Democratic Congresswoman almost killed in Arizona

[bloodyminded]

Yes, she was all full of contradictions in her personal life, but even in her writing, her claim to fame is that she provides legitimacy for greed and self-interest, which were universally considered vices prior to her. Now every self-important billionaire from Trump to the Koch Brothers can pretend their John Galt, and are the real heroes of the story, instead of the villains. She turned the whole basis for morality upside down by trashing altruism, and fabricating her own substitute: "ethical egoism" as if this was something that could be internalized by a society and replace a basic lesson that parents try to teach their children when they're young: to not be selfish, and help others.

Rand was an extremist, philosophically, and her extremism goes well beyond what most people know of her.

At the time of her death, she was modeling a hero of a new novel after William Edward Hickman, a notorious kidnapper, armed robber...and child murderer.

She wasn't advocating child murder, granted; but there was somehting about such a 'masculine impulse" which thrilled her and fuelled her masculinist "Superman" fantasies.

Rand said that the exploits of this man "suggested" to her the glory of the Superman, whose ambitions were so great he cared nothing for anyone else, thanks to his "absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling" (self-evident negatives to Rand); another great plus for her character, explicitly generated from a man who cut off a 12-year-old girls legs and eviscerated her, was that "other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."

She is talking about a sociopath. That's not my overheated rhetoric; that's the very definition, and it is explicitly what she's advocating.

How people can admire such degenerate thinking astounds me. The lack of empathy, compassion, fellow-feeling as the hallmark of "the real man," as Rand gushes.

At any rate, I agree with you; she's awful and ugly enough without this added depravity.

Edited January 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[WIP]

Rand was an extremist, philosophically, and her extremism goes well beyond what most people know of her.

At the time of her death, she was modeling a hero of a new novel after William Edward Hickman, a notorious kidnapper, armed robber...and child murderer.

She wasn't advocating child murder, granted; but there was somehting about such a 'masculine impulse" which thrilled her and fuelled her masculinist "Superman" fantasies.

Rand said that the exploits of this man "suggested" to her the glory of the Superman, whose ambitions were so great he cared nothing for anyone else, thanks to his "absolute lack of social instinct or herd feeling" (self-evident negatives to Rand); another great plus for her character, explicitly generated from a man who cut off a 12-year-old girls legs and eviscerated her, was that "other people do not exist for him and he does not understand why they should."

I remember, feminist writers sure hated Ayn Rand back when she was still around. And sometimes, when I heard her interviewed, I wondered 'what's in it for you'. Her heroes are all men in her fiction, and even in her real life essays and talks. I remember her talking about what a great guy Alberto Stroessner - the late dictator of Paraguay was....had to wonder if she would have been fawning over Hitler and Mussolini earlier in life.

Her fawning over idealized masculine virtues and building a new kind of man, does seem to indicate that she was heavily influenced by Nietszche, who also disparaged altruism and created a 'superman' who was brave, confident, and serving his own interests. And, in Nietszche's case, he created a hero and a set of values that were everything he was not. He likely wished he was someone who would be feared and respected by others, but wasn't in his real life. May be a lot of similarities with Ayn Rand, creating heroes that are opposites of themselves.

[bloodyminded]

I remember, feminist writers sure hated Ayn Rand back when she was still around. And sometimes, when I heard her interviewed, I wondered 'what's in it for you'. Her heroes are all men in her fiction, and even in her real life essays and talks. I remember her talking about what a great guy Alberto Stroessner - the late dictator of Paraguay was....had to wonder if she would have been fawning over Hitler and Mussolini earlier in life.

Her fawning over idealized masculine virtues and building a new kind of man, does seem to indicate that she was heavily influenced by Nietszche, who also disparaged altruism and created a 'superman' who was brave, confident, and serving his own interests. And, in Nietszche's case, he created a hero and a set of values that were everything he was not. He likely wished he was someone who would be feared and respected by others, but wasn't in his real life. May be a lot of similarities with Ayn Rand, creating heroes that are opposites of themselves.

While I can see why the "Fuck you!", "America rocks!" sort of servile-patriotic faux-rebel type of conservative (Ted Nugent, etc) would get off on Ayn Rand--those who celebrate assholes as excellent human beings--I don't quite get why so many self-styled libertarian types admire her so much. My disagreements with libertarians aside, they tend more often than not to have a strong populist streak, believing that ordinary, everyday folks can take perfectly good care of themselves, thank you very much; it's an impulse with which I have some sympathy, despite my disagreements for other reasons.

Rand was nothing like this; as far as I can tell, she openly despised such an idea. She was an elitist by inclination, and was clearly drawn very strongly to power. (And I'm not talking about her personality, but her philosophy.) Her libertarianism is far more dank and sociopathic than most.

Edited January 25, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Oleg Bach]

America is in love with the thought of empire....and empire comes from the barrel of a gun as Mao once said. It is strange that in a culture where you look at our film art...that every advertisement for every second movie..has some twit holding a gun...This secularism spawns the God complex - so you have people that play god and are taught to do so by media - media run by irresponsible blood sucking jerks that will do and say just about anything to generate a buck! Look at the face of the crazed gun man....what do you see? Personally I see a thousand movies and video games lodged in his stupid robotic mind.

[WIP]

While I can see why the "Fuck you!", "America rocks!" sort of servile-patriotic faux-rebel type of conservative (Ted Nugent, etc) would get off on Ayn Rand--those who celebrate assholes as excellent human beings--I don't quite get why so many self-styled libertarian types admire her so much. My disagreements with libertarians aside, they tend more often than not to have a strong populist streak, believing that ordinary, everyday folks can take perfectly good care of themselves, thank you very much; it's an impulse with which I have some sympathy, despite my disagreements for other reasons.

I first came across Ayn Rand by way of Rush's 2112 album; which Neil Peart wrote in the liner notes that the concept was inspired by Rand. Unlike Nugent, who always acted like an asshole, even back before he was connected with rightwing causes, Neil Peart has always come across as a decent guy...so I never did get what he found so appealing in her novels.

Rand was nothing like this; as far as I can tell, she openly despised such an idea. She was an elitist by inclination, and was clearly drawn very strongly to power. (And I'm not talking about her personality, but her philosophy.) Her libertarianism is far more dank and sociopathic than most.

According to the nuances of her objectivist philosophy, Ayn Rand didn't consider Objectivism to be a libertarian philosophy, and spewed her bile at libertarians, whom she claimed were riding her coattails. To the casual observer, it all looks the same.

[Bonam]

I remember, feminist writers sure hated Ayn Rand back when she was still around. And sometimes, when I heard her interviewed, I wondered 'what's in it for you'. Her heroes are all men in her fiction, and even in her real life essays and talks. I remember her talking about what a great guy Alberto Stroessner - the late dictator of Paraguay was....had to wonder if she would have been fawning over Hitler and Mussolini earlier in life.

Actually the main protagonist in Atlas Shrugged (her most widely read book) is a woman. Not that Dagny Taggart bought her any points with the feminists.

