Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

houndawg wrote:After trying to read Atlas Shrugged three times I now understand the true meaning of "bored to tears".

kalm wrote:Not a bad think piece...for a punter...


http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/chris_k ... ertarians/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"... the only thing Ayn Rand forgot to take into account when writing “Atlas Shrugged,” is empathy."

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:Not a bad think piece...for a punter...


http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/chris_k ... ertarians/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"... the only thing Ayn Rand forgot to take into account when writing “Atlas Shrugged,” is empathy."

Because he advocated those who create and do the work should receive the fruits and wealth of their labor?

???

?????

?????????

Klam, this thread is another knee-jerk/dogma post.

travelinman67 wrote:

kalm wrote:Not a bad think piece...for a punter...


http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/chris_k ... ertarians/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"... the only thing Ayn Rand forgot to take into account when writing “Atlas Shrugged,” is empathy."

Because he advocated those who create and do the work should receive the fruits and wealth of their labor?

???

?????

?????????

Klam, this thread is another knee-jerk/dogma post.

kalm wrote:Not a bad think piece...for a punter...


http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/chris_k ... ertarians/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:Not a bad think piece...for a punter...


http://www.salon.com/2013/06/23/chris_k ... ertarians/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not a good piece...for anyone.

Rand thought Libertarianism was akin to anarchism. Then again, she was a pro-choice, anti-war, atheist, too.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Not a good piece...for anyone.

Rand thought Libertarianism was akin to anarchism. Then again, she was a pro-choice, anti-war, atheist, too.

Great Scott! Do the Republicans and Libertarians know this???

Baldy wrote:

kalm wrote:
Great Scott! Do the Republicans and Libertarians know this???

It's not a secret.

Then again, she was a pro-choice, anti-war, atheist, too.

JohnStOnge wrote:

Then again, she was a pro-choice, anti-war, atheist, too.

Nobody's perfect. Though I don't know why an atheists would care about any of those other things since under the assumption that atheists are correct nothing matters.

JohnStOnge wrote:Typical collectivist tripe.

To be fair to John Galt, though, the safety net cannot be a security blanket. if you hand one person everything in life by taking it away from someone else, then the will to succeed rapidly fades on both sides; why work when it doesn’t matter? Look at any of the idle rich, the spoiled children of privilege, the welfare collectors who churn out babies because it means another weekly check to buy shoes or purses. Ayn Rand got it right up to that point but fails to make the next logical step.

If you want to get rid of the moocher, you don’t do it by excluding everyone you think could be a moocher, by building your own private jail with yourself as both warden and prisoner. No, if you want to rid yourself of the moocher, you do it by focusing on and teaching rational empathy. If you treat other people the way you want to be treated, you’ll never want someone else to live your life for you, because shackling others means you’ve chosen to shackle yourself. We’re all free, or we’re all slaves.

No one wants to take care of someone who does nothing in return, provides no value for society (I’m ignoring babies and children here, because they’re kind of necessary to the long-term survival of humanity), and so the corollary applies — if you feel that everyone should be free to live his or her own life, the safety net can never become a permanent solution, because if you rely over-much on it, then you’re no longer living your own life.

Just as you don’t want other people to be an unnecessary burden on you, you should desire just as much not to be an unnecessary burden on others. if you take handouts when you no longer need them, you’ve turned yourself into a slave to someone else. If you think that other people have to take care of you but that you don’t have to take care of them in return, you’re trying to enslave those who would provide for you. If you make people dependent on you by limiting their opportunities for education and work and requiring them to subsist on a dole, you’ve taken away their chance at free will, at making their own lives.

No, if you want to rid yourself of the moocher, you do it by focusing on and teaching rational empathy. If you treat other people the way you want to be treated, you’ll never want someone else to live your life for you, because shackling others means you’ve chosen to shackle yourself.

JohnStOnge wrote:I didn't read Atlas Shrugged and I didn't see the movie so I can't know whether or not the author's description of the character is accurate or not. Also, the word "Libertarian" does not appear in the article. The headline was probably written by someone else. So he's not the one that brought the idea of Libertarians in.

However, due to the headline, the article promotes the false premise that Libertarians believe in zero government; that they are essentially anarchists.

As far as the author goes...I can see that I do disagree with him philosophically. Yes, you can prepare yourself for a scenario in which an earthquake destroys your business. And you should have no right to expect that other people will be forced by government to rescue you if that happens. You have no legitimate right to expect that your life entail no risk.

He muddies the water some in the latter part of the excerpt. He allows that we can't have a society whereby everybody is on the dole. But he proposes a completely unrealistic, Pollyanna solution:

No, if you want to rid yourself of the moocher, you do it by focusing on and teaching rational empathy. If you treat other people the way you want to be treated, you’ll never want someone else to live your life for you, because shackling others means you’ve chosen to shackle yourself.

That is as "head in the clouds" as it gets. To think that you can rid the society of moochers by teaching the "rational empathy" as described is pretty ridiculous. He apparently envisions a society in which we just explain to everybody that they shouldn't do that then nobody will do that. Or at least so few of them will that the problem will be solved. Good GRIEF. Somebody get this guy a box guitar and a flower wreath headband.

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I didn't read Atlas Shrugged and I didn't see the movie so I can't know whether or not the author's description of the character is accurate or not. Also, the word "Libertarian" does not appear in the article. The headline was probably written by someone else. So he's not the one that brought the idea of Libertarians in.

However, due to the headline, the article promotes the false premise that Libertarians believe in zero government; that they are essentially anarchists.

