Cult of Ayn Rand: The Worship of Fascist Supermen
Sound of Trumpet
http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/02/24/cult-of-ayn-rand-the-worship-of-fascist-supermen.htm
Cult of Ayn Rand & the Worship of Fascist Supermen
Objectivism and Libertarianism owe a great deal to the writings of Ayn
Rand and both are typically associated with belief in expansive
degrees of personal liberty. It is arguable, though, that Ayn Rand's
writings exhibit a disturbing fascination of and interest in more
fascist attitudes towards humanity and human social relations.
Johann Hari writes:
She explained her philosophy at first through pot-boilers like
‘The Fountainhead’. One of her heroes boasts that he is the polar
opposite of Robin Hood: “He was the man who robbed the rich and gave
to the poor. I’m the man who robs the poor and gives to the rich, or
to be more exact, the man who robs the thieving poor and gives back to
the productive rich.” If you want a sign of Rand’s quiet victory,
close your eyes and realise this could be Dick Cheney in one of his
more candid moments, explaining the logic behind his massive tax cuts
for the wealthy.
Rand’s morality was a perfect fit for the age of the celebrity
billionaire. She conjures a world where the CEO is Messiah, where the
sign of the Cross is replaced with the sign of the dollar, and where
hideous penis-proxies like Trump Towers are the pinnacle of human
achievement. In her novel ‘Atlas Shrugged’, the world’s billionaires –
the Ted Turners and Donald Trumps – go on strike in protest against
the “insane regulations” and “exorbitant tax” handed down from
Washington D.C. The country quickly regresses into anarchy, with
businesses collapsing, food distribution networks falling apart, and
America becoming a wasteland – until finally the grateful populace
welcomes back their economic Overlords and promises to never again
pester them with wild notions like taxation or regulation.
And:
Whittaker Chambers famously wrote in the National Review, “Just as
her operatic businessmen are, in fact, Nietzschean supermen, so her
ulcerous leftists are Nietzsche’s ‘last men’, both deformed in a way
to sicken the fastidious recluse of Sils Marnia… [In her vision]
resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can
never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent
from revelation so final can only be willfully wicked. There are ways
of dealing with such wickedness, and , in fact, reason itself enjoins
them. From almost every page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard,
from painful necessity, commanding, “To a gas chamber – go!”” [...]
While Rand is (rightly) appalled when the state kills people, she
considers businessmen taking risks with the lives of ordinary people
or government bureaucrats to be actually heroic. In ‘Atlas Shrugged’,
the heroic Nat Taggart “murdered a state legislator who attempted to
revoke a charter granted to him” and (ho, ho) “he had no trouble with
legislators from then on.” And that’s not all: “He threw down three
flights of stairs a distinguished gentleman who offered him a loan
from the government.” Anybody who tries to impose regulations to
protect ordinary workers is “a louse”. This is partly because she
really does seem to see the rich as more deserving of life than the
poor. She refers to the rich as “really alive”, while ordinary people
are described variously as “savages”, “refuse”, “inanimate objects”,
“imitations of living beings”. Who cares if the Ubermenschen take
risks with these creatures? Who needs regulation?
The Nazis found the dehumanizing Jews made it easier to kill them;
dehumanizing others is often the first step in their elimination:
Indeed, her contempt for ordinary people extends so far that when
a railway worker in ‘Atlas Shrugged’ decides to punish the wicked
socialist government by making a train crash happen, Rand implies the
passengers had it coming. She runs through the politics of the train
crash victims, implying they were accessories to the socialist
government that is being justly punished: “The man in Bedroom A, Car
No One, was a professor of sociology who taught that individual
ability is of no consequence, that everything is achieved
collectively, that it’s the masses that count, not men… The woman in
Roomette 10, Car No 3, was an elderly school teacher who who spent her
life turning class after class of helpless schoolchildren into
miserable cowards, by teaching them that the will of the majority is
the only standard of good and evil, that they must not assert their
personalities, but do as others were doing.” And so endlessly on,
through over a dozen deserving victims. “There was not a man aboard
the train who did not share one or more of their ideas,” she notes –
so let them burn.
Elizaberry writes:
[I]n the end what Ms. Rand describes are aliens. They are not
honestly human. The "bad guys" are so relentlessly incompetent and
wrong in every choice. The heroes, despite their insistent on the
rational/objective/concrete, experience an almost psychic bond
symptomized with heart palpitations, swooning, a reeling of the mind;
very romantic, this idealist meets idealist. [...]
I'm afraid her recommendations of no government oversight work
only with CHARACTERS, not people. She can recommend no governing body
for these paperdolls because they are firmly in her control. She can
suggest no laws regarding commerce, because as the author, SHE herself
is the law guiding her heroes to ethical business transactions.
Perhaps Rand and her followers have never realized this because they
don't realize that real people aren't characters — their ideas about
human beings are more caricatures than real-life understandings about
how real-life people work.
Michael Gordge
wrote:
> Objectivism and Libertarianism owe a great deal to the writings of Ayn
> Rand and both are typically associated with belief in expansive
> degrees of personal liberty.
Objectivists identify life as a self-generating self-sustaining form
of existence, you breath your air for you, you digest your food for
you, your energy can only be engaged by your mind, you therefore are
the owner of the results of your energy.
You will note there is no mention of liberty in the basic premise of
objectivism, but rather your liberty is only a corollary of the above
premise.
MG
Arindam Banerjee
wrote:
> http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/02/24/cult-of-ayn-rand-the-worship-of...
Rand's cartoon characters can only infuriate the genuine genius. I
suspect that Rand was merely a tool in the hand of the anti-
individualists, or the communists, to make the truly talented
individualists look silly, mean and incompetent - forced into a
ridiculously misfitting garb of selfish brattiness! Parasites,
feeding off the geniuses they exploit, must love Rand.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
raven1
Rand has been aptly described as "Nietzsche for idiots".
Michael Gordge
> Rand has been aptly described as "Nietzsche for idiots".
Only by idiots.
MG
Puppet_Sock
wrote:
[snip]
> Whittaker Chambers famously wrote in the National Review, “Just as
> her operatic businessmen are, in fact, Nietzschean supermen, so her
> ulcerous leftists are Nietzsche’s ‘last men’, both deformed in a way
> to sicken the fastidious recluse of Sils Marnia… [In her vision]
> resistance to the Message cannot be tolerated because disagreement can
> never be merely honest, prudent, or just humanly fallible. Dissent
> from revelation so final can only be willfully wicked. There are ways
> of dealing with such wickedness, and , in fact, reason itself enjoins
> them. From almost every page of Atlas Shrugged, a voice can be heard,
> from painful necessity, commanding, “To a gas chamber – go!”” [...]
When a review is this drastically stupid, one has to wonder if
the reviewer actually read the same book. Or is the reviewer
simply retarded in some fashion, possibly afflicted with some
kind of aphasia that prevents him from actually understanding
what is going on. Possibly, before evaluating such writing, we
would need to find out if the reviewer is allowed to run around
free, or if they tie him up to keep him from hurting himself.
Certainly it would be seriously surprising if Sound of Trumpet
had ever opened the book.
The villains in AS were the people who could not tolerate dissent.
The heroes, when people disagreed with them, simply backed
off and went someplace else. You don't agree with me? You
don't want to deal with me on terms I find acceptable? Ok,
I'll go away from you and not bother you any more. Indeed,
a big part of the dramatic hook of the first half of the book is,
where the hell are all these people disappearing to?
The villians used torture, imprisonment, and even weapons of
mass destruction. And open threats of same, backed up by
the police and the army. Plus blackmail, and all the other
methods one associates with a criminal gang.
