Post Reply
Page 20 of 23  •  Prev 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
Switch to Forum Live View News for conservatives: You can't reconcile Ayn Rand and Jesus.
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 3:53PM #191
Erey
Posts: 18,403

Jun 25, 2011 -- 3:38PM, Christianlib wrote:


I love that, apparently, conservatives can only justify adherence to Ayn Rand by artful, and not so artful, denials that Rand said what Rand said.


 







adherence to Rand?  Who the FK is talkig about adhering to RAnd?  Hmmmmmmm   name one person here that says we should adhere to Rand?  Take her, leave her - I don't care.  I mostly leave her because as I said in the begining of the thread I find her to be antiquated and no longer timely, like many message oriented books. 


What I am disguested by is your hatred and demonizing and you STILL have not come up with anything rational about your hatred.  You just hate her from a ugly, petty and partisan part of yourself.  You certainly have not made any strong point other than:


blah blah we hate Rand because Conservatives (what percentage btw?) like Rand so we think Rand is evil, blah, blah, blah conservatives are evil, blah blah I hate Republicans, blah Blah, Rand is a meanie, blah, blah. 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 4:04PM #192
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,771

Jun 25, 2011 -- 3:38PM, Christianlib wrote:


I love that, apparently, conservatives can only justify adherence to Ayn Rand by artful, and not so artful, denials that Rand said what Rand said.


 





Bizarre isn't it?

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 4:56PM #193
Christianlib
Posts: 21,848

Jun 25, 2011 -- 3:53PM, Erey wrote:


Jun 25, 2011 -- 3:38PM, Christianlib wrote:


I love that, apparently, conservatives can only justify adherence to Ayn Rand by artful, and not so artful, denials that Rand said what Rand said.


 






adherence to Rand?  Who the FK is talkig about adhering to RAnd?  Hmmmmmmm   name one person here that says we should adhere to Rand?  Take her, leave her - I don't care.  I mostly leave her because as I said in the begining of the thread I find her to be antiquated and no longer timely, like many message oriented books. 


What I am disguested by is your hatred and demonizing and you STILL have not come up with anything rational about your hatred.  You just hate her from a ugly, petty and partisan part of yourself.  You certainly have not made any strong point other than:


blah blah we hate Rand because Conservatives (what percentage btw?) like Rand so we think Rand is evil, blah, blah, blah conservatives are evil, blah blah I hate Republicans, blah Blah, Rand is a meanie, blah, blah. 


 




 


As Mainecaptain said, "bizzare."

Democrats think the glass is half full.
Republicans think the glass is theirs.
Libertarians want to break the glass, because they think a conspiracy created it.
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 25, 2011 - 7:31PM #194
Ebon
Posts: 10,115

Jun 25, 2011 -- 1:45PM, Roodog wrote:

I hold that those who need help should get help including help in getting gainful employment.



I have some ideas in that regard. Let's establish a national network of JobCentres along with legislation that every job for which application is open to the public at large (i.e. headhunting someone doesn't count) be notified to those centres. The JobCentres shall display all available jobs on their noticeboards and website (categorised by locality and skill-level, obviously) and shall offer the free use of telephones and computers to apply for those jobs. They shall also offer short courses in job skills such as CV/resume writing, interview technique and basic computer literacy (what's called CLAIT 2 here). The Centre shall also offer advice for those looking to start up their own business, such as help formulating a business plan and applying for financing. And finally, it shall offer small, interest-free loans for things like buying an interview suit, attending interviews or relocating for work. Welfare goes back to being a non-time-limited entitlement but administered through the JobCentres and contingent upon actively seeking work. While we're at it, let us also legislate that companies must respond to a submitted application, even if it's just PISS OFF scrawled in crayon (there is absolutely nothing more disheartening for a jobseeker than companies that ignore applications) and that companies must respond to enquiries from the JobCentre about whether X has turned up for an interview (too many horror stories of people who lose their welfare because the company doesn't bother replying).


