Anti-Objectivist in Boston?

[Rearden_Steel]

In the last couple of weeks while pursing through the news I’ve ran across some very hostile articles and letters towards Ayn Rand and capitalism in the Boston Globe. Check out this letter “Bring back the Keynesians”.

"The market," of course, is the neoconservative euphemism for shameless, unchecked corporate avarice, which is threatened by the very idea of effective government.

In typical neocon fashion, these angry children of Howard Roark resort to name-calling ("self-loathing, America-hating") and the simplistic black-white dichotomy that characterizes conservative thought these days. If it isn't free-market capitalism, it's "pro-Marxist," or "socialist," or a conflation of liberal Keynesian economics with Marxism.”

Is Boston filled with angry liberals frothing at the mouth?

Edited September 11, 2008 by Rearden_Steel

[Zip]

The worst part is not that this person has a hate on for neocons, but that he/she equates those economically misled religious zealots and busybodies with Objectivism.

[KendallJ]

Is Boston filled with angry liberals frothing at the mouth?

Its one of the most liberal states in the Union.

Why not write back, and simply point out that neo-conservatism is in no way related to Ayn Rand's ideas, nor is it related to capitalism. Neo-con's are old, lefty, altruist statists. see Brad Thompson's article in the Objective Standard.

[miseleigh]

Massachusetts, in case you've forgotten (or perhaps never knew) is the state that now fines individuals $900 a year if they choose not to purchase health care (no matter the reason.) It is also the state in which anyone below 200% of the poverty level can have health care heavily subsidized.

The Boston Globe also recently had an article claiming that a higher tax rate leads to economic stimulation. The implied conclusion was that taxes should be raised.

This is why I want to get out...

[D'kian]

Massachusetts, in case you've forgotten (or perhaps never knew) is the state that now fines individuals $900 a year if they choose not to purchase health care (no matter the reason.) It is also the state in which anyone below 200% of the poverty level can have health care heavily subsidized.

That happened courtesy of Mitt Romney, if I recall correctly.

The Boston Globe also recently had an article claiming that a higher tax rate leads to economic stimulation. The implied conclusion was that taxes should be raised.

Well, it's known as "Taxachussets" for a reason. It's also the great Commonwealth of Massachussets that produced Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.

[softwareNerd]

People like Greenspan help the claims of anti-freemarket folk. People like Greenspan encourage the particular type of mixed-economy that spawns institutions like Fannie and Freddie. These institutions are partially government controlled or government favored. Yet, people like Greenspan want them to be less regulated. Then, when they fall on their faces, and the tax-payer has to foot the bill, it's the free-market that gets the blame. The same thing was seen in the California electrical crisis. The government had pretended to deregulate, but had not quite. When the asinine structures of mixed-economy failed, it was a chance for critics to say that the free-market failed.

[Rearden_Steel]

Massachusetts, in case you've forgotten (or perhaps never knew) is the state that now fines individuals $900 a year if they choose not to purchase health care (no matter the reason.) It is also the state in which anyone below 200% of the poverty level can have health care heavily subsidized.

The Boston Globe also recently had an article claiming that a higher tax rate leads to economic stimulation. The implied conclusion was that taxes should be raised.

This is why I want to get out...

In the birth place of the American Revolution no less. I hope Samuel Adams rises from his grave walks to city hall and gives them all a good bitch slap!!

Yet this is yet another reason to hate the Redsox and the Pats.

Edited September 11, 2008 by Rearden_Steel

[agrippa1]

People like Greenspan help the claims of anti-freemarket folk. People like Greenspan encourage the particular type of mixed-economy that spawns institutions like Fannie and Freddie. These institutions are partially government controlled or government favored. Yet, people like Greenspan want them to be less regulated. Then, when they fall on their faces, and the tax-payer has to foot the bill, it's the free-market that gets the blame. The same thing was seen in the California electrical crisis. The government had pretended to deregulate, but had not quite. When the asinine structures of mixed-economy failed, it was a chance for critics to say that the free-market failed.

Yeah, Greenspan is a walking contradiction. He yearns for the Gold Standard in his memoirs, and laments that no one else is ready for it, but instead triggers a bubble perhaps worse than 1929. A contradiction, tutored and guided in his political career by Ayn Rand. Makes you wonder...

As for Massachusetts being Liberal, what more needs said:

[D'kian]

As for Massachusetts being Liberal, what more needs said:

Is that accurate? McGovern actually did better than Mondale? I'm stunned.

[brian0918]

Its one of the most liberal states in the Union.

Why not write back, and simply point out that neo-conservatism is in no way related to Ayn Rand's ideas, nor is it related to capitalism. Neo-con's are old, lefty, altruist statists. see Brad Thompson's article in the Objective Standard.

I just finished the article you mentioned (The Decline and Fall of American Conservatism). "Wow!" is all I have to say. Now I'm interested in Goldwater's book. This is the 2nd article I've read from The Objective Standard (The Mystical Ethics of the New Atheists being the first) and so far I like what I've seen. I noticed that it's only 2 years old - what motivated the creation of the journal?

Edited September 12, 2008 by brian0918