Thomas Perkins: Taxing the rich = The holocaust

Post Reply New Topic

Ok, so where do I find in the USA or europe the rhetoric, that rich people should not be allowed to give woman jobs in their houses and factories, because of them being so evil, that they would misuse their power and force that poor woman to sleep with them, and so dirten their proletarian blood with their diseased rich blood? Which people are right now talking about rich people being denied to use public transportation, own cars, bicycles, ... Where exactly are people talking and using a rhetoric to ensure, that rich people dont become teachers, doctors, actors, or any other public jobs ... so that they cannot get influence over other people and cultures, including all people that own at least 25% rich people blood? Which university exactly are denying rich people and their children to study at their place, because of them being rich or having no "proletarian-pure-poor-blood" acording to the rhetoric, that shall be similar to those use against jewish people? And where exactly are the films, shown in cinemas, which are rhetorically teaching us in pseudo scientific ways, that rich people are similar to rats and cockroaches, and need to be wiped out, to clear the "proletarian blood" from them?

I mean if you say, that the rhetoric used, is comparable to those used against the jews, then there must be similarities.

Anyone who seriously believes there is even the remotest chance of the rich being herded into concentration camps to be worked to death or gassed needs to be kept away from the care of children or other vulnerable people, as well as probably denied drivers licenses, from operating heavy machinery, and from sharp objects in general.

You could always take your own advice if it bothers you that much for others to have their own opinions. I'd be amazed if any human being lasted 5 minutes on an island with someone as obnoxious as you. Even after countless rebuttals to your sweeping generalizations you still manage to convince yourself you know what's "true" for libertarians better than they do.

I don't know who John Gault is or what Texas has to do with anything but you guys just can't resist putting words into every libertarian's mouths with loaded terms like "nonproductive parasites". I'm done with this discussion, I've had enough condescending BS for one day.

The novel unfolds in a progressive retrospective, with Galt, the son of an Ohio garage mechanic, leaving home at age twelve and beginning college at the fictional Patrick Henry University at age sixteen. There he meets Francisco d'Anconia and Ragnar Danneskjöld, who become his two closest friends. Galt takes a double major in physics and philosophy, and after graduating, he becomes an engineer at the Twentieth Century Motor Company, where he designs a revolutionary new motor powered by ambient static electricity. When the company owners decide to run the factory by the collectivist maxim, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need", Galt refuses to work there any longer and abandons his motor.

During the main storyline of the book, Galt has secretly organized a strike by the world's creative leaders, including inventors, artists and businessmen, in an effort to "stop the motor of the world" and bring about the collapse of the bureaucratic society. While working incognito as a laborer for Taggart Transcontinental railroad, he travels to visit the key figures that he has not yet recruited, systematically persuading them to join the strike. This strike is not revealed immediately within the story, but forms the backdrop of the novel as a mystery which protagonist Dagny Taggart seeks to uncover, with Galt as her antagonist. The strikers have created their own secret enclave known as "Galt's Gulch", a town secluded in a Colorado mountain valley, based on Ouray, Colorado. While in the valley, Dagny develops a romantic relationship with Galt, although she refuses to join the strike. After she returns home to New York, Galt takes over the airwaves, delivering a lengthy speech that explains what he sees to be the irrationality of collectivism and offers his own philosophy (Ayn Rand's Objectivism) as an alternative. Galt speaks against what he sees as the evil of collectivism and the idea that individuals must be responsible for each other, and says they should be replaced by rational selfishness. Seeking Galt after the speech, Dagny accidentally leads the authorities to him, and he is arrested. She and the strikers rescue Galt as the government attempts to torture him. They return to Galt's Gulch and prepare to rebuild the rest of the world, as the collapse of the incompetent government nears.

John Galt is a fictional character in Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged (regarded as the libertarian Bible), who is the living embodiment of wonderful values such as selfishness, contempt and hate of the poor, ignoring the needs of your fellow human beings, etc.

So many errors in a single sentence ...

1. Libertarians ≠ Objectivists. Many libertarians have not read Rand.

2. Even Objectivists do not treat Atlas as a bible.

3. What Rand meant by "selfishness" is not what you mean by it.

4. "Contempt and hate of the poor" is not part of Objectivism. In fact Galt and many of the other heroes of Atlas spend most of the book being poor, while all of the villains are rich and powerful. The hero of The Fountainhead also spends much of that book being poor, in contrast to a man with different values who enjoys wealth and fame.

5. If you believe that you are responsible for satisfying the needs of your fellow human beings, what the hell are you doing playing on the Internet? Surely there's somebody somewhere you could be helping!

6. None if this has anything to do with a rich old man who made a tasteless and inappropriate comparison ....

I think Kraichgauer is secretly an advertising agent for the publishing company that prints Atlas Shrugged and Rand's other works. For anything that a liberal finds so repugnant is something any non-liberal would love to read.

regarded as the libertarian Bible

So many errors in a single sentence ...

1. Libertarians ≠ Objectivists. Many libertarians have not read Rand.

2. Even Objectivists do not treat Atlas as a bible.

3. What Rand meant by "selfishness" is not what you mean by it.

4. "Contempt and hate of the poor" is not part of Objectivism. In fact Galt and many of the other heroes of Atlas spend most of the book being poor, while all of the villains are rich and powerful. The hero of The Fountainhead also spends much of that book being poor, in contrast to a man with different values who enjoys wealth and fame.

5. If you believe that you are responsible for satisfying the needs of your fellow human beings, what the hell are you doing playing on the Internet? Surely there's somebody somewhere you could be helping!

6. None of this has anything to do with a rich old man who made a tasteless and inappropriate comparison ....

...by willfully pig ignorant non libertarians.

So what if Galt starts out as poor?