Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JohnM who wrote (333687)	11/12/2009 12:30:16 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	4 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794340

..to the overheated (fears of socialism).. Evidence the author is a moron in the very first sentence.

To: JohnM who wrote (333687)	11/12/2009 12:35:21 PM
From: DMaA	10 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794340

What a condescending post. If you are just going to pop in and insult our intelligence then be prepared for in kind posts - jerk.

To: JohnM who wrote (333687)	11/12/2009 12:57:05 PM
From: mph	6 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794340

Ultimately the Objectivist movement failed for the same reason that communism failed: it tried to make its people live by the dictates of a totalizing ideology that failed to honor the realities of human existence. Rand’s movement devolved into a corrupt and cruel parody of itself. She herself never won sustained personal influence within mainstream conservatism or the Republican Party. Her ideological purity and her unstable personality prevented her from forming lasting coalitions with anybody who disagreed with any element of her catechism. The author is pointing out exactly why Obama and his lefties will fail, in case you didn't catch it. You might try to discuss the flaws of "totalizing ideology" with your fellow NYT devotees, but they won't understand it.

To: JohnM who wrote (333687)	11/12/2009 1:07:53 PM
From: alanrs	Respond to of 794340

Way too long, although I did read it. Lots of straw men and whatnot. In the end I'd have to agree that blind adherence to any ideology is stupid. Big deal. ARS

To: JohnM who wrote (333687)	11/12/2009 1:44:22 PM
From: LindyBill	12 Recommendations Respond to of 794340

Talk to Bill about it. John became annoyed that I posted a link to an article on his home state of NJ's school corruption on his favorite thread. So he thought he would retaliate with a putdown of Ayn Rand. Say what you want about her. As long as you spell her name right. The publisher has sold over a quarter million copies of "Atlas Shrugged" this year. No other older book comes even close. People are catching on to the Socialist takeover of the country.

To: JohnM who wrote (333687)	11/12/2009 3:37:34 PM
From: Joe Btfsplk	20 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794340

On reflection, the drivel you posted deserves a little more comment. Serious refutation lies in boatloads of literature that hasn't penetrated the sewage infested backwaters, inhabited by smug incompetents that confuse themselves with the intelligentsia. But consider this: Our kind have been around for quite a long while. Till very recently existence was as described by Hobbes and analyzed by Malthus. Getting beyond mere subsistence required forcible theft of others fruits. That began to change with the spontaneous evolution of concurrent and intertwined discoveries. Among these would be refinements in the division of labor and pricing mechanisms to assign shifting values to real and potential assets. Increasingly, we could get rich(er) by catering to others wants and needs. Ayn Rand celebrated the most extreme examples. Her base principles apply equally to, say, a dishwasher, janitor, or day laborer. They can make a living by providing more input that they extract. Their potential bounty is impeded by interferences in provision of an ever cheaper basket of old and new -- stuff. There's another cancer underlying the again fashionable re-distributionist nonsense. That's the corrosion of the soul inherent in becoming a ward of the state. It happens over decades and generations. America's black underclass seems one of the most concentrated examples. Didn't have to be this way. Inadequate boobs, some of great wealth and influence, thought they could improve the human condition by replacing founding principles. Perhaps due to Bastiat's "what is not seen", they're getting away with it. It stinks!

To: JohnM who wrote (333687)	11/12/2009 6:58:17 PM
From: Bridge Player	2 Recommendations Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 794340

Hi John, Noted, that a number of other posters have already commented on your screed about Rand, conservatism, Republicans, and the right in general. At the risk of becoming marginalized by most of the other posters here, I timidly, yea diffidently, welcome you to PfP. Without checking, I suspect that you may have posted here in the past. Although the mainstream here is clearly right of center, the very title of this thread implies that political commentary of many stripes should be welcome, in order to promote a vigorous dialogue that ultimately, hopefully, can lead us all to approaching the "truth".....if such exists in political terms. From my prior ventures into Vfc as well as some personal interchanges between us, I know you to be a thoughtful person, albeit one of a persuasion clearly somewhat left of center. As such, I ask that you thoughtfully comment on the four critical elements of Objectivism, as defined by Ayn Rand herself: aynrand.org "My philosophy, Objectivism, holds that: 1. Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears. 2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses) is man’s only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival. 3. Man—every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life. 4. The ideal political-economic system is laissez-faire capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as traders, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man’s rights; it uses physical force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church." How say you, John? Do you in fact disagree with these points? Do you care to respond in specific measured terms to the foregoing description of Objectivism? To counter with your own political philosophy?

To: JohnM who wrote (333687)	11/12/2009 7:54:34 PM
From: unclewest	5 Recommendations Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 794340

The current era of Democratic governance has provoked a florid response on the right Hi John, Sure did enjoy our discussions years ago. Now I would like to ask, how can anyone take a democrat or their party serious when ya'll selected the jackass as your mascot? uw

To: JohnM who wrote (333687)	11/12/2009 9:13:56 PM
From: Whitebeard	14 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 794340

Luck is a synonym for perseverance. Somebody should have told the guy. Also, if he thinks Ayn Rand was just "lucky" to meet Cecile B DeMille, maybe he also clings to some theory of predestination to explain fortune. But that's probably too religiously oriented for him. The guy's Gladwellian. Probably read Outliers. I was waiting for him to say it was all determined by one's socio-economic circumstances. one of the tricks of success is picking yourself up after you're been run over multiple times. it isn't even brains, although a little intelligence helps. It's "opportunity," the chance to succeed, which is fast disappearing under the far left administration we currently have. I don't particularly like Rand. I really don't like her attack on religion and middle-class values. I also find her damn near unreadable. But I like this writer even less. New Republic should know better. But then one can always marry the Singer Sewing machine heiress like Marty Peretz did, and then buy a magazine to trumpet your views. That's another way to do it. Also, anybody who quotes Brookings or Pew is already far left in their ideological orientation. Otherwise they wouldn't go there. You don't redistribute income to get equality. You increase opportunity. That's how you get a dynamic society.