Combine that with the Rebuild America Corps that I've been banging on about for ages and you have a society that says: "If you genuinely cannot work, we will care for you and if you genuinely cannot find work, we will help you to find work but we will not accept freeloaders".


Some positions do not offer health care insurance, these workers should be on Medicare. If the system really gets out of hand, then the Feds should nationalize the entire health care insurance industry. Then rates and premiums can be set by Congress.



Works for me.


It does not help when American jobs are being outsourced to countries without unions and minimum wage laws.



Tariffs and tidy up the legislation. That's relatively easy to solve if those in power were actively interested in solving it.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2011 - 3:30PM #195
NATAS
Posts: 832

Howdy Ebon


Jun 24, 2011 -- 12:43PM, Ebon wrote:


Jun 24, 2011 -- 12:00PM, IDBC wrote:

That is poorly put claim because you did not give reasons as to why you think it's just a collection of excuses for being an arsehole.  


It is a rhetorically polemical statement.  I can just as easily claim that:


"Socialism" is even a really a "philosophy", it's just a collection of excuses for being an arsehole.


or to make a richer statement. 


"Socialism" isn't really a "philosophy" it's just a collection of excuses for beling an arsehole. 



Jun 24, 2011 -- 12:43PM, Ebon wrote:


Picking on my typos? Really?



Only to clarify what you meant.  Although I do confess it was a petty. 


Jun 24, 2011 -- 12:43PM, Ebon wrote:


The thing is, socialism's core principles don't lend themselves to being a jerk.



A jerk is a person.  Socialism is an economic principle.  A person who is a socialist can be a jerk.


Jun 24, 2011 -- 12:43PM, Ebon wrote:


The central principles (and I mean the real ones, not the Fox News version) are about cooperation, sharing and communal management.



What are the core principles of "real" socialism?


Is communism a "real" socialism? 


The problem with stating that there is a "real" socialism is similar to the problem of stating that there is a "real" Christianity or "real" Islam or a "real" capitalism. 


 


Jun 24, 2011 -- 12:43PM, Ebon wrote:


The central principles of Objectivism are about selfishness, pleasing the self and taking what you desire i.e. being an arsehole.



The central principles  Objectivism(and I mean the real ones, not the NPR and other left-wing socialist news programs  ) is the meta-ethical doctrine that there are certain moral truths that are independent of the attitudes of any individuals. The philosophical doctrine that reality is objective, and that sense data correspond with it.  It is an epistimological philosophy and not an economic philosophy.  


Capitialism or in the case of Ayn Rand "lassiez faire" is an the economic system that is in opposition to the economic system of socialism.  


This is what the "core principles" of Objectivism according to Ayn Rand are:


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)


Quoting in part


"Objectivism is a philosophy defined by the Russian-American
philosopher and novelist Ayn Rand (1905–1982). Objectivism holds that reality exists independent of consciousness, that human beings have direct contact with reality through sense perception, that one can attain objective knowledge from perception through the process of concept formation and inductive and deductive logic, that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism, and that the role of art in human life is to transform man's widest metaphysical ideas, by selective reproduction of reality, into a physical form—a work of art—that he can comprehend and to which he can respond emotionally."


 


Please note that "self interest-selfishness" should be "RATIONAL."  


What is it in what I quoted(or in the rest of the link) do you object to?


 


 


 


  


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2011 - 4:03PM #196
Ebon
Posts: 10,115

Jun 27, 2011 -- 3:30PM, NATAS wrote:

A jerk is a person.  Socialism is an economic principle.  A person who is a socialist can be a jerk.



I know, I was being flippant.


What are the core principles of "real" socialism?



Communal ownership of the means of production and distribution, usually (but not always) through the mechanism of the state. It also seeks a fairer society but since pretty much every philosophy does that, that's not a very useful description.


Is communism a "real" socialism?