The heroes used words, and when people didn't agree, they
went away. It was one of the things the villains hated the
most, when these industrialists kept packing up and
disappearing.
Then again, maybe the reviewer understands it quite well, and
is simply telling lies in attempts to mislead people. That would
certainly be consistent with Sound of Trumpet.
Socks
Errol
You are not actually saying anything other than opposing the point
that Rand's hero's were fascist supermen. Are you a sock-puppet for
Ayn?
Zerkon
> Rand’s morality was a perfect fit for the age
... in which the US was. Pre/post WWII soft propaganda.
Vilification of this sort serves no purpose and once again trotting out
Nazis given what is going on today is the height of obscene hypocrisy if
there is 'height' to it.
Art is never about what the artist thinks, it is what the audience feels
it to be. This is what 'makes' art.
When I read her, many moons ago during yet another US age, her stories
had little to nothing to do with economics but with status quo vs
independent thinking. The take away virtue was having courage in one's
own beliefs. Status quo was every bit a part of being rich as being any
thing else. But that was just me and some of a 'us' at that time.
Now today, I see here we have Nietzschean Nazi supermen and their gas
chambers, fascists, and anti-Robin Hoods which I can only guess is a bit
of cross marketing freedoms. So, Rand is read by yet another age, this
age, but only through imagery of other ages so...
> While Rand is (rightly) appalled when the state kills people
... this Age Of Innocence remains (wrongly) intact.
raven1
LOL. It's so much fun to watch Randroids blow a circuit board when
anyone dares criticize their deity.
Michael Gordge
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
>
> >On Jun 10, 9:43 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> >> Rand has been aptly described as "Nietzsche for idiots".
>
> >Only by idiots.
>
> LOL. It's so much fun to watch Randroids blow a circuit board when
> anyone dares criticize their deity.
Ewe have shown no ability to criticize Rand, ewe only ever regurgitate
the nasal chants of other envy ridden Randophobic retards.
MG
Arindam Banerjee
Genuine idiots would not have heard of Nietzsche, or even Rand. Rand
is "Nietzsche for scum" to such successful or aspiring scum who have
heard of both. The evil in Rand, is attractive. Nietzsche was a guy
who wanted German women to cook and sing well.
Cheers,
Arindam Banerjee
raven1
You're not helping your cause with your bizarre affectations.
John Stafford
>Ewe have shown no ability to criticize Rand, ewe only ever regurgitate
>the nasal chants of other envy ridden Randophobic retards.
Gordge is really stuck on his ewes. Why he doesn't go back to sheep
herding.... oh, maybe he's been banned for perverse activities....
Puppet_Sock
Lessee here. You are clearly suffering from a lack of ability
to comprehend.
Fascist is not compatible with going away when somebody
disagrees with you. So you are quite wrong. I'm giving very
hard examples of where the heroes are not fascist, and the
villains are. So your reply is pretty much devoid of rational
discourse from the start.
As to being supermen: You say that like it was a bad thing.
It would be a neat trick to be a sock-puppet for somebody
who has been dead since 1982. Mayhap you don't quite
get the idea of what being a sock-puppet entails.
Maybe you are a sock-puppet for Sound of Trumpet?
Socks
Puppet_Sock
wrote:
[snip]
> Rand's cartoon characters can only infuriate the genuine genius.
I suppose you got a genuine genius to help you sound out the words.
Socks
David Johnston
<puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Fascist is not compatible with going away when somebody
>disagrees with you.
Neither is reality. That was a fantasy of course. Rand wasn't
seriously suggesting that industrialists could just leave the world
behind and set up their own autarchy which would magically summon up
all the labour and raw materials needed to run a futuristic utopia.
The point was not to explain how they set up their utopia, it was to
indict modern society at large for being ungrateful bastards to
capable rich people.
That being said, was Rand fascist? Of course not. The central
defining element of fascist is hyper-patriotism and Rand had none of
that. While in a Randite paradise union organizers would be jailed as
would anyone who proposed introducing environmental regulation, Rand
would never have proposed that the purpose of everything is to
strengthen the military.
tg
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:40:22 -0700 (PDT), Puppet_Sock
>
Really? Then who would have done the jailing of the union organizers?
-tg
John Stafford
David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:40:22 -0700 (PDT), Puppet_Sock
> <puppe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Fascist is not compatible with going away when somebody
> >disagrees with you.
>
> [...]
> The point was not to explain how they set up their utopia, it was to
> indict modern society at large for being ungrateful bastards to
> capable rich people.
Rather a Palin move, no? Just say "quit".
David Johnston
wrote:
Rand also would not have proposed not having a military. In a
fascism, private enterprise exists to serve the military. In an
objectivist utopia the reverse is the case.
*Anarcissie*
>
Mussolini, in summing up fascism, said "Everything within the state;
nothing outside of the state; nothing against the state." There is
nothing about nationalism in his definition. As it happens
nationalism
was usually associated with classical fascism, but other organizing
principles would do as well -- racism, religion, class. The world
offers examples of all three. The important thing is the total
absorption of all life in the state. This is something Rand claimed
to be diametrically opposed to.
Although Rand's style is rather totalitarian, her conclusions are
pretty much standard-issue liberalism. I don't see why union
organizers or environmentalists would be jailed -- both kinds
of activity are thoroughly covered by the standard liberal
rights of private property, personal freedom, freedom of
expression, association and assembly, contract, and so
forth.
Michael Stemper
>On Jun 11, 10:52=A0am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> That being said, was Rand fascist? =A0Of course not. =A0The central
>> defining element of fascist is hyper-patriotism and Rand had none of
>> that. =A0While in a Randite paradise union organizers would be jailed as
>> would anyone who proposed introducing environmental regulation, Rand
>> would never have proposed that the purpose of everything is to
>> strengthen the military. =A0
>
>Really? Then who would have done the jailing of the union organizers?
The Market!
--
Michael F. Stemper
#include <Standard_Disclaimer>
This email is to be read by its intended recipient only. Any other party
reading is required by the EULA to send me $500.00.
tg
Come on, you are a better student of history than that! Unions only
work when the State empowers them.
-tg
tg
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:23:30 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
I can only assume you are trying to be ironic, since that statement is
just silly. I often have trouble with my irony in this forum; it
really does have to be obvious or people don't get it.
-tg
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jun 11, 12:57 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
No irony, except perhaps in my characterization of it as a utopia. In
a real Randite utopia nobody would even consider trying to form a
union.
David Johnston
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 11, 10:52 am, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:40:22 -0700 (PDT), Puppet_Sock
>>
>> <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >Fascist is not compatible with going away when somebody
>> >disagrees with you.
>>
>> Neither is reality. That was a fantasy of course. Rand wasn't
>> seriously suggesting that industrialists could just leave the world
>> behind and set up their own autarchy which would magically summon up
>> all the labour and raw materials needed to run a futuristic utopia.
>> The point was not to explain how they set up their utopia, it was to
>> indict modern society at large for being ungrateful bastards to
>> capable rich people.
>>
>> That being said, was Rand fascist? Of course not. The central
>> defining element of fascist is hyper-patriotism and Rand had none of
>> that. While in a Randite paradise union organizers would be jailed as
>> would anyone who proposed introducing environmental regulation, Rand
>> would never have proposed that the purpose of everything is to
>> strengthen the military.
>
>Mussolini, in summing up fascism, said "Everything within the state;
>nothing outside of the state; nothing against the state." There is
>nothing about nationalism in his definition.
In the same way that I mentioned nothing about nationalism in my post.
