Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

If you want to see Rand's philosophy put forth in a novel that's actually a really good read, I recommend Faith of the Fallen, the sixth book in the Sword of Truth series. It's fantasy and has swords and magic and all that (I dunno if that's your thing or not), but starting with book 5 onward, what the author seemed really interested in conveying was his take on Objectivism. I read Faith of the Fallen and found it to be far far more powerful and emotionally moving than any of Rand's works. You do have to read the 5 books leading up to it, but they're all really good if you like fantasy.

I believe that Robert A. Heinlein too was a libertarian, and that it's evident in his books (can't vouch for it as I've never read him).

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

  • Replies 55
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted

You don't seem to understand Americans. Most don't want a nanny state.

Leaving aside the value judgement of a term like "nanny state"--which also means the death penalty and wars through deception, by the way, as they demand big, coercive government--your conclusion is not so certainly clear. Part of the reason American politics is so divisive (something I personally consider healthy, though many people keep insisting it is not) is precisely because so many American directly disagree with your viewpoint on their country. Universal, single-payer healthcare, for example, has long garnered a great deal of support. According to the pollster and the framing of the questions, it is popularly received with majority or minority support...but it's never vanishingly small. It's always significant numbers who would support it; far beyond the self-described "left."

So where do those Americans--maybe half, maybe a little less or more--fit into your firm decision of what Americans do or do not want? Don't they count?

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand.

--Josh Billings

Posted

You beleive that was the reason? The warning time was shortened by budget cuts to weather services.

Everyone was waiting with baited breath for the warning from weather services which never came?

I would have thought it'd be a no-brainer that better weather forecasting would improve the odds for survival for people in the path of a large tornado! That's why they have those air-raid sirens in the tornado alley zones to warn people to take cover. There has been a general agreement that April was that April spawned a record number of tornadoes, along with a record number of large category 4 and 5 tornadoes. The death toll of these record storms would have exceeded the previous records established in 1974 and 1925 if it wasn't for the forecasting and warning systems that have been put in place....and yet Republican congressmen from these southern states want to cut NOAA's budget in half, and reduce forecasting ability.

http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMasters/comment.html?entrynum=1796

On the contrary, you have lost sight of why a commons was created and think it should be adopted in all aspects of society.

The matter of how much resources and services should be held in common, should depend on the needs of a society, and not some arbitrary ideological dogmas. When America had a young population and lots of open land (after they killed and drove off the Indians of course) the pioneers who headed out west had to fend for themselves, so the individualistic ideology of libertarianism may have been appropriate. But, as more and more people moved in, they soon realized they needed effective policing, schools, fire prevention etc.. And then when women finally got the right to vote, they started the movement that played the major role to develop the welfare state that FDR had to adopt. Anyway, I know that is a pretty sweeping, superficial read of history, but the level and degree of government services depends on the needs of the society.

Looking back to the record tornadoes, record flooding on the Mississippi, and record droughts in Texas and Oklahoma, I'm wondering if a lot of these libertarians in the South, who are now reaping the results of climate change will start re-thinking their rigid ideology about limiting government.

World grain production is going towards energy production - ethanol. What a stupid idea that was.

No argument there from anyone besides corn-growers, since ethanol consumes more oil than it produces in energy. But, although ethanol and biofuel production has taken away from food production, most of the decline in recent years is coming from climate instability. Last summer, Russia alone, went from being the no.4 world grain producer to being almost totally wiped out by fires, extreme heat and drought. Similar droughts and floods have cut Australia's grain production by more than half of what it was 10 years ago. Now that America, the largest grain exporter, is getting hit with record droughts and floods, it's worth considering what a disaster for global food prices it would be if the U.S. grain harvests suffered similar disasters.

Taking steps to halt population growth and reduce world population would be the sensible step but governments can't afford the loss of revenues to fund their liabilities. They are trying to solve that problem with immigration but multiculturalism is a dismal failure.

Recently, a UN report dumped cold water on the rosy scenarios that world population would gradually stabilize on its own:

The United Nations again raised its world population projections within 90 years to reach 10.1 billion human beings on this already ecologically devastated planet. Humans add 10,000 babies net gain per hour, 240,000 per day and 80 million annually. Our species adds another 1.1 billion every 13 years.

All the while, we wreak havoc with all the other creatures on this planet as we destroy or encroach upon their habitat. Humans drive the “6th Extinction Session” at an astounding rate of 80 to 100 species every 24 hours. (Source: Norman Meyers, Oxford University, UK)

Every environmental calamity facing humanity in the 21st century stems from human overpopulation. A litany includes species extinction, polluted biosphere, toxified oceans, climate destabilization, melting polar caps, melting glaciers, dead zones, Great Pacific Garbage Patch, oil spills, 80,000 chemicals injected into the land, water and air 24/7, relentless litter, tree-cutting, advancing desertification, 18 million human starvation deaths annually and quality of life swirling the drain. On the political front, wars for water, oil and resources escalate.