As far as the author goes...I can see that I do disagree with him philosophically. Yes, you can prepare yourself for a scenario in which an earthquake destroys your business. And you should have no right to expect that other people will be forced by government to rescue you if that happens. You have no legitimate right to expect that your life entail no risk.

He muddies the water some in the latter part of the excerpt. He allows that we can't have a society whereby everybody is on the dole. But he proposes a completely unrealistic, Pollyanna solution:



That is as "head in the clouds" as it gets. To think that you can rid the society of moochers by teaching the "rational empathy" as described is pretty ridiculous. He apparently envisions a society in which we just explain to everybody that they shouldn't do that then nobody will do that. Or at least so few of them will that the problem will be solved. Good GRIEF. Somebody get this guy a box guitar and a flower wreath headband.

So rational empathy is bad then?

JohnStOnge wrote:I didn't read Atlas Shrugged and I didn't see the movie so I can't know whether or not the author's description of the character is accurate or not. Also, the word "Libertarian" does not appear in the article. The headline was probably written by someone else. So he's not the one that brought the idea of Libertarians in.

However, due to the headline, the article promotes the false premise that Libertarians believe in zero government; that they are essentially anarchists.

As far as the author goes...I can see that I do disagree with him philosophically. Yes, you can prepare yourself for a scenario in which an earthquake destroys your business. And you should have no right to expect that other people will be forced by government to rescue you if that happens. You have no legitimate right to expect that your life entail no risk.

He muddies the water some in the latter part of the excerpt. He allows that we can't have a society whereby everybody is on the dole. But he proposes a completely unrealistic, Pollyanna solution:

No, if you want to rid yourself of the moocher, you do it by focusing on and teaching rational empathy. If you treat other people the way you want to be treated, you’ll never want someone else to live your life for you, because shackling others means you’ve chosen to shackle yourself.

That is as "head in the clouds" as it gets. To think that you can rid the society of moochers by teaching the "rational empathy" as described is pretty ridiculous. He apparently envisions a society in which we just explain to everybody that they shouldn't do that then nobody will do that. Or at least so few of them will that the problem will be solved. Good GRIEF. Somebody get this guy a box guitar and a flower wreath headband.

houndawg wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:I didn't read Atlas Shrugged and I didn't see the movie so I can't know whether or not the author's description of the character is accurate or not. Also, the word "Libertarian" does not appear in the article. The headline was probably written by someone else. So he's not the one that brought the idea of Libertarians in.

However, due to the headline, the article promotes the false premise that Libertarians believe in zero government; that they are essentially anarchists.

As far as the author goes...I can see that I do disagree with him philosophically. Yes, you can prepare yourself for a scenario in which an earthquake destroys your business. And you should have no right to expect that other people will be forced by government to rescue you if that happens. You have no legitimate right to expect that your life entail no risk.

He muddies the water some in the latter part of the excerpt. He allows that we can't have a society whereby everybody is on the dole. But he proposes a completely unrealistic, Pollyanna solution:



That is as "head in the clouds" as it gets. To think that you can rid the society of moochers by teaching the "rational empathy" as described is pretty ridiculous. He apparently envisions a society in which we just explain to everybody that they shouldn't do that then nobody will do that. Or at least so few of them will that the problem will be solved. Good GRIEF. Somebody get this guy a box guitar and a flower wreath headband.

Its the only book ever written that can out-blather your posts. If you ever do read it you'll know how we feel.

kalm wrote:

Baldy wrote: Not a good piece...for anyone.

Rand thought Libertarianism was akin to anarchism. Then again, she was a pro-choice, anti-war, atheist, too.

Great Scott! Do the Republicans and Libertarians know this???

kalm wrote:

JohnStOnge wrote:Typical collectivist tripe.

Sounds like someone either didn't read the entire article or just couldn't find a way to move past the bolded concept below. Typical Daniel Boone-bootstrap-complex tripe.

To be fair to John Galt, though, the safety net cannot be a security blanket. if you hand one person everything in life by taking it away from someone else, then the will to succeed rapidly fades on both sides; why work when it doesn’t matter? Look at any of the idle rich, the spoiled children of privilege, the welfare collectors who churn out babies because it means another weekly check to buy shoes or purses. Ayn Rand got it right up to that point but fails to make the next logical step.

If you want to get rid of the moocher, you don’t do it by excluding everyone you think could be a moocher, by building your own private jail with yourself as both warden and prisoner. No, if you want to rid yourself of the moocher, you do it by focusing on and teaching rational empathy. If you treat other people the way you want to be treated, you’ll never want someone else to live your life for you, because shackling others means you’ve chosen to shackle yourself. We’re all free, or we’re all slaves.

No one wants to take care of someone who does nothing in return, provides no value for society (I’m ignoring babies and children here, because they’re kind of necessary to the long-term survival of humanity), and so the corollary applies — if you feel that everyone should be free to live his or her own life, the safety net can never become a permanent solution, because if you rely over-much on it, then you’re no longer living your own life.

Just as you don’t want other people to be an unnecessary burden on you, you should desire just as much not to be an unnecessary burden on others. if you take handouts when you no longer need them, you’ve turned yourself into a slave to someone else. If you think that other people have to take care of you but that you don’t have to take care of them in return, you’re trying to enslave those who would provide for you. If you make people dependent on you by limiting their opportunities for education and work and requiring them to subsist on a dole, you’ve taken away their chance at free will, at making their own lives.

Doesn't sound collectivist to me.