…and this is a 
This is a video of Ayn Rand on a talk show in, I think, the 1970s. Don't run away yet! The interesting part isn't Ayn Rand, who merely says the same thing all we atheists say nowadays, but the audience and also the host: they seem horrified that someone has so boldly stated that they don't believe in god. And that liberal host, Phil Donahue, "tsk, tsk, tsk"s her, and you can tell he's just unable to comprehend someone denying the deity.
We have come a long way. I don't think a modern audience would be much less annoyed, but at least they wouldn't be as surprised.
OK, just to correct your exposure to Rand (although she doesn't say anything objectionable in the clip above), here's Christopher Hitchens.
Comments
Posted by: dsmwiener
|
June 1, 2011 2:34 PM
Even a broken clock is right twice a day.
Posted by: DeePhlat
|
June 1, 2011 2:35 PM
Excellent. Now you need to post a video to correct our exposure to Hitchens's strong adherence to state religion.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 1, 2011 2:38 PM
Of course Rand wouldn't acknowledge a being above her and her cultic "truths." Correct on that, sure, but not necessarily via the proper processes.
And seriously, when it was the godly West against godless commies, as the Cold War was portrayed in the US, atheism didn't have much chance of being "acceptable." Now it does.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy
|
June 1, 2011 2:38 PM
Atheism: So Easy, A Libertarian Can Do It!
Posted by: Mandy
|
June 1, 2011 2:41 PM
Weird how the tea-baggers who worship her don't ever mention her atheism. I guess they are experts at picking and choosing what parts of their holy writ to follow.
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 1, 2011 2:45 PM
Donohue plays the trite "you're just as arrogant as the religious" card to push the ideal of Doubt as the open door for faith. We're not "smart enough" to know if there's a God or not -- and yet somehow this morphs into believing in God as not just reasonable, but more reasonable than arrogant atheism with its certainty.
If any guest said "I believe in God" would Donohue have accused them of arrogance? Pointed out they can't be sure? Not a chance. It would have passed as eminently reasonable. Laudatory, even. Double standard.
Posted by: RNA Helix
|
June 1, 2011 2:47 PM
@ #3
I think that is selling her potential a bit short. She WANTED a rational structure to the lives of humans. You can agree or disagree with her conclusions, but I think it's a bit irrational to say she was only an atheist "cause she had an ego complex." Love her or hate her, she clearly states why she doesn't believe in a god, and her reasoning is correct.
Posted by: a_ray_in_dilbert_space, OM, A little FUCKING ray of sunshine
|
June 1, 2011 2:50 PM
Actually, my atheism has nothing to do with whether there is a "God"--i.e. some sort of being that established the laws of the Universe(s) and a whole helluva lot more to do with
1)the lack of evidence for said being
2)our total, complete inability to comprehend what such a being would even be like.
Without evidence, there is no basis for belief. Without an unambiguous definition, there is no hope of evidence.
Posted by: holyspiritdenier
|
June 1, 2011 2:53 PM
I get the impression that left-liberal humanists find Rand annoying because she created an alternative humanism which, after developing under the radar for a couple of generations, has recently gotten strong enough to compete with their version.
Of course, Rand's world view promotes some nutty ideas. But it makes sense to view her popularity "backwards": Rand speaks up for the productive people in society who view the progressives' agenda as one of violence and rapine directed at them. Compared with the left's abyss of abnegation, Rand's flawed but vivid defense of human excellence looks like a better deal.
Posted by: Protoplasmoid
|
June 1, 2011 2:55 PM
Wow. Nine comments until a braindead randbot shows up. Still nothing worth reading.
Posted by: Victor
|
June 1, 2011 2:58 PM
Phil Donahue knew Maddy O'Hare quite well. I doubt he's unable to comprehend someone denying the existence of god. He may have been playing it up to get her to elaborate. She wasn't very elaborate in her stance.
Posted by: cartman86
|
June 1, 2011 3:01 PM
Speaks up for the productive people in society? Thank you Ayn Rand! They are in such dire straits.
Posted by: jgulner
|
June 1, 2011 3:01 PM
I'd say left-liberal humanists find Rand annoying because she pretended her assumptions weren't assumptions and then used them to create a philosophy of Fuck You Got Mine.
Posted by: Olav
|
June 1, 2011 3:03 PM
Victor, yes. I do not know this Mr. Donahue, seeing as I am from another planet, but I thought he was quite generous in giving Rand the opportunity to expand on her views a little bit. And slapping down the heckler in the audience on her behalf was well done too.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 1, 2011 3:05 PM
And I think it's irrational to suppose that a short polemical rejoinder was presented as if it were an analysis of Rand's position.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings
|
June 1, 2011 3:05 PM
holyspiritdenier:
That might be your impression. It wouldn't be the truth. Rand was annoying because she promoted selfishness as a virtue, rather than a vice. Libertarianism promotes self above others, and encourages the fucking over of others for your own gain (which is my personal definition of "evil").
Also, Libertarians embrace an economic system that is not based on reality or rationality. That's pretty fucking annoying, too.
Posted by: RNA Helix
|
June 1, 2011 3:11 PM
"And I think it's irrational to suppose that a short polemical rejoinder was presented as if it were an analysis of Rand's position."
Yes, but it is the rejoinder that you used to draw conclusions from. If you drew those conclusions from somewhere else, then I have not examined your references. I simply took what she said at face value. She gave rational, and correct justifications for her atheism.
Posted by: lessofthedifferent
|
June 1, 2011 3:12 PM
Thank you, Rey Fox (#4), for my big and unexpected laugh of the day. =^_^=
Posted by: HaloStarbucks
|
June 1, 2011 3:13 PM
Dear insipid motherfucking sycophants,
Quit presuming that atheism means buying into socialist bullshit.
Sincerely,
One of many libertarian atheists.
Posted by: eigenperson
|
June 1, 2011 3:21 PM
Dear idiot Rand-worshipers,
If you're stupid enough to buy into something as transparently ridiculous and self-serving as libertarianism, why not just shoot for the moon and buy into theism as well?
Sincerely,
One of many atheists who has a functioning brain.
Posted by: RNA Helix
|
June 1, 2011 3:25 PM
I love watching the "Everything Rand did was crap and was done for crappy reasons" people and the "Everything Rand did was amazing and brilliant" people call each other names. She surely polarized people lol.
Posted by: Aetre
|
June 1, 2011 3:25 PM
There's a lot of literature from the 40s and 50s (Atlas Shrugged included, and in the nonfiction version, "The Road To Serfdom" by Hayek as examples) that passes the notion that somehow because socialist movements in Germany and Russia ended in totalitarian dictatorships, that must somehow be the endgame of all socialism. Then Communist China happened, and Hayek in particular was cited as almost prophetic.
Flawed logic? Well duh. But it's the root behind the current outcry from conservative wingnuts that liberal social programs somehow are equivalent and tantamount to loss of freedom and the rise of tyrrany. I think about all that can really be learned from the USSR etc. in the end is that socialist institutions are no more inherently good or bad for society than an "atheist" is inherently libertarian or socialist. The world's complex; nothing new here.
Where I'd agree with Rand, at least where economics are concerned, is that all institutions must in the end be subject to the same laws of supply and demand, of cost and benefit, as any capitalist enterprise would have to contend with. Where I disagree is that she seemed to think that this somehow meant private was always better. It's very obviously not--Catholic schools may score higher than many public schools in our nation, but that doesn't change the fact that the former try to instill a dogma that's potentially very harmful to the students, and it certainly doesn't change the fact that having public education does in general help communities and is (with the few exceptionally horrible schools out there) worth the public investment. She, and the rest of the hard-core Randians with her, didn't seem to get that.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 1, 2011 3:28 PM
"I got mine, fuck you" has become a quite popular political idea these days. The Republicans and their libertarian lickspittle lackeys have been pushing this concept for a while and have convinced a large number people that they really mean "fuck everyone but you."
Posted by: csreid
|
June 1, 2011 3:32 PM
Fuck you.No one here is saying that. I'm perfectly happy to admit that people can be completely rational in one respect, and throughly nutty in others. You're right.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 1, 2011 3:39 PM
No but it should mean accepting reality.
And it's a well known fact that reality has a liberal bias.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 1, 2011 3:39 PM
This is precisely why we perceive her and anyone who agrees with her as a nut.
Posted by: HaloStarbucks
|
June 1, 2011 3:42 PM
Sweet jesus on a stick, how the incestuous coterie of socialism reminds me of church.
Posted by: Birger Johansson
|
June 1, 2011 3:42 PM
Ayn Rand is not very popular in conservative circles here in Europe, to the extent that they even know her name (her atheism does not matter, atheism has become common among conservatives in at least some countries, particularly in the Scandinavian nations).
Just about everyone over here knows you need taxes to get things done. And after two world wars no one here wants people to easily get their hands on assault rifles or other military gear. Check the term "Freikorps".
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 1, 2011 3:43 PM
Progressive political ideas and socialism are not synonyms. Libertarianism and socialism are not the only two alternatives, and the latter, despite what Limbaugh claims, has virtually no political support in the United States. A progressive income tax is not "socialism".
Posted by: Victor
|
June 1, 2011 3:44 PM
Being atheist purely as a knee jerk reaction to theism, rather than as a result of logical skepticism, is irrational. As is being a libertarion purely as a knee jerk reaction to socialist ideas or out of greed.Posted by: Disco Stu
|
June 1, 2011 3:44 PM
At some point it's ultimately a moral question rather than a rational question. Even if you could somehow prove that society in general would be better off if we all cared about other people, you would have to care about society in general in the first place to justify spending your resources to improve it.
