CPUSA: Ryan, Rand, and the Objectivist Budget (Ayn Rand = L Ron Hubbard, and followers = cult)

[SnyderShrugged]

SS, you and I have had a lot of talks, but no way to I put as a sig something I don't believe, especially a quote that if Jesus himself would have said would have forever changed the face of the church...in fact the cross would have never occurred. That quote is a hallmark of Objectivism and we've talked about it several times, and I still cannot understand how any person of faith could find any value in that quote.

Just because some Objectivists don't like him because he's not Objectivist enough doesn't mean that his beliefs aren't formed from the principles of Objectivism. Also, just because Rand/Ron/Ryan claim Christianity does not mean they aren't Objectivists, because Objectivism has infiltrated it's self-centered head into the church and is defended by many in the church. I actually recently had this discussion with a professor of mine who mourns the rise of Objectivism in the church, and cannot fathom how anyone in the church can read Ayn Rand's material as anything but anti-Christian.

I feel compelled to try and get this discussion on track in terms of Objectivism vs libertarianism. There are obviously some misconceptions that need to be addressed so we can all speak in an informed manner.

Objectivism isn't libertarianism. Libertarianism is a wholly political philosophy and objectivism is more an all encompassing one. It just happens that the political outlook of objectivism resembles libertarianism. For example, to be an objectivist, you have to be an atheist. In libertarianism, religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Think of Objectivists as like the neocons of the libertarian movement. Most objectivists seem to detest charity, even if it’s a wholly private matter (no coercion involved). Whereas most libertarians (well me at least) don’t have a problem with charity, and see that it is sometimes necessary, but prefer that it be dispersed locally among willing individuals.

In short, objectivists seem to take the notion of “survival of the fittest” to its extreme conclusion.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I feel compelled to try and get this discussion on track in terms of Objectivism vs libertarianism. There are obviously some misconceptions that need to be addressed so we can all speak in an informed manner.

Objectivism isn't libertarianism. Libertarianism is a wholly political philosophy and objectivism is more an all encompassing one. It just happens that the political outlook of objectivism resembles libertarianism. For example, to be an objectivist, you have to be an atheist. In libertarianism, religious beliefs are irrelevant.

Think of Objectivists as like the neocons of the libertarian movement. Most objectivists seem to detest charity, even if it’s a wholly private matter (no coercion involved). Whereas most libertarians (well me at least) don’t have a problem with charity, and see that it is sometimes necessary, but prefer that it be dispersed locally among willing individuals.

In short, objectivists seem to take the notion of “survival of the fittest” to its extreme conclusion.

For one trying to define Objectivists and Libertarians with any sort of definitive statements is like trying to define what an Independent voter believes....there is NO one thing they all agree on, and you say that Objectivists have to be atheists, well I'm sorry but that may be true with purists but the Objectivist philosophy has been adopted and merged by people of faith and then it slips very nicely into the Libertarian movement, and it's embraced by Libertarians because it looks like opposition to Federal authority and a return to power to the states but instead it is just self interested. I do find it interesting though, because the whole argument from Christians on the Right has been that if taxes were lower then giving would increase in the church...but that's not what we see at all. So where is it going? Lowest taxes in a generation and yet charities struggle more than ever.

[SnyderShrugged]

For one trying to define Objectivists and Libertarians with any sort of definitive statements is like trying to define what an Independent voter believes....there is NO one thing they all agree on, and you say that Objectivists have to be atheists, well I'm sorry but that may be true with purists but the Objectivist philosophy has been adopted and merged by people of faith and then it slips very nicely into the Libertarian movement, and it's embraced by Libertarians because it looks like opposition to Federal authority and a return to power to the states but instead it is just self interested. I do find it interesting though, because the whole argument from Christians on the Right has been that if taxes were lower then giving would increase in the church...but that's not what we see at all. So where is it going? Lowest taxes in a generation and yet charities struggle more than ever.

In this post you say that its impossible to define Objectivists and Libertarians definitively because of the wide scope of beliefs, then why are you insisting on being so very definitive of the Pauls in theirs?

[AsburySkinsFan]

In this post you say that its impossible to define Objectivists and Libertarians definitively because of the wide scope of beliefs, then why are you insisting on being so very definitive of the Pauls in theirs?

