Leaderboard

This sucks more than anything has sucked in a very long time: http://online.wsj.com/articles/gm-urges-michigan-gov-to-sign-anti-tesla-bill-1413912419 It's worth noting that Republicans were very much behind this in MI, as well as our Demo bailed-out friends at GM... And while I don't indulge in off-topic rants too often, I'll say in the most objective terms I can that car dealers are lower than the deepest layer of prehistoric frog shit at the bottom of a New Jersey scum swamp. They add absolutely no value to our civilization. They could all go away tomorrow and we'd all be better off. I think of the countless, pointless hours I've spent in car dealers trying to by a fucking car after I walked in and knew exactly what I wanted and had cash for it. You can go to the local jeweler and buy a $30k watch in 5 minutes. A $30k car takes 2 hours. What bullshit. They only get away with this because they are a government-protected monopoly. The sick part is that they seem to know it and enjoy a sick power trip as they hold you there captive waiting for a 80s-vintage printer to ooze out a 15 page "contract" and try to up-sell you floor mats and sealer wax or whatever the high-end equivalent is these days. In other words, I didn't think it was possible to hate car dealers any more than I did before today, but I was wrong.

They are not striking simply because they face a few taxes and regulations. They are striking because they live under a truly totalitarian, evil government. Although it's common for fans of Ayn Rand to say that this or that new regulation sounds like it could have been ripped from the pages of Atlas Shrugged, the fictional government in the novel is actually far, far worse than the government that we have today. Recall that Ayn Rand was born in Russia and lived through the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik rule before escaping to the U.S. In the 40s and 50s, when she was writing Atlas Shrugged, the Soviet Union was growing more and more powerful and was openly praised by leftist intellectuals in America. Today, the idea of truly totalitarian government is pretty universally discredited in the Western world in favor of a mixed economy approach, but at the time she was writing this was not the case. Consider the more extreme regulations passed by the fictional government in the novel. At one point they pass a regulation that prohibits anyone from quitting his or her job, in an effort to stop the striking that is occurring. Consider that for a moment; making it illegal to quit one's job. It wouldn't be too much of a stretch to call that a form of slavery; certainly it qualifies as forced labor. Another provision in that same bill seizes all intellectual property in the country and simply gives it to the government. It should be noted that this point is when the strike really takes off; this is when people start leaving their jobs and 'striking' in large numbers without ever meeting John Galt or hearing of his strike. It's such an outright violation of personal freedom that people simply refuse to comply. Later in the book, we discover that 'Project X' is actually a military weapon that is being developed for possible use on American citizens (to 'preserve peace and squash rebellion'). During the book's climax, Galt is actually tortured in order to try to press him into forced service to the government. This is a truly evil, unlimited government, bearing more resemblance to the Soviet Union than to America's government today. The book is purposefully written such that the audience only slowly discovers the true nature of the government. Although Galt has seen it right away and begins the strike before the book even starts, people only join the strike when they come to understand how truly evil the government and the altruistic ideology behind it are. These people aren't striking because the corporate tax rate went up from 35% to 40%. They're refusing to give aid to an evil government, one that does not acknowledge the right of its citizens to exist independent of their service to the state. We actually do see this kind of resistance to totalitarianism under every single government of this kind. We saw it in Nazi Germany, and in the Soviet Union. This is the reason that North Korea today has such a massive and active surveillance program for its own citizens, with microphones everywhere and huge numbers of informants. When the government is truly evil, trying to escape or resist is a common choice made by its citizens. Rand's contribution here is to note that, for a government run explicitly on the principle of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," the men of ability are the most heavily punished, and should be the first to resist.

Doesn't that beg the question? Of course proving guilt only requires knowing the person committed the crime, but how would you know they did! Without a motive, I'm saying you would have reason to say maybe what seems to be the case just isn't so. In terms of law, I'm not sure if a motive must be established, but when it comes to human action, if I am to believe someone is guilty regarding intentional acts, I need a reasonable motive. Otherwise, it's probably only an accident.

There may be cases where knowing the motive is important, such as in self-defense cases where one person is dead and the other is alive.

The only thing need to prove guilt is that the person committed the crime. Why he did it is irrelevant for guilt, although knowing motive certainly helps in putting the crime in context. But, unless the defendent himself actually testifies, you'll probably never know his true motive.