Rationality + empathy = humanism, imo. I haven't seen that humanism directly follows from atheism.
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 1, 2011 3:48 PM
Interesting that you would post that in a thread where not one single socialist idea has been advanced or defended.
Posted by: Disco Stu
|
June 1, 2011 3:49 PM
At the risk of getting "No true Scottsman"'d to death, I'd like to humbly suggest that one can be both interested in individual freedoms (and thus be considered at least in some fashion a libertarian) and helping others succeed.
Labels are tricky like that.
Posted by: csreid
|
June 1, 2011 3:54 PM
Right. Only libertarians are interested in individual freedoms. I consider myself a relatively conservative socialist, and let me tell you: the hardest part about getting any of us into public office is the whole "No one should have rights" plank of the platform.
Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche
|
June 1, 2011 3:56 PM
Posted by: Disco Stu
|
June 1, 2011 3:57 PM
Nowhere did I suggest this. What I suggested is that libertarian isn't necessarily a bad word and not all people that may consider themselves libertarian on some issues (and not necessarily on all) may not be as evil as you'd like to think they are.
Posted by: Disco Stu
|
June 1, 2011 4:01 PM
@35 and libertarian doesn't necessarily mean "conservative".
Posted by: AKron
|
June 1, 2011 4:02 PM
I really hate these threads bashing Libertarians. I'm not a God fearing tea-bagger. I don't believe in everything Libertarians say, nor Socialists. Notice I haven't called anybody a wingnut, or fucktard here because of their views.
There's one thing I will defend though, and that's
The Philosophy of Liberty
Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche
|
June 1, 2011 4:03 PM
Blerg. Blockquote fail.
Posted by: azumahazuki
|
June 1, 2011 4:10 PM
The problem with Rand's ideas is that they are pre-scientific. Let me repeat that: pre-scientific.
Specifically, this was written before people in general understood just how social an animal the human being is. It is, in other words, in our best interests to be "altruistic" because we're wired that way. The very objectivism she preaches destroys the doctrines of malignant selfishness, because this is reality.
Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche
|
June 1, 2011 4:10 PM
@ 37 So I used the wrong word. Maybe it's because the only difference I see between American conservatism and American libertarianism is in degree, not kind. Sure, libertarians have a few quirks like being socially liberal (not that that's always the case) and anti-war (not because killing people is wrong or anything, just that the military is fueled by evil taxes). Other than that, though, conservatives and libertarians both harbor a fundamental mistrust of our entire system of government.
Posted by: csreid
|
June 1, 2011 4:17 PM
Really? Cause this:
would seem to suggest that anyone who cares about individual freedom is, by definition, a libertarian. That doesn't fly.
Personally, I value individual freedom pretty highly. That means freedom to live without fear of getting sick or hurt* and going bankrupt as a result. In other words, universal health care. It also means the freedom for each person to rise to hir** potential. In other words, everyone should have an equal chance to succeed. In other words, tax the wealthiest to the benefit of the poorest, in an attempt to redistribute teh wealthz!!
Seriously, if you wanna call me a libertarian because I value individual freedom would require some serious redefining of "libertarian".
*A few years ago, I was in a head-on collision with a poor, uninsured drunk driver. He didn't have a license, and he was driving a borrowed car. He made bail, and disappeared. In the mean time, my medical bills were around $70,000. Luckily, I was on my parents' health insurance, and we didn't have any problems paying. But imagine if I hadn't been? My life would've been over. In what universe is that ok?
**Thanks for this, Pharyngula!
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 1, 2011 4:18 PM
Yes, here in the United States that's called being a "liberal".
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 1, 2011 4:22 PM
Yes, here in the United States that's called being a "liberal".
exactly.
those who claim the libertarian mantle these days have no clue what the term originally meant, and also have no clue what the practical results have been of libertarianism in the past, though they should, given societies that have tried it and failed are part of every secondary school history class.
well, every one except those in Texas, I guess, if the BoE has its way.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
June 1, 2011 4:25 PM
Being libertarian seems to require that you not only value individual freedoms, you value them to the point that you refuse to step in when someone (usually white & male) is infringing on someone else's (usually non-white and/or non-male) individual freedom.
Which is to say, it's not valuing individual freedoms at all, it's valuing the ability of one group to maintain its dominance over the rest of society.
That's the end result of libertarian policies. When Alan Greenspan allowed his libertarian philosophy to guide USA monetary policy, that is exactly what happened.
At some point, people who call themselves libertarian but oppose oppression are going to have to own up to this and either pick a new label or kick the racists and the sexists out of the libertarian movement. Given the reality of the demographics of libertarianism right now, the former seems like a more feasible option.
Posted by: zyxek
|
June 1, 2011 4:29 PM
Contrary to what PZ wrote, Rand did say some objectionable things in one of those interviews: "I will not die, it's the world that will end." Altruistic humanists need to reject that sentiment, and have some concern for how our species and planet fare after we are gone.
And in response to the interviewer talking about people becoming "nothing but corpses" after we die, she insists that "we aren't there" after we die. Our consciousness may have ceased, but our bodies remain. She seems to still have an animistic view of death, even if she's not advocating the notion of an afterlife.
Posted by: maggotpunk
|
June 1, 2011 4:30 PM
Ayn Rand, proving that even Atheists can be irrational.
Posted by: csreid
|
June 1, 2011 4:33 PM
I think the best thing that would come out of that is that these new libertarians would allow non-whites and non-males to spit on poor people, too. Racism and sexism are incidental to libertarianism, but classism is fundamental.
Posted by: Disco Stu
|
June 1, 2011 4:33 PM
I'd say that's about as logical as suggesting that all atheistic societies end up with Gulags.
I think that it's possible to have libertarian values and still like things like governments and taxes and social programs.
I concede the point that the phrase Libertarian has been tainted by the Tea Party, but I think it's a case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater to write off every libertarian ideal as part of a racist, conservative, and self-centered movement.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
June 1, 2011 4:33 PM
Looks like we have to go over Why Libertarians Are Bad People 101 again.
There have been a lot of reductions in personal freedoms in the United States. On this, libertarians, left-liberals, greens, progressives, and socialists agree. Some of the libertarians have a kind of zealotry that makes them very single-minded about getting their message out, and it is in general a simplistic message so it's easy to communicate. So there's a generation coming of age on the internet who don't have strong views on economics but who know that they don't feel free, and the libertarian message is the loudest one that resonates with this feeling.
The problem with libertarianism is that economic inequality is not conducive to freedom.
This much is recognized by the undeniably capitalist Fund for Peace and Foreign Policy magazine, who jointly publish the Failed States Index, which counts uneven economic development along group lines as one of the indicators of dangerous instability. On this particular measure, by the way, the United States scores more than half as bad as Zimbabwe.
There's more detail from the Equality Trust on how economic equality buys us all the kind of society that is conducive to freedom.
Right-wing economic policies, though, tend to favor the consolidation of wealth, at the expense of other freedoms.
This is short-sighted. In the long run it's not even safe for the rich, because highly unequal societies eventually collapse into violence. Tim Wise gives a good description of how privilege ultimately hurts those who have it; he's talking about white privilege but you can easily see the parallels to class privilege.
Conservatives are famously short-sighted, wouldn't you agree? Isn't that one of the reasons libertarians don't want to be identified with them? Being tough on crime and tough on terror and tough on any foreign country that looks funny is short-sighted. Yet libertarian economic policies, in line with other right-wingers' economic policies, are similarly self-destructive.
Nobody is really free in the chaos and violence of a failed state. But even in a relatively stable state, the poor live under threat of violence and coercion.
And so today in the United States, even if we could get immediately rid of the PATRIOT Act and the war on drugs and the border walls and the cameras and the high-tech police cruisers and all the other obvious manifestations of the police state, and the corporate lobbying and the military-industrial complex and the military bases around the world and the constant state of undeclared war—and we should get rid of all these things immediately, but even if we did—life in the United States, for a substantial portion of the citizens, would still be more about violence and fear than freedom and opportunity.
And there is no laissez-faire policy that will address this reality.
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
June 1, 2011 4:42 PM
Well then I'd say that you fail at analogies.
Libertarian ideology would restrict the power of the government without similarly restricting the power of private corporations. Ergo, you end up with a monopoly, concentration of wealth in the hands of the already wealthy, and extreme economic inequality (the current situation in USAland thanks to a prolonged assault by the libertarian-inflected right wing). As SG has pointed out, extreme economic inequality is antithetical to freedom.
Libertarian ideology leads to a decrease in freedom for most people, except the elites. This is why selling libertarianism to the rabble has been such a popular strategy among the GOP.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
June 1, 2011 4:43 PM
No, libertarians were conservative and self-centered racists before the Tea Party came along.
Lew Rockwell's site, a major driver of libertarian opinion, is strongly opposed to civil rights. Libertarian Lew Rockwell lies about history to defend Trent Lott, Strom Thurmond, the Dixiecrats, racial segregation and Jim Crow laws.
Libertarian Steven Yates calls the response to Lott's pro-Dixiecrat comments the "lynching of an uppity Southerner." Seriously. He seriously compared complaints about Lott's words to Klan terrorism. He then race-baits about "affirmative action hires" and, typical neo-Confederate that he is, whines that the Tenth Amendment "was thrown out when Lincoln forcibly prevented a group of states from seceding and forming a new republic." On and on about "the covert warfare that philosophical materialists [have] been waging against Christianity" and "basic property rights and freedom of association."