No, communism is an extension of socialism. There are two primary differences: Firstly, with a socialist system, you still get paid for your labour and can then exchange that pay for, say, a pair of shoes (for example). Communism cuts out the middle man and just pays you directly in goods and services. Secondly, socialism is concerned (almost) entirely with economics while communism adds a series of theories on cultural and sociological issues. Annoyingly, Wiki lumps Communism and Socialism together when they're really seperate systems.


The problem with stating that there is a "real" socialism is similar to the problem of stating that there is a "real" Christianity or "real" Islam or a "real" capitalism.



To an extent but the people who formulated the early ideas of socialism expressed themselves in fairly simple (albeit, somewhat archaic to our eyes) terms by people who had a roughly similar worldview to ourselves whereas the Abrahamic holy books were compiled (at least) 1400 years ago so the language is entirely archaic and the writers saw the world in an entirely different way to ourselves. When I talk about "real" socialism, I'm talking about ideas that were formed largely in the late-18th Century, what might be considered classic socialism. Now, if you mean that there are numerous competing schools of thought within socialism, you'd be entirely correct.


 


The central principles  Objectivism(and I mean the real ones, not the NPR and other left-wing socialist news programs  )



Oh dear, and you were doing so well. Firstly, being to the left does not mean being socialist. There are vast tracts of left-wing thought that have little or nothing to do with socialism in the same way as there are vast tracts of right-wing thought that do not involve fascism. Secondly, assuming one's disputant is gathering their views from some media program is really just a slightly politer way of accusing someone of not knowing what they're talking about. It's an insult and assumes that anyone who actually understands the issues would come to agreement.


What is it in what I quoted do you object to?



That's an extremely sympathetic description and again, a description that seeks to present Rand's views as far more reasonable and moderate than they actually were. Rand's ideas were very, very extreme, radical in the truest sense of the word and the only way to pretend they weren't is to outright deny what she actually said. I object to, firstly, the egotism of naming a philosophy "Objectivism". Secondly to the very idea that

that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism



I consider that to be not just wrong but evil and dangerous. Every greedy bastard in the world considers their greed to be "rational". There is nothing unique or worthwhile here, it is, as I said, simply another entry into mankind's endless attempts to dignify naked greed. Finally, the current fad for Ran's works has bred the contemptably stupid view on the right that there is nothing to leftist thought but socialism, that anything not in line with Rand's (again, very radical) views is socialism.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2011 - 6:13PM #197
NATAS
Posts: 832

Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


Jun 27, 2011 -- 3:30PM, NATAS wrote:

A jerk is a person.  Socialism is an economic principle.  A person who is a socialist can be a jerk.



I know, I was being flippant.



You were being frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness?


What are the core principles of "real" socialism?



Communal ownership of the means of production and distribution, usually (but not always) through the mechanism of the state.



I disagree with the "ownership" part of the statement.  To be able to "own" something imples  that you can sell what you own.  If I "won" a car or a house or some other property I can sell whatever it is that I "own". 


I cannot sell "the means of production" in a socialist economy.


 


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


 It also seeks a fairer society but since pretty much every philosophy does that, that's not a very useful description.



I agree that pretty much every economic philosophy makes claims of being "fair" and it is not a very useful description. 


 


Is communism a "real" socialism?



No, communism is an extension of socialism.



Communism is one form of socialism.  In a communist economy the means of production is "owned" in common.   Communism also seeks to prevent greedy capitialism. 


 


 

Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


 There are two primary differences: Firstly, with a socialist system, you still get paid for your labour and can then exchange that pay for, say, a pair of shoes (for example).



In the Soviet Union aka the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics the worker was paid for his labor with money that he could exchange for a pair of shoes. 


In the United States of America the worker was paid for his labor with money that he could exchange for a pair of shoes. 


 


 


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


 Communism cuts out the middle man and just pays you directly in goods and services.



No. In a Communist economy a person is paid for his labor with money in which he exchanges for goods and services. 


Now in theory the goods and services that were to be exchanged with money earned from the workers labor would cost less because the greedy middleman aka capitalist was cut out. 