Read it again. The word "nationalism" appears nowhere in it.
>Although Rand's style is rather totalitarian, her conclusions are
>pretty much standard-issue liberalism. I don't see why union
>organizers or environmentalists would be jailed -- both kinds
>of activity are thoroughly covered by the standard liberal
>rights of private property, personal freedom, freedom of
>expression, association and assembly, contract, and so
>forth.
Unions require picket lines which constitute coercion of employers to
try to pressure them into paying their workers more than they are
worth. An environmentalist who merely publicized the consequences of
environmental irresponsibility to convince people that it was in their
advantage to not pollute would be fine, but an environmentalist who
tried to introduce regulation would once again be engaging in
coercion.
tg
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 10:47:43 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
If the military serves the corporation, then the corporation is the
government. And then you have fascism.
As I said, your statement is just silly.
-tg
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jun 11, 2:48�pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
That isn't fascism.
tg
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 12:28:22 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
Maybe it is Scottish Fascism. Complete with kilts and no underwear.
*Anarcissie*
You mean when it _specially_ empowers them?
If that were true, then it would be unnecessary for
governments to enact rights-violating anti-union
measures such as those outlawing the closed shop.
They could simply ignore unions, and they'd go
away. History shows something very different.
If the government simply protects the aforesaid
liberal rights of employees, that is all that is
necessary to support the formation of effective
unions.
In addition, in a Randian or classical-liberal
state where there were no government services
like unemployment insurance, safety regulation,
medical insurance, old-age pensions, and so on,
workers would be very strongly motivated to join
unions in order to obtain these benefits, since
they would be very difficult to obtain otherwise.
Unions would also be free of governmental
interference with their administration and
finances, so they would probably become
very powerful.
In the real world, however, governments
operate to weaken unions, as one would expect.
Immortalist
> On Jun 10, 6:52 pm, Sound of Trumpet <soundoftrum...@dcemail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Objectivism and Libertarianism owe a great deal to the writings of Ayn
> > Rand and both are typically associated with belief in expansive
> > degrees of personal liberty.
>
> of existence, you breath your air for you, you digest your food for
> you, your energy can only be engaged by your mind, you therefore are
> the owner of the results of your energy.
>
> You will note there is no mention of liberty in the basic premise of
> objectivism, but rather your liberty is only a corollary of the above
> premise.
>
Reciprocal altruism is a concept, introduced into evolutionary biology
by Robert Trivers, which explains the evolution of cooperation as
instances of mutually altruistic acts. The concept is close to the one
of Tit for Tat known in game theory...
...altruism, defined as an act of helping someone else although
incurring some cost for this act, could have evolved since it might be
beneficial to incur this cost if there is a chance of being in a
reverse situation where the person whom I helped before may perform an
altruistic act towards me...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism
> MG
Immortalist
> On Jun 10, 9:43 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > Rand has been aptly described as "Nietzsche for idiots".
>
> Only by idiots.
>
She was abused by the communists and became an over-reactionary
supporter of capitalist delusions.
> MG
David Johnston
wrote:
>On Jun 11, 7:20 pm, David Johnston <da...@block.net> wrote:
It isn't any kind of Fascism. Fascism is all about serving the state
embodied in a single dictator, a Mussolini or a Hitler. It's
basically updated absolute monarchy.
tg
History shows that unions are powerless unless there is a legal
requirement that employers recognize them.
> If the government simply protects the aforesaid
> liberal rights of employees, that is all that is
> necessary to support the formation of effective
> unions.
No, unions are not effective in those conditions because employers
simply hire replacement workers.
-tg
Michael Price
> On Jun 10, 3:20 pm, Puppet_Sock <puppet_s...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
Why did you lie about the post you replied to but didn't snip?
Clearly
he states "The heroes used words, and when people didn't agree, they
went away.", he said "The villians used torture, imprisonment, and
even
weapons of mass destruction. And open threats of same, backed up by
the police and the army. Plus blackmail, and all the other methods
one
associates with a criminal gang.". These are very different things
to
saying that Rand's hero's fascist supermen. You can be something
other
than a fascist superman and yet not use only words. Yet you contend
this is the only thing he said.
Michael Price
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 06:40:22 -0700 (PDT), Puppet_Sock
>
> >Fascist is not compatible with going away when somebody
> >disagrees with you.
Note that Mr Johnston snips almost all of the post he's replying to,
which is characteristic of those who can't actually address the
arguments.
>
> Neither is reality. That was a fantasy of course. Rand wasn't
> seriously suggesting that industrialists could just leave the world
> behind and set up their own autarchy which would magically summon up
> all the labour and raw materials needed to run a futuristic utopia.
No, what she was doing was pointing out what would happen if they
did
and who owes who. The people who left weren't the industrialists,
they
were the productive. Unless of course you think a truck driver or an
movie
star is more of an industrialist than the owner of the biggest steel
concern
in America. Which come to think of it Rand might agree with.
> The point was not to explain how they set up their utopia, it was to
> indict modern society at large for being ungrateful bastards to
> capable rich people.
No, for being ungrateful and parasitic to capable people of all
income levels.
>
> That being said, was Rand fascist? Of course not. The central
> defining element of fascist is hyper-patriotism and Rand had none of
> that. While in a Randite paradise union organizers would be jailed
That's bullshit, under Rand's ideas you can organise however many
unions
and call however many strikes you like. You just can't get the
government to
help you.
> as would anyone who proposed introducing environmental regulation,
Again, you can propose whatever you like, you just can't use force
to get it
done. Sorry that you're too dishonest or ignorant to know the
difference. In fact
environmental regulation would be part of the law in Galt's Gulch.
Michael Price
> On Fri, 11 Jun 2010 08:23:30 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
The fact that everything she ever said indicates that she doesn't
believe
this of course has no effect on your statements.
Michael Price
Wow, that's an admission I wouldn't have expected. So in fact
unions
are creatures of the State and not of the working class at all? Good
to
know, better to know you know.
Michael Price
Strange how we've gone from "Rand would jail union organisers"
to "Jailing union organisers is useless, just don't force people to
hire their members.".
Michael Price
Why would they be hard to get otherwise? All these
things are simply things that make employment more
expensive to the employer and more attractive to the
employee. They are no harder to get therefore than
the equivelent expense in wages rises, and wages go
up with labour productivity. Fundamentally what drives
up safety standards, employer-provided old-age pensions
etc. is the increased desire for labour by employers.
Medical insurance was quite easy to get for the poor
before government intervention, mostly through "friendly"
i.e. cooperative societies.
Don't misunderstand me, it's quite possible unions
could be more powerful without government, but it's not
necessarily the case. Government favours unions in many
ways because unions impose uniform standards on employers,
which are generally to the benefit of the largest, most politically
influential firms. For instance they insist that people have to
negotiate with unions whether they want to or not.
In a free market self-employment would be a lot more common,
as would the education that allows one to be self-employed. This
would undercut the unions in a big way. When you can earn more
from self-employment than employers can pay you you don't need
a union to get better pay and conditions. If it even looks like you
could you don't need a union to get better pay and conditions.
*Anarcissie*
You've repeated yourself. Forgive me if I forbear.
David Johnston
Really? Rand said that that there's no legitimate place for a force
that preserves a society from outside attack and maintains order? Is
that what she said?
David Johnston
<nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > In the real world, however, governments
>> > operate to weaken unions, as one would expect.
>
>
> Strange how we've gone from "Rand would jail union organisers"
>to "Jailing union organisers is useless, just don't force people to
>hire their members.".
I haven't.