I never said that it is impossible to tell whether someone is an Objectivist or Libertarian I just said that there is no ONE universal definition that defines ALL Objectivists or ALL Libertarians. But to think that this means that one cannot tell an Objectivist is like trying to say that one cannot say that there are various shades of blue.

[The Sisko]

I often wonder how a nation such as Hong Kong pre China unification, didn't have people dying in the streets and starving since there weren't any social welfare nets in that nation.

It seems HK wasn't exactly as objectivist or as heavenly as some would have you believe it was prior to the takeover.

In Rich Hong Kong, Cages as Homes for the Poor

A rusty, sour odor skewered the gloom that enveloped ranks of steel cages jammed into a third-floor chamber of a decaying tenement. Dimly, the silhouettes of men appeared, one by one uncoiling from the stack of cages like cicadas casting off their shells. Ma Kwai-han, a feather of a man clad in a skimpy white undershirt and baggy gray pants, padded into a dim circle of light.

"I've lived here 36 years," he said quietly, his hand resting on the chain link cage he calls home. "I have no family and can't afford to stay anywhere else."

Here, in one of the world's richest cities -- last week Forbes magazine declared that 2 of the 10 richest men in the world live here -- the growth and persistence of poverty is hidden away, tucked into mildewed tenements and under highway overpasses. But the poorest of the poor live in Hong Kong's cage homes -- steel mesh boxes barely large enough for a mattress and a recumbent occupant, stacked in twos and threes -- in the heart of the other Hong Kong.

...It is not clear how many people live in cages here. The Government puts the number at 2,800, while Kalina Tsang, a social worker for a private agency that works in the poor communities and with cage dwellers, says that the number actually approaches 10,000.

"About 70 percent are elderly, single people with no families," Ms. Tsang said. "These are the people whose voices are not heard."

...Ms. Tsang insisted that the persistence of cage homes in Hong Kong was intolerable. "This is one of the richest cities," she said. "We want the Government to resettle these people in affordable decent housing. But even if the Government resettles these people, new people will come in."

Already, slightly more than half of Hong Kong's population lives in subsidized Government housing, but the waiting time for an apartment now is nine years.

So let me get this straight, low unemployment that includes a redefinition of the term "working poor", half the population living in govt. subsidized housing and many of the elderly relegated to living in cages or on the street. Now THAT sounds like a future vision for this country that 99.99% of non-socialist, non-pinko Americans could get behind. Woo hoo! Cages for Grandmaw. You've got my vote!

[zoony]

That is correct, at least about Ron Paul and I imagine his son too.

I think there are lots of libertarians who are also objectivists, but there are just as many or more that arent. There is a large organization of Objectivists that are totally against Ron Paul due to his personal beliefs.

Ayn Rand hated the Libertarian party with just as much passion as she held against many walks of political life. She was a strange egg indeed, but she writes a heckofa good story at times!

Both of the Paul's are not only libertarians, but also devout Christians. They, like I, cannot follow Objectivism due to its inherent anti-religion stances.[

I'm not sure I buy it. Not in the sense that I think you or Ron Paul are lying, I just think it is an intellectually dishonest position.

Did Stalin embrace all elements of Karl Marx's manifesto? Did that make him less of a Marxist?

Rand's philosophies are at the very core of liberatianism. It was the book you yourself read while you were a member on the board... you used to be Skin-n-Vegas iirc. Overnight you became a died-in-the-wool libertarian and you changed your username to SnyderShrugged.

What am I missing?

---------- Post added May-15th-2011 at 11:52 PM ----------

So let me get this straight, low unemployment that includes a redefinition of the term "working poor", half the population living in govt. subsidized housing and many of the elderly relegated to living in cages or on the street. Now THAT sounds like a future vision for this country that 99.99% of non-socialist, non-pinko Americans could get behind. Woo hoo! Cages for Grandmaw. You've got my vote!

I was there. It was absolutely awful. The separation between the haves and have nots was enough to make people from Charleston SC blush.

All kidding aside, there really were disabled and blind beggars camped out along the base of every building in the city, sprawled out on towels and blankets begging for change. Missing limbs, eyes gouged out, sick, old, couldn't talk and just made grunting noises... A degree of poor that I think would rival any throughout world history, right beneath the gleaming wealth of the Hong Kong skyline.

Of course, China probably just executed them. Problem solved, in the efficient and simplistic manner only a totalitarian regime can provide.

