What is that movie? Atlas Shrugged.

52 years after the book was first published, Part 1 (or 3) at last comes to the big screens. There is perhaps no more relevant of a book  to come out in these troubled times than this.

For those who do not know the book, to quote a friend's description: 

"Atlas Shrugged," is to Ayn Rand what "The Lord of the Rings" is to JRR Tolkien. It is about a strike against Taggart Transcontinental. The protagonist is Dagny Taggart, who is the COO of the company. (The book was written in the 1950s, so her title is the more old-fashioned "Vice President in Charge of Operations"). In a clever way the book switches you between the perspective of strikers and strike-breakers without you really realizing it. 

For an example of some of the strike breaking:

Currently it's only set for a limited release to 300 theaters (as of this typing) in the US (and only 7 in the entire state of Washington as an example)... so seeing it may be tricky see.

If you can, I would highly recommend seeing it.

Any 9ners already as excited as I and with their tickets in hand?

12 minutes ago, rhm wrote

Uggh, Ayn Rand, seriously? I'm sure the teabaggers are lapping that * up.

I’m sorry to see that you decided to respond with a homophobic slur. You are free to see or not see the film, but can we not remain civil?

I happen to have a copy of the book given to me by a friend, and have promised to read it and shall.

While readers of the book tend (broadly) fall into two different groups "love it" and "this is horrible" (such as this quick ~90 second example, some audio NSFW). For some reason those who have not read it tend to be the most vocal about it... I suspect because those who have read it understand a little more why we in the "love it" think so... even if they disagree.

Hell, 3 weeks ago I gave a copy to my girl friend and she's absolutely loving it and burned through part 1 in near record time (it took me ~18 months to read it at first because I couldn't quite get into it, but once I did there was little stopping me).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

specifically: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement#Use_of_term_.22teabagger.22

Most of these folks are Captians of Industry who pulled themselves up by the bootstraps to become Successful people.  They are constantly asked to shoulder the costs of society by the rest of us leeches.  They are taxed enough already!  Ayn Rand is their hero since she wrote extensively about how the world truly belonged to upper management.

They overwhelmingly benefit from a society created by slaves, both figurative and literal.

So, if that turns you on, then it might be sexual, but it's hardly homophobic.

10 minutes ago, dahat wrote

vesuvius has said he has not (yet)... have any of the other 3 of you actually read it?

I was going to torrent it...

MAYBE YOU SHOULD LET ME FINISH SPEAKING

I love how the trailer uses every possible cliche imaginable for movie trailers - jump cuts, dramatic music, zooms - and it still looks amazingly borning.

Horrible human being produces horribly written book to push horrible "philosophy" which results in horrible film.

What a shocking development!

Also, can we separate the true Ron Paul libertarian "tea party" from the neo-conservative, ultra right-wing, Sarah Palin tea party? I agree almost completely with Paul, but think Palin is an idiot.

Given the income and wealth and job inequities in the USA right now, releasing this film is not the brightest idea the tea party has ever had.

But then, we've got to get our propaganda out in time for the upcoming election, don't we. 

Had you read it ScanIAm, you'd know the idea of who "the world truly belonged to" isn't as simplistic as you put it.

Did I know it could be controversial? Yes... I was hoping/expecting 'New Tone' would allow things to remain civil. I'm sorry to see I was mistaken... but then I knew what it was from the start.

3 hours ago, dahat wrote

*snip*

I’m sorry to see that you decided to respond with a homophobic slur. You are free to see or not see the film, but can we not remain civil?

I did not.

Teabaggers = alertnative name for tea party supporters. e.g. http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/10-lessons-for-tea-baggers

EDIT: and I should add that it's a slang name for tea party supporters because some Republican rerfered to them as that by mistake in a TV interview. Of course you could find all this out yourself using Google before throwing accusations about.

Rand's heroes must continually fight against "parasites", "looters", and "moochers" who demand the benefits of the heroes' labor. Edward Younkins describes Atlas Shrugged as "an apocalyptic vision of the last stages of conflict between two classes of humanity- the looters and the non-looters. The looters are proponents of high taxation, big labor, government ownership, government spending, government planning, regulation, and redistribution."^[

But, onto things of a more technical nature...

As to the film, it looks bad, very bad. The acting is almost the dictionary definition of wooden and the poor direction isn't helping much either. If it is a good book (no idea, not read it) I'd definitely skip the movie and read instead.

3 hours ago, dahat wrote

Lets see... we have 1 more confirmed haven't read but plan to... and 2 clearly haven't.

Had you read it ScanIAm, you'd know the idea of who "the world truly belonged to" isn't as simplistic as you put it.

Kinda it is.  I haven't read AS, but I did read fountainhead and Rand's writing style was not to my liking.  I've got a good enough grasp of the storyline that I'm not coming from the point of view of a complet idiot on this.  Atlas Shrugged was and is propaganda used by the super-haves to fool the rest of us into thinking that THE PRODUCERS(tm) (i.e. the wealthy and connected) are constantly limited by the rules and norms of society.  The rest of the unwashed masses should be happy to be in their company and eat the crumbs that fall off their table.  And further, any expectation of more results in faux accusations of class warfare.   Sound familiar?

This is the same BS idea that says "hey, for the last decade, we kept taxes on the wealthy at historical lows and that didn't get us any jobs.  What we really need to do is give more tax cuts to the wealthy...then they'll REALLY create some jobs."  And that other hit wonder "If we don't pay C-level executives so much, they'll go elsewhere".

So let them go.

Rand's theory of objectivism is wonderful on paper, but AS has nothing to do with either objectivism or reality.  She was a nasty person who wrote a nasty book to put forth a nasty agenda for small minded ignorant jackholes who think that luck is the same as merit.

And, remember, the rules and norms of socitey are the only thing that keeps the great unwashed masses from dragging THE PRODUCERS(tm) into the street and setting them on fire.  This movie will do nothing to discourage that bad behaviour.

1 hour ago, ScanIAm wrote

Kinda it is.  I haven't read AS,

Thank you for your honesty

but I did read fountainhead and Rand's writing style was not to my liking.

I'll tell you a little secret... while I generally like Ayn Rand's philosophy... I thought Fountainhead did a horrible job of presetting it (think Simillaron vs Lord of the Rings). I walked away from it hating everyone within with the exception of Lucius Heyer... and that just probably just because he died too early in the book for him to do anything to turn me against him.

It is your right to judge her entire works because of one book you didn't enjoy... though it is interesting how much you are doing so... rather than simply ignoring it.

I've got a good enough grasp of the storyline that I'm not coming from the point of view of a complet idiot on this.

I'm waiting to see/hear evidence of that... in fact there is a key part of it you keep missing... and until I hear it will continue to conclude you do not have a firm grasp of what you speak.

Atlas Shrugged was and is propaganda used by the super-haves to fool the rest of us into thinking that THE PRODUCERS(tm) (i.e. the wealthy and connected) are constantly limited by the rules and norms of society.  The rest of the unwashed masses should be happy to be in their company and eat the crumbs that fall off their table.  And further, any expectation of more results in faux accusations of class warfare.   Sound familiar?

Just because that is how you see some use it... that does not mean that that is how is it was intended, or how most read/understand it. Given your limited understanding of it I see little purpose in continuing this discussion with you so long as you do not seek to understand it. I could attempt to educate you on the subject, though you've demonstrated here (and elsewhere) repeatedly that your mind is already made up.

I am simply calling attention to a book which has meant a great deal to me in my life, as well as many others, and the fact that it will very soon be an honest to goodness movie on the silverscreen, something it's fans have been eager for for quite some time, though may not have known about due to the limited marketing that has been done.

You will note that unlike some others here, I have purposely avoided drawing specific connections between this book and the world today, demonstrating the illogic of the logic of some here which would allow... well the sorts of things I won't even mention, referenced any kind of sexual positions or slurs, or engage in the kind of wide spread attacks on other people who may not agree with me.

Again, I am talking about a movie & a book which I think has great relivance to the world we live in today. What relivance that is you may assume for yourself, only I would ask that you make that assumption based on actual information and not perceptions from a blurb or two you've read on the internet.