While I can see why the "Fuck you!", "America rocks!" sort of servile-patriotic faux-rebel type of conservative (Ted Nugent, etc) would get off on Ayn Rand--those who celebrate assholes as excellent human beings--I don't quite get why so many self-styled libertarian types admire her so much. My disagreements with libertarians aside, they tend more often than not to have a strong populist streak, believing that ordinary, everyday folks can take perfectly good care of themselves, thank you very much; it's an impulse with which I have some sympathy, despite my disagreements for other reasons.

Rand was nothing like this; as far as I can tell, she openly despised such an idea. She was an elitist by inclination, and was clearly drawn very strongly to power. (And I'm not talking about her personality, but her philosophy.) Her libertarianism is far more dank and sociopathic than most.

Some libertarians admire her because she provides a philosophical basis for libertarian ideology. Libertarianism so far as I've explored it just talks about what kind of government it would like to see: small, and what that government should be limited to, and that things like personal responsibility are good, etc. These are kind of just put forth as propositions which are to be agreed upon by people who have similar leanings, and ignored by everyone else. Rand tries to develop a philosophical and moral basis for these kinds of ideas. Her beef with libertarianism is that it does not care much for philosophy, but just for politics and economics.

Now, a lot of people take issue with Rand's philosophy for many reasons, but at least she tried ;p Personally, while I certainly disagree on a variety of points, I believe there is merit in some of her writings. Particularly, when it comes to her description of morality as arising from man's nature as a rational being and her rejection of pure altruism as inherently immoral.

Now as for ordinary everyday folk being able to take care of themselves, I've seen nothing in Rand's writings that suggest that she "despised" this idea. Atlas Shrugged is full of descriptions of ordinary everyday folks working ordinary every day jobs providing for themselves and their families, and their performance of this function is glorified, not insulted. It is government/collectivist interference with these people (and her rich protagonists) that she rails against.

Edited January 27, 2011 by Bonam

[WIP]

Now, a lot of people take issue with Rand's philosophy for many reasons, but at least she tried ;p Personally, while I certainly disagree on a variety of points, I believe there is merit in some of her writings. Particularly, when it comes to her description of morality as arising from man's nature as a rational being and her rejection of pure altruism as inherently immoral.

Her rejection of altruism makes no sense, except as a way to justify her own selfishness and vanity. And in light of modern research on other animals, particularly our primate relatives, altruism is an intrinsic part of being human, and essential for any healthy society to function.

[Pliny]

Her rejection of altruism makes no sense, except as a way to justify her own selfishness and vanity. And in light of modern research on other animals, particularly our primate relatives, altruism is an intrinsic part of being human, and essential for any healthy society to function.

"....essential for any healthy society to function", I might agree with in a limited way but definitely not essential that government serves as the altruistic agency in monopoly. It will then demand altruism of it's citizens and for the following reason is unhealthy.

Altruism actually has a connotation of "self-sacrifice" for the benefit of others. In light of the fact that the individual has, out of his own self-determination, made those sacrifices, playing that card to gain sympathy is what makes it morally repugnant since it is a form of demanding that others make the same sacrifices, which may not be optimal for society at all. A nation falling all over itself in self-righteous altruism is headed nowhere.

[Bonam]

Her rejection of altruism makes no sense

It makes sense to me

[WIP]

It makes sense to me

I just got a reminder in my email from the Ayn Rand Institute about how ludicrous this enlightened self interest ideology is. This is what A.R.I. is offering for Valentine's Day:

The Selfish Path to Romance

Detailed Description

By Edwin A. Locke and Ellen Kenner

Preorder now for expected shipping in early February

Most people believe that finding love and making a relationship work involves sacrifice, and think that lasting passionate romance is the result of luck, chemistry, trial and error, or emotions of the moment. In the new book The Selfish Path to Romance, psychologists Edwin Locke and Ellen Kenner argue just the opposite. According to their view, real, lasting romance comes when you are certain about yourself, your needs and your worth, and is the result of thinking—including identifying the causes of your emotions—and being proactive about enhancing your relationship.

Inspired by Ayn Rand's belief that "it is one's personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love," The Selfish Path to Romance offers a mindful alternative to the contemporary view of love for those who are serious about finding and sustaining a lifetime romance.

(Softcover; 282 pages)

Now that's $16.00 I won't be wasting! Ayn Rand's personal selfish path to romance didn't go so well! I'm thinking that there are too many Ayn Rand disciples running around already that are only interested in their own selfish pursuits. Most of them don't realize that there is a philosopher that provides moral justification for their actions.

[WIP]

"....essential for any healthy society to function", I might agree with in a limited way but definitely not essential that government serves as the altruistic agency in monopoly. It will then demand altruism of it's citizens and for the following reason is unhealthy.

I'm a little clouded on what you mean here. If there is even a limited welfare state provided by government, that makes it an essential service. And why is it unhealthy for government or any agency to demand some level of social responsibility from its citizens? The right wing perspective that the only social safety net available should be based on private charity, places the poor in a precarious situation, as charitable giving drops during recessions, just when it is needed most. Is the rightwing solution to have the poor, who have no family support, to just go out and beg on the streets...and either survive or die based on what they are able to get for themselves? There are many people who would rather restore the progressive income tax system to what it was before the Mulroney "reforms", and have some peace of mind that there are not people falling through the cracks of the welfare state.

Altruism actually has a connotation of "self-sacrifice" for the benefit of others. In light of the fact that the individual has, out of his own self-determination, made those sacrifices, playing that card to gain sympathy is what makes it morally repugnant since it is a form of demanding that others make the same sacrifices, which may not be optimal for society at all. A nation falling all over itself in self-righteous altruism is headed nowhere.

Could you tell me why it is usually considered okay be rightwingers for churches and other religious institutions to push the importance of charity on their adherents, but it's not okay for government to do the same? Or why it is morally repugnant to get messages calling for support for the poor, but it's perfectly okay to highlight the examples of freeriders who have managed to manipulate the welfare system as an excuse for denying welfare to anyone?

[WIP]

To get back on topic:

Arizona massacre suspect to be tried for shooting Gabrielle Giffords and government staff before facing charges over other victims

As has been pointed out numerous times, interest in shootings and murders, and how seriously they are dealt with by authorities is dependent on how important the victims are; and you can bet that even Republican gun nuts are still quaking after a colleague on the other side of the aisle got shot. Peter King of New York, is a typical Republican, with no interest in gun control, but is trying to draft special legislation that will make it a crime to carry a gun within a certain vicinity of the political class. The right to bear arms is okay when they're running around your neighbourhood, but not near them.

Hopefully, that trial of Jared Loughner will also deal at least vicariously with the issue of how this and other past cases of crazy assassins have been motivated by over-the-top rightwing rhetoric. Most of the mainstream media in the U.S., including the major news networks and the NY Times, have been disgustingly spineless in failing to grill top Republican and conservative media leaders for their use of violent rhetoric and imagery in recent years.

Was the toxic rhetoric of the right a factor in motivating Jared Loughner? Lot's of circumstantial evidence says yes: he was targeting this Democratic Congresswoman for at least two years prior to the shooting; his incoherent rants about language, the Constitution, and currency, have their roots in libertarian writings; and unless we make a leap to the absurd, there's no doubt that he was aware of the use of violent rhetoric by political candidates, talk show hosts, and tea party spokesmen in recent times.

There are other shootings that have clearer links to the right, such as the gunman involved in the California highway shooting that was on his way to shoot up the hq of the Tides Foundation....an organization that was almost unknown outside of Glenn Beck's hysterical rants about them taking over the world; or the gunman who walked in to a Unitarian/Universalist church in Tennessee, and killed an usher before being disarmed of his gun...his home turned out to be a warehouse of rightwing popular literature from O'Reilly to Beck....and of all of the churches he wanted to take vengeance on, it happened to be about the most liberal church that can be found....quelle surprise!

[bloodyminded]

Someone should ask Sarah Palin, "How's that locky-loady thing workin' out fer ya?"

[Pliny]

I'm a little clouded on what you mean here. If there is even a limited welfare state provided by government, that makes it an essential service. And why is it unhealthy for government or any agency to demand some level of social responsibility from its citizens?

Firstly, by limited government I don't mean limited welfare. I mean governemnt is limited and is not engineering society at all.

Demanding a level of social respoinsibility violates the concept of the word society, let alone a free society. Any society is built upon common understandings among it's citizens. The understandings involve the well-being of the society and community. There is no society without co-operative voluntary participation. Government has no more right than anyone to "demand" a level of social responsibility to those who are co-operatively and voluntarily creating it in the first place. Introducing government force upon those actively involved in society means that people with little or no willingness to contribute to society or who may even destructive towards it can work against it.

Discussion, debate, disagreement are a healthy part of the evolutio of society but enforcement regarding how it should be is stifling of innovation and the evolutionary process.

The right wing perspective that the only social safety net available should be based on private charity, places the poor in a precarious situation, as charitable giving drops during recessions, just when it is needed most. Is the rightwing solution to have the poor, who have no family support, to just go out and beg on the streets...and either survive or die based on what they are able to get for themselves? There are many people who would rather restore the progressive income tax system to what it was before the Mulroney "reforms", and have some peace of mind that there are not people falling through the cracks of the welfare state.

Getting something for nothing is degrading. Having the government grant entitlements for nothing may garner votes for parties and politicians but does nothing for the self-respect and esteem of the recipient. It actually puts him only slightly above a class of people who demand things for nothing - they are called criminals.

There is nothing wrong with help or helping but there is something wrong with creating a dependency class who have come to believe entitlements are rights.

Could you tell me why it is usually considered okay be rightwingers for churches and other religious institutions to push the importance of charity on their adherents, but it's not okay for government to do the same?

Government uses force.

Or why it is morally repugnant to get messages calling for support for the poor, but it's perfectly okay to highlight the examples of freeriders who have managed to manipulate the welfare system as an excuse for denying welfare to anyone?

Because the welfare system is there to be manipulated. It encourages people to seek something for nothing and attracts those who operate that way.

No one is denying aid to those in need or who suffer catastrophe they are just denying them making an occupation out of being a professional victim. Their relations with others must give them some sense of worth. If they feel they cannot help anyone they feel useless, unimportant, stupid and lack self-esteem.

The level below that is when they don't care and is equivalent to being criminal.

Is this what you would want for them? They would like you better because you provide sympathy and support and you of course feel you are helping so you feel self-righteous about it.

So basically your welfare state is a method of degradation and control of individuals. But if it makes you feel good then I guess that's what counts.

[Pliny]

To get back on topic:

Arizona massacre suspect to be tried for shooting Gabrielle Giffords and government staff before facing charges over other victims

As has been pointed out numerous times, interest in shootings and murders, and how seriously they are dealt with by authorities is dependent on how important the victims are; and you can bet that even Republican gun nuts are still quaking after a colleague on the other side of the aisle got shot. Peter King of New York, is a typical Republican, with no interest in gun control, but is trying to draft special legislation that will make it a crime to carry a gun within a certain vicinity of the political class. The right to bear arms is okay when they're running around your neighbourhood, but not near them.

Hopefully, that trial of Jared Loughner will also deal at least vicariously with the issue of how this and other past cases of crazy assassins have been motivated by over-the-top rightwing rhetoric. Most of the mainstream media in the U.S., including the major news networks and the NY Times, have been disgustingly spineless in failing to grill top Republican and conservative media leaders for their use of violent rhetoric and imagery in recent years.

Was the toxic rhetoric of the right a factor in motivating Jared Loughner? Lot's of circumstantial evidence says yes: he was targeting this Democratic Congresswoman for at least two years prior to the shooting; his incoherent rants about language, the Constitution, and currency, have their roots in libertarian writings; and unless we make a leap to the absurd, there's no doubt that he was aware of the use of violent rhetoric by political candidates, talk show hosts, and tea party spokesmen in recent times.

There are other shootings that have clearer links to the right, such as the gunman involved in the California highway shooting that was on his way to shoot up the hq of the Tides Foundation....an organization that was almost unknown outside of Glenn Beck's hysterical rants about them taking over the world; or the gunman who walked in to a Unitarian/Universalist church in Tennessee, and killed an usher before being disarmed of his gun...his home turned out to be a warehouse of rightwing popular literature from O'Reilly to Beck....and of all of the churches he wanted to take vengeance on, it happened to be about the most liberal church that can be found....quelle surprise!

Yes, the right wing is very powerful and adept at mind control. They have the ability to poison stupid people's minds. The left are entirely at the mercy of the right wing.

The left are like leaves in the wind and do nothing. The rich laugh in their faces. The media quivers at the thought of Fox news and tremble at the ratings which is a result of manipulation and mind control of the stupid masses who believe anything.

Jared Loughner is a prime example of the evil they perpetrate upon the rest of society just to show others how powerful they are.

[Bonam]

I just got a reminder in my email from the Ayn Rand Institute about how ludicrous this enlightened self interest ideology is. This is what A.R.I. is offering for Valentine's Day:

The Selfish Path to Romance

Detailed Description

By Edwin A. Locke and Ellen Kenner

Preorder now for expected shipping in early February

Most people believe that finding love and making a relationship work involves sacrifice, and think that lasting passionate romance is the result of luck, chemistry, trial and error, or emotions of the moment. In the new book The Selfish Path to Romance, psychologists Edwin Locke and Ellen Kenner argue just the opposite. According to their view, real, lasting romance comes when you are certain about yourself, your needs and your worth, and is the result of thinking—including identifying the causes of your emotions—and being proactive about enhancing your relationship.

While finding love certainly involves trial and error, maintaining a successful relationship is certainly about both you and your partner making sure that both people's needs are fulfilled, being confident in your own identities, and using your brain to think about and analyze your emotions and decide how to properly act on them.

Inspired by Ayn Rand's belief that "it is one's personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love," The Selfish Path to Romance offers a mindful alternative to the contemporary view of love for those who are serious about finding and sustaining a lifetime romance.

Do you disagree? Of course it is one's personal happiness that one seeks, and in a good relationship, that happiness is found by making the other person happy as well. (Normal) People don't look for relationships to make themselves sad, or just to sacrifice to the other person, they look for happiness. Didn't realize that was news.

Now that's $16.00 I won't be wasting!

I wouldn't buy it either, based on the blurb it sounds like it is saying some pretty basic that should be self-evident anyway.

