zoony Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 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. To me, libertarianism (in its current ex-GOP form) is a cop-out. I truly am convinced that a majority percentage of libertarians choose it as a way to remain above the fray. libertarianism is a faith-based, utopian, unrealistic view of the world and human nature. Its disciples preach as if from the pulpit, and present a moving target in return. They can be called on nothing, since what they preach is faith-based and can constantly shift their position to suit the day... simply because they never had any sort of action-based position to begin with. Just on this board we've seen a constant shifting of the libertarian position. After the financial crisis, the libertarian tag-line is "well, you need government regulation in order to have free markets". WTF. No seriously, WTF. Are libertarians really saying this with a straight face? Further, it is a decidedly immature and emotionally crippled outlook on life, hence its popularity with high school kids and college freshmen, and adults like White Supremacy groups and the Timoth McVeighs of the world. In my opinion, libertarianism needs to be exposed for what it is. And it needs to be attacked with the same enthusiasm normally reserved for Republicans and Democrats. Libertarians are not above the fray. Quite the opposite. They don't deserve a seat at the table. ....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Or people rethink the mortgages they take on Right because it's totally in the nations best interest for American's to rent instead of buy - nevermind the boost to the economy that home ownership provides, the jobs it creates, and the role in generational wealth it plays. Forget all that. Let's pretend that because banks started giving out loans to anyone with a pulse that this means we should take steps to discourage home ownership and deflate home values even further. There is a big difference between buying a home you can't afford and the government removing all incentives from buying a home while at the same time dismantling the secondary market. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Right because it's totally in the nations best interest for American's to rent instead of buy - nevermind the boost to the economy that home ownership provides, the jobs it creates, and the role in generational wealth it plays. Forget all that. Let's pretend that because banks started giving out loans to anyone with a pulse that this means we should take steps to discourage home ownership and deflate home values even further. There is a big difference between buying a home you can't afford and the government removing all incentives from buying a home while at the same time dismantling the secondary market. We have no mortgage interest deductions up here and people still buy homes, all I was saying is if you do not count on claiming a certain amount in deductions then you rethink the size of house you buy or the size of you mortgage. is a 2000,000 mortgage vs 250,000 plus if it may discourage a rapid increase in interest rates. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 Right because it's totally in the nations best interest for American's to rent instead of buy - nevermind the boost to the economy that home ownership provides, the jobs it creates, and the role in generational wealth it plays. Forget all that. Let's pretend that because banks started giving out loans to anyone with a pulse that this means we should take steps to discourage home ownership and deflate home values even further. There is a big difference between buying a home you can't afford and the government removing all incentives from buying a home while at the same time dismantling the secondary market. Home ownership should only be for the wealthy. Who deserve it because they are a superior class of people. .. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Zoony is just mad because he would not be invited to live in Gault's Gulch. Because he is not capable of inventing a laser - which is, after all, how wealthy people become wealthy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 Zoony is just mad because he would not be invited to live in Gault's Gulch. Because he is not capable of inventing a laser - which is' date=' after all, how wealthy people become wealthy.[/quote']It's interesting... we were talking about all of the descendents of the original Dutch colonizers of Manhattan, and their extreme wealth and power in the American political landscape. I wonder how much of the wealth in this country boils down simply to "I was here first"? Of course, then there's my brother in law. His family hung around with Andrew Jackson. They've been in TN since before it was a state. And they don't have jack. Maybe there is something to this objectivism thing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 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? Hi TSF, I am in meetings most of the day and can only check back periodically, but I found an essay that would probably do better in explaining than i could. If you like, we can revisit later and discuss deeper? http://www.levelthreesolutions.com/peter/conflict.html ---------- Post added May-16th-2011 at 10:58 AM ---------- To me, libertarianism (in its current ex-GOP form) is a cop-out. I truly am convinced that a majority percentage of libertarians choose it as a way to remain above the fray.libertarianism is a faith-based, utopian, unrealistic view of the world and human nature. Its disciples preach as if from the pulpit, and present a moving target in return. They can be called on nothing, since what they preach is faith-based and can constantly shift their position to suit the day... simply because they never had any sort of action-based position to begin with. Just on this board we've seen a constant shifting of the libertarian position. After the financial crisis, the libertarian tag-line is "well, you need government regulation in order to have free markets". WTF. No seriously, WTF. Are libertarians really saying this with a straight face? Further, it is a decidedly immature and emotionally crippled outlook on life, hence its popularity with high school kids and college freshmen, and adults like White Supremacy groups and the Timoth McVeighs of the world. In my opinion, libertarianism needs to be exposed for what it is. And it needs to be attacked with the same enthusiasm normally reserved for Republicans and Democrats. Libertarians are not above the fray. Quite the opposite. They don't deserve a seat at the table. ....... Yes Zoony, we get that you dont like libertarian beliefs. We really, really get it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 To me, libertarianism (in its current ex-GOP form) is a cop-out. I truly am convinced that a majority percentage of libertarians choose it as a way to remain above the fray.libertarianism is a faith-based, utopian, unrealistic view of the world and human nature. Its disciples preach as if from the pulpit, and present a moving target in return. They can be called on nothing, since what they preach is faith-based and can constantly shift their position to suit the day... simply because they never had any sort of action-based position to begin with. ....... It's like saying all Dems are code pink all Repubs are log cabin All independents are just there until they can get back into their original party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Hi TSF, I am in meetings most of the day and can only check back periodically, but I found an essay that would probably do better in explaining than i could. If you like, we can revisit later and discuss deeper?http://www.levelthreesolutions.com/peter/conflict.html More confused now. I read the post and it seems to say that Objectivism and Libertarianism actually are the same thing, and there is no real dispute. Agree? I think the guy even said that he assumes that at some point when all libertarians will be so because of objectivism... " I believe there will come a time when most people are libertarian for the right reason, when almost all people who are libertarian are objectivist." Are you not a libertarian? Cause that would confuse me a third time. What do you see as the difference in political philosophy between an objectivist and a libertarian? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 I must be the worst libertarian as this sounds made-up to me: Time and space do not permit an in-depth analysis of Rand's school of libertarian thought, Objectivism, and its various wrinkles and permutations. Thankfully, its essence has already been distilled for us by Charlie Sheen: "Winning!" It really all comes down to that. And from an Objectivist perspective, Winners have a special virtue, a superiority that differentiates them from everyone else. This gives Winners the right, no, more than that, the responsibility, to be selfish. The flip side of this is a tendency to see the poor as somehow lacking in virtue- they are poor because they are lazy, because they have defective or deficient characters, because they are just not quite smart enough to make the cut Form the article i'm a drugged out Charlie Sheen that only believes my Theological next high is on the back of the poor. I believe the guy that wrote this has been dying to use Charlie Sheen in an article and this fit. from wiki: PhilosophyAyn Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth," grounded in reality, and aimed at defining man's nature and the nature of the world in which he lives.[1] My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute. —Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged[4] So i can help the disabled, poor and old without being kicked out of the Libertarian society? Whew! My libertarian philosophy: They got chocolate milk back in Bush Hill Elementary last week and we celebrated because sanity returned and more children would get calcium. Skim and soy are undrinkable! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD0506 Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 I don't think I have ever seen zoony as eloquent as he is on this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 It's interesting... we were talking about all of the descendents of the original Dutch colonizers of Manhattan, and their extreme wealth and power in the American political landscape. I wonder how much of the wealth in this country boils down simply to "I was here first"?Of course, then there's my brother in law. His family hung around with Andrew Jackson. They've been in TN since before it was a state. And they don't have jack. Maybe there is something to this objectivism thing The issue I have with Rand's view of objectivism is how nihilistic it is. She claimed to be influenced by Aristotle, but her true antecedent was Nietzsche. Basically, her belief is that there are producers and parasites, and which class you fall into seems to be an accident of birth. All of her heroes are brilliant, handsome, genetic freaks (and, well, male). And they all achieved their great wealth and power by a combination of scientific genious and great will. I can see why it is an appealing philosophy, because it gives you a scapegoat if you are a failure and it validates you as an elite if you are a success. Again, I have never met a fan of Atlas Shrugs who thinks that they will be one of the people dying in the cities. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 I don't think I have ever seen zoony as eloquent as he is on this topic. I've got you fooled I can see why it is an appealing philosophy, because it gives you a scapegoat if you are a failure and it validates you as an elite if you are a success. what is the scapegoat if you are a failure? That you were a born loser? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prosperity Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 I've got you fooled what is the scapegoat if you are a failure? That you were a born loser? government regulations made you a loser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 government de-regulation made you a loser. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Sorry ASF: I thought you meant all repubicans (obviously i was one pre Bush2). No worries, I may be stupid but not foolish, I know that Republicans are diverse and that not all were Neo-Cons, but their leadership post Reagan was. :peace1: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumbo Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 The issue I have with Rand's view of objectivism is how nihilistic it is. She claimed to be influenced by Aristotle' date=' but her true antecedent was Nietzsche. [/quote']Pretty much. But Friedrich had her beat on brains, beauty, and writing things truly worth reading. He was also was free of multi-axis mental health disorders, unlike AR, and much funnier at social events. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Pretty much. But Friedrich had her beat on brains, beauty, and writing things truly worth reading. He was also was free of multi-axis mental health disorders, unlike AR, and much funnier at social events. It's a bit of a shame how many truly unpleasant movements he has been tied to - though somewhat inevitable considering what he wrote. He is almost certainly the best "writer" of all the famous and influential philosophers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 More confused now. I read the post and it seems to say that Objectivism and Libertarianism actually are the same thing, and there is no real dispute. Agree? I think the guy even said that he assumes that at some point when all libertarians will be so because of objectivism... " I believe there will come a time when most people are libertarian for the right reason, when almost all people who are libertarian are objectivist."Are you not a libertarian? Cause that would confuse me a third time. What do you see as the difference in political philosophy between an objectivist and a libertarian? I apologize TSF, I was hoping to show something from an objectivists viewpoint why he felt that despite many intersections, that most libertarians and objectivists dont see eye to eye. I am sorry that it added even more confusion. Where I personally (please note that this is just my opinion, and many others may differ) In an Objectivist philosophy, every individual has inalienable, natural rights of life, liberty and property. Some libertarians agree with the Objectivists in this regard, the existence of natural rights of life, liberty and property are not defining characteristics of libertarianism. Some libertarians ( disagree with the assertion that individuals have natural rights of property, or oppose personal property altogether.) Objectivism is, and all Objectivists are, purely capitalist. There are no left-wing, socialist, or otherwise collectivist versions of Objectivism. The same cannot be said of libertarianism: it can only be said the some libertarians are capitalist. anarchism is compatible with libertarianism, but incompatible with Objectivism. Some libertarians are anarchists: they reject the need for a government and would prefer not to have one: "Smash the State" is their motto. In contrast, Objectivism holds government to be necessary and indispensable on the ground that government places the use of coercive physical force under objective control: government (including courts, with their rules of evidence etc.) are seen as a check on the dangerous passions of those who have (or who think they have) had one or more of their natural rights violated by a given suspect. I really do not think that most whom we consider modern libertarians (small l) are also subscibers to Objectivism. I cannot adopt a philosophy that rejects my faith and sees me as abhorrent to their movement. Yet I agree with many of the politics of both camps. I think one of the key differences outside of the religious, is foreign policy. Many folks call the Cato Institute a libertarian organization, and in many ways it is. But they veer from what many libertarians hold as a core value by promoting overseas intervention in sovereign nations. (An Objectivist may possibly say the "Objective" of building a democracy justifies the action). I know I dont do the topic justice at all, and I am probably not the best one to ask, but thats kind of how I see it in terms of differences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Sisko Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 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. Fair enough. However if folks at the very bottom are living in cages I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that people a rung or two up the ladder aren't exactly living lives of luxury either. In fact, in this low unemployment utopia, approximately 15% of HK's citizens were living in poverty prior to the Chinese takeover. So I don't think your .0015% number is exactly accurate either. Furthermore, I think any society that allows such conditions to persist for anyone, but certainly for citizens that actually work for a living has to count itself as a failure at least to some degree. But then that's just my opinion that human beings, especially those that actually work, deserve some minimum living standard. However that wasn't the overarching point of my comments. I was trying to point out that HK achieved its status as an supposed objectivist prototype due to variables that are either unacceptable to people in this country (no defense budget/permanent working poor underclass), morally repugnant (a colonial government that views its citizens as inferior and unworthy of a social safety net) or completely outside of the objectivist ideal (no privately owned real estate/massively subsidized housing/socialized healthcare). In short, the real world test case that objectivists and pseudo objectivists (libertarians) like to cite fails miserably as the shining utopia of unfettered free market principles and rugged individualism of their fantasies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hubbs Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Fair enough. However if folks at the very bottom are living in cages I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that people a rung or two up the ladder aren't exactly living lives of luxury either. If the folks at the bottom are homeless, I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that people a rung or two up the ladder aren't exactly living lives of luxury, either. Which, conveniently, is such a broad statement that it applies to any society, under any economic system, during any period, in the entire history of the world. In other words, it's an utterly meaningless measuring stick. In fact, in this low unemployment utopia, approximately 15% of HK's citizens were living in poverty prior to the Chinese takeover. Yikes. 