Hey kids: Don't be a sucker for socialism

Post Reply New Topic

Capitalism or socialism

Or, put another way:

"Fairness or equality", a fundamental equation. Often in life the two are mutually exclusive.

On the equality side, the notion seems to be the vast majority of people should enjoy all the goods and services equally that a society can provide. It is not contribution based, it is distribution based. On the positive side, most folks will have a similar standard of living. On the negative side, the level mark is lowered by its very nature. Some must contribute more than others, so the hurdle height becomes lower.

On the fairness side, the notion seems far more focused on access to opportunity and freedoms to achieve them. On the positive side the upside can be quite attractive, on the downside, several folks in society will be left behind and others will look to take competitive advantage.

This administration is very much on the side of equality. One look at health-care, employee free choice act, cap and trade and the stimulus more than support this.

On a consistent and sustained basis, Americans have chosen fairness and freedom vs. equality. The challenge is exercising the fairness so it is a competitive platform, open and available to all. Equality of opportunity cannot and should not guarantee equality of results. It is not a question of whether or not someone becomes affluent or not, but whether they had the opportunity given their work ethic and willingness to embrace risk.

Our government has not done a good job as referee between the two, as it cannot help itself from also becoming a player.

You take for granted that everyone agrees with your idea of "fairness". I do not believe it is fair to deny healthcare to people lacking the means to afford it. I do not want everyone to be exactly the same. I just want everyone to be treated fairly. Capitalism DOES NOT guarantee this. Not at all. Some people are born with disadvantages. Is it okay to allow these people to be so poor they suffer because of this? I'm not talking about simply not being rich. I'm talking about not being able to afford a place to live. Have you ever been homeless? In your view allowing some people to be so poor they are homeless just so that others who "worked hard" can be as rich as possible is fair? This doesn't seem like fairness at all to me. It seems like a sociopaths idea of fairness. Survival of the fittest.

That is the conclusion I've come to, seems the most logical.

Whatever man, that site was my life in my first year of college...oh it's sad I admit, but nonetheless.

Whatever man, that site was my social life in my first year of college...oh it's sad I admit, but nonetheless.

Maybe too much work for too little, contributes to mental illness as well as the pressure to work too much for too little.

For what it's worth, Hayley is - next to Roger - my favorite character on that show, especially since my daughter's name is Hayley. That, and I like her free, bohemian spirit.

we're going way off topic obviously but American Dad became a lot funnier once it started developing the characters beyond the original concept. I like it better than Family Guy as half the characters on Family Guy are annoying imo whereas almost everyone on American Dad is funny. Klaus for whatever reason always really makes me laugh tho just to single one out.

I loved the Das Boot episode.

Who would that be, exactly?



When a Henry Ford does something, it has an effect. The standard in his industry and others had been a six-day work week, ten or more hours a day. The odd outlier had no effect on the others, but Ford's changes were a big shock, and eventually set a new standard.



Upon which of Ayn Rand's works are your "arguments" based?



No, it's an absurdity. She wasn't "so for production and consumption" as a contextless absolute, as the only values which a person ought to pursue ever. It's like saying that 'Julia Child thought that people ought to eat good food' means 'Julia Child thought that people should spend every waking moment cramming as much gourmet food as physically possible into their mouths.'

The central principle of Objectivist ethics is, not "production and consumption," but rational self-interest. "Your life belongs to you and the good is to live it." Every individual has the right to pursue his own happiness, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. Since the material things which maintain and enhance our lives – food, clothing, shelter, DVD players – don't fall from the sky, but must be produced by human effort, it's clearly in every adult's self-interest to support himself through productive work, if he can.

But the nature of this work is going to vary from one individual to the next. Perhaps one person's abilities don't let him rise beyond a labor job – there's nothing wrong with that. A second person could have had a lucrative career, but instead chose work which paid less but was more rewarding psychologically, or less stressful, or which allowed more time for family. There's nothing wrong with that either.

But a third person pursues a career with the possibility of great material reward. Maybe he studies for years, and goes into debt, in order to become an aeronautical engineer or a brain surgeon. Maybe he invests countless hours mastering the technical aspects of his art. Maybe he's part of a team which puts in long hours, for years, developing some new product. Eventually he achieves something which many people are eager to pay for, and becomes wealthy as a result.

Such people, if very successful, were once smeared as "robber barons" – falsely equating productivity with theft. It's still common to hear that they are "greedy," or "swindlers," or that they ought to "give back" some of their wealth – presumably to the same people who willingly gave it to them in the first place. Objectivism says that this is nonsense. Not only are such people entitled to keep and enjoy the wealth they earn in the free market, they should be celebrated and honored. It's thanks to such dedicated individuals that the rest of us have cars, symphonies, novels, iPhones, and a million other things which enhance our lives.




My point is that you appear to know nothing about Ayn Rand's philosophy, beyond a vague notion that she was "for production" – and yet here you are expressing an opinion on the subject and expecting to be taken seriously.

^^^
As the right is so eager to embrace Rand, it's strange that they would also claim to represent Christian values of selflessness and self-sacrifice, when also promoting Rand's philosophy of selfishness being a virtue.

^^^
As the right is so eager to embrace Rand, it's strange that they would also claim to represent Christian values (selflessness and self-sacrifice) when also promoting Rand's philosophy of selfishness being a virtue.

The right likes to cut welfare programs.

They say that by cutting welfare, they are helping these "trapped" people.

So, by being selfish they are being charitable.

Well, they're certainly not helping anyone by cutting off people's only source of income when it's unlikely that most employers will hire people who have been out of the job pool for so long. Funny how the right puts all responsibility on theses job seekers to find a new source of income, but don't think employers should be compelled in any way to help the desperate with jobs.

Who gives a f**k. We know what Ayn Rand stood for and we are against it. Her philosophy is f****d up, cruel, and selfish, as are you.

People rage against Ayn Rand when her influence doesn't extend much beyond reading Atlas Shrugged in high school, I don't think most people even read The Fountainhead let alone know anything about Objectionism, it's just a straw man. People know her as an author not some ideological cornerstone. Actual Objectionists can never gain influence because it is so intolerant of an ideology that they can't ally themselves with people that they agree with 99% of the time, Ayn Rand was notorious for this and hated the beginnings of the modern libertarian movement most of all because she felt they were plagiarists who were really anarchists(which she likened to communism) that had no understanding of philosophy or whatever. She basically believed that people should believe what she believed for the exact reasons she believed them and to hell with everyone else. Just another left wing boogeyman and she's been dead for more than 30 years.