Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Atlas Shrugged

Options
1…1718202223…34

Comments

  • Options
    #572
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #573
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #574
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Nope, but again, you blurred the lines.
    Using your analogy again:

    If someone discussed Islam with you for several pages in a thread about a chapter of the Qur'an and then you reference another chapter to say, but not explain, why that poster's understanding of Islam is wrong. Then they ask you to explain that modification to Islam. It's entirely reasonable. Their understanding of your actual position is contingent on it.


  • Options
    #575
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #576
    Pherekydes
    Registered Users Posts: 16,120 ✭✭✭✭Pherekydes


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    One would complain, if the book was only printed on one side of the paper.

    Would that be fair enough?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #577
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Your repeated strawman is "from scratch"

    Anyway I don't think I'm going to get you to understand this so let's move on

    As far as I've seen neither yourself or Rob have been particularly helpful to this thread at times.

    At times not always. Such is the nature of this thread I feel I actually must clarified this or be misquoted. :(


  • Options
    #578
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Speaking of ideas, after 39 pages, we're still waiting on Robindch to actually discuss one belonging to Ayn Rand.

    EDIT: I disagree with Rand's objective basis for morality but I don't like where it leads me so the jury's out on that one.


  • Options
    #579
    Turtwig
    Registered Users Posts: 26,578 ✭✭✭✭Turtwig


    39 pages?

    Noob :p


  • Options
    #580
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #581
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    At this point, I'd be fascinated if you could do anything at all other than repeat that you're definitely not going to be discussing libertarianism in the Rand thread.[/QUOTE]
    Valmont wrote: »
    Speaking of ideas, after 39 pages, we're still waiting on Robindch to actually discuss one belonging to Ayn Rand.
    Here's a post from 48 hours ago:

    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=91062391&postcount=466

    Would you perhaps like to discuss that again? I seem to remember that you conceded the general point on it though.
    Permabear wrote: »
    EDIT: I disagree with Rand's objective basis for morality but I don't like where it leads me so the jury's out on that one.
    Or that - sounds interesting. What is her "objective basis for morality"?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #582
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #583
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Anyway, back in the real world the Airbus A320 Neo* has been rolled out of the hangar today sporting its new quieter, more efficient, Pratt & Whitney high bypass geared turbofan engines.

    Airbus has its heritage in the transnational Concorde project which, although being an economic failure in the long run, paved the way for the world's largest manufacturer of commercial aircraft.

    The new engines? Well they, dear friends, are a product of partnership between NASA, P&W and the FAA.

    Yep, that's the 'innovation killing', all round pain in the hole for dogmatic libertarians, government R&D body called NASA up to no good again.

    And then there's the evil government regulatory body who worked with NASA and P&W to reduce the environmental impact of the engines. Considerable noise reduction and double-digit fuel burning efficiencies make these engines the quietest greenest engines ever.

    So there you have it folks, government/private sector innovation and regulation working together like a well oiled machine.
    "Our partnerships with NASA and the FAA are the key to completing the necessary testing to advance the technology for the second generation of the Geared TurboFan system," said Alan Epstein, vice president, Technology & Environment, Pratt & Whitney. "Pratt & Whitney's PurePower Geared TurboFan engines deliver double-digit reductions in fuel burn and environmental emissions. The geared technology has paved the foundation for dramatic improvements in noise and fuel burn."

    pw.utc.com

    Rand would be rolling in her grave.



    *2700 orders and counting


  • Options
    #584
    KahBoom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭KahBoom


    EDIT: Excuse if this is better suited to feedback - am replying as I read, so did not see some mod posts.
    bluewolf wrote: »
    You'll forgive me for being a little jaded on that front after a thread on another forum was populated by people who hadn't read it, had no interest in reading it, and made repeated false claims about it demonstrating they hadn't read it.
    If you're interested enough and have the time to argue and post about it, you're interested enough to read it and then debate it. It makes things easier and more interesting for everyone involved.

