all sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”

The former President also said he was also wrong about understanding the consequences if the derivatives market tanked. “The most important flaw was even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect a 100 percent of the investments, and indeed a 100 percent of the citizens in countries, not investors, and I was wrong about that.

​

This is the problem with Rand's theories - they assume that business owners are capable of enlightened self-interest, and when left on their own will police themselves, and enure that they do not take any actions that will hurt themselves in the long run. Unfortunately the reality is that business owners are human, and are subject to human nature - they are selfish, greedy, short-sighted, and interested in instant gratification. As such, they only think as far as the next quarter, and how to generate shit-loads of profit - they never consider what that short view will do to the market, or the economy, in the long term, and so they make really bad choices that fuck everyone, including themselves. They also think nothing of their laborers, the consumers, or the environment. So, there needs to be a bit of government oversight to ensure that these short-sighted business owners don't fuck up the whole system in the name of chasing that "last dollar".

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

However, even Clinton admitted his mistake there:

“On derivatives, yeah I think they were wrong and I think I was wrong to take [their advice] because the argument on derivatives was that these things are expensive and sophisticated and only a handful of investors will buy them and they don’t need any extra protection, and any extra transparency. The money they’re putting up guarantees them transparency,” Clinton told me.

​

“And the flaw in that argument,” Clinton added, “was that first of all sometimes people with a lot of money make stupid decisions and make it without transparency.”

The former President also said he was also wrong about understanding the consequences if the derivatives market tanked. “The most important flaw was even if less than 1 percent of the total investment community is involved in derivative exchanges, so much money was involved that if they went bad, they could affect a 100 percent of the investments, and indeed a 100 percent of the citizens in countries, not investors, and I was wrong about that.

​

This is the problem with Rand's theories - they assume that business owners are capable of enlightened self-interest, and when left on their own will police themselves, and enure that they do not take any actions that will hurt themselves in the long run. Unfortunately the reality is that business owners are human, and are subject to human nature - they are selfish, greedy, short-sighted, and interested in instant gratification. As such, they only think as far as the next quarter, and how to generate shit-loads of profit - they never consider what that short view will do to the market, or the economy, in the long term, and so they make really bad choices that fuck everyone, including themselves. They also think nothing of their laborers, the consumers, or the environment. So, there needs to be a bit of government oversight to ensure that these short-sighted business owners don't fuck up the whole system in the name of chasing that "last dollar".

Your explanation of the so-called "problem with Rand's theories" is entirely fictional. Government regulations like CRA caused the problem in 2008, not deregulation. All you have done is post the classic Marxist propaganda that blames private corporations for every problem created by government. Government has been the cause of every financial panic we've ever had, including the one in 2008. It's hardly an argument against laizzed faire economics. In fact, it's precisely the opposite.

 

[Czernobog]

Your explanation of the so-called "problem with Rand's theories" is entirely fictional. Government regulations like CRA caused the problem in 2008, not deregulation. All you have done is post the classic Marxist propaganda that blames private corporations for every problem created by government. Government has been the cause of every financial panic we've ever had, including the one in 2008. It's hardly an argument against laizzed faire economics. In fact, it's precisely the opposite.

That is simply not true. At worst, the CRA can be pointed to as a factor in the collapse of the housing bubble. However, we have had numerous other bubbles burst in the last 30 years that didn't cause a catastrophic cascade across the entire financial sector, decimating the economy. The only reason that the housing collapse was any different was that the housing market got tied directly to the banking industry through the trading of mortgage-backed derivatives. And guess what made that possible? That's right, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed unfettered, unregulated practices in the financial district with absolutely no transparancy necessary. To suggest anything different is simply ignoring reality in order to defend a concept that has already been proven doesn't work.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Hint : it was the failure of civil servant "regulators" that allowed the banking crisis.....those wonderful folk just bended to the will of political influence or were completely inept...

 

[Czernobog]

Hint : it was the failure of civil servant "regulators" that allowed the banking crisis.....those wonderful folk just bended to the will of political influence or were completely inept...

Not really. There wasn't anything exactly "illegal" about what the banks were doing. That was the problem. Under Glass-Steagall, those derivatives would have been entirely illegal. Unfortunately with the removal of that restriction, there really wasn't a whole lot that the regulators could do about what was happening, beyond suggesting that the derivatives were, perhaps, a bad idea.

And, that's kind of the point. Private industry has proven over, and over that they cannot be trusted to police themselves. For this reason, some oversight from the government is required to protect the integrity of the economy.

 

[boedicca]

Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The financial crisis wasn't caused businesses Policing Themselves...it was caused by Big Government Cronyism.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The financial crisis wasn't caused businesses Policing Themselves...it was caused by Big Government Cronyism.

Welll...except the reality suggests that isn't really the case...

 

[boedicca]

Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The financial crisis wasn't caused businesses Policing Themselves...it was caused by Big Government Cronyism.

Welll...except the reality suggests that isn't really the case...

