Fucking inefficient big government. What have they ever done for humanity besides getting us to the moon and inventing the Internet?
"getting us to the Moon". You're a member of the Apolo expedition??
Topic: Libertarians Are Sociopaths - page 9. (Read 11648 times)
"getting us to the Moon". You're a member of the Apolo expedition??
Answer my question, Atlas.
e: based on my interactions with you in that other thread, there is no way in hell you're not Atlas
e: based on my interactions with you in that other thread, there is no way in hell you're not Atlas
I doubt it. Atlas was a hardcore objectivist. Ayn Rand's root premise regarding charity was that it always did more harm than good, and that (as an atheist) she believed that the Judeo-Christian tradition of aiding the poor was BS.
Atlas has said a number of times that he doesn't follow Rand to the exclusion of all else. Also "I. Goldstein" never did answer the damn question.
Quote from: Atlas
Behold the inefficiency of government.
Except when it turns out to be terribly efficient. But in those cases you can just blame government intervention in private enterprise (no matter how much or little there happens to be) for the failures of private enterprise rather than having to face the truth.
Fucking inefficient big government. What have they ever done for humanity besides getting us to the moon and inventing the Internet?
If you have ever read her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged and recognized it for what it really is, a philosophy book wrapped up as a work of fiction, it's pretty obvious that she didn't feel this way when the book was written. The main character has many famous lines, not the least of which, involves John Galt telling another character to lead a moral life by never letting the word "give" cross her lips.
I read the book differently. To me, the primary thrust of what you write about the word "give", was to never allow anyone to use the concept "required to give" as a weapon against you. To use it as a weapon requires the sanction of the victim.
However, there are many examples of people making sacrifices themselves for the good of another. But none are required to make these sacrifices. They all do it willingly because to avoid the responsibility would compromise their own self interests.
To anyone who hasn't read Atlas Shrugged. Read it. It's huge but there is not a second of wasted time in it.
There's nothing in the principles of libertarianism that makes it incompatible with charity. What it is incompatible with is forcing others to empty their pockets to the needy at gunpoint. If you can acknowledge that distinction then we will be getting somewhere.
If ONLY it went to the needy i wouldn't feel so bad about the system. But it gets gobbled up mostly by underworked bureaucrats with lavish pay and pension, and overpriced or unnecessary crony contractors.
+1
In France there has been a study recently, about the amount of tax money used to pay people in charge of organizing distribution of public help to homeless people. Once we divided the total amount by the number of those homeless people, it was almost enough to pay them an hotel room. Every night.
Behold the inefficiency of government.
There's nothing in the principles of libertarianism that makes it incompatible with charity. What it is incompatible with is forcing others to empty their pockets to the needy at gunpoint. If you can acknowledge that distinction then we will be getting somewhere.
If ONLY it went to the needy i wouldn't feel so bad about the system. But it gets gobbled up mostly by underworked bureaucrats with lavish pay and pension, and overpriced or unnecessary crony contractors.
+1
In France there has been a study recently, about the amount of tax money used to pay people in charge of organizing distribution of public help to homeless people. Once we divided the total amount by the number of those homeless people, it was almost enough to pay them an hotel room. Every night.
Most people aren't homeless simply for a lack of quarters, there are a lot of other things wrong with them. I doubt that study. Can you cite it?
There's nothing in the principles of libertarianism that makes it incompatible with charity. What it is incompatible with is forcing others to empty their pockets to the needy at gunpoint. If you can acknowledge that distinction then we will be getting somewhere.
If ONLY it went to the needy i wouldn't feel so bad about the system. But it gets gobbled up mostly by underworked bureaucrats with lavish pay and pension, and overpriced or unnecessary crony contractors.
+1
In France there has been a study recently, about the amount of tax money used to pay people in charge of organizing distribution of public help to homeless people. Once we divided the total amount by the number of those homeless people, it was almost enough to pay them an hotel room. Every night.
There's nothing in the principles of libertarianism that makes it incompatible with charity. What it is incompatible with is forcing others to empty their pockets to the needy at gunpoint. If you can acknowledge that distinction then we will be getting somewhere.
If ONLY it went to the needy i wouldn't feel so bad about the system. But it gets gobbled up mostly by underworked bureaucrats with lavish pay and pension, and overpriced or unnecessary crony contractors. Don't get me started on the various wars too! That is what we have more and more in the US. IF it were only the needy 'feeding' off the rest, and i mean truly needy, taxes would probably only need to be a few percent. Again if only the gov't people really were being honest and efficient, but they can't as its not the nature of the position they have in society.
Ron Swanson.
who is atlas ? and can i know him ?
atlas is the screenname of a teenaged forum member, who recently changed his screenname due to gaining a rep that was attracting constant attacks from a subset of the forum membership.
Most people don't even bother to understand Rand's position once they begin to argue against it. If she were alive today, she wouldn't even be bothered with the word used against her because it would have no backing.
I believe that she softened later in life, and this quote came from this period.
No, the book and the quote were both published in her 50's.
Ayn Rand's root premise regarding charity was that it always did more harm than good...
I'm not an objectivist but I don't think that's accurate.
"There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them." -Ayn Rand
I believe that she softened later in life, and this quote came from this period. If you have ever read her magnum opus, Atlas Shrugged and recognized it for what it really is, a philosophy book wrapped up as a work of fiction, it's pretty obvious that she didn't feel this way when the book was written. The main character has many famous lines, not the least of which, involves John Galt telling another character to lead a moral life by never letting the word "give" cross her lips.
Ayn Rand's root premise regarding charity was that it always did more harm than good...
I'm not an objectivist but I don't think that's accurate.
"There is nothing wrong in helping other people, if and when they are worthy of the help and you can afford to help them." -Ayn Rand
Answer my question, Atlas.
e: based on my interactions with you in that other thread, there is no way in hell you're not Atlas
e: based on my interactions with you in that other thread, there is no way in hell you're not Atlas
I doubt it. Atlas was a hardcore objectivist. Ayn Rand's root premise regarding charity was that it always did more harm than good, and that (as an atheist) she believed that the Judeo-Christian tradition of aiding the poor was BS.
...
I wasn't the OP. I just responded to a thread and the first dozen replies got cut off and some mod put me as the OP for some reason.
...
I wasn't the OP. I just responded to a thread and the first dozen replies got cut off and some mod put me as the OP for some reason.
...
If you're the author of the first post in the thread now, you should be able to edit the thread tittle, perhaps prepending "Re:" to the title would be enough to make it clear it wasn't you that started this.
Unions have never been the problem. The government provisions, monopolies and subsidies they are given are the problem.
Somtimes they are; somtimes unions do what is best for the unions even when that isn't what is best for the workers; in that aspect, they quite similar to the way many governments (and subpartitions of them) behave towards their people.
Answer my question, Atlas.
e: based on my interactions with you in that other thread, there is no way in hell you're not Atlas
e: based on my interactions with you in that other thread, there is no way in hell you're not Atlas
No charity, no person can keep up with a government destroying wealth through inefficiency and inflating the cost-of-living. Less than 10% of money going into services reaches the people.
24% VATI hope you like your overpriced cost-of-living.
No charity, no person can keep up with a government destroying wealth through inefficiency and inflating the cost-of-living. Less than 10% of money going into services reaches the people.
In my country, 25% of the working force is in the government institutions (aka, not producing any economic value but they are being paid from taxes made on the private sector (2% income, 16% profits, 24% VAT)). Sup?
Are you Atlas?
Jump to: