Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Mr. Wynand

Obama inauguration

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I'm guessing you guys didn't hear him when he said that he would get rid of the government programs that don't work...

Seriously, how many politicians have tried to run that jive past us? A is A and government is inefficient by its very nature. That is one of the reasons that government needs to be strictly limited to a few core functions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard him say something along the lines of, "It's not about whether government is too big or too small. It's about whether it works."

This is the statement:

What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them - that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long no longer apply. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.

So people should no longer be concerned with the ethics of forced redistribution (they should not be asking themselves if it is right to do so) but rather they should focus on the efficiency of redistribution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So people should no longer be concerned with the ethics of forced redistribution (they should not be asking themselves if it is right to do so) but rather they should focus on the efficiency of redistribution.

Yep, pretty much what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A is A and government is inefficient by its very nature. That is one of the reasons that government needs to be strictly limited to a few core functions.

While I agree that it should be limited to the protection of individual rights only, I don't think one can go as far as saying that government is inefficient by its very nature. That's like saying it's evil by its nature; just because it has been in the past doesn't mean it has to be that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought his speech (didn't see, but read the text) was masterful if one considers his audience and what he is trying to sell them. So much more the dangerous.

His approach seems to be: come down strongly for both major factions of an issue. This is quite different from articulating a middle-path, or saying you favor one but will take the other into consideration. No. He wants to own both sides strongly.

So, we do not hear him defensively say that his reforms will not affect the free-market too much; nor, of course, do we here him say that he needs just a few reforms in an otherwise good free-market. Instead, he comes out strongly for the free-market, implying that if is ridiculous to suggest that it is not a generator of wealth; but, he also comes out strongly for changes and control.

The danger -- to the common good -- is this: the truly wishy-washy guy keeps himself open to accusations of being an extremist. On the other hand, trying to grab both factions strongly allows Obama to keep his options open. He can move strongly in either direction and claim that he is not contradicting himself.

One can see the same approach symbolized in his choice of priests for his show. Does he pick some bland middle-of-the-road priest? No. Instead, he choose one preacher who bashes gays, and another priest who is gay.

Edited by softwareNerd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree that it should be limited to the protection of individual rights only, I don't think one can go as far as saying that government is inefficient by its very nature. That's like saying it's evil by its nature; just because it has been in the past doesn't mean it has to be that way.

In providing services outside the realm of the protection of individual rights, I'd say it's inefficient by its very nature. There's no program (health care, social security, roads etc.) that the market couldn't and definitely wouldn't do better. A bunch of 'selfless' central planners are never as efficient as selfish for-profit businessmen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In providing services outside the realm of the protection of individual rights, I'd say it's inefficient by its very nature. There's no program (health care, social security, roads etc.) that the market couldn't and definitely wouldn't do better. A bunch of 'selfless' central planners are never as efficient as selfish for-profit businessmen.

Yes, outside it's proper role. I agree completely there.

But what about inside its proper role?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree that it should be limited to the protection of individual rights only, I don't think one can go as far as saying that government is inefficient by its very nature. That's like saying it's evil by its nature; just because it has been in the past doesn't mean it has to be that way.
I'm trying to come up with examples of things that governments do efficiently. Other than taxing and killing people, I'm having trouble.

His approach seems to be: come down strongly for both major factions of an issue. This is quite different from articulating a middle-path, or saying you favor one but will take the other into consideration. No. He wants to own both sides strongly.

Yes, this is an excellent observation. Unlike Bush, who comes off as weak because he had to betray free market principles in order to save the free market, Obama says he fully supports both the free market and more regulation. How do you argue against that? He's taken the ability of Bill Clinton to straddle an issue and raised it to a new and even higher level.

Yes, outside it's proper role. I agree completely there.

But what about inside its proper role?

I certainly wouldn't say that our military and our police are run efficiently. They may be good at certain things, but not efficient. The same can be said about our court system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, outside it's proper role. I agree completely there.