    Otherwise you get
    "I hate the book because this happens in it"
    "No, it clearly doesn't. Here's an example to show how it doesn't"
    "Whatever, it's a badly written book and I hate libertarianism"
    That's precisely what you and nearly all other Libertarian posters do (bar one - to give credit), whenever any of these topics has been discussed in the past:
    1: Bank money creation
    2: Monetary reform
    3: Post-Keynesian economics
    4: Modern Money Theory.

    When I mention any of the first 3 things, it gets painted as MMT and dismissed offhand (even though they are different), and 2/4 get characterized as 'printing money' or as hyperinflationary, even though I've provided many explanations and multiple articles showing they are not - spanning years - both demonstrating no effort to understand any of these things.

    I at least put my arguments in my own words - and in these circumstances, nearly all of you (bar one - not present) are guilty of what you are here trying to criticize others of.


  • Options
    #585
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,401 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    robindch wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Permabear wrote: »
    This post has been deleted.
    Permabear, it's been great trying to discuss this topic with you, but frankly, my life's too short.

    I give up :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #586
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,470 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    The new engines? Well they, dear friends, are a product of partnership between NASA, P&W and the FAA.

    Now now, don't be throwing inconvenient facts in the way of good rants,
    :D

    We'll also ignore all the benefits brought on from the space program in the 1960's and also the private/public partnerships and innovations out of more recent space missions etc, its all too awkward.


  • Options
    #587
    KahBoom
    Closed Accounts Posts: 282 ✭✭KahBoom


    bluewolf wrote: »
    ...
    for me, as much as I loved the ideas in the book, libertarianism is more about chipping away at stuff that doesn't work and realising bit by bit that peeling back government interference seems to do better in many distinct cases.

    Trying to discuss regulation is met with "of course regulation works. obviously. otherwise we would have horsemeat in our tesco products and people would be killing each other".
    We are faced with constant libertarians are deluded, libertarians are lying to themselves and us, you're all selfish and rich, you hate poor people, you're lying you're lying you're lying
    & then you wonder...
    "why don't you ever engage in discussion? You're such a cult."
    Do you agree that the most effective policies (including policies for removing government control/regulations) should be discovered, based upon evidence-gathering (evidence-based policymaking)?

    In these debates, it's far too often a case of picking political/economic policy conclusions first, and trying to find the evidence to back it later - and a lot of the time the evidence presented is of a poor standard, e.g. not even peer-reviewed, like earlier in the thread.


  • Options
    #588
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #589
    Karl Stein
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,689 ✭✭✭Karl Stein


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    A lot of the time 'Defence spending' is a euphemism for 'Government funded research'. The Pentagon supports R&D in Universities. It's basically the government making sure that the US stays ahead of its competitors technologically.

    You'll note that approximately three quarters of MIT's funding comes from US Government sources.

    I'm not sure there's any other institution on Earth that comes close to MIT when it comes to the technological advances we enjoy as a species.
    The telephone, electromagnets, radars, high-speed photography, office photocopiers, cancer treatments, pocket calculators, computers, the internet, the decoding of the human genome, lasers, space travel . . . the list of innovations that involved essential contributions from MIT and its faculty goes on and on.

    A survey of living MIT alumni found that they have formed 25,800 companies, employing more than three million people including about a quarter of the workforce of Silicon Valley. Those firms between them generate global revenues of about $1.9tn (£1.2tn) a year. If MIT was a country, it would have the 11th highest GDP of any nation in the world.

    theguardian.com


  • Options
    #590
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Another book that finds an audience with adolescent minds, particularly those who find themselves a little(or a lot) outside of their peers world, or what they see that world to be. The outliers, the "nerds" in the classroom as it were. A rite of passage book for them. Catcher in the Rye would appeal more to the emotional within that demographic, while Atlas Shrugged would appeal more to the intellectual among their number. The Galt character would appeal. He's the intellectual who pulls down society. The "nerd" who overthrows the "jocks"*.