 


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


 Secondly, socialism is concerned (almost) entirely with economics while communism adds a series of theories on cultural and sociological issues. Annoyingly, Wiki lumps Communism and Socialism together when they're really seperate systems.



I disagree. Communism is primarily an economic system like socialism.  There might be variations on how it is applied from country to country due to culture.  But fundamentally they are more like each other than they are like capitalism. 


 


The problem with stating that there is a "real" socialism is similar to the problem of stating that there is a "real" Christianity or "real" Islam or a "real" capitalism.


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


To an extent but the people who formulated the early ideas of socialism expressed themselves in fairly simple (albeit, somewhat archaic to our eyes) terms by people who had a roughly similar worldview to ourselves whereas the Abrahamic holy books were compiled (at least) 1400 years ago so the language is entirely archaic and the writers saw the world in an entirely different way to ourselves.


 


 When I talk about "real" socialism, I'm talking about ideas that were formed largely in the late-18th Century, what might be considered classic socialism. Now, if you mean that there are numerous competing schools of thought within socialism, you'd be entirely correct.


It is my claim that communism is one of the "competing"  schools of thought within the socialist economic philosophy.   It is my claim that Karl Mark and Fredich Engels were socialist philosophers. 


Compare "socialism" with "communism".


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism


 


 


 


 


 


The central principles  Objectivism(and I mean the real ones, not the NPR and other left-wing socialist news programs  )


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


 


Oh dear, and you were doing so well. Firstly, being to the left does not mean being socialist.



The left as far as economics is concerned is overhelmingly socialist. 


 "The term was then applied to a number of revolutionary movements, especially socialism, anarchism[5] and communism as well as more reformist movements like social democracy and social liberalism.[6][7]"


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_politics


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


There are vast tracts of left-wing thought that have little or nothing to do with socialism



That is true when they are not adressing the subjects of economics. 


But when the left is adressing the subject of economics it is overhelming socialist-communist.


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


 in the same way as there are vast tracts of right-wing thought that do not involve fascism.



And in the same way that there are vast tracts of right-wing thought that do not involve lassiez faire capitalism. 


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


Secondly, assuming one's disputant is gathering their views from some media program is really just a slightly politer way of accusing someone of not knowing what they're talking about.


 


It's an insult and assumes that anyone who actually understands the issues would come to agreement.




Does that include those disputants that is gathering their views from BOTH the left-wing media like NPR and the right-wing media like FOX ?


 


What is it in what I quoted do you object to?


 


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


That's an extremely sympathetic description and again, a description that seeks to present Rand's views as far more reasonable and moderate than they actually were.



I disagree with the claim that it is an "extremely sympathetic description and again, a description that seeks to present Rand's views as far more reasonable and moderate".


Why do you think that the link the description was "extremely sympathetic" to Rand's views?


 


 


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


 Rand's ideas were very, very extreme, radical in the truest sense of the word and the only way to pretend they weren't is to outright deny what she actually said. I object to, firstly, the egotism of naming a philosophy "Objectivism".



Why was it egotistic of her to name her philosophy Obejecitivism?


 


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


 Secondly to the very idea that

that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of one's own happiness or rational self-interest, that the only social system consistent with this morality is full respect for individual rights, embodied in laissez faire capitalism



Well I could object to the very idea that the proper moral purpose of one's life is the pursuit of other's happiness and that irrational selfishness is the only system consisent with morality. 


 


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


I consider that to be not just wrong but evil and dangerous. Every greedy bastard in the world considers their greed to be "rational".



I consider greed to be wrong, evil and dangerous.  But greed is a negative quality that individuals have.  


Greed is an excessive desire for food, wealth or power. 


 


 


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


 There is nothing unique or worthwhile here, it is, as I said, simply another entry into mankind's endless attempts to dignify naked greed.



Naked greed the quest for excessive wealth and power can exist in socialist economies. 