[WIP]

Firstly, by limited government I don't mean limited welfare. I mean governemnt is limited and is not engineering society at all.

The call for eliminating government regulation and limiting government, provides a convenient tool for corporations to do the regulating and social engineering! We have more misery and dysfunction in today's society from half a century of being used as tools for product marketing. Most people don't have clear explanations for why they need a newer, larger house at a time when their kids will be leaving home, if they're not gone already....the next excuse is "nest egg," and that nest egg is never big enough. Next comes the cars, or more correctly the urban tanks that most people want to drive around in today that get 10 miles per gallon. Then, there's the home theater...who the hell needs an HD TV? Or a TV that covers most of the wall of the average livingroom? And on and on and on until we get to clothing and personal products that are almost identical except for the brand name, and does everyone really need a cellphone these days? After I had mine stolen 10 years ago when my car was broken in to, I didn't bother replacing it and as long as there are still payphones out there I won't miss it.....so why do most people spend so much for so much crap, and never able to earn enough to buy everything they want?

The answer can be found at the same source that has left most people with too short attention spans to bother reading, or thinking for themselves. The most rigorously engineered members of our society are the church-going, gun-toting, libertarian followers of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck, and are marching off to the nearest Tea Party rally, so they can spend a hundred bucks to watch Sarah Palin babble some word-salad speech.....and they're worried about the Government and the Liberals taking away their freedoms! The only restraint on the ability of corporations to manipulate the consumer, has been taxation, independent public broadcasting, and laws and regulations to protect the consumer for exploitation. The goal of libertarian anti-government think is to kick away all of these protections, and put the consumer completely at the mercy of the unscrupulous marketer.

Demanding a level of social respoinsibility violates the concept of the word society, let alone a free society. Any society is built upon common understandings among it's citizens. The understandings involve the well-being of the society and community.

And the well-being of society will hinge largely on how equal that society is. The main reason third world societies are often violent and dysfunctional is because they range from extreme wealth to extreme poverty. The wealth class does not interact with the poor, except for their hired servants, and feels little more than hostility to them as they drive to their gated communities with security guards, and the poor have a strong motivation to go for broke and try to steal, rob or extort that wealth from the tiny, privileged rich class. And needless to say, after several decades of declining gaps in income, since 1980 the return of the income inequality is sending us in the direction of being a third world country.

There is no society without co-operative voluntary participation. Government has no more right than anyone to "demand" a level of social responsibility to those who are co-operatively and voluntarily creating it in the first place. Introducing government force upon those actively involved in society means that people with little or no willingness to contribute to society or who may even destructive towards it can work against it.

Do you volunteer your property taxes to your local government? If you refuse to pay your taxes and they end up foreclosing on your estate to pay back-taxes, they are going to send the police to haul you away if you don't leave of your own accord....and that doesn't sound very voluntary to me!

No doubt that many people on the margins of our society are free riders, and that's what really pisses off average taxpayers....so much that they are willing to accept policies to benefit the rich, just so they have a chance to punish those welfare bums! Anyway, didn't Jesus say something to the effect of 'the poor will always be with you?' Regardless, in any large, urban society there will be some who are, for a variety of reasons, unemployable. They may have developed severe drug or alcohol addiction problems and burned out. They may have developed severe clinical depression or some mental illness and become unemployable.....whatever, the cause, there are going to be people in our society who are not providing for themselves and require support from the rest of us. I would rather have the peace of mind to know that I live in a society that takes care of the poor, instead of leaving them to scrounge for something edible at the food banks, because general welfare and disability payments aren't keeping up with a minimum living standard in most cities today.

Getting something for nothing is degrading.

And here's an example of where rightwing rhetoric is self-contradictory. If living on welfare, including the psychiatric disabilities that most of the addicts and mentally ill eventually graduate to, is degrading, then that is the strong disincentive for living off the system right there! If their problems are just of a temporary nature, such as divorced or separated women who end up on mother's allowance, they are going to go back to work as soon as it's possible, just to have a decent income and to get away from the surveillance of social workers and move out of a subsidized home to have the freedom to choose where and what to live in.

Having the government grant entitlements for nothing may garner votes for parties and politicians but does nothing for the self-respect and esteem of the recipient. It actually puts him only slightly above a class of people who demand things for nothing - they are called criminals.

The criminals we have to worry about are the ones at the top of the pyramid, who have the money and power to rig the tax codes and other asset-protection laws to their advantage, and to grow ever-larger and more powerful corporations that buy politicians and own the media that we depend on for our information. This way of thinking is driven more by the desire to kick down people we see below us on the rungs of the social ladder, than to go after the ones who are significantly above us.

Government uses force.

If you talk to some devoutly religious fundamentalists who have left these "tithing" churches that gobble up 10%+ of their income after taxes, while they are under the spell of conniving preachers who demand 10% plus other special offerings, it feels just as forceful (perhaps more so) than anything the government does to them....because their whole social life has been consumed with being a member of that church, and besides, the government may be able to send you to jail, but they can't send you to hell.

Because the welfare system is there to be manipulated. It encourages people to seek something for nothing and attracts those who operate that way.

Dealt with above....no way to eliminate the free rider problem completely without causing undue pain and hardship to those most vulnerable.....which conservative social policies are doing right now btw....it's just kept out of sight and out of mind of the rightwingers.

No one is denying aid to those in need or who suffer catastrophe they are just denying them making an occupation out of being a professional victim. Their relations with others must give them some sense of worth. If they feel they cannot help anyone they feel useless, unimportant, stupid and lack self-esteem.

The level below that is when they don't care and is equivalent to being criminal.

Then, what you are doing is criminalizing poverty! There are people who may appear able-bodied and capable of working, but are essentially unemployable. You don't help someone's self-esteem by cutting off support. That is just going to be an incentive to them to become real criminals.

Is this what you would want for them? They would like you better because you provide sympathy and support and you of course feel you are helping so you feel self-righteous about it.

Do you consider the churchgoers who donate to shelters and food banks to be self-righteous? You can throw that charge at anyone who gives to charity. Nobody knows for sure how pure their own motivations are; but forcing the poor to depend on voluntary charity from better-off people is what the right is advocating; instead of giving us the peace of mind of living in a society that takes care of those on the margins.

So basically your welfare state is a method of degradation and control of individuals. But if it makes you feel good then I guess that's what counts.

My "welfare state" is what we had for a few brief decades until all of this conservative/libertarian crap started about "a rising tide raising all boats", and "free trade will increase everyone's living standards". It was a time when most people expected that the rich should pay more taxes, because they earn and are able to accumulate more wealth, and derive greater benefits from an orderly, well-managed society than any other demographic group; and that's the welfare state we need to return to.

But, people who are single-minded about focusing on gaining wealth, are (not surprisingly) very likely to turn out to be greedy bastards who want it all! So, they have created this new welfare state for the rich, that you apparently approve of! Freedom is more than a matter of legal rights and freedoms. Without an economic capacity to live beyond subsistence level, many of these freedoms are useless because they are only available to those with a significant amount of wealth. My welfare state has a government that can restrain corporate power from abusing the individual citizen.