Remember the Nazi apologia by Pat Buchanan?
There's a reason it's still up at Lew Rockwell's and Justin Raimondo's websites, both libertarians long before the Tea Party.
The honest way for libertarians to argue is to admit that many libertarians fight against women's reproductive choice, and many libertarians are neo-Confederates who support segregation. Then, from that honest position, you can try to argue why they should be ostracized by the libertarian movement. (Then, from that idealistic position, you can start dealing with the reality of why they haven't been ostracized, and instead have so much influence within the movement.)
Posted by: KG
|
June 1, 2011 4:47 PM
Good thing no-one is doing that, then. "Libertarian" used to have the meaning you want it to have, then a bunch of callous, privileged scumbags took it over and made it mean "I've got mine, fuck you." The word is probably beyond reclamation, but the ideals of personal freedom it used to refer to remain central to progressive politics.
Posted by: AKron
|
June 1, 2011 4:48 PM
This is for reference for those who are curious:
Libertarian Party 2010 Platform
Posted by: truthspeaker
|
June 1, 2011 4:55 PM
Not only is it possible, it's extremely common. The United States is founded on those very ideas. In the US, professing those values is virtually required if you want to be a Democratic politician. Until Nixon, you could value all those things and be a Republican politician. Even in the Reagan era there were Republican politicians who valued individual freedoms and still liked governments and taxes and social programs.
So basically you're generalizing "libertarian values" to mean the values that almost all of western Europe, North America, and most of South America have already been espousing for well over a century.
So, sure, if you redefine "libertarian" to mean "liberal democracy" then everyone on this thread is a libertarian. And then you and Humpty Dumpty can have a conversation where when you use words, they mean exactly what you intend them to mean, regardless of how everyone else in the world uses them.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
June 1, 2011 4:59 PM
Callous. Let's take a look at some of its most evil parts:
«1.4 Abortion
Recognizing that abortion is a sensitive issue and that people can hold good-faith views on all sides, we believe that government should be kept out of the matter, leaving the question to each person for their conscientious consideration.»
And when they say "government should be kept out of the matter", they mean no public funding, and they mean removal of current funding for the generalized women's health clinics which currently exist.
Those clinics currently can't use public funding to perform abortions (which is a problem, a problem which libertarians refuse to help with), but the buildings can exist and their staffs can be maintained for other health services with public funding. Remove the funding, and many of them couldn't stay in operation, and would have to close.
Libertarianism would make abortion even less available than it already is, which is pretty darn unavailable, particularly in rural areas.
Posted by: badgersdaughter
|
June 1, 2011 5:05 PM
Dear Randists:
You're not supposed to be bootlickers. Lay off my cousin Alissa and think for yourselves, goddammit.
Sincerely, badgersdaughter
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 1, 2011 5:06 PM
Libertarian ideals are bad for the economy. Never, and I mean never, has there been capitalist enterprise that wasn't ultimately underwritten by the state. This is true at an obvious level that even most libertarians would concede (though maybe not some of the Austrian School economists). For the system to work, there needs to be some kind of bare bones apparatus for enforcing contracts and protecting property. But it's also true in a more profound, historical sense. To summarize very briefly a long and complicated history, we got capitalism in the first place through a complex process of flirtation between governments on the one hand, and bankers and merchants on the other, culminating in the Industrial Revolution. What libertarians revere as an eternal, holy truth is in fact, in the grand scheme of human history, quite young. And if they'd just stop worshiping for a minute, they'd notice the parents hovering in the background.
Think about the New Deal. Although libertarian ingrates will never admit it, without the reforms of the 1930s, there might not be private property left for them to complain about the government infringing on. Not many capitalist democracies could survive 25% unemployment, and it doesn't just happen by good luck. Or take a more recent example: savvy health insurance executives were quite aware that a couple of years ago, if reform failed again, skyrocketing prices were likely to doom the whole scheme of private insurance (itself a freak accident of federal policy) and bring on single-payer.
Here's a fun sci-fi one: Imagine the moment in, say, twenty years, when the evidence of climate change has become undeniable, and there’s an urgent crackdown on carbon-intensive industries. Then coal companies and agribusiness will be wishing they’d gotten on board with the mild, slow-moving reform that is cap-and-trade.
The government didn't just help make the "free market" in the first place, although it did do that. It's also constantly busy trimming around the edges, maintaining the thing, keeping it healthy. The state can think ahead and balance competing interests in a way that no single company can.
The libertarian who insists that the state has no place beyond basic night-watchman duties is like a teenager who, having been given a car, promptly starts demanding the right to stay out all night. Sometimes, someone else really is looking out for your best interests by saying no. This isn't to say the state is looking out for the best interests of everybody, or even most people. The point is just that, however Glenn Beck might hyperventilate, the government doesn't want to destroy the market. It wants to preserve it, and it does this job better than the market can on its own.
And that's why the best rap on libertarians isn't that they're racist, or selfish. (Though some of them are those things, and their beliefs encourage both bad behaviors, even if accidentally.) It's that they're thoroughly out of touch with reality. It's a worldview that prospers only so long as nobody tries it, and is too unreflective and self-absorbed to realize this. There is a reason why most libertarians are historical and economic illiterates.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
June 1, 2011 5:06 PM
RahXephon231, you used an acceptable word. It's legitimate to note that libertarians subordinate all their other supposed beliefs to their extremist economics.
Posted by: csreid
|
June 1, 2011 5:10 PM
From AKron's link:
[citation needed]
It's hard to succeed economically when you work three jobs for minimum wage. Oh wait, minimum wage would be improper...
Posted by: raven
|
June 1, 2011 5:11 PM
Income and wealth inequalities lead to unstable societies. That has been known for centuries. That is one of many places Gibbertarianism fails.
A lot of third world countries are Libertarian paradises. Somalia is the best known example, no government and the leading occupations are "warlord" and "pirate".
One of my friends is from a ruling elite family in the Philipines, a libertarianesque country.
They have money, lots of it.
They employ a lot of armed guards to protect them and their economic holdings.
They really need them.
Her cousin was assassinated by one group or another not so long ago.
And oh yeah, most of the family spends as much time as possible in the USA to avoid getting robbed or killed.
You see this pattern a lot in the third world. Being rich is probably better than being poor but not by much. There are always jobs for men with guns protecting you from other men with guns and you have to have them to hold onto your life and property.
In Egypt, there is marked income inequality. Some fabuously rich people and 40% of the population lives on $2.00 a day, right on the edge of starvation. And what just happened in Egypt a few months ago?
Really, I'd be happy if the gibbertarians walked their walk and moved to one of the countless libertarian paradises around the world. I doubt they would live for more than a year.
Posted by: JediBear
|
June 1, 2011 5:15 PM
We can only have conversations when we all agree what words mean.
Do you remember when "Liberal" and "Republican" meant the same thing? Me either. That was back in the 18th Century.
Languages move on, and today Libertarian means what it means. Libertarians are people who are married to an insane (in the sense of being wholly divorced from empirical reality) moral and political philosophy and an entirely discredited economic model.
Which is to say that they're socially liberal (left) and economically liberal (right.)
If you believe in peace and social justice through collective action, you're a Progressive and need to learn what that means. And stop calling yourself a Libertarian, because nobody knows what you mean when you say that.
On the other hand, if you actually agree with the Libertarian Party Platform AKron so helpfully links, you are deranged and need help.
Posted by: Glen Davidson
|
June 1, 2011 5:23 PM
#17
That's just more useless twaddle.
Glen Davidson
Posted by: Antiochus Epiphanes
|
June 1, 2011 5:23 PM
Until the poor rise up and eat them*, or until they suffocate from toxic fumes of industry, or until their own well is poisoned. In the long-run, it's a shitstorm for everyone.
*People will stop at nothing to eat, as it turns out.
Posted by: RahXephon, un féminist sur la branche
|
June 1, 2011 5:28 PM
I often find it useful to point out to libertarians that their ideological...ideal (is that redundant? Ah well.) of a political system has already existed at one point. It was a system in which free agents were able to associate with each other and engage in economic transactions of all types with complete freedom, with little to no interference from the government.
This system was called "feudalism". I seem to remember quite a few French toffs lost their heads over that.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 1, 2011 5:28 PM
Here's one of my favorite bits from the Libertarian Party platform:
Before passage of the Clean Water Act and creation of the Environmental Protection Agency, the Cuyahoga River used to catch on fire. That's right, looneytarians, the river would burn because of pollution. It wasn't corporations or the free market that cleaned up the Cuyahoga, it was the government. So the pretense that government "has a terrible track record when it comes to environmental protection" is a fucking LIE!
The economic planks of the platform are equally ludicrous.
Ever hear of the Panic of 1837? Let me tell you about it.
In 1837, in an attempt to corner the gold market, the ten largest banks in New York stopped payment in specie (gold and silver coinage), leaving other banks holding notes against these banks without adequate liquid assets. Within two months the failures in New York alone aggregated nearly $100,000,000 in value. "Out of eight hundred and fifty banks in the United States, three hundred and forty-three closed entirely, sixty-two failed partially, and the system of State banks received a shock from which it never fully recovered."1 Smaller, privately held financial institutions failed in droves. The Panic was followed by a five-year depression, characterized by ongoing failures of banks and financial institutions and record unemployment levels.
The libertarian approach to banking leads to financial chaos.
1Herbert H. Bancroft The Financial Panic of 1837. New York: Richardson & Snyder, 1936. Page 228.
