what about my kids (grade school age) ... they are all irrational, non-productive moochers who depend on me for things like food, clothing and shelter? I tried to tell them that I would not live my life for any other but... they just keep asking for lunch and clothes.
John Smallberries wrote:
Second, it is not a question of redistributing wealth. It is a question of whether the system to distribute wealth is fair and in the best interest of society as a whole.
No, it is NOT a question of fairness. Life is not fair, and every attempt to make it so is at a greater cost to people of ability than the benefit it provides to the weak. I DO think there should be provisions to help the chronically and terminally ill, the mentally disabled, the homeless. I also think that those provisions should be the realm of private charity, not forceful government intervention.
The problem with your redistributionist theory of "fairness" is that it is inherently UNFAIR, it just happens to be unfair to those closer to the top of the pyramid, who both constitute a smaller population and whom more people are more comfortable holding in contempt, most often due simply to envy. Unfortunately, those are the same people who for the most part drive economic growth, expansion, and the creation of wealth. There can be little benefit from restraining them. Redistribution provides incentives for laziness, not something we should ever value as a society.
Of course, this is all probably a waste, because you discredit yourself immediately with your contention that Bill Gates has not improved productivity. Say what you will about Microsoft, whether it's a monopoly, the quality of its products, etc., but the idea that we would be getting more done without them is patently absurd. Should we all just go back to pen and paper?
As for the person who mentioned the statistic about new IPOs from the WSJ, that's both interesting and alarming.
studmuffin wrote:
John Smallberries wrote:Second, it is not a question of redistributing wealth. It is a question of whether the system to distribute wealth is fair and in the best interest of society as a whole.
No, it is NOT a question of fairness. Life is not fair, and every attempt to make it so is at a greater cost to people of ability than the benefit it provides to the weak. I DO think there should be provisions to help the chronically and terminally ill, the mentally disabled, the homeless. I also think that those provisions should be the realm of private charity, not forceful government intervention.
The problem with your redistributionist theory of "fairness" is that it is inherently UNFAIR, it just happens to be unfair to those closer to the top of the pyramid, who both constitute a smaller population and whom more people are more comfortable holding in contempt, most often due simply to envy. Unfortunately, those are the same people who for the most part drive economic growth, expansion, and the creation of wealth. There can be little benefit from restraining them. Redistribution provides incentives for laziness, not something we should ever value as a society.
Of course, this is all probably a waste, because you discredit yourself immediately with your contention that Bill Gates has not improved productivity. Say what you will about Microsoft, whether it's a monopoly, the quality of its products, etc., but the idea that we would be getting more done without them is patently absurd. Should we all just go back to pen and paper?
As for the person who mentioned the statistic about new IPOs from the WSJ, that's both interesting and alarming.
interesting editorial that parallels your view.
"As for the person who mentioned the statistic about new IPOs from the WSJ, that's both interesting and alarming.[/quote]
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123007755316531663.html
interesting editorial that parallels your view."
Thanks, saw that this morning. I can only hope they're right in it only being a lost decade; it can be much worse.
By the way, for all those who actually appeciate the notion of freedom, liberty, individual rights, and cringe at them slipping away, you'll find a stalwart supporter at
The Ayn Rand Institute, led by Yaron Brook, is virtually the only beacon of hope, save for the CATO Institute, on the horizon. If freedom is to be saved, it will most likely be saved from here.
each man his own end wrote:
The Ayn Rand Institute, led by Yaron Brook, is virtually the only beacon of hope, save for the CATO Institute, on the horizon. If freedom is to be saved, it will most likely be saved from here.
Thanks for the laugh. I needed one.
"Year-to-date, 29 companies have come to market with US$26.3
billion in proceeds, the lowest IPO totals since 2003, when the US market was also facing turbulent market conditions and only 30 companies went public raising US$6.5 billion."
29 US IPO's through Q3 in 2008. Still a huge drought, but not six. What was the date of your statistic?
Regarding Rand, she is not a philosoper that presents her concepts with intellectual rigor, but her novels can be inspiring and practical.
Regarding Rand, she is not a philosoper that presents her concepts with intellectual rigor, but her novels can be inspiring and practical.
Of all the possible statements, correct and incorrect, that can be made about Ayn Rand, this one is probably the most wrong. The essence of Rand's philosophy is that reality exists, everything is something, and that man must deal in absolutes using the most ruthless application of reason possible. Disagree with her if you want, but don't say she isn't intellectually rigorous.
marijstotle wrote:
Regarding Rand, she is not a philosoper that presents her concepts with intellectual rigor, but her novels can be inspiring and practical.
Of all the possible statements, correct and incorrect, that can be made about Ayn Rand, this one is probably the most wrong. The essence of Rand's philosophy is that reality exists, everything is something, and that man must deal in absolutes using the most ruthless application of reason possible. Disagree with her if you want, but don't say she isn't intellectually rigorous.
As a Rand fan, I'd have to disagree. Compared with someone like Kant, who is exceedingly intellectually rigorous in laying out his philosophy with great detail, forethought and explanation, Rand just kind of states her views with clarity, but not much depth as to how she arrived at them.
As a Rand fan, I'd have to disagree. Compared with someone like Kant, who is exceedingly intellectually rigorous in laying out his philosophy with great detail, forethought and explanation, Rand just kind of states her views with clarity, but not much depth as to how she arrived at them.
How could any professed Rand fan make such a statement? Kant's whole philosophy revolves around the notion that man is incapable of intellectual rigor, that his mind is impotent, that it doesn't even exist. How could such a chaotic view even be associated with intellectual rigor?
maristotle wrote:
How could any professed Rand fan make such a statement? Kant's whole philosophy revolves around the notion that man is incapable of intellectual rigor, that his mind is impotent, that it doesn't even exist. How could such a chaotic view even be associated with intellectual rigor?
I was referring to how Kant goes about explaining his philosophy. He does it in a very thorough and detailed way, while Rand simply states her's very in a "matter of fact" manner". She could have gone into more depth on why existence, consciousness and identity are self-evident axioms.
If thats what you think Kant's philosophy is, you need to read more Kant. Certainly I don't agree with much of what he says, but saying that his method of explaining his philosophy is not intellectually rigorous is simply ignorant. I think we're disagreeing over the definition of intellectually rigorous.
The answer is yes.
"Politicians invariably respond to crises -- that in most cases they themselves created -- by spawning new government programs, laws and regulations. These, in turn, generate more havoc and poverty, which inspires the politicians to create more programs . . . and the downward spiral repeats itself until the productive sectors of the economy collapse under the collective weight of taxes and other burdens imposed in the name of fairness, equality and do-goodism."
http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/bank-of-america-threatens-fed-demands.html