To quote a line from later in the book which I think ends this post well in a way ties in to CreamFilling's comment: 

"We never make assertions, Miss Taggart," said Hugh Akston. "That is the moral crime peculiar to our enemies. We do not tell-we show. We do not claim-we prove. It is not your obedience that we seek to win, but your rational conviction. You have seen all the elements of our secret. The conclusion is now yours to draw-we can help you to name it, but not to accept it-the sight, the knowledge and the acceptance must be yours."

If there was any movie in which I would copy the feel, it would be Sin City; you could really feel the cold, wet, and darkness, in that film.

There are a couple of epic speeches in the book, the money speech and John's radio speech. I'm not sure how they could fit either into the movie, or how the movie could exist without them.

-Josh

8 minutes ago, JoshRoss wrote

When I read the book, I imagined it taking place in a steam-punkish world. I don't get any of that feeling, watching the movie trailers. The lighting seems a little off too. More scenes should be shot at night or in the rain. There looks like too much sun light for this wretched world.

I always got the impression that it was in a 30’s or 40’s time when neither WWII nor the depression happened. But I agree about the light... much more of a feeling of dinginess. Hell, form the looks of the offices of the John Galt Line look fairly pretty. Tomorrow we'll know just how well they did (granted I've a whole list of concerns, I am doing my best to keep an open mind until I see the full product).

There are a couple of epic speeches in the book, the money speech and John's radio speech. I'm not sure how they could fit either into the movie, or how the movie could exist without them.

Rand did some screen writing in her day as well... and even spent a bit of time trying to come up with a screenplay for Atlas Shrugged.. so I think it’s reasonable to assume that even she knew that things had to be cut back... and let’s admit it, the radio speech is a bit long (~3 hours in the book). Heck knows large portions can, will and must be cut out or back to make it something people will sit through... which is tricky with the book as I understand the unabridged reading is ~60 hours long.

Still, I think I'll skip the movie; partly because it's easy to foresee the kind of controversy that will come out of it, but mainly because I cannot figure out how they could make a decent movie without pulling another "Starship Troopers".

Books are books, and time spent with them is never wasted, even - and especially - when you think you may disagree with the author. Sticking to the ones that just resonate what ideas we already have is a lot like fanboyism in CS... it's the challenge that makes ideas grow stronger, or spawn new ones; if it weren't for that, we may well be here praising the benefits of the umpteenth version of COBOL.

There are conclusions that can be drawn from this.

6 hours ago, bryanedds wrote

It's interesting that you never see an honest, intellectual objection to libertarianism, but rather either a mindless knee jerk reaction or vitriolic mud-slinging.

There are conclusions that can be drawn from this.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand what exactly is intellectual or un-vitriolic about calling your detractors 'mindless'? 

Libertarianism covers a pretty wide swath of ideas, so you'll have to be more specific if you want some intellectually stimulating debate. 

Here's a starter: "Libertarian ideals against government intervention would have us dismantle the FDA.  This is only a good idea if you are pro-salmonella."

7 hours ago, bryanedds wrote

It's interesting that you never see an honest, intellectual objection to libertarianism, but rather either a mindless knee jerk reaction or vitriolic mud-slinging.

There are conclusions that can be drawn from this.

The conclusion that one can draw is that everything is better in moderation. "Vitriolic mud-slinging" is usually reserved for the extremists.

BTW, I just finished watching a 24 hour stint of Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh. Rush is truely the second coming.

<REALITY>Now if there were only a little island where we could park the ignorant who believe the way I just spoke America would be such a better place. The world is truely what we make of it.</REALITY>

57 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Aaaaaaaaaaaaand what exactly is intellectual or un-vitriolic about calling your detractors 'mindless'? 

Libertarianism covers a pretty wide swath of ideas, so you'll have to be more specific if you want some intellectually stimulating debate. 

Here's a starter: "Libertarian ideals against government intervention would have us dismantle the FDA.  This is only a good idea if you are pro-salmonella."

The FDA's mission is a good one, but its implementation is horrible. Tons of unnecessary bureaucracy.

I consider myself liberatarian, but I do make concessions for some things like the FDA, EPA, and FTC. Without those, I don't think the free market would be enough to control the truly selfish, evil capitalists out there who don't care how many die as long as they make a buck.

In theory, the free market would punish companies who put out unsafe food and drugs. No one would buy food from a company who was responsible for making an entire region sick from tainted meat.

I do believe that we'd be better off with a smaller federal government and more power in the states. Back to a union of sovereign states rather than a large nation. I'd gladly pay more tax to Pennsylvania if it meant less tax to Washington D.C..

1 minute ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

I totally believe that everyone is born equal and has a fair shot at success. I mean even my son with his Asperger's is just such a faker! Only lazy people want hand outs and as the film espouses are truly the leaches on everyone else's success. If it were up to me I'd demean the poor at ever chance I get, cut off every opportunity to get an education, get well from illness (or better yet cut off any means of health & wellness -- hey why not death panels?!?!?) , break any means that they may collectively bargan for a better workplace and wages, and make them sound like the lazy bunch they really are. After all there is only so much room at the top and the more people we clear out at the bottom the better. You know if we don't someone else will...

BTW, I just finished watching a 24 hour stint of Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh. Rush is truely the second coming.

<REALITY>Now if there were only a little island where we could park the ignorant who believe the way I just spoke America would be such a better place. The world is truely what we make of it.</REALITY>

I'm all for charity. Let people give to the causes they want to support. Just don't force it through taxation and government programs.

Education and healthcare are expensive because the student/patient is not the one paying for them. Back when patients paid for office visits out-of-pocket, the costs were much lower, because doctors wanted more patients to come in. College used to be very affordable until the majority of students were on financial aid. There is a huge sense of entitlement these days where people get upset if they can't stay on unemployment for 99 weeks. That's almost two full years. If you can't find a job during that time, you're either not looking hard enough or not willing to take a paycut. Labor unions are pointless. Laws exist that protect worker's rights. Maximum hours, child labor, minimum wage, etc. Those are what unions were formed to get, not to ensure employment and get cushier benefits. Teachers are upset that they won't get as big of a pension? When was the last time you saw a private-sector job offering a pension? Oh no, the workers will have to pay some of their salary towards health insurance? Join the rest of the workforce.

I'm not looking down on the poor, I'm just saying that for the majority (at least in my experience), they rely on government assistance way too much, and are all too quick to blame "the man" for their lack of prosperity. The rest of us had to work to get that college degree, to get that well-paying job, to get that promotion, to buy the nice house. It's not like the non-poor are all living off trust funds.

Everyone has an equal opportunity to live a better life. Some take it, and some sit around and complain.

</rant>

It must be said though... while the book->movie conversion of Starship Troopers was bad... ever catch the two straight to DVD sequels? I question at times if even SyFy would air them.

20 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

In theory, the free market would punish companies who put out unsafe food and drugs. No one would buy food from a company who was responsible for making an entire region sick from tainted meat.

But in reality, there would end up being 1 or 2 companies who own the entire food industry, and BOTH would be responsible for making an entire region sick from tainted meat. Your only decision would be to go with the company that does it least often. We already have this dynamic happening in the telecomm industry, and that's WITH some government oversight. Imagine what it would be like with even more limited government.

27 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

I do believe that we'd be better off with a smaller federal government and more power in the states. Back to a union of sovereign states rather than a large nation. I'd gladly pay more tax to Pennsylvania if it meant less tax to Washington D.C..

It's funny that you mention a willingness to pay state tax over federal tax and then complain about pensions in back to back posts. The federal government stopped offering its pension plan to new enrollees in favor of a 401K-like Thrift Savings Plan back in the late '80s. It's the state governments that still offer pension plans. You don't hear about the notorious "double dippers" working for the federal government. These are all state government employees.

34 minutes ago, dahat wrote

It must be said though... while the book->movie conversion of Starship Troopers was bad... ever catch the two straight to DVD sequels? I question at times if even SyFy would air them.

No instead they air quantum kitchen and shark versus octopus nonsense. SyFy is a lie damnit, they don't show much sci-fi any more.

