BTW: I voted McCain last election. So drop the threats and patronizing. ;-)

PeterReaper on April 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM

I made no threats. I said when the bottom falls out, I will be able to help only a very few people (the government will help no one, it’ll be trying to save itself). And you geniuses will be standing there telling us what we’re doing wrong, as we eat and you starve. Philosophy never fed anyone (did any philosophers plant anything, or build anything, or do anything that saves for the future? Not that I know of, but I digress).

As for my “condescending” comments, you’re such a typical lib. You take psych101, learn a few terms and now you know MORE than others. Well I’ve got news for you – the term “cognitive egocentrism” may be fairly new (though it was around twenty years ago, when I was in college), but the idea is much, much older than psychology. The Bible said it long ago (simpler and far more clearly) – as in “one tends to see in others what one sees in oneself”.

I would point out that that’s exactly what you’re doing, but I’m too old to say “I know you are but what am I?” You go ahead, though.

Then you’re scared of lil ‘ol middle-class me. If you believe that me taking responsibility for me and mine is “being amoral” you’re an idiot. You leftists don’t know what the word “moral” means.

Not to mention, the so-called “wealthy” aren’t “intimidating the weaker into silence” in America – it’s the leftists with their pc crap. Like what you’re trying to do, only you’re not smart enough. You think you’re clever, but that’s not the same as smart. Even stupid people can be clever. That’s why Democrats love being clever (it’s the best they can do).

Squiggy on April 11, 2009 at 5:44 PM

“Squiggy’s” whole response reminds me of an excellent article (by a well-known conservative) on “Cognitive Egocentrism”. It’s worth a read:

http://www.theaugeanstables.com/reflections-from-second-draft/cognitive-egocentrism/

BTW: I’m not trying to be “clever”. I’m trying to build a common ground where people understand the positive aspects of the other’s standpoint. Unfortunately, it seems I might not be “smart enough” to always achieve that. I’ll keep trying … harder (in spite of “Squiggy’s” destructive, condescending, and insulting comment).

OT: A must-read: http://www.jihadwatch.org/islam101/

This is the kind of statement that justifies the skepticism of left (and scares the crap out of them). When the wealthy abuse their power to intimidate the weaker into silence and submission, the Right is being amoral.

PeterPuffer on April 11, 2009 at 10:56 AM

Then you’re scared of lil ‘ol middle-class me. If you believe that me taking responsibility for me and mine is “being amoral” you’re an idiot. You leftists don’t know what the word “moral” means.

Not to mention, the so-called “wealthy” aren’t “intimidating the weaker into silence” in America – it’s the leftists with their pc crap. Like what you’re trying to do, only you’re not smart enough. You think you’re clever, but that’s not the same as smart. Even stupid people can be clever. That’s why Democrats love being clever (it’s the best they can do).

What am I fighting for? If I were a German in Nazi Germany, then yeah, I would dodge the draft and join the resistance. I would fight for freedom and liberty and all the things that make this country worth fighting and dying for but if this country turned into Nazi Germany, I would fight for it to return to it’s ideals, but I wouldn’t fight on behalf of a totalitarian regime. I think you are a bit broad in your definition of morality with that one.

A. Fair Point.

B. You and I both know that this was not what I was referring.

C. Rand herself affirmed that, while any nation has the right to crush “Oppressors” (which I agree with), she proclaimed that none have the DUTY to do so. And I suppose it would be OK for Yugoslavia to keep killing itself in the battle between the 1. Russian Satellite/Tito Wannabe, 2. The Islamist “Window” into Europe, and 3. The Militarist, Nationalist Tinpot regime because, hey, it’s more trouble to get involved than to stay out?

How on earth can you say you understand Rand and come up with that example?

Um, I was specifically thinking of GEORGE SOROS when I came up with that example, and it was meant to show that “Self-Interest” can be twisted in all sorts of directions. Yes, I know that Soros isn’t an objectivist and would probably be offended by the comparison (though he has no right to be, and it is Rand and her disciples- however kookey they may turn out to be- who ought to be offended). Like I said, what happens if you are forced to choose between morality and self-interest? Looking out for yourself is all well and good, but at some point in time you have to make a descision to either stick your neck out or to not.

Her whole life was a crusade against the very philosophy that leads to regimes such as nazi Germany and the USSR.

You know that, I know that (I have, after all, read her Bio), but tell your fellows. Physician, Heal Thyself.

No real objectivist would ever do this straw-man scenario you’ve cooked up because a rational person would know that throwing their lot in with these types of people would be a temporary reprieve at best and against everything they believe to the core of their being at the most basic level.

True, but I was pointing out the question of where does one cease to have a “choice” to take action and one acquires and OBLIGATION to act. You haven’t answered that question, and you also haven’t addressed the fact that I didn’t really cook up EITHER of those questions. I lifted them almost verbatem from an “Objectivist” forum.

I’m not going to be a Nazi to survive.

Fine by me, and I didn’t think you would.

But your rage would be better directed against those giving your philosophy a bad name. If you want to critique other people, first start cleaning your own house.

That is all.