David Johnston
<nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Why would they be hard to get otherwise? All these
>things are simply things that make employment more
>expensive to the employer and more attractive to the
>employee. They are no harder to get therefore than
>the equivelent expense in wages rises, and wages go
>up with labour productivity.
Why do wages always go up with labour productivity?
Fundamentally what drives
>up safety standards, employer-provided old-age pensions
>etc. is the increased desire for labour by employers.
>Medical insurance was quite easy to get for the poor
>before government intervention, mostly through "friendly"
>i.e. cooperative societies.
Medical insurance was easy to get because it wasn't very valuable.
> Don't misunderstand me, it's quite possible unions
>could be more powerful without government, but it's not
>necessarily the case. Government favours unions in many
>ways because unions impose uniform standards on employers,
>which are generally to the benefit of the largest, most politically
>influential firms. For instance they insist that people have to
>negotiate with unions whether they want to or not.
> In a free market self-employment would be a lot more common,
>as would the education that allows one to be self-employed.
Why would the education that allows one to be self-employed (and make
a lot of money doing it) be more common in a free market?
David Johnston
<nini...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> The point was not to explain how they set up their utopia, it was to
>> indict modern society at large for being ungrateful bastards to
>> capable rich people.
>
> No, for being ungrateful and parasitic to capable people of all
>income levels.
Why would a capable person have a low income level?
>>
>> That being said, was Rand fascist? Of course not. The central
>> defining element of fascist is hyper-patriotism and Rand had none of
>> that. While in a Randite paradise union organizers would be jailed
>
> That's bullshit, under Rand's ideas you can organise however many
>unions
>and call however many strikes you like. You just can't get the
>government to
>help you.
And you can't get in the way of people trying to go to work. Which is
why union organizers would go to jail.
>
>> as would anyone who proposed introducing environmental regulation,
>
> Again, you can propose whatever you like, you just can't use force
>to get it
>done. Sorry that you're too dishonest or ignorant to know the
>difference. In fact
>environmental regulation would be part of the law in Galt's Gulch.
On what grounds would environmental regulation be part of the law?
*Anarcissie*
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 18:28:53 -0700 (PDT), Michael Price
>
>
> > Why would they be hard to get otherwise? All these
> >things are simply things that make employment more
> >expensive to the employer and more attractive to the
> >employee. They are no harder to get therefore than
> >the equivelent expense in wages rises, and wages go
> >up with labour productivity.
>
> Why do wages always go up with labour productivity?
I don't think they do. In at least the short run
they're going to go up and down with the law
of supply and demand. The authoritarian
regimes of East Asia don't allow unions and
infringe many other liberal rights, so they
can pay very low wages to very productive
people (as long as they can get someone
other than their workers to buy the products).
Note, however, that I think a lot of official
productivity figures are fictitious. One really
can't say that X, and element of production,
has become more productive unless exactly
the same product has been produced using
less of X and the same of everything else.
That hardly ever happens, so people
basically make stuff up.
*Anarcissie*
I'll just say it was my experience when I was
struggling through the working class.
Generally, if you have individuals confronting
big corporations as employers and as service
providers, the individuals are at a considerable
disadvantage. Of course, they have a similar
problem confronting an entrenched union
bureaucracy and leadership, but at least
it's to the union's interest to create a scarcity
of labor, thus driving wages up.
I don't think we have any historical examples
of unions being allowed to function unmolested
by the government, so I guess I don't have a
lot of evidence to go on.
> All these
> things are simply things that make employment more
> expensive to the employer and more attractive to the
> employee. They are no harder to get therefore than
> the equivelent expense in wages rises, and wages go
> up with labour productivity. Fundamentally what drives
> up safety standards, employer-provided old-age pensions
> etc. is the increased desire for labour by employers.
> Medical insurance was quite easy to get for the poor
> before government intervention, mostly through "friendly"
> i.e. cooperative societies.
> Don't misunderstand me, it's quite possible unions
> could be more powerful without government, but it's not
> necessarily the case. Government favours unions in many
> ways because unions impose uniform standards on employers,
> which are generally to the benefit of the largest, most politically
> influential firms. For instance they insist that people have to
> negotiate with unions whether they want to or not.
> In a free market self-employment would be a lot more common,
> as would the education that allows one to be self-employed. This
> would undercut the unions in a big way. When you can earn more
> from self-employment than employers can pay you you don't need
> a union to get better pay and conditions. If it even looks like you
> could you don't need a union to get better pay and conditions.
I've observed small businesses voluntarily
combining to create cabals to fix prices and
divide up customer territories. Where this is
illegal, it can be administered by mafias.
An interesting sequence of events occurred
when Giuliani broke up a mafia-administered
territorial system in Brooklyn many years ago
controlling waste and garbage cartage. Many
of the smaller companies were then driven out
of business by the big ones; the price of cartage
then rose sharply. One can draw various
conclusions, or avoid them.
*Anarcissie*
9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28.
Ng the when I'll was I'll was experience just my it through struggling
say working I when I'll was my it through struggling say working I
when I'll was experience just my it.
Employers you bureaucracy at drividerally, it's providerally, it's
providuals big up. Employers you bureaucracy at drividers you but
individuals corporation's are least scarcity Generally, individerable
at drividuals big up. Employership, have of to as corporation course,
leaders you bureaucracy at unions confronting disadvantages a similar
providuals big up. Employers. Employers you bureaucracy at drividuals
big up. Employers, the if considerablem and the to as employership,
have corporation's to as employers, they service if confronting big
up. Trenched as employership, have individuals big up. Employers you
bureaucracy at a individuals big up. Employers, they service
individuals big up.
By I to allowed the I to functions think of unions think of unmoles
lot historical functions the I don't think of unions the I of unions
think of unmolested the I guess on. Being have to allowed think of
unions think of examples lot historical functions the I of unmoles lot
historical. Being have so I evidence any government, guess on.
> All these
> things are simply things that make employment more
> expensive to the employer and more attractive to the
> employee. They are no harder to get therefore than
> the equivelent expense in wages rises, and wages go
> up with labour productivity. Fundamentally what drives
> up safety standards, employer-provided old-age pensions
> etc. is the increased desire for labour by employers.
> Medical insurance was quite easy to get for the poor
> before government intervention, mostly through "friendly"
> i.e. cooperative societies.
> Don't misunderstand me, it's quite possible unions
> could be more powerful without government, but it's not
> necessarily the case. Government favours unions in many
> ways because unions impose uniform standards on employers,
> which are generally to the benefit of the largest, most politically
> influential firms. For instance they insist that people have to
> negotiate with unions whether they want to or not.
> In a free market self-employment would be a lot more common,
> as would the education that allows one to be self-employed. This
> would undercut the unions in a big way. When you can earn more
> from self-employment than employers can pay you you don't need
> a union to get better pay and conditions. If it even looks like you
> could you don't need a union to get better pay and conditions.
This businesses tere to admining I've be customer. Oluntarily can I've
be customer up is Where to it combining I've be customer up is Where
to admining I've be can I've be cabals prices voluntarily cabals
prices voluntarily cabals prices and by illegal, create mafias. This
Whered divide cabals prices territories. This Where to create mafias.
Out business big avoid various drivents the draw rose garbage. Rtage
cartage Many system years the One price the big avoid various drivents
then smaller cartage. Out business big avoid various driven smaller
cartage. Companies of business big avoid various drivents the of
business big avoid various draw rose garbage. Out busions, can them.
Out busions, cartage. Controlling An smaller can then ago oness big
avoid various driven by of the smaller cartage can. Out busines; up
the big avoid various drivents the drivents them. Controlling
weresting An smaller cartage. Out business big avoid various drivents
the of the smaller cartage Many events then by of events them.