Well, except for the fact that the Financial and Real Estate industries are highly regulated, that the Fed is basically owned by Wall Street with a direct line to the White House, that Federally Subsidized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled the mainstreaming of subprime liar loans, that the Federal Government de facto mandated race based quotas for mortgages which could only be met by subprime loans, that politically connected speculators used such subprime loans to bid up real estate prices in an inflated bubble and then cashed out.....

 

[bripat9643]

Your explanation of the so-called "problem with Rand's theories" is entirely fictional. Government regulations like CRA caused the problem in 2008, not deregulation. All you have done is post the classic Marxist propaganda that blames private corporations for every problem created by government. Government has been the cause of every financial panic we've ever had, including the one in 2008. It's hardly an argument against laizzed faire economics. In fact, it's precisely the opposite.

That is simply not true. At worst, the CRA can be pointed to as a factor in the collapse of the housing bubble. However, we have had numerous other bubbles burst in the last 30 years that didn't cause a catastrophic cascade across the entire financial sector, decimating the economy. The only reason that the housing collapse was any different was that the housing market got tied directly to the banking industry through the trading of mortgage-backed derivatives. And guess what made that possible? That's right, the repeal of Glass-Steagall, which allowed unfettered, unregulated practices in the financial district with absolutely no transparancy necessary. To suggest anything different is simply ignoring reality in order to defend a concept that has already been proven doesn't work.

That's leftwing propaganda. It is true. The CRA and govenrment regulators pushing banks to grant mortgages to unqualified buyers is what caused the sub-prime mortgage debacle. That's why it's called "the sub-prime mortgage debacle."

Liberals have tried to weasel their way around the facts and blame the banks for the problem, but any cursory analysis shows immediately that government had its finger in the process at every point, all the way from origination to securitization and purchase on the secondary market. The claim that under regulation of the banking industry caused the problem is too absurd for words. There are something like 50 different agencies regulating banks.

 

[bripat9643]

Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The financial crisis wasn't caused businesses Policing Themselves...it was caused by Big Government Cronyism.

Welll...except the reality suggests that isn't really the case...

No it doesn't, but a libturd will never admit government was responsible.

 

[Czernobog]

Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The financial crisis wasn't caused businesses Policing Themselves...it was caused by Big Government Cronyism.

Welll...except the reality suggests that isn't really the case...

Well, except for the fact that the Financial and Real Estate industries are highly regulated, that the Fed is basically owned by Wall Street with a direct line to the White House, that Federally Subsidized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled the mainstreaming of subprime liar loans, that the Federal Government de facto mandated race based quotas for mortgages which could only be met by subprime loans, that politically connected speculators used such subprime loans to bid up real estate prices in an inflated bubble and then cashed out.....

That's just it. With the repeal of Glass-Steagall, much of the regulation against the Financial industry went away. That's what opened the door to banks being allowed to do things that 20 years ago would never have been allowed. And with the CRA, much of the regulation of the real estate industry went away, which is what allowed them to push many mortgages that, again, years ago would have been unthinkable. So, it wasn't the lack of enforcing the law; it was the removal of the law that created the environment that allowed for the cluster-fuck that followed.

 

[boedicca]

Actually, on the surface, Rands theories actually make some sense. Business would thrive without government interference, if it would police itself. The problem is, it doesn't. This is evidenced by the financial crisis of `08. Many people rightly point out that Clinton laid the groundwork for that cluster-cuk, by signing the repeal of Glass-Steagall.

The financial crisis wasn't caused businesses Policing Themselves...it was caused by Big Government Cronyism.

Welll...except the reality suggests that isn't really the case...

Well, except for the fact that the Financial and Real Estate industries are highly regulated, that the Fed is basically owned by Wall Street with a direct line to the White House, that Federally Subsidized Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac enabled the mainstreaming of subprime liar loans, that the Federal Government de facto mandated race based quotas for mortgages which could only be met by subprime loans, that politically connected speculators used such subprime loans to bid up real estate prices in an inflated bubble and then cashed out.....

That's just it. With the repeal of Glass-Steagall, much of the regulation against the Financial industry went away. That's what opened the door to banks being allowed to do things that 20 years ago would never have been allowed. And with the CRA, much of the regulation of the real estate industry went away, which is what allowed them to push many mortgages that, again, years ago would have been unthinkable. So, it wasn't the lack of enforcing the law; it was the removal of the law that created the environment that allowed for the cluster-fuck that followed.

Glass-Steagall belongs in the same category as blaming everything on BOOOSSSSH and the Koch Brothers.

There are TONS of other regulations that interfered in the markets - socializing risk and privatizing profit.

If you'd actually like to understand the background, "Reckless Endangerment" is a very good analysis of the crisis.

Amazon.com Reckless Endangerment How Outsized Ambition Greed and Corruption Led to Economic Armageddon eBook Gretchen Morgenson Joshua Rosner Kindle Store

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Hows this for regulation.....

Minimum 20% downpayment, good credit, verifiable employment and income verification, and an ability to understand the mortgage contract you sign. Visionary eh ???

 

[Synthaholic]

Wow..... A list of wealthy folk

If only they ummmm, paid their " fair" share .....

If only!