(And I've tried to read it twice. Each time I gave up laughing at the sheer absurdity of it, the utter selfishness of her heros and the awful awful writing. I'll stick to BioShock's treatment of Objectivisim *grin*)

35 minutes ago, NitzWalsh wrote

Welp, the free market is never wrong!

 

Damn, that's worse than the Tomatometer rating Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed received.

45 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

But in reality, there would end up being 1 or 2 companies who own the entire food industry, and BOTH would be responsible for making an entire region sick from tainted meat. Your only decision would be to go with the company that does it least often. We already have this dynamic happening in the telecomm industry, and that's WITH some government oversight. Imagine what it would be like with even more limited government.

There already are 1 or 2 companies that own the industry. We still have incidents of tainted meat. Is the FDA really helping here, or just helping to raise meat prices? In any case, regulating food products sold within a state should be the state government's job (if they care to do so). The constitution gives no such power to the federal government.

It's funny that you mention a willingness to pay state tax over federal tax and then complain about pensions in back to back posts. The federal government stopped offering its pension plan to new enrollees in favor of a 401K-like Thrift Savings Plan back in the late '80s. It's the state governments that still offer pension plans. You don't hear about the notorious "double dippers" working for the federal government. These are all state government employees

They're separate items in my mind. Union workers clinging to things that haven't been offered since the '80s and transferring power from a detached federal power to a more local power that has a much better chance of doing things that the populace wants. I pay 15% federal tax and 3% state tax. Reverse those numbers and we would see a much happier population. The federal government was meant to handle foreign affairs, mint coins, and regulate commerce between states and nothing more. No forced retirement savings (6.2% social security) and no forced charity for seniors (1.45% medicare), and definitely no forced health insurance.

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is a strong principle of mine.

Anyway, I really should get back to work, even if this is fun.

The collectivist hate the book and will hate the movie.

The individualist like the book and will like the movie.

I am waiting for a remake of The Fountainhead:

1 hour ago, spivonious wrote

*snip*

I'm all for charity. Let people give to the causes they want to support. Just don't force it through taxation and government programs.

If charity covered the issue, we wouldn't need social programs.  The problem is, however, that charity seems to dry up right about the time that the economy goes south.

Education and healthcare are expensive because the student/patient is not the one paying for them. Back when patients paid for office visits out-of-pocket, the costs were much lower, because doctors wanted more patients to come in. College used to be very affordable until the majority of students were on financial aid.

Back when healthcare had much lower costs, we were using leeches to cure cancer.  Good healthcare, from a doctor who has a degree from a legitimate school has always been expensive.  The poor just do without. 

Same goes for education.  It's always been expensive.  If more students going to college is causing the costs to go up, then let's place the blame on student loans that put people into decades of debt.  Grants aren't that easy to come by.

There is a huge sense of entitlement these days where people get upset if they can't stay on unemployment for 99 weeks. That's almost two full years. If you can't find a job during that time, you're either not looking hard enough or not willing to take a paycut.

...you forgot to suggest that they "move to whar tha jobs iz".  Seriously, there are a host of reasons why being unemployed will make you less attractive to companies, and I'm pretty sure that ~12million people aren't just being picky.

Labor unions are pointless. Laws exist that protect worker's rights. Maximum hours, child labor, minimum wage, etc. Those are what unions were formed to get, not to ensure employment and get cushier benefits. Teachers are upset that they won't get as big of a pension? When was the last time you saw a private-sector job offering a pension? Oh no, the workers will have to pay some of their salary towards health insurance? Join the rest of the workforce.

Get ready to pay them more money.  You might believe that having a pension is somehow a better deal than having to contribute to your own retirement, but let's not kid ourselves that teachers are paid well.  The pension and other benefits make up for this.  

And labor unions act as enforcement of those laws.  I assure you that businesses would rather treat our population the same way they are willing to treat foreign populations.  In fact, that's a damn good example of why unions are neccessary.  As soon as businesses found a way to skirt these laws, they did so.  It's shameful.

I'm not looking down on the poor, I'm just saying that for the majority (at least in my experience), they rely on government assistance way too much, and are all too quick to blame "the man" for their lack of prosperity. The rest of us had to work to get that college degree, to get that well-paying job, to get that promotion, to buy the nice house. It's not like the non-poor are all living off trust funds.

Yes, kinda, you are looking down on the 'poor'.  And the unemployed.  And teachers.  And people who choose to contribute to society by working in areas that don't require a college education.  And people who aren't able to make it through college.  And the people who carry your garbage away from your house.  And the people who dig for coal to make electricity that powers your computer.

I could go on.

Everyone has an equal opportunity to live a better life. Some take it, and some sit around and complain.

</rant>

Better != wealthier.

6 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

*snip*

There already are 1 or 2 companies that own the industry. We still have incidents of tainted meat. Is the FDA really helping here, or just helping to raise meat prices? In any case, regulating food products sold within a state should be the state government's job (if they care to do so). The constitution gives no such power to the federal government.

Geez, couldn't you come up something better than the ole "They're not doing their job correctly, so why do they need to exist?" argument?

First of all, the FDA has nothing to do with meats (other than controlling what drugs are being fed to the animals that we eat). It's the USDA that has oversight over the meat industry. Second, how many deaths have you even heard of being attributed to tainted meats compared the billions of pounds of meats eaten by our fat-a$$ populace? Care to guess how many there MIGHT be if the USDA didn't certify meats? Of all things to b*tch about, you want to complain about the USDA? Really?

Besides, you're derailing your own argument. Your original argument was about free trade being the answer to the elimination of tainted meats, and that there's no role for government. My argument is that free trade can't exist without the role of government. That you've already claimed that there are only 1 or 2 companies owning the meat industry, already supports the premise of there being too little power bestowed on the government to control the oligopolies in the meat industry. Hence, it's already too late for the free market to eliminate tainted meats, since there really is no free market.

It sounds like your biggest complaint isn't that meats aren't safe. It's that they cost too much. Well, if you truly want lower costs, then you're not going to get it with 1 or 2 companies controlling the market, no matter how little regulation the USDA imposes, I'll tell you that.

6 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

They're separate items in my mind. Union workers clinging to things that haven't been offered since the '80s and transferring power from a detached federal power to a more local power that has a much better chance of doing things that the populace wants. I pay 15% federal tax and 3% state tax. Reverse those numbers and we would see a much happier population. The federal government was meant to handle foreign affairs, mint coins, and regulate commerce between states and nothing more. No forced retirement savings (6.2% social security) and no forced charity for seniors (1.45% medicare), and definitely no forced health insurance.

You obviously don't believe that the federal government should be involved in anything beyond what is explicitly prescribed to them by the Constitution.  I get it. Let the states have all the power. That's the state-level version of "I've got mine. Who cares about you?". By the way, did you enjoy driving down that interstate highway today to get to work so that you can surf the web by means of the Internet? Would your state even have an Internet if the federal government did only what the Constitution explicitly set forth?

6 minutes ago, spivonious wrote

"Pull yourself up by your bootstraps" is a strong principle of mine.

Not everybody can afford boots.

Pennsylvania, boot straps, yadda, yadda, yadda...

"Here's a dollar. Give me back a buck-seven."

I couldn't agree with you more. The right loves to oversimplify things. They say things like "everyone has an equal opportunity" -- right, we're all born with the same skill set, mental capacity, and at the same economic level. Anyone who believes the contrary must be lazy according to them. So you're mom get's run over in a cross-walk, no fault of her own. She's 53 and now needs years of thearapy to regain the use of her legs. She's a hard worker (worked many OT hours without pay over the years -- she has paid her dues) and has health insurance. The insurance is capped at $100K. Loss of work cost her a year's pay and medical expenses top $250K. So now what? She can't work. She can't cover the medical. Should we just euthinize her?

They also say things like "we'll take care of each other like we always have" when they want to take away funding from social programs. The funny thing is we have so many examples of just the opposite -- the Savings & Loan scandal of the 90's, the recent failure of our financial markets, Enron, and the list goes on and on... A totally unregulated "free market" doesn't work.

Last thought -- wasn't it the Republicans that barked about how "Obamacare" would cut funding for Medicare/Medicade and scared senior citizens into believing it was a bad thing? It's funny how they are trying to cut both programs substantially now. They sure know how to play the mindshare game.