*Anarcissie*
<not.a.valid.mailaddr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hael Jun pm, wrote: On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On
>
> 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28 On 9:28.
>
> > Why would they be hard to get otherwise?
>
> Ng the when I'll was I'll was experience just my it through struggling
> say working I when I'll was my it through struggling say working I
> when I'll was experience just my it.
>
> Employers you bureaucracy at drividerally, it's providerally, it's
> providuals big up. Employers you bureaucracy at drividers you but
> individuals corporation's are least scarcity Generally, individerable
Generally, people got bored running text-hashing
programs on Usenet texts ten or fifteen years ago.
But you've just discovered the idea! Congratulations.
James A. Donald
> I don't think they do. In at least the short run they're
> going to go up and down with the law of supply and demand.
> The authoritarian regimes of East Asia don't allow unions
> and infringe many other liberal rights, so they can pay
> very low wages to very productive people (as long as they
> can get someone other than their workers to buy the
> products).
Wages in East Asia are rising rapidly. You complain that
wages are "very low" but they are a lot higher than are in
less capitalist regimes and a lot higher than when the
benevolent socialists were in charge.
Further, unions exist in East Asia, they go on strike from
time to time, no one gets beaten up or shot, except, of
course, by union bosses.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65B0FC20100613
When you say they do not allow unions, what you actually mean
is that the state does not compel workers to join state
approved official unions, and the state does not give special
privileges to official state approved unions to encourage
"voluntary" unionism - kind of like the way Pinochet
repressed unions by not allowing them to murder workers.
--
----------------------
We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
*Anarcissie*
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2010 20:32:04 -0700 (PDT), "*Anarcissie*"
>
> > I don't think they do. In at least the short run they're
> > going to go up and down with the law of supply and demand.
> > The authoritarian regimes of East Asia don't allow unions
> > and infringe many other liberal rights, so they can pay
> > very low wages to very productive people (as long as they
> > can get someone other than their workers to buy the
> > products).
>
> Wages in East Asia are rising rapidly. You complain that
> wages are "very low" but they are a lot higher than are in
> less capitalist regimes and a lot higher than when the
> benevolent socialists were in charge.
As far as I know, independent unions don't exist in
China and Vietnam (and maybe several other countries
I'm less familiar with). Wages may be higher than they
were but they are very low compared to Western
countries and they are lower than they would be if the
workers were free to unionize or emigrate. My point
was that productivity and wages are not closely
coupled. The fraction of the social product which
the workers get depends not only on how much is
produced but on their power; if they have no power,
they will get very little. Or as a working capitalist
once said to me, "I'm not in business to give
charity."
> Further, unions exist in East Asia, they go on strike from
> time to time, no one gets beaten up or shot, except, of
> course, by union bosses.http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE65B0FC20100613
Michael Gordge
>..... and became an over-reactionary
> supporter of capitalist delusions.
Did ewe hope to be saying something clever?
MG
Michael Gordge
> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 15:07:34 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
>
>
>
>
>
> <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >On Jun 11, 6:58 am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 10 Jun 2010 05:52:04 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
>
> >> <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
> >> >On Jun 10, 9:43 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> >> >> Rand has been aptly described as "Nietzsche for idiots".
>
> >> >Only by idiots.
>
> >> anyone dares criticize their deity.
>
> >Ewe have shown no ability to criticize Rand, ewe only ever regurgitate
> >the nasal chants of other envy ridden Randophobic retards.
>
> You're not helping your cause with your bizarre affectations.
Ewe obviously don't know a cause from an effect, fuckwit.
MG
Jonathan Schattke
You're just a one-trick pony. And that trick is stale.
Try not insulting everyone and you might get further in life.
Michael Gordge
Do ewe feel insulted for Mortal's sake or are ewe doing it to yourself
because ewe're a brain dead lefturdian knuckle-dragging masochist?
MG
raven1
And that's a perfect example of why I stopped bothering to respond to
you days ago. Let me know if you grow up, and want to engage in an
actual discussion.
James A. Donald
> I'll just say it was my experience when I was
> struggling through the working class.
You were never working class, and never had to struggle except in the
sense that you were telling the working class what they should think
and they were not listening.
Immortalist
Rand was twelve at the time of the Russian revolution of 1917. Opposed
to the Tsar, Rand's sympathies were with Alexander Kerensky. Rand's
family life was disrupted by the rise of the Bolshevik party. Her
father's pharmacy was confiscated by the Soviets, and the family fled
to the Crimea, which was initially under the control of the White Army
during the Russian Civil War. She later recalled that while in high
school she determined that she was an atheist and that she valued
reason and intellect...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayn_Rand
Man haven't you read her new biography? I figured you would have it
read by now. It came into the library a couple weeks ago and I have
looked at it a few times, tempted to read it. I would like that better
than fiction stories she wrote, fiction seems like a waste of time,
maybe just another stage I'm going through... Read this if you have
not.
http://www.amazon.com/Ayn-Rand-World-She-Made/dp/0385513992
As the Branden affair shows, Rand's life was indeed exemplary of her
thought. It was, in line with her avowed principles, an entirely
selfish life, to which she sacrificed her family, her good-natured
husband Frank O'Connor, her friends, and all but the last of her
devoted followers, Leonard Peikoff. Whoever was not wholly with her
was against her. This too was in line with her philosophy...
Mitchell Holman
news:de2bdf78-c1ee-4bae...@v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com:
> Fundamentally what drives
> up safety standards, employer-provided old-age pensions
> etc. is the increased desire for labour by employers.
That assumes a shortage of labor. As long as there
is a steady supply of labor why should employers bother
with expensive fire escapes and safety standards?
James A. Donald
<anarc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> As far as I know, independent unions don't exist in China
> and Vietnam (and maybe several other countries I'm less
> familiar with).
I think you are using the word "independent" back to front.
Today's chinese unions sure look independent to me.
http://www.chinacartimes.com/2010/06/01/honda-strike-is-over-
workers-get-back-to-work-with-24-payrise/
: : the strike saw their wages rise from 1500rmb to
: : 2300rmb ($336USD) [per month] after a couple of
: : days of strikes, however the strike leaders appear
: : to have been fired by Honda for a breach of
: : contract.
If Honda can fire strike leaders, this is obviously not an
official union. If not an official union, then a genuinely
independent one.
Since you think that European unions are "independent", it
would seem that by "independent" you mean state sponsored.
> Wages may be higher than they were but they are very low
> compared to Western countries and they are lower than they
> would be if the workers were free to unionize or emigrate.
The workers in Taiwan, Hong Kong, and Singapore have higher
wages than in the west. The workers in China are catching up
mighty fast.
Factory workers in China make about one tenth of what a
factory worker in the US makes. They are catching up at
about eight percent a year. Should pass US factory workers
in 30 years.
> My point was that productivity and wages are not closely
> coupled.
The largest proportion of production always goes to wages.
Therefore productivity and wages is closely coupled.
James A. Donald
> That assumes a shortage of labor. As long as there is a
> steady supply of labor why should employers bother with
> expensive fire escapes and safety standards?
Why would there be a steady supply of labor, unless there are
large numbers of people who are doing something that provides
a fairly poor living - typically large numbers of peasant
farmers.
If there are large numbers of peasant farmers, then expensive
safety standards should be postponed till the country is more
developed.
Mitchell Holman
news:ldcb16lbie2amrnge...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:37:55 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> That assumes a shortage of labor. As long as there is a
>> steady supply of labor why should employers bother with
>> expensive fire escapes and safety standards?
