Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Zafer Kaya]

though i imagine any philosopher would feel their ideas blasphemized.

 

That's what is hilarious about Ayn Rand  Because its actually Nietschze and Adam Smith who should be mad at her.  She pretty much just ripped them both off and mashed their philosophies together and called it her own.
 
Yet somehow, she's taking credit for it.  AND she's got the nerve on top of that to get mad at libertarians for ripping her off, when libertarianism has been around since the enlightenment.

but what i asked of you is the unilateral slaughter of state leaders replaced by john galt. 

That question doesn't make any sense.  Have you read Nietszche?

1)  John Galt doesn't need to slaughter people or have people slaughtered on his behalf because he's way too bad-ass for that.  Physical violence is a tool for the weak.  The looters will always lose because they can't exist without Galt but Galt can exist without them.  The looters only exist because Galt allows them to.  All he has to do is change his mind.

2) John Galt would never replace a state leader because he has no desire to lead anyone, nor should any rational person desire to be led.

It's the same thing with the sex scene we talked about earlier.  Rand does not condone violence against women or anyone else.  But, at the same time, if you are stupid/weak enough to let it happen then so be it.  The trick to all of Rand's sex scenes is that the woman actually wants sex but thinks it is wrong because of their unfortunate traditional sense of morality/culture upbringing.  The ubermensch doesn't give a crap and takes what he wants. 

It's up to Dagny and Dominique to stop Roark and Galt, and they are capable of doing so.  When they start getting cuffed around they come to that realization.  They're like "Hey, I don't have to take this... so why am I?"  They come to the realization that this is only happening because they secretly wanted this so they just let go and enjoy the sex.  The sex is consensual.

What happens to the protagonists at the end of Atlas Shrugged is not that from a utopian society.  It's that they have moved beyond society altogether.  They are fully actualized ubermensch.  They do not need anything from anyone else, nor do they have any desire to help anyone else.  They all just do what they want, and no one can ever be made to do anything they don't want.  The concept of morality is then becomes moot. 

No one in Ayn Rand books ever tries to help anyone else out.  Well, maybe Dagny but that's kind of the point.  She suffers a lot because she doesn't quite want to let go of her traditional notions of altruism and morality and keeps trying to fix society rather than just let the looters go to their doom. 

Rand goes to great pains to point out the sociopathic tendencies of Roark and Galt.  She says something about Roark like "He did not have the ability to consider others."  And whenever either guy does something that might be interpreted as even the slightest bit altruistic, they always get to give a speech like "Yeah, I gave the dude a job, and he was poor.  That was awesome for me because he made my railroad even better so I could kick even more ass and he did it for cheap because everyone else was too dumb to want to employ him at all!  Go me!"

[jcarwash31]

Here's a good (in my opinion) opinion piece about poverty and personal responsibility.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-18/what-mitt-romney-doesn-t-get-about-responsibility.html

What Mitt Romney Doesn’t Get About Responsibility
By Ezra Klein Sep 18, 2012 3:36 PM CT


“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Mitt Romney told a room full of donors.

“All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

Ezra Klein is a columnist and blogger at The Washington Post and a policy analyst for MSNBC. His work focuses on domestic and economic policy-making, as well as the political system that's constantly screwing it up.

All this can be written off as just a bit of self-flattery. Imagine you’re Romney, the Republican presidential nominee: For the past year you’ve been unable to grab a clear lead in the polls against an incompetent who has been unable to get unemployment below 8 percent or reach a reasonable debt- reduction deal with Congress. Which would you prefer to believe? That you’re not good enough, not smart enough and doggone it, people just don’t like you? Or that the incumbent Democrat has effectively bought off half the country with food stamps and free health care?

What Romney said next is harder to explain.

“These are people who pay no income tax,” he continued, “47 percent of Americans pay no income tax.”

Let’s do away with the ridiculous myth that 47 percent of Americans are tax-evading moochers. Of the 46 percent of Americans who were expected to pay no federal income tax in 2011, more than 60 percent of them were working and contributing payroll taxes -- which means they paid a higher effective tax rate on their income than Romney does -- and an additional 20 percent were elderly. So more than 80 percent were either working or past retirement age.
Even Worse

Still, for my money, the worst of Romney’s comments were these: “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

When he said this, Romney didn’t just write off half the country behind closed doors. He also confirmed the worst suspicions about who he is: an entitled rich guy with no understanding of how people who aren’t rich actually live.