29 minutes ago, Cream​Filling512 wrote

I don't understand why oversight by the FDA and USDA can't be replaced by efficient, private organizations like the Underwriters Laboratory.

Let's not forget the UL is a not-for-profit organization. That said I'm totally in agreement with ya; let's privatize all of heathcare into a single not-for-profit. That would sure cut down costs having a single system, massive buying power, etc.

12 hours ago, bryanedds wrote

It's interesting that you never see an honest, intellectual objection to libertarianism, but rather either a mindless knee jerk reaction or vitriolic mud-slinging.

There are conclusions that can be drawn from this.

Because Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they
plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more
vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose.

-- Ayn Rand

Why? Because this thread is about a book/movie... it's a shame that those who have never read it have hijacked it so... but it is good that a few have been honest enough to say they haven't read it.

@blowdart: "utter selfishness of her heroes"... you'd hate her book The Virtue of Selfishness then

The strike begins today!

40 minutes ago, dahat wrote

@blowdart: "utter selfishness of her heroes"... you'd hate her book The Virtue of Selfishness then

Must be because I'm a filthy socialist at heart. Now redistribute your wealth

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU&feature=grec_index 

35 minutes ago, dahat wrote

So many easy to refute comments... and yet I resist.

Why? Because this thread is about a book/movie... it's a shame that those who have never read it have hijacked it so... but it is good that a few have been honest enough to say they haven't read it.

@blowdart: "utter selfishness of her heroes"... you'd hate her book The Virtue of Selfishness then

The strike begins today!

I don't intend to spoil your fun.  I have a large number of sci-fi faves that I think would be AWESOME if they ever made it to the big screen.  I know how difficult it is to get real sci-fi up without it turning into a lowest-common-denominator crapfest that has nothing to do with the book.  Hell, I've never read starship troopers, either (it's coincidentally purchased and next on the list), but I actually did like the movie.  Probably because I hadn't read the book.

If I could find some way to see AS without putting a penny in the producer's pocket, I would.  If I could donate some money to a 3rd world charity or save a pillowcase full of drowning kittens to offset supporting the producers, I would. 

I do hope you enjoy it, though.

24 minutes ago, androst wrote

Apparently Ayn Rand is a racist old hag.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2uHSv1asFvU&feature=grec_index 

And she really, really, really didn't like Libertarians

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Hell, I've never read starship troopers, either (it's coincidentally purchased and next on the list), but I actually did like the movie.  Probably because I hadn't read the book.

The movie was a black-comedy and satire on a militarised, xenophobic society, using the book's story as the premise and backdrop. It isn't all that faithful and bears little resemblance to Heinlein's original work, nor reflects the the author's philosophy (which itself is up for discussion, see the long "Controversy" section on the WP article).

As for this thread, marked as spam.

2 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

And she really, really, really didn't like Libertarians

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

Wow, she seems to think that Libertarians stole her ideas, as if she pre-dates Libertarian thought. On the other hand, Ayn Rand does look about 200 years old in that Phil Donahue clip, so all bets are off on that one.

@AndyC:

Looking at things like Fox News, you're just hearing one side of American politics --- but if you want to see the other side, just read the New York Times. We have a relatively balanced debate, although at certain times one side is more vocal and loud than another. There are plenty of people in the US calling for a European-style social democracy. Most Americans think both extremes are bad and try to be somewhere in the center.

My perception of European politics is that its less balanced. Both extremes are considered bad, but one extreme (extreme left) is seen as less worse than the other extreme (extreme right).

@CreamFilling512:

Ayn Rand hated libertarians, btw.

"Libertarians are a monstrous, disgusting bunch of people: they plagiarize my ideas when that fits their purpose, and they denounce me in a more vicious manner than any communist publication, when that fits their purpose. They are lower than any pragmatists, and what they hold against Objectivism is morality. They’d like to have an amoral political program." ( http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians )

She didn't mean religious morality, obviously, she hated religion also.

8 hours ago, dahat wrote

@Blue Ink:Well said, though I must ask... at what age did you first read it? At what age did you re-read it? How old are you now?

[...]

Hmm... the first time around I was still in high school; the second time about a decade later, in the early '90s. Which, as you can readily guess, makes me closer to 30 than 20.

6 hours ago, cbae wrote

You obviously don't believe that the federal government should be involved in anything beyond what is explicitly prescribed to them by the Constitution.  I get it. Let the states have all the power. That's the state-level version of "I've got mine. Who cares about you?". By the way, did you enjoy driving down that interstate highway today to get to work so that you can surf the web by means of the Internet? Would your state even have an Internet if the federal government did only what the Constitution explicitly set forth?

I don't know what his understanding of what states rights is, but believing in states rights and state power doesn't necessarily mean you want to bar the federal government from participating in everything.

The federal gov't, since the beginning was allowed to participate in inter-state projects under the clause which grants the ability to "To establish Post Offices and post Roads". Jefferson opposed putting that clause in the Constitution, btw, because he felt it gave a responsibility that should be left to the states, but his argument didn't win.

Under many interpretations of states rights, there would also be nothing stopping a government bank from creating a loan program that would end up financing state-specific projects. James Madison -- the author of the Constitution -- approved a bank which would be capable of such a thing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Bank_of_the_United_States . Libertarians, one should note, who tend to hold a Jeffersonian view of the Constitution, think Madison acted out of principle in doing that.

But a centrist interpretation of states rights would recognize these things and argue yes, there are certain ways in which the federal gov't can participate in the economy, but at the same time there are still certain lines it can't cross. It can't butt into a state's sovereignty on its own affairs and the affairs of the people of that state, or treat one state preferably to another. That was exactly Alexander Hamilton's interpretation.

The problem with the left today, in my view, is they've gone way beyond the Hamiltonian interpretation, and basically have said, nothing is off limits. Something like the individual mandate is completely unsupportable under an objective reading of Constitutional law.

13 hours ago, Cream​Filling512 wrote

Any time there is some proposed action by the federal government, it doesn't matter what you think your position is, you should always ask first:  Is it constitutional?  And, is it legitament?  Usually the answer is no and no.  People are always quick to butt in with their feelings on some issue as if that makes any difference.  If we're not going to follow rule of law, what's the point?

Yeah, about that.  I'm willing to bet that we could argue the US apollo space program was neither constitutional nor 'legitament' (whatever that means). 

The constitution is a safety system, not a blueprint.

2 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Yeah, about that.  I'm willing to bet that we could argue the US apollo space program was neither constitutional nor 'legitament' (whatever that means). 

The constitution is a safety system, not a blueprint.

The Constitution is just like any other law, its not special in that regard. It wasn't meant to be read more strictly or more generally than last year's health care law.

Though some libertarians would consider the Apollo program Unconstitutional, Alexander Hamilton would not have. He argued that the Constitution gave the federal gov't the ability to do independent spending projects based on what it felt was 'necessary and proper'; that there were restrictions on federal power, but they were based on individual and states rights.

Also, some people see the development of the space program as necessary for national defense, since it allows us to put up intel satellites, missle defense systems , etc. With further space exploration, space development could also be justified under the postal roads clause.

While the Constitution doesn't specifically mention space exploration, it does define roles for the government, and government power should be restricted to those roles.

Arguing over a book that you've never actually read is a bit foolish, aye.

1 hour ago, phreaks wrote

@ScanIam (and anyone else)

Arguing over a book that you've never actually read is a bit foolish, aye.

I doubt that having intricate knowledge of minute plot details will suddenly negate anything that I've said about the author or her agenda, but OK, sure, I'm a fool.

Was there anything else you wanted to add to the conversation?

28 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

I doubt that having intricate knowledge of minute plot details will suddenly negate anything that I've said about the author or her agenda, but OK, sure, I'm a fool.

Actually... yes.

There is a subtle aspect of what she says in Atlas Shrugged which you have completely missed (something I have already pointed out you doing)... and without it your arguments about it are pointless.

Even the movie (which I'll write about later) makes light of it in a way I was afraid they would cut.

