Karl Marx Shrugged?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo

Meh. So long as I never have to read John Galt's soliloquy ever again.

asdasd

My lasting impression of it, as a pseudo-philosophical work,

My lasting impression is of turgidly written ****e.

Rand's disciples should not be pro-war, if her written attacks on war are anything to go by, but I have found that the Randians, and some Libertarians ( like the appalling Samizdata in the UK) are really neo-conservatives, American cheerleaders, or Israeli Firsters. Which is not the same as Libertarian. ( American libertarians tend to be anti-war, outside of Randianism).

Most supported the Iraqi war.

In terms of what she actually believes in it has to be said that some people fail, and fail badly. they may well be weak, they may well be "lesser people" than the better, more succesful entrepeneur or private sector worker, or engineer ( Rand loved Engineers). Or maybe old.

If they dont get to live off the State, if we have the anarcho-capitalism they want, people will die, or be shuffled off to workhouses.

**** that.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mad Finn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

OK. I have admitted from the outset that I haven't read her stuff but have a great distaste for her followers. Why this implies that I should set aside a large chunk of my life to plough through Atlas Shrugged just to see if they have misconceived notions about her thoughts is beyond me.

Why not just take what she says from the horse's mouth?

Here's the girl herself in an interview with Phil Donahue from 1980. Watch from about 4 minutes 5s where Phil asks for an example where helping others is a bad thing.

What sort of numb nut admires a person who objects to disabled toilets and wheel chair ramps?

BTW. Spool on and you'll get to hear her views about who owns the oil in the middle east.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

earwicker

I'd argue that those who parasitically want to live off the ingenuity and inventiveness of others tend to become unthinking and uncreative in other aspects of their lives as well, often falling back on other people's pat rhetoric to support their positions.

Surely you can see the irony?

turgon

Mad Finn wrote: »

Why this implies that I should set aside a large chunk of my life to plough through Atlas Shrugged just to see if they have misconceived notions about her thoughts is beyond me.

If reading one book the size of Lord of the Rings will take up a "large chunk" of your life then your obviously not going to be around for much longer.

Mad Finn wrote: »

Why not just take what she says from the horse's mouth?

Ah but thats only her interpretation of the work

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dar

Mad Finn wrote: »

Here's the girl herself in an interview with Phil Donahue from 1980. Watch from about 4 minutes 5s where Phil asks for an example where helping others is a bad thing.

What sort of numb nut admires a person who objects to disabled toilets and wheel chair ramps?

She didn't say she objects to disabled toilets and chair ramps. She objected to them being built by tax payers money and maintains that it should be funded by the disabled themselves or through private charities.

nesf

asdasd wrote: »

Rand's disciples should not be pro-war, if her written attacks on war are anything to go by, but I have found that the Randians, and some Libertarians ( like the appalling Samizdata in the UK) are really neo-conservatives, American cheerleaders, or Israeli Firsters. Which is not the same as Libertarian. ( American libertarians tend to be anti-war, outside of Randianism).

Being a fan of Rand doesn't automatically make you a Libertarian or even a Liberal in the European/Classical sense no more than not liking Rand's prevents you from being one or anything else.

Just as there are plenty of self-declared fans of Marx who are lunatics the situation with Rand is similar. I wouldn't dismiss Marx based on what his more extreme fans get up to and so on.

thebman

I'd like to point out that there are very few popular ideaologies that promote war.

War is something people rationalise as a necessary evil. It is not something that anyone should look forward to or have as part of their ideaology. I don't think any popular movement has had war as a core principle rather than a means to an end.

Oh and there is a war economy albeit funded by the taxpayers usually/unfortunately IMO. The factories that produce in war are producing the bullets for the guns.

nesf

thebman wrote: »

I'd like to point out that there are very few popular ideaologies that promote war.

Generally some form of nationalism (but not all forms) is the ideology in question.

silverharp

nesf wrote: »

Being a fan of Rand doesn't automatically make you a Libertarian or even a Liberal in the European/Classical sense no more than not liking Rand's prevents you from being one or anything else.

Yeah , Greenspan being a case in point

oscarBravo

Dar wrote: »

She didn't say she objects to disabled toilets and chair ramps. She objected to them being built by tax payers money and maintains that it should be funded by the disabled themselves or through private charities.

I have a problem with that. The underlying tenet is that disabled people have no inherent right to a reasonable quality of life, but that they should live in hope that someone will take pity on them and magnanimously grant it to them.

thebman

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have a problem with that. The underlying tenet is that disabled people have no inherent right to a reasonable quality of life, but that they should live in hope that someone will take pity on them and magnanimously grant it to them.

I don't really want in on this argument but can't help but comment on this as it reminds me of a Blackadder quote.

BA: There was a problem with the plan.
Baldrick: What was that sir?
BA: It was b*ll*cks!

It is the inevitable failure of a system without state that it leaves the disabled to suffer unfairly. Private charities is a sorry attempt to act like such a system could work.

Who is going to donate to the private charities when everyone is only out for themselves anyway?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mad Finn

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Clearly a dilemma that causes much anguish. :rolleyes:

I am reminded of one of the great cinematic works of art of our time.

"I want to be a woman. From now on I want you all to call me Loretta. I want to have babies."

"You can't have babies!"

"Don't you oppress me!"

"I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb!! Where's the foetus going to gestate? You going to stick it in a box?"

"Wait a minute. I have a plan. Let's say that Stan can't have babies, because he's a man and hasn't got a womb which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans. But he can have the RIGHT to have babies!"

Don't know what made me think of that.

turgon

But do you think the state should provide free education to giver everyone an equal enough starting block?

Dar

oscarBravo wrote: »

I have a problem with that. The underlying tenet is that disabled people have no inherent right to a reasonable quality of life, but that they should live in hope that someone will take pity on them and magnanimously grant it to them.

I see.

So we should take pity on them and magnanimously grant them improved quality of life and pay for it with other people's money without their consul or consent?

How charitable of you.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can't see how anybody with a conscience could stand behind such a system TBH.

I'd hope for better from society than to leave it to chance that these charities would get enough funds to give the disabled a decent quality of life.

Dar wrote: »

I see.

So we should take pity on them and magnanimously grant them improved quality of life and pay for it with other people's money without their consul or consent?

How charitable of you.

So you'd rather watch them die? I struggle to find words to express what I feel after reading that

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Another problem in the system. Since people with mild autism that can't afford the education get unfairly treated in the system IMO.

With sufficient one on one education they can function normally in society but without they are doomed to become disabled for life.

This system does not work and is unjust IMO. It punishes for children for randomly being born into the wrong family with the wrong genes. Things people have no control over.

Its fine in theory but it should remain theory IMO.

nesf

thebman wrote: »

I can't see how anybody with a conscience could stand behind such a system TBH.

I'd hope for better from society than to leave it to chance that these charities would get enough funds to give the disabled a decent quality of life.

Indeed, it's usually issues like this that tend to turn people off objectivism. Most of us can think of some group that deserves some form of State aid, even those of us who believe that it should be relatively minimalist.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

earwicker

Er... no?

I was simply asking if you saw any irony in your falling back on the pat rhetoric of others--Rand and company--in order to make your argument.

thebman

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

And Chivalry only died recently apparently.

Society has moved on. If you took away social welfare now, people wouldn't be willing to give the same amount to look after the people who need it.

I don't believe it would work in a modern society even if it worked in the past.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

nesf

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

To echo a previous poster, that sounds positively utopian..

Permabear

This post has been deleted.