[WIP]

While finding love certainly involves trial and error, maintaining a successful relationship is certainly about both you and your partner making sure that both people's needs are fulfilled, being confident in your own identities, and using your brain to think about and analyze your emotions and decide how to properly act on them.

Yes, but you're not following the logic of these Ayn Rand disciples. They didn't say anything about making sure that your partner's needs are fulfilled. They say: "lasting romance comes when you are certain about yourself, your needs and your worth," A lot of the relationship claptrap these days goes on about self-esteem and self-worth, and that's certainly important; someone with low self-esteem, who is looking for a partner to lift them up, is more likely to drag the other person down, but it takes more than that outside of Rand World.

Do you disagree? Of course it is one's personal happiness that one seeks, and in a good relationship, that happiness is found by making the other person happy as well. (Normal) People don't look for relationships to make themselves sad, or just to sacrifice to the other person, they look for happiness. Didn't realize that was news.

You seem to be reading a different book than the one that's quoted in this advert. They quote from Rand: "it is one's personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love," doesn't say anything about focusing on what makes the other person happy.

Where I think Rand philosophy really falls down here, just as much as in the economic realm, is what happens during hard times. In a long marriage, health is very likely to become a factor. How does focusing on personal, selfish, happiness provide the right way to act if your partner becomes ill for a prolonged period of time, or becomes disabled by illness? Following the selfish path to happiness by these 'survival of the fittest' thinkers means tossing them overboard if they become a burden, not following the "for better or for worse" portion of the wedding vows. But as we all know, that's what many people (usually the men) do these days when their partner's health declines.

[WIP]

Yes, the right wing is very powerful and adept at mind control. They have the ability to poison stupid people's minds. The left are entirely at the mercy of the right wing.

The left are like leaves in the wind and do nothing. The rich laugh in their faces. The media quivers at the thought of Fox news and tremble at the ratings which is a result of manipulation and mind control of the stupid masses who believe anything.

Jared Loughner is a prime example of the evil they perpetrate upon the rest of society just to show others how powerful they are.

Yes, nevermind the man behind the curtain!

TIME

Swampland Blog

Environmental Influence on Violent Psychotics

The media are now in full backlash against the idea that the alleged shooter in Arizona, Jared Loughner, was motivated to shoot Gabrielle Gifford by the violent content of the country's political discourse. Completely disassociating Loughner's violence from its political environment at this early stage is as wrongheaded as asserting a direct cause and effect between them.

The relationship between environment and violence in the mentally ill is poorly understood. That there is a relationship has been scientifically established. For example, a recent study by psychiatrists at Duke, Yale, Chapel Hill and Columbia found environmental factors like family conflict, joblessness and victimization, combined with paranoid ideation, increased violence among schizophrenics.

In an article on the study in Psychiatry News on July 7, 2006, one of the study's authors, Marvin Swartz, M.D. of Duke, said, “These findings reinforce the view that violence risk reduction should be an important goal and component of community-based treatment for schizophrenia and that risk reduction needs to focus on clinical as well as nonclinical factors that may contribute to violence.” (My emphasis). When people who are psychotic (either organically or through drug-use or a combination of the two) get violent, they can be reacting and responding in part to their environment.

Would Loughner have become violent in any event? We don't know what, if any, psychiatric problems Loughner has and whether they are organic, drug-fueled or both or neither. But let's say he is just a “nut”. That doesn't mean it's irrelevant that he was exposed to violent political rhetoric. On the contrary, precisely because environment is related to violence in psychotics the fact that his web postings include rantings about the constitution, currency and other hot political topics that have been tinged with violent rhetoric legitimately raises the possibility that his target was chosen in part because of the political environment. Put more simply, if you are a violent paranoiac and someone tells you someone else is a threat to you, you may believe them and act on it.

Does that mean Sarah Palin's targets caused Loughner to shoot Gabrielle Giffords? No. But it does mean he could have been influenced in the choice of his targets by those and many other politically violent messages combined with paranoid ideation. And there is a big difference whether violent psychopaths focus on political figures or not, because it brings violence into our national political life. Which is dangerous for everyone.

Read more: http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2011/01/10/environmental-influence-on-violent-psychotics/#ixzz1DD4Jp4H3

[Pliny]

The call for eliminating government regulation and limiting government, provides a convenient tool for corporations to do the regulating and social engineering!

Corporations? What will they do? How will they choose to regulate and engineer society? Will society be a big Disneyland?

We have more misery and dysfunction in today's society from half a century of being used as tools for product marketing. Most people don't have clear explanations for why they need a newer, larger house at a time when their kids will be leaving home, if they're not gone already....the next excuse is "nest egg," and that nest egg is never big enough. Next comes the cars, or more correctly the urban tanks that most people want to drive around in today that get 10 miles per gallon. Then, there's the home theater...who the hell needs an HD TV? Or a TV that covers most of the wall of the average livingroom? And on and on and on until we get to clothing and personal products that are almost identical except for the brand name, and does everyone really need a cellphone these days? After I had mine stolen 10 years ago when my car was broken in to, I didn't bother replacing it and as long as there are still payphones out there I won't miss it.....so why do most people spend so much for so much crap, and never able to earn enough to buy everything they want?

The answer can be found at the same source that has left most people with too short attention spans to bother reading, or thinking for themselves.

Is that the fault of TV and marketing? What would happen to government revenues if the economy weren't growing? They would have to turn to deficit financing and debt, I suppose. Who is it that likes to claim that because of their policies the economy is growing - People are employed, they are able to buy things they want, the standard of living is high or at least at pace with other first world nations.

The government attempts to keep the economy going. They have been working it since they took over monopoly of the creation of "money" in the form of fiat currency, which is just about the same time you say we started to develop misery and dysfunction.

The multitude of ramifications in society from government taking over the creation of money are not insignificant. They can now pay for wars and create entitlements for their citizens by just printing currencies. Now they don't even have to do that, they merely have to make an electronic entry on a balance sheet.

If their revenues do drop they will try and get the economy moving. Encouraging people to go shopping.

Bringing in cheap labour through immigration policies. Giving subsidies and bailouts to failing "corporations", that are just poorly managed businesses. Start wasteful make work projects.

The debt they create will be paid for by the next generation. Eventually, no matter what they do they can't get the economy going. They raise interest rates to keep borrowing down, squeezing those they earlier encouraged to buy now out of their homes, or they create inflation that decreases the purchasing power of the average citizen, hurting those on fixed incomes and minimum wages the most - the very people they so compassionately care about at voting time. They blame the greedy for wanting too much and none of their policies ever have an adverse effect on the economy, unless, of course, you are in an oppositon party which will always be more responsible and accountable than the currently governing party.

Meanwhile corporations have other avenues of riches to pursue from government policies. they will employ the cheap labour that government imports for them. They will outsource moving to other countries and avoid the high taxes or remain and take the subsidies offered.

No. The economy is built by government not corporations. Corporations are only concerned about being profitable. Either they are profitable because they are offering a service or product people need or want or government has sustained them by granting benefits or even a monopoly or a special place in the corporate structure.

