President Biden, critics corner

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

6 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Your country at its founding was considered radically liberal. Conservatives wanted to stay loyal to the Crown.

Hi Ken,

And, that is why de Tocqueville found it so interesting:  Alexis de Tocqueville - Wikipedia

Jerry Baumchen

[billvon 2,395]

59 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

Your country at its founding was considered radically liberal. Conservatives wanted to stay loyal to the Crown.

It's a good bet that if you went back in time, you'd find the conservatives there talking about George III in the same glowing, larger-than-life terms that conservatives speak of Trump today.  "He's so strong.  He totally owned those colonists!"  "My prosperity as a tea trader has grown under George III and that's all that matters."  "Those colonists don't even know they are colonists under the benevolent rule of George III!  Stupid libs."  "Liberals are criminals and thieves.  Why, did you see what they did in the Boston harbor with all my tea?  They should all be rounded up and shot."  "Woah, you can't say that about the Redcoats.  They were just honest, brave soldiers enforcing the law.  Why do you hate our soldiers?"

[richravizza 25]

On 11/9/2021 at 4:52 PM, winsor said:

Libertarianism is a great philosophy to think about.  Everyone should read Ayn Rand in college sometime (or right after high school in any case) and get into arguments with their friends about it.  But like very other -ism it is toxic when applied exclusively.

Sorry for the miss quote not winsors

Ayn Rand believed a constitutionally limited government should protect natural rights. Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, Rand preferred the term "radical for capitalism".

 Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".

I feel her work leans more toward Individualism.

Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature ...

Seems there's an age old theme.

[richravizza 25]

17 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Nice meme but……

”The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.”

 

Your post is currently being flagged as disinformation, there is no such entity as "Facebook" 

"The Fact Checkers" have released their determination, Today Veterans Day, new irrefutable evidence. 

After tireless research, they have determined!

 The President did Not, disrespect our fallen by looking at a watch repeatedly during the Ceremony for his 13.

The $7000 Rolex was a gift from his late son,a gift not a watch.Furthermore, He looked at his gift repeatedly both before and after said Ceremony, as two negatives make a positive,we have deemed looking at his gift during said ceremony a positive.

"YOU DUMB BASTARDS"

Edited November 12, 2021 by richravizza

[jakee 1,254]

11 hours ago, richravizza said:

Ayn Rand believed a constitutionally limited government should protect natural rights. Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, Rand preferred the term "radical for capitalism".

 Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".

I feel her work leans more toward Individualism.

Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature ...

Seems there's an age old theme.

If every man is an individual, how come you didn’t write any of that?

[billvon 2,395]

12 hours ago, richravizza said:

Ayn Rand believed a constitutionally limited government should protect natural rights. Although her political views are often classified as conservative or libertarian, Rand preferred the term "radical for capitalism".

 Rand called her philosophy "Objectivism", describing its essence as "the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute".

I feel her work leans more toward Individualism.

Individualism regards man—every man—as an independent, sovereign entity who possesses an inalienable right to his own life, a right derived from his nature ...

Seems there's an age old theme.

Agreed on all the above.  Which is why everyone should read it and think about it.

What Rand misses is that while living in a society it is necessary to give up some of those rights.  If everyone lived alone, the above would apply 100%.  (Would also be somewhat meaningless, but it would apply.)  But when a person lives in society, they must necessarily lose rights to protect the rights of others.  You lose your right to kill other people on a whim.  You lose your right to rape.  You lose your right to drive drunk on public roads.  You lose these rights because they are incompatible with ensuring other people retain their rights.

So where do you draw that line?  Most people don't want the government to take their property, even if they pay them for it.  But without that right of eminent domain, we would not have the US highway system today, something that most Americans want and support.  More specifically, people want roads, but they want other people to give up their property for those roads.  That's where government gets involved and figures out how to do that as fairly as possible - although it will never seem fair to the person who loses part of their farm to the new road, and will always seem fair to the people who get to use the new road.  (As a more direct example,  Rand railed against Social Security and Medicare her whole life - then used them both when she needed them.)