The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life. You can’t pay people to watch your kids or clean your house or fix your meals. You can’t necessarily afford a car or a washing machine or a home in a good school district. That’s what money buys you: goods and services that make your life easier.

That’s what money has bought Romney, too. He’s a guy who sold his dad’s stock to pay for college, who built an elevator to ensure easier access to his multiple cars and who was able to support his wife’s decision to be a stay-at-home mom. That’s great! That’s the dream.

The problem is that he doesn’t seem to realize how difficult it is to focus on college when you’re also working full time, how much planning it takes to reliably commute to work without a car, or the agonizing choices faced by families in which both parents work and a child falls ill. The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it.

In their book “Poor Economics,” the poverty researchers Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo try to explain why the poor around the world so often make decisions that befuddle the rich.
Getting By

Their answer, in part, is this: The poor use up an enormous amount of their mental energy just getting by. They’re not dumber or lazier or more interested in being dependent on the government. They’re just cognitively exhausted:

“Our real advantage comes from the many things that we take as given. We live in houses where clean water gets piped in -- we do not need to remember to add Chlorin to the water supply every morning. The sewage goes away on its own -- we do not actually know how. We can (mostly) trust our doctors to do the best they can and can trust the public health system to figure out what we should and should not do. ... And perhaps most important, most of us do not have to worry where our next meal will come from. In other words, we rarely need to draw upon our limited endowment of self-control and decisiveness, while the poor are constantly being required to do so.”

Banerjee and Duflo’s argument has been increasingly confirmed by the nascent science of “decision fatigue.” Study after study shows that the more we need to worry about in a day, the harder we have to work to make good decisions.

As economist Jed Friedman wrote in an online post for the World Bank, “The repeated trade-offs confronting the poor in daily decision making -- i.e. ‘should I purchase a bit more food or a bit more fertilizer?’ -- occupy cognitive resources that would instead lay fallow for the wealthy when confronted with the same decision. The rich can afford both a bit more food and a bit more fertilizer, no decision is necessary.”

The point here isn’t that Romney is unfamiliar with cutting-edge work in cognitive psychology. It’s that he misses even the intuitive message of this work, the part most of us know without reading any studies: It’s really, really hard to be poor. That’s because the poorer you are, the more personal responsibility you have to take.

Romney, apparently, thinks it’s folks like him who’ve really had it hard. “I have inherited nothing,” the son of a former auto executive and governor told the room of donors. “Everything Ann and I have, we earned the old-fashioned way.” This is a man blind to his own privilege.

Which is his right. But that sentiment informs his policy platform -- which calls for sharply cutting social services for the poor to pay for huge tax cuts for the rich -- and it suggests he’s trying to make policy with a worldview that’s completely backward.

(Ezra Klein is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View. Subscribe to receive a daily e-mail highlighting new View editorials, columns and op-ed articles.

[daytime drinking]

awesome!  i mentioned this book earlier in this thread.  to be fair, poor economics wasn't about the united states.  it's very easy to get by being poor in the united states compared to the folks the book discussed.  i daresay it's damn easy getting by being poor in the usa.  it's not fair to use the studies they conducted on 17 (i think) poor nations spanning two decades and associate their findings with our poor.  they didn't set out to do that.  the book was about how foreign aid to these countries was handled.  they found (no shock) that it was a majority of the time mishandled.  i think it's a tad ironic that ezra's touting a book to bash romney, when the researchers found that aid doesn't work. sometimes it did, but most of the time, nope.  i'm not saying (and obviously they aren't saying) that aid can be bad, but it just can't be aid for the sake of aid.  to use this book to highlight how little romney cares about the poor is absurd because it shouldn't be used in the first place.  he cherry picks to fit his agenda.  the book isn't a microcosm of poverty.  it dealt with individual countries on an individual level.   in no way does anything i said make me a romney fan.  i'm voting on principles this november, so be it if gary johnson gets obama elected. 

i would like to say this, in mitten's defense.  why do people complain if he's out of touch?  he's a very wealthy man.  do very wealthy men frequent dive bars or road houses?  do very wealthy men consider bruce the truck driver or juan the bodega owner as close friends?  are these the same friends obama doesn't have?  obama isn't any more in tune with the working class than romney is.  they both look ridiculous at their pandering.   but that's a politician for ya

[dirk]

I think the difference is that Mitt is so far out of touch that he can't even fake it.  Yes, Obama is not hanging out at dive bars, but when he walks to the average person, he comes across as someone who does understand.  Mitt comes across like he has never known a person who makes under $500,000.  If you mention NASCAR to Obama, he may not know much about it, but he won't try to relate to you by mentioning he knows people who own NASCAR teams. 