Posted by: Kagehi
|
June 1, 2011 5:42 PM
See, I would have no problem with this assertion if not for a few minor issues. The first being that it ***fails*** to distinguish between people that get blindingly lucky, whether by just happening to be horrible at business, but, by pure chance, having the right product, at the right time anyway, from people that actually plan their business, or consider the consequences of how they run it. The second problem is that it also ***fails*** to distinguish between some ass that is stinking rich, and maybe spends 10-15 hours a week actually "on the job", instead of having "meetings" at country clubs, versus someone with a disabled husband/wife, two kids, and 4 jobs, all of them minimum wage, who can't even get assistance, because they would have to quit 3 of them, and cut the hours they work at the 4th to less than 20, just to get $10k less a year than they do by working 80 hours a week.
Being a hard worker doesn't get you any place, if you have bad luck, disabled people who depend on you, the wrong house/apartment (due to rent issues), or a whole damn host of other crap. No, what you get from Rand's system is salaried idiots, making $50k a year, with 40 hour weeks, standing around talking to each other, instead of helping the rest of the employees, or doing work, who then tell you that you shouldn't complain, if you end up with only 20 hours, and only because the union says they have to, at like $7.50/hr, for a grand total of $14k a year, maybe...
What is the difference in work ethic? Well, one guy I know that sometimes manages at night, when all the actual managers are on vacation, redoes 4 ends, in 5 hours, along with the rest of his work, and ***has to*** leave at the end of his 8 hour shift, or end up with his ass in a sling. The normal manager? He takes 4 days doing the same job, one end per night, ends up staying 12 hours (he is on a 10 hour shift, so have 2 hours more to do it in), and then tells us we are lazy fools, who should be glad we have a job at all.
That is the world as it really exists. The people that work their asses off usually get paid nothing, have no opportunity for advancement, possibly are not even of a personality type that they would do well in management, or the like, if you bothered to recognize their worth, they are constantly harassed for working 4 times harder than half the people that are paid 2-3 times what they are, and told they are replaceable, while the people that make the money, about half the time don't deserve it. Their sole qualification is a slightly higher level of skill at "fitting" the company profile for "management", and being able to pass a few tests to get there. And the #1 thing that qualifies them? A near obsessive perception that the well being of their boss' boss' pocket book, and kissing a customer's ass, is more important than that half their employees are on government assistance, and the boss' boss' boss is saying, "We need to cut more hours!" The well being, success, or even skill and persistence, of employees means **nothing**. Where I work, every single position has had a "pay cap" changed, to nearly 20% under what it was last contract, with the lowest capped at minimum wage, and **official** policy is that you have to be bloody Jesus or Superman, before you will get an evaluation that suggests, not requires, but merely *suggests* a merit pay raise. And I think the last time anyone, corporate wide, ever got one of those, in the last 10-15 years at least, was probably when some manager in corporate head quarters gave someone else a blow job (just guessing, but it wouldn't be someone in a store that got it, and it would have to have been something more than just doing their job well).
Productive people.. Its always the idiot that won the lotto, figuratively or otherwise, or makes 5,000 other people work for him, at the lowest wages possible, so it can be sold to someone in China (or the reverse, if the manufacturing plant happens to *be* in China), which is considered productive. If rocks where wealth, the idiot that found a mountain, and hired people to guard it would be considered #@#%$$% productive to morons like this poster, never mind that all he had to do, after finding the mountain, is sit on his ass and hand out pebbles to the idiots stupid enough to guard it for him. That's "productive" to Libertarians. Actually working your ass off, to the point of damaging your own health, in some cases I know of, for the table scraps, isn't, because, well, you only have a bucket of pebbles. If you where "productive" you would have a damn mountain by now!
Chance, luck, resources, active disregard by the "productive" of what their workers do for them, and are therefor worth, even whether or not someone will keep paying to go see their damn frakking mountain, if no one has enough pebbles to pay for the privilege any more, are all irrelevant, only how owns the damn mountain, and who is scrounging in the dirt for the damn pebbles, matters. Gah!!! Idiocy isn't a strong enough word for this bullshit.
Posted by: AnneH
|
June 1, 2011 5:42 PM
Here is a BBC documentary about Ayn Rand, and how her ideas influenced Alan Greenspan and the American economy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uz2j3BhL47c
It's an hour long, but I found it fascinating.
Posted by: hoogreg
|
June 1, 2011 6:00 PM
"I think that it's possible to have libertarian values and still like things like governments and taxes and social programs."
"Not only is it possible, it's extremely common. "
Well, they'd better be on their best behaviour!
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 1, 2011 6:15 PM
Here is a BBC documentary about Ayn Rand, and how her ideas influenced Alan Greenspan and the American economy.
In the last couple of years of Greenspan's career with the Reserve, I recall hearing him many times talk about the artificial bubbles real estate speculation was creating in the market, and lamenting that, and warning of the consequences, and that government regulation of this kind of speculation was needed. The Bush administration ignored him.
Whatever he learned from Ayn Rand when he was younger, experience taught him it was all bullshit as he got older.
for any libertarians listening, here are the results of allowing the market to dictate medical treatment, just in the last 10 years:
http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/305/19/1978
30% of emergency departments in hospitals across the country closed. While the population numbers NEEDING emergency treatment have probably at least doubled in the same time period. Take that back 20 years instead of 10, and it's even worse.
In CA, it's closer to 60% closure rates, with a tripling of the population that actually need emergency services.
people being goaded into thinking that a national health care plan is some sort of socialist conspiracy, and thus working against it, are just shooting themselves and their families right in the fucking head.
Libertarianism = fail
learn before you become your own victim of it.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 1, 2011 6:19 PM
Why are the libertarians a problem? Crackpots are usually harmless; how about the Libertarian Party?
In itself it's nothing but a footnote. It gets no more than 1% of the vote--a showing that's been surpassed historically by the Anti-Masonic Party, the Free Soilers, the Prohibition Party, the Socialists, and whatever Ralph Nader was. If that was all it was, I wouldn't bother to devote rants to libertarians. I'm all for the expression of pure eccentricity in politics, I like the Brits' Monster Raving Looney Party.
Why are libertarian ideas important? Because of their influence on the Republican Party. They form the ideological basis for the Reagan/Gingrich/Bush revolution. The Republicans have taken the libertarian "Government is Bad" horse and ridden far with it:
● Reagan's "Government is the problem"
● Phil Gramm's contention that the country's "economic crisis" and "moral crisis" were due to "the explosion of government"
● Dole's 1996 campaign, advancing the notion that taxes were "Your Money" being taken from you
● Gingrich's Contract with America (welfare cuts, tax cuts, limitations on corporations' responsibility and on the government's ability to regulate them)
● Dick Armey's comment that Medicare is "a program I would have no part of in a free world"
● Bush's tax cuts, intended not only to reward the rich but to "starve the beast", in Grover Norquist's words: to create a permanent deficit as a dangerous ploy to reduce social spending
● Intellectual support for attacks on the quality of working life in this county and for undoing the New Deal
Maybe this use of their ideas is appalling to "real libertarians™". Well, it's an appalling world sometimes. Do you think I'm happy to have national representatives like Gore, Kerry or Obama?
At least some libertarians have understood the connection. Murray Rothbard wrote in 1994:
Can you smell the compromise here? Hold your nose and vote for the Repubs, boys. But then don't pretend to be uninvolved when the Republicans start making a mockery of limited government.
There's a deeper lesson here, and it's part of why I don't buy libertarian portraits of the future utopia. Movements out of power are always anti-authoritarian; it's no guarantee that they'll stay that way. Communists before 1917 promised the withering away of the state. Fascists out of power sounded something like socialists. The Republicans were big on term limits when they could be used to unseat Democrats; they say nothing about them today. If you don't think it can happen to you, you're not being honest about human nature and human history.
Posted by: timgueguen
|
June 1, 2011 6:23 PM
Libertarianism might in theory work if a society began will all members having equal economic and other resources. Of course this wouldn't be possible with any sort of community larger than a small town, unless all residents voluntarily surrendered all their holdings upon the establishment of said jurisdiction to a neutral central authority. Said authority would then conduct a one time redistribution of all resources equally amongst community members. How likely would the typical libertarian enthusiast be to agree with such a scenario? Not very from the sound of it.
Posted by: hoogreg
|
June 1, 2011 6:25 PM
Ayn Rand was an inhuman sociopath who successfully foisted her lunacy on a generation. Our children are going to pay for this, mark my words.
"But her books are selling hundreds of thousands of copies a year!"
That's GOOD, right?
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 1, 2011 6:33 PM
Libertarianism might in theory work if a society began will all members having equal economic and other resources.
and altruism was considered a feature, instead of a bug.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 1, 2011 6:51 PM
Sg,
You have no idea how badly I want to graffiti* this in/on/around every public space in this damned country.
Not only do libertarians fail basic economics, but it's clear that they have no fucking clue how to create a stable society, either. That's right folks, go ahead and create a system that encourages extreme poverty, but make sure you arm everyone to the teeth first and see how well that works out for you in the long run.
*Yes, yes. I know. Verbing weirds language.
Posted by: aklemm3
|
June 1, 2011 6:54 PM
These Glibertarian threads are great.