>
> Why would there be a steady supply of labor, unless there are
> large numbers of people who are doing something that provides
> a fairly poor living - typically large numbers of peasant
> farmers.
>
Growing populations ALWAYS create a steady
supply of labor. Can you point out a country
with a negative unemployment?
> If there are large numbers of peasant farmers, then expensive
> safety standards should be postponed till the country is more
> developed.
>
At what point will employers decide on their own to
spend money on "expensive" safety standards?
As, like, NEVER?
> --
> ----------------------
> We have the right to defend ourselves and our property, because
> of the kind of animals that we are. True law derives from this
> right, not from the arbitrary power of the omnipotent state.
Every warlord and Mafia don says they are just
protecting themselves and their property.
David Johnston
<jam...@echeque.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 13 Jun 2010 22:37:55 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> That assumes a shortage of labor. As long as there is a
>> steady supply of labor why should employers bother with
>> expensive fire escapes and safety standards?
>
>Why would there be a steady supply of labor, unless there are
>large numbers of people who are doing something that provides
>a fairly poor living - typically large numbers of peasant
>farmers.
Or immigrants from poorer nations.
James A. Donald
> supply of labor. Can you point out a country
> with a negative unemployment?
Unemployment is largely frictional.
If someone can produce X amount of value, and is prepared to work for
somewhat less than X, lots of people will want to hire him, apart from
crises that disrupt the economy, fear of expropriation, and such like.
Mitchell Holman
Such are the "regulation-free" economies of Sudan
and Somalia.
Mitchell Holman
news:1gbb1654m7dnbsna9...@4ax.com:
> The largest proportion of production always goes to wages.
> Therefore productivity and wages is closely coupled.
Except when it comes to compensation for CEO's
and board members, who get massive raises regardless
of production, sales, profits and losses.
Cryptoengineer
news:Xns9D9746DE16341...@216.196.97.130:
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote in
> news:1gbb1654m7dnbsna9...@4ax.com:
>
>
>> The largest proportion of production always goes to wages.
>> Therefore productivity and wages is closely coupled.
Tell that to a goldsmith. I've known some - the take home pay can be pretty
low.
pt
John Stafford
news:1gbb1654m7dnbsna9...@4ax.com:
>
>
> The largest proportion of production always goes to wages.
Not in China's current situation. Doubling their wages to $1.25 USD per
hour would not show up in a significant increase in costs for years.
*Anarcissie*
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote innews:1gbb1654m7dnbsna9...@4ax.com:
>
> > The largest proportion of production always goes to wages.
> > Therefore productivity and wages is closely coupled.
>
> Except when it comes to compensation for CEO's
> and board members, who get massive raises regardless
> of production, sales, profits and losses.
Maybe he considers them to be workers.
However, in relation to this issue, we should remember
that "productivity" is largely mythical. In capitalist
economics, things do not have intrinsic value -- their
value is only and just what someone will pay for them. So
no one knows what something is worth until it gets to a
market and is able to command a price. Therefore, at
the time of production, value is only a guess, and
therefore, productivity is only a guess. Counterintuitive
as this may seem, it's logical and real.
As an example, consider a hypothetical sweatshop in
Vietnam that pays its workers $2.33 per day to make
sneakers which sell for $100 a pair in the U.S. A
competing sweatshop finds it can pay its workers $1.97
per day if it beats them harder and longer, and thus can
charge Nike slightly less for the same sneaker. The first
sweatshop has to reduce its wages and increase beatings
or go out of business. Nike, of course, does not lower
its prices; suckers in the U.S. actually want to pay
_more_ for sneakers because the sneakers justify
their existence. The productivity of the workers did
not change in any measurable material way, yet their
theoretical productivity with respect to the value of
output, and their compensation, went down as,
probably, did that of their immediate employers. The
profits of Nike went up and the ignorance of their
customers stayed on an imperturbably even keel.
Jonathan Schattke
You must be using a different version of "productivity" than anyone else.
"Output per input" is the definition. units per hour, or dollar value
per dollar input, or whatever you like as input and output. For
instance, typical measures are GDP per hour worked ($/worker-hour).
Better might be standard of living (produced) per hour worked, but
that's another discussion.
So, in the first case, you have something being produced; your dollar
value may not be set (unlikely) - but you have an output. it just won't
be a nice unitless value, but something like "widgets per worker-hour"
or even "widgets per dollar spent".
In the second case, the productivity increases on a dollar sales per
dollar spent basis, and stays (nominally) the same on a shoe per
worker-day basis.
Michael Gordge
"Rand has been aptly described as "Nietzsche for idiots"."
Is that an example of an actual discussion is it? Come back when ewe
have something to discuss.
MG
Michael Gordge
> Rand was twelve at the time of the Russian revolution of 1917.
Attacking the player and not the ball.
> Man haven't you read her new biography?
Attacking the player and not the ball.
> Leonard Peikoff. Whoever was not wholly with her
> was against her.
Absolute fucking garbage and again in typical cowardly fashion, ewe're
attacking the player and not the ball.
MG
Michael Gordge
> As an example, consider a hypothetical sweatshop in
> Vietnam that pays its workers $2.33 per day to make
> sneakers which sell for $100 a pair in the U.S.
Ewe deliberately failed of course to mention the shoe tax, in the form
of tariffs, that the US fedreal government places on imported shoes,
ewe failed to mention that the US collects more tariff tax from shoes
than it does from cars. Failed to mention that the US government
collects more in tariffs from cheaper shoes than expensive made
Italian shoes, meaning the US federal government punishes the poor of
the US more than it does the rich.
Tariffs collected on cars, 2001: $1.60 billion
Tariffs collected on shoes, 2001: $1.63 billion
What They Mean:
Tariffs may be the most regressive part of the federal tax code --
they are higher on household goods than other products, and higher on
cheap goods than luxuries. Shoes are among the worst cases (and also
among the most puzzling -- well over 90 percent of shoes sold in the
U.S. are imported, meaning there is virtually no domestic industry to
protect).
The average U.S. tariffs on manufactured goods are about 2.6 percent.
Car tariffs, at 2.5 percent, are typical. Footwear tariffs, though,
run from 20 percent for expensive shoes to 66 percent for cheaper
kinds. Thus, though cars are a much larger import, shoes bring in more
money.
The practical effects are clear in a look at a particular type of shoe
-- cheap sneakers valued at $3 or less. Last year, the U.S. imported
16 million pairs, at a total cost of $35 million, meaning an average
price of $2.20 per pair. The Treasury Department then collected $17
million in tariffs on these sneakers, adding another $1.06 per pair to
the buyers' cost. The extra dollar and change then passed on,
magnified by retail markups and state sales taxes, to raise the final
price of the sneakers in stores by 50 percent.
The consequences are especially tough on poor people -- especially
single mothers. Annual shoe bills for single parent families, at about
$410 per year, are nearly as high as those of much wealthier families;
and the inflation of shoe costs by tariffs hits them harder, since
cheap shoes have higher tariffs than expensive shoes. Eliminating
tariffs on shoes could save single mothers as much as $80-$100 per
year.
http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900003&contentID=250599
MG
Michael Gordge
> You must be using a different version of "productivity" than anyone else.
>
> "Output per input" is the definition.
Which means nothing, especially means nothing while the state
manipulates costs of production via inventions like tax and tariffs.
Production / productivity is the application of reason to the problems
of human survival, and no reason is being applied to solving any
problem with any tax.
Indeed, tax is a major and "man made problem" of human survival
(production) and the stupid nasal whinging envy ridden lefturdian
retards believe that placing even more tax in the costs of production
does anything more than to create further problems of man's survival.
