Rearden_Steel
-
Posts
370 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Rearden_Steel
-
-
I have to admit to being fascinated by young socialists.
Having discovered Ayn Rand & Objectivism at a relatively early age I never understood the collectivist phase that so many young people go through.
Strangely despite being very vocal about my views many of my regulars (I own a bar) lean heavily towards the left.
I find by debating them without berating them that their views slowly change. In fact I've recently done promotions like "bring in a copy of Atlas Shrugged get a free shot" "quote Ayn Rand get a free beer" type things.
Whoa! Free beer for a Ayn Rand quote!?!? Where is this bar? I assume by PDX you mean Portland?
-
What about Antz? Why is that on the list. I seen it only once years ago, but from what I remember it was about a Ant forgoing his "social responsibility" and perusing his own values.
-
There was a comment on the HBL that Atlas Shrugged is being carried at Costco. Costco normally only carries books that it figures it can get a quick turn around on.
I was in Costco yesterday and lo and behold there was Atlas Shrugged amongst the Dean Koontz and Daniel Steele. I wonder if I could by it by the pallet?
-
Now I suppose we'll see whether the Company can make a profit. I doubt it will be able to pay back the taxpayers' money any time soon.
Were still waiting to be paid back from AMTRAK from thirty some odd years ago.
-
I think you're ignoring the influential anarchist wing of the libertarian movement.
The anarchist hold no sway in the libertarian party. This is common misconception usually pinned on them by the left for their support of separation between state and economy. To quote Andrew Davis from the LP:
"At first our "Wall of Separation" commitment (that is, a commitment to keeping a wall of separation between economy and State) may seem a little bit like anarchy; however, we do believe government has a function in the economy. It's just that its role is very limited, and it is centered around the protection of property rights from fraud and abuse."
This confusion started in the Spanish Civil War of the 1930s when the Communists, Socialists, and Anarchists started using the term of Libertarian Communes.
I'm sure somewhere on the internet their is some nut who calls himself a libertarian and preaches the virtues of anarchy. However, these people have no place in the LP. Even most anarchist pages and groups will try and distance themselves from libertarians.
Judge Andrew Napolitano, Thomas E. Woods, and Thomas Sowell are influential libertarians, none of whom are anarchist.
Sorry to get off topic but I wanted to quickly clarify this.
-
A national health service saved my son's life, so I don't know what to think about this issue.
Before National health care there was several groups that you could join that had their own doctors and pooled money for issues like this. That's how a lot of clubs like the Elks, Moose, and Knights of Columbus got their start.
-
Dvorak's ninth? I can whistle it.
I meant the song from the Transformer movie.
-
It's nice but extremely repetitive and really lacks any sort of dramatic narrative. For me I'd say something like this comes closer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vlci-kCEaKE Antonin Dvorak's 9th symphony: From The New World (it was written in New York)
I agree. Its a great song and I believe it fits the movie. But good god, can you imagine trying to whistle that? With the constant dadadadaada.
-
Wow. What a line up! I would like to hear conversations that those two have back stage. I love how Peter Schiff dominates any room that he is in. However, be that as it may I would have liked to hear more from Yaron Brook.
I hope they do more show together later.
-
Thanks for the help Brian. I've posted images to OO.net before without a problem so I don't know what happened.
In response to Thomas I took the photo with my phone then tried to upload it.
BTW I was impressed that several books had been purchased from the display already as you may be able to tell from the pic.
I also saw several people stop and look at the display.
-
I tried to add a picture but for some reason its not showing up in the post. When I preview the post its there but not in the post itself.
-
I saw a new Atlas Shrugged cut out display at B&N today. I thought it pretty cool.
-
Peter Schiff is on the Daily show tonight!!!!!
His brother mentioned on their weekly radio show that Peter will announce shortly if he will run for the senate. He will most likely do it on the show tonight seeing how this will most likely be his largest platform.
-
Your advisor sounds like someone who wanted to get money rather than make it. Unfortunately there are all too many financial advisers who are actually salesmen for specific investments.
I agree often times brokers tried to push these stocks while while the banks their "real clients" were trying to get rid of them.
-
Mr Schiff is scheduled to be on the daily show on June 9th! Rumor has it that he may announce his candidacy for senate on the show. I've been waiting to see him on the daily show ever since Jon Steward ripped Jim Crammer a new one and said something to the effect that no one foresaw the end of the housing boom.
-
I was going to see it but unfortunately Christian Bale and I are done professionally.
-
Welcome back Fujitsu! Glade to see another Washingtonian on the Form. I just moved from Seattle last year and now live in Vancouver Wa across from Portland. A little to close to Portland for my taste. You think Wa politics are far left. I'm convinced Oregon is even worse.
-
Yes, and as a political party, the LP has been remarkably unsuccessful over the years. As a practical matter, actively supporting and participating in the LP has proven to be a waste of time and money. Given that the two major parties control the political process in this country, one can be far more successful in achieving political goals through either of those parties than will ever be possible through the LP. Take for example, Ron Paul's recent run for the Presidency. Even though he lost the Republican primary, Mr. Paul had a far greater impact on setting the agenda than he ever would have had if he had run as a Libertarian. Whoever coined the term "Losertarians" wasn't too far off the mark.
Doesn't matter I'm not going to vote for the current two party system just because their currently successful. If you think these zebra are going to change their stripes anytime soon think again. Unfortunately we are not going to wake up tomorrow and have all the Dems overnight decided that maybe Keynes and Marx were wrong or that the Republicans all of sudden will think 'maybe religon has no role in government'.
Political parties come and political parties go. The LP is still a new party. Its not going to achieve success right away. I believe more and more of the moderate republicans will abandon their party and move to the LP which holds a lot of their values without all the theology. The RP has became so discredited that just saying their name in most circles sounds like a punch line. Futher more I have complete faith that the liberals in the DP will screw up the county enough that they will lose most of the independants. This is already starting to happen:Poll: Independents reject Obama, agree with Libertarian Party Polling shows independents aren't buying Obama’s promises of prosperity through Big Government
Most successful parties come out of some crisis or another. I think that the current economic situation may be enough to shake the county up enough for the LP to take the reigns.
-
No, the LP takes the teeth out of individual rights and capitalism, and arms the liberals and altruists, because they offer no justification for individual rights and actually try to pamper to the latter(altruists) in their statements to get them to become libertarians. You cant start in the middle/end, and then figure out the start. The LP and Objectivism dont go well together, and even though you could say that both in a very broad sense "spout the importance" of capitalism, it begs the question, importance by what standard, and importance to whom. If the reasons for this "importance" differs, there is nothing that combines us.
It's like saying that the KKK and Objectivism go well together because they both spout the importance of not forcing companies to hire minorities.
I mean, a simple "why?" is enough to refute the libertarians claims that capitalism, individual rights and liberty are important.
The KKK does not spout individual liberties, also again the KKK is a theological movement not a political party looking to protect individual rights. Jon Galt mentioned in his speech that:
"The only proper purpose of a government is to protect mans rights, which means: to protect him from physical violence." " The only proper functions of government are: the police to protect you from criminals, the army to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes bu rational rules, according to objective law."
The role of government is not to give you a sense of life. It is not the governments job combat altruistic ideals. This is up to the individual. As long as the LP promotes: "People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market." . That's all that is important to me. I care not if someone is an altruist, they can live their own lives however they see fit. So long as they recognize my right as an individual to do the same is all that does matter to me. I don't believe its the proper role to warn individuals about altruism or give them a sense of life. This is the job of philosophy.
The LP takes the teeth out of altruism because with the other parties they wish to put their ideas into law and force me to participate. That the proper role of government is to take care of its people like a giant sheep herder. Once you take this idea out of government the altruist and their like are forced to carry out their ideas through voluntary means and their own money. Once they lose their force from the government who cares what they do.
The only thing that matter to me so far as the LP is concerned is that they continue to protect individuals rights from others and promote free trade. What the individual libertarians believe about anything else don't make any difference to me so long as they recognize my right to exist for myself. If a day comes were they no longer support these ideals, they will lose my support. But until then I will support any party that believes I have the right to exist for myself.
-
If you read that platform, you find that they just oppose the political enforcement of altruism, not altruism itself as is evident by the quote you provided:
The generous interpretation of this quote is simply that they are indifferent to whether people are selfish or altruistic, and just want govenrment out of the "altruism" business, but there is nothing that denounces altruism in that quote. If they took the "be forced to" out of there, id agree with them.
I agree. However, as I said earlier you have to remember the LP is a political party and not a philosophy. They believe that individuals should be able to live what ever philosophy and moral standards they see fit so long as it does not harm or interfere with other individuals rights or property. The LP is looking for the right to live your right as you see fit. Its up to the individual to choose what morals they decide by themselves rather then the government making that choice for them. The LP mission is not to tell people how to live but rather let the individual makes that choice for themselves.
Well, that article clearly did. The LP may or may not, because they have so many conflicting ideas that it's difficult to make the distinction, but that article was clearly altruistic by nature.Which is exactly why the LP needs Objectivist like yourself to help make this distinction. I would have no problem with altruist in the LP so long as they understand that their self sacrificing morality is not the proper function of government (although many altruist are not going to take that view which is why there are few in the LP) .
