Jᴀᴄᴜʀᴜᴛᴜ - Tʜᴇ Cᴀsᴛ Oᴜᴛ

http://www.npr.org/2011/11/14/142245517 ... rugged-off" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What does everyone think about her "philosophy"? Is she right?

my anti-Randian diatribes here:
http://tau.solahpmo.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1467" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Her philosophy is bullshit extreme, never would work.Basically the "have's" and fuck everyone else.

It is anti-Marxism, basically. Whoever is able to wrest some value out of the system (which includes other people, infrastructure paid for in common, ideas generated through millennia of civilisation, societal institutions, help and goodwill) has an absolute right to that value, and the right to defend it using deadly force if necessary. It is the belief that time started one second ago; grab everything you can. It rejects any possibility that your success and property is created in any part or way through anything else than your efforts.
It is the belief that you have never benefitted at all, from the infrastructure of your country, the civilisation around you or the knowledge imparted on you through others.

It is, in a word, horseshit.

Also, it is frighteningly similar to minimal-state nutjobs like Nozick and Friedman. Just add a train fetish and a more malleable canvas (book vs world).

On a similar note, I decided the other day that "1 vote per person" democracy is anti-capitalist.

Obviously some people are more productive/possibly more intelligent than the rest, so they should have a greater say than the rest because they obviously have better opinions. My vote should count for more than someone flipping burgers, and it should count for less than someone running a large company. Thusly, votes should cost money, and there should be no limit on how many one person can buy. THAT would be the REAL capitalist way to do things.

Also, privatize the fire dept, it's clearly inefficient and bogged down by regulations, they should respond to fires at the houses of people who own shares in the fire dept only.

I've been having a sarcastic week.

I've never done much reading of her or her philosophy, but what I have read leads me to think that it's agreat philosophy for those who don't want to accept any accountability. Fuck them.

My friend likes her and seems to think it's all about accountability and being responsible for your own actions. It's just in crazy backwards land as I understand it, it's your fault if you're poor (which admittedly it sometimes is), but it's not your fault if you make someone poor, it's their fault automatically by default.

SandRider wrote:my anti-Randian diatribes here:
http://tau.solahpmo.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1467" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

God damn! Best critique of Rand I've read in years.

I read The Fountainhead and The Virtue of Selfishness about seven years ago because a girl that I was banging told me they were her favorite books. Not surprisingly, she was a wealthy republican.

At the time I was a college pseudo-intellectual 23 year old student majoring in European history, and I must say that Sandrider is correct in saying that one should not read her work at such a gullible period in life.

It took me a few months just to stop talking about Rand, and after my relationship with the republican babe went to shit my appetite for Ayn's philosophy followed suit.

Good writing, but her theories stank of neoliberalism ( I seriously doubt that many teabaggers have read her stuff, they don't strike me as the 'reading type' )

Man that chick was hot ...

She ended up marrying some Reagan nut hugger.

"I feel that it is terrible that you see destruction all around you, and that you are moving toward disaster until and unless all those welfare state conceptions have been reversed and rejected," Rand answers.

These programs are destroying individual liberties, Rand says, especially the freedom of producers, entrepreneurs, businessmen. The government has no right to take their property, she says.

[from the linked interview]

This reminds me of an awesome book by David Harvey, "A brief history of neoliberalism" (2005).

'Planning and control are being attacked as a denial of freedom. Free enterprise and private ownership are declared to be essentials of freedom. No society built on other foundations is said to deserve to be called free. The freedom that regulation creates is denounced as unfreedom; the justice, liberty and welfare it offers are decried as a camouflage of slavery.'

The idea of freedom 'thus degenerates into a mere advocacy of 'free enterprise', which means 'the fullness of freedom for those whose income, leisure and security need no enhancing, and a mere pittance of liberty for the people, who may in vain attempt to make use of their democratic rights to gain shelter from the power of the owners of property'. But if, as is always the case, 'no society is possible in which power and compulsion are absent, nor a world in which force has no function', then the only way this liberal utopian vision could be sustained is by force, violence, and authoritarianism... or even outright fascism.

[emphasis added]

Her vision is no more plausible than a society based completely on socialism. It just won't work. It relies on the wealthy and powerful to be our masters be it good or bad for us. It's extreme bullshit of the highest order....but what is really scary is how many of our elected officials actually agree with her and try to pass policy which is in accordance to her philosophies.

No society built on either extreme will ever do well in my opinion, when you get to that point they both require an amount of delusion about human nature in order to function. I used to think that somewhere between them was the perfect blend, but my first reading of Dune made me rethink this idea and realize that it has to be fluid. The blend of capitalist and socialist values needs to be ever shifting to fit the generation, the environment, the politics in other countries, the list goes on.

I've met quite a few people that THOUGHT they were either capitalist or socialist, a short discussion with me has almost always left them realizing they too in fact believe in a blend.

Hey AToE, check out "The Great Transformation" (Karl Polanyi) for a good read. I think you'll like it

Or as I like to put it: You never want to be stuck on an island with a bunch of Objectivists.

(Work in progress) 12 Objectivists are shipwrecked on a desert island...

...they still can't afford to build a raft. (this one is weak because it requires too much background: i.e. one of them has a monopoly on the island's wood and won't sell it cheaply enough to build a raft, etc.)