That's where her philosophy doesn't work.  The question of how to implement the shared responsibility that every citizen of a country has is a tough one, and one she completely avoids.  And indeed can't even get right in her personal life.

[jakee 1,254]

25 minutes ago, billvon said:

Agreed on all the above. 

Are you sure? If every man is a sovereign nation solely concerned with his own happiness then why is productive achievement noble? Productive for whose sake? What is production in this context?

Then reason as his only absolute? What about his wife? What about his family? The lengths we go to for the people we love can never be justified by pure reason until we accept that other people are as or more valuable to us than we are. (This point is moot if Rand doesn’t believe in monogamy or traditional family units - does she?)

Edit; and it’s just occurred to me you might mean you simply agree that that’s what her opinion was. In which case disregard everything 

Edited November 12, 2021 by jakee

[SkyDekker 1,121]

On 11/10/2021 at 2:59 PM, brenthutch said:

light hand from government and personal responsibility.

It calls for a light hand BECAUSE people will take personal responsibility. That premise is inherently false, since we see time and time again that people do not take personal responsibility at all, for anything.

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, SkyDekker said:

It calls for a light hand BECAUSE people will take personal responsibility. That premise is inherently false, since we see time and time again that people do not take personal responsibility at all, for anything.

That is because society protects the irresponsible from the consequences of their actions.  

Edited November 12, 2021 by brenthutch

[SkyDekker 1,121]

3 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That is because society protects the irresponsible from the consequences of their actions.

Society is made up of people. The same people who do not take personal responsibility. The same reason the premise was false.

But you might be right that the premise might be very libertarian, as in it sounds nice, but it doesn't work that way.

[SkyDekker 1,121]

7 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

There have been large swaths of this country for large periods of time who had little to no interaction with the federal government and got by just fine.

Oh, libertarians are only against the federal government but are fine with state and municipal government?

[brenthutch 383]

22 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

Oh, libertarians are only against the federal government but are fine with state and municipal government?

Less government, smaller government and closer government 

[jakee 1,254]

40 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

That is because society protects the irresponsible from the consequences of their actions.  

It also protects them from the irresponsible actions of others.

So when you take away the government to let people govern themselves, by what means do you think they will decide to protect themselves? What kind of processes and structures will the new self governors agree to put in place to pool their governing power?

[billvon 2,395]

3 hours ago, jakee said:

Are you sure? If every man is a sovereign nation solely concerned with his own happiness then why is productive achievement noble?

"Noble" is an emotionally loaded phrase, and means something different to everyone.  However it is definitely useful because productive achievement makes him money, which is useful to purchase things that he wants (like a house or a car.)

Quote

Then reason as his only absolute? What about his wife? What about his family? The lengths we go to for the people we love can never be justified by pure reason

Well, right.  But that's also not an absolute.  I mean, he might love his wife, and love his brother in law, but he probably loves one more than the other.  And if he had to choose between them, he might decide that one was worth more relative to the other.

I don't mean to say her philosophy is the best philosophy out there, but it is, in many ways, self consistent and interesting to consider in the abstract.  In reality (as her own life demonstrates) it has some deficiencies.

[gowlerk 1,905]

47 minutes ago, SkyDekker said:

The same people who do not take personal responsibility. The same reason the premise was false.

My 2 cents. I long ago figured out that people who call themselves "Libertarian" are generally those who dislike the rules that they perceive as limiting them. But rules that only limit others and protect them are of course just natural and needed. They drive down the road blithely unable to see that the road could never exist without society, government, and rules. A phrase I like to use instead of that word is "self centred".

[richravizza 25]

16 hours ago, billvon said:

But when a person lives in society, they must necessarily lose rights to protect the rights of others.  You lose your right to kill other people on a whim.  You lose your right to rape.    You lose these rights because they are incompatible with ensuring other people retain their rights.