SHF, I can't believe you compared it to Europe. Even towns like San Fran and Portland where you see a lot of homeless... it just doesn't compare in the least.

[The Sisko]

SHF, I can't believe you compared it to Europe. Even towns like San Fran and Portland where you see a lot of homeless... it just doesn't compare in the least.

It's an even poorer comparison when one takes into account that HK has never paid for it's own defense and that all the land in HK was owned by the government. Again, if that's the America he wants I don't think many are going to agree with his vision...even if we could find another country to colonize us and pay for our defense. Many Americans without health insurance would be happy to have access to something like the HK version of the British government health plan though.

[Destino]

If suddenly the regulatory state was completely dismantled and there was no IRS, SEC, FAA, FCC, etc, I think the argument would be much more sound

If anyone seriously proposed that they'd be viewed as some loony third party, which is why republicans talk in code. Flat tax is entirely about destroying the IRS. The consumption tax even more so. Self regulation was an ideology that targetted government regulatory powers directly and until the recent meltdown caused by this little precious bit of insanity it was preached by every republican in the land. They repealed Glass–Steagall and allowed "too big to fail" to exist in the first place. Then they pushed deregulation so that these financial goliaths could plant obscure poison pills all over the worlds economies.

[Prosperity]

That article was basically an all out ad hominem attack

[Hubbs]

So let me get this straight, low unemployment that includes a redefinition of the term "working poor", half the population living in govt. subsidized housing and many of the elderly relegated to living in cages or on the street. Now THAT sounds like a future vision for this country that 99.99% of non-socialist, non-pinko Americans could get behind. Woo hoo! Cages for Grandmaw. You've got my vote!

Really? "Many of the elderly"? I have to call time out on the Hong Kong discussion here. I've stayed on the sidelines thus far because I don't consider myself to be especially knowledgable when it comes to Hong Kong, but I am capable of a quick Google search, which reveals that the population of HK in 1996 was 6.412 million. Even if you completely throw out the official estimate of 2,800 and instead use the social worker's guess of 10,000, that means that roughly .0015% of the population suffered those conditions, and not all of them were elderly. If we're going to measure the success of any society by the bottom .0015%, then I suggest we all abandon the discussion, because I doubt any nation on Earth holds up.

Let's restrict the word "many" to situations in which "many" would actually seem to apply.

[88Comrade2000]

Paul Ryan will probably become an afterthought if he runs for the Wisconsin Senate seat. I think he will lose that race, even if 2012 becomes another big Republican year.

[SnyderShrugged]

I'm not sure I buy it. Not in the sense that I think you or Ron Paul are lying, I just think it is an intellectually dishonest position.

Did Stalin embrace all elements of Karl Marx's manifesto? Did that make him less of a Marxist?

Rand's philosophies are at the very core of liberatianism. It was the book you yourself read while you were a member on the board... you used to be Skin-n-Vegas iirc. Overnight you became a died-in-the-wool libertarian and you changed your username to SnyderShrugged.

What am I missing?

yes, until 2004, I was a die hard neo-con and I am ashamed of it.

I changed my username when I moved away from vegas, I simply didnt think it made sense any longer and changed it to somethjing that could accommodate changes in my location because I had moved often.

I chose snydershrugged at the time because it covered both a new interest in libertarianism and a little jab at the Danny whom I wasnt too happy with at the time.

I do consider Atlas Shrugged as the initial catalyst for my interest in changing my neo-con ways. Just reading it opened my eyes to the proper role of government and what my own party, whom I was rabid in defending in all things, even when they were wrong, was doing to our nation.

While Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead had impact on me and I really enjoyed the stories overall (and not just politically), one of the most profound things that helped reshape my views was the tailgate at ES itself.

Luckydevil advised me that if I had a real interest in libertarian guys, that I should check out Ron Paul from Texas and the Republican Liberty Caucus. This was years before 2008 and I thought he would always be an obscure congressman that a lot of people in power didnt like.

I soon learned that I agreed with most of his views, though it took a few years for me to realize that my foreign policy stance was incompatible with my new belief system.

Imagine my pleasant surprise when I heard that he was going to run for president!

You pretty much know from there on out. I kind of always thought that some of your animosity towards me when i post RP related things was that you were angry that I turned away from the neo-con camp that both of us had supported together in threads of yore.

