Help with my writing

[iflyboats]

I'm attempting to start a blog in defense of Ayn Rand's ideas. The article that I'm currently attempting to write is a rebuttal of another article recently posted on Alternet in which the author ridicules the idea that the rich are "job creators" to justify increasing their taxes. I intend to identify all the author's errors, refute them and explain why the rich ARE job creators and why they should not be taxed.

My first problem is identifying my subject and theme. Should my subject be the article that I'm repudiating, or the notion that the rich are "job creators" itself?

Sorry if this is an amateur question; this is my first attempt at writing.

Edited October 2, 2011 by iflyboats

[brian0918]

I think the article would stand better on its own if the subject focused on the fact that the rich are job creators, rather than just being a rebuttal. Throughout the piece, you can reference the other article - but it should never seem like the purpose of your writing is merely a rebuttal. It shouldn't remain confined to refuting *only* the content of the other article, but should also present the best arguments/counter-arguments you can think of, and present a broader foundation for analyzing such questions. Don't get too bogged down in trying to convince everyone, since that's not going to happen. Just get them interested in alternative ideas that they have never considered.

For good examples of this, I really like the writings of Yaron Brook and Don Watkins for Forbes.

Edited October 2, 2011 by brian0918

[Eiuol]

My first problem is identifying my subject and theme. Should my subject be the article that I'm repudiating, or the notion that the rich are "job creators" itself?

This in part depends on you. You stated your subject matter already: response to an article ridiculing the notion that the rich are job creators. Theme is more complex, I'd say. Why is it that you are taking the time to write anything? What do you have to say that is unique? By identifying errors, what are you trying to get at? And just to mention, not all rich people are necessarily job creators, because there are many ways to be rich; some legitimate, some not.

[iflyboats]

This in part depends on you. You stated your subject matter already: response to an article ridiculing the notion that the rich are job creators. Theme is more complex, I'd say. Why is it that you are taking the time to write anything? What do you have to say that is unique? By identifying errors, what are you trying to get at? And just to mention, not all rich people are necessarily job creators, because there are many ways to be rich; some legitimate, some not.

The reason I want to write an article is that, in the context of the current economic crisis, people on the left are making egregiously flawed arguments in favor of an immoral and dangerous course of action (raising taxes on the rich), and I want to provide a detailed refutation of those errors. I don't intend to discuss the issues of whether the rich are "job creators" and whether they should pay high taxes in purely abstract terms; instead, I want to relate those issues specifically to America's current economic crisis.

The leftist argument is as follows: the fact that America has poor job growth in spite of Obama's extension of the Bush tax cuts proves that the rich are not really "job creators," and therefore, because the rich are not "job creators," we should raise their taxes.

I intend to argue the following: 1) that it is absurd to focus on taxes as if they were the sole factor driving job growth, that all other things being equal, job growth is higher now than it would have been if higher taxes had been imposed, and that people on the left are using the Bush tax cuts as a red herring; and 2) that the question of whether a rich man should be pay higher taxes does not depend on whether he would use his money to create jobs, because the protection of property rights is an end in itself, and all job creation depends on it

My motivation to do this arose from the fact that I have recently been arguing in defense of Ayn Rand and capitalism in the enemy's territory (leftist blogs and websites), which I don't believe accomplishes much because almost everyone who reads them is hostile to Objectivist ideas. I set up Google alerts to bring me articles and blog posts that reference Ayn Rand, and almost every commentary that appears is hostile to her ideas. My reasons for wanting starting a blog are to combat anti-Rand commentary by defending capitalism in my own territory. I doubt that what I have to say would be 100% original, but there is far more anti-capitalist than pro-capitalist commentary out there, and I would like to help reverse that trend. Is this a misguided idea?

Edited October 2, 2011 by iflyboats