...the only one that escaped was an Olympic long distance swimmer. (Because its something s/he could do by their own self.)

http://www.yogadork.com/news/stephen-co ... lariously/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Whenever I encounter a Randroid libertarian, they always want to tell me that "selfishness is a virtue." And I get what they mean by that: Individuals can make opportunities for many, what's good for business is good for all of us, trickle down economics, and so on. And yes, I fully believe that capitalism has created the best living standards ever seen on this planet. It's just that it's those same Rand-fanatics that turn a blind eye to the excesses of capitalism when it does hurt people (risky derivatives trading, unregulated mines, environmental pollution, etc). Its at this point that Rand's theories fall apart and corporations become self-righteous monsters with enough cash to buy their way out of accountability on the political field.

The Fox News narrative of "Unfettered Capitalism or Bust" is just the wrong way to look at any government. It smacks of the classic "You're either with us, or you're against us" mentality that rose in the aftermath of 9/11, and it's suicidal.

Any argument, any legislation, any government should require NUANCE. This means well thought-out and reasoned approaches to these things, not entrenched ideologies. Does capitalism provide the best living standards on earth? Generally, yes. Okay, but does a profit-driven system work when trying to save peoples' lives, IE the healthcare debate, etc? No. 30-Million unprotected US citizens is a tragedy, so maybe look at what other industrialized countries have been doing for most of the last century, and apply a little socialism where needed. Instead of the Randian "socialism=death" false dichotomy.

Basically, what I'm saying is Canada has it right.
It's all about nuance.

Canada keeps sounding better all the time.

Plenty of issues here as well, we're far from the correct balance (for our culture at this given moment in time) of capitalism and socialism.

The problem with either extreme is that they're both foolish ideologies that turn a blind eye to obvious defects in their plans. Have to have a balance, and an ever shifting balance at that.

And it pays to look at completely new ideas - both our countries are FAR too caught up in tradition, and holding to what was a good idea a hundred, or hundreds of years ago. Now is now and requires new ways.

A bit off-topic but...

I loved the back and forth on CNN the other day about out-of-work millionaires collecting unemployment insurance.

Maker knows I'll never be a millionaire, so it's not really something I need ever worry about, but I say if they had to pay into the system (had it taken out of their pay), then they're entitled to draw it just like everyone else. If you're not going to pay them, they don't take it out of their wages.

I mean, everyone shits themselves over any little mention of "socialism", but how the fuck is "From each according to his [salary], to each according to his need" not socialism? Or, worse, its butt-uglier sister?!

Dumbfucks.

I thought that was exactly what socialism was.

Right!

And that's what's so amusing (to me): it's the same people who get their tits all in a twist (increasing that rosy glow?! ) over any mention or even thought of socialism that are suggesting it.


(Off on another tangent: one reason I'm watching the silliness around health care is I definitely don't want to see anything like the Japanese system... it's basically a second income tax levied on your income the year before. [I know, I've gone on about this before.] About 10% of your income, up to an annual maximum of 600,000 yen, payable in monthly or quarterly installments. That's why when the uni told me they weren't going to match funds and pay half of my health insurance like the tech high school+college I worked at before, I dropped the insurance. No more than I used it at the time—this was before the BP & dental problems of the last few years—I just couldn't see paying it. )

My company is changing their HC, we'll no longer have a co-pay but a $1500 personal/$3000 family deductible with a $6000 out of pocket max.

I'm going today for a (paid for) "health screening", after which, the company is supposed to contribute a certain amount to a "Health Savings Account" or some such bullshit.

I also had to sign a promise to "try" to quit smoking or pay $600.

Sure, I'll try... fucking socialists.

Monday at noon was probably a bad time to have my blood pressure measured.

Freakzilla wrote:I'm going today for a (paid for) "health screening", after which, the company is supposed to contribute a certain amount to a "Health Savings Account" or some such bullshit.

I am married to a contract negotiator with a very large health insurance company and this is one of the things she tries to warn my entire family about. I would never agree to this. This practice will be the end of a legitimate health insurance. The whole idea behind insurance is the law of large numbers. If we start giving people preferential treatment for policies than it removes the ability to get insurance for pre-existing conditions. If anything had been wrong with you then good luck ever getting coverage for it again. The fact that they know you're a smoker now may bite you in the ass down the road. People who need it the most will not have access which is the exact opposite of what we want.

I'm think of going with the Veterans Administration for my personal insurance but it really wouldn't save me much money. Covering the kids is the real cost.

Nekhrun wrote:

Freakzilla wrote:I'm going today for a (paid for) "health screening", after which, the company is supposed to contribute a certain amount to a "Health Savings Account" or some such bullshit.

I am married to a contract negotiator with a very large health insurance company and this is one of the things she tries to warn my entire family about. I would never agree to this. This practice will be the end of a legitimate health insurance. The whole idea behind insurance is the law of large numbers. If we start giving people preferential treatment for policies than it removes the ability to get insurance for pre-existing conditions. If anything had been wrong with you then good luck ever getting coverage for it again. The fact that they know you're a smoker now may bite you in the ass down the road. People who need it the most will not have access which is the exact opposite of what we want.

There have always been price/premium differences for smokers and non-smokers in life and health policies. They are just getting a bit serious about it now, and including things like weight and overall health. Probably their right, as regulations generally give them the authority to differentiate insureds into different risk pools. My company is doing it with Aetna, but I have Kaiser, and they don't do any of that crap at all.

Yet.