[Thiebear]

If anyone seriously proposed that they'd be viewed as some loony third party, which is why republicans talk in code. Flat tax is entirely about destroying the IRS. The consumption tax even more so. Self regulation was an ideology that targetted government regulatory powers directly and until the recent meltdown caused by this little precious bit of insanity it was preached by every republican in the land. They repealed Glass–Steagall and allowed "too big to fail" to exist in the first place. Then they pushed deregulation so that these financial goliaths could plant obscure poison pills all over the worlds economies.

Flat tax is more about fixing the insanity that is the IRS. 10 reviews of the same form gets 10 different answers from their own employees.

An outside agency has to be former agents just to help you fight the million pages of crap nobody could figure out.

25% Flat over 30k income for the win. The IRS is a self perpetuating entity that just makes it harder.

15% VAT on non-essentials to include oil/electric/food/etc.

30% VAT on anything over 25k.

sum up the entire code in 1 postcard back and forth.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I chose snydershrugged at the time because it covered both a new interest in libertarianism and a little jab at the Danny whom I wasnt too happy with at the time.

I do consider Atlas Shrugged as the initial catalyst for my interest in changing my neo-con ways. Just reading it opened my eyes to the proper role of government and what my own party, whom I was rabid in defending in all things, even when they were wrong, was doing to our nation.

While Atlas Shrugged and the Fountainhead had impact on me and I really enjoyed the stories overall (and not just politically), one of the most profound things that helped reshape my views was the tailgate at ES itself.

See you say you're a Libertarian and not an Objectivist and yet you cite the Objectivist tech manual as the foundation of your belief system, you're exactly the type of hybrid that I was talking about earlier. BTW, that's not an attack, just a statement of observation.

[SnyderShrugged]

See you say you're a Libertarian and not an Objectivist and yet you cite the Objectivist tech manual as the foundation of your belief system, you're exactly the type of hybrid that I was talking about earlier. BTW, that's not an attack, just a statement of observation.

Those books arent an "Objectivist Tech Manual" and I said they inspired me to learn more not as my foundation, just the spark that started me wanting to learn more. Once I did learn more about Objectivism, I determined that it wasnt my cup of tea in many aspects of my life. That doesnt mean that I reject libertarianism, only the Objectivist view of it.

I'm not sure how else to explain, because you keep insisting that I am in this so-called mold, while at the same time never defining what that mold specifically is beyond the hyperbole of an inaccurate box that you assign me to.

Lets clear the record here. I am NOT a believer in the overall philosophy of Objectivism, mainly due to its anti-Christain nature. Its the main reason why I dislike Ayn Rand as a person.

Where I dont mind her views is on the role of Government in terms of private life and business (though I do believe that some regulation that doesnt harm one group for the benefit of another should exist).

[Thiebear]

ASF said all republicans are neocons before 9/11 admitted or not, so your probably not going to get far with that one. He's more of a basket kind of guy vs. individualism. God forbid people think for themselves.

[Destino]

Flat tax is more about fixing the insanity that is the IRS. 10 reviews of the same form gets 10 different answers from their own employees.

An outside agency has to be former agents just to help you fight the million pages of crap nobody could figure out.

Flat tax is about two major ideological goals:

1 - Destroy the IRS

2 - Making it politically impossible to increase taxes (particularly on the rich)

[Thiebear]

Flat tax is about two major ideological goals:

1 - Destroy the IRS

2 - Making it politically impossible to increase taxes (particularly on the rich)

if you only tax the weathly how can you make it un-possible to tax the weathly? Flat tax removes all loopholes.

No 8% up to this, 12 percent here, 15% 8pts higher, 26% when you get to here, 38% at this final point: now add them all together and take 55 pages of debits and credits.

The form:

You made 250,000 in all income * .25% = you owe this much 62,500

enter amount paid: 55,000 over 12 months.

total amount +returned/-owed: -7,000

You made 29,000 in all income: You do not qualify for income tax.

enter amount paid: 4,000 over 12 months

enter amount +returned/-owed: +4000

IRS still exists to hunt down the Geitners and Rangels but its easier.

[DRSmith]

if you only tax the weathly how can you make it un-possible to tax the weathly? Flat tax removes all loopholes.

No 8% up to this, 12 percent here, 15% 8pts higher, 26% when you get to here, 38% at this final point: now add them all together and take 55 pages of debits and credits.