[jcarwash31]

I have not read Poor Economics and you're right that it's probably easier being poor in the US than it is in many countries, but that doesn't mean it's not hard.  I also think it is fair for Klein to cite the part from Poor Economics that he did, because the researchers believe the "decision fatigue" principle is a human behavioral trait and is not unique to the countries in the study (this is what I gather anyway).  That is to say, you don't have to be poor in Cambodia (or wherever) to experience decision fatigue.

It's not so much that Romney is out of touch.  It's that he has absolutely no clue how half (or more) of the people in this country live and that he doesn't think it would be his job as president to worry about them.  Obama probably doesn't really know how a lot of people live either, but he at least has the ability to show some empathy.

[Kwyjibo]

It's not so much that Romney is out of touch.  It's that he has absolutely no clue how half (or more) of the people in this country live and that he doesn't think it would be his job as president to worry about them.

Are you invoking the 47% thing?  I gotta call foul on that.  I think it's pretty clear that what he meant was that he knew he couldn't get the vote from that 47% and he couldn't focus his efforts on trying to, which may be douchey but it's practical.  Using someone's words out of context in a way that they didn't mean them is wrong, even when it's the bad guy.  If the 47% quote gets to mean that Romney was saying fuck you to half the country then the "You didn't build that" thing gets to stand as well.

If that's not what you meant, my apologies.

[Juliana]

I think he totally does write off that 47%, and not just in terms of demographics and voting tendancies.

If you listen to that speech or rally or whatever you want to call it, he talks about how 47% of americans do not have any sense of personal responsibility, because they are living "off the government," either by not paying income tax or because they are recepients of government assistance, or both.

I think Romney is blinded by his own achievements.  He did all this stuff, so you can to!  Even though his parents were rich and that's why he got the brakes he did.  It's almost like he doesn't see them as breaks.  Like when he told that one group he spoke to that if you want to go to college or start a business, that you should borrow money from your parents.  Yeah, works great if your folks are rich, but guess what, most people don't have rich parents.  Most people have to take government loans to go to school or get grants to start businesses.   We can't do that if you cut funding for grants, programs and student loans. 

Then, for the Republicans to belittle Michelle's speech from the convention when she talked about Barak's crappy car when they were in grad school, and all the student loans they had, like that was them pandering or whatever, and like it wasn't true.  I don't know.  I just think Romney is SO out of touch, and the rest of the party too. 

[Kwyjibo]

I don't disagree with any of that, but I think saying that he blindly writes off 50% of the population is a tad much.

[daytime drinking]

I have not read Poor Economics and you're right that it's probably easier being poor in the US than it is in many countries, but that doesn't mean it's not hard.  I also think it is fair for Klein to cite the part from Poor Economics that he did, because the researchers believe the "decision fatigue" principle is a human behavioral trait and is not unique to the countries in the study (this is what I gather anyway).  That is to say, you don't have to be poor in Cambodia (or wherever) to experience decision fatigue.

It's not so much that Romney is out of touch.  It's that he has absolutely no clue how half (or more) of the people in this country live and that he doesn't think it would be his job as president to worry about them.  Obama probably doesn't really know how a lot of people live either, but he at least has the ability to show some empathy.

it's been more than a year since i read the book, so i can't recall a whole lot.   all i'm saying is, is that poor don't typically go hungry or homeless in the u.s. when you don't have to rely on those things life should be a little less stressful.  i understand there are a lot of single mothers living without a job on welfare, is that the same as a single mother living without welfare in india?  
1
you should hear about how creative some of the folks they highlight are when it comes to money making endeavors.  these people don't take things for granted, and we're still learning how to make the outcome a better one.  pm me your address and i'll send you the book if you want.  it's a good, quick read.  though at times monotonous.  the case studies are pretty good and sometimes entertaining, surprisingly.

on romney.  he seems the stock of the intimidating business man whom i wouldn't want to work for.  he doesn't seem personable.  for me, this means nothing.  do you just want a president who's a likeable, down to earth people pleaser?  or some dickhead who's only focused on his primary objective i.e. the bottom line?  obama is a helluva likeable guy.  charisma, intelligence, good looking, beer drinker, fan of sports, friend to the world.  but if he weren't president and not in politics, he'd be a professor.  he'd be mingling with other intellectuals over riesling poached pear sorbet and hot toddies discussing arcane philosophy at some fancy gala with a world class orchestra providing the background music.  no matter who you are, you can only empathize with your own economic bracket.  i'm sure i could say that last sentence better.  presidents care about votes.  do you honestly think obama is serious in his empathy? he was a shitty president, but i could throw a round of disc golf with george double you

[daytime drinking]

It's not so much that Romney is out of touch.  It's that he has absolutely no clue how half (or more) of the people in this country live and that he doesn't think it would be his job as president to worry about them.