The most rigorously engineered members of our society are the church-going, gun-toting, libertarian followers of Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, and Glenn Beck, and are marching off to the nearest Tea Party rally, so they can spend a hundred bucks to watch Sarah Palin babble some word-salad speech.....and they're worried about the Government and the Liberals taking away their freedoms! The only restraint on the ability of corporations to manipulate the consumer, has been taxation, independent public broadcasting, and laws and regulations to protect the consumer for exploitation. The goal of libertarian anti-government think is to kick away all of these protections, and put the consumer completely at the mercy of the unscrupulous marketer.

The government depends upon those "unscrupulous marketers" for their revenues and encourages them with favourable policies. I don't understand how the "consumer" is completely at their mercy. Are they holding guns at their heads to buy now? Is their marketing so overwhelming that they must buy now? In reality, the only way they can get the consumer to buy is with a price they will pay for the goods they want and if the government has an easy credit and/or an inflationary monetary policy. The message of an inflationary policy is; buy now before the price goes up. Is that possbily the message you find so objectionable?

And the well-being of society will hinge largely on how equal that society is. The main reason third world societies are often violent and dysfunctional is because they range from extreme wealth to extreme poverty. The wealth class does not interact with the poor, except for their hired servants, and feels little more than hostility to them as they drive to their gated communities with security guards, and the poor have a strong motivation to go for broke and try to steal, rob or extort that wealth from the tiny, privileged rich class. And needless to say, after several decades of declining gaps in income, since 1980 the return of the income inequality is sending us in the direction of being a third world country.

Your obsession with wealth and it's equal distribution is not uncommon among those who favour the redistirbution of wealth. Extreme wealth and extreme poverty are indeed common in third world countries.

Is that from corporations? I would say it is from their forms of government which are mostly dictatorial and corrupt.

It isn't income inequality that determines the well-being of a society. Look at Cuba for instance. Only a few politicians are very rich, Castro has billions, and the rest of the people are poor. Why aren't the poor uprising against their government?

The well-being of the society is in the hope of the future. Certainly oppression or purposefully limited opportunity, inequality of that nature, is a contributor to misery, not because someone else has more than he does. If he feels he is not held down and can work to better himself and his opportunities are open there is no problem. If one has hope of bettering himself and those people he feels are important in his life then he will rise to the level where he is comfortable or remain at the level of responsibility he is willing to assume.

Do you volunteer your property taxes to your local government? If you refuse to pay your taxes and they end up foreclosing on your estate to pay back-taxes, they are going to send the police to haul you away if you don't leave of your own accord....and that doesn't sound very voluntary to me!

Correct and that is the nature of government.

No doubt that many people on the margins of our society are free riders, and that's what really pisses off average taxpayers....so much that they are willing to accept policies to benefit the rich, just so they have a chance to punish those welfare bums! Anyway, didn't Jesus say something to the effect of 'the poor will always be with you?' Regardless, in any large, urban society there will be some who are, for a variety of reasons, unemployable. They may have developed severe drug or alcohol addiction problems and burned out. They may have developed severe clinical depression or some mental illness and become unemployable.....whatever, the cause, there are going to be people in our society who are not providing for themselves and require support from the rest of us. I would rather have the peace of mind to know that I live in a society that takes care of the poor, instead of leaving them to scrounge for something edible at the food banks, because general welfare and disability payments aren't keeping up with a minimum living standard in most cities today.

It really is a problem today, isn't it? Despite all the government efforts to fight a war on poverty, or illiteracy or drugs? At least you have noticed that the problems haven't disappeared or even improved with all the goveenment billions being spent.

And here's an example of where rightwing rhetoric is self-contradictory. If living on welfare, including the psychiatric disabilities that most of the addicts and mentally ill eventually graduate to, is degrading, then that is the strong disincentive for living off the system right there! If their problems are just of a temporary nature, such as divorced or separated women who end up on mother's allowance, they are going to go back to work as soon as it's possible, just to have a decent income and to get away from the surveillance of social workers and move out of a subsidized home to have the freedom to choose where and what to live in.

Social Workers don't want them to go back to work, get a decent income and get away from their surveillance. What would they do? Being a victim is not a disincentive to get off welfare. It is a way to keep them on welfare. By telling them they have nothing to do with where they find themselves in life, that they are just victims and it's all someone else's fault makes them helpless. It doesn't enable them to take any responsibility for their lives. The sympathy they get from the welfare state is just as addictive as any drug.

The criminals we have to worry about are the ones at the top of the pyramid, who have the money and power to rig the tax codes and other asset-protection laws to their advantage, and to grow ever-larger and more powerful corporations that buy politicians and own the media that we depend on for our information. This way of thinking is driven more by the desire to kick down people we see below us on the rungs of the social ladder, than to go after the ones who are significantly above us.

You cannot ever get ahead by just consuming. You have to produce. You cannot just demand entitlement to

your sustenance without ever giving back anything. Keeping what you earn is what is important. If no one is stealing it from you, and that is the role of government, to ensure safety of person and property regardless of race, gender, class, culture, religion, etc., then there is no problem. You just have to learn how you can best contribute to the welfare of others and you will reap the benefits of that or you can determine that being a victim is the best way to operate.

If you talk to some devoutly religious fundamentalists who have left these "tithing" churches that gobble up 10%+ of their income after taxes, while they are under the spell of conniving preachers who demand 10% plus other special offerings, it feels just as forceful (perhaps more so) than anything the government does to them....because their whole social life has been consumed with being a member of that church, and besides, the government may be able to send you to jail, but they can't send you to hell.

Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven, whiles, like some puffed and reckless libertine, himself treads the primrose path of dalliance. - Shakespeare.

Dealt with above....no way to eliminate the free rider problem completely without causing undue pain and hardship to those most vulnerable.....which conservative social policies are doing right now btw....it's just kept out of sight and out of mind of the rightwingers.

Economic circumstance has nothing to do with it, of course. When government revenues won't support the liabilites they have committed themselves to in the form of entitlements it is the slasher right wingers fault for shortfalls in spending. Policies like lower taxes and less government spending is indeed not common among the left. Some of the right likes to do that but they never seem to accomplish much.

Then, what you are doing is criminalizing poverty! There are people who may appear able-bodied and capable of working, but are essentially unemployable. You don't help someone's self-esteem by cutting off support. That is just going to be an incentive to them to become real criminals.

They need to make a contribution to society to restore their self-respect not demand support from it. Usually, once they are dependent, they make a contribution to the sub-culture of dependency by telling others how to extract the most out of the system.

Do you consider the churchgoers who donate to shelters and food banks to be self-righteous? You can throw that charge at anyone who gives to charity. Nobody knows for sure how pure their own motivations are; but forcing the poor to depend on voluntary charity from better-off people is what the right is advocating; instead of giving us the peace of mind of living in a society that takes care of those on the margins.

My "welfare state" is what we had for a few brief decades until all of this conservative/libertarian crap started about "a rising tide raising all boats", and "free trade will increase everyone's living standards". It was a time when most people expected that the rich should pay more taxes, because they earn and are able to accumulate more wealth, and derive greater benefits from an orderly, well-managed society than any other demographic group; and that's the welfare state we need to return to.