They could be explained to you... but then your mind is clearly made up on the subject. Just withdraw.

4 hours ago, ScanIAm wrote

*snip*

Yeah, about that.  I'm willing to bet that we could argue the US apollo space program was neither constitutional nor 'legitament' (whatever that means). 

The constitution is a safety system, not a blueprint.

The constitution is a law of the land.  It's a contract between the states and the federal government.  Basically the states wanted to form a union between each other that would provide for common needs like defense.  And they decided it was necessary to have a government that would carry out the various functions of the union and that requires giving up some of their rights.  So they enumerated a bunch of powers they thought they government would need, and its various necessary structure and mechanisms, and wrote it all down in a document called the constitution, and enacted that into law.  So I guess the blueprint analogy is pretty accurate if the government is thought of as a building or something?  I'm not sure what a safety system is.

Also when I'm talking about whether an action is legitament or not, I'm talking about the legitamacy of the government to govern by performing that action.  Where does the authority to perform said action come from?  God?  A clause in the constitution?  The mutual consent of the governed?  If you can't trace back to where that power came from, then it's not legitament.  It would be like me calling you up and ordering you to send me all your money, I have no legitament authority to do this.

The constitution is a law of the land.  It's a contract between the states and the federal government.  Basically the states wanted to form a union between each other that would provide for common needs like defense.  And they decided it was necessary to have a government that would carry out the various functions of the union and that requires giving up some of their rights.  So they enumerated a bunch of powers they thought they government would need, and its various necessary structure and mechanisms, and wrote it all down in a document called the constitution, and enacted that into law.  So I guess the blueprint analogy is pretty accurate if the government is thought of as a building or something?  I'm not sure what a safety system is.

Also when I'm talking about whether an action is legitament or not, I'm talking about the legitamacy of the government to govern by performing that action.  Where does the authority to perform said action come from?  God?  A clause in the constitution?  The mutual consent of the governed?  If you can't trace back to where that power came from, then it's not legitament.  It would be like me calling you up and ordering you to send me all your money, I have no legitament authority to do this.

The constitution isn't a contact. It's a law. It's also not designed to be everything the government would need - it's designed to make it difficult for a government under external pressure to revert to despotism. It was explicitly not to be the be-all and end-all of US law.

Also the legitmacy of the US government comes from the fact that the politicians of the United States are voted into office by its citizens. If they decide that everyone should pay more tax, send men to the moon, build a fifty metre wall of waffles around the coast or blow the crap out of Russia with nuclear weapons, they do so on behalf of the US citizens who were foolish enough to vote them into office.

Yea, the constitution was designed to be a 'social contract', though that might not be the way you were thinking of it.

And the idea was always that a legitimacy of a government depended on whether its rights were rooted in natural laws, because its the whole of society which determines if a government is legitimate or not, not the politicians in office. If at any time the government doesn't serve the needs of the society, it becomes seen as illegitimate, and will be overthrown in revolution.

Read Locke and Rousseau.

Locke and Rousseau both believe that legitimacy comes from the consent of the people, and this is the generally accepted western view, but it's not the only one (and because legitimacy is subjective, its a contentious one). Iran, for instance, believes that the Ayatollah's legitimacy comes from God rather than the consent of the people, and the British (more-so in the past where the Monarch had some bite) believed that the Queen's legitimacy to be supreme head of state comes from the tradition of the Royal Ascent of Kings rather than the consent of the people.

My point was only that the accepted form of governmental legitimacy in the United States is that the government rules by consent of its citizens, which is bestowed onto politicians through the medium of voting. In the United States there is no way to recall government part-way through a term, so if you vote some nut in, you're stuck with him for four years.

C9Matt wrote

, so if you vote some nut in, you're stuck with him for four years.

At least you have checks and balances with your elected senate and your elected other body of government (congress?) so you don't have an all powerful individual who can rule as he/she pleases for 4 years.

Excuse me for not knowing the details of the US governing structures, I'm just a neighbour and my Prime Minister is just one of hundreds of individuals who can vote on things, then pass along any passed bills to the unelected and appointed Senate to decide if a passed parliament bill becomes the law of the land.

Thank goodness for my Senate for killing the daffy "account for every molecule of Carbon Dioxide created from fossil fuel usage throughout all the lands of Canada" law that was passed by the opposition parties in the parliament.

Update: I see that you are refering to any elected member of government, not just the president. On the larger scale from the individual, if a left leaning, or a right leaning dominant government isn't doing the job right, you do get a vote to change things every 2 years, and not just every 4 years.

5 hours ago, dahat wrote

*snip*

Actually... yes.

There is a subtle aspect of what she says in Atlas Shrugged which you have completely missed (something I have already pointed out you doing)... and without it your arguments about it are pointless.

Even the movie (which I'll write about later) makes light of it in a way I was afraid they would cut.

They could be explained to you... but then your mind is clearly made up on the subject. Just withdraw.

No.  Please.  Enlighten me with subtle but crucial piece of information that will remove my ignorance, change my opinion, and undo years of actual thought.  I'm anxiously awaiting the release that will come from this clarity. 

Honestly, you won't, though, because then you couldn't just call me a fool as an argument strategy.  You'd actually have to argue the merits of her nasty ideals.  So be it.

Oh, as a side note to some of the brilliant legal theorists in the thread, the word is spelled "Legitimate". 

16 hours ago, C9Matt wrote

My point was only that the accepted form of governmental legitimacy in the United States is that the government rules by consent of its citizens, which is bestowed onto politicians through the medium of voting. In the United States there is no way to recall government part-way through a term, so if you vote some nut in, you're stuck with him for four years.

Well it's supposed to be a system of federalism and so people give their consent to their own state government through elections.  But you're only consenting to your state, not the federal government.  The federal government derives its power from the states' consent, not the people.  It doesn't require individual consent because it's not allowed to restrict people's rights anyway, it's only supposed to protect them.  But really today it's more like a national government than a federal government since it constantly breaks the chain of federalism and gets involved in people's lives, and so I'd question its legitimacy.

17 hours ago, C9Matt wrote

@brian.shapiro: The Constitution has nothing to do with a social contract. It was designed to avoid the federal government going bankrupt because the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union set up the federal government and how it would be funded by the various states but didn't give it any teeth to actually collect that money, so it was going broke and couldn't afford the army whose members were either deserting or threatening mutiny.

Locke and Rousseau both believe that legitimacy comes from the consent of the people, and this is the generally accepted western view, but it's not the only one (and because legitimacy is subjective, its a contentious one). Iran, for instance, believes that the Ayatollah's legitimacy comes from God rather than the consent of the people, and the British (more-so in the past where the Monarch had some bite) believed that the Queen's legitimacy to be supreme head of state comes from the tradition of the Royal Ascent of Kings rather than the consent of the people.

My point was only that the accepted form of governmental legitimacy in the United States is that the government rules by consent of its citizens, which is bestowed onto politicians through the medium of voting. In the United States there is no way to recall government part-way through a term, so if you vote some nut in, you're stuck with him for four years.

The point was that all governments are based on social contracts, that has nothing to do with the Constitution in particular or the Articles of Confederation or any other document. Both Locke and Rousseau argued that at any time the social contract was broken, the public had a right to overthrow their government.

You aren't representing Locke or Rousseau's beliefs accurately. "Consent of the governed", doesn't mean popular majority by means of a vote, it means that the government fits some public need; they both argued for republics rather than democracies.

Rousseau in particular argued that what made a government legitimate is whether or not it it was defined by a clear, consistent set of laws -- that the government was ruled by laws rather than by men. For Rousseau, a republic could mean a monarchy, a democracy, or an oligarchy. All that was necessary for a government to be a republic was a transparent legal system. That's the basis of the argument for a written Constitution.

Iran is a republic, by the way, and so was the USSR, and so is China.

Locke argued for the natural rights view; that man has inherent rights, and its not up to government to define what rights people had. So, he would never have agreed with what you said -- that lawmakers determine what is legitimate or not. The very thing that justifies a revolution in the first place is the fact that the lawmakers are doing something that's illegitimate. 

22 minutes ago, brian.​shapiro wrote.

..social contracts...

