~20% of all prisoners do also.
Several somethings. Specifically:
* We subsidize and encourage single parenthood. This creates crime.
* We outlaw things that are not crime (all drug laws). This creates "crime"
The part I thought was full-retard was where Rand went in and ascribed the most base motivation possible, to those people who disagree with her... just because they disagree with her. But that's just me. And I do think that full-on mockery, or just gentle ribbing, of Rand is always appropriate... she's an easy target. ;)
Aug 9 2013 12:21am from IGnatius T Foobar @uncnsrd
As I've mentioned before, I think Rand hit on a lot of important points
but missed the big picture.
That's an easy point to defend, considering she want so far out of her way to caricature herself - her own argument (whatever the heck it actually was) got lost.
Ironic that she blasted libetarians for "discrediting capitalism by making it look bad." She did a fine job of that, herself.
Also ironic are the accusations of plagiarism, which seem to be directed ain no small part at Rothbard, thinly veiled.
She stole all her ideas from Nietzsche, anyway.
She stole all her ideas from Nietzsche, anyway.
"Ayn Rand is dead." -- Nietzsche
The difference between Randroid-objectivism and "pure" libertarianism (as opposed to the LP) is one of means vs. ends. Rand wanted the government out of the way as a means towards effecting massive greed and selfishness. Libertarianism wants the government out of the way as an end in itself.
Some critics argue that the LP libertarians just want the government out of the way so they can get stoned cheaply and in peace.
I suppose any of the above is arguable; it really isn't the government's business if one wants to selfishly amass wealth or indulge in whatever substances.
"Pure" anything tends to get lost in a flurry of nonpragmatism anyway. I suppose I'm just hoping that if we pick on Ayn Rand enough, Peter Pulse will come around here more often (although over the last couple of years he's abandoned his libertarian principles as well).
As for me, I abandoned the LP when the Tea Party movement materialized, as a *far* more pragmatic and effective means towards effecting libertarian principles than the LP ever was. Tea Party is to LP as open source was to free software: much of the same thing, but packaged in appealing pragmatism instead of a bunch of retarded whining and all-or-nothing extremism.
Oh come on, now you are just being a prick. ;)
Pulse will come around here more often (although over the last couple
of years he's abandoned his libertarian principles as well).
I'm aware of a few arguments you could make for that point.
But I'm not sure I'd go that far. He's always been a bit of a left-libertarian. He's hard to parse lately... but on the other hand, in the run-up to the last elections, he made some comments about the financial system to the effect that "us libertarians warned you a crash would happen", and "we just want a system that is more based on ethics."
RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES: all right, you primitive screwheads, listen up!
Bashing the "I fucking love science" meme is so 2012.
You may now proceed to bash the "I fucking hate pseudoscience" meme.
That is all.
A quote I saved about Atlas Shrugged:
I actually think that Atlas Shrugged and the Communist Manifesto are the same book with alternate endings. Rand
and Marx both seem to think capitalists are soulless monsters who would do anything to make a buck. She just
sees that as a good thing.
-Some Guy (at Reason.com)
"It.s trendy to dislike her, and anti-capitalists revel in quoting her out of context; maiming her message of non-violence."
Perhaps because her message was not primarily about non-violence. That was a small part of it, yes, when she eventually got around to talking about ethics she would acknowledge a non-initiation-of-force principle.
But primarily, secondarily, and tertially, her message was: (1) I Am Architect Sex-Offender And Hear Me Roar, (2) Fuck You Guys, and (3) Blowing Up Buildings That Don't Adhere To My Artistic Vision Is Kinda Cool.
Well, I too am a fan of Einsturzende Neubauten, so I dig that.
dothebart: but but but thinking that an economy can not grow on forever is... hippie nonsense!
WRT Nietzsche and Rand: Old Fritz' approach to economy was simply reinstating slavery, that's all. He didn't care much for the problem of the workers or Marx or anything like that. Probably because he never had a prolonged relation with anyone who wasn't part of an academic, artistic, aristocratic, economical, religious and/or military elite. Although he and his friends were sometimes short on money, he would always find people to lend from. Funny sidenote: The Villa Silberblick - where the first Nietzsche archive was situated, where he spent the rest of his life after his mind went above the northwind, where Hitler visited and got Nietzsches walking cane as a present from Elizabeth sister - was heavily founded by a swedish jew.
Rand simply sounds like the harsher parts of Nietzsche or Stirner because she has the same sense of mission as all people who claim that their understanding of reality is the only True and objective one. Like the church, the evolutionists or any other ideologist.
So what you're saying is that Howard Roark is supposed to be Rand
herself, and the buildings are a metaphor for *everything* ?
Close enough. :-)
Rand simply sounds like the harsher parts of Nietzsche or Stirner
because she has the same sense of mission as all people who claim
that their understanding of reality is the only True and objective
one. Like the church, the evolutionists or any other ideologist.
Stamp out all -isms!
Aug 12 2013 10:21am from the_mgt @uncnsrd
dothebart: but but but thinking that an economy can not grow on
forever is... hippie nonsense!
Even libertarians don't always believe this. Classical theory says: population growth --> larger labor pool --> opportunities for efficiency / division of labor --> everyone is richer and has more stuff.
I will not name names, but I spoke with a libertarian, active within the party, who is a PhD ec student at GMU (a bit of a hotbed of Austrian or pragmatic-Austrian-monetarist thinking, GMU is); I would claim the above to be a fair description of his views...
[Eugene Volokh, 9/5/2003 07:53:05 AM]
JEWS FOR JESUS: I was recently reminded of something that has always a bit annoyed me -- the assertion by some of my Jewish friends that "Jews for Jesus" is somehow an oxymoron. The claim isn't just that Jews for Jesus are misguided or otherwise
deserving of criticism; rather, it's that one can't logically or theologically be a Jew and a Christian at the same time, much like one can't be, say, a "Christian for atheism" or (though this might conceivably be a tougher theological question) a
"Christian for Krishna."
derstand it, this claim is theologically unsound from Judaism's own perspective. Any person whose mother is Jewish (or, I take it, who validly converted to Judaism) is a Jew, no matter what he believes. Irreligious Jews are still Jews, albeit
perhaps bad Jews, if they disobey
the Law. Jews who follow a false messiah -- which, I take it, is what a convert to Christianity would be, from the perspective of a devout Jew -- are likewise still Jews.
According to Judaism, if you believe in Jesus, you're a Christian, and yes, you can leave the religion, and once you do, you have to undergo a 'conversion' process to be accepted once more.
A lot of Jews don't know that - they think it's birth and you can't quit. It's not quite true.
Believing nothing/atheism/agnosticism is not considered leaving the religion, though.
Accepting Muhammed or Jesus is.
thanks for clearing that up! I guess Volokh doesn't get to keep his "pet peeve" after all.