But what happens when you reach a point where morality and self-interest part ways? What happens if you are going to try and dodge the Draft- say, because you don’t see the reason to bleed and possibly die for “Moochers” like the Viscount- even as the shelling goes on overhead?

What am I fighting for? If I were a German in Nazi Germany, then yeah, I would dodge the draft and join the resistance. I would fight for freedom and liberty and all the things that make this country worth fighting and dying for but if this country turned into Nazi Germany, I would fight for it to return to it’s ideals, but I wouldn’t fight on behalf of a totalitarian regime. I think you are a bit broad in your definition of morality with that one.

What happenes if you are a young Jewish kid in the Concentration Camps who is offered the chance to become a Kapo- meaning that your own life is temporarily saved in exchange for your help in taking OTHER’S Lives.

How on earth can you say you understand Rand and come up with that example? Her whole life was a crusade against the very philosophy that leads to regimes such as nazi Germany and the USSR. No real objectivist would ever do this straw-man scenario you’ve cooked up because a rational person would know that throwing their lot in with these types of people would be a temporary reprieve at best and against everything they believe to the core of their being at the most basic level. I’m not going to be a Nazi to survive.

If that’s your conclusion, then you really don’t understand what Rand was trying to say. She never advocated a dog-eat-dog philosophy but was trying to explain rational self interest.

…Which often was taken by many Objectivists to the point of “Dog Eat Dog.”

Too many people don’t understand that and many of them are capitalists without a firm philosophical foundation.

Ok, I can buy that.

My happiness is the most important thing to me and I’m not going to be a happy person by alienating everyone I come in contact with, so it is in my self interest to treat people how I would like to be treated myself and this will benefit me in the long run.

But what happens when you reach a point where morality and self-interest part ways? What happens if you are going to try and dodge the Draft- say, because you don’t see the reason to bleed and possibly die for “Moochers” like the Viscount- even as the shelling goes on overhead? What happenes if you are a young Jewish kid in the Concentration Camps who is offered the chance to become a Kapo- meaning that your own life is temporarily saved in exchange for your help in taking OTHER’S Lives.

What do you do than?

And secondly, you claim that I “really don’t understand” what Rand is saying.

Perhaps, though a re-reading of Atlas Shrugged and Fountainhead doesn’t seem to clear that up much.

However, this brings me to my next point. Perhaps it would be wrong to tar Rand and the Objectivists like that.

However, if that is the case, I would ask that you please tell many of the SELF-PROCLAIMED OBJECTIVISTS out there.

Don’t believe me? Go to half of the Objectivist sites on the web and you will see the type of Dog-Eat-Dog tripe that- more than anything else- is responsible for Rand’s reputation as advocating Dog-Eat-Dog (rightfully or wrongfully).

The problem with that is- like I said- there are situations where morality and self-interest do not concur, and the question becomes what do you do now?

Ponder that.

And now here you are painting us all with the Randian brush. Not all capitalists or those who work are Randian “Save Yourself First” enthusiasts.

If that’s your conclusion, then you really don’t understand what Rand was trying to say. She never advocated a dog-eat-dog philosophy but was trying to explain rational self interest. It is in my interest to be as ethical in my dealings with my fellow humans, it benefits me more and helps me achieve my goals which wouldn’t be achieved if I were unethical. Too many people don’t understand that and many of them are capitalists without a firm philosophical foundation. My happiness is the most important thing to me and I’m not going to be a happy person by alienating everyone I come in contact with, so it is in my self interest to treat people how I would like to be treated myself and this will benefit me in the long run.

I think the larger issue is that the wealthy are indeed responsible for creating a great deal of wealth in the economy and that wealth in turns creates the engine for the economy. If you take too much from them, it is simply less they put back in terms of jobs and growth.

That is true, and the Left too often forgets that. Likewise, the Right forgets that if the wealthy use their money not only for enjoying being rich, but also for power, then there exists a point where the poorer feel exploited (child labor, 80 hour work weeks, no vacation, zero job security, etc.)

The “top 5%” don’t control 60% of the wealth. They “control” (or as normal people view it – “own”) around 30% of the “wealth”.

Interesting claim. Citation please?

You sir, will not be one of the chosen few. You will be very, very lucky to survive. And it will be because of the largess of those of us who stockpiled, and saved and worked hard. So don’t piss me off. I’ll have many many people like you to choose from, and I won’t choose someone with an attitude like yours.

This is the kind of statement that justifies the skepticism of left (and scares the crap out of them). When the wealthy abuse their power to intimidate the weaker into silence and submission, the Right is being amoral.

The misconception that the poor are lazy and dumb is a cliche that leaves the Right on the wrong side of this issue. Sure, there are lazy people, just as there are abusive rich people.

It’s the healthy balance between survival of the fittest and humane behavior that is best.

As long as the right forgets this, people like Obama (and worse) will be elected.

BTW: I voted McCain last election. So drop the threats and patronizing. ;-)

I have to dig in my heels and disagree. This stuff isn’t even mainstream liberal; this stuff has convoluted thought. It isn’t possible this can be imparted this way by a college or university instructor or even a TA or even Judy Hensler.

ericdijon on April 11, 2009 at 9:33 AM

I am not knocking higher education at all, I have benefitted from it myself. I do think if you put a philosophically confused person in classes with certain professors you will get this type of muddled and confused thinking. I have met too many philosophy majors who “think” like this and let’s face it, there are few majors that appeal to slackers more, it’s impractical, it spins it’s own bull, they try to befuddle people with their great “intelligence” which is nothing more than rhetorical tricks, basically it’s for game players and manipulators with few exceptions. While there is nothing more valuable than good philosophy, there is nothing more damaging than bad and the bad is emphasized in most liberal arts colleges.

bej on April 11, 2009 at 8:44 AM

It is comforting to know that there are a growing number of educators out there that aren’t droids teaching children to become the same. I feel very pessimistic of late witnessing how little people understand the fundamentals of economics, scientific method, and critical thinking. It is not just poor children that are suffering either, if Viscount_Bolingbroke’s posts are any indication. I have personally had too many conversations with people who are as muddled in their thought processes as VB.

Turtler on April 11, 2009 at 1:02 AM

Nicely stated and no doubt appreciated by all of us in your camp. A waste if you wish a slacker to reform.

Ann NY on April 11, 2009 at 7:30 AM

I have to dig in my heels and disagree. This stuff isn’t even mainstream liberal; this stuff has convoluted thought. It isn’t possible this can be imparted this way by a college or university instructor or even a TA or even Judy Hensler.

Ann NY on April 11, 2009 at 7:33 AM>

There are many like us and seems to be a slowly growing group. I work in a school similar to dawgyear. It is frustrating to see students from poverty not do anything in your class or any other class in school. What is worse is to hear them say “I can get welfare and live better than than most people.” Unfortunately, they are right. I have students who live in Section 8 housing, have foodstamps, and many other entitlements wearing the newest shoes and jackets that many students only dream about.

A large problem is the schools and the type of student coming out of the teacher indoctrination programs. Schools of education indoctrinate teachers who indoctrinate students. Review the history of the leaders of the educational reforms after WWII. The majority of them were Cultural Marxist. Hell, even education leaders before WWII were studying the systems in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany and wanting to implement their ideas and models.

Flat tax – every person making some type of income (earned or unearned as the IRS says) pays the same percent.
Every citizen making an income should pay taxes to maintain the government – that is the patriotic duty.

albill on April 11, 2009 at 6:59 AM

I’ve come to the conclusion that a flat tax (no exemptions, no deductions, and with a percentage cap somewhere around 20 on the rate) as a constitutional amendment is desirable just from the standpoint of simplicity and keeping the federal government honest (fairness aside). Let the states impose progressive taxes if they want to, and let people vote with their feet.

dawgyear on April 10, 2009 at 9:39 PM

Too bad there aren’t more teachers like you..

What the heck does that even mean?

thomasaur on April 10, 2009 at 9:20 PM

It means that Viscount_Bolingbroke is probably a sophomore in college.

Why was my comment deleted?

All I pointed out was that it is relevant to also look at the percentage of wealth those top 5% control. If it is also 60%, then it’s only fair they also pay 60% of the taxes.

Another, more important, question is: Is it healthy and just for only 5% of the population to control 60% of the wealth?

PeterReaper on April 11, 2009 at 6:13 AM

Your comment wasn’t deleted. But it was stupid (or at least ill-informed). The “top 5%” don’t control 60% of the wealth. They “control” (or as normal people view it – “own”) around 30% of the “wealth”.They worked for it and they earned it, and then they have enormous chunks taken away from them against their will.

Unlike democrat wealth, which is either inherited from criminal ancestors (see Ted Kennedy), or is married into (see Pelosi or Kerry/Heinz-Kerry), conservative wealth is built from nothing. No, this is not universally true, but it is true in majority.

George Soros is an exception that proves the rule. He makes a giga-fortune shorting the market, and shorting currencies (which if you don’t know, by definition is getting rich off of driving someone else into poverty), which causes enormous destruction to the world economy, and he’s one of your own. Even the old robber-barons weren’t stupid enough to try to destroy the gravy train. Soros isn’t funding another “Carnegie Hall”, he’s funding people who want to tear the economy down. I guess he thinks he will be one of the chosen few, and maybe even emperor (and if we allow this Obama/leftist/stealthewealth nonsense to go on, he might be).

You sir, will not be one of the chosen few. You will be very, very lucky to survive. And it will be because of the largess of those of us who stockpiled, and saved and worked hard. So don’t piss me off. I’ll have many many people like you to choose from, and I won’t choose someone with an attitude like yours.

I doubt if it was deleted. Some times posts just go away. I have had it happen myself. I think the larger point is that it is not an issue of fairness. That is like saying it is not fair that Tiger Woods makes so much money than the other golfers so let’s take more away from him. In the end, it only hurts Woods, takes away incentive for competition and does not help the other guy who stops bothering to try. After all, why bother?

I think the larger issue is that the wealthy are indeed responsible for creating a great deal of wealth in the economy and that wealth in turns creates the engine for the economy. If you take too much from them, it is simply less they put back in terms of jobs and growth.