Holy Ballz!

[John Galt]

Originally Posted by MalcolmSmith

Maybe your problem is you're reading about political science in a dictionary? Get yourself a used high school textbook off of ebay. The statement is basically just referring to the social contract. Without it, things would be all Lord of the Flies up in here. Maybe if you translated your "incumbent inferences," we'd have some idea what's got you so worked up. I don't really see any pu$$ification in it. I think you're reading that into it.

Interesting how the counter examples we have so far are a video game and a novel.

OK


Hmm, what part of this is unclear:

"If you agree with this idea I'm calling you out. I think you are a shameful pussy and I hearby vow to stop contributing to your delinquency."

Signed,

Me, Dis Guy

[Cretaceous Bob]

I think the inherent problem with the article is the no one part. Quite alot of people can make a living without government aid; there are many who would not be able to, and some who are better off for it, but to say that no one could make a living without government aid is patently stupid.

I'm not going to deride the benefit of the many things the government provides to aid employment, though.

[Blitzgal]

Originally Posted by John Galt

Interesting how the counter examples we have so far are a video game and a novel.

The novel being the very text that modern Libertarians base their entire philosophy on, and the video game being a reasonable take down of how a society based on unchecked Capitalism could crumble under its own corruptness. You know, how the world's economy nearly collapsed only a few months ago? And how quickly these captains of industry came begging for scraps from the American taxpayer just to keep their banks in business. A lot of these assholes are the same ones who claim that THEY'RE creating the wealth that keeps America running, except....they're not.

[MalcolmSmith]

Originally Posted by Cretaceous Bob

to say that no one could make a living without government aid is patently stupid.

Name one.

[dfa649]

killer name john.....love ms. rand anywho

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

If Only We Could Be So Lucky

Oh, yes please. By all means, let's give that "strike" a go. I'll tell you what, "achievers" -- you keep your Collateralized Debt Obligations, and we'll keep the food. You take away your energy futures trading, and we'll keep the actual power plants. You run off to your own private island with your structured corporate insurance derivatives, and we'll keep the automobiles, and the boats, and the oil, and the coal, and the grain, and the batteries, and the electronics, and the cows, and the roads and bridges, and the drinking cups, and the indoor plumbing, and the light bulbs, and the televisions, and the art, and the music, and the trees that grow the fruit, and the lumber, and the recycling centers, and the actual pills to cure what ails you, and the fishing lines, and the books, and the buildings, and the railroads, and the little metal clips that hold the little hydraulic lines that keep that gigantic, thundering airplane you're on in the air. We'll keep the borax, iron, salt, aluminum, and steel. We'll keep the corn, the soybeans, the lettuce, and the water. We'll spot you as many U-haul boxes as you need to pack up your money and your stock certificates, and then please, by all means -- teach us a lesson.

Hey Blitzgal,

While I certainly understand the sentiment expressed in this reply, I have a sincere question:

If people really are divided into two factions, 'Workers' being one of them, what should the other faction be called?

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

I didn't write the paragraph. It's a rant from Daily Kos in response to the increased number of conservatives who are now threatening to "go Galt" in response to Obama's marginal income tax hike. One of their tactics apparently will be to join Medicaid early, which to me sounds like they haven't actually read OR understood the book Atlas Shrugged. I'm pretty sure the entire premise of Randian philosophy is to avoid governmental influence.

Google the phrase "going Galt" for a laugh. It's definitely a fringe movement, but it's very entertaining.

When you say 'conservative', do you mean social conservative, fiscal conservative, Republican, or Libertarian? (Feel free to add any sects that I left out.)

I'll agree that most so-called 'conservatives' are reactionary fools, merely interested in playing political sports. I'd disagree that the principle of conservatism is to blame.

Non-mathematical language fucking sucks when one is looking for specificity. A lot of friction between 'liberals' and 'conservatives' is friction between *social* liberals and *social* conservatives. I've found that Libertarians are the best of both worlds. Not that Libertarians are necessarily social liberals, they just don't give a fuck what you do, as long as you aren't directly harming them or others.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

Now back on topic, my main issue with Randians and Objectivists is that they live in a fantasy world.

The sad truth is most everyone lives in one fantasy-land or the another. My personal beliefs imply that billions of theists are stark, raving, mad.

The thing about fantasy-lands, or ideals, is that they tend to shape individual behavior and society as a whole. Generally, most ideals are good. I can't really argue with any of the social ideals that theists espouse, my disagreement is on a more fundamental level.

Collectivism, socialism especially, is a truly beautiful ideal. IMHO, the PRC's constitution is equally as beautiful as ours. My disagreement with socialism is regarding the loss of personal liberty. The concept of liberty, to me, is so extraordinary and so superb, I place it above all other human ideals; even to the detriment of society as a whole.

For example, homosexuality; social conservatives happily trample on liberty when it conflicts with their own theological beliefs. I find it utterly unacceptable. All humans must be completely equal in the eyes of the state, under all conditions; no compromises.


In general, our country is a shining example that liberty is beneficial to society, and in fact, all of humanity.

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by MalcolmSmith

I don't really see any pu$$ification in it.

Awwww, come on Malcolm; not even the slightest pussification?

[dzagama]

Originally Posted by Blitzgal

The novel being the very text that modern Libertarians base their entire philosophy on, and the video game being a reasonable take down of how a society based on unchecked Capitalism could crumble under its own corruptness. You know, how the world's economy nearly collapsed only a few months ago? And how quickly these captains of industry came begging for scraps from the American taxpayer just to keep their banks in business. A lot of these assholes are the same ones who claim that THEY'RE creating the wealth that keeps America running, except....they're not.

Capitalism has it's own checking mechanism. It's called failure. Failure and public humiliation. It's sad people don't have the balls to let it work as it's supposed to.

Centrally-managed economies collapse, as well; even teeny-tiny ones. If we've learned anything, we've learned that economies collapse.

Trust me, I share your outrage against corruption, but the stance you're taking is so short-sighted it seems silly. Societies are recursive entities. There are absolutely no lines separating the head from the tail, or one side from the other.



Ah, I'm hung over. I'll be back later, peeps.