I think that's over-simplifying things. Governments work so long as an empowered majority is placated. All this talk of social contracts and power through some definition of legitimacy is moot when most of the country has no proper understanding of how their government actually works.

a moment ago, W3bbo wrote

...moot when most of the country has no proper understanding of how their government actually works.

That's double true for the sect of whackos that this new Randian movement is attracting. "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!"

20 minutes ago, W3bbo wrote

*snip*

I think that's over-simplifying things. Governments work so long as an empowered majority is placated. All this talk of social contracts and power through some definition of legitimacy is moot when most of the country has no proper understanding of how their government actually works.

Not the majority, whoever has the power to overthrow it. The reason the Magna carta was created was because the king stepped on the rights of the lords, and lords definitely did not represent the majority of the people in Engliand. That isn't to mean that the lords had power and not the peasants -- they both did -- at certain times in English history the king had to respond to peasant revolts.

The idea of the social contract is that everyone that has a stake in the laws of a society has to accept it, at least to the degree that they're complacent enough not to want to overthrow them. Once they no longer agree to it, the contract becomes void, and revolution is justified.

The reason Locke listed the rights of life, liberty, property is he argued that if these things were ever violated, you would see such a justification for revolution, since people would revolt. 

But the fact that it doesn't need a majority is important, most revolutions actually get started by a minority.

1 day ago, ScanIAm wrote

No.  Please.  Enlighten me with subtle but crucial piece of information that will remove my ignorance, change my opinion, and undo years of actual thought.  I'm anxiously awaiting the release that will come from this clarity. 

Again, I do not do for others what they refuse to do for themselves.

Honestly, you won't, though, because then you couldn't just call me a fool as an argument strategy.

No... you are the one who has resorted to personal attacks and name calling, not me.

You'd actually have to argue the merits of her nasty ideals.  So be it.

Again... I am trying to keep this about a book and a movie... a movie which by all indications seems to have done rather well this weekend. Throwing this table from Yahoo Movies into Excel... looks like it came in third behind Rio and Scream 4 on a gross per theater basis.

Twas a good weekend for a grand movie... now I just need to spend some time to write a review of my own.

9 minutes ago, dahat wrote

*snip*

Again, I do not do for others what they refuse to do for themselves.

Careful now. This is the same kind of retort that I hear from Christian apologists, whom Ayn Rand loathed.

Even if one read the book in question, it's still left to interpretation. So, let's hear your interpretation of this alleged crucial detail, which you claim is the secret sauce to understanding Objectivism.

9 minutes ago, cbae wrote

Careful now. This is the same kind of retort that I hear from Christian apologists, whom Ayn Rand loathed.

Just the way to start a morning... with a nice big headache due to inanity.

Everything I said is in line with what she would advocate. Your attempts to try to find an equivalence fails due to lack of understanding between what I said and what you thought you heard.

I have zero interest in getting into an argument here with people whose minds are made up about the evil/wrongness/irrelevance of her philosophy... so why should I waste my time trying to educate you on this subject?

9 minutes ago, dahat wrote

*snip*

Just the way to start a morning... with a nice big headache due to inanity.

Inanity? What's more inane than "I know the secret, and you don't. Neener, neener, neener!"?

9 minutes ago, dahat wrote

Everything I said is in line with what she would advocate. Your attempts to try to find an equivalence fails due to lack of understanding between what I said and what you thought you heard.

You completely missed my point. I have no idea what you're advocating with respect to the Objectivist philosophy. I couldn't give a rat's a$$. What you're doing is claiming, like Christian apologists as well as dogmatists of any religion do, that one can't understand your philosophy without having read your holy book. As if reading some work of fiction, cover to cover, is the only means by which one can achieve some state of enlightenment.

The way you suggested that the book has some "crucial piece of information", as if it's some kind of "secret decoder ring", has merely piqued my curiosity in how it was implemented within the book. Is there some kind of scribbling within the book that requires cryptography to decipher? Does the book come with some special pair of glasses that one must put on? Enquiring minds want to know.

If you can't bear the idea that we'd be getting this information without having earned it, then feel free to post your PayPal account so that we may compensate you. You're a Producer (TM), and all.

9 minutes ago, dahat wrote

I have zero interest in getting into an argument here with people whose minds are made up about the evil/wrongness/irrelevance of her philosophy... so why should I waste my time trying to educate you on this subject?

I can't speak for everyone, but my mind isn't made up.  I'm willing to keep an open mind about this, but you've got to tell us about this secret decoder ring.

Your attempts to try to find an equivalence fails due to lack of understanding between what I said and what you thought you heard.

I am not going to play your game... just as I have refused with others in this thread.

A little reading and a bit of thought is all that is required (other sources exist for it other than the original book), if you choose to do so, good for you, if not, don't expect me to do for you what you refuse to do for yourself.

I think it's relevant to this thread: it discusses political ideology and how it relates to the ability to change one's opinion.

...which is why this thread is useless

2 minutes ago, dahat wrote

@cbae:To quote what I said earlier:

*snip*

I am not going to play your game... just as I have refused with others in this thread.

A little reading and a bit of thought is all that is required (other sources exist for it other than the original book), if you choose to do so, good for you, if not, don't expect me to do for you what you refuse to do for yourself.

I'm not going to go out of my way to read about a philosophy that I couldn't care less about. I'm just interested in how a book of fiction hides some secret sauce that makes it possible to understand a philosophy. You're talking about the book, right? You don't want to argue about Objectivism, right? Well, I don't either.

Think about it this way. Imagine that Atlas Shrugged is some mechanical device. I don't really care about what this device does, who constructed it, or how smart or stupid the inventor of the device was. I'm interested in where the battery is located and how it was designed to fit inside the case. The reason I'm so interested is because you make this battery sound quite magical. Almost like the battery in the iPad.

20 minutes ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

I'm not going to go out of my way to read about a philosophy that I couldn't care less about. I'm just interested in how a book of fiction hides some secret sauce that makes it possible to understand a philosophy. You're talking about the book, right? You don't want to argue about Objectivism, right? Well, I don't either.

Think about it this way. Imagine that Atlas Shrugged is some mechanical device. I don't really care about what this device does, who constructed it, or how smart or stupid the inventor of the device was. I'm interested in where the battery is located and how it was designed to fit inside the case. The reason I'm so interested is because you make this battery sound quite magical. Almost like the battery in the iPad.

Maybe because Atlas Shrugged's story panders to the fantasies of individualist Objectivists? The book contrives situations where Ayn's philosophy is shown to bring the 'right' solution to the problem at hand, the people reading the book then see the same situations in real-life and see her answers as the solutions. "If your only tool is a hammer, you see everything as a nail" - similarly I believe these people are only intimately engaged with OR/LFC and suggest (often forcefully) it as the panacea for today's societal ills and reject out-of-hand alternatives. This isn't helped when, collectively (thank you, groupthink) ideologies like social democracy are denounced as "socialism!" without full consideration as to what it's actually proposing.

If I weren't so compassionate I'd advocate taking away medicaid/medicare from anyone who held up the photoshopped placard of Obama as the Joker. They were demanding it, after all.

I've been reading about Objectivism; I understand the philosophical concept of Objective Reality which Ayn uses as a basis for her own moral philosophy, but I don't understand how she uses OR to justify laissez faire capitalism. Seeming as Ayn rejects ideas of rights besides individual rights (indeed, they specifically disregard collective rights) then it follows that it is the state's responsibility to regulate businesses (they have no rights, after all), thus laissez faire does not apply. With that premise you would see private organisations providing 'essential' (i.e. something people cannot really opt-out of) services, assuming the regulation does not extend to preventing monopolies/duopolies then you end up with a profiteering organisation that would better served if it were a service rendered by the state. Thus it comes full-circle to 'omg socialism'.

38 minutes ago, W3bbo wrote

If I weren't so compassionate I'd advocate taking away medicaid/medicare from anyone who held up the photoshopped placard of Obama as the Joker. They were demanding it, after all.

Lemme get this straight... so if you weren't so compassionate... you'd be a fascist? Or would it simply be that you would support a form of fascism?