 


Jun 27, 2011 -- 4:03PM, Ebon wrote:


Finally, the current fad for Ran's works has bred the contemptably stupid view on the right that there is nothing to leftist thought but socialism, that anything not in line with Rand's (again, very radical) views is socialism.



The primary complaint that the right-wing has with the left-wing has to do with economics and with regards to economics the left-wing is socialist.  If you were to claim that communisim is an extreme left-wing school of socialism I would agree with you. 


But what I am skeptical about is the implied claim that capitalism is a right-wing economic system.  Or that every rich capitialist is greedy. 


 


 


 

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 27, 2011 - 6:52PM #198
Ebon
Posts: 10,115

Jun 27, 2011 -- 6:13PM, NATAS wrote:

You were being frivolously disrespectful, shallow, or lacking in seriousness?



Lacking in seriousness, on this occasion. I've been meaning to ask, is English your second language? You often apply literal meanings where a native speaker wouldn't. That's not a criticism, just an observation.


I disagree with the "ownership" part of the statement.  To be able to "own" something imples  that you can sell what you own.  If I "won" a car or a house or some other property I can sell whatever it is that I "own".



I would disagree with that. Ownership implies possession and, to some degree, control, not necessarily the right of sale. That's a different quality that, while somewhat related, doesn't necessarily amount to the same thing. Example: Legally, I am considered to "own" my home while I pay rent but I cannot sell the house as the deed rests with the landlord.


I cannot sell "the means of production" in a socialist economy.



Not in classical socialism, no. Certain other schools of socialism would allow you to sell your "share" (for lack of a better term).


 


Communism is one form of socialism.  In a communist economy the means of production is "owned" in common.   Communism also seeks to prevent greedy capitialism.



I just explained what the difference is. If you're not going to listen to me, why are we bothering with this conversation? The two are not the same thing. Communism is an extension of socialism, not just another form of it.


 

In the Soviet Union aka the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics the worker was paid for his labor with money that he could exchange for a pair of shoes.



OK, you're going to have to get over the literalism. Just because the USSR called themselves "socialist" doesn't mean they actually were. The Nazis called themselves "socialist" as well but they were directly opposite and the Islamic Republic of Iran is not really a Republic. It's just words and countries and political parties call themselves all kinds of things.


I disagree. Communism is primarily an economic system like socialism.  There might be variations on how it is applied from country to country due to culture.  But fundamentally they are more like each other than they are like capitalism. 



And an egg is more like a ball than capitalism, so what? Again, if you're not going to substitute misinformation for facts, there's not much point in having this discussion. Yes, they are similar, that doesn't make them the same thing.


It is my claim that communism is one of the "competing"  schools of thought within the socialist economic philosophy.   It is my claim that Karl Mark and Fredich Engels were socialist philosophers.



You can claim to be a Martian, you're still wrong and I already complained that Wiki erroneously lumps the two together.


The left as far as economics is concerned is overhelmingly socialist.



Yeah, I'm just going to leave it there because you're talking bollocks, uninterested in learning the actual facts and just insulting lefties. Feel free to have teh last word because I'm not going to waste my time with you any further.

He who oppresses the poor shows contempt for their Maker, but whoever is kind to the needy honors God. ~ Proverbs 14:31

Fiat justitia, ruat caelum

Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2011 - 4:52PM #199
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,771

Ebon I always appreciate your knowledge. Thank you

A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
3 years ago  ::  Jun 28, 2011 - 9:50PM #200
Roodog
Posts: 10,168

St Paul wrote some 1950 years ago that men would become "Lovers of themselves rather than lovers of God."


This sounds like the philosophy promoted by Rand's disciples.


It is incompatable with classic Christianity.

For those who have faith, no explanation is neccessary.
For those who have no faith, no explanation is possible.

St. Thomas Aquinas

If one turns his ear from hearing the Law, even his prayer is an abomination. Proverbs 28:9
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 20 of 23  •  Prev 1 ... 18 19 20 21 22 23 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook