[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Proteinpowda wrote:
I don’t quite think Greenspan is comparable to Wesley Mouch…
It would’ve been interesting if Rand ever ran for office. She could have quite possibly been president…
Goodbye to welfare; medicaid; social security; most taxes; etc.
A dream come true!!
[/quote]
You prove your dumbness more and more with every post.
[quote]harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Proteinpowda wrote:
I don’t quite think Greenspan is comparable to Wesley Mouch…
It would’ve been interesting if Rand ever ran for office. She could have quite possibly been president…
Goodbye to welfare; medicaid; social security; most taxes; etc.
A dream come true!!
You prove your dumbness more and more with every post.
[/quote]
Maybe you don’t mind being a milk cow for other people’s needs. I do.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Maybe you don’t mind being a milk cow for other people’s needs. I do.
[/quote]
After suggesting the complete elimination of all social programs, you may wish to reflect upon the likely disposition of those unfortunates who would be driven to extreme measures in such a case.
Ayn Rand may think altruism is foolish, but altruism is, more often than not, informed by a good bit of self interest.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
harris447 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Proteinpowda wrote:
I don’t quite think Greenspan is comparable to Wesley Mouch…
It would’ve been interesting if Rand ever ran for office. She could have quite possibly been president…
Goodbye to welfare; medicaid; social security; most taxes; etc.
A dream come true!!
You prove your dumbness more and more with every post.
Maybe you don’t mind being a milk cow for other people’s needs. I do.
[/quote]
No, I mind a society with elderly people starving to death because your beloved corporations have eliminated their pensions.
I mind a world where measles, rubella, and diphtheria rule because poor children weren’t innoculated.
Your rugged individualism would be more believable if you had anything toback it up besides “YAY, Ayn Rand rules!”
[quote]nephorm wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Maybe you don’t mind being a milk cow for other people’s needs. I do.
After suggesting the complete elimination of all social programs, you may wish to reflect upon the likely disposition of those unfortunates who would be driven to extreme measures in such a case.
Ayn Rand may think altruism is foolish, but altruism is, more often than not, informed by a good bit of self interest.[/quote]
Nephorm,
The problem is that those individuals then begin demanding as a right what was before a benevolent gift. They then vote into power those willing to force the productive members of society to pay their bills. This must eventually lead to an ever more powerful government, degenerating into despotism. This is why I say a welfare-state must become fascist.
Wouldn’t it be better to nip this before it happens? Let’s think long term.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
monte1978 wrote:
How does that imply that Rynd influenced our fiscal policy???
Atlas Shrugged – buy a copy. What would happen to our economy if Atlas did indeed shrug? Read the book (several times) and learn.
[/quote]
Sir, my question and point is the Fedral Reserve is only a branch of the goverment. It, among other things,sets bank interest rates, lower it more money is injected into economy, raise it there is less.That was Alan’s job- period.Now if Rand had here way the ratio of lawyers to all other citezens would have to be 1:1.
Headhunter, it sounds like you are buying into someones fear mongering. While I agree that an ever more powerful government is a problem, there are also problems incurred by eliminating government.
Obviously, ways need to be found to combat problems at both ends of the spectrum. The dangers are great at both ends…
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
The problem is that those individuals then begin demanding as a right what was before a benevolent gift. They then vote into power those willing to force the productive members of society to pay their bills. This must eventually lead to an ever more powerful government, degenerating into despotism. This is why I say a welfare-state must become fascist.
Wouldn’t it be better to nip this before it happens? Let’s think long term.
[/quote]
You can flip this around and say if no social programs exist revolution by the poor masses is inevitable and some for of communism will be put in place.
Since I am a more coherent thinker than the simplistic Rand I realize that there must be balance between the the extremes.
Of course balance does not sell books and excite people.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The problem is that those individuals then begin demanding as a right what was before a benevolent gift. They then vote into power those willing to force the productive members of society to pay their bills. This must eventually lead to an ever more powerful government, degenerating into despotism. This is why I say a welfare-state must become fascist.
Wouldn’t it be better to nip this before it happens? Let’s think long term.