Future sequence of events:

W3bbo: "Nyeh, I didn't say that! It's not what I meant. I only meant to say that... <something other than what was clearly said>."

dahat: "You often fall into this pattern, you make a very specific claim, are called out on it, then try to re-define what you actually said/mean. If you cannot say what you mean, you should not say anything. Words have meaning, never forget that."

Good to see the thread hijacking is complete though!

A start with me telling fellow 9ners about a rather significant movie was coming out that they didn't know about... with it moving to a series of attacks from people bashing a book/movie they've not read, all the way to people arguing over a philosophy they don't understand while trying to pretend to be holier than thou by virtue of their lack of knowledge, refusal to understand it from the source and compassion.

There really isn't a point to this thread anymore.

Oh Glenn Beck, why hast though forsaken me?!?!? (SATAN: It's because he couldn't bring in the dough-ray-me despite his ratings so I fired his *)  Ahhhh money... it does make the world go round...

7 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

It's not secret sauce. It's koolaid and dahat has drunken mass quantities...

Oh Glenn Beck, why hast though forsaken me?!?!? (SATAN: It's because he couldn't bring in the dough-ray-me despite his ratings so I fired his *)  Ahhhh money... it does make the world go round...

If you could quote me saying there is some ‘secret’ or a ‘secret sauce’ ... you might have a point... alas I called it a ‘subtle aspect’, hardly a ‘secret’.

More so... you assume I care at all about Glenn Beck. He's simply a backbencher plagiarist.

I must say it's rather fun when people ascribe views to me without actually knowing what I am talking about or where I am coming from.

13 minutes ago, dahat wrote

*snip*

Lemme get this straight... so if you weren't so compassionate... you'd be a fascist? Or would it simply be that you would support a form of fascism?

Future sequence of events:

Let's summarize the past sequence of events:

dahat: Hey, check out this movie. It's awesome.

others: Looks pretty boring, the acting seems horrible, but I'm sure Teabaggers would love it.

dahat: Don't make homophobic statements just because you hate Ayn Rand.

others: The term "teabagger" isn't homophobic.

dahat: Well, don't criticize it just because you don't understand Objectivism. I doubt you even read the book.

others: This is what I understand Objectivism to be even though I may or may not have read the book.

dahat: You clearly know nothing about Objectivism. You need to read the book to catch the subtleties in order understand what Ayn Rand REALLY means.

others: What subtleties?

dahat: I'm not going to read the book for you, and I'm not going to argue with people that aren't willing to change their minds.

others: I'm open to changing my mind. What subtleties are you talking about?

dahat: I'm still not going to read the book for you. This thread has been jacked. I just wanted to tell people that a very important movie came out. This thread is pointless.

Before you go away angry, can you at least explain why this movie is so important? And to whom is it supposed to be important? To everybody or just the Producers? If I were to throw down a sawbuck to watch what looks to be almost a universally-panned movie, would I be able to catch enough of the subtleties that carried over from the book to understand the Objectivist philosophy even though the movie covers what looks to be 1/3rd of the plot of the book? If not, what's the point of telling us about this movie?

Well in his defense, ScanIAm and others were trolling pretty hard right off the bat.

Common sense truth != trolling. You could say he was being picked on a little but he kinda brought it on himself thinking we'd be so gullible to fall into his Fox News trap.

Hey there's this great new show on Fox News called Hannity. It's go some really great ideas. You should watch it. I can't tell you why but you should...

1 hour ago, Cream​Filling512 wrote

@cbae:

Well in his defense, ScanIAm and others were trolling pretty hard right off the bat.

Meh. I've given up entirely after he completely misrepresented my position.

I don't see what this has to do with some cable news channel.  I've never read Atlas Shrugged because I heard it sucks from too many places, but objectivism is a pretty rigorously thought out philosophy and trying to dismiss it by tossing it into the "fox news rhetoric bucket" is just trolling.

9 minutes ago, Cream​Filling512 wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio:

I don't see what this has to do with some cable news channel.  I've never read Atlas Shrugged because I heard it sucks from too many places, but objectivism is a pretty rigorously thought out philosophy and trying to dismiss it by tossing it into the "fox news rhetoric bucket" is just trolling.

I don't dismiss objectivism, I understand and it appreciate it, I just don't believe it could work

3 days ago, spivonious wrote

In theory, the free market would punish companies who put out unsafe food and drugs. No one would buy food from a company who was responsible for making an entire region sick from tainted meat.

It's important to note that the reason no one would buy food from that company anymore is because they would all already be dead from Salmonella from the last purchase. One must also not fail to consider the Pinto Factor - whether it's cheaper to clean up your food processing facility or pay wrongful death lawsuits and do a little PR repair.

@CreamFilling512: I just wanted to say that I agree completely with you about the U.S. Constitution. The start of the downfall was changing to a popular election of Senators, rather than having them elected by state legislatures.

It all comes down to the two interpretations of the document: it's either fixed, with a process for amending it, or it's a "living document" that can be interpreted in whatever way justifies the wanted result. All too often, Congress forgets about the 10th Amendment - "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Just to throw more fuel on the fire, here are amendments that I don't agree with:

#12, #16, #17.

As far as Ayn Rand and Objectivism, I can't really comment since I'm not that knowledgable, but I do agree with the basic principle that the "producers" should be the ones getting rewarded. If I invent the next big thing, I want the reward. If I choose to give a portion of that reward to others, that's my decision. Someone not "producing" should not be rewarded, as it encourages laziness and a sense of entitlement.

The only sensical way to interpret the constitution, or any law, is based on the original meaning of the words at the time it was enacted.  Whatever the words meant at that time, it's locked in until it's ammended.  This is easy, you just get a dictionary from the period.  Like the word "regulate" used to mean "to make regular" not "do a bunch of arbitrary crap".  It doesn't leave ambiguity and there isn't some issue with modernization because it's not like you need to spell out that the 1st amendment also applies to modern technology like blogs or twitter because you're going by the original meaning.

IMO should just replace judges with some natural language computer like Watson who will rigidly interpret the laws.

18 minutes ago, ScanIAm wrote

When Dagny Taggart takes a pile of dirt and produces a train with it using only her bare hands, I'll be willing to give her free reign to choose who benefits from its rewards.

(I looked up the name on Wikipedia, as I haven't read the book) Without the leader, no work would get done. If I were the COO, would I accept a $3,000,000 salary while the people doing the physical work were making $30,000? Definitely not. I'd take something comfortable, such as $200,000, and raise everyone else's salaries. But that decision is my own.

2 hours ago, spivonious wrote

Someone not "producing" should not be rewarded, as it encourages laziness and a sense of entitlement.

In what scenario does "not producing" ever get you rewarded?

57 minutes ago, Cream​Filling512 wrote

 IMO should just replace judges with some natural language computer like Watson who will rigidly interpret the laws.

Who gets to program this computer?

The only sensical way to interpret the constitution, or any law, is based on the original meaning of the words at the time it was enacted.  

3 hours ago, spivonious wrote

*snip*

As far as Ayn Rand and Objectivism, I can't really comment since I'm not that knowledgable, but I do agree with the basic principle that the "producers" should be the ones getting rewarded. If I invent the next big thing, I want the reward. If I choose to give a portion of that reward to others, that's my decision. Someone not "producing" should not be rewarded, as it encourages laziness and a sense of entitlement.

I think this is a bit oversimplified. Certainly producers should be rewarded for their efforts but they don't produce in a vaccuum nor is any idea completely free from other's work (unless of course you're starting with dirt and your bare hands and no influence from ideas of the past.) Sadly it is this oversimplification that grows into the label of "wealth reditribution" IMO. I'm not saying that people aren't looking for a handout; there are may who do from swindlers on Wall Street to those who fraudulantly claim disability. I am saying that a lot of the rhetoric around "wealth reditribution" is akin to saying "I made it so I want it all to myself - me! me! me!".

20 hours ago, Cream​Filling512 wrote

@DeathByVisualStudio:

I don't see what this has to do with some cable news channel.  I've never read Atlas Shrugged because I heard it sucks from too many places, but objectivism is a pretty rigorously thought out philosophy and trying to dismiss it by tossing it into the "fox news rhetoric bucket" is just trolling.