MG
Michael Gordge
> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote innews:hvlb16th5uerjn42a...@4ax.com:
Dumb cunt, Sudan and Somalia are not cess pits of human misery because
they dont have regulations, they are a cess pit of misery because they
have embraced the ideology of self-sacrifce, the masochistical and
sadistical ideology of the loony left.
MG
Mitchell Holman
news:fd5a862d-3863-4f78...@k25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 14, 8:50 pm, Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
>> innews:hvlb16th5uerjn42as4v612
> l62br...@4ax.com:
>>
>> > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:14:25 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> >> Growing populations ALWAYS create a steady
>> >> supply of labor. Can you point out a country
>> >> with a negative unemployment?
>>
>> > Unemployment is largely frictional.
>>
>> > If someone can produce X amount of value, and is prepared to work
>> > for somewhat less than X, lots of people will want to hire him,
>> > apart from crises that disrupt the economy, fear of expropriation,
>> > and such like.
>>
>> Such are the "regulation-free" economies of Sudan
>> and Somalia.
>
> Dumb cunt, Sudan and Somalia are not cess pits of human misery because
> they dont have regulations, they are a cess pit of misery because they
> have embraced the ideology of self-sacrifce, the masochistical and
> sadistical ideology of the loony left.
No taxes, no "burdensome regulations", no pollution
laws, no labor unions, no minimum wage, no IRS or EPA
or SEC or EEOC or FCC. Isn't that a liberatarians dream?
James A. Donald
> > to work for somewhat less than X, lots of people will
> > want to hire him, apart from crises that disrupt the
> > economy, fear of expropriation, and such like.
Mitchell Holman
> Such are the "regulation-free" economies of Sudan and
> Somalia.
Sudan is a despotic Islamic tyranny, and Somalia is in civil
war with people who want it to be a despotic Islamic tyranny,
therefore not regulation free.
People suggest that the recent economic crisis was due to
de-regulation, but immediate causes of the crisis in the US
were Fannie, Freddie, the CRA, and the 2001 recourse rule –
that mortgage backed securities rated AAA required a very low
capital cushion, which very strongly pressured banks to buy
utter shit provided it was rated AAA, regardless of whether
they believed the rating or not, and stuff like that.
The 2001 Recourse rule by itself is considerably larger than
Glass-Steagall.
Repealing Glass-Steagall in 1999, which was a major cause of
this disaster, would have been de-regulation, were it not
that Glass-Steagall is seventeen pages, and was replaced by
something more like seventeen book shelves.
The argument that crates and bookshelves full of regulation
constitute de-regulation is based on the fact that the foxes
were running the hen house, that these regulations were
largely written by insiders to benefit insiders, that they
allowed insiders to do as they please and have the taxpayer
guarantee whatever they did. But when was the golden age
when regulations were actually written to benefit the public?
Deregulation would be that they could do as they please, and *not*
have the taxpayer guarantee whatever they did.
raven1
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
>On Jun 14, 7:59�am, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
>"Rand has been aptly described as "Nietzsche for idiots"."
>
>Is that an example of an actual discussion is it?
Yes, actually. I was going to say "Nietzsche for petulant adolescent
males with a chip on their shoulder, a superiority complex, a complete
lack of empathy or social skills, and absolutely no knowledge of
economics, psychology, or sociology, who don't mind that she's a
terrible novelist", but that wouldn't have been conducive to a
conversation, so I toned it down. HTH.
Michael Gordge
> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote innews:fd5a862d-3863-4f78...@k25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jun 14, 8:50 pm, Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >> James A. Donald <jam...@echeque.com> wrote
> >> innews:hvlb16th5uerjn42as4v612
>
> >> > On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 00:14:25 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> >> >> Growing populations ALWAYS create a steady
> >> >> supply of labor. Can you point out a country
> >> >> with a negative unemployment?
>
> >> > Unemployment is largely frictional.
>
> >> > If someone can produce X amount of value, and is prepared to work
> >> > for somewhat less than X, lots of people will want to hire him,
> >> > apart from crises that disrupt the economy, fear of expropriation,
> >> > and such like.
>
> >> Such are the "regulation-free" economies of Sudan
> >> and Somalia.
>
> > Dumb cunt, Sudan and Somalia are not cess pits of human misery because
> > they dont have regulations, they are a cess pit of misery because they
> > have embraced the ideology of self-sacrifce, the masochistical and
> > sadistical ideology of the loony left.
>
> No taxes, no "burdensome regulations", no pollution
> laws, no labor unions, no minimum wage, no IRS or EPA
>
> - Show quoted text -
Whoops silly ewe, ewe failed to mention Islamic fundamentalism,
socialist inspired tribalism, witchdoctorism.
And ewe dumb cunt, barbaric violations of the right to life and the
pursuit of happiness, as happens in places like the Sudan, have
absolutely NOTHING what so ever to do with having dopey anti-human
"burdensome regulations", dopey anti-human labor unions, dopey anti-
human minimum wage, dopey anti-human IRS or EPA or SEC or EEOC or FCC
MG
Immortalista
How so? It will do you no good to just make assertions without backing
them up. Your not really saying anything, your started to sound as
empty headed as Rod Speed when I defeat him. In his case and yours in
times past, I ram the ad nausium argument up your snouts.
But to the point I merely offered evidence for my claims which you
attacked with no back up besides randroidal hemorrhoids or some made
up shit. She was abused by the Soviets and hence went overly to the
other extreme.
Strange to see you attacking an Ayn Rand biography, your losing it
Mike. Take a break if want to keep up with us real players.
-----------------------------
"Argumentum ad nauseam or argument from repetition or argumentum ad
infinitum is an argument made repeatedly (possibly by different
people) until nobody cares to discuss it any more. This may sometimes,
but not always, be a form of proof by assertion".
Michael Gordge
> On Mon, 14 Jun 2010 14:25:50 -0700 (PDT), Michael Gordge
>
So where's the argument?
MG
James A. Donald
Michael Gordge <mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in
> > Dumb cunt, Sudan and Somalia are not cess pits of human misery because
> > they dont have regulations, they are a cess pit of misery because they
> > have embraced the ideology of self-sacrifce, the masochistical and
> > sadistical ideology of the loony left.
Mitchell Holman
> No taxes
Sudan has extremely high, and capriciously collected, taxes. Somalia
has a grave risk of 100% confiscation by various governments, would be
governments, and self proclaimed government.
One has a government by Islamic terrorists, the other has a bunch of
Islamic terrorists that are trying to be the government.
Ray Fischer
>On Jun 14, 9:54�am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Rand was twelve at the time of the Russian revolution of 1917.
>
>Attacking the player and not the ball.
>
>> Man haven't you read her new biography?
>
>Attacking the player and not the ball.
"Ewe" seem to be stuck, rightard drone.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Mitchell Holman
> On Jun 15, 7:50�am, Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote
>> innews:fd5a862d-3863-4f78-ab
> 4a-55c2...@k25g2000prh.googlegroups.com:
That is unregulated freedom in action, no?
>
> And ewe dumb cunt, barbaric violations of the right to life
Opps - how can you have a "right" without government?
> and the
> pursuit of happiness, as happens in places like the Sudan, have
> absolutely NOTHING what so ever to do with having dopey anti-human
> "burdensome regulations", dopey anti-human labor unions, dopey anti-
> human minimum wage, dopey anti-human IRS or EPA or SEC or EEOC or FCC
>
Oh, so you WANT government when it protects things
YOU like but want it eliminated otherwise. Does that
about cover it?