You can flip this around and say if no social programs exist revolution by the poor masses is inevitable and some for of communism will be put in place.
Since I am a more coherent thinker than the simplistic Rand I realize that there must be balance between the the extremes.
Of course balance does not sell books and excite people.[/quote]
Well, my great contention with Randian philosophy is that it does not work anymore.
In the world we live in, “rugged individualism” has long since boogied out the door. The influence of corporations on the government has put classes at odds in a different way than they have been before. It is no longer factory owner vs. union labor. It is now every individual who believes that we run the government vs. these corporations, massive conglomerates.
The fact that they have so much influence nullifies any hope of real individualism anymore. Where her philosophy was once a valid thought about America (pre- 20th century America), it is gone with the interconnectedness that the world has now.
Those are my thoughts at least. What say you Headhunter?
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The problem is that those individuals then begin demanding as a right what was before a benevolent gift. They then vote into power those willing to force the productive members of society to pay their bills. This must eventually lead to an ever more powerful government, degenerating into despotism. This is why I say a welfare-state must become fascist.
Wouldn’t it be better to nip this before it happens? Let’s think long term.
You can flip this around and say if no social programs exist revolution by the poor masses is inevitable and some for of communism will be put in place.
Since I am a more coherent thinker than the simplistic Rand I realize that there must be balance between the the extremes.
Of course balance does not sell books and excite people.[/quote]
What’s the ‘balance’ between freedom and slavery? Can a country exist very long as half-slave, half-free? (Where’ve I heard that before? 
What happens if the producers decide to get pissed about providing a bonanza for those who produce nothing?
What if Atlas, the giant who holds the world aloft on his shoulders, who, the more he tries to hold the world up, the more the world bears down upon him, decided to simply shrug?
zap-excellent post. balance is the key to everything IMHO.
[quote]monte1978 wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
monte1978 wrote:
How does that imply that Rynd influenced our fiscal policy???
Atlas Shrugged – buy a copy. What would happen to our economy if Atlas did indeed shrug? Read the book (several times) and learn.
Sir, my question and point is the Fedral Reserve is only a branch of the goverment. It, among other things,sets bank interest rates, lower it more money is injected into economy, raise it there is less.That was Alan’s job- period.Now if Rand had here way the ratio of lawyers to all other citezens would have to be 1:1.[/quote]
The federal reserve is not a branch of government. It is a private corporation.
Headhunter,
I guess you feel that the police and military are worthless encumbrances on your earning ability?
Irish,
The position of the individual is, IMO, actually stronger than before. In 19th and early 20th century America, proposing a union was a certain firing and possibly even death. Working for a large corporation meant actually surrendering your self. Remember Ford and his thought-police, for example?
Now, if you’re unhappy with a job, you are much more mobile. Got an oppressive workplace? Go to Monster.com.
To the main point: The unique achievement of the Founding Fathers is that they created the first MORAL society on earth. Before, governments were above morality, not subject to any moral law. They just had to keep the populace from revolting. The FFs made a government subject to moral laws. They looked at what a criminal does and forbade the government from acting like a criminal.
But this has been eroded by socialistic/fascistic ideas. Create a government that robs one group and takes this wealth and gives it to another group, under the guise of benevolence. That society, being based upon increasing violence against individuals (through income taxes, regulations, and so forth) must degenerate into a pile of ‘ruin and slaughter’ (to quote Ms. Rand). You simply can’t have a long-enduring society based upon force. (Even China had revolutions every few hundred years and that’s the most stable on earth!)
The only type of government proper to man is one in which the basic premise is ‘Hands Off!’. Eventually, let’s hope the parasites and recipients of plundered wealth realize that too!!
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The problem is that those individuals then begin demanding as a right what was before a benevolent gift. They then vote into power those willing to force the productive members of society to pay their bills. This must eventually lead to an ever more powerful government, degenerating into despotism. This is why I say a welfare-state must become fascist.
Wouldn’t it be better to nip this before it happens? Let’s think long term.
You can flip this around and say if no social programs exist revolution by the poor masses is inevitable and some for of communism will be put in place.
Since I am a more coherent thinker than the simplistic Rand I realize that there must be balance between the the extremes.