But, people who are single-minded about focusing on gaining wealth, are (not surprisingly) very likely to turn out to be greedy bastards who want it all! So, they have created this new welfare state for the rich, that you apparently approve of! Freedom is more than a matter of legal rights and freedoms. Without an economic capacity to live beyond subsistence level, many of these freedoms are useless because they are only available to those with a significant amount of wealth. My welfare state has a government that can restrain corporate power from abusing the individual citizen.

Corporations, unless they have privlege and entitlement from government, are at the mercy of consumers.

Today they do have privilege and entitlement from government because they supply it with it's revenues.

By employing people and selling their products and services. The consumer pays the taxes of corporations as it is on eo f the costs of production. Corporate taxes are basically consumer taxes.

Corporations don't make demands upon government without providing government a benefit in some respect.

You see the benefit as being corporate subsidies and special privileges but you don't see any benefit to government. It's in their revenues. Revenues generated from payroll taxes, sales taxes, corporate taxes, property taxes, employment, sub-industrial suppliers and their employment, payroll taxes and sales taxes, and property taxes, licensing, and regulatory fees.

The power of evil corporations is little. They do what they can to have competitive advantage and that all too often means bending over to get it from government.

[Bonam]

Yes, but you're not following the logic of these Ayn Rand disciples. They didn't say anything about making sure that your partner's needs are fulfilled. They say: "lasting romance comes when you are certain about yourself, your needs and your worth," A lot of the relationship claptrap these days goes on about self-esteem and self-worth, and that's certainly important; someone with low self-esteem, who is looking for a partner to lift them up, is more likely to drag the other person down, but it takes more than that outside of Rand World.

You seem to be reading a different book than the one that's quoted in this advert. They quote from Rand: "it is one's personal, selfish happiness that one seeks, earns and derives from love," doesn't say anything about focusing on what makes the other person happy.

While neither of us has read the book... you must consider how it is that one obtains this personal, selfish, happiness from love. Are you not made happy when you see your partner/spouse, whom you love, happy? In a healthy relationship, happiness, for each individual member of a relationship, comes from both being happy. Thus, to seek your own, personal, selfish, happiness, is to also seek your partner's happiness. Makes sense to me anyway. I'd say that also agrees with the descriptions of romantic relationships that Rand puts forth in Atlas Shrugged (the only one of her works that I have read), where each partner feels a sense of fulfillment when they do something for the other.

Where I think Rand philosophy really falls down here, just as much as in the economic realm, is what happens during hard times. In a long marriage, health is very likely to become a factor. How does focusing on personal, selfish, happiness provide the right way to act if your partner becomes ill for a prolonged period of time, or becomes disabled by illness? Following the selfish path to happiness by these 'survival of the fittest' thinkers means tossing them overboard if they become a burden, not following the "for better or for worse" portion of the wedding vows.

Well, it all depends on the situation. Typically, in a "long marriage", by the time health becomes a debilitating issue for one partner, both are likely to be pretty old. They have formed deep emotional connections. And, if the healthier partner did want to throw the less healthy one overboard, they'd quite possibly be unable to attract a different partner, or if they did, that new partner would be less likely to stick with that person when health problems begin to affect them too. The healthier partner should realize that their own health will not last forever either, and that it would be beneficial to stick with their existing partner so they can provide each other with the emotional support that arises from their long marriage and comfort with each other.

On the other hand, if one's partner gets struck down by an irreversible debilitating condition in their 30s, for example, the healthy partner may well be justified in exiting the relationship, as it is unlikely to make either individual particularly happy: the healthy one burdened by their disabled spouse and the disabled person feeling like a leech and a burden to the other.

But as we all know, that's what many people (usually the men) do these days when their partner's health declines.

And yet few of them (as of the population in general) are Rand readers or Objectivists. Seems this particular issue can't be blamed on Rand ;p

[WIP]

Corporations? What will they do? How will they choose to regulate and engineer society? Will society be a big Disneyland?

I don't know how closely you tie in with this conservative originalism that permeates rightwing talk in the U.S. these days, but I'm curious if you're aware of how strict the limits were for granting corporate charters in the newly created U.S. of A.? A proposed corporation had to provide a statement of intent to demonstrate how it would benefit the local community, and that charter was re-evaluated at regular intervals to determine if the corporation was meeting the obligations it had laid out. Corporations that had violated their terms of incorporation were dissolved. And corporations had a limited shelf life; they were not allowed to be created to exist forever, or until death through financial collapse as now. Over the decades, a succession of corporate-backed judges have knocked down one restriction after another, so that today, they have all of the rights of real persons, including free speech rights (through money apparently). Reclaim Democracy.org. Corporate Personhood

So, as a conservative, is this all okay by you? Are you fine with the continued growth of rights and power of artificial citizens, while the real ones are having their rights chipped away?

Is that the fault of TV and marketing? What would happen to government revenues if the economy weren't growing?

It's not growing much now, and if capitalism depends on year-over-year annual growth, then capitalism has to fall! I've raised this issue of limits to growth on environment threads, but the same problem exists here: our Earth isn't expanding to accommodate the wishes of a growing population with growing demand for resources. Both wishes are going to be denied in our near future, one way or another! The smart thing to do would be to start preparing now, instead of keeping this creaking old system going until it crashes.

They would have to turn to deficit financing and debt, I suppose. Who is it that likes to claim that because of their policies the economy is growing - People are employed, they are able to buy things they want, the standard of living is high or at least at pace with other first world nations.

Maybe you don't consider it something to be concerned about, but the fact that 20% of the world's population uses 80% of its resources, while 80% of the world's people use 20% is neither fair nor something that can continue on indefinitely without some blowback.

Meanwhile corporations have other avenues of riches to pursue from government policies. they will employ the cheap labour that government imports for them. They will outsource moving to other countries and avoid the high taxes or remain and take the subsidies offered.

A government that was willing to take a stand against globalization could have done it from the outset. Today, any government that threatens to pull out of GATT and other special free trade side deals is threatened with monetary collapse to keep playing ball. We have a world that the corporations built - where they exercise the real power over commerce and any governments that deny them are dealt with by the armies of their supporting governments.

Your obsession with wealth and it's equal distribution is not uncommon among those who favour the redistirbution of wealth. Extreme wealth and extreme poverty are indeed common in third world countries.

Is that from corporations? I would say it is from their forms of government which are mostly dictatorial and corrupt.

You didn't know this? Most third world countries' natural resources are owned by large multinational corporations. The nationalized companies, like some national oil companies, still have to play ball with the internationals to get their product to market. And, as we are finding out in all of the revelations on Egypt, regarding Mubarak and U.S. and European attempts to hand-pick his successor (this war criminal - Suleiman), most of the world's poor nations have some despot who is supported by the U.S. Regardless of all of the bleating about Saddam being a dictator, and restoring democracy to Iraq, in truth neither the U.S., nor other major Western powers and their multinational corporate interests, have any intentions of allowing democratic uprisings to overtake their chosen autocrat. Wikileaks revelations tell us that the U.S. State Dept. engineered the military coup in Honduras, against the democratically elected government for going against the agribusiness interests who own most of the nation's land. There's no mystery about who is working for whom in international intrigue!