But what about inside its proper role?

Well, efficiency's a non-factor with regards to its proper role, since only a proper government is able to uphold and maintain a police force, army and judiciary bound by an objective law. A market is completely incapable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Instead, he comes out strongly for the free-market, implying that if is ridiculous to suggest that it is not a generator of wealth; but, he also comes out strongly for changes and control.

This is not his genius. This lesson has been learned long time ago. Comrades: We want milk - it is the cow which produces milk. Don't be stupid - do not kill the cow. Be smart - control it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This is not his genius. This lesson has been learned long time ago. Comrades: We want milk - it is the cow which produces milk. Don't be stupid - do not kill the cow. Be smart - control it.
You're right, no credit for originality; but, full credit for lessons well learnt.

I daresay people across the centuries have used this and better techniques. In the play "Julius Caesar", Brutus tells us that he loved Caesar so much, and yet... "As Caesar loved me, I weep for him; as he was fortunate, I rejoice at it; as he was valiant, I honour him; but, as he was ambitious, I slew him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I thought his speech (didn't see, but read the text)

Same here, since I don't own a television, but I later watched it on a C-Span youtube of it.

From the text:

[...]Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

No, it's because of the consequence of governmental intervention in the economy.

Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched, but this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control — and that a nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.

Without the free in free market that power will be diminished.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hear Bill Clinton straddled a lot of things, back in the day.

Yup, Bill Clinton was adept at taking both sides of an issue. He was very quick on his feet too, much more so than Obama.

So, this is nothing new. Obama, however, has more radical ideas and a press that is much more fawning of him than they were of Clinton and that's saying something!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm annoyed at the very idea of his name nowadays. Every time I hear or read something that praises this man, I get emotional, and they're never good emotions.

I know what you mean. I'm sick of CNN telling me every 10 minutes that hes black. Believe me I have not forgotten since you crammed it down my throat in your last segment.

Look for a mandatory national service program to be rolled out. "We are our brother's keeper..."

I can see the poster now. Three young teenagers of different ethnic backgrounds laboring in a field. The white boy lingers in the background slightly out of focus. I just threw up a little bit in my mouth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While I agree that it should be limited to the protection of individual rights only, I don't think one can go as far as saying that government is inefficient by its very nature. That's like saying it's evil by its nature; just because it has been in the past doesn't mean it has to be that way.

It can be said that government is inefficient by it's nature. We can know this with certainty because it is impossible to take something from one group and give it to another without an additional cost added. On average, of every dollar taken by the federal government, $.09 gets to the source.

You can argue that some government programs are more efficient than others, but no program that has costs and adds nothing to productivity could be more or even as efficient.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you heard this too, it was astounding!!! Racist not just for grouping people by race, which nearly everyone finds acceptable today. But flat out anti-white racism, here is the relevant part of Rev. Lowery's benediction:

Link: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2009/01/re...ion_benedi.html

Notice the method: name a racial group (gang, tribe) and then say how things can be improved for them. All the groups are victims of some sort; they have been wronged, and who is to blame? White people, since we need to "work for that day when" they will finally "embrace what is right". Disgusting.

...

Yes, judging by the last week of fawning praise, idolization, and benighted acceptance of Obama, I'm afraid the next four years could be much worse than I had imagined.

I almost choked when I heard that. And again when everyone reacted to it so positively.

Other then that, one of the highlights for me, was that I watched it on facebook. While I watched the status of others watching the event on face book was streamed by. I read them while I listened, and if I had a dollar for every girl who "had tears well up in her eyes when he placed his mighty hand upon the book," to take the oath, I would be so wealthy I would need to flee the country before he ate me. It was truly disgusting to see how strongly correlated his move into office is with people making this decision based on how they feel with absolutely no regard to what they think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My school actually played his speech while I was in lunch. His oppressive voice boomed down from a spot I couldn't pinpoint in the ceiling. I couldn't hear it, but I didn't have to. Yesterday was sickening.