 Those principles were part of civilization and society when we live in servitude and chains,way before her time.Like most great works the individual interprets for themself or how their professors opined. I think the author's life and motivations can give us more insight. The story of her life is a tragedy, her loss of liberty, lifestyle, love, family and escape from  the totalitarianism system with  her life,her individuality and nothing more.She rallied against the all encompassing bureaucratic institutions of state power, that ultimately devours individuals of their individualism. I'd suggest the novelette, Anthem. Individuality is eliminated from society, written without pronouns, even individual names replaced with words and numbers. the first line written by the protagonist, Equality 7-2521   "It is a sin to write this." 

16 hours ago, billvon said:

(As a more direct example,  Rand railed against Social Security and Medicare her whole life - then used them both when she needed them.)

That's where her philosophy doesn't work. 

 your free to your own opinion,I see it differently.

 She didn't have choice to pay into the SSI system, she abhorred.She did it anyway, paid every dime, why wouldn't she collect.

I don't approve of smoking, I own Altia, No moral dilemma.

 SS is a ponzi,choice optionless and needs reform,as a sole proprietor, it sucks.

The upshot: SSI should be insolvent the year I retire.With confidence, I can say with a little tax increase and delaying of benefits I should be eligible to get 100% when I'm 92.4 years old,LOL  

Individualism isn't a bolt and nut.

Edited November 13, 2021 by richravizza

[jakee 1,254]

12 hours ago, billvon said:

Well, right.  But that's also not an absolute. 

I didn’t say anything was an absolute. She did. 
 

I don't mean to say her philosophy is the best philosophy out there, but it is, in many ways, self consistent and interesting to consider in the abstract.  In reality (as her own life demonstrates) it has some deficiencies.

 

You’ve just explained away a massive apparent inconsistency by saying words don’t mean anything. That doesn’t fill me with confidence.

[billvon 2,395]

13 hours ago, richravizza said:

 Those principles were part of civilization and society when we live in servitude and chains

I fear that attitudes like yours will be the end of the US.  Imagine, for example, what would have happened during World War II if Americans of the time considered military service, rationing, the war support effort etc to be "living in servitude and chains" and instead espoused Objectivist philosophy.  Boeing could have made much more money if they had sold their aircraft to Axis powers as well - unless, of course, you keep them "in chains."

Quote

The story of her life is a tragedy, her loss of liberty, lifestyle, love, family  . . .

Here's one such story of how she lost love.

In 1950, Rand met Nathaniel Brandon and his fiancee (soon to be wife) Barbara.  They started to collaborate and formed a group called the Collective, and Rand named Nathaniel her "intellectual heir."  Nathaniel created the Nathaniel Brandon Institute and started making a name for himself in objectivism.  He also published the Randian newsletter "The Objectivist."

Nathaniel and Ayn decided to have an affair, and announced to both their spouses that they would be having sex once a week.  Cowed by the amazing Ayn Rand, both spouses agreed.  She explained that this fit in perfectly with Objectivist thinking; that people could freely choose their own partners without concern for orthodoxy (like other relationships.)

Then in 1968 Nathaniel started an affair with a third woman.  Ayn found out.  She ejected Nathaniel from the collective, and stripped him of any ownership of "the Objectivist" and the Nathaniel Brandon Institute.  At a meeting of her followers, she told him "if you have one ounce of morality left in you, an ounce of psychological health—you’ll be impotent for the next twenty years! And if you achieve potency sooner, you’ll know it’s a sign of still worse moral degradation!"

Now, I think Rand can have any sort of relationship she likes.  But this is yet another example of her espousing objectivism, and following it only as long as it benefited her.  But as soon as it did not (i.e. it allowed Nathan to have sex with a third woman) she rejected it.

