Republicans and Socialism

Originally posted by dryhump
I think you seriously misunderstood that book.

Thats easy enough to claim. The book is that long and arduous a read, one could easily conclude a differing understanding, from the viewpoint of a myriad array of subtle inflected points of depature, all along the same plot timeline, that make up the novels arc.

Originally posted by bill718
(Republicans) I believe they truly want the best for everyone in America, and all over the world.

I think you're deluded beyond belief.

Read:
- Armed madhouse
- Rogue State

Then come back and tell us that they want the best for everyone all over the world.

Originally posted by dryhump
(Atlas shrugged) I think you seriously misunderstood that book.

Oh, pray tell us... what is rationalism if not faeces clothed as putrid words of stupidity?

Originally posted by shavixmir
Oh, pray tell us... what is rationalism if not faeces clothed as putrid words of stupidity?

I think you could boil rationalism down to a single statement: Work for yourself. Maybe even better would be Produce for yourself. I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to this.

Originally posted by dryhump
I think you could boil rationalism down to a single statement: Work for yourself. Maybe even better would be Produce for yourself. I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to this.

Shav would starve to death.

Originally posted by dryhump
I think you could boil rationalism down to a single statement: Work for yourself. Maybe even better would be Produce for yourself. I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to this.

Because it's inefficient and does not produce the most wealthy society.

Originally posted by dryhump
I think you could boil rationalism down to a single statement: Work for yourself. Maybe even better would be Produce for yourself. I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to this.

Well when every would be rationalist laissez faire capitalist actually does it all by themselves then no one would. The point is every would be idea merchant takes that idea to market, finds venture capital and allows money to silence claims of equity in the share of profits that accrue as a result of that idea being realised with the help of much labour done by other hired hands. As much as there would not be products without the *idea* and capital, there would neither be products without commodity labour turning that idea into reality.

In a workplace reality where both capital and labour are intrinsically bound together, the argument is not against the logic of reward for effort. The argument is against one critical aspect of the total market transaction claiming the right to primary recompense at the expense of the other.

Originally posted by dryhump
I think you could boil rationalism down to a single statement: Work for yourself. Maybe even better would be Produce for yourself. I don't understand why anyone would be opposed to this.

You could. But that doesn't mean you should.

Rationalism begins so:
"Once upon a time there were human beings and these human beings are rational beings."

I think this pretty much sums up the whole bum-ringer basis of her argumentation.

"The right to property."
"The right to have the State defend your property."

I think a right can only be a right when everybody can enjoy that right. Once all the land is divided amongst an X-amount of the population and is defended by the State, how on earth does the Y-amount enjoy their right to own land?

Besides the basis of rationalism being as flawed as a 23$ bill, the outcome is policy aimed at consolidating the position of the wealthy.
Hence Raygun and the Witch swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

And nobody else, really.

Originally posted by shavixmir
You could. But that doesn't mean you should.

Rationalism begins so:
"Once upon a time there were human beings and these human beings are rational beings."

I think this pretty much sums up the whole bum-ringer basis of her argumentation.

"The right to property."
"The right to have the State defend your property."

I think a right can only be ...[text shortened]... nce Raygun and the Witch swallowing it hook, line and sinker.

And nobody else, really.

Dang this is tedious.

SHAV, NOW GET THIS:

A 'right' is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.

You have a right to acquire property. You have a right to acquire a McD's burger, you don't have a right to just demand one. Even on the dole you could probably save enough to acquire some property somewhere, we haven't run out just yet.

We're all well aware of your opinion of your fellow mans rationality, but stop for a minute and consider what your fingers are resting on and what an accomplishment that tool is, if you really get down to it, take a good look at a pencil and think about what is required to produce those things in their millions.

"I Pencil" by Leonard Read

http://www.econlib.org/library/Essays/rdPncl1.html

What other animal can even come close to producing the little brass ring that holds the eraser.

You'll be awed by what's all around you.

Originally posted by Wajoma
Dang this is tedious.

SHAV, NOW GET THIS:

A 'right' is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others.

The sovereignty to act without the permission of others is only of any worth, when that action is a possibility.

If there's no more land and all land is defended by a State sanctioned to use violence and you are not... then your right is pointless.

True rights, for example, the right to education, housing, food, etc. are rights you can demand. They are rights which are possible. They are rights which don't benefit a small group in society.

Originally posted by kmax87
The argument is against one critical aspect of the total market transaction claiming the right to primary recompense at the expense of the other.

The worker or the employer? You don't make your intent clear, because out here in the real world employees have as much right to with-hold their labor as the employer has a right not to provide them with work.

At least that's the way it should be.

Originally posted by shavixmir
The sovereignty to act without the permission of others is only of any worth, when that action is a possibility.

If there's no more land and all land is defended by a State sanctioned to use violence and you are not... then your right is pointless.

True rights, for example, the right to education, housing, food, etc. are rights you can demand. They are rights which are possible. They are rights which don't benefit a small group in society.

No you're still not grasping it, a house can never be a 'right'.

And I repeat, we're a long way from all the land being held and not a scrap of it available for purchase. The idea is so utterly ridiculous I feel embarrassed for you (if only it were possible to be embarrassed for anothers willful doltishness)

Originally posted by Wajoma
No you're still not grasping it, a house can never be a 'right'.

And I repeat, we're a long way from all the land being held and not a scrap of it available for purchase. The idea is so utterly ridiculous I feel embarrassed for you (if only it were possible to be embarrassed for anothers willful doltishness)

Maybe you should read the UN charter on human rights then...

If there's so much land... how come so few people own it?
Oh. You're American. You're the only people in the whole wide world who actually cling to Ayn Rand.

But then again, lots of you don't believe in dinosaurs either...

Originally posted by shavixmir
Maybe you should read the UN charter on human rights then...

If there's so much land... how come so few people own it?
Oh. You're American. You're the only people in the whole wide world who actually cling to Ayn Rand.

But then again, lots of you don't believe in dinosaurs either...

So few?

You keep digging deeper, you can't let it go.

How many is "so few"?

Don't forget to count all public land.

I'm a Kiwi.

Edit: ....and let us also consider how much of it is for sale

Originally posted by Wajoma
So few?
How many is "so few"?

Don't forget to count all public land.

I'm a Kiwi.

Edit: ....and let us also consider how much of it is for sale

70% of the world's assets are owned by 10% of the world's population.
If I had time I'd delve a little deeper into the figures for you, but alas, you're gonna have to do that yourself.

A kiwi? The fruit or the bird?