Of course balance does not sell books and excite people.
What’s the ‘balance’ between freedom and slavery? Can a country exist very long as half-slave, half-free? (Where’ve I heard that before? What happens if the producers decide to get pissed about providing a bonanza for those who produce nothing?
What if Atlas, the giant who holds the world aloft on his shoulders, who, the more he tries to hold the world up, the more the world bears down upon him, decided to simply shrug?
[/quote]
What slavery are you talking about? Slavery is a terrible analogy.
The welfare recipient has no control over what the worker/producer does although he may eat some of the things that have spilled off the producers plate.
You could equate the social programs with a parasite/host relationship but not a master/slave relationship.
The host is always in charge. If there sre too many parasites the host gets sick.
There will always be parasites. The key is to keep them minimized.
I find it stunning that anyone takes Rand seriously.
[quote]vroom wrote:
Headhunter,
I guess you feel that the police and military are worthless encumbrances on your earning ability?[/quote]
We’ve covered this before. See Ms. Rand’s article on government financing in a free society. Happy Googling!
BTW: I know you won’t read it but I feel every human being should have an opportunity to see for themselves.
[quote]nephorm wrote:
zed962 wrote:
The Politics and Nicomachean Ethics are two of my favorite reads ever. They were assigned in a political philosophy class but I held on to the books just to have in my library.
Where was the class?[/quote]
I took it at Michigan State. It was PLS 180: Intro to Political Philosophy. I must’ve had about 15-20 books for that class. We read Plato, Aristotle, The Federalist Papers, Nietzsche, and Marx just to name a few. It was honestly an incredible class. The Prof’s name was William Allen, probably one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. He also wrote, among other things, an analysis of The Federalist Papers called The Federalist Papers: A Commentary, which we also read in class. As a side note, our final exam was one question: What is the best regime? Two hours and fifteen minutes later I was told I had to leave.
Zac
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
The problem is that those individuals then begin demanding as a right what was before a benevolent gift. They then vote into power those willing to force the productive members of society to pay their bills. This must eventually lead to an ever more powerful government, degenerating into despotism. This is why I say a welfare-state must become fascist.
Wouldn’t it be better to nip this before it happens? Let’s think long term.
You can flip this around and say if no social programs exist revolution by the poor masses is inevitable and some for of communism will be put in place.
Since I am a more coherent thinker than the simplistic Rand I realize that there must be balance between the the extremes.
Of course balance does not sell books and excite people.
What’s the ‘balance’ between freedom and slavery? Can a country exist very long as half-slave, half-free? (Where’ve I heard that before? What happens if the producers decide to get pissed about providing a bonanza for those who produce nothing?
What if Atlas, the giant who holds the world aloft on his shoulders, who, the more he tries to hold the world up, the more the world bears down upon him, decided to simply shrug?
What slavery are you talking about? Slavery is a terrible analogy.
The welfare recipient has no control over what the worker/producer does although he may eat some of the things that have spilled off the producers plate.
You could equate the social programs with a parasite/host relationship but not a master/slave relationship.
The host is always in charge. If there sre too many parasites the host gets sick.
There will always be parasites. The key is to keep them minimized.
I find it stunning that anyone takes Rand seriously.[/quote]
I find it stunning that anyone thinks that threats of force (jail time, confiscation of property) is an efficient way to run a country. What happens when the productive people get tired of being robbed, held hostage by their own virtues?
[quote]We’ve covered this before. See Ms. Rand’s article on government financing in a free society. Happy Googling!
BTW: I know you won’t read it but I feel every human being should have an opportunity to see for themselves. [/quote]
Dude, that’s generally not the way it works. If you have a point, why don’t you take the time to support it.
Damn, this is really funny, you read a book and now have this radical philosophy. Oh well, I suppose you could have read a worse book.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
I find it stunning that anyone thinks that threats of force (jail time, confiscation of property) is an efficient way to run a country. What happens when the productive people get tired of being robbed, held hostage by their own virtues?
[/quote]
They complain about it on the internet.
Productive people generally don’t have the time or inclination to upset the apple cart.