John Scalzi wrote the best paragraph ever on glibertarians. Here it is:
I really don’t know what you do about the “taxes are theft” crowd, except possibly enter a gambling pool regarding just how long after their no-tax utopia comes true that their generally white, generally entitled, generally soft and pudgy asses are turned into thin strips of Objectivist Jerky by the sort of pitiless sociopath who is actually prepped and ready to live in the world that logically follows these people’s fondest desires. Sorry, guys. I know you all thought you were going to be one of those paying a nickel for your cigarettes in Galt Gulch. That’ll be a fine last thought for you as the starving remnants of the society of takers closes in with their flensing tools.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/09/26/tax-frenzies-and-how-to-hose-them-down/
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384
|
June 1, 2011 6:55 PM
Yeah, Ayn Rand had a weird choice of heroes. Then again, gotta love her supposed Medicare and social security grabbing while proclaiming that government is evil.
Hypocritical and malignant old fuck. If #2 is false I'll simply stick with malignant.
Posted by: Antigone
|
June 1, 2011 7:14 PM
@ #38:
I watched your video. I got to "property is the result of your energy, talents, and time" and couldn't listen to anymore of that crappy music and worse philosophy.
I don't "own" my life, and I don't "own" my body. It isn't property. It's ME. Unless you fundamentally think that it is something that can (and should) be bought and sold, you don't own yourself. You are yourself.
Posted by: ggwizz
|
June 1, 2011 7:45 PM
Posted by: Olav | June 1, 2011 3:03 PM
You beat me to it. I thought Donahue was sympathetic toward her view.
Posted by: deang
|
June 1, 2011 8:38 PM
Americans may be less shocked these days by someone publicly admitting to being an atheist, but they're also less opposed to Ayn Rand's greed-above-all worldview than they would have been in the 1970s. So there's progress and there's regression.
Posted by: FTS
|
June 1, 2011 10:37 PM
Ah, so we cherry pick Rand's thoughts and views, just like Hitchens', just like Christians cherry pick the Bible. What we like we accept as good and true, what we don't like we reject. I agree with and like this or that point, so that is right and true. I don't agree with and don't like that point so it is wrong and false.
Posted by: eigenperson
|
June 1, 2011 10:47 PM
That's "Official Monster Raving Loony Party" to you, thank you very much.Posted by: Friendly
|
June 1, 2011 11:14 PM
FTS #81,
People in this thread are "cherrypicking", eh? If that's the case, which of Ms. Rand's thoughts and views that they "disagree with" or "don't like" are actually "good and true"? Please explain, with citations and evidence. We're all ears.
amicably,
Friendly
Posted by: TWX
|
June 1, 2011 11:18 PM
HaloStarbucks:
At the point you commented (19th posted) I hadn't really seen any kind of "Atheism requires Liberalism" mantra in the thread. If there's any correlation between Athiesm and Liberalism, it's that religion has classically been used as a societal binder, and in societies that lack religion, "for the common good because taking care of our fellows makes us stronger" is a compelling argument. To the extent that we tax ourselves to pay for things for ourselves, or for things that benefit a few of us, is another argument, but is always going to be an argument.
Beyond Rand's Atheism there is a kernel of truth in the rest of her philosophy that I mostly disagree with, which is that people are ultimately responsible for themselves. The balance that I as a Liberal have to strive to make is in setting the line between helping someone who (to pardon the cliche) will help themselves, versus helping someone who will never, ever try to work for their own benefit.
People mostly end up where their drive, intelligence, and capability places them. Certainly not always, as there are plenty of smart, capable people who don't fulfill their potential and move up, and there are plenty of nincompoops born into money who couldn't do an honest day's work in their lives, but if we're given an even field to start with via decent public education, we have a much better chance of sorting the people who should be in higher paying fields there, and people who should be in fast food there. I disagree with Rand in her assertion that the CEOs and other rich business men all deserve to be at the top and that all of the workers deserve to be at the bottom, and I also disagree with the value supposedly brought by people at the top, and their compensation, as opposed to the people who actually work to make the company or its products. History has shown us time and again that when the people at the top get too corrupt, too fat and happy, and don't invest in the people who work for them, that eventually revolution tears the whole system apart, as the people at the bottom aren't really as weak as they think, and the people at the top aren't really as powerful as they think either. "I sh*t like you do" really does mean something, vulgar as it may be.
Posted by: Easterngal
|
June 2, 2011 12:21 AM
Having lived in a country with terrible income inequality, I sure have no idea how Libertarian ideas manage to enamour so many people. I should probably blame it to those people having NOT lived in a country with terrible income inequality.
Posted by: zachsmind
|
June 2, 2011 12:26 AM
The climax of Atlas Shrugged consists of a fifty page long speech by Jon Gault. Anyone who takes Ayn Rand serious after reading Atlas Shrugged should be slapped in the face with a large trout. If she wasn't already dead, I'd say kill her. She didn't even have the decency to throw in a car chase.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
June 2, 2011 12:35 AM
You miss the point. Cherry-picking is good, and proper. It is the natural byproduct of independent thought. You do NOT accept what any authority proposes in its entirety. You THINK for yourself, and CHOOSE for yourself. In short, you CHERRY PICK.
That which is true and good is true and good for reasons inherent to itself, and that which is false and evil is also so for reasons inherent to itself, irrespective of the authority or source that first introduced/discovered/popularized/advocated for it.
I cherry pick Rand. I cherry pick Hitchens. I cherry pick PZ Myers. I cherry pick Darwin. I cherry pick Newton. I cherry pick Einstein. Don't you?
Our problem is not that Christians cherry pick the bible, in fact we encourage them to do so. And almost all of them do. Our problem is when Christians refuse to acknowledge or are unable to recognize that they are, in fact, cherry picking the bible, and pretend, or delude themselves, that the bible is some absolute guide.
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
June 2, 2011 12:46 AM
Actually, this is completely consistent with her philosophy. See, while the government might be evil, in theory, and programs like medicare and social security might be bad and stupid, in principle, so long as they actually do exist, the rational selfish objectivist should exploit the opportunity their existence in reality offers, and use them and abuse them as much as she possibly can, to maximize her own personal gain.
"I've got mine, fuck you" includes "take all that is offered, give nothing back".
Posted by: Amblebury
|
June 2, 2011 1:08 AM
A significant part of my respect for Christopher Hitchens is influenced by his opinion of George Eliot. Suffice it to say, I respect him a great deal.
Posted by: gbeggs1
|
June 2, 2011 1:59 AM
The Donahue show comes from a time when daytime talk shows were actually TALK SHOWS. Donahue was a very good talk show host. The fact that he lets Ayn Rand get her full message out without being interrupted is a good example of this.
Not that I endorse the message she was giving (I DON'T). But at least a real conversation could be made instead of having the typical shouting match that ends up with the host getting his/her opinion made without any opportunity for the guest to respond.
Posted by: vaiyt
|
June 2, 2011 2:36 AM
Which is just funny, because she then spends at least one entire book lambasting people who do exactly that.
Posted by: Hirnlego
|
June 2, 2011 2:50 AM
Can't see why someone said her views are humanistic. Laissez faire offers no sympathy to the poor. And it allows all sort of immoralities such as child labor as there would be not much of a state to say that it isn't OK. What many supporters of Rand do not seem to realize is that the ego survives better with the help of others. Communists try to kill the ego, Randians try to kill the ego (for selfishness) and theocrats try to kill the 'spirit'..
Posted by: Hirnlego
|
June 2, 2011 2:55 AM
Whoops (been up 20hours), correction in place: Randians try to kill altruism
Posted by: Marco
|
June 2, 2011 3:37 AM
When Donohue said that "we" are not "smart enough" to know whether there's a God or not, did he realize that the only times we hear concerns about not being "smart enough" is when one comes around to DENY the validity of the proposition, not when one ACCEPTS it?
I suspect that it's a back-handed way to say: "It's YOU, dear atheist, who is not smart enough, and we pity you for it with all the condescension we are capable of. And if someone knocks the wind out of you or rubs you off, you probably asked for it."
Posted by: RedPill
|
June 2, 2011 3:50 AM
You are not smart enough to tell me unicorns don't exist!
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
June 2, 2011 4:25 AM
Ah, so we cherry pick Rand's thoughts and views
It's cherry picking evidence that is bad, fool.
What we like we accept as good and true, what we don't like we reject. I agree with and like this or that point, so that is right and true.
Fuck but you are stupid. Here's what PZ actually said:
Neither he nor anyone else said that what Rand said is "right and true" because we agree with it -- it's "right and true", and we agree with it, for numerous reasons that we have all articulated previously.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
June 2, 2011 4:33 AM
Beyond Rand's Atheism there is a kernel of truth in the rest of her philosophy that I mostly disagree with, which is that people are ultimately responsible for themselves.
Yeah, because they have autonomous souls or free will or something.
Actually, libertarianism is factually wrong at its metaphysical core -- this "ultimate responsibility" is an impossible fiction, because people, like everything else in our world, are the manifestation of low-level physical processes.