Yet, not one world leader speaks about it. Not one U.S. leader stands up. Not one U.S. paper will address it. No one will mention the last taboo of the 21st century: human overpopulation.

http://www.officialwire.com/main.php?action=posted_news&rid=45695

Reproduction naturally slows down when higher standards of living are reached. Western natinos are not replacing themselves.

And, it would be nice if we could keep it that way, but the key factor is not average standard of living, but how many people are achieving the minimum standard. Even in the United States, the growing economic inequality is causing many in the poorest demographic to fall off the wagon into 3rd world living standards...and guess what -- U.S. birth rates are the highest among OECD countries! The biggest problem with birth rates in 3rd world countries is the fact that women have little if any control over how many children they will have thanks to prohibitions on birth control. With one exception - Iran, most of the Islamic-dominated societies and the new Christian theocracies in Africa are doing nothing to control population growth -- to their own detriment, as they can no longer provide enough food or clean water for their growing populations.

Who is compiling the sociological evidence? Governments? I don't know how you can read sites like the one you posted. It is so obviously political and so vaccuous on economics. It doesn't seem to pay any attention to the fact that there has to be something produced before they can even consider distributing.

No, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett make note of the necessity to provide a level of comfort for a society. The issue which they challenge the conventional wisdom of both liberals and conservatives is that there accumulated data gathered from around the world, shows there are limits to what can be accomplished through economic growth and prosperity. Once a society is beyond a basic living standard, the key issue becomes the relative equality and inequality within the society. Explaining the reasons for the results is more of a challenge, but Wilkinson believes that it must come from basic human nature which was formed during the times of hunter/gatherer societies, when hierarchies of luxury and power were impossible to create. Feudalism, Patriarchy, and class distinctions, including slavery, have only been with us since the Agricultural Revolution began, and in modern times, progressive movements have been trying to reduce and eliminate the harmful effects of all of these ugly traditions, while conservatives and religious fundamentalists want to bring them back with even more force!

Anybody who believers exponential growth can go on forever in a finite world is either a madman or an economist.

-- Kenneth Boulding,

1973

Posted

....and yet Republican congressmen from these southern states want to cut NOAA's budget in half, and reduce forecasting ability.

NOAA is part of the US Dept of Commerce....it does a lot more than "forcast" weather. Getting satellite weather imagery for Canada isn't cheap, and I wonder if you pay for it! ;)

Economics trumps Virtue. 

 

Posted

I believe that Robert A. Heinlein too was a libertarian, and that it's evident in his books (can't vouch for it as I've never read him).

Heinlein was an excellent writer. I enjoyed his books immensely. Don't know much about his politics and It has been a long time since I read any of his work but I would probably enjoy it as much today as I did then. "Stranger in a Strange Land" was really good. If you can "grok" that.

I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.

Posted

Leaving aside the value judgement of a term like "nanny state"--which also means the death penalty and wars through deception, by the way, as they demand big, coercive government--your conclusion is not so certainly clear. Part of the reason American politics is so divisive (something I personally consider healthy, though many people keep insisting it is not) is precisely because so many American directly disagree with your viewpoint on their country. Universal, single-payer healthcare, for example, has long garnered a great deal of support. According to the pollster and the framing of the questions, it is popularly received with majority or minority support...but it's never vanishingly small. It's always significant numbers who would support it; far beyond the self-described "left."

So where do those Americans--maybe half, maybe a little less or more--fit into your firm decision of what Americans do or do not want? Don't they count?

What do you mean by "divisive"? Just holding a different opinion on healthcare? Or challenging the Constitutional basis of the governments relation to it's citizens that fundamentally transforms the nation. The Constitution has been eaten away at since Lincoln. Some of the worst offenders were Rockefeller/Aldrich, Wilson, FDR, Johnson and now Obama.

Yes, the Americans want changes to health care but show me a poll that says there is majority support for a universal, single payer system. Maybe if the poll were conducted in a hospital emergency room you might see a majority.

There are indeed a growing number of Americans that want entitlements from the federal government in the form of health care, education, welfare, social security but the majority still realize they have a responsiblity toward their country and it's society and won't give up those repsonsiblities to government as they realize to do so will result in government dictating the terms of their existence.

I want to be in the class that ensures the classless society remains classless.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,852
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    Wap75
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Barquentine earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Radiorum earned a badge
      Posting Machine
    • Wap75 earned a badge
      First Post
    • A Freeman earned a badge
      Collaborator
    • Barquentine earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...