In a similar vein, she smoked most of her life.  When people asked her if she thought that was a good idea she would scold them for believing in the "unscientific and irrational nature of the statistical evidence" and assure them she would be fine.  Often she would then light up and wave the cigarette at them in defiance.  When she developed lung cancer, she quit smoking at her doctor's request, then refused to discuss it with any of her followers who asked about it.

These two examples are nothing unusual; such things happen all the time, as does her condemnation of Social Security and Medicare and later use of them.  But it does make me look at claims of how the story of her life reflect the magnificence of her work as more bloviation than reality.

Like I said before, objectivism is an interesting concept, one she explores in her books quite well.  But as a central moral philosophy, it would work in the world at large about as well as it worked for her - i.e. not very well.

[richravizza 25]

On 11/11/2021 at 9:43 AM, JerryBaumchen said:

:  What if you were not satisfied with your education,and your child's poor schooling outcome is obvious?

Why fix that which is not broken?

Hi Jerry,

 Unionized Public Education has a lot to be desired.That is unless, your fortunate like our Governor and have the cash for private education.A caste system ready made.

Besides the old Russian Institutional schooling model,of a box within a box,within the box is outdated.My point being, Our children shouldn't follow money,money should follow the child.

So we'll have to agree to disagree.

[wmw999 2,120]

40 minutes ago, richravizza said:

Our children shouldn't follow money,money should follow the child.

Tell that to seniors who say "we don't have any children in the schools, we shouldn't pay taxes." Along with the singles who say the same things, and people with kids in private schools.

I understand that schools aren't always turning kids out the way we'd like them to be; they're also getting kids in more and more who need more help than they used to, and who are getting less support from parents who aren't engaged, or don't have time.

My had some good and some bad teachers both in private and public schools.

Wendy P.

[gowlerk 1,905]

46 minutes ago, richravizza said:

My point being, Our children shouldn't follow money,money should follow the child.

Isn't that a call for socialism?

[JerryBaumchen 1,047]

1 hour ago, richravizza said:

Hi Jerry,

 Unionized Public Education has a lot to be desired.That is unless, your fortunate like our Governor and have the cash for private education.A caste system ready made.

Besides the old Russian Institutional schooling model,of a box within a box,within the box is outdated.My point being, Our children shouldn't follow money,money should follow the child.

So we'll have to agree to disagree.

Hi Rich,

I'm OK with that.  However, it does seem as though few people agree with you.

Something to consider there.

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,340]

If I've learned anything in the past two years, it's that a system that doesn't have some sort of coercion, some sort of reward for good behavior and punishment for bad behavior, then it's not going to work.

Far too many people are stupid, selfish and short sighted.

They are more concerned with getting their hair cut than they are about their neighbors dying from a contagious disease.

[richravizza 25]

 

6 hours ago, billvon said:

 

 

.

Go moral cut throat on her,that's the ticket. I'll agree she was human and a bitch.

Notice your history and knowledge about her has nothing to do with her childhood upbringing and the reasons for her motivation to write.Look deeper than 1926 and you'll get better perspective.

We as Individuals, are the smallest minority of any society.The threat to our sovereign individualism is collectivism.Simply,we must be vigilant or we lose ourself in favor of the group psychology and identity.In any group/collective we are subjected to these forces..The Gov't being the ultimate in collective power, essential in totalitarian society, the basis and reasoning for her work later works.

 A famous conformity experiment developed by Solomon Asch in the 1950s, provides stunning evidence of our willingness to follow the crowd — despite the evidence of our own eyes. Social proof, a powerful force in molding behavior, has become a political tool, amplified by social media, mainstream media and academia. But there's a simple remedy also revealed in the Asch conformity experiments that requires action by only one person — you.

 

Edited November 13, 2021 by richravizza

[richravizza 25]

1 hour ago, gowlerk said:

Isn't that a call for socialism?

It's called choice,a solution to a socialist system without options.