Category Archives: Economy

Byron York absolves the GOP of their responsibility for tax increases

http://m.washingtonexaminer.com/how-gop-can-turn-the-tables-on-obama-on-spending/article/2514983/?page=2&referrer=/politics ….”

Republicans will cave on the question of raising the tax rate for the highest-income Americans. The only question is whether they do so before or after the government goes over the so-called fiscal cliff. First, many in the GOP do not believe that raising the rate on top earners from 35 percent to 39.6 percent (the rate before the Bush tax cuts) would seriously damage the economy. Second, they know that most Americans approve of higher taxes on the top bracket, and President Obama, having campaigned and won on that platform, seems dead-set on higher rates. Third, they fear that if the government does go over the cliff and Democrats propose re-lowering taxes for everyone except the highest earners, Republicans would be in the impossible position of resisting tax cuts for 98 percent of the country on behalf of the top 2 percent.

“….. ….”

A Republican offer to allow a top rate increase in exchange for entitlement cuts would turn the spotlight on the Democrats’ entitlement dilemma. If President Obama takes the position of many in his party — AFL-CIO chief Richard Trumka, for example, has written, “NO to cuts to Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid and YES to fair taxes on the wealthiest 2 percent”– there will be no deal. But that would not stop the Republicans from saying right now: While we do not support raising taxes on anyone, especially in this weak economy, we will accept the president’s top-bracket rate increase in exchange for trillion-dollar cuts in the big three entitlement programs.

“…. RRD: Being a Objectivist has its perks,such as knowledge of the term “The metaphysical vs the man-made”. Metaphysical vs. Man-Made — Ayn Rand Lexicon http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/metaphysical_vs_man-made.html Metaphysical: You have cancer. Man-made: You cannot get treatment because the government has decided that you are “unfit” to live. Both are facts of reality,but the former is an amoral act of nature ,while the latter is subject to human volition (i.e. Free Will) & therefore has a moral dimension. It does not have to be. It is a man-made injustice. The appropriate response is outrage at the evil men making such a determination. Another example is when we are told that the desire of the voters for entitlement spending is a “reality” ,(while the fact that we are bankrupting our country apparently is not. ) Now we are being told that the Republicans WILL cave;as if it were a fact of nature rather than a immoral decision freely made by adults. The purpose of this is to absolve those RINOS of responsibility for their actions. But if it is a “fact” that Republicans will cave on taxes,then why is it not also a “fact” that Republicans will cave on spending? Experience has taught us that real,actual spending cuts either never arrive or are soon reversed. What’s more whether “many in the GOP” believe that raising taxes in a recession would not harm the economy or not, the fact is that IT WOULD HARM THE ECONOMY. That brings us to the third absurdity: That Obama will cut non-defense spending;ever. What on earth leads York to think this? What in Obama’s past indicates that he is anything less than a tax & spend liberal at best? (And likely something far worse) What Obama will likely do is to say “aha! Republicans concede that we should raise taxes on those who can afford to contribute more,so why are they holding the Middle-Class hostage to their mean-spirited desire to throw grandma off a cliff!” The only thing from York’s argument that will likely be adopted by the GOP establishment is the part that absolves the GOP of all responsibility. They will say :”look mainstream Republicans said that we didn’t have any choice about raising taxes”… Will they be selectively quoting him? Of course,what of it? These people don’t think about the long-term consequences of the debt. They do not think about our country becoming Weimar Germany economically (with the potential danger of a strongman taking advantage of the disaster to seize power),they think of nothing, other than their re-election. If Obama would agree to this proposal, fine. He won’t,and any concessions will simply serve to embolden Obama rather than to persuade him to make concessions.

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Economy

Larry Elder the five “reasons” to re-elect Obama Townhall #tcot #teaparty #2012elections

http://m.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/2012/09/06/the_five_reasons_to_reelect_obama

”1) Obama “inherited” the worst set of economic conditions since World War II.

False. Based on unemployment, inflation and interest rates, the recession of 1981-82 was worse. Unemployment during the early ’80s reached 10.8 percent, inflation 13.5 percent, and prime interest rates reached 21.5 percent. During this so-called “Great Recession,” the numbers peaked at 10.2 unemployment, 5.6 percent inflation and 7.25 percent for the prime interest rate.

2) Obama’s economic policies “rescued the economy from falling off a cliff.”

False. Nearly 350 economists, including several Nobel laureates, publicly urged Obama to following the path President Reagan pursued — cutting taxes, slowing the growth of domestic spending and continuing deregulation.

Most business economists think Obama’s “stimulus” plan accomplished little, if anything, with some academic economists, like Stanford’s John Taylor, believing that stimulus actually made things worse: “I just don’t think there’s any evidence. When you look at the numbers, when you see what happened, when people reacted to the stimulus, it did very little good.”

TARP, begun under President George W. Bush, supposedly prevented financial institutions from collapsing. But Neil Barofsky, in his new book called “Bailout: An Inside Account of How Washington Abandoned Main Street While Rescuing Wall Street,” argues that TARP completely failed in its mission: to increase liquidity to jumpstart lending.