The LP makes no official stance on altruism because its not their fight. This is a debate that should be done through philosophy with private individuals and organizations. The LP merely takes the teeth out of the liberals and altruist by removing the force out of their policy. It should be the job of organizations like the ARI to fight the moral battle of altruism. The LP and Objectivism go well together because they both spout the importance of rights of the individual to be entitled to the rewards of their own work. Where the two must separate is where as you can not force a person to be productive or live for himself you can only give him the opportunity.
-
On their site, under the title "Issues", that is the only article that comes up when you click "Foreign Policy". It's clearly not just some random article on page 596, against why foreign aid doesnt help the poor, its the article they want people to see when quickly browsing through the LP positions.
Who's lying I honesty do not believe that altruism is their intent. Here is the LP statement of principles from their official platform:
We, the members of the Libertarian Party, challenge the cult of the omnipotent state and defend the rights of the individual.We hold that all individuals have the right to exercise sole dominion over their own lives, and have the right to live in whatever manner they choose, so long as they do not forcibly interfere with the equal right of others to live in whatever manner they choose.
Since governments, when instituted, must not violate individual rights, we oppose all interference by government in the areas of voluntary and contractual relations among individuals. People should not be forced to sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others. They should be left free by government to deal with one another as free traders; and the resultant economic system, the only one compatible with the protection of individual rights, is the free market.
Again your looking too much into this. It clearly states in their national platform that individuals should make up their own minds about charity and hand outs and it should not be the role of government is not to make people " sacrifice their lives and property for the benefit of others".
As their platform goes on to say:
"Individuals should be free to make choices for themselves and to accept responsibility for the consequences of the choices they make. No individual, group, or government may initiate force against any other individual, group, or government. Our support of an individual's right to make choices in life does not mean that we necessarily approve or disapprove of those choices."I see where you are coming from and I think this particular article was poorly worded. However, as you can see they clearly don't support altruism.
-
No. Free trade is better because its better for the individual and foreigners. Capitalism is the best and most efficient means for not only for individual but also the masses because of the wealth it creates. Just because something is good for a population does not mean that altruism in nature. Individual ambition rights and ambition lead to a common good.
The ARI released a similar article some years ago called "Paying More Blood Money to the IMF." it claims that the pouring of money into the IMF does more harm than good. The same premise that the LP had about foreign aid. And the conclusion was the same as well:
"What happened to the lessons we supposedly learned from the worldwide collapse of socialism? If we see the evils of a government-managed economy, why can't we see the same evils of a government-run global management agency that offers additional subsidies and controls? It's time that capitalism--true, laissez-faire capitalism--be allowed to function. That is, no subsidies, bailouts, or controls, not for the smallest wage-earners or the biggest banks."
They both claim the same thing: Handouts makes the problem worse and should stop. The solution is capitalism.
-
It is utilitarian, pragmatism assuming altruism as the standard of what is disastrous or not. If foreign aid was effective, they would be compelled to argue in favor of it.
I disagree. I think you assume too much. I fail to see how stating that altruism does not work in theory or practice is altruistic. The end the article they promote free trade as the standard for men to deal with one another not altruism.
-
I just had a quick browse around the LP website, and on every issue they take the same kind of perverse stance that statism is bad because the statists measures are counter-productive. That welfare is bad because it doesnt actually help the poor, that foreign aid is bad because it doesnt actually help the africans, that enviromental restrictions are bad because the government itself pollutes etc. etc. It is clear from reading their stance on issues, that if they have any underlying morality, it is altruism, just with different kinds of policies as other altruists.
I mean, see for yourself:
I fail to see your point. What part of the it was wrong? How is an article against foreign aid altruistic? At what point in the article does it say helping others is "good" ? The point of the article was stated in the first sentence:
"Foreign aid is little more than welfare for nations -- with the same disastrous effects as domestic welfare programs."
What part of it is altruistic? Where in this article did you get the impression that our moral duty is self sacrifice? The article actually states the opposite. It states that the altruistic stance of US foreign policy is self defeating because the only way to wealth is to produce it.
They do not state an LP foreign policy however, that was not the point of the article. It was to show how foreign aid is a waste, its not a foreign policy manifesto.
Did the government invent the internet?
in Political Philosophy
Posted · Edited by Rearden_Steel
I wouldn't necessarily say they created it. The first thing I think could be called the internet was a project called ARPNET which was the first system to use "packet switching" as well as a modem.
ARPNET was set up between UCLA and SRI in Menio Park California and one at MIT. It got funding from the government but was not exclusively a government project. They actually took bidders in 1968 to sell the idea to US companies.
The first message sent over the internet was sent by ARPNET. The scientist in UCLA were trying to sent a message to Menio Park that read "LOG ON" except that the system crashed while trying to send it so the only letters that got through were "LO" or as they joked later " Lo and behold the internet!".