    From my reading of Rand, and my knowledge of her "philosophy" (and I shudder at using that term to describe her scribblings, gives them a legitimacy far in excess of their worth), she most definitely is not aiming for the intellectual in society, rather the sociopath, the psychopath and the narcissist. She is writing in the frame of those only capable of thinking of themselves, and she is talking exclusively to them and modelling her idea of a perfect society on what those kinds of people would do if unfettered by laws or the rest of us (and at that she massively romanticises what such a society would be).

    I don't think she ever wanted to talk to true intellectuals, for the simple reason that those with strong intelligence would immediately see through her sham society and rip it a new one.


  • Options
    #591
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    diveout wrote: »
    If there weren't so many growing multiple arms of this jabba the hut style octupus you wouldn't see a reactionary movement like libertarianism. And it's good to have opposition in US politics.

    The problem with the "opposition" in US politics, is that it is countering the two mainstream parties' joint policy of more power to the rich and the multinationals, with a cry of "more power to the rich and the multinationals!" It isn't an opposition, just a wing of the mainstream urging it to career ever faster and faster down to the broken bridge over the 2,000m deep gorge.

    A proper opposition, modelled on sensible state regulation and intervention (i.e. a hell of a lot more), and a creation of a social democratic contract between the state and the citizens who own it, in order that everybody gets a fair share of the nation's produce would in the long run be far superior than the current mania for egging on the country into further deregulation, corporate capture, and economic and social disaster.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #592
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    marienbad wrote: »
    That is what currently happens ,I am asking what happens to the mortgage defaulters and Argentinas in your system ?

    We already know that, they get crushed by the army, the rich pulling the money out of the country, and the IMF acting like Shylock in looking for its pound of flesh. You've got to remember that Argentina, like Chile, was run as a libertarian "paradise" until the burden on the poor got too much for the country to bear and the whole experiment collapsed like a house of cards.


  • Options
    #593
    Brian Shanahan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,232 ✭✭✭Brian Shanahan


    Karl Stein wrote: »
    Rand would be rolling in her grave.

    Oh yes how dare anyone else use the government money which was clearly earmarked for Ayn to use as personal spending money!


  • Options
    #594
    Valmont
    Registered Users Posts: 5,856 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    I don't think she ever wanted to talk to true intellectuals, for the simple reason that those with strong intelligence would immediately see through her sham society and rip it a new one.
    Could you explain why objectivism is a sham? How? On what grounds?


  • Options
    #595
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,104 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Brian Shanahan wrote: »
    From my reading of Rand, and my knowledge of her "philosophy" (and I shudder at using that term to describe her scribblings, gives them a legitimacy far in excess of their worth), she most definitely is not aiming for the intellectual in society, rather the sociopath, the psychopath and the narcissist.
    You're describing teenagers. :D Oh no I agree with you, but my take was that she/the book appeals to the teenage minds of some, just like Catcher in the Rye. It's one of those books.

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #596
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #597
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.


    This is such a generalised accusation as to be meaningless , and just as lazy as accusing big business as being in league with Nazism just because IBM didn't have a spotless record .

    Just as many intellectuals opposed communism as supported it and many initial sympathisers Gide Hayek Koestler turned against it.


  • Options
    #598
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #599
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    I just gave you some ! Koestler ,Orwell ,Camus , wiki is your friend.

    By the way I am still waiting on your answer on what happens to mortgage defaulters and argentinas in your system.


  • Options
    #600
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #601
    marienbad
    Registered Users Posts: 9,463 ✭✭✭marienbad


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.


    You must be joking,is this the Book of Lists or something ? As I said Wikepedia is your friend

    The fact that they once were supportive is the reason I included them . They were able to evolve unlike Rand . Actually I am incorrect there she did throw herself at the mercy of the services she had spent a life time castigating.

    Can you answer me on those mortgage holder and argentinas please


Advertisement