Doesnt really work in the year 2013
Not sure I really buy is as a plausible scenario in 2013 when computers, cell phones, the internet, etc are so widespread.
A lot of things "don't work" with Rand's story today. But the story is only the vehicle that drives her points. It could easily be about some alien planet of blue people working on a farm.
"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3
a lot of things didn't work with rand's story when it was written either - including most of the points she was trying to make.
shareThat's why it works well as a piece of fiction to propel her ideas. Unfortunately many people see it as prophesy. It hasn't begun to be prophetic. And really, the system is so fnuckered up right now that anything that would be a prediction would be about as accurate as The Jetsons
But that doesn't negate the validity of many of her points within the novel.
"De gustibus non disputandum est"
#3
Most of the comments by the (senior? ruling?) looters, "See, capitalism doesn't work!", etc. I could definitely imagine being said by Obama's cabinet members. The principles of the story absolutely work, and I see them coming true today; I didn't imagine them coming true when I read her books in the 1980s.
By the way, it was a nice touch to show signs from Occupy rallies in the movie. Talk about looters demanding other people's property.
Said the political wing that always demands their FEMA disaster relief when the tornado takes out their homes.
shareSaid the political wing that always demands their FEMA disaster relief when the tornado takes out their homes.
I realize that hypocrisy, or perceived hypocrisy, is the greatest evil to you; but are you seriously making the argument that people who have lost their homes should be philosophically consistent and refuse government aid that was paid for with their tax dollars? Or refuse to collect unemployment, social security, and medicaid paid for with their tax dollars? Do you have evidence that conservatives make more claims for relief than liberals?
If it were up to me, we would not have a Federal agency for disaster relief. It is unconstitutional. If a STATE wants to collect taxes for disaster relief for it's citizens, they should. But one state isn't obligated to help another state during a disaster. That's federalism. I can't understand why we have FEMAs at the state level (whatever their name is) and, in addition, a FEMA at the federal level. Channeling money through a federal agency is WASTEFUL, incredibly, ridiculously wasteful. That applies to roads and bridges as well. My gas taxes that should be fixing roads in Virginia get sent to built a bridge to nowhere in Alaska, that no one will drive on. But the function of every federal agency is to provide long-term employment for its workers, and benefits and retirement packages that outstrip the private sector, because government agencies are not expected to make a profit.
I can't believe you are seriously advocating that when a benefit exists that a person has paid money into, they shouldn't use it. Should all federal benefits be reserved for the people who do not produce anything? Would that be intellectually consistent to you? Actually, I am fairly certain you would be perfectly fine with that, because it is not about charity, it is about the redistribution of wealth from the makers to the takers. share
How is losing one's house to natural disaster different from losing one's house to foreclosure? I don't pay taxes to buy you a new house because you refused to take the precautions against your house being destroyed by a storm, so you have no right to disaster relief. It was your choice to buy property in a region known for being hit by tornadoes and floods to the point of predictability. How do we know you didn't intentionally do this in order to scam welfare handouts out of those of us who will really be paying for your new lavish lifestyle?
And incidentally, per the Tax Foundation the states that are usually hit by tornadoes and floods are deadbeat states that get more federal assistance than they pay out in taxes. Since I live in a support state, I am the one paying into it and therefore I am the one who should receive it, not some closet Commie Randroid who believes that he's not a socialist welfare addict even though his hero Ayn was one as well in her final years.
Thanks for making my argument for federalism. There are no "deadbeat" states, as nearly everyone (and every state) pays something in taxes, but since there are disparities between the states, that is exactly why money paid to the federal government should ONLY pay for things that must be done at a federal level: Military, border control, federal court system. Even funding for highways should be gathered as gas taxes and tolls, and then only spent local to that state.
For the same reason, when your state (California) or your city (Detroit, Chicago, New York) spends more money than it takes in and goes bankrupt, I have no moral obligation to bail you out. If I live in a Tornado Alley state, and it is only MY state's taxes that bail out my neighbors, eventually I will demand that my state require mandatory levels of homeowners insurance or exempt houses built in certain areas from receiving assistance. I would make the same argument in the hurricane-prone areas close to home: You get one house rebuilt if a hurricane levels it. After that, mandatory levels of flood insurance. By spreading the misery equally (a hallmark of collectivism) across the entire country, most people don't realize what they are paying for.
Note that I am NOT saying banning people from building in a given area: Only ban them from receiving assistance the second time your house gets wiped out.
As for Objectivists being closet Communists, either you really don't understand the discussion or you are just projecting.
The federal government has exactly one Constitutionally-mandated duty: promote a pro-business environment. Everything else is overreach that should have been left to the private sector, but that means actually taking responsibility for yourself for once, Comrade. I don't pay taxes for some bloated standing military to come save you from your refusal to tornado-proof your house or for some goon squad to chase down the crook you refused to stop from robbing you, I pay them so capitalism may thrive. The sooner you understand this, the happier you'll be.
shareYou are trying really, REALLY hard to be on opposite sides. Maybe if you read the Constitution, you might understand that there are specific duties for the federal government, and those that are not specified, it is prohibited from doing. A standing military is one. What it does, and whether it is bloated, is subject to debate. I didn't say anything about involving the military in helping people in tornado-ravaged areas (you really are fixated on that, aren't you?). If anything, that is a function of the national guard, which is STATE controlled. I don't know what goon squads you are referring to, either. I believe in capitalism, as well. So calm down, already. And the function of government is not to promote ANYTHING, but to get the hell out of our way.
The free market is the natural state of man, we don't need the government's sanction or assistance. Every time the government gets involved, it screws things up. Now lighten up, Francis.
Becoming a socialist welfare addict doesn't happen overnight. It always comes in stages. First it's a government saying that they'll fight the invading hordes for you. Then it's them saying they'll buy you a new house after a tornado destroys your old house. Then it's them saying they'll hunt down the criminal you robbed you for you. Then you're sitting there expecting them to pay you to not grow food, and you don't remember how you got there.
By telling disaster victims to take a flying leap, we start them back on the road to freedom and prosperity...but you'd rather enslave them into being moochers who need permission from authority to beg those of us who work for a living for handouts.
I'm going to let you continue this conversation by yourself. You aren't reading or responding to any of my replies, and you seem really, really angry; so I'll just wait to read about you in the paper smashing your plane into the side of a FEMA building.
share