Posted by: gbyshenk
|
June 2, 2011 4:50 AM
In re Hirnlego's comment above, Rand's values are 'humanistic' in the sense that she derives them from human beings, rather than from 'god' or some external source, which does not mean 'humane'.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 2, 2011 5:42 AM
yup. That's called being liberal, progressive, or even anarcho-syndicalist, depending on the exact ratio of "libertarian" values to government/taxes/social programs oh it was tarnished way before that, sometime around the time free-marketeers stole the label from what are currently called leftwing anarchists. oh FFS. Weve gone over this before. almost every single point is phrased in such a way that it, by omission, permits the limiting of freedoms of the non-privileged. a few examples: IOW: if a privately owned hospital wants to deny you visitation rights because you're gay, well, that's tough shit: not only can't the government tell them to stop on principle, you're not allowed to legally make yourself your loved one's "next of kin" to gain legal visitation rights on an individual level, because marriages aren't the government's business. IOW, libertarians don't want the government to fund PP, because poor women don't deserve the same right to "conscientious consideration" than rich women do. IOW, libertarians support power-balances in negotiations, since only employers are allowed to consist of more than one person; employees may not. well, too fucking bad then that you can either have a competitive, or a free market, not both, since a free market tends towards monopoly over time, since competition is expensive. And evidence suggests that libertarians in fact support a free, non-competitive market. IOW, owning shit is just as, or more, important than not starving, not freezing to death, and not dying of preventable disease. except the Indians. They can't have America back, we stole it fair and square. except workers, since we're against the minimum wage. workers should hand over most of the fruits of their labor to their corporate overlords. again, because owning shit is more important than not starving, not freezing to death, and not dying of preventable disease. IOW, libertarians know nothing about education, except that poor people don't need it. Oh, and positive externalities don't exist, which is why the free market will have no problem allocating the right amount of education to the right people; meaning not-poor people. poor people don't deserve the freedom that comes from knowing that the next bout of illness isn't going to kill and/or bankrupt you.etc. ad nauseam. The fucking platform itself is evidence for what people have been saying on this thread: that libertarianism supports the rights of the dominant group to remain the dominant group; it does not support factual freedom for everyone, only the freedom of those who can buy everything.
Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 2, 2011 5:46 AM
shit, didn't mean to lapse into the 1st person halfway through:
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
June 2, 2011 6:24 AM
Audley, there is a rare breed of Bolshevist who has given up on worker's revolution in the near future, and is now "heightening the contradictions of capitalism" to recreate the material conditions for revolution. (I can't respect this because the wager is not guaranteed to pay off and the stakes in living conditions are too dangerous in the meantime.)
Of course, this isn't characteristic of most libertarians, but I think it's interesting that at least a few of them know exactly what they're doing.
Hirnlego, you are misinformed. Communists appeal to the ego, emphasizing that you can succeed with the help of others. The communist message is that you are being robbed, you are being denied the value of your work and prevented from directing your own labor, but by uniting with others in the same situation you can take power:
«the billions and billions that are being spent on this war ... is money that will never be spent on education, on healthcare, on the reconstruction of crumbling public housing, or to train and place the millions of workers who have lost manufacturing jobs in the past three years alone. ... And the struggle against war is really a struggle for a better life for the millions of folks who are in need here in this country. The fight against the war is really to fight for your own interest»
From the Communist Party USA platform:
«Bill of Rights Socialism would maintain and extend democratic rights in the U.S.: the rights to free speech, to free assembly, to freedom of religion, to a secular government, to be free from corporate domination, and to be free of unwarranted government intervention in the lives of individuals.
A socialist United States will guarantee all the freedoms we have won over centuries of struggle, and also extend the Bill of Rights to include freedom from unemployment, from poverty, from illiteracy, and from discrimination and oppression. Socialism will guarantee the right to vote, to health care, to a job at a living wage, to decent housing. With socialism, pensions and social programs take priority over new weapons systems that protect only the profits of the defense industry. Socialism will bring a peaceful foreign policy that will not threaten other peoples or countries with invasion, domination, or war. Essential to achieving and maintaining socialism is a fight from the start for the complete elimination of all forms of special oppression.
Socialism would not create an instant workers paradise. Socialism, rather, is a phase of social-economic development during which millions of people increasingly decide their own destiny and work step-by-step to build new democratic institutions to run the economy. Socialism would provide mechanisms by which working people can all work together cooperatively to extend political democracy into substantive democracy in all spheres of social life including the economy. ...
Many myths have been propagated about socialism. Contrary to right-wing claims, socialism would not take away the personal private property of workers, only the private ownership of major industries, financial institutions, and other large corporations, and the excessive luxuries of the super-rich. Socialism would not make all wages completely equal; socialism would end the great disparity in income between workers and the former ruling class, whose wealth is unearned, eliminating private wealth from stock speculation, from private ownership of large corporations, from the export of capital and jobs, and from the exploitation of large numbers of workers. At the same time, workers would be paid according to their contribution in quantity and quality of work. Socialism would not do away with small businesses or family farms. Small business owners, professionals, and farmers, who currently suffer from the heavy hand of monopoly, are important potential allies of the progressive majority even after the advent of socialism.»
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
June 2, 2011 6:46 AM
What's sad is some people really don't notice this. A paraphrase of an offline conversation I had in 2008:
"I guess I'm going to vote for either the Greens or the Libertarians."
"Really? You don't see much difference between them?"
"Nah, I mean obviously the Greens are more for the environment, but they're both for freedom."
I must emphasize that this person is not stupid. They've been known to research some things in detail and I've gained new information from them.
Posted by: ConcernedJoe
|
June 2, 2011 7:53 AM
#87 "I cherry pick Rand. I cherry pick Hitchens. I cherry pick PZ Myers. I cherry pick Darwin. I cherry pick Newton. I cherry pick Einstein. Don't you?"
Well perhaps I have a different concept of "cherry picking" but NO, I DO NOT!
I accept from those and others concepts that factually are consistent with evidence as proven to be via some honest process. I do not get to rationally cherry-pick these things.
While I ignore topics that do not interest me I do not call that cherry-picking as I just ignore addressing the topic point and generally.
Topics that are not "scientific" that interest me I take others' opinions and test them best I can and either accept them or do not. I call that rationally filtering ideas and information not cherry-picking".
See to me cherry-picking has NO place in science or any rational intellectually honest endeavor. Cherry-picking is when one has an a priori established model and then seeks confirmation and validation of it via some appeal to authority - evidence and testing do not apply as the objective is confirmation via authority not falsification - AND usually the totality of thought is not considered or is hidden so that the risk of undermining that validation one is seeking is minimized.
A more mind blowing use of cherry-picking using it when you have a proclivity to form a model of the world that is detailed and you hope authoritative. Most religions do this - e.g. Christianity's "be good to the poor" that justifies their morality for them - while enhancing oppressiveness via some validation "divine right of kings".
The libertarian movement is like a religion. There is no real Democratic Party movement thus it is not in general like religion. The Republican Party wants to seem like a religion (a movement like libertarian movements) because it wants to ride a wave. Reality is that Party's real religion is Corporatism. Religions cherry-pick for validation!
Posted by: unbound
|
June 2, 2011 8:40 AM
Of course Ayn Rand wasn't always wrong. A broken clock is right twice a day...
Posted by: DeePhlat
|
June 2, 2011 8:49 AM
"Libertarianism" in the US
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RxPUvQZ3rcQ
Posted by: Akira MacKenzie
|
June 2, 2011 8:50 AM
What's this "we" crap you're talking about, you skinny, little, liberal cat lick, twerp
Posted by: Akira MacKenzie
|
June 2, 2011 8:55 AM
Not you Marco. Donahue.
(OK, new rule: No more posting for me until I'm fully caffeinated.)
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
June 2, 2011 8:58 AM
@AKRon
No one gives a fuck.
False dichotomy.
Big fucking deal.
FTFY
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
June 2, 2011 10:21 AM
Using remarks about the body in place of insults is not appropriate.
Posted by: Paul
|
June 2, 2011 11:18 AM
Bullshit. Define "ultimate responsibility", and how it can apply to people without assuming souls/free will. I see TM already replied to this. But reading on...
So this is what you meant with ultimate responsibility? While you're caveating with "not always", it would seem more reasonable to assume the former instead of the opposite, with those ending up where their drive, intelligence, and capability place them are the exception, with the normal case being people who are privileged taking advantage of said privilege to get to where they are. Is your position that those who grow up poor and get no formal education, lacking the skills to go anywhere but where they started lack drive, intelligence, or capability? It can't possibly be that large groups of people do not experience equality of opportunity. Wake up. Or do you truly believe that white males are just so exceedingly more driven, intelligent, and capable than anyone else? They must be if they comprise the super-majority of Fortune 500 CEOs, amirite?
Posted by: Paul
|
June 2, 2011 12:03 PM
moreunreasonablePosted by: cday881
|
June 2, 2011 12:57 PM
I can't see the Hitchens video, but in one video he did about Rand, he criticized her views on selfishness by saying that people are selfish. But are people inherently selfish? Indeed, how easily can we identify what is in our interest?
@azumahazuki
#40
If we are hard wired to be altruistic, then that would strike even deeper at Rand's views, as she held that our actions are not hard wired. But it still raises a similar question to the above: How do we identify what is in interest of other people or society?
Posted by: cday881
|
June 2, 2011 1:04 PM
I can't see the Hitchens video, but in one video he did about Rand, he criticized her views on selfishness by saying that people are selfish. But are people inherently selfish? Indeed, how easily can we identify what is in our interest?
@azumahazuki
#40
If we are hard wired to be altruistic, then that would strike even deeper at Rand's views, as she held that our actions are not hard wired. But it still raises a similar question to the above: How do we identify what is in interest of other people or society?
Posted by: cday881
|
June 2, 2011 1:15 PM
I can't see the Hitchens video, but in one video he did about Rand, he criticized her views on selfishness by saying that people are selfish. But are people inherently selfish? Indeed, how easily can we identify what is in our interest?
@azumahazuki
#40
If we are hard wired to be altruistic, then that would strike even deeper at Rand's views, as she held that our actions are not hard wired. But it still raises a similar question to the above: How do we identify what is in interest of other people or society?