The reason for intervention in the first place is that banks had become “too big too fail.” Not only did the banks park the money and make risk-free profits off the spread, but banks became bigger than ever after TARP”

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Economy, Obamacare, Politics

Team Obama: We’re better off with higher unemployment #tcot #teaparty

RRD: There are three words for this, one is,”spin” & the other two are a compound word whose mentionable part is ”bull”. One must ask why Team Obama thinks that Americans will permit them to redefine “recovery” downward to mean increased unemployment,higher poverty rates,& having more Americans on food stamps and welfare. Evidently Americans are supposed to give up their hopes and their dreams so Obama can feel good. After all he wants to be President,isn’t that all that matters. Obama needn’t do anything to merit reelection, his mere presence on tv is his gift to us. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0912/80584.html?hp=l1 ”Asked on NBC’s “Today” show whether Americans were better off, Obama deputy campaign manager Stephanie Cutter was definitive. “Absolutely,” said Cutter, listing statistics about rising unemployment and declining wages in the six months before Obama took office. “By any measure, the country has moved forward over the last four years. It might not be as fast as some people would have hoped, [but] the president agrees with that, he knows we need to do more.” “The answer is we are better off,” Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, chairman of the Democratic National Convention, said on CBS’s “This Morning.” “We were losing 800,000 jobs a month, we lost 3.5 million jobs, the mortgage lending crisis was creating a foreclosure problem that we hadn’t seen since probably the Great Depression … We’ve had 29 consecutive months of growth in private-sector jobs… So the answer is yes, we are better off.” RRD: How can one have job growth if Unemployment is higher? Answer words mean whatever we wish them to mean. “Absolutely,” said Democratic National Committee spokesman Brad Woodhouse on CNN’s “Starting Point.” “The truth is, though, is that the American people know, we were literally a plane that was heading, the trajectory was towards the ground when the president took over. He got the stick and pulled us up out of that decline.” RRD: If Obama pulled us out of the decline how is it that he has added trillions to the debt and we now have fewer jobs after his stimulus? These answers differ from Gov. Martin O’Malley’s (D- Md.) response to the same question Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.” Asked whether Americans were better off, O’Malley replied, “No, but that’s not the question of this election.” RRD: Really? What is the question? Whether Obama wishes to be re-elected or not?

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Economy

Stimulus not working, we must liquidate

<a href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en_US”&gt; alt=”Creative

<a href="image

<a href="License” style=”border-width:0″ src=”http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-nd/3.0/88×31.png” />
http://purl.org/dc/terms/”href=&#8221;http://purl.org/dc/dcmitype/StillImage”



property=”dct:title” rel=”dct:type”>Stimulus not working, we must liquidate

by http://creativecommons.org/ns#&#8221; href=”http://www.fightingstatism.posterous.com” property=”cc:attributionName” rel=”cc:attributionURL”>Robert Reed Daly is licensed under a <a href="Creative”>http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/deed.en_US”>Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://creativecommons.org/ns#&#8221; href=”http://www.gloryofman.wordpress.com” rel=”cc:morePermissions”><a href="http://www.gloryofman.wordpress.com.”>http://www.gloryofman.wordpress.com.

Leave a comment

August 30, 2012 · 4:01 am

Ignoramus confesses her ignorance of #Objectivism by her ”death-blow” to it.

RRD:At this point the alert(or conscious) reader may ask:How can a ignoramus deal a death blow to a philosophy of which they are ignorant of?

Exactly.

Before continuing I wish to state that I am not any kind of “official” spokesperson for Objectivism,that what follows is My presentation of certain aspects of Objectivism as I understand the philosophy.
As always a detailed,serious study of the primary source material is needed to understand any philosophy,and I would refer the reader to Ayn Rand’s corpus of writings,which flesh out and apply her views,and answer criticisms raised against Objectivism.

Victoria Bekiempis,a ignoramus(or liar)–who claims to be a ex-Objectivist–published a column in The Guardian in which she cited a article entitled “Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism” written by another ignoramus (or liar),
named Sandra LaFave.

Bekiempis’ article is here:

Confessions of a recovering Objectivist | Victoria Bekiempis | Comment is free | guardian.co.uk

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/10/confessions-recovering-objectivist-ayn-rand

Bekiempis asserts that her own categorical assertion about unnamed ”experts”(below)
when taken together
with LaFave’s article(excerpted later),serve to illustrate “foundational problems” in Objectivism.To this she adds that it would be “generous” for Bekiempis and LaFave to “concede” that they do not deal a “death-blow” to Objectivism.

I will first critique Bekiempis,then LaFave.

Bekiempis:

”Another key concern is that psychological egoism might not be final stage of an individual’s ethical development. We start off selfish, say some theorists, but we must move beyond convention and toward post -conventional social contract and conscience for true moral growth. ”

Which theorists?

Do they have names?

Are their names unmentionable?

If they are mentionable,what are they?

What evidence or arguments do they have to back up their claims?

What counter-arguments are there from Rand or others?

Isn’t it begging the question to say: “but we must move beyond convention and toward post -conventional social contract and conscience for true moral growth”

Doesn’t that presuppose that ”selfishness” (aka ”convention”) is bad & that this ”post-conventional social contract and conscience ” is good?

If so it is not a argument,it is a assertion.

What–specifically–does it mean to “move beyond convention and toward post-conventional social contract and conscience”anyway & what are the arguments for doing this?

What are the counter-arguments?

Why is this so-called “true moral growth” supposedly moral?

Does Bekiempis expect us to research & assemble her argument for her?

Ayn Rand herself produced over two thousand pages of writing explaining her philosophy in great detail.

Those interested can find her full list of works at the Ayn Rand Bookstore,along with lectures & books by other Objectivists.

Ayn Rand Bookstore

http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/

Now let us turn to the arguments of LaFave which were cited by Bekiempis’.

LaFave:

Psychological Egoism and Ethical Egoism

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Egoism.html

”In fact, people who think psychological egoism is true (such as Thomas Hobbes and Ayn Rand) often use it as a premise in an argument to deny the validity of traditional ethics altogether”

…”The ethical egoist thinks we should pursue self-interest because we can’t help but do so. But if we must pursue self -interest, as the premise states, then what’s the point of saying we should ? If psychological egoism is true, we can’t act any other way. In other words,ethical egoism only makes sense if psychological egoism is false, i.e., if we have a genuine choice. ”….

RRD:There can be no doubt but that these are the people and wisdom shall die with them(paraphase of Job 12:2)

“But what’s wrong with their argument?”

What’s wrong with it is that Ayn Rand was not a adherent of the idea “that we should pursue self-interest because we can’t help but do so”,nor did she believe that ”all acts were selfish”.

Those of us who have actually read her works(or even just her novel Atlas Shrugged) are aware that she was not a advocate of these views,because of the very subtle hints she would drop from time to time in her writings.

Subtle hints like:

“Instinct” — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/instinct.html

Galt’s Speech,For the New Intellectual , 121

..”An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an instinct. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man’s desire to live is not automatic . . . Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.”….

RRD:And hints like:

The Ayn Rand Institute: The Objectivist Ethics, by Ayn Rand

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ari_ayn_rand_the_objectivist_ethics

(Ayn Rand quoting Galt’s speech her novel Atlas Shrugged part 3 chapter 7 ”This is John Galt Speaking” )

…“Through centuries of scourges and disasters, brought about by your code of morality[RRD:Altruism fn1] you have cried that your code had been broken,that the scourges were punishment for breaking it, that men were too weak and too selfish to spill all the blood it required.You damned man, you damned existence, you damned this earth, but never dared to question your code. . . . You went on crying that your code was noble, but human nature was not good enough to practice it. And no one rose to ask the question: Good ?—by what standard ?”..

“Yes, this is an age of moral crisis. . . . Your moral code has reached its climax,the blind alley at the end of its course. And if you wish to go on living, what you now need is not to return to morality . . . but to discover it.”

…”[Rand] I quote from Galt’s speech: “Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal. Man has to be man—by choice; he has to hold his life as a value—by choice; he has to learn to sustain it—by choice; he has to discover the values it requires and practice his virtues—by choice. A code of values accepted by choice is a code of morality.”….

Next Ayn Rand spoke directly in
The Objectivist Ethics.

“Man has no automatic code of survival. He has no automatic course of action, no automatic set of values. His senses do not tell him automatically what is good for him or evil, what will benefit his life or endanger it, what goals he should pursue and what means will achieve them, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. His own consciousness has to discover the answers to all these questions—but his consciousness will not function automatically . Man, the highest living species on this earth—the being whose consciousness has a limitless capacity for gaining knowledge—man is the only living entity born without any guarantee of remaining conscious at all. Man’s particular distinction from all other living species is the fact that his consciousness is volitional .”…

….”But man’s responsibility goes still further: a process of thought is not automatic nor “instinctive” nor involuntary—nor infallible. Man has to initiate it, to sustain it and to bear responsibility for its results. He has to discover how to tell what is true or false and how to correct his own errors; he has to discover how to validate his concepts, his conclusions, his knowledge; he has to discover the rules of thought, the laws of logic ,to direct his thinking. Nature gives him no automatic guarantee of the efficacy of his mental effort.”

…”He cannot achieve his survival by arbitrary means nor by random motions nor by blind urges nor by chance nor by whim. That which his survival requires is set by his nature and is not open to his choice. What is open to his choice is only whether he will discover it or not, whether he will choose the right goals and values or not. He is free to make the wrong choice, but not free to succeed with it.” …

Original Sin — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/original_sin.html

Galt’s Speech, For the New Intellectual , 136

…”The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

…”A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. ”…

…”Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a “tendency” to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.”…

And Ayn Rand on Tabula Rasa.

Tabula Rasa — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/tabula_rasa.html

“The Comprachicos,” Return of the Primitive: The Anti -Industrial Revolution, 54

…”At birth, a child’s mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness—the mechanism of a human consciousness—but no content. Speaking metaphorically, he has a camera with an extremely sensitive, unexposed film (his conscious mind), and an extremely complex computer waiting to be programmed (his subconscious). Both are blank”…

…. To focus his eyes (which is not an innate, but an acquired skill), to perceive the things around him by integrating his sensations into percepts (which is not an innate, but an acquired skill), to coordinate his muscles for the task of crawling, then standing upright, then walking—and, ultimately, to grasp the process of concept -formation and learn to speak—these are some of an infant’s tasks and achievements whose magnitude is not equaled by most men in the rest of their lives.”…

Atlas Shrugged – Wikiquote

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

Francisco D’Anconia

“Until and unless you discover that money is the root of all good, you ask for your own destruction. When money ceases to be the tool by which men deal with one another, then men become the tools of men. Blood, whips and guns –or dollars. Take your choice – there is no other – and your time is running out.”

Francisco d’Anconia to Hank Rearden

“When you felt proud of the rail of the John Galt Line,” said Francisco, the measured rhythm of his voice giving a ruthless clarity to his words, “what sort of men did you think of ? Did you want to see that Line used by your equals—by giants of productive energy, such as Ellis Wyatt, whom it would help to reach higher and still higher achievements of their own ?” “Yes,” said Rearden eagerly. “Did you want to see it used by men who could not equal the power of your mind, but who would equal your moral integrity—men such as Eddie Willers—who could never invent your Metal, but who would do their best, work as hard as you did, live by their own effort, and—riding on your rail—give a moment’s silent thanks to the man who gave them more than they could give him?” “Yes,” said Rearden gently. “Did you want to see it used by whining rotters who never rouse themselves to any effort, who do not possess the ability of a filing clerk, but demand the income of a company president, who drift from failure to failure and expect you to pay their bills, who hold their wishing as an equivalent of your work and their need as a higher claim to reward than your effort, who demand that you serve them, who demand that it be the aim of your life to serve them, who demand that your strength be the voiceless, rightless, unpaid, unrewarded slave of their impotence, who proclaim that you are born to serfdom by reason of your genius, while they are born to rule by the grace of incompetence, that yours is only to give, but theirs only to take, that yours is to produce, but theirs to consume, that you are not to be paid, neither in matter nor in spirit, neither by wealth nor by recognition nor by respect nor by gratitude—so that they would ride on your rail and sneer at you and curse you, since they owe you nothing, not even the effort of taking off their hats which you paid for? Would this be what you wanted ? Would you feel proud of it?” “I’d blast that rail first,” said Rearden, his lips white. “Then why don’t you do it, Mr. Rearden ? Of the three kinds of men I described—which men are being destroyed and which are using your Line today ?” They heard the distant metal heartbeats of the mills through the long thread of silence. “What I described last,” said Francisco, “is any man who proclaims his right to a single penny of another man’s effort.”

John Galt

“I swear by my life and my love of it, that I will never live for the sake of another man, nor ask another man to live for mine.”

“There is only one kind of men who have never been on strike in the whole of human history. Every other kind and class has stopped, when they so wished, and have presented demands to the world, claiming to be indispensable – except the men who have carried the world on their shoulders, have kept it alive, have endured torture as sole payment, but have never walked out on the human race. Well, their turn has come. Let the world discover who they are, what they do and what happens when they refuse to function. This is the strike of the men of the mind, Miss Taggart. This is the mind on strike.”

“We’ve heard so much about strikes, and about the dependence of the uncommon man upon the common. We’ve heard it shouted that the industrialist is a parasite, that his workers support him, create his wealth, make his luxury possible – and what would happen to him if they walked out ? Very well. I intend to show the world who depends on whom, who supports whom, who is the source of wealth, who makes whose livelihood possible and what happens to who when whom walks out.”

“The businessman who wishes to gain a market by throttling a superior competitor, the worker who wants a share of his employer’s wealth, the artist who envies a rival’s higher talent -they’re all wishing facts out of existence, and destruction is the only means of their wish. If they pursue it, they will not achieve a market, a fortune, or an immortal fame – they will merely destroy production, employment and art. A wish for the irrational is not to be achieved, whether the sacrificial victims are willing or not. But men will not cease to desire the impossible and will not lose their longing to destroy – so long as self -destruction and self -sacrifice are preached to them as the practical means of achieving the happiness of the recipients.”

Chapter Seven: This is John Galt Speaking

“For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors – between those who preached that the good is self -sacrifice for the sake of ghosts in heaven and those who preached that the good is self -sacrifice for the sake of incompetents on earth. And no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it.”

And for those who still didn’t get it Ayn Rand published a essay in 1962 explicitly rejecting the claim that “all actions are selfish”.It was called “Isn’t Everyone Selfish” it was written on her behalf by Nathaniel Branden.

(Ayn Rand broke off relations with the Brandens and does not regard anything that they wrote after the break,or anything that they wrote which she did not oversee,to be part of her philosophy ) (fn2)

So far as I can tell the text of the article is not online,but it is hardly obscure.
It was included in the Virtue Of Selfishness Which is one of her more popular non-fiction books.(fn3)

But at this point you may say:”Aha!But Nietzche believed in ”blood” and instincts and Rand was a Nietzchean!”

It is true that Rand was heavily influenced by Nietzche when young(during what would later be called her Nietzchean phase),but her view of Nietzsche became progressively more negative as she became increasingly more “Neo-Aristotelian” in her outlook. (“Neo-Aristotelian” is how the academic community would term it,it was not her term)

In her Introduction to The Fountainhead she wrote:

Nietzsche, Friedrich — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nietzsche,_friedrich.html

“Introduction to The Fountainhead,” The Objectivist , March 1968, 6

”Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms.

RRD:Then:

Selfishness — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html

“Introduction,” The Virtue of Selfishness, ix

..”The Objectivist ethics holds that the actor must always be the beneficiary of his action and that man must act for his own rational self -interest. But his right to do so is derived from his nature as man and from the function of moral values in human life—and, therefore, is applicable only in the context of a rational, objectively demonstrated and validated code of moral principles which define and determine his actual self -interest. It is not a license “to do as he pleases” and it is not applicable to the altruists’ image of a “selfish” brute nor to any man motivated by irrational emotions, feelings, urges, wishes or whims.

This is said as a warning against the kind of “Nietzschean egoists” who, in fact, are a product of the altruist morality and represent the other side of the altruist coin: the men who believe that any action, regardless of its nature, is good if it is intended for one’s own benefit. Just as the satisfaction of the irrational desires of others is not a criterion of moral value, neither is the satisfaction of one’s own irrational desires. Morality is not a contest of whims . . . .

RRD:Note that she is referring to ethics.In a Objectivist society people would be legally free to act in a way that Objectivists regard as irrational, so long as they did not violate individual rights. (fn4)

Since Ayn Rand is not a advocate of the ”we’re all selfish” view
everything that follows from the false premise that she is,is a straw man & invalid.

LaFave also makes other straw man arguments, which I will address in a later post.

Footnotes:

fn1.

Altruism — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/altruism.html

Selfishness — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfishness.html

fn2

Ayn Rand:

”I want, therefore, formally to state that the only authentic sources of information on Objectivism are: my own works (books, articles, lectures), the articles appearing in and the pamphlets reprinted by this magazine (The Objectivist , as well as The Objectivist Newsletter), books by other authors which will be endorsed in this magazine as specifically Objectivist literature, and such individual lectures or lecture courses as may be so endorsed. (This list includes also the book Who Is Ayn Rand ? by Nathaniel Branden and Barbara Branden, as well as the articles by these two authors which have appeared in this magazine in the past, but does not include their future works.)

– “A Statement of Policy, Part 1” The Objectivist (Jun 1968/7:6, but written and sent out later)

fn3.

The Ayn Rand Institute: The Virtue of Selfishness

http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_the_virtue_of_selfishness

fn4

Freedom — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/freedom.html

Individual Rights — Ayn Rand Lexicon

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/individual_rights.html

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Current events, Economy, Objectivism, Politics

“You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that you’re incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others… #tcot #teaparty #tlot

Atlas Shrugged – Wikiquote

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Atlas_Shrugged

John Galt

“You propose to establish a social order based on the following tenets: that you’re incompetent to run your own life, but competent to run the lives of others — that you’re unfit to exist in freedom, but fit to become an omnipotent ruler — that you’re unable to earn your living by use of your own intelligence, but able to judge politicians and vote them into jobs of total power over arts you have never seen, over sciences you have never studied, over achievements of which you have no knowledge, over the gigantic industries where you, by your own definition of capacity, would be unable successfully to fill the job of assistant greaser.”

Leave a comment

June 19, 2012 · 5:25 pm

Jeb Bush thinks we’ve got too much “purity”,too little debt,& too low taxes

Jeb Bush: Reagan ‘would have a hard time’ in today’s GOP – The Hill’s Blog Briefing Room

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/232087-jeb-bush-reagan-would-have-a-hard-time-in-todays-gop

…“Ronald Reagan would have,based on his record of finding accommodation, finding some degree of common ground, as would my dad — they would have a hard time if you define the Republican party — and I don’t — as having an orthodoxy that doesn’t allow for disagreement, doesn’t allow for finding some common ground,” Bush said at the headquarters of Bloomberg LP in Manhattan, according to remarks reported by Buzzfeed.

…”According to Buzzfeed, Bush said he thought the rigid and highly charged political atmosphere was “disturbing” but “temporary.”

“Back to my dad’s time and Ronald Reagan’s time — they got a lot of stuff done with a lot of bipartisan suport,” he said, adding that Reagan “would be criticized” for reaching across the aisle today.

…”The former Florida governor also said Monday that the deficit deal his father helped craft more than two decades ago helped spur economic growth, even though his father lost his bid for a second term after breaking his “no new taxes” pledge.”…

RRD:Sure,Jeb,a man who spoke of America’s greatness(& meant it),cut taxes,rebuilt the “Hollow Military”,made deals with Democrats but regretted them,denounced the idea of detente,someone who left the Democratic Party “because it left him”,someone who spent years on the lecture circuit & coined some of the most oft repeated expressions of conservative thought would have a hard time getting the nomination.

This is said at a time when the standard bearer of the GOP is the man who created the prototype for Obamacare.

In fact Jeb a New Reagan is something Conservatives have been seeking desperately,everywhere,
in everyone from your father–who betrayed Reagan–to your brother G.W.Bush to Palin to Scott Brown to Allen West to Marco Rubio to you.
It is like pursuing a mirage of a Oasis that disappears as soon as it is in your grasp.
Of those listed only Rubio,and perhaps West,come close.

No,Jeb Reagan would be welcomed by Conservatives,but he would be scorned by your father,and Murkowski,& other RINOS and CINOS.

Just as he was scorned by Gerald Ford and your father.

You do remember that Ford called Reagan a “extremist”,don’t you Jeb.

Google does remember Jeb(fn1)

It took a great deal of time and effort to find that story.

I went to Google,typed the keywords “Reagan” “Gerald Ford” and “extremist” and Behold! the past comes back to life!

And then there’s this:

The American Spectator : Newt Battles Mush From the Wimps

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/01/31/newt-battles-mush-from-the-wim/print?nomobile=1

…. ”Ford went on at length in this March 1980 Times interview, digging moderate Republicans an even deeper political hole in 1980 than the one they were already in thanks to Dewey and the GOP Establishment. Assured the latest moderate GOP icon of the day:

“Every place I go and everything I hear, there is growing, growing sentiment that Governor Reagan cannot win the election…. I hear more and more often that we don’t want, can’t afford to have a replay of 1964 [the Goldwater defeat by LBJ].”

The Times reporter wrote the rest of the Ford interview story this way:

Asked if he shared the view that Mr. Reagan could not win, Mr. Ford said “it would be an impossible situation” because Mr. Reagan is “perceived as a most conservative Republican.”

“A very conservative Republican,” he said, “can’t win in a national election.”

Meaning [asked the reporter] that Mr. Reagan can’t win?

“That’s right,” replied Mr. Ford. ”….

And Jeb what of your daddy(don’t you remember him Jeb?).

Didn’t he call the center-piece of Reagan’s economic platform ”Voodoo Economics”

…”It just isn’t going to work, and it’s very interesting that the man who invented this type of what I call a voodoo economic policy…

George Herbert Walker Bush.

Speech at Carnegie Mellon University (10 April 1980)”

But let us set aside Jeb’s imaginary Reagan whose goal was ”finding accommodation”& “finding some degree of common ground”
& returning to our timeline–the one where the Earth revolves aound the Sun,and where the South lost the Civil War–let us parse the meaning of this shibboleth “working with others to find bipartisan solutions”.

When Jeb Bush speaks of “finding accommodation” & “finding some degree of common ground” what he means is that the Republicans should collaborate with the Democrats(again) to spend us into bankruptcy,placing our descendents into debt,all to bribe short sighted voters into voting for them,and then later to declare that since “we have so much debt it’s just gosh darn irresponsible not to raise taxes”

But what of ”spending cuts”?

What Jeb Bush(& politicians in general) mean by ”spending cuts” is very different from what sane,honest people mean by
term.Sane,honest people think of someone who spends $100 on something,and then spends $80 on it,thereby cutting
the amount they spend by $20.This is not how our wise leaders think.
They think that when they add less to the debt then they had originally wanted to add to the debt that that constitutes a “savings” “cutting spending”. (ala Dicken’s Richard Carstone in Bleak House ) (fn2)
(Indeed,it constitutes”real cuts”, “massive,painful cuts”,”cuts on the backs of the poor” etc )

To grasp the absurdity of our situation imagine the following:

Imagine you were left your family’s restaurant by your parents,(As you were the “responsible one”).
Imagine that your brother had behaved foolishly with his life & insulted you in the past,but committed no major sin(he never stole)

Imagine that you accepted your brother’s apologies,and accepted his claim to have matured.

Imagine that you decide to entrust your brother with a job,and then one day with the task of taking the money of the family restaurant to the bank,(since you must attend to a emergency).

Imagine that instead of taking it to the bank,he absconds with the money to Las Vegas & spends it on drugs,prostitutes,and roulette.

Imagine that he then comes up with a brillant idea:he will forge your signature and put the family deli up as collateral to a loan shark,and then use that money to make up the money he lost gambling and make millions more to boot,by
gambling some more.
After signing your property over to a Chinese gangster named Mr.Gòngchǎn Zhōngguó
He then tries to figure out why he lost at roulette.He figures out what the problem is.He’s unlucky!To solve this problem he decides to buy a lucky rabbit’s foot,whose magic powers will enable him to win at roulette.

Imagine that the roulette wheel is unmoved by the rabbit’s foot powers of persuasion.

Imagine that He then comes to you and tells you the following:

1.”It doesn’t matter who is to blame for this situation,there is no point in pointing fingers,or in assigning blame.”

2.”Life isn’t fair to me.”

3.”You must work with the mobsters to give them a cut of our business.I say our business since we’re all in this together,and since you and mom and dad cheated me out of my share of the family business by refusing to leave it equally to both of us.”

4.”If you don’t work with the mobsters and share,YOU will be to blame for what happens to me.”

4.He then quotes Cain from the Bible:”Cain said ‘I am not my brother’s keeper’,do you wish to be like a murderer like Cain?What’s more,not only does the Bible say it, but(even more importantly!) President Obama says that “we are our brother’s keeper’ too!”

You answer:

1.If I were Cain you would be dead in the ground.Cain’s sin was envy and murder.

2.I am not your servant because of a offhand comment made by a ancient murderer.

3.Be thankful that I don’t have you arrested for theft and fraud.I won’t.But never want to see you again.

4.I will call the police when the mobsters arrive,since the debt has no legal standing,there’s nothing they can do to us.

Your brother is concerned:”You can’t do that!You’ll ruin my street cred with the other gamblers!I need to stay on good terms with them so I can borrow more money for….stuff.
“We’re brothers!I’m your brother!It’s your duty to help me!
Haven’t you read the Parable of the Prodigal Son!

You:”We’re Jewish.Besides wasn’t that a metaphor for welcoming a repentant sinner,not serving the vices of a unrepentant one?”

Your brother:”Vice!Sin!Evil!Repentance!What kind of morality is that!Morality is brother love!Oh!And NOW you care about the bible!”

You respond:”You brought it up!”

Your Brother:”That’s no excuse for your callousness!”Don’t make excuses for your actions”

You throw up your hands and refuse.

Your brother:
“You,you,souless beast …you monstrous heartless fiend,you think of no one but himself!You’re a bloodthirsty vampire who preys upon the innocent and profits off of the suffering and of the goodwill of others.You are a parasite who is willing to milk the human kindness of others for your own petty gain and then toss them aside!You worship Gold!
Why don’t you sacrifice me to your Golden Calf!
You!You exploited me!
You made me take the money!
It was part of your PLOT!
You knew that I was weak.
You deliberately baited me with that money to tempt me!
You are S-A-T-A-N!!

You respond to this by saying:have you heard of the psychological concept of projection?

If you think that what I wrote above is “over-the-top”,well.. it is ,but then so is our world.

On to Jeb’s “purity”.

I would say to Jeb,define purity?

Is a whorehouse too pure for you,Jeb?

Because the GOP is far less pure than a whorehouse.

Yes,I am being unfair;to prostitutes.
Placing prostitutes on par with Congress is unjust to the former,since a significant percentage of women and girls who work as prostitutes are runaways,or drug addicts,or victims of abuse.Some are young children.
We should stop using the word “whorehouse” to refer to ”a kind of moral sewer” & replace it with the word ”Congress”.

No,Jeb,the problem really is not a surfeit of “ideological purity”,or a unwillingness to ”work across the aisle” to get your ”stuff” done.

No,the problem is neither “ideological purity” ,or for that matter “ideological impurity” (since we would not be better off if we had a “pure” totalitarian regime)

There is not A single problem;there are several related problems.

One problem is that both parties believe and act upon the belief that men exist to serve other men,whether they wish to or not.They believe that they have the right to force those who disagree with them to serve whatever the statists wish to yoke us to at any given time:whether it be the poor,the trees,the owls,the earth,the worms or the weeds,or whatever wishes their deity or deities of choice allgedly communicate to them ..”Jesus was a Occupier!…No,a Republican!” etc)

They believe either that Individual Rights do not exist,or that they may be swept aside for whatever “good” intention pops into their skulls.(Which is to say one and the same thing)

But that is only one political problem.

Why are these thugs in power?

Who elected them?

I could say that “we did” but since I didn’t(with one or two exceptions) I would be lying.

But many Americans did vote to empower this Ship of Fools, which is destroying our rights,and leading our country into national bankruptcy and down the path to third world status.

Some voted for the fools because they lied to us about their intentions,and we either believed them or feared that the alternative would be worse (as I did on the occasions I alluded to above) .

Others,however,voted to send them to Washington to spend us further into debt,or they voted to send them to Washington because “they liked them”,or because “their parents were of the same political party” or some other such rubbish like that.

One wonders if these Congressmen & Senators(of both parties) who constantly speak of doing such and such “for the children” ever think of the future generations of American children who will be buying a carton of milk with baskets of cash?(as they did in Weimar Germany and Zimbabwe)

That is if they can find one.

Footnotes:

fn1.

Times Daily – Google News Archive Search

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1842&dat=19760220&id=GxksAAAAIBAJ&sjid=4sgEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3152,3173004

Toledo Blade – Google News Archive Search

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1350&dat=19760220&id=NQ9PAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dgIEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4872,4880535

fn2

Richard Carstone

Bleak House – Charles Dickens – Google Books

http://books.google.com/books?id=KlsJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA80&vq=save+money&dq=bleak+house++richard++money&output=html_text&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1

”With a buoyancy and hopefulness and a gaiety that hardly ever flagged, Richard had a carelessness in his character that quite perplexed me— principally because he mistook it, in such a very odd way, for prudence. It entered into all his calculations about money, in a singular manner, which I don’t think I can better explain than by reverting for a moment to our loan to Mr. Skimpole. Mr. Jarndyce had ascertained the amount, either from Mr. Skimpole himself or from Coavinses, and had placed the money in my hands with instructions to me to retain my own part of it and hand the rest to Richard.

The number of little acts of thoughtless expenditure which Richard justified by the recovery of his ten pounds, and the number of times he talked to me as if he had saved or realised that amount, would form a sum in simple addition.

“My prudent Mother Hubbard, why not ?” he said to me, when he wanted, without the least consideration, to bestow five pounds on the brickmaker.

“I made ten pounds, clear, out of Coavinses’ business.”

“How was that ?” said I.

“Why, I got rid of ten pounds which I was quite content to get rid of, and never expected to see any more. You don’t deny that ?”

“No,” said I.

“Very well! Then I came into possession of ten pounds—”

“The same ten pounds,” I hinted.

“That has nothing to do with it!” returned Richard. “I have got ten pounds more than I expected to have, and consequently I can afford to spend it without being particular.”

In exactly the same way, when he was persuaded out of the sacrifice of these five pounds by being convinced that it would do no good, he carried that sum to his credit and drew upon it.

“Let me see!” he would say.

“I saved five pounds out of the brickmaker’s affair; so, if I have a good rattle to London and back in a post-chaise, and put that down at four pounds, I shall have saved one. And it’s a very good thing to save one, let me tell you: a penny saved, is a penny got!”

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Economy, Politics

The Carstonian view of money that guides the worthies in Wash.

Richard Carstone

Bleak House – Charles Dickens – Google Books

http://books.google.com/books?id=KlsJAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA80&vq=save+money&dq=bleak+house++richard++money&output=html_text&source=gbs_search_r&cad=1

”With a buoyancy and hopefulness and a gaiety that hardly ever flagged, Richard had a carelessness in his character that quite perplexed me— principally because he mistook it, in such a very odd way, for prudence. It entered into all his calculations about money, in a singular manner, which I don’t think I can better explain than by reverting for a moment to our loan to Mr. Skimpole. Mr. Jarndyce had ascertained the amount, either from Mr. Skimpole himself or from Coavinses, and had placed the money in my hands with instructions to me to retain my own part of it and hand the rest to Richard.

The number of little acts of thoughtless expenditure which Richard justified by the recovery of his ten pounds, and the number of times he talked to me as if he had saved or realised that amount, would form a sum in simple addition.

“My prudent Mother Hubbard, why not ?” he said to me, when he wanted, without the least consideration, to bestow five pounds on the brickmaker.

“I made ten pounds, clear, out of Coavinses’ business.”

“How was that ?” said I.

“Why, I got rid of ten pounds which I was quite content to get rid of, and never expected to see any more. You don’t deny that ?”

“No,” said I.

“Very well! Then I came into possession of ten pounds—”

“The same ten pounds,” I hinted.

“That has nothing to do with it!” returned Richard. “I have got ten pounds more than I expected to have, and consequently I can afford to spend it without being particular.”

In exactly the same way, when he was persuaded out of the sacrifice of these five pounds by being convinced that it would do no good, he carried that sum to his credit and drew upon it.

“Let me see!” he would say.

“I saved five pounds out of the brickmaker’s affair; so, if I have a good rattle to London and back in a post-chaise, and put that down at four pounds, I shall have saved one. And it’s a very good thing to save one, let me tell you: a penny saved, is a penny got!”

Leave a comment

Filed under 2012 elections, Activism, Current events, Economy, Politics

Don’t Let It Go Unheard: #Objectivist podcast: DOJ vs Apple,WSJ unreliable on Israel,Japanese nuclear power post-quake

BTR – Don’t Let It Go Unheard – politics, Ayn Rand, Objectivism, culture, philosophy

http://m.blogtalkradio.com/amypeikoff/2012/03/12/dont-let-it-go-unheard-1

PLANNED TOPICS: Japan one year after the quake and tsunami that killed thousands. Should Japan reduce its reliance on nuclear power? Why you should not rely on the Wall Street Journal for news on the Israeli-“Palestinian” conflict, Justice Department threatens to sue Apple and book publishers on e-books, and more.

Leave a comment

Filed under Activism, Economy, Israel, Objectivism