I was inferring that just because he says it's a good book/ideals doesn't make it so. I wasn't tossing objectivism into the fox news toilet; you did.

Other factors are that one is usually older, and those types of positions seldom last for many years, so retirement, and children/grandchildren and all sorts of considerations need to be factored in.

Most Universities will be charging £10,000 a year tuition fees, plus accomodation and other costs so for me that $200 000 is a lot of money, but I can still find ways to spend it all.

44 minutes ago, DeathBy​VisualStudio wrote

*snip*

I think this is a bit oversimplified. Certainly producers should be rewarded for their efforts but they don't produce in a vaccuum nor is any idea completely free from other's work (unless of course you're starting with dirt and your bare hands and no influence from ideas of the past.) Sadly it is this oversimplification that grows into the label of "wealth reditribution" IMO. I'm not saying that people aren't looking for a handout; there are may who do from swindlers on Wall Street to those who fraudulantly claim disability. I am saying that a lot of the rhetoric around "wealth reditribution" is akin to saying "I made it so I want it all to myself - me! me! me!".

You are talking about Value creation vs. value transference

25 minutes ago, dahat wrote

*snip*

You are talking about Value creation vs. value transference

That whole article is an example of not understanding the basics of economics.

Getting back to the book/film, I shall have a look in the library tomorrow and see if they have a copy. If so, I shall read it and see if it can change my crazy socialist mind into a proper thinking right wing conservative.

An engineer who is totally naive of politics.

1 hour ago, evildictait​or wrote

*snip*

Haha.  Bear arms meant to "wage war" in that context.  Also 2nd amendment is only about states' right to form militias, it has nothing to do with individual gun ownership, despite fiction the courts invented.  Actually I'm pretty sure the entire bill of rights is just declaratory and doesn't really do anything.  It was just added to calm anti-federalists, or federalists?  I forget how that worked.

18 minutes ago, AndyC wrote

*snip*

That whole article is an example of not understanding the basics of economics.

Au contraire. That article is right on the money. The only value creators are plants capable of photosynthesis. Even fungi that use chemosynthesis are value transferors since they merely transfer value to themselves from dead animals and plants. Lichen, as in biology, offer a bit of a conundrum in terms of classification since they're composite organisms that consist of both chemosynthetic fungi and photosynthetic algae. I guess it wouldn't really matter in Ayn Rand's utopia since she'd have all lichen eradicated for displaying too much altruism in the symbiotic association between fungi and algae. Selfishness FTW!

We're talking about economic value.  Value is just a variable in the exchange between a buyer and seller.  The buyer and seller each compute their own value functions for the item in question.  It's derived from perceived worth.

16 hours ago, cbae wrote

*snip*

Au contraire. That article is right on the money. The only value creators are plants capable of photosynthesis. Even fungi that use chemosynthesis are value transferors since they merely transfer value to themselves from dead animals and plants. Lichen, as in biology, offer a bit of a conundrum in terms of classification since they're composite organisms that consist of both chemosynthetic fungi and photosynthetic algae. I guess it wouldn't really matter in Ayn Rand's utopia since she'd have all lichen eradicated for displaying too much altruism in the symbiotic association between fungi and algae. Selfishness FTW!

Plants, to me, seem to be the ultimate value transfer mechanisms.  They steal energy from the sun and nutrients from the air and earth.  What do they actually contribute themselves? 

Looters.   Every last one of them.

18 hours ago, Cream​Filling512 wrote

*snip*

Haha.  Bear arms meant to "wage war" in that context.  Also 2nd amendment is only about states' right to form militias, it has nothing to do with individual gun ownership, despite fiction the courts invented.  Actually I'm pretty sure the entire bill of rights is just declaratory and doesn't really do anything.  It was just added to calm anti-federalists, or federalists?  I forget how that worked.

Not a state's right to form militias, individuals rights to form the militia at large. The militia at the time of the founding referred to the entire populace, self-armed, and self-organized in their own defense. You always see it referred to 'the militia' instead of 'militias' or 'state militias', the militia is meant to meant to refer to the people.The militia was entirely volunteer and acted at the time as police forces, since there were no government police forces. The local group of volunteers (the local militia) would do a citizens arrest and bring the person accused of violating a crime to the authorities.

The whole idea of the militia was that there shouldn't be a standing army; since a standing army would be used by a government (federal or state) to oppress people. The only way people could be free is if they were allowed to freely organize in defense of themselves.

State governments had a right to help in equipping and commanding (regulating) the local militias in self-defense, as did the federal government in times of war; but the right of the militia was always understood to be a right of the people.

There are many references you can look at to understand the purpose of the 2nd amendment. Read Hamilton's Federalist #29, Concerning the Militia for instance:

http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm

...

If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

At the time of this amendment, every state had laws that made it MANDATORY for males who were a certain age to keep arms (some required them stored in public armories) to bear when they're called to do so.  This (was about an obligation of State citizenship that they didn't want the national government threatening with a standing army (as you pointed out).  It didn't have anything to do with private gun ownership.

Since States no longer maintain or require citizens to serve in militias, this clause in the 2nd amendment is dormant today.

The Constitution doesn't confer any rights directly to individuals in the States, they already have all these rights.  It's a one-way transfer of rights, from the States (with the approval of the people) to the federal government, and not backwards.  So it's not necessary for the constitution to spell out that individuals have a right to own and use guns for personal defense for the simple reason that they already possessed this right.

22 minutes ago, Cream​Filling512 wrote

@brian.shapiro:

At the time of this amendment, every state had laws that made it MANDATORY for males who were a certain age to keep arms (some required them stored in public armories) to bear when they're called to do so.  This (was about an obligation of State citizenship that they didn't want the national government threatening with a standing army (as you pointed out).  It didn't have anything to do with private gun ownership.

Since States no longer maintain or require citizens to serve in militias, this clause in the 2nd amendment is dormant today.

The Constitution doesn't confer any rights directly to individuals in the States, they already have all these rights.  It's a one-way transfer of rights, from the States (with the approval of the people) to the federal government, and not backwards.  So it's not necessary for the constitution to spell out that individuals have a right to own and use guns for personal defense for the simple reason that they already possessed this right.

Yes, you're correct that the Constitution didn't need to spell out that right ---but you're still misunderstanding the concept of a militia. It was the idea that the defense forces were self-organized from the local level, from the township up to the state. It was definitely notsomething organized by some higher government, whether that be the state or the federal governement. A standing army at the state level would have been considered just as detrimental to liberty as a standing army at the federal level.

It was aided by the state government, not organized by it. Many states while requiring that individuals bring their own arms, provided a means to get arms if someone was too poor to obtain them. The role of the state government was to help make sure the militia was operational, and also help give it a command structure. The federal government, by the way, took over that command structure in times of war. During times of war, the militia became the federal army.

You also have to understand what the purpose of the militia was -- just read Hamilton and the debates I linked to. The whole point behind the Second Amendment was to prevent the government from having too much power, allowing the people the resources to overthrow it if necessary.

Aside from the intent, the states were allowed to do whatever they wanted, of course. The argument against the states doing whatever they want comes from the Fourteenth Amendment, which has been interpreted to require states not to violate any of the other provisions of the Bill of Rights, as if it was written for their legislatures and not just Congress, under either the due process clause or privileges and immunities clause. One of the reasons the Fourteenth was passed btw, was because some Southern states were denying black people the privelege of arms ownership. So it makes sense that if the rest of the Bill of Rights is interpreted that way, then so is the Second Amendment. Because militias weren't a state force, but a force from the most local level up, the militia clause doesn't prevent that kind of interpretation either. Just like with the other restrictions in the Bill of Rights, the logic of the Second Amendment can be faithfully applied to state governments.

The militia clause is also still somewhat important today. The federal army today operates under the idea of selective service, that its composed of people from the entire nation and only assembled when needed. The Supreme Court, if it went by precedent, would find a problem with the idea of a mercenary army...  since a mercenary army would not be based on 'the militia'.. and that in fact was one of the arguments against Blackwater, the private security force contracted in Iraq, people pointed out that it functioned like a mercenary army so was illegitimate.