Darwin123
wrote:
> http://atheism.about.com/b/2006/02/24/cult-of-ayn-rand-the-worship-of...
>
> Cult of Ayn Rand & the Worship of Fascist Supermen
>
At least Ann is not a Communist. Nor was she a liberal, nor a
socialist, nor an environmentalist. She didn't seem to advocate either
homosexual rights or of women's rights. Especially she wasn't a
scientist.
In a lot of ways, she was like you |:-)
raven1
LOL! Wow, you're clueless!
*Anarcissie*
> On Jun 15, 2:41 am, "*Anarcissie*" <anarcis...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > As an example, consider a hypothetical sweatshop in
> > Vietnam that pays its workers $2.33 per day to make
> > sneakers which sell for $100 a pair in the U.S.
>
> Ewe deliberately failed of course to mention the shoe tax
The influence of taxes just make productivity
measures all the more mythical by altering
feedback from the all-knowing market.
It _is_ amusing in shall we say a _noir_ way to know
that the shoe tax helps fund the prisons so many of
the shoe customers will wind up in. I wonder if
they're aware of this.
> http://www.ppionline.org/ppi_ci.cfm?knlgAreaID=108&subsecID=900003&co...
>
> MG
Michael Gordge
> That is unregulated freedom in action, no?
Hey dopey, regulated freedom is an oxymoron, freedom does not change
in meaning by being preceded by any adjective.
> Opps - how can you have a "right" without government?
Just a fraction of those who have been murdered by governments over
the last 100 years, so much for your idea that governments are needed
to sanction the right to life that you are born with. By conservative
estimates over 200,000,000 peaceful civilians were murdered by their
own governments during the 20th century.
Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50) 49-78,000,000
Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39) 23,000,000 (the purges plus Ukraine's
famine)
Adolf Hitler (Germany, 1939-1945) 12,000,000 (concentration camps and
civilians WWII)
Leopold II of Belgium (Congo, 1886-1908) 8,000,000
Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44) 5,000,000 (civilians in WWII)
Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20) 1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000
Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000
Assyrians (1915-20)
Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79) 1,700,000
Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94) 1.6 million (purges and
concentration camps)
> Oh, so you WANT government when it protects things
> YOU like but want it eliminated otherwise. Does that
> about cover it?
I like the idea that you and you alone be the sole benefactor and the
sole decider of the results of your energy and the only possible
reason that you would not like such a political system is because you
do not like the idea of being held responsible for your and your
actions alone, is that so?
MG
Mitchell Holman
a3fd-870...@b15g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 15, 11:47�am, Mitchell Holman <nom...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> � That is unregulated freedom in action, no?
>
> Hey dopey, regulated freedom is an oxymoron, freedom does not change
> in meaning by being preceded by any adjective.
What protects freedom, but government? If a rival
firm slanders your business you sue - in a government
court. If your neighbor pollutes your land, you sue,
in a government court. If someone steals your car you
call the government.
>
>> � Opps - how can you have a "right" without government?
>
> Just a fraction of those who have been murdered by governments over
> the last 100 years, so much for your idea that governments are needed
> to sanction the right to life that you are born with. By conservative
> estimates over 200,000,000 peaceful civilians were murdered by their
> own governments during the 20th century.
Evasion noted.
How can you have a "right" without government? What
provate entity protects a "right to life", for instance?
>> � � Oh, so you WANT government when it protects things
>> YOU like but want it eliminated otherwise. Does that
>> about cover it?
>
> I like the idea that you and you alone be the sole benefactor and the
> sole decider of the results of your energy and the only possible
> reason that you would not like such a political system is because you
> do not like the idea of being held responsible for your and your
> actions alone, is that so?
Just outline for us your vision of a market economy
without government.
tg
> Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in news:8348e6f0-1022-48ad-
> a3fd-8701ff481...@b15g2000prn.googlegroups.com:
People have been asking all these questions for a very long time; you
are not going to get an answer from any of these people. However, I
will answer the last question; I am actually a true free-market
libertarian and not an authoritarian personality playing out some
adolescent fantasy.
You can have a market economy if there are abundant resources per
capita on a world-wide basis. Government, in the conventional sense,
is almost completely irrelevant in that case. It might be convenient
to have a system of universal currency, and it is certainly necessary
to have some system for dealing with local psychotics and personal
conflicts, but these do not require States with overwhelming coercive
force---in many cases they can be dealt with ad hoc.
Eager to hear what the sci-fi speculation is on this,
-tg
*Anarcissie*
The establishment of modern property relations in
North America required an invasion and considerable
military force. Probably elsewhere as well.
tg
Exactly. Had there been no inhabitants, that would not have been the
case. Had Europe abundant resources on its own, it also would not have
been the case.
Thanks for supporting my contention.
-tg
David Johnston
wrote:
Doesn't that mean there is no such thing as "abundant resources"?
*Anarcissie*
I don't see how your contention is support by a bunch
of speculative would-haves.
If you look at history, large markets are facilitated by
large states. That isn't necessarily always going to be
the case, but it's what the historical record shows.
tg
Facilitated. Sure, that means something.
-tg
tg
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 07:55:34 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
Why? If there were 20 million people on the planet, and they lived on
the North American continent, for example, you don't think there would
be abundant resources? What would be in short supply, and why would
we care if it were?
-tg
*Anarcissie*
Are we going from the resources identified, extracted,
developed and processed by the present 300 million, or
the resources available to a depopulated wasteland
inhabited by 20 million tribesmen?
tg
I'm not sure what 'wasteland' means; nor 'tribesmen'.
I've discussed this many times and you tend to obfuscate and distract
rather than deal with the premise. The question was: Can you have a
market economy without government? The answer is yes, as I
described.
-tg
David Johnston
wrote:
>> >> > You can have a market economy if there are abundant resources per
>> >> > capita on a world-wide basis. Government, in the conventional sense,
>> >> > is almost completely irrelevant in that case. It might be convenient
>> >> > to have a system of universal currency, and it is certainly necessary
>> >> > to have some system for dealing with local psychotics and personal
>> >> > conflicts, but these do not require States with overwhelming coercive
>> >> > force---in many cases they can be dealt with ad hoc.
>>
>> >> The establishment of modern property relations in
>> >> North America required an invasion and considerable
>> >> military force. Probably elsewhere as well.
>>
>> >Exactly. Had there been no inhabitants, that would not have been the
>> >case. Had Europe abundant resources on its own, it also would not have
>> >been the case.
>>
>> Doesn't that mean there is no such thing as "abundant resources"?
>
>Why? If there were 20 million people on the planet, and they lived on
>the North American continent, for example, you don't think there would
>be abundant resources?
There'd be a big people shortage. The kind of people shortage that
encourages, incidentally, wars to take slaves.
tg
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 08:50:22 -0700 (PDT), tg <tgdenn...@earthlink.net>
That's just weird. How would owning slaves change the situation?
Not to mention, how do you have a war---who would be the soldiers, and
who would build the tanks, if there weren't even enough people to just
live normally?
You need to flesh out your scenario.
-tg
*Anarcissie*
People with primitive engineering and political
technology, living off (the surface of) the land,
usually widely scattered because of their need
to gain a living through hunting and gathering or
subsistence farming.
> I've discussed this many times and you tend to obfuscate and distract
> rather than deal with the premise. The question was: Can you have a
> market economy without government? The answer is yes, as I
> described.
Sure. The American Indians used to have scenes where
tribes would meet once a year and trade knicknacks. But
they weren't trading palladium futures or anything like that.
They didn't know about palladium. It wasn't a resource yet,
nor was it property or the possible subject of a futures
contract.