Posted by: cday881
|
June 2, 2011 1:22 PM
I can't see the Hitchens video, but in one video he did about Rand, he criticized her views on selfishness by saying that people are selfish. But are people inherently selfish? Indeed, how easily can we identify what is in our interest?
@azumahazuki
#40
If we are hard wired to be altruistic, then that would strike even deeper at Rand's views, as she held that our actions are not hard wired. But it still raises a similar question to the above: How do we identify what is in interest of other people or society?
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 2, 2011 1:28 PM
one more time cday881
Posted by: SallyStrange, Spawn of Cthulhu
|
June 2, 2011 1:43 PM
1. Define human well-being (having to do with shelter, nutrition, health, educational and economic opportunity, maximization of human potential).
2. Define "harm" as anything that impinges on well-being.
3. Quantify things that contribute to well-being and reduce harm.
Voila.
Posted by: cday881
|
June 2, 2011 3:18 PM
I can't see the Hitchens video, but in one video he did about Rand, he criticized her views on selfishness by saying that people are selfish. But are people inherently selfish? Indeed, how easily can we identify what is in our interest?
@azumahazuki
#40
If we are hard wired to be altruistic, then that would strike even deeper at Rand's views, as she held that our actions are not hard wired. But it still raises a similar question to the above: How do we identify what is in interest of other people or society?
Posted by: cday881
|
June 2, 2011 3:30 PM
I can't see the Hitchens video, but in one video he did about Rand, he criticized her views on selfishness by saying that people are selfish. But are people inherently selfish? Indeed, how easily can we identify what is in our interest?
@azumahazuki
#40
If we are hard wired to be altruistic, then that would strike even deeper at Rand's views, as she held that our actions are not hard wired. But it still raises a similar question to the above: How do we identify what is in interest of other people or society?
Posted by: cday881
|
June 2, 2011 4:30 PM
Sorry for the multiple postings, I kept getting errors.
As for #117.
How do we increase economic opportunity? Does it require more or less regulation? And what type of regulation? What is human potential, an how can we maximize it? How do we distribute this among people?
Rand would agree that we can answer such questions, but the answering is not epistemologically trivial.
Posted by: nothing's sacred
|
June 2, 2011 6:19 PM
I kept getting errors.
Yes, the error message that says not to post it again.
Posted by: Ray Martinez
|
June 2, 2011 6:23 PM
Rand was a brilliant scholar, not for her political or social views, or for her novels, but for her accomplishments in Philosophy, Theory of Knowledge, Objectivism.
Her philosophy is ROCK SOLID.
Ray Martinez, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 2, 2011 6:27 PM
As rock solid as any other mental masturbation without regard to reality. That is the problem of liberturdism. No reality checks. When checked against reality, it fails big time.Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe
|
June 2, 2011 6:34 PM
yup. rock solid
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 2, 2011 6:40 PM
Dang, Jadehawk's #124 is worth some serious swill...*plops filled pseudodirty glass on counter*
Posted by: Ray Martinez
|
June 2, 2011 6:41 PM
I specifically said her political/social views are irrelevant to her Objectivism philosophy.
I can't find any flaws whatsoever in Objectivism.
Ray Martinez, Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist
Posted by: Paul
|
June 2, 2011 6:45 PM
Considering you self-describe as a species immutablist, that's not exactly a ringing endorsement.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 2, 2011 6:52 PM
And who the fuck are you that we should take your word for such idiocy? All I see is a totally delusional fool, like any godbot. You believe in your religion without solid physical evidence to back it up. Ergo, your word is worthless...Posted by: Ray Martinez
|
June 2, 2011 7:07 PM
Christians disagree.
Before the rise of Darwinism, "Atheist" meant "liar." That's why Darwin paraded himself as a Deist/Agnostic.
Ray (Paleyan IDist)
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
June 2, 2011 7:47 PM
Rock solid? Sure, Ray. Rock solidly wrong. Rock solidly delusional. Rock solidly destructive.
Seeing as it is currently well after the rise of "Darwinism", what "atheist" did or did not mean before is totally irrelevant.
Christians are free to disagree or not as much as they wish. They are free to be wrong as much as they wish.
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 2, 2011 7:55 PM
Yawn, As expected RM is a liar and bullshitter. Darwism doesn't exist, except in the mind of delusional fools, and certain Brits. That means his opinion is worthless. He had his chance to show his intellect and credentials, but failed solidly. What a loser, of no consequence....
Posted by: imnotandrei
|
June 2, 2011 7:57 PM
@#129:
Cite, please?
I *suspect* what you're trying to refer to is the whole "Atheists cannot be sworn to tell the truth, therefore they cannot be relied upon", which is rather different than "liar".
As to her "brilliant contributions" -- admittedly, it has been a long time since I read Rand, but I recall her metaphysical and epistomological work as being basically 1930's analytic philosophy without the subtlety, and her ethics, well, ludicrous, as the foundation for her political philosophy.
So, that which is right, is not original, and that which is original (insofar as it is) is not right, to be slightly facile about it.
Posted by: P.Z. Meyers PhD
|
June 2, 2011 8:04 PM
I agree with RM
Rand was brilliant in philosophy for her ability to take previous philosophers ideas, add some promotion of enlightened self interest, and pass it off as her own work. It's that sort of innovation and branding that makes America and capitalism so great.
Posted by: Ray Martinez
|
June 2, 2011 8:59 PM
Since I said no such thing you are lashing out in red-faced anger. Could it be the criticism I leveled against you over at Talk.Origins in the topic where you threaten to ban Peter Nyikos if he decided to post here?
If I were you I would either erase post #133 OR cough up the evidence that Rand was a plagiarizer.
RM (Paleyan IDist-species immutabilist, Randian Objectivist)
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 2, 2011 9:05 PM
Hello! My name is Mr. Egg!
Hello! My name is RM's face!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 2, 2011 9:09 PM
so many levels of funny here
Posted by: Ray Martinez
|
June 2, 2011 9:16 PM
"Darwinism" (1889) by Alfred Russel Wallace.
I suppose our well-read and knowledgeable Evolutionist thinks Russel was a Creationist---LOL!
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 2, 2011 9:18 PM
Ray do you share any pathology with JA Davison?
Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM
|
June 2, 2011 9:27 PM
What a loser to think that. Everything you say is a lie.Which matters not. The science since Darwin, has proven him right in the big picture, even though he was wrong in the details. Scientists don't worship Darwin, but merely respect him. Loser if you think otherwise.Posted by: paulmurray
|
June 2, 2011 9:59 PM
"Rand speaks up for the productive people in society who view the progressives' agenda as one of violence and rapine directed at them. "
Odd how randbots tend to be salespeople and bottom-level management.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 2, 2011 9:59 PM
I haven't read much of Rand's philosophy but I was quite unimpressed. Consider her argument against altruism. The problem is that she starts with a false definition of altruism:
and then ineptly demolishes this strawman.
Posted by: cday881
|
June 2, 2011 10:00 PM
@PZ Myers
#133
From whom did Rand get the primacy the existence?
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 2, 2011 10:08 PM
Darwinism may have existed 120 years ago, it doesn't exist today.
Posted by: Ing: PhD Trollologist
|
June 2, 2011 10:21 PM
How the fuck can you be a creationist praising Rand's philosophy which was atheistic?
Are you just like an intellectual horse fly and are attracted to all sorts of shit as long as it's smelly enough?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/91Ywgd0515Ezsz0qmBZGibatWbt.2NUlfQdLSyfeQiO9Gg--#9f922
|
June 2, 2011 10:21 PM
I stopped taking Rand seriously when I read one of her essays (maybe in The virtue of selfishness) wherein in she espoused cultural Stalinism (you know, abstract painting bad, atonal music bad, etc.). It struck me that this undercut her credibility somewhat.
This was around age 15, when I had already read The fountainhead and Atlas shrugged twice age. The perfect age for doing so, I think; everyone should .
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/91Ywgd0515Ezsz0qmBZGibatWbt.2NUlfQdLSyfeQiO9Gg--#9f922
|
June 2, 2011 10:27 PM
Why am I the only one who gets that “P.Z. Meyers” is pure snark? After all, “P.Z. Meyers” is a topic of a leading blog post; and it was even announed in advance that he would be gracing us with his presence. Maybe it’s because I’m from the humanities?
Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/91Ywgd0515Ezsz0qmBZGibatWbt.2NUlfQdLSyfeQiO9Gg--#9f922
|
June 2, 2011 10:31 PM
Sorry, I hope that wasn’t too snarky. “Is it because” would have been better wording.
Posted by: cday881
|
June 2, 2011 11:05 PM
#145
It was The Romantic Manifesto, a collection of essays on esthetics.
Posted by: strange gods before me ॐ homintern radfem
|
June 2, 2011 11:50 PM
Only the creationist fell for it in this thread. (This was one of the funnier comments, though.)
Oh hey, are we signing posts now?
SG (We have been ruled too long by Strange Gods, international cocoa dealer, apparent communist sympathizer, earlobe enthusiast.)
Posted by: paulmurray
|
June 2, 2011 11:51 PM
" I agree with and like this or that point, so that is right and true. I don't agree with and don't like that point so it is wrong and false."
Um - yeah. That's kind of what "to agree with something" means. By definition.
If you are the kind of person who insists that everything must be either entirely good/right or entirely bad/wrong (like Christians with the bible), then sure: that's a problem.
Posted by: cday881
|
June 2, 2011 11:58 PM
@strange gods before me
#149
It would appear that I also fell for it (see #142). I do tend to take people literally.
Posted by: Samantha Vimes
|
June 3, 2011 12:35 AM
Wow, Ray @ 129, I guess you know more about word-usage than Thomas Paine and Voltaire did!
Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death
|
June 3, 2011 1:43 AM
1. Political autonomy is required for independent thought.
2. Independent thought is required to arrive at persuasive reasoning.
4. Persuasiveness aims to establish uniformity of opinion based upon arrived criteria.
5. Uniformity of opinion breeds common power which may impose an order which diminishes or destroys the autonomy of all, or aggrandizes the autonomy of some at the expense of the autonomy of others.
Just spelling her out, lest you think independent thought has a central anti-authoritarian impulse.
and yes, there is no number 3. I find ordinal numbering tyrannical to the nth degree.
Posted by: Ichthyic
|
June 3, 2011 2:13 AM
Ray is a frequent contributor of insanity over on Panda's Thumb, and should be entirely laughed at or ignored until the host gets around to banning it.
engagement is futile.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp
|
June 3, 2011 8:12 AM
Oh you aren't, but I found Ray's comment to him just to fucking funny to let Ray in on it.
Posted by: Paul
|
June 3, 2011 11:26 AM
That's not really fair. Plenty of atheists praise Buddhist philosophy, while simply ignoring the theistic elements (there are more than many Westerners realize).
FWIW on the PZ Meyers thing, while I figured it was a troll from the start I answered making the assumption he wasn't on the Libertard thread; it was a good opportunity to point out issues with what he was saying. You know, cuz if there weren't trolls we'd need to invent them, as exercises in getting correct information out there for those who don't read dry blog posts.
Posted by: cday881
|
June 3, 2011 3:12 PM
@Frankosaurus
#153
Why is political autonomy a requirement for independent thought? Also, how can an individual have political autonomy?
Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death
|
June 3, 2011 7:13 PM
political autonomy is typically aligned with the advancement of reason, especially on this blog. I'm only saying that "enlightenment" is often its own undoing.
An individual can have, theoretically, political autonomy, or autonomy that is vouchsafed from and by the political order. Or so it is speculated under various political theories.
Posted by: cday881
|
June 3, 2011 8:23 PM
@Frankosaurus
#158
Fair enough, but perhaps poloitical autonomy requires independent thought.
Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death
|
June 4, 2011 3:23 AM
no, political autonomy requires limitations and distributions of power. Moral autonomy, however, requires independence of thought, in my opinion.
Posted by: John Morales
|
June 4, 2011 3:40 AM
[such deepitudes]
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
June 4, 2011 4:15 AM
Actually no kind of autonomy of any kind is possible without independence of thought.
Independence of thought is part of the very definition of autonomy.
Posted by: cday881
|
June 4, 2011 1:30 PM
@Frankosaurus
#160
But how would a society achieve such limitations and distributions in the absence of independent thought?
Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death
|
June 4, 2011 2:34 PM
checks and balances, cday.
amphiox: political autonomy under liberalism is usually defined as a state of non-interference. Such non-interference is not coequal with a state of independent thought.
Posted by: nykos
|
June 4, 2011 6:09 PM
Libertarianism is a myth because it ignores human nature. The truth is, not all of us are smart or conscientious enough to contribute to society. Some people are going to get poor and left behind.
The solution is simple: selection. Be it natural or artificial. We should encourage the smart and hard-working to have more kids. People who are poor and allow themselves to be screwed over by the rich or by the state, must have their genes weeded out of existence for the betterment of society. Low-IQ people should not be allowed to have more babies, but they should be given the option to adopt high-IQ babies. Life outcomes depend overwhelmingly more on genes than environment.
A homogeneous socialist society can function well if its population has a high enough average IQ, but you also need basic economic freedom: communist countries like China were/are poor despite a high average IQ. Norway, Sweden and Finland were great countries to live in before the open-borders madness which brought in low-IQ immigrants that leech the socialist system and don't understand basic values of fairness.
Posted by: 'Tis Himself, OM
|
June 4, 2011 6:20 PM
nykos,
I doubt you'll find many people here who'll support your eugenics program.
Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death
|
June 4, 2011 6:29 PM
Libertarianism is a political theory respecting the positioning of the individual to the state. Economics attempts to cheer it for the results it supposedly can produce, but it is not concerned chiefly with wealth production. The seeds of libertarianism predate industrialism.
Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies
|
June 4, 2011 6:29 PM
Jesus rusty Christ, are you going to spew your shit all over every fucking thread?
First off, poor =/= stupid.
Two, "screwed over by the rich or state"?? Yes, because it's soooooo easy to advance when the deck is stacked against you from birth (systematic racism, sexism, heterosexism, etc. aren't something you can just ignore. Not to mention that being born into a low socio-economic class puts you at a disadvantage vs higher economic classes from the beginning (due to worse schools, "food deserts", etc.))
Three, do you plan to force those of higher economic classes to have more kids or are you planning to sterilize the poor?
Posted by: cday881
|
June 4, 2011 6:43 PM
@Frankosaurus
#164
Yes, and the idea of checks and balances is not itself a product of independent thought (Newton, Montesquieu, others)?
Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death
|
June 4, 2011 9:25 PM
There is no magic to checks and balances. They aren't necessarily the product of independent, nor are they there to ensure independent thought but to minimize the imposition of arbitrary will and action. Do they require thought? Yes. Independent thought? No, which I demonstrate in the following way...
cday881, I want you to design a political system that employs checks and balances on power. I want it by next week, or I will kill you.
Posted by: anteprepro
|
June 4, 2011 9:57 PM
Oh, nykos, you loveable scamp. It's good to see someone supporting eugenics under the assumption that a person's score on an IQ test is an absolute measure of a person's overall intelligence and that this is the exact same thing as their worth to society at large. Oh, so adorable, it's like we have a visitor from the late 1910's! So, how was World War I? Did you see a scrawny, artsy German soldier with a weird square mustache, because I have a spoiler alert that will blow your mind! If you find a way to go back to your home time, you might want to find a way to stop him. Another spoiler alert: you will not believe how many stories in our time mention that same idea. We're a wee bit obsessed with that fella.
Anywho, just wanted to let you know that eugenics policy falls out of favor after World War II due to Square-Mustache, and that most people in the scientific community of today don't fetishize IQ tests as a comprehensive and infallible indicator of intelligence, nor see it as an indicator of basic human decency, happiness, or of financial/social success. Share that tidbit with your friends and be ahead of your time! If you ever leap through time again, let me know what your opinion is of New Coke. Never had a chance to try it.
Thanks,
Random Person from 21st Century.
Posted by: cday881
|
June 4, 2011 11:32 PM
@Frankosaurus
#170
I'm not a political scientist, and I'm not afraid of your "threats".
Posted by: bentucker1
|
June 5, 2011 2:08 AM
as I type this ,there is a framed picture of Ayn Rand above me on the wall...to my left is a picture of Darwin, and two feet away is that classic work by Hitchens..God is Not Great....I wanted to thank you ..It is a hallmark of a fertile mind to acknowledge the Intellectual contributions even from those one disagrees with..Rand stood almost alone in the U.S.getting slammed by the right and left in her day but she went where her mind took her and that was the rejection of faith and the application of reason as a foundation of her philosophy.Hitchens went from being a British intellectual marxist to supporting the war in IRAQ, which most leftists would denounce yet he is one of the most brilliant rhetoricians against religion. These are two of my favorite intellectual thinkers but they took different paths.. For those "haters" you should look to gain wisdom and insight from whatever source illuminates you..In my case both of these are heroes and yourself as well PZ...
Posted by: Amphiox, OM
|
June 5, 2011 3:18 AM
I don't know where you're getting your definitions. Show me your source.
Forget "political". "Autonomy" is the capacity to make independent decisions.
Independent decisions requires independent thoughts. An entity incapable of independent thought is incapable of autonomy.
Independent thought is a prerequisite for all forms of autonomy.
Posted by: Frankosaurus, Cupcake of Death
|
June 5, 2011 8:46 AM
Come on, cday, get serious. I wasn't threatening you.
And no, autonomy, as it is currently articulated, is not merely the capacity to make independent decisions. Slaves have that. Political autonomy is a state of recognition of the individual as political unit coupled with a doctrine of non-interference, irrespective of whether people exercise independent thought.
thumb through some tort law from time to time. If I decide it would be fun to pummel someone who is in a coma, will I be held responsible for damages? On what grounds?
This is why i draw the distinction between political and moral autonomy.
Posted by: cday881
|
June 5, 2011 2:48 PM
@Frankosaurus
#175
OK, so do you want it next week, or will you kill me (#170)?
Again, how could a society rise to the level of recognizing individuals as political units entitled to noninterference if some people had not antecedently exercised independent thought on the subject?
As for your coma example, I am also not a lawyer. Are you saying that I am in a coma, or is it the members of a society without poloitical autonomy who are in a coma?
Posted by: Petzl
|
June 6, 2011 8:50 AM
Ugh..
At 3:04, Donahue accused "Atheists as being as arrogant
as the religionists whom you decry."
He can't argue the facts (or the absence of facts),
so he has to make it a personal attack. Obviously
because he's so uncomfortable with the subject.
Posted by: Markita Lynda: Healthcare is a damn right
|
August 24, 2011 3:05 PM
Anyway, Looneytariannism is un-Christian because Christ, or at least the Apostles, mandated communism for Christian communities. Speaking of cherry-picking!