It isn't income inequality that determines the well-being of a society. Look at Cuba for instance. Only a few politicians are very rich, Castro has billions, and the rest of the people are poor. Why aren't the poor uprising against their government?

Don't know much about Cuba, but you need to explain to me why free trade, reduced taxation and deregulation hasn't resulted in prosperity for all -- the dramatic increase in income gaps here and in the U.S., looks the wealth gap in most third world countries; and the failure of these policies to bring the results they promised 30 years ago is one of the big reasons why I fell off the rightwing bandwagon.

The well-being of the society is in the hope of the future. Certainly oppression or purposefully limited opportunity, inequality of that nature, is a contributor to misery, not because someone else has more than he does. If he feels he is not held down and can work to better himself and his opportunities are open there is no problem. If one has hope of bettering himself and those people he feels are important in his life then he will rise to the level where he is comfortable or remain at the level of responsibility he is willing to assume.

The system is designed now to entrench wealth and even keep it in the same wealthy families, not to provide equal opportunities for all. One of the big reasons why this upward mobility as you present it should be in the fiction section, is that the real numbers are showing that upward mobility in the U.S. has declined dramatically over the last 20 years...just as all of these wonderful market and tax reforms have taken place. In a report put out last year that found upward mobility higher in Germany than in the U.S., one of the big reasons cited as a likely cause was the decline in public education in the U.S. All across America, local governments are cutting public school funding in low income neighbourhoods, as well as jacking up university tuition that even put state universities out of reach for all but the children from wealth and privilege. It's both sad and ironic that conservatives in the U.S. were working themselves into a frenzy about the 100 anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth....this same Reagan, as Governor of California, ended the policy of free university tuition at the Cal. State Universities. It's hard to believe now, that California, and some other states as well, were actually offering free post-secondary education, but that is a snapshot of why America went from a nation of declining income gaps after WWII to one now that is essentially at third world standards.

It really is a problem today, isn't it? Despite all the government efforts to fight a war on poverty, or illiteracy or drugs? At least you have noticed that the problems haven't disappeared or even improved with all the goveenment billions being spent.

I live among them, do some volunteer work with them, and even have in-laws on the system, so yes I do know, and I know that most of them that can't or don't want to go back to work have a lot of things wrong with them that make them essentially unemployable anyway. The next question is: do we continue to offer a minimal support (which isn't much btw) or do we do like the social darwinists advise and cut them off to fend for themselves? It takes more than complaining about people on welfare, I want to hear what you would do about them.

Social Workers don't want them to go back to work, get a decent income and get away from their surveillance. What would they do? Being a victim is not a disincentive to get off welfare. It is a way to keep them on welfare. By telling them they have nothing to do with where they find themselves in life, that they are just victims and it's all someone else's fault makes them helpless. It doesn't enable them to take any responsibility for their lives. The sympathy they get from the welfare state is just as addictive as any drug.

Do you have any idea how overloaded with cases the average social worker is? You think they're starving for business or something? They have lots of cases to deal with, so they are not going to try to stop someone from going back to work; that is totally absurd and beyond ridiculous.

You cannot ever get ahead by just consuming. You have to produce. You cannot just demand entitlement to

your sustenance without ever giving back anything. Keeping what you earn is what is important. If no one is stealing it from you, and that is the role of government, to ensure safety of person and property regardless of race, gender, class, culture, religion, etc., then there is no problem. You just have to learn how you can best contribute to the welfare of others and you will reap the benefits of that or you can determine that being a victim is the best way to operate.

This homily doesn't have anything to do with my question about what to do with the wealthiest members of society. Is it wrong to apply higher taxation rates, or apply an estate tax so that not all of the loot goes to their idiot children after they die? This is how aristocracies are maintained.

[bush_cheney2004]

...It's both sad and ironic that conservatives in the U.S. were working themselves into a frenzy about the 100 anniversary of Ronald Reagan's birth....this same Reagan, as Governor of California, ended the policy of free university tuition at the Cal. State Universities....

No, it's just very American, as several revered US presidents are celebrated in this way. I realize how important the American experience, conservative or otherwise, is to your position on such matters, but please try to understand the entire context when in wannabe mode.

[Shady]

Someone should ask Sarah Palin, "How's that locky-loady thing workin' out fer ya?"

Definitely! As long as somebody asks Obama how that "they bring a knife, you bring a gun" thing is working out fer ya?

No, it's just very American, as several revered US presidents are celebrated in this way. I realize how important the American experience, conservative or otherwise, is to your position on such matters, but please try to understand the entire context when in wannabe mode.

Please forgive his complete ignorance. It's probably the first time he's paid attention to them. So the other similarly celebrated anniversaries for other President's probably went totally unnoticed. It's the typical anti-American, leftwinger Canadian.

[WIP]

While neither of us has read the book... you must consider how it is that one obtains this personal, selfish, happiness from love. Are you not made happy when you see your partner/spouse, whom you love, happy? In a healthy relationship, happiness, for each individual member of a relationship, comes from both being happy. Thus, to seek your own, personal, selfish, happiness, is to also seek your partner's happiness. Makes sense to me anyway. I'd say that also agrees with the descriptions of romantic relationships that Rand puts forth in Atlas Shrugged (the only one of her works that I have read), where each partner feels a sense of fulfillment when they do something for the other.

I didn't find the relationships in any of Ayn Rand's stories to be very realistic. They come across as idealized heroes or villains. But it was smart of her to use fiction to get her philosophical arguments across to the wider audience. One of the podcasts that I collect is the weekly radio show from Minnesota Atheists. This past episode featured philosopher Nick Pease (if I'm spelling the name right) who is an existentialist, and makes the point that fictional presentations by existential philosophers, such as "Waiting For Godot," had much more influence than the dry, technical stuff written to be debated with other philosophers.

Well, it all depends on the situation. Typically, in a "long marriage", by the time health becomes a debilitating issue for one partner, both are likely to be pretty old. They have formed deep emotional connections. And, if the healthier partner did want to throw the less healthy one overboard, they'd quite possibly be unable to attract a different partner, or if they did, that new partner would be less likely to stick with that person when health problems begin to affect them too. The healthier partner should realize that their own health will not last forever either, and that it would be beneficial to stick with their existing partner so they can provide each other with the emotional support that arises from their long marriage and comfort with each other.

I've seen a lot of old farts take off when their wife becomes debilitated, because as they get older, the more women are available to the old guys that are still around. It is much more common, than the other way around. Most women even feel obligated to play 24 hr nurse rather than put the old coot in a nursing home.

On the other hand, if one's partner gets struck down by an irreversible debilitating condition in their 30s, for example, the healthy partner may well be justified in exiting the relationship, as it is unlikely to make either individual particularly happy: the healthy one burdened by their disabled spouse and the disabled person feeling like a leech and a burden to the other.

Sounds like pure social darwinism. I guess this is why I feel making selfishness a virtue is wrong, and the opposite of how people should be encouraged to behave. Selfishness and hedonism come naturally and don't need encouragement. When children are young, teaching them to share and to consider the feelings of others is what takes effort. If the hypothetical 30 year old Randian gets some debilitating illness, they might feel as if there marriage has been a sham all along.....and maybe it has!