All I heard of the speech was the part where he blamed greed for the ills of the economy. That pretty much said it all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes, "forced volunteerism." A contradiction in concept, an abomination to our founding principles.

...and yet how many times did he reference our founding fathers in his speech?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What drives me bananas most is this emphasis on instilling "hope." Hope for what, exactly? Blank out. (To quote Ayn Rand.) Rational people don't walk around with a floating feeling of "hopelessness." People who do are those who obsess over "saving the world" and other collectivist pursuits. If you just go about your business, make good decisions, and focus on your own life, you won't feel "hopeless." Sure, being struck with terminial illness and other things that happen beyond one's immediate control can render one "hopeless," but I don't think that's the kind of "hope" this campaign's talking about.

A more secondary pet-peeve of mine is the gay/lesbian community's over Rick Warren. People, YOU voted Obama in! YOU voted in someone who was openly against gay marriage, YOU voted in someone who for the life of him cannot separate church and state. You've made your bed.

Edited by Tabitha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know this is 'old hat' to many, but I'm still curious about the Objectivist argument for voting for Obama/Democrat. My understanding is that by voting for Obama/Democrat, you're voting for "honesty" in the sense that liberals are upfront about wanting socialistic policies; whereas the Republican party is dishonest for misrepresenting capitalism, which it is supposed to champion.

While I see merit in this logic, the problem I have is that this thinking does little to further the cause of Objectivism. For instance, say a slew of Objectivists went out and voted for Obama, and he ended up winning (which he did). The average person, unfamiliar with Objectivism, is not going to make the connection. The world is not going to say, "Obama most likely got that extra push from the Objectivists, who were trying to make a point against those who purport to espouse capitialism but in fact don't." The reality is that most people don't even know what Objectivism is, and they sure as hell aren't going to take Obama's winning as a chance to get out there and educate themselves about Objectivism. Nor will they be likely to turn steadfast to Ayn Rand years and years from now when this socialism fails. Rather, the world is chalking up his success to there being more liberals in the populace. And in the meantime, all we'll have is more deeply leftist-entrenched thought to deal with as Objectivism drifts from the mainstream each day. I don't see how in the long term (or even the short term for that matter), this sort of thing is supposed to further Objectivism.

The Republicans are certainly by no means advocates of a pure-free market, but it's hard to argue that they're not at least closer to capitalism than Democrats, even if not by much nowadays... but at least closer.

(Again, I posted this here because this is the most recent Obama thread, but if it's a problem I could take this discussion elsewhere as to not divert the thread from the inauguration itself.)

Edited by Tabitha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know this is 'old hat' to many, but I'm still curious about the Objectivist argument for voting for Obama/Democrat. My understanding is that by voting for Obama/Democrat, you're voting for "honesty" in the sense that liberals are upfront about wanting socialistic policies; where as the Republican party is dishonest for misrepresenting capitalism, which it is supposed to champion.

I think the argument is that although the liberals want socialistic policies, Socialism is old and discredited and any president who goes too far with socialistic implementation would be faced with riots. The Republicans, on the other hand, are guilty of a far more serious charge than misrepresenting capitalism. They are firmly entrenched in the mystical morality of religion that has NOT been widely discredited and is therefore a more vital threat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the religion argument, but am no longer convinced that it's a scrooge of the Republican party alone. Obama, for example, is highly religious. Even in my personal life, I know just as many religious liberals as I do religious conservatives. (Though, granted - religous liberals tend not to fight for religious-based policies.)

Edited by Tabitha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think the argument is that although the liberals want socialistic policies, Socialism is old and discredited and any president who goes too far with socialistic implementation would be faced with riots. The Republicans, on the other hand, are guilty of a far more serious charge than misrepresenting capitalism. They are firmly entrenched in the mystical morality of religion that has NOT been widely discredited and is therefore a more vital threat.

I am not convinced that socialism is discredited anymore. Outside of objectivist circles I am seeing a great deal of support now. More than I ever remember.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...