The form:

You made 250,000 in all income * .25% = you owe this much 62,500

enter amount paid: 55,000 over 12 months.

total amount left/owed: -7,000

Leave the tax formula alone and get rid of most of the credits and refundable credits

You made 10,000 for year you owe 25 percent +2500 good luck buying anything you need for day to day life check box here to get govt assistence.

The thing the flat tax people ignore is everyone is taxed the same already if you make a million dollars each income in each level is taxed at the rate as the person who maxes their income in that particular tax bracket.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Lets clear the record here. I am NOT a believer in the overall philosophy of Objectivism, mainly due to its anti-Christain nature. Its the main reason why I dislike Ayn Rand as a person.

Where I dont mind her views is on the role of Government in terms of private life and business (though I do believe that some regulation that doesnt harm one group for the benefit of another should exist).

Like I said you're an Objectivist hybrid, you take the governmental philosophy but reject the rejection of religion, this goes to exactly what I've been saying in that Objectivism has indeed found a home in the Libertarian movement, it seems to me that if it weren't for the athiest component of Ayn's Objectivism then you'd be a full blown Objectivist, which again goes back to my original point about there being shades of blue, and that Ron/Rand/Ryan are all the same exact sort of Objectivists.

---------- Post added May-16th-2011 at 10:09 AM ----------

ASF said all republicans are neocons before 9/11 admitted or not, so your probably not going to get far with that one. He's more of a basket kind of guy vs. individualism. God forbid people think for themselves.

First of all trolling is not a pretty color, second that was said in the discussion of Newt Gingrinch where I was talking about GOP leadership, so if you want to continue trolling and misrepresenting what I said that's fine just don't get your feelings hurt when people don't take you seriously....oh and before you even say it "nah nah na boo boo no one takes me seriously anyways." :doh:

[Destino]

if you only tax the weathly how can you make it un-possible to tax the weathly? Flat tax removes all loopholes.

No 8% up to this, 12 percent here, 15% 8pts higher, 26% when you get to here, 38% at this final point: now add them all together and take 55 pages of debits and credits.

30k is hardly wealthy and by removing deductions like mortgage interest a large part of the middle class will actually see a substantial tax increase. Not to mention the fact that payroll taxes cap at $106,800 and are larger for self employed (small business) people. So the middle class will realistically pay the highest taxes in the country. If you earn 60k and are self employed you'll pay 13.3% on all of it and 25% on 30k.... and oh joy no deductions so that 10,000 in mortgage interest you wrote off last year is now gone along with all the other credits for dependents and business expenses!

Can you say huge tax increase?

[Tulane Skins Fan]

yeah, not a big fan of objectivism either. Its a great thing that most libertarians dont either, including the 2 GOP candidates who are running.

Doesnt that make you happier Zoony? See? nothing to worry about

SS,

I certainly respect your convictions on this board, but sometimes you so confuse me on this topic, specifically. For one, your handle is "SnyderShrugged," which I assume is a direct reference to "Atlas Shrugged." Two, you have an Ayn Rand quote in your signature, which I believe pretty much sums up the objectivism philosophy of Atlas Shrugged. (Although, I admit I have only recently started to actually read the book itself, so I am only going off the discussions I hear of the book, quite frequently though.)

So, I guess my confusion is in trying to determine in what way you are not a fan of objectivism, or the philosophy that is critiqued in this article?

[Riggo-toni]

While I much prefer the Simpson-Bowles plan, I would like to point out that under Ryan's plan gov't still grows by a third over the next 10 years an ends up a bigger pct of GDP than it was Clinton's last year in office.

[Thiebear]

Sorry ASF: I thought you meant all repubicans (obviously i was one pre Bush2).

Destino: if we don't raise taxes on those that can afford it, how do we pay off the 'monster' 45%cuts 55%taxes base on that NYTimes tool average?

[DRSmith]

30k is hardly wealthy and by removing deductions like mortgage interest a large part of the middle class will actually see a substantial tax increase. Not to mention the fact that payroll taxes cap at $106,800 and are larger for self employed (small business) people. So the middle class will realistically pay the highest taxes in the country. If you earn 60k and are self employed you'll pay 13.3% on all of it and 25% on 30k.... and oh joy no deductions so that 10,000 in mortgage interest you wrote off last year is now gone along with all the other credits for dependents and business expenses!

Can you say huge tax increase?

Or people rethink the mortgages they take on