Are you invoking the 47% thing?  I gotta call foul on that.  I think it's pretty clear that what he meant was that he knew he couldn't get the vote from that 47% and he couldn't focus his efforts on trying to, which may be douchey but it's practical.  Using someone's words out of context in a way that they didn't mean them is wrong, even when it's the bad guy.  If the 47% quote gets to mean that Romney was saying fuck you to half the country then the "You didn't build that" thing gets to stand as well.

If that's not what you meant, my apologies.

i respect that.  you rationalized.  i wish more folks would.  not an easy thing to do.  i don't know if his resource was accurate, but it was a candid conversation, so he just could have said "half."  but yeah, those folks aren't going to vote for him.  he can't convince them to, how should he sway their vote?  we have a highly racial ballot and some rich white guy simply will not be able to curry favor with minorities.  that cannot be underestimated.  the black vote is going to be over 90% at least for obama, and they'll come out en masse.   romney can't compete with that.  so yeah, he's got to find a way to appeal to someone

[daytime drinking]

zafer, as far as atlas shrugged is concerned, i feel you miss the forest for the trees.

[Buzzstein]

I'm sure a lot of elderly people will/would vote for Romney. Wouldn't most of them fall under the 47% of people who pay no income tax?

[Zafer Kaya]

zafer, as far as atlas shrugged is concerned, i feel you miss the forest for the trees.

Well, we're not really arguing over libertarian/capitalist/political ideas.  We're arguing about Ayn Rand.  So it's not like I don't get or that we are arguing over the larger, political issues.

This is a pretty good encapsulation of why I think Rand sucks, from a libertarian perspective:

http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/06/whats-wrong-with-ayn-rand

[Zafer Kaya]

Are you invoking the 47% thing?  I gotta call foul on that.  I think it's pretty clear that what he meant was that he knew he couldn't get the vote from that 47% and he couldn't focus his efforts on trying to, which may be douchey but it's practical.  Using someone's words out of context in a way that they didn't mean them is wrong, even when it's the bad guy.

 "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

If he hadn't said the parts in bold, I think maybe he could claim he was misquoted.  But he went out of his way to insult that 47%.  The other problem is that a huge chunk of that 47% who pays no taxes actually votes Republican.   The 47% of people who are mega-liberals and believe in government entitlements etc. and will never vote for Romney are NOT the same 47% who don't pay taxes.

[jcarwash31]

Are you invoking the 47% thing?  I gotta call foul on that.  I think it's pretty clear that what he meant was that he knew he couldn't get the vote from that 47% and he couldn't focus his efforts on trying to, which may be douchey but it's practical.  Using someone's words out of context in a way that they didn't mean them is wrong, even when it's the bad guy.  If the 47% quote gets to mean that Romney was saying fuck you to half the country then the "You didn't build that" thing gets to stand as well.

If that's not what you meant, my apologies.

The 47% thing is part of it, sure, but Romney has shown us plenty of times that he really doesn't seem to have any grasp on how a large portion of this country actually lives.  I understand he was likely pandering to that room of people, after all that's what he does, but those statements seemed very candid and truthful to what Romney believes.  He doesn't even have his demographics right.  There are (or were) plenty of Romney supporters among that 47% because there are a number of reasons why you may not have to pay income taxes, including being retired.  Most of them still had taxes to pay and some actually paid a higher effective rate than Mitt did.  The fact that he either doesn't understand this or he's willing to talk about them as the scum of society to a room full of donors demonstrates that he really doesn't care about them now or during his presidency if he becomes president.

His private sector career was all about paying people off so he could acquire their companies, leveraging mountains of debt to do it, siphoning off all it's worth, putting the companies into bankruptcy, and putting people out of jobs.  How am I supposed to have any confidence that he can run this country after all the stuff he's said?  He's a Wall Street guy and he'll always be a Wall Street guy.