15%. That seems so very high when compared to, say, us. So I don't think your .0015% number is exactly accurate either. Hold on. You're the one who brought up the so-called "cages." You're the one who wants to repeatedly hold them up as your shining example of how bad HK society really was/is. All I did was take the number of people living in your nightmare scenario from your article and apply basic math. If you'd like to drop that specific example, by all means, feel free, as I'm not the one who brought it up and I'm not the one who apparently wants to keep pointing to it. But as long as you want to keep talking about it, don't turn around and tell me my number "isn't accurate" when I'm specifically using the information that you provided. Furthermore, I think any society that allows such conditions to persist for anyone, but certainly for citizens that actually work for a living has to count itself as a failure at least to some degree. But then that's just my opinion that human beings, especially those that actually work, deserve some minimum living standard. I assume, then, that you consider every nation on the planet to be a failure, because each and every one of them have citizens who live under bridges, in alleyways, and on the sidewalk. Except maybe Monaco and Vatican City. If only we all could be the European Billionaires' Playground or Independent Capital of the World's Largest Religion. (Catholicism still holds that title, right?) However that wasn't the overarching point of my comments. I was trying to point out that HK achieved its status as an supposed objectivist prototype due to variables that are either unacceptable to people in this country (no defense budget/permanent working poor underclass), morally repugnant (a colonial government that views its citizens as inferior and unworthy of a social safety net) or completely outside of the objectivist ideal (no privately owned real estate/massively subsidized housing/nationalized healthcare).In short, the real world test case that objectivists and pseudo objectivists (libertarians) like to cite, fails miserably as the shining utopia of unfettered free market principles and rugged individualism of their fantasies. I agree. Which is why I don't think Hong Kong was or is objectivist. But to pretend that there's absolutely no validity in citing the example of the dynamic, explosive economy of a tiny, relatively resourceless island - one that colonial masters couldn't be bothered to try to socially engineer, one that was sitting right next to a giant Communist country with an army made up of millions and millions of armed goose-steppers - as evidence of, at the very least, some demonstrable advantages of libertarian principles, is as misguided as pretending that Hong Kong was some weird objectivist paradise that eliminated poverty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tulane Skins Fan Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Fair enough. However if folks at the very bottom are living in cages I don't think it's a stretch to imagine that people a rung or two up the ladder aren't exactly living lives of luxury either. In fact, in this low unemployment utopia, approximately 15% of HK's citizens were living in poverty prior to the Chinese takeover. So I don't think your .0015% number is exactly accurate either. Furthermore, I think any society that allows such conditions to persist for anyone, but certainly for citizens that actually work for a living has to count itself as a failure at least to some degree. But then that's just my opinion that human beings, especially those that actually work, deserve some minimum living standard. However that wasn't the overarching point of my comments. I was trying to point out that HK achieved its status as an supposed objectivist prototype due to variables that are either unacceptable to people in this country (no defense budget/permanent working poor underclass), morally repugnant (a colonial government that views its citizens as inferior and unworthy of a social safety net) or completely outside of the objectivist ideal (no privately owned real estate/massively subsidized housing/socialized healthcare). In short, the real world test case that objectivists and pseudo objectivists (libertarians) like to cite fails miserably as the shining utopia of unfettered free market principles and rugged individualism of their fantasies. No, I can see a little bit of what you're talking about. That helped. Is Ryan promoting a libertarian or objectivist health care model though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 I agree. Which is why I don't think Hong Kong was or is objectivist. But to pretend that there's absolutely no validity in citing the example of the dynamic, explosive economy of a tiny, relatively resourceless island . Wait. Did you really just type that about THE singular port for the West's trade with the East? "realtively resourceless"... classic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted May 16, 2011 Share Posted May 16, 2011 Anyone agree with this? All decisions you make in life should benefit the following: 1. Yourself 2. Your sexual being 3. The Group 4. Mankind Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoony Posted May 16, 2011 Author Share Posted May 16, 2011 Anyone agree with this?All decisions you make in life should benefit the following: 1. Yourself 2. Your sexual being 3